text: Is there any guidance regarding when SUSARS can stop being sent to sites? Should they be sent until the site is closed? Or can this be at the discretion of the investigator if all patients are in long term follow up? I am thinking of situations such as oncology studies where all of the patients may be in long term follow up for some time, and the investigator may only wish to receive the 6 monthly and annual reports.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Holiday "ASL Jesus" 9oz Scented ASL Christmas Candle
Packed with immersive aromas, these custom ASL candle jars will light up any room and enhance the space with fragrance! The candle itself is made 100% with a natural soy wax blend and cotton wick. This scented ASL candle contains no lead, plastics, parabens, synthetic dyes, or phthalates. It also comes in a glass vessel that can be cleaned after burning the candle and reused as decor.
- One size (3″ × 3 2/8") (7.6cm × 8.25cm)
- 100% natural soy wax blend
- Average burn time: 50-60 hours
- 100% cotton wick
- Eco-friendly and non-toxic
- Reusable glass container
- One color: all scents have the same color
NOTE! For best results, burn candle 3 to 4 hours of each lighting and trim wick to 1/4". Discontinue use with 1/2" of wax remaining.


text:
In dogs, allergies to house dust, pollen, and mold cause atopic dermatitis, an itchy skin inflammation. Dogs, like people, can be desensitized through "immunotherapy" using shots or drops that deliver small doses of the allergen to "train" the immune system to tolerate foreign proteins.
Both technologies are now about a century old, but for humans and animals, allergy shots are more commonly used.
Chief author of the new study, Douglas DeBoer, a professor of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, sees several benefits emerging from the new study, which treated skin allergies in 217 dogs using allergy drops.
About 60 percent of the dogs improved significantly, DeBoer says. The drops were placed under the tongue twice a day, while allergy shots are injected every 14 days or so. Both drops and shots must be performed under a veterinarian's supervision, and their cost is comparable.
Because the drops apparently act through a different mechanism than allergy shots, they even helped dogs who had "failed" allergy shots, DeBoer says.
Dogs, like people, can rarely suffer a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to allergy shots, resulting in collapse and shock. However, even those dogs treated in the study that had previously had such a dangerous reaction to an allergy shot did not have it with the under-the-tongue method. "Drops appear to be safer than shots in this respect," says DeBoer.
DeBoer was not always so enthusiastic about allergy drops for dogs, says Mary Morris, M.D., of Allergy Associates of La Crosse. In about 1967, her father, Dr. David Morris, started using allergy drops with increasing effect on his allergy patients. Some were farmers with severe mold allergies who suffered aching arms and swelling from allergy shots or could not find the time to visit the clinic for regular shots.
In 2006, Morris says, a clinic employee asked her to try allergy drops on a "poor little golden retriever that was losing most of its coat, scratching uncontrollably. Based on the human protocol we use at the clinic, I made my best guess at the formula for treating a dog, and it worked really well."
Intrigued with the idea of a rigorous study for the treatment on dogs, she searched for an expert in canine skin allergies and DeBoer's name was at the top of the list. He seemed a natural fit — a world expert in the area who worked at University of Wisconsin-Madison, where both she and her father had gone to medical school.
Unfortunately, DeBoer "was extremely skeptical, and he basically told me no," she says. "I was very disappointed, and kept trying to persuade him this was a good research project." The two agreed on a pilot study of 10 dogs. "If it failed, it wasn't worth pursuing," she says. "But I think much to his surprise, it actually worked."
The outcome, Morris says, "was the study he is going to present in Vancouver."
Morris has licensed the technology to Heska Corp., whose CEO, Robert Grieve, is a former professor at the School of Veterinary Medicine.
With data in hand, DeBoer has overcome his skepticism. Although the drops must be given once or twice a day for at least several months, they have major advantages, he says. "A lot of owners are needle-shy, and would never consider giving allergy shots, and may not even have the dog evaluated for that reason. Now there is an option that is very user-friendly."
And what do the dogs think? "The drops have a slightly sweet flavor, so most dogs actually like them," says DeBoer. "Owners say their dogs consider them a treat and run toward them when they hear the bottle being opened. With the needle, they learn to run away."


text:
Brooks Building
1736 Tanana Loop
拸鎢觴豐 photos by Sierra Coley
The Brooks Memorial Mines Building was dedicated July 22, 1952. It housed the School of Mines for many years. After a $5.6 million renovation, the Brooks Building reopened in fall 2002 to house academic programs and services for rural and Alaska Native students. A gathering room, designed in the shape of an umiak, reflects the Alaska Native cultures served by the university. The College of Indigenous Studies main offices are located here.
The building is named in honor of Alfred Hulse Brooks, chief Alaska geologist of the U.S. Geological Survey from 1903 until his death in 1924.


text: About Toronto Sprain/StrainIntroduction "My back twitches and really hurts when I walk. I can't stand just standing up and don't even ask me to bend over!" Your family is betting that you are saying this just so you don't have to help paint the family room in which you just finished moving the furniture! But that is not likely the case. If you made just the wrong move when you pushed the piano or lifted that box of books, you probably pulled a muscle or tendon. Definition muscle tearing and usually associated with vehicle accidents, falls, lifting, etc. Sprain/strain injuries occur in any part of the spine: cervical spine - neck sprain/strainthoracic spine - mid-back sprain/strainlumbar spine - low back sprain/strain Read about your spine's sprain/strain, and contact Yorkville Chiropractic and Wellness Centre for an appointment! "This information and website content is not intended to diagnose, guarantee results, or recommend specific treatment or activity. It is designed to educate and inform only. Please consult your physician for a thorough examination leading to a diagnosis and well-planned treatment strategy. See more details on the DISCLAIMER page. Content is reviewed by Dr. James M. Cox I."


text:
Good Reader on the iPad has two forms of annotating PDFs:
- You can press and hold a location, and press Note to create a note icon with an annotation.
- You can select text, and then press highlight. You can then tap the highlighted text and press open to add a text annotation to this highlighted text.
I sent an annotated PDF to my mac via email. Preview handles the first annotations very well by displaying an editable note. The problem is with the second form of annotations. While Preview does show the highlighted text, there doesn't seem to be a way to easily modify, view, or copy the annotation that goes along with that text.
If I hover over the text, I can see the annotation text that goes along with the preview. What I would ideally like to do is one or more of the following:
- Identify which highlights have text or don't have text. Currently it is very difficult to know if a highlight has text or not. The only method I know of is to hover over the text and see if it contains a tooltip or not. Ideally I want the annotations list on the right panel to show me which highlights have text annotations.
- Copy the text from the annotations. It's currently located in a tooltip which cannot be selected.
- Modify the text in the annotations, e.g. using the same interface that normal text annotations can be modified.
- Convert these highlighted text annotations to the standard text annotations that Preview handles well.


text:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Our guest is actor John Boyega. This year, he won a Golden Globe for his performance in the anthology series "Small Axe," as a Black British police officer who joined the force in the 1980s to try to change the system. Boyega got his first international break when he was cast as Finn in the "Star Wars" film "The Force Awakens." Boyega spoke with our guest interviewer Sam Sanders, the host of NPR's It's Been A Minute. Here's Sam.
SAM SANDERS, BYLINE: A lot of you have probably seen John Boyega in a "Star Wars" movie - or two or three.
JOHN BOYEGA: (As Finn) You don't know a thing about me - where I'm from, what I've seen. You don't know the First Order like I do. They'll slaughter us. We all need to run.
SANDERS: Boyega played Finn in the "Star Wars" sequel trilogy films - "The Force Awakens," "The Last Jedi" and "The Rise Of Skywalker." And a recurring role in the "Star Wars" franchise - this is the stuff a lot of actors' dreams are made of. But after playing Finn, John Boyega said his time with Disney and "Star Wars" wasn't great and that, in some ways, he was treated differently, if not worse, than some of his co-stars because he's Black.
Since then, Boyega has made speaking out about race a big part of his public persona. And he recently starred in a movie all about race and policing. It is called "Red, White And Blue," and it's just one part of an anthology series created and directed by Steve McQueen. That series is called "Small Axe" - A-X-E. In his film, Boyega plays a Black West Indian police officer in London trying to change policing from inside the force. We talk about that. But, first, we talk about how John grew up in a Pentecostal church and how that shaped the person he is today.
So, John, I really want to begin, if you will allow it, by discussing something we both have in common - we were both raised Pentecostal church kids, which is for me a big deal.
BOYEGA: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, man, I was in the system.
SANDERS: How Pentecostal were you? Your dad was, like, a minister?
BOYEGA: Yeah, he had his own church. Our church was actually quite small through the years. It was a Pentecostal church - so a lot of charisma and music. But we - I mean, we were never, you know, like, you know, a T.D. Jakes kind of setup. It was just a relatively small church. So my experience was quite localized, you know, in terms of - you know, in comparison to everybody else who kind of, like, grew up in, like, a bigger church, where it was medium-sized or a megachurch.
SANDERS: How long was y'all's church services? Ours would go for hours.
BOYEGA: Oh, man, same thing.
SANDERS: There was never a program - just kind of, like, wait for the spirit. He's just, as long as the spirit's moving...
BOYEGA: Exactly, you know? And for some reason, man, the spirit takes a longer time for some reason. The spirit doesn't respect time. So we'd go in three, four hours sometimes, you know? And that's particularly hard on a Sunday because, you know, on Sunday, most times you're fasting on a Sunday. And so, yeah, you know, food is the only thing you're thinking about by the time you get to certain prayers (laughter).
SANDERS: So my mother was actually the church organist at our Pentecostal church growing up, so I had to be at every church service, which means that, in the summer, when school wasn't in session, I was at Tuesday night testimonial, Wednesday night midweek, Thursday night prayer service, Friday night church and Sunday service. And then on the fifth Sundays - if the month had a fifth Sunday - there'd be a second service on Sunday evening.
BOYEGA: That's the only thing that I was happy about - with the smaller Pentecostal church, you're not getting the second service. Do you know what I mean?
SANDERS: (Laughter).
BOYEGA: So it's like, with that, you get to just have your Bible study on Tuesday. Wednesday, I think, the cleaners will go in. Friday, prayer service. Saturday, you know, choir practice and, you know, the ushers come in and that kind of stuff. Then Sunday, you know, it's go-time. So I actually made a lot of friends there, and, you know, it is still a great source of spiritual motivation as well.
But I had a nuance of moments there. I think as I was getting older, sometimes I got a bit bored. But that wasn't necessarily to do with spirituality, but that was 'cause, you know, culturally, it was a Nigerian Pentecostal church, and sometimes, you know, whenever they go into their native language or, you know, whether it's kind of, like, the subject matter doesn't really fall in line with a teenage - you know, a U.K. teenage guy, you know, you're not necessarily thinking in the same kind of line as everyone else. So sometimes I'll just be, like, more detached, you know? I'll just think of movie trailers and stuff in my head while everybody else is praying.
SANDERS: Really?
BOYEGA: Yeah, man.
BOYEGA: To think about - you know, because I was still involved in acting while I was going to church. So I had to actually - 'cause I played the drums for the choir.
SANDERS: That's a serious responsibility. You were driving the music.
BOYEGA: Yeah. So yeah, I played drums. My sister played the keys. And then my other sister would sing. And then we had, like, two other people in the choir, and that's how it'd be. So, you know, I would have to do - go through praise and worship and then go to Theatre Peckham to go and, like, train and stuff. So I finally figured out a balance between the two, but sometimes I was not interested. I can't lie.
SANDERS: I used to - when I was really young, my mother would let me just take books to read during church.
BOYEGA: That's what you want, man. But, you know, no, man, sometimes Nigerian parents will kick you in the trenches, man. They'll kick into the deep waters and be like - all of a sudden, everybody's speaking in tongues. It's like, wait, wait, wait - I just got here. Like, how does this even work?
SANDERS: (Laughter) How does this work? I also read that when you told your father that you wanted to act, he wanted you to become a minister, but he was OK with you acting. That's a cool dad, especially to be a pastor.
BOYEGA: Yeah, no, I mean, my dad never wanted me to be a minister. I don't know how that got about. But...
SANDERS: Oh, sorry about that (laughter).
BOYEGA: That was something that came, I think, from one of - maybe a theater director that misspoke or whatever. But my dad, it was more about stability for him, you know? What's the stability? And I guess acting was a mystery, so they didn't understand it. So they would kind of like - it's kind of like when you have to take your kid to a game or some kind of hobby that you know absolutely nothing about, but it's kind of like, OK, well, if it makes you happy and you seem like you're good at it, you know, let's just kind of go along with it.
So my dad took me to my first-ever audition. My dad came to watch my shows, even when - right up to when I was at college, he came to my shows at Theatre Peckham. And I guess they had to learn to understand what it even was - like, you know, what does acting mean as a career, as a livelihood, you know?
SANDERS: It's so interesting to hear you talk about how your relationship with your father and your parents is pretty good and they were pretty supportive because you're here to talk about your recent Steve McQueen film, which is about a very conflicted father-son relationship, a really tense one.
BOYEGA: Yeah. I mean, that in itself is - also comes with the nuance of life. You've got to remember that when Leroy in "Red, White And Blue," when he's a scientist, his father is fully behind it because there's a sense of stability, and then there's a sense of a future. But when he changes his career or goes about certain things in a certain way, you know, sometimes your parents, you know, they trip, you know? And I had those fair share of those kind of moments.
So despite my parents supporting me most of the time, you know, there are still those moments where they are truly fearful for your stability. You know, how are you going to navigate the world if you're not, you know, on your own two feet? Because, you know, a parent's dream - right? - is to raise a child so that they can be strong enough to go about life themselves, you know? And in that comes a bit of fear when you go into a job that can be quite hard and is hard to level up and rise in the ranks. I guess that's something that we had to play on in "Red, White And Blue," and that's something that I could still pick on certain moments that related to that.
SANDERS: So "Red, White And Blue" is the film that you're in. You play Leroy, this police officer. But the film is part of a several-part series called "Small Axe." How much of the plot of your film, "Red, White And Blue," can you give to our listeners now?
BOYEGA: Well, you know, "Red, White And Blue" is about Leroy Logan, who starts off as a young scientist, has a deep-rooted connection with the community and decides that he wants to join the police force, the Metropolitan Police in the U.K., which at the time unfortunately wasn't the best time to join in the face of low numbers of especially Black police officers. But in a time where there's tensions between the general public and the police, Leroy feels like he could be a Black man who can go into the police force and change the institution from the inside-out.
SANDERS: Yeah. Yeah. And he is this Black man in London, son of immigrants, who goes into the police force to try and fix it. I'm guessing that you accepted this role before last summer's summer of protest and George Floyd's death and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Do you think you would have thought differently about taking on this kind of role - a Black man trying to fix the police force from within - had it been offered to you after George Floyd's death?
BOYEGA: No, definitely not. I think with me and acting, I have quite an organic relationship with acting and art that I don't allow the world to dictate. We're here to tell the stories of the untold sometimes. We're here to tell stories from a different perspective. You don't always need to fall in line with the opinions and direct decisions of the characters that you play, you know, hence why, you know, it's called acting. There's traveling to do because you're not playing you. And I'm really a big fan of that stretch and of getting into the minds of people that, you know, doesn't necessarily 100% align with me. So I would have been 100% behind that, you know, to play a police officer who's conflicted because, you know, when you say, you know, Black Lives Matter, it means, you know, the Black individuals who are also officers.
SANDERS: Leroy is a real person, a real Black man in the U.K. who joined the force. You talked with him in putting this movie together. In the movie, you play in Leroy. He experiences a lot of negativity once he joins the police force. Some of his white officers ostracize him. At one point, they write the N-word on his locker. Black people in the community call him a coconut and think that he's a sellout. Even at one point, Leroy's father questions why he became a police officer because his dad had a bad run-in with police officers. Was it actually that bad for Leroy when you talked with him?
BOYEGA: Yeah, he spoke about that. And in some respects, it actually got a bit worse because, you know, there's only so much you can show about somebody's journey that lasts well over a decade. And there's so much that goes down that you can't fit into this kind of format. But what we showed was that, in fact, the essence of what he went through but in its nuance on a day-to-day, it was quite stressful. You know, maybe you can handle the off kind of comment, you know, once every six months. You know, you can handle the off kind of, like, obstacle once every six months. But for someone like Leroy, it was handed down on a day-to-day basis as he patrols the streets, you know, as he goes into, you know, the Black communities. And then when he, you know, was going into the white communities, you know, building that bridge, as he said, is a really hard position. And I think he went through it, man, he really, really did.
SANDERS: Well, because he stayed in the force for decades, right?
BOYEGA: Yeah, he did. Yeah.
GROSS: We're listening to the conversation our guest interviewer, Sam Sanders, recorded with John Boyega. Boyega stars in the TV anthology series "Small Axe." We'll be right back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to the conversation our guest interviewer, Sam Sanders, recorded with actor John Boyega. He played Finn in the "Star Wars" sequel trilogy. He won a Golden Globe for his role in the anthology series "Small Axe." Sam is the host of the NPR show It's Been A minute.
SANDERS: You know, this film is also about assimilation and whether it can ever really happen. You know, your character, Leroy, is the son of immigrants in the U.K. He joins a police force, excels and still ends up being ostracized. As we said, his own father has a problem with his son being a police officer. And there's this scene where the two of them kind of get into it where Leroy says, I'm doing what y'all told me to do. This is what you taught me to do. And then you, as Leroy, you yell to your dad, you wanted us to be more British than the British.
BOYEGA: (As Leroy Logan) Isn't that what you taught us? Isn't that what you drilled into us? Study every hour, God said. Don't leave the house or mix with the Black kids. Educate ourselves at the expense of our lives. You made us feel like we could be a part of everything. You wanted us more British than the British. At least this way, Dad, I can change things seriously. Dad, seriously, what do you think I am?
SANDERS: That stung because I think, for so many Black people across the world, we are told that if we in some way perform the right version of us, it will be OK.
BOYEGA: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like, you're going to get the - more opportunities. You're going to rise faster. And, you know, it's a stressful existence for people to keep, especially after a long amount of time.
SANDERS: Has playing this role made you think differently or reflect on assimilation and you and how assimilated you think you are, John Boyega?
BOYEGA: I don't know. I don't know. It made - I think for the most part, this role made me think about my relationship with my dad. I think that was like, for me, the most fundamental thing that was kind of like the beating heart of Leroy's journey and of his change.
SANDERS: Tell me more.
BOYEGA: Well, it's because - you know, when we - when myself and Steve - Steve McQueen - would speak on set, we would speak about our relationship with our fathers. What happens to those, you know, dynamics? You know, what happens when you decide to make that life-changing choice and then you want your father's blessing right before you go and conquer the world? You know, every guy has that kind of feeling of wanting their dad to give them that kind of support as they move forward. You know, what happens when you don't get that and, in a sense, have to earn that as you kind of, like, grow and go along?
SANDERS: What did Steve say about all this stuff? What stuck with you the most from what he told you?
BOYEGA: Steve's fixation to me was on what art is. Like, he always made a statement of saying, remember, you're an artist. You're an artist. You're an artist. And that always spoke to me because he was kind of giving me that balance in which, you know, sometimes your talent and, yes, what makes you financially stable, what makes you known by people, but sometimes, you know, that art can be used for some form of good. And him kind of putting such an emphasis on being an artist gives me a different definition than wanting to be a movie star or, you know, being an artist really makes me feel like I can still tell stories, but then at the same time, I can help people. I can - and not be seen as, you know, trying to do it for any other reason than to take a leaf out of my own book in the sense that I went through some stuff and someone helped me. I just would really appreciate that if I could be like that in someone else's story.
SANDERS: It's interesting to hear you talk about Steve McQueen telling you to, you know, be an artist, because for a lot of people over the last few months, you became an activist. You've been rather outspoken on issues of race in Hollywood recently. You know, first last summer, you gave a speech at a Justice for Black Lives rally.
BOYEGA: I want to thank every single one of you for coming out. This is very important. This is very vital. Black lives have always mattered. We have always been important. We have always meant something. We have always succeeded regardless. And now is the time. I ain't waiting. I ain't waiting. I have been born in this country. I'm 28 years old, born and raised in London. (Unintelligible) time, every Black person understands and realize the first time you were reminded that you were Black. You remember - every Black person in here remembered when another person reminded you that you were Black.
SANDERS: And after that, you also gave an interview in GQ and, you know, basically made the point that some of the racism doesn't just exist in policing. You know, you talked about how your character in the "Star Wars" films that you were featured in was marginalized, given less of a plot, less character development, probably because that character was Black. This became a big deal. But, you know, when I read that GQ article where you said what you said, I couldn't tell if you wanted it to become a big deal or not. What did you want to come out of those comments?
BOYEGA: Well, I think I wanted to discuss the elephant in the room that is easily dismissed sometimes, easily seen as a selfish act, a way to put the attention on you. I wanted to discuss an issue that I discussed with actors on set, an issue that I had discussed with, you know, professional individuals, you know, execs, producers who I'd meet, whether at award shows or meetings, who were noticing the same things I'd noticed. You know, I tell the story of walking in a park and someone random - and this is somebody that was not even in industry basis - he just recognized me. And, you know, he even mentioned kind of like seeing the change in trajectory in my character and just all the stuff that I mentioned in that GQ article, you know, at the time.
And I guess I just wanted to say it out loud so that it wouldn't be an awkward conversation to have, because I think, in general, what I realized after all of this is that, in general, I think human beings assume the worst. So as soon as you open up about something like that, people assume that you're doing it for the worst reasons - right? - doing it for yourself. And, you know, you just (unintelligible) you and whatever. But they forget that there's a big process, and especially when it comes to studio films and characters. The characters are only as good as the moments that you give them. When we talk about, you know, Captain America and him kind of facing off Thanos and his army, when you talk about these moments that are given to characters, it's only because these moments are written by somebody. These moments are put in there on purpose to elevate characters.
We've got people now watching "Falcon And The Winter Soldier," and a lot of people have been commenting about the elevation of Falcon's character - right? - in the series and how they've really done well with bringing him up, which I also agree as well. You know, and we can see there is - that's because you give characters these special moments, you know. But then what then happens when, you know, some moments feels like you're being bypassed and it kind of goes for years and years and things pile on? Remember, there were so many different issues with the Chinese poster and, you know, the crescendo of that.
SANDERS: We should say what that was for listeners.
BOYEGA: Yeah. In China, you know, my image was kind of like minimized and in some posters completely taken off for the Chinese version of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens."
SANDERS: So you were smaller than the white actors on the poster if you were there at all. How did that feel?
BOYEGA: At the time, I would - you know, I've spoken about it before, spoken about it many times. And, you know, I just was kind of like, well, I'm in the movie. Like, you know, much like what I said when I had to respond - And I guess a lot of people forget that, at the time, I was the only Black guy on the cast.
SANDERS: Yeah. And a black stormtrooper at that. It's a big deal.
BOYEGA: Right. Yeah. And like everybody else is getting announced. And there's no people saying that they want to boycott the movie. There's no weird messages. I'm not - you know, people are not, you know, calling you all types of names, you know. So the experience in itself becomes quite unique for you, right? But as you go along and all these issues pile on top, you know, I just thought it was, you know, quite important to say something, so it's not an elephant in the room. And I think that, you know, more conversations have even been bubbling with other actors now in different, you know, projects and franchises. And they just, you know - things that they noticed as well. And, you know, it's a conversation worth having, to be honest.
GROSS: We're listening to the conversation our guest interviewer, Sam Sanders, recorded with John Boyega. Boyega plays Finn in the "Star Wars" sequel trilogy. He stars in the anthology series "Small Axe," which is streaming on Amazon Prime Video. We'll hear more of their interview after a short break. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to our interview with actor John Boyega. He played Finn in the "Star Wars" sequel trilogy. His other films include "Attack The Block," "Detroit," and "Pacific Rim Uprising." He won the Golden Globe for his leading role in the anthology series "Small Axe." He played Leroy Logan, a real-life Black British police officer who joined the force in the 1980s to try to change the system. Boyega has been outspoken about systemic racism in society and in Hollywood. Last year, he was part of a Justice for Black Lives rally in London. And in an interview, he talked about how his character in "Star Wars" was sidelined along with the other characters played by actors of color. Boyega spoke with our guest interviewer Sam Sanders, the host of the NPR show It's Been A Minute. When we left off, they were talking about Boyega's comments about "Star Wars."
SANDERS: You think it's getting better? From the time you made those comments about "Star Wars" to now, do you think there's been progress made? There's so much discussion around visibility and representation in the industry.
BOYEGA: I've seen some amazing shows. I'm seeing some amazing creatives growing. But as I even grow in my own education, I'm starting to look behind the scenes, you know? I'm starting to look about these teams and sometimes the streaming platforms that could sometimes play into the diverse game just through acquiring projects. Like, you know, is the diversity coming from the decision-makers on your team, you know, the execs, the producers? Or is it coming through you acquiring, you know, Black projects and just buying them?
SANDERS: Which is preferred? Is it better when these big studios acquire, you know, content of color from creators of color? Or should they do a better job of just integrating that stuff into their entire structures?
BOYEGA: I think - yeah. I think they absolutely, absolutely need to integrate that into their structure. And we're already seeing that happening - right? - on some fronts. You gain more perspective when you hire the individuals on ground to kind of give birth to these ideas, who also, you know, kind of are thinking parts for what's next, what entertains us, you know? And I feel like you're getting to a point now where a lot more people are interested in entertainment. You know, there is also a responsibility to gain access to these people and try to, you know, change the actual structure so that you don't need to prep, scramble and be like, we need more Black movies.
BOYEGA: You know what I mean? Stop scrambling man. Try and get the structure, you know, organic, in a sense.
SANDERS: Well - and then it raises another question. How do you make it? And, like - I don't know. I think a lot. Instead of saying, like, how do we make Hollywood work better for people of color? It's like, Hollywood was not created for people of color. Hollywood was created for white people by white people with the whims of white people. I'm just saying what it is. And maybe there's a moment to imagine something different and new. And I don't know. Do you think the industry is going that way? Like, just saying, well, how do we make something new?
BOYEGA: Yeah. I've been brainstorming that myself. As you know, I set up my own production company a good few years ago in light of kind of, like - and this is even before the protests or any kind of things like that. I just set it up to gain my independence and to be a part of the creative, you know, process and just to see the way in which the industry is changing, collaborations that are being had. You know, there's a lot of change, you know, here and there. But for me, it does come down to that fundamental question and statement. And it's something that I've been brainstorming, you know, taking apart, putting it back together. I recently listened to a Tyler Perry speech. He spoke about ownership. And that in itself makes you go, oh, damn. Like, you're just like, OK, OK.
What - like, what is being said now about what we're doing? Because I truly believe that when you give us a chance to tell our stories and give us the quality, I feel the industry would change forever. And it's continuously doing that. But I guess, you know, I don't feel like behind the scenes, we're completely at the forefront of those discoveries and kind of projects, you know, all the time. You know, and shouts out to production companies like Macro, you know, by Charles King. Like, you know, what they just did with "Judas And The Black Messiah," man, like, these guys are kind of like - they have that vision. I think, recently, he said that, you know, if you think about Universal and Disney, that's what he's looking to aim toward. And for me, that's what I'm talking about right there. I need the guy on the top to be able to be Black enough to make some decisions (laughter).
SANDERS: OK. I'm rooting for it.
BOYEGA: Yeah. Bump all these filters now, man. And also, like, look what we've done, man. We've got to remember, man, like - come on, guys, man. Look at what we done, man, when we saw our people in Wakanda - look at what we done with those numbers. You know, not to say it was just us, but look at the way we poured into that just in a celebratory sense, in terms of our passion. We are the - we are an amazing fanbase. But it will be great to see that, you know, come to us as well.
SANDERS: And also, what "Black Panther" proved was that all kinds of people will watch Black people on a screen.
BOYEGA: Exactly. Yes. Exactly. I feel like a lot of people sometimes, they're just like, you know what, man? I just want to see something with quality, you know, with great effects, with great scope, something that shows that somebody invested into it, because we have to think about just the basic, you know, the characteristic investment. There's an interest there, right? It's a lot for it. You know that it's going to grow into something that's going to benefit you, you know, and take away all the business and the politics that essentially starts from a feeling from when you hear about the projects, right, for when you pitch the project. And, you know, for some reason, man, the feeling is - it's kind of scarce (laughter). And now we want to double up on that feeling.
SANDERS: Well - and it's just like - it's so common sense. I'm sure you can relate to this. As a Black kid growing up, watching all kinds of TV and movies, I watched a lot of white TV and a lot of white movies because it was around.
BOYEGA: Yeah, because they were - yeah.
SANDERS: And I liked it.
BOYEGA: And some [expletive] was good.
SANDERS: And it was fine.
BOYEGA: Yeah (laughter).
SANDERS: Yes. And so if I can watch...
BOYEGA: Some dope ass white characters, man - ain't no problem.
SANDERS: Yes. If I can watch white people on the screen...
BOYEGA: Right. Right.
SANDERS: ...I'm willing to venture white people can watch Black people on the screen, too.
BOYEGA: I'm out here watching these shows. I'm rooting for these white people. I'm crying when certain white characters get killed. You can do it, too (laughter).
SANDERS: I watched "Friends."
BOYEGA: Right (laughter).
SANDERS: I watched, like, six seasons of "Friends," John. Come on.
BOYEGA: Right. Oh, facts.
SANDERS: What was John Boyega's experience with the police as a young Black kid?
BOYEGA: Well, as a young Black kid, I mean, I didn't really see them growing up in a sense of, like, they weren't at my door. But I saw them in my environment. You know, my mom and dad had us going to church. And, you know, we were always just really busy with being involved in the church environment. And then, you know, I found acting. But, I guess, when I started going to secondary school, and especially in Peckham at the height of knife crime and, you know, several things going on - I just saw them as kind of, like - they were aliens to me, in a sense. Like, they were so distant to my experience and to my world. In fact, the first time I actually had - I met the police was, unfortunately, one of my friends was murdered. And because me and my sister was one of the last people to see him, they came to our house to check if we saw anything. And obviously, he was Nigerian. And being part of the Nigerian community, that's the first time I saw that uniform in my living room.
SANDERS: What was your reaction as a kid in that moment? What were you feeling?
BOYEGA: Well, I was scared for - you know, for my friend. I was scared for my friend. I was scared for his situation because we just left him. You know what I mean? So it's like, you know, for us, it was just, like, the safety. And they're the police. They was the only ones with the information. I guess as we - as it got along and, you know, things started to get more intense, you know, I did, you know - you go through situations where there's a stop and search.
And for me, that was irritating because sometimes you'll just be with your friends. And then, maybe if you're at the bus stop and something's happened in Wharf Road and you're at Elephant and Castle, you know, they're stopping, like, every young guy that's there. So like, you're going through a situation where you're getting lined up, you know, in front of the streets. And then other buses are packed on the top and the bottom. And there's aunties and uncles. And I don't know who's going to see me from church. (Laughter) You know what I mean? And, you know, they're seeing you getting stopped and searched. And you know how people - they assume that, you know, sometimes that that's all the bad boys and this kind of stuff, you know?
Sometimes, for me, it just wasn't really comfortable. And, you know, living in a flat in a constant (ph) state, you know, you're living closely, you know, with strangers. Some strangers, you get to know. Some strangers, you have conflicts with. And, you know, we went through so much stuff, you know, living there and in our relation to the police. And then sometimes it was good. And sometimes, you know, you had individuals that was just - they was bad and really dismissive and sometimes even rude. And so for me, you know, my relation with the police is - has been mixed based on the officers that I've come across. But in close relations to people I love who are also in my environment, it's not great.
SANDERS: Was there ever a time when you thought about being a police officer yourself?
BOYEGA: Hell [expletive] no (laughter).
SANDERS: OK. All right. I had to ask.
BOYEGA: Me, I want to make money and change my family's life (laughter). Nah. No.
SANDERS: OK. OK. Well, you know, we learn from the film that you look good in uniform.
BOYEGA: I mean, I had to fill the shoes, man. But that's where the acting comes in, doesn't it? (Laughter).
SANDERS: OK. OK. Understood. Understood.
BOYEGA: Yeah. But honestly, I commend anybody that goes into that job, bro, because I couldn't possibly do it.
SANDERS: You know, these are two different conversations - you last summer speaking about racism and policing versus you last fall speaking out about racism in the film industry and the "Star Wars" franchise seems like two different things, but the more that I thought about it, it kind of feels pretty similar. Like, I don't know. I kind of imagine, in some ways, "Star Wars" feels like the police force of the movie industry. It is ubiquitous. It is iconic. It is larger than life. There's a mythology around it. There's a legion of supporters who would do almost anything, it seems, to uphold that brand. It feels as if like both are these behemoths that are hard to tackle.
BOYEGA: I mean, yeah. I mean, "Star Wars" comes with a challenge, but I always took it on the chin. I mean, you have to understand that. Sometimes when people heard what I said, they'd be like, you know, man, just shut the hell up, dude. Like, you're making all this money. And you're in this position. A lot of people don't get that opportunity. But, you know, I'm not going to sit here and lie to you and say that when I started in the industry, I had everything figured out. Like, one day you're in your flat in Peckham, next day, you know, you're making millies (ph), walking on red carpets. Like, that's a transition. You know, I don't want to boo-hoo it, but it's a bloody experience.
But then what then happens when you go into a space and you see that there's further elevation? I mean, you see that there's - you go in there thinking that, you know, the hamburger and fries that you got was the best you're going to ever get, not knowing that there's other people in there getting a little side of bacon and...
SANDERS: Getting a steak down the table.
BOYEGA: ...The seasonings thrown in there. And, you know, it's not until those kind of things, you know, happen, you're like, I don't want to sound complacent, but shouldn't - you know what I mean? And I think those conversations should be had. And I'm glad at the time I was able to say something about it. And then also, when that conversation is now out there, I've spoken to actors who have said, now we can make a reference, bro. You don't understand. Now we can have a discussion with the director. I see that. Like, bro, like, I would like more of a backbone in this. I feel like my character would make more of a stronger decision. I feel like - you know, what I mean? Now we can have that.
SANDERS: So they're quoting you when they're asking for more. That must feel cool.
BOYEGA: But now it's a reference. You can say, well - but it was also kind of like, you know...
SANDERS: I mean, it must feel nice.
BOYEGA: It feels good, you know, to get that, you know, because there's now a reference, you know. Just go, OK, cool. You know - remember that we read the John Boyega situation. And to know that, I'm kind of like - you know, maybe, you know, it can be used as a nice kind of jump-off for other conversations that are now going on.
GROSS: John Boyega spoke with FRESH AIR guest interviewer Sam Sanders. Sam is the host of the NPR show It's Been A Minute. John Boyega stars in "Red, White, And Blue," which is part of the anthology series "Small Axe." The entire series is streaming on Amazon Prime Video. After we take a short break, Ken Tucker will review a new album by Sophia Kennedy, who makes pop dance and electronica music. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
100 years ago, on 5th September 1915, a small group of international socialists gathered in the tiny Swiss village of Zimmerwald. This was the first attempt to unite those socialists who were opposed to the War.
The First World War
The outbreak of War in August 1914 represented a fundamental turning point in the history of the world and that of the international workers' movement. Europe was being torn asunder by a terrible bloodbath for which the leaders of the Socialist International bore a direct responsibility. It is difficult to imagine today the trauma caused by the decision of the leaders of the parties of the Socialist International to support "their" bourgeoisie. It fell like a thunderbolt on the working class.
The position of the leaders of the Second International towards the First World War signified the de facto collapse of the International. From that moment onwards the war question concentrated the attention of socialists in all countries. This was the biggest betrayal in the history of the world workers' movement, profoundly shocking and disorienting the ranks of the International.
When Lenin read in Vorwärts ("Forward"), the official organ of the German Social Democracy, that the SDP members of the Reichstag had voted for the war credits, at first he refused to believe it, claiming that it must be a forgery put out by the German general staff to discredit the Social Democracy. (Trotsky's reaction was identical). How could this happen when in international congress after congress they had voted unanimously to oppose imperialist war and to utilise all methods to overthrow capitalism? However, once Lenin realised that it was true, he did not hesitate. He demanded a complete break with the Social Chauvinists.
At that time Lenin saw the biggest danger not so much in the Social Democratic right wing whose betrayal was clear and palpable, but in the "centrists" like Kautsky who concealed their opportunism behind sly ambiguity and pacifist phrases. He was struggling to convince the small numbers of internationalists of the impossibility of any rapprochement with the Social Democratic leaders who had backed the War. For this reason Lenin adopted an implacable stand and a very sharp tone, which offended the sensibilities of some people. To those who complained about this Lenin merely shrugged his shoulders. He was always more concerned about theoretical clarity and principles than on stepping on other people's toes.
Not for a moment did Lenin abandon the idea of recreating a genuine revolutionary international. But he was radically opposed to any suggestion of recreating the old Social Democratic (Second) International, which Rosa Luxemburg correctly described as a stinking corpse. Already at this time the idea of a new International was forming in Lenin's mind. But he was well aware that this could not simply be proclaimed. It had to be built through a struggle against the social chauvinists and the crystallisation of a revolutionary-internationalist tendency.
The fact is that Lenin found himself isolated at the beginning of the War. He therefore made every effort to contact left-wing tendencies in the Social Democratic parties of other nations. He followed the internal life of all the Socialist Parties very closely, scouring the foreign socialist press eagerly, enthusiastically welcoming every attack on social chauvinism. All Bolsheviks living abroad were asked to set up local "internationalist clubs". Those who knew the language of the country were instructed to participate in the labour movement of that country, especially the Socialist Parties.
The truth is that very few people succeeded in keeping their bearings at this time. Lenin in Russia and Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in Germany, the leaders of the Serbian Social Democrats, James Connolly in Ireland and John Maclean in Scotland were exceptions to the rule. Trotsky had adopted a clear revolutionary position against the war, as expressed in his book The War and the International.
Exiled in Paris, Trotsky published a Russian journal, Nashe Slovo, that defended the principles of revolutionary internationalism. With only a handful of collaborators and even less money, but with enormous sacrifices they managed to publish the journal on a daily basis, a unique achievement, unequalled by any other tendency in the Russian movement, including the Bolsheviks at the time. Trotsky recalls in My Life that the role of Nashe Slovo was recognized at the Zimmerwald Conference:
"The French delegates noted in their report the value of the Nashe Slovo in establishing a contact of ideas with the international movement in other countries. Rakovsky pointed out that the Nashe Slovo had played an important part in setting forth the development of the international position of the Balkan Social Democratic parties. The Italian party was acquainted with the Nashe Slovo, thanks to the many translations by Balabanova. The German press, including the government papers, quoted the Nashe Slovo oftenest of all; just as Renaudel tried to lean on Liebknecht, so Scheidemann was not averse to listing us as his allies."
Preparations for Zimmerwald
The first attempts at an international meeting took place in the autumn of 1914 in Lugano (Switzerland). The Italian and Swiss Social Democrats passed anti-war resolutions, but then spoiled everything by appealing to the IS Bureau (the leadership of the old International) to "hold a meeting as soon as possible to discuss international affairs". Since the "socialist" leaders of the belligerent states were acting as conscious agents of the ruling class, the Bolsheviks, who defended Lenin's theses on war, were naturally implacably opposed to this. The Lugano affair, which was tinged with pacifism ended in failure.
The first partial success was with the left wing of the Social Democratic women's organizations. On behalf of the Bolshevik women's newspaper Rabotnitsa, Inessa Armand and Alexandra Kollontai wrote to the German Social Democrat Klara Zetkin with a proposal to organize an international conference of left-wing socialist women. The conference was held in Berne, Switzerland in March 1915. Attendance was small (29 delegates from Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Holland, Poland and Russia) and was held in secret, partly due to the fact that the German Social Democratic leaders had prohibited attendance at the meeting.
The results were not great. The resolution that was passed did not go beyond a general pacifist-type condemnation of the war. The Bolshevik delegates proposed an alternative resolution, which said: "The woman worker will achieve her aim […] only through a revolutionary mass movement and a strengthening and sharpening of the socialist struggle." This only received the votes of the Russian and Polish delegates. But despite its confused and pacifist nature, the conference's manifesto helped to galvanise the resistance of women to the War. It was distributed illegally in large numbers – 200,000 in Germany alone.
One month later a conference of Socialist Youth was held in Berne. The initiative for an international youth conference came from the Swiss Young Socialists in collaboration with the Italian Socialist Youth and the Socialist Youth of the Stuttgart region of Germany. Before the War the Youth of the Second International had played a key role in the struggle against imperialism and militarism. But the Berne Conference displayed the same confusion that we saw in the women's conference. Once again the Bolshevik delegates moved a resolution advocating a revolutionary alternative to the imperialist War and once again they found themselves isolated.
The Scandinavian delegates moved a pacifist resolution, advocating disarmament (in the middle of a war!), which was passed by nineteen votes to three. The three who voted against were once again the Russians and the Poles. Only on the experience of great events, and especially the October Revolution, did the revolutionary policy of Bolshevism finally triumph. Eventually, in 1918 the Socialist Youth International went over to the side of Communism and joined the Third International.
The need for an international gathering of those who opposed the war became increasingly obvious. The Italian and Swiss parties, in whose ranks there was a strong anti-war mood, were best placed to organise this. The leaders of this initiative (Grimm and Balabanova) were centrists. They called a conference in Berne in July 1915. Significantly, however, they did not invite a single one of the real left groups, but they did invite the "centrist" leaders: Hugo Haase, Karl Branting and Peter Troelstra, against the Bolsheviks' protests. Needless to say, Grimm was opposed to the setting up a new International.
A preliminary organizing conference was held in Berne on 11 July 1915. Already at this meeting differences arose as to who would be invited to the Conference. The Bolsheviks proposed that it should be limited to those who stood on a clear and unambiguous anti-imperialist and anti-opportunist policy, but others wanted a "broad" meeting including all kinds of pacifist and centrist elements. The result was an uneasy compromise.
The Conference begins
The choice of venue was not without a certain irony. From every side came the deafening roar of cannon and the stutter of machine guns. But in the Swiss Alps there was perfect peace and tranquillity. The World War might just as well have been on another planet. In the sleepy small town of Zimmerwald everyday life pursued its usual course as it had done for generations.
This was the scene when, on 5 September 1915, a party of what were supposed to be ornithologists from all over the world set off from Berne in four horse-drawn carriages. They crossed the picturesque meadows of Längenberg to arrive in Zimmerwald in the evening. Due to the lack of beds in the Hotel Beau Séjour, some of the "ornithologists" had to be put up in the houses of the vet and the village postman.
The inhabitants of this sleepy Swiss village were highly indignant when they later discovered that the thirty-odd "bird-watchers" were in fact leading international socialists from twelve different countries who had responded to an invitation by the Swiss social democrat Robert Grimm to discuss how Europe's working class should react to the imperialist War. What these respectable Swiss burghers had to say about this outrage has unfortunately found no place in the history books, although it was probably of a fairly colourful nature. But what has become known as the Zimmerwald Conference must be seen as an important turning-point in history.
The very fact that they had come this far was already a great achievement. However, the composition of the meeting in Zimmerwald was, as we have indicated, rather heterogeneous. Zinoviev claimed, without doubt correctly, that the intention of Robert Grimm was to organise an international meeting, not of the Left but of the "Centre". That was something that Lenin was prepared to fight against with all his might. Lenin's aim was above all to rally the genuine Lefts and to bring about a radical break with the opportunists of the Second International.
There was enthusiasm about the Conference, which was logical after the long period in which the anti-war socialists had been working in isolation under the most difficult conditions. Upon arrival, when he looked around the room and saw the small number in attendance, Lenin made a joke. He said: "You can put all the internationalists in the world into four stage-coaches." But Lenin was anxious that the conference should settle the fundamental issues, and that there should be no papering over the cracks.
Lenin arrived early at the sleepy little Swiss village to hold long discussions with other delegates. For months he had been preparing for the conference, drafting documents with an unambiguous and uncompromising character. He amended the original manifesto which was too academic and not sufficiently militant for his liking. Even so, the majority of the delegates were far from consistent, and tended towards centrism.
At Zimmerwald, Lenin organised the "Zimmerwald Left". This was a minority within a minority (eight out of 38). The problem was not merely that the Left was isolated internationally. It was that even in Zimmerwald, the genuinely revolutionary Left was also in a minority. And at times Lenin found himself in a minority within the Left itself.
The conference began by reading declarations from people and organizations who could not be present. Delegates from the British Independent Labour Party and the British Socialist Party were prevented from attending because they were refused passports, but sent letters expressing their sympathies with the aims of the conference. Likewise the French revolutionaries Alfred Rosmer and Pierre Monatte were prevented from attending by the French government.
Without doubt the most important was a letter from the German Social Democrat Karl Liebknecht who was serving a prison sentence in Germany for his opposition to the War and whose name could not even be printed in the official report of the conference. Trotsky recalls:
"Liebknecht himself was not in Zimmerwald; he had been imprisoned in the Hohenzollern army before he became a captive in prison. Liebknecht sent a letter to the conference which proclaimed his abrupt about-face from pacifism to revolution. His name was mentioned on many occasions at the conference. It was already a watchword in the struggle that was rending world-socialism."
Karl Liebknecht letter was read out at the conference—an emotional moment in the proceedings: "I am a prisoner of militarism. I am in chains. Therefore I cannot address you, but my heart and my thoughts, all my being is with you." In his message Liebknecht advocated:
"An inexorable settling of accounts with the deserters and turncoats of the International in Germany, Britain, France, and elsewhere.
"Mutual understanding, encouragement, and a stimulus for those who are true to their banner and determined not to cede an inch to international imperialism, even if they are cut down. And Ordnung (order) in the ranks of those who are determined to hold on, stand firm, and struggle, with their feet firmly planted on the foundations of international socialism."
He also demanded: "Not civil peace but civil war! […] International solidarity of the proletariat above and against pseudo-national and pseudo-patriotic harmony among classes. International class struggle above and against the war among states. International class struggle for peace, for socialist revolution."
After that the delegates reported on the situations in their countries.
The French delegate Merrheim reported that in France the workers were said to be "in a state of disillusionment" and "demoralised:
"In France we are confronted with a completely demoralized working class, which at the present moment has lost all faith. They will listen to us if we speak of peace, but not if we repeat the old clichés." This pessimistic appraisal reflects something we have seen only too often: a tendency of the Lefts to blame the working class and the alleged "backwardness" of the masses for everything. Trotsky interrupted the speaker: "Monatte and Rosmer think otherwise."
The Balkan Socialists Christian Rakovsky and Bulgarian Kolarov gave a detailed account of their party's resistance to the Second Balkan War. Kolarov also spoke about the split between the Tesnyaki or "Narrow" socialists and the opportunists in the Bulgarian Social Democracy. A Balkan Socialist Federation had been formed by Social Democratic Parties, which excluded the opportunists.
The Italians reported on the persecution of socialists since Italy's entry into the War. This was accompanied with strikes and street demonstrations of the Italian workers. Henriette Roland Holst reported on the factional activity within the Dutch movement and Victor Chernov made the report on behalf of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party. Pavel Axelrod gave the report for the Mensheviks, playing down his party's ambiguous stance on the War.
Sharp conflicts
The Zimmerwald Conference was inevitably the scene of a sharp ideological conflict. The first document produced by the conference was a joint declaration by the French and German delegations. This statement, signed by Ledebour and Hoffman for Germany and Merrheim and Bouderon for France, declared that World War I was not their war, that it was caused by the imperialist and colonial policy of all governments. It advocated the restoration of Belgium and a peace without annexations or "economic incorporation" based on the self-determination of the people involved. The document advocated the ending of the policy of civil peace and a renewal of the class struggle in order to force their governments to end the war.
The sentiments expressed by Liebknecht were not the same as those expressed by Georg Lebedour, the representative of the Kautskyite "Centre", who was the main leader of the Right at Zimmerwald. His attempt to make excuses for the German Social Democracy provoked indignant protests that interrupted him. His reply to the protests is worth quoting:
"It was not possible for the minority to speak out in the Reichstag unless we established a new fraction, and we avoided that in order not to split the party. In wartime it is especially necessary to hold together so that we do not lose influence over the masses."
In these few words we have the essence of all left reformism and centrism. The right-wing Social Democrats cling to the bourgeoisie and the imperialists and slavishly do their dirty work; the "Lefts" cling to the right wing and slavishly subordinate themselves to it in the name of "unity", and thus preserve the influence over the masses – of the right wing and the bourgeoisie.
Answering Lebedour, Berta Thalheimer of the Spartakists said: "Comrade Lebedour has not spoken here for the whole opposition. There is also a minority within the minority, grouped around Liebknecht. It supports his stance of placing principles above party discipline."
Trotsky was very close to the Left politically, but still chose to remain independent. Even within the Left, however, there were differences. Within the left caucus Lenin's draft was rejected in favour of one by Radek. This resolution was then presented to the conference for referral to a drafting commission, but was rejected by a vote of 19–12. Trotsky voted in favour of the resolution. Grimm commented, not without some grounds, that Lenin's draft resolution "to the workers of Europe" was directed more to party members than the masses.
Lebedour did everything possible to water down the contents of the final statement. The German delegates insisted that parliamentary demands, such as voting against war credits and withdrawal from ministries, be excluded from the text, while Lenin and the Left added their reservations that the manifesto did not repudiate opportunism or advance a clear method of struggling against the war. The delegates of the Zimmerwald Left draft resolution, together with Roland-Holst and Trotsky tried to insert an amendment stating that the mention of war credits had to be removed from the manifesto and that Ledebour's statement that the "manifesto contains all that is implied [in such a] proposal". Ledebour protested that he would not sign the manifesto if that was included. As a result the amendment was withdrawn. In the end Trotsky was put in charge of drafting the Manifesto, which was adopted by all the delegates, in spite of the differences between them.
After Zimmerwald
Despite reservations, Lenin and the Left signed the Zimmerwald Manifesto. Lenin's attitude was summed up by the title of his article The First Step, where he writes: "In practice, the manifesto signifies a step towards an ideological and practical break with opportunism and social-chauvinism. At the same time, the manifesto, as any analysis will show, contains inconsistencies, and does not say everything that should be said."
In other words, he criticises the manifesto, not for what it says, but for what it does not say. The main thing was to develop the Zimmerwald Left as an independent current. Even so, many of the "Lefts" also immediately began to vacillate. Lenin in particular had trouble with Roland-Holst and Radek over the line of the official journal of the left, Vorbote (Herald), published in Holland with Pannekoek's assistance.
In his autobiography Trotsky wrote:
"The days of the conference, September 5 to 8, were stormy ones. The revolutionary wing, led by Lenin, and the pacifist wing, which comprised the majority of the delegates, agreed with difficulty on a common manifesto of which I had prepared the draft. The manifesto was far from saying all that it should have said, but, even so, it was a long step forward. Lenin was on the extreme left at the conference. In many questions he was in a minority of one, even within the Zimmerwald left wing, to which I did not formally belong, although I was close to it on all-important questions. In Zimmerwald, Lenin was tightening up the spring of the future international action. In a Swiss mountain village, he was laying the corner-stone of the revolutionary International.
"The conference put a strict ban on all reports of its proceedings written from Zimmerwald, so that news could not reach the press prematurely and create difficulties for the returning delegates when they were crossing the frontier. A few days later, however, the hitherto unknown name of Zimmerwald was echoed throughout the world. This had a staggering effect on the hotel proprietor; the valiant Swiss told Grimm that he looked for a great increase in the value of his property and accordingly was ready to subscribe a certain sum to the funds of the Third International. I suspect, however, that he soon changed his mind." (My Life)
The Conference set up an International Socialist Commission with a mandate to establish a temporary Secretariat in Berne that would act as an intermediary of the affiliated groups and begin to publish a Bulletin containing the manifesto and proceedings of the conference. But it was mainly composed of Centrists like Grimm and Balabanova and achieved very little.
Yet despite all its shortcomings, the Zimmerwald Conference marked a step forward for international socialism. One has to bear in mind the terrible isolation of the proletarian vanguard in those years when, to quote Lenin again, all the internationalists could fit into four stage coaches. Later, looking back on these events and summing up their significance, Trotsky was to write:
"During the war there was a silence as of death among the workers. The Zimmerwald conference was a conference of very confused elements in its majority. In the deep recesses of the masses, in the trenches and so on there was a new mood, but it was so deep and terrorized that we could not reach it and give it an expression. That is why the movement seemed to itself to be very poor and even this element that met in Zimmerwald, in its majority, moved to the right in the next year, in the next month. I will not liberate them from their personal responsibility, but still the general explanation is that the movement had to swim against the current." (Trotsky, Fighting against the stream, 1939)
After the conference, the work of uniting the internationalist revolutionary vanguard continued. It remained an uphill struggle. Under these conditions Zimmerwald undoubtedly provided a ray of hope, as Trotsky explains in My Life:
"The conference at Zimmerwald gave to the development of the anti-war movement in many countries a powerful impetus. In Germany, the Spartacists expanded their activities. In France a "Committee for the Restoration of International Connections" was established. The labour section of the Russian colony in Paris tightened its ranks about the Nashe Slovo, giving it the support needed to keep it afloat through constant financial and other difficulties. Martov, who had taken an active part in the work of the Nashe Slovo in the first period, now drew away from it. The essentially unimportant differences that still separated me from Lenin at Zimmerwald dwindled into nothing during the next few months."
But the French authorities were increasingly concerned about Trotsky's activities. For two and a half years, under the watchful eye of the censor, Nashe Slovo led a precarious existence until the French authorities, under pressure from the Russian government, closed down the journal. Soon after Zimmerwald, during a mutiny in the Russian fleet at Toulon, copies of Trotsky's paper were found in the possession of some of the sailors, and using this as an excuse, the French authorities deported Trotsky at the end of 1916.
After a short period spent in Spain, where Trotsky got to know the inside of Spanish prisons, he was again deported to New York, where he collaborated with Bukharin and other Russian revolutionaries in the publication of the paper Novy Mir, which published articles that were virtually indistinguishable from Lenin's line.
Divisions in the Zimmerwald camp
The tensions were, however, growing between the right and left of the Zimmerwald movement—a heterogeneous creature at best. Lenin was prepared for a temporary coexistence with the centrists, starting from a weak initial base. But it could not last. A de facto international split, which only Lenin really understood, already existed. Under conditions of war and revolution all half way currents are doomed to disappear. Lenin simply helped them on their way, insisting on clarification. Ambiguity is intolerable in critical moments of history when there is a pressing need to choose.
The objective situation was pushing the masses to the left, to the road of revolution. The centrist Zimmerwald current was dragging its feet. There were only two ways to go: either go the whole way, breaking decisively with reformism and passing over to an open revolutionary position, or to go back to the swamp of reformism. Lenin, by word and deed, made this abundantly clear. For that the centrists hated him, as at every moment in history a muddlehead always hates a man with clear ideas.
Robert Grimm was the first to move to the right. By the summer of 1916, he had gone over. Lenin was merciless in his criticism of the centrists who were revolutionary in phrases, but bourgeois-reformists in deeds. This was exactly what Lenin detested. Turati, Merrheim, Bourderon and the other Centrists sooner or later went the same way. In the end nothing was left of Zimmerwald, except the memory—and the Left!
Lenin continued his fight for a new International. But he had only a small handful of supporters and to tell the truth, was often in a minority within his own faction during the war. Prominent Bolsheviks like Bukharin, Radek and Pyatakov, for instance, had fundamental disagreements with him, especially on the important question of Self-determination. In the context of a war-torn Europe divided by barbed wire and with newspapers and correspondence subject to the steely gaze of the military censors, contacts with Russia were difficult in the extreme.
Zimmerwald's message, despite its incompleteness, was beginning to get across. Workers in the main are not accustomed to read the "small print" of political documents, but seize upon what they perceive to be the central message and fill it with their own content. Thanks to his participation in Zimmerwald Lenin's writings on war and the International became more widely known in different languages. The Zimmerwald Left gained important points of support for the future Third International.
In his memoirs, Shlyapnikov explains how the news of the Zimmerwald Conference gradually reached the workers in Russia and had a very positive effect in encouraging particularly those groups that were not directly affiliated to the Bolsheviks. "As it later turned out," he writes, "all these cells were to become adherents of the Zimmerwald resolutions. We should note that these grouplets were not interlinked and did not even know of the existence of the others similar to themselves."
This reaction was not confined to Russia. There were now the beginnings of ferment in the mass parties of the Second International. Germany itself was now moving towards a pre-revolutionary situation. Early in 1916, Otto Rühle, a Reichstag deputy, called publicly for a break with the social chauvinists. Independently, the German Lefts were coming to see the need for a new International. A series of public "Letters" originating from the German Left signed "Spartacus", was closely followed by Lenin. The Socialist Youth founded by Karl Liebknecht was the main base of the left.
Things were beginning to move in Austria too. In the autumn of 1916 there was the formation of a left wing in the Austrian Socialist Party (SPÖ) based on the youth. Anti-war agitation was conducted from the "Karl Marx Club" in Vienna. In France, a left group of MPs was formed and received letters of support from the trenches. In Britain, Hyndman's chauvinist group was forced out of the BSP at the Salford Conference in April.
In Italy, Serrati "the most left" of the leaders was still linked to the Centrists, while Gramsci, still a youth, supported Lenin's ideas. The Swiss Socialist Party rejected the Zimmerwald position as "too radical" but a big sector of the rank-and-file supported it. In Bulgaria, the Tesnyaki ("narrow" socialists) already had a revolutionary anti-war position. Revolutionary or quasi-revolutionary currents were beginning to crystallise within the existing mass organisations everywhere.
From imperialist war to socialist revolution
The road to revolution was long and hard then as it is now. History knows no short cuts, nor are there any magical formulas that can make our work any quicker or easier. Lenin spoke many times of the need for revolutionary patience. The difficulties we face today are insignificant compared to the terrible problems that confronted Lenin and Trotsky during the First World War. In a world where the workers were shooting and bayoneting each other to defend the interests of their respective ruling classes, the slogan Workers of the World Unite must have sounded like a grim irony. The cause of international socialism seemed to be dead and buried under a mountain of corpses. The prospect of socialist revolution seemed like an impossible Utopia, a futile dream.
It must have seemed that the nightmare of reaction would never end. And yet, beneath the surface a new spirit was gradually being born. In the muck and blood of the trenches, men's minds were stirring. In the bread queues undernourished women began to complain about the war and the rich parasites that were growing fat at the cost of their children. In the factories and fields the workers and peasants were beginning to move – at first slowly and hesitatingly, then with ever greater boldness and determination. The symptoms of a growing revolutionary crisis were unmistakable.
There was anecdotal evidence of a change. An angry crowd in Germany booed the right-wing Socialist leader Scheidemann. In Glasgow the working class women organized a rent strike with the support of the workers that had revolutionary overtones. In several countries there were demonstrations against the high cost of living. Above all, the increasing social ferment in all the belligerent powers was expressed in a sharp upsurge of strikes:
Year | Strikes | Strikers | |
Germany | 1915 | 137 | 14,000 |
1916 | 240 | 129,000 | |
France | 1915 | 98 | 9,000 |
1916 | 314 | 41,000 | |
Russia | 1915 | 928 | 539,000 |
1916 | 1410 | 1,086,000 |
In practical terms the actual achievements of that small conference in September 1915 were meagre. Its significance was more symbolic than real. The most important aspect was not the conference itself (the "Zimmerwald Movement", which contained contradictory elements, soon fizzled out and ended in nothing).
The Zimmerwald Left itself could not have an independent significance except as a stepping stone to the new International. But this had to be built on the basis of great events which were only a few months away. By going through the experience of Zimmerwald, Lenin had gained invaluable experience and a wide range of contacts in different countries. This was a necessary stage on the journey towards October. But such a perspective seemed very far off at the time.
The most important thing was Lenin's struggle to separate the genuine revolutionary internationalists from the general mishmash of left reformism and centrism, for genuine revolutionary Marxism, for the Third International. To many people it seems that Lenin was too harsh in his tone, too stubborn, too unyielding, in a word too "sectarian". But as Trotsky later wrote: "Coming from opportunists, the accusation of sectarianism is most often a compliment." It was precisely that uncompromising hardness that enabled Lenin, together with Trotsky, to lead the Bolshevik Party to victory.
Lenin was a very optimistic person. Yet even he was not immune from moods of depression. At times he was tormented by the thought that he might not live to see the revolution. Written on Christmas day 1916, he wrote a letter to Inessa Armand giving voice to his innermost misgivings: "The revolutionary movement grows extremely slowly and with difficulty." And added in a tone of resignation: "This must be put up with." In a speech to the Swiss young socialists delivered in January 1917, Lenin said: "We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution." One month later, the tsar was overthrown. In less than a year, the Bolsheviks had come to power in Russia.
To many people today the October Revolution may appear as something inevitable, almost preordained by Fate. But it was no such thing. The triumph of Bolshevism was not achieved quickly or easily. Before the Bolsheviks could conquer power, they first had to conquer the masses. And before they could conquer the masses, they first had to consolidate the revolutionary vanguard. This entailed a remorseless struggle to purge the movement of reformist and pacifist illusions, combat left reformist confusion and centrist vacillations and hammer out a genuinely revolutionary and internationalist policy. The Zimmerwald Conference represented an important stage in this struggle.
The meaning of Zimmerwald today
A century later, what conclusions should we draw from Zimmerwald? Only this: that the crisis of capitalism always produces its opposite. Out of the most reactionary situations can come new and unprecedented revolutionary explosions. And these can occur when they are least expected. The tiny forces that assembled in Zimmerwald could fill four stagecoaches. The forces of Marxism on a world scale today are relatively small but far more numerous than that. Moreover, the forces of genuine Marxism in 1915 were almost completely cut off from the working class. In every sense of the word they were fighting against the stream.
The real meaning of Zimmerwald today is that always, under all circumstances, it is our duty to continue the struggle for socialist revolution, to fight for the ideas of Marxism and to educate the cadres. Today it is possible to argue that the movement has been thrown right back. Lenin's Communist International was destroyed by Stalin and is now only a distant, half-forgotten memory. The October Revolution itself was undermined by the bureaucratic regime of Stalinism that seized power after Lenin's death and created a monstrous caricature of socialism, which dragged the Soviet Union down into the abyss. The fall of the USSR was presented as the end of Communism, the end of Socialism and even the End of History.
But history cannot be disposed of so easily. Twenty five years after the collapse of Stalinism, we are facing a far greater historical turning point. The crisis of 2008 showed that capitalism has reached its historical limits. Dialectically, all the factors that propelled the world economy upwards have combined to drive the whole system downwards in an endless spiral of economic decline.
In the six or seven years since that collapse began all the governments of the world have been striving to restore the old economic equilibrium. But all the attempts to restore the economic equilibrium have only served to destroy the social and political equilibrium. Moreover, all these efforts have failed to restore anything resembling an economic equilibrium. And now the world economy is teetering on the brink of a new and even more catastrophic fall.
This represents a sharp break in the situation, and it is inevitably accompanied by sharp changes in consciousness. Everywhere: from Turkey to Brazil, from Greece to Spain, from Scotland to Ireland, the masses are looking for a way out of the crisis. The old ideas, parties and politicians are being put to the test and discarded, as a man discards a dirty shirt and looks for a new one. There is a seething current of discontent, of indignation and of fury that gives rise to a search for a radical solution to the crisis.
The new generation is completely free from the prejudices, pessimism and poisonous scepticism that colours the outlook of the older layers who see only defeats and difficulties and have lost the will to fight. The youth is naturally revolutionary and is completely open to the ideas of revolutionary Marxism. It is on this layer that Lenin based himself when he proclaimed: "He who has the youth has the future!"
Today the International Marxist Tendency occupies the same ideological ground that was occupied one hundred years ago by the Zimmerwald Left. We are proud to adopt Lenin's banner as our own. We pledge ourselves to defend the ideas, programme and principles of Bolshevism as the only ideas that can lead humanity out of the terrible crisis into which capitalism has plunged it.
Like Lenin we will turn our backs on the cowards and sceptics who wish to abandon the ideas of Marxism, to water down our revolutionary programme in order to please the unity-mongers. Like Lenin we are implacable and unyielding on all questions of principle, but flexible on all questions of tactics. We call on all workers and youth who are looking for the revolutionary road to join the IMT and help us build the vehicle that is absolutely necessary to change society and bring about the socialist transformation of the world.
Note: A second conference was called in Kienthal from April 24 to 30, 1916, which was attended by Lenin, Zinoviev and Inessa Armand. It represented a step forward compared with the Zimmerwald Conferences insofar as it not only condemned bourgeois governments, parties and press but also criticized the social patriots and bourgeois pacifists and stated categorically that the only way wars would end was if the working class took power and abolished private property. The final statement says: "The struggle for lasting peace can, therefore, be only a struggle for the realization of socialism" (emphasis in the original).
Anecdotal Postscript
The good citizens of Zimmerwald did everything possible to blot out the memory of the event. In 1962, memorial sites and plaques of any kind were banned. To sabotage the efforts of left-wingers and revolutionaries to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the conference, the anti-communists even organised a counter-conference in 1965. In 1971 they went one step further and demolished the guest house where Lenin had stayed. The ban was only lifted in the 1970s.