Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 1, 2017

The Western Left and the Russian Revolution: a reply to Diana Johnstone

Filed under: human rights,Stalinism,Trotskyism — louisproyect @ 8:55 pm

Yesterday an article by Diana Johnstone titled “The Western Left and the Russian Revolution” became available on the Monthly Review website. It was part of the magazine’s special issue on the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. At one time I was great admirer of Johnstone for what I considered to be her keen insights into the Balkan wars but grew disaffected by her support for Russian intervention in Ukraine and Syria. I grew even more disaffected when she published an article in CounterPunch that defended Marine Le Pen’s “sovereignism”—ie, French nationalism—on the basis of these lofty words: “Le Pen insists that all French citizens deserve equal treatment regardless of their origins, race or religion.” What would you expect someone running for president to say? That they don’t deserve equal treatment?

To give credit to CounterPunch, they had no problems publishing an article by Gregory Barrett last Friday that applauded articles denouncing Green Party figure Caitlan Johnstone for urging a left-right alliance but also questioned why the other Johnstone got a pass. “I despise nationalism as much as I despise neoliberalism. But if anyone at CP has ever attacked Diana Johnstone for her position on the French election, or piled on those writers on the Left who believe that nationalism is where the anti-neoliberal action is at the moment, then I must have missed it.”

In the 25 years or so that I have been reading the 83-year old author’s articles in places as varied as In These Times and the New Left Review, I can’t remember her ever addressing what I call “the Russian question”, one that I define as off-limits to Marxmail. Nothing gets flame wars going faster than “what happened in the USSR?”, not that a print publication like Monthly Review really has to worry about such matters.

Speaking only for myself, I would never dream of drawing up a balance sheet on the Western left and the USSR in 3500 words. It opens you up to all sorts of reductionism that fly off the page in her very first paragraph

Lenin predicted that revolution in Russia would trigger communist revolution in Germany, which would spread from there throughout the Western industrialized world. This was the Bolshevik leader’s major error of appreciation. In reality, the Bolshevik Revolution marked the start of a century of counterrevolution in the West.

Johnstone should have said that the Russian revolution failed to trigger a successful communist revolution in Germany. To really understand what happened in Germany, you need to read Pierre Broué’s 980-page “The German Revolution, 1917-1923” that can be read on Libcom. While I am not in Broué’s league by any stretch of the imagination, it took me more than twice the amount of words in Johnstone’s entire article to explain why the German revolution failed.

In the next paragraph, her confusion deepens. She said that the Bolsheviks erred in conceptualizing the proletarian revolution as one that ends up with one class (the workers) overthrowing the old ruling class (the bourgeoisie) after the fashion of the bourgeois revolution overthrowing the feudal aristocracy. In attempting to clarify this, she once again compresses decades of history into a sentence or two: “The classic model was the bourgeois revolution that overthrew the nobility. This comparison was wishful thinking, if only because the so-called bourgeoisie throughout civilized history had always been a partner in the ruling class.” I suppose that this is a reference to revisionist historians like François Furet who argue that the revolution was led by aristocrats rather than capitalists but if so, it probably deserved a few words of clarification.

In any case, this leads her to make her next point: “Despite the momentary success of the soviets (councils), power was never seized by the proletariat, but by intellectuals acting in its name, mobilizing the working class to achieve rapid industrialization.” Once again we see the reductionism at work. In fact, Marxism has always had leaders who could be described as “intellectuals”, starting with Karl Marx and going down the line to John Bellamy Foster. The German socialists developed the idea of a vanguard party that would be necessary since workers on their own have difficulty transcending trade union consciousness. This insight was embraced by V.I. Lenin who put it this way in “What is to be Done”:

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

Certainly Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff would have understood such elementary points.

After sections on the conservative and fascist efforts to overthrow the USSR, Johnstone turns naturally enough to Trotskyism—a tendency that she clearly reviles, just as does her writing partner Jean Bricmont. Most people would regard her efforts to sum up the Stalin-Trotsky debate in 189 words as sheer folly but let’s at least try to extract some sense out of her arguments that likely reflect her strong orientation to the “axis of resistance” today. She writes:

In retrospect, one may say that both Stalin and Trotsky were wrong as to what was possible, but Stalin was, in his brutal way, the more realistic of the two. Despite their relative ideological conservatism, the Stalinist parties of the Third International had more success abroad than their Trotskyist rivals, both in promoting national liberation struggles in the third world and in winning social benefits in the West.

What’s missing from her comparison is any appreciation of the role of state power. Pro-Moscow CP’s could have much more “success” because they were able to leverage their connection to the Kremlin in a way that small propaganda groups could never do. For example, when I was on a consulting trip to the ANC in Zambia in 1990, nearly everybody I spoke to had been to a university in Moscow, all expenses paid. The ANC and the SACP were organically linked and had the allegiance of millions. How could a small Trotskyist group in South Africa ever compete with such “facts on the ground”? By the same token, it was this bloc of parties that failed to carry the revolution forward—stuck as they were in the “popular front” strategies that amounted to elevating a section of the Black population into the top ranks of the bourgeoisie while the poor were left behind in a state of economic apartheid.

The only other point worth making is that both Stalinism and Trotskyism are spent forces. Trotskyism was mainly a negative critique of Stalinism and once it disappeared, Trotskyism failed to capitalize on its absence. It was born as a sect and died as a sect, always making the “correct” analysis but failing to sink roots into the mass movement. Something else is needed and to some extent Monthly Review has been helpful by spreading ecosocialist ideas. It is unfortunate that they would consider Diana Johnstone’s article to be relevant to the class struggle today.

In the section headed “The ‘Failed Revolution’ Narrative”, Johnstone continues to beat “Trotskyism” about the head and shoulders. She is outraged that “The Trotskyist stance, criticizing the revolution for not being revolutionary enough, provided a radical leftist basis for the human rights ideology that has become a quasi-religion in the West”. Such ultraleftism supposedly led a section of the French ’68 “revolutionaries” to make a  stink about the Vietnamese “boat people”, thus serving to facilitate their successful careers in the media and academia, where they spread their disillusionment toward the revolutions they had once celebrated.

This is obviously a reference to the New Philosophers such as Alain Glucksmann who was indeed a major figure in publicizing the plight of the “boat people”. However, he had nothing to do with Trotskyism. Instead, he started off as a Maoist as did Christian Jambet and Guy Lardreau. All this is detailed in an article titled “Isle of Light: A Look Back at the Boat People and the European Left” by Vo Van Ai, a Vietnamese poet who worked closely with such people. He writes:

In the cafe that evening in 1978, a Vietnamese friend of mine and I argued that the people on the Hai Hong were not economic refugees, but people seeking freedom from totalitarianism, and that this exodus was unprecedented. Throughout our four-thousand-year history, even in the worst times of famine or war, we Vietnamese had never left the land of our ancestors. But now the boat people were voting with their feet in order to survive.

Among our group were Claudie and Jacques Broyelle, sinologists and former Maoists who had just returned from China, deeply disillusioned with the evolution of the Chinese regime; Alain Geismar, former leader of the 1968 student “revolution” that rocked the de Gaulle government in France; and André Glucksmann, a writer and acclaimed “new philosopher.” These friends were all passionate idealists, all from far left-wing backgrounds, but all with no illusions about life under communist regimes. Their decision was rapid and unanimous. We had to do something to save the boat people.

Continuing along with her five minutes of hate against Trotskyism, she takes on those whose “hostility toward Stalinism reached fever pitch in reaction to mistreatment of Jews in the Soviet Union, after their revolutionary ideal had shifted to Israel.” These were people who wanted the USA to punish the USSR for restricting educated Jewish emigration to Israel and in the process transformed themselves into “neoconservatives”. I have no idea who she is talking about. The neoconservatives who became ardent supporters of the Reagan administration had abandoned their youthful radical ideas long before people like Natan Sharansky became a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. Irving Kristol, for example, had begun writing for the anti-Communist Commentary magazine in 1947—that’s decades before Russian-Jewish immigration to Israel became an issue.

Toward the end of Johnstone’s dreary article, she takes potshots at groups like Human Rights Watch, which do in fact tend to reflect State Department perspectives, especially in places like Venezuela and Cuba. Demonstrating her nostalgia for the good old days when the USSR provided housing, education and healthcare to the masses even if you could be sent to prison for ten years for complaining about the secret police, she blames human rights advocates for diverting the left from pursuing economic equality. She adds that any social revolution will violate the established “rights” of the dominant classes, and thus human rights is a permanently counterrevolutionary doctrine.

Call me an unreconstructed Trotskyist but I believe that the defense of human rights is essential for the left. I am particularly appalled by governments that bomb hospitals and wholeheartedly support a universal standard of human rights in which such acts must be regarded as a war crime.

One such group that is involved in providing urgently needed care to hospital patients in war-torn regions is Doctors without Borders that was founded in 1971 by French doctors who had served in Biafra. Among the founders was Bernard Kouchner, a former member of the Communist Party who would fit Johnstone’s profile as an imperialist stooge for his support for Kosovo in the war in Yugoslavia and even for Bush’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein. So do we automatically characterize Doctors without Borders as the enemy?

Things get complicated.

On August 15, 2016, Saudi jets bombed a Yemeni hospital supported by Doctors Without Borders that left 11 people dead and 19 injured. Among the people who were outraged by this attack was Assadist propagandist Ben Norton who wrote about such brutality in Salon (before he was fired for unspecified reasons):

Doctors Without Borders said six hospitals it supports in Yemen treated more than 400 wounded Yemenis after the attack. Four hospitals operated by Doctors Without Borders in Yemen have been bombed by the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition.

Meanwhile, his writing partner Max Blumenthal virtually gives Assad the green light to bomb hospitals in rebel-controlled Idlib province.

Let me conclude with what I stated in the final paragraph of a CounterPunch survey on the films of Andrzej Wajda, a director who would be vilified as an anti-Communist defender of human rights by Johnstone:

Unless the left begins to support a universal standard of human rights irrespective of geopolitical considerations, it will not be capable of providing the leadership for a new world order based on the abolition of class society and its replacement by one that respects each human being as having inviolable rights including the right to live securely and in dignity. Whatever Andrzej Wadja’s ideological flaws, his films are a cri de coeur for the rights of the Polish people. Viewed as untermenschen by the Nazis and the butt of racist “Polish jokes” in the 1960s, Wajda’s films are a necessary corrective as well as some of the greatest filmmaking of the past half-century.


  1. Apologies in advance for the longwinded comment. This Diana Johnstone character really gets to me.

    Diana Johnstone, like many leftists like her in the west, is ultimately a ‘theoretical hypocrite’; meaning, her viewpoint is internally hypocritical, i.e., it contradicts itself in its ethics. It is hypocritical in an epistemological sense.

    As alluded to by Louis, the Achilles heel is the particular twist she puts on the ‘human rights’ argument. She presents the issue of human rights as one particular to bourgeois mentality, a gift from the ruling classes in capitalist societies, and therefore as fundamentally ‘counterrevolutionary’. She is fundamentally wrong on this attribution.

    The real history of the evolution of capitalist societies shows that, in fact, human rights were things that the lower classes have had to fight for, tooth and nail, for at least two centuries. She ignores the fact that, for example, just the *legal* ‘equality’ part of the French Revolution’s slogan of “liberty, equality, fraternity” was not fulfilled until the year 1945, when French women voted for the first time ever in their national elections; after DECADES of *struggle* to gain that right. [The actual economic equality has not happened yet, and cannot under capitalism anyway.] Also, She should be quite familiar with the history of the painful struggles the American working classes and African-Americans have had to sustain to gain some basic human rights.

    It was the hard fight of generations upon generations of the dominated classes, in other words, that brought about the very rights the likes of Johnstone not only take for granted, but erroneously consider to be the western enlightened bourgeoisie’s willing gift to the people.

    In a deep sense, Johnstone’s interpretation of human rights is what the ideologues of bourgeoisie deceptively try to sell to the public on a daily basis, through their ideological state apparatuses like the education system, the mass media and publishing houses. So, Johnstone’s parroting of bourgeois propaganda should be considered for what it is: bourgeois propaganda.

    Now, she does a ‘clever’ pirouette of a move and takes that bourgeois propaganda as if it’s her (and her ilk’s) unique ‘insight’, then she and her mob come crashing the gates, shoving it in our faces as proof positive that WE the defenders of basic rights of human beings, WE are the bourgeois ‘counterrevolutionaries’!!

    Their idiocy is akin to that exhibited by Ricky Gervais’ character in the British ‘The Office’, but of course with far more seriously tragic bent as well as consequences.

    The proof of these fellows’ hypocrisy is in the speed with which they’d raise the “fascist alert” as soon as any politician tries to take away any of Johnstone’s personal-political privileges or rights. When it happens to them, they get the idea real quick.

    But if it so happens that entire national populations demand the most basic rights (such as choice of clothing, and all the way to freedom to espouse Marxist ideas, such as Diana Johnstone purports to do) from states that Johnstone considers to be on the good side of her twisted geopolitical calculations, we get a whole different set of standards that kick in.

    It is people like her that — when millions of people in Iran take to the streets, or many more millions take to the streets in Syria, asking for the very rights she herself enjoys daily and would not give up in a million years — would come to the defense of the most noxious tyrants and mass murderers and mass-torturers without batting any eyelid, all the time putting on a self-righteous “I’m from the tough-love school of realist Marxist” face, when in fact she is being the epitome of vile, western Orientalist, racist, and very deeply conservative face of a western creature that calls itself ‘left’ but is of the most reactionary type.

    A lot of third worlders like myself have come to agree on one thing for a long time: We have our own problems, for sure, but the western left has really deep problems of identity and theory at this moment. The most significant and urgent is the need to re-find the concept of a social ethics of the left. A universal set of principles that’s distinctly of the left and fundamentally rejects conservative *values* AND modus operandi. This is not to be ‘moralistic’. This is to have a set of social ethics that is distinct from that of the enemy. You cannot be as ‘relativistic’ as the State Department, and deploy as many double standards as does the enemy, and still call yourself a socialist.

    It seems to me that the cliched post-modern stereotype of ‘there are no universals’ has seeped into the Stalinist left and has solidified into a ‘leftist’ axiom. Western ‘leftists’ like Johnstone have the right to have basic human rights and have the right to take those rights for granted, but other cultures, those that were once labeled ‘lesser peoples’, now called ‘different cultures’, supposedly must have different standards for pain tolerance.

    We the periphery people are sub-human; amazingly now this belief is implied by even leftists in the west. We supposedly have no ‘agency’; we shouldn’t even utter that ‘tell tale word’ (as some western writers would object). We are still undeveloped. We certainly should not be fooled into being ‘seduced’ into this evil concept the western imperialists come bearing.

    As if we are not human enough ourselves to know that we want to be free and not be slaves to a central state apparatus that determines what rights we may or may not have.

    Johnstone poses a false dichotomy between ‘economic security’ and ‘human rights’. There is no security of any kind without justice, and without our basic rights coded into law formalizing our human rights as *absolute* rights of all human beings. If you don’t accept this, you are not of the left. You are a conservative in pre-French Revolution society, with the mentality of the RULERS of that era.

    Our mullahs tell us the same thing as Diana Johnstone. That’s how reactionary Diana Johnstone is.

    So … Why is Monthly Review publishing this kind of low level writing?

    Comment by Reza — August 2, 2017 @ 7:10 am

  2. Thank you. I had seen her article in MR but was waiting for someone more intellectually sound to begin writing a rebuttal before I fronted her attempt to explain to us all The Russian Revolution. It was obviously a gag anyhow, otherwise it would be a topic to which the magazine would devote a two-volume special issue.

    Comment by S M Johnson — August 2, 2017 @ 11:04 am

  3. I warmed to your response to Johnstone’s article the moment you cited Pierre Broué’s Révolution en Allemagne, 1917 -1923 as an example of real historical research and thought – in contrast to this vapid text.

    I would be less than forgiving for her material on the Front National, which I notice exists on some French language sites as well, where it might do real damage.

    One point, Johnstone’s references to France (where she lives, apparently) and “the critical stance toward “the Revolution that failed” (where it..) has never ceased to appeal to intellectuals for whom it preserved their ideals from the hard test of reality. ”

    I had to read this two times to make sense of her paragraphs, and to reckon with her references – not just to BHL but to the whole bateau pour le Vietnam, *1979*, campaign to support the Boat People, initiated by Bernard Kouchner, backed by Sartre, André Glucksmann, Yves Montand and Simone Signoret.

    “The Trotskyist stance, criticizing the revolution for not being revolutionary enough, provided a radical leftist basis for the human rights ideology that has become a quasi-religion in the West. This ultra-left attitude contributed to the drastic reversal of positions within the left following the end of the Vietnamese liberation struggle, which had been enthusiastically supported by left forces throughout the world, notably in the West.”

    The French public relations campaign in support of Vietnamese “boat people” marks the start of this transition. The exemplary struggle was that of Vietnam, which had become the ideal. Moreover, the victory of Hanoi led to “re-education” rather than the massive bloodbath predicted by Western imperialists. It was the plight of the “boat people” that initiated the Western “disappointment” with Vietnam. In France, a significant number of May ’68 “revolutionaries” re-educated themselves as they pursued successful careers in the media and academia, spreading their disillusionment toward the revolutions they had once celebrated.”

    There is a good book on this period, and the ‘anti-totalitarian’ turn of these people, which I’m sure you and others have heard of, French Intellectuals Against the Left. The Antitotalitarian Moment of the 1970s. Michael Scott Christofferson.

    André Glucksmann, who’d participated in the Mao-Spontex Gauche prolétarienne until he, like others, became disillusioned. with the left in general, and, like many, seized on the French publication of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Vietnam was not the key issue. Glucksman began with La Cuisinière et le Mangeur d’Hommes – subtitled Réflexions sur l’État, le marxisme et les camps de concentration (1975). Bernard-Henri Lévy’s La Barbarie à visage humain (1977) but had already helped ‘create’ the so-called nouveaux philosophes phenomenon in the mid-seventies, more exactly in 1976 in Les Nouvelles littéraires.

    French ‘anti-totalitarianism’ is a much bigger topic than the Boat for Vietnam. François Furet in Le Passé d’une illusion. Essai sur l’idée communiste au XXe siècle, (1995|) suggested that French intellectuals had initially interpreted the Russian Revolution as a continuation of the French revolution, which was a major error.

    It is good to see, nevertheless, that one strand of thought from that Revolution, human rights, has, constantly refined, given a material base and critically developed, stood the test of time.

    The ‘left’ Johnstone refers to is treated here: Anniversary of the ‘Cultural Revolution’: French Maoism, Olivier Rolin’s, Tigre en papier. https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/anniversary-of-the-cultural-revolution-french-maoism-olivier-rolins-tigre-en-papier/

    Comment by Andrew Coates — August 2, 2017 @ 11:52 am

  4. Amid the “howling storm” (W. Blake) of near-meaningless generalities of which Johnstone’s MR piece is composed, the following worm lodged in my brain:

    The cause of human rights has been central in morally disarming the left and turning its attention from the struggle for economic equality to individual freedoms.

    As Whoopi Goldberg might say, “OK, OK?”

    It is certainly true that the cause of human rights as currently entombed in the mission statement of the U.S. Department of State (though R, Tillerson, perhaps in a doomed effort to keep from being fired, is reportedly considering changing this) is a pious and loathsomely hypocritical fraud. I highly suspect (though I don’t know) that activities of the United States in Venezuela currently–for all the failings and errors of Maduro in particular and Chavismo perhaps in general–fall fully into the category of imperialist outrage, thus briefly confirming the stopped-clock verdict of fake “anti-imperialism.” And of course, “we” (and the Venezuelan reactionary bourgeoisie–ultimately trampling the legitimate concerns and grievances of the Venezuelan people generally–are defending some version of “human rights.”

    Moreover, the cause of “individual liberty” as subscribed to by moral and intellectual libertarian frauds in the U.S., ranging from Bob Dylan to the Koch Brothers, is also criminal and despicable. The delusional mindset stemming from this, IMHO, is a major obstacle to socialism.

    Still more moreover, there can be no doubt that many actions of U.S. communists–for example, the heroism of African-American communists in the American south during the Great Depression–deserve our undying gratitude and praise.

    One might even allege that the equivocal success of the Former Soviet Union in achieving what Noam Chomsky once termed “second-world” material success despite the errors of Stalinist alleged central planning deserves more detailed historical scrutiny (which of course it is abundantly receiving, as it happens, in any case).

    But so what? The whole point of dialectical thinking is to frame contradictions appropriately in a broader but unfailingly factual understanding of history. Details matter.

    Even if you do not resonate to the notion that there is a dialectic in nature, there can be no justification for not looking dialectically at phenomena such as those over which Johsntone skips so gaily in her MR piece. Johnstone appears to be incapable of dialectical thinking, instead falling herself into a kind of rigid “either-or” abstract–and ultimately unhistorical–moralism–precisely the error she claims to be repudiating.

    There may be no “truths self-evident” in human rights, but there is certainly no happiness without them–and without human happiness, what is the point of socialism? The question is not whether this is so but how it can be so–and then what we must do about it.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — August 2, 2017 @ 11:55 am

  5. This article (and the comments) strikes me a navel-gazing. Perhaps Jean Bricmont expresses clearly why the current formulation of human rights by “leftists” is a total failure. At the least, it is open to the criticism that it seems to be more a “divide and conquer” tactic of a tiny, abusive and incestuous “elite sect” than anything else.

    Trump’s Victory: Arrogance Defeated

    Hillary Clinton called half of Trump voters “a basket of deplorables”. In all the discussions I have had with American “liberals”, they explained to me that Trump supporters were mostly uneducated white men.

    However, I am old enough to remember an era when the all the leftwing parties, socialist or communist, and even American Democrats, were based on the workers or the “working class” or the “common man”. Nobody thought to inquire whether they had university degrees or to investigate whether or not their opinions were politically correct on issues such as racism, sexism or homophobia.

    What defined the workers as progressive subjects was their economically exploited condition and not some ideological orthodoxy or moral purity…………..

    Comment by hyperbola — August 2, 2017 @ 6:26 pm

  6. Jean Bricmont:

    It remains to be seen whether Trump will carry out the progressive aspects of his program; protectionism and peace with Russia. Those are the aspects that most infuriate the oligarchy, much more than his rude remarks and contradictions. Those are thus the aspects that will require the most intelligence and determination if they are to be realized.

    A left which dares take a close look at its past errors should do all it can to push Trump in that direction, rather than to alienate the population still more by once again mounting its high horse of moral superiority and selling its soul to the leaders of the Democratic Party responsible for their own defeat.

    Push Trump in the direction of carrying out “the progressive aspects” of his program? I can understand why some people got conned into thinking that they could have “pushed” Obama in 2008 but anybody with the slightest familiarity with Trump’s career would understand how idiotic this prospect was. Bricmont is a typical neo-Stalinist following the Kremlin’s talking points slavishly. One might forgive a CP’er for this sort of thing in the 1930s but today? Unforgivable.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 2, 2017 @ 6:33 pm

  7. […] to task for its brevity by the pathologically prolix Louis Proyect, Johnstone’s article is an admirably cogent presentation of insights (and errors) regarding […]

    Pingback by Diana Johnstone on the Left, the Bolshevik Revolution, and More – NeoPopulism — August 3, 2017 @ 5:24 pm

  8. While I agree with your perspective about human rights, the “human rights” highlighted by liberals and NGOs are primarily an instrument by which to target regimes they don’t like (Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, the Russian Republic), while ignoring those they do (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Colombia]. In other words, “human rights” are an instrument by which the US and the EU bludgeon countries with which they have antagonistic relations.

    Furthermore, keep in mind that they also frequently conflate human rights with economic ones such as private property.

    So, the challenge for left is to enunciate a vision of human rights that is universal and separate from this mendacious one. Given the dominance of the liberal discourse, it will be a challenge as with most left issues.

    Comment by Richard Estes — August 5, 2017 @ 12:46 am

  9. Ideally, the BRICS countries and their client states (N. Korea, etc.) should have their own HRW or Amnesty International. Actually, they do but they are hounded into oblivion.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 5, 2017 @ 1:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: