For Bolshevism - No 12 (141) December 2014
For Bolshevism Inside the Communist and Workers’ Movement No 12 (141) December 2014
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR BOLSHEVIK PARTY!
On November 8, 1991, 23 years ago, our AUCPB – All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was formed
The All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was formed on November 8,
1991 at the height of anti-communist hysteria. The founding congress
was held in Leningrad on a semi-legal footing. The founders of the party
declared their inheritance of revolutionary traditions and a complete
break with the anti-peoples policies of the opportunist leadership of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which began the
destruction of the socialist system, the collapse of the country and the
elimination of party created by Lenin. The revival of the AUCPB was
prepared by the activities of the All-Union Society "Unity - for
Leninism and Communist ideals" (Yedinstvo), formed in May 1989, and the
Bolshevik Party platform, established in July 1991 (disbanded in
connection with the establishment of AUCPB).
In its social base, goals, objectives, structure, forms and methods
of struggle, the AUCPB is a party of the Leninist type serving as the
political vanguard of the working class and its socialist allies, an
organization of like-minded Communists, opposing the bourgeois
counter-revolution and the opportunists of the former CPSU. Strongly
criticizing the revisionist decisions of the XXVIII Congress of the
CPSU, the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks does not liken to the
German generals dumping all the blame on Hitler for the crimes,
destruction and war, and does not shut off the reasons for the
counterrevolution just on the betrayal by Gorbachev and his associates,
but starts out from the fact that, without the increasing from the end
of the 50s in the party and in the country of objective and subjective
prerequisites for capitulation, Gorbachev's perestroika would have been
impossible which then cleared the way for the coming to power of the
mafia bourgeoisie. Therefore the AUCPB is attacked by both the
anti-peoples regime, and the partocrats who are potential allies of
today restorers of capitalism.
The methodology of social and political knowledge and action by the
AUCPB is Marxism-Leninism, scientifically substantiating the historic
mission of the international working class, which is to create a society
that knows no exploitation, oppression, war, violence against the
person and the masses, social inequality and social injustice. In other
words, Marxism-Leninism is regarded as the revolutionary experience of
the working class and the builders of socialism in different countries,
taken in its general theoretical and methodological terms.
The AUCPB rejects the subjectively opportunistic approach in
assessing the historical individual, but comes from the fact that the
main criterion of significance of historical activity is the compliance
of the carrying out of policy by this individual to the objective laws
of functioning and development of society. Compliance, which is directly
implemented in the socio-economic, political, cultural and scientific
progress in improving the quality of life of the masses. In this regard,
the party strongly rejects the anti-Leninist campaign, anti-Stalinist
hysteria, and all rabid anti-communism unleashed by the restorers of
capitalism and their ideology.
The Bolshevik Party comes not only from the need to eliminate
private ownership of the means of production, as a source of
appropriation of unpaid labour by the exploiters of the manufacturers,
but also from the insolvency of anarcho-syndicalist recipes about the
transfer of public property over to individual production teams. This in
a capitalist market becomes a stepping-stone to its privatization and
transformation into private property. The AUCPB stands for the
sovereignty of the Soviet system as the form of the state of the working
class and its allies (the dictatorship of the proletariat). The
Bolsheviks come from the fact that during the period of restoration of
capitalism, all factions of the bourgeoisie, initially anti-socialist
and social-democratic under communist "guise" are potential allies of
the restorative regime, its last refuge, reserve and hope.
The AUCPB believes that in conditions of the so very far advanced
restoration of capitalism, today it is utopian to expect that election
campaigns and parliamentary factions can end the reactionary power. In
the context of the growing threat of authoritarianism in the "sovereign
states", hopes on "palace coups" are in vain. To reverse the restorative
process, a second socialist revolution is needed with the participation
of workers and the general use of all forms and methods of struggle
which the forces of counter-revolution would impose. Only a party of the
revolutionary struggle can successfully organize and direct the
anti-restorative struggle of the masses for power, and not a party of
parliamentary reform. The strategic line of policy should be to merge
the struggle for socialism with peoples mass action for the mighty
Soviet Union and the survival of the working people.
Outside-parliamentary forms of struggle play the leading role, such as
the politicization of strikes and a general political strike.
According to Lenin: "A revolution can neither be made nor set up in a
queue. One cannot place revolution on order – a revolution grows. "(VI
Lenin, PSS, t.31, p. 398); "It is impossible to predict the course of
the revolution ... it is impossible to call for one. You can only work
towards bringing about revolution "(Vol. 36, p. 458)," Universal belief
in revolution is already the beginning of the revolution "(Vol. 9,
p.159). According to Marx: "Not one revolution can be carried out by a
party, as it is carried out only by the people." (Marx and Engels. Op.
Vol. 45, p. 475).
Speaking for the unification of the communists, the AUCPB asserts
the fact that this unification should not have a formal, apical
character. From unity of action of parties and organizations arising on
the ruins of the CPSU we need move towards unity of their policies and
further more - towards a united Marxist-Leninist party of the working
class. The strength of the communists lies not just in their unity, but
in their intransigence towards opportunism.
The AUCPB has a foreign policy platform and is actively cooperating
in the international workers' and communist movement. In Greece,
Belgium, Germany, Syria, the DPRK, Brazil, India, the Netherlands,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and in our country, representatives of the
Central Committee of the AUCPB have been negotiating with the leaders
and many delegations of communist and revolutionary parties, met with
heads of state and various social movements. The AUCPB constantly
interacts with the revolutionary communist organizations in Great
Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Bulgaria and others. The
program and charter of the AUCPB is published in the communist press of
many countries.
One can become more familiar with the materials of the party and our
practical activity in the relevant section on the website
CC AUCPB
===========================
CREEPING NAZISM or THE PASSAGE OF THE "BANDERIZATION" OF UKRAINE
Challenges of the XXI Century
What we see today in Ukraine, can be considered the result of a
long-term, targeted and well-planned operation. Work on implementation
in the mid-1950s, and even before, when the nationalists in the higher,
middle and lower management level, began in Western Ukraine, and then
the whole of the Ukrainian SSR. With their help, in Western Ukraine was
carefully prepared and increased the anti-Soviet, and, in fact,
Russophobe "soil", which afterwards, by the weakening of the Soviet
Union and, accordingly, the control functions of the Centre began to
spread in other Ukrainian regions.
And the introduction of Ukrainian nationalists in the Communist
Party and the further advance in their careers began in the 1920s.
Thus, in a message of the chief of the 4th HQ the NKVD of the USSR
Sudoplatov, to deputy chief of the 3rd HQ of the NKVD of the USSR
Ilyushin from December 5, 1942 (№ 7 / C / 97), "... after the defeat of
Petliurism...... the active Petliurists went deep underground, and only
in 1921 were legalized and entered the Ukrainian Communist Party (UKP)
and used the legal possibilities for enhancing nationalist work ...
These people with the arrival of the German occupiers in Ukraine were at
the service of the Germans." Obviously, in the last decade of Stalin
(1944-1953) penetrating the party and state bodies of Ukraine by
nationalist "zapadentsev" was, to put it mildly, difficult. But then
....
Rehabilitation in 1955, on the initiative of Khrushchev, meant
persons who had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers during World War
II, according to many experts, opened the valve to the "political
naturalization" and return to Ukraine of former fascist OUN fighters,
then later in considerable numbers repainted themselves as Komsomols and
Communists.
And indeed they returned from exile not "pro-Soviet." According to a
number of North American and West German sources (including those that
existed in 1950 - early 1970 of the Munich Institute for the Study of
the USSR and Eastern Europe), no less than one third of Ukrainian
nationalists and their families rehabilitated in the middle to the
second half of 1950., became by the mid-1970s heads of district
committees, regional committees, local regional/district or executive
committees in Western, Central and South-Western Ukraine. And also –
they became leaders of various ranks in many Ukrainian ministries,
departments, enterprises, social organizations and the Komsomol,
including at regional level.
According to the same estimates, as well as archival documents of
local party organs, in the early 1980s, in the general contingent of
regional party committees and districts of Lviv region, the proportion
of persons of Ukrainian nationality, rehabilitated in 1955-1959 years.,
and returnees exceeded 30%; in Party organs at Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk
and Ternopil regions, the figure was 35% to 50%.
A parallel process developed from outside too, since from mid-1955,
Ukrainians returned from abroad. And, in the 1955-1958 biennium
returned, in general, no less than 50 thousand of them, and in the
following 10-15 years - about another 50 thousand on top of that had
returned.
And interestingly, the exiled OUN fighters in the 1940s - early
1950s succeeded, for the most part, to establish themselves at the gold
mines in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East. Therefore they returned to
Ukraine with large sums of money.
The immigrants from other countries were certainly not poor either.
And almost immediately on returning, the exiles and the majority of
returnees were buying houses with plots of land or building their own
sites, or "embedding" themselves in expensive at the time housing
cooperatives.
Obviously, after Khrushchev's 1955 rehabilitation, the OUN
leadership and other nationalist cordoned structures adopted decisions
in 1955-1956 on the gradual introduction of party and government
structures of the Ukrainian SSR. It was noted that there were would be
no insurmountable obstacles on the part of local authorities. In short,
the nationalists changed tactics, and became fully supportive of
"pro-Western" anti-Soviet dissidents in Ukraine, and skilfully embedded
in the public consciousness the chauvinistic assessment and appeals
through the media and publishing outlets of the Ukrainian SSR. According
to historian and political scientist Klim Dmitruk, these activities
were supervised by intelligence agents of the West. Moreover, in the
Soviet Union they did not dare to greatly "push" on the Eastern European
countries through the territory of which (except maybe Romania) into
Ukraine from abroad continued to penetrate former OUN members and a new,
more prepared, nationalists.
The Ukrainian leadership, again, directly or indirectly encouraged
these trends. For example, at a meeting of the Politburo on October 21,
1965, a draft project of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
was discussed, initiated by the head of the Communist Party of Ukraine
Petro Shelest, on granting Ukraine the right to independently
participate in foreign trade activities. No other union republic did
this. The mere appearance of such an odious draft project shows that the
leadership of the Ukrainian SSR was actually promoting "promising"
ideas of the conspiratorial nationalists.
According to some estimates, had the project been a success, then
the same demands by the Baltic and Transcaucasian republics would
follow.
Therefore, Moscow did not consider it necessary to meet the demand
of Kiev, although the proposal was supported by a native of Poltava, the
head of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR N.V. Podgorny.
Moreover, according to the memoirs of A.I. Mikoyan, then Shelest did not
just "put in his place", but struck him off the list of "friends of
Brezhnev." However, even after that, the influence of "the Ukrainian
group" in the Kremlin remained significant, and Shelest was removed from
office only six years later, and Podgorny – 11 years later.
Meanwhile, back in September 1965, the Central Committee of the
CPSU received an anonymous letter: "... In Ukraine, the atmosphere is
ever more heating up on the basis of the national question, in
connection with the desire of some people in Kiev to introduce a
so-called Ukrainisation of schools and universities ... Is it not clear
to the Central Committee of the CPSU that any violation of the status
quo, but more so in this matter in Ukraine, will cause hostility between
Russian and Ukrainians and excite very many base passions in favour and
the demands of Canadian Ukrainians? .. ". But even an analysis of this
"signal", we note that this did not lead to the dismissal of Shelest.
In addition, the "returnees" had no real obstacles put in their way
for their entry into the Komsomol or communist party. True, some of them
had to change the names, but that was certainly a small price to pay
for moving up the career ladder.
At the initiative of Shelest in the late 1960s, a mandatory exam in
Ukrainian language in Ukrainian humanities and many technical colleges
was secretly introduced, which, incidentally, was welcomed by many media
of the Ukrainian diaspora in North America, Germany, Australia,
Argentina. They believed that this order would suspend the
"Russification" and Sovietization of Ukraine. Subsequently, this
decision was "had the brakes applied", but even after that, many
teachers demanded of applicants, students and applicants seeking
academic titles, especially in western Ukraine, to take exams on the
Ukrainian language.
And from about the mid-1970s, in connection with the further
strengthening of the position of Ukrainian (especially the
Brezhnev-Dnipropetrovsk) clan in the top leadership of the USSR and the
CPSU, naturalization of nationalists became almost uncontrollable. This
soft in general attitude of the leadership of Ukraine within we
emphasize only the post-Stalin period, contributed towards the growth of
nationalist tendencies in the country. And the replacement of Shelest
by Shcherbitsky resulted only in a more subtle development of
nationalism, in very sophisticated, one might even say, in Jesuit ways.
Well, what would seem to be wrong, in particular, with a growing
number of schools with teaching in Russian language or the number of
media outlets, including radio and television programs in Russian? And
that literature in Russian quickly began to grow in circulation?
However, this caused latent discontent in nationalist circles of
Ukraine, and contributed to strengthening of such sentiments in society.
However, according to the research group Internet- portal of the
CIS, Ukraine continued to be in a privileged position compared to the
RSFSR, which did not even have its own Academy of Sciences unlike
Ukrainian and other Soviet republics.
Under Shelest, who headed in 1963 the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Ukraine, more Ukrainian-language literature and
periodicals were published, and this process began in 1955. In official
and other events, the authorities advised speakers to speak in
Ukrainian. In this case, the number of members in the CPU during the
years 1960-1970 increased to a record high- in comparison with the
growth of the number of members of the Communist Parties of other union
republics, by nearly 1 million members.
Pro-Western nationalist dissent in Ukraine activly developed and, at
least a third of activists were, again, former OUN members. In the Lviv
and Ivano-Frankivsk regions in the late 1950s, underground groups
emerged like the "Ukrainian worker-peasant union", the "group of lawyers
and historians", and "Nezalyezhnost". They discussed the options of
de-Sovietization of Ukraine and its secession from the USSR. And in
February 1963 at a conference on culture and the Ukrainian language in
the University of Kiev, some participants proposed that the Ukrainian be
the state language. Appropriate measures in respect of such groups in
the Ukraine were not used. It turns out that the adherents to the
promotion of Ukraine "independence" were also in the leadership of the
KGB of the USSR.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the leader of the Melnyks
(last name of the leader of one faction of the OUN - A. Melnyk) A.
Kaminsky in 1970 published in the USA and Canada bulky books "for the
modern concept of the Ukrainian revolution." It could be obtained
through booksellers in many cities of Ukraine, on the book bazaars, in
societies of book lovers and foreign correspondents. As stated by A.
Kaminski, "national revolution in Ukraine is quite possible, and it
should be prepared. And this no longer requires (no longer requires! –
ed. I.L.) underground structures ... In order to unite the people
against the Soviet regime, there are already enough evolutionary
possibilities." And the basis of a line for such a revolution is to be
"preservation of our own language, culture, national identity, the love
of our people, and traditions." And with the "skilful use of the
international and domestic situation, one can count on success ...".
Therefore the Melnyks and Banderites around the mid-1960s abandoned
their former main underground struggle, and reoriented themselves,
according to expert estimates by the Internet-portal of the CIS and a
number of other sources, towards tactical considerations to support
Ukrainian dissent in all its forms and manifestations. Especially in
support of the inspired by the West "protection of human rights in the
USSR", in which very cleverly included nationalistic overtones. In any
case, the mediocre artist in Ukraine, and not only there, often became
widely advertised as a "prisoner of conscience" and received no less a
spectacular western "label" of the same kind.
Development of these trends contributed to the fact that the ideas
of Russophobian "independence", even if in that period, not publicly,
were shared by a considerable number of Ukrainian party functionaries.
The entire Soviet period in Ukraine is almost a merging of the nationalist movement with the party apparatus.
And since a considerable number of its representatives stems from
the OUN movement, this secret alliance, ultimately proved successful.
For nationalists and their Western patrons, of course. In this regard,
what is remarkable is the creation in the 1970s - early 1980s. of Soviet
export gas pipelines mainly in the Ukrainian SSR. Many media outlets
the of Ukrainian diaspora in that period also later noted that with
Ukraine gaining "independence", the country will be able to dictate its
own terms to Russia and keep it on a strong "hook". Today they are
making another such attempt, but, as before, nothing hardly worthwhile
will come out of this "independence"...
Igor Leonidov
Material by Igor Leonidov has previously been published on http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/polzuchij_nacizm_944.htm
Note from the AUCPB editors:
In the 20's, early 30's, ukrainization "strolled" around Ukraine
when Russians, in fact, were forcibly registered as Ukrainians. This
process was led then by 1st Secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine
Stanislav Kosior, the predecessor to this post of Khrushchev. In the
late 30's, he was executed as an enemy of the people. Material on this
period of history of Ukraine, we will be publishing at a later date.
ON WAR AND REVOLUTION
November 7, 2014 marked the 97 anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution on November 7 (October 25), 1917
For the first time in the history of the world, the working class,
the toiling masses of Russia under the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party, led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin overthrew the power of the landlords
and capitalists, took power into their own hands and began to build a
socialist society.
But the overthrown classes could not accept their defeat and
unleashed a civil war against its own people. To their aid came their
class brothers – the armies of 14 imperialist states that invaded the
young Soviet republic, trying to drown in blood the state of workers and
peasants.
The young Red Army, established in the February days of 1918 with
the support of all the people, was able to defeat the forces of
intervention, and expel them from the borders of our country. There was
also a victory won over the troops of internal counterrevolution – The
White Guard, Petliurists and the like.
On December 30, 1922, four independent Soviet socialist states - the
RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic), USSR (Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic), Belorussian (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic) and TSFSR (Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
within Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia ) formed the world's first
multinational state of workers and peasants - the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
The building of socialism in our country took place in a very
complex international and domestic situation, in a fierce class
struggle. The departing from the historical arena exploiting classes of
landlords and capitalists could not accept defeat and put up furious
resistance to socialist transformation.
But the vast majority of workers and peasants, the working masses of
the Land of the Soviets rallied around the CPSU (b) - All-Union
Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which was headed by the successor and
continuer of Lenin - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, implemented
successful leadership of socialist construction.
In short historical periods of time, industrialization,
collectivization of agriculture and the Cultural Revolution were
implemented. And by the end of the 30s the Soviet Union became the
second nation in the world in economic power and Ukraine on economic
potential had reached the level of France and became one of the most
advanced countries of Europe.
An important test of the strength of Soviet power (the dictatorship
of the proletariat) and the socialist transformation was the Great
Patriotic War and German fascism that was unleashed against our country.
World capitalism could not accept the fact that in one of the
largest countries in the world, in power were the working classes and
took all measures towards the destruction of the socialist state.
The biggest monopoly corporations and banks of the main imperialist
powers of the planet - the US, Britain, France, belonging to Zionist
capital, and their considerable financial investments contributed to the
revival of large German industrial recovery of the armed forces of
Germany, defeated in World War I which contributed to Hitler and the
Nazis coming to power . Their goal was to incite the fascists at the
hands of the Nazis against the Soviet Union to destroy socialism in our
country, and break up the Soviet Union into separate national splinters,
turning them into their own colonial appendages.
However, the second military campaign of the imperialist West against the USSR ended in failure.
Hitler hoped that the Soviet Union, a multinational state of workers and
peasants, "a colossus with feet of clay" and under the first blow of
the fascist hordes would crumble like a house of cards.
But the friendship and brotherhood of the peoples of the USSR, freed
from exploitation and oppression, became one cementing force that
blocked the way to the fascists. The Soviet people, one and all, rallied
around the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, led by
Generalissimo Stalin, defeated the Nazis, defeating the enemy and
hoisted the red flag of victory over the ruined Reichstag in Berlin.
The Great Patriotic War, which began June 22, 1941 with the
treacherous attack on our country, ended with the complete defeat and
unconditional surrender of the Nazis. May 9, 1945 became the popular
Victory Day over Fascism.
The Soviet Army also fulfilled its international duty, freeing the
peoples of Europe from fascist slavery in which they were in during the
early years of the Second World War. Then, true to its alliance
commitments by the coalition, the Soviet Union declared war against
militarist Japan, defeating the million-strong Kwantung Army in 23 days,
thus putting an end to the Second World War, which lasted 6 years and
one day (September 1, 1939 - September 2, 1945 .), and which claimed 50
million lives.
In the earliest historical period, by the end of the 40s, the ruined
economy of our country was restored and the Soviet Union continued,
interrupted by the war on the path of building a communist society. The
huge undeniable advantages of socialism emerged and in the conquest of
outer space - the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite
(04/10/1957), and the first manned space flight, which was a citizen of
the Land of Soviets Yuri Gagarin (04.12.1961); in the development and
peaceful use of nuclear energy - the first nuclear power plant was put
into operation in the country (1954), as well as the launching of the
first nuclear-powered icebreaker "Lenin" (1957).
Unable to defeat our country in military campaigns, the imperialists
then moved to the "cold war" with aims to destroy the USSR and put an
end to socialism from within. An unprecedented hitherto arms race was
unleashed.
Unfortunately, after the death of J.V. Stalin in our party and state
was not found a person worthy of the great predecessors and associated
daunting task of building a communist society. Having seized power in
the party and the country, the neo-Trotskyist Khrushchev leadership
unleashed a slanderous anti-Stalin campaign, which marked the beginning
of the return of socio-economic and political processes that formed the
basis of degeneration of the Communist Party and the proletarian
socialist state, and laid the ideological, political and economic
foundations of capitalist restoration in the USSR.
The treacherous Gorbachev leadership under the guise of
restructuring (perestroika) carried out the bourgeois counterrevolution,
which resulted in the USSR and the socialist camp being destroyed, and
socialism suffering a temporary setback.
* * *
The success of the Great October Socialist Revolution was the
natural result of profound contradictions, shaking capitalism at its
highest imperialist stage.
Even the first scientific works of Marxism the "Communist Manifesto"
by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels noted the cyclical nature of
capitalism, when the rapid rise and growth of the productive forces is
replaced by crisis, stoppage and destruction of production, mass
unemployment, hunger and poverty of the vast masses of the working
people. The crisis of capitalism is itself caused by its own inner
nature - the contradiction between the social character of production
and the private form of appropriation of the results of work on the
basis of private ownership of the means of production, in other words,
the contradiction between labour and capital.
Marx and Engels write about this noting that for several decades,
the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of
modern productive forces against modern conditions of production,
against the property relations that are the conditions of existence of
the bourgeoisie and of its rule. Suffice to mention the commercial
crises that by their periodical return, ever more menacing, questions
the existence of the entire bourgeois society.
Which way do the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one
hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces, on the
other hand, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough
exploitation of the old ones. What follows? The fact that it is
preparing a more extensive and more destructive crisis and diminishing
the means to counter them.
The main condition for the existence and domination of the
bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of private
individuals, the forming and increase in capital. The condition for
capital is wage-labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition
between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary
promoter is the bourgeoisie, resistance being futile, makes isolation of
workers competition by their revolutionary combination of association.
Thus, with the development of large-scale industry from under the feet
of the bourgeoisie sees the very basis on which it produces and
appropriates products. It produces primarily its own gravedigger. Its
death and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In the "Communist Manifesto," the founders of scientific communism
highlight the main issues of vital activity of contemporary bourgeois
society and outlined the main objectives and challenges faced by the
Communist Party and the proletariat as a whole. They noted that "The
history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles."
"But every class struggle is a political struggle," ie, a struggle for power.
"The immediate aim of the Communists: the formation of the
proletariat into a class, the overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy and
conquest of political power by the proletariat."
Here Marx and Engels formed major conclusions: "The Communists may
express their theory in a single sentence: The abolition of private
property."
Marx and Engels believed that because of the relatively uniform
nature of the development of capitalism in the pre-monopoly era, the
proletarian revolution would happen around the same time in most of the
developed capitalist countries.
However, with the advent of the era of imperialism - the highest and
final stage of capitalism and the intensification of uneven, spasmodic
development of the capitalist countries, Lenin, in preparing the
working-class party for socialist revolution, came to the conclusion
(see. his work "On the Slogan of the United States of Europe" and "The
Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution ") that in the period
of imperialism, revolution can happen in several or even in one country,
the country that is currently the weakest link in the chain of
imperialist states.
The Bolsheviks were at that time, during the First World War, the
only party in the world, to remain faithful to its revolutionary duty,
loyalty to the decisions of the prewar international socialist
congresses - to use the crisis generated by the First World War for the
revolutionary overthrow of the ruling classes (their governments - in
tsarist Russia) to destroy the power of capital and the establishment of
power (dictatorship) of the proletariat.
"In the event of war - wrote Lenin, referring to the resolution of
the Stuttgart Congress (1907) and the Basle Manifesto (1912) -
Socialists must take advantage of its" economic and political crisis
"to" hasten the downfall of capitalism ", ie . use the war difficulties
of the governments and indignation of the masses for the carrying out of
socialist revolution "("Socialism and War", PSS, t.26, str.319-320).
Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were accused of "defeatism", and the
Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, was prosecuted by the tsarist government
for its refusal to vote for war credits, and for calling for the defeat
of tsarism in this war. Bolsheviks were sent to hard labour in Siberia,
but that did not change their revolutionary principles – to use the
crisis caused by the war, for the revolutionary overthrow of tsarism and
to destroy the power of capital.
"The European war - said Lenin - is the greatest historical crisis,
the beginning of a new era. Like any crisis, the war has deeply
aggravated the contradictions and brought them to the surface, having
cast off the entire hypocritical veil, throwing off all conventions,
destroying the rotten or already rotten authorities" ("Dead chauvinism
and living socialism ", PSS, t.26, str.102-103 ).
"A revolutionary class in a reactionary war can not but wish for the
defeat of its government, can not see the connection between its
military failures and the facilitating of its overthrow" (VI Lenin,
"Socialism and War", PSS, t.26, str.327) . "Socialists must explain to
the masses that for them there is no salvation outside of the
revolutionary overthrow of "their own" governments and the difficulties
that these governments in the present war should be used for this
purpose" (ibid).
And the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war.
"The transformation of the modern imperialist war into a civil war
is the only correct proletarian slogan shown by the experience of the
Paris Commune, noted by the Basel (1912) resolution and all the
conditions arising from the imperialist war between highly developed
bourgeois countries" (Lenin, "War and Russian Social-Democracy ", PSS,
t.26, p. 22).
In the same period, Lenin formulated the basic features of a
revolutionary situation: "We will not be mistaken if we mention the
following three main features: 1) the inability of the ruling classes to
maintain its unchanged rule; or a crisis of the "uppers", a crisis on
the policy of the ruling class, which creates a crack, which is filled
by the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes. For a
revolution, it is usually not enough for the "lower classes not wanting
to live the old way ", but still requires that the "upper classes can
not" rule in the old way. 2) Aggravation, above normal, deprivation and
misery of the oppressed classes. 3) A significant increase on the basis
of the first two reasons, in the activity of the masses, in a "peaceful"
epoch allowing themselves to be robbed quietly, and in turbulent times,
are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis, and by the
"uppers" into independent historical action. "Without these objective
changes, independent of the will not only of individual groups and
parties, but individual classes, a revolution - as a general rule - is
impossible. The totality of these objective changes is called a
revolutionary situation "(" The collapse of the II International ", PSS,
t.26, str.218-219).
At the same time Lenin pointed out that "from not every
revolutionary situation arises revolution, but only from a situation in
which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a
subjective factor, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to
take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the
old government, which will never, even in a period of crisis, "fall",
if it is not "toppled" (ibid, str.219).
Speaking about the tasks of socialists (as Bolsheviks at the time
called themselves), caused by the war, Lenin formulated them as follows:
"... no socialist no matter where or when ever took warranty for namely
this war (not a future war) for bringing about revolution, namely
today’s (and not tommorrow’s) revolutionary situation. Here in
question is the indisputable and fundamental duty of all socialists: the
duty to reveal to the masses the presence of a revolutionary situation,
explain its width and depth, awaken the revolutionary consciousness of
the proletariat and revolutionary determination, to help them move
towards revolutionary action and create organizations relevant to the
revolutionary situation to work in this direction "(ibid, str.221).
Even after the completion of the revolution and civil war, Lenin in "
Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder" formulated the basic law
of the revolution: "The Basic Law of the revolution, vindicated by all
revolutions and in particular all three Russian revolutions in the
twentieth century, is this: for revolution, it is not enough just for
the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of
living in the old way and demand changes; for a revolution, it is
necessary that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the
old way. Only when the "lowers" do not want the old, and when the
"uppers" can not rule in the old way that the revolution can win. This
truth is expressed in the words: revolution is impossible without a
national (and the affected exploited and the exploiters) crisis. Hence,
for revolution, it is necessary, firstly, to ensure that the majority of
workers (or at least most of the conscious, thinking, politically
active workers) should fully understand the need for revolution and is
ready to die for it; secondly, that the ruling classes experience a
government crisis, which draws into politics even the most backward
masses (a sign of any real revolution: the rapid increase by tenfold or
even a hundred times the number of people capable of political struggle
by representatives of workers and oppressed masses, hitherto apathetic),
thereby weakens the government and makes it possible for the
revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly "(MSS, t.41, str.69-70).
On the current situation, and use of the experience of the revolutionary struggle of Lenin.
Like a hundred years ago, the world remains on the verge of a world war.
War is the direct continuation of the policy of the ruling classes
conducted by them in the decades before the war, and arise from the very
nature of imperialism itself.
"War is the continuation of politics by other (ie: violent) means."
"This famous statement - said Lenin in the already mentioned work"
Socialism and War "- belongs to one of the most profound writers on
military matters, Clausewitz. Marxists have always rightly regarded this
provision as a theoretical basis of views on the meaning of every war
"(MSS, t.26, p. 316).
After the destruction of the Soviet Union, the destruction of the
Soviet Army and the United Armed Forces of the Warsaw Pact countries,
US-NATO imperialism had no obstacles in their way towards world
domination.
It should not be forgotten that in the US-NATO block, US imperialism
plays a decisive role, and the rest of the countries of NATO play a
supporting role, are an instrument of Zionist-American capital in its
struggle for the establishment of complete world domination.
From this perspective, we must consider the events in Ukraine last
winter, which resulted in the coming to power (or rather, put in power
by American directors of Maidan) of the Zionist group of capital, fully
controlled by their American masters and managed by them.
At the service of the Zionist Poroshenko-Yatsenuk-Turchinova regime
are the National Fascist Bandera groups led by Tyagnibok and Yarosh used
for the dirtiest bloody work for nationalist stupefying the masses and
pitting two fraternal peoples in internecine slaughter.
the US by and large, does not need Ukraine. Our country, the working
people of Ukraine are the pawns of US imperialism in its struggle for
the seizure, the conquest and colonization of Russia, for the possession
of its natural resources and raw materials and turning Russian workers
into slaves of transnational corporations and banks.
Only by way of unleashing new wars and military conflicts, by way of
seizing new countries and the enslavement of peoples, US imperialism,
Western imperialism in general sees a way out of the crisis, which the
world capitalist system plunged into.
The US foreign debt is bloated, the dollar threatens loss as the
main reserve currency of the world, as a means of exploitation and
enslavement of peoples, pumping out the national wealth and natural
resources of most countries of the world.
To somehow postpone its inevitable collapse due to deepening
contradictions between the rapidly developing modern productive forces
remaining and outlived capitalist relations of production standing in
the way, US imperialism needs Russia, its oil and gas, and its cheap
labour.
In late September, in the traditional Saturday address to Americans,
President Barack Obama once again made a statement about "Russian
aggression" against which he is now going to unite the whole world:
"America is leading the efforts to unite the entire world against
Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Together with our allies, we will
support the people of Ukraine in the development of democracy and the
economy. "Obama also recalled his speech at the UN on September 24:
"This week I turned to yet more countries to join us on the right side
of history." Speaking at the UN, Obama said Russia's actions in the
Ukraine are among the principal threats to peace. In the first place,
Obama talked of Ebola, and secondly - Russia, which, according to the
head of the White House, plays a too aggressive role in Ukraine and can
break the "world order", and in the next place among the main threats to
Obama were the militants of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. "
The history of war shows that the aggressor always blamed the future
victim of aggression in its policies being carried out. Lies and
slander, as Lenin pointed out when making his analysis of the First
World War, the ruling classes use to fool, deceive the masses, and to
make the war unleashed by them for the sake of gain, for the conquest of
new colonies, the capture new markets, etc. ostensibly fair.
All the signs point to impending war. Russia is surrounded by
US-NATO military bases. Now Ukraine has its back turned to Russia and
now facing NATO- United States, which is conducting a rabid anti-Russian
campaign across all the media. There is no doubt that as soon as the
parliamentary election campaign is over, the carnage in the Donbass will
flare up with renewed vigor. Donbass is needed by the US-EU (NATO) not
only as a region rich in shale gas and other minerals, but, first and
foremost, as a springboard for an attack on Russia.
Russia is a nuclear power, though sharply weakened as a result of
the treacherous policy of unilateral disarmament, has nuclear missile
potential.
In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has begun to take
measures to restore the feverish former military power. According to
military analysts, experts and observers, by 2018-2020 biennium Russia
has all chances to recover nuclear its parity with the United States.
But the aggressor will not wait so long.
In the US, various scenarios have been played out to commit
aggression against Russia. Of course, we cannot know everything; that
issue is the responsibility and duty of the relevant intelligence
agencies of the Russian Federation. But, on the basis of open
publications, statements of American politicians and the military, one
of those scenarios is the delivery by US forces of a limited number of
nuclear strikes on 20 major military-political and economic centres of
Russia, in order to achieve complete disruption of management and
leadership, in order to force Russia to surrender on favourable
conditions for the aggressor.
Another scenario is to attempt removal from power of the Putin
regime and its replacement by a regime of national-traitors of the
representatives of the liberal-Zionist openly pro-American opposition,
by organizing "mass protest" on the model of the Kiev Maidan.
And here before the Bolsheviks, the question arises, what should our attitude be towards to Putin.
In my opinion, the answer here is clear. Putin is a bourgeois
leader, anti-communist and rabid anti-Stalinist. He was brought to power
as a replacement and continuer of the bloody Yeltsin. Just as Gorbachev
and Yeltsin, Putin has continued the policy of unilateral disarmament
of Russia in the face of an increasingly escalating militarily US-NATO
aggressor. Just one treacherous START-3treaty alone signed by Obama and
Medvedev in April 2010, in Prague, and which the United States received a
huge unilateral military advantage (in particular, the possibility to
deploy a missile defence system in Europe directed against Russia; in
exclusion from the Treaty of cruise missiles long-range sea-based both
in normal and in the nuclear option, etc.). Everyone remembers how at
the time Obama and the US leaders talked about resetting relations with
Russia, that the US and Russia from enemies become partners. And all
this was done with one purpose, to lull the vigilance of the Russian
leadership, to play on the ambitions (allegedly the leaders of Russia
are among the world's ruling elite that is by far not so – the emerged
oligarchy and its political representatives allowed themselves to
plunder their own people, create and accumulate unjustly acquired
multi-billion dollar wealth, but always remember his place, his place as
a dependent subordinate secondary structure of world Zionism, the
world's financial capital) and on this basis to make further unilateral
disarmament and the encirclement of Russia.
Putin has always represented the interests (in political terms, and in
the individual himself is a billionaire) the oligarchy of Russia
(primarily raw oil magnates). In connection with all the growing threat
of war against Russia, he objectively, moved into the
bourgeois-patriotic camp, while being a servant of the oligarchs
(separate processes against individual oligarchs, such as against B.
Evtushenkov, the master of "Bashneft", oneone should be misled. Another
round of competition is underway between different groups of oligarchs
and the Russian president in this fight gets on one side or another,
thus becoming associated with the respective group and dependent on it).
Putin could not hand over Crimea to the Americans, when the vast
majority of the population voted for reunification with Russia,
realizing at the same time the generally accepted international right of
nations to self-determination. Let us look at this another way. Just
suppose Putin allowed Crimea to be hosted by US-NATO fighters and
Sevastopol - "a city of Russian sailors," a city of naval glory of
Russia, will be the naval base of the US-NATO, this would mean the
biggest betrayal of national (and military-strategic) the interests of
Russia, a military-political suicide.
But Putin is not supporting the anti-fascist uprising in Donbass.
And did not support it because of his bourgeois class character. Putin
is afraid that this uprising will be proletarian and socialist in
character and, along with the Zionist-Bandera Kiev regime, sweep away
from the face of the earth the bourgeois-oligarchic power in Russia with
him at the helm also.
Hence the successful offensive by the Donbass militia was halted in
late August and the relevant agreement in Minsk signed. The Kiev junta
gained respite, got a chance to regroup, and relying on external support
to counter-attack and try to stifle the revolt. Here Putin, and Putin’s
leadership came in harness with the Kiev Zionist-fascists. Moreover, by
not defending the people of Donbass, Putin actually allowed a war to
start with Russia, because the people of Donbass and the people of
Russia, are, by and large, a single essence. Putin and the Russian
leadership believe it can negotiate with Western "partners", and will
appease the aggressor. Herein, lies the profound error. The more they
pander to the aggressors, the more of an appetite for aggression erupts.
This is evidenced by the whole history of war and international
relations, and this is evidenced above statement of Barack Obama. The
imperialists of the West are not "partners" of Russia, but its most
vicious enemies. Trying to negotiate with them, means taking Russia
towards US-NATO massacre.
The tasks of the Bolsheviks is to raise the working masses of Russia
to fight against both bourgeois factions against both bourgeois camps –
both the bourgeois-patriotic and openly pro-Western liberal-Zionists,
to fight for the destruction of the power of capital, for the
restoration of Soviet power and socialism, for revival of the USSR.
This is the only way to save Russia from the West and the subjugation of colonial slavery.
The question arises, whether a revolutionary situation has
matured, whether there is the presence of the objective conditions of a
proletarian revolution.
Lenin noted that evidence of a revolutionary situation, lies in one of
its most important features, that is the rapid increase in the number of
multiple participants in the protest struggle, turning this struggle
into a millionstrong struggle covering the vast masses of the people.
The creator of history is the people who have risen to the revolutionary struggle against their oppressors.
In the aggression against the people of Donbass and attempts to
suppress the anti-fascist uprising in blood, the ruling junta Bandera
awoke the vast masses. Millions of refugees from the Donbass, destroyed
cities and businesses, destroyed infrastructure, mass unemployment, the
death of tens of thousands of civilians - all of this is of growing
class hatred in the hearts of the people towards the ruling Zionist
junta, towards the modern Banderovites who are brutally destroying all
dissent.
The people themselves have taken up arms to defend their right to
speak in their native Russian language, and not to worship Bandera,
those bloody fascist minions and executioners, including their own
Ukrainian (West-Ukrainian) people to defend their right to life itself,
the lives of their loved ones, the right to live in their native land.
Now begins the awakening of the people of western and central
Ukraine. Hundreds of corpses come in the Western Ukrainian cities and
villages, forcing people to think, and in the name of what their
fathers, sons, husbands, brothers gave their lives, against whom they
were fighting in the east of Ukraine, and what and who they are there to
protect ?! The territorial integrity of Ukraine ?! So Ukraine until
February 21 was a unified single state and only after coming to power of
Bandera, did she begin to disintegrate. You can not build a single
state, arousing hatred of one part of the working people towards
another, preaching nationalism, fomenting ethnic hatred and strife.
Incidentally, the fascist Banderites hate Lenin so much also because
he was an internationalist and enemy of all ethnic hatred, hatred and
enmity.
Modern Banderites, these servants of the Zionists, preaching
nationalism, are seeking to hide from workers of any nationality their
main enemy - the bourgeoisie, capital, US-NATO imperialism.
But sooner or later the nationalist dope and outright Russophobic lie will be shattered.
The working people of Ukraine will unite and rise up to fight against their oppressors.
Above the ground erupts the scarlet dawn of a new socialist revolution.
A. Mayevsky
Secretary of the AUCPB
===================================
UK KFA INFORMATION
1. BRIEF REPORT OF LAUNCH CEREMONY OF DPRK FINE ART EXHIBTION
The opening ceremony and reception for the exhibition of the
Mansudae Art Studio was really great. It was attended by myself and
other KFA and JISGE members as well a lot of different people (about a
100 all. The Ambassador of the DPRK Mr Hyon Hak Bong opened the
exhibition saying it will contribute greatly to cultural exchange
between Britain and the DPRK.
The DPRK Artists had been staying for 2 weeks and had painted many
scenes of London including Traflagar Square and scenes of the Thames
Riverside. Ambassador Hyon said that a young man had phoned the
embassy saying that he recognised his girlfriend in one of the pictures!
For more reports and pictures please see the UK KFA Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/KFA-United-Kingdom/223522167739886?ref=bookmarks
The Exhibition was open until the 7th of November.
2.DPRK SLAMS HOSTILE FORCES ANTI-DPRK RESOLUTION
Hostile Forces Hit for Their Moves to Adopt Anti-DPRK "Human Rights Resolution
Pyongyang, October 30 (KCNA) -- The hostile forces' moves to have an
anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" adopted have reached a graver phase
this year, timed to coincide with the U.S. start of all-out
confrontation with the DPRK.
A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Thursday in this regard.
The DPRK has made earnest and sincere efforts to promote
international dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights for
the purpose of steadily promoting the popular masses' enjoyment of
human rights, the statement said, and went on:
In the recent days the DPRK took a magnanimous stand to positively
take into consideration the issue of conducting human rights dialogue
which had been frozen due to the unilateral action of the EU and the
issue of the visit of the UN special rapporteur on
human rights issue in the DPRK to it for the purpose of promoting
genuine human rights on the principle of respect for sovereignty,
agreed with the matter of the visit of the EU representative with full
mandate over human rights to the DPRK and expressed an intention to
accept technical cooperation with the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.
Nevertheless, international dialogue and cooperation have not been
effected in the field of human rights. This is attributable to the
U.S. hostile policy to tarnish the image of the DPRK and bring down its
social system at any cost by persistently hyping its "human rights
issue".
It was none other than the U.S. which let its Secretary of State
convene a "high-level meeting on human rights in north Korea" and
barred the DPRK, the party concerned, from participating in it for fear
of the disclosure of the sinister backstage political confab. It
was again the U.S. which prodded into an anti-north smear campaign such
human scum as "those defectors from the north" who fled to the south
from their old homes and kinsmen after committing thrice-cursed
crimes. Afraid of the possible dialogue and cooperation between the
DPRK and the international community in the field of human rights and,
accordingly, the further promotion of its people's enjoyment of human
rights and the rising international prestige of the DPRK, the U.S. is
making desperate efforts to maintain an international atmosphere of
pressure on the DPRK, turning its face away from the latter's sincere efforts and raising unreasonable demands.
If the EU adopts an anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" harsher
than the previous one, dancing to the U.S. tune, an opportunity of
engaging the DPRK over the human rights issue will be missed for good
and this will entail unpredictable consequences.
The DPRK will make every possible effort to defend and consolidate
the Korean-style socialist system based on the popular masses-first
spirit.
(our joint statement is here
juche007-anglo-peopleskoreafriendship.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/assspuk-jisge-and-uk-kfa-condemn.html)
3. DPRK REJECTS POLITICISATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DPRK Says No to U.S. Dialogue on Human Rights, Nuclear Dialogue Aimed to Bring down It
Pyongyang, November 4 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign
Ministry Tuesday gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA
blasting the U.S. for politicizing its accusation against the DPRK over its human rights issue:
U.S. authorities including the secretary of State and the special
envoy for six-party talks of the Department of State let loose a spate
of politically motivated malignant invectives to tarnish the image of
the DPRK politically and morally and justify its moves to isolate and
stifle it over its non-existent "human rights issue".
It is a trite method of the U.S. to fake up "human rights issues"
of those countries which incur its displeasure, cause internal
instability, split and destabilization and thus seek regime changes
through "coloring revolution" and "peaceful transition" in the long-run.
There is a big difference between the discussion on genuine human
rights and "human rights issue" used as a political lever for making
something like "coloring revolution."
The U.S. does not recognize the state sovereignty which
comprehensively reflects the human rights of the Korean people. It is,
therefore, nonsensical for the U.S. to take issue with their human
rights this or that way.
The present U.S. administration, the present U.S. secretary of
State, in particular, unlike the successive U.S. administrations, are
officially pursuing a policy for bringing down the state and social
system of the DPRK over the "human rights issue", thus reneging on the
September 19, 2005 joint statement which calls upon the DPRK and the
U.S. to "respect each other's sovereignty and exist peacefully," the
statement which laid a basic groundwork for denuclearizing the Korean
Peninsula.
The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become totally
meaningless for the DPRK under the situation where the U.S. is reneging
on its commitment. It is self-evident that one party cannot discuss
its unilateral disarming with the rival party keen to bring it
down at any cost.
The DPRK keeps the door of dialogue on genuine human rights open
to the countries that respect its sovereignty but it will never allow
any human rights dialogue or nuclear one with the enemy keen to
overthrow it.
The U.S. will witness the shining victory of the DPRK's line of
simultaneously developing the two fronts before the expiry of the
tenure of office of the present administration, not just the distant
future.
ASSPUK, JISGE and the UK Korean Friendship Association Applaud Stand
of DPRK of rejecting so-called dialogue
http://juche007-anglo-peopleskoreafriendship.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/asspuk-jisge-and-uk-korean-friendship.html
London 4 November Juche 103(2014)
The Association For the Study of Songun Politics UK, the Juche Idea
Study Group of England and the UK Korean Friendship Association in
support the stance of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea on U.S.
Dialogue on Human Rights, Nuclear Dialogue Aimed to Bring down It as
clarified by the answer given by a DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman on
the 4th of November :
It is an old, old trick of the US imperialists to bring forward the
"human rights " issue as a means of destabilsing other countries and
overthrowing the systems of states that are not to their liking , in
other words states which refuse to be part of the US-led imperialist
"New World Order " and which reject imperialist globalisation. In the
1970s the US imperialists used "human rights " as a stick to beat the
USSR and Eastern European socialist countries with and used as a means
of effecting the so-called "peaceful transition " strategy aimed at
destroying socialism by devious and underhand means . In more recent
years we have seen the trick of the so-called "colour revolution ".
Dialogue between parties, between states, can only be conducted on
the basis of equality and mutual respect. If one side tries to use
dialogue as a means of undermining or destroying the other side , this
is is not dialogue . Thus there can be no dialogue on the "human rights
" issue or nuclear issue until the US respects the sovereignty of the
DPRK and finally ends it hostile policy towards the DPRK completely and
irreversibly.
We admire the fact that under the far sighted Songun
revolutionary policy of dear respected Marshal Kim Jong Un and the
Workers' Party of Korea the DPRK is not fooled by these tricks of the
US imperialists and their bag carriers . The DPRK will not
unilaterally disarm itself as some others did . The DPRK is absolutely
correct to reject such false dialogue and stick to the anti-imperialist
independent line.
We have every confidence that the DPRK will win final victory by
pursuing the dual track line of developing the economy and nuclear
force.
Victory to the DPRK !
Long live the anti-imperialist, anti US policy of the DPRK
Long Live Songun Politics
ASSPUK
JISGE
UK KFA
5. OPECON DELAYED AGAIN
South Korea is the the only country in the world not to have actual
operational wartime command over its own armed forces. This has been
postponed indefinitely
Our statement is here
ASSPUK, JISGE and UK KFA condemn the indefinite postponement of the
transfer of OPECON.
juche007-anglo-peopleskoreafriendship.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/asspuk-jisge-and-uk-kfa-condemn.html
London 30th of October Juche 103(2014)
The Association for the Study of Songun Politics UK, Juche Idea Study
Group of England and UK Korean Friendship Association issued a joint
statement denouncing the indefinite postponement of the transfer of
wartime operational by the US to south Korea (known as OPECON): The U.S.
and south Korean puppet authorities, at the recent 46th annual
security consultative meeting in Washington, agreed to put off
the transfer of OPECON (wartime operation control), which had been
scheduled by 2015, almost indefinitely basically giving the US the
permanent right of wartime command over the south Korean armed forces.
Control of one's own armed forces is absolutely
essential for sovereignty , in fact a natural perquisite for
sovereignty . Without the right of command at all times over one's
armed forces a state cannot be called a sovereign state.
The fact that the US has indefinitely postponed the transfer of
wartime operational control to south Korea proves doubly and triply
beyond all doubt that south Korea is not an indeed state , it cannot be
an independent state but is a colony of US imperialism. South Korea
was created by US imperialism and is today controlled and dominated by
the US imperialists in all fields.
The present south Korean puppet regime has shown their true faces as
abominable traitors and bootlickers of US imperialism . South Korea is
a modern day colony , an anachronism in today's world of independence
and national liberation !
Our organisations, the ASSPUK, JISGE and UK KFA , support the
statement of the secretariat of the Committee for Peaceful
Reunification (no 1077 ) which calls for decisive counter-measures
against the postponement of the transfer for OPECON.
Indeed the progressive and peace loving peoples of the world should
support the Korean people in their struggle for sovereignty and total
independence
ASSPUK
JISGE
UK KFA
6.PUERILE MEDIA
The anti campaign of the British media managed to plumb new depths !
In order to try and discredit and malign the dignified image of the
DPRK supreme leadership they published some very silly stories recently
. These articles contribute nothing to understanding the DPRK
but just go to show the puerile mentality of some journalists !
7.UPCOMING AND PAST EVENTS
November 20th Meeting of the Juche Idea Study Group of England was held .
December 14th 2014 Commemorative Meeting
