Soviet Photography and the Presentation of Socialist Reality – Exposing the Trotskyite Work of David King


(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

After spending hours reading through Russian language source materials, I remain unconvinced that elements within the Soviet Government conspired to deliberately ‘alter’ photographs in a manner that would today constitute the production of ‘fake news’. However, such an allegation fits-in well with the machinations of US-produced (anti-Soviet) Cold War propaganda, and it is an allegation that the British graphic designer David King made a lucrative career trumpeting through his numerous books. David King ‘collected’ Soviet public information posters from the former USSR (which were issued ‘free of charge’ as a public service), and ‘sold’ these most distinctive of Russian ‘working class’ expressions, to the unsuspecting Western working class. King took the Socialist propaganda of one chapter of the international working class and sold it back to another – this understanding should give an indication of the true ‘bourgeois’ and ‘Trotskyite’ credentials of the man. Although it is true that from the earliest days, photographs were clarified and categorised, the idea of a sinister plot remains highly suspect. This article rejects a priori the bourgeois assumption surrounding the subject of Soviet photograph editing, and encourages the reader to look anew at the situation and attempt to scrutinise afresh what usually passes as ‘evidence’. This process requires the operation of a direct working class approach that is not distracted by the baubles of bourgeois assumptions. My considered opinion is that this phenomenon is part US fabrication, part the imagination of David King, and partly the product of the Soviet Government retaining the ‘purity’ of Socialist Realism’. Those who originally assisted the Bolshevik Revolution – and then outrageously ‘betrayed’ it, have no moral right to be historically associated with it, and it is interesting to note that the deliberate fabrication of photographs and film in the West and in Nazi Germany (before its destruction by the Soviet Union) is not given the scrutiny allotted to the case of the Soviet Union.


Modern Russia is a capitalist State with a Socialist past. Whereas many people assume for forward moving of evolutionary forces, whereby things progress in one direction from simple to complex forms, in fact evolution does not work like this, and can produce less complex forms from more complex forms, as environmental conditions demand. Marx understood that evolutionary forces can be progressive as well as regressive, and stated with regards to the eventual idea of a (permanent) World Socialist Revolution, there will be many false starts, set-backs ad defeats. Modern (capitalist) Russia is just one such example, whereby the power of capitalist greed eventually brought-down the egalitarian Soviet System, and inflicted the highly unequal and vicious system of modern capitalism upon the Russian people. Although this has led to severe hardship and suffering throughout Russia, this is understood as being irrelevant to the advocates of capitalism, just as long as a ‘few’ Russians become multi-millionaires. This situation has led to the wide-scale importing into Russia of US-generated Cold War disinformation about the Soviet State, translated into the Russian language, and uncritically accepted by younger Russians as being representative of ‘genuine’ Soviet history. This is an example of pseudo-history at its worst. The point of this exercise for the US, is to ‘colonise’ the minds of modern Russians, and teach them to ‘hate’ the history of the Soviet Union, as if it had nothing to do with them, and was not acting in their best interests. Although there are modern Russian historians who are well-aware of this phenomenon (and take active steps to combat it), nevertheless, this ‘ahistorical’ approach to Soviet history negatively influences the opinions of many (fulfilling its primary propaganda purpose). The rather stupid US assumption appears to be that if English language disinformation about the Soviet Union is translated into the Russian language, no one will notice that these ludicrous stories DO NOT arise from within the genuine narrative of Soviet history as defined by the indigenous Russian intelligentsia.


Whereas once anti-Soviet disinformation only existed outside of Russia, today it also exists firmly within Russia, but it can be easily discerned by accessing information correctly. Soviet history stems from a progressive and non-inverted, proletariat mind-set, whilst the bourgeois mind-set is essentially ‘inverted’ and views reality a priori the ‘wrong way around’. Simply, the bourgeoisie propagate the myth that god created man, whilst the proletariat know that the mind of humanity created god, and so on, and so forth. The proletariat mind-set takes the material world as the basis of reality, whilst the bourgeois mind-set exists in the realm of mythic imagination. US anti-Soviet disinformation, therefore, emanates from the bourgeois (inverted) imagination, and is not reliant upon the correct and accurate recording or interpretation of history as it unfolds. US anti-Soviet disinformation exists in a realm of imagination and myth that is divorced from the conditions of material reality. In this regard, much of the US approach to misrepresenting the Soviet Union, is to mimic the Christian Church (and its theology), and (falsely) present the Soviet System as being ‘evil’, and its leaders as being personifications of the ‘devil’. This is a simplistic and regressive inverted mind-set, but it can be effective amongst general populations that lack any progressive elements in its education. Of course, those populations which lack a general degree of any progressive education, are the easiest to manipulate with this kind of disinformation. Undoubtedly, one of the most important propaganda victories for the US is creating a mythical climate within Russia whereby many Russians know believe the US lies about Soviet history.


Western attempts at manipulating Russian opinion are not new, and can be seen with the development of the bourgeois deviation now known as ‘Trotskyism’. This distortion of Socialism advocates that the workers of the world should ‘unite’ not against the forces of capitalism, but rather in alliance with the forces of capitalism. Workers should not follow Marx or Lenin, but rather the incoherent ramblings of Leon Trotsky – who built a major part of his theory upon the requirement of the working class to ‘co-operate’ with the forces of international fascism, and not to oppose the enemies of Socialism in anyway. This anti-working class mentality Trotsky termed ‘Socialism’, and it was welcomed in the West by those liberals who resented any working class attempts at self-rule, and who naturally opposed the Soviet Union for that purpose. One such example was the British graphic designer (and supporter of Trotsky) David King (1943-2010), who made a career ‘selling’ books in the West of Soviet public information posters that he had collected since the fall of the USSR in 1991. His obsession with Trotsky led to him fabricating the idea that the Soviet System (by which King specifically meant ‘Stalin’), was fundamentally ‘dishonest’ and routinely manipulated Soviet public opinion by altering photographs (thereby changing the meaning and content of specific pictures). This (false) narrative has now penetrated both Western and Russian narratives (a poignant example of the Trotskyite principle of ‘entryism’ or gaining influence through deception), and is generally accepted as being true without question. Whilst misrepresenting the Soviet Union in this manner, King remained steadfastly ‘silent’ about the numerous well-known and well-documented instances of Western governments (and media) fabricating news events and news stories around the world. This is understandable, as King was directly involved in such a deception.


The government of the Soviet Union represented a proletariat approach to interpreting, directing and ordering material reality. This is the application of an ‘honest’ and ‘non-inverted’ mind-set and has nothing to do with the bourgeois moralising and sentimentalising of reality. More to the point, many Soviet pictures that David King claims were ‘altered’ for nefarious reasons, were nothing of the sought, and easily explained. Simply lifting key figures out of group photographs (such as in the picture at the top of this article), is not ‘dishonest’ as King suggests, but is an example of Soviet ingenuity and technology. An important point that David King does not want a Western audience to understand is that although he claims pictures were altered for deceptive purposes, the ‘original’ photographs continued to exist in the public domain (thus rendering all alterations pointless, if the main aim was indeed ‘deception’). Obviously, where alterations occurred, there was good reasons for them, but the fact that David King possessed not only the altered images but also the originals, suggests that his entire ‘Trotskyite’ approach was typically ‘dishonest’ and deliberately misrepresentative of Soviet reality, as King (falsely) implies that the Soviet Authorities presented ‘fake’ images to the Soviet public after eradicating all alternative versions. David King’s own work (which utilises what he considers the dramatic ‘before’ and ‘after’ format) proves its own central assumption thoroughly incorrect. Furthermore, there is a distinct element of ‘dishonesty’ to King’s work which was not exposed at recent exhibition at the Tate Modern (London) entitled ‘Red Star Over Russia’. One example of this attempt by King to manipulate public opinion can be seen, his presentation of two similar (but separate) photographs (of Bolsheviks in 1915) featuring the same location and many of the same people (including Stalin who is in both), being described as indicative of Soviet alteration:



The people involved simply ‘posed’ twice – many holding different positions with others appearing in one photograph, but not in the other, etc. The question is how many pictures are presented as ‘altered’, when in fact they are different pictures, or products of zooming ‘in’ or zooming ‘out’? These types of pictures are not ‘alterations’, but of course David King was highly focused upon protecting the historical presence of Leon Trotsky within the Soviet media, and was willing to practice exactly the same ‘fabrication’ he accused the Soviet ‘Marxist-Leninists’ of perpetuating. Here is an example of ‘zooming’ presented as deliberate ‘alteration’:


Another question to be asked is that of the ‘authenticity’ of many photographs purportedly ‘altered’ by the Soviet State. What would be the point of ‘altering’ pictures when many copies or versions of the images seeking to be repressed from public attention, are already freely circulating within the media? The answer is none at all. Certainly within Russian language sources, this is not a common subject indicative of a deliberate, wide-spread or sustained Soviet policy, and only comes into being with the dubious work of David King. Of course, whilst defending Trotsky and accusing Joseph Stalin of all kinds of (imagined) crimes, King firmly establishes his ‘anti-Soviet’ and ‘pro’ US Cold War credentials. The glaring problem for King is that in so doing, he completely ‘omits’ any mention or recognition of Leon Trotsky’s extensive collaboration with fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the forces of international Jewish Zionism in the 1930’s. King also fails to refer to Trotsky’s 1938 demand to his followers to support the fascist countries in the world, in a collective effort to ‘destroy’ the Soviet Union. King ignores all of Trotsky’s bourgeois and rightwing attitudes, opinions and behaviours, and instead choices to misrepresent history by turning the ‘science’ of Soviet photographic ‘editing’ into something of an obsessive fetish. Leon Trotsky, as a convicted criminal and proven enemy of the Soviet State, no longer deserved the honour of being ‘historically’ associated with the Soviet State he played a small part in building, and which he subsequently set-out to destroy. I have speculated elsewhere that Trotsky’s contradictory, paradoxical and at times ‘bizarre’ behaviour contains all the hallmarks of the on-set of mental illness. This inconsistency is evident from the incoherent ramblings that pass as his ‘collected works’. Lifting perfectly good and historically significant and important images of Lenin and Stalin from photographs ‘tainted’ by the presence of Trotsky (and other proven traitors to the Bolshevik Revolution) is not a sinister act, if indeed it really happened at all. One example of ‘clarifying’ a picture of Lenin is:



The Soviet Union led the world in the development of photography and film technology (which reached its apex during the space race). The ability to perfect the process of recording events in either ‘still’ or ‘moving’ images was elevated to a high science within the Soviet Union. Clarifying old or damaged photographs was a matter of importance with regards to properly recording the historical events that led to the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, and this logical demand generated the development of advanced technology and progressive editing processes. Trotsky was an anti-Bolshevik criminal whose image was quite rightly removed from certain photographs (if the sources can be trusted). Of course, it could be that the entire idea of photographic editing has been a US-Trotskyite collaboration of disinformation from start to finish. Whatever the case, the Soviet Union had a responsibility to the international working class it represented, and expunging fascist traitors from prominence within Socialist Society should be interpreted as an enlightened act – similar to how the Western (bourgeois) societies destroy and side-line the lives of those people they considers the most heinous of criminals (such as the British paedophile Jimmy Saville). Trotsky’s crimes were no less repugnant to the proletariat mind, and the dubious and misleading work of David King must be exposed for the deceptive (Trotskyite) nonsense it represents.

Russian Language References:



What We Have Become…


When I was young and at school (and before the destructive Thatcherite reforms),  it was common-place to learn about ‘homelessness’ as something that existed during the Victorian era, but which the British Welfare State had eradicated (through the re-distribution of wealth). We were taught about homelessness through Charles Dickens books, and the story of Dr Bernardo. I remember finding it difficult to associate the concept of homelessness with a modern, civilised society. In fact, it was not until the late 1980’s that I personally came across homeless people in the major cities (due to Tory policy), and this was at a time when much more of the Welfare State existed than today, and Local Councils still had a legal duty to house everyone – and yet people were still falling through the gaps in an uncaring system. As generations of selfish people in the UK have continuously voted for rightwing governments since 1979, the British Welfare State (and the principle of Social Housing), has come under continuous attack by the Tories, LibDems and New Labour Parties. Of course, since 2010, and the rise of the neo-liberal David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the already weakened British Welfare State (and NHS) has received its ‘coup de grâce’ in 2012 (through abolition, privatisation and sell-off). It is incredible to think that as temperatures in the UK fall below ‘0’, there are men, women and children being forced to live by an uncaring State, on the streets in freezing and unsanitary conditions. This is at the time when even the rightwing press in the UK is beginning to admit that Tory and LibDems ‘Austerity’ has killed at least 120,000 people between 2010 – 2017. The point of all this is simple: the British electorate has become so selfish that it ‘resents’ the concept that it is right and proper to ‘share’ its collective immense wealth with those less well-off, and do so in a manner that gives dignity to those in need. A shameful situation, indeed.

North Korea – Latest Missile Test – How the US Fabricates News (29.11.2017)


(Research and Translation By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

The US Defense Department said that its preliminary assessment showed that the tracked North Korean missile was an intercontinental ballistic missile (this has not been confirmed by the DPRK). The US propaganda statement continued that this particular DPRK missile launch reached the highest altitude to date, and poses a threat to world peace. Analysts (unnamed) said the ballistic missile test showed that New York and Washington, DC are now within range of North Korea’s missiles, but probably the real reason behind President Trump’s vitriol is the fact that this event has caused the highest gold hit at 1298 US dollars. The price of gold only fell after the US Senate Budget Committee approved the tax reform bill.

The view of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPKR) from the (capitalist) West, is dominated by US racist attitudes and anti-Communist sentiment. This essentially ‘Eurocentric’ view is more or less replicated throughout Europe without question, with the only resistance coming from the progressive left, and those Westerners who describe themselves as ‘friends of North Korea’. As usual, the hate-filled rhetoric of the US is the manufacture of a mythological interpretation of the DPRK that has no bearing upon the material reality that is the DPRK. As most Westerners have no access to progressive education, and lack the language skills to read the Chinese Mainland Press, or seek-out DPRK statements (issued in English), their only means of acquiring ‘news’ is from US ‘soundbites’ which are ignorant in nature, and lacking any genuine news coverage. These are the facts as far as is known about the apparent DPRK’s latest missile launch – and the US response to it.

At about 02:23 on the 29th of November (2017), the South Korean propaganda Yonhap News Agency quoted the latest news from the Joint Meeting of South Korean Chiefs of Staff – stating that North Korea had launched one ballistic missile. Subsequently, this news report was contradicted by the Japan Broadcasting Association – which stated North Korea fired ‘three’ missiles instead of one – one of which had fallen into the waters of Japan’s exclusive ‘economic zone’. According to the Yonhap News Agency, North Korea fired a missile which travelled 960 kilometers at a flight altitude of 4,500 kilometers. These two US dominated news agencies in Asia did not agree with one another, and did not quote any valid North Korean source for the ‘news’ reported.

This is an interesting observation, as prior to these anti-DPRK announcements, US ‘experts’ had issued a warning (again without evidence) that North Korea would soon be carrying-out another missile test in ‘a few days’. The implication being that after two and a half months of silence, North Korea was to launch its first round of ballistic missiles for the first time since September 15th (2017). The launch appears to mark North Korea’s first provocation toward the United States (and US-friendly countries in the region) since US President Trump listed the DPRK as a country that supports terrorism. This is a peculiar interpretation to apply to the DPRK – as it is the US that has military bases all round North Korea (and across the world), and which has financed and trained the ISIS Islamo-fascist terrorists operating in the Middle East.

Japan’s Cabinet Office said that North Korea’s missiles were aimed at Japan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and could therefore be considered an act of aggression. Although the US government confirmed the launch of the missile(s), the exact details of the missile(s) have not yet been determined. According to the Pentagon, the missile(s) come from mobile launchers. The US Pentagon confirmed the North Korea missile launch as occurring at about 1:30 pm EST (02:30 am Beijing time). A spokesman for the South Korean military said on Tuesday that the South Korean military has been ‘closely monitoring’ and ‘tracking the possible provocations of North Korea.’ Neither the US nor South Korean propaganda broadcasts mentioned the US deployment of the provocative ‘THAD’ missile system throughout South Korea – the only purpose of which is to attack North Korea. The Yonhap News Agency quoted the South Korean Joints of Staff (JCS) as stating that the South Korean military will implement ‘precision strike’ missile exercises in response to North Korea’s missile launch. It is worth noting that Japanese officials noted yesterday, that the increase in radioactive data indicates that another missile test may be coming soon (again, without providing any evidence). ‘North Korea may launch missiles in the coming days’, a Japanese government official told local media. This may be the first of several launches, as the US and South Korean militaries are scheduled to provoke the DPRK by holding large-scale military exercises from December 4th to December 8th (2017), which will involve more than 230 Allied aircraft flying over the Korean peninsula during the exercise (and violating DPRK air-space).

Chinese Languageference:

The Non-Centre of Human Perception and the Limitations of Linear Logic


Before the ‘Big Bang’, space and time did not exist. Following the ‘Big Bang’, time and space existed simultaneously – everywhere. It is after the ‘Big Bang’ event that human logic and reason came into being (once the human brain had evolved to generate logic and reason). In reality, everything is ‘relative’ to the observer (as Einstein observed), and the Earth is the centre of human perception when the universe is observed (because the Earth is where humanity happens to be), but this does not mean that Earth is the centre of the observable universe. The universe appears to be expanding by 1 light year per year – but in reality it is expanding faster than light can travel (the dark energy at the edge of universe is travelling faster than light). It is probably correct to state that human perception has no definite ‘centre’, and that notions of ‘individuality’ and ‘I-ness’ are merely transitory social-cultural constructs, that have no meaning within universal reality. Linear logic is vitally important for the development and progression of human science and understanding, but prior to the ‘Big Bang’ – during the existence of the ‘initial singularity’ – the conditions that generate and support human logic did not yet exist, and cannot be defined, understood or limited to human logic today. This is why linear logic can be used in a reverse manner, working backwards toward the point of the ‘Bing Bang’ in time and space, but which cannot ‘penetrate’ the ‘Big Bang’ with conventional reason, and directly perceive that state which existed a moment before the ‘Big Bang’. The human brain appears to have evolved to perceive the observable universe in a manner that directly represents the time-space conditions that came into being directly after the ‘Big Bang’ – with the caveat that logic and reason is being used to try to understand that state of reality which immediately preceded the ‘Big Bang’, conditions that cannot be adequately defined (or ‘limited’) by logic and reason. The human brain did not exist during or prior to the ‘Big Bang’, and so did not evolve the perceptual abilities to directly understand this experience. In reality, human logic and reason is being used ‘after the fact’, to understand conditions that are not suited to its own evolutionary (developmental) circumstance. This suggests that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is correct only in the ‘post-Bing Bang’ state (i.e. the universe we all inhabit), but breaks down both during and immediately prior to the ‘Big Bang’. Ironically, it is by the use of logic and reason that this understanding is arrived at, and it could be that a ‘new’ way of using the human brain-mind nexus is just around the next evolutionary corner, as infinity has no discernible ‘centre’.

The Importance of Marxist Dialectical Amalysis and the Building of Chinese Socialism


‘We Will Not Tolerate Any Encroachments Upon the Territory of China!’


The following text is my considered (albeit ‘brief’) response to this post summerising a recent lecture held at the Communist University of South London. I quote a recent (translated) Chinese text of a speech delivered by General Secretary Xi Jinping about the CPC’s ‘certain’ attitude that ‘Socialism’ is being built in China (without a shadow of a doubt). The content of this lecture can be read here: Rediscovering Economics

Thank you Comrades! Constructive, dialectical debate is crucial for developing the mind and assessing and analysing material history. My view is that although a certain ideological direction should be maintained (to avoid revisionism and Trotskyism, etc), nevertheless, the mind must be exercised (in all directions) to decide appropriate action in the physical world (which is the progressive premise of the Communist University of South London). This is because the mind is conditioned by material events, and needs to fully cognise those events to remedy the inverted thinking associated with the Bourgeois State (which would have us at each other’s throats, whilst residing in a religious haze). Of course, Marx fully recognised that ‘consciousness’ and ‘matter’ are two-sides of the same dialectical coin (as did Lenin, Stalin and Mao, etc), and that material economics are inherently linked to the internal thought patterns such socio-economic policies produce in the mind. It may be that Marxist economics cannot be fully divorced from the human mind that a) observes the material world, and b) which formulates behavioural responses to that material world. Whatever the case, the Communist Party of China (CPC) does not doubt that it is ‘building Socialism’. This is my recent English translation of an official CPC Chinese language text that conveys a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping and entitled: Be Vigilant Against Those who Denigrate Chinese Communism a short but poignant extract reads:

‘Prior to Marx, economists and sociologists were steeped in idealistic thinking, and defined ‘normal society’ from the perspective of pure fantasy.  Marx abandoned this fictitious ‘generalised notion of society’, and instead dedicated himself to the study of the material conditions of existential capitalist society.  In his ‘Das Kapital’ (Preface to the first edition – Volume 1) he states: ‘I want to study in this book, the capitalist mode of production, the relations of production, relations of exchange, and how these forces interact and transform one another.’  ‘The ultimate goal of this book is to reveal the economic law of motion within modern society.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 5, p. 8, 10) Marx devoted his entire life to the study of capitalism, a developmental process that was the basis for his writing of ‘Das Kapital’.  He studied a literal mountain of material evidence, and analysed in considerable detail, the functionality of the law of capitalism.  As Lenin pointed out, Marx reveals the development of capitalism in the law, his analysis ‘Is limited to production relations between members of society’, and ‘Marx did not use any of these relations of production factors, for anything other than to illustrate the problem.’ (Collected Works of Lenin topic · On dialectical and historical materialism, page 162).  With this study, Marx thoroughly clarified the relationship between capital and labour, and reveals the fundamental contradiction that exists within capitalism.’

The View from Inside a Privatised NHS


The way things work in the UK is like this. Those who are ‘salaried’ and work in middle class professions are quite happy to accept ‘Austerity’, the privatisation of the NHS and the dismantling of the Welfare State, because they think it has nothing to do with them, their families or their descendents. If the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky News do not report the UN finding the Tories and LibDems Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity (in 2016), or that at least 120,000 British people have died between 2010-2017 from cuts in benefits and healthcare – then it has not happened and does not exist! This is middle class apathy and its collusion with the forces of democratically elected fascism. A GP friend of the family warned us (in 2012) that the NHS had been privatised and that charges will be in-place by 2017. The problems the Tories have experienced is that their LibDems chums have been eradicated at the polls, and that a Socialist-sounding Jeremy Corbyn has attracted an unexpected following throughout the UK (although Labour still lost the 2017 General Election). This has delayed the roll-out of a nation-wide private healthcare system which the Tories are planning, whereby all FREE healthcare is to be scrapped and replaced by regular insurance payments for minimal treatment (which will be justified through a massive media campaign which demonizes those who still expect ‘free’ NHS treatment at the point of use). Those who require further treatment will have to pay more (despite already paying for medical treatment through income tax). Now, as matters stand, some people are already ‘paying’ for treatments considered ‘too expensive’ for the NHS to provide, and the NHS is actively withholding appropriate diagnosis and treatment from ill or injured patients (the implication being that those who want to save their lives must ‘pay’ for treatment). Finally, the reason the Tories and LibDems have been able to do this to the British nation is because of the neo-conservative policies of New Labour under Blair and Brown (and their failure to reverse one Thatcherite cut or reform). Blair’s ‘Private Finance initiate’ (PFI) simply paved the way for the NHS to be infiltrated by self-serving, money-grabbing private businesses. A colleague of mine worked for the Audit Commission in 2009 when she was asked to attend a meeting (along with around 100 other Audit Commission employees) with a New Labour government minister. This New Labour minister informed the audience that New Labour was going to sell-off the NHS and dismantle the Welfare State, and intended to achieve this feat over a 15 year period. The Audit Commission were to be given the job of ‘selling’ and ‘administering’ this New Labour policy to the general public. Perhaps what we are seeing here, is the reality that all political parties represent the bourgeois establishment and are committed to attacking the working class in a relentless fashion.

Lenin’s Rejection of Narodnik Terrorism


‘A secret Narodnik society known as “Narodnaya Volya” (“People’s Will”) began to plot the assassination of the tsar. On March 1, 1881, members of the “Narodnaya Volya”  succeeded in killing Tsar Alexander II with a bomb. But the people did not benefit from this in any way. The assassination of individuals could not bring about the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy or the abolition of the landlord class. The assassinated tsar was replaced by another, Alexander III, under whom conditions of the workers and peasants became worse still.

The method of combating tsardom chosen by the Narodniks, namely, by the assassination of individuals, by individual terrorism, was wrong and detrimental to the revolution. The policy of individual terrorism was based on the erroneous Narodnik theory of active “heroes” and a passive “mon”, which awaited exploits from the “heroes”. This false theory maintained that it is only outstanding individuals who make history, while the masses, the people, the class, the “mob”, as the Narodnik writers contemptuously called them, are incapable of conscious, organised activity and can only blindly follow the “heroes”. For this reason the Narodniks abandoned mass revolutionary work among the peasantry and the working class and changed to individual terrorism. They induced one of the most prominent revolutionaries of the time, Stepan Khalturin, to give up his work of organising a revolutionary workers’ union and to devote himself entirely to terrorism.

By these assassinations of individual representatives of the class of exploiters, assassinations that were of no benefit to the revolution, the Narodniks diverted the attention of the working people from the struggle against that class as a whole. They hampered the development of the revolutionary initaitive and activity of the working class and the peasantry. 

The Narodniks prevented the working class from understanding its leading role in the revolution and retarded the creation of an independent party of the working class.

Although the Narodniks’ secret organisation had been smashed by the tsarist government, Narodnik views continued to persist for a long time among the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. The surviving Narodniks stubbornly resisted the spread of Marxism in Russia and hampered the organisations of the working class. 

Marxism in Russia could therefore grow and gain strength only by combating Narodism.’

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) – Short Course: Edited by a Commission of the CC of the CPSU (B), Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscoww (1939), Pages 10-11



Remembering the International Stalin Prize ‘For the Strengthening of Peace Between Nations’ (1949-1955)


For six years (1949 – 1955), the ‘International Stalin Prize – For the Strengthening of Peace Between Nations ‘ (Международная Сталинская премия «За укрепление мира между народами») was a serious ideological threat to the bourgeois ‘Noble Prize’, and was an impediment to the full deployment of US anti-Stalin (Cold War) rhetoric. Although the Soviet Union had been brought to the brink of destruction during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 – 1945 (suffering between 27 – 40 million casualties), The capitalist West re-invented the Red Army (that had defeated the SS and the Wehrmacht), as being no different to the Nazi German Forces it had opposed, and Joseph Stalin as being no different to Adolf Hitler. Soviet Communism was equated with Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’, and the ‘Scientific Socialism’ of Karl Marx was considered just another example of fascist thinking. The fact that the two ideologies – i.e. ‘Communism’ and ‘fascism’ are diametrically opposed to one another did not prevent the US (capitalist) ideologues from falsely claiming that both systems of thought were the same, or that Joseph Stalin was a ‘dictator’ whose mishandling of the Soviet Union had killed millions, etc. This view, although common within the rhetoric of the West, is nevertheless entirely mythological in nature and ‘ahistorical’ in reality. Marxist-Leninism, or Leninism-Stalinism for that matter, does not deviate from the writings of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels, and is the antithesis to the racist, capitalist, and genocidal thought produced by Adolf Hitler. Of course, the Trotskyite Nikita Khrushchev, after he ascended to power in the USSR in 1956, assisted the US from within the Soviet Union, and did his best to attack the reputation and truly constructive history of Joseph Stalin. Khrushchev had problems with Stalin in the past, particularly in regard to his (Khrushchev’s) cowardice during the early days of the Nazi German invasion of the Ukraine, and Khrushchev’s tendency to use the Ukraine (and its Communist Party) as a personal fiefdom. Khrushchev had to re-package Stalin as an unbridled tyrant as a means to ‘purge’ Stalin’s memory and paint himself (falsely) as the ‘great liberator’. This is a short sketch of how the capitalist West and the Trotskyites colluded to attack the USSR.

This understanding is important because the Stalin Peace Prize was cancelled in 1955 by Khrushchev on the (false) grounds that it represented Stalin’s ‘cult of personality’ – ignoring its ideological importance as a distinctly ‘Socialist’ Award that stood as an alternative to the thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ Noble Peace Prize, which has been used after WWII to reward those who support aggressive US Cold War foreign policy, and recognize those who have actively strived to bring down World Socialism (the duplicitous 14th Dalai Lama and the traitor Mikhail Gorbachev are just two obvious examples of this policy in action). Khrushchev transitioned the Stalin Peace Prize into that of the much more low-key ‘Lenin Peace Prize’. Alfred Noble, of course, used his scientific knowledge as a means to encourage an ever more destructive means for human-beings to kill one another during warfare, and then without any sense of irony, initiated a ‘peace prize’ in his own name. Alfred Noble, the greatest killer of humanity, developed a thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ and typically hypocritical device to ‘reward’ the capitalist system he so admired, and which Stalin detested! Stalin, through his leadership of the Soviet Union during WWII, destroyed Nazi Germany and in so doing, assisted in the survival of the West, the very same West that now colluded with US anti-Stalin thought, and which worked to remove Stalin from his rightful place in history as one of the greatest political leaders of humanity.


Although Stalin fully supported a ‘peace prize’ formulated in his name, he did not personally establish the award. The International Stalin Prize ‘For the Strengthening of Peace Among Nations’ was a honorific award issued annually by the USSR, which was established by Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on December 20th, 1949. The size of the award was 100 thousand rubles (around $25,000), with between 5 – 10 individual awards being granted world-wide on December 21st (Stalin’s birthday) each year. The initiative to establish this award was first discussed on December 17th, 1949, at a meeting of the Committee for the Development and Organization of Events (to coincide with Stalin’s 70th birthday). At this meeting, the Committee’s Chairman, – NM Shvernik – voiced the proposal ‘to establish 5-10 International Stalin Prizes – For the Strengthening of Peace Among Nations’. According to V Molotov (who participated in the meeting), the issue of a medal, certificate and a cash award ‘has great political significance not only for our country, but for the whole world. It will reflect the deepest thoughts and aspirations of the masses at the present time, and will meet the wishes of all our people.’ It is noteworthy that at this meeting the film director GV Alexandrov, suggested ‘that the first prize be awarded to Comrade Stalin.’ A Mikoyan put forward the proposal: “How should the Stalin Prize be awarded?.’ As a result, GM Malenkov suggested: ‘A special committee will be in charge. We should seriously discuss this proposal and take the appropriate action.’

In accordance with the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR entitled ‘On the Establishment of the International Stalin Prizes – For the Strengthening of Peace Among Nations’, which establishes this award, ‘the prizes shall be awarded to citizens of any country of the world, irrespective of their political, religious and racial differences, for outstanding services in the fight against warmongers and for the consolidation of peace.’ This Decree established that persons awarded with the International Stalin Prize receive a diploma of a laureate, a gold medal with the image of JV Stalin, and a cash prize of 100,000 rubles. By the same Decree it was established that the prizes ‘are granted annually to the amount of 5 to 10 (individual) awards by the Special Committee deciding the granting of International Stalin Prizes – formed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from representatives of the democratic forces of the various countries of the world’ – with the awarding of prizes ‘to be issued on the birthday of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin – December 21st – of each year.’  Stalin received the 1949 award for his selfless lifelong work for the development and defence of the Soviet Union, and his opposition war. However, the first ‘official’ award (by Decree) was established in 1950. Between 1950 and 1955, the International Stalin Prize was awarded to 44 recepients world-wide (including Paul Robeson in 1952).

After the XXth Congress of the CPSU, during which the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (Nikita Khrushchev) issued his report entitled ‘On the cult of Personality and its Consequences’, Khrushchev had a Decree issued in the name of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (on September 6th, 1956) which renamed the award as the ‘International Lenin Prize ‘For the Strengthening of Peace Among Nations’ (Международную Ленинскую премию «За укрепление мира между народами»). At this time, Khrushchev ordered the removal of Stalin’s embalmed body which had laid beside Lenin in Red Square’s mausoleum, and instead re-buried alongside the Kremlin Wall. Khrushchev had also discussed the possibility of the so-called Soviet psyche Wolf Messing ‘lying’ to Soviet Government, and (falsely) stating that he had seen by Lenin and Stalin in the ‘spirit realm’, who had both said that they wanted their bodies ‘buried’ and moved out of sight. Wolf Messing immediately rejected this ‘non-Communist’ attitude, stating that he was not a ‘spiritualist’ and did not believe in religion or an afterlife! The fact that Khrushchev was willing to resort to this kind of bourgeois deception and hocus potus shows something of his corrupt and unreliable nature.

Russian Language Source:Международная_Сталинская_премия_«За_укрепление_мира_между_народами»



Trotskyite Misogyny as a Bourgeois ‘Feminist’ Deviations!


A (man and) woman who rejects Marxist-Leninism as the ideological basis for Feminist ideology is a ‘class enemy’ in the service of the Bourgeois State, and maybe categorised as a perpetrator of ‘Trotskyite Misogyny’. Marxist-Leninist Feminism views capitalism as the problem (not necessarily ‘men’) because Patriarchy emerges from that class which owns and controls  the means of production. Bourgeois Feminism (which can also be termed ‘Trotskyite’ Feminism), rhetorically attacks ‘men’ whilst uncritically accepting capitalism as ‘natural’ and ‘preferable’. The former position is dialectically correct, whilst the latter constitutes a bourgeois class deviation. Just as the bourgeois Trotskyites have hijacked and misused the term ‘Socialism’, they have also misappropriated the term ‘Feminism’ and given Feminists a bad name. Women who blame men are as dialectically incorrect as men who blame women – both points of view being equally bourgeois. Patriarchy is a combination of gender privilege, class and profit. Simply attacking gender privilege without equally acknowledging class and profit serves no purpose other than to sabotage the working class on its mission toward self-emancipation. A true Feminist fights the injustice of Patriarchy – this is correct – but pays equal attention to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and freeing all people (including men), from the tyranny of capitalist oppression.

NHS Shut-Down Checklist (2017) – Sutton (London)


Sutton NHS GPs have colluded to shut-down 3 GP Surgeries by ‘merging’ them into one single building – that is the GP Surgery situated In Robinhood Lane. Robinhood Lane GP Surgery is a purpose-built structure paid for by tax-payers’ money – but half of it is used by a ‘private’ GP Surgery. Next door is a special building used by people with disabilities (including a special needs gymnasium). This building is being closed down and its space used to accommodate the other three GP Surgeries (these Surgeries are being moved into the centre of Sutton from outlying areas – leaving those people with no local GP access). When I asked who authorised this sudden ‘cut’ of disability services, I was told that their was no information that could be given to me. This seems like a continuation of the Tory attack upon Britain’s disabled with the added twist that it is being incorporated into cutting of the NHS. As matters stand, the NHS shuts-down at 2pm in hospitals – with people such as surgeons and consultants switching to the treatment of ‘private’ patients whilst using NHS premises and equipment. New Labour brought-in this practice, and this is why NHS patients have to wait months (or years) to receive an operation. The queue can be jumped simply by paying. GP Surgeries actually work four full days a week (as part of stopping free treatment), but these cuts are hidden by the fact that a GP Surgery can supply the equivalent of these hours in any format they see fit. For instance, a GP Surgery might open six days a week, but keep all appointments within a set limit of hours. This charade is maintained by making patients having to wait weeks to see a doctor of their choice. GP Surgeries might also open early in the morning, late at night, or at weekends, giving the false impression that a full service is still in operation – it is not. This is the rationing of appointments. If a child who is five or under is ill, then most GP Surgeries will grant an ’emergency’ appointment whilst making it clear the schedule is ‘full’, however, when the family arrive at the GP Surgery they are surprised to find it ’empty’. This is because they have arrived whilst the GP Surgery is ‘closed’. Once the appointment barrier is over-come, GPs then treat the patient as a drain on material resources and deliberately withhold diagnosis and treatment. Preventing the patient seeing a consultant is a top priority, whilst limiting prescribed drugs is another. Where possible, NHS GPs are pushing ‘private’ prescriptions to save their Surgery money. This is the rationing of prescription drugs and services. Another barrier often encountered here, is the issuing of prescriptions for ‘cheap’,  sub-standard (or ‘generic’) medicines which are not as effective as their more expensive counter-parts. All these problems can be over-come if the patient decides to ‘pay’. Let this be a warning to you.

%d bloggers like this: