Bundist Movement

Bundist Movement
Jewish NOT Zionist

Monday, December 24, 2018

Bundism and Marxist-Leninism

As the Councilman of National Affairs it is my duty to provide commentary on Stalin's work Marxism and the National Question, this is to be included in the Manifesto we are writing. I have made the study of Nationality my primary concern ever since I went Bundist, I think it was for this very reason that I was the one made the Councilman of National Affairs for the Bundist Movement.
I was born on June 12, 1977 to Jewish anti-Zionist parents. My Mother was Ashkenazi and my Father was Mizrahi, I attended a Reform Synagogue throughout my childhood and I grew up with liberal political leanings, but I would later become a Bundist. I want it understood that I'm a Bundist, I have always respected Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin even in the days when i was mostly apolitical. However it was Lenin's rejection of Bundism that has kept me from ever studying Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. I know with great certainty that both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were fundamentally incorrect on rejecting the Jewish Labour Bund.
Now that being said, I'm sad that Marvin Eliyahu was able to write on this blog about being a Marxist-Leninist before I was granted the opportunity. This blog is Dona Newman's although she originally only let Net Ben-Yahushua write for this blog, she would later encourage the five of us Bund Council Staff members to write joint articles for the blog before she herself would. I was the first Bund Council Staff member asked to write an article independently for the blog, I was asked to write about Syria an issue I'm well versed in, this is before Dona Newman wrote for her own blog.
I was convinced to become a Marxist-Leninist by Hannah Toff before she convinced Marvin Eliyahu to do this. Hannah gave me some literature to read with some commentary notes she wrote. After reading all that I decided that Marxist-Leninist theory was the best course of Socialist methodology to fill in the blank spots of Bundist theory. Me and Marvin are roommates, we are also best friends and Revolutionary Socialist Comrades. So you can imagine how angry he was with me when I informed him that I became Marxist-Leninist. It did not seem to matter to him that I again and again assured him that this increased my Bundism instead of making me want to reject Bundist thinking.
He asked me;
"How?" "Why?"
My reply;
"Hannah gave me ML literature along with a few notes she wrote for me and I have found no reason to disagree."
Marvin immediately told me;
"Get in my truck, we are going to Hannah's right now."
Hannah missed work due to what came of us arriving at her door step that morning. They argued for fifteen hours. I know this, I was there. During this long argument I fell asleep a few times, I would be woken up to one or both of them yelling at their loudest, the sort of yelling that makes glass break. Sometimes it got very quite as she would pull out her books by Lenin and Stalin along with her own notes looking thicker and more detailed than the little notes she had custom written for me, she would read entire chapters, and have him read, the debating never seemed like it was going to end but slowly he found himself agreeing with her.
I differ with Stalin on the National Question, and I disagree with both Lenin and Stalin in their objection to Federations, with the Soviet System you would think they would have known better.
I reject the Nation-States, we must break them first, then we must go from Federation-States as a transitional process into Federations that are not States. Not everything that Joseph Stalin had written on the National Question was incorrect, the hilarious part about all of this is that he seems in large part to agree with Bundist theory, the radical departures that Stalin's outlook on Nationality takes indeed seems to almost suggest that these distinctions are only done as to not copy the Bundist theory on Nationality. 
Liberals misuse Identity politics, they exploit it and use it to further their own ends with no regard to how much damage this can cause to the struggle. Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists today have turned against Identity politics, something in higher necessity than ever before, ironically it is Maoist tenancies based largely in Stalin's work that provided a theoretical platform for Identity politics. The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement sees the original Black Panther Party as a manifestation of Identity politics and National-Cultural Autonomy, to deny this would be a type of dogmatism. The new legislating of Pro-Israel Oath Laws is a Born Again Christian Evangelical problem and not a Jewish problem. We the Jewish Nation reject the Zionist-State and we reject Antisemitism of the Judeophobic nature and Antisemitism of the Islamophobic nature. We need National-Cultural Autonomy for the Jewish Nation and we must not start with the ballot box, we need to study the Black Panthers a very obvious manifestation of what abraham Weizfeld Ph.d coined in English as Auto-determination as well as National-Cultural Autonomy. We Jewish people here in Arizona suffer with hate crimes that never make it to Television and Jewish people are never allowed to speak for themselves on Television, Zionists on the other hand can say whatever they please on Television, in fact most of the Zionists allowed to speak on Television are not the Zionist heretics of Jewry but the Zionist heretics of the Church. We are being set up and anyone who disagrees with me on that lacks intelligence or is simply involved with the scapegoating of World Jewry.
The Jewish Zionists are the proxies of the Christian Zionists, not the other way around. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a Born Again Christian Evangelical lobby not a Jewish one, but we by principle must get blamed, we need POWER, we need to take our right to Auto-determination without worrying about its legality; learn form the Black Panthers.
 By: Uri Adiah

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

The Bundist Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat

By Marvin Eliyahu 

The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat. This may seem like a strange statement, but I argued with Hannah Toff for fifteen hours, she is a very well educated young Woman. As a matter of fact, I am as of now even re-declaring myself a Marxist-Leninist.

The number one reason why we Bundists are credible as Revolutionaries is that ever since Bundism came about it has been correct everywhere that Communist theory had been incorrect. We Bundists have had revolutionary ideas that had never been Marxist or Anarchist, these very ideas are correct and they have been proven correct to this very day.
The number one failing of Bundism is that aside from the revolutionary ideas that no Communist had ever even conceived of, Bundism has never developed a full theory, we have traditionally taken from Anarchism and Trotskyism in order to compensate for this.
Trotskyism is false, Leon Trotsky is a proven liar, he in particular lied in his writings on the issue of Lenin's so-called Testament, originally he had told the papers that Eastman had lied then some years later endorsed the very same statements made by Eastman in his writings that he had previously denounced as false. I understand that what I am stating will be rejected by devout Trotskyists so I am going to present you with his criticism of  Max Eastman that he wrote concerning "Lenin's So-Called Testament" on July of 1925 and then I will provide you his statement when he outright lied in September of 1928.

 Written on July 1st of 1925 Source and First Publication: Inprecorr, 3 September, 1925. 

Soon after my return from Sukhum to Moscow, a telegraphic inquiry from Comrade Jackson, editor of the Sunday Worker in London, informed me of the publication of a book, Since Lenin Died , which was used by the bourgeois press to attack our party and the Soviet government. Although my reply to Jackson was published by the press at the time, it will be appropriate to repeat the first part of it here: “Eastman’s book to which you refer is unknown to me. The bourgeois newspapers that quoted it have not reached me. Of course, I deny in advance and most categorically any commentaries directed against the Russian Communist Party.”
In the following part of the telegram I protested against the insinuations alleging that I was turning toward bourgeois democracy and free trade.
I afterwards received the book in question ( Since Lenin Died ) from Comrade Inkpin, secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, who at the same time sent me a letter to the same effect as Comrade Jackson’s telegram. I had no intention of reading Eastman’s book, much less of reacting to it, as I assumed that my telegram to Comrade Jackson, which was published everywhere by the British and foreign press, was entirely sufficient. But party comrades who had read the book expressed the opinion that since the author referred to conversations with me, my silence could be regarded as an indirect support of this book, which is directed entirely against our party. This placed me under the obligation to devote more attention to Eastman’s book, and above all to read it carefully through. On the basis of certain episodes in the inner life of our party, the discussions on democracy in the party and the state regulation of our economy, Eastman arrives at conclusions directed entirely against our party, which are likely, if given credence, to discredit the party as well as the Soviet government.
We shall first deal with a question that is not only of historical importance, but of vital timeliness at the present moment: the Red Army. Eastman asserts that since changes have taken place among its leaders, the Red Army is divided, that it has lost its fighting capacity, etc. I do not know where Eastman got all this information. But its absurdity is obvious. At any rate, we would not advise the imperialist governments to base their calculations on Eastman’s revelations. Besides, he fails to observe that in thus characterizing the Red Army he is reviving the Menshevik myth of the Bonapartist character of our army, its resemblance to a Praetorian guard. For it is plain that an army capable of “splitting” because its leader is changed is neither proletarian nor communist, but Bonapartist and Praetorian. In the course of the book the writer quotes a large number of documents, and refers to episodes which he has heard secondhand or even more indirectly. This little book thus contains a considerable number of obviously erroneous and incorrect assertions. We shall only deal with the more important of these.
Eastman asserts in several places that the Central Committee has “concealed” from the party a large number of documents of extraordinary importance, written by Lenin during the last period of his life. (The documents in question are letters on the national question, the famous “Testament,” etc.) This is pure slander against the Central Committee of our party. Eastman’s words convey the impression that Lenin wrote these letters, which are of an advisory character and deal with the inner-party organization, with the intention of having them published. This is not at all in accordance with the facts.
During his illness, Lenin repeatedly addressed letters and proposals to the leading bodies and congresses of the party. It must be definitely stated that all these letters and suggestions were invariably delivered to their destination and they were all brought to the knowledge of the delegates to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, and have invariably exercised their influence on the decisions of the party. If all of these letters have not been published, it is because their author did not intend them to be published. Comrade Lenin has not left any “Testament”; the character of his relations to the party, and the character of the party itself, preclude the possibility of such a “Testament.” The bourgeois and Menshevik press generally understand under the designation of “Testament” one of Comrade Lenin’s letters (which is so much altered as to be almost unrecognizable) in which he gives the party some organizational advice. The Thirteenth Party Congress devoted the greatest attention to this and to the other letters, and drew the appropriate conclusions. All talk with regard to a concealed or mutilated “Testament” is nothing but a despicable lie, directed against the real will of Comrade Lenin and against the interests of the party created by him.
Eastman’s assertion that the Central Committee was anxious to conceal (that is, not to publish) Comrade Lenin’s article on the Workers and Peasants Inspection is equally untrue. The differences of opinion arising on this subject within the Central Committee - if it is possible to speak of “differences of opinion” at all in this case - were of a purely secondary significance, dealing solely with the question of whether or not the publication of Lenin’s article should be accompanied by a statement from the Central Committee pointing out that there was no occasion to fear a split.
But on this question too a unanimous decision was arrived at in the same session. All the members of the Political and Organization Bureaus of the Central Committee present at the meeting signed a letter addressed to the party organizations containing, among other things, the following passage: “Without entering, in this purely informational letter, into the criticism of the historically possible dangers made at the time by Comrade Lenin in his article, the members of the Political and Organization Bureaus consider it necessary, in order to avoid all possible misunderstandings, to declare unanimously that there is nothing in the inner activity of the Central Committee giving occasion to fear the danger of a split.“
Not only is my signature affixed to this document along with the other signatures, but the text itself was drawn up by me (January 27, 1923).
In view of the fact that this letter, expressing the unanimous opinion of the Central Committee on Comrade Lenin’s proposal with regard to the Workers and Peasants Inspection, also bears the signature of Comrade Kuibyshev, we have here a refutation of Eastman’s assertion that Comrade Kuibyshev was placed at the head of the Workers and Peasants Inspection as an “opponent” of Lenin’s plan of organization.

Eastman’s quotation from the wording of the “Testament” is equally wrong. This was published in the Sotsialistichesky Vestnik and was stolen from the party archives, so to speak, by counterrevolutionists. In reality the wording as published in the Vestnik passed through many hands before its appearance in this paper. It was “freshened up” again and again, and distorted to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible to restore its original meaning. It is possible that the alterations were made by the editorial staff of this paper.
Eastman’s assertions that the Central Committee confiscated my pamphlets and articles in 1923 or 1924, or at any other time or by any other means has prevented their publication, are untrue, and are based on fantastic rumors.
Eastman is again wrong in asserting that Comrade Lenin offered me the post of chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, and of the Council of Labor and Defense. I hear of this for the first time from Eastman’s book.
An attentive perusal of Eastman’s book would doubtless give me the opportunity of pointing out a number of other inaccuracies, errors, and misrepresentations. I do not, however, think that it would be of interest to go further.
The bourgeois press, especially the Menshevik press, makes use of Eastman’s statements, quotes from his reminiscences, in order to emphasize his “close relations,” his “friendship” with me (as my biographer) and by such indirect means attaching an importance to his conclusions which they do not and cannot have. I must therefore devote a few remarks to this matter.
The character of my real relations with Eastman is perhaps best shown by a business letter written by me at a time before there was any thought of Eastman’s book Since Lenin Died . During my stay in Sukhum I received from one of my Moscow friends, a publisher of my books, the manuscript of a book by ... M. Eastman, entitled Leon Trotsky: Portrait of a Youth . My collaborator informed me in his accompanying letter that the manuscript, which had been sent to the State Publishing Office by the writer for the purpose of being published in the Russian language, had made a strange and unusual impression among us on account of the sentimentality permeating it.
I replied as follows in my letter of April 3, 1925: “Even without being familiar with the contents of Eastman’s manuscript, I am perfectly in agreement with you that the publication of the book is inopportune. Although you have been kind enough to send me the manuscript, I cannot read it. I have absolutely no inclination to do so. I readily believe that it does not suit our taste, especially our Russian and communist taste.
“Eastman has been endeavoring for a long time to convince me that it is very difficult to interest the Americans in communism , but that it is possible to interest them in the communists . His arguments have been fairly convincing. For this reason I gave him a certain help, of a limited nature; the letter I sent him shows these limits. (1) I did not know that he had the intention of publishing this book in Russia, or I should probably have advised the State Publishing House at that time not to publish it. I cannot prevent Eastman from publishing this book abroad; he is a “free writer“; for a time he lived in Russia and collected material; at present he is in France, if not in America. Shall I ask him as a personal favor not to publish this book? I am not sufficiently intimate with him to do this. And such a request would hardly be appropriate.“
I repeat that the subject of this letter was a biographical sketch, the story of my youth up to about 1902. But the tone of my letter leaves no room for doubt on the nature of my relations with Eastman, relations which differ in no way from those maintained by me with other foreign communists or “sympathizers” who have turned to me for help in understanding the October Revolution, our party, and the Soviet state - there can be no question of anything more.
Eastman sneers with vulgar aplomb at my “Quixotism” in my relations with the comrades of the Central Committee, of whom I have spoken in friendly terms even in the midst of the most embittered discussion. Eastman seems to think himself called upon to correct my “error,” and he characterizes the leading comrades of our party in a manner which cannot be designated as anything else but slanderous.
We see from the above that Eastman has attempted to erect his construction on completely rotten foundations. He seizes upon isolated incidents occurring within our party in the course of some discussion, in order, by distorting the meaning of the facts and exaggerating the relations in a ridiculous manner, to slander our party and undermine confidence in it. It seems to me, however, that the attentive and thoughtful reader will not require an examination of the assertions made by Eastman and his documents (for which not everyone has the opportunity) but that it suffices to ask: If we assume that the malicious character of our leading party comrades alleged by Eastman is even partly correct, how is it possible that this party should have emerged from long years of illegal struggle? How could it stand at the head of millions of human beings, carry through the greatest revolution in history, and contribute to the formation of revolutionary parties in other countries?
There is no sincere worker who will believe in the picture painted by Eastman. It contains within itself its own refutation. Whatever Eastman’s intentions may be, this botched piece of work is none the less objectively a tool of the counterrevolution, and can only serve the ends of the enemies incarnate of communism and of the revolution.
(1) On May 22, 1925, I sent the following reply to Eastman’s repeated requests: “I shall do my utmost to assist you by means of conscientious information. But I cannot agree to read your manuscript, for this would make me responsible not only for the facts, but for the characterizations and estimates as well. This, of course, is impossible. I am prepared to take responsibility - if only a limited one - for the factual information which I send you in reply to your request. For everything else you alone bear the responsibility.”

This is very interesting, the only thing more interesting is what Leon Trotsky then writes later on in flat out contradiction to what he said previously. I do not claim that Leon Trotsky was helping to undermine Socialism, but at the very same time I can understand why so many believe that. I would like to thank Hannah Toff for opening my eyes to this, she really cares about us not discrediting ourselves.

 Written on September 11th, 1928 First Published: New International, Vol.1 No.4, November 1934. pp.125-126.

I received your inquiry about comrade Max Eastman who is played up from time as a bogie by our press, being almost depicted as a hireling of the bourgeoisie, selling it the state secrets of the USSR. This is a shameless lie. Comrade Max Eastman is an American revolutionist of the John Reed type, a devoted friend of the October revolution. He is a poet, writer, and journalist; he came to the Soviet Republic during the initial difficult years of her existence, learned the Russian language here, and came into intimate contact with our internal life in order to defend better and with greater assurance the Soviet Republic before the national masses of America.
In 1923 Max Eastman sided with the Opposition and openly defended it against political accusations and especially against insinuations and calumnies. I will not here touch upon those theoretical differences which separate comrade Eastman from the Marxists. But Eastman is an absolutely irreproachable revolutionist whose entire conduct is proof of his ideals and political disinterestedness. In this respect he is several heads higher than many of the functionaries who are hounding him. Eastman held to the opinion that the struggle waged by the Opposition was not energetic enough and he inaugurated a campaign abroad on his own accord and risk.
Having no access to the official communist press and desiring at any cost to give the widest possible publicity to Lenin’s Testament, Eastman handed it over to an American bourgeois newspaper. Everyone of us, both before and during the epoch of the Soviet government, has had more than one occasion to resort to foreign bourgeois newspapers in order to give one bit of news or another the wide circulation which we could otherwise not obtain. Lenin on more than one occasion utilized such publicity in the form of interviews given to foreign journalists. One must also add that except for an absolutely insignificant minority, American workers read only the bourgeois press.
Lenin’s Testament is no state or party secret. It is no crime to publish it. On the contrary, it is a crime to keep it hidden from the party and from the working class. Today, the minor and casual remarks of Lenin which he wittingly wrote for his own personal use (for example, notation, on book margins) are being printed by the hundreds, provided these notations can be used even if indirectly against the Opposition. But kept hidden are many hundred articles, speeches, letters, telegrams and notations made by Lenin, in proportion as they apply directly or indirectly against the present leadership, or in favor of the present Opposition. It is difficult to conceive of a ruder and more disloyal handling of the ideological heritage of Lenin. Had the Testament been given timely publication in our party press, it could have been freely reprinted by any in bourgeois newspaper. But inasmuch as the Stalinist censorship had placed a ban on Lenin’s Testament as well as upon hundreds of his other works, Eastman turned to the bourgeois press. There was nothing at all underhand in such a utilization by Eastman of a newspaper for the sake of publicity. Even on the pages of a bourgeois newspaper the Testament of Lenin remains Lenin’s testament.
But, the slanderers say, Eastman “sold” this testament. Yes, the bourgeois paper paid for the material it got. But did Eastman appropriate this payment and use it for his own personal purposes? No. He donated it all to the cause of the French Opposition in order that this same testament of Lenin and other documents shamefully kept hidden from the party and the proletariat may be published. Does this act place the least splotch on Eastman’s reputation? Not the slightest. On the contrary, Eastman’s entire behavior proves that he was motivated exclusively by ideological reasons.
During the time when the Opposition still figured on correcting the party line by strictly internal means without bringing the controversy out in the open, all of us, including myself, were opposed to steps Max Eastman had taken for the defense of the Opposition. In the autumn of 1925 the majority in the Political Bureau foisted upon me a statement concocted by themselves containing a sharp condemnation of Max Eastman. In so far as the entire leading group of the Opposition considered it inadvisable at that time to initiate an open political struggle, and steered toward making a number of concessions it naturally could not initiate and develop the struggle over the private question of Eastman who had acted as I said on his own accord and at his own risk. That is why, upon the decision of the leading group of the Opposition, I signed the statement on Max Eastman foisted upon me by the majority in the Political Bureau with the ultimatum: either sign the statement as written, or enter into an open struggle on this account.
There is no cause to enter here into a discussion whether the general policy of the Opposition in 1925 was correct or no. It is my opinion even now that there were no other ways during this period. In any case, my then statement on Eastman can be understood only as an integral part of our then line toward conciliation and peacemaking. That is how it was interpreted by all those members of the party who were in the least informed or who did some thinking. This statement casts no shadow either personal or political upon comrade Eastman.
To the extent that news has reached me about Eastman for the last year, he remains right now what he has been: a friend of the October revolution and a supporter of the views of the Opposition.
With Bolshevik greetings,
L. Trotsky
Alma-Ata, September 11, 1928.

We in the Bundist Movement consider the past relationship that the old Jewish Labour Bund had to Leon Trotsky and to Trotskyism to be a complete embarrassment to us, and we are frustrated by how much we are finding ourselves agreeing with the positions of Joseph Stalin who by the way hated the Jewish Labour Bund, and the only real reason why Comrade Stalin hated us was because Comrade Lenin hated us otherwise with all of the understanding that Stalin had about National minorities he may have himself been Pro Bund, but it is known that Stalin's very mind was Lenin's mind and that his very mind was crafted by Vladimir Lenin. The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is directly linked back to the old Jewish Labour Bund, we are embarrassed not only by the old Jewish Bund's involvement with Trotskyism but we are embarrassed by how close the old Jewish Bund was with Anarchists of several stripes. We do not attack Trotskyists or Anarchists who wish to work with us, the more sincere any Trotskyist or Anarchist is the better too, but we have become very serious about Theory lately. Yet to make things even more frustrating, every single member of the Bundist Movement agrees with the Permanent Revolution theory by Leon Trotsky, we all see the validity of the Permanent Revolution theory. During the time that I had moved to Lebanon I did not become a citizen, I almost did but I became disillusioned with my community. I became Jewish Ultra-Orthodox in Lebanon, it was the lack of politics in this Jewish Ultra-Orthodox sect that finally disillusioned me from them. When I joined this community of Ultra-Orthodox Jewry I did so knowing that they had a reputation for being even more Anti Zionist than Neturei Karta. I later became a Classical Marxist, yet I was made to feel dirty for having a religion. I could not let go of Socialism, Socialism is the only moral economic position. I started off as a basic Marxist, then I became a Classical Marxist and then I became a basic Leninist. For me at that time and even up till today I would say that every genuine Marxist would have to agree with Lenin, otherwise that Marxist would have to be a First Worldist Eurocentric fraud. Classical Marxists do not follow the logic of Karl Marx nor do they fallow the logic of Marxism to the obvious conclusions. Within Marxism the logical conclusion is Vladimir Lenin. I never decided on Trotsky verses Stalin, instead I went back and forth from Trotskyism to Marxism-Leninism then back to Trotskyism for a while then back to Marxism-Leninism.
Back then Trotskyism seemed like the fusing of Classical Marxism and Leninism, and today I have concluded that I was correct to think so then. From what I saw in Lebanon Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) never could embrace religion, although they had always been mildly tolerant of religion.
I could not ever stay Marxist-Leninist because both Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Maoism) to me at that that time represented fettered-Marxism in the same way that Welfare and Protectionism represents fettered-Capitalism. I was a Leninist for only four months I confess. I went Anarchist for two years before washing my hands of Communist theory. To this day it seems that Anarchists do not care about Indigenous Rights. Anarchists have always been very bigoted towards religion of any kind. Anarchists are good at understanding the dangers of Statehood, they are at their best when showing dissent and speaking truth to power, the issue with Anarchists is that they can not bring forward a proper dissolving of the State. The Anarchists reject Nationality because they do not understand what a Nation actually is, Nations existed long before the invention of Nationalism which fuses Nation with State. There have been Anarchists that make a distinction between Nation and State yet Anarchism lacks any realization of how every State is a Country, while on that note not every Country is a State. Marxists of all strands are annoying because they except the Nation-State despite that Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would quite often question this logic, but not enough so we can't be to angry at this. I now find that the further developing of Bundist theory will have to require adopting large parts of Marxism-Leninism to fill in the gaps we find in Bundism, we will not be getting rid of a single part of Bundism rather we are going to include Marxist-Leninist theory into Bundism while rejecting the errors found in all Communist theory. We as Bundists replace the Nationalist disorder of Self-determination with the correction of Auto-determination. And while we reject both Trotskyism and Anarchism we except Leon Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and we embrace the Syndicalist organizing of Unions as described by Emma Goldman. With no influence from Marxists or Anarchists we Bundists aim for Direct Democracy, we however due to the nature of COINTELPRO will only push for localized Direct Democracy and State-federalized Democratic Centralism to protect the Revolution. Whether we call it Communism, Jamahiriya, or Anarchy the endgame for the World must be Direct Democracy. Everyone of us takes large parts of Maoist Third Worldist theory into play before we reach Permanent Revolution theory. We know with genuine understanding our aims, the basis of both Doikeit and National-Cultural Autonomy are fundamental to Bundism, the concept of Auto-determination is fundamental to Bundism, not one part of Bundism has left us since we started adopting more and more of a Marxist-Leninist theory to add on to the Bundist theory. On the contrary the more Marxist-Leninist theory we adopt, the stronger the fundamentals of Bundism get for all of us. This is also why our biggest problem will be Non-Jewish Marxist-Leninists as both Lenin and Stalin had no genuine knowledge of what the Jewish Labour Bund stood for, but we are confident that the truly non-dogmatic Marxist-Leninists will see things our way as the only reason they would even have to reject us would be blind acceptance to Lenin and Stalin as if these Men could not have errors in their own logic. The Bundist Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat and we need to continue to correct our historical mistakes too.
We have nothing to fear in this because we consistently get proven correct on all of our fundamentals especially National-Cultural Autonomy. We must except the fact that we are the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat or all of the Bundist-sectarians will continue to slander the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox and take up the failing nonviolent strategies which had never been Bundist to begin with, and because of the reasons that I have mentioned this puts Bundism in danger and thus this puts the entire Jewish Nation in danger, only the Jewish Bund can save us.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Restructured: ANTIFA Vanguard of Education of The Bundist Movement

On the date of August 6, 2017 we of the Bund Council Staff wrote this article: http://bundistmovement.blogspot.com/2017/08/antifa-vanguard-of-education-of-bundist.html
as of now we make a retraction to that article, and we now produce a corrected version of the article. 

Pan-Arabism also known as Pan-Arab Nationalism is a reactionary political position.
Pan-Arabism historically has been proven to be the most toxic strand of Pan-Nationalism. Pan-Africanism, Pan-Asianism and even Pan-Europeanism in the context of anti-Eurocentric/anti-Imperialism is perfectly justified.  Pan-Arabism is really just the same thing as Pan-Mideastern Nationalism which is nothing more or less than controlled opposition by Western Imperialism in fact the Pan-Turkic Nationalists in world War I belong to this camp of reactionaries.
The Middle East is really the Western Orient, this would not include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Russia but the Western Orient clearly must have included into it Georgia, Turkey, and Armenia as well as North Africa which includes Ethiopia, Morocco and Libya. The Western Orient is where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet and Pan-Arabism is a controlled opposition over this. Pan-Arabism is a mild-manifestation of fascism, this is self evident in The Ba'th Party.
Yet something better grew out of Pan-Arab Nationalism, something more responsive and much less reactionary, this is of course the very basic multifaceted-Socialist rooted Arab Nationalism.
Arab Nationalism is more genuine than Pan-Arab Nationalism, Arab Nationalism is a socialist method celebrating the glories of Arab civilization, the language and literature of the Arabs, calling for rejuvenation and political unity of the Arab world. Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein was the founder of Arab Nationalism, both progressive and regressive, Arab civilization has a glorious history, where as unlike the oppressive Protestant-Christian Nation-States that have a immoral history.
Arab Nationalism is progressive because it is responsive rather than reactionary.
 Arab Nationalism is regressive because it protects the traditions that the Western imperialism has pretentiously declared backwards, Western Pretentious Racism has always sought to fix anything that is not broken – it was Protestant-Christian Nation-States that were broken not the Arab world.
From the Socialist method of Arab Nationalism came Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi.
And then from Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi came the revolutionary system of Jamahiriya.
World Revolution is dependent on Socialism. Not every Socialist agrees with the notion that Socialism goes into Communism, some of us prefer Jamahiriya. As for the Communists they fall into two categories that being obviously the Marxists and the Anarchists, the Anarchist context of Full Communism is the same thing as Anarchy, as for the Marxist definition of Full Communism this depends on which Marxist strand defines Communism.  Gaddafi reached the first stages of Jamahiriya and because of the Imperialist attacks made on his Country he never got to the final stages of Jamahiriya which would have been complete Direct Democracy. Gaddafi became reactionary and this downward spiral would lead to his inhumane assassination and murder of his life, if he would have never given up his Nuclear capability and had a much more Centralized Revolution with a well planned out goal for Direct Democracy then Full Jamahiriya could be taking over the Planet right now, but instead Imperialism is everywhere, Democratic Republics with strict Proletariat Vanguards lead to Direct Democracy because overly decentralized Liberal Democracies destroy Democracies because of infiltration, reactionaries, and sabotage. Communism in the Classical Marxist definition is a front against organic Nations, it is a Hegelian deception. Mutualists have no debate or rationality as they are only underdeveloped Anarchists and nothing more, even if their theories had potential in the past they do not in the present and they never will in the future.   Anyone claiming Bundism is hardly a Bundist if he or she is opposed to Jamahiriya however it is time to admit that the Marxist-Leninist definition of Communism is compatible with Direct Democracy thus compatible with Jamahiriya.
Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi opposed political parties and we have done the same, but have we made a mistake? Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi also opposed any Vanguard, even if it was not a political party. None of us have ever hated Joseph Stalin, yet we have all more or less been guilty of believing nasty lies against Joseph Stalin, in fact many Marxist-Leninists today believe some of the worst lies propagated against Joseph Stalin.
The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat and it is time for us to stop acting as though we are not. The largest issue we Bundists have with both Lenin and Stalin is that they both had no clear understanding of the Jewish Labour Bund, that they saw the Bund as odious, separatist, and reactionary and they had been incorrect to think so. The very best Marxist-Leninists need to shy away from dogmatism and reconsider the Bund because the very truth that they fail to grasp is that the Bund is the only represent of the Jewish Nation.
 The testimony of  Hannah Toff:
I have already pissed off Newman and I do not know how Weizfeld feels yet about the article that I wrote here: http://bundistmovement.blogspot.com/2018/12/so-it-begins-for-me.html
We will never have Revolution unless the People are educated.
For the People to be educated we need to declare ourselves ANTIFA and denounce everyone else who claims to be ANTIFA because they are only making things worse. We are the Revolutionary Jewish Socialists, we Bundists had the strongest Jewish anti-Fascist presence in Europe, so real ANTIFA begins with us and only us. We will show that Fascism grew out as a byproduct of Capitalism, and thus we will start an argument with the Capitalists that the World will see, and Capitalists can not argue well against educated Socialists in debate because Capitalism is the primary cause of the World's problems. Only the Socialists who have their facts straight shall be allowed to debate Capitalists, ideally the Capitalists with the strongest argument are the ones we will need to debate.
The Capitalists with the strongest argument will not wish to debate us because they already understand that they will loose any argument, so we will have to argue crazy insane Capitalists first, the Capitalists that are stupid enough to believe in debunked notions like perfect competition and stateless free markets will happily debate us because they believe in their fictions, we will destroy anything they put forward because every economist knows how wrong they are.
After this embarrasses the smart Capitalists they will have no choice but to debate us, we will win and they will loose inevitably. After we win this debate, we will start to teach all the disenfranchised Proletariat to strike down Capitalism, then Americanism, then Zionism. We will not be nice to Fascists, such an idea as being kind and humane to them is insanity and a liberal position.
The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat, for other Vanguards to exist we need to get education correct and away from profit driven populism, only The Truth safeguards Democracy and this is because Democracy can only work if the People are educated. The ANTIFA Vanguard of Education of the Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is Authoritarian not Totalitarian, it should not be confused with the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat which is the Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement it self. The ANTIFA Vanguard of Education of the Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement must be started by a Bundist that we approve of. The ANTIFA Vanguard of Education of the Bundist Movement must have the aim of educating both those Jewish and Non-Jewish. 

In the Revolutionary Socialist dialogue the argument must be kept alive, yet not everyone actually has an argument. It is self evident that Americanists, Zionists, Feudalists, and Fascists have no argument. Even the Capitalists have a argument, they have the weakest of arguments yet they none the less have an argument. Both the Marxists unless they are Classical Marxists and the Anarchists unless they are Mutualists have arguments that are worth hearing. The Classical Marxists and the Mutualists are Counter-Revolutionary and they are not allowed into debate, the Classical Marxists are eurocentric and the Mutualists are out of touch with reality and always will be. Americanists have no argument and from the time of George W. Bush to the time of Barack Obama they had stopped pretending that they have one, yet with the coming of Donald Trump and the increase in membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints it seems that Americanists are back to their old tricks again. Zionists have no argument, Zionists have no secular argument, no religious argument, no social argument, no cultural argument, this is because every version of Zionism is based on deception, some say that the religious–Zionists have the highest level of contradiction in terms as it is again self-evident that Zionism and Judaism have no compatibility, many say that the labour–Zionists the highest level of contradiction in terms because of the clear non compatible nature of Zionism verses Socialism, yet the truth is that anarcho–Zionism and diaspora–Zionism are the forms of Zionism that hold up as the versions of Zionism that are the highest level of contradiction in terms because they both promote blunt barbarism.
Feudalists have no argument and they never make one, they only seek rule through deceptive means.
Fascists have no argument yet they will pretend that they do by using Socialist rhetoric. With all of this information placed in proper context, it is the will of The Bundist Movement that a ANTIFA Vanguard of Education is to be built as a cultural and social form of resistance, safeguarding Socialism and a discussion to promote COINTELPRO Awareness among all True Revolutionaries both Jewish and Non-Jewish. We can not fight Fascism by trusting in the police or covert agencies such as the N.S.A, the F.B.I, or the C.I.A nor any type of electoral process in the United States of America. Yet political parties are of use if they are correct and willing to be armed for reasons of legal deterrence against the police if we ever won an election and they refused to put the person we elected in after that person has won, yet a Vanguard of Education would not be a political party as that would not be the function for a Vanguard of Education.
Democracy works, yet Democracy only works when the people are properly educated, this is why Democratic Centralism is the only way to get to Direct Democracy.
Yet in order for education to prevail the Americanists, Zionists, Feudalists, and Fascists must be blocked from discussion. Liberty should never mean that a individual or collective should have the right to oppress another individual or collective, thus we can not allow Imperialist Capitalists to have any voting after we have crushed them in debate. And so the Bundist Movement openly proclaims a that the Revolution requires a ANTIFA Vanguard of Education.

Restructured: ANTIFA Vanguard of Education of The Bundist Movement, written by the Bund Council Staff;

Isaiah P. Kamatstein – Councilman of Committees
Uri Adiah – Councilman of National Affairs
Miriam Emesberg – Councilwoman of Education
Hannah Toff – Councilwoman of Strategic Projects
Marvin Eliyahu – Councilman of World Forums 

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

So it begins for me . . .

By: Hannah Toff, Councilwoman of Strategic Projects.

First I would like to thank Comrade Net for his approval for me to write out what may get us even more ostracized by everyone. I can just hear it now,
"You are betraying the Revolution"
"You are going reactionary"
"This is Counter-Revolutionary"
"Why don't you just take down the Red Banner and replace it with the Hammer and Sickle"
The issue we need to confront in ourselves is dogmatism, for we should all know that dogmatism is a most unscientific approach to all methods that can be called socialism. I myself have been criticized for my stances against feminism, anarchism, and social democracy. Clearly no one remembers that I used to be the founder and Chairwoman of the Arizona Progressive Social Democratic Club, in those days I was a feminist too. Does anyone even remember that it was also me who had actually dissolved the very Arizona Progressive Social Democratic Club that I had started? I discovered anarchism, I put anarchism into three camps, Jewish anarchism, which I never liked at all, Mutualism an ideology I devoutly hate, and Libertarian socialism. I was a Libertarian socialist, Libertarian socialism can be anarcho Syndicalist, anarcho Collectivist, or anarcho Communist. Sometimes anarcho Communists and anarcho Syndicalists are the same thing, except in Arizona because out here the anarcho Syndicalists and anarcho Communists don't really get along.
I was an anarcha-femenist this typically would be simply the female wing of anarcho Communism. Out here in Arizona the center of mass contradictions Women are heavily exploited, yet it is the Men of Arizona  who are heavily oppressed. Men in Arizona are targets in many ways, especially in matters of child custody. I was an anarchist, I saw any form of hierarchy as unjustified and I even associated leadership as oppressive. In time I saw Women oppressing Men, full bigotry against religious poetry, and even total disregard of parent to child relationships all in the circles of Libertarian socialism and this would effect me very deeply.  I still have Libertarian socialist friends, but I will never agree with any form of anarchism, it is a very ineffective system. I researched the Spanish Revolution of 1936 rather religiously and I never found evidence for Direct Democracy in anarchist Spain. Today as a Bundist I am extremely grateful to anarchists for their history of solidarity with the Jewish Bund. What can not be emphasized enough is that I'm egalitarian now, I find feminism to be reactionary, I don't deny the achievements of Classical feminism, rather I'm offended with the origins of feminism, I am disturbed by the very fact that White feminism is the first version of feminism, I'm disturbed by the false claims feminists make against groups like the Navajo who historically have always been egalitarian.
I was raised as Jewish Modern Orthodox by my single mother, I remember feeling strange about the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox who correctly condemned Zionism but had been much to strong in Social Patriarchy, I ended my days with Orthodox Judaism when I became a feminist, and the hypocritical notions of centrist politics is why I stopped being a Progressive Social Democrat, I was promised by Comrade Net that both dearest Weizfeld and Newman would not be able to expel me for writing down my true thoughts, so this is what I'm doing. Growing up Jewish Modern Orthodox was not oppressive to me in anyway, but what made me cringe was the alliance that Modern Orthodox Judaism has developed with Zionism, I was always against Zionism, and I used to yell at my mother for hours over the issue, part of why I stopped my centrist position was because of my distrust to all the Zionists who kept trying to co-opt me.
Bundists favor the system of Jamahiriya over full communism, but let us be truthful, Total Jamahiriya, Direct Democracy, Anarchy, the Messianic Age, and Full Communism are all the same thing, we need to be more concerned with socialism before we debate what to call the next stage of Humanity after World Socialist Victory has been achieved.
I was confused when Net first recruited me for the Bundist Movement, I was already interested in Bundism, but he was open to both the Marxists and the anarchists, I was a bit relieved to find out that he rejected any solidarity with the Classical Marxist bigots and the Mutualist bigots. I did not know anything about Stalin, and the only thing I knew about Lenin was that he hated the Jewish Bund. I now read, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao on a routine basis, and my conclusions are logical yet they may be unpopular. Every single member of the Bundist Movement agrees with destroying Zionism, furthering the separation of Americanism and Globalism, everyone of us stands with the JPLO principles, we all seek resistance in the first world and revolution in the third world and then ensuring permanent revolution, basically we all agree with this post by Newman: http://bundistmovement.blogspot.com/2018/07/no-independence-for-judaism-in-america.html
I however regret my part in writing this post: http://bundistmovement.blogspot.com/2017/08/antifa-vanguard-of-education-of-bundist.html
Let me explain, I start with mentioning as we further develop Bundism we see that we maintain much of the former character of Bundism, we all believe in National-Cultural Autonomy, we all aim for Direct Democracy, we all are against Zionism, we all are opposed to Hegel's notion of the Nation-State. Bundism is in need of further development though, Weizfeld has contributed by introducing the revolutionary idea of Auto-determination instead of the failed interests of self-determination.

I now will get into the controversial part
There are eight of us full members, that is the three founders;
Weizfeld, Newman, and Net Ben-Yahushua, the five Councilmen; Kamatstein, Emesberg, Eliyahu, Adiah, and myself. All eight of us look at the history of the Original Black Panther Party and we clearly see a display of National-Cultural Autonomy, yet the ironic part is that the Black Panther Party was a Marxist-Leninist organization. We all know that both Lenin and Stalin had been completely wrong about the Jewish Bund, but is it at all possible that we Bundists had been wrong to fear Democratic Centralism? I again direct you to this post that I helped to write: http://bundistmovement.blogspot.com/2017/08/antifa-vanguard-of-education-of-bundist.html
and I ask, how do we safeguard ourselves from Fascist, Zionist, and Americanist infiltrators without Democratic Centralism? How will we ever achieve Direct Democracy without stripping Fascists, Capitalists, Feudalists, Zionists, and Americanists of Civic Power?
In the United States of America, the Proletariat is not the White Working Class, it is the Indigenous Natives, the Black People, the Muslims, the disenfranchised Catholic groups, and the Jewish anti-Zionist population. I had joined the only Jewish Conservative Synagogue in Phoenix Arizona that was completely anti-Zionist and I recall how my Libertarian socialist friends did not care that the Police refused to file a report in 2012 when that Shul was burned down to the ground by the JDL, meeting Net was liberating and he never tried to shut me up, he was openly honest about everything, I did not censor myself then, and I'm not going to censor myself now. I'm first a Bundist, but I think I'm a Marxist-Leninist too. And the projects of strategy that I'm developing are Marxist-Leninist in nature. Marxism-Leninism has different currents and Maoist thought is a strand of Marxist-Leninist teaching, we all have adopted some parts of Maoist thought, and we all study the importance of the Black Panther Party a organization that was Maoist. Even though the Black Panther Party had members that were clearly not Maoist, the organization was Maoist hence it was Marxist-Leninist.
The Black Panther Party was without a doubt practicing National-Cultural Autonomy, so I stand on that when I declare my self a Marxist-Leninist, plus I suspect Net of having Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideas running around in that mystical brain of his. This all being said, I don't support Bernie Sanders, and it is not just because he is not trusted by Marxists and anarchists. It is only Weizfeld and Newman who support Bernie Sanders, and they seem to do this for different reasons, Net Ben-Yahushua on the other hand remains mostly silent on this, but the rest of us just don't trust Bernie Sanders an obvious Progressive Social Democrat, as someone who used to be a Progressive Social Democrat I see the issues with this man. Anyone can say I am a foolish woman, anyone can say that I'm just young, and that I will learn, of course I'm 30 now and I wonder if I will still be told that pathetic line when I'm 40, anyone can say whatever they want, but I find terrifying inconsistencies with Bernie Sanders and I testify on the dangers of Social Democracy and Centrist politics in America.