Sunday, March 26, 2017

Professor Filip Kovacevic discusses the articles from four Russian newspapers: Izvestia, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Kommersant, and Pravda. He discusses the unique deep sea water operation by the Russian navy in the Mediterranean, the Russian military involvement with Armenia and Azerbaijan, the NATO destabilization plans for the Black Sea and beyond, the top-level negotiations between the Russian and Japanese government officials, and the wide-spread social protests organized by the Russian Communist party across the entire country.

Democracy and Class Struggle finds ourselves in more agreement with Professor Filip Kovacevic in his current review of the Russian Newspapers.

Filip Kovacevic sees the death of the possibilities of detente with Russia on the basis of current NATO actions - something we pointed out when Russia was gripped with Trump Euphoria as anyone who looked at practical on the ground military actions of US and NATO could not avoid that conclusion.

The Russian National Bourgeoisie historically have never been very good at protecting Russian national interests and the Russian Security Military Apparatus  will find itself clashing more with Russian Oligarchic Profit Patriots.

We expect to see purge of free market loving unpatriotic elements in the Russian State in the coming months as a necessity - bye bye Medvedev.

The rebuilding of a revolutionary Communist Party in Russia in 2017 is the responsibility of the Russian People as communists are the real patriots and social justice warriors in Russia but western media ignores their influential struggle but prefers to concentrate on western backed colour revolutionary rightists like Navalny.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

India: The Punjab remembers the immortal contribution of Shaheed Bhagat Singh by Harsh Thakor






Around 5000  people participated in conference and rally to commemorate Bhagat Singh and his fellow comrades Sukhdev and Rajguru.

Speakers vociferously condemned the actions of the state on imprisoning professor Saibaba and 5 others with life sentence  as well as awarding the same  to the Maruti workers.

Raminder Singh,president of NBS,Rajinder Singh,general secretary of PSU,Rakesh Kumar,researcher on Bhagat Singh,,Professor Jagmohan,nephew of Bhagat Singh were some of the important speakers.

The main theme was based on the building of the memorial for the great martyr to which the state had been absolutely apathetic. Over 5000 students and youth participated including around 800 girls.1000 came from Sangrur,100 from Muktsar,1000 from Faridkot,around 150 from Bathinda ,Patiala and Amritsar..I was particularly impressed with the participation of girl students,which was significant.

After the public meeting a rally was held for about one hour to the market are of the town..I was privilaged to be present and witness the ressureection not only of the spirit of Shaheed Bhgat Singh but also echoes of the great student and youth movement led by the same organizations in the 1970s.Such an assembly has great significance to the revolutionary democratic movement as a whole.

When communal hindu fascism is posing a threat similar to what the Nazi regime created in Germany it is vital that Bhagat Singh's ideology or message reaches every walk of life.

Unlike the Gandhian Congress Bhagat Singh stood for revolutionary anti-feudal and anti-imperialist resistance. Gandhian approach would be class collaborationist towards Hindu Saffron Fascism of the RSS variety.

Ferozepur, An important programme of democratic students Organization was held simulntaneously in Hussainwala ,the birthplace of the great martyr.March 23

Thousands of Punjab Students’ Union (PSU) activists took out a march here today to urge the state government to convert the double-storeyed building in Turi Bazaar locality, which was a hideout of Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s Krantikari Party, into a museum-cum-library.

Rajinder Singh, president, PSU, said, “We have already organised more than 200 meetings across the state to make people aware of this building’s importance.”

Kranti Kumar Katiyar, whose father Dr Gaya Prasad used to run a pharmacy at this place, said the government had granted this building the status of a protected monument after a long struggle, but nothing had been done to develop it.

Earlier, HC Arora, a Chandigarh-based advocate, had filed a plea in the High Court, seeking heritage status for this building. Subsequently, the Department of Cultural Affairs, Heritage and Museums had issued a notification in December 2014 under the Punjab Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964.

However, no funds were allocated for the restoration and preservation of the building, following which Arora moved the court again.

Rakesh Kumar, who has authored books on the monument, said, “Converting the building into a museum-cum-library will be our true salute to the martyrs.”

Meticuluos preparation efforts were made,particulary in Sangrur,Faridkot and Muktsar with a series of rallies and cultural programmes staged.Also Candle (Mashal) March at village Ramgarah District Barnala, Punjab in the memory of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev by Krantikari Mazdoor Union and Revolutionary people's Front. and Revolutionary people's Front paid homage to 23rd March Martyrs at Hussainiwala. People in thousands attended the program.regards harsh thakor

Culture Wars on Social Media - David Pakman and Kyle of Secular Talk discuss

Democracy and Class Struggle has now reached 2 million viewers so we are little league social media player - in David Pakman and Kyle terms we would be denounced as Social Justice Warriors.

Clarifying what is Left and Right is key to social progress as the right wallows in conflating right and left and social democratic liberals like Pakman and Kyle contribute to that confusion rather than clarity.

Social ownership and State ownership are routinely conflated - the market is usually not understood and the great trick of market socialism is foisted on the progressive movement and its antithesis the plan is just described as bureaucracy and not the working class democracy that it would be under real socialism where democracy is not purely political but social and economic.

The discussion between Pakman and Kyle although within limits of social liberalism rather than socialism is a useful starting point to look at challenges and opportunities of social media in early 21st century.

Open Letter from Fighters from British Isles Against the Islamic State

We are some of an increasing number of British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq as volunteers with local forces against the Islamic State.

We wish first and foremost to express our sorrow and anger at the recent terrorist attack in Westminster, London, and to convey our sincerest and most heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families.

We know only too well what is to lose friends, to treat those horrendously wounded, to pull the dead and dying from the rubble.

We also wish to express sympathy and solidarity with the many ordinary Muslims going to work and school today feeling that they are under special scrutiny, and fearful of what this might mean for them.

We share their fear, and we urge anyone who might be tempted to take against ordinary Muslim people to think again.

If you associate them with the Islamic State, you are giving such groups exactly what they want: a greater and more violent gap between the Muslim world and ours.

The familiar sounds of hate and bigotry are sounding again – on social media, and in the more guarded mainstream press – where the intent is nonetheless clear. Hate crimes will spike again. There are calls to demolish mosques.

The fact that local Muslims raised thousands for victim support, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, is easily drowned out by the bandwagon.

The EDL have called a snap demonstration, eager to make hay from the suffering of innocent people.

For all the sound and fury, we don’t remember seeing anyone from Britain First, EDL, UKIP, or their like, by our side in battle. Which is a good thing, because we wouldn’t have tolerated them.

Our ranks are made up of Kurds, Arabs, Yezidis, Brits, Yanks, Canadians, Aussies, Asians, Europeans – Muslims, Christians, Alevis, atheists – too many faiths and races to list. A multi-ethnic, multi-faith entity, standing united against hate and extremism. The majority are, in fact, Muslims, and not only are we proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them – the truth is, we can’t do this without them.

The only way to defeat the Islamic State, and groups like it, is with ordinary, moderate Muslims on side. The only way to defeat hate and extremism is to not give in to it.

Don’t stand with Britain First, the EDL, UKIP or those who talk and think like them. Stand with us.


British fighters of the YPG

Joe Akerman

Aiden Aslin

Mark Ayres

Botan England

Michael Enright

Macer Gifford

John Harding

Jac Holmes

Steve Kerr

Jim Matthews

Tom Mawdsley

Ozkan Ozdil

Shaun Pinner

Joe Robinson

Josh Walker


Thursday, March 23, 2017

USA: Time Interview - I am President and you are not ? But for how long ?

Why he will go :

Buyers Remorse - Putin will throw him under a bus

Multiple violations of Presidential emoluments clause

European Intelligence Agencies will release their info on Trump

FBI will find a smoking gun

The Way he will go 

He will resign or !

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Trump is Dangerous for Russia by Professor Aleksandr Buzgalin of Moscow State University

The US and Russian right share a similar ideology, but it's one that sees each other as an excuse for military expansion and harmful internal economic policy, says professor Aleksandr Buzgalin

Democracy and Class Struggle agrees with Aleksandr Buzgalin political position on Russia and US relations  - we were aware of others of a similar position to Buzgalin in Russia - but they had no influence in the Russian Presidential Administration ( Although we heard a liberal like PM Medvedev warned against getting to involved in US election )  - the consequences of not stopping some of the Russian adventures into the US election will eliminate any detente in the near future between US and Russia and pushes it into a very distant future. Russia rarely acts stupidly - but this is one of those rare occasions.

Trump is an obscenity in politics and one of the consequences of his Presidency however short it will be will be blow up the fake patriots in USA around Drudge and Alex Jones and Breitbart as his incompetent Presidency internally collapses.

Article 50 and the National and Social Liberation of the Nations of the British Isles by Nickglais

                                                  Atlantic Europe in 2050

Notice under article 50 will been given by the British State from withdrawal from the European Union on 29th March 2017.

Therefore this issue will dominate " British" Politics and the politics of "National Liberation" for coming years in these islands.

Therefore clarity is required on this issue from the so called nationalist parties in Scotland Ireland and Wales and also from Republican Socialists in these nations.

A clarity that will achieve the strategic objective of independence in the sovereign use of that term.

The Nationalist Parties in Scotland Ireland and Wales are united in wanting to "remain" or rejoin the European Union.

Despite the economic mercantilist ( beggar my nieghbour) policies  pursued by Germany the economic engine of the European Union - despite the national humiliation of Greece and Ireland - which should deeply offend any nationalist-  the so called nationalist parties are committed to a post Brexit European Union.

The supra national cosmopolitan Europe of the elites utilizes the European Central Bank  for quantative easing for corporations not the people's of Europe, The European Court of Justice through a series of decisions in the early 21st century have prioritised the rights of the market over the rights of labour  - this is where our so called nationalists want to take us post British State Brexit - why ?

What manner of nationalists are these people - history gives us a firm answer and it comes from James Connolly, John Maclean and Lenin they are  bourgeois nationalists those nationalists that serve the  capitalist elite in Edinburgh, Dublin or Cardiff while pretending to serve the people as a whole - their self deception is rampant that they think they are the people.

It has been apparent for over a 100 years that bourgeois nationalists are not the true patriots in the era of Imperialism - that lies with the working class - yes the proletariat.

Raising the working class  to the leading class in the nation is the Republican Socialist task in Scotland Wales and Ireland and the completion of the national democratic revolutions aborted by the British State in the early 20th century can now finally be realised.

National and social liberation will be that lethal combination that will see's off that 18th century construct and invented tradition of Brittannia.

However before the fall of the British State - Brittannia has one last hope it is the self deception of the bourgeois nationalists of Scotland Ireland and Wales.

Because the strategic notion of sovereign independence is at odds with the supra nationalism of the European Union which did not go unnoticed by many millions throughout the British Isles in the EU Referendum in Wales,Scotland and Ireland.

The Bourgeois Nationalists by employing the tactic of Pro EU membership eats away at their very strategic aim of sovereign Independence and the British State will utilize that contradiction to maximum effect in the years ahead.

This leads us as Republican Socialists to ask the question do they really want  genuine independence or has their closet British Unionism ( Love of Queen, Members in the House of Lords even some bourgeois republican elements )  been transformed into European Unionism the wet dream of Sir Oswald Moseley post 1945.

While as Republican Socialists we stand for and deeply believe in internationalism and international organisations that give mutual respect to all nations and peoples we abhor supra (above) nationalism where an undemocratic capitalist bureaucratic elite can control our finances and law.

We look forward to forming  new international organisations of peoples of Wales and Ireland and Scotland in the coming years based on mutual respect and understanding of the real tasks of national and social liberation ahead.

We reject the great deception of the bourgeois nationalists in Scotland, Wales Ireland on the basis of a class analysis of their politics not just in theory but political practice.

We also reject those that fail to understand the class nature of politics and would force a non class patriots verses globalism agenda on the national movements which would open the door to the most ferocious national fascism.

We live in the era of the twilight of the British State formation and the French State formation and the Spanish State formation and the disintegration of the European Union and liberation of  previously nationally oppressed nations - that process will take  universal as well as highly specific forms which will better understand over time.

The fierce defense of the artificial construct the  French State against the rights of other nations in France is exemplified by Marine Le Pen in her non class rhetoric of patriots verses globalism that echo the declassed Trumpen proletariat.

The process began by the British State on 29th March 2017 will reshape not just not the nations of the British Isles in Northern Europe - but hasten the re configuration of Europe over the next hundred years.

It is a call for Republican Socialist action to avoid the great national deceptions arising on the Left from social democratic parties like Sinn Fein, SNP and Plaid Cymru but also from the Fascist right particularly in France.

The need for Socialist Republicanism has never been greater in the last 100 years to shine the path to independence and socialism in the 21st Century

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Certain Features in the Historical Development of Marxism by V.I Lenin (1910)

Democracy and Class Struggle is revisiting Lenin this centenary of the 1917 Russian Revolution to better understand his dialectical materialism as applied to everyday life.

The revision of Marxism to some sub branch of Liberalism with "hegemony" and " hierarchy" is continued into 21st century usually accompanied by a complete bastardization of Gramsci whose revolutionary essence has been gutted.

The Marxism of the revisionists of all hues shows as Lenin said 

"They had learnt by rote certain “slogans”, certain answers to tactical questions, without having understood the Marxist criteria for these   answers. 

The “revaluation of all values” in the various spheres of social life led to a “revision” of the most abstract and general philosophical fundamentals of Marxism. 

The influence of bourgeois philosophy in its diverse idealist shades found expression in the Machist epidemic that broke out among the Marxists. 

The repetition of “slogans” learnt by rote but not understood and not thought out led to the widespread prevalence of empty phrase-mongering. 

The practical expression of this were such absolutely un-Marxist, petty-bourgeois trends as frank or shamefaced “otzovism”, or the recognition of otzovism as a “legal shade” of Marxism.

The Reconstruction of Revolutionary Marxism in 21st Century is the contemporary task of Marxist Leninist Maoists.

Our doctrine—said Engels, referring to himself and his famous friend—is not a dogma, but a guide to action. This classical statement stresses with remarkable force and expressiveness that aspect of Marxism which is very often lost sight of. And by losing sight of it, we turn Marxism into something one-sided, distorted and lifeless; we deprive it of its life blood; we undermine its basic theoretical foundations—dialectics, the doctrine of historical development, all-embracing and full of contradictions; we undermine its connection with the definite practical tasks of the epoch, which may change with every new turn of history.

Indeed, in our time, among those interested in the fate of Marxism in Russia, we very frequently meet with people who lose sight of just this aspect of Marxism. Yet, it must be clear to everybody that in recent years Russia has under gone changes so abrupt as to alter the situation with unusual rapidity and unusual force—the social and political situation, which in a most direct and immediate manner determines the conditions for action, and, hence, its aims.

I am not referring, of course, to general and fundamental aims, which do not change with turns of history if the fundamental relation between classes remains unchanged. It is perfectly obvious that this general trend of economic (and not only economic) evolution in Russia, like the fundamental relation between the various classes of Russian society, has not changed during, say, the last six years.

But the aims of immediate and direct action changed very sharply during this period, just as the actual social   and political situation changed, and consequently, since Marxism is a living doctrine, various aspects of it were bound to become prominent.

In order to make this idea clear, let us cast a glance at the change in the actual social and political situation over the past six years. We immediately differentiate two three year periods: one ending roughly with the summer of 1907, and the other with the summer of 1910.

The first three-year period, regarded from the purely theoretical standpoint, is distinguished by rapid changes in the fundamental features of the state system in Russia; the course of these changes, moreover, was very uneven and the oscillations in both directions were of considerable amplitude.

The social and economic basis of these changes in the “superstructure” was the action of all classes of Russian society in the most diverse fields (activity inside and outside the Duma, the press, unions, meetings, and so forth), action so open and impressive and on a mass scale such as is rarely to be observed in history.

The second three-year period, on the contrary, is distinguished—we repeat that we confine ourselves to the purely theoretical “sociological” standpoint—by an evolution so slow that it almost amounted to stagnation. There were no changes of any importance to be observed in the state system. There were hardly any open and diversified actions by the classes in the majority of the “arenas” in which these actions had developed in the preceding period.

The similarity between the two periods is that Russia underwent capitalist evolution in both of them. The contradiction between this economic evolution and the existence of a number of feudal and medieval institutions still remained and was not stifled, but rather aggravated, by the fact that certain institutions assumed a partially bourgeois character.

The difference between the two periods is that in the first the question of exactly what form the above-mentioned rapid and uneven changes would take was the dominant, history-making issue. The content of these changes was bound to be bourgeois owing to the capitalist character of Russia’s evolution; but there are different kinds of bourgeoisie.

The middle and big bourgeoisie, which professes a more or less moderate liberalism, was, owing to its very class position, afraid of abrupt changes and strove for the retention of large remnants of the old institutions both in the agrarian system and in the political “superstructure”.

The rural petty bourgeoisie, interwoven as it is with the peasants who live “solely by the labour of their hands”, was bound to strive for bourgeois reforms of a different kind, reforms that would leave far less room for medieval survivals. The wage-workers, inasmuch as they consciously realised what was going on around them, were bound to work out for them selves a definite attitude towards this clash of two distinct tendencies.

Both tendencies remained within the frame work of the bourgeois system, determining entirely different forms of that system, entirely different rates of its development, different degrees of its progressive influence.

Thus, the first period necessarily brought to the fore—and not by chance—those problems of Marxism that are usually referred to as problems of tactics.

Nothing is more erroneous than the opinion that the disputes and differences over these questions were disputes among “intellectuals”, “a struggle for influence over the immature proletariat”, an expression of the “adaptation of the intelligentsia to the proletariat”, as Vekhi followers of various hues think. On the contrary, it was precisely because this class had reached maturity that it could not remain indifferent to the clash of the two different tendencies in Russia’s bourgeois development, and the ideologists of this class could not avoid providing theoretical formulations corresponding (directly or indirectly, in direct or reverse reflection) to these different tendencies.

In the second period the clash between the different tendencies of bourgeois development in Russia was not on the order of the day, because both these tendencies had been crushed by the “diehards”, forced back, driven inwards and, for the time being, stifled.

The medieval diehards[2] not only occupied the foreground but also inspired the broadest sections of bourgeois society with the sentiments propagated by Vekhi, with a spirit of dejection and recantation. It was not the collision between two methods of re forming the old order that appeared on the surface, but a loss of faith in reforms of any kind, a spirit of “meekness”   and “repentance”, an enthusiasm for anti-social doctrines, a vogue of mysticism, and so on.

This astonishingly abrupt change was neither accidental nor the result of “external” pressure alone. The preceding period had so profoundly stirred up sections of the population who for generations and centuries had stood aloof from, and had been strangers to, political issues that it was natural and inevitable that there should emerge “a revaluation of all values”, a new study of fundamental problems, a new interest in theory, in elementals, in the ABC of politics. The millions who were suddenly awakened from their long sleep and confronted with extremely important problems could not long remain on this level. They could not continue without a respite, without a return to elementary questions, without a new training which would help them “digest” lessons of unparalleled richness and make it possible for incomparably wider masses again to march forward, but now far more firmly, more consciously, more confidently and more steadfastly.

The dialectics of historical development was such that in the first period, it was the attainment of immediate reforms in every sphere of the country’s life that was on the order of the day. In the second period it was the critical study of experience, its assimilation by wider sections, its penetration, so to speak, into the subsoil, into the back ward ranks of the various classes.

It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life.

That change was reflected in profound disintegration and disunity, in every manner of vacillation, in short, in a very serious internal crisis of Marxism. Resolute resistance to this disintegration, a resolute and persistent struggle to up hold the fundamentals of Marxism, was again placed on the order of the day. In the preceding period, extremely wide sections of the classes that cannot avoid Marxism in formulating their aims had assimilated that doctrine in an extremely one-sided and mutilated fashion. They had learnt by rote certain “slogans”, certain answers to tactical questions, without having understood the Marxist criteria for these   answers. The “revaluation of all values” in the various spheres of social life led to a “revision” of the most abstract and general philosophical fundamentals of Marxism. The influence of bourgeois philosophy in its diverse idealist shades found expression in the Machist epidemic that broke out among the Marxists. The repetition of “slogans” learnt by rote but not understood and not thought out led to the widespread prevalence of empty phrase-mongering. The practical expression of this were such absolutely un-Marxist, petty-bourgeois trends as frank or shamefaced “otzovism”, or the recognition of otzovism as a “legal shade” of Marxism.

On the other hand, the spirit of the magazine Vekhi, the spirit of renunciation which had taken possession of very wide sections of the bourgeoisie, also permeated the trend wishing to confine Marxist theory and practice to “moderate and careful” channels. All that remained of Marxism here was the phraseology used to clothe arguments about “hierarchy”, “hegemony” and so forth, that were thoroughly permeated with the spirit of liberalism.

The purpose of this article is not to examine these arguments. A mere reference to them is sufficient to illustrate what has been said above regarding the depth of the crisis through which Marxism is passing and its connection with the whole social and economic situation in the present period. The questions raised by this crisis cannot be brushed aside. Nothing can be more pernicious or unprincipled than attempts to dismiss them by phrase-mongering. Nothing is more important than to rally all Marxists who have realised the profundity of the crisis and the necessity of combating it, for defence of the theoretical basis of Marxism and its fundamental propositions, that are being distorted from diametrically opposite sides by the spread of bourgeois influence to the various “fellow-travellers” of Marxism.

The first three years awakened wide sections to a conscious participation in social life, sections that in many cases are now for the first time beginning to acquaint themselves with Marxism in real earnest, The bourgeois press is creating far more fallacious ideas on this score than ever before, and is spreading them more widely. Under these circumstances disintegration in the Marxist ranks is particularly   dangerous. Therefore, to understand the reasons for the inevitability of this disintegration at the present time and to close their ranks for consistent struggle against this disintegration is, in the most direct and precise meaning of the term, the task of the day for Marxists.


[1] Zvezda (The Star), in which this article appeared, was a Bolshevik legal newspaper, the forerunner of Pravda, published in St. Petersburg from December 16 (29), 1910 to April 22 (May 5), 1912 (at first weekly, then from January 1912 twice and from March, three times a week). On February 26 (March 10), 1912, No. 1 of Nevskaya Zvezda (Neva Star) was published at the same time as Zvezda, and, after the latter was closed down, continued its work. The last, the 27th issue of Nevskaya Zvezda was published on October 5(18), 1912.

Contributers to Zvezda were N. N. Baturin, K. S. Yeremeyev, N. G. Poletayev, M. S. Olminsky, and others, including Maxim Gorky, whom Lenin enlisted as a contributor. The pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov’s group) contributed to Zvezda until the autumn of 1911. Lenin gave the paper ideological leadership from abroad, and together Zvezda and Nevskaya Zvezda published nearly fifty of his articles.

Under Lenin’s guidance the legal newspaper Zvezda became the militant paper of the Bolsheviks which defended the programme of the illegal Party Zvezda established workers’ correspondence on a broad scale, maintaining strong and regular contact with the workers. Some of its issues achieved a circulation of 50,000–60,000 copies.

The newspaper was the constant target of government repression; out of 96 issues of Zvezda and Nevskaya Zvezda, 39 were confiscated and 10 were subject to fines. Zvezda paved the way for the publication of the daily Bolshevik newspaper Pravda and on the very day it was closed down by the government the first issue of Pravda appeared.

[2] The “diehards” was the name given by Russian political literature to the extreme Right-wing representatives of the reactionary landlord class.

(3) Among the prominent Otzovists were Alexander Bogdanov, Mikhail Pokrovsky, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and Andrei Bubnov.[2][3] The debates among Bolsheviks whether to boycott the new constituency of the Russian parliament known as the Third Duma started after the defeat of the revolution in mid-1907 and the adoption of a new, highly restrictive election law

Japanese Prime Minister Linked to Funding Scandal

Democracy and Class Struggle says time for Japan to wake up and get rid of Prime Minister Abe - follow the South Korean path of sweeping away corruption - then there is at least a chance that the other Japan that wants peace on the Korean Peninsular will have a voice - rather than the Japanese Military being led blindly to military madness by Japanese Defense Minster neo fascist historical revisionist running dog of US Imperialism Tomomi Inada

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Dispelling Myths about North Korea. Prof. Suzy Kim, Rutgers University.

Professor Suzy Kim gives us some ways of looking at North Korea with understanding that does not necessarily mean sympathy.

Democracy and Class Struggle see a solution of Korea's problems in unification

Separation into Northern and South Korean states are source of its current problems

Prof. Sison appreciates President Duterte for agreeing to continue GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations

Democracy and Class Struggle notices the recent activities of the the Philippine Minister of Defense reported by Peter Lee which are undermining the independent foreign policy of President Duterte.

March 15, 2017

As founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and as Chief Political Consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) in the peace negotiations between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the NDFP,

 I wish to express deep appreciation to President Rodrigo Duterte for deciding to continue the peace negotiations and enabling the GRP to proceed with the scheduled 4th round of formal talks in April as agreed upon by the GRP and NDFP Negotiating Panels during the 3rd round in Rome on 25 January 2017.

It is in the people’s interest for the GRP and the NDFP to pursue the forging of a peace agreement.

The peace agreement should uphold the sovereignty and independence of the Filipino people, strengthen democracy for the exploited and oppressed people, create the conditions for economic development through land reform, national industrialization and expansion of social services and benefits, promotion of patriotic and scientific culture and peace and development in a multipolar world.

The foundations for these can be achieved within the current term of President Rodrigo Duterte.

I wish to inform the public that I have been hospitalized for some time but under the care of a team of medical specialists and other health workers. I am on the way to full recovery. I am presently helping in the preparations for the 4th round of the formal peace talks and hope to participate actively during the 4th round.

Thank you for your attention.

(Sgnd) Prof. Jose Maria Sison

The Korean Peninsula - The Real and Rational from Peter Lee

Philippine Defense Minister continuing to undermine Duterte whose days appear to be numbered

Lawrence Wilkerson on the War Necessity of US Empire

Korea : Rex Tillerson is no diplomat - opens War options on North Korea - OPLAN5015 the military option doctrine of limited war is a fantasy and as the Korean Times pointed out will lead to full scale War on the Korean Peninsula

Democracy and Class Struggle says Rex Tillerson the US Secretary of State is no diplomat and rejects negotiations with North Korea and like the Trump Administration in general are diminishing State Department soft power in favour of military threats - which become meaningless unless carried through with military action - "Mad Dog" Mattis might believe in a winnable Korea War but that is why he is called a "Mad Dog".

Any rational mind knows that the costs of a military option on the Korean Peninsula are to high and will produce millions of deaths.

The OPLAN5015  Korean War Plan discussed below tries to avoid all out war - but the decision for this is not only in command of the United States.

China and the South Korean People are the regional forces that can stay the US hand on the Korean Peninsula - Russia should also make its opposition to OPLAN5015 more vocally known.

If China and the South Korean fail to halt OPLAN5015 then unimaginable horrors await the Korean people.

Despite pessimism of our intelligence the optimism of our will is raised by the South Korean People who removed a corrupt President against difficult odds and now in the coming months will have to put a new South Korean President in power  - who unlike Tillerson -will negotiate with North Korea and end hostilities.

Below is Article from US National Interest on on OPLAN 5015

North Korea’s unpredictable leader Kim Jong-un has many ways of making war upon his neighbors. He can unleash commandos, or cyberweapons, or threaten to utilize weapons of mass destruction unless the world complies with his wishes.

Whether Kim Jong-un will live to see the results is another matter.

He might be assassinated by U.S. and South Korean special forces, or buried in his bunker by a bunker-buster bomb. Other smart bombs might take out his command posts and nuclear facilities. The authoritarian state of North Korea could become a state without authority, its leadership decapitated by precisely targeted strikes.

Or at least that seems to be America’s plan for fighting the next Korean War. And with North Korea conducting a new wave of ballistic missile tests, and U.S and South Korean forces practicing how to destroy North Korean nuclear sites, that plan is becoming more relevant.

Exactly what U.S. Operations Plan 5015 (OPLAN 5015) entails is classified. Fragments have been reported in the Japanese and South Korean press. But what details have emerged indicate that in 2015, a new approach was taken toward the old problem of how to fight a bellicose North Korea and its huge arsenal of conventional and unconventional weapons.

For years, the expectation had been that a second Korean War would resemble with the first, a big-unit conventional war with U.S. and South Korean forces first stopping the enemy and then counterattacking into North Korea. But OPLAN 5015 reportedly takes a more twenty-first century approach of limited war, special forces and precision weapons. Japan’s Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported in 2015 that the plan resembled guerrilla warfare, with special forces assassinations and targeted attacks on key facilities. The goal was to consolidate several older war plans, minimize casualties in a war and even prepare for the possibility that the North Korean regime might collapse.

Most important, OPLAN 5015 envisaged the possibility of a preemptive strike against North Korea.

“The new plan was said to adapt to changes in the security environment by focusing on making a swifter and more energetic military response than the previous OPLAN 5027, incorporating the concept of a preemptive strike,” according to With North Korea’s localized provocations becoming more frequent, there was an increasing risk of escalation. OPLAN 5015 articulated ways to respond to these threats with U.S.-ROK combined forces and, in the event of escalation, to respond to the threat of North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapons.

Echoes of this can be seen in the current U.S.-South Korean exercises, designated Foal Eagle 2017, which will involve more than 300,000 personnel for two months of live and computer-simulated training. Citing Korea’s Yonhap news agency, the Washington Post reported that “the joint forces will also run through their new ‘4D’ operational plan, which details the allies’ preemptive military operations to detect, disrupt, destroy and defend against North Korea’s nuclear and missile arsenal.”

The question is how much stock to put in OPLAN 5015. David Maxwell, a retired U.S. Army Special Forces colonel who now teaches at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies, warns against taking OPLAN 5015 too literally. “My recommendation is not to try to read too much into the plans,” he tells the National Interest.

Military planners are by nature worst case planners but they also plan to provide multiple options to national decision makers for responding to crisis based on the mostly likely enemy course of action to the most dangerous enemy course of action. While there is likely Option A, B and C for every contingency, often what gets executed is Option D that is developed from A, B and C and the actual assessment of enemy actions.

As noted,

Although the new plan reportedly focused not on a full-blown war but on limited warfare, a preemptive strike can escalate from a small skirmish into a large-scale war. It is hard to understand how the Korean troops would play a leading role while should a war start, Korea would not have military operational control. If that meant Korean soldiers would mostly engage in ground warfare while the US military provided naval and aerial support as some experts alleged, some South Koreans said the plan needed to be reconsidered.

Then there are the political questions, especially for those nations who will actually the bear the brunt of a North Korean attack.

South Korean lawmakers were furious in 2015 when their government balked at telling them details of OPLAN 5015.

“Although the new scheme reportedly focuses not on a full-blown war but on limited warfare, a preemptive strike can escalate—unnecessarily and disastrously—in what could go from being a small skirmish into a large-scale war,” complained an editorial in The Korea Times.

The Billionaire Coup D’├ętat : Does Trump Have a Deep State of his Own ? by Greg Palast

Sebastian Gorka a Trump Counter terrorism Aide - a Sworn member of Hungarian Nazi allied group

Friday, March 17, 2017

GCHQ Wire Tapping Trump Claims :Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.

Democracy and Class Struggle says the Intelligence War continues inside USA and in Europe - what the UK and other European's countries do with their Trump Intelligence is still a subject of speculation  - they certainly have enough to embarrass him and even oust him when it suits them

The US has made a formal apology to Britain after the White House accused GCHQ of helping Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump in the White House.

Sean Spicer, Mr Trump's press secretary, repeated a claim on Thursday evening – initially made by an analyst on Fox News - that GCHQ was used by Mr Obama to spy on Trump Tower in the lead-up to last November's election.

The comments prompted a furious response from GCHQ, which in a break from normal practice issued a public statement:

 "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."

Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said.

Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.

"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, described Mr Spicer's comments as "shameful".

"Trump is compromising the vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment," he said. "This harms our and US security."

Susan Rice, National Security Adviser for former president Barack Obama, tweeted: "The cost of falsely blaming our closest ally for something this consequential cannot be overstated."

The president is under increasing pressure to justify his claims, which his opponents charge calls the whole integrity of his administration into question.

In an attempt to provide credibility to the claims, Mr Spicer quoted from a series of articles which discussed surveillance.

He referenced comments made earlier this week on Fox News TV by former judge Andrew Napolitano in relation to Mr Trump's controversial claim that wiretaps had been installed at his New York residence:

Last on Fox News, on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement, quote, 'Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice.

He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence finding agency. So, simply by having two people saying to them president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving president-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this. Putting the published accounts and common-sense together, this leads to a lot.

British officials were quick to rubbish Mr Napolitano's claims earlier this week. A government source reportedly said the claim was "totally untrue and quite frankly absurd".

The British official told Reuters that under British law, GCHQ "can only gather intelligence for national security purposes" and noted that the US election "clearly doesn't meet that criteria".

Mr Spicer’s press conference on Thursday was held shortly after the senate intelligence committee published a statement saying they had no evidence for Mr Trump's claim, made on March 4, that Mr Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower.



BJP Wins India Largest State in Elections, Further Consolidating Modi's Power

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Geo Political Stand Off in Post ISIS Middle East

France: The Anti semitic base of the Front National cannot remain quiet

Democracy and Class Struggle says The Populist makeover of the Front National is a thin veneer hiding the likes of anti semites like Benoit Loeuillet

A regional official of France’s far-right National Front (FN) party has been suspended after he denied the extent of the Holocaust.

The FN's head in southeast France said on Wednesday that the party had decided to suspend Benoit Loeuillet, the party's top official in the southeastern city of Nice, pending further investigation. The official said Loeuillet could face disciplinary proceedings and even expulsion from the party.

The decision came after Loeuillet, in a documentary for French television, denied that millions of Jews were killed during World War II.

“I don't think there were that many deaths. There weren't six million ... There weren't mass murders as it's been said,” Loeuillet reportedly said in the documentary, which is to be aired later Wednesday.

The far-right politician later said that he was not against the reality of the Holocaust and accused those preparing the film of “cleverly” editing his remarks.

"I understand the emotion (the comments) can cause as they are presented, cleverly edited. But I am the opposite of the portrait of me that this documentary seeks to paint," Loeuillet said, adding that he would sue the film’s director.

Marine Le Pen, the FN's leader, seeks to win the first round of French presidential election in late April. She has struggled over the past years to revise the public perception about the far right and its stance on Semitism.

Le Pen’s father, a co-founder of the party, was a fierce anti-Semitist and had faced convictions over his description of Holocaust as a "detail of history".

The FN strongly counts on its base of support in France’s southeast, where Loeuillet comes from.

Polls suggest Le Pen has a relatively high chance of making it to the second round of presidential elections in early May, although they say she would lose that round to either a conservative or an independent centrist

South Korea - New Instability in North Asia but South Korean People are a source of Hope bringing down a corrupt President and fighting for Peace on Korean Peninsula with a Progressive Electoral victory in sight

Democracy and Class Struggle salute the South Korean People first in their overthrow of a corrupt President and now in the struggle for Peace on the Korean Peninsula.

The Editor of Democracy and Class Struggle can remember running down the streets of Seoul in 1990's as teargas filled the air - how brave the South Korean people were then - as they were brutally attacked and fought back.

The South Korean people have just put an end to 10 years of reaction and conservatism and will open a new chapter in Korean History,

Democracy and Class Struggle believes the internal dynamic or if you like the internal contradictions in Korea will drive the new process of the struggle for Peace and not international relations.

The internal contradictions in Korea are primary and if handled correctly will expel US and Japan off the Korean Peninsula.

Long Live the Unification of the Korean People in the 21st Century..

Russia one of the most inegalitarian countries in the World says Rossiyskaya Gazeta

Professor Filip Kovacevic discusses the articles from three Russian newspapers: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and Pravda. He discusses the increase in the number of millionaires in Russia despite the sanctions and economic downturn, the recent speech by Nikolai Patrushev, the key Putin ally and the most serious contender to be the new Russian prime minister, the Russian-Belarus preparations for the massive anti-NATO military exercise in September 2017, the Russian perspective on the recent events on the Korean peninsula.

The obscene inequality in Russia in 2017 reported in the Russian Government paper Rossiyskaya Gazeta that POINT 1% OWN 62 % OF RUSSIAN WEALTH is a call for Proletarian Revolution 2017 style.

Long Live Marxism Leninism Maoism 

USA: Did Russian Oligarch Rybolovlev Bailout Trump in 2008?

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

MI6 and GCHQ in plausible deniability concerning eavesdropping on Trump

A UK spy agency did not eavesdrop on Donald Trump during and after last year's US presidential election, a British security official has said, denying an allegation by a US television analyst.

The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano, was “totally untrue and quite frankly absurd.”

Trump, who became president in January, tweeted earlier this month that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped him during the late stages of the 2016 campaign. The Republican president offered no evidence for the allegation, which an Obama spokesman said was “simply false.”

Senior Obama administration officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have also denied any such wiretapping occurred.

On the Fox & Friends programme, Napolitano, a political commentator and former New Jersey judge, said that rather than ordering US agencies to spy on Trump, Obama obtained transcripts of Trump's conversations from Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the equivalent of the US National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors overseas electronic communications.

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice,” Napolitano said, adding that the former president “used GCHQ.”

GCHQ has a close relationship with the NSA, as well as with the eavesdropping agencies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand in a consortium called “Five Eyes.”The British official said that under British law, GCHQ “can only gather intelligence for national security purposes” and noted that the US election “clearly doesn't meet that criteria.”

The official added that GCHQ “can only carry out intelligence operations where it is legal in both the US and UK to do so.”


Tuesday, March 14, 2017






Hail the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Shanghai Peoples Commune in February 5th 1967 and later the revolutionary Committee on February 25th.

It is a historic landmark in the history of mankind and in the establishment of proletarian political power and revolutionary democracy at the highest zenith ever attained in history..Practice of MLM was taken to the highest stage ever reached in Socialist Society.

It attempted to replicate the Paris Commune and morally sustained itself till the early 1970's ,although the commune was converted into a revolutionary committee.Mao and his followers in the C.C.P.felt the state ,army and party could not be dissolved yet.It sowed the seeds for the gigantic strides attained in the Cultural Revolution in every walk of life.

Certain ideologues like com K.N.Ramchandran ,secretary of C.P.I.(M.L.) Red star feel Mao should either have surrendered or dissolve the state and abolished the standing army like in the Paris Commune..I feel The Socialist State would have been toppled had Mao done that in 1967 and it was still the stage of transition to Socialism

Below I am reproducing an extract from the outstanding research of Jiang Hongsheng which elaborated how the formation of the Shanghai Commune was not an anti-thesis of the party-state and that it's conversion to a revolutionary Commitee was in essence practice of mass line and application of Marxist-Leninist ideology in defending the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat and the party as a vanguard.

I recommend all Marxist cadres and sympathisers to read this authentic work which dialectically applies the methodology of Marxism-Lenism-Maoism.

Without doubt any development in a Socialist Society has to be analyzed dialectically and every Socialist Society too has weaknesses in development of sufficient revolutionary democracy .

The proletarian party must not impose it's politics on the mass organizations and award them their independent identity.The Shanghai commune was a historic landmark in replicating the Paris Commune and tearing the flesh of the bureaucracy.

However we must never forget that the Leninist party was not established in the time of the Paris Commune which ultimately was defeated because of lack on any proletarian party leading it.

Many new Left ideologues like Alan Badiou ,Zizek or even Charles Bettleheim are very critical of the Paris Commune model not being duplicated.

Badiou and his current supporters feel that a new party should have been formed and the CCP and the PLA should have dissolved itself.

This may be in tune to what Marx said during the Paris Commune but they hardly understand how Marxism was developed into Leninism where the need of party for proletarian power to be achieved was established.

Supporting pure model of Paris Commune in Shanghai would amount to going back to Marx but forgetting the ascendancy Lenin and Mao reached .Mao Tze Tung went one step further calling for a revolution within a Socialist Society buy always ascertained the role of the party as it is still the stage of Socialist Transition.

No doubt such thinkers have valid fact that there was bureaucracy and vanguardist tendencies existing with not enough independence to the mass organizations.

However they overlooked the subjective factors like political consciousness of workers, minority of party members in the Commune and powerful ultra leftist influence that in essence opposed the CCP.

Had Mao dissolved the party the kernel of Socialist Society would be destroyed and the Capitalist roaders would be victorious.

Mao formed the revolutionary committee applying Leninism to his own theses of continuation revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The subjective factors were not prevalent for holding elections within the commune and staging them would lead the path  for revival  of a bourgeois state similar to electoral politics in western parliamentary democracy model.

No doubt analyzing why setback took place in Socialist China is a very complex topic and Maoism needs to be developed further in handling the contradictions between the party and the people.

Fascinatingly Jiang Honshang states that the abandoning of mass organizations and the lack of powers awarded to them in supervising the party led to a setback.

He has analytically refuted the New Left ideas

Maoist intellectuals have to work on the herculean task of dialectically analyzing how a proletarian party can become more democratic in a Socialist Society and how greater proletarian power could be developed throwing light on setback in Socialist China.

Below are a series of Extracts from Hinsheng Jiang's book Paris Commune in Shanghai
CONVERSION OF COMMUNE INTO REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE Many Shanghai rebel leaders were not communist party members and some of them may not have been socialists or communists at all.

Therefore, if the Shanghai rebels insisted on following the Commune model based on general elections, a principle of the Paris Commune, then it was quite possible for the Shanghai Commune to elect a regime in which communists were in the minority.

Consequently, a touchy issue would emerge regarding the relationship between the Commune and the CCP. In a general election system, power comes from the voters. If communists were in the minority within such a communal regime, how should the masses follow the CCP?

Apparently, the CCP would lose its legitimacy and authority in such a regime in which the communists are in the minority.

Of course, Trotskyites, among others, would acclaim it a great thing to replace the “degenerated” Party with a self-governing workers’ regime.

But can such a self-governing workers’ regime guarantee a socialist direction and nature of the society?

If the working people’s class consciousness is not mature enough to realize that the emancipation of the working class is intimately interconnected with the emancipation of the whole of mankind and instead, the masses only strive for their own interests, the answer to this question is no.

Virtually all the so-called self-governing workers’ power organs, from Yugoslavian workers’ self-governance in factories during the Tito era to Poland’s Solidarity movement, frankly speaking, eventually became tools of unionism and economism – as Lenin argued in his time about similar cases – or tools of capitalist restoration.

Similarly, in the January Storm of Shanghai in 1967, a huge amount of workers cared nothing about the general orientation of political struggles. They just devoted their efforts to economist demands, disregarding the fact that, these kinds of actions, spread to many different localities within a short time might jeopardize the worker-peasant alliance and the construction of socialism for the whole state.

Under such circumstances, if there is not strong leadership, politically and/or organizationally, the whole state economy can collapse and a bloody civil war could be staged. Mao Zedong as a devoted Leninist, at such a critical conjuncture, would not hesitate to fight to retain the Party. He argued,

If everything were changed into communes, then what about the party? Where would we place the party? Among commune committee members are both party members and non-party members.

Where would we place the party committee? There must be a party somehow! There must be a nucleus, no matter what we call it. Be it called the Communist party, or social democratic party, or Guomindang, or I-guan-dao [a daoist religion cult], it must have a party.

The commune must have a party, but can the commune replace the party?

Mao did not think that the class-consciousness of the Chinese workers had matured enough, at the height of the CR, to dissolve the existing Party. It was too  soon for the communist party, as the vanguard of the working class, to fade away in human history.

It was true that at in the CR, Mao advocated that “the working class must exercise leadership in everything”. But as we can see, this was more a call for the workers to actively participate in and consciously lead society toward the socialist direction, and a wish for workers to foster and raise their acute and strong class consciousness, than a call to degrade and downplay the role of the Party. With regard to the need for the working class to exercise leadership in everything,

Mao emphasized, that the workers must improve themselves as well. He said in 1968: “Our country has 700 million people, and the working class is the leading class. It is essential to bring into full play the leading role of the working class in the great cultural revolution and in all fields of work. On its part, the working class should always raise its political consciousness in the course of struggle.”

If the Commune could not replace the Party, then a natural solution would be to put the Commune under the direct leadership of the Party, which could be carried out in two ways.

One was to re-introduce the “revolutionary” old Party cadres into the Commune, and another was to have the non-communist-party-member delegates of the Shanghai Commune join the Party.

Both ways, to use Mao’s word, meant to tu gu na xin (exhale the old and inhale the new) for the purpose of reconstituting the Party committee in the Commune.

b In 1975, the year before Mao died, Mao showed that a portion of working class could be captured by the bourgeoisie:

CONCLUSION from extract of book by Hongshen Jiang.The Shanghai Commune and its legal successor, the Shanghai RC – which tragically ended in 1976 in a ruthless coup that was against millions of pro-CR activists – was not a farce at all.

It was the working class’ powerful and heroic struggle to retake state power from those power holders who no longer served the people. It was an organic continuation of the proletarian revolutions in China and elsewhere in the world, notably the Paris Commune and the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. Of course, similar to every revolution, the Shanghai January Revolution

Arif Dirlik thinks that simultaneous of 1967 simultaneously entailed historical contradictions of
possibility and impossibility, continuity and discontinuity, and contingency and necessity. As Marx said, Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.

The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirit s of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle-cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language.

Marx’s remarks about how men make history were a comment on the bourgeois revolutions. But it could be perfectly applied to the Shanghai Commune. For the Chinese Maoist rebels, the Chinese
revolution was in crisis on the eve of the CR because of the degradation of parts of the state bureaucracy and even the Party itself.

From the very beginning, the socialist advance toward communism was interrupted and sabotaged by the “capitalist roaders taking authority within the Party”, represented notably by the Liu-Dengists.

When the Chinese revolution was in crisis, i.e. in a period of revolutionary crisis, revolutionary chaos had to be fomented in order to transform and reconstruct the society according to the Maoists’ long-cherished revolutionary values and spirit. At this moment, the specter of the past, conspicuously the Paris Commune, was conjured up.

As I have argued here, the values and spirit of the Paris Commune have been continuously transmitted for nearly one hundred years
Marx, Karl, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, in
Vol.11, pp.103-104.
from Paris, Russia, among other places, to China. Inspired by the Russian Soviet revolution that continued the cause of the Paris Commune, Chinese revolutionaries established Commune regimes twice in 1927. Their defeat was a tragedy, but not a farce.

Several decades later, the Chinese dream of the Paris Commune was conjured up and put into practice again in the later 1950s when tens of thousands of agricultural People’s Communes were established throughout the nation.

When the Liu-Dengists within the Party tried to disband the People’s Communes on the pretext of the partial failure of the Great Leap Forward, the Maoists in the Party, as guardians of the Chinese dream of the Paris Commune, resolutely fought against them.

On the eve and during the early stage of the CR, the Maoists, “under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past”, notably, under the Chinese vision and practice of the Paris Commune, called on the masses to seek a brand-new form of state structure modeled upon the Paris Commune to replace the existing one.

The Maoists did not revive the Paris Commune from their wild fantasy, nor did they make history as they pleased. Rather, they conjured up models from their revolutionary heritage. The claim that Mao and his followers’ call to build upon the Paris Commune was merely a ruse, or “flirting”, as Harry Harding suggested,is more or less misleading.

When the Maoists were busy revolutionizing themselves their surroundings in “creating something that has never yet existed”, and in the quest for a new state structure, the most convenient and attractive political resources they could resort to and employ were not from the allegedly degenerated revisionist Soviet Union,but from the first working people’s government—the Paris Commune that Marx, the greatest mentor of communist movements, had praised.

Since the Maoist leaders had called on the masses to learn from the Paris Commune, when the name of the Shanghai Commune was changed to the Shanghai Revolutionary Committee, Mao and his followers were understandably denounced as the “betrayers” and “arch criminals” of the working people’s cause by some people.

But as I discussed in previous chapters, Mao himself never advocated a strict implementation of the original shape and configuration of the Paris Commune in socialist China. Rather, he saw the Paris Commune as something to use as a model for China in terms of its principles and spirit.

Above all, “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery,and wield it for its own purposes.” The old must be smashed whereas the new should be established, but the new did not necessary have to assume the same shape as past models such as the Paris Commune.

Again, Marx’s further remarks on the bourgeois revolution were applicable to the working class revolution: The resurrection of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in imagination, not of
fleeing from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not of making its ghost walk about again.

The Maoist rebels’ resurrection of the Parisian communards in Shanghai was not to replicate all aspects of the Paris Commune in the past century, but to uphold and celebrate the ongoing new struggles in the storm of the CR.

The new struggles Marx, Karl, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, in aimed to cast aside the degenerated parts of the bureaucracy and those parts of the Party that were onto the track of a capitalist road. It attempts to urge the degenerated power holders to return to the socialist and communist line of serving the people.

When the Liu-Dengist power holders put the Maoist revolutionaries under pressure and rejected their petition for re-revolutionizing by encouraging the wind of economism and carrying out general strikes, the Maoists had to upgrade their struggles to a full scale power seizure from the power holders.

Therefore, the intensified new struggle was first of all not designed to establish a revolutionary democratic power organ similar to that oi the Paris Commune, but to establish a new revolutionary socialist power organ by adopting a wholly new form of state structure. As I have argued before, even though in classical Marxist interpretations, the Paris Commune is a concrete example of a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is just a rudimentary one and not a dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism.

It was more, as Lenin labeled it, a revolutionary democratic dictatorship that did not abolish private property. As we know, the anti-Paris Commune bourgeois forces and their followers were largely excluded from Paris. Moreover, the Paris Commune did not produce a visible political agenda to expropriate the expropriators, even though it might have such intentions in keeping with Marx’s hypothesis.

Therefore, by winning the healthy parts of the bourgeoisie over, the Paris Commune was able to institute a general election and functioned as a revolutionary democratic power organ in 1871. But to date a socialist government has ever been successfully elected through universal suffrage at the state level, which abolishes class-property that makes the labour of the many the wealth of the few.


Monday, March 13, 2017

The People of South Korea Make History with removal of President Park Geun hye ; Now the South Korean People have to win the battle for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Bruce Cumings on North Korea Missile Tests : Christine Ahn on how to remove a President South Korean Style

Democracy and Class Struggle welcomes the questions raised by Christine Ahn in the video concerning the death of Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia - we also agree with Bruce Cumings that we will learn more about this suspicious death in future.

Japan' s process of assertive militarism in 21st Century is underway under guidance of Tomomi Inada

Japan plans to send its largest warship on an extended mission to the disputed South China Sea before it heads to the Indian Ocean for joint naval drills with the United States and India.

The Izumo helicopter carrier will begin a three-month journey in May, Reuters reported on Monday, citing anonymous sources who had knowledge of the plan.

The warship will join the Malabar joint naval exercises with Indian and US forces in the Indian Ocean in July.

During the journey, the vessel will make stops in Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. It was not clear if the Japanese vessel was planned to sail through the areas of the sea claimed by China as its territory.

“The aim is to test the capability of the Izumo by sending it out on an extended mission,” said one of the sources. “It will train with the US Navy in the South China Sea.”

According to the sources, the warship will return to Japan in August.

Japan, a key US ally, is boosting defense ties with the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries, some of which are engaged in territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea.

Japan has no claims in the South China Sea but has expressed worries about Beijing’s influence in the region, where five trillion dollars in trade passes every year, much of it to and from Japanese ports.

Tokyo is, however, involved in a separate territorial dispute with Beijing on an uninhabited yet strategically-important island group in the East China Sea.

Back in September 2016, a close confidante of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that Tokyo would increase its engagement in the South China Sea through joint training cruises with the US Navy, capacity-building assistance to coastal nations, and exercises with regional navies.

Japan and the US recently wrapped up a week-long joint naval drill in the East China Sea on Friday. The war games involved Japanese destroyers and a US Navy carrier strike group.

The two carried out their first joint drills in the South China Sea in October 2015.

Syria's Kurdish-led administration sees end to economic 'siege'

By Tom Perry and Rodi Said

The Kurdish-led administration in northeastern Syria says a new land corridor to the government-controlled west marks an economic breakthrough for their autonomous region that has been under "siege" by hostile parties.

Abdul Karim Saroukhan, head of the Kurdish-led administration, also warned that Turkey risked igniting a new war in the north, where Ankara and its Syrian rebel allies have vowed to march on a city held by Kurdish-allied groups.

Syrian Kurdish groups and their allies are one of the main players in the conflict for northern Syria. Their growing influence has led to direct military intervention by Turkey, which sees them as a threat to its national security.

Their relations with Syria's central government, despite historic enmity, are more nuanced. They have steered clear of confrontation in the six-year-old war and their critics say they have occasionally cooperated against common enemies, notably the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad. The YPG denies this.

The war in northern Syria has accelerated in recent weeks with the Russian-backed Syrian military launching an offensive against Islamic State in the same area. This week, the army reached territory that falls under the sway of the Kurdish groups for the first time since early in the conflict.

"The opening of a corridor between us and Aleppo will have a great positive impact," said Saroukhan, the head of the Kurdish-led administration in the northeast. "It is like an artery that will feed part of the Syrian body," he told Reuters in an interview.

It holds out the prospect of a big boost to a region that is home to rich agricultural areas and oil fields but which has little in the way of its own manufacturing base.

Syria's Kurdish region is bordered to the north by Turkey and to the east by the Kurdish government of northern Iraq. Both are hostile to the YPG, the main Syrian Kurdish militia. Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is waging an insurgency in Turkey.

Islamic State meanwhile controls areas to the south.


Saroukhan said recent Syrian government advances in rural areas east of Aleppo had led to tensions with the YPG in some areas. Asked if there were contacts with Damascus over trade, he said there were none and such talk was premature.

But he saw the prospect of private commerce with Aleppo, Homs and other government-held cities.

"Our expectations are that we can reach understandings with everyone in the other provinces," said Saroukhan, head of the biggest of three Kurdish administrations in northern Syria.

The people of northeastern Syria - Kurds, Arabs and other groups - were particularly in need of medicines and construction materials to rebuild from the YPG's conflict with Islamic State.

Northeastern Syria could in turn sell surplus agricultural output to other parts of the country, though Saroukhan said poor rainfall meant there would be no wheat for sale this season.

He also said surplus oil output from the region was looking for "exits, ways, crossings" to other parts of Syria, describing the area as the "oil well that supplied Syria for 65 years" and that "we can cooperate" in this regard.

He added that while the oil was under YPG protection, it was a national resource whose status should be determined in a final settlement to the Syria crisis.


The YPG and allied militias are the main partner for the United States in the war it is waging against Islamic State in Syria, though Washington does not support the Kurdish groups' political project.

The main Syrian Kurdish party, the PYD, and its allies are seeking to deepen their autonomy in northern Syria through the establishment of a new system of government. They say they do not seek an independent country.

Saroukhan said Turkey was afraid of the "democratic model" established in northern Syria and was trying to block it. He said that while the Kurdish-led administration wanted to deal with Turkey as a neighbour, Ankara was making threats and occupying Syrian land.

"If Turkey continues in this way, in this vein, it will be the start of a new war in Syria, in the north," he said.

Turkey has said the next target of its campaign in northern Syria will the city of Manbij, which was captured from Islamic State last year by a U.S.-backed alliance of militias that includes the YPG.

Saroukhan said the alliance known as the Syrian Democratic Forces was ready to send reinforcements there if necessary. "They will not allow the entry of any other forces to this city," he said.

(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: Reuters