Regarding the struggle in Mexico:

10 answers to 10 questions from Oleg

by Joseph Green, CVO, Detroit

from Communist Vioce #7, March 1996


. Oleg (Jack Hill) replies to criticisms of the Chicago Workers' Voice in his article "Regarding Mexico, Some Points in Reply to Mark and Joseph". He complains there are 10 points on which he and Julie, the main writers about Mexico in the CWV Theoretical Journal, have been misrepresented. He never describes the overall issues being fought over.

. The articles that have attracted Oleg's ire were part of a discussion of whether land reform is socialist, and of what is needed if the left is to break out of the reformist framework called Cardenismo. (1) Communist Voice #5 contained several articles on this subject. There was Oleg's own article "Does the CWV support Cardenismo?" and two replies: Mark's article "Chicago Workers Voice continues to abandon anti-revisionism: Peasant socialism or proletarian politics", and my article "The ghost of Lazaro Cardenas and the present crisis in Mexico. " But Oleg doesn't think that any of the analysis of Mexican politics that appeared in these articles is worthy of mention. It's all simply a case of misrepresentation, he says.

. We reprint Oleg's statement from CWVTJ #9 below, putting it in italics, and following each point with a refutation.

Oleg's 10 points

. In issue number 5 of the Communist Voice, Joseph and Mark make all kinds of charges against me. I don't have time to reply in detail to all of their charges, nor do I think most of the readers of the CWVTJ would be that interested in long polemics. Nevertheless I did go through that issue and note a number of points where they are wrong about my stands on issues of Mexican politics.

. 1) They keep raising that Julie (Sarah) or I are for more aid to the ejidos. In fact I didn't tie the issue of demanding and fighting for relief for the poor peasants to the specific form of the ejido. As far as I understand it the ejidos are rapidly dying. The 'reform' of Article 27 did that.

. In her article "El Machete and the Mexican Left", Julie called for "a vigorous working class struggle linked up with the poor peasant revolt" to achieve such aims as "ASSISTANCE TO THE EJIDOS in such a way that the peasantry working there can make the transition to large-scale agriculture without being driven off the land. "(2) So much for the claim that the CWV doesn't demand aid to the ejidos. She goes on to call for "a planning of large-scale agriculture in such a way that the peasantry is not pauperized". She regards these demands as part of "a series of democratic and socialist measures" that the toilers should try to achieve as a reform under capitalism. Thus she not only called for aid to the ejidos, but believes that such aid can keep the peasants from being driven off the land by capitalism, and provide a sort of quasi-socialist large-scale agriculture.

. But there's more.

. In Oleg's article "Crisis in Mexico" in the same issue of the CWVTJ, there is a section entitled "What About the Zapatistas' Program?" In it, Oleg lauds the Zapatista agrarian program, which centers on aid to the ejidos. Oleg doesn't mention that EZLN program calls for such aid to the ejidos, but simply says that the EZLN "has voiced the demands of the indigenous people and the poor peasants . . . for land, for a right to a livelihood, . . . " (p. 11, col. 1) But whether Oleg hides the fact or not, the EZLN does in fact call for aid to the ejidos. (3)

. As well, Oleg prettifies the ejidos with his view that it is the changes to Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution that is killing these agrarian coops. The reform of Article 27 allows the legal breakup of the ejidos. But a number of careful observers of the Mexican countryside, of varying political views, have noted the tendency of the communal solidarity of the ejidos to disintegrate as wealthier ejido members exploit poorer ones. Pete Brown and Mark have discussed the real history of the ejidos in previous issues of Communist Voice, provided some statistics on the class structure of the countryside, and reviewed various studies of the "ejidos" by several observers, none of whom agrees with our anti-revisionism communism, but who all note the process of class differentiation in the "ejido". The breakdown of the "ejido" is proceeding faster or slower in different areas, but it is the general trend throughout the Mexican countryside. For example, the former legal prohibitions against "ejido" peasants renting or selling their land to other "ejido" members or other rich peasants have long been flouted in practice. The reform of Article 27 simply brings out into the open and accelerates a trend that has already existed. Not all the ejidos will die immediately, as Oleg hints, but they will continue to disintegrate.

. It's typical that Oleg starts his point #1 by making a show of disassociating from the ejidos, but ends by attributing the decay of the ejidos simply to a recent neo-conservative government policy. It only takes him a couple of sentences to end up lamenting the institution which he supposedly is indifferent to.

. 2) Who said that reforms to alleviate the plight of the Mexican peasants are socialism? I don't think I said any such thing.

. I have quoted above Julie describing such reforms as "a series of democratic and socialist measures" (CWVTJ #7, p. 15, col. 3)(4) Apparently Oleg doesn't read what his fellow CWV members write.

. 3. Joseph and Mark continue to claim that the EZLN program is basically the same as that of Lazaro Cardenas. I don't think they have proven this, and I don't think you can prove that much about the EZLN by showing that Lazaro Cardenas was no good. The EZLN program is not a program for socialism, but it is also not the program of L. Cardenas. It is not a program to co-opt the peasant movement into the structure of the party-state. It is a program to return democracy to the local level. You may not think this is possible or good, but it is not Cardenas's program.

. I hold that the political movement led in the past by the late Lazaro Cardenas and that led today by the EZLN are quite different, since Cardenas was a leader of the Mexico bourgeoisie and the Zapatistas are at the head of a movement of impoverished peasants. The Communist Voice firmly supports the struggle of the rebellious peasants, but opposes the Mexican bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the ideology of Cardenismo is important precisely because it is not restricted to the bourgeoisie but influences large numbers of activists and toilers. One of the basic problems facing Mexican activists is breaking out of the ideological framework of Cardenismo. And in fact some of the key features of both the EZLN's program and the CWVTJ's agrarian program amount to a glorified version of the ideology put forward by the late Lazaro Cardenas, In my opinion, "The presentation of government assistance to ejidos, the development of some communal forms, and better government planning as a sort of socialism that can save the peasantry is in line with the rhetoric of the late 30's in Mexico. " (CV #3, p. 23, col. 2)

. What is Oleg's response? He doesn't compare the Cardenista and Zapatista view of the ejidos. He doesn't compare what they expect from better government planning. He doesn't discuss their attitude to a national consensus of different classes. Instead he says that the difference between Cardenismo and the program of the EZLN is that Lazaro Cardenas organized everything from the top ("coopt(ing) the peasant movement into the structure of the party-state"), while the EZLN is a movement of the people at the bottom ("a program to return democracy to the local level"). Thus--to put it in a somewhat simplified way---Oleg doesn't raise any difference in their programs except their methods. So Oleg's complaint actually verifies what I have said about the relationship of Cardenismo to the EZLN and the CWV.

. Oleg repeats his view that the programs of the EZLN and Lazaro Cardenas differ mainly in their methods elsewhere in CWVTJ #9. Criticizing the social-democrat La Botz, Oleg says: "However, La Botz lavishes praise on the programs of Cardenas and doesn't mention any of the actions that Cardenas took against workers or peasants. " (p. 26, col. 1) Oleg doesn't go on to criticize La Botz's view of the various Cardenista programs; Oleg is unable to give an alternative assessment of these programs. Instead, Oleg's criticism of Cardenas again centers on his methods.

. In his review of La Botz, Oleg also denounces Cardenas for supporting the bourgeoisie, but once again, this is not connected to an assessment of the particular programs of Cardenas. Oleg's viewpoint thus essentially reduces to: If L. Cardenas supported ejidos, he was bad because his motive in supporting the ejidos was to support the bourgeoisie and to preserve the exploitative system of capitalism; if Oleg supports the ejidos, however, he is good because his motive is to support the peasants and achieve one step on the road to socialism. This type of criticism is powerless to help free activists from the influence of Cardenismo. There have been many left activists in Mexico who worked honestly, sincerely, and in a truly admirable and self-sacrificing way to fight the bourgeoisie and help emancipate the toilers, but who were confused about one or another militant form of Cardenismo--Cardenismo from below, or Cardenismo with better ejidos, or some other idealized form of Cardenismo. Oleg's method of criticizing Cardenas tells them not to worry--only sell-outs and burn-outs or repressive bureaucrats or people with bad motives have the Cardenista program.

. A militant program for the Mexican countryside should be different from that of Cardenismo. It shouldn't deny the importance of a number of the reforms that the Chiapas peasants are fighting for, including land reform, and it should render enthusiastic support to the mass actions of the indigenous and poor peasants against oppression. But it should also lay stress on such points as the class differentiation in the countryside; the inability of any system of ejidos or cooperatives to stop this class differentiation; the necessity to organize the agricultural proletariat and semi-proletariat as distinct class forces which don't simply merge into the general peasant movement in the countryside; and the fiasco that faces any attempt to have a "national consensus" of rich and poor. To go beyond Cardenismo, it is not sufficient to simply advocate a better land reform; it is necessary to look at the class differentiation in the countryside and at what is necessary for proletarian reorganization. Neither the EZLN program nor that of the CWVTJ do this. Nor has Oleg ever done this. That is why the CWV in general, including Oleg and Julie in particular, have a hard time dealing with Cardenismo. Oleg for example seems to think that if he is not "tie(d) .  .  . to the specific form of the ejido" but finds some other form of land reform, then he will have gone beyond Cardenismo. He hasn't grasped that this search for the perfect land reform and perfect forms of aid to small peasant agriculture, rather than supplementing such demands by a sober look at the class differentiation among the peasantry that has been proceeding for decades inside the co-ops, is one of the reasons he still has not freed himself from Cardenismo.

. 4. Neither can you dismiss the EZLN on the basis that the son, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas is no good. Does the EZLN try to make deals with and use the PRD? Yes. Have they got much out of this? Not really. C. Cardenas maintains a distance and submits to the right wing in his own party.

. Mark and I have never dismissed the EZLN, but have instead vigorously supported the peasant struggle in Chiapas. What Oleg is saying is that criticism of the EZLN program is incompatible with his idea of support for their struggle. It's the old story--in the excitement of an ongoing struggle, there are always some people who will demand that the proletariat and the communists activists put away their own ideology and simply applaud whatever is going on. We, on the contrary, believe that a realistic assessment of the EZLN's program and activities, their strengths and weaknesses, is a crucial part of fraternal solidarity with the activists and toilers of Mexico and with the revolt in Chiapas. We think that abandoning one's communist convictions is of no help whatsoever to the Mexican toilers, and it will weaken any attempt to inspire the workers here with the lessons of the struggle in Mexico.

. Oleg also denies the significance of the EZLN's overall view of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and of the different forces in Mexican politics. He presents it as if the EZLN is just making a few deals with Cardenas, which may work or may not work, but which aren't such a big deal. They are just trying to "use" Cardenas. As Oleg put it earlier: "I think .  .  . that the Zapatistas know full well what rotten opportunists the PRD are and decided for strategic reasons that they needed to try to use them. "(5)

. But these supposedly minor deals are a key part of the orientation set forward by the EZLN for the overthrow of PRI rule, and were proclaimed in their second and third "Declarations from the Lacandona Jungle". The Second Declaration called on the Mexican people to rally around the National Democratic Convention, whose basis was the alliance of the reformists led by Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and various left-wing and activist organizations. The Third Declaration called for a forming a movement for national liberation, and called on C. Cardenas to be its leader. (These declarations may be examined in CV #2. The CWVTJ, however, has never presented the actual words of the EZLN on these questions. )

. The attempt to forge an alliance with bourgeois reformists such as Cardenas has been a central feature of EZLN strategy, and they have called on all the people of Mexico to rally around it. The EZLN's talk of national consensus, and their appeals to "civil society", are also linked to their view of what can be expected from the bourgeoisie. "Civil society" is made up of people from various classes, with a large role played by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois activists. (6)

. Am I making too much about the EZLN embrace of "civil society"? Apparently not, because even the CWVTJ's Julie admits that "The Zapatistas seem both to bank on the discontent within the Mexican bourgeoisie and its desires for a more standard bourgeois democratic political system and to bank on the radical left. " This refers to the EZLN wanting to unite the discontented sections of the bourgeoisie with the radical left. Moreover, this is not just a passing deal, but something they are committed to, even to the point of joining the reformists in certain campaigns against the radicals. She writes that the EZLN "seem to have a definite reliance on the very real splits in the bourgeois parties. Thus also the call for a transitional government to be led by Cardenas. And, it seems that in the current campaign of the PRD [the party of the Mexican reformists--Jph. ] against the radical left, they may be standing at the side of the PRD. "(7)

. 5. Mark makes a generic call. 'The revolutionary education of the workers and activists in the U. S. who want to unite with the Mexican toilers requires a discussion of the stand of the various political trends and important issues in the Mexican movement. " I don't disagree with this as a general statement. However, I think a serious discussion is more than just saying that every political group in Mexico is fatally flawed. "

. Oleg says critical discussion is fine, so long as it doesn't deal with the EZLN or any group the CWVTJ is enthused about. He seeks to discredit criticism by saying that it is the same as calling activists or struggles "shit"(8) or "fatally flawed".

. The fact is that a new trend has to be built in the left, both in Mexico and the U.S. This is the trend of anti-revisionist Marxism. Oleg and the CWV have abandoned anti-revisionism and instead seek to find some section of the left to glorify--such as the EZLN and El Machete in Mexico. That is why Oleg sneers at the thought that there is something wrong with all the big trends in the left today.

. 6. Joseph implies that I think that land reform "can guarantee that poor peasants can prosper on their small plots" (p. 24) This is an outrageous distortion of my views. He doesn't give a quote for this because he can't. This is typical Joseph, give a wildly distorted interpretation of your opponents' views, disprove that and think you have done something.

. I have repeatedly given the quotes. In this article, for example, I have already quoted the CWV's Julie demanding "assistance to the ejidos in such a way that the peasantry working there can make the transition to large-scale agriculture without being driven off the land. " (CWVTJ #7, p. 15, col. 3) It follows that Julie regards--correctly--both small private plots and most of the present-day ejidos as small-scale agriculture. A program centering on the ejidos is a program based on small-scale agriculture.

. There were some "collective ejidos"--their period of greatest extension was under Lazaro Cardenas--but they are a small minority. Julie asks for support for what's left of "some of the communal forms in the indigenous areas" (Ibid. ), but also talks of the ejidos as a whole making the transition to "large-scale agriculture. " Such vague dreams of transforming the ejidos glamorizes a system which is based mainly on small peasant agriculture and dreams of its conversion into a quasi-socialist countryside ("large-scale agriculture" for the benefit of the peasants, rather than "large-scale agriculture" as it really is under capitalism) in a capitalist country.

. And such dreams are an idealized form of the program of Lazaro Cardenas. He aimed for a certain integration of the ejido into large-scale agriculture, the development of some collective ejidos, government planning to keep many peasants on the land, etc.

. So Julie's statements verify what I said about my disagreements with CWV "on whether land reform can succeed in overcoming the limitations of small-scale peasant agriculture under capitalism--on whether it can guarantee that the poor peasants can prosper on their small plots, and on whether it can provide these peasants with the advantages of large-scale agriculture." (CV, p. 24, col. 2. )Yet Oleg tells the world that I have outrageously distorted the CWV's views.

. But perhaps Oleg disagrees with his fellow member of the CWV? Perhaps, the reader may say, Oleg feels that I may have correctly assessed Julie's position, but is objecting that I erred in attributing the same position to him? But Oleg has never expressed such a disagreement with Julie. On the contrary, he has defended Julie's views alongside his own. (See both the start and the conclusion of Oleg's article "Does the CWV Support Cardenismo?")

. Not only that, but what Oleg now writes suggests that the peasants could be saved by the ejidos. I have referred above to his view that it's the recent changes in Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution that have destroyed the ejidos. But the changing of Article 27 is a mere government decree. If it is simply this decree that has killed the ejidos, as Oleg thinks, then doesn't it follow that all it would take to stabilize the remaining ejidos--or any future ones formed during a new land reform--is to restore the full Cardenista Article 27? And isn't this exactly the view that land reform (with a proper Article 27) can prevent the peasants from being ruined and guarantee their livelihood on their small plots?

. What's outrageous is not my characterization of CWV's views, but that the CWV can hold so tightly to what are basically Cardenista ideas and yet pose as Marxists.

. 7. Joseph puts words in my mouth. 'Oleg would be careful to say that these measures [reforms in agriculture--Oleg] are not the full liberation of the working class and peasantry, nor can they provide a permanent solution. But he seems to think these measures are not an impulse to capitalism, but a step in the other direction. " (p. 27) Same technique as I mentioned above.

. The question here is: what exactly is Oleg objecting to except that I have the audacity to discuss his views? In the passage above, three points are made about Oleg's views:

. a) he would be careful to say that land reform and aid to the ejidos is not the full liberation of the working class and peasantry;

. b) he would be careful to say that they aren't a permanent solution, either; and

. c) he seems to think that these measures are not an impulse to capitalism, but a step in the other direction.

. Oleg implies that these amount to a "wildly distorted interpretation" of his views, to use his words from his question #6. Really? Aren't these rather a careful and even generous interpretation of his views?

. Let's see. "a" and "b" grant Oleg that he doesn't think that land reform and aid to the ejidos are the final goal. I could cite many places where Oleg says precisely this, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. All Oleg objects to about "a" and "b" is that I pointed out that he said it. Anything I say about Oleg--even if I were to compliment Oleg--is now taken as a smear. The proof that it's a smear, an "outrageous distortion", is -- that I said it.

. Apparently it's point "c" that Oleg is worried about. I have discussed this already under Oleg's point #2 and in footnote 4. Here let's just recall Oleg was shocked when I reiterated the Marxist view that land reform and aid to the peasantry "would in the long run accelerate capitalist development among the peasantry even faster than now", and his challenge to me on this point was the central theoretical point of his article "Does the CWV support Cardenismo?"

. 8. Joseph says I am against Cardenas because those reforms give rise to capitalism. Joseph proves that these reforms inevitably give rise to intensified capitalist relations and differentiation. In fact, my point is the top down political control by Cardenas and the PRI, the stifling of the independent movement of the workers and peasants.

. Oleg had two complaints against Cardenas. One was the top down political control which Oleg refers to in question #8. The other is that Lazaro Cardenas's reforms gave an impulse to capitalist development. Oleg wrote that "He [Lazaro Cardenas] did distribute a lot of land to peasants, but he gave a big impulse to the development of modern capitalist agriculture in Mexico. "(9) It is clear that Oleg regarded the distribution of land as a good thing, and the impulse to capitalist development as the fly in the ointment. Oleg, when he wrote this article, clearly believed that a proper land reform would not have given an impulse to capitalist development.

. Has Oleg changed his mind? Does he realize that one has to do a bit more analysis than simply saying that Cardenas gave an impulse to capitalist development? Probably not, because all Oleg now says is that Cardenas's reforms give rise to capitalist relations--which Oleg always said--and not that the land reform that he and Julie advocates would also "inevitably give rise to intensified capitalist relations and [class] differentiation [among the peasantry]".

. Perhaps one day Oleg will venture to express an opinion on this issue. But for now, it seems that Oleg would rather avoid the issue of the class differentiation and the growth of the peasant bourgeoisie that occurs after land reform.

. 9. Another distortion by Joseph, "The CWV glorifies its own program by implying that, if it were carried out on a large-enough scale, it would bring prosperity. " (p. 29) He can't give a quote for this because this interpretation of our stand is a figment of his imagination.

. In the passage Oleg is discussing, I referred to "the various measures of government aid to the peasants and better planning of the ejidos which are demanded by CWV". I have quoted above a number of statements from the CWVTJ that this program would prevent the ruining of the peasants, stop them from "being driven off the land", and ensure "that the peasantry is not pauperized".

. But don't hold your breathe waiting for Oleg to apologize for saying that these quotes are a figment of my imagination. Oleg can't defend these claims by the CWVTJ, and so he instead pretends that they don't exist. This shows that these claims were not based on any materialist or Marxist analysis, but just on the CWV's embellishment of the EZLN program.

. 10. The thrust of Joseph's article is to try to prove that I am wrong because my stand is as in no. 7.

. This is just a repetition of Oleg's point #7. I guess he needed a filler to reach the magic number of 10. <>


(1) The late Lazaro Cardenas was the reformist president of Mexico in 1934-40, and he gained a lot of support for his vast expansion of the Mexican agricultural co-ops or ejidos, his nationalist stands, etc. Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the founder of today's reformist PRD party, is the son of Lazaro and basks in his father's prestige. (Return to text)

(2) CWVTJ #7, p. 15, col. 3, emph. added. (Text)

(3) Oleg himself, in commenting elsewhere on a book by La Botz, reproduces a summary of the EZLN program which identifies "renewal of the ejido" as the Zapatista demand of "land to the tiller" or land reform. (CWVTJ #9 p. 28, col. 2) (Text)

(4) Oleg won't criticize Julie's statement but he prefers vague, general statements which leave everything indefinite. Nevertheless, when I pointed out that land reform and other reforms to aid the peasants tend to accelerate the development of capitalism and of class struggle, Oleg got upset, and told everyone that I must be opposed to these reforms if I thought that not just Lazaro Cardenas' reforms, but the reforms demanded by the Zapatistas, would give an impulse to capitalist development among the peasants. (See Oleg's "Does the CWV support Cardenismo" and my reply "The ghost of Lazaro Cardenas. . . ". )

. But it is a basic point of Marxism, that has been verified repeatedly, that bourgeois-democratic reforms--not just land reform, but also the abolition of slavery, the breakup of colonial empires, the elimination of patriarchal oppression of women, etc. --will provide such an impulse to capitalism. Indeed in the long run, the more radical these reforms, and hence the more benefit they are to the toilers, the more they clear the way for further capitalist development, and hence for the development of the broader and clearer class struggle which is necessary for the overthrow of capitalism. Unless such reforms are immediately followed by a socialist revolution, they push forward capitalist development. They are not the partial realization of socialism, although they may be carried out as part of a revolutionary movement that is building up towards socialism.

. This has important consequences for socialist tactics. The socialist stand isn't simply to stand for a more radical and consistent land reform than that carried out by the bourgeoisie. The socialist program points to the class differentiation in the countryside and the need to organize the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat in its own interests. It points out that socialist agriculture differs from the ideal of stable peasant petty-bourgeois production which the reformists believe that a proper land reform will achieve. (See "Marxism on peasant and proletarian demands" in Communist Voice #2, which gives extracts from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin on land reform, co-ops, and socialist agriculture. )

. But Oleg believes that it would be wrong to advocate land reform and aid to the peasantry if they give an impulse to further capitalist development. Thus the land reform he advocates wouldn't, in his view, have anything to do with capitalist production. In other words, such a land reform and such agrarian co-ops (or ejidos) would really be quasi-socialist or somewhat socialist. And in fact, Oleg refuses to look at the class differentiation in the co-ops, and at the rise of a rural bourgeoisie inside the ejidos. (Text)

(5) Letter of Jan. 4, 1994, in the CWVTJ special issue of March 7, 1995, p. 19. (Text)

(6) Oleg quotes La Botz saying that "Civil society in Mexico came to mean a non-partisan, multi-class movement fighting for human rights, civil rights, political reform and social justice against the domination of the one-party state. " (p. 29, col. 2, emph. added) It refers to the politically-active citizenry, and contains both exploiters and exploited. It sees itself as "non-partisan", so that the voice of the proletariat and peasantry is mixed in with the reformist bourgeoisie.

. Oleg goes to state that "The Zapatistas have looked to such movements for potential allies, as well as the PRD, and the Mexican left. " But instead of criticizing the belief in the "non-partisan, multi-class" movement of the exploited and the exploiters, Oleg enthuses that "These movements can be very militant, involve large numbers of people, and pose a serious challenge to the PRI. " He doesn't see any connection between the EZLN looking towards a "non-partisan, multi-class movement" and their call for merging the left with C. Cardenas in a common movement.

. A page later, Oleg seems to criticize La Botz for relying on civil society. He cites La Botz talking about "a radical movement from below fighting for socialism" and apparently identifying this with "a broad, multi-class movement". Oleg writes that "activists must deal with the fact that these existing oppositional movements contain political forces who are dedicated to maintaining the rule of capitalism and imperialism in Mexico . . . . political struggle has to be waged against those who undermine the movement from within. " (p. 30, col. 2) Oleg doesn't get any more specific about who these forces are. But what is really typical of Oleg is how he treats La Botz and the EZLN differently when they both give the same view towards the broad, multi-class movement: Oleg is willing to make a vague criticism of La Botz, but when it is a matter of the EZLN's orientation, the same non-partisan, multi-class movement is simply "a serious challenge to the PRI". (Text)

(7) Julie's quotes in this paragraph are from "El Machete and the Mexican Left", reprinted in CV #3, p. 41, col. 1. (Text)

(8) Oleg's letter of Jan. 25, 1995, CWVTJ Special Issue, March 7, 1995, p. 35. (Text)

(9) "Does the CWV oppose Cardenismo?" reprinted in CV #5, p. 18, col. 1. (Text)

Back to main page, write us!

Last changed on January 23, 2002.
http://www. communistvoice. org
e-mail: mail@communistvoice. org