FOR BOLSHEVISM
INSIDE THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ MOVEMENT
ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY OF BOLSHEVIKS - AUCPB - ВКПБ
SEPTEMBER 2008 No 9 (66)
OPINION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY OF BOLSHEVIKS CONCERNING THE MILITARY AGGRESSION BY SAAKASKVILI’S REGIME AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH OSSETIA
During the night of 7th to 8th August 2008 – during the opening of the Beijing Olympics-, the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili launched a full scale military attack against the inhabitants of South Ossetia – against his own people. In this war, Saakashvili has been using the latest military technology and troops well-trained by US military specialists. Heavy bombing by “Grad” systems and long-range missile systems of the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, wiped it from the face of the map in 2 days along with nearby villages and their inhabitants. The planned destruction of the peaceful population and all vital services – the bakery, hospitals, power stations, gas and water supply systems, and also schools, the physical destruction of all the peaceful inhabitants who were on the streets, beaten by rifle butts or those shot at close range who were either wounded or trying to flee the violence by going into cellars (the elderly, women and children), and also the destruction of Russian peacekeepers, can only be qualified as unambiguously genocide. Refugees fleeing Tskhinvali who fled under a hail of bullets by Georgian troops along the mountains for several kilometers, told Putin about what happened in Tskhinvali:
- The Georgians had driven women into their homes like cattle, locked them inside and set fire to the houses…
- We saw an old woman escape with two children and then a Georgian tank run over them…
- They slaughtered a 1.5 years old baby….(Izvestiya, 11.08.2008)
- Tskhinvali is now like Khatin…or even worse.
At one of the call up offices for mobilizing the reserve troops in Batumi (Georga), one woman declared- “Why does my child have to go and fight? For the sake of Saakashvili? No way!
We resolutely condemn the military aggression organized by Saakashvili the Georgian president – the leader of the “rose revolution”, aspiring to join NATO, ignoring the will the Georgian people.
We accuse Saakashvili of being guilty for the organizing of the criminal war against a defenceless population, qualifying this as genocide against the Ossetian people. We blame Saakashvili for the carrying out of ethnic cleansing.
We condemn the Georgian president, who like a lamb carries out consciously evil will of a foreign power, transforming him, Saakashvili, into a war criminal.
This military aggression undertaken by Saakashvili against South Ossetia had long been carefully planned in advance. Under Saakashvili, military expenditure in 4 years has grown over 30 times, making up 9-10% of GDP (in Russia – it is 2.9%). The general military budget in Georgia for 2008 is almost 1 billion US dollars. Georgia has a well-equipped army with the latest equipment. Heavy weaponry has been purchased: self-propelled artillery units 2S3 from Ukraine, 24 latest self-propelled Dana units from Czech, Gradlar missile systems of up to 45 km purchased from Israel, and several 262 mm long-range M87 Orkan self-propelled multiple rocket launchers from Bosnia –Herzegovina. The army’s tank park has either been renovated or modernized (in particular all 165 T72 tanks have been updated with the latest GPS navigation system, TV in the firing system and a modernized communication system).
For the air force, Czech L39 jet trainer planes were purchased, Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters from Ukraine with anti-tank “Storm” systems”. Israel has supplied Georgia with Elbit Hermes 450 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV-s) for long-range intelligence- reconnaissance missions. Also in Israel Su-25 ground attack airplanes have been upgraded to the level of Su-25KM ground attack planes. Kiev supplied Tbilisi with two ground-to-air systems equipped with 36D6M radars, a complex of “Kolchuga” passive sensors. Its appearance inside Iraq in its time brought about a huge scandal between Kiev and Washington, since the most up to date ground-to-air radar detection systems for detecting all types of aircraft today, still does not exist. Kiev also handed to Georgia who has 3 S-125 missile systems, older OSA-AKM air-defense systems and the latest Tor air-defence systems. On part of the USA, Georgia received not only heavy financing but also a significant number of the latest sniper rifles. This is huge financing of military expenditures on the background of a negative forecast in the Georgian economy, which coexists on Azerbaizhan, Kazakh and Russian energy supplies…
The listed amount of modernization of the Georgian army bears witness to the fact that military intervention against South Ossetia (and in the future against Abkhazia, judging by the deployment of military units and heavy artillery on the borders of Georgia with North Ossetia and Abkhazia at the start of August this year) was very carefully planned and aimed at a blitzkrieg, since the stronger troop formation (excluding Russia) simply did not exist in this region. We shall note that towards the start of Georgian military action against South Ossetia, the Georgian troops had a 12-fold superiority in relation to the Russian peacekeepers in the Caucausus.
What then are the real premises for the unleashing by Saakashvili of the monstrous in vandalism military aggression against South Ossetia, and the creation of a humanitarian catastrophe in that region, and why does he so ardently aim to join NATO? Is Saakashvili ardently trying to join NATO or is he being pressured into joining it? George Bush in a passing conversation with Putin at the Beijing Olympic games haughtily declared that “Nobody wants war”. IS THAT REALLY SO? This is in no way the case. Saakashvili needs control over the territorial conflicts against Abkhazia and South Ossetia- one of the main obstacles on the path of Georgia joining NATO. Saakashvili sees control being achieved only by the use of force.
By organizing the military attack on South Ossetia, Saakashvili had counted on the support of the world community, misinformed also by the Western media which “comes out in support of little Georgia, which Russia attacked”. Then the troops of NATO will be brought into Tbilisi.
An analysis of the events that have taken place in South Ossetia, the comparison of them with the events in the Balkans (Yugoslavia) over 15 years, in Afghanistan, in Iraq leads to one conclusion: the one giving the orders and sponsoring these evil acts is one and the same “face” – modern-day fascism – the Zionist world lobby – the leading core of US imperialism, not abandoning its own illusive aim – of world domination, possession of all worlds energy resources and minerals, and seizure of geopolitical regions of the world.
The world Zionist lobby of the USA planned to establish NATO domination (or US domination –the same thing) in the Caucasus via Georgia’s membership into NATO and in such a way grab up Caucasian oil (via loyal Azerbaizhan) and control the oil pipeline which lie along the Caucasus. On the other hand – the USA is importantly closing on Iran to drop down the price of oil and with this, hold out for a time in the conditions of a world crisis of the system, the deepening recession in the US economy, the fall in the dollar and the gradual loss of its influence as the world’s leading imperialist power.
The war for Caspian oil cannot but have repercussions in the Black Sea region and especially in the Black Sea, because it is near impossible to supply at a reliable level, the transport of Caspian oil for the countries of NATO while the Russian Black Sea Fleet controls the transport route of energy resources across the Black Sea. From here follows the eagerness of the president of Ukraine, Yushenko to “squeeze out” the Russian Black Sea naval fleet from Sevastopol and receive in the form of a “gift”, his own share for the transporting of oil into Europe in this given area. Kiev’s position occupying the given situation only proves that there is pressure being applied on escalating the military conflict which will inevitably turn out to be a tragedy in the Black Sea.
The organizing of military aggression against South Ossetia follows one aim – to consolidate all of the traitors of the USSR in the face of their protégés – leaders, who came to power as a result of “colour revolutions”, all those who “divided up for themselves” from the USSR “independent” states and the formation of a tense situation along the whole perimeter of the borders of the Russian Federation (RF). At the same time, this follows the aim of getting people to fight between themselves, who had earlier made up the single united Soviet people. In such a way, they try to bury the idea itself of the revival of the USSR. Also it follows the aim of turning people’s attention away from problems overwhelming the USA and weakening of Russia as a completely worthy imperialist competitor today in a number of questions.
The military aggression against South Ossetia was long ago prepared and very carefully in all directions, not just by financing Georgia and modernizing its armed forces. A powerful ideological and information preparation (campaign) was carried out. We have in mind here the numerous visits to Georgian of high-ranking US officials, along with the visits by Saakashvili to the USA.
One month ago, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice visited Tbilisi and had “friendly talks” with Saakashvili concerning Georgia joining NATO, having declared her full support to Saakashvili….US special troops have for a long time been located on the territory of Georgia which had been in action in Afghanistan and in Iraq as well as earlier in Yugoslavia.
The “objective” Western media were well prepared, having ignored information regarding the start of the military action on part of Georgia and after that, excitedly misinforming the Western public about the beasts, allegedly the Russians, by showing pictures touching upon the savagery of the Georgian war machine. In other words, everything is being twisted around to make it look as if all this is Russia’s fault: allegedly, the big country attacking a small one. Thanks to the disinformation of the Western media, an objective picture about what is happening in the Caucasus does not exist up to now.
Four sessions of the Security Council of the UN declined to qualify the actions of Georgia in relation to South Ossetia as being Genocide against their own people, probably by reason of complete ignorance or misunderstanding about what is happening on South Ossetia, thanks to the disinformation by the Western media, and also the false and cynical speeches on TV made by Saakashvili himself. Official Beijing has stayed quiet, since it is completely immerged in the Olympic raptures and is not responding to what is happening in the Caucasus: the American “friends” very successfully chose the time for Saakashvili’s actions.
Russia is not in a state of war with Georgia. The Russian peacekeepers are only “forcing one of the sides of the conflict towards peace” in accordance with the UN mandate that Russia already has. Russia, in the present political situation is acting very carefully, particularly in the framework of international right and the international mandate of its peace-keeping mission in this region of the Caucasus – that is, only actions to be taken on the cessation of violence and genocide, the protection of the peaceful population and Russian citizens on the territory of South Ossetia, the restoring of peace and the liquidation of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Supporting Russia’s peace-keeping and humanitarian mission on the protection of the citizens of South Ossetia and the Russian peace-keepers, at the same time one cannot but talk of a certain carelessness in the position of the Russian leadership which had stated for example that, “the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict is a legacy of the Soviet past(?)…and, further, an attempt to vindicate the criminal and expansionist foreign policy of George Bush – we mean by this, the words spoken by our representative in the UN Security Council about allegedly “Saakashvili incorrectly interpreting the signs coming out of Washington”(!), interpreting the statement made by Saakashvili in his TV interview to the Western viewer, where he blurted out something which he should have kept quiet about – about the people ordering the military bloody adventure, and namely the fact that he on an hourly basis kept in contact with George Bush and in the period of the military aggression, and before it, spoke to him…(in other words, got instructions on military action from George Bush).
Today in the Caucasus, the interests of the world sharks of the oil business have come together. The Russian authorities, as representatives (the embodiment) of Russian energy resource business are doing everything in order to preserve their own influence in the Caucasus, the Caspian and in the Black Sea. All of this is equivalent to the preservation of power in the country, otherwise the loss of Russia’s influence in the region of the Caucasus and Caspian will bring about a final division of property in the country to the benefit of the supporters of the USA with the consequences being – the breakup of the country.
It presents itself that the sharks of world imperialism are ever more trying to make deals with each other and having freed themselves from all those who turned out to be “bad pupils”. The question is only about HOW to the world Zionist lobby of the USA is behaving itself….All depends on the concrete combining of objective and subjective factors at a given moment. But the fact that the military intervention by Saakashvili against South Ossetia has brought the world right up close to the border of a universal catastrophe – is obvious. And the fact that the fate of human civilization is being decided today in the Caucasus, is one of the consequences of the destruction of the USSR.
N.A. Andreeva
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CC AUCPB)
11 August 2008
Leningrad
RESOLUTION BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY OF BOLSHEVIKS (CC AUCPB)
on the question of the publication in the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” (Voice of Stalingrad) of material directed against the party line of the AUCPB
18 July 2008
In the communist movement on the territory of the USSR in the period of the counter-revolution, the AUCPB was the first party to be formed. The Constituent Congress took place in Leningrad on 8th November 1991. Also at the congress were adopted the Party Rules (Ustav) and the Party Program of the AUCPB, and the methods and means for struggle against the counterrevolution were ascertained.
The backbone of the party was made up of members of the All-Union Society “Yedinstvo (Unity) - for Leninism and Communist Ideals”. In the AUCPB, all aspirations were for struggling together with us for the rebirth of the USSR, and carried on in accordance to the party rules of the AUCPB, and also having passed the 6 month candidateship for entry into the party. Inside the party there was still insufficient experience in checking the “communisticness” (how much of a communist, a candidate for wanting to enter the AUCPB really was). The quality of a member of the party was ascertained by the degree of his or her party activity and was elected by the Secretaries of the Central Committee, Chairmen of the Buro of the Central Committee for the Regions, and leaders of local party organizations. On the strength of the indicated circumstances, during the period of its organization, people could easily penetrate the party, infiltrating it via the organs of the new bourgeois counterrevolutionar y power, or either wishing to raise their own significance and status on the backs of membership in the AUCPB. They all in the beginning demonstrated high activity, gained trust and after that, because they did not gain what they wanted, these “offended” ones began work on destroying the party. The unmasking and expulsion of them from the party began with the expulsion of one of the Secretaries of the Central Committee (CC) (!) already in December 1994 and continues to this day (thus were expelled from the party one more Secretary of the CC and a chairman of one of the regional Buros of the CC along with the chief editors of two small circulation local newspapers). This was a natural process of the party growing, and gaining strength in its ranks.
The history of the forming of the AUCP(b) by V.I. Lenin and its work under J.V. Stalin, is a difficult path of struggle against counterrevolution including against the so-called opposition, which had placed before itself the task of destroying the party of Bolsheviks from within the party itself.
The struggle against the opposition and liquidating it, is a law of normal functioning of any political organization, more so of a communist organization.
The publication in the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” (Voice of Stalingrad) №1(47) 2007, №2(also 47) 2007 and №1 (also 47) 2008 of articles by the founder and chief editor of the newspaper, the Secretary of the Stalingrad organization of the AUCPB, V.I. Romanov, his assistant O.M. Naayan (pseudonym), and also a pitiful handful of their like-minded thinkers who were never members of the AUCPB, brought about an acute protest inside the party. The party, judging by the angry phone calls and letters that had been sent to the CC AUCPB, characterizes these publications unanimously as another attempt at destroying the party from within, by the agency of the counterrevolution, as publications that have been ordered by and sponsored by the “democratic” puppeteers.
By malicious and slanderous articles directed against the AUCPB by people who had never been members of the AUCPB, they are trying to unleash to the readers of the newspaper their own illiterate, amateurish judgments on complex questions of modern-day politics.
The above indicated publications in the newspaper “G.S.”, defending Zionism, in a distorted view interpreting the policy of the AUCPB on the national question, are without any grounds whatsoever accusing the AUCPB of anti-Semitism, and at the same time are provoking the authorities towards a new attack on modern-day Marxism-Leninism. Such prevocational and irresponsible publications in “G.S.” are more so dangerous since in the mass media, and equal sign is being placed between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
V.I. Romanov and O.M. Naayan in their articles “Where are the Bolsheviks going?” (O.M. Naayan), “Which enemy is the most dangerous?” (O.M. Naayan), “Does a secret world government really exist?” (V.I. Romanov), their joint ungrounded blackening criticism of the article by Secretary of the CC AUCPB A.A. Maevsky, “A united front against the common enemy” (in newspaper Raboche-Krestyansky a Pravda No7, 2007) and showed their deep ignorance of our party documents on the national question (or did they completely ignore them?) such as: The Platform of the AUCPB on the national question, 1994, material from the II, III and IV congresses of the AUCPB and the new edition of the Program of the AUCPB.
Both try to make themselves out to be allegedly “independent, thinkers” allowing themselves to act outside the points of the party rules of the AUCPB. We note that the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” has of late, been distributed around the party Committees of the AUCPB, deliberately not sending them to the party’s Central Committee, and is also sent to other parties and non-party activists. In other words, Romanov is occupying himself with prevocational activity and blackening the party’s activists, trying to find supporters in the struggle against the AUCPB.
V.I. Romanov and O.M. Naayan used to be delegated at all party congresses and plenary sessions of the CC AUCPB, always voted “IN FAVOUR OF” all the Decrees and Resolutions that were adopted. Nowadays it turns out that their voting was purely formal. In actual fact, neither the Stalingrad organization under the leadership of V.I. Romanov, or “Golos Stalingrada” did anything towards bringing to the readers our party documents and decisions or towards putting them into action. The “Golos Stalingrada” newspaper is a small format newspaper that comes out once or twice in a year. The party documents are practically deliberately left unpublished in it. At the same time, the newspaper “Raboche-Krestyansky a Pravda” and “Serp I Molot” in which all party documents and decisions are published, are distributed by the Stalingrad party organization in a quantity in all of only 3 and 10 copies. This means that the working people of Stalingrad (Volgograd), the working class, are left completely in the dark about the activities of the AUCPB, the party decisions and resolutions of the AUCPB, its position on the most actual questions of the present day and the work of party organizations of other regions of the ex-USSR. Because of the “special” position that Romanov and Naayan stand on, the result of that has been the cause of the complete breakdown in activity of the entire organization of the AUCPB in Stalingrad, which Naayan admits in his letter to the Central Committee of the AUCPB. In that letter, he cites that “everything You spoke about concerning our work - couldn’t be truer. We did indeed work very badly”. This was also noted by Romanov in his own letter to the CC dated 29th May 2006: “I believe that work inside the organization is going badly, and there is insufficient experience to recommend it to other comrades”.
Naayan’s question in his article “Where are the Bolsheviks going?” has long ago been solved by the party itself and reflected repeatedly in the party documents, in particular, in the Resolution of the IV Congress of the AUCPB, as indicated above. O.M. Naayan in essence proposes a re-examination of all party decisions on the national question having placed as the “party’s order of the day” the question of the attitude towards Zionism. But namely this question was in detail analyzed and a clearly spoken party opinion very recently (in November 2007) in a speech made by General Secretary of the CC AUCPB Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva at the International Conference on Calcutta (India), with the order of the day being – “Against Imperialism, Zionism, Globalization and Imperialist Occupation”. The speech was agreed upon earlier in the Secretariat of the CC. It turns out also, that according to the opinion of Romanov and Naayan, the numerous communist parties and national-liberation movements, the leaders of which at the Conference, came out unanimously against Zionism, are mistaken together with Nina Andreeva in their judgment about the role of Zionism in the modern world.
Another question put forth by Naayan as an order of the day for the work of the party – the relationship towards right and left opportunism - has also for a long time been decided upon by the party, sufficiently fully reflected in the large number of party documents and constantly acted upon in the everyday work of the party.
Romanov’s article “Does a world government really exist?” in defence of Zionism, is in general written in a certain silly style on the basis of them reading an article in the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda” from the 01 April 2008. The latter, contrary to the usual tone of publications of the “gutter press” about serious things (in this particular case we are talking about the reaction to the book by John Coleman entitled “The Committee of 300”), stands in sufficiently correct tone, in contrast to the article of Romanov. Romanov deliberately ignored the opinion of Soviet specialists in the sphere of foreign espionage (we note that it was published on the website of the “Komsomolskaya Pravda” up to the signing of the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” into print on 24th April 2008). The vast majority of responses to the article in “KP” on its website are naturally not members of the AUCPB, express a point of view completely opposite to that of Romanov’s opinion.
In the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” №1, 2008, three and a half columns were devoted to the publication of material by a person, who had never been a member of the AUCPB, to his amateurish, malicious-slanderou s “dissection” of the party position of the AUCPB. It turns out that Romanov with Naayan completely selectively publish materials mainly – directed against the party line of the AUCPB.
It is presented, that this is done by them, in order that in a very difficult time for the party, they can steer the entire activity of the AUCPB into the demagogic swamp of empty discussions on questions that were long ago solved by the party and, with this, re-direct the party’s energy instead of on real affairs, towards “letting off of steam” by odious people, making claims to their own special role inside the party.
The appearance of the indicated publications in “GS” is not accidental. This public expression of the true position of Romanov and Naayan – is in conflict to the party position. The discord of the views of Romanov’s to the position of the AUCPB on a number of questions started appearing a long time ago. Way back at the III and IV Congresses of the party, Romanov ex-prompt (in his words) confusingly expounded his own “special” point of view on principle questions of party policy. Then, Secretariat of the CC AUCPB L.A. Pavlovich held long talks with Romanov in relation to his “errors” (in 2000 and earlier).
The state of affairs in the Volgograd party organization has for a long time been a cause for concern for the CC AUCPB on the strength of the practically absent work that has to be done in it, in accordance to the party rules of the AUCPB. We have in mind here the miserly distribution of Bolshevik newspapers in a city with a population of one million people, the absence of carrying out any party study, the continual arrears of the entire organization on the payment of membership dues covering several years (party dues to the CC, according to the party rules of the AUCPB have in general not been listed), the support of all those who have tried to form factions inside the party and come out against the party Program.
An attempt by N.A. Andreeva to link up members of the editorial colleagues of “GS” to the work of the editorial board of the newpaper “Serp I Molot” (The Sickle and Hammer) at the IV congress of the AUCPB met with a categorical refusal on allegedly the strength of a heavy workload….
In his letter (29 May 2006) to the CC in the name of the General Secretary, V.I. Romanov concretely place a task before the CC of:
1. removing the post of General
Secretary and introduce collective leadership in the party without a General Secretary. In our opinion, Romanov proposes the establishment of such collective irresponsibility.
2. “I believe that any opposition is useful to me which can polish up their own ideas about what is happening. Only from out of disputes can truth arise”.
Once more we have to remind Romanov that ALL party documents in our party are adopted only after thorough discussion in the Secretariat of the Central Committee and with members of the Central Committee (if this is a document of the CC AUCPB).
The new edition of the Program of the AUCPB was discussed in the party, in party organizations in the flow of 2 years and was adopted by delegates if the congress, practically unanimously (at that time, Romanov and Naayan voted “FOR” the adoption of the program). Every time, on the basis of recommendations from the localities, changes were made to it. Four different versions of the new edition were discussed. At the III Congress, additions and finer points were introduced by delegates, which were then entered the final text of the new edition of the Program of the AUCPB and ratified by the Congress. The new Party Rules of the AUCPB adopted at the II Congress, before its pronouncement at the congress, were also for a long time discussed by the local party organizations. Thus, without an opposition, the party had successfully carried out any task put before it.
The unleashing to the party of an opposition, either means the desire to destroy the party, or with an opposition, the party becomes less able to work, since its forces become distracted from real issues and activity and falls into the swamp of empty demagogic discussions.
The indicated publications in the newspaper “Golos Stalingrad” have lifted up a new cloudy, filthy wave of publications against the leadership of the AUCPB in the newspapers of small circulation, published by persons who were long ago expelled from the party for their moral impurity and crude violations of the Party Rules of the AUCPB. In these publications, the question on the destruction of the party hard core activists, its leadership, is put forth. And the main blow is directed at General Secretary of the AUCPB, Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva – the author of speeches directed against Zionism at the International Conference in India. An analysis of these publications showed that the organizer of their publication was no other than Romanov himself, since in these publications, the proposals and conclusions of Romanov have been expressed one after another in his letter to the CC on 29 May 2006. But the most heinous crime of all is the fact that all these persons who had been long ago expelled from the party, sign their own publications as a “member of the AUCPB” or “in the name of the organization AUCPB”.
The putting forth the question of the creation of an opposition in the party is nothing new. Always, the enemies of the AUCP(b) in the period of the work of V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin, were forming an opposition within the party, a party which was necessary in the interests of building socialism, in the interests of all the people, to liberate themselves, with the aim of weakening the party, but the enemies poured filth on the leadership of the higher leadership in attempts to discredit it.
Romanov himself in “GS” in the preamble to one of the publications writes, that “slander against the Bolshevik leaders on part of bourgeois journals and “historians” is no surprise to anyone these days. It would be surprising if this did not happen. Indeed it is no wonder Stalin said, that bad is that Bolshevik that does not curse the enemies. But it’s one thing the “democratic” voices, the White guard ranting from the “patriots”, another thing – those who rank themselves as communists”.
We fully agree with such an evaluation by Romanov of anti-party speeches. It is interesting that Romanov correctly judges the decision regarding whether or not to participate in bourgeois elections, taking into account the concrete political situation, if this concerns the position of other parties, in particular the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation – leader- Zyuganov). But for some reason, he gives a completely opposite evaluation when deciding the given question of the AUCPB. When, for disagreement with the position of the AUCPB on elections, leaders of the Odessa organization were expelled from the party, having ignored the Resolution of the Buro of the CC AUCPB on Ukraine, Moldavia and Pridnestrovia, having unleashed their own non-party position to the readers in the newspaper published by them “Bolshevik” (Odessa), Romanov fully supported them, having declared this from the rostrum of the IV Congress of the AUCPB and in his letter to the CC. It turns out to be double standards in evaluating the solution to the one and same question.
Having analyzed and evaluated the thoughts of the given publications in “Golos Stalingrada”, their possible influence on insufficiently literate people, the disinformative character of the information in relation to the position of the party on the national question for those who are in the prison of nationalist illusions and errors, the Secretariat of the CC AUCPB sees these publications as an attempt to undermine the party’s authority as the crudest violation of the Party Rules of the AUCPB and
ORDERS:
1. the condemnation of the anti-party activity of Valery Ilych Romanov and Oleg Misakovich Naayan, for publishing in the newspaper “Golos Stalingrada” material directed against the Program documents of the party and the Party Rules of the AUCPB, for provoking the authorities into destroying the AUCPB and Bolshevism as modern-day Marxism-Leninism, and also for the organization by Romanov of filthy publications aimed against the AUCPB in newspapers of small circulation, published by persons who had earlier been expelled from the party.
2. the expulsion of Valery Ilych Romanov from the ranks of the AUCPB for anti-party activity (in accordance with the Party Rules of the AUCPB §5 п.п. а), в), г), д), ж),; §9 п. г); §§11, 21, 24, 25.Russian).
3. the expulsion of Oleg Misakovich Naayan fron the ranks of the AUCPB for anti-party activity (in accordance with the Party Rules of the AUCPB §5 п.п. а), в), г), д), ; §9 п. г); §§11, 24, 25.Russian).
4. Valery Ilych Romanov and Oleg Misakovich Naayan are to hand in their party membership cards to the Central Committee of the AUCPB. They have 1 month to do this from the date of receipt of the given Order by the Secretariat of the CC AUCPB.
5. all organizations of the AUCPB and members of the AUCPB are to stop the distribution of the newspaper “Golos Stalingrad” as it is not a printed organ of the AUCPB, but in all, only “socio-political publication”, not expressing the position of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on principle questions and the published materials of disinformation and anti-party prevocational character.
General Secretary of the CC AUCPB
N.A. Andreeva
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------
Inside the countries of socialism
In august in the DPRK one famous date is triumphantly celebrated – the 15th August – Liberation Day.
63 years ago (1945) in connection with the driving out of the Japanese from the territory of Korea, a new history of the life of the Korean people had begun – the free, independent, start of the construction of a new life along the path of the building of a socialist state. Victory, achieved in a long hard struggle against the Japanese colonizers, was brought about under the leadership of the great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung who founded the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) as the core for the building of a new society, and little later the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was formed – the first socialist state in North-East Asia. Kim IL Sung was elected as its first President.
In the centre of the capital city of the DPRK, the Triumphal Arch was built in honour of the outstanding victory over the Japanese. During the years of independent and sovereign life of the free people of the DPRK in the years that followed, the country had been transformed into a developed industrial country with a population that was highly literate and cultured, loving their own country and nation, carefully preserving the relics of their own five thousand year-old history. The free labour of the citizens of Korea is reliably safeguarded by the Korean People’s Army (KPA), formed by the Great Leader in the difficult time of the anti-Japanese struggle, having grown stronger in battles and presently equipped with modern weapons for defence against any invasion from outside on part of any aggressor. The glorious path of struggle and victory after Kim Il Sung is being continued with great worthiness by his successor – the Great Leader of the Korean people, Comrade Kim Jong Il.
We congratulate the talented, heroic and courageous people of Socialist Korea on the 63 Anniversary of the Rebirth of the Fatherland and we wish then new successes in the solving of all very complex tasks of socialist construction despite the hostile imperialist world and the constant act of provocation on part of the USA. The people of the DPRK will definitely come out as the victor from the complex and tense confrontation with the imperialist evil – the USA, since with only such people, shall we victor.
Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CC AUCPB)
On the occasion of the Fatherland Liberation Day, a congratulatory telegram was sent by General Secretary of the CC AUCPB Nina Alexandrovna Andreeva, to Pyongyang, to the General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defence Committee of the DPRK, Supreme Commander-in- Chief of the Korean People’s Army, Great Leader of the Korean people, Comrade Kim Jong Il
(Translated by Kevin Cain
OD KFA, Canada)
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------
Note from Information department of the CC AUCPB
We wish to remind those “forgetful” people, that the newspaper “Za bolshevizm” (published in Russia) and its supplement “Molodogvardeets”, and also the newspaper “Bolshevik Stavropolya” are NOT newspapers of the AUCPB and must not be distributed by the Committees of the AUCPB, or by individual comrades – members of the AUCPB. The founders and chief editors of these newspapers were long ago expelled from the AUCPB for the crudest violations of the party rules of the AUCPB. The editor of the newspaper “Za bolshevism” and the supplement “Molodogvardeets”, a certain Mr Panikhin (from Bryansk) was expelled from the ranks of the AUCPB by Order of the of the Secretariat of the Central Committee from 26 March 2004, “For the deliberate and intentional violation of party discipline, and also for qualities unacceptable for a member of the AUCPB – insincerity, non-obligation, irresponsibility, cowardice and self-interest”. The editor of newspaper “Bolshevik Stavropoloya”, Shkarupa (from Minvody) was twice expelled from the ranks of the AUCPB of the Stavropolskya organization of the AUCPB. His expulsion was approved by the Secretariat of the Central Committee of 14 December 2007, after the second expulsion of Shkarupa by Decision of the Conference of the Stavropolya Krai organization of the AUCPB of 01 December 2007 “For crudest violations of the party rules of the AUCPB, part 1, n.1, 9c), d), for loss of trust by Comrades and for party splitting activity”.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------\
Information from the AUCPB
On 12 -13 July in Umani, Cherkassky Region, another session of the Buro of CC AUCPB for Ukraine, Moldovia and Pridnestrovia was held. At the session, questions about the current situation in Ukraine were examined, the state of the agitation –mass work, work with political prisoners and others. Secretary of the CC AUCPB, Comrade A.A. Maevsky made a speech entitled “Merging Bolshevism with the workers’ movement. Corresponding resolutions were adopted and which are published in party newspapers.
REFLECTIONS BY COMRADE FIDEL
THE UNITED STATES' HEMISPHERIC RESPONSE: A FOURTH INTERVENTION FLEET
It had come into being in 1943 as a means of combating Nazi submarines and protecting navigation routes during the Second World War. It was decommissioned in 1950, when it became superfluous. The South Command was designed to meet the United States' hegemonic needs in our region at the time. After 48 years, however, it has recently been resurrected, and its interventionist aims need not be proved: U.S. military chiefs themselves divulge these in their declarations in a natural, spontaneous, at times discrete fashion. Overwhelmed by problems with food prices, energy, unequal trade, the economic recession which affects the most important market their products have; inflation, climate change and the investments required to satisfy their consumer dreams, they mismanage the time and energy of leaders and subordinates alike.
Truth is the decision to reassemble the Fourth Fleet was announced the first week of April, almost a month after the Ecuadorian territory was attacked with U.S. bombs and technology and when, owing to U.S. pressures citizens of different countries were killed or wounded. This was vigorously condemned by Latin American leaders at the Rio Group meeting held in the Dominican Republic's capital.
But worst still is that this is taking place at a time when the dismemberment of Bolivia encouraged by the United States meets with nearly unanimous condemnation. U.S. military chiefs themselves have explained they will be responsible for over 30 countries and for covering 15.6 million square miles of neighboring waters in both Central and South America, the Caribbean Sea and its 12 islands, Mexico and the European territories this side of the Atlantic.
The United States has 10 Nimitz aircraft carriers whose parameters, more or less similar, are the following: maximum load capacity of between 101 and 104 thousand tons; 999-feet-long and 230.4-feet-wide deck; 2 nuclear reactors; maximum speed of 35 miles/hour; capacity for 90 war planes. The last to be commissioned bears the name of George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. It has already been baptized with a bottle of champagne by the progenitor himself and should be ready to join the other vessels in coming months.
No other country in the world can boast of a vessel like these, equipped with sophisticated nuclear weapons, able to get within a few miles of any of our countries. The next aircraft carrier to be commissioned, the USS Gerald Ford, will be a new type of vessel which employs stealth technologies that cannot be detected by radars and electromagnetic weapons. The main manufacturer of the two types of vessels is Northrop Grumman, whose current president is also a member of the board of directors of the U.S. oil company Chevron-Texaco. The last Nimitz cost six million dollars. This did not include the cost of the planes, projectiles or operations, which can reach figures in the billions. It sounds like a science fiction story. With that money, the lives of millions of children could have been saved.
What is the declared objective of the 4th Fleet? "To combat terrorism and illegal activities such as drug trafficking" , not to mention sending a message to Venezuela and the rest of the region. It has been announced that it will begin operations next July 1st.
Head of the South Command U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavrides has stated that the United States needs to work harder in “the market of ideas, to win over the hearts and minds” of the people in the region.
The United States has already deployed the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh fleets in the Western Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Eastern Atlantic and Western Pacific Oceans. The Fourth Fleet was needed to patrol all the seas worldwide. The United States has a total of nine Nimitz aircraft carriers, active or nearly ready for combat, such as the George H.W. Bush. It has sufficient reserves to triple or quadruple the power of any of its fleets in a given theater of operations.
The aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs our countries are threatened with serve to spread terror and death, but not to combat terrorism and illegal activities.
They should also serve to fill the empire's lackeys with shame and strengthen solidarity among the peoples.
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 4, 2008
8:46 p.m.
No comments:
Post a Comment