¡Solidaridad con los trabajadores de Vestas! Desde la ciudad de Porto y de Portugal.

Fotos tomadas junto al Porto de Leixões (el segundo mayor puerto de mercancias de Portugal) cerca de la ciudad de Matosinhos

Fotos tomadas en la playa del Castelo do Queijo entre las ciudades de Porto y Matosinhos

Comunicado del PCPE:

El Partido Comunista (PCPE) y la Juventud Comunista (CJC) mostramos nuestra solidaridad, apoyo y total disposición con los trabajadores de Vestas. La intención del monopolio danés de trasladar tres de las cuatro líneas a factorías chinas supondrá, si nuestra lucha no avanza, la pérdida de cientos de puestos de trabajo, dejando la fábrica en mínimos y con serio riesgo de cierre en el futuro.

La motivación del cierre de las cuatro líneas es estrictamente económico. La empresa ha recibido millonarias ayudas públicas y ha obtenido un beneficio récord en 2016, con un 41% más que el año anterior. Sin embargo la voracidad capitalista pone en riesgo la vida y el futuro de cientos de familias en León.

Este caso constituye una muestra más de las agresiones hacia la clase trabajadora que en los últimos años se llevan dando sistemáticamente bajo la ya recurrente excusa de las pérdidas económicas por parte de la empresa que inexorablemente conducen en el total de los casos a la destrucción de puestos de trabajo y/o a la progresiva precarización de los mismos. Ejemplos sólo en León: Everest, Mondelez, embutidos Rodríguez, el sector de la minería, del telemarketing,…

Sin embargo hay esperanza y futuro. La esperanza está en la lucha que iniciamos. El futuro en su organización. Luchar porque es todo lo que nos queda cuando nos lo quitan todo. Organizarnos porque es la única forma de vencer. Organizarnos en la asamblea de trabajadores para decidirlo todo, organizarnos en las estructuras sindicales para participar de todo. Porque si somos los que creamos toda la riqueza en Vestas, ¡tenemos derecho a decidirlo todo sobre Vestas!

¡No a la deslocalización!

¡Ni un sólo despido!

Fuente: PCPE

Advertisements

A few notes on social-democracy and fascism in the world war two and afterwards


– The treacherous role of Finland as a bourgeois democracy (particularly of the finnish social-democratic party) during world war two – in helping the nazis strategically attack key places of the Soviet Union.
– The Nobel Peace Prize managed by Sweden and Norway is worthy of the level of outrageous lies of nazi-propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. By the way, Sweden is among the biggest arms exproters in the world. Sweden, Norway and Denmark were directly involved in NATO’s criminal war against Libya in 2011.
– The greek fascist Metaxas regime opposed the entry of the italian army of Mussolini that was allied with nazi Germany. This proves that fascism is ruled by the same laws than any other capitalist forms of power. The main contradiction that always expresses itself among bourgeois forces is not between bourgoies ideologies but between bourgeois economic interests (individual, group, sector and most of all national bourgeois interests as expression of bourgeois class interests).
– In a similiar logic but taking a different side was the decision of the brazilian fascist regime of Vargas (“Estado Novo”) that supported the allies (specifically the United States) against the nazis and the japanese despite the fact that the brazilian fascist regime of Estado Novo already had had deep relations and colaborated with the nazis and had send Olga Benário (a german communist of jewish origin) to the nazi concetration camps. The brazilian fascist regime of Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas had nazi cadres among its state apparatus and commited horrendus crimes in colaboration with the nazis. So what explains the decision of brazilian fascist regime of Vargas to support the allies (the United States) in the war against the nazis? Bourgeois economic interests. The history of Vargas himself is the history of a bourgeois polititian that was given the freedom to portray himself as liberal, fascist and social-democrat. The point is bourgeois ideologies are meaningless seen as a orientation of spectific people or specific economic sectors. The bourgeois class, as whole or in each sector or faction, will change the suport of any of their ideologies, changing from one to another, in a heartbeat according to the short term profits of any given new economic or political context.

The falsification of history versus the history of the falsificators

Let’s look at the history of the worldwide communist movement, shall we?

How many socialist revolutions were lead by trotskists? Zero.

How many socialist countries were lead by trotskists? Zero.

How many independence movements were lead by trotskists? Zero.

How many independence movements lead by trotskists achieved their countries’ independence? Zero.

Now how many of all these things were lead by communist parties in alliance with the Soviet Union and supported by Stalin? Dozens. Dozens and dozens and dozens.

1 third of the world was socialist, Africa was swept by independence armed struggle (and won independence!) mostly with support of the Soviet Union but even with the support of Cuba in Angola, in Asia the independence struggle lead by communist parties defeated the US army and lead directly to form socialist countries.

How can we still put up with these lies about “socialism in one country being imposible”? What does this means? Cuba was imposible all these years lead by Fidel? When a relatively small and poor (third world) country like Cuba saved Angola from the invasion of the south african apartheid army was that imposible? Socialism was imposible in Vietnam but didn’t that self-identified vietnamese socialism defeat the U.S. army? Why is it imposible for the trotskists? What do they really mean and want with those attacks agaisnt the efforts of communist parties?

I know what they mean by imposible! They mean don’t expropriate the capitalists because socialism is imposible in one country . They mean don’t socialize the land because socialism is imposible in one country. They mean leave the class enemies free to regroup, to reorganize and counter-attack and destroy the state power of the communists and of the working class because socialism is imposible in one country. Because “socialism is imposible in one country” that is waht they say, and this is the lie and pretext to make the socialist revolution either imposible or the mantaining in power of communists and workers imposible because while they play on the “waiting” for wonderful regional socialist federations to form or fail to form the workers revolution leaves the capitalists and landowners free for counter-revolution.

Building socialism after workers took power by revolution isn’t just a matter of distant far away mythical dreams of a communist classless society, it is a matter of class struggle! It is a matter of defeating the capitalist class, defeating all the exploiters, and deepening socialism in a way that puts them down and keeps them down! It is a matter of repressing the exploiters like the dictatorship of the proletariat means by itself! And that is why trotskists oppose “socialism in one country” and that is why trotskists attacked Stalin’s agriculture collectivization! Trotskists attacked Stalin and the idea of socialism in the Soviet Union to defend the capitalists and the landowners, to defend the exploiters! The attack against socialism in one country is an attack against Lenin’s own words (see what Lenin wrote “on the slogan of a united states of Europe”) and is an attack against the very class struggle that makes a workers state capable to support socialist revolution and the building of socialism in other countries, in other words it is an attack against the workers state hability to be strong to support other socialist revolutions in the border countries and around the world.

Being against “socialism in one country” is a disonest excuse to be against socialism anywhere and at any time. The point of being against socialism in one country is to be against socialism always by claiming there is never enough conditions to build socialism anywhere.

In the XX century at one point one third of humanity was in socialist countries, this red land mass and red population was a platform for tremendous struggles, massive working class movements even in capitalists countries (developed or not), massive independence movements swept the planet, the nazis were militarily defeated and even the U.S. was militarily defeated in Vietnam, little Cuba was crucial to defeat militarily the apartheid in South Africa. But all that the trotskist liers, traitors, anti-communists and counter-revolutionaires have to say is to slander all these struggles they took no part in.

I mean look at their movement! They are ridiculous! There are about 20 active trotskist internationals, there are about 30 inactive or defunct trotskist internationals and dozens of trotskist groups not affiliated to any international. Each trotskist international might range from 20 “national sections” to only 3 “national sections”. You add up all these useless trotskists groups and might get more than 100 of them and you will hardly find one of them that actually exists in one country and not in the clouds of a fake “international” that has that many members such as 100!

I mean all the trotskists groups talk about creating a mass revolutionary workers party and all their history is evidence of their complete failure even in that first goal. It is
laughable to talk of workers revolution with these trotskist opportunists. They are a complete fraud! This doesn’t depend on their intentions, this is proven history, these are facts! The whole point of trotskism is to pick up marxist terminology and use it to dress a completely useless theory. The only usefulness of trotskism is in support of capitalism, particularly social-democracy as the cornerstone of “democratic” capitalism.

Basic trotskist issues

Trotskism is a parasite. It basicly can’t exist in a separate form without preying on other organizations, mostly much bigger organizations, in the same way a leech preys on a bigger animal. Within this logic trotskism has two basic feeding grounds: social-democratic parties and communist parties (generally called by the trots as “stalinists” regardless of wether they are maoists, pro-albanians, pro-soviet, pro-cubans, eurocommunists, pro-BRICS, etc).

On the other hands trotskism is very fragamented, wich is the natural result of their “sacred principle” of developing multi-tendency parties as a normal state of existance. This fragmentation is justified ideologically by trotskists (otherwise it would expose their petit-bourgeois sect-minded opportunism and personal carrerism) in a way that basicly divides trotskism in two poles: manistream trotskism that is basicly social-democracy disguised with marxist terminology and “ortodox” trotskism that are more isolated groups that borrow temporarily some anarchist features and some anarchist-related socialist utopian views. There is plenty of trotskist groups that blend mainstream with ortodox trotskist features and there is constant movement between the two poles – this constant movement describes the design of the plans of the masters of th trotskists that is the social-democratic movement.

Trotskism is like the unborn son of social-democracy that will never be born because it’s role is minor and will always be minor. Trotskism is in essence menshevism, menshevism that infiltrated the bolshevik movement and claimed its right to lead bolshevism to dismantle it and destroy it, in essence that is simply what the mensheviks always did when the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party existed with the two factions. Trotskism is a special force of the social-democratic army tasked with minor missions and minor roles, the kind of minor changes that communist movement history taught us that accumlate and become big opportunist attacks from within communist parties.

Mainstream trotskism is based on Europe – and that means that all trotskism is based in Europe because mainstream trotskism is the larger part of the whole trotskist movement. In Europe trotskism was historically mostly linked with the big social-democratic bourgeois parties (and still is with some of them) but today trotskism is blended with the eurocommunist parties in the so called “Party of the European Left”. Trotskism is a faction within all major parties of the “Party of the European Left” and other similar ones outside the PEL.

Examples:
Syriza
Podemos
Rifondazione Comunista, Potere al Popolo
PCF, La France Insoumise
Die Linke
Socialist Party (Holland)
Red–Green Alliance (Denmark)

The theory behind trotskist socialist federations, Trosky versus Lenin on the slogan of a United States of Europe

“But while the slogan of a republican United States of Europe—if accompanied by the revolutionary overthrow of the three most reactionary monarchies in Europe, headed by the Russian—is quite invulnerable as a political slogan, there still remains the highly important question of its economic content and significance. From the standpoint of the economic conditions of imperialism—i.e., the export of capital and the division of the world by the “advanced” and “civilised” colonial powers—a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.”

(…)

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

It is for these reasons and after repeated discussions at the conference of R,S.D.L.P. groups abroad, and following that conference, that the Central Organ’s editors have come to the conclusion that the slogan for a United States of Europe is an erroneous one.”

Lenin
On the Slogan for a United States of Europe
Published: Sotsial-Demokrat No. 44, August 23, 1915. Published according to the text in Sotsial-Demokrat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

My commentary: I publish a part of an introduction of “What’s Next” (some site or group) to the article of Trotsky because it poses a valuable observation on Trotsky’s centrism: “The key point is that the programme for this United States of Europe is neither the programme of socialism nor a reformist programme”.

Introduction by What’s Next?
In the following article, Trotsky transcends the maximalist minimalist dilemma by filling his slogan of a United States of Europe with a transitional content. Arguing that “The United States of Europe is a slogan in every respect corresponding with the slogan ‘A Workers’ (or Workers’ and Peasants’) Government’”. He, for instance, says that “The Europe of Workers and Peasants will have its … budget …, based upon a graduated income tax, upon levies capital.” Clearly, if capital still exists in this Europe then this is not the socialist Europe of the far distant future but a revolutionary Europe where the economy still conflicts with the state. In other words, though, it signifies a workers’ state and not merely a self-professed workers’ government that has been elected under the bourgeois political order and begrudgingly allowed to “govern” within constraints set by the dominant power, i.e., not really a workers’ government. Trotsky’s United States of Europe is a Europe that is in transition from the social dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to that of the proletariat. The key point is that the programme for this United States of Europe is neither the programme of socialism nor a reformist programme.

The article of Trotsky, significant quotes:

“‘The United States Of Europe’
The motor force driving to war was this, that the capitalist forces of production had outgrown the framework of European national states. Germany had set herself the task of “organizing” Europe, i.e., of uniting economically the European continent under her own control, in order then seriously to set about contending with Britain for world power. France’s aim was to dismember Germany. The small population of France, her predominantly agricultural character and her economic conservatism, make it impossible for the French bourgeoisie even to consider the problem of organising Europe, which indeed proved to be beyond the powers of German capitalism, backed though it was by the military machine of the Hohenzollerns. Victorious France is now maintaining her mastery only by Balkanising Europe. Great Britain is inciting and backing the French policy of dismembering and exhausting Europe, all the time concealing her work. In connection with the slogan of “A Workers’, and Peasants’ Government”, the time is appropriate, in my opinion, for issuing the slogan of “The United States of Europe”. Only by coupling these two slogans shall we get a definite systematic and progressive response to the most burning problems of European development.

The last imperialist war was at bottom a European war. The episodic participation of America and Japan did not alter its European character.

Having secured what she required, America withdrew her hands from the European bonfire and returned home.

Britain’s traditional mask of hypocrisy. As a result, our unfortunate continent is cut up, divided, exhausted, disorganised and Balkanised – transformed into a madhouse. The invasion of the Ruhr is a piece of violent insanity accompanied by far-sighted calculation (the final ruination of Germany), a combination not unfamiliar to psychiatrists.

At bottom of the war lay the need of the productive forces for a broader arena of development, unhampered by tariff walls. Similarly, in the occupation of the Ruhr so fatal to Europe and to mankind, we find a distorted expression of the need for uniting the coal of the Ruhr with the iron of Lorraine. Europe cannot develop economically within the state and customs frontiers imposed at Versailles. Europe is compelled either to remove these frontiers, or to face the threat of complete economic decay. But the methods adopted by the ruling bourgeoisie to overcome the frontiers it itself had created are only increasing the existing chaos and accelerating the disintegration.

To the toiling masses of Europe it is becoming ever clearer that the bourgeoisie is incapable of solving the basic problems of restoring Europe’s economic life. The slogan: “A Workers’, and Peasants’, Government” is designed to meet the growing attempts of the workers to find a way out by, their own efforts. It has now become necessary to point out this avenue of salvation more concretely, namely, to assert that only in the closest economic co-operation of the peoples of Europe lies the avenue of salvation for our continent from economic decay and from enslavement to mighty American capitalism.”

Leon Trotsky
Is The Time Ripe For The Slogan:
‘The United States Of Europe’?
(A Discussion Article)
(June 1923)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/06/europe.htm

The trotskist idea of “regional socialist federation”, trotskism and Tito’s Yugoslavia

Quote from the book “International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement” from the author Robert J. Alexander, published in September of 1991:

Between the 1948 and 1951 Meetings

The Yugoslav Question

The next congress of the Fourth International did not take place until 1951. In the interim at least two important events which occurred are worthy of some note. These are the Trotskyists’ reaction to the Titoite defection from Stalinism and the break of Natalia Sedova Trotsky with the Fourth International.

Only two months after the end of the Second World Congress of the Fourth International the Cominform declared the “excommunication” of the Yugoslav Communist Party and the Tito regime from the ranks of orthodox Stalinism. This event, totally unexpected by the Trotskyists as by virtually all other outside observers, had the immediate effect of arousing great hope and support in Trotskyist ranks.

The Secretariat of the Fourth International dispatched a series of open letters to the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party. These sought a rapprochement with the Yugoslav party. That of July 13 went “into painstaking detail on what the Stalinist regime should do. It should adopt the road of the class struggle; it should establish full workers’ democracy; it should nationalize the land; it should organize a Balkan Socialist Federation; it should adopt all the principles of Leninism; it should start a ‘vast campaign of re-education’; there should be a ‘real mass mobilization, to be brought about by your party.’ ”

The Fourth International assured the Titoites that “your party has nothing to fear from such a development. The confidence of the masses in it will grow enormously and it will become the effective collective expression of the interests and desires of the proletariat of its country.”

In its September 1948 open letter to Tito and his followers the Fourth International urged them to give up “party monolithism.” It told them that “If you cling to this conception you will head inexorably toward the foundering of your revolution and of your own party.”[4®]

The Trotskyists established contacts with the Titoites. The Fourth International had some relations with the Yugoslav Embassy in Paris. The International and the Embassy jointly arranged for sending work brigades of young French Trotskyists to Yugoslavia during the summer of 1950.[49]

But the courting of the Yugoslavs by the Trotskyists did not last for long. By early 1952 Michel Pablo was noting that “the Yugoslav c p caught between internal difficulties and the increasing pressure of imperialism began to give ground to the latter.” The Tito leadership, Pablo added, had been brought to “break the class front.”[50]

Sources:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=_eUtQjseKaIC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=trotsky+balkan+socialist+federation&source=bl&ots=AgPQXW4LHB&sig=j8UhyuieJ69OxOUoOoY3zgkYicA&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-9d-kwpfdAhXIFywKHS_BC-sQ6AEwD3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=trotsky%20balkan%20socialist%20federation&f=false

https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/robert-j-alexander-international-trotskyism-1929-1985-a-documentary-history-of-the-movement.pdf

1930: El pensamiento comunista-estadounidense sobre Puerto Rico

José Anazagasty Rodríguez PUBLICADO: 4 DE MAYO DE 2018

Parte 1

El Partido Comunista de los Estados Unidos (PCEU) ha denunciado y condenado la colonización de Puerto Rico a lo largo de toda su historia, solidarizándose con los trabajadores y los independentistas puertorriqueños. Apenas unos meses atrás, Carol Ramos, una activista puertorriqueña vinculada al PCEU, aseveró que apoyar a los puertorriqueños era parte del movimiento de resistencia, lo que los comunistas debían expresar con su obra política. Ciertamente, varios líderes del PCEU, como William Z. Foster y Gus Hall, así lo han expresado a lo largo de la historia del partido.

En dos artículos previos para 80grados examiné los escritos de esos dos dirigentes comunistas sobre Puerto Rico. En “El Fanguito y los Comunistas” detallé cómo William Z. Foster, Secretario General del partido entre 1945 y 1957, describió su experiencia en el arrabal puertorriqueño. En “Unbelievable Slums” examiné cómo Gus Hall, que dirigió el PCEU por más de 40 años, representó la pobreza y los arrabales puertorriqueños en los primeros años de la década de los setenta, en su artículo para Political Affairs, “The Colonial Plunder of Puerto Rico”. En ambos casos los arrabales puertorriqueños fueron el signo de la condición colonial puertorriqueña, así como de la pobreza, la explotación de los trabajadores y lo que Foster y Hall relataron como el latrocinio estadounidense en la Isla. Los arrabales eran para ambos un ejemplo lamentable de las consecuencias del colonialismo, uno que revelaba también la opresión y explotación colonialista-capitalista que vivían los puertorriqueños. La denuncia de esas condiciones de explotación y pobreza fueron además una exhortación a la movilización comunista en apoyo a la lucha independentista puertorriqueña. Pero, la denuncia de los comunistas estadounidenses antecedió los años cuarenta.

En la década de los treinta los comunistas se expresaron sobre Puerto Rico en varias ocasiones, publicando panfletos y ensayos sobre la situación en la Isla. En 1930, Harry Gannes publicó Yankee Colonies, panfleto en el que discutió varios aspectos sobre la condición colonial de Puerto Rico. The Communist, revista del PCEU, publicó cinco artículos sobre Puerto Rico en los treinta: A “Model” Colony of Yankee Imperialism de D.R.D., publicado en tres partes en 1931; The Struggle for Puerto Rican Independence de Harry Robinson en 1936; y Bring the New Deal to Puerto Rico de James F. Ford en 1939. Para propósitos de este artículo me concentraré únicamente en Yankee Colonies y discutiré los restantes, los publicados en The Communist, más adelante. The Communist fue una revista del PCEU que con posterioridad se convirtió en Political Affairs, en la que Gus Hall publicó “The Colonial Plunder of Puerto Rico.”

Yankee Colonies de Harry Gannes fue publicado por International Pamphlets y dirigido por Labor Research Association, una oficina de estadísticas sobre el trabajo y los trabajadores vinculada al PCEU. Gannes fue uno de los fundadores de la Young Workers League, predecesora de la Young Communist League. Fue además uno de los editores en asuntos internacionales del The Daily Worker, periódico del PCEU. Este prominente comunista estadounidense escribió los libros When China Unites: An Interpretive History of the Chinese Revolution (1937) y Spain in Revolt (1936). Aparte de Yankee Colonies publicó varios panfletos: Graft and Gangsters (1931), Kentucky Miners Fight (1932), The Economic Crisis (1932), Soviets in Spain (1935), War in Africa (1935), Spain Defends Democracy (1936), How the Soviet Union Helps Spain (1936) y The Munich Betrayal (1938). Gannes viajó a China y Europa usando el nombre de Henry George Jacobs, por lo que las autoridades estadounidenses lo acusaron de fraude en 1939. Alrededor de esa misma fecha enfermó gravemente como consecuencia de un tumor cerebral. Gannes falleció el 3 de enero de 1941.

Gannes comenzó el panfleto Yankee Colonies augurando otra guerra mundial, una con Estados Unidos e Inglaterra como enemigos. Una eventual guerra entre esas potencias inquietó a muchos en aquella época. En ambas naciones se consideraron los diversos escenarios de esa posible guerra. Este teatro de la guerra comenzó en la década de los veinte. Las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses evaluaron los escenarios posibles de esa guerra después de la Conferencia Naval de Ginebra en 1927, elaborando el designado War Plan Red, aprobado en 1930. Aunque los británicos también consideraron una posible guerra con su antigua colonia estos no desarrollaron un plan similar. Canadá, todavía un “dominio” británico, y previo al Estatuto de Westminster de 1931, ya lo había hecho en 1921, antes que Estados Unidos. Su Defense Scheme No. 1, contemplaba inclusive invadir los Estados Unidos después de un ataque estadounidense. Para Gannes, la rivalidad inter-imperialista entre Inglaterra y Estados Unidos, particularmente en Norte y Sur América, estimulaba la guerra en ambos países:

There is a drive for markets now going on among all the imperialist powers. During the first seven months of 1930, American exports dropped 30 per cent. The home market in the United States is rapidly shrinking. The United States and the British Empire battle for control of the markets in all Latin-American countries, particularly in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Hand in hand with the struggle for world markets goes the tremendous rise in armaments.

Para él, esa competencia, y los eventos “revolucionarios” en India, China y Egipto, requerían prestarle más atención al “imperio de Wall Street.” En efecto, su panfleto tenía como objeto el análisis del imperialismo estadounidense, que se inició con la Guerra Hispanoamericana de 1898. En Yankee Colonialism, Gannes subrayó las actividades colonialistas de Estados Unidos en Filipinas, Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes.

Su análisis del imperialismo estaba evidentemente fundamentado en el marxismo-leninismo. Desde esa perspectiva, y como ilustra la figura, la necesidad de nuevos mercados estimulaba el imperialismo y el colonialismo estadounidense, así como la rivalidad inter-imperialista. El creciente armamentismo era para Gannes un indicador de esa tendencia. En ese contexto las colonias estadounidenses no solo representaban mercados cautivos, sino también puestos de avanzada militar, lo que coincide con la postura de Alfred T. Mahan con respecto a las colonias y el poder naval, que todavía inspiraba el imaginario naval estadounidense. Según Gannes, el Imperialismo estadounidense produjo tanto colonias directas como semi-colonias:

There are two main types of colonies which imperialism chains to its chariot wheels. Especially in considering American imperialism is this important. Its colonial empire within the so-called independent countries, such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Santo Domingo, Panama and Mexico, is of far vaster extent than its outright colonies. In these semi-colonial countries the struggle for domination and control is keener, as conflicting imperialist interests are represented.

Para Gannes, si los conflictos inter-imperialistas eran más agudos en las semi-colonias las posesiones consumadas, las colonias directas como Puerto Rico y Filipinas, representaban las vigas de acero sobre las que descansaba el expansionismo estadounidense. Allí estaban ubicadas las bases navales más importantes, las que además salvaguardaban importantes rutas comerciales. Para Gannes, esas colonias estaban en medio de las escenas de guerras venideras.

Las consecuencias de la Guerra Hispanoamericana de 1898 le abrieron puertas a Estados Unidos, ahora una nueva fuerza imperial, en Asia y América Latina. Como explicó Gannes, las colonias que ahora poseía le facilitaban a Estados Unidos la expansión geopolítica y comercial en esas regiones, con el Canal de Panamá como enlace entre estas: “It now became the aim of the imperialist masters, not only to make of the Caribbean Sea an American lake, but to let the waters of this lake flow through the Isthmus of Panama, via a Wall Street owned canal, and to bridge the Pacific Ocean with Yankee-controlled islands.”

A finales del siglo 19, la guerra contra España era el único medio disponible para que Estados Unidos adquiriera colonias directas, pues los otros centros imperiales ya se habían repartido casi todo el planeta. Como explicó Gannes: “War was the only way open for the acquisition of new territories. Colonies had to be wrested from other powers. Spain owned the colonies most desired by the United States business class. War against Spain was declared. Flimsy pretexts were invented and forgotten in the scramble for greater prizes.” Después de la guerra con España, como ilustra la tabla, Estados Unidos adquirió como colonias a Filipinas, Hawái, Puerto Rico y Guam. En 1898 esa nación también ocupó la isla Wake y las islas Midway y en el próximo año adquirió a Samoa. Finalmente, le compró las Islas Vírgenes a Dinamarca en 1917. En total, Estados Unidos adquirió entre 1898 y 1917 unas 125,328 millas cuadradas de nuevo territorio, con una población en 1930 de más de 14 millones de habitantes.

Las Posesiones Coloniales de Estados Unidos
Nombre                                 Fecha de Anexión            Millas Cuadradas               Población en 1930
Filipinas                                 1898                                   115,000                                13,000,000
Hawái                                     1898                                   6,450                                    350,000
Puerto Rico                           1898                                   3,435                                    1,500,000
Guam                                     —-                                       206                                       17,000
Islas Wake y Midway           1898                                   29                           Población militar variante
Samoa Americana               1899                                   75                                          9,000
Islas Vírgenes                       1917                                   133                                        21,000
Adaptada de: Gannes, H. 1930. Yankee Colonies. New York: International Pamphlets

Según Gannes, el Caribe era para los Estados Unidos y su capital nacional una entrada importante a los mercados latinoamericanos, pero también una senda abierta a su materia prima. La inversión de capital estadounidense allí ya era considerable. Para Gannes, si bien Estados Unidos contaba con diversas colonias en el Caribe, el capital las trataba como una unidad, haciendo pocas distinciones entre colonias directas o indirectas. Pero, para el gobierno y capital estadounidense el Caribe era mucho más importante por su valor estratégico-militar y porque les facilitaba su ingreso a mercados mucho más importantes. Para Gannes, Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes eran desde la perspectiva militar estadounidense, eslabones significativos en su “cadena de hierro” en el Caribe.

Gannes le consagró la mayor parte de Yankee Colonies a Filipinas, dedicándole menos espacio a Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes. Con respecto a Puerto Rico ofreció una breve descripción de la isla, la que llamó “Porto Rico.” Repitió, al hacerlo, algunas de las convenciones estadounidenses para referirse a la colonia. La describió como una isla comparativamente pequeña y sobrepoblada. Gannes, reduciendo la diversidad racial de los puertorriqueños, describió la población como una predominantemente caucásica, con el 73% de la población blanca y un 27% negra.

Gannes luego comentó las políticas coloniales estadounidenses en la isla, destacando la Ley Foraker de 1900 y la Ley Jones de 1917. Describió la primera como una ley más reaccionaria que la legislación española con respecto a la Isla previo a la Guerra Hispanoamericana, lo que también han argumentado varios puertorriqueños, que usualmente se refieren a la Carta Autonómica de 1897. Gannes criticó también la Ley Jones por haberle conferido a los puertorriqueños una ciudadanía estadounidense de “tercera clase,” una por debajo de la ciudadanía de segunda clase, que es la que usualmente se asocia con ciudadanos discriminados constantemente, como los negros en Estados Unidos. Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón se expresó de forma similar con respecto a la ciudadanía estadounidense en “La guachafita fá,” un artículo para La Correspondencia de Puerto Rico en 1911. Gannes también acusó a los Estados Unidos de usar el puesto de gobernador como premio a los protegidos del ejecutivo federal:

The Governor-Generalship of Porto Rico is a particularly juicy plum for the political protégés of the capitalist party that happens to be in power in Washington. In addition to a yearly salary of $ 10,000, paid by the U. S. Government, he receives from the Porto Rican legislature an annuity of $25,000 to cover “incidental expenses.” Besides, he is furnished, rent free, a magnificent palace and grounds; and the legislature chips in for the payment of whatever servants are needed to maintain him in his accustomed standards of luxury. An automobile is also provided for his “excellency” at the expense of the starving masses.

En adición, Gannes acentuó el empobrecimiento y la desposesión sufrida por los puertorriqueños, la precariedad producto de las actividades del capital estadounidense en la isla-colonia, particularmente en los sectores tabacaleros y azucareros. Para Gannes, la situación de la mayoría de los puertorriqueños era frágil, afectados grandemente por la desnutrición, la hambruna y diversas enfermedades. El comunista citó números de la Cruz Roja para indicar el creciente empobrecimiento de la mayoría de los puertorriqueños, de paso rechazando que la causa de ese empobrecimiento fuese el paso del huracán San Felipe II por Puerto Rico en 1928:

American imperialists like to blame the hurricane of September 1928, for the inescapable fact that the conditions of the Porto Rican workers and peasants are constantly sinking to lower depths. This is the best excuse they can find. But no greater hurricane ever hit Porto Rico than when the imperialist forces landed, and were followed by the long reach of the big banks.

Finalmente, Gannes denunció la creciente dependencia puertorriqueña en los productos importados, y el que los puertorriqueños tuvieran que exportar casi todos sus productos agrícolas. Para Gannes, Puerto Rico estaba totalmente atrapado en las garras del imperialismo estadounidense, tanto en términos políticos como económicos.

Gannes aprovechó sus comentarios sobre Puerto Rico para criticar a Santiago Iglesias Pantín, el Partido Socialista y la Pan-American Federation of Labor. Según Gannes, el Partido Socialista, como el Partido Laboral Británico, colaboraba constantemente con las fuerzas imperialistas. También lo criticó por apoyar el estadoísmo y por aliarse con el Partido Republicano, un partido para Gannes controlado por hacendados y banqueros, explotadores de los trabajadores puertorriqueños. Gannes inclusive criticó al Partido Nacionalista por llevar a cabo una lucha “half-hearted” por la independencia de Puerto Rico. Por supuesto, tampoco tuvo nada bueno que decir de los unionistas y los republicanos. Gannes anunció la formación de un partido comunista en la colonia:

A Communist Party is being formed in Porto Rico, to carry on a relentless struggle for the absolute, immediate and complete independence of Porto Rico from American imperialism. One of the main tasks of the Communists is to fight against the traitorous role of Iglesias and the Socialist Party who, through the instrumentality of the Pan-American Federation of Labor, help American imperialism not only in Porto Rico, but throughout Latin America.

En Puerto Rico, el Partido Comunista se fundó en 1934, cuatro años después de la publicación del panfleto de Gannes. Es difícil establecer si él se refería a la formación de ese partido o a alguna división dentro del Partido Socialista de entonces, a alguna facción comunista del partido que no favoreciera el estadoísmo. Es posible además que Gannes tuviera contactos con algunos puertorriqueños en Nueva York o que hubiese adquirido información sobre el comunismo puertorriqueño de la Liga Antiimperialista, a la que se refirió en su panfleto. Se refería a la All-America Anti-Imperialist League, también conocida como la Anti-Imperialist League of the Americas. Esta se fundó en 1925 y estuvo activa hasta 1933. Se convirtió entonces en la American League Against War and Fascism. Según Gannes, esta ya estaba operando en Puerto Rico, Filipinas, América Latina y Estados Unidos. Hasta el momento no he conseguido información sobre las actividades de la Liga, si alguna, en Puerto Rico. Juan Antonio Corretjer se integró a la Liga Anti-imperialista de Las Américas mientras estuvo en Nueva York a finales de la década de los veinte.

Gannes terminó su panfleto convocando a los trabajadores, tanto en Estados Unidos como en las colonias, a la acción política a favor de la independencia de las colonias. Para él, Estados Unidos nunca les concedería la independencia, por lo que la que la única opción era arrebatárselas a los imperialistas. Para él, eso requería un frente unido que aglutinara a los trabajadores no solo en Estados Unidos, sino en Filipinas, Puerto Rico y Hawái.

Fonte: 80 grados