otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Sunday, October 23, 2016

50th anniversary of the War in India—and the Naxalbari revolt

ICSPWI has sent the following statement on the plans for the 50th Anniversary of Revolt of Naxalbari, which led to the beginning of the People's War in India (1967 -2017), which Communist Blogs Network have translated into Spanish, and this blog has translated back into English (Google Translation):


After international consultation on decisions taken at the meeting-debate last 17

September in Italy, the final plan is esl following:

1. A prolonged and extensive campaign, concretized in two days of action:

November 24, 2016 - 5th anniversary of the assassination of Kishenji: Actions in the vicinity of embassies, consulates and similar institutions according to national and local conditions in each case.

January 28, 2017 - common manifestations with speeches, music, and other media to ask:

Freedom to Ajith- Kobad Gandhy and for all political prisoners in India! ! Stop the green hunt! Down with the fascist pro - imperialist regime Modi! ! Support Popular !. War

2. Invite a European tour to representatives of the intelligentsia and organizations involved in India against Green Hunt and the fascist regime Modi -in the spring of 2017.

3. International events and internationalists in Europe to mark the 50th anniversary of the Revolution of Naxalbari (1967-2017) - probably in May 2017.

A new meeting and demonstration tour will be organized - the date and place where will be communicated in the coming weeks.

October 2016

Thursday, October 20, 2016

US election- The last Trump-Clinton Debate—the most bitter campaign since 1972

Not since the Richard Nixon-George McGovern campaign, of 1972, have we seen such a bitter and nasty campaign for president of the US. Last night’s debate brought all of that out. By the end of the night many of the “talking heads” (pundits) surrounding that debate said that Hillary Clinton won and unless something unusual happens in the next 19 days she will be elected as our next president.
So for the absolute Trump haters out there and I do know a few, we don’t have to worry that he will actually win—at least not right now. There was a substantial debate over a few issues such as abortion and the war against ISIS (Islamic State). There was also horror by both Clinton and several news personalities over Trump’s refusal to say he would accept the outcome of the election. All along he has been saying that the election is rigged. I don’t know why anyone would take that seriously. Trump is a showman. That is what he has been in the past. He knows how to keep people’s interest up. He has used that gimmick throughout the election. At one point in the debate Clinton said that ‘he claimed the Emmy awards were rigged.’ Trump responded almost joking “Should have gotten it.” For me it was hard to take him seriously.
This is not unlike the Nixon-McGovern race. The main issue in 1972 was the Vietnam War and McGovern made that his main theme. Much of the rest of the Democratic Party had denounced McGovern, some even going so far as to run commercials against him—“Democrats for Nixon.” All of this was over the military and their war in Vietnam. As with this year’s campaign the candidates called each other names.  
During that election there was speculation that McGovern was not going to congratulate Nixon if he won the election. In fact The Washington Post ran the following after the election results came in and McGovern had lost by a record landslide vote:

“The South Dakota senator, though buried in an electoral defeat of historic dimensions, refused to concede that his platform of immediate peace in Vietnam and populist reform at home had been repudiated along with his candidacy.
Referring to the Nixon stands he had condemned in his long struggle for the presidency, McGovern said from Sioux Falls: "We do not rally to the support of policies we deplore. We love this country and we will continue to beckon it to a higher standard."

Of course there were some major differences. McGovern was considered far to the left of the main stream. Trump is considered farther to the right than Clinton. And on some foreign policies he is slightly farther to the left. And it seems this race is a lot closer. And in the end McGovern did congratulate Nixon on his win. I’m betting that Trump will do the same if and when he loses.
This has been a lively campaign. Trump may not be the man for the job, but he has made this campaign stand out in history. One thing this campaign is not—is boring.
Campaigns are full of surprises, as in the George W. Bush-Al Gore campaign, of 2000 where the votes were so close there was a recount that took until December 12 before a winner was declared. This year’s campaign has had its share of surprises also, especially with Trump having to answer to all the allegations he harassed several women.
So this year’s presidential campaign has given us a real circus to watch, complete with a freak show.
Hillary Clinton shook hands with the moderator, Chris Wallace, on Wednesday after the debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a gesture that she did not repeat with Donald J. Trump.CreditJosh Haner/The New York Times

Monday, October 17, 2016

The election-year-stunt invasion of Mosul has begun

By សតិវ​ អតុ  
What is bound to be an election year stunt, the Barack Obama Regime has launched an all-out attack on Mosul, a large city in Iraq, in what is probably a major stunt to help Hillary Clinton win the presidential election in just a little more than 20 days. That is not to say this is really that surprising. The US government has wanted to take back its spoils of war, in Norther Iraq, ever since ISIS (Islamic State) more than 2 years ago.
According to The Guardian:  “The start of the offensive, which has been months in the planning, was announced in an address on state television by Iraq’s prime minister in the early hours of Monday morning.”
It’s not that the invasion is completely being used to sure up support for Obama’s intended Democratic successor, but it certainly will help her. People usually really behind the president anytime there is a war. Even if the war is completely un-necessary they feel obligated to support the military action. There is a likelihood people will support her to support the president.
Clinton is ahead in the polls and probably will win the election anyway. But she is only about 8 percentage points ahead. But the polls have gone up and down and lot and Clinton has at times in the past been as close as two points behind Trump.  The invasion may help her. If this were not the case, Obama could have waited until after the election.
On the other hand it is believable that the US wants its property back from ISIS. Even though Obama and other US major politicians opposed the invasion of Iraq, none of them wants to see ISIS keep its spoils-of-war property.
Obama seems to be planning a major on-the-ground use of US troops. They will be assisting troops from the Iraqi puppet government along with some Kurd troops. These troops will probably just be used to give the impression that this is a mostly Iraqi operation, but that is an illusion. The Iraqi troops could never muster the enthusiasm for this war that comes from troops that are defending their homeland. These are lackeys of US imperialism and such lackeys rarely make good troops.[1] The US government has made us of the so called “War on Terrorism” to get badly needed support from the US people. Recent but sporadic attacks by those who claim to support ISIS have helped the US government to miss-lead the public into support for this imperialist action.

[1] This does not include the Kurd troops who still hope for their own homeland. They are the only local group that has actually put up a fight with ISIS. The rest of the fighting is by US troops using new high-tech weapons and training only they have.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

India- Observe 15th October as Black Day, Boycott Congress I

A Google Translation:

From Maoist Communist Party, Manipur/ Daziboa Rojo:

14th October, 2016
Manipur, the small but the beautiful home to more than thirty-fives fraternal ethnics groups, is a historical state having a rewarded history of more than 2000 years. In her long history Manipur never became a part of India. Manipur was a recognized Asiatic state when the British imperialist invaded and occupied it in 1891.
The British crown in its own wisdom, however, did not annex Manipur to their British Indian emperor. After 56 years British de-colonialize Manipur and regain her sovereign independence on 14th August 1947. India hatched a conspiracy to make the king sign a treaty to merge Manipur with India. India invited king at Shillong and kept him under house arrest for two days. After resisting two days, the king gave signed the Manipur merger agreement on 21st September 1949. Under terms of this agreement, the government of India announced the formal annexation of Manipur on 15th October 1949.
The Manipur state Assembly and the council of Minister which elected by the people of Manipur under the provisions of Manipur Constitution Act 1947 by practicing the Universal Adult Franchise were forcibly abolished on the same day by an executive order of the Indian government. The people of Manipur have never accepted the Indian annexation, several public resolutions and a national convention have declared the Manipur Merger Agreement null and void having no legal and constitutional legitimacy as it was done under duress and not ratified by the state Assembly. So Maoist Communist Party Manipur would like to appeal the people of Manipur to observe the Day as Black Day in protest against Indian Expansionism.
At the same time, some petty bourgeoisie class and feudal class emerged out of the education system introduced by the imperialist to suit the needs their administration to the Indian National Congress, who wants to sustain their position as a social prop of Indian colonialist. The Congress Party, a group of feudal and Comprador was brought forth by the British and developed them by the Indian colonialist to divert and derail the anti-feudal and anti-Imperialist national liberation movement which was led by Comrade Hijam Irabot and to deprived the people of revolutionary leadership.
After the formal declaration of Manipur Merger Agreement, The Indian colonialist transferred the power to their faithful agents, the leadership of the Congress Party, representing the comprador bureaucratic Bourgeois and went behind the curtain. It may be mentioned that the Congress Party was the only party which conspired with Imperialist India to colonized Manipur so that they become Ruling class at then. The Indian democracy is nothing but fake in essence. The direct colonial and semi feudal system of the British colonialist was replaced by the Indian colonialism and semi feudal under the control and exploitation in the name of Democracy.
Congress Party was one of the chief instruments for the colonial exploitation and control over Manipur. It is completely tied with and dependent on colonialism for its existence and development. They are not not only inherited the sanguinary state machinery from their Indian colonialist masters; but also have preserved and strengthened it further during the last 60 years.
This state machinery is nothing but an instrument of suppression and repression, and represents the dictatorship of the comprador bourgeoisie subservient to the colonialism. The repressive rule is sought to be covered up behind the façade of fraudulent parliamentary system. This state system represents the Colonial and semi-feudal control and exploitation in the name of Democracy. During the recent years, the repressive teeth of this state system has not only been further sharpened but also centralized more and more by the comprador-feudal alliance backed by colonialist. The chief weapons of this blood thirsty rule are well-organized and well-equipped modern army, paramilitary forces along with police forces, anti-people judiciary and neck-deep corrupted and powerful bureaucracy.
This state machinery is extremely reactionary and anti-people. Without smashing this state machinery, any struggle for the basic rights and problems of the people and for their uplifting cannot move forward beyond a limited level. In order to consolidate Indian Colonial rule and to carry on their ruthless exploitation, the Indian colonialist pressure the feudal forces and at the same time re-oriented them into such politicians who acted as their social props. On this Black Day, Maoist Communist Party Manipur would like to appeal the people of Manipur to boycott Congress Party in Manipur. Our Party declared the Congress I as the National reactionary of Manipur People.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Not all Germans celebrate German Unity Day

We received a letter from some German Comrades on left resistance to
 “(Tag der Deutschen Einheit) is annually held on October 3 to mark the anniversary of the nation's unification. It remembers when the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of Germany united to create one single, federal Germany on October 3, 1990.”

I have written about the so called “uniting of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of Germany,” which was really more of an annexation by the FRG of the DRG, in In defense of “Tankies”- Part 2,” in this blog.

-សតិវ​ អតុ

A letter from Maoist_Revolution:
Liebe Genossen,
Dear comrades,

aus Anlass des sogenannten "Tags der deutschen Einheit" haben Revolutionäre aus verschiedenen Städten der BRD ein Video gemacht, das hier zu finden ist:
On the occasion of the so called "Day of German Unity" revolutionaries of various cities in the FRG made a video which you can find here:

DVD (Dem Volke Dienen/The People Serving):

Revolutionäre Grüße,
Revolutionary Greetings,

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Colombia: "The dead-end peace agreement is now in limbo"

Once again, this is a great article but we still don’t endorse Bob Avakian or his new synthesis. - សតិវ​អតុ 

From A World to Win News Service:
By the Revolutionary Communist Group (GCR) of Colombia (posted on 4 October 2016)

Everything seemed to be going full steam ahead last 26 September when, after four years of public negotiations, the peace agreement between the Colombian state and the Farc (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) was signed in Cartagena, Colombia. Many of the country's big shots and 15 presidents, 37 chancellors and 10 heads of international organizations, including the UN and the Organization of American States, attended the ceremony marking the end of a war that has lasted more than fifty years. In a fast-lane "special legislative procedure for peace", parliament was to pass amnesty legislation a few weeks later. FARC guerrillas were to gather in camps located in some twenty zones, under the supervision of the Colombian army and the UN, and the guerrillas were to turn over their arms to the UN in the last three months of the six-month cantonment process. At that time, about April 2017, the FARC was to launch a legal political party to consummate their entry into the establishment. But one gear was missing from this machinery: it was hoped that the agreement that had been reached in Havana and signed in Cartagena would be endorsed by a referendum held on Sunday, 2 October. This step was considered a piece of cake, since polls had predicted an overwhelming victory for the "Yes" vote. Both sides had agreed to the date for that vote, chosen because it is the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, who was actually a misogynist defender of the caste system in India. That icon of "non-violence" was complicit with the brutal apartheid system in South Africa, where he lived for several decades, before returning to India to lead the people in a reconciliation between British imperialism and the country's reactionary regime aimed at preventing the crisis situation from moving toward a revolutionary resolution.

But the polls proved disastrously wrong. With the unexpected triumph of the "No" vote in the referendum, the agreement has been put on hold. This outcome was considered so implausible that the Washington Post summed it up with a meme saying, "If the Colombians had been dinosaurs, they would have voted for the meteorite" [whose impact with the Earth triggered their extinction]. Yet the "No" vote won by a narrow margin, less than half a percentage point (49.78 percent for "Yes", versus 50.21 percent for "No"), with a very high level of abstention (62 percent). Both the FARC and the government of President Juan Manuel Santos had bet everything on the victory of the "Yes" vote in the referendum. All along Santos insisted that he had no "plan B", and the FARC, even after the results of the plebiscite were known, insisted that there was no turning back from their abandonment of the armed struggle. Not even the most extreme right, the main promoters of the "No" vote, had taken into account the possibility that they would win. Now they are scrambling to go from being part of the background scenery to playing a leading role in the negotiations drama.

The split in the ruling classes between supporters and opponents of the peace agreement is tragicomic. On the one hand, they have used clumsy lies to trick, manipulate and degrade a great many people, as they often do, to drag them into one or the other camp. On the other, while the differences among the right are in many ways only a question of nuance, there is a real division of opinion about how to deal with the guerrillas and particularly about the peace agreement, reflecting the interests of different, although closely related, economic and social sectors. The agreement would affect very sensitive issues for the sector led by ex-President Alvaro Uribe, especially the big landowners, a sector that tends toward fascism (Uribe's conception of the state is based on the work of Carl Schmitt [a Nazi legal theorist, later pro-American, known for his advocacy of the removal of legal constraints on the exercise of state power]) as part of what has already been a long period of rightward drift (with the increasing influence of religious obscurantism) for the whole traditional political spectrum, including the armed reformists.

Lenin was very insightful right when he wrote, "People always were and always will be the foolish victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics until they learn to discover the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. The supporters of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realize that every old institution, however barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is maintained by the forces of some ruling classes." The different visions on both sides of the peace agreement and the disputes about the plebiscite itself are full of "moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises" – and behind them we must "discover the interests of some class" or class sector.


The agreement comprises five points: (1) policies for comprehensive development in agriculture; (2) political participation; (3) end to the conflict; (4) solution to the problem of illegal drugs; (5) the victims. There is an additional point about the implementation, approval and supervision of the agreement. Of the five points, the one that bothers the far right the least is the end of the conflict. The two most bothersome are the points about land (1) and justice for the victims (5). The point about land, which calls for clearing up land titles and property rights in the countryside, would expose the land usurpers who have resorted to barbarism, causing about a million deaths in wave after wave of violence with their "chulavitas", "pájaros" and other kinds of paramilitary forces during the last century and through today. Many big landowners, especially cattle ranchers and industrial agricultural producers (with large plantations) would find it difficult to explain how they acquired "their" lands. The point about justice would mean punishment for thousands of military men including generals (and their civilian superiors) who committed or ordered genocide, like the case of the more than 5,000 civilians known to have been murdered [and their bodies used by the authorities] to substantiate claims of casualties inflicted on the guerrillas, the so-called "false positives". The instigators and financial backers of the paramilitary groups would be called to account. Among them, Uribe himself, along with his family and friends, would have a lot of explaining to do. Yet with the points about political participation (2) and democratizing rural property (1), the "final" agreement signed in Cartagena concentrates the common aspirations of both sides, both of them waving the flag of bourgeois democracy as the pinnacle of history.

But the agreement turns out to be less than meaningful for the people insofar as it does not seek to transform anything radically (radical in the sense of getting to the roots of things). What it does mean is an opportunity for the imperialists and local ruling classes to shore up their system (the system of the production and exchange of commodities that characterizes capitalism) and legitimize it in the eyes of the people, and an opportunity for the FARC reformists to become more directly a part of the establishment. And despite the political tug of war over the past few months, the talks between the government and the ELN [National Liberation Army, another, smaller guerrilla group, formed in 1964 under the influence of Cuba] seek to achieve the same ends, even if right now they maintain that they are not going to come to an agreement without significant changes in Colombian society.

One of the objectives of this peace process with the traditional guerrillas is to ensure, with their support, that there will be no further armed mass uprisings against the oppressors and everything reactionary, and to further steer the general discontent among the masses into channels through which the local ruling classes and the imperialists can ensure the defence and legitimization of their social order. This is an order in which imperialist domination disarticulates and distorts the national economy, developing productive enclaves as required by imperialist needs, using natural resources as raw materials to be inserted into global circuits of production and accumulation, including the production of cocaine, which involves all the ruling classes and the financial system that, in the end, crowns the whole drug business. This order conditions development in some regions and also makes deals with semi-feudalism, which is still rampant, especially in the whole political and social superstructure, widening the gap between the growing and deepening poverty of the masses and the parasitism of a handful of imperialist servants who also control the media to maintain an iron dictatorship.

Unmasking and rejecting the "peace agreements" as a fatal illusion for the people does not mean taking the same side as the reactionary sector (ex-presidents Uribe and Andres Pastrana and the rest) that has (so far) opposed those agreements, people who, in the words of the ex-president Belisario Betancur, "are, in their way, helping to bring out the shortcomings of the process" – in other words, turning the whole situation further to the right in political terms and benefiting the ruling classes as a whole and imperialism. Nor does this position mean opting for the reactionary war. It is simplistic to argue that we have no choice but to take one or the other side in the country's present political polarization, that we have to back either the much-trumpeted "peace" or a brutal war against the people in which neither the FARC nor the ELN represent anything positive in terms of people's aspirations for something radically different. In fact, both are playing into the hands of the system with their armed struggle that was never intended to be more than a bargaining chip to win a few reforms while leaving the overall framework of exploitation and oppression intact. This is a simple expression of destructive "determinist realism", a passive and reactionary understanding of objective reality and "necessity" that declares that "what is desirable is what is possible and what is possible is what exists".

The predominant positions in the political polarization around the "peace agreements" between armed reformists, on one side, and the imperialists and Colombian ruling classes on the other, represent nothing but a dead end for the masses – poor peasants, youth, women, etc. The terms of the debate that many people have been pushed to accept and which fill the media represent a smokescreen behind which imperialism is more deeply penetrating the country and inserting it into the global dynamics of the capitalist-imperialist system. At the same time, there are increasing efforts to control and repress the people. For example, the fascist new code of conduct for the police has been tacitly accepted. The situation is being used to propagate reactionary verdicts on the people's struggles and on the possibility and necessity of a real revolution.

This is part of the framework for this agreement, which cannot be seen as simply a "Colombian thing" or a regional affair. The imperialists see it as part of an historical question. They are ecstatic that the world's oldest so-called "Marxist" guerrillas are giving up "the revolution" and agreeing to become part of a democratic state.

But first of all, the FARC has never represented either revolution or communism, no matter how often these words might be used, and what they are giving up on is not revolution. These false claims are enabled by today's ubiquitous lies and distortions about revolution and communism. Even when it was under the influence of the now defunct Communist Party of Colombia, the FARC arose as a form of peasant self-defence against government repression, organized to fight for a few changes in the land distribution dominated by big landlords, and to oppose the rigged political system under the two-party National Front, a political deal to pass the government back and forth every four years between sectors of the ruling classes concentrated in the Conservative and Liberal parties. This arrangement, which lasted from 1958 to 1974, was supposed to be a way to share power and settle the disputes that had taken a violent term at the end of the 1940s. The FARC programme basically represented the interests of settler peasants who had opened up new regions for cultivation in the face of pressure from the big landlords (and, in recent decades, the acquisition of extensive landholdings by imperialists and local entrepreneurs involved in agro-industrial production and global food and fuel crop speculation), and the middle peasantry that demanded that the state bring about reforms in terms of land access, but without radical opposition to imperialist domination and the property relations and reactionary ideas associated with this domination and feudal backwardness. The FARC – and the ELN – have coexisted with and defended the property of big landlords and agro-industrial firms owned by multinationals and local big landowners, as long as these owners pay the "revolutionary taxes" demanded of them, and have benefited, directly or "indirectly", from drug trafficking. Their goal has always been to join the establishment by means of an agreement that would allow them to end their armed struggle with the achievement of a few barely liberal reforms that are fully in line with the capitalist development imperialism requires.

"Comprehensive agrarian development – one of the agreement's "major accomplishments" – is to be accomplished by "an alliance between businessmen and peasants" through the establishment of new Peasant Reserve Zones. Under this scheme, a few hectares of barren land would be handed over to organized peasant communities so as to restrict the monopolization of land ownership. Similar mechanisms were set up by the state in the 1990s and denounced by FARC at that time. The objective of the promised infrastructural improvements, access to credit and technical assistance is a more rational – capitalist – organization of exploitation in the countryside and of peasant labour. The idea is to deal with the legal obstacles to such changes after decades of a brutal war against the masses of people in the countryside. A much greater concentration of land ownership was brought about by driving people off the land and massacring them. Today, according to a recent census, 0.4 percent of property owners hold 42 percent of the land dedicated to crops and livestock, while 60 percent of families in the countryside have no land at all. There is a greater concentration of land ownership today than before the agrarian reform laws of the 1960s. The peace agreement implicitly accepts the Santos government's agrarian programme. Santos's proposed Rural Economic and Social Development Zones are perfectly compatible with the Peasant Reserve Zones that the agreement calls for.

Secondly, what is being agreed to is not the end of a revolutionary armed struggle. Although the FARC and ELN have taken up arms, a radical form of struggle, their goals have nothing to do with getting to the roots of problems. They are not radical goals. What is needed is a revolutionary communist leadership that embodies a scientific method and approach and a truly liberating morality consistent with the highest aspirations of all humanity to guide the masses, and for the masses to make this vision their own, striving for the elimination of "the four alls": the abolition of all class distinctions, all the relations of production on which they rest, all the social relations that correspond to these production relations, and the revolutionization of all the ideas that correspond to those social relations. There is absolutely nothing like this in the outlook of the FARC and ELN.

The decisive question for the people is whether this capitalist-imperialist system, and the concrete expression of its domination in countries like Colombia, will continue devastating lives and the planet itself, legitimizing its actions through all of its political representatives – including those who present themselves as leftists – or whether, on the contrary, there will be a new repolarization with the development of a movement for revolution led by a real revolutionary communist party, one that makes Bob Avakian's new synthesis of communism its own, so that amidst the struggles against the outrages committed by this system it can lead the people to transform themselves to struggle radically and carry out a real revolution that can allow humanity to shake off all the dark years of oppressive and exploitative societies. This is the revolutionary communists' crucial challenge.

As the traditional parties are falling into chaos and the functioning of this bourgeois democracy is making millions of people more frustrated and angry every day, there are tremendous possibilities to show the necessity for a radical solution to all this: the revolutionary overthrow of the existing order and the establishment of a new, really revolutionary state that can mobilize the people to begin to solve the problems humanity faces and overcome the divisions and inequalities that now devastate it. The growing polarization of society presents serious dangers. But these same explosive conditions also bring real opportunities to begin to forge a different kind of future. There is an urgent need for millions of people to unite to confront the enormous problems of the people in Colombia and the whole world from a perspective based on the needs of oppressed humanity. We have to lift our sights beyond the horizon of the present system and begin to build a movement that not only fights the reactionary onslaught but can also take us to the only real solution, communist revolution.


As a reminder- I don't always endorse every position I post on this blog. But I do like to make the positions of various political parties known. Specifically, I am reluctant to criticize the Communist Party of the Philippines this early in their attempts at negotiations. - សតិវ​អតុ 

A Google Translation:

From Red Sun:
We, on behalf of Peru People's Movement, the body created by the Communist Party of Peru for the work abroad express on this solemn occasion of the celebration of LXXXVIII anniversary of the founding of the PCP, our exultant greeting and unconditionally subject, conscious and voluntary our Leadership Chairman Gonzalo, Great Leader of the Party and the revolution, who has defined Maoism as the third, new and higher stage of Marxism, who applying it creatively to our concrete reality has given us Gonzalo thought, he is the greatest Marxist-Leninist-Maoist on earth, center of party unity and guarantee of triumph that leads to communism; our all-powerful ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo thought, principally Gonzalo thought, all-powerful because it is true; the heroic fighter, the Communist Party of Peru, who runs the popular war and its management system: Central Committee Political Bureau and Standing Committee. We salute our People's Liberation Army, the backbone of the new power, without which our people would have nothing, we salute all the communists and masses defending Maoism and the contributions of Chairman Gonzalo and struggling to bury this old system.

In the final crisis of imperialism and in the midst of a redivision of the world, in collusion and conflict, that has occurred between the superpowers and imperialist powers, imperialism tries to avert the revolution that does not happen again as in the world wars I and II: that the imperialist war was transformed into revolutionary war against imperialism, arising socialist states under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist parties.
Imperialism, mainly Yankee hegemonic superpower, therefore, within their counterrevolutionary plans need of revisionism to contain and deflect wars of national liberation and people's wars that are taking place in the world. In the current situation imperialism, principally Yankee, is trying to strike with the support of revisionism revolution underway or about to start. This general counterrevolutionary offensive takes place within the strategic offensive of the world proletarian revolution, being a dying imperialism that refuses to die. It is general because it occurs at all levels: ideological, political and economic, but it is the political center.
This general counterrevolutionary offensive of imperialism is expressed: a redivision of the world, imperialist wars, invasion of the third world countries, the use of mercenaries as the Islamic State, etc., with the risk of strengthening a global LOD in the direction of the various Communist Parties, which manifests itself politically in defense of bourgeois democracy, the multiparty system, the "peace accords" imperialism it is "strong". Ideologically focus on Leninism that is to deny Maoism as third, new and higher stage of Marxism, mainly the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
The role of revisionism within this general counterrevolutionary offensive is clear, examples of Prachanda, Öcalan or FARC are diaphanous to see how revisionism armed struggle develops outside world revolution, to be sold to imperialism.
In the Middle East the imperialists (US, Russia, France, Germany, etc.) that justify sending their armies on behalf of the fight against terrorism and the defense of "democracy" in this imperialist war of aggression need of Avakian Prachanda Öcalan and the complicit silence of the renegades of Maoism that serve the plans of the dying gendarme.
In the case of Ocalan, in Kurdistan, its "democratic confederalism" is only a pretext for the intervention of US imperialism in the name of "democracy". The only gendarme does not intervene in Syria by Assad intervenes to control the area and advance its hegemony. In this reality YPG Kurdish troops become only the infantry of the US superpower. This is the role of revisionism, serve imperialism, few leaders to accommodate the old society. This year, to criticism of the Turkish reactionary government support of US imperialism to YPG spokesman of US State Department, Mark Toner, he reiterated the support of the US superpower to YPG. Steve Warren spokesman for the "international coalition" led by US imperialism in its aggression against the peoples of the Middle East has already pointed out that the adjective "terrorist" for YPG is inappropriate, of course, if there is to soldiers of the US superpower fighting under the banner of YPG, something recognized by the Warren himself, who on the evidence ( had to "explain":  " you are not authorized and it is inappropriate to wear the insignia of YPG"  by part of US troops.
In Nepal the revisionists repress opposition leaders and the masses, they wanted power. In August, the reactionary army of Nepal Kailali district took to contain the protests of the masses. In September CPN-RM they were arrested. The result of the repression against the Madhesi minority between September 2015 and February this year is 55 dead, etc.
In Peru, the LOD, suckled by Yankee imperialism and reaction, participates with the CIA and the Peruvian reactionary forces in the persecution, detention, torture and murder of supporters and members of the PCP. Therefore the right revisionism not advance alone, do it in complicity with the secret police and directed by imperialism.
The conclusion is that imperialism, in its final crisis, with the support of the revisionists use both genocide and repression to try to divert to "peace accords" a revolution in progress or about to begin.
In the Philippines Jose Maria Sison, founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, at the opening of the "peace negotiations" with the reactionary Philippine government, as Prachanda, suggests that there are good and bad imperialism, Norwegian imperialism says:  "I share with the Filipino people and the revolutionary forces a deep sense of gratitude to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway (RNG) for serving as a third party facilitator of the peace negotiations GPH-NDFP since 2001 and have helped a great way to keep . the peace process alive we have always highly appreciated the patience, kindness and wisdom of the Norwegian government and people to encourage and support the process. "  About bourgeois democracy:  " the people and the revolutionary forces can benefit from reforms bourgeois democratic in the next six years " . What hide these positions is the abandonment of the New Democratic Revolution and the path of the people, to put the struggles of the masses and shed the service of a faction of the great Philippine bourgeoisie blood  ( "The CPP, NPA and NDFP are always willing to cooperate with Duterte government in the search for the just cause of national and social liberation against foreign and feudal domination. " ), while the door is opened to other imperialisms that are not the Yankee hegemon. The PC Philippines proposes a "front" with a fraction of the large Filipino bourgeoisie supposedly anti-imperialist (Duterte). Demands that the boat and the Yankees government to develop an "independent policy"; specifically they say collaborate with China and Russia (not defined as imperialist). Demand peace talks, namely emulation Prachanda path.
In India, the impact of this general counterrevolutionary offensive has its expression in some leaders point to "peace accords", the so-called "tactical fronts" with revisionism and maintain a complicit silence on the Chinese and Russian imperialism.
As for the "peace accords" in October 2009 , the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) declared: "could reach an agreement of ceasefire by both parties if the government fails to defend irrationally that the Maoists should abjure violence " . In January 2010, in an interview with the Secretary General of the CPI (Maoist), Ganapathy insists this way:  "In general the people and the Maoist revolutionaries do not want violence or armed confrontation with anyone only in unavoidable conditions take up arms. and resist their enemies and are now waging the war of liberation, learning from history. therefore, we see this as a war of self - defense "  " in this context, if possible can seek some respite. the longer is the time rest better for the people. "
On the "tactical" fronts, Bachsa Prasad Sing, politburo member of CPI (Maoist), arrested in Kanpur in 2010 and recently released, has expressed willingness to form a "broad united front" in an interview after his release :
" In my opinion the way to confront the current scenario is to form a strong resistance and united front wider against Hindutva forces. Whether the front includes the parties of parliamentary left. It is time to stand together, to leave behind our dogmatic and ideological and remember what Lenin said differences: "united we win, divided we fail "
As for the division of the world that is taking place in this first stage Yankee imperialism you are using the blood of the Arab people to advance the encirclement of the imperialist powers disputing their hegemony (Russia and China). The CPI (M) is silent on the Chinese and Russian imperialism.They speak of a "comprehensive global anti-imperialist front" against US imperialism, implying indirectly that Russia and China can be part of such a "front":
"The war of aggression against Syria could well be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel of US imperialism, already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the monster of imperialism with feet of clay just never come down despite its many vulnerabilities. To be wiped off the face of the earth the blow of all the oppressed peoples of the world is needed. "


"The material conditions to form a broad anti-imperialist front against the threat, intervention, control, exploitation, oppression and wars of imperialist aggression against the oppressed nations and peoples of the world are rapidly maturing. Only broad-based anti-imperialist front, militant and overall will fight imperialist domination and intervention in the social, economic, cultural, etc. and against all wars of aggression. A front of this kind will pave the way for an eventual overthrow. "(Press against imperialist aggression in Syria. Central Committee of the CPI (M). 2013)
Behind these positions (allying with Russia and China, seek peace agreements etc.) is the idea that "imperialism is strong." It is a denial that we are in the strategic offensive of the world revolution, they do not understand that the counter-offensive takes place within the offensive of the world revolution. Converge with the position of the LOD "withdrawal" of the world revolution, "we should not have started we are in strategic defense."
About the Islamic State, the CPI (M) also silent, speaking of movements "Islamists" in general, but does not indicate the central point: that the proletariat must lead the national liberation struggles and see how imperialism uses movements "Islamists" as mercenary counterrevolutionary forces (Al-Qaeda or Islamic State).
On the "Bolshevisation" CPI (M), and two-line struggle that occurs within the CPI (M), the red line should be aware that the vortex of class struggle is always in the Central Committee. Without this it is impossible to crush this structuring a LOD within the CPI (M), to advance in the midst of people's war towards communism.
Revisionism and conciliation with it within the Communist Parties serve the plans of imperialism to avert the revolution and the division of the world. In the long run, revisionism when developing armed actions in a country plays a counter-revolutionary role, see the case of the MRTA who finished as the spearhead of the Armed Forces, that points the LOI in Peru and its end can be the same as the MRTA, be annihilated by the reaction.
Therefore, corresponding to the left of the Communist Parties is to crush in two-line struggle revisionism, old and which lip service bills itself as Maoists, and their convergences, both our organizations and internationally. Dynamiting campaign of imperialism, revisionism and reaction of trying to isolate the people's war in Peru, the PCP, its headquarters, its ideology Gonzalo Thought, its Central Committee and the MPP, as part of the plans of imperialism for revisionism overflow.Constitute or reconstitute militarized Maoist communist parties to initiate people's war and where there are already popular war or national liberation war to crush any capitulation developing the people's war until communism. Oppose the imperialist world war the world people's war.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Parties! cRUSH THE ROL AND THE LOI DEVELOPING THE PEOPLE 'S WAR!
Peru Popular Movement 
October 7, 2016

Monday, October 10, 2016

Last night's debate a slug-fest, the two US parties have no real support

I missed the debates last night, since I wasn't feeling very well. But I realize now that I should have watched them. That's not because I thought anything major would change. It's not because I thought the candidates would clarify their stands on the issues. It is more like a Jerry Springer moment. It was less a civil debate and more a knock-down insult-fest.
The battle between these two represents the total deterioration of the US so called "democratic system." People chose Donald  Trump because he is an outsider to the Republican Party establishment. That party's establishment has hated their candidate all this time and yet he clearly won his party's nomination. The fact that voters chose Trump over the established candidates should tell the Republican Party that their message is bankrupt. Their ultra-conservative pro-business model was overtaken by the TV-savvy reality-programming Trump, who also happens to be a $ billionaire. And rich people are SUPPOSED to be the real heroes of the Republican Party culture.
And Clinton is the medium of the Democratic Party. Unlike her opponent in the primary, Bernie Sanders, who millennial voters rallied around, Clinton represents the most established politician of both this election and the last three. She represent the status quo more than any other president since Gerald Ford.
So what went wrong? How did this election produce the two most unpopular candidates in the entire 20th century? The system is finally feeding off of itself. The two parties are so out of touch with the public and their needs that they are incapable of producing real candidates who can really lead the public with any enthusiasm.
At some point, in the near future, the system has to examine why it is so broken down. Either that or the two ruling parties will have to face their demise. The best to come out of all of this is that the US will have to change or die. People are starting to question the direction of the two parities and they are not happy with the status quo at all. This could be the beginning of some serious change. We can only hope.
- សតិវអតុ 
Pix by

Friday, October 07, 2016

US-led occupation of Afghanistan: 15 years of hell for the people with no end in sight

I post a lot of articles from A World to Win News Service and I especially like this article. The occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are the most imperialistic and hypocritical foreign policies since the big stick policies of Theodore Roosevelt. Not since the US colonialism of the Philippines has this country taken on such an obvious violation of international law. The occupation of these countries and the persistence of supporting puppet governments is major black mark on US history.
We will soon have a new president and chances are the policies of nation building will likely get worse, not better. We need to continue to oppose this degrading policy of nation-building puppetry.   
- សតិវអតុ 

From A World to Win News Service:
The occupation of Afghanistan by a coalition of Western powers headed by the US will have lasted fifteen full years as of 7th of October. 

Instead of any sign of an end to this war, there are new plans for it to continue. US President Barack Obama, speaking on 6 July this year, outlined his plan to keep 8,400 US soldiers in Afghanistan after his presidential term comes to an end in January 2017, along with more than 6,000 Nato and other so-called coalition forces.

This is contrary to the promise Obama made during his campaign for the presidency eight years ago. After several gyrations during his term, beginning with a drastic increase in 2009 in the number of troops from the level set by his predecessor President George W. Bush in a futile attempt to win quick victory, and then large-scale troop reductions, in the end he has opted to continue the occupation. 

It has been proven over and over again that making war is a permanent job of any president in order to fulfill US imperialist interests, and Obama could not be an exception. Despite his efforts to pretend he is not a warmonger, the US has been at war throughout his entire presidency. It has troops fighting in Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq (where Obama just sent additional troops to bring the number of US forces to more than 5,000), as well as in Syria and Libya. American bombs and missiles are also killing people in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

In his statement announcing the prolongation of the war in Afghanistan, Obama tried to downplay the importance of this decision. 

"Compared to their previous mission – helping to lead the fight – our forces are now focused on two narrow missions: training and advising Afghan forces, and supporting counter-terrorist operations against the remnants of al-Qaeda as well as other terrorist groups, including ISIL [the Islamic State or Daesh]... Every day, nearly 320,000 Afghan soldiers and police are serving and fighting, and many are giving their lives to defend their country." (This and subsequent quotations from that speech are from the transcript released by the White House on 6 July 2016.)

In order to cover up the real intention of the war and the real cost to the Afghan people, Obama referred to gains he claimed have been due to this war. 

"With our support, Afghanistan is a better place than it once was. Millions of Afghan children – boys and girls – are in school. Dramatic improvements in public health have saved the lives of mothers and children. Afghans have cast their ballots in democratic elections and seen the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history. That government is a strong partner with us in combating terrorism. That's the progress we've helped make possible."

After 15 years of occupation and imposing a brutal war on the people that has caused tremendous suffering, all that Obama could point to is a number of boys and girls going back to school and unsatisfactory improvements in public health that he falsely calls "dramatic". Neither the number of children in school nor public health have regained the levels reached before the Western imperialist intervention to support certain jihadis, the brand of Islamic fundamentalist friendly to the US and Pakistan at that time, in a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979-89. 

Obama's reference to ballots and "democratic elections" is especially hypocritical, since the winners of the elections arranged by the US have been Hamid Karzai and then Ashraf Ghani, leaders of one of the world's most corrupt regimes, even according to US officials and media. Even with support from the occupiers, still both of them had to rig the elections in order to win. Obama's statement is not much different from what he said about Iraq on 14 December 2011: 
"We're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people." (, 29 December 2014)

A "sovereign country" where the US appointed the regime, in cooperation with reactionary forces in the region such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, a place where foreign interference has made political life a sideshow for most Iraqis. A "stable" country where competition between these powers has constantly roiled conflicts, and Daesh has been able to advance up to within a few miles of the capital Baghdad. Obama made no reference to Abu Ghraib and other prisons where the US forces tortured and murdered people, mainly ordinary people, enabling the conversion of these prisoners into Daesh supporters. He made no reference to the bloody sectarian war that the US triggered and fuelled, resulting in the murder of tens of thousands of people and the displacement of millions. He made no reference to the Islamisation of Iraq under the US-led occupation that dramatically changed the life of Iraqi people and especially women, and finally gave birth to horrible forces such as Daesh. He made no reference to other horrific consequences this has inflicted on the people of Iraq and Middle East. 

Similarly, in his statement on Afghanistan, Obama made no reference to what the people of Afghanistan have gone through due to an unjust and brutal war waged by the Western imperialists. He didn't refer to tens of thousands of innocents who lost their lives due to bombardment and the war. He made no reference to the terrorised children who woke up in the middle of night to see their parents held at gunpoint by US troops. He did not mention the people who were repeatedly stopped and searched by the occupier forces. For the last fifteen years, the US has launched bomb and missile attacks on many village gatherings. In the latest, a US drone strike hit a village celebration in Nangarhar province on 28 September, killing at least 15 civilians and injuring another 13, according to the UN. (Guardian, 30 September) 

Obama boasts about the "dramatic" improvements in public health, but doesn't mention the hospitals bombarded. In one of the most notorious incidents, a US gunship destroyed a Medecins Sans Frontiers hospital in Kunduz in September 2015, murdering at least 42 patients and medical personnel and injuring another 30. 

In talking about the corrupt regime the US had "democratically" elected, Obama doesn't mention the rights of the many thousands who were insulted, imprisoned and horrifically tortured at Bagram and other US and Nato-controlled military bases in Afghanistan, people who were arrested and falsely accused of connections with al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and who, after they were released, became determined to join the Taliban. He doesn't mention those tortured to death even without the formality of a trial. 

Obama referred to combating terrorists groups, but he made no reference to the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are stronger than ever in Afghanistan, thanks to the occupation. Once hated by the majority of the people in Afghanistan, now due to the occupiers and their appointed regime and its atrocities the Taliban have managed to gain support in many parts of the country, even places where they never had much before, such as Badakhshan, in the northern part of the country. He did not say that Daesh is gaining ground in Afghanistan too. The US-led occupation has been a huge factor in the fundamentalists' growing strength. 

The occupation has brought nothing like liberation to Afghanistan's women. In fact they have been the worst victims of this occupation and war. Their most basic rights have been put on sale explicitly and implicitly to keep US-favoured jihadis happy and draw the Taliban to the negotiating table. This has resulted in some of the most scandalous cases such as the amendment of family laws, the rape and kidnapping of young women with impunity, and the climate that led to crimes like the notorious murder of Farkhunda and the stoning of Rakhshana.

What about the reconstruction of the economy and the nation-building initially promised by the occupiers? Obama prefers to say nothing about that, either. We can see for ourselves the features of an economy that has been "reconstructed" by the US and other imperialist occupiers. The Afghan economy is mainly built on growing poppy for opium production and export. Afghanistan currently supplies about 90 percent of the world opium market. Millions of people are employed or involved in some way in the drug trade. Both the US occupiers and the Taliban encourage this. 

Another pillar of the Afghan economy is the "aid" provided by the occupiers and other donor countries. The US government has injected $115 billion into the Afghan economy, supposedly for the country's reconstruction. (New York Times, 17 September 2016) As a result, the economy became addicted to money provided by the occupiers. Further, this produced enormous corruption, especially among jihadist warlords and other government bureaucrats. The overall situation has left millions no choice but to either leave the country or live on the money family members abroad send back home. Not only have decades of war forced millions to seek refuge in neighbouring and other countries, but now the current economic situation is also pushing the more well-off section of people and especially the younger generation to leave the country and look elsewhere for a home.

The US imperialists have spent more than a trillion dollars in a war that has directly caused the deaths of more than 150,000 civilians and soldiers and wounded many more. The war has also indirectly caused the death of hundreds of thousands of others and the suffering of millions of people. This has certainly not been done to bring some boys and girls back to school, but in pursuit of the US's global interest and regional interests. 

Reducing troops to continue the occupation

Boasting about his efforts to deflate US involvement, Obama cited the reduction of US troops from 100,000 to fewer than 10,000 and the alleged change in their mission, from fighting to training and advising Afghan forces and supporting counter-terrorist operations. But he immediately referred to 320,000 Afghan soldiers and police the US is trying to organize to fight its battles in Afghanistan. 

First of all, reducing the numbers doesn’t change the nature of the mission. The nearly 15,000 troops from the US and its "coalition" are many more than enough to make them invaders and occupiers. Consider that the US and its allies started their occupation with 30,000 troops. Secondly, regardless of their numbers, these forces are pursuing the same goal that has guided them since the 2001 invasion, to dominate Afghanistan and control a strategically important region, and serve the regional and global interests of US imperialism. Keeping 100,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan was unsustainable for the US. The draw-down did not change the nature of the war or represent anything like an end to the war. It was a change in tactics by Obama and his administration and its military leaders to make that war sustainable at the cost of Afghan lives. The Afghan national army lost nearly 3,000 officers and soldiers in 2013, and since then its losses have at least doubled. 

The US has also been trying to "legalise" its military and political presence for the indefinite future by arranging a bilateral strategic treaty with the Afghan government. This treaty, signed by president Ghani, discloses the US's real intention, which is to continue the occupation as long as it can. It gives the US continued access to nine major land and air bases, including Bagram, Jalalabad and Kandhar. It allows the US to keep its aircraft and many Special Forces and "advisers" in the country at least until the end of 2024, with the option of renewing the treaty at that time. This agreement also gives immunity to US troops from any Afghani law. No US soldier can be arrested or put on trial by Afghans. 

The war with Taliban

The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was followed by several years of bloody infighting among the jihadi warlords who had led the war against them. Cvilians were slaughtered. Much of Kabul was destroyed. This led many people to support the Taliban takeover in the 1990s, organized by Pakistan, with support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the implicit agreement of the US. After the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, the US decided it had to intervene directly in Afghanistan. But the people that the US and its allies put in power in place of the Taliban were not much different ideologically. The difference was that they were more friendly to the US and the West, or opportunistically appeared that way, or did not care who dominated the country as long as they had a share in the power. After the US-led invasion, the Taliban took advantage of the discontent among Afghans about the occupation and the atrocities committed by the occupiers and their appointed regime, which became more widespread as the war continued.

The US is aware of the extreme corruption of the regime and the atrocities committed by its armed forces because they are trained to do so, but they are simply incapable of doing without all this. The US is also well aware that after 15 years the war is deadlocked.

The Taliban faces serious limitations. They no longer enjoy the US support or neutrality that enabled them to come to power two decades ago. They are a reactionary and fundamentalist force. When in power, they are brutal and oppressive to women, non-Pashtun nationalities, and other religions, and so they will have a hard time uniting many provinces and peoples. The contradiction between their Pashtun chauvinism and other nationalities such as the Tajik , Hazara and Uzbeks is very acute. Despite their advance in some areas, they have not been able to seize power countrywide or in major cities. For instance, they recently grabbed parts of the northern city of Kanduz for the second time, but had to quickly retreat. 

Yet the US and its coalition may have reached the conclusion that they will not be able to defeat the Taliban. The US could not put an end to the ambitions of the Taliban and their backers when it had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban are again making military advances. US frustration was clear from a comment by a "senior administration official on the condition of anonymity". He refers to Afghan forces, but could well also mean the US forces who are leading them:

"It does not appear that the Afghan forces in the near future will be able to defeat the Taliban… Nor is it clear that the Taliban will make any significant strategic gains or be able to take and hold on to strategic terrain. It is a very ugly, very costly stalemate." (New York Times, 17 September 2016)

This prospect, however, will not stop the US from seeking to preserve its interests by other means. Its solution is to include the Taliban in a power-sharing deal. That would consequently increase the influence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in Afghanistan. As Obama put it in explaining US efforts to draw the Taliban to the negotiating table, "The only way to end this conflict and to achieve a full draw-down of foreign forces from Afghanistan is through a lasting political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. That's the only way. And that is why the United States will continue to strongly support an Afghan-led reconciliation process."

So all the talk about liberating women and peace and prosperity has evaporated into thin air. The promises about democracy have produced nothing but a puppet, corrupt regime. Instead of eliminating fundamentalist terrorism, the war has ended up being a war to force the Taliban to the negotiating table. 

The US and its appointed regime are trying to achieve that, but it seems it has not been working so far. In order to convince the Taliban to negotiate, the US also has to convince Pakistan, now deeply involved in contention with India over regional influence, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in their contention with Iran. Other countries are also involved. 

The solution of the imperialists is continued occupation, at least given the present world situation. Considering this situation, the particular limitations of the imperialists and the present balance of forces, they don't really have other options. From the US point of view, no increase or decrease of forces, and no amount of support or further training by US advisers for the so-called Afghan national army, can solve this problem. 

As for their opponents, the Islamic fundamentalist forces such as the Taliban, Daesh and Al-Qaeda who are opposing the present Afghan regime, despite their conflicts based on mutual religious and national differences, they are all oppressors, too, and like the regime are aligned with reactionary regimes abroad. To say the least, they are also part of the problem and can never be part of the solution.

The forces on both sides of the conflict are trying to hang on until they find an opportunity. The US and Taliban or Pakistan or any other player in the conflict may not prefer the present situation, but they can also take advantage of it and help continue the war in Afghanistan, even if at a lower intensity. Pakistan can prevent the proposed peace agreements and keep Afghanistan unstable, and the US also has a “good” excuse both at home and internationally to continue its occupation at a more sustainable cost, at least until a more settled situation in the world is achieved, which might not be any time soon.

The people of Afghanistan, whose interests should be paramount in this complex situation, are not considered important by the reactionaries. A revolutionary force that can rely on the people and has a clear and unambiguous position against both the imperialist occupiers and the reactionary fundamentalist forces could resolve the problem in the interests of the masses. What is needed is a revolutionary party whose goal is to end all exploitation and oppression and lead the masses to liberate themselves from the mess that the imperialists and the reactionary fundamentalists and their backers have created in Afghanistan – and around the world.