Skip to comments.EXCERPTS FROM NAKED COMMUNIST
Posted on 10/04/2004 1:11:51 PM PDT by Exton1
Former FBI agent, Cleon Skoussen, in 1958, in his book, THE NAKED COMMUNIST, revealed among other things, these long term goals of the communist agenda. The information is in the Congressional Record August 1963 and in the Communist Manifesto:
McCarthy saw it, and they slaughtered him
I found "The Naked Communist" to be largely accurate. The "Naked Capitalist" on the other hand, completely destroyed Skousen's credibility. Too bad he self destructed.
Thank you for this post. Here is another site which contains helpful information on this very topic.
cBS's Murrow supplied the meathooks.
This only gets posted here at least once a month. Never too much I guess.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
......the 2nd is to do the same in all areas of 'health'.....services.
Started a long time ago, spread rapidly, and has festered into one (of many) big ugly cancerous lesion.
They forgot "Get hold of the American Presidency." Kerry's response: "Don't worry, comrades: Help is on the way!"
Liberalism is the Cancer of nations.
Look at what John Kerry's dad had to say. Richard Kerry wrote in his book, The Star-Spangled Mirror, published in 1990:
"Americans are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white. They celebrate their own form of government and denigrate all others, making them guilty of what he calls 'ethnocentric accommodation' -- everyone ought to be like us. As a result, America has committed the 'fatal error' of 'propagating democracy' and fallen prey to 'the siren's song of promoting human rights,' falsely assuming that our values and institutions are a good fit in the Third World. And, just as Americans exaggerate their own goodness, they exaggerate their enemies' badness. The Soviet Union wasn't nearly as imperialistic as American politicians warned. Seeing the Soviet Union as the aggressor in every instance, and the U.S. as only reacting defensively, relieves an American observer from the need to see any parallel between our use of military power in distant parts of the world, and the Soviet use of military power outside the Soviet Union. . . . Third world Marxist movements were autonomous national movements -- outside Moscow's orbit."
More quotes and facts on the John F. Kerry Timeline. Email it to your friends.
What were you doing when we LOST the cold war ?...
Let's put Commie Kerry to rest first, and then start to dismantle these socialists.
Kerry is a communist plant. There's a lot of them. The Cold War isn't over.
don't know if you've seen this.
The top one is Swiss cheese, and the bottom one is a moose!
Thanks for pinging me to this. I'd say they can borrow the "Mission Accomplished" banner and pat themselves on the back. Isn't it funny that you and I have many times discussed that the cold war continues and we've pretty well identified all of the programs and ideas from this list as communist and here we find that in 1958 we were given fair warning.
"You've come to fight as free men... and free men you are. What'll you do without freedom? ...and dying in your beds many years from now, would be willing to to trade all the days, from this day to that, for just one chance, Just one chance... to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!
Freedom will prevail!
I remember seeing a picture of General MacArthur's picture at my father's American Legion post that loomed over the huge dining room, and the quote undeneath said, "We shall fight, or we shall die..."
Big "Hanoi Kerry is a Communist" Bump!!!!
While Communist espionage channels were being perfected in the United States, similar subversive networks were being built throughout the world. Soon Stalin found the state secrets of all the major powers pouring in so fast that he was able to play the world-wide game of power politics like a professional gambler who sits at the poker table carefully planning his strategy as he reads the marked cards held by each of the other players.
We now know that it was from this supremely satisfying position of political omniscience that Stalin initiated a series of schemes which had their part in precipitating World War 2. Defected Russian Intelligence officers have revealed that World War 2 was fomented and used by the Russian leaders as an important part of the long range strategy for the expansion of World Communism.
The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism in Germany
It is said that Communism was largely responsible for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. It will be recalled that when the German Kaiser capitulated in 1918 the Communists tried to take over Germany. Anticommunist political groups immediately sprang up and through a frantic coalition they prevented the Communists from seizing power. It was this anticommunist atmosphere that Adolf Hitler began his political career.
...[Stalin] recognized in the Nazi dictator a formidable opponent of his own breed and kind. He saw that Hitler was shrewd and ruthless. He was completely amoral. He had no compunction whatever against violence, the purging of his own people, the use of deceit in propaganda, or the sacrifice of millions of lives to achieve personal power. Materialism had produced precisely the same product in Germany that it had produced in Russia. Although called by different names, Nazism and Communism were aimed at the same identical mark and were forged in very similar ideological molds.
Sounds like the Log Cabin Republicans and the Victory Fund Democrats.
The U.S. Policy of Coexistence Goes into its Third Stage
Nevertheless, the program (coexistence with Communism/gain cooperative support of the communist leaders to preserve peace) was inaugurated and America’s attitude toward Russia both during and after World War 2 can only be understood in terms of this policy.
In early June, 1942, Vyacheslav Molotov came secretly to Washington and stayed at the White House. After his departure preparations were made to break the new U.S. policy to the American people. On June 22, 1942, (the anniversary of Hitler’s attack on the U.S.S.R.) a Russian Aid Rally was held in New York’s Madison Square Garden. There a top government official announced: “A second front? Yes, and if necessary, a third and a forth front...We are determined that nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we have and are in this conflict, and we look forward to sharing with you the fruits of victory and peace”. Then there followed the pathetic, but blindly hopeful statement: “Generations unborn will owe a great measure of their freedom to the unconquerable power of the Soviet people”.
The Story of American Lend-Lease to Russia
The American policy of generosity immediately began to manifest itself. Billions of dollars of Russian Lend-Lease were authorized. Even the deliberate sacrifice of American self-interest was evident in some of the orders received by U.S. military services. An order to the Air Service Command dated January 1, 1943, carried this astonishing mandate: “The modification, equipment, and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for the U.S. Army Air Force”.
Since the close of World War 2, the American people have gradually learned the details concerning the flood of goods and treasure which went to Russia under Lend-Lease. The lists which have been published are from Russian records.
...Lend-Lease...included $3,040,423,000 worth of American goods, paid for by American taxpayers, which definitely does not appear to be authorized by the Lend-Lease act.
In addition to U.S. planes, munitions, chemicals, tools, heavy machinery, and so forth, the amazing American “Arsenal of Democracy” provided Russia with 478,899 motor vehicles. This was nearly half of all the motor vehicles used on the Soviet Front. (snip) ...the United States never received an official “thank you” from Russia for the eleven billion dollars worth of Lend-Lease goods which were paid for and literally “donated” to the Communist Motherland by the American people. Stalin’s excuse was that his government felt the United States made an error when it stopped Lend-Lease at the close of the war.
Russian Attempts to secure the Secrets of the Atomic Bomb
Throughout World War 2 Russian espionage vigorously concentrated on the most important thing to come out of the War - the harnessing of atomic energy. A two pronged thrust was employed to get the information as it was developed: one by espionage and the other by diplomatic channels. For a time the diplomatic channels were particularly productive, not only for atomic energy secrets, but for all military and industrial information.
[Major Racey] Jordan first became aware of this at the Great Falls Lend-Lease Air Base when the Russians began bringing large quantities of cheap, black suitcases along with them whenever they left the United States. They refused to let Jordan see the contents on the grounds that the suitcases were pieces of “diplomatic luggage” and therefore immune to inspection.
...[Jordan found] a letter on White House stationery signed by Harry Hopkins and addressed to the number three man in the Russian hierarchy. ...maps of the top secret Manhattan Project, data on the atomic energy experiments, folders with ‘From Hiss’ on it, numerous military documents, Depart of State documents, U.S. embassy n Moscow giving confidential evaluations of officials.
When Major Jordan reported the facts to Washington he was severely criticized for holding up the plane!
In April, 1943, the Russian liaison officer told Jordan that a very special shipment of experimental chemicals was coming through. The Russian officer called Harry Hopkins in Washington and then turned the phone over to Jordan. Major Jordan reports that Harry Hopkins told him: “I don’t want you to discuss this with anyone, and it is not to go on the records. Don’t make a big production of it, but just send it through quietly, in a hurry”.
The Russian officer told Jordan the shipment was “bomb powder”. Jordan saw an entry in the officer’s folder which said, “Uranium”. (snip) At least 1,465 pounds of uranium salts are said to have been sent through to the Soviet Union.
On July 24, 1945, at Potsdam, President Truman announced to Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin that the United States had finally developed a highly secret bomb. He told them this bomb possessed almost unbelievable explosive power. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes was watching Stalin and noted that he did not seem particularly surprised. Four years later, September 23, 1949, President Truman announced to the world that Russia had successfully exploded an atomic bomb - years ahead of expectations. Some officials wondered why, with all the help they received, the Russians had not exploded one long before.
Creation of the United Nations
During August and September 1944, the representatives of Britain, China, Russia and the United States , met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington DC. At this conference the constitutional foundation for the United Nations was laid. In it Russia was not only made a full partner, but a dominant stockholder. A most significant development was the fact that, while other nations objected, Russia insisted on the right to exercise the veto power even if she were a party to the dispute. This violated the very foundation of international jurisprudence but the democracies consented. They were ready to pay almost any price to get Russia to participate.
On April 25, 1945, 1,400 representative from 46 nations met in San Francisco, and after due deliberation agreed upon a United Nation Charter.
Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced. For example, the Russian Constitution provides for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article 126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a single roster of candidates. This, of course, renders completely meaningless all the high flown phrases dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots. (snip)
In precisely this same way the United Nations Charter provides for the “the sovereign equality of all its members” (article 1) and then sets up a Security Council which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France, and the United States) anyone of which can nullify the expressed desires of all other member nations by the simple device of exercising the veto power.
This makes the Security Council the only legally binding legislative body in the UN. ...any nation which joins the UN must “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”.
As some authorities have since pointed out, the UN provided for a world-wide police commission and then made the top international gangster a member of that commission.
Communist Attitudes at the Close of World War 2
A clear indication of what the United States could expect from post-war Communism came May 24, 1945, when the leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos, wrote a letter on behalf of his Russian superiors demanding that the Communists in the United States be required to immediately abandon their policy of friendly collaboration with capitalism and return to their historic mission of world revolution. Back in 1940 the Communist Party of America had formally withdrawn from the Third International to avoid having to register as a foreign agent under the Voorhis Act. Later the Communist Party of America was dissolved in an attempt to attach the Communist membership to one of the major US political parties. For this purpose they called themselves the Communist Political Association.
All of this twisting and turning was in complete harmony with Soviet policy until 1945. After World War 2, the announced policy reverted to traditional Marxism. To justify the complete switch in policy, Earl Browder, the American Communist leader, was accused of being personally responsible for the “errors” of the former policy. He was expelled from the party.
The party leadership was immediately taken over by William Z. Foster. Foster had written an inflammatory book in 1932 called Toward Soviet America. Just before World War 2 he had testified before a Congressional Committee: “when a Communist heads a government of the United States, and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises, that government will not be a capitalistic government, but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat”.
It is no longer difficult to understand why Moscow wanted men like Foster at the head of its Communist Parties throughout the world. We now know that the Russian leaders approached the conclusion of the world’s greatest war with the conviction that World War 3 might be in the near offing. In their secret circles they hopefully speculated that this next war might be Communism’s final death struggle with capitalism.
Communist Attacks on the Free World During the Post War Period
Stalin’s plan for the expansion of Communism after the war involved three techniques: The creation of proCommunist puppet governments in occupied territory, the military conquest of new territory by satellite armies, the further infiltration of free countries by Soviet espionage and propaganda organizations.
The Free World Loses 100 Million People
A primary objective of World War 2 was to liberate all of the countries occupied by the Axis powers. Russia was well aware that if she were to expand her influence into these nations, she would have to do it in such a way as to create the illusion that these nations had gone Communistic through their own political self determination. It became established Soviet Policy to take a secret but highly active interest in the affairs of these countries to make them “voluntary” satellites through infiltration and subversion.
McCarthy saw it, and they slaughtered him
And Senator McCarthy never advocating outlawing the Communist Party (according to Ann Coulter, lib favorite Humbert Humphrey actually introduced a law that would have done this). Neither did he ever investigate Hollywood (how many ignoramuses know that?). All he ever sought to investigate and expose were Communists working for the Federal Government. It is for that that he has been turned into the greatest "villain" in American political history.
When you get a chance, read this interview with his secretary:
“# Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. “
Sounds like what many say about Ron Paul and his ideas.
After a second postponement, with the Communists still refusing to participate, the National Assembly finally convened on November 15, 1946, and a democratic constitution was approved and adopted on Christmas Day. But the Communists would have no part of it.
Chiang Kai-shek became completely convinced that the Communists would never negotiate a peaceful settlement but were out to win the whole domain of China by military conquest. He also believed the Communists could never represent the interests of China because their policies were created and imposed upon them by Moscow.
Time was to prove this analysis correct, but U.S. Diplomatic Strategists were the last to be convinced and then only after the Chinese mainland had been lost. Furthermore, Chiang could not convince the US Diplomatic Corps that he was justified in striking back when the Communists attacked him. When he tried to regain the territory recently seized by the Communists, it was described in Washington as “inexcusable aggression”.
# Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Sounds like what many say about Ron Paul and his ideas.
From the very beginning there have been two ways to interpret the Constitution: Hamiltonian loose constructionism and Jeffersonian strict constructionism. Even the people who wrote it roughly divided into these two groups.
Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. Just because one rejects this one tradition of Constitutional interpretation in favor of the other one which is just as old (and which was held by George Washington, btw) does not mean one is rejecting the Constitution.
Plus "palaeolibertarians" are a bizarre species whose only purpose appears to be the adaptation of European fascism to local American conditions. Otherwise how does one adapt religious orthodoxy to libertarianism? And why would any "libertarian" advocate bringing back jim crow laws (not that Rep. Paul does, but there are "libertarians" who do)?
"Palaeolibertarians" are like our leftwing "anarchists." They consider the US government dictatorial but they admire foreign dictators who are a zillion times worse. The only difference between the two groups is the names of the dictators they admire.
Well there is the third way which most elected officials and judges seem to use today. Ignore it.
I’ll quote Henry Hyde.
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”
Disaster Strikes Down an Old U.S. Ally
Finally, in the summer of 1946, when the Communists had repeatedly violated the truce agreement, the Nationalists decided to vigorously counterattack and penetrate deep into Manchuria. The diplomats frantically ordered Chiang to stop, but he refused to do so. He said another truce would only allow the Communists time to re-group and come back even more fiercely than before. He also said it was his intention to continue the campaign to forcibly disarm the Communists and restore them to civilian status so that China could get on with her program of constitutional government without fear of constant insurrection.
This line of reasoning did not appeal to the State Department. Three different times Chiang was ordered to issue an unconditional cease-fire. To make it stick a U.S. embargo was finally placed on all aid to Chiang. Only after United States aid abruptly halted did Chiang reluctantly agree to a cease-fire. General Marshall stated: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 antiCommunist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of a pen I disarm them”.
And I'm not Jewish.
The Wedemeyer Report
...the summer of 1947, General Albert C. Wedemeyer was sent to Asia under Presidential orders to find out what was wrong in China. (snip) He indicated that not only had the interests of free China been violated, but the self-interests of the United States and all her allies had been subordinated to the whims of the Communists. He recommended prompt and voluminous aid to the Nationalist Government and predicted that the situation could still be salvaged if help were provided in time.
Unfortunately, the report fell into the hands of the very people whom General Wedemeyer had criticized. Consequently, it was buried in department files for nearly 2 years and was not brought to light until long after it was too late to take the action it recommended.
By September, 1949, the Communist leaders were already wildly celebrating their victory as they set up the “People’s Republic of China”.
Thank you for this link and for posting it here.
Amateurs Unravel Russia’s Last Royal Mystery
Thank you for the link.
The author was W. Cleon Skousen. He was a senior FBI agent under J. Edgar Hoover. He taught agents and students the history of communism. The book, The Naken Communist, where the manifesto is printed, was a manuscript of his studies. He was encouraged to put this much into a published form, that omits volumes of his work, by Brigham Young University so the knowledge wouldnt be lost.
As far as the Manifesto that you feel was an opinion, it can be found on Page 17 of The Naked Communist with the history of its origins:
November 1874, the Federal Just, later known as the Communist League, invited Marx and Engels to particiate in their second congress as representatives of the Communist organizations in Brussels. Marx and Engels not only attended; but practically took over. The manifesto was written by Marx and Engels as the communist strategy, presented at the meeting and adopted as a declaration of principles as the Manifesto to the World. It was announced as the new program of International Communism.
NOTES - Various Related Info Possibly Related to the SDS/Weathermen
Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (December 21, 1879 - March 5, 1953), better known as Joseph Stalin (Iosef Stalin in an alternative transliteration) was the second leader of the Soviet Union. He was also known as Koba (also Georgian folk hero; see: Koba[?]). The name Stalin (derived from combining Russian stal, “steel” with Lenin) originally was a conspiratorial nickname; however, it stuck to him and he continued to call himself Stalin after the Russian Revolution. Stalin is also reported to have used at least a dozen other names for the purpose of secret communications, but for obvious reasons most of them remain unknown.
Excerpt, Relevance: Newsletter
Throughout the Russian revolution in 1905, Dzhugashvili helped in several ways. Throughout 1905, he worked with the Caucasion Workers Newssheet, before continuing on to Baku to gather support for the Bolshevik cause among the poorer workers. In December 1904, Dzhugashvili met Lenin at the first national Bolshevik conference in Tammerfors, Finland, before twice becoming the delegate to the Social Democratic party.
In January 1912, Dzhugashvili was adopted into Lenins underground while in exile. Dzhugashvili escaped two months later and helped to set up a Bolshevik newspaper, called Pravda. The first edition of Pravda showed up two months later, on May 5, 1942. In January of 1943, Lenin and Dzhugashvili met to write a paper on the Bolsheviks stand in regards to minority races. The pamphlet was entitled Marxism and the National Problem, and was again arrested and deported while returning.
During the few years before the war, Dzhugashvili was involved in several papers, during which time he began to use the popular pen-name of Stalin, which meant “Man of Steel”. This name would be forever linked with Iosif Dzhugashvili, and eventually replaced his name. Stalin stayed the entire four years, instead of trying to escape in the past.
Stalin returned to the Pravda on March 25, 1917. Joseph Stalins major break came on April 11, 1917 when he was elected to the Bolshevik partys main committee, but maintained his position with the Pravda. Stalin also backed Lenin throughout his campaign the overthrow of the government, even though Stalin played only a minor role in the actual revolution.
Relevance: Writer Magazine/Newsletter/book:
A reader in Uganda writes that he is constantly harassed by policemen who are looking for him - because of his selling The African Communist.
And in Kenya, despite an African “cabinet”, the British authorties’ ban on our magazine still persists - we hope not for much longer. Mr. Oginga Odinga, M.L.C., writes “with very best wishes” from Nairobi, that “you will be informed as soon as the prohibition of The African Communist is lifted in Kenya”.
A similar position seems to exist in Nyasaland, from where a reader writes: “Our government of Central Africa (chiefly White settlers) does not want these books to come to our attention and once they are found they are just being destroyed.”
But despite all these difficulties The African Communist still finds its way into the hands of readers all over the Continent, even in the most dangerous circumstances. It is inspiring to know that here in the heart of Verwoerd’s Fascist Republic, enthusiastic readers are receiving our journal. Here are some of their comments: “Despite the pressures the government of the Republic exerts and despite the limitations of freedom of speech and thought, we do manage to obtain political pamphlets and papers from all over Africa. Of these The African Communist is of the highest calibre and greatest value in education and enlightenment of the people....
Mayibuye i’Afrika ! - Let Africa Return ! “ (D.K., a student.)
“I am a great reader of The African Communist. I can’t live with- out it. It is like gold.” (B.G., Cape Province.)
“The African Communist is a credit to our Party and our country.” (J.M., Johannesburg.)
We want, once again, to thank all those readers who have taken the trouble to write to us. We cannot print every letter, because we have not enough space, but we can assure you that we treasure every letter like something precious. We do not regard The African Communist just as something we have written and produced for you to read. It is a joint effort of readers and writers; of ourselves and yourselves. And we know very well that without you, our readers, our magazine could not have been successful, nor will it be success- ful in the future. Let us work together, then, to make this an even more powerful weapon for freedom, independence, unity and socialism in Africa.
BOOK REVI EW ~ AFRICA... The Lion Awakes
Africa - the Lion Awakes, by Jack Woddis. Published by Lawrence & Wishart, London.
In Africa - the Lion Awakes, Jack Woddis completes the analysis he commenced in Africa - the Roots of Revolt.
In the first volume “an attempt was made”, he writes, “to explain why the African people are now in such powerful revolt against colonialism”. The present volume is largely devoted to an examination of how the African people have conducted their struggles.
Together these two volumes provide an invaluable Marxist analysis of the main economic and political trends in most of the countries and territories of Africa.
In Africa - the Lion Awakes Woddis presents a careful and cogent analysis, amply supported by statistics, of the struggle of the African ,people for liberation. At the same time he exposes the tactics of the colonial powers in their efforts to retain their grip on Africa.
The first chapter contains a brief but excellent analysis of the changing content of the African liberation struggle since 1885.
Woddis identifies four different stages of this struggle. The first phase was the armed resistance of the African people to the military conquest of Africa by the imperial powers which began in earnest with the “scramble for Africa” in approximately 1885. With the conquest of the various territories by the colonial powers, the struggle entered its second phase - the resistance to and protests against the effects of foreign rule, with land and taxation forming the central issues. In this phase begins the formation of political and national organisations.
The struggles of the African people to win reforms from the colonial powers within the context of colonialism developed gradually into a fight for the ending of colonialism itself. This third phase - the struggle for national independence - entered its most intense stage after the second world war. As Woddis states, “the period from 1945 to 1960 can be characterised as one in which the working class, organised into trade unions, advances to a central position in the national movement; political organisations acquire a mass character and are no longer confined to the most advanced territories, but spring up everywhere; the people pass decisively from defensive protest actions against the effects of imperialist rule to the open challenge to colonial domination itself, to the demand for political power; the tide of anti-imperialist revolt engulfs the whole continent and direct colonial rule is swept away in most of Africa”.
The fourth phase of the struggle was entered into in 1960 in those countries which had won political independence. This phase is characterised by the efforts to consolidate and defend the newly won political independence and to complete the national democratic revolutions.
This book is devoted in the first place to an analysis of the role of the trade union organisations in the third phase of the struggle and the attempts of the imperial powers to stem the tide of national liberation during this phase and in the second place to an analysis of the techniques adopted by these powers, in the fourth phase, to maintain their interest in Africa notwithstanding the achievement of political independence.
Woddis shows in detail the importance of the role played by the trade union movement in the struggle for national independence. While recognising that this struggle was not based solely on the working class, his analysis nevertheless indicates that it was the struggles of the trade unions which gave the national liberation movements their greatest impetus and direction.
Until 1935 throughout Africa the trade unions were repressed by the colonial powers, but as the result of the struggles of the working people and the developments occasioned by the second world war, the unions finally gained recognition. Immediately, the ruling powers adapted their tactics to the new situation. Every effort was made to obtain control of the trade unions by appointing “advisors”; by legislative measures which compelled registration of the trade unions, limited the right to strike, imposed heavy penalties for “illegal strikes” and prohibited unions from participating in political activities. Company unions were cultivated and attempts were made to break the militancy of the unions by encouraging rifts between black and white workers, fostering tribalism, encouraging “Moral Rearmament” and attempting to “buy off” sections of the workers by allowing some to advance to positions in skilled work. Woddis analyses these techniques and shows how they were designed to prevent the linking of the trade union movement with the national struggle for independence and to prevent the break- down of the cheap labour system. Notwithstanding these measures, however, the militant struggles of the workers continued. Strikes were frequent and widespread, as Woddis shows in his detailed statistics, and the unions were inevitably drawn into the anti- imperialist struggle, which was raised to new and more militant levels by these activities.
The culmination of these struggles was the formal granting of independence to numerous former colonial territories by the metropolitan powers. Having been forced to concede political independence to the colonial territories, the imperialist powers began implementing further measures designed to maintain their grip over their former colonies. Just as the colonial powers, having been forced to concede trade union rights, attempted to control the unions, so too, having been forced to grant political independence, these powers now attempted to control the new independent states.Various techniques have been and are being used by the colonial powers to achieve this end.
In the first place, although previously the colonial powers had attempted to prevent the growth of a national bourgeoisie. they now encourage such a development and attempt to find from amongst the emergent bourgeoisie “reliable” leaders to run the Government. Alternatively, all types of schemes of “gradual development”, modified franchises, the removal of the so-called colour-bar pinpricks and such like are utilised. However, because of the difficulty of retaining any form of effective control through either reliable leaders or through such reformist schemes, the imperial powers have resorted to two tactics in particular to retain control of their former colonies in order to protect their interests.
The first is the establishment of massive military bases in various parts of Africa which enable these powers to maintain armies in close proximity to, or in their former colonies. Secondly, the great monopolies continue to invest global amounts in the liberated countries with the effect of maintaining an economic hold on them. For example, the Shell company has investments totalling sixteen million pounds in Nigeria, France has invested five hundred million in the Sahara in regard to certain oil schemes, while the United States, which had invested three hundred and thirteen mil- lion dollars in Africa in 1950, had by 1959 invested two thousand million dollars.
To meet these threats to their independence the newly independent countries are concerned particularly to build modern industry, to nationalise such industries as already exist which are owned by foreign monopolists, and to limit the profits and restrict the export of capital by the foreign monopolies.
Woddis’ analysis reveals the continuous and major defeats suffered by imperialism in the face of the advancing struggle of the African people for national liberation and independence and con- firms once again that the days of colonialism, racialism and oppression in Africa are numbered.
Africa - the Lion Awakes is not without its faults. The statistical material could have been presented in a more organised and accessible manner and insufficient attention has been paid to the political and national organisations.
But these are minor defects. Jack Woddis has written a book of great value to all who are interested in and who are working for African freedom.
The FBI files at this link shows that Frank Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record.
Excerpt: Bill Ayers
Relevance: Articles, Books and Newsletter.
Ayers, W.C. (1969). Thoughts on our schools. In: Dennison, G. The lives of children. New York: Vintage Books, 302 304.
Ayers, W.C. (1968). Travelling with children and travelling on. This Magazine is About Schools, 2 (4), 110 132. Reprinted in: Repo, Satu (1970), ed. This book is about schools. New York: Pantheon Books.
* Ayers, W.C. (1968). Implementing equal educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38 (1), 142 148. Also published as: Ayers, W.C. (1969). Carolyn and Kelyn. In: Equal Educational Opportunity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 213 220.
Ayers, W.C. (1968). Education, an American problem. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Radical Education Project.
***Looking for pen names used during the 60s***
Latest book by Ayers:
Bill Ayers’s Fugitive Days: A Memoir and Ronald Radosh’s Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left
Radosh was born in New York City to parents who were both members of the Communist Party USA. He has descibed himself as a Red Diaper Baby who attended the Little Red Schoolhouse and Elisabeth Irwin High School. For most of his academic career was intimately associated with leftist causes, e.g., an intellectual defense of the Rosenbergs, initial support for the FMLN and opposition to the Contras, etc., he gradually evolved into a neoconservative polemicist in the mold of his colleagues, David Horowitz and Peter Collier.
Interesting cross reference. Radosh attended the Little Red Schoolhouse.
Stanley Ann Dunham had membership in the East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellevue, WA. According to its own website, East Shore Unitarian Church was nicknamed “The Little Red Church on the Hill”.