Jump to content
  • By Party for Socialism and Liberation, for Liberation School,

    By Party for Socialism and Liberation,

    Vol. 2 · Iss. 4
    With a communist Secretary-General in the WA Headquarters, a question is on the minds of many across NationStates: "Why socialism?" The following text, presented by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, explains what Marxists desire for the world.
    What will socialist society look like?
    The earliest pioneers of scientific socialism—Karl Marx and Frederick Engels—did not philosophize about what socialism and communism would look like in detail. Nor did they discuss how long it would take to transform society from capitalism to socialism.
    In "The German Ideology," one of his early writings from 1845, Marx wrote the famous lines: "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize [philosophize] after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
    No one, Marx included, took this as a literal forecast of what communism would look like. It was seen rather as a way of illustrating the division of labor that future communist societies would inherit from the preceding class society.
    Instead, Marx and Engels devoted much of their work to creating an outline of economic development based on a thorough analysis of capitalism. Their goal was to determine what a new society could look like, as opposed to earlier socialists who tried to dictate what society should look like.
    Marxism, as scientific socialism is known today, begins with the struggle between antagonistic classes in society. The class struggle has taken different forms throughout history, from the struggle between slaves and masters in ancient Egypt and Rome to the struggle of serfs against landlords in feudal Europe.
    By the time Marx and Engels were writing, the classes had become even more widely separated. The overwhelming majority of working people were forced to labor daily in order to meet their basic needs, while a tiny minority reaped more and more profit from the exploited classes. The working class, which was growing in size and social weight, represented those of the exploited classes that had to sell their labor power on a daily basis in order to survive. This condition continues today.
    In the working class, Marx saw not only the force that could overthrow capitalist exploitation, but also the foundation for a classless society without exploitation—communism. "If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class," Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto, "if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally."
    Transition to communism
    At the heart of the Marxist conception of the socialist revolution is a dialectical understanding of social change: History evolves according to laws of motion governed by the conflict of opposing forces, with the outcome depending on what has come before. In particular, socialist and communist society can come about not by will or by design alone, but as the result of overcoming capitalist society through revolutionary struggle.
    "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society," Marx wrote in the 1872 "Critique of the Gotha Program." The new society is "thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."
    It was in the "Critique of the Gotha Program" that Marx was most specific about what he could discern about the future socialist and communist society.
    The first task, he wrote, was to smash the capitalist class' state apparatus—the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie—and replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class would need a period to repress the efforts of the former ruling class to regain political power.
    What was unique about the workers' state was that it sows the seeds for its own elimination or transformation from a state to a non-state. As the state representing the interests of the vast majority, for the first time in history, the workers' state would gradually reduce the mechanism for class repression—first, by eliminating exploitation that gave rise to the need for a state. This first step, though, requires the creation of generalized equality through the elimination of material scarcity. Under the new socialist order, the growth of the means of production, to the point where society's abundance eliminates the individual struggle for existence, allows for the gradual withering away of the state. It is a process rooted in material advances, not a decree or edict, that abolishes the state.
    Once the purely defensive needs of the workers' state are completed, the real tasks of socialist construction can begin. During this first phase of communist society—Lenin notes in "State and Revolution" that this phase is generally known as socialism—the main task will be the enhancement of the productive forces and the overcoming of the "birthmarks of the old society."
    Socialism: 'To each according to their work'
    The lower phase of communism, Marx projected, would be based on the slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work." He described this as follows: "The individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. … The same amount of labor which is given to society in one form is received back in another."
    This is a huge step forward from life under capitalism. Under capitalism, workers receive less in the form of wages than the full amount of their labor. The owning class appropriates a share of the value produced by the laborer in the form of private profit.
    Nevertheless, Marx pointed out that this lower phase of communism is still an unequal economic arrangement—that it is still based on the "bourgeois right" of formal equality, or political-economic equality among unequal people. For example, this formal "equal right" enforces inequality of people with different needs. It does not take into account the number of children in a workers' family, for example, or the physical or mental capacity of the worker. There are further inequalities between skilled and unskilled workers and mental and physical labor.
    "With an equal performance of labor," Marx noted, "and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on."
    Russian revolutionary leader V.I. Lenin elaborated on this theme in "State and Revolution:" "Of course, bourgeois right in regard to the distribution of articles of consumption inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for right is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the standards of right. It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state—without the bourgeoisie!"
    The reality of inequality also endures because individuals in bourgeois society are profoundly stratified at the time of the revolution. For example, millions of people in the United States own large homes—sometimes more than one—and have large savings and assets. An even larger number have next to nothing.
    Unless the workers' state was to immediately expropriate the assets of what is known as the "upper middle class"—an act that would cause immense social turmoil following the revolution—this facet of inequality will remain for some time. Equal payment for labor performed, while a huge step forward, does not eradicate the vast inequality that is derived from the bourgeois society.
    The higher stage of communism
    A bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie—this is the distinctive feature under socialism as opposed to the higher stage of communism. This state under socialism, however, has a feature unheard of under capitalism. In the words of Frederick Engels in the 1878 pamphlet "Anti-Dühring:" "It withers away."
    Lenin spent a significant portion of "State and Revolution" clarifying the Marxist conception of the withering away of the state. In particular, he pointed out against the reformists that the capitalist state does not wither away—the capitalist state must be uprooted in the course of workers' revolution.
    But under socialism—after the revolution—the need for the state as a repressive apparatus gradually changes to an administrative organ for running society. Against "bourgeois right," the new society will be able to develop the productive forces to such an extent that the inequalities in society can be overcome.
    "The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state," Lenin wrote, "is such a high level of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality—a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.
    "The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.'"
    Lenin wrote those words in 1917, on the eve of the first socialist revolution the world had yet seen, in the former Russian empire. He, with Marx and Engels, had only the experience of the two months of the Paris Commune on which to base their analyses.
    He acknowledged as much when he noted that "we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state … leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions."
    Experiences in socialist construction
    Thanks in great part to the practical experience of Lenin in making revolution, 21st-century socialists have a wealth of experience on which to base further conclusions. Marxists have been able to use accumulated theory and practice in order to lead revolutions in Russia, China, Korea, Yugoslavia, Cuba and many other countries.
    While there have been vast differences in the experiences of those socialist revolutions, they share one common feature: The socialist revolutions of the 20th century took place in countries where the level of productive forces was very low compared to the imperialist countries. Every successful revolution faced the primary task of developing their economies—while under constant military threat by world imperialism.
    For that reason, Lenin described the challenges of building communism in 1920 in very practical terms: "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country." There was no hope in building socialism if the economy remained underdeveloped.
    Because of the combined challenges of developing the productive forces under the gun of world imperialism, no socialist revolution has yet reached a stage where the "withering away of the state" could be imagined. Imperialism has seized on any weakness in the revolutionary states in order to foment counterrevolution.
    Nevertheless, the working classes in the countries that have set out to build socialism have made tremendous gains. Russia's working class in 1917 was 4 percent of the population. Within 50 years, it was the second-most powerful economy in the world.
    China had never been able to feed its entire population prior to the revolution. Millions died during famines in China prior to 1949. Yet after the 1949 revolution, for the first time the economy was able to feed the largest population in the world.
    Despite immense pressure from imperialism, Cuba has been able to achieve tremendous gains—despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Cuban workers enjoy among the highest living standards of any of their counterparts in Latin America or much of the oppressed world.
    The continued military and economic dominance by world imperialism—first and foremost by U.S. imperialism—has made the transition to socialism that Marx and Lenin described so far impossible. The workers' states have needed to devote a considerable part of their social development toward the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship—the army and police—in order to defend against invasion or counterrevolution.
    Taking that next step will require a society based on the dictatorship of the proletariat in the United States. Toppling the world's dominant capitalist power would not only lift a tremendous burden from the workers around the world who are trying to engage in socialist construction. It would put at the disposal of the world working class the tremendous wealth produced by the U.S. working class. All the social wealth extracted from the oppressed world by U.S. corporations and mines could be used to reverse the effects of centuries of colonial and imperialist exploitation.
    A revolution in the United States would undercut the economic basis for divisions among the working class that promote racism, sexism and homophobia.
    Socialism is a system of peace, justice and equality. The road to socialism begins with revolution in the United States.

    By anarchists, for Anarchist FAQ,

    By anarchists,

    Vol. 2 · Iss. 4
    The text below is reproduced from the Anarchist FAQ, to give an anarchist perspective on the goals for a free society.
    As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical) authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.
    Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words, "believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual." Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.
    In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.
    Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "no individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men and women who are my equals."
    While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:
    "The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official."
    In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.
    This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and, as a result, people's "mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities are dwarfed, stunted and crushed." Thus one of "the grand truths of Anarchism" is that "to be really free is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as each allows all to do the same." This is why anarchists fight for a better society, for a society which respects individuals and their freedom. Under capitalism, "everything is upon the market for sale: all is merchandise and commerce" but there are "certain things that are priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee to all." Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt, resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, "believe in peace at any price -- except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life . . . they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?"
    So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty (and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists, would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel this attitude needs any sort of explanation.
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 3
    Months after a technical glitch prevented The Red Fleet from taking the Delegate seat in The Hyatt Islands, a botched refound attempted by former REATO commander Republic of Minerva sealed the region's fate as a Fleet protectorate.
    Founded in March 2014 by Belmaria, The Hyatt Islands joined REATO in July of that year and formed an intelligence agency designed to keep tabs on raider puppets. Belmaria ceased to exist in June 2015, and a password was established by long-time delegate Netonia. The Red Fleet acquired that password and moved into The Hyatt Islands shortly after, but due to a glitch in the endorsement count system, Netonia remained in the delegate seat.
    REATO poured reinforcements into the region, enabling Netonia to establish a new, hidden password in July. Jubilant, REATO withdrew from the region before all noncooperative nations were ejected, leaving a number of high-influence nations in the region who refused to move out and only one endorsement left on the delegate. Seven months later, the remaining nations were removed.
    Fifty minutes prior to update, Minarchist States, a puppet controlled by Republic of Minerva, left the region. Wide open, The Red Fleet scrambled ships to the region's perimeter to wait for the refound. Aided by its state-of-the-art update toolkit, the Fleet effortlessly seized the region, adding it to a collection of former REATO regions that includes Anti Authoritarian Alliance, Libertarians, and The Federal Islands.
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 3
    Shortly after agreeing to construct embassies with KAISERREICH, a notorious Nazi region whose founder pled for help in Nazi Europa and the Greater German Reich that "Jewish Bolsheviks" had overrun his region in the wake of a Red Fleet tag raid, Anticom has fallen even lower as one of its top three commanders has moved to assist the Nazi occupation of Persian Empire.
    "Truthfully, I'm not a fan of working with Nazis, but I'm not in charge of Anticom," said Anticom's second-in-charge, Castlemaine. "I'm sure I could get him to work with Nazis more discreetly, if you'd prefer."
    Castlemaine showed cracks in Anticom's armor, lashing out in his comments against Anticom's head honcho, Patvarus. "Out of Patvarus and I, I'm actually the more sensible one. But I'm just the scapegoat for everything he and Dark Commander does because The Red Fleet already hates me so much."
    Between the internal strife and readiness to work with Nazis, a plan previously demonstrated to be rife with failure by REATO, Anticom's future seems certain: total destruction at the hands of leftist militaries.

    By Kyle Joseph,

    Vol. 2 · Iss. 3
    Under capitalism, poverty can erode even the steadiest structures of our lives. When people experience poverty, financial security crumbles, health dwindles, and personal motivation can spiral into disarray. As soon as we begin mending one of these problems, the others seem to pop up with increased vigor. A vicious cycle forms, without the faintest glimmer of an exit.
    This reality, known by millions of workers, points to an unsavory truth. Sometimes, our efforts to rise from poverty only end up worsening it. In the United States’ blossoming “fixer upper” market, as reported by the New York Times, this principle operates with ferocious abandon. This industry preys upon the most essential structure of all: our homes. It ensnares low-income families in a money trap, by selling them houses in need of renovation, and swiftly evicting them when repair costs interfere with mortgage payments.
    The choice between living in a rotten building, or dwelling in none whatsoever: such is the “freedom” capitalism offers consumers.
    To study this phenomenon more deeply, let’s take a look at Harbour, an investment firm that has purchased large numbers of derelict properties over the last five years. Harbour snatches these residences for a few thousand dollars a piece, before demanding several times that amount from potential occupants. The burden of making such homes “habitable” lands on these unwitting customers, who often enter into contracts with minimal awareness.
    Unsurprisingly, overhauling these houses places an enormous strain on their inhabitants. Debt climbs, finances implode, and they eventually face eviction.
    Harbour retakes control, places the building back on the market, and the cycle begins again. In Detroit, this process has been especially devastating, with 300 Harbour-owned properties currently falling short on their payments. For many of these families, a sordid future awaits.
    The inability to distribute resources efficiently is one of our economic system’s primary contradictions. Despite an abundance of houses, and plentiful means available to fix them, these abodes have become the cynical tools of predatory firms. In a country where peopleless homes outnumber homeless people, this injustice carries a particularly haunting tone.
    More and more, the U.S. public has warmed up towards the concept of socialism as the only way out of capitalism’s absurd brutality. To achieve this solution, an independent working class movement is needed, one that can push various progressive causes towards a revolutionary outlook.
    Only then will guaranteed housing cease to be a wistful “American Dream” and become a safe, secure reality.
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 2
    The Internationale, with the help of The Red Fleet, has successfully been cleared of all nations following the deletion of its second founder nation, Illa Passiflora.
    Illa Passiflora applied a secret password to the region before being deleted, making the region safe from any possible offensive Liberation proposal from the World Assembly.
    To secure the transfer of nations, eight nations were named as emergency transition officers as part of a contingency plan formulated by The Red Fleet's leadership, the Admiralty Board.
    "When La Pasionaria was deleted two and a half years ago, there was no game plan. The Red Fleet wasn't prepared to handle that loss, and it took months to lock down and clear the region. With that past experience and the introduction of Regional Officers, the Second Defense of The Internationale could not have gone smoother," explains retired Fleet Admiral Misley, now known as Caelapes. "This time around, we were able to lean on past Comrade WA Delegates and trusted friendly nations to help clear the region."
    These nations include World Anarchic Union, Comrade WA Delegate; Proletaire, Auhl, and Irish Peoples Republic, past Comrade WA Delegates; Fleet Admiral Timchiland; Korean Peoples Army General Godless Monkey; and long-time comrades Ratateague from the Democratic Socialist Assembly and Pangaean Peoples. All of these comrades have been nominated to receive the Hero of The Internationale, an award established in March 2014 for comrades coming to the defense of the region.
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 2
    Election season is now underway in The Internationale, as nominations are open for Comrade WA Delegate and three seats on the General Council.
    The General Council is The Internationale's administrative body consisting of Councillors for Information, External Affairs, and Activities, who are charged with secretarial duties regarding the region's legislation, embassies, and cultural activity, respectively. The Comrade WA Delegate is charged with holding votes on all legislative proposals and enacting the democratic will of the region's comrade members.
    Several comrades have been nominated for each position, making this one of the most hotly contested elections in The Internationale in recent memory.
    Nominations will close and voting will begin on March 9.

    By Walter Smolarek,

    Vol. 2 · Iss. 2
    With all the votes counted in South Carolina and Nevada, the rabid reactionary Donald Trump has solidified his position as the Republican frontrunner, while the Democratic primary remains hotly contested. The rules of conventional bourgeois politics continue to be upended by the Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns, against the backdrop of economic stagnation and deepening social tension.
    Any illusions that Trump's support would evaporate when it came time to vote, or that he would be seriously impaired by a weak ground operation, were decisively put to rest by the Nevada and South Carolina results. Trump beat second-place Marco Rubio in South Carolina by 10 points, walking away with all 50 of the state's delegates to the Republican National Convention. In Nevada, his margin of victory was even more significant – he received slightly more votes than the second and third place finishers combined.
    The Trump campaign has sucked up the oxygen in the Republican field, forcing several candidates out of the race. After Trump's big win in New Hampshire, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina dropped out. With a fourth-place finish in South Carolina, Jeb Bush withdrew as well.
    Bush's humiliating demise is particularly significant. He began the race as the clear favorite and by far the best financed. Along with his SuperPac, he raised an eye-popping $100 million in the first half of 2015 – under the old rules, that kind of money would be more than enough to paper over Bush's less-than-inspiring personality. But he is now walking away with just four out of 2,472 delegates.
    The conservative wing of the ruling class is reaping what they have sown. For decades, they have whipped up racist and xenophobic bigotry to justify wars and occupation abroad and divert attention at home from the real cause of the economic crisis, capitalism itself. As the living standards of the population become more precarious, the right-wing establishment has lost control of its traditional base in the political realm. The Tea Party arose in the wake of this dissatisfaction. This year, a large group of reactionary demagogues has engaged in a shocking rant of racist, anti-worker and anti-women proposals.
    But without the capitalist media, Trump could never have achieved the level of success he has gained. CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other networks have given an unprecedented level of coverage to the most rabid of capitalist politicians.
    Trump has boasted that he has had to spend virtually no money on publicity because the media does it for him. The New York Times wrote on January 4, 2016, that "After running his campaign on a shoestring for months, thanks to the news media's obsessive attention," Trump spent his first money on an ad against immigration and Muslims.
    Exit polling found that 74 percent of Republican voters in South Carolina supported a ban on Muslims entering the United States. That specific demand came from Trump's mouth on national television, over and over. And he first shocked millions when he shouted vile accusations against Mexicans, calling for all 11 million undocumented workers to be expelled.
    Nationally, 20 percent of Trump supporters disapprove of the Emancipation Proclamation (yes, seriously). This is far more extreme than the consensus view among the Republican elite, but it is a monster of their own creation.
    Much of the establishment is now going all-out for Rubio in a last-ditch effort to avoid a Trump candidacy – or Cruz, who is viewed with similar disdain. However, others are grudgingly coming to terms with the likelihood of a Trump victory.
    Chris Christie, whose potential centrist appeal made him the early favorite of the Republican Party leadership before the "Bridge-gate" scandal, announced a surprise endorsement of Donald Trump on Feb. 26. They both employ a bombastic style for public consumption, but at the summit of bourgeois politics decisions are rarely made on the basis of personality. In his endorsement speech, Christie said that Trump is "Rewriting the playbook of American politics." This is the era of Trump, Christie is arguing, and we just have to get used to it.
    Fierce fight for Democratic nomination
    The narrative of the corporate media is that Nevada and South Carolina restored Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee, and her tie and loss in Iowa and New Hampshire were just outliers. This is not true – national polls show her in a dead heat with Sanders, and some with her trailing. However, the Sanders campaign did suffer a serious blow with Clinton's landslide win in South Carolina.
    In Nevada, Sanders rapidly overcame a huge Clinton lead and institutional support to put the state into serious contention. In the end, he narrowly lost by about 5 percent.
    While this was a welcome relief to the Clinton campaign, which feared a surprise loss, the results also contained some positive indicators for Sanders. Most importantly, he won the Latino vote. A key deficiency of the Sanders campaign has been the overwhelmingly white composition of its supporters. Nevada showed that he is making progress towards addressing this weakness.
    Clinton won big in South Carolina with 74 percent of the vote. This convincing victory (as well as her narrow win in Nevada) is mainly the result of her enormous lead over Sanders among Black voters. African Americans compose 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, and they favored Clinton by an 87-13 margin.
    Whenever the Clinton machine has occupied a position of power, it has waged unrelenting war on Black people. Hillary Clinton supported her husband's successful efforts to gut the welfare system, justified in large part by the racist "welfare queen" myth. She is a long-time supporter of mass incarceration and piled on to the hysteria about teenage "super predators" at the zenith of the racist war on drugs – as Back Lives Matter protesters have pointed out in recent days. As Secretary of State, she was the main voice in the Obama administration for the U.S./NATO war that destroyed Libya, and committed massive violations of Haitian sovereignty. How could Clinton have such overwhelming support in this constituency?
    Few things terrify the ruling class as much as independent Black political organization, and so it has been a top priority for the Democratic Party elite to co-opt organizations and leaders, including many that used to be enemies of white supremacy and capitalism. The party establishment has developed a stranglehold on the Black vote, and Clinton is their clear favorite. In addition, Clinton has opportunistically cast herself as a committed supporter of President Obama, defending him from the racist obstructionism of the Republican Party.
    But she backed Bill Clinton's presidency and neo-liberal policies that were devastating to the Black community and other working-class communities. Accelerating the death penalty and virtually abolishing Habeas Corpus, greatly expanding mass incarceration, signing regressive legislation against undocumented workers as well as permanent residents, abolishing essential social programs and throwing millions of Black and other poor women off general assistance, lifting restrictions on the banks, maintaining the genocidal sanctions on the Iraqi people for years, waging war on Yugoslavia: this was just part of Bill Clinton's anti-worker legacy.
    Only now, in the wake of mass protests against police murders of Black youth and rising consciousness in the population against mass imprisonment, as well as Sanders' demands that have captured an overwhelming majority of youth, is Hillary Clinton now giving lip service to some of those issues.
    Coming up is by far the biggest contest yet – the "Super Tuesday" votes taking place in 14 states and the U.S. colony Samoa on March 1. Clinton is poised to continue her winning streak, but Sanders is expected to do well in states that vote later in the process. On the Republican side, Trump is ahead in most polls in almost all the states.
    It appears to only be a matter of time before the campaigns of John Kasich and Ben Carson come to an end. Kasich has campaigned as a mild-mannered anti-Trump, and his votes would likely go to Rubio. The longer he stays in the race, the more remote a Rubio nomination becomes.
    "The media and the right wing keep pumping up the Trump campaign and the wave of violent bigotry it has provoked. The Democratic Party is incapable of leading the militant fight back we need," said Gloria La Riva, 2016 presidential candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. "I'm committed to building that movement and the movement for a whole new system – socialism – where workers and oppressed people, not the billionaires, are in charge."
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 1
    The Red Fleet, together with their comrades-in-arms, the Korean Peoples Army of North Korea, have launched twin attacks on vulnerable enemy regions. Durruti and Ironclad Squadrons of The Red Fleet together with the Korean Peoples Army are currently occupying League of Northern European Nations, a member region of Third Rome's Gold-level member The Steel Imperivm. At the same time, Ibárurri Squadron is occupying Hayek Islands, a member of the shrinking REAGAN Treaty Organization (REATO).
    Following a successful tag raid by The Red Fleet late last year, Conservative League voted to withdraw from REATO after realizing that they were under the Fleet's crosshairs due to their affiliation with the destructive alliance that is responsible for destroying regions unrelated to their conflict with the NS Left. At publication, a vote is ongoing in The Greater Empire to withdraw from REATO with four votes in favor and no votes against.
    With the withdrawal of IRU, Conservative League, and the Greater Empire, only Libertatem andThe Hyatt Islands/Hayek Islands pair remain in REATO. The Hyatt Islands has been locked and slowly draining for months after its founder ceased to exist, and Hayek Islands never regained the activity that its predecessor had.
    The twin occupations are proof that The Red Fleet and their allies continue to be a formidable military power in NationStates.
    Vol. 2 · Iss. 1
    Marxist Aequalitatem, a former Squadron Admiral of The Red Fleet, has been outed as Delete-On-Sight player Lipno.
    Lipno was formerly the First Secretary and Minister of Defence of The Communist Region and led The Leftist Union's Red Army in their aggressive campaign against REATO this time last year. He was labeled Delete-On-Sight, the harshest punishment available in NationStates, a year ago Sunday for unknown reasons.
    Marxist Aequalitatem joined The Internationale and The Red Fleet in June 2015, but gave no indications that he was Lipno returned. His Red Fleet rate application and account details showed that he lived in California, which did not match the last known location of Lipno.
    His position on the Admiralty Board was suspended following The Red Fleet's tag raid of Conservative League, when other admirals questioned his failure to move a nation into the region. The answer to their question was found when Christian Democratic Republic, the former President of Conservative League, was swept with MA's other puppets, revealing that MA had been infiltrating the REATO region without the Fleet's sanction or knowledge.
    After Marxist Aequalitatem was deleted, The Red Fleet expelled him from the Fleet with extreme prejudice. "We do not, have not, and will never cooperate with Delete-On-Sight players. We are victims of Lipno's deceit just as much as Conservative League was," explained Fleet Admiral Misley.
    In the wake of the revelation, procedures have been established to heighten security of the Fleet's officer corps to ensure that a similar mistake is not repeated.