Letters of February 12

To Be A Communist, Advocate It!
On January 20, I attended a local NAACP meeting honoring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It proved to be an enlightening and uplifting experience. I described the rise of racism and the racist prison-industrial complex.
Initially I hesitated to raise the question of communist revolution as the way to end racist oppression. Then I thought, “What’s the point of being a communist if you’re not going to advocate communism?”
I then explained that the only real way to eradicate racism was through a genuine communist revolution that would place the workers in power and attempt to create an egalitarian society. I made the case that it was the capitalist system which breeds racism to enrich the ruling elite and divide the workers.
I also pointed out that groups like the Klan and the Nazis would not be holding rallies in a communist society and that racism would be outlawed. Those who advocate it would be severely punished. Most seemed to agree with these sentiments.
None of those present, a good number being black workers, were shocked or turned off by my comments. I told them I would get them an issue of CHALLENGE, which I said did an excellent job making the case for a communist revolution and always took a strong stand against racism.
I realized that it’s necessary to have confidence in the workers — though they’re inundated with bourgeois ideology and anti-communism — to understand our communist views.
Of course, they wanted to know how this revolution would come about. I replied that there had been successful revolutions of this sort in the past, and that there could be in the future when millions were won to this perspective.
Some seemed skeptical but were open to hearing my viewpoint.
I realized that I would need to be more open about my communist politics. For me, this was a major step forward.
Red Coal
Internationalism Ignites Commitment
I have been involved in international work since I joined PLP. To be honest, it was the international work that brought me into the Party. I was at a May Day dinner and was listening to someone give an amazing speech over the work that was developing abroad. I was captivated and motivated by what I was hearing.  Within the next couple of months I found myself participating in an international Summer Project. I found myself more invested in the work but also it was a bit nerve-racking. There is so much potential for growth but also the constant threat of fascism that could cause everything to crumble, with many lives at stake.
Throughout my trips abroad, I developed strong relationships with the individuals who were just as invested as I was. They became my second family in my new home away from home. Our trust was built on the foundation of our decision to fight back against the bosses, in favor of the international working class. 
My commitment was not tested until the end of the last Summer Project. The day before we were to fly back home, we were assisting some comrades with a project at one of their universities. It started off as a normal day with nothing major planned. Around noon, we heard that there were some demonstrators in front of the university posing as students to agitate some soldiers.
The students on the campus we were visiting closed the gates and told everyone to remain inside to avoid being associated with what was happening. We heard shouting, drums, and the sound of tanks rolling down the street. An older comrade and I were in the courtyard chatting. Then we saw a student look over the tall fence and start running toward the building. There was much confusion. Then we heard from one of the students that we should get inside as soon as possible because the soldiers were heading to the university. 
But before we had a chance to ask why, we heard rubber bullets hitting the fence.  Students began running into the building at full speed. I made sure that the older comrade was in front of me so that she wouldn’t be left behind because she could not run as fast as the rest of us. I was also preparing myself in case I got hit. Luckily, we made it into the building without being hurt.  
This was a defining moment in the growth of my commitment. I thought to myself, “What if this happens again?” The older comrades — and even the younger ones — aren’t always going to be able to get away from danger so easily. This was when I knew I was in it for the long run. I have shared my commitment with my comrades here and abroad. It isn’t going to be easy, but is bringing us one step closer to getting the type of world that all workers deserve.
International red
Imperialist Rivalry Behind Ukraine Fight
The U.S. actions in the Ukraine are a continuation of a decades-long imperial dogfight over the strategically important states of Eastern Europe. Current efforts to topple the Ukrainian government, which U.S. imperialists deem to be too friendly to Russia, has resurrected some familiar themes in this struggle. In the U.S. press, Russia is depicted as an evil imperial force “bullying” the Ukraine into submission (NYT, 11/19/13). This is juxtaposed with the well-intentioned Americans and Western Europeans who only want to bring “democracy and prosperity” to the former Soviet bloc.
The fact that U.S. diplomats are in the Ukraine publicly calling for the overthrow of a democratically elected government in order to replace it with one more servile to Western interests does not seem to faze leading papers like the New York Times. The history of U.S. intervention in Eastern Europe toppling popularly elected regimes in Bulgaria and Albania is completely forgotten (The Communist, 2012).
Newspapers carefully avoid mentioning fascists such as the virulent Ukrainian anti-Semite Oleh Tyahnybok who paraded around with Sen. John McCain on his recent visit to the country (Counterspin, 12/20). Just as they forgot to mention former Nazi Laszlo Pasztor who became U.S. imperialists’ man in Bulgaria or Albanian fascist Sali Barisha, and so forth.
The current fiasco in the Ukraine is the latest effort by the U.S. imperialists’ to place “the vipers, the bloodsuckers, the middlemen” the people that “make our kind of country click” in charge of the country. These words were spoken by Bruce Gelb, a U.S. capitalist and diplomat, while plotting to undermine the collapsing Soviet republics as head of the U.S. Information Agency in 1990 — and they are as true today as they were then. Whatever happens in the Ukraine, one thing is clear: workers in Ukraine will lose.
Red Beard
The Kennedy Assassination: Conspiracy?
This is a response to the December 11 CHALLENGE editorial “Rulers Use JFK Assassination Anniversary to Fuel War Drive” which argues that the Kennedy assassination was the work of a conspiratorial group of domestic oil interests angry over Kennedy’s threat to end their oil depletion allowance (tax break).
This argument advocates a mechanical view of history that reduces the dynamics of class conflict and inter-imperialist rivalries to the choices of a small group of individuals.
CIA coups and secret meetings of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations show that the bosses “conspire” on a regular basis. However, as Marx said, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please.”
The conspiratorial thinking pushed by the media teaches the working class that the bosses are all-powerful and that we are helpless to stop them. Marx’s dialectical approach teaches us to look at both the necessity of economic laws and the contingent role played by other forces. This helps us see the cracks in the capitalist system and gives the working class the tools to destroy it.
The oil depletion allowance was first introduced in 1926 to stimulate oil production in the U.S. Under this allowance, 27.5% of annual oil revenue was tax exempt. For almost 50 years, the oil industry — from oil industrialists like Rockefeller to newer oil bosses like H.L. Hunt — all profited from this tax break. The Kennedy family was also invested in “domestic” oil and in 1950 purchased Arctic Oil and later Kenoil and Mokeen, all of which drilled primarily in Texas and Louisiana.
Following World War II, there were multiple attempts, both by presidents and Congress, to reduce this oil allowance. In 1950, President Truman proposed to cut the allowance almost in half. None of these individuals were assassinated.
As President, Kennedy faced a balance of payments crisis — more dollars were leaving the U.S than coming in. This crisis was the product of economic attacks by U.S. imperialist rivals. So Kennedy pushed to expand U.S. exports with a more open “free-trade” policy.
Kennedy understood that in the context of the Cold War, “free-trade” was necessary to prevent developing nations from siding with U.S. rivals like Russia. Many in the oil industry favored trade restrictions, specifically on foreign oil imports. However, too many limits on imports might drive large oil-producing nations like Venezuela into the arms of U.S. rivals.
Following the Suez oil crisis, serious debate ensued within the ruling class over the national security implications of oil policy: whether to protect the domestic oil market by taxing imported oil or to encourage imports to preserve domestic reserves. The debate in this period was not split neatly between “domestic” oilmen and “international” finance, as the next example will show.
In 1962, Kennedy began pushing for new trade legislation and brokered a deal with Oklahoma oil magnate Senator Robert Kerr. Kerr is a prominent figure in much JFK conspiracy literature and rubbed shoulders with oil moguls who conspiracy theorists claim helped murder Kennedy. Unlike President Truman who ignored the demands of Texas oil bosses a decade earlier, Kennedy agreed to meet their demands and to increase restrictions on foreign oil imports.
In exchange, Senator Kerr agreed to drum up support for Kennedy’s Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It was this act that led to U.S. participation in the GATT international trade negotiations, allowing the U.S. to knock down global barriers to trade in the name of U.S. imperialist expansion. This Kennedy-Kerr deal demonstrates just how interconnected the interests of “domestic” oil were with broader international goals of U.S. imperialism.
In early 1963, Kennedy proposed a comprehensive tax plan to improve the unemployment rate and to help fix the U.S. balance of payments. His proposals promised to drastically lower corporate tax rates and to cut overall taxes by $13.6 billion. His plan also proposed complex changes that would effectively reduce the oil allowance by 5%. This was the first time as President that Kennedy had attempted to make any changes to the oil allowance.
There was some backlash among the oil lobbies and in the press. Much of the fighting was inside the Kennedy Administration itself, as Kennedy-appointed bureaucrats fought over changes in oil policy (“Note Reveals Split Over Oil Policy,” The Spokesman-Review, 3/14/1963). But his proposal did not “threaten to eliminate” the allowances and the issue died a few months later after Kennedy abandoned the tax proposal.
Facing economic recession, the oil allowance was cut for the first time in 1969 from 27.5% to 22%. And in 1974, the oil allowance was finally eliminated. No one involved in eliminating the oil depletion allowance was assassinated.
The idea that U.S. domestic oil interests assassinated Kennedy because he was going to eliminate their tax break both inaccurately describes the actual Kennedy administration’s policies and distorts the interpenetration of ruling-class interests within the U.S. around questions of inter-imperialist rivalries.
The Progressive Labor Party’s theory that inter-imperialist rivalries drive world events is a critical tool in understanding the development of the world situation. Conspiratorial thinking does not add to this understanding, but limits it in severe ways. We must always struggle to provide the best dialectical and historical understanding of the world to the working class.
A Challenge Reader

CHALLENGE Comment: In response to the criticism, the essence of the editorial was not “who killed Kennedy” but how the finance capital wing of the ruling class is using the anniversary of his assassination to promote the drive towards war. The first five paragraphs deal with this and revive JFK’s militaristic appeals for “sacrifice” and “service.” It details what “sacrifice” means for the working class but also says this “won’t solve all their [the ruling class’s] problems. For U.S. capitalism to survive, they know they must discipline their own ranks.”
The editorial notes this discipline relative to JPMorgan Chase, as it does later on in citing Kennedy’s disciplining U.S. Steel in the Sixties. Both these outfits are part of that main wing. While the ruling class holds state power, it is not monolithic. Overall the editorial pointed out that there is a split among sections of the capitalist class depending on where they make their main profits and who represents the longer-range interests of the survival of their system.
Then, in the sixth paragraph, it cites a similar split in the 1960s related to “JFK’s reported plans to revoke the oil depletion allowance.” Then it says, “According to one theory, Kennedy was killed by domestic oil interests who were unwilling to cut their profits for the imperialist cause.” We don’t say who killed JFK, just that he had many enemies who could have done it. There is plenty of evidence of how — in the weeks before the assassination — Texas oil interests led by H. L. Hunt engaged in a widespread campaign to attack Kennedy. An ad appeared in Dallas newspapers with Kennedy’s picture, saying “Wanted for Treason.” Maybe no one got killed over the oil depletion issue directly, but the Hunts were nearly bankrupted after their failed move to corner the silver market.
Let’s assume these forces were not behind the assassination. But the fact is, some forces were looking to kill him, unless one believes that Oswald — a patsy if there ever was one — did the deed by his lonesome. Later the editorial says, “The dominant wing of U.S. bosses wants to portray JFK’s murder as something other than a fight within the ruling class. Leading Wall Street banker and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy argued that it was ‘beneficial for domestic tranquility to conclude that Oswald acted alone’” (New York Times, 8/20/97). McCloy was a top member of the ruling class. He was picked to oversee U.S. actions in post-World War II Germany and was CEO of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. So his views certainly represented the rulers’ main wing.
Obviously McCloy (and at least some of his cohorts on the Commission) seemingly had concluded (or knew?) that some people other than Oswald had conspired to kill Kennedy. However, they didn’t want the general populace to understand that there were ruling forces who had cause to eliminate him, even if conflict over the oil depletion allowance was not a factor.
The editorial, in detailing all the divisions within the ruling class, then and now, and even divisions within the main wing itself, follows the letter-writer’s quote of Marx’s approach that, “Men make their own history but they do not make it just as they please.” It is difficult to get away from the fact that somebody or “bodies” did “conspire” to kill Kennedy. Various representatives of the ruling class conspire all the time, as the letter-writer points out.
The letter says that, “Conspiratorial thinking does not add to….understanding the development of the world situation” and conflicts with PLP’s “theory that inter-imperialist rivalries drive world events.” But the fact remains that various capitalist forces DO have cause to fight each other, and conspire to do so. If the ruling class wants to hide its own behind-the-scene machinations, it will use the notion of “conspiracy” in a way that stigmatizes that idea.
“Conspiracy” is not limited to “thinking” but represents actions by various forces. From a communist point of view, it is important that the working class understands that and uses it to both expose and oppose all capitalists who engage in our oppression. This counters the outlook that “the bosses are all-powerful and that we are helpless to stop them.” To the contrary, understanding that there are divisions among the rulers, and what’s behind those divisions, does “help us to see the cracks in the capitalist system and gives the working class the tools to destroy it.”