Thursday, June 30, 2016

Combat Liberalism - Mao Zedong

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Class War Against European Workers - French Labour Law, Brexit and Greek austerity

Economist Richard Wolff says the old European elite believed it could fix their broken capitalism on the backs of the masses and that has proved to be a fatal mistake

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Spain : disappointing results for Unidos Podemos

Spanish election results

100% reported
176 seats for a majority
Unidos Podemos

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Costas Lapavitsas grasps the central class contradiction in UK Brexit - Also why Left should not be bourgeois cosmopolitan but proletarian internationalist

Democracy and Class Struggle says Costas Lapavitsas is NOT a Yanis Varoufakis  and has sensible thoughts on the crisis that Brexit brings and its implications for the Left in UK..

He does not insult the working people of UK like other bourgeois leftists and the ruling class but struggles to understand the situation in Greece and in this interview on the UK gives his analysis which we appreciate of the Post EU world.


Costas Lapavitsas

Also Visit our site Political Economy Research for excellent analysis by Heiner Flassbeck of process of implosion of European Union

Combatir el Liberalismo - No a la Unión Europea neoliberal

Ante el referendum que se va a celebrar mañana 23 de junio en Reino Unido para decidir la salida o permanencia en la Unión Europea, la Red de Blogs Comunistas ha traducido el artículo del camarada Nick Glais, en su blog Democracy and Class Struggle, en el que se analizan las posibles opciones y se pide a la clase trabajadora galesa el No a la permanencia en la Unión Europea, imposible de reformar  aunque los socialdemócratas intenten hacerlo creer con sus cantos de sirena.

En definitiva, se concluye, en resumen, lo siguiente:

"(A) Nuestra posición de clase no es solamente oponerse al Estado neoliberal europeo, sino que hay que romperlo.

(B) Nuestra posición sobre la cuestión nacional es la de desenmascarar al nacionalismo británico y apoyar la autodeterminación y democracia para todos los pueblos de estas islas.

(C) Teniendo en cuenta que la clase capitalista en las Islas Británicas, y en particular sus capitalistas financieros, están divididos sobre la cuestión Brexit, debemos explotar las divisiones y no unirnos con ellos en ninguna circunstancia.

Ambas facciones son nuestras enemigas y son contrarias a los intereses de los trabajadores de estas islas.

Hay que llamar a la destrucción del Estado británico, al igual que hacemos un llamamiento a romper el superestado europeo, ya que ambos representan a nuestros enemigos de clase".

Combatir el Liberalismo - No a la Unión Europea neoliberal por Nickglais

"Las personas que son liberales consideran los principios del marxismo como dogmas abstractos. Aprueban el marxismo, sin embargo no están dispuestos a practicarlo o a desarrollarlo en su totalidad; no están preparados para sustituir su liberalismo por el marxismo. Estas personas tienen su marxismo, pero también tienen su liberalismo, hablan sobre marxismo, sin embargo, practican el liberalismo"

Mao Zedong – Combatir el Liberalismo

El debate en el Reino Unido sobre la Unión Europea y el Brexit revela una profunda brecha entre liberales-socialdemócratas y marxistas revolucionarios, tanto sobre las cuestiones de clase como  las nacionales que surgen alrededor de la cuestión del Brexit del Reino Unido.

Todo el proyecto de la Unión Europea desde su creación se basa en un compromiso con el liberalismo de libre mercado y, más recientemente, con el neoliberalismo.

La UE tuvo un pequeño desvío hace unas décadas, cuando Jacques Delors habló de una Europa Social, pero que terminó tan pronto como empezó Delors siendo el responsable de la introducción de la privatización neoliberal en la vida política francesa.

El socialismo como idea es contrario al mercado común y la ideología de mercado que es fundamental para el proyecto europeo, si la ideología se expresa en la Comisión Europea, el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo o el Banco Central Europeo.

Los derechos internacionales del trabajo fueron establecidos por la lucha de clases combativa codificada por la Organización Internacional del Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas.

La Unión Europea ha producido recientes sentencias de derechos laborales contra la clase trabajadora pronunciados en el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo, en conflicto con la Organización Internacional del Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas.

El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que no es una organización de la UE, pero está organizado por el Consejo de Europa, está también en conflicto con el Tribunal Europeo de Justicia neoliberal acerca de los derechos humanos.

Es claro incluso para los ciegos, que clase está representada en las instituciones de la UE después de años de práctica liberal y neoliberal.

¿Entonces por qué la errática marxista? (Liberal socialdemócrata) Yanis Varoufakis dice en su entrevista con Owen Jones ¡que le gusta el liberalismo de Marx! y no su ciencia, estando de acuerdo con Paul Mason y, por supuesto, con el nuevo giro de ciento ochenta grados de Jeremy Corbyn para anunciar el deseo de una Unión Europea reformada.

No se trata de una institución reformable y sólo los liberales propagan la gran mentira reformista sobre la Unión Europea.

Se trata de una burocracia altamente estructurada, donde la Comisión Europea decide lo que se legisla, no el Parlamento Europeo. Es burocracia, no democracia.

No se puede razonar fuera del camino Varoufakis.

Desde el punto de vista de clase, necesitamos aplastar a la Unión Europea neoliberal y a la clase que representa en Europa, y liberar a nuestra clase de su austeridad y de sus restricciones legales.

Ahora llegamos a la cuestión nacional y de la Unión Europea.

No debemos apoyar a los nacionalistas británicos como Nigel Farage, George Galloway y la escoria de los tories proBrexit, como Boris, el bastardo, o Ian Duncan Smith.

Debemos desenmascarar al nacionalismo británico y defender la democracia para todas las naciones de las Islas Británicas: Escocia, Inglaterra, Gales, Kernow y Manxx, debemos llamar a la autodeterminación democrática hasta, e incluyendo, la separación del Estado británico.

También hay que señalar que la oposición tory no representa una burguesía nacional británica con la que nos podamos aliar- es una facción de los capitalistas financieros que desean menos regulación de los bancos y de la City de Londres, representados por el embaucador Boris, el Bastardo.

Las contradicciones dentro de la clase capitalista financiera de la City de Londres, con Osborne representando una facción junto con Cameron y Boris el Bastardo y la escoria de la City, Farage en representación de la otra, deben ser bienvenidas: debemos estudiar y exponer sus peleas intestinas.

No puede haber una plataforma conjunta entre nuestra clase y el enemigo de la nación en el Reino Unido, o con la izquierda que da cobertura a las posiciones antiUE de Boris y de Farage, que es precisamente lo que Galloway está proporcionando, incluso afirmando que Farage no es racista.

Por lo tanto, y en resumen:

(A) Nuestra posición de clase no es solamente oponerse al Estado neoliberal europeo, sino que hay que romperlo.

(B) Nuestra posición sobre la cuestión nacional es la de desenmascarar al nacionalismo británico y apoyar la autodeterminación y democracia para todos los pueblos de estas islas.

(C) Teniendo en cuenta que la clase capitalista en las Islas Británicas, y en particular sus capitalistas financieros, están divididos sobre la cuestión Brexit, debemos explotar las divisiones y no unirnos con ellos en ninguna circunstancia.

Ambas facciones son nuestras enemigas y son contrarias a los intereses de los trabajadores de estas islas.

Hay que llamar a la destrucción del Estado británico, al igual que hacemos un llamamiento a romper el superestado europeo, ya que ambos representan a nuestros enemigos de clase.

Ya que hemos celebrado el cumpleaños de Lenin el 22 de abril, echemos un vistazo a la pregunta que le plantearon en 1915 en su polémica con Trotsky, que apoyaba la consigna de los Estados Unidos de Europa, y su relevancia en la actualidad.

Lenin escribió:

"Por supuesto, los acuerdos temporales son posibles entre los capitalistas y entre los estados. En este sentido, un Estados Unidos de Europa es posible como un acuerdo entre los capitalistas europeos... pero ¿para qué?"

La respuesta de Lenin fue:

"Sólo con el propósito de suprimir de manera conjunta el socialismo en Europa, de proteger de manera conjunta el botín colonial contra Japón y Estados Unidos, que han sido poco favorecidos en la presente partición de las colonias"

Trotsky no estaba de acuerdo con Lenin en 1915 y nuevamente discrepó con él en 1923.

"Estados Unidos de Europa", es una consigna que en todos los aspectos corresponde con el lema "! Para los Trabajadores! (o “Trabajadores y Campesinos, Gobierno". (Matices de Varoufakis y Owen Jones).

La historia tiene una forma de clarificar el pasado, así como el presente; el camino de Lenin y la revolución antiimperialista, o el camino de Trotsky y la ciénaga revisionista y el liberalismo,




Vote no a la Unión Europea el 23 de junio rechazo al Boicot o al abstencionismo.

India : Untold Prison Stories - An Evening with Dr GN Saibaba

Brexit: Rich British Indians voted for ‘remain’; the less well-off went for ‘leave

For rich and high-profile British Indians, Brexit was a shock.

With a few exceptions, Conservative Minister Priti Patel and NR Narayana Murthy's son-in-law and Conservative MP Rishi Sunak among them, the elite among British Indians had openly batted for 'Brexin'.

But in a replay of class divisions on Brexit in rest of Britain, the Indian Workers' Association had voted for 'leave', and so did less well-off and more recent Indian immigrants, who resented 'favours' granted to EU migrants.

For Bangladeshi Workers against EU see link below

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Vote no a la Unión Europea el 23 de junio rechazo al Boicot o al abstencionismo.

Compañeros de práctica revolucionaria han publicado una visión esencialmente boycotista o abstencionista del referéndum europeo del Reino Unido, con el cual la Democracia y la lucha de clases esta en profundo desacuerdo por las siguientes razones

1. Se confunde el referéndum, que es la democracia directa con la fachada de la Democracia Parlamentaria representativa burguesa - los votos populares en Europa a traves de diferentes consultas de la UE han sido ignorados por la burocracia de la UE e incluso hay planes de hacer caso omiso de éste mediante el bloqueo de la salida de la UE a través del Parlamento si la gente vota no el 23 de julio.

Estos votos del referéndum expresan la voluntad popular en contra de la burocracia de la UE y exponen la profunda falta de democracia en Europa.

2. Se confunde el apoyo de Marx para el libre comercio en el siglo 19 con el "libre comercio" en el sistema capitalista imperialista Monopolico de hoy.

Marx en su polémica con Proudhon demostró su oposición a la "libre" compenencia y el libre mercado y la emulación apoyado contra la libre competencia del mercado.

También la forma en la que la concentración y centralización del capital avanzan no es un proceso mecánico como en el documento práctica revolucionaria debajo del cual la Segunda Internacional y reformistas creían - pero altamente contradictoria y dialéctica con los choques económicos, como en 1929-1931 y 2008, cuando la clase y las contradicciones contradicciones salen a la luz ..

En la década de 1930 el fascismo fue derrotado por la combinación de la lucha nacional y de clase y Mao y Dimitrov fueron exponentes de la dialéctica de clases y la lucha nacional para derrotar el fascismo y deberíamos aprender de ellos hoy en día en las nuevas luchas anti conservadoras liberales en Europa.

Haciendo caso omiso de sus contribuciones revolucionarias en la lucha nacional y de clase nos desarmará en la lucha que se avecina.

3.En la cuestión nacional la línea de este artículo no es leninista, pero luxemburguista y anti nacional y no aprecia las ideas de Lenin, Stalin, Dimitrov y Mao sobre la manera de combinar las luchas nacionales que son esencialmente las luchas por el control local y la democracia, con la la lucha de clases por el socialismo.

Se falla por completo en comprender las implicaciones para el Estado británico sobre la cuestión nacional en el Norte de Irlanda y Escocia y Gales como consecuencia de un No hay votos - que adopta la idea pueril de la RCPUSA de que el nacionalismo es el nacionalismo y no entiende o aprecia la combinación de las contradicciones nacionales y de clase que pueden conducir a la destrucción del Estado británico.

4. Sin embargo estamos de acuerdo con muchas de las críticas de la praxis revolucionaria de la oposición de izquierda a la UE.

La izquierda británica tiene una concepción cosmopolita del mundo como resultante del imperialismo británico globalita, que la Praxis Revolucionaria Praxis que desafortunadamente comparte y no ve la democracia en las reivindicaciones nacionales de los pueblos del Norte de Irlanda, Escocia y Gales y las personas de Kernow y Manxx, y las amenazas que estas demandas representan al Estado británico en este referéndum del 23 de junio.

Nosotros, en la Democracia y la lucha de clases (Democracy and Class Struggle) estamos en oposición al Estado británico como el Súper Estado europeo y creemos que es nuestro deber revolucionario para explotar las contradicciones entre el Estado de la UE y los Estados del Reino Unido y las contradicciones dentro de Estado británico y el Partido Conservador para provocar una crisis constitucional el 23 de junio - mientras que los compañeros de práctica revolucionaria quieren sentarse en el banquillo de abstencionismo y boicotismo.


The UK EU Referendum - Its Terrible - its Fine

In 1927 Comrade Mao Zedong in his Study of the Peasant Movement in Hunan showed the complexities of real life struggle of the peasantry of China and how the City elites and bourgeois liberals and even so called revolutionaries were repelled by peasant class actions which they called terrible.

In 2016 the struggle of working class proletarians is just as complex as peasant proletarians and some racist manifestations of proletarian struggle repel us - but what we need to do is to grasp this struggle at a deeper class level and not superficial manifestations - this is especially so on the great proletarian struggle against the EU and its neo liberal institutions which is Fine.

We are comparing handling of class contradictions and not actual situation in 1927 China with 2016 Europe.

If you live with and love the proletarian class you will know their strengths and weakness - if they are lumpen's you will treat them as mistaken brothers and sisters and correct them.

The class struggle against austerity is driving our brothers and sisters against the EU and the racism is subsidiary - there is also liberal racism in the pro EU camp of Fortress Europe which is blindly ignored on the Left.

The UK Exit from the European Union has caused great confusion with the terrible coming loudest from metropolitan bourgeois elites in London and its fine from angry proletarians in the regions.

Let us remind ourselves what Mao said about Chinese Peasantry in 1927 :

"From the middle social strata upwards to the Kuomintang right-wingers, there was not a single person who did not sum up the whole business in the phrase, "It's terrible!" Under the impact of the views of the "It's terrible!" school then flooding the city, even quite revolutionary minded people became down-hearted as they pictured the events in the countryside in their mind's eye; and they were unable to deny the word "terrible". Even quite progressive people said, "Though terrible, it is inevitable in a revolution." In short, nobody could altogether deny the word "terrible".

How did Mao sum things up :

"Most critics of the peasant associations allege that they have done a great many bad things.

I have already pointed out that the peasants' attack on the local tyrants and evil gentry is entirely revolutionary behaviour and in no way blameworthy.

The peasants have done a great many things, and in order to answer people's criticism we must closely examine all their activities, one by one, to see what they have actually done"

When dealing with the working class proletarian struggle against the European Union we should study and think deeply about Comrade Mao's comments and carry out much more concrete analysis of the working class and its political psychology instead of abusing it has some Leftists are doing in the wake of the UK exit vote from EU.


Why the British said No to Europe by John Pilger

25 June 2016

The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy.

Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media.

This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the "remain" campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain.

The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life.

A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain's ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale.

Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top.

The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East - first Iraq, now Syria - are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato.

Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel.

The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried.

A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centrepiece of modern "globalisation", with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicised civil servants.

All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more.

The most effective propagandists of the "European ideal" have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. 

Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even "cool".

What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. 

In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as "neoliberalism".

The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor.

In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain's second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, "experiencing the effects of extreme poverty" and 1.6 million are slipping into penury.

Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC.

During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about "leaving Europe", as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland.

On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. "Well," he said to "Lord" Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, "why do these people want it so badly?" The "these people" are the majority of Britons.

The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson "European" class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as "mystical" and has been true to his "project" of rapacious war.

The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses. "Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain", said the headline over his full-page piece.

The "we" was unexplained but understood - just as "these people" is understood. "The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more," wrote Kettle. " ... the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again."

The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored.

Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and  political treachery of post-modernism. 

The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought "better terms" with a venal status in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed.

On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the "remain" campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron's "dignity" and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday.

He said nothing about Cameron's divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about "protecting" the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three.

In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin's speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941.  The Soviet victory - at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces - won the Second World War.

Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia's western borders to the Third Reich's Operation Barbarossa.

Nato's exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. 

On the eve of the referendum, the quisling secretary-general of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering "peace and security" if they voted to leave the EU.

The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe.



Brexit: A Nail in the Coffin of Neo-colonialism in Africa


Thursday, June 23, 2016

Smash the European Union : Great Disorder Under Heaven - Situation Excellent

Yr Aflonyydcwh Mawr says the British Establishment is taking a kicking in EU Referendum as pound and euro drop and BBC has confirmed leave the EU has won the referendum.

From our Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr conversations in the Valleys of Wales there is very deep working class anger at all establishment Parties.

There is truely a Great Unrest which we have tried to give a progressive direction in the Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr.

There is a fight for the progressive soul of Wales and we are ready to do combat for Independence and Socialism.

We do not underestimate the struggle ahead but the process of the smashing of the Neo Liberal European Union has began not just in UK but also throughout Europe.

We remember in the Great Unrest in Wales before the First World war when there was also a dark side of racism but class consciousness overcame that division as it will again in the Welsh valleys,

We will keep the class question as the central question of Welsh Politics

Long Live the Great Unrest - Long Live Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr.


UK Electoral Integrity - UK at Bottom of the List for North and West Europe

Democracy and Class Struggle says it is not conspiracy theory to think that the UK electoral system is not democratic - academic research on the matter indicates so.

We published much on the Scottish Referendum which called into question "UK Democracy" and Channel Four exposing Tory Party electoral financing which breaks the "electoral rules" feed the deep feeling in UK that all is not well with electoral system and electoral politics.

Therefore on the Day of the European Union Referendum we should reflect on the FACT that the UK is at the bottom of the list for North and West Europe on Electoral Integrity

The CLAP as the ultimate expression of the economic revolution in Venezuela By Jesus Rojas

The local Committees of Supply and Production (CLAP) in Venezuela are the
new form of popular organization responsible, together with the Ministry of
Food, for the distribution house to house of the basic products.

House to house representatives of organized communities, carry bags full of
food consisting of various products. The new implementation that has served
580,000 families across the country, strengthen the joint work of popular power
and the Government towards ensuring the feeding of the people.

The solution to the current situation may not be as it is raised by some scholars
of the economy, freeing the exchange rate and prices and leaving wages

Of those recipes there have been many in Latin America and they only have
given our peoples misery and exclusion, among other social dramas from which
we have not recovered yet. The solutions had to emerge from the people, to be
executed with the people and for the people, as it always was promoted the
commander Chavez, like are the real leftist policies, to the extent that the new
societies rise.

Thus it has been forming the local committees Supply and Production (CLAP)
in an increasing number of different Venezuelan communities, as a mechanism
against shortages and speculation led by the social scum that has stifled the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela throughout its existence: the parasitic
bourgeoisie who have lived off oil income, who do not even produce nor work,
who buy very cheap outside to sell very expensive here inside that the only it
does is intermediate in the distribution chain. The CLAP constitute the new form
of popular organization responsible for the distribution house to house of the
basic products.

Each CLAP is made up of a representation of the National Union of Women
(UnaMujer) Battle units Bolivar-Chavez (UBCH, a grassroots organization of
socio-political articulation), Francisco de Miranda Front (FFM organized youth)
and the communal councils made up by the different communities.

The CLAP are certified by the Ministry of People's Power for Communes and
Social Movements to prevent acts of bureaucracy and corruption, and to have
an effective record of how much food and other subsidized products are
distributed and where they arrive.

The CLAP is a state policy with defined
objectives, to ensure that food reaches to the people and to support the

The CLAP do not restrict the supply in private chains of distribution
such as supermarkets, but, 50% is distributed in the private network and 50% in
the CLAP.

At the same time, the CLAP have become the ideal tool to get directly to the
people the production of small and medium producers, which in this way they
get to break off from the speculative market that pays them a pittance for their
crops, but then it sells the food at very high prices to the population.

In addition, the CLAP -along with the Ministry of People`s Power for Urban
Agriculture- are organizing communities to develop vertical and agropónics
orchards and intensive production in small urban, suburban and peri-urban
areas spaces, so as to allow the crops quickly and without intermediaries reach
to the sectors of the population who need them most.

The Venezuelan opposition has shown that its participation in the economic war
is direct at the attack to the CLAP and promoting actions of sabotage of the
mechanisms of production and distribution.

Several of its regional and local leaders have been involved in the assault and
looting of deposits from the public network of distribution dependent on the
Ministry of Food and organizing demonstrations (reduced in number but full of
an extremely violent speech) against the very existence of the CLAP.

The Venezuelan people, however, seems to have found again the path to rout
to the war that have right-wing sectors allied to the parasitic bourgeoisie and the
American empire, as well as move the Bolivarian Revolution forward in the
construction of socialism.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Remembering the Defence of the Brest Fortess - Soviet Heroism against Nazi invaders of Operation Barbarossa

The defence of Brest Fortress took place 22–29 June 1941. It was one of the first battles of Operation Barbarossa. The Brest Fortress, defended by the Red Army against the Wehrmacht, held out longer than expected and, after the Second World War had finished, became a symbol of Soviet resistance. In 1965 the fortress received the title of Hero Fortress for the 1941 defense.


Revealing the Soviet Heroism of 1941/42 - The Untold Story of Second World War early years are beginning to be recognised by military historians

"On New Democracy" by Mao Zedong (January 1940)

On Jan 9, 1940 Mao Zedong made a speech titled "Politics and Culture of New Democracy" at the First Congress of Cultural Association in Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia border region, proposing a complete theory of New Democracy.

Mao Zedong put forward the issue of "which way will China go?" in his speech at the outset and made a clear answer: "We want to build a new China".

He said: "We Communists, for many years, have not only fought for China's political and economic revolution, but also struggled for China's Cultural Revolution; all of these aims are to build a new society and new Chinese nation-state"

Democracy and Class Struggle still finds many Semich's in the revolutionary movement today and appreciate's comrade Mao Zedong's quoting the critique of Stalin on Semich and the National Question in this article.

Long live Marxism Leninism Maoism !


January 1940


A lively atmosphere has prevailed throughout the country ever since the War of Resistance began, there is a general feeling that a way out of the impasse has been found, and people no longer knit their brows in despair. Of late, however, the dust and din of compromise and anti-communism have once again filled the air, and once again the people are thrown into bewilderment. Most susceptible, and the first to be affected, are the intellectuals and the young students. The question once again arises: What is to be done? Whither China? On the occasion of the publication of Chinese Culture,[1] it may therefore be profitable to clarify the political and cultural trends in the country. I am a layman in matters of culture; I would like to study them, but have only just begun to do so. Fortunately, there are many comrades in Yenan who have written at length in this field, so that my rough and ready words may serve the same purpose as the beating of the gongs before a theatrical performance. Our observations may contain a grain of truth for the nation's advanced cultural workers and may serve as a modest spur to induce them to come forward with valuable contributions of their own, and we hope that they will join in the discussion to reach correct conclusions which will meet our national needs. To "seek truth from facts" is the scientific approach, and presumptuously to claim infallibility and lecture people will never settle anything. The troubles that have befallen our nation are extremely serious, and only a scientific approach and a spirit of responsibility can lead it on to the road of liberation. There is but one truth, and the question of whether or not one has arrived at it depends not on subjective boasting but on objective practice. The only yardstick of truth is the revolutionary practice of millions of people. This, I think, can be regarded as the attitude of Chinese Culture.


For many years we Communists have struggled for a cultural revolution as well as for a political and economic revolution, and our aim is to build a new society and a new state for the Chinese nation. That new society and new state will have not only a new politics and a new economy but a new culture. In other words, not only do we want to change a China that is politically oppressed and economically exploited into a China that is politically free and economically prosperous, we also want to change the China which is being kept ignorant and backward under the sway of the old culture into an enlightened and progressive China under the sway of a new culture. In short, we want to build a new China. Our aim in the cultural sphere is to build a new Chinese national culture.


We want to build a new national culture, but what kind of culture should it be?

Any given culture (as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economics of a given society, and the former in turn has a tremendous influence and effect upon the latter; economics is the base and politics the concentrated expression of economics.[2] This is our fundamental view of the relation of culture to politics and economics and of the relation of politics to economics. It follows that the form of culture is first determined by the political and economic form, and only then does it operate on and influence the given political and economic form. Marx says, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."[3] He also says, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."[4] For the first time in human history, these scientific formulations correctly solved the problem of the relationship between consciousness and existence, and they are the basic concepts underlying the dynamic revolutionary theory of knowledge as the reflection of reality which was later elaborated so profoundly by Lenin. These basic concepts must be kept in mind in our discussion of China's cultural problems.

Thus it is quite clear that the reactionary elements of the old national culture we want to eliminate are inseparable from the old national politics and economics, while the new national culture which we want to build up is inseparable from the new national politics and economics. The old politics and economics of the Chinese nation form the basis of its old culture, just as its new politics and economics will form the basis of its new culture.

What are China's old politics and economics? And what is her old culture?

From the Chou and Chin Dynasties onwards, Chinese society was feudal, as were its politics and its economy. And the dominant culture, reflecting the politics and economy, was feudal culture.

Since the invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society, the country has changed by degrees into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. China today is colonial in the Japanese-occupied areas and basically semi-colonial in the Kuomintang areas, and it is predominantly feudal or semi-feudal in both. Such, then, is the character of present-day Chinese society and the state of affairs in our country. The politics and the economy of this society are predominantly colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal, and the predominant culture, reflecting the politics and economy, is also colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal.

It is precisely against these predominant political, economic and cultural forms that our revolution is directed. What we want to get rid of is the old colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal politics and economy and the old culture in their service. And what we want to build up is their direct opposite, i.e., the new politics, the new economy and the new culture of the Chinese nation.

What, then, are the new politics and the new economy of the Chinese nation, and what is its new culture?

In the course of its history the Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first, the democratic revolution, and second, the socialist revolution, and by their very nature they are two different revolutionary processes. Here democracy does not belong to the old category-- it is not the old democracy, but belongs to the new category--it is New Democracy.

It can thus be affirmed that China's new politics are the politics of New Democracy, that China's new economy is the economy of New Democracy and that China's new culture is the culture of New Democracy.

Such are the historical characteristics of the Chinese revolution at the present time. Any political party, group or person taking part in the Chinese revolution that fails to understand this will not be able to direct the revolution and lead it to victory, but will be cast aside by the people and left to grieve out in the cold.


The historical characteristic of the Chinese revolution lies in its division into the two stages, democracy and socialism, the first being no longer democracy in general, but democracy of the Chinese type, a new and special type, namely, New Democracy. How, then, has this historical characteristic come into being? Has it been in existence for the past hundred years, or is it of recent origin?

A brief study of the historical development of China and of the world shows that this characteristic did not emerge immediately after the Opium War, but took shape later, after the first imperialist world war and the October Revolution in Russia. Let us now examine the process of its formation.

Clearly, it follows from the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal character of present-day Chinese society that the Chinese revolution must be divided into two stages. The first step is to change the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal form of society into an independent, democratic society. The second is to carry the revolution forward and build a socialist society. At present the Chinese revolution is taking the first step.

The preparatory period for the first step began with the opium War in 1840, i.e., when China's feudal society started changing into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal one. Then came the Movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Sino-French War, the Sino-Japanese war, the Reform Movement of 1898, the Revolution of 1911, the May 4th Movement, the Northern Expedition, the War of the Agrarian Revolution and the present War of Resistance Against Japan. Together these have taken up a whole century and in a sense they represent that first step, being struggles waged by the Chinese people, on different occasions and in varying degrees, against imperialism and the feudal forces in order to build up an independent, democratic society and complete the first revolution. The Revolution of 1911 was in a fuller sense the beginning of that revolution. In its social character, this revolution is a bourgeois-democratic and not a proletarian-socialist revolution. It is still unfinished and still demands great efforts, because to this day its enemies are still very strong. When Dr. Sun Yat-sen said, "The revolution is not yet completed, all my comrades must struggle on", he was referring to the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

A change, however, occurred in China's bourgeois-democratic revolution after the outbreak of the first imperialist world war in 1914 and the founding of a socialist state on one-sixth of the globe as a result of the Russian October Revolution of 1917.

Before these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution came within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, of which it was a part.

Since these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution has changed, it has come within the new category of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and, as far as the alignment of revolutionary forces is concerned, forms part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution.

Why? Because the first imperialist world war and the first victorious socialist revolution, the October Revolution, have changed the whole course of world history and ushered in a new era.

It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe (one-sixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and Semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies, and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the social-democratic parties and has proclaimed its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter revolutionary front of world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism.

Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.

Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots, and is therefore not tolerated but opposed by imperialism. However, it is favoured by socialism and supported by the land of socialism and the socialist international proletariat.

Therefore, such a revolution inevitably becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution.

The correct thesis that "the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution" was put forward as early as 1924-27 during the period of China's First Great Revolution. It was put forward by the Chinese Communists and endorsed by all those taking part in the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle of the time. However, the significance of this thesis was not fully expounded in those days, and consequently it was only vaguely understood.

The "world revolution" no longer refers to the old world revolution, for the old bourgeois world revolution has long been a thing of the past, it refers to the new world revolution, the socialist world revolution. Similarly, to form "part of" means to form part not of the old bourgeois but of the new socialist revolution. This is a tremendous change unparalleled in the history of China and of the world.

This correct thesis advanced by the Chinese Communists is based on Stalin's theory.

As early as 1918, in an article commemorating the first anniversary of the October Revolution, Stalin wrote:

The great world-wide significance of the October Revolution chiefly consists in the fact that:

1) It has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the particular question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question of emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;

2) It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the victorious struggle against imperialism;

3) It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the proletarians of the West, through the Russian Revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the East.[5]

Since writing this article, Stalin has again and again expounded the theory that revolutions in the colonies and semi-colonies have broken away from the old category and become part of the proletarian-socialist revolution. The clearest and most precise explanation is given in an article published on June 3o, 1925, in which Stalin carried on a controversy with the Yugoslav nationalists of the time. Entitled "The National Question Once Again", it is included in a book translated by Chang Chung-shih and published under the title Stalin on the National Question. It contains the following passage:

Semich refers to a passage in Stalin's pamphlet Marxism and the National Question, written at the end of 1912. There it says that "the national struggle under the conditions of rising capitalism is a struggle of the bourgeois classes among themselves". Evidently, by this Semich is trying to suggest that his formula defining the social significance of the national movement under the present historical conditions is correct. But Stalin's pamphlet was written before the imperialist war, when the national question was not yet regarded by Marxists as a question of world significance, when the Marxists' fundamental demand for the right to self-determination was regarded not as part of the proletarian revolution, but as part of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. It would be ridiculous not to see that since then the international situation has radically changed, that the war, on the one hand, and the October Revolution in Russia, on the other, transformed the national question from a part of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a part of the proletarian-socialist revolution. As far back as October 1916, in his article, "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up", Lenin said that the main point of the national question, the right to self-determination, had ceased to be a part of the general democratic movement, that it had already become a component part of the general proletarian, socialist revolution. I do not even mention subsequent works on the national question by Lenin and by other representatives of Russian communism. After all this, what significance can Semich's reference to the passage in Stalin's pamphlet, written in the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, have at the present time, when, as a consequence of the new historical situation, we have entered a new epoch, the epoch of proletarian revolution? It can only signify that Semich quotes outside of space and time, without reference to the living historical situation, and thereby violates the most elementary requirements of dialectics, and ignores the fact that what is right for one historical situation may prove to be wrong in another historical situation.[6]

From this it can be seen that there are two kinds of world revolution, the first belonging to the bourgeois or capitalist category. The era of this kind of world revolution is long past, having come to an end as far back as 1914 when the first imperialist world war broke out, and more particularly in 1917 when the October Revolution took place. The second kind, namely, the proletarian-socialist world revolution, thereupon began. This revolution has the proletariat of the capitalist countries as its main force and the oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies as its allies. No matter what classes, parties or individuals in an oppressed nation join the revolution, and no matter whether they themselves are conscious of the point or understand it, so long as they oppose imperialism, their revolution becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and they become its allies.

Today, the Chinese revolution has taken on still greater significance. This is a time when the economic and political crises of capitalism are dragging the world more and more deeply into the Second World War, when the Soviet Union has reached the period of transition from socialism to communism and is capable of leading and helping the proletariat and oppressed nations of the whole world in their fight against imperialist war and capitalist reaction, when the proletariat of the capitalist countries is preparing to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, and when the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie in China have become a mighty independent political force under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Situated as we are in this day and age, should we not make the appraisal that the Chinese revolution has taken on still greater world significance? I think we should. The Chinese revolution has become a very important part of the world revolution.

Although the Chinese revolution in this first stage (with its many sub-stages) is a new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution and is not yet itself a proletarian-socialist revolution in its social character, it has long become a part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and is now even a very important part and a great ally of this world revolution. The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat The revolution will then be carried forward to the second stage, in which a socialist society will be established in China.

This is the fundamental characteristic of the Chinese revolution of today, of the new revolutionary process of the past twenty years (counting from the May 4th Movement of 1919), and its concrete living essence.