otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Saturday, November 28, 2015

The murder of Hazaras and the rise of Daesh in Afghanistan

From A World To Win:

23 November 2015. A World to Win News Service. The biggest political protests Afghanistan has seen in years took place over several days in early November. A large crowd (10,000 people according to the New York Times) marched across the capital to the presidential palace, where they chanted "Death to Taliban, Death to Dash" (Islamic State) and called on the government to resign.

The protesters included relatives of seven Hazara civilians kidnapped by Daesh when they were travelling through Zabul province in south-west Afghanistan last March. Recently they were found beheaded. Among them were three women and two children.

People of Afghanistan were shocked. A protest convoy carried the bodies from Zabul to Ghazni, in central Afghanistan, a city where many Hazaras live. Thousands of people rallied. Then, despite the opposition of the authorities, the bodies were brought to the capital. After an all-night vigil in the rain, protesters bearing the coffins marched to the presidential palace. Many were young, and they included thousands of women. Women carried a banner declaring, "It is a crime to see a crime and stay silent" and blaming the government for complicity in a recent wave of kidnappings and murders of Hazara people.

As they approached the presidential palace, they were met with by special guards and military. The guards shot and injured five demonstrators, according to the health ministry. Many protesters found their way into a court building.

The U.S. occupation and its appointed governments promised security for the people. Since the occupiers stepped in to make Ashraf Ghani president last year, one of the most important issues concerning most people has been security – the right not to be killed or abused by any of the armed gangs running amok, including the Taliban and now Daesh, and government thugs as well. There have been numerous reports of jihadi commanders brought into the government who have kidnapped young women and teenage girls, raped them and then demanded ransom. In many cases the result has been the disappearance of the victim.

This kind of kidnapping has not diminished throughout the years but has escalated. And various groups and forces with different motives now have become part of that. The emergence of Daesh has added tremendously to this problem. People feel that it is not safe to go outside their towns, or even walk on the streets in town. Some 146,000 Afghan refugees arriving in Europe have been registered so far in 2015.

The existence of Daesh in Afghanistan became clear earlier this year. Although they avoided fighting with the government and U.S. and other Nato occupation troops, they often clashed with the Taliban. In Achin and Pachiragam districts in Nangarhar province, they reportedly set fire to 106 homes whose residents they accused of cooperating with the Taliban.

Finally, in April, Daesh claimed the responsibility for a suicide attack that killed only innocent people in Jalalabad, under the name of "the Khorasan Islamic State". At the present time there is no province named Khorasan in Afghanistan. There are North and South Khorasan provinces in eastern Iran. Historically Khorasan is the name of a region that covers most of today's Afghanistan, Tajikistan, most of north-eastern Iran and nearly half of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Naming themselves the Islamic State of Khorasan proclaims Daesh's ambition to extend their operations and rule into Iran and the rest of Central Asia.

A recent report by a UN committee indicates Daesh is now active in 24 out of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. This report also says that at least 10 percent of Taliban members support Daesh. This adds more complication and misery for the people in the region.

There are clear indications that Afghan government and U.S. forces in Afghanistan have observed Daesh's growing influence in Afghanistan but have either done nothing or have not been able to prevent its influence. Some people think that the Afghan government and its American backers deliberately allowed Daesh to grow so that a force hostile to Taliban could undermine its ability to fight the government and the occupation. Others think that the authorities genuinely could not predict that Daesh would be capable of finding a base in Afghanistan, given the existence of Taliban and the presence of U.S. troops, and have simply proved incapable of stopping Daesh. There is a very widespread feeling that, one way or another, the U.S. and its current Afghan government are at fault for the rise of Daesh.

However, the people who went to the presidential palace seeking justice took their righteous outrage to the wrong place. The president and the whole government cannot help because they are part of the problem. Not only have they failed to protect people, but even more fundamentally, they and their imperialist backers, who invaded the country and occupy it still, are the biggest factor in the people's insecurity, both directly and in terms of the consequences of the situation they have perpetuated in the country, the immediate region and more broadly. All this has given birth to wave after wave of religious fundamentalists.

For instance, Daesh's strongest base in Afghanistan is in Nangarhar, which borders Pakistan. U.S drone attacks and Pakistani military campaigns have driven Pakistani Taliban from Waziristan into Afghanistan, especially Nangarhar. Daesh has been able to attract people from the Pakistani Taliban, such as a top-ranking Pakistani Taliban who went over to Daesh in January.

It seems that Daesh is counting on using the momentum (and arms and cash) it has acquired in its wider conflict with imperialism to take advantage of discontents rising within the Taliban ranks over the last few years. Daesh's rapid advancement in Iraq and Syria and its influence in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere have impressed some Taliban elements who are frustrated by the prolongation of the war with the government and the U.S. Some are discontented with the negotiations between the Taliban and the government.

The seven people beheaded in Zabul were poor. Like many others, they were travelling in search of a temporary job when they were grabbed by Daesh, imprisoned for seven or eight months and then murdered because they were Shia.

This turn of events poses a serious threat that might give rise to the kind of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni that has been going on in Iraq and Pakistan for years. Hazaras are both Afghanistan's most oppressed ethnic minority and also, since most are Shia, a religious minority. The Taliban have not chosen to emphasize Sunni-Shia conflict, whereas for Daesh hatred for Shia Islam and its practitioners is central to its ideological and political identity and aims.

Clearly Daesh's advance in Afghanistan is impelled by the situation in the broader Middle East. Daesh has enjoyed the neutrality or some support of Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, but it could not have gained control of a third of Iraq if it had not been able to win over Iraqi youth outraged by the U.S. invasion and fed up with the Shia regime installed under the occupation. At the same time they took advantage of the power vacuum in the civil war in Syria that the imperialist and regional powers stoked. This has enabled it to position itself as the main opponent of imperialist domination of a whole swath of the Earth, and to set its religious claims as the only alternative.

If it is true that Daesh, like other varieties of Islamic fundamentalism, could not exist as they do without imperialism, its crimes and all that it does to other countries, then the inescapable conclusion is that the people cannot be freed of this scourge without opposing, rather than supporting, the imperialist powers, their global system and their political allies and local stooges. After all, when people protested the murder of Hazaras, they were fired on by the Afghan government backed up by the U.S. and thousands of American troops.
Pix From

Friday, November 27, 2015

Black Friday—and buying lots and lots of crap!

By សតិវ​អតុ 
Today is Black Friday, a corporate consumer holiday designed to send the bold and adventurous out to try and buy stuff cheap. Yeas cheap is the big word. They want all their stuff to be bought cheap, but at a pace that brings them much profit.

Me...I'm home relaxing and drinking a beer.

Uncle Bernie's Farm

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Another Thanksgiving- more mythological fun

By Otto

Today, Thanksgiving is seen by many as a "politically incorrect" holiday. The pilgrim forefathers took advantage of the Indians. And some people believe that it is barbaric to plan a holiday over killing a turkey. Still there are my relatives and I probably won't tell them how bad their holiday is, at least not until after we all eat. So I print this so all may know the truth.
There was a “first Thanksgiving” dinner, but not likely turkey or the fixings we see today. The original meat was fish and deer.  The turkey became part of Thanksgiving about 1857. It is supposed to be of foods native to the New World. It became a national holiday in 1941. The traditional fixings came from a women’s magazine in the 1950s.
For a look at the real first Thanksgiving see the Kasama Project. For the Kasama Project:

"Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists–and of the ruthless ways of capitalism."

Addam's Family Values Thanksgiving Play


Alien Sex Fiend - Stuff The Turkey

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

50th anniversary of the founding the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

Let us celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and new democratic movement of Afghanistan for the purposes of strengthening the current communist and new democratic struggles in the country!

From Maoist_Revolution/ the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan:

With the formation of the Progressive Youth Organization [PYO] on October 4, 1965, on the basis of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (that time Mao Zedong Thought) line and anti-imperialist, anti-social-imperialist, anti-reactionary and anti-revisionist orientation, under the leadership of comrade Akram Yari, the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan came into being. Due to the principled political line of the PYO and the national and international environment, the new democratic movement under the leadership of the PYO turned into the most extensive political movement of the country, mobilizing tens of thousands of revolutionary men and women, students, teachers, writers, workers, and other toiling masses from all nationalities in struggles against reactionaries, imperialists, social-imperialists; it was thus that the Maoist communist movement flourished in the country.
Sholajawid was the name of the journal which was propagating new democratic ideas; it was initiated by the PYO and two other progressive groups, starting its publication two years after the formation of the PYO in 1967.  Due to the crucial role this journal played in the expansion and spread of the movement, the movement itself became known as Sholajawid. Although only 11 issues of the journal were published, and subsequently censored by the reactionary monarchy of Zahir Shah, even the limited publication played an important historical role in the extensive and widespread formation of the new democratic movement.
Definitely the PYO and the Sholajawid movement, being young and inexperienced, was not without its shortcomings and weaknesses; it definitely needed improvement and evolution. Unfortunately, the internal weaknesses of the PYO, along with an increasingly national and international unfavorable situation, resulted into the fact that its movement could not continue to develop and evolve. After a short period following its initial prosperity, it moved towards collapse and dispersion.
The banning of the Sholajawid journal and the suppression of the demonstrations in 1968 by the repressive forces of the reactionary state under Zahir Shah – as well as the arrest and imprisonment of a large number of the leaders of the PYO and the movement – not only resulted in the first split in the Sholajawid movement, but generated larger negative effects. Political-ideological lines other than the line of its founder (Akram Yari) emerged within PYO, and consequently two line struggles emerged within the organization. These were not line struggles that strengthened and expanded the organization but were ones that resulted in its collapse, negatively impacting the entire movement.
After comrade Akram Yari's withdrawal from active political struggle due to serious illness, deviationist political lines took over the organization. These deviationist political lines not only provided the basis of splits within the PYO but also greatly facilitated the splits within the broader movement. Thus, the main deviationist line, which later negatively evolved into full fledged revisionism and capitulationism (and there are those who are still following this path), led to a significant split from the initial organization and movement, forcing the entire communist and new democratic movement towards dissipation – a drive towards revisionist, national and class capitulationist lines.
The dominance of the deviationist and revisionist capitulationist lines over the dispersed body of the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan lasted at least a decade and a half (almost all of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s). Therefore, the movement could not prevent the two Soviet supported coups –the first in 1972 by Sardar Dawood, the second in 1978 by the gang of revisionist satraps of the Soviet social-imperialists (the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan [PDPA]) – and in the struggle against the coup regime and the social-imperialist occupation adopted unprincipled and incorrect political and military tactics and strategy.
As a result – and despite the fact that the communist and new democratic movement sacrificed tens of thousands of its leaders, cadre, organizers, and masses under its leadership in its confrontation with reactionary forces dependent on the western imperialists and reactionary regional powers –this movement could not employ these resistance struggles to expand, evolve, and progress on the path of new democratic revolution. Rather, it suffered bitter defeats. The negative effects of those bitter defeats are still strongly felt and remain distressful.
During this decade and a half, the principled communist and new democratic line did not have a clear expression and presence; it was not considered a challenge to the deviationist, collaborationist, and revisionist political lines. Severe ideological, political and organizational weaknesses, along with a low level of theoretical understanding, of the remnants and proponents of the principled communist and new democratic movement in the mid-1980s was apparent, facilitating the dominance of the collaborationist and revisionist lines over the dispersed body of the movement.
Based on the defeat of the deviationist, revisionist, and class and national collaborationist lines – and the relative growth of the communist movement in the newly international favorable circumstances, with efforts of parties and organizations in the ranks of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] – the first groupings of the principled communist movement emerged in Afghanistan. The emergence of the initial groups and movements that were the clear expression of a principled communist line not only reestablished the communist and new democracy movement in Afghanistan, but reactivated and improved the political line of our founder in the new national and international situation against imperialism and reaction, and also against the dominance of the aforementioned erroneous lines within different sections of the movement.
Deviationists, revisionists, and capitulationists who believed their dominance to be permanent and without challenge over different sections of the movement – who assumed that the principled line of the founder of the movement to have been buried – considered the new slogans, and position of the new communist movement as throwing old hay in the air. However, this new initiative grew and expanded, becoming the expression of the principled stance and slogans against the social-imperialist occupiers and their satraps, against the power of the reactionary Jihadists and their brutal civil war, and the reactionary repressive and archaic Taliban’s Emirate. Moreover, this movement stood against invasion and occupation of American imperialists from the beginning, opposing its allies throughout Afghanistan and the formation of its puppet regime; this was the only communist formation– the only non-reactionary representative of the revolutionary peoples – that advocated national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime.
Although the old revisionists – pressured by the subjective and objective conditions of the country, world opinion, and the expansion of mass struggles and resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime –would gradually distanced themselves from the open capitulationism they previously displayed– and would sometimes, to a limited extent, take a stance against the imperialist occupiers and their puppet government – it is the reinitiated Maoist movement in the country that remains the solid defender of the struggle and principled resistance against the occupation and its puppet regime.
The new initiative of the communist and new democratic line from its inception and until now has been the theoretical and practical banner of the principled unity within our broader movement. By following this path of unity it has struggled against dispersion and sectarianism. Therefore, not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, the movement has continued to grow. Currently, C(M)PA and other Maoist organizations and individuals outside of the party represent this new initiative.
Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Maoist movement in Afghanistan is an occasion that invites us all to move towards unity based on a principled proletarian and new democratic line, to collectively struggle, in a strong and organized manner, against the occupiers and their satraps as the principal enemy of the country and its people, moving forward on the path of preparing for the revolutionary peoples and national war of resistance.
Certainly, the national resistance struggle against the principal enemies of our country does not mean suspending the new democratic struggles against them, or also against anti-democratic feudal-bourgeois comprador forces opposed to occupiers and the puppet regime. Nor can this national struggle ignore the struggles against other imperialist and reactionary expansionist powers.
The experience of struggle internationally and also in Afghanistan has continually proven that one-sided emphasis on the national resistance against the current principal enemy, and forgetting the new democratic struggles against non-principal current enemies, will, in the last analysis, harm the national resistance as a whole. This kind of one-dimensional national resistance struggle, because it ignores the democratic demands of the masses, will limit and reduce the participation of the masses in the national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime; it may even eliminate the possibility of their participation and thus will strongly expand and prepare the ground for the maneuvers of the reactionary and anti-democratic armed opposition to the occupiers and the puppet regime.  
Therefore, based on the interest of the masses of Afghanistan and based on the communist and new democratic program, we should not only merely talk about national struggle and national war of resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, but we should talk about a revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance. We need to carry forward such a struggle for preparing to initiate and pursuing revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance.
Resistance because we are the victims of aggression and occupation of imperialists –of a foreign reactionary power – and under the domination of a puppet regime. Our struggle against these principal enemies of the people is characterized by resistance: self-defense, defense of the independence of the country, and defense of the freedom of the country and its people. This struggle is the just struggle of the victims of occupation and against invaders, occupiers and their puppets.
National because the resistance struggle for defending the independence of the country and the independence of its people is fundamentally based on the struggle and resistance, on our national interests, and against the interests of invaders, imperialist occupiers, their national traitor satraps – not a limited religious and non-religious ideological struggle and resistance. Any kind of attempt to impose such a limitation will limit the scope of struggle against occupiers and their puppet regime, eventually benefitting the imperialist occupation. Thus, the secular character of this struggle and resistance is an unavoidable necessity. 
National because this resistance struggle must consider the defense and independence of the country as a whole; it should not kick the wolves out the door so that the hyenas enter from the windows. In the current epoch, the global domination of the world capitalist imperialist system is marred by serious contradictions and tensions between imperialists and reactionary powers, and these powers are eager to employ any political movement and initiative as an instrument for their interests against their imperialist and reactionary rivals. The communist and the new democratic movement of the country, while accepting the necessities of struggle against American imperialism and its satrap regime, should also pay attention to the necessities of this national responsibility.
It is obvious that struggle and resistance has its material base and also its ideological and political superstructure. At the same time, however, it is also true that in a multi-national class society where there is diverse class and national interests, and diverse thoughts and political world-views, a broad-based resistance against occupiers and national traitors will be multifarious and diverse and will have a democratic character. Naturally, different forces engaged in this struggle will compete with each other over the leadership of this resistance, and it cannot be otherwise. If the communist and new democratic forces do not pay attention to this reality, this could lead to political-ideological and eventually organizational liquidationism, resulting in capitulationism, the weakening of the struggle, and the inability to consolidate revolutionary and progressive leadership over the resistance.
However, this struggle should be carried out under the overall interest of the resistance against the occupying forces and the puppet regime, not in contention with the general interests of the resistance. Ignoring this issue, by any force including ours, will ultimately result in replacing the principal contradiction with non-principal contradictions, only benefitting the puppet regime and the occupying forces.
We should emphasize that a resistance that is only male cannot be an authentic national resistance. Women form half of society and a national resistance in the real sense of word cannot happen without their inclusion. Any kind of attempt to limit women, based on any kind of religious and cultural excuse that would deprive them of their basic personal and social rights, including the right to participate in the resistance against occupiers and their satraps, is an attempt to distance half of the population from the active national resistance, at the same time consciously or unconsciously forcing them into the ideological and political trap of the occupiers and the national traitor satraps who often wield deceptive slogans about women’s rights or freedom. It is obvious that such attempts are also extremely anti-democratic.
Peoples because a national resistance struggle can only be an unrelenting and solid struggle if it possesses a mass character, based on the superior interests of the masses – that is, the revolutionary masses struggling against the occupiers and the puppet regime – and not on the interests of the exploiting and oppressive feudal comprador bourgeois classes. The latter faction of the masses are classes whose interests are in line with imperialism, particularly with the invading and occupying imperialists, as well as the land-holding and bourgeois comprador classes who are always prepared to collude with the occupiers and the puppet regime. Giving mass character to the national resistance against the occupiers and their puppets does not merely mean involving the masses in the resistance: such involvement should mean the conscious participation in national resistance based on their superior, revolutionary interests rather than the interests of the exploiting classes. From this perspective, giving mass character to the national resistance against occupiers and national traitors requires the spread of revolutionary consciousness among the masses of people, particularly the lower layers of the toiling masses, workers, peasants, and the poor petty-bourgeoisie. Enlightening the masses with revolutionary consciousness requires prolonged and continuous efforts, but we should acknowledge that, without a certain level of progress in this regard, national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime cannot develop, expand, and deepen a popular/mass character.
Revolutionary because the peoples national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime should be armed with a scientific revolutionary worldview so that it can direct the resistance against the capitalist-imperialist system, and the reactionary system in the country. Otherwise, the resistance runs the risk of being cut short, either in the middle of the national resistance itself or after achieving its goal of partial independence – the country could still remain in the shackles of the oppressive and exploiting world system and the masses, despite heroic and selfless sacrifices, would remain under the capitalist-imperialist world system with the semi-feudal/semi-colonial classes in control. More importantly, the revolutionary strategic orientation of the resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, guarantees continuous progression of the national and popular characteristics of the resistance.
Since the resistance against the soviet social-imperialist occupiers and their puppet regime was carried out under the leadership of reactionary forces dependent on western imperialists, and was thus totally lacked revolutionary strategic orientation, that resistance prepared the ground for the invasion of American imperialism and its allies and the subsequent occupation and formation of the current puppet regime. However, since the contemporary resistance against the current occupiers and their satraps has not yet led to the total withdrawal of the occupying forces and the collapse of their puppet regime, the monopolistic dominance of the armed reactionary resistance has resulted in the materialization of another foreign invasion and occupation – that is, the invasion and occupation that considers the entire country a province of a reactionary Arab “caliphate.”
The forces that have raised the black flags of the Islamic State [ISIS] in Afghanistan are the armies of this reactionary Arab caliphate and are thus, in actuality, the occupying forces of a reactionary foreign state, even if some of their forces are originally from within the country. These forces as a whole have been born and raised within the ranks of the current reactionary resistance in Afghanistan. More importantly, the founders and original leaders of this reactionary caliphate (ISIS) have also been raised in the lap of the past reactionary resistance against the soviet social-imperialists and their puppet regime. Despite the fact that the “Arab Caliph” openly declares the leader of the Islamic Emirate of Taliban an illiterate servant of Al-Qaeda, and calls the Emirate itself “expired medicine”, the reactionary Taliban leadership are sending ISIS messages of “Islamic brotherhood”, humbly and submissively asking them not to become the reason of friction in the “Islamic resistance of Afghanistan.” Have they not understood that ISIS does not accept Afghanistan as a country and sees it a province of its Arabic Caliphate? 

If we suppose that the resistance against social imperialist invaders and occupiers and their puppets leads to the invasion and occupation of American imperialists and their allies, and then the resistance against the current occupiers and their puppets in the middle of journey prepares the ground for the invasion and occupation of a reactionary Arab caliphate, and that this is the destiny of Afghanistan, then we should be very worried.
With the spread of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan on the one hand, and the mysterious death of the Taliban’s ex-leader (Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund) on the other, the country's situation has become even more complicated. With the expansion of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan, all foreign jihadists in the region are now possible ISIS soldiers and should be considered potential or active invading forces of that foreign power, the target of revolutionary peoples and national resistance.
Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund, who was the uniting factor behind the Taliban’s fractured movement (which was divided along ethnic, tribal, regional, and political lines), is dead. In his absence, maintaining the unity of such an army, if not impossible, is extremely difficult. Furthermore, his mysterious death in Pakistan (kept secret for two years within a circle of a few individuals), and the method of appointment of his successor, are strong factors in creating friction amongst the Taliban. Definitely, enormous efforts have been made for consolidating Mullah Akhtar Mansur’s leadership, by his supporters within the Taliban and also by foreign “friends”, and there is no doubt the greater part of the Taliban movement will remain under the new leadership. However, certain sections of the Taliban have not accepted the new leadership. These forces can hardly stand on their own feet; it is highly possible that under pressure from the new leadership of the Taliban they would ultimately be forced towards the puppet regime or into joining ISIS. Therefore, these forces should potentially be considered as either capitulating to the regime or part of the invading army of ISIS.
Moreover, the death of Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund and the outbreak of friction within the Taliban over appointing his successor has resulted in the close cooperation between its new leadership and their Pakistani “friends”. Indeed, in consolidating his position, Akhtar Mansur has held public meetings throughout Pakistan. This situation has completely led to the identification and publicity of their rank and file, thus it would significantly increase the control of their Pakistani “friends” over them, so that they cannot claim “they only partially have the support of Pakistani friends.” It certainly can be said that the acceptance of the Pakistan as the patron of peace in Afghanistan by the American imperialists and the puppet regime has also significantly increased the control of Pakistan over the Taliban.
All of these issues illustrate the fact that the scope of aggression of foreign occupying powers over Afghanistan has increased: at a time when the aggression and occupation of the American imperialists and their allies has not ended, other reactionary aggressive occupying forces, ISIS, have emerged in certain pockets of the country and are dominating the lives of its people. At the same time, the interventions of the Pakistani state, that are constantly being carried out with cross border military incursions, as well as the interventions of Iran, have increased. Therefore, our revolutionary responsibility in terms of struggling against the principal enemy has multiplied, but it has also increased in relation to non-principal enemies as well, and we have to increase our efforts towards them all.
Despite Obama’s verbal commitment to withdraw all of America’s combat troops (except for the 1000 that would remain to protect the American embassy in Kabul) by the end of 2016, its practical implementation has not yet materialized. The recent wars in several parts of the country illustrate that the puppet regime cannot maintain its hegemony without the presence of foreign occupying powers. Even if Obama’s claims were to be realized according to the security agreement between the American state and the puppet regime, the legal path for the former's return to Afghanistan is available, and due to the security agreement between NATO and the puppet regime the legal path for the return of NATO occupying troops is also available.
In fact, the crisis-stricken and corrupt puppet regime's continued existence is premised on the hope of future support from its occupying imperialist masters rather than its own constitution. However, the results of the longest war of American imperialism (the war in Afghanistan) is clearly indicating that American occupiers and their allies and puppets are unable to impose the total subjugation of Afghanistan through war. Therefore, despite the prolongation of their occupying presence – their support of the puppet regime though military and non-military means –so as to consolidate their authority, the imperialists are also constantly trying to bring the reactionary Islamist insurgents to the negotiating table by promising them a share in the regime.
Hence, the American imperialist state, in alignment with the expansionist Indian state, is putting pressure on Pakistan to reduce the field in which the Taliban can maneuver, eventually forcing them to negotiate with the puppet regime. Preventing economic aid to Pakistan so as to assert political pressure – that might intensify in the near future – is being carried out by the US for the aforementioned purpose. Tensions between Indian and Pakistan regarding the control of Kashmir, and prolonged military engagement between both sides, is a partial war that is being carried forward for the negotiations for peace in Afghanistan between two reactionary, expansionist regional atomic powers.         
The revisionist and the expansionist rulers of China are in their own way participating in this game. China's plan to invest 50 Billion dollars in Pakistan is not only a sign of their expansionist political and economic tendencies, but is also an appeasing tactic to persuade Pakistan not to allow its territories to be used as a base for training and organizing Uighur Islamist militants. The point, here, is to prevent a safe haven for Islamist insurgents opposed to the puppet regime and the occupying powers in Afghanistan.
If this American, Indian, and Chinese tripartite politics of carrot and stick towards Pakistan continues, and even intensifies so that it becomes unbearable for Pakistan, it is all too likely that sooner or later the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Akhtar Mansur, now firmly in their grip, will be forced to resume negotiations with the puppet regime under the supervision of Pakistan, the US, and China. In this case, the intense and widespread military confrontation in the current season of war – that we can certainly say is unfavorable to everyone involved – would be employed as a negotiating chip for scoring political concessions.
Indeed, the reactionary resistance of Taliban is not, in its essence, a total and relentless anti-imperialist resistance. Even in the case of a military victory – which it has now proven it cannot achieve – the Taliban cannot free the country from the orbit of the reactionary world imperialist system.
Moreover, even if the negotiations resume and move forward, in the final analysis everyone's share would be determined based on their political and economic weight, and our people would thus continue to suffer under an archaic system of exploitation and oppression – the country will lack true independence. The process of carrying these negotiations forward will also not be smooth and easy; it will cause our people to provide immense sacrifices and experience serious difficulties.
We called for celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and the new democratic movement in Afghanistan to loudly announce the long fifty year presence of this movement in the arena of the revolutionary political struggle in Afghanistan so as to state the fact that: the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Maoist movement is an occasion that invites us all to consider five decades of the ups and downs of revolutionary struggle and reaffirm our commitment to strongly carry forward our patriotic, national, democratic, and revolutionary responsibilities.
The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has repeatedly announced that the biggest flaw and weakness of the current communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan is its mere political presence and lack of representation in the arena of armed struggle against the occupiers and the puppet regime. Indeed it is this limitation that is reducing the effect of our political and ideological struggle against our principal and non-principal enemies. In circumstances when the principal aspect of the struggles in the country is armed struggles, the mere political and non-military voices in an environment full of the thunders of bombs, canons, and guns are rarely heard. Therefore, in these circumstances our struggle can only have a path-breaking effect if it is carried out in preparation for the people’s revolutionary national war of resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime (the current form of people’s war in the country).
For correct, principled, timely and effective conduct of these efforts, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has to constantly mobilize and expand all of its members, supporters, and the masses under its leadership. Moreover, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and other Maoist forces and individuals in the current situation need to establish stronger unity amongst themselves, on the one hand, and carry forward polemics and discussions for solving theoretical disagreements, on the other, so as to expand their practical cooperation amongst themselves, and ideologically and practically move towards cooperation, coordination, and unity.
Forward on the path towards initiating and carrying forward the revolutionary people’s national war of resistance against imperialist occupiers, the puppet regime, and reactionary ISIS occupiers!
Forward on the path of struggle against other reactionaries aligned with imperialist and reactionary powers!
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

Why I am a Socialist

By Helen Keller

For several months my name and socialism have appeared often together in the newspapers. A friend tells me that I have shared the front pages with baseball, Mr. Roosevelt and the New York police scandal. The association does not make me altogether happy but, on the whole, I am glad that many people are interested in me and in the educational achievements of my teacher, Mrs. Macy (Anne Sullivan).

Even notoriety may be turned to beneficent uses, and I rejoice if the disposition of the newspapers to record my activities results in bringing more often into their columns the word Socialism. In the future I hope to write about socialism, and to justify in some measure the great amount of publicity which has been accorded to me and my opinions.

So far I have written little and said little about the subject. I have written a few letters, notably one to Comrade Fred Warren which was printed in the Appeal to Reason. I have talked to some reporters, on of whom, Mr. Ireland of the New York World, made a very flattering report and gave fully and fairly what I said. I have never been in Schenectady.

I have never met Mayor Lunn. I have never had a letter from him, but he has sent kind messages to me through Mr. Macy. Owing to Mrs. Macy's illness, whatever plans I had to join the workers in Schenectady have been abandoned.
On such negative and relatively insignificant matters have been written many editorials in the capitalist press and in the Socialist press. The clippings fill a drawer. I have not read a quarter of them, and I doubt if I shall ever read them all.

If on such a small quantity of fact so much comment has followed, what will the newspapers do if I ever set to work in earnest to write and talk in behalf of socialism? For the present I should like to make a statement of my position and correct some false reports and answer some criticisms which seem to me unjust.

First — How did I become a Socialist?

By reading.

The first book I read was Wells' New World for Old. I read it on Mrs. Macy's recommendation. She was attracted by its imaginative quality, and hoped that its electric style might stimulate and interest me. When she gave me the book, she was not a Socialist and she is not a Socialist now. Perhaps she will be one before Mr. Macy and I are done arguing with her.

My reading has been limited and slow. I take German bimonthly Socialist periodicals printed in braille for the blind. (Our German comrades are ahead of us in many respects.) I have also in German braille Kautsky's discussion of the Erfurt Program.

The other socialist literature that I have read has been spelled into my hand by a friend who comes three times a week to read to me whatever I choose to have read. The periodical which I have most often requested her lively fingers to communicate to my eager ones is the National Socialist.

She gives the titles of the articles and I tell her when to read on and when to omit. I have also had her read to me from the International Socialist Review articles the titles of which sounded promising. Manual spelling takes time. It is no easy and rapid thing to absorb through one's fingers a book of 50,000 words on economics. But it is a pleasure, and one which I shall enjoy repeatedly until I have made myself acquainted with all the classic socialist authors.

In the light of the foregoing I wish to comment on a piece about me which was printed in the Common Cause and reprinted in the Live Issue, two antisocialist publications. Here is a quotation from that piece:

"For twenty-five years Miss Keller's teacher and constant companion has been Mrs. John Macy, formerly of Wrentham, Mass. Both Mr. and Mrs. Macy are enthusiastic Marxist propagandists, and it is scarcely surprising that Miss Keller, depending upon this lifelong friend for her most intimate knowledge of life, should have imbibed such opinions."

Mr. Macy may be an enthusiastic Marxist propagandist, though I am sorry to say he has not shown much enthusiasm in propagating his Marxism through my fingers. Mrs. Macy is not a Marxist, nor a socialist. Therefore what the Common Cause says about her is not true.

The editor must have invented that, made it out of whole cloth, and if that is the way his mind works, it is no wonder that he is opposed to socialism. He has not sufficient sense of fact to be a socialist or anything else intellectually worthwhile.

Consider another quotation from the same article. The headline reads:


Then the article begins:

"It would be difficult to imagine anything more pathetic than the present exploitation of poor Helen Keller by the Socialists of Schenectady. For weeks the party's press agencies have heralded the fact that she is a Socialist, and is about to become a member of Schenectady's new Board of Public Welfare."

There's a chance for satirical comment on the phrase, "the exploitation of poor Helen Keller."

But I will refrain, simply saying that I do not like the hypocritical sympathy of such a paper as the Common Cause, but I am glad if it knows what the word "exploitation" means.

Let us come to the facts. When Mayor Lunn heard that I might go to Schenectady he proposed to the Board of Public Welfare that a place be kept on it for me.

Nothing was printed about this in The Citizen, Mayor Lunn's paper. Indeed, it was the intention of the board to say nothing about the matter until after I had moved to Schenectady.

But the reporters of the capitalist press got wind of the plan, and one day, during Mayor Lunn's absence from Schenectady, the Knickerbocker Press of Albany made the announcement.

It was telegraphed all over the country, and then began the real newspaper exploitation.

By the Socialist press? No, by the capitalist press. The Socialist papers printed the news, and some of them wrote editorials of welcome.

But The Citizen, Mayor Lunn's paper, preserved silence and did not mention my name during all the weeks when the reporters were telephoning and telegraphing and asking for interviews. It was the capitalist press that did the exploiting. Why?

Because ordinary newspapers care anything about socialism? No, of course not; they hate it.

But because I, alas, am a subject for newspaper gossip. We got so tired of denying that I was in Schenectady that I began to dislike the reporter who first published the "news."

The Socialist papers, it is true, did make a good deal of me after the capitalist papers had "hearalded the fact that I am a Socialist." But all the reporters who came to see me were from ordinary commercial newspapers. No Socialist paper, neither

The Call nor the National Socialist, ever asked me for an article. The editor of The Citizen hinted to Mr. Macy that he would like one, but he was too fine and considerate to ask for it point-blank.

The New York Times did ask me for one. The editor of the Times wrote assuring me that his paper was a valuable medium for reaching the public and he wanted an article from me.

He also telegraphed asking me to send him an account of my plans and to outline my ideas of my duties as a member of the Board of Public Welfare of Schenectady. '

I am glad I did not comply with this request, for some days later the Times made me a social outcast beyond the range of its righteous sympathies. On September 21 there appeared in the Times an editorial called "The Comtemptible Red Flag." I quote two passages from it:

"The flag is free. But it is none the less destestable. It is the symbol of lawlessness and anarchy the world over, and as such is held in contempt by all right-minded persons."

"The bearer of a red flag may not be molested by the police until he commits some act which the red flag justifies. He deserves, however, always to be regarded with suspicion. By carrying the symbol of lawlessness he forfeits all right to respect and sympathy."

I am no worshiper of cloth of any color, but I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists.

I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle.

According to the inclusive condemnation of the Times I have forfeited all right to respect and sympathy, and I am to be regarded with suspicion.

Yet the editor of the Times wants me to write him an article! How can he trust me to write for him if I am a suspicious character? I hope you will enjoy as much as I do the bad ethics, bad logic, bad manners that a capitalist editor falls into when he tries to condemn the movement which is aimed at this plutocratic interests.

We are not entitled to sympathy, yet some of us can write articles that will help his paper to make money.

Probably our opinions have the same sort of value to him that he would find in the confession of a famous murderer.

We are not nice, but we are interesting.

I like newspapermen. I have known many, and two or three editors have been among my most intimate friends. Moreover, the newspapers have been of great assistance in the work which we have been trying to do for the blind. It costs them nothing to give their aid to work for the blind and to other superficial charities.

But socialism — ah, that is a different matter!

That goes to the root of all poverty and all charity.

When my letter to Comrade Fred Warren was published in the Appeal to Reason, a friend of mine who writes a special department for the Boston Transcript made an article about it and the editor-in-chief cut it out.

The Brooklyn Eagle says, apropos of me, and socialism, that Helen Keller's "mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development." Some years ago I met a gentleman who was introduced to me as Mr. McKelway, editor of the Brooklyn Eagle. It was after a meeting that we had in New York in behalf of the blind.

At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them.

But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him. Surely it is his turn to blush.

It may be that deafness and blindness incline one toward socialism. Marx was probably stone deaf and William Morris was blind. Morris painted his pictures by the sense of touch and designed wall paper by the sense of smell.

Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! What an ungallant bird it is! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent.

The Eagle is willing to help us prevent misery provided, always provided, that we do not attack the industrial tyranny which supports it and stops its ears and clouds its vision.

The Eagle and I are at war. I hate the system which it represents, apologizes for and upholds. When it fights back, let it fight fair.

Let it attack my ideas and oppose the aims and arguments of Socialism.

It is not fair fighting or good argument to remind me and others that i cannot see or hear. I can read. I can read all the socialist books I have time for in English, German and French.

If the editor of the Brooklyn Eagle should read some of them, he might be a wiser man and make a better newspaper.

If I ever contribute to the Socialist movement the book that I sometimes dream of, I know what I shall name it: Industrial Blindness and Social Deafness.

Published as part of Red de Blogs Communistas.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Wichita, KS- Republican Party Hack Peterjohn shows anti-Muslim ugliness

While we see cowardly politicians across the US, pulling back from this countries commitments to take in Syrian refugees, we also have an example of that mean spiritedness here in Wichita, KS and Sedgwick Country.
The Wichita Eagle has reported on comments by Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn warning citizens to “be prepared” against the imminent “Islamist threat.” The county commissioners also passed a resolution condemning the ISIS attacks on Paris and Russia
Peterjohn showed a slide show depicting criminals and terrorists who use the name Muhammad. This is in step nation-wide with many politicians and pundits across the country who want to lump all Muslims together and treat them all as terrorists and potential terrorists.
The Islamic Society of Wichita gave some statements on its website:

“I think they [Peterjohn’s comments] are very inflammatory,” said Madi. “And I think we should educate the public about who the Muslims are. A lot of Americans are Muslisms. They serve in this city, and along the United States, all over, in every state and every city, [they] are doctors, highly educated people....
We condemn this horrific attack in the strongest terms possible. Such inexcusable acts of violence must be repudiated by Americans of all faiths and backgrounds. The American Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow citizens in offering condolences to the loved ones of those killed and injured and in rejecting anyone who would harm the humanity safety and security. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families impacted by this tragedy.”

There is nothing surprising about Perterjohn's rant. The Republican Party members have been saying such things since the attacks in Paris. He is local so we can approach him and confront him locally about this.

Armstrong Williams defends Ben Carson's anti-Muslim comments

Indian Blockade and Nepalese Maoists

From Maoist_Revolution:

By Rishi Raj Baral
At the outset, I would like to inform that, since two months, we Nepalese people are facing ruthless economic blockade, imposed by the Indian expansionism. Indian fascist government wants Nepal to be under his control like Bhutan, a small landlocked country of South East Asia. It wants to treat Nepal as his own province. Indian expansionism is exercising neo-colonialism, forgetting that Nepal, a country which safeguarded its sovereignty and independence even at the time when the world was divided among the world empires, is a sovereign, independent country.
Nepal has executed new Constitution and has formed a new government in the leadership of KP Oli, Chairman of UCPN (ML). The new constitution of Nepal is not a people's constitution, it is not based on the revolutionary content. In fact, it is a constitution based on multiparty parliamentary system. And the newly formed government also is not the government of Communist revolutionaries. UCPN (ML) and UCPN(Maoist) both are the followers of multiparty parliamentary system. But, it is a matter of surprise that, India has imposed economic blockade, violating the international law on the rights of a landlocked country.  It is known to all that India wished to manage the Nepalese Constitution in his own command and to form the government in the leadership of of pro- Indian parties like Nepali Congress and Tarai (plain) based  parties.
 It will be better to make clear that, federal system was/is not the voice of the Nepalese People, it was forcefully imposed by the Indian expansionism through Tarai based pro-Indian parties and NGOs, so that, India could mange plain area of Nepal according to his interest. No doubt, India’s design is to split Tarai region and merge the Nepali territory in the Indian union.  It is known to all that, after the invasion on Sikkim, Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, had intended to split the southern part of Nepal, through political conspiracy. It is the matter to note that, India has not clarified, on claims made by former RAW chief RK Yadav regarding Indian plans to break the Tarai region. Yadav, chief of RAW  during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as PM, in his book, Mission RAW , stated that India had planned to disintegrate the Tarai region. 'Madhesi Morchaa'  is the joint front of Tarai based pro-Indian parties, who is working  for the Indian interest. Now Modi Government is executing that unfinished work by Indira Gandhi, through these anti- nationalist elements.
India has not given permission to entrance any vehicle including fuel and Medicine in the Nepalese territory. Fuel problem, particularly lack of cooking gas and medicine are the main problem that Nepalese people are facing these days. In fact, it is the declaration of war by India, against Nepal and Nepalese People. 
The blockade imposed by India has produced a lot of fury among the Nepalese people. They have come out in the street chanting the slogan 'Back off India', 'Modi! Remove Blockade'. Not only this, we have got support and understanding from the intellectuals and journalists of India and abroad.
It is a matter of worry that Oli government has no any scientific plan and program to solve this national crisis. Frequently Nepalese People are facing these problems since long time (it is third time that India has imposed blockade on Nepal)  and now we want a long term policy, plan and program to solve this type of crisis. Words are not enough, people want to be aware of  in action.
Now we have another question, in such critical circumstance. where are the Maoists of Nepal? What should they do and what are they doing? In fact, we have a vital question:  Are there Maoists in Nepal ? This is the question to be answered.
Yes, there are, but, all the glitters is not gold.
I have not to say anything more about UCPN (Maoist) and Prachanda- Bhattarai, a lot of has been written about them. As I have mentioned above,  they have declared themselves as the follower of pluralism, multiparty democracy and parliamentary system. Now Prachand and his followers are enjoying with more and more chairs in the Oli government. 
 Baburam Bhattarai, who is known as the faithful client of Indian expansionism, has left the accompany of Prachanda and going to form another party based on 'social democracy'. Each and every Nepalese citizen knows, that since long time, he is working for the Indian interest. He is one of the key person, who betrayed the Nepalese Maoist Movement and now he is  betraying with the National  interest. 'Madhesi Morcha' and Baburam Bhattarai are moving in the same direction, as guided by their Indian Master.
Then there remains two 'Maoist' organizations, one is led by Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' and another  led by Netra Bikram Chanda 'Wiplav'.
Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' who was (now I am compelled to mention 'was') known as a revolutionary leader, also have lost his presence among the oppressed people. In fact, he has lost his revolutionary ground.  He is the strong supporter of federal system and identity politics. His group wants to reunite with UCPN (Maoist) led by Prachanda, and to take part in local and national election. Now Kiran faction has joined hands with a small faction CPN (Unified), led by Pari Thapa, who always denied Maoism and played the negative role during the Ten Years People's War.  After the party unification they have named it as CPN (Revolutionary Maoist). Though they have named it as 'Revolutionary Maoist', but philosophically, ideologically and politically they have abandoned the revolutionary path, the path of Peoples War and the New Democratic Revolution, guided by Comrade Mao tse-tung.
 In their press statement, released after the party unification, they have mentioned that the political line of their party will be 'people's revolt'. It means, that they have taken the road of Russian Model, the Model of October Revolution.  In reality, they are heading towards the same road adopted by Prachand, in the name of changing national/international  situation. No doubt, sooner or later Kiran will join hands with Prachanda. Not only this, they have made alliance with 'Federal Socialist Forum Nepal'  one of the major faction of 'Madhesi Morchaa', that works for the Indian interest.  It It is crystal clear that, the party led by Mohan Baidhya, has no any revolutionary plan and program to move the Nepalese Revolution ahead.
Now we have another Maoist party led by Netra Bikram Chanda 'Viplav'. Most of the young leaders, cadres and former PLA have joined CPN Maoist led by Chanda. Likewise, most of the leaders of the sister organizations, particularly, student, trade union and Dalit organisations also have joined  CPN Maoist. It is  the positive aspect of   Chanda led Maoist Party, that they  have no any  confusion about identity politics and federal system.  But it is a matter of irony that, this faction also is not clear in the ideological and political line, that should be adopted for the Nepalese revolution.  Chanda Party has mentioned that armed struggle will be the road to the Nepalese revolution. It is a positive aspect, but what type of armed struggle, that the Nepalese revolution needs, is not clear. Just to mention armed struggle is not enough.  Maoist People's War or armed struggle of Foco type, they have not analyzed it in their document.
It seems that Chanda faction is not in the position to follow the path of Maoist People's War. In their document they have not mentioned the need and significance of 'three magical weapons' as guided by Mao tse-tung. Rather than, they have mentioned 'Unified People's Revolution' as their political line. They have replaced 'Unified People's Revolution' in the place of New Democratic Revolution. What is 'Unified Revolution' and  what type of armed struggle they are pleading for the Nepalese revolution ? It is hard to understand.  In an article written by Chanda in the party organ, Janakranti (People's Revolution), he has mentioned that " we cannot accomplish the task of revolution only spinning within the boundary of  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." This kind of opinion reflects only the post-MLM thinking- a road to liquidation.   Instead of agrarian class struggle, they have emphasized the role of urban struggle and "middle class". In fact, as they have mentioned in their party document, they have recognized "middle class" as the basic force for the Nepalese revolution. It means Chanda faction also is not clear about the Nepalese revolution.
Now without any hesitation, I would like to stress that, though they have documented MLM as their guiding principal, but in practice, both Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' and Netra Bikram Chanda 'Viplav' have diverted from the path of People's War, the path of New Democratic Revolution. Mohan Baidhya is pleading ''people's revolt" as their political line and Chanda is pleading the line of  ''unified revolution". It is the fact that, in the name of changing situation, both have diverted from the revolutionary path of MLM, and heading towards liquidation. Thus, it is the reality that, there are Maoist revolutionaries in Nepal, we have ''Revolutionary Intellectual- Cultural Front,  but there is no any revolutionary Maoist Party  in Nepal.
Let us wait and see how these two 'Maoist' organizations move ahead.
In my opinion, Chanda faction should think over its political line. As we know, only the New Democratic Revolution can solve the contradiction of Nepalese society, and we can achieve this only through the People's War. Firmly, I would like to stress that, there is one and only one way to achieve the revolutionary goal, that is Maoist People's War–the  People's War of Nepalese character.
As I have mentioned above, Nepalese people have come out in the street chanting the slogan 'Back off India', 'Modi! Remove Blockade'. But Oli government has no any scientific policy and program to solve the national crisis. In such circumstances revolutionaries should take the situation in their own hand.  Now the time has come to come out in the street raising the flag of National sovereignty and People's Democracy. Only genuine Maoists can lead the People towards the New Democratic Revolution.
  Now CPN Maoist led by Viplab,  has declared nationwide movement against Indian expansionism. Similarly, they have warned Oli Government to solve the national crisis  promptly. It is a positive step, but  Chanda Party should take it gravely that only street movements are not enough, it needs ideological and political clarity. We must have a long term plan and policy that heads towards the New Democratic Revolution.