otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Monday, February 19, 2018

Support solidarity with Group Yorum

Maoist Road support the democratic struggle and call to the maximum
solidarity with Group yorum
february 2018

Dear comrades,

A few days ago, Turkish fascist government put 6 Grup Yorum members into the
"list of wanted terrorists". AKP's Ministry of Interior says that they will
give a reward of 300 thousand Turkish liras for each revolutionary musician..

Attached is the statement of Grup Yorum about the "wanted list" of Turkish

AKP targets the members of a revolutionary music band which has been
struggling for independence, democracy and socialism for 33 years. With
these lists, AKP tries to show Grup Yorum as illegitimate. But the reality
is that: Grup Yorum is the people, the peoples of the world. Therefore, we
want you to be in solidarity with Grup Yorum.

-You can send solidarity messages-statements with the signatures of your
-You can send pictures, writing "Grup Yorum is the people", "You cannot
silence Grup Yorum" on cardboards, papers,
-You can send videos, singing Grup Yorum songs.,
-You can send fax and e-mail to the Ministry of Interior of Turkey. Attached
is the fax text and fax no - e-mail address of the ministry.

We believe that we will break the siege altogether.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

US- Martin Luther King Jr. reduced to hawking trucks—Super Bowl Ad

I hate commercials. They are one of the most annoying part of capitalism. At times they try to pretend they are entertainment. Other times they pretend to be news updates. But their aim is always to try and get us to buy something. Larry King says he likes to connect people with things that work. He is simply trying to sell us clam oil pills to stop pain. If I could get rid of commercials I would—just as if I could get rid of capitalism in general I would.
This year, as with many years past, the Super Bowl ads are now looked forward to as if they were real entertainment. I see news people showing us the most interesting and anticipated ads for the Super Bowl. But now the ads have hit an all-time low as Dodge used part of a Martin Luther King Jr. speech to sell us their trucks.

“Amid the commercial miasma swirling around Sunday’s Super Bowl telecast, one advertisement actually stood out as something of a cultural and social event. It was an ad for Dodge Ram trucks, featuring the uplifting words of none other than Martin Luther King Jr.
The ad provoked immediate comment on social media – none of it, as far as we can tell, positive. It was seen as a landmark in crassness. That was true not least because in the speech excerpted for the ad, a 1968 sermon entitled “The Drum Major Instinct,” King spends some considerable time excoriating the advertiser-driven quest for material acquisitions, including cars.
“We are so often taken by advertisers,” he declared. “They have a way of saying things to you that kind of gets you into buying…. You’ve seen people riding around in Cadillacs and Chryslers who don’t earn enough to have a good T-Model Ford.” Those words weren’t in the script for the Ram truck company (which is owned by, yes, Fiat Chrysler). The ad just stuck to King’s exhortation to become great by serving others.”

Apparently the King family gave permission for Dodge to use this speech. So what were the King family members thinking when they allowed a speech by one of our most beloved reformist social commentator of the 20th century? I can only guess— $$MONEY$$!
This ad takes a speech that was meant to inspire people to think about the meaning of our lives and our relationship towards others and gave it a new meaning—to buy trucks. The seriousness of such a speech is lost on the crass commercialism and materialism that has soaked in to every fiber of our collective being. The message is simple—buy lots of stuff, whether you need it or not, and contribute to the economy. Such crass commercialism seems to be a form of cultural pollution. Ads are everywhere we go—TV radio, our computers. They are in every public place imaginable. The message is always to buy something. As a culture I would like to think that Americans have more to say about life than buy something and try to find happiness through the ownership of material things.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

India - People’s war intensifies - intensify the support to people's war

It looks like the people's war in India is having some success. Today the Communist Party of India (Maoist) is the most successful Maoist party in the world at present. Moaist all over the world are looking up to this group. They are providing a rallying point for us all. – សតិវ ​អតុ

Despite recent reports oft he old Indian state, which is wrongly claiming successes over people’s war, led by the CPI (maoists), the People’s Liberation Guerilla Army (PLGA) intensified it‘s operations in the border region of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The PLGA was able to deny the fascist forces of the old Indian State entry to regions in which they operate. The PLGA is organizing meetings among the villagers oft he region and building defenses against the government offensive and paramilitaries. Members of the PLGA damaged the roads, blasted a bridge and injured three persons including a Cobra jawan (Indian special forces) in the last few days. Government officials where forced to order an increase of troops to this region, which is clearly saying who hast he initiative. On the other hand people’s war has been able to spread in several regions and was able to intensify it’s operations.

People's war attack in Chhattisgardh

Google Translation:

The Indian press reports clashes between guerrilla units and repressive forces. In Chhattisgardh, three members of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) were seriously injured when they exploited a mine placed by the Naxalites in a forest near the village of Ranibodli, Bijapur district, about 450 kilometers from the state capital, Raipur.
In the Kanker district, an EGPL unit ambushed repressive forces in the forest near the villages of Gome and Gattakal, injuring a member of the 35th BSF battalion.
The Minister of the Interior of the Union, presented in the Parliament a report in which it quantifies in 400 the troops of diverse repressive forces killed by the Maoist guerrilla or militants of Kashmir in the last three years. In the areas under Maoist control, 199 agents were killed and in Jammu and Kashmir 201.

For the rest click here.


La prensa india reporta enfrentamientos entre unidades guerrilleras y fuerzas represivas. En Chhattisgardh, tres miembros de las Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) resultaron heridos de gravedad al explotar una mina colocada por los naxalitas en un bosque cercano a aldea de Ranibodli, distrito de Bijapur, a unos 450 kilómetros de la capital del estado, Raipur.
En el distrito de Kanker, una unidad del EGPL emboscó a fuerzas represivas en el bosque  cercano a las aldeas de Gome y Gattakal, resultando herido un miembro del 35 ° batallón de BSF.
El Ministro del Interior de la Unión, presento en el Parlamento un informe en el que cuantifica en 400 los efectivos de diversas fuerzas represivas muertos por la guerrilla maoísta o militantes  de Cachemira en los últimos tres años. En las zonas bajo control maoístas habrían muerto 199 agentes y en Jammu y Cachemira 201.

Friday, February 09, 2018

Islamic resistance: the main contradiction, and the "war on terror"

Here are some more views on US imperialism:

Translation by Google:
By Serve in Home
By Comrade Ajith, one of the most brilliant Maoist theorists in India, at the time (2008) leader of the CPI (ML) Naxalbari who merged since, May 1, 2014, in the CPI (Maoist). He has been a prisoner of the fascist state since May 2015
What is the record of almost 7 years of "war against terrorism" led by George W. Bush? The death, destruction, torture and all the inhumanity of imperialism have multiplied by a thousand.And in spite of all this, the United States and its allies are still very far from their goals in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.
The two wars in Iraq were celebrated by the US ruling class as the end of the "Vietnam Syndrome", that is, the fear of engaging in protracted military interventions and getting bogged down with all the consequences that implies. But now, debates and internal dissension seem to indicate quite the opposite.
Despite the constant sending of reinforcements to Iraq, the Bush regime has failed to reduce resistance. US losses are increasing every year. In the United States itself and among their allies, the pressure for withdrawal is growing. But things are not so easy: withdrawing troops would be tantamount to an official acceptance of defeat in the "war on terror". The impact of this would not be limited to the region alone. Beyond that, it would imply an explosion of sectarian violence. Africa is unfortunately proof that imperialism can live with it and even profit from it.But sectarian violence in Iraq would not remain contained within its borders. Its extension would have far greater strategic implications than in Africa[almost 10 years after the writing of this text, we could see yes ...] . An Iraqi internal war would have an impact on neighboring countries, affecting the world's leading oil producing region and causing a devastating destabilization of the entire global economy.
US imperialism is caught in an impasse. He can not continue in this direction for a long time, nor can he withdraw easily. The option of involving Iran to use its influence in Iraq is even more contradictory. First, virtually every study conducted by imperialist think tanks acknowledges that Iran's role in Iraqi Shiite resistance is minor. On the other hand, to concede to the current Iranian regime a role to guarantee the stability of Iraq, would be a considerable slash in the American plans for Western Asia.
It would also weaken their control over other comprador regimes in the region. The "war on terror" meant for the United States to reap the benefits of being the only superpower. Its purpose was to ensure that neither the peoples of the world nor their imperialist rivals were able to challenge their supremacy. But the bloodshed in Iraq and elsewhere has exposed the military weakness of US imperialism to the people, and thus, has given them more confidence to fight against it, its strategy always appearing more like a burden. Added to this is the possibility for its imperialist rivals, especially Russia, to advance their pawns while it is "fixed" in Iraq.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not strictly comparable to Vietnam. In this country, there was a revolutionary force leading a national liberation struggle. Here, the national war is organized and directed mainly by the Islamic forces. But as for the situation in which the United States is today, the similarities are striking. This is rooted in the main source of the problem, the development of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples, which describes the context and determines its dynamics. Unlike Vietnam, this contradiction does not manifest itself in Western Asia and Afghanistan through an acute differentiation produced by a revolutionary ideology, but is still bogged down in a sectarian clash of masses against masses. But it is precisely this complexity, the particular form in which the contradiction of development, which requires to be analyzed.
It is necessary to begin to look at two points of view, which complement each other despite seeming totally contradictory. The former formally recognizes the reactionary character of the ideology of the Islamic forces, but then practices an acritical follow-up towards them. The second formally admits that they are part of oppressed and colonized humanity, but then presents their struggle against imperialist occupation as a clash between two reactionary forces.The common point between the two is a logic of a particular kind, which means that their premises are found absolutely nowhere in their conclusions ... What is striking, above all, is the way in which these two positions seek to avoid deal with the complexity mentioned above. In such a way that one and the other stand in the way of any possible Maoist intervention; in the first case, by putting oneself in the trailer of "what exists on the ground", in the second case while staying away from a "confused" reality.
The main problem with the main resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan is not that it is Islamic, or to put it in more general terms, whether it is directed by an ideology of a religious character.Religious ideologies have repeatedly played a progressive role in history. They can still become expressions of national and democratic content, because in oppressed countries, in semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions, religion is not only a spiritual question: it is also a lifestyle closely intertwined with the national culture.
In relation to the subject specifically discussed here, the main problem is the development of this ideology in particular, the reactionary social programs proposed by the most determined forces of Islamic resistance, their "fundamentalism". However, beyond looking for the reason why religious ideologies, instead of seculars, get so much support, we must also ask why this religious current in particular is moving forward, instead of a theology of liberation for example .A tempting response could be a combination of factors such as the weakening of faith in progressive thinking and the practice in general, occasioned by world events (notably the fall of socialism),comprador with the secularization of the society; the ferocity and the inflexible rejection of the existing situation that is observed in fundamentalist religiosity and which offers the masses a militant radicalism: all these factors have certainly played out. The ravages of globalization and misery, combined with the conscious impulse given to religious movements by imperialism and reactionaries, are undoubtedly favorable conditions.
But we must be careful not to give too much importance to this. To establish an absolute causality between the weakening of religion and proletarianization, and vice versa between deproletarization and its resurgence, is the worst kind of mechanical thinking and hasty generalization that can exist. With regard to the role of imperialism and reaction, even in retaining it as an important factor, it nonetheless raises the question of why it is so successful, and therefore implies, and even more strong reason, the need to look into the material and cultural factors intrinsic to each particular society. Just as the vision of the thrust of these fundamentalist movements as a pure "ploy of imperialism and reaction" to "
What is the class centrality of fundamentalist Islamic movements, or fundamentalist movements in general in oppressed countries? It can be quite petty-bourgeois, rural or urban, including "modern" education. Marxism and the experiences of everyday life show us that the petty bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries is an important social force at the national level, not belonging in any way to historically backward sectors, although it is quite capable of to be reactionary. Historical experience also teaches us that it can sometimes trigger national liberation movements. The petty-bourgeois composition of their core is an important reason why certain fundamentalist movements are able to bind themselves to the broad masses and to put themselves at the head of legitimate resistance. But if, of course, analysis is guided solely by moral repugnance, it can only conclude that it is a collection of reactionary social strata arisen from obscure ages - not even the assumption of the contrary being allowed.
[NB: this article dates from 2008; at that time, the Daesh phenomenon had not yet emerged (its predecessor, "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", was more in trouble than anything else). Since then, Daesh reigned between 2014 and 2017 on a Mesopotamian "Caliphate" for the account (to give them a base of accumulation where to invest) billionaires financiers of the Gulf: it is therefore not exactly a force "petty-bourgeois "or" bourgeois national ". In general, if we read also the very interesting biography of the Turkish Necmettin Erbakan , the fact that "Islamism" represents a national bourgeoisie but very closely linkedto feudalism (which in the Gulf has become a petro-oligarchy) is its main limit to become a national-democratic, anti-imperialist revolutionary liberation force.]
This may be appropriate if one seeks to gain an audience among people discouraged by the opinions and practices of the most reactionary fundamentalists, but this will not help the Maoists to gain access to an understanding and a correct treatment of this phenomenon, nor to mobilize a revolutionary mass on this basis, whether in oppressed countries or imperialist countries. The position that resistance in a country like Iraq is a clash between two reactionary groups is to be rejected as imperialist economism precisely because the aspect of national resistance contained in it is denied. The distinction apparently drawn between colonized and imperialist can not make any sense, since its involvement in the national contradiction is denied (by the way,
In the current situation, one result of this is for example the overthrow of priority objectives in the occupied countries, as can be seen in the argument that "to really be with the people of Afghanistan today, it is necessary to to oppose all of its main enemies: the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and, of course, the foreign occupiers . " [1] This simple addition of the imperialist occupiers at the end of the list of main enemies, instead of focusing on they and the puppet state, is an inevitable expression of the imperialist economism underlying all the analysis.
Assuming that the nucleus of the fundamentalist movement is petty-bourgeois, where does its virulent reactionary character come from, so contradictory in appearance with its objective class position? To address this issue, we need to distinguish fundamentalism from revivalism. There is no wall of China separating them. The transformation implemented when they gain political power is obvious. But if they present an important difference, it is in their religiosity. Revivalist religiosity, such as the HindutvaSangh Parivar in India, is rather superficial. Despite the profusion of rituals and symbols, including those long abandoned by "true believers", there is no problem in accompanying them with vulgar self-indulgences compradores. Every religion inevitably contains a dose of unconscious hypocrisy, but here this hypocrisy is conscious, not unrecognized. The pursuit of vulgar material things and the imitation of imperialist culture (which nevertheless aims to "weaken the national spirit" for the nationalist forces) are well accommodated and internalized, and are an important part of the revivalist "way of life".
For fundamentalists ( Khalistaniswere a good example, just like the Taliban), the return to "uncontaminated" practice of religion is absolutely inflexible. This spirituality must necessarily face the whip with the present and the powers that impose it. In fact, the reverse is seen as the only way to resist and overcome the degeneration of the present. Going back to the past does not necessarily mean serving the reaction. An example is the Lutheran Reformation in Europe. His spirituality was closely linked to the disgust of the monetarization of redemption and other "anti-Christian" acts of the Catholic Church, and called for returning to the idyllic past of early Christian times. But objectively, the Luther Reformation promoted the development of capitalism, a society where the money is the supreme government; completely the opposite of what it was intended to achieve. Independently of the desires of the Redeemer, the social forces of the capitalist transition have put them at their service. If we look again at the fundamentalism of oppressed countries, the desperate nature of its project is clear. Here we have societies in which each development of bureaucratic capitalism collaterally resuscitates some feudalisms;where the dynamic of social transformations is repressed, disarticulated by the imperialist oppression of the nation. Thus, the objective context propels and shapes the efforts of fundamentalists to overcome the present by returning to the past, in a reactionary juxtaposition of existing social relations, including when
It is the impossibility of the project of a fundamentalist society that gives it its rigid fanatic character, its ferocious spirituality, its capacity to arouse militancy until self-sacrifice, and ultimately the root of its reactionary character. At its heart is an intense reaction to national, cultural alienation, continually aggravated by imperialist domination and its imposed transformations. Such is his crucible. To reduce fundamentalism to the dissatisfaction of some feudal or clan elements, or a mere resurgence of their ideologies would be to lose sight of a very important detail: its extremely modern character, that it is a product of our time. Exposing the reactionary contents of fundamentalism is undoubtedly necessary. Awareness of women,Dalitsand other sectors of the oppressed masses, chained by religious traditions, offer powerful sources of energy to do this. But unless the spiritual space occupied by fundamentalism is reconquered by an enlightening vision of total, national and vibrant liberation, a secular culture and a new society free from exploitation, and unless the physical space today occupied by the fundamentalist resistance is recovered under the revolutionary flags of a People's War, the Maoists will not succeed.
For all these reasons, in the specific context of resistance against imperialist occupation, the relationship between fundamentalist forces and Maoists can not be as simple as antagonism or collaboration. It can contain both. The reactionary social program of a fundamentalist force in an oppressed country does not automatically exclude it from national resistance. His actions against the oppressor of the nation are just. To the question of whether it reflects the contradiction of the oppressed people with imperialism, or that between a part of the ruling classes and an imperialist power, it must be answered by the concrete analysis of class composition at the center of the force. in question. Generalities, in every way, are useless. 
There is another aspect to take into account: in a context of occupation, the contradiction between the nation and the occupiers becomes primary. All the other contradictions, including those between the ruling classes or certain sectors of them and the imperialist powers, are determined, conditioned by this principal contradiction. So, even when the nucleus of a force is constituted by dominant classes (comprador or feudal), its resistance against the occupation is objectively part of the national resistance. This does not erase the reactionary interests that guide its action, but even these interests do not exclude it as such from resistance.
In political terms, the mere fact that a force resists imperialist occupation does not mean the Maoists must ratify it as a national liberation force and unite with it, even when they recognize its resistance and the objective role that 'she plays. But on the other hand, it is not possible to deny this objective role of resistance against the occupation by invoking the reactionary social program it could possibly defend.
To approach the subject from this angle requires a correct understanding of Mao Zedong's contribution to the path of revolution in the oppressed countries, and particularly his analysis of the complex web of contradictions that are observed around the world. Today, it is commonly accepted in the Maoist movement that the main contradiction in the world is that which opposes imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples. However, this often does not inform us analytically about phenomena such as the resurgence of various forms of religious movements in oppressed countries. Worse still, is the situation in which the imperialists appropriate the slogan of "war against terrorism" which appears, at least in its current phase, as guided by the interest of the US ruling class to roll back Islamic fundamentalism. This is the stated goal. But a closer look reveals something else. Until the end of the last century, not only US imperialism but the entire NATO bloc was entirely dedicated to the issue of developing plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2]develop plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2] develop plans to overcome decades of revolutionary turmoil. A recent study by the UK Ministry of Defense puts it quite explicitly. [2]
It is not difficult to understand this concern if it is situated within the framework of imperialist globalization and the resistance that grows against it. The promotion of the policy espoused in particular by the US neoconservatives, formulated after the fact as a "war on terror", is part of this vast imperialist strategy, which is largely directly related to the development of the main world contradiction stated above. Today, the armed struggle is described as "terrorism" regardless of its political content. The "war on terror", in which Islamic fundamentalism is apparently the designated enemy, has its antecedents in the counterinsurgency campaign conducted in South America under the name "war on drugs".
The "war on terror" is actually a war against the peoples of the world, seeking to roll back the new emerging wave of world revolution. Such is the dynamic that demands to be understood, if one wants to extract intellectually terminologies imposed by the imperialist establishment .
Politics are naturally different from one country to another, and between oppressed countries and imperialist countries. There are nevertheless similarities. Islamic "terrorism", like that of other resistance groups, can be appropriately used by the ruling classes of these two categories of countries to legitimize a suppression or restriction of democratic rights. When the victims are the popular masses, the terrorist acts divide them and push a large part of them under the flag of the rulers. It is necessary to draw a clear dividing line between terrorism and revolutionary violence. But it also fails us to draw a clear line of demarcation between the Maoist position and the "anti-terrorist" propaganda of the imperialism and reaction. This can only be done with arguments showing who represents the main threat to humanity and who is the main culprit.What is needed is above all a firm and unconditional defense of the right of peoples to resist by arms. Opposition to the ideology or social program they follow should not distract us from this.And the only way to make sure of this is a full understanding of the dynamics of the revolution, the opposition to the system and in particular the main contradiction in the current world situation. When the current unrest in the world is seen, as a whole, only under the prism of inter-bourgeois or reactionary conflicts, when the major turning points are analyzed and

[1] WPRM-Winnipeg, "Notes on Afghanistan"
[2] "Disparities in wealth and, hence, opportunities will become more apparent, with the associated resentments, including among the growing number of people who aspire to live materially better than their parents and grandparents." Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage fuel the feeling of injustice among those whose aspirations are not fulfilled, increasing tensions and instability both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, delinquency Terrorism and insurgency can also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilistic movements,but also to populism and a revival of Marxism ".Global Strategic Trends Program, DCDC, 2007-2006. The DCDC is the Directorate General of the British Ministry of Defense. The document is a source for the development of UK defense policy.

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Some more information on the Battle of Stalingrad

By Harsh Thakor

Today the people of the world celebrate an event that was the greatest turning point in the history of mankind of the last century. The Western media distort the proceedings by giving credit to U.S.A. and European countries and hardly give erstwhile USSR the due credit they deserve. Above all Soviet Russia's glory was result of the concrete application of Marxist-Leninist ideology led by a Communist party in a Socialist state and application of mass line. The great production levels achieved through Socialist planning in contrast to bourgeois capitalist industry was a crucial factor. Collective farming also had a vital role. It enabled Russia to perfectly tap its resources. Great unity of people of various ethnicities were binded together like no capitalist democracy could. The Socialist society galvanized spirit of unity in production .Great literacy amongst the working class contributed a lot their grasping of technical aspects to defeat the enemy. He Young guards or the Kosmosol exhibited genius of military tactics in their version of guerilla warfare defying conventional warfare and manufacturing their own weapons. Their firm grasp of Marxism-Leninist ideology was a vital factor in theory taking actions most appropriate to the situation. The Soviet people garnered all the resources possible and denied any of it to the German enemy. Above all it enabled mankind to reach its spiritual level at its supreme zenith which proved how only in a Socialist Society could man attain true inner transformation. Even anti-Stalinist's like Isaac Deutscher acknowledge the leading role of the U.S.S.R as well as bourgeois historian Geoffrey Roberts. Revisionists like Nikita Khrushchev went out of the way to deride Stalin's contribution which even ultimately a reactionary like Michael Gorbachev upheld. Watching the video reel of the battle makes every revolutionary reach the core of his soul. Like earlier the Long March in China the USSR Red army morally traversed region sin military achievement unattained before ever in the history of mankind. People were inspired and resolved to fight the enemy. It was the deliberate policy of the Western allies not to help USSR open a front as they intended to destroy the Socialist State of Russia. Stalin displayed all the qualities of an outstanding tactician as a military general and even in the gravest of situations called on his army to attack and not be subdued. He believed that attack was the best form of defense regardless of the situation .Morally Stalin displayed touches of genius applying Marxist-Leninist doctrine to military warfare. However more than an individual like Stalin we must eulogize the collective effort of USSR. Stubborn resistance even in retreat was a crucial ingredient .The partisan warfare brilliantly made adaptations to the conditions prevailing countering bourgeois or conventional war methods. With meticulous skill guerilla detachments were formed and partisans could be formed amongst people with no previous military training. Decentralization of military forces through partisans played a great role.

Many innocent people were unfortunately killed in the great purges from 1933-38 but arguably Stalin was correct in his attitude towards purging the hierarchy within the army. Sadly still ranks were not abolished. Studying the battle of Stalingrad ideologically and understanding its importance is a must for ever revolutionary cadre. The propaganda that it was the Russian love for the motherland and not Socialism that won has to be deeply refuted. A major sustained campaign has to be launched defending great Comrade Stalin's immortal contribution in leading the nation to victory and the lies of treachery of Khrushchev. I have good memories of the united campaign carried out by several Maoist groups in India from 1989-91 when the Social-Imperialist regimes and Soviet Russia collapsed. Narrating role of USSR in World War 2 played a major part of the propaganda. Sad that we are hardly witnessing many Maoist blogs or groups commemorating this event. There is an inherent weakness in the Maoist camp worldwide to be loose on defending comrade Stalin and achievements of Stalinist Russia. This was revealed by earlier RCP, USA ,Kasama, RCP, Canada and even Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. Many innocent people were unfortunately killed in the great purges from 1933-38 but arguably Stalin was correct in his attitude towards purging the hierarchy within the army. Sadly still ranks were not abolished. We need to resurrect a Stalingrad today when amoral world war 3 is at least on the verge of taking place if not already being shared .Israeli tyranny over Palestinians ,U .S A.'s hegemony led by fascist tramp, subduing of North Korea, Turkey's assault on Afrin. Hindutva Saffron fascism led by Modi in India are like several components that constitute an International fascist machinery. In some ways the insurgency of Iraq against Britain and America had tones of Stalingrad but they simply could have similar capability. All comrades should read Comrade Mao's essay on why Stalingrad was the turning point of history. Had USSR not defeated Nazi Germany the Chinese Revolution in 1949 would never have succeeded. FACTORS INSTRUMENTAL FOR TRIUMPH IN THE WAR FOR USSR-compiled from journal' The Comrade' no 3 of August 1996.Reccomend readers to read the whole article 1.Intense resistance and building up great resolve to fight the enemy. Several Communist party members were sent to the front to infiltrate the enemy and organize resistance in the occupied areas. They played a great supportive role in rebuilding morale of people in starvation affected and besieged cities .They helped the people organize defense and train themselves in fighting. Even non -military elements in cities were trained and mobilised.70% of the party membership and 90% of the kosmosol took part in the resistance. 2. The Soviet people displayed mastery in mobilization of economic resources. In wartime they remarkably switched over production by dismantling factories and moving them eastwards. The planning of the previous decade towards preparing industry for war had great importance. 3. They also created a huge backup of reserves for the war. Soviet people made immense efforts in volunteering and mobilization .Ordinary citizens were trained to fight. 4. Under Stalin's guidance with resolute determination they prevented the Nazi enemy from using any of the nation's resources. They mastered methods of protecting it not giving away even a drop of sand to the enemy. In every other European country German army literally looted all the available resources of the people. Stalin called for not letting the enemy gain even a pound of grain, locomotives or vehicles. 5. Partisan warfare made a great impact. By 1942 10000 people, 250 regional groups and 1013 partisan detachments were formed. Partisans constituted people never previously exposed in military warfare or trained. They made outstanding innovations in implementing people’s war. The young guards made arguably the greatest sacrifices to defeat an enemy in the last century. 6. Tying down the enemy through sustained resistance. Even Western countries could not emulate this whose armies were virtually subdued in the cities. Best displayed in Kiev and Leningrad, USSSR adopted the policy that attack is the best form of defense.

Image result for battle of StalingradPix by ThoughtCo.

Saturday, February 03, 2018

The Anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, World War II

Just a few days ago, February 1, was the 75th anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad. It was one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. Throughout World War II the people of the Soviet Union paid a heavy price for their resistance to German Nazism. About 20 million lives were lost in the war. That was more deaths than any other country. It was through the leadership of Joseph Stalin (Иосиф Сталинიოსებ სტალინი)[1] that the Russian front pushed back the Nazis. Here are a few views on this anniversary:
– សតិវ ​អតុ


Democracy and Class Struggle says it was not trotskyism or anarchism that defeated Hitler at Stalingrad but the heroic leadership of the Communist Party and the People of Stalingrad - A lesson for today for those people capable of learning it..



.....Democracy and Class Struggle publish this report on the battle of Stalingrad to combat the anti communist lies about this heroic battle, from a source that is far from being communist but recognises that the battle needs a more positive appraisal in the West. Click here for that report.

[1] Russian/ Georgian.

Korean National Peace Committee Spokesman Calls for Opposing U.S. Nuclear War Moves

This is from Democracy and Class Struggle. This blog denounces all US moves to escalate the Korean conflict and endorses all efforts to stop US moves against Democratic People's Republic of Korea. – សតិវ ​អតុ

Democracy and Class Struggle says the "maximum pressure" strategy of the United States against the DPRK is systematically closing down any avenues for the peaceful settlement of the DPRK conflict with US and South Korea.

The recent rejection of hawkish US ambassador Victor Cha to South Korea because he questioned a Pre-emptive "bloody nose" attack on the DPRK shows the United States is not interested in diplomacy.

If there is still a Peace Movement in the West it is time for them to hit the streets -  both Korea's face an existential threat from US unilateralism with it new nuclear posture of pre emptive strikes.

War and Peace on the Korean Peninsula is the issue of 2018 - the threat could not be greater.

A spokesperson for the Korean National Peace Committee issued a statement on Jan. 28 with the approach of 60 years since the U.S. officially published the introduction of nuclear weapons into south Korea.

  The U.S. officially announced the above-said introduction on January 29, 1958 and undisguisedly opened to public nukes including atomic guns and Honest John nuclear missiles.

  Thenceforth the Korean Peninsula, once a nuclear free zone, has turned into a nuclear powder magazine and a source of nuclear war of the U.S. and the Korean nation has been at constant peril of nuclear war due to its nuclear stick.

  Even at this time when the climate of national concord, unity and detente is growing strong on the Korean Peninsula thanks to our proactive measures and sincere efforts, the U.S. is bringing nuclear carrier task forces, nuclear strategic bombers and other huge nuclear war means to south Korea and its vicinity, imposing constant nuclear war threat and blackmail on our nation.

  What should not be overlooked is the fact that the U.S. is planning to designate the DPRK as "potential state of nuclear threat" and stipulate even the scenario for preemptive nuclear strike in the "2018 nuclear posture review report" to be published around early February.

  The past sixty years are a history of heinous aggression and crimes in which the U.S. reduced south Korea into the world's biggest nuclear weapons arsenal and most dangerous seat of nuclear war and has constantly threatened the destiny of the Korean nation with nukes.

  The U.S. would be well advised to behave itself, aware that the days have gone for good when it could pose its unilateral threat to the DPRK with a nuclear stick.

  The south Korean authorities should stop the shipment of U.S. nuclear strategic assets and aggressor forces which will spawn bloodshed on this sacred territory, cease the nuclear war exercises with the U.S. and respond to our sincere efforts for detente.

  All compatriots in the north and the south and abroad should reject the anti-DPRK moves of the U.S. to bring clouds of a nuclear war to hang over Korea, and conduct more vigorous anti-U.S., anti-war struggle to drive the U.S. nuclear hardware and aggression forces out of south Korea.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Code Pink has a morale problem: It’s called the Democrats

From The Idiot Factor:


Anti-war protesters are objecting to military action in Syria, but their efforts pale compared to the crowds that came out against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — and Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the women’s anti-war group Code Pink, blames the Democrats,
“We’ve been protesting Obama’s foreign policy for years now, but we can’t get the same numbers because the people who would’ve been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama,” she said.
Code Pink has seen a decrease in membership and, as a result, isn’t able to plan as many events across the country. Ms. Benjamin also said they are getting less attention from reporters, which means less visibility.
“We’re smaller. We lost a lot of people who didn’t like us criticizing Obama. But we still got our feistiness,” Ms. Benjamin told The Washington Times as she waited outside Wednesday’s House hearing, where administration officials made the case for striking Syria.
Ms. Benjamin and fellow Code Pink members arrived to stand in line outside the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting room just before 10 a.m., securing a spot that allowed them to take prime seats behind Secretary of State John F. Kerry.

For the rest click here.
Image result for code pink

Subject for Discussion: "WHITHER THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT?"

From The Idiot Factor:

This is a good article and it is timely. I can’t remember when the peace movement was in worse shape than it is now. I’m not sure I agree with everything in this article. What’s more important than the mistakes of the past is the plan of the future. A lot needs to be done. Some polls tell us that as many as 80 percent of the population have a lot of faith in the military, although that number varies from poll to poll with some as little as 67%. At any rate the military is very popular with most voters, especially young ones.  
We are fighting wars all over the Middle east. The US has invaded and still occupies Iraq and Afghanistan.  The US now plans to keep troops in SyriaThe US is now deploying troops to Africa. Most of this is being done under the disguise of “fighting terrorism.” But it is really a case of this country making sure that no nation can turn against us, as happened in Iran.
Articles I’ve read point out that only about 1 percent of US citizens are joining the military.
DAVID ZUCCHINO and DAVID S. CLOUDwriting for the Los Angeles Times, have pointed out:

The U.S. military today is gradually becoming a separate warrior class, many analysts say,  that is becoming increasingly distinct from the public it is charged with protecting.

This may open opportunities for us to point out that we have become reliant on a class of people who are continuously and permanently at war. People also need to be aware of the imperialist nature of our wars. 

Whither the Anti-war Movement?
By Daniel Martin

“Imagine there’s no heaven…and no religion too.”

A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be “Imagine there’s no duopoly.” It’s hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized—even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.

Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it’s been a bust. After liberals helped elect the “anti-war” Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance,ultimately bombing seven different countries [1] during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented [2], “We’ve been protesting Obama’s foreign policy for years now, but we can’t get the same numbers because the people who would’ve been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama.”

It’s easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars of his predecessors and threatens new ones?

The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also long-held and fairly broad skepticism [3] about the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over the last 17 years. This was due to the “big tent” affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.

Perhaps the movement’s biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own—the liberal Democrats who voted for the war in Congress.

In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican—George W. Bush—was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats, while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of state and their party’s nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.

Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his 2004 and 2008 attempts at his party’s presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters, any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.

Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of one’s party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.

The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy. One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn’t shy from criticizing his own party’s leaders and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve’s relationship to the monetary costs of war.

Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul’s message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views with “isolationism”) helped kill his campaign. After Paul’s 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman’s libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party—while leaving the non-interventionist impulses behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin acknowledged [5], “On foreign policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich.”And don’t underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm’s way, which was portrayed by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.

What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of “less war.” Nevertheless, studies [7] showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the “war on terror” indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm’s way eventually.

So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like and TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.

Meanwhile, flying “Resist Trump” signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren’t a bipartisan, systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much “resistance” was heard when Democrats recently helped pass Trump’s $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.

In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there’s a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.

They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill—essentially making war a business—makes the anti-war point by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves the American public out of the equation.

These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services Committee [8] members, such as perennial war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from “philanthropic” organizations such as theBradley [9] Foundation and the Olin [10] Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering the vice president of Lockheed as its new president. [11]

Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, “you’re either with us or against us” and “support our troops” have been used as powerful psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you’re not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers—often from working-class backgrounds—into harm’s way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.

Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won’t be much resistance when the next “big threat” comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing war—they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers—imagine, there’s no parties—is the best way to build a real opposition.


Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MartysInvasion.

Excerpt from a speech (in sexist male language) by then ex-President Teddy Roosevelt, given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910. The speech was called . . .

"Citizenship In a Republic." 

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.