text:
Bolshevik Writers: J. V. Stalin (1879-1953)
J. V. Stalin
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND
THE UNITY CONGRESS OF THE
WORKERS' PARTY
Reprinted from the pamphlet
issued by Proletariat Publishers
in 1906Signed: Comrade K.Translated from the Georgian
From J. V. Stalin,Works
Foreign Languages Publishing House,
Moscow, 1954
Vol. 1, pp. 252-79.
Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (May 1997)
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE UNITY
CONGRESS OF THE WORKERS' PARTY[74]
What we have been waiting for so impatiently has come to pass -- the Unity Congress has ended peacefully, the Party has avoided a split, the amalgamation of the groups has been officially sealed, and the foundation of the political might of the Party has thereby been laid.
We must now take account of, and study more closely, the complexion of the congress and soberly weigh up its good and bad sides.
What has the congress done?
What should the congress have done?
The first question is answered by the resolutions of the congress. To be able to answer the second question one must know the situation in which the congress was opened, and the tasks with which the present situation confronted it.
Let us start with the second question.
It is now clear that the people's revolution has not perished, that in spite of the "December defeat" it is growing and swiftly rising to its peak. We say that this is as it should be: the driving forces of the revolution still live and operate, the industrial crisis which
has broken out is becoming increasingly acute, and famine, which is utterly ruining the countryside, is growing worse every day -- and this means that the hour is near when the revolutionaly anger of the people will burst out in a menacing flood. The facts tell us that a new action is maturing in the social life of Russia -- more determined and mighty than the December action. We are on the eve of an uprising.
On the other hand, the counter-revolution, which the people detest, is mustering its forces and is gradually gaining strength. It has already succeeded in organising a camarilla, it is rallying all the dark forces under its banner, it is taking the lead of the Black-Hundred "movement"; it is preparing to launch another attack upon the people's revolution; it is rallying around itself the bloodthirsty landlords and factory owners -- consequently, it is preparing to crush the people's revolution.
And the more events develop, the more sharply is the country becoming divided into two hostile camps -- the camp of the revolution and the camp of counter-revolution -- the more threateningly do the two leaders of the two camps -- the proletariat and the tsarist government -- confront each other, and the clearer does it become that all the bridges between them have been burnt. One of two things: either the victory of the revolution and the sovereignty of the people, or the victory of the counter-revolution and the tsarist autocracy. Whoever tries to sit between two stools betrays the revolution. Those who are not for us are against us! That is exaclly what has happened to the miserable Duma and its miserable Cadets: they have become stuck between these two stools. The Duma wants to reconcile the revolution with the counter-revolution, it wants the lion and the lamb to lie down together -- and in that way to suppress the revolution "at one stroke." That is why the Duma is engaged to this day only in collecting water with a sieve, that is why it has failed to rally any people around itself. Having no ground to stand on, it is dangling in the air.
The chief arena of the struggle is still the street. That is what the facts say. The facts say that it is in the present-day struggle, in street fighting, and not in that talking-shop the Duma, that the forces of the counter-revolution are daily becoming more feeble and disunited, whereas the forces of the revolution are growing and mobilising; that the revolutionary forces are being welded and organised under the leadership of the advanced workers and not of the bourgeoisie. And this means that the victory of the present revolution, and its consummation, is quite possible. But it is possible only if it continues to be led by the advanced workers, if the class-conscious proletariat worthily fulfils the task of leading the revolution.
Hence, the tasks with which the present situation confronted the congress, and what the congress should have done, are clear.
Engels said that the workers' party "is the conscious exponent of an unconscious process," i.e., that the party must consciously take the path along which life itself is proceeding unconsciously; that it must consciously express the ideas which unconsciously spring from tempestuous life.
The facts say that tsarism has failed to crush the people's revolution, that, on the contrary, it is growing day by day, rising higher, and marching towards
another action. Consequently, it is the Party 's task consciously to prepare for this action and to carry the people's revolution through to the end.
Clearly, the congress should have pointed to this task and should have made it incumbent upon the members of the Party honestly to carry it out.
The facts say that conciliation between the revolution and counter-revolution is impossible; that having taken the path of conciliation from the very outset the Duma can do nothing; that such a Duma can never be come the political centre of the country, cannot rally the people around itself, and will be compelled to become an appendage of the reaction. Consequently, it is the Party's task to dispel the false hopes that have been reposed in the Duma, to combat political illusions among the people and to proclaim to the whole world that the chief arena of the revolution is the street and not the Duma; that the victory of the people must be achieved mainly in the street, by street fighting and not by the Duma, not by talking in the Duma.
Clearly, the Unity Congress should also have pointed to this task in its resolutions, in order thereby clearly to define the trend of the Party's activities.
The facts say that it is possible to achieve the victory of the revolution, to carry it to the end and to establish the sovereignty of the people, only if the class-conscious workers come out at the head of the revolution, if the revolution is led by Social-Democracy and not by the bourgeoisie. Hence it is the Party's task to dig the grave of the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, to rally the revolutionary elements of town and country around itself, I to be at the head of their revolutionary struggle, to lead their actions from now on, and thereby strengthen the ground for the hegemony of the proletariat.
Clearly, the Unity Congress should have drawn special attention to this third and main task in order thereby to indicate to the Party its enormous importance.
That is what the present situation demanded of the Unity Congress, and that is what the congress should have done.
Did the congress carry out these tasks?
To obtain an answer to the foregoing question it is necessary to study the complexion of the congress.
The congress dealt with numerous questions at its sittings; but the main question, around which all the other questions revolved, was the question of the present situation. The present situation in the democratic revolution and the class tasks of the proletariat -- that is the question in which all our disagreements on tactics be came entallgled as in a knot.
In the towns the crisis is growing more acute, said the Bolsheviks; in the countryside the famine is growing more intense; the government is rotting to its foundation, the anger of the people is rising day by day. Consequently, far from subsiding, the revolution is growing day by day, and is preparing for another offensive. Hence, the task is to help on the growing revolution, to carry it to the end and crown it with the sovereignty of the people (see the resolution proposed by the Bolsheviks: "The Present Situation . . . ").
The Mensheviks said almost the same thing.
But how is the present revolution to be carried to the end; what conditions are needed for this?
In the opinion of the Bolsheviks, the present revolution can be carried to the end and crowned with the sovereignty of the people only if the class-conscious workers are at the head of this revolution, only if the leadership of the revolution is concentrated in the hands of the socialist proletariat and not of the bourgeois democrats. The Bolsheviks said: "Only the proletariat is capable of carrying the democratic revolution to the end, provided however, that it. . . carries with it the masses of the peasantry and introduces political consciousness into their spontaneous struggle. . . ." If the proletariat fails to do this, it will be compelled to abandon the role of "leader of the people's revolution" and will find itself "at the tail of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie," which will never strive to carry the revolution to the end (see resolution "The Class Tasks of the Proletariat. . . "). Of course, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, and in this respect it resembles the Great French Revolution, the fruits of which were reaped by the bourgeoisie. But it is also clear that there is a great difference between these two revolutions. At the time of the French revolution, large-scale machine production, such as we have in our country today, did not exist, and class antagonisms were not so sharp and distinct as they are in our country today; hence, the proletariat there was weak, whereas here it is stronger and more united. We must also take into account the fact that there the proletariat did not have its own party, whereas here it has its own party, with its own programme and tactics. It is not surprising that the French revolution was headed by the bourgeois democrats and that the workers dragged at the tail of these gentlemen; that "the workers did the fighting, while the bourgeoisie achieved power." On the other hand, it can be readily understood that the proletariat of Russia is not content with dragging at the tail of the liberals, that it comes out as the leader of the revolution and is rallying all the "oppressed and dispossessed" to its banner. This is where our revolution has the advantage over the Great French Revolution, and this is why we think that our revolution can be carried to the end and be crowned with the sovereignty of the people. All that is needed is that we should consciously further the hegemony of the proletariat, rally the militant people around it, and thereby make it possible for the present revolution to be carried to the end. But the revolution must be carried to the end in order that the fruits of this revolution shall not be reaped by the bourgeoisie alone, and in order that the working class, in addition to achieving political freedom, shall achieve the eight-hour day, and better conditions of labour, and shall fully carry out its minimum programme, thereby hewing a path to socialism. Hence, whoever champions the interests of the proletariat, whoever does not want the proletariat to become a hanger-on of the bourgeoisie, pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for it, whoever is fighting to convert the proletariat into an independent force and wants it to utilise the present revolution for its own purpose -- must openly condemn the hegemony of the bourgeois democrats, must strengthen the ground for the hegemony of the socialist proletariat in the present revolution.
That is how the Bolsheviks argued.
The Mensheviks said something entirely different. Of course, the revolution is growing, they said, and it must be carried to the end, but the hegemony of the socialist proletariat is not at all needed for that -- let the bourgeois democrats act as the leaders of the revolution Why? What is the point? the Bolsheviks asked. Because the present revolution is a bourgeois revolution, and therefore, the bourgeoisie should act as its leader -- answered the Mensheviks. What is the function of the proletariat, then? It must follow in the wake of the bourgeois democrats, "prod them on," and thereby "push the bourgeois revolution forward." This was said by Martynov, the leader of the Mensheviks, whom they put up as their "reporter." The same idea was expressed, although not so distinctly, in the Mensheviks' resolution on "The Present Situation." But already in his Two Dictatorships Martynov had said that "the hegemony of the proletariat is a dangerous utopia," a fantasy; that the bourgeois revolution "must be led by the extreme democratic opposition" and not by the socialist proletariat; that the militant proletariat "must march behind bourgeois democracy" and prod it along the path to freedom (see Martynov's well-known pamphlet Two Dictatorships ). He expressed this idea again at the Unity Congress. In his opinion, the Great French Revolution was the original, whereas our revolution is a faint copy of this original; and, as the revolution in France was first headed by the National Assembly and later by the National Convention in which the bourgeoisie predominated, so, in our country, the leader of the revolution which rallies the people around itself should be first the State Duma, and later some other representative
body which will be more revolutionary than the Duma. Both in the Duma and in this future representative body the bourgeois democrats are to predominate -- hence, we need the hegemony of bourgeois democracy and not of the socialist proletariat. All we need to do is to follow the bourgeoisie step by step and prod it further forward towards genuine freedom. It is characteristic that the Mensheviks greeted Martynov's speech with loud applause. It is also characteristic that in none of their resolutions do they refer to the necessity of the hegemony of the proletariat -- the term "hegemony of the proletariat" has been completely expunged from their resolutions, as well as from the resolutions of the congress (see the resolutions of the congress).
Such was the stand the Mensheviks took at the congress.
As you see, here we have two mutually exclusive standpoints, and this is the source of all the other disagreements. If the class-conscious proletariat is the leader of the present revolution and the bourgeois Cadets predominate in the present Duma, it is self-evident that the present Duma cannot become the "political centre of the country," it cannot unite the revolutionary people around itself and become the leader of the growing revolution, no matter what efforts it exerts. Further, if the class-conscious proletariat is the leader of the revolution and the revolution cannot be led from the Duma -- it is self-evident that the street and not the floor of the Duma must, at the present time, become the chief arena of our activities. Further, if the class-conscious proletariat is the leader of the revolution and the street
is the chief arena of the struggle -- it is self-evident that our task is to take an active part in organising the struggle in the street, to give concentrated attention to the task of arming, to augment the Red detachments and disseminate military knowledge among the advanced elements. Lastly, if the advanced proletariat is the leader of the revolution, and if it must take an active part in organising the uprising -- then it is self-evident that we cannot wash our hands of and remain aloof from the provisional revolutionary government; that we must conquer political power in conjunction with the peasantry and take part in the provisional government[*]: the leader of the revolutionary street must also be the leader in the revolution's government.
Such was the stand taken by the Bolsheviks.
If, on the other hand, as the Mensheviks think, the bourgeois democrats will lead the revolution, and the Cadets in the Duma "approximate to this type of democrat," then it is self-evident that the present Duma can become the "political centre of the country," the present Duma can unite the revolutionary people around itself, become their leader and serve as the chief arena of the struggle. Further, if the Duma can become the chief arena of the struggle, there is no need to give concentrated attention to the task of arming and organising Red detachments; it is not our business to devote special attention to organising the struggle in the street, and still less is it our business to conquer political power in conjunction with the peasantry and to take part in the
* We are not dealing here with the principle underlying this question.
provisional government -- let the bourgeois democrats worry about that for they will be the leaders of the revolution. Of course, it would not be bad to have arms and Red detachments, in fact they are actually necessary, but they are not so important as the Bolsheviks imagine. Such was the stand taken by the Mensheviks.
The congress took the second path, i.e., it rejected the hegemony of the socialist proletariat and endorsed the stand taken by the Mensheviks.
The congress thereby clearly proved that it failed to understand the urgent requirements of the present situation.
This was the fundamental mistake the congress made, and from it necessarily followed all the other mistakes.
After the congress rejected the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat it became clear how it would settle the other questions: "the attitude to be taken towards the State Duma," "armed insurrection," etc.
Let us pass to these questions.
Let us begin with the question of the State Duma.
We shall not discuss the question as to which tactics were more correct -- the boycott or participation in the elections. We shall note only the following: today, the Duma does nothing but talk; it lies stranded between the revolution and counter-revolution. This shows that the advocates of participation in the elections were mistaken when they called upon the people to go to the polls and thereby roused false hopes among them. But let us leave this aside. The point is that at the time the congress was in session the elections were already over (except in the Caucasus and in Siberia); we already had the returns and, consequently, the only point of discussion was the Duma itself, which was to meet within a few days. Clearly, the congress could not turn to the past; it had to devote its attention mainly to the question as to what the Duma was, and what our attitude towards it should be.
And so, what is the present Duma, and what should be our attitude towards it?
It was already known from the Manifesto of October 17 that the Duma would not have particularly great powers: it is an assembly of deputies who "have the right" to deliberate, but "have no right" to overstep the existing "fundamental laws." The Duma is supervised by the State Council, which "has the right" to veto any of its decisions. And on guard, armed to the teeth, stands the tsarist government, which "has the right" to disperse the Duma if it does not rest content with its deliberative role.
As regards the Duma's complexion, we knew before the congress what its composition would be; we knew that it would consist largely of Cadets. We do not wish to say that the Cadets by themselves would have constituted the majority in the Duma -- we only say that out of approximately five hundred members of the Duma, one third would be Cadets while another third would consist of the intermediary groups and the Rights (the "Party of Democratic Reform,"[75] the moderate elements among the non-party deputies, the Octobrists,[76] etc.) who, when it came to clashes with the extreme Lefts (the workers' group and the group of revolutionary peasants) would unite around the Cadets and vote with them; consequently, the Cadets would be the masters of the situation in the Duma.
What are the Cadets? Can they be called revolutionaries? Of course, not! What, then, are the Cadets? The Cadets are a party of compromisers: they want to restrict the powers of the tsar, but not because they are in favour of the victory of the people, as they claim -- the Cadets want to replace the autocracy of the tsar by the autocracy of the bourgeoisie, not the sovereignty of the people (see their programme) -- but in order that the people should moderate its revolutionary spirit, withdraw its revolutionary demands and come to some arrangement with the tsar; the Cadets want a compromise between the tsar and the people.
As you see, the majority of the Duma was bound to consist of compromisers and not of revolutionaries. This was already self-evident in the early part of April.
Thus, on the one hand, the Duma was a boycotted and impotent body with insignificant rights; on the other hand, it was a body in which the majority was non-revolutionary and in favour of a compromise. The weak usually take the path of compromise in any case; if in addition their strivings are non-revolutionary, they are all the more likely to slip into the path of compromise. That is exactly what was bound to happen with the State Duma. It could not entirely take the side of the tsar because it wished to limit the tsar's powers; but it could not go over to the side of the people because the people were making revolutionary demands. Hence, it had to take a stand between the tsar and the people and endeavour to reconcile the two, that is, to busy itself collecting water with a sieve. On the one hand, it had to try to persuade the people to abandon their "excessive demands" and somehow reach an understanding with the tsar; but on the other hand, it had to act as a go-between, and go to the tsar to plead that he should make some slight concession to the people and thereby put a stop to the "revolutionary unrest."
That is the kind of Duma the Unity Congress of the Party had to deal with.
What should have been the Party's attitude towards such a Duma? Needless to say, the Party could not un dertake to support such a Duma, because to support the Duma means supporting a compromising policy; but a compromising policy fundamentally contradicts the task of intensifying the revolution, and the workers' party must not accept the role of pacifier of the revolution. Of course, the Party had to utilise the Duma itself as well as the conflicts between the Duma and the government, but that does not mean that it must support the non-revolutionary tactics of the Duma. On the contrary, to expose the two-faced character of the Duma, ruthlessly to criticise it, to drag its treacherous tactics into the light of day -- such should be the Party's attitude to wards the State Duma.
And if that is the case, it is clear that the Cadet Duma does not express the will of the people, that it cannot fulfil the role of representative of the people, that it cannot become the political centre of the country and unite the people around itself.
Under these circumstances, it was the Party's duty to dispel the false hopes that had been reposed in the Duma and to declare publicly that the Duma does not express the will of the people and, therefore, cannot become a weapon of the revolution; that the chief arena of the struggle today is the street and not the Duma.
At the same time it was clear that the peasant "Group of Toil"[77] in the Duma, small in numbers compared with the Cadets, could not follow the compromising tactics of the Cadets to the end and would very soon have to begin to fight them as the betrayers of the people and take the path of revolution. It was the Party's duty to support the "Group of Toil" in its struggle against the Cadets, to develop its revolutionary tendencies to the full, to contrast its revolutionary tactics to the non-revolutionary tactics of the Cadets, and thereby to expose still more clearly the treacherous tendencies of the Cadets.
How did the congress act? What did the congress say in its resolution on the State Duma?
The resolution of the congress says that the Duma is an institution that has sprung "from the depths of the nation." That is to say, notwithstanding its defects, the Duma, nevertheless, expresses the will of the people.
Clearly, the congress failed to give a correct appraisal of the Cadet Duma; the congress forgot that the majority in the Duma consists of compromisers; that compromisers who reject the revolution cannot express the will of the people and, consequently, we have no right to say that the Duma has sprung "from the depths of the nation."
What did the Bolsheviks say on this question at the congress?
They said that "the State Duma, which it is already evident has now become Cadet (predominantly) in composition, cannot under any circumstances fulfil the role of a genuine representative of the people." That is to say, the present Duma has not sprung from the depths of
the people, it is against the people and, therefore, does not express the will of the people (see the resolution of the Bolsheviks).
On this question the congress rejected the stand taken by the Bolsheviks.
The resolution of the congress says that "the Duma," notwithstanding its "pseudo-constitutional" character, nevertheless, "will become a weapon of the revolution" . . . its conflicts with the government may grow to such dimensions "as will make it possible to use them as the starting point for broad mass movements directed towards the overthrow of the present political system." This is as much as to say that the Duma may become a political centre, rally the revolutionary people around itself and raise the standard of revolution.
Do you hear, workers? The compromising Cadet Duma, it appears, may become the centre of the revolution and find itself at its head -- a dog, it appears, can give birth to a lamb! There is no need for you to worry -- henceforth the hegemony of the proletariat and the rallying of the people around the proletariat are no longer necessary: the non-revolutionary Duma will of its own accord rally the revolutionary people around itself and everything will be in order! Do you see how simple it is to make a revolution? Do you see how the present revolution is to be carried to the end?
Obviously, the congress failed to realise that the two-faced Duma, with its two-faced Cadets, must in evitably get stuck between two stools, will try to make peace between the tsar and the people and then, like all two-faced people, will be obliged to swing over towards the side which promises most!
What did the Bolsheviks say on this point at the congress?
They said that "the conditions are not yet at hand for our Party to take the parliamentary path," i.e., we cannot yet enter into tranquil parliamentary life; the chief arena of the struggle is still the street, and not the Duma (see the resolution of the Bolsheviks).
On this point, too, the congress rejected the resolution of the Bolsheviks.
The resolution of the congress says nothing definite about the fact that in the Duma there are representatives of the revolutionary peasantry (the "Group of Toil") who remain a minority, and who will be obliged to reject the compromising tactics of the Cadets and take the path of the revolution; and it says nothing about it being necessary to encourage them and support them in their struggle against the Cadets or to help them to set their feet still more firmly on the revolutionary path.
Obviously, the congress failed to understand that the proletariat and the peasantry are the two principal forces in the present revolution; that at the present time the proletariat, as the leader of the revolution, must support the revolutionary peasants in the street as well as in the Duma, provided they wage a struggle against the enemies of the revolution. What did the Bolsheviks say on this point at the congress?
They said that Social-Democracy must ruthlessly expose "the inconsistency and vacillation of the Cadets, while watching with special attention the elements of peasant revolutionary democracy, uniting them, con- trasting them to the Cadets and supporting those of their actions which conform to the interests of the proletariat" (see resolution).
The congress also failed to accept this proposal of the Bolsheviks. Probably, that was because it too vividly expressed the leading role of the proletariat in the present struggle; for the congress, as we have seen above, regarded the hegemony of the proletariat with distrust -- the peasantry, it said in effect, must rally around the Duma, and not around the proletariat!
That is why the bourgeois newspaper Nasha Zhizn[78] praises the resolution of the congress; that is why the Cadets of Nasha Zhizn began to shout in one voice: At last the Social-Democrats have come to their senses and have abandoned Blanquism (see Nasha Zhizn, No. 432).
Obviously, it is not for nothing that the enemies of the people -- the Cadets -- are praising the resolution of the congress. And it was not for nothing that Bebel said: What pleases our enemies is harmful to us!
Let us pass to the question of an armed uprising.
It is no longer a secret to anybody today that action by the people is inevitable. Since the crisis and famine are growing in town and country, since unrest among the proletariat and the peasantry is increasing day by day, since the tsarist government is decaying, and since, therefore, the revolution is on the upgrade -- it is self-evident that life is preparing another action by the people, wider and more powerful than the October and December actions. It is quite useless to discuss today whether this new action is desirable or undesirable, good or bad: it is not a matter of what we desire; the fact is that action by the people is maturing of its own accord, and that it is inevitable.
But there is action and action. Needless to say, the January general strike in St. Petersburg (1905) was an action by the people. So also was the October general political strike an action by the people, as also was the "December clash" in Moscow, and the clash in Latvia. It is clear that there were also differences between these actions. Whereas in January (1905), the chief role was played by the strike, in December the strike served only as a beginning and then grew into an armed uprising, which assumed the principal role. The actions in January, October and December showed that however "peacefully" you may start a general strike, however "delicately" you may behave in presenting your demands, and even if you come on to the battle-field unarmed, it must all end in a clash (recall January 9 in St. Petersburg, when the people marched with crosses and portraits of the tsar); the government will, nevertheless, resort to guns and rifles; the people will, nevertheless, take to arms, and thus, the general strike will, nevertheless, grow into an armed uprising. What does that prove? Only that the impending action of the people will not be simply a demonstration, but must necessarily assume an armed character; thus, the decisive role will be played by armed insurrection. It is useless discussing whether bloodshed is desirable or undesirable, good or bad: we repeat -- it is not a matter of what we desire; the fact is that armed insurrection will undoubtedly take place, and it will be impossible to avert it.
Our task today is to achieve the sovereignty of the people. We want the reins of government to be transferred to the hands of the proletariat and the peasantry. Can this object be achieved by means of a general strike? The facts say that it cannot (recall what we said above). Or perhaps the Duma with its grandiloquent Cadets will help us, perhaps the sovereignty of the people will be established with its aid? The facts tell us that this, too, is impossible; for the Cadet Duma wants the autocracy of the big bourgeoisie and not the sovereignty of the people (recall what we said above).
Clearly, the only sure path is an armed uprising of the proletariat and the peasantry. Only by means of an armed uprising can the rule of the tsar be overthrown and the rule of the people be established, if, of course, this uprising ends in victory. That being the case, since the victory of the people is impossible today without the victory of the uprising, and since, on the other hand, life itself is preparing the ground for armed action by the people and, since this action is inevitable -- it is self-evident that the task of Social-Democracy is consciously to prepare for this action, consciously to prepare the ground for its victory. One of two things: either we must reject the sovereignty of the people (a democratic republic) and rest content with a constitutional monarchy -- and in that case we shall be right in saying that it is not our business to organise an armed uprising; or we must continue to have as our present aim the sovereignty of the people (a democratic republic) and emphatically reject a constitutional monarchy -- and in that case we shall be wrong in saying that it is not our business consciously to organise the spontaneously growing action. 2
But how should we prepare for an armed uprising? How can we facilitate its victory?
The December action showed that, in addition to all our other sins, we Social-Democrats are guilty of another great sin against the proletariat. This sin is that we failed to take the trouble, or took too little trouble, to arm the workers and to organise Red detachments. Recall December. Who does not remember the excited people who rose to the struggle in Tiflis, in the west Caucasus, in the south of Russia, in Siberia, in Moscow, in St. Petersburg and in Baku? Why did the autocracy succeed in dispersing these infuriated people so easily? Was it because the people were not yet convinced that the tsarist government was no good? Of course not! Why was it, then?
First of all because the people had no arms, or too few of them. However great your consciousness may be, you cannot stand up against bullets with bare hands! Yes, they were quite right when they cursed us and said: You take our money, but where are the arms?
Secondly, because we had no trained Red detachments capable of leading the rest, of procuring arms by force of arms and of arming the people. The people are heroes in street fighting, but if they are not led by their armed brothers and are not set an example, they can turn into a mob.
Thirdly, because the uprising was sporadic and unorganised. While Moscow was fighting at the barricades, St. Petersburg was silent. Tiflis and Kutais were preparing for an assault when Moscow was already "subdued." Siberia took to arms when the South and the Letts were already "vanquished." That shows that
the fighting proletariat entered the uprising split up into groups, as a consequence of which the government was able to inflict "defeat" upon it with comparative ease.
Fourthly, because our uprising adhered to the policy of the defensive and not of the offensive. The government itself provoked the December uprising. The government attacked us; it had a plan, whereas we met the government's attack unprepared; we had no thought-out plan, we were obliged to adhere to the policy of self-defence and thus dragged at the tail of events. Had the people of Moscow, from the very outset, chosen the policy of attack, they would have immediately captured the Nikolayevsky Railway Station, the government would have been unable to transport troops from St. Petersburg to Moscow, and thus, the Moscow uprising would have lasted longer. That would have exerted corresponding influence upon other towns. The same must be said about the Letts; had they taken the path of attack at the very outset, they would first of all have captured artillery and would thus have sapped the forces of the government.
It was not for nothing that Marx said:
". . . The insurrectionary career once entered upon, act with the greatest determination, and on the offensive. The defensive is the death of every armed rising. . . . Surprise your antagonists while their forces are scattering, prepare new successes, however small, but daily; keep up the moral ascendant which the first successful rising has given to you; rally thus those vacillating elements to your side which always follow the strongest impulse and which always look out for the safer side;
force your enemies to a retreat before they can collect their strength against you; in the words of Danton, the greatest master of revolutionary policy yet known: de l'audace, de l'audace, encore de l'audace! " (See K. Marx, Historical Sketches, p. 95.)
It was precisely this "audacity" and the policy of an offensive that the December uprising lacked.
We shall be told: these are not the only reasons for the December "defeat"; you have forgotten that in December the peasantry failed to unite with the proletariat, and that, too, was one of the main reasons for the December retreat. This is the downright truth, and we do not intend to forget it. But why did the peasantry fail to unite with the proletariat? What was the reason? We shall be told: lack of political consciousness. Granting that, how should we make the peasants politically conscious? By distributing pamphlets? This is not enough, of course! Then how? By fighting, by drawing them into the struggle, and by leading them during the struggle. Today it is the mission of the town to lead the countryside, it is the mission of the workers to lead the peasants; and if an uprising is not organised in the towns, the peasantry will never march with the advanced proletariat in this action.
Such are the facts.
Hence, the attitude the congress should have adopted lowards the armed uprising and the slogans it should have issued to the Party comrades are self-evident.
The Party was weak in the matter of arming, and arming was a neglected matter in the Party -- consequently, the congress should have said to the Party: arm, give concentrated attention to the matter of
arming, so as to meet the impending action at least to some extent prepared.
Further. The Party was weak in the matter of organising armed detachments; it did not pay due attention to the task of augmenting the number of Red detachments. Consequently, the congress should have said to the Party: form Red detachments, disseminate military knowledge among the people, give concentrated attention to the task of organising Red detachments, so as to be able later on to procure arms by force of arms and extend the uprising.
Further. The December uprising found the proletariat disunited; nobody thought seriously of organising the uprising -- consequently, it was the duty of the congress to issue a slogan to the Party urging it energetically to proceed to unite the militant elements, to bring them into action according to a single plan, and actively to organise the armed uprising.
Further. The proletariat, adhered to a defensive policy in the armed uprising; it never took the path of the offensive; that is what prevented the victory of the uprising. Consequently, it was the duty of the congress to point out to the Party comrades that the moment of victory of the uprising was approaching and that it was necessary to pass to the policy of offensive.
How did the congress act, and what slogans did it issue to the Party?
The congress said that ". . . the Party's main task at the present moment is to develop the revolution by expanding and intensifying agitation activities among broad sections of the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and among the armed forces,
and by drawing them. into the active struggle against the government through the constant intervention of Social-Democracy, and of the proletariat which it leads, in all manifestations of political life in the country. . . ." The Party "cannot undertake the obligation of arming the people, which can only rouse false hopes, and must restrict its tasks to facilitating the self-arming of the population and the organisation and arming of fighting squads. . . ." "It is the Party's duty to counteract all attempts to draw the proletariat into an armed collision under unfavourable circumstances. . ." etc., etc. (see resolution of the congress).
It appears, then, that today, at the present moment, when we are on the threshold of another action by the people, the main thing for achieving the victory of the uprising is agitation, while the arming and organising of Red detachments is something unimportant, something which we must not get enthusiastic about, and in relation to which we must "restrict" our activities to "facilitating." As regards the necessity of organising the uprising, of not carrying it out with scattered forces, and the necessity of adopting an offensive policy (recall the words of Marx) -- the congress said not a word. Clearly, it did not regard these questions as important.
The facts say: Arm and do everything to strengthen the Red detachments. The congress, however, answers: Do not get too enthusiastic about arming and organising Red detachments, "restrict" your activities in this matter, because the most important thing is agitation.
One would think that until now we have been busy arming, that we have armed a vast number of comrades
and have organised a large number of detachments, but have neglected agitation -- and so the congress admonishes us: Enough of arming, you have paid quite enough attention to that; the main thing is agitation!
It goes without saying that agitation is always and everywhere one of the Party's main weapons; but will agitation decide the question of victory in the forthcoming uprising? Had the congress said this four years ago, when the question of an uprising was not yet on the order of the day, it would have been understandable; but today, when we are on the threshold of an armed uprising, when the question of an uprising is on the order of the day, when it may start independently and in spite of us -- what can "mainly" agitation do? What can be achieved by means of this "agitation"?
Or consider this. Let us assume that we have expand ed our agitation; let us assume that the people have risen. What then? How can they fight without arms? Has not enough blood of unarmed people been shed? And besides, of what use are arms to the people if they are unable to wield them, if they have not a sufficient number of Red detachments? We shall be told: But we do not reject arming and Red detachments. Very well, but if you fail to devote due attention to the task of arming, if you neglect it -- it shows that actually you do reject it.
We shall not go into the point that the congress did not even hint at the necessity of organising the uprising and of adhering to an offensive policy. It could not have been otherwise, because the resolution of the congress lags four or five years behind life, and because, to the congress, an uprising was still a theoretical question.
They said that ". . . in the Party's propaganda and agitation activities concentrated attention must be given to studying the practical experience of the December uprising, to criticising it from the military point of view, and to drawing direct lessons from it for the future," that "still more energetic activity must be developed in augmenting the number of fighting squads, in improving their organisation and supplying them with weapons of all kinds and, in conformity with the lessons of experience, not only should Party fighting squads be organised, but also squads of sympathisers with the Party, and even of non-Party people. . ." that "in view of the growing peasant movement, which may flare up into a whole uprising in the very near future, it is desirable to exert efforts to unite the activities of the workers and peasants for the purpose of organising, as far as possible, joint and simultaneous military operations . . . " that, consequently, ". . . in view of the growth and intensification of another political crisis, the prospect is opening for the transition from defensive to offensive forms of armed struggle. . ." that it is necessary, jointly with the soldiers, to launch ". . . most determined offen sive operations against the government . . . " etc. (see the resolution of the Bolsheviks).
That is what the Bolsheviks said.
But the congress rejected the stand taken by the Bolsheviks.
After this, it is not difficult to understand why the resolutions of the congress were welcomed with such enthusiasm by the liberal-Cadets (see Nasha Zhizn,
No. 432): they realised that these resolutions lag several years behind the present revolution, that these resolutions totally fail to express the class tasks of the proletariat, that these resolutions, if applied, would make the proletariat an appendage of the liberals rather than an independent force -- they realised all this, and that is why they were so loud in their praise of them.
It is the duty of the Party comrades to adopt a critical attitude towards the resolutions of the congress and, at the proper time, introduce the necessary amendments.
It is precisely this duty that we had in mind when we sat down to write this pamphlet.
True, we have here touched upon only two resolutions: "On the Attitude To Be Taken Towards the State Duma, " and "On Armed Insurrection," but these two resolutions are, undoubtedly, the main resolutions, which most distinctly express the congress's position on tactics.
Thus, we have arrived at the main conclusion, viz., that the question that confronts the Party is: should the class-conscious proletariat be the leader in the present revolution, or should it drag at the tail of the bourgeois democrats?
We have seen that the settlement of this question one way or another will determine the settlement of all the other questions.
All the more carefully, therefore, should the comrades weigh the essence of these two positions.
[74] J. V. Stalin's work The Present Situation and the Unity Congress of the Workers' Party was published in the Georgian language in Tiflis in 1906 by Proletariat Publishers. An appendix to the pamphlet contained the three draft resolutions submitted by the Bolsheviks to the Fourth ("Unity") Congress: 1) "The Present Situation in the Democratic Revolution" (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 130-31), 2) "The Class Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Situation in the Democratic Revolution" (see Resolutions and Decisions of C.P.S.U. (B.) Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Part I, 6th Russ. ed., 1940, p. 65), 3) "Armed Insurrection" (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 131-33), and also the draft resolution on the State Duma submitted to the congress on behalf of the Bolsheviks by V. 1. Lenin (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 10, pp. 266-67). The appendix also contained the resolution adopted by the congress on armed insurrection, and also the draft resolution of
the Mensheviks on "The Present Situation in the Revolution and the Tasks of the Proletariat." [p.252]
[75] The Party of Democratic Reform -- a party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie, was formed during the election of the First State Duma in 1906. [p.263]
[76] The Octobrists, or Union of October Seventeenth -- the counter-revolutionary party of the big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and big landowners, was formed in November 1905. It fully supported the Stolypin regime, the home and foreign policy of tsarism. [p.263]
[77] Trudoviks, or Group of Toil -- a group of petty-bourgeois democrats formed in April 1906, consisting of the peasant deputies in the First State Duma. They demanded the abolition of all caste and national restrictions, the democratisation of the rural and municipal local government bodies, universal suffrage for the election of the State Duma and, above all, the solution of the agrarian problem. [p.266]
[78] Nasha Zhizn (Our Life ) -- a liberal-bourgeois newspaper published in St. Petersburg with interruptions from November 1904 to December 1906. [p.269]
Stalin Archive - Marxists Internet Archive


text:
Home » All News » 'Drive-through' Irish border post-Brexit possible, says BluJay
'Drive-through' Irish border post-Brexit possible, says BluJay
in All News, Ireland, Latest
BluJay Solutions has partnered with Fujitsu to develop a technology solution to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while also enabling customs checks to be made by the UK and Irish Governments.
14 hours ago by Kirsty Adams
No one wants to see border checks on the island of Ireland – BluJay and Fujitsu are taking practical steps to help ensure this does not happen.
The proof of concept (PoC) has been developed with the full involvement of the UK Government. It provides a simple and effective solution to the problem of maintaining seamless trade across the Irish border in the event of a no-deal Brexit and will enable border checks to take place with no physical infrastructure erected on the border.
BluJay brings high-capacity customs management and mobility software to the project, allowing individual shipments – rather than trucks – to be tagged and monitored on their journey. Geo-tagging technology on each shipment will notify both Governments and shippers when the cargo crosses the border, prompting the customs system to automatically complete the necessary checks and digitally deliver requests for duty payment as required.
By digitising and automating the customs process, BluJay and Fujitsu remove the necessity for physical traffic stops and barriers.
The system will automatically record the movement of controlled goods including medical and hazardous products and ensure that health and safety standards are maintained. It will also provide a single border-management portal to enable border agencies to collaborate on customs processes.
"BluJay is uniquely placed to make the goal of seamless customs on the Irish border a reality," commented Doug Surrett, Chief Product Strategist at BluJay. "We already have the necessary IT framework in place, which means we can quickly respond to the complex customs challenges in play to deliver a solution that works for everyone. This isn't the first time a fast and smooth supply chain has been imperative – we have the expertise and the technology to deliver a workable solution for this problem. We're pleased to partner with Fujitsu and the UK Government on this important project."
BluJay's Customs Management software is a single point of connection for international customs operations. The solution offers the ability to take information from any source and manage the real-time electronic conversation between any ERP system and any customs regime, with complete visibility to what is being paid to customs. In addition, the company's MobileSTAR technology provides drivers with real-time connection, routing, and delivery capabilities via iOS or Android device.
https://www.shdlogistics.com/news/drive-through-irish-border-post-brexit-possible-says-blujay

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A tasty berry-lime combo from the Ball Blue Book!
Crush blueberries. Combine berries and pectin in a large pot. Bring to a boil, stirring frequently. Add sugar, stirring until dissolved. Stir in grated lime peel and lime juice. Return to a rolling boil. Boil hard one minute, stirring constantly. Remove from heat and ladle into hot jars, leaving 1/4-inch headspace. BWB 15 minutes.


To begin adding inventory items to your Nookal account, head to Practice > Inventory > Stock List.
You'll then see a button at the top, labeled "New Stock", click this to add a new inventory item.
SKU Code - A unique code that identifies this item.
Cost Price - The amount you pay for the item when you purchase it from your supplier.
Sales Price - The price to appear on an invoice when a client purchases this item.
Minimum Alert Qty - The minimum number of this item that you'll need in stock.
You will also need to select a location for this item (if you have more than one), as each inventory item can only be available from a single location.
Start Qty - The current number of this item that you have in stock.
If you want to see the item in your inventory list, leave Active Item set as Yes, if you need to switch off an item you no longer use, simply set this as No.
After filling out these fields, click "Save" and you will see this item in your stock list.
Sell passes to your clients, and redeem them later for services, or to attend classes.
To set up passes in your Nookal account, head to Practice > Inventory > Passes.
You'll then see a button at the top, labeled "New Pass / Voucher / Membership", click this to add a new pass.
Location - The location where this pass can be sold/redeemed.
Code - A unique code that identifies this item.
Value - The number of sessions, or length of subscription.
Price - The total price for the pass.
Nominal Value - The value of each session.
If you want to see the pass in your active list, leave Active set as Yes, if you need to switch off a pass you no longer use, simply set this as No.
After filling out these fields, click "Save" and you will see this pass in your pass list.
If you would like to be able to redeem passes for a service, head to Practice > Inventory > Services and select the service in question, then tick the box on the bottom left labelled "Allow Redemptions".


text:
package de.unistuttgart.iste.rss.bugminer.build.sonar;

import de.unistuttgart.iste.rss.bugminer.computing.SshConnection;
import de.unistuttgart.iste.rss.bugminer.model.entities.SystemSpecification;
import de.unistuttgart.iste.rss.bugminer.utils.ExecutionResult;
import de.unistuttgart.iste.rss.bugminer.utils.ProgramExecutionException;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;

import java.io.IOException;
import java.net.URISyntaxException;
import java.net.URL;
import java.nio.file.Path;
import java.nio.file.Paths;

/**
 * Provides utility methods to install and run sonar in a node
 */
@Component
public class RemoteSonarHelper {
	private static final String APT_SOURCE_LINE =
			"deb http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sonar-pkg/deb binary/";

	protected RemoteSonarHelper() {
		// managed bean
	}

	/**
	 * Makes sure sonar is installed on the remote system
	 *
	 * @param connection the ssh connection
	 * @param os the operating system specification
	 * @throws java.io.IOException a remote i/o error or a ssh connection error
	 */
	public void installSonar(SshConnection connection, SystemSpecification os) throws IOException {
		if (isSonarInstalled(connection)) {
			return;
		}

		if (!SystemSpecification.UBUNTU.equals(os.getDistributionName())) {
			throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
					"Only ubuntu is supported for sonar installation at the moment");
		}

		connection.execute("sudo", "mkdir", "-p", "/etc/apt/sources.list.d");
		connection.execute("bash", "-c", "echo '" + APT_SOURCE_LINE + "' | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/sonar.list");
		connection.execute("sudo", "apt-get", "update");
		// force-yes because we do not have a key for the sonar package
		connection.execute("sudo", "apt-get", "-y", "--force-yes", "install", "openjdk-7-jdk", "sonar");

		if (!isSonarInstalled(connection)) {
			throw new IOException("Installed sonar, but it is not callable afterwards");
		}
	}

	public void startSonar(SshConnection connection, SystemSpecification os) throws IOException {
		if (!isSonarInstalled(connection)) {
			throw new IllegalStateException("Sonar is not installed on this node");
		}

		connection.execute("sudo", "service", "sonar", "start");
	}

	public void stopSonar(SshConnection connection, SystemSpecification os) throws IOException {
		if (!isSonarInstalled(connection)) {
			throw new IllegalStateException("Sonar is not installed on this node");
		}

		connection.execute("sudo", "service", "sonar", "stop");
	}

	/**
	 * Makes sure that running maven will invoke the sonar standalone analysis.
	 * Sonar should be installed before running maven.
	 * @param connection the ssh connection
	 * @param os the operating system specification
	 * @throws IOException Failed to create the settings file
	 */
	public void configureMavenForSonar(SshConnection connection, SystemSpecification os)
			throws IOException {
		Path source = null;
		try {
			URL url = RemoteSonarHelper.class.getResource("settings.xml");
			if (url == null) {
				throw new IOException("settings.xml resource is missing");
			}
			source = Paths.get(url.toURI());
		} catch (URISyntaxException e) {
			throw new IOException(e);
		}
		connection.execute("mkdir", "-p", ".m2");
		connection.uploadFile(source, ".m2/settings.xml");
	}

	/**
	 * Determines whether sonar is installed on the remote system
	 *
	 * @param connection the ssh connection
	 * @return true, if sonar is installed, false otherwise
	 * @throws java.io.IOException a remote i/o error or a ssh connection error
	 */
	public boolean isSonarInstalled(SshConnection connection) throws IOException {
		ExecutionResult result = connection.tryExecute("test", "-f", "/etc/init.d/sonar");
		if (result.getExitCode() == 0) {
			return true;
		}
		if (result.getExitCode() == 1) {
			return false;
		}
		throw new ProgramExecutionException(new String[] {"test", "-f", "/etc/init.d/sonar"}, result);
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Levels unplayable in Lynx
IXWO
Checkerboard I is the 72nd level in Chip's Challenge Level Pack 2. It was created by Dale Bryan. It is extremely likely that this level would be considered the single hardest level in CCLP2, or at the very least come in second to Cloner's Maze. Checkerboard I is almost impossible without assistance, and while a map is very helpful, it is still finger-breaking work to complete.
The "checkerboard" contains 61 blocks; only 59 are required, but the use of the 60th and 61st blocks on the waters located at [13, 3] and [11, 3] will save time. The 60th allows Chip to collect the red key at [12, 3] without using the flippers; more important is that it opens the way for the use of the 61st block, which will pay for itself many times over by allowing Chip to return across the top right to the blocks, rather than down, right, and up. In total, 29 blocks are needed in the water section (one to reach a socket), 29 in the bomb section, two as extras for the water section, and one more block to explode a bomb located in front of the path to the exit.
Counting one used block as one space (rather than conventional directional notation), follow these paths: build 3L across cell 3; 5L, 4U, 3L and 9D from water cell 6 through cells 5, 2, 1, 4 and 7; 5L and 2D through cells 9 and 8, and the last block will be taken onto the force floor and D 2R D 2R 8D to remove the bomb. In the bomb section, Chip builds 6D through cells 1 and 4, simply D to access the top half of cell 2, and then through cells 3 and 6 to several forks: cell 9 builds 4D, and cell 5 builds 4L, then first 2U into the bottom half of cell 2 and then 2D 5L through cells 8 and 7.
Chip must watch out for shortcuts through blue walls, Mixed Nuts-style block pushing and other diagonal arrangements, and removing some blue walls in the checkerboard to make other blocks move faster. The full 451 route is shown, with requisite annotations guiding Chip through each step and explaining each major move. A 453 route exists, but its details are unknown - yet it is certain that the bold difficulty will be a full 5.
Fix for Lynx
The boots hidden under the sockets and the fake suction boots on [14, 17] are the only barriers to Lynx play. For this version, make the following changes: remove all the hidden boots, change the fake suction boots to a wall, and doctor the final section slightly.
Replace the force floor at [8, 17] with flippers, move the fire boots to [14, 29] and remove the suction boots at [14, 31], and add an east force floor at [11, 31]. This allows this section to be done in the same number of moves as a hypothetical Lynx ruleset where any tile combinations are allowed.
Be warned that in Lynx, blue keys are erased by all objects and yellow keys are block-acting walls, so to make the level more compatible overall, change all the keys and locks to red. Checkerboard I was obviously not designed with Lynx play in mind.
CCLP2 level 72 solution - 451 seconds
This route is a 451.0, compared to the 451.4 TWS; despite this flaw (pointed out within it), it contains a vast variety of techniques, shortcuts and secrets, not just for Checkerboard I, but for Chip's Challenge as a whole.
← Mads' Rush II Checkerboard I Bumble Boy →
Retrieved from "https://chipschallenge.fandom.com/wiki/Checkerboard_I?oldid=20138"


The year 1999 is the 100th anniversary of the death of the "Waltz King", Johann the Younger. This great composer with his many works was the creator of the light Viennese classic music. The unofficial anthem of Austria, "The Blue Danube Waltz", still delights millions each year in the Vienna Philharmonic's New Year Concert.
The design shows a portrait of the mature Johann Strauss as he also appears on his famous monument in Vienna's City Park. Two swirling figures inspired by the white arch of the monument may be seen with the music of "The Blue Danube Waltz" towards the edge of the coin. The inscription records the name "Johann Strauss" and the dates of his birth and death.


This is a quirky album. It should go on the short list for freak folk fans and college rock stations. This guy, this mysteriously named Father John Misty, has mastered the dirty guitar and the common-chorded riff. This is just one of those no-repeat albums. It's got a dash of singer-songwriter, a taste of late 60s guitar, and a healthy dose of odd lyrics.
The lyrical themes of this album are reminiscent of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine. We mean that in the most insulting way possible. No, seriously, "I ran down the road, pants down to my knees, screamin' please come help me that Canadian shaman gave a little too much to me and I'm writing a novel… because it's never been done before." The cover art looks like it was psychedelically inspired. The album is no different. It's okay, we're adults. We say no to drugs and still like the music.
"O I long to feel your arms around me" begins with an incredible Hammond organ and great vocal harmonies. It will put listeners more in the mind of Fleet Foxes than the other singer-songwriter style songs. The lead singer's voice is stronger than at first blush. He's got the chops to sing several different styles, even this hymn-like salvo. It's a beautiful song that almost seems out of place compared to "I'm writing a novel," the psychedelic song before it on the album.
"Well, You Can Do It Without Me" immediately has a Creedence feel to it. It's probably the best track on the album. It's a quintessential rock track and it's so good. It shows Josh Tillman, the man behind the moniker, at his absolute best. "Without me… who would let you play God and make believe that all the blasphemy is coming only from me." The track, along with some others on the album, is laced with religious references that undoubtedly grows out of Tillman's choice to name himself a Father.
This is an incredibly unique album. Tillman has abilities that almost make the album feel a mockery of his own potential. Like, if he wanted to, he could just crush the charts with a mainstream album. Instead, he's chosen this project. The message in "Now I'm Learning to Love the War," comments about the oil industry and the making of an album. It's one of the most brilliant, politically-conscious tracks we've run across. It's a real shame that it won't get the airplay that it deserves.
Enjoy this album, buy it, and share it with your friends that like this particularly intriguing brand of rock and roll.


Is this an insurmountable obstacle?..
i'm not posting this to be Debbie Downer. I just want to touch on one of the minuscule factors in the "environment" portion of the equation. In the spirit of the New Year and cleaning house, I thought we could do a little education about the things you use to CLEAN YOUR HOUSE.
"Environment" refers to all of the aspects of the world that influence you and influence your body's physiological responses. These include your emotional environment (ie. your loving or hostile relationships with others and yourself), your mental environment (ie. is your brain offered up daily challenges?.. are you keeping sharp as you age?..), your spiritual environment (ie. a sense of the world as something greater than yourself), and of course, your physical environment.
Today I'll be talking about the most obvious aspect of your overall environment -the PHYSICAL realm, and more specifically, how to keep it free from toxins that will affect the formula and increase your risk of chronic disease.
The "X Factors": aka WHAT TO AVOID!
PHOSPHATES: Banned in laundry detergents for quite some time (!), phosphates are only recently being banned from dishwashing detergents. The problem with phosphates lies in their impact on aquatic life once they've been washed down our drains. It can cause toxic algae blooms to build up, and, if this algae shows up in drinking water, it can have negative health effects!
AMMONIA: A serious irritant to your respiratory system, meaning that people with asthma or other respiratory conditions can be particularly sensitive! While ammonia is a gas that can be naturally-occuring, it is best to limit your exposure by choosing cleaning products that do not have it as an additive. *Be very cautious of cleaners containing both ammonia and bleach (sodium hypochlorite) as they combine to produce a very poisonous gas!
PHENOLS: Mimic the hormone estrogen, which can increase your risk of hormone-dependent cancers such as breast cancer. While Environment Canada requires manufacturers to reduce their use of phenols, they are still present in many cleaning products!
TRICLOSAN: Another hormone disrupter. Also has detrimental environmental impacts, specifically to aquatic life. Triclosan is an antibacterial agent, and with the recent popularity of "antibacterial" everything on the market, there are suspected long-term health impacts on our immune systems! Our bodies need to be able to mount healthy responses to bacteria - ie. get a little work out in now and then - in order to maintain overall health! Choose NON-antibacterial soaps/cleaners. Use proper hand-washing techniques. Those are much healthier options!
PHTHALATES: Yet another hormone disrupter. These are a component in fragrances that can cause headaches and other minor irritation. But they have also been linked to decreased sperm count in men! *won't be labelled - will be hidden under "fragrance", so look for "phthalate free" products or those that use essential oils as fragrance.
This is just a starter list of ingredients to avoid when choosing cleaning products. Read labels! You have choices! And if you really want to choose the healthiest (and cheapest!) option, there is always baking soda and white vinegar.
And - the best book for Canadians on environmentally-friendly, health-wise options for cleaning house is ECOHOLIC HOME by Adria Vasil. Buy it - you won't regret it!


The weekend selloff has begun once again, Ethereum, Bitcoin Dollars, Litecoin and Cardano dumping.
As predicted in yesterday's crypto current market roundup, matters have dumped nowadays. This cycle has recurring by itself a number of moments over the earlier couple of months – a handful of times attaining then one massive dump shedding it all. Full current market capitalization has dropped to just earlier mentioned $215 billion as 10 billion has still left the markets over the earlier 24 hrs.
Dropping back 2.5%, Bitcoin has fallen to $6,540 and it continues to be in its channel unable to get earlier mentioned $6,700. With much more blended indicators from US regulators crypto traders stay cautious and the bears are dominating once again. Furthermore with Ethereum which has dumped the 5% it designed yesterday. ETH is down to $217 and however on the lookout quite weak.
Crafting this current market roundup is turning out to be quite predictable these days. Altcoins are all in the pink nowadays as yet another crypto avalanche ensues. Bitcoin Dollars is getting hit the most difficult in the prime 10 with an 8% dive to $517. Stellar, Litecoin and Cardano are all in soreness also shedding 4-5 percent on the day. The prime 20 is not on the lookout much much better with all altcoins shedding amongst 2 and 4 percent. Dash and Tron are shedding closer to 5% at the moment.
There are only a handful of altcoins in the green suitable now and they include Eternal Token climbing 8% to $2.22, Zcoin up 6.6% to just over $10 and Pivx and ReddCoin climbing all over 4% on the day. The rest are getting battered with Electroneum getting the largest hit of 23%, adopted by GXChain and Dentacoin each dropping over 8% in the weekend selloff.
This sample has been found so many moments now and is turning out to be instead tiresome. Cryptocurrencies just are not able to appear to be in a position to manage their gains and maintain shedding them following a couple of times. Full current market capitalization has declined over 3% on the day to $216 billion. 10 billion has been lost because yesterday having said that trade volume has remained at $16 billion. Bitcoin dominance is at the moment at 52% and has fallen back rather over the earlier couple of months. Things are however quite bearish in crypto land.
FOMO Times is a segment that requires a day-to-day search at the prime 20 altcoins in the course of the latest buying and selling session and analyses the finest performing types, on the lookout for developments and achievable fundamentals.


text:
DOJ Files Statement of Interest Supporting Black Trans Woman's Request for Transfer to Female Prison in Georgia, Gender Dysphoria Care
Lawyers for Ashley Diamond Welcome DOJ Weighing in on Case April 22, 2021 Macon, GA – In response to the Statement of Interest that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed late this afternoon in...
Chauvin Found Guilty, Black Communities No Safer
April 20, 2021, New York – In response to the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd moments after the Columbus police murder of 16-year-old Ma'...
New York City Police Unions Give Up on Failed Attempts to Roll Back #Repeal50a and Block Release of Misconduct and Discipline Records
Win for Communities United for Police Reform: Litigation will be dismissed and prior temporary injunction to be lifted April 13, 2021, New York – Today, the New York City police, corrections and fire...
Incarcerated Transgender Woman Demands Transfer to Female Facility, End to Retaliation
Emergency Motion Says Ashley Diamond's Allegations of Assault Prompted Retaliation by Prison Staff April 9, 2021, Atlanta – Today, Ashley Diamond, a Black transgender woman who is currently suing the...
Former Prisoner in Federal "Communications Management Unit" Seeks Justice for Unconstitutional Placement
Procedures for Holding Men Under Strict Communications Restrictions Violate Due Process, Appeal Says April 7, 2021, Washington, D.C. – Today, lawyers for men who had been imprisoned in secretive...
U.S. Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed by Jewish National Fund Against Palestinian Rights Nonprofit
Lawsuit "Not Persuasive," Judge Rules March 30, 2021, Washington, D.C. – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and others against a U.S.-based Palestinian rights...
Center for Constitutional Rights Condemns New York City Police Reform and Reinvention Plan
March 25, 2021, New York – As the City Council prepares to vote on the New York City Police Reform and Reinvention Plan, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following response: New York...
Grief, Rage, and Solidarity: Center for Constitutional Rights Responds to Atlanta Killings, Anti-Asian and Misogynist Violence
March 19, 2021, New York – In response to Wednesday's killings in Georgia, the Center for Constitutional Rights offers the following statement of solidarity: We honor the lives and mourn the loss of...
WIN: Second Circuit Affirms District Court Decision, NYPD Misconduct and Disciplinary Records Must Be Disclosed
February 16, 2021, New York– Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the New York City police unions' (along with corrections and fire unions') attempt to stop the City of New York from...
Lawyers for Palestinians Before the International Criminal Court Praise Decision Affirming Statehood and ICC Jurisdiction
February 5, 2021, New York – In response to a decision issued today by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court, recognizing that the territory of the State of Palestine – Gaza and...


Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the mod_negotiation module in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.6 and earlier in the 2.2.x series, 2.0.61 and earlier in the 2.0.x series, and 1.3.39 and earlier in the 1.3.x series allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML by uploading a file with a name containing XSS sequences and a file extension, which leads to injection within a (1) "406 Not Acceptable" or (2) "300 Multiple Choices" HTTP response when the extension is omitted in a request for the file.
We do not consider this issue to be security sensitive. Untrusted users should not be permitted to upload files to the directories from where they can be directly served by the web server without prior careful sanitation of both contents and filename.


Each American receives seventeen trees worth of junk mail per year. And that junk mail weighs one ton. Uh huh. Each American receives one ton of junk mail per year. In case that doesn't do it for you, two average-size horses weigh one ton. Two horses in your mailbox! But that's nothing compared to the elephants. Four typical elephants weigh 17.8 tons. And a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service carries all four in the course of a year on the job. Well, he doesn't carry elephants. He carries 17.8 tons of junk mail!
OK, so those numbers were tabulated by environmentalists (who send out billions of pieces of junk mail themselves, by the way), but if the stats are even half that bad, it's maddening. Of course, you didn't need me to lay out all those numbers to make you mad, did you? All you have to do is go open your mailbox. If you are jinxed with junk mail, if the envelopes seem endless, there is hope.
For faster service, you can register online, but it costs $5. Go to: www.dmaconsumers.org.
Credit card companies are the worst offenders in my mailbox. They obtain lists of consumers who meet their criteria and then deluge them with "pre-screening offers." The big three credit bureaus have given you a way to block those too. Just call 1 (888) 567-8688. The first prompt you'll hear offers you the chance to opt out for the next two years. Don't jump the gun! A later prompt offers you the opportunity to opt out for good. Once you've made a choice, you will have to provide your social security number and some other basic information.
If you're still not satisfied, you'll have to contact other direct mailers, well, directly! Here's a hint: when you receive a mailing from a group or company you don't want to hear from again, write to them. (Make up a form letter on your computer, if you like.) Enclose the envelope or the mailing label the group sent you, and ask them to stop.
1.	Send out one piece of mail and block thousands from coming in. Write to the Direct Marketing Association.
2.	Call the big three credit bureaus and opt out of credit card offers.
3.	Don't sign up for sweepstakes. Don't fill out warranty cards. Give a fake address when you apply for a grocery store discount card. All these can be tools for busybody companies bent on building mailing lists.
4.	If the people at your Department of Motor Vehicles give you the choice of keeping your name and address private, take the time to take them up on it.
5.	Learn to recognize misleading junk mail designed to get you to open the envelope. Some of it is actually illegal! Junk mail is often disguised as overnight mail, government mail, a bill or a personal letter.
"Address" complaints about junk mail to the U.S. Postal Service or the company in question. To gripe about misleading junk mail, contact your local postal inspector.