https://socialistaction.org/2018/09/23/debate-on-nicaragua-capitalist-reform-or-socialist-revolution/
Debate on Nicaragua: Capitalist reform or socialist revolution?
/ 20 hours ago
Sept. 2018 Nica protest
A protester in Masaya holds a cartoon likening Ortega to the former
dictator Somoza.
By JEFF MACKLER
Part II. (Part I appeared in August 2018.)
In today’s epoch of worldwide imperialist intervention and war, real
revolutions are hard to make, even harder to maintain, and sometimes
difficult to define in their evolution or degeneration. Today’s antiwar
movement debate on the still-unfolding dynamics operating in Nicaragua
is a case in point. Here we propose to discuss this question in the
context of the lessons learned from past efforts to challenge capitalist
rule.
In 1979, Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSL
N) led a revolution in Nicaragua overthrowing the U.S.-backed Anastasio
Somoza dictatorship, which had murdered 50,000 people. Two decades
earlier, Fidel Castro’s July 26 Movement, also in large part a guerrilla
struggle, overthrew the U.S.-backed murderous Batista dictatorship in Cuba.
Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution defeated the old regime via a
parliamentary election in Venezuela, as was the case with Luiz Inacio
“Lula” da Silva’s Workers Party-led election victory in Brazil. Over the
past decade or so similar Latin American parliamentary electoral
victories in the context of the “pink tide” brought to governmental
power left-oriented or radical regimes in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Uruguay, and Honduras.
In a similar vein, in 1994, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress
(ANC) came to political power via an election that codified the previous
regime’s agreement to end the racist apartheid system and allow for an
election that insured Black-majority political rule. Here too, the
previous apartheid regime was armed and backed to the hilt by U.S.
imperialism, with Mandela himself remaining on the U.S. terrorist list
long after his election.
The example of the Russian Revolution
And then there was Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Party-led revolution
that on Oct. 25, 1917, overthrew the coalition capitalist government of
Alexander Kerensky in Russia and ushered in the world’s first socialist
revolution. For the purposes of this discussion, the Oct. 25 date is
instructive. Indeed, every one of the above-mentioned events had its
decisive moments or turning points. The Russian Revolution of Oct. 25
was preceded two weeks earlier by a special meeting of the Central
Committee of Lenin’s Bolshevik Party.
Lenin photo
V.I. Lenin addresses workers and soldiers.
The full name was the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party Majority;
the last word, “Majority,” translates into the Russian bolshinstvo or
“Bolshevik.” That detail is significant:
A 1903 split in the RSDLP resulted in Lenin’s faction winning a
majority. Lenin aimed to organize a party of professional
revolutionaries whose central objectives, 14 years later, were the
seizure of power by the revolutionary mobilization of the workers and
poor peasants, the abolition of the remnants of feudalism, the abolition
of capitalism, and the establishment of a democratic workers’ state
aimed at immediately beginning a transition to a socialist society in
Russia and worldwide. Every word of this last sentence is relevant to
our present discourse.
With this in mind let us return to that Central Committee meeting two
weeks before the Oct. 25 Russian Revolution. Lenin’s blunt proposal was
to take power, in two weeks, in the largest nation on earth, a nation
that occupied one-sixth of the land surface of the planet. It was an
imperialist nation centrally engaged in the ongoing first imperialist
World War, a nation with a massive army led by experienced generals of
the Tsarist regime, a nation aligned with the most powerful imperialist
countries that ever existed—the U.S., Great Britain, France, and Japan,
along with their allies.
Lenin’s proposal stunned his Central Committee. The sheer notion of
taking power seemed to be the ultimate expression of fanaticism, of
adventurism, of a total disconnect with the reality of the moment. But
Lenin’s proposal was approved. Leon Trotsky, the head of the Petrograd
(St. Petersburg) Soviet’s Military Revolutionary Committee, was assigned
the task of organizing the insurrection on Oct. 24. Frightened that they
would all be arrested, key Bolshevik leaders opposed Lenin’s proposal,
including Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev, who blew the whistle on the
revolution and publicly attacked Lenin’s proposal in a non-Bolshevik
newspaper.
But the Oct. 24 seizure of power via the storming of the government’s
operational headquarters at the former Tsar’s Winter Palace in Petrograd
and the arrest of the Alexander Kerensky government’s top leaders—minus
Kerensky, who fled—was successful. An estimated six or perhaps eight
people lost their lives on this day.
The old government essentially fell on its own dead weight. It needed
but a single decisive push at a critical moment to relegate it to a
brief mention in historical accounts. No one came to its defense except
a pathetic parade of the city’s bourgeoisie dressed in their finery and
demanding of the Bolshevik soldiers and workers, whom they scolded and
threatened with arrest, that the Kerensky government be returned to
power. They were politely escorted away.
The Bolshevik had seized the moment that cried out for resolution. They
had won over vast sections of the army, virtually the entire working
class and a peasantry in revolt against a feudal autocracy allied with
the nation’s capitalist class, who insisted on pursuing Tsarist imperial
war aims at the expense of the lives of countless millions of Russia’s
conscripted army.
A day later, Oct. 25, the action was overwhelmingly approved by a
meeting of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, where the Bolsheviks had
won a majority. This body of soldiers, who were mostly peasants, and
workers, democratically elected by their peers from every quarter of
society, became Russia’s new revolutionary government. To a standing
ovation that lasted several minutes, Lenin announced to the 649
delegates representing 318 provincial and local soviets across Russia,
“We shall now proceed to construct the socialist order.” And they did!
And immediately!
Within days, this All-Russian Soviet [Council] of Workers, Peasants and
Soldiers Deputies approved and implemented a series of decrees that
shook the world. It nationalized all the land of Russia and granted the
peasant soviets the authority to distribute it to the nation’s poor
peasants—the vast majority of the population; it decreed the right of
self-determination of Russia’s Tsarist-conquered and oppressed nations,
including their right to secede; it decreed its intention to immediately
end Russia’s participation in the imperialist war, and it carried out
this promise within months; it established worker’s control of the
nation’s factories as a prelude to their formal nationalization; it
nationalized all capitalist banks and related financial institutions and
established a monopoly of foreign trade.
It renounced all foreign treaties that the previous governments had
imposed by force on other nations; it abolished all laws discriminating
against women and decreed the absolute right to divorce and abortion
while establishing free childcare; it banned all discriminatory laws
aimed at persecuting people because of their sexual and gender
preference; it established soviet bodies at the local, regional, and
national levels as the formal governing institutions of the new state
with all elected delegates subject to immediate recall and paid wages no
higher than an average skilled worker in their occupation.
Most important, it put out an international call to the world’s
revolutionary fighters to follow the Russian example, to establish new
revolutionary parties everywhere, and to join to construct a new party
for world revolution. Less than a year later, the Communist
International was established. It included the best revolutionary
fighters and their new parties from around the world.
The example of the Cuban Revolution
Some 40 years later, the Cubans followed a similar path. Within six
months of their 1958-9 defeat of Batista’s army, they implemented a
massive land reform and abolished capitalism. At an early meeting of
Cuba’s central leaders, Fidel Castro is said to have asked, “Is there
anyone here with experience as an economist?”
Sept. Fidel & Che May 5, 1960 La Coubre
Fidel Castro (left) and Che Guevara (ctr.) lead a march in Havana, May
5, 1960, for the victims of the explosion on the freighter La Coubre,
considered one of the CIA’s first attempts to sabotage the Cuban
Revolution.
A young Argentinian, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, raised his hand and was
approved for the assignment. When later asked about his economic
credentials, Che, a trained doctor of the medical profession, responded,
“I thought Fidel asked for an experienced communist.” Che proceeded to
lead in the implementation of Cuba’s early efforts to convert
nationalized capitalist enterprises to a rational, democratic, and
integrated system of production aimed at meeting human needs as opposed
to maximizing capitalist profits.
The Cubans continued to deepen their revolution with the steady
implementation of measures to empower the masses and win their
confidence in the socialist future and in their revolutionary
government. It invited Latin America’s best revolutionary fighters to
Havana to attend international conferences to discuss how the Cuban
example could be applied everywhere.
To this day, beleaguered, embargoed, blockaded, sanctioned, invaded, and
having thwarted some two dozen CIA-confirmed and promoted assassination
attempts on Castro’s life, the Cubans continue to set a sterling example
for revolutionaries everywhere.
The Russian and Cuban Revolutions set an example that is as relevant
today as it was in decades past. Both definitively abolished capitalist
rule as the precondition for their survival and because of their
dedication to the highest aspirations of humankind for a world of
equality and social justice. They were based on the fundamental
proposition that only the formal abolition of the monstrous capitalist
system of endless war, plunder, exploitation and human degradation, can
provide the foundation for the building of a new society. Capitalism
cannot be reformed in the U.S. or anywhere else on earth! Whatever
temporary “reforms” are won in struggle will always be subject to
reversal, until the beast itself is slain at the hands of the vast
majority in every nation.
Latin America’s “pink revolutions”
Today’s debate on the present course of the FSLN in Nicaraguan and all
other “pink revolutions” provides critical lessons for serious
revolutionaries and social justice activists. First and foremost, as we
have demonstrated, the deadly hand of U.S. imperialism is always at
work, seeking any and all openings to weaken and defeat insurgent
movements and governments that in any manner challenge capitalist
prerogatives. Nothing is new in this respect. Anything less than
expecting the worst from the imperialist colossus and all its parties
would be naïve at best and dangerously mistaken.
Revolutionary Russia and Cuba planned for the worst by cementing the
loyalty of the vast majority, who stormed the heavens to make the
revolution, beginning with a decisive break with minority capitalist
rule and the implementation of a planned economy that prioritized human
needs. This included campaigns aimed at eradicating institutional racism
and national oppression, nationwide literacy campaigns and the
establishment of quality systems of free education and health care. The
people were armed, with the right to keep their weapons to defend their
class interests. Their perspectives were internationalist to the core,
reaching out to the people of the world for support and extending
solidarity to their struggles.
In sharp contrast, the FSLN leadership, along with all the other “pink
tide” or social democratic reformist leaderships, began with the
proposition that upon achieving governmental power they could and would
coexist with capitalism. This coexistence was expressed by the
simultaneous inclusion of leading capitalists in their governments and
in the associated and inseparable promise that capitalist wealth and
property in the means of production and in the land would be respected.
When decisive moments presented themselves in Nicaragua, as when the two
leading capitalists in the initial five-member 1979 government, the
Junta of National Reconstruction (JGRN), Alfonse Robelo and Violetta
Chamorro, resigned in 1981, the FSLN left their positions open or
reserved for their return or to be replaced by other major
representatives of capitalism, a statement to the world that,
resignation or not, the FSLN’s commitment to capitalism had not changed.
Robelo went on to join or form a series of opposition capitalist parties
culminating in 1987 with his helping to found the National Resistance
that represented the murderous Contras—the Honduras-based military
operation, armed and financed by the U.S., that took the lives of 15,000
Nicaraguans.
Following Daniel Ortega’s and the FSLN’s 1990 presidential election
defeat, a reflection of both the deep demoralization arising from the
constant Contra terror, sabotage, and military incursions in the north
and the failure to introduce any significant land reform and other major
incursions on capitalist property—a deadly reality that fueled some
support for the Contras among Nicaragua’s landless peasants and poor
workers—the FSLN splintered into fractious infighting.
Ortega lost two subsequent presidential election bids while becoming
skilled at endless maneuvers with a variety of Nicaragua’s capitalist
elites as he prepared for and won the 2006 election. Essentially absent
as a spokesperson and active leader of the oppressed masses, Ortega
reappeared 16 years later as the presidential candidate of an electoral
coalition including Nicaragua’s Superior Council of Private Enterprise
(COSEP), the Catholic Church, and some leading capitalist politicians.
Venezuelan oil & FSLN’s social programs
Some solidarity activists today tout the FSLN’s more recent social
programs that are said to have raised the standard of living and
wellbeing of its people to the highest levels in Central America. This
was accomplished through the largess of Venezuela, via 2007-2016 oil
shipments at half the market price valued at $3.7 billion and with
generous payment due dates on half the value of the already reduced oil
price postponed to 23 years at a 2 percent interest rate. The FSLN in
turn sold the oil at full market value and used 40 percent of the
profits for its popular programs to provide microloans to small
businesses, as well as food and housing subsidies for the poor.
Venezuela’s massive contributions over the same period helped to boost
Nicaragua’s GDP growth, largely due to promoting its private sectors, to
an annual average of 4.1 percent.
Similar and generous terms were negotiated between oil rich Venezuela
and its “pink tide” allies in Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador, as well as
with revolutionary Cuba. Well and good. But here a fundamental question
arises in full force. In Nicaragua’s capitalist economy, as with all
other capitalist states, who is responsible for the distribution and
utilization of the remainder of the profits from the sale of Venezuelan
oil—the 60 percent or $2.3 billion that was not spent on social
programs? Was this huge amount by Nicaraguan standards overseen by a
democratic workers’ state to meet social needs or by a capitalist state
that inherently subordinates human needs to the private profit of the elite?
Here we re-state the self-evident proposition that no self-respecting
capitalist, however “democratically minded,” is in business to lose
money. The terms “progressive capitalist” or “non-neoliberal capitalist”
are oxymorons of the first order. In Nicaragua, the Ortega leadership
and its family and personal associates, as we demonstrated in my
previous article, “Nicaragua: Dynamics of an Interrupted Revolution,” in
the August issue of Socialist Action, are steeped in ownership and
control of a broad range of leading capitalist enterprises and have been
so since 1990, if not before. It cannot be otherwise in a capitalist state.
Today, with the massive drop in world oil prices, and in the context of
a world economic crisis, Venezuela’s economy, dominated by oil
production, could only suffer grievous blows. These have been
undoubtedly magnified by drastic U.S. economic sanctions and a host of
other imperialist measures aimed at destabilizing the country. We would
be remiss in omitting that, like Nicaragua, Venezuela is a capitalist
state, with its major factories, land, and banking institutions owned
and operated by the capitalist elite, who today, have every intention of
once again collaborating with imperialism to undermine and eventually
overthrow any government that in the slightest way interferes with their
accumulation of profits.
The same is true for Brazil. Lula came to head that government after his
fourth presidential run in 2002. But unlike his previous runs, he was
the candidate of an electoral coalition of his trade union-based Workers
Party (PT) and a reactionary right-wing Catholic party that provided its
central, multi-millionaire leader as Lula’s running mate. To insure that
Brazil would remain in the world capitalist orbit and pay its debts to
its leading financial institutions, Lula’s first parliamentary effort
was to impose a massive austerity program that severely cut into
workers’ pensions and other vital social programs. PT senators and
members of the Chamber of Deputies (lower house in Brazil’s bicameral
system) who voted against Lula’s austerity measures were summarily
expelled from his party.
Today, the “pink tide revolution” is in rapid decline, with Argentina,
Brazil, and Ecuador reverting to reactionary regimes via the electoral
process, wherein discontented sectors of the working class and the poor,
enticed by a capitalist cabal and corporate media largely left intact,
undoubtedly registered their discontent at the polls. With Venezuela
similarly under siege—incapable of resolving its deep economic crisis
and maintaining its commitment to its capitalist system at the same
time—and with the Honduran government overthrown in a U.S.-supported
coup, Nicaragua is high on imperialism’s hit list.
All the self-proclaimed “socialist” leaders of these governments, their
best intentions notwithstanding, believed they could make a bargain with
the devil—to coexist with the class enemy. All of these reformist
capitalist governments had their own distinct politics and ideologies.
These ranged from ingrained reformism, if not personal corruption, to an
honest, if not well-founded belief that an outright challenge to the
capitalist state order would inevitably bring on isolation, embargo,
CIA-instigated internal subversion, or active intervention—either by the
orchestration of a military coup or overt U.S. intervention and war. All
of the above are imperialism’s stock-in-trade.
The revolutionary alternative
From our vantage point there is another alternative, the variant of
Lenin and Fidel—socialist revolution, the mobilization of the masses of
workers and peasants to challenge and defeat capitalist power in all its
manifestation and to place the fate of the new nation in the hands of
the people themselves, organized democratically in soviet-type institution.
Over the past decade or so this alternative was on the order of the day,
with massive working-class mobilizations across Latin America driving
the discredited capitalist regimes from political power and radical
anti-capitalist ideas on the ascendency. What was lacking then, and now,
was an international revolutionary socialist party with deep roots in
the struggles of the oppressed everywhere, coordinating its efforts for
a common end.
Socialist revolution was on the agenda in the mass consciousness of the
vast majority of the entire continent. What was lacking then, and now,
is a revolutionary leadership intent on throwing fear and caution to the
winds, and relying on the capacity of the revolutionary masses to
determine their own fate. This combination of mass anti-capitalist
consciousness and the capacity to repeatedly mobilize to challenge the
capitalist status quo and a revolutionary party with the program, will,
discipline and mass implantation with every progressive struggle, is
unbeatable.
What we have observed over these past years, decades and centuries has
never been the incapacity of the masses to struggle but rather a
profound crisis of revolutionary leadership. The FSLN, once capable of
heroic deeds, opened the door to socialist revolution in 1979. But its
leaders were disabused from this course, at least in part, by the
counter-revolutionary Stalinist bureaucracy of the former Soviet Union,
who warned against a break with capitalism and instead counseled
“peaceful co-existence” with it.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that these “socialism in one
country” bureaucrats regularly traded revolutionary possibilities that
they influenced as bargaining chips in secret deals with imperialism to
preserve their own interests and privilege at home.
They made clear that should the FSLN embark on a challenge to capitalist
rule they would receive no aid from the USSR. The Stalinist regime did
the same with regard to the Salvadoran Revolution, also underway in
1979, and with regard to Grenada’s 1979 revolution led by Maurice
Bishop, who was later murdered by the Stalinist misleader, Bernard Coard.
The same forces aligned to the USSR’s counter-revolutionary bureaucracy
pressured the South African ANC and its South African Communist Party
partner to agree to place the Black mask of an ANC government over the
white racist face of a still-in-place apartheid capitalist regime rather
than organize to bring it down. These tragic decisions largely accounted
for all these lost revolutionary opportunities. These events are still
under debate today, but the lessons are clearer than ever. Capitalism
will not be defeated by halfway measures and agreements to rule in
partnership with capitalism.
Today it appears that the leading players in the recent mass
mobilizations and counter-mobilizations in Nicaragua have perhaps once
again entered into a dialogue to resolve their differences, a dialogue
in which the voices of the vast majority of working people are absent.
While the evidence is still unclear as to the origins of the violence
that erupted during and immediately following the April mass protests
against the government’s decision to reduce pensions and increase
taxation rates, the FSLN’s monopoly of police and military power and its
control over all the state institutions leads us to question its denials
with great skepticism. Some 300-400 people have been killed. The wounded
are said to have been at least 2000. But we also cannot be blind to the
possibility that the hand of imperialism, via its CIA secret teams and
provocateurs, may have been involved.
In truth, however, the question as to who fired first is subordinate to
the truth that mass opposition to the FSLN’s austerity measures was
fully justified and reflected a deeply held anger and frustration by
working people that their standard of living and general conditions were
in decline.
Nicaragua’s wages are among the lowest in Latin America; its
foreign-owned free economic zone low wage sweatshop maquiladoras exist
to serve imperialist needs for cheap labor. The majority of the
population is relegated to the “informal” sector of the economy—that is,
to selling trinkets and other petty commodities and food on the streets
to survive.
In the U.S. the first obligation of antiwar and social justice activists
is to unconditionally support Nicaragua’s right to self-determination,
free from every form of imperialist intervention—from the heinous
congressional NICA Act (Nicaragua Investment Conditionality Act), aimed
at restricting Nicaragua’s access to international lending institutions,
to U.S. government sanctions and U.S.-backed financing of NGOs and
National Endowment for Democracy operations aimed at bringing down the
FSLN government.
Only the Nicaraguan people have the right to decide their fate. U.S.
Hands Off!
Inside Nicaragua, as with every nation on earth, we are partisans of the
formation of a deeply rooted revolutionary socialist party aimed at
organizing the nation’s poor and oppressed for a definitive break with
capitalist rule—a party totally independent of the Daniel Ortega/FSLN
capitalist rulers and their capitalist associates as well as against
today’s dissidents organized by the COSEP, the Catholic Church, and
other opposition capitalist forces who look to U.S. imperialism as their
savior.
Any serious opposition to the FSLN government must be known as champions
of a new world, a world free from all forms of capitalist exploitation,
a world where democratic rights and decision making are
institutionalized, where environmental degradation is outlawed, where
the rights and traditions of indigenous peoples are honored, where women
are equal in every respect—including access to free and legal abortion,
which is banned in Nicaragua today.
In short, Nicaragua’s future, as with all other nations, depends on the
emergence and consolidation of mass forces dedicated to socialist
revolution.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
September 23, 2018 in Latin America, Uncategorized. Tags: Nicaragua
Related posts
Nicaragua: Dynamics of an interrupted revolution
Nicaragua hurts
What’s behind the protests rocking Nicaragua?
Post navigation
← Organized labor slow to defend the rights of immigrants
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month September 2018 (7) August 2018 (12)
July 2018 (13) June 2018 (11) May 2018 (19) April 2018 (15) March
2018 (17) February 2018 (14) January 2018 (13) December 2017 (13)
November 2017 (13) October 2017 (16) September 2017 (15) August 2017
(16) July 2017 (17) June 2017 (16) May 2017 (17) April 2017 (14)
March 2017 (13) February 2017 (19) January 2017 (13) December 2016
(12) November 2016 (19) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August
2016 (10) July 2016 (14) June 2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April 2016
(12) March 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December
2015 (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10)
August 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April
2015 (12) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10)
December 2014 (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014
(6) August 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11)
April 2014 (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11)
December 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September
2013 (13) August 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013
(14) April 2013 (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013
(17) December 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September
2012 (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012
(19) April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012
(17) December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
(19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (15) January 2011
(15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
(3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
(11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
(9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
(14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
(25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
(24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
(29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook
View SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter
View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International
Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History
Middle East Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump / U.S. Government
Uncategorized Vote Socialist Action Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow