Maoismen er det fremste verktøyet for revolusjonært lederskap av massene

Masselinja er en metode for revolusjonær ledelse av massene, og lederskapet må være den mest beviste og best organiserte delen av massene, det kommunistiske parti. Det er en metode som igjen og igjen må brukes, som et trinn for fremskritt i kampene for interessene til massene, og spesielt nå innenfor det borgerlige klassediktaturet, under kapitalismen, for å forberede og fremme revolusjonen.

Kommunistenes rolle i masselinja må være: 1) samle massenes diverse ideer, 2) sette disse ideene i forhold til marxismen, i lys av det langsiktige og endelige målet til massene og i lys av en vitenskapelig analyse av den objektive situasjonen, og 3) returnere disse ideene til massene i form av politisk linje, som vil lede massene frem til revolusjonen og fortsettelsen av den. Fordi masselinja starter med de ulike ideene til massene, deretter en returnering av disse ideene til massene igjen i form av politisk linje, er den kjent som ”fra massene til massene”-metoden.

Selv om masseperspektivet var i marxismen fra dens utforming, er masselinja hevet frem som en linje for kommunister sin føring av massene, hovedsakelig formet av Mao Zedong.

Som maoister ser vi masseperspektivet gjennom: 1) at massene er skaperne av historien og at revolusjonen bare kan utføres av massene, 2) at massene må se gjennom deres erfaring og kamp at revolusjon er nødvendig, og 3) at det kommunistiske parti må slutte seg til massene i den eksisterende kampen, innplente revolusjonær bevissthet i disse kampene, og lede dem på en måte som bringer massene videre på veien til kommunismen. Masseperspektivet er basert på det grunnlegende marxistiske prinsipp om at en revolusjon må gjøres av et revolusjonært folk, at et revolusjonært folk må utvikles av et ikke-revolusjonært menneske, og at folk vil bytte deres standpunkt fra det ene til den andre gjennom deres revolusjonære praksis.

Forholdet mellom masselinja og masseperspektivet er ganske enkelt at masseperspektivet ser nødvendigheten for bruk av masselinja. Det er mulig å ha en viss forestilling om masselinjas taktikk og likevel ikke klare å gi noen reel oppmerksomhet til den pga. svakt masseperspektiv. På den andre siden er det også mulig å ha et masseperspektiv og fortsatt være mer eller mindre uviten om den store marxistiske teorien om masselinja.

“The People of the Shining Path” er en utmerket dokumentar fra 1992 som gir et sympatisk bilde av Sendero Luminoso og folkekrigen i Peru fra like før fengslingen av deres opprinnelige leder, formann Gonzalo (Abimael Guzmán). Men Perus kommunistiske parti (PKP), populært kalt “Lysende Sti”, ser til å ha gått en del tilbake siden fengslingen av Gonzalo, og den nåværende tilstanden til PKP er noe uklar.

(source : http://www.revolucionobrera.com/ Numéro 283 Novembre 2009, traduction Futur Rouge)

Le 17 Octobre a été publié dans les pages du journal “Open” la première interview donnée par le camarade Ganapathy, secrétaire général du Parti communiste d’Inde (maoïste), Dans laquelle il expose des approches importantes sur divers aspects de la lutte des classes à la fois nationale et internationale.

Ce camarade de presque 60 ans, et un combattant des années 70, et le secrétaire général du parti depuis 1991. Il parle du travail du Parti dans Lalgarh depuis les années 80, et exhorte à faire front face à l’offensive réactionnaire avec le mouvement de masse, le soutien des forces révolutionnaires et démocratiques dans le pays, et avec la guerre populaire dans laquelle agit l’Armée Populaire de Libération, l’interview souligne comment l’influence du parti s’est étendu à 15 états avec des racines profondes dans les classes de base, aboutissant à une grande mobilisation de masse ce qui fait trembler les classes réactionnaires, qui ont donc condamnée interdit et le parti au niveau national en le qualifiant d’organisation «terroriste», et ce afin de limiter son travail.

Entre autres le camarade fait part du fait qu’un”… Un budget de milliards de roupies a été approuvés pour la modernisation de la police et pour sa formation et pour accroître le commandement des forces additionnelles, pour augmenter les forces centrales, pour la formation centrale et les forces de Etat dans la guerre contre-insurrectionnelle, et la construction de routes, de réseaux de communication et autres infrastructures pour la circulation rapide de troupes dans notre zones de guérillas. L’État Indien a mis en place des gardes armés et a fourni un soutien complet à d’innombrables atrocités perpétrées par ces groupes armés contre le peuple. La guerre psychologique contre les maoïstes a atteint des niveaux sans précédent. Toutefois, nous avons continué à progresser encore, renforcé le parti et les comités populaires révolutionnaires, à différents niveaux, et renforcer l’EGPL [Armée Guérillero Populaire de Libération] qualitativement et quantitativement, rompu le réseau de renseignements de l’ennemi dans plusieurs domaines, pour lutter efficacement contre la sale guerre psychologique menée par l’ennemi, et mettre en échec toutes les tentatives visant à perturber et à détruire notre mouvement … »

«En général, l’influence de notre parti a été renforcée et est aujourd’hui reconnu comme la seule véritable alternative pour les masses.”

La guerre populaire en Inde est l’une des avancées révolutionnaires les plus importante dans le monde, elle s’est étendue à toute l’Inde, ce qui en fait un rempart du prolétariat et des masses combattantes partout contre l’impérialisme et l’exploitation capitaliste. La portée de la guerre populaire a prise de grandes proportions, de sorte que les réactionnaires ont concentré et rassembler leurs séides pour tenter de repousser et d’arrêter la force monumentale des masses dirigées par le Parti. Aujourd’hui, dans la région de Lalgarth les masses affrontent pas à pas des milliers de soldats et de policiers qui ont été dépêchés pour affronter les forces de la révolution et de même, les peuples du monde entier doivent lever leurs poing et leur voix pour encourager et soutenir fermement le peuple de l’Inde qui a décidé de stopper ses ennemis centenaire et de marcher vers le chemin de la révolution prolétarienne mondiale.

Le Parti communiste d’Inde (maoïste), dirigé par son Comité central et le camarade Ganapathy, savent l’immense responsabilité qu’ils ont en ce moment, et bien qu’ils sont conscient d’occuper un rôle d’avant-garde de la révolution prolétarienne mondiale. Leur expérience est certainement une mine d’enseignements pour les masses du monde entier, et de fait la meilleure réfutation et réponse contendante au révisionnisme de Prachanda qui précisément dans le pays voisin, a laissé la révolution et jetés à la mer 10 années d’effort révolutionnaire des masses népalaises.

Halte à la brutale agression réactionnaire à Lalgarth avec la lutte révolutionnaire des masses!

A bas le révisionnisme Prachanda, Vive la guerre populaire en Inde!

One from the archives:

British mining company on trial for torture of Peruvians

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

A British mining company, Monterrico Metals, is on trial in London, UK for torture of Peruvians that happened at the Rio Blanco mine in 2005. Protesters were detained and tortured at the outcast copper site by the imperialist corporation in Peru, near the border with Ecuador. The victims are seeking millions in damages. The company denies the abuses.

According to witnesses, protesters were detained at the mine by armed police who were acting under orders from the company’s managers. After tear gassing the gathering, police detained 28 protesters with wrist ties. Three protesters were shot. One was left to bleed to death at the mine for 36 hours. The detained had noxious substances sprayed in their faces. They were also beaten with sticks and clubs and whipped. Two women protesters were sexually assaulted and threatened with rape.

A Peruvian journalist who was detained has photos of the incident. The photos reportedly show the protesters bound with hoods on their heads. Some are beaten and bloody. One photo shows a Peruvian farmer lying on the ground, badly injured. Other photos show smiling police waving around women’s underwear taken from the protesters as trophies.

The confrontation in 2005 is part of an ongoing struggle between imperialist mining companies backed by the Peruvian state and local farmers and indigenous peoples that continues to this day. Recently, protests against mining interests have forced economic disruption across Peru. Because of conflict, the Peruvian state oil company Petroperú has had to temporarily stop pumping oil through its northern pipeline from the jungle. Also, the Argentine Pluspetrol has had to halt oil production in the northeastern region of Peru. A state of emergency was recently declared. Commentators have said that the conflict between corporations and the people is the worse since the height of the People’s War led by the Communist Party of Peru.

The comprador regime of Alan García seeks to sell off Peru’s resources to the imperialists without giving the masses a say in how their country is developed.  The García administration seeks to do away with protections for indigenous land in the Peruvian constitution. He seeks to open up communal jungle lands and water resources to oil drilling, mining and large scale farming in accordance with the Peru-U$ free-trade pact.

To put the mining companies on trial in an imperialist court in London is letting the fox watch the henhouse. Imperialists usually protect their own. Although, every once in awhile, they make a show of punishing one imperialist in order to maintain a façade of justice. In reality, the imperialists and their comprador agents in Peru kill and torture people every day. The Peruvian state, backed by the imperialists, led a genocidal war against the Peruvian countryside two decades ago. Trials such as the one in London are usually for show. After all, it is not just the mining company that is guilty, but all of the First World. Whatever the outcome of the London trial, the vast majority of the crimes committed by imperialists and their lackeys will go unpunished. The only way to truly find justice is through people’s war and the capture of state power by the proletariat. Maoism-Third Worldism is the shining path to justice in Peru and everywhere else.

Sources

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/peru-monterrico-metals-mining-protest

Indias landbybefolkning har blødd seg tomme gjennom utbytting og undertrykkelse, knyttet til vestlig gruvedrift, skogbruk, industrielle og finansielle interesser. De siste tiårene har jord, elver, land og beitemarker blitt ”solgt ut” som følge av den indiske statens manglende ønske om å ivareta sine nasjonale interesser.

Siden India oppnådde formell uavhengighet fra det britiske imperiet, har ikke det styrende borgerskapet forsøkt utvikle sin økonomi for folket, men fortsatt den gamle koloniale politikken – berike et lite borgerskap som har bånd til den vestlige imperialismen. Som et resultat av den underdanigheten som vises av den indiske overklassen ovenfor imperialismen, bygger det seg opp folkelige opprør som sprer seg som ild i tørt gress. Maoistene forsøker å lede disse spredte ”utbruddene”, for så gjøre det til et opprør mot undertrykkelsen det indiske borgerskapet har satt i system over massene.

Med denne ledelsen kjemper Indias landbybefolkning tilbake, tappert og heroisk, mot den indiske staten. Den maoistiske bevegelsen har vokst frem som et svar på problemene og slår et slag for friheten – mot imperialismen og deres lakeier.

I motsetning til forfekterne av ”fredelige virkemidler”, oppfordrer Klassekamp og Revolusjon til solidaritet med det undertrykte indiske bondeproletariatet i deres rettferdige kamp mot borgerskapets terror. Undertrykkelsen som den indiske stat fører mot folket, må slås tilbake gjennom en front av de undertrykte massene – mot kapitalismen og de halvføydalistiske strukturene.

Cuba, ALBA Nations Condone Sri Lanka, Revisionism Further Exposed

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Revisionism was on display in recent events. Recently Cuba gave an official statement reassuring its international relations with Sri Lanka. Both countries claim to be socialist in some sense. Deputy Foreign Minister Marcos Rodriguez Costa stated that friendship between the two nations would continue to flourish. These remarks were made at an estate in Horona, Sri Lanka marking the 50th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations with the two countries. It was the site where Che Guevara symbolically planted a tree 50 years ago, and Costa planted another tree there this year. (1)

This diplomatic show glosses over the current violent crackdown of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam by the Sri Lankan government, and the ongoing war against the Tamil nation. To issue such praise at this moment is to offer de facto support of the genocidal policies of Sri Lanka.

Back in May 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution commending Sri Lanka for dealing with the humanitarian crisis caused by the civil war. The resolution also condemned the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for attacks on civilian populations and alleged use of human shields. Cuba and 28 other state members voted to pass the resolution. (2) To draw a moral equivalence between the Liberation Tigers and the Sri Lankan state fails to account for material reality. Typically, the UN failed to recognize the difference between violence in the service of liberation and violence in the service of oppression. Along with Cuba, both Brazil and Nicaragua voted for the resolution. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez also gave encouraging words to Sri Lanka at that time. (3)

The Sri Lankan state has imposed a harsh “peace” on the Tamil people. Hundreds of thousands of Tamils languish in prison-like refugee camps like Manik Farm. In the overcrowded Manik Farm, 15 people live in tents meant for only five people. Water and food are difficult to obtain. Chicken pox has ravaged the camp. In addition, typhoid, tuberculosis, skin and respiratory infections, hepatitis A scabies and diarrhea have all appeared, according to UN reports. According to a Government presentation, more than 35 percent of children under 5 are afflicted with wasting, or acute malnutrition. Plus, the upcoming rainy season could make a bad situation much worse. There are also reports that Tamil women are being abducted and raped by Sri Lankan soldiers. According to a UN document, Sri Lankan soldiers and paramilitaries are stationed inside the camps.

It is no accident that the Indian reactionaries openly discuss inflicting the “Sri Lankan” option on the Naxalite movements and their supporters. (5) India’s genocide against its own poor has drawn inspiration from the brutality of Sri Lanka’s treatment of the Tamil people.

The silence on this issue today exposes the ideological weakness of supposedly revolutionary states. It is clear that the demands of the Tamil liberation movement are legitimate.

The honoring of Che by Cuba and Sri Lanka is ironic, as Che recognized that true internationalism is national liberation. If Che were alive today, he would, most likely, be on the side of the Liberation Tigers. Whatever the errors of his Bolivian adventure, it cannot be said that Che did not die for national liberation.

Revisionism is fake communism. It is communism only in name. Revisionism rejects the path that will lead humanity to liberation, in these instances for the sake of bourgeois geopolitics and narrow national interests. Sri Lanka is officially the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy has usually aligned with the United States. Thus, despite its name, the Sri Lankan state is comprador and revisionist, not socialist.

It is not nit-picking to call out revisionists. Revisionism has led to the downfall of every socialist state in recent history. Revisionism is the enemy within. The oppressed and exploited need to be able to recognize real friends and real enemies. Contrary to these revisionists, no matter if they hold state power or not, Maoist-Third Worldists support the national aspirations of the Tamil people.

Sources:

1. “Cuba assures support for Sri Lanka.” Sri Lanka Daily News.
Tuesday November 10 2009. http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/11/10/news27.asp

2. 11th special session of the Human Rights Council: “The human rights situation in Sri Lanka” – Tuesday 26 and 27 May 2009 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/11/index.htm
and
“U.N. Human Rights Council decides against condemning Sri Lanka.”
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/27/un_human_rights_council_decides_against_investigating_sri_lanka

3. Cited in series of articles by Rod Ridenhour on the relations with Sri Lanka and the ALBA nations of Latin America.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/cuba-alba-let-down-sri-lanka-tamils/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/tamil-eelam-historical-right-to-nationhood/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/equal-rights-or-self-determination/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/the-terrorists-international-support-for-sri-lankas-racist-discrimination/

4.  http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/210000-tamils-jailed-slowly-dying-in-camp/

5.  http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/awtw-a-sri-lankan-solution-for-indias-maoism/

Nettsiden Radikal Front, som tidligere omtalt på Klassekamp og Revolusjon, har invitert en rekke organisasjoner på såkalt venstreside om å skrive om “veien og målet.” Rød Ungdom ”hadde ikke tid” til å skrive noe innlegg til Radikal Front, så da publiserte de Rød Ungsom sitt prinsipprogram. Henrik Ormåsen, talsperson for Tjen folket, skrev følgende i kommentarfeltet:

«Sosialistisk folkestyre»

For det første kommer begrepet «folk» av begrepet «demos» som stammer fra Athen og omfatter mellomklassene der. «Folkestyre» er derfor helt synonymt med begrepet «demokrati». RU skriver: “For oss er sosialisme veien videre mot et mer demokratisk samfunn.” Dette er helt i strid med marxismen, og er et eksempel på hvordan RU har forlatt marxismen til fordel for opportunisme og sosialdemokrati.

Hva betyr demokrati?

Demokratiet ble oppfunnet av statsmannen og poeten Solon i Athen. Han lagde en ny styringsform hvor han gav mellomklassene (demos) et lite snev av innflytelse slik at de «ikke ble fratatt æra si», men samtidig ikke så mye at de begynte «å gripe etter mer» som han selv uttrykte det. Demokrati er altså en styringsform hvor herskerklassen får igjennom viljen sin på en mer fleksibel måte enn det som er tilfellet i et despoti. Motsetninga til demokrati er altså ikke diktatur men despoti. Despoti og demokrati er to former for diktatur. Et demokrati forutsetter et klassesamfunn.

Marx og Engels kom fram til at den eneste måten for proletariatet (arbeiderklassen) å frigjøre seg er gjennom en voldelig revolusjon og at det må, for å holde på makta si opprette et diktatur over borgerskapet og dets allierte. Marx skrev at kommunismen i sin første fase (sosialismen) også kan få en despotisk form, dersom vilkårene for diktaturet blir dårlige nok. Dette er selvfølgelig ikke ideelt, men under dårlige forhold kan det være nødvendig for en periode. Diktaturet må imidlertid gå over til en demokratisk form, før samfunnet kan gå over i kommunismens andre fase (vanligvis bare kalt «kommunismen»). Det er påfallende med RU at samme hvor mye de enn snakker om sosialisme så nevner de ikke en gang denne muligheten for at et despoti kan oppstå. For som sosialister må vi ha en teoretisk forståelse av at sosialismen kan bli despotisk, at dette kan være en materiell nødvendighet, uavhengig av våre forestillinger om hva slags samfunn vi vil ha. At vi videre vil kjempe for en demokratisk variant av sosialismen så lenge dette er mulig.

Det kommunistiske samfunnet er ikke et demokratisk samfunn. Engels skrev derfor om begrepet «sosialdemokrat» at det var et «upassende» begrep for en bevegelse som hadde som endelig politisk mål å vinne over hele staten, og følgelig også demokratiet. (Lenin: Verker i utvalg, bind 8, Oktober forlag, 1977, s. 100.)

«Sosialisme nedenfra»

RU sier at de i motsetning til de sosialistiske statene som faktisk har eksistert, vil bygge sosialismen “nedenfra”. Denne teorien er en sentral komponent i moderne trotskisme. “Sosialisme nedenfra” kan høres feiende flott ut på papiret. Men dette er en skrivebordskonstruksjon som ikke har noen plass i den virkelige verden.

Det nye samfunnet må i starten bygges både nedenfra og ovenfra. Staten vil være et sentralisert apparat som er der for å sikre og bidra med å bygge det nye samfunnet. Dette er et maktapparat sentralisert «ovenfra». Proletariatet trenger statsmakten, trenger den for å knuse motstanden fra borgerskapet og til å lede de store massene av arbeidere, i arbeidet med å organisere en sosialistisk økonomi. Sentral koordinering, innsamling av kunnskap osv. trengs ikke bare i et kapitalistisk samfunn. Det vil også være nødvendig i kommunismens første fase. En kan ikke utelukkende bygge det nye samfunnet nedenfra, like lite som en kun kan bygge det ovenfra. For å si det med Lenin så blir dette som å diskutere hva som er best av den høyre og venstre armen. En bygger best med begge armene.

“Sosialisme nedenfra” er en umulighet. En stat kan ikke være “nedenfra”. En stat er pr. definisjon sentralisering av makt. Sosialisme er det samme som proletariatets-diktatur, eller den fasen som Marx kalte “kommunismens første fase”. Dette er en fase hvor arbeiderklassen hever seg til herskende klasse. Dette er en fase med klassekamp som ikke kan eksistere uten et sentralisert voldsapparat.

“Sosialisme nedenfra” er en av dagens mest sentrale paroler for de moderne utopiske sosialistene. Sosialistene som forholder seg til ikke gjennomførbare vakre tanker.

“Sosialisme er mer frihet” hevder RU. Dette er også en skjønnmaling, som ikke er i tråd med marxismen. Slik Engels sier i polemikk mot anarkistene:

«har disse herrene («de anti-autoritære») noen gang sett en revolusjon? En revolusjon er utvilsomt noe av det mest autoritære somfinnes. Det er en handling der den ene delen av befolkningen tvingersin vilje på den andre ved hjelp av geværer, bajonetter og kanoner -autoritære midler, om slikt finnes i det hele tatt. Og hvis denseirende parten ønsker ikke å ha kjempet forgjeves, må denopprettholde sitt herredømme, ved hjelp av den gru som våpnene vekkerhos de reaksjonære. Ville Pariserkommunen vart en eneste dag hvis denikke hadde anvendt det væpnede folks autoritet mot borgerskapet?Skulle vi ikke heller kritisere den for ikke å ha anvendt den itilstrekkelig omfang?»

Smash the Amerikkkan Dream and all First Worldist lies!

From Politics Are Over

Дети Третьего мира голодают и страдают от задержки роста, дети Первого мира страдают от тучности

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com, translated by the Russian Maoist Party (RMP))

Согласно недавнему отчёту Детского фонда , 200 млн детей в возрасте до пяти лет в бедных странах имеют задержку роста из-за недостаточного питания. Почти 90 % из них живут в Азии и Африке. Почти треть смертных случаев в этой возрастной группе связана с недоеданием.

В целом по Азии задержка роста затрагивает 30 % детей. Положение в Южной Азии особенно безрадостно: в Афганистане, Непале, Индии, Бангладеш и Пакистане насчитывается 83 млн голодных детей в возрасте до пяти лет. В Африке доля составляет 43 %.

Огромное большинство тех, кто страдает от недостаточного питания, живёт в Третьем мире. По контрасту, дети в Первом Мире страдают от проблемы потребления слишком большого количества продовольствия. Например, согласно руководителю государственной службы здравоохранения, в США 12,5 млн детей, 17 %, страдает от тучности. Эти дети имеют также проблемы со здоровьем, но это проблемы, связанные со сверхпотреблением. Кроме того, дети Первого мира стали менее физически активны. Физическая активность в США сократилась. Согласно одному исследованию, 20 % детей в возрасте от 9-ти до 13-ти лет не участвовали ни в какой физической активности вне школы. О подобных результатах сообщалось в других странах Первого мира.

Дети, испытывающие задержку роста, затем всю жизнь страдают от связанных с этим болезней. При империалистическом капитализме у 200 млн детей в Третьем мире украдено их будущее. Миллиард голодает каждый день, главным образом в Третьем мире. По контрасту, дети в Первом мире становятся грузными и бездеятельными.

Капитализм производит ради рынка, а не человеческих потребностей. Капитализм делит страны на Первый и Третий миры, с небольшой промежуточной зоной. Кучка стран богатеет за счёт большинства. Социализм совершит переворот. Исследования показывают, что производится достаточно продовольствия, чтобы при надлежащем распределении можно было легко избавиться от голода и недоедания. При социализме доступ к адекватной пище будет элементарным правом человека.

RAIM-Seattle forms

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

A new RAIM cell has formed in Seattle. MSH sends a red salute to RAIM-S.

From the RAIM-S website:

“- What does RAIM-Seattle want?

A utopian society. We want a world free from oppression of groups by groups and people by people. A world without imperialism, capitalism, patriarchy, national oppression, or youth oppression. We want a world based on egalitarianism and mutuality.

-Why is RAIM-Seattle so focused on anti-imperialism?

Because we are revolutionary humanitarians. People live off of three dollars a day, not because they are workers, women or children, but because they were born into the Third World. Everything is connected. The affluence of the First World is directly causative of the poverty in the Third World. The destruction of imperialism is the first step towards a mutualistic society.”

Maoismen er den mest utvikla formen for marxisme idag

Som kjent spurte nettsiden Radikal Front forskjellige organisasjoner på venstresiden om å skrive en tekst med overskriften “Veien og målet.” Henrik Ormåsen, talspersonen for Tjen folket, var først ute. Den 16.november publiserte Radikal Front teksten til KPml, og en lengre diskusjon fulgte i kommentarfeltet.

Diskusjonen har gått mellom folk fra Tjen folket og KPml-prosjektet. Klassekamp og Revolusjon legger her ut noen utdrag fra kommentarene:

Henrik Ormåsen (Tjen folket):

Revolusjon er en del av KPML. Hvis man sammenligner oppdateringsfrekvensen på sidene til KPML og Revolusjon, så er det ganske tydelig at denne enhetsprosessen har stranda. Ikke minst når en ser på tendensen av oppdateringer på disse to sidene. Revolusjon hadde jo større ansiktløftning på sine sider for ikke lenge siden.

Tjen folket mener at maoismen er marxismen for vår tid. For oss er det helt utplukka å fjerne Mao som en av de absolutt mest sentrale klassikerne. Vi syns NKS burde søke seg sammen med oss i stedet for Revolusjon. Revolusjon er ikke maoister. Vi har aldri hatt tro på at det var mulig å få Revolusjon over til maoismen.

Kjell Arnestad (KPml):

KPml har satset på å starte arbeidet for et nytt kommunistparti fra bunnen av. Det vil si at vi har startet med det medlemmene er enige om, nemlig marxismen-leninismen slik den er hos Marx, Engels, Lenin og Stalin. Deretter har vi hatt gode drøftinger om både Kina/maoisme og Albania/«hoxhaisme», samt en rekke andre spørsmål som går dypere i mulige motsetninger. Disse diskusjonene har vist at vi som kommer fra Akp/NKS, Rødt eller ML-gruppa revolusjon er enige om mye mer enn det både vi og andre skulle tro. Bruddet mellom Kina og Albania for snart 30 år siden blir mer og mer irrelevant. Tvert imot har utfordringen for oss vært å finne virkelige motsetninger slik at vi ikke driver skinn-diskusjoner.

Henrik Ormåsen (Tjen folket):

Etter 2 år med enhetsprosess, så burde dere vel ha funnet en enhet på om Mao skal ha en like sentral plass i det teoretiske grunnlaget som Marx, Engels, Lening og Stalin eller ikke? For dere vil vel ikke si at enheten er oppnådd gjennom å tåkelegge motsigelsen? Det var vel mening å oppnå enhet på et prinsippfast og klart grunnlag? Eller kanskje det er slik at dere endelig etter 2 års prosess har klart å få enhet på at Mao ikke er en like viktig teoretiker som de andre?

Kjell Arnestad (KPml):

Å  framstå som den udogmatiske, er litt uvant, men jeg akter ikke ukritisk adoptere ideologien som spilte fallitt med Akp. Jeg er også fullstendig uenig i TFs ensidige fokus på praksis som det saliggjørende. Slik praksisisme er i alle fall umaoistisk. (Her er det selvsagt fristende å komme med et utall sitater, men jeg er redd det ville skape slik forvirring i TF at jeg lar det være.) Alle i KPml driver med praktisk politisk arbeid i ulike fronter, og vi gjør det på en måte som skaper respekt for kommunisters jobbing nettopp i slike fronter, også i tråd med Mao. Om TF gjør det samme, er jeg mer i tvil om.

Joe (Tjen folket):

Kjell Arnestad agiterer mot dogmatisme for å forsvare sitt standpunkt om at Mao ikke er nødvendig for å bygge et nytt kommunistisk parti i Norge. Det må han gjerne gjøre, men dette er ikke nye tanker, dette er en repetisjon av diskusjonene i AKP på 80-tallet. Vi så hva resultatet ble av dette. Det er ingen grunn til å gjenta fiaskoen, bare 30 år senere.

Dette betyr sjølsagt ikke at hvis en bare skriver MLM tilstrekkelig mange ganger så går alt bra. Bare hvis en bruker mlm på skapende vis og legger hardt arbeid bak vil en få resultater.

Jeg mener at den slappe kritikken som Arnestad kommer om at vi driver med praktisisme er feil, jeg mener at vi har et bra forhold mellom teoretisk og praktisk arbeid. Hvis folk vil se hva vi skriver om så kan en gå hit: www.tjen-folket.no.

Det er ellers trist å se at Arnestad har slengt seg på en viss type kritikk som vi møter fra nazister og skrotvenstre. En burde være mer kritisk til hvem en lytta til.

Les alle kommentarene her.

KPml

Kommunistisk Plattform (marxist-leninistene) er et ”partibyggende” prosjekt. KPml består av både maoister og “hoxhaister”, altså fra begge sider av ml-bevegelsen på 70-tallet. NKS var AKPs tidligere studentorganisasjon, og representerer Mao-linja i KPml. På den andre siden er Ml-Gruppa Revolusjon, som representerer Hoxha-linja. I tillegg samarbeider KPml med en gruppe i Bergen som kaller seg Kommunistisk Gruppe, ofte forkortet til KGB. Denne gruppa i Bergen er imot Stalin som en klassiker, og synes ikke noe om å ha han i noen logo osv. Folk fra KGB var på Tjen folkets sommerleir i 2008, og kort tid etter avsluttet Tjen folket sine samtaler med gruppa.

KPml startet opp for to år siden, altså to år med fint lite. Verken fremover, eller spesielt bakover. De samme folka. To forskjellige nettsider og en drevet av KGB. Dette er den “partibyggende” organisasjonen.

Tjen folket

Tjen folket er et kommunistisk forbund, startet opp som ei marxist-leninistisk gruppe i 1998. Tjen folket var en liten gruppe, som nå har vokst seg til et omtrent landsdekkende forbund og opprettet Revolusjonær Kommunistisk Ungdom (RKU) som Norges eneste kommunistiske ungdomsorganisasjon. Tjen folket bygger på marxismen-leninismen-maoismen (MLM), den mest avanserte formen for marxisme i dag, og arbeider for å danne et nytt revolusjonært kommunistparti i Norge – med MLM som politisk plattform. Tjen folket har ikke ønsket å slå seg sammen med KPml, spesielt med tanke på spørsmålet om Maos rolle i den kommunistiske teorien. Derfor ønsker heller Tjen folket at NKS skal bryte ut av KPml og heller slutte seg til Tjen folket.

Realiteten er at Tjen folket er det eneste alternativet for kommunister som ønsker å bygge et nytt kommunistparti i Norge, som skal være et redskap for klassekampen, den sosialistiske revolusjon og oppbyggingen av sosialismen. Tjen folket har dette som mål, og mener maoismen er det beste verktøyet, sammen med praksis, for å bygge dette nye partiet og til kommunistisk organisering her og nå.

Third World children starve, suffer stunted growth, First World children suffer obesity

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

According to a new UNICEF report, 200 million children under 5 in poor countries have stunted growth due to insufficient nutrition. Of the 200 million, almost 90 percent live in Asia and Africa. Almost a third of deaths in that age group are linked to undernutrition.

In Asia as a whole, the stunted growth rate is 30 percent. The situation in South Asia is especially bleak with Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan accounting for 83 million hungry children under five. In Africa, the rate is 43 percent.

The vast majority of those who suffer insufficient nutrition reside in the Third World. By contrast, children in the First World suffer problems of consuming too much food. For example, according to the Surgeon General, 12.5 million children, 17 percent , in the US suffer from obesity. These children also suffer health issues, but they are health issues related to overconsumption. In addition, First World children also have become less physically active. Physical activity has declined in the US. According to one study, 20 percent of youth from 9 to 13 years old engaged in no physical activity outside of school. Similar results have been reported in other First World countries.

Children who suffer stunted growth suffer related ailments their whole lives. Under capitalism-imperialism, 200 million children in the Third World have their futures stolen from them.  A billion go hungry every day, mostly in Third World. By contrast, children in the First World  grow overweight and inactive.

Capitalism produces for the market, not for human needs. Capitalism divides countries into the First and Third Worlds, with little in between. A few countries grow wealthy at the expense of the majority. Socialism will turn the tables. According to studies, enough food is produced so that hunger  and undernutrition could easily be wiped out with proper food distribution. Under socialism, access to adequate nutrition will be a basic human right.

Sources:

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_nutrition_report;_ylt=AjUkpaoBeiVgjl3j5np6jT3VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJvaTlpZGRkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTExL2V1X21lZF9udXRyaXRpb25fcmVwb3J0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bnNheXNodW5nZXI-

2. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/obesityprevention/index.html

3. http://www.fitness.gov/enewsletter/fall2008/featurearticle.html

4. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/419

5. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/amerikans-first-worlders-waste-food-third-worlders-starve/

Følgende er La Rage av den franske rapartisten Keny Arkana. La Rage tar utgangspunktet i folkets misnøye generelt i verden og opprøret som utspilte seg i Frankrike i 2005.

Marxismen består av tusenvis av sannheter, men de koker alle ned til én: det er rett å gjøre opprør mot reaksjonære! – Mao Zedong

First Worldism underneath the Beyonce controversy
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Pop diva Beyonce’s “I Am..” tour has so far made 53 million dollars, and generated controversy to boot. In giant posters that pepper the streets, Beyonce sports a revealing, flame covered outfit  in the shape of motorcycle handlebars. Tour ads are running on Egyptian and Arab satellite television.

Islamic critics are reportedly saying that her show is an “indolent sex party” and that it promotes “vice and debauchery.” A facebook campaign against her concert has gathered 10,000 supporters. The critics are right on the whole. Beyonce, like most Amerikan pop culture, is pornographic and self indulgent — “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.” Behind the controversy are assumptions about Islam, the Third World, and women’s liberation.

First Worldist feminism often portrays two paths for women: First World liberalism or Third World barbarism, Sex in the City or Sharia law. In this controversy, Beyonce’s aptly titled “I Am..” tour has come to represent the former and her Islamic critics have come to represent the latter in the bourgeois media discourse. Lacking from the controversy is materialism. Beyonce, as a cultural artifact, is ripped out of one world and dropped into another. Beyonce’s music, her image, etc. resonates one way in the liberal First World and another way in the Islamic Third World because women live very different kinds of lives across very different kinds of societies. Capitalism-imperialism has created a world divided between exploiter and exploited countries. Women’s advancement in the First World has come to be very different from women’s advancement in the Third World.

The gains made by women in First World, liberal societies are made possible by super-profits taken from the Third World. First World societies have given individuals, both men and women, a greater range of life options. People in the First World have more social and geographic mobility. They are not bound to one way of life. First World women are free to change jobs. She is free to support herself, change locations, opt out of family life, enter into non-traditional sexual relationships, etc. Super-profits have freed women from restrictive traditional roles in the domestic and work realms. Like men, women have gained greater and greater access to leisure time in the First World. The imperialist economies of the First World have blunted the sharpest edges of patriarchal oppression for women.

Women’s advancement in the First World has gone beyond just gaining independence from the worst aspects of patriarchy. In gaining independence, women have gained access to much of the man’s world. Women’s advancement has thus taken the form of women opting into, not out of, the male world. Women are entering the man’s world, not as women, and not as second-class citizens. Rather, they are entering the male world on more and more equal terms with their First World male counterparts. And, with the rise of raunch culture over the past decades, First World women, in greater numbers, no longer see themselves as women, but as “one of the guys.” Women’s “liberation” in the First World is a “liberation” that is achieved by joining the oppressor as the oppressor, not by defeating the oppressor. Thus the contradiction between First World men and First World women, such that it exists, has ceased to be antagonistic. Insofar as gender imbalances still remain between First World men and First World women, it is a small price to pay to enter the male’s world. The reward for First World women is that they gain greater privileges, including gender privileges, over Third World peoples, both men and women. First World women benefit by their participation in the global patriarchy as oppressors. There is more unity than disunity between First World men and First World women.

To advance oneself in the First World, one becomes an oppressor. By contrast, Third World women cannot enter the world of the First World oppressor. In general, she cannot enter his world as anything close to his equal. She can only enter into his social world to be oppressed, for example, as a prop for a sexual fantasy. First World women advance their interests, including their gender interests, by creating inequality on a global scale. By contrast, Third World women must seek their liberation by seeking equality for the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. Many Third World women are still bound by traditional roles, both in domestic roles and in production. They do not have the life opprotunities that First World women have. Survival within the capitalist-imperialist system greatly limits what Third World women can and cannot do. Third World women have none of the mobility that First World women have. Thus Third World women’s liberation is tied to the uprooting of feudalistic and traditional ways of life that often become even more unbearable in the context of capitalism-imperialism.

The First Worldist feminist says that it is either her way or tribal barbarism. She says that Third World women can find liberation through individualistic self discovery and self help, by throwing off the veil and putting on miniskirts, by liberating her sexuality, by joining the hedonistic free for all, by becoming “one of the guys.” However, such is a dead end for the Third World. The real way forward for Third World women is the proletarian revolution, uprooting the old mode of production. For the vast majority of women, they must find a way that breaks the chains of patriarchy, the chains of national oppression, and all other chains.

Gender contradictions in the First World follow a familiar pattern. The super-profit flow into the First World has transformed First World society such that antagonistic contradictions hardly exist, or are severely blunted. Instead, First World populations are more and more homogenous in their alignments, especially in their alignments toward the Third World. To meet this challenge, the Third World must unite to defeat the First World. Social revolution, including gender liberation, must happen within a context of the global people’s war, the struggle against imperialism, the struggle for national liberation, New Democracy, socialism and, ultimately, communism.

Sources

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/beyonce-egypt-show-called_n_347326.html

Marxismen-leninismen-maoismen (MLM) er en ideologi som skiller seg radikalt fra alle de andre tidligere ideologier i både form, klasseinnhold og oppgaver den setter foran seg.

Den første av disse forskjellene, i motsetning til alle tidligere ideologier, er at den tjener arbeiderklassen og ikke utbytterklassen. Den gir arbeiderklassen en politisk linje for frigjøring. For det andre, den underbygger det teoretiske behovet for å eliminere all undertrykkelse og bygge det klasseløse samfunn, kommunismen. For det tredje, den er vitenskapelig, altså reflekterer den objektive virkeligheten. MLM er uforenlig med det idealistiske verdenssyn. Det teoretiske grunnlaget er dialektisk og historisk materialisme.

MLM er den mest humane ideologien i verden. Den bygger opp under humane relasjoner mellom mennesker og nasjoner, menneskehetens befrielse fra de ødeleggende krigene som kapitalismen tvinger frem, og søker å etablere en varig fred og et fritt og lykkelig liv for alle. Dette er målet, det klasseløse samfunn, kommunismen.

MLM bærer på vitenskapelig argumenter for å se behovet for ødeleggelse av kapitalismen, og erstatte den gamle produksjonsmåten med en ny. Etter å ha oppstått av proletariatets klassekamp mot borgerskapet, er den en rettesnor til handlig for denne kampen idag. Den viser måter og metoder for å bygge sosialismen og kommunismen, gjennom arbeiderklassen og dens fortropp, det kommunistiske parti.

Følgende er en liste på ti grunntekster for innføring i MLM:

1. Det kommunistiske manifest av Karl Marx og F. Engels
2. Lønnsarbeid og kapital av Karl Marx
3. Sosialismens utvikling fra utopi til vitenskap av F. Engels
4. Imperialismen av V.I Lenin
5. Staten og revolusjonen av V.I Lenin
6. Om leninismens grunnlag av J.V. Stalin
7. Om den historiske og dialektiske materialisme av J.V. Stalin
8. Sosialismens økonomiske problemer av J.V Stalin
9. Om praksis av Mao Zedong
10. Om motsigelsen av Mao Zedong

Fragging statement: MSH and Anwar al Awlaki

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

All the facts about the Fort Hood shootings are not in yet. The facts may never be fully known. After all, the bourgeois media, the accused’s handlers, and others, will try to craft their own narratives around the events. However, it is reported that there was a mass shooting that killed 13 and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood on November 5th, 2009. The alleged shooter is Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a US Army psychiatrist. According to reports, Hasan, a Muslim, is a vocal opponent of the war. He reportedly defended armed resistance to imperialism, including suicide attacks on US forces. Whether or not the shootings were a politically motivated attack against imperialism is not known yet.

The bourgeois media has condemned the horror of the shootings. However, capitalism-imperialism is the real horror. The continued existence of the US and other imperialist countries is the real horror. The US was born of the greatest genocide in human history. Amerikans exterminated a continent of Indigenous civilizations to make way for its racist empire. Millions of Blacks and Africans were killed and enslaved to make the US what it is today: the most murderous country that has ever existed. There is not a corner of the Third World that escapes the murderous grasp of US imperialism. Billions of people in the Third World barely survive, making less than 2.50 dollars a day, exploited by the US and First World. Billions live in poverty so that US and other First World populations live in luxury. Billions live under constant military threat from the imperialists. In Iraq alone there have been 100,000 to 600,000 violent deaths since 2003. In Afghanistan, there have been 12,000 to 32,000 civilian deaths since 2001.

Those who strike out against the real horrors of imperialism should be applauded, not condemned. Fragging has a long histoy. In the last century, fragging was a form of resistance practiced by Russian troops against their Czarist officers during World War 1 and the Bolshevik revolution. Fragging was also a form of protest against the genocide waged by the US against Vietnam.

Fragging is still a valid form of resistance today.  Not only does fragging hurt imperialist forces in a very direct way, fragging strikes a strong psychological blow against the enemy. Fragging demoralizes and destroys the enemy from within.

Islamic cleric Anwar al Awlaki, who knew Hasan earlier in life, had this to say about the events:

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment –

Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137)

The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen”

Although we do not agree that Muslims should necessarily leave the West en masse, we applaud al-Awlaki’s condemnation of the pro-Yankkkee lackeys in the Muslim community and his open endorsement of warfare against the imperialist enemy. Every human worthy of the name has a duty to fight an imperialist enemy that kills tens of millions of humans every year.

Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Aggregation_of_estimates
3. http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=228

Floating parasitism

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Royal Caribbean International has just launched the world’s largest cruise ship. The Oasis of the Seas weighs 225,282 tonnes. The ship is 360 meters long and 72 meters high above the water line. Passenger features include luxuries such as two-story loft suites and other luxury suites measuring 150 square meters with balconies overlooking the sea or promenades. Its capacity is 5,400 passengers, 6,296 people total.

The passengers will enjoy all the luxuries of a floating resort town. The ship will be divided into neighborhoods with different themes and activities. One ship highlight is the first living park at sea with 12,000 plants and 56 trees. The ship also includes a 750-seat outdoor amphitheater, a golf course, volley ball and basket ball courts, a zipline, a casino, a handcrafted carousel, rock climbing walls, several pools, many bars, a youth science lab and a computer gaming area.

The maiden voyage of this floating, behemoth monument to decadence is scheduled for December 5th, 2009. The vessel, along with a soon to be completed sister ship, will be based out of the US port of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The ship cost 1.4 billion dollars to construct, and even more to maintain and operate. The building cost of the ship is about the same as the GNP of Eritrea in 2008. The capitalist-imperialist system has dedicated roughly the equivalent of the GNP of an African country into creating a floating playground for First Worlders.

The average ticket price will be about 1,000 dollars for 7 days. This is not out of the range of the average adult Amerikan who has an income of 32,000 dollars per year. By contrast, many people in the Third World don’t even earn 1,000 dollars in an entire year. In fact, there are more people in India whose yearly income is less than a 1,000-dollar ticket. The vast majority of the workforce make less than Rs. 20 or 0.49 dollars a day.

This is an example of what Karl Marx identified as the anarchy of production under capitalism. Capitalism produces for the market, it does not produce to meet the needs of the vast majority. Under  socialism, by contrast, the few will not be able to take a cruise on a floating utopia while others fight for their basic survival. Under socialism, the global distribution will be one that is more rational and egalitarian. The First World itself will be abolished under global socialism. Under socialism, the few will not benefit at the expense of the many.

Sources

1. http://www.cruiseshipforum.com/cruise/cr….the-world. html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
4. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-

Third World countries protest First World countries over climate change

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

50 African countries walked out of a UN working meeting on climate change in Barcelona, Spain. The African and 70 other Third World countries have been protesting U.N. climate negotiations this week. According to the African spokespeople, the wealthy countries make weak commitments to environmental protection and it is the poor countries suffer the most severe consequences.

Africa, for example, is being devastated by droughts and floods that result from climate changes. Even though the Third World accounts for only a third of greenhouse gasses, it will suffer 80 percent of the damage resulting from climate change. According to an African Union official, the state of Texas alone “with 30 million inhabitants creates as much greenhouse gases as the billion Africans taken together.”

Africans advocate that the First World countries should reduce their carbon emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020. The African demand lines up with the upper limit advocated by scientists. However, so far, the targets that have been announced, favored by First World countries, have fallen far short.

These protests set the stage for negotiations at the final Copenhagen conference. UN negotiators hope to adopt a final treaty to reduce worldwide carbon emissions. The Copenhagen deal would succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to reduce gas emissions from industrial countries by 5 percent. Of all the major greenhouse gas producers, the US was the only one to reject the Kyoto accord.

Environmental issues, especially global warming, affects both First and Third World peoples. However, First World peoples are the ones who benefit the most from greenhouse economy. The greenhouse economy, the capitalist-imperialist economy, is an economy that principally serves First World consumers at the expense of Third World producers. Yet those who suffer most from climate change are peoples in the Third World. Any fair treaty to reduce carbon emissions should put the brunt of responsibility on First World countries to clean up the environmental mess that results from the world system that serves their endless consumption. In addition, any fair treaty should respect and not impede Third World development and sovereignty.

Sources

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091103/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_climate_talks
2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/reparations-demanded-for-eco-destruction-of-africa/

Lackeys in Iran: Help! Obama! Help!

(monkeysmasheshheaven.wordpress.com)

This week witnessed demonstrations in the streets of Tehran. According to reports, these are the first significant ones since the end of demonstrations surrounding the contested presidential elections months ago. The recent protests come at a time of increased pressure on the Islamic Republic by the imperialists over Iran’s nuclear energy program.

According to reports, some demonstrators went onto the streets to protest the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad. Others defended the Iranian state’s “hard line” toward the US. According to reports, in Haft-e-Tir Square, demonstrators clashed with police.

The anti-government protesters openly sought imperialist help. In a widely circulated youtube clip, anti-government demonstrators in Tehran chant in Farsi: “Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us!” Another widely chanted slogan, aimed at Ahmadinejad, was “Death to the dictator!”  The Obama administration responded by calling on an end of violence against the anti-government protesters. Press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama administration leaders “hope greatly that violence will not spread.”

By contrast, at the rally to mark the 30th year anniversary of the takeover of the US embassy where 52 Amerikans were held hostage for 444 days, thousands gathered in front of the US embassy chanting “death to Amerika!”  US flags were trampled and marched on.

The US public overwhelmingly supports imperialist action against Iran. According to a recent poll, the majority, 61 percent, of Amerikans favor the use of military force against Iran.  Also, 71 percent of Israelis favor a military attack against Iran. The Obama administration has left no doubt whose side its on in numerous public statements criticizing the Islamic regime.

Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is surely aiding those forces that have been destabilizing Iran. Others too have played their parts behind the scenes to undermine anti-interventionist sentiment in the US. For years, fake-Maoist organizations like the RCP USA and other imperialist lackeys in the so-called “left” have parroted neo-con propaganda,  attacking Iran’s nuclear program and over gender issues. And, over the summer, First World “leftists,” caught up in the media hype, found themselves cheering what the US State Department hoped would be another pro-imperialist color revolution. These “leftist” forces are hardly friends of the Iranian people.

It is in this context, that Israel claims that its commandos have seized a shipment of 3,000 Iranian-made rockets bound for Lebanon to be used by Hezebollah. Whether this event is being reported truthfully or not,  it creates yet more pretext for imperialist attack against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu :

“The time has come for the international community to put real pressure on Iran for it to halt this despicable activity and back Israel when it defends itself against terrorists and their patrons.”

There is increased imperialist meddling and pressure being applied to Iran. Pretexts are being created for military intervention and public opinion is being shaped. Those who welcome imperialists as Iran’s saviors and those who end up in de facto alliances with imperialists as they attack Iran have no credibility among the masses. Those who oppose the imperialists are real patriots in Iran. Iran’s future should be decided by Iranians.

Sources

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/which-side-are-you-on-61-of-amerikkkans-favor-using-force-against-iran-28-oppose/
3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arms_boat
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091104/wl_mideast_afp/iranpoliticsusembassyanniversary

Sa Liyab ng Libong Sulo

(amihanmalaya.wordpress.com)

Ang “Sa Liyab ng Libong Sulo” ay isang bidyu-dokumentaryo na gawa nuong 1996 at hango sa librong, “Lipunan at Rebolusyong Pilipino,” ni Amado Guerrero. Inilalarawan nito ang kasaysayan ng pakikibaka ng sambayanang Pilipino magmula nuong kapanahunan ng kolonyalismong Espanyol hanggang sa panahon ng imperyalismo sa pagbungad ng bagong milenyo. Tampok rito ang proletaryong pananaw sa kasaysayan, kaya nga naman binansagan itong “subersibo” at ipinagbawal pa ng reaksyunaryong gubyerno. Sa rami ng reklamo ng mga reaksyunaryo sa pelikulang ito, ni isa sa kanila ay hindi pinagusapan ang nilalaman ng pelikula ukol sa tunggalian ng uri, na batay lamang sa katotohanang nagaganap sa lipunan. Alam na alam ng mga reaksyunaryo ang batas ng tunggalian ng uri, ngunit hindi nila ito inaamin sa publiko.

Reklamo ng isa:

“Ang hanap ng lahat ay kapayapaan, kaayusan, katahimikan – mga bagay na hindi maibibigay ng pagyakap sa isang ideolohiya na di tanggap ng nakararami, na ikinokondena ng Simbahan, na di tinatangkilik ng pamahalaan.” … “Pakiramdam ko kasi’y isang pagbebrainwash… isang pagtatangka na isubo sa aking utak ang isang mapait na lason.”

Sa halip na punahin niya ang makasaysayang naratibo ng pelikula gamit ang wastong pagaargumento, nauwi siya sa paggamit ng estilong “ad homimem” at “argument from authority”. Hindi basta sinabi ng simbahan, o gubyerno ay totoo, binase lamang ng nag-iingit na kritiko ang kanyang makitid na pananaw mula sa anti-komunistang retoriko ng mga reaksyunaryo. Bukambibig niya ang salita ng mga ahenteng pang-psywar ng berdugong militar, taglay rin niya ang kababuyang lohika ng mga naghaharing uring panginoong maylupa at burgesyang kumprador. At hindi kagulat-gulat ang kanyang naging reaksyon, ang mga kaaway ay natural na kinikilabutan kapag naririnig ang mga salitang rebolusyong proletaryo, sosyalismo, komunismo: ang mga salitang ito’y nangangahulagan lamang kasi ng kanilang katapusan. Masdan na iniiwasan niya ang anumang makabuluhang pagtalakay sa mga makasaysayang kaganapang naibanggit sa dokumentaryo, alam rin nila kasi na ang kasaysayan ay hindi panig sa kanila kaya pilit nilang palabuin ito para sa sariling pakinabang.

Ito ay sumasalamin sa mga realidad ng lipunan, ang mga krimen na kinasasangkutan ng mga naghaharing uri ay hindi nabibigyan ng pansin, bagkus ay sadyang kinakalimutan. Nagagawa ng mga reaksyunaryo na baguhin ang kasaysayan gamit ang pang-estadong kapangyarihan, at palabasin na sila pa ay mapagmalasakit. Mula sa mga librong ginagamit ng mga estudyante hanggang sa anong mapanood at marinig sa telebisyon ay kontrolado ng estado. Para magbanggit ng ilan, meron pa bang balita tungkol sa masaker sa Hacienda Luisita? Naaalala pa ba ng mga tao ang Mendiola Massacre nuong 1987? Kahit ang mga lider ng mga ligal at mapayapang pagkilos para sa reporma sa lupa ay pinapatay, isang halimbawa ay yung kaso ng mga magsasaka sa Sumilao. Ang kamay ng mga naghaharing uri ay basang-basa sa dugo ng mamamayan subalit lagi na lang nagbubulag-bulagan at tikom ang bibig ng midya, maging ang simbahan.

Sa saradong mundo ng mga reaksyunaryo, wala naman talagang nangyaring mga henosidyo sa Pilipinas nuong pisikal na sinakop tayo ng mga dayuhan, masamang panaginip lang yung mga tributo na ipinataw sa sambayanan ng mga parasitikong Prayle, kolonyal na estado bilang kabuuan, imahinasyon lang yung madugong polisiyang “kill all above ten” ng U$ military nuong ipinasa tayo ng mga espanyol sa kano, at kathang-isip lang ang Bataan death march. Nililikha ng mga reaksyunaryo ang mga ganitong kabulastugan sapagkat gusto nilang kalimutan ng masa ang kasaysayan, sa ganitong paraan nais ng mga reaksyunaro na mapanatiling bulag at bingi ang kamalayan ng masa sa sanhi ng kanilang kaapihan. Gusto nilang kalimutan ng masa ang kasaysayan, ang tunggalian ng uri, at palitan ng ipinalalandakang nilang teorya ng mga produktibong pwersa. Habang atubili ang naghaharing uri sa pagpapahirap sa bayan, habang inilalako nila ang bayan sa presyong pinakamura para sa mga imperyalista, gusto nilang sabihin sa masang naghihikahos na tularan ang imperyalistang Unang Daigdig at kilalanin sila bilang tagapagligtas ng sambayanang Pilipino at ng buong sangkatauhan. Gusto nilang alisan ng pag-asa at panghinaan ng loob ang masang inaapi at pinagsasamantala. Layon ng mga reaksyunaryo na pasamain ang sosyalismo at ijustify ang walang katarungan na kaayusang panlipunan na kanilang pinakikinabangan, upang ipamukha sa anakpawis na habang buhay silang magiging alipin.

Walang tunay na “kapayapaan, kaayusan, katahimikan” sa ganitong klase ng lipunan. Ang “kapayapaan, kaayusan, katahimikan” para sa mga naghaharing uri ay sukat lang ng ayos ng pagtakbo ng kanilang mga negosyo at karera. Maingay nilang inirereklamo ang karahasan ng rebolusyonaryong armadong pakikibaka, pero mula’t sapul ay marahas naman talaga ang tunggalian ng uri. Dagdag pa rito, hindi nila magawang aminin ang pang araw-araw na karahasan na dinudulot ng pangangalaga sa naghaharing sistema, ang karahasang dinudulot ng kapitalismo-imperyalismo bilang kabuuan sa mga aping mamamayan ng Ikatlong Daigdig, na oras-oras na pinapatay at ginugutom.

Lagi na lang ipinapahiwatig ng mga reaksyunaryo na kasalanan ng mga mahihirap kung bakit sila mahirap, ang mga mahihirap daw ay dapat lang manatiling mahirap at ang mayayaman ay marapat lang magpakayaman. Dahilan naman ng mga relihiyosong orden, ito raw ay sadyang “likas” at kapasyahan ng “diyos”. Ayon naman sa mga sobonistang petiburges, kaya raw mahirap ang masa ay dahil sila ay tamad at bobo, kaya naman mayaman ang mayaman ay dahil sila ay masipag at matalino – ganito ang takbo ng mga kaisipang reaksyunaryo, hindi nila mabigyang sagot ang problema na sila rin ang lumikha tapos ibabaling nila ang sisi sa proletaryo. Hindi isinisikreto ng kasaysayan na ang simbahan at ang midya ay kinakasangkapan lamang ng mga naghaharing uri para sa kanilang iba’t-ibang agenda. Sabi narin ng obskurantistang simbahan magmula pa nuon upang pangatwiranan at gawing panghabangbuhay ang kanilang mapaniil na paghahari sa masa, mamamatay raw muna ang mga mahihirap bago nila makamit ang kasaganahan…duon sa “paraiso”.

Hindi tulad ng mga metapisikong reaksyunaryo, tayong mga rebolusyonaryo ay armado ng syensya, alam natin na ang takbo ng kasaysayan at ang kinabukasan ng sangkatauhan ay hindi umiikot sa mga antedelubyang kasulatin ng bibliya, sapagkat tao ang siyang may hawak ng kanyang kapalaran. Ating balik-aralan ang kasaysayan, makikita natin na ang masa ang siyang mapagpasya. Sa paraan ng kolektibong pagkilos ay magagawa ng mga inaapi at inaalipin na baguhin ang takbo ng kasaysayan, ang mga taong api mismo ang siyang lilikha ng makatotohanang paraiso dito sa lupa, aabutin natin ang isang lipunang walang pang-aapi’t pagsasamantala.

Kamatayan sa kapitalismo-imperyalismo!

Mabuhay ang Tagumpay ng Digmang Bayan!

The demolition of the Thälmann Memorial in Ziegenhals (in Brandenburg, Germany, near Berlin) must be prevented!

(www.mona-lisa.org)

Declaration of human rights and peace prize bearers of the Society for the Protection of Civil Right and Human Dignity (GBM), and the circle of friends “Ernst Thälmann Memorial”

Still within the 70th year, after the beginning of the Second World War, of the German raid on Poland, the important antifascist memorial in remembrance of the illegal conference at Ziegenhals of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and of its opposition to Hitler in Germany is to be torn down. The excavators are already standing by. This demolition must be prevented.

This memorial is no ordinary regional place of remembrance in an idyllic atmosphere in Krossinsee close to Berlin. It is not only a simple monument for an important leader of the German and international labour movement; an antifascist Reichstag representative for whose release from prison and concentration camp antifascists from all over the world fought for until he was murdered.

He had warned: “Who votes Hitler, votes for War!” He had, at this historic location, immediately after the fascist takeover of power – and in recognition of the KPD’s own shortcomings – called for a United Front, for the unfolding of all forms of mass resistance and mass struggle against the fascist dictatorship, against its wanton destruction, and for the overthrow of the Hitler government. He pleaded against the militarization of the country and of its youth to prevent a new imperialistic world war.

The preservation of this memorial is the duty of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German government was obliged to guarantee to the peoples of the world, who after World War II had the right to await that war would never again be started from German terrain, that war would, in fact, never be started from German soil again. This promise has been broken. See Yugoslavia or Afghanistan.

How it is possible, that a government in Germany, whose former government had started the 2nd world war and in whose regional and municipal parliaments today representatives of Neo-Nazis sit, in which radical right-wing activities and criminal offences abound and which is rife with anticommunism, can behave in such an unhistorical and irresponsible way? We demand that the Federal Republic fulfil her responsibility to preserve the memorial from this act of planned historical vandalism.

We demand that it be guaranteed that the Brandenburg Ministerial Council whose purchase of the property containing the memorial – whose give-away price can only be explained by the requirements for the preservation of sites of historic interest – fulfil their obligation under the purchase, “to further guarantee … a public use”.

The property’s owner may not put (as the Berlin Superior Court of Justice has stipulated) his self interests above the preservation of the memorial.

As human rights and peace prize bearers, we the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), demand to preserve in honorary recollection the contribution that Thälmann and the communists made in their antifascist fight, and to have their historical site of operation preserved as a National Memorial.

We demand the preservation and the reopening of the memorial in Ziegenhals at its authentic historic place.

Translated from German into English by Maren Cronsnest and Alant Jost

Hitherto existing signatures: Priest i. R. Dr. Dieter Frielinghaus (Brüssow), Professor Dr. Velko Valkanov (International Law, Sofia), Dr. Friedrich Wolff, Lawyer (Berlin), Kate Reichel (Actress, Buckow), Professor Hermann Klenner, (Solicitor, Berlin), Vil N. Romaschtschenko for the Ukrainian section of the European Peace Forum

*

Der Abriss der Thälmanngedenkstätte in Ziegenhals muß verhindert werden!

(www.mona-lisa.org/Ziegenhals.htm)

Erklärung von Menschenrechts- und Friedenspreisträgern der Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und Menschenwürde e.V. GBM und des Freundeskreises „Ernst-Thälmann-Gedenkstätte“ e.V.

Noch im 70. Jahr des Beginns des Zweiten Weltkrieges mit dem deutschen Überfall auf Polen soll die bedeutende antifaschistische Gedenkstätte in Ziegenhals, die an die illegale Tagung des ZK der KPD und an den Widerstand gegen Hitler in Deutschland erinnert, abgerissen werden. Die Bagger stehen bereit. Der Abriss muß verhindert werden.

Diese Gedenkstätte ist kein bloßer regionaler Ort des Erinnerns in idyllischer Lage am Krossinsee nahe Berlin. Sie ist auch kein bloßes Ehrenmal für einen, wenn auch bedeutenden, Führer der deutschen und internationalen Arbeiterbewegung, für einen antifaschistischen Reichstagsabgeordneten, für dessen Freilassung aus Kerker und KZ sich bis zu seiner Ermordung Antifaschisten aus aller Welt einsetzten. Er hatte gemahnt, „Wer Hitler wählt, wählt Krieg“. Er hatte an diesem authentischen Ort unmittelbar nach der Machtergreifung des Faschismus auch in Anerkennung eigener Mängel zur antifaschistischen Einheitsfront aufgerufen, zur Entfaltung aller Formen des Massenwiderstandes und Massenkampfes gegen die faschistische Diktatur, zum Kampf gegen den wüsten faschistischen Terror und zum Sturz der Hitlerregierung. Er hat sich gegen die Militarisierung des Landes und der Jugend gewendet, um einen neuen imperialistischen Weltkrieg zu verhindern.

Den Erhalt der Gedenkstätte zu sichern ist die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ist die deutsche Regierung der internationalen Öffentlichkeit schuldig, die nach dem 2. Weltkrieg mit Recht erwarten durfte, dass von deutschem Boden nie wieder Krieg ausgeht. Das Wort ist gebrochen worden. Siehe Jugoslawien oder Afghanistan.

Wie kann sich eine Regierung Deutschlands, das den 2. Weltkrieg begann und in dessen regionalen und kommunalen Parlamenten heute auch Vertreter der Neonazis sitzen, in dem sich rechtsradikale Umzüge und Straftaten mehren und in dem der Antikommunismus grassiert, so geschichtswidrig und verantwortungslos verhalten? Wir fordern, dass die Bundesrepublik ihrer Verantwortung gerecht wird, das Denkmal vor dem geplanten Geschichtsvandalismus zu bewahren.

Wir fordern, dass gewährleistet wird, dass der zu einem nur durch die Denkmalschutzauflagen erklärbaren Schleuderpreis in den Besitz der Immobilie gekommene Brandenburgische Ministerialrat der Verpflichtung gerecht wird, die er mit dem Kauf einging, „eine öffentliche Nutzung . . . weiterhin zu gewährleisten“. Er darf – wie das Berliner Kammergericht Berlin ihm vorhielt – nicht seine Eigeninteressen über den Erhalt der Gedenkstätte stellen.

Als Menschenrechts- und Friedenspreisträger der Gesellschaft zum Schutz von Bürgerrecht und Menschenwürde e.V. GBM fordern wir, auch dem Beitrag Thälmanns und der Kommunisten im antifaschistischen Kampf eine ehrende Erinnerung zu bewahren und ihren hervorgehobenen Wirkungsstätten den Status nationaler Gedenkstätten zu bewahren.

Wir fordern den Erhalt und die Wiedereröffnung der Gedenkstätte in Ziegenhals an historisch authentischem Ort.

Bisherige Unterschriften: Pfarrer i. R. Dr. Dieter Frielinghaus (Brüssow), Professor Dr. Velko Valkanov (Völkerrechtler, Sofia), Rechtsanwalt Dr. Friedrich Wolff (Berlin), Käthe Reichel (Schauspielerin, Buckow), Professor Hermann Klenner, (Rechtswissenschaftler, Berlin), Vil N. Romaschtschenko für die Ukrainische Sektion des Europäischen Friedensforums

*

Arbeidere i alle land, foren dere!

Ideologien til det internasjonale proletariatet er formet gjennom klassekampens historiske prosess. Først oppstod den som marxismen, deretter marxismen-leninismen og senere marxismen-leninismen-maoismen. Så den vitenskapelige ideologien til proletariatet har tre faser: 1) marxismen, 2) leninismen og 3) maoismen. Disse tre stadiene representerer milepælene i den dialektiske prosessen med utvikling av proletariatets ideologi, noe som igjen avanserer klassekampens nivå.

Klassekampen gjenspeiles også som en tolinje-kamp i de kommunistiske partiene, og den siden som seirer avgjør utfallet av revolusjonen eller oppbygginga av sosialismen.

Det er takket være det enorme arbeidet til Marx, Lenin og Mao Tse-tung, gjennom teori og praksis, at det internasjonale proletariatet er bevæpnet med et uovervinnelig våpen: marxismen-leninismen-maoismen, hovedsakelig dagens maoisme.

Gonzalos tenkning er utviklet som et resultat av modningen og fremgangen for klassekampen og folkekrigen i Peru. For å forstå dette er det nødvendig å huske på at revolusjoner kommer som et resultat av den styrende tanken, som følge av anvendelsen av de universelle sannheter til proletariatets ideologi til de spesifikke forholdene i hver revolusjon. Denne rettesnoren er helt avgjørende for å oppnå seier, ta statsmakta og for å fortsette revolusjonen mot det endelige målet, kommunismen.

Denne rettesnoren vil, på en visst stadium, føre til et kvalitativt sprang i den revolusjonære prosessen og derfor blir den identifisert med navnet på personen som utviklet den i teori og praksis. I Peru ble dette ”fenomenet” først kalt Den ledende tanken, senere Gonzalos ledende tenkning og til slutt Gozalos tenkning. Kort sagt, president Gonzalo anvende og tilpasset på kreativt vis marxismen-leninismen-maoismen til de spesifikke forholden til den peruanske virkeligheten, for dermed gi Perus kommunistiske parti og revolusjonen et ideologisk våpen for seier.

Marxismen-leninismen-maoismen Gonzalos tenkning er det høyeste og nyeste stadie av den proletariske ideologien, tilpasset den peruanske virkeligheten, utviklet gjennom klassekampen og folkekrigen, og vil føre folket til seier over reaksjonen.

Gonzalos tenkning ble smidd gjennom år med intens klassekamp, en vedvarende og uavbrutt kamp for å opprettholde og forsvare marxismen-leninismen-maoismen. Det var en kamp for å rekonstruere paritet, hovedsakelig en kamp for å intensivere, opprettholde og videreutvikle folkekrigen i Peru.

Lysende Sti

New poll: Capitalism not too hot

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

A recent poll has people talking. The results of the poll are a sharp contrast to the free-market triumphalism of the 1990s. Intellectuals were declaring the victory of capitalism. In the 1989 book, the End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama declared that history was over and that free-market, liberal society was the final form of human society, the end point of civilization. Others got a piece of the action too. Post-modern liberal Richard Rorty liked to say that Western liberalism, with all its flaws, is the best that has been offered up by history: The age of ideology is over, or at least it should be. Globalist capitalism, or its companion “capitalism with a human face,” was the new mantra. That was then.

The recent poll implies that most people correctly know that the system as it currently exists is bad for them. The poll, conducted across 27 countries, reports that only 11 percent of people think that free-market capitalism is working well. Of the 29,000 people polled, only one in five think that capitalism is working well.

Almost a quarter of all those polled, 23 percent, think that capitalism is fatally flawed. The majorities in 22 of the 27 countries support a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. The poll shows that the majority of humanity has some sense of their own oppression even if they do not understand their oppression scientifically.

One poll result has been the focus of much commentary: Double digits in the imperialist countries see capitalism as “fatally flawed.” Over 40 percent in France and 15 percent in the US think that capitalism is fatally flawed. This figure is making its way through the First Worldist “left” that stupidly sees the double digits as confirmation of their worldview. These kinds of polls are not new. For example, Max Elbaum, in Revolution in the Air, peddled the same claim about the 1960s. Elbaum reports that 3 million people in the US thought revolution was necessary at that time. However, seeing capitalism as “fatally flawed” or that “revolution is necessary” is not an endorsement of socialism. In fact, nihilism runs deep in First World. It is a good bet that many see all systems as fatally flawed. Although there may be support for social democracy or social imperialism or fascism in the First World, there is almost no support for actual socialism there.

Actual socialism is perceived as frightening by First World peoples for the same reasons that many express their disappointment with the current capitalist system. Most in the First World believe that they are entitled to more privilege, not less. The current economic crisis has resulted in a drop in the standard of living. No doubt that this is reflected in the numbers. In addition, under actual socialism, First World populations will have even less privilege than they do under the current capitalist system. Actual socialism on a world scale entails something close to an equal distribution of the global social product. Under such a distribution, virtually everyone in the First World will see their incomes cut drastically, their purchasing power reduced, their leisure time shortened, etc.  After all, Karl Marx wrote that the ruling classes would tremble in the face of communist revolution. The entire First World, almost without exception, trembles at the prospect of genuine proletarian revolution.

There is almost no social base at all for revolution in the First World. It is a mystery to the First Worldist why the First World workers are not lining up for revolution. The First Worldist, like Goldilocks, looks to find that combination of mass line and party building, spontanaity and commandism, agitation and propaganda, hot and cold, that  will be “just right.” What the First Worldist utopians don’t realize is that there is no key that will unlock First Worldist proletarian revolution because there is no significant proletariat in the First World. There are hardly any masses at all in the First World. There are plenty of asses, however. Maoist-Third Worldists, by contrast, recognize that since the vast majority in the First World oppose real socialism, revolutionaries in the First World must design minoritarian strategies.  Revolutionaries find themselves behind enemy lines in the First World. Real revolutionaries adopt Jacobin strategies appropriate to their unique conditions in the First World.

The same poll asked people how they perceived the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. Poll results varied greatly across countries. The fall of the Soviet Union is mostly seen as a “good thing” in Europe, and, presumably, most of the First World: 79 percent in Germany, 76 percent in Britain and 74 percent in France feel that the dissolution was a good thing. However, 70 percent of Egyptians think that the fall of the Soviet Union was a “bad thing.” And, in Russia, Ukraine, and Pakistan, sizable majorities report that the fall was mainly a bad thing. In India, Kenya, and Indonesia, opinions are sharply divided.

Even though the Soviet Union in 1989 was not socialist, it is incorrectly perceived as both socialist and anti-imperialist by many. The poll results in many cases are, thus, less about the actual Soviet Union and more about the hostility that many in the Third World feel toward imperialism and capitalism. Such poll results can be more of an expression of pre-scientific, intuitive class hatred directed toward the Western imperialists. Ironically, the revisionist Soviet Union was imperialist also. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union became social imperialist. Even though the revisionists used socialist rhetoric, their actions were still imperialist.

Capitalism-imperialism has failed to guarantee a decent life for the vast majority of the world’s population. Most people in the Third World barely survive while most people in the First World live in relative luxury. Thus it is no surprise that opinions about the current system and about the Soviet Union would vary greatly. Similarly, opinions about revolutionary leaders also vary greatly between Western and non-Western countries. Stalin is seen as no different than Hitler in the West. However, in the ex-Soviet bloc, Stalin often polls as one of the greatest leaders of all time. It is a good sign that so many in the Third World understand that the system has failed them. It is the job of the communist to transform that basic intuition into a scientific understanding and revolution.

Sources

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8347409.stm

2. Max Elbaum. Revolution in the Air, p. 2