Yazhou Zhoukan interviews Heyrat Niyaz , a Uyghur journalist

In its August 2 issue, the Hong Kong newsweekly Yazhou Zhoukan interviews Heyrat Niyaz , a Uyghur journalist, blogger and AIDS activist. In the interview, which another blogger has translated below, Heyrat tells of how he tried to warn officials that "blood would flow" in Urumchi on July 5 and gives his thoughts about the background to the ethnic rioting.
* * *
YZ: When did you feel that something could occur on July 5?


HN: After the incident in Shaoguan, Guangdong, I felt that something big would happen, that blood would flow. Before the Shaoguan incident, there were already seeds of a disturbance in Xinjiang. After the Shaoguan incident, I wrote a series of three blog posts analyzing the impact of the incident and, the more analysis I did, the more certain I felt about my prediction.


YZ: Do you believe the July 5 incident was organized and premeditated?


HN: Looking at it from today, it was certainly organized. As for premeditated, between June 26 and July 5, there was already plenty of time for that. But the most crucial thing was that the government did not take prompt measures to prevent deterioration of the situation. On July 4, I was continually listening to Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. On that day, World Uyghur Congress President Rebiya [Kadeer] and others were truly a bit out of the ordinary on that day, with nearly all of the leaders going on the air to speak.


Around 8 p.m., I called a friend of mine in the government and said, "Something is going to happen tomorrow. You should take some measures." I gave him the URL of Rebiya's speech so that they could listen for themselves. They said they would report to their superiors.The next morning, I called again. At around 10 a.m., I went with a friend to see a high official in the regional government. I told him that as an ordinary person of conscience, I have an obligation to remind you that blood will certainly flow today. You should immediately take steps and mobilize emergency preparations. Then, I made three recommendations: First, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Chairman Nur Bekri must make a public speech before 12 noon. Second, notify Han merchants in predominantly ethnic neighborhoods to close shop early and go home. Third, mobilize as many troops as you can, cordon off ethnic neighborhoods and block and patrol crucial intersections. After the close of business, impose martial law.


At the time, the official said he would make a phone call to seek instructions. In the end, not a single one of these recommendations was taken. In fact, I was not even the first person to warn
the relevant government agencies on July 4. Just after 6 p.m. on July 4 another person had provided a warning.


YZ: You said that prior to the Shaoguan incident there were already seeds of a disturbance in Xinjiang. What do you mean by that?


HN: There are two direct reasons that led to something like what happened on July 5. First is the promotion of bilingual education, and the second is the government's arrangements to send Uyghurs away to work. These two policies were strongly opposed by many Uyghur cadres, but anyone who dared to say "no" was immediately punished.The first to bear the brunt of the bilingual education policy were teachers who had previously taught in ethnic languages. Tens of thousands of teachers faced being laid off because their Chinese was not up to standard, and this led to unstable popular feelings among grassroots educators.


As for sending Uyghurs away to work, in the eyes of [Uyghur] nationalists you can joke all you like, but don't joke about our women. Almost all of the workers initially organized to be sent out to work were 17- and 18-year-old girls. At the time, some elders said, "Sixty percent of these girls will wind up as prostitutes; the other forty percent will marry Han Chinese." This led to enormous disgust [among people]. In carrying out this policy, the government first failed to carry out proper education work and, second, failed to realize that such a small thing could have such major repercussions.


YZ: Before the promotion of these two policies, how were ethnic relations in Xinjiang?


HN: In the 1950s, even though Mao Zedong criticized "great Han chauvinism" in Xinjiang, contemporary ethnic policies in Xinjiang never led to a rupture. Ethnic relations in Xinjiang really became more tense over the past 20 years or so. After taking office, Party Secretary Wang Lequan adopted a high-handed posture that would not allow for any ethnic sentiment among minority populations. For example, if a ethnic cadre were to express the slightest complaint during a meeting, he would definitely not be promoted and might even be sacked. [Wang] overemphasized and exacerbated the anti-separatist issue. In fact, border provinces in any country that have cultural, linguistic, or ethnic ties with foreign countries are bound to have such tendencies. The current anti-separatist struggle in Xinjiang is not simply something [being carried out] by law enforcement agencies but has become something [carried out] in the whole society.


YZ: Have these tense ethnic relations led to increased thoughts of independence among Uyghurs?


HN: My father took part in the "Revolution of the Three Districts" [in which ethnic partisans revolted against Chinese rule in 1944 and established the second East Turkestan Republic] as a soldier. Logically, he should be a classic example of someone with thoughts of independence, but as far as I know not even someone like him is pro-independence—much less so someone like me.In fact, looking historically, the Uyghur people transformed early on from a desert-based [nomadic] people to an agricultural society and developed an extremely exquisite civilization. The nature of this people has become such that we don't spread or seek conflict. Even during its strongest point, this society was never expansionary. When the Khitan came, Uyghurs quickly surrendered. When the Mongols came, the Uyghurs basically surrendered without a fight. Historically speaking, Uyghurs don't like to fight and have no foundation for independence.


YZ: How do you view the issue of "East Turkestan"?


HN: This phrase "East Turkestan" is something invented by Europeans and not something that Uyghurs themselves came up with. However, it has been built up by the Turks and forcibly thrust upon us. We Uyghurs have no concept of "East Turkestan." From historic times to the presnt, Uyghurs have called Xinjiang "Land of the Uyghurs." No one has ever called it "Land of the Turks," much less "Eastern Land of the Turks."


YZ: If this is so, why do so many pro-independence types in Xinjiang make a fundamental claim for "East Turkestan"?


HN: At the time of the Silk Road, Uyghurs had opportunities to travel about in neighboring countries and their thinking was more open. Later, when maritime navigation became dominant, Uyghurs found themselves isolated and closed-off. In such a backwards circumstance, it's easy to think that "monks from outside can really chant the scripture" [i.e., outsiders have the answers]. It's just as when China first opened up, all sorts of ideas flowed in, both good and bad, and it wasn't clear which were good and which were bad. Moreover, over the past several decades local Uyghur elites suffered under the repression of the Communist Party's leftist policies and there were no opportunities to develop thought. The moment a few people shout "East Turkestan," many among our people have no idea what to think.


YZ: How do local Uyghur intellectuals view Rebiya [Kadeer]?


HN: They're not interested. Rebiya basically has no ideas.


YZ: For outside forces to be able to organize the July 5 incident, doesn't it mean that they have considerable influence inside China?


HN: Yes, definitely. I believe that the July 5 incident was organized by "Hizb-ut-Tahrir al-Islami" [ILP, Islamic Liberation Party], an illegal religious organization that has spread extremely quickly in southern Xinjiang. I've studied this group, which was founded by an Afghan. When the Afghan died, a Pakistani doctor among his followers carried out a reorganization and recruitment drive. Whether in China, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the ILP is an underground movement. In 1997, when the ILP had just begun to appear in Xinjiang, there were probably only several hundred members. According to statistics made public last year by the relevant agencies, the organization may now have close to 10,000 members in Xinjiang.


On July 5, I was on Xinhua South Road watching as rioters smashed and looted. More than 100 people gathered and dispersed in an extremely organized manner, all of them wearing athletic shoes. Based on their accents, most were from the area around Kashgar and Hotan, but I did not see any of them carrying knives. I suspect they were from the ILP because of their slogans. The rioters were shouting "Han get out!" [and] "Kill the Han!" Other than these [slogans], there was also "We want to establish an Islamic country and strictly implement Islamic law." One of the main goals of the ILP is to restore the combined political and religious authority of the Islamic state and strictly implement Islamic law; it is a fundamentalist branch.This organization is extremely disciplined and its composition rather unusual. It attracts young men around the age of 20, mostly from rural areas. In fact, this organization is extremely backwards, so that even among Uyghurs without any basic social underpinning, those with even a bit of education don't have any interest [in the ILP]. The influence of groups like this that have infiltrated from abroad is ultimately quite small, because they bring nothing to the table. A serious attack from the organs of state power could totally wipe them out. There's no need for anti-terrorism measures throughout society in Xinjiang.


YZ: What do you think is the main problem for Xinjiang at the moment?


HN: I don't think the main problem for Xinjiang is ethnic separatism. The key problem for Xinjiang is still economic development. Actually, so-called ethnic conflict is really conflict over interests. Last year during the "two meetings," I watched video of President Hu Jintao's meeting with the Xinjiang delegation many times. President Hu said that Xinjiang should emphasize development and only at the end did he say anything about stability. Subsequently, I decided to write a series of articles clarifying my views on this.

Thanks to Mike of Serve the People Blog for drawing our attention to this article

Lunacy Against Lalgarh

by Biplav

Indian ruling class has shown the capitalist lunacy by barbarous ban on Lalgarh and C.P.I.(Maoist) .The ban imposed to the people for their raised voice of the real democracy, has unmasked the so called Indian democracy that the Indian bourgeois class and uncovered the brutal face hiding behind the mask. In other hand, the rebel of Lalgarh has succeeded to awaken the working people of the world, especially of the Indian subcontinent by tearing the clutter of entire capitalists. Flag of Lalgarh will alive forever.

The ban of the bourgeois over Lalgarh and C.P.I.(Maoist) proved one of the saying of peoples. "Poisonous snake is poisonous wherever from it." The bourgeois are the same from Europe, America, Asia or Africa wherever from they are. They are fake, oppressors, despotic and violent. They pervert people, loot and burden the hegemony. When people become conscious, resist and rebel, then they blazon illusive propaganda, burden fake blames, ban and oppress fiercely. Today Indian bourgeois class is showing this character of its own. Interesting thing is that the bourgeois class commits and is committing all of these activities in the name of 'Democracy'.

Ban and exploitation for rising voice for real democracy! What would be another thing that shameful in 21st century! Ban is issued over Lalgarh why? Because Lalgarh opposed the oppression, didn't bear despot, demanded their fundamental rights. Further more raised the voice of democracy of the people. Ban is issued over C.P.I.(Maoist) why? Because C.P.I. (Maoist) awakened, organized and raised for right Lalgarh. Means C.P.I. (Maoist) led to establish the people's democracy. Lalgarh tried to return back rights; C.P.I. (Maoist) opened the alternative of real democracy instead of so called democracy. The bourgeois were unable to compete in the battle of rights with Lalgarh. And Indian bourgeois were unable to compete with C.P.I.(Maoist) in the battle of democracy then they issued the ban over Lalgarh and C.P.I.(Maoist) to take revenge by force. It merely proved the decrepitude and unfitness of so called 60 years old Indian democracy.

Democracy is class relative, means democracy is also classified. It is impossible to be a common democracy for all class. Moreover, the bourgeois democracy is a useless democracy which gathers up very little (a handful) people. This keeps away the enormous part of the society making right less. The handfuls who are frightened and terrorized from people's vigilance, take heavenly pleasure in the bourgeois democracy. But the socialism is a democratic system which gathers up maximum class and peoples. Although it leads working people mainly but it can mobilize all except anti people tendencies in the role of transformation of the society. The competition and the struggle of the democracy are expressed in Lalgarh. There is a capitalist democracy on one side and people's democracy on the other side. One is for capitalist democracy and others are for people's democracy. Indian ruling class, anti people huge capitalist, feudal, landlord, usurious, revisionist compradors of Lalgarh and corrupted administrators are on the side of the present democracy. They are blaming of extremist, terrorist and exploiting the working people, intellectuals, revolutionary party and its cadres or attempting to burden the old democracy. On the other side, C.P.I.(Maoist) , workmen, peasants, intellectuals and working citizens of the whole world are on the side of people's democracy. They tempt to lead workmen, peasants, intellectuals instead of capitalist, feudalist, usurious and the people's democracy in place of old democracy. Workmen, peasants are resisting the exploitation and are rebelling for that. Capitalist, feudalist, landlords and revisionists, beside Indian army, have been defeated and workmen, peasants, intellectuals have won in the competition of Lalgarh. In other word the bourgeois democracy has lost and people's democracy has won the war. The ban over Lalgarh and C.P.I. (Maoist) of the bourgeois only proves its insanity not success in the clash of democracy.

Indian ruling class blamed of extremist and terrorist on Lalgarh and C.P.I. (Maoist) when it banned them. It would be farcical for them who knows only 'D' for democracy because the blamed workmen, peasants, intellectuals are the working class, constructors and majority peoples of India whereas the blamers are equipped with modern weapons, money holder feudalist and a handful in number. The crucial reactionary, exploiters and terrorist, in deed, are democratic and the honest, working population, democrat is the terrorist! It only ascertains farcical on itself. But it is reality being understood by us proletarian socialist is that the tendency perused by Indian bourgeois is not anything new but it is the tendency of heredity shown by its ancestors which the rulers of India are following. When the rapacious ruling class faces catastrophe or reaches near the defeat it takes out parch of terrorist and extremist from its box and starts avenge on working peoples. It attempts to make unsuccessful and disturb, in this way, each pioneer flow of civilization. Few years ago, its followers also had done like this in Nepal. But one should consider the ironically that marauder class failed totally in spite of thousands of attempts to stop the flow of civilization and stop the victory of working people, they collapsed own self instead. Indian ruling class will also, as it is barbarously aggressed over Lalgarh and C.P.I. (Maoist) today, be obligated to follow of their ancestral way in spite of thousand attempts and the victory will go to the working peoples of India and of whole world.

16 July 2009

Nepal Maoist leader deplores repression on Indian Maoists

source :TGW

One of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist’s party hardliners, Mr. Chandra Prakash Gajurel alias Gaurav has deplored the repressive measures adopted by the Indian government towards the Indian Communist-Party Maoists.

“As we have fraternal relations on ideological grounds with the Maoists of India, we will never accept the repressive measures adopted by the Indian government towards our Indian comrade–in-arms”, Mr. Gajurel is quoted as saying by the Rajdhani Daily August 3, 2009.

“We strongly protest against this Indian government’s brutal act”, said Gajurel who is the Maoists’ Party secretary and chief of the International bureau.

This is the second time that the Nepal Maoists have expressed their concerns as regards the Indian Maoists.

The Indian government had declared the Indian Maoists as terrorists on June 22, 2009.

In the meanwhile, a report being made available from France claims that Gajurel’s daughter is currently under French custody for traveling across the country without legal documents in her possession.

Lalgarh on the boil, Maoists resurfacing

MONALISA CHAUDHURI
Asian Age, London edition, 21st July 2009
Kolkata

July 20: Lalgarh and the adjoining tribal belt in West Midnapore are once again on the boil. Over a month after the drive launched by the West Bengal government to drive the Maoists out, and contrary to chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s claims, the rebels have begun to "resurface".

A landmine blast at Bakishole was followed by a fierce gunbattle between Maoists and the security forces near Ramgarh. The road between Dherua and Lalgarh was dug up. The police lathi-(a 6 to 8-foot long cane tipped with an optional metal blunt - from the British days! - Ed) charged tribals after members of the People’s Committee against Police Atrocities gathered near the police camp at Gohomi-danga High School Monday morning, demanding its "immediate removal". Twelve people, including some women and children, had to be hospitalised. Hours later, state home secretary Ardhendu Sen apologised for the lathicharge and said all police camps would be shifted out of school buildings by the end of July.

Asked about the Maoists’ "rejuvenation" despite the "success" of Operation Lalgarh, Mr Sen said: "It is a long process. The operation will continue."

As the 10 am Monday deadline for the police to vacate the school camp neared, nearly 6,000 people gathered there, with schoolchildren in the front row, followed by women in the second tier and men at the back. When the police saw the situation getting out of control, the lathicharge began, in which children and women were not spared. Teargas shells were fired as well, injuring a dozen people.

Release Dr.Binayak Sen Committee’ is now ‘A Committee For The Defense Of Democratic Rights In Chhattisgarh’

Dear Friends,

A Meeting of ‘Release Dr. Binayak Sen Committee, Pune’ was held on 16th June, 2009 following the Supreme Directive to release Dr. Binayak Sen on Bail forthwith.
The Meeting after due deliberation arrived at the following Decisions:
1.To dissolve the existing Committee And to rename it as ‘The Committee For The Defense Of Democratic Rights In Chhattisgarh’. It may be remembered that Dr. Binayak Sen has not yet been released unconditionally. Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) which is a highly repressive act is in force in the state today. ‘Salwa Judum’ campaign is still being conducted mercilessly.
2.To extend all practicable cooperation to those who will continue to struggle for the defense of Democratic Rights in Chhattisgarh and elsewhere in India.
3.To invite Adv. Sudha Bharadwaj and/or Mr. Himanshu, and Dr. Binayak Sen if possible to address a public meeting in Pune as early as possible (end of July or 1st week of August at the latest.)

In Solidarity,

R.P.Nene, Shanta Ranade, Dr. Anant Phadke, Dr. Abhay Shukla, Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, Shailesh Dikhale and Milind Chavan

India: "Release Asit Kumar Sengupta and all political prisoners now!"

29 June 2009. A World to Win News Service. Following is a press release from the organisation Struggle India dated June 2009, signed by M. N. Ravunni, its Acting General Secretary. (Contact: M.N. Ravunni, Mundur P.O, Palakkad District, Kerala, India. Phone: +91 9249713184).

On the afternoon of 22 January 2008, the notorious Chhattisgarh police raided the home of comrade Asit Kumar Sengupta and took him away. The same evening, they again raided in large numbers and searched his house for two days. His wife was detained for questioning. The police seized all the copies of the revolutionary internationalist journal A World to Win, titles put out by his publishing house Puravaiya Prakashan, all the books in his personal library and his PC. Violating the norms laid down by the Supreme Court, his arrest was formally registered only after two days. He has been accused of waging war against the state in association with a banned organisation, the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Who is Asit Kumar Sengupta? Why was he declared an enemy of the state?

Awakened to radical politics through the 1960s mass struggles and mobilisations in West Bengal, Asit was attracted to the revolutionary movement through the Naxalbari armed struggle of 1967. Since then, his revolutionary cultural activism and work as a propagandist, begun at the age of 20, has never ceased up till this arrest. This creativity in the service of the people has, over more than four decades, spanned the diverse fields of literature, drama, publishing and journalism. A number of his short stories, short plays and articles in Bengali, Hindi and English have been published in various journals. His short plays were staged in a number of places, including in Delhi by students of the National School of Drama. With this literary and cultural background he took an active part in the formation of All-India League of Revolutionary Culture (AILRC) and later served on its executive committee for several years.

During the 1980s he was in the Central Reorganising Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [a grouping, since dissolved, that came out of the Naxalite rebellion that had led to the formation of the CPI(ML) after a split in the revisionist CPI(Marxist)]. He edited its Hindi mass paper Rashtriya Mukti, and also served as an Editorial Board member of its English periodical Mass Line. He fought revisionism within the revolutionary movement and played an important role in the process of reorganisation leading to the formation of the CPI (M-L) Naxalbari. He was prominent in propagating Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and presented a paper on behalf of A World to Win journal at the joint seminar in Kolkata commemorating the 150 anniversary of the Communist Manifesto.

Asit published A World to Win from Delhi for nearly a decade. He started publication of its Hindi edition Jitne Ke Liye Hai Puri Duniya, handling on his own almost all the translation and other editorial tasks. He launched a publication centre by the name of Puravaiya Prakashan (East Wind Publications), which brought out more than 20 Maoist titles, in English, Hindi and Malayalam. The A World to Win stall at the annual International Book Fair at Kolkatta used to be a well-noticed centre for revolutionary literature from all over the world.

When Struggle India was launched in May 2007 as an anti-imperialist, all-India mass front, he was elected its General Secretary.

The state-sponsored Salwa Judum [militia] in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh State of India, aimed at smashing the People's War led by the CPI(Maoist), is waging an inhumane campaign of suppression. Even the Supreme Court has called for ending it. Continuous and powerful protests of human rights and cultural activists were instrumental in this exposure. The state is doing all it can to suppress such opposition and clamp down on revolutionary propaganda. The arrest of Asit Kumar Sengupta is a part of this. Nearly two years back, Dr Binayak Sen, an international award-winning people's doctor and human rights activist, was arrested on charges similar to those foisted on Asit. Though an international campaign called for the release of Dr Sen, the notorious Chhattisgarh state government had denied even his right to bail. (It has now been granted by the Supreme Court.) Asit, too, is denied bail, while this case drags on without trial. During the 15 months since his arrest, the police could not produce any evidence in support of their charges other than the perfectly legal Maoist literature they have seized from his house. Yet they deliberately persist with the case so that this revolutionary intellectual will remain locked up in a prison cell, cut off from the people.

This is not a chance incident. Boasting of being the world's largest democracy, the Indian state deliberately targets revolutionary and progressive writers, publishers, journalists and human rights activists. This is done relentlessly in order to block exposure of its anti-people activities, its corruption, and the inhuman torture, killing and "disappearing" of those who resist. Not only Asit and Dr Sen, the Indian state has imprisoned hundreds who dared to raise their voice against it. We from Struggle India appeal to the fighting masses and justice-loving peoples throughout the world to support, by all means, our campaign for the release of Asit Kumar Sengupta and all political prisoners languishing in different jails in various parts of the country – immediately and unconditionally.

On the Student Movement in the United States

The following is the contribution to the 18th International Communist Seminar by Josh Sykes, Freedom Road Socialist Organization

“The youth – the current situation of the youth, the work of the communists among the youth, and the incorporation of new generations in the communist parties”

Brussels, 15-17 May 2009

Freedom Road Socialist Organization has a rich history of work among youth and students. Many of the veteran cadres of our organization were active with the youth of the Black Panther Party, Brown Berets and the Students for a Democratic Society of the 1960s, the Revolutionary Student Brigades in the 1970s, or the Progressive Student Network in the 1980s. Others worked on campuses to organize against South African Apartheid, in the historic Jesse Jackson campaign, or in solidarity with the Central American revolutionary movements. Many also organized Asian American and Pilipino (1) students, or worked in mostly oppressed nationality student formations like the Student Liberation Action Movement (SLAM) in New York. Today, students and youth in Freedom Road continue to do mass student organizing, mainly in the new Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) formed in 2006.


Why should Marxist-Leninists do work among students?

Our line on student work has its roots in the New Communist Movement. Much has changed since then, and we as an organization have learned a lot and gained a lot of experience, but the basic principles remain. As we see it, communists should work among students for three main reasons: 1) in and of themselves, the student movement can strike blows against the U.S. ruling class, 2) the activity of the student movement can spread advanced ideas to society as a whole, and 3) advanced students can take up Marxism-Leninism and join the struggles of the working class.

Furthermore, in our student work FRSO upholds the Mass Line, the view that the masses of the people are the makers of history, and that people learn primarily through experience in cycles of practice-theory-practice. This means that we work in mass organizations, and follow the principle of “from the masses, to the masses,” in work to raise people’s consciousness and understanding.(2) We also understand clearly that, as Mao Zedong said, “The young people are the most active and vital force in society. They are the most eager to learn and the least conservative in their thinking.”(3)

Historical development of the student movement in the U.S.

The student movement in the United States has some characteristics that result from its particular historical development in a large imperialist country. First, since the final turn towards revisionism (Marxism in words and opportunism in deeds) by the Communist Party USA in the mid-1950s, there is no genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States.(4)

But this leadership vacuum was soon filled by revolutionary minded students and youth, who were won to Marxism-Leninism and began a process of building Marxist-Leninist organizations and integrating with workers and oppressed nationalities. Just as many members of the Chinese Communist Party emerged out of the May 4th Movement,(5) so did many members of the New Communist Movement emerge from the struggles of students and youth.

However these new Marxist-Leninist organizations did commit both “left” and right errors. The liquidation or retreat into sects by the largest New Communist organization and the failure to build a new Communist Party resulted in many setbacks in the 1980s and 1990s. Today’s progressive and revolutionary forces are small and scattered as a result. The same goes for the student movement as whole.

There are no powerful Red youth groups, though a plethora of small, Trotskyite youth formations exist. Their practice follows from their theory, however, and so the Trotskyite student formations tend to be sectarian and commandist in their style of work and approach to the masses. Most student activists work in mass organizations alongside anarchists, social democrats, and other radicals. Two of the largest and most significant mass formations today are the Students for a Democratic Society and the Iraq Veterans Against the War.(6)

Students for a Democratic Society

The FRSO currently does most of its student work in a multi-issue, mass student organization, the Students for a Democratic Society. SDS, though majority white, is multinational such that most chapters reflect the composition of the campuses on which they exist. Furthermore, SDS is one of the largest and most active student organizations in the country, with well over a hundred active chapters all over the U.S.

Founded as a national organization in 2006 by students representing a variety of Leftist ideologies, from Marxists to anarchists and radical social-democrats, today’s SDS is named after one of the outstanding student organizations of the 1960s, out of which much of the New Communist Movement of the 1970s was born. The SDS of the 1960s organized in solidarity with working class and oppressed nationality struggles and against the Vietnam war. The new SDS stands in that same tradition.

Since its founding, most of SDS’s work has been in the anti-war movement. SDS has also done important solidarity work with African Americans struggling against national oppression. SDS has worked in the immigrant rights movement, protesting fascist, anti-immigrant speakers on campuses and leading some walkouts for immigrant rights. Revolutionaries in SDS work to build coalitions with oppressed nationality students and youth. SDS also organizes for women’s liberation and for the democratic rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people.

Likewise, SDS also organizes solidarity with working class struggles. When workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago occupied their factory in December 2008, SDSers from throughout the Midwest went to the factory to show support.

Anti-imperialism and the anti-war movement

Freedom Road Socialist Organization members in the student movement work to oppose imperialist war and occupation. Since 2003, most of FRSO’s anti-war organizing has been in opposition to the U.S. war against the people of Iraq, with the main goal of keeping the demand for “troops out now” at the forefront of the movement. Secondarily, we have sought to raise an anti-imperialist pole in the movement (including building support for the Iraqi resistance among the advanced) and to raise the social costs of the war, raising the level of militancy.(7) As the FRSO Student Commission said in a statement in September 2008, highlighting some of our work in SDS,

Members of FRSO have been working in SDS since the first National Convention in Chicago back in 2006. What have we been doing? We have organized militant local chapters. We organized against the war in Iraq, for immigrants’ rights, labor solidarity, in defense of the Jena Six, and more. We are all involved in a lot of local work, and while doing that, we worked hard to build national campaigns. In 2007 and 2008 members of Freedom Road were in the lead of SDS’s work around opposition to the 4th and 5th anniversaries of the U.S. war against Iraq. This led to actions on more than 80 campuses in 2007 and on 90 campuses in 2008, many of which were not associated with SDS before. Through this and other work we’ve brought many new activists and student groups to radical politics and into SDS. We helped organize student contingents in major national marches and we also helped to organize the 2007 and 2008 National Conventions in Detroit and Maryland, and the 2008 SDS Action Camp in Asheville.(8)

Like other social movement in U.S. society, the ebb and flow of the student movement is determined by objective conditions. The election of President Obama, and the developing economic crisis had an overall negative impact on student anti-war organizing, releasing some built up pressure and diverting the attention of some of the intermediate. In our analysis, however, the principle factor in the declining role of the anti-war movement among students and in society as a whole has been due to the relatively lower level of activity of the armed Iraqi national resistance. Simply put, less fighting on the ground in Iraq means less struggle here in the U.S.

As the criminal U.S./Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people in Gaza began last year, students on campuses around the United States held actions in support of the Palestinian people’s struggle and to demand an end to U.S. aid to Israel. Students on campus have played a particularly important role in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, by fighting to have their colleges and universities divest from Israel.

Likewise, anti-imperialist students have played a big role in solidarity with Colombian workers, who suffer from brutal exploitation under the U.S.’s Plan Colombia. Colombian Trade Unionists are murdered in the hundreds by death squads funded by U.S. corporations like Coca-Cola, Drummond Coal, and Chiquita Banana. Students have long been in the forefront of the campaign to get Killer Coke off of campuses, and tour

Colombian workers around the country to speak about U.S. military intervention in their country. Understanding this as a question of self-determination, students doing Colombia solidarity work oppose Plan Colombia and “Free Trade”. Students also make up an important part of the annual protests to shut down the School of the Americas, a “counter-insurgency” and death squad training school in the state of Georgia.

Students in SDS have also worked hard on the campaign to free Ricardo Palmera, a leading negotiator of the FARC-EP, now a political prisoner of the U.S. empire as the result of neo-colonial extradition policy.

As public opinion becomes more and more opposed to the war in Afghanistan, the student movement will respond by leading more actions against this war. Already students are leading educational events and protests exposing the ruling class’s interests in subjugating the Afghani people and in propping up a criminal, puppet government there.

The student movement and oppressed nationalities

Throughout the 20th century, the student movement has been and remains today largely divided on national lines. This is the result of continuing oppression of whole nations of people within the United States, including in particular the history of the segregation of the U.S. educational system. Until the historic African American liberation struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, university campuses were virtually all white. As a result of the struggle of African Americans along with Chicanos, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, the doors to colleges and universities were opened and programs such as Ethnic Studies began to teach about the history of racism and national oppression in the United States. One example was the united front of oppressed nationality students of the Third World Liberation Front, which led the historic San Francisco State Strike in 1968 and 1969.

As a result of this history, African American, Chicano, Latino, Asian, Native American and other oppressed nationality students tended towards organizing themselves into nationally specific formations.(9) These organizations today include the Black Student Unions (BSUs), MEChAs (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán – Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán), and Asian Student Unions. These organizations began as militant political organizations in the 1960s and 1970s, although most have more recently become mainly social, cultural, and service oriented.

There are a significant amount of oppressed nationality struggles in the U.S. right now, particularly in the immigrant rights movement (which is connected to the Chicano national question in the Southwest). Similarly, in the Black Belt South, where African Americans make up an oppressed nation, there has been significant motion around the case of the Jena Six and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In all of these cases, the majority white sections of the student movement have done some coalition building work and organized to fight back against racism and national oppression.

Students and the economic crisis

Since the further development of the economic crisis, members of Freedom Road have begun to look more closely at ways to fight back against budget cuts and tuition hikes on campuses. As working and poor people lead the fight-back, demanding that the rich pay for their crisis, likewise students are demanding that budgets not be balanced at the expense of accessible education, raising the slogan that “education is a right!”

There is already spontaneous movement amongst students as a wave of protests against cuts to education sweeps the country, including the militant student occupations of New School University and New York University. A recent article in Fight Back! Newspaper highlights some of this motion:

Hundreds of students from City University of New York (CUNY) walked out of class on March 5 to protest Governor Paterson’s proposal to cut funding to education. Jackelyn Mariano, a protester from Hunter College said, “CUNY is made up of working-class students and students of color who really can’t afford to go anywhere else. It was supposed to be free when it opened up, and tuition has been increasing ever since” (Washington Square News, 3/6/09). Hundreds of students from New York University also participated in the rally.

In Arizona, responding to over $300 million in cuts to higher education for 2009, over 2000 students from universities across the state marched on Phoenix in early February. On March 18, over 1000 students gathered in Jacksonville, Florida, to protest hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to the state’s education system. And in Sacramento, California, thousands of teachers and students from across the state descended on the capital last week to protest massive layoffs and cuts to education.

At Middle Tennessee State University, the university’s steering committee proposed eliminating 44 majors, dissolving some departments, closing the women’s center and day care center, laying off 70 faculty and outsourcing custodial services. The Coalition to Save Our Schools at Middle Tennessee State University has been leading a huge effort with repeated demonstrations of hundreds of students to stop the cuts, including a ‘funeral for higher education’ on Feb. 9 that coincided with the governor’s state of the state address.

In some instances, even student government associations are organizing protests, like at Binghamton University in New York, where over 50 students protested tuition hikes and held signs last week that said, “I chose $UNY ‘cuz it used to be CHEAP” and “Public education must be affordable” (Press Connects, 3/25/09). And at Penn State University in February, the student government organized hundreds of students to protest the governor’s budget proposal that cut $20.3 million from Penn State’s budget while also excluding the university from the Pennsylvania Tuition Relief Act. This move would block many low-income students, and especially oppressed nationality youth, from access to higher education (The Daily Collegian, 2/10/09). (10)

It is important to note that the struggles for immigrant rights and for national liberation overlap in significant ways with the broader struggle for college access. Working class and oppressed nationality demands need to be at the forefront of the struggles against budget cuts and tuition hikes on campuses. It is the programs that were won through struggle by past generations that will be first cut. As public universities move to increase tuition in the current economic crisis, it is oppressed nationality students who will feel the effects most drastically as the doors to higher education are systematically closed to them.

Conclusion

The central task of Marxist-Leninists in the United States today is to build a new Communist Party on a Marxist-Leninist basis. Without a Party guided by the most advanced revolutionary theory it is impossible for the working class to take power and build socialism, which is so desperately needed. Like so many students before them, we want students who join Freedom Road Socialist Organization to transform themselves and eventually to go into the working class and the masses of the oppressed nationalities to help lead the class struggle. Mao Zedong once asked, “How should we judge whether a youth is a revolutionary? How can we tell? There can be only one criterion, namely, whether or not he is willing to integrate himself with the broad masses of workers and peasants and does so in practice. If he is willing do so and actually does so, he is revolutionary.”(11) This was true when Mao Zedong said it in 1939 and it is true today. While they are in school, students and youth must become anti-imperialists, and take up the struggles of the multinational working class and oppressed nationalities and put those demands in the forefront, working to advance the interests of the people and land blows against the ruling class and their cronies. When their time organizing on campus is up, they must transform themselves, go into the working class and the masses of oppressed nationalities, and take up wholeheartedly the class struggle.

——————————————————————————–

Josh Sykes is a member of the National Executive Committee and co-chair of the Student Commission of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Notes

(1) In the 1960s and 1970s many Filipino student organizations adopted the term “Pilipino” in rejection of colonialism and in solidarity with the growing national democratic movement in the Philippines.

(2) See FRSO’s pamphlet Some Points on the Mass Line. http://www.frso.org/about/docs/frsomassline.htm

(3) Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, p. 290

(4) For more discussion of this, see Harry Haywood, Black Bolshevik: Autobiography of an Afro-American Communist. Chicago, Liberator Press: 1978

(5) On May 4th, 1919, a wave of student protests shook China. “The ‘literary’ revolution became a nationwide complex of manifestos, demonstrations and militant action. New political terms were coined and stirred awareness of the new literature. Satirical essays constructed a new style. Repression could do little against this radicalization… Student societies (among them the New People’s Study Society founded by Mao Tsetung) organized centers for the production and dissemination of Marxist literature.” (Han Suyin, The Morning Deluge: Mao Tsetung and the Chinese Revolution 1893-1954. Boston, Little Brown, 1972. p. 68.)

(6) Though IVAW is made up exclusively of post-9/11 veterans, it is mainly an organization of students and youth, so for that reason it is included here.

(7) http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2007/antiwartasks2007.htm

(8) http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/sds-study-struggle-unite-fight.htm

(9) Many nationality specific formations of the 1960s and 1970s like the Black Panther Party, the Chicano groups like the August 29th Movement and the Brown Berets, or Asian American groups like I Wor Kuen or the Red Guards were made up almost entirely of young people but generally did more work in their communities than on campuses. Other nationality specific student groups, like the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee (SNCC), a major African American organization of the 1960s, also did considerable work organizing in their communities and with non-students.

(10) http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/03/wave-of-protests-against-cuts-to-education.htm

(11) “The Orientation of the Youth Movement” (May 4, 1939), Selected Works, Vol. II, (FLP English Edition: 1965) p.246.