Among the Dutch, Scandinavian and Swiss revolutionary Social-Democrats who are combating the social-chauvinist lies about “defence of the fatherland” in the present imperialist war, there have been voices in favour of replacing the old Social-Democratic minimum-programme demand for a “militia”, or “the armed nation,” by a new demand: “disarmament.” The Jugend-Internationale has inaugurated a discussion on this issue and published, in No. 3, an editorial supporting disarmament. There is also, we regret to note, a concession to the “disarmament” idea in R. Grimm’s latest theses. Discussion have been started in the periodicals Neue Leben and Vorbote.
Let us take a closer look at the position of the disarmament advocates.
Visualize the movement against the Vietnam War. What do you see? Hippies with daisies in their long, unwashed hair yelling “Baby killers!” as they spit on clean-cut, bemedaled veterans just back from Vietnam? College students in tattered jeans (their pockets bulging with credit cards) staging a sit-in to avoid the draft? A mob of chanting demonstrators burning an American flag (maybe with a bra or two thrown in)? That’s what we’re supposed to see, and that’s what Americans today probably do see — if they visualize the antiwar movement at all.
1. The governmental programme of the Soviet Government was not a reformist, but a revolutionary one. Reforms are concessions obtained from a ruling class that retains its rule. Revolution is the overthrow of the ruling class. Reformist programmes, therefore, usually consist of many items of partial significance. Our revolutionary programme consisted properly of one general item—removal of the yoke of the landowners arid capitalists, the overthrow of their power and the emancipation of the working people from those exploiters. This programme we have never changed. Some partial measures aimed at the realisation of the programme have often been subjected to change; their enumeration would require a whole volume. I will only mention that there is one other general point in our governmental programme which has, perhaps, given rise to the greatest number of changes of partial measures. That point is—the suppression of the exploiters’ resistance. After the Revolution of October 25 (November 7), 1917 we did not close down even the bourgeois newspapers and there was no mention of terror at all. We released not only many of Kerensky’s ministers, but even Krasnov who had made war onus. It was only after the exploiters, i.e., the capitalists, had begun developing their resistance that we began to crush that resistance systematically, applying even terror. This was the proletariat’s response to such actions of the bourgeoisie as the conspiracy with the capitalists of Germany, Britain, Japan, America and France to restore the rule of the exploiters in Russia, the bribery of the Czechoslovaks with Anglo-French money, the bribery of Mannerheirn, Denikin and others with German and French money, etc. One of the latest conspiracies leading to “a change”—to put it precisely, leading to increased terror against the bourgeoisie in Petrograd—was that of the bourgeoisie, acting jointly with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries; their conspiracy concerned the surrender of Petrograd, the seizure of Krasnaya Gorka by officer-conspirators, the bribing by British and French capitalists of employees of the Swiss Embassy and of many Russian employees, etc.
Woman’s fate is bound up with that of the exploited male. This is a fact. However, this solidarity, arising from the exploitation that both men and women suffer and that binds them together historically, must not cause us to lose sight of the specific reality of the woman’s situation. The conditions of her life are determined by more than economic factors, and they show that she is a victim of a specific oppression. The specific character of this oppression cannot be explained away by setting up an equal sign or by falling into easy and childish simplifications.
“It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue. It demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.”
To support Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and despite any ideological or political differences, thousands of fighters from four other Palestinian factions have been fighting against the Israeli occupation forces in Gaza since last October.
…
“Currently, we are all facing the same catastrophe(…) The Israeli enemy does not differentiate between a Palestinian who follows Fatah and another who belongs to Hamas. For him, everyone is a target. The Israelis want to eradicate the Palestinian people, without exception,” the officials said.
…
“Although the Al-Qassam Brigades and the Al-Quds Brigades are the strongest on the ground, fighters from other factions joining the fight has created a balance not only on the field but also politically, especially since Israel has always bragged since the beginning of its war that it is only fighting Hamas, which it described as similar to ISIS, to justify its crimes against all the Palestinian people,” Wasef Erekat, a Ramallah-based Palestinian military expert, told TNA.
“The presence of diversity in the fighters’ ideological and political backgrounds and tactics in confronting the Israeli occupation prevents Israel from being able to commit even more crimes against the Palestinians and debunks their claim that they are only fighting ‘extremists’ and Hamas,” Erekat said.
…
“Israel and the United States have long tried to stamp out Palestinian armed resistance and hold Hamas fully responsible for the 7 October attack. They ignored the violations against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza for decades and considered the 7 October attack a ‘crime against humanity’ and mobilised international and, unfortunately, some of the Arab opinion against Hamas,” remarked Iyad al-Qarra, a Gaza-based Palestinian analyst.
A new upsurge in the struggle against U.S. imperialism is now emerging throughout the world. Ever since the Second World War, U.S. imperialism and its followers have been continuously launching wars of aggression and the people in various countries have been continuously waging revolutionary wars to defeat the aggressors. The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today.
Judaism is linked to the Jewish religion, Judaism is not linked to a people.
Islam is linked to the Islamic religion, Islam is not linked to a people.
Christianity is linked to the Christian religion, Christianity is not linked to a people.
It is unfortunate to have to explain this, today in the 21st century of alleged secular values, of supposed anti-imperialist values, and of a world where we believe and feel that the anachronism of colonialism has been overcome in history….
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.