The Centre for Cultural Studies of Goldsmiths College presents a day conference on Maoism
Friday Dec. 1st 2006 Cinema Goldsmiths College Main Building 1-6:30 PM
1:00 PM
Introduction: Why Mao? Why Now?
Maude Colville
1:25 PM
The Flaming Forests of Jharkland: Everyday life between Revolution and the State in Eastern India
Alpha Shah
2:05 PM
The Black Panther Party and Mao
Sukant Chandan
2:45 PM
Break
3:05 PM
The Fate of Friend and Enemy in the Village called Peace and Benevolence
Michael Dutton
3:45 PM
Learning with Mao: Revolutionary Pedagogy in Post-Althusserian Thought
Alberto Toscano
4:25 PM
Break
4:35 PM
Maoism and the Call of the Future: Bob Avakian and the Next Synthesis
Bill Martin
5:55 PM
Panel and Discussion
6:30 PM
Reception
Maude ColvilleIntroduction: Why Mao? Why Now?
Why have a conference on Maoism in a heart of 21st century post-industrial post-colonial European Capitalism? What interest would Maoism hold for an Urban Bourgeois Institution of Intellectuals in an era in which Communism allegedly has been historically ‘surpassed’ and Mao’s work and influence has been maligned internationally as ‘Democidal’? Two decades after China itself began its own ‘De-Maoification’? Is it an art school’s Post-Modern Nostalgic fondness for Totalitarian Trinkets? Why focus on Maoism in particular out of all forms of Marxist-Leninism? A Taste for the Oriental and Exotic, or did Mao’s thought contribute something vital to the international communist struggle? Why does Maoism continue to inspire theory and revolutionary struggle far beyond the bounds of China and Chinese Culture, beyond the divisions of East and West, North and South? Why has Maoism had such a strong international philosophical influence? This small day conference attempts to address those and other questions by looking at different currents of Maoist thought and practice in the US, France, India and China.
Maude Colville is a PhD student of Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths College. She is doing her doctoral research on the representation of the attacks of Sept. 11th 2001 as Sublime. Her research interests include the relationship between democracy, violence and revolution; the Haitian Revolution, Spinoza, Hegel and Qur’anic Democracy.
Alpa Shah The Flaming Forests of Jharkhand:Everyday life between Revolution and the State in Eastern India.
In the forested plateau of Jharkhand, Eastern India, live some of the country's most marginalised populations, its *adivasis*. Despite containing some of the country's richest mineral wealth, this is the India that is often considered a place where, 'nobody goes, the wild east, the subcontinent's heart of darkness' (The Independent Magazine, 11 March 2006: 17). In recent months, however, this part of India has gained increasing international attention as the media eye turned to its flaming forests - the rural spread of underground armed guerrillas, commonly called the Maoists or the Naxalites, heirs to the revolutionary ideology of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. In March 2006, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, declared the rebels as the 'single biggest security threat' the country has ever faced. The State has publicly waged a war against the Naxalites and rural people in Jharkhand are often caught between the forest fires. This paper explores how and why the Maoist revolution is spreading through Jharkhand. Blurring the boundary between the state and the 'terrorist', the paper shows the initial spread of the revolution to be dependent on the control over a market of protection to access the informal economy of the state. With the increasing strength of the revolution, the paper outlines pressing questions for future research on the relationship between ideology and practicalaction.
Alpa Shah, Lecturer of Anthopology Goldsmiths College, University of LondonBorn in Kenya, I emigrated to England in 1991 where I was awarded a bachelor's degree in Geography from the University of Cambridge (1994-1997), a Masters (1997-1998) and a PhD (1999-2003) from the Department of Social Anthropology at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences.My doctoral research took me to the state of Jharkhand in Eastern India. Here, I explored international debates of postcolonial development around the state, democracy and corruption, labour migration and the environment, the development of indigenous movements and the spread of revolutionary armed guerrillas – the Naxalites. I considered the politics of how diverse people in rural Jharkhand experience these issues and how, in particular, the local appropriation of global discourses can maintain a class system that further marginalises the poorest. I am currently writing a monograph on this work entitled, 'In the Shadows of the State: Indigenous Politics in Jharkhand, India'.I will continue pursuing these research interests in Jharkhand. I also intend to theoretically and empirically explore the relationship between migration, identity, law, citizenship and the nation-state, tracing the genesis of changing British immigration laws and their differential affects on people moving between India, Kenya and Britain. I was offered a teaching position in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths in 2003. Here, I convene a Masters programme in Development and Rights and also teach courses on the Ethnography of South Asia and Contemporary Social Issues. I am interested to hear from students who would like to pursue research on adivasis, indigenous politics, and anthropology of the state, violence, revolution, development and environment. Special Edited Journal Volume-2006 with T. Kelly. 'A Double Edged Sword: Protection and State Violence'. With an Introduction. Critique of Anthropology 26. Refereed Journal articles:2007 In press 'Keeping the state away': democracy, politics and imaginations of the State in India's Jharkhand. In Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute. March issue.2006 'Markets of Protection: The Maoist Communist Centre and the State in Jharkhand, India.' In Critique of Anthropology. (Special edited collection by T. Kelly and A. Shah) 26: 297-314. Also in Pratten, D. and A. Sen (2007) Global Vigilantes. London: Hurst. 2006 'The Labour of Love: Seasonal Migration from Jharkhand to the Brick Kilns of Other States in India.' In Contributions to Indian Sociology (n.s). 40 (1) 91-119.2003 with Lewis, D., Bebbington, A.J., Batterbury, S.P.J., Olson, E., Siddiqi, S., and Duvall, S. 'Practice, Power, Meaning: Frameworks for studying organizational culture in multi-agency rural development projects'. In Journal of International Development. 15, 1-17.Film: 2002 'Heads and Tales'. Co-Directed with Ajay TG. A Jandarshan Production. A 22 minute documentary film in English and Hindi on tradition and politics in Jharkhand.
Sukant Chandan
The Black Panther Party and Mao
Possibly the greatest inspiration internationally for the Black Panther Party was Mao Tse Tung, and the leadership which the Chinese Community Party gave the general worldwide anti-imperialist insurrection at the time. The main question that will be expored is: How beneficial was it for the first national armed and radical organisation of the Black masses in the USA to be identified so closely with Communist China and Mao?
Sukant Chandan is a political analyst who specialises in radical struggles and insurgencies in the USA, the Middle East and Ireland.
Michael Dutton The Fate of Friend and Enemy in the Village called Peace and Benevolence
The story of Mao in contemporary China is the tale of political aesetheticisation. From trinketisation to the so-called 'Red Industry' Mao and his politics are being commodified.
I will highlight this process through telling the tale of two museum projects that are being inauguratedon either side of the small village of Anren, in China's Sichuan province. One museum was built to commemorate the life of a reviled landlord but has now become a stately home, while the other is a new museum designed to aestheticise the process of Cultural revolution. Together, they tell us of the fate of Maoism in contemporary China.
Michael Dutton, Professor of Politics, Goldsmiths College University of LondonMy research is characterized by a strong interest in contemporary social and cultural theory wed to a specific 'archive' called China. This has led to a range of rather disparate set of issues that quite often move my work out of the specifics of China. My current interests include an investigation of the politics of the gift, a study of the friend/enemy distinction, and an appreciation of the importance of everyday life in the flow of politics. Some Recent Publications: Policing Chinese Politics: A History (Duke University Press 2005).‘From Culture Industry to Mao Industry’, boundary 2, Vol. 32, No. 2 (2005), 151-168.‘Mango Mao: Infections of the Sacred’ Public Culture, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2004),161-186. Streetlife China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Alberto Toscano Learning with Mao: Revolutionary Pedagogy in Post-Althusserian Thought
The recent work of Alain Badiou and Jacques Rancière has foregrounded a thinking of uncompromising intellectual egalitarianism, pitted against the philosophical traditions of transcendentalism, naturalism and intuitionism. In this presentation, I wish to excavate the specifically Maoist roots of Badiou’s and Rancière’s commitment – against the Althusserian notion of ‘science’ – to an axiomatic notion of equality, distilled in the philosophical slogan: ‘people think’. In particular, I want to contrast Badiou’s and Rancière’s reflections on political and philosophical pedagogy to Mao’s early writings on schooling and to the policies on intellectuals in the Cultural Revolution
Alberto Toscano, Lecturer of Sociology at Goldsmiths College, University of London Research interests focus on contemporary social theory and philosophy; Marx and Marxism; recent French thought, in particular the writings of Alain Badiou, Gilles Deleuze, and issues around political ontology; biopolitics; anti-capitalism; theories of political subjectivity; collective and technological individuation (Gilbert Simondon); vitalism and neo-monadology (Tarde, Whitehead); Italian Marxism and operaismo (Panzieri, Tronti, Negri); debates on post-Fordism, immaterial labour and cognitive capitalism; the historical materialist geography of David Harvey; the link between religion and politics (fanaticism, messianism, and political theology). Recent publications include: The Theatre of Production: Philosophy and Individuation Between Kant and Deleuze (Palgrave 2005); the co-edited and co-translated books Alain Badiou, Theoretical Writings (Continuum 2004), including the postface ‘Aleatory Rationalism’ (with Ray Brassier) and Alain Badiou, On BeckettThink Again: Alain Badiou and the Future of Philosophy (Continuum 2004); ‘From the State to the World?: Badiou and Anti-Capitalism’, Communication & Cognition, 37, 1/2 (2004); ‘Factory, Territory, Metropolis, Empire’, Angelaki 9.2, ‘Politics of Place’, special issue, August 2004; ‘Ethics and Capital, Ex Nihilo’, Umbr(a): A Journal of the Unconscious, 2005; he co-edited the issues ‘What is Materialism?’ (2001) and ‘Foucault: Madness / Sexuality / Biopolitics’ (2002) of Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy. He is currently working on two interrelated projects: a study of the resurgence of egalitarian politics in contemporary thought, provisionally entitled The Communist Hypothesis, and a book on the role of the notion of “fanaticism” in the history of modern social and political thought, focussing specifically on debates around the German Peasants’ War of 1525 and the heritage of the Kantian distinction between fanaticism and enthusiasm. (Clinamen 2004), including the introduction ‘“Think, Pig!: An Introduction to Badiou’s Beckett’ (with Nina Power); ‘Communism as Separation’ in P. Hallward (ed)
Bill MartinMaoism and the Call of the Future: Bob Avakian and the Next Synthesis
Since the passing of Mao Tse-tung, we have had thirty years of vilification of the Chinese Revolution and the Cultural Revolution. Why does this matter? Is there a line to be drawn from the experience of the "Mao era" to the future? What is the future of Maoism, and what does Maoism have to do with the future? Has the world changed in significant and fundamental ways in the last thirty years? If so, has this rendered Maoism obsolete, or is it the case that, instead, we need a new synthesis, but one that comes out of the experience of Maoism? What are the ways in which Bob Avakian is both developing Maoism and attempting to surpass it? As a postscript, Why has it been so difficult to develop a Maoist trend in the U.K.?
Bill Martin, Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University, Chicago. Bill was educated at the University of Kansas. He works in the areas of social theory and continental philosophy, as well as aesthetics (especially literary and musical), philosophy of religion, and analytic philosophy. He has published six books, the most recent being Avant rock: Experimental music from the Beatles to Bjork (Open Court,2002). He has two books coming out with Open Court in spring 2005: Ethical Marxism: the categorical imperative of liberation,and the co-authored volume Marxism and the call of the future: conversations on ethics, history, and politics. Among his current writing projects are texts on sexuality, the question of community, and the culture of postmodern capitalism.
.
3 comments:
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
."Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan" (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 28.* The text here is verbatim from the second edition of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung", printed in Peking in 1967
Nepal Rebels Sign Peace Accord With Government
NYTIMES - 21 Nov 2006
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: November 21, 2006
NEW DELHI, Nov. 21 — Ending a crippling “people’s war” that had gone on for over 10 years and killed thousands, Maoist rebels in Nepal signed a peace agreement tonight with the government, with a pledge to lock up their guns, at least for now, and let voters decide on the future of the country.
Skip to next paragraph
Gopal Chitrakar/Reuters
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepal, left, and Maoist leader Prachanda shook hands after signing a peace agreement today.
The accord promises to bring the rebels, who control vast swaths of the destitute countryside, into the political mainstream. Whether the Maoists, who once functioned as a legitimate political party but abandoned the electoral path for armed struggle, will now play by the rules of parliamentary democracy stands as the country’s most vital test.
“It is the beginning of a new beginning,” the Maoist chief, known by his nom de guerre Prachanda, said after signing the 11-page agreement in Katmandu, Nepal’s capital.
“No conflict can be resolved by guns. It can be done by dialogue,” Nepal’s prime minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, said.
The peace accord paves the way for one of the Maoists’ chief demands: elections to decide whether Nepal will remain a monarchy. The interim government, which the rebels have agreed to join, will next year organize elections for an assembly that will in turn determine whether and what kind of kingdom Nepal will remain.
The Maoists have repeatedly promised to abide by the results of the election. Last Saturday, on a visit to this Indian capital, the rebel chief Prachanda reiterated that pledge, saying that even if Nepal voted to keep the monarchy, his cadres would continue to press for its abolition but peacefully.
Today’s agreement comes a year after the rebels teamed up with Nepal’s main political parties to topple King Gyanendra, who had dismissed the country’s elected politicians and taken control of the state. Street protests in April that were endorsed by the Maoists prompted Gyanendra to turn over control to the elected Parliament.
That Parliament, and the cabinet that it chose, was swift to take vital powers away from the king, including control of the army, and engage in peace talks with the Maoists. According to the peace accord, the Maoists will sequester their armed cadres at temporary quarters, while the Nepalese Army will return to its barracks.
“The armies of both sides shall not publicize anything against each other and they shall not go against each other,” the 11-page agreement said. “But they shall not be denied their right to vote.”
Ian Martin, the United Nations’ peace envoy to Nepal, said in a statement today that agreement had been reached on where the rebels’ temporary quarters would be located. He added, “Today’s agreement promises to convert the cease-fire into long-term peace.”
The rebels, still apparently distrustful of politicians and the palace, have not laid down their arms entirely. They have agreed to lock up their weapons, but hold on to the keys. The United Nations is to monitor the safekeeping of weapons through a system of closed-circuit cameras.
Human rights groups have accused the rebels of continuing to recruit people in the countryside, including children. The Maoists have denied the charge.
The Maoists say they want their troops to be integrated into a new national army. How many and in what fashion remains unclear.
Maoist guerrillas have blossomed in South Asia long after the demise of Mao Zedong and his ideology in China. In India, a loose confederation of Maoist rebels are active in a swath of territory, from the jungles of the deep south, all the way up to the northern border with Nepal. The Indian prime minister has recently described the rebels as the country’s most pressing internal security threat.
Within minutes of the signing of the peace accord in Nepal, crowds of well-wishers lined the streets and lit candles as they waited for the prime minister’s motorcade to pass.
“Both sides give up state of war; it’s celebration time,” Kanak Dixit, the editor of Himal magazine, said by telephone, amid hoots and hollers on the street. “The only challenge that now remains is that the Maoists, in particular their militia, be held to account by the peace deal.”
“What else can be there which makes us so happy?” said Basanta Sharma, 35, a student. “It seems the common man can now live in peace, work and earn for their living.”
Tilak Pokharel contributed reporting from Katmandu, Nepal.
From A World To Win News Service:
US Maoists: “The elections: what they do – and do not – mean”
13 November 2006. A World to Win News Service. Following is an abridged article from Revolution, voice of the revolutionary Communist Party, USA (no. 69, November 19 – www.revcom.us).
Last Tuesday’s mid-term elections marked a significant turn of events. For the first time in 12 years, Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate were voted out, and Democrats were returned to power. As soon as the results were in, the much-hated Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced to resign.
Yet the question of the day remains: what is the actual significance of these elections? What changes are – and aren’t – likely to result? What will – and won’t – they mean for the overall Bush agenda and the Iraq war? And what challenges and responsibilities confront those who oppose everything Bush and his regime stand for, and understand the need to reverse the whole direction they’ve been taking the world?
Many people see the vote as a popular referendum repudiating Bush, his administration, and the Iraq war. Millions of those who voted did so out of anger and disgust with the war. But in reality the war was not up for a vote – at least not in the way people may think.
The elections marked the crescendo of months of dire warnings and criticisms – including from within the U.S. military and other major voices in the imperialist foreign policy establishment – concerning the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
The Bush team had thought they’d quickly be able to turn Iraq into a pro-U.S. client state, a platform for further aggression in the region, and a signal to the world that U.S. power was unchallengeable. Instead, U.S. forces have been unable to either quell the growing insurgency or cobble together a new Iraqi ruling class with the power, cohesion and legitimacy to stabilize the situation. All this has the potential to turn Iraq into a centre of anti-U.S. hatred and instability, further strengthen Iran, destabilize the region, weaken the U.S. military, and open the door for rival powers. In short, exactly the opposite of what Bush and company set out to accomplish.
This caused forces within the ruling class to manoeuvre to force Bush to adjust his strategy. These forces want to prevent a strategic debacle and to salvage what is possible from Iraq – in order to maintain U.S. military, political, and economic domination over the Middle East. They are not aiming for an immediate end to the war but instead for a shift in tactics within Iraq and, perhaps, in regard to other forces in the region. They are not questioning the morality or justness of the war, merely its execution. For these forces, the elections became one means of both criticizing the Bush team and forcing (and creating political cover for) a serious reassessment of the war’s conduct and adjustment in strategy.
The Democrats’ calls for a “new direction” and “competent” leadership in Iraq and their criticisms of Bush’s “failed policy” served these objectives. The Democratic denunciations of the war were vague. Few candidates spelled out specifically what they would do, and fewer still called for immediate withdrawal. Some called the war a “mistake,” but none called it what it actually is: reactionary, criminal, and immoral.
This vagueness had two major virtues for the ruling class. First, it enabled the Democrats – who have consistently voted for and supported the Iraq war and continue to support its broad objectives – to divert the broad anti-war anger into a framework that doesn’t question the whole nature of the war. Second, it gives the Democrats the flexibility to join into a “bipartisan consensus” to “adjust,” rather than end, the war. Indeed, the “neocon” fascist William Kristol said on Fox News that the Republican defeat could actually give Bush the political cover to put more pressure on the Iraqi government and to call for some sort of regional conference (both Democratic demands), while also increasing the number of troops.
The fall of Donald Rumsfeld has to be seen in this light. Rumsfeld is most associated with his insistence on attempting to conquer and occupy Iraq with the minimum number of forces necessary. His exit is at least in large part a signal that this strategy is open for “re-evaluation.” Knocking down someone so high up is meant to show that Bush recognizes that all is not well, that they face serious problems and significant dangers, that some significant adjustments are necessary, and that he is going to have to forge a broader consensus among the ruling class to deal with all this.
The pledges of the Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi [the new Democratic parliamentary leader] for “civility and cooperation” must also be seen in this light. She is pledging to hold tight, to not do anything that could possibly endanger the stability of the whole thing, and to keep “her base” – those who do look to the Democratic Party as an agent of change – firmly in check. The people may have been voting to end the war and even to reverse the ugly direction of this regime – but Pelosi and the rest are already reinterpreting things and using their power to put a stamp on what people did – to fit it into and make it serve a whole other set of objectives than most people intended through their votes.
The elections, therefore, by themselves, will not signal a fundamental reversal of course on Iraq, still less a repudiation of the logic that led to the invasion. Instead – absent a massive movement in determined opposition – they will end up as a vehicle to adjust, sustain and rehabilitate this hated war.
The Democrats and the Bush Agenda
But Iraq is only one part of the Bush package. What about the other Bush horrors?
Where was the Democrat, for instance, who came out against the legalized torture and gutting of habeas corpus that was passed in September? Where was the Democrat who went on the offensive against the mounting moves toward a theocracy – the rule by Christian fundamentalist fascists?
Where was the Democrat who sounded the alarm against the Bush regime plans to invade Iran, or who criticized the support for the brutal Israeli invasion of Lebanon over the summer? Or who stood up for the rights of gay people to marry and dared to uphold the morality of a woman’s right to an abortion?
Instead, the Democrats not only tacitly – and in some cases openly – went along with the Bush agenda on these and other questions, they took great pains to claim the “war on terror” as their own, even as that “war on terror” forms the logical underpinning of a huge part of Bush’s agenda. And despite widespread sentiment to hold Bush accountable for his many and horrific crimes, Nancy Pelosi denounced any idea of impeaching Bush. That fact alone means that the crimes and outrages of the Bush regime – from its doctrine of pre-emptive war to its widespread use of torture and illegal imprisonment, among others – will now become legitimated and “normal.”
Many commentators have remarked that the current election is unlike 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress with a clear-cut program for radical overhaul. This is because the forces behind the Bush regime (and behind that 1994 takeover as well) have developed a “package” that speaks to some of the main underlying economic and political dynamics in the world – and the Democrats haven’t. This package includes aggressive international projection of the overwhelming military power of the U.S., a huge intensification of repression domestically, a drastic cut in government-funded social welfare programmes, and the increasing build-up of a Christian fascist movement in the politics and culture of society (with some of the key forces in this mix pushing for an outright fascist theocracy).
The Democrats, try as some of them might, have not come up with either the programme or the organized social and political forces to counter that – and they are not willing and they are not able, at this point, to oppose it with anything more than what Lenin once called “pious doubts and petty amendments.” The top Democratic leaders make their main priority the preservation of this system, no matter what horrors (and horrific compromises) this preservation may require – and at this point they are quite open about that. For the past several years they have been intent on keeping the outrage of the people suppressed and diverted into channels that end up shoring up the system, and even the Bush regime itself. This dynamic has not fundamentally changed through the election.
Moreover, we should step back here and look at the whole system that both Bush and the Democrats maintain is the “greatest country in the world.” What, after all, is it that U.S. military force defends in the over 100 countries in which U.S. soldiers are based? Fundamentally, it is the “right” of U.S. capital to go anywhere and do anything, no matter how monstrous, in search of the highest possible profits; to dominate and despoil whole countries and even regions, sometimes if only to make sure that their rival imperialists do not; to drive people off their land in the blind pursuit of profit and then to use those same people as “cheap labour” either within their home countries or the imperialist countries themselves; to fortify repressive social orders and customs so long as they serve the needs of imperialist expansion; to crush whoever gets in their way, even fellow reactionaries and gangsters; and to violently and viciously suppress any revolutionary or radical movements that arise when people dare to throw off their chains, or even resist.
This very basic truth must be returned to, brought out and driven home to people, in a million different ways, as we get into with them what the Democratic victory will – and will not – mean.
The elections are now over, but we still confront a criminal regime and the urgent need to drive it from power and repudiate its programme. Everything it is doing is STILL intolerable!
Now is not time for political retreat or wait-and-see. The contradiction between the burning desires of the millions who voted against Bush and the war on one hand, and what Bush and the Democrats will actually do on the other, could drive many more into resolute opposition. But that depends on us – and on you. Left to itself, that contradiction will only become a source of despair and a force for further passivity and paralysis. We – and you reading this – have to find the ways to resist, and to recast the political terms in this situation.
We have to insist that what was unacceptable yesterday remains unacceptable today – and tomorrow. We have to work with World Can’t Wait to rally others to the basic indictments, as well as the political stand and the moral certitude expressed in its very powerful Call to drive out the Bush regime. Teach-ins, massive distribution of that call, getting out the materials from the Bush Crimes Commission, joining in and supporting resistance – all these are the order of the day.
Beyond that there is the urgent need to get the works of Bob Avakian into this situation – in college courses and on the campuses more broadly, into the communities of the oppressed, on the radio, into the bookstores and libraries, out among intellectuals and in intellectual journals, and hundreds of other ways. These works not only shed real light on the underlying dynamics of this whole situation and speak very directly to the huge political questions of the day, they also pose the way forward – both in regards to how a revolution could be made, and to the truly liberating character such a revolution must have – the ways in which it must build on but go way beyond the revolutions of the past. And with that, there is also the urgent need to get out this paper – to get the truth, every week, into many, many more hands and build the scaffolding of the revolutionary movement.
- end item-
Post a Comment