Alfred Rosenberg talks about finance capitalism and national-socialism

The following is a very good article written by Alfred Rosenberg that outlines how national-socialism and the majority of national-socialists viewed capitalism of the western model, it wasn’t even the left of the party, the national-socialists were both left and right at the same time, it was a socialism that combined both the left and the right and combated the class struggle through the state and the nation.

So check out this piece, it’s really interesting and provides a really hidden view of the national-socialists of Germany at that time, it’s a view that doesn’t really get out much and shows that there was a lot of variety within the German parties at that time.

History isn’t simple, it takes a lot of resources to study and isn’t as simple as calling someone a fascist or a communist.

The article is right here-

“Nationalism pertains mainly to foreign policy while socialism is the domestic complement. Corresponding manifestations are the army and the police. We want to bring together the two currents that splash around the middle, the strongly nationalist movement and the strongly socialist movement purged of Marxism. Therefore National-Socialism distinguishes itself from the religion of the Second Reich- from National-Liberalism- which is distinguished on the one side by unlimited exploitation, on the other by charity. On one side the ladle of finance scoops away small savings; on the other side nursing homes and hospitals appear. This is most evident today in America, where exploitation has already become a condition that is encouraged. The stock-jobber who has robbed a people for 60 years, in the 65th year builds a hospital for his victims”- Alfred Rosenberg

What is Fascism? The beginning of a discussion about what it means to be a Fascist.

“The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality- thus it may be called the ‘ethnic’ State.”

(Source- What is Fascism by Benito Mussolini)

“There’s nothing more hypocritical than a well-fed citizen protesting against the working class idea of class struggle. You made it through the winter all snug and comfortable. Your very person is provocative of class struggle. What gives you the right to puff yourself up, all swelled with the pride of national responsibility, against the struggle of the working class? For almost 60 years, has the middle-class State really been anything other than an organized one-class State which out of compelling historical necessity, itself gave rise to the working class concept of class struggle? Didn’t you pay the price of this one-class State on November 9, 1918? And aren’t you at this very moment busily exploiting the people’s despair of the insanity of Marxism in order to re-establish the same old reactionary middle-class nonsense as before?”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“Are you monarchists or republicans?

Neither one nor the other. Because:

1.) The question of the organizational structure of a State is a very minor one today. A people wasting away under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles has other things to worry about than the question of monarchy versus republic.

2.) The people will be able to settle this question once and for all only when they have their liberty.

But in principle we say:

A good republic is better than a bad monarchy, and a good monarchy is better than a bad republic. Both forms of government have their merits and their disadvantages. Weighing them against each other is the concern of a people facing the rest of the world in liberty.”

(Source- 10 Questions for National Socialists by Dr. Joseph Goebbels)

“It is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor, we must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.

We permit no one to try raising on Romanian soil another flag, save that of our national history. No matter how the workers’ class may be, we do not tolerate that it rise up against the country or that it make common cause with foreign movements outside our borders. No one will admit that for your bread you lay waste and band over into the bands of a foreign people of bankers and usurers, everything that for two millennia the sweat of a people of workers and brave ones has saved. Your rights, yes- but within the rights of your people.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“I believe in the one and undivided Romanian State, from Dniester to the Tisa,. the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God, concerned about the country and its people; giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and to women; protector of the family, paying its public servants. At that time we had not heard of Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism and workers on the basis of the number of children and the work performed, quality and quantity; and in a State, supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences; and in addition to salaries, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen.”

(Source- For my Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu)

“The Zionists declare interest in the Orient, yet energetically safeguard themselves against going to Palestine as pioneers of Europe. A leading writer even openly said that the Zionists would Fight alongside the ranks of the wakening Asiatic peoples. From the fire of all burning thorn bushes and from the nights of solitude only one cry resounds to them: Asia. Zionism, it is asserted, is only a partial idea of pan Asiaticism. At the same time a spiritual and political link passes over to the idea of Red Bolshevism. The Zionist, Holitscher, discovered the inner parallels between Moscow and Zion, while the Zionist, F. Kohn, declared that- from the patriarchs- a single line extends up to Karl Marx, to Rosa Luxembourg, and to all Jewish Bolsheviks who have served the cause of freedom.

This Zionism proclaims its wish to found a Jewish state. A desire may quite honorably exist among a few leaders for some final redemption to build a pyramid of life on the soil of the Jewish nation. Building such a state results in a vertical structure in deference and contrast to the horizontal layering of former existence. Regarded from the primordial aspect, this Jewish infection is alien to our national feeling and to the ideas of state of the European peoples.”

(Source- Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg)

Kim Il Sung speaks directly to SJW’s and their bad manners

“Today our functionaries have become so insolent that they show no respect for their seniors. They have been allowed to fall into such a  habit, whereas Communists naturally have a higher moral sense than any other people, and hold their revolutionary seniors in high esteem.

In our People’s Army a vigorous struggle has been waged to uphold the revolutionary traditions and, as a result, most of the people who had taken part in revolutionary activities have become either regimental or divisional commanders.

If we had not organized the People’s Army with old revolutionary cadres as its core, what would have been the outcome of the last war? It would have been impossible for us to defeat the enemy and win a great victory under such difficult conditions.

During our retreat certain foreigners predicted that most of our army units, trapped by enemy encirclement, would not be able to get back. But we were firmly convinced that all of them would manage to come back. In fact, they all did return, with the exception of the dead. The foreigners were greatly impressed at this and said there were few armies like ours in the world. How did this come about? The explanation is that our army cadres were comrades who in the past had taken part in guerrilla warfare or in local revolutionary movements. That is precisely why our army is strong.

Ten years have passed now since our Party was founded. Therefore, the Party members should naturally be educated in the history of our Party. If our functionaries are not educated in the revolutionary history of our country, they will be unable to carry forward our fine revolutionary traditions, nor will they be able to realize which direction to take in the struggle, or sow enthusiasm and creative initiative in their revolutionary activities.”

Kim Il Sung talks about Internationalism and Nationalism

“In connection with the problem of establishing Juche I think it necessary to touch on internationalism and patriotism.

Internationalism and patriotism are inseparably linked with each other. You must know the love of Korean Communists for their country does not go against the internationalism of the working class but conforms fully with it. To love Korea is just as good as to love the Soviet Union and the socialist camp and, likewise, to love the Soviet Union and the socialist camp means precisely loving Korea. They constitute a complete whole. For the great cause of the working class has no frontiers and our revolutionary cause is a part of the international revolutionary cause of the working class throughout the world. The one supreme goal of the working class of all countries is to build a communist society. The different, if any, lies only in the fact that certain countries do this earlier and others later.

It would be wrong to advocate patriotism alone and neglect internationalist solidarity. For the victory of the Korean revolution and for the great cause of the international working class, we would strengthen solidarity with the Soviet people, our liberator and helper, and with the peoples of all the socialist countries. This is our sacred internationalist duty. The Soviet people, on their part, are doing all they can to consolidate solidarity not only with the countries of the socialist camp but also with the working class of the whole world, both for the communist construction in their country and for the victory of world revolution.

Thus, patriotism and internationalism are inseparable. He who does not love his own country cannot be loyal to internationalism, and he who is unfaithful to internationalism cannot be faithful to his own country and people. A true patriot is precisely an internationalist and vice versa.”

(Source: Kim Il Sung- Selected Works, Volume 1, P. 593)

Liberalism is the Death of Nations: by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck

“When the World War broke out, the western newspapers blazed with the headline: la liberte est en jeu! This misled world opinion. The particular cause became a general cause and acquired a halo. What our enemies sought was not liberty but power. Anyone who had examined the question with an open mind would have bade the discovery that in liberal countries political freedom is not enjoyed by the people, who on the contrary are carefully shepherded by certain ruling classes. What these ruling classes mean by liberty, is freedom and scope for their own intrigues. This they attain by means of parliamentism which secures them power under cover of the constitution and so-called representation of the people. Such is the specious mask which liberalism wears when it shouts ‘liberty’: the mask it wore at the outbreak of the War. This was the first betrayal.

When our enemies were not able to break our resistance in the first clash of arms, they then proceeded to decoy the German people. They trotted out the idea of progress, which is so easily confused with the idea of liberty. If the nations had been compared in respect of their achievement, Germany would ahve come brilliantly out of the comparison, and the western powers would have been put to shame. But from the standpoint of parliamentary institutions Germany could be made to appear behind the times. The German people were assured that they were oppressed under their constitution. Pacifist and anti-military questions were dragged into the foreground-since no one could pretend that we were suffering economically- and foreign politics were skilfully confused with domestic affairs, with the German constitution and even the Prussian suffrage. Our enemies had too bad a conscience to touch, except with the utmost caution, on the question of the origin of the War. They obscured the real causa causans- their policy of encirclement- with the irrelevent and accidental facts of the actual declaration of war, and they ignored as far as possible that their Russian ally bore the responsibility for the first mobilization. Their eloquence grew greater when they pointed out, as one war-year succeeded another and the end was not yet in sight, that Germany would be the greatest sufferer by a prolongation of the War. The intoxicating message reached us in the solemn words from the White House: ‘There must be Peace without Victory.’

This message reached a people who had not wanted the War and who did not realize that their whole future was at stake. The German people were not at one on the question of their War aims, which we could only formulate as the War progressed, whereas our enemies had all along been clear about their, and had reached secret understandings amongst themselves and spoke openly to their public, treating their aims as self-evident. The conduct of Germany demonstrated at every turn how uttery unprepared she was for this War, the guilt of which has been laid at her door. She now saw the opportunity of regaining that peace in which she had been before so well content. ‘Peace without Victory’ sounded acceptable to a people who with an heroic constancy and a quiet sense of duty had hitherto endured the privation, suffering and sacrifice that had been heaped upon it. They welcomed the idea with that innate credulity and good faith which makes us always ready to accept what our advisers-outside advisers in this case-recommend as the wise thing, bit it never so unwise.

The senseless war would retrospectively acquire a meaning if it lead to a reconciliation of the nations which would accord to each nation its due and would rob none. Our German democrats and the liberal elements in the nation were the first to be lured by this snare, and thus the way was paved for those intrigues which led to our overtures for peace in 1917. This same credulity offered fruitful soil to Northcliffe’s propoganda, which was directed to all malcontents, traitors and revolutionaries, to all would-be socialist, progressive, parliamentarian elements: liberals all, but now not merely over-credulous liberals, but criminal liberals. Credulity and treachery prepared the ground for the events of 1918 and 1919: these things inevitably brought about the Insurrection, the conditions of the Armistice, the surrender of the battle fleet, the decoying away of our mercantile marine; and the most grevious of our deceptions: that we had only to confess ourselves guilty of the outbreak of the War to win for ourselves by this easy lie more favourable peace conditions. That was the second betrayal.

A little time passed before the Founder of Peace himself stood revealed as the liberal that he was. The words ‘Peace without Victory’ were spoken before our peace overtures of 1917. When we had once been guided into the path our enemies wished us to take, these words were never repeated to us. Still less were they fulfilled after our collapse in 1918, when our enemies had reached their goal. Today it is almost a matter of indifference whether Wilson ever believed his own words, or whether he only pronounced them at a moment when he throught those powers to whom he wished success would prove unable to achieve for themselves a ‘Peace with Victory.’ But no. It is not a matter of indifference, because it involves the whole liberal attitude of mind. It is peculiarly characteristic of the liberal to indulge in mental reservations; retrospectively to formulate his goal when he has ascertained what he is likely to be able to attain. ”

(Source: )

Gottfried Feder talked about “interest slavery” and the value of money before Zeitgeist and documentaries like it

“So what is understood by ‘interest slavery’? By  interest slavery is to be understood the interest-bound debt of the state and people to the superanational financial powers. Here therefore it is a matter of a new form of slavery, of the slavery to the rule of finance. This slavery is more frightful and cruel than any form of rule ever was under the rule of absolute princes, because it is exercised in an impersonal way, without an human feeling, obsessed only with an insatiable instinct to expand and enlarge, with a greed for power without comparision.

The customary expression for the existence of this rule is: ‘money moves the world’. But here money is only used as a symbol of mastery for financial power. Money itself, the metal and paper currencies, are in themselves naturally neither good nor bad, and exercise no sort of rule. Money as a currency is indispensable for the exchange of goods and services. That is why all attempts to deal with the rule of the financial powers from the side of money alone are from the start erroneous and doomed to ineffectiveness, because in this rule we are not indeed dealing with a question of the narrow monetary system but with questions of power.”- Gottfried Feder (The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation)

“National Socialism stands unconditionally on the standpoint of the law insofar as everyone should be equal before the law.”- Gottfried Feder

What is Fascism? The word Fascism gets thrown around quite a bit in our modern political landscape, it’s a word that is feared but isn’t really understood in its context. The definition of Fascism has become viewed through a right-wing lense, it’s something that has become a word to use towards people who have rightest views, yet most ‘Fascists’ of the old days didn’t consider themselves fully on the right.

Gottfried Feder was one of the main economic theorists of the National Socialist state, he was the main economic influencer of Adolf Hitler and of many early policies that the National Socialists put forward in their campaigns. His main contribution was the idea that financial capital and industrial capital were two different things in social life, and that usury was inherently bad for the people. There is a movie called Zeitgeist which has introduced a lot of people to the problems of usury, Gottfried Feder pointed it out before the alternative media of today.

Everyone should check out his book called Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery, it’s a long and fairly intricate read but it’ll really broaden your horizons when it comes to economic thought, especially if you’re on the left side of things, I’m sure that Marx-Lenin-Stalin had the same ideas about financial capital/usury, but I’ve never seen anything really mentioned in their writings.

This reprint comes from his book The German State on a National and Socialist Foundationwe hope you enjoy.


The National Political Foundations

No state without power and, without authority, no government. Nothing is more self-evident, and more immediately obvious to common sense. One must attribute it to the entire neglect of our public thought if, among us in the government circles, one still believes today that one is able to rule at all with a total lack of military and political power.

     Power without an instrument of power is unthinkable; political power and military means of power condition each other mutually just as intimately as economy and morality may not be separated. In order to regain lost power there is only the sole means of creating a military instrument of power.

     How frightfully our poor fatherland has been punished because it has abjured the idea of power and given itself to the pacifistic fanfare we experience now daily and hourly. “To prevent a worse situation” we have ourselves surrendered and destroyed our weapons, “to prevent a worse situation” we have signed the Versailles dictate, “to prevent a worse situation” the Berlin government has said yes and amen to everything that was demanded of us, “to prevent a worse situation” we have allowed every malice, every humiliation, every exploitation to be enacted against us. With this shameless catchword of cowardice and abjectness the German people have been led into ever deeper misery. We fulfilled what was demanded of us, and a minister who wished to be German, Dr. Rathenau, dared to declare publicly: There is no absolute inability to fulfill, it is only a matter of how deep a people may be allowed to fall into distress!! This means in other words- although the words of Rathenau are already clear enough: the German nation is completely defenseless, it is politically completely powerless, intellectually it has been almost stultified, it can just continue to work. It has allowed itself to be burdened with such a gigantic burden of guilt that the members of the Chosen People can, on these reparations, forever lead a glamorous work-free life in all the countries of the world at the cost of German work. But now there exists the danger that even the enormous workforce of the Germans may break under the fantastic burden. Therefore the Germans must be kept alive constantly through stimulants and precisely in this way be maintained at the limit of thier physical performance capacity that they may work summoning all strength always in the deceptive hope that they might one day free themselves from their burdens. “It is only a matter of how deep a people may be allowed to fall into distress!” This was the political sentiment of the Minister Rathenau so celebrated by all republicans.

     If we recalled this paradigm of modern German statecraft it was only to confirm this so frightful example lying so close to us of a defenseless and weapon-less nation having to simply put up with everything, even every derision. Against this is valid for us the belief in an externally powerful state which alone can guarantee peace and freedom. We dispense with historical reasons, this is not the task of a manifesto but a matter for the historian.

     The counterpart of the idea of externally directed power politics is the internally directed rigid constitutional state. We came rather close to this ideal condition in the Bismarckian power state but in the fields that concerned the financial system and the unlimited recognition of private property and the demands that were derived therefrom our legal ideas stood fully under the capitalistic idea.

     It requires no special emphasis that in terms of internal politics National Socialism stands unconditionally on the standpoint of the law insofar as everybody should be equal before the law and there should be no differences in social orders. But an essential transformation must be realized with respect to the basic idea of the law which signifies to the German an inner need, a voluntary subordination to the higher interests of the whole, whereas the prescriptions of the law valid among us today appear simply as a commandment of power and indeed as commandments of a power that does not stand in the service of the whole but, precisely in relation to the questions of property, has placed the protection of property before the protection of the person. The question of the new ordering of the public law will have to be discussed further in greater detail in another section.

     Now we turn briefly to the questions of the external state form. A final decision on this question is in no way urgent. It can in general be solved only after a quite basic purging of our internal political conditions. The only possible way to this internal political purging seems to us to be exclusively through a dictatorship which with total determination cuts off and burns the sources of decomposition and disease in our national body.

     The demands that we place on such a leader are extraordinarily high; a passionate love for his people, an unbending will, a virtual somnambulisitic certainty in all his decisions must distinguish him. That his intellectual capacities must rise above the average is self-evident, but knowledge and capacities in the different fields are not the decisive factor. Knowledge and learning can be realized by others- How many men there are of high knowledge, great clarity of thought, of great intuition, the finest artistic talent- but if the last thing is lacking in them, the passionate will, the unswerving impulse, based on the deepest moral seriousness, then they will never stride forward at the head of nations, as trailblazers and leaders to new heights. we think of religious geniuses like Christ and Luther, Savonarola and Mohammed, statesmen like Bismarck and Cromwell, generals like Friedrich the Great and Yorck, etc. The dictator must be completely free of all unnecessary restrictions and hesitations, for him there cannot be any inevitabilities, for it must be he who makes history and he seizes with a daring determined hand when his his hour strikes, he embodies the longing of the nation, and therefore he never errs and is borne by the fanatic love of those to whom his deed brings liberation.

     He must be able to hate, so strongly and ruthlessly as he loves his people and his sacred task. In relation to his assistant and colleagues he stands as the first among free and equal people. 

     This old German idea forms the foundation of this iron connection between the leader and his friends for the sake of the cause.

     He is the leader because he has proved himself, and so long as he proves himself.

     Every power seems as it were redoubled by his presence, he draws forth every latent energy, Showing to each his own peculiar talent, yet leaving all to be what nature made them, and watching only that they be naught else, in the right place and time (Schiller, Wallenstein) 

    He is strict and hard with regard to himself, he orients himself according to his own laws. He has time for and listens to everybody, but he is quite able to differentiate between the important and the unimportant. For the accomplishment of his goal he may not be afraid of blood and war, he may not rest and relax until his goal is reached, then he secures his creation further as far as this is humanly possible, but he can himself withdraw, as the dictator Sulla did, and thereby secures his work in a twofold manner in that he operates from a distance but still does not force everything through his strong personality to be measured by extraordinary standards; on the other hand, a freer and more independent following will be able to develop if the Titan does not constantly determine the political daily life but remains the leader in the spiritual sense. Such a brilliance of action and will distinguish the dictator who will again lead Germany to a height. If then the way out of the mire is found through the accomplishment of an extraordinary leader, the internal and external preconditions for an independent national life will have been regained, then the nation may once again decide regarding the external form of the state.

     Our view of the future state form will be essentially influenced by the manner in which certain forms of the public life, especially the suffrage and popular representation deriving therefrom, will be constituted. We could certainly think of the possibility of a healthy republican state form, rather as in ancient Rome. Indeed, almost all historical memories in Germany point to the monarchical state form. Now, with the monarchical state form is in no way inseparably bound the dynastic idea. On the contrary, it seems that only too often dynastic interests have developed greatly to the harm of nations. Another factor admonishes us to extreme caution in the question of a possible reintroduction of the monarchic state form- the consequence of heritabilitity among dynasties. In the painful history of the German people one may find repeatedly that the third generation after a significant ruler has squandered the heritage of its forefathers, damaged the honour and worthiness of the nation, lost the position of power of the empire, and destroyed the peace and welfare of the citizens. What the German imagines when he speaks of the advantages of the monarchy especially under a hereditary ruling house is always the thought of those to whom history has given the epithet “the Great”. We think thereby of Charles the Great, Otto the Great, Frederick the Great, and the few who are ranked on a par with these real rules; but just a fleeting memory of the gallery of incapacity, indolence, selfishness, prodigality, fantasy, distance from the people, and other dangerous characteristics that are bound with the names of Louis the Pious, Otto the 3rd, Wenceslaus, Charles VI, Friedrich Wilhelm III, Wilhelm II suffices to recognize clearly that the dynastic state form in no way includes a guarantee of the welfare of the nation.

     That which expresses the inclination of the German to monarchy is the need of the German for a leader, and the readiness to subordinate himself to a leader. Precisely this last characteristic is perhaps an especially typical characteristic of the German, we know only too well this trait of the German character in its good and bad aspects. The loyalty unto death allowed him fight for and win the most powerful victories, it allowed him to follow even foreign flags; but it includes also very much lack of independence among the weaker types to the point of worthlessness and slavishness, love of things foreign and lack of judgement.

     The question regarding the succession is therefore, in Germany itself, not hard to solve. The much harder question lies in the problem of the leader.

     The selection of the leader has up to now been more ore less always left to pure chance. The princely marital bed is indeed in no way a guarantee of the intellectual capacity and of the necessary character traits that are by all means to be demanded of a monarch. And if we remember the modern German economy, where mere membership in the party decides on the qualification for the highest official posts, we must give this question special attention.

     The difficulty lies, in any case, in the safeguarding of the moral and character qualities of the one in whose hands the destiny of the people should be laid. While however a dictator takes the leadership upon himself from himself, as the bearer of the national longing, a future leader must emerge actually from the conscious will of the nation as the best and most suited. Thereby it may remain completely open whether the highest worth should be united in one person or whether the state leadership should be constituted of two or more. In any case, one thing stands firm for us, that the one entrusted with the leadership of the highest state affairs, whether it be crowned heads or a consular duumor triumvirate, the highest responsibility will, in the best possible case, be anchored in the constitution. Highest responsibility will therefore be the most essential national political foundation that will distinguish the National Socialist state from the previous forms of rule.

     A special aspect of the national political foundations of the National Socialist state is the demand for a nationalist state in which the members of foreign countries and races are excluded from the leadership of the state affairs as well as from the assumption of public offices.

     The great lesson of the whole of German history can be summarized in the fact that Germany was always poor, weak and miserable when its rulers pursued foreign interests and when the narrow small concerns of the individual provinces and cities were placed above the common affairs of the Reich; and likewise was Germany always strong and powerful when it was united and its rulers thought and felt in a German way and the provinces and cities felt as members of the great common fatherland. Closing of the nation externally with all freedom and diversity internally. This is the correct idea of a German state. The Bismarck Reich already came very close to this ideal of the idea of the German state, only that our racial brothers in German Austria still remained outside of the Reich.

     The unification of all German tribes in a closed national state is therefore our most distinguished national political goal. Internal politically the federative and federal character of the larger provinces as it was produced historically is to be maintained or rebuilt. The national political base lines in this respect are the following: All functions of the Reich in which it is a question of the power political position of the German Reich with regard to foreign countries are matters of the Reich. These are the Foreign Office,  embassies and consulates, the passport system, the control of foreign trade, the customs system, and, above all, the army and navy. Internal politically, on the other hand, the idea of the most far-reaching independence of the individual provinces or federal states is to be fostered. Financial independence is the precondition for the independent existence of the nation, so the tax legislation will have to be delegated mainly to the provinces.

     The legislation for the civil-, trade-, and the penal law will be regulated by the law of the Reich, but subordinated in practice to the provincial justice and police authorities.

     In a similar way the transport institutions will certainly be regulated according to the directives of the law of the Reich but they will nevertheless remain, in their finances and administratively and operationally, under the provincial sovereignty.

     That the freedom of religion should remain fully upheld by the constitution requires no special mention; on the other hand, religions whose writings are not written fully in the German language and accessible to everybody and whose content contain doctrines dangerous to the state will not enjoy this protection.

     The constitutional form of the basic socialist character of the Reich is stressed especially in the field of labour law as well as in the fields of illness-, accident-, old age- and disability insurance and will be better implemented than happens today.

“We want self-sufficient, well-off, and socialist all at the same time.”- Saddam Hussein

The mentioning of the name of Saddam Hussein no doubt could cause some controversy, however there aren’t many people who really know what the man stood and fought for. If anything the only thing most people know about him was that there were numerous atrocities done to the Kurdish people of Iraq, and those attacks are contributed to him and his cabinet at the time.

However there was a reason behind the things he did, he was well versed in Arab literature and came from a time when all Arab people’s were engaged in finding some kind of modern identity. Colonialism was rampant, the Israelis and the Arab states were constantly at war, and the Iranian Revolution made revolt within Iraq entirely plausible. Enter Saddam and the Iraqi Baath Party, who saw themselves as the natural defenders of not only Iraq but of the Arab world.

This isn’t condoning their actions, for we could rip apart most of their decisions, however it’s best to learn how they were thinking and to record it for posterity.  14:11 specializes in information that isn’t always available for the common person or student, topic such as Baathist and the struggle for ‘Arab Liberation’ is one such topic and we’re always ready to provide information.

The following selection is from a book called On Democracy, and it is collection of writings by Saddam on the topic of democracy and governance. Anyone interested in such topics should give it a read, it’s a truly fascinating piece of history.





Your task and that of your Ministry are among the most important tasks undertaken by any Ministry in this country because they are related to what we and our people cherish most, namely youth and the students in whom the Revolution created a new sense of national and pan-Arab awareness and feelings, a belief in the socialist course, and a sense of responsibility. Such a state should be enhanced. What are then the proper means to deal with a student on a daily basis, whether in school or at home, in a manner that makes his interaction with the new requirements of education elaborate and genuine? I put it frankly: the means and remedies being used in this field have not been encouraging so far.

We do not want the student to learn in a parrot-like manner things related to the Party or the State. Loyalty to the Party is not only proved through membership or by learning Party slogans. Rather, it is expressed by showing genuine allegiance to the homeland, by carrying out one’s duty sincerely, by being very careful with time, and by adherence to the Revolution’s program in a sincere, proper, and creative way.

It is true that the Minister of Education is guided by a general line. Yet there are many things and many cases and fields that do not fall within his direct responsibility of follow-up and supervision, especially in the details of implementation when they become the responsibility of the lower departments. Hence, when these departments are active and creative the course of work will continue in the same fashion outlined by the competent minister or determined by the leadership of all departments.

We aspire to make the child a source of enlightenment within the family, which includes his parents and siblings, so that he may bring about positive changes. He may also teach his family some of the rules of good conduct and respect that are based on the Revolution’s concepts, because the school teaches him the benefit and importance of all this. If the father is not acquainted with the rules of new conduct, the student or young pupil will be creating a new style of living. Such a style is linked to the principles of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party and its approach to revolutionary change.

The basic principles of the party are based on two main issues: creating a real national basis, and ending any form of injustice and exploitation with regard to Iraq, as well as putting Iraq within the framework of these two issues, in the service of the objectives of Arab struggle.

If we do not create real patriotism and put an end to injustice and exploitation in Iraq, we will not be able to pass on the Party’s principles beyond Iraq and not even within Iraq. The our calls would end up like the aborted experiences of Third World countries, where the concerned leaders of national changes at the beginning of political changes clamor about nationalism, socialism, and other slogans. However, when for some reason they leave their leading positions, the opposition forces come back and take over control of the state without facing any major obstacles, because the laws prevailing when those changes took place remained as they were, and because the persons in the second positions neither brought about radical changes nor created new and firm revolutionary traditions in society and governmental departments. They come and take over affairs under various names and disguises that are legitimate and common, without causing any serious damage to interests, culture, and traditions.

Accordingly, your task is a difficult one, and the job of a primary school teacher has priority over that of the secondary school teacher. And the latter’s has priority over that of the university teacher, because a university teacher receives the students as end products whose educational bases have, to a considerable degree, been shaped. If the end products are corrupt, he will not be able to make a great and essential change. But if they are within the general line, his role will be able to develop and improve on the results, putting them within the common context of the Revolution’s course and programs. Therefore, you should teach pupils and students the details of daily life, as we said, such as the proper use of knife and fork, table manners, asking their parents’ permission before coming into their room or before inviting a friend, the respect of public property (socialist property), and being careful with their money and fighting bourgeois habits. Passing on the Revolution’s traditions, customs, and directives through pupils and students to their families and safeguarding them against worn-out habits that are still prevalent in these families is vital and essential. You should not consider these habits bourgeois because the principles of the Arab Baath Socialist Party do not state that whoever eats with his hand is socialist and whoever uses a fork is not a socialist. We want all people to use the fork and spoon even though our families did not teach us how to use them, because using the fork and spoon is proper and more hygienic and economical than eating by hand, and because it is so, we must integrate it into our lifestyle.

The bourgeois attitude is mainly based on exploiting man. As for socialism, it is not equality in hunger, injustice, oppression, and chaos. It is equality in welfare, strength, and freedom, for we don’t want our people to remain hungry and backward in order to be called a socialist people. We want self-sufficient, well-off, and socialist all at the same time.

We must make the young learn good habits and adopt them at home, because the homes of many of them do not provide the conditions conductive to proper education. It may seem for some these habits are insignificant: in fact, they are essential and important. They are relevant to one of the secrets of our success in building up the new society, and that is orderliness, whose serious impact is reflected in the application of ideas that are common and valid in building up this society. Discipline teaches us how to appreciate the value and importance of time. It teaches us how to respect a senior and to be kind toward a junior. discipline also teaches a pupil why, how, and for what purpose anything is used, whether at school, at home, or in the street. All this is part of national education. Discipline teaches him how to sit in the classroom and at the table, not to leave the table before his parents, not to start eating before his parents, etc. This is a part of making him an orderly person. We should get the student used to obeying discipline because there are important educational, psychological, and national aspects to that. For this reason and other well-known considerations, we find the student who is used to working under the elaborate obligations of order, when necessary, stands still in the sun with his gun night and day. And when he is called upon to confront an imperialist or hostile force in this hot region he is ready to do it because since childhood he has been used to orderly work and its numerous details, which build up and toughen his patience. If further work details within new contexts crop up he will not be annoyed by them, nor by military life and war, because an image of it has become part of his life and his general upbringing ever since he was a student or a schoolchild.

Therefore, in order not to let the parents dictate their backward ideas at home we must let the child plan an enlightening role to chase out backwardness, because some fathers have got away with it for many reasons and factors. Yet we still have the child in our hands and we must make him plan an effective and enlightening role within the family during all the hours he spends with the family in order to change his family’s lot for the better and keep him away from harmful imitation.

This does not conflict with true loyalty to the family, respect for one’s parents, and the family unity that we are after. Family unity should not be based on backward concepts. Rather, it should be based on and consolidated by being in harmony with the central policies and traditions applied by the Revolution in building up the new society. Whenever family unity conflicts with the proposed policies that are applied to build up the new society, this conflict must be solved in favor of the policies and traditions that are building up the new society and not vice versa. Our task then is very hard and complicated, and the brush of a competent artist is needed to give the intended image its proper colors. It is easy to use the hammer in industry, the axe and the space in farming, but in education there is no way to apply the method of using the axe, the space, or the hammer because the whole work sometimes lies in the artist’s brush, to ensure the precise image we want to achieve and present as a new model for building up society.

We must be realistic revolutionaries in raising up the new generation accordingly. We should not be surprised at the negative phenomena in society and feel too helpless or confused to treat them. Many of our people, including party members, have not been able to cast off entirely the old society’s concepts and traditions- though they did so in terms of ideology. Casting off a code of conduct is more difficult than casting off ideas, though we assume there is always harmony between thought and behavior. If there has been a considerable tax on ideas mainly consisting of continuous sacrifices and struggle in an early stage, this “tax” has not diminished or has other directions, less serious in their general context at this stage. As for behavior, its tax continues though its form has changed. It is the tax of getting on with others at the expense of particularities that conflict with the course and interest of society. This is expressed in such-and-such terms in the socialist field and such-and-such terms in national education or in the field of Arab struggle, etc. Therefore we believe that harmony of thoughts does not necessarily produce the required image in detail. But it is supposed to lead to the same image in the end. As for the details, we may find some drawbacks, lack of correspondence, or even contradiction. We may find a Baathist who is not at odds with us in understanding socialism, but who dissents when socialism threatens his wishes or intents. When the split comes about and disorder sets in, it will be at the expense of general creativity and not only at the expense of the Arab Baath Socialist Party’s principles. Hence we realize that the Party is a school for enhancing immunity. But nationalism is not confined to Party members, nor is loyalty. This case is similar in some aspects to examinations. Is an examination the only criterion that proves the competence of all students? The answer is no. But do we have a criterion other than this? The answer is also no. So we may have no way to enhance people’s immunity, awareness, belief, and effectiveness, to lead society successfully and to achieve their pronounced national and Arab objectives, other than affiliation to the Party.

Nevertheless, this does not prevent the Arab Baath Socialist Party from stressing that nationalism is not an exclusive right of the Arab Baath Socialist Party, nor is loyalty felt by Party members only. Accordingly and from a realistic revolutionary viewpoint, the Party has emphasized that the Baath Party’s formula is not formal. It is a formula of principles and practices related to Baathist principles. Hence, we may say that every citizen who is loyal to the homeland, loves his people and his work, and care for them and believes in the Revolution is Baathist in his own way.

Brothers, you have done so much, but all the same, we would like you to know that we hope you will contribute yet more because your ambition, which is the Revolution’s ambition, is great.

You should win over the adults through their children as well as by other means. Teach the student and the pupil to disapprove of his parents if he heard them talk about the State’s secrets, and to inform them that this is wrong. Teach them to criticize their parents politely if they heard them talk about the secrets of Party organizations. You should place in every corner a son devoted to the Revolution, with a reliable eye and a wise mind. He would receive his directives from the Revolution’s responsible center and carry them out, store old formulas and treat them in a proper way, psychologically and socially, while he maintains and respects the family unity.

Teach him to object politely if he finds one of his parents squandering the State property. He should inform his parent that it is dearer than his own property, because he can’t have his own personal property if the State doesn’t have its property, and the State property belongs to society. Hence we should be proud of it and be careful with it.

You should also teach the child at this stage to be wary of foreigners, because they act as spies for their countries and some of them are elements of subversion against the Revolution. Therefore befriending a foreigner and talking with him without supervision is not permissible. Instill in him caution against imparting State and Party secrets to a foreigner. he should politely warn others, both young and adult, not to discuss indiscreetly Party and State secrets in the presence of foreigners. In his relationship with the teacher the child is like a piece of crude marble in a sculptor’s hand. The teacher can mold him into the required shape and not leave it for time and elements of nature.

Thus, we are called upon to be in control of the main keys and leave the ends open for the purpose of taking initiatives. We should not leave them loose beyond the central framework of supervision and decision-making in order to not let initiatives be aborted or put an end to the required centralization in planning and supervision. This is one of the Revolution’s basic rules in dealing with the movement of building up society not only in this field but in all other fields.

However hard we try, we always feel that we must work harder, and most of the time we feel there is more to be achieved. Why do we feel so when we have achieved many good things? We feel so because our ambition exceeds our achievements, and because our ambition is renewable. Thus, we sometimes feel as if we haven’t achieved something vital or essential, or feel we haven’t quite fulfilled our ambition. This feeling is necessary for development and initiative purposes. Nevertheless, what we want is contentment and not despair, that is, self-satisfaction that enhances confidence- but without overlooking the requirements of continuous initiative and development, so that man may not lag behind in his abilities, ideas and policies.

Avoid being polite at the expense of doing the right thing. If you do so you will succeed and win people’s love, though you will face some difficulties. Here as we talk we are well aware of the difficulties in practical life for those who reject hypocrisy, falsehood, and mere talk. We also know that by taking such an action you will face difficulties. Some of you may stumble, may be trapped by others, or may be misunderstood because we know that such things do happen in the Party, the State, and society. Since it could happen in the Party, which is the most homogeneous circle, why wouldn’t we expect it to happen in the State and in society? Society moves in a circle unrelated to the State and the Party. Hence its loose ends allow more freedom because there is less need for laws that control its movement even in its smaller units, compared with the demands of the Party’s inner circle.

Sustaining some losses is necessary not only as part of the sacrifice and the struggle in the circumstances of the underground state; we have also to suffer losses as we develop and build up in the course of positive action. The first Iraqi who did away with the veil was the first victim made for the sake of all Iraqi women. The first woman who worked in a factory was the first victim made for the sake of all working women. The same goes for the first woman doctor, first woman lawyer, first real revolutionary, etc.

There are circles whose interests are hurt when dealing out justice and fairness, so they reject them. Yet all people seek and want justice. But when the interests of some people clash with the requirement of justice they strive to make the one who is responsible for applying justice look unjust because their personal case won’t be settled in their favor unless that person was actually unjust. Beyond their own case they might very well like justice, but it is their personal case that conflicts with justice and makes them demand that others depart from the course of justice.

Observing justice and fairness is a human duty that is faced with real difficulties in one’s home, among friends in the Party or in one’s relation with the director-general or the undersecretary. Sometimes one might even reach a stage in his career where he says to himself: “Since people want to depart from justice, why should I continue to be just?” An action such as this is certainly deviation, and it should never be part of our policy and conduct. Rather we should allow for some losses and accept a degree of sacrifice in order that the right and just course may be firmly established, because this is the way of real revolutionaries who believe in the justice of their cause and in their people.

It has been proven by experience that even the people whom you treat severely with justification would first reject you and be annoyed by you, but after a while they will like you. And when severity has nothing to do with personal intent or design to harm, they will accept it however harsh it is. Sometimes they accept some aspect of it even when it is wrong, provided that it is not related to a personal motive or a grudge, and it should not be a consistent policy.

There are many examples of this in our careers. Sometimes we deal harshly with some of our comrades and we fail in doing justice to them. Yet this comrade whom we wronged comes with his grievance to us, we who took such action against him. Such a spirit has proved, by experience, that man deep down wants justice even when it hurts him, because most people benefit from justice and finally achieve their real interest. It’s only the minority who reject it. And this is the gain we achieve with time.

Remember, brothers, that any man will find out your personal motive however hard you tried to hide it when you hurt him, because every line in your face will say it and you could never conceal it. Just as truth speaks out from its position, injustice will also cry out. Thus, it will be visible and exposed. No matter how many people you gather around you by propitiation you will inevitably lose them because you did not win them over. I am telling you this from experience and through our work in the Party and in the State. Winning people by propitiation is based on personal gain or personal interests, and personal interests are not necessarily material, because there are personal nonmaterial interests. So rallying people through propitiation and personal interests will inevitably fail as personal interests decrease or clash. Therefore, brothers, try to instill this spirit into everyone and make it part of your concerns.

I notice the development that is going on now and see how the present situation is different from what it was a year or three years ago. Within a year it will be different again. But we will always call for more and work for it. Accordingly, you must awaken the students’ and pupils’ awareness. Relate your experiences to them and interact with them. Respect their opinions and supervise their affairs carefully and in detail, because they are specimens whom you must observe and deal with in a lively way. No man should think that he could do without others who are his subordinates, because as soon as he feels so he will be finished. Whatever his degree may be in education or in struggle, he will dry up, because with such an attitude he will cut off his sources of strength and bases of true interaction and development.

There is no contradiction between democracy and legitimate power. No one should ever imagine democracy would debilitate him or diminish respect for him and his legitimate power, because this is not true.

There is no contradiction between exercising democracy and legitimate central administrative control according to the well-known balance between centralization and democracy. It is only those who are poor in ability and knowledge who imagine that there is a contradiction between democracy and centralization, between care for others and comradely and brotherly treatment, on the one hand, and maintaining the role and position of leadership, on the other.

Democracy consolidates relations among people, and its main strength is respect. The strength that stems from democracy assumes a higher degree of adherence in carrying out orders with great accuracy and zeal. Strength in this case would not be personal but rather a principled and objective attitude. This is the main value of the results of interaction and democratic relations between seniors and juniors. Therefore, be concerned in it because it is a source of real strength for you. All other images of strength are false and are only related to a particular case and time: as soon as they end, the person finds himself unarmed and unable to stand up before the humblest and lowliest people, before the most trivial and least complex situations.

Pay attention to citizens’ demands and grievances and do not feel weary or bored by the persistence of these demands, because if you save a wronged person, partially or totally, you will be doing a great service to the people and the principles of your Party. The sense of injustice is a serious thing. There is nothing more dangerous than a wronged human being who feels he is wronged, because he will turn into a huge explosive force when he feels that no one in the State of in society is on his side to redress the injustice. Hence, you must deal with people in a way that pleases God and society and satisfies your Party and Revolution. You should not be afraid of the truth. Bear up even with the unjustified reactions of others for the sake of truth and the great values you hold and strive to establish.

Sayyid Qutb and what a Muslims nationality is

Sayyid Qutb is a man who isn’t really known about unless you’ve looked into the roots of modern Islamic thought, he could be called one of the founders of the modern Islamic revival movement. He was a fairly well known Egyptian scholar who was later executed by the government of President Gamal Abdel Nasser for crimes against the state.

It should be noted that we see both Sayyid Qutb and President Nasser as interesting figures in world history, they both deserve a platform from which to speak. 14:11 will reprint some of both of their writings, there is value in both.

His most famous book is called Milestones and it provides a fairly compelling argument for what the Islamic identity is, in his mind it was the answer to both the failures of liberal democracy and Marxist communism.

“Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic system, under socialism.” (Milestones, 3)

“The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those lifegiving values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.” (Milestones, 3)

The idea of leading society through religion has always been seen as a third way between both communism and capitalism, many European thinkers have argued for a kind of Christian society along the same lines, we can see this from the Middle Ages right up to the beginnings of World War 2.

Below is a chapter from his book Milestones, we hope you find it enlightening.

  • Andross

A Muslim’s Nationality and Belief

The day Islam gave a new concept of values and standards to mankind and showed the way to learn these values and standards, it also provided it with a new concept of human relationships. Islam came to return man to his Sustainer and to make His guidance the only source from which values and standards ate to be obtained, as He is the Provider and Originator. All relationships ought to be based through Him, as we came into being through His will and shall return to him.

Islam came to establish only one relationship which binds men together in the sight of God, and if this relationship is firmly established, then all other relationships based on blood or other considerations become eliminated.

“You will not find the people who believe in God and the Hereafter taking allies the enemies of God and His prophet, whether they be their fathers or sons or brothers of fellow tribesmen.” (58-22)

In the world there is only one party of God; all others are parties of Satan and rebellion.

“Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of rebellion. Then fight the allies of Satan; indeed, Satan’s strategy is weak.” (3:78)

There is only one way to reach God; all other ways do not lead to Him.

“This is my straight path. Then follow it, and do not follow other ways which will scatter you from His path.” (6:153)

For human life, there is only one true system, and that is Islam; all other systems are Jahilliyyah.

“Do they want a judgment of the Days of Ignorance? Yet who is better in judgment than God, for a people having sure faith?” (5:50)

There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shari’ah from God; anything else is mere emotionalism and impulsiveness.

“We have set you on a way ordained (by God); then follow it, and do not follow the desires of those who have no knowledge” (45:18)

The truth is one and indivisible; anything different from it is error.

“Is anything left besides error, beyond the truth? Then to which do you go?” (10:32)

There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam), and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari’ah is the authority and God’s limits are observed, and where all the Muslims administer the affairs of the state with mutual consultation. The rest of the world is the home of hostility (Dar-ul-Harb). A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar-ul-Harb: peace with a contractual agreement, or war. A country with which there is a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam.

“Those who believed, and migrated, and strove with their wealth and their persons in the cause of God, and those who gave them refuge and helped them, are the protectors of each other. As to those who believed but did not emigrate, you have no responsibility for their protection until they emigrate; but if they ask your help in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people between whom and you there is a treaty; and God sees whatever you do. Those who disbelieve are the allies of each other. If you do not do this, there will be oppression in the earth and a great disturbance. Those who believe, and migrate, and fight in the cause of God, and those who give them refuge and help them, are in truth Believers. For them is forgiveness and generous provision. And those who accept Faith afterwards and migrate and strive along with you, they are of you.” (8:72-75)

Islam came with this total guidance and decisive teaching. It came to elevate man above, and release him from, the bonds of the earth and soil, the bonds of flesh and blood-which are also the bonds of the earth and soil. A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Shari’ah of God is established and human relationships are based on the foundation of relationship with God; a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim community in Dar-ul-Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in God, and thus a bond is established between him and other Believers through their relationship with God

A Muslim has no relationship with his mother, father, brother, wife and other family members except through their relationship with the Creator, and then they are also joined through blood.

“O mankind, remain conscious of your Sustainer, Who created you from one soul and created from its mate, and from the two of them scattered a great many men and women. Remain conscious of God, from Whose authority you make demands, and reverence the wombs (from which you were born). (4:1)

However, divine relationship does not prohibit a Muslim from treating his parents with kindness and consideration in spite of differences of belief, as long as they do not join the front lines of the enemies of Islam. However, if they openly declare their alliance with the enemies of Islam, then all the fillal relationships of a Muslim are cut off and he is not bound to be kind and considerate to them. Abdullah, son of Abdullah bin Ubayy, has presented us with a bright example in this subject.

Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Ziad, has reported that the Prophet called Abdullah, son of Abdullah bin Ubayy, and said “Do you know what your father said?” Abdullah asked. “May my parents be a ransom for you; what did my father say?” The prophet replied, “He said, ‘If we return to Medina (from the battle), the one with honor will throw out the one who is despised.” Abdullah then said, “O Messenger of God, by God, he told the truth. You are the one with honor and he is the one who is despised. O Messenger of God, the people of Medina know that before you came to Medina, no one was more obedient to his father than I was. But now, if it is the pleasure of God and his Prophet that I cut off his head, then I shall do so.” The Prophet replied, “No”. When the Muslims returned to Medina, Abdullah stood in front of the gate with his sword drawn over his father’s head, telling him, “Did you say that if we return to Media then the one with honor will throw out the one who is despised? By God, now you will know whether you have honor, or God’s Messenger! By God, until God and his Messenger give permission, you cannot enter Medina, nor will you have refuge from me!” Ibn Ubayy cried aloud and said twice, “People of Khazraj, see how my son is preventing me from entering my home!” But his son Abdullah kept repeating that unless the Prophet gave permission he would not let him enter Medina. Hearing this noise, some people gather around and started pleading with Abdullah, but he stood his ground. Some people went to the Prophet and reported this incident. He told them, “Tell Abdullah to let his father enter”. When Abdullah got this message, he then told his father, “Since the Prophet had given permission, you can enter now.”

When the relationship of the belief is established, whether there by any relationship of blood or not, the Believers become like brothers. God Most High says, “Indeed, the Believers are brothers,” which is a limitation as well as a prescription. He also says:

“Those who believed, and migrated, and strove with their wealth and their persons in the cause of God, and those who gave them refuge and helped them, are the protectors of each other.” (8:72)

The protection which is referred to in this verse is not limited to a single generation but encompasses future generations as well, thus linking the future generations with the past generation in a sacred and eternal bond of love, loyalty and kindness.

“Those who lived (in Medina) before the Emigrants and believed, love the Emigrants and do not find in their hearts any grudge when thou givest them something, but give them preference over themselves, even though they may be poor. Indeed, the ones who restrain themselves from greed achieve prosperity. Those who came after them (the Emigrants) say; ‘Our Lord! Forgive us and our brothers who entered the Faith before us, and leave not in our hearts and grievance against those who believe. Our Lord! You are indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (59:9-10)

God Most High has related the stories of earlier Prophets in the Qur’an as an example for the believers. In various periods the Prophets of God lightened the flame of faith and guided the Believers.

“And Noah called upon his Lord and said ‘O my Lord, surely my son is of my family, and Your promise is true, and You are the Justest off Judges’. He said, “O Noah, he is not of your family, as his conduct is unrighteous; so do not ask of me that which you have no knowledge. I give you the counsel not to act like the ignorant.’ Noah said ‘O, my Lord, I seek refuge with You lest I ask You for thaat of which I have no knowledge, and unless You forgive me and have mercy on me, I shall be lost”. (11:45-47)

“And when Abraham said, ‘My Lord! Make this a city of peace and feed its people with fruits, such of them as believe in God and the Last Day’. He said, ‘And those who reject faith, I will grant them their pleasure for a while, but will eventually drive them to the chastisement of the Fire. What an evil destination!”(2:126)

When the Prophet Abraham saw his father and his people persistent in their error, he turned away from them and said “I leave you and those upon whom you call besides God. I will only call upon my Sustainer, and hope that my Lord will not disappoint me.” (19:48)

In relating the story of Abraham and his people, God has highlighted those aspects which are to be an example for the believers.

“Indeed, Abraham and his companions are an example for you, when they told their people, ‘ We have nothing to do with you and whatever you worship besides God. We reject them; and now there is perpetual enmity and anger between you and us unless you believe in One God.” (60:4)

When those young and courageous friends who are known as the Companions of the Cave saw this same rejection among their family and tribe, they left them all, migrated from their country, and ran towards their Sustainer so that they could live as His servants.

“They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We advanced them in guidance. We gave strength to hearts, so that they stood up and said ‘Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. We shall not call upon any god apart form Him. If we did, we should indeed have said an awful thing. These people have taken for worship other gods other than Him. Why do they not bring a clear proof for what they do? Who can be more wrong than such as invert a falsehood against God? So, when you turn away from them and the things they worship other than God, take refuge in the cave. Your Lord will shower mercies on you and will provide ease and comfort for you affairs”! (18:13-16)

The wife of Noah and the wife of Lot were separated from their husbands only because their beliefs were different.

“God gives as an example for the unbelievers the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were marreid to two of Our righteous servants; but they were false to their husbands, and they profited nothing before God on their account, but were told ‘Enter you both into the fire along with those who enter it.” (66:10)

Then there is another kind of example in the wife of Pharaoh. “And God gives as an example to those who believe the wife of Pharaoh. Behold, she said, ‘My Lord, build for me in nearness to You a mansion in heaven, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” (66:11)

The Qur’an also describes examples of different kinds of relationships. In the story of Noah we have an example of the paternal relationship; in the story of Abraham, an example of the son and of the country; in the story of the Companions of the Cave a comprehensive example of relatives, tribe and home country. In the stories of Noah, Lot and Pharaoh there is an example of marital relationships.

After a description of the lives of the great Prophets and their relationships, we now turn to the Middle Community, that is, that of the early Muslims. We find similar examples and experiences in this community in great numbers. This community followed the Divine path which God has chosen for the Believers. When the relationship of common belief was broken- in other words, when the very first relationship joining one man with another was broken,- then persons of the same family or tribe were divided into different groups God Most High says in praise of the Believers:

“You will not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day loving those who fight God and His Messenger, even though they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. These are the people on whose hearts God has imprinted faith and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therin. God will be well-pleased with them and they with Him. They are the party of God; truly the party of God will prosper.” (58:22)

We see that the blood relationships between Muhammad- peace be on him- and his uncle Abu Lahab and his cousin Abu Jahl were broken, and that the Emigrants from Mecca were fighting against their families and relatives and were in the front lines of Badr, while on the other hand their relations with the Helpers of Medina became strengthened on the basis of a common faith. They became like brothers, even more than blood relatives. This relationship established a new brotherhood of Muslims in which were included Arabs and non-Arabs. Suhaib from Rome and Bilal from Abyssinia and Selman from Persia were all brothers. There was no tribal partisanship among them. The pride of lineage was ended, the voice of nationalism was silenced, and the Messenger of God addressed them: “Get rid of these partisanships; these are foul things”, and “He is not one of us who calls toward partisanship, who fights for partisanship, and who dies for partisanship.”

Thus this partisanship- the partisanship of lineage- ended and this slogan- the slogan of race- died; and this pride- the pride of nationality- vanished; and man’s spirit soared to higher horizons, freed from the bondage of flesh and blood and the pride of soil and country. From that day, Muslim’s country has not been a piece of land, but the homeland of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam)- the homeland where faith rules and the Shari’ah of God holds sway, the homeland in which he took refuge and which he defended, and in trying to extend it, he become martyred. This Islamic homeland is a refuge for any who accepts the Islamic Shari’ah to be the law of the state, as is the case with the Dhimmies. But any place where the Islamic Shari’ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace of a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.

And thus Muhammad- Peace be on him- fought against the city or Mecca, although it was his birthplace, and his relatives lived there, and he and his companions had houses and property there which they had left when they migrated; yet the soil of Mecca did not become Dar-ul-Islam for him and his followers until it surrendered to Islam and the Shari’ah became operative in it.

This, and only this, is Islam. Islam is not a few words pronounced by the tongue, or birth in a country called Islamic, or an inheritance from a Muslim father.

“No, by your Sustainer, they have not believed until they make you the arbiter of their disputed and then do not find any grievance against your decision but submit with full submission”. (4:65)

Only this is Islam, and only this is Dar-ul-Islam- not the soil, not the race, not the lineage, not the tribe, and not the family.

Islam freed all humanity from the ties of the earth so that they might soar towards the skies, and freed them from the chains of blood relationships- the biological chains- so that they might rise above the angels.

The homeland of the Muslim, in which he lives and which he defends, is not a piece of land; the nationality of the Muslim, by which he is identified, is not the nationality determined by a government; the family of the Muslim, in which he finds solace and which he defends, is not blood relationships; the flag of the Muslim, which he honors and under which he is martyred, is not the flag of a country; and the victory of the Muslim, which he celebrates and for which he is thankful to God, is not a military victory. It is what God has described:

“When God’s help and victory comes, and thou seest people entering into God’s religion in multitudes, then celebrate the praise of thy Lord and ask His forgiveness. Indeed, He is the Acceptor of Repentance.” (110:1-3)

The victory is achieved under the banner of faith, and under no other banners; the striving is purely for the sake of God, for the success of His religion and His law, for the protection of Dar-ul-Islam, the particulars of which we have described above, and for no other purpose. It is not for the spoils or for fame, nor for the honor of a country or nation, nor for the mere protection of one’s family except when supporting them against religious persecution.

The honor of martyrdom is achieved only when one is fighting in the cause of God, and if one is killed for any other purpose this honor will not be attained.

Any country which fights the Muslim because of his belief and prevents him from practicing his religion, and in which the Shari’ah is suspended, is Dar-ul-Harb, even though his family or his relatives live in it, or his capital is invested and his trade or commerce is in that country; and any country where the Islamic faith is dominant and its Shari’ah is operative is Dar-ul-Islam, even though the Muslim’s family or relatives or his people do not live there, and he does not have any commercial relations with it.

The fatherland is that the place where the Islamic faith, the Islamic way of life, and the Shari’ah of God is dominant; only this meaning of ‘fatherland’ is worthy of the human being. Similarly, ‘nationality’ means belief and a way of life, and only this relationship is worthy of man’s dignity.

Grouping according to family and tribe and nation, and race and color and country, are residues of the primitive state of man; these jahili groupings are from a period when man’s spiritual values were at a low stage. The Prophet- peace be upon him- has called them “dead things” against which man’s spirit should revolt.

When the Jews claimed to be the chosen people of God on the basis of their race and nationality, God Most High rejected their claim and declared that in every period, in every race and in every nation, there is only one criterion: that of faith.

“And they say: ‘become Jews, or Christians; then you will be guided’. Say: ‘Not so: The way of Abraham, the pure in faith; and he was not among those who associate other gods with God’. Say: ‘We believe in God, and what has come down to us, and what has come down to Abraham, Ismail and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes (of Israelities), and what was given to Moses and Jesus and to other Prophets by their Sustainer. We do not make any distinction among them, and we have submitted to Him. If then they believe as you have believed, they are guided; but if they turn away, then indeed they are stubborn. Then God suffices for you, and He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. The baptism of God: and who can baptize better than God? And we worship Him alone.” (2:135-138)

The people who are really chosen by God are the Muslim community which has gathered under God’s banner without regard to differences of races, nations, colors and countries.

“You are the best community raised for the good of mankind. You enjoined what is good and forbid what is evil, and you believe in God.” (3:110)

This is that community in the first generation of which there were Abu Bakr from Arabia, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Syria, Selman from Persia, and their brothers in faith. The generations which followed them were similar. Nationalism here is belief, homeland here is Dar-ul-Islam, the ruler here is God, and the constitution here is the Qur’an.

This noble conception of homeland, of nationality, and of relationship should become imprinted on the hearts of those who invite others towards God. They should remove all influences of Jahiliyyah which make this concept impure and which may have the slightest element of hidden Shirk, such as Shirk in relation to homeland, or in relation to race or nation, or in relation to lineage or material interests. All these have been mentioned by God Most High in one verse, in which He has placed them in one side of the balance and the belief and its responsibilities in the other side, and invites people to choose,

“Say: If your fathers and your sons and your brothers and your spouses and your relatives, and the wealth which you have acquired, and the commerce in which you fear decline, and the homes in which you take delight, are dearer to you than God and His Messenger and striving in His cause then wait until God brings His judgment; and God does not guide the rebellious people.” (9:24)

The callers to Islam should not have any superficial doubts in their hearts concerning the characteristics of Dar-ul-Harb and of Dar-ul-Islam, for through these doubts many are led to confusion. Indeed, there is no Islam in a land where Islam is not dominant and where its Shari’ah is not established; and that place is not Dar-ul-Islam where Islam’s way of life and its laws are not practiced. There is nothing beyond faith except unbelief, nothing beyond Islam except Jahiliyyah, nothing beyond the truth except falsehood.

Pgs: 96-105

Joseph Stalin and the National Question

Joseph Stalin is a man who is a bunch of different things to many different people, some love and hate him at the same time. He is a man who truly strove to be Lenin’s student, and actively tried to carry out his plans for the Soviet people, he always claimed to be nothing more than Lenin’s pupil.

One of the things he’s most known for is his take on the National Question within the Soviet Union, one of his most popular books is called Marxism and the National Question and really is quite insightful to people on both the left and right.

This will be part 1 in an ongoing look at how Stalin viewed the National Question, the statements come from a book called Stalin’s Kampf and is highly recommended by the site printer.

Russia’s Nationalities

A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism was at the same time a process of amalgamation of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others formed themselves into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity.

But the formation of nations in these instances at the same time signified their conversion into independent national states. The British, French and other nations are at the same time British, French, etc, states. Ireland, which did not participate in the process, does not alter the general picture.

Matters proceeded somewhat differently in Eastern Europe. While in the West the nations developed into states, in the East multinational states were formed, each consisting of several nationalities. Such are Austria-Hungary and Russia. In Austria, the Germans proved to be politically the most developed, and they took it upon themselves to amalgamate the Austrian nationalities into a state. In Hungary, the most adapted for state organization were the Magyars- the kernel of the Hungarian nationalities- and it was they who united Hungary. In Russia, the role of welder of nationalities was assumed by the Great-Russians, who were headed by an aristocratic military bureaucracy, which had been historically formed and was powerful and well organized.

This peculiar method of formation of states could take place only where feudalism had not yet been eliminated, where capitalism was feebly developed, where the nationalities which had been forced into the background had not yet been able to consolidate themselves into integral nations.

But capitalism also began to develop in the Eastern states. Trade and means of communication were developing. Large towns were springing up. The nations were becoming economically consolidated. Capitalism, erupting into the tranquil life of the ousted nationalities, was arousing them and stirring them into action. The development of the press and the theater, the activity of the Reichsrat (Austria) and of the Duma (Russia) were helping to strengthen “national sentiments.” The intelligentsia that had arisen was being imbued with “the national idea” and was acting in the same direction…

But the ousted nations, aroused to independent life, could no longer shape themselves into independent national states; they encountered the powerful resistance of the ruling strata of the dominant nations, which had long ago assumed the control of the state. They were too late!

In this way the Czechs, Poles, etc., formed themselves into nations in Austria; the Croats, etc., in Hungary; the Letts, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, etc., in Russia. What had been an exception in Western Europe (Ireland) became the rule in the East.

In the West, Ireland responded to its exceptional position by a national movement. In the East, the awakened nations were bound to respond in the same fashion.

Thus arose the circumstances which impelled the young nations of Eastern Europe into the path of struggle.

The struggle began and spread, to be sure, not between nations as a whole but between the ruling classes of the dominant and ousted nations. The struggle is usually conducted by the urban petty bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation against the big bourgeoisie of the dominant nations (Czechs and Germans), or by the rural bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation against the landlords of the dominant nation (Ukrainians in Poland), or by the whole “national” bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations against the ruling nobility of the dominant nation (Poland, Lithuania and the Ukraine in Russia).

The bourgeoisie plays the leading role.

The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of another nationality. Hence its desire to secure its “own,” its “home” market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.

But matters are usually not confined to the market. The semi-feudal, semi-bourgeoisie bureaucracy of the dominant nation intervenes in the struggle with its own methods of “arresting and preventing.” The bourgeoisie of the dominant nation, whether large or small, is able to deal more “rapidly” and “decisively” with its competitors. “Forces” are united and a series of restrictive measures is put into operation against the “alien” bourgeoisie, measures passing into acts of repression. The struggle passes from the economic sphere into the political sphere. Limitation of freedom of movement, repression of language, limitation of franchise, restriction of schools, religious limitations, and so on are piled on the head of the “competitor.” Of course, such measures are designed not only in the interest of the bourgeois classes of the dominant nation, but also in pursuit of the specifically caste aims, so to speak, of the ruling bureaucracy. But from the point of view of the results achieved that is quite immaterial: the bourgeois classes and the bureaucracy in the matter go hand in hand- whether it be in Austria-Hungary or in Russia.

The Bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, repressed on every hand, is naturally stirred into movement. It appeals to its “native folk” and begins to cry out about the “fatherland,” claiming that its own cause is the cause of the nation as a whole. It recruits itself an army from among its “countrymen” in the interests of… the “fatherland.” Nor do the “folk” always remain unresponsive to its appeals, they rally around its banner: the repression from above affects them also and provokes their discontent.

Thus the national movement begins.

The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it.

Whether the Proletariat rallies to the banner of bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class contradictions, on the class-consciousness and degree of organization of the proletariat. A class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and it does not need to march under the banner of the bourgeoisie.

As far as the peasants are concerned, their participation in the national movement depends primarily on the character of the repression. If the repression affects the “land,” as was the case in Ireland, then the mass of the peasants immediately rally to the banner of the national movement.

On the other hand, if, for example, there is no serious anti-Russian nationalism in Georgia, it is primarily because there are no Russian landlords there or a Russian big bourgeoisie to supply the fuel for such nationalism among the masses. In Georgia there is anti-Armenian nationalism; but this is because there is an Armenian big bourgeoisie there which, beating the small and still unconsolidated Georgian bourgeoisie, drives the latter to anti-Armenian nationalism.

Depending on these factors, the national movement either assumes a mass character and steadily grows (as in Ireland and Galicia), or it is converted into a series of petty collisions, degenerating into squabbles and “fights” over signboards (as in some of the towns in Bohemia)

The nature of the national movement, of course, will not everywhere be the same: it is wholly determined by the diverse demands made by the movement. In Ireland the movement bears an agrarian character; in Bohemia it is concerned with “language”; in one place the demand is for civil equality and religious freedom, in another for the nation’s “own” officials or its own Assembly. The diversity of demands not infrequently reveals the diverse features which characterize a nation in general (language, territory, etc.)…

The fate of the national movement, which is essentially a bourgeois movement, is naturally connected with the fate of the bourgeoisie. The final collapse of the national movement is possible only with the collapse of the bourgeoisie. Only under the reign of socialism can peace be fully established. But even within the framework of capitalism it is possible to reduce the national struggle to a minimum, to sever its roots, to render it as innocuous as possible for the proletariat. This is borne out by the examples of Switzerland and America. It requires that the country should be democratized and the nations allowed opportunity for free development.

National oppression is that system of exploitation and plunder of subject peoples, those measures of forcible restriction of the political rights of subject peoples, which are resorted to by imperialist circles. These, taken together, present the policy generally known as a policy of national oppression.

The first question is, on what classes does any government depend in carrying out its policy of national oppression? In order to obtain an answer to this question it must first be understood why different forms of national oppression exist in different states, why in one state national oppression is more severe and crude than in other states. For example, in Great Britain and Austria-Hungary national oppression never took the form of pogroms, but existed in the form of restrictions on national rights of the subject peoples; whereas in Russia it not infrequently assumes the form of pogroms and massacres. In certain states, on the other hand, no specific measures against national minorities are practiced at all. For instance, there is no national oppression in Switzerland, where French, Italians and Germans all live freely.

How are we to explain the difference in attitude towards nationalities existing in different states?

The difference depends on the degree of democracy in these states. When in former years the old landed aristocracy controlled the state power in Russia, national oppression could assume, and actually did assume, the monstrous form of massacres and pogroms. In Great Britain, where there is a definite degree of democracy and political freedom, national oppression bears a less brutal character. Switzerland, for her part, approximates to a democratic society, and in that country the small nations have more or less complete freedom. In a word, the more democratic a country, the less the national oppression, and vice versa. And since by democracy we mean that definite classes are in control of state power; it may be said from this point of view that the closer the old landed aristocracy stands to power, as was the case in old Tsarist Russia, the more severe is the oppression and the more monstrous the forms it assumes.

However, national oppression is supported not only be the agrarian aristocracy. There is, in addition, another force- the imperialist groups, who transfer the methods of enslaving peoples acquired by them in the colonies to their own country itself and thus become the natural allies of the landed aristocracy. They are followed by the petty bourgeoisie, a section of the intelligentsia, a section of the upper strata of the workers, who also enjoy the fruits of the plunder. There is thus a whole choir of social forces which support national oppression, headed by the landed and financial aristocracy. In order to create a real democratic system, it is first necessary to clear the soil and remove this choir from the political stage.

The first question is, how are we to arrange the political life of the oppressed nations? In answer to this question it must be said that the oppressed nations forming part of Russia must be allowed the right to decide for themselves whether they wish to remain part of the Russian state or to separate and form an independent state. We are at present witnessing a definite conflict between the Finnish People and the Provisional Government. The representatives of the Finnish people, the representatives of Social-Democracy, are demanding that the Provisional Government should return to the people the rights they enjoyed before they were annexed to Russia.

Further, what is to be done with those peoples which may desire to remain within the Russian state? Any mistrust of Russia which existed among the peoples was fostered chiefly by the policy of Tsarism. But now that Tsarism no longer exists, its policy of oppression no longer exists, this mistrust is bound to diminish and the attraction towards Russia increase. I believe that now, after the overthrow of Tsarism, nine tenths of the peoples will not desire secession. The party therefore proposes to institute regional autonomy for regions which may not desire secession and which are distinguished by peculiarities of social life and language, as, for instance, Transcaucasia, Turkestan and the Ukraine. The geographical boundaries of these autonomous regions shall be determined by the population itself with due regard for the exigencies of economic life, social life, etc…

There finally remains the question of the national minorities. Their rights must be specifically protected. The party therefore demands complete equality of rights in educational, religious and other matters and the removal of all restrictions on national minorities…

We have still to settle the question of how to organize the proletariat of the various nations into a single, common party. One plan is that the workers should be organized according to nationality- so many nations, so many parties This plan was rejected by the Social-Democratic Party. Experience has shown that the organization of the proletariat of a given state according to nationality only leads to the destruction of the idea of class solidarity. All the proletarian members of all the nations in a given state must be organized in a single, invisible proletarian collective body.

Thus, our views on the national question reduce themselves to the following propositions: a) the recognition of the rights of he peoples to secession; b) regional autonomy for peoples which remain within the given state; c) specific laws guaranteeing freedom of development for national minorities; d) a single, indivisible proletarian collective body, a single party, for the proletarians of all nationalities in the given state.

In addition to “national” governments, the borderlands also have national workers and peasants. Even before the October Revolution they were organized in their own revolutionary Soviets of Deputies, after the model of the Soviet of Deputies obtaining in the central parts of Russia, and never severed their connections with their brothers in the North. They, too, strove for victory over the bourgeoisie; they, too, fought for the triumph of socialism. No wonder the conflict between them and “their own” national governments increased from day to day. The October Revolution only consolidated the alliance between the workers and peasants of the borderlands and workers and peasants of Russia, inspiring them with faith in the triumph of socialism. And the war of the “national governments” against the Soviet government brought their conflict with these “governments” to a complete break with them, brought them to open rebellion against them.

Thus was formed the socialist alliance between the workers and peasants of all Russia against the counter-revolutionary alliance of the national-bourgeois “governments” of Russia’s borderlands.

Some people depict the struggle of the borderland “governments” as a struggle for national liberation and against the “soulless centralism” of the Soviet government. This, however, is wrong. No government in the world ever granted such extensive decentralization, no government in the world ever afforded its peoples such plenary national freedom as the Soviet government of Russia. The struggle of the borderland “governments” was and remains a struggle of the bourgeois counter-revolution against socialism. The national flag is tacked on to the cause only to deceive the masses, only as a popular flag which conveniently covers up the counter-revolutionary designs of the national bourgeoisie.

However, the struggle of the “national” and regional “governments” proved to be an unequal struggle. Attacked from two quarters-from without by the Soviet government, and from within by “their own” workers and peasants-the “national governments” had to retreat after the very first battles. The uprising of the Finnish workers and agricultural laborers and the flight of the bourgeois “Senate”; the uprising of the Ukrainian workers and peasants and the flight of the bourgeois “Rada”; the uprising of the workers and peasants in the Don region, in Kuban, in Siberia and the downfall of Kaledin, of Kornilov and of the Siberian “government”; the uprising of the poor of Turkestan and the flight of the “autonomous government”; the agrarian revolution in the Caucasus and the utter helplessness of the “national councils” of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan- these are facts of common knowledge demonstrating the complete isolation of the borderland “governments” from “their own” masses. Having been completely defeated, the “national governments” were “forced” to appeal to the imperialists of Western Europe, to the age long oppressors and exploiters of the small nations of the whole world, for aid against “their own” workers and peasants.

Such was the beginning of the period of foreign intervention in, and occupation of, the borderlands-a period revealing once more the counter-revolutionary nature of the “national” and regional “governments.”

Only now has it become obvious to all that the national bourgeoisie is striving not for the liberation of “its own people” from national oppression but for the liberty of wringing profits from it, for the liberty of preserving its own privileges and capital.

Only now has it become obvious that the liberation of the oppressed nationalities is inconceivable without breaking with imperialism, without overthrowing the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations, without power passing into the hands of the toiling masses of those nationalities.

After being victorious in the central part of Russia and taking possession of a number of borderlands, the October Revolution could not stop short at the territorial boundaries of Russia. In the atmosphere of imperialist world war and general discontent among the lower classes, it could not but spread to the neighboring countries. The break with imperialism and the liberation of Russia from the predatory war, the publication of the secret treaties and the solemn abrogation of the policy of seizing foreign soil, the proclmation of national freedom and the recognition of the independence of Finland, the declaration of Russia as a “Federation of Soviet National Republics” and the militant battle-cry of a resolute struggle against imperialism broadcast all over the world by the Soviet government in millions of pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets in the mother tongues of the peoples of the East and West- all this could not fail to have its effect on the enslaved East and the bleeding West.

And in truth, the October Revolution is the first revolution in the history of the world that has broken the sleep of centuries of the toiling masses of the oppressed nations of the East and drawn them into the struggle against world imperialism. The formation of workers’ and peasants’ soviets in Persia, China and India, modeled after the soviets in Russia, is sufficiently convincing proof of this.

The the struggle in the East and even in the West has not yet succeeded in shedding the bourgeois-nationalist features is not at all the point at issue- the point is that the struggle against imperialism has begun, that it goes on and is inevitably bound to reach its logical termination.

It is said that the principles of self-determination and of the “defense of the fatherland” have been abrogated, but their bourgeois interpretation. It is sufficient to cast a glance at the occupied regions, languishing under the yoke of imperialism and yearning for liberation; sufficient to cast a glance at Russia conducting a revolutionary war for the defense of the socialist fatherland against the pirates of imperialism; sufficient to ponder the events that are now transpiring in Austria-Hungary; sufficient to glance at the enslaved colonies and semi-colonies that have already organized soviets in their respective countries (India, Persia, China)- one need but cast a glance at all this to realize the full revolutionary potential of self-determination in its socialist interpretation.

Indeed the great international importance of the October Revolution consists mainly in that this revolution:

1.) has widened the scope of the national question, transforming it from a partial question of struggling against national oppression into a general question of liberating the oppressed nations, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;

2.) has ushered in vast opportunities and disclosed the actual means for this liberation, thus considerably facilitating the task of the oppressed nations of the West and East to accomplished their liberation and drawing them into the common channel of a victorious struggle against imperialism;

3.) has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the enslaved East, by setting up a new front off revolutions extending from the proletarians of the West on through the Russian Revolution to the oppressed nations of the East against world imperialism.

This largely explains the brutal fury with which the imperialist robbers of the whole world have hurled themselves against Soviet Russia.

(Pg. 178-191)