Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Maoists making Inraods

Despite serious set backs including the death of Kishanji, the CPI Maoist is making inroads in many parts of India. In a single  district of the state of Orissa, around 5000 youth joined their PLGA during the recent observance of the Peoples Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) Week. Two reports. 

 PLGA Week: Maoists recruit 5,000 youth in Malkangiri

During the recent observance of the Peoples Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) Week, about 5,000 youth and adolescent girls were recruited by the Maoists particularly from Malkangiri district, sources said.
Challenging the joint combing operation of police, CRPF, SOG and paramilitary forces, they were able to hold open meetings for membership drive in the cut - off and remote pockets of the district. They held Prajamelis in around 10 villages, including in several village haats in Alampaka, Similibanki, Kusuguda and Kurmanur areas along the AP- Odisha border.
The Maoists made the tribals aware of the significance of observing PLGA Week, its aims and objectives besides corruption by the Government agencies in the integrated tribal development programmes. About eight Maoist organisations, including Korukonda, Kalimela, Podia and Chitrakonda Dallam of both Andhra Pradesh and Chatishgarh participated in the Prajamelis, sources confided.
They demanded declaration of area encompassing Bihar, Jharkhand and Dandakaranya area as free zone so that the tribal development can be possible and the aboriginal tribes are not deprived of their rights. They appealed to the tribes to join their hands with them for the revolution, sources revealed.

Maoists eyeing commercial hubs in Western India to spread Red terror

NEW DELHI: After facing some reverses in their strongholds, the CPI (Maoist) has formed a 'Golden Corridor Committee' to build its base in hitherto untouched industrial areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra, stretching from Pune to Ahmedabad, including commercial hubs like Mumbai, Nashik, Surat and Vadodara.
Besides, the Red Ultras have planned to expand their movement to Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara and Yavatmal districts of Maharashtra in addition to their existing bases in Gadchiroli, Gondia and Chandrapur in the state.
Maoists' game-plan is to make foray into these unexplored areas was disclosed by the Union home ministry in response to a question in Parliament on Tuesday. The ministry informed the Lok Sabha that Maharashtra alone had witnessed 221 deaths in naxal incidents from 2008 till November, 2011. The state has reported more deaths (51) this year as compared to 2010 when it had witnessed 45 killings in Red violence.
Security agencies had first got to know about the Maoists' plan to set up another theatre of their activities through the 'Golden Corridor Committee' after arresting a number of Ultras in Maharashtra in the past six months, including the first batch of 10 Maoists - all belong to West Bengal - in Pune in May. All the Ultras were working as casual labourers in different industrial units.
"Their questioning and subsequent arrests of many more Maoists gave us lot of details about the Ultras' plan to set up their bases in the industrial areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra," said an official.
Though the CPI (Maoist) had planned to set up the 'Golden Corridor Committee' in February, 2008, it took shape recently when Urban Unit of the Red Ultras started recruiting cadres in different cities of both the states - primarily from among those who are working in various industrial units.
Western India has become one of the eight strategic areas for Maoist activities. Establishing organizational bases in north-eastern India is yet another 'new' strategic area, where they have forged relations with insurgent groups to meet their military requirements.
In response to another question in the Lok Sabha, the ministry said that the CPI (Maoist) had developed "close fraternal ties with north-eastern insurgent groups like the Revolutionary People's Front (RPF) and People's Liberation Army (PLA) of Manipur. Both the outfits have agreed upon mutual cooperation in the areas of training, funding and supply of arms and ammunitions".
Referring to Maoists' north-east agenda, the ministry said: "The Upper Assam Leading Committee (UALC) of the CPI (Maoist) is presently operating in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and has been involved in incidents of looting of weapons and extortion from local villagers".

Stating that the UALC has also engaged in recruitment and training of cadres for the outfit in Assam and these cadres have been utilized in extensive propaganda against mega dam in Assam, the ministry said: "In this backdrop, Assam-Arunachal border has emerged as another theatre of Maoist activity. The outfit is also establishing separate channels in the north-east, particularly in Nagaland, for procurement of ammunition."

Sunday, December 4, 2011

How to Start a Revolution: Or the Delusions of Gene Sharp

The West promote this White Gandhi as the saint of non violence and the chief inspiration of Arab Spring. In fact he himself claims that he engineered the Arab spring. But who is this man in fact? Saint or an agent of CIA? The man the West says is the world's leading expert on non violent revolution...And this is a brief review of the new film on Sharp 'How to Start a Revolution' directed by Ruardh Arrow. Below is posted a trailer

The documentary How to Start a Revolution by Ruaridh Arrow was screened at the Zionist Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, among other places presumably. It comes at a time when Foreign Policy magazine has decided that Gene Sharp “has inspired Arab spring protesters.” It all started with a front page story in the New York Times, which decided—without any evidence whatsoever—that Gene Sharp has inspired a non-violent revolution throughout the Arab world.

Of course, the Arab uprisings have not been non-violent at all: the Egyptian people revolted violently in Suez and other places, and government buildings and police stations have been attacked throughout the country, as were offices of Hosni Mubarak’s party. The Libyan uprising degenerated, with NATO intervention, into multiple wars inside Libya. In Tunisia, the rebels also attacked government buildings. In Syria, the situation is now regularly labeled a “civil war.” So one can easily dismiss the theory of Gene Sharp’s so-called inspiration by underlining the non-non-violent nature of the “Arab spring” — it’s more like an Arab autumn these days. But what does the documentary How to Start A Revolution say?

It is not easy to finish the movie: there is no story, really. It is also a bit disturbing. It focuses on Gene Sharp in his old age, in his house in Massachusetts. In the basement of the house works the executive director of his Albert Einstein Institution. The movie focuses on both. But the director struggles to make his case, and the movie has the feel of a promotional movie of a cult.

Sharp disturbingly has no problem in promoting himself and praising, nay exaggerating, his influence. He starts the movie by talking about the oft-used evidence of the spread of his ideas: that his books have been translated into more than 30 languages. They keep talking about the translation of one of his books (prominently featured in the film) into Arabic. But this is dishonest. Sharp knows that his books were not translated through the initiative of Arab fans. They were translated by his own Einstein Institution and through external funding provided to his organization.

Jamila Raqib (who was featured in the film as his devotee) contacted me a few years ago when the Institution funded the translation of the books. They asked me to supervise the translation process and verify the accuracy. But the books were too uninteresting for me, and I turned down the job (although I referred them to a friend). How could Sharp convince himself that the translation of his work into multiple languages is evidence of his influence when he knows that he himself commissioned the translation of his own work?

Politically speaking, Sharp has been working largely in sync with US foreign policy goals. He promoted his non-violent agenda against the communist governments during the Cold War, and his partner (a former US army General) talked about his work under the tutelage of the Republican International Institute. But if Sharp is keen on promoting non-violence, why does he not preach non-violence to the US government which practices more violence than most countries of the world? And why has Sharp preached non-violence to Palestinians but not to Israelis? His project of non-violence seems in the interest of the most violent governments in the world today.

The movie could not provide any evidence of Sharp’s influence so it invites four men to confirm that Sharp has inspired revolution. One man is from Serbia, and another from Georgia, and one is from Egypt, and the fourth, a Syrian from London. Each of the four was tasked with providing a testimonial (clearly under prodding from the interviewer behind the camera) to the effect that, yes, Sharp inspired “his” revolution. But that was it. The film was crude in contrasting images of revolutions and protests with a close up of Gene Sharp’s face in his house. But this method would then prove that a potato inspired a revolution, if you contrast the images of that revolution with the image of a potato.

And the movie claimed falsely that governments around the world have been attacking Gene Sharp’s works due to his influence. Sharp himself, without any evidence, claimed that the Russian government set on fire two printing presses because they carried his books. The film claimed that protesters in Iran were convicted on following the instructions of Sharp — and again no evidence was presented.

The second part of the movie focuses on the Egyptian and Syrian cases. In the Egyptian case, the movie brings in a guy and introduces him to us as “a leader of the Egyptian revolution.” I personally have never heard of the guy, but you had to believe that he is the leader of the revolution. He, of course, said that, yes, Sharp inspired “his” revolution. The Syrian guy, an Ussama Munajjid, was even funnier. He lives in London but the film introduced him as a — you guessed it — “leader” of the Syrian revolution. We saw him in his office uploading footage from cameras that he “had placed” all over the country, as the film alleges. But if this guy’s testimonial was not enough, he was flown to Boston to be filmed while listening to Sharp’s advice.

It is not difficult, of course, to mock the writings of Sharp. His instructions for revolution are too basic and common-sensical to be credited to Sharp. The film even suggests that he was behind the idea of beating pots and pans in Serbia, when Latin Americans have engaged in this form of protests for decades, long before Sharp’s books were translated (at his own initiative) to Spanish. He, for example, suggests that protesters should wave flags, as if they did not think of that prior to the publication of Sharp’s books.

The film is disturbing at more than one level: the message of Sharp is condescending and patronizing, although his firm belief in his own international influence has a tinge of self-delusion. He believes that he — the White Man — alone knows what is the best course of action for people around the world. He preaches to Arabs that they were wrong in insisting on the resignation of the leader: he urges that the downfall of the government be stressed instead, as if Arab popular chants did not aim at that. Sharp (or his one Egyptian fan in the film) may have not heard of the nine bombings of the Egyptian pipeline to Israel. That was not in any of Sharp’s books.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Freedom soon will come / Then we'll come from the shadows.


When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender
This I could not do
I took my gun and vanished.
I have changed my name so often
I've lost my wife and children
But I have many friends
And some of them are with me

An old woman gave us shelter
Kept us hidden in the garret
Then the soldiers came
She died without a whisper.
There were three of us this morning
I'm the only one this evening
But I must go on
The frontiers are my prison.

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing
Through the graves the wind is blowing
Freedom soon will come
Then we'll come from the shadows.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

CPI Maoist calls for 'Bharat Bandh on December 4-5

Press Release
November 25, 2011
Condemn the brutal murder of Comrade Mallojula Koteswara Rao, the beloved leader of the oppressed masses,
the leader of Indian revolution and CPI (Maoist) Politburo member!
Observe protest week from November 29 to December 5
and 48-hour ‘Bharat Bandh’ on December 4-5!!

November 24, 2011 would remain a black day in the annals of Indian revolutionary movement’s history. The fascist Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab-Chidambaram-Jairam Ramesh ruling clique who have been raising a din that CPI (Maoist) is ‘the biggest internal security threat’, in collusion with West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, killed Comrade Mallojula Koteswara Rao after capturing him alive in a well planned conspiracy. This clique which had killed Comrade Azad, our party’s spokesperson on July 1, 2010 once again spread its dragnet and quenched its thirst for blood. Mamata Banerjee, who had shed crocodile’s tears over the murder of Comrade Azad before coming to power, while enacting the drama of talks on the one hand after assuming office, killed another topmost leader Comrade Koteswara Rao and thus displayed nakedly its anti-people and fascist facet. The central intelligence agencies and the killer intelligence agencies of West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh chased him in a well planned conspiracy and killed him in a cowardly manner in a joint operation and now spreading a concocted story of encounter. The central home secretary R.K. Singh even while lying that they do not know for certain who died in the encounter, has in the same breath announced that this is a big blow to the Maoist movement. Thus he nakedly gave away their conspiracy behind this killing. The oppressed people would definitely send to grave the exploiting ruling classes and their imperialist masters who are day dreaming that they could wipe out the Maoist party by killing the top leadership of the revolutionary movement.

Comrade Koteswara Rao, who is hugely popular as Prahlad, Ramji, Kishenji and Bimal inside the party and among the people, is one of the important leaders of the Indian revolutionary movement. The tireless warrior who never rested his gun while fighting for the liberation of the oppressed masses since the past 37 years and who has laid down his life for the sake of the ideology he believed in, was born in 1954 in Peddapally town of Karimnagar district of North Telangana, Andhra Pradesh. Raised by his father Late Venkataiah who was a freedom fighter and his mother Madhuramma, who has been of progressive views, Koteswara Rao imbibed love for his country and its oppressed masses since childhood. In 1969, he had participated in the historic separate Telangana movement while he was in his high school studies in Peddapally town. He joined the revolutionary movement with the inspiration of the glorious Naxalbari and Srikakulam movements while studying graduation in SRR college of Karimnagar. He started working as an active member of the Party from 1974. He spent some time in jail during the black period of the Emergency. After lifting up of the Emergency, he started working as a party organizer in his home district of Karimnagar. He responded to the “Go to Villages” campaign call of the party and developed relations with the peasantry by going to the villages. He was one of those who played a prominent role in the upsurge of peasant movement popular as ‘Jagityal Jaitrayatra’ (Victory March of Jagityal) in 1978. In this course, he was elected as the district committee member of the Adilabad-Karimnagar joint committee of the CPI (ML). In 1979 when this committee was divided into two district committees he became the secretary of the Karimnagar district committee. He participated in the Andhra Pradesh state 12thparty conference, was elected to the AP state committee and took responsibilities as its secretary.

Up to 1985, as part of the AP state committee leadership he played a crucial role in spreading the movement all over the state and in developing the North Telangana movement which was advancing with guerilla zone perspective. He played a prominent role in expanding the movement to Dandakaranya (DK) and developing it. He was transferred to Dandakaranya in 1986 and took up responsibilities as a member of the Forest Committee. He led the guerilla squads and the people in Gadchiroli and Bastar areas of DK. In 1993 he was co-opted as a member into the Central Organizing Committee (COC).

From 1994 onwards he mainly worked to spread and develop the revolutionary movement in Eastern and Northern parts of India including West Bengal. Particularly his role in uniting the revolutionary forces which were scattered after the setback of the Naxalbari movement in West Bengal and in reviving the revolutionary movement there is extraordinary. He mingled deeply with the oppressed masses of Bengal and the various sections of the revolutionary camp, learnt Bangla language with determination and left an indelible mark in the hearts of the people there. He worked tirelessly in achieving unity with several revolutionary groups and in strengthening the party. Comrade Koteswara Rao was elected as a Central Committee (CC) member in the All India Special Conference of erstwhile CPI (ML) (People’s War) held in 1995. He strived for achieving unity between People’s War and Party Unity in 1998. In the Party Congress of erstwhile CPI (ML)(PW) held in 2001 he was once again elected into CC and Politburo. He took up responsibilities as the secretary of the North Regional Bureau (NRB) and led the revolutionary movements in Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab states. Simultaneously he played a key role in the unity talks held between erstwhile PW and MCCI. He served as a member of the unified CC and Politburo formed after the merger of the two parties in 2004 and worked as a member of the Eastern Regional Bureau (ERB). He mainly concentrated on the state movement of West Bengal and continued as the spokesperson of the ERB.

Comrade Koteswara Rao played a prominent role in running party magazines and in the field of political education inside the party. He took part in running ‘Kranti’, ‘Errajenda’, ‘Jung’, ‘Prabhat’, ‘Vanguard’ and other party magazines. He had a special role to play in bringing out various revolutionary magazines in West Bengal. He wrote many theoretical and political articles in these magazines. He was a member of the Sub-Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) and played a prominent role in teaching Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the party ranks. In the entire history of the party he played a memorable role in expanding the revolutionary movement, in enriching the party documents and in developing the movement. He participated in the Unity Congress-9th Congress of the party held in 2007 January, was elected as CC member once again and took responsibilities of Politburo member and member of the ERB.

The political guidance given by Comrade Koteswara Rao to the Singur and Nandigram people’s movements which erupted since 2007 against the anti-people and pro-corporate policies of the social fascist CPM government in West Bengal and particularly to the glorious upsurge of people’s rebellion in Lalgarh against police atrocities is prominent. He guided the West Bengal state committee and the party ranks to lead these movements and on the other hand conducted party propaganda through the media too with initiative. In 2009 when the Chidambaram clique tried to mislead the middle classes in the name of talks and ceasefire, he worked significantly in exposing it. He did enormous work in keeping aloft the importance of People’s War and in taking the revolutionary politics into the vast masses. This great revolutionary journey which went on for almost four decades came to an abrupt end on November 24, 2011.

Beloved People! Democrats!!

Do condemn this brutal murder. It is the conspiracy of the ruling classes to wipe out the revolutionary leadership and deprive the people of correct guidance and proletarian leadership. It is a known fact that the Maoist movement is the biggest hurdle to the big robbers and compradors who are stashing millions in Swiss banks by selling for peanuts the Jal, Jungle and Zameen of the country to the imperialist sharks. The multi-pronged, country-wide brutal offensive named Operation Green Hunt of the past two years is exactly serving this purpose. This cold-blooded murder is part of that. It is the duty of the patriots and freedom-loving people of the country to protect the revolutionary movement and its leadership like the pupil of their eye. It’s nothing but protecting the future of the country and that of the next generations.

Even at the age of 57, Com. Koteswara Rao led the hard life of a guerilla like a young man and had filled the cadres and people with great enthusiasm wherever he went. His life would particularly serve as a great inspiration to the younger generation. He studied and worked for hours together without rest and traveled great distances. He slept very little, led a simple life and was a hard worker. He used to mingle easily with people of all ages and with people who come from various social sections and fill them with revolutionary enthusiasm. No doubt, the martyrdom of Comrade Koteswara Rao is a great loss to the Indian revolutionary movement. But the people of our country are very great. It is the people and the people’s movements which gave birth to courageous and dedicated revolutionaries like Koteswara Rao. The workers and peasants and the revolutionaries who have imbibed the revolutionary spirit of Koteswara Rao right from Jagityal to Jungle Mahal and who have armed themselves with the revolutionary fragrance he spread all over the country would definitely lead the Indian New Democratic Revolution in a victory path. They would wipe out the imperialists and their lackey landlord and comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and their representatives like Sonia, Manmohan, Chidambaram and Mamata Banerjee.

Our CC is appealing to the people of the country to observe protest week from November 29 to December 5 and observe 48-hour ‘Bharat Bandh’ on December 4-5 in protest of the brutal murder of Comrade Koteswara Rao. We are appealing that they take up various programmes like holding meetings, rallies, dharnas, wearing black badges, road blocks etc protesting this murder. We are requesting that trains, roadways, commercial and educational institutions be closed and that all kinds of trade transactions be stopped as part of the ‘Bharat Bandh’ on December 4-5. However, we are exempting medical services from the Bandh.
Central Committee,
CPI (Maoist)

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Kishanji: not just another ‘martyr’

by Saroj Giri

Kishanji is not just a fighter against oppression, a brave and courageous soul. He presided over something unique in the history of resistance movement in the country – and maybe he was not even so aware of it. Several forms of resistance seem to have come together in his leadership – synchronizing armed fighting power of the people with open rallies, processions and demonstrations. If one is really serious about democratic mass upsurges then one cannot wish away ‘strategy’, the ‘use of force’ or ‘armed resistance’; that the life-veins of mass struggle extend into the zone of armed resistance – these otherwise old Leninist lessons were restated, reasserted, renewed afresh in the life and activity of Kishanji.

It is in this sense that Kishanji in a way rehabilitated the status of both mass movements and ‘military strategy’ within the left. The left today is prone to reject anything to do with discipline and military as just some kind of right-wing, fascist obsession. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek points out that, against the ruling ideology of hedonistic permissivity, the left should “(re)appropriate discipline and the spirit of sacrifice: there is nothing inherently ‘Fascist’ about these values” ( Kishanji’s contribution stands out here –raising great fear and alarm among the ruling classes who hunted him down.

This is a crucial contribution at a time when the left is suffering from ‘loss of strategy’, when mass demonstrations at Tahrir Square or the Occupy Wall Street seem to hit a dead-end, simply tiring itself out, or unable to withstand state repression. Some might say that the militant mass demonstrations in Jangalmahal ended with the Maoists ‘taking over’ in June 2009. Instead this ‘taking over’ was nothing but the much needed backbone of the mass movement, able to now express itself as an organised force with a strategy.

This is the first step towards seeking clarity about the class struggle, defining what Marx in the Communist Manifesto calls a ‘line of the march’ for the movement as a whole – apart from being able to withstand the armed might of the state. Not that the Maoists have gained major success here but they have got some of the basics right. The usual story of mass activities and rallies frittering away after the initial upsurge did not therefore repeat itself here. The mass movement continues in many new forms. In fact, a new mass women’s formation, the Nari Izzat Bachao Committee has come up even as big rallies like the August 2010 mass rally attended by Mamata and Swami Agnivesh continue – unless banned or ‘denied permission’ by the government.

Such is Kishenji’s contribution, with something original – not just some bland ‘sacrifice’ or ‘martyrdom’ which Maoists themselves so often glorify. Maoists must guard themselves from this entrenched habit of not seeing anything specific or original about its leaders and painting them all in this barren seriality of ‘yet another martyr who heroically sacrificed his life for the revolution’. Otherwise the movement will be going round in circles, will stagnate in spite of the dynamism of its concrete practice.

Perhaps we can here identify something like a ‘Jangalmahal model or path’ of the Maoist movement, which can be compared to say the ‘Chattisgarh model or path’. There are many problems with talking in terms of ‘models’. And yet the specificities of the movement in particular areas must also be grasped so that we do not club all experiences and forms as one and the same. Otherwise, we are not learning anything new, not synthesizing, not learning from practice but endlessly repeating a set formula. Kishanji stands out in this respect. We do not know whether he also made conscious formulations about the specificity of the movement in Jangalmahal model (like a Hunan report?) but his concrete practice brilliantly shines forth.

Just in the month of September, Varavara Rao, myself and comrades from Kolkata had made a ‘fact-finding’ (for want of a better term) trip to Jangalmahal. We could not meet Kishanji but witnessed the atrocities committed by security forces and the private armies (bhairav bahini). I talked to a very young adivasi comrade, deep inside a village off Jhargram town: a member of the armed squad. I asked him if he had met Kishanji. He said yes. Then he said, that he cannot follow all that Kishanji says in meetings. Then I asked him if he heard of Marxism from Kishanji (I was curious). ‘Yes Kishanji talks about Marxism, but I find it very difficult to follow’. Then I ask him what has he understood of Marxism, what is it? I think he felt cornered but after some reflection came with a reply: it is something very good but some people have spoiled and distorted it. ‘We guerillas are fighting such people’.

Those like Kishanji have taken Marxism to the masses when doing so immediately means ‘organising’, planning, strategizing, taking the struggle ahead and putting yourself in the line of fire. Kishanji’s daring is not ‘speaking truth to power’, in postmodern Zapatismo-style, but making power come out of its democratic garb exposing its lies and falsities, including its violence to which our man fell.

I find it a bit of an enigma that Kishanji never put away his gun when on camera – one can prominently see it and so he is clearly not bothered to play the democratic card of being democratic, peaceful and so on. He talks nothing about the gun, no glorifying violence and so on, as some would pathetically expect. Instead he talks about a meticulous patient fight for real democracy and power to the people ( So why is the gun so visibly present, slung on his shoulders, surrounded as he is by curious journalists in his own camp? It can only mean that he had no pretense here of liberal bourgeois leaders of being non-violent and democratic, even as they preside over huge standing armies, hidden away.

Here we are only traversing a key insight of Marxism – that the question of power must be foregrounded, hence no point playing games that there is no power in society, no class power, no armed power, it is all democracy and free competition and so on. That is why Lenin would say that socialism is not a better or true radical democracy (this would have sounded respectable and acceptable to all), but the dictatorship of the proletariat – this is far more honest that saying that there is democracy for everyone even though it is really class dictatorship. If you feel kind of uncomfortable in whole-heartedly supporting Kishanji because of his gun then you might be uncomfortable with a key insight of Marxism itself – this is the double bind he throws us in.

Kishanji was not the man of ‘its blowing in the wind’ but precisely of another Bob Dylan song. He is the man of ‘the hour when the ship comes in’, one who must have imagined that he is fighting to usher in this grand hour, perhaps even when ‘the answer might not be blowing in wind’: “the chains of the sea will have busted in the night and will be buried at the bottom of the ocean… And oh the foes will rise with the sleep still in their eyes and they will jerk from their beds and think that they are dreaming; but they will pinch themselves and squeal and know that it is for real. And they will raise their hands, saying we will meet all your demands, but we’ll shout from the bow, your days are numbered….”

Friday, November 18, 2011

The Love Jihad

I absolutely love this story out of India, because it so aptly demonstrates the willingness of religious fundamentalists to believe anything they are told that promotes anger towards another religion.

Once again we have the Wikileaks to thank for this piece of information getting out to the public.

While it has now been proven to be untrue, it was alleged that in India Islamic fundamentalists created an incentive program for Muslim men to get non-Muslim women to fall in love with them in order for them to convert to Islam. This was supposedly taking place in Kerala.

That’s right, Islamic men is coming for your daughters in order to force them to convert to Islam. I mean this piece of fear mongering propaganda is right up there with the Western perception that hoards of Black men are descending into the suburbs to steal away White daughters.

Apparently there was so much apprehension over the non-existant issue that Dr. Sajan K. George, president of the ‘Global Council of Indian Christians’ contacted the US government and did everything he could to convince the Americans that this was a real threat. And a threat to America as well.

The Consul General Simkin also pointed out that a body under the powerful Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) had even sent out warnings and suggestions to Christians on avoiding the “love trap.”

“The Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance of the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) reported that there had been 2,868 female victims of the “Love Jihad” in Kerala from 2006-09.

“The Commission made several recommendations to parents through its newsletter, including a recommendation to monitor children’s mobile phones and computers, to fight this “social evil”…

“He said that his organization was publicly tight-lipped about the incidents because it did not want to exacerbate religious tensions in Kerala and Karnataka, which he said were already high.

“Dr. George said that his group found it necessary, however, to warn Christian parents and young girls of the danger posed by the “Love Jihad” so that they can be better prepared to resist what many call “charming” young Muslim men involved in the scheme…”

The Consul General also pointed to the role played by the media and Hindu groups.

“Multiple Hindu extremist groups held a rally at Mangalore’s district headquarters on October 15, alleging that over 3,000 Hindu girls from the region and more than 30,000 from the rest of the state had gone missing since the alleged launch of the “Love Jihad” in 2008, figures that were reportedly repeated on the websites of various Hindutva organizations..

“[However,] Official statistics reportedly show that 404 women were reported missing in 2009, and that police tracked down 332 of them,”

US Consul General Andrew Simkin began looking into and sent a cable to the US government saying it, “is probably the result of the overall paranoia and religious tension in South India.”

If there is one thing this incident proves is the willingness of religious fundamentalists to believe that the existence of other religions poses a deadly threat to them. This kind paranoid xenophobia is the real danger to not only India but any country where they exist.

And that anti-Muslim hysteria is not limited to Christianity and Judaism.

There’s also this sexist aspect to it, the idea you have to protect women from who they fall in love with, the insinuation that you must control who they fall in love with. This is very patriarchal, it continues the idea that the father or the brother must control the daughter’s to male members of society and thus restricting her freedoms.

Hopefully as society progresses we’ll out grow such petty ignorance.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A decisive Struggle must be waged for the Formation of a New International Communist (M - L - M ) Organization

This statement was issued by the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan a few months back.

The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan is strongly desirous of the international reorganization of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations throughout the world. This international organization can—and should—include all the parties and organizations that were members of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and also parties and organizations that were out of RIM. From the political and ideological perspective this international organization should be based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and on the summation of the positive and negative experiences of RIM and other Maoist parties and organizations in the past three decades.
1.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism—and only Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and nothing less and nothing more than that—in the present situation is the ideological weapon of the international communist movement. (By nothing less we mean "post MLM" "Marxism" or "Marxism-Leninism"; by nothing more we mean the formulations that have been added like “thought” or “path” or “new-synthesis".) In other words, a genuine international communist movement can only be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement, which includes all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations of different countries of the world. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism can, and must, develop; however, at this present juncture the international communist movement as whole is not in the position to have made such a leap forward. We cannot reach that stage with spurious, reckless and premature pretentious assertions that would only lead toward deviation and damage the international communist movement.
According to the experience of RIM's struggle in the past three decades, until RIM's activities was based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it reached important theoretical and practical contributions, that are to be cherished and are worthy of protection, and that should also be further developed. However, the premature proclamations produced by the labels of “thought,” “path” and “synthesis” not only lead certain parties away from the path of peoples war, revolution, and revolutionary struggles at different degrees, but also towards confusion and ideological and political disorientation; this has resulted in the current organizational fragmentation and paralysis of the entire Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. Without a clear stance against, and distancing from, this overt deviation, whose worst form is nothing but an apparent post-Marxism-Leninism-Maoism––and without conducting a serious struggle against it––we cannot lead the struggle for the formation of an international organization of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations towards a principled success and conclusion.
2. The international organization of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations of different countries of the world should be based on the Revolutionary internationalist comradery and solidarity of all the participants, including those smaller or bigger, stronger or weaker, older or newer. There should not be father or fathers, big brother or brothers, within its ranks. Our aspirations can only be achieved if the international movement will act as an international collective of the independent parties and organizations of different countries, each with equal rights, rather than as a global party. Thus, all the participants should have direct participation and contribution in the leadership of the international movement.
According to RIM's previous experiences, the existence of a permanent leadership committee was a positive point that provided continuity to the organizational existence and activities of RIM. This positive point not only deserves to be protected, but also strengthened and further expanded. however, From the very beginning of the formation of the Committee of RIM (CoRIM), and despite the stance of the Declaration of RIM against the centralizing tendency of Comintern, participants were formally divided into first class and second class members––that is, those who had the privilege of a permanent presence in CoRIM and those who were disenfranchised. Therefore, this committee never became a committee representing all members of RIM.
Even worse, in actual fact CoRIM, during the many years of its activities, was unconditionally under the hegemony of one particular party––even during the period when the collective decisions of RIM were in contradiction with the positions of that party. In such a situation the committee under the hegemony of that party, instead of implementing the collective decisions of RIM, directly or indirectly led to a direction that propagated the views and recently the " new synthesis " of that party at the level of whole movement. In particular, it was the unsolvable contradiction that finally led towards the decimation of the CoRIM.
It should also be acknowledged, unfortunately, that the organizational principles and of rules RIM––with an unprincipled and incorrect stance based on separation of organizational principles and rules from ideological and political line––led RIM to the disregard and discount for the organizational principles and rules. In fact it was this organizational problem that paved the ground for the aforementioned party's unconditional hegemony within leading committee of RIM.
3. The most principled and appropriate international communist organization is a new International and we should strive for its formation. At the same time, however, we should acknowledge that in the current situation the immediate formation of a fully formed International is not immediately possible: we can only form an international organization at a lower level, fostering and developing it towards a new International.
According to the past experience of RIM, despite the fact that the strategic orientation of the struggle for the formation of a new international was theoretically accepted, in practical terms it was not given enough attention. In recent years, with the dominance of the post-Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in CoRIM, this goal has been forgotten as a whole.
In this current situation the new international communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) organization, towards the formation of which we are struggling, can and should benefit from the formation and struggles of RIM. Thus, this international organization should be more advanced, ideologically and politically, and organizationally more extensive.
4. Recently, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan held a broad party seminar to provide a summation and analysis of the experiences of the struggles of RIM, and will soon publish its results, a humble theoretical contribution as part of a broad international summation. In the final analysis, the formation of a new international organization of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations throughout the world requires reaching a consensus on the fundamental points of a general summation of the experiences of the struggles of RIM and other Maoist forces. Carrying out a general debate and discussion amongst Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations for reaching such a consensus is necessary. In the process of forming and carring forward coordinations, competitions and bilateral, regional and transregional alliances in principle, this process of debate and discussion should continue during a reasonable and possible time amongst the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations for the purpose of the formation of a new international organization.

Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan
jaddi 1389 ( January 2011 )

Sunday, November 6, 2011

A Call from the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari - Bury the 1% with the 99%

The Naxalbari

Bury the 1 with the 99!

A wave of rage and unrest is seen worldwide. The youth are out on the streets – protesting, resisting, hitting back. They are supported and joined by people from a wide spectrum. Dictators, who squeeze out the life breath of freedom; rulers, who load all the hardship of the crisis on the people’s backs; billionaire sharks, who speculate and profit on hunger and homelessness; politicians, who plunder public funds – the whole lot is targeted. This is wonderful!

In some Arab countries the people have achieved an initial victory by ending dictatorial regimes. In Europe, powerful outbursts of popular fury have forced the rulers to tread slow on their plans to choke the people with cuts in public spending. And in the midst of this, mass protest has broken out all over the USA, the centre of the world imperialist system. The slogans raised by the Occupy movements, initiated by Occupy Wall Street, capture the anti-capitalist sentiments and desire for change of the broad masses everywhere. Occupations replicate the world over and the call resonates with ever greater force.

That’s right, the 99 per cent can no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 per cent. It must be ended. But let’s get this straight. We need to go all out, if that dream is to be realised. And that’s the only way to keep the 1 in the crosswire. They are indeed outnumbered; but that 1 packs treachery and death. We just saw them hijacking the people’s struggle in Libya. They made that an excuse to bomb their way in and set up a regime, pliant enough to their satisfaction. Their skill at the ‘non-violent, democratic’ way is on display in Tunisia and Egypt. A Ben Ali is replaced with a Hamadi Jebali, a Mubarak with a Tantawi – and it’s business as usual for the 1. They are also adept at promoting protest, as a sort of safety valve and distraction – like they are trying in India. Anna Hazare gets media prime time; people’s anger against corruption is diffused. Meanwhile they step up their War on the People, unleash the army and US supplied drones, and go all-out against the on-going armed revolution of the dispossessed, the people’s war led by the Maoists. Oh yes, this 1 will do anything to hang on to power.

So we need to go to the roots. Dig them out. Demolish the power protecting it. Turn over the soil for the new to shoot up. That’s the only way to end the human-chewing, environment-destroying greed of capitalism, of the worldwide imperialist system. We need to end distinctions of class, caste, gender, race and ethnicity. We need to tear out the economic and social relations on which they rest. We need a thorough cleaning out of all the rotten ideas that go with them. And when you get down to it, that’s the communism we are talking about, a whole new way of thinking, a whole new way of life – for us and this globe.

Revolution, all the way!
Capitalism is a dead-end! There’s a future in communism!

November 2, 2011

1നെ 99കൊണ്ട് കുഴിച്ചുമൂടുക

സി പി ഐ എം എല്‍ നക്സല്‍ബാരിയുടെ ആഹ്വാനം

അമര്‍ഷത്തിന്‍റെയും, അസ്വസ്ഥതയുടെതുമായ ഒരു അല ഇന്ന് ലോകവ്യാപകമായി ദ്രിശ്യമാണ്‌.

പ്രതീക്ഷിച്ചുകൊണ്ട്, ചെറുത്തുകൊണ്ട്, തിരിച്ചടിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് യുവജനങ്ങള്‍ തെരുവിലെക്കിറങ്ങിയിരിക്കുന്നു. വിവിധ ജനവിഭാഗങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നുള്ളവര്‍ വ്യാപകമായി ഇവരെ പിന്തുണക്കുന്നു, ഇവരൊത്തു ചേരുന്നു. സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തിന്‍റെ ജീവവായുവെ പിഴിഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്ന സ്വേചാധിപതികള്‍, പ്രതിസന്ധിയുടെ എല്ലാ കഷ്ടപ്പാടും ജനങ്ങളുടെ മുതുകത്ത് കെട്ടിവെക്കുന്ന ഭരണാധികാരികള്‍, വിശപ്പില്‍നിന്നും ഭാവനരാഹിത്യത്തില്‍നിന്നും ലാഭമുണ്ടാക്കുന്ന ശതകോടീശ്വര കൊമ്പന്‍ സ്രാവുകള്‍, പൊതുമുതല്‍ കൊള്ളയടിക്കുന്ന രാഷ്ട്രീയക്കാര്‍- ഇവരെയെല്ലാമാണ് ഇന്ന് ലകഷ്യമിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്. ഇത് ഗംഭീരമാണ്!

സ്വേചാധിപത്യഭരണത്തിന് അന്ത്യം വരുത്തി തുടക്കവിജയം നേടാന്‍ ചില അറബ് നാടുകളിലെ ജനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക്‌ കഴിഞ്ഞു. പൊതുചിലവുകള്‍ വെട്ടിക്കുറച്ചു ജനങ്ങളെ ശ്വാസം മുട്ടിക്കുന്ന പദ്ധതികളുടെ ആക്കം അല്പം കുറയ്ക്കാന്‍ ശക്തമായ ബഹുജന രോഷം യൂറോപ്പിലെ ഭരണാധികാരികളെ നിര്‍ബന്ധിചിരിക്കുന്നു. ഇതിനിടയിലാണ് ലോകസാമ്രാജ്യത്വ വ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ കേന്ദ്രമായ യു.എസ്. എയിലെമ്പാടും ബഹുജനപ്രതിഷേധം പൊട്ടിപ്പുറപ്പെട്ടത്.

"കൈയ്യടക്കല്‍" പ്രക്ഷോഭങ്ങള്‍ തുടങ്ങിവെച്ച വാള്‍സ്ട്രീറ്റ് കൈയ്യടക്കല്‍ പ്രസ്ഥാനം ഉയര്‍ത്തിയ മുദ്രാവാക്യം ലോകത്തെമ്പാടുമുള്ള വിശാലബഹുജനങ്ങളുടെ മുതലാളിത്ത വിരുദ്ധ വികാരങ്ങളുടെയും, മാറ്റത്തിന് വേണ്ടിയുള്ള ആഗ്രഹത്തെയും ഉള്‍ക്കൊള്ളുന്നു. കൈയടക്കലുകള്‍ ലോകമെമ്പാടും ആവര്‍ത്തിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു. അതിന്‍റെ ആഹ്വാനം പൂര്‍വാധികം ശക്തിയോടെ എങ്ങും മാറ്റൊലികൊള്ളുന്നു.

ശരിയാണ്, ഒരു ശതമാനത്തിന്‍റെ ദുരയും, അഴിമതിയും ശതമാനത്തിന് ഇനിയും പൊറുക്കാന്‍ വയ്യ. ഇതവസാനിപ്പിച്ചേ മതിയാകൂ. എന്നാല്‍ നാമൊരുകാര്യം കൃത്യമായി അറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കണം- ആ സ്വപ്നം സാക്ഷാല്‍ക്കരിക്കണമെങ്കില്‍ അങ്ങേയറ്റം വരെ പോയേപറ്റൂ. 1 ന് നേരെയുള്ള ഉന്നം തെറ്റാതിരിക്കാനും ഇതേ വഴിയുള്ളൂ. എണ്ണത്തില്‍ തീര്‍ച്ചയായും അവര്‍ തുച്ഛമാണ്. പക്ഷേ ആ 1 ല്‍ നിറയെ കുതികാല്‍വെട്ടും, കൊലയുമാണ്. ലിബിയയിലെ ബഹുജനസമരത്തെ അവര്‍ തട്ടിയെടുത്തത് നാം കണ്ടു. ബോംബ്‌ വര്‍ഷിച്ചു അങ്ങോട്ട്‌ കടന്നു ചെന്നു. കൂടുതല്‍ 'വിവേകമായ' ഒരു ഭരണം സ്ഥാപിച്ചു. 'അക്രമരാഹിത്യ'ത്തിലും ജനാധിപത്യത്തിലുമുള്ള അവരുടെ നൈപുണ്യം ടുനീഷ്യയിലും ഈജിപ്തിലും കാണാം. ഒരു ബെന്‍ അലിക്ക് പകരം ഒരു ഹമാദി ജെബാലി. ഒരു മുബാറക്കിന് പകരം താന്‍താവി. അങ്ങനെ 1 ന്‍റെ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ പഴയപടി പോലെ തന്നെ തുടരുന്നു. പ്രതിഷേധങ്ങള്‍ ഉയര്‍ത്തി കാര്യം നേടാനും അവര്‍ക്കറിയാം.

ശ്രദ്ധ തിരിച്ചുവിടാന്‍, രോഷം ചോര്‍ത്തിക്കളയാന്‍- ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ അതാണ്‌ കണ്ടത്. അണ്ണാ ഹസാരെയ്ക്ക് മാധ്യമങ്ങളില്‍ പ്രൈം ടൈം, അഴിമതിക്കെതിരായ ജനകീയ രോഷം മയപ്പെടുത്താന്‍ ഒരു മേള. അതോടൊപ്പം തന്നെ, ജനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക്‌ നേരെയുള്ള യുദ്ധത്തെ അവര്‍ മുന്നോട്ടു കൊണ്ടുപോകുന്നുമുണ്ട്. സൈന്യത്തെ കെട്ടഴിച്ചുവിടും യു എസ് നല്‍കുന്ന ആളില്ല വിമാനങ്ങള്‍ ഉപയോഗിച്ചും, അങ്ങനെ ഒന്നുമില്ലാത്തവരുടെ സായുധ വിപ്ലവത്തിനെതിരെ, മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ നയിക്കുന്ന ജനകീയ യുദ്ധത്തിനെതിരെ, അവര്‍ ആഞ്ഞടിക്കുന്നു. അതെ സംശയിക്കേണ്ട, അധികാരത്തില്‍ തൂങ്ങാന്‍ ഈ 1 എന്തും ചെയ്യും.

അതുകൊണ്ട് നമ്മള്‍ വേരില്‍ കയറി പിടിക്കണം.അതിനെ പിഴുതെറിയണം. പുതിയതിനെ കിളിര്‍പ്പിക്കാന്‍ മണ്ണ് കിളച്ചു മറിക്കണം. മനുഷ്യനെ തിന്നുന്ന, പരിസ്ഥിതിയെ നശിപ്പിക്കുന്ന മുതലാളിത്ത ദുരയെ, ലോകവ്യാപകമായ സാമ്രാജ്യത്വ വ്യവസ്ഥിതിയുടെ ആര്‍ത്തിയെ അവസാനിപ്പിക്കാന്‍ അത് മാത്രമാണ് ഏക മാര്‍ഗം. വര്‍ഗ്ഗ, ജാതി, ലിംഗ, വര്‍ണ്ണ, വംശീയ വേര്‍തിരിവുകളെ എല്ലാം പിച്ചി ചീന്തണം. അവയെ നിലനിര്‍ത്തുന്ന എല്ലാ സാമ്പത്തിക, സാമൂഹ്യ ബന്ധങ്ങളെയും നശിപ്പിക്കണം. അവയോടൊത്തുപോകുന്ന എല്ലാ ജീര്‍ണ ആശയങ്ങളെയും പൂര്‍ണമായും തൂത്തുമാറ്റണം. ഇതൊക്കെ തന്നെയാണ് കമ്മ്യൂണിസം- ഒരു സമ്പൂര്‍ണ പുത്തന്‍ ചിന്താസരണി, ഒരു സമ്പൂര്‍ണ പുത്തന്‍ ജീവിതരീതി. നമുക്കും ഈ ഭൂഗോളത്തിനും വേണ്ടി.

വിപ്ലവം അവസാനം വരെ

മുതലാളിത്തം ഒരു അടഞ്ഞ വഴി! കമ്മ്യൂണിസത്തിലാണ് ഭാവി!

Thursday, November 3, 2011

യുദ്ധകാണ്ഡം --ബാലചന്ദ്രന്‍ ചുള്ളിക്കാട്

ആയുധമേന്തിയിരിക്കുന്നത് നൂറ്റാണ്ടുകളായി മര്‍ദ്ദനം അനുഭവിച്ചവരാണ്...അതേ രൂപം കൊള്ളുന്നത്‌ ഒരു കൊടുങ്കാറ്റാണ്...പുറം തിരിഞ്ഞു നില്‍ക്കാന്‍ ആര്‍ക്കു കഴിയും...

വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ക്കുശേഷം ബാലചന്ദ്രന്‍ ചുള്ളിക്കാട് വീണ്ടും...

ഉണ്ണാനില്ലാതെ ചാവുന്നോര്‍
എന്നു ചോദിച്ചു പൊങ്ങുന്നു
യൗവനത്തിന്റെ ഗര്‍ജനം:

"ജീവിക്കാന്‍ സമ്മതിക്കാത്ത
നിയമം തുലയേണ്ടതാം
ജീവിക്കാന്‍ സമ്മതിക്കാത്ത
ഭരണം തകരേണ്ടതാം.

എടുക്ക വില്ലും ശരവും
തോക്കും വാക്കും മനുഷ്യരേ,
നഷ്ടപ്പെടാന്‍ നമുക്കുള്ള-
താര്‍ക്കും വേണ്ടാത്ത ജീവിതം"

Monday, October 17, 2011

"I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie"

H.G.Wells met Stalin when the world was passing through Great Depression. There was a general feeling that the entire world is going to turn left. Wells too had thought that the changes seen in America too were in that direction. This interview with Stalin was published in 1937. And we see Stalin, however, declining to share the views of Wells. He says "I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie" At a time when the world is witnessing yet another capitalist crisis, this interview seems worth reading.

[New York, New Century Publishers, September 1937; reprinted October 1950. Joseph Stalin and H. G. Wells, Marxism VS. Liberalism: An Interview.]

H. G. Wells visited the Soviet Union in 1934 and on July 23 he interviewed Joseph Stalin. The conversation, lasting from 4 P. M. to 6:50 P. M., was recorded by Constantine Oumansky, then head of the Press Bureau of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. The text, as printed in this pamphlet, has been approved by Mr. Wells.

WELLS: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation With President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to you to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . . .

STALIN: Not so very much. . . .

WELLS: I wander around the world as a common man and, as a common man, observe what is going on around me.

STALIN: Important public men like yourself are not "common men." Of course, history alone can show how important this or that public man has been; at all events you do not look at the world as a "common man."

WELLS: I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try to see the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as a party politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to the United States excited my mind. The old financial world is collapsing; the economic life of the country is being reorganized on new lines. Lenin said: "We must learn to do business," learn this from the capitalists. Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganization, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin from two different starting points. But is there not a relation in ideas, a kinship of ideas, between Washington and Moscow? In Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here; they are building offices, they are creating a number of new state regulation bodies, they are organizing a long-needed Civil Service. Their need, like yours, is directive ability.

STALIN: The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R. The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old destroyed economic basis an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its bad features, restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society. That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganization of society.

Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor. Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society. Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

WELLS: I agree with much of what you have said. But I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's "New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces.

STALIN: In speaking of the impossibility of realizing the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage, and determination. Undoubtedly Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like once again to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent, and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavorable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to. Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded. But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat.

The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The rail*roads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world. The State is an institution that organizes the defense of the country, organizes the maintenance of "order"; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that, in spite of all his energy and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations, it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable. .

WELLS: Perhaps I believe more strongly in the economic interpretation of politics than you do. Huge forces driving towards better organization, for the better functioning of the community, that is, for socialism, have been brought into action by invention and modern science. Organization, and the regulation of individual action, have become mechanical necessities, irrespective of social theories. If we begin with the State control of the banks. and then follow with the control of transport, of the heavy industries, of industry in general, of commerce, etc., such an all-embracing control will be equivalent to the State ownership of all branches of national economy. This will be the process of socialization. Socialism and individualism are not opposites like black and white. There are many intermediate stages between them. There is individualism that borders on brig*andage, and there is discipline and organization that are the equiva*lent of socialism. The introduction of planned economy depends, to a large degree, upon the organizers of economy, upon the skilled technical intelligentsia, who, step by step, can be converted to the socialist principles of organization. And this is the most important thing. Because organization comes before socialism. It is the more important fact. Without organization the socialist idea is a mere idea.

STALIN: There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective, There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits. They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited Class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labor power to the capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled?

As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say: Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?

WELLS: I object to this simplified classification of mankind into poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people which strives only for profit. But are not these people regarded as nuisances in the West just as much as here? Are there not plenty of people in the West for whom profit is not an end, who own a certain amount of wealth, who want to invest and obtain a profit from this investment, but who do not regard this as the main object? They regard invest*ment as an inconvenient necessity. Are there not plenty of capable and devoted engineers, organizers of industry, whose activities are stimulated by something other than profit? In my opinion there is a numerous class of capable people who admit that the present system is unsatisfactory. and who are destined to playa great role in future socialist society. During the past few years I have been much engaged in and have thought of the need for conducting propaganda in favor of socialism and cosmopolitanism among wide circles of engineers, airmen, military-technical people, etc. It is useless approaching these circles with two track class war propaganda. These people understand the condition of the world. They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class*-war antagonism as nonsense.

STALIN: You object to the simplified classification of mankind into rich and poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there is the technical intelligentsia that you have mentioned and among which there are very good and very honest people. Among them there are also dishonest and wicked people, there are all sorts of people among them. But first of all mankind is divided into. rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from the fundamental fact. I do not deny the existence of intermediate, middle strata, which either take the side of one or other of these two conflicting classes, or else take up a neutral or semineutral position in this struggle. But, I repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in society and from the fundamental struggle between the two main classes means ignoring facts. This struggle is going on and will continue. The outcome of the struggle will be determined by the proletarian class, the working class.

WELLS: But are there not many people who are not poor, but who work and work productively?

STALIN: Of course, there are small landowners, artisans, small traders, but it is not these people who decide the fate of a country, but the toiling masses, who produce all the things society requires.

WELLS: But there are very different kinds of capitalists. There are capitalists who only think about profit, about getting rich; but there are also those who are prepared to make sacrifices. Take old Morgan for example. He only thought about profit; he was a parasite on society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth. But take Rocke*feller. He is a brilliant organizer; he has set an example of how to organize the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation. Or take Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But is he not a passionate organizer of rationalized production from whom you take lessons? I would like to emphasize the fact that recently an important change in opinion towards the U.S.S.R. has taken place in English speaking countries. The reason for this, first of all, is the position of Japan and the events in Germany. But there are other reasons besides those arising from international politics. There is a more profound reason, namely, the recognition by many people of the fact that the system based on private profit is breaking down. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, we must not bring to the forefront the antagonism between the two worlds, but should strive to combine all the constructive movements, all the constructive forces in one line as much as possible. It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.

STALIN: In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for profit, only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are the most worthless people, capable of nothing else. Many of them undoubtedly possess great organizing talent, Which I do not dream of denying. We Soviet people learn a great deal from the capitalists. And Morgan, whom you characterize so unfavorably, was undoubtedly a good, capable organizer. But if you mean people who are prepared to reconstruct the world, of course, you will not be able to find them in the ranks of those who faithfully serve the cause of profit. We and they stand at opposite poles. You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is a capable organizer of production. But don't you know his attitude towards the working class? Don't you know how many workers he throws on the street? The capitalist is riveted to profit; and no power on earth can tear him away from it. Capitalism will be abolished, not, by "organizers" of production, not by the technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, because the aforementioned strata do not play an independent role. The engineer, the organizer of production, does not work as he would like to, but as he is ordered, in such a way as to serve the interests of his employers. There are exceptions of course; there are people in this stratum who have awakened from the intoxication of capitalism the technical intelligentsia can, under certain conditions, perform miracles and greatly benefit mankind. But It can also cause great harm. We Soviet people have not a little experience of the technical intelligentsia. After the October Revolution, a certain section of the technical intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of constructing the new society; they opposed this work of construction and sabotaged it.

We did all we possibly could to bring the technical intelligentsia into this work of construction we tried this way and that. Not a little time passed before our technical intelligentsia agreed actively to assist the new system. Today the best section of this technical intelligentsia are in the front rank of the builders of socialist society. Having this experience, we are far from underestimating the good and the bad sides of the technical intelligentsia and we know that on the one hand it can do harm, and on the other hand, it can perform "miracles." Of course, things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is utopia. Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and set to work to reconstruct society? Do you think there are many people of this kind, say, in England or in France? No, there are few who would be willing to break away from their employers and begin reconstructing
the world.

Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to transform the world it is necessary'to have political power? It seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you greatly underestimate the question of political power, that it entirely drops out of your conception. What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and do not possess power? At best they can help the class which takes power, but they cannot change the world themselves. This can only be done by a great class which will take the place of the capitalist class and become the sovereign master as the latter was before. This class is the working class. Of course, the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be accepted; and the latter, in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an independent historical role. The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this great task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.

WELLS: Yes, but for long voyages a captain and a navigator are required.

STALIN: That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.

WELLS: The big ship is humanity, not a class.

STALIN: You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

WELLS: I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelli*gentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great English scientific society. The President's speech was a speech for social planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago, they would not have listened to what I say to them now. Today, the man at the head of the Royal Society holds revolutionary views and insists on the scientific reorganization of human society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not. kept pace with these facts.

STALIN : Yes, I know this, and this is to be explained by the fact that capitalist society is now in a cul-de-sac. The capitalists are seeking, but cannot find, a way out of this cul-de-sac that would be compatible with the dignity of this class, compatible with the interests of this class. They could, to some extent, crawl out of the crisis on their hands and knees, but they cannot find an exit that would enable them to walk out of it with head raised high, a way out that would not. fundamentally disturb the interests of capitalism. This, of course, is realized by wide circles of the technical intelligentsia. A large section of it is beginning to realize the community of its interests with those of the class which is capable of pointing the way out of the cul-de-sac.

WELLS: You of all people know something about revolutions, Mr. Stalin, from the practical side. Do the masses ever rise? Is it not an established truth that all revolutions are made by a minority?

STALIN: To bring about a revolution a leading revolutionary minority is required; but the most talented, devoted and energetic minority would be helpless if it did not rely upon the at least passive support of millions.

WELLS: At least passive? Perhaps sub-conscious?

STALIN: Partly also the semi-instinctive and semiconscious, but without the support of millions, the best minority is impotent.

WELLS: I watch communist propaganda in the West and it seems to me that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very old*fashioned, because it is insurrectionary propaganda. Propaganda in favor of the violent overthrow of the social system ,was all very well when it was directed against tyranny. But under modern conditions, when the system is collapsing anyhow, stress should be laid on efficiency, on competence, on productiveness, and not on insurrection. It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The communist propaganda in the West is a nuisance to constructive minded people.

STALIN: Of course the old system is breaking down, decaying. That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system. You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate. You rightly state that the old world is breaking down. But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its own accord No, the substitution of one social system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the people of the new world came into power, they had to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the old order by force; these people of the new world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of the old world upon the new system.

Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for example. Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old world by means of violence. What will you do with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealize the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do ,not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.

WELLS: But look at what is now going on in the capitalist world. The collapse is not a simple one: it is the outbreak of reactionary violence which is degenerating to gangsterism. And it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should support them in the fight against the reactionaries. I think that it is useless operating with the methods of the old rigid insurrectionary socialism.

STALIN: The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

WELLS: Cromwell operated on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order.

STALIN: In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others!

Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long time that the tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down? But how much blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it? And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of people who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating the only correct way out? Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed? But you know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to be shed in order to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies, internal and external. Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century. Long before 1789 it was clear to many how rotten the royal power, the feudal system was. But a popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, ,could not be avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the decaying edifice of the old order can be mended, that the tottering edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved. That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save their existence as a ruling class.

WELLS: But there were not a few lawyers at the head of the Great French Revolution.

STALIN: Do you deny the role of the intelligentsia in revolutionary movements? Was the Great French Revolution a lawyers' revolution and not a popular revolution, which achieved victory by rousing vast masses of the people against feudalism and championed the interests of the Third Estate? And did the lawyers among the leaders of the Great French Revolution act in accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they not introduce new, bourgeois-revolutionary laws?

The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a single class has voluntarily made way for another class. There is no such precedent in world history. The Communists have learned this lesson of history. Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But such a turn of affairs is improbable: that is what experience teaches. That is why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for battle. Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army, a captain who does not understand that the enemy will not surrender, that he must be crushed? To be such a captain means deceiving, betraying the working class. That is why r think that what seems to you to be old-fashioned is in fact a measure of revolutionary expediency for the working class.

WELLS: I do not deny that force has to be used, but I think the forms of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the opportunities presented by the existing laws, which must be defended against reactionary attacks. There is no need to disorganize the old system because it is' disorganizing itself enough as it is. That is why it seems to me insurrection against the old order, against the law, is<'obsolete, old-fashioned. Incidentally, I deliberately exaggerate in order to bring the truth out more clearly. I can formulate my point of view in the following way: first, I am for order; second, I attack the present system in so far as it cannot assure order: third, I think that class war propaganda may detach from socialism just those educated people whom socialism needs.

STALIN: In order to achieve a great object, an important social object, there must be a main force, a bulwark, a revolutionary class. Next it is necessary to organize the assistance of an auxiliary force for this main force: in this case this auxiliary force is the Party, to which the best forces of the intelligentsia belong. Just now you spoke about "educated people;" But what educated people did you have in mind? Were there not plenty of educated people on the side of the old order in England in the seventeenth century, in France at the end of the eighteenth century, and in Russia in the epoch of the October Revolution? The old order: had in its service many highly educated people who defended the old order, who opposed the new order. Education is a weapon the effect of which be struck down. Of course, the proletariat, socialism, needs is determined by the hands which wield it, by who is to highly educated people. Clearly, simpletons cannot help the proletariat to fight for socialism, to build a new society. I do not underestimate the role of the intelligentsia; on the contrary, emphasize it. The question is, however, which intelligentsia are we discussing? Because there are different kinds of intelligentsia.

WELLS: There can be no revolution without a radical change in the educational system. It is sufficient to quote two examples: The example of the German Republic, which did not touch the old educational system, and therefore never became a republic: and the example of the British Labor Party, which lacks the determination to insist on a radical change in the educational system.

STALIN: That is a correct observation. Permit me now to reply to, your three points.

First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence of a social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working class.

Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the Communists call a Party. To the Party belong the intelligent workers and those elements of the technical intelligentsia which are closely connected with the working class. The intelligentsia can be strong only if it combines with the working class. If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher.

Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The new political power creates the new laws, the new order, which is revolutionary order.

I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that corresponds to the interests of the working class. If however, any of the laws of the old order can be utilized in the interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should be utilized. I cannot object to your postulate that the present system should be attacked in so far as it does not insure the necessary order for the people.

And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamored with violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.

WELLS: There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.

STALIN: But you have imperceptibly passed from questions of revolution to questions of reform. This is not the same thing. Don't you think that the Chartist movement played a great role in the Reforms in England in the nineteenth century?

WELLS: The Chartists did little and disappeared without leaving a trace.

STALIN: I do not agree with you. The Chartists, and the strike movement which they organized, played a great role; they compelled the ruling classes to make a number of concessions in regard to the franchise, in regard to abolishing the so-called "rotten boroughs," and in regard to some of the points of the "Charter." Chartism played a not unimportant historical role and compelled a section of the ruling classes to make certain concessions, reforms, in order to avert great shocks. Generally speaking, it must be said that of all the ruling classes, the ruling classes of England, both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, proved to be the cleverest, most flexible from the point of view of their class interests, from the point of view of maintaining their power. Take as an example, say, from modern history, the general strike in England in 1926. The first thing any other bourgeoisie would have done in the face. of such an event, when the General Council of Trade Unions called for a strike, would have been to arrest the trade union leaders. The British bourgeoisie did not do that, and it acted cleverly from the point of view of its own interests. I cannot conceive of such a flexible strategy being employed by the bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany or France. In order to maintain their rule, the ruling classes of Great Britain have never foresworn small concessions, reforms. But it would be a mistake to think that these reforms were revolutionary.

WELLS: You have a higher opinion of the ruling classes of my country than I have. But is there a great difference between a small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?

STALIN: Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system. Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot count on the change of social systems taking place as an imperceptible transition from one system to another by means, of reforms, by the ruling class making concessions. .

WELLS: I am very grateful to you for this talk which has meant a great deal to me. In explaining things to me you probably called to mind how you had to explain the fundamentals of socialism in the illegal circles before the revolution. At the present time there are in the world only two persons to whose opinion, to whose every word, millions are listening: you and Roosevelt. Others may preach as much as they like; what they say will never be printed or heeded. I cannot yet appreciate what has been done in your country; I only arrived yesterday. But I have already seen the happy faces of healthy men and women and I know that something very considerable is being done here. The contrast with 1920 is astounding.

STALIN: Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been cleverer.

WELLS: No, if human beings were cleverer it would be a good thing to invent a five-year plan for the reconstruction of the human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order. (Laughter).

STALIN: Don't you intend to stay for the Congress of the Soviet Writers Union?

WELLS: Unfortunately, I have various engagements to fulfill and can stay in the U.S.S.R. only for a week. I came to see you and I am very satisfied by our talk. But I intend to discuss with such Soviet writers as I can meet the possibility of their affiliating to the P.E.N. club. This is an international organization of writers founded by Galsworthy; after his death I became president. The organization is still weak, but it has branches in many countries, and what is more important, the speeches of its members, are widely reported in the press. It insists upon this free expression of opinion, even of opposition opinion. I hope to discuss this point with Gorky. I do not know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom here.

STALIN: We Bolsheviks call it "self-criticism." It is widely used in the U.S.S.R. If there is anything I can do to help you I shall be glad to do so.

WELLS: (Expresses thanks.)

STALIN: (Expresses thanks for the visit.)