Author Archives: admin

Condolences

By | 02/25/2020

Dear Comrades of the Russian Maoist Party,

We were shocked to receive the sad news about demise of Comrade Dar Zhutaev. We extend our condolence to all his followers and family members. We hope you overcome the very tragic moments.

We are sure the Russian Maoist Party will continue the legacy of Comrade Dar, which is best commemoration of fallen comrades.

With Revolutionary Greetings
Afghanistan Liberation Organization

Marxism and the war in Donbas

By | 05/24/2019

By Victor Shapinov, published on the English-language website of Borotba political group

Borotba is often criticized for supporting the Donbas people’s republics, for the fact that our comrades fight in the militia and assist the peaceful nation-building in Lugansk (LPR) and Donetsk (DPR) People’s Republics. This criticism is heard not only from those former leftists who succumbed to nationalist fervor and supported first Maidan, and then Kiev’s war of conquest in the Donbas. Others criticize us from the standpoint of “Marxist pacifism”, calling themselves “the new Zimmerwald”.

1914 = 2014?

The “Zimmerwaldists” seriously compare the war in the Donbas with the First World War. Historical parallels are always risky. This parallel is altogether meaningless. In the First World War of 1914-1918, blocs of imperialist countries of roughly equal strength fought over markets, sources of raw materials, and colonies. The victory of the Anglo-French bloc, easy to see in hindsight, was not so obvious to contemporaries of the war, even to Marxists. For example, Lev Kamenev, a leader of the Bolsheviks, predicted a German victory in the war.

In 1914, a deadly battle confronted two centers of capital accumulation, two systems of capitalist division of labor, with their centers in London and Berlin. These systems had reached the limits of their geographic expansion in the 1870s, bumping into one anothers’ frontiers. The last act of this expansion was the rapid division of the African continent between the great powers.

The clash of these divisions of labor (the German-Central European, Anglo-French, American and Japanese) was the economic cause of the First and Second World Wars. After World War Ⅱ, there was only one such system – headed by the United States. In the late 1940s, it incorporated the European and Japanese systems, in the 1970s it absorbed the former colonies, in the 1980s China and the Eastern European people’s democracies, and in the 1990s the Soviet Union.

The rightist, neoliberal reaction of Reagan-Thatcher gave this system its finished, current form. At the heart of this system is the Federal Reserve, as the body producing the world’s reserve currency, the IMF, WTO, and World Bank.

After 2008, the system entered a period of systemic crisis and gradual decay, the causes of which I have examined elsewhere. As a result of the collapse, the capitalist elites of some countries began to challenge the “rules of the game” set by Washington because the existing system was no longer as attractive as it was before the crisis.

Thus, we do not have two blocs gripped in a deadly showdown (as in 1914), but a brand new situation, with no historical analogues, where the system breaks down and starts to fall to pieces. Some capitalist groups (organized in nation-states and transnational formations) try to revise the existing framework of the system, while other groups (Washington’s ‘regional committees’), on the contrary, hold on to the status quo and seek to punish those who encroach on the holy principles of the system.

Conflicts within the system are related to its internal contradictions, rather than a clash between individual centers of capital accumulation and their  systems of division of labor, as it was in 1914 and 1939.

Modern imperialism is a world system

Those who present the conflict in Ukraine as a fight between Russian and U.S. imperialism à la 1914 have analytical skills at the level of the propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov, who threatens to turn America into “nuclear ash.” Russia and the United States are not comparable in their economic power; they fight in different weight categories. Moreover, there is no “Russian imperialism”; even “American imperialism” in the sense of 1914 does not exist. There is a hierarchically-organized imperialist world system with the United States at the head. There is a Russian capitalist class, which in this structure resides not on the first or even the second “floor”, which tried to raise its “status” in this hierarchy and is now frightened by its own audacity, after meeting resistance from a united West. Imagine for a moment that Russia really is an imperialist country à la 1914, that is, like Italy with its “imperialism of beggars”. This Russia really had imperialist interests in Ukraine, related primarily to the transportation of hydrocarbons, and to a much lesser extent in industrial assets. However, these are not interests for which it would deliberately risk the deterioration of relations with the West.

In the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian capitalist elite have not conducted any deliberate imperialist strategy, they have only responded to the challenges of a rapidly developing situation. This reaction has been halfhearted, contradictory, inconsistent — demonstrating to the careful observer an absence of strategy.

As the situation developed following the coup in Ukraine and the beginning of the uprising in Crimea and the South-East, the Russian leadership faced a difficult dilemma. To not step in and not support the population of Crimea and the South-East meant losing legitimacy in the eyes of its own population, amidst a deteriorating economic situation fraught with political crisis, much stronger than in 2011. To intervene meant to break with the West, with unpredictable results. In the end, they chose the middle option — intervention in Crimea but not in the South-East. However, when the uprising in Donbas moved from peaceful to armed, Russia had to offer assistance. It had to, because the military suppression of the rebels with the tacit consent of Russia would be a catastrophic blow to the image of the Russian authorities within the country. But this support was given reluctantly. Putin publicly called on the people not to hold a referendum on the independence of the DPR and LPR. The meaningful flow of military aid only began after the abandonment of Slavyansk [July 2014], when the capital of Donetsk was under threat of falling to the Ukrainian army.

Such support has aroused dissatisfaction and resistance among most of the Russian oligarchy, which dreams not of restoring the Russian Empire but of a mutually beneficial partnership with the West.

Historical parallels: Spain 1936, Ireland 1916, Rojava 2015

Is it possible to support the republics if the Russian bourgeois regime is trying to instrumentalize the revolt and use it in its own geopolitical interests?

Let’s conduct an historical analogy. It seems to me that the following is much more appropriate than the analogy with the situation of the First World War.

Spain in 1936: There is a civil war in Spain. Let us imagine that the Soviet Union, for one reason or another, could not or would not assist the Spanish Republic, and bourgeois Britain and France, on the contrary, provided support, sent military supplies and humanitarian aid, gave loans and even sent military experts to help the Republican Army and police. Naturally, the capitalist elite of Britain and France would pursue their own goals at the same time — the retention of Spain in its own system of investment and trade in the context of an emerging confrontation with the German bloc.

Would the left, on this basis, have refused to support the anti-fascist struggle of the Spanish Republicans? Of course not.

The Easter Rising of the Irish Republicans against the British Empire in 1916: All those who call themselves leftists honor this heroic episode of the anti-imperialist struggle of the Irish people.

Meanwhile, one of the major factions of the uprising — the Irish Republican Brotherhood — in 1914, at the beginning of the war, decided to revolt and take any German assistance offered. A representative of the Brotherhood traveled to Germany and obtained approval for such assistance. It wasn’t provided only because the German ship carrying weapons was intercepted at sea by a British submarine.

Lenin unconditionally supported the Irish rebellion, despite the fact that it was much less “proletarian” than the revolt in the Donbas. And in those days there were leftists who called the Irish Rebellion a “putsch,” a “purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing.” Lenin answered them, “Whoever calls such a rebellion a ‘putsch’ is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.” 1.

Despite the apparent support of the Germans, not to mention the fact that the uprising in the rear of the British Empire “played into the hands” of German imperialism, real leftists supported the Irish Republicans. Supported them, despite the fact that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois Irish nationalists fought together with socialist James Connolly and his supporters. Of course, Connolly said that a declaration of independence without the formation of a socialist republic would be in vain. But the left in Donbass says this too.

Why doesn’t the Irish example apply to the Donbass, an example from the era of the First World War, which the self-styled “Zimmerwaldists” are so fond of?

The present-day Kurdish people of Syria (Rojava): Or take a modern example. It’s no secret that the Kurdish militia in Syria fighting against Islamic fascists receives support from the United States. On this basis, should the left refuse to support the Kurds of Rojava? Of course not.

The Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation: Over the years, the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation has also relied on the support of bourgeois and undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. The ratio of advanced and progressive elements in the Palestinian leadership was usually far less beneficial to the forces of progress than in the Donbas. However, the left has always supported the Palestinian liberation movement.

But with Donbas, some leftists apply a double standard, diligently looking for excuses to condemn the DPR and LPR and allowing themselves to take a position of indifferent pacifism. Genuine leftists never held such a position. “Indifference to the struggle is not, therefore, exclusion from the struggle, abstinence or neutrality. Indifference is tacit support of the powerful, the oppressors,” Lenin wrote. 2 Standing aside in a detached posture, the self-styled “Zimmerwaldists” actually side with the Kiev authorities, who are leading a punitive operation against the rebels.

War — continuation of policy by other means

War is nothing more than the continuation of policy by other means,” wrote the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. This statement is recognized approvingly by the classics of Marxism. 3.

What are the policies continued by Kiev and Donbas? To justify a “neutral” position, the imaginary “Zimmerwaldists” try to prove that these policies are the same. “All cats are gray” – that’s the apex of their “Marxist” wisdom.

The World War of 1914-1918 was really a continuation by Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia of policies of colonial plunder, the struggle for colonies and markets, the fight for the destruction of imperialist competitors. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 was a continuation of the same policies.

However, it would be foolish to argue that there could be a civil war where the parties are pursing the same policy. The essence of civil war is to impose one’s policies on the enemy, to break the political force and suppress the social classes or layers that conduct this policy. North and South Vietnam carried out different policies, resulting in a civil war. Different policies are also carried out, for example, by the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and other Islamists in Syria. Different policies guided the Spanish Republic and Franco in the years 1936-1939. Different policies were pursued by Muammar Gaddafi and his opponents in the civil war in Libya in 2011.

So the  civil war in Ukraine is not a continuation of the same policy. What are the different policies of Kiev and Donbas?

Policies in Kiev

The policies of Kiev in the civil war are a logical continuation of the policies of the Maidan. This has several components:

  1. “European integration” and subordination to imperialism. The first slogan of the Maidan was so-called “European integration”, which in economic terms means the surrender of Ukrainian markets to European corporations, the transformation of Ukraine into a colony of the European Union as a source of raw materials and disenfranchised migrant worker-slaves. Today, more than a year after the victory of Maidan, the economic results are already being felt so deeply that they cannot be ignored by even the most hard-nosed “Euro-optimists.” 4

    The new regime in Kiev also finally abandoned sovereignty and become a puppet state. The solution of the internal conflict within the Kiev regime, between President-oligarch Petro Poroshenko and Governor-oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, came through an appeal to the U.S. Embassy. The handing over of the militarily and logistically strategic Odessa region to the direct control of a U.S. protégé, former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, clearly testifies to this.

  2. Neoliberalism. The post-Maidan government has consistently pursued policies dictated by the IMF. And this is not “cheating” Maidan expectations. All this was openly declared from the rostrum of the Maidan. The political forces that led the movement have long and consistently favored economic neoliberalism. Movement toward all-out privatization and the systematic destruction of the remnants of the welfare state — that is the essence of the economic policies of the Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk regime. Leftist readers probably do not need me to explain the harmfulness of such policies to the working class and other popular sectors.

  3. Nationalism and fascism. Nationalists and outright fascists managed to impose their agenda through the Maidan. Our organization wrote in winter 2014:

    “The undoubted success of the nationalists is due to the fact that, because of their high level of activity, they have managed to impose ideological leadership on the Euromaidan movement. This is evidenced by the slogans which have become a kind of ‘password’ for mass gatherings and activists on Maidan Square. Slogans such as: ‘Glory to Ukraine – glory to heroes!’, which, together with raising the right hand with straightened palm, became the official greeting of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in April 1941. Other popular slogans were ‘Glory to the nation, death of the enemy!’; ‘Ukraine above all’ (copying the infamous German slogan, Deutschland über alles); and ‘Whoever doesn’t jump up and down is a Muscovite’. The rest of the opposition parties did not have a clear-cut ideological line or set of slogans, leaving the neoliberal opposition to adopt the nationalist slogans and nationalist agenda.”

    Thus, the neoliberal-Nazi alliance was formed. The neoliberals adopted the political program of Ukrainian fascists, and the Nazis agreed with carrying out the neoliberal line in the economy. This alliance was “consecrated” by representatives of imperialism, such as Catherine Ashton, Victoria Nuland, and John McCain.

    Another important point in the fascistization of society after Maidan was the legalization of paramilitary Nazi groups and the integration of the Nazis into the law enforcement agencies of the state.

  4. The violent suppression of political opponents, repression, censorship of the media, banning of communist ideology. It is not necessary to give examples, as this is common knowledge.

  5. Contempt for the working class, ‘class racism’. Established on Maidan under the leadership of the oligarchy, the ideology of the social bloc of nationalist intelligentsia and “middle class” petty proprietors has infected the Western Ukrainian ‘man in the street’ who clearly defines his class enemy as the “cattle” in Donbas. With this ‘class racism’ against the working-class majority of the South-East, the oligarchy rallies broad social strata around itself, leading even a poor person in the streets of Kiev to support policies in the interests of billionaires Kolomoisky and Poroshenko.

These are the main elements of the policy of the new regime in Kiev. This is the class politics of transnational imperialist capital and the Ukrainian capitalist oligarchy, which tries to escape its crisis at the expense of the working class. This policy is based on using the petty bourgeoisie, the so-called “middle class,” as its strike force. In the 1930s, this design of political dictatorship in the interests of big business was called fascism.

Policies in Donbas

Since the statehood of the territories liberated by the rebels of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions is just being established, it is probably too early to draw final conclusions about the policies of the DPR and LPR. However, we can highlight some trends.

  1. Anti-fascism. The rebels of all political persuasions definitely characterize the regime established in Kiev after Maidan as fascist. Often without a clear scientific understanding of fascism, they nonetheless reject the following features of the Kiev regime: extreme nationalism, chauvinistic language policy, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, repression of political opponents, exoneration of Nazi war criminals and collaborators.

  2. Anti-oligarchism. The role of the Ukrainian oligarchy, as the main sponsor and beneficiary of Maidan and the right-nationalist coup, became an essential element of the consciousness of the resistance movement in the South-East. Also, during the winter and spring of 2014, the complete dependence and subordination of the Ukrainian oligarchy to imperialism, headed by the United States, became apparent. A good example is the behavior of the “master of Donbas” and one of the main sponsors of the Party of Regions, Rinat Akhmetov. This “friendly” Donetsk oligarch, after a conversation with U.S. State Department representative Victoria Nuland, openly supported the Maidan, making a special statement on behalf of the SCM Corporation. Then his countrymen saw Rinat Akhmetov attend the inauguration of “Maidan President” Petro Poroshenko.

    In this regard, it can be argued that for the rebels of Donbass and the masses involved in the resistance movement in the South-East, anti-oligarchic slogans are not mere “populism”. These masses, from their own political experience, understand the role of the apex of the ruling class — the Ukrainian political oligarchy.

    This distinguishes the mass progressive movement in the South-East from the mass reactionary movement of Maidan. Some mild, anti-oligarchic slogans were also heard on the Maidan, but they did not go beyond the limits inherent in far-right social demagogy and populism — direct proof of this is the election by the pro-Maidan masses of oligarch Poroshenko to the presidency, as well as approval of the appointment of oligarchs such as Igor Kolomoisky and Sergei Taruta to key posts.

  3. Anti-neoliberal policies. An important feature of the internal life of the Donbas republics is the trend towards social-democratic, Keynesian models of economic development, socially-oriented state capitalism. While this is only a trend, though an important one, it is the opposite of the economic policy of the Kiev authorities. Tentative steps to nationalize strategic assets (such as retail chains, mines, etc.) are met with delight by the population. Alexander Borodai, who distinguished himself by stating that “we will not carry out nationalizations, because we are not communists”, left the leadership of the DPR. On the contrary, the leadership of the republics not only takes steps to return some industry, trade and infrastructure to state ownership, it also actively promotes these measures among the population.

  4. Friendship of peoples, internationalism and Russian nationalism. Everyone who has been in the Donbas notes the international character of the region. Dangerous trends of Russian nationalism in response to the Ukrainian chauvinism of the new Kiev authorities have not developed in a serious way (although that danger has been actively exploited by opponents of the people’s republics for propaganda purposes). On the contrary, the formalization of the Ukrainian language as the second official language in the almost entirely Russian-speaking region demonstrates the intention to carry out a democratic policy on nationalities and language. It was also an important signal that the birthday of Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko was officially celebrated in Donetsk and Lugansk. This shows that the republic’s leadership understands the importance of presenting an alternative to the chauvinistic and repressive language and cultural policy in Kiev.

    Also, there has been no serious development of another danger — clericalization of the resistance movement. Despite the fact that the Orthodox Church is mentioned in several documents of the people’s republics, clerical forces do not play a decisive or significant role in the social life of Donbas. The resistance movement is predominantly secular in nature, and the influence of religion and the church does not go beyond what it was in the pre-war period in Ukraine. This distinguishes the resistance forces from the Maidan, wherein the Greek Catholic Church played a significant role (with daily prayers read from the official Maidan rostrum, church hymns sung, etc.).

These are the main elements of the policy of the people’s republics of Donbas. Of course, this policy is not socialist. But it leaves room for the left, the communists, to participate in such a movement under their own banner, with their own ideas and slogans, without abandoning their own views and program. The Maidan movement and post-Maidan regime, focused from the beginning on militant anti-communism, does not provide such opportunities.

Having considered in detail what kind of policies the civil war continues for both sides, we can conclude that this policy is not the same from the point of view of left-wing, anti-capitalist forces. The self-styled Zimmerwaldists, stating that “both sides are the same”, show that they are either unable to carry out an analysis of the policies of Kiev and Donbas or, more likely, are hypocrites.

Just and unjust wars

The attitude of Marxists to war cannot be reduced to the single example of the First World War. Marxists have always supported wars of the oppressed against the oppressors, considering the retreat into pacifism and indifference in the case of a just war to be bourgeois hypocrisy and hidden support for the masters.

Yes, even in the First World War, those socialists who did not disgrace themselves by betrayal, who did not shift into the service of the imperialist governments, were not just for ending the fratricidal war, where workers of one country kill workers of another country for the alien interests of the capitalist elite. These socialists advocated turning the imperialist war into civil war. They said that the oppressed should turn their weapons against their own oppressors, using the mass arming of the people as a tool for social revolution.

History has known in the past (and very likely will know, must know, in the future) wars (democratic and revolutionary wars) which, while replacing every kind of ‘right’, every kind of democracy by violence during the war, nevertheless, in their social content and implications, served the cause of democracy, and consequently socialism,” Lenin wrote 5. It is this kind of war we have now in the Donbas.

Such was the position of genuine left-wing Zimmerwaldists. The imaginary “Zimmerwaldists” from Kiev, calling for disarmament of both sides of the conflict, place an equal sign between the rebels, on the one hand, and the regular troops forced to the front and neo-Nazi volunteer battalions, on the other.

The demand for disarmament of the rebel militias is a demand for their surrender, and it is unlikely that the self-styled Zimmerwaldists do not understand this.

Of course, any war means blood and suffering of people, but to stop this war by a complete renunciation of the uprising means that the blood has been spilled in vain. Moreover, it means revenge and repression by the nationalist forces against the population of Donbas.

Notes:

  1. Lenin further wrote: “To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.- to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, ‘We are for socialism,’ and another, somewhere else and says, ‘We are for imperialism,’ and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a ‘putsch.’
    “Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.
    “The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It consisted of a series of battles in which all the discontented classes, groups and elements of the population participated. Among these there were masses imbued with the crudest prejudices, with the vaguest and most fantastic aims of struggle; there were small groups which accepted Japanese money, there were speculators and adventurers, etc. But objectively, the mass movement was breaking the back of tsarism and paving the way for democracy; for this reason the class-conscious workers led it.
    “The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will participate in it — without such participation, mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible — and just as inevitably will they bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors. But objectively they will attack capital, and the class-conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks, expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different reasons!), and introduce other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by no means immediately ‘purge’ itself of petty-bourgeois slag.” – From “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up,” July 1916.
  2. V.I. Lenin, “The Socialist Party and the Non-Party Revolutionism,” Nov.-Dec. 1905.
  3. For example: “In the case of wars, the basic position of dialectics … is that ‘war is merely a continuation of policy by other (violent) means.’ This is the wording of Clausewitz. … And it was always the standpoint of Marx and Engels, who viewed every war as a continuation of the policies of the interested power – and the various classes within them – at that time.” – V. I. Lenin, Collected Workers (Russian edition), 5 ed., vol. 26, p. 224 (The Collapse of the Second International).
  4. It should be remembered that those leftists who today are trying to pass themselves off as “Zimmerwaldists” fully supported the same policy which was continued as the war against Donbas. Here is what the imaginary Liebknecht from Kiev wrote: “We demand the signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union and are confident that it will enhance democracy, increase transparency in government, lead to development of a fair legal system and limit corruption.
    Even then, we wrote: “Euro-hysteria has swept the political movement of the left outside the Communist Party.
    “An anarchist group published a leaflet which doesn’t mention that European anarchists actively oppose the EU — only the usual mantras of ‘self-organization’. A small Trotskyist group was photographed on the edge of the Maidan crowd, singing ‘Glory to the nation! Death to the enemies!’ and released a statement which could grace the website of any liberal NGO: ‘We demand the signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union and are confident that it will contribute to greater democracy…’ blah blah blah.
    “Comrades of the left, it’s time to remember what opportunism is. It’s not necessarily participation in elections (the parliamentary system can be used in a revolutionary way). Opportunism is – among other things — adapting one’s politics to the mood of the crowd, to the mainstream, and ultimately, to alien class interests.
    “Those Ukrainian leftists who removed from their statements slogans against the EU, common to all the European left, are on this path. Removed so they would be allowed to stand on the sidelines of ‘Euromaidan’ … the victory of which not only will not help the dissemination of the notorious European values but, on the contrary, is guaranteed to put in power those nationalists who attack us today.
    “Are these real leftist politics — or just playing along with the right-liberal bloc? Can they seriously persuade someone in the Euromaidan crowd? No, on the contrary, they have adapted their line to the hysteria for European integration that swept the petty-bourgeois masses in Kiev, where 20 years of right-wing propaganda always makes the ‘democratic’ crowd dance to the ‘democratic’ chant, ‘Whoever doesn’t jump up and down is a Muscovite’. They remove all slogans against the imperialist EU, to make it appear that they ‘belong’ in a liberal-nationalist crowd — although only the left can convey to Ukrainians the arguments against the EU, which their fellow European leftists and trade unionists share. They succumbed to the mood of their non-leftist friends. And then they will feel ashamed for their actions, as it was embarrassing to the supporters of the ‘people’s president’ Yushchenko a few years after the previous ‘Maidan’ — where a few leftists also campaigned, and with the same success.
    “The hysteria will subside, but the memory remains, comrades.
  5. V.I. Lenin, “Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov),” Aug.-Sept. 1916.

On the resolutions of the 3rd ICOR World Conference

By | 03/03/2018

Many of the resolutions of the Third ICOR World Conference 1 do not meet their objective which is to unite and orient the communists all over the world. They are low in quality and rather unclear. There are some obscure formulations 2 in them which even the Main Coordinator of the ICOR and the ICOR Office could not explain. Some statements are even politically wrong and harmful.

  1. The resolution “Resistance Against  Erdogan Dictatorship” contains Erdogan’s distorted quote 3 and a lot of unclear phrases 4.

  2. The resolution “For an independent left assertion” completely erroneously proclaims the right-wing reactionary hawk and the champion of military interventions Hillary Clinton as, suddenly, a “centrist”! Thereafter it remains unclear why it is claiming that “the situation is not one in which we have to support the centrists forces to avert war.” The ICOR resolution just states this without any rationales. We have an answer to this question, which differs sharply from the conception of the ICOR: Clinton is not a centrist or a peace-loving politician so supporting her has nothing to do with an averting war!

  3. The resolution of “Solidarity with the Working People of Catalonia” recognizes the right of nations to self-determination only formally, but does not meet the responsibilities for immediately and vigorously supporting republican self-determination in Catalonia 5. Instead, it unclearly talks about “the most reactionary and chauvinist emotions” and “a confrontation with the state’s security forces” (as if the last is something bad!). The resolution makes directly mutually exclusive statements: “The process towards independence … is a reflection of the national aspirations of the Catalan people …” and “…By this process the Catalan bourgeois class intends to hide the immediate aspirations of the Catalan working people …”.

  4. The resolution “Solidarity with Palestine!” is correct as a whole, but it is started with a fake quote from Lenin 6 and is ended with a politically harmful and horribly inconsiderate statement: “The 3rd World Conference of ICOR … considers that the struggle against Zionism is central for the international revolutionary movement.”. We certainly have no doubt that the struggle against Zionism is one of the most important tasks of the peoples in the Middle East. However the asserting that this is a “central” task for the entire revolutionary movement all over the world is the completely distorting the reality, the proper assessment of Zionism in the world and the tasks of the international Communist movement. This formulation encourages anti-Semitism, especially within the communist parties, in European countries, specifically in Russia. We have a long history of confrontation with anti-Semitic elements within the Russian Communist movement who use similar wording 7.

For a pity, these are not the problems of just this World Conference of the ICOR. Low quality, obscure, inaccurate or wrong wordings of resolutions is almost a permanent problem of our international organization. We have repeatedly pointed out such shortcomings, but the leaders of the ICOR does not show the understanding and the intention to improve this process.

On the distribution of this resolution: to postpone the publication until a special decision is made; to translate into English and to inform the ICC and the member parties of the ICOR.

Notes:

  1. This conference was held on October 27–29, 2017.
  2. Such formulations, in addition to those mentioned in this statement, include, for example: apparently erroneous data on the number of refugees in the  resolution “Solidarity for Rohingya people” and the following phrase from the resolution “In Solidarity with the Workers of Iran”: “More particularly, those who are active in these struggles are targeted and put in prison for other periods.
  3. A wish of god” instead of “a gift from God” (Allah’ın lütfu in Turkish).
  4. The leadership of the ICOR was unable to explain in any way five phrases: “the system of party presidency” (replaced by our translator for the “presidential republic”), “‘civil’ coup”, “barricading against male violence”, “to create ‘Guantanamo’s’”, “by December 19th” (a year 2001 is missed in the English text)!
  5. Cf. the RMP statement “On Self-Determination of Catalonia”.
  6. The IСOR leaders have not could answer where this assessment came from: “100 years ago, Lenin regarded the Balfour Declaration as a plan by international imperialism to settle the Zionist colonial entity in Palestine with the aim of dominating the region.”
  7. See, e.g., our criticism against the Russian Communist Workers Party for giving in their Program the same importance to the struggle against Zionism as to the struggle against fascism.

On the resolution of the ICOR “Stop the fascist war of aggression on Rojava/Northern Syria! Afrin will live!”

By | 02/26/2018

We refrain from signing the ICOR resolution for the following reasons:

  1. inaccurate assessment of the pre-bourgeois Islamic-fundamentalist ISIS as “fascist”;
  2. one-sided assessment of the moods of the Arab and especially the Turkoman population;
  3. inadequate description of non-interference (as well as some sympathy and even support of Kurds by arms) of the imperialist powers as direct aggression against the Kurds.

On the Charlottesville incident and acts against statues

By | 11/10/2017
  1. Comrade Takiya Thompson takes down the statue of the Confederate. August 14, 2017

    Comrade Takiya Thompson takes down the statue of the Confederate. August 14, 2017

    Generally speaking, it would be better not to destroy any monuments, especially those which have artistic or historical significance. Such actions are often burdened by the risk of vandalism, the irretrievable destruction of cultural and historical values ​​and the discordance among the broad masses of the people. However, it should be understood that old cultural values are not a sacred cow, especially if it is not about highly artistic works or total destruction; there are more important things in the world. Certainly, we are still in solidarity with the struggles against the neo-fascist movement, including the alt-right, waging in the United States, but we believe that such struggles should not be subordinated to the interests of the “democratic” faction of the imperialist bourgeoisie, which seeks to draw them into an acceptable framework.

  2. The Three Soldiers (1984).It is doubtful whether the attacks on the monuments carried out by Communists 1, leftists and other anti-racist radicals in the United States are reasonable at the present time and in the present situation. It is remarkable that during the protests there were attacks on the old and very old symbols of colonialism and these attacks had meet friendly attention of a significant part of the bourgeois authorities and the mass-media. These protests are confined within the framework of the general imperialist consensus. However, in our opinion, a much greater threat to world peace presently is, figuratively speaking, rallying around the Three Soldiers monument 2, rather than around the statues of Columbus or General Lee. It should be clearly understood that the proletariat and the peoples of the world do not care whether a pilot of the NATO bomber has black or white skin and they have no reasonable grounds to lament if transgender people, for example, are not be allowed to this military service. The main enemy in the US are not those with “Southern Pride”
    or other neo-Confederates, but the US Army, Congress and Wall Street, whether they stand on racist positions or not.

  3. Communists in no case should fundamentally reject any amateur violence of the masses, in any time and situation. The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat requires the highest consciousness and organization, but it always occurs under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in extremely constrained circumstances. At the same time, a new organization can not be freely prepared in full. Hence, the proletarian revolution can not in any way exclude a significant spree of spontaneity, an uncontrolled initiative from below. Moreover this is a necessary condition for its making and saving. If a revolution is restrained and waiting for the absolutely complete preparation of its organized forces to the quality of a new state machine, it will inevitably be crushed long before this and suppressed by the ruling exploiting classes. To say the opposite would mean to take the stand of so-called “peaceful transition” and “structural reforms”, rejecting revolutionary communism in favor of social-democratic opportunism. Such political line eventually leads to the path of revisionist degeneration.

  4. Amateur violence, on the one hand, should be considered fundamentally acceptable, on the other hand it should not be treated in the same manner. It is progressive or reactionary, depending on the driving forces, social circumstances and the historical moment.

Notes:

  1. The demolition of the statue of a Confederate soldier on August 14 in Durham, North Carolina, was led by Thakiya Thompson from the Communist Workers World Party.
  2. The sculpture (established in 1984) depicting a White, African American, and Latino American, who fought against Vietnam.

For a genuine anti-imperialism, against Trump fetishism

By | 10/25/2017
  1. As the United States is the sole superpower in the world today, their foreign policy and not their internal policy is essentially more important for the proletariat and the people of the world. To put the question in the contrary way means locally closed-mindedness and egoism.

    Although it is incorrect to completely deny the reactionary innovations in US domestic policy under Trump such as attempts to tighten antisocial austerity measures and favoring right-wing fans of the patriarchal slave-owning past. These politics hit the poorest, most proletarianized and vulnerable groups of the population first. Resistance to such a course is justified. We do not reject this resistance but we uphold a comprehensive and balanced assessment, a correct detection of the main enemies, the priorities in the struggle and the methods of attack.

  2. U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan by year

    U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan by year

    Trump has indeed already made aggressive and arrogant insults against the DPRK and Venezuela, as well as Iran, and has retained and even slightly expanded the US military contingent in Afghanistan.
  3. US Interventions in the World since WW Ⅱ

    US Interventions in the World since WW Ⅱ

    On the other hand, Trump has not yet actually managed to catch up with his predecessors in the foreign policy agenda of intervention and aggression. Trump was not the one who introduced the unfriendly US policy against the DPRK and Venezuela, the US contingent in Afghanistan was an order of magnitude greater during the first term of Obama 1, the intervention in Syria was also launched under Obama with Hillary Clinton’s active participation. So far, in spite of his abusive insults, Trump has actually shown himself to be the most peace-loving president of the United States since Jimmy Carter! For more than thirty years, all Trump’s predecessors, both Republicans and Democrats, have arranged for invasions and wars:

    • Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) — intervention in Afghanistan (1981), intervention in Lebanon and Grenada (1983), bombing Libya (1986), invasion to Panama (1989);
    • George Bush Sr (1989–1993) — the Gulf War (1991) and subsequent missile strikes against Iraq;
    • Bill Clinton (1993–2001) — invasion of Haiti (1994), war with Yugoslavia (1999);
    • George Bush Jr (2001–2009) — interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003);
    • Barack Obama (2009–2017) — intervention in Libya (2011), participation in the suppression of the Tuareg rebellion (2012–2013), intervention in Syria (since 2014).

    Trump’s rival in the presidential election, Hillary Clinton is notorious as a ‘hawk’, consistently seeking an escalation, in particular, an even greater and more dangerous escalation of the already deplorably tense Russian–US relations.

    Hillary Clinton laughs at the martyrdom of Muammar Gaddafi, an interview on October 20, 2011

    Of course, the seeming ‘love for peace’ of Trump is not because he has allegedly changed his imperialist nature and ‘became a Buddha’, but because, firstly, bloodthirstiness is generally and naturally inherent to the leaders of this greatest of predatory powers, and, secondly, he has only been president for a very short time yet. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that Trump will not unleash any war until the end of his term, in which case, he could not be compared with his mentioned predecessors.

  4. Therefore, one should not distort reality in any way:

    • neither turning a blind eye to the imperialist nature of Trump’s policy,
    • nor exaggerating it and thus distracting attention from the constancy and regularity of such US imperialist policy.
  5. Some of the capitalists in the USA are dissatisfied with Trump and are striving for an even more active imposition of their will and interests on other nations. It should be kept in mind that the movement personally focused on the ‘rogue president’ 2 Trump contributes to the success of this reactionary group and prepares the ground for the future election campaign of the so-called Democratic Party.

  6. How should Communists properly oppose Trump?

    • One should attack Trump in such a way that does not focus on his differences from his predecessors and his rival. The opposite way is to spread among the people the illusion of their greater ‘acceptability’ and to work in the interests of an interventionist bourgeois camp.

    • One should attack Trump as the same imperialist and capitalist as his predecessors are, following their common path.

    • One should attack Trump from an openly communist standpoint, as an enemy of the independence of Third World nations and the proletariat. In particular, first of all, it is necessary to speak out for the defense of the DPRK and Venezuela.

    • Moore on TrumpOne should not in no case allow any union with the slogans raised by the servants of the interventionists, even if they allegedly are ‘leftists’. In particular, one should oppose the xenophobic and Russophobic hysteria that contributes to the growth of international tension 3.

  7. Finally, a campaign directed personally against one of the representatives of the class promotes the spreading of hardcore idealistic way of thinking among the masses and political militants. 4

Notes:

  1. See U.S. troops and contractors in Afghanistan by year.
  2. This phrase has indeed already been used in the ICOR resolution ‘Trump’s Pull-out from the Paris Climate Accord’.
  3. See stigmatizing Trump as a ‘Russian traitor’ by Michael Moore.
  4. An example of such an absurd personal obsession can be seen at the website of the ICOR where Obama is mentioned only 17 times after his eight years of rule but Trump is already mentioned 47 times after only eight months! It grotesquely seems as if Trump is thirty times the worst enemy of the peoples and the proletariat than Obama!

On self-determination of Catalonia

By | 10/17/2017
  1. We reaffirm our commitment to the principle of national self-determination in connection with the referendums on independence that took place on September 25 in Iraqi Kurdistan and October 1 in Catalonia.

  2. The Catalans have separate (from the Castilian Spaniards) ethnic identity, their own language, their own experience with  statehood 1 and subsequent history of a national movement against the policy of assimilation and oppression pursued by Spain 2. Catalonia has no less grounds for independence than, for example, Portugal or neighboring Andorra. 3.

  3. The current Spanish regime is the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy imposed by the fascist dictatorship of Franco in 1978, the successor to the old monarchy and fascism. It puts forward the  slogan of ‘indissoluble unity’ of Spain contrary to the real multinationality of the country, and it has defended and continues to defend this principle by violence.

  4. We are outraged by the (expected) duplicity of the authorities of the EU and Russia who have rejected Catalonian 4 (as well as Iraqi Kurdish 5) self-determination, though the former favored the disintegration of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the latter protected and defended the self-determination of Crimea and, partly, the Donbass region.

  5. We welcome the establishment in Catalonia of a republican form of government instead of an archaic monarchy. We also hope for

    • the withdrawal of Catalonia from NATO and its subsequent peaceful policy;
    • solidarity of the revolutionary Catalans with other national liberation movements including the Spanish and French Basques, divided Kurds, the Russians of the South-East of Ukraine, the Tamils ​​of Lanka, the Nepalese Madhesi and other peoples who struggle for the respect of their national identity and self-determination in the form of a federation or their own national state.

    We are aware that the national liberation of the Catalan people is not just burdened by bourgeois ideologies but it is headed by the same capitalists who were part of the monarchical regime. So it is quite impossible to firmly rely on these or other further progressive steps. However, following Stalin’s instructions 6 we do not perceive such steps as a condition for supporting the national movement or the right of nations to self-determination. The transform from the dependent periphery to a national state contributes to the political development of this country (as well as its former metropoly) and to the political delimitation of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as far as possible in the conditions of a rich imperialist center with the appropriate prevalence of the labor aristocracy.

Notes:

  1. The Barcelona county existed as an independent state in the ⅩⅠ—ⅩⅡ centuries, then until the ⅩⅧ century in the union with Aragon.
  2. Even the national anthem of Catalonia, The Reapers, which was approved in 1993, is dedicated to the revolt against Spanish absolutism in 1640.
  3. The majority of the population of Andorra are Catalans.
  4. Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday’s vote in Catalonia was not legal. For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.’ (Statement on the events in Catalonia). ‘Moscow considers the referendum in Catalonia as an internal matter for Spain, said Russian president’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov.’ (Кремль прокомментировал каталонский референдум).
  5. The EU has consistently confirmed its full support for the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. It therefore appealed for the referendum not to be held in this unilateral manner, and especially not in disputed areas. It regrets that these calls have not been heeded.’ (Statement of the Spokesperson on the referendum held by the Kurdistan Regional Government). ‘Our support for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of  friendly Iraq and other states of the Middle East remains unchanged. Moscow respects the national aspirations of the Kurds’ (Комментарий Департамента информации и печати МИД России в связи с референдумом в Иракском Курдистане).
  6. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of  national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism’ (J. V. Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism, Ⅵ. The National Question).

The Current Political Situation of Nepal in Context of the Constitution Amendment Bill (CAB)

By | 08/02/2017

The Russian Maoist Party doesn’t share the assessments expressed in the article but publishes it for the discussion.

Geographically Nepal is divided into 3 regions from East to West. High Mountains or Himalayas are in the North, and are Hills in the middle and plain areas of the South, also called Tarai or Madhesh. The North borders with China and in the East, South and West borders with India. Nepal is a land-locked country. Between Nepal and China lie high Himalayas, the East, South and West have open border with India.

At present, the issue of Tarai has become very serious, critical and complicated political problem of Nepal, and it is known worldwide too. Tarai is mostly inhabited by Madhesi and Tharu people, and they are mostly laboring peasants. They have been exploited or oppressed by feudal or land lords of both Hill and Madhesh origin. In the past, the Communist Party of Nepal had organized big peasant struggles against the feudal exploitation in Tarai. But at present the peasant movement has almost slackened in Terai because of growing regional trends.

To understand the problem of Tarai properly, we should make a demarcation between two terms-Madhesi people and Madheshbadis. To look at first both terms seem to indicate same meaning. But in realities, both terms have fundamental differences. Madhesis are exploited people of Tarai. But Madhesbadi are handful persons working to fulfill the interests of Indian expansionism (IE) in Nepal. In latter decades, they have formed various political organizations with the backing of IE.

The leadership of them (Madhesbadis) is mainly composed of naturalized citizens immigrated from India and big Madhesh landlord of Tarai. Many of them have been ministers in various cabinets of Nepal, and some of them are members of the parliament even today. Politically, they represent reactionary trend. In the parliament, they always have been firmly opposing any kind of land reforms. They always try their best to keep intact the existing feudal system. Regionalism has become a weapon in their bands to safeguard their pro-Indian and feudal interests and to keep exploited people of Tarai into their fold. They are in favor of curtailing the rights given to local bodies.

The political parties of Nepal, including communist party, had never demanded federal system to introduce in Nepal. The Madheshbadis were the first to demand the federalism in Nepal. Under the pressure of IE, the political parties of Nepal under the leadership of Girija Parasad Koirala had agreed to amend the Interim constitution and add the provision of federalism on that. However, our party has been opposing federalism from the very beginning.

India has been adopting the policy of penetrating many present Madhesbadis leaders for long in various prominent political parties of Nepal, mainly Nepali Congress, and the UML too, some extent. But later, IE adopted the policy of forming separate political organizations of Madheshbadis. It was in such a background that various Madheshbadis political organizations emerged in Terai and they are now working systematically in planned way to fulfill the expansionist interests of India in Nepal.

In comparison to other parts of Nepal, feudalism is most rampant in Tarai. So, the main problem of Tarai is to abolish feudalism. But the Madhesbadis have quite contradictory position on this problem. They are interested to keep their exploitation and oppression upon the people by all means. Federalism and regionalism have been the main weapons to serve their these interests of those. In the parliament, they have been struggling hard to keep the subject of land systems under Pradesh (Provinces) government so that they might always be able to obstruct the issue of land reform. Because of such a reactionary views on their part, they are unable to view the problem of Tarai people in a correct way.

Since British left India, the ruling class of India has been adopting an expansionist policy towards Nepal. They are trying not only to dominate politically or economically, but also to merge Nepal into India. Sardar Ballavbhai Patel, the then Deputy Prime-minister and Home Minister of India, had putforth the view that using armed forces like in the Hyderabad of Nizam, Nepal should be merged into Indian Union. The ruling classes of India from the very beginning have been following the line of Sardar Patel in one or another way. However, in latter days various governments of India more or less adopted indirectly a liberal policy instead of directly applying Hyderabad method used by Patel. More important factors that contributed to Nepal’s independence several are the continuous movement of Nepali people against Indian interference to defend the nationality, sovereignty and integrity of Nepal. International public opinion and the presence of China in the North of Nepal are other important factors.

There was somewhat illiterate difference between the line of Patel and Nehru. The Former, as referred before, was in favor of direct action to amalgamate Nepal into India. But Nehru preferred comparatively liberal policy of domination in Nepal. Current Prime minister of India Narendra Modi supports the line of Patel more than that of Nehru.

The Modi government is trying its best to fulfill the dream of Sardar Patel to annex Tarai from Nepal as a first step to achieve that goal. For the time being, their main emphasis is on the amendment of the constitution adopted by the constitution assembly (CA) of Nepal. At first, the proposal to amend the constitution was put forth by the Indian government, although it always have been denying that. A prominent Indian magazine India Today, had published full text of the proposal of the amendment put forth by Indian government. The Madhesbadis has been agitating to press to the parliament or government to accept amendments. It is under the pressure of Madhesbadis directly and of Indian government indirectly that the Prachanda government has brought the Constitution Amendment Bill (CAB). The main concept of the Bill is to make a separate Pradesh of the 5 districts of Tarai belonging to no. 5 by separating district from Hilly area. What makes the problem very serious is the Bill if adopted by the parliament; it will pave the way to intensify the process to make Madhes Pradeshes in whole Tarai separating from the hill district completely.

According to constitution, Nepal is divided into 7 Pradeshes. Out of these Pradeshes No. 2 is fully composed of districts belonging to Tarai. All other Pradeshes are made by combining districts of both Tarai and Hill areas. India has been emphasizing to make separate two Pradeshes of all districts of Tarai separating them from the hill. This is a part of their strategy to separate the whole Tarai first to make free, and later to merge that into India. Such a success on the part of IE will make its line clear to bring the whole Nepal into Indian domination and fulfill the dream of Sardar Patel.

In the present condition, government is composed of Moist-Center and Nepali congress led by Parchanda under the “grand design” of India to make it work to fulfill its expansionist objectives in Nepal. It is due to such a liability that Prachand government has put forth the CAB.

Modi government of India first, imposed blockade on Nepal to compel to accept the amendments in the constitution. The objective of such amendments was to pave the way ultimately to make Nepal 2nd Sikkim. Secondly, the after the Indian efforts failed, India tried to internationalize the problem of Madhes and constitution of Nepal. India is trying to influence by giving impression to international community, mainly focusing on two major points: 1) the constitution of Nepal is incomplete and 2), the rights of Madhes people are not well defended in the constitution. Our party, NCP (Mashal) also has many fundamental differences with the provisions of the constitution and we have been struggling to amend theme. We are opposing the federalism from the very beginning with an emphasis to amend the provision of federalism. Similarly, we differ with many other provisions regarding citizenship rights, land system. Strategically, our fundamental objective is to replace the existing political system, including the constitution, by new democratic system. But tactically we struggle to defend the constitution, republic, secularism and many other positive provisions. But the way India wants to make amendments in the constitution conforms neither to the national interest of Nepal, nor of the interest of Madhesi or Tharu people of Terai.

However, the Madheshbadis are not satisfied with the Bill as it proposed to make only five districts of five number Pardesh. It is far beyond than their demand to make two Madhesh Pradeshes in the whole Terai from East to West.

After the CAB is registered in the secretariat, a mass movement is going on in the whole country in general and in five number Pardesh in particular. It is worth mentioning that almost all members of the parliament of the ruling parties and the grass root workers of them have too raised voice against the Bill and have joined the movement. Because of such a strong opposition in the parliament and outside the government has not been able to table the bill in the parliament till now.

The CAB requires two-third majority of the total member of parliament to endorse it. But not only the combined opposition of the parliament, but also many of the members of the parliament belonging to the ruling parties, Maoist-Centre, Nepali Congress also have already declared to vote against the Bill if that is put in the parliament for voting. So it is obvious that there is very little chance of it being adopted by the parliament.

The Indian government has publicly supported the Bill, although it is far behind than the requirements of India. Yet they seem to think that it is better to secure whatever is achieved and continue their efforts to gain what is still left out. remaining. The separation of the No. 5 Pardesh and the formation of a Madhesh Pardesh out of that also will be a big gain for them. On the other, that is a tactical move of them. The Indian Embassy held a meeting of all prominent leaders of the Madhesbadi leaders and instructed them to follow their tactical move. Such an instruction on the part of Indian Embassy to Madhesbadis also shows that the so called movement of Madheshbadis is not an independent one, but a part of the Indian expansionist strategy.

India had faced many failures in the recent months. They failed to compel the political parties or government of Nepal to write the constitution as they had wished and their effort to make them postpone the declaration of the constitution also proved to be a futile exercise. They also failed to make Sushil Koirala, the President of Nepali Congress, Prime Minister of Nepal. Their blockade also failed to achieve their goal, i.e. to compel the government of Nepal to assert the amendments put forth by them. However, they partially succeeded to topple the Oli government and replacing it by a coalition government of Maoist Center and Nepali Congress led by Parchanda. Such a success on their part was due to the Maoist Center, a major partner in the Oli government, which had withdrawn its support to that (Oli government). As a price of that, Prachanda is made Prime Minister with the support of Nepali Congress and IE.

Pressure upon the Prachand government is increasing more and more to withdraw the Bill. But he again and again has declared that he would not withdraw the Bill at any cost. He is afraid of that if he withdraws the Bill he will lose the support of Madhesbadi and Indian government and that might cause him to lose the post of Prime Minister immediately. According to the understanding reached between Maoist and Congress, after 5 months, he will handover the power to Sher Bahadur Deuba, the president of the Nepali Congress. Thus he (Prachanda) is only a temporary prime minister. But in spite of that, he is trying his best to serve the interest of the IE by pushing forth the Bill. In such a case even if the Bill could not be adopted he will have ground for face saving that he had done his best to make the Bill adopted in the parliament.

At present, the country wide movement in the country is centered against the CAB. But even if the effort of government Bill to carry out is through the Parliament fails, the danger put by the IE will not be solved. The IE and Madheshbadis will take another step to make the coalition government of unity center and Nepali congress to serve their expansionist objectives. So the danger posed by IE to nationality, sovereignty and integrity has a long term character. The situation created by the CAB today has a long background and it is certain that in future it will go through a various phases. The pro Indian character of Nepali political parties will make the problem of Nepal many times more critical and complicated. But it has bright aspect too. Nepali people have successfully faced the danger put by Patel and we are convinced that Nepali people will succeed to defend the nationality, sovereignty, and integrity of Nepal in coming days too.

On the Situation in Russia by 2009

By | 07/10/2017

Recent years were marked by increasing expansion of the Russian capital. For six years the sum of the Russian investments placed abroad has grown in more than 12 times; and only in 2008 crisis has slowed down this process somewhat.

In 2007 Gazprom Germania bought 25 % in the fourth license block in Northern Sea, and Gazprom received several projects in Libya. Together with other Russian companies Gazproms is consolidating in Venezuela, Nigeria and Northern America. Supporting Serbia in a question on keeping Kosova had given a prize to Gazprom which had got power holding Naftna Industrija Srbije. In 2008 Gazprom decided to take part in privatization of Kyrgyzgaz and Kyrgyzneftegaz, and then signed the agreement with the government of Tadjikistan on geological prospecting of four large oil-and-gas deposits. Gazprom declares its intention to become the company number one over the world.

In 2007 Lukoil got 376 filling stations in Europe. The same firm achieved the right to develop oil field West Qurnah-2 in Iraq. Lukoil became the first foreign firm which received access to gas deposits in Uzbekistan.

Evraz Group got companies Claymont Steel and Oregon Steel Mills and became the world’s largest manufacturer of rails; in Ukraine its basic shareholder bought the metallurgical enterprises of group Privat and half of the largest Southern ore-dressing and processing enterprise. Novolipetsk Steel got John Maneely Company, the largest independent manufacturer of pipes in Northern America. Severstal has four factories in the USA that makes it the fourth manufacturer of steel there. State monopoly Russian Railways took as a concession the network of Armenian Railways. Vympelcom got the cellular operator Sotelco in Cambodia and created joint telecommunication holding in Vietnam. The cellular operator MTS bought K-Telecom (two third of Vietnam’s market).

In Mongolia Russians own half of railways and large shares in gold and copper mines. In Kyrghyzstan in exchange for debt forgiveness Russia received a control stock of factory Dastan, one of the largest manufacturers of the sea weapon in the ex-USSR.

Imperialistic expansion caused deterioration of relations with neighbours; their ‘obduracy’ raises chauvinistic disapproval. So, ‘for last half-year Russians had essentially cooled off’ even loyal A. Lukashenko (as it was marked by sociologists in the beginning of 2007). So he broke down and declared that Russia aspires not only to get some enterprises for a song but also to privatize the entire republic. At the end of 2008 Russia tried to get 12 dairy factories for the credit, and after refusal the Federal service on supervision in protection of the consumers’ rights forbid import of dairy production of Belarus. Russian EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company tried to buy for a song the Gomel chemical plant having over 90 % in the Belarusian market of phosphoric fertilizers. At last Lukashenko declared aggrievedly: ‘Our officials should stop creeping on theirs knees in the Russian offices.’ Belarus has never recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In March of 2010 it even complained against Russia to Economic court of the CIS in connection with introduction export duties on products of oil refining and petrochemical raw material by later (this measure ‘means threat of a full work stoppage on the largest enterprises of a petrochemical complex in Belarus…

For economic and military interests of Russia Ukraine has special value that places its sovereignty under a threat. So when the deputy chief of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine called a payment by Russia for using objects of the Black Sea Fleet ‘absolutely inadequate amount’, the counsellor of embassy of the Russian Federation in Kiev V. Lysenko declared that attempt of its revision could become the basis for raising by Russia demand for all Crimea. Meanwhile the Supreme economic court of Ukraine confirmed that the Russian Black Sea Fleet illegally uses navigating-hydrographic objects in Crimea; however Russia refuses to implement such judgements. Crimean resorts belong to Russian proprietors too, in particular, to the Moscow government. By the way in 2009 the prime minister of the Russian Federation V. Putin declared its readiness to take part in privatization of gas-transport system of Ukraine.

In 2007 Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Network bought state owned Transdniestrian radiotelevision centre though the vice-speaker of Moldova’s parliament I. Roşca declared that his country didn’t recognize any privatization bargain in Transdniestria.

As Izvestia frankly wrote, Russians ‘possess half of unrecognized republic’ of Abkhazia. Such a thing had became possible due to the secession carried out by Russia: ‘Apartments and houses being up for sale now belonged to Georgians formerly. During the war they became refugees.

In 2007 Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods bought the third dairy products manufacturer in Georgia – Georgian Products Ltd., intending to use this factory as jumping-off place for the markets of Armenia and Azerbaijan. However the countries have extremely strained political relations. At summit of the CIS countries in October, 2007, the president of Georgia Michael Saakashvili declared that concerning Georgia in the CIS ‘any favourable rule doesn’t work’ and Russia subjected his country to economic and transport blockade.

As a result of the war in August, 2008, Russia annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including the areas historically populated by Georgians. These actions were justified with widely propagated but false messages on murdering two thousand Ossets in Tskhinval. In Kodori Gorge and the Georgian enclaves in South Ossetia massive ethnic cleanings against the Georgians were carried out.

From the end of 2009 the new obviously far-fetched anti-Georgian campaign was launched in connection with the demolition of the Memorial of Glory in Kutaisi. Though accusations against Estonia in connection with the transferring of the Bronze Soldier in 2007 were more proved however then campaign of protests in Russia had great-power chauvinistic character too.

The famous TV reporter, United Russia’s party member M. Leontjev openly declared on December 15, 2008: ‘Why we not returning Baltic as well? Why not? The state independence of Baltic republics appeared insolvent. The great majority of ethnically local electorate is Nazis. … They should be shot. … So they will end up by our tanks’ deployment in Riga.

Militaristic moods dominate over the society. This decade ‘both in speeches of the overwhelming majority of politicians and almost in all mass-media demands of military expenditure’s increase became distinctly prevail.’ According to sociological interrogations, the overwhelming majority of the population feels pride, respect and hope to army; almost three quarters consider that military expenditure should be increased.

To facilitate military interventions, the upper chamber of parliament in December, 2009, gave the right ‘to decide on operative armed forces’ use abroad personally’ to the president. Russia remains, alongside with the USA, one of the largest sellers of armament, keeping a quarter of the world market.

For the summer of 2005 on the Russian Air Forces’ base in Kyrghyzstan were stationed about 500 soldiers and officers and two dozens of airplanes. Then the contingent was increased in 2.5 times. In August, 2007, the Russian ambassador in Kyrghyzstan V. Vlasov declared new increase of personal and technical stuff of this base. In July, 2009, Russia came to agreement with Kyrghyzstan leaders about deployment one more military base there (in spite of the fact that Uzbekistan ‘categorically’ opposes creations of new foreign bases in the territory of neighbouring countries).

In September, 2007, the vice-speaker of the State Duma A. Tchilingarov declared, that Russia should lay claim to Lomonosov and Mendeleev Ridges containing a quarter of world reserves of hydrocarbons. Analytics marked that ‘the struggle for the Arctic shelf reminded last colonial redivision of the world.’ The questioned belonging of Kuriles, transfer of islands on the river Amur to China and the Chinese immigration to Russia don’t become the important questions of interstate politics but are constantly present at mass consciousness generating nationalist flashes.

The international organizations note curtailment of democracy in Russia. Even the president of Belarus A. Lukashenko expressed his uneasiness that there the cult of personality of his colleague V. Putin was formed in Russia. In 2007 the press-secretary of ODIHR U. Gunnarsdottir declared that OSCE cannot guarantee qualitative performance of standard procedure on supervision over elections in conditions of ‘unprecedented’ restrictions on presence of the international observers. The threshold was raised from 5 % to 7 %, the turnout minimum and a ballot choice ‘against all’ were abolished, independent Russian observers were forbidden. Observers from OSCE and the PACE estimated these elections as not free, unfair and accompanied with numerous infringements. According opinion surveys, by 2007 already more than half of Russians had come to a conclusion, that there is only one strong party – Unites Russia, the others do not play an appreciable role. By the way, by 2008 UR at last had directly formulated that it asserted the conservative ideology.

In 2008 Amnesty International ascertained that for last years all basic civil rights and freedoms (first of all, the right on freedom of speech, and also the right of associations and meetings) were considerably restricted in Russia. LGBT-militants note: ‘United Russia has created the extremely homophobic climate in our country.

Minister of Internal Affairs R. Nurgaliev noted ‘rude and even boorish treatment’ of citizens by police, and the chief of HR department recognized growth of drug crimes in the police, traffic accidents involving police, and a large corruption.

Former judge of the Supreme Court V. Radchenko notes that over 15 million were condemned for criminal offences for 1992–2007 in Russia. Annual average of condemned grew twice against 1987–1991. This growth exceeds growth of criminality that speaks about repressive character of the present criminal legislation. The deputy general public prosecutor E. Zabarchuk recognized that prisoners’ rights on health protection and proper sanitary conditions weren’t observed.

Nationalist and chauvinistic moods are widely-spread. During public opinion poll (2006) 55 % supported the slogan ‘Russia for Russians’ in a varying degree. Meanwhile many small-numbered peoples proved to be critically endangered as a result of neo-liberalism in 1990ies. Tatar militants are anxious about the position of their nation too. On October 11, 2009, they come to Memorial Day of Kazan’s defenders with the slogan: ‘Our Goal is Independence’. The event’s resolution noted that ‘there is a continuous russification and christianization the Russian Federation, all is adjusted under the Putin’s [power] vertical’, and emphasized: ‘The concept of national-liberation movement is renamed into terrorism.

Well-known experts G. Kozhevnikova and A. Verhovsky noted: ‘…Growth of neo-Nazi and racist violence proceeds. Activity and mass character of the public events by right radicals increase… It becomes more and more obvious that not only right radicals but also quite respectable parties are ready to use (and already use) ethnonationalism as an electoral resource. Xenophobic moods of Russians are used for the justification inadequately aggressive policy of Russia to the nearest neighbours… …The State even more often addresses to illegitimate use of the antiextremist legislation against political opposition…’; ‘Attacks against representatives of the left movements or youth subcultures alternative to skinheads’ have become more frequent.

The Russian capital actively exploits migrant workers whose contribution to economy exceeded 3,8 % of GNP in 2007. In 2008 Russia took the second place in the world (after the USA) on number of immigrants. Huge shares of workers of Tadjikistan, Kyrghyzstan and Moldova work in Russia.

It is supposed that besides 1.65 million registered foreigners still about 2 million worked at Russia illegally. The Federal migratory service involves youth movement Mestnye (The Natives) to ‘hunting’ on ‘illegal’ workers. The neo-fascist MAII cooperates with it too.

The average working day of migrant builders exceeds 12 hours. Sometimes migrant workers are keeping as slaves. Brutal conditions of workers’ settlement cause their deaths: seven workers from Tadjikistan were lost in Zhulebino in the underground garage (their dwelling) which burned out in January, 2009.

Migrant workers are organized for protection of their rights: in Ekaterinburg over 300 Tadjik builders called a strike and complained to public prosecutor’s office after they did not receive any wages more than four months.

The situation in Ciscaucasia remains tense. In August, 2007, the military group of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Ingushetia was increased up to almost 2.5 thousand cadres and supported by dozens of armoured units. Ingushetian MIA’s chiefs were replaced with the officials from Moscow and Saint Petersburg. A lawlessness of repressive bodies provokes terrorism. D. Umarov (who accepted responsibility for explosions in the Moscow underground on March 29, 2010.) declared that it was a revenge for special action of federal forces in villages Arshty and Datyh which caused four deaths of non-combatants.

Clericals have a strong support by authorities in a strengthening their influence on broad masses. Recently the Ministry of culture implementing orders of the country’s leaders introduced a move for an official celebrating of Day of the Baptism of Rus. The Chechen president R. Kadyrov threatened to close all local broadcasting companies which did not explain bases of the Islam.

Soon after the Russia–Georgia War the deputy head of the department of external church relations of The Moscow Patriarchate protoiereus V. Chaplin called the Russian authorities ‘to be strong, including the military respects, to have will and ability to stop any encroachment on… our interests in the world and our ability to influence processes all over the world.

However ‘only third of Russians are ready to base the public life on religious… values…’ The deputy director of the State policy department of the Ministry of Education and Science T. Petrova noted on christianisation in schools that ‘as you go further from Moscow, this activity is decreasing.

The level of health of the population in Russia is much worse, than usually in the countries with comparable economic conditions. Distribution of a drug addiction and the bad culture of contraception (lasting since revisionist epoch) cause significant number of AIDS cases. Alcoholic poisoning annually kills more than 30 thousand Russians. For last ten years consumption of wines has increased twice, and beer – three times! The nutrition structure ‘is characterized by reduction… of adequate proteins, vitamins and mineral substances; non-balancing of a diet…’ President D. Medvedev noted that third dying in Russia are able-bodied population including ‘190 thousand deaths from influence of harmful and dangerous manufactures’.

To reduce labour force costs capitalists indirectly exploit a work outside working week and of unemployed relatives of workers: dachas (suburban plots) which almost of half of Russians have serve as additional help for livelihood more and more. Other way is a lowering pensionable age. President assistant A. Dvorkovich cynically told about this: ‘It seems to me that time has come, and there is no need to deceive itself that people aren’t ready. They are ready.

The belief in efficiency of strikes has considerably decreased for last twenty years: the fifth part of Russians believes that strikes can gain nothing. Up to half of Russians note an opportunity of prosecutions for participation in strikes during public opinion poll.

Three significant problems prevent us from recognising the left movement in Russia as communist.

First, it is under oppression of social-chauvinism. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation demanded military aggression of the government, up to an incursion into Tbilisi. Alas, more left groups actually supported the anti-Georgian propagation in many respects.

Second, the left are keen on ‘a political pops’: they adjoin to petty-bourgeois mass movements, not putting forward their own program and dragging behind (nationalist or liberal) anticommunists. It is appreciable, for example, in connection with introduction of the USE, the unified examination procedure between secondary and higher education. Left participants of the anti-USE movement refuse to put forward slogans of a cancellation of examinations or general higher education as ‘unrealistic’!

Thirdly, since the reshuffle in 2008 (V. Putin become the prime minister and his ‘successor’ D. Medvedev was elected as new president) there is occurred their contraposition frequently: some support ‘democrat’ Medvedev against ‘autocrat’ Putin and some support ‘patriot’ Putin against ‘comprador’ Medvedev. People, however, is more sober than such odd theorists: four fifth are convinced that Medvedev ‘mainly’ or ‘exactly proceeds Putin’s politics’.

The left movement remains shattered, however it is hard to welcome integration process around of the Tyulkin’s RCWP–RPC. It goes on a unscrupulous basis, without exposure of mistakes and opportunistic lines of this party and its allies. Alliance ROT-front is essentially created for the sake of obtaining the state registration and participation in elections, but propagandists from the RCWP–RPC pass it off as something the greater and suppress communist criticism against the antimarxist elements in it.

On the ICOR-Resolution on US Presidential Election

By | 12/25/2016

We regret that the ICC of the ICOR ignored our political observations on the draft ICOR-Resolution on US presidential election and consider it necessary to openly express our views in this text and the results of the election.

  1. We share and support the title idea of the resolution: “US presidential election between pest and cholera”.

  2. However, the resolution by itself runs counter to that title. It’s very one-sided and all along suggests that Clinton is allegedly less reactionary or even the preferred candidate. But this is not the case. To represent Trump as more reactionary than Obama or Clinton is to completely miss the fact that it is just Clinton who openly claims to overthrow the governments of other countries and acts as a warmonger in international relations.

    It is a well known and generally recognized fact that Trump meant when he was speaking on December 1 in Cincinnati and promising to “stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments” 1. Clinton herself talked about interventions in Libya and Syria, for example, in an interview with “Atlantic” in August, 2014 2. Jill Stein who was the Green Party’s candidate in this election correctly pointed out that “Donald Trump is a total wildcard, but Hillary has the proven record of the most pro-conflict military policy possible”, and warned that if Clinton would win then it would need to be to “get ready for war with Russia” 3 It is a fact that can’t be ignored! 4

  3. The ICOR resolution is almost entirely (except of course the final provisions) acceptable for Clinton’s supporters and shamefully flirts with them! We believe that the Marxist-Leninists should fully and expressly exclude any illusions about Clinton while condemning Trump.

    This is especially important in our country. Because Clinton is a fierce advocate of escalating tensions between the US and Russia, a pro-Clinton position is an anti-Russian one at the same time. Therefore the resolution which doesn’t reject Clinton’s aggressive policy sufficiently clearly will only stir up sympathy for the reactionary Trump among Russian people.

  4. Although Clinton indeed ostentatiously defends some of the democratic gains in the US it should not be given too much importance, because there is a contradiction within the imperialist empire center, of a more or less uniform distribution of the imperialist super-profits, and of a more or less liberal governance of parasitic society. 5

Notes:

  1. On December 1, 2016, Trump spoke in Cincinnati (Ohio): “At the same time, we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. Remember, $6 trillion, $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country. It’s time. It’s time. We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism. OK? We have to say the term. Have to say the term”. (Hereinafter comments are by Maoism.Ru editor being not a part of the statement approved by the RMP.)
  2. Clinton said in the interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on August 10, 2014: “…We helped overthrow Qaddafi” and “Well, I did believe, which is why I advocated this, that if we were to carefully vet, train, and equip early on a core group of the developing Free Syrian Army, we would, number one, have some better insight into what was going on on the ground”.
  3. Stein said in an interview with Fox Business on November 3, 2016: “And she [Clinton] has said that she will lead the charge with a no-fly zone in Syria, and that basically amounts to a declaration of war against Russia, who is there under international law, having been invited by the sitting government. Like it or not, Russia has the sanction of international law to be there. For us to go in and declare a no-fly zone means get ready for war with Russia”. In the interview with the journalist Marc Lamont Hill, November 6, 2016, Stein, branded Clinton as a “warmonger”, and Trump as a “fascist” said: “Yes, Donald Trump is a total wildcard, but Hillary has the proven record of the most pro-conflict military policy possible”. See Jill Stein Agrees with Trump: Hillary Clinton Presidency Means Nuclear War, a ‘Mushroom Cloud Waiting to Happen’ and This is a mushroom cloud waiting to happen: Jill Stein blasts ‘warmonger’ Hillary saying a vote for Clinton could lead to nuclear war with Russia.
  4. See also what the Revolutionary Organization of Labor, the ICOR party in the United States, writes on this election (RAY O’ LIGHT NEWSLETTER November-December 2016 Number 99): “In that light, a Clinton presidency would have been more dangerous for the international working class and the oppressed peoples of the world. One example: The anti-Russia hysteria fomented by the Clinton/Democratic Party campaign in concert with the monopoly capitalist-controlled mass media turned Clinton’s Wikileaks problem into a Trump problem of allegedly being ‘soft’ on Russia and promoting Russian interference in the U.S. election. A President Clinton could have led in short order to a major war between Russia and the USA, as Clinton’s bloody record as Secretary of State in Libya, Syria, Honduras et al. demonstrates. Certainly the Trump election has made this specific horrific prospect less likely at least in the near future”. And then: “While Clinton was more immediately dangerous regarding the U.S. Empire’s unceasing war abroad against the rest of the international working class and the oppressed peoples of the world, Trump represents a more immediate danger to the workers and oppressed nationalities within the U.S. multinational state. The Trump campaign with its outrageously chauvinistic attacks on Muslims, Latino immigrants, Afro-Americans, its misogyny toward women as well as antipathy toward LGBT, disabled and other marginalized folks, the violence encouraged toward so many by Trump himself, all point toward an increasingly fascist culture and society to match the fascistic bipartisan Republicrat foreign policy that has included an unending war of terror over the last 15 years against the peoples of the world, including those of us in the belly of the beast itself.
  5. See, e.g.: First World Elections, First World Divisions by Jacob Brown.