The All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB), inheriting Bolshevik principles of the R.S.D.W.P. -R.S.D.W.P.(b) - A.U.C.P.(b) - of Lenin's policiy in the CPSU, is the highest form of proletarian class organisation, advanced detachment of the working class, acting in unity with the peasantry and labour intelligentsia, standing on the Party's positions for: the gain of political power - overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the destruction of private ownership over the instuments and means of production, the revival of the USSR, the further strenghtening of the proletarian interests for the complete victory of socialism and gradual transition to communism. The ideological and theoretical basis of the AUCPB is formed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, is their doctrine in its creative application and development in modern conditions. The AUCPB is a component of the global communist movement with the aim of communism triumphing over the whole planet.

Wednesday, 26 November 2014

For Bolshevism - No 12 (141) December 2014

For Bolshevism Inside the Communist and Workers’ Movement No 12 (141) December 2014

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



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.

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

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
The Exhibition was open until the 7th of November.


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
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
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

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.

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

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 !

November 20th Meeting of the Juche Idea Study Group of England was held .
December 14th 2014 Commemorative Meeting

No comments: