Sunday, 31 December 2017

Ahed Tamimi and the Israeli Apartheid State

DOWNLOAD FULL EPISODE



Welcome to Back in the USSR on 93.3 FM CFRU, I am Siegfried, and tonight, on the last show of 2017, I’m going to pick up where I left off last week talking about the Palestinian people and their struggle for liberation against the Apartheid state of Israel and its US ally.  Last week I talked about the recent decision by the Trump administration to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, in violation of international law and the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital.  I also talked about how this action, which was overwhelmingly condemned at the United Nations, was not in defiance of but actually was the logical conclusion of the so-called “peace process” starting with the Oslo accords in 1993, which, far from granting a viable independent state for Palestinians or guaranteeing refugees the right of return to lands stolen by Israel, reduced the Palestinian people to living in a permanent state of siege – hemmed in by expanding Israeli settlements, subject to constant aggression by Israeli security forces, and dominated by a Palestinian Authority that actively collaborates with the Israeli government in its oppression of the Palestinian people.  I quoted from Greg Shupak’s excellent article “The Jerusalem Gambit”, in which he details how these things are connected in what is a decidedly colonial situation as Israel illegally grabs more and more Palestinian land with the aid of the United States, the supposedly “honest broker” in peace talks that offer nothing but betrayal to the Palestinians who have fought an anti-colonial struggle since 1947.

Since U.S. President Donald Trump 'recognized' Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on December 6, 610 Palestinians have been arrested for resisting the occupation, including 170 children and 12 women, the Palestinian Prisoner's Society (PPS) reported on December 27, so even these figures are out of date.

According to the Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem, at least 6,831 Palestinians are already being held in Israeli custody, including 331 children.  The latest arrests bring the total number of Palestinian prisoners to 7,441.  

In addition, 12 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since Trump's Jerusalem declaration and many thousands wounded from rubber bullets, tear gas and the many other weapons in the IDF's arsenal.

But if there's one case that has truly stood out and captured headlines recently, it's the case of a sixteen 16-year old Palestinian girl, Ahed Tamimi, who was arrested and is currently being held without charges by Israeli authorities.

I'd like to read an Al-Jazeera article on this case from December 26th in full, because I believe it shows quite well the kind of reality Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are living in today.


The Real News Network interviewed Ahed Tamimi's father earlier this week, a man who has long been active in the Palestinian liberation struggle.  This is what he had to say.



Play Public Enemy - "By the time I get to Arizona"

You're listening to Back in the USSR.  One of the tactics of a colonial power is always the ideological demonization of those it colonizes, and Israel is no exception.  You've seen how Israeli social media demonized Ahed Tamimi, a sixteen year old girl, baying for her blood because she stood up to Israeli soldiers and would not be intimidated.  We've seen how high-profile Israeli government ministers have called for outright genocide of the Palestinian people.  We've even seen current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu try to blame the Holocaust on the Palestinians, effectively letting the Nazis off the hook in an attempt to demonize the resistance against his own genocidal policies.  That was back in 2015 when Israel launched its last assault on Gaza and more than a thousand Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children, were killed, and the Israeli media and political establishment was bending over backwards trying to justify the atrocities they were committing on a daily basis.  This is what Max Blumenthal had to say about this horrendous propaganda from an interview he did with the Real News two years ago.





Amir Sulaiman - "Danger"

Lee Reed "Bazooka Rap"

Wednesday, 27 December 2017

Trump, Jerusalem and the Palestinian Liberation Struggle

DOWNLOAD FULL EPISODE


You’re listening to Back in the USSR here on 93.3 FM CFRU, I am Siegfried.  I was absent from Guelph last week, visiting a good friend of mine in Ottawa-Hull so I didn’t do a live show last week, as you might have noticed, but before I left I said that I’d be addressing a particularly pressing issue on the show when I got back.  A subject that I have unfortunately not devoted enough attention to this year, and that is the subject of Palestine and the Palestinian liberation struggle in the face of Israeli settler-colonialism and Apartheid.  This issue was recently thrust back into center stage with the recent decision of the Trump administration to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, thus recognizing Israel’s claim to the entire city and denying the aspirations of the Palestinians who have long sought an independent viable state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

To give some historical background: During the 1947-48 ethnic cleansing campaign through which the Israeli state was created, Israel took control of West Jerusalem. Twenty years later, East Jerusalem was occupied and, in 1973, the Israeli government mandated a 73 to 26 percent demographic advantage for Jewish residents.

Since that time, 280,000 settlers have illegally moved in, and Israel has stripped 14,500 Palestinians of their residency rights, made it prohibitively difficult for the remaining Palestinians to get building permits, enacted discriminatory budgets, and provided municipal services unequally.  In short, Apartheid was introduced to East Jerusalem.

However, the city, long the center of Palestinian life, does not fall under Israeli sovereignty according to international law. In this respect, Trump’s decision, in the words of the Palestine Centre for Human Rights, amounts to “recognition from those who do not own to those who do not deserve.” In the words of the Palestinian Youth Movement, the decision is “tantamount to spitting in the face of our people and decades-long anti-colonial struggle and even constitute[s] a form of colonial incitement,” a “symbolic coup-de-grace towards Palestinian assertion of our rightful self-determination and agency over our shared social, cultural and historical heritage.”

Likewise, the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq noted that the “recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel violates the inalienable Palestinian right to self-determination” while the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights points out that it is a “blatant breach of UN resolutions 476, 478, and 181 and undermines the rights of the Palestinian people.”

Palestinians have launched mass protests in response to Trump’s blatant assault on their national rights.  Israeli forces have bombed Gaza, killing two, and wounding approximately one hundred Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  The US government and the Israeli government remain defiant of international law and worldwide condemnation and are moving ahead with their clear agenda of further colonization and displacement of the Palestinian people.

As my friend Greg Shupak, who recently published a book about the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, has pointed out, this move by the US to recognize Israeli occupation of Jerusalem is nothing new.  It pre-dates the Trump administration by decades in fact, and has overwhelming bi-partisan support in the US Congress and Senate.  Democrats have actually been pushing for this for the past twenty-five years.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both came into office saying they supported moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and, in 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandated that the United States move its embassy to Jerusalem. Thirty-two Democrats, including Joe Biden and John Kerry, cosponsored the bill.

In June 2017, the Senate voted 90-0 to reaffirm the 1995 law and to call on the president to follow its provisions.  Prominent Democrats like Cory Booker, Ben Cardin, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the resolution and Bernie Sanders voted in favor of it. Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, actually criticized the president in October for his indecision over the issue and now claims he advised Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital.”
In this regard, the Jerusalem declaration represents another instance of bipartisan support for Israeli settler colonialism.

The US government provided significant support to Israel since its creation, but the 1967 Six-Day War consecrated the relationship. Since then, Israel has served as, in Greg Shupak’s words. “an invaluable proxy for the American state, providing mercenary services against Arab nationalism, Middle Eastern leftists, Soviet allies in the region and beyond, and any force considered a barrier to American capital.”

Israel has also become a lucrative arms market for US firms, and the ruling classes of both nations are so deeply enmeshed in sectors such as technology and security that it’s difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.  Israel could not have committed its innumerable crimes against the Palestinians and others in the region at any approaching the scale that it has without the United States underwriting it financially, military, and politically.

The so-called “peace process” is part of this relationship.  At the end of the Cold War, American and Israeli capitalists and politicians decided it would be within their best interests to integrate Israel into the regional order in the Middle East. For that to happen, they would have to put the Palestinian question to rest and either eliminate or co-opt the anti-colonial resistance movement among the Palestinian people.

The 1993 Oslo Accords, negotiated in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, were the culmination of this effort.  Denied their strongest ally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, similar to the ANC in South Africa in the same period, was forced to make painful compromises.  The agreement put off the issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees’ right of return to an unspecified date and gave Palestinians only limited sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank.

Oslo assigned the administration of these territories to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was itself created as a result of the accords.  Mandy Turner accurately describes the PA as “a non-sovereign entity whose existence is subject to continuous negotiations with its occupier, Israel,” as well as with international donors unaccountable to Palestinians, making it “party to a complex process of co-optation while Israel continued its colonial practices.” The PA has regularly fulfilled both Israeli and American wishes, even collaborating with Israeli security forces in suppressing Palestinian resistance to the occupation.

Oslo did nothing to halt the Israeli settler colonial project.  Since 1993, the number of Israelis illegally settled in the West Bank — including East Jerusalem — has more than doubled. Gaza has been effectively reduced to the world’s largest open-air prison, where Israel has slaughters thousands, while Palestinian citizens of Israel continue to face systemic discrimination. The violence inherent in all these colonial relationships underlines the fact that “peace” is a misnomer: better to think of the process as one more phase of the 21st Century equivalent of the American Frontier, with the Palestinians playing the role of Native Americans on the receiving end of ultimately genocidal policies.

As Rashid Khalidi documents in his book Brokers of Deceit, the United States has not stayed neutral in talks between Palestine and Israel but has acted, in his words, as “Israel’s lawyer.” US politicians have acted in accordance with “domestic politics and the politics of big oil and the big arms industry, all of which favored maintenance of a status quo predicated on preventing a just and peaceful resolution” in Palestine-Israel.

From this perspective, Trump’s assertion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel can only be understood as the logical conclusion of the so-called “peace process”. 

Greg Shupak’s latest article "The Jerusalem Gambit", which my script for this show is mainly based on, appeared in Jacobin magazine.  Here's a report by the Real News Network on the UN's motion condemning Trump's move and the significance it has:

Phyllis Bennis (TRNN 2017) - "UN Defies Trump Threats in Jerusalem Vote"



MDC - Who's the terrorist now? (song from second intifada)

Abby Martin (Breaking the Set 2015) - Apartheid state gives impunity for IDF soldiers

The Wolfe Tones - Plastic Bullets

Shir Hever (TRNN 2015) - Manifestations of Israeli Apartheid




Michael Parenti (Rambo and the Swarthy Hordes 1989) - On racist imperialist propaganda

Lee Reed - Bazooka Rap

Sunday, 10 December 2017

Back in the USSR's Tribute to Fred Hampton

DOWNLOAD FULL EPISODE



You’re listening to Back in the USSR, here on CFRU 93.3 FM, I am Siegfried.  Tonight I want to pay tribute to a revolutionary, an African-American, a man who fought against racism, stood up against imperialism, and unified people – black people, white people, latino people – against their real enemies, the American ruling class.  And they killed him for it.  They killed him for it.  He gave him life for what he believed in.  I’m speaking of Fred Hampton, of the Black Panther Party, an unapologetic communist who was murdered in cold blood by the Chicago Police at the age of 21 while asleep in his own bed, on December 4th 1969, along with Chicago Black Panther leader Mark Clark.  And thus these two men joined 26 other Black Panthers who were executed by the police in 1969.  Even though this crime took place 49 years ago, we still see how trigger-happy American police are with black lives, and how eager they are to take down political radicals who try to mobilize people against a racist capitalist system.  Tonight I want to pay tribute to this man’s life, his work, his legacy.  And I don’t want to do it in my words, but his own.  So we’re going to start with Fred Hampton in his own words, words that he addressed not only to his own people, but to the oppressed and working class people of Chicago and America.

Fred Hampton “Political Prisoner”Link

See that’s Fred Hampton: you don’t fight racism with racism, you fight racism with solidarity.  You don’t fight capitalism with black capitalism, you fight it with socialism.  And he put this into practice in Chicago, as the Black Panthers did all over America, whether it was patrolling and standing up to abusive police or having free breakfast programs for kids or building alliances with other oppressed communities.  This is what Michaela Warnsley of the PSL wrote about Fred Hampton in an article entitled “Fred Hampton: An Exemplary Life” from 2015.

“Fred Hampton: An Exemplary Life”Link

Fred Hampton “You Can’t Kill the Revolution” Link

All power to the people.  This is the message of the Black Panther Party and this was the message Fred Hampton lived and died by.  He lived for the people, he struggled for the people, and he died for the people.  And that dignified example that he set as a revolutionary still holds to this day, still shines to this day.  This is Michael B Jordan reciting one of Fred Hampton’s speeches at MLK Now in 2016.

Michael B Jordan recites Fred Hampton Speech Link

M1 Dead Prez & Bonnot - Sacrifice 2 (Welcome Home Comrades) feat. Divine RBG Link

Brendan Campisi on state repression of the Black Panther Party and Fred Hampton’s internationalism in Chicago Link

The Murder of Fred Hampton Movie (1971) Link

Friday, 8 December 2017

The Road to Red October: The Development of the Russian Revolutionary and Workers Movements Before 1917


(Transcript of a talk given by me at an event hosted by the Young Communist League of Canada to mark the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution)

Hello comrades, it’s an honor to have been asked to speak on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, to honor the event that led to the creation of the world’s first socialist state and the beginning of a new era in human history that witnessed the downfall of colonial empires, a worldwide struggle against capitalist exploitation, and the successful defeat of fascism in World War II.  What I want to do today is to talk about how this world changing event came about, because it’s not a history that has been well understood, which is no surprise given that so many people have built their careers on distorting it.  The Great October Socialist Revolution was made possible by many factors, but in the interest of time I’m going to focus on two of them: the increasingly well-organized and militant working class in the Russian Empire, who were on the frontlines resisting the terrible exploitation they faced at the hands of the bosses, landowners, and militarists.  That’s the first thing I’m going to talk about, and then I’m going to talk about the rise and development of the revolutionary tradition in Russia, which ultimately gave rise to the Bolshevik Party, the political driving force of the revolution, because, just like every revolutionary movement in history, it developed through hard experience. 

Now first of all, it’s important to understand that Russia in 1917 was a capitalist country.  For while the legacy of feudalism still loomed large, the aristocracy still had considerable power, and the majority of the population was still made up of peasant farmers, the profit motive and industrial production were clearly in command by the time the first abortive Russian revolution took place in 1905, and had replaced the earlier tributary economy that had existed in the days of serfdom. 
When serfdom ended in Russia in 1861 there were only 3.25 million urban industrial workers in the empire, less than 5% of the population, but in the next thirty years their numbers doubled and in the first decade of the 20th Century they would double again.  The proletariat would be by far the fastest growing segment of Russia’s population by the time the First World War broke out in 1914.  Many of these workers were former peasants who had fled to the cities in search of work, and again this was the result of capitalism. 

After serfdom collapsed in 1860s, peasants were increasingly unable to survive in an economy dominated by cash transactions, farming small plots of land with crude hand tools and having to pay off massive debts which they owed to their former masters along with heavy taxes to the Tsarist government.  Many poorer peasants had no choice but to sell their land and move to the city, while wealthier peasants bought up the land of their neighbors and became landlords (kulaki).  Many of Lenin’s earlier works actually deal with the breakdown of feudal social and economic structures in the Russian countryside, and how the “peasant commune” that some 19th Century Russian revolutionaries actually idealized as the social base of a future Russian revolution, was in the process of disintegration as industrialization and financialization took hold in society.

Many former peasants were forced into the slums of industrial cities like St Petersburg, Moscow, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and others, struggling to pay rent on what were often tiny rooms which whole families had to share.  In the last decade of the 19th Century, every one of Russia’s heavy industries – iron, steel, coal, oil, railroads, machine tools, and chemicals – doubled or tripled its output and then doubled it again by 1905.  Foreign investors poured money into industrial and commercial ventures and some British and French firms even moved to Russia to exploit the cheap labor of its proletarians.  For workers in capitalist Russia had no job security, no legal protections to speak of, no safety regulations, no minimum wage, no pensions, no social security, and no protections against child labor, which was widespread, even among kids as young as three who worked in the plants alongside their mothers.  In the matchworks of Vladimir, six out of every ten workers was under the age of fifteen and these child workers could expect to make less than one ruble a month.  Women often had to give birth on the factory floor because there was no maternity leave, women who typically made less than 1/3rd of the wages men earned.  Fourteen, sixteen, and even eighteen hour days were the norm.

It was from the ranks of these factory workers that the core of the Russian labor movement would be built.  In the face of these horrible conditions, proletarians supported each other, taught each other how to read, went on strike together and organized a militant labor movement together.  People like Fedor Samoilov, who worked at a textile plant in Ivanovo, and Ivan Babushkin who worked at an arms foundry in St Petersburg, would become radicalized by their own hard experiences and ultimately go on to join the Bolshevik Party.  But it was not just working men who became radicalized, by 1907, 20% of the leadership of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party were women, and of the 20%, more than 90% belonged to the Bolsheviks.  The Russian labor movement, consisting almost entirely of illegal worker’s leagues and trade unions, grew to the point where it was able to practically shut down the entire country with a general strike in October 1905, which very nearly brought the Tsarist government to its knees. 

This was the first Russian revolution, the revolution of 1905, and while rural peasant rebellions also took place that year, it was an overwhelmingly urban working class affair.  In the face of the increased hardship that the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War brought to the masses of the Russian people, practically every industrial city in the empire revolted and the collapse of the regime was only prevented by loyalty of the army, which killed hundreds, if not thousands of striking Russian workers, and by concessions to the liberal-minded elite, including the creation of a parliament and a written constitution.  None of this eased the plight of ordinary Russian workers, to say nothing of the plight of the oppressed peoples colonized by the Russian Empire in Central Asia and the Caucasus region. 

Therefore, by the time the workers and peasants of Russia were drafted and sent off to die in their millions in a First World War that they did not want or understand, there was already a strong militant tradition of working class struggle in the country, that, in response to the horrors of an imperialist war, would truly blossom in 1917.  Unlike in 1905, this time the peasant soldiers in the army, tired of war and tired of a system that offered them nothing but death and suffering, did not shoot at the striking workers, many of them women, who marched in the streets of St Petersburg on International Women’s Day, February 1917, to demand bread and an end to war.  This time, they shot their own officers and joined the demonstrations.  With this military mutiny, the Tsar was doomed, and when the new provisional government of Russian elites tried to continue the war in defiance of the people’s wishes, the stage was set for the triumph of the Bolsheviks in the Great October Socialist Revolution.  But this would only be made possible by another unique institution of working class resistance that emerged from the Russian labor movement: the soviet.

Worker’s soviets, councils that represented working people across whole cities and regions, had first appeared on May 15 1905 when striking workers in the great textile center of Ivanovo-Voznesensk formed an elected assembly in an effort to better impose their demands on factory owners across the entire region.  The workers of the Ivanovo soviet were intensely loyal to it, for they understood it very consciously as an instrument of their collective power as a class.  During the October 1905 general strike, soviets spread across Russia as a vehicle of proletarian resistance which the Tsarist state only managed to suppress through bloody violence and repression.  When soviets re-emerged as form of working class organization in 1917, they were joined by mutinous soldiers and effectively became an armed force in defiance of the state, a dual power in society capable of imposing its will.  This high level of working class organization would then be combined with the leadership of Lenin’s Bolshevik Party, which ultimately pushed these soviets to seize power and create a whole new revolutionary order that would change the world. 

This brings us to the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, which in many ways pre-dated the Russian labor movement.  Although it in many ways began in the same historical circumstances, for a whole host of reasons, it was many years before the goals of the labor movement and the goals of Russia’s radical intelligentsia would converge.  Of course when they did, they changed the world forever, but it was a long time coming.

In discussing the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement, I’d like to begin with a quote from W. Bruce Lincoln’s excellent book “In War’s Dark Shadow: The Russians Before The Great War”.  This is what he says about the first Russian revolutionaries:

“Before 1905, there seemed almost no hope of revolution in Russia.  Revolution meant the overthrow of the Tsar, a ruler who, most Russians believed, had received his autocratic power directly from the hands of God…Against those who dared, Russian Tsars had weapons other than divine sanction to defend their crowns.  Throughout the nineteenth century, they were supported by the nobility, legions of state officials, and an army that numbered well over two million as the twentieth century dawned.  Few revolutionaries in history ever faced such crushing odds.”

Thus, from its beginnings, Russian revolutionaries had to deal with the harsh reality of a repressive state apparatus that possessed many, many, many ways of destroying them.  The Tsarist government, by the dawn of the 20th Century, possessed the largest and most powerful intelligence apparatus of any government on the planet.  The question of how to navigate an intensely repressive society and how to reach the masses of the Russian people with a revolutionary message, along with what kind of people would form the foundation of revolution in Russia, would consume the revolutionary movement from its origins in the 1860s to its ultimate triumph in 1917.

The Russian revolutionary movement really began in the 1860s following the end of serfdom in the country in 1861.  Before that time, the peasantry had been bound to the land under the control of aristocratic feudal landowners who had life and death power over them.  When the Tsar freed the serfs, largely in response to the need to modernize Russian society in the face of international realities, the Crimean War of the 1850s in particular demonstrated the Russia’s agrarian economy could not compete with the industrial powers of Britain and France on the battlefield, it was only after giving major concessions to the serf-owning nobility.  Peasants had to pay their former masters for their freedom, and for most, this meant taking on a debt that they could not possibly repay within their lifetimes and which effectively forced them into new forms of economic and political bondage.

This was seen as a colossal betrayal by those liberal Russian activists, who had fought for the abolition of serfdom and had high hopes for progressive reform in Russian society once it had been abolished.  They lost faith in the system.  They lost faith in the Tsar’s willingness to “free his people”.  They lost faith in the idea that the Russian monarchy could be reformed, and even prominent liberals like Alexander Herzen and Peter Lavrov, who was himself an aristocrat, came to the understanding that only revolution could bring about meaningful change.  Hundreds of student radicals actually forced the St Petersburg University to close in the fall of 1861, protesting against the government’s broken promises of reform and proclaiming that what the Russian people needed was “land and liberty” and an end to autocracy.

It was liberals like Lavrov, along with anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin, who urged educated radical urban youth to “go to the people” to agitate among them and prepare them for revolution.  And by “the people”, they meant the masses of the Russian peasantry.  Bakunin likened the peasants of Russia to a massive bomb that only needed to be lit by revolutionaries for revolution to take place.  As I mentioned before, some Russian radicals at this time idealized the peasants as being “primitive socialists” who were somehow “pure” and even saw the collapsing feudal institution of the peasant commune as a kind of model for a new and uniquely Russian society ruled by equality and social justice. 

Now it has to be said that Russian revolutionaries at this time came, almost without exception, from privileged backgrounds, and most had never even seen a peasant, let alone lived in a rural village.  So when hundreds of these idealistic young men and women “went to the people” in the course 1874, they were in for a rude surprise.  The peasants, an illiterate rural folk trying to stay alive in the face of immense hardships, didn’t have any use for their anarchist utopian visions, and the radicals, who were truly horrified by the primitive and brutal conditions they found in the villages, were actually rounded up in their hundreds by the Tsar’s police – often after peasants informed on them.  The “go to the people” movement, this top-down effort by urban intellectuals to radicalize the Russian peasantry was a total failure, and it was just as much a failure when they tried it again in 1877-78.

The wake of the “go to the people” movement’s collapse, many Russian revolutionaries, still overwhelmingly consisting of educated elite youths, turned to terrorism, forming tightly knit organizations such as the Narodnaia Volia (“People’s Will”), with the goal of assassinating key government figures, particularly the Tsar, in an effort to bring on the revolution through conspiracy.  The Narodnaia Volia actually succeeded in assassinating Tsar Alexander II in 1879, but, far from bringing down the government, it only led to a massive reactionary backlash that effectively destroyed the Russian revolutionary movement for many years, with its leaders either dead, in prison or in exile.

Two major early currents of Russian revolutionary thought thus ended in failure.  Agitating among the peasants in their villages had gotten nowhere and terrorist conspiracies had not led to the downfall of the system.  Vladimir Lenin’s own brother, Alexander Ulyanov, was himself executed by the Tsar’s government for plotting against the life of Alexander III.  And while Lenin’s supposed remark to his grieving mother that “we shall go a different way” is probably apocrayphal, it did play itself out in reality, for Lenin and other like him came to understand that no revolution could take place in Russia without mass support.  While effective political leadership was critical, revolution ultimately had to come from the people themselves, well-organized and fully conscious of their own interests.

This brings us to the history of Marxism in Russia.  While Georgii Plekhanov has often been credited as Russia’s “first Marxist”, the same could be said of Pavel Axelrod or Vera Zasulich, all of whom were Russian revolutionaries in exile in Switzerland who had participated in previous revolutionary movements and had developed their theories more from intensive study rather than from direct experience of Russian conditions.  Russian society was changing rapidly by the 1880s as industrialization continued, so even the conditions these men and women had experienced in the country in the 1870s were gone.  By the founding of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party in 1903, it had been almost twenty-five years since Plekhanov had last been in Russia. 

Nonetheless, these Marxists in exile were able to grasp how dramatically capitalism was changing Russian society, that traditional peasant society was collapsing, and that, if there was to be any hope of revolution in Russia, it must come from the swelling ranks of the Empire’s proletarians in the industrial cities – conscious of their interests as a class and mobilized for revolutionary action.  However, the revolutionaries in exile, who founded the Emancipation of Labor Group, Russia’s first Marxist organization, with a mere five members in 1883, were unable to connect with the masses of the Russian working class, who were themselves only just beginning to organize into underground unions and take strike action against their insufferable living and working conditions.  This was mainly due to censorship by the Tsarist state.  Workers like Ivan Babushkin report to have toiled for years in the factories of St Petersburg without seeing any revolutionary pamphlet or having access to any political literature whatsoever, let alone the works of exiled Russian radicals living in Zurich.

It was not until ten years later, when Lenin and another major revolutionary leader, Martov, formed the Union of the Struggle for the Liberation of Labor in St Petersburg, that Russian revolutionaries really began to connect with working people directly.  And this was a massive development, as people like Lenin actually took a leadership role in worker’s struggles for better wages and shorter hours, pushing for the concrete demands of working people while at the same time building revolutionary consciousness among them. 

In a series of major strikes in 1896, workers in St Petersburg won real victories with regard to both wages and working hours, gaining a sense of their own collective power along with a militant sense of identity as a class.  The Union of Struggle played a major role in this, publishing leaflets that read: “We have only ourselves to rely upon.  But we have strength in unity.  Our weapon – a unified, unanimous, and unyielding resistance to factory owners.  The working men and women of the Russian land are beginning to rise up and soon shall strike fear into the hearts of the capitalists and all the enemies of the working class.”

As I mentioned previously, the harsh conditions faced by Russia’s proletarians forced them to organize, effectively in self-defense, against the brutal regime imposed on them by the factory owners, the police, and the landlords.  It was the decision of Russia’s revolutionaries to connect with the struggles of the working class that would ultimately prove decisive.  Compared with the clumsy efforts to radicalize peasants with anarchist utopian visions back in the 1870s, this was a massive step forward.  Even though the Union of Struggle would be broken up the police in 1896 and its leaders arrested and exiled, it set a major precedent and set the stage for the founding of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1898, its subsequent split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903 and ultimately the forging of the Bolsheviks as a revolutionary political party capable of seizing the day in 1917 and providing leadership to the world’s first working class socialist revolution.

All of this came through bitter trial and error and harsh experience.  The increasingly militant Russian working class was almost always ahead of the revolutionaries.  While the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were sparring at the congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in Brussels in 1903, Russia’s first general strike was sweeping across the Caucasus, the Ukraine, and east as far as the Ural Mountains. 

As W. Bruce Lincoln writes, “While those who presumed to instruct them in the tactics of revolution debated the finer points of rules and programs, the workers of Rostov, Kiev, Odessa, Baku, Ekaterinoslav, and a score of other cities faced the thrusts of Cossack lances and sabres.  Workers in the Urals, in Rostov, and in Kiev fell before volleys of infantry fire, and hundreds came to know the terror of being ridden down by Cossack cavalry.  As would happen in October 1905 and in February 1917, the workers themselves…led the way into the battle against the old order, while the Social Democrats followed, their leaders surprised and unprepared, frantically endeavoring to give their own direction to the workers’ outrage.”

The Great October Socialist Revolution did not emerge out of thin air, but was the product of decades of organizing, resistance, and struggle by working people against their exploiters.  It was born of a working class movement that produced leaders, who, in Lenin’s words, were not “trade union secretaries,” but “tribunes of the people”, able to envision a future where workers did not merely bargain with their exploiters, but removed them entirely and seized power.  It was born of a worker’s movement that produced institutions like the soviet, which provided not only a vehicle for collective bargaining, but effective self-governance and ultimately self-determination for working people.  The transformation of militant trade unions into soviets capable of unifying all workers under one banner showed the way to a future in which the downtrodden became masters of society.  The Bolsheviks would ultimately be successful in October 1917 because they most embodied the spirit of the original Union of Struggle founded in St Petersburg in 1893 and put the interests of the workers first and foremost – learning from a half-century of Russian revolutionary experience.  They didn’t try to impose their will on the masses from the outside, but instead worked with the masses, pushed for the demands of the masses, and worked to radicalize those demands further, until the working class, for the first time ever, had a state of its own and controlled its own destiny as a class.  The Great October Socialist Revolution was thus made possible by the Russian revolutionary movement and the Russian worker’s movement converging, uniting, and together showing the way to a bright future for the working and oppressed peoples of our planet.