Discovering Chinese Socialism: A Personal Account — STALIN’S MOUSTACHE

Despite my best intentions, I had first come to China some eleven years ago with a pile of preconceptions and ways of understanding socialism. One by one they have been challenged, undermined and then crumbled. Since then, I have been rebuilding my understanding virtually from scratch. Some of these preconceptions were superficial, although I was […]

via Discovering Chinese Socialism: A Personal Account — STALIN’S MOUSTACHE

Anúncios

Reading Xi Jinping – Posted by stalinsmoustache

Over a quiet stretch in Beijing, I was able to read Xi Jinping’s first volume as president of China. As one would expect, it is a series of selected statement on key issues, called The Governance of China (Tan zheguolizheng), published in 2014. It is, I must admit, an extraordinary read. To begin with, it […]

via Reading Xi Jinping — STALIN’S MOUSTACHE

Eric Hobsbawm: Ler com Urgência e para quem Não quiser ser Enganado

Box-Eric-J-Hobsbawm-1789-1914-3-Volumes-830904

Eric Hobsbawm em quatro volumes: A Era das Revoluções (1789- 1848), A Era do Capital (1848-1875), A Era do Império (1875-1914) e A Era dos Extremos (1914-1991).

Por uma abordagem objetiva, aberta e contraditória da Revolução Russa

russian-revolution-october-1917-vladimir-ilyich-lenin-ulyanov-1870-D98BY8
Apelo-petição em vésperas do 100º aniversário da Revolução de Outubro

– Nem óculos “Brancos” sobre Outubro de 1917 nem a repetição de “Livros Negros” anticomunistas!

por Annie Lacroix-Riz, Georges Gastaud e Jean Salem

Na abordagem do 100º aniversário do 7 de novembro de 1917, tudo se passa como se se tratasse – sobretudo para certos meios político-mediáticos, caucionados por certos universitários – de apresentar uma versão grosseiramente maniqueísta, tingida de encarniçamento anticomunisto, anti-bolchevique e anti-soviético.
Não apenas Outubro não teria sido senão um “golpe” bolchevique interrompendo um amável curso democrático iniciado pela revolução russa de fevereiro. Não apenas os bolcheviques não teriam tido nenhum papel importante em fevereiro de 1917, não apenas o imenso levantamento proletário e camponês que a preparou, marcou e deu seguimento em 7 de novembro de 1917, não teria tido um caráter autenticamente democrático, popular e socialista, não apenas as suas consequências se teriam revelado unicamente catastróficas para a Rússia e para a humanidade, mas todo este processo se teria desenrolado – bem como a ulterior construção da URSS – num contexto puramente russo e quimicamente puro, praticamente livre de furiosas intervenções imperialistas, da defesa sangrenta e exacerbada dos privilégios pelas classes privilegiadas, do esmagamento brutal da revolução operária na Alemanha, seguido da ascensão do fascismo, nazismo, franquismo e dos militarismos, do Japão imperial à Europa Ocidental (Hungria, Itália, Espanha…)

Os signatários do presente texto ficam horrorizados ao ver profissionais do campo da História misturarem-se no ar viciado deste nosso tempo anticomunista, “pós-moderno” e anti-progressista, abordando, sem excessivos escrúpulos metodológicos, o tema hiperbolicamente qualificado de Outubro russo.

Os mesmos que evocam com comiseração a demasiado “ingénua” historiografia dos tempos recentes e que denunciam os “preconceitos” da conjuntura política que se seguiu a Estalinegrado, o 8 de maio de 1945 e o surgimento de um poderoso partido comunista em França, não se interrogam um segundo sequer sobre a atual configuração política na qual eles desenvolvem a sua reflexão “histórica” qualificada de crítica: ofensiva neoliberal; anexação para a esfera euro-atlântica dos antigos países socialistas; domínio de Berlim sobre a “construção europeia”; subida do Front National e viragem para a direita da sociedade francesa; destruição das conquistas sociais do Conselho Nacional da Resistência ligadas à ação dos ministros comunistas em 1945-47; ressurgimento dos impérios capitalistas disputando a hegemonia mundial, arremetida europeia, leia-se global, de diversas variedades de extremismo de direita e fundamentalismo religioso; degradação da relação de forças entre Trabalho e Capital e a nível mundial; diabolização da Federação Russa, que a NATO pressiona nas suas fronteiras de Vilnius a Kiev; multiplicação de guerras neocoloniais travestidas de “direito de ingerência humanitária” (África, Médio Oriente); criminalização das atividades comunistas em antigos países socialistas (Polônia, República Checa, Bulgária,…); negacionismo histórico caracterizado pelas autoridades japonesas sobre os genocídios cometidos na Coreia e na China; investida de grupos neonazis que proliferam na esteira dos poderes fascizantes, apoiados pela UE e a NATO (Ucrânia Hungria, as antigas repúblicas soviéticas do Báltico)…

Esta tentativa pseudo-histórica de “varrer” Outubro de 1917 da memória coletiva tem objetivamente lugar numa paisagem historiográfica dominada pela reação:

Acrescida complacência com a colonização francesa (por ex. os “aspectos positivos da colonização” (sic) que círculos sarkosistas pretendem inscrever nos programas escolares),
Difamação da Revolução francesa, nomeadamente a sua fase jacobina e de Robespierre,
Tendência para reabilitar Vichy e depreciar a resistência patriótica (particularmente negando o papel proeminente que desempenharam os comunistas),
Relatos desonestos da História nacional que tanto desvalorizam séculos de construção do estado-nação em benefício da historiografia euro-politicamente correta, como pretendem ressuscitar um “romance nacional” expurgado dos confrontos de classes e da contribuição dos comunistas para a Frente Popular, a Resistência, as reformas progressistas da Libertação, a recusa das guerras coloniais, a defesa da liberdade, da paz, da soberania nacional, da igualdade entre homens e mulheres e do progresso social,
Odiosa amálgama entre o Terceiro Reich e a pátria de Estalinegrado, perpetrada nos programas e manuais escolares, sob o nome de “ascensão do totalitarismo”,
Em suma, tudo se passa como se determinados círculos que monopolizam a edição, os media e boa parte da Universidade, estivessem menos preocupados em esclarecer sob um ângulo dialético, dinâmico, e eventualmente contraditório, os Dez Dias que abalaram o mundo do que retrospectivamente dar uma lição aos povos, especialmente à juventude, para os afastar para sempre das lutas da classe operária e revolucionárias…

Como se fosse possível um simples “putsch” bolchevique ter podido mobilizar milhões de proletários e camponeses, varrer os exércitos brancos apoiados por dezoito corpos expedicionários estrangeiros, suscitar um extraordinário florescimento cultural, levantar o entusiasmo do movimento operário e dos povos dominados, derrotar a “invencível” Wehrmacht e, durante mais de sete décadas, pôr no cerne do problema geopolítico global a contradição socialismo/capitalismo, a descolonização e a igualdade entre homens e mulheres.

Difamando a seu bel prazer Outubro de 1917, suas causas, seu progresso e suas sequelas, procura-se também dar tons cor de rosa ou branquear ao máximo o terrível resultado da restauração global do capitalismo que sob o nome de “globalização liberal” resultou na liquidação da experiência multifacetada da Revolução bolchevique.

No entanto, os inquéritos de opinião atestam que feita sucessivamente a experiência de dois de sistemas sociais antagónicos, os povos do antigo campo socialista e mais fortemente ainda os da ex-URSS, continuam a honrar Lenine e todos os que permitiram a construção de uma sociedade alternativa em termos de ganhos sociais, paz civil, direito ao trabalho, acesso a cuidados de saúde e educação, respeito pelas minorias, desenvolvimento das culturas nacionais e das línguas, desenvolvimento científico, etc.

Não deverão os verdadeiros democratas escutar a palavra dos povos ao invés de esmagá-los sob o termo pejorativo de “Ostalgia”? Será assim tão constrangedor que povos que sucessivamente testaram os dois sistemas sociais, e que não esqueceram por essa razão os bloqueios do “socialismo real” nos anos 70/80, afirmem apesar disso, depois de ter experimentado a restauração capitalista, a “Integração europeia” supranacional e neoliberal, a desestabilização sangrenta de países inteiros (Jugoslávia, Ucrânia…), a ascensão de extremistas de direita, a pressão militar exercida pela NATO nas fronteiras da Rússia, que o socialismo era sem dúvida melhor, incluindo os seus defeitos, que a explosão de máfias e das desigualdade que lhe sucederam sob a altamente discutível designação de “democracia liberal”?

É por isto que os signatários deste texto, ainda que não tenham necessariamente todos os mesmos pontos de vista sobre a história russo-soviética, fazem ponto de honra em dizer com força que a Revolução de Outubro de 1917 deve deixar de ser lida apenas com o óculos “brancos”, “termidorianos”, contrarrevolucionários, ou mesmo claramente fascizantes daquelas e daqueles que em lugar de estudarem o movimento comunista, as lutas das classes dominadas e as revoluções populares – incluindo frequentemente a Revolução francesa e a Comuna de Paris – as combatem sem sequer ter a honestidade intelectual de evidenciar a sua orientação partidária.

Não se trata para nós de exigir uma hagiografia da Revolução russa, mas de permitir às gerações jovens abordar o estudo do passado dialeticamente, avaliar a sua complexidade a partir das dinâmicas das classes e das relações de forças internacionais da época, tendo em conta todos os seus aspectos; e acima de tudo, realizar este estudo sem palas anticomunistas nos olhos, sem preconceitos antissoviéticos e, finalmente, sem posições políticas contrarrevolucionárias.

Contra aqueles que tentam já apropriar-se da próxima comemoração de Outubro de 1917 na base de evidentes preconceitos antibolcheviques, reabramos o debate contraditório, voltemos aos factos e proceda-se à sua recontextualização. Numa palavra, evite-se fazer do 100º aniversário de Outubro uma forma de vingança póstuma para os “Brancos” e todos aqueles que, na nossa época, sonham com um mundo definitivamente adquirido para o capitalismo, a integração euro-atlântica, a regressão social, as guerras imperialistas e a fascisação política.
Primeiros signatários:
Marie-Claude Berge , professeur d’histoire; Gwenaël Bidault , syndicaliste CGT (Sécurité sociale, 22) ; Jean-Pierre Bilski , professeur d’histoire (34) ; Pierre Boismenu , psychanalyste et philosophe : Danièle Bleitrach , sociologue (13) ; Christiane Combe , professeur de SVT retraité (19) ; Jean-Pierre Combe , ingénieur polytechnicien (19) ; René Coucke , psychanalyste (59) ; Jean-François Dejours , professeur de philosophie, syndicaliste (59) ; Jean-Marc del Percio , docteur en sciences politiques, ancien chargé d’enseignement à l’IEP de Lyon ; Aurélien Djament , mathématicien au CNRS, syndicaliste (44) ; Bruno Drweski , maître de Conférences HDR, Membre de l’ARAC ; Henriette Dubois , « Nelly » dans la Résistance, ancien agent de liaison des FTP de la zone Sud, chevalier de la Légion d’honneur ; Marianne Dunlop , professeur agrégé de russe ; Jean-Michel Faure , professeur émérite de sociologie, titulaire d’un doctorat 3ème cycle à l’EHSS sur l’Agriculture Russe ; Vincent Flament , militant de la solidarité internationale, 59 ; Joëlle Fontaine , professeur d’histoire retraitée ; Benoît Foucambert , professeur d’histoire, syndicaliste (81) ; Marc-Olivier Gavois , professeur d’histoire ; Jean-Christophe Grellety , professeur de philosophie (33) ; Jean-Pierre Guelfucci , militant syndical, fils de Résistant ; Gilda Guibert , professeur agrégé d’histoire (78) ; Jean-Pierre Hemmen , directeur de la revue théorique Etincelles, fils de Jean Hemmen, Fusillé de la Résistance, ancien militant de l’Internationale communiste et des Brigades internationales d’Espagne (80) ; Gisèle Jamet , professeur d’histoire ; Edmond Janssen , éditeur (75) ; Jean-Pierre Kahane , mathématicien ; François Kaldor , avocat honoraire ; Fadi Kassem , diplômé de Sciences po. Paris, professeur agrégé d’histoire (78) ; Jacques Kmieciak , journaliste (62) ; Léon Landini, ancien officier FTP-MOI, grand Mutilé de Guerre, Officier de la Légion d’honneur, Médaille de la Résistance, décoré par l’Union soviétique (92) ; Guy Laval , psychiatre (75) ; Ivan Lavallée , universitaire et chercheur en informatique ; Yves Letourneur , poète, philosophe ; Thérèse Lévené , enseignante-chercheure en sciences de l’éducation, université de Lille 1, vice-présidente du CNU 70, syndiquée au Snesup ; Olivier Long , universitaire et peintre ; Antoine Manessis , fils de Résistants, historien ; Annette Mateu-Casado , anc. documentaliste, fille de combattants antifascistes espagnols ; Aymeric Monville , éditeur de livres de philosophie et d’histoire (92) ; Dominique Mutel , agrégé d’anglais (62) ; Jean-Michel Pascal , ingénieur d’études (75) ; Anna Persichini, syndicaliste CGT (Métallurgie – 06) ; Guy Poussy , conseiller honoraire du Val-de-Marne ; Pierre Pranchère , ancien maquisard FTPF de Corrèze (dite la « Petite Russie »), ancien député ; Christophe Pouzat , neurobiologiste (94), Benoît Quennedey , historien (75) ; Marie-Noël Rio, écrivain (Allemagne) ; Hervé Sczepaniak , professeur de lettres ; Jean-Pierre Sienkiewicz, agrégé de physique, syndicaliste (24) ; Stéphane Sirot , historien du syndicalisme (59) ; Romain Telliez , historien. Université de Paris-Sorbonne ; André Tosel , professeur émérite de philosophie à l’Université de Nice ; Yves Vargas , philosophe, fils de Résistant ; Maxime Vivas , écrivain et journaliste.

Associam-se a este apelo-petição internacional:
Barbara Flamand , écrivain, Bruxelles; Domenico Losurdo , philosophe et historien, professeur émérite à l’Université d’Urbino (Italie) ; Anita Prestes , professeur à l’Université Fédérale de Rio de Janeiro; Miguel Urbano Rodrigues , anc. député portugais au Conseil de l’Europe, anc. militant antifasciste et anticolonialiste, historien du mouvement communiste.

Para assinar clique aqui .

O original encontra-se em http://www.initiative-communiste.fr/…

Este documento encontra-se em http://resistir.info/ .

Famine and Socialism — STALIN’S MOUSTACHE

One of the great myths concerning socialist collectivisation of agriculture is that it produced ‘man-made’ famines, since it is supposedly less ‘efficient’. This story is perpetrated by friend and foe alike. Example 1: The famine of 1932-33 in the Soviet Union, which is supposed to have been ‘man-made’. Let me set the context. During the […]

via Famine and Socialism — STALIN’S MOUSTACHE

The “Holodomor” and the Film “Bitter Harvest” are Fascist Lies

CTnYtsRWEAERS53

http://www.counterpunch.orghttp://www.counterpunch.org

Posted By Grover Furr On March 3, 2017 @ 12:18 am In articles 2015 | Comments Disabled
(Author’s note: In this article I rely heavily on the evidence cited in the research of Mark Tauger of West Virginia University. Tauger has spent his professional life studying Russian and Soviet famines and agriculture. He is a world authority on these subjects, and is cordially disliked by Ukrainian nationalists and anticommunists generally because his research explodes their falsehoods. )

22without-jews-there-would-never-have-been-bolshevism

Judeus: os bodes expiatórios

 

The Ukrainian nationalist film “Bitter Harvest” propagates lies invented by Ukrainian nationalists. In his review Louis Proyect propagates these lies.

Proyect cites Jeff Coplon’s 1988 Village Voice article “In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right.” In it Coplon shows that the leading “mainstream” anticommunist Western experts on Soviet history rejected any notion of a deliberate famine aimed at Ukrainians. They still reject it. Proyect fails to mention this fact.

There was a very serious famine in the USSR, including (but not limited to) the Ukrainian SSR, in 1932-33. But there has never been any evidence of a “Holodomor” or “deliberate famine,” and there is none today.

The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who found havens in Western Europe, Canada, and the USA after the war. An early account is Yurij Chumatskij, Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others? published in Australia in 1986 by “Veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” this work is an extended attack on “Jews” for being too pro-communist.

Proyect’s review perpetuates the following falsehoods about the Soviet collectivization of agriculture and the famine of 1932-33:

* That in the main the peasants resisted collectivization because it was a “second serfdom.”

* That the famine was caused by forced collectivization. In reality the famine had environmental causes.

* That “Stalin” – the Soviet leadership – deliberately created the famine.

* That it was aimed at destroying Ukrainian nationalism.

* That “Stalin” (the Soviet government) “stopped the policy of “Ukrainization,” the promotion of a policy to encourage Ukrainian language and culture.

None of these claims are true. None are supported by evidence. They are simply asserted by Ukrainian nationalist sources for the purpose of ideological justification of their alliance with the Nazis and participation in the Jewish Holocaust, the genocide of Ukrainian Poles (the Volhynian massacres of 1943-44) and the murder of Jews, communists, and many Ukrainian peasants after the war.

Their ultimate purpose is to equate communism with Nazism (communism is outlawed in today’s “democratic Ukraine”); the USSR with Nazi Germany; and Stalin with Hitler.

Collectivization of Agriculture – The Reality

Russia and Ukraine had suffered serious famines every few years for more than a millennium. A famine accompanied the 1917 revolution, growing more serious in 1918-1920. Another serious famine, misnamed the “Volga famine,” struck from 1920-21. There were famines in 1924 and again in 1928-29, this last especially severe in the Ukrainian SSR. All these famines had environmental causes. The medieval strip-farming method of peasant agriculture made efficient agriculture impossible and famines inevitable.

Soviet leaders, Stalin among them, decided that the only solution was to reorganize agriculture on the basis of large factory-type farms like some in the American Midwest, which were deliberately adopted as models. When sovkhozy or “Soviet farms” appeared to work well the Soviet leadership made the decision to collectivize agriculture.

Contrary to anticommunist propaganda, most peasants accepted collectivization. Resistance was modest; acts of outright rebellion rare. By 1932 Soviet agriculture, including in the Ukrainian SSR, was largely collectivized.

In 1932 Soviet agriculture was hit with a combination of environmental catastrophes: drought in some areas; too much rain in others; attacks of rust and smut (fungal diseases); and infestations of insects and mice. Weeding was neglected as peasants grew weaker, further reducing production.

The reaction of the Soviet government changed as the scope of the crop failure became clearer during the Fall and Winter of 1932. Believing at first that mismanagement and sabotage were leading causes of a poor harvest, the government removed many Party and collective farm leaders (there is no evidence that any were “executed” like Mykola in the film.) In early February 1933 the Soviet government began to provide massive grain aid to famine areas.

The Soviet government also organized raids on peasant farms to confiscate excess grain in order to feed the cities, which did not produce their own food. Also, to curb profiteering; in a famine grain could be resold for inflated prices. Under famine conditions a free market in grain could not be permitted unless the poor were to be left to starve, as had been the practice under the Tsars.

The Soviet government organized political departments (politotdely) to help peasants in agricultural work. Tauger concludes: “The fact that the 1933 harvest was so much larger than those of 1931-1932 means that the politotdely around the country similarly helped farms work better.” (Modernization, 100)

The good harvest of 1933 was brought in by a considerably smaller population, since many had died during the famine, others were sick or weakened, and still others had fled to other regions or to the cities. This reflects the fact that the famine was caused not by collectivization, government interference, or peasant resistance but by environmental causes no longer present in 1933.

Collectivization of agriculture was a true reform, a breakthrough in revolutionizing Soviet agriculture. There were still years of poor harvests — the climate of the USSR did not change. But, thanks to collectivization, there was only one more devastating famine in the USSR, that of 1946-1947. The most recent student of this famine, Stephen Wheatcroft, concludes that this famine was caused by environmental conditions and by the disruptions of the war.

Proyect’s False Claims

Proyect uncritically repeats the self-serving Ukrainian fascist version of history without qualification.

* There was no “Stalinist killing machine.”

* Committed Party officials were not “purged and executed.”

* “Millions of Ukrainians” were not “forced into state farms and collectives.” Tauger concludes that most peasants accepted the collective farms and worked well in them.

* Proyect accepts the Ukrainian nationalist claim of “3-5 million premature deaths.” This is false.

Some Ukrainian nationalists cite figures of 7-10 million, in order to equal or surpass the six million of the Jewish Holocaust (cf. Chumatskij’s title “Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others?”). The term “Holodomor” itself (“holod” = “hunger”, “mor” from Polish “mord” = “murder,” Ukrainian “morduvati” = “to murder) was deliberately coined to sound similar to “Holocaust.”

The latest scholarly study of famine deaths is 2.6 million (Jacques Vallin, France Meslé, Serguei Adamets, and Serhii Pirozhkov, “A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s,” Population Studies 56, 3 (2002): 249–64).

* Jeff Coplon is not a “Canadian trade unionist” but a New-York based journalist and writer, The late Douglas Tottle’s book Fraud, Famine and Fascism, a reasonable response to Robert Conquest’s fraudulent Harvest of Sorrow, was written (as was Conquest’s book) before the flood of primary sources from former Soviet archives released since the end of the USSR in 1991 and so is seriously out of date.

* Walter Duranty’s statement about “omelets” and “eggs” was not said “in defense of Stalin” as Proyect claims but in criticism of Soviet government policy:

But — to put it brutally — you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit. In fact, the Bolsheviki are more indifferent because they are animated by fanatical conviction. (The New York Times March 31, 1933)

Evidently Proyect simply copied this canard from some Ukrainian nationalist source. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

* Andrea Graziosi, whom Proyect quotes, is not a scholar of Soviet agriculture or the 1932-33 famine but an ideological anticommunist who assents to any and all anti-Soviet falsehoods. The article Proyect quotes is from Harvard Ukrainian Studies, a journal devoid of objective research, financed and edited by Ukrainian nationalists.

* Proyect refers to “two secret decrees” of December 1932 by the Soviet Politburo that he has clearly not read. These stopped “Ukrainization” outside the Ukrainian SSR. Within the Ukrainian SSR “Ukrainization” continued unabated. It did not “come to an end” as Proyect claims.

* Proyect cites no evidence of a Soviet “policy of physically destroying the Ukrainian nation, especially its intelligentsia” because there was no such policy.

A Triumph of Socialism

The Soviet collectivization of agriculture is one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20th century, if not the greatest of all, ranking with the “Green Revolution,” “miracle rice,” and the water-control undertakings in China and the USA. If Nobel Prizes were awarded for communist achievements, Soviet collectivization would be a top contender.

The historical truth about the Soviet Union is unpalatable not only to Nazi collaborators but to anticommunists of all stripes. Many who consider themselves to be on the Left, such as Social-Democrats and Trotskyists, repeat the lies of the overt fascists and the openly pro-capitalist writers. Objective scholars of Soviet history like Tauger, determined to tell the truth even when that truth is unpopular, are far too rare and often drowned out by the chorus of anticommunist falsifiers.

Sources: Mark Tauger’s research, especially “Modernization in Soviet Agriculture” (2006); “Stalin, Soviet Agriculture, and Collectivization” (2006); and “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” (2005), all available on the Internet. More of Tauger’s articles are available at this page: https://www.newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-on-the-famine-scourges-of-the-early-years-of-the-soviet-union/

See also Chapter I of my book Blood Lies; The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False (New York: Red Star Press, 2013), at http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_bloodliesch1.pdf

On the 1946-47 famine see Stephen G. Wheatcroft, “The Soviet Famine of 1946–1947, the Weather and Human Agency in Historical Perspective.” Europe-Asia Studies, 64:6, 987-1005.

35bdbc5dc0740b06a86b95898b4f9643

Distorção de História

Article printed from http://www.counterpunch.org: http://www.counterpunch.org

URL to article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/03/the-holodomor-and-the-film-bitter-harvest-are-fascist-lies/