NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM FOR DUMMIES (THE BEST OF...)

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM FOR DUMMIES
(THE BEST OF...)

by Andrew Plugac

With footnotes from Kat Ulrike

1. National Bolshevism is Anti-Capitalism

May Vladimir Ilyich Lenin forgive me for this, but the most important question of any revolution is the question of the means of production. the Russian National-Bolsheviks advocate the abolition of the institution of private property and the socialization of the means of production. The nationalization of large industries, for the implementation of the principles of social justice, freedom and equality, and the construction of a social system that embodies these principles and is known as socialism.

As you know, we live in a world of victorious capitalism. The consequences of Russia's integration into the world economic system as a new source of raw materials and a market occurred in 1991 and still ongoing, visible to the naked eye: the demographic decline, the successive destruction of fundamental and applied scientific developments, the drop in the level of education, quality of health care, real incomes of the population, a steady decline in living standards, degradation of the real sector of the economy that is associated with the steady policy of de-industrialization, a monstrous social stratification, in which the share of the 1% of richest Russians account for almost 80 percent of all personal assets in Russia, pervasive corruption, offshoring of the Russian capital, exceeding foreign exchange reserves of the country, the artificial devaluation of the national currency, increasing from year to year "brain drain" to more prosperous countries, the honorable First place in Europe in male mortality, and environmental problems in various regions of the country and, ultimately, the degeneration of the Russian ethnos, throughout Russian history were state -. Total economic, social, technological and cultural degradation. The uniqueness of Russian history lies in the fact that over the past century we have managed to build both socialist and capitalist societies and have the opportunity to compare their advantages and disadvantages. and it seems to me that the results of the capitalist experiment, which has lasted for almost thirty years, in comparison with the results of the socialist experiment (which, of course, had its shortcomings and shortcomings, which must be taken into account in the new version of the socialist structure of society) speak only in favor of the latter.

Whereas capitalism is killing Russia. socialism will bring Russia back to life.

2. National Bolshevism is Anti-Globalization

The triumphant march of capitalism goes hand in hand with the hegemony and economic, cultural and military expansion of Western civilization. The geopolitical dominance of the West has been growing over the past five centuries or so, and has undergone several phases of development: from its origins in the bowels of the Italian city-states, through the expansionist trade policies of the United Netherlands Provinces, through the colonial policies of the British Empire, and finally through the hegemony of the United States of America. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which for many decades remained an alternative for Third World countries that did not want to be drawn into the world capitalist system on the periphery, and served as a guarantor of the bipolar model of the world order, became a catalyst for accelerating the fifth phase of development, called globalization. Now nothing prevented the planetary spread of a single model of the Western bourgeois-democratic, liberal society, that is, the society of merchants, which Western civilization proclaimed the universal ideal for all human communities without exception.

Is it worth reminding how this geopolitical defeat affected the fate of Russia? The weakening of foreign policy influence in Africa, Latin America, the Far East and Western Europe; the termination of the Warsaw Pact and the liquidation of the socialist camp, which was a colossal blow to the closest zone of strategic defense of the USSR; civil wars throughout the post-Soviet space; the complete failure of national interests; the surrender of strategic positions; the actual establishment of external control over Russia; implementation of destructive economic reforms, which resulted in the impoverishment of the population and the artificial creation of a layer of the super-rich, integrated into the global transnational financial elite; destruction of the entire social infrastructure.

Throughout its history, Russia has repeatedly faced external aggression from the West, whether it is the army of Napoleon's two hundred languages, the military intervention of the Entente countries or the war of annihilation with Hitler's Germany. And the continued expansion of NATO to the East after 1991, despite all the fabulous and humiliating concessions of the political leadership of our country, tells us that the West is not in a hurry to accept Russia and the former Soviet republics into the family of" civilized " peoples. Like the majority of the world's population, the West needs us exclusively as a source of raw materials and a market, as an oil and gas pipeline, which is managed by several clans of the Comprador bourgeois elite, all of whose interests and money are concentrated in the West.

Therefore, Russian national Bolsheviks stand for an independent foreign policy; for the weakening of the hegemony of the West; for the national liberation struggle of the oppressed nations of the periphery and the Third World against globalization and neoliberal economic policies imposed on them by Western civilization; for a multipolar world in which existing nations and civilizations can freely choose their own path of development; for the preservation of traditional society and traditional values and respect for the national cultural and historical appearance of each civilization, nation and nationality existing on the planet; for the class struggle against the comprador bourgeois elite in the associated countries; for the elimination of transnational oligarchic groups, in the hands of which are the main financial, information, political, scientific, military, etc. resources of the planet. In a unipolar world ruled by the international elite of the "golden billion", the Russian people, like many others, have no place. Therefore, the unipolar world must be destroyed in its current form.

3. National Bolshevism is Anti-Liberalism

If the two main enemies of the Russian national Bolshevik are capitalism and the hegemony of Western civilization, then in modern Russian political discourse, its main opponents are Russian liberals. It is they who have historically become apologists for the capitalist path of development, entering "the family of civilized peoples", returning "to the pillar road of civilization", perceiving the history of their native country as a kind of annoying misunderstanding. It was liberal ideas that became the virus, the terrible bacillus that infected the Russian people and brought our country to its current state.

In politics, liberalism means declaring the highest value of the individual, taken in isolation from any form of collective identity. liberals proclaim freedom from: the state, from religious, class, ethnic, racial and even gender identities, i.e. from everything that can allegedly restrict the freedom of a given individual. In other words, liberalism is an ideology of dehumanizing," getting rid " of everything that makes a person human.

In economics, liberalism means the principles of a free market, the withdrawal of the state from the economic sphere, laissez-faire (free competition, non-interference in the economy, neoganichennoy freedom of enterprise) and free trade (free trade). Russian people had to see firsthand how the invisible hand of the market, praised by liberals, develops into a quite obvious and obvious cookie.

in international relations, liberalism presupposes the export of democracy as the main content of foreign policy, i.e., the extension of the norms of political liberalism to all countries. We have already had the opportunity to see all the charms of exporting democracy on the example of our own country and neighboring Yugoslavia, and even now we are watching how civilians of the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics are dying under the humanitarian bombs of a country that has made its "European choice".

Therefore, we will not be deceived by modern Russian liberals who are trying to convince us that some "wrong" capitalism has been built in Russia. we've heard and seen it all before. liberalism as a system of political and economic views justifies the further dismemberment and murder of our country and our people. If liberalism is a destructive ideology, then national Bolshevism is a creative ideology, oriented to the benefit of its own people and state.

4. National Bolshevism is Natonalism

The subject of national-bolshevik ideology is the Russian nation. Russian Russian National Bolshevik's priority is the well-being of this nation, the well-being of the majority of the Russian people. This is its fundamental divergence from the liberal ideology, which puts the interests of the individual or individual minorities at the forefront.

But do we have anything to criticize the domestic nationalists for? Definitely. In our opinion, all domestic nationalists are revisionists of the nationalist idea. Because all the theoretical constructions of all our homegrown nationalists who advocate the preservation of the principles of capitalist economy, free enterprise," sacred " private property and natural hierarchy are based on a single and very dubious postulate: the need for a nationally oriented bourgeoisie. Where our nationalists, if I may say so, are going to take these abstract bourgeoisie, is categorically unclear. Apparently, they are going to grow them in a test tube with the help of genetic engineering, otherwise it is absolutely unclear why the domestic capitalist will suddenly decide that national interests are more important than his personal financial interests. Maybe he will be forced to do this by the state? Well, the modern Russian corrupt state itself is a tool in the hands of the ruling class.

Therefore, the Russian Bolsheviks are in favor of national-oriented socialism. Only the socialization of the means of production, only the nationalization of large industries, only the destruction of the institution of private property, only the principles of real, not formal equality, real, not formal democratization of society can fully ensure the well-being and comprehensive development of both the individual and the entire nation as a whole.

5. National Bolshevism is Left-Wing Nationalism

The reader is entitled to ask here: if the National Bolsheviks are so "drowning" for socialism, then how do they differ from the modern leftists? After all, leftists are also in favor of class struggle against globalization and private ownership of the means of production: are national balls any different from them? Yes, I will answer. Although the left-wing ideas are certainly close to the Russian National Bolsheviks, we are at the same time opposed to the extremes of the left-wing idea. This extreme is called left-wing internationalism, left-wing cosmopolitanism, or, if you like, class national nihilism.

National nihilism is not a new phenomenon in Russian history. It was embodied in the screams of awe about Russia, which, in the opinion of this distinguished philosopher, "is intended only to show the world how not to live", and the image of Smerdyakov, described by Dostoevsky in the novel "the Brothers Karamazov": "In the twelfth year Russia was on the great invasion of the French Emperor Napoleon the first, father of the current, and well, if only we then conquered those same French people: clever nation would have conquered a very stupid one and annexed. There would even be quite different orders, sir."

But there was a period in our history when national nihilism was presented almost as a state ideology. This period is approximately from the beginning of the 20s of the last century to the middle of the 30s. Russian Russian historians of the so-called school of Academician M. N. Pokrovsky (until 1940, Moscow University even bore his name), ignoring even Lenin's indication of the presence of two patriotisms in Russian history, questioned the very concepts of "Russia", "patriotism", and "Russian history". Patriotism, in their opinion, was "one of the whales of the petty-bourgeois worldview."

The turn from this obscurantism occurred in the early 1930s, when the country's leadership, fully aware that the coming world war could not be avoided and that a world socialist revolution was not expected in the near future, made it clear to the radical internationalists that it was time to stop dreaming of a "zemsharny republic of Soviets" and start building socialism in one country.

This "national-Bolshevik bias" (as some Trotskyists called it) in the policy of the Soviet government ended in the defeat of the Pokrovsky school and various Trotskyist-Bukharin organizations, which were eager to throw the Russian people into the crucible of the world revolution. National Bolshevism defeated national nihilism inside, rebuffed the West outside, and for a long time became the guarantor of a bipolar world and alternative ways of development.

What conclusion can be drawn from this historical excursion? "leftist internationalism", "leftist cosmopolitanism" in its extreme manifestations turns into national nihilism. In fact, "orthodox Marxists" are a kind of globalists on the contrary: they also claim that their ideology is universal, they also run around with the idea of progress, except that in the end they have capitalism magically turn into socialism. In other words, "left-wing" cosmopolitans are agents of the interests of Western hegemony to the same extent as domestic liberals. Therefore, the Russian National Bolsheviks emphasize the left-patriotic orientation. Russian National Bolsheviks are in favor of building socialism in a single country. In our view, Russia, in full agreement with Comrade Stalin's minted NB formula, should be "national in form and socialist in content."

***

(From Andrew Plugac: often our subscribers and sympathizers have a rather vague idea of the essence of national Bolshevism. In the article offered to the reader, the author quite successfully tried to state the essence of our ideology.)

This note, made by Plugac, tried to explain about "National Bolshevism" from the view of a Russian "NazBol". Just like any other explanations about this kind of political idea, National Bolshevism tends to combine ideas from both left and right, that of nationalism and their study of Marxism-Leninism. However, some NazBol groups tend to deemphasise aspects of Marxism especially that of Class Struggle, let alone they're inspired by the Soviet Union and that of Stalin and his "socialism in one country." May sound strange and contradictory to some but "National Bolshevism" has been used to describe a struggle for communism that's based upon distinct national characteristics and circumstances, if not having sought a dictatorship of the proletariat which would harness nationalism.

But as an observer, nationalism alone nowadays is not enough in a time struggles becoming social in character.  Nationalists, let alone radical ones, rather chose to limit their nationalisms to that of cultural ones while praising neoliberal capitalism regardless of its effects. These "nationalists" would wave their flags, use the national tongue, anything to promote "love of country" but they are way far from the people they call "folk" or "kin" except that during election periods. But regardless of denials, this "national question" is still relevant for as long as a great majority is still excluded from the political process; the only question is where it will be shaped knowing that and a great majority is still excluded and their political formations squashed by the order such as those claiming to be "for the country." 
And contrary to those who deny the idea of nationalism, that according to Roman Rozdolsky: "When the Manifesto says that the workers 'have no country', this refers to the bourgeois national state, not to nationality in the ethnical sense." Even Anton Pannekoek, known for being against Lenin, and Russian monarchists Nicholas Ustrialov and Vasilii Shulgin pointed out in 1920 that Russians first "nationalized" communism.

To cut the note short, the dictatorship of the proletariat is both national and international. National Liberation Movements are themselves struggles of both national and class nature-for those who fought for the self-determination of nations didn't just simply limit to that of reviving their nations, but also to overturn class structures that oppresses them. Anyway, to use Soekarno's quote: 

“Internationalism cannot flower if it is not rooted in the soil of nationalism, and nationalism cannot flower if it does not grow in the garden of internationalism.”

"Watered-down or not, that 'law' doesn't stop the fight"

"Watered-down or not, that 'law' doesn't stop the fight"

by Kat Ulrike

It is not surprising that the decision of the supreme court about the constitutionality of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act remains upheld. 

Even if some of its provisions been voided, the law itself continues to embolden thugs in uniform to pursue its repressive action “all in the name of national security” and “anti-terrorism” against those who simply voice frankly their dissent if not demanding a radical, patriotic alternative to an unjust order and its policy. For even now, labour unions, peasant groups, youth and student organisations, even churchpeople, and other concerned members of the civil society have been targeted for armed suppression. 

And regardless of the court’s decision, this doesn’t stop state-led abuses but rather become even more rampant. The so-called "National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict" or its earlier police operations "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel" created a license for those thugs in uniform to besmirch someone’s reputation, harass, or kill those who stood against their way. For sure the apologists of the order are either rejoicing about the court’s approval, albeit with amendments and pretending they’re respecting the decision; if not disagreeing the decision thinking the need to control or restrict civil rights as necessary for order- and this was shown by one military official who wanted to regulate social media using the law as its basis. 

Again this is unsurprising for as any other attempt to stifle people’s dissent, the order stokes the culture of impunity whether the law retains its entirety or after the court’s decision to remove “some of its unjust provisions”. After all, it is the same alibi why community pantries been harassed, if not personalities being slandered, tagged as “terrorists”, or killed all because of some dissenting belief. In the provinces, those who criticize that controversial law, have unjustly imprisoned while being served by the police with search warrants many of which were issued by judges in Metro Manila, what more supported by planted evidence, or simply killed on a formulaic narrative of ‘nanlaban’ (resisting arrest).

But regardless of this, neither the watered-down nonsense as ordered by the court nor the agency that's brought out of that "law" will stop people from seeking truth from facts, expose the repressive and unjust order and its authorities, and to assert just, radical, and meaningful changes by any means necessary. 

When indiscriminate bombing breeds resistance: Thoughts after the recent bombing in Iloilo

When indiscriminate bombing breeds resistance:
Thoughts after the recent bombing in Iloilo

By Kat Ulrike

The recent bombing in Iloilo has showed how the order disregards agreements in favor of “restoring order”. 

By depending on mere suspicion of a rebel base in the mountains, the military’s aerial bombing action last Wednesday early morning in Barangay Alimodias, Miag-ao, Iloilo, shook peaceful communities; what more giving the license for the these armed thugs to massacre people and claim “everything as under control”. 

According to the reports from PRWC’s Marco Valbuena, this did happen as while most people were still asleep, two FA-50 jet fighters flew over Barangay Alimodias and dropped two 500-lb bombs on the nearby mountains, around one and a half kilometer from the civilian communities. This was soon followed by artillery shelling which fired at least eight rounds in the same direction.

“The heavy bombs were so powerful that it left a crater 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide. The bombs violently shook the ground that was felt by residents in nearby communities. People in the communities were struck with fear and traumatized by the aerial bombardment.” Valbuena further said in its statement.

On the other hand, the Military claims that eight rebels were killed after bombing the said “encampment”, that the bombings “disrupted the plenum” and its “plan for a major offensive”. From their very statement, also said that their actions showed the “lethal, efficient, and effective combination of timely and good intelligence with intensified military operations”.

This may sound bullshit especially that while claiming their bombing as just, civilians residing in those communities were affected by the shook of the bombings if not reporting cases of deaths brought by this scenario. Also to think that as apologists of the order would cling to its anticommunist/antiterrorist narrative, this doesn’t stop the concerned from thinking that human rights violations in those affected communities occur; especially when soldiers claiming to be “they are doing their job” showing further its obvious excesses. Not even surprising that in line with its orderist mindset, these apologists, just like that of the military, wants to impose a news blackout to control the flow of information so that those fit into the military narrative will pass as acceptable by many such as that of supposed eight rebels killed in an armed encounter and its encampment overran by the hands of the military.

To cut this note short, dropping 500lb bombs is a clear violation of international humanitarian law and the articles of war. As any other action the order did, this and other incidents constitutes serious war crimes that for sure either they deny it and passing blame to the enemy; or that of justifying it and claiming they’re doing their job as soldiers- even it left craters 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, with folks striking with fear and trauma, forcing themselves to cower and “surrender” to the military. 

But will the concerned folks simply sit down and accept the order's narrative and its apologists? The way folks strongly disagree the Anti-Terror Act and the creation of the NTFELCAC then clearly this action doesn’t lead to a just and lasting peace as the order wished for. Not surprising if more will dare to resist than that of the narrative of fear and surrender to authority no matter they’re repressive. 

"Continuing the Supremo's legacy of unwavering Nationalism"

"Continuing the Supremo's legacy of unwavering Nationalism"

(A message for Bonifacio day)

This note firmly join the Filipino people in commemorating one of the country's national heroes, Gat Andres "Maypagasa" Bonifacio, whose life and that of his Katipunan reflects the dreams and aspirations of the Filipino masses in its quest for National and Social liberation. 

Bonifacio's quest for freedom was not a typical civic affair. Like Mao Zedong and his actions in China, or that of Ho Chi Minh and his Vietnam's journey to liberation, his revolution was not a dinner party nor an embroidery session. And for sure everyone would even disagree the Supremo's direction, dismissing it as "hopeless" and "costly", no matter how it was driven altogether by the reality of Filipino society that's marred by repression, the emancipating influence of western liberal thought with its "liberty, equality, and fraternity", and the aspirations of the common folk ranging from civil rights to the basic right to land and sustenance.

The latter aspiration was of course, closer to the common folk as they themselves endure hunger and deprivation than that of the ilustrado and the principalia that some mock their plight. After all, does the word "freedom" and "rights" fill a hungry stomach? Yes, these common folk did fought under these ideals, but their desire to till in their own land, and to live with dignity forced them to take the bolo.

And to think that Bonifacio tried to indigenise the ideas of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" such as that of his "Haring Bayan" as referring to a "Republic", this did appealed further to the common folk who had enough of repression, injustice, and disenfranchisement brought by the Spanish-led order and its minions. Through his Katipunan, his works like "Pagibig sa Tinubuang Bayan", "Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog" and others upheld the aspirations of the Filipino working class, peasants and other democratic classes- even at the expense of those who initially supported him, only to choose looking after their own interests than that of their homeland. That until today the oppression, intrusion of foreign interests continue making a society stuck in its/ ever-continuing past. Like Bonifacio, those who criticise against the order are being labeled as "terrorist" the way the supremo was labeled as a traitor, filibuster, heretic, and various words trying to discredit him and his struggle.

At the same time the order, as trying to be as patriotic especially when their statements praising him, claiming his day to be "an auspicious occasion to reflect on his legacy" to that of  encouraging all walks of life to love and fight for the country". Indeed, such statements truly encourage the people to become patriotic like the Supremo and his folk, overcoming their weaknesses as they jump into the abyss. But, this doesn't deny the fact that the order's self-interest runs contrary to the Supremo's message of serving the people wholeheartedly; that the legacy of being subservient to foreign interest and local tyranny while "claiming to be they're for democracy" doesn't stop the folk from igniting the spark for real, meaningful change even at the expense of their lives. 

Perhaps, amidst the pandemic and the still prevailing socioeconomic crisis, of reprisals by the order and its apologists, the Great Plebeian's legacy, just like other heroes will always be a rallying light that will guide the folk. His passionate nationalistic spirit has inspired the youth and the oppressed in its quest for social emancipation, steeled every mind and sinew with the fiery love of country that makes as one people willing to advance an aspiration and to upheld justice and liberty. 

"When 'Red' is more than just commemorating, but also dedicating lives"

"When 'Red' is more than just commemorating, but also dedicating lives"

(Thoughts after "Red Wednesday") 

Churches in the Philippines "turned red" as Catholics honoured persecuted Christians and those who offered lives for the faith. 

Popularly known as "Red Wednesday", this campaign Initiated by the Papal Charity "Aid to the Church in Need", and approved by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in remembrance of and as a day for prayer for persecuted Christians, as well as to encourage Christians to stand up for religious freedom and their faith. 

However, this occasion also end reinterpreted by some as a political gimmick as they failed to understand the significance of the occasion, with Red as its featured colour- especially as the 2022 elections draw near- with some aspirants also use the colour in their campaigns and sorties as part of their branding, like those of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and of Leody de Guzman. 

Perhaps the event is all but misunderstood by many especially when everyone saw various colours used in political campaigns. And to think that "red" has been synonymous to the Marcoses, there are those who reinterpret the occasion as the church supporting the late dictator's son who's running for the presidency. What a coping mechanism then. 

But again in one twitter post, Fr. Fiel Pareja said that "red is the symbol of blood of killed Christians, and not of its killers." (roughly translated from Filipino).

Indeed. But since Fr. Pareja said those words that red is not the colour of its persecutors, isn't it that also political and not merely spiritual? "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church", tis reminds of "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". But since fools like those complaining online think that "Red Wednesday" as all but a political gimmick just like how they enjoy reading fake quotes supporting their idol, then how about the much traditional Gaudete and Laerete Sundays? This did require the colour pink and blue in their vestments, so does these also meant supporting Robredo and Domagoso because of those colours also synonymous with themselves and their campaigns? How stupid their interpretations isn't they. But to think that this occasion is political, then yes, it is a political not just a spiritual sentiment- for red signifies the blood of the martyrs whose call was simple: the right to worship Christ as their lord and saviour in a time everyone was worshipping the god-emperor or the gods like "Vulcan" or "Jupiter". Yes, it was a political sentiment that out of their belief in Christ meant death, and their lives a sacrifice the way Christ sacrificed himself in the Calvary being accused that of disorder against both the empire and its vassal king, if not against the faith he saw as corrupted

This may sound controversial as any other event tainted by politics, that even the most religious would madly disagree on it that the occasion was also political; but the reality that those who cling to their belief that "faith, hope, and love" is also a political sentiment then why deny it? It is the same bible that says "Faith without Action is Dead", what more that it is the same bible that Christ didn't came in peace but a sword. After all, those who belief in the afterlife is also driven by the fact that they had enough of ever-present repression and injustice. That those who follow Christ wasn't just driven by "going to heaven and be happy", but preparing to face the consequence especially in serving God's people irrespective of their belief even at the expense of their lives. 

And it is the duty of a Christian to rise up and assert what is right and just the way it clings to its belief and its vision of a society where faith, hope, and love reigns. Pardon for the thought but since there are those fools cried "red" as political as the other colours, and this religious occasion didn't escape the heckling, then expect those to see this "red Wednesday" not as to commemorate the martyrs who died for their faith, but also to dedicate lives in helping the repressed and persecuted- and that includes the will to resist. 
After all, here are those who are deeply religious, but their religious conviction made them to "rebel" against the system that even their church is also affected!  

"The Quest to Conquer the state amidst catastrophe and crisis"

"The Quest to Conquer the state amidst catastrophe and crisis"

by Kat Ulrike

At first, this note bid greetings in commemoration of the Great October Socialist Revolution. 

This revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin, was considered a major turning point in world history. For this broke through the yoke of tsarist repression, established the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the world and opened a new era of struggle by the working class. This kind did shocked the world as the proletariat didn't simply change the leadership nor the form of government but rather dismantle the old order in favour of a new society- driven by the cause of the emancipation of humanity.

And it is still remains significant in today's modern world. In its 104th year, the working folk continues to engage in the struggle despite the fall of the Soviet Union decades ago, as well as the changing direction of China into a capitalist state pretending to be "socialist". Facing the challenge brought by capitalist neoliberalism as well as the crisis brought by the COVID19 pandemic, these hindrances doesn't stop the working folk from asserting its just calls and its advancement. 

For sure the prevailing order will continue to parrot the rhetoric that socialism failed, that there is no alternative to capitalism, that neoliberalism brought development, and others reality showeth its contrary. The more they deny the struggle the more it continues as poverty, disenfranchisement, injustice remains. China's capitalist venture showed a monstrous betrayal of the revolution started by Mao Zedong as well as that of the October Revolution. They claimed China as moving towards socialism, and yet poverty especially in the countryside remains the country's major issue to be addressed, but instead like the Soviet people in the past, came under the rule of a new privileged bourgeois stratum as what really happened.

And to think that this October Revolution has awakened the working class and opened up wide possibilities for the emancipation against imperialism, this brought fear to the existing orders that even today's 21st century continues to resonate. After all, Lenin's action justifiably carried out with greater determination and much more rapidly, boldly and successfully, and, from the point of view of its effect on the masses, much more widely and deeply, than the French Revolution or the Paris Commune of the past. This was no ordinary change of government structure nor change of leaders, but that of dismantlement of the social order the laboring masses saw as oppressive and unjust. 

***

For the developing and the underdeveloped countries, the October Revolution became an inspiration to rise up against imperialism both the lord and its vassals. Regardless of the imperialists' attempts to cower them with fear or coercing them with false hopes, the October Revolution and its succeeding revolutions like the Chinese and the Indochinese revolutions has shaken imperialism with struggles for national independence and social liberation, as the laboring masses takes the lead of its quest for freedom- that even the imperialist themselves notice the growing power of the working class taking the lead in its struggle and thus trying to control with that of carrot and stick moves. But will the colonies and semicolonies content with decades, if not centuries-old oppression that hinders development? No! Whereas they desire liberation from colonialism, so is also the desire to liberate from domestic exploitation under imperialism- and countries like China during Mao, Vietnam under Ho, showed that their revolution, like that of 1917 wasn't like the liberation movements of the slaves nor the uprisings of the serfs. This was no driven by mere idealism but that of the realities of poverty, injustice, and vassalage of their countries to imperialism. After all, what Stalin said: The proletariat cannot emancipate itself unless it emancipates the oppressed peoples.

For as in the past, the imperialists still looked upon the underdeveloped and developing countries as the basis of their prosperity. Be it because of its natural resources or its labour power, the imperialists, both west and from the east itself have never ceased to think of the third world whether to extract its wealth, needing obedient young lads, or to dump them with its surpluses. People accept this kind of truth although dangled by first-world consumerism, would also tend to deny this. How come? They would insist that it is imperialism that brought development, modernity, everything what a "developed" country can offer- especially in downplaying a growing social movement that's opposed imperialist domination and local subservience to the latter's wishes. They would claim every produce is a product of imperialism, even brands they enjoy is also a product of imperialism, even the skyscraper, the modernity people enjoy in general is a product of imperialism. Yes indeed- with labels like "Made in the USA" or Made in China", but the question is, did these people who downplay patriotic alternatives also offer a sound, "based" alternative to dependency? Most likely can't as they're contented, if not happy to see a "borderless" world ruled under "free market" rules. The words Fukuyama described as "end of history" turns out to be another phase for both patriots and globalists alike: the former with its struggle for survival and revival, the latter with its ever-prevailing dominance despite decline- with words like "freedom", "liberty", "democracy", all reduced to just totem poles trying to appease an ever-growing social hatred like what happened in 1917. 

As of today, this part of history has continued to be a major factor in shaping the aspirations of the labouring folk- that even those from the right did recognise how the power of the laborer can create changes in the society, only to find them as a rival. In a writeup entitled "Lenin's Italian understanding" published in 1931 at the "La Conquista del Estado", Mussolini's Fascism tried to be like Lenin, as it said:

"The Duce is a peasant and a worker, whose deep obsession is not Bonaparte (bourgeois myth), but Lenin (worker myth)..."Fascism" is the only policy that has openly tried to follow more closely the Bolshevik method, the dictatorial leadership of the Russian proletariat."

And yet that once member of the Socialist Party rather chose to collaborate with the old order he detested, only to regret during his desperate days at Salo. Again, he tried to be like Lenin, or even Stalin, even applied a former communist to make Fascism "progressive" in everyone's eyes. But, did he succeed? Not even, but rather only to end hanging upsidedown by the folk who had enough of his frustration- if not seeing how that fascism was all about, that of oligarch and state power intertwined pointing against the labouring folk in the name of bastardised 'nationalism'. Sometimes it was quite wondering why on earth Mussolini, while trying to be like Lenin chose to compromise his supposed "radical" beliefs by collaborating with the system he detests? Was it in the name of national interest even at the expense of the struggling proletariat and the peasantry? It made Mussolini more of an orderist as Dollfuss, Szalasi, Franco, Hitler, or any leader who trying to be as progressive, if not revolutionary as their rivals- that made radicals within the ranks like Rossoni seriously express concern if not criticism after principles gone compromised.

***

Sorry to cite "La Conquista del Estado", but noticing its earlier articles as trying to be revolutionary, would think that the situation was ripe for the oppressed folks to stand up and fight just like in 1917. Of course, there were those who truly recognise the struggle and therefore wanting to transform it into a revolutionary moment; while on the other other hand, there are those who rather diffuse it from the start all in the name of peace and order. In today's setting the order tried its best to diffuse the growing sentiment by trying to compromise that of the people's want with that of their interests, treating "reforms" and "programs" of various sorts primarily to continue being obedient and "satisfied young lads" if not threatening them with the big stick. 

At first would say that "nothing's wrong" with reforms or the programs involving it, but for the order these meant to shut people up from complaining further. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines for instance, it wasn't meant to resolve the peasant question and promote justice for these hardworking farmers and their communities, let alone trying to avert a growing dissent in the countryside. Housing, which is meant a human right, is itself treated as a propaganda feat especially for politicians hungry for "legacy" despite being substandardly built. Politicians even promised wages be increased to the workers, or controlling prices of commodities, and yet mum as they faced a group composed of big businesses in it, even promising less taxes to these fatcats while burdening the folk with rising costs of commodities and services! Is this the reform being brought about by the order? This note certainly doubt their thought especially when first and foremost sworn to upheld the system people detests. 

Perhaps as time goes by the folk will never stop in its desire to "conquer the state". The difficulties are indeed immense, but everyone is accustomed to grapple with immense difficulties. That even this pandemic caused by COVID19, imperialists trying to maintain their foothold as they're the ones having the capacity to produce medicines, especially that of vaccines the world greatly needs. They use "Vaccine Diplomacy" to strengthen regional ties and enhance their own power and global status, and countries like the United States and China are using Vaccines and "altruism" as cynical ploys for diplomatic advantage. Meanwhile, vassal countries are using the pandemic to impose draconian laws, of treating the situation as that of their repressive orderism with checkpoints and curfews than that of ensuring people's health and well-being by providing immediate, necessary support for the health care system. The folk, just like in the pre-pandemic periods faced retrenchment if not unemployment, low wages and paycuts, rising costs of commodities and services, and even insufficient support by the government! This catastrophe brought by COVID19 as well as other existing matters under neoliberal capitalism would say that this create situations that provokes popular discontent as in the past, and the order itself already felt the tremors that neither carrot nor stick will resolve the problem. Will the folk just get content on this catastrophe brought by the pandemic? Not even, as they had enough of tyrants imposing lockdowns nor curfews; nor despots imposing paycuts, retrenchments, and rising costs of commodities and services; but again, everytime is accustomed to grapple with immense difficulties with the tendency of having the will to resist the order's wishes. 

Again, the order still felt the tremor left by 1917 and other revolutions of the past. And in this catastrophe it is expected to see them "trying their best" to control the situation, especially when the people really had enough of the bullshit and willing to "conquer the state" to dismantle it. As what Lenin said in 1921: No matter at what cost, no matter how severe the hardships of the transition period may be—despite disaster, famine and ruin—we shall not flinch; we shall triumphantly carry our cause to its goal.

Remembering October 1917, Rekindling its struggle!

Remembering October 1917, Rekindling its struggle!

by Kat Ulrike

At first, on the occasion of the 104th anniversary of the October Revolution, this note bid greetings. 

For many years ago, this revolution initiated a new epoch in world history. It did really shook the world, for unlike revolutions of the past that simply change leaders, this revolution was an out and out dismantlement of an antiquated social order, all driven by the people whose dream of building a society in which there would be no exploitation of man by man. This may sound strange to some and fear provoking to most as existing orders around the world felt the tremor of people's action, proving that without those who hinder, the people are completely capable of building a free society both under their mind and sinew, blood and sweat. 

In those past years the Soviet people have traveled a hard road. They were surrounded by enemies inside and out, trying by many means to destroy the worker's republic; factories encountering problems, farms having low output of produce, but in the end thoroughly smashed its attacks while at the same time building further its productive bases by organising further workers and farmers. It did surprised its rival neighbours too, that with its economic plans brought new factories, power plants, dams, farms, to that of airplanes, automobiles, housing projects, at a speed of which the capitalist countries are incapable and inspires the labouring folks of various countries to stand up and fight against its oppressive systems and its upholders. Such wonders has changed the Soviet Union from being a relatively backward both economically and technically into one of the world's first-class industrial powers. 

And regardless of criticism and attacks by various means, the soviet people continue to defend, while at the same time forge, plough, build as its living standards rising. The scale of educational, scientific, and cultural development also surpasses as that of its neighbours as well, with its first atomic power station, jet planes, rocket-powered defence systems, to that of its space program with its satellites paving way to space exploration led by Gagarin, Tereshkova, and its cosmonauts. From these contributions did surprised the capitalist west that compels the United States and Europe to take seriously its own programs. But for the Soviets, this was more than just a contribution of the Soviet people themselves but of the proletariat around the world in its struggle against the reactionary bourgeoisie. The revolutionary spirit started in 1917 has contributed various wonders that for its rivals a threat to their interest. Even those from the right recognise the power of the proletariat that they tried to create theirs yet can't surpass. Hitler, Mussolini, tried to make war against Stalin but the latter, looking back at the past, chose to resist regardless of being surrounded and almost beaten. In his speech last 1941, he said:

"There were times when our country was in a still more difficult position. Remember the year 1918, when we celebrated the first anniversary of the October Revolution. Three-quarters of our country was at that time in the hands of foreign interventionists. The Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Urals, Siberia and the Far East were temporarily lost to us. We had no allies, we had no Red Army—we had only just begun to create it; there was a shortage of food, of armaments, of clothing for the Army. Fourteen states were pressing against our country. But we did not become despondent, we did not lose heart. In the fire of war we forged the Red Army and converted our country into a military camp. The spirit of the great Lenin animated us at that time for the war against the interventionists. And what happened? We routed the interventionists, recovered all our lost territory, and achieved victory."

Those words would say that the revolutionary able to defend their struggle so as to invoke it over and over. They will fight so is to forge, they will resist so is to plough the field, they will withstand any attack so is to learn and become better especially in times enemies trying to undermine efforts in building the socialist homeland. However, amongst the ranks there are those who stand in its way, of being interest-driven that corrupts the fabric of the homeland, hearing words like wrecking, sabotage, to that of revisionism? Such problems did really hinder, and even make a homeland stagnant, decline, and eventually dissolve as what happened in 1992. Quite saddening isn't it? But while those who upheld the prevailing social order under capitalism rejoice and claim that there lies the "end of history" in which western-style "democracy" triumphs with its consumerism and the likes, will the working people just stay put, forget, and move on? No! For from these folk they looked at the Soviet Union as a homeland that brought immense developments like what said earlier, regardless of the problems, crises, and catastrophes that did they encounter. True that there are those who will disown the legacy all because of its mistakes and shortcomings most of which exaggerated by its enemies, but the fact that this socialist homeland did shook the world, then not surprising that those who carried the flames will again provoke another as to create a new path towards socialism like what happened 104 years ago. 

Again, the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc was dissolved years past, that China or Vietnam faced revisionism, and other socialist countries that out of pragmatism forced to adopt the diktat of the market. But, regardless of these, this doesn't stop the folk around the world to demand the future, that their revolutionary energy, diligence, innovation, and deep patriotism and internationalism will realise what the aspirations of those pasts set forth in the future, of rectifying its errors, reaffirm principles, and to move forward.