I find it interesting that the fan website takes the same position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I do. That position is that they would prefer secularism and do not like the rising influences of both Judaism and Islam.

The second article shows a great analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Satanism as Levay taught it. This article caused me to think critically in a way I have not since reading the Communist Manifesto.

I recommend reading these articles. They are good for your mind.

I understand that some of the comments by viewers are very “one-sided,” but in general the video is pretty good. It shows that Pol Pot was focused but very secretive and determined. He was calculating, but appeared very gentle. He worked his way from the bottom to the top. He was sold out by the Vietnamese. I didn’t know that. That’s why he hated the Vietnamese. Cambodia was sacrificed to France when other Southeast Asian countries collaborated for Independence.

It noted that he adopted some aspects of Marx, but was really not a hardliner “anti-revisionist” Marxist. In truth he was more of a progressive nationalistic type.

His rejection of urbanization is important too. Mao was similar in his approach though for Mao it was pragmatic. For Pol Pot it was a matter of principle.

What do you think? Was Pol Pot himself a criminal, or is he the ultimate victim of American, Soviet, Vietnamese and French imperialism?

Noam Chomsky defends Pol Pot. Pol Pot may have saved more people than he killed. Nobody said anything negative during the Cold War. It was only after Russia fell, when China became the next “big Satan,” that the “Maoist” Pol Pot was demonized by America.

L.P. Beria, NKVD

Though unmercifully slandered by Khruschev and other revisionists following his ousting in June 1953, Lavrenti Beria remained one of the Soviet Union’s most energetic leaders carrying forth the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.

Unfortunately, history has been slow to exonerate the legacy of L.P. Beria, including among man a Marxist with favorable views towards the Soviet Union.

But in considering Beria’s resume, it’s difficult to reconcile this irrational distaste (bordering on outright hatred) with the view of a man who committed his life to the building and construction of socialism first in his native Georgia, then Transcaucasia, and finally throughout the entire USSR.

It matters little that Beria has been subject to the routine vitriol from the foreign (and modern Russian) bourgeoisie. That much goes without saying, and is equally in line with the hostile attitudes dumped on J.V. Stalin and other Soviet leaders. However rotten Beria may appear in the pages of the bourgeoisie’s slanted and ideologically driven historiography, why then, and under what pretexts, does the Left continue to despise Lavrenti Beria?

Clearly, the accusations that Beria was an agent of foreign capitalist intelligence is absolutely ludicrous. Following Beria’s illegal seizure at the hands of Zhukov and other senior Soviet military officers at the behest of Khruschev et al., the conspirators began circulating these and other nasty rumors to justify their acting against a fellow comrade and Politburo member. Among the other charges leveled against Beria was the time-old accusation that he had served as a counter-intelligence agent for the Azeri nationalist Musavat Party.  But this accusation is also without merit, having been debunked as early as the 1920s by an investigation by the Communist Party of Transcaucasia; which found that Beria was in fact acting as a double agent for the Bolsheviks in pre-Soviet Georgia (nonetheless, the charge lived with Beria throughout his life).

The accusation that Beria attempted to undermine Soviet power following Stalin’s death is equally left wanting of hard evidence. The pragmatic moves to adjust and modify certain policies were representative of Beria’s overwhelming realism that predominated in his views of foreign, and to a large extent, internal affairs. His colleagues and later jailers accused Beria of attempting to restore capitalism – but that’s, again, is simply not true. Beria clearly understood that his own political fortunes were inextricably linked with socialism and the Soviet system – and that nothing he did would have ever enabled him to survive (politically, and possibly physically) if capitalism were restored. Beria’s actions then can best be understood by a realistic appreciation of the new challenges facing the Soviet Union following the death of its greatest leader, Josef Stalin.

For Beria, the policy changes pushed forth between the time of Stalin’s death and his arrest were a means of securing, not destabilizing, the Soviet Union. Beria, unlike many of his contemporaries, was able to appreciate that the loss of Stalin would signify a need to re-assert Soviet power in a different way, particularly in light of the changing dynamics following the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany at the conclusion of World War II and the rise in Western hostility and provocations marking the onset of the Cold War. True, many of Beria’s tendencies and activities following Stalin’s death may qualify him as a revisionist; but that’s, at the very least, disputable. What is unequivocally true, though, is that Beria was in no way, shape or form a traitor or counter-revolutionary.

The whole history of the so-called Abrahamic people is a fabrication. For those who do not know, Muslims like to claim that the Jewish prophets were in fact Muslims instead. The Jews fabricated it, and then the Muslims stole the fabrication.

I personally consider paganism to be great and I consider the Pharaoh to be a hero!

What does it tell you when you realize that the bourgeois faction of Jews has been fabricating stories about persecution since the Old Testament, and continues to do so today. Being race realists, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, and technocrats, we look down upon neo-nazis and their websites, but that does not mean that I accept that “spokesmen” within the Jewish community have some special authority, just because of who they are. To accept that authority would be to accept nepotism, and nepotism is associated with inferiority.

Many scholars have quietly concluded that the epic of Moses never happened, and even Jewish clerics are raising questions. Others think it combines myth, cultural memories and kernels of truth.

By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times April 13, 2001

It’s one of the greatest stories ever told: A baby is found in a basket adrift in the Egyptian Nile and is adopted into the pharaoh’s household. He grows up as Moses, rediscovers his roots and leads his enslaved Israelite brethren to freedom after God sends down 10 plagues against Egypt and parts the Red Sea to allow them to escape. They wander for 40 years in the wilderness and, under the leadership of Joshua, conquer the land of Canaan to enter their promised land.

For centuries, the biblical account of the Exodus has been revered as the founding story of the Jewish people, sacred scripture for three world religions and a universal symbol of freedom that has inspired liberation movements around the globe. But did the Exodus ever actually occur?

On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words. “The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all,” Wolpe told his congregants.

Wolpe’s startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided. After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua’s fabled military campaigns never occurred–archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan–modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel–whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt–explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

“Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently,” said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America’s preeminent archeologists. Dever’s view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but “no one would do that today,” he says.

The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible–often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups–has given way to more objective professionals aiming to piece together the reality of ancient lifestyles. But the modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public. In 1999, an Israeli archeologist, Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, set off a furor in Israel by writing in a popular magazine that stories of the patriarchs were myths and that neither the Exodus nor Joshua’s conquests ever occurred. In the hottest controversy today, Herzog also argued that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, described as grand and glorious in the Bible, was at best a small tribal kingdom.

In a new book this year, “The Bible Unearthed,” Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC–600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC–as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory. Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

Some scholars, of course, still maintain that the Exodus story is basically factual. Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, argued that the evidence falls into place if the story is dated back to 1450 BC. He said that indications of destruction around that time at Hazor, Jericho and a site he is excavating that he believes is the biblical city of Ai support accounts of Joshua’s conquests. He also cited the documented presence of “Asiatic” slaves in Egypt who could have been Israelites, and said they would not have left evidence of their wanderings because they were nomads with no material culture. But Wood said he can’t get his research published in serious archeological journals.

“There’s a definite anti-Bible bias,” Wood said. The revisionist view, however, is not necessarily publicly popular. Herzog, Finklestein and others have been attacked for everything from faulty logic to pro-Palestinian political agendas that undermine Israel’s land claims. Dever, a former Protestant minister who converted to Judaism 12 years ago, says he gets “hissed and booed” when he speaks about the lack of evidence for the Exodus, and regularly receives letters and calls offering prayers or telling him he’s headed for hell.

At Sinai Temple, Sunday’s sermon–and a follow-up discussion at Monday’s service–provoked tremendous, and varied, response. Many praised Wolpe for his courage and vision. “It was the best sermon possible, because it is preparing the young generation to understand all the truth about religion,” said Eddia Mirharooni, a Beverly Hills fashion designer.

A few said they were hurt–”I didn’t want to hear this,” one woman said–or even a bit angry. Others said the sermon did nothing to shake their faith that the Exodus story is true.

“Science can always be proven wrong,” said Kalanit Benji, a UCLA undergraduate in psychobiology. Added Aman Massi, a 60-year-old Los Angeles businessman: “For sure it was true, 100%. If it were not true, how could we follow it for 3,300 years?” But most congregants, along with secular Jews and several rabbis interviewed, said that whether the Exodus is historically true or not is almost beside the point. The power of the sweeping epic lies in its profound and timeless message about freedom, they say.

The story of liberation from bondage into a promised land has inspired the haunting spirituals of African American slaves, the emancipation and civil rights movements, Latin America’s liberation theology, peasant revolts in Germany, nationalist struggles in South Africa, the American Revolution, even Leninist politics, according to Michael Walzer in the book “Exodus and Revolution.” Many of Wolpe’s congregants said the story of the Exodus has been personally true for them even if the details are not factual: when they fled the Nazis during World War II, for instance, or, more recently, the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Daniel Navid Rastein, an Encino medical professional, said he has always regarded the story as a metaphor for a greater truth: “We all have our own Egypts–we are prisoners of something, either alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, overeating. We have to use [the story] as a way to free ourselves from difficulty and make ourselves a better person.”

Wolpe, Sinai Temple’s senior rabbi, said he decided to deliver the sermon to lead his congregation into a deeper understanding of their faith. On Sunday, he told his flock that questioning the Jewish people’s founding story could be justified for one reason alone: to honor the ancient rabbinical declaration that “You do not serve God if you do not seek truth.”

“I think faith ought not rest on splitting seas,” Wolpe said in an interview. “For a Jew, it should rest on the wonder of God’s world, the marvel of the human soul and the miracle of this small people’s survival through the millennia.”

Next year, the rabbi plans to teach a course on the Bible that he says will “pull no punches” in presenting the latest scholarship questioning the text’s historical basis. But he and others say that Judaism has also traditionally been more open to non-literal interpretations of the text than, say, some conservative Christian traditions.

“Among Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews, there is a much greater willingness to see the Torah as an extended metaphor in which truth comes through story and law,” said Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles. Among scholars, the case against the Exodus began crystallizing about 13 years ago. That’s when Finklestein, director of Tel Aviv University’s archeology institute, published the first English-language book detailing the results of intensive archeological surveys of what is believed to be the first Israelite settlements in the hilly regions of the West Bank. The surveys, conducted during the 1970s and 1980s while Israel possessed what are now Palestinian territories, documented a lack of evidence for Joshua’s conquests in the 13th century BC and the indistinguishable nature of pottery, architecture, literary conventions and other cultural details between the Canaanites and the new settlers. If there was no conquest, no evidence of a massive new settlement of an ethnically distinct people, scholars argue, then the case for a literal reading of Exodus all but collapses. The surveys’ final results were published three years ago.

The settlement research marked the turning point in archeological consensus on the issue, Dever said. It added to previous research that showed that Egypt’s voluminous ancient records contained not one mention of Israelites in the country, although one 1210 BC inscription did mention them in Canaan. Kadesh Barnea in the east Sinai desert, where the Bible says the fleeing Israelites sojourned, was excavated twice in the 1950s and 1960s and produced no sign of settlement until three centuries after the Exodus was supposed to have occurred. The famous city of Jericho has been excavated several times and was found to have been abandoned during the 13th and 14th centuries BC.

Moreover, specialists in the Hebrew Bible say that the Exodus story is riddled with internal contradictions stemming from the fact that it was spliced together from two or three texts written at different times. One passage in Exodus, for instance, says that the bodies of the pharaoh’s charioteers were found on the shore, while the next verse says they sank to the bottom of the sea.

And some of the story’s features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends, said Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkeley. Stories of babies found in baskets in the water by gods or royalty are common, he said, and half of the 10 plagues fall into a “formulaic genre of catastrophe” found in other Near Eastern texts.

Carol Meyers, a professor specializing in biblical studies and archeology at Duke University, said the ancients never intended their texts to be read literally. “People who try to find scientific explanations for the splitting of the Red Sea are missing the boat in understanding how ancient literature often mixed mythic ideas with historical recollections,” she said. “That wasn’t considered lying or deceit; it was a way to get ideas across.”

Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children. The ancient desert at the time could not support so many nomads, scholars say, and the powerful Egyptian state kept tight security over the area, guarded by fortresses along the way.

Even Orthodox Jewish scholar Lawrence Schiffman said “you’d have to be a bit crazy” to accept that figure. He believes that the account in Joshua of a swift military campaign is less accurate than the Judges account of a gradual takeover of Canaan. But Schiffman, chairman of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, still maintains that a significant number of Israelite slaves fled Egypt for Canaan. “I’m not arguing that archeology proves the Exodus,” he said. “I’m arguing that archeology allows you, in ambiguity, to reach whatever conclusion you want to.”

Wood argued that the 600,000 figure was mistranslated and the real number amounted to a more plausible 20,000. He also said the early Israelite settlements and their similarity to Canaanite culture could be explained as the result of pastoralists with no material culture moving into a settled farming life and absorbing their neighbors’ pottery styles and other cultural forms.

The scholarly consensus seems to be that the story is a brilliant mix of myth, cultural memories and kernels of historical truth. Perhaps, muses Hendel, a small group of Semites who escaped from Egypt became the “intellectual vanguard of a new nation that called itself Israel,” stressing social justice and freedom.

Whatever the facts of the story, those core values have endured and inspired the world for more than three millenniums–and that, many say, is the point.

“What are the Egypts I need to free myself from? How does the story inspire me in some way to work for the freedom of all?” asked Rabbi Steven Carr Reuben of Kehillat Israel in Pacific Palisades. “These are the things that matter–not whether we built the pyramids.”

On December 21, 2009 – the 130th Birthday of J.V. Stalin, people gathered on the Red Square in Moscow to celebrate this great event in the history of all mankind. Then came representatives from different parties and citizens from all walks of life.

First came the patriotic forces from the AUCPB, coming to the grave of Stalin and laid flowers and held a small meeting. After that the representatives of the CPRF and RCU of Youth, Trudovaya Rossia and many other parties and multitude of people came to pay respect to Stalin with flowers and wreaths.

Even though the authorities tried to stop some people, the multitude was just too much for the present regime to stop. The columns of people grew longer and longer and it brought back memories as to how it was during Soviet times.

There was a never-ending laying of flowers and wreaths to Stalin.

The people kept coming in greater numbers as never before since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Red Square from one end to the other had people waiting in line.

Soviet War Veterans, decorated with medals, paid their respect to Generalissimo Stalin.

Putin-Medvedev police started to hold back the Muscovites, but the people kept coming to pay respect to Stalin.

Part I of VI: Beck’s Countless Lies about America & the Founding Fathers

By Marcus Winter, Farabundo Morazán and Ismail LaLanne

On January 22nd 2010, another hardened reactionary tried to attack the history of leftism and Marxism and (surprise) managed to bring nothing new to the table at all. Shock jock Glenn Beck, an admitted alcoholic and former cocaine addict, has made a career out of appealing to the most lunatic fringe of the right-wing. Even so, this week he finally managed to outdo himself, even after the time he said Obama was “a racist” and had a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die begins oddly—with white X-Files font letters against a crackling static background. What this has to do with or why this is the least bit appropriate for the subject matter Beck tackles is anyone’s guess. As we shall see though, this is symbolic for the entire presentation, which, while clever, is the same hodgepodge of anti-communist views that we have all seen and heard a thousand times before.

A good question for Glenn Beck: why is such radical anti-communism necessary today if communism is discredited, dead, and buried? If communism is supposedly dead in the water, a footnote of history, and so on, and if capitalism is truly the greatest system, then why is it that we are facing a wave of anti-communist hysteria not seen since the Cold War? Mr. Beck, it might do you well to remember that hysteria and desperation are signs of weakness…and liars.

No matter how hard he tries, Glenn Beck cannot sell his line about how “this story has never been told.” Horror stories about communism have been told since before communists ever came to power in the first place. The opening of the secret Soviet archives actually reveals that these claims were in fact ridiculously exaggerated, not worse, than previously claimed.

So, what are his intentions here? Many things all at once—among them licking the boots of the bourgeoisie and re-packaging old and debunked lies. We shall tackle them one by one using our own sources and information. The complete transcript of Beck’s program is available here until further notice: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583732,00.html.

Because of the length of his program, we have decided to break this presentation up into several parts. For right now, we will content ourselves with refuting the introduction to his program.
We invite you to stay tuned for a little series of our own.

Beck’s Thesis
Glenn Beck’s allegedly “groundbreaking” exposé of “progressives,” whom he conveniently lumps together, is by no means new or groundbreaking at all. Revolutionary Holocaust seeks to establish a link between Joseph Stalin and communism on one side, and Adolf Hitler and Nazism on the other. While doing this it also seeks to talk about the reign of Mao Zedong in China, along with a segment about liberal icon Che Guevara.
This same “thesis” of fascism and communism being almost exactly the same or at least sharing fundamental similarities, has been repeated for us endlessly since we were kids. For Beck to champion this as a “new and groundbreaking” idea is either foolish or stunningly arrogant. It has been the dominant narrative shoved down our throats since the publication of The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951 by Hannah Arendt. For a closer look at this laughable “theory,” look here: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09…otalitarianism/

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, & Slave-Owning Freedom
The video begins with Glenn Beck praising the United States of America and its associated American Dream. “The story of America,” he pines, staring into the camera with his intellectual glasses on, “is really one of self-reliance and optimism, and profound faith.” He continues to milk this image for all its worth, bringing up the merits of the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Glenn Beck has willfully ignored the history of the American Revolution. The spirit of the American Founding Fathers is only a myth and not a reality.

First, the Constitution of the United States was not set up by “the” people or any sort of popular democracy, but by financial autocrats. White males with property were the only ones allowed to vote under the system that men such as George Washington (the richest man in America), James Madison (owned enormous slave plantations), John Hancock (a rich merchant), Benjamin Franklin (a wealthy printer) and others aimed to set up. Of the 55 men who gathered to write the Constitution in 1787, most were lawyers and men of enormous wealth, making their fortunes in landowning, slave trading, manufacturing or shipping. Half loaned money out for interest, 40 held government bonds.
Regarding the writing of the Constitution:
“The manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federals security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds” (1).

Governments are not neutral. They reflect the economic interests of the dominant class, expressed in America as men such as the Founding Fathers. The Constitution protects “life, liberty, or property” and little else in reality. Women, Blacks, Indians and poor whites were not mentioned, but the defense of private property was.
The clause about the “freedom of speech” was soon enough violated, as it is today, by clauses such as the Sedition Act of 1789, which was a response to the French and Irish Revolutions. It forbid under law the practice of writing or saying anything “false, scandalous and malicious” against the United States government, the Congress or the President. It is not immediately apparent that anyone’s “liberty” should be left to a government run by the rich and powerful.

Despite this, Beck says that “[…] those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled on realized the only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people to stop reading it.” He then insists that the Constitution, through its supposed system of check and balances, “kept dogs at bay” for 200 years. Despite this Utopian dream, the Founding Fathers were not men seeking a “balance” in society, and certainly didn’t believe that all men were created equal. If they wanted any sort of balance, it was between the wealthy, and not between such groups as Indians and whites, blacks and whites, men and women, boss and worker, or rich and poor, slave and slaveowner, and certainly not property owner and the propertyless.

Next Article
In the next part of the series, we shall see how Glenn Beck uses the story of Nazi Germany and WWII to further his own ends, and ends up whitewashing Nazi crimes in order to attack the USSR.

Sources:
1) Zinn, Howard. Peoples’ History of the United States, page 91.

Bow your little head,

Think for five minutes

On Stalin.

J.V. Stalin is the brilliant leader and teacher of the Party,

The great strategist of the socialist revolution.

He is implacable in facing the enemies of socialism,

Absolutely true to principle.

He is the union of clear revolutionary perspective,

And clarity of goal in all His activities,

Combining them with extraordinary firmness and persistence.

The name Stalin is the symbol of the moral and political unity of the working class.

By BRUNIDE LA MOTTE
Guardian newspaper
UK Nov/ 8/09

On November 9, 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down I realized that German unification would soon follow, which it did a year later. That meant the end of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the country in which I was born, grew up, gave birth to my two children, gained my Doctorate and enjoyed a fulfilling job as a lecturer at Potsdam University. The union brought wealth for some, but it also brought social breakdown, widespread unemployment, blacklisting, a crass materialism and an “elbow society” as well as demonisation of the country I lived in and helped shape it. Despite some advantages, for most it was more a disaster than a celebratory event.

Here are just two. My best friend, a foreign languages teacher, lost her job and was then blacklisted because, at the time the wall fell, she was teaching at the GDR Law College. She wasn’t a member of the Party or a political activist. After much searching she managed to find a job helping students who were excluded from school, because their parents were working in the GDR Government.

My brother who has a PhD in Philosophy of Science, lost his research job at the GDR Academy of Sciences, and ever since has only been able to find odd low-paying temporary jobs.

After the Wall was torn down more than 85% of industrial enterprises were sold to private firms in West Germany. More than 1.7 million of hectares of agricultural and forest lands were sold off and 80% of agricultural workers lost their jobs.

In 1990 the GDR economy plunged into bankruptcy when the hasty “currency union” was imposed by the West. The results were that the GDR export products rose in price by 450% overnight and were no longer competitive and thus the West gained more markets at the expense of GDR and the working people who became unemployed on a massive scale.

In the GDR everyone had a home, a guaranteed job, health care and all benefits that the socialist GDR gave to the people. After the unification close to 3,000,000 claims by non-GDR citizens were made on the GDR citizens’ homes! Most of the GDR citizens lost their homes to West Germans that were abetted by the West. Scores of GDR citizens committed suicide when they were evicted from their homes that they and their children grew up in.

That’s the price of the forced reunification and the sell off by traitors like Gorbachev and others!

This is a question I ask to Besoshvili, to Alex Linder, to Chaim Ben Pesach, to Daniel Shays, to Texas Dissident of original dissent. What year is it?

By  Kuo Mo Jo

(Chairman of All
Chine Association of writers and Artists)

Great Stalin, beloved
steel, eternal sun!

Because humanity has
you,

Marxism Leninism can
exert its might today;

Because humanity has
you,

The proletarians can
display its strength today;

Because humanity has
you,

The work of
liberation can extend its glory today,

It is you who lead us
to the open sea of world Communism;

It is you who
instruct the west to not forget the East;

It is you who unite
us into a force unparalleled in history.

The peace fortress of
Soviet Union stands firm,

The unity and
progress of the New Democracies of Europe and Asia advance;

And the brilliance of
the People´s Republic of China shines forth.

The history of
mankind has started new chapter;

The order of native
to will follow the path of revolution;

The name of Stalin
will forever be the sun of humanity.

Long Live great
Stalin!

Long Live beloved
Steel

Reference: People´s China Vol 1, No 1,  Jan 1 1950; Pg 4

What we have to remember is that blondism and red hair occur at low rates even in Arab and Mediterranean populations. These are not “new evolutions” or “racial traits” but just genes that “grew in popularity.” The term “Aryan” and the term “Semite” have linguistic roots and are not tied to racial origins. The Caucasoid race was always capable of depigmentation, because pigmentation is controlled by the complex interaction of genes and it only takes a single “bad gene” to cause someone to lose pigmentation. Look at an Albino black! But the bone structure is what makes Negroids a separate race!

What I’m arguing is that the change in pigmentation is not genetically important. Northern Europeans really are just depigmented Mediterraneans. Mediterraneans are just classical Caucasoids. Terms like “Alpine” and “Nordic” are not really logical. While there is an east-west genetic divide within Europe, there is little evidence that “Alpines” and “Nords” are separate races with distinct histories. It is merely random variation.

I really think the answer is sexual selection. Part of it is nature and part of it is human beings becoming conscious of the environment. People know the environment is colder, Mediterraneans are adapted to the desert, and that is what causes the change.

An interesting point is that Jews in Northern Europe are more depigmented than other Jews, even though they are (partially) genetically linked to other Jews. All Caucasoids are capable of depigmentation.

Law is the totality (a) of the rules of conduct, expressing the will of the dominant class and established in legal order, and (b) of customs and rules of community life sanctioned by state authority – their application being guaranteed by the compulsive force of the state in order to guard, secure, and develop social relationships and social orders advantageous and agreeable to the dominant class.

This simple thesis and observation was not new to Vyshinsky, but an objective characteristic of all legal systems, dating back to even the most primitive and ancient forms of historical jurisprudence.

But the difference between bourgeois jurisprudence and socialist legality is not only the necessary transition of state authority from one dominant class to the other (from bourgeoisie to proletariat), but is distinctively marked by the unity of theory and praxis. Unlike bourgeois “Constitutionalism,” as seen in Western liberal capitalist democratic states, the legal system of the Soviet Union was exemplified by this normative and descriptive cohesion. The most demonstrative evidence exists in the lack of so-called “Constitutional protections” that reflect vague or abstract principles whose validity exists beyond the realm of the material world, but a real-life reflection of the existing conditions prevalent in Soviet social relations.

Proceedings in 1945 trial of Polish nationalist-military conspirators

The above characteristic serves as the fundamental basis for the social, economic and political transformation of jurisprudence from capitalism to socialism; further evidence to socialist jurisprudence as the most progressive, scientific and fundamentally correct application of the law to have ever existed in history.

By Hans Vogel

Now that the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force this week, it may be concluded that the social democrats have completed their handiwork by destroying the last remnants of European Civilization. The first blow was delivered by the governments that pulled their countries into a European Civil War in 1914. The “Great War” almost destroyed Europe. The second blow came from that other adulterated version of socialism, national socialism. By pretending to save Europe, the nazis delivered it another mortal blow, but still Europe recovered. The third and final blow to Europe was given by the social democrats. For the past decades, the social democrats have been betraying their voters while acting like vultures, raking in the crumbs from the collapsing welfare state. The state they had themselves been instrumental in building up.

Since the French Revolution, the core values of European Civilization have been individual and national freedom, equality and fraternity. One by one, all European nations eventually came to adhere to these values, that could be seen as a secularized condensation of the ten commandments. Needless to say, Europe’s elites mostly rejected these notions since they threatened their traditional political and economic supremacy. After its initial failures in 1848, Marxian socialism began to gain increasing numbers of adherents among the growing industrial masses of Europe. Some socialist leaders, however, were impatient and resented Marx’s postulate that socialists were to refrain from participation in regular politics. In 1875 one of these impatient men, Eduard Bernstein, succeeded in having the German socialists support the creation of a regular political party with the purpose of winning seats in parliament. This was the birth of revisionist socialism, and the social democratic party. But in fact, revisionism was an adulteration and like all adulterations, it only seemingly had a better taste to it. The real thing is always preferable. Who would not prefer butter over margarine, or a real charbroiled hamburger over one from McDonald’s?

Until 1945, the social democrats did not participate in governments long enough to make a real difference, apart from an occasional breakthrough such as Léon Blum’s introduction of paid holidays in France in 1936. The heyday of social democracy in Europe came after the end of World War II. In some countries, it was not the social democrats, but the christian democrats that became dominant (Italy), whereas in a few countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) christian democrats and social democrats jointly came to power and stayed there. Like the social democrats, the christian democrats were an adulteration, or rather, a mix of socialist and christian ideals and beliefs.

After the Red Army had defeated nazi Germany in 1945, the US maintained its military occupation of Western Europe. In order to secure the necessary political support for its occupation, the US turned to the social democrats in some countries and to the christian democrats in Italy. These parties were considered the best defense against communism. Until 1948, European communist parties enjoyed massive and growing popular support. Using every means at its disposal, ranging from threats and blackmail to the lavish funding of anti-communists, the US found the Western European social democrats and the Italian christian democrats to be its most loyal allies. From that moment on, these parties became the main conduit for US political influence. For decades, their leaders and promising new recruits were singled out for special treatment, receiving stipends and scholarships to spend time in the US, usually no more than a year. Anybody who stays in the US for more than a year begins to see the way the US political system really works and tends to develop a critical attitude. Once back in Europe, most young social democratic leaders became advocates of the so-called Atlantic partnership on the basis of values supposedly shared by the US and Europe. Thanks to the traditional social democratic preponderance in Western European media and universities, US influence became established very solidly, to the point that any profound criticism of the US and its policies were either impossible or else effectively silenced.

Europe’s social democrats made a serious error of judgment after the fall of the Berlin wall, the ensuing collapse of “real existing socialism” and of the Soviet Union: they scrapped any and all vestiges of socialism from their programs. Instead, they embraced the most reactionary kind of economic neoliberalism. However, they retained their socialist vocabulary and continued calling themselves “left wing,” “progressive” and above all “socialist.” In other words, they just pretended they were still socialist, whereas in actual fact they were just hard core reactionaries. This kind of political con artist is exemplified by Tony Blair, who has once again come under fire for unleashing a criminal war of conquest against Iraq.

During the past two decades, social democrats have joined Europe’s ruling elites on a truly massive scale. Disproportionately, they have been parachuted in the corridors of power, almost exclusively as unelected officials at all levels and all branches of government. In exchange for cash, dozens of these loyal social democrats were raised to the peerage by their crony Blair. Craving for recognition of their new status, anxious to line their pockets, and hurrying to shower benefits upon their offspring, the new caste of social democratic, parasitic office-holders has opened the gates widely towards mostly poor, muslim immigrants. They did so with the purpose of turning these underprivileged newcomers into a faithful electoral base to compensate for the loss of the traditional workers’ vote. At the same time the swelling ranks of the new muslim urban underclass could serve as an instrument to cower the impoverished remnants of the native working into submission. To this day, social democrats are still egging on rabid muslims to demand all sorts of special privileges. In all countries of Europe where social democrats have been introducing masses of muslim newcomers, basic democratic principles are under mounting pressure. The first victim, freedom of speech, will no doubt be followed by many others.

The socialists’ application of the adage of divide and rule, however, soon had pernicious, devastating effects on European societies as a whole. Today, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the muslim urban underclass will not be turned into a faithful voting public for the socialists. More and more they are seeing right through the social democratic scam and are in the process of organizing their own movements based on muslim fundamentalism.

As a matter of fact, the social democrats have first betrayed their own ideals, then their traditional voters and finally the muslim masses they brought in. This is hardly surprising, since the social democratic movement itself constitutes a betrayal to Marx’s original ideas. Once a traitor, always a traitor.

The collapse of social democracy also portends the end to an era in which the US exerted their rule over Europe through this group of traitors. If the US wants to extend their grip on Europe, as I suspect they would want to, they ought to start looking for a group to take the place of their trusted social democratic Quislings. They will need more luck in this pursuit than fate is willing to grant them. Fortunately.

J.V. Stalin

As a matter of historical fact, this term was never used by Josef Stalin himself, as he considered himself an ardent student of Marx, Engels and Lenin – in effect, a “Marxist-Leninist.”

The term itself was coined by one of Stalin’s closest and most loyal associates and comrades-in-arms, Lazar Kaganovich. Comrade Kaganovich communicated that “Stalinism” constituted a higher theoretical level in the application of Marxist-Leninist principles as evidenced in the unprecedented achievements of the Soviet Union.

While never in “official” use within the Soviet Union, the term did enjoy an impressive amount of publicity within the Soviet press – including its employment in editorials, news reports and other media.

That being said, the term was hijacked by anti-Soviet parties, most notably the followers of the renegade Leon Trotsky, as a pejorative, with the propagandistic intention of portraying Stalin’s application of Marxism-Leninism as somehow distinct (read heretical) from “orthodox” Marxism-Leninism.

These groundless accusations notwithstanding, there’s absolutely no principled contradistinction between “Stalinism” and “Marxism-Leninism,” as both employ the basic foundations of the dialectical materialist method in accordance with objective of establishing scientific socialism.

That’s also not to say that Stalin didn’t incorporate serious theoretical contributions to Marxist-Leninist thought, including his insights into Marxism and the National Question, the aggravation of class-struggle within socialism and a very important dialectical assessment of Marxism and linguistics.

During WWII, the hatred aimed at Jews shifted to Germans. Everyone hated Germans. Americans put Germans in concentration camps. Mussolini tried everything he could not to ally with Hitler. Poles and Soviets mass expelled Germans after WWII, leading to millions of deaths.

Now, everyone hates Muslims. And the secular Arab Nationalists hate the extreme Muslims.

Jews are Yesterday’s issue. Germans are too. Muslims are today’s issue! Any nationalist who can’t see that is an idiot or a subversive.

I just updated this blog template to show the Fifthnail image. I’m working on a web site that I hope will be a voice for oppressed “criminals.” I’m not sticking up for their crimes; I’m sticking up for the human being inside, and trying to get people to see that punishing a scapegoat does only creates more vicitms, mostly innocent ones. I believe—I know—there are no bad people in this world, just people who do bad things. I was one once. I was ignorant. Now I know better, and the only reason I do is because I am not a bad person at heart. I care about people, and my only solace is in knowing that if I had understood how I was hurting my victim I would not have done it. Our society needs to understand this. You take any criminal, even the worst, and underneath all the crappy thinking is a battered and tortured heart that cares. I’ve lived and loved these people, murderers, rapists, child molesters, you name it. Every one of them is a human and a victim of their own messed up thinking. Every one of them is capable of remorse. Even if most hide from their remorse by denying it, or by burying it in the rage they feel toward society for denying their existence as a worthwhile human being. And now instead of confirming their existence society is denying it in the worst way yet. By requiring them to register, and directly implying that they are not valuable human beings, but instead they are monsters that must be watched closely and tolerated only because some long dead person wrote (for some long forgotten reason) that they have rights. How soon we forget that the Fathers of this country were criminals, even sex offenders by today’s standards. Study your history people; it’s all there waiting to be repeated.

Colorized film footage of great revolutionary leader and Bolshevik
ideologist Vladimir Lenin, with a rare recording of a speech he
made during the Russian Civil War 1918 – 1922.

The speech is as follows:

“Comrade (Red Army) soldiers! The capitalists of England, America and France are waging a war against Russia. They are taking revenge on the Soviet Peasants & Workers’ Republic for her [Republic's] overthrowing the power of landlords and capitalists and set the example for all the peoples of the world.

With money and munitions, the capitalists of England, France and America support Russian landlords, who are marshalling their armies from Siberia, Don River, and Northern Caususus against the Soviets, seeking to restore the power of the Tsar, of the landlords, of capitalists.
No, this will NEVER happen! The Red Army has unified itself, it has arisen and started chasing the landlords’ armies and the White Guards’ officers away from the Volga, took back Riga, took back virtually all of Ukraine; it approaches Odessa and Rostov.”

*Video and above text courtesy of wagnerian1979.

]]> http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/11/26/lenin-speaks/feed/ 0 http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/11/26/the-history-of-hajj/ http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/11/26/the-history-of-hajj/#comments Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:50:37 +0000 Ex-MIM http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/?p=2061 Praise be to Allaah.

One of the things on which there is scholarly consensus among all the Muslims, ancient and modern, past and present, is that Hajj or pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allaah is one of the five pillars of Islam, as proven in al-Saheehayn from the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them both) and others.

It is well known that Hajj, like other acts of worship, involves special actions, and each of these actions must be done in the prescribed manner, such as entering ihraam from the meeqaat, tawaaf, saa’i between al-Safa and al-Marwah, standing in ‘Arafah, staying overnight in Muzdalifah, stoning the Jamaraat, slaughtering the sacrifice, and the other well-known actions of Hajj. All of these actions should be done in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). There are very many ahaadeeth which describe the Hajj of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); these have been compiled by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in Zaad al-Ma’aad and by al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer in his book al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah; these scholars have also explained the rulings derived from these ahaadeeth. The Muslim should pay attention to learning these rulings and acting upon them.

Then we should remember that the basic purpose of the actions of Hajj is to establish the remembrance of Allaah, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then when you leave ‘Arafaat, remember Allaah (by glorifying His Praises, i.e. prayers and invocations) at the Mash‘ar-il-Haraam. And remember Him (by invoking Allaah for all good) as He has guided you, and verily, you were, before, of those who were astray.

Then depart from the place whence all the people depart and ask Allaah for His forgiveness. Truly, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.

So when you have accomplished your Manaasik [rituals of Hajj], remember Allaah as you remember your forefathers or with a far more remembrance. But of mankind there are some who say: ‘Our Lord! Give us (Your Bounties) in this world!’ and for such there will be no portion in the Hereafter…

And remember Allaah during the appointed Days. But whosoever hastens to leave in two days, there is no sin on him and whosoever stays on, there is no sin on him, if his aim is to do good and obey Allaah (fear Him), and know that you will surely be gathered unto Him”

[al-Baqarah 2:198-203]

And it was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “Tawaaf around the House and saa’i between al-Safa and al-Marwah and the stoning of the jamaraat were only prescribed so that the remembrance of Allaah may be established.” It was classed as mu’allaq by al-Bayhaqi (5/145) and narrated as a marfoo’ report, although there is some weakness in it.

So the Muslim venerates the rituals of Hajj because Allaah has commanded him to venerate them, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Thus it is and whosoever honours the Symbols of Allaah, then it is truly, from the piety of the hearts”

[al-Hajj 22:32]

Al-Bukhaari (1610) narrated that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) kissed the Black Stone and said, “Were it not that I had seen the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kissing you, I would not have kissed you.”

Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, whilst discussing and explaining the actions of Hajj:

“The background to these rituals is no longer present but the rulings remain in effect. These rituals may be confusing for some who see them and do not know the reasons for them, so they may say, ‘This does not make sense.’ I have explained the reasons for them as far as narrated reports go, now I will explain to you the meanings behind them.

Note that the basis for acts of worship is something rational and comprehensible, which is the submission of the slave to his Lord and obedience to Him. Prayer involves humility and submission, which is is what is meant by the word ‘ibaadah (worship).

Zakaah involves kindness and helping the poor, so its meaning is clear.

Fasting means suppressing the desires of the self so that it will be obedient to the One Whom it serves.

By honouring the House and going there, and establishing a sanctuary (Haram) around it are acts of veneration. Arriving there unkempt and disheveled is like a slave turning to his Lord in humility and submission, and that is clear. A person feels at ease performing rituals that he understands, and that motivates him to do them, but to achieve full submission there are some rituals that a person may not understand, so he will not be at ease and will not comprehend them. In this case the only motive is to obey the commands of Allaah. This is a greater form of humility and submission.” See Mutheer al-‘Azm al-Saakin (1.285-286).

If this is understood, then much of the history of the actions of Hajj before the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not known to us. In this case it does not matter if we do not know. And there are some things concerning whose history a few indications are narrated in some texts; we will mention some of these here:

1 – When was Hajj enjoined? When did Hajj begin?

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And proclaim to mankind the Hajj (pilgrimage) . They will come to you on foot and on every lean camel, they will come from every deep and distant (wide) mountain highway (to perform Hajj)”

[al-Hajj 22:27]

Ibn Katheer says in his commentary on this verse (3/221):

This means: Proclaim (O Ibraaheem) the Hajj to the people, calling them to come on pilgrimage to this House which We have commanded you to build. It was mentioned that he said, “O Lord, how can I proclaim it to the people when my voice does not reach them?” He said, “Call and We will convey it.” So he stood in his maqaam (station) – or it was said, on the rock, or on al-Safa, or on Abu Qubays (a mountain) – and said: “O people, your Lord has taken a House, so come to it on pilgrimage.” And it was said that the mountains lowered themselves so that his voice could reach all parts of the earth and those who were still in the wombs or in men’s loins also heard, and everything that heard him, cities, nomad encampments and trees, and everyone whom Allaah has decreed should perform Hajj until the Day of Resurrection responded, (saying) Labbayk Allaahumma labbayk (Here I am, O Allaah, here I am. This is the summary of what was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas, Mujaahid, ‘Ikrimah, Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and others among the salaf. And Allaah knows best.

Ibn al-Jawzi, in his book Mutheer al-‘Azm al-Saakin (1/354) narrated something similar, but more briefly, and he attributed it to the narrators of Seerah.

This has to do with the history of the enjoining of Hajj before the sending of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). With regard to the enjoining of Hajj in Islam, there is some scholarly difference of opinion concerning that. It was said that it was enjoined in 6 AH, or in 7 AH, or in 9 AH, or in 10 AH. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) was certain that it was enjoined in 9 or 10 AH. He (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Zaad al-Ma’aad:

“There is no dispute that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not perform Hajj after he migrated to Madeenah apart from one Hajj, which was the Farewell Pilgrimage. And there is no dispute that that occurred in 10 AH… When the command to perform Hajj was revealed, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) hastened to perform Hajj with no delay. Because the enjoining of Hajj came at a later stage, in 9 or 10 AH, one might say, How can you prove that the command to perform Hajj was delayed until 9 or 10 AH? We would say that the first part of Soorah Aal ‘Imraan was revealed in the year of delegations (‘aam al-wufood), during which the delegation from Najraan came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he made a treaty with them regarding their paying the jizyah, and the (ruling on) jizyah was revealed in the year of Tabook, 9 AH, when the first part of Soorat Aal ‘Imraan was revealed…”

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer (2/4/92): Hajj was known to the Arabs. When Islam came, they were told about something they already knew and what was enjoined upon them was something they were familiar with…” See also Ahkaam al-Qur’aan by Ibn al-‘Arabi, 1/286.

2 – Tawaaf around the House

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and We commanded Ibraaheem (Abraham) and Ismaa’eel (Ishmael) that they should purify My House (the Ka‘bah at Makkah) for those who are circumambulating it, or staying (I‘tikâf), or bowing or prostrating themselves (there, in prayer)”

[al-Baqarah 2:125]

This verse indicates that tawaaf around the Ka’bah was known at the time of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him).

3 – Raml

Raml means walking quickly with short steps. This is Sunnah for men but not for women during the tawaaf of arrival (tawaaf al-qudoom), which is the first tawaaf performed when one arrives in Makkah.

How did raml begin?

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (2/469-470, 1602) and Muslim also narrated (2/991-992, 1262) that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came with his companions and the mushrikoon said, “There have come to you people who have been weakened by the fever of Yathrib. So the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded them to walk quickly (raml) in the first three circuits… According to another report, he said, “Walk quickly so that the mushrikeen will see that you are strong.”

4 – The water of Zamzam and saa’i between al-Safa and al-Marwah.

Al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (6/396-397, 3364) that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

Ibraaheem brought Haajar and her son Ismaa’eel when she was still breastfeeding him, to a place near the Ka’bah under a tree on the spot of Zamzam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Makkah, nor was there any water. So he left them there and left with them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ismaa’eel’s mother followed him saying, “O Ibraaheem! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look at her. Then she asked him, “Has Allaah commanded you to do this?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not forsake us,” and went back while Abraham proceeded onwards. When he reached al-Thaniyah where they could not see him, he turned to face the Ka’bah, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayer:

“O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in an uncultivable valley by Your Sacred House (the Ka‘bah at Makkah) in order, O our Lord, that they may perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as- Salaah). So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allaah) provide them with fruits so that they may give thanks”

[Ibraaheem 14:37]

Ismaa’eel’s mother went on breastfeeding Ismaa’eel and drinking from the water (she had). When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ismaa’eel) tossing in agony. She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of al-Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from al-Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached al-Marwa where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between al-Safa and al-Marwa) seven times.

Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “This is the (origin of) the people’s saa’i (walking) between them between them (i.e. al-Safa and al-Marwa).” When she reached al-Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she said to herself “Shh!” and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, “O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?” Then she saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), until water appeared. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.

Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “May Allah have mercy on the mother of Ismaa’eel! Had she let Zamzam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zamzam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” And he said: “The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people’…”

Ibn al-Jawzi said in his book Mutheer al-‘Azm al-Saakin (2/47): “This hadeeth explains the reason why it is called Zamzam, because when the water flowed, Haajar tried to control it (zammat-ha). The linguist Ibn Faaris said: Zamzam comes from the words zamamtu al-naaqah (I reined in the camel).

5 – The standing at ‘Arafah

Abu Dawood and al-Tirmidhi (883) narrated that Yazeed ibn Shaybaan said: We were standing in ‘Arafah in a place far from the mawqif [where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood]. Ibn Mirba’ al-Ansaari came to us and said, “I am the messenger of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who says to you: ‘Stay where you are (for it is also the place of standing), for you are standing in the area where your father Ibraaheem stood.’” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 1688.

Many of the actions of Hajj stem from the time of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him), but the mushrikeen introduced some innovations which were not prescribed. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent, he opposed them in that and explained what was prescribed for the actions of Hajj.

This is a brief look at the history of Hajj and the history of some of its rituals. For more information you could refer to the book of al-Haafiz ibn al-Jawzi (may Allaah have mercy on him) which is called Mutheer al-‘Azm al-Saakin ila Ashraf al-Amaakin – the whole of the first volume and the beginning of the second volume.

And Allaah knows best.

http://islamqa. com/en/ref/ 30897

They got in power solely because of warfare. WWI got Lenin in power. The Tzar was too weak and unprepared.
WWII got Mao in power. Kai-Shek didn’t have the ability to fight another war after fighting Japan.

Non-Marxists got in power more because of the depression than the war. They worked within capitalism to fix its contradictions. The depression got Mussolini in power. Same for Hitler. Not Franco, however. Marxists took power more violently.

If Iranian Marxists or similar movements take power, it will be because of the pressure US put on Iran weakens it, not in spite of it. The more screwed up things get, the more the opportunity exists for change. That opportunity won’t exist without pressure from Zionism and America.

If Iran does become socialist, then US imperialism will be the reason. But fundamentally, not the way that Besoshvilli thinks. It will be because the Iranian people are sick of fighting and finally overthrow their own government which is already fatigued from USA. Not because the Iranian people rally behind their government. Not because Iran gets stronger and heroically fends off USA. Because Iran gets weaker. The only reason a Marxist should support the ruling order in Iran, is under the logic that it will self-destruct and socialism can defeat it. The idea of supporting the Theocratic capitalist regime as an end in itself baffles me and any clear thinker when done under the banner of Marxist-Leninism.

If the US disappeared tomorrow and Islam dominated the world, atheistic socialism would be finished. It is not the working class that allows for revolution. It is infighting between capitalists.

We can compare authoritarian ideological leaders to surgeons. Let us suppose that B-pep (a pro-Nazi internet figure) operated on me, and killed me instead of saving me. The correct response would be not to blame surgeons as a group or surgery as a practice, but to blame B-pep. Likewise, it is entirely possible to blame the Nazis and still hate liberals and internationalists at the same time. It is even possible to hate Jews and still hate Hitler, but I don’t hate Jews.

I will simulate how a neo-nazi responds to liberal smeers, and then I will simulate how I would respond:

While the negatively associated with Nazism has scared people away from authoritarian ideologies, we just have to accept it and minimize it by disassociating from it. Yes, Hitler’s image destroyed the image of those who fight against liberalism, but defending him only makes things worse. Besides, Nazism is philosophically flawed anyways.

The strategy should not be to defend Hitler. Right wingers of today do not have to take responsibility for Hitler, and right wingers do not have to apologize for Hitler. Right wingers do not have to defend Hitler. Neo-nazis feel they have to.

For many in the GDR, the fall of the Berlin Wall and unification meant the loss of jobs, homes, security and equality

Bruni de la Motte

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Guardian

Not striking first is like giving your opponent a head start. Nice guys really do finish last. This is a lesson I’ve learned on internet forums but also by observing the consequences of political correctness. People who try to play by the rules really do get shafted in the end. It is a fact of life.

“Maybe if we are nice to competitive ideologies, they will stop hating us.” Military build ups are the only solution. War is the answer if “how” is the question.

But the real answer is that conversions to Democracy are useless if they go against the interest of the state which won the victory.

There was a fascist movement in Austria and it never took power because Nazism did instead. The nazi movements sought to combine states in the name of a Germanic “aryan” race instead of worshiping the state. If fascism took power, “greater Germany” would have been opposed on nationalistic grounds. Hitler dragged Italy into war and Hitler forced Italy to adopt retarded racial laws against Jews, despite the fact that most Italians and Sephardic Southern European Jews look alike due to their Mediterranean origins. Mussolini tried to avoid this but couldn’t, because the Nazis forced him.

I blame the Soviets for linking Mussolini’s state worshiping nationalism to Hitler’s poorly defined racialism. While it is true that both collaborated against Stalin, USSR tended to call the Nazis Fascists but America knew better and never confused the terms. It was really USSR that blurred the line between what is Fascism and what is Nazism. The historical consensus agrees with me but so does logic. If you know how Communists think, the only thing they care about is material conditions. They think that explains everything. And they think all anti-Communist movements were motivated by the same material conditions. And to them that’s all that matters, not the ideology. But right wingers realize the ideology is more important.

The only true Fascist movements were in Italy and Argentina (after WWII). The Spanish movement was not fascist but traditional nationalist. While the Iron Guard and Croatian regime claimed to be traditional Nationalists (neither Fascist nor Nazi), in practice they were really opportunists who followed the Nazis. The Croats even lied about their ethnic origins and told the Germans that they were not Slavs when they were.

Nazism is an entirely separate movement. It isn’t even a heresy to Fascism, but an entirely different movement. Trotskyism is a heresy to Stalinism. They are the same movement, but their conclusions are very different. But they claim to be making those conclusions based off of the same dialectical materialism. Nazism and Fascism make decision completely differently. Nazism is blind racialism and “makes up the ideology as it goes,” whereas fascism is very specific in the role of the state and how society should be formed.

WE’LL KEEP OUR EYES PEELED

Black & White

Two lines on the Chinese Revolution: the line of the Comintern and Stalin versus the line of the Trotskyist opposition

Presentation made by Harpal Brar to the Stalin Society on 18 October 2009 to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China and the forthcoming 130th anniversary of the birth of Stalin.

In the latter half of the 1920s the Trotskyist opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek and Kamenev) accused the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’ i.e. the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) [CPSU(B)] and the Comintern of selling the Chinese Revolution and the Chinese communists down the river – of betraying the Chinese Revolution.

This slander has since then been picked up, and repeated thousands of times, by the Trotskyite counter-revolutionaries, revisionist renegades, social democrats, and even by some dubious Marxist-Leninists.  Every attempt is made by this gentry to invent sharp difference of opinion between Stalin and Mao Zedong, between the line of the Comintern, which was the same as that of Stalin and the CPSU(B), on the one hand, and that of Mao Zedong, on the other hand, on the question of the Chinese Revolution.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

That Mao Zedong and the Chinese communists held Stalin in extremely high regard is shown by the following words of Mao Zedong on the occasion of Stalin’s 60th birthday:

“Stalin is the leader of world revolution. This is of paramount importance. It is a great event that mankind is blessed with Stalin. Since we have him, things can go well. As you all know, Marx is dead and so are Engels and Lenin. Had there been no Stalin, who would be there to give directions? But having him – this is really a blessing. Now there exist in the world a Soviet Union, a Communist Party and also a Stalin. Thus, the affairs of the world can go well. We must hail him, we must support him, and we must learn from him. … We must learn from him in two respects: his theory and his work” (Quoted by Chen Po-Ta in Stalin on the Chinese Revolution).

Comintern’s analysis of the Chinese Revolution as regards the prospects and character of the Chinese Revolution.

The Comintern held that the main character of the Chinese Revolution was anti-feudal, for feudalism and the survivals of feudalism were the most predominant factor in the Chinese countryside. China, at that time, had a population of roughly 400/450 million people, out of which 350 or 400 million people lived in the countryside. Roughly 90% of the people were peasants who were exploited to the hilt by feudalism and, therefore, the most predominant feature of the Chinese Revolution was the fight against feudalism.

Thus the Chinese Revolution was an agrarian revolution spearheaded against feudalism and the entire militarist-bureaucratic structure which rested on it. An agrarian revolution is the basis and content of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.  In China, at that time, the bourgeois democratic revolution could not fail to be an anti-imperialist revolution, because imperialism supported the whole structure of feudalism, the whole fabric of feudalism.

It is imperialism which fosters, inspires, supports and preserves feudalism and struggles on the side of feudalism. In colonial or semi-colonial countries, people fighting against feudalism cannot but at the same time be involved in a revolutionary fight for the overthrow of imperialism, because the interests of imperialism are inextricably intertwined with the interests of the feudal ruling class, as is happening today, for instance, in the Middle East.

As early as 1913, Lenin had the occasion to point out that the obsolescent bourgeoisie of Europe, out of fear of the rising strength of the proletariat, was “supporting everything backward, moribund and medieval” and “combining with all obsolete and obsolescent forces” in an effort to preserve the tottering system of wage slavery.  “And a more striking example of this decay of the entire European bourgeoisie”, he wrote, “can scarcely be cited than the support it is lending to reaction in Asia for the sake of the selfish aims of the financial manipulators and capitalist swindlers” (‘Backward Europe and Advanced Asia’)

Trotsky’s analysis of the Chinese Revolution

Trotsky under-estimated and gave no decisive importance to the strength of feudalism, maintaining that the Chinese Revolution was merely aimed at ending China’s state-customs dependence on the imperialist countries; that this revolution was anti-imperialist mainly because it was directed at the abolition of unequal treaties imposed on China by the various imperialist countries.

In May 1927, Trotsky submitted to the Central Committee of the CPSU(B) and to the Executive Committee of the Comintern (ECCI) the following thesis: “Fundamentally untenable is Bukharin’s attempt to justify his opportunist compromising line by references to the alleged predominating role of ‘feudal survivals’ in China’s economy. Even if Bukharin’s estimate of the Chinese economy were based upon an economic analysis, and not upon scholastic definitions, all the same, ‘feudal survival’ could not justify the policy which so manifestly facilitated the April Coup. The Chinese revolution bears a national bourgeois character for the basic reason that the development of the productive forces of Chinese capitalism is being blocked by China’s state-customs dependence on the imperialist countries” (Trotsky: The Chinese Revolution and  Stalin’s Theses) (my emphasis – HB).

No wonder Stalin characterised Trotsky’s viewpoint as “that of a state counsellor of ‘his Highness’ Chang Tso-lin”; As Stalin put it: “If Trotsky’s viewpoint is correct, then it must be admitted that Chang Tso-lin and Chiang Kai-shek are right in not desiring either an agrarian or a workers’ revolution and in striving only for the abolition of the unequal treaties and the establishment of customs autonomy for China” (Stalin’s emphasis).

And further, by way of comparison and summing up the line of the Comintern and of Trotsky, continues Stalin:

“Thus we have two basic lines:

“(a) the line of the Comintern, which takes into account the existence of feudal survivals in China, as the predominant form of oppression, the decisive importance of the powerful agrarian movement, the connection of the feudal survivals with imperialism, and the bourgeois-democratic character of the Chinese revolution with its struggle spearheaded against imperialism;

“(b) the line of Trotsky, which denies the predominant importance of feudal-militarist oppression, fails to appreciate the decisive importance of the agrarian revolutionary movement in China, and attributes the anti-imperialist character of the Chinese revolution solely to the interests of Chinese capitalism, which is demanding customs independence for China.

“The basic error of Trotsky (and hence of the opposition) is that he underestimates the agrarian revolution in China, does not understand the bourgeois-democratic character of that revolution, denies the existence of the preconditions for an agrarian movement in China, embracing many millions, and underestimates the role of the peasantry in the Chinese revolution” (Stalin: Revolution in China and the Tasks of the Comintern, speech delivered at the 10th sitting of the 8th plenum of the ECCI, 24 May 1927).

Trotsky’s under-estimation of the role of the peasantry is hardly new.  It follows from his theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’, which alone explains the degeneration of Trotskyism into a counter-revolutionary agency in the service of imperialism.

As Stalin said:

“It is this peculiarity of Trotsky’s scheme – the fact that he sees the bourgeoisie and sees the proletariat, but does not notice the peasantry and does not understand its role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution – it is precisely this peculiarity that constitutes the opposition’s principal error on the Chinese question.

“It is just this that constitutes the ‘semi-Menshevism’ of Trotsky and of the opposition in the question of the character of the Chinese revolution.

“From this principal error stem all the other errors of the opposition, all the confusion in its theses on the Chinese question” (Stalin: Revolution in China and the Tasks of the Comintern, speech delivered on 24th May 1927).

Other errors of Trotskyist opposition

Error 1:

Trotsky’s “logical incongruity” towards Wuhan.

In the period of the all-national  united  front  (the  Canton period), particularly the period between 1925 and 12th April 1927, for some time Trotsky and the rest of the opposition demanded that the communists should withdraw from the Kuomintang.

First, a few words about the Kuomintang (KMT) in this period: it was a bloc of several oppressed classes – it was a bloc of the national bourgeoisie, of the urban poor, of the peasantry, of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, and of the proletariat. It was a bloc of basically four classes. Between 1925 and April 12th, 1927, the national bourgeoisie played a progressive role (of this more later on).

Trotsky demanded that the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) withdraw support from the KMT. Why? Because the bourgeoisie is always counter revolutionary. Trotsky makes the error of comparing the Chinese bourgeoisie (in an oppressed country) with the Russian bourgeoisie (in an imperialist country).

The bourgeoisie of an oppressed country can for a certain period of time, under specific conditions, play a progressive role and become an ally of the proletariat.

Such an alliance is legitimate, as long as the proletariat is not hindered in its work of organising independently among the broad masses of people under its own programme. The fact is that being part of the KMT facilitated the work of the CPC

On 12 April 1927 the right-wing of the KMT, led by Chiang Kai-shek, launched its coup and started massacring the communists.  The national bourgeoisie set up its counter-revolutionary centre in Nanking, deserted the camp of revolution and sided with the counter-revolution and imperialism.

Why? It was a) the fear of the Agrarian Revolution; and b) the pressure put on Chiang Kai-shek by imperialism in Shanghai.

Following the desertion by the national bourgeoisie, the left-wing of the KMT set up its headquarters in Wuhan, which became the base for the maximum development of the agrarian revolution, which was led by the CPC.

How did the Trotskyist opposition characterise Wuhan?

Trotsky described it as a “fiction” – and yet did not advocate withdrawal from this “fiction”, of the CPC, which was at the time allied with the left-wing of the KMT in Wuhan.

Permit me to quote a passage from Stalin’s speech, which aptly describes Trotsky’s attitude – “this ‘logical’ incongruity” – towards Wuhan. Here is what Stalin said:

“Let us assume that Wuhan is a fiction. But if Wuhan is a fiction, why does Trotsky not insist on a determined struggle against Wuhan? Since when have communists been supporting fictions, participating in fictions, standing at the head of fictions, and so on? Is it not a fact that the communists are duty bound to fight against fictions? Is it not a fact that if communists refrained from fighting against fictions, it would mean deceiving the proletariat and the peasantry? Why, then, does Trotsky not propose that the communists should fight against this fiction, if only by immediate withdrawal from the Wuhan Kuomintang and the Wuhan Government? Why does Trotsky propose that they should remain within this fiction, and not withdraw from it? Where is the logic in this?

“Is not this ‘logical’ incongruity to be explained by the fact that Trotsky took up a swaggering attitude towards Wuhan and called it a fiction, and then got cold feet and shrank from drawing the appropriate conclusion from his theses?”

Such is the position of Trotsky on the question of Wuhan.

Zinoviev characterised the Wuhan government as a Kemalist government. A Kemalist revolution is a revolution of the upper stratum, of the merchant bourgeoisie against imperialism, which from its very beginning is directed against workers and peasants, a revolution that gets stuck at its very first stage, with the idea of passing into a socialist revolution being entirely out of the question.

Such a government does not fight against feudalism.  Therefore, there is no place for communists in such a government. If Wuhan was indeed such a government, the overthrow of such a government was absolutely necessary.  “But that is what ordinary people, with ordinary human logic, might think.” (Stalin)

Far from advocating its overthrow, Zinoviev concluded that the most energetic support be given to it!

Here is what Zinoviev said in his thesis, distributed at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in April 1927:

“It is necessary to render the most energetic and all round assistance to Hankow [Wuhan was a triple city of Wuchang-Hankow-Hanyang] and to organise resistance from there against the Cavaignacs. In the immediate future efforts should be concentrated precisely on facilitating organisation and consolidation in Hankow.”

Stalin’s comment on this peculiar stand of Zinoviev was: “Understand that if you can!”

Yes, comrades, understand that if you can!

This is how Stalin sums up the confusion of the opposition on the point under discussion:

“What does all this show? It shows that the opposition has got entangled in contradictions. It has lost the capacity to think logically, it has lost all sense of perspective.

“Confusion of mind and loss of all sense of perspective on the Wuhan question – such is the position of Trotsky and the opposition, if confusion can be described as a position at all”.

Error 2:

The opposition’s demand for the establishment of the Soviets while the communists participated in the Wuhan government.

At the very time that the opposition was demanding that the Wuhan government be “energetically” supported (see Zinoviev’s thesis above) it also demanded the immediate establishment of the Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies. But Soviets are organisational centres of revolution – organs of uprising against the existing system.  If not, they are bound to degenerate and become empty chat-shops, empty playthings and bound to lead to apathy, indifference and disillusionment among the masses, who quite naturally become fed up with the endless repetition of resolutions and protests.

Such a call in the spring of 1927, when the left-KMT government in Wuhan was revolutionary, would have been tantamount to ‘skipping’ the KMT phase of revolution, endangering the revolution, and rendering inestimable service to Chiang Kai-shek.

The incongruity of participating in Wuhan and yet calling for its overthrow was nothing short of sheer lunacy.

The Trotskyist opposition got entangled in this hopeless contradiction because:

(i) it confused bourgeois-democratic revolution in China with a proletarian revolution,

(ii) it confused the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China with the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 1917 in Russia, which rendered it blind to the distinction between the bourgeoisie of an oppressed, semi-colonial country, which can, for a limited period of time, play, and did play, a progressive and anti-imperialist role, with the bourgeoisie of an imperialist country such as Russia which could not, and did not, play a progressive role.

Summing up:

the line of the Comintern and the line of the Trotskyist opposition

Here is Stalin’s apt summary of the two lines on the Chinese Revolution.

“And so, we have before us two entirely different lines on the Chinese question – the line of the Comintern and the line of Trotsky and Zinoviev.

“The line of the Comintern

“Feudal survivals, and the bureaucratic-militarist superstructure which rests upon them and which receives every support from the imperialists of all countries, are the basic fact of Chinese life today.

“China at the present moment is passing through an agrarian revolution directed both against the feudal survivals and against imperialism.

“The agrarian revolution constitutes the basis and content of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China.

“The Kuomintang in Wuhan and the Wuhan government are the centre of the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary movement.

“Nanking and the Nanking government are the centre of national counter-revolution.

“The policy of supporting Wuhan is at the same time a policy of developing the bourgeois-democratic revolution, with all the consequences resulting from that. Hence the participation of the Communists in the Wuhan Kuomintang and in the Wuhan revolutionary government, a participation which does not exclude, but rather presupposes strenuous criticism by the Communists  of the half-heartedness and vacillation of their allies in the Kuomintang.

“The Communists must utilise this participation to facilitate the proletariat’s role of hegemon in the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution, and to hasten the moment of transition to the proletarian revolution.

“When the moment of the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution approaches, and when, in the course of the bourgeois revolution, the paths of transition to the proletarian revolution become clear, the time will have arrived when it is necessary to set up Soviets of workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ deputies, as elements of a dual power, as organs of struggle for a new power, as organs of a new power, Soviet power.

“When that time comes the Communists must replace the bloc within the Kuomintang by a bloc outside the Kuomintang, and the Communist Party must become the sole leader of the new revolution in China.

“To propose now, as Trotsky and Zinoviev do, the immediate formation of Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies and the immediate establishment of dual power now, when the bourgeois- democratic revolution is still in the initial phase of its development, and when the Kuomintang represents the form of organisation of the national-democratic revolution best adapted and most closely corresponding to the specific features of China, would be to disorganise the revolutionary movement, weaken Wuhan, facilitate its downfall, and render assistance to Chang Tso-lin and Chiang Kai-shek.

“The line of Trotsky and Zinoviev

“Feudal survivals in China are a figment of Bukharin’s imagination. They either do not exist at all in China, or are so insignificant that they cannot have any serious importance.

“There does appear to be an agrarian revolution in China at this moment. But where it comes from, the devil only knows (laughter).

“But since there is this agrarian revolution, it must, of course, be supported somehow.

“The chief thing just now is not the agrarian revolution, but a revolution for the customs independence of China, an anti-customs revolution, so to speak.

“The Wuhan Kuomintang and the Wuhan government are either a ‘fiction’ (Trotsky) or Kemalism (Zinoviev).

“On the one hand, dual power must be established for overthrowing the Wuhan government through the immediate formation of Soviets (Trotsky). On the other hand, the Wuhan government must be strengthened, it must be given energetic and all round assistance, also, it appears, through the immediate formation of Soviets (Zinoviev).

“By rights, the Communists ought to withdraw immediately from this ‘fiction’, i.e. in the Wuhan government and the Wuhan Kuomintang. Why they should remain in Wuhan if Wuhan is a ‘fiction’? That, it seems, God alone knows. And whoever does not agree with this, is a betrayer and a traitor [my emphasis - HB]

“Such is the so-called line of Trotsky and Zinoviev.

“Anything more grotesque and confused than this so-called line it would be hard to imagine.

“One gets the impression that one is dealing not with Marxists but with some sort of bureaucrats who are completely divorced from real life – or, still more, with ‘revolutionary’ tourists, who have been busy touring about Sukhum and Kislovodsk and such-like places, overlooked the Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, which defined the basic attitude towards the Chinese revolution and then, having learned from the newspapers that some sort of a revolution – whether agrarian or anti-customs, they were not quite clear – was really taking place in China, they decided that it was necessary to compile a whole heap of theses – one set in April, another in the early part of May, a third in the latter part of May – and having done so, they bombard the Executive Committee of the Comintern with them, apparently believing that a plethora of confused and contradictory theses is the best means of saving the Chinese revolution [my emphasis - HB].

“Such, comrades, are the lines on the question of the Chinese revolution.

“You will have to choose between them”.

Trotskyism chooses “inappropriate moments” to launch attacks on the communist movement

Comrade Stalin ended his speech with the following words:

“I must say, comrades, that Trotsky has chosen an inappropriate moment for his attacks on the Party and the Comintern. I have just received information that the British Conservative government has decided to break off relations with the USSR. There is no need to prove that this will be followed by a universal campaign against the Communists. This campaign has already begun. Some are threatening the CPSU(B) with war and intervention. Others threaten it with split. Something like a united front from Chamberlain to Trotsky is being formed” [my emphasis - HB].

“It is possible that they want to frighten us. But it scarcely needs proof that Bolsheviks are not the sort to be frightened. The history of Bolshevism knows plenty of such ‘fronts’. The history of Bolshevism shows that such ‘fronts’ have invariably been smashed by the revolutionary determination and supreme courage of the Bolsheviks.

“You need have no doubt that we shall succeed in smashing this new ‘front’ too” (Applause).

Trotskyism had a long history of choosing inappropriate moments to launch attacks on Leninism – on Bolshevism.   It did this regularly from 1905 onwards all the way through to the 1920s and 1930s.

Reasons for the opposition’s mistakes: Tactics

In addition to its bankrupt programme concerning the prospect of the Chinese Revolution, the Opposition proved equally bankrupt on matters of tactics.

The first tactical principle of Leninism: consider the nationally peculiar features of a given country

Confusing the Chinese Revolution with the Russian Revolution, the opposition came up with the slogan in April 1926: No alliance with the Chinese bourgeoisie, when in the Canton Period the Chinese bourgeoisie played a progressive role and the national army reached Yang Tse, thus extending the revolutionary area enormously.

As a result of these victories, the opposition retreated, renounced its old formula and adopted a ‘new’ one, that is, the CPC must not withdraw from the KMT – that was the first punishment that befell the opposition for failing to take into account the national peculiarities of the Chinese revolution.

A second example: The opposition did not understand that the Chinese revolution was anti-imperialist, precisely because imperialism inspired, preserved and supported the immediate (feudal) exploiters of the Chinese people.  When tens of million of peasants became involved in the mass agrarian movement directed against feudalism and imperialism, the opposition was once again forced to admit that it had been wrong and retreat. This was the second punishment that befell the opposition.

A third example: In China the merchant bourgeoisie were buying land and leasing it to the Chinese peasantry.  Since the merchant was not a feudal lord, the opposition came out with a ready-made formula that feudalism and feudal survivals were of no consequence, that the Chinese Revolution was not an agrarian revolution directed, first and foremost, against feudalism, but a revolution for customs autonomy.  The opposition forgot that it was feudalism that exploited the Chinese people, that the entire military-bureaucratic structure in China rested on the domination of feudal survivals. Again, in consequence of mass participation if tens if millions of peasants in the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle, the opposition had to retreat.  That was the third punishment that befell the opposition.

As Stalin commented “Disharmony between formulas and reality – such is the lot of the oppositionist pseudo-leaders” (my emphasis – HB).

The second tactical principle of Leninism: the question of allies

The proletariat cannot do without allies. But these allies must be mass allies, who do not prevent the proletariat from organising itself independently, who do not prevent the communist party from organising the proletariat and the broad masses of peasants, and rousing them to revolution, who would not in any way restrict its propaganda.

Subject to these conditions, the proletariat must avail itself of every opportunity to gain for itself a mass ally, even if such a mass ally is a temporary, weak, vacillating, unstable and an unreliable ally.  Such is the essence of the second tactical principle of Leninism.  Did the Chinese proletariat have such allies? Yes, it did.

In the first stage of the revolution (the Canton Period – the period of an all-nation United Front), these allies were: (i) the national bourgeoisie; (ii) the urban poor; (iii) the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, and (iv) the peasantry.

During this period, the KMT was a mass organisation and a revolutionary force.  At that time Canton was the centre of revolutionary struggle against imperialism.

What were the achievements of this period? The achievements of this period were:

(1) The extension of the territory of the revolution: the revolutionary troops reached as far as the Yangtze;

(2) The Chinese proletariat got a chance of openly organising itself. The CPC gained the possibility of openly organising the proletariat in trade unions, strike-committees, etc;

(3) The Chinese communists were able to form themselves from different groups into a mass party of five or six thousand people;

(4) The Chinese proletariat was able to create the first nuclei of the peasants’ organisations, the peasants’ associations; and

(5) The CPC was able to penetrate into the Army.

For the CPC, which at the time was a relatively small force, these were enormous gains.

On 12 April 1927, the national bourgeoisie deserted the revolution and established a counter-revolutionary centre in Nanking.  At this point in time the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia sided with the revolution, and a revolutionary centre was set up in Wuhan.

In this period the allies of the proletariat were: (i) the peasantry; (ii) the urban poor, and (iii) the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia.  It would have been wrong during this period, when the left-wing of the KMT had not yet disgraced itself, to have withdrawn from the Wuhan KMT; Wuhan at this time was the centre of the revolution.

The gains of the Wuhan period were:

(1) The Communist Party, from being an insignificant party of 5,000 to 6,000 members became a party comprising 50,000 or 60,000 members

(2) Trade unions grew into a tremendous force and they came to include 3 million members;

(3) Peasants’ organisations expanded to include several tens of millions of peasants in them;

(4) The Communist Party gained the possibility of openly organising the revolution;

(5) The Communist Party and the proletariat began to change from just being an insignificant factor into the hegemon of the Chinese Revolution. It became the most important factor of the revolution, rallying around itself the masses of the Chinese people.

Such were the achievements of this period.

A correct policy cannot by itself guarantee victory

When the Wuhan Kuomintang, when the left Kuomintang, deserted the revolution, the Trotskyist opposition started saying that this was because the Communist International had followed a wrong policy. But a correct policy cannot by itself guarantee victory. What is required for success to be achieved is not only a correct policy, but also a favourable balance of class forces. If the forces of reaction are stronger, the revolution may be defeated even though it is guided by a correct policy. One thing, however, is certain: for success to be achieved, in addition to a favourable balance of class forces, a correct policy, a correct programme and tactics, are necessary.

This is what Stalin had to say on the question under consideration:

“The opposition ascribes the temporary defeat of the revolution [in China - HB] to the Comintern’s policy.”  But “only people who have broken with Marxism can say that. Only people who have broken with Marxism can demand that a correct policy should always and necessarily lead to immediate victory over the enemy” (Stalin: Notes on Contemporary Themes – China, ‘Pravda’, July 28th 1927)

And further:

“A correct policy is by no means bound to lead always and without fail to direct victory over the enemy. Direct victory over the enemy is not determined by correct policy alone: it is determined first and foremost by the correlation of the class forces, by a marked preponderance of strength on the side of the revolution, by disintegration in the enemy’s camp, by a favourable international situation.

“Only given those conditions can a correct policy of the proletariat lead to direct victory.

“But there is one obligatory requirement which a correct policy must satisfy always and under all conditions. That requirement is that the party’s policy must enhance the fighting capacity of the proletariat, multiply its ties with the labouring masses, increase its prestige among these masses, and convert the proletariat into the hegemon of the revolution.

“Can it be affirmed that this past period has presented the  maximum favourable conditions for the direct victory of the revolution in China? Clearly, it cannot.

“Can it be affirmed that Communist policy in China has not enhanced the fighting capacity of the proletariat, has not multiplied its ties with the broad masses, and has not increased its prestige among these masses? Clearly, it cannot.

“Only the blind could fail to see that the Chinese proletariat has succeeded in this period in severing the broad masses of the peasantry both from the national bourgeoisie and from the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, so as to rally them around its own standard” (Stalin, ibid; my emphasis – HB).

Owing to the correct policy pursued by the CPC during this period, its ties with the broad masses and its prestige among them increased enormously.  Even the Trotskyist opposition, during this period, declared that it was correct for the CPC to pursue the policy of a revolutionary bloc with the Wuhan KMT.

But as soon as Wuhan deserted the revolution, and because of this desertion, the opposition began to assert that the policy of a bloc with the Wuhan KMT was incorrect and sought to attribute the temporary defeat of the Chinese Revolution to the policy of the Comintern, thus showing its spinelessness, its break with Marxism and departure from the second tactical principle of Leninism – the need for the proletariat to secure for itself mass allies.

The third tactical principle: the question of educating the masses

This concerns the question of educating the masses; the question of how a slogan for the party can become a slogan for the masses. How must the communists lead the masses to  revolutionary positions, so that they (the masses) become convinced by their own political experience of the correctness of the Party’s slogan? How must the Communist Party lead the masses in order to turn a formula, a perspective for the immediate future, into a formula as a slogan of the day? How must the communists really act? This is of particular importance.

Trotskyites will always tell you “we were the first to tell you that the national bourgeoisie will desert”. Comrades, it isn’t a question of playing a game, it is not a question at all of who was the first one to tell us that the national bourgeoisie will desert. That is absolutely stupid. The question is what policy you advocate at a given particular time – a policy which is suited to the situation, and which neither runs too far ahead of the masses, nor lags behind them. If you are issuing a slogan long before the masses will accept it then it isn’t good enough for you at a later date to say that you were the first one to issue that particular slogan.

The communist party must see further than the masses, but at the same time it must not run far ahead of them.  If the communist party follows the tactics of perpetually overshooting or undershooting, such tactics cannot be called long-range tactics; these are haphazard tactics.

The conception of the United Front advocated

The opposition never tired of referring to a single telegram sent by the Comintern in October 1926, which said: “Until Shanghai is captured, the agrarian movement should not be intensified”.

This telegram was wrong and Stalin admitted that it was.  And the Comintern cancelled it within five weeks of its despatch.

The facts need to be noted in regard to this telegram:

1. It was the Communist International and Stalin who were responsible for cancelling this telegram and not the opposition;

2. The first time the opposition ever raised this matter of the telegram, was nine months after this telegram had actually been cancelled.

This telegram was an isolated, episodic affair; completely uncharacteristic of the line impressed on the CPC by the Comintern.

The line of the Comintern is contained in a number of well known documents which are conveniently ignored by the Trotskyite and other falsifiers of history.

In these the Comintern calls upon the CPC to “consolidate its alliance with the peasantry”, to “put forward a radical agrarian programme” and to identify itself “with the agrarian revolution”.

Here is an excerpt from the resolution (a document which really defines the line of the Comintern) of the Seventh Plenum of the Comintern, in November 1926, that is a month after the above- mentioned telegram:

“The peculiar feature of the present situation is its transitional character, the fact that the proletariat must choose between the prospect of a bloc with considerable sections of the bourgeoisie and the prospect of further consolidating its alliance with the peasantry. If the proletariat fails to put forward a radical agrarian programme, it will be unable to draw the peasantry into revolutionary struggle and will forfeit its hegemony in the national liberation move-ment” (‘Resolution of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International’) (my emphasis – HB).

And further:

“The Canton People’s Government will not be able to retain power in the revolution, will not be able to achieve complete victory over foreign imperialism and native reaction until the cause of national liberation is identified with the agrarian revolution” (my emphasis – HB).

Allow me to quote some passages from the speech that Stalin made in November of the same year – 1926. Stalin’s speech was published under the heading The prospects of the revolution in China. It is this speech, and not the above telegram, which is characteristic of the line of Stalin and that of the Comintern on the Chinese Revolution.

Here is what Stalin said in his speech:

“I know that there are Kuomintangists and even Chinese communists who do not consider it possible to unleash revolution in the countryside, since they fear that if the peasantry were drawn into the revolution it would disrupt the united anti-imperialist front. That is a profound error, comrades. The more quickly and thoroughly the Chinese peasantry is drawn into the revolution, the stronger and more powerful the anti-imperialist front in China will be.”

And further:

“I know that among the Chinese communists there are comrades who do not approve of workers going on strike for an improvement of their material conditions and legal status, and who try to dissuade the workers from striking. (A voice: ‘That happened in Canton and Shanghai’) That is a great mistake, comrades. It is a very serious underestimation of the role and importance of the Chinese proletariat. This fact should be noted in the theses as something decidedly objectionable. It would be a great mistake if the Chinese communists failed to take advantage of the present favourable situation  to assist the workers to improve their material conditions and legal status, even through strikes. Otherwise, what purpose does the revolution in China serve?” (Stalin: The Prospects of the Revolution in China).

Here is a third document of December 1926 which was sent to the CPC by the Communist International:

“A general policy of retreat in the towns and of curtailing the workers’ struggle to improve their conditions would be wrong. The struggle in the countryside must be extended, but at the same time advantage must be taken of the favourable situation to improve the material conditions and legal status of the workers, while striving in every way to lend the workers’ struggle an organised character, which precludes excesses or running too far ahead. Special efforts must be exerted to direct the struggle in the towns against the big bourgeoisie and, above all, against the imperialists, so as to keep the Chinese petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie as far as possible within the framework of the united front against the common enemy. We regard the system of conciliation boards, arbitration courts, etc., as expedient, provided a correct working-class policy is ensured in these institutions. At the same time we think it necessary to utter the warning that decrees directed against the right to strike, against workers’ freedom of assembly, etc., are absolutely impermissible”.

Here is a fourth document issued six seeks before Chiang Kai-shek’s coup:

“The work of the Kuomintang and the Communist units in the army must be intensified; they must be organised wherever they do not now exist and it is possible to organise them; where it is not possible to organise communist units, intensified work must be conducted with the help of concealed communists.

“It is necessary to adopt the course of arming the workers and peasants and converting the peasant committees in the localities into actual organs of governmental authority equipped with armed self-defence, etc.

“The Communist Party must everywhere come forward as such; a policy of voluntary semi-legality is impermissible; the Communist Party must not come forward as a brake on the mass movement; the Communist Party should not cover up the treacherous and reactionary policy of the Kuomintang Rights, and should mobilise the masses around the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party on the basis of exposing the Rights.

“The attention of all political workers who are loyal to the revolution must be drawn to the fact that at the present time, in connection with the regrouping of class forces and concentration of the imperialist armies, the Chinese revolution is passing through a critical period, and that it can achieve further victories only by resolutely adopting the course of developing the mass movement. Otherwise a tremendous danger threatens the revolution. The fulfilment of directives is therefore most necessary than ever before” (Stalin: About China, the International Situation and the Defence of the USSR, 1927, CW Vol X).

In fact, as early as April 1926, a year before the coup staged by the Kuomintang Rights and Chiang Kai-shek, the Comintern had warned the Chinese Communist Party, and pointed out that it was necessary to work for the “resignation or expulsion of the Rights from the Kuomintang”.

The above documents clearly reveal the Comintern tactics of a United Front against imperialism during the first stage – the Canton period – of the Chinese Revolution, when the revolution was striking its blows chiefly at foreign imperialism, and when the national bourgeoisie found itself in the revolutionary camp and supported the revolutionary movement.

All these documents were known to the opposition, but it carefully avoided mentioning them.  As Stalin said: “Why does it [the opposition] say nothing about them [the above documents]?  Because its aim is to raise a squabble, not to bring out the truth” (Speech to a Joint Plenum of the Central Committee of the Central Control Commission of the CPSU, 1 August 1927).

Stalin went on to refer to the February- March 1926 Sixth Plenum of the Comintern at which a unanimous resolution was passed, and which gave approximately the same estimate of the first stage of the Chinese Revolution (the Canton period) as given by the Comintern, which the opposition repudiated a year later.  Zinoviev voted for this resolution, and not a single member of the CC of the Comintern, not even Trotsky, Kamenev or other leaders of the opposition, objected to it.

The second stage of the Chinese Revolution: the Wuhan period

The opposition was to assert that the Comintern had failed to warn the CPC of the possible desertion of the left Kuomintang to the side of counter-revolution.  This assertion is refuted by two documents of May 1927, in which the Comintern impressed on the CPC the need to develop the agrarian revolution systematically; to organise eight or ten divisions of revolutionary peasants and workers with absolutely reliable officers; to organise and intensity disintegrating activities in the rear and in Chiang Kai-shek’s units; and to draw in new peasant and working-class leaders into the CC of the KMT, in order that their bold voices may stiffen the backs of the old leaders or effect their removal.

“Dependence upon unreliable generals must be eliminated. Mobilise about 20,000 communists, and about 50,000 revolutionary workers and peasants from Hunan and Hupeh, form several new army corps, use the students at the officers’ school as commanders and organise your own reliable army before it is too late. If this is not done there is no guarantee against failure. It is a difficult matter, but there is no alternative.

“Organise a Revolutionary Military Tribunal headed by prominent non-communist Kuomintangists. Punish officers who maintain contact with Chiang Kai-shek or who incite the soldiers against the people, the workers and peasants.  Persuasion is not enough. It is time to act.  Scoundrels must be punished. If the Kuomintangists do not learn to be revolutionary Jacobins they will perish so far as the people and the revolution are concerned” (see Stalin’s speech of 1st August 1927) (Stalin’s emphases).

Summation of the Errors of the Opposition

At this stage, it would be extremely useful to sum up the errors of the Trotskyist opposition on the question of the Chinese Revolution in the following words of Stalin:

“The chief mistakes of the opposition are:

“(1) The opposition does not understand the character and prospects of the Chinese Revolution;

“(2) The opposition sees no difference between the revolution in China and the revolution in Russia, between revolution in colonial countries and revolution in imperialist countries;

“(3) The opposition is departing from Leninist tactics, on the question of the attitude to the national bourgeoisie in colonial countries at the first stage of the revolution;

“(4) The opposition does not understand the question of the Communists’ participation in the Kuomintang;

“(5) The opposition is violating the principles of Leninist tactics on the question of the relations between the vanguard (the party) and the rearguard (the vast masses of the working people);

“(6) The opposition is departing from the resolutions of the Sixth and Seventh Plenums of the Executive Committee of the Communist International”.

Continues Stalin:

“The opposition noisily brags about its policy on the Chinese question and asserts that if that policy had been adopted the situation in China today [i.e. August 1st, 1927 - HB] would be better than it is. It scarcely needs proof that, considering the gross mistakes committed by the opposition, the Chinese Communist Party would have landed in a complete impasse had it adopted the anti-Leninist and adventurist policy of the opposition [my emphasis - HB].

“The fact that the Communist Party of China has in a short period grown from a small group of five or six thousand into a mass party of 60,000 members; the fact that the CPC has succeeded in organising nearly 3,000,000 proletarians in trade unions during the period; the fact that the CPC has succeeded in rousing the many millions of the peasantry from their torpor and in drawing tens of millions of peasants into the revolutionary peasant associations; the fact that the CPC has succeeded during this period in winning over whole regiments and divisions of national troops; the fact that the CPC has succeeded during this period in converting the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat from an aspiration into a reality – the fact that the CPC has succeeded in a short period in achieving all these gains is due, among other things, to its having followed the path outlined by Lenin, the path indicated by the Comintern.

“Needless to say, if the policy of the opposition, with its mistakes and anti-Leninist line on questions of colonial revolution, had been followed, these gains of the Chinese revolution would either not have been achieved at all, or would have been extremely insignificant.

“Only ‘ultra-left’ renegades and advent-urers can doubt this” (ibid) (my emphasis – HB).

Defeats of 1927 mainly due to opportunism of the Chen Tu-hsiu clique

The CPC’s successes and failures closely related to whether or not it adhered to the line of the Comintern and of Stalin.

Headed by the notorious Chen Tu-hsiu, the CPC at the time failed to deepen the agrarian revolution and thoroughly expose the KMT right.

Soon after the defeats of 1927, Chen Tu-hsiu was defeated, after which he made an unsuccessful attempt to launch a Trotskyist movement in China, and on 10 December 1929 made a statement that it was necessary to “work undeviatingly on the side of the international opposition led by Comrade Trotsky”.

As to the defeats of 1927, which were due to the failure of the CPC, under his leadership, to carry out the policy advocated by the Comintern and Stalin, he attempted to whitewash his own opportunist role and blame Stalin for it with this malicious slander:

“I [Chen Tu-hsiu], whose understanding was not sufficiently clear, whose opinion was not sufficiently resolute, deeply mired in the atmosphere of opportunism, sincerely supported the opportunist policy of the Third International. I unconsciously became an instrument of the narrow Stalin faction; I did not have an opportunity to develop; I could not save the party; I could not save the revolution…”.

The malicious lies in the above statement are refuted not only by the subsequent victorious path traversed by the Chinese Revolution under the brilliant leadership of Mao Zedong, but also the following statement which the Executive Committee of the CPC issued on 7 August 1927 by way of self-criticism.

“The Communist International has repeatedly instructed the CPC to fight for the improvement of the material conditions of the working masses. … At the same time, the Communist International points out that it is necessary to arm the workers speedily, boldly and resolutely, especially those elements which are most class-conscious and best organised. … But the leading organ of our Party has developed a different course. It has simply hindered and minimised the class struggle and the revolutionary actions of the workers. Instead of spreading and promoting strike movements, the Central Committee, together with the leaders of the Kuomintang, decided on an arbitrary method of mediation and ruled that the final authority belonged to the government. Under the government of a coalition of classes, led at this first stage by the bourgeoisie, this kind of policy actually served merely to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and greatly obstructed the workers’ movement. …

“The agrarian revolution is the crux of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China. The Communist International has repeatedly explained itself concerning this question.

“The relation between the Party and the Communist International was also not in accordance with accepted organisational procedure. There has never been a case in the history of the Communist International where the instructions and resolutions were actually rejected in such a critical situation. This was no longer merely a simple breach of discipline, but a criminal act against the Chinese and International Communist movement. … The Chinese Communist Party not only carried out an erroneous policy, a policy that brought the revolution to defeat, that voluntarily liquidated the revolution and capitulated to the enemy, but also would not admit its errors and obey the instructions of the Communist International…” (my emphasis – HB).

The truth contained in the above statement of the CPC is further corroborated by the following extract borrowed from the pamphlet, Stalin and the Chinese Revolution, by Chen Po-ta:

“The Chen Tu-hsiu opportunism of 1927 was precisely opposed to this dialectical analysis [of the character of the Chinese Revolution, according to which the Chinese Revolution was of an anti-feudal as well as an anti-imperialist nature - HB] by Stalin. The Chen Tu-hsiu opportunism later merged with counter-revolutionary Trotskyism. This is well known and will not be dwelt on further.”

The opportunists in the CPC went so far as to suppress Stalin’s writings on the Chinese Revolution. “Both in 1927 when Chen Tu-hsiu was in power and afterwards, the opportunists either intentionally or unintentionally obstructed the dissemination inside the Chinese Party of Stalin’s many works on the Chinese question” (Chen Po-ta, ibid).

“It should be pointed out in this connection that during the twenty-odd years since 1927, the errors of both Right and ‘Left’ opportunism which occurred within our party were usually, in the first place, violations of this dialectical analysis by Stalin regarding the nature of the revolution, by overlooking either the anti-imperialist or the anti-feudal aspect” (Chen Po-ta writing in 1949, ibid).

During the ten-year civil war period, the ‘left’ opportunists, forgetting the anti-imperialist character of the Chinese Revolution, opposed the policy of joining the anti-imperialist united front.

However, during the Resistance to Japanese aggression, these ‘left’ opportunists transformed themselves into right opportunists, coming to hold views akin to those held by Chen Tu-hsiu.  They failed to realise the decisive significance of deepening the agrarian movement.

Stalin had precisely these people in mind when he said that:

“I know that there are … even Chinese communists who do not consider it possible to unleash revolution in the countryside, since they fear that if the peasantry were drawn into the revolution it would disrupt the united anti-imperialist front”.

They forgot the Leninist teaching of Stalin that “the anti-imperialist front in China will become stronger and more powerful, the sooner and more solidly the Chinese peasantry is drawn into the revolution”.

They advocated giving up the leadership of the proletariat.  They “saw only the bourgeoisie”  and failed to see a future victory of the people’s democratic revolution and that of socialism. They forgot the Leninist teaching of Stalin and of the Comintern on the Chinese Revolution that “the role of the initiator and leader of the Chinese Revolution, the role of the leader of the Chinese peasantry must inevitably fall to the Chinese proletariat and its party”.

Mao Zedong applied the Comintern line to China

It is indeed the great merit of Mao Zedong that he fought courageously against the ‘Left’ and Right opportunist deviations within the CPC; that he fought for the implementation of the Leninist policy advocated by the Comintern and by Stalin; that he delivered crushing blows at the dogmatists and the Rightists in the Chinese Party; and above all, that, he, in a most creative way applied the Comintern line to the situation in China and in so doing further developed it to a still higher stage. It was this skilful integration, by the CPC, under the brilliant leadership of Mao Zedong, of the line of the Comintern with the concrete practice of the Chinese Revolution which, among other things, led to the success of the Chinese Revolution.

Under the brilliant leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong, the CPC never for a moment ignored either the anti-imperialist or the anti-feudal aspect of the Chinese Revolution. While carrying out its task of leading the peasantry in the agrarian revolution, it never missed an opportunity of broadening the anti-imperialist front of the Chinese Revolution by forming a national united front, thereby also overcoming the isolation of the agrarian revolution. The formation in 1937 of the anti-imperialist front at the insistence of the CPC was a culmination of the brilliant tactics of the CPC under the wise leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong.

The fact that the Chiang Kai-shek bandits were forced to agree to a united front with the Communist Party in order to wage the War of Resistance of the Chinese people against Japanese aggression was a brilliant victory for the line of Mao Zedong, for the line of Stalin and that of the Comintern. It was at the same time a refutation of the counter-revolutionary nonsense of the Trotskyites.

It is also the great merit of Mao Zedong that under his leadership, the CPC avoided the mistakes of the 1927 period and firmly upheld the principle of the independence of the Communist Party within the Anti-Japanese United Front as well as the principle of rousing the peasantry to revolution.  The CPC, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, fought against the dogmatists when they opposed the formation of the United Front and advocated “overthrowing everybody”. Comrade Mao Zedong addressed the dogmatists thus:

“You cannot overthrow those in power, so you want to overthrow those who are not in power. They are already out of power, yet, you still want to overthrow them.”

The CPC also fought against the dogmatists when, during the War of Resistance against Japan, the latter swung over to advocating “unity with everybody”.

So, it was by following the correct Marxist-Leninist line in regard to the nature of the Chinese Revolution and in the matter of tactics that the CPC, under the correct leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong, was able to lead the Chinese people successfully to achieve the People’s Democratic Revolution and then pass over to achieve socialism in China.

Had the counter-revolutionary jumble, advocated by the Trotskyite opposition, been followed by the CPC, it would certainly have meant either the victory of imperialism or the establishment of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in China. It could on no account result in the establishment of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry under the leadership of the proletariat, leading in course of time to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To those who sow dissension between the lines of Mao Zedong and of Stalin

There are many Trotskyites, as well as those who are not Trotskyites, who assert that there were fundamental differences between Comrade Stalin and Comrade Mao Zedong; that Stalin did not render any assistance to the Chinese Revolution and that he tried his best to betray the cause of the liberation of the Chinese people. In view of these persistent slanders and misrepresentations, I find it necessary to conclude my speech this afternoon with a few remarks that Comrade Mao Zedong made in a speech delivered by him on December 20th, 1939, on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Stalin. This is what he said:

“However, there are friends of another kind, friends who have real sympathy with us and regard us as brothers. Who are they? They are the Soviet people and Stalin.

“No other country has renounced its privileges in China; the Soviet Union alone has done so.

“All the imperialists opposed us during our First Great Revolution; the Soviet Union alone helped us.

“No government of any imperialist country has given us real help since the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan; the Soviet Union alone has helped China with its aviation and supplies.

“Is not the point clear enough?

“Only the land of socialism, its leaders and people, and socialist thinkers, statesmen and workers can give real help to the cause of liberation of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people, and without their help our cause cannot win final victory.

“Stalin is the true friend of the cause of liberation of the Chinese people. No attempt to sow dissension, no lies and calumnies, can affect the Chinese people’s whole-hearted love and respect for Stalin and our genuine friendship for the Soviet Union”. (Mao Zedong: Selected Works).

No comment is necessary. These remarks of Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of the victorious Chinese Revolution, are more than sufficient to refute the campaign of lies of the open, and hidden, Trotskyites, who have been doing their best to “sow dissension” and cause confusion, who have been trying their best to represent the revolutionary line of Mao Zedong as being different from the revolutionary line of Stalin; these remarks are more than sufficient to refute the slanderous propaganda, of ‘friends’ and enemies alike, against Stalin.

Tens of thousands of Iranian people gathered in awe-inspiring protests today in Tehran marking the 30th anniversary of the storming of the American Embassy, an event that landed a final deathblow to U.S. imperialism in Iran. The protests demonstrate the resilience of the Islamic Revolution and are a clear slap in the face of U.S. imperialism, zionism, counter-revolutionary Iranians, and all enemies of the Republic.

Since the 1979 takeover of the American espionage den in Tehran, Iranians have been celebrating the occasion every year by holding rallies on the anniversary and marking it as the National Day against the Global Arrogance.

Thanks to IRIB for the footage

HA HA. HE’S DEAD AHAHAHAHHHHHHAAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAH.

Here’s what Comrade Hoxha had to say on the subject in a speech delivered before 81 other Communist and Workers Parties in November 1960:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/nov1960.htm

In our opinion, the counter-revolution in Hungary was mainly the work of the Titoites. In Tito and the Belgrade renegades, the U.S. imperialists had their best weapon to destroy the people’s democracy in Hungary.

After comrade Khrushchev’s visit to Belgrade in 1955, no more was said about Tito’s undermining activity. The counter-revolution in Hungary did not break out unexpectedly. It was prepared for, we might say, quite openly, and it would be futile for any one to try to convince us that this counter-revolution was prepared in great secrecy. This counter-revolution was prepared by the agents of the Tito gang in collusion with the traitor Imre Nagy, in collusion with the Hungarian fascists and all of them acted openly under the direction of the Americans.

The scheme of the Titoites, who were the leaders, was for Hungary to be detached from our socialist camp, to be turned into a second Yugoslavia, be linked in alliance with NATO through Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, to receive aid from the U.S.A. and, together with Yugoslavia and under the direction of the imperialists, to continue the struggle against the socialist camp.

The counter-revolutionaries worked openly in Hungary. But how is it that their activities attracted no attention? We cannot understand how it is possible for Tito and Horthy’s bands to work so freely in a fraternal country of People’s Democracy like Hungary where the party was in power and the weapons of dictatorship were in its hands, where the Soviet army was present.

We think that the stand taken by comrade Khrushchev and the other Soviet comrades towards Hungary was not clear, because the greatly mistaken views which they held about the Belgrade gang did not allow them to see the situation correctly.

[...]

Whether to intervene or not to intervene with arms in Hungary is, we think, not within the competence of one person alone; seeing that we have set up the Warsaw Treaty, we should decide jointly, because otherwise it is of no use to speak of alliance, of the collective spirit and collaboration among the parties. The Hungarian counter-revolution cost to our camp blood, it cost Hungary and the Soviet Union blood.

Why was this bloodshed permitted and no steps taken to prevent it? We are of the opinion that no preliminary steps could be taken so long as Comrade Khrushchev and the Soviet comrades placed their trust in the organizer of the Hungarian counter-revolution, the traitor Tito, so long as they set so little value on the absolutely necessary regular meetings with their friends and allies, so long as they considered their unilateral decisions on matters that concern us all as the only correct ones, and so long as they attached no importance whatsoever to collective work and collective decisions.

[...]

Hungary was a great lesson for us, for what was done, and for the drama that was played on the stage and behind the scenes there. We believed that the Hungarian counter-revolution was more than enough to show the betrayal of Tito and his gang. We know that many documents are kept locked away and are not brought to light, documents that expose the barbarous activity of Tito’s group in the Hungarian events. Why this should happen we do not understand. What interests are hidden behind these documents which are not brought to light but are kept under lock and key? To condemn Stalin after his death, the most trifling items were searched out, while the documents that expose a vile traitor like Tito are locked away in a drawer.

But even after the Hungarian counter-revolution, the political and ideological fight against the Titoite gang, instead of becoming more intense, as Marxism-Leninism demands, was played down, leading to reconciliation, smiles, contacts, moderation and almost to kisses. In fact, thanks to this opportunist attitude, the Titoites got out of this predicament.

Mussolini said he did not believe in perpetual peace.  It was neither possible nor desirable.  I agree with him but think the right targets should be targeted.  I support wars against reactionary forces in progressive countries, that are preventing those countries from becoming true technocratic Bureaucracies.   I support wars to spread ideology and counter-revolutionary wars to stop liberalism, Communism or Islam from challenging it.  It’s not just about putting a certain race in power.  As long as there is opposition, there would be war in my world view.  I consider leaders like Stalin and Kim Jong Il to be state-worshiping bureaucratic opportunists who are acceptable as technocratic leaders however (knowing that this pisses off self-identified Communists).

Hitler was about unifying the Germanic race.

Mussolini did not care if he divided his race.  He was about building a Giant state and didn’t care if he went to war with other Mediterraneans.  The state is everything and the race is nothing without the state.  Mussolini would kill another brown haired green eyed nation in a second if he felt like it.

Hitler excluded Jews (with a few exceptions but they all renounced Judaism).

Mussolini included Jews.  Not until Germany took over Italy later in the War did the position change.

Hitler wanted to unify all Germans into one class.

Mussolini was for class-collaboration, not class elimination.

Mussolini was a Communist but got kicked out of the party for being too pro-war in WWI.  At one point, Lenin even admired Mussolini.

Hitler never was a Communist, and never understood economics the way Mussolini did.  I highly doubt Lenin ever admired Hitler.

Mussolini wanted to form an alliance with the British against Hitler.  He couldn’t get what he wanted, so allied with Hitler.

Hitler never seriously wanted to ally with the British or allies (even if his supporters think he did).

The only real defense people on the other side of the debate can make is to either deny history, disagree with this aspect of Stalin’s legacy or argue that material conditions justified Stalin’s actions but do not currently justify opposition to Islam due to the position of American imperialism and the non-existence of the Soviet State (lesser evils).

If they chose the last approach, they would have to concede that if Communism had the strength it did before 1989, then opposition to Islam would be logical.

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia (comment by metal gear : this is technocracy). Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf’s were outlawed.[3] The Soviet government took the Paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic Hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.[2][4] This backfired, and the veil became more popular than ever among the workers, whereas prior to this was mostly used by the middle, wealthier classes.[5] Stalin’s Cult of personality, left virtually no place for any religious sentiment.[4][2]

Stalin also forcibly moved Chechens and several other small nationalities residing primarily in southwestern Russia (Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachais, Meshketian Turks, Kalmyks and others) from their homelands during World War II, lest they rise up against him in favour of Nazi Germany (comment by Metal Gear : everyone knows that).[6]

During Stalin’s reign, Crimean Tatar Muslims were victims of mass deportation. The deportation had begun on 17 May 1944 in all Crimean inhabited localities. More than 32,000 NKVD troops participated in this action. 193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported, 151,136 of them to Uzbek SSR, 8,597 to Mari ASSR, 4,286 to Kazakh SSR, the rest 29,846 to the various oblasts of RSFSR.

From May to November 10,105 Crimean Tatars died of starvation in Uzbekistan (7% of deported to Uzbek SSR). Nearly 30,000 (20%) died in exile during the year and a half by the NKVD data and nearly 46% by the data of the Crimean Tatar activists. According to Soviet dissident information, many Crimean Tatars were made to work in the large-scale projects conducted by the Soviet GULAG system.[7]

That, I believe, is the difference between me and the Marxist/Islamic posters here. I argue against America’s actions, but not FOR everyone who opposes America. America’s behavior is imperialistic but the goal is to reform America, not counter America’s imperialism with a third world imperialism.

The Ba’ath Party was created as a cell-based organization, with an emphasis on withstanding government repression and infiltration. Hierarchical lines of command ran from top to bottom, and members were forbidden to initiate contacts between groups on the same level of organization; all contacts had to pass through a higher command level. This made the party somewhat unwieldy, but helped prevent the formation of factions and cordoned off members from each other, making the party very difficult to infiltrate, as even members would not know the identity of many other Ba’athists. As the U.S. and its allies discovered in Iraq in 2003, the cell structure has also made the Party highly resilient as an armed resistance organization.

The heroic (secular) leader Saddam Hussein devised a brilliant power structure to insure that constructive criticism did not become destructive as dissent was channeled in proper fashion.

Hierarchical groups were created, and all discussion between members of one group had to be supervised by a higher group. It was this bureaucratic and authoritarian structure that allowed Saddam to maintain a secular dictatorship in a reactionary middle east, and advance the culture hundreds of years forward in a short amount of time.

Each issue featured several different stories intended to inspire citizenship, morality, and patriotism. In the 1961, volume 17 number 2 issue, the story “This Godless Communism” began. It continued in the even numbered issues through number 20.

Outline of “This Godless Communism”:

Chapter 1. In a Communist America
Chapter 2. Marx
Chapter 3. Lenin I & II
Chapter 4. Stalin I (note how he is NOT blamed for the famine, that ‘terror famine’ BS wasn’t even pushed during the height of the Cold War!) II & III
Chapter 5. Khrushchev I & II they claim the Hungarian counter-revolution resulted in 30,000(!) dead
Chapter6. How to Fight Communism

Available for download: http://www.archive.org/details/ThisGodlessCommunism

Here are some clips from the comic book:

The decaying corpses of Nazi traitors signals a change in history.
The fiery light of national liberation explodes for occidental glory.
Buildings hasten to fall in harmonic rhythm, story by story.
The Third Reich dismantled in gory haste,
For the viability and stability of the white race.
Germans, Jews and Slavs rejoice.
The Reich will capitulate in disgrace.

Hitler is to blame
For neo-liberalism’s reign.

The scapegoat has changed, and the Nazis have become the Jews.
Ideology rearranged. Only an idiot would refuse to chose.
HAIL the Fire Bombing of Dresden!
Hail the New Nationalism!

We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they crush us. – Josef Stalin

When Stalin issued the five year plan, he meant business. The USSR was a primitive peasant country and he was going to change that at gunpoint. Before USSR, Tsarist Russia fought in WWI with swords, shields and horses. During WWII, USSR fought with tanks and advanced weaponry. Trotsky’s army (even though he was a scumbag) won the war largely because of better use of railroads and communication.

It is a clear that from a technology perspective, USSR advanced Russia further than the Tsarist regime in a shorter amount of time. I credit a few factors. The controlling of religion as Communism is an atheistic ideology, the controlling of macroeconomic action and the willingness to push the limits (especially under Stalin). Also Stalin’s acceptance of harsh reality, but a determination to change the reality. Many rulers deny problems and hope they will go away, but not Stalin. Stalin had a five year plan and if you weren’t on board, you got purged. Those who see quick results, those who turn things around, those who make a difference, are those who are ruthless.

Information about Year Zero

1.Envisioned a return to agrarian society
2.Banned modern technology and tools
3.Attempted to create a “Year Zero,” the beginning of a new history
4.Thought that a return to the land would allow a new communist society to emerge
5.Once the people were “purified” and a new society formed, a return to technology would be possible.

The truth is that Pol Pot was NOT anti-technology in an Amish sense; he just understood its power and did not want it in the hands of status quo civilization. While his subjects were denied the basic liberties of life as they picked rice, he ran the camps using trucks and industrial equipment. He stored information of his prisoners in s-21 prison. That involves an information system even if it is not a computer. Pol pot himself was an intellectual and he knew the potency of techno-power and wanted to remove that potency from national opponents (the Vietnamese) and regime opponents.

As a historical matter, no ruler worked harder to remove the idea of religion off of the face of the planet than Pol Pot. Marx may have been a materialist, but only Pol Pot murdered people just for not being an atheist. This means that Pol Pot resembles the Utopian Socialists that Marx describes in the Manifesto; not the Leninist socialists. Marxist-Leninism is a movement of class conflict; but Pol Pot’s movement was a utopian movement. He set up ideological litmus tests, and purged those who did not fit the litmus tests. That’s utopianism. That’s using ideology rather than class antagonisms as the basis of a movement. That’s what Pol Pot did in general.

A strong argument can be made that Stalin’s socialism in one country was a matter of pragmatism; not a matter of nationalism. Pol Pot was different. He was a nationalistic Maoist.

The hype surrounding the film Katyn suggests that ‘we’ have been misled for years into thinking that it was not the Soviets but the German Nazis who committed the massacre of Polish officers at Katyn.

The opposite is the case. The most cursory examination of history books and the internet will prove that we have been told over and over again that it was the Soviets who committed this heinous crime – and in most cases the possibility that it could have been the Germans is not even mentioned.

The facts

The fact is that the bodies were shot by the Nazis and with German bullets. These bullets were still in the bodies when they were exhumed.

Goebbels, who masterminded the campaign to put the blame on the Soviets in order to cause trouble between the Soviet Union and Poland in a vain attempt to save the German fascist empire, wrote in his diary on 8 May 1943: “Unfortunately, German ammunition has been found in the graves at Katyn … It is essential that this incident remains top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.”

The German Nazis had killed the Polish officers in order to ensure permanent weakness in the Polish armed forces, which might otherwise have been able to resist them. According to Nazi propaganda, the Slavs, including the Poles, were an inferior race which had to give way to the needs of the Germans forLebensraum (the Nazi quest to expand eastwards to occupy new land and utilise the space and raw materials for Germany). All Slavs were expendable.

The historical context in which these events occurred arose out of the peace treaty that followed the first world war. After this war it was necessary to allocate disputed territories between various contending parties. To define Poland’s eastern frontier, recommendations made by Lord Curzon were accepted, but Poland laid claim to more territory than this, to areas largely inhabited by Byelorussians and Ukrainians (with very few Poles) to the east of what came to be known as the Curzon Line and which had been ceded to the Soviet Union.

Poland forcibly seized back this territory, and kept hold of it until 1939. The Soviet Union reoccupied it after the Nazis invaded Poland and the Polish government fled. Hundreds of Polish army officers who had resisted the Soviet advance were imprisoned at Katyn in the Ukraine, where they were given road-building and other such types of work.

Two years later, on 22 June 1941, Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union by surprise. The Red Army was forced hurriedly to retreat and the Ukraine was taken over by the Germans. During this hurried retreat, it was unfortunately not possible to evacuate to the Soviet interior the Polish prisoners of war, and they were left behind to be taken over by the Germans, who then massacred them.

Goebbels’ lies

The idea of blaming the massacre on the Russians did not arise until some two years later. This big lie was initiated by Goebbels in order to prevent Germany’s opponents from uniting. The Germans even purported to announce the names of the Soviet camp commandants who had been in charge of the massacre, attributing to most of them jewish names! All these names were fictitious.

Although there was plenty of evidence that it was the Germans who committed this atrocity, including the evidence of pathologists who examined the corpses and affirmed that the date of death had to have been during the time of the German occupation, this evidence has been suppressed, while Goebbels’ lies have subsequently been taken up by all powerful anti-communist forces, from the wealthy press barons, through Polish landlords, to Gorbachev, who has since admitted that he devoted his whole life to the surreptitious dismantling of communism.

All these haters of communism have joined together to put into effect the Goebbels maxim of repeating a big lie often enough because in this way people will believe it. These lies are disseminated through school and university textbooks, but, just in case this isn’t enough, now we are subjected to them in popular culture in the form of a film designed to play on emotions in order further to popularise fear and hatred of communism.

Why has this film appeared now?

It is surely no coincidence that we find ourselves at the start of what will probably be the worst recession the world has ever experienced to date.

This recession is caused by the fatal and irremediable flaw in the capitalist system, namely, that to maximise profits it is necessary to reduce the incomes of the vast majority of the people in the world. Relatively impoverished as they are, they cannot purchase the vast masses of goods and services that are today produced using less and less labour power.

But all capitalist wealth depends on being able to sell the products of capitalist industries. There is no shortage of people who want to buy, but a very dire shortage of people who can afford to buy.

Capitalism can never avoid its cyclical recessions because of this trap that it is helpless to do anything about. And the major recessions exact a terrible price in human terms – increased deaths from starvation, subhuman living conditions for the vast majority of humanity, more environmental degradation and, worst of all, the probability of a new world war.

The only way out of this vicious cycle is to deprive the multi-billionaires of their ownership of the means of production and to institute planned production aimed at directly satisfying the needs of the working people rather than allowing the economy to remain in the hands of multibillionaire capitalists who will only produce and distribute good if they can make a profit. This is the socialist system that the Soviet Union established, and which the lies about the Katyn massacre seek to discredit.

The severely increased misery and hardship that lies ahead for working people is bound to cause them to question the capitalist system of production and to realise that socialism is the only possible alternative. This is especially the case in the former socialist countries, where people are finding out the hard way how much better off they were under socialism.

The rich, powerful and influential of the capitalist world, however, stand to lose everything if the mass of working-class people are mobilised to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, because socialism deprives them of the wealth they have accumulated by exploiting the working class (ie, keeping for themselves a substantial part of what is produced through the labour of the working class).

The capitalist class will commit any crime to keep that wealth. To tell lies to avert the possibility that they will ever be required to hand it over is as nothing.

A film like Katyn, if it keeps or makes enough people anti-communist, or even if it neutralises them in the inevitable future struggle to put an end to capitalism and replace it with socialism, will have achieved its purpose of prolonging the agony of the vast majority of humanity so that capitalism can live to fight another day.

Katyn massacres – a Nazi, not a Soviet crime!

My opinion on holocaust revisionism is that I do not fear it. The truth will win in the end, when it is all said and done. If a group of liars appear to take the lead of the debate, it is like leading the first mile of a marathon. When it is all said and done, we will know they were lying.

I do think the holocaust story as we know it is largely correct. I think people have put a political spin on it too. There are two major types of revisionism I know of. The first is a Nazi revisionism that claims that Jews were not selected for elimination, but the second is a Jewish revisionism that denies Slavic and Gypsi co-victimhood and intentionally fails to acknowledge those who resisted the Nazis. The truth is probably similar to what PHD level scholars (normal ones) teach. Jews were victims, but they weren’t the only victims, and the whole world wasn’t out to get them.

I also don’t think the story has any relevance to discussion about Israel. It’s not a reason to support Israel and it’s not a reason to oppose Israel.