"The political activities of the Social Democrats is to promote the development and organization of the working class movement in Russia, transforming it from the present state of isolated, deprived of guiding ideas attempts of protest, “revolts” and strikes, into an organized struggle of the ENTIRE Russian working CLASS against the bourgeois regime and aiming towards the expropriation of the expropriators, towards the destruction of those social orders, based on the oppression of the workers. The common belief of Marxists in the fact that the Russian worker is the only natural representative of all the toiling and exploited people of Russia serves as the basis of this activity". (CCW, Volume 1, p.310 Russian).
"The worker already cannot but see that he is oppressed by capital, and that the fight has to be with the class of the bourgeoisie. And this struggle aimed at achieving immediate economic needs, at improving his material conditions - inevitably requires from the workers organizations to becomes not a war against individuals but against a class, the class itself which is not in separate factories, but everywhere and wherever it oppresses and crushes the worker. That is why the factory worker is none other than a good representative of all the exploited population, and in order for him to exercise representation in an organized, sustained struggle, demands ... explaining to him his position, the explaining the politico-economic structure of the system that oppresses him , identifying the necessity and inevitability of class antagonism in this system "(ibid., s.310-311).
"Social Democrats pay all their attention and all their activities on the class of workers. When the advanced representatives have mastered the ideas of scientific socialism, the idea of the historical role of the Russian worker, when these ideas become widespread among the workers, solid organizations are created, transforming the present sporadic economic war into conscious class struggle - then the Russian WORKER, rising up at the head of all the democratic elements, will overthrow absolutism and lead the RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT (alongside to the proletariat of ALL COUNTRIES) along a straight road of open political struggle to the VICTORIOUS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION "(ibid., pp. 311-312).
"We all agree that our task lies in the organization of the proletarian class struggle. But what is class struggle? When the workers of a separate factory, of a separate craft enter into a struggle with their owner or with their owners, is that a class struggle? No, this is only the weak beginnings of it. The workers' struggle is class struggle only when all the best representatives of the working class throughout the country are aware of themselves as a single working class and begin their fight not against the individual owners, but against the entire capitalist class and against the government supporting this class. Only when the individual worker is aware of himself as a member of the working class when, in his daily, petty fight with individual employers and individual officials, he sees the fight against the entire bourgeoisie and against the entire government, only then this struggle becomes a class struggle ... The task of Social Democracy consists in the fact that by the organization of workers, propaganda and agitation among them, is to turn their sponaneous struggle against the oppressors into a struggle of the entire class, into a struggle of a particular political party for certain political and the socialist ideals "(CCW, Volume 4, s.187-188 Russian).
"In all European countries, socialism and the labour movement existed initially separate from each other. The workers were fighting against the capitalists, organized strikes and unions, but the socialists stood apart from the workers' movement, and created doctrines critising contemporary capitalism, the bourgeois order of society and demanding a replacement of that system by another higher socialist system. The separation of the labour movement from socialism caused the weakness and immaturity of both of them ... The labour movement remained petty, fragmented, did not acquire political significance, and was not covered by advanced science of its time. Therefore, in all European countries, we see a more and more manifest desire to merge socialism and the labor movement into a coherent social democratic movement. Workers’ class struggle is transformed in such a merger into a conscious struggle of the proletariat for its emancipation from exploitation on part of the propertied classes, and produces the highest form of socialist labor movement: an independent workers' social-democratic party. The direction of socialism towards merging with the labour movement is the main merit of Marx and Engels: they created a revolutionary theory that explained the need for the merger and set the task of socialists to organize the class struggle of the proletariat "(CWW, Volume 4, pp. 244-245 ).
"Emerging from the very nature of capitalist society, strikes mean the beginning of the working class struggle against this system of society ... When workers alone deal with their bosses, they are real slaves, always working off a piece of bread for a stranger, always remaining humble and dumb stooges. But when workers together declare their demands and refuse to bow to the boss who has a fat wallet, then the workers are no longer slaves, they become people, they begin to demand that their work was not just to enrich a handful of parasites, but to give the worker opportunity to live in a humane way. Slaves start to make demands to become masters - to work and live not how the landlords and capitalists want them to live, but how the workers themselves want to live. Therefore strikes always cause such horror to capitalists as the strike begin to shake their rule. "Your strong hand can stop the wheels if you want” – says one song of the German workers about the working class. And indeed: the factories, landowners' farms, machinery, railways, etc., etc., are all like the wheels of one huge mechanism - the mechanism that produces various products, processes, and delivers where it should. This whole mechanism is moved by the worker who tills the land, mines, makes goods in factories, builds houses, workshops, and railways. When the workers refuse to work, this whole mechanism is threatened with stoppage. Every strike reminds the capitalists that the real masters are not they, but the workers who louder and louder claim their rights "(CWW, Volume 4, s.292-393).
"The strike teaches the workers to understand what the power of the owners is and what the power of workers is, teaches the worker to think not of only his own boss and not only his closest comrades, but of all the bosses, the whole class of capitalists and the whole class of workers. When the factory owner, with his millions living off the labour of several generations of workers, does not agree to a modest increase to the workers’ pay, or even tries to further reduce pay and, if the workers resist and thousands of hungry families are thrown onto the streets - then the workers can see clearly that the entire capitalist class is the enemy of the entire class of workers, and that the workers can only rely on themselves and their unification. It often happens that the manufacturer tries in every way to cheat the workers and makes himself out to be their benefactor, to hide his exploitation of the workers with some empty sop and false promises. Every strike is always with one stroke destroys all this deception by showing workers that their "benefactor" is a wolf in sheep's clothing "(ibid, s.294-295).
"The socialists call the strike a "school of war”, a school, in which workers learn to wage war against their enemies, for the liberation of all people and all workers from the tyranny of bureaucrats and capitalist oppression.
... From separate strikes, workers may and have to cross over and really cross over in all countries to the fight of the entire working class for the liberation of all workers. When all class-conscious workers becomes socialists, i.e., aiming towards such liberation, when they unite throughout the country to spread socialism among the workers, to teach the workers all means of struggle against their enemies, when they form a socialist workers party that fights for the liberation of all the people from the oppression of the government and the liberation of all workers from the yoke of capital - only then the working class is completely adjacent to the great movement of workers of all countries, which unites all the workers and raises the red flag with the words: "Workers of all countries, unite!" (ibid. same, s.296-398).
"This by itself implies a task that Russian Social-Democracy is called upon to implement: to introduce socialist ideas and political consciousness in the masses of the proletariat and to organize a revolutionary party, that is inextricably linked with the spontaneous labour movement ... Without such an organization of the proletariat can not rise up to the conscious class struggle, without such an organization, the working-class movement is doomed to impotence, and with just insurances, circles and societies of mutual aid, the working class will never be able to perform the great historic task lying ahead of it: to liberate themselves and the whole Russian nation from its political and economic slavery" (CWW, Volume 4, s.374-375).
"The workers' strikes in Russia during the preparation of the revolution and during the revolution, were the most common means of struggle of the proletariat, of the advanced class, which alone is the end, the revolutionary class in modern society. Economic and political strikes that alternate with each other, intertwined into one indivisible whole, united by the working masses against the capitalist class and the autocratic government, brought unrest to the whole of society, raised up the peasantry... No power on earth will stop the masses when they rise up. Now they have begun to rise up. This rise may go fast – or maybe go slowly and intermittently, but in any case it is heading towards revolution. The Russian proletariat was ahead of everyone in 1905. Remembering this glorious past, it must now exert all efforts to restore, strenghten and develop their organization, their party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Our party is going through difficult times now, but it is invincible, invincible as the proletariat "(CWW, v.20, p.73-75).
From the Editor. At the dawn of the socialist movement in Russia, the Communists were called the Social Democrats and the working-class party called - the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). However, when social democracy discredited itself with its collaboration with the bourgeoisie in the First World War, the revolutionary Social Democrats, headed by Lenin, in order to dissociate themselves from the social-chauvinists, began calling themselves communists. Today it is namely the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB) that inherits the Bolshevik principles of the RSDLP - RSDLP (b) - RCP (b) - VKP (b) – the Leninist policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, consistently defending the class interests of the working class and all working people.
------------------------------------------------------------
Friday 31 December 2010
Wednesday 15 December 2010
MARXISM IS NOT A DOGMA, BUT A GUIDE TO ACTION
In recent years the process of convergence of Bolshevism with the labour movement has begun to unfold. This is due to both the systematic and consistent work of the AUCPB (All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) in the labour movement and activities of the VSR (All-Ukrainian Workers’ Union), the organization, the closest to the masses of working people, to labouring, worker collectives.
We have previously mentioned in the pages of our newspaper that the activists of the VSR (which is, for the most part, members of the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU)) have begun to be expelled in scores out of the KPU for criticizing the opportunist line of the KPU, its leadership and its support for small and medium businesses, and flirting with religion and the Orthodox Church, for its actual rejection of revolutionary forms and methods of struggle, the rejection of the preparation of the working class in Ukraine for a socialist revolution aimed at overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and the restoration of Soviet power (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The leader of the VSR, editor of "Working Class" Comrade A.V. Bondarchuk has also been expelled from the KPU.
Of course, we Bolsheviks are wholly in support with the VSR, which, as well as our Party, stated the need to break with opportunism in the communist and workers' movement and work in the working class and toiling masses of Ukraine on the preparation and implementation of a socialist revolution. Our support we have previously mentioned in the pages of the Workers 'and Peasants' Truth ", in July at a meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB adopted a statement on the support of the editorial board of the newspaper of VSR “Working Class" ( "RKP” № 8 (149)), published articles in support of Comrade Bondarchuk and other leaders of the labour movement. For its part, the editors of the “Working Class" have also carried out reprints of our articles from the AUCPB newspaper in Ukraine "Raboche-Krestyanskaya Pravda", while in number 44 (483) my article "The Communist Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat" was published, written specifically for this newspaper.
But during the presidential election campaign, in the Ukraine Buro of the AUCPB Central Committee and the Soviet of VSR began to appear different approaches to tactics in these elections.
We, developing tactics, said that all candidates for the highest office in the state are the representatives of the bourgeoisie, and that whoever was the victor, the power will still remain in the hands of major oligarchic capital. Moreover, all 18 years of so-called independence indicates that the power of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine has strengthened, that the bourgeoisie is now the true master of the situation in the country. Hence our conclusion: we Bolsheviks have nothing to do in these elections. The main task we have seen and see now, is to explain to the working people of working in Ukraine the futility of the election campaign, to expose the parliamentary illusions and raise the working people to lead the working class in the struggle to overthrow the power of capital.
The VSR though, decided to support Yanukovych in these elections. When for this decision, we subjected comrade Bondarchuk to friendly criticism, he is in his article "You are my friend, but the truth – is dearer " ( "WC” № 3 (490), January 2010), began to teach us Marxism-Leninism and the ability to apply the methodology in making tactical decisions.
Here is what he wrote: "So ... secretary of the CC AUCPB of Ukraine Anatoly Mayevsky, analyzing the current pre-election situation, turns his attention not on the search for an approach of Communist agitators to our real present workers with their current level of consciousness, but immediately leaned towards advice - for who or against to vote (see article by A. Mayevsky “Mopping up the territory" in newspaper Raboche-Krestyanskya Pravda (Workers 'and Peasants' Truth”) № 1, 2010). …..with this approach, the whole election "tactic" is to correctly mark ballots: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to put a tick in front of the name of Yanukovych, then in 2010 - in the box "against all".” And further, Comrade Bondarchuk says that 99% of the workers of the industrial Eastern Ukraine are today for Yanukovich, so let A. Mayevsky try "today to go to the workers of Donbas or Kharkov with his tactic "to vote against all candidates".” But if you act in accordance with the Resolution of the VSR prepared on the recommendations of Lenin, then everything will turn out: the workers of Donbass and Kharkiv will listen to me, and I (further quoting Lenin) "I can explain in popular fashion not only why Soviets are better than Parliament ..." (PSS, v.41, p.73).”
"That's why we must support voting for Yanukovych" - teaches us comrade Bondarchuk.
And there is a lot of what the leader of the VSR is trying to teach us. It turns out that "we have no tradition of in-depth study of scientific communism and the adoption of practical solutions based on precisely the methodology of Marxism. Instead, a passion for slogans, cabinet closed doorishnesss and an inexplicable attraction to the same elections.
"For us the Communists, it's time to finally understand a few simple things. Without a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory there can be no question of socialism - this is firstly. But theory alone is not enough: we must still connect it with the living labour movement – this is secondly" – this bit is all true so far. But then this gem: "Thus, almost everything is ready: the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and, the labour movement is conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing left to do – and that is to combine the first with the second, Marxist theory with the workers' movement ", - concludes comrade. A. Bondarchuk.
And he ends his critical article with the slogans: "Support V. Yanukovich! Long live the revolutionary working class!”
A brilliant connection of Yanukovych - the authorized representative of major oligarchic capital, the main enemy of the working class, with the revolutionary working class. This is something new in Marxist-Leninist theory, worthy of such a "profound theoretician" and "expert" of Marxism-Leninism as comrade Bondarchuk.
I am compelled to respond to the criticism from the respected leader of the VSR.
About cabinet closed doorishness. This is a completely false allegation. The ruling bourgeois regime is in a constant struggle with the Bolsheviks, persecutes and even destroys our activists. In 1996, member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, Hero of the Soviet Union, Comrade S.P. Subbotin (Cherkasy) was killed on his way back home from his dacha. In October 1997, Party organiser of the CC AUCPB in Kharkov region Comrade A.L. Bondarenko, a man closely associated with the labour movement of Kharkov, who had great authority in the Working (Trudovaya) Kharkov, and in the communist and leftist movement of the city and region was killed in a deliberately set-up car crash. And after this, the security services began vigorously to break up the Kharkov Party organization, by the infiltration into them of provocateurs. Of course, we found them them, and expelled from the party, but they did a lot of dirty deeds, but were unsuccessful in destroying the organization. On May 1, 2005 a gangster style attack was carried out on member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB Comrade V.G. Koshevogo (Donetsk), one of the leaders of the Donetsk city organization of the Union of the workers. Comrade Toshevoy then spent nearly two months with the most severe concussion, lost his health, his activity decreased sharply, and in December 2008 he died prematurely. The same bandit attacks on our activists with their destruction take place in Russia. Special services are not averse to any kind of provocation, attacks on the Bolsheviks from behind the corner, trying to compromise, etc. etc. Straight away I say that we, Bolsheviks, can not intimidated by anyone. And in the place of our fallen comrades others will certainly come and others have come. No sooner had our newspaper "Workers 'and Peasants' Truth" (January 1997) had time to see the light, when the editor immediately began to face prosecution "for anti-state activities and calls on the people" with attempts by the authorities to close the newspaper. For about three years the court case continued, but the editors managed to defend its right to carry the word of truth to the working people and win the case. Some time later, the editor had spend two years suing the Pension Fund of Ukraine (Mukachevskij department) having attempted to strangle the newspaper financially. And we won these court cases. The newspaper continues to go now for the 14-th year, and continues to spread the Bolshevik word to the masses of working people. This is with regard to "cabinet closed doorishness”.
About the “inexplicable pull to those same elections”.
Comrade Bondarchuk suggests elections. The AUCPB has never had a pull towards elections.
"AUCPB - as noted in our party program - its main task specifies: the conquest of the working class political power, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private ownership of means of production, elimination of exploitation of man by man, the restoration of a socialist society, the revival of the USSR, the development of socialism and the construction of communism." There, in the Program of the AUCPB it says: "To establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only through a socialist revolution, as the bourgeoisie one will never peacefully give up power. And one more position of our Party Program I would like to give: "The main activity of the AUCPB in the communist movement – is its Bolshevization, meaning the return of the communist movement to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism with the demands of the modern era. Bolshevisation - is first of all, a policy of the revolutionary change in the current bourgeois socio-economic system. Bolshevisation - is the relentless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism and revisionism. Without the ideological defeat of the bourgeois parties operating in the ranks of the working class, pushing backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie and destroying the unity of the working class - victory of the proletarian revolution will be impossible. "With reformists and Mensheviks in their ranks, it is impossible to victor in the proletarian revolution and impossible to defend it" (V.I. Lenin)".
Where did you, dear comrade Bondarchuk, see here "a pull towards to parliamentarism?” And Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB in its practical political activities and making tactical decisions is constantly guided by our party program. Even at the II Congress of the AUCPB (February 1996), General Secretary of the AUCPB comrade Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva in her report stressed: "Is the parliamentary way of transition to socialism possible today? In our opinion, practically impossible. Today, after the temporary defeat of the world socialism, the imperialist bourgeoisie makes it clear that it will not give power to working people without a severe and intense struggle. According to mafia Chief "voucherizor" Chubais, a return to socialism can only be achieved through a civil war. At the slightest threat to their rule in Russia and to international imperialism, they will not stop short of the armed suppression of the will of the people, or the organization of foreign military intervention. In the era of the modern stage of imperialism, parliament is practically deprived of the opportunity not only for the socialist reform of society, but in general, the ability to radically influence the policy of state-monopoly capital. Parliaments, Senates, City Councils and Dumas are today, a screen for the financial oligarchy and safety valves for the timely letting off of steam of popular discontent ... In the parliaments and senates of many western countries, the Communist opposition is well blended into a legitimate niche of imperialist regimes. Its leaders are aging and dying in parliamentary seats. Those who have gone, are replaced with new leader-Communists, who also find it convenient and a privilege to be members of Parliament or the Senate. Communist parties often become appendages of their parliamentary factions that have become hotbeds of opportunism and compromise. Euro-communism grew out of parliamentary departments. The crisis of the idea of a parliamentary road of transition to socialism means that for the working class and its allies, parliamentary games by the rules of modern imperialism are completely hopeless ... It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism."
Here, comrade Bondarchuk, is the attitude of our party to parliamentarism and the parliamentary struggle. "It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism." In this direction our party does its work. You yourself, as until recently a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, several times elected to Parliament and was a member of the communist faction. And all your activists of the VSR were deeply involved in numerous campaigns. Thus, you until very recently were infected with the “pull towards elections”.
Another thing. The fact that I am immediately inclined to advise - for whom or against whom to vote" (Comrade Bondarchuk refers to my article "Purging the territory " "RKP” № 1, 2010). And that our Bolshevik voting "tactics" are "reduced to the proper filling out of ballot papers: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to place a tick next to Yanukovych, and in 2010 - in the box "against all candidates". It would be interesting for me to know where in the article "Purging the territory" comrade Bondarchuk saw the advice "to put a tick against all candidates"? One should also be able to know how to read so as to attribute to his opponent what he did not say. In the article "Purging the territory" there is no word about how to vote. All my article "Purging the territory" is devoted to one subject. Namely. For nearly 19 years on the territory of, "liberated" and "free" Ukraine it has been ruled by capitalism. Over these 19 years, Ukraine's population of 52 million people has decreased to 39 (approximately a 6.5 million people population decline, and about the same amount go abroad in search of work and opportunities to earn a piece of bread, i.e., a decrease of at least 13 million people).. All the clans of the bourgeoisie - and Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, and Yanukovich, and others, are caring only about one thing, about maximizing profits and surplus profits thanks to ruthless exploitation and plunder of the working people. And all of their presidential election battle boils down to one thing – to take the highest office in the State to ensure that, having in their hands the levers of power, much of the profits fall into the pockets and bank accounts of the group of capital, whose representative has become president. And the main task facing the Bolsheviks, in the face of all the political forces that are not in words but in deeds, fighting for the abolition of bourgeois power, is to "raise the working class to fight for their rights, for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and firmly discredit the remnants of electoral illusions." That is the difference, comrade Bondarchuk,: to strongly debunk the remnants of electoral illusions, and not "vote against all." Comrade Bondarchuk simply misinformed readers of newspaper “Working Class" of the position of the AUCPB in this presidential election campaign. Revolutionaries-Communists, the leaders of the labour movement may not agree with each other in some things, including in matters of tactics. But they, in arguing, should truthfully express the position of their opponent, and not distort it. The controversy between comrades in the struggle must be conducted honestly, dear comrade Bondarchuk.
Likewise, comrade Bondarchuk distorts our position on the 2004 elections. At that time a representative of the neo-fascist Banderite group of capital, Yushchenko was eager to get into power. Behind him stood American, western capital. At the meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, held in August 2004, we discussed the situation and concluded that the main task of the moment was to Stop fascism (that was the name of my report at the meeting of the Ukraine Buro CC AUCPB) in the face of Yushchenko surging to power. Keenly aware that the chances of reaching the second round were held only by Yanukovych and Yushchenko, we called on the voters of Ukraine in the second round vote to against Yushchenko. This meant that we were forced to vote for Yanukovich - the representative of a major oligarchic bourgeoisie and the exploiters and oppressors of the working people. But there is no other way to stop the fascist presidential candidate at present"- stated in the Decree of the Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB (see "RKP” № 9 (90), 2004; here I want to note that the printing of that issue of the newspaper was delayed by almost 3 weeks since the printers, where our newspapers are published, were simply afraid to release it, so the newspaper had been produced in another printing plant, and immediately censored, the editors spending two weeks trying to find a way to publish the newspaper) . No, because at that time there was no revolutionary situation, or other opportunities, we had no other option but to vote in the second round against the President, to stop this puppet of U.S. imperialism and the heir to Bandera and the Nazis,. At the same time, we explained to the workers that "the working class, the working people of Ukraine through presidential-parliamentary election campaigns would not come to power" and that "whoever wins the presidential election, ... the power will still remain in the hands of capital in the hands of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie", and we urged the working class, working people up to fight for the overthrow of the power of capital. That is our position in that period. In reaching this decision, we also realized that, behind Yanukovych are powerful financial-industrial groups of the Eastern regions of Ukraine closely connected with Russia's capital, that in the case of Yanukovych coming to power, perhaps will be a strengthening on a bourgeois basis naturally, the Ukrainian-Russian relations (political, economic, financial, etc.) that will allow to strengthen the economic potential of both Ukraine and the entire CES (Common Economic Expanse), which at that time was beginning to take shape in the 4-republics: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. And this, in turn, will lead to the restoration and strengthening of relations between workers of the four Soviet republics, and would facilitate them to lead a joint struggle to overthrow the power of capital. Unfortunately, the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, after the Symonenko did not come out in the second round of presidential elections, spoke about not supporting any of the candidates in the second, and then the third round, as both are members of competing clans of the bourgeoisie. I recall that then, esteemed Comrade Bondarchuk was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine. The result of this shortsighted position was that 1.4 million votes cast for Simonenko in the first round, were dispersed, and yet, at the correct position taken by then, most of these voters could have voted against President Yushchenko. The unfolded after the second round, of the so-called "Orange Revolution", carried out by hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, brought to power Yushchenko. This pseudo-revolution clearly demonstrated that Yushchenko was necessary to U.S. imperialism as the puppet as president of Ukraine, was needed in order to wrest Ukraine from Russia, to oppose the two fraternal peoples against each other and turn Ukraine into a vassal state, completely dependent on the U.S. and the West and a possible military base, a springboard for US-NATO forces in the struggle of U.S. imperialism for global domination, with the subsequent enslavement of Russia and the seizure of untold natural resources and raw materials, primarily oil and gas. Coming to power, Yushchenko immediately liquidated the participation of Ukraine in the CES, and began to actively pursue the glorification of Bandera, the OUN-UPA, exercised a decisive turn back of Ukraine against Russia and a turn towards the U.S.. That is, with regard to where and when "to place the bird" in the elections, in the words of Comrade Bondarchuk.
But over the past five years of orange-rule in Ukraine, the situation in the country has changed.
Immediately after Yushchenko came to power, the competing among themselves for the election clans of the bourgeoisie, began to build bridges and establish contacts. The result was the signing in September 2005 of the "Declaration of Unity and cooperation for the future of Ukraine", signed by both Yushchenko and Yanukovych's Party of Regions. Yanukovych did not fulfilled his promises of Russian as a second language state, did not actively oppose the process of bringing Ukraine closer to NATO. For many months during 2008-2009, the negotiations were held between representatives of the Party of Regions (Yanukovych) and the BYT (Tymoshenko) to establish a joint coalition in parliament. But such a coalition, ultimately failed. Obviously, they were not able to share the portfolios of power and spheres of influence. So in these five years there began the process of rapprochement between competing clans of the bourgeoisie. And one of them - Yanukovych or Tymoshenko is now more pro-Moscow politician? It is difficult to say. At least, the gas contracts signed by Tymoshenko's government at the beginning of last year, set the price of gas for Ukraine is approaching to $ 400 per thousand m3, at a time when Prime Minister was Viktor Yanukovych (still under Kuchma) the price for a thousand m3 of gas was 49 USD. Putin and Medvedev are also known as the political representatives of big business in Russia, primarily of the oil and gas oligarchs. It is clearly, what price is more favorable to the oil and gas tycoons in Russia and those of the Ukrainian top politicians, in this regard, who they are more than satisfied with. Both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko sought support from the West, the EU and the United States and Russia. And forcing them to do so, first of all, are the the major capitalist groups that stand behind them. According to KIA (Committee of Voters of Ukraine), in the first round of elections both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko spent approximately $ 200 million on the election campaign (exactly half of the total cost of all presidential candidates). Both are supported by the richest people of Ukraine, the billionaires and multimillionaires, who seized the metallurgical, machine building, chemical and petrochemical plants and refineries, mines, mining and dressing enterprises, privatized the whole food and light industry, etc., etc. having formed their own banks and on the basis of the connection of industrial and financial capital, formed financial-industrial groups (FIGs). In particular, Yanukovych's support came from: Akhmetov (3.7 billion dollars according to the version of the magazine "Focus" at the beginning of 2009), A. and S. Klyuev (356.8 million dollars), V. Khmelnitsky (246.8 million) and other oligarchs. Tymoshenko, in turn had the support of I. Kolomoysky (2.3 billion), V. Haiduk (704.3 million), S. Taruta (673.8 million), etc.
It is therefore quite an untrue statement by the VSR Resolution by the Soviet "About the tasks of the VSR in connection with presidential elections in 2010" ( "RC» № 43 (482), November 2009) that Yanukovych would "dig in his heels - to create favorable conditions for domestic enterprises, ... create the material conditions for the existence of the working class - the main revolutionary force in capitalist society ... will raise the gravedigger of capitalism - what he does not "support" in this important matter for the Revolution! ". To this I wish to note one thing. Both factions of capital, and challenges for Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko will act in the same way: in the period of recovery, they will increase production, increase the size of the working class, in a recession (depression) - expel "unnecessary" people onto the street. Capitalism, dear members of the VSR, is raising its gravedigger - the proletariat, objectively, regardless of colour shades, political and ideological preferences. In this regard, both Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko are identical.
Nor is the allegation by Bondarchuk that 99% of the workers of the industrial east of Ukraine are today for Yanukovych. In order to more or less reliably know the mood of the workers, it is necessary that the newspaper published daily circulation of at least 0.5 million - one million copies. Then will be established a stable relationship with labour collectives, which will allow editors to monitor the mood of the working class. And since this figure is taken by comrade. Bondarchuk from the ceiling, to artificially justify the wrong, in our view, position of the VSR, especially in the first round of elections. There can not be 99% of workers supporting Yanukovych, supporting all these Akhmetovs Kolomoiskys, Tarutas, Zvyagilskys and similar bourgeoisie, which during the years of the “orange revolution” robbed the workers and seized for a pittance into their own hands the factories and mines, and hundreds of thousands, millions of people who are thrown out onto the streets, make unemployed, homeless, leaving their families and without a livelihood. (Currently, these bourgeoisie, as a result of intense competition, have dispersed to different political camps, but in the 1990-s, during the formative years of their financial and industrial empires, they robbed the workers all along, of course, each into their own pocket). As a result of this lawlessness, many Donbass mining towns have turned into ghost towns and villages and die out, because the mines, or even the only one mine, which provided residents work and livelihood are all closed. And comrade Bondarchuk believes that these miners and hundreds of thousands, and millions of unemployed people support their robbers? The respected leader of VSR is too disrespectful in relation to our working class.
But suppose that comrade Bondarchuk is right and the vast majority of workers of the eastern regions of Ukraine actually support Yanukovich, because of their backwardness and oppression. Surely this implies that in this case the party of the working class, labour leaders, communists, revolutionaries, i.e. Bolsheviks, should tail behind the workers and preserve their backward attitudes and views. No, of course not. This behaviour by a party is called tailism and it is not unique to a revolutionary party of the proletariat as "the highest form of class organization of the proletarians" (VI Lenin, Left-Wing "Communism”, an infantile disorder” MSS, v.41, p.33), but an opportunist party, trailing in the wake of the backward attitudes of the masses. In the same “Infantile Disorder ... " referred to by Comrade Bondarchuk, but he did not even bother to read, let alone to ponder over its contents, the essence of Lenin's conclusions, recommendations and advice, says: "The whole task of the communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not isolate themselves from them with invented and childish "leftist" slogans "(ibid., p. 38). But comrade Bondarchuk, to justify his position of support for Yanukovych and win the support of the masses, said that Yanukovych is "our son of a bitch". The slogan is beautiful, which catches the eye, but it is not a Marxist one. "This is a son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch" - according to the American authors, memoirists, a review of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (senior) of the 32 th U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. (Collegiate Dictionary winged words and expressions ", author-compilor Vadim Serov). So the expression "our son of a bitch" bears no relation to Marxism. This expression comrade Bondarchuk, is trying to win the favor of the proletariat of Eastern Ukraine, indulging his backward classes and the mood and weaving into their tail. But V.I. Lenin from the very beginning of his revolutionary activities pointed out that "social democracy everywhere and always has been and cannot but be the representative of the conscious worker and not the non-conscious workers, that nothing could be more dangerous and criminal than demagogic flirting with the unconcious workers" (PSS, 4, P.315). And then he continues: "The task of social democracy is to develop the political consciousness of the masses, and not drag in the tail of the disfranchised masses" (ibid, P.315-316).
In our case this means the following. If a certain part of the workers, and working people of the eastern regions of Ukraine are for Yanukovich, due to their backward and downtrodden by poverty and hopelessness of life, then we Bolsheviks have to explain to them that Yanukovych is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Timoshenko, (and in western and central regions of Ukraine where some definite, disoriented and deceived workers supported Timoshenko, we must explain to them that Timoshenko is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Yanukovych), that with elections we can not change anything, because whoever comes to power, in any case, the power will remain with the bourgeoisie, or clan of Yanukovych or Tymoshenko's clan, that the working class has only one way to secure for themselves, their children and grandchildren a decent life and that it is to rise up to the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power and restore the power of the proletariat. Of course, we have told the workers that we are not talking about a revolution overnight, but that the fight must begin in the most elementary basic demands: ending wage arrears, payments of salaries, the provision of increase of salaries, pensions, stipends and other payments at a level no lower than the living wage; lower prices and tariffs for the most needed products, transportation and housing and communal services, etc., etc. And in the course of this struggle is to be forged the unity of the working class, class solidarity. And when the struggle spreads throughout the country when the fight is switched to workers in all occupations, as well as working intellectuals and peasants, this struggle will have to acquire a universal character, from the economic struggle it will grow into a political one. From here it would not be long before the general political strike, and then the socialist revolution would not be far off.
Namely based on this analysis, we Bolsheviks approached the campaign, saying that elections are a mechanism for strengthening the power of capital (this, incidentally, is shown by the entire short history of “independent” Ukraine), and that inside the parliament, workers have already long gone for good (this was in Lenin's time, during the Tsarist period, determined, though a disproportionately small part of the workers could get into the tsarist Duma on workers curiae, but now, when Parliament is elected from party lists, these lists of workers and working people are absent with none to be found in parliament, besides the Com. Party of Ukraine, several members of the working people of Ukraine attached obviously to no-go places) that the Ukrainian president could be a very rich person (ie, bourgeois) or a politician, serving the interests of a clan of the bourgeoisie, since workers need 2,5 million UAH only to ensure the nomination of a candidate (not to mention the need for tens of millions of dollars to conduct the election campaign) simply can not be found. Hence, we concluded that workers have nothing to do in these elections (by the way, 1/3 of voters in the first round did not take part, knowing that the presidential candidates absolutely do not care about the fate of working people and that someone who is elected president, the next day after his victory will forget and completely abandon his or her campaign pledges), and the Bolsheviks should use this campaign to expose the illusions of the election, to introduce revolutionary proletarian class consciousness into the ranks of the working people.
And yet another argument of the VSR and comrade Bondarchuk is in the need to support Yanukovych in the elections, to support him like a "rope supports a hanged man", referring to the "Left-wing communism – an infantile disorder”, by V.I. Lenin (PSS, 41, p.73). And Comrade Bondarchuk, proudly declares that the resolution of the VSR is based "strictly on the Leninist methodology outlined in "Infantile disorder”... ", and that" these tips by Lenin are almost 100% suited to our current situation! ".
Dear Comrade Bondarchuk thinks that if he pulled out of context a quotation of Lenin's work, not thinking about its content and not bothering to read all this work of Lenin, or even go beyond page 73, then such thoughtless citation is called "Leninist methodology "? A few pages earlier, Lenin shows that the Hendersons and Snowdens are petty-bourgeois leaders, analogs of the Russian Mensheviks (p. 70, 71). In general the whole ninth chapter of the “Infantile disorder... " is devoted to "Left-wing" communism in Britain, the alignment of political forces in this country by the beginning of 1920 (" Infantile disorder... " was written in April-May 1920). Lenin showed that representatives of big capital in Britain of that period were Lloyd George and Churchill (as we, in Ukraine today, such representatives of big business, the winners of the first round of elections were Mr. Yanukovich and Yulia Timoshenko). But Henderson and Snowden were the representatives of bourgeois parties (Henderson was one of the leaders of the Labour Party and the trade union movement; Snowden was a representative of the Independent Labour Party, the leader of its right wing). Lenin also said that in Britain of that period there were several small Communist groups and organizations, and he urged them to unite their efforts to unite and act together against the common enemy - the bourgeoisie. Representatives of these groups called for the advancement to socialism and the victory of the proletariat in a straightforward way, without compromise, flexibility and maneuvering. Lenin, however, refutes this straight-line tactics of the "Left" and says that once a significant part of the British working class follow their British Mensheviks, behind the Hendersons and Snowdens, then the Communists in order to win the masses over to their side, should support the electing of the British Mensheviks to help them come to power, to support "Henderson with their ballot just as the rope supports the hanged man". Why is such "help" to the Mensheviks from the Communists needed? The Communists, Lenin shows, should help the representative of the British Menshevism to come to power to ensure that the majority of the working class on its own experience could be convinced of the correctness of the British Communists, "i.e. in the utter uselessness of the Hendersons and Snowdens, in their petty and treacherous nature, and the inevitability of their bankruptcy." This in turn, will hasten the moment, "when on the soil of frustration by the Hendersons, the majority of workers can be a serious chance of success and quickly overthrow the Government of the Hendersons" (p.71). That's who should have been supported at that time in England when there was no revolutionary situation, by the British Communists, and supported from a single view that British workers would have seen the betrayal of the Mensheviks, their subservience to the bourgeoisie and, on receipt of such practical experience, which turned be from the Mensheviks and would go to the British Communists. An analogue of the Mensheviks, an analog of Henderson in Ukraine (not absolute but relative, of course) is P. Simonenko (Leader of the Communist party of Ukraine). Based on the guidance of Lenin, then it would be the time to vote for Symonenko, with the same aim, of course. This, by the way, is what we Bolsheviks proposed to workers in Ukraine elections in 1999, when into the second round came Kuchma and Simonenko (this was the highest achievement Simonenko and the CPU, and then the CPU rating because of its conciliatory position began to steadily decline). And we to the working people openly stated that no matter who at that time may come to power, the power will still remain with the bourgeoisie, as Kuchma, a representative of big business, and Simonenko - representative of the petty bourgeoisie, which, by their very nature, is politically, rather, serves, a particular clan of big capital. But given the fact that a large part of the masses of working people saw in Simonenko a true communist, and not a compromiser and petty-bourgeois figure, we then proposed to workers to vote for Symonenko, that they in the future, if Symonenko came to power and became president of Ukraine would be able to see for themselves on their experiences, his petty-bourgeois nature, his loyal service to the bourgeoisie, and not the working class, working people. (Incidentally, this version of arrival to power took place in Moldova, where the PCRM (Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova) leader Vladimir Voronin was president of Moldova for 8 years and completely in the eyes of workers exposed himself, as bourgeois, and not communist in character, and demonstrated in practice the petty bourgeois nature of the PCRM). Simonenko was afraid to fight for the presidency, and between the first and second round of elections, the CPU practically turned its back on its own propaganda activities, that is, without a struggle gave the post to President Kuchma (just as Zyuganov, leader of the CPRF- Communist Party of the Rusina Federation did in 1996 when, in fact he won the second round of elections, but handed back power to Yeltsin). Now to vote for Symonenko makes no sense at all, because the CPU's popularity among the masses each year invariably falls and it was clear that Simonenko under no circumstances would make the second round, as was shown in the first round, where Simonenko took 6 th place.
Lenin, however, did not propose voting for representatives of big capital, since British workers were aware that they were their exploiters and oppressors. Comrade Bondarchuk has absolutely given no thought about what Lenin wrote, has perverted Lenin's advice and called it a "Leninist methodology.
This, my dear comrade Bondarchuk, is not Leninist methodology, but a perversion of Marxism-Leninism as a result of your superficial approach, your unwillingness to read this outstanding work of Lenin and understand its content. Leninist methodology, which is based on the dialectical materialist method, involves a comprehensive, concrete-historical class approach to the evaluation of phenomena, events in one country or another, accurate accounting of the placement of all classes, groups, strata, political parties operating in the country, consideration of the effect of external forces (i.e., an account of the international situation), to arrive at the correct tactics of Communists in a particular situation, at a particular historical period, and in a particular country. That is what, in particular, Lenin said in the same “Infantile disorder... ": the task is “to be able to lay the general and fundamental principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to explore, find, guess "(p.74). Or even one sentence of Lenin: "One must have ones own head on their shoulders, so in each case one is able to work it out" (p.52).
Your own thoughtless citation led to the development of improper tactics in the first round of the elections. But this would not have been so terrible, if you had a tenacity worthy of a better use, in not defending your own incorrect tactics, pointing at the same time to the very superficial nature of your approach to Lenin's ideological and theoretical heritage. With this "knowledge" and "understanding" of Marxism-Leninism you simply cannot lead the workers' movement in Ukraine in a Bolshevik, revolutionary way, and will always be stray in broad daylight.
However in the same work, Lenin said, that in the second round and in the second ballot the Bolsheviks never rejected “support to the bourgeoisie against the tsarist regime" (p.56). Why, I hope this is understandable, because Capitalism is a higher stage of socio-economic development than feudalism, the political expression of which was the tsarist government.
Before us, the Bolsheviks, the question arose, for whom to vote in the second round, or, as in the first round, not to participate in the elections. Of course, while we could not follow the above example of Lenin, since Yanukovych and Tymoshenko are both representatives of large financial-oligarchic capital, but from its different groups and different political hues. But on the eve of the first round of elections in the media reported that 8 of the national-democratic parties, such as the Ruh and others like them "democrats", i.e., neo-banderovites, decided to support Tymoshenko. The very same Tymoshenko made in response to the unambiguous political gesture by appointing to a higher pension to the son of Roman Shukhevych - Hitler's servant and executioner, commander of the UPA - Yuri Shukhevych. That is, the Nationalist neo-banderovites decided to change their leader, and, instead of the completely bankrupt Yushchenko, made a bid for Tymoshenko, thereby seeking to extend their political existence. Of course, this can not happen. So we decided in the second round to vote against Tymoshenko, and hence we were forced to support Yanukovych, a representative of big business, because we do not currently have others ways to stop the march of nationalism in Ukraine. Being forced to vote for Yanukovich, while continuing to publicly expose the exploitative nature of bourgeois anti-national group of big business, whose interests he is politically – that was our tactics in the second round. To expose the bourgeoisie, to explain to the working class, working people of Ukraine the falsity of the promises of the representatives from both factions battling for power, to help the working people and dispel any illusions, calling on the workers to rise up to fight for their rights, as the only way to secure a decent life - these are tasks that we decided on in these presidential elections and not to turn away from them, pleading not with flashy and completely devoid of content phrases like "our son of a bitch", but carrying out consistent daily work of the Bolsheviks on propaganda and agitation among the masses of working people .
Especially revealing is the statement by A. Bondarchuk that "almost everything is ready: the theory is already developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, well, and the labour movement conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing - to combine with the latter, the Marxist theory with the workers' movement.
How easily and simply. Bondarchuk had forgotten while Lenin instructed that "Our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action - Marx and Engels said ..." (the same "Infantile disorder...", p. 55). If Lenin and the Bolsheviks proceeded from the fact that Marx and Engels had it all developed, there would never have been the Great October Revolution. Marx and Engels in their time, in the second half of the 19 st. argued that the socialist revolution will occur more or less simultaneously in all or in the main capitalist countries. Lenin, however, investigating the development of capitalism in its imperialist stage, the highest, showed that due to the uneven development, socialist revolution will occur in several or even one country, which by then will form the objective conditions of revolution and will be a proletarian revolutionary party type, as a subjective factor in this revolution. (See "The Slogan of the United States of Europe" and "militant program of the proletarian revolution"). The Mensheviks, led by Plekhanov, an outstanding Marxist, but with an approach to Marxism that was not dialectical but metaphysical (in particular, in this issue), subjected Lenin for this conclusion to the most severe criticism. But the course of historical events confirmed the correctness of Lenin, who approached Marxism not dogmatically, and even less, not so simplistic as A. Bondarchuk. The Great October Socialist Revolution under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin, led to the victory of the proletarian masses of Russia, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat from the wreckage of the destroyed during the revolution bourgeois state.
Moreover, his assertion that the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, A. Bondarchuk did not mention Stalin. And that means that he does not consider Stalin an outstanding theoretician of Marxism-Leninism, which is also fundamentally wrong. Such work by comrade Stalin as "Marxism and the National Question," “Dialectical and Historical Materialism", "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" and others, as well as "A Brief History of the CPSU (b)” entered the treasury of Marxism -Leninism, and to discard the theoretical contribution Stalin in the further development of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which means wilfully or unwillfully descending to the petty bourgeois pro-Khrushchev camp (i.e. Trotskyist) point of view.
***
What caused these errors of A. Bondarchuk?
Of course, not only his superficial knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and the lack of a dialectical approach to analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, which is replaced by mindless and uncritical citations.
The point lies elsewhere. Until recently, Comrade Bondarchuk, as a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, was under the ideological control of the party. He was expelled from its ranks (in which, incidentally, is no tragedy, and we already wrote about this and fully supported the thrust of VSR activity in the working class), Comrade. Bondarchuk was free, in ideological and organizational aspects. The VSR Soviet was supported not only by us Bolsheviks, but also by a number of other leftist parties and organizations. Bondarchuk’s head went dizzy. Here on the pages of "Working Class" appeared "well-wishers, who began to push Bondarchuk and the VSR Soviet towards creating a "party of the working class”. Hence, aplomb, and the ambitions of Alexander Bondarchuk. I note that in the former Soviet Union now operate some 50 communist and leftist parties and organizations (this was said by Nina Andreeva, whilst reading a report at the 4 th Congress of the AUCPB in April 2005). Naturally, such a fragmentation of the communist movement plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. And if comrade. Bondarchuk will create another party of the working class, it will only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine, because it once again splits the communist movement in the Ukraine, complicates (but does not stop it) the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement.
We want to remind A. Bondarchuk of the fate of Moiseenko, the talented leader of the left-wing of the Communist Party. He was also pushed by the security services, just playing on his ambitions to create a renewed Communist Party – the Communist Party of Workers and Peasants (CPRS). Where is the CPRS and its leader Vladimir Moiseenko? – They went into political oblivion. The same fate awaits the "party of the working class” which they are pushing comrade Bondarchuk into to creating. Pushed, we just have to say, by the Secret Service of Ukraine, to prevent the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement. Of course, nothing can stop this process, because it is objective. But simply additional obstacles occur on this path.
Our task, our obligation is to work together, join the protest movement of the working class, working people of Ukraine with Bolshevism, to build class consciousness in the ranks of the fighters, armed with the working class understanding of its historical mission, the gravedigger of capitalism and the builder of a classless communist society.
A. MAYEVSKY, secretary of the AUCPB
PS: The article was written towards the second round of presidential elections in Ukraine
We have previously mentioned in the pages of our newspaper that the activists of the VSR (which is, for the most part, members of the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU)) have begun to be expelled in scores out of the KPU for criticizing the opportunist line of the KPU, its leadership and its support for small and medium businesses, and flirting with religion and the Orthodox Church, for its actual rejection of revolutionary forms and methods of struggle, the rejection of the preparation of the working class in Ukraine for a socialist revolution aimed at overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and the restoration of Soviet power (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The leader of the VSR, editor of "Working Class" Comrade A.V. Bondarchuk has also been expelled from the KPU.
Of course, we Bolsheviks are wholly in support with the VSR, which, as well as our Party, stated the need to break with opportunism in the communist and workers' movement and work in the working class and toiling masses of Ukraine on the preparation and implementation of a socialist revolution. Our support we have previously mentioned in the pages of the Workers 'and Peasants' Truth ", in July at a meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB adopted a statement on the support of the editorial board of the newspaper of VSR “Working Class" ( "RKP” № 8 (149)), published articles in support of Comrade Bondarchuk and other leaders of the labour movement. For its part, the editors of the “Working Class" have also carried out reprints of our articles from the AUCPB newspaper in Ukraine "Raboche-Krestyanskaya Pravda", while in number 44 (483) my article "The Communist Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat" was published, written specifically for this newspaper.
But during the presidential election campaign, in the Ukraine Buro of the AUCPB Central Committee and the Soviet of VSR began to appear different approaches to tactics in these elections.
We, developing tactics, said that all candidates for the highest office in the state are the representatives of the bourgeoisie, and that whoever was the victor, the power will still remain in the hands of major oligarchic capital. Moreover, all 18 years of so-called independence indicates that the power of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine has strengthened, that the bourgeoisie is now the true master of the situation in the country. Hence our conclusion: we Bolsheviks have nothing to do in these elections. The main task we have seen and see now, is to explain to the working people of working in Ukraine the futility of the election campaign, to expose the parliamentary illusions and raise the working people to lead the working class in the struggle to overthrow the power of capital.
The VSR though, decided to support Yanukovych in these elections. When for this decision, we subjected comrade Bondarchuk to friendly criticism, he is in his article "You are my friend, but the truth – is dearer " ( "WC” № 3 (490), January 2010), began to teach us Marxism-Leninism and the ability to apply the methodology in making tactical decisions.
Here is what he wrote: "So ... secretary of the CC AUCPB of Ukraine Anatoly Mayevsky, analyzing the current pre-election situation, turns his attention not on the search for an approach of Communist agitators to our real present workers with their current level of consciousness, but immediately leaned towards advice - for who or against to vote (see article by A. Mayevsky “Mopping up the territory" in newspaper Raboche-Krestyanskya Pravda (Workers 'and Peasants' Truth”) № 1, 2010). …..with this approach, the whole election "tactic" is to correctly mark ballots: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to put a tick in front of the name of Yanukovych, then in 2010 - in the box "against all".” And further, Comrade Bondarchuk says that 99% of the workers of the industrial Eastern Ukraine are today for Yanukovich, so let A. Mayevsky try "today to go to the workers of Donbas or Kharkov with his tactic "to vote against all candidates".” But if you act in accordance with the Resolution of the VSR prepared on the recommendations of Lenin, then everything will turn out: the workers of Donbass and Kharkiv will listen to me, and I (further quoting Lenin) "I can explain in popular fashion not only why Soviets are better than Parliament ..." (PSS, v.41, p.73).”
"That's why we must support voting for Yanukovych" - teaches us comrade Bondarchuk.
And there is a lot of what the leader of the VSR is trying to teach us. It turns out that "we have no tradition of in-depth study of scientific communism and the adoption of practical solutions based on precisely the methodology of Marxism. Instead, a passion for slogans, cabinet closed doorishnesss and an inexplicable attraction to the same elections.
"For us the Communists, it's time to finally understand a few simple things. Without a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory there can be no question of socialism - this is firstly. But theory alone is not enough: we must still connect it with the living labour movement – this is secondly" – this bit is all true so far. But then this gem: "Thus, almost everything is ready: the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and, the labour movement is conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing left to do – and that is to combine the first with the second, Marxist theory with the workers' movement ", - concludes comrade. A. Bondarchuk.
And he ends his critical article with the slogans: "Support V. Yanukovich! Long live the revolutionary working class!”
A brilliant connection of Yanukovych - the authorized representative of major oligarchic capital, the main enemy of the working class, with the revolutionary working class. This is something new in Marxist-Leninist theory, worthy of such a "profound theoretician" and "expert" of Marxism-Leninism as comrade Bondarchuk.
I am compelled to respond to the criticism from the respected leader of the VSR.
About cabinet closed doorishness. This is a completely false allegation. The ruling bourgeois regime is in a constant struggle with the Bolsheviks, persecutes and even destroys our activists. In 1996, member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, Hero of the Soviet Union, Comrade S.P. Subbotin (Cherkasy) was killed on his way back home from his dacha. In October 1997, Party organiser of the CC AUCPB in Kharkov region Comrade A.L. Bondarenko, a man closely associated with the labour movement of Kharkov, who had great authority in the Working (Trudovaya) Kharkov, and in the communist and leftist movement of the city and region was killed in a deliberately set-up car crash. And after this, the security services began vigorously to break up the Kharkov Party organization, by the infiltration into them of provocateurs. Of course, we found them them, and expelled from the party, but they did a lot of dirty deeds, but were unsuccessful in destroying the organization. On May 1, 2005 a gangster style attack was carried out on member of the Central Committee of the AUCPB Comrade V.G. Koshevogo (Donetsk), one of the leaders of the Donetsk city organization of the Union of the workers. Comrade Toshevoy then spent nearly two months with the most severe concussion, lost his health, his activity decreased sharply, and in December 2008 he died prematurely. The same bandit attacks on our activists with their destruction take place in Russia. Special services are not averse to any kind of provocation, attacks on the Bolsheviks from behind the corner, trying to compromise, etc. etc. Straight away I say that we, Bolsheviks, can not intimidated by anyone. And in the place of our fallen comrades others will certainly come and others have come. No sooner had our newspaper "Workers 'and Peasants' Truth" (January 1997) had time to see the light, when the editor immediately began to face prosecution "for anti-state activities and calls on the people" with attempts by the authorities to close the newspaper. For about three years the court case continued, but the editors managed to defend its right to carry the word of truth to the working people and win the case. Some time later, the editor had spend two years suing the Pension Fund of Ukraine (Mukachevskij department) having attempted to strangle the newspaper financially. And we won these court cases. The newspaper continues to go now for the 14-th year, and continues to spread the Bolshevik word to the masses of working people. This is with regard to "cabinet closed doorishness”.
About the “inexplicable pull to those same elections”.
Comrade Bondarchuk suggests elections. The AUCPB has never had a pull towards elections.
"AUCPB - as noted in our party program - its main task specifies: the conquest of the working class political power, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private ownership of means of production, elimination of exploitation of man by man, the restoration of a socialist society, the revival of the USSR, the development of socialism and the construction of communism." There, in the Program of the AUCPB it says: "To establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only through a socialist revolution, as the bourgeoisie one will never peacefully give up power. And one more position of our Party Program I would like to give: "The main activity of the AUCPB in the communist movement – is its Bolshevization, meaning the return of the communist movement to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism with the demands of the modern era. Bolshevisation - is first of all, a policy of the revolutionary change in the current bourgeois socio-economic system. Bolshevisation - is the relentless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism and revisionism. Without the ideological defeat of the bourgeois parties operating in the ranks of the working class, pushing backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie and destroying the unity of the working class - victory of the proletarian revolution will be impossible. "With reformists and Mensheviks in their ranks, it is impossible to victor in the proletarian revolution and impossible to defend it" (V.I. Lenin)".
Where did you, dear comrade Bondarchuk, see here "a pull towards to parliamentarism?” And Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB in its practical political activities and making tactical decisions is constantly guided by our party program. Even at the II Congress of the AUCPB (February 1996), General Secretary of the AUCPB comrade Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva in her report stressed: "Is the parliamentary way of transition to socialism possible today? In our opinion, practically impossible. Today, after the temporary defeat of the world socialism, the imperialist bourgeoisie makes it clear that it will not give power to working people without a severe and intense struggle. According to mafia Chief "voucherizor" Chubais, a return to socialism can only be achieved through a civil war. At the slightest threat to their rule in Russia and to international imperialism, they will not stop short of the armed suppression of the will of the people, or the organization of foreign military intervention. In the era of the modern stage of imperialism, parliament is practically deprived of the opportunity not only for the socialist reform of society, but in general, the ability to radically influence the policy of state-monopoly capital. Parliaments, Senates, City Councils and Dumas are today, a screen for the financial oligarchy and safety valves for the timely letting off of steam of popular discontent ... In the parliaments and senates of many western countries, the Communist opposition is well blended into a legitimate niche of imperialist regimes. Its leaders are aging and dying in parliamentary seats. Those who have gone, are replaced with new leader-Communists, who also find it convenient and a privilege to be members of Parliament or the Senate. Communist parties often become appendages of their parliamentary factions that have become hotbeds of opportunism and compromise. Euro-communism grew out of parliamentary departments. The crisis of the idea of a parliamentary road of transition to socialism means that for the working class and its allies, parliamentary games by the rules of modern imperialism are completely hopeless ... It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism."
Here, comrade Bondarchuk, is the attitude of our party to parliamentarism and the parliamentary struggle. "It is not parliamentary reforms, but revolution which is the only real way of transition to socialism." In this direction our party does its work. You yourself, as until recently a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, several times elected to Parliament and was a member of the communist faction. And all your activists of the VSR were deeply involved in numerous campaigns. Thus, you until very recently were infected with the “pull towards elections”.
Another thing. The fact that I am immediately inclined to advise - for whom or against whom to vote" (Comrade Bondarchuk refers to my article "Purging the territory " "RKP” № 1, 2010). And that our Bolshevik voting "tactics" are "reduced to the proper filling out of ballot papers: in 2004, the AUCPB decided to place a tick next to Yanukovych, and in 2010 - in the box "against all candidates". It would be interesting for me to know where in the article "Purging the territory" comrade Bondarchuk saw the advice "to put a tick against all candidates"? One should also be able to know how to read so as to attribute to his opponent what he did not say. In the article "Purging the territory" there is no word about how to vote. All my article "Purging the territory" is devoted to one subject. Namely. For nearly 19 years on the territory of, "liberated" and "free" Ukraine it has been ruled by capitalism. Over these 19 years, Ukraine's population of 52 million people has decreased to 39 (approximately a 6.5 million people population decline, and about the same amount go abroad in search of work and opportunities to earn a piece of bread, i.e., a decrease of at least 13 million people).. All the clans of the bourgeoisie - and Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, and Yanukovich, and others, are caring only about one thing, about maximizing profits and surplus profits thanks to ruthless exploitation and plunder of the working people. And all of their presidential election battle boils down to one thing – to take the highest office in the State to ensure that, having in their hands the levers of power, much of the profits fall into the pockets and bank accounts of the group of capital, whose representative has become president. And the main task facing the Bolsheviks, in the face of all the political forces that are not in words but in deeds, fighting for the abolition of bourgeois power, is to "raise the working class to fight for their rights, for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and firmly discredit the remnants of electoral illusions." That is the difference, comrade Bondarchuk,: to strongly debunk the remnants of electoral illusions, and not "vote against all." Comrade Bondarchuk simply misinformed readers of newspaper “Working Class" of the position of the AUCPB in this presidential election campaign. Revolutionaries-Communists, the leaders of the labour movement may not agree with each other in some things, including in matters of tactics. But they, in arguing, should truthfully express the position of their opponent, and not distort it. The controversy between comrades in the struggle must be conducted honestly, dear comrade Bondarchuk.
Likewise, comrade Bondarchuk distorts our position on the 2004 elections. At that time a representative of the neo-fascist Banderite group of capital, Yushchenko was eager to get into power. Behind him stood American, western capital. At the meeting of the Ukraine Buro of the Central Committee of the AUCPB, held in August 2004, we discussed the situation and concluded that the main task of the moment was to Stop fascism (that was the name of my report at the meeting of the Ukraine Buro CC AUCPB) in the face of Yushchenko surging to power. Keenly aware that the chances of reaching the second round were held only by Yanukovych and Yushchenko, we called on the voters of Ukraine in the second round vote to against Yushchenko. This meant that we were forced to vote for Yanukovich - the representative of a major oligarchic bourgeoisie and the exploiters and oppressors of the working people. But there is no other way to stop the fascist presidential candidate at present"- stated in the Decree of the Ukraine Buro of the CC AUCPB (see "RKP” № 9 (90), 2004; here I want to note that the printing of that issue of the newspaper was delayed by almost 3 weeks since the printers, where our newspapers are published, were simply afraid to release it, so the newspaper had been produced in another printing plant, and immediately censored, the editors spending two weeks trying to find a way to publish the newspaper) . No, because at that time there was no revolutionary situation, or other opportunities, we had no other option but to vote in the second round against the President, to stop this puppet of U.S. imperialism and the heir to Bandera and the Nazis,. At the same time, we explained to the workers that "the working class, the working people of Ukraine through presidential-parliamentary election campaigns would not come to power" and that "whoever wins the presidential election, ... the power will still remain in the hands of capital in the hands of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie", and we urged the working class, working people up to fight for the overthrow of the power of capital. That is our position in that period. In reaching this decision, we also realized that, behind Yanukovych are powerful financial-industrial groups of the Eastern regions of Ukraine closely connected with Russia's capital, that in the case of Yanukovych coming to power, perhaps will be a strengthening on a bourgeois basis naturally, the Ukrainian-Russian relations (political, economic, financial, etc.) that will allow to strengthen the economic potential of both Ukraine and the entire CES (Common Economic Expanse), which at that time was beginning to take shape in the 4-republics: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. And this, in turn, will lead to the restoration and strengthening of relations between workers of the four Soviet republics, and would facilitate them to lead a joint struggle to overthrow the power of capital. Unfortunately, the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, after the Symonenko did not come out in the second round of presidential elections, spoke about not supporting any of the candidates in the second, and then the third round, as both are members of competing clans of the bourgeoisie. I recall that then, esteemed Comrade Bondarchuk was a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine. The result of this shortsighted position was that 1.4 million votes cast for Simonenko in the first round, were dispersed, and yet, at the correct position taken by then, most of these voters could have voted against President Yushchenko. The unfolded after the second round, of the so-called "Orange Revolution", carried out by hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, brought to power Yushchenko. This pseudo-revolution clearly demonstrated that Yushchenko was necessary to U.S. imperialism as the puppet as president of Ukraine, was needed in order to wrest Ukraine from Russia, to oppose the two fraternal peoples against each other and turn Ukraine into a vassal state, completely dependent on the U.S. and the West and a possible military base, a springboard for US-NATO forces in the struggle of U.S. imperialism for global domination, with the subsequent enslavement of Russia and the seizure of untold natural resources and raw materials, primarily oil and gas. Coming to power, Yushchenko immediately liquidated the participation of Ukraine in the CES, and began to actively pursue the glorification of Bandera, the OUN-UPA, exercised a decisive turn back of Ukraine against Russia and a turn towards the U.S.. That is, with regard to where and when "to place the bird" in the elections, in the words of Comrade Bondarchuk.
But over the past five years of orange-rule in Ukraine, the situation in the country has changed.
Immediately after Yushchenko came to power, the competing among themselves for the election clans of the bourgeoisie, began to build bridges and establish contacts. The result was the signing in September 2005 of the "Declaration of Unity and cooperation for the future of Ukraine", signed by both Yushchenko and Yanukovych's Party of Regions. Yanukovych did not fulfilled his promises of Russian as a second language state, did not actively oppose the process of bringing Ukraine closer to NATO. For many months during 2008-2009, the negotiations were held between representatives of the Party of Regions (Yanukovych) and the BYT (Tymoshenko) to establish a joint coalition in parliament. But such a coalition, ultimately failed. Obviously, they were not able to share the portfolios of power and spheres of influence. So in these five years there began the process of rapprochement between competing clans of the bourgeoisie. And one of them - Yanukovych or Tymoshenko is now more pro-Moscow politician? It is difficult to say. At least, the gas contracts signed by Tymoshenko's government at the beginning of last year, set the price of gas for Ukraine is approaching to $ 400 per thousand m3, at a time when Prime Minister was Viktor Yanukovych (still under Kuchma) the price for a thousand m3 of gas was 49 USD. Putin and Medvedev are also known as the political representatives of big business in Russia, primarily of the oil and gas oligarchs. It is clearly, what price is more favorable to the oil and gas tycoons in Russia and those of the Ukrainian top politicians, in this regard, who they are more than satisfied with. Both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko sought support from the West, the EU and the United States and Russia. And forcing them to do so, first of all, are the the major capitalist groups that stand behind them. According to KIA (Committee of Voters of Ukraine), in the first round of elections both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko spent approximately $ 200 million on the election campaign (exactly half of the total cost of all presidential candidates). Both are supported by the richest people of Ukraine, the billionaires and multimillionaires, who seized the metallurgical, machine building, chemical and petrochemical plants and refineries, mines, mining and dressing enterprises, privatized the whole food and light industry, etc., etc. having formed their own banks and on the basis of the connection of industrial and financial capital, formed financial-industrial groups (FIGs). In particular, Yanukovych's support came from: Akhmetov (3.7 billion dollars according to the version of the magazine "Focus" at the beginning of 2009), A. and S. Klyuev (356.8 million dollars), V. Khmelnitsky (246.8 million) and other oligarchs. Tymoshenko, in turn had the support of I. Kolomoysky (2.3 billion), V. Haiduk (704.3 million), S. Taruta (673.8 million), etc.
It is therefore quite an untrue statement by the VSR Resolution by the Soviet "About the tasks of the VSR in connection with presidential elections in 2010" ( "RC» № 43 (482), November 2009) that Yanukovych would "dig in his heels - to create favorable conditions for domestic enterprises, ... create the material conditions for the existence of the working class - the main revolutionary force in capitalist society ... will raise the gravedigger of capitalism - what he does not "support" in this important matter for the Revolution! ". To this I wish to note one thing. Both factions of capital, and challenges for Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko will act in the same way: in the period of recovery, they will increase production, increase the size of the working class, in a recession (depression) - expel "unnecessary" people onto the street. Capitalism, dear members of the VSR, is raising its gravedigger - the proletariat, objectively, regardless of colour shades, political and ideological preferences. In this regard, both Yanukovych, and Tymoshenko are identical.
Nor is the allegation by Bondarchuk that 99% of the workers of the industrial east of Ukraine are today for Yanukovych. In order to more or less reliably know the mood of the workers, it is necessary that the newspaper published daily circulation of at least 0.5 million - one million copies. Then will be established a stable relationship with labour collectives, which will allow editors to monitor the mood of the working class. And since this figure is taken by comrade. Bondarchuk from the ceiling, to artificially justify the wrong, in our view, position of the VSR, especially in the first round of elections. There can not be 99% of workers supporting Yanukovych, supporting all these Akhmetovs Kolomoiskys, Tarutas, Zvyagilskys and similar bourgeoisie, which during the years of the “orange revolution” robbed the workers and seized for a pittance into their own hands the factories and mines, and hundreds of thousands, millions of people who are thrown out onto the streets, make unemployed, homeless, leaving their families and without a livelihood. (Currently, these bourgeoisie, as a result of intense competition, have dispersed to different political camps, but in the 1990-s, during the formative years of their financial and industrial empires, they robbed the workers all along, of course, each into their own pocket). As a result of this lawlessness, many Donbass mining towns have turned into ghost towns and villages and die out, because the mines, or even the only one mine, which provided residents work and livelihood are all closed. And comrade Bondarchuk believes that these miners and hundreds of thousands, and millions of unemployed people support their robbers? The respected leader of VSR is too disrespectful in relation to our working class.
But suppose that comrade Bondarchuk is right and the vast majority of workers of the eastern regions of Ukraine actually support Yanukovich, because of their backwardness and oppression. Surely this implies that in this case the party of the working class, labour leaders, communists, revolutionaries, i.e. Bolsheviks, should tail behind the workers and preserve their backward attitudes and views. No, of course not. This behaviour by a party is called tailism and it is not unique to a revolutionary party of the proletariat as "the highest form of class organization of the proletarians" (VI Lenin, Left-Wing "Communism”, an infantile disorder” MSS, v.41, p.33), but an opportunist party, trailing in the wake of the backward attitudes of the masses. In the same “Infantile Disorder ... " referred to by Comrade Bondarchuk, but he did not even bother to read, let alone to ponder over its contents, the essence of Lenin's conclusions, recommendations and advice, says: "The whole task of the communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not isolate themselves from them with invented and childish "leftist" slogans "(ibid., p. 38). But comrade Bondarchuk, to justify his position of support for Yanukovych and win the support of the masses, said that Yanukovych is "our son of a bitch". The slogan is beautiful, which catches the eye, but it is not a Marxist one. "This is a son of a bitch, but it's our son of a bitch" - according to the American authors, memoirists, a review of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (senior) of the 32 th U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. (Collegiate Dictionary winged words and expressions ", author-compilor Vadim Serov). So the expression "our son of a bitch" bears no relation to Marxism. This expression comrade Bondarchuk, is trying to win the favor of the proletariat of Eastern Ukraine, indulging his backward classes and the mood and weaving into their tail. But V.I. Lenin from the very beginning of his revolutionary activities pointed out that "social democracy everywhere and always has been and cannot but be the representative of the conscious worker and not the non-conscious workers, that nothing could be more dangerous and criminal than demagogic flirting with the unconcious workers" (PSS, 4, P.315). And then he continues: "The task of social democracy is to develop the political consciousness of the masses, and not drag in the tail of the disfranchised masses" (ibid, P.315-316).
In our case this means the following. If a certain part of the workers, and working people of the eastern regions of Ukraine are for Yanukovich, due to their backward and downtrodden by poverty and hopelessness of life, then we Bolsheviks have to explain to them that Yanukovych is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Timoshenko, (and in western and central regions of Ukraine where some definite, disoriented and deceived workers supported Timoshenko, we must explain to them that Timoshenko is OUR CLASS ENEMY, the same as Yanukovych), that with elections we can not change anything, because whoever comes to power, in any case, the power will remain with the bourgeoisie, or clan of Yanukovych or Tymoshenko's clan, that the working class has only one way to secure for themselves, their children and grandchildren a decent life and that it is to rise up to the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power and restore the power of the proletariat. Of course, we have told the workers that we are not talking about a revolution overnight, but that the fight must begin in the most elementary basic demands: ending wage arrears, payments of salaries, the provision of increase of salaries, pensions, stipends and other payments at a level no lower than the living wage; lower prices and tariffs for the most needed products, transportation and housing and communal services, etc., etc. And in the course of this struggle is to be forged the unity of the working class, class solidarity. And when the struggle spreads throughout the country when the fight is switched to workers in all occupations, as well as working intellectuals and peasants, this struggle will have to acquire a universal character, from the economic struggle it will grow into a political one. From here it would not be long before the general political strike, and then the socialist revolution would not be far off.
Namely based on this analysis, we Bolsheviks approached the campaign, saying that elections are a mechanism for strengthening the power of capital (this, incidentally, is shown by the entire short history of “independent” Ukraine), and that inside the parliament, workers have already long gone for good (this was in Lenin's time, during the Tsarist period, determined, though a disproportionately small part of the workers could get into the tsarist Duma on workers curiae, but now, when Parliament is elected from party lists, these lists of workers and working people are absent with none to be found in parliament, besides the Com. Party of Ukraine, several members of the working people of Ukraine attached obviously to no-go places) that the Ukrainian president could be a very rich person (ie, bourgeois) or a politician, serving the interests of a clan of the bourgeoisie, since workers need 2,5 million UAH only to ensure the nomination of a candidate (not to mention the need for tens of millions of dollars to conduct the election campaign) simply can not be found. Hence, we concluded that workers have nothing to do in these elections (by the way, 1/3 of voters in the first round did not take part, knowing that the presidential candidates absolutely do not care about the fate of working people and that someone who is elected president, the next day after his victory will forget and completely abandon his or her campaign pledges), and the Bolsheviks should use this campaign to expose the illusions of the election, to introduce revolutionary proletarian class consciousness into the ranks of the working people.
And yet another argument of the VSR and comrade Bondarchuk is in the need to support Yanukovych in the elections, to support him like a "rope supports a hanged man", referring to the "Left-wing communism – an infantile disorder”, by V.I. Lenin (PSS, 41, p.73). And Comrade Bondarchuk, proudly declares that the resolution of the VSR is based "strictly on the Leninist methodology outlined in "Infantile disorder”... ", and that" these tips by Lenin are almost 100% suited to our current situation! ".
Dear Comrade Bondarchuk thinks that if he pulled out of context a quotation of Lenin's work, not thinking about its content and not bothering to read all this work of Lenin, or even go beyond page 73, then such thoughtless citation is called "Leninist methodology "? A few pages earlier, Lenin shows that the Hendersons and Snowdens are petty-bourgeois leaders, analogs of the Russian Mensheviks (p. 70, 71). In general the whole ninth chapter of the “Infantile disorder... " is devoted to "Left-wing" communism in Britain, the alignment of political forces in this country by the beginning of 1920 (" Infantile disorder... " was written in April-May 1920). Lenin showed that representatives of big capital in Britain of that period were Lloyd George and Churchill (as we, in Ukraine today, such representatives of big business, the winners of the first round of elections were Mr. Yanukovich and Yulia Timoshenko). But Henderson and Snowden were the representatives of bourgeois parties (Henderson was one of the leaders of the Labour Party and the trade union movement; Snowden was a representative of the Independent Labour Party, the leader of its right wing). Lenin also said that in Britain of that period there were several small Communist groups and organizations, and he urged them to unite their efforts to unite and act together against the common enemy - the bourgeoisie. Representatives of these groups called for the advancement to socialism and the victory of the proletariat in a straightforward way, without compromise, flexibility and maneuvering. Lenin, however, refutes this straight-line tactics of the "Left" and says that once a significant part of the British working class follow their British Mensheviks, behind the Hendersons and Snowdens, then the Communists in order to win the masses over to their side, should support the electing of the British Mensheviks to help them come to power, to support "Henderson with their ballot just as the rope supports the hanged man". Why is such "help" to the Mensheviks from the Communists needed? The Communists, Lenin shows, should help the representative of the British Menshevism to come to power to ensure that the majority of the working class on its own experience could be convinced of the correctness of the British Communists, "i.e. in the utter uselessness of the Hendersons and Snowdens, in their petty and treacherous nature, and the inevitability of their bankruptcy." This in turn, will hasten the moment, "when on the soil of frustration by the Hendersons, the majority of workers can be a serious chance of success and quickly overthrow the Government of the Hendersons" (p.71). That's who should have been supported at that time in England when there was no revolutionary situation, by the British Communists, and supported from a single view that British workers would have seen the betrayal of the Mensheviks, their subservience to the bourgeoisie and, on receipt of such practical experience, which turned be from the Mensheviks and would go to the British Communists. An analogue of the Mensheviks, an analog of Henderson in Ukraine (not absolute but relative, of course) is P. Simonenko (Leader of the Communist party of Ukraine). Based on the guidance of Lenin, then it would be the time to vote for Symonenko, with the same aim, of course. This, by the way, is what we Bolsheviks proposed to workers in Ukraine elections in 1999, when into the second round came Kuchma and Simonenko (this was the highest achievement Simonenko and the CPU, and then the CPU rating because of its conciliatory position began to steadily decline). And we to the working people openly stated that no matter who at that time may come to power, the power will still remain with the bourgeoisie, as Kuchma, a representative of big business, and Simonenko - representative of the petty bourgeoisie, which, by their very nature, is politically, rather, serves, a particular clan of big capital. But given the fact that a large part of the masses of working people saw in Simonenko a true communist, and not a compromiser and petty-bourgeois figure, we then proposed to workers to vote for Symonenko, that they in the future, if Symonenko came to power and became president of Ukraine would be able to see for themselves on their experiences, his petty-bourgeois nature, his loyal service to the bourgeoisie, and not the working class, working people. (Incidentally, this version of arrival to power took place in Moldova, where the PCRM (Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova) leader Vladimir Voronin was president of Moldova for 8 years and completely in the eyes of workers exposed himself, as bourgeois, and not communist in character, and demonstrated in practice the petty bourgeois nature of the PCRM). Simonenko was afraid to fight for the presidency, and between the first and second round of elections, the CPU practically turned its back on its own propaganda activities, that is, without a struggle gave the post to President Kuchma (just as Zyuganov, leader of the CPRF- Communist Party of the Rusina Federation did in 1996 when, in fact he won the second round of elections, but handed back power to Yeltsin). Now to vote for Symonenko makes no sense at all, because the CPU's popularity among the masses each year invariably falls and it was clear that Simonenko under no circumstances would make the second round, as was shown in the first round, where Simonenko took 6 th place.
Lenin, however, did not propose voting for representatives of big capital, since British workers were aware that they were their exploiters and oppressors. Comrade Bondarchuk has absolutely given no thought about what Lenin wrote, has perverted Lenin's advice and called it a "Leninist methodology.
This, my dear comrade Bondarchuk, is not Leninist methodology, but a perversion of Marxism-Leninism as a result of your superficial approach, your unwillingness to read this outstanding work of Lenin and understand its content. Leninist methodology, which is based on the dialectical materialist method, involves a comprehensive, concrete-historical class approach to the evaluation of phenomena, events in one country or another, accurate accounting of the placement of all classes, groups, strata, political parties operating in the country, consideration of the effect of external forces (i.e., an account of the international situation), to arrive at the correct tactics of Communists in a particular situation, at a particular historical period, and in a particular country. That is what, in particular, Lenin said in the same “Infantile disorder... ": the task is “to be able to lay the general and fundamental principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to explore, find, guess "(p.74). Or even one sentence of Lenin: "One must have ones own head on their shoulders, so in each case one is able to work it out" (p.52).
Your own thoughtless citation led to the development of improper tactics in the first round of the elections. But this would not have been so terrible, if you had a tenacity worthy of a better use, in not defending your own incorrect tactics, pointing at the same time to the very superficial nature of your approach to Lenin's ideological and theoretical heritage. With this "knowledge" and "understanding" of Marxism-Leninism you simply cannot lead the workers' movement in Ukraine in a Bolshevik, revolutionary way, and will always be stray in broad daylight.
However in the same work, Lenin said, that in the second round and in the second ballot the Bolsheviks never rejected “support to the bourgeoisie against the tsarist regime" (p.56). Why, I hope this is understandable, because Capitalism is a higher stage of socio-economic development than feudalism, the political expression of which was the tsarist government.
Before us, the Bolsheviks, the question arose, for whom to vote in the second round, or, as in the first round, not to participate in the elections. Of course, while we could not follow the above example of Lenin, since Yanukovych and Tymoshenko are both representatives of large financial-oligarchic capital, but from its different groups and different political hues. But on the eve of the first round of elections in the media reported that 8 of the national-democratic parties, such as the Ruh and others like them "democrats", i.e., neo-banderovites, decided to support Tymoshenko. The very same Tymoshenko made in response to the unambiguous political gesture by appointing to a higher pension to the son of Roman Shukhevych - Hitler's servant and executioner, commander of the UPA - Yuri Shukhevych. That is, the Nationalist neo-banderovites decided to change their leader, and, instead of the completely bankrupt Yushchenko, made a bid for Tymoshenko, thereby seeking to extend their political existence. Of course, this can not happen. So we decided in the second round to vote against Tymoshenko, and hence we were forced to support Yanukovych, a representative of big business, because we do not currently have others ways to stop the march of nationalism in Ukraine. Being forced to vote for Yanukovich, while continuing to publicly expose the exploitative nature of bourgeois anti-national group of big business, whose interests he is politically – that was our tactics in the second round. To expose the bourgeoisie, to explain to the working class, working people of Ukraine the falsity of the promises of the representatives from both factions battling for power, to help the working people and dispel any illusions, calling on the workers to rise up to fight for their rights, as the only way to secure a decent life - these are tasks that we decided on in these presidential elections and not to turn away from them, pleading not with flashy and completely devoid of content phrases like "our son of a bitch", but carrying out consistent daily work of the Bolsheviks on propaganda and agitation among the masses of working people .
Especially revealing is the statement by A. Bondarchuk that "almost everything is ready: the theory is already developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, well, and the labour movement conditioned by capitalist production. We still have one thing - to combine with the latter, the Marxist theory with the workers' movement.
How easily and simply. Bondarchuk had forgotten while Lenin instructed that "Our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action - Marx and Engels said ..." (the same "Infantile disorder...", p. 55). If Lenin and the Bolsheviks proceeded from the fact that Marx and Engels had it all developed, there would never have been the Great October Revolution. Marx and Engels in their time, in the second half of the 19 st. argued that the socialist revolution will occur more or less simultaneously in all or in the main capitalist countries. Lenin, however, investigating the development of capitalism in its imperialist stage, the highest, showed that due to the uneven development, socialist revolution will occur in several or even one country, which by then will form the objective conditions of revolution and will be a proletarian revolutionary party type, as a subjective factor in this revolution. (See "The Slogan of the United States of Europe" and "militant program of the proletarian revolution"). The Mensheviks, led by Plekhanov, an outstanding Marxist, but with an approach to Marxism that was not dialectical but metaphysical (in particular, in this issue), subjected Lenin for this conclusion to the most severe criticism. But the course of historical events confirmed the correctness of Lenin, who approached Marxism not dogmatically, and even less, not so simplistic as A. Bondarchuk. The Great October Socialist Revolution under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin, led to the victory of the proletarian masses of Russia, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat from the wreckage of the destroyed during the revolution bourgeois state.
Moreover, his assertion that the theory has been developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, A. Bondarchuk did not mention Stalin. And that means that he does not consider Stalin an outstanding theoretician of Marxism-Leninism, which is also fundamentally wrong. Such work by comrade Stalin as "Marxism and the National Question," “Dialectical and Historical Materialism", "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" and others, as well as "A Brief History of the CPSU (b)” entered the treasury of Marxism -Leninism, and to discard the theoretical contribution Stalin in the further development of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which means wilfully or unwillfully descending to the petty bourgeois pro-Khrushchev camp (i.e. Trotskyist) point of view.
***
What caused these errors of A. Bondarchuk?
Of course, not only his superficial knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and the lack of a dialectical approach to analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, which is replaced by mindless and uncritical citations.
The point lies elsewhere. Until recently, Comrade Bondarchuk, as a member of the Central Committee of Communist Party of Ukraine, was under the ideological control of the party. He was expelled from its ranks (in which, incidentally, is no tragedy, and we already wrote about this and fully supported the thrust of VSR activity in the working class), Comrade. Bondarchuk was free, in ideological and organizational aspects. The VSR Soviet was supported not only by us Bolsheviks, but also by a number of other leftist parties and organizations. Bondarchuk’s head went dizzy. Here on the pages of "Working Class" appeared "well-wishers, who began to push Bondarchuk and the VSR Soviet towards creating a "party of the working class”. Hence, aplomb, and the ambitions of Alexander Bondarchuk. I note that in the former Soviet Union now operate some 50 communist and leftist parties and organizations (this was said by Nina Andreeva, whilst reading a report at the 4 th Congress of the AUCPB in April 2005). Naturally, such a fragmentation of the communist movement plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. And if comrade. Bondarchuk will create another party of the working class, it will only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine, because it once again splits the communist movement in the Ukraine, complicates (but does not stop it) the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement.
We want to remind A. Bondarchuk of the fate of Moiseenko, the talented leader of the left-wing of the Communist Party. He was also pushed by the security services, just playing on his ambitions to create a renewed Communist Party – the Communist Party of Workers and Peasants (CPRS). Where is the CPRS and its leader Vladimir Moiseenko? – They went into political oblivion. The same fate awaits the "party of the working class” which they are pushing comrade Bondarchuk into to creating. Pushed, we just have to say, by the Secret Service of Ukraine, to prevent the merging of Bolshevism with the workers and protest movement. Of course, nothing can stop this process, because it is objective. But simply additional obstacles occur on this path.
Our task, our obligation is to work together, join the protest movement of the working class, working people of Ukraine with Bolshevism, to build class consciousness in the ranks of the fighters, armed with the working class understanding of its historical mission, the gravedigger of capitalism and the builder of a classless communist society.
A. MAYEVSKY, secretary of the AUCPB
PS: The article was written towards the second round of presidential elections in Ukraine
Friday 19 November 2010
GLOBAL JEWISH CAPITAL IN THE U.S. AND AROUND THE WORLD
"These trends are clearly seen primarily in two major centres of business activity in the capitalist world - IN WESTERN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA, WHERE TO DATE ARE FOUND THE MOST POWERFUL FINANCIAL-INDUSTRIAL GROUPS OF THE JEWISH BOURGEOISIE. In Europe, this is the Rothschilds group, whose name is associated with the entire history of Zionism and in the U.S. – the relatively new Lazarov banking group: THESE ARE FIVE MAJOR INVESTMENT BANKING WALL STREET FIRMS ... forming the basis of two of the most significant Jewish monopoly groups" (the Limenov groups and Loeb - Bronfman – Beych groups)."... In the hands of the above-mentioned five major Jewish investment banking firms on Wall Street are always up to 23% of the shares of large industrial companies in the U.S.. SOMETIMES THIS FIGURE REACHES 40%. Representatives from these firms cover about 15% of directorships in 1000 various corporations in the country.
The influence of major Jewish capital in the economies of the capitalist countries is maintained not just BY ITS FIRM POSITIONS, BUT IN INDIVIDUAL STATES AND BY ITS LEADING POSITIONS IN THE SPHERE OF CREDIT-FINANCE AND TRADE, WHICH REMAIN TO THIS DAY, THE PRINCIPAL AND TRADITIONAL BUSINESS OF THE JEWISH BOURGEOISIE. Over the past decade, the financial sphere of influence of the bourgeoisie of Jewish descent has gone far beyond these areas and has spread to many sectors of material production - mining, oil and chemical industries, transportation, publishing, advertising and the newspaper business, enterprise culture and the media outlets. In recent years, Jewish finance capital in corporations, firms and companies in the military-industrial complex has played a more prominent role.
“….THEIR WEALTH, ORGANIZATION AND LEADING POSITION PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR UNLIMITED INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING U.S. POLICY." (V.I. Kiselev. Zionism in the imperialist system / / International Zionism: history and politics. M., 1977., P. 7-8,10).
"It is no exaggeration to say that the BRANCHING AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD and at the same time a strictly centralized system of organizations of International Zionism combined with a POWERFUL FINANCIAL-ECONOMIC BASIS in the face of a monopoly bourgeoisie of Jewish descent with a large, often DOMINANT INFLUENCE OVER THE MEDIA, CULTURE AND STATE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION APPARATUS of leading capitalist states, IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF STRENGTH AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ZIONIST INFLUENCE OVER POLICY of a number of leading capitalist states. To date, INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM by degree of the branching out of their organizations, their range of activities and international relations, the depth of penetration into the sphere of Jewish communities, as well as in different spheres of political, economic and social life in capitalist countries has no equal ... AMONG OTHER ORDERS OF WORLD REACTION " (ibid., p. 15).
"..." A Zionist organization... has the possibility and ability to achieve what is OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, and in this lies the SUPREMACY OF A ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OVER THE STATE ... The state and the Zionist movement complement each other, need each other"... ZIONISTS HAVE DIRECTED THEIR STRENGTHS... ON A GLOBAL SCALE – TOWARDS THE CREATION OF A QUASI-INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS EDUCATION TO ENJOY THE RIGHTS OF SUPRANATIONAL (ABOVE-STATE) ORGANIZATIONS ... "(ibid., p. 73, 75).
"It becomes even more evident the unseemly role of those who encourage Israeli extremists - THE ROLE OF U.S. IMPERIALISM AND INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE AGGRESSIVE IMPERIALIST CIRCLES ... In many parts of the world, including Israel, the Zionist organizations and the Israeli government have become THE MAIN TOOLS OF POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE OF IMPERIALISM AGAINST SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM, AGAINST THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION "(ibid.).
THE ROLE OF WORLD ZIONISM IS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOCIALIST CAMP.
“…. UP TO 80% OF AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL WESTERN MEDIA OUTLETS ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST CENTRES. In many countries, the bourgeois Zionist organizations have placed their own "cadres" and "sympathetic" into the central elements of the press, editorial radio, in television, film, science, art and literature. USING THESE POWERFUL LEVERS, THE ZIONISTS INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PREACHING THEIR IDEAS, REMAIN SILENT OR DISTORT EVERYTHING THAT IS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE AGAINST THEIR IDEOLOGY" (Ideology and practice of international Zionism., 1978, p. 97, 98).
"A SIGNIFICANT role for ZIONISM lies in the strategy of imperialism to create within the individual socialist countries - through the Zionist-minded elements, with the help of all sorts of revisionist and nationalistic concepts - ENCLAVES OF OPPOSITION to the people's system with the aim of eliminating it through a "SILENT COUNTER-REVOLUTION"... Unfolding the FRONT OF IDEOLOGICAL SABOTAGE with the aim of undermining the socialist society, BREAKING IT UP FROM WITHIN, Zionist organizations attracted ZIONIST intellectuals FOR THIS, COVERED BY A MASK OF "LIBERALS" AND "FIGHTERS FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS" (ibid., p. 105).
"To strengthen political subversion against the socialist countries, international Zionism brought their own strong points closer to their borders. Such SUBVERSIVE CENTRES AND ORGANIZATIONS OF ZIONISM, with close ties to the intelligence services of the imperialist states, settled in West Berlin, Brussels, Paris, London and Vienna. All of them, coordinating with each other activities against the socialist countries, COLLECT AND HANDLE MATERIAL ... , ENGAGE IN IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL SABOTAGE, etc ... According to the London Sunday Telegraph, "TEL AVIV HAS BECOME KNOWN IN WORLD INTELLIGENCE AS A KIND OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE FOR INTELLIGENCE DATA", supplied by the Zionists who infiltrated the socialist countries" (ibid., p. 106).
"Evidence suggests that a typical example of the unity of racism and chauvinism is specifically Zionism, which CURRENTLY IS ASSIGNED THE ROLE OF THE GUNS OF WORLD REACTION ... Many people increasingly find clear the TRUE scale of the danger posed by the IDEOLOGY AND ACTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM FOR ALL PEACE-LOVING, DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF THE PLANET AND ITS FUTURE ... Its SPECIAL DANGER lies in the variety of forms and methods of struggle, and the ability to change them depending on the situation, in the POSSIBILITY OF CONCENTRATING ENORMOUS FORCES AND MEANS TO FIGHT AGAINST SOCIALISM" (ibid., p. 265).
The influence of major Jewish capital in the economies of the capitalist countries is maintained not just BY ITS FIRM POSITIONS, BUT IN INDIVIDUAL STATES AND BY ITS LEADING POSITIONS IN THE SPHERE OF CREDIT-FINANCE AND TRADE, WHICH REMAIN TO THIS DAY, THE PRINCIPAL AND TRADITIONAL BUSINESS OF THE JEWISH BOURGEOISIE. Over the past decade, the financial sphere of influence of the bourgeoisie of Jewish descent has gone far beyond these areas and has spread to many sectors of material production - mining, oil and chemical industries, transportation, publishing, advertising and the newspaper business, enterprise culture and the media outlets. In recent years, Jewish finance capital in corporations, firms and companies in the military-industrial complex has played a more prominent role.
“….THEIR WEALTH, ORGANIZATION AND LEADING POSITION PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR UNLIMITED INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING U.S. POLICY." (V.I. Kiselev. Zionism in the imperialist system / / International Zionism: history and politics. M., 1977., P. 7-8,10).
"It is no exaggeration to say that the BRANCHING AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD and at the same time a strictly centralized system of organizations of International Zionism combined with a POWERFUL FINANCIAL-ECONOMIC BASIS in the face of a monopoly bourgeoisie of Jewish descent with a large, often DOMINANT INFLUENCE OVER THE MEDIA, CULTURE AND STATE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION APPARATUS of leading capitalist states, IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF STRENGTH AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ZIONIST INFLUENCE OVER POLICY of a number of leading capitalist states. To date, INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM by degree of the branching out of their organizations, their range of activities and international relations, the depth of penetration into the sphere of Jewish communities, as well as in different spheres of political, economic and social life in capitalist countries has no equal ... AMONG OTHER ORDERS OF WORLD REACTION " (ibid., p. 15).
"..." A Zionist organization... has the possibility and ability to achieve what is OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, and in this lies the SUPREMACY OF A ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OVER THE STATE ... The state and the Zionist movement complement each other, need each other"... ZIONISTS HAVE DIRECTED THEIR STRENGTHS... ON A GLOBAL SCALE – TOWARDS THE CREATION OF A QUASI-INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS EDUCATION TO ENJOY THE RIGHTS OF SUPRANATIONAL (ABOVE-STATE) ORGANIZATIONS ... "(ibid., p. 73, 75).
"It becomes even more evident the unseemly role of those who encourage Israeli extremists - THE ROLE OF U.S. IMPERIALISM AND INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE AGGRESSIVE IMPERIALIST CIRCLES ... In many parts of the world, including Israel, the Zionist organizations and the Israeli government have become THE MAIN TOOLS OF POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE OF IMPERIALISM AGAINST SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM, AGAINST THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION "(ibid.).
THE ROLE OF WORLD ZIONISM IS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOCIALIST CAMP.
“…. UP TO 80% OF AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL WESTERN MEDIA OUTLETS ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST CENTRES. In many countries, the bourgeois Zionist organizations have placed their own "cadres" and "sympathetic" into the central elements of the press, editorial radio, in television, film, science, art and literature. USING THESE POWERFUL LEVERS, THE ZIONISTS INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PREACHING THEIR IDEAS, REMAIN SILENT OR DISTORT EVERYTHING THAT IS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE AGAINST THEIR IDEOLOGY" (Ideology and practice of international Zionism., 1978, p. 97, 98).
"A SIGNIFICANT role for ZIONISM lies in the strategy of imperialism to create within the individual socialist countries - through the Zionist-minded elements, with the help of all sorts of revisionist and nationalistic concepts - ENCLAVES OF OPPOSITION to the people's system with the aim of eliminating it through a "SILENT COUNTER-REVOLUTION"... Unfolding the FRONT OF IDEOLOGICAL SABOTAGE with the aim of undermining the socialist society, BREAKING IT UP FROM WITHIN, Zionist organizations attracted ZIONIST intellectuals FOR THIS, COVERED BY A MASK OF "LIBERALS" AND "FIGHTERS FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS" (ibid., p. 105).
"To strengthen political subversion against the socialist countries, international Zionism brought their own strong points closer to their borders. Such SUBVERSIVE CENTRES AND ORGANIZATIONS OF ZIONISM, with close ties to the intelligence services of the imperialist states, settled in West Berlin, Brussels, Paris, London and Vienna. All of them, coordinating with each other activities against the socialist countries, COLLECT AND HANDLE MATERIAL ... , ENGAGE IN IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL SABOTAGE, etc ... According to the London Sunday Telegraph, "TEL AVIV HAS BECOME KNOWN IN WORLD INTELLIGENCE AS A KIND OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE FOR INTELLIGENCE DATA", supplied by the Zionists who infiltrated the socialist countries" (ibid., p. 106).
"Evidence suggests that a typical example of the unity of racism and chauvinism is specifically Zionism, which CURRENTLY IS ASSIGNED THE ROLE OF THE GUNS OF WORLD REACTION ... Many people increasingly find clear the TRUE scale of the danger posed by the IDEOLOGY AND ACTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM FOR ALL PEACE-LOVING, DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF THE PLANET AND ITS FUTURE ... Its SPECIAL DANGER lies in the variety of forms and methods of struggle, and the ability to change them depending on the situation, in the POSSIBILITY OF CONCENTRATING ENORMOUS FORCES AND MEANS TO FIGHT AGAINST SOCIALISM" (ibid., p. 265).
Monday 18 October 2010
ZIONIST COLLABORATION WITH THE GERMAN FASCISM
From the book: Yuri Ivanov. Caution: ZIONISM! M., Politizdat, 1969.
The third step was to obtain the support of fascists.
Zionist intelligence having made a few deep probes and found that the omens were favourable, in November 1934 Goldmann (a former staff adviser on Jewish affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Kaiser of Germany, a leader of the World Jewish Congress – note by Editor.) hastily left for Rome. A great deal depended on the outcome of his meeting with Mussolini. The fascist dictator's reaction to the Zionist project was a matter of great concern not only to Goldmann, but to all Zionist leaders, and they followed the mission of the former German diplomat with close attention.
Mussolini received Goldmann on November 13, 1934, and their thirty-minute talk passed in an atmosphere of good will and mutual understanding. Mussolini approved of the idea of founding a World Jewish Congress and promised his support. The Goldmann mission was a success and signified a great deal for him personally. On November 14, 1934, his name appeared for the first time in the biggest European newspapers next to the name of "one of the most powerful personalities of the Western World."
***
“Haganah” - the so-called armed forces of the Jewish settlers. One of the top commanders of the Haganah, as these detachments were called, was Feivel Polkes who was also the chief resident agent of the nazi Intelligence Service in Palestine and Syria. The following appeared on the pages of the West German Der Spiegel on December 19, 1966: "Agent Reichert of the German Information Bureau in Palestine was in contact with a leading functionary of a secret Zionist organisation which more than anything else (with the exception of the British Intelligence Service) captured the imagination of German Intelligence. This organisation was called Haganah. In the general headquarters of this secret army worked . . . Feivel Polkes. . . . He was in charge, according to von Mildenstein's successor as Chief of the Division for Jewish Affairs 11.112 of the intelligence head-quarters, Hagen, of the administration of the entire security apparatus of the Palestinian Jews" [28] (emphasis added—Y.I.).
While Feivel Polkes with his cutthroats ministered to nazi Germany's external "needs," Dr. Nossig, the same Dr. Nossig who in the reign of Wilhelm II upheld the project of settling the Jews in the Ottoman Empire outside of Palestine, was equally zealous in ministering to the "domestic needs" of the nazis. “Zionist leader, writer, sculptor and politician in whose Berlin office such prominent Zionists as Arthur Ruppin and Jacob Thon” had worked in their time, [29] Nossig together with the nazis designed the plan for destroying aged and needy German Jews. Nossig lived to the age of eighty, when, according to Moshe Sneh, he was executed by the fighters of the Warsaw ghetto who had found out about his crimes. Such was the degree of this prominent Zionist leader's loyalty to German imperialism, Sneh added. [30]
***
Goldmann, Polkes, Nossig, these direct links with fascism, were by no means exceptions. "Zionists," wrote Heinz Höhne, a German journalist, "viewed the consolidation of the nazis in Germany not as a national calamity, but as a unique historical opportunity for achieving their Zionist objectives." He asserted that "since the Zionists and the National Socialists had elevated race and nation to the scale of all things, it was inevitable that a common bridge should have appeared between them." [31]
US columnist Morris Cohen seconded this view, stressing that "Zionists fundamentally accept the racial ideology of these anti-Semites, but draw different conclusions. Instead of the Teuton, it is the Jew that is the pure or superior race." [32]
In 1933, the 238,000 Jews living in Palestine accounted for about 20 per cent of the country's total population. By 1936 their number had risen to 404,000, i.e., by more than 50 per cent. [33] And it would be naive to think that this considerable influx of newcomers was due to the "triumph" of Zionist ideas. It was fascist atrocities which forced Jews to seek a haven, and Palestine was merely one of the numerous regions where they found it. Forced to admit this fact, the Zionist Edelman wrote that the Jews went to Palestine “not with the express intention of setting up a Jewish national home there, but simply to save their lives.” [34]
At that period the so-called Palestine Office supported by the nazis was busy "selecting" refugees with the direct participation of the former Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. In their book The Secret Roads, David and Jon Kimche wrote: "Jewish emissaries had not come to Nazi Germany to save German Jews. . . . They were looking for young men and women who wanted to go to Palestine and were prepared to pioneer, struggle and . . . fight for it." [35]
Quoting documentary evidence Heinz Höhne wrote: ". . . von Mildenstein, Chief of the Division for Jewish Affairs of the intelligence headquarters did all he could to assist Zionist organisations in the establishment of re-education camps where young Jews were trained for work in kibbutzes in Palestine. He carefully followed the activity of the Zionists, and ordered his Division to draft maps showing the progress of Zionism among German Jewry." [36]
These re-education camps were set up in nazi Germany following an agreement between Zionist emissaries and Adolf Eichmann. Disclosing Eichmann's attitude to the Zionists, Israeli journalist Hannah Arendt wrote that the latter "unlike the Assimilationists, whom he always despised, and unlike Orthodox Jews, who bored him, were 'idealists' like him." [37]
Zionists, as we know, have always favoured anti-Semitism in which they openly placed all their hopes for the future. Therefore the conclusion of a secret alliance between Zionism and fascism was not at all unnatural. Intent on achieving their goals, the Zionists reacted in a most peculiar fashion to the anti-Semitic orgies of the nazis. The British Zionist Lord Melchett wrote in a book published in 1937 that the persecution of the Jews in Germany was an obstacle to closer relations between the German and other European nations. To improve the situation Melchett recommended a mass and complete evacuation of German Jews to Palestine. His book can in no way be qualified as an indictment of nazi outrages. [38]
Chaim Weizmann (president of the World Zionist Organisation) viewed the developments in Germany with still greater equanimity and tolerance. In reply to a query of the Palestine Royal Commission about the possibility of transferring 6,000,000 West European Jews to Palestine, he said: "No, the old will go. . . . They are dust, economic and moral dust of the world. . . . Only the branch will remain."
Twenty-one years after the rout of nazi Germany, Zionist leaders let slip the causes of their loyal neutrality. "If we [Zionists—Y.I.] had regarded the saving of the maximum number of Jews as our basic task [emphasis added—Y.I.]," declared Eliezer Livneh, a prominent Zionist, "then we would have had to co-operate with the partisans. There were partisan bases in Poland, Lithuania, in the nazi-occupied parts of Russia, in Yugoslavia and later in Slovakia. If our main task [emphasis added—Y.I.] was to prevent the liquidation (of the Jews) and if we had entered into contact with the partisan bases, we could have saved many lives." [39]
Zionist leader Chaim Landau made public the views entertained on this issue by Yizchak Gruenbaum, who in the period of the fascist atrocities headed the Zionist “Salvation Committee”. "When I was asked," wrote Landau quoting Gruenbaum, "whether I would give money from the Karen Haechod [Zionist fund—Y.I.] to save the Jews of the Diaspora, I said 'no.' And now, too, I shall say 'no.' I consider that we have to withstand this wave, otherwise it will engulf us and push our Zionist activity into the background." [40]
The Zionists' policy towards the fascists was one of tacit consent (on the basis of the deal between the Zionist emissaries and Eichmann) and helped create the conditions which enabled the persecution of the Jews in Germany to attain the maximum possible proportions; this policy also consisted in the post-factum organisation of noisy protests to gain political and other capital.
Pointing to the main consequences of the "mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine" Hannah Arendt writes: "The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organise a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods ‘made in Germany.'" [41]
David Flinker, an American journalist, noted on May 24, 1963, in the Tog Morgen Journal that "Ben-Gurion, as head of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem in the thirties, concluded what was known as a transfer-deal with the Hitler government under which the assets of the Jews who had left the country were transferred in the form of German goods and thus prevented the institution of a boycott of the nazis. . . ." Moreover, writer Ben Hecht publicly accused Ben-Gurion of deliberately keeping silent in the period when the world public was already informed of the nazi atrocities.
In the last years of the Second World War, the public in all countries was widely informed about the nazi atrocities.
But the Zionists, accessories to numerous brutal crimes, remained in the shadows. Availing themselves of the opportunities and means provided by their allies, they evaded retribution leaving a maze of twisted paths behind them.
At that time the so-called Salvation Committee appointed by the Zionist Jewish Agency was functioning in Hungary. It was headed by one Rudolf Kastner who had maintained very close ties with Eichmann. "The greatest 'idealist' Eichmann ever encountered among the Jews," wrote Hannah Arendt, "was Dr. Rudolf Kastner . . . with whom he came to an agreement that he, Eichmann, would permit the 'illegal' departure of a few thousand Jews to Palestine (the trains were in fact guarded by German police) in exchange for 'quiet and order' in the camps [in Hungary—Y.I.] from which hundreds of thousands were shipped to Auschwitz." Hannah Arendt pointed out that “prominent Jews and members of the Zionist youth organisations who were saved by the agreement "were, in Eichmann's words, 'the best biological material'; Dr. Kastner, as Eichmann understood it, had sacrificed his fellow-Jews (half a million people-Y.I.) to his 'idea.' . . ." [51]
Arriving safely in Palestine, Dr. Kastner changed his name from Rudolf to Israel and became a prominent functionary of the Zionist Mapai Party headed by Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and others. Later he was secretly liquidated by the Israeli political police [52] for admitting that the Hungarian Zionist centre had had a hand in the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews.
It was 1944. The German army was retreating under the blows of the Soviet troops. Its losses in men and materiel were telling heavily on Germany. To transfer its troops and concentrate them as swiftly as possible on the most vulnerable sectors of the Eastern Front the nazi command needed transport facilities—thousands of lorries.
At the beginning of May 1944, Eichmann was ordered to obtain 10,000 lorries through the Zionists for dispatch to the Eastern Front in exchange for a promise to liberate the Jews from German camps for shipment to Palestine. (By then the Jews comprised about 30 per cent of the total population of Palestine.)
Eichmann met with Joël Brandt, a Hungarian Zionist leader, who promptly communicated the nazi proposal to the Zionist Committee. The latter sent Brandt to Constantinople to discuss the matter with representatives of the Jewish Agency. [53]
The Zionist leaders, headed by Chaim Weizmann, unhesitatingly agreed to supply the nazi command of the Eastern Front with 10,000 lorries. [54] The Zionists had always regarded the Soviet Union and its armed forces as their direct enemy, and the decision was therefore a perfectly natural one for them to take.
Zionist politicians and dealers, who to this day claim to be the "defenders and benefactors" of Jews in all countries, suffered absolutely no remorse about the fact that besides Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and men of all the other nationalities of the Soviet Union, there were Jewish soldiers, sailors, officers and generals fighting with the troops whose advance the nazis wanted to stop at any price. For all of them, whether members of the Communist Party or not, there was only one homeland—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—and they defended it with honour. That they might die in circumstances which the Zionists were ready and willing to create did not worry the latter in the slightest. Morris Ernst, a US journalist, was perfectly right when he wrote that the Zionists "are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own." [55]
The third step was to obtain the support of fascists.
Zionist intelligence having made a few deep probes and found that the omens were favourable, in November 1934 Goldmann (a former staff adviser on Jewish affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Kaiser of Germany, a leader of the World Jewish Congress – note by Editor.) hastily left for Rome. A great deal depended on the outcome of his meeting with Mussolini. The fascist dictator's reaction to the Zionist project was a matter of great concern not only to Goldmann, but to all Zionist leaders, and they followed the mission of the former German diplomat with close attention.
Mussolini received Goldmann on November 13, 1934, and their thirty-minute talk passed in an atmosphere of good will and mutual understanding. Mussolini approved of the idea of founding a World Jewish Congress and promised his support. The Goldmann mission was a success and signified a great deal for him personally. On November 14, 1934, his name appeared for the first time in the biggest European newspapers next to the name of "one of the most powerful personalities of the Western World."
***
“Haganah” - the so-called armed forces of the Jewish settlers. One of the top commanders of the Haganah, as these detachments were called, was Feivel Polkes who was also the chief resident agent of the nazi Intelligence Service in Palestine and Syria. The following appeared on the pages of the West German Der Spiegel on December 19, 1966: "Agent Reichert of the German Information Bureau in Palestine was in contact with a leading functionary of a secret Zionist organisation which more than anything else (with the exception of the British Intelligence Service) captured the imagination of German Intelligence. This organisation was called Haganah. In the general headquarters of this secret army worked . . . Feivel Polkes. . . . He was in charge, according to von Mildenstein's successor as Chief of the Division for Jewish Affairs 11.112 of the intelligence head-quarters, Hagen, of the administration of the entire security apparatus of the Palestinian Jews" [28] (emphasis added—Y.I.).
While Feivel Polkes with his cutthroats ministered to nazi Germany's external "needs," Dr. Nossig, the same Dr. Nossig who in the reign of Wilhelm II upheld the project of settling the Jews in the Ottoman Empire outside of Palestine, was equally zealous in ministering to the "domestic needs" of the nazis. “Zionist leader, writer, sculptor and politician in whose Berlin office such prominent Zionists as Arthur Ruppin and Jacob Thon” had worked in their time, [29] Nossig together with the nazis designed the plan for destroying aged and needy German Jews. Nossig lived to the age of eighty, when, according to Moshe Sneh, he was executed by the fighters of the Warsaw ghetto who had found out about his crimes. Such was the degree of this prominent Zionist leader's loyalty to German imperialism, Sneh added. [30]
***
Goldmann, Polkes, Nossig, these direct links with fascism, were by no means exceptions. "Zionists," wrote Heinz Höhne, a German journalist, "viewed the consolidation of the nazis in Germany not as a national calamity, but as a unique historical opportunity for achieving their Zionist objectives." He asserted that "since the Zionists and the National Socialists had elevated race and nation to the scale of all things, it was inevitable that a common bridge should have appeared between them." [31]
US columnist Morris Cohen seconded this view, stressing that "Zionists fundamentally accept the racial ideology of these anti-Semites, but draw different conclusions. Instead of the Teuton, it is the Jew that is the pure or superior race." [32]
In 1933, the 238,000 Jews living in Palestine accounted for about 20 per cent of the country's total population. By 1936 their number had risen to 404,000, i.e., by more than 50 per cent. [33] And it would be naive to think that this considerable influx of newcomers was due to the "triumph" of Zionist ideas. It was fascist atrocities which forced Jews to seek a haven, and Palestine was merely one of the numerous regions where they found it. Forced to admit this fact, the Zionist Edelman wrote that the Jews went to Palestine “not with the express intention of setting up a Jewish national home there, but simply to save their lives.” [34]
At that period the so-called Palestine Office supported by the nazis was busy "selecting" refugees with the direct participation of the former Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. In their book The Secret Roads, David and Jon Kimche wrote: "Jewish emissaries had not come to Nazi Germany to save German Jews. . . . They were looking for young men and women who wanted to go to Palestine and were prepared to pioneer, struggle and . . . fight for it." [35]
Quoting documentary evidence Heinz Höhne wrote: ". . . von Mildenstein, Chief of the Division for Jewish Affairs of the intelligence headquarters did all he could to assist Zionist organisations in the establishment of re-education camps where young Jews were trained for work in kibbutzes in Palestine. He carefully followed the activity of the Zionists, and ordered his Division to draft maps showing the progress of Zionism among German Jewry." [36]
These re-education camps were set up in nazi Germany following an agreement between Zionist emissaries and Adolf Eichmann. Disclosing Eichmann's attitude to the Zionists, Israeli journalist Hannah Arendt wrote that the latter "unlike the Assimilationists, whom he always despised, and unlike Orthodox Jews, who bored him, were 'idealists' like him." [37]
Zionists, as we know, have always favoured anti-Semitism in which they openly placed all their hopes for the future. Therefore the conclusion of a secret alliance between Zionism and fascism was not at all unnatural. Intent on achieving their goals, the Zionists reacted in a most peculiar fashion to the anti-Semitic orgies of the nazis. The British Zionist Lord Melchett wrote in a book published in 1937 that the persecution of the Jews in Germany was an obstacle to closer relations between the German and other European nations. To improve the situation Melchett recommended a mass and complete evacuation of German Jews to Palestine. His book can in no way be qualified as an indictment of nazi outrages. [38]
Chaim Weizmann (president of the World Zionist Organisation) viewed the developments in Germany with still greater equanimity and tolerance. In reply to a query of the Palestine Royal Commission about the possibility of transferring 6,000,000 West European Jews to Palestine, he said: "No, the old will go. . . . They are dust, economic and moral dust of the world. . . . Only the branch will remain."
Twenty-one years after the rout of nazi Germany, Zionist leaders let slip the causes of their loyal neutrality. "If we [Zionists—Y.I.] had regarded the saving of the maximum number of Jews as our basic task [emphasis added—Y.I.]," declared Eliezer Livneh, a prominent Zionist, "then we would have had to co-operate with the partisans. There were partisan bases in Poland, Lithuania, in the nazi-occupied parts of Russia, in Yugoslavia and later in Slovakia. If our main task [emphasis added—Y.I.] was to prevent the liquidation (of the Jews) and if we had entered into contact with the partisan bases, we could have saved many lives." [39]
Zionist leader Chaim Landau made public the views entertained on this issue by Yizchak Gruenbaum, who in the period of the fascist atrocities headed the Zionist “Salvation Committee”. "When I was asked," wrote Landau quoting Gruenbaum, "whether I would give money from the Karen Haechod [Zionist fund—Y.I.] to save the Jews of the Diaspora, I said 'no.' And now, too, I shall say 'no.' I consider that we have to withstand this wave, otherwise it will engulf us and push our Zionist activity into the background." [40]
The Zionists' policy towards the fascists was one of tacit consent (on the basis of the deal between the Zionist emissaries and Eichmann) and helped create the conditions which enabled the persecution of the Jews in Germany to attain the maximum possible proportions; this policy also consisted in the post-factum organisation of noisy protests to gain political and other capital.
Pointing to the main consequences of the "mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine" Hannah Arendt writes: "The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organise a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods ‘made in Germany.'" [41]
David Flinker, an American journalist, noted on May 24, 1963, in the Tog Morgen Journal that "Ben-Gurion, as head of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem in the thirties, concluded what was known as a transfer-deal with the Hitler government under which the assets of the Jews who had left the country were transferred in the form of German goods and thus prevented the institution of a boycott of the nazis. . . ." Moreover, writer Ben Hecht publicly accused Ben-Gurion of deliberately keeping silent in the period when the world public was already informed of the nazi atrocities.
In the last years of the Second World War, the public in all countries was widely informed about the nazi atrocities.
But the Zionists, accessories to numerous brutal crimes, remained in the shadows. Availing themselves of the opportunities and means provided by their allies, they evaded retribution leaving a maze of twisted paths behind them.
At that time the so-called Salvation Committee appointed by the Zionist Jewish Agency was functioning in Hungary. It was headed by one Rudolf Kastner who had maintained very close ties with Eichmann. "The greatest 'idealist' Eichmann ever encountered among the Jews," wrote Hannah Arendt, "was Dr. Rudolf Kastner . . . with whom he came to an agreement that he, Eichmann, would permit the 'illegal' departure of a few thousand Jews to Palestine (the trains were in fact guarded by German police) in exchange for 'quiet and order' in the camps [in Hungary—Y.I.] from which hundreds of thousands were shipped to Auschwitz." Hannah Arendt pointed out that “prominent Jews and members of the Zionist youth organisations who were saved by the agreement "were, in Eichmann's words, 'the best biological material'; Dr. Kastner, as Eichmann understood it, had sacrificed his fellow-Jews (half a million people-Y.I.) to his 'idea.' . . ." [51]
Arriving safely in Palestine, Dr. Kastner changed his name from Rudolf to Israel and became a prominent functionary of the Zionist Mapai Party headed by Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and others. Later he was secretly liquidated by the Israeli political police [52] for admitting that the Hungarian Zionist centre had had a hand in the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews.
It was 1944. The German army was retreating under the blows of the Soviet troops. Its losses in men and materiel were telling heavily on Germany. To transfer its troops and concentrate them as swiftly as possible on the most vulnerable sectors of the Eastern Front the nazi command needed transport facilities—thousands of lorries.
At the beginning of May 1944, Eichmann was ordered to obtain 10,000 lorries through the Zionists for dispatch to the Eastern Front in exchange for a promise to liberate the Jews from German camps for shipment to Palestine. (By then the Jews comprised about 30 per cent of the total population of Palestine.)
Eichmann met with Joël Brandt, a Hungarian Zionist leader, who promptly communicated the nazi proposal to the Zionist Committee. The latter sent Brandt to Constantinople to discuss the matter with representatives of the Jewish Agency. [53]
The Zionist leaders, headed by Chaim Weizmann, unhesitatingly agreed to supply the nazi command of the Eastern Front with 10,000 lorries. [54] The Zionists had always regarded the Soviet Union and its armed forces as their direct enemy, and the decision was therefore a perfectly natural one for them to take.
Zionist politicians and dealers, who to this day claim to be the "defenders and benefactors" of Jews in all countries, suffered absolutely no remorse about the fact that besides Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and men of all the other nationalities of the Soviet Union, there were Jewish soldiers, sailors, officers and generals fighting with the troops whose advance the nazis wanted to stop at any price. For all of them, whether members of the Communist Party or not, there was only one homeland—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—and they defended it with honour. That they might die in circumstances which the Zionists were ready and willing to create did not worry the latter in the slightest. Morris Ernst, a US journalist, was perfectly right when he wrote that the Zionists "are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own." [55]
Tuesday 21 September 2010
V.I. LENIN ON GUERRILLA WARFARE
Despite all attempts by the bourgeois regimes to bring the labour movement to its knees, despite all their applied repression, workers and working people are rising up to fight for their rights.
In this issue we publish materials from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, on the unfolding struggle.
Especially interesting are the letters of young readers of our newspapers, including political prisoners. Political prisoners from the "Odessa case" have not given up, have not broken, have not betrayed their communist beliefs. They, from the torture chambers continue their publicist, ideological, moral fight –- to defend their communist beliefs and ideals that call for working people not to give up and fight for the overthrow of the power of capital.
Noteworthy is the article of our reader Vikhrev about events in Primorye. And in this context I would like to learn from the experience of our Leninist party, the experience of the revolution of 1905-1907, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks paid much attention to the question of armed struggle in general and the partisan struggle in particular.
Analyzing the “Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (works, vol.13, pp. 369-377, August 1906 - Russian) – of the December armed uprising in Moscow in 1905, - and the reasons for his defeat, Lenin noted that the general strike as an independent and main form of struggle, had outlived its usefulness, what with the spontaneous, irresistible force coming out of these narrow confines and producing the highest form of struggle, the uprising. "The strike grew into an uprising, especially under the pressure of the objective conditions" (p. 370). "From the strikes and demonstrations to individual barricades. From individual barricades to massive construction of barricades and street fighting with the army. Over the head of organizations, mass proletarian struggle crossed over from strike to uprising. In this, lies the greatest historic gain of the Russian Revolution reached by December 1905, the gain, bought, as in all the previous ones, at the price of enormous sacrifices "(p.370-371). "And now we must, finally, openly and publicly recognize the inadequacy of political strikes, to agitate among the broadest masses for armed insurrection ... To hide from the masses the need for a desperate, bloody, destructive war as the immediate task of impending action, means, to deceive oneself, and the people"(p.372). "... The inevitable wavering of troops, whatever the true people's movement, leads under the aggravation of the revolutionary struggle to a true struggle for winning over the troops. The Moscow uprising shows us exactly the most desperate, most furious fighting of reactionary power and the revolution for winning over the support of the army"(p. 372). Lenin, analyzing the causes of the defeat of the December armed uprising, reminds the revolutionaries of Marx's words, "who wrote that insurrection is an art and that the main rule of this art –is the desperately brave, final, decisive assault" (p.374). "We should ring all the bells on the need for a bold offensive and attack with weapons in hand, on the need for extermination with this, of the commanders, and the most energetic struggle for the wavering troops "(p.374). "Moscow - Lenin notes – put forth "new barricade tactics." These tactics were the tactics of guerrilla warfare. The organization, using such tactics would be mobile and very small detachments of tens, triples, or even two people "(p.374-375). Lenin went on to note that Moscow put forward a new tactic of guerrilla warfare, but did not develop it. "Vigilantes were insufficient in numbers, the mass of workers had not received the slogan of bold attacks and did not use it, the nature of guerrilla units was too fixed, their weapons and their methods inadequate, their ability to lead a crowd was almost undeveloped" (p.375). “Social-Democracy (Communists-FB) must recognize and adopt as their tactics this mass terror, of course, organizing and controlling it, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the labour movement and the general revolutionary struggle ... "(p. 375). The heroic struggle of several thousand armed Moscow workers lasted 9 days. Tsarism sent troops into Moscow, many times higher in strength than the rebel forces, had used artillery against the barricade and drowned the uprising in blood. The Moscow Committee of Bolsheviks was arrested, and the rebels did not have a single centre, fought piecemeal and limited themselves to defence. This was the main source of weakness of the Moscow uprising and one of the reasons for his defeat (material from the History of the CPSU (b), OGIZ, Gospolitizdat, 1945, p. 79). Lenin, in the above work, notes that "military tactics depends on the level of military equipment - Engels chewed upon this truth and put it into the mouth of Marxists." (p.374). The Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Moscow uprising did not lost heart. They believed that there was an impending new wave of armed struggle and proposed to prepare for it more carefully, prepare weapons and to really confront the armed to the teeth, Tsar’s punitive forces, called on them step up the fight to win over the wavering troops, which mainly consisted of peasants dressed in soldiers' uniforms. "We can and must take advantage of improving technology, to teach the workers’ detachments to make bombs en-mass, to help them and our fighting squads to stock up explosives, fuses and automatic rifles. With the participation of the working masses in the urban uprising, with a mass attack on the enemy with a strong skillful fight for winning over the army, which will waver even more ..., ensuring the participation of the countryside in the common struggle - victory will be ours in the next all-Russian armed uprising" (p.376 ).
Lenin ends this work on an optimistic note with a deep faith in the creative forces of the revolutionary working class, - "Let us remember that the great mass struggle is nearing. This will be an armed uprising. It should be, if possible, at the same time. The masses must know that they are going on an armed, bloody, desperate struggle. Contempt for death must be spread among the masses and ensure victory. The attack on the enemy must be the most vigorous; attack and not defence should be the slogan of the masses, the ruthless extermination of the enemy – will be their task; the organization of the struggle will be developed mobile and flexible; the wavering elements among troops will be drawn into active struggle. The party of the politically conscious proletariat must fulfil its duty in this great struggle (p.376-377).
Lenin devoted questions on guerrilla action in his special work "The Guerrilla War" (PSS, v.14, p.1-12, September 1906). Speaking of forms of struggle, Lenin noted that, firstly, "Marxism is different from all the primitive forms of socialism in that it does not connect the movement of any one particular form of struggle. He recognizes a variety of forms of struggle, does not "invent" them, but merely summarizes, organizes, gives consciousness to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes, which arise of themselves in the course of the movement "(p. 1). "Marxism in this respect is learning, so to speak, from mass practice, far from the claims to teach the masses invented "forms of struggle" by armchair" systematists (p. 2).
"Secondly, Marxism demands an absolutely historical consideration of the question on forms of struggle" (p. 2). "At different stages of economic evolution, depending on various political, national, cultural, domestic conditions etc., various forms of struggle are put forward and become the principal forms of struggle, and in connection with this, in turn, secondary and less important forms of struggle are modified, "(p. 2).
"Armed struggle pursues two different objectives ... this struggle is aimed, firstly, to the murder of individuals, superiors and subordinates in the military and police - and secondly, to confiscate the funds from government and private entities. Confiscated funds go to the party, part of it goes towards the armament and preparation of the uprising, and part of it towards the maintenance of those leading the struggle characterized by us"(p. 4). "The worsening political crisis to the point of armed struggle and in particular the worsening poverty, hunger and unemployment in villages and towns have played a major role among the reasons for the described form of struggle" (p. 4). "The spreading of the "guerilla" struggle namely after December and its connection with the aggravation of not only the economic but also political crisis are obvious. Old Russian terrorism used to be the affair of the intellectual-conspirator, but now the guerrilla struggle is carried out, as a general rule, by a worker-fighter or simply an unemployed worker "(p.5-6).
"Guerrilla struggle is an inevitable form of struggle at a time when the mass movement is actually ready for an uprising, and when enter more or less large intervals between "major battles" in a civil war" (p.7).
"A Marxist stands on the class struggle, and not on social peace. In certain periods of acute economic and political crises, the class struggle develops to outright civil war, i.e. armed struggle between two sections of the people "(p.8). "In the era of civil war, the ideal party of the proletariat is a belligerent party "(p.8). And Lenin concludes: "It should learn to fight" (p.9).
“In such an era, in an era of nation-wide political strikes, the uprising cannot be moulded into the old form of individual acts, limited by very short time and very small areas. It is natural and inevitable that the revolt takes higher and more complex forms of a continual civil war covering the whole country, i.e. armed struggle between the two sections of the people "(p.11).
"Social-Democracy (communists -FB) must necessarily set its goal of the establishment of such organizations, which would be most able to lead the masses in these large-scale battles and, if possible, in small skirmishes. Social democracy (communists) in an era of intensified class struggle up and to civil war, should set itself the task of not only participation, but also the leadership role in this civil war. Social democracy (communists) must educate and prepare their organizations to ensure that they really act as a belligerent party, and not to miss a single opportunity to inflict damage on enemy forces" (p.11).
The Draft resolution “guerrilla fighting operations”, as proposed by the Bolsheviks to the IV (amalgamating) Congress of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) (April 1906) was written precisely in the Leninist revolutionary spirit. The Congress however, where the majority were Mensheviks had adopted the more subdued version of the Resolution. But on the V (London) RSDLP Congress (April-May 1907), when it became clear that the revolution had subsided, the Bolsheviks in the draft resolution to Congress “About guerrilla actions" wrote: "At the moment, in the absence of conditions for a mass revolutionary upheaval, guerrilla actions are undesirable and congress recommends an ideological struggle with them, and that it is also permissible under the conditions of mass revolutionary struggle, guerrilla performances can be carried out only at the initiative of local party committees, with the permission of the regional centres, and under their strict control. A system of party militia, which consists of military training for all party members within the existing party cells are a form of combat organizations, with the most appropriate task of training the militant vanguard of the proletariat for an armed uprising, (CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Moscow, Politizdat, 1983 , Volume 1, s.254-255).
A. MAYEVSKY
In this issue we publish materials from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, on the unfolding struggle.
Especially interesting are the letters of young readers of our newspapers, including political prisoners. Political prisoners from the "Odessa case" have not given up, have not broken, have not betrayed their communist beliefs. They, from the torture chambers continue their publicist, ideological, moral fight –- to defend their communist beliefs and ideals that call for working people not to give up and fight for the overthrow of the power of capital.
Noteworthy is the article of our reader Vikhrev about events in Primorye. And in this context I would like to learn from the experience of our Leninist party, the experience of the revolution of 1905-1907, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks paid much attention to the question of armed struggle in general and the partisan struggle in particular.
Analyzing the “Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (works, vol.13, pp. 369-377, August 1906 - Russian) – of the December armed uprising in Moscow in 1905, - and the reasons for his defeat, Lenin noted that the general strike as an independent and main form of struggle, had outlived its usefulness, what with the spontaneous, irresistible force coming out of these narrow confines and producing the highest form of struggle, the uprising. "The strike grew into an uprising, especially under the pressure of the objective conditions" (p. 370). "From the strikes and demonstrations to individual barricades. From individual barricades to massive construction of barricades and street fighting with the army. Over the head of organizations, mass proletarian struggle crossed over from strike to uprising. In this, lies the greatest historic gain of the Russian Revolution reached by December 1905, the gain, bought, as in all the previous ones, at the price of enormous sacrifices "(p.370-371). "And now we must, finally, openly and publicly recognize the inadequacy of political strikes, to agitate among the broadest masses for armed insurrection ... To hide from the masses the need for a desperate, bloody, destructive war as the immediate task of impending action, means, to deceive oneself, and the people"(p.372). "... The inevitable wavering of troops, whatever the true people's movement, leads under the aggravation of the revolutionary struggle to a true struggle for winning over the troops. The Moscow uprising shows us exactly the most desperate, most furious fighting of reactionary power and the revolution for winning over the support of the army"(p. 372). Lenin, analyzing the causes of the defeat of the December armed uprising, reminds the revolutionaries of Marx's words, "who wrote that insurrection is an art and that the main rule of this art –is the desperately brave, final, decisive assault" (p.374). "We should ring all the bells on the need for a bold offensive and attack with weapons in hand, on the need for extermination with this, of the commanders, and the most energetic struggle for the wavering troops "(p.374). "Moscow - Lenin notes – put forth "new barricade tactics." These tactics were the tactics of guerrilla warfare. The organization, using such tactics would be mobile and very small detachments of tens, triples, or even two people "(p.374-375). Lenin went on to note that Moscow put forward a new tactic of guerrilla warfare, but did not develop it. "Vigilantes were insufficient in numbers, the mass of workers had not received the slogan of bold attacks and did not use it, the nature of guerrilla units was too fixed, their weapons and their methods inadequate, their ability to lead a crowd was almost undeveloped" (p.375). “Social-Democracy (Communists-FB) must recognize and adopt as their tactics this mass terror, of course, organizing and controlling it, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the labour movement and the general revolutionary struggle ... "(p. 375). The heroic struggle of several thousand armed Moscow workers lasted 9 days. Tsarism sent troops into Moscow, many times higher in strength than the rebel forces, had used artillery against the barricade and drowned the uprising in blood. The Moscow Committee of Bolsheviks was arrested, and the rebels did not have a single centre, fought piecemeal and limited themselves to defence. This was the main source of weakness of the Moscow uprising and one of the reasons for his defeat (material from the History of the CPSU (b), OGIZ, Gospolitizdat, 1945, p. 79). Lenin, in the above work, notes that "military tactics depends on the level of military equipment - Engels chewed upon this truth and put it into the mouth of Marxists." (p.374). The Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Moscow uprising did not lost heart. They believed that there was an impending new wave of armed struggle and proposed to prepare for it more carefully, prepare weapons and to really confront the armed to the teeth, Tsar’s punitive forces, called on them step up the fight to win over the wavering troops, which mainly consisted of peasants dressed in soldiers' uniforms. "We can and must take advantage of improving technology, to teach the workers’ detachments to make bombs en-mass, to help them and our fighting squads to stock up explosives, fuses and automatic rifles. With the participation of the working masses in the urban uprising, with a mass attack on the enemy with a strong skillful fight for winning over the army, which will waver even more ..., ensuring the participation of the countryside in the common struggle - victory will be ours in the next all-Russian armed uprising" (p.376 ).
Lenin ends this work on an optimistic note with a deep faith in the creative forces of the revolutionary working class, - "Let us remember that the great mass struggle is nearing. This will be an armed uprising. It should be, if possible, at the same time. The masses must know that they are going on an armed, bloody, desperate struggle. Contempt for death must be spread among the masses and ensure victory. The attack on the enemy must be the most vigorous; attack and not defence should be the slogan of the masses, the ruthless extermination of the enemy – will be their task; the organization of the struggle will be developed mobile and flexible; the wavering elements among troops will be drawn into active struggle. The party of the politically conscious proletariat must fulfil its duty in this great struggle (p.376-377).
Lenin devoted questions on guerrilla action in his special work "The Guerrilla War" (PSS, v.14, p.1-12, September 1906). Speaking of forms of struggle, Lenin noted that, firstly, "Marxism is different from all the primitive forms of socialism in that it does not connect the movement of any one particular form of struggle. He recognizes a variety of forms of struggle, does not "invent" them, but merely summarizes, organizes, gives consciousness to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes, which arise of themselves in the course of the movement "(p. 1). "Marxism in this respect is learning, so to speak, from mass practice, far from the claims to teach the masses invented "forms of struggle" by armchair" systematists (p. 2).
"Secondly, Marxism demands an absolutely historical consideration of the question on forms of struggle" (p. 2). "At different stages of economic evolution, depending on various political, national, cultural, domestic conditions etc., various forms of struggle are put forward and become the principal forms of struggle, and in connection with this, in turn, secondary and less important forms of struggle are modified, "(p. 2).
"Armed struggle pursues two different objectives ... this struggle is aimed, firstly, to the murder of individuals, superiors and subordinates in the military and police - and secondly, to confiscate the funds from government and private entities. Confiscated funds go to the party, part of it goes towards the armament and preparation of the uprising, and part of it towards the maintenance of those leading the struggle characterized by us"(p. 4). "The worsening political crisis to the point of armed struggle and in particular the worsening poverty, hunger and unemployment in villages and towns have played a major role among the reasons for the described form of struggle" (p. 4). "The spreading of the "guerilla" struggle namely after December and its connection with the aggravation of not only the economic but also political crisis are obvious. Old Russian terrorism used to be the affair of the intellectual-conspirator, but now the guerrilla struggle is carried out, as a general rule, by a worker-fighter or simply an unemployed worker "(p.5-6).
"Guerrilla struggle is an inevitable form of struggle at a time when the mass movement is actually ready for an uprising, and when enter more or less large intervals between "major battles" in a civil war" (p.7).
"A Marxist stands on the class struggle, and not on social peace. In certain periods of acute economic and political crises, the class struggle develops to outright civil war, i.e. armed struggle between two sections of the people "(p.8). "In the era of civil war, the ideal party of the proletariat is a belligerent party "(p.8). And Lenin concludes: "It should learn to fight" (p.9).
“In such an era, in an era of nation-wide political strikes, the uprising cannot be moulded into the old form of individual acts, limited by very short time and very small areas. It is natural and inevitable that the revolt takes higher and more complex forms of a continual civil war covering the whole country, i.e. armed struggle between the two sections of the people "(p.11).
"Social-Democracy (communists -FB) must necessarily set its goal of the establishment of such organizations, which would be most able to lead the masses in these large-scale battles and, if possible, in small skirmishes. Social democracy (communists) in an era of intensified class struggle up and to civil war, should set itself the task of not only participation, but also the leadership role in this civil war. Social democracy (communists) must educate and prepare their organizations to ensure that they really act as a belligerent party, and not to miss a single opportunity to inflict damage on enemy forces" (p.11).
The Draft resolution “guerrilla fighting operations”, as proposed by the Bolsheviks to the IV (amalgamating) Congress of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) (April 1906) was written precisely in the Leninist revolutionary spirit. The Congress however, where the majority were Mensheviks had adopted the more subdued version of the Resolution. But on the V (London) RSDLP Congress (April-May 1907), when it became clear that the revolution had subsided, the Bolsheviks in the draft resolution to Congress “About guerrilla actions" wrote: "At the moment, in the absence of conditions for a mass revolutionary upheaval, guerrilla actions are undesirable and congress recommends an ideological struggle with them, and that it is also permissible under the conditions of mass revolutionary struggle, guerrilla performances can be carried out only at the initiative of local party committees, with the permission of the regional centres, and under their strict control. A system of party militia, which consists of military training for all party members within the existing party cells are a form of combat organizations, with the most appropriate task of training the militant vanguard of the proletariat for an armed uprising, (CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Moscow, Politizdat, 1983 , Volume 1, s.254-255).
A. MAYEVSKY
Wednesday 4 August 2010
ON THE NATURE OF ZIONISM
By Lyubov PRIBYTKOV, Russia
I found on a website an article by Vladimir Andreyev entitled "The Truth about Zionism." I was happy, because that destructive role played by Zionism in the modern world, little is written about it by the Communists and this is unforgivable. And here we have the truth about Zionism. I thought, finally a Communist, a member of the RCWP (Russian Communist Workers’ Party), calling a spade a spade.
This is all the more necessary, because ZIONISM as the state ideology and policy of Israel, in equity should be again as in 1975, condemned by UN General Assembly as aggressive racism and a form of racial discrimination. For 60 years Israel has occupied Palestine and maintains a policy of state terrorism on the suffering of Arab land, exactly resembling Germany's fascism.
Although placing hopes on the UN is naive, because in 1991 it had abolished its decision. In recent decades, the credibility of this international organization has fallen sharply. The UN has become a handheld appliance for the U.S.A., the world imperialist gendarme. It got to the point that during the visit of the UN Secretary General to the Middle East on March 21, 2010, Israeli President Shimon Peres scolded Ban Ki-moon like a little boy for the allegedly loyal attitude of the UN towards "troublemaker" Iranian President Ahmadinejad ...
After reading the article my disappointment knew no bounds. Andreyev set out to - in whatever form he took to DEFEND ZIONISM. At first he warned readers not to believe the paraphrase from an article from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which says that "Zionism is a reactionary chauvinist ideology and policy of the Jewish bourgeoisie," and named "the characteristic features of Zionism as being militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Sovietism. He has reduced these assessments of Zionism to ordinary "horror stories", though they are the absolute truth.
Then he introduced us to the wise sayings of the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR, then Prime Minister Golda Meir. Do not forget to remember the good father of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who Mussolini affectionately called a "Jewish fascist", and Ben Gurion dubbed him as "Vladimir Hitler." He sang the praises to the Israeli kibbutzim, “agricultural communes”, in which labour is perfectly organized, unlike the Soviet communes, in which "thick commies like to work less and get more ...”
The author even dragged Ber Borohov here, who headed in Poltava in the beginning of the XX century the Jewish "Marxist" organization Po'alei Zion "("Workforce"). And he dreamt, how the Jewish proletariat would move to an empty land (?) free from people, to create a "Jewish national enclave" and implement "socialist ideals". That’s why Zionism was initially alleged to be "socialist".
The magic of words played a cruel joke on the author. It saved him the necessity to analyze and dig to the bottom of the terrible phenomenon called "ZIONISM."
Hitler also headed the WORKER’S National Socialist Party. Was its program really desirable to the interests of the working class of Germany? Thus the Jewish "Bund" broke away from the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) in early XX century, and the Poltavian “Po'alei Zion” bore no relation to Marxism and did not serve the interests of the working class. It would not hurt the author-"communist" to get acquainted with Lenin's assessment of the pro-Zionist position of the Bundists.
True, very often latter-day "communists" do not feel the need for studying dialectical materialist logic. They do not study the classics of Marxism. They say that "they are obsolete" to cover up their political ignorance and laziness of the mind. They restrict themselves to sketches of surface phenomena and do not examine events in the concrete historical context. The class approach is not considered a major methodological tool in understanding social phenomena.
Marx and Engels are sometimes quoted, but their outstanding discoveries - the materialist conception of history, are not understood. But they prefer, mainly what is in vogue, being the idealistic treatises of Western "thinkers" and the beautifully speaking speakers of bourgeois publicists. And they are even proud of such an eclectic mishmash of ideas in their heads.
So it turns out these articles, where instead of the truth about Zionism, are its solid apologetics. Andreev in the article refers to statements of "good" Zionists. And they do not bother to think about the thoughts of Lenin on the false and reactionary Zionist ideas about "special Jewish people" and "the need for Jewish separateness", which are harmful and contrary to the interests of the proletariat, including the Jewish proletariat. (PSS., v. 8, p. . 74).
In his work "Critical Remarks on the National Question", Lenin insisted on the need for "an uncompromising struggle against the contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even the most refined. (PSS., v. 24, pp. 124) He writes: "Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it the most "fair", "clean", refined and civilized. Marxism advances in place of nationalism - internationalism, the merging of all nations in higher unity "(p.131).
Not useful for the author also is the article by Karl Marx "On the Jewish Question", where indeed the social ESSENCE OF ZIONISM is revealed.
Arguing with Bruno Bauer on the question of emancipation of Jews in Germany, Karl Marx wrote: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, selfishness. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Haggling. Who is his worldly God? Money. But in this case, the emancipation from haggling and money - hence, from practical, real Jewry - would be self-emancipation of our time. The organization of society, which would have the prerequisites of commercialism, and, consequently, the possibility of haggling eliminated – such organization of society would make the Jew impossible ... Thus, we find in Judaism a contemporary manifestation of the modern-day anti-social element, led to its current stage of historical development in which the Jews took in this bad direction, zealous participation. This element has reached a high stage of development at which it must necessarily disintegrate. The emancipation of the Jews in the endvalue is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. V. 1, pp. 408. Russian lang.)
Marx, one of the first, spoke of the significant impact of the Jews throughout the world. He cites the arguments of Bruno Bauer from the book "The Jewish question": "A Jew, who in Vienna is only tolerated, determines by his monetary authority, the fate of the whole empire. A Jew who may be disenfranchised in a small German state, decides the fate of Europe." And commenting on this passage with the words: "And this is not an isolated fact. The Jew emancipated himself in the Jewish manner, he emancipated himself not only because he had arrogated to himself the power of money, but also so that through him, MONEY has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations" (ibid., pp. 409).
Marx drew attention to the transformation of Judaism into the ideology of the Jewish bourgeoisie. "Jewishness could not develop further as a religion, because the world-view of practical demands, by its nature is limited and confined to a few strokes." "What is in itself the foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism." "MONEY IS THE JEALOUS GOD OF ISRAEL, before whom there should be no other god. Money deprecates all the gods of Man from the heights, and turns them into commodities.” "The god of the Jews was made secular, became the world's god. The promissory note is the true god of the Jew. His god is just an illusory bill of exchange "(ibid., pp. 410).
In his work, "The Sacred Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism", Marx stresses that in the XIX century, the Jewish bourgeoisie began to occupy key positions in the capitalist world. "The fate of France is determined not in the offices of the Tuileries, not under the arches of the House of Peers, not even under the arches of the Chamber of Deputies, but on the Paris Stock Exchange. The real ministers are not Guizot and Gishatel, but Rothschild, Fould and other bankers. They control the Ministry and the Ministry is concerned about only those people who are loyal to the regime and those who benefit by it running in elections."
People would be better to understand state bodies of power do not have the reins of power in capitalist countries. True power is not with the politicians, but with CAPITAL. The capitalist buys the politicians in the same way as journalists and lawyers, villas on the Mediterranean coast or fashionable European yacht clubs are bought...
Of course, not every person finds it so easy to understand what Zionism really is. Under the conditions of imperialist globalization, international Jewish capital holds in its hands not only most of the transnational corporations, but most of the media. Any criticism of the ideology of Zionism and Zionist policy qualifies as ANTI-SEMITISM.
Fear of possible accusations of anti-Semitism makes even the other "bashful" (or cowardly) communist leaders say that the aggressive policies of Israel against the Palestinian Arab people, reminiscent of a genocide – is a topic which few Russian citizens (or British ones –K.C.) believe to be vibrant." When it comes to citizens-philistines, what can be taken from them? Besides their own stomachs, nothing ever interests them.
If the GENOCIDE which the Israeli racists have been subjecting the indigenous population of Palestine to for the past 60 years is not perceived by the Communists as their pain, then how can they be Communists. Communists – are internationalists.
Do we really not have the highest example of proletarian internationalism? The founder of the International Workingmen's Association, Karl Marx, held under the scrutiny the revolutionary situation in France in 1848 and kept in touch with the Paris Commune in 1871. After its defeat, it was at his house that many Communards found shelter.
For many years he had connections with the Russian revolutionaries Herman Lopatin and Vera Zasulich. He followed articles by Chernyshevsky and Flerovsky. In 1879 he intently studied Narodnik Danielson’s report sent to him on Russian financial policy for fifteen years. In his personal library were 115 titles of Russian books. Herzen read "Prisons and exile” in Russian in the original. He did not consider Russia to be "far far away" country ...
It was not from the Communist position, but an ordinary common sense position that made even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter describe Israel's policies as an "APARTHEID system, where two peoples occupy a land, but are separated from each other, and where the Israelis completely dominate and suppress by violence, depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”
Zionism is a terrible destructive force. In it are all the dogmas - false, unfounded and reactionary.
Who sees the “inextricable link of the Jews throughout the world"? None. Jews living in Russia, speak in Russian, many do not know any Hebrew or Yiddish. Jews in the U.S. are Americans. They speak English. French Jews do not utter a word of Hebrew. Assimilation has done its work. The Jews have no common territory, or single language.
Who today in his right mind accepts that "all Jews are brothers?” All Jews who are capitalists are enemies of the Jewish working people, like capitalists of any nationality are enemies of working people throughout the world. And this the ABC of Marxism.
Who, except the Zionists can accept the idea that Jews have some special "historical rights" to the "land of the Jewish ancestors? Yes, 700 years BC, that is almost 3,000 years ago there was a small kingdom of Judah, which then disappeared ... And now, when so much water has flowed, is there an Arab who has reconciled with the fact that he was forced to flee from the land where his ancestors lived, where he was born and raised?
So, what is Zionism? In the words of a Swedish journalist, a former Moroccan officer, Ahmed Rami - the voice of millions of Muslims all over the world. "ZIONISM is racism ... It is COLONIALISM ... It is IMPERIALISM ... It is the policy of repression and arrogance, as Zionist Israel has systematically violated all the principles and resolutions of the UN ... Zionism in its practice is strikingly similar to APARTHEID "... (Http://radioislam.org/russ/rami/5.htm)
Communists have nothing against this assessment, though Ahmed Rami is far from the ideas of communism. He did not understand any of Marxism, nor the socialist revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The leader of theoretical and practical Zionism, Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky's position of racism and colonialism openly deemed it NECESSARY to create a "national home" for Jews in Zion. He devoted his whole life to the development of Zionism, its defence and implementation. He did not accept the revolution in Russia in 1917. He advocated the "private economy", "private initiative” and private property. He rejected the class struggle, appealing for class peace and harmony. He believed the worker and the entrepreneur play the same role in the development of society. Whoever fights against private capital, is an enemy of the nation. He categorically disagreed with the slogan of the Communists - "Workers of all countries, unite!" The national was above the class.
He traveled to dozens of countries. In Russia and Poland, America and Germany, Britain and France - everywhere he campaigned passionately for Jews to leave everything and go to the "ancestral homeland". On the planet, everyone, Jews and non-Jews should understand that Eretz Yisrael (Israel) should be a Jewish state. The idea of a "Jewish majority" in the Promised Land was the motive of his life.
He preached the dogma - "EVERYTHING IS MINE", not agreeing even to admit that Arabs belong to at least three-quarters of the earth. "The Arabs must accept the situation as it is: the territory of Eretz Israel on both sides of the Jordan is intended for the Jewish state with a Jewish majority" - he said. (Joseph Nedava. Vladimir Jabotinsky: Milestones in life. Per. In Hebrew. Rostov-on-Don. 1998).
Back in 1908, he wrote that the creation of a Jewish state is the COLONIZATION of Arab lands. And it will lead to antagonism with the locals. History shows that the colonialists have never been met with open arms. The natives fiercely resisted in America, and will resist here. We must prepare for this. "Our country will be freed only by the sword" - he said.
The racist attitude of modern Israel is here in the words of Jabotinsky: "The settlement can only develop with the use of force, independent of the local population, protected by an iron wall that local people can not break ... We should not be afraid of the possibility that 900,000 people will leave the country "
Already in 1919 he created the organization of Jewish immigrants "Khagani" to "ensure the protection of settlers from the arbitrariness of the natives," as he called the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.
Later, speaking to young “Beitar”nationalists, he urged them to be "relentless", sung the praises of the "power of the fist" stood for "military training". "Learning to shoot" - he believed was a historical necessity. And did not cease to rejoice that he had saved the youth from the "red plague".
Later, out of the ranks of "Betar", the brainchild of Jabotinsky, rose bandit groups Etzel and Lehi, which after the adoption by the UN of the fateful decision to create the Jewish state of Israel in December 1947, began by terror to implement it.
They, 1 April 1948, in the village of Dir Yassin, massacred 245 unarmed Palestinians - men, women and children. The bodies were taken to a quarry and burned. Similar atrocities were committed in other towns. In 1948 alone, the Zionists had killed 100,000 Palestinians, both inside the country and abroad. The strangulation of the indigenous population of Gaza by continuing bombardments, blockades and starvation is still ongoing.
I do not know whether there was a Jewish Holocaust, but the Arabic holocaust today is there to see.
The ideas MILITARISM have become the driving spring of the aggressive policies of Israel. And terror has become its state policy.
The ideology and politics of Zionism naturally gives rise not only among Arabs but also among all freedom-loving humanity a feeling of protest and hatred of Israel, the occupiers and invaders.
Unfortunately, there is still no force that would be able to destroy Israeli fascism, as did the Red Army in World War II in the fight against German fascism. The Arab world is split. The international communist and workers' movement is riddled by opportunism and appeasement. There is no Communist International. The Communist Party of Israel is silent. Critical remarks by sane Jewish intellectuals in Europe and America in addressing Israeli barbarism are heard only neighbours on the couch by the TV ...
The military and political power of the Israeli and international Zionism can be withstood only by military and political force. Under the domination of the global imperialism, the only hope is for a global, well organized, national liberation and communist protest. The victory of the people in the liberation struggle in South Africa and the collapse of the apartheid regime inspires faith in the victory of the Palestinian people in the Middle East.
Lyubov PRIBYTKOVA, from Irkutsk, Russia
March 2010
I found on a website an article by Vladimir Andreyev entitled "The Truth about Zionism." I was happy, because that destructive role played by Zionism in the modern world, little is written about it by the Communists and this is unforgivable. And here we have the truth about Zionism. I thought, finally a Communist, a member of the RCWP (Russian Communist Workers’ Party), calling a spade a spade.
This is all the more necessary, because ZIONISM as the state ideology and policy of Israel, in equity should be again as in 1975, condemned by UN General Assembly as aggressive racism and a form of racial discrimination. For 60 years Israel has occupied Palestine and maintains a policy of state terrorism on the suffering of Arab land, exactly resembling Germany's fascism.
Although placing hopes on the UN is naive, because in 1991 it had abolished its decision. In recent decades, the credibility of this international organization has fallen sharply. The UN has become a handheld appliance for the U.S.A., the world imperialist gendarme. It got to the point that during the visit of the UN Secretary General to the Middle East on March 21, 2010, Israeli President Shimon Peres scolded Ban Ki-moon like a little boy for the allegedly loyal attitude of the UN towards "troublemaker" Iranian President Ahmadinejad ...
After reading the article my disappointment knew no bounds. Andreyev set out to - in whatever form he took to DEFEND ZIONISM. At first he warned readers not to believe the paraphrase from an article from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which says that "Zionism is a reactionary chauvinist ideology and policy of the Jewish bourgeoisie," and named "the characteristic features of Zionism as being militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Sovietism. He has reduced these assessments of Zionism to ordinary "horror stories", though they are the absolute truth.
Then he introduced us to the wise sayings of the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR, then Prime Minister Golda Meir. Do not forget to remember the good father of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who Mussolini affectionately called a "Jewish fascist", and Ben Gurion dubbed him as "Vladimir Hitler." He sang the praises to the Israeli kibbutzim, “agricultural communes”, in which labour is perfectly organized, unlike the Soviet communes, in which "thick commies like to work less and get more ...”
The author even dragged Ber Borohov here, who headed in Poltava in the beginning of the XX century the Jewish "Marxist" organization Po'alei Zion "("Workforce"). And he dreamt, how the Jewish proletariat would move to an empty land (?) free from people, to create a "Jewish national enclave" and implement "socialist ideals". That’s why Zionism was initially alleged to be "socialist".
The magic of words played a cruel joke on the author. It saved him the necessity to analyze and dig to the bottom of the terrible phenomenon called "ZIONISM."
Hitler also headed the WORKER’S National Socialist Party. Was its program really desirable to the interests of the working class of Germany? Thus the Jewish "Bund" broke away from the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) in early XX century, and the Poltavian “Po'alei Zion” bore no relation to Marxism and did not serve the interests of the working class. It would not hurt the author-"communist" to get acquainted with Lenin's assessment of the pro-Zionist position of the Bundists.
True, very often latter-day "communists" do not feel the need for studying dialectical materialist logic. They do not study the classics of Marxism. They say that "they are obsolete" to cover up their political ignorance and laziness of the mind. They restrict themselves to sketches of surface phenomena and do not examine events in the concrete historical context. The class approach is not considered a major methodological tool in understanding social phenomena.
Marx and Engels are sometimes quoted, but their outstanding discoveries - the materialist conception of history, are not understood. But they prefer, mainly what is in vogue, being the idealistic treatises of Western "thinkers" and the beautifully speaking speakers of bourgeois publicists. And they are even proud of such an eclectic mishmash of ideas in their heads.
So it turns out these articles, where instead of the truth about Zionism, are its solid apologetics. Andreev in the article refers to statements of "good" Zionists. And they do not bother to think about the thoughts of Lenin on the false and reactionary Zionist ideas about "special Jewish people" and "the need for Jewish separateness", which are harmful and contrary to the interests of the proletariat, including the Jewish proletariat. (PSS., v. 8, p. . 74).
In his work "Critical Remarks on the National Question", Lenin insisted on the need for "an uncompromising struggle against the contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even the most refined. (PSS., v. 24, pp. 124) He writes: "Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it the most "fair", "clean", refined and civilized. Marxism advances in place of nationalism - internationalism, the merging of all nations in higher unity "(p.131).
Not useful for the author also is the article by Karl Marx "On the Jewish Question", where indeed the social ESSENCE OF ZIONISM is revealed.
Arguing with Bruno Bauer on the question of emancipation of Jews in Germany, Karl Marx wrote: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, selfishness. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Haggling. Who is his worldly God? Money. But in this case, the emancipation from haggling and money - hence, from practical, real Jewry - would be self-emancipation of our time. The organization of society, which would have the prerequisites of commercialism, and, consequently, the possibility of haggling eliminated – such organization of society would make the Jew impossible ... Thus, we find in Judaism a contemporary manifestation of the modern-day anti-social element, led to its current stage of historical development in which the Jews took in this bad direction, zealous participation. This element has reached a high stage of development at which it must necessarily disintegrate. The emancipation of the Jews in the endvalue is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. V. 1, pp. 408. Russian lang.)
Marx, one of the first, spoke of the significant impact of the Jews throughout the world. He cites the arguments of Bruno Bauer from the book "The Jewish question": "A Jew, who in Vienna is only tolerated, determines by his monetary authority, the fate of the whole empire. A Jew who may be disenfranchised in a small German state, decides the fate of Europe." And commenting on this passage with the words: "And this is not an isolated fact. The Jew emancipated himself in the Jewish manner, he emancipated himself not only because he had arrogated to himself the power of money, but also so that through him, MONEY has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations" (ibid., pp. 409).
Marx drew attention to the transformation of Judaism into the ideology of the Jewish bourgeoisie. "Jewishness could not develop further as a religion, because the world-view of practical demands, by its nature is limited and confined to a few strokes." "What is in itself the foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism." "MONEY IS THE JEALOUS GOD OF ISRAEL, before whom there should be no other god. Money deprecates all the gods of Man from the heights, and turns them into commodities.” "The god of the Jews was made secular, became the world's god. The promissory note is the true god of the Jew. His god is just an illusory bill of exchange "(ibid., pp. 410).
In his work, "The Sacred Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism", Marx stresses that in the XIX century, the Jewish bourgeoisie began to occupy key positions in the capitalist world. "The fate of France is determined not in the offices of the Tuileries, not under the arches of the House of Peers, not even under the arches of the Chamber of Deputies, but on the Paris Stock Exchange. The real ministers are not Guizot and Gishatel, but Rothschild, Fould and other bankers. They control the Ministry and the Ministry is concerned about only those people who are loyal to the regime and those who benefit by it running in elections."
People would be better to understand state bodies of power do not have the reins of power in capitalist countries. True power is not with the politicians, but with CAPITAL. The capitalist buys the politicians in the same way as journalists and lawyers, villas on the Mediterranean coast or fashionable European yacht clubs are bought...
Of course, not every person finds it so easy to understand what Zionism really is. Under the conditions of imperialist globalization, international Jewish capital holds in its hands not only most of the transnational corporations, but most of the media. Any criticism of the ideology of Zionism and Zionist policy qualifies as ANTI-SEMITISM.
Fear of possible accusations of anti-Semitism makes even the other "bashful" (or cowardly) communist leaders say that the aggressive policies of Israel against the Palestinian Arab people, reminiscent of a genocide – is a topic which few Russian citizens (or British ones –K.C.) believe to be vibrant." When it comes to citizens-philistines, what can be taken from them? Besides their own stomachs, nothing ever interests them.
If the GENOCIDE which the Israeli racists have been subjecting the indigenous population of Palestine to for the past 60 years is not perceived by the Communists as their pain, then how can they be Communists. Communists – are internationalists.
Do we really not have the highest example of proletarian internationalism? The founder of the International Workingmen's Association, Karl Marx, held under the scrutiny the revolutionary situation in France in 1848 and kept in touch with the Paris Commune in 1871. After its defeat, it was at his house that many Communards found shelter.
For many years he had connections with the Russian revolutionaries Herman Lopatin and Vera Zasulich. He followed articles by Chernyshevsky and Flerovsky. In 1879 he intently studied Narodnik Danielson’s report sent to him on Russian financial policy for fifteen years. In his personal library were 115 titles of Russian books. Herzen read "Prisons and exile” in Russian in the original. He did not consider Russia to be "far far away" country ...
It was not from the Communist position, but an ordinary common sense position that made even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter describe Israel's policies as an "APARTHEID system, where two peoples occupy a land, but are separated from each other, and where the Israelis completely dominate and suppress by violence, depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”
Zionism is a terrible destructive force. In it are all the dogmas - false, unfounded and reactionary.
Who sees the “inextricable link of the Jews throughout the world"? None. Jews living in Russia, speak in Russian, many do not know any Hebrew or Yiddish. Jews in the U.S. are Americans. They speak English. French Jews do not utter a word of Hebrew. Assimilation has done its work. The Jews have no common territory, or single language.
Who today in his right mind accepts that "all Jews are brothers?” All Jews who are capitalists are enemies of the Jewish working people, like capitalists of any nationality are enemies of working people throughout the world. And this the ABC of Marxism.
Who, except the Zionists can accept the idea that Jews have some special "historical rights" to the "land of the Jewish ancestors? Yes, 700 years BC, that is almost 3,000 years ago there was a small kingdom of Judah, which then disappeared ... And now, when so much water has flowed, is there an Arab who has reconciled with the fact that he was forced to flee from the land where his ancestors lived, where he was born and raised?
So, what is Zionism? In the words of a Swedish journalist, a former Moroccan officer, Ahmed Rami - the voice of millions of Muslims all over the world. "ZIONISM is racism ... It is COLONIALISM ... It is IMPERIALISM ... It is the policy of repression and arrogance, as Zionist Israel has systematically violated all the principles and resolutions of the UN ... Zionism in its practice is strikingly similar to APARTHEID "... (Http://radioislam.org/russ/rami/5.htm)
Communists have nothing against this assessment, though Ahmed Rami is far from the ideas of communism. He did not understand any of Marxism, nor the socialist revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The leader of theoretical and practical Zionism, Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky's position of racism and colonialism openly deemed it NECESSARY to create a "national home" for Jews in Zion. He devoted his whole life to the development of Zionism, its defence and implementation. He did not accept the revolution in Russia in 1917. He advocated the "private economy", "private initiative” and private property. He rejected the class struggle, appealing for class peace and harmony. He believed the worker and the entrepreneur play the same role in the development of society. Whoever fights against private capital, is an enemy of the nation. He categorically disagreed with the slogan of the Communists - "Workers of all countries, unite!" The national was above the class.
He traveled to dozens of countries. In Russia and Poland, America and Germany, Britain and France - everywhere he campaigned passionately for Jews to leave everything and go to the "ancestral homeland". On the planet, everyone, Jews and non-Jews should understand that Eretz Yisrael (Israel) should be a Jewish state. The idea of a "Jewish majority" in the Promised Land was the motive of his life.
He preached the dogma - "EVERYTHING IS MINE", not agreeing even to admit that Arabs belong to at least three-quarters of the earth. "The Arabs must accept the situation as it is: the territory of Eretz Israel on both sides of the Jordan is intended for the Jewish state with a Jewish majority" - he said. (Joseph Nedava. Vladimir Jabotinsky: Milestones in life. Per. In Hebrew. Rostov-on-Don. 1998).
Back in 1908, he wrote that the creation of a Jewish state is the COLONIZATION of Arab lands. And it will lead to antagonism with the locals. History shows that the colonialists have never been met with open arms. The natives fiercely resisted in America, and will resist here. We must prepare for this. "Our country will be freed only by the sword" - he said.
The racist attitude of modern Israel is here in the words of Jabotinsky: "The settlement can only develop with the use of force, independent of the local population, protected by an iron wall that local people can not break ... We should not be afraid of the possibility that 900,000 people will leave the country "
Already in 1919 he created the organization of Jewish immigrants "Khagani" to "ensure the protection of settlers from the arbitrariness of the natives," as he called the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.
Later, speaking to young “Beitar”nationalists, he urged them to be "relentless", sung the praises of the "power of the fist" stood for "military training". "Learning to shoot" - he believed was a historical necessity. And did not cease to rejoice that he had saved the youth from the "red plague".
Later, out of the ranks of "Betar", the brainchild of Jabotinsky, rose bandit groups Etzel and Lehi, which after the adoption by the UN of the fateful decision to create the Jewish state of Israel in December 1947, began by terror to implement it.
They, 1 April 1948, in the village of Dir Yassin, massacred 245 unarmed Palestinians - men, women and children. The bodies were taken to a quarry and burned. Similar atrocities were committed in other towns. In 1948 alone, the Zionists had killed 100,000 Palestinians, both inside the country and abroad. The strangulation of the indigenous population of Gaza by continuing bombardments, blockades and starvation is still ongoing.
I do not know whether there was a Jewish Holocaust, but the Arabic holocaust today is there to see.
The ideas MILITARISM have become the driving spring of the aggressive policies of Israel. And terror has become its state policy.
The ideology and politics of Zionism naturally gives rise not only among Arabs but also among all freedom-loving humanity a feeling of protest and hatred of Israel, the occupiers and invaders.
Unfortunately, there is still no force that would be able to destroy Israeli fascism, as did the Red Army in World War II in the fight against German fascism. The Arab world is split. The international communist and workers' movement is riddled by opportunism and appeasement. There is no Communist International. The Communist Party of Israel is silent. Critical remarks by sane Jewish intellectuals in Europe and America in addressing Israeli barbarism are heard only neighbours on the couch by the TV ...
The military and political power of the Israeli and international Zionism can be withstood only by military and political force. Under the domination of the global imperialism, the only hope is for a global, well organized, national liberation and communist protest. The victory of the people in the liberation struggle in South Africa and the collapse of the apartheid regime inspires faith in the victory of the Palestinian people in the Middle East.
Lyubov PRIBYTKOVA, from Irkutsk, Russia
March 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
