Come and listen to comrade Khwezi Kadalie in February as part of the CPGB-ML’s ongoing work to bring about a really anti-imperialist understanding in the anti-war and solidarity movement in Britain today.
Khwezi was a fighter in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and is a life long communist and marxist-leninist revolutionary, his grandfather organised the first all-black trade union in South Africa (the Commercial and Industrial Workers Union of Africa) and attended the First Congress of the Communist International. His talk will touch on the important lessons he draws from his time in the movement and his feelings about the present fight against the re-colonisation of Africa.
The CPGB-ML will be taking Khwezi to the following destinations:
*BIRMINGHAM*: Tuesday 7 February 6pm – 9pm @ Carrs Lane Church Centre, city center (opposite Moor Street Station)
*LEEDS*: Thursday 9 February 6pm – 8pm @ Swarthmore Education Centre. 2-7 Woodhouse Square, Leeds, LS3 1AD
*LONDON*: Saturday 11 February, 6pm – late @ Saklatvala Hall, Dominion Road, Southall, London
Khwezi is a qualified type-setter and printer, he was arrested by the Apartheid secret police shortly after the 1976 Soweto uprising and tortured for 4 months in their prisons. After prison he worked for the ANC in the diplomatic service and the information department in Germany and Britain. After the un-banning of the ANC and other organisations he served the movement in different capacities and between 2000 and 2005 he worked in the Department of Trade and Industry in a senior position.
Since 2006, together with other comrades, he has built the Marxist Workers School in South Africa. Today he works as a Journalist for communist and working class newspapers and magazines around the world and is one of the leading forces behind EK FM, the Voice of the Voiceless in the township Tskane, watch a video of the CPGB-ML’s visit to EK FM here and donate to the radio using the link below:
Please think about helping the comrades by making a donation:
Why aren’t there any decent jobs? Why is it getting so expensive to go to college or university? Why is the future looking so bleak for young people? It’s natural to start asking these kinds of questions and to start getting angry with the usual answers.
Whatever part of the country you live in, the problems are the same. Unemployment and poverty appear to be the future for the poor, while the children of the rich get to live a life of luxury. Britain is the sixth wealthiest country in the world, so why is it that only a small section of the population has all the money, all the good jobs, all the advantages?
Class system
Our society is a capitalist society. A tiny number of people own all the wealth, while the rest of us have to work for them to make ends meet. In capitalist society, it’s okay for the rich to rob the poor – to give us bad wages and poor housing, to take away our education and benefits – but it’s illegal for the poor to take from the rich.
There are two main classes in capitalist society: the working class and the ruling class. Working-class youth have to find a job in order to have a life. If we don’t get into education or work we don’t have a future. We don’t have houses we can rent to other people, we don’t own factories or shops, and we can’t invest our millions on the stock exchange in London like the wealthy sons and daughters of the rich.
It doesn’t matter what Alan Sugar says on The Apprentice, it’s not possible for us to become multimillionaires – we just don’t have those opportunities. Our ‘choice’ is more likely to be between a life of poverty and a life of crime. But there is an alternative to this system; there is a change we can make. The change we need to make is called socialism, and Red Youth wants to organise working-class youth to make it happen.
Unemployment
Not only is the capitalist system inherently unfair, it has a catastrophic flaw built into it: economic crisis. Capitalism runs on profits – essentially, nothing gets made or done unless someone can make a profit out of it. So here’s the problem: the only way to keep making profits is to sell more and more goods to the masses, but the best way to keep production costs down is to employ fewer people on lower wages.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that if people’s wages are reduced and the numbers employed go down, there will be fewer people who are actually able to buy the stuff that the capitalists are trying to sell. And since capitalism went global, we now have a global economy, so the crisis isn’t just here, it’s everywhere. Vast masses of people are being pushed out of work because they can’t afford to buy all the stuff they made and the capitalists are trying to sell back to them!
This leads to a vicious downward spiral, where people aren’t buying enough goods, so capitalists go out of business, leading to more job losses and fewer people able to buy – which leads to more job losses, and so on. In this crazy situation, food and essential goods of all kinds sit uselessly in warehouses or are destroyed, while the people who need them starve and go without.
There are well over 2 million unemployed in Britain today, even by official counting methods. Young people are the worst-hit section, accounting for nearly half of all those on Jobseekers Allowance. And that’s not counting the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young people who don’t sign on the dole for various reasons. It was no different in the past, this misery repeats itself whilst we remain stuck with capitalism.
Any day down at the job centre it’s the usual rubbish; it’s even getting hard to get a job in Asda or Tesco. The entire experience makes thousands of young people ill and depressed every year. How often have you applied for a job but not even been given an interview? It’s not because you’re not good enough, or your application was bad; it’s because there were probably hundreds of other applicants, and yours, at the bottom of the pile, got put in the bin.
Don’t get depressed about it, get angry!
Education
For millions of us, education offers the only way to a better future. But education doesn’t come cheap. Just as the government was scrapping the £30 a week EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) they decided to give the banks £850bn! The ruling class believes that propping up a dying system is far more important than giving hundreds of thousands of working-class youth the chance to continue their education.
Not content with denying us the right to further education at college, the ruling class has now decided to shut the doors to higher education too. New degree students in England and Wales will need to find £9,000 every year for fees – and that’s on top of living expenses! The result is that even if you manage to stay in college, and even if you manage to get good grades, the chances of affording a university education are extremely slim.
It’s clear that the ruling class is cutting off our access to work and education – we’re being trapped in a cycle of endless poverty, desperation and degradation. No wonder that in these circumstances so many young people are driven to join the British army.
War
It seems that the ruling class gets all the benefits from war, while workers get nothing but injury or death. Films, TV and games glorify war and make it seem exciting, but the reality is different.
When you join the army you don’t get to learn a skill or do any of the really exciting stuff like fly a helicopter – that’s too important for the likes of us. All those cushy jobs go to the rich kids like Prince William, who are automatically put in charge. They’re the ‘officers’ whilst we (the ‘squaddies’) are expected just to take orders and do all the fighting – and dying.
They make us fight our foreign working-class brothers and sisters so that they and their ruling circles can plunder and steal all the wealth and natural resources (like oil) of the countries we attack. But why should we do their dirty work for them? Why should we steal and plunder other people’s wealth? If the rich want to steal the oil, let the prime minister and the bankers send their children to get killed while we stay here and look after our own interests.
In fact, if you think about it, we have more in common with the working-class youth of foreign countries than we do with the rich youth in Britain. When our foreign brothers resist our ruling class they are teaching us by example. We need to unite with our class brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere in order to defeat our common enemy – the British ruling class – and build a happy, prosperous and cultured existence, free from endless poverty and war.
Divide and rule
It’s obvious that this system isn’t in the interests of the vast majority of people, so how has it survived for so long?
On top of having a huge state machinery of coercion – police, courts, prisons etc – to keep people in line, the capitalists also control the media. From school textbooks to BBC and Sky news to the Sun and the Guardian, their ideas are pushed onto us every day: a way of looking at the world that teaches us that this system is inevitable and logical, and that cuts and wars are necessary to defend ‘our way of life’, as opposed to protecting their profit margins.
One of the biggest lies we are told is that the problems we face – lack of jobs, cuts in public services, no access to education or housing and so on – are caused by immigrants putting a ‘strain’ on Britain’s resources. But long before there were large numbers of immigrants in Britain there was mass unemployment and capitalist crisis!
Groups like EDL and the BNP pretend to be addressing workers’ problems, but by reinforcing the lies about immigration being the root cause of those problems, what they actually do is help the capitalists stay in power and keep the working class divided and weak.
What is to be done?
The fact is that the ruling class stays in power by encouraging those it rules over to fight each other – instead of getting together to fight the capitalists! The one thing that would really threaten our rulers’ grip on power is if the workers of Britain united and got organised. The police and the army combined couldn’t do much in the face of the masses of people once we decided to stop obeying their orders and believing their lies!
An understanding of society (theory) and a way of uniting to change it (organisation) are the two things that we need to make a socialist revolution. Young people have everything to gain by getting involved in this process sooner rather than later. This world isn’t working for us and we deserve better!
Not only do we need to campaign against the bad conditions and lack of prospects for the youth in Britain today, but we need to work for a completely different type of society – one where people’s needs decide everything.
So many problems face this world: environmental catastrophe, poverty, disease, racism and war. They’ll never be solved while capitalism remains, but they could all be sorted if society was set up for the benefit of the majority rather than the private gain of a few billionaires.
Studying Marxism, organising the young people in your area and learning about how we fight for socialism is the only way we can defeat the ruling class.
Peter Marshall, Hedge fund manager and ‘philanthropist’, claims that “capitalism can save the planet” at the Oxford Union on November 6th 2008 – just after the collapse of Northern Rock, the Royal bank of Scotland, the US stock Exchange, Freddie May and Fannie Mac, and the housing market. Nothing if not sublimely confident that none of this will change his ‘beautiful life’
He quotes Harpal’s book, without much comprehension. But happily, Harpal was on hand to explain it to him… see the links in the video to Harpal’s debate contribution, and to his recent summary of his work “Trotskyism or Leninism?”
Marshall asserts, in the vein of “trickle down” – and seemingly unaware that 1/2 the world (3.5 billion) languishes in absolute penury on 1-2 dollars a day – “Capitalists create the wealth – and all its detractors are beneficiaries of the wealth we produce; they are like dogs biting the hand that feeds them!”
Capitalism, he goes on to assert, with no apparent hint of irony, will save the planet! “Capitalism has cured HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis and will solve Global Warming”(!)
The details are hazy, but the claims are certainly bold!
Whilst facebook is a wholly inadequate venue to conduct political debate, it does on occasion provide a fascinating insight into the ideological workings of comrades in the struggle (or rather comrades in the struggle for the defense of revisionism). The Red Youth Blog has had its attentions drawn to a new political debating page entitled PoliticsUK. Red Youth welcomes all attempts to open up debate amongst the British population, and we were glad to see the thoroughly non-sectarian approach undertaken by one of the organisers when they posted up our youtube video of comrade Harpal Brar’s Trotskyism or Leninism. Unfortunately this video attracted the attentions of the CPB Branch Organiser for Southend, Leigh and Canvey Island, comrade Peter, who came along to give his insightful analysis of both the video, the role of Stalin and the CPGB-ML! Comrades wishing to read his thoughts may visit the page directly here, or read the debate as it stands at 7.30pm this evening below. To enable readers to follow the ‘arguments’ of the CPB’s leading man in the south east, we’ve helpfully put his comments in bold. Enjoy!:
“Politics UK
Red Youth Blog: Trotskyism or Leninism? – Are they the same thing? What are the differences?
Trotskyism or Leninism?
redyouthuk.wordpress.com
Harpal Brar delivers a 45-minute presentation on the theory and practice of Trotsky and ‘Trotskyites’, followed by Q&A at the CPGB-ML’s Party Study School, November 2011. One of the my…
Like · · Share · 4 hours ago ·
Mark Caudery and Richard Frazer like this.
Chris Rawlinson Harpal Brar is a joke. This is a man who believes that North Korea is a successful workers’ state, that Kim Jong Il was a great leader, and that his son is a legitimate successor. Of course, Brar’s own son is a prominent member of his little organisation, so it’s hardly surprising that he has shown support for nepotism.
4 hours ago · Like · 4
Richard Frazer He still has a lot of influence in the ultra left wing
4 hours ago · Like
Mark Caudery It is interesting to compare different political schools of thought though, even if they are “ultra left”.
4 hours ago · Like
Sarah Whittaker These will not work in western society and probably not work well in any other society either. Does not matter the minor differences between them.
4 hours ago · Like
Chris Rawlinson Richard, I’m not sure he does. Far-left socialists in this country more often than not are Trotskyites, but even amongst the Stalinists, Brar’s group is small.
4 hours ago · Like
Chris Rawlinson Sarah, the differences are rather large, actually.
4 hours ago · Like · 2
Paulo Cannon don’t really see how you can criticise a man (or woman) for bringing their children into the socialist movement – even if you don’t like his particular brand of marxism. Most leftists fail miserably to bring wives, children and family into political work.
4 hours ago · Like
Chris Rawlinson That’s not really my criticism, is it?
4 hours ago · Like
Matt Beebee Trotsky considered himself a Leninist; Trotsky and ‘Trotskyists’ believe in proletarian internationalism and continual revolution rather than the ‘socialism in one country of Stalin’. Ideologically, Lenin and Trotsky were very much the same.
3 hours ago · Like · 4
Peter KalveBrar is a millionaire businessman in Indian textiles (=sweatshop work) and his son is an arrogant heart surgeon and heir to the political grouplet. They clain to be erstwhile Stalinists, yes – they think the dictator was the best thing since sliced bread. I have no doubt they applaud the gruesome murder of Trotsky, his son, and other family members. Of course, if they actually lived during Stalin’s era (like my grandfather did in Latvia) they probably wouldn’t be around now. My grandfather was sent to Siberia for 10 years for having given water to some Polish NKVD prisoners who passed through his village in the late 1940s. The Brars are an elitist scum – no self-respecting communist should have any time for them, or their grouplet. Real Marxists should avoid them like the plague.
3 hours ago · Like · 2
Jack Mcnally Screw Marx-Leninism, Stalinism is a failed experiment but Trotskyism is the only ideology(except perhaps left communism) which has genuine potential to advance the world and free it’s people.
3 hours ago · Like
Jack Mcnally Seriously this guy quotes Stalin, who was an amateur when it came to Marxian analysis. He has no credibility.
3 hours ago · Like
Paulo Cannon Thats a bit OTT Peter. You have no information at all or evidence of any sweatshop other than idle gossip you came across from CPB and NCP members – your quarrel with Ranjeet was when he refused to give you £200 so that you could buy Lenin’s Collected Works and write ‘theoretical’ essays for the CPGB-ML. If you have any factual evidence,indeed if you’d even ever had a conversation with Harpal or any member of the cpgb-ml in person you could at least have some justification for basing an opinion (even an incorrect one). To just slander and chuck about mud is a bit rich. The video makes it quite clear that there is a chasm between Leninism and Trotskyism, not one of character and personality but politics. Try to moderate your unjustifiable behaviour.
3 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve Why don’t you admit Stalin was the mass murderer that he was – oh I forgot, Stalinists never face up to anything – good job you weren’t around in Russia in the late 1930s…what a joke
3 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve Stalin’s policy of Collectivisation – how many deaths, Paulo? How many millions starved because of that prat?
3 hours ago · Like
Paulo Cannon No need to get carried away. Yes I uphold the work of the CPSU in the thirties, I think there was far more blood on the colonial flag of this country then ever there was on Stalin or the USSR. I think they did a great job smashing the Nazi’s and its a good job they were around in the 1930′s because we certainly wouldn’t be here now if Hitler had got his way. I’ve got a lot of time for Harpal,a s I have for anyone who talks rationally and in a calm and dignified manner. You could learn some lessons.
3 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve Bull – you and your little grouplet do not deserve such respect – even Goebels (not that different from a Stalinist in his ability to lie) was able to speak politely. But this is no time for politeness. This is the time to call an irrelevant sect an irrelevant sect/
3 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve So you support the CPSU in the 1930s. Bully for you. Do you support the murders Stalin ordered? Do you support the starvation created by that butcher? Do you? Don’t give me your weasel words about colonial blood, that your irrelevant sect uses to try and avoid answering the questions asked. You know nothing about the USSR under Stalin, you, King Brar and his Crown Prince. This is no longer the time for polite discourse, but the time for polemmic against a bunch of self-deluded, self-important fools, who know nothing about history, the real meaning of socialism and the dialectic, or about the real working class.
3 hours ago · Like · 1
Politics UK Please keep the personal insults out of here. Let’s debate this maturely.
3 hours ago · Like · 2
Peter Kalve We all know how violent Capitalism, imperialism and fascism were. I do not need lessons from quasi-Stalinist joke grouplets to tell me that. I know. But you know nothing about Stalin, or, if you do, you lie
3 hours ago · Like
Politics UK Please refer to the Politics UK posting rules: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=295872730445773
PoliticsUK Posting Rules
PoliticsUK Posting Rules Please read carefully before posting. R…
by: Politics UK
3 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve apologies – Stalinists make me very angry.
3 hours ago · Like · 4
Richard Frazer Gotta say I know little about the ideologies hence why we have the thread on here. However it seems a little far fetched to suggest Stalin was not responsibile for thousands upon thousands of innocent people. There are mountains of evidence of this
3 hours ago · Like
Richard Frazer So what are the key differences between Leninists, Stalinists and Marxists generally?
3 hours ago · Like
Richard Frazer Sorry Trotskyism as well
3 hours ago · Like
Paulo Cannon Truth is there is not ‘mountains of evidence’ for any of those claims. Pretty much everything we are told has an angle on it, thats because we live in a class society. The ruling class use the media, indeed all their institutions (which they control through private funding and the like) to deliver their world view into our school books, TV programmes and culture. We know that they lie when they tell us ‘we’re all in this together’. We know they lied about weapons of mass destruction Iraq and we know they lied and broke everyone of their ‘own’ laws of conduct in international relations when they removed and executed Saddam, Milosevic and Gaddafi. So why should we treat as shibboleths all the ‘factual’ and ‘authentic’ reports their institutions have pumped out denigrating the USSR and Stalin? Of course we shouldn’t trust that information any more than we would the reports of the BBC/IPCC when they said Mark Duggan had fired first! Have a read of this, its a nice, easy to read and good summation of some of the arguments by a Swedish communist. In the meantime, don’t take too much offence at the erratic and excitable behaviour of Peter, I’m sure he thinks he’s doing the right thing by the working class and oppressed people’s of the world – the tragedy is he spends his time defaming Stalin and or any other communist regime because he’s fallen well and truly into the bourgeois trap. The terrible results of the collapse of the USSR are still to be seen in the poisonous effects it had on many a good communist and revolutionary.
Hex Austen http://www.johndclare.net/Russ_LeninandTrotsky.htm
2 hours ago · Like
Richard Frazer Paulo – I assure you I will read more about this and start a new thread in a few days. With a fraction more knowledge :p
2 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Paulo Cannon lol! sound. One thing with the ‘left’ in general is they’re not shy of writing voluminous essays on every topic imaginable – enough to keep you busy for more than a few days! enjoy
2 hours ago · Like
Peter Kalve Paulo, Stalin needs no defaming, only burying in the defecation of his own making. Tell me – for how many millions’ of Soviet deaths was he responsible? No changing the subject – no recourse to a common ground over the evils of capitalism that we both share, just answer a straight and simple estimate on your part – for how many deaths of his own people was Stalin responsible?
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Jack Mcnally Most of the people executed by Stalin were fellow socialists and communists, how can you justifying killing over a million comrades?
about an hour ago · Like
Peter Kalve He can’t – hence his refusal to even go near answering the question
about an hour ago · Like
Matt Beebee @ Richard Frazer:
Now I will start by saying that I too am no expert on the matter, yet I will outline a basic difference between he ideologies for you.
Marxism is first and foremost an economic critique of capitalism through the labour theory of value, surplus value and a study of the progression of human development through historical materialism. Marxism outlines a specific view of history that has progressed from hunter gatherers (primitive communism), serfdom, feudalism and we are now in the capitalist stage of history.
Marx’s critique of capitalism led him to see society split into the bourgeois, those who own capital, and the proletarian, those who work capital and this concluded that the capitalist mode of production was exploitive of the proletarian.
Marx actually wrote little on the stages he thought would follow capitalism, he predicted a revolution of the proletarian who would establish a socialist mode of production under a ‘dictatorship of the proletarian’ where the state would operate for the benefit of the proletarian and be a transition stage between capitalism and communism. In the long run, the state would wither away, and communism – the final stage of human development would be established. By this, Marx meant a stateless, classless, moneyless society build on common ownership.
Lenin, theoretically at least, was a Marxist. However where he disagreed was with how the dictatorship of the proletarian should be set up, meaning how a capitalist mode of production becomes a socialist mode of production. For this, Lenin believed the proletarian would no just spontaneously rise up against the capitalists and rather they needed to be ‘nudged’ by as group of individuals who would lead the revolution. He called this group the vanguard party, as by definition, they would lead the revolution and set it in motion. He believed that the vanguard party should be democratically centralised wherein free political-speech was recognised legitimate until policy consensus; afterwards, every member of the Party supported the official policy established in consensus.
Trotskyism basically follows the same theory as Lenin, except Trotsky emphasised the idea of continual revolution and ‘proletarian internationalism’ i.e. that the revolution and the spread of socialism should be an international phenomenon. Trotsky believed that socialism in Russia would only survive if the state controlled the allocation of all output. Trotsky believed that the state should repossess all output to invest in capital formation. This, he believed was the only was the save Russia from the ‘state capitalism’ that Lenin’s NEP had created.
Stalin supported the more conservative members of the Communist Party and advocated for a state run capitalist economy. Stalinist philosophy was in favour of rapid industrialization, Socialism in One Country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture and in practice employed many ‘terror’ tactics associated with totalitarianism. Most do not consider Stalinism as left-wing (called red fascism by many political commentators) and a deviation from the true meaning of socialism to further the ambition of one man.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Daniel Gilfeather One day i hope that socialism will move on from the tiresome and endless argument that is “My dead Russian is better than your dead Russian”
25 minutes ago · Like
Matt Beebee ^ Oh I don’t necessarily agree with what I posted, I was just stating the facts as I’ve alwys seem them concerning the UUSR.
11 minutes ago · Like
Paulo Cannon Hi Matt, with the greatest of respect your not doing justice to Trotsky. He differed with Lenin on a whole host of problems and to reduce it to the level of ‘Trotsky emphasised ‘continual revolution’ and the ‘spread of socialism’ is innacurate. Trotsky would’ve been quick to make a few corrections which I’ll summarize as best I can, and if we’re going to reflect his views we should better understand them (to aid in that I’ve included some references to some of his stuff).
On the question of what kind of Party to build Trotsky opposed the position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, voted against Lenin’s resolutions in 1902 and wrote an attack (Our political tasks) wherein he tried to equate Lenin’s vision of building a vanguard Party with the oppression and exploitation meted out in factories to the workers (he basically tried to say Lenin wanted a class of bosses and workers in the Party! “I say, you do!”). he wrote “This evil minded and morally repugnant suspicion of Lenin, this shallow caricature of tragic intolerance of Jacobinism…must be liquidated at all costs, otherwise the Party is threatened by moral and theoretical decay”. Hence Lenin is ‘evil minded’ and ‘suspicious’ in his approach to vanguard Party building.
On the question of ‘permanent revolution’ every Trotskyist knows that Trotsky held at least three different conceptions of this ‘theory’ from 1902 onwards! Initially he disagreed with the Leninist thesis of the working class making an alliance with the peasantry in the bourgeois democratic revolution. This led Lenin to declare (in Notes of a Publicist 1910) “Trotsky distorts Bolshevism, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution”. Lenin said that the theory of ‘permanent revolution’ at this time was ‘playing at the seizure of power’ by ignoring the role of peasantry. This ongoing antagonistic conflict on the nature of the revolution in Russia led Trotsky to famously declare in a letter to the Menshevik Chkeidze (1913) “The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsifications and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay”. Nice! I dont want to labour this point but Trotsky adapted his theory prior to the revolution which led Lenin to declare (in Two Lines of the Revolution 1915) “Trotsky repeats his ‘original’ theory of 1905 and refuses to stop and think why, for ten whole years, life passed by this beautiful theory”. Trotsky joine dthe Bolsheviks in July 1917 at the Congress presided over by Stalin. He again attempted to revise his theory of ‘permanent’ revolution post-1917 which led him to declare “In the absence of direct state support on the part of the European proletariat, the Russian working class will not be able to keep itself in power and transform its temporary rule into a stable socialsit dictatorship. There is no doubt about it” As in 1906, so in 1922, Trotsky was wrong. In the light of such a ‘theory’ Trotsky only really offered to the Russian working class the option of all-out war in some adventurist drive into Europe and certain defeat, or a total capitulation to capitalism. Leninism, chose the only real alternative to such schemes and set about building up a socialist country – one that was more than capable of defending its rule as its shopwed in the war against Nazi Germany.
Anyway, that was much longer than I intended. Since most of this is in the video shouldn’t we stick to critiquing, using facts and sources, the specific parts we find objectionable. Otherwise its alot of writing and it doesn’t move the conversation on.
As for Peter, he’s obviously not taken his pills today, can’t we ‘liquidate’ him in the style of his favourite historical nemesis?
Harpal Brar delivers a 45-minute presentation on the theory and practice of Trotsky and ‘Trotskyites’, followed by Q&A at the CPGB-ML’s Party Study School, November 2011.
One of the myths perpetrated by the Trotskyites, with not inconsiderable help from the imperialist bourgeoisie, is that Leninism and Trotskyism are synonymous, that Trotsky was, after Lenin, the most brilliant and greatest Bolshevik (some even implying that Lenin was a great Trotskyist); that Trotsky was the true inheritor of Leninism and a worthy successor to Lenin, but was, alas, deprived of his rightful place by the cunning manoeuvres of a third-class mediocrity and oriental despot to boot, ie, Joseph Stalin.
This anti-communist myth, repeated ad nauseam decade after decade in truly Goebbelsian fashion, has acquired the force of a public prejudice. Anyone with the least knowledge of the subject cannot but be aware of the total falsity of this myth.
It is the aim of this video presentation, (like the book – see link below) to expose this myth and lay bare the truly reactionary, counter-revolutionary, essence of the petty-bourgeois ideology of Trotskyism, which is as irreconcilably hostile to Marxism Leninism as is the bourgeoisie to the proletariat – notwithstanding its pseudo-Marxist, ultra-‘left’ and ultra-‘revolutionary’ terminology.
Trotskyism met with dismal failure both during Lenin’s time and after his death, and it failed “because”, to use Stalin’s words, “the leading group of the opposition proved to be a group of petty-bourgeois intellectuals divorced from life, divorced from the revolution, divorced from the party, from the working class”.
This, and not any personal factor, explains the total rout of the Trotskyite opposition by the Bolshevik Party.
__________________________________________
A CPGB-ML Party School production
________________________
In the run up to the PSC AGM this coming weekend we publish below some articles of interest. Following the immediate two links and below comrade Joti’s contribution we also publish an email from one PSC comrade known as “Nahida”. This email was fwd to Red Youth anonymously, we assume the purpose is to inform us of another comrade who has been the subject of a potential witch hunt. Since there are a number of links in this email which show that the controversy is already quite public we have decided to reproduce it here for further information.
Content of Joti2Gaza blog on the upcoming PSC AGM:
I went to a meeting on Tuesday night of my local Palestine Solidarity Campaign group. We were there to talk about various motions for the upcoming PSC AGM on the subject of ‘anti-semitism’, and ‘holocaust denial’, alongside a proposed constitutional change that would take away the right of an expelled individual to appeal to the members at an AGM in the future.
See Joti on Hassan Ghani’s report of the Viva Palestine convoy (4.30 min; 6.40 min; 7.35 min)
I was also hoping for some information that might make sense of various rumours and allegations that have been doing the rounds — some fairly recently, and others for quite a while now.
The old rumours centre around the allegation that the PSC leadership has been taken over by a clique from Socialist Action, who make sure that as many of their cronies as possible are elected to the PSC exec and given paid jobs in the PSC office.
The new rumours are variations on a theme whereby independently-minded activists who aren’t ‘on message’ with the leadership’s agenda are alleged to have been removed from positions of influence in PSC branches following zionist-inspired accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ and ‘holocaust denial’.
The issue of a Socialist Action takeover of the PSC leadership has never been dealt with openly at a PSC AGM, although it’s a rumour that refuses to die. Personally, I don’t care what organisation people affiliate to as long as they’re doing the job, but if, as Tony Greenstein asserts, this group are more interested in creating a cosy niche for themselves than in building the most effective solidarity movement possible, then this has serious implications for the organisation’s work.
The issue of expelling people on grounds of anti-semitism, however, is clearly at the root of several motions to the AGM and is likely to be the main topic of debate when members meet on 21 January.
First comes the Executive’s proposed constitutional amendment, which not only removes the right of expelled members to appeal to an AGM, but also proposes introducing new ‘codes of conduct’ for PSC meetings and activities that would give grounds for expulsion if breached. (Currently, the only ground for expulsion is a breach of the PSC constitution.)
If there’s no ulterior motive behind this, it’s hard to see that there’s any need for changing the perfectly adequate procedures PSC has in place already, or why we should be in the business of creating reams of regulations to control adults who are perfectly capable of letting each other or the centre know if they find the language or behaviour of others unacceptable.
If the rumours are true, however, the proposed changes would certainly make it easier for the PSC exec to get rid of activists in such a way that most members would never know anything about it.
Then there’s the Executive’s motion on ‘Combating racism, islamophobia and anti-semitism’, which endorses a statement that recently appeared in the centre of the PSC homepage, stating: “Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement. Such sentiments are abhorrent in their own right and can only detract from the building of a strong movement in support of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.” (Emphasis added)
It is a strangely defensive assertion to be putting at the centre of the organisation’s mission statement. Moreover, the wording makes clear that the issue is not actually racism/anti-semitism, but ‘holocaust denial’.
This becomes particularly problematic when we recall that it is the zionist hype machine that has conflated the two as interchangeable terms and created an atmosphere in which anyone is branded an ‘anti-semite’ who questions anything about Israel, including the founding myths concerning the supposedly unique suffering of jews and the alleged impossibility of jewish people living free from persecution anywhere outside Israel.
I’m no racist and have no interest in defending those who are, but the motivations for placing such a statement at the front and centre of PSC’s work are troubling. Is racism so difficult to deal with in an avowedly progressive organisation that it needs to be expressly formulated against? And why are we bowing to the zionist formulation that equates ‘holocaust denial’ with ‘anti-semitism’ and racism?
To those with a basic grasp of history, it is clear that the jewish holocaust did actually take place. To those with a basic grasp of the workings of imperialism, it is equally clear that the same racist scapegoating that led to the German extermination of European jews has been reborn in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in particular and Arab and muslim peoples in general.
Israel launched itself as a state with a war of extermination against the Palestinians, while its nuclear arsenal is pointed like a dagger at the heart of all independently-minded peoples in the Arab world, from Lebanon and Syria to Iran and Iraq.
Since the Nakba of 1948, Israel has perpetrated massacre after massacre, using collective punishment, internment without trial, the strangulating siege on Gaza, apartheid separation policies and house demolitions, crop destruction and fisheries pollution to control, suppress and expel the local population.
Transforming its imported jewish population into merciless hi-tech stormtroopers, the zionist state has set up innumerable checkpoints, criss-crossed the occupied territories with jewish-only roads and settlements, created no-go zones to protect them and built huge walls that are carving even the officially recognised part of ‘Palestine’ into innumerable inaccessible bantustans, hurling snipers, gunboats, F16 bombers, attack drones and more against a largely unarmed civilian population in its ongoing project to cleanse Palestine of Palestinians.
That the Israelis have been ultimately unsuccessful in their mission to dehumanise and disperse the people of Palestine is beside the point. The atrocities that they daily commit, along with the reams of anti-muslim and anti-Arab propaganda they put out, the racist laws that govern Israeli society and the culture of hate that they have promoted have seen to it that the zionists, under the tutelage of their uber-Nazi warlord patrons in freedom and democracy-loving states like the USA and Britain, have become true successors to the Nazis.
And yet western politicians and mainstream western media have almost nothing to say about Israel’s crimes, despite the growing inability of the capitalist press to keep the “plucky little David” narrative wholly intact. Quite the reverse – they consistently lie, as do the Israelis, about what Israel is doing and why, repeating Israeli government press releases as if they were proven fact and giving no context that might enable ordinary viewers, readers and voters to understand what’s really happening.
It is because of this patronage — because Israel was only created to serve the interests of imperialism in the Middle East — that the zionist state is backed up by the military, economic and diplomatic might of the US and Britain, which enables it to commit atrocities and war crimes on a daily basis with total impunity, despite the condemnation of the vast majority of peoples and governments in the world.
That being the case, and in a world where zionism has arrogated to itself both the right to speak for all jews and the right to speak on behalf of all jewish holocaust victims, even while perpetrating its own holocaust against the Palestinians, the rise in anti-jewish sentiment is hardly surprising, and nor is the rise in numbers of those who are questioning the truth about the holocaust. When so much of what Israel projects (the only democracy in the Middle East, a bastion of civilised values, etc etc) is revealed to be a lie, why wouldn’t people also start to wonder whether the whole Holocaust story, so central to the image that Israel projects to the world, might also be untrue?
And so ‘Holocaust denial’ has become an unfortunate by-product of what Norman Finkelstein aptly termed ‘The Holocaust Industry‘ – the zionist promotion of the myth that the jewish holocaust was somehow different from all other episodes of extermination in human history, and that this unique suffering justifies both the creation of Israel and any crimes the zionist state may commit in alleged ‘defence’ of its existence.
Moreover, it’s increasingly well understood that the early zionists were quite happy for the holocaust to go ahead if it was going to create jewish refugees who would make their way to Palestine. Hardly surprising then, that many who don’t understand imperialism’s role in the Middle East and in the foundation of Israel question the validity of the Holocaust industry’s myths about jewish suffering and are prey to conspiracy theories about an alternative narrative to the holocaust, as well as to myths about a ‘jewish power’ that controls world finance and politics and protects the Israelis from world public opinion.
The degenerate state of Israel is by far and away the world’s biggest creator of anti-semitism, and since only the defeat of Israel will change that, support for the Palestinian people’s struggle against zionism and imperialism is probably the most useful contribution to ending anti-semitism.
So racism and ‘holocaust denial’ are clearly NOT the same thing, while Holocaust ‘minimising’ is even more troublesome to pin down. Are we to take the zionist definition that anyone who asks a question about the Nazi extermination of jews is automatically an anti-semite and therefore a racist? If someone suggests (as several eminent scholars have done) that they think perhaps five (rather than six) million jews were killed by German imperialism (alongside 25 million Soviets and 200,000 Roma), is that person guilty of the abhorrent crime of ‘minimising the holocaust’ and worthy only of being hounded out of the PSC, unable to contribute anything useful to its work?
If it’s so important, how did we operate so long without such a clause? And why don’t all organisations have them? Why doesn’t Stop the War have a statement on its homepage asserting that anyone who denies or minimises the holocaust in Iraq is a racist who can’t be allowed to work in the anti-war movement?
Actually, all sorts of perfectly well-intentioned people and good anti-war activists echo the mainstream media in doing just that – putting the death toll in Iraq at a ridiculous 100,000, despite research that shows that war-related deaths in Iraq since 1990 now amount to a horrendous 4.6 million people dead from war and sanctions-related causes since 1990, while another 5 million Iraqis have been made into refugees.
Only two solutions present themselves to the question of why PSC’s leadership should have suddenly become so sensitive to zionist accusations. The first is that they are coming under a huge amount of pressure from the zionist lobby and have simply buckled. The second is that the accusations provide a handy cover for getting rid of activists who want the campaign to do more than lobby parliament, cosy up to the ‘left’ wing of the warmongering, zionist-backing Labour party and give out boycott leaflets.
During the course of the discussion around these issues on Tuesday evening, I was suddenly accused by one of the activists present of being “party political”. She insinuated that my lack of attendance at meetings over the last few years was proof of entryism (rather than proof of having babies), that my organisation has a secret “agenda” and would “love to have influence in the PSC” and offered as proof of an “extremism” that no sensible person could wish to be associated with the fact that the CPGB-ML was “sad about the death of Kim Jong Il“.**
I have never tried to hide my party affiliations, so I can’t imagine that information regarding my membership of the CPGB-ML was news to many people in the room. But the accusation and the way it was put reminded me strongly of some of the attacks I came under at the PSC’s 2011 AGM, when a perfectly sane and sensible resolution about active non-cooperation work was hysterically opposed by the Executive and its supporters on some very spurious grounds, one of which was along the lines of “you can’t trust these commies – they’re extremists and they want to take us over”.
Interestingly, this attack illustrates the very point I had been trying to make in the meeting, which is that the PSC is supposed to be a broad church. Its stated aim is to build a MASS MOVEMENT in Britain in support of Palestine, which necessarily means working with all sorts of people whose programme and ideology you don’t agree with. It’s the very essence of single-issue campaigning – you maximise your support base by bringing together all those who agree on the fundamental point: in this case, the need to build support for Palestine in Britain.
And while communists often come under attack for their party affiliations and ‘extreme’ views, no-one ever seems to make the same link with those from, say, the Labour party. But ask yourself this: why is it ok to work alongside MPs and trade unionists whose career keeps them tied to a party drenched in the blood of millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis … and Palestinians, but suddenly a matter of principle not to cooperate with those who consistently seek to support the victims of imperialist war? Why is it possible to listen respectfully to pedlars of mediaeval superstition (insert your religion of choice here), but quite impossible to hear the voice of those who prefer to bring enlightenment and science into the movement?
We communists have no lucrative careers to protect. We have no desire to cling to a stake in the system that has created war, poverty, starvation, waste and destruction on an industrial scale. We are interested in one thing only: the fight against imperialism. And while that naturally makes us the vilified target and pet hate of every bourgeois liberal and imperialist warmonger, it is hardly a justification for such hysterical levels of suspicion from fellow campaigners for Palestine.
Communists are involved in Palestine solidarity because Palestine is one, vitally important, part of the struggle against imperialism. We do not view Palestinians as a charity case deserving of our sympathy, and nor do we seek to control the way in which they carry out their struggle. They are our brothers and sisters in arms who currently find themselves on the front line of the battle, and it is our duty to do whatever is within our power to help them to victory.
The fact that we are serious about wanting to WIN this battle is demonstrated by the fact that at next week’s AGM I will be bringing a resolution that is essentially the same as the one I proposed last year. This is not because I love being harangued or voted down, but because no amount of intimidation is going to change the fact that what Palestine needs from us is EFFECTIVE SOLIDARITY. Not sympathetic murmurs and pointless Early Day Motions, but a real effort to mobilise the power of working people to put a spanner in the works of the imperialist-zionist war machine.
As the CPGB-ML blog puts it:
“It is our belief that the contents of the following resolution are entirely uncontroversial to 95 percent of Palestine solidarity activists. However, since the resolution calls for the PSC to actively encourage British workers to use their collective power to prevent British companies and media outlets from participating in Israeli war crimes, the resolution is decidedly harmful to the interests of British imperialism.
“Thus it is clearly NOT acceptable to the imperialist, zionist Labour party, or to the Labour-affiliated leaders of the trade-union movement.
“PSC members need to decide whether they want to build a broad movement that really does aim to give meaningful solidarity to Palestine, or whether they prefer to let the PSC executive maintain its cosy relationship with various left-Labour and TUC bigwigs … and to allow these interests to dictate that their ‘solidarity’ work should be kept at the level of a charitable occupation that won’t threaten imperialist interests.”
Enough said.
—–
** By the way, those who have accepted the anti-Korea prejudices that fill western media might be interested to note that Cuba observed three days of national mourning following the death of Kim Jong Il, while governments, parties and heads of state from all over the oppressed world, including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, sent condolences to the Korean people.
From Palestine, condolences were sent by the PFLP, the DFLP and Mahmoud Abbas. Yasser Arafat had a close relationship with the DPRK, which has long been a staunch supporter of the Palestinian struggle, and he visited the country six times. Indeed, when he died, the north Korean state observed three days of official mourning for him.
We are not ashamed to be in such company, and nor can we consider it to make us some kind of ‘loony fringe’ to be on the side of the majority of humanity.
Watch Joti’s report back from the Viva Palestina Convoy in 2009
Watch the speech of our late CPGB-ML Honorary President cde Jack Shapiro, himself a jew, a communist and an anti-Zionist from London’s tough East End streets who fought the fascists in the 1930′s. Here is his speech following the massacre in Gaza:
————————————————
Contents of email fwd to Red Youth that was sent on January 11 2012 about the harassment of a cde “Nahida”. The email has not been altered accept to format it for this Blog:
“Dear all
On 23 December 2011, I received a letter from the Chair of Liverpool Friends of Palestine (LFoP) C. M. It was allegedly a ” conciliatory” [sic] letter, as I understood from a phone conversation with him prior to receiving it. The purpose of the letter, as he claimed on the phone, was to “reassure” [sic] me that I haven’t been expelled from LFoP, in spite of the alienation I feel from LFoP after defamation and harassment campaign was launched against me by a few LFoP members, leading to my departure from the group.
As anyone can see, the letter I received is not at all a letter of reconciliation, but is instead, a continuation of the harassment.
It appears to be a cold clinical text, prepared as a piece of evidence, short of being a legal document. The obvious intention of this letter is to conduct damage control by attempting to absolve LFoP and the individuals involved from any responsibility with regards to the damage inflicted upon me and my reputation, when I was accused of racism and anti-Semitism in the odious letter by G. D. and T.
B http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/10/did-age-of-enlightenment-never-occur.html., addressed to J. H. and C. M, the latter two incidentally endorsing the
content of the letter.
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/10/did-age-of-enlightenment-never-occur.html
Mr C. M. letter blatantly ignores the fact that my sense of alienation from the group is the result of defamation and harm, causing damages to me even as a private person, as well as to LFoP wider-membership and the very aims of LFoP, and this by a tiny clique of members of LFoP who have
obviously hijacked the group.
By omission, the letter in essence denies that I have been defacto expelled by: the sheer defamation and accusation thrown at me, the gossip about my private life behind my back, being refused the right to defend myself, being excluded from the group deliberation, the avoidance of my detractors of direct communication despite my repeated invites, the avoidance of presenting their case factually and intellectually, the avoidance of polite and gracious discourse as means of engagement to discuss possible points of disagreement, the strange refusal of the accusers to debate on topic, and worse opting instead to ad hominem attacks as a way of defending their argument and political views as well as heinous accusations as a way of stifling the debate and tempting to neutralize me politically, by causing damages to me, to my reputation and even to my private life.
If this is not expulsion, what is?
Wouldn’t anyone with a sense of dignity and commonsense feel as I do?
Aside myself, there are many other far-thinking, dynamic, articulate and deeply committed members, who have also been alienated. Many approached me to express their disenchantment with LFoP.
Who appointed GD, TB, JH, LD and their cohort as “Political Commissars” at LFoP?
Does the majority of LFoP members approve of ‘Political Commissars” enforcing doctrine, and sanctioning free-thinking members?
The paragraph below http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/11/atzmon-friends-declare-war-on-palestine.html is only one piece of evidence that some members of LFoP and/or MJPJ have
indeed been engaging in gossip and spreading rumours and lies against myself and my family. It is but one example of the appalling consequences of such behaviour. The aim, of course, is obviously to silence me and to discredit my research:
“In Liverpool a Palestinian activist, Nahida, who was once the mainstay of the group, changed almost overnight when she married a sinister Dutchman. Jewish conspiracies took over her life and it was with difficulty that the branch reclaimed its website, which had posted links to her anti-Semitic website (‘Spiders Web’).”
Tony Greenstein ( a close friend of both G. D. and S. S.) does NOT know me personally or my husband, yet he propagates lies about me, my family and my character. He spreads libellous accusations of anti Semitism against me, with the utter silence of those LFoP members who fed him with such defamatory lies, and with the silence of other decent members who have swallowed the lies and let them pass unchallenged without demanding a thorough investigation of such offence, without firm rejection of such behaviour from group members and without chastisement or sanctions against guilty members who took part in this smear campaign http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/12/use-of-character-defamation-to-stifle.html.
Had those who smeared my good name -because they have issues with my writings and views, seen some sense, apologized for the harm done and accepted my invitation for intellectual dialogue, they would’ve at least regained some dignity. As of now time for dialogue and intellectual debate with them is over. I consider any further communication with me / about me as harassment, for which I reserve the right to defend myself and my reputation.
To sum up: LFoP has allowed some of its members to engage in Zionist-style methods of operation by:
* Meddling in private affairs of members and using slander and defamation as a political tool (as seen from the writing of Tony Greenstein, who is a good friend of LFoP members: G. D. and S. S.).
* The use of the label “Anti-Semitism” as a political tool. By branding those they disagree with, with charges of racism and anti-Semitism (Racism is unlawful according to British law). Completely dismissing the seriousness and the gravity of such allegation, they (carelessly or malevolently) have accused me of committing an unlawful offence.
This has been allowed to pass under the watchful eyes of LFoP, without any investigation, cautioning or sanctioning of those members who engaged in such defamation… to the contrary, some LFoP members have voted approving of such libellous accusations.
As such, C. M’s letter is nothing but an added insult. The letter is an aggravation to the pain and injury, as it fails to refer to, reflect upon, or appreciate the harm done to my person or the damage caused to my reputation by some members.
Worse, LFoP seem to completely miss the point: they neglect to ask themselves the question ” what are the consequences of their manipulated, evasive, submissive and subdued attitudes on Palestine and the Palestinians?” ( of whom they are allegedly friends).
This letter fails to address such issues and falls very short of being a letter of reconciliation or apology.
Therefore, I consider this letter as a further evidence of harassment
by:
* evading to address the defamation against me;
* escaping the responsibility of launching an investigation to uncover the guilty elements;
* failing to apologise for the damages;
* failing to sanction/punish guilty members who engaged in such libellous acts.
Thus, by turning a blind eye, pretending that nothing has happened and it’s business as usual, they have caused more harm.
Where is the indignation of LFoP against defamation, meddling in private affairs and the spreading of lies and rumours, about another member, moreover the sole Palestinian in the group?
How could LFoP allow itself to fall prey to such schemes, where slander is used as a political tool to alienate dissenters? and psychological manipulation is implemented to silence opposition?
How could LFoP be so lacking in comprehension of the meaning and manifestation of racism and the real definition of an anti-Semite, that they have been hoodwinked into accepting such accusations against me? Hasn’t the anti-Semitic charge been abused and trivialized enough?
How could LFoP become so blinded that they fail to identify the REAL RACISTS who are worthy to be rejected and fought against?
Therefore, I decline to accept their letter as a letter of reconciliation. It lacks the basic ingredients of goodwill to be appreciated: insight, sincerity, sensitivity, acknowledgment and remorse for harm done, or any willingness to rectify it.
C. M’s letter is nothing but an aggravation.
It has become increasingly apparent that some clique inside the Solidarity Movement, under the pretext of “fighting anti-Semitism”, are engaged in hijacking, deforming and sidetracking the solidarity Movement from supporting the Palestinian people and their cause of Liberation, and
instead pushing PSC into morphing into yet another ADL “anti-Semite, Holocaust denier-hunter”.
True Friends of Palestine should not allow themselves to be hoodwinked or sidetracked into adopting other groups’ agendas or doing other organizations’ work.
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/12/of-exclusivity-loyalty-and-liberation.html
People whose primary aim is to fight anti-Semitism are better advised to join more appropriate organizations http://antisemitism.org.il/#Britain who deal specifically with anti-Semitism, there are myriad of them around http://www.fightingantisemitism.ca/.
They should stop imposing their agenda and leave PSC to do what it was created for, SUPPORTING PALESTINIANS IN THEIR STRUGGLE OF LIBERATION. Tragically, the excessive and inappropriate use of the word “anti-Semite”, by the likes of ADL (who have their very own definition of the word) has been taken up by some elements inside the Solidarity Movement, who, just like ADL, claim the exclusive right to define for us the meaning of words and the boundaries of debate. http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/05/about-anti-semitism.html>
My prime concern has always been the cause of Palestine and the Palestinians’ inalienable Human Right of Self-Determination in their own ancestral Land, which they inhabit and protect since thousands of years, continuously. The voice of Palestinians is barely heard in the West. Therefore, those whose aim is to muffle the voice, block the research, contain the freedom and veil the views of Palestinians cannot be truly friends of Palestine.
Real friends are those who want to keep the Solidarity Movement on the right track, focused on Palestine and the Liberation of Palestine. Hereby, I affirm my right to aspire for the Liberation of my Homeland and to pursue the intellectual means that will help to achieve that goal, moreover since this goal is the reassertion of Human Rights and strict International Law. I affirm my right to continue my investigations into the role of global Jewish Zionist networks through their many facets, institutions and organizations supporting, sustaining and propagating the cause of the
Zionist entity.
I affirm my right to continue investigating the supremacist ideology that animates the entire Israeli-settler society and to expose its consequences on Palestinians.
I affirm my right to continue my activism, to share the results of my work and to connect with people who want to learn about Palestine, without being censored or chastised by self-appointed gurus. I affirm my right to defend my reputation and to stand up to those who cause me harm, those who use ad hominem attacks, defamation and slander as a political tool to muffle and excommunicate their opponents.
Finally, I affirm my right to continue to expose those elements who try to achieve deleterious political aims by controlling and crippling the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, through the use of debate framing, information filtering, and eviction of activists who step outside the narrow boundaries set by these elements to keep the opposition constricted and limited in its scope and efficiency.
Lastly, I would end by expressing my profound disappointment with those whom I once called friends; those who witnessed the defamation and attempted assassination of my character with explicit approval or implicit silent consent, those who endorsed the accusation of racism against me, and those who kept a submissive quietness in the face of this detrimental manipulation
of our Solidarity Movement.
I detach myself from such deformed Solidarity, as it is obvious that such manipulation is conducted by individuals with ulterior motives and compromised loyalty who appointed themselves to be in charge of the flow of information, to control the direction of the Palestinian solidarity and to
push it towards the acceptance of “soft” yet final and permanent colonization of Palestine, thus to steer it away from its prime objective; the unconditional support of Palestinians and their quest for Full Liberation.
On the 75th anniversary of the formation of the International Brigades, Katt Kremer gave this excellent presentation to the Stalin Society, summarizing the events of the Spanish Civil war, its principle protagonists and their political ideology, as well as a brief history of the main battles of the war and its course.
In this key anti-fascist struggle, the prelude to imperialism’s war on the Soviet Union (world war 2), the international proletariat rallied to the defense of the Spanish republic. Some 35,000 workers from at least 53 countries answered the call of the communist international to form the International Brigades.
Despite the loss of the republic in 1939, as Dolores Ibárruri, “La Pasionaria”, stated in her famous farewell address:
“Today many are departing. Thousands remain, shrouded in Spanish earth, profoundly remembered by all Spaniards. Comrades of the International Brigades: Political reasons, reasons of state, the welfare of that very cause for which you offered your blood with boundless generosity, are sending you back, some to your own countries and others to forced exile. You can go proudly. You are history. You are legend. You are the heroic example of democracy’s solidarity and universality in the face of the vile and accommodating spirit of those who interpret democratic principles with their eyes on hoards of wealth or corporate shares which they want to safeguard from all risk.
“We shall not forget you; and, when the olive tree of peace is in flower, entwined with the victory laurels of the Republic of Spain — return!
“Return to our side for here you will find a homeland — those who have no country or friends, who must live deprived of friendship — all, all will have the affection and gratitude of the Spanish people who today and tomorrow will shout with enthusiasm:
“Long live the heroes of the International Brigades!”
Full text of her inspiring and profoundly moving speech here:
On the 75th anniversary of the formation of the International Brigades, the Stalin Society held a meeting to remember the heroes of the Spanish republican, anti-clerical and anti-fascist cause.
Katt Kremer, of the CPGB-ML gave an excellent summary of the events and lessons of the Spanish Civil War. It is a period of history with great parallel and therefore of great relevance to our current world climate, in which NATO imperialism runs riot and tramples the sovereignty of nations and the rights of workers and the oppressed of all countries under foot.
Her excellent video presentation will be available shortly, but in the mean time, we reproduce this beautiful and profoundly moving speech of Spanish communist leader Dolores Ibárruri, “La Pasionaria”, delivered as a farewell address to the International Brigades in one of the the last strongholds of the republic, Barcelona, on November 1, 1938:
It is very difficult to say a few words in farewell to the heroes of the International Brigades, because of what they are and what they represent. A feeling of sorrow, an infinite grief catches our throat – sorrow for those who are going away, for the soldiers of the highest ideal of human redemption, exiles from their countries, persecuted by the tyrants of all peoples – grief for those who will stay here forever mingled with the Spanish soil, in the very depth of our heart, hallowed by our feeling of eternal gratitude.
From all peoples, from all races, you came to us like brothers, like sons of immortal Spain; and in the hardest days of the war, when the capital of the Spanish Republic was threatened, it was you, gallant comrades of the International Brigades, who helped save the city with your fighting enthusiasm, your heroism and your spirit of sacrifice. – And Jarama and Guadalajara, Brunete and Belchite, Levante and the Ebro, in immortal verses sing of the courage, the sacrifice, the daring, th discipline of the men of the International Brigades.
For the first time in the history of the peoples’ struggles, there was the spectacle, breathtaking in its grandeur, of the formation of International Brigades to help save a threatened country’s freedom and independence – the freedom and independence of our Spanish land.
Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Republicans – men of different colors, differing ideology, antagonistic religions — yet all profoundly loving liberty and justice, they came and offered themselves to us unconditionally.
They gave us everything — their youth or their maturity; their science or their experience; their blood and their lives; their hopes and aspirations — and they asked us for nothing. But yes, it must be said, they did want a post in battle, they aspired to the honor of dying for us.
Banners of Spain! Salute these many heroes! Be lowered to honor so many martyrs!
Mothers! Women! When the years pass by and the wounds of war are stanched; when the memory of the sad and bloody days dissipates in a present of liberty, of peace and of wellbeing; when the rancors have died out and pride in a free country is felt equally by all Spaniards, speak to your children. Tell them of these men of the International Brigades.
Recount for them how, coming over seas and mountains, crossing frontiers bristling with bayonets, sought by raving dogs thirsting to tear their flesh, these men reached our country as crusaders for freedom, to fight and die for Spain’s liberty and independence threatened by German and Italian fascism. They gave up everything — their loves, their countries, home and fortune, fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters and children — and they came and said to us: “We are here. Your cause, Spain’s cause, is ours. It is the cause of all advanced and progressive mankind.”
Today many are departing. Thousands remain, shrouded in Spanish earth, profoundly remembered by all Spaniards. Comrades of the International Brigades: Political reasons, reasons of state, the welfare of that very cause for which you offered your blood with boundless generosity, are sending you back, some to your own countries and others to forced exile. You can go proudly. You are history. You are legend. You are the heroic example of democracy’s solidarity and universality in the face of the vile and accommodating spirit of those who interpret democratic principles with their eyes on hoards of wealth or corporate shares which they want to safeguard from all risk.
We shall not forget you; and, when the olive tree of peace is in flower, entwined with the victory laurels of the Republic of Spain — return!
Return to our side for here you will find a homeland — those who have no country or friends, who must live deprived of friendship — all, all will have the affection and gratitude of the Spanish people who today and tomorrow will shout with enthusiasm —
Long live the heroes of the International Brigades!
Introducing the History of Korea and the Life of Kim Jong Il – as it was in reality, not in the propaganda myths and racist slurs that abound in ‘our objective news media’.
Koreans have lost a dear leader, we all have lost a great comrade and a fearless friend of workers and the oppressed.
The US must stop its hostile economic, diplomatic and military moves against Korea. She must withdraw from the south and end the illegal partition of the Korean nation. The US led coalition of ‘UN’ / NATO forces has committed genocide against the Korean people, and has never had honest and peaceful intentions towards the DPRK, but continues to nurse hatred, animosity and colonial ambition. The US must be forced to sign a real and lasting peace treaty and normalize relations with the DPRK.
But the DPRK, under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il has made it abundantly clear to all – that Korea will never be a colony again!
Korea is one! Defend Korea! Defend Korea’s right to defend herself!
Other speeches from this meeting:
Watch this space…
Jeju Massacre – S Korean fascists and US imperialists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Uprising
For 50 years it has been a ‘thought crime’ to mention the atrocities of the S Korean Fascists and US imperialists. A phenomenon that is being repeated throughout the Baltic states with respect to the counter-revolutionary coups and massacres with which the people’s democracies were ended in 1989-91.
Maddened by its own crisis, imperialism is being driven ever deeper into war. The targets currently singled out for aggression, in particular by Washington, London and Tel Aviv, are the independent and anti-imperialist nations of Syria and Iran.
SYRIA
From “peaceful protesters” to “freedom fighters”
Ever since Syria’s first stirrings of unrest began in the spring, the imperialist media bust a gut trying to convince us all that what was at issue was a spontaneous popular democratic revolt on Cairo lines, pitting unarmed peaceful protestors against a homicidal response from the state’s armed forces. All the information to the contrary that leaked in round the edge via PressTV, Russia Today and elsewhere was studiously ignored. No matter what such sources revealed about the smuggling of weapons into rebel hands, the manipulation of protest marches by armed fundamentalist gangs or the sighting of terrorist snipers on the rooftops, none of this sufficed to shake the media hounds from their dogged allegiance to the imperialist mantra: the opposition was peaceful, the government alone employed force.
However, when in October the US and Europe tried to push through a UN Security Council resolution of the type so recently employed as a pretext for massacring Libya, China and Russia vetoed the proposal. Thus deprived of a diplomatic pretext for direct intervention, and with the fiction about universal peaceful protest versus armed tyranny wearing ever thinner, the propaganda line abruptly changed gear. Instead of persisting with denials about the violent character of the “democratic opposition”, a new spate of attacks on the security forces was now admitted, celebrated and given out as supposed evidence of imminent mass defections from the army.
So it was that we came to be told that on 16 November the Air Force Intelligence HQ in a suburb of Damascus had been bombed. The self-styled “Syrian National Council” (SNC), from its haven in Turkey, claimed this terror attack on behalf of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA). Then on 20 November the same terrorists were “credited” with having launched an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) attack on the Ba’ath Socialist Party’s offices in the centre of Damascus.
The day after this act of terror, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague met opposition leaders in London and declared that regime change would be “the best thing for the future of Syria”. Meanwhile the economic blackmail went up another notch, as on 27 November the reactionaries controlling the Arab League imposed a new swathe of sanctions intended to starve Syria of trade and investment and a few days later Turkey froze (i.e. stole) the financial assets held by the Damascus government and blocked all transactions with the country’s central bank.
On 2 December terrorist gangs attacked a military intelligence base in Idlib, in the north west of the country, reportedly slaughtering at least eight soldiers. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also claimed and that thirteen people had suffered injuries in the course of an attack on an air force intelligence centre in the port city of Latakia. Then, suitably geed up by talks between the opposition and Hillary Clinton in Geneva on 6 December, two days later armed gangs blew up a pipeline bearing oil from the east of the country to a Homs refinery in the west.
As this article is written, the rebels continue to feed the media with new tales of murderous derring-do, here gloating over the claimed slaughter of at least eight soldiers in the ambush of an army convoy on the outskirts of Hama, there exulting over another 7 soldiers slain by so-called “defectors”. Whatever the truth of these bloodcurdling assertions, it is true indeed that over 2,000 members of the security forces have already sacrificed their lives for the cause of Syria’s unity and independence. 13 December alone saw another 17 military funerals, and doubtless there will be more such victims of western backed terror by the time this goes to press.
Lacking support in Syria, the rebellion is weak and divided
However, the problem for the SNC quislings-in-waiting and their snipers and bombers in the supposed “Free Syria Army” is that, when they step out of the shadows, they cut a less than convincing figure. They clamour for the UN to impose a “no fly zone”, conspire with France and Turkey to establish “buffer zones” and “humanitarian corridors”, all transparently aimed at securing the kind of “humanitarian intervention” which resulted in Libya getting bombed for eight months and seeing her people delivered into the hands of western-backed lynch mobs and terror gangs. But the harder they clamour for assistance from the West (and from reactionaries in the Arab League, Turkey and Israel), the clearer it becomes just how minimal is the support which these RPG-toting “democrats” actually enjoy in the country to which they lay claim.
Contrary to the media pretence that the root of the troubles is sectarian antagonism between a minority Shi’ite Alawite government and a majority Sunni population, the Ba’athist-led National Progressive Front coalition governs the country on a secular basis. It is precisely this secular policy which broadens Assad’s appeal across confessional boundaries, in a country which includes Sunni, Alawite, Christian and Druze citizens. It is a telling feature of Syria’s progressive character that the majority of her people identify themselves first of all as Syrians, and only secondarily by considerations of religious background. Conversely, it is those who seek to undermine Syria’s anti-imperialist tradition, promoting the most obscurantist and reactionary religious forms as a cloak for imperialist meddling, who seek to undermine national unity and stir up sectarianism – just as in Iraq and Libya.
Happily, the rebels themselves, just like the Libyan rebels before them, are disunited to a degree which severely embarrasses their benefactors in the West. Foreign Secretary Hague, meeting with SNC contras in November, begged his protégés to botch together at least an appearance of unity, piously intoning that, “At an extreme moment in their nation’s history, it is important for opposition groups to be able to put aside their own differences and come to a united view of the way forward.” To assist in this exercise in stitching together damp blotting paper, Hague has reportedly appointed an “ambassador-designate” to lead liaison efforts.
Claims that the FSA are composed primarily of Syrian army defectors (as opposed to mercenaries released by the US from jails in Iraq and armed by the West) seem dubious, even judging from some capitalist press reports. In a story published on the Guardian website on 11 December (‘Inside Syria: the rebel calls for arms and ammunition’), Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reports on his encounters with rebel fighters in the mountainous north of the country. What they have to tell him is revealing. The people outside Syria (i.e. the Turkish-based SNC) “have no weight on the ground”, whilst those fighting inside Syria “don’t have a Benghazi” (i.e. a solid base of support for counterrevolution). The fighter gestures to his fellows, telling the journalist, “Look at all these men in this room. I didn’t know any of them before March and they didn’t know me. I don’t trust them and they don’t trust me.” As for defections, he tells Abdul-Ahad, “I don’t count on major defections in the army” – the only way you’d get that, he says, would be to have a no fly zone where people could hide from the security forces. Another fighter tells him that “There is no such thing as a Free Syria Army. It’s a joke. The real revolutionaries are here in Syria in the mountains.” However this “real revolutionary” confesses that his own morale is below zero, claiming “people are getting killed – yet still there are no defections in the army”. Interestingly, he ascribes this state of affairs to the “ideological” cohesion of the army, controlled by the political officers of the Ba’ath. He concludes despairingly that “Even if a general did defect, he wouldn’t defect with his tanks and soldiers, he would defect on his own.” The message is clear: these “patriots” would sell their country to the West in exchange for assistance in overthrowing Assad. Without such assistance, they would stand as little a chance of success as their toy soldier counterparts in Libya had stood – before NATO was transformed into their own private Luftwaffe.
Assad stands firm
Meanwhile, beyond all the media ballyhoo about the rebels, ordinary Syrians have been getting on with business as usual. The four-yearly local government elections kicked off in mid-December, with 42,000 candidates standing for 17,000 seats. The successful candidates will be responsible for implementing the reforms which the government has announced over recent months in response to legitimate public criticism. Just how little the West-backed opposition really cares about such reforms, other than as an arbitrary pretext for undermining the stability of the anti-imperialist state, is shown by the fact that they have chosen to boycott these elections. Damascus has long since committed to these reforms, and from the outset has welcomed even the Arab League proposal to send observers into Syria – so long as this is not accompanied by the enforcement of sanctions against the Syrian people. The League’s stubborn refusal to take yes for an answer shows how dishonestly intended was the original proposal.
No less an authority than the Jewish Chronicle gives a flavour of just how dismal would be the prospects of the much-vaunted rebellion were it obliged to rely upon support from the broad masses of Syrian society, rather than hiding behind the skirts of imperialist backers. In an article penned by John R. Bradley (‘Syrian revolt faces secular opposition’, 1 December 2011), the author notes that “when it comes to the Assad regime, greatly exaggerated reports of its imminent demise have been a steady staple of the Western media for nine months and counting”, whereas the “truth is that, in and of themselves, economic sanctions by the Arab League will make no difference to Assad’s chances of survival in the medium term, which are far higher than most Western commentators believe…”
Bradley continues, “If a popular uprising against Assad had ever been on the cards, it would have already happened. In fact, all the evidence suggests that he still enjoys massive support among the mostly secular Syrian population, who rightly fear that the only alternative to their long-faced president is an extraordinarily vicious and prolonged civil war… the West and its regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey appear determined to orchestrate an armed revolutionary uprising, with the Arab League sanctions aimed at deepening the divide between Assad and his people. If that comes to pass, Assad and his military backers will fight to the death, and the resulting civil war in religiously and ethnically complex Syria would make the Libyan revolution look like a high-school prom. But with the same eventual outcome: the triumph of Wahhabi-funded and controlled Islamist militias.”
UPDATE: 30 December:
When the Arab League finally sent its monitors, those who had clamoured hardest for the observer mission to be sent then promptly began to rubbish the mission’s findings – because the monitors took one look at Homs and reported that, contrary to the horror stories retailed by anonymous “activists”, the overall situation was “reassuring”, with a few armoured cars on the street but none of the myriad tanks alleged by the rebels! This was not at all what the rebels and their puppet-masters had expected. In an attempt at damage-limitation they claimed that (a) all the tanks must have been cunningly withdrawn, and that in any case (b) the leader of the mission was connected with the Sudanese government so was bound to be lying. As we go to press, the rebels are doing their best to turn the mission’s visits back into the pro-Western propaganda opportunity that was intended. It will take an awful lot of manufactured photo opportunities to undo the damage, however.
Meanwhile the same toxic mix of black propaganda, diplomatic arm-twisting, economic blackmail, covert war and threat of direct attack being brought to bear upon Syria is likewise being endured by Iran. A fresh round in the diplomatic harassment of Iran was signalled by the publication on 8 November of a new report from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the UN body responsible for ensuring that countries signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) comply with treaty requirements. Iran is a willing signatory; Israel has consistently refused to sign. Yet the Zionists have “proliferated” without let or hindrance from the “international community”, and have long since been in possession of the nuclear bomb – an estimated 200 fully operational bombs to be precise. When one of its own scientists, Mordecai Vanunu, had the courage to blow the whistle on Israel’s WMD, he was kidnapped abroad and slammed into solitary for years whilst that same “international community” sat on its hands. By contrast Iran, a willing signatory to the NPT, has been hounded for years by imperialist powers hell-bent on abusing the IAEA’s compliance procedures as a means of violating Iran’s sovereignty and impeding her work in the fields of nuclear energy and medical science.
For years, attempts to force the IAEA to lend its authority to Washington’s unproven allegations about Tehran’s supposed pursuit of a Persian nuclear bomb were frustrated by an IAEA which was not disposed to be so entirely under the US thumb as the White House desired. Whilst IAEA investigations on Iranian soil were no less intrusive than those to which Iraq was subjected in the farcical quest for non-existent WMD, that body’s former chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, steadfastly drew the line at lending credence to Washington’s baseless claims against Iran.
Over a lengthy period, Washington left no stone unturned in its single-minded quest for non-existent evidence. Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh details this frantic search in Democracy Now! “Cheney kept on having the Joint Special Operations Force Command, JSOC — they would send teams inside Iran. They would work with various dissident groups – the Azeris, the Kurds, even Jundallah, which is a very fanatic Sunni opposition group – and they would do everything they could to try and find evidence of an undeclared underground facility. We monitored everything. We have incredible surveillance. In those days, what we did then, we can even do better now. And some of the stuff is very technical, very classified, but I can tell you, there’s not much you can do in Iran right now without us finding out something about it. They found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization. In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities for building a bomb. This is simply a fact. We haven’t found it, if it does exist. It’s still a fantasy.” (cited by Media Lens, 24 November)
In the absence of evidence, Washington desperately needed the second-best outcome: a lying testimonial from the IAEA carrying the cachet of UN legitimacy. When ElBaradei ended his stint at the IAEA in 2009, Washington saw its chance. The US went into overdrive to get somebody more pliable into place, lobbying frantically to shoehorn a rank outsider, Yukiya Amano, into the top post. Amano’s chief qualification for the job is simple to spot: an overweening eagerness to please his masters in Washington. A secret cable from the US Embassy in Vienna, released by WikiLeaks, gloated that Amano accounted himself “solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” Another US cable speaks of a revealing encounter with the new boy. “This meeting, Amano’s first bilateral review since his election, illustrates the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA. The coming transition period provides a further window for us to shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.” (For “bureaucracy”, read, anyone at IAEA still possessed of a shred of integrity.)
Hersh cites the views of Robert Kelley, a retired IAEA director, on the supposed “credible” evidence referenced in the 8 November report. Kelley “noted that hundreds of pages of material appear to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the IAEA by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, ‘were old news,’ Kelley said, and known to many journalists. ‘I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ‘new information’ by the same reporters.’” No such obvious questions troubled the authors of the IAEA report, who claimed that it now had “credible” evidence that “indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
With the 8 November IAEA report, Washington won at best a Pyrrhic victory, having effectively destroyed the credibility of the very body whose endorsement it so relied upon. Pocketing the IAEA report, on 18 November Washington managed to steam-roller through the IAEA’s Board of Governors a resolution expressing “deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions.”
However, Washington had failed to get Iran reported to the Security Council or to impose a deadline for Tehran to comply with the latest hectoring demands. Clearly the need was felt to ratchet up the campaign of intimidation another notch. To this end, on 21 November, the US, Britain and Canada announced unilateral sanctions against Iran’s banking and energy sectors. France put in a sly kick too, urging world powers to boycott Iranian oil and freeze (i.e. steal) her financial assets. China and Russia have joined Iran in denouncing these new sanctions.
The Dirty War
Meanwhile, behind all this fabrication of evidence and diplomatic bullying, imperialism has long been engaging in a brutal campaign of espionage, terrorism, assassination and sabotage against Iran, culminating most recently in mysterious explosions at a key defence installation and a uranium reprocessing facility.
Leading Iranian scientists have long been targeted for assassination. Recent examples include the car bombs that claimed the lives of two university professors, Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, and the booby-trapped motorcycle that slew another professor, Masoud Ali-Mohammadi. Now, with rival Republican contenders for the US presidency striving to outdo each other in fascist zeal, the “secret” war against Iran is the best advertised in history. According to AFP (8 December 2011), Newt Gingrich “proposed at a November 12 debate that Washington kill Iranian scientists and disrupt Tehran’s suspect nuclear program – ‘all of it covertly, all of it deniable’. In that same forum, Santorum said the United States must do ‘whatever it takes to make sure’ Iran does not develop a nuclear program — then wondered whether Washington may already be heavily involved in doing just that. ‘There have been scientists turning up dead in Russia and in Iran. There have been computer viruses. There have been problems at their facility. I hope that the United States has been involved with that,’ he said. ‘I hope that we have been doing everything we can, covertly, to make sure that that program doesn’t proceed.’”
There can be no doubt that Washington, London and Tel Aviv are already up to the neck in dirty tricks without the need for further prompting from the Tea Baggers. The “computer viruses” to which Santorum referred clearly has in mind the Stuxnet cyber assault on Iran’s nuclear programme launched last year. Nor are the attacks confined to cyberspace. In mid November a missile testing base near Tehran suffered a blast which reportedly killed over 30 members of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, including a leader of Iran’s missile programme, Major General Hassan Moqqadam. Time Magazine, on 13 November 2011, said this was the work of Mossad. Then at the end of November there was a further blast, this time at a uranium processing plant in Isfahan. Israel’s former director of national security, Major-General Giora Eiland, bragged that the explosion was no accident, adding that “There aren’t many coincidences, and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it’s the hand of God.” (cited in ‘Shadow War Heating Up. War with Iran: A Provocation Away?’ by Tom Burghardt, 7 December: www. projectworldawareness.com) Curiously, none of the dirty tricks practiced by Washington and Tel Aviv excites anything like the manufactured outrage which greeted the B-movie fiction spun around a non-existent Iranian government plot to bump off the Saudi ambassador to the US.
29 November demonstration against British Embassy
The self-appointed guardians of democratic western values send saboteurs and death squads into other people’s countries at will, safe in the knowledge that the “international community” will not raise a finger to stop them. But just let some enraged Iranian students lob a few bricks at the British Embassy and pitch a portrait of the Queen out of the window and the UN Security Council cannot restrain its righteous indignation, condemning the demo “in the strongest terms”. William Hague whinged that Iran had “committed a grave breach” of the Vienna convention.
Obama declared himself “deeply disturbed” by what had happened, the German foreign minister fulminated against this “violation of international law”, whilst his French counterpart agreed that “the Iranian regime has shown what little consideration it has for international law”.
When we consider the continuous and flagrant breaches of international law being committed by imperialism in relation to Iran, with or without the cloak of UN “legitimacy”, it is not hard to comprehend the rage which this arouses in the patriotic youth. So far from acting as the simple agents of the government, as the western media pretend, the demonstrators in the end could only be restrained by the government’s own security forces using teargas to clear the embassy compound, such is the depth of popular revulsion at what is being attempted against the country’s sovereignty. (Need we add that, had the demonstrators instead got themselves tear-gassed protesting against Ahmadi-Nejad, they would at once have been hailed by the bourgeois media as peaceful democrats cruelly repressed by a tyrannical regime.)
Iran stands firm
Imperialist aggression against both Syria and Iran is driven not only by the desire to humble an anti-imperialist force and strengthen and extend the stranglehold on resources and markets in the middle east, but also by the strategic goal of containing Russia and China. China in particular, whose socialist foundations have permitted a rapid return to steady growth after an initial blip occasioned by a degree of exposure to the crisis-ridden world market, is well placed to engage in mutually beneficial trade relations with third world countries anxious to escape domination by crisis-stricken imperialism. China champions Iran’s right to develop its civil nuclear industry, and neither China nor Russia has any interest in collaborating with the West’s sanctions campaign. These realities constitute an unwelcome stumbling block for the warmongers.
Such considerations, taken together with the courageous anti-colonial resistance being mounted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia, all add to the perils awaiting the warmongers should they persist. Nor would it be wise for imperialism to dismiss lightly Iran’s own ability to defend herself, even without the bomb she is accused of coveting. The recent successful downing of an advanced US RQ-170 drone over the eastern part of the country, one of many drones in routine violation of Iranian airspace, not only exposes US covert operations and demonstrates Tehran’s vigilance but also delivers sensitive military intelligence into anti-imperialist hands. Already back in the summer the Iranians not only showed visiting Russian experts a number of other drones which had previously been shot down, but also displayed some model drones which they had contrived to design through reverse engineering! Obama’s risible plea for the return of his spy plane deserves, and has been accorded, nothing but contempt.
SOLIDARITY
The struggle of the Syrian and the Iranian people to defend themselves, by contrast, deserves the warmest support from all those in the anti-imperialist movement, not least those resisting imperialism within the belly of the beast itself. After all, who better upholds the anti-capitalist aims of the Occupy Movement than those brave students who dared to occupy the British Embassy in Tehran? Their own letter to the press, relayed by the Fars news agency, makes the case admirably.
“‘We have occupied the British embassy to voice support for the 99 percenters of the world and in opposition to the policies of the world arrogance,’ the letter said on Saturday. ‘We as the students who have occupied the British embassy in Tehran announce explicitly that we are standing for our historical decision and will humiliate Britain and make it regret,’ it added. The Iranian students called on … people across the world to attack the interests of Britain in their region and stop London from looting their countries and nations any further.” (Fars, 3 December, ‘British Embassy Occupation Meant to Voice Support for World 99 Percenters’)
By giving active solidarity to those who stand in defence of Iran, Syria and other anti-imperialist countries under attack, we will strengthen our hand against the same imperialist enemy which is currently demolishing welfare, looting jobs and driving us into poverty and war. The national democratic struggle against imperialist oppression that is being waged by these nations enormously strengthens the world struggle for proletarian revolution.
Victory to anti-imperialist Syria!
Victory to anti-imperialist Iran!
Death to imperialism!
You get more anti-imperialist analysis with cpgb-ml and red youth!
.
ML tv
