Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Free Jonathan Bold Now ! - International Committee to Support Peoples War In India

THRISSUR: A 24-year-old Swiss national has been arrested after he  allegedly attended a function organised in memory of a Maoist activist  at nearby Valappad.
Police said Jonathan Bold, who arrived in Kerala on  a tourist visa, attended a meeting organised in memory of Sinoj, a Maoist activist from Kerala who was killed while making country bombs in Andhra-Karnataka border last month.

The meeting was organised by a group  having Maoists and Naxalite sympathies.

Sinoj belonged to Valappad in Kerala.

A member of the Western Ghats Special Zone Committee of the armed Maoist guerrilla group, Sinoj was engaged in creating a foothold for the CPI (Maoist) in the state.

He was in-charge of the political wing of the Kabani Dalam operating in Kerala.

Jonathan has been charged under  the Foreigners Act, Section 14(b), which pertains to violation of visa  conditions.

Police said some Maoist literature had been recovered from  him. Jonathan arrived in Kerala on July 10 with a woman companion and  had visited Kannur and other parts of the state before arriving here Monday.

Since he speaks French, the help of an interpreter conversant in French would be sought for detailed interrogation, police said.

See Also :

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Democracy and Class Struggle supports call of French Comrades for for 19th June to be International Day of Solidarity with Political Prisoners

On 19 June 1999 many revolutionary prisoners, communists, anarchists, anti-fascist and anti-imperialist signed together a platform that serves as a base for a day of mobilization and support for revolutionary prisoners worldwide.

This date is not a coincidence, it was chosen as a tribute to the more than 300 prisoners and prisoners members of the Communist Party of Peru, murdered by the Peruvian government for daring to rebel.

This massacre took place 14 years earlier, on 19 June 1986.

France still has many political prisoners.

Whether it be against militants airport Notre Dame des Landes as independence activist left Breton Enguerrand Delanous; the anarchist militant antifascist Damien Camelio; Basque militants (about 150 to be locked up in France); or even Georges Ibrahim Abdallah Communist and pro-Palestinian activist who is in captivity since 1984 for his struggle against imperialism and Zionism.

Zionism also continues to keep imprisoned thousands of Palestinians fighting for their independence.

In the rest of Europe many revolutionary activists are imprisoned as Spain, Italy or Greece.

In the Maghreb countries with the complicity of French imperialism are also held countless progressive and revolutionary prisoners as in Tunisia or Morocco, where there are now more than 280 political prisoners in the prisons ofincluding following the crackdown on February 20.

In all countries where the revolutionary fight pose a threat to the bourgeoisie and capitalism repression strikes and prison hell begins.

This is the case in India are locked over 4000 prisoners accused of being part of Naxalites as Saibaba Professor at the University of New Delhi, this is also the case in the Philippines where  leaders of  the Communist Party Philippines have recently been arrested and thrown into prison.

Peru since September 1992, President Gonzalo, revolutionary leader of the PCP, has been taken hostage in complete isolation by a corrupt and anti-popular regime supported by imperialism .

Similarly in Turkey, Turkish and Kurdish militants undergo violent repression and torture in the jails of the reactionary regimes.

And we affirm our support to all progressive and revolutionary prisoners around the world who pay their freedom their opposition to injustice, oppression and exploitation of the masses suffer every day. We affirm the rightness of their struggle which is ours and we demand their release.

Against all imperialism,

Long live the international solidarity of the peoples!

Freedom for all revolutionary prisoners!

Action Committee and support the struggles of the people of Morocco (Paris)
Arab Red Aid
Anti-Imperialist Committee
Bloc Rouge (Unification Maoist)
FRAP / La Cause du Peuple
OCML Way Proletarian
Popular Front for Tunisia - Coordination Ile de France
Committee for the Liberation of Georges Ibrahim Abdallah
Tunisian Solidarity Committee for the Liberation of Georges Ibrahim Abdallah
Solidarity Committee Political Prisoners (OTDK)
ICAD (International Committee Against Disappearances)
OC-EN (Organisation Communiste-Future Red)

Call Also Supported by Democracy and Class Struggle

Monday, July 28, 2014


This article expresses the personal views of Harsh Thakor

Today the ruling classes celebrate the 100th anniversary of the  inaugural day of the 1st world War.
We revolutionaries have to stand in condemnation of this declaration of war which represented the conspiracy of the ruling class leaders and governments of major world powers like Germany, Austria, England, France Etc.
They connived against the interests of their peoples welfare by whipping up nationalistic jingoism and the people of the world fell a prey to their war-mongering.
British workers racial prejudices were steamed up against people of colonial countries.Instead of identifying with the interest of the workers of the colonial countries like India greater racial enmity was whipped up.
One of the most amazing things was that even M.K.Gandhi supported the British efforts calling for India to support the British war efforts.
This depicts the political character of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.


The lessons the 1st world war taught us is how Imperialism uses war to promote its interests and how leaders of countries use war to divert people of their basic interests.
Lenin learnt some most invaluable lessons during the 1st world war ,particularly on the political nature of the working class and how subservient they were to ruling class propaganda.
 In fact it was Lenin’s mastery of revolutionary dialectics that enabled him to win the Russian workers towards the Bolshevik party.

The 1st world war taught us the lessons of inter-colonial rivalry  in the 1st world war.
Lenin developed his colonial thesis on the many lessons he gained from the Ist world war  particularly on the inter-imperialist rivalry for world markets.
He analyzed how in actual fact they all conspired together to defeat the interest of the working class.Historically the Russian Revolution  won because of the  brilliant tactics of the Bolshevik party during the war ,making the Russian soldiers retreat.


Today we still have cut throat inter imperialist contention in the world and have to analyse how contradictions between the imperialist countries and contention for world markets  can be utilized towards the cause of revolution.


Today we must dip our blood in shame of the British government celebrating this heinous war and forgetting the toll of lives of innocent people.
They still do not apologize for their  colonial aggression  and responsibility for thousands of lives but glorify their victory.
In schools they still idolize the efforts of the army in the war in history books.
In fact the result of the war strengthened the estrangement of colonial powers on their colonies ,with the triple entente being victorious.
The formation of the  League of nations  by the big 3,  ‘Lloyd George’, ‘Clemenceau’, ‘Woodrow Wilson’ and ‘Clemenceau’ was a triumph  for colonialism.

Great  embitterment  was caused to Germany with the Treaty of Versailles which provoked revenge of Germany and the rise of Hitler and fascism.
Today leaders of third world countries do not condemn how the colonial powers used the people of the colonies like India or Africa to fight for them during the War.
Their refusal reflects the nature of the political system in their countries which is basically semi-colonial.

We must stand with all the forces in the world that oppose the centenary celebrations glorifying the colonial  war efforts  and strive to educate the youth and workers worldwide on how leaders connived against the world people in this war.
We must stand with forces like Democracy and Class Struggle and the CPGB in England and Wales that are exposing the  very autocratic  and class nature of their governments  that blesses imperialist globalization.
The centenary years from 2014-18 must be a period when revolutionary cadres master Lenin’s historical study of Imperialism when imperialist globalization is strengthening it’s tentacles.

Below I am compiling some of Lenin’s teaching s on War.

In fact on many occasion he countered Leon Trotsky like on Brest-Litovsk etc.
In fact some of Lenin’s best anti Trotskyite polemics occurred during the war like the Brest –Litovsk treaty which Trotsky opposed.
We must celebrate the 100 th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in 2017 to counter the First World War centenary celebrations of countries like Britain.
It is particularly relevant with the fascist aggression of Israel with the connivance of Imperialist countries  today and the general neo-colonial offensive.


The slogans of social democracy at this time must be:


First, all-embracing propaganda extending to the army and to the theatre of war, propagating the socialist revolution, and the necessity of using weapons not against one’s own brothers, the hired slaves of other countries, but against the reactionary and bourgeois governments and parties of all nations;


The absolute necessity of organizing illegal cells and groups in the armies of all nations for carrying on this propaganda in all languages;


A ruthless struggle against the chauvinism and “patriotism” of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie of all countries without exception;


An appeal to the revolutionary consciousness of the toiling masses, who bear the full burden of the war and who in most cases are hostile to opportunism and chauvinism, against the leaders of the present International, who have betrayed socialism.


Second, propaganda calling for the immediate establishment of republics in Germany, Poland, Russia, and so forth, and for the organization of the separate European states into a republican United States of Europe.


Third, a struggle against the tsarist monarchy and Great Russian pan-Slav chauvinism; agitation for a revolution in Russia and for the liberation and self determination of all peoples oppressed by Russia, with emphasis on the immediate aims-a democratic republic, confiscation of estate lands, and an eight-hour working day.


(From “The Tasks of Revolutionary Social Democracy in the European War”, September 1914)


The German bourgeoisie heads one group of belligerent nations. It is deluding the working class and the labouring masses by asserting that it is waging war in defence of the fatherland, freedom, and civilization, for the liberation of the peoples oppressed by tsardom, for the destruction of reactionary tsardom…. In reality, whatever the outcome of the war may be, this bourgeoisie will, together with the Junkers, exert every effort to support the tsarist monarchy against a revolution in Russia.


The other group of belligerent nations is headed by the British and French bourgeoisie, which is deluding the working class and the laboring masses by asserting that it is waging war for the defense of their native lands, freedom, and civilization, against the militarism and despotism of Germany. But as a matter of fact, this bourgeoisie has long been using its billions to hire the armies of the Russian tsardom, the most reactionary and barbarous monarchy in Europe, and to prepare them for an attack on Germany.


In reality, the object of the struggle of the British and French bourgeoisie is to seize the German colonies and to ruin a competing nation which has displayed a more rapid rate of economic development. And, in pursuit of this noble aim, the “advanced” democratic nations are helping the savage tsarist regime to strangle Poland, the Ukraine, and so on, and to throttle revolution in Russia more thoroughly.


For us, the Russian social democrats, there can be no doubt that from the standpoint of the working class and of the labouring masses of all the nations of Russia, the lesser evil would be the defeat of the tsarist monarchy, the most reactionary and barbarous of governments, which is oppressing the greatest number of nations and the largest mass of the population of Europe and Asia.


The immediate political slogan of the social democrats of Europe must be the formation of a republican United States of Europe. But in contrast with the bourgeoisie, which is ready to “promise” anything in order to draw the proletariat into the general current of chauvinism, the social democrats will reveal that this slogan is utterly false and senseless without the revolutionary overthrow of the German, Austrian, and Russian monarchies. The war has placed the slogan of socialist revolution on the agenda of all the advanced countries… The only correct proletarian slogan is the transformation of the present imperialist war into a civil war


(From “The War and Russian Social Democracy”, November 1914)


In August 1914 Lenin argued that the First World War was an inter-imperialist conflict and the key task for Russian socialists was to continue the struggle against the Tsar — who in his view was “one hundred times” worse than Germany’s Kaiser.

Lenin’s proposition was that, “From the viewpoint of the working class and all the Russian people the ‘lesser evil’ would be the defeat of the Tsarist monarchy and its army.”


Below are some notes by a book from Ian Thatcher on Trotsky and Lenin during the 1st war.

When the great powers of Europe went to war in August 1914, Leon Trotsky was living in Vienna.

Fearing arrest, he fled to Switzerland for three months.

In November 1914 he moved to France as a war correspondent for Kievskaya Mysl, a liberal newspaper for which he had worked since 1909, including during the Balkan wars (1912-13). Trotsky was a participant in the anti-war socialist conferences of Zimmerwald (September 1915) and Kienthal (April 1916), which laid the basis for a new international.

He was deported from France in October 1916, travelling through Spain, where he was briefly imprisoned, arriving in New York in January 1917.

He left for Russia at the end of March 1917, and there, with Lenin, helped lead the revolution that created the world’s first workers’ state.

This book by Ian Thatcher is an ambivalent contribution to our understanding this period of Trotsky’s life.

Thatcher provides an account of the 16 articles Trotsky wrote for Kievskaya Mysl, and information about Trotsky’s articles in socialist newspapers such as Nashe Slovo (published in Paris) which has not appeared in English before.

But Thatcher also claims that when Trotsky, after the Russian revolution of 1917, put together a collection of his writings against World War 1 (War and Revolution, 1922), he deliberately excluded most of the articles in which he polemicised with Lenin, and “falsified” other articles to make it appear that Lenin’s views converged with his own.

Thatcher says that an examination of the documents reveals “a story of almost continuous opposition between Trotsky and Lenin”.

Whether Trotsky’s editing was suspect or not — and I think Thatcher makes too much of it — could only be judged by comparing the text of War and Revolution with the original articles.

In any case, the differences between Lenin and Trotsky are very well known even from the collections currently available — the Stalinists certainly made sure Lenin’s polemics against Trotsky were widely available in print.

Trotsky did not accept Lenin’s slogan of “defeatism”, and promoted slogans for peace and for the United States of Europe which Lenin rejected at times during the war.

Whether their views fundamentally diverged is a different matter altogether.

Lenin argued that Russia’s defeat in the war would be a lesser evil for Russian socialists. It was a formula Lenin used to demarcate the Bolsheviks from other socialist opponents of the war.

By contrast, Trotsky wrote that, “under no condition can I agree with your opinion, which is emphasized by a resolution, that Russia’s defeat would be a ‘lesser evil’.

This opinion represents a fundamental connivance with the political methodology of social patriotism, a connivance for which there is no reason or justification, and which substitutes an orientation (extremely arbitrary under present conditions) along the line of a ‘lesser evil’ for the revolutionary struggle against war and the conditions which generate this war” — “Open Letter to the Editorial Board of Kommunist”, June 1915 (Pearce 1961: p. 32).

Trotsky never came round to Lenin’s view on this.

When he came to write the theses War and the Fourth International in 1934, Trotsky omitted the slogan of “defeatism” from his first draft.

Under pressure from his comrades, he then incorporated the term, with a content different from Lenin’s original use but compatible with Trotsky’s own old views (Joubert, 1988).

 He wrote that, “Lenin’s formula ‘defeat is the lesser evil’ means not that the defeat of one’s own country is the lesser evil as compared with the enemy country but that a military defeat resulting from the growth of the revolutionary movement is infinitely more beneficial to the proletariat and to the whole people than military victory assured by civil peace.”

Did Lenin come round to Trotsky’s opinion on “defeatism”? We know only that Lenin never again took up “defeatism” systematically after 1917; and, as Hal Draper pointed out, there is “not even a hint of any kind of the defeat slogan in any of the documents of the first four congresses of the Comintern… It played no part in the programme, policy, and principles of the Communist International under Lenin” (2001: pp. 98, 99). 


Or could it? At any rate, did this mean that after 1905 the Russian workers could have no different or additional consideration of principle to guide them in war, as compared with the workers of, say, Germany?

This question was to give rise to controversy among Russian Marxists when the war came.

The opportunist leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party justified their support for the Kaiser’s war by references to the special character of Tsarism and the need for blows from outside Russia to bring it down, in the interests of the workers of Russia as well as of Germany.

To this the central committee of the Bolsheviks replied, in their manifesto of October 1914, ‘The War and Russian Social-Democracy’, drawn up by Lenin: ‘During the past few years, the revolutionary movement against Tsarism in our country has again assumed tremendous proportions [i.e., after the lull of 1908-1910] .... The Russian proletariat has not shrunk from any sacrifice to free humanity from the shame of the Tsarist monarchy.

But we must say that if anything can, under certain conditions, delay the destruction of Tsarism, if anything can help Tsarism in its struggle against the whole of Russian democracy, it is the present war.... And if anything can hinder the revolutionary struggle of the Russian working class against Tsarism, it is the behaviour of the leaders of German and Austrian Social-Democracy, which the chauvinist press of Russia is continually holding up to us as an example.’

At the same time, the manifesto affirmed that ‘from the standpoint of the working class and of the labouring masses of all the peoples of Russia [my emphasis, BP], the lesser evil would be the defeat of the Tsarist monarchy’. Some of Lenin’s associates questioned whether there was not room for ‘a misinterpretation of this passage: that the Russian Social-Democrats wish for the victory of the Germans ...’ (Karpinsky, letter to Lenin, September 27, 1914), but Lenin at this stage refused to budge. ‘Tsarism is a hundred times worse than Kaiserism’, he wrote to Shlyapnikov, October 17, 1914. Lenin’s ‘defeatism’ is here advanced, it will be observed, as something special for Russia, not as an international line.

Lenin soon clashed with Trotsky over ‘defeatism’, and also over what was called at the time ‘the peace slogan’. As regards the latter, Lenin was desperately anxious to prevent the revolutionary socialists from being taken in tow by various pacifist trends.

Only by fighting to overthrow capitalism, to mobilize the workers to carry out a socialist revolution, by ‘turning the imperialist war into civil war’, could the war be ended in a fashion advantageous to the masses.

Any other line would lead merely to the victory of one imperialist coalition or the other or to a compromise at the expense of the peoples which would prove merely an armistice followed by renewal of conflict. Lenin knew the heavy pressure on his comrades, if not to join the ‘patriots’ then to drop their revolutionary work in favour of abstract peace propaganda of a kind which would find echoes even in some capitalist circles.

In reply to Alexandra Kollontai, he wrote at the very end of 1914: ‘You emphasize that "we must bring forward a slogan which will unite us all". I tell you frankly that at present what I am afraid of is just this indiscriminate uniting, which in my opinion is most dangerous and most harmful to the proletariat.’ He never ceased, throughout the War, to combat the illusions of pacifism.

The two major fallacies in the pacifist approach he saw as these.

First, the idea that it is possible to abolish war without abolishing capitalism: ‘only after we have overthrown, finally vanquished, and expropriated the bourgeoisie of the whole world, and not only of one country, will wars become impossible’ (‘The War Programme of the Proletarian Revolution’, September 1916).

Second, avoidance of the hard fact that the process of extirpating the causes of war must itself include a series of wars of various kinds: ‘civil wars of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for socialism are inevitable. Wars are possible between a country in which socialism has been victorious and bourgeois or reactionary countries’ (‘The "Disarmament" Slogan’, Autumn 1916).

Far from turning their backs on weapons and military knowledge, the workers must strive to obtain both, since only with their aid would the capitalist class, the source of war, be overthrown and put down, nationally and internationally. ‘We must not let ourselves get mixed up with the sentimental liberals. A bayonet period has begun! And that is a fact which means that we must fight with the same kind of weapon’ (Letter to Shlyapnikov, November 14, 1914).

Peace by Revolution

 So profoundly concerned was Lenin to draw a sharp distinction between the revolutionaries and those who were vaguely ‘for peace’ that he at first viewed with extreme suspicion all attempts to put forward ‘peace programmes’.

 ‘Not "peace without annexations" but peace to the cottages, war on the palaces; peace to the proletariat and the toiling masses, war on the bourgeoisie!’ (Lenin, ‘Peace Without Annexations ...’, February 29, 1916).

On this issue Lenin found himself at odds with Trotsky, who considered from the start that the slogan of peace, linked with a programme for a democratic peace settlement, provided ‘the surest way by which Social-Democracy can isolate militarist reaction in Europe’ (The War and the International, 1914).3

 In the opening phases of the war, Lenin and Trotsky thus placed the emphasis differently – Lenin upon the need to prevent any illusions arising about the possibility of peace without revolution, Trotsky upon the need to find transitional demands which would enable the revolutionaries to link themselves with the broad movement of opposition to the war.

It must be appreciated that Lenin did not, of course, ignore in the sectarian manner the broad anti-war movement or fail to see that the revolutionaries had to make contact with it. Already in May 1915 (‘Bourgeois Philanthropists and Revolutionary Social Democracy’) he noted that alongside all sorts of intrigues and diversions there were also the ‘peace sympathies’ of ‘the unenlightened masses’, expressing a ‘growing protest against the war’, and that the revolutionaries must take these into account.

And in the pamphlet Socialism and War (Summer 1915), Lenin and Zinoviev pointed to the popular sentiment for peace and observed: ‘It is the duty of all Social-Democrats to take advantage of this sentiment. They will take the most ardent part in every demonstration made on this basis, but they will not deceive the people by assuming that in the absence of a revolutionary movement it is possible to have peace without annexations ....’ ‘Socialists of a pacifist shade ... can be our fellow travellers’; we have ‘to get closer to them’ in order to fight the social-patriots. But in doing so, the revolutionaries must never forget the limitations of the political position of these elements, and must certainly never confine themselves ‘to what is acceptable to them’.

Parallel with Lenin’s differences with Trotsky on the ‘peace slogan’ and ‘peace programmes’, and also to some extent on ‘defeatism’, were differences on organizational questions. Trotsky clung much longer to the hope that it would not be necessary to make a clean break with the various centrist trends in the Russian and internationalist movements. In the end, of course, Trotsky came over to Lenin’s view on this matter, as on that of the type of internal organization of the party. On organizational questions Lenin convinced Trotsky: it is by no means clear, however, that Lenin did not come round eventually, on questions of the tactics and slogans of the fight against war, as on the ‘permanent revolution’ approach to Russia’s politics, to something closer to Trotsky’s position.

Trotsky versus Lenin

Trotsky protested sharply against the slogan of ‘Russia’s defeat the lesser evil’. In his 1914 (Zurich) pamphlet on The War and the International he declared: ‘We must not for a moment entertain the idea of purchasing the doubtful liberation of Russia by the certain destruction of the liberty of Belgium and France, and – what is more important still – thereby inoculating the German and Austrian proletariat with the virus of imperialism.’

Was it not ‘possible that the defeat of Tsarism might actually aid the cause of the Revolution? As to such a possibility, there is nothing to be said against it’.

That had happened, indeed, in 1905; but one ought not to forget that ‘while the Russo-Japanese war weakened Tsarism, it strengthened Japanese militarism.

The same considerations apply in a still higher degree to the present German-Russian war’.

Moreover, a revolution in Russia which was brought on by defeat would find the German bayonets at its chest at the moment of birth, and that would not help it. No, ‘the Social Democrats could not and cannot now combine their aims with any of the historical responsibilities of this war, that is, with either the victory of the Triple Alliance or the victory of the Entente’.

Trotsky’s Paris paper Nashe Slovo ridiculed Lenin’s defeatism as ‘defencism turned inside out’ and ‘social-patriotism standing on its head’. In an open letter to the editorial board of Kommunist, June 1915, Trotsky explained his disagreements with Lenin on both the peace slogan and defeatism.

 ‘I cannot reconcile myself’, he wrote, ‘with the vagueness and evasiveness of your position on the question of mobilizing the proletariat under the slogan of struggle for peace, the slogan under which, as a matter of fact, the labouring masses are now recovering their political senses and the revolutionary elements of socialism are being united in all countries; the slogan under which an attempt is being made now to restore the international contacts among the socialist proletariat.

Furthermore, under no condition can I agree with your opinion, which is emphasized by a resolution, that Russia’s defeat would be a "lesser evil".

This opinion represents a fundamental connivance with the political methodology of social patriotism, a connivance for which there is no reason or justification, and which substitutes an orientation (extremely arbitrary under present conditions) along the line of a "lesser evil" for the revolutionary struggle against war and the conditions which generate this war.’4

The resolution referred to by Trotsky was that adopted by the foreign (i.e., outside Russia) sections of the Bolshevik party at their conference in Berne in March 1915.

In this document two things were said about the question of defeat. First, that ‘in every country, the struggle against a home government conducting an imperialist war must not be stopped by the prospect of the country being defeated as a result of revolutionary agitation’.

It will be noticed that Trotsky raised no objection to this idea. But, second, it went on to assert that defeat actually facilitates revolution, that ‘this proposition is particularly true as regards Russia’, and, finally, that ‘the defeat of Russia is, under all conditions, the lesser evil’.

The text of this resolution itself represented a certain retreat from a position Lenin had taken up a little earlier. In his article ‘Under A Stolen Flag’ (February 1915) Lenin replied to the Russian defencist Potresov, who tried to shelter behind the Marx-Engels approach to wars, that in the present war ‘both sides are worst’, and that for this reason the socialist workers must desire ‘the defeat of every imperialist bourgeoisie’.

In this article the special characteristics of Russia were relegated to the past: ‘Potresov cannot fail to know that in our epoch not one of the backward state formations is or can be "the central evil".’

This was done, however, in order to apply to every country the slogan originally devised for Russia alone. A group of Bolsheviks which included Bukharin (the ‘Baugy group’) objected to this ‘wish-defeat’ formulation as an international slogan, and their objections were reflected in the final terms of the Berne resolution.

 (As can be seen, this resolution actually goes back to the idea that Tsarist Russia is in some way specially noxious, and it even specifies that ‘the victory of Russia would bring with it a strengthening of world reaction’; which was just what the German social patriots claimed.)

In the summer of 1915, doubtless as a result of the clash with Trotsky over the Berne resolution, Lenin and Zinoviev, in their pamphlet Socialism and War, reverted to the formulation to which Bukharin had objected, and declared that ‘the Socialists of all the belligerent countries should express their wish that all "their" governments be defeated’.

Lenin went even further in his article (August 1915) on ‘Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War’: ‘Revolutionary action against one’s own government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means not only desiring its defeat but really facilitating defeat.’

He added however: ‘(For the "penetrating reader": this does not mean "blowing up bridges", organizing unsuccessful military strikes, and in general helping the government to inflict defeat upon revolutionaries.)’

Just what it did mean, in what sense it meant anything more than carrying on the class struggle without regard to the effects this might have on the fortunes of war, was not really made clear.

The only special, novel kind of activity specified as needed in wartime was the promoting of fraternization between the rank-and-file soldiers at the front; and this was not in dispute.5

Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses

Democracy and Class Struggle say interesting why the BBC deleted this video from 23rd July has it has eyewitness reports of a Ukrainian Fighter plane bringing down MH17.

Was BBC worried we might believe the eyewitnesses and not Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service} ?

See Also:

For a detailed analysis of MH17 visit here :

For the BBC amateur analysis here:

Intro of BBC Report (For Full Transcript see below)

The “black boxes” of the crashed Malaysian Boeing have finally been transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?
The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.
The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.
The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from Russia.
The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile.
BBC reporter Olga Ivshina and producer Oksana Vozhdayeva decided to find the place from which the missile was allegedly launched.

 Original BBC Video Report: Preserved by Google Web-cache

Transcript of the BBC Video Report

DPR Representative: Here it is
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The black boxes from the crashed Boeing are finally being transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from the direction of Russia.

Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]: This was a BUK M1 system from which the aircraft was shot down. It came to Ukraine early in the morning on the 17th of July. It was delivered by a tow truck to the city of Donetsk. After that, it was redeployed from Donetsk, as part of a column of military equipment, to the area of the city of Torez, to the area of Snezhnoye, to the area of Pervomaisk.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location.

One of the photographs showed a landscape not far from the city of Torez, on which smoke could be seen coming from the presumed location of the missile’s launch. We attempted to find this location, and it appears that we were successful.

We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.

To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.

The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.

However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine.

It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.

Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch.

Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either.

At the ruins of an apartment building in the city of Snezhnoye, the topic of the jet fighters that may have been escorting civilian aircraft comes up again. A bomb dropped from above took away the lives of eleven civilians here.

Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye: They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.

Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.

The Catastrophe of #MH17:
#BBC in the Search of the “BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by BBC
Translation by: Valentina Lisitsa

No Celebration of the Imperialist War of 1914-18 - remember and honour the dead by ensuring no more Imperialist Wars in 2014

Democracy and Class Struggle says the British Ruling Class wants us to celebrate the blood bath of the First World War and from today there will be events not just remembering the First World War but celebrating them in the UK.

Revisionist histories of the First World War are being produced and none more despicable than that of Max Hastings with his "Poor little Belgium" narrative that was exposed by James Connolly here back in 1914 or "Wicked Prussia" exposed by John Maclean here.

The Daily Mail of Lord Rothermere a British Imperialist paper that did more than an other newspaper to ignite the First World War continues to this day in the same tradition today with Max Hastings one of their journalists leading the defence of British Imperialism in 1914.

Democracy and Class Struggle says let us celebrate our heroes the anti- Imperialists who opposed the Jingoism of the First World War, Niclas Y Glais in Wales, John Maclean in Scotland and James Connolly in Ireland.

Smash Imperialism 1914 to 2014 - No more Imperialist Wars

Remember and honour the dead by ensuring no more Imperialist Wars


See Also:

Sunday, July 27, 2014

'Ukrainian gov't should stop using Grad rockets in populated areas' Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch said that the Ukrainian army may have committed a war crime when it kill16 civilians with unguided grad missiles.

The group says that the grad systems are just too inaccurate to be used on populated areas.

HRW is calling on both sides in the conflict to stop using this kind of weapon if it wanted to avoid civilian casualties.

One of the authors of the report said the Ukrainian military should be held accountable for the killing

of civilians.


Kiev's army is contuining their crackdown of anti-govt forces in the East of Ukraine.

Urban areas are being caught in its deadly fire.

There are reports from the city of Gorlovka where the latest shelling has killed at least 13 civilians with some media suggesting the death toll could be higher.

Wales: Cardiff for Gaza - 5000 people in Solidarity Protest 26th July

"This is our South Africa moment.
This is the moment Palestine went mainstream.
Palestine is the anti-apartheid movement of the 21st century.
It is the civil rights movement of our generation"

Adam Johannes Speaking at the historic 5000 strong march for Palestinian freedom in Cardiff yesterday

Unfortunately a few reports have appeared that rather than focus on 5000 people marching in a spirit of unity instead zoom in on an incident that took place yesterday, that many who marched won't have been aware of, to give a completely misleading impression of our historic march that does not reflect the experience of most of the few thousand people on the streets yesterday

The protest didn't 'turn violent' rather it was the victim of violent and criminal behaviour. We are still gathering testimony, but from what I personally witnessed and other testimony it appears that what occurred was the most outrageous behaviour many of us have ever witnessed in Cardiff, from two pubs, a small group of hardcore racists chanted racist abuse, threw beer over Muslim demonstrators and hurled glasses and chairs at the march. There were many young children and babies present and it is lucky none were hurt.

Demonstrators spontaneously held back people who quite naturally wanted to respond to such disgusting behaviour from racists made more confident perhaps in the poisonous atmosphere created by UKIP and others. It was a testimony to the discipline of demonstrators that no major confrontation took place.

The march continued peacefully and ended in a rally. The actions of half a dozen racists must not be used to detract from the actions of 5000 people marching for Palestine in an incredible spirit of unity: Whatever anyone says - we all know this was a significant march, we all know that it was a peaceful march, we all know that there will be even bigger protests to come and we all know that Palestine will be free.

It's no mystery. We're making history. We're winning victory...
Saturday's march was historic.

There has never ever been a march of this size in support of Palestinian freedom in Wales.

I have seen estimates of 5000 people marching. Thanks to everyone who made it happen. The carnage over the last fortnight is galvanising a new global solidarity movement of unprecedented breadth, depth and determination. The next step is protesting on Thursday at 5.30 at the offices of BBC Wales in Llandaff to call for BBC national coverage to start telling it like it is. Event page will be created soon. We are also showing a documentary film, 'Roadmap to Apartheid' on the parallels between apartheid in South Africa and Israel on Tuesday at 6.30pm in the Unite Building on 1 Cathedral Road.

Words by Adam Johannes, Cardiff Stop the War Coalition & Organiser of Wales


Saturday, July 26, 2014


Issued by the Office of Chairperson
International League of Peoples' Struggle
July26, 2014

Israel’s murderous onslaught on Gaza which has entered into its third week has left more than 900 Palestinian children, women, elderly and other civilians killed, more than 5,000 wounded and 140,000 forced to seek shelter in cramped UNWRA (United Nations Works and Relief Agency) refugee camps.

The Israeli aggression has destroyed more than 3,000 homes and targeted mosques, UN-operated shelters, schools, hospitals, water facilities and electric grids. Hospitals are running out of medicine which have been running short because of the Israeli blockade imposed on Gaza in the past year.

White phosphorus bombs have been used on civilian areas. White phosphorus is a chemical compound that burns structures and people. The use of phosphorus bombs against civilians is prohibited by the Geneva conventions. The use of these US-supplied bombs by Israel on populated areas in Gaza according to Amnesty International constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, including war crimes.

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death by burning deep into tissue and by being inhaled as smoke. Incendiary particles cast off by a white phosphorus (WP) weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of death than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in multiple organ failure.

About 2 million people in Gaza are virtually trapped in a prison. They have no electricity and they cannot go out to buy goods or food and clothes with drones, F-16s flying over Gaza around the clock and tanks continuously shelling homes. People have no escape since the Rafah Crossing to Egypt has been closed for the most part the past months.

The Israeli military which is the fourth most powerful army in the world continues its brutal campaign against a population that possesses no regular military of a modern state. Israel receives from the US 3billion dollars in military aid every year. This aid comprises 1/3 of the entire US foreign aid budget to a country that has only .001% of the world’s population. Even as Israel was carrying out its brutal military campaign against the civilian population in Gaza, the US Congress approved an additional $351 million for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system.

The UN meanwhile issues useless statements of concern and toothless admonitions which Israel only arrogantly brushes aside. Israel’s arrogance comes from the fact that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)is a mere extension of the US war machine in exercise of US imperialism’s hegemony in the Middle East and Africa.

Human rights organizations the world over have condemned the war crimes and crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the Israeli Zionists. Even Jewish organizations concerned with human rights and peace have been outraged and are opposed to the genocidal atrocities being committed by the Zionists. These are being condemned as evil and monstrous, no different in character from the crimes of Hitler against the Jewish people.

More than 20 leading doctors and scientists fromthe UK and Italy have denounced the ongoing aggressionin Gaza. They condemned the blockade imposed on Gaza the past year that has caused not only starvation and poverty on the residents but in a serious lack of access to medicine and health care.They denounced the bombing of hospitals that have destroyed even operating theaters resulting in the deaths of patients and hospital staff.

In their public statement they said, “We as scientists and doctors cannot keep silent while this crime against humanity continues. We urge readers not to be silent too. Gaza trapped under siege, is being killed by one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated modern military machines.The land is poisoned by weapon debris, with consequences for future generations. If those of us capable of speaking up fail to do so and take a stand against this war crime, we are also complicit in the destruction of the lives and homes of 1.8 million people in Gaza.”

ILPS calls on the people of the world to undertake mass actions of indignation, condemn the aggression and serious violations of international law by Israel anddemand the immediate end of the aggression and blockade and the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid and the free passage of basic necessities essential to human existence.

We stand in solidarity with the Palestionian people and support their struggle to uphold,defend and advance their right to national self-determination and their right to national liberation against Israeli aggression, occupation and oppression

Israel Boycott Gains Traction As Gaza Assault Continues by Omar Barghouti

BDS Movement Founder Omar Barghouti discusses growing solidarity with Palestinians and whether Fatah-Hamas unity deal motivated Israel's aggression

Friday, July 25, 2014

Wales: No to NATO Newport - The Real NATO Agenda

On 4th-5th September, NATO meets in Newport, South Wales. Supposedly meeting to strengthen partnerships and forge alliances around issues of national security and protection of vital resources, this video reveals, for the first time, the Real NATO Agenda.

Anti-NATO action underway in Cardiff Today.
Army recruiting centre closed.
Support appreciated