ProleWiki - User contributions [en]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-21T22:47:09Z

BlueBodhisattva: Fixed sourcing

{{Infobox country|name=Yemen|native_name=ٱلْجُمْهُورِيَّةُ ٱلْيَمَنِيَّةُ|image_flag=Flag of Yemen.svg|image_coat=Emblem of Yemen.svg|population_estimate=30,491,000|population_estimate_year=2021|area_km2=555,000|capital=Sanaa|largest_city=Sanaa|government_type=Provisional government|leader_title1=Chairman|leader_name1=Mahdi al-Mashat|image_map=Yemen map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic}}
'''Yemen''', officially the '''Republic of Yemen''', is a country in [[Western Asia]], south of [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]. It was formed in 1990 when the [[Yemen Arab Republic]] (YAR) annexed the [[People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]] (PDRY). Yemen's capital of Sanaa is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Due to the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] invasion by the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]], [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], and Saudi Arabia, Yemen is currently facing a severe malnutrition crisis, with 400,000 children facing death, in addition to a cholera epidemic.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[ANSWER Coalition]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=12 things you should know about Yemen|date=2019-01-07|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231606/https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-date=2020-11-07|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> On average, a civilian is killed or wounded every hour.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate|date=2022-02-20|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410174459/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-date=2023-04-10|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> The revolutionary coalition led by [[Ansar Allah|Ansarullah]] controls the former territory of North Yemen, which holds 80% of the country's population.<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Mutawakkilite Imamate and Aden Colony ===
The British invaded Aden in 1839 and ruled in southern Yemen until 1967.<ref name=":2">{{Web citation|author=Jane Cutter|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Who are the Houthis?|date=2023-12-23|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223183428/https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-date=2023-12-23}}</ref>

Hereditary ruling Imams took over in northern Yemen after Ottoman withdrawal in 1918. Seated in Sanaa, the Imams (Yahia until 1948, Ahmed until 1962, and Badr for a short period in September 1962) constantly had to deal with opposition forces insisting on democracy and modernization. The Imams violently suppressed these opposition forces until Imam Badr was deposed by a pan-Arabist, Nasserist military coup.<ref>{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|chapter=Chapter 3: The Two Yemeni Republics and Unification|page=105-106|quote=The Mutawakkilite Imamate in Sana‘a had ruled the entire area which became the Yemen Arab Republic from 1918 onwards, after the final withdrawal of the Ottomans following their defeat in the First World War. Its realm was widely described as an isolated and backward state. The three Imams who ruled during this period (Yahia 1918–1948, Ahmed 1948–1962, Badr 19–25 September 1962) had to deal with a series of opposition movements intent on democratising and modernising the state. All were violently and brutally repressed. On 26 September 1962 the newly installed Imam Badr, despite his more modernist and progressive image, was overthrown by a military coup organised by officers who had been exposed to Arab nationalism during their studies in Cairo and Baghdad. They established the Yemen Arab Republic and there followed an eight-year-long civil war between the republicans and the Imam’s forces. The republicans were supported by tens of thousands of Egyptian troops sent in by Nasser, until 1967 when the defeat in the Six Day War compelled Nasser to withdraw his forces. The royalist fighters regrouped alongside the Imam and his senior relatives and received significant open support from Saudi Arabia and secret support from Britain in the form of special military forces, including mercenaries infiltrated through the protectorates, mostly from Bayhan|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

=== Nationalist revolution and civil war ===
On the 25th of September 1962, the Yemeni military overthrew the [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Sanaa, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. The British, Saudis, and USA supported the royalists, and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], Egypt, and [[United Arab Republic (1958–1971)|United Arab Republic]] supported the republicans.<ref name=":2" /> At the same time, they supported a rebellion in the [[Dhofar]] province of [[Sultanate of Oman|Oman]].<ref name=":12222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=265|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref> In Sana'a, rightist republicans won out over left wing factions and conciliated with the royalists. The Yemen Arab Republic excised the Mutawakkili Imams in 1962, but retained the other monarchist political elements in the new republic.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|page=106-130|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, the US government gave approval to funnel support for the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] against the more progressive republicans. This follows in the longstanding tradition of US government interventions in West Asia, where right-wing Islamists are used as proxy forces against progressives and secular nationalists. Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, along with [[Operation Cyclone]] in the 1980s, set the stage for [[al-Qaeda]]'s destabilizing presence in the region up to the present day.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Robert Baer|year=2004|title=Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude|page=98-99|quote=The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against (what else?) communism. This covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers—Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department—when they approved Saudi Arabia’s funding of Egypt’s Brothers against Nasser. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist. He’d nationalized Egypt’s big-business industries, including the Suez Canal. He bought his weapons from the Soviet Union. He was threatening to bulldoze Israel into the sea. The logic of the cold war led to a clear conclusion: If Allah agreed to fight on our side, fine. If Allah decided political assassination was permissible, that was fine, too, so long as no one talked about it in polite company. Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books. There was no CIA finding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it.
In other words, no record. All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That’s what happened during the Yemeni civil war that got under way in 1962. When Nasser backed an anti-American government and sent troops to help it, Washington quietly gave Riyadh approval to back Yemen’s Muslim Brothers against the Egyptians.|publisher=Three Rivers Press}}</ref><ref name=":2" />

Egypt withdrew its forces from Yemen in 1967 after the [[Six Day War]].<ref name=":2" />

=== North-South Division, 1967-1990 ===
[[Marxism|Marxists]] took power in South Yemen in 1967, leading the Saudis to fund anti-communists in Yemen and Oman, specifically forces in the Muslim Brotherhood who would eventually become [[Al-Qaeda|AQAP]].<ref name=":12222" /><ref name=":3" />

The British handed power over to the Marxist NLF forces in opposition to the more Nasserist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY). This acquiescence was due to British ignorance of Marxist influence in the NLF and hatred of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser|Nasserism]]. Leftist forces within the NLF quickly outmaneuvered and expelled its internal right wing factions in a "corrective step" in 1969. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was declared in 1970.<ref name=":4" />

The YAR and PDRY were marked with internal and regional instability throughout Yemen's period of North-South division. External factors like Saudi Arabia and other western-backed neighbors informed the conflicts within and between the two Yemens.

The Marxists inherited a poor, underdeveloped agricultural and fishing economy. Agricultural workers in the arable coastal plains were sharecroppers for powerful local landowners. The poor economic conditions were exacerbated by the 1967 closure of the Suez Canal, which deprived Aden of its traditional port activities. The economy shrank by 10-15 percent and tens of thousands of Yemenis emigrated. Because of the immigration of landowners, the NLF was able to nationalize private lands and hand them over to sharecroppers.<ref name=":4" />

Almost all commercial and industrial operations in the PDRY were nationalized and development policies were enacted in agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure. In 1967, there were only 126 kilometers of paved roads in the PDRY, mainly in Aden and Hadramaut. The socialist revolution eventually expanded these roads to link Aden with Mukalla, Abyan, Shabwa, and Wadi Hadramaut.<ref name=":4" />

The YAR and PDRY undertook two wars across their border in 1972 and 1979, both of which ended with [[Arab League]]-mediated agreements to unify the country. In 1972, factions of South Yemeni exiles invaded the PDRY, backed by Saudi Arabia and the YAR. The PDRY quickly neutralized the poorly organized and divided exiles and gained the upper hand after only a few weeks of fighting. At the ceasefire talks in Cairo, the PDRY demanded that the YAR sever ties with Saudi Arabia and make progressive reforms before unification could be considered. These reforms never happened, but the two countries nevertheless agreed to a ceasefire and mutual withdrawal of troops. Saudi Arabia themselves opposed the unity agreement. Pro-Saudi forces ousted the YAR leaders most committed to the unity agreement, and relations between the two Yemens again worsened shortly after the negotiated ceasefire. Prime Minister al-Hajri's formal, permanent cession of the 'Asir, Najran, and Jizan territories to Saudi Arabia inflamed nationalist sentiment and opened the way for pro-South forces, like the United National Front of South Yemen, to advance within the YAR.<ref>{{Citation|author=F. Gregory Gause III|year=1990|title=Saudi-Yemeni Relations: Domestic Structures and Foreign Influence|title-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0yUzV-g2X2QC&dq=%22arab+league%22+yemen+1972&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=%22arab%20league%22%20yemen%201972&f=false|page=98-118|city=New York City|publisher=Columbia University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=University of Central Arkansas - Government, Public Service, and International Studies|title=32. South Yemen (1967-1990)|url=https://uca.edu/politicalscience/home/research-projects/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/south-yemen-1967-1990/|retrieved=2024-09-21}}</ref>

Successive governments in the YAR vacillated between support and opposition to Saudi influence. Bretton Woods institutions steadily increased their own influence over the North. The YAR underwent another military coup in 1974, bringing the popular Ibrahim al-Hamdi to power. Hamdi was assassinated in 1977, and then his successor al-Ghashmi was assassinated by exploding briefcase in 1978. The YAR found stability throughout the subsequent [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] presidency, which lasted through reunification with the South until 2012. Saleh's survival is attributable to support from the Saudis through periods of economic instability and through canny political maneuvering with his "patronage" system of maintaining support and dependence.<ref name=":4" />

Top leadership in the PDRY's NLF (Prime Minister Ali Nasser Mohammed and Secretary General Abdul Fattah Ismail) blamed President Salem Ruba'i Ali for al-Ghashmi's death and subsequently executed him in 1978. According to Ali Nasser Mohammed, Ruba'i Ali was killed to avoid war with the YAR. Nonetheless, a short border war broke out in 1979.<ref name=":5" />

Soviet-aligned Abdul Fattah Ismail consolidated both state executive and party control with the founding of the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP) and the passing of a new constitution by referendum. This was short-lived, as the Politburo dismissed Abdul Fattah in 1980 over his consolidation of power, Abdul Fattah's lack of roots in the South, and his opposition to the Second PDRY-YAR War. The 1980 party congress elected Ali Nasser Mohammed as Secretary General and President, in addition to the Prime Minister position he held since 1971. Abdul Fattah fled to the Soviet Union, citing "medical reasons." President Ali Nasser came to dominate the PDRY until his ouster in 1986.<ref name=":5">{{Video citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ceo_AYnGlM|channel=Al Jazeera English|title=Aden 1986: The assassination that changed Yemen's history|date=23 May 2024}}</ref> He liberalised the economy, relaxed many collectivist policies, and warmed relations with the West and western-backed neighbors.<ref name=":4" />

The same elements of the Politburo formerly opposed to Abdul Fattah, specifically Ali Antar, subsequently turned against Ali Nasser and encouraged Abdul Fattah's return. Abdul Fattah returned from exile in 1985. On 13 January, 1986, tensions between the Ali Nasser faction and those of Ali Antar and Abdul Fattah came to a head. Ali Nasser's bodyguards assassinated Ali Antar and four other members of the Politburo. Abdul Fattah survived and was able to escape. A twelve day civil war followed, with thousands of casualties. Abdul Fattah was killed in the subsequent fighting, and Ali Nasser was defeated and forced to flee to the YAR.<ref name=":5" /> The last four years of the PDRY were marked by a decline in socialist policies reflective of the absence of the YSP's main personalities and the general decline and disengagement of the Soviet bloc.<ref name=":4" />

=== 1990 Reunification ===
Following the annexation of the PDRY headquartered in Aden, Ali Abdullah Saleh became the president of the new Republic of Yemen. Saleh had been the president of the Yemen Arab Republic since 1978, following the assassination of the previous president, al-Ghashmi.<ref name=":4" />

=== 2011 revolution ===
President Ali Abdullah Saleh stepped down in 2011 during the [[Arab Spring]], and his vice president [[Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi]] took power.

Yemen overthrew Hadi's USA and Saudi-backed puppet government in 2014 and installed an [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] government led by Ansarullah. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and has not returned to Yemen since.<ref name=":0" /> Following the revolution, the imperialist [[Imperial core|West]] began a brutal war against Yemen.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Lalkar]]|title=Yemen’s quest for self-determination continues unabated|date=2023-01-26|url=https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127003206/https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-date=2023-01-27|retrieved=2023-01-28}}</ref>

=== Imperialist invasion ===
Saudi Arabia began air strikes against Yemen in March 2015 with support from the [[imperial core]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[Imperialism|imperialist]] United States is supporting its Saudi Arabian vassal state in stirring up a bloody proxy war in Yemen that has killed 337,000 people, mostly children,<ref name=":1" /> and left millions [[Homelessness|homeless]].<ref>[https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/07/06/2533828/us-fueling-saudi-war-on-yemen-envoy US Fueling Saudi War on Yemen: Envoy] by Tasnim News Agency on July 6th, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/17/yemen_crisis_us_uae_saudi_arabia A Crisis Made in America: Yemen on Brink of Famine After U.S. Cuts Aid While Fueling War] by Democracy Now on September 17th, 2020</ref> [[Al-Qaeda|Al Qaeda]] is supporting the Saudis and fighting against Ansarullah.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2022, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] announced that he had deployed troops in Yemen to back the Saudi forces.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=U.S. president confirms deployment of troops in Yemen|date=2022-06-14|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614211029/https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-date=2022-06-14|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

==== U.S. war crimes ====
In 2011, [[Barack Obama|Obama]] assassinated a U.S. citizen living in Yemen along with his son and nephew and several other civilians.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2011-09-30|title=Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-30}}</ref> The United States also killed a 13-year-old boy in 2015 with a drone strike and 30 people, including an 8-year-old girl, in 2017 with a SEAL attack. In 2018, a US-backed Saudi plane bombed a school bus, killing 40 innocent children and injuring 80 more people.{{Citation needed}}

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-21T21:49:39Z

BlueBodhisattva: Fixed redundancy

{{Infobox country|name=Yemen|native_name=ٱلْجُمْهُورِيَّةُ ٱلْيَمَنِيَّةُ|image_flag=Flag of Yemen.svg|image_coat=Emblem of Yemen.svg|population_estimate=30,491,000|population_estimate_year=2021|area_km2=555,000|capital=Sanaa|largest_city=Sanaa|government_type=Provisional government|leader_title1=Chairman|leader_name1=Mahdi al-Mashat|image_map=Yemen map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic}}
'''Yemen''', officially the '''Republic of Yemen''', is a country in [[Western Asia]], south of [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]. It was formed in 1990 when the [[Yemen Arab Republic]] (YAR) annexed the [[People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]] (PDRY). Yemen's capital of Sanaa is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Due to the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] invasion by the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]], [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], and Saudi Arabia, Yemen is currently facing a severe malnutrition crisis, with 400,000 children facing death, in addition to a cholera epidemic.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[ANSWER Coalition]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=12 things you should know about Yemen|date=2019-01-07|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231606/https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-date=2020-11-07|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> On average, a civilian is killed or wounded every hour.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate|date=2022-02-20|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410174459/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-date=2023-04-10|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> The revolutionary coalition led by [[Ansar Allah|Ansarullah]] controls the former territory of North Yemen, which holds 80% of the country's population.<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Mutawakkilite Imamate and Aden Colony ===
The British invaded Aden in 1839 and ruled in southern Yemen until 1967.<ref name=":2">{{Web citation|author=Jane Cutter|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Who are the Houthis?|date=2023-12-23|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223183428/https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-date=2023-12-23}}</ref>

Hereditary ruling Imams took over in northern Yemen after Ottoman withdrawal in 1918. Seated in Sanaa, the Imams (Yahia until 1948, Ahmed until 1962, and Badr for a short period in September 1962) constantly had to deal with opposition forces insisting on democracy and modernization. The Imams violently suppressed these opposition forces until Imam Badr was deposed by a pan-Arabist, Nasserist military coup.<ref>{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|chapter=Chapter 3: The Two Yemeni Republics and Unification|page=105-106|quote=The Mutawakkilite Imamate in Sana‘a had ruled the entire area which became the Yemen Arab Republic from 1918 onwards, after the final withdrawal of the Ottomans following their defeat in the First World War. Its realm was widely described as an isolated and backward state. The three Imams who ruled during this period (Yahia 1918–1948, Ahmed 1948–1962, Badr 19–25 September 1962) had to deal with a series of opposition movements intent on democratising and modernising the state. All were violently and brutally repressed. On 26 September 1962 the newly installed Imam Badr, despite his more modernist and progressive image, was overthrown by a military coup organised by officers who had been exposed to Arab nationalism during their studies in Cairo and Baghdad. They established the Yemen Arab Republic and there followed an eight-year-long civil war between the republicans and the Imam’s forces. The republicans were supported by tens of thousands of Egyptian troops sent in by Nasser, until 1967 when the defeat in the Six Day War compelled Nasser to withdraw his forces. The royalist fighters regrouped alongside the Imam and his senior relatives and received significant open support from Saudi Arabia and secret support from Britain in the form of special military forces, including mercenaries infiltrated through the protectorates, mostly from Bayhan|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

=== Nationalist revolution and civil war ===
On the 25th of September 1962, the Yemeni military overthrew the [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Sanaa, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. The British, Saudis, and USA supported the royalists, and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], Egypt, and [[United Arab Republic (1958–1971)|United Arab Republic]] supported the republicans.<ref name=":2" /> At the same time, they supported a rebellion in the [[Dhofar]] province of [[Sultanate of Oman|Oman]].<ref name=":12222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=265|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref> In Sana'a, rightist republicans won out over left wing factions and conciliated with the royalists. The Yemen Arab Republic excised the Mutawakkili Imams in 1962, but retained the other monarchist political elements in the new republic.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|page=106-130|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, the US government gave approval to funnel support for the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] against the more progressive republicans. This follows in the longstanding tradition of US government interventions in West Asia, where right-wing Islamists are used as proxy forces against progressives and secular nationalists. Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, along with [[Operation Cyclone]] in the 1980s, set the stage for [[al-Qaeda]]'s destabilizing presence in the region up to the present day.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Robert Baer|year=2004|title=Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude|page=98-99|quote=The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against (what else?) communism. This covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers—Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department—when they approved Saudi Arabia’s funding of Egypt’s Brothers against Nasser. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist. He’d nationalized Egypt’s big-business industries, including the Suez Canal. He bought his weapons from the Soviet Union. He was threatening to bulldoze Israel into the sea. The logic of the cold war led to a clear conclusion: If Allah agreed to fight on our side, fine. If Allah decided political assassination was permissible, that was fine, too, so long as no one talked about it in polite company. Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books. There was no CIA finding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it.
In other words, no record. All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That’s what happened during the Yemeni civil war that got under way in 1962. When Nasser backed an anti-American government and sent troops to help it, Washington quietly gave Riyadh approval to back Yemen’s Muslim Brothers against the Egyptians.|publisher=Three Rivers Press}}</ref><ref name=":2" />

Egypt withdrew its forces from Yemen in 1967 after the [[Six Day War]].<ref name=":2" />

=== North-South Division, 1967-1990 ===
[[Marxism|Marxists]] took power in South Yemen in 1967, leading the Saudis to fund anti-communists in Yemen and Oman, specifically forces in the Muslim Brotherhood who would eventually become [[Al-Qaeda|AQAP]].<ref name=":12222" /><ref name=":3" />

The British handed power over to the Marxist NLF forces in opposition to the more Nasserist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY). This acquiescence was due to British ignorance of Marxist influence in the NLF and hatred of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser|Nasserism]]. Leftist forces within the NLF quickly outmaneuvered and expelled its internal right wing factions in a "corrective step" in 1969. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was declared in 1970.

The YAR and PDRY were marked with internal and regional instability throughout Yemen's period of North-South division. External factors like Saudi Arabia and other western-backed neighbors informed the conflicts within and between the two Yemens.

The Marxists inherited a poor, underdeveloped agricultural and fishing economy. Agricultural workers in the arable coastal plains were sharecroppers for powerful local landowners. The poor economic conditions were exacerbated by the 1967 closure of the Suez Canal, which deprived Aden of its traditional port activities. The economy shrank by 10-15 percent and tens of thousands of Yemenis emigrated. Because of the immigration of landowners, the NLF was able to nationalize private lands and hand them over to sharecroppers.

Almost all commercial and industrial operations in the PDRY were nationalized and development policies were enacted in agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure. In 1967, there were only 126 kilometers of paved roads in the PDRY, mainly in Aden and Hadramaut. The socialist revolution eventually expanded these roads to link Aden with Mukalla, Abyan, Shabwa, and Wadi Hadramaut.

The YAR and PDRY undertook two wars across their border in 1972 and 1979,<ref name=":4" /> both of which ended with [[Arab League]]-mediated agreements to unify the country. In 1972, factions of South Yemeni exiles invaded the PDRY, backed by Saudi Arabia and the YAR. The PDRY quickly neutralized the poorly organized and divided exiles and gained the upper hand after only a few weeks of fighting. At the ceasefire talks in Cairo, the PDRY demanded that the YAR sever ties with Saudi Arabia and make progressive reforms before unification could be considered. These reforms never happened, but the two countries nevertheless agreed to a ceasefire and mutual withdrawal of troops. Saudi Arabia themselves opposed the unity agreement. Pro-Saudi forces ousted the YAR leaders most committed to the unity agreement, and relations between the two Yemens again worsened shortly after the negotiated ceasefire. Prime Minister al-Hajri's formal, permanent cession of the 'Asir, Najran, and Jizan territories to Saudi Arabia inflamed nationalist sentiment and opened the way for pro-South forces, like the United National Front of South Yemen, to advance within the YAR.<ref>{{Citation|author=F. Gregory Gause III|year=1990|title=Saudi-Yemeni Relations: Domestic Structures and Foreign Influence|title-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0yUzV-g2X2QC&dq=%22arab+league%22+yemen+1972&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=%22arab%20league%22%20yemen%201972&f=false|page=98-118|city=New York City|publisher=Columbia University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=University of Central Arkansas - Government, Public Service, and International Studies|title=32. South Yemen (1967-1990)|url=https://uca.edu/politicalscience/home/research-projects/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/south-yemen-1967-1990/|retrieved=2024-09-21}}</ref>

Successive governments in the YAR vacillated between support and opposition to Saudi influence. Bretton Woods institutions steadily increased their own influence over the North. The YAR underwent another military coup in 1974, bringing the popular Ibrahim al-Hamdi to power. Hamdi was assassinated in 1977, and then his successor al-Ghashmi was assassinated by exploding briefcase in 1978. The YAR found stability throughout the subsequent [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] presidency, which lasted through reunification with the South until 2012. Saleh's survival is attributable to support from the Saudis through periods of economic instability and through canny political maneuvering with his "patronage" system of maintaining support and dependence.<ref name=":4" />

Top leadership in the PDRY's NLF (Prime Minister Ali Nasser Mohammed and Secretary General Abdul Fattah Ismail) blamed President Salem Ruba'i Ali for al-Ghashmi's death and subsequently executed him in 1978. According to Ali Nasser Mohammed, Ruba'i Ali was killed to avoid war with the YAR. Nonetheless, a short border war broke out in 1979.

Soviet-aligned Abdul Fattah Ismail consolidated both state executive and party control with the founding of the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP) and the passing of a new constitution by referendum. This was short-lived, as the Politburo dismissed Abdul Fattah in 1980 over his consolidation of power, Abdul Fattah's lack of roots in the South, and his opposition to the Second PDRY-YAR War. The 1980 party congress elected Ali Nasser Mohammed as Secretary General and President, in addition to the Prime Minister position he held since 1971. Abdul Fattah fled to the Soviet Union, citing "medical reasons." President Ali Nasser came to dominate the PDRY until his ouster in 1986.<ref name=":5">{{Video citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ceo_AYnGlM|channel=Al Jazeera English|title=Aden 1986: The assassination that changed Yemen's history|date=23 May 2024}}</ref> He liberalised the economy, relaxed many collectivist policies, and warmed relations with the West and western-backed neighbors.<ref name=":4" />

The same elements of the Politburo formerly opposed to Abdul Fattah, specifically Ali Antar, subsequently turned against Ali Nasser and encouraged Abdul Fattah's return. Abdul Fattah returned from exile in 1985. On 13 January, 1986, tensions between the Ali Nasser faction and those of Ali Antar and Abdul Fattah came to a head. Ali Nasser's bodyguards assassinated Ali Antar and four other members of the Politburo. Abdul Fattah survived and was able to escape. A twelve day civil war followed, with thousands of casualties. Abdul Fattah was killed in the subsequent fighting, and Ali Nasser was defeated and forced to flee to the YAR.<ref name=":5" /> The last four years of the PDRY were marked by a decline in socialist policies reflective of the absence of the YSP's main personalities and the general decline and disengagement of the Soviet bloc.<ref name=":4" />

=== 1990 Reunification ===
Following the annexation of the PDRY headquartered in Aden, Ali Abdullah Saleh became the president of the new Republic of Yemen. Saleh had been the president of the Yemen Arab Republic since 1978, following the assassination of the previous president, al-Ghashmi.<ref name=":4" />

=== 2011 revolution ===
President Ali Abdullah Saleh stepped down in 2011 during the [[Arab Spring]], and his vice president [[Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi]] took power.

Yemen overthrew Hadi's USA and Saudi-backed puppet government in 2014 and installed an [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] government led by Ansarullah. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and has not returned to Yemen since.<ref name=":0" /> Following the revolution, the imperialist [[Imperial core|West]] began a brutal war against Yemen.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Lalkar]]|title=Yemen’s quest for self-determination continues unabated|date=2023-01-26|url=https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127003206/https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-date=2023-01-27|retrieved=2023-01-28}}</ref>

=== Imperialist invasion ===
Saudi Arabia began air strikes against Yemen in March 2015 with support from the [[imperial core]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[Imperialism|imperialist]] United States is supporting its Saudi Arabian vassal state in stirring up a bloody proxy war in Yemen that has killed 337,000 people, mostly children,<ref name=":1" /> and left millions [[Homelessness|homeless]].<ref>[https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/07/06/2533828/us-fueling-saudi-war-on-yemen-envoy US Fueling Saudi War on Yemen: Envoy] by Tasnim News Agency on July 6th, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/17/yemen_crisis_us_uae_saudi_arabia A Crisis Made in America: Yemen on Brink of Famine After U.S. Cuts Aid While Fueling War] by Democracy Now on September 17th, 2020</ref> [[Al-Qaeda|Al Qaeda]] is supporting the Saudis and fighting against Ansarullah.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2022, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] announced that he had deployed troops in Yemen to back the Saudi forces.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=U.S. president confirms deployment of troops in Yemen|date=2022-06-14|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614211029/https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-date=2022-06-14|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

==== U.S. war crimes ====
In 2011, [[Barack Obama|Obama]] assassinated a U.S. citizen living in Yemen along with his son and nephew and several other civilians.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2011-09-30|title=Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-30}}</ref> The United States also killed a 13-year-old boy in 2015 with a drone strike and 30 people, including an 8-year-old girl, in 2017 with a SEAL attack. In 2018, a US-backed Saudi plane bombed a school bus, killing 40 innocent children and injuring 80 more people.{{Citation needed}}

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-21T21:26:48Z

BlueBodhisattva: Rounded out the period of North-South division with more sources.

{{Infobox country|name=Yemen|native_name=ٱلْجُمْهُورِيَّةُ ٱلْيَمَنِيَّةُ|image_flag=Flag of Yemen.svg|image_coat=Emblem of Yemen.svg|population_estimate=30,491,000|population_estimate_year=2021|area_km2=555,000|capital=Sanaa|largest_city=Sanaa|government_type=Provisional government|leader_title1=Chairman|leader_name1=Mahdi al-Mashat|image_map=Yemen map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic}}
'''Yemen''', officially the '''Republic of Yemen''', is a country in [[Western Asia]], south of [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]. It was formed in 1990 when the [[Yemen Arab Republic]] (YAR) annexed the [[People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]] (PDRY). Yemen's capital of Sanaa is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Due to the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] invasion by the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]], [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], and Saudi Arabia, Yemen is currently facing a severe malnutrition crisis, with 400,000 children facing death, in addition to a cholera epidemic.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[ANSWER Coalition]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=12 things you should know about Yemen|date=2019-01-07|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231606/https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-date=2020-11-07|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> On average, a civilian is killed or wounded every hour.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate|date=2022-02-20|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410174459/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-date=2023-04-10|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> The revolutionary coalition led by [[Ansar Allah|Ansarullah]] controls the former territory of North Yemen, which holds 80% of the country's population.<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Mutawakkilite Imamate and Aden Colony ===
The British invaded Aden in 1839 and ruled in southern Yemen until 1967.<ref name=":2">{{Web citation|author=Jane Cutter|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Who are the Houthis?|date=2023-12-23|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223183428/https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-date=2023-12-23}}</ref>

Hereditary ruling Imams took over in northern Yemen after Ottoman withdrawal in 1918. Seated in Sanaa, the Imams (Yahia until 1948, Ahmed until 1962, and Badr for a short period in September 1962) constantly had to deal with opposition forces insisting on democracy and modernization. The Imams violently suppressed these opposition forces until Imam Badr was deposed by a pan-Arabist, Nasserist military coup.<ref>{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|chapter=Chapter 3: The Two Yemeni Republics and Unification|page=105-106|quote=The Mutawakkilite Imamate in Sana‘a had ruled the entire area which became the Yemen Arab Republic from 1918 onwards, after the final withdrawal of the Ottomans following their defeat in the First World War. Its realm was widely described as an isolated and backward state. The three Imams who ruled during this period (Yahia 1918–1948, Ahmed 1948–1962, Badr 19–25 September 1962) had to deal with a series of opposition movements intent on democratising and modernising the state. All were violently and brutally repressed. On 26 September 1962 the newly installed Imam Badr, despite his more modernist and progressive image, was overthrown by a military coup organised by officers who had been exposed to Arab nationalism during their studies in Cairo and Baghdad. They established the Yemen Arab Republic and there followed an eight-year-long civil war between the republicans and the Imam’s forces. The republicans were supported by tens of thousands of Egyptian troops sent in by Nasser, until 1967 when the defeat in the Six Day War compelled Nasser to withdraw his forces. The royalist fighters regrouped alongside the Imam and his senior relatives and received significant open support from Saudi Arabia and secret support from Britain in the form of special military forces, including mercenaries infiltrated through the protectorates, mostly from Bayhan|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

=== Nationalist revolution and civil war ===
On the 25th of September 1962, the Yemeni military overthrew the [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Sanaa, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. The British, Saudis, and USA supported the royalists, and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], Egypt, and [[United Arab Republic (1958–1971)|United Arab Republic]] supported the republicans.<ref name=":2" /> At the same time, they supported a rebellion in the [[Dhofar]] province of [[Sultanate of Oman|Oman]].<ref name=":12222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=265|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref> In Sana'a, rightist republicans won out over left wing factions and conciliated with the royalists. The Yemen Arab Republic excised the Mutawakkili Imams in 1962, but retained the other monarchist political elements in the new republic.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|page=106-130|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, the US government gave approval to funnel support for the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] against the more progressive republicans. This follows in the longstanding tradition of US government interventions in West Asia, where right-wing Islamists are used as proxy forces against progressives and secular nationalists. Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, along with [[Operation Cyclone]] in the 1980s, set the stage for [[al-Qaeda]]'s destabilizing presence in the region up to the present day.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Robert Baer|year=2004|title=Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude|page=98-99|quote=The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against (what else?) communism. This covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers—Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department—when they approved Saudi Arabia’s funding of Egypt’s Brothers against Nasser. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist. He’d nationalized Egypt’s big-business industries, including the Suez Canal. He bought his weapons from the Soviet Union. He was threatening to bulldoze Israel into the sea. The logic of the cold war led to a clear conclusion: If Allah agreed to fight on our side, fine. If Allah decided political assassination was permissible, that was fine, too, so long as no one talked about it in polite company. Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books. There was no CIA finding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it.
In other words, no record. All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That’s what happened during the Yemeni civil war that got under way in 1962. When Nasser backed an anti-American government and sent troops to help it, Washington quietly gave Riyadh approval to back Yemen’s Muslim Brothers against the Egyptians.|publisher=Three Rivers Press}}</ref><ref name=":2" />

Egypt withdrew its forces from Yemen in 1967 after the [[Six Day War]].<ref name=":2" />

=== North-South Division, 1967-1990 ===
[[Marxism|Marxists]] took power in South Yemen in 1967, leading the Saudis to fund anti-communists in Yemen and Oman, specifically forces in the Muslim Brotherhood who would eventually become [[Al-Qaeda|AQAP]].<ref name=":12222" /><ref name=":3" />

The British handed power over to the Marxist NLF forces in opposition to the more Nasserist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY). This acquiescence was due to British ignorance of Marxist influence in the NLF and hatred of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser|Nasserism]]. Leftist forces within the NLF quickly outmaneuvered and expelled its internal right wing factions in a "corrective step" in 1969. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was declared in 1970.

The YAR and PDRY were marked with internal and regional instability throughout Yemen's period of North-South division. External factors like Saudi Arabia and other western-backed neighbors informed the conflicts within and between the two Yemens.

The Marxists inherited a poor, underdeveloped agricultural and fishing economy. Agricultural workers in the arable coastal plains were sharecroppers for powerful local landowners. The poor economic conditions were exacerbated by the 1967 closure of the Suez Canal, which deprived Aden of its traditional port activities. The economy shrank by 10-15 percent and tens of thousands of Yemenis emigrated. Because of the immigration of landowners, the NLF was able to nationalize private lands and hand them over to sharecroppers.

Almost all commercial and industrial operations in the PDRY were nationalized and development policies were enacted in agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure. In 1967, there were only 126 kilometers of paved roads in the PDRY, mainly in Aden and Hadramaut. The socialist revolution eventually expanded these roads to link Aden with Mukalla, Abyan, Shabwa, and Wadi Hadramaut.

The YAR and PDRY undertook two wars across their border in 1972 and 1979,<ref name=":4" /> both of which ended with [[Arab League]]-mediated agreements to unify the country. In 1972, factions of South Yemeni exiles invaded the PDRY, backed by Saudi Arabia and the YAR. The PDRY quickly neutralized the poorly organized and divided exiles and gained the upper hand after only a few weeks of fighting. At the ceasefire talks in Cairo, the PDRY demanded that the YAR sever ties with Saudi Arabia and make progressive reforms before unification could be considered. These reforms never happened, but the two countries nevertheless agreed to a ceasefire and mutual withdrawal of troops. Saudi Arabia themselves opposed the unity agreement. Pro-Saudi forces ousted the YAR leaders most committed to the unity agreement, and relations between the two Yemens again worsened shortly after the negotiated ceasefire. Prime Minister al-Hajri's formal, permanent cession of the 'Asir, Najran, and Jizan territories to Saudi Arabia inflamed nationalist sentiment and opened the way for pro-South forces, like the United National Front of South Yemen, to advance within the YAR.<ref>{{Citation|author=F. Gregory Gause III|year=1990|title=Saudi-Yemeni Relations: Domestic Structures and Foreign Influence|title-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0yUzV-g2X2QC&dq=%22arab+league%22+yemen+1972&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=%22arab%20league%22%20yemen%201972&f=false|page=98-118|city=New York City|publisher=Columbia University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=University of Central Arkansas - Government, Public Service, and International Studies|title=32. South Yemen (1967-1990)|url=https://uca.edu/politicalscience/home/research-projects/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/south-yemen-1967-1990/|retrieved=2024-09-21}}</ref>

Successive governments in the YAR vacillated between support and opposition to Saudi influence. Bretton Woods institutions steadily increased their own influence over the North. The YAR underwent another military coup in 1974, bringing the popular Ibrahim al-Hamdi to power. Hamdi was assassinated in 1977, and then his successor al-Ghashmi was assassinated by exploding briefcase in 1978. The YAR found stability throughout the subsequent Ali Abdullah Saleh presidency, which lasted through reunification with the South until 2012. Saleh's survival is attributable to support from the Saudis through periods of economic instability and through canny political maneuvering with his "patronage" system of maintaining support and dependence.<ref name=":4" />

Top leadership in the PDRY's NLF (Prime Minister Ali Nasser Mohammed and Secretary General Abdul Fattah Ismail) blamed President Salem Ruba'i Ali for al-Ghashmi's death and subsequently executed him in 1978. According to Ali Nasser Mohammed, Ruba'i Ali was killed to avoid war with the YAR.

Soviet-aligned Abdul Fattah Ismail subsequently consolidated both state executive and party control with the founding of the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP) and the passing of a new constitution by referendum. This was short-lived, as the Politburo dismissed Abdul Fattah in 1980 over his consolidation of power, Abdul Fattah's lack of roots in the South, and his opposition to the Second PDRY-YAR War. The 1980 party congress elected Ali Nasser Mohammed as Secretary General, President, in addition to the Prime Minister position he held since 1971. Abdul Fattah fled to the Soviet Union, citing "medical reasons." President Ali Nasser came to dominate the PDRY until his ouster in 1986.<ref name=":5">{{Video citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ceo_AYnGlM|channel=Al Jazeera English|title=Aden 1986: The assassination that changed Yemen's history|date=23 May 2024}}</ref> He liberalised the economy, relaxed many collectivist policies, and warmed relations with the West and western-backed neighbors.<ref name=":4" />

The same elements of the Politburo formerly opposed to Abdul Fattah, specifically Ali Antar, subsequently turned against Ali Nasser and encouraged Abdul Fattah's return. Abdul Fattah returned from exile in 1985. On 13 January, 1986, tensions between the Ali Nasser faction and those of Ali Antar and Abdul Fattah came to a head. Ali Nasser's bodyguards assassinated Ali Antar and four other members of the Politburo. Abdul Fattah survived and was able to escape. A twelve day civil war followed, with thousands of casualties. Abdul Fattah was killed in the subsequent fighting, and Ali Nasser was defeated and forced to flee to the YAR.<ref name=":5" /> The last four years of the PDRY were marked by a decline in socialist policies reflective of the absence of the YSP's main personalities and the general decline and disengagement of the Soviet bloc.<ref name=":4" />

=== 1990 Reunification ===
Following the annexation of the PDRY headquartered in Aden, [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] became the president of the new Republic of Yemen. Saleh had been the president of the Yemen Arab Republic since 1978, following the assassination of the previous president, al-Ghashmi.<ref name=":4" />

=== 2011 revolution ===
President [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] stepped down in 2011 during the [[Arab Spring]], and his vice president [[Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi]] took power.

Yemen overthrew Hadi's USA and Saudi-backed puppet government in 2014 and installed an [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] government led by Ansarullah. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and has not returned to Yemen since.<ref name=":0" /> Following the revolution, the imperialist [[Imperial core|West]] began a brutal war against Yemen.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Lalkar]]|title=Yemen’s quest for self-determination continues unabated|date=2023-01-26|url=https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127003206/https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-date=2023-01-27|retrieved=2023-01-28}}</ref>

=== Imperialist invasion ===
Saudi Arabia began air strikes against Yemen in March 2015 with support from the [[imperial core]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[Imperialism|imperialist]] United States is supporting its Saudi Arabian vassal state in stirring up a bloody proxy war in Yemen that has killed 337,000 people, mostly children,<ref name=":1" /> and left millions [[Homelessness|homeless]].<ref>[https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/07/06/2533828/us-fueling-saudi-war-on-yemen-envoy US Fueling Saudi War on Yemen: Envoy] by Tasnim News Agency on July 6th, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/17/yemen_crisis_us_uae_saudi_arabia A Crisis Made in America: Yemen on Brink of Famine After U.S. Cuts Aid While Fueling War] by Democracy Now on September 17th, 2020</ref> [[Al-Qaeda|Al Qaeda]] is supporting the Saudis and fighting against Ansarullah.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2022, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] announced that he had deployed troops in Yemen to back the Saudi forces.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=U.S. president confirms deployment of troops in Yemen|date=2022-06-14|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614211029/https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-date=2022-06-14|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

==== U.S. war crimes ====
In 2011, [[Barack Obama|Obama]] assassinated a U.S. citizen living in Yemen along with his son and nephew and several other civilians.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2011-09-30|title=Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-30}}</ref> The United States also killed a 13-year-old boy in 2015 with a drone strike and 30 people, including an 8-year-old girl, in 2017 with a SEAL attack. In 2018, a US-backed Saudi plane bombed a school bus, killing 40 innocent children and injuring 80 more people.{{Citation needed}}

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-21T02:51:40Z

BlueBodhisattva: /* Nationalist revolution and civil war */

{{Infobox country|name=Yemen|native_name=ٱلْجُمْهُورِيَّةُ ٱلْيَمَنِيَّةُ|image_flag=Flag of Yemen.svg|image_coat=Emblem of Yemen.svg|population_estimate=30,491,000|population_estimate_year=2021|area_km2=555,000|capital=Sanaa|largest_city=Sanaa|government_type=Provisional government|leader_title1=Chairman|leader_name1=Mahdi al-Mashat|image_map=Yemen map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic}}
'''Yemen''', officially the '''Republic of Yemen''', is a country in [[Western Asia]], south of [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]. It was formed in 1990 when the [[Yemen Arab Republic]] (YAR) annexed the [[People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]] (PDRY). Yemen's capital of Sanaa is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Due to the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] invasion by the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]], [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], and Saudi Arabia, Yemen is currently facing a severe malnutrition crisis, with 400,000 children facing death, in addition to a cholera epidemic.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[ANSWER Coalition]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=12 things you should know about Yemen|date=2019-01-07|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231606/https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-date=2020-11-07|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> On average, a civilian is killed or wounded every hour.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate|date=2022-02-20|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410174459/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-date=2023-04-10|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> The revolutionary coalition led by [[Ansar Allah|Ansarullah]] controls the former territory of North Yemen, which holds 80% of the country's population.<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Mutawakkilite Imamate and Aden Colony ===
The British invaded Aden in 1839 and ruled in southern Yemen until 1967.<ref name=":2">{{Web citation|author=Jane Cutter|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Who are the Houthis?|date=2023-12-23|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223183428/https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-date=2023-12-23}}</ref>

Hereditary ruling Imams took over in northern Yemen after Ottoman withdrawal in 1918. Seated in Sanaa, the Imams (Yahia until 1948, Ahmed until 1962, and Badr for a short period in September 1962) constantly had to deal with opposition forces insisting on democracy and modernization. The Imams violently suppressed these opposition forces until Imam Badr was deposed by a pan-Arabist, Nasserist military coup.<ref>{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|chapter=Chapter 3: The Two Yemeni Republics and Unification|page=105-106|quote=The Mutawakkilite Imamate in Sana‘a had ruled the entire area which became the Yemen Arab Republic from 1918 onwards, after the final withdrawal of the Ottomans following their defeat in the First World War. Its realm was widely described as an isolated and backward state. The three Imams who ruled during this period (Yahia 1918–1948, Ahmed 1948–1962, Badr 19–25 September 1962) had to deal with a series of opposition movements intent on democratising and modernising the state. All were violently and brutally repressed. On 26 September 1962 the newly installed Imam Badr, despite his more modernist and progressive image, was overthrown by a military coup organised by officers who had been exposed to Arab nationalism during their studies in Cairo and Baghdad. They established the Yemen Arab Republic and there followed an eight-year-long civil war between the republicans and the Imam’s forces. The republicans were supported by tens of thousands of Egyptian troops sent in by Nasser, until 1967 when the defeat in the Six Day War compelled Nasser to withdraw his forces. The royalist fighters regrouped alongside the Imam and his senior relatives and received significant open support from Saudi Arabia and secret support from Britain in the form of special military forces, including mercenaries infiltrated through the protectorates, mostly from Bayhan|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

=== Nationalist revolution and civil war ===
On the 25th of September 1962, the Yemeni military overthrew the [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Sanaa, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. The British, Saudis, and USA supported the royalists, and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], Egypt, and [[United Arab Republic (1958–1971)|United Arab Republic]] supported the republicans.<ref name=":2" /> At the same time, they supported a rebellion in the [[Dhofar]] province of [[Sultanate of Oman|Oman]].<ref name=":12222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=265|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref> According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, the US government gave approval to funnel support for the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] against the republicans.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Robert Baer|year=2004|title=Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude|page=98-99|quote=The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against (what else?) communism. This covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers—Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department—when they approved Saudi Arabia’s funding of Egypt’s Brothers against Nasser. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist. He’d nationalized Egypt’s big-business industries, including the Suez Canal. He bought his weapons from the Soviet Union. He was threatening to bulldoze Israel into the sea. The logic of the cold war led to a clear conclusion: If Allah agreed to fight on our side, fine. If Allah decided political assassination was permissible, that was fine, too, so long as no one talked about it in polite company. Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books. There was no CIA finding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it.
In other words, no record. All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That’s what happened during the Yemeni civil war that got under way in 1962. When Nasser backed an anti-American government and sent troops to help it, Washington quietly gave Riyadh approval to back Yemen’s Muslim Brothers against the Egyptians.|publisher=Three Rivers Press}}</ref> This follows in the longstanding tradition of US government interventions in West Asia, where right-wing Islamists are used as proxy forces against progressives and secular nationalists. Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, along with [[Operation Cyclone]] in the 1980s, set the stage for [[al-Qaeda]]'s destabilizing presence in the region, up to the present day.<ref name=":3" /> <ref name=":2" />

Egypt withdrew its forces from Yemen in 1967 after the [[Six Day War]].<ref name=":2" />

=== Socialist revolution in the South, Rightist Republic in the North ===
[[Marxism|Marxists]] took power in South Yemen in 1967, leading the Saudis to fund anti-communists in Yemen and Oman, specifically forces in the Muslim Brotherhood who would eventually become [[Al-Qaeda|AQAP]].<ref name=":12222" /><ref name=":3" />

The British handed power over to the Marxist NLF forces in opposition to the more Nasserist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY). This acquiescence was due to British ignorance of Marxist influence in the NLF and hatred of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser|Nasserism]]. Leftist forces within the NLF quickly outmaneuvered and expelled its internal right wing factions in a "corrective step" in 1969. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was declared in 1970.

The Marxists inherited a poor, underdeveloped agricultural and fishing economy. Agricultural workers in the arable coastal plains were sharecroppers for powerful local landowners. The poor economic conditions were exacerbated by the 1967 closure of the Suez Canal, which deprived Aden of its traditional port activities. The economy shrank by 10-15 percent and tens of thousands of Yemenis emigrated. Because of the immigration of landowners, the NLF was able to nationalize private lands and hand them over to sharecroppers.

Almost all commercial and industrial operations in the PDRY were nationalized and development policies were enacted in agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure. In 1967, there were only 126 kilometers of paved roads in the PDRY, mainly in Aden and Hadramaut. The socialist revolution eventually expanded these roads to link Aden with Mukalla, Abyan, Shabwa, and Wadi Hadramaut.<ref name=":4" />

In Sanaa, the rightist republicans won out over the left wing factions. The Yemen Arab Republic excised the Mutawakkili Imams in 1962, but retained the other monarchist political elements in the new republic.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|page=106-130|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

Both the YAR and PDRY were marked with instability throughout Yemen's period of North-South division. Successive governments in the North vacillated between support and opposition to Saudi influence. Bretton Woods institutions steadily increased their own influence over YAR. The YAR underwent another military coup in 1974, bringing the popular Ibrahim al-Hamdi to power. Hamdi was assassinated in 1977, and then his successor al-Ghashmi was assassinated by exploding briefcase in 1978. The YAR found stability throughout the subsequent Ali Abdullah Saleh presidency, which lasted through reunification with the South until 2012. Saleh's survival is attributable to support from the Saudis through periods of economic instability and through canny political maneuvering with his "patronage" system of maintaining support and dependence.<ref name=":4" />

Top leadership in the PDRY's NLF (Prime Minister Ali Nasser Mohammed and Secretary General Abdul Fattah Ismail) blamed President Salem Ruba'i Ali for al-Ghashmi's death and subsequently executed him in 1978. According to Ali Nasser Mohammed, Ruba'i Ali was killed to avoid war with the YAR.

Soviet-aligned Abdul Fattah Ismail subsequently consolidated both state executive and party control with the founding of the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP) and the passing of a new constitution by referendum. This was short-lived, as the Politburo dismissed Fattah Ismail in 1980 over his consolidation of power, Fattah Ismail's lack of roots in the South, and his opposition to the Second PDRY-YAR War.<ref>{{Video citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ceo_AYnGlM|channel=Al Jazeera English|title=Aden 1986: The assassination that changed Yemen's history|date=23 May 2024}}</ref>

=== 1990 Reunification ===
Following the annexation of the PDRY headquartered in Aden, [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] became the president of the new Republic of Yemen. Saleh had been the president of the Yemen Arab Republic since 1978, following the assassination of the previous president, al-Ghashmi.<ref name=":4" />

=== 2011 revolution ===
President [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] stepped down in 2011 during the [[Arab Spring]], and his vice president [[Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi]] took power.

Yemen overthrew Hadi's USA and Saudi-backed puppet government in 2014 and installed an [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] government led by Ansarullah. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and has not returned to Yemen since.<ref name=":0" /> Following the revolution, the imperialist [[Imperial core|West]] began a brutal war against Yemen.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Lalkar]]|title=Yemen’s quest for self-determination continues unabated|date=2023-01-26|url=https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127003206/https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-date=2023-01-27|retrieved=2023-01-28}}</ref>

=== Imperialist invasion ===
Saudi Arabia began air strikes against Yemen in March 2015 with support from the [[imperial core]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[Imperialism|imperialist]] United States is supporting its Saudi Arabian vassal state in stirring up a bloody proxy war in Yemen that has killed 337,000 people, mostly children,<ref name=":1" /> and left millions [[Homelessness|homeless]].<ref>[https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/07/06/2533828/us-fueling-saudi-war-on-yemen-envoy US Fueling Saudi War on Yemen: Envoy] by Tasnim News Agency on July 6th, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/17/yemen_crisis_us_uae_saudi_arabia A Crisis Made in America: Yemen on Brink of Famine After U.S. Cuts Aid While Fueling War] by Democracy Now on September 17th, 2020</ref> [[Al-Qaeda|Al Qaeda]] is supporting the Saudis and fighting against Ansarullah.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2022, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] announced that he had deployed troops in Yemen to back the Saudi forces.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=U.S. president confirms deployment of troops in Yemen|date=2022-06-14|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614211029/https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-date=2022-06-14|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

==== U.S. war crimes ====
In 2011, [[Barack Obama|Obama]] assassinated a U.S. citizen living in Yemen along with his son and nephew and several other civilians.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2011-09-30|title=Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-30}}</ref> The United States also killed a 13-year-old boy in 2015 with a drone strike and 30 people, including an 8-year-old girl, in 2017 with a SEAL attack. In 2018, a US-backed Saudi plane bombed a school bus, killing 40 innocent children and injuring 80 more people.{{Citation needed}}

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-03T00:20:47Z

BlueBodhisattva: Expanded pre-reunification history

{{Infobox country|name=Yemen|native_name=ٱلْجُمْهُورِيَّةُ ٱلْيَمَنِيَّةُ|image_flag=Flag of Yemen.svg|image_coat=Emblem of Yemen.svg|population_estimate=30,491,000|population_estimate_year=2021|area_km2=555,000|capital=Sanaa|largest_city=Sanaa|government_type=Provisional government|leader_title1=Chairman|leader_name1=Mahdi al-Mashat|image_map=Yemen map.svg|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic}}
'''Yemen''', officially the '''Republic of Yemen''', is a country in [[Western Asia]], south of [[Kingdom of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]. It was formed in 1990 when the [[Yemen Arab Republic]] annexed the [[People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]]. Yemen's capital of Sanaa is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Due to the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] invasion by the [[United States of America|USA]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]], [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], and Saudi Arabia, Yemen is currently facing a severe malnutrition crisis, with 400,000 children facing death, in addition to a cholera epidemic.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[ANSWER Coalition]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=12 things you should know about Yemen|date=2019-01-07|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231606/https://www.liberationnews.org/12-things-you-should-know-about-yemen/|archive-date=2020-11-07|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> On average, a civilian is killed or wounded every hour.<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=US-Saudi war on Yemen has killed 377,000 people – UN estimate|date=2022-02-20|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410174459/https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/20/us-saudi-war-yemen-377000-deaths-un/|archive-date=2023-04-10|retrieved=2023-04-20}}</ref> The revolutionary coalition led by [[Ansar Allah|Ansarullah]] controls the former territory of North Yemen, which holds 80% of the country's population.<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Mutawakkilite Imamate and Aden Colony ===
The British invaded Aden in 1839 and ruled in southern Yemen until 1967.<ref name=":2">{{Web citation|author=Jane Cutter|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Who are the Houthis?|date=2023-12-23|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223183428/https://www.liberationnews.org/who-are-the-houthis/|archive-date=2023-12-23}}</ref>

In the north, hereditary ruling Imams took over in northern Yemen after Ottoman withdrawal in 1918. Seated in Sanaa, the Imams (Yahia until 1948, Ahmed until 1962, and Badr for a short period in September 1962) constantly had to deal with opposition forces insisting on democracy and modernization. The Imams violently suppressed these opposition forces until Imam Badr was deposed by a pan-Arabist, Nasserist military coup.<ref>{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|chapter=Chapter 3: The Two Yemeni Republics and Unification|page=105-106|quote=The Mutawakkilite Imamate in Sana‘a had ruled the entire area which became the Yemen Arab Republic from 1918 onwards, after the final withdrawal of the Ottomans following their defeat in the First World War. Its realm was widely described as an isolated and backward state. The three Imams who ruled during this period (Yahia 1918–1948, Ahmed 1948–1962, Badr 19–25 September 1962) had to deal with a series of opposition movements intent on democratising and modernising the state. All were violently and brutally repressed. On 26 September 1962 the newly installed Imam Badr, despite his more modernist and progressive image, was overthrown by a military coup organised by officers who had been exposed to Arab nationalism during their studies in Cairo and Baghdad. They established the Yemen Arab Republic and there followed an eight-year-long civil war between the republicans and the Imam’s forces. The republicans were supported by tens of thousands of Egyptian troops sent in by Nasser, until 1967 when the defeat in the Six Day War compelled Nasser to withdraw his forces. The royalist fighters regrouped alongside the Imam and his senior relatives and received significant open support from Saudi Arabia and secret support from Britain in the form of special military forces, including mercenaries infiltrated through the protectorates, mostly from Bayhan|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

=== Nationalist revolution and civil war ===
In 1962, the Yemeni military overthrew the [[Monarchism|monarchy]] in Sanaa, leading to a civil war between republicans and royalists. The British, Saudis, and USA supported the royalists, and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], Egypt, and [[United Arab Republic (1958–1971)|United Arab Republic]] supported the republicans.<ref name=":2" /> At the same time, they supported a rebellion in the [[Dhofar]] province of [[Sultanate of Oman|Oman]].<ref name=":12222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=265|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref> According to former CIA case officer Robert Baer, the US government gave approval to funnel support for the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] against the republicans.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Robert Baer|year=2004|title=Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude|page=98-99|quote=The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against (what else?) communism. This covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers—Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department—when they approved Saudi Arabia’s funding of Egypt’s Brothers against Nasser. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist. He’d nationalized Egypt’s big-business industries, including the Suez Canal. He bought his weapons from the Soviet Union. He was threatening to bulldoze Israel into the sea. The logic of the cold war led to a clear conclusion: If Allah agreed to fight on our side, fine. If Allah decided political assassination was permissible, that was fine, too, so long as no one talked about it in polite company. Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books. There was no CIA finding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it.
In other words, no record. All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That’s what happened during the Yemeni civil war that got under way in 1962. When Nasser backed an anti-American government and sent troops to help it, Washington quietly gave Riyadh approval to back Yemen’s Muslim Brothers against the Egyptians.|publisher=Three Rivers Press}}</ref> This follows in the longstanding tradition of US government interventions in West Asia, where right-wing Islamists are used as proxy forces against progressives and secular nationalists. Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s, along with [[Operation Cyclone]] in the 1980s, set the stage for [[al-Qaeda]]'s destabilizing presence in the region, up to the present day.<ref name=":3" /> <ref name=":2" />

Egypt withdrew its forces from Yemen in 1967 after the [[Six Day War]].<ref name=":2" />

=== Socialist revolution in the South, Rightist Republic in the North ===
[[Marxism|Marxists]] took power in South Yemen in 1967, leading the Saudis to fund anti-communists in Yemen and Oman, specifically forces in the Muslim Brotherhood who would eventually become [[Al-Qaeda|AQAP]].<ref name=":12222" /><ref name=":3" />

The British handed power over to the Marxist NLF forces in opposition to the more Nasserist Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY). This acquiescence was due to British ignorance of Marxist influence in the NLF and hatred of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser|Nasserism]]. Leftist forces within the NLF quickly outmaneuvered and expelled the right wing factions in a "corrective step" in 1969. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was declared in 1970.

Meanwhile, in Sanaa, the rightist republicans won out over the left wing factions. The Yemen Arab Republic excised the Mutawakkili Imams, but retained the other monarchist political elements in the new republic.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Helen Lackner|year=2017|title=Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of a State|page=106-130|publisher=Lightning Source Inc.}}</ref>

Both the YAR and PDRY were marked with instability throughout Yemen's period of North-South division. Successive governments in the North vacillated between support and opposition to Saudi influence. Bretton Woods institutions steadily increased their own influence over the northern YAR. The YAR underwent another military coup in 1974, bringing the popular Ibrahim al-Hamdi to power, then underwent Hamdi's assassination in 1977, and then the assassination of his successor al-Ghashmi in 1978. The YAR finally found stability in the subsequent Ali Abdullah Saleh presidency, which lasted through reunification with the South until 2012. Saleh's survival is attributable to support from the Saudis through periods of economic instability and through canny political maneuvering with his "patronage" system of maintaining support and dependence.<ref name=":4" />

In the South, the Marxists inherited a poor, underdeveloped agricultural and fishing economy. Agricultural workers in the arable coastal plains were sharecroppers for powerful local landowners. The poor economic conditions were exacerbated by the 1967 closure of the Suez Canal, which deprived Aden of its traditional port activities. The economy shrank by 10-15 percent and tens of thousands of Yemenis emigrated. Because of the immigration of landowners, the NLF was able to nationalize private lands and hand them over to sharecroppers.

Almost all commercial and industrial operations in the PDRY were nationalized and development policies were enacted in agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure. In 1967, there were only 126 kilometers of paved roads in the PDRY, mainly in Aden and Hadramaut. The socialist revolution eventually expanded these roads to link Aden with Mukalla, Abyan, Shabwa, and Wadi Hadramaut.<ref name=":4" />

=== 1990 Reunification ===
Following the annexation of the PDRY headquartered in Aden, [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] became the president of the new Republic of Yemen. Saleh had been the president of the Yemen Arab Republic since 1978, following the assassination of the previous president, al-Ghashmi.<ref name=":4" />

=== 2011 revolution ===
President [[Ali Abdullah Saleh]] stepped down in 2011 during the [[Arab Spring]], and his vice president [[Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi]] took power.

Yemen overthrew Hadi's USA and Saudi-backed puppet government in 2014 and installed an [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] government led by Ansarullah. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and has not returned to Yemen since.<ref name=":0" /> Following the revolution, the imperialist [[Imperial core|West]] began a brutal war against Yemen.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Lalkar]]|title=Yemen’s quest for self-determination continues unabated|date=2023-01-26|url=https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127003206/https://thecommunists.org/2023/01/26/news/yemen-self-determination-quest-continues-agriculture-self-sufficiency/|archive-date=2023-01-27|retrieved=2023-01-28}}</ref>

=== Imperialist invasion ===
Saudi Arabia began air strikes against Yemen in March 2015 with support from the [[imperial core]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[Imperialism|imperialist]] United States is supporting its Saudi Arabian vassal state in stirring up a bloody proxy war in Yemen that has killed 337,000 people, mostly children,<ref name=":1" /> and left millions [[Homelessness|homeless]].<ref>[https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/07/06/2533828/us-fueling-saudi-war-on-yemen-envoy US Fueling Saudi War on Yemen: Envoy] by Tasnim News Agency on July 6th, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/17/yemen_crisis_us_uae_saudi_arabia A Crisis Made in America: Yemen on Brink of Famine After U.S. Cuts Aid While Fueling War] by Democracy Now on September 17th, 2020</ref> [[Al-Qaeda|Al Qaeda]] is supporting the Saudis and fighting against Ansarullah.<ref name=":0" />

In June 2022, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] announced that he had deployed troops in Yemen to back the Saudi forces.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=U.S. president confirms deployment of troops in Yemen|date=2022-06-14|url=https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614211029/https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/|archive-date=2022-06-14|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

==== U.S. war crimes ====
In 2011, [[Barack Obama|Obama]] assassinated a U.S. citizen living in Yemen along with his son and nephew and several other civilians.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2011-09-30|title=Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879|newspaper=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-30}}</ref> The United States also killed a 13-year-old boy in 2015 with a drone strike and 30 people, including an 8-year-old girl, in 2017 with a SEAL attack. In 2018, a US-backed Saudi plane bombed a school bus, killing 40 innocent children and injuring 80 more people.{{Citation needed}}

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]

Republic of Yemen

2024-09-02T04:14:32Z

BlueBodhisattva: Additional context concerning "militant Islam," history of CIA involvement in the region.

Statesian Civil War

2024-08-04T05:37:19Z

BlueBodhisattva: corrections

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate enslaved people.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and enslaved people would need vital needs provided year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and freedmen entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many enslaved people had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote about the war in articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]].<ref name=":1" />

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution." <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were enslaved people themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1862.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery. Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Statesian Civil War

2024-07-21T21:31:41Z

BlueBodhisattva:

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate slaves.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and slaves would need care year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and former slaves entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many slaves had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote about the war in articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]].<ref name=":1" />

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution." <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were slaves themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1962.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery. Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Statesian Civil War

2024-07-20T23:02:50Z

BlueBodhisattva: Fixed sourcing

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate slaves.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and slaves would need care year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and former slaves entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many slaves had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote about the war in articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]].

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution." <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were slaves themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1962.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery. Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Statesian Civil War

2024-07-20T23:01:27Z

BlueBodhisattva: editing

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate slaves.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and slaves would need care year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and former slaves entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many slaves had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote about the war in articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution."

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were slaves themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1962.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery. Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Statesian Civil War

2024-07-20T22:57:10Z

BlueBodhisattva: minor copy editing

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate slaves.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and slaves would need care year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and former slaves entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many slaves had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution."

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were slaves themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1962.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery. Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Statesian Civil War

2024-07-20T22:53:54Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added a section on Marx and Engels's relation to the war, and its impact on their thought.

[[File:Statesian civil war map.svg|thumb|328x328px|Union in blue and Confederacy in red. Light blue states had slavery but remained part of the Union.]]
The '''Statesian Civil War''' was a civil war between the [[Government of the United States of America|Statesian government]] (the Union) and the [[reactionary]] secessionist [[Confederate States of America (1861–1865)|Confederate States of America]] (CSA) from 1861 to 1865. When the war began, 286 out of over 1,000 Statesian officers joined the Confederate Army.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]]|year=2014|title=An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|chapter="Indian Country"|pdf=https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10601/An%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Ortiz.pdf|city=Boston, Massachusetts|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=9780807000403|page=}}</ref>:133

== Background ==
Conflict between North and South over slavery began almost immediately after the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803. The North officially abolished slavery in 1804, though using gradual emancipation laws that kept young Africans enslaved as late as the 1850s.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam|newspaper=Thirteen PBS|title=Slavery and the Making of America|date=2004|url=https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html|retrieved=2023-09-04|quote=Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays.}}</ref> The industrializing North had little use for slavery, which was unprofitable for manufacturing. Unending streams of European immigrants to the North (in large part sourced by enclosure acts like those in Scotland in the early 1800s)<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1853|title=The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm|quote=As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? In the United States of North America.|city=New York City|publisher=New York Daily Tribune|mia=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm}}</ref> provided a huge reserve army of labor cheaper than what it would cost to buy, care for, guard, and educate slaves.

Even agricultural regions in the North were ill-suited to slavery, as wheat crops were seasonal and slaves would need care year round. In the North, slavery wasn't abolished on a moral level, rather it was simply less economical than "free" labor from a reserve army of labor. This meant that the economic bases of the political estates in the North and South began to considerably diverge. The conflict between these political estates is characterized by the problem of whether slavery would expand to the new territories westward.

As territories began to become states, these political estates maintained a balance with the [[Missouri Compromise]] in 1820. This legislation ruled that slavery would not spread north of the 36º 30' latitude line for the new territories and that an equal number of free and slave states would enter the union, guaranteeing an equal number of senators for the northern and southern estates.

This political balance was once again disturbed by the acquisition of new lands westward, this time annexed from Mexico as a result of the [[Mexican–Statesian War|Mexican-Statesian War]]. The new western land demanded that the question over slavery should be settled in the Kansas and Nebraska territories in preparation for the building of railroads. The political conflict resulted in the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, with its infamous "popular sovereignty" provision that directly contradicted the previous Missouri Compromise. The white men living in a territory would now themselves vote on becoming slave or free states. This resulted in the [[Bleeding Kansas]] border war, with pro-slavery "border ruffians" and anti-slavery forces flooding into the Kansas and Nebraska territories to sway the vote.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=United States Senate|title=The Kansas-Nebraska Act|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm|retrieved=2023-09-04}}</ref> The guerrilla warfare between these forces, culminating in [[John Brown]]'s attempt at slave revolution in [[Harper's Ferry]] in 1859, soon exploded into full-blown civil war.

In early 1861, several southern states of the [[United States of America|USA]] seceded to form the Confederate States of America. [[Abraham Lincoln]] succeeded [[James Buchanan]] as [[President of the United States]] in March. The CSA seized the army base at Fort Sumter, [[State of South Carolina|South Carolina]] in April 1861, beginning the war.<ref name=":0" />:133

== Indigenous involvement ==
Most of the Confederate officers had fought against indigenous nations in [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] wars.<ref name=":0" />:133 The Union also oppressed indigenous peoples and took almost 500 million acres of their land with the [[Homestead Act|Homestead]] and [[Pacific Railroad Act]]<nowiki/>s. Most of this land went to large owners and speculators instead of individual families.<ref name=":0" />:140–1

=== West ===
The Dakota people of [[Minnesota]] were starving by 1862 and began a revolt against the settlers. The Union crushed them and hanged 38 in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. [[John Chivington]]'s volunteers killed 133 Cheyennes and Arapahos on the Sand Creek reservation. Colonel [[Patrick Connor]] massacred the Shoshone, Bannock, and Ute in [[Nevada]] and [[Utah]]. [[James Carleton]] fought against [[Cochise]], the leader of the [[Apache|Apaches]], in Arizona. He enlisted [[Kit Carson]], who forced 8,000 [[Navajo]] people to march 300 miles to a concentration camp in the [[New Mexico]] desert. A quarter of them starved to death.<ref name=":0" />:136–9

=== Southeast ===
The southeastern natives ([[Cherokee]], [[Chickasaw]], [[Choctaw]], [[Muskogee]], [[Seminole]]), who had been forced to move to Oklahoma during the 1830s, were split along class lines, with a tiny [[Slavery|slave]]-owning elite supporting the Confederacy and the majority staying neutral. [[Stand Watie]] of the Cherokee became a general in the Confederate army, but many natives also fought against the CSA.<ref name=":0" />:134–5

== Progressive role ==
The Civil War began as a war against separatism, and Lincoln did not initially want to abolish slavery. Later, when slaves and former slaves entered the Union army, they turned the war into a [[revolution]] against slavery.<ref name=":122">{{Citation|author=[[Domenico Losurdo]]|year=2011|title=Liberalism: A Counter-History|chapter=Crisis of the English and American Models|page=166|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781844676934|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5BB3406BC2E64972831A1C00D5D4BFE4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebhsj2yxuoudkhkjp6lzgr5jvgyhu76zxe4gw3d65gpg32a6nded4?filename=Domenico%20Losurdo%2C%20Gregory%20Elliott%20-%20Liberalism_%20A%20Counter-History-Verso%20%282011%29.pdf}}</ref> After many slaves had already escaped to the North, Lincoln issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] in 1863 and allowed them to serve in the Union army.<ref name=":0" />:135–6

== Marx's and Engels's Relation to the War ==
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] followed the events of the Statesian Civil War closely. Marx and Engels wrote articles in the [[New York Daily Tribune|New York Tribune]], [[Die Presse]], as well as numerous letters to each other and various contacts in the [[International Workingmen's Association|international communist community]] (like [[Joseph Weydemeyer]] and [[Ferdinand Lassalle]]). Political refugees of the failed [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 Revolutions]], many of them German, came to settle in the now-midwestern Great Lakes area. This emigre community maintained contact with Marx and Engels and formed a strong abolitionist base that contributed to the rise of the newly founded [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. <ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Andrew Zimmerman|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|page=xvii-xx, 129-131, 167|city=New York City|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

Marx, Engels, and the "48er" community immediately grasped the centrality of abolition to the successful prosecution of the North's war effort. Marx wrote to his uncle Lion Philips in May 1861, "in the early part of the struggle, the scales will be weighted in favor of the South, where the class of propertyless adventurers provides an inexhaustible source of marital militia. In the long run, of course, the North will be victorious since, if the need arises, it has a last card up its sleeve in the shape of a slave revolution."

Marx elaborated a vigorous political-economic analysis of the causes and implications of the war. He argued furiously against British newspapers who tried to minimize the centrality of slavery and abolition in the prosecution of the war effort. Papers like ''[[The Economist]]'' and ''The Examiner,'' whose interests were bound up with industrialists dependent on cheap cotton from the slave states, tried to spin the conflict as one merely of "states' rights," that the North was the "aggressor," that the North was prosecuting the war in order to extend the protectionist [[Morrill Tariffs]], and to dismiss the idea that the North was on a road to abolishing slavery. Marx argued that the election of Lincoln and the platform of cutting off slavery's existential need to expand westward brought on the initial aggression from the South. He critiqued the southern slave oligarchy as an anti-democratic force that seized power against the general wishes of southern society (most of whom did not own slaves, or were slaves themselves).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=The American Question in England|date=1861-10-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=“In the first place says The Economist, “the assumption that the quarrel between the North and South is a quarrel between Negro freedom on the one side and Negro Slavery on the other, is as impudent as it is untrue. “The North,” says The Saturday Review, “does not proclaim abolition, and never pretended to fight for Anti-Slavery. The North has not hoisted for its oriflamme the sacred symbol of justice to the Negro; its cri de guerre is not unconditional abolition.” “If,” says The Examiner, “we have been deceived about the real significance of the sublime movement, who but the Federalists themselves have to answer for the deception?" [...]

The limitation of Slavery to its constitutional area, as proclaimed by the Republicans, was the distinct ground upon which the menace of Secession was first uttered in the House of Representatives on December 19, 1859. Mr. Singleton (Mississippi) having asked Mr. Curtis (Iowa), “if the Republican party would never let the South have another foot of slave territory while it remained in the Union,” and Mr. Curtis having responded in the affirmative, Mr. Singleton said this would dissolve the Union. His advice to Mississippi was the sooner it got out of the Union the better — “gentlemen should recollect that [ ... ] Jefferson Davis led our forces in Mexico, and [...] still he lives, perhaps to lead the Southern army.” Quite apart from the economical law which makes the diffusion of Slavery a vital condition for its maintenance within its constitutional areas, the leaders of the South had never deceived themselves as to its necessity for keeping up their political sway over the United States. John Calhoun, in the defense of his propositions to the Senate, stated distinctly on Feb. 19, 1847, “that the Senate was the only balance of power left to the South in the Government,” and that the creation of new Slave States had become necessary “for the retention of the equipoise of power in the Senate.” Moreover, the Oligarchy of the 300,000 slave-owners could not even maintain their sway at home save by constantly throwing out to their white plebeians the bait of prospective conquests within and without the frontiers of the United States. If, then, according to the oracles of the English press, the North had arrived at the fixed resolution of circumscribing Slavery within its present limits, and of thus extinguishing it in a constitutional way, was this not sufficient to enlist the sympathies of Anti-Slavery England?}}</ref> These arguments exposed the mainstream English press as simultaneously trying to appeal to the abolitionist sensibilities of the English working class to criticize the North, while obscuring the class interests of the English owning class in assisting the South in the war effort (an interest further exposed and repudiated in the English press's and public's reactions to the [[Trent Affair]]).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=New York Daily Tribune|title=English Public Opinion|date=1862-01-11|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/01.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The news of the pacific solution of the Trent conflict was, by the bulk of the English people, saluted with an exultation proving unmistakably the unpopularity of the apprehended war and the dread of its consequences. It ought never to be forgotten in the United States that at least the working classes of England, from the commencement to the termination of the difficulty, have never forsaken them. To them it was due that, despite the poisonous stimulants daily administered by a venal and reckless press, not one single public war meeting could be held in the United Kingdom during all the period that peace trembled in the balance. The only war meeting convened on the arrival of the La Plata, in the cotton salesroom of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, was a corner meeting where the cotton jobbers had it all to themselves. Even at Manchester, the temper of the working classes was so well understood that an insulated attempt at the convocation of a war meeting was almost as soon abandoned as thought of.}}</ref>

While Marx and Engels supported the North's efforts against the slave oligarchy in the South, they often expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment to fully prosecute the war along abolitionist lines. Abraham Lincoln, for the first few years of the war, held off on emancipation and even dismissed [[John C. Fremont]] as Commander-in-Chief of the Union Army. Fremont was dismissed as a consequence of his radical emancipation orders in the western theater of the war, as well as due to political maneuverings of rivals within the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] party. Until the end of 1862, Lincoln took a conciliatory attitude towards slave owners in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, who had chosen not to secede from the Union along with the other slave states in early 1861.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=The Dismissal of Fremont|date=1861-11-19|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Frémont's dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief in Missouri forms a turning point in the history of the development of the American Civil War. Fremont has two great sins to expiate. He was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the presidential office (1856), and he is the first general of the North to have threatened the slaveholders with emancipation of slaves (August 30, 1861). He remains, therefore, a rival of candidates for the presidency in the future and an obstacle to the makers of compromises in the present. [...]

For Seward, therefore, Frémont was the dangerous rival who had to be ruined; an undertaking that appeared so much the easier since Lincoln, in accordance with his legal tradition, has an aversion for all genius, anxiously clings to the letter of the Constitution and fights shy of every step that could mislead the "loyal" slaveholders of the border states.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Press|title=The Crisis Over the Slavery Issue|date=1861-12-10|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1861/12/14.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=The United States has evidently entered a critical stage with regard to the slavery question, the question underlying the whole Civil War. General Fremont has been dismissed for declaring the slaves of rebels free. A directive to General Sherman, the commander of the expedition to South Carolina, was a little later published by the Washington Government, which goes further than Fremont, for it decrees that fugitive slaves even of loyal slave-owners should be welcomed and employed as workers and paid a wage, and under certain circumstances armed, and consoles the "loyal" owners with the prospect of receiving compensation later. Colonel Cochrane has gone even further than Fremont, he demands the arming of all slaves as a military measure. The Secretary of War Cameron publicly approves of Cochrane's "views". The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the government, then repudiates the Secretary of War. [...]

The slavery question is being solved in practice in the border slave states even now, especially in Missouri and to a lesser extent in Kentucky, etc. A large-scale dispersal of slaves is taking place. For instance 50,000 slaves have disappeared from Missouri, some of them have run away, others have been transported by the slave-owners to the more distant southern states.}}</ref> While the prosecution of the war along "constitutional" rather than "revolutionary" lines elongated the war and gave way to numerous disasters for the North, this strategy eventually gave way to a more radical, abolitionist direction as the needs of the war came to dictate. Lincoln dismissed the incompetent [[George B. McClellan|General McClellan]] in November 1862 and announced the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] to be effective on January 1, 1863. Most important to this proclamation were the calls for recruiting "black regiments" of freedmen. 180,000 black men joined the Union Army during and after 1863, and crucially, "the very existence of organized units of armed black men, including many former slaves, challenged at the most fundamental level the institution of racial slavery in the South."<ref name=":1" />

Marx came to view Lincoln much more positively after 1863, even characterizing him as something of a reluctant revolutionary in an article for ''Die Presse'', October 1962.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=Die Presse|title=Comments on the North American Events|date=1862-10-12|url=http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/10/12.html|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. fie has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!}}</ref> Marx's growing admiration for this "son of the working class" culminated in his drafting his famous congratulation letter to Lincoln on the occasion of his successful reelection bid in 1864, on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America|date=1864-11-22|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? [...]

the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.}}</ref> This optimism around "proletarian power" in the US presidency came to disappointment after Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson (another "son of the working class") proved more conciliatory with the formerly vanquished slaveholder oligarchy than to the freedmen. As Engels wrote to Marx in July 1865, "Mr. Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking [...] he is relinquishing all his power vis-a-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old seccessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd."<ref name=":1" />

Karl Marx's observations of the USian Civil War had dramatic impact on his thought and political theory. The war coincided with the development of the First International and with Marx's writing of ''[[Capital, vol. I (1867)|Das Kapital.]]'' The progression of Statesian slavery unto abolition informed Marx's own thoughts on proletarian revolution. The bourgeois class in every country was increasingly identified as slaveholders, and "free labor" cast as a veiled form of slavery.Marx came to see the liberation of all the world's most wretchedly enslaved to be ''primary'' in advancing class struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1867|title=Capital: A Critique of Political Economy|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|chapter=Chapter 10: The Working Day|section=Section 7: The Struggle for a Normal Working Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries|page=195|quote=In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

The General Congress of labour at Baltimore (August 16th, 1866) declared:
“The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the
normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put
forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained.”|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf|city=Moscow|publisher=Progress Publishers|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Karl Marx|newspaper=marxists.org|title=Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York|date=1870-04-09|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm|retrieved=2024-07-20|quote=Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English. [...]

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.

England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Karl Marx|year=1871|title=The Civil War in France|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf|page=12, 17, 36|quote=The English workmen call also upon their government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which a part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for. It is the same press that for 20 years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders’ rebellion. Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder. [...]

It was only by the violent overthrow of the republic that the appropriators of wealth could hope to shift onto the shoulders of its producers the cost of a war which they, the appropriators, had themselves originated. Thus, the immense ruin of France spurred on these patriotic representatives of land and capital, under the very eyes and patronage of the invader, to graft upon the foreign war a civil war – a slaveholders’ rebellion. [...]

To be burned down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world.

But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers, the only justifiable war in history, this is by no means to hold good! The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence.}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:History of the USA]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Civil wars]]

Chavismo

2024-07-19T22:26:59Z

BlueBodhisattva: Characterized Chavismo, "bottom up and top down" model of social change

{{distinguish|[[Chauvinism]]}}
'''''Chavismo''''' is the [[Progressivism|progressive]] political ideology of former [[Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela|Venezuelan]] president [[Hugo Chávez]] and his successor, [[Nicolás Maduro]]. A form of [[left-wing]] [[populism]], it combines ideas of [[democratic socialism]], [[socialist patriotism]], [[Bolivarianism]], and [[Latin American]] integration. Policies include [[nationalization]], social welfare, and opposition to [[imperialism]] and [[Neoliberalism|neoliberalism.]] ''Chavismo'' is considered an early example of what has come to be known as "[[socialism of the 21st century]]".<ref>{{Citation|author=Gregory Wilpert|year=2006-07-11|title=The Meaning of 21st Century Socialism for Venezuela|title-url=https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1834|chapter=|chapter-url=|mia=}} ''Venezuelanalysis.'' Retrieved 2023-08-21.</ref>

''Chavismo'' is not against [[Private property|private property,]] but seeks to promote collective ownership. It has been criticized by some [[socialist]]s, [[Communist|communists]] and [[Marxists]] as a form of [[state capitalism]], owing to the country's large private sector (70% of Venezuela's GDP was created by the private sector, as of 2009). Followers or adherents of ''Chavismo'' are known as ''Chavistas'' or ''Chavists.''

''Chavismo'' is a model of social change constructed "from above" and "from below."<ref name=":1">{{Web citation|author=Dario Azzellini|newspaper=NACLA|title=The Communal State: Communal Councils, Communes, and Workplace Democracy|date=2013-06-25|url=https://nacla.org/article/communal-state-communal-councils-communes-and-workplace-democracy|retrieved=2024-07-19}}</ref> Chávez's first actions as president featured the top-down replacement of the Council of Ministers,<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=Owain Johnson, et al.|year=2001|title=A Political Chronology of the Americas|chapter=Venezuela|section=2 February 1999|page=276|publisher=Europa Publications}}</ref> the "civic-military partnership" of Plan Bolivar 2000,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Digital Press Mippci|newspaper=Ministry of People's Power for Communication and Information|title=Efemérides {{!}} Hace 19 años inició la Revolución Bolivariana|date=2018-02-27|url=http://www.minci.gob.ve/efemerides-19-anos-se-lanzo-plan-bolivar-2000/}}</ref> and referendums for the convocation of a new Constituent Assembly and the adoption of a new constitution. These plans featured sweeping changes, particularly in the areas of public finance and land reform.<ref name=":2" /> The military, alongside civilian volunteers, was mobilized to, "conduct a census of the unemployed, provide medical care to the most needy, renovate schools, playgrounds, and ambulatory medical care centers, and clear garbage from streams and streets." The military also set up popular markets and programs for food distribution, new social welfare programs for the homeless, and mass vaccination campaigns.<ref>{{Citation|author=U.S. Embassy Caracas|year=1999|title=Venezuelan soldiers leave their barracks to implement Chavez's civil-military public works program|title-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128131730/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143547.pdf|city=Washington D.C.|publisher=U.S. Department of State}}</ref>

The "from above" and "from below" approach is characterized by autonomous, grassroots, local organizations meeting state directives and funding: "The main idea was to form council structures of all kinds (communal councils, communes, and communal cities, for example), as bottom up structures of self-administration. Councils of workers, students, peasants, and women, among others, would then have to cooperate and coordinate on a higher level in order to gradually replace the bourgeois state with a communal state [...] The communal councils are financed directly by national state institutions."<ref name=":1" />

In terms of the means of production and democratization of ownership, the ''Chavista'' approach has taken a few different directions. Since 1999, the Venezuelan government has promoted the proliferation of [[Worker cooperative|worker co-ops]] and asserted direct state control over the Venezuelan petroleum company ([[Petroleos de Venezuela|PDVSA]]). In 2005, the state began expropriating businesses directly in response to a strike-wave and attempted coup. With 2007, in a renewed pursuit of socialism after a successful reelection campaign, Chávez began promoting "[[Council communism|socialist workers' councils]], followed by the institution and promotion of Enterprises of Communal Social Property, enterprises that are owned and administrated by local communities.<ref name=":1" />

== Origins ==
''Chavismo'' is based on the teachings of [[Simón Bolívar]], [[Simón Rodríguez]], and [[Ezequiel Zamora]]. Bolívar fought for the sovereignty of Latin America, Zamora fought for the [[peasantry]] against the aristocratic [[ruling class]], and Rodríguez developed educational theories based on equality and originality.''<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|newspaper=[[Tricontinental]]|title=The Strategic Revolutionary Thought and Legacy of Hugo Chávez Ten Years After His Death|date=2023-02-28|url=https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-61-chavez/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230429215204/https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-61-chavez/|archive-date=2023-04-29}}</ref>''

== References ==
[[Category:Left-wing ideologies]]

Republic of the Congo

2024-07-03T09:55:40Z

BlueBodhisattva: Additional source

<blockquote>''Not to be confused with the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], a neighbouring country''</blockquote>{{Infobox country|name=Republic of the Congo|native_name=République du Congo Republíki ya Kongó Repubilika ya Kôngo|image_flag=Flag of the Republic of the Congo.svg|image_coat=Coat of arms of the Republic of the Congo.svg|capital=Brazzaville|largest_city=Brazzaville|government_type=Unitary semi-presidential republic|leader_title1=President|leader_name1=[[Denis Sassou Nguesso]]|leader_title2=Prime Minister|leader_name2=[[Anatole Collinet Makosso]]|image_map=Republic of the Congo (orthographic projection).svg|map_width=320px|demonym=Congolese|area_km2=342,000|population_estimate=5,677,493|population_estimate_year=2023}}
The '''Republic of the Congo''', also known as '''Congo-Brazzaville''' or '''Congo Republic''', is an [[Africa|African]] country bordered by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, [[Republic of Angola|Angola]], [[Gabonese Republic|Gabon]], [[Republic of Cameroon|Cameroon]], and the [[Central African Republic]].

== History ==
The "Republic of the Congo" gets its start first off with a deal between the French and Teke/Tio Kingdom on the north bank of the [[Congo River|Congo River.]]<ref>{{Citation|year=2011|title=Oxford Dictionary of African Biography|title-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195382075.001.0001/acref-9780195382075-e-1533?rskey=IawgSn&result=1535|section=Ngalifourou (1864–1956)}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Jan Vansina|year=1973|title=The Tio Kingdom of the Middle Congo, 1880-1892|title-url=https://archive.org/details/tiokingdomofmidd0000vans/page/n17/mode/2up?q=Iloo|chapter=Preface|page=n18}}</ref> This particular state establishes itself in the whirlwind of Central Africa's formal "decolonization" in response to [[Gaullist 1958 Referendum]]<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Journal officiel de la République française|title=PROCLAMATION des resultats des votes emis par le peuple francais a l'occasion de sa consultation par voie de referendum, le 28 septembre 1958.|date=1958-09-28|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UxAkAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA9177#v=onepage&q&f=false|retrieved=2024-07-03}}</ref> and declaration of independence in 1960.<ref name=":0" /> The original deal made with the Teke, or Anziku Kingdom, coalesced within these borders, around Brazzaville as its mouthpiece. The state, still "[[Francafrique]]" when it comes to currency<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|title-url=http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/ch05.htm|page=254|quote=The Bank of British West Africa (which became the Bank of West
Africa in 1957) and Barclays held between them the lion’s share of the
banking business of British West Africa, just as French West and
Equatorial Africa were shared out between the BAO and the BCA.}}</ref> or "official language,"<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|newspaper=CIA World Factbook|title=Congo, Republic of the|date=2021|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2021/countries/congo-republic-of-the/}}</ref> arose within a broader constellation of Central African "Francophone" colonial possessions.

Throughout its colonized history, Congo-Brazzaville has served as a vital port for significant raw material wealth exports in copper and petroleum resources.<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|page=280|quote=It should not be forgotten that outside of Southern Africa, there were
also significant mining operations during the colonial period. In North
Africa, foreign capital exploited natural resources of phosphates, oil,
lead, zinc, manganese and iron ore. In Guinea, Sierra Leone and
Liberia, there were important workings of gold, diamonds, iron ore and
bauxite. To all that should be added the tin of Nigeria, the gold and
manganese of Ghana, the gold and diamonds of Tanganyika, and the
copper of Uganda and Congo-Brazzaville.}}</ref><ref name=":0" />
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:African countries]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Republic_of_the_Congo}}

Republic of the Congo

2024-07-03T09:47:36Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added missing citation

<blockquote>''Not to be confused with the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], a neighbouring country''</blockquote>{{Infobox country|name=Republic of the Congo|native_name=République du Congo Republíki ya Kongó Repubilika ya Kôngo|image_flag=Flag of the Republic of the Congo.svg|image_coat=Coat of arms of the Republic of the Congo.svg|capital=Brazzaville|largest_city=Brazzaville|government_type=Unitary semi-presidential republic|leader_title1=President|leader_name1=[[Denis Sassou Nguesso]]|leader_title2=Prime Minister|leader_name2=[[Anatole Collinet Makosso]]|image_map=Republic of the Congo (orthographic projection).svg|map_width=320px|demonym=Congolese|area_km2=342,000|population_estimate=5,677,493|population_estimate_year=2023}}
The '''Republic of the Congo''', also known as '''Congo-Brazzaville''' or '''Congo Republic''', is an [[Africa|African]] country bordered by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, [[Republic of Angola|Angola]], [[Gabonese Republic|Gabon]], [[Republic of Cameroon|Cameroon]], and the [[Central African Republic]].

== History ==
The "Republic of the Congo" gets its start first off with a deal between the French and Teke Kingdom on the north bank of the [[Congo River|Congo River.]]<ref>{{Citation|year=2011|title=Oxford Dictionary of African Biography|title-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195382075.001.0001/acref-9780195382075-e-1533?rskey=IawgSn&result=1535|section=Ngalifourou (1864–1956)}}</ref> This particular state establishes itself in the whirlwind of Central Africa's formal "decolonization" in response to [[Gaullist 1958 Referendum]]<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Journal officiel de la République française|title=PROCLAMATION des resultats des votes emis par le peuple francais a l'occasion de sa consultation par voie de referendum, le 28 septembre 1958.|date=1958-09-28|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UxAkAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA9177#v=onepage&q&f=false|retrieved=2024-07-03}}</ref> and declaration of independence in 1960.<ref name=":0" /> The original deal made with the Teke, or Anziku Kingdom, coalesced within these borders, around Brazzaville as its mouthpiece. The state, still "[[Francafrique]]" when it comes to currency<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|title-url=http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/ch05.htm|page=254|quote=The Bank of British West Africa (which became the Bank of West
Africa in 1957) and Barclays held between them the lion’s share of the
banking business of British West Africa, just as French West and
Equatorial Africa were shared out between the BAO and the BCA.}}</ref> or "official language,"<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|newspaper=CIA World Factbook|title=Congo, Republic of the|date=2021|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2021/countries/congo-republic-of-the/}}</ref> arose within a broader constellation of Central African "Francophone" colonial possessions.

Throughout its colonized history, Congo-Brazzaville has served as a vital port for significant raw material wealth exports in copper and petroleum resources.<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|page=280|quote=It should not be forgotten that outside of Southern Africa, there were
also significant mining operations during the colonial period. In North
Africa, foreign capital exploited natural resources of phosphates, oil,
lead, zinc, manganese and iron ore. In Guinea, Sierra Leone and
Liberia, there were important workings of gold, diamonds, iron ore and
bauxite. To all that should be added the tin of Nigeria, the gold and
manganese of Ghana, the gold and diamonds of Tanganyika, and the
copper of Uganda and Congo-Brazzaville.}}</ref><ref name=":0" />
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:African countries]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Republic_of_the_Congo}}

Republic of the Congo

2024-07-03T09:38:47Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added an early history section and (very) broad overview of colonial-neocolonial period

<blockquote>''Not to be confused with the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], a neighbouring country''</blockquote>{{Infobox country|name=Republic of the Congo|native_name=République du Congo Republíki ya Kongó Repubilika ya Kôngo|image_flag=Flag of the Republic of the Congo.svg|image_coat=Coat of arms of the Republic of the Congo.svg|capital=Brazzaville|largest_city=Brazzaville|government_type=Unitary semi-presidential republic|leader_title1=President|leader_name1=[[Denis Sassou Nguesso]]|leader_title2=Prime Minister|leader_name2=[[Anatole Collinet Makosso]]|image_map=Republic of the Congo (orthographic projection).svg|map_width=320px|demonym=Congolese|area_km2=342,000|population_estimate=5,677,493|population_estimate_year=2023}}
The '''Republic of the Congo''', also known as '''Congo-Brazzaville''' or '''Congo Republic''', is an [[Africa|African]] country bordered by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, [[Republic of Angola|Angola]], [[Gabonese Republic|Gabon]], [[Republic of Cameroon|Cameroon]], and the [[Central African Republic]].

== History ==
The "Republic of the Congo" gets its start first off with a deal between the French and Teke Kingdom on the north bank of the [[Congo River|Congo River.]]<ref>{{Citation|year=2011|title=Oxford Dictionary of African Biography|title-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195382075.001.0001/acref-9780195382075-e-1533?rskey=IawgSn&result=1535|section=Ngalifourou (1864–1956)}}</ref> This particular state establishes itself in the whirlwind of Central Africa's formal "decolonization" in response to [[Gaullist 1958 Referendum]] and declaration of independence in 1960. The original deal made with the Teke, or Anziku Kingdom, coalesced within these borders, around Brazzaville as its mouthpiece. The state, still "[[Francafrique]]" when it comes to currency<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|title-url=http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/ch05.htm|page=254|quote=The Bank of British West Africa (which became the Bank of West
Africa in 1957) and Barclays held between them the lion’s share of the
banking business of British West Africa, just as French West and
Equatorial Africa were shared out between the BAO and the BCA.}}</ref> or "official language,"<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|newspaper=CIA World Factbook|title=Congo, Republic of the|date=2021|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2021/countries/congo-republic-of-the/}}</ref> arose within a broader constellation of Central African "Francophone" colonial possessions.

Throughout its colonized history, Congo-Brazzaville has served as a vital port for significant raw material wealth exports in copper and petroleum resources.<ref>{{Citation|author=Walter Rodney|year=1972|title=How Europe Underdeveloped Africa|page=280|quote=It should not be forgotten that outside of Southern Africa, there were
also significant mining operations during the colonial period. In North
Africa, foreign capital exploited natural resources of phosphates, oil,
lead, zinc, manganese and iron ore. In Guinea, Sierra Leone and
Liberia, there were important workings of gold, diamonds, iron ore and
bauxite. To all that should be added the tin of Nigeria, the gold and
manganese of Ghana, the gold and diamonds of Tanganyika, and the
copper of Uganda and Congo-Brazzaville.}}</ref><ref name=":0" />
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:African countries]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Republic_of_the_Congo}}

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-30T02:47:29Z

BlueBodhisattva: added link

{{Infobox political party|name=Jordanian Communist Party|native_name=الحزب الشیوعی الاردنی|logo=Jordanian Communist Party logo.png|founded=1948|abbreviation=JCP|leader=[[Saud Qubailat]]|headquarters=[[Amman]]|newspaper=al-Jamahir|political_orientation=[[Communism]]|international=[[IMCWP]]|flag=JCPF.svg.png}}{{Communist Parties}}
The '''Jordanian Communist Party''' ('''JCP'''), is a [[Communism|communist]] party in [[Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan|Jordan]].

== History ==
Grew out of the [[National Liberation League]] in [[State of Palestine|Palestine]]. Became the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP) in 1951, after a name change and recognition of Transjordan sovereignty.<ref>{{Citation|author=Laura Feliu Martinez, Ferran Izquierdo Brichs|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 years of History|page=137|quote=The Arab communists in eastern Palestine, the area which fell under Jordanian rule in 1948 and came to be known as the West Bank, continued to operate under the name of the National Liberation League. [...] Again in 1951 they called for a boycott of parliamentary elections. Soon, however, they made their peace with the new
reality of Jordanian control in eastern Palestine and in May 1951 changed their name to the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP).|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> Experienced many splits throughout its history, which has contributed to the weakness of the Jordanian left.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=Musa M. Shteiwi|year=2014|title=Mapping of the Arab Left|title-url=https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/Mapping_of_Arab_Left-%D9%90English.pdf|chapter=The Jordanian Left: Today’s Realities and Future Prospects|section=A Conceptual Overview of the
Jordanian Left|page=63|quote=The Jordanian left emerged with the formation of the Jordanian Communist Party, which was founded in april 1951 (after the Palestinian Nakba in 1948).

It is considered the mother of the left in Jordan although it witnessed many splits due to internal and regional factors which made the Jordanian left very weak|publisher=Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung}}</ref> The JCP was forced underground by the Jordanian government in 1957. During the next decade underground, between 1957 and 1967, the JCP experienced an internal division over peaceful versus armed struggle. "Accommodationist" leaders within the JCP ([[Fahmi Salfiti]]), opposed the "adventurist tendencies" that had proliferated (really, this "adventurism" reflected a broad mass call for militant, armed struggle) in the aftermath of the [[Six-Day War]]. The militant wing of the party, led by Fu'ad Nassar, led a short-lived commando organization within the JCP.<ref>{{Citation|author=Weldon C. Matthew|year=1998|title=The Rise and Demise of the Left in West Bank Politics: The Case of the Palestine National Front|title-url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858265?seq=3|page=15|quote=Although illegal in Jordan as either the NLL or the JCP, the communists remained active through various front organizations. They were forced further underground when the Jordanian government banned all political parties in 1957 in response to the wave of anti-imperialist enthusiasm which swept the Arab world after the Suez War.

In the period of underground activity, the JCP developed two wings. One, led by Fahmi al-Salfiti, adopted an accommodationist policy toward the Jordanian regime. Al-Salfiti denigrated the method of armed struggle generally, and particularly disdained Fatah, which he considered to have been influenced by the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood. The second wing of the movement, under Fu'ad Nassar, favored guerrilla activities, and, in 1969, formed the commando organization al- Ansar, which survived only three years|publisher=Arab Studies Quarterly|volume=20}}</ref>

The conservative leadership of the JCP could not maintain its stance against militant mass attitudes, as a "rising radical tide" united both secular/left nationalists and [[Jihad|liberation jihadists]] toward armed struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Musa Budeiri|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 Years of History|chapter=Class and nation|section=7. The transformation of Palestinian communists into Jordanian communists|page=140-141|quote=In practical terms the JCP was standing up for the integrity of the Jordanian state and the monarchical regime, refusing to join the chorus which clamoured for a people’s liberation war and revolutionary transformation. Its watchword became encapsulated in the expression ‘removing the effects of the aggression’. Yet despite the best of intentions it could not avoid being gradually swept along the rising radical tide which saw armed struggle as the only viable political strategy in the conflict with Israel. A split within the top echelons of the party took place with a conservative minority in the leadership refusing to bow to the militant wave engulfing the region and indeed the party. The entrenchment of numerous Palestinian guerrilla groups in Amman, whose numbers mushroomed as a result of the thousands of volunteers who flocked to their ranks from both Jordan’s Palestinian refugee camps and the neighbouring Arab countries, had fundamentally transformed Jordan’s political situation. If the party wanted to remain relevant or indeed survive, and to capitalize on the new atmosphere which allowed for political competition right across the political spectrum stretching from religious fundamentalists to the proponents of workers and peasant Soviets, it was constrained to go with the tide.|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> From 1967 to 1970 (culminating in [[Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan|Black September]]), the JCP was swept in with the wave of Palestinian fedayeen activity, although the JCP remained a rival to the PLO. After the end of Nassar's commando organization, the party participated mainly in the trade union struggle throughout the Jordanian ban on political/partisan activity. PLO factions in Jordan monopolized illegal political struggle until 1970, when the PLO withdrew from Jordan. The [[Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine|DFLP]] and other PLO activists still in Jordan were the bases of today's [[Jordanian Democratic People’s Party (HASHD)]] and [[Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party]].<ref name=":0" /> Today, the JCP protests against Jordan's normalization with the [[State of Israel|Zionist Entity.]]<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=Jordanians protest import of Israeli gas|date=2020-01-07|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/01/07/jordanians-protest-import-of-israeli-gas/|retrieved=2024-04-14}}</ref> The party perceives the Jordanian masses as integral to the Palestinian struggle and supports Jordanians in the street protesting against the [[Zionism|Zionist]] response to [[Operation Al-Aqsa Flood]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Abdul Rahman|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=In Jordan, mass protests for Palestine express “a general popular sentiment”|date=2023-11-17|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/11/17/in-jordan-mass-protests-for-palestine-express-a-general-popular-sentiment/|retrieved=2024-04-14|quote=Abo Zineddin notes that, “the Jordanian street is demanding its government, and all Arab countries, to cancel relations with the occupation and support Palestinian resistance forces, on the basis that resisting the occupier is a legitimate right of the people according to international law.” [...]

"In Jordan, we say that we do not stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, but we are an essential part of it. The prevailing feeling is that it is one issue and one struggle" Abo Zineddin concludes.}}</ref> The JCP supports the [[Axis of Resistance|resistance movement]] and has organized protests in support of [[Hamas]]'s operations and [[Islamic Republic of Iran|Iran]]'s responses to Zionist aggression (namely the "slap" antagonized by the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Katrina Sammour|newspaper=Emirates Policy Center|title=Jordan and the Gaza War: Few Options and Many Consequences|date=2023-11-29|url=https://epc.ae/en/details/featured/jordan-and-the-gaza-war-few-options-and-many-consequences|retrieved=2024-04-14|quote=Dozens of large protests have been held in Jordanian cities, including in front of the empty Israeli embassy in Amman. Some protestors even tried to storm the embassy. Some protests were spontaneous, and many others were organized and led by political parties, most notably the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jordan’s largest political party, and the Jordanian Communist Party.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Facebook|title=Jordanian Communist Party - Youth and Student Office|date=2024-04-14|url=https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=638174201858582&id=100069980228174}}</ref>

== References ==

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-15T02:50:23Z

BlueBodhisattva: removed awkward spacing

Grew out of the [[National Liberation League]] in [[State of Palestine|Palestine]]. Became the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP) in 1951, after a name change and recognition of [[Jordan|Transjordan]] sovereignty.<ref>{{Citation|author=Laura Feliu Martinez, Ferran Izquierdo Brichs|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 years of History|page=137|quote=The Arab communists in eastern Palestine, the area which fell under Jordanian rule in 1948 and came to be known as the West Bank, continued to operate under the name of the National Liberation League. [...] Again in 1951 they called for a boycott of parliamentary elections. Soon, however, they made their peace with the new
reality of Jordanian control in eastern Palestine and in May 1951 changed their name to the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP).|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> Experienced many splits throughout its history, which has contributed to the weakness of the Jordanian left.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=Musa M. Shteiwi|year=2014|title=Mapping of the Arab Left|title-url=https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/Mapping_of_Arab_Left-%D9%90English.pdf|chapter=The Jordanian Left: Today’s Realities and Future Prospects|section=A Conceptual Overview of the
Jordanian Left|page=63|quote=The Jordanian left emerged with the formation of the Jordanian Communist Party, which was founded in april 1951 (after the Palestinian Nakba in 1948).

It is considered the mother of the left in Jordan although it witnessed many splits due to internal and regional factors which made the Jordanian left very weak|publisher=Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung}}</ref> The JCP was forced underground by the Jordanian government in 1957. During the next decade underground, between 1957 and 1967, the JCP experienced an internal division over peaceful versus armed struggle. "Accommodationist" leaders within the JCP ([[Fahmi Salfiti]]), opposed the "adventurist tendencies" that had proliferated (really, this "adventurism" reflected a broad mass call for militant, armed struggle) in the aftermath of the [[Six-Day War]]. The militant wing of the party, led by Fu'ad Nassar, led a short-lived commando organization within the JCP.<ref>{{Citation|author=Weldon C. Matthew|year=1998|title=The Rise and Demise of the Left in West Bank Politics: The Case of the Palestine National Front|title-url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858265?seq=3|page=15|quote=Although illegal in Jordan as either the NLL or the JCP, the communists remained active through various front organizations. They were forced further underground when the Jordanian government banned all political parties in 1957 in response to the wave of anti-imperialist enthusiasm which swept the Arab world after the Suez War.

In the period of underground activity, the JCP developed two wings. One, led by Fahmi al-Salfiti, adopted an accommodationist policy toward the Jordanian regime. Al-Salfiti denigrated the method of armed struggle generally, and particularly disdained Fatah, which he considered to have been influenced by the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood. The second wing of the movement, under Fu'ad Nassar, favored guerrilla activities, and, in 1969, formed the commando organization al- Ansar, which survived only three years|publisher=Arab Studies Quarterly|volume=20}}</ref>

{{Infobox political party|name=Jordanian Communist Party|native_name=الحزب الشیوعی الاردنی|founded=1951|international=IMCWP}}

The conservative leadership of the JCP could not maintain its stance against militant mass attitudes, as a "rising radical tide" united both secular/left nationalists and [[Jihad|liberation jihadists]] toward armed struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Musa Budeiri|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 Years of History|chapter=Class and nation|section=7. The transformation of Palestinian communists into Jordanian communists|page=140-141|quote=In practical terms the JCP was standing up for the integrity of the Jordanian state and the monarchical regime, refusing to join the chorus which clamoured for a people’s liberation war and revolutionary transformation. Its watchword became encapsulated in the expression ‘removing the effects of the aggression’. Yet despite the best of intentions it could not avoid being gradually swept along the rising radical tide which saw armed struggle as the only viable political strategy in the conflict with Israel. A split within the top echelons of the party took place with a conservative minority in the leadership refusing to bow to the militant wave engulfing the region and indeed the party. The entrenchment of numerous Palestinian guerrilla groups in Amman, whose numbers mushroomed as a result of the thousands of volunteers who flocked to their ranks from both Jordan’s Palestinian refugee camps and the neighbouring Arab countries, had fundamentally transformed Jordan’s political situation. If the party wanted to remain relevant or indeed survive, and to capitalize on the new atmosphere which allowed for political competition right across the political spectrum stretching from religious fundamentalists to the proponents of workers and peasant Soviets, it was constrained to go with the tide.|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> From 1967 to 1970 (culminating in [[Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan|Black September]]), the JCP was swept in with the wave of Palestinian fedayeen activity, although the JCP remained a rival to the PLO. After the end of Nassar's commando organization, the party participated mainly in the trade union struggle throughout the Jordanian ban on political/partisan activity. PLO factions in Jordan monopolized illegal political struggle until 1970, when the PLO withdrew from Jordan. The [[Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine|DFLP]] and other PLO activists still in Jordan were the bases of today's [[Jordanian Democratic People’s Party (HASHD)]] and [[Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party]].<ref name=":0" /> Today, the JCP protests against Jordan's normalization with the [[State of Israel|Zionist Entity.]]<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=Jordanians protest import of Israeli gas|date=2020-01-07|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/01/07/jordanians-protest-import-of-israeli-gas/|retrieved=2024-04-14}}</ref> The party perceives the Jordanian masses as integral to the Palestinian struggle and supports Jordanians in the street protesting against the zionist response to [[Operation Al-Aqsa Flood]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Abdul Rahman|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=In Jordan, mass protests for Palestine express “a general popular sentiment”|date=2023-11-17|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/11/17/in-jordan-mass-protests-for-palestine-express-a-general-popular-sentiment/|retrieved=2024-04-14|quote=Abo Zineddin notes that, “the Jordanian street is demanding its government, and all Arab countries, to cancel relations with the occupation and support Palestinian resistance forces, on the basis that resisting the occupier is a legitimate right of the people according to international law.” [...]

"In Jordan, we say that we do not stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, but we are an essential part of it. The prevailing feeling is that it is one issue and one struggle" Abo Zineddin concludes.}}</ref> The JCP supports the [[Axis of Resistance|resistance movement]] and has organized protests in support of [[Hamas]]'s operations and Iran's responses to zionist aggression (namely the "slap" antagonized by the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus).<ref>{{Web citation|author=Katrina Sammour|newspaper=Emirates Policy Center|title=Jordan and the Gaza War: Few Options and Many Consequences|date=2023-11-29|url=https://epc.ae/en/details/featured/jordan-and-the-gaza-war-few-options-and-many-consequences|retrieved=2024-04-14|quote=Dozens of large protests have been held in Jordanian cities, including in front of the empty Israeli embassy in Amman. Some protestors even tried to storm the embassy. Some protests were spontaneous, and many others were organized and led by political parties, most notably the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jordan’s largest political party, and the Jordanian Communist Party.}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Facebook|title=Jordanian Communist Party - Youth and Student Office|date=2024-04-14|url=https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=638174201858582&id=100069980228174}}</ref> {{Communist Parties}}

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-15T02:19:43Z

BlueBodhisattva: Some more context on current activities.

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-15T01:53:42Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added infobox

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-15T01:40:03Z

BlueBodhisattva: Updated with contemporary activities of the Communist Party of Jordan

Grew out of the [[National Liberation League]] in [[State of Palestine|Palestine]]. Became the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP) in 1951, after a name change and recognition of [[Jordan|Transjordan]] sovereignty.<ref>{{Citation|author=Laura Feliu Martinez, Ferran Izquierdo Brichs|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 years of History|page=137|quote=The Arab communists in eastern Palestine, the area which fell under Jordanian rule in 1948 and came to be known as the West Bank, continued to operate under the name of the National Liberation League. [...] Again in 1951 they called for a boycott of parliamentary elections. Soon, however, they made their peace with the new
reality of Jordanian control in eastern Palestine and in May 1951 changed their name to the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP).|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> Experienced many splits throughout its history, which has contributed to the weakness of the Jordanian left.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=Musa M. Shteiwi|year=2014|title=Mapping of the Arab Left|title-url=https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/Mapping_of_Arab_Left-%D9%90English.pdf|chapter=The Jordanian Left: Today’s Realities and Future Prospects|section=A Conceptual Overview of the
Jordanian Left|page=63|quote=The Jordanian left emerged with the formation of the Jordanian Communist Party, which was founded in april 1951 (after the Palestinian Nakba in 1948).

It is considered the mother of the left in Jordan although it witnessed many splits due to internal and regional factors which made the Jordanian left very weak|publisher=Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung}}</ref> The JCP was forced underground by the Jordanian government in 1957. During the next decade underground, between 1957 and 1967, the JCP experienced an internal division over peaceful versus armed struggle. "Accommodationist" leaders within the JCP ([[Fahmi Salfiti]]), opposed the "adventurist tendencies" that had proliferated (really, this "adventurism" reflected a broad mass call for militant, armed struggle) in the aftermath of the [[Six-Day War]]. The militant wing of the party, led by Fu'ad Nassar, led a short-lived commando organization within the JCP.<ref>{{Citation|author=Weldon C. Matthew|year=1998|title=The Rise and Demise of the Left in West Bank Politics: The Case of the Palestine National Front|title-url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858265?seq=3|page=15|quote=Although illegal in Jordan as either the NLL or the JCP, the communists remained active through various front organizations. They were forced further underground when the Jordanian government banned all political parties in 1957 in response to the wave of anti-imperialist enthusiasm which swept the Arab world after the Suez War.

In the period of underground activity, the JCP developed two wings. One, led by Fahmi al-Salfiti, adopted an accommodationist policy toward the Jordanian regime. Al-Salfiti denigrated the method of armed struggle generally, and particularly disdained Fatah, which he considered to have been influenced by the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood. The second wing of the movement, under Fu'ad Nassar, favored guerrilla activities, and, in 1969, formed the commando organization al- Ansar, which survived only three years|publisher=Arab Studies Quarterly|volume=20}}</ref>

The conservative leadership of the JCP could not maintain its stance against militant mass attitudes, as a "rising radical tide" united both secular/left nationalists and [[Jihad|liberation jihadists]] toward armed struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Musa Budeiri|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 Years of History|chapter=Class and nation|section=7. The transformation of Palestinian communists into Jordanian communists|page=140-141|quote=In practical terms the JCP was standing up for the integrity of the Jordanian state and the monarchical regime, refusing to join the chorus which clamoured for a people’s liberation war and revolutionary transformation. Its watchword became encapsulated in the expression ‘removing the effects of the aggression’. Yet despite the best of intentions it could not avoid being gradually swept along the rising radical tide which saw armed struggle as the only viable political strategy in the conflict with Israel. A split within the top echelons of the party took place with a conservative minority in the leadership refusing to bow to the militant wave engulfing the region and indeed the party. The entrenchment of numerous Palestinian guerrilla groups in Amman, whose numbers mushroomed as a result of the thousands of volunteers who flocked to their ranks from both Jordan’s Palestinian refugee camps and the neighbouring Arab countries, had fundamentally transformed Jordan’s political situation. If the party wanted to remain relevant or indeed survive, and to capitalize on the new atmosphere which allowed for political competition right across the political spectrum stretching from religious fundamentalists to the proponents of workers and peasant Soviets, it was constrained to go with the tide.|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> From 1967 to 1970 (culminating in [[Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan|Black September]]), the JCP was swept in with the wave of Palestinian fedayeen activity, although the JCP remained a rival to the PLO. After the end of Nassar's commando organization, the party participated mainly in the trade union struggle throughout the Jordanian ban on political/partisan activity. PLO factions in Jordan monopolized illegal political struggle until 1970, when the PLO withdrew from Jordan. The [[Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine|DFLP]] and other PLO activists still in Jordan were the bases of today's [[Jordanian Democratic People’s Party (HASHD)]] and [[Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party]].<ref name=":0" /> Today, the JCP protests against Jordan's normalization with the [[State of Israel|Zionist Entity.]]<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=Jordanians protest import of Israeli gas|date=2020-01-07|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/01/07/jordanians-protest-import-of-israeli-gas/|retrieved=2024-04-14}}</ref> The party perceives the Jordanian masses as integral to the Palestinian struggle and supports Jordanians in the street protesting against the zionist response to [[Operation Al-Aqsa Flood]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=Abdul Rahman|newspaper=Peoples Dispatch|title=In Jordan, mass protests for Palestine express “a general popular sentiment”|date=2023-11-17|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/11/17/in-jordan-mass-protests-for-palestine-express-a-general-popular-sentiment/|retrieved=2024-04-14|quote=Abo Zineddin notes that, “the Jordanian street is demanding its government, and all Arab countries, to cancel relations with the occupation and support Palestinian resistance forces, on the basis that resisting the occupier is a legitimate right of the people according to international law.” [...]

"In Jordan, we say that we do not stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, but we are an essential part of it. The prevailing feeling is that it is one issue and one struggle" Abo Zineddin concludes.}}</ref> {{Communist Parties}}

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-14T19:19:44Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added more sources, reworded clumsy framing

Grew out of the [[National Liberation League]] in Palestine. Became the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP) in 1951, after a name change and recognition of [[Jordan|Transjordan]] sovereignty.<ref>{{Citation|author=Laura Feliu Martinez, Ferran Izquierdo Brichs|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 years of History|page=137|quote=The Arab communists in eastern Palestine, the area which fell under Jordanian rule in 1948 and came to be known as the West Bank, continued to operate under the name of the National Liberation League. [...] Again in 1951 they called for a boycott of parliamentary elections. Soon, however, they made their peace with the new
reality of Jordanian control in eastern Palestine and in May 1951 changed their name to the Jordanian Communist Party (JCP).|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> Experienced many splits throughout its history, which has contributed to the weakness of the Jordanian left.<ref>{{Citation|author=Musa M. Shteiwi|year=2014|title=Mapping of the Arab Left|title-url=https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/Mapping_of_Arab_Left-%D9%90English.pdf|chapter=The Jordanian Left: Today’s Realities and Future Prospects|section=A Conceptual Overview of the
Jordanian Left|page=63|quote=The Jordanian left emerged with the formation of the Jordanian Communist Party, which was founded in april 1951 (after the Palestinian Nakba in 1948).

It is considered the mother of the left in Jordan although it witnessed many splits due to internal and regional factors which made the Jordanian left very weak|publisher=Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung}}</ref> The JCP was forced underground by the Jordanian government in 1957. During the next decade underground, between 1957 and 1967, the JCP experienced an internal division over peaceful versus armed struggle. "Accommodationist" leaders within the JCP ([[Fahmi Salfiti]]), opposed the "adventurist tendencies" that had proliferated (really, this "adventurism" reflected a broad mass call for militant, armed struggle) in the aftermath of the [[Six-Day War]]. The militant wing of the party, led by Fu'ad Nassar, led a short-lived commando organization within the JCP.<ref>{{Citation|author=Weldon C. Matthew|year=1998|title=The Rise and Demise of the Left in West Bank Politics: The Case of the Palestine National Front|title-url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858265?seq=3|page=15|quote=Although illegal in Jordan as either the NLL or the JCP, the communists remained active through various front organizations. They were forced further underground when the Jordanian government banned all political parties in 1957 in response to the wave of anti-imperialist enthusiasm which swept the Arab world after the Suez War.

In the period of underground activity, the JCP developed two wings. One, led by Fahmi al-Salfiti, adopted an accommodationist policy toward the Jordanian regime. Al-Salfiti denigrated the method of armed struggle generally, and particularly disdained Fatah, which he considered to have been influenced by the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood. The second wing of the movement, under Fu'ad Nassar, favored guerrilla activities, and, in 1969, formed the commando organization al- Ansar, which survived only three years|publisher=Arab Studies Quarterly|volume=20}}</ref>

The conservative leadership of the JCP could not maintain its stance against militant mass attitudes, as a "rising radical tide" united both secular/left nationalists and [[Jihad|liberation jihadists]] toward armed struggle.<ref>{{Citation|author=Musa Budeiri|year=2019|title=Communist Parties in the Middle East: 100 Years of History|chapter=Class and nation|section=7. The transformation of Palestinian communists into Jordanian communists|page=140-141|quote=In practical terms the JCP was standing up for the integrity of the Jordanian state and the monarchical regime, refusing to join the chorus which clamoured for a people’s liberation war and revolutionary transformation. Its watchword became encapsulated in the expression ‘removing the effects of the aggression’. Yet despite the best of intentions it could not avoid being gradually swept along the rising radical tide which saw armed struggle as the only viable political strategy in the conflict with Israel. A split within the top echelons of the party took place with a conservative minority in the leadership refusing to bow to the militant wave engulfing the region and indeed the party. The entrenchment of numerous Palestinian guerrilla groups in Amman, whose numbers mushroomed as a result of the thousands of volunteers who flocked to their ranks from both Jordan’s Palestinian refugee camps and the neighbouring Arab countries, had fundamentally transformed Jordan’s political situation. If the party wanted to remain relevant or indeed survive, and to capitalize on the new atmosphere which allowed for political competition right across the political spectrum stretching from religious fundamentalists to the proponents of workers and peasant Soviets, it was constrained to go with the tide.|pdf=https://azzachararabaydoun.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/communist-parties-in-the-middle-east-100-years-of-history-by-laura-feliu-editor-ferran-izquierdo-editor-z-lib.org_-5.pdf-1-5.pdf|publisher=Routledge}}</ref> {{Communist Parties}}

Jordanian Communist Party

2024-04-14T00:30:07Z

BlueBodhisattva: Introduction Paragraph

Africa

2024-04-01T06:25:18Z

BlueBodhisattva: Removed language of "dependence" from description of medieval trade relations between West Africa, Arab caravans, and the Mediterranean. Even the source text does not mention "dependence," rather it says "indirect catalyst of development."

{{Infobox country|name=Africa|largest_city=Cairo|image_map=Africa Map.png|image_map_size=260|area_km2=30,370,000|population_estimate=1,275,920,972|population_estimate_year=2018}}

'''Africa''' is the second-largest and second-most populated continent on Earth. Africa has a population of approximately 1.4 billion people, around 16.72% of the total world population.<ref>[https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/ “Population of Africa (2023) - Worldometer.”] 2023. Worldometers.info. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230321052722/https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/ Archived] 2023-03-21.</ref> To its north is [[Europe]], to its south is [[Antarctica]], and to its northeast is [[Asia]]. There are 54 countries in Africa, with [[Federal Republic of Nigeria|Nigeria]] being the most populous.<ref name=":1">Shvili, Jason. [https://www.worldatlas.com/geography/regions-of-africa.html “Regions of Africa.”] WorldAtlas. May 24, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20221215111314/https://www.worldatlas.com/geography/regions-of-africa.html Archived 2022-12-15].</ref>

Africa is one of the most abundant areas in natural resources, as well as biodiversity. It also has a wide variety of climate zones. It has historically been one of the most [[Imperialism|imperialized]] parts of the world, and many African countries suffer from [[neocolonialism]] to this day.

34 of the 50 poorest countries in the world are in Africa, and 40% of Africans live on less than $1 per day. Africa suffers disproportionately from [[climate change]] despite only causing 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.<ref>{{Web citation|date=2023-03-20|title=Cyclone Freddy underscores inequalities – reparations for Africa!|url=https://www.workers.org/2023/03/69956/|newspaper=[[Workers World]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230322201711/https://www.workers.org/2023/03/69956/|archive-date=2023-03-22|retrieved=2023-03-30}}</ref>

== Regions ==
Africa is commonly divided into five major regions: [[North Africa]], [[West Africa]], [[East Africa]], [[Middle Africa]](or Central Africa), and [[Southern Africa]]. Northern Africa is the largest of the subregions by land area. East Africa is the most populous subregion of Africa.<ref name=":1" />

Africa is also commonly divided into North Africa and [[Sub-Saharan Africa]], with their location relative to the [[Sahara Desert]] serving to define the divide. A semi-arid belt known as the [[Sahel]] forms an area of transition between these two major zones.

North Africa may also be grouped with the Middle East in certain contexts. This grouping is sometimes abbreviated as MENA (Middle East-North Africa).

== History ==

=== Antiquity ===

==== West Africa ====
Starting around 1000 BCE, trade routes connected West Africa to the Mediterranean Sea. Africa traded gold, iron, salt, ivory, and [[Slavery|slaves]] northward while knowledge of iron tools and cattle herding spread to Africa from Europe and Asia. Ironworking began in the Nok culture of [[Nigeria]] as early as 450 BCE, and advanced pottery also developed around this time. Bantu-speaking migrants spread cattle and iron to East Africa in the late first millennium BCE and then spread into Southern Africa by 500 CE.

The [[Ghana Empire]], which extended across 800 km of West Africa at its peak, constructed the trading town of Jenne-Jeno on an island in the Niger river around 400 CE and surrounded it with a 2-km brick wall.<ref name=":0222">{{Citation|author=Neil Faulkner|year=2013|title=A Marxist History of the World: From Neanderthals to Neoliberals|chapter=The Medieval World|page=69–70|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedljwr5izotdclz23o3c5p4di4t3ero3ncbfytip55slhiz4otuls?filename=Neil%20Faulkner%20-%20A%20Marxist%20History%20of%20the%20World_%20From%20Neanderthals%20to%20Neoliberals-Pluto%20Press%20%282013%29.pdf|publisher=Pluto Press|isbn=9781849648639|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=91CA6C708BFE15444FE27899217FBA8E}}</ref>

==== East Africa ====
The [[Kingdom of Kush]] controlled much of what is now Sudan between 900 BCE and 325 CE and defeated Egyptian, Greek, and Roman invaders before being overthrown by the Ethiopians. The state of [[Kingdom of Aksum|Axum]] on the Red Sea became an important trading power and remained [[Christianity|Christian]] during the [[Islam|Islamic]] conquests.<ref name=":0222" />

=== Middle ages ===
Arab influence spread across Africa between the eighth and 12th centuries CE. The Arabs established trading settlements such as Kilwa on the eastern coast of Africa and enriched the town of Timbuktu. Between 1200 and 1750, a series of trading states include the [[Mali Empire|Mali]] and [[Songhai Empire|Songhai]] empires rose and fell in West Africa. Coastal trade also fueled the East African civilization of Great Zimbabwe, whose economy relied on cattle, gold, iron, copper, and tin. Trade stimulated the development of African civilizations, as it does everywhere with any given culture. The trading states along the Niger river relied on a Saharan network that could bring West African gold, iron, slaves, salt, and ivory to the Mediterranean, which in turn brought Mediterranean innovations to these trading states (manufactured goods and cattle husbandry).<ref name=":0222" />

These trade states benefited from a confluence of accessibility to Arab traders and the vital conduit of the [[Niger River]].

=== European colonialism ===
[[File:Africa colonization map.png|thumb|358x358px|European colonization of Africa between 1880 and 1913]]
During the [[Long Depression]], European powers greatly increased their colonial efforts in Africa in order to obtain raw materials and new markets. The percentage of Africa under European occupation grew from 10% in 1876 to more than 90% in 1900.<ref name=":02222">{{Citation|author=Neil Faulkner|year=2013|title=A Marxist History of the World: From Neanderthals to Neoliberals|chapter=The Age of Blood and Iron|page=166–167|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedljwr5izotdclz23o3c5p4di4t3ero3ncbfytip55slhiz4otuls?filename=Neil%20Faulkner%20-%20A%20Marxist%20History%20of%20the%20World_%20From%20Neanderthals%20to%20Neoliberals-Pluto%20Press%20%282013%29.pdf|publisher=Pluto Press|isbn=9781849648639|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=91CA6C708BFE15444FE27899217FBA8E}}</ref>

From the 16th to the 19th century, nearly 13 million African people were trafficked across the Atlantic Ocean in order to be [[Slavery|enslaved]] in the European settler-colonization projects in the [[Americas]], in what is known as the [[Transatlantic slave trade]]. The slave trade had devastating effects on African societies as well as on the enslaved individuals who were trafficked out of Africa as well as on their descendants living in the enslaving regimes even after the transatlantic slave trade itself gradually decreased and eventually became illegal.

Summarizing the history of West Africa, [[Kyeretwie Opoku]], convener of the [[Socialist Movement of Ghana]] (SMG), summarized European colonialism in Africa and the changes it underwent over time in order to facilitate monopoly looting of Africa's resources and to forestall a European war:<blockquote>When slavery became impossible because of African resistance and significant shifts in North American capitalism, imperialism transitioned West Africa to colonialism. Europe carved up our entire continent brutally and inorganically to facilitate monopoly looting of our resources and to forestall a European war. Our transported brothers and sisters, once slaves, became oppressed second- or third-class citizens in the Americas in their new countries. We who remained in Africa were deprived of sovereignty and made second-class citizens in our own lands. Imperialists reorganized our societies in many overt and subtle ways for their profit and to limit our will and capacity to resist. But resist we did. And we were slaughtered by what we are now pleased to call our “Development Partners” in the interest of European Capital. And then, comrades, imperialism plunged the world into two disastrous world wars.<ref name=":0">[[Kyeretwie Opoku]]. [https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/12/12/kyeretwie-opoku-we-must-unite-our-continent/ "We Must Unite Our Continent."] [[Peoples Dispatch]]. December 12, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20221218085458/https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/12/12/kyeretwie-opoku-we-must-unite-our-continent/ Archived] 2022-12-18.</ref></blockquote>[[Pan-Africanism|Pan-Africanist]] ideals emerged in the late nineteenth century in response to European colonization and exploitation of the African continent.<ref>[https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/pan-african-congresses-1900-1945/ “The Pan-African Congresses, 1900-1945 •.”] Blackpast.org. July 30, 2008. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230321071541/https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/pan-african-congresses-1900-1945/ Archived] 2023-03-21.</ref>

=== World Wars ===
''See also: [[First World War]], [[Second World War]]''

=== Decolonization and neo-colonialism ===
The movement for [[decolonisation]] and independence in Africa saw rapid change after the conclusion of the Second World War. Numerous African countries gained independence from the former colonial powers at this time, although in many cases, the independence was disingenuously recognized by [[Imperial core|Western]] imperial powers who sought to retain their economic and political dominance of Africa through [[Neocolonialism|neo-colonialism]]. Additional tactics of subversion via intelligence agencies and outright violence and the staging of coups d'etat were also employed by Western capital in suppressing full African independence.
[[Kyeretwie Opoku]] describes how imperialism in Africa "staged a tactical retreat to neo-colonialism" after European capital became weakened in the First and Second World Wars:<blockquote>These wars restructured global capitalism again, leaving European capital too weak to repress African resistance, exclude other capitalist states, especially the US, ''and remain profitable''. Imperialism, therefore, staged a tactical retreat to neo-colonialism, under which African exploitation and oppression continued, supervised now by treacherous imperialist-socialized local elites wielding Western-designed institutions—a sop to popular demands for liberty. We have endured and resisted neo-colonialism for almost 70 years now.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>The rise of the Bretton Woods Institutions such as the [[International Monetary Fund]] and [[The World Bank|World Bank]] provided some of the methods for neo-colonial impositions on Africa. For example, the debts contracted with the World Bank on decision of the colonial powers, [[Kingdom of Belgium|Belgium]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|Britain]] and [[French Republic|France]], in their African colonies, were subsequently imposed on the new countries at the time of their achieving independence.<ref>Toussaint, Eric. 2022. [https://www.cadtm.org/World-Bank-and-IMF-76-Years-is-Enough-Abolition “World Bank and IMF: 76 Years Is Enough! Abolition! – CADTM.”] CADTM. August 11, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211231013242/https://www.cadtm.org/World-Bank-and-IMF-76-Years-is-Enough-Abolition Archive].</ref>

The fifth [[Pan-African Congress]] was held in October 1945 in [[Manchester]], [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|England]], just months after the end of the Second World War. The Congress brought together a number of intellectuals and activists who would go on to become influential leaders in various African independence movements and the [[American civil rights movement]].<ref>[https://www.wcml.org.uk/our-collections/object-of-the-month/1945-panafrican-congress-in-manchester/ “1945 Pan-African Congress in Manchester.”] 2013. [[Working Class Movement Library]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230321072454/https://www.wcml.org.uk/our-collections/object-of-the-month/1945-panafrican-congress-in-manchester/ Archived] 2023-03-21.</ref>

In May of 1963, 32 heads of independent African states met in [[Addis Ababa]], [[Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia|Ethiopia]] to sign the charter creating the [[Organisation of African Unity]] (OAU), predecessor to the [[African Union]]. The main objectives of the OAU were to eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa, to promote unity and solidarity amongst African states, to coordinate and intensify cooperation for development to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa, to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states and to promote international cooperation.<ref>[https://au.int/en/overview "About the African Union. - History."] African Union. Au.int. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230321065255/https://au.int/en/overview Archived] 2023-03-21.</ref><ref>[https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7759-file-oau_charter_1963.pdf "OAU Charter."] May 25th, 1963. African Union. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230321065351/https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7759-file-oau_charter_1963.pdf Archived] 2023-03-21.</ref>

== Geography ==
Africa is roughly 7,500 km long and runs from north to south, passing through coastal plains, deserts, savannas, and tropical forests. Major rivers in Africa include the Nile in [[Arab Republic of Egypt|Egypt]] and [[Republic of the Sudan|Sudan]] and the Niger in West Africa.<ref name=":0222" />

== References ==
[[Category:Continents]]
<references />
[[Category:Targets of imperialism]]

COINTELPRO

2024-03-19T05:37:34Z

BlueBodhisattva: Expanded a stub

{{Message box/Stub}}

'''COINTELPRO''' (syllabic abbreviation derived from '''CO'''unter '''INTEL'''ligence '''PRO'''gram) (1956–present) is a series of [[Covert operation|covert]] and illegal<ref name="church-final-report">{{Citation |title=Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans – Church Committee final report|title-link=Church Committee|date=1976-04-26|publisher=United States Senate|series=II|page=10|chapter=I. Introduction and Summary|access-date=2014-07-15|chapter-url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94755_III.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140418092233/http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs94th/94755_II.pdf|archive-date=2014-04-18|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|access-date=14 February 2018|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160309125741/https://archive.org/details/CointelproTheUntoldAmericanStory|title=COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story}}</ref> projects conducted by the [[United States of America|United States]] [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI). Aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations.<ref name="Citizens">{{Citation|url=https://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/08/opinion/oe-jalon8|title=A break-in to end all break-ins|last=Jalon|first=Allan M.|date=8 March 2006|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2014-07-15|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203035850/http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/08/opinion/oe-jalon8|archive-date=2013-12-03}}</ref><ref name="The-Dangers-of-Domestic-Spying-by-Federal-Law-Enforcement">{{Citation |url=https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/mlkreport.pdf|title=The Dangers of Domestic Spying by Federal Law Enforcement|date=2002|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|access-date=2017-11-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180205173958/https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/mlkreport.pdf|archive-date=2018-02-05|url-status=live}}</ref> FBI records show COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals the FBI deemed subversive,<ref name="Jeffreys-Jones">{{Citation|title=The FBI: A History|last=Jeffreys-Jones|first=Rhodri|date=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-14284-6|location=New Haven, CT|page=189|author-link=Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones|orig-year=2007}}</ref> including [[feminist]] organizations,<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.freedomarchives.org/Documents/Curr%20C101/Cointelpro%20and%20Women's%20Liberation.pdf|title=The Women's Liberation Movement and COINTELPRO|website=www.freedomarchives.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724013050/http://www.freedomarchives.org/Documents/Curr%20C101/Cointelpro%20and%20Women's%20Liberation.pdf|archive-date=2015-07-24}}</ref> the [[Communist Party USA]], anti–[[Vietnam War]] organizers, activists of the [[civil rights movement]] or [[Black Power movement]] (e.g. [[Martin Luther King Jr.]], the [[Nation of Islam]], and the [[Black Panther Party]]), [[environmentalist]] and [[animal rights]] organizations, the [[American Indian Movement|American Indian Movement (AIM)]], independence movements (such as [[Commonwealth of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rican]] independence groups like the [[Young Lords]]), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader [[New Left]], in combination with unrelated groups such as the [[Ku Klux Klan]] (KKK).<ref>{{Citation|title=White Robes and Burning Crosses: A History of the Ku Klux Klan from 1866|last=Newton|first=Michael|publisher=McFarland|year=2014|isbn=978-0-7864-7774-6|location=Jefferson, North Carolina|pages=146}}</ref>

The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971. Many of the tactics used in COINTELPRO are alleged to have seen continued use, including discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; illegal violence; and assassination.<ref>{{Citation|author=Kevin Walb; Jeffery Monaghan|year=2016|title="Private Eyes and Public Order: Policing and Surveillance in the Suppression of Animal Rights Activists in Canada." In Bezanson, Kate; Webber, Michelle (eds.). Rethinking Society in the 21st Century (4th ed.)|title-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oWO_DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=false|page=148|city=Toronto|publisher=Canadian Scholars|isbn=978-1-55130-936-1}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Martin Orr|year=2010|title="The Failure of Neoliberal Globalization and the End of Empire". In Berberoglu, Berch (ed.). Globalization in the 21st Century: Labor, Capital, and the State on a World Scale.|title-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xU3FAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA182#v=onepage&q&f=false|page=182|isbn=978-0-230-10639-0}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=M. Wesley Swearingen|year=1995|title=FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose.|quote=[Special Agent Gregg York:] We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black n***** fuckers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.|city=Boston|publisher=South End Press|isbn=978-0-89608-502-2}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=It's About Time – Black Panther Party Legacy & Alumni|title=Murder of Fred Hampton|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100215210352/http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Chapter_History/pdf/Chicago/Murder_of_Fred_Hampton_1969.pdf|archive-date=2010-02-15|retrieved=2024-03-18}}</ref> According to the [[Church Committee|Church Committee's]] final Senate report, the FBI's motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."<ref>{{Citation|author=United States Senate|year=1976|title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans|title-url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94755_III.pdf|city=Washington D.C.|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>

== Black Panther Party ==
In March 1971, the FBI murdered [[Sam Napier]], circulation manager of ''The Black Panther'' newspaper, and caused a split between the [[Huey P. Newton|Newton]] and [[Eldridge Cleaver|Cleaver]] branches of the party by sending them forged letters accusing one side of working with the [[police]] and plotting to kill the other side. The FBI also used faked letters to break alliances between the BPP and other organizations such as the [[United Slaves]], [[Blackstone Rangers]], the [[Peace and Freedom Party]], and white supporters like the organization, "Friends of the Panthers."<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Eugene Puryear]]|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=Tales from the pages of COINTELPRO|date=2024-02-05|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/tales-from-the-pages-of-cointelpro/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240206142107/https://www.liberationnews.org/tales-from-the-pages-of-cointelpro/|archive-date=2024-02-06}}</ref> The FBI ran a multi-faceted campaign that sought to cause violent tensions with other groups, internal dissension within party ranks, discredit supporters, destroy their public image with mass media smear campaigns, and collaborate with local police departments to increase police pressure (for example, tracking party members, making arbitrary traffic stops, making arrests, etc).<ref>{{Citation|author=U.S. Senate|year=1976|title=SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS|title-url=https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=479831|volume=III}}</ref>

==References==

<references />
[[Category:Intelligence Operations]]
[[Category:FBI]]
[[Category:Suppression of dissent]]

Ben Norton

2024-03-19T04:53:23Z

BlueBodhisattva: Updated his country of residence

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Benjamin Norton}}{{Infobox person|name=Benjamin Norton|known=Anti-imperialist reporting|image=Ben Norton.png|image_size=200}}

'''Benjamin Norton''' is a [[United States of America|US]]-born journalist currently living in [[People's Republic of China|China]] (formerly in [[Republic of Nicaragua|Nicaragua]]). He spent 5 years at [[The Grayzone]] but left in January 2022 to become independent,<ref>@BenjaminNorton on [[Twitter]] [https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1486105188171714565 "After 5 years, I have left The Grayzone. I am proud of the journalism I did there, but we're going in different directions. I will be continuing my journalism at a new outlet..."] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220126153000/https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1486105188171714565 archived])</ref> starting a new journalistic outlet called [[Multipolarista]] now known as Geopolitical Economy Report.<ref>https://multipolarista.com</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=@BenjaminNorton|newspaper=Twitter|date=2023-01-10|url=https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/1612919430677143553|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120155100/https://twitter.com/benjaminnorton/status/1612919430677143553|archive-date=2023-01-21|retrieved=2023-01-21}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Stubs]]
<references />
[[Category:Anti-imperialist journalists]]

Tariff

2024-03-19T04:51:07Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added a few more sources, expanded a stub

A '''tariff''' is a [[tax]] imposed on imports or exports. Tariffs are an attempt to "protect" a domestic market from foreign competition. They can help countries develop by discouraging them from importing from developed [[Imperialism|imperialist]] countries and allowing them to produce goods domestically.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Buenos Aires|page=69|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

As capitalism develops, it seeks to break down all barriers on trade, tariffs included. Tariffs represent the nation-state's sovereignty above the market, thus corporations who seek to become "transnational" will lobby to break down a state's ability to implement tariffs, along with other national attempts at economic sovereignty. The [[Bretton Woods]] Institutions (the [[IMF]], [[The World Bank|World Bank]], [[World Trade Organization|WTO]], formerly [[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade|GATT]]) and their "structural adjustment programs" are an example of the tools imperialist capitalism uses to break down trade protectionism and economic sovereignty.<ref>{{Citation|author=Michael Parenti|year=1995|title=Against Empire|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Against_Empire|chapter=Chapter 2 - Imperial Domination Updated|chapter-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Against_Empire#Chapter_2_%E2%80%93_Imperial_Domination_Updated|section=Globalisation by GATT|publisher=City Lights Publishers}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Giles Mohan, Ed Brown, Bob Milward, and Alfred Zack-Williams|year=2000|title=Structural Adjustment|chapter=What is structural adjustment?|page=33-34|quote=This then provides the theoretical underpinning for the policy prescriptions of the neo-classical paradigm employed by the Bretton Woods Institutions in the structural adjustment programmes. Free markets and free trade are supposed to provide internal and external equilibrium and the forces of competition then produce increasing efficiency in the use of scarce resources, providing the economic growth that is vital for economic development. It is therefore argued that governments in underdeveloped economies have often intervened to a far greater degree than neo-classical principles would suggest, resulting in a lack of economic growth and the absence of economic development. The remedy must therefore be to free prices from government intervention, in terms of regulation and subsidy, to privatise state-owned firms, to reduce state expenditure in favour of private investment and provision, and to remove artificial barriers to trade, such as tariffs and quotas.|city=Oxford|publisher=Routledge}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Economic concepts]]
[[Category:Stubs]]

Russian Federation

2024-03-16T07:22:49Z

BlueBodhisattva: Corrected an error, with citations

{{Infobox country
| name = Russian Federation
| native_name = Российская Федерация
| image_flag = Flag of Russia.svg
| image_coat = Coat of arms of the Russian Federation.svg
| image_map = Russian map with unrecognized territories.jpg
| map_width = 220px
|map_caption=Western territories in light green are recognized by the [[UN]] as part of [[Ukraine]] (which claims them), even though they are under Russian administration. Eastern ones are claimed by [[Japan]].| capital = Moscow
| largest_city = capital
|mode_of_production=[[Capitalism]]| government_type = Federal semi-presidential republic
| established_event1 = Proclamation of the Russian Empire
| established_date1 = 2 November 1721
| established_event2 = [[Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Establishment of the USSR]]
| established_date2 =30 December 1922
| population_estimate = 146,171,015
| population_estimate_year = 2021
| leader_title1 = President
| leader_name1 = [[Vladimir Putin]]
| leader_title2 = Prime minister
| leader_name2 = Mikhail Mishustin
|established_date3=12 December 1991
|established_event3=Establishment of the Russian Federation}}
The '''Russian Federation''' is a [[Bourgeois state|bourgeois]] republic established in December 12th, 1991 that was established during the [[Overthrow of the Soviet Union|counter-revolution in the Soviet Union]].
==History==
The [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] declared sovereignty on December 12, 1991<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=1991-12-12|title=Постановление Верховного Совета РСФСР от 12.12.1991 № 2015-I|url=https://www.lawmix.ru/abrolaw/13907|newspaper=Сейчас.ру|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=}}</ref>, even though 73% of the population had voted to remain in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] earlier that year.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2020-10-07|title=Sowjetunion, 17. März 1991 : Weiterbestand der UdSSR als Föderation gleichberechtigter und souveräner Staaten|url=https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=su011991|newspaper=Database and Search Engine for Direct Democracy|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=2021-12-29}}</ref> On December 25, [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Gorbachev]] resigned and the Soviet Union was dissolved the next day.<ref>{{Citation|author=Zbigniew K. Brzezinski|year=1997|title=Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Documents, Data, and Analysis|chapter=|section=|page=50|quote=|pdf=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vt5OLD3vp4UC&q=26+december+1991+ussr&pg=PR5#v=snippet&q=26%20december%201991%20ussr&f=false|city=London|publisher=Center for Strategic and International Studies|isbn=1563246376|doi=|lg=|mia=|title-url=|chapter-url=|trans-title=|trans-lang=}}</ref>

In 2014, Russia annexed [[Crimea]], a peninsula that was previously administered by [[Ukraine]].

=== Russo-Ukrainian War ===
The annexation of Crimea, combined with pro-Russian insurgencies in the [[Donbass]] region of Ukraine, started the [[2022 Russo-Ukrainian conflict|Russo-Ukrainian war]], which was escalated by Russia on the 24 February 2022 when it mounted a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Following the invasion, the [[Donetsk People's Republic (2014–2022)|Donetsk]] and [[Luhansk People's Republic (2014–2022)|Lugansk People’s Republics]] and the Ukrainian regions of Zaporozhye and Kherson voted to join Russia in a referendum.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Wayne Cristaudo|newspaper=The Postil Magazine|title=The Narrative of Sham Elections|date=2022-11-01|url=https://www.thepostil.com/the-narrative-of-sham-elections/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221117121827/https://www.thepostil.com/the-narrative-of-sham-elections/|archive-date=2022-11-17|retrieved=2022-12-01}}</ref>

The United Nations does not recognize the referendum.

In spite of so-called "crushing" sanctions from the NATO bloc and exclusion from the [[SWIFT]] system, Russian political stability and the economy are doing well<ref>{{YouTube citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ACKr20dAE|channel=DW News|title=Russia‘s economy is growing, why aren't sanctions stopping it?|date=2024-03-15}}</ref> as the Russian Federation racks up victories in Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and throughout the Donetsk region.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Joshua Keating|newspaper=Vox|title=Are Ukraine’s defenses starting to crumble?|date=2024-02-22|url=https://www.vox.com/2024/2/22/24079595/avdiivka-ukraine-russia-war-artillery|retrieved=2024-03-16}}</ref>

==Economy==
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy was in deep turmoil, during which time it was exploited by Western imperialist parasites.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=Darya Sinusoid|date=2021-08-25|title=Russia’s Shock Therapy: Neoliberalizing Russia|url=https://www.shortform.com/blog/russia-shock-therapy/}}</ref>

[[Vladimir Putin]]'s presidency marked a turning point in the Russian economy, his ascension was preceded by an academic paper he wrote where he proposed that Russia use its vast natural resources to restructure and revitalize the economy around major state-owned enterprises.<ref>{{News citation|title=What did Putin bring to the Russian economy after 20 years in office?|url=https://ycnews.com/what-did-putin-bring-to-the-russian-economy-after-20-years-in-office/}}</ref> It was only after Russia again asserted its economic independence that it became demonized by Western [[bourgeois media]] yet again, in a fashion reminiscent of [[Cold War]] histrionics.

In 2022, US sanctions against Russia backfired against the US, resulting in immense gains for the Russian state-owned oil and gas sector.<ref>{{News citation|author=[[Richard Medhurst]]|newspaper=[[Richard Medhurst]]|title=Russian Oil Revenue SOARS After Sanctions|date=2022-06-15|url=https://youtu.be/QsiYMfQDqUA}}</ref>

Less than a quarter of the Russian population supports [[capitalism]] and 62% prefer a centrally [[Planned economy|planned]] [[Socialism|socialist]] economy similar to their Soviet predecessor.<ref name=":0">{{News citation|newspaper=Levada-Center|title=What Do Russians Think Russia Should Be Like?|date=2021-10-05|url=https://www.levada.ru/en/2021/10/05/what-do-russians-think-russia-should-be-like/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428191957/https://www.levada.ru/en/2021/10/05/what-do-russians-think-russia-should-be-like/|archive-date=2022-04-28|retrieved=2022-08-01}}</ref>

=== Russian "imperialism" ===
Russia does not fit [[Vladimir Lenin]]'s definition of [[imperialism]] and lacks finance capital and division of the world's resources. It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth' of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of [[capital]] export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world's wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the [[United States of America|United States]] ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as [[Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992–2006)|Yugoslavia]], [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], Ukraine, and [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]], but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Stansfield Smith|newspaper=[[Monthly Review]]|title=Is Russia imperialist?|date=2019-01-02|url=https://mronline.org/2019/01/02/is-russia-imperialist/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315020644/https://mronline.org/2019/01/02/is-russia-imperialist/|archive-date=2023-03-15|retrieved=2023-03-22}}</ref>

==Politics==
The ruling party of the Russian Federation is the nationalist party [[United Russia]], which has the majority of seats in the parliament. Vladimir Putin was formerly a member of the party but is now an independent.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=|date=2012-04-24|title=Vladimir Putin quits as head of Russia's ruling party|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9223621/Vladimir-Putin-quits-as-head-of-Russias-ruling-party.html|newspaper=The Telegraph|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=}}</ref> Other major parties are the [[Communist Party of the Russian Federation]], the social democratic party [[A Just Russia – For Truth]], and the far-right [[Liberal Democratic Party of Russia|Liberal Democratic Party]].

18% of Russians prefer the current political system and only 16% support a Western-style [[Liberalism|liberal]] democracy. Almost half (49%) prefer the Soviet system with a [[vanguard party]], including 62% of Russians aged 55 or older.<ref name=":0" />

=== LGBT discrimination ===
In November 30, a law prohibiting "[[LGBT+|LGBT]] propaganda" was unanimously approved by the Russian [[Federal Council]] after the bill was passed in [[State Duma]].<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=TASS Russian News Agency|title=State Duma passes bill banning LGBT, pedophilia propaganda|date=2022-11-23|url=https://tass.com/politics/1541001}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|url=https://tass.com/politics/1543895|newspaper=TASS Russian News Agency|date=2022-11-23|title=Federation Council unanimously approves law banning LGBT propaganda}}</ref> The bill implicitly associates LGBT people with [[pedophilia]] and introduces a ban on "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships."<ref>{{Web citation|url=https://tass.com/politics/1543895|newspaper=TASS Russian News Agency|date=2022-11-23|title=Federation Council unanimously approves law banning LGBT propaganda|quote=The law introduces a ban on propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships, pedophilia and the dissemination of information about LGBT people in the media, the Internet, ads, literature and movies. It also bans calls for gender transition among teenagers: on the Internet, in the media, books, audiovisual sources, movies and advertisements.}}</ref>

=== Foreign relations ===
[[File:Russian relations poll.png|thumb|Poll showing attitudes towards Russia in the [[Imperial core|West]] compared to [[Republic of India|India]], [[People's Republic of China|China]], and [[Republic of Turkey|Turkey]]]]
The majority of people in India, China, and Turkey see Russia as an ally or necessary partner, but most westerners see it as an enemy.<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=West is out of touch with rest of world politically, EU-funded study admits|date=2023-02-25|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/02/25/west-rest-world-eu-study/|retrieved=2023-02-25}}</ref>

==Infrastructure==
The Russian Federation inherited a well-developed infrastructure network from the USSR, with air and rail travel now forming the backbone of the Russian infrastructure and economy. Though the Russian railways are state-owned, the main air carrier, Aeroflot, was privatized by Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, leading to a significant drop in service quality and carrying capacity.

==Demographics==
Russia is suffering from a demographic crisis. The country is considered to still be suffering from the massive loss in population during the Great Patriotic War. In addition to this, many Russians fell into poverty during the capitalist counter-revolution of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, causing the birth rate to fall. All this means the Russian population has been in decline for many years, with the remaining population aging rapidly. Mass emigration from Russia since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is expected to exacerbate the demographic problem.

==Culture==

== See also ==

* [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]
* [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic]]
* [[Collective Security Treaty Organization]]

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:European countries]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]
[[Category:Outline needs additional content]]
<references />

Ibrahim Traoré

2024-03-15T02:47:45Z

BlueBodhisattva: More sources, a bit more linking information to the anti-French-necolonialism bloc

{{Infobox politician|name=Ibrahim Traoré|image_size=200|birth_date=1988|birth_place=Bondokuy, [[Burkina Faso]]|political_orientation=[[Anti-imperialism]]|image=Ibrahim Traore.png}}

'''Ibrahim Traoré''' (born c. 1988) is a Burkinabè military officer who has served as the leader of Burkina Faso since September 2022. He is the youngest current head of state in the world. He has pledged to stop extremism and [[corruption]] and completely change the system of government and is inspired by [[Thomas Sankara]].

Traoré led a coup against [[Paul-Henri Damiba]], another military leader who failed to stop [[jihadism]]. "Jihadism" has been a long-time excuse for the French to justify continued involvement in the Sahel.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=Vijay Prashad|newspaper=peoples dispatch|title=Burkina Faso ejects French troops|date=2023-01-25|url=https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/01/25/burkina-faso-ejects-french-troops/|retrieved=2024-03-13|quote=France originally entered the Sahel to allegedly prevent the southern movement of jihadist elements strengthened by the NATO-led war in Libya}}</ref> Traoré's time in power has seen major rollbacks in French [[Neocolonialism|neocolonial]] influence over the Sahel region. Traoré's government, along with the anti-French coup governments in [[Republic of the Niger|Niger]] and [[Republic of Mali|Mali]], has kicked out French troops<ref name=":0" />, made deals with Russian private military contractors (PMCs)<ref>{{Web citation|author=Sophie Douce|newspaper=Le Monde|title=Au Burkina Faso, le capitaine Ibrahim Traoré, le président énigmatique qui défie la France|date=2023-05-30|url=https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2023/05/30/au-burkina-faso-le-capitaine-ibrahim-traore-le-president-enigmatique-qui-defie-la-france_6175485_3212.html|retrieved=2024-03-14}}</ref>, and formed an anti-ECOWAS bloc in defiance of French interests in the [[CFA franc]] zone.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Mali Bamako|newspaper=WION|title=Explained {{!}} Military-ruled former French colonies forge NATO-style Alliance of Sahel States|date=2023-09-17|url=https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-nato-style-alliance-of-sahel-states-forged-by-military-ruled-former-french-colonies-636792|retrieved=2024-03-14}}</ref> In July 2023, he visited [[Russian Federation|Russia]] and praised the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] for defeating [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]]. He appointed [[Apollinaire Tambèla]], an ally of Sankara, as prime minister. Tambèla met with [[Nicolás Maduro]] and [[Daniel Ortega]] and praised [[Fidel Castro]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Geopolitical Economy Report]]|title=Burkina Faso’s new president condemns imperialism, quotes Che Guevara, allies with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba|date=2023-07-31|url=https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/07/30/burkina-faso-ibrahim-traore-sankara-imperialism/|retrieved=2023-08-03}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Anti-imperialist rulers]]
[[Category:Current heads of state]]
<references />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Traoré, Ibrahim}}

Ibrahim Traoré

2024-03-14T06:52:47Z

BlueBodhisattva: Additional source, plan on adding more later

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

2024-03-03T18:34:05Z

BlueBodhisattva: /* 2000s–present */ Added a section about changes under the Yoon government in the ROK

{{Infobox country
| name = Democratic People's Republic of Korea
| native_name = 조선민주주의인민공화국
| image_coat = Emblem of the DPRK.svg
| image_flag = Flag of the DPRK.svg
| symbol_type = Emblem
|national_anthem=애국가 ''Aegukka'' ("The Patriotic Song")| image_map = Democratic People's Republic of Korea (orthographic_projection).svg
| map_caption = Territories of Korea presently occupied by the United States are shown in light green.
| map_width = 220px
| capital = [[Pyongyang]]
| largest_city = capital
|mode_of_production=[[Socialism]]| government_type = Unitary ''[[Juche]]'' [[Socialist state|people's republic]]
| established_event2 = Founding of the DPRK
| established_date2 = 9 September 1948
| established_event1 = Start of partial US occupation
| established_date1 = 8 September 1945
|area_km2=120,540| population_estimate = 25,845,400 (77,048,000 including Koreans under [[neocolonialism|neocolonial]] occupation)
| population_estimate_year = 2020
|unemployment=2.8%<ref name="UNdata">UNData (2021). ''[https://data.un.org/en/iso/kp.html DPRK – UNData]''</ref>|GDP_nominal=$16.3 billion<ref name="UNdata">UNData (2021). ''[https://data.un.org/en/iso/kp.html DPRK – UNData]''</ref>|GDP_nominal_per_capita=$639.6<ref name="UNdata">UNData (2021). ''[https://data.un.org/en/iso/kp.html DPRK – UNData]''</ref>|GDP_nominal_year=2021|export=$1.1 billion<ref name="UNdata">UNData (2021). ''[https://data.un.org/en/iso/kp.html DPRK – UNData]''</ref>|export_year=2020|import=$3.46 billion<ref name="UNdata">UNData (2021). ''[https://data.un.org/en/iso/kp.html DPRK – UNData]''</ref>|import_year=2020|currency=Korean People's Won|currency_code=KPW|drives_on=right|calling_code=+850|iso3166code=KP|cctld=.kp| leader_title1 = General Secretary of the Workers' Party
| leader_name1 = [[Kim Jong-un]]
| leader_title2 = President of the Presidium
| leader_name2 = [[Choe Ryong-hae]]
| leader_title3 = First Vice Chairman of the State Affairs Commission
| leader_name3 = Choe Ryong-hae
| leader_title4 = Premier of the Cabinet
| leader_name4 = [[Kim Tok-hun]]
| leader_title5 = Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly
| leader_name5 = Pak Thae-song
}}
The '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''' ('''DPRK'''; Korean: 조선민주주의인민공화국, ''Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk''), also known as '''People's Korea''' and incorrectly referred to as '''North Korea''' by [[bourgeois media]], is a socialist country in [[East Asia]]. [[Korea]] is one nation, but the southern half of Korea is occupied by the [[United States of America|US]]-backed [[Anti-communism|anti-communist]] [[Republic of Korea]]. DPRK's capital city is [[Pyongyang]].

The DPRK is led by the [[Workers' Party of Korea]] (WPK) and the [[Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea]]. According to its constitution, the DPRK is an "independent [[socialist state]]", guided by the ideology of [[Juche]] which is a derivative of [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism–Leninism]] originally codified by [[Kim Il-sung|Kim Il-Sung]].<ref>Articles 1 and 3 of the [https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_1998.pdf?lang=en Constitution of the DPRK]</ref>

While the DPRK distanced itself from [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|USSR]]'s ideological leadership in the 1960s, some authors still consider it a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist–Leninist]] socialist state.<ref>{{Textcite|author=Thomas Stock|year=2019|title=North Korea’s Marxism-Leninism: fraternal criticisms and the development of North Korean ideology in the 1960s|pdf=|lg=http://libgen.gs/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.1215%2F21581665-7258081&downloadname=|doi=10.1215/21581665-7258081}}</ref>

In 2017, DPRK's Minister of Foreign affairs, Ri Yong Ho, stated at the [[United Nations]] General Assembly that "The U.S. had put [[Economic sanctions|sanctions]] against our country from the very first day of its foundation, and the over 70-year long history of the DPRK can be said in a sense a history of struggle, persevering along the road of self-development under the harshest sanctions in the world." Ri also stated that the essence of the situation of the Korean peninsula is a confrontation between the DPRK and the US, where the DPRK tries to defend its national dignity and sovereignty against the hostile policy and nuclear threats of the US, and points out that it was the US who first introduced [[Nuclear weapon|nuclear weapons]] to the Korean peninsula. Ri stated that "The very reason the DPRK had to possess nuclear weapons is because of the U.S., and it had to strengthen and develop its nuclear force onto the current level to cope with the U.S. [...] Our national nuclear force is, to all intents and purposes, a war deterrent for putting an end to nuclear threat of the U.S. and for preventing its military invasion".<ref name=":0">Ri Yong Ho, DPRK Minister for Foreign Affairs. [https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/kp_en.pdf "Statement by H.E. Mr. RI YONG HO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the General Debate of the 72 Session of the United Nations General Assembly."] New York, 23rd September 2017. gadebate.un.org. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220709114619/https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/kp_en.pdf Archived] 2022-08-28.</ref>

Minister Ri also clarified DPRK's nuclear policy by quoting [[Kim Jong-un]] as saying that international justice can only be achieved when the [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] independent countries are strong enough, and that possession of nuclear deterrence by the DPRK is a righteous self-defensive measure taken as an ultimate option, pursuant to this principle, and further clarified that the DPRK "do[es] not have any intention at all to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the countries that do not join in the U.S. military actions against the DPRK."<ref name=":0" />

DPRK representative Kim Song stated at the 2021 UN General Assembly, "If the U.S. wants to see the Korean war, the most prolonged and long-lasting war in the world, come to an end, and if it is really desirous of peace and reconciliation on the Korean peninsula, it should take the first step towards giving up its hostile policy against the DPRK by stopping permanently the joint military exercises and the deployment of all kinds of strategic weapons which are levelled at the DPRK in and around the Korean peninsula."<ref name=":1">Kim Song. [https://estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20210927/f9hI1UVcyVQ6/Ina2tpqa5rlW_en.pdf "Statement by Head of the DPRK Delegation H.E. Mr. KIM SONG, Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations At the General Debate of the 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly."] New York, 27 September 2021. UNmeetings.org. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220828072554/https://estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20210927/f9hI1UVcyVQ6/Ina2tpqa5rlW_en.pdf Archived] 2022-08-28.</ref>

In 1965 [[Che Guevara]] said that the DPRK "was a model to which revolutionary [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]] should aspire".<ref>https://gowans.blog/2007/03/03/understanding-north-korea/</ref><ref>{{Textcite|author=Bruce Cumings|year=2005|title=Korea’s place in the sun: a modern history|pdf=|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company; p. 404|lg=}}</ref>

==History==

===Division of Korea===
Following the defeat of [[Japanese Empire|Japan]] and the end of the [[Second World War]], Japan lost control of its colonies, including what was formerly the [[Korean Empire]]. As a result of negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States, the [[Korea|Korean Peninsula]] was divided into occupation zones along the 38th Parallel North. Although there was an attempt at establishing the [[People's Republic of Korea]], the nascent state was outlawed by U.S. forces. In the northern zone, the Soviets allowed Koreans to govern themselves, and a system of people's committees developed into a full provisional government.<ref name=":12">{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=The Patriot State|page=88–93|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}</ref> Originally, the division of Korea was not intended to be an actual dividing line nor a border to split the country, but simply meant as designated areas where Soviet and U.S. forces would be temporarily assisting Korea as it stabilized after liberation from Japan and formed an independent Korean state. However, the U.S. sought to prolong Korea's division in order to form Korea into a state subordinate to U.S. interests, pushing for separate elections in the south despite opposition from the masses and despite attempts among the Korean populace to form a unified nation.<ref name=":9" />

Under conditions in which the U.S. imperialists were occupying south Korea and foreign and domestic reactionaries were gathered together in the occupied zone and opposing the founding of a unified independent Korean state, the policy of constructing a powerful democratic base in the northern half of Korea was adopted. The formation of a broad united front to rally the masses of people in all walks of life was the first question to be solved. Thus, early in 1946, a united front was formed of different parties and groupings, democratic forces of various social strata.<ref name=":9" />

On the basis of the people's committees, the Provisional People's Committee of North Korea (Korean: 북조선림시인민위원회; Hanja: 北朝鮮臨時人民委員會) was formed on February 8 of 1946.<ref>[https://dprktoday.com/news/43457 "북조선림시인민위원회." ("North Korea Provisional People's Committee.")] 조선의 오늘, 주체109(2020)년 2월 8일. DPRK Today, February 8, Juche 109 (2020). [https://web.archive.org/web/20231004150520/https://dprktoday.com/news/43457 Archived] 2023-10-05.</ref><ref>[https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0070131 “북조선임시인민위원회(北朝鮮臨時人民委員會).”] Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. [[Archived]] 2023-10-05.</ref> The leaders of the Korean resistance agreed to make Kim Il-sung the new leader of Korea, and he became president of the provisional government on 8 February 1946.<ref name=":12" />

In March of 1946, the 20-Point Platform (Korean: 20개조정강) for realizing Korea's anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic reforms was announced, including such items as thorough liquidation of all remnants of Japanese imperialist rule, waging an implacable struggle against reactionary and anti-democratic elements, carrying out land reform, nationalizing important industries, direct and equal suffrage, and the institution of free medical care for the poor, among other points.<ref>Kim Han Gil. [https://archive.org/details/ModernHistoryOfKorea/page/n1/mode/2up "Modern History of Korea."] Foreign Languages Publishing House. Pyongyang, Korea, 1979.</ref><ref>[http://www.jajusibo.com/58698 <nowiki>“[헌법으로 보는 북한-서문] 사회 전 분야의 방향이 제시된 20개조 정강.” ("[North Korea as seen through the Constitution - Preface] A 20-point platform that sets out the direction for all areas of society.")</nowiki>] 자주시보, 2022-02-25. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220707211557/http://www.jajusibo.com/58698 Archived] 2022-07-07.</ref><ref name=":15">[https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=767 <nowiki>“[북 현대사] 북조선림시인민위원회와 토지개혁 (4).” ("[North Korea Modern History] North Korea Provisional People’s Committee and Land Reform (4)")</nowiki>] 통일시대. April 6, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20231004152620/https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=767 Archived] 2023-10-04.</ref> On November 3, 1946, the first democratic election in the history of Korea was held in the north, and the People's Committee of North Korea (Korean: 북조선인민위원회; Hanja: 北朝鮮人民委員會), which was no longer provisional, was created in February of 1947, functioning as the organ of the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]].<ref name=":9" />

The new government redistributed land from [[Landlord|landlords]] and Japanese officials to [[Peasantry|peasants]], nationalized large companies, shortened the work day to eight hours (seven for dangerous occupations), banned child labor, established social security and paid vacations, and enforced gender equality.<ref name=":12" />

As a result of land reform, [[Feudalism|feudal]] landownership, the social and economic base of the undemocratic reactionary forces, was done away with in the rural villages of the north. At the time, the matter of land reform was of great concern, due to a large percentage of Korea's population being peasant farmers, many engaged in sharecropping and being exploited in feudal relations as well as by Japanese colonialism.<ref name=":15" /> In addition to land reform, the nationalization of key industries was undertaken, wiping out the political and economic bases of imperialists and domestic reactionaries and promoting the general rehabilitation and development of the national economy in the wake of the Japanese colonial period. The Provisional People's Committee implemented the Law on the Nationalization of Important Industries in August 1946. Under it, all large factories, mines, power stations, railway transport, telecommunication facilities, banks and commercial and cultural establishments were made the property of the Korean people. Factories and other enterprises which had been owned by pro-Japanese elements were confiscated without compensation and became the property of the people, to be used for their own benefit rather than for the extraction of Korea's wealth for imperial Japan's benefit. Democratic reforms, beginning with the Labor Law and the Law on the Equality of the Sexes, were enforced, putting an end to unlimited exploitation of the working class and liberating women from feudal subordination.<ref name=":9" />

Author [[Kim Byong Sik]] describes the changes in social, economic, and class relations in the north during this time, noting that as a result of the reforms following liberation, capitalist economic relations were reduced to a small scale in limited areas of the economy, while socialist economic relations became dominant in all areas of the economy:<blockquote>Radical changes were effected in social, economic and class relations in the northern half of the Republic, a people’s democratic system was established and a powerful revolutionary base for an all-Korea victory was founded. In other words, all colonial and semi-feudal components were removed, and socialist economic relations, based on state and cooperative economy, came to occupy a leading position in all areas of the people’s economy, with capitalist relations confined to only small commodity production by private farms and handicraft enterprises in urban areas and to some commerce and small-scale industry. Concerning class relations, landlords, comprador capitalists, pro-Japanese elements and traitors were eliminated and working people became the masters of the country, the leading role of the working class increased and the worker-peasant alliance was consolidated. In this way, the balance of forces developed decisively in favor of the revolution.<ref name=":9" /></blockquote>As the above author later notes, by 1947 state-controlled industry accounted for 80.2% of industrial output, and private industry for only 19.8% of industrial output. In addition, mining was completely state-controlled. Industrial production jumped 70 per cent, and labor productivity 51 per cent, in fiscal 1947 in comparison with the previous year. 1947 was the first year in which an economic plan was implemented. 1948 also saw a successfully implemented economic plan.

The Provisional People's Committee trained national cadres and prepared a revolutionary armed force to defend the people's democratic system, establishing the [[Korean People's Army]] on February 8, 1948.

Throughout this time, reactionary and imperialist forces in the U.S.-occupied portion of Korea had been seeking ways to prolong Korea's division in order to form a state which was subordinate to U.S. interests and in which anti-communist forces would remain in power. As democratic reforms were taking place in the north and the base of power was being removed from feudal landlords, Japanese collaborators, and other reactionary forces in the north, the reactionaries were moving south, some of them forming right-wing anti-communist paramilitary groups such as the [[Northwest Youth League]] (Korean: 서북청년회), who later committed atrocities against ordinary citizens in the name of the southern regime, and many of whom went on to become police and members of the local government.<ref>Flenniken, Lauren. [https://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1435 “The Northwest Youth League.”] Jejuweekly.com. 2011-04-10. [https://web.archive.org/web/20231005035904/https://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1435 Archived] 2023-10-05.</ref> Among the imperialists' plans was the plan to hold a separate election in the south, which was opposed by many of the Korean masses.

In this context, Kim Il Sung submitted the draft Provisional Constitution of Korea for discussion by all the people north and south and he proposed the election of an all-Korea supreme legislative assembly through a general, direct, equal and secret ballot. At the same time he called on the political parties and social organizations of south Korea to hold a south-north joint conference to oppose the separate election and to discuss ways and means of saving the nation. In response to this call, a joint conference was held in Pyongyang on April 20, 1948, with attendants representing a range of political orientations. A resolution was adopted to boycott the separate elections. At the time of the controversial separate election held in May 1948, more than 140 polling stations and a number of police stations were destroyed and burned. The U.S.-backed southern regime resorted to fascist terror to suppress the opposition. After proceeding with the elections, the regime formed as a puppet regime consisting of collaborators, landlords, and subservient capitalists.<ref name=":9" />

===Founding of the DPRK ===
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was founded on 9 September 1948. The illegitimate government of the occupied portion of Korea (often referred to as South Korea, or [[Republic of Korea]]) had been established earlier the same year, when dictator [[Syngman Rhee]], who was referred to as an "imported expatriate" and "extreme rightist" in a CIA document of the time,<ref>[https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/220065.pdf?v=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e "March 18, 1948 Central Intelligence Agency, ORE 15/48, 'The Current Situation in Korea'"]. ''Wilson Center Digital Archive''. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220729051304/https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/220065.pdf?v=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Archived] from the original.</ref> came to power due to U.S. influence despite many Koreans opposing the holding of separate elections in the south. In DPRK, Kim Il-Sung became the first [[Premier of the DPRK]], a position he would hold until 1972. DPRK soon requested for U.S. and Soviet troops to leave Korea. The Soviets left on 25 September, but the U.S. occupiers refused to leave.<ref name=":1102">{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=The Political Partition of Korea|page=114|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}</ref>

The Occupied Korean government was hostile to socialism and to the DPRK. Even though Western media accuses the DPRK of initiating the [[Fatherland Liberation War]] (often referred to as the Korean War), numerous acts of violence were perpetrated by the illegitimate southern government that were tantamount to war—namely the [[Jeju Uprising|massacre on Jeju Island]] that targeted communists. The people of Jeju had been protesting the formation of a separate southern regime and the holding of separate elections in the south, but were eventually violently suppressed by the US-backed southern regime. The death toll was composed of thousands of civilians, many of whom were not affiliated with the [[Workers' Party of South Korea]] or communism at all. In addition, the [[Yeosu-Suncheon rebellion]] of 1948 was a rebellion among soldiers in the south who began guerrilla-style fights against the military, as the rebelling soldiers refused to participate in the brutal suppression of the Jeju uprising. Suppression of this rebellion by the southern regime led to hundreds of civilian deaths.<ref>[https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/332032.html “439 Civilians Confirmed Dead in Yeosu-Suncheon Uprising of 1948.”] Jan. 8, 2009. Hankyoreh. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230614174428/https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/332032.html Archived] 2023-06-14.</ref> Furthermore, paramilitary groups from the Republic of Korea illegally crossed the border into the DPRK on multiple occasions.

In DPRK, a two-year economic plan for 1949-1950 was adopted on the basis of the previous plans of 1947 and 1948, with plans for furthering the socialist transformation of the economy as well as the continued correction of distortions in the economy which were the result of the colonial period. However, this plan had to be suspended due to the escalation of the war in 1950.<ref name=":9" />

===Fatherland Liberation War===
[[File:CIA document pages 1 and 2.jpg|thumb|1950 CIA document stating that after the Korean People's Army entered Seoul, more than 50% of students were actively aiding communists, many volunteering for the army, and that the working class of Seoul generally supported the north.]]
{{Main article|Fatherland Liberation War}}
During the Fatherland Liberation War, DPRK forces almost repelled the illegal occupation army; however, the [[United Nations]] and the United States sent extra forces to fight DPRK troops. Western forces pushed DPRK forces all the way to the border of the newly formed [[China|People's Republic of China]], which had itself repelled reactionary [[Kuomintang]] forces from the [[People's Republic of China|mainland]]. PRC forces intervened to protect Korean sovereignty, repelling Western troops once more as part of the War to Resist the U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea campaign. The majority of the fighting during the rest of the [[Fatherland Liberation War]] took place near the 38th Parallel North, with only minor border changes occurring after a ceasefire was signed. The DPRK technically remains at war with its illegitimate southern neighbour as no truce has been signed between the two.
[[File:Thatched huts go up in flames after B-26 bombers unload napalm bombs on a village near Hanchon, North Korea, on May 10, 1951 (AP photo).png|thumb|Thatched huts go up in flames after B-26 bombers unload napalm bombs on a village near Hanchon, DPRK, on May 10, 1951.]]
Virtually all of the major cities in DPRK were severely damaged and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by U.S. saturation bombing during the war. The tonnage of bombs dropped on the north was about the same as the total dropped by the U.S. against Japan during the Second World War. By 1952, the bombing was so complete that the U.S. Air Force had run out of targets. According to an AP News article, the U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea during the war, most of it in the north, including 32,500 tons of [[napalm]]. In the present day, DPRK citizens continue to find unexploded ordinance and be injured by old bombs that were dropped by the US and UN forces, and have to evacuate areas and send in bomb squads where such bombs are found, as well as educate citizens, especially children, about the explosives.<ref>Talmadge, Eric. [https://apnews.com/article/international-news-asia-pacific-ap-top-news-north-korea-dd6256bad51e458cb2e8a1bf64b5c2b6 “64 Years after Korean War, North Still Digging up Bombs.”] AP NEWS. Associated Press. April 22, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230313163201/https://apnews.com/article/international-news-asia-pacific-ap-top-news-north-korea-dd6256bad51e458cb2e8a1bf64b5c2b6 Archived] 2023-03-13.</ref>

US sanctions on DPRK began in conjunction with the 1950 escalation of the war, with the US imposing an export ban on DPRK and forbidding financial transactions by or on behalf of DPRK. This began with U.S. President [[Harry S. Truman]] ordering naval blockade of Korean coast and imposing a total trade embargo against the DPRK in June of 1950. This was followed by the Trading with the Enemy Act in December 1950, to terminate all US economic contacts with the DPRK and freezing its assets. Truman also imposed an embargo against China, freezing Chinese assets in US at this time. In 1952, an embargo was imposed on all exports of industrial equipment and raw materials.<ref name=":2">Gary Clyde Hufbauer (PIIE), Jeffrey J. Schott (PIIE), Kimberly Ann Elliott (PIIE) and Barbara Oegg (PIIE). [https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/case-50-1-and-93-1 “US and UN v. North Korea: Case 50-1 and 93-1.”] 2016. Peterson Institute for International Economics. May 1, 2008. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220909082604/https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/case-50-1-and-93-1 Archived] 2022-09-09.

‌</ref>

===Post-Fatherland Liberation War===
[[File:Pyongyang after U.S. Air Force bombing.jpg|thumb|Pyongyang after its destruction by U.S. Air Force bombing during the war.]]
[[File:Chollima monument at night.jpg|thumb|The Chollima Monument at night, with the [[Pyongyang]] skyline in the background.]]
Following the war, the people of DPRK were faced with the task of converting the armistice into a lasting peace, rebuilding the destroyed economy as soon as possible, improving the people's living conditions, and strengthening the country politically, economically, and militarily as the base of the Korean revolution and converting it into a powerful material force for the reunification of Korea.

The sixth plenum of the Central Committee of the Korean Workers' Party was called on August 5, 1953 to consider these pressing tasks. A decision was made to promote postwar rehabilitation and development of the people's economy in three basic stages, according to a proposal by Kim II Sung. The first stage would be a period of six months to a year in which preparations and adjustments would be made for general rehabilitation. In the second stage, a Three Year Plan would be carried out to recover the economy to pre-war levels. In the third stage, a Five Year Plan would be worked out to complete the first stage of industrialization, to lay the foundation for socialist industrialization.<ref name=":9" /> Author Kim Han Gil writes that the general task of laying the foundations of socialism was largely defined in two aspects: production relations and productive forces. In the first aspect, the task was to transform all the relations of production along socialist lines. In the second aspect the task was to establish the solid foundation of an independent national economy while laying the foundation for industrialization.<ref>Kim Han Gil. [https://archive.org/details/ModernHistoryOfKorea/mode/1up?q=peasant&view=theater "Modern History of Korea."] Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang, Korea, 1979.</ref>

A focus was placed on developing heavy industry as a priority, while simultaneously developing light industry and agriculture. Heavy industry was needed in order to maintain an independent national economy and to make the development of light industry and agriculture possible, while light industry and agriculture were necessary for improving the living conditions of the people, impoverished by the wartime destruction.<ref name=":9" />

After nine months, the first stage of the three-stage recovery and development plan was successfully carried out. During this stage, several thousands of temporary houses were built in the towns and countryside and rehabilitation and construction in the countryside were started. Prices were lowered, cities began being rebuilt, factories were restored and repaired, and various industrial and agricultural enterprises went into operation, beginning with the Kangson Steel Works, Songjin Steel Works, Sunghori Cement Factory and Komusan Cement Factory, with various enterprises in light industry such as Nampo Glass Factory and Pyongyang Spinning Mill being prepared for full-scale operation.<ref name=":9" />

Following this preparatory stage, the Party proposed a Three Year Plan for 1954-1956, the second stage of the recovery and development plan adopted after the war's end. The Three Year Plan aimed to restore the economy to pre-war levels, further raise the peoples' living standards, as well as correct the distortions of the economy resulting from the Japanese colonial period, and to continue developing heavy industry to lay a basis for socialist industrialization. The plan aimed to increase industrial production beyond 1949 levels, to produce grain at 1949 levels (the highest recorded previous grain production), further mechanization of agriculture, and to double the output of foodstuff and daily necessities compared to 1949 levels, as well as a five-fold increase in the production of cotton fabrics and a three-fold increase in production of rubber shoes. According to ''Modern Korea'', these aims were met in two years and four months, and by the end of January 1955, industrial production of state-run and cooperative enterprises exceeded the level set for 1956 in the Three Year Plan. Additionally, on the basis of results accomplished during an experimental period in 1953-1954, the trend toward agricultural cooperatives was phased into a mass movement in 1956, and by the end of February 1956, 14,651 agricultural cooperatives were organized, comprising 65.2% of total farm households and accounting for 62.1% of the total land under cultivation.<ref name=":9" />

After the armistice agreement, the US continued to prohibit all US economic contacts with DPRK in line with its general strategic controls against socialist countries.<ref name=":2" />

In 1988, South Korean and the US eased isolation of People's Korea by opening bilateral dialogue and allowing limited export of goods to the North for humanitarian purposes. Some travel restrictions were also lifted on a case-by-case basis. However, in that same year, DPRK was added to the [[U.S. State Department]] [[State Sponsors of Terrorism]] list.<ref name=":3">[https://nodutdol.org/sanctions-of-empire/ "제국의 제재 - Sanctions of Empire."] Nodutdol. October 20, 2020. [https://nodutdol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sanctions-of-Empire.pdf PDF]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220520095404/https://nodutdol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sanctions-of-Empire.pdf Archive].</ref><ref>[https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea/ “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”] United States Department of State.</ref>

A unified team under the name Korea (KOR) competed in 1991 World Table Tennis Championships and FIFA World Youth Championship with athletes from both North and South Korea. In 1991, the team used the Unification Flag and the anthem "Arirang".

In 1992, the ROK announced suspension of the "Team Spirit" military training exercise normally conducted each year in conjunction with US forces stationed in South Korea. On January 22, US Undersecretary of State Arnold Kanter and Korean Workers' Party Secretary Kim Yong Sun held the first of a series of bilateral talks, focusing on the future of US–People's Korean relations and unification issues on the peninsula. However, following difficulties regarding the Joint Nuclear Control Committee, the US and ROK decided to conduct the Team Spirit exercise after all, and DPRK refused to negotiate bilateral nuclear inspections unless the Team Spirit exercise would be cancelled. By 1993, the US and South Korea confirmed that Team Spirit would proceed as planned, and DPRK ended negotiations.<ref name=":2" />

In July 1993, President [[Bill Clinton]], during a visit to the South Korean side of the DMZ, warned that the United States would respond to DPRK use of nuclear weapons with massive conventional or nuclear retaliation. In later January/early February of 1994, US officials in Washington let it be known they were considering transferring Patriot missiles to South Korea as a defensive move. In Seoul, a Defense Ministry official called for the resumption of Team Spirit unless the North agreed to full nuclear inspections. The US warned DPRK that unless it would allow inspections, it would bring a sanctions resolution before the UN Security Council.<ref name=":2" />

In July 1994, Kim Il-sung passed away.

===Arduous March===
The period of economic crisis, floods, and famine in DPRK known as the Arduous March (Korean: 고난의 행군) lasted from approximately 1994 to 1998. Factors such as the [[overthrow of the Soviet Union]] and worldwide economic shifts in its wake, unprecedented natural disasters, and economic sanctions imposed on DPRK compounded at this time, contributing to the severity of the crisis. The thriving north Korean economy, which had exceeded south Korea's in production of electricity, coal, fertilizer, machine tools and steel even into the 1980s, was thrown into turmoil as it faced these factors in the 1990s.<ref>Kim, Crystal. [https://www.liberationnews.org/north-koreans-mourn-death-of-html/ “North Koreans Mourn Death of Leader Kim Jong Il.”] Liberation News, 22 Dec. 2011, Accessed 10 Apr. 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230410044940/https://www.liberationnews.org/north-koreans-mourn-death-of-html/ Archived] 2023-04-10.</ref><ref>[https://www.north-korea-travel.com/north-korean-history.html “North Korean History 1980s & 1990s | KTG® Tours.”] North-Korea-Travel.com.</ref>

The imperialist United States and its allies took advantage of this period, attempting to make the situation more deadly and more economically devastating via economic sanctions, to push DPRK into total collapse. It was at this time that the "military-first" policy of Songun (Korean: 선군; Hanja: 先軍) was initiated under the leadership of Kim Jong Il, in response to the constant threat of military aggression from the United States aimed at DPRK's destruction. The policy came of the determination that maintaining a strong military was essential for the defense of the country and the protection of its socialist system, and that the military was the backbone of the revolution and that it was necessary to give military affairs priority in order to proceed with socialist construction.<ref>[https://exploredprk.com/articles/the-evolution-of-dprks-socialist-lifestyle/ "The Evolution of DPRK’s Socialist Lifestyle."] Explore DPRK. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230928110755/https://exploredprk.com/articles/the-evolution-of-dprks-socialist-lifestyle/ Archived] 1012-09-28.</ref><ref name=":14">Ri Jong Chol. "Songun Politics in Korea." Foreign Languages Publishing House. Pyongyang, Korea, Juche 101 (2012). [https://web.archive.org/web/20230523072842/https://kkfonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Songun-Politics-In-Korea.pdf <nowiki>[PDF]</nowiki>]</ref><ref>[https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1435 <nowiki>"[북현대사] 선군정치의 시작." ("[North Modern History] The beginning of Songun politics.")</nowiki>] 한반도정론: 북 바로알기. 통일시대. 2023-02-27. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230927173059/https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1435 Archived] 2023-09-27.</ref>

During this time, DPRK deployed the People's Army to major construction sites as well as rural areas for flood recovery and food production, in order to overcome the Arduous March in each region and sector. Notably, DPRK was able to construct important infrastructure such as the Anbyon Youth Power Station at this time, erected by the service personnel of the People's Army, battling against harsh environmental conditions in order to construct the power station. Rather than yielding to the economic pressures imposed by the U.S. in combination with the environmental disasters and the worldwide economic upheavals, DPRK endured the hardships, defended the socialist system, and built structures of lasting value.<ref>[https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1421&page=2&total=125 <nowiki>"[북현대사] 고난의 행군과 강계정신" ("[North Modern History] Arduous March and Ganggye Spirit")</nowiki>], 한반도정론: 북 바로알기. 통일시대. 2023-02-18. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230927171532/https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1421&page=2&total=125 Archived] 2023-09-27.</ref><ref>[https://archive.org/details/juche-destiny/page/n75/mode/2up "Man's Destiny and Juche Idea."] Foreign Languages Publishing House. Pyongyang, Korea, Juche 101 (2012).</ref><ref name=":14" /> The end of the Arduous March was declared in October 2000.<ref>[https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1544 <nowiki>"[북현대사] 36년 만에 열린 조선로동당 제7차 대회" ("[North Modern History] The 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea held after 36 years").</nowiki>] 한반도정론: 북 바로알기. 통일시대. 2023-05-06. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230928173958/https://www.tongiltimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1544 Archived] 2023-09-28.</ref>

===6.15 Declaration and ROK's "Sunshine Policy"===
[[File:President Kim Dae-jung and Chairman Kim Jong-il join hands at Inter-Korean summit.jpg|thumb|[[Republic of Korea|South Korean]] President [[Kim Dae-jung]] and Chairman [[Kim Jong-il]] join hands at the 2000 Inter-Korean summit, which resulted in the 6.15 Inter-Korean Joint Declaration.]]
The South Korean policy towards DPRK from the late 1990s to mid 2000s is known as the "Sunshine Policy" and is primarily associated with the [[Kim Dae-jung]] administration (1998–2003) and the [[Roh Moo-hyun]] administration (2003–2008). During this time, a notable attitude of reconciliation between north and south Korea was expressed by south Korean leadership.

On June 13-15, 2000 leaders of the ROK and DPRK meet for the first time since the war. South Korean president Kim Dae-jung and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il signed an agreement calling for family reunions, economic cooperation, social and cultural exchanges and follow-up governmental contacts between the North and South to ease tensions.<ref name=":2" /> This is known as the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration or the 6.15 Inter-Korean Joint Declaration.

The date "6.15" would subsequently become a popular reference among the Korean reunification movement. Additionally, the phrase ''uri minjok kkiri'' (Hangeul: 우리 민족끼리), which can be translated as "among our nation" or "between our people" can be found in the joint document signed by Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il at the 6.15 talks. The phrase implies the idea of solving the questions of unification and peace on the Korean peninsula without the influence or meddling of outside powers. The numbers "6.15" and the phrase "uri minjok kkiri" can frequently be seen and heard in Korean unification-oriented media, publications, and activism.

===2000s–present===
[[File:Kim-Jiang.jpg|thumb|Kim Jong-il with [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] president, [[Jiang Zemin]] in 2000.]]
In 2002, President Bush's State of the Union address singled out [[Islamic Republic of Iran|Iran]], [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] and DPRK as the so-called "[[Axis of Evil]]" for their supposed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.<ref name=":2" />

According to Nodutdol, in 2018, 3,968 people in the DPRK, who were mostly children under the age of 5, died as a result of shortages and delays to UN aid programs caused by sanctions.<ref name=":3" />

Talks between General secretary [[Kim Jong-un]] and former U.S. [[President of the United states|President]] [[Donald Trump]] began on June of 2019 to discuss disarmament and potential reunification with the [[Republic of Korea]].

In January 2020, South Korean President [[Moon Jae-in]] expressed interest in developing tourism to People's Korea, but the US ambassador Harry Harris blocked this effort. Harris claimed that "independent" tourism plans would have to undergo US consultation. He emphasized that the items inside South Korean tourists' luggage could violate sanctions, demonstrating the extent of US interference in inter-Korean affairs.<ref name=":3" />

[[Yoon Suk Yeol]]'s presidency in the Republic of Korea (2022-present) marks a turn away from rapprochement with the North. Yoon has abandoned Sunshine Policy and strengthened ties with the US, shown most overtly in his April visit to the Pentagon.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Jim Garamone|newspaper=U.S. Department of Defense|title=South Korean President Yoon Visits Pentagon, Discusses Deterrence|date=2023-04-27|url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3377397/south-korean-president-yoon-visits-pentagon-discusses-deterrence/|retrieved=2024-3-3}}</ref> Since 2022, the Republic of Korea has stepped up joint military exercises with the United States,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Hyonhee Shin|newspaper=Reuters|title=Defence chiefs of U.S., S.Korea vow to step up drills to counter North|date=2023-01-31|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/austin-south-korea-yoon-seeks-greater-us-nuclear-assurances-2023-01-30/|retrieved=2024-3-3}}</ref> covertly sent artillery shells to Ukraine (via the United States to avoid official state policy against sending weapons to an active warzone),<ref>{{Web citation|author=Lee Bon-young, Kwon Hyuk-chul|newspaper=Hankyoreh|title=WaPo: Seoul supplied more shells to Ukraine than all of Europe|date=2023-12-06|url=https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1119320|retrieved=2024-3-3}}</ref> and suspended a military agreement with the North designed to deescalate tensions.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Jean Mackenzie|newspaper=BBC|title=North Korea spy satellite: South partially suspends military deal after launch|date=2023-11-22|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67494007|retrieved=2024-3-3}}</ref> In response to the ROK's apparent inseparability from US occupation, the DPRK announced in January that it was ending its long-standing policy of peaceful reunification with the ROK.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Justin McCurry|newspaper=The Guardian|title=Unification with South Korea no longer possible, says Kim Jong-un|date=2024-01-15|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/unification-with-south-korea-no-longer-possible-says-kim-jong-un|retrieved=2024-3-3}}</ref> This demonstrates a recognition that a "[[Library:The governance of China/Chapter 10: "One Country, Two Systems"|one country two systems]]" style reunification with the South is no longer possible, as the North would never accept such a reunification if the US military was still allowed to occupy the peninsula. Reunification is only possible with the end of US military occupation and dismantling of the ROK state.

==== Nuclear weapons program ====
The DPRK joined the [[Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons|Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]] in 1985. It withdrew in 1993 according to the terms of the treaty in order to preserve its sovereignty against U.S. aggression.<ref name=":11022">{{Citation|author=Stephen Gowans|year=2018|title=Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom|chapter=Byungjin|page=208–214|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4iiga4ngtxusr2civjxewbili5jne2sbpefbx2s3im2kphattzc?filename=Stephen%20Gowans%20-%20Patriots%2C%20Traitors%20and%20Empires_%20The%20Story%20of%20Korea%E2%80%99s%20Struggle%20for%20Freedom-Baraka%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=Montreal|publisher=Baraka Books|isbn=9781771861427|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8435F6FF91279531705764823FDC2A7F}}</ref>

Since the beginning of the DPRK nuclear tests in 2003, the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] and [[Barack Obama|Obama]] regimes respectively lifted some sanctions to facilitate negotiations around DPRK denuclearization, and then reinstated them when the negotiations failed to produce the results desired by the US.<ref name=":3" />

The DPRK detonated its first nuclear bomb on 2006 October 9. The invasions of [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] and [[Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)|Libya]] proved this decision correct when those countries fell to [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization|NATO]] occupation after giving up their nuclear programs.<ref name=":11022" />

==Economy==
The DPRK has maintained one of the most centralized economies in the world since the 1940s. For several decades, it has followed the Soviet pattern of five-year plans with the ultimate goal of achieving self-sufficiency. DPRK is also one of the most sanctioned countries in the world, and has been subject to sanctions since just after its foundation. The economy is heavily nationalized. Food and housing are extensively subsidized by the state, education and healthcare are free, and the payment of taxes was officially abolished in 1974.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Zak Brown|newspaper=Anti-Imperialism.org|title=Towards a concrete analysis of the DPRK|date=2023-11-18|url=https://anti-imperialism.org/2013/11/18/towards-a-concrete-analysis-of-the-dprk/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118135119/https://anti-imperialism.org/2013/11/18/towards-a-concrete-analysis-of-the-dprk/|archive-date=2020-01-18|retrieved=2023-03-12}}</ref> The DPRK follows policy of ''[[Byungjin]]'', meaning it simultaneously develops its nuclear weapons program and the economy.<ref>{{News citation|author=Ankit Panda|newspaper=[[The Diplomat]]|title=Is North Korea’s ‘Byungjin Line’ on the US-China Strategic Agenda?|url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/06/is-north-koreas-byungjin-line-on-the-us-china-strategic-agenda/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220321104122/https://thediplomat.com/2015/06/is-north-koreas-byungjin-line-on-the-us-china-strategic-agenda/|archive-date=2022-03-21|retrieved=2022-04-24}}</ref>

A 2020 book published in DPRK summarizes the DPRK's economic line of development as follows: "The DPRK has consistently adhered to the line of building an independent national economy in economic construction. In Juche 42 (1953) it put put forward the basic line of socialist economic construction, developing heavy industry preferentially and ensuring the simultaneous development of light industry and agriculture. True to this line, it laid solid material and technological foundations for an independent national economy. In the 1960s when the hostile forces’ moves of aggression became undisguised, the WPK advanced the line of simultaneously carrying on economic construction and building up defences, thus establishing a socialist industrial state while increasing its defence capabilities."<ref>[https://archive.org/details/dprk-photobook/page/n53/mode/1up "DPRK Photobook."] Foreign Languages Publishing House, Printing Plant of Foreign Languages Publishing House, October Juche 109 (2020).</ref>

According to DPRK's constitution, the DPRK regards the steady improvement of the material and cultural standards of the people as "the supreme principle of its activities", and holds that the state "shall provide all the working people with every condition for obtaining food, clothing and housing." Furthermore, the constitution states that DPRK's economy relies on socialist relations of production and on the foundation of an independent national economy, with the means of production owned in some cases by the state and in other cases owned collectively by social cooperative organizations. The eventual goal of the DPRK is to "combine the two forms of property in an organic way", and to gradually transform the means of production owned by cooperative organizations into the property of the people as a whole (i.e., into state property), based on the voluntary will of the social cooperative organizations' members. While the means of production are under the ownership of the working class in the form of state property and social cooperative organizations, property that is owned and consumed by individual citizens is also legally protected, including products of individual sideline activities such as products from kitchen gardens and income from other legal economic activities. This type of personal property is protected by the state and guaranteed by law the right for people to inherit it.<ref name=":11">[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea_(2019) "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (2019)."] Wikisource. [https://manoa.hawaii.edu/koreanstudies/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/DPRK-Constitution-2019-EN.pdf <nowiki>[PDF]</nowiki>] on manoa.hawaii.edu.</ref>

=== Socialist economic management ===
Throughout DPRK's development, systems of socialist economic management and methods of work have been developed, adapted to the country's particular needs. Notable among them is the Taean (or Daean) work system, an industrial management system which grew out of the Chongsanri agricultural management system. Each system has been described by north Korean author and politician [[Kim Byong Sik]] as implementations of the [[mass line]] in production, which were developed in response to DPRK's changing needs as it transitioned away from individualistic, bureaucratic capitalist-style management toward collective socialist-style management in production. As Kim Byong Sik explains, "the Daean work system means, in a word, to embody the mass line in economic control; to get rid of survivals of capitalism in economic management such as bureaucracy, over-centralization and individualism, and to implement the Chongsanri spirit and method, enabling workers to contribute to the maximum in accelerating [[socialist construction]]."<ref name=":9">[[Kim Byong Sik]]. [https://archive.org/details/ModernKoreaKimByongSik/ "Modern Korea: The Socialist North, Revolutionary Perspectives in the South, and Unification."] International Publishers, 1970.</ref>

Each method is named after a location in which it saw early implementation: Chongsanri refers to Chongsanri Cooperative Farm in Kangso county, South Pyongan province, while the Taean work system is named after Taean Electric Machine Factory.<ref name=":9" />

Kim Il Sung noted that in the DPRK's early development, the factory management system "still retained many capitalist elements" despite being socialist. These lingering capitalist elements in management led to bureaucracy, departmentalism, and individualism hampering the activity and initiative of the workers, as well as led to a lack of cooperative spirit between workshops and to insufficient worker participation in management. Quoted in Kim Byong Sik's ''Modern Korea'', Kim Il Sung described the problem as follows: <blockquote>It must be admitted that the old system of factory management, though socialist, still retained many capitalist elements. Bureaucracy, departmentalism, and individualism were found in large measure. Superiors shouted commands at their subordinates in a bureaucratic manner instead of going to help them; a spirit of cooperation between workshops was lacking; and among some people there was a tendency toward individualism of the “You attend to your business, I’ll stick to mine!” variety. Therefore, under the old system of work, it was not possible to give full play to the activity and initiative of workers, people busied themselves for nothing, and no sizable achievements were made in production.<ref name=":9" /> </blockquote>Kim Byong Sik adds that in factories administered exclusively by managers, the lingering capitalist elements were the most concentrated. In such factories, workers lacked interest in whether production was going well or not because they did not have sufficient participation in management. The managers who held sole decision-making powers engaged in arbitrary control, subjective discretion, and other bureaucratic methods, and so the workers felt their job was to "work for eight hours, as assigned, and then go home" which gave little room for stimulating their "political, moral and material interest" in their work or giving full play to their creativity and talent. Therefore it was necessary to bring factory management in line with a socialist management system. In contrast with the lingering capitalist style of management, in the Daean work system, the people cooperate with each other and work units help one another in economic management, with the essential purpose of the Daean work system being to enable people to give maximum play to their revolutionary enthusiasm and creative talent, to increase production, and to control and to manage the economy through promoting comradely accommodation and close cooperation among producers and producing units. Kim Byong Sik also notes that the Daean work system, as a socialist management system, is a prototype of communist economic management, stating "it is clear that economic management in a communist society will take the form of collective management by millions of conscious, communist working people."<ref name=":9" />

=== Special Economic Zones ===
Foreign trade surpassed pre-crisis levels in 2005 and continues to expand. The DPRK has a number of special economic zones (SEZs) and Special Administrative Regions where foreign companies can operate with tax and tariff incentives while DPRK establishments gain access to improved technology.<ref>{{News citation|title=Special Economic Zones in the DPRK|url=https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/special-economic-zones-dprk}}</ref><ref>{{News citation|title=North Korea’s Special Economic Zones: Plans vs. Progress|url=https://www.38north.org/reports/2015/11/nk-sez-plans-vs-progress/}}</ref>

=== Economic sanctions ===
''See also: [[Economic sanctions#Democratic People's Republic of Korea]]''

The US first imposed sanctions on DPRK during the 1950s.<ref name=":2" /> The United States has repeatedly targeted the DPRK with sanctions, citing its nuclear weapons program as their reason.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[TeleSur]]|title=US Reps Pass "Harshest Sanctions Ever" Against North Korea|date=2017-10-25|url=https://wp.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Reps-Pass-Harshest-Sanctions-Ever-Against-North-Korea-20171025-0006.html|retrieved=2022-04-24}}</ref> Following the country’s 2006 nuclear test, the US, EU, and others added more stringent sanctions, which have periodically intensified since then. In 2017, sanctions imposed by the UN caused thousands of DPRK workers who had been working abroad to be forced to return to DPRK as well as led to the closure of numerous DPRK companies and joint ventures.<ref>[https://www.asianews.it/news-en/North-Korean-workers-leave-China-because-of-UN-sanctions-41942.html “North Korean Workers Leave China because of UN Sanctions.”] Asianews.it. 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220909073331/https://www.asianews.it/news-en/North-Korean-workers-leave-China-because-of-UN-sanctions-41942.html Archived] 2022-09-09.</ref> Sanctions now target oil imports, and cover most finance and trade, and the country’s key minerals sector.<ref>Galant, Michael. [https://cepr.net/cepr-sanctions-watch-may-june-2022/ “CEPR Sanctions Watch, May-June 2022”] Center for Economic and Policy Research. July 8, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220907145545/https://cepr.net/cepr-sanctions-watch-may-june-2022/ Archived] 2022-09-07</ref> However, 49 countries, including [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]], [[Islamic Republic of Iran|Iran]], and [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]] have violated these sanctions and traded with the DPRK anyways.<ref>{{News citation|author=Rishi Iyengar|newspaper=[[CNN]]|title=Report: 49 countries have been busting sanctions on North Korea|date=2017-12-06|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/06/news/north-korea-sanctions-countries-violation/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508065837/https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/06/news/north-korea-sanctions-countries-violation/index.html|archive-date=2021-05-08|retrieved=2022-04-24}}</ref>

According to Foreign Policy in Focus, sanctions on DPRK have "demonstrably failed." FPIF notes that sanctions didn’t deter DPRK from pursuing a nuclear weapons program, nor have they been subsequently responsible for pushing it toward denuclearization, and adds that DPRK has been under sanctions for nearly its entire existence and it doesn’t have a strong international economic presence that can be penalized, and "has been willing to suffer the effects of isolation in order to build what it considers to be a credible deterrence against foreign attack."<ref>Feffer, John. 2021. [https://fpif.org/the-problem-of-sanctions-against-north-korea/ “The Problem of Sanctions against North Korea.”] Foreign Policy in Focus. November 22, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220909072424/https://fpif.org/the-problem-of-sanctions-against-north-korea/ Archived] 2022-09-09. ‌</ref>

==Government==

===Central government===
The highest organ of state power is the [[Supreme People's Assembly]], which is elected for a term of five years. It elects a Speaker and Deputy Speaker to preside over its sessions. While the Supreme People's Assembly is not in session, the Presidium is the highest organ of state power. It consists of a President, Vice-Presidents, and other members.

The Supreme People's Assembly also elects a [[State Affairs Commission]] consisting of a Chairman, multiple Vice-Chairmen, and other members and a Cabinet consisting of a Premier, Vice-Premiers, Chairmen, Ministers, and other members. The Premier organizes the work of the cabinet and is the head of government of the DPRK.<ref name=":6">{{Citation|author=12th Supreme People's Assembly|year=2016|title=Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea|title-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)|chapter=State Organs}}</ref>

===Local government===
Provinces, cities, and counties elect local people's assemblies for a term of four years. The local people's assembly elects a speaker to preside over its sessions and a local people's committee. Local people's assemblies and committees are subordinate to the Supreme People's Assembly and Cabinet.<ref name=":6" />

== Administrative divisions ==
[[File:Provinces of Korea.png|thumb|333x333px|Provinces of Korea.]]
DPRK is divided into nine provinces, the direct-administered capital city, and three special cities.

The nine provinces (Korean: 도; Hanja: 道) of DPRK are [[Chagang Province|Chagang]], [[North Hamgyong Province|North Hamgyong]], [[South Hamgyong Province|South Hamgyong]], [[North Hwanghae Province|North Hwanghae]], [[South Hwanghae Province|South Hwanghae]], [[Kangwon Province|Kangwon]], [[North Pyongan Province|North Pyongan]], [[South Pyongan Province|South Pyongan]], and [[Ryanggang Province|Ryanggang]].

Pyongyang is designated as the capital city, or the direct-administered city (Korean: 직할시; Hanja: 直轄市) while three other cities, namely [[Rason]], [[Nampo]], [[Kaesong]], are special cities (Korean: 특별시; Hanja: 特別市).

A 2014 demographic survey of DPRK, conducted as a joint project between DPRK's Central Bureau of Statistics and the [[United Nations]] Population Fund, found that the majority of the country's population resides in four contiguous provinces: South Pyongan (17% of population), Pyongyang (14%), South Hamgyong (13%), and North Pyongan (12%). Together, these four contiguous provinces account for over 55% of the country's population. The highest population density area was in the capital city of Pyongyang, while the lowest population density was in Ryanggang. It was also found that more than six out of ten persons reside in urban areas in the country, at 61.2% of the population, while 38.8% of the population lives in rural areas.<ref>Central Bureau of Statistics, Pyongyang and United Nations Population Fund. [https://archive.org/details/2014SDHSReportEFinal "Democratic People's Republic of Korea Socio-Economic, Demographic and Health Survey, 2014."] December, Juche 104 (2015).</ref>

DPRK's method of administrative division is similar to that in south Korea, as both are based on the common system in Korea as a whole, having its roots in the mid-Goryo dynasty in the 11th century.<ref>DPRK Explained. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWmNve0oUkU “DPRK Provinces EXPLAINED - Part One | North Korea’s Provinces.”] YouTube Video.</ref>

As a result of the division of Korea, three provinces, namely Hwanghae, Gyeonggi, and Kangwon, were split due to being on the line of division. The smaller portions of post-division Hwanghae and Gyeonggi provinces were mostly incorporated into nearby provinces, with the larger part of Hwanghae ending up in DPRK and the larger part of Gyeonggi in south Korea. However, Kangwon was divided roughly in half, and as a result, both DPRK and south Korea have a Kangwon province, romanized as Kangwon in DPRK and Gangwon in the south.

==Foreign relations==
Article 17 of the DPRK's constitution states that independence, peace, and friendship are the basic ideals of the foreign relations of the DPRK. Additionally, the constitution holds that the state "shall establish diplomatic as well as political, economic and cultural relations with all friendly countries, on the principles of complete equality, independence, mutual respect, non-interference in each other’s affairs and mutual benefit" and "promote unity with people all over the world who defend their independence, and resolutely support and encourage the struggles of all people who oppose all forms of aggression and interference and fight for their countries’ independence and national and class emancipation."<ref name=":11" />

DPRK does not reject foreign exchange, nor reject foreign knowledge, nor adhere to an [[Isolationism|isolationist]] policy, nor does it aim to promote national [[chauvinism]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Kim Il Sung|title=Collected Works Volume 17|chapter=On Further Developing the Chollima Workteam Movement|page=276|quote=In educating the working people in socialist patriotism, care should be taken to prevent the growth of tendencies to national chauvinism and restorationism. One may be apt to head for chauvinism on the plea of building an independent national economy by one’s own efforts and promoting national pride. If we steer in the direction of chauvinism as Regent Taewongun pursued a policy of national isolation, we will come to reject international exchange and advanced science and technology from other countries and, accordingly, hinder the development of our country.|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf}}</ref> Rather, DPRK upholds [[proletarian internationalism]], [[national liberation]], and [[anti-imperialism]], and aims for international exchanges based in mutual respect. Speaking on DPRK's attitude toward international exchange and the study and adoption of foreign knowledge, Kim Il Sung clarifies that it is not DPRK's position to reject foreign things, but rather to adopt them critically and non-[[Dogmatism|dogmatically]], with Korea's sovereignty and particular conditions in mind: "What we are opposing is the [[Nihilism|nihilistic]] attitude of looking down upon our nation, while looking up to foreign countries, as well as the dogmatist attitude of uncritically swallowing up foreign things in disregard of the actual conditions of our country."<ref>Kim Il Sung. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf "On Improving Education in Universities."] April 18, 1963. Collected Works, Volume 17.</ref>

Kim Il-sung has said that completing the Korean revolution is the internationalist duty of the Korean people, and explained that, in the modern conditions where imperialism and borders still exist (as opposed to a stateless, communist future), and in conditions where Korea currently remains divided and antagonized by imperialism, DPRK's socialist patriotism is "indispensable for us who have to drive out the US imperialist aggressors and accomplish the national-liberation revolution", and that "the Korean revolution is the internationalist duty devolving on the Korean people. For this reason, only when the Korean people satisfactorily carry out the Korean revolution as their first priority, will they be performing their internationalist duty faithfully."<ref name=":13">Kim Il Sung. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf "Our People's Army Is an Army of the Working Class, An Army of the Revolution; Class and Political Education Should Be Continuously Strengthened."] February 8, 1963. Kim Il Sung Collected Works, Volume 17. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230403214034/https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf Archived] 2023-04-03.</ref>

Opposing chauvinism and promoting proletarian internationalism, Kim Il-sung has emphasized that care should be taken to prevent the growth of national chauvinism when promoting socialist patriotism, explaining that DPRK should not pursue a chauvinist policy or national isolation, and that Koreans should be educated in the spirit of internationalism "to fight in close unity with many other peoples of the world" against imperialism as well as against both right and left opportunism.<ref>Kim Il Sung. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf "On Strengthening the Work of Factory Party Committees And Further Developing the Chollima Workteam Movement."] Collected Works Volume 17. May 15, 1963. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230403214034/https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-il-sung/cw/17.pdf Archived] 2023-04-03.</ref> While in the present day, defense of national sovereignty and socialist patriotism holds importance in DPRK, Kim Il-sung notes: "Needless to say, it will be another matter after imperialism is completely overthrown and socialism and communism emerge victorious throughout the world in the future, and the boundaries of nations vanish and states cease to exist."<ref name=":13" />

=== Support for anti-imperialist liberation ===
[[File:DPRK Che Guevara poster.png|thumb|Korean poster of [[Ernesto Guevara|Che Guevara]]]]
The DPRK's revolutionary government has supported other liberation struggles around the world. The support has at times included material support such as providing weapons and military training to various movements, hosting delegations representing various liberation struggles, as well as gestures and expressions of solidarity such as in speeches at the UN General Assembly and support for liberation movements written about in official DPRK publications.

The DPRK trained two thousand guerrilla fighters from twenty-five countries from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s, including members of the [[Japanese Red Army]], [[Palestinian Liberation Organization]], and the [[Official Irish Republican Army]]. The training in these camps lasted from six to eighteen months, and during that time, the DPRK military taught foreign revolutionaries Korean martial arts. The foreign revolutionaries were also put through training such as running through the mountains at night while carrying one hundred pound sandbags.<ref name=":7">[https://apjjf.org/2015/13/12/Benjamin-Young/4303.html “Juche in the United States: The Black Panther Party’s Relations with North Korea, 1969-1971.”] 2015. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230325033325/https://apjjf.org/2015/13/12/Benjamin-Young/4303.html Archived] 2023-03-25. </ref>

DPRK has supported liberation struggles in [[Africa]] both materially and through expressions of solidarity.<ref>[https://libya360.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/president-kim-il-sungs-immortal-contributions-to-african-liberation/ President Kim Il Sung’s Immortal Contributions to African Liberation] APRIL 17, 2017 by Internationalist 360º on libya360.wordpress.com </ref> President Kim Il Sung was a staunch opponent of both [[Republic of South Africa|South African]] and [[Zionism|Zionist]] [[apartheid]].<ref name=":8">[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1006972472015708160.html <nowiki>“Thread by @Uhusofree: ‘a Quick Thread on the DPRK and African and Diaspora Liberation Movements. I Hope It Reaches Someone Who Didn’t Know Before. President Kim Il […].’”</nowiki>] Threadreaderapp.com. Thread Reader. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230325040407/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1006972472015708160.html Archived] 2023-03-25.</ref>

When [[Kwame Nkrumah]]'s government in [[Republic of Ghana|Ghana]] was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1966, Kim Il-sung sent a letter to Nkrumah shortly afterword, stating, "We are especially enraged at the reactionary coup d’état which took place in Ghana at the instigation of the imperialists [...] The imperialists engineer similar plots and perpetrate subversive activities against progressive countries everywhere. We resolutely condemn the machinations of the imperialists against the just cause of the peoples for national liberation, independence and progress. We express our unreserved support to your Excellency’s determination to fight for the freedom of Ghana on your return to Africa."<ref>Nkrumah, Kwame. [https://archive.org/details/san_0975/page/160/mode/1up?view=theater&q=Pyongyang ''Dark Days in Ghana''. "Appendix."] 1968.</ref>

On March 31, 1970, nine members of the Japanese Red Army (JRA) hijacked a Japan Air Lines plane and landed it in Pyongyang. These nine members eventually settled in a housing complex on the outskirts of Pyongyang and the DPRK government used the JRA connection to send money and arms to various Third World-oriented organizations, such as the PLO, the [[Red Army Faction]], and the [[Italian Red Brigades]].<ref name=":7" />

During the 1980s, the DPRK sent free weapons to Cuba.<ref>{{News citation|author=David Iocanangelo|newspaper=Latin Times|title=Fidel Castro Says North Korea Sent Cuba Free Weapons During Cold War|date=2013-08-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118135109/https://www.latintimes.com/fidel-castro-says-north-korea-sent-cuba-free-weapons-during-cold-war-130279|archive-date=2020-01-18}}</ref>

DPRK Minister of Foreign Affairs Ri Yong Ho's 2017 UN General Assembly statements of solidarity with Cuba, [[Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela|Venezuela]], and [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]] and condemning [[State of Israel|Israel]]:<blockquote>My delegation takes this opportunity to extend strong support to and solidarity with the Cuban government and people who are fighting to defend national sovereignty and realize international justice against the high-handedness, arbitrariness and unilateral embargo of the U.S.

We also express strong support to and solidarity with the government and people of Venezuela who are fighting to defend the national sovereignty and the cause of socialism.

The unjust and contemptible acts such as turning a blind eye to the heinous acts of Israel while condemning in every manner only the Syrian government fighting to protect its national sovereignty and security should not be tolerated any longer.

The DPRK government will certainly defend peace and security of the country with its powerful nuclear deterrence and also contribute to safeguarding world peace and security.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>The DPRK representative Kim Song at the 2021 UN General Assembly spoke on the DPRK delegation extending "its full support and encouragement to the Cuban government and people who continue to move forward holding aloft the banner of socialism in the face of the U.S. moves to impose illegal sanctions and blockade and to undermine Cuba from within" and expressed "constant support to and solidarity with the independent countries including Syria and [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] and their peoples in their unyielding struggle to defend the national dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity."<ref name=":1" />

=== Support for Black liberation in the United States ===
[[File:Korean BPP poster.png|thumb|Korean poster of [[Huey P. Newton|Huey Newton]]]]
Kim Il-sung praised the [[Black Panther Party]] (BPP) for their "just struggle to abolish the cursed system of racial discrimination of the US imperialists". The Black Panther Party sent a delegation to the DPRK to meet with President Kim Il Sung and other officials to exchange ideas.<ref name=":8" /> Numerous examples of writings in support of the DPRK and against U.S. imperialism can be found in BPP publications, while many articles in support of the BPP and denouncing U.S. imperialism and systemic racism can be found in DPRK publications.

In addition to specific support of the BPP, it is common to find DPRK publications calling out and denouncing the United States as racist, and voicing support for Black people and other racial minorities of the U.S. in their struggle against it. For example, DPRK state media commented on the shooting of [[Trayvon Martin]], stating: "The U.S. true colors as a kingdom of racial discrimination was fully revealed by last year’s case that the [[Florida]] Court gave a verdict of not guilty to a white policeman who shot to death an innocent Black boy." DPRK has also made commentary on the case of [[George Floyd protests|George Floyd]], emphasizing the hypocrisy for the US to preach about human rights while perpetrating racial oppression against its own citizens. An official from Central Committee stated via the state newspaper [[Rodong Sinmun]]: "Demonstrators enraged by the extreme racists throng even to the White House. This is the reality in the U.S. today" and further stated "American liberalism and democracy put the cap of leftist on the demonstrators and threaten to unleash even dogs for suppression."<ref>[https://www.youngpioneertours.com/dprk-black-civil-rights-movement/ “North Korea and the Black Civil Rights Movement.”] Young Pioneer Tours. December 23, 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20221129235716/https://www.youngpioneertours.com/dprk-black-civil-rights-movement/ Archived] 2022-11-29.</ref>

===DPRK-US relations===
The core of US policy toward DPRK has been summarized in a 2008 book from DPRK as follows: "The US attempt to crush the DPRK and realize domination over the whole Korean peninsula constitutes the core of its policy towards the DPRK and the key to its building of a foundation on which to achieve world hegemony."<ref>[https://archive.org/details/terrorismwar/page/n1/mode/1up?view=theater "The United States: 'War Against Terrorism'."] Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang, Korea. Juche 97 (2008).</ref>

In a 2021 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the DPRK's representative Kim Song stated, "In the course of the DPRK-U.S. showdown spanning over half a century, we have been very much accustomed to the U.S. military threats, and we know well how to deal with the U.S., the most hostile country. We have learned the mode of existence to cope with the U.S. hostile policy and accumulated rich experience."<ref name=":1" /> The representative further characterized the DPRK-US relationship in the following way:<blockquote>From the first day of the foundation of the DPRK, the U.S. has not recognized our sovereignty, treating us as an enemy state, and openly showed its hostility towards the socialist system chosen by our people. The U.S. designated the DPRK as a "communist state" and a "state of non-market economy", and it completely blocked, both institutionally and legislatively, the establishment of relations between the DPRK and the U.S. in the fields of politics, economy and trade, under the unreasonable pretexts of "human rights issue", "proliferation of the WMD", "sponsoring of terrorism", "oppression of religion", "money laundering" and etc.

If it is not a hostile policy, should it be called a "friendly policy"?

The U.S. hostile policy against the DPRK finds its clearest expression in its military threats against us. Not a single foreign troop, not a single foreign military base exists in the territory of the DPRK. But in south Korea, almost 30,000 U.S. troops are stationing at numerous military bases, maintaining a war posture to take military action against the DPRK at any moment. The DPRK has no record of having conducted a military exercise even a single time around the U.S., but the U.S. has annually staged all sorts of war drills on and around the Korean peninsula and in the Korean waters for the last several decades, by mobilizing army, naval and air forces across the world including the U.S. troops in south Korea, and it has threatened us through military demonstrations of intimidating nature while deploying numerous armaments to south Korea from time to time.<ref name=":1" /> </blockquote>The representative also noted that the possible outbreak of a new war on the Korean peninsula is contained "not because of the U.S.’s mercy on the DPRK" but because the DPRK "is growing reliable deterrent that can control the hostile forces in their attempts for military invasion".<ref name=":1" />

Kim Yo Jong, First Vice Department Director of Central Committee of Workers’ Party of Korea, in response to being called a “rogue state” by the US Defense Secretary, has been quoted by Nodutdol as saying, "the sufferings imposed upon us by the U.S. have now turned into the hatred for the U.S., and this hatred would drive us to break through the blockade of persistent sanctions led by the U.S. and to live our own way by our own efforts."<ref name=":3" />

The 2018 book ''Origin of the Korean Question'' published in DPRK analyzes the USA's long history of imperialist aggression toward Korea, even prior to the division of the Korean nation into north and south. The book explains: "From the first days of its emergence from the sea of blood of [[American Indians]], the US waged ceaseless wars of conquest with the ambition of territorial expansion. [...] Having accomplished transition from capitalism to imperialism by achieving [[Primitive accumulation of capital|forced initial accumulation of capital]] through aggression and plunder, in the 19th century the US and European powers made their colony of extensive regions in Africa, America, Southeast Asia and on the shores of the Pacific. Not satisfied with it, they plunged into a competition for seizing before anyone else Korea, [[Qing dynasty (1636–1912)|Qing China]] and Japan that had been still outside of any other country's influence. [...] The US, a latecomer in this competition, tried to contain the intervention of other powers in the Far East; its primary efforts in the Far East were directed to Korea." The authors further explain that towards the end of the Second World War, the US began to advocate a "new order of the US-led world," backpedaling on its commitments to the [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascist]] Allied Powers, and that since then, it has openly pursued policy of stamping out socialism on the globe and seeking to achieve world supremacy. The authors note that the Asia-Pacific area has since become the center of global trade and that the US has a "huge economic dependence" on it. Due to the growing influence of Asian economies, the US is "hell bent on winning control over Asia", and has determined that it must dominate the Korean peninsula, a regional strategic point politically, militarily and economically, in order to complete its goal of hegemonic power. For this reason, the US regards it as a major goal to stamp out the DPRK and dominate the Korean peninsula as a whole, setting the DPRK as a major target in the "axis of evil", and "resorting to every means to internationalize the Korean question", treating the issue arbitrarily in international arenas such as the UN, in collaboration with its satellite countries.<ref name=":10">[https://archive.org/details/origin-of-the-korean-question-foreign-languages-publishing-house-pyongyang-juche-107-2018/ "Origin of the Korean Question."] Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang, Juche 107 (2018).</ref>

Describing the history of the USA's imperialist designs on Korea, which continues to this day in modern Korea-US relations, the book's authors note that the USA has had its eyes on Korea since the 1800s, due to the importance of Korea's strategic position, the Korean peninsula being good springboard for advance into Asia. Additionally, the authors explain that the USA was compelled toward imperialist expansion by the fact that its industry demanded overseas markets for selling its products, and that the USA saw Korea as a suitable market for its commodities. Finally, Korea was seen as a key location where ships from the USA could refuel on their way to China. Several incidents, such as the criminal intrusion of the USA's ship ''General Sherman'' into the [[Taedong river]] in 1866, which, demanding "trade" and refusing to leave, perpetrated theft, violence, and kidnapping and killing of Koreans until Pyongyang citizens finally were able to set the boat on fire and sink it, was followed by other incidents with USA's naval vessels continuing to intrude into Korean territory as well as conducting illegal gold prospecting in Korea.<ref name=":10" />

Eventually, after a Korea-US treaty was made in 1882, the US won many privileges including the extraterritorial right and "most favoured nation" treatment. Thus the US moved to reduce Korea to its commodity market, a source of precious metals and other raw materials, and an object of capital investment. The US capitalists brought surplus goods like old firearms, petroleum, tobacco and drops to sell them at exorbitant prices, meanwhile purchasing Korea's precious metals including gold and silver at low prices. Over time, [[Christianity|Christian]] missionaries promoted pro-US sentiment and sent "bourgeois sycophants" and "traitors to the nation" such as future dictator [[Syngman Rhee]] to the US to study, "at the expense of part of the colossal wealth obtained by bleeding the Korean people white."<ref name=":10" />

By 1905, in a meeting referred to as the [[Taft-Katsura agreement]], the USA's secretary of war and soon-to-be president, [[William Howard Taft]], and Japan's prime minister [[Katsura Taro]] had a confidential discussion in which they expressed their respective views on control over nations in the Pacific, with Japan emphasizing that it had no designs on the [[Republic of the Philippines|Philippines]], and the USA expressing that it would be "logical" for Japan to assert control over Korea. The USA's secretary of war and future president expressed his view that "the establishment by Japan of a [[suzerainty]] over Corea to the extent of requiring that Corea enter into no foreign treaties without the consent of Japan" would directly contribute to "permanent peace" in East Asia.<ref>[https://www.icasinc.org/history/katsura.html "The Taft-Katsura Agreed Memorandum, July 29, 1905."] ICAS Historical Document, Institute for Corean-American Studies. [https://www.icasinc.org/history/katsura.pdf PDF] of document. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230829070912/https://www.icasinc.org/history/katsura.pdf Archived] 2023-08-29.</ref><ref>[https://kls.law.columbia.edu/content/korea-legal-history "Korea: A Legal History: Taft-Katsura Agreed Memorandum."] Korean Legal Studies. Columbia.edu. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230829072908/https://kls.law.columbia.edu/content/korea-legal-history Archived] 2023-08-29.</ref> The authors of ''Origin of the Korean Question'' point out that in the Taft-Katsura Agreement, the US recognized Japan's protection of Korea and, in return, Japan promised not to interfere with the US supremacy over the Philippines. Placing this agreement in the context of the USA's series of aggressions and intrusions into Korea, its imperialistic trade relations, its promotion of pro-US bourgeois ideology through Christian missionaries, and its disregard for agreements made in the 1882 Korea-US treaty, it demonstrates the USA's longstanding record of aggressive, imperialist self-interest in its dealings with Korea as a key country for the US to subjugate on its path to imperialist world hegemony. In line with this history, the authors evaluate that the US of the present day spreads misinformation about the DPRK and misuses the UN and other international apparatuses to "isolate and suffocate the recalcitrant country that aspires after independence [...] to bring the Korean people to their knees by internationalizing the Korean question at all costs in pursuit of its world strategy."<ref name=":10" />

===DPRK-ROK relations===
[[File:Unification vs Peaceful Coexistence 2016-2021.png|thumb|Attitudes in South Korea towards unification vs peaceful coexistence with DPRK, according to the 2021 KINU Unification Survey.<ref name=":5">Dr. Sang Sin Lee, et. al. [https://www.kinu.or.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/87cb5812-a81a-4fdc-824c-8d359544e8f7 "KINU Unification Survey 2021: Executive Summary."] July, 2021. Korea Institute for National Unification.</ref>]]
Among the political leadership, bourgeoisie, and working people of South Korea, there is variation in attitudes toward DPRK. For the majority of South Korea's history, its leaders have been far-right anti-communist military dictators as well as corrupt oligarchs. A handful of ROK presidents are notable for their "Sunshine Policy" stance toward DPRK, a stance of reconciliation. Most notably associated with this attitude are Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. The more recent president, [[Moon Jae-in]], has been described as having revived certain elements of the Sunshine Policy era. However, his presidency was followed by the right-wing [[Yoon Suk-yeol]] who took office in 2022, and has a much more aggressive pro-US stance.

In regard to public opinion in South Korea, the 2021 KINU Unification Survey<ref name=":5" /> reported that positive responses to the question “If North Korea open the borders to each other and cooperate on political and economic matters, such a state can be considered unification even if the two Koreas are not one country” have reached 63.2%. In addition, the survey found there is a growing tendency to be indifferent to DPRK and to "give up expectations" rather than a negative view for the future of inter-Korean relations. The IMF generation and millennial generations clearly show a high level of indifference toward the DPRK compared to the older generations. (IMF generation 68.3%, Millennial generation 74.1%).

According to the survey, the gap between ‘Prefers unification’ and ‘Prefers peaceful coexistence’ is very huge in the millennial generation. In the 2021 survey, the percentage of ‘Prefers peaceful coexistence’ was 71.4% and the percentage of ‘Prefers unification’ was 12.4%, showing a difference of 59%P. The summary of the results suggests that "the trend that younger generations view North Korea as the subject of coexistence and not unification will become stronger in the future." The younger generation tends to loosely favor confederations. The Millennial generation most actively preferred confederations and has the lowest percentage of preference for unitary state system at only 6.5%. The preference for unification in the unitary state system, which is the traditional unification view, was relatively high among the war generation (17.8%). However, more` than half of the War generation (52.1%) preferred confederations.

67.7% of survey respondents agreed to the statement “The agreements between the two Koreas should be continued regardless of the government's change” and 90.3% of the respondents said ‘necessary’ to the question “Do you think that U.S. Armed Forces in Korea is needed now?” 69% of respondents showed a positive attitude toward the question “Do you think U.S. President [[Joe Biden|Biden]] should hold a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un?” The survey also found that people under 30 are apparently more vulnerable to fake news about DPRK than those over 40. Income level, residence area, political ideology, and party identification also seem to influence the reception of fake news on DPRK and unification issues.<ref name=":5" />

The US consistently interferes in inter-Korean affairs and polices Korean reunification efforts by citing sanctions. According to Nodutdol, only a few months after the Korean leaders signed the Panmunjeom Declaration, the US-led UN Command which oversees the DMZ, blocked development of the inter-Korean railway. In January 2020, South Korean President Moon Jae-In expressed interest in developing tourism to People's Korea, but the US ambassador Harry Harris blocked this effort. Harris claimed that "independent" tourism plans would have to undergo US consultation. He emphasized that the items inside South Korean tourists' luggage could violate sanctions, demonstrating the extent of US interference.<ref name=":3" />

During Moon Jae-in's presidency, a number of inter-Korean activities took place, such as the 2018 inter-Korean summit. In the 2018 Winter Olympics, the teams representing DPRK and south Korea entered the Opening Ceremony marching under the Korean Unification Flag, while in women's ice hockey there was a single united Korean team. A music concert titled "Spring is Coming" was also held in 2018, in which a number of south Korean artists performed alongside People's Korean artists in [[Pyongyang]], DPRK.

Pro-DPRK voices in South Korea are stifled by the existence of the National Security Law. The National Security Law is a south Korean law enforced since 1948 following events such as the [[Jeju Uprising]] where Koreans opposed the division of the country into north and south. The National Security Law has the avowed purpose "to secure the security of the State and the subsistence and freedom of nationals, by regulating any anticipated activities compromising the safety of the State." Behaviors or speeches in favor of the DPRK or communism can be punished by the National Security Law. In an article from The Diplomat, it was referred to as a "Cold War holdover" that "allows the government to selectively prosecute anyone who 'praises, incites or propagates the activities of an anti-government organization'" which the article describes as "a deliberately vague clause that broadly implies the North Korean state and its sympathizers." The article continues, explaining "Under Article 7, individuals have been prosecuted and imprisoned for merely possessing North Korean publications or satirically tweeting North Korean propaganda. In recent years this clause has been harshly criticized by [[Amnesty International]] and [[Human Rights Watch]], who claim the government abuses the law to repress dissenting voices."<ref>Meredith Shaw and Joseph Yi. (2022-03-15). [https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/will-yoon-suk-yeol-finally-reform-south-koreas-national-security-law/ "Will Yoon Suk-yeol Finally Reform South Korea’s National Security Law?"] ''The Diplomat''.</ref>

According to the [[People's Democracy Party]] (PDP), a revolutionary workers' party in south Korea, the continued U.S. military occupation of south Korea is the primary barrier to peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula.<ref>People's Democracy Party and Liberation School. [https://www.liberationschool.org/korean-war-70-years/ “70 Years Too Long: The Struggle to End the Korean War – Liberation School.”] ''Liberation School – Revolutionary Marxism for a New Generation of Fighters'', 25 June 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.liberationschool.org/korean-war-70-years/ Archived]. ‌</ref>

On August 13, 2022, thousands of south Korean unionists and their progressive supporters rallied in downtown Seoul to protest against joint US-south Korea war game exercises. In a video uploaded by [[Press TV]], Oh Eun-Jung of the National Teachers Union was quoted as saying "The threat of nuclear war is growing on the Korean peninsula, conservative forces of Yoon Suk-yeol in south Korea and those in the U.S. are frantically conducting aggressive war drills in the sky, the land, and the sea, and are about to start large-scale military exercises, aimed at the invasion of North Korea. We must stamp out this behavior of anti-reunification forces." In the same video, construction worker Lee Seung-Woo stated, "We not only oppose the war exercises, but we want the U.S. Forces Korea, which is actually controlling and interfering with the Korean peninsula to leave this land. We believe that only then will the eighty million Koreans from both north and south be able to live peacefully."<ref>Frank Smith. [https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/08/13/687322/South-Korean-unionists-protest-US-South-Korea-war-games “‘South Korean Unionists Protest US-South Korea War Games.’”] PressTV News. August 13, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220826124551/https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/08/13/687322/South-Korean-unionists-protest-US-South-Korea-war-games Archived] 2022-08-28.</ref>

====Unconverted long-term prisoners====
[[File:Repatriation demonstration for unconverted long-term prisoners vop.co.kr.jpg|thumb|Members of the preparatory group for the 20th anniversary of the repatriation of non-converted prisoners hold a press conference in front of the government complex in Seoul to urge the second repatriation (2020).]]
Unconverted long-term prisoners is the People's Korean term for northern loyalists imprisoned in south Korea who never renounced their support for DPRK. Many of them were arrested as spies, and some spent over 40 years in prison for their refusal to disavow the DPRK. While in prison, many of them were held in solitary confinement and subjected to extensive torture.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/286070.stm "Solitary: Tough test of survival instinct"] (1999-02-25). ''BBC News''. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220725155633/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/286070.stm Archived] from the original.</ref> In the late 1990s, amnesty was declared for certain elderly and ill prisoners and they began to be released from prison and allowed to live in south Korean society, with limited rights due to their refusal to disavow their loyalty to the DPRK. As the unconverted long-term prisoners began to be released, many of them sought repatriation to the DPRK. Some were able to return to DPRK, notably many of them in the year 2000 during the Sunshine Policy period, but others remain in the south, being denied their requests for repatriation. Those who returned to the DPRK were met with celebrations and fanfare welcoming them as heroes, while those remaining in South Korea generally live in poverty and in nursing homes, some without social security numbers. Former unconverted political prisoners, upon being released, are also subjected to ROK state surveillance under the Security Surveillance Act. Giving examples of this, former political prisoner Anh Hak-sop explained in a 2020 ''Liberation School'' interview, "[T]here are security police who follow me. Whenever there is a problem with the North and South, they raid my house and stand guard outside my property. One time at a demonstration, conservative forces attacked me. The police did nothing to protect me. Every week or every other week, the police come to my house and ask about my activities, who has visited my house, and so on. Once every other month I need to report to them about what I did, who I met, and who visited me. Every two years I need to go to court."<ref name=":4">Liberation School (Jul 27, 2022). [https://www.liberationschool.org/interview-with-ahn-hak-sop/ "Still fighting for Korea’s liberation: An interview with Ahn Hak-sop"] ''Liberation School''. [https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.liberationschool.org/interview-with-ahn-hak-sop/ Archived] from the original.</ref>

Additionally, many who participated in the repatriation in the year 2000 and many of those who remained in South Korea made their decisions based on their impression at the time that there was going to be more freedom of movement between ROK and DPRK thereafter. According to Ahn Hak-sop, who chose to remain in the South when the 2000 repatriation happened, said one of his reasons was that he "thought it was a temporary situation." Anh also notes that "Those comrades went to the North because they thought that shortly there would be free movement between the two states. They went to the North to study and thought they would come back later." Regarding his own intention to stay in the south temporarily, Anh elaborated: "[T]here were young progressive people here in the South, and they asked me to stay. [...] We have to keep struggling here for the withdrawal of US army, the peace treaty, and peaceful reunification. I decided to stay here to fight for these goals. In 1952, I came here to liberate the southern half of the peninsula, and I need to stay here and continue that struggle.<ref name=":4" />

Those who oppose the repatriation of these former prisoners generally do so on grounds of demanding that DPRK start repatriating people back to the south as well. In 2003, south Korean director Kim Dong-won released ''Repatriation'', a documentary about the unconverted prisoners and their experiences, based on more than 12 years and 800 hours of filming. The film documents their views on Korea's partition, their daily hardships as they attempt to adjust to south Korean society, as well as their struggle for repatriation.<ref>Yoon, Cindy (2003-03-28), [https://asiasociety.org/kim-dong-wons-film-north-korean-prisoners-held-south-korea "Kim Dong Won's Film on North Korean Prisoners Held in South Korea"], ''Asia Society''. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220725151533/https://asiasociety.org/kim-dong-wons-film-north-korean-prisoners-held-south-korea Archive] link.</ref>

==Further reading==

*[[Library:DPRK Study Guide|DPRK study guide]]
*[[:Category:Library works about the DPRK|All library works about the DPRK]]
*[[:Category:Library documents from the DPRK|All library works from the DPRK]]

==External links==

*http://www.korean-books.com.kp/en/

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:Democratic People's Republic of Korea]]
[[Category:Targets of regime change operations]]
[[Category:Targets of bourgeois media]]
[[Category:Marxist-Leninist states]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]
[[Category:Countries invaded by the United States]]
[[Category:Countries sanctioned by the US]]
[[Category:Juche]]

Statesian Civil War

2023-09-04T18:51:30Z

BlueBodhisattva: Expanded background section with North-South political conflict, 1803 - 1861

Nikolai Bukharin

2023-07-06T07:28:52Z

BlueBodhisattva:

{{Infobox politician|name=Nikolai Bukharin|native_name=Никола́й Буха́рин|birth_date=9 October 1888|death_date=15 March 1938|birth_place=[[Moscow]], [[Russian Empire]]|death_place=Moscow, [[RSFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]|death_cause=Execution|nationality=Russian|political_orientation=[[Opportunism]]|image=Bukharin.png}}

'''Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin''' (9 October 1888 – 15 March 1938) was a [[Russian Federation|Russian]] [[Revolution|revolutionary]] and [[Communism|communist]] politician. After the [[October Revolution]], he initially became a member of a [[Left-communism|left-communist]] opposition group with [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]] that supported [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] over [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]. During the [[New Economic Policy]], he became a [[Opportunism#Right opportunism|right-opportunist]] and supported the [[bourgeoisie]]<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Transition to the Peaceful Work of Economic Restoration|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}</ref> and [[Kulak|kulaks]]. He formed an anti-party bloc with [[Alexei Rykov]] and [[Mikhail Tomsky]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch10.htm}}</ref> In early 1929, Bukharin confessed to [[Jules Humbert-Droz]], a [[Swiss Confederation|Swiss]] [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and a friend, that the bloc was forced to resort to [[terrorism]] in order to remove [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] for the lack of public or Party support.<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Jules Humbert-Droz]]|year=1929|title=Nikolai Bukharin on the Use of Individual Terror Against Stalin|chapter=Courtesy: Jules Humbert-Droz, ‘De Lénin à Staline, Dix Ans Au Service de L’ Internationale Communiste 1921-31’, A la Baconniére, Neuchâtel, 1971, pp. 379-80. Translated from the French by Vijay Singh|chapter-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm}}</ref>

== Political career ==

=== Revolution ===
In 1918, Bukharin planned to arrest Lenin, Stalin, and [[Yakov Sverdlov|Sverdlov]] and create a new government of [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|SRs]] and left communists.<ref name=":0223" />

=== 1930s ===
Bukharin was the chief editor of the government newspaper ''[[Izvestiya]]'' during the early 1930s. He met with the [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] [[Nikolayevsky]] in [[Paris]] to buy some manuscripts of [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] and admitted that he saw Stalin as "not a man, a devil."<ref name=":0223">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|title-url=|chapter-url=|PW-work=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|quote=During his trial, Bukharin admitted in front of the tribunal that in 1918, after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, that there was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov, and to form a new government composed of `left-communists' and Social Revolutionaries. But he firmly denied that there was also a plan to execute them.

`Stalin aimed at one party dictatorship and complete centralisation. Bukharin envisaged several parties and even nationalist parties, and stood for the maximum of decentralisation. He was also in favour of vesting authority in the various constituent republics and thought that the more important of these should even control their own foreign relations. By 1936, Bukharin was approaching the social democratic standpoint of the left-wing socialists of the West.'}}</ref>

== Political positions ==
Bukharin believed the [[Peasantry|peasants]] were aligned with the bourgeoisie and supported the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[First World War|World War]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Preparation and Realization of the October Socialist Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch07.htm}}</ref> He prioritized [[light industry]] over [[heavy industry]].<ref name=":0223" />

=== Collectivization ===
Bukharin believed that [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)#Collectivization|collectivization]] was not possible at the planned rate and that middle and poor peasants did not want to collectivize.<ref name=":052">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Collectivization|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=62}}</ref> After collectivization was completed, he wanted to reverse it.<ref name=":0223" />

=== Elections ===
Bukharin wanted to create another political party composed of [[Intellectual|intellectuals]] to run against the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] in elections. He also advocated for other opposition parties including [[Nationalism|nationalist]] parties.<ref name=":0223" />

== Execution ==
Bukharin was executed in 1937 after the [[Moscow trials|Moscow Trials]] revealed that he had joined an anti-Soviet bloc with Leon Trotsky and [[Grigory Zinoviev]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}</ref> [[Grigori Tokaty|Grigory Tokaev]] (an "ultra-conspiratorial" liberal oppositionist)<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=61|quote=from this statement alone my other readers will grasp in what a turgid atmosphere, in what an ultra-conspiratorial manner-- not even knowing one another's characters-- we oppositionists of the U.S.S.R. have to work.|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref> writes in ''Betrayal of an Ideal'' that Bukharin had denounced public opposition to Stalin's government in 1935.<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1955|title=Betrayal of an Ideal|page=168, 284|quote=This was all typical Bukharin, this notion of working up a general spirit of resistance, without ever a trace of direct organised struggle against the policy of extreme measures. He was ready to talk about a new revolution, yet refused to admit that it was feasible until the masses had acquired a sense of what it all meant. As for us, the younger generation, he urged us to have confidence in ourselves, but he also urged us to have patience. Events were to prove him right in this and, in the long run, we realised that in the early thirties we approached our political problems in a very shallow way. Two years later, in 1934, we attacked Bukharin and his fellows savagely, accusing them of slithering back into the bogs of Stalinism, but eventually we were to understand that they knew far better than we did what was possible and what was not. The fact that at our first meeting he told us nothing could be done to stop forced collectivisation did not mean that he did not condemn it; it merely meant that he was less powerful than we had foolishly thought he was. (168)

[...]

After I came out of hospital I delivered to Bukharin a resolution prepared by my comrades, which described his action as "renegade, capitulatory and treacherous". His only answer was a morose silence.

He had urged us to think for ourselves and to try to bring our influence to bear on public matters; now he himself had turned against the views, the faith he had stirred up. He would like to have regained our confidence, but it was too late. He had allowed himself to be broken. As a political figure he was on the run. The inevitable ending was already in sight. Soon he was to be arrested, charged with a crime he had never committed, and shamefully put to death.

'Learn by my errors," Bukharin had said when I handed him our resolution, "and bear in mind that Stalin always has a dirty trick up his sleeve." Alas, there were too many errors for us to learn from, and we had to look for more reliable models on which to shape our lives than this intelligent but weak man who made so puny a statesman. (284)|publisher=Indiana University Press}}</ref> Tokaev expresses frustration that [[Kamenev]] establishes links between himself, Zinoviev, and Bukharin during his 1935 trial, and "thus, in the course of the second Moscow trial, were sewn the seeds of the fourth trial."<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=59|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Revolutionaries]]
[[Category:Russian Marxists]]
<references />
[[Category:Russians by descent]]
[[Category:Russians]]

Monthly Review

2023-07-06T04:56:06Z

BlueBodhisattva: fixed link

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Monthly Review''}}

'''''Monthly Review''''' ('''''MR''''') is a [[Socialism|socialist]] political magazine founded in 1949. Its current editor is [[John Bellamy Foster]]. The economic analysis put out by the founding editors of the magazine is loosely referred to as "The Monthly Review School."<ref>{{Web citation|author=Sam Williams|newspaper=A Critique of Crisis Theory|title=The Monthly Review School|date=2010-02-28|url=https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers-austrian-economics-versus-marxism/the-monthly-review-school/|retrieved=2023-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Michael Roberts|newspaper=The Next Recession|title=John Bellamy Foster and Permanent Stagnation|date=2016-06-25|url=https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/john-bellamy-foster-and-permanent-stagnation/|retrieved=2023-07-05|quote=As I understand it, the Monthly Review school reckons that ‘competitive’ capitalism in the 19th century eventually morphed into ‘monopoly capitalism’.}}</ref> The classic exposition of this "school" of economics is laid out in the book, ''Monopoly Capital'' by magazine founders [[Paul A. Baran]] and [[Paul Sweezy|Paul M. Sweezy]]. The book details a new stage of capitalism where the competitive markets analyzed by [[Karl Marx]] have given way to "monopoly capitalism," where competition loses its significance in driving capitalist development and crisis. This new stage is characterized by a "permanent stagnation" only given new life by sporadic innovations in technology.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Bellamy Foster|newspaper=Monthly Review|title=The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism store page|date=2014-04|url=https://monthlyreview.org/product/theory_of_monopoly_capitalism/|retrieved=2023-07-05}}</ref>

In their book, Baran and Sweezy seek to "correct" Marx's assumptions about the [[Tendency of the rate of profit to fall|falling rate of profit]] and they erase [[Surplus-value|surplus value]] from their work in favor of the concept of an "economic surplus."<ref>{{Citation|author=Victor Perlo|year=1976|title=The New Propaganda of Declining Profit Shares and Inadequate Investment|title-url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/048661347600800305|section=Corrected Trends in the Shares of Capital and Labor|page=61|quote=It should be noted that Baran and Sweezy, who reject the term "surplus value," use Joseph Phillips' comprehensive, economy-wide calculation of the "economic surplus" rising from 46.9 per cent of the GNP in 1929 to 56.1 per cent in 1963.|publisher=SAGE Publishing|doi=10.1177/048661347600800305|volume=8}}</ref>

== History ==
''Monthly Review'' began publication in May 1949 in [[New York City]] and its first two editors were Paul M. Sweezy and [[Leo Huberman]]. Its first issue contained the article ''[[Library:Why Socialism?|Why Socialism?]]'' by [[Albert Einstein]]. In 1952, ''MR'' released ''Hidden History of the Korean War'' by I. F. Stone.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=Monthly Review|title=About Monthly Review|url=https://monthlyreview.org/about/#today|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220615121755/https://monthlyreview.org/about/|archive-date=2022-06-15|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Socialist media outlets]]

Tankie Bunker

2023-07-06T04:51:10Z

BlueBodhisattva: added context

'''Tankie Bunker''' is a [[Discord]] server, among the largest that proclaim a [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] line, with over 2,600 users as of May 2023. Originally created in May 2020, the server's stated intentions are to facilitate a safe space for Marxist-Leninists from all corners of the internet, free from debates and arguments with counterrevolutionary ideologies. As per their rules, only MLs can join the server.

Officially, Tankie Bunker supports all [[Actually Existing Socialism|AES]], including and especially the [[People's Republic of China]]; many users are Chinese and members of the CPC. Maoists, Hoxhaists, patriotic socialists and other revisionist MLs are all prohibited from joining.

A majority of TB users are members of communist parties, as previously stated with the Chinese comrades that are member of the CPC, but at the same time there are many members in the server that are also members of revisionist and opportunists parties, such as the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Party of the USA]], though the server itself is completely independent and not affiliated with any other group or entity. The server has a strong affinity with the [[Monthly Review]] school of thought, with many of the mods recommending [[Paul A. Baran|Baran]] and [[Paul Sweezy|Sweezy's]] ''[[Monopoly Capitalism]]'' or [[Michał Kalecki|Michał Kalecki's]] work for economic analysis.

==Invite link==

*https://discord.com/invite/pxdvFnvaaP

[[Category:Discord community]]
[[Category:Communist Discord communities]]

Monthly Review

2023-07-06T03:56:51Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added some context and contentions between Monthly Review and other Marxist economists.

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Monthly Review''}}

'''''Monthly Review''''' ('''''MR''''') is a [[Socialism|socialist]] political magazine founded in 1949. Its current editor is [[John Bellamy Foster]]. The economic analysis put out by the founding editors of the magazine is loosely referred to as "The Monthly Review School."<ref>{{Web citation|author=Sam Williams|newspaper=A Critique of Crisis Theory|title=The Monthly Review School|date=2010-02-28|url=https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers-austrian-economics-versus-marxism/the-monthly-review-school/|retrieved=2023-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Michael Roberts|newspaper=The Next Recession|title=John Bellamy Foster and Permanent Stagnation|date=2016-06-25|url=https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/john-bellamy-foster-and-permanent-stagnation/|retrieved=2023-07-05|quote=As I understand it, the Monthly Review school reckons that ‘competitive’ capitalism in the 19th century eventually morphed into ‘monopoly capitalism’.}}</ref> The classic exposition of this "school" of economics is laid out in the book, ''Monopoly Capital'' by magazine founders [[Paul A. Baran]] and [[Paul M. Sweezy]]. The book details a new stage of capitalism where the competitive markets analyzed by [[Karl Marx]] have given way to "monopoly capitalism," where competition loses its significance in driving capitalist development and crisis. This new stage is characterized by a "permanent stagnation" only given new life by sporadic innovations in technology.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Bellamy Foster|newspaper=Monthly Review|title=The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism store page|date=2014-04|url=https://monthlyreview.org/product/theory_of_monopoly_capitalism/|retrieved=2023-07-05}}</ref>

In their book, Baran and Sweezy seek to "correct" Marx's assumptions about the [[Tendency of the rate of profit to fall|falling rate of profit]] and they erase [[Surplus-value|surplus value]] from their work in favor of the concept of an "economic surplus."<ref>{{Citation|author=Victor Perlo|year=1976|title=The New Propaganda of Declining Profit Shares and Inadequate Investment|title-url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/048661347600800305|section=Corrected Trends in the Shares of Capital and Labor|page=61|quote=It should be noted that Baran and Sweezy, who reject the term "surplus value," use Joseph Phillips' comprehensive, economy-wide calculation of the "economic surplus" rising from 46.9 per cent of the GNP in 1929 to 56.1 per cent in 1963.|publisher=SAGE Publishing|doi=10.1177/048661347600800305|volume=8}}</ref>

== History ==
''Monthly Review'' began publication in May 1949 in [[New York City]] and its first two editors were Paul M. Sweezy and [[Leo Huberman]]. Its first issue contained the article ''[[Library:Why Socialism?|Why Socialism?]]'' by [[Albert Einstein]]. In 1952, ''MR'' released ''Hidden History of the Korean War'' by I. F. Stone.<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=Monthly Review|title=About Monthly Review|url=https://monthlyreview.org/about/#today|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220615121755/https://monthlyreview.org/about/|archive-date=2022-06-15|retrieved=2022-06-17}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Socialist media outlets]]

Nikolai Bukharin

2023-07-04T21:54:47Z

BlueBodhisattva:

{{Infobox politician|name=Nikolai Bukharin|native_name=Никола́й Буха́рин|birth_date=9 October 1888|death_date=15 March 1938|birth_place=[[Moscow]], [[Russian Empire]]|death_place=Moscow, [[RSFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]|death_cause=Execution|nationality=Russian|political_orientation=[[Opportunism]]|image=Bukharin.png}}

'''Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin''' (9 October 1888 – 15 March 1938) was a [[Russian Federation|Russian]] [[Revolution|revolutionary]] and [[Communism|communist]] politician. After the [[October Revolution]], he initially became a member of a [[Left-communism|left-communist]] opposition group with [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]] that supported [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] over [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]. During the [[New Economic Policy]], he became a [[Opportunism#Right opportunism|right-opportunist]] and supported the [[bourgeoisie]]<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Transition to the Peaceful Work of Economic Restoration|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}</ref> and [[Kulak|kulaks]]. He formed an anti-party bloc with [[Alexei Rykov]] and [[Mikhail Tomsky]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch10.htm}}</ref> In early 1929, Bukharin confessed to [[Jules Humbert-Droz]], a [[Swiss Confederation|Swiss]] [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and a friend, that the bloc was forced to resort to [[terrorism]] in order to remove [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] for the lack of public or Party support.<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Jules Humbert-Droz]]|year=1929|title=Nikolai Bukharin on the Use of Individual Terror Against Stalin|chapter=Courtesy: Jules Humbert-Droz, ‘De Lénin à Staline, Dix Ans Au Service de L’ Internationale Communiste 1921-31’, A la Baconniére, Neuchâtel, 1971, pp. 379-80. Translated from the French by Vijay Singh|chapter-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm}}</ref>

== Political career ==

=== Revolution ===
In 1918, Bukharin planned to arrest Lenin, Stalin, and [[Yakov Sverdlov|Sverdlov]] and create a new government of [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|SRs]] and left communists.<ref name=":0223" />

=== 1930s ===
Bukharin was the chief editor of the government newspaper ''[[Izvestiya]]'' during the early 1930s. He met with the [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] [[Nikolayevsky]] in [[Paris]] to buy some manuscripts of [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] and admitted that he saw Stalin as "not a man, a devil."<ref name=":0223">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|title-url=|chapter-url=|PW-work=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|quote=During his trial, Bukharin admitted in front of the tribunal that in 1918, after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, that there was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov, and to form a new government composed of `left-communists' and Social Revolutionaries. But he firmly denied that there was also a plan to execute them.

`Stalin aimed at one party dictatorship and complete centralisation. Bukharin envisaged several parties and even nationalist parties, and stood for the maximum of decentralisation. He was also in favour of vesting authority in the various constituent republics and thought that the more important of these should even control their own foreign relations. By 1936, Bukharin was approaching the social democratic standpoint of the left-wing socialists of the West.'}}</ref>

== Political positions ==
Bukharin believed the [[Peasantry|peasants]] were aligned with the bourgeoisie and supported the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[First World War|World War]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Preparation and Realization of the October Socialist Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch07.htm}}</ref> He prioritized [[light industry]] over [[heavy industry]].<ref name=":0223" />

=== Collectivization ===
Bukharin believed that [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)#Collectivization|collectivization]] was not possible at the planned rate and that middle and poor peasants did not want to collectivize.<ref name=":052">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Collectivization|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=62}}</ref> After collectivization was completed, he wanted to reverse it.<ref name=":0223" />

=== Elections ===
Bukharin wanted to create another political party composed of [[Intellectual|intellectuals]] to run against the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] in elections. He also advocated for other opposition parties including [[Nationalism|nationalist]] parties.<ref name=":0223" />

== Execution ==
Bukharin was executed in 1937 after the [[Moscow trials|Moscow Trials]] revealed that he had joined an anti-Soviet bloc with Leon Trotsky and [[Grigory Zinoviev]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}</ref> [[Grigori Tokaty|Grigory Tokaev]] (an "ultra-conspiratorial" liberal oppositionist)<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=61|quote=from this statement alone my other readers will grasp in what a turgid atmosphere, in what an ultra-conspiratorial manner-- not even knowing one another's characters-- we oppositionists of the U.S.S.R. have to work.|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref> writes in ''Betrayal of an Ideal'' that Bukharin had denounced public opposition to Stalin's government in 1935.<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1955|title=Betrayal of an Ideal|page=168, 284|quote=This was all typical Bukharin, this notion of working up a general spirit of resistance, without ever a trace of direct organised struggle against the policy of extreme measures. He was ready to talk about a new revolution, yet refused to admit that it was feasible until the masses had acquired a sense of what it all meant. As for us, the younger generation, he urged us to have confidence in ourselves, but he also urged us to have patience. Events were to prove him right in this and, in the long run, we realised that in the early thirties we approached our political problems in a very shallow way. Two years later, in 1934, we attacked Bukharin and his fellows savagely, accusing them of slithering back into the bogs of Stalinism, but eventually we were to understand that they knew far better than we did what was possible and what was not. The fact that at our first meeting he told us nothing could be done to stop forced collectivisation did not mean that he did not condemn it; it merely meant that he was less powerful than we had foolishly thought he was. (168)

[...]

After I came out of hospital I delivered to Bukharin a resolution prepared by my comrades, which described his action as "renegade, capitulatory and treacherous". His only answer was a morose silence.

He had urged us to think for ourselves and to try to bring our influence to bear on public matters; now he himself had turned against the views, the faith he had stirred up. He would like to have regained our confidence, but it was too late. He had allowed himself to be broken. As a political figure he was on the run. The inevitable ending was already in sight. Soon he was to be arrested, charged with a crime he had never committed, and shamefully put to death.

'Learn by my errors," Bukharin had said when I handed him our resolution, "and bear in mind that Stalin always has a dirty trick up his sleeve." Alas, there were too many errors for us to learn from, and we had to look for more reliable models on which to shape our lives than this intelligent but weak man who made so puny a statesman. (284)|publisher=Indiana University Press}}</ref> Tokaev expresses frustration that [[Kamenev]] establishes links between himself, Zioviev, and Bukharin during his 1935 trial, and "thus, in the course of the second Moscow trial, were sewn the seeds of the fourth trial."<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=59|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Revolutionaries]]
[[Category:Russian Marxists]]
<references />
[[Category:Russians by descent]]
[[Category:Russians]]

Nikolai Bukharin

2023-07-04T21:45:28Z

BlueBodhisattva: Removed erroneous political orientation (even if Bukharin collaborated with Trotsky in covert opposition activity, his political line remains with the "right deviationists," not the "left" represented by Trotsky) and added citations from primary sources cited by Ludo Martens. This makes the page less subject to dispute by modern Bukharin supporters.

{{Infobox politician|name=Nikolai Bukharin|native_name=Никола́й Буха́рин|birth_date=9 October 1888|death_date=15 March 1938|birth_place=[[Moscow]], [[Russian Empire]]|death_place=Moscow, [[RSFSR]], [[Soviet Union]]|death_cause=Execution|nationality=Russian|political_orientation=[[Right Opposition]]|image=Bukharin.png}}

'''Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin''' (9 October 1888 – 15 March 1938) was a [[Russian Federation|Russian]] [[Revolution|revolutionary]] and [[Communism|communist]] politician. After the [[October Revolution]], he initially became a member of a [[Left-communism|left-communist]] opposition group with [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]] that supported [[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] over [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]. During the [[New Economic Policy]], he became a [[Opportunism#Right opportunism|right-opportunist]] and supported the [[bourgeoisie]]<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Transition to the Peaceful Work of Economic Restoration|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch09.htm}}</ref> and [[Kulak|kulaks]]. He formed an anti-party bloc with [[Alexei Rykov]] and [[Mikhail Tomsky]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch10.htm}}</ref> In early 1929, Bukharin confessed to [[Jules Humbert-Droz]], a [[Swiss Confederation|Swiss]] [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and a friend, that the bloc was forced to resort to [[terrorism]] in order to remove [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] for the lack of public or Party support.<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Jules Humbert-Droz]]|year=1929|title=Nikolai Bukharin on the Use of Individual Terror Against Stalin|chapter=Courtesy: Jules Humbert-Droz, ‘De Lénin à Staline, Dix Ans Au Service de L’ Internationale Communiste 1921-31’, A la Baconniére, Neuchâtel, 1971, pp. 379-80. Translated from the French by Vijay Singh|chapter-url=https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm}}</ref>

== Political career ==

=== Revolution ===
In 1918, Bukharin planned to arrest Lenin, Stalin, and [[Yakov Sverdlov|Sverdlov]] and create a new government of [[Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries|SRs]] and left communists.<ref name=":0223" />

=== 1930s ===
Bukharin was the chief editor of the government newspaper ''[[Izvestiya]]'' during the early 1930s. He met with the [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] [[Nikolayevsky]] in [[Paris]] to buy some manuscripts of [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] and admitted that he saw Stalin as "not a man, a devil."<ref name=":0223">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|title-url=|chapter-url=|PW-work=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin#The_Great_Purge|quote=During his trial, Bukharin admitted in front of the tribunal that in 1918, after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, that there was a plan to arrest Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov, and to form a new government composed of `left-communists' and Social Revolutionaries. But he firmly denied that there was also a plan to execute them.

`Stalin aimed at one party dictatorship and complete centralisation. Bukharin envisaged several parties and even nationalist parties, and stood for the maximum of decentralisation. He was also in favour of vesting authority in the various constituent republics and thought that the more important of these should even control their own foreign relations. By 1936, Bukharin was approaching the social democratic standpoint of the left-wing socialists of the West.'}}</ref>

== Political positions ==
Bukharin believed the [[Peasantry|peasants]] were aligned with the bourgeoisie and supported the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[First World War|World War]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Period of Preparation and Realization of the October Socialist Revolution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch07.htm}}</ref> He prioritized [[light industry]] over [[heavy industry]].<ref name=":0223" />

=== Collectivization ===
Bukharin believed that [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)#Collectivization|collectivization]] was not possible at the planned rate and that middle and poor peasants did not want to collectivize.<ref name=":052">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=Collectivization|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=62}}</ref> After collectivization was completed, he wanted to reverse it.<ref name=":0223" />

=== Elections ===
Bukharin wanted to create another political party composed of [[Intellectual|intellectuals]] to run against the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|CPSU]] in elections. He also advocated for other opposition parties including [[Nationalism|nationalist]] parties.<ref name=":0223" />

== Execution ==
Bukharin was executed in 1937 after the [[Moscow trials|Moscow Trials]] revealed that he had joined an anti-Soviet bloc with Leon Trotsky and [[Grigory Zinoviev]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle to Complete the Building of the Socialist Society. Introduction of the New Constitution|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch12.htm}}</ref> [[Grigori Tokaty|Grigory Tokaev]] (an "ultra-conspiratorial" liberal oppositionist)<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=61|quote=from this statement alone my other readers will grasp in what a turgid atmosphere, in what an ultra-conspiratorial manner-- not even knowing one another's characters-- we oppositionists of the U.S.S.R. have to work.|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref> writes in ''Betrayal of an Ideal'' that Bukharin had denounced public opposition to Stalin's government in 1935.<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1955|title=Betrayal of an Ideal|page=168, 284|quote=This was all typical Bukharin, this notion of working up a general spirit of resistance, without ever a trace of direct organised struggle against the policy of extreme measures. He was ready to talk about a new revolution, yet refused to admit that it was feasible until the masses had acquired a sense of what it all meant. As for us, the younger generation, he urged us to have confidence in ourselves, but he also urged us to have patience. Events were to prove him right in this and, in the long run, we realised that in the early thirties we approached our political problems in a very shallow way. Two years later, in 1934, we attacked Bukharin and his fellows savagely, accusing them of slithering back into the bogs of Stalinism, but eventually we were to understand that they knew far better than we did what was possible and what was not. The fact that at our first meeting he told us nothing could be done to stop forced collectivisation did not mean that he did not condemn it; it merely meant that he was less powerful than we had foolishly thought he was. (168)

[...]

After I came out of hospital I delivered to Bukharin a resolution prepared by my comrades, which described his action as "renegade, capitulatory and treacherous". His only answer was a morose silence.

He had urged us to think for ourselves and to try to bring our influence to bear on public matters; now he himself had turned against the views, the faith he had stirred up. He would like to have regained our confidence, but it was too late. He had allowed himself to be broken. As a political figure he was on the run. The inevitable ending was already in sight. Soon he was to be arrested, charged with a crime he had never committed, and shamefully put to death.

'Learn by my errors," Bukharin had said when I handed him our resolution, "and bear in mind that Stalin always has a dirty trick up his sleeve." Alas, there were too many errors for us to learn from, and we had to look for more reliable models on which to shape our lives than this intelligent but weak man who made so puny a statesman. (284)|publisher=Indiana University Press}}</ref> Tokaev expresses frustration that [[Kamenev]] establishes links between himself, Zioviev, and Bukharin during his 1935 trial, and "thus, in the course of the second Moscow trial, were sewn the seeds of the fourth trial."<ref>{{Citation|author=Grigory Tokaev|year=1956|title=Comrade X|title-url=https://archive.org/details/TokaevComradeX1956|chapter=Terrorism by Judicial Trial|page=59|publisher=The Harvill Press}}</ref>

== References ==
[[Category:Revolutionaries]]
[[Category:Russian Marxists]]
<references />
[[Category:Russians by descent]]
[[Category:Russians]]

Islamic Republic of Pakistan

2023-07-04T20:48:08Z

BlueBodhisattva: Removed erroneous statement on Pakistani recognition of Israel. Military Chief of Staff Bajwa reportedly discussed such opening up with US authorities, but recognition hasn't occured as of July 2023. In the Multipolarista article, Norton never says that official rapprochement has already occurred.

{{Infobox country|name=Islamic Republic of Pakistan|native_name=اِسلامی جمہوریہ پاكِستان|image_flag=Flag of Pakistan.svg|image_map=Pakistan map.png|map_width=290|map_caption=Claimed territories in light green|largest_city=[[Karachi]]|image_coat=Pakistan COA.svg|capital=[[Islamabad]]|official_languages=Urdu English|area_km2=881,913|population_estimate=242,923,845|population_estimate_year=2022}}

'''Pakistan''', officially the '''Islamic Republic of Pakistan''' is a country in South Asia. Geographically, it is in a strategic region along [[People's Republic of China|China]]'s [[Belt and Road Initiative]].<ref>{{News citation|author=David Sacks|date=2021-03-30|title=The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor—Hard Reality Greets BRI’s Signature Initiative|url=https://www.cfr.org/blog/china-pakistan-economic-corridor-hard-reality-greets-bris-signature-initiative|newspaper=CFR}}</ref>

== History ==
In 1971, the [[United States of America|United States]] supported [[Pakistan]]'s [[genocide]] in Bangladesh, which killed 300,000 to three million civilians and created ten million refugees.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=Gary Bass|date=2013-11-19|title=Looking Away from Genocide|url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide|newspaper=The New Yorker|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190214121105/https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide|archive-date=2019-02-14|retrieved=2022-01-10|quote=}}</ref>

In the 1970s, Prime Minister [[Zulfikar Ali Bhutto]] tried to develop a [[Nuclear weapon|nuclear weapons]] program after [[Republic of India|India]] detonated its first nuclear bomb. the On 5 July 1977, the [[United States of America|USA]] helped General [[Muhammad Zia-ul-Huq]] overthrow Bhutto and establish a military dictatorship. Before the coup, [[Henry Kissinger]] had warned Bhutto that the United States would "make an example of [him]."<ref name=":0" /> Zia al-Huq privatized Pakistan's health care.<ref name=":1222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Mecca|page=271|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

U.S. drone strikes on Pakistan during the [[War on Terror]] killed thousands of civilians. After [[Imran Khan]] came to power, he ordered the U.S. to stop drone strikes, which had been approved by previous Pakistani governments, and rejected U.S. military bases in Pakistan. He also introduced [[Universal healthcare|free health care]] for the poor.<ref>{{News citation|author=Abdul Jabbar|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=Indirect colonialism: US role in Pakistan’s political crisis|date=2022-04-25|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/04/25/indirect-colonialism-us-pakistan-imran-khan/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624234518/https://multipolarista.com/2022/04/25/indirect-colonialism-us-pakistan-imran-khan/|archive-date=2022-06-24|retrieved=2022-06-28}}</ref> Khan stayed neutral during the [[2022 Russo-Ukrainian conflict|2022 Russo-Ukrainian War]].<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=[[Ben Norton]]|newspaper=[[Multipolarista]]|title=Pakistan coup regime bans Imran Khan, dissidents killed, as US eyes China ties, Israel normalization|date=2022-10-26|url=https://multipolarista.com/2022/10/26/pakistan-coup-imran-khan-china-israel/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027115758/https://multipolarista.com/2022/10/26/pakistan-coup-imran-khan-china-israel/|archive-date=2022-10-27|retrieved=2022-11-01}}</ref>

=== 2022 coup ===
In 2022, Imran Khan was ousted in a US-backed coup.<ref>{{News citation|author=[[Richard Medhurst]]|date=2022-04-11|title=Pakistani PM Ousted in US Coup|url=https://youtu.be/BXnkUcN22fM}}</ref> He is urging his supporters to fight against the foreign-backed ouster.<ref>{{News citation|author=Tyler Durden|date=2022-04-10|title=Pakistan's Imran Khan Ousted In Midnight No Confidence Vote, Urges Supporters Rise Up Against US-Led "Foreign Conspiracy"|url=https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pakistans-imran-khan-ousted-midnight-no-confidence-vote-urges-supporters-rise-against|newspaper=[[ZeroHedge]]}}</ref> Following the coup, Pakistan's military government discussed the possibility of recognizing [[apartheid]] [[State of Israel|Israel]]. The coup regime also sent weapons to [[Ukraine]].<ref name=":0" />

== References ==
[[Category:Countries]]
<references />
[[Category:Global south]]
[[Category:Countries targeted by imperialist aggression]]
[[Category:Asian countries]]
[[Category:Countries targeted by CIA coups]]

Essay:The American Crisis of Capital: The Nazification of the United States

2023-07-03T10:45:24Z

BlueBodhisattva: Clarifications, expansions, and omissions. I feel that the history of fascism (or "proto-fascism") on this continent goes back further than 1854.

'''Notice: This essay is a work-in-progress.'''
[[File:Confederate flag at US capital.jpeg|thumb|[[2021 United States Capitol riot|January 6 rioter]] with the flag of the [[Confederate States of America]] inside the [[United States of America|United States]] capital as a police officer stands idly by and does nothing.]]
Flying their pro-slavery flags, armed men marched unopposed into the [[United States of America|United States]] capital on [[2021 United States Capitol riot|January 6, 2021]].<ref name=":4">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0 Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol | Visual Investigations]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfLbrUa5Ng How the Proud Boys Breached the Capitol | Visual Investigations]</ref> This was only four years after a large crowd of Americans marched through the streets of [[State of North Carolina|North Carolina]] with their torches, chanting the [[National Socialism|Nazi]] slogans 'Sieg Heil!' and 'Blood and soil!' as they demand the [[Genocide|eradication]] of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] people. Just a day after this scene, an even larger crowd in North Carolina took control of a large field, flying Swastika flags and saying that [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] did nothing wrong.<ref name=":5">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoYKuoiUrY Charlottesville: The True Alt-Right]</ref> Then [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Donald Trump]] described these men with Nazi flags and pro-slavery iconography as 'very fine people'<ref name=":6">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T45Sbkndjc How PragerU Lies to You: Charlottesville]</ref> and 'great people',<ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/11/trump-jan-6-insurrection-these-were-great-people-499165 Trump on Jan. 6 insurrection: 'These were great people']</ref> the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] cheering for him along the way.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-leaders-remain-silent-as-trump-casts-perpetrators-of-jan-6-attack-as-political-prisoners/2021/09/17/4ce91dc2-17d0-11ec-9589-31ac3173c2e5_story.html Republican leaders remain silent as Trump casts perpetrators of Jan. 6 attack as political prisoners]</ref> How did it come to this? How did the same nation that fought against [[Nazi Germany]] in the [[Second World War]] turn into a hotbed of that exact same Nazi sentiment? The answer is simple. The United States of America has had its own [[crisis of capital]] and is now falling into a state of decayed capitalism - [[fascism]].

== Chapter I: Origins of American Fascism ==
The United States was built on [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] [[imperialism]]. Arguably, settler-colonialism bears within it the origins of fascist dominance.<ref name=":9">{{Web citation|author=Alex Ross|newspaper=The New Yorker|title=How American Racism Influenced Hitler|date=2018-04-23|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> Within this view, the deep-rooted origins of the American fascist movement go back to 1492. The first proto-fascistic militias were those building and enforcing white supremacy ever since Europeans discovered the opportunity for plunder in the "New World."

Within a more developed capitalist (barely) United States, fascism sees its early articulations in 1854 - just seven years before the [[American Civil War]]. In 1854, a [[Proto-fascism|proto-fascist]] organization seeking to preserve and expand the institution of [[slavery]] called the [[Knights of the Golden Circle]] (KGC) was formed. The KGC has its roots in the fact that slave society needed to expand in order to continue. Without new lands, slavery would eventually be overcome by technological and industrial revolutions in production. The KGC's formation was contemporary with other slave/free-state disputes epitomized by the [[Bleeding Kansas]] confrontations. Ideologically, the KGC's goals for slave expansion were more broadly rooted in [[Manifest Destiny]], the idea that the United States had a god-given right to rule all of [[North America]], and the [[Monroe Doctrine]], the idea that all of [[America]] was the USA's personal playground.<ref>[https://archive.today/20210408094825/https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/knights-of-the-golden-circle Knights of the Golden Circle]</ref> The KGC was semi-[[Militarism|militaristic]] and wanted to establish "military [[Colonialism|colonies]]".<ref name=":0">[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Knights-of-the-Golden-Circle Knights of the Golden Circle]</ref>

The KGC was part of a bigger issue - the question of slavery in the United States. This issue had long contributed to a socioeconomic divide between the Northern and Southern parts of the United States. This divide eventually led to the American Civil War between the "Union" (which originally fought only to preserve the union, but eventually was pulled toward the full abolition of slavery)<ref name=":10">{{Citation|author=Andrew Zimmerman, Karl Marx, et al.|year=2016|title=The Civil War in the United States|chapter=Introduction|city=New York|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref> led by [[Abraham Lincoln]], a contemporary of [[Karl Marx]], and the [[Confederate States of America]] (CSA), a collection of slave states which fought to continue expanding slavery to new territories, extending the "way of life" that the [[Feudalism|feudal]] plantation owners in these states had grown accustomed to.<ref name=":10" /> In effect, this made the American Civil War the [[bourgeois revolution]] of the Southern United States.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books/about/Slavery_Capitalism_and_Politics_in_the_A.html?id=8hyklNMI2vgC&source=kp_book_description Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic: Volume 1, Commerce and Compromise, 1820-1850]</ref> The KGC was dissolved in 1864,<ref name=":0" /> during the 1861-1866<ref>[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-157-declaring-that-peace-order-tranquillity-and-civil-authority-now-exists Proclamation 157—Declaring that Peace, Order, Tranquillity, and Civil Authority Now Exists in and Throughout the Whole of the United States of America]</ref> tenure of the CSA.

Following the fall of the CSA, a [[White supremacism|white supremacist]] organization known as the [[Ku Klux Klan]] (KKK) came into existence. Given the fact that later sources document it as becoming a fascist organization after fascism had become a cemented ideology,<ref>[https://www.americanacademy.de/event/populism-fascism-and-the-klu-klux-klan-of-the-1920s/ Populism, Fascism, and the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s]</ref> it can be argued that the KKK was, in fact, a proto-fascist movement in its early 1865-1872 state. The KKK committed multiple acts of [[terrorism]] against [[black people]] in the Southern United States. Officially, the KKK was dissolved in 1872 during the [[Reconstruction era]]. The KKK was revived in 1915 during the [[First World War]], signaled by the release of the movie ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'', which glorified the KKK as heroes of the American people. Following the Second World War, the Nazi ideology became cemented in the KKK. Unlike the KGC, the KKK still exists and has continued targeting African and other marginalized communities up to the present day.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110212043142/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk Ku Klux Klan - History]</ref> The KKK is widely considered to be a [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] and [[Neo-Confederatism|neo-Confederate]] organization.<ref>[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories—Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead and Christian Identity—could also be fairly described as white nationalist.]</ref>

In 1929, the [[Great Depression]] began as the American [[stock market]] [[Wall Street Crash of 1929|crashed]] and the [[bourgeoisie]] was left scrambling. It spread fear into the bourgeoisie and further impoverished the American [[proletariat]]. In response, fascism, which had reached its ideological elaboration by [[Benito Mussolini]] in [[The Manifesto of the Italian Fasces of Combat|1919]], began gaining steam in crisis-stricken America. The previously mentioned KKK increased its momentum with many new rallies as the father of Donald Trump was arrested for his white supremacist activities. Some sources report that over a hundred fascist organizations existed in the 1930s United States.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/12/these-are-the-three-reasons-that-fascism-spread-in-1930s-america-and-might-spread-again-today/ These are the three reasons fascism spread in 1930s America — and might spread again today]</ref> This came around the same time that Nazi Germany was formed in 1933 and Adolf Hitler began turning [[Germany]] into a fascist state, with many of his policy proposals being lifted from US history.<ref name=":9" /> This influence went both ways, as many Statesians came to support Adolf Hitler himself.<ref>[https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/ More Americans Supported Hitler Than You May Think. Here's Why One Expert Thinks That History Isn't Better Known]</ref> In 1939, it escalated to a group of American Nazis taking control of large parts of [[New York City]].<ref>[https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan When Nazis Took Manhattan]</ref> Hitler had "American friends".<ref>[https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250148957/hitlersamericanfriends Hitler's American Friends]</ref>

''December 7, 1941 - a day that will live in infamy''. The fascist [[Empire of Japan]] [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|attacked]] the United States at [[Pearl Harbor]] in the colonized [[Territory of Hawaii]] and in various other places.<ref>[https://www.ushistory.org/documents/infamy.htm FDR's Infamy Speech]</ref> This brought the United States into the Second World War as it declared war on fascist Japan. Japan, being in the [[Rome–Berlin Axis]], had Nazi Germany and the [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Kingdom of Italy]] declare war on the United States.<ref>[https://historycooperative.org/when-did-the-us-enter-ww2/#:~:text=When%20did%20the%20US%20enter,the%20attacks%20on%20Pearl%20Harbor. When, Why, and How did the United States enter WW2? The Date America Joins the Party]</ref> Despite America now at war with the Germans, the United States did not crack down on fascism on the home front and avoided attacking American businesses located in Germany, even the ones that were arming the German war machine. This echoed the earlier Union strategy during the American Civil War which sought to defeat the Confederacy while largely preserving the slave plantation infrastructure.<ref name=":10" /> The United States still leveled entire civilian cities in Germany to the ground.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32E0ELabkBw "Blackshirts & Reds" (1997) by Michael Parenti, Part 1: Front Matter, Preface, Chapter 1. #Audiobook]</ref> Per the [[Standard American History Myth]],<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA The Part of History You've Always Skipped | Neoslavery]</ref> the Second World War ended with the the United States' nuclear attacks on Japan. However, a more modern analysis suggests that the nuclear attacks were unnecessary and that the Japanese would've surrendered anyways.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go Dropping the Bomb: Hiroshima & Nagasaki]</ref> For the United States, the war was not one ''against'' fascism, but rather a war for American self-interests - an expansion of [[United States imperialism|American imperialism]] and containment of Soviet influence. The United States was never an enemy of fascism, saying otherwise allows one to be indoctrinated into the belief that the United States could, theoretically, never fall to fascism.

After World War II, the United States took advantage of their victorious state to set up military occupations of [[Germany]] and [[Japan]]. Instead of destroying the fascist states, the United States "rehabilitated" the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese officials and turned them into puppets in the [[Cold War]] against [[socialism]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPTnb2Z6ZJg Shinzo Abe's Assassination - Who Was He? - The US Japan Imperialist Alliance Post WWII]</ref> Meanwhile, [[Spanish State (1939-1975)|fascist Spain]] also became an ally with the United States as part of the Cold War against socialism.<ref>[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/toasts-the-president-and-general-francisco-franco-spain-state-dinner-madrid Toasts of the President and General Francisco Franco of Spain at a State Dinner in Madrid]</ref> This alliance between the American bourgeoisie and foreign fascists only helped to legitimize fascists back home in the United States. During the Cold War, major anti-communist crackdowns as part of "[[McCarthyism]]" occurred as the American [[Red Scare]] occurred and many communists - open or suspected - were persecuted for their open or alleged political beliefs. It went to the point where all protests regardless of political position were considered a "communist subversion" of the United States.<ref>[https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare#section_2 Red Scare]</ref> In the 1950s and 1960s, the [[civil rights movement]] for [[African-Americans|African-American]] rights began to rise in the United States. In response, the United States' [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI) began cracking down on these civil rights groups by targeting leaders such as [[Martin Luther King Jr.]]<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2021/01/18/956741992/documentary-exposes-how-the-fbi-tried-to-destroy-mlk-with-wiretaps-blackmail Documentary Exposes How The FBI Tried To Destroy MLK With Wiretaps, Blackmail]</ref><ref>[https://www.history.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-fbi-j-edgar-hoover-communism Why the FBI Saw Martin Luther King Jr. as a Communist Threat]</ref> and launching militant attacks against civil rights organizations like the [[Black Panther Party]].<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-FBIs-response-to-the-Black-Panther-Party What was the FBI’s response to the Black Panther Party?]</ref> On top of this, groups such as the Ku Klux Klan also saw a revival during this period.<ref>[https://www.lva.virginia.gov/exhibits/mitchell/jimcro.htm Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan]</ref> Around the same time this was happening, the [[Vietnam War]] broke out with the United States committing heavy war crimes and bombing millions of civilians.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di7BLBlNFX0 Vietnam War from a REAL North Vietnamese Perspective | Armchair Historian Animated History DEBUNKED]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efvTJUFQn7A How did Communists Win the Vietnam War?]</ref>

Following the end of the mainstream civil rights movement, the rise of [[neoliberalism]] in the United States begins. This starts with the presidency of [[Ronald Reagan]], a [[Racism|racist]] and imperialist member of the Republican Party.<ref>[https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-a-historian-uncovered-ronald-reagans-racist-remarks-to-richard-nixon How a Historian Uncovered Ronald Reagan’s Racist Remarks to Richard Nixon]</ref> Reagan was undeniably a white supremacist and greatly increased financial control over the US-led world economy.<ref>{{Citation|author=Victor Perlo|year=1988|title=Superprofits and Crises|city=New York|publisher=International Publishers|isbn=9780717806652}}</ref> This greatly contributed to the "open dictatorship of finance capital." In this time, the so-called "[[New Right]]" (also known as the "[[Alt-Right]]") began to rise in popularity, greatly contributing to the fascist movement's expansion. The New Right united behind Reagan's candidacy, leading to many fascists backing his presidency.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/weisberg-fascism/chapter6.htm The Fascist Menace in the United States and How to Fight It]</ref> The Reagan administration also worked to fund fascist dictatorships in [[Latin America]], such as the ones in [[Argentine Republic|Argentina]] and [[Republic of Chile|Chile]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mDoL3iAGLo The Awful Story of South America's Most Evil Dictator]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ofDqqHLe-o Why Pinochet Apologists Are Wrong | BadEmpanada]</ref>

After the Reagan era, [[George H. W. Bush]] came to the presidency. He pushed for further imperialist actions, invading [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] in 1991 as part of the [[Gulf War]].<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mishra/1991/04/x01.htm Imperialism, Socialism and the Gulf War]</ref> Bush was followed by [[Bill Clinton]], who fought to maintain and expand the US imperial order. This was especially true in [[Republic of Haiti|Haiti]], where Clinton worked to keep the nation under the boot of US imperialism,<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/01/pers-j18.html Bush, Clinton and the crimes of US imperialism in Haiti]</ref> in the former Soviet Union, where Clinton oversaw the privatization of all state-owned assets in the former world power, and in Yugoslavia, where Clinton tore apart the remaining socialist-oriented country in Eastern Europe.<ref>{{Citation|author=Michael Parenti|year=2002|title=To Kill A Nation|publisher=Verso|isbn=1859843662}}</ref> [[George W. Bush]]'s administration oversaw imperialist invasions of both [[Afghanistan]] (2001) and Iraq (2003). Both of these saw various war crimes and many atrocities.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1i0ipzS754 Taliban Retakes Afghanistan - The Narrative of US Imperialism Falls With It]</ref><ref>[https://www.e-ir.info/2016/05/30/the-us-invasion-of-iraq-marxist-and-defensive-realist-perspectives/ The US Invasion of Iraq: Marxist and Defensive Realist Perspectives]</ref>

== Chapter II: A Crisis of Capital ==
In 2007, the famous [[Great Recession]] began. Wages in the capitalist world collapsed in many countries as the economies entered a [[finacial crisis]].<ref name=":1">[https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=78761 The 2007-08 Financial Crisis from a Marxist View]</ref> The crisis affected every corner of the capitalist world, being considered a "[[global crisis]]". To many who understand [[Marxism]], this crisis was unsurprising. Despite this, the bourgeoisie scrambled and became fearful, just like they did during the Great Depression.<ref name=":2">[https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/economyCategory/2008-financial-crash The 2008 global financial crash]</ref> This was, without a doubt, a crisis of capital.<ref name=":1" /> As will be covered in the following chapter, it was this Great Recession that led to fascism closer to open terrorism in the mainstream purview of Statesian politics.

The Great Recession had its roots in the troubling changes shaking the housing market in the United States. Many banks in the United States completely collapsed and filed for bankruptcy.<ref name=":2" /> [[Wall Street]] failed to counter the Great Recession, and even contributed to the worsening of the crisis.<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/31/shor-d31.html ''The Big Short'': The criminality of Wall Street and the crash of 2008]</ref> [[Neoliberalism|Neoliberal]] capitalism nearly ceased to function during the crisis as international trade also began to collapse.<ref>[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/15/fina-s15.html The 2008 crisis and the lessons of history]</ref> While it spawned in the financial center of the United States, the Great Recession quickly grew out of control and began affecting almost every capitalist country in the world.<ref name=":3">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#/media/File:GDP_Real_Growth_in_2009.svg World map showing GDP real growth rates for 2009. CIA world factbook estimates as of April 2010.]</ref> All of this culminated into what became the largest crisis of capital since the Great Depression.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/great-recession Great Recession]</ref>

Prior to the Great Recession, a [[2000s energy crisis|major energy crisis]] broke out in 2000 and 2001. The 2000s energy crisis was rooted in the actions taken by the US government in the 1990s.<ref>[https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/energycrisis/ Energy crisis of 2000/2001]</ref> The housing market's unpredictability also greatly contributed to the crisis.<ref>[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-prices-off-record-18-in-past-year-case-shiller-says Home prices off record 18% in past year, Case-Shiller says]</ref> This led to an attempted housing market "correction" in 2006.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_United_States_housing_market_correction 2000s United States housing market correction]</ref> However, the housing market still collapsed and the Great Recession began in 2007.

While the capitalist world was deeply harmed by the outbreak of the Great Recession, [[Socialist state|socialist states]] remained almost completely unharmed. The [[People's Republic of China]]'s economic status managed to rapidly improve during the global bourgeois crisis.<ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chinas-rapid-recovery-in-_b_825194 China's Rapid Recovery in the Great Recession of 2007 - 2009]</ref> Meanwhile, the [[Republic of Cuba]]'s economy stayed stable and undamaged.<ref name=":3" /> The fact that only capitalist nation were harmed only further speaks to the idea that the Great Recession was, in fact, a crisis of capital. The spread of the crisis was clearly linked with the contamination of the world market with US finance, and those nations less dependent on this financial center were those outside of the collapse.

[[Michael Roberts]] describes the Great Recession as a "slump" in capitalism. He points to the changes in real [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] and investment in capital as the main causes of the Great Recession. He details this slump as a more permanent drop in profitability that he calls "the long depression," which according to Roberts is still ongoing.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2013/isj2-140/roberts.html From global slump to long depression]</ref> Meanwhile, [[Trotskyism|Trotskyist]] articles argue that [[Barack Obama]] stalled post-recession recovery.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/3017.html Obama's Reform, Recovery Stalled]</ref> Trotskyists also argue that the American proletariat in particular was deeply affected by the Great Recession.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/4245.html One Step Up, Three Steps Down]</ref> This mixture of the American proletariat being shaken by the recession and the American government failing to handle the recession well can easily be attributed as a major reason to how so many Americans turned to fascism as the only solution in the aftermath of the crisis.

== Chapter III: Fascism Gone Mainstream ==
As the recession came to a close, a member of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] named Barack Obama became the President of the United States.<ref>[https://millercenter.org/president/barack-obama/key-events BARACK OBAMA - KEY EVENTS]</ref> American fascism saw a great rise in influence during this post-Great Recession era as a [[Christian fascism|Christian fascist]] movement gained fuel from contradictions within and outside the Democratic Party.<ref>[https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/jesus-endless-war-and-the-rise-of-american-fascism Jesus, endless war, and the rise of American fascism]</ref> Ever since the Great Recession, the Democrats have been consistently funding fascist movements and campaigns within the United States.<ref name=":7">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqgP9Ft_1CY Why Are Democrats Funding The Far Right?]</ref> Meanwhile, the Republican Party has spent the past few years cheering on neo-Nazi organizations, movements, and protests such as the [[Unite the Right rally]].<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> How is it that the both of the main bourgeois parties in the United States are promoting fascism? It isn't a coincidence. This happened as a direct result of ongoing global crises in capital.<ref>[https://theweek.com/articles/685813/great-recession-clearly-gave-rise-rightwing-populism The Great Recession clearly gave rise to right-wing populism]</ref>

In recent years, it has become quite clear that government-backed institutions in the United States such as the [[Policing|police force]] are deeply infiltrated and influenced by fascists and white supremacists.<ref name=":8">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCuAxtdmMP4 Why American Fascism Is On The Rise]</ref> The public perception of white supremacy in police forces culminated with a publicly broadcast series of racially motivated murders against the African-American community by the police, which gained new prominence with the rise of the internet. The murders of [[George Floyd]] and [[Amir Locke]] are perfect examples of this.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vksEJR9EPQ8 How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody | Visual Investigations]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW4FgpGJr5U #JusticeForAmirLocke: 22 y/o MN Black Man Murdered by Cops in No-Knock Raid. Mass Protests Footage.]</ref> [[Breonna Taylor]] is also another valid example of a racially motivated police murder in 2020.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaNU7yDnsc How the Police Killed Breonna Taylor | Visual Investigations]</ref>

In the government itself, Donald Trump's presidency saw him champion the slogan "America first", a slogan also used by fascists across the country.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8VvaPvcBqo America first and American fascism]</ref> This alliance between Trump and the American fascist movement can be seen in other places as well. The neo-Nazi paramilitary known as the [[Proud Boys]] were invoked by Trump during a debate with [[Joe Biden]].<ref name=":8" /> On top of this, neo-Confederates and other fascist groups worked to storm the United States capital in the name of Donald Trump.<ref name=":4" /> Meanwhile, other neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan have made their support for Trump's presidency publicly known.<ref>[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-and-the-ku-klux-klan-a-history Donald Trump and the Ku Klux Klan: A History]</ref> The Ku Klux Klan has also acted as a heavy influence to the ideology of Trump's movement.<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/summary-jan-6-hearing-kkk-rcna37960 The MAGA movement is a KKK re-up. The latest Jan. 6 hearing proves it.]</ref>

On the other side of things, Joe Biden has also been an active supporter of fascism. During the civil rights movement, Biden fought in favor of [[segregation]] and placed himself as a staunch opponent to African-American rights.<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626 Joe Biden didn't just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.]</ref> This support for segregation has caused trouble for Biden's new administration as his vice president [[Kamala Harris]] has called him out for it.<ref>[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/28/18965923/joe-biden-school-desegregation-busing-democratic-primary Joe Biden’s record on school desegregation busing, explained]</ref> While this may seem like a thing of the past, Biden and [[Nancy Pelosi]] have constantly been funding the fascists of the Republican Party's extremist wing.<ref name=":7" /> It is clear as day that all major political forces in US history have turned to using fascism, for as long as it has benefited capital in both its stage of primitive accumulation on this continent and in its period of decay and crisis.

== Chapter IV: Anti-Fascist Resistance ==

== Chapter V: An Infiltrated Proletariat ==

== Chapter VI: What the Future Holds ==

== Chapter VII: Conclusion ==

== References ==
<references />

New International Economic Order

2023-07-03T08:33:06Z

BlueBodhisattva: corrected source info

The '''New International Economic Order''' ('''NIEO''') is a set of proposals adopted by the [[United Nations]] in 1974. It calls for [[commodity]] [[Cartel|cartels]], increased industrialization, control of international corporations, more just monetary policy, and a UN commitment to economic and human rights.<ref name=":1222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=New Delhi|page=211–4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

The NIEO arose amidst the [[Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries|OPEC]] oil strike of 1973, the subsequent quadrupling of oil prices, <ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=Vijay Prashad|year=2012|title=The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South|chapter=The Demise of Northern Atlantic Liberalism|quote="A few years later, in 1973, the Third World Project mounted its
major assault against neo-colonialism, as oil prices quadrupled and
its demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) came to
the UN General Assembly"|publisher=Verso|doi=10.1177/0309816813505282}}</ref> and calls among underdeveloped nations for new relationships between raw materials producing countries and extracting nations. <ref>{{Web citation|author=UN. General Assembly (6th special sess. : 1974)|newspaper=United Nations Digital Library|title=Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its 6th special session|date=1974-05-02|archive-url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/228952?ln=en|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> The project of the NIEO collapsed with the failures of Atlantic liberalism and the [[Third World Project]] in the face of [[neoliberalism]]. <ref name=":0" />

References
[[Category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Stubs]]

New International Economic Order

2023-07-03T08:32:14Z

BlueBodhisattva: Undo revision 51216 by BlueBodhisattva (talk)

The '''New International Economic Order''' ('''NIEO''') is a set of proposals adopted by the [[United Nations]] in 1974. It calls for [[commodity]] [[Cartel|cartels]], increased industrialization, control of international corporations, more just monetary policy, and a UN commitment to economic and human rights.<ref name=":1222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=New Delhi|page=211–4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

The NIEO arose amidst the [[Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries|OPEC]] oil strike of 1973, the subsequent quadrupling of oil prices, <ref>{{Citation|author=Vijay Prashad|year=2012|title=The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South|chapter=The Demise of Northern Atlantic Liberalism|quote="A few years later, in 1973, the Third World Project mounted its
major assault against neo-colonialism, as oil prices quadrupled and
its demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) came to
the UN General Assembly"|publisher=Verso|doi=10.1177/0309816813505282}}</ref> and calls among underdeveloped nations for new relationships between raw materials producing countries and extracting nations. <ref>{{Web citation|author=UN. General Assembly (6th special sess. : 1974)|newspaper=United Nations Digital Library|title=Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its 6th special session|date=1974-05-02|archive-url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/228952?ln=en|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> The project of the NIEO collapsed with the failures of Atlantic liberalism and the [[Third World Project]] in the face of [[neoliberalism]]. <ref name=":1222" />

References
[[Category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Stubs]]

New International Economic Order

2023-07-03T08:31:28Z

BlueBodhisattva: Corrected source info

The '''New International Economic Order''' ('''NIEO''') is a set of proposals adopted by the [[United Nations]] in 1974. It calls for [[commodity]] [[Cartel|cartels]], increased industrialization, control of international corporations, more just monetary policy, and a UN commitment to economic and human rights.<ref name=":1222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=The Demise of Northern Atlantic Liberalism|page=|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=Verso|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

The NIEO arose amidst the [[Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries|OPEC]] oil strike of 1973, the subsequent quadrupling of oil prices, <ref>{{Citation|author=Vijay Prashad|year=2012|title=The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South|chapter=The Demise of Northern Atlantic Liberalism|quote="A few years later, in 1973, the Third World Project mounted its
major assault against neo-colonialism, as oil prices quadrupled and
its demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) came to
the UN General Assembly"|publisher=Verso|doi=10.1177/0309816813505282}}</ref> and calls among underdeveloped nations for new relationships between raw materials producing countries and extracting nations. <ref>{{Web citation|author=UN. General Assembly (6th special sess. : 1974)|newspaper=United Nations Digital Library|title=Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its 6th special session|date=1974-05-02|archive-url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/228952?ln=en|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> The project of the NIEO collapsed with the failures of Atlantic liberalism and the [[Third World Project]] in the face of [[neoliberalism]]. <ref name=":1222" />

References
[[Category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Stubs]]

New International Economic Order

2023-07-03T08:29:37Z

BlueBodhisattva: Expanded page with additional sources and detailed beginning and end of NIEO influence

The '''New International Economic Order''' ('''NIEO''') is a set of proposals adopted by the [[United Nations]] in 1974. It calls for [[commodity]] [[Cartel|cartels]], increased industrialization, control of international corporations, more just monetary policy, and a UN commitment to economic and human rights.<ref name=":1222">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=New Delhi|page=211–4|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref>

The NIEO arose amidst the [[Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries|OPEC]] oil strike of 1973, the subsequent quadrupling of oil prices, <ref>{{Citation|author=Vijay Prashad|year=2012|title=The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South|chapter=The Demise of Northern Atlantic Liberalism|quote="A few years later, in 1973, the Third World Project mounted its
major assault against neo-colonialism, as oil prices quadrupled and
its demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) came to
the UN General Assembly"|publisher=Verso|doi=10.1177/0309816813505282}}</ref> and calls among underdeveloped nations for new relationships between raw materials producing countries and extracting nations. <ref>{{Web citation|author=UN. General Assembly (6th special sess. : 1974)|newspaper=United Nations Digital Library|title=Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its 6th special session|date=1974-05-02|archive-url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/228952?ln=en|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> The project of the NIEO collapsed with the failures of Atlantic liberalism and the [[Third World Project]] in the face of [[neoliberalism]]. <ref name=":1222" />

References
[[Category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Stubs]]

Three Worlds Theory

2023-07-03T07:20:33Z

BlueBodhisattva: Added citation for the application of Three Worlds Theory on the world stage.

<blockquote>''Not to be confused with [[Third-Worldism]].''</blockquote>The '''Three Worlds Theory''' is a theory proposed by [[Mao Zedong]] in 1974 that categorizes the international system into three worlds. According to the theory, the first world includes the [[Imperialism|imperialist]] [[United States of America|United States]] and the supposedly "social imperialist" [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. The second world includes [[Japan]], [[Canada]], and [[Europe]]. The third world includes [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[Latin America]], [[Africa]], and the rest of [[Asia]].

On April 10, 1974, at the 6th Special Session United Nations General Assembly, Vice-Premier [[Deng Xiaoping]] applied the Three Worlds Theory during the [[New International Economic Order]] presentations about the problems of raw materials and development.<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=New York Times|title=Excerpts From Chinese Address to U.N. Session on Raw Materials|date=1974-04-12|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/12/archives/excerpts-from-chinese-address-to-u-n-session-on-raw-materials.html|retrieved=2023-07-03}}</ref> This accounted for China's appeals to developing countries in competition with the Soviet Union. In his address, Deng Xiaoping uses the soviet "[[Prague Spring|invasion of Czechoslovakia]]" and instigation of a "war to dismember Pakistan" as examples of soviet "social imperialism." He also cites "extraction of superprofits" and exportation of arms as evidence of such imperialism.
[[Category:Maoism]]