Andrew_Zito
9th February 2016, 10:08
Revolution: After 40-50 years
There was an article in Counter-Punch FEBRUARY 27, 2015, I read:
Does the US have a Left, Left? by JP MILLER that began.
"I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ…. I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place.
— Che Guevara" (see footnotes)
Where being a Leftist in the US does not even guarantee one proper company for coffee or lunch on a pleasant afternoon for proper discussion and company, as it once did for it is easy to say there is none. As for the last 40 to 50 years after I began saying things like that until I began reading like minded views that I find interesting in light of the facts that the left in the US (the real left not the Bernies Sanders Great Old Tradition (GOT).
Ironically in my address to the NPAC (National Peace Action Coalition) in the grand auditorium at Hunter College of many hundreds of delegates attending
when I spoke at the age of 17 (as the numbers state as honestly I do not remember some of those details. where though I was not present when Trotsky was murdered assassinated (who knows) I was a front row witness to Fred Halstead's assault of a PLP member, that later degenerated into a free for all brawl which strangely the police did not get called though hundreds were involved.
That riot was later described by the myopic and one sided dogmatic members of the Spartacus League who stated:
"when Victor Reuther began his speech. We didn’t attempt to drive them off the stage or anything like that"
Trivializing the gravity of their actions the continued sating:
"In response, the SWP went ballistic and sent their goon squad with Fred Halstead in charge, literally, on a vicious assault against the protesters, some of whom were beaten, one PLer reportedly thrown through a glass door. Assisting the SWP thugs were the minions of—guess who—Tim Wohlforth’s Workers League [now the Socialist Equality Party] members."
Where they also failed to mention that PLP fought back in what it is lucky no one was killed.
In what these so called revolutionaries of the then Spartacus League Brand of "socialist" counter revolution failed fail to state is that they disrupted those proceedings of NPAC, much like fascist goons, and much like the NCLC goons that came later on as part of the Lyndon Larouche self proclaimed Operation Mop Up that Spartacus members also were involved in attacking socialist, communist and labor as part of the FBI counter-Intelligence program commonly know as COINTEL.
Much of the Left barely commands any respect in the United States out side of academic and trade Union circles and then it is severely limited. White the like of the revleft web site forum most recently cries about funding shortfalls of minor amounts (RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $30.00 below the monthly needed amount of $110.) the LEFT appears to be an embarrassment to itself. Where in the non-hegemonic LEFT of the US Police State there appears and disappears a large variety of of people and groups which more and more, appear and disappear without any consistent accounting or pedigree or such questionable people.
I've read and commented on articles that arise out of no where as if the CIA Black Hawks downed them into place where in vague references they beging their assaults of what remains of a Left in the United States by saying things like:
"The far Left's delusion that the likes of ISIS are not inspired by Islam is discrediting the moderate Muslims trying to reform their faith, former Islamic extremist Maajid Nawaz has told Yahoo7."
In what appears to me a variations of irrelevant government sponsored text where I responded for the simple reason that they used the "far left" as a whipping boy. I asked:
"1. But who wrote this? as it appears as graffiti from a toilet stall wall.
2. What who how is this Far-left and "Far Left" might not be relevant to anyone else but it might be to me which requires context, history, references, proper grammar in presentation and critique that I resent in what often I get the impression is government produced.
3. Lastly the "original text" states what grammatically can not be deciphered as it is incorrect in stating:
"The far Left's delusion that the likes of ISIS are not inspired by Islam is discrediting the moderate Muslims trying to reform their faith" where one has to guess that it could refer to all three elements specified.
In what makes that task impossible undesirable and unworthy as it appears as some encrypted message constructed so as to appear innocent. As the truth of the matter is many left groups have had various ties and have been responsible for many horrid things though also those were also connected to those like the CIA, as the ties between east and west increased with end of the Cold War so that again we can have one great world war that the "far-left" "left" etc can be said to be responsible for it has been negligent in its duties on many occasions government inspired or not.
Saddam Hussein was originally a CIA assassin of Communists in the Iraqi Bath Party and later their agent (CIA) in the Iran-Iraq War, where I venture to say left wing politics is not for the Simple Minds of the type of black-white spoon fed politics who in America is accustomed to awake alert well fed well balanced well educated well trained well informed rebels??? Who have the patience for much of the nonsense that some call "left" but not others.
So what makes the US Left an asset and resources to the working class when all it amounts to is a burden one where the ruling class uses its strengths against it as if it was some cruel Jujitsu match of two or more unfairly matched opponents?
"Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military."
In what Guerrilla warfare is called asymmetrical warfare it is the opposite of regular warfare where the good soldier boys shine their shoes, press their pants and polish their brass buttons.
Perhaps there is something that might be considered a left in the US, maybe there is not as that article was very moving which I think I will include at the end so as to discuss it first and leave it to you as a reader to join me in the the research as I did.
Where from a small secluded rural area of North Carolina he is an out spoken disabled veteran who automatically draws my attention for his views not because I agree nor agree but as a matter of presentation. Where in many areas such as the one he lives it is difficult to get a bowl of soup and a sandwich without drawing the suspicions of those around you.
Where the wam-bam-thank-you-maam leftism of the US leave much to be desired and most often fails to provide emotion intellectual support for any one except the most dogmatic sectarian of myopic cult like figures and groups of questionable origins and paths. Prominently those who collectively have much in common as part of the Anti-Stalinist Left in their affiliations of one sort or another with western intelligence, government and betrayals of the working class and the Soviet Camp:
Including Clement Attlee, Leon Trotsky, Daniel Bell, Alexander Berkman, Willy Brandt, Maurice Brinton, Amadeo Bordiga., James Burnham, Albert Camus, Ante Ciliga, G. D. H. Cole, Milovan Djilas, Alexander Dubček, Chen Duxiu, Noam Chomsky, Hal Draper, Raya Dunayevskaya, Emma Goldman, Michael Harrington, Christopher Hitchens, Sidney Hook, Nikita Khrushchev, Irving Howe, Boris Kagarlitsky, Karl Kilbom, Leszek Kołakowski, Karl Korsch, Bruno Kreisky, Melvin J. Lasky, Claude Lefort, David Lewis, Ken Loach, Dwight Macdonald, Mary McCarthy,Herbert Marcuse, Paul Mattick, Adam Michnik, François Mitterrand, Imre Nagy, Andrés Nin, George Orwell, Olof Palme, Anton Pannekoek, Andreas Papandreou, Boris Pasternak, Otto Rühle, Rudolf Rocker, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Maximilien Rubel, Bertrand Russell, Victor Serge, Ignazio Silone, Susan Sontag, Augustin Souchy, Boris Souvarine, Ota Šik, Norman Thomas, Josip Broz Tito, Voline (Vsevolod M. Eikhenbaum), Fredric Warburg, Cornelius Castoriadis, Buenaventura Durruti.
Where I can agree that each had their own special traits deserving of recognition where often it can be said Trotsky was brilliant, Norman Thomas appealing, Boris Pasternak was poetic, Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky were are intelligent, Raya Dunayevskaya was human, Emma Goldman principled but that in the end they failed, and not only failed but failed miserably.
So sitting here in what I call my prison cell of a gilded cage I write as if in a film like Fiddler on the Roof,
Sunrise, sunset, Sunrise, sunset,
Is this the little girl I carried?
Is this the little boy at play?
I don't remember growing older
When did they? **
So what does the Left in the United States offer the working beyond the tokenism of social welfare programs, and an endless array of demonstrations in opportunities for the working class to passively agree to be the cannon fodder of petty bourgeois revolutionaries and agents.
Which if that was the case perhaps we should of supported Otto von Bismarck for at least he could be noted as having "created the first welfare state in the modern world, with the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist enemies"
Where throughout history there were revolutionaries on the cutting edges and those that sort to undermine them on both the left and the right and many points in between.
Where one has to question the funding sources of many of these "left" socialist organizations that like the "Marxist Leninist Party of the Netherlands" (see footnotes)
appears and act as agents of the government for the sake of advancing reactionary government policies domestically and internationally.
Where one is not judged by me for one either as a friend, a comrade or an agent as I am all too often prompted, where I state my door is always open, as all the better I am inclined for as TS Eliot said
"It’s so elegant So intelligent
“What shall I do now? What shall I do?”
“I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
“With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
“What shall we ever do?”
The hot water at ten. And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door"
For these are not matters learned and acquired in a day or two but in a life of experience that the most vulgar of lives has no knowledge nor understanding of as it escapes them in that they are too much in a hurry.
For a revolution today is a unholy slaughter tomorrow,
For political revolution grows from the barrel of a gun
But the pen is mightier than the sword,
as the helmsman wrote as one speaks,
but which few would understand,
"For whom does the Bell toll?"
If not for me?
For those who wish to be taken seriously must be serious,
in what is neither stern nor gruff, rigid nor unreasonable,
nor flexed, in pliable, in empty thoughts,
as the waters nor the rocks, as neither free nor slave,
the hammer hammers, the sickle cuts,
where shall one begin?
with small baby steps? or in giant steps?
where it does not matter, as long as one can step,
in that one hungers,
in that one sleeps in that one is tired,
in that one clothes themselves,
in coldness that one ventures,
neither too far nor here.
where in prison, hunger is humanity, not rhetoric is revolutionary,
as torture pressures innocence into false confessions of cruelty,
in quick decisions of brash blind obedience, where technology is revolutionary ,
without humanity and feelings, in a slaughter house,
tomorrow revolution is a graveyard in meaningless elections.
as an illiterate I did not read, nor wrote, you rushed to classes,
in seas of well read horn rimmed reading glasses,
where nothing was found learned with meaning in life,
but empty words in rhetoric and lies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
Does the US have a Left, Left?
by JP MILLER
Tweet
Email
I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ…. I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place.
— Che Guevara
Introduction
For the purposes of this article, the “New left” is defined as a genuine group, party, or organization in the United States (US) that promotes Marxist revolutionary, Socialist principles in opposition to the Capitalist US government construct and society. This does not include anarchists, Democrats or independents. Also, the “Old Left” is celebrated as that great agitator and loosely revolutionary composite of unions, parties, and individuals, that historically brought us much needed reform from the 1900’s to the 1950’s.
More in tune with this article is the contributions that the “New Left” provided through the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US along with the grassroots led social movement that gripped much of Europe during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, those days are long past us and in its stead we have the neo-liberal establishment whose intentions are in no way revolutionary or even reformist in any meaningful way. The intent of this article, while I intend to point to the Social Democratic failures and the leftist media’s reformist attitude, is to identify the remaining groups that continue to agitate for a socialist state, society and monetary system that is dedicated to a Socialist state, just society and wealth distribution through politics leading to a welfare state even while I largely criticize their failed agenda.
The primary purpose is to identify the groups and any influence these groups have on domestic politics in the US and hence their chances of survival and performance inside and outside of US elections. Regardless of the multitude of self-proclaimed leftists, communists, and socialists who claim to carry the banner of the left, do any of these individuals and splintered groups exert an influence on the US political scene, US state and society. Are they leading us to a socialist state through reform? More importantly, does the US have any radical group, party, or even leftist armed militia that can be successful or even useful in leading the way to a socialist state? The question begs do any of these above elements matter in US and is there a Left, left in the US.
The Old Left.
Certainly there are numerous parties, alternative media outlets, or groups of people who claim to be the standard bearer of the Left in the US today. Yet, while their influence is minimal, the Old Left had great success. With support from Unions, parties like the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), The Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA) or the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) have lived a long tradition of agitation that culminated in the election of 1912 where Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, garnered 6% of the popular vote and in 1920, while in prison attained 3.5% of the popular vote. Never since this anomaly has any socialist candidate ever achieved such attention and support. These were different times. While the communists in Russia were transforming a feudal society into a statist workers society with revolution, the repercussions were felt worldwide to varying degrees.
These events spread across the world and influenced even the most stalwart of conservative governments in most corners of the world. The world seemed ripe for revolution across continents and while the world celebrated an economic boom even the most conservative elements of high society dabbled in leftist politics. However, the most conservative and moneyed interests of the US were determined to break this movement in the US and its possessions. Debs died in 1926 after serving time in prison for his beliefs and activities and saw his revolutionary party split into the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a reformist, moderate party that never gained the popularity needed to lead the left to a victory. Eugene Debs reigned over the most leftist movement in US history. This has never been duplicated.
In the 1930’s, the Socialist Movement had splintered into many competing groups but it was the unions and the Communist Party that came forward calling for worker’s rights. However, there was another split that divided the Communist party and created the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in an obvious attempt to distance themselves from the communist party and its perceived radical reputation. The stigma that was attached to the Communist party came from a “Red Scare” with help from propaganda attacks from the US government and wealthy industrial owners. The left in the US was divided into smaller and smaller groups. The great depression had brought many people into the cities looking for work and the unions had trouble recruiting members.
Yet, despite the divisions, the unions and the parties throughout the 1930’s were eventually able to gain better pay, shorter working hours, establish child labor laws, and win the right to organize in many places across the country, especially in the south. The burgeoning textile industry was a battleground unlike any other in US history as workers fought with their lives to move the plants and their owners into a new age of labor reform. While the credit for these reforms was ultimately attributed to the Social Democrats and Unions, it was clearly the acceptance of the violent revolutionary stance, organization of workers, and actions of the Communist party that was behind the success. Their creation of The National Textile Workers Union was a short lived experiment but the action of the communist party was ultimately successful in gaining extensive rights for workers.
The second “Red Scare” came in the 1950’s as the US government embraced McCarthyism, named after Joseph McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin. This movement was initiated by an irrational fear that there were communist agents and traitors in the government and Hollywood and indeed across all of the US. Proponents of McCarthyism claimed that the CPUSA was so under the influence of Moscow that they were a virtual arm of the Soviet state. The Government set up trials that resulted in political repression such as unsubstantiated accusations, loss of jobs, demagogic attacks, and even prison terms for citizens. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested and executed as spies for the Soviet Union in 1953.
Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, through unprecedented spying, provided lists of suspected communists and the House Un-American Activities Committee accused and convicted those called before the committee without evidence but with threats, innuendo and gossip. This anticommunist activity was damaging to all levels of US society and its repercussions were seen for generations to come. When the Korean War broke out there was no doubt that the government saw the left and particularly communism as a real threat. No reforms were forthcoming and the left went into hiding.
The New Left
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, a new left emerged with the Johnson administration’s “Great Society” and the extreme student protests and leftist violent activities in Europe. The “Great Society” was an extension of FDR’s “New Deal” and JFK’s stalled initiatives. The European New Left was born out of rejection of the WWII values. Indeed, all across the world, especially Europe, saw a return to a leftist energy that culminated in some social reforms, student rights recognition and a new kind of protest —armed protest. This new generation of young adults rejected the conservatism of their parents and the previous old liberal establishment and created a worldwide movement toward the New left which demanded a new wave of social, political and economic life.
In the US, the Vietnam War rallied protestors against the imperialist state while the tragedy at Kent State showed the extremes to which the previous generation was willing to resort in order to keep their outmoded values intact. The Civil Rights Movement was a monumental effort resulting from a new resistance that solidified the new reforms. The old Jim Crow laws were attacked as racism became a national war cry and eventually created debate and legislation. Reforms such as The Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Acts, and the Economic Opportunity Act that declared war on poverty were triumphs for the New left. Despite the growing opposition, the War in Vietnam continued as the government continued its proxy wars against communism. While the Vietnam War ended, the “Great Society” and its achievements simply vanished as Nixon was elected President and promised a return to the old mores and a state which valued law and order. Yet, the New Left in the US had been highly successful with reforms and any stated return to the 1950s society was mere hyperbole.
It’s important to iterate on the events in Europe and elsewhere during this New Leftist emergence. Not only did old Europe experience a new left movement but it was more revolutionary and anarchist than reformist in nature and hence the violence that ensued is important to recall. The New Left in Europe, especially Germany and France, came to the conclusion to shake off the old left by embracing Maoist, Trotskyist, and anarchist principles. While the Civil Rights movement was happening in the US, the European socialists embraced a more extreme diversion from the old left. In France, riots broke out in 1968 while the Red Army Faction (RAF) was forming in Germany. The old left had embraced a reformist attitude, turned their backs on the next generation, and changed into a weak Social Democratic party. The new generation of students and intellectuals saw this as a retreat and surrender to the right-wing government exemplified by the election of De Gaulle. The RAF or Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Cells were motivated by feminist, racist and anti-imperialist politics and they attacked with bank robberies, shootings and bombings. These loosely attached groups are held responsible for hundreds of murders. Yet, they enjoyed the popularity that the Irish Republican Army had in Catholic Ireland and in England as they attacked the illegitimate Monarchial state and its army of repression in England. The German and French revolutionary cells denounced the “Nazi” generation and were born in the post-colonial era in Europe. They were influenced by the new and successful revolutionary and violent approach to change by figures such as Mao Zadong, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh. The groups received much public support, especially from students, workers and intellectuals such as Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, and Oskar Negt. Even the most famous of the existentialist philosophers, Jean-Paul Sartre, gave his support to the revolutionary tactics by visiting Andreas Baader and speaking on his behalf. These violent and revolutionary cells survived until 1998 when a letter reached Reuters announcing the dissolution of the RAF.
The reason I include this short biography of the European New Left is in order to compare and contrast the New Left of the US, which was a reformist, non-violent movement with the activities and philosophy of the European New Left. There can be no doubt that while the French and German New Left embraced Che Guevara, Mao Zadong and Ho Chi Minh and adopted the method of revolutionary, violent struggle, the US New Left adopted a program of weak reformism. This is our legacy. While the reforms of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Movement were laudable, there have been no such reforms or even a viable leftist opposition to the government since the 1960’s and 1970’s. There were viable revolutionary groups in the US such as the Black Panthers and The Weather Underground. But they never achieved the public support and intellectual promise that the European New Left enjoyed.
Neoliberalism and the Need for Violent Resistance
And, here is the problem with any US socialist, communist, or unionist cause or party. As I will lie out below, reformism does not work in the US. Only revolutionary politics can change such a government behemoth that pretends to offer change through a two-party system which we all recognize as the uni-party, duopoly, or oligarchy. There are many successes by socialists. The Cuban Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Greece, and Venezuela are examples. But, Socialism will never succeed in the US without the fire of Che Guevara and the wisdom of Mao Zedong or the persistence of Ho Chi Minh. I know of not one Left-wing armed militia in the US today. All the while, right-wing armed militias are growing and with the support of the government. Recently, in the Ferguson protests, while the people filled the streets in righteous indignation of police and state murder and abuse, armed right-wing militias gathered on the rooftops with their AR-15s aimed at the protesters in support of the official, government, police thugs.
While non-violent protests won the day in the Civil Rights Movement, never will this government, this state, this populace, ever become a socialist entity without violence. The ultra-right and its minions eliminated our reformers. JFK, RFK, Dr. King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X were murdered and we did nothing but retreat into a neoliberal imperialist state just as the ruling class wanted. Also, we are a heterogeneous society, diverse, and multi-cultural unlike the homogeneous cultures in Scandinavia who enjoy a socialist state after hundreds and hundreds of years of assimilation. The divisions in the US are a result of a young, immature state, multiculturalism, and propaganda by the state mass media which continues to remind us of the divisions and frighten us with stories of threats from within and without.
The Socialist Press
There are many news outlets, parties and unions in the US which claim to be socialist and I cannot deny them that. Many of them do good work and inform us of the lies our government peddles. They do good work in calling attention to the imperialism of the US state, the duplicity of politicians, and the US crimes abroad. Yet, many are more anti-US than anti-Capitalism. Some are more indignant than effectual. Also, some are more divisive than inclusive. The very magnitude of their existence, the history of their failures, and their separation from each other reduce the opportunity of a genuine socialist party emerging in the US. Much of the socialist press and their messages are clouded with such diversions as animal rights, Vegan proclamations, international conspiracy, celebrity gossip, and the insistence that voting for the Democrat du Jour is a duty. All of these topics are respectable and deserve to be uncovered and debated. But, the message that we need to build a socialist front from amongst these devoted outlets is sadly missing. There is never a call to arms. There is never a message to put aside our differences and build one socialist party that can challenge the uni-party. While I have no doubt that these parties and news outlets are genuine in their beliefs, they are missing the most important point. They are competing instead of cooperating. Hasn’t that always been the problem with socialism? Divide and divide until there is no common value. I can only wonder what Jack Reed endured in the 1920s as he attempted in vain to consolidate the various communist factions in his struggle to inform the workers of their need to end the infighting and fight the real enemy: Capitalism. These divisions are just what the ruling class depends on day after day.
The Socialist Parties
In the US there is the Communist Party USA, The Socialist Workers Party, The Socialist Party USA, The Party for Socialism and Liberation, Workers World Party, The Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), Democratic Workers Party, Socialist Action, Marxist Workers Party, Workers Party USA, and on and on until I couldn’t count them. There are scores of self-proclaimed socialists, countless ineffectual unions, and hundreds of news outlets that claim to be the one genuine party or group that represent socialists. There are so-called, loose local and state socialist parties that gather like book clubs with an agenda of achieving nothing more than the right to smoke Marijuana. While each entity brings a value to the table, the socialist message gets multiplied and splintered until the movement means nothing. When multiple meanings get piled upon one word, the word becomes meaningless. While trying to mean everything it means nothing. As these multitudes of groups seem to be a triumph for the US leftist population, not one socialist is represented in any state legislature or the US Congress. Some parties claim to have 1000 members. Other parties can count 50 members if they are lucky. When put all together, they may represent a significant population of the US. But they are divided by the same cause.
Leadership
As for now, we have no Che. We have neither Mao nor Ho Chi Minh. We only have each other and until a person or a consolidated party emerges we will continue to be nothing but insignificant to the US political process. We need more than incremental reform that is devised to benefit the ruling class while placating the neoliberal interests in this country. We need revolution.
I often wonder what Che Guevara would think of this world if he were alive and active today. Would he succumb to the crumbs left behind by the ruling class? Would he hang up his Kalashnikov and enjoy the adoration of the world? I can’t imagine Che doing any such things. I like to think he would fight the good fight wherever it exists, especially in the US. And, I have no doubt that many would follow him. I would.
JP Miller is a writer and journalist who has published political non-fiction and fiction in The Greanville Post, Cyrano’s Journal, Pravda, Countercurrents, New Politics, The Literary Yard, The Southern Cross Review and PIF Magazine among others. He is a disabled veteran who lives in the Outer Banks of North Carolina beside the Atlantic Ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist–Leninist Party of the Netherlands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands)
The Marxist–Leninist Party of the Netherlands (Dutch: Marxistisch-Leninistische Partij Nederland or MLPN) was a fake pro-China communist party in theNetherlands set up by the Dutch secret service BVD to develop contacts with the Chinese government for espionage purposes. The MPLN existed from 1968 to the early 1990s and was led throughout its existence by Pieter Boevé, who used the pseudonym Chris Petersen.
Boevé joined the Dutch secret service in 1955 after attending a student conference in Moscow. Prior to the MLPN's creation, he served as the international secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Centre of the Netherlands (MLCN), using his position to create contacts in China and Albania. He also started his own publication, De Kommunist, in 1966, against the wishes of his MLCN comrades. He was subsequently expelled from the party and formed his own League of Marxist-Leninists in the Netherlands (Liga van Marxisten-Leninisten in Nederland) in 1968. A year later, this party changed its name to the MLPN.
The MLPN claimed to represent the principles of Maoism against the "heresies" of the official pro-USSR Communist Party of the Netherlands. It never had more than a dozen real members, none of whom were aware of its actual purpose. Notwithstanding this, Boevé was able to cultivate many contacts within the Chinese government. He frequently received gifts and travelling expenses from the Chinese government and on one occasion was the guest of honour at a banquet presided over by Zhou Enlai.
The BVD dissolved the MLPN shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, when they judged that it was no longer necessary. Boevé and another former BVD member went public with the true story of the party in 2004.
Boevé has claimed that he helped to facilitate the historic meeting of Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong in 1972. Prior to Nixon's decision to go to China, Boevé was asked by his Chinese contacts as to his views on the possibility of better relations with the United States of America. He took this as a sign that the Chinese government was interested in improving relations between the two countries and passed his information on to the CIA.
The MLPN published a monthly periodical called De Kommunist (The Communist). It was entirely written by BVD operatives.
There was an article in Counter-Punch FEBRUARY 27, 2015, I read:
Does the US have a Left, Left? by JP MILLER that began.
"I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ…. I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place.
— Che Guevara" (see footnotes)
Where being a Leftist in the US does not even guarantee one proper company for coffee or lunch on a pleasant afternoon for proper discussion and company, as it once did for it is easy to say there is none. As for the last 40 to 50 years after I began saying things like that until I began reading like minded views that I find interesting in light of the facts that the left in the US (the real left not the Bernies Sanders Great Old Tradition (GOT).
Ironically in my address to the NPAC (National Peace Action Coalition) in the grand auditorium at Hunter College of many hundreds of delegates attending
when I spoke at the age of 17 (as the numbers state as honestly I do not remember some of those details. where though I was not present when Trotsky was murdered assassinated (who knows) I was a front row witness to Fred Halstead's assault of a PLP member, that later degenerated into a free for all brawl which strangely the police did not get called though hundreds were involved.
That riot was later described by the myopic and one sided dogmatic members of the Spartacus League who stated:
"when Victor Reuther began his speech. We didn’t attempt to drive them off the stage or anything like that"
Trivializing the gravity of their actions the continued sating:
"In response, the SWP went ballistic and sent their goon squad with Fred Halstead in charge, literally, on a vicious assault against the protesters, some of whom were beaten, one PLer reportedly thrown through a glass door. Assisting the SWP thugs were the minions of—guess who—Tim Wohlforth’s Workers League [now the Socialist Equality Party] members."
Where they also failed to mention that PLP fought back in what it is lucky no one was killed.
In what these so called revolutionaries of the then Spartacus League Brand of "socialist" counter revolution failed fail to state is that they disrupted those proceedings of NPAC, much like fascist goons, and much like the NCLC goons that came later on as part of the Lyndon Larouche self proclaimed Operation Mop Up that Spartacus members also were involved in attacking socialist, communist and labor as part of the FBI counter-Intelligence program commonly know as COINTEL.
Much of the Left barely commands any respect in the United States out side of academic and trade Union circles and then it is severely limited. White the like of the revleft web site forum most recently cries about funding shortfalls of minor amounts (RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $30.00 below the monthly needed amount of $110.) the LEFT appears to be an embarrassment to itself. Where in the non-hegemonic LEFT of the US Police State there appears and disappears a large variety of of people and groups which more and more, appear and disappear without any consistent accounting or pedigree or such questionable people.
I've read and commented on articles that arise out of no where as if the CIA Black Hawks downed them into place where in vague references they beging their assaults of what remains of a Left in the United States by saying things like:
"The far Left's delusion that the likes of ISIS are not inspired by Islam is discrediting the moderate Muslims trying to reform their faith, former Islamic extremist Maajid Nawaz has told Yahoo7."
In what appears to me a variations of irrelevant government sponsored text where I responded for the simple reason that they used the "far left" as a whipping boy. I asked:
"1. But who wrote this? as it appears as graffiti from a toilet stall wall.
2. What who how is this Far-left and "Far Left" might not be relevant to anyone else but it might be to me which requires context, history, references, proper grammar in presentation and critique that I resent in what often I get the impression is government produced.
3. Lastly the "original text" states what grammatically can not be deciphered as it is incorrect in stating:
"The far Left's delusion that the likes of ISIS are not inspired by Islam is discrediting the moderate Muslims trying to reform their faith" where one has to guess that it could refer to all three elements specified.
In what makes that task impossible undesirable and unworthy as it appears as some encrypted message constructed so as to appear innocent. As the truth of the matter is many left groups have had various ties and have been responsible for many horrid things though also those were also connected to those like the CIA, as the ties between east and west increased with end of the Cold War so that again we can have one great world war that the "far-left" "left" etc can be said to be responsible for it has been negligent in its duties on many occasions government inspired or not.
Saddam Hussein was originally a CIA assassin of Communists in the Iraqi Bath Party and later their agent (CIA) in the Iran-Iraq War, where I venture to say left wing politics is not for the Simple Minds of the type of black-white spoon fed politics who in America is accustomed to awake alert well fed well balanced well educated well trained well informed rebels??? Who have the patience for much of the nonsense that some call "left" but not others.
So what makes the US Left an asset and resources to the working class when all it amounts to is a burden one where the ruling class uses its strengths against it as if it was some cruel Jujitsu match of two or more unfairly matched opponents?
"Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military."
In what Guerrilla warfare is called asymmetrical warfare it is the opposite of regular warfare where the good soldier boys shine their shoes, press their pants and polish their brass buttons.
Perhaps there is something that might be considered a left in the US, maybe there is not as that article was very moving which I think I will include at the end so as to discuss it first and leave it to you as a reader to join me in the the research as I did.
Where from a small secluded rural area of North Carolina he is an out spoken disabled veteran who automatically draws my attention for his views not because I agree nor agree but as a matter of presentation. Where in many areas such as the one he lives it is difficult to get a bowl of soup and a sandwich without drawing the suspicions of those around you.
Where the wam-bam-thank-you-maam leftism of the US leave much to be desired and most often fails to provide emotion intellectual support for any one except the most dogmatic sectarian of myopic cult like figures and groups of questionable origins and paths. Prominently those who collectively have much in common as part of the Anti-Stalinist Left in their affiliations of one sort or another with western intelligence, government and betrayals of the working class and the Soviet Camp:
Including Clement Attlee, Leon Trotsky, Daniel Bell, Alexander Berkman, Willy Brandt, Maurice Brinton, Amadeo Bordiga., James Burnham, Albert Camus, Ante Ciliga, G. D. H. Cole, Milovan Djilas, Alexander Dubček, Chen Duxiu, Noam Chomsky, Hal Draper, Raya Dunayevskaya, Emma Goldman, Michael Harrington, Christopher Hitchens, Sidney Hook, Nikita Khrushchev, Irving Howe, Boris Kagarlitsky, Karl Kilbom, Leszek Kołakowski, Karl Korsch, Bruno Kreisky, Melvin J. Lasky, Claude Lefort, David Lewis, Ken Loach, Dwight Macdonald, Mary McCarthy,Herbert Marcuse, Paul Mattick, Adam Michnik, François Mitterrand, Imre Nagy, Andrés Nin, George Orwell, Olof Palme, Anton Pannekoek, Andreas Papandreou, Boris Pasternak, Otto Rühle, Rudolf Rocker, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Maximilien Rubel, Bertrand Russell, Victor Serge, Ignazio Silone, Susan Sontag, Augustin Souchy, Boris Souvarine, Ota Šik, Norman Thomas, Josip Broz Tito, Voline (Vsevolod M. Eikhenbaum), Fredric Warburg, Cornelius Castoriadis, Buenaventura Durruti.
Where I can agree that each had their own special traits deserving of recognition where often it can be said Trotsky was brilliant, Norman Thomas appealing, Boris Pasternak was poetic, Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky were are intelligent, Raya Dunayevskaya was human, Emma Goldman principled but that in the end they failed, and not only failed but failed miserably.
So sitting here in what I call my prison cell of a gilded cage I write as if in a film like Fiddler on the Roof,
Sunrise, sunset, Sunrise, sunset,
Is this the little girl I carried?
Is this the little boy at play?
I don't remember growing older
When did they? **
So what does the Left in the United States offer the working beyond the tokenism of social welfare programs, and an endless array of demonstrations in opportunities for the working class to passively agree to be the cannon fodder of petty bourgeois revolutionaries and agents.
Which if that was the case perhaps we should of supported Otto von Bismarck for at least he could be noted as having "created the first welfare state in the modern world, with the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist enemies"
Where throughout history there were revolutionaries on the cutting edges and those that sort to undermine them on both the left and the right and many points in between.
Where one has to question the funding sources of many of these "left" socialist organizations that like the "Marxist Leninist Party of the Netherlands" (see footnotes)
appears and act as agents of the government for the sake of advancing reactionary government policies domestically and internationally.
Where one is not judged by me for one either as a friend, a comrade or an agent as I am all too often prompted, where I state my door is always open, as all the better I am inclined for as TS Eliot said
"It’s so elegant So intelligent
“What shall I do now? What shall I do?”
“I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
“With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
“What shall we ever do?”
The hot water at ten. And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door"
For these are not matters learned and acquired in a day or two but in a life of experience that the most vulgar of lives has no knowledge nor understanding of as it escapes them in that they are too much in a hurry.
For a revolution today is a unholy slaughter tomorrow,
For political revolution grows from the barrel of a gun
But the pen is mightier than the sword,
as the helmsman wrote as one speaks,
but which few would understand,
"For whom does the Bell toll?"
If not for me?
For those who wish to be taken seriously must be serious,
in what is neither stern nor gruff, rigid nor unreasonable,
nor flexed, in pliable, in empty thoughts,
as the waters nor the rocks, as neither free nor slave,
the hammer hammers, the sickle cuts,
where shall one begin?
with small baby steps? or in giant steps?
where it does not matter, as long as one can step,
in that one hungers,
in that one sleeps in that one is tired,
in that one clothes themselves,
in coldness that one ventures,
neither too far nor here.
where in prison, hunger is humanity, not rhetoric is revolutionary,
as torture pressures innocence into false confessions of cruelty,
in quick decisions of brash blind obedience, where technology is revolutionary ,
without humanity and feelings, in a slaughter house,
tomorrow revolution is a graveyard in meaningless elections.
as an illiterate I did not read, nor wrote, you rushed to classes,
in seas of well read horn rimmed reading glasses,
where nothing was found learned with meaning in life,
but empty words in rhetoric and lies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
Does the US have a Left, Left?
by JP MILLER
Tweet
I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ…. I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place.
— Che Guevara
Introduction
For the purposes of this article, the “New left” is defined as a genuine group, party, or organization in the United States (US) that promotes Marxist revolutionary, Socialist principles in opposition to the Capitalist US government construct and society. This does not include anarchists, Democrats or independents. Also, the “Old Left” is celebrated as that great agitator and loosely revolutionary composite of unions, parties, and individuals, that historically brought us much needed reform from the 1900’s to the 1950’s.
More in tune with this article is the contributions that the “New Left” provided through the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US along with the grassroots led social movement that gripped much of Europe during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, those days are long past us and in its stead we have the neo-liberal establishment whose intentions are in no way revolutionary or even reformist in any meaningful way. The intent of this article, while I intend to point to the Social Democratic failures and the leftist media’s reformist attitude, is to identify the remaining groups that continue to agitate for a socialist state, society and monetary system that is dedicated to a Socialist state, just society and wealth distribution through politics leading to a welfare state even while I largely criticize their failed agenda.
The primary purpose is to identify the groups and any influence these groups have on domestic politics in the US and hence their chances of survival and performance inside and outside of US elections. Regardless of the multitude of self-proclaimed leftists, communists, and socialists who claim to carry the banner of the left, do any of these individuals and splintered groups exert an influence on the US political scene, US state and society. Are they leading us to a socialist state through reform? More importantly, does the US have any radical group, party, or even leftist armed militia that can be successful or even useful in leading the way to a socialist state? The question begs do any of these above elements matter in US and is there a Left, left in the US.
The Old Left.
Certainly there are numerous parties, alternative media outlets, or groups of people who claim to be the standard bearer of the Left in the US today. Yet, while their influence is minimal, the Old Left had great success. With support from Unions, parties like the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), The Socialist Party of the United States (SPUSA) or the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) have lived a long tradition of agitation that culminated in the election of 1912 where Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, garnered 6% of the popular vote and in 1920, while in prison attained 3.5% of the popular vote. Never since this anomaly has any socialist candidate ever achieved such attention and support. These were different times. While the communists in Russia were transforming a feudal society into a statist workers society with revolution, the repercussions were felt worldwide to varying degrees.
These events spread across the world and influenced even the most stalwart of conservative governments in most corners of the world. The world seemed ripe for revolution across continents and while the world celebrated an economic boom even the most conservative elements of high society dabbled in leftist politics. However, the most conservative and moneyed interests of the US were determined to break this movement in the US and its possessions. Debs died in 1926 after serving time in prison for his beliefs and activities and saw his revolutionary party split into the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a reformist, moderate party that never gained the popularity needed to lead the left to a victory. Eugene Debs reigned over the most leftist movement in US history. This has never been duplicated.
In the 1930’s, the Socialist Movement had splintered into many competing groups but it was the unions and the Communist Party that came forward calling for worker’s rights. However, there was another split that divided the Communist party and created the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in an obvious attempt to distance themselves from the communist party and its perceived radical reputation. The stigma that was attached to the Communist party came from a “Red Scare” with help from propaganda attacks from the US government and wealthy industrial owners. The left in the US was divided into smaller and smaller groups. The great depression had brought many people into the cities looking for work and the unions had trouble recruiting members.
Yet, despite the divisions, the unions and the parties throughout the 1930’s were eventually able to gain better pay, shorter working hours, establish child labor laws, and win the right to organize in many places across the country, especially in the south. The burgeoning textile industry was a battleground unlike any other in US history as workers fought with their lives to move the plants and their owners into a new age of labor reform. While the credit for these reforms was ultimately attributed to the Social Democrats and Unions, it was clearly the acceptance of the violent revolutionary stance, organization of workers, and actions of the Communist party that was behind the success. Their creation of The National Textile Workers Union was a short lived experiment but the action of the communist party was ultimately successful in gaining extensive rights for workers.
The second “Red Scare” came in the 1950’s as the US government embraced McCarthyism, named after Joseph McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin. This movement was initiated by an irrational fear that there were communist agents and traitors in the government and Hollywood and indeed across all of the US. Proponents of McCarthyism claimed that the CPUSA was so under the influence of Moscow that they were a virtual arm of the Soviet state. The Government set up trials that resulted in political repression such as unsubstantiated accusations, loss of jobs, demagogic attacks, and even prison terms for citizens. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested and executed as spies for the Soviet Union in 1953.
Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, through unprecedented spying, provided lists of suspected communists and the House Un-American Activities Committee accused and convicted those called before the committee without evidence but with threats, innuendo and gossip. This anticommunist activity was damaging to all levels of US society and its repercussions were seen for generations to come. When the Korean War broke out there was no doubt that the government saw the left and particularly communism as a real threat. No reforms were forthcoming and the left went into hiding.
The New Left
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, a new left emerged with the Johnson administration’s “Great Society” and the extreme student protests and leftist violent activities in Europe. The “Great Society” was an extension of FDR’s “New Deal” and JFK’s stalled initiatives. The European New Left was born out of rejection of the WWII values. Indeed, all across the world, especially Europe, saw a return to a leftist energy that culminated in some social reforms, student rights recognition and a new kind of protest —armed protest. This new generation of young adults rejected the conservatism of their parents and the previous old liberal establishment and created a worldwide movement toward the New left which demanded a new wave of social, political and economic life.
In the US, the Vietnam War rallied protestors against the imperialist state while the tragedy at Kent State showed the extremes to which the previous generation was willing to resort in order to keep their outmoded values intact. The Civil Rights Movement was a monumental effort resulting from a new resistance that solidified the new reforms. The old Jim Crow laws were attacked as racism became a national war cry and eventually created debate and legislation. Reforms such as The Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Acts, and the Economic Opportunity Act that declared war on poverty were triumphs for the New left. Despite the growing opposition, the War in Vietnam continued as the government continued its proxy wars against communism. While the Vietnam War ended, the “Great Society” and its achievements simply vanished as Nixon was elected President and promised a return to the old mores and a state which valued law and order. Yet, the New Left in the US had been highly successful with reforms and any stated return to the 1950s society was mere hyperbole.
It’s important to iterate on the events in Europe and elsewhere during this New Leftist emergence. Not only did old Europe experience a new left movement but it was more revolutionary and anarchist than reformist in nature and hence the violence that ensued is important to recall. The New Left in Europe, especially Germany and France, came to the conclusion to shake off the old left by embracing Maoist, Trotskyist, and anarchist principles. While the Civil Rights movement was happening in the US, the European socialists embraced a more extreme diversion from the old left. In France, riots broke out in 1968 while the Red Army Faction (RAF) was forming in Germany. The old left had embraced a reformist attitude, turned their backs on the next generation, and changed into a weak Social Democratic party. The new generation of students and intellectuals saw this as a retreat and surrender to the right-wing government exemplified by the election of De Gaulle. The RAF or Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Cells were motivated by feminist, racist and anti-imperialist politics and they attacked with bank robberies, shootings and bombings. These loosely attached groups are held responsible for hundreds of murders. Yet, they enjoyed the popularity that the Irish Republican Army had in Catholic Ireland and in England as they attacked the illegitimate Monarchial state and its army of repression in England. The German and French revolutionary cells denounced the “Nazi” generation and were born in the post-colonial era in Europe. They were influenced by the new and successful revolutionary and violent approach to change by figures such as Mao Zadong, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh. The groups received much public support, especially from students, workers and intellectuals such as Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, and Oskar Negt. Even the most famous of the existentialist philosophers, Jean-Paul Sartre, gave his support to the revolutionary tactics by visiting Andreas Baader and speaking on his behalf. These violent and revolutionary cells survived until 1998 when a letter reached Reuters announcing the dissolution of the RAF.
The reason I include this short biography of the European New Left is in order to compare and contrast the New Left of the US, which was a reformist, non-violent movement with the activities and philosophy of the European New Left. There can be no doubt that while the French and German New Left embraced Che Guevara, Mao Zadong and Ho Chi Minh and adopted the method of revolutionary, violent struggle, the US New Left adopted a program of weak reformism. This is our legacy. While the reforms of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Movement were laudable, there have been no such reforms or even a viable leftist opposition to the government since the 1960’s and 1970’s. There were viable revolutionary groups in the US such as the Black Panthers and The Weather Underground. But they never achieved the public support and intellectual promise that the European New Left enjoyed.
Neoliberalism and the Need for Violent Resistance
And, here is the problem with any US socialist, communist, or unionist cause or party. As I will lie out below, reformism does not work in the US. Only revolutionary politics can change such a government behemoth that pretends to offer change through a two-party system which we all recognize as the uni-party, duopoly, or oligarchy. There are many successes by socialists. The Cuban Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Greece, and Venezuela are examples. But, Socialism will never succeed in the US without the fire of Che Guevara and the wisdom of Mao Zedong or the persistence of Ho Chi Minh. I know of not one Left-wing armed militia in the US today. All the while, right-wing armed militias are growing and with the support of the government. Recently, in the Ferguson protests, while the people filled the streets in righteous indignation of police and state murder and abuse, armed right-wing militias gathered on the rooftops with their AR-15s aimed at the protesters in support of the official, government, police thugs.
While non-violent protests won the day in the Civil Rights Movement, never will this government, this state, this populace, ever become a socialist entity without violence. The ultra-right and its minions eliminated our reformers. JFK, RFK, Dr. King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X were murdered and we did nothing but retreat into a neoliberal imperialist state just as the ruling class wanted. Also, we are a heterogeneous society, diverse, and multi-cultural unlike the homogeneous cultures in Scandinavia who enjoy a socialist state after hundreds and hundreds of years of assimilation. The divisions in the US are a result of a young, immature state, multiculturalism, and propaganda by the state mass media which continues to remind us of the divisions and frighten us with stories of threats from within and without.
The Socialist Press
There are many news outlets, parties and unions in the US which claim to be socialist and I cannot deny them that. Many of them do good work and inform us of the lies our government peddles. They do good work in calling attention to the imperialism of the US state, the duplicity of politicians, and the US crimes abroad. Yet, many are more anti-US than anti-Capitalism. Some are more indignant than effectual. Also, some are more divisive than inclusive. The very magnitude of their existence, the history of their failures, and their separation from each other reduce the opportunity of a genuine socialist party emerging in the US. Much of the socialist press and their messages are clouded with such diversions as animal rights, Vegan proclamations, international conspiracy, celebrity gossip, and the insistence that voting for the Democrat du Jour is a duty. All of these topics are respectable and deserve to be uncovered and debated. But, the message that we need to build a socialist front from amongst these devoted outlets is sadly missing. There is never a call to arms. There is never a message to put aside our differences and build one socialist party that can challenge the uni-party. While I have no doubt that these parties and news outlets are genuine in their beliefs, they are missing the most important point. They are competing instead of cooperating. Hasn’t that always been the problem with socialism? Divide and divide until there is no common value. I can only wonder what Jack Reed endured in the 1920s as he attempted in vain to consolidate the various communist factions in his struggle to inform the workers of their need to end the infighting and fight the real enemy: Capitalism. These divisions are just what the ruling class depends on day after day.
The Socialist Parties
In the US there is the Communist Party USA, The Socialist Workers Party, The Socialist Party USA, The Party for Socialism and Liberation, Workers World Party, The Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), Democratic Workers Party, Socialist Action, Marxist Workers Party, Workers Party USA, and on and on until I couldn’t count them. There are scores of self-proclaimed socialists, countless ineffectual unions, and hundreds of news outlets that claim to be the one genuine party or group that represent socialists. There are so-called, loose local and state socialist parties that gather like book clubs with an agenda of achieving nothing more than the right to smoke Marijuana. While each entity brings a value to the table, the socialist message gets multiplied and splintered until the movement means nothing. When multiple meanings get piled upon one word, the word becomes meaningless. While trying to mean everything it means nothing. As these multitudes of groups seem to be a triumph for the US leftist population, not one socialist is represented in any state legislature or the US Congress. Some parties claim to have 1000 members. Other parties can count 50 members if they are lucky. When put all together, they may represent a significant population of the US. But they are divided by the same cause.
Leadership
As for now, we have no Che. We have neither Mao nor Ho Chi Minh. We only have each other and until a person or a consolidated party emerges we will continue to be nothing but insignificant to the US political process. We need more than incremental reform that is devised to benefit the ruling class while placating the neoliberal interests in this country. We need revolution.
I often wonder what Che Guevara would think of this world if he were alive and active today. Would he succumb to the crumbs left behind by the ruling class? Would he hang up his Kalashnikov and enjoy the adoration of the world? I can’t imagine Che doing any such things. I like to think he would fight the good fight wherever it exists, especially in the US. And, I have no doubt that many would follow him. I would.
JP Miller is a writer and journalist who has published political non-fiction and fiction in The Greanville Post, Cyrano’s Journal, Pravda, Countercurrents, New Politics, The Literary Yard, The Southern Cross Review and PIF Magazine among others. He is a disabled veteran who lives in the Outer Banks of North Carolina beside the Atlantic Ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist–Leninist Party of the Netherlands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands)
The Marxist–Leninist Party of the Netherlands (Dutch: Marxistisch-Leninistische Partij Nederland or MLPN) was a fake pro-China communist party in theNetherlands set up by the Dutch secret service BVD to develop contacts with the Chinese government for espionage purposes. The MPLN existed from 1968 to the early 1990s and was led throughout its existence by Pieter Boevé, who used the pseudonym Chris Petersen.
Boevé joined the Dutch secret service in 1955 after attending a student conference in Moscow. Prior to the MLPN's creation, he served as the international secretary of the Marxist-Leninist Centre of the Netherlands (MLCN), using his position to create contacts in China and Albania. He also started his own publication, De Kommunist, in 1966, against the wishes of his MLCN comrades. He was subsequently expelled from the party and formed his own League of Marxist-Leninists in the Netherlands (Liga van Marxisten-Leninisten in Nederland) in 1968. A year later, this party changed its name to the MLPN.
The MLPN claimed to represent the principles of Maoism against the "heresies" of the official pro-USSR Communist Party of the Netherlands. It never had more than a dozen real members, none of whom were aware of its actual purpose. Notwithstanding this, Boevé was able to cultivate many contacts within the Chinese government. He frequently received gifts and travelling expenses from the Chinese government and on one occasion was the guest of honour at a banquet presided over by Zhou Enlai.
The BVD dissolved the MLPN shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, when they judged that it was no longer necessary. Boevé and another former BVD member went public with the true story of the party in 2004.
Boevé has claimed that he helped to facilitate the historic meeting of Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong in 1972. Prior to Nixon's decision to go to China, Boevé was asked by his Chinese contacts as to his views on the possibility of better relations with the United States of America. He took this as a sign that the Chinese government was interested in improving relations between the two countries and passed his information on to the CIA.
The MLPN published a monthly periodical called De Kommunist (The Communist). It was entirely written by BVD operatives.