Tuesday, 29 September 2015



PUTIN (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Your excellency Mr. President, your excellency Mr. Secretary General, distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.

In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order.

But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.

The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.

This swept through the planet in the 20th century.

Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council.

However, I'd like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization.

When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.

Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way.

It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.

Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.

We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.

It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.

But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.

It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.

First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.

Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.

In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.

To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.

Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?

Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.

We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all.

However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.

The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now.

It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide.

Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East.

First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East.

Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.

First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result.

We're confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition.

Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.

I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries.

Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.

These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) '20.

Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China's initiative of the Silk Road economic belt.

We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.

As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.

I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.

We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I'm confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.

We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.

Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session.

Mr. Suleta (ph) (inaudible), a Colombian diplomat and the chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery and spirit of cooperation.

Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N. I'm confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations.

Thank you.




Nice to see Xi Jinping nearly directly quoting Mao-Tse Tung and a Chinese proverb in his speech at the UNGA.

"Lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet" is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behavior of certain fools. The reactionaries in all countries are fools of this kind. In the final analysis, their persecution of the revolutionary people only serves to accelerate the people's revolutions on a broader and more intense scale. Did not the persecution of the revolutionary people by the tsar of Russia and by Chiang Kai-shek perform this function in the great Russian and Chinese revolutions?

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

(Picture taken from today's guardian newspaper)


An often asserted attack on Scottish Independence is that the some Scots were involved in the british colonial project, and thus their claim to independence is not legitimate.

Some people of the Indian subcontinent also played into empire (albeit not to the extent of the people on this island), fought for it, and enjoyed some benefits from it, some of us were promoted into strategic divide and rule privileged positions in East Africa, does that mean people of the subcontinent should not have fought for independence? Of course we should, and we did.

One has to 'work through' these contradictions to a higher ground of conceptual and actual struggle, and this is what the Scots under the leadership of the SNP is delivering. The SNP and the state of play historically at this moment for Scottish independence still has colonial hangovers, there is no pure strategy of delinking from imperialist economy and many other contradictions, however, the importance  for the global struggle against neocolonialism is that the Scottish people not only are seeking to historically and irreversibly break british imperialism from the 'inside', but that this process opens them and in relation the whole people of these islands and beyond to new radical anti-imperialist thinking.

The other obvious point to make is this:

The elites of the Irish and some lower classes from that were also bought into british colonialism, but we don't say that they should never have fought or should fight for independence.

And the other very obvious point is that the english working class historically AND STILL currently ideologically and materially buy into imperialism, but we all advocate that they should overthrow british imperialism.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


Gavin Newlands: Instead of “new politics”, Corbyn's anti-SNP dogma continues a decades-old tradition


JEREMY Corbyn emphatically won the Labour Party leadership contest just over a fortnight ago, despite the best efforts of his parliamentary colleagues.

In fact, just a matter of weeks before his victory he was regarded by those same colleagues as one of the few remnants of the "loony left" of Labour's past.

Corbyn was swept to victory on a wave of disillusionment with the traditional and archaic Westminster model of politics. His ticket was clear: “new politics”, anti-austerity and anti-Trident.

I believed that this could be a break with the past and that this was a Labour leader who the SNP could work with to oppose the Tories.

After all, whilst he was a backbencher, Corbyn voted with the SNP group at Westminster more than any other Labour MP.

However, yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show – after only two weeks of being the leader of the Labour Party – Corbyn appeared to adopt the anti-SNP rhetoric and soundbites of Labour leaders of the past.

He, rather bizarrely, claimed that the SNP had privatised both ScotRail and Caledonian MacBrayne – and went on to say that that “flags don’t build houses” and the SNP was not anti-austerity.

First of all, the railways in Scotland were privatised in 1993 after John Major’s Tory government passed the Railways Act.

This legislation, of course, predates the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the election of the SNP Scottish Government – but Corbyn should know that as he had been an MP for 10 years when the Act was debated and passed in the House of Commons.

Caledonian MacBrayne is, contrary to the new Labour leader’s accusations on the Andrew Marr Show, a public organisation owned by the Scottish Government. CalMac cannot, in any way, be described as being “privatised”.

Nevertheless, the new Labour leader is right about one thing: flags certainly do not build houses. However, neither does the Labour Party.

The SNP has delivered 4,500 new council houses in Scotland since 2007 – compared to the six that Labour completed during their last term in government – despite swinging cuts to the Scottish Government’s budget.

Corbyn and his Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, have been believed to be radical backbench MPs frustrated with New Labour’s flirtation with neo-liberalism and the party’s lurch to the right.

It is therefore surprising to hear the new Shadow Chancellor, who now holds the power to change tack, commit a future Labour government to the Tory’s fiscal policy.

Unfortunately, Jeremy Corbyn’s “new politics” didn’t last long. In fact, it has taken Jeremy just a fortnight to realise that winning a leadership contest is one thing. Changing and driving through a new policy agenda is quite another.

Corbyn's impotence in this area was laid bare this weekend when his attempt to secure a debate on Labour’s position on Trident failed to make it on to his party's conference agenda.

Labour leaders appear to make a perpetual promise of a “new politics” that is radically different to the Westminster status quo during elections, referenda and leadership contests – but fail to fulfil their promise.

Instead, the anti-SNP dogma that has engulfed the Labour Party for decades continues. This time we really thought it might be different, but as ever, Labour flatter to deceive and it's a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

If it were ever in doubt, the 56-strong SNP group at Westminster is the real opposition to this Tory government and their ideologically-driven agenda.

Gavin Newlands is SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North


Corbyn finished his Labour Party conference speech today with a quote from Kier Hardie. I am mot a supporter of the Labour Party, but Hardie supported home rule for Scotland, Corbyn and John McDonnell are attacking Scottish independence and Scottish nationalists on the basis of lies (for more info see below on my wall). Home rule for Scotland was a PRIMARY DEMAND of Hardie's as can be seen in the following images.

Furthermore, Hardie supported the first world war and recruited many working class :

"A nation at war must be united, especially when its existence is at stake. In such filibustering expeditions as our own Boer war […] where no national interest of any kind was involved, there were many occasions for diversity of opinion […] With the boom of the enemy guns within earshot, the lads who have gone forth to fight their country’s battles must not be disheartened by any discordant notes at home" (source)

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


All my life and for about a century the Labour Party has administered colonial genocide against African and Asian People, for all my life those of us who argued that the Labour Party is a thoroughly racist and imperialist party were in tiny numbers on this island, easily dismissed in a racist and colonially arrogant manner, cos who cares about us? No one but us. 

However now there is an anti-colonial Union force that cannot be ignored and has defeated the Tories AND Labour in Scotland and they will defeat the current Labour leadership if they continue to spout colonial lies and conceit on our Scottish family.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


Mhairi Black: The election of Corbyn changes nothing

The National

THE election of Jeremy Corbyn was one of those occasions which prove you can never truly predict politics, especially when watching events unfold from within the cynical walls of Westminster.

When he announced his candidacy for the leadership I had multiple conversations with Labour MPs, old and new, who spoke of their frustration and anger that he had put himself forward.

He was, they said, “bringing the party into disrepute” and causing them to have “an old 1980s debate” that they didn’t need to have. The fear that they would be forever unelectable was palpable. If the SNP landslide was considered cataclysmic by many Labour MPs, then the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader was to be considered apocalyptic.

I, like so many others in Scotland, know that this is not an attitude shared widely among a substantial number of the people in the UK, especially in Scotland. The election of a socialist leader is to be viewed by many as a sign of hope. A sign that Labour in England and Wales may actually begin to work with the SNP and take the hand of friendship that has been outstretched. What has been questionable is the insinuation that this is evidence that Labour is returning to its roots as the party my grandpa and father used to vote for. I have received many (often taunting) emails and tweets asking me when I will be “coming home” to join Labour under Corbyn’s leadership. The answer is that I won’t be, and I hope to use this article to articulate exactly why.

For many years there has been a romanticism attached to Labour as the party of social justice, that sticks up for the working class, when the reality could not be further from the truth. Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader seems to have given a burst of energy to this sentimentality which I feel needs closer inspection.

However, firstly I must give credit where it is due. Much of Corbyn’s campaign was incredibly similar in terms of tactics and reception to that of the Yes campaign. It was carried out at a grassroots level with multiple open public meetings for people to speak their minds. It was built on the hope that things could be better if only we could hit some kind of reset button on our political establishment. Even the vilification by the media was similar to that which the Yes campaign faced. Relentless vilification and false portrayal by the media is something I am very familiar with and find as challenging as I do intolerable. It is because of this that I want to make explicitly clear my respect and admiration in the way that Corbyn handled himself, with dignity and class, and it is something that should be noted. His campaign vindicated the viewpoint of many disillusioned voters in rUK, telling them that it was indeed okay to stand up to the political consensus around austerity.

However, even if Corbyn stays true to his beliefs and holds strong in the face of unrelenting criticism, the fact is that he has yet to convince his own party of his beliefs and ideology. The idea that purely because of the leadership result Labour have somehow reverted to a collectivist, Nye Bevan, post-war Labour Party overnight is as ridiculous as it is naive. The shift in the political philosophy of the Labour Party to the right has been long cultivated over more than 20 years by many willing party members and elected members both in Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament. Let’s not forget that despite the current Scottish Labour leader’s convenient claim that she would be “delighted” to work with Jeremy Corbyn after his surge in support, Kezia Dugdale originally stated that Labour would be “left carping on the sidelines” if the left-wing candidate won the leadership.

The Cabinet itself is filled with New Labour Blairites, whose voting records often suggest that they will be completely at odds with some of Corbyn’s flagship left-wing views. Not only is the lack of women in major positions a worrying feature of his Cabinet, but the appointment of the unelected Lord Falconer as shadow justice secretary immediately calls in to question his assertions that the Lords should be reformed/abolished in place of an elected second chamber. Will it be the same when it comes to votes on other flagship ideals?

If I were to play devil’s advocate I would say he is simply trying to unite his deeply divided party by bringing in a wide spectrum of opinion, which in theory is fine and sensible, but therein lies the problem at the heart of Labour and the problem at the heart of Unionism.

Scotland has made clear what its position on these issues is and has done so for many years. We have voted Labour for the past 40+ years. We voted Labour in 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2010 – and each time we were rewarded with an English-elected Conservative government. We have voted for policies on the left of the political spectrum and yet continually find ourselves at the mercy of Thatcherite policies.

I say this in full knowledge that I will receive many lazy and redundant responses telling me to get over the referendum result and that I am just a bitter independence supporter. I will receive multiple complaints of “that’s how democracy works. You don’t always get what you want”.

I reject that argument because we are not talking about a lost election, we are talking about a very real democratic deficit that exists in Scotland so long as we are part of this Union. It is the main reason I believe in independence and the ultimate reason why I have no desire to join Labour. Scotland has found the very confidence that Corbyn has inspired in some places in England. It exercised it during the General Election when people realised they deserved better than what they were being offered by their traditional party and decided to vote based on policy rather than on blind and romanticised party loyalty. Despite Scotland electing 94.9 per cent of its representatives on an anti-austerity platform, why is it then acceptable that Scotland should be forced to endure increased austerity? By Corbyn placing an unelected Lord in his Cabinet, he not only brings into question his commitment to elected accountability, but he demonstrates that in attempting to unify his party there is, and will always be, the need for right-wing compromise.

Despite this upsurge and momentum that has become apparent through Corbyn’s campaign, the reality is that England still voted Tory. Yes, his election may give us hope that the desire for change exists to an extent in England as well, and the SNP will happily work with Corbyn on many issues to achieve many desired changes, but the point is that Scotland should not have to be reliant on a Jeremy Corbyn character to achieve those changes. Scotland has allowed itself to be totally dependent on whatever England (as the largest country in the UK) chooses to vote. We will only ever get Labour if England chooses Labour. That is not democracy.

I am pleased to see a socialist in a position of influence in England just as I would anywhere else in the world, but one in five of our children still lives in poverty due to the policies of this English-elected Conservative government. For all the good causes Jeremy Corbyn appears to believe in, ultimately Scotland should not have to endure horrendous policies for 20-year interludes while we wait and hope that an English electorate may see fit to elect an occasional Corbyn-type character. More than ever we need to take control of our own affairs. Nicola Sturgeon said David Cameron was “living on borrowed time”. That is time that those one in five do not have.


Friday, 25 September 2015



The west has lost every single approach and propaganda posture on Syria. Every single one

Sukant Chandan
Sons of Malcolm

Been reflecting on ‪#‎Syria‬ for a while now, some observations and analysis on what is a near total change of tune from the enemy!

First and foremostly, massive respect and honour needs to be imparted to the Syrian government, army, people, and allied forces in standing up to this imperialist death squad horror story for over 4 years now: this Resistance has kept aloft the whole global struggle against imperialism, and as such a massive debt of honour should be given to the Syrian people and their allies, especially Iran, Hizbullah, Russia, Socialist Korea/DPRK, and China as well as many other countries across the global south who have pushed back at the enemy in support of Syria.

The imperialists seem to be changing their tune in recent weeks, and keep talking about engaging with the Syrian government to eradicate terrorism etc. While vigilance should always be employed, and military readiness needs to be developed no matter what. However, there are certain things that have taken place that has led to this shift of atmosphere music and apparent policy:

- While divide and ruin, ie., the total destruction of our Homelands lest they have a functional relationship with the non-western world, is still a clear policy of the 'west', there are certain difficult to control consequences of such:

- Gaddafi warned back in early 2011 that if Libya was destroyed 'europe would turn Black', and the destruction of Libya and the partial defacto partition and destruction of Syria has indeed led directly to a mass exodus of people from Africa and Asia to europe. While europe definitely benefits from this despite its racist anti-immigrant/refugee posture especially around its own demographic and related crises, nevertheless this mass migration has led to masses of european people blaming western govts for not dealing with this more competently. Much of this criticism from western masses includes in great deal a white supremacist racist under/overtone along the lines of: 'you MUST stop these dirty Black n Brown hordes swarming into our pure and superior european sphere!!'

This has put the western governments on the spot, and they have to 'do something'. 'Doing something' by western govts and their masses usually means destroying our Homelands, but if they continue to do more of that our peoples will come in even greater numbers to europe!

- The west's own death squads (which the mass sections of pro Ikhwan and pro qaeda/isis Muslim orgs and leftist and liberal orgs have been championing and still are in a lot of cases) have failed to do the job in Syria, and it has been increasingly exposed the collusion with these death squads by western states. While these death squads are continuing to be used and proliferated, their strategic value has been check mated in Syria, and also in Russia, Central Asia and China, and also to a considerable extent in many other countries including Egypt, Tunisia, and even Libya has seen a push back against them. Those who boast of eating human organs on camera, commit sexual enslaving of girls and women, try to wipe out those they consider outside their supremacist opinions of themselves, and other depravities are not the best advertisements of western styled 'regime change' and 'exporting human rights and democracy', and the sum total of billions spent on a force that the west can proudly trumpet literally sums up in about 4 fighters! LOL Such is the ability for learning for the depraved death squad recruits to fight in the exact way the west would like them to.

The west has lost every single approach and propaganda posture on Syria. Every single one.

- Russia once again has played the geopolitical physical force game brilliantly: just as they have seen the west squirming in their seats increasingly, losing the message on the migration issue, Russia steps up noises about increased military assistance to the Syrian govt against the death squads which has sent the enemy into a frenzy of troubled and terrified anxieties! lol Putin's visit to the colonial white settler state ('israel') was a brilliant move showing the enemy that they cannot rely on what they consider their own attack dog in the region. Putin's visit to tel aviv sent the message clearly that 'israel' will not join in with the west while Russia has stepped up a gear with their partners in Syria to push forward to clean up operation against these supremacist death squad scumbags. Everytime Russia stands up a little to the west this last decade, the west run around like crazy begging for a compromise with the Putin/Russia. All the more good for Humanity!

My guess is that the Syrians and partners along with the Russians will mercilessly now clean up increasingly in Syria and that will be the basis of any negotiation process that will keep and strengthen the Syrian govt with some reforms.

The next steps, and there has been a lot of noise but little real show of purpose thus far, is a big strategic alliance led by Russia, China and Iran as much as possible, in the 'Muslim world' to start stabilising our Homelands which means utterly and historically defeating the west's death squads. In this regard, Putin opening up the biggest Mosque in 'europe' (is Russia europe?? that's another impotent debate!) is a clever move to help shift the centre of Muslim and Islamic leadership OUT of the pockets of the junior death squad leadership in the region (ie., gulf monarchies) and into the orbit of forces who can actually open up the conceptual space for and into the orbit of a decolonial and anti-imperialist Muslim and Islamic leadership.

I am sure I got some things not quite right, and missed out some other things, but thats my considered thoughts.

Tuesday, 22 September 2015


Things fall apart in 21st century 'UK'

Sukant Chandan
Sons of Malcolm

Politics seems to be surreal as ever. While Jeremy Corbyn's camp were being pummelled on the ropes, beaten into brit state-friendly shape, they were indirectly (?) handed a big respite from an unlikely quarter: senior tory Lord Ashcroft, whose new book's revelations about the sordid and depraved initiation ceremony in relation to david cameron's time at oxford uni has left the british prime minister deeply humiliated on the world stage and as such he is on a countdown to being out of his job.

The crises impacting the 'uk' state keeps growing it seems: hardly a day goes by without the mainstream press running stories about the uk elite organised child abuse and sex abuse crimes. There is no movement to pressure the state and the press to report these things, so why are they being reported? Is it a case of the criminals being finally under some sort of spotlight and the criminals falling out with each other due to finger pointing and running scared? Why did william hague disappear from the political leadership of the tory govt? He was deeply implicated in the sex abuse at westminster, and allegations he himself was sexually abused.

All the while there is the fall out from the british-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Iraq again, Afghanistan again and more recently Libya and Syria: while imperialism benefits in many ways from these wars it has shown itself to be incompetent and criminally culpable for the mass exodus of people from North Africa and West Asia coming into europe, its a colossal mess of a situation. They have destroyed and defacto partitioned Iraq, Libya and Syria, but they have not destroyed and defeated the Syrian govt, the Russians have always been in Syria militarily, but it seems the Russians are employing a little more pressure on the west, and the west time and time again seemed terrified of the Russian bear (be it in Georgia 2007, Ukraine of late, defeating the open imperialist war on Syria recently etc). The british govt looks like a bunch of irresponsible criminals, and at least as totally incompetent by most people in britain and across europe and the world.

All the while the tory govt and Osborne is stating, in open defiance of the yanks attacking his govt on this issue, that he wants the uk to be China's best friend in the 'western' world, and seals the deal that will see China construct new nuclear power plants in this country. There is no doubt that certain ruling sections of the british state will be rather alarmed at what they might see as very short-termist approaches in relation to China by those who are administering this ancient colonial state. All the while, Corbyn gave a nod of approval to the anti-Chinese section of the uk state by mentioning China only once this last week, at his speech at the TUC where he attacked China for its trade union situation (which is actually very good, and much better than this country!) and did so in a really low and disgusting manner by attacking trade unions in relation to the terrible Tianjin disaster.

All the while the Scots are increasingly defeating and out-maneuvering the british state, and to quote Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon the 'british govt is living on borrowed time', a blatant and bold threat of another referendum on independence. This is another major humiliating factor for the british state, a whole chunk of 'your' colonised people want out!

Then comes along the noisy but non-capacity holding Corbyn and his camp to the leadership of the party of 'her majesty's opposition'. Because Corbyn and his camp are 'up the river with no paddle' he has been beaten and will continue to be beaten into shape. I am NOT saying that Corbyn has been put into his place by the state, but the state could have of course ensured that he failed in his endeavour, perhaps they could not risk looking utterly and openly dictatorial so had to let him ride to the leadership of the labour party? Nevertheless, Corbyn has given the british state its biggest most functional chance of 'saving' the british state in at attempt at prying the Scots away from the growing pro independence direction and back into the colonial union through attracting back to the colonial unionist labour party. Maybe if Corbyn can be beaten into shape as an even less 'red' than ed miliband he could be given a chance in the next general election, indications are imho that Corbyn won't last six months or maximum a year, but let's see.

Lots of very interesting things are developing which is corroding the stability and unity of this, the oldest colonial state in the world. It's literally falling apart and cannot keep 'on message'. It's a tragic shame that African and Asian heritage communities and diaspora are playing no strategically anti-imperialist and socialist-oriented role in these massive opportunities that are before us, rather they are passive onlookers or co-opted into the mainstream, although Black and esp Asian communities in Scotland tend to be for the SNP and independence, which is a good sign and its in Scotland MUCH MORE than in London actually that a Black/Asian radical opening and movement could be forged, but there is no opening or potential of that and supporting the SNP and independence is a good enough radical position to be in.

This multifaceted crisis impacting this state will continue to grow, and there will be and are very very few voices who can attempt at weaving these elements together.

Sunday, 20 September 2015


Update on Jeremy Corbyn​ and Co - increasingly and frantically jumping to rightwards

Sukant Chandan
Sons of Malcolm

While the English left were buoyed up by the mass leftward turn in Scotland around the SNP the independence campaign etc, they never got their heads around the symbiotic nature of class, nation, anti-imperialism as it directly informs and relates to the Scottish situation and the general and primary situation, tasks and challenges  and hence continue to be in near total denial about the rightward trajectory of the english working class which in turns informs the failed-before-its-started nature of the Corbyn hype and delusions.

HOWEVER, now Corbyn and Co are in what passes as 'leadership' of the Labour Party, they have to some extent hit the brutality of reality: they are increasingly jumping rightwards, which the william hague of the left - owen jokes - has been advocating for many many weeks anyway (for example).

Corbyn's close colleague John McDonnell​ was appointed in second position in the shadow cabinet as chancellor (finance minister), and his performance on the recent bbc question time (source) showed the problematic nature of this whole Corbyn hype: McDonnell is well known historically for his support for the Irish Republican Movement, instead of a robust and direct defence of his support on the program under the attacks of people stating on the show that 'northern ireland is as occupied by the british as is surrey', 'britain has given more to the world than taken away from it', 'political terrorism was only conducted by the IRA in Ireland' etc McDonnell made an apology "from the bottom of his heart" for saying pro IRA comments previously. It was a very obvious fake apology. This is the clear pattern of the Corbyn camp, they get under a bit of right wing pressure and totally buckle.

Furthermore on the program, McDonnell states Corbyn did not sing the national anthem at the service for the army vets cos he was 'so overwhelmed the service that he was in a daze and forgot to sing the anthem', another totally unconvincing argument!

Meanwhile, while Corbyn did not go to the opening of the rugby world cup cos he says he was dealing with his constituents weekly surgery in North London, but then pulls out of speaking at the 'Stop the War' conference which would have been his last speech as its chairman. Furthermore, Corbyn and Co have refused to oppose Nato and are increasingly in support of Trident (a direct colonial slap in the face to the Scots were the nuke subs are based).

In a recent interview with a propaganda arm of the Qatari monarchy (source), Corbyn states nothing of course of the open british collusion with death squads in the 'Muslim world', as that would put him in direct counter opposition to a central not-so-covert strategy of the british state, but did advocate openly a 'human rights imperialism' in stating that all negotiations with the Iranians by the british state led by the tories now or with him as PM would put their human rights situation at the heart of the talks! He bemoaned some british arms deals with the Saudis, but of course said nothing about Qatari Monarchy cos he was on their propaganda platform, the Qatari state plays a massive role in alliance with the brits in developing war and death squads in the region and also Qatari money is a major plank of keeping the british imperialist economy afloat (massive investments in the property and finance in london).

On the Scottish issue owen jokes has put across bluntly what many of us who oppose Labour with or without Corbyn as THE bulwark of the british state to keep the union, owen jokes recent article in the guardian was entitled: "Only a convincing Labour party stands between Scotland and independence"! ie., exactly what we have been saying for weeks, while jokes supports the union and I oppose the union, we are agreed that there is basically two mutually antagonistic positions: support the leftward mass turn on this island by supporting Scottish independence, or support Labour/Corbyn/the union which maintains and deepens the colonial consensus in england.

The poor old varoufakis came over recently, and had to even admit that the sell out and failure of Syriza is a good lesson to Corbyn and co (source).

In conclusion, as I have been saying all along, there is NO LEFTWARD shift in england, the Corbyn hype is based on a tiny section of the english left population who are actually nearly wholly beholden to left imperialism, and even the minutest of possibilities of a leftward shift in england via Corbyn has been neutralised cos the english left behind Corbyn are clueless and cannot and have not built capacity for over 25 years and continue to fail in this regard. Corbyn and Co have decided to deny and reject a strategic alliance with the SNP which the SNP (and Plaid) offered. The english left SHOULD have built a serious project this last 25 years, they have not, they are increasingly weak, they have not learnt ANY lessons from Sinn Fein, Plaid or the SNP, quite the opposite, they remain hostile and run behind the british state on every imperialist adventure across the world (they patronise 'latin' America cos the brits have no active policies compared to Africa and Asia).

The Labour Party MPs hate Corbyn, even asking a mass exodus into the Labour Party to bolster Corbyn's position means a left coup within the Labour Party which would then have to impose a new group of councillors across the country for election next may and then a new wave of pro Corbyn MP candidates for the next general election, all of whom would have to enter into a direct battle against the SNP on a colonial unionist ticket ie., ALL UTTER PIE IN THE SKY.

My apologies to everyone that there are people in england who are promoting this mess as anything better than the actual sorry state of english left imperialist backwardness and infantile delusions that it obviously is. I wish it were different. I wish there was something of substance in this. But I have been active in the english left was 20 years, and I know this phenomenon closely and understand its evolving/devolving nature. My critique is not ultra left, and it is not right wing either: the english situation requires at the same time the development of alliance building towards a new and serious project of decolonial socialism, needs to develop a mass line and mass work including in mainstream political structures (councillors, MPs, MEPs etc), but needs to be rooted in a firm and uncompromising decolonial anti-imperialism. Tall order, I know! But is there any alternative? Maybe there is no mass base for any socialist-oriented decolonial anti-imperialism in england for the foreseeable future, that might be a cold reality.  If there is potential, then people really have to ideologically and practically pull together and build this project that will take decades to get anywhere. There are no short cuts.

If the english left and their delusional, utterly opportunistic supporters were serious: they would from now start preparing for the coming big defeat and depression that the failure of the Corbyn hype is about to produce. They won't, they will continue to lead people down the sordid path of spinning imperialist social democratic delusions as 'something good', and will fail the millions of our people who want to see british imperialism weakened, the Scots succeed, the british and esp english stop wanting to butter their bread on the basis of our bones and blood and maybe even support our actually existing liberation struggles.

Victory to Scottish Independence.

Friday, 18 September 2015


Why can't Scottish National Party (SNP)​ / Scottish nationalists and Jeremy Corbyn​ and Co just unite?: In the british colonial period the british imperialist left used to say to the our people fighting for freedom from colonialism that we are not 'mature' enough, we are not perfect enough to be supported, that we were not ready to lead our own struggle for our own rights and independence, that we should be led by the 'mother country' radicals, we should know our place and not question the superiority of the imperialist socialist movement and that actually we are spoiling and sabotaging and were rude distractions to the much more important and superior struggle of the socialist movement within the colonial centre.

Similarly today we can see this dynamic internal to this island between the english socialists who support the colonial union, the english socialists have no movement, no actual or projected strategic power or capacity, no plan: nothing. While the Scots with all their contradictions have a mass based strong movement for their rights and independence led by a serious party with other leftist movements in support. The Scottish nationalists in the SNP *and* the Scottish independence socialist formations outside of the SNP reached out a hand of strategic friendship to Labour pre Corbyn and during Corbyn, they wanted a united front against the tory government, the Corbyn camp have rejected the offer and reaffirmed their (left) colonial unionist position.

It is worth people being critically reflective of the problems of english/british colonial conceit and ignorance towards the 'internal' colonies of this island. The same dynamic was evident in the colonial period towards our peoples, the same attitude is present today in the english/western left's hatred and left support of imperialist attacks and destructions of our countries, and also the same dynamic has always been and remains present towards the english/western left and Black and Asian anti-imperialist / anti-racist struggles within the 'west'.

Here are the quotes from Corbyn as to his rejection of Scottish powers and independence, and also it is very clear the SNP and its mass base are deeply unimpressed with Corbyn and his camp refusing a strategic partnership with them against the tories.

"Speaking to The Courier ahead of a packed-out rally in Dundee University’s Dalhousie Building, Jeremy Corbyn rejected the idea of holding another vote on the constitution, despite comparisons being made between his campaign and the narrative used by the SNP."


"Mr Corbyn said: “Obviously it is the right of people to decide what they want to do but the last time there was a referendum I was told by Alex Salmond it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

“I don’t know how many lifetimes were involved in this.

“I don’t think another referendum would be credible and I don’t think it is particularly likely."


- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Thursday, 17 September 2015


Jeremy Corbyn​ and his first PMQs (prime ministers question time in house of commons) yesterday 

Corbyn said nice and supportive things about people in relatively increasing economic precarious situations in britain, however, this is something every labour leader and labour opposition have done in relation to tory govts and is nothing new. The problem is it was clear most Labour MPs are utterly embarrassed by and do not support Corbyn (not even a third of his own MPs cheered him as he approached the opposition leaders stand), speaker after speaker from the tories trammelled Corbyn especially on 'national security' (IRA, Russia, Socialist Korea, Syria, 'isil' etc) and there was NO come back from Corbyn or his colleagues. It was a horrible and cringe inspiring car crash to watch, with the only relief coming from the very impressive Angus Robertson MP​, a leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP)​, however Corbyn and his camp have basically refused a strategic alliance with the SNP against the tory govt, and have instead defacto aligned themselves with the tories against the SNP.

I wish this Corbyn hype had legs, it hasn't, it is terribly crippled with no hope of picking up pace: you are dealing with a very right wing general population in england (something the english left have been in denial about for a long time); with an increasingly weak left and weak trade union movement; Corbyn has to operate in a position of extreme weakness with his labour MPs and amongst the population in general; there is no extra parliamentary strategy at all; Corbyn is a very nice man who should not have been pushed into this position with no preparation, no track record of actually being able to deal with this situation. Its horribly unfair on Corbyn, those who are clapping him into a horrible and embarrassing defeat should give him respect and let him do his usual campaigning as a north London MP, and more so it's extremely unfair on all the people on this island who deserve something serious akin to the SNP and even Plaid Cymru. People in england, and all those who are victims of the british imperialist system deserve much, much better than this. But very pathetic and useless and frankly sell-out persons and forces have pushed Corbyn into this, and Corbyn is all we have for the time being. Its very, very sad. After some 20years in this game, I want to see a serious force for our peoples emerge in england not another english left hype leading to direct failure and further depression.

While there is no sign and has not been any sign of this for about 60 or so years, england needs an alternative force outside of the mainstream that needs to be built up from baby steps onwards: a pro-people, pro-oppressed, pro-Global South force; it needs to learn from Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and especially the SNP, it needs to present a long term economic strategy of delinking from the economic genocidal imperialist economy and develop an economic strategy that is not based on the blood and bones of our peoples from previous centuries and currently; it needs to develop a new generation of cadre that can see the long term aims and also develop a 'mass line' immediate terms grassroots organising building up local campaigns, developing getting councillors elected, developing a serious and assertive analysis and policy approach, developing a strategic partnership with China, Russia, the BRICS in general and more sympathetic Global South govts.

I know people are upset that I am not just joining in with what I have always called the delirious and delusional happy-clappy Corbyn vibe, but you have endless places for that: forgive me, but I think one should develop a healthy critical approach to this. With the spirit of the combined anti-imperialist global struggle of the brits, with the spirit of 1926 General Strike, the radical wing of the Chartists (led by Irish), with the rebel spirit of the IRA, James Connolly, John MacLean, with the spirit of Arthur Scargill and the Miners Strikes of the 1970s and 1980s, with the spirit of the new national move in Scotland and Wales, with the lessons from the great socialist and decolonial upheavals and revolutions: with all this IMMENSE material, great lessons and inspiration, can't we do better? The main reason is as long as the english left are deeply embedded in imperialism and neo-colonialism and hostile to nearly every movement against these forces, it euphorically shares in the spoils of imperialist war and destruction and the campaign of hate, lies and deceit of the british state in its on-going war against our peoples.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Wednesday, 16 September 2015



Samir Amin and the Socialist Vision for the 21st century – A detailed interview

Many thanks to comrade Roshan Kissoon for conducting this interview and asking Sons of Malcolm to publish it in full for the first time. Samir Amin is one of the leading anti-imperialist theoreticians of our struggle for many decades now and his work and analysis is important reading for anyone serious about understanding the nitty-gritty of our on-going liberation struggles.
- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcom

Can you tell us about yourself briefly and your views on Marxism?

I qualify myself as an activist, maybe an intellectual activist. My whole active life was deeply connected with the liberation movements in Africa during the late 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and the after; that is roughly I could say the Bandung period, starting from 1955. That struggle has changed more than any other struggle, possibly, in the last 50 years.

I was and I am an economist and therefore also a Marxist. And, I don’t recognize the qualification of neo-Marxist. I consider a Marxist as starting from Marx but not stopping at Marx. That is considering that Marx thought, laid the foundations for understanding how to analyse and how to change the world. And in that the long history, as of Marx I consider that of course Lenin and especially Mao wrote and made fundamental contributions for understanding how to change the world, taking into account the fact that imperialism has divided the world into centres and peripheries. And, created the polarization at a global level and deepened it from one period to the other. And the question of the long transition to socialism had to be dealt with in a very different way from the Eurocentric, workers vision; the traditional vision of the 3rd international.

That is about myself; I’m currently the chair for the World Forum for Alternatives. Which is a network bringing together thinkers of the world from all regions of the world, north and south, whose qualifications are to be anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, of course, but anti-capitalist more than that, however, in a non-sectarian way. i.e. admitting variety of visions of what are the efficient strategies of moving ahead beyond capitalism.

In your book “The Future of Maoism” you exchange polemics with Indian Marxist V. Nandy on Marxism. Tell us something about this:

You see, the main challenge which has been probably to raise the things overlooked in what I call historical Marxism i.e. Marxism as understood by Marx. The main weakness of that historical Marxism is that it has not ever considered the consequences of the very fact that capitalism in its global expansion from the very start, because capitalism from the beginning tended to be a global system, has created the polarization of the dominant centres and dominated periphery. And that, from periods, of course, the imperialist reality has itself changed from period to period in the sense that the way it used to be defined, it has operated, has changed from place to place. That the fact is, that polarization has continuously been created, recreated and deepened from one period to another. That fundamental fact was overlooked. I think that Marx, because he was really an exceptional person, had a feeling of that reality; however, not much more than that.

Lenin started taking into account this reality, at least partly. One; by qualifying the system as becoming imperialistic, as if it had not been imperialistic before. And, one would not understand how the Americas were conquered without the vision of the imperialist expansion characteristic of the capitalist expansion. How India was colonized long before the modern monopolies of the end of the 19th century. But he had also started understanding that the polarization meant a strategy for the socialist revolution in a global level different from the one which he had inherited from the historical Marxism before him.

Now, the 2nd international was terribly Eurocentric and based on exclusively the working classes, without considering the peasantry. Because, indeed, in the case of Western Europe, at least, the capitalist development had solved the agrarian question in its way. But they projected that in to the future for the others, imagining that the path that Europe has gone through will be the path laid to the other regions of the world. And, therefore, they have this Eurocentric vision, the 2nd international, which associated with pro-imperialism. We can call it social imperialism or social colonialism. Because, they considered that colonization and imperialism was bringing in ingredients for change and progress; and for peripheries catching up to becoming like centres and putting the question of the socialist revolution later in the agenda.

Lenin started understanding that this was not the case and that he was expecting a lot from the working class of the west, particularly from Germany. That the Russian revolution has started in the weak link, as he says which was in the periphery. Russia was at that time in the periphery, it was a non-industrialized country, only starting industrialization, with a vast majority of peasants, still. And he understood the fact that, he was in a way disappointed by the fact that, the (Russian) revolution was not followed by a German revolution. However, he drew the conclusion from that the revolution in now moving to the east. Remember Baku, it’s a turning point. And it’s an alliance between the workers from the Russian revolution and the peasants of the east, which will bring the 2nd wave of the revolution. And that is what actually occurred i.e. revolution moved in to the east to China, later to Vietnam, to Cuba etc. It moved to the east. And as a result of the polarization, the revolution in the east could not be a socialist revolution led by the working class. That was a revolution of a national, popular, democratic block lead by the working class and the majority of peasants and less than poor peasants with the support of strata of middle classes, the revolutionary intelligentsia and possibly with some neutralization of some segments of bourgeois or capitalist class.

Mao was not only the first to do it but also analyse it, which was his specific contribution to Marxism, to living Marxism. And we are still confronted with the same challenge today in all of the rest of the south i.e. Asia, Africa, Latin America. These are societies which are, as a result of imperialist expansion, maintained in a state of peripheral capitalism with a majority of peasants. And, therefore, the revolution, which is on the agenda, will not be effective if it does not enrol the majority of those peasants in alliance with popular classes, working classes, more or less developed according to the country and with revolutionary intelligentsia and so on. That is the Maoist strategy remains the only necessary strategy, for moving ahead on the road to socialism. That is what the Indian Communists have not understood and that is what the Nepal Communists have understood. That is the Indian communists, and not only the Indian Communists, but I would say similarly the Arab Communists, similarly the Communists from South Africa, from Latin America as of the 50’s abandoned the Leninist-Maoist vision and strategy of revolution based on a strong peasant revolution, revolt; abandoned it to the benefit of supporting the national bourgeoisie, anti-imperialist block which came out of the Bandung, i.e. the type of Nehru in India, of Nasser in Egypt etc. And, abandoning that, they became the left wing of the national bourgeoisie movement defending the interests of the working classes, but not more than that, and abandoning completely the strategy of mobilizing poor peasants and starting the revolution from that end. That was corrected partly in India with the Marxist-Leninist, and some of Maoists are participating in the peasant, Italianate movements.

However, for variety of reasons that we can’t analyse in one or two sentences, I wouldn’t say that they have failed but they have not succeeded. They have not failed in the sense that the ingredient is there, the problem is there, and peasantry is there in many cases. Nevertheless, they have not succeeded in the sense that they haven’t been able to mobilize those movements to have them spreading throughout the Indian sub-continent and to establishing the links with the victims of the capitalist expansion, to working classes, to lower strata of middle classes and so on. While the Nepalese have, at least, succeeded at the first chapter of basing their struggle in peasant revolt and then making, becoming, a force able to overthrow the regime, the King and his comprador servants; and then coming in to negotiation, agreement, with other possible partners in the building of a national, popular, democratic, hegemonic alternative block; alternative to the comprador ruling class submitting to imperialism and neo-liberalism. Now that means also another point should be added.

Can you explain the Communist vision for the 21st century?

This is a vision of the long transition from capitalism to socialism.

Now, the vision of the third international was a vision of a short transition i.e. the revolution, even if the revolution is not a pure socialist workers revolution, involving the peasants and other strata, it moves on quickly to a socialist revolution, and then building socialism in a very short period; whether ten years, twenty years or thirty years, it is a very short period.

That was the pattern in the mind of third international.

De facto, without breaking from the third international, Mao took his distance. And the theory of the new democracy was published in western languages in 1950 or 52 but which was known to the Chinese revolutionaries from the late 40’s. It was based on that new understanding of the long transition i.e. not building socialism immediately.

Many of the Chinese communists, including Mao, in the name of Mao, said they were building socialism. But, Mao himself was very careful about that, and was always saying no, we are still in the very early stages of a long-long road; he even used the typical Chinese way of expression “it will take 1000 years”, which means a long time, which means don’t be in a hurry!

Don’t think that socialism is around the corner of the streets! And, this is fundamentally correct; I think, we should think of a strategy i.e. a strategy for socialism for the 21st century. The fact that the wording is popular is because we are in the 21st century.

That is my reading of our history i.e. the 20th century was the first wave of successful struggles and revolutions for the emancipation of lobar and of people. And the two cannot be disassociated. Because, there are lobar, however, the very fact of polarization on a global scale created by capitalism, by really existing capitalist imperialist systems, has produced a situation in which is wider than the working class, the people, the working people of the south are the victims as well as the working classes. Stricto sensu, in the narrow sense of the term, the industrial working class.

And, therefore, what is on the agenda is a long period of national popular democratic series of stages, not really one stage, a series of successive stages, in which there is a combination of some dimensions, some aspects of capitalist accumulation; and, therefore, of capitalist relations of production and capitalist exploitative relations. There are also tendencies of, creating and developing new relations, tendencies towards new social relations which go beyond capitalism, which are socialist in nature and that go far beyond the distribution of income and so on.

It means a very complex combination of capitalism because there is a need to develop productive forces. Our communism cannot be communism of the poor; maintaining the society in a state of outrageous poverty. Productive forces have to be developed. And by accepting it, you are bound to accept, partly at least, capitalist ways of developing. Therefore, this is the vision of long transition which is new. It’s not Samir Amin. That’s why, I consider myself a Maoist. Because, there’s nothing more than making more explicit what is already implicit in Mao; but in Mao, with respect to China. And expanding it, despite the variety of conditions of the entire South i.e. Asia, Africa and Latin America, and this is why we need a new international.

My reading was that the 20th century was the first wave that took the shape of Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, plus Vietnam and Cuba and the national liberation of Africa and Asia which was to various degrees anti-imperialist with a class content ambiguous, usually with a bourgeois leadership or a potential bourgeois leadership; associating in some cases popular classes. Now, we are in the process of having a 2nd wave. And, it cannot be a remake of the first one and it should add to it not by renouncing the target of socialism by replacing it with capitalism with a human face or so called ‘democracy’.

However, socialism as the target and, simultaneously, taking into account the shortcomings of the first wave as lessons; particularly, the question of democracy. Democracy understood, not as multi party elections, but as process of democratization of society, which is a far more holistic concept associated to social progress and I’m measuring my words. I’m saying social progress, it’s not socialism, is a ‘perspective’ of socialism.

Can you tell us your ideas on how to organise?

I think that socialism cannot be global, that, it is not going to be tomorrow. It will take time. Therefore, we need, in order to have the struggles everywhere, in the north as well as the south, move into this direction, to rebuild, number one: the legitimacy of the socialist stance. Second: Internationalism and I call it an internationalism of workers and peoples to face the cosmopolitanism of the international bourgeoisie led by the oligopolies of the imperialist centres. I think that the model should be inspired more by the First International, than the second or third or fourth.

The First International did accept the idea, or was based on the idea of a plurality of social and political organisations representing and defending the interest of working classes; organising in different ways. There were some of them organised in ‘leagues’, that was at the origin of the trade unions. Other ones as political parties-the first shapes, forms of political parties; other ones as, what is being called by a wording that I hate, ‘civil society’ i.e. associations of cooperatives of citizens for specific purposes in the same organization-that is plurality. Do not forget that in the First International there was not only Marx but also Bakunin as well as Proudhon. And, there were a large number of those different organizations. The pattern of the Second International was very different.

It was one country, one party, the good one; the Social Democracy of that time becomes the Bolshevik later, it was there at the beginning, one country; one party. And the conception of this being ‘the’ vanguard party, the only legitimate one that has the knowledge, and that has the exclusive knowledge, and that leads and the other popular organizations, particularly the trade unions are submitted. The Third International inherited that. It broke with the second on some fundamental issues with respect to Internationalism and the global war; the First World War and nationalism. This is not the vision of one country one party- the good one, the communist one, the correct one etc. Now, I think that the 4th international didn’t add anything to that, it was an attempt to bring back the 3rd International to what it was at its beginning, at best, nothing more.

We need, in the present circumstances, to bring together in each country a diversity of political and social forces, with local historically different traditions, with perhaps even leadership, historical leaderships with different ideology and cultures, and bringing them together in order to constitute, to have the conditions for building unity. This I call convergence in diversity or with diversity, convergence, not necessarily a united front that is an electoral alliance in most cases for the vanguard party to drag in other parties and organisations. This means to move away from sectarianism; completely, completely away from it. That does not mean that you bring anybody together without any principals, but with a straightforward, honest debate, continuous debate, with no polemics and with a common desire to identify strategic targets at each point in time. And, we see what that convergence will lead to. We are not doing, as Marx says, we are not boiling in the pot food for the future; later generations will invent their own cooking.

Can you tell us something on Euro-centrism?

Well, Euro-centrism is a product of what I call ‘really existing’ capitalism i.e. capitalism can be analysed, as Marx started and raised in a very powerful way, at the highest level of abstraction i.e. the basic relation of production between labour and capital which explains the production and the extraction of the surplus value. That is a very high level of abstraction needed, fundamentally needed. However, we can look at historical capitalism as it developed from Western Europe and then expanding through the conquest, colonization and destruction of America and to the colonization of Asia and Africa. In addition, the international expansion in Europe, North America and later, Japan.

This historical capitalism has to be looked into as the other face of reality; the concrete way in which the relations, the capitalist relations of production, were embedded in historical relations. Now, that created the centre-periphery. And the centre started to be Western Europe. And from there Euro-centrism, which is an over simplification of the region of history which considers that what has happened in Europe is going to happen gradually elsewhere; Which is the opposite of what is possible because precisely the polarization means that periphery cannot catch up and cannot become centres in their turn. And, therefore, the blind alley in which Euro-centrism has put, not only Western thought in general but also more particularly political vision of the Left in general until today; including many of the honest socialists among them. There are, for sure, honest people struggling with the working classes; they cannot imagine precisely the imperial characteristics of capitalism that has made impossible the expansion of the European model for the rest of the world.

Can you tell us some of your views on the Chinese Cultural Revolution and revisionism?

That was a long and complicated affair. I think that Mao-and that was also his big contribution-understood early the pattern of political power coming out of the success of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The centralisation of this political power was creating a kind of new, arrogant, potential ruling class, and potentially bourgeois. So, he was aware of that danger. He saw the example of the Soviet Union. And he saw, rightly, that the new bourgeois that was in formation in the USSR was not outside the party but was inside the party. That is, you just look at who are the new bourgeois in Russia and the former Soviet Republics; they are all the former Communists. i.e. the Soviet model was a model of state capitalism with some socialist dimension - I do not deny that; and even partly inherited from revolution some socialist dimensions that was becoming more and more basically what I call ‘capitalism without capitalists’.

But the normal tendency of ‘capitalism without capitalists’ is to become ‘capitalism with capitalists.’ Those capitalists came out of the ruling class within the Communist party. Mao saw that China was developing along the same lines and he saw the danger. And he tried to find out how to uproot the danger by a Cultural Revolution. I think the choice, including the choice of the name was not wrong- a Cultural Revolution that will transform, or help transform the Communists themselves and make for basic and eventually possible crystallization within the Communist Party of a potential new bourgeoisie. He looked up to forces to do that and I think it was the only possibility, probably. He thought that the youth could play that role, and they did play the role, because the youth in general see the injustice more quickly than the elders, and the youth has this feeling that this was what was happening in China and started the Cultural Revolution. Nevertheless, the youth are also, and I think this was a mistake by Mao; the youth also lack knowledge, a lack of mustering its own capacity to decide and so on. Moreover, this moved into various directions to the extent that the power systems which Mao himself was compelled to restore as a kind of centrally organised power. Now, the echo of the Cultural Revolution was tremendous. 68’ in Europe cannot be understood without 66’ in china.

It was with China as model example of the revolt of the youth which inspired the youth in the West. So the Cultural Revolution is not as negative as has been portrayed after Mao’s death, after the party moved to the right, after Deng even, at the beginning of the 90’s. But, it’s interesting, that in China itself, there is strong interest in restoring the legitimacy of the Cultural Revolution.

There were recent debates inside the Indian Maoist movement recently about working with Islamic forces to fight imperialism as the common enemy. Coming from an Islamic country originally-Egypt- what are your thoughts on this issue?

You can refer to my paper in Monthly Review some months ago with the title ‘Political Islam in the service of imperialism.’ I think that-I go back to my vision of the long transition- the first wave; the 20th century has come to an end. The second wave has not yet begun or is just starting. In between, you have a period of transition that is unclear. And in that period-and we are in that period, Socialism and Communism loses or appears to have lost legitimacy and so on. And there is lot of despair. And the people move to other forms of identities, there is a lack of a clear understanding, a clear capacity to understand their class identities.

They go to religion or rather para-religion or ethnicity or para-ethnicity as in the case of Sri Lanka, for instance, or former Yugoslavia or many other countries. And all these tendencies are in my view absolutely and fundamentally reactionary. Even if the circumstances are a response to an ugly policy of others; as in the case of Sri Lanka. Political Islam is the use of Islam by the most reactionary and in the service of imperialism. Imperialism has nothing against them. It has nothing against Islam, just as it has nothing again political Hinduism, the BJP. The Communists in India have the courage to call them (RSS/BJP) Fascists, and they are, and the same should be said of political Islam.

What do you think of the economic category of feudalism, as used by F. Engels, and the category of ‘semi-feudalism’ as used by Maoists to describe the mode of production in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?

I also never use this term and I question it. If you refer to my books, some of which are not very recent, I have suggested another pattern of analysis of the nature of class society, of previous capitalism and qualify them as ‘tributary-systems’ - feudalism is one of them specific to Europe. And, perhaps the use of feudalism, the culture of the use of word ‘feudalism’ to Asia is probably improper. Nevertheless, it is not very important.

Anything you would like to say to our readers?

Well, I think that Maoism is needed everywhere in the world; it is the specificity of our time. There are imperialist centres for sure and there are the oppressed peripheries of the imperialist global system. But the enemy is the same, the enemy is one, capitalism. Capitalism is in imperialist centres as well as subordinate peripheries and therefore understanding that characteristic of capitalism is the prerequisite for any significant internationalism in the north as well as the south. Therefore, in that sense, we need Maoism in the North as well as the South. Otherwise, we will have in the north a pro-imperialist left, and in the south, the bad response: political Islam and political Hinduism etc.

This interview was originally conducted in 2009 in Kathmandu, Nepal, and published in two parts in Red Star issues 18 and 19, the now defunct English newspaper of the CPN Maoist. We believe it is a good interview,and many interested readers have not had the chance to read it as it was intended, as one long interview on serious theoretical and political topics. Or perhaps even the chance to read it at all. It also serves as a good introduction to the ideas of Professor Samir Amin, in his own words.

The interview with Samir Amin was conducted by Com. Chandra (Ravan) and Roshan Kissoon

Friday, 11 September 2015

WHY 911?

[pictured: John Mccain and other leading USA politicians with Hakim Belhaj, leader of Daesh and 'Libyan Islamic Fighting Group' death squad in Libya]

Why #911? In the late 1990s imperialism was in increasing crisis as the global South made global moves against the previous decade of massive historic defeats as a result of the end of the back bone of the global anti imperialist struggle which was the socialist Eastern Bloc:

By the end of the 1990s Hugo Chavez becomes Venezuelan leader opening up the whole region to unity and defiance of empire, facilitated by Chinese money and Russian support.

In the same period China becomes increasingly confident so in 1999 the yanks bomb their embassy in Belgrade as a warning. The Chinese did not bow, but proceeded ahead with people-centred development and supporting anti imperialist countries the world over.

In the same period Russia turned to Putin's leadership which cleaned up the previous drunken decade of Yeltsin which facilitated the looting of the previous socialist system. Putin's leadership was the nationalist section of the old KGB and Soviet army taking back political control.

In the same period Chavez was getting Saddam's Iraq and Iran to chill and unite, this was making some headway.

In 1999 Libya's Gaddafi launched the African Union, developing Pan Africanist unity with a radical pro global South leadership.

Considering all this the yanks and brits with their old friends who they financed and trained for decades especially in Afghanistan actioned their mercenaries for a massive incident to then declare a 'full spectrum' 'shock and awe' project of war to push back all the above, that massive incident was '911'.

the result generally back fired, on all the previous levels we have generally seen strategic victories and anti imperialist capacity building. Where we have seen backward steps is in the Middle East, North African region.
A decade after 911 the west now openly teamed up and destroyed Libya, Tunisia, and is trying to destroy Egypt, Syria, Yemen etc. The people and govts of MENA should unite and defeat the imperialist project, much planning and talk of that but we still have yet to see a serious united push back.

Chavez and Gaddafi: we don't know what we have until it's gone. We remain loyal and steadfast.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm