Posts by issue number/Posteos por número de la edición

During my now 65 years as a political activist, I have witnessed many things, three of which I want to single out as being of lasting significance. My appreciation of each of them today comes not so much from my “having been there,” but from an understanding of their significance gained over time, with the help and input of many comrades and friends.

1. THE SIXTIES

There is a mistaken impression that “the sixties” was an American phenomenon. What we now call “the sixties,” was actually a global upsurge of resistance and revolution extending from the late fifties through the mid-seventies. It embraced both rebellions in the advanced capitalist countries as well as socialist and anti-colonial revolutions in the Third World. 1968 alone was a year of global rebellion much like 1848. It saw the student-worker revolt in France, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, the explosion of the Cultural Revolution in China, the massacre of student demonstrators in Mexico, the popular resistance to the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, the birth of the Palestinian resistance at the battle of Karameh, the Naxalite rebellion in India, martial law declared in Uruguay in response to the Tupamaros, as well as the urban uprisings in the U.S. following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the growth of the Black Panther Party. (See my chronology of 1968 posted on www.dissident.info.)

What is important to take away from the particular experience in the U.S. is what a growing revolutionary situation can look like. It is commonplace for people who were not there, or for people who were there but have been “recouped” by the ruling class, to sneer at how foolish people must have been to think that there could have been a revolution. Really? Let's take a look.

The first ingredient of a revolutionary situation is a severe crisis in the ruling class that causes it to split and not be able to rule in the old ways. Such a political crisis does not necessarily arise from an economic crisis. In fact, the period of so much intense upsurge in the sixties, during which the ruling class was very much thrown on the defensive politically, coincided with the peak economic power of the U.S. globally.

What did happen was that masses of people threw off their superstitious awe of the state and seized the political initiative away from the ruling class. People labeled the police as pigs. Soldiers in Vietnam refused to obey orders and rolled hand grenades into the tents of officers who were too gung-ho. Students burned down dozens of ROTC buildings. Women flat-out rejected the institutions of patriarchy. There were massive urban revolts in the U.S. and a growing Black liberation movement. The state had lost legitimacy in the eyes of millions.

One result was a furious debate within the ruling class over how to handle the situation and regain control. Should there be a repressive clamp-down or should people be bought off with temporary concessions? The intensity of the struggle eventually led to a situation where both the president and vice president were forced to resign and the country had a president and a vice president who were appointed, not elected. That's what a crisis in the ruling class can look like. (For light entertainment, I recommend people read former Vice President Spiro Agnew's memoir Go Quietly... or Else.)

The second requirement of a revolutionary situation is a revolutionary-minded people. They don’t have to be a majority, but they do have to be a significant force. In the ’60s there was a great awakening to the reality that the “American Dream” was actually an American nightmare for so many people here and around the world. While there was no deep understanding of what an actual revolution would require, literally millions of people came to believe that the existing system was hopelessly flawed and what was required was a “revolution.” Far from being a social stigma, there was a great deal of approbation for people who called themselves revolutionaries.

People also began to act on their new self-identity. It was immoral to remain a passive observer. Demonstrations in Washington became so militant that the Nixon administration took to surrounding the White House with a wall of buses for fear that people would storm the seat of executive power. The call to shut Washington down in May of 1971 resulted in such an outpouring that the Army was called in to defend the capital and over 12,000 people were arrested—the largest mass arrest in U.S. history.

But while we at least had a start on the first two requirements of a revolutionary situation, what we did not have was the third ingredient: a revolutionary party with the determination, the understanding, the plan, the leadership, the organization among the people, and the program for a post-revolutionary society that could both galvanize and lead a successful seizure of power. Even the most advanced force in that time, the Black Panther Party, never sat down and seriously addressed the question of what it would take to actually overthrow the state and lead a new revolutionary society.

2. THE GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION

Few people today are familiar with even the outlines of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR), and it is probably the single most lied about event in world history. It was an amazing ten-year mass upsurge in China led by Mao Zedong to break the power of the entrenched revisionist “communists” who wanted to follow the path of the Soviet Union, a path that would—and ultimately did—lead to the restoration of capitalism. 

It was my privilege to have visited China twice during the latter half of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. As with the sixties, my understanding of what happened in this momentous world event comes more from study after the fact and from the insights of others, than from my own personal observations. That said, it was still amazing to see with my own eyes!

While books and films on the GPCR correctly focus on the demonstrations, mass meetings and “big character posters” that were at the heart of the struggle for power, one aspect of the GPCR that is little recognized is that it produced the most massive political education program in human history. At each point, the entire country was mobilized to read and discuss the same major theoretical work. When I was there in 1972, people were studying Anti-Dühring by Engels and in 1975 it was Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. At one point I kind of naively asked if they really had enough copies of Anti-Dühring for everyone to read. I was told in a rather matter-of-fact way that the state publishing house had just run off another 50 million copies. Now that's taking study seriously!

Another often forgotten aspect of the GPCR that impressed me so much were the “socialist new things.” I wrote about these at the time. These were experiments from below in forging new social and economic relations at a local level that presaged what a future communist society might look like. There were places where local communities consciously turned what had been commodities into social services. The use of these services was no longer linked to or exchanged for money earned by the recipients of those services. People used what they needed and contributed to the common weal in other ways. 

In 1972, I visited a small village near the Daqing oil field in Manchuria. In this village, the women all worked—but in different sectors of the socialist economy. Some women worked in the fields as part of the local agricultural commune. They were paid mostly “in kind” from the crops. Some other women worked in a small local co-op factory that manufactured tacks. These women were paid from the money received from selling their tacks to the state. Finally, some women had jobs in the oil field and were paid cash wages directly by the state.

The interesting fact here is that all the women worked hard, yet they received quite different incomes that were based on the differing economic productivity of their labor. The women who worked in the fields had the lowest income. The women from the tack factory were in the middle. The women who worked in the oil field made the most, because the productivity of the state-owned oil field was the highest.

The women in the village were all involved in studying Marx and they were wrestling with a theoretical question: They understood why some of them made more money than others. But did it have to stay this way? They didn’t think so. So, they decided to pool their incomes from the three different sources and divide the money more evenly. This was a startling break with the laws of exchange in a market-based economy. It was, in fact, revolutionary! It was a step toward communism, made by people consciously breaking with the concepts of “cash value” and private ownership as natural and inevitable.

In the end, the socialist transition to communism was defeated in both the Soviet Union and in China; capitalism was restored. “Living labor” was once again subordinated to “dead labor” (capital as accumulated labor). The slogan “Serve the People” was replaced with the slogan “To get rich is glorious.” The great lessons learned under the leadership of Mao were that the revolutionary seizure of power is only the beginning, not the final goal, and that you cannot “produce your way to communism” by increasing the level of material abundance. The period of socialist transition is much more characterized by intense class struggle over changing economic and social relations that requires a leading core that is consciously striving for a classless society. 

3. THE BIRTH OF THE NEW COMMUNISM OF BOB AVAKIAN

The most important and lasting thing to come from the sixties is the new communism of Bob Avakian. Avakian is the architect of a new framework for human emancipation and is, without question, the Karl Marx of our time.

The defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union and China presented a big issue to “sixties people.” But Avakian refused to accept the triumphalist conclusions of the propagandists for capitalism. He has now spent over 50 years investigating what actually happened and has upheld the tremendous achievements of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. But he then dug into not only what was done right, but why mistakes (some of them quite grave) were made. With what method and approach did the leaders of these revolutionary societies address the freedoms and necessities they confronted? And how might we today do it differently and far better?

I will try to lay out what I see as some of Avakian’s important conclusions and insights, but no one should take my observations as “authoritative” and they certainly do not replace the need to actually read Avakian’s basic works.

What Avakian highlights is the failure to be thoroughly scientific; scientific meaning to bring one’s ideas into correlation with reality and not wishful thinking. Too often, 20th century communism (the “old communism”) fell into an almost religious approach, substituting belief for reality. One striking example was the teleological claim that communism is inevitable. Communism is NOT inevitable; it is possible, there is a material basis for it, but it is not inevitable.

I think what has impressed me the most in Avakian’s work is his new conception of socialism. Too many people today think of a socialist state as one with a “mixed economy” in which capitalism is restrained by the power of representative democracy while the state guarantees a basic standard of living and medical care for all.

By contrast, Avakian has built on Marx’s concept of socialism as a period of transition in which the class dictatorship of the capitalist class is replaced by the class dictatorship of propertyless working people and their allies. The conscious goals of this transition are an economy governed by social needs rather than by a commodity market, and an end to the necessity for one section of society to hold institutionalized power over the rest.

Another way of characterizing these goals was stated by Marx:  the abolition of all class distinctions, of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest, of all the social relations that correspond to those production relations, and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations.

But a barrier to masses of people taking up this understanding was the too frequent suppression of critical thinking by the old communism. In contrast, Avakian calls for a socialist society with room to disagree and “air” for people to breathe. While maintaining socialist state power against any violent attempts to restore capitalism, the new socialist state is best characterized as having a solid core with a lot of elasticity. Communists should never fear the truth and should encourage dissent, because all truths can be learned from.

Avakian points out that contradictions can arise between the people and a socialist state. While the socialist state has to protect the people from external enemies and any forceful restoration of capitalism, the socialist state also has to protect the rights of the people from the state itself. Of particular importance is Avakian’s insistence that communists lead the state mainly through ideological and political influence and not through organizational control. Members of the communist party must be subordinate to the law and the constitution of the socialist state, and are afforded no special privileges by virtue of being members of the party. 

In particular, Avakian calls not only for the right of people to criticize the state and even call for the restoration of capitalism, but further, the state should in part fund such criticism and also fund the legal defense of persons prosecuted by the state to the same extent that the state funds their prosecution. This is a concept of legal rights that no capitalist state has ever dared espouse.

Avakian has also sharply criticized the ideas that truth has a class basis (rather than truth being objective) and that working and oppressed people have a special purchase on truth simply by virtue of being exploited or oppressed. From this flowed the faulty idea that just putting working people in positions of power, rather than fighting for all of society to have a deeper understanding of the path to classless society, would solve the problems.

Another example of faulty analysis in the old communism is the idea that the basis for communism is material abundance, from which flowed the idea that a socialist state could just “produce its way to communism.” There is a certain required level of abundance to have a communist economy, but the principal necessity is the change in people’s thinking and social relations—not how much material wealth there is to go around.

The old communism also did not always do well with issues of internationalism. The goal of communist revolution is not the improvement of the lives of the people in a given country, but rather the global emancipation of humanity from the fetters of capital. As Avakian points out, the principal task of a communist country is to serve as a base area for world revolution. Yet too often communist leaders succumbed to nationalism and concentrated on the interests of their own country.

Plus, there was a serious failure in the moral underpinnings for communism and the road to get there. The new communism of Bob Avakian is firm in holding that the ends do not justify the means. Crimes cannot be committed on the grounds that they will get us closer to communism. Rather, communist means must always flow from and be consistent with the goals of communism.

Like Marx, Avakian has been a prolific commentator on current events and has provided invaluable guidance. In particular, he has over the last forty years documented and warned of the rise of Christian nationalism and fascism in this country. (Here, see Bob Avakian’s Work on Fascism: 1996-2025.) People in Germany might have had the excuse that “no one could have seen what was coming.” People in this country cannot claim that excuse.

At the same time, Avakian has looked much more deeply into the path for revolution in developed capitalist countries, and the deadly pull on even the best-intentioned people toward overestimating the strength of necessity and underestimating the freedom that exists to transform that necessity—ultimately leading them to either denying the possibility of, or just sitting and waiting for, a revolution. Instead, what is required is an active analysis of the fault lines of the existing society and constant straining at the limits of the possible with a concrete goal in mind:  the hastening of a revolutionary situation.

It is important to understand that the body of work that Avakian has created is not an add-on, a refinement, or a particular application of Marxism. Rather it is a qualitative leap in the science itself, comparable to the leap made by Marx. At the time of Marx, capitalism had consolidated state power in America and the major states of Europe, and was spreading across the globe like a metastatic cancer. Humanity had nothing to confront it with save bourgeois democracy, syndicalism, or utopian concepts of socialism, often based in religion. Marx changed all that with a scientific explanation of the capitalist system and what had to be done to abolish it. 

Today, with the defeat of the great revolutions of the 20th century, the globalization of capitalist production, the existential climate threat to the planet, and the world-wide spread of fascist movements, the old tools of bourgeois liberalism, social-democratic labor movements, and even the best of past communist thought, have been shown to be utterly inadequate to the challenges facing humanity. It is at this point that Bob Avakian has stepped forward to address what has to be done, but with a qualitatively transformed and more scientific, evidence-based method and approach. Avakian has given humanity the tools for its next great leap.

Like Marx in his time, Avakian is a controversial figure. Marx was considered something of a dogmatist and sectarian by the reformists of his day. To get a feel for this, people should watch Raoul Peck’s film The Young Karl Marx. Yet like other great scientists before and after him, the insights of Marx have proven basically true and have come to both shape our understanding of the real world and alter the course of history.

Having been witness to this development over many years now, I can say that if you are serious about emancipating humanity then you have to become a student of Bob Avakian. I have to admit that as a student of Avakian, I was often late for class and didn't always make good grades. But I never dropped out of school. Young revolutionaries today have the most advanced revolutionary thought in the world in their hands with their whole lifetimes ahead—and I still have another 15 years. Together, let's run with it!

There is much, much more, but I would encourage people to dig into Avakian’s many written works such as The New Communism, the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, and Breakthroughs.

Codicil

In December 2020 at the height of the COVID crisis in New York City, I was living a few blocks from a major hospital in Brooklyn. Outside the front of that hospital, lines formed daily of people waiting to be seen in the emergency room. Around back, behind the hospital, there was a row of refrigerator trucks for the bodies for which there was no longer room in the hospital’s morgue. 

While that pandemic crisis has abated for now, the global warming crisis has not. We are now pretty much past the point of no return. For about three billion years, plants, algae and cyanobacteria have been patiently extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, using solar energy to synthesize carbohydrates, and releasing oxygen back into the atmosphere. In the last three hundred years, that whole process has been dramatically reversed, with the burning of fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in massive quantities, trapping solar radiation in the form of heat. 

Today, almost everything that moves in commerce (trucks, planes, trains) moves on energy released from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and natural gas). Yet at the same time, the amount of energy that falls on the earth from solar radiation is more than enough to meet humanity’s foreseeable needs. So what prevents simply switching to solar energy in place of fossil fuels? The capitalism system.

Many trillions of dollars of capital are invested in both fossil fuel powered equipment and in the extraction and distribution of fossil fuels. To abandon that, would require the literal destruction of all that capital. The owners of capital have zero incentive to eat that massive loss, and they have the powerful compulsion from competing capital to continue with what they are doing. Only a new communist revolution can change this and put humanity first. This is a basic reality, yet most people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine an end to capitalism.

Interrelated with the climate crisis is the destruction of the viability of life for millions of people in their home countries. One result has been the mass migration of people from the global South toward white, imperial Europe and America. The year that I was born, 1940, was the “high water mark” for white people in America. Whites made up 90 percent of the population. Today, whites make up 60 percent of the population, and an even smaller percentage of school-age children. 

That demographic change in the U.S., combined with the decline of U.S. economic power in the face of global competition and the impact of the movements of women and people of color, has provided the basis for a core of reactionary capitalists to organize a fascist movement. A movement appealing to the preservation of the economic well-being and social superiority to which white, male, Christian Americans feel entitled. Hence the emergence of a fascist movement to “Make America Great Again.”

The horrors that consolidated fascism will wreak on this country and the world are beyond the imagination of most people. Trump must be driven from power NOW, before it is too late.

We can no longer afford to allow these imperialists to continue to dominate the world and determine the destiny of humanity. And it is a scientific fact that humanity does not have to live this way.

—Bob Avakian, architect of the new communism and revolutionary leader 

The danger of a truly catastrophic U.S. war of imperialist aggression against Iran looms larger by the day. Indeed, as we are going to press there are reports of greatly accelerated preparations. Stay tuned to this site for updates.

Last week (February 19), Trump again threatened to attack Iran, warning it had better bow down to U.S. demands or "really bad things" will happen to it. He raised the idea of a limited strike, which reportedly includes the targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders aimed at regime change.¹ 

The fascist Trump claims he hasn’t decided whether or not to attack Iran. Trump says he wants to give the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran’s Islamic Republic (IRI) a chance to succeed. Yet his regime has floated many demands which amount to surrender—demands which Iran has already rejected—and there are reports that the talks have stalled.²

Meanwhile, the Trump fascist regime has surged the largest U.S. military force to the Middle East since George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. This force includes “dozens of refueling tankers… more than 50 additional fighter jets, and two aircraft carrier strike groups, complete with their accompanying destroyers, cruisers and submarines,” according to the New York Times. Many of these planes and ships can fire nuclear weapons.³

The New York Times also reports that the U.S. military buildup around Iran had reached the point where Trump could launch an attack at any time. According to Axios, “The Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize. It could begin very soon.”

This is not to say that such an attack is inevitable and a done deal—there are other forces in the region opposed to it and other forces or factors that could enter into this. But the momentum toward attack right now is very powerful.

In the face of Trump’s ominous threats and massive military buildup against Iran, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrats in Congress, issued mild complaints about Trump not consulting them—but have taken no real action to stop him, and certainly have not called people into the streets to protest! This is because the Democrats and the Republi-fascists—even with their extremely sharp differences—are both instruments of the system of capitalism-imperialism, and from that standpoint, the Democrats basically agree on the need to severely constrain or even overthrow the Iranian regime in order to protect and extend U.S. interests.

An Imperialist Slaughterfest to Serve Further U.S. Domination…

The Middle East—in which Iran is located—is a strategic crossroads of the world and repository of much of the world’s oil. Over just the past 35 years, literally millions of its residents, and thousands of U.S. and European soldiers, have died from four “official” American-initiated wars and countless “covert actions,” drone strikes and other aggression. 

Trump’s war will not only constitute a massive war crime and crime against humanity, but in today’s world of heightened superpower rivalry, it could very possibly lead to much larger, global disaster.  

And contrary to Trump’s hypocritical bullshit claims at one point to support the protesters demanding justice from the repressive theocratic regime in Iran, such U.S. aggression would actually put those millions of Iranians in even greater danger. As Osyan, a group of Iranian and Afghan women, said recently: 

While foreign powers (the USA and Israel) took advantage of the protests to advance their own interests and agendas, the Islamic Republic also exploited allegations of foreign interference to fully carry out its plan to massacre dissidents using military weapons, under the pretext of the “continuation of a 12-day war with Israel.” Not only was the violence not reduced—it intensified drastically.

… And a “Limited War” That Could Easily Spiral Out of Control

But that’s not the half of it. Any U.S. attack on Iran—whether massive or “limited”—could spiral out of control in unpredictable ways that could make the situation—and the suffering of the people—much more disastrous. 

The U.S. has assembled an “armada” capable of massive destruction and extended combat, potentially even threatening the existence of Iran’s ruling Islamic Republic. 

The Trump regime may calculate that Iran’s rulers are at their weakest point. They may be going by the relatively weak response to the Israeli-American “war” on Iran last June to wipe out its nuclear program. But in previous confrontations, including that one, Iran has largely responded symbolically, often even alerting the U.S. ahead of time. In fact, the regime is far from powerless and is threatening to carry out an all-out counter-attack against U.S. forces and interests in the region if its existence is threatened.⁴ Most observers believe that a collapse of the regime is highly unlikely. 

The Fascist Character of the Trump Regime Makes This Even More Dangerous

The fascist character of the Trump regime lends a desperate edge to this already fraught situation. Think about it—how would Trump respond—or feel compelled to respond—to the sinking of a U.S. Navy vessel or a mass casualty attack on U.S. troops? This would certainly heighten the danger of massive escalation, of the war spreading across the region, of other nuclear-armed world powers getting involved, and of widespread heightened repression against political opposition in the U.S. Once war begins, all bets are off, but Trump would be viewing this, in part at least, through the calculus of maintaining the momentum of fascist dominance and consolidation. Maintaining momentum, as Nazi-saluting Trump adviser Steve Bannon constantly warns, is particularly crucial for a fascist regime.

Why Is the U.S. So Deeply Involved in the Middle East and Iran? 

Capitalist-imperialist powers like the U.S. are driven by the workings of this global system to seek to dominate and control key regions, resources, markets, trade routes and more, while preventing their rivals from doing so—by force if need be.  

The Middle East is one very key region. As we spoke to above, it holds over half of the world's proven crude oil reserves. Crucial global trade routes run through it. And geographically, it links Asia, Africa and Europe, making it a key military-strategic crossroads. 

Since World War 2, the U.S. has dominated this region. But the 1979 overthrow of the Shah (king) of Iran, who was subservient to the U.S., and his replacement by the Islamic Republic created increasing problems for the U.S. In recent decades, those have included the Islamic Republic’s growing influence and network of allies in the region; its pursuit of nuclear enrichment (Iran does not have any nuclear weapons); and its opposition to Israel. The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) has further observed that: "Since the U.S.-Israeli military aggression in June 2025, the IRI has increasingly tied its fate to the intense rivalry between the Chinese and Russian imperialists and U.S. imperialism. In exchange for this loyalty, China and Russia helped rebuild the IRI's military and security apparatus." [emphasis added]

The Trump regime calls Iran “the region’s chief destabilizing force.” In the aftermath of Israel's genocidal slaughter of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the Trump fascists and Israel are in the process of radically restructuring the Middle East region to even more thoroughly impose U.S. dominance. Overthrowing the Islamic Republic or bringing it to heel are key to that remaking.⁵  (The Trump regime is reportedly also attempting to exploit or control Iran’s oil wealth.⁶) 

But Where Do the Interests of the Masses of Humanity Lie?

So those are the interests of this system, no matter which set of rulers—fascist or “democratic”—are in control. But where do the interests of humanity lie? 

In doing away with and getting beyond the domination of this planet by capitalism-imperialism and its homicidal and suicidal logic. In doing away with and getting beyond an insane “logic” that produces needless, yet unending suffering and death. In doing away with and getting beyond a system that causes unending war and brutality—unending genocides—the trampling and suppression of whole peoples—the degradation and enslavement of the female half of humanity—mass starvation and disease—and looming over it all ecocide, the destruction of the very environment that makes all life possible. And now, in doing away with and getting beyond a system that has brought to power a full-out fascist regime, one that is even more violently usurping rights and viciously suppressing and torturing whole peoples—and, as part of that, nonviolently driving out the regime itself.

But we are not doomed to be locked into this system. A better world IS possible. The revolutionary leader Bob Avakian has developed a strategy for revolution and has written the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, which provides the sweeping vision, the firm foundation and the concrete blueprint for a new society on its way to eliminating all forms of oppression and exploitation. Listen to this, from the pamphlet We Need and We Demand: A Whole New Way to Live, a Fundamentally Different System:

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY—the billions in all parts of the world who are denied a decent life and a future worth living in, or any future at all: threatened with literal extinction because of the destruction of the environment by this system and the danger of nuclear war between the U.S. and its rivals in Russia and China—all of them ruthless imperialist powers.

We can no longer afford to allow these imperialists to continue to dominate the world and determine the destiny of humanity. And it is a scientific fact that humanity does not have to live this way.

A whole different way of living is possible: a whole different way to organize society, with a radically different economic foundation and political system, emancipating relations among people and an uplifting culture—all of this oriented to meeting the basic needs and fulfilling the highest interests of the masses of people.

And, from later in this same piece:

The new socialist government will not develop or use nuclear weapons and will take concrete steps and wage determined struggle to abolish nuclear weapons everywhere, with the ultimate goal of finally abolishing wars among human beings, with the abolition of the capitalist-imperialist system, and all systems and relations of exploitation and oppression, which are the basis for wars. This new socialist government will move, quickly, systematically and effectively, to address the already acute and fast accelerating environmental crisis, with the aim of bringing into being a world where humanity can truly be fit caretakers of the earth.

All this is not just a dream, or a wish—it is what is possible and necessary in the interests of the masses of people in this country and the great majority of humanity, and for the future of humanity as a whole.

Become part of this struggle. Go here to follow Bob Avakian, the most important revolutionary thinker and leader on the planet. Go here to find out more about the revcoms. And go here to subscribe to revcom.us and have it in your inbox every week.

As a crucial part of fighting for a whole different and far better world, people must prepare now to act against the outrage of Trump’s fascist, imperialist threats against Iran and against any war that the U.S. and/or Israel launch. 

People must also reject, and refuse to confine themselves to, the “leadership” and boundaries of the imperialist Democratic Party and its playbook of raising petty objections to how Trump is proceeding and offering a few lame resolutions, while doing nothing to build serious, mass resistance and struggle against the towering crimes now looming over the Iranian people, the Middle East, potentially even the world.

Support the Just Struggle of the Iranian People! 

In the spirit of internationalism, people must also learn about and carry out support for those forces and voices within Iran who both oppose the regime and also oppose U.S. aggression. These include the Communist Party of Iran, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPI-MLM), and Osyan.

As the CPI-MLM wrote in a January 2026 editorial in its journal, Atash/Fire:

The revolutionary overthrow of the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] is urgently needed: But we will not allow Trump, the fascist president of the United States, to determine our fate and to exploit our struggles against the IRI for his unbridled imperialism, leaving our society trapped in the web of imperialist relations that is at the root of our current misery.

1) Any U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran is illegal and illegitimate—an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign country—and must be opposed by every decent person. The U.S. says it wants to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But the U.S. and Israel together have thousands of nukes, and the U.S. is the only country ever to use them, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan. Israel says it wants Iran to get rid of its missiles. But Israel has used missiles and bombs to slaughter people throughout the Middle East. What right do the U.S. and Israel have to decide who can have nukes and missiles and who can’t? None whatsoever. Those of us living in the U.S., the belly of the beast, have a special responsibility to stop the crimes of “our” government, and demand: NO WAR ON IRAN!

2) The Islamic Republic of Iran is a brutal fascist theocracy, a highly unequal capitalist society, backed by imperialist powers (yes, Russia and China are imperialists). A regime that enslaves women, oppresses minorities, tortures dissidents, and murders leftists. A regime with the highest execution rate in the world, that just gunned down thousands of protesters in the streets. And no, the fact that Iran opposes the U.S. and supports certain Palestinian groups does not make it a force for liberation. Every decent person throughout the world should support the just struggle of the Iranian people against this oppressive regime!

3) The people of Iran desperately need liberation, but fascist genocidal imperialists can never be “liberators.” Look at what the U.S. did to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, destroying those countries. Look at what Israel did to Gaza. Haven't we learned by now that they are not bringing "democracy" to anyone?! The U.S. and Israel don’t give a damn about the people of Iran. What the U.S. cares about is maintaining its dominant position in the global capitalist-imperialist system, and beating out its Russian and Chinese rivals by controlling the strategic region of the Middle East, and using Israel as its rabid dog enforcer. And now the U.S. and Israel are both run by fascist regimes, no better than the Islamic Republic of Iran, just more powerful. They are aiming to replace the Iranian regime with a puppet monarch named Reza Pahlavi—son of the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran who was overthrown in 1979 after inflicting decades of oppression and torture—a regime that would just be another nightmare for the Iranian people. Plus, every move that the U.S. and Israel make toward “regime change” in Iran actually helps the Islamic Republic to "justify" their murder of protesters by labeling them "foreign agents.” The people of Iran must decide their own fate!

4) From Iran, to Palestine, to the USA: THIS WHOLE SYSTEM IS ROTTEN AND ILLEGITIMATE. WE NEED AND WE DEMAND A WHOLE NEW WAY TO LIVE, A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT SYSTEM! Since World War 2 the U.S. has slaughtered 10 million people in its imperialist wars. Beginning in 1948, the U.S. has backed Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. In 1953, it orchestrated a coup in Iran to overthrow a popular elected leader. In the past 35 years, the U.S. has killed millions throughout the Middle East in at least four “official” wars, as well as countless “covert actions” and drone strikes. Now this capitalist-imperialist system, driven by the competitive chase for profit and the need to “expand or die,” is accelerating its destruction, unleashing fascism on the world and pushing humanity to the brink of extinction, from climate change as well as the growing danger of nuclear war between the U.S. and its rivals in Russia and China. Trump’s unconstrained aggression against the world is not fundamentally because of his “ego,” but is a product of this system. And the fact that the Democrats have perpetrated decades of war crimes, and now only issue mild complaints about Trump’s global bullying, is because they represent the same system.

5) We don’t have to live this way! In the world today we have the wealth and technology to meet the material and cultural needs of everyone on the planet. But under the current system, that wealth and technology is owned by a tiny class of capitalist exploiters and enforced by police and militaries. With a real revolution that breaks the stranglehold of these oppressors over society, we could begin to use these resources for the benefit of humanity, to overcome global inequalities and address the environmental crisis. As one expression of this, the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, written by Bob Avakian, clearly states that the new socialist government will dismantle the vast network of U.S. imperialist military bases throughout the world and renounce all wars of aggression and occupation.

6) As revolutionaries living in the U.S. we have a responsibility to make revolution here, and to support revolutionaries fighting for the same goal throughout the world. As our comrades in the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) have said:

The revolutionary overthrow of the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] is urgently needed: But we will not allow Trump, the fascist president of the United States, to determine our fate and to exploit our struggles against the IRI for his unbridled imperialism, leaving our society trapped in the web of imperialist relations that is at the root of our current misery.

7) This is a rare time when revolution is more possible. As the fascist Trump regime rips up the old norms that people have been conditioned to accept, and wreaks havoc on a global scale, this is beginning to cause all kinds of chaos and force people to question the way things have been, and whether they have to stay that way. In this situation, the forces for the revolution could grow, quickly, from small numbers to thousands, and then millions, and get in position to go for the whole thing. Now’s the time to learn about and join the Revcom Corps for the Emancipation of Humanity.

“We, the people of the world, can no longer afford to allow these imperialists to continue to dominate the world and determine the destiny of humanity. They need to be overthrown as quickly as possible. And it is a scientific fact that we do not have to live this way.”
—@BobAvakianOfficial

On January 8-10, the massive street protests in Iran were met by unprecedented, premeditated state violence. Many thousands of protesters were massacred by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).⁷ Forty days later, February 17-19, despite the regime’s threats against public mourning, there were large, loud gatherings all across Iran to mourn and celebrate the lives of those murdered by the IRI during the uprising. Commemorations at the end of the 40-day mourning period are a key cultural tradition among the people of Iran, that at times have turned into mass social gatherings and occasions for protest, as happened over the IRI’s morality police murder of Mahsa Gina Amini that sparked the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising in 2022-2023. 

For this reason, Iran’s theocratic regime sought to prevent families from holding public 40th day commemorations, and paraded armed soldiers and armored vehicles in the streets in some towns. In the Kurdish town of Abdanan, in northwest Iran, security forces fired from an armored vehicle at people and arrested activists holding a memorial for 16-year-old Alireza Saydi, where large crowds chanted “Down with [Ayatollah] Khamenei” and significantly, “Political Prisoners Must Be Freed.” The IRI has detained tens of thousands of January ’26 protesters on top of the thousands of political prisoners already in its dungeons. 

University students at more than two dozen colleges called for a nationwide strike closing schools and workplaces on February 17 and 18, calling for schools to hold memorials. Their statement concludes: “Our heads have not and will not bow to any dictatorship. The Islamic Republic must be destroyed.”

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations called for school strikes on those days, honoring the 230 documented cases of children under 18 who were murdered in the protests, as well as several teachers killed, and many more arrested. It was reported to Al Jazeera that the school strike was backed by large numbers of teachers and students, and schools in a number of towns near the capital, Tehran, were effectively shut down. A spokesman of the regime’s education commission noted that 17 percent of the participants in the January nationwide uprising were teenagers, saying that in some provinces, up to 45 percent of protesters were under 20 years old. 

Performance in Evin Prison: “Government Treats Them like Garbage”

According to a report by the prisoner Reza Khandan published by his wife, Nasrin Sotoudeh, political prisoners in Ward 7 of hellish Evin Prison in Tehran performed a dramatic enactment on February 6, “in protest of the widespread and brutal killing of protesters and people on the streets. A large number of political prisoners participated in the performance in the presence of nearly 90 prisoners, both political and non-political.”

First, a number of garbage bags in the shape of a corpse filled with garbage were spread throughout the corridor by political prisoners. Following this, 9 political prisoners voluntarily placed themselves inside the bags that had been prepared in advance… Morteza Parvin [imprisoned artist] said that the Iranian government ignored the human dignity of the protesters and in fact treated them like garbage... [Another political prisoner] expressed his hope that the perpetrators of this great and unprecedented crime in history would be tried and punished as soon as possible and in the absence of the Islamic Republic in a competent court. Some said with anger, some with tears in their eyes, that this was very moving and deeply affecting them. One political prisoner said that “I could barely breathe from the anger and inside the bags I could see a loved one who had already been killed.” Another prisoner said that “I could visualize each and every one of my loved ones inside them. Maybe one day it will be our turn.” As night fell and the program ended, despite the grief and anger that the prisoners felt, they remained hopeful for a bright future in which their dignity would not be violated nor would their honor be ignored.

Weekly Hunger Strike Prisoners 

On February 17, the "No to Execution Tuesdays" campaign now in the 108th week of the ongoing prisoners’ hunger strike against executions in 56 different prisons, announced they were acting in solidarity with “the families and brave people who, at the 40th ceremony of their loved ones… instead of mourning, have determined to continue the path to victory.”

Tens of thousands of detainees from the recent protests are now under pressure and torture, and plans are being made to issue death sentences and heavy prison sentences for them…. [From January 20 to February 17], more than 300 prisoners… have been hanged.

Stop to think about the erasure of actual lives in the statistic of 300 executed in a single month—the equivalent of about 10 people per day.

State Terror in Schools, Towns and “Black Box Detention Sites”

The Center for Human Rights in Iran published an Op-Ed in Foreign Policy (a U.S. imperialist think tank magazine] which described:

Across Iran, especially in smaller cities and towns where information cannot easily reach the outside world, entire communities are being terrorized long after the demonstrations have been crushed… Those taken were not only protesters. They included teenagers accused of chanting slogans, bystanders wounded during demonstrations, doctors and nurses who had treated the injured, lawyers who had attempted to provide legal assistance, and citizens who had posted supportive statements on social media… Many have been transferred to unofficial holding sites: warehouses, container units, abandoned buildings, and other facilities operating entirely outside Iran’s legal detention framework… there is no paper trail, no judicial oversight, and no way for families to confirm whether their loved ones are even alive. The risk of torture, coerced confessions, sexual abuse, and death in custody in such facilities is extreme.

On February 8, Nobel Peace laureate Narges Mohammadi’s lawyer announced that after 59 days of her detention, he received a short call from her, saying that she had been sentenced to an additional 7.5 years in prison, as well as two years of internal exile (moved to a remote prison). According to the Narges Foundation, “With these new charges, Narges Mohammadi has now been sentenced to a total of over 44 years in prison throughout her life. She currently faces more than 17 years of active imprisonment, in addition to the 154 lashes carried over from her previous sentences.” 

U.S. Gangster-like Threats Against Iran: “Bad Things Happen”

All this is taking place in the midst of a U.S. military buildup around Iran while the U.S. and Iran are negotiating. In his February 19 speech to his so-called “Board of Peace,” Trump threw in this threat against Iran: “We have to make a meaningful deal, otherwise bad things happen,” and military action could come “over the next, probably 10 days.” 

On February 14, at the annual NATO Munich Security Conference, there were open calls for U.S. military intervention, including from U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and “crown prince” Reza Pahlavi⁸ insisting that only “rapid intervention” by the U.S., not negotiations, could succeed. (Pahlavi offers himself as a pro-U.S.-Israeli substitute ruler with close ties to top Iranian military officials.) This took place in the larger context of mobilizations around the world by tens of thousands of Iranians in the Diaspora, to denounce the massacre of protesters in Iran. While these marches were not all homogeneous, varying significantly from region to region, the Western mainstream media gave a boost to the visibility of Pahlavi supporters, who often threaten and physically attack others if they don’t support restoring Pahlavi rule in Iran. 

Inside Iran, some university student organizations made public statements refuting Pahlavi’s claim that his supporters led the campus opposition to the IRI. Others have taken to social media to expose that, for example, some of the videos posted by Pahlavi monarchist forces had been doctored or manipulated to alter the protesters’ chants to instead say “Javid Shah” (or “Long live the King”). In this context, the urgent and clarifying politics as expressed on the banner of the January 28 “Day of Grassroots Solidarity” vigil in San Francisco by IEC and UUSF Human Rights Working Group reflect the demands which are more urgent than ever for people, especially in the imperialist U.S., to raise at this crucial moment: 

In the context of rapidly escalating U.S.-Israeli threats of military aggression and war against Iran, and counter-threats by the IRI that portend further repression in Iran, the IEC developed some radically simple solidarity activities posted at our website: https://www.freeiranspoliticalprisonersnow.org/support

THE CRIME:

At 10:15 pm on March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced to the world: "At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

As Bush spoke, U.S. bombs and missiles were raining on Iraq. Some 160,000 troops—overwhelmingly American—were poised to storm the country by land. Twenty-one days later, after a blitzkrieg-like invasion and some 27,000 bombs, the U.S. had seized control of Iraq's major cities. Baghdad, Iraq's capital, had fallen on April 9. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime had been deposed and the U.S. took control of the country. On May 1, standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner, Bush declared "major combat operations" were over.

The U.S. government, military, and media portrayed this operation, with its "precision" bombs and missiles, as clean and surgical. The U.S. refused to count or release figures for civilian casualties. Images were widely broadcast picturing Iraqis welcoming the coalition forces as "liberators."

But in reality, thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed and wounded. During the most intense fighting in and around Baghdad, some of its hospitals were flooded with more than a hundred patients an hour. There were many instances of U.S. troops firing on people in cars and trucks. It turned out that U.S. military planners designated certain areas as "kill boxes"—grid-like zones where U.S. pilots were ordered to bomb and fire on anything that moved. In all, Iraq Body Count estimates that some 7,415 Iraqi civilians were killed during the invasion phase of the war in March and April.

But this was only a tiny glimpse of the staggering horrors that would be unleashed by the U.S. invasion, its nine-year occupation, and its aftermath. The U.S. shattered Hussein's Ba'athist state, and then installed a reactionary, Shi'ite-dominated regime. This unleashed all kinds of reactionary forces battling for a share of power. This included an armed Sunni-based insurgency, Sunni fundamentalist jihadists (which later formed ISIS, or the Islamic State), and Shi'ite militias with backing from Iran. The U.S. has attempted to play these different forces off against each other, and other regional powers have also entered the battle over Iraq's future.

The net result: the Iraqi people have suffered in unbelievable ways—thanks to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and all the reactionary forces and warfare it unleashed.

The toll has been staggering in its dimensions, its magnitude, and its duration. Iraq Body Count has documented between 168,239 and 187,378 civilian deaths from violence, and total violent deaths including combatants at 251,000 from 2003 through September 2016. Other studies of the direct and indirect toll of the war (due, for example, to the destruction and disruption to water and power systems, health care and food production): 655,000 according to a 2006 Lancet study; 1 million according to a 2008 Opinion Research Business study; and other current estimates reaching 1.2 to 1.4 million. More than 4.2 million Iraqis have been injured and at least 4.5 million have been driven from their homes. Women have suffered terribly, directly from the war and from the new, U.S.-backed government's imposition of reactionary Sharia law with separate, unequal laws for women.

And this reactionary violence by different Iraqi forces, as well as by the U.S., continues to this day. In October 2016 alone, at least 5,561 people were killed and 2,463 were wounded across Iraq—a heart-rending count that barely merits coverage in the U.S. press.

THE CRIMINALS:

Bush administration: President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and all arms of the U.S. government.

The Bush administration began debating war on Iraq within hours of the attacks of September 11, 2001. By late October or early November 2001, top Bush officials had secretly decided to wage war on Iraq. Reportedly, by April 2002 they had likely decided on a massive assault to remove Hussein.

In October 2001, the Pentagon set up a new intelligence/operations arm—the Office of Special Plans—to slant, spin, and concoct "intelligence" to justify war. Vice President Cheney pushed the CIA to produce reports that Iraq had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties to Al Qaeda.

What followed was a 17-month deluge of lies and propaganda claiming Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11 and that his possession of dangerous chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons posed a "grave and growing danger" to the Middle East and to the United States itself. The administration also smeared and attacked those, like former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who attempted to expose their lies.

Democratic Party: The ruling class, including Republicans, former government officials, and establishment "experts," all supported the Iraq war and repeated Bush administration claims. So did the leadership and overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress, including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. (During the 1990s, the Democrats and the Bill Clinton administration had bombed, sanctioned, and supported overthrowing Hussein, helping pave the way for the 2003 invasion.)

U.S. Media: The U.S. media repeated and promoted the Bush regime's lies and cheer-led the war. It never seriously questioned the war's legality or legitimacy. During the war all major media outlets agreed to "embed" with U.S. military units on Pentagon terms, and refused to seriously question U.S. motives for the war, or the military's war crimes. They widely promoted U.S.-orchestrated photo ops like the tearing down of Saddam Hussein's statue to give the impression that all Iraqis welcomed the invasion. The New York Times played a particularly criminal role, prominently featuring articles by their correspondent Judith Miller, who was closely tied to the Bush regime, and repeated its fabrications about Iraqi WMD. When the Bush administration's WMD claims were exposed as completely baseless, the government and the media spun and covered it up as an "intelligence failure."

THE ALIBI:

The U.S. claimed that Hussein's government had ties to Al Qaeda and was involved in the attacks on 9/11. It also argued that Saddam Hussein must immediately be disarmed because his regime possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that posed a grave and immediate danger, including a nuclear attack on the U.S. Secretary of State Rice warned there would always be some uncertainty about the progress of Hussein's nuclear program, but "we don't want the smoking gun [of evidence] to be a mushroom cloud."

In Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech, and then in Colin Powell's February 5 performance at the United Nations, the administration presented what they claimed was specific evidence of Iraq's massive WMD programs. Bush warned that Saddam Hussein had or could have "biological weapons materials which could be sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people." He repeated similar terrifying claims concerning botulinum toxin—"enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure"—as well as sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agent. He claimed that during the 1990s, the Hussein regime had "an advanced nuclear weapons development program," and that now "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," raising the specter that Hussein was building a nuclear bomb.

The Bush administration also claimed it invaded to "free the Iraqi people." "We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice," Bush II declared the night the war began. "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

THE ACTUAL MOTIVE:

During the 1980s, the Hussein regime did produce chemical and biological weapons (with Western support) and used them against Iranian forces during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, as well as against Iraq's Kurdish people, most infamously at Halabja in 1988. Iraq also had a secret nuclear weapons program.

But by the late 1990s, the U.S. knew that Hussein had been forced by the 1991 Persian Gulf War and U.S.-United Nations sanctions to dismantle his WMD programs, as the UN concluded in 1998. In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that there was "no definitive, reliable information" that Iraq either possessed or was manufacturing chemical or biological weapons. In the months right before the war, top Iraqi officials confirmed to the U.S. and Britain that Iraq had no WMD, and UN inspectors went to Iraq and found no WMD. In early 2002, the New York Times reported the CIA had "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

After the 2003 war, a team of 1,400 U.S. and British experts scoured Iraq for banned weapons. After four months of searching, none were found. The failure to find any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or prohibited missiles showed not only that the Bush regime was blatantly and consciously lying but that the U.S. had been lying about Iraq's purported WMD for nearly a decade.

Because Iraq had neither attacked nor posed any threat to the U.S., and because the U.S. failed to secure UN Security Council authorization for its invasion, the 2003 war on Iraq violated the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, as well as U.S. law, making it a war crime under U.S. and international law.

What were the U.S.'s real motives? The U.S. rulers had been shocked by the 9/11 attacks, and summed up that anti-U.S. Islamist jihadism, as well as other regional and global changes, represented major threats to U.S. domination of the Middle East, and to its global hegemony, demanding an aggressive multi-pronged response. The Bush team felt compelled to quickly and massively lash back, first by attacking Afghanistan and then by invading Iraq. This was designed to preserve the U.S. empire's global military credibility and to establish its prerogative to depose regimes around the world as it saw fit.

During a secret November 2001 meeting, as reported by Bob Woodward in State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, leading strategists close to the Bush administration argued that the 9/11 attacks required a "two-generation battle" to defeat "radical Islam." One dimension was to quickly take down regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria that were contributing to the spread of anti-U.S. fundamentalism or that posed obstacles to the U.S. The Bush strategists thought this would open the door to transforming the entire region—"draining the swamp," as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz put it shortly after September 11—to transforming the conditions giving rise to jihadism, as well as solidifying U.S. control. The participants concluded the U.S. couldn't defeat Islamic radicalism without first overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. planned to turn Iraq into a launching pad for the restructuring of the entire Middle East. After the invasion, the Bush team attempted to quickly and radically reshape Iraqi politics, economics, and society in line with this overall vision. The invasion of Iraq was part of an ensemble of actions undertaken to solidify U.S. control of the arc from North Africa through the Middle East to Central Asia. These goals in turn were linked to a larger goal of locking in American global hegemony against rising rivals like Russia and China. None of this had anything to do with "liberating" the Iraqi people.

SOURCES:

Iraq: The Human Cost, MIT Center for Human Studies

Casualties of the Iraq War, Wikipedia

"Ten Years After U.S. Invasion of Iraq: A War Based on Lies... And a History of Brutal Intervention," revcom.us/Revolution, April 7, 2013

"The U.S. Legacy 10 Years After Invading Iraq: Death, Disease, Devastation, Displacement," revcom.us/Revolution, March 31, 2013

Larry Everest, Oil, Power and Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, Common Courage Press, 2004

Andrew J. Bacevich, America’s War For the Greater Middle East - A Military History

This year, the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, will see an ugly torrent of red-white-and-blue celebrations of America as a “great country”—spearheaded by Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump. This is a celebration of America now led by fascists. But the truth is that America was NEVER “great,” whoever was heading up the government. 

As revolutionary leader Bob Avakian said, if people are stung by that truth about America, they need to look at reality:

This “Republic” to which we are supposed to pledge allegiance was founded on slavery and genocidal robbery: keeping millions of Black people in chains for generations... killing off huge numbers of Native Americans and stealing their land... waging a war that ripped off half of Mexico, greatly expanding slavery.

So, was this a great country all during that time—when millions of people were enslaved—owned by bloodsuckers who constantly whipped the slaves to make them work harder under horrific conditions, slave-owners who raped masses of enslaved women? Was this country great then?!

Was it great when, for generations after slavery was formally ended, Black people as a whole were segregated, discriminated against, and continually terrorized, with repeated massacres of Black people and thousands of Black people lynched? Was it great when, all during that time, LGBT people were “illegal,” when women were legally treated as inferior to men—and men could legally rape their wives? Was it a great country then?!

Or is it great, now, when people are everyday denied basic rights? When the police kill a thousand people every year, especially people of color, and in the 60 years since Civil Rights Acts were passed, segregation and discrimination has remained as bad, or worse, as it ever was, and thousands of Black people have been killed by police—even greater numbers than all those who were lynched during all the years of Ku Klux Klan terror after the Civil War!

Has this country ever been great, when, right from the beginning and down to today, the whole thing has literally been built on the broken bodies, the blood and bones, of millions and now billions of people, worldwide—cruelly exploited, used and abused, by this system—with all this backed up by murder on a massive scale carried out by the police and the armed forces of this country?

No, this country has never been great. It has always been a horror for masses of people. 

(from social media message REVOLUTION #2: When has the U.S. been a “great country”?)

It’s way past time for this system—capitalism-imperialism—that rules in this country, dominates the world and now has spawned fascist rule, to be thoroughly abolished, through an actual revolution.

Below is Part 4 of a series that highlights aspects of how 250 years of America has been nothing but a horror for the masses of people, here and around the world. We call on our readers to send in your contributions to this series—articles, video, audio, artwork, social media posts. Email revolution.reports@yahoo.com or message @therevcoms via social media.

See also: 

• Part 1: American Crime Case #98: 1953 CIA Coup in Iran: Torture and Repression–Made in the U.S.A.
• Part 2: American Crime Case #12: The 1921 Tulsa Massacre and the Destruction of Black Wall Street
• Part 3: Emmett Till and Lynchings, Past and Present—An excerpt from Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About by Bob Avakian

Part 4: American Crime Case #6: Lynching in America—
The Torture, Mutilation and Murder of Thousands of Black People and the Terrorizing of Millions More, 1865-1950

THE CRIME:

For over 100 years, from the Civil War period into the 1950s and beyond, thousands of Black people have been lynched in America. Lynchings are violent, public acts of torture, often mutilation, and murder, carried out by white people to terrorize and traumatize Black people. They are lawless actions, often carried out in broad daylight, with thousands taking part and none of the lynchers getting arrested or punished. Cops and government officials often took part.¹

When people think of lynching, they think of people being hung from trees or poles. This was part of what took place, but lynchings were also carried out by beating or torturing Black people to death, or shooting them down. Innocent people were even lynched by being burned alive, dragged behind cars, or thrown off bridges.

Black men, women, and children were lynched—sometimes whole families. Sometimes hundreds were massacred and whole towns or neighborhoods destroyed. A few examples:

Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 1921, the Greenwood District of North Tulsa was a self-sufficient, relatively prosperous Black neighborhood known as “Black Wall Street.” On May 31, after false rumors of a Black man assaulting a white woman were spread, a white lynch mob gathered outside the courthouse jail where he was being held and demanded that he be turned over to them. Around 10 p.m., 75 armed Black men, including military veterans, came from Greenwood to the courthouse to protect the man from the mob, which had grown to about 1,500, many of them armed. Gunfire erupted, and in a few seconds about a dozen men were killed or wounded. The outnumbered Black men began a fighting retreat back to Greenwood. Sheriffs swore in more than 500 whites as “Special Deputies” to hunt Black people. The rest of that night Black people were killed and Black businesses and homes burned. Early the next morning a white mob of many thousands, including 150 Tulsa police, surrounded and stormed Greenwood. Forty square blocks of Greenwood burned to the ground, destroying 1,256 homes, businesses, schools, churches, and other buildings. Armed Black people resisted fiercely but were badly outnumbered. As many as 300 people (Black and white) were killed. ²

Elaine, Arkansas. On the night of September 30, 1919, Black sharecroppers were organizing against the bitter poverty they were forced to live and work in. White landowners found out about their efforts and unleashed a lynch mob which massacred at least 200 Black people, perhaps many more. Afterward, some 300 Black people were arrested, but not a single white person was ever arrested or prosecuted.³

Rosewood was a small, self-sufficient Black town in rural Florida. During the first week of January 1923, a white lynch mob attacked and destroyed the town. At least six Black people were killed, but eyewitnesses claim the death toll was much higher, anywhere from 27 to 150.⁴

Most of those who were lynched were never accused of or charged with any crime. They could be murdered because someone said they assaulted a white person, or approached or just whistled at a white woman. Black people were lynched for demanding basic rights and fair treatment. Many were murdered for minor violations of “Southern manners”—manners which demanded Black people always act like they were totally beneath white people:

• In 1940, Jesse Thornton was lynched in Luverne, Alabama, for referring to a white police officer by his name without the title of “mister.”
• In 1918, Private Charles Lewis was lynched in Hickman, Kentucky, after he refused to empty his pockets while wearing his Army uniform.
• Richard Wilkerson was lynched in Manchester, Tennessee, in 1934 for allegedly slapping a white man who had assaulted a Black woman at an African American dance.
• White men lynched Jeff Brown in 1916 in Cedarbluff, Mississippi, for accidentally bumping into a white girl as he ran to catch a train.
• In 1917, Sam Gates was lynched for the offense of “annoying white girls” in England, Arkansas.

Lynching Carnivals

These were not secret acts, but part of public life in the South. Sometimes thousands, and sometimes virtually the whole white community, would attend pre-announced lynchings. These were often day-long celebrations with a carnival atmosphere. Families came with picnic baskets, vendors sold food, and photographers documented the occasion—selling pictures of the lynching as postcards. Sometimes the victim’s body parts were sold as “souvenirs.” Here’s one example:

In 1904, after Luther Holbert allegedly killed a local white landowner, he and a Black woman believed to be his wife were captured by a mob and taken to Doddsville, Mississippi, to be lynched before hundreds of white spectators. Both victims were tied to a tree and forced to hold out their hands while members of the mob methodically chopped off their fingers and distributed them as souvenirs. Next, their ears were cut off. Mr. Holbert was then beaten so severely that his skull was fractured and one of his eyes was left hanging from its socket. Members of the mob used a large corkscrew to bore holes into the victims’ bodies and pull out large chunks of “quivering flesh,” after which both victims were thrown onto a raging fire and burned. The white men, women, and children present watched the horrific murders while enjoying deviled eggs, lemonade, and whiskey in a picnic-like atmosphere.

Lynchings were so widespread that Southern white children played it as a game. It was called “Salisbury,” probably named for a series of lynchings in Salisbury, North Carolina, in 1902 and 1906.⁵

The Equal Justice Initiative found that there were 4,084 racial terror lynchings in 12 southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950, and another 300 in other states.⁶

Campaign of Mass Terror with Lasting Impact to this Day

All Black people, especially in the South, lived under the threat of lynchings—for the smallest excuse or for no excuse at all. This traumatized and terrorized all Black people.

The great author Richard Wright was born in Mississippi and knew of two men who were lynched—his step-uncle and the brother of a neighborhood friend. In his book Black Boy, Wright wrote:

The things that influenced my conduct as a Negro did not have to happen to me directly; I needed but to hear of them to feel their full effects in the deepest layers of my consciousness. Indeed, the white brutality that I had not seen was a more effective control of my behavior than that which I knew.

THE CRIMINALS

• No branch of the U.S. government—North or South, including the courts, the legislatures, and the executive branches—at the federal, state and local levels did anything to stop the horror of lynching. Fewer than one percent of lynch mob participants were ever convicted by local courts and they were rarely prosecuted or brought to trial.
• White vigilante terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan—KKK.
• The many thousands of white people who took part in lynchings, celebrated them, or remained silent in the face of them.
• Northern academics who promoted bogus “scientific” theories that Black people were inferior to whites—which some continue to do to this day.
• The U.S. Congress, which refused to pass any laws against lynching until 2021 (!), despite the fact that bills outlawing lynching had been introduced as far back as 1900.
• Leading U.S. officials, including U.S. presidents, who openly promoted racism and white supremacy. For example:

• In his 1867 annual message to Congress, President Andrew Johnson declared that Black Americans had “less capacity for government than any other race of people,” that they would “relapse into barbarism” if left to their own devices, and that giving them the vote would result in “a tyranny such as this continent has never yet witnessed.”
• In 1897, Rebecca Latimer Felton, the wife and campaign manager of a U.S. Congressman, argued that one of the great problems in American society was that men were not providing adequate attention to “white women’s vulnerability to the Black rapists” who were supposedly roaming the rural South. “The fault, she declared, lay with southern white men. They had failed to put a ‘sheltering arm about innocence and virtue.’” She concluded that “if lynching was required ‘to protect women’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—then I say lynch, a thousand times a week, if necessary.’”⁷
• In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “the greatest existing cause of lynching is the perpetration, especially by Black men, of the hideous crime of rape.”
• In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, hosted a showing of the white-supremacist, pro-Confederate film Birth of a Nation in the White House. He praised the film, saying “this was like writing history with lightning.” It was the first film ever to be shown in the White House. His family, his Cabinet and the filmmaker D.W. Griffith attended.

THE ALIBIS

The main excuses white mobs used to justify lynching were claims that Black men had approached or sexually assaulted white women or that they had committed some crime—from murder to trivial offenses. Black people were lynched because they’d stepped out of their “place” under the thumb of white people by demanding basic rights, speaking out against mistreatment, or failing to totally subordinate themselves to white people, such as not stepping off the sidewalk to let white people pass or even looking white people in the eye. And many Black people were lynched for no reason at all other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Lynchings were more formally justified by government and the media as necessary to control supposedly lawless Black people. As a 1905 investigative report put it: 

Lynching has been resorted to by whites not merely to wreak vengeance, but to terrorize and restrain this lawless element (sic) in the Negro population. Among Southern people, the conviction is general that terror is the only restraining influence that can be brought to bear upon vicious Negroes.

We won't comment on the bitter irony here that many white men routinely raped Black women and were almost never legally punished. Or that the accusation of lawlessness was being made by the very people who were engaged in horribly sadistic mob violence against people who had never been found guilty in a court of law!

THE MOTIVES

Why did the U.S. ruling class, as a whole, support lynching? Because shortly after the Civil War, the capitalist system in the U.S. made a leap to a new stage—to a worldwide system of imperialism, which divided up the entire globe among a handful of powers. The re-entrenchment of white supremacy in a new form, after the Civil War, formed an important element in the U.S. rise to major power status among these imperialists.

The cotton and tobacco produced by the bitterly exploited Black sharecroppers were the top cash crops of the U.S. from 1850 to 1890, and Black men who were arrested by Southern sheriffs on the flimsiest of charges and literally sold as slave labor built the industrial infrastructure of the South.

Lynching played a very important role in all this, and the U.S. ruling class backed them to the hilt. Sometimes lynchings were carried out for greed—to murder Black people and steal their land. (The Associated Press documented over 57 violent land-takings by whites.)

But the hellish social function served by lynchings was larger than this. Lynchings served to enforce the social and economic system in which Black people were chained to the land through terror, which played a crucial role in the functioning and strength of U.S. capitalism, and its rise as a global imperialist power.⁸

The mainstream Washington, DC-based political journal The Hill chillingly reports that: 

“A controversial Christian nationalist pastor who has argued that women should be denied the right to vote led a worship service at the Pentagon this week at the invitation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. 

Doug Wilson delivered a 15-minute sermon Tuesday as part of a monthly Christian worship series started by Hegseth at the Department of Defense (DOD) this past May. In his sermon, which was broadcast live on the Pentagon’s internal TV network, Wilson said he prayed for ‘a black swan revival,’ or another great awakening of Christianity in the country….

A DOD account on social media later posted a photo of Hegseth praying with his hand on Wilson’s shoulder and stating: ‘We have gathered at the Pentagon for our monthly worship service. We are One Nation Under God.’”

The Hill reports that Hegseth is a member of Wilson’s church, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. It quotes Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson (no relation) on why Hegseth invited Doug Wilson to preach at the Pentagon:

“Secretary Hegseth, along with millions of Americans, is a proud Christian and was glad to welcome Pastor Wilson to the Pentagon on Tuesday. The Christian faith is woven deeply into the fabric of our nation. Despite the Left’s efforts to remove our Christian heritage from our great nation, Secretary Hegseth is among those who embrace it.”

The Hill notes that pastor Wilson professes the following beliefs: homosexuality should be criminalized; women must be obedient to the commands of their husbands; the 19th Amendment granting voting rights to women should be repealed; southern slave-owners were on “firm scriptural ground.”

The Hill quotes Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate who says that Hegseth’s platforming of pastor Wilson is “an unconstitutional and extreme attack on the 1st Amendment”¹⁷ whereby “Hegseth is using his official position to make his religion the official one of the Department of Defense using official facilities, communications channels and personnel.”

The Hill might have also mentioned the fact that Hegseth attended the opening of Wilson’s church in Washington DC last year and that Wilson is on record with the alarming belief that the best period in the history of U.S. race relations was the era of Black chattel slavery. More than two decades, Wilson and a co-author wrote the following in a book titled Southern Slavery as it Was: “Slavery as it existed in the South … was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence…There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world…Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.”¹⁸

The Hill might have noted the absurdity of Kingsley Wilson’s claims that there is a relevant “Left” seeking to eliminate American Christianity and that (more on this below) Wilson and Hegseth represent “the Christian faith” and “our Christian heritage” in general.

The big thing missing in The Hill’s report is the real horror and real nature of Doug Wilson’s beliefs, shared by the maniacal far-right self-described Crusader atop the most lethal imperialist military in world history.

“Controversial” and “Christian nationalist”? Try genocidally racist, white nationalist, and indeed Christian fascist. This arch-reactionary motherfucker Doug Wilson and his deranged acolyte Pete Hegseth want to repeal every civil and social right won in America through courageous and often bloody struggle from the bottom up by masses of oppressed people. They pine for the restoration of racial and gender slavery, the incarceration and torture of gay and trans people, the prohibition of free speech and assembly, and more terrible to contemplate, all in the name of “One Nation Under God.”

The revolutionary communist leader Bob Avakian has been warning us for many years about the danger of Amerikkkan Christian fascism. As Avakian wrote in July of 2024, while Trump was claiming that God had just saved his life during an alleged assassination attempt: “Christian fascism is not the same as Christianity in general as a religion: Christian fascism is a form of Christian fundamentalism, a fanatically anti-scientific lunacy marked by determination to reverse even the partial gains that have been made in the struggle against injustice and oppression over the past 75 years.” Avakian noted the Christian theologian James Luther Adams’ warning that “American fascists would not come wearing swastikas and brown shirts [like the German Nazis]. The American variety [of fascists], he said, would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance.”¹⁹

That’s exactly what we see with the open Christian fascist “crusader,” Pete Hegseth, rechristened Secretary of War by the corrupt fascist leader Donald “Take Down the Metal Detectors” Trump. Speaking to 800-plus top military brass called to Quantico from across the vast U.S. global military empire last September, Hegseth railed about America “warriors’” need to replace “tepid legality with maximum lethality.” Speaking after Hegseth, Trump himself informed the commanders that the “War Department’s” lethality needs to be directed against the nation’s top adversary, “the enemy within,” by which Trump meant everybody to the “radical” left of Dear Leader Trump, with a special emphasis on the nation’s majority nonwhite Democratic Party-run cities.

Truth is these fascists are taking aim at gains won during the Civil War (the abolition of slavery and birthright citizenship) and the Progressive Age (women’s suffrage)!

Why does the demented neofascist Christian white nationalist “crusader” Hegseth sit atop the “War Department,” along with the unqualified MAGA general Dan “Raizin” Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Because of his willingness to do something Trump45’s Defense chiefs refused to do: deploy the U.S. armed forces in American streets to crush resistance to the Amerikaner fascist²⁰ agenda if “necessary.”

The Trump regime rode into 2026 on a rampage. From Venezuela to the streets of Minneapolis, the regime murders with impunity and demonizes whole peoples and countries without any pretense of the rule of law.

On January 7, an ICE agent murdered Renee Good in cold blood for daring to stand up for her immigrant neighbors. On January 24, CBP agents beat Alex Pretti to the ground and executed him. These are Trump’s Gestapo thugs—unleashed in Minneapolis on a campaign of terror and vengeance. The regime has responded not with accountability, but with lies, justifying murder through the twisted logic that anyone who resists deserves to be shot down.

This is fascism, a different form of brutal rule to enforce white supremacist, patriarchal, and xenophobic oppression and violence. As long as this regime remains in power, this terror will not only continue—it will accelerate. The events of this month—from illegally bombing Venezuela and kidnapping the leader of a sovereign nation to murdering civilians in the streets—have brought this home in blood and should dispel any complacency.

This regime will not be bound by any laws or measures of decency that stop them from advancing their aims. They have:

• begun genocidal ethnic cleansing of non-white immigrants, rounded up and sent to concentration camps by lawless masked men;
• unleashed war and terror abroad, while moving aggressively to crush dissent at home;
• branded anti-fascist protesters and political opponents as “domestic terrorists,” laying the groundwork for mass repression.

SHREDDING ANY RULE OF U.S. OR INTERNATIONAL LAW, and getting away with it over and over, is paving the way for horrors that surpass those of the Nazi regime. There is no living with this.

The protests in Minneapolis and across this country have been righteous and inspiring. They must continue—and they must grow. And we must join our righteous fury in the streets with the only demand that truly measures up to the threat this regime poses to all of humanity:

Trump Must Go Now!

No community is safe while the fascist Trump regime controls federal agencies and consolidates power. There is no restraining or abolishing ICE when Trump’s attacks on immigrants are the battering ram and linchpin of his fascist program. To stop ICE terror—and every outrage of the last year—the whole regime must be stopped.

Nothing but massive nonviolent struggle by you, and millions of others like you, can do that. By walking out. By shutting down. By millions rising in massive, unrelenting, nonviolent protest and resistance. By coming back stronger in the face of attack and repression. By uniting, not dividing, across many viewpoints and backgrounds.

We must not wait for future and rigged elections.

The power of the people must drive the Trump Fascist Regime out of power now—before it is too late.

ICE Must Go
The Whole Trump Fascist Regime Must Go Now
In the Name of Humanity, We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America

RCP Publications

Stand 709, ground floor, below the stairs

Tacuba 5, Downtown Mexico City, Bellas Artes or Allende subway stop

Friday, February 20-Sunday, March 1

Works by Bob Avakian, international revolutionary leader

Follow him in Spanish at revcom.us, and in English at @BobAvakianOfficial

And revolutionary books, pamphlets and videos on the New Communism, the genocide in Gaza, Venezuela, immigrants, the liberation of women, the environmental emergency, science, and much more.

Did you know that from 1956 to 1971 the FBI conducted a program designed to foment conflict within revolutionary movements, as well as broader movements for reform—conflicts which not only crippled these movements, but served as a cover to carry out frame-ups and even outright murder of revolutionary fighters and activists?

Did you know that they sent undercover people into these movements specifically to create or magnify conflicts? Did you know that they relied on unsubstantiated gossip and often inventions, as well as forged documents as part of their arsenal?

Did you know that they took statements out of context to distort the real views of activists and revolutionary fighters and use these as pretexts for smear campaigns and attempted prosecutions?

All this came to light in 1971, when some brave and heroic people appropriated the files revealing this program in a nighttime operation to go into an FBI office and bring these criminal activities by the government to light. As a result, many people in the movements of the time and even beyond, in broader society, adopted different standards for settling inevitable conflicts over politics and ideology in a principled way, and preventing the police, FBI and other government agencies from spreading slanders, fomenting conflicts and endangering the lives of people active in the struggle for justice.

Now, decades later, a new generation is way too unaware either of the FBI activities or the protocols widely adopted. We saw the results of this in 2022, with the vicious and very dangerous slander campaign that was launched against Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, the revcoms, Bob Avakian and Sunsara Taylor. And now, in light of the heightened repression from Trump fascism and the low standards that exist among people broadly, we are reissuing this article.

We urge people to read and spread the article below, and to insist on principled discussion and debate over disagreements and to oppose any dangerous campaigns of lies, disinformation and distortion.

~~~~~~~~~~~

COINTELPRO was launched by the FBI in secret in 1956 in the context of the rising civil rights movement, and operations were later “signed on” to by the Kennedy administration. Its reach was broad and vicious. The FBI, working in sync with local police “Red Squads” (political police) wrote leaflets fomenting conflicts between different groups. They sent anonymous letters warning parents and school administrators of what their children and students were supposedly doing. They conducted police surveillance and repression against antiwar coffee houses opening near military bases. And those the FBI identified as leaders, in particular, were marked for “neutralization” by the FBI, a euphemism for being framed up on serious criminal charges or killed.

One of the earliest, ugliest and most grievous FBI operations was against Malcolm X. We recently covered this, and we are including it here as a companion to this article.

Going After Martin Luther King Through Personal Slander and Harassment

One element in COINTELPRO attacks on the civil rights movement was the dissemination by the FBI of allegations about Martin Luther King’s sex life that had nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, or debates within that movement or in society as a whole. The FBI bugged King’s bedroom(!) and then, directly or posing as “concerned individuals” sent supposed taped “evidence” to media outlets and others, including colleges where King was invited to speak, demanding he be disinvited. They even sent such a tape to his wife, Coretta Scott King, in the hope of causing anguish and breaking up the marriage.

The FBI also circulated allegations that King’s movement had organizational and financial connections to communists, playing on anti-communist prejudices, to push (and provide an excuse for) white liberals and what the FBI identified as “the responsible Negro community” to stay away from the civil rights movement at a time when civil rights activists were being brutally attacked and murdered by police and the KKK, and as a cover for massive surveillance of the civil rights movement. Whether or not the authorities were directly involved in King’s murder in Memphis in 1968 as his family and close associates have insisted, the COINTELPRO operation created conditions that facilitated his assassination and was continued for a year after his death.

Going After the Panthers: Fomenting Conflicts to Murder Leadership

A major objective and focus of COINTELPRO was isolating and setting up the most revolutionary forces at the time, especially the Black Panther Party (BPP), for attack. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, in a secret memo, wrote to offices calling for “imaginative and hard-hitting counterintelligence measures aimed at crippling the BPP.” (Emphasis added.)

As they did with Malcolm X (see the accompanying article), the FBI often focused on setting up others to do the actual dirty work. To take one notorious example, the FBI forged a letter, supposedly from someone in the community, to Jeff Fort, the leader of the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago gang at the time, claiming that the Black Panther Party was getting ready to move on him. In this case, in the climate of the times when there was both a broad culture of being alert to moves by the authorities to forge accusations to set people up, and when there was broad respect for the Panthers and the revolution, Fort decided the threatening letter was not credible. This letter was part of a larger COINTELPRO operation that set into motion events that led to the assassination of Panther leader Fred Hampton by Chicago police and the FBI in 1969.

In another COINTELPRO operation, the LA office of the FBI came up with a plan to forge a letter claiming the US Organization (United Slaves), which had been attacking the Panthers, believed that the BPP had a contract out to kill their leader. The LA FBI office wrote that the objective was for “this counterintelligence measure [to] result in an ‘US’ and BPP vendetta.” The operation was part of what led to the terrible murder of Black Panther leaders John Huggins and Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter by US members in Los Angeles.

Again, there were real issues to resolve, questions to investigate, and debates to struggle out among those struggling for a different and better world in different ways, coming from different outlooks at the time, as now. The pattern and practice of COINTELPRO was to exploit these contradictions to twist them into vicious, destructive personal attacks, with an aim of disintegrating the movements for social change and an edge of isolating and setting up the most radical and revolutionary forces and leaders for what COINTELPRO documents euphemistically referred to as “neutralization.”

Conclusion: don’t fall for—and don’t tolerate—the kinds of behavior that mimic what the FBI has used to destroy social movements. Call it out.

Resources:

The book The COINTELPRO Papers, by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall contains a vast collection of original FBI memos and reports including documentation for the incidents described in this article. It is available as an online PDF.

This article draws on installments of the American Crime series at revcoms.us: American Crime Case #41: COINTELPRO—The FBI Targets the New Left, 1964-1971 and American Crime Case #42: COINTELPRO—The FBI Targets the Black Freedom Struggle, 1956-1971.

An important letter drawing lessons for today from the COINTELPRO operation against Malcolm X: A Reflection on Piggery—Then and Now.

Trump/MAGA fascism is being aggressively imposed on this society in many horrifying ways, instilling fear and a pull towards cooperation with government authorities. One of the ways people are being confronted with this is in situations where people are stopped as they go about their daily business at school, work, or shopping for food and necessities. Right now, that is a living reality for people who are being targeted as “illegal” immigrants, based on how they look or talk. But there are other situations that can be equally frightening: like when someone is arrested at or in connection with a political protest, or when someone is being questioned by police when they don’t have any idea what it is about. In all cases, people need to know what is the best way to respond to prevent these government agencies from doing great harm. 

In the popular culture in movies and TV shows, to the ever-present law-and-order shows of one kind or another, and even the news, all trumpet the same theme: if the police want to talk to you, you are already assumed to be guilty—of something. To exercise one's legal rights is viewed as further evidence of guilt; even the most basic right—getting a lawyer to defend oneself from the legal and illegal onslaught of cops, prosecutors and judges—is depicted with a sneer as "lawyering up," as though this shows you must be guilty or have something to hide. 

Sometimes you hear the police reading what’s called the Miranda warning (see box) to a person they are intending to interrogate, stating that you have the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. But then everything proceeds as though the person being questioned is showing their guilt by refusing to answer questions and getting a lawyer to represent them.

But in real-life situations, the best advice lawyers give anyone who is being arrested, questioned or contacted in any way by the police is: DON’T TALK. 

It is important for people to know what rights they DO have when agents of repression come sniffing around. And it is especially important to insist on those rights even as they are increasingly coming under attack. 

Bob Avakian has spoken to this point in his social media message @BobAvakianOfficial REVOLUTION #106:

As we revcoms (revolutionary communists) have made clear in the Declaration WE NEED AND WE DEMAND: A WHOLE NEW WAY TO LIVE, A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT SYSTEM: “So long as we are still living under the rule of this system of capitalism-imperialism, we will defend people against attacks on their lives and on the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”

So, what rights based on the U.S. Constitution are supposed to apply whether during an arrest or in any contact with police or government agencies? How should people defend their rights individually and collectively, and what kind of culture is needed to resist the government forces of repression?

The Right to Remain Silent—Don't Talk

When facing agents of government repression (here we are talking about the local police and prosecutors, state or federal law enforcement or various government agencies), the principle of "Don't Talk" is an important legal principle overall, and it is crucial in fighting to protect the various movements of resistance and of revolution from government repression. This principle is stressed very strongly by criminal defense lawyers and civil rights organizations—you have a RIGHT to remain silent.

Many legal rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Lawyers Guild (NLG), have published materials to inform people of their rights. The most important thing they all advise is to assert your right to NOT answer questions. 

For example, the following is from a brochure published by the ACLU of Southern California: 

WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI:
YOUR RIGHTS 

• You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
• You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
• If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
• You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
• Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

And the National Lawyers Guild advises what to do if an FBI agent or police officer knocks at the door:

Do not open the door. State that you are going to remain silent. Do not answer any questions, or even give your name. Anything you say, no matter how seemingly harmless or insignificant, can be used against you or others. Ask the agents to slide their business cards under the door and tell them that your lawyer will contact them. If the agent or officer gives a reason for contacting you, take notes and give the information to your lawyer.²¹ 

What Harm Can Talking Do?

There are many myths and lies promoted in the dominant culture and by the police themselves which leave people confused and feeling they have no choice but to cooperate. This is absolutely wrong and dangerous to any movements of resistance from among the people. 

Myth #1—Cooperating will make the authorities go away.

In fact, it often does just the opposite. After all, if they size someone up as a "talker" or weak link, they'll milk this person for all the information they can get. They may return with more questions or continue this line of questioning with others.

Myth #2—Talking will prevent being arrested.

The authorities promote the illusion that a person should try to "save their own hide" by cooperating and talking. In reality, as the ACLU and NLG underscore, in many circumstances talking may increase the chances of a person being busted, and may be sealing the case against himself/herself as well as others.

Myth #3—As long as the information provided is harmless, there's nothing wrong with talking.

When people don't know their rights and talk freely to the authorities, this can do great harm—no matter what information they provide.

First of all, because the person doesn't know the full agenda of the authorities, he/she has no basis to evaluate whether or not information is "harmless." Even if the authorities claim to be investigating something that has nothing to do with your politics or political activities (or those of others), appearances can be deceiving. The authorities can and will twist any information to their advantage.

Secondly, the act of talking encourages the authorities to pursue this tactic and go after others.

Finally, and most importantly, talking fuels the government's efforts to eliminate any movements of opposition and dissent, while standing firm and not talking as a matter of principle contributes to building a culture of resistance and defiance.

Myth #4—If I don't cooperate, won't it look like I have something to hide?

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR),

This is one of the most frequently asked questions. The answer involves the nature of political "intelligence" investigations and the job of the FBI. Agents will try to make you feel that it will "look bad" if you don't cooperate with them. Many people not familiar with how the FBI operates worry about being uncooperative…. (T)hey [the FBI] are intent on learning about the habits, opinions, and affiliations of people not suspected of wrongdoing....

They will do anything to get a person to talk: from good cop/bad cop approaches (aimed at getting the person to "open up" to the more sympathetic cop) to threats and outright brutality. They also use "mind games" such as saying that others have already informed on a person; or even going so far as falsely telling someone a family member has died in order to get the person to let down his/her guard and reveal information about themselves or others.

Any information that a person provides—no matter how seemingly insignificant—can be twisted and used against that person themselves, or against people and organizations who expose and oppose the crimes of this system. The government has a long history of lying about the facts and fabricating "evidence" in order to frame movement activists and revolutionaries. They take intelligence gathered from a variety of sources and use it in the most sinister ways, even including murder. Consequently, there is no reason to be in the least defensive about not talking to or cooperating with authorities.

If a person thinks that he/she can just "bullshit" an agent, this too is a trap. The investigators are trained to be "friendly" and listen to people's stories. To quote a textbook on interrogation techniques, "Letting the subject tell a few lies, and letting him apparently get away with them, is an excellent technique, and works well with many types of subjects. We have seen that lying on the part of the subject works to the advantage of the interrogator...." The NLG has pointed out:

Keep in mind that although they are allowed to lie to you, lying to a government agent is a crime. Remaining silent is not. The safest things to say are "I am going to remain silent," "I want to speak to my lawyer," and " do not consent to a search." [emphasis added]²²

Conclusion

As spoken to throughout this article, as part of trying to beat down movements of resistance and of revolution, agents of the government (police, FBI, prosecutors, etc.) have developed methods to trick, intimidate and brutalize people into giving up legal rights and protections established by the legal system in this country. This basic dynamic and truth needs to be clearly understood, and if various organizations and movements are serious about the challenges they face, they need to grapple with how—mainly by relying on mass movements of the people—to resist such repression.

History has shown that when the decent people refuse to concede the moral authority on what is right and what is wrong, they are better able to withstand repression and continue to develop resistance. If they do not take this approach, they find themselves in a situation where: That which you do not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn—or be forced—to accept. Part of building a culture of defiance and resistance among people standing up against fascism and the crimes of this system is refusing to allow the government to either intimidate or bamboozle people into giving up resistance, and refusing in any way to enter into complicity with such intimidation and repression.

In this context, the legal principles underlying "Don't Talk" take on heightened importance. Those confronted by police agents should not be bamboozled into giving up the legal rights they do have, as this will only lead to strengthening the repressive apparatus of the state, and help to undercut the ability to struggle against the crimes of this system and to build a movement for revolution to overthrow this system and bring about a fundamentally different and much better system.