How Dishonest Medieval Goldsmiths Invented Fractional Banking


4th President of the United States

Around 1000 CE, the goldsmiths in Britain began the tradition of modern banking by taking custody of gold deposits from the general public, and storing those deposits in their own vaults. A paper ‘credit note’ was then issued to the owner of the gold deposit, which recorded (in writing) the ‘value’ (i.e. ‘weight’) of the gold, which was believed to easier (and safer) to carry around. A credit note could be lost or stolen, but the gold deposit itself remained safely hidden away – at least in theory. Originally, the goldsmiths issued credit notes that exactly expressed the amount of gold that was held in their vaults, but over-time, they realised that they could issue credit notes on the value of gold that they did not possess, and that nobody outside of the goldsmith industry had the ability to understand what was happening. Goldsmiths could issue vast loans to private individuals or businesses, charge ‘interest’ on the repayment of the loans, and no one within British society was the wiser. This is the birth of ‘fractional banking’, whereby the banking system accepts deposits, or makes loans or investments, whilst only required by law to hold reserves equal to only a fraction of its deposit liabilities. This means that a bank might only possess as little as 10% in actual gold, compared to the face-value of the credit notes it issues. Credit notes, of course, are today usually termed ‘bank notes’, or ‘paper money’.

This means that the basis of modern capitalism, although it has its roots in ancient times, (the biblical Jesus is said to have used violence against the money-lenders in the Jewish Temple), is dishonest and misleading. The goldsmiths were able to gain control of individuals, businesses, governments and monarchs, simply through the act of issuing more paper money than the gold reserves they possessed. Furthermore, when loans were repaid (with interest), the goldsmiths actually acquired a material wealth that they did not originally possess. If any monarch (or government) attempted to ‘expose’ or ‘curtail’ this banking industry the goldsmiths would simply ‘limit’ the amount of paper money in circulation, and immediately call-in all their loans (stacking misery upon misery for the ordinary people). If monarchs and governments granted the goldsmiths privileges, social status and political and religious influence, the goldsmiths would reward society by issuing more paper money – generating the false impression that times were ‘good’.

Of course, when the issuing of paper money exceeds the value of actual gold deposits, that paper money is worth far less than the value stated in print. This is how the banking system trades off of fictional gold reserves, generating billions in profits through loans and deposits, and then re-calls all these liabilities when the ‘inflation’ the bankers of generated, causes the economy to ‘collapse’. The modern bankers (as did the ancient goldsmiths) behave as if the processes of ‘boom’ and ‘bust’ that they generate (through their institutional dishonesty). and administer through their corrupt banking system, have nothing to do with them, and are the fault of the ordinary people who suffer due to their manifestation. As the bankers now fully administer the capitalist system by directly controlling governments, big businesses, the media, education and the electoral process (in the liberal, democratic West), all aspects of modern society are geared toward serving their greed. Times of economic hardship or economic ease are falsely presented to the ordinary people as objective forces of nature that no one control, when in fact the forces of ‘boom’ and ‘bust’ are nothing more than unnatural contrivances fabricated in the minds of ‘elitist’ greedy men and women, given expression through the various structures of society (including the Christian Church), the independence of which have been historically ‘surrendered’ by various monarchs and governments. Socialist governments, of course, reject the this highly exploitative and predatory bourgeois banking system and immediately ‘cancel’ all usury debt following a ‘Revolution’ – ths explains the ‘resistance’ to Socialism in the capitalist West, and the vitirol aimed at it – for Scientific Socialism (through the work of Karl Marx) fully exposes this corrupt system for what it is, but it is interesting to note how truly ‘Revolutionary’ some of the early US Presidents actually were.

Rosa Luxemberg’s Bourgeois Dialectical Errors


SPD Party School, Berlin (1907): Rosa Luxemburg ( standing left), Wilhelm Pieck (seated to right of Luxemburg) and Friedrich Ebert (third row back on left-hand side of right row)

Rosa Luxemberg (1871-1919) was murdered on the orders of her former student – Friedrich Ebert. Friedrich Ebert had become the first President of the Weimar Republic following Imperial Germany’s defeat at the end of WW1, and in so doing, aligned himself with the rightwing of German politics. Prior to its defeat against the UK in November of 1918, Imperial Germany had deployed troops into Revolutionary Russia (alongside the USA, UK and 11 other countries), with the objective of destroying the Bolshevik Movement, and capturing or killing its leaders. It is a bitter irony that whilst British and German troops continued to follow orders and kill one another in France, a completely different set of orders (issued by exactly the same military and political authorities), demanded that British and German troops fought on the same side in an international effort to crush Soviet Socialism. Although Rosa Luxemberg opposed Germany’s participation in WW1, she remained unusually ‘quiet’ about German troops invading and attempting to destroy Revolutionary Russia in 1918.

The problem regarding Rosa Luxemberg appears to stem from her misreading of Marx and Engels, and her ‘rigid’ alignment with the Second ‘Socialist’ International which advocated (to a certain degree) a co-operation between Socialist Revolutionary forces and the existing Bourgeois State. In this regard, Rosa Luxemberg’s ideas were more ‘bourgeois’ friendly, than Socialist Revolutionary, as she spoke with the attitude of a fully empowered bourgeois individual. Rosa Luxemberg mistakenly assumed that the oppressed Working Class possessed the same bourgeois education and access to social and political institutions that she did, and that all the Working Class had to do was to ‘realise’ this apparently ‘hidden’ or ‘latent’ power. Of course, such mistaken ideas as this have more in-common with bourgeois ‘mysticism’ and ‘religion’, than with the historical materialism of Karl Marx, and firmly demonstrates Rosa Luxemberg’s thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ approach to politics. Although a woman, Rosa Luxemberg behaved with a typical (and ‘dictatorial’) paternalistic attitude. The fact that she was eventually murdered by one of her ‘bourgeois’ students only serves to highlight the reality of this interpretation.

Rosa Luxemberg hated Lenin and despised his Bolshevik Movement. Rosa Luxemberg also detested the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it is true to say that she dedicated her political activity to a continuous effort of undermining its success and hard-established power-base. Rosa Luxemberg, preempting Trotsky’s eventual treachery, utilised a corrupting bourgeois rhetoric designed to dominate and mislead the oppressed Working Class at the point of contact. One example of this rhetoric can be found in Rosa Luxemberg’s Neue Zeit Journal article of July, 1904, within which she denounces Lenin’s insistence of what she termed ‘ultra-centralism’. Working from her liberal, bourgeois ideals, Rosa Luxemberg misinterpreted Lenin’s concept of proletariat ‘centralised democracy’, with that of bourgeois bureaucracy and bourgeois dictatorship. In many ways, Rosa Luxemberg’s bourgeois attitudes laid the theoretical foundation of what would become ‘Trotskyism’, and provided the US with an ideological method to ‘criticise’ the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Rosa Luxemberg was a bourgeois reactionary exercising pretensions of leftwing revolutionary activity. Her opposition to the Bolsheviks demonstrated not an advanced proletariat mind-set at work, but rather that of a privileged ‘White’ middle class woman ‘playing’ at being a Socialist Revolutionary’. In the same article there is evidence that Rosa Luxemberg had thoroughly ‘ingested’ anti-Russian, or anti-Slavic German attitudes, as she again misinterpreted Lenin’s ‘internationalist’ and ‘proletariat’ attitude as being typically ‘Russian’ in nature, referring to Lenin as expressing ‘Russian absolutism’. Writing as she was from a distinctly ‘bourgeois’ perspective, it is laughable that Rosa Luxemberg accused Lenin of turning the revolutionary struggle upon its head! When Lenin and the Bolsheviks finally came to power, Rosa Luxemberg’s opinions were thoroughly discredited, but they still have a certain currency amongst the Trotskyite left, or those feminists who mistake middle class privilege for female emancipation.


The Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923) Vol I (1950): By ER Carr – Page 34.

USSR: Judicial Death Penalty (1917-1991)


‘The theoreticians of socialism have never denied the necessity for strict and consistent legal regulation of all aspects of political life. On the contrary, they have emphasised that the socialist state can function only on condition that there is perfect legislation and that the laws are observed by all officials and ordinary citizens, and by all organisations and institutions.’

(Vladimir Terebilov – The Soviet Court)

Ten days following the 1917 February Revolution (in early March), the Provisional Government abolished the judicial Death Penalty throughout Russia. This enactment was short-lived, however, as upon July 12th, 1917 (old style), the Provisional Government re-instated the Death Penalty to be used on any frontline troops refusing to follow orders. This was a response to the collapse of the earlier July Offensive, which saw a civilian government give-in to pressure from the military authorities. Lenin and the Bolsheviks immediately protested this reversal – stating that it was wrong to kill Russian soldiers just because they thought the war not to be in their best class interests. As the Bolsheviks had refused to participate in the Provisional Government, Lenin remained untainted by this return to oppressive Czarist methods. Lenin stated that this Death Penalty was obviously a weapon in the hands of the Bourgeois State which was used against the masses. It would be different, Lenin said, if the same Death Penalty was used against landowners and capitalists. Together with the Socialist Revolutionaries, Lenin and the Bolsheviks continuously agitated against the use of the judicial Death Penalty at the time in both civil and military society – but Lenin did state that the working class would defend itself whenever attacked by the bourgeoisie. From a Scientific Socialist point of view, a Socialist State might use the Death Penalty if it was under internal or external attack from the bourgeoisie, but would not otherwise use the Death Penalty. The history of the Soviet Union is the observation of the unwavering application of that policy. There is no double-standards, hypocrisy or misuse, as bourgeois historians would have the world believe. The Socialist Death Penalty is not religiously derived, and exists merely to remove a physical threat to the workers and their well-being. When a social condition arises whereby the bourgeoisie and its tainting elements no longer function in society is reached, then there would be no need for existence or use of a judicial Death Sentence.

It is an irony of history to observe that Joseph Stalin abolished the Death Penalty of the USSR in 1947, whilst the (Trotskyite) Nikita Khrushchev (whilst accusing Stalin of all kinds of imagined ‘excesses’) re-introduced it in 1954. Of course, many countries in the world have practised the judicial Death Penalty at various times throughout their histories, and many modern so-called ‘democratic’ countries – such as the US, Japan, India and Sri Lanka, etc – still adhere to the principle of judicial ‘death’. The judicial Death Penalty is applied to an individual where and when it has been legally ‘proven’ he or she has participated in actions that have broken the laws that attract the application of capital punishment. This is decided by judicial process involving (where applicable) military authorities, civil law enforcement agencies, official courts, juries and/or the conclusions of investigative committees. Once sentence is passed, the condemned individual concerned forfeits his or her life via the legally defined method of despatch. For the US ally of Saudi Arabia, this amounts to beheadings (carried-out in local car-parks) on Friday night, whilst in the US-devastated Afghanistan, the feudalistic practice of ‘stoning’ is still practised. The modern Zionist State of Israel possesses the facility of the ‘Death Sentence’ in its law – but prefers not to use it. Instead, the troops of this other ally of the US, routinely kill and wound unarmed Palestinian men, women and children on a daily basis, operating in the occupied lands of Palestine. It is only across the EU that the judicial Death Penalty is formally ‘banned’, although historically, many European countries had voluntarily given-up the practice prior to EU membership. Other than in Western Europe, it is clear to see that the judicial Death Sentence remains popular throughout the world, and in many countries that would otherwise consider themselves to be both culturally advanced and ‘civilised’.

During the October-November Russian Revolution, Lenin, acting through the auspices of the Soviet Government of Russia (i.e. the Second Congress of Soviets on November 7th [new style] 1917), abolished in its entirety, the old Czarist legal system (Decree 1). This was necessary because Russia’s backward and oppressive feudalistic society was encapsulated in laws that were hundreds, if not thousands of years old. This meant specifically, that the Czarist Death Penalty (which Lenin’s brother – Aleksandr Ulyanov – had been subjected to in 1887), was abolished. Therefore, the judicial Death Penalty was abolished within Revolutionary Russia, not as a special concession, but merely as an incidental effect of rendering null and void the legal code. This is an important distinction, as Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not apply an opposed morality to the principle of the Death Penalty when establishing a completely ‘new’ way of structuring human society. Of course, Karl Marx was opposed to the use of the Death Penalty within bourgeois countries – stating that the Bourgeois State had no right to harm his body in any way. On the other hand, Marx also stated, the working class possessed the right to defend itself against bourgeois aggression. This was exactly Lenin’s opinion – the Death Penalty should not be used by the bourgeoisie against the oppressed working class – and neither should it be used by the working class against the workers. However, as the working class has the right to ‘protect itself’ in all areas of existence, a Workers’ State could conceivably have the right to use the judicial Death Penalty against anyone deemed a ‘class enemy’. A ‘class enemy’ is anyone legally proven to be acting on behalf of the international bourgeoisie. This method of punishment is designed to counter the bourgeois habit of assassination, terror, and traitorous behaviour. Many bourgeois commentators (including Trotsky) who are antagonistic to Communism often mention these facts as if they have discovered (or revealed) a great hidden contradiction within Marxist thought, whilst simultaneously expressing their ignorance of Marxist thought, and the fact that the working class is under a continuous psychological, emotional and physical attack from the bourgeoisie. This anti-working class ‘violence’ is practised both within capitalist societies and between capitalist societies, and is designed to prevent the domestic and international working class from effectively ‘uniting’ and formulating methods of Revolution. Part of this systemic bourgeois oppression is the recourse to the judicial Death Sentence applied asymmetrically to the poorest sections of society, as it is these poorest areas of society that stand the most to gain from any Revolution.

Whilst WWI was brought to an end for Russia, the immense task of re-structuring society was commenced by the Bolsheviks. All foreign finance (and other assets) had been withdrawn from Russia by the West, soon to be followed by the insertion into Russia of troops from 14 capitalist countries (including the USA, UK, Japan, China, and Germany, etc). This large-scale invasion (known as the ‘Russian Civil War’) sought to destroy the Russian Revolution and restore Czarist rule. It is a little known fact that before the UK and Germany finished fighting one another in France, British and German soldiers fought side by side in Russia to end Bolshevism in early 1918. As much of the Russian territory had fallen under foreign domination at this time, and considering that the Western allies were encouraging terrorism, murder and sabotage behind Bolshevik lines, the Death Penalty was re-introduced in mid-1918. On January 17th, 1920, the Bolsheviks again abolished the Death Penalty, however, as Baron Wrangel was still active in Crimea, and the bourgeois Poles were advancing into the Ukraine, the Death Penalty was re-introduced on May 4th, 1920. This demonstrates how the Bolsheviks applied the Death Penalty purely upon practical grounds, and the ebb and flow of war-time conditions. The Death Penalty would be in effect in one way or another in the Soviet Union, until its abolishment in 1947. What has to be understood is that between 1917 and 1926, Revolutionary Russia had no formal legal code (with the Soviet Union not being founded until December 30th, 1922). Instead, the various Soviet bodies responsible for ensuring public safety through law and order, were advised by Lenin to make decisions on the ground in accordance with local conditions, and motivated by the spirit of Socialist thinking. This process was regulated with the formation of various legal codes all designed to eventually feed into a ‘new’ Soviet Constitution (which was ratified in 1926). This suggests that the principle of the Death Penalty was not necessarily intended to be a regular or permanent feature of Soviet judicial life, despite the fact that on May 17th, 1922, Lenin wrote to Commissar of Justice – DI Kurskii – suggesting that the Death Penalty be retained for ‘political’ crimes.

Unlike previous epochs within Russian history, Lenin demanded that all minors and pregnant women be permanently ‘exempt’ from any instigation of the Death Penalty, and that this sentence should not be routinely resorted to, but be part of a selection of possible punishments available, depending upon the severity of the crime in question. As the bourgeois class continuously advocated death and destruction at every turn toward any Socialist Movement, the retaining of the Death Penalty within the USSR was viewed by Lenin as an act of judicial self-defence. As the Soviet State had no intention of engaging in the cruel and unnecessary practice of prolonging ordinary judicial executions, the quickest method of despatch was considered ‘shooting’. Within the military this could involve a traditional ‘firing squad’, but in the case of civilians, a single shot to the back of the head (whilst sat on a chair) was the preferred method. Unlike in the bourgeois West, Death Sentences in the Soviet Union (when carried-out), were administered quickly after sentencing to reduce stress and suffering for the condemned. However, the kind of crimes that attracted the Death Penalty were not ‘ordinary’, but purely political in nature and involved sabotage, terrorism, assisting the bourgeoisie, treason, counter-revolution, armed uprising, aiding foreign governments against the USSR, undermining State institutions, assisting the Czarist regime, crimes committed against another Workers’ State, inducing a foreign attack, espionage, anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation, wrecking, unauthorised return from exile, terrorist acts against foreign officials, and using religious prejudice to over-throw the government. As can be seen, none of these categories generally applied to everyday ‘civilian’ life in the USSR, and suggests that for ordinary and law-abiding Soviet citizens, the Death Penalty did not exist in practice. When ‘civil’ crimes were committed (including murder and rape), long-term prison sentences coupled with hard labour were usually the preferred methods of punishment, although in 1954 (and possibly in mimicry of the bourgeois West), Khrushchev’s legal reforms extended the existing Soviet Death Penalty legislation to include ‘pre-meditated murder’. This demonstrates Khruschev’s muddled thinking, and how he confused ‘civil’ crimes with ‘political’ crimes.

Following the end of WWII, and the NKVD crushing of the neo-Nazi Movement in the Ukraine, Joseph Stalin decided that the time was now right for the Soviet Union to completely abolish the judicial Death Penalty for ALL categories of crimes. However, as the US initiated its highly aggressive Cold War policy at around this time, an exception to this abolition was made in January 1950, which stated that those convicted as being traitors, spies and saboteurs would be subject to the judicial Death Penalty. Following Stalin’s death in 1953, the rise of the Trotskyite Nikita Khrushchev led to a reactionary period in Soviet legal history where the clear thinking of Lenin and Stalin was replaced with the bourgeois thinking of a counter-revolutionary.  In 1954, Khrushchev re-introduced the judicial Death Penalty and this remained in-place until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Under Nikita Khrushchev, the clear line established by Lenin and Stalin regarding the difference between ‘civil’ and ‘political’ crimes was ‘blurred’, with the Death Penalty being used to infiltrate Soviet civilian law – a situation Lenin never intended.

Russian Language Reference:Смертная_казнь_в_России

English Language Reference:

On he Road to Communism: By RE Kanet & I Volgyes (1972), University Press of Kansas

The Soviet Court: By Vladimir Terebilov, (1986), Progress Publishers




Distorting Soviet History – The Case of Soviet Physicist Matvei Bronstein (1906-1938)


Soviet Physicist Matvei Bronstein

In 1953, the US Government executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for being Members of the Communist Party of the USA (a legal entity then as now), and by extension, because they were thought to be spies working for the Soviet Union. The then President of the United States offered the Rosenberg’s a deal whereby if they renounced their Communist beliefs, and ‘admitted’ their guilt – their respective Death Sentences (via the electric chair) would be commuted to ‘life imprisonment’ – both steadfastly refused, and they died within minutes of one another on June 19th, 1953. The mainstream media of the democratic West remained ‘silent’, and was generally supportive of a US that had just suffered numerous military defeats at the hands of Communist China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), as it expelled the US-led Western forces from North Korea. Of course, Socialists had been attacked, maimed and killed in the US before, but following the crushing Soviet victory over Nazi Germany during WWII, the US Government, controlled as it is by the demands of big business, had developed a hysteria and paranoia against the Communist Bloc, the like of which could easily be described as a ‘group psychosis’. The capitalists that run America feared their own working class, and were afraid that it would rise-up and sweep away their corruption and class privilege. As a means to counter any working class grassroots movement that looked toward the Soviet Union for inspiration and perhaps material support, the US Government initiated a Cold War ‘disinformation’ campaign designed to turn the Western working class firmly away from any association with the USSR. The basic premise was a simple sleight of hand and inversion of thought; as the Soviet Union viewed itself as the ‘Socialist’ conquering force over Nazi German fascism, the US ideologues generated the lie that there was no difference between the brutal Soviet Union (an ally of the US during WWII), and the maniacal Nazi Germany. Ironically, the country that the US had dropped two atomic bombs upon at the end of WWII – fascist Japan – was quickly ‘rehabilitated’ and suddenly packaged to the world as America’s new best friend.

This all has to be mentioned, because another key aspect of Soviet misrepresentation is to mis-report segments of Soviet history with no historical context whatsoever – as if the Soviet Union was so corrupt that it possessed the ability to exist outside of space and time! Much of how the Soviet Union is interpreted prior to WWII, actually emerged as part of a continuously unfolding anti-Soviet Cold War rhetoric, manufactured after WWII. The false impression is that the post-WWII attitude of the US toward the USSR was exactly the same pre-WWII attitude of the US toward the USSR – an illusion that only holds true if the entirety of the WWII collaboration between the US and USSR is completely omitted from the historical record. Another important issue is the embracing by the West of Leon Trotsky and his peculiar form of collaboration with capitalism which he termed ‘Socialism’ (but never ‘Communism’) following his expulsion from the USSR in 1929. Trotsky sought to destroy the Soviet Union and instigate a system of bourgeois-left leaning capitalism in its place. Western Governments liked this form of ‘Trotskyite’ deception, and encouraged its presence throughout (and within) the Union and Labour Movements of the West. Trotskyism is essentially an anti-Marxist-Leninism ideology, and was viewed by the Western Governments as a preferred alternative for the workers to follow – due to its anti-Soviet underpinnings. From 1929 until his death in 1940, Leon Trotsky received all kinds of support from Western Governments in a bid to undermine the Soviet Union. This included the establishing of ‘cells’ within the Soviet Union linked not only to the Western Democracies, but also with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Trotskyism was (and still is) a counter-revolutionary and anti-workers’ movement, that permeates the Labour Movement, and which psychologically and physically leads workers away from Socialist Revolution, and toward a continued collaboration with capitalism and its oppressive forces throughout society. Trotskyism destroys Labour Movements from within, and is designed to completely disempower the working class on every front.

In 1938, at a Conference representing his ‘Socialist’ ideology, Trotsky called for the victory of the forces of World Fascism over not only the Soviet Union, but also over the Western Democracies as well! In his deluded thinking, this victory of Adolf Hitler would be good for the well-being and freedom of the International Working Class! In the case of Matvei Bronstein – a Soviet physicist specialising in quantum mechanics and nuclear power – he became embroiled with a Trotskyite group operating in the USSR that had direct links to Nazi Germany. As usual, the English wikipedia page is inaccurate and missing vital information, but steadfastly supports the US anti-Soviet position. The Russian language wikipedia page has more official information, but still omits ‘what’ Matvei Bronstein had been found guilty of. The English wikipedia page portrays Bronstein ‘ahistorically’ as a lovable ‘genius’ who spent his spare-time writing children’s books. The implication is that his execution was unjust and an act of barbarism. The Russian Language wikipage – although lacking a crucial piece of information – does provide the following ‘historical’ details:

‘Arrested on August 6, 1937 in Kiev, in his parents’ house, and transported to Leningrad. Included in the firing list “Leningrad region” on February 3, 1938, approved by the signatures of Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Kaganovich.
February 18, 1938 sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR under the chairmanship of Corveneurist Matulevich to be shot under Article 58-8-11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – was shot on the same day. Presumably buried in the Levashovskaya wasteland, where L. Chukovskaya in the 1990’s installed a monument. He was rehabilitated posthumously by order No. 44-028 603/56 of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR of May 9, 1957.’

Bronstein was ‘rehabilitated posthumously’ by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev who was himself a Trotskyite. What surprised me was that Bronstein’s Death Sentence was tested and approved by ‘four’ different Soviet legal departments – Stalin’s signature being added last. I had to look in other Russian language sources to discover exactly ‘why’ this action was taken against Bronstein by the Soviet State. Six months had elapsed since his arrest and trial, and every indication is that this was a thorough investigation. Bronstein, of course, experienced every assistance and freedom the Soviet State could give prior to his arrest, and it was known that he had contact with Niel Bohr – the Danish physicist – who is often portrayed in Western literature as opposing Nazism, but Denmark as a nation openly collaborated with Nazi Germany and did not resist the Nazi invasion of 1940 etc, but this association is not the reason Bronstein was arrested. Interestingly, the English wikipedia (designed in the US) omits all details of the trial, whereas the Russian (modern) wikipedia text omits the following (crucial) line of information which explains ‘why’ Bronstein was arrested, tried and executed:

‘Active participation in a counter-revolutionary, fascist-terrorist organization.’

(активное участие в контрреволюционной фашистской террористической организации)

Another Russian language text adds even more information:

‘According to the indictment of January 24, 1938, as part of his “practical anti-Soviet work” the scientist “prepared terrorist acts” and carried-out harmful activities “in the field of subsoil and water resources exploration.”‘

‘Согласно обвинительному заключению от 24 января 1938 года, в своей «практической антисоветской работе» ученый «готовил террористические акты» и вредил «в области разведки недр и водного хозяйства». ‘

Writing in the UK in 2017, I can say that I was not present during these times, and have no way of knowing whether Bronstein was ‘guilty’ or not. Furthermore, like Karl Marx, I disagree with the judicial Death Sentence, whilst equally recognising that the working class has a right to defend itself. The British BBC correspondent Alexander Werth (who was of Russian parentage), spent many years in the USSR, and dedicated much of his later years to providing good quality, first-hand accounts of life in the Soviet Union. Obviously, almost by default, his work continuously counters the false US anti-Soviet propaganda – proving it wrong at every turn. Even Americans living in the USSR in the 1940’s and 1950’s stated that there was no ‘great purge’, and neither were millions of people sent to gulags. Instead, it was admitted that there was perhaps around 10,000 people arrested throughout the USSR in the late 1930’s, with only a small percentage receiving the Death Sentence for spying or collaborating with Nazi Germany, etc. From what I am told by Russian colleagues, it is suspected that Bronstein was preparing to hand-over his work on nuclear studies to a ‘fascist’ enemy – thought to be Nazi Germany.

From the viewpoint of US anti-Soviet propaganda – which a priori assumes the utter corruption of the Soviet State at every turn – why was it considered necessary to ‘omit’ Bronstein’s criminal charge from Western narratives about his life? The English-language wikipedia is a good barometer of US political opinion, as its pages are ‘edited’ to keep this often inaccurate encyclopaedia very much representative of America’s anti-Socialist position. This bias can be seen in the racist attitude employed by wikipedia toward Communist China and North Korea, and its continuous censoring of any critique of the Zionist State of modern Israel. It is interesting that the wikipedia editors chose not to include Bronstein’s criminal charge in their general anti-Soviet narrative.Why would they fail to include a charge, if they thought the charge itself was unjust? Surely the inclusion of such a charge would work in favour of their anti-Soviet cause? The only viable reason I can see for omitting Bronstein’s criminal charge, is that the US Establishment does not want the general reader to know about it. If this is the case, then why would the US Establishment not want the general reader to know ‘exactly’ what Bronstein was charged with? Could it be that Bronstein’s charge can be easily proven to be ‘true’ by accessing other historical records? Or could it include the fact that US espionage was behind Bronstein’s collaboration with fascism? Whatever the reasons may be, it is obvious that in the case of Bronstein, the US Establishment does not want his charge to be widely known.

Finally, whilst at Leningrad University (from 1923-1929), Matvei Bronstein made friends with three other people who would go on to become well-known Soviet scientists. One of these was named ‘Georgiy Gamov’. Despite having a privileged lifestyle and career as a Soviet physicist, Gamov sought to ‘defect’ to the capitalist West at his earliest convenience. This he did (with his wife) in 1933 – after two years of continuous effort. He then ingratiated himself with the Western (capitalist) Establishment, immediately sharing all his previously confidential Soviet science with the enemies of Socialism. His work, which involved Cosmology, quantum tunneling and molecular genetics, was then integrated into the capitalist ‘scientific’ narrative, giving the false impression that ‘greed’ had triumphed over egalitarianism. It is interesting, from a historical point of view, that Bronstein was associated with Gamov. Two of Bronstein’s other friends at the time were Dmitri Ivanenko and Lev Landau, both of whom went on to have glittering scientific careers in the USSR, and remain loyal to the Socialist cause.

English Language Reference:

Russian Language Reference:Бронштейн,_Матвей_Петрович

Communist China’s Success and its Misinterpretation


Production by the masses, the interests of the masses, the experiences and feelings of the masses – to these the leading cadres should pay constant attention.

Mao Zedong 8th Route Army Headquarters – Yenan – 24.11.1943

When it comes to emancipating our minds, using our heads, seeking truth from facts and uniting as one looking to the future, the primary task is to emancipate our minds. Only then can we, guided as we should be by Marxist-Leninist and Mao Zedong Thought, find correct solutions to emerging as well as inherited problems… Just imagine the additional wealth that could be created if all the people in China’s hundreds of thousands of enterprises and millions of production teams put their minds to work. As more wealth is created for the state, personal income and collective benefits should also increase somewhat… Otherwise, we won’t be able to rid our country of poverty and backwardness or to catch up with – still less surpass – the advanced countries.’ 

Deng Xiaoping – Emancipate the Mind, Seek Truth from Facts and Unite as One in Looking to the Future – 13.12.1978

Communist China is a Socialist State founded in late 1949. At that time, the Communist Party of China (led by Mao Zedong) over-threw the Western-supported government of Chiang Kai-Shek, eradicated feudalism and over-threw the bourgeoisie and the predatory capitalism they represented, and seized the means of production. Chiang Kai-Shek and his capitalists invaded the island of Taiwan and seized power there (committing many atrocities in the process), with the remnants of his US-supported regime still occupying that island today, with its exploitative class system still intact. Taiwan is the only part of Mainland China where US-style capitalism still holds sway. Within Taiwan, the small middle class dominates and oppresses the masses of workers – who are forced to eke-out a living in oppressive conditions – whilst this rogue regime is held together through US Christian missionary work (that converts the masses and turns them against Chinese culture by stating it is evil and backward), and by continuous US threats about invading Mainland China, or false US fears about Communist China invading Taiwan. This is the standard ‘divide and conquer’ tactics used by the Eurocentric forces of imperialism for centuries. Add to this the fact that the US government uses billions of dollars of its own tax-payer’s money to artificially prop-up Taiwan’s ‘false’ economy, and the true ‘fake’ status of Taiwan is revealed, showing it to be nothing but a US colony.

Every utility and business in China is ‘nationalised’ and owned by the Communist Chinese State. In other words, the Communist Party of China (CPC) – as the organised representative of the working class – having ceased full control of the means of production in 1949, now administers the entire business and service economy to benefit the people. All generated profit is immediately fed back into building a stronger and more efficient Workers’ State. This includes a fully comprehensive Welfare System, and free at the point of use National Health System. China uses both Western and Chinese medical systems provided free by the State. Science and technology is given unlimited funding to progress human understanding of the universe, and to develop advanced technology, medicines, treatments, communication systems, satellites and space travel. The Chinese legal system guarantees ‘equality’ throughout China, and unlike its bourgeois counter-part, a Chinese person receives full and free legal support. Communist China has rapidly developed both psychosocially and materiality since 1949, and has not only caught-up with the capitalist US, but is now surpassing this ruthless and capitalist country that uses its massive prison population as a form of slave labour.

The US has initiated a relentless anti-China campaign since 1949, bearing all the hall-marks of that country’s predictable ‘anti-Communist’ propaganda. Common accusations without any evidence include bizarre allegations that China is despotic, undemocratic, an invader of Tibet, a deceptive ‘capitalist’ country, and a dog-eating abuser of human rights, etc. What is remarkable about these views and many similar misrepresentations of China, is that they are shared equally across the Western political spectrum – both left and right. Underlying all these views are Eurocentric racist interpretations of the Chinese ethnicity, its political system, its history and its culture. These derogatory ideas about China are just as likely to manifest in India, as they are in the US, and often serve as the basis of both Western fascist and Communist critiques of China. The Western mainstream is just as racist as the fascist rightwing – but the Communist and Socialist left should know better. The problem with the left is that it has become riddled with Trotskyite racialised rhetoric that seeks to undermine any and all Marxist-Leninist regimes. Trotskyism dove-tales nicely with fascist ideology and is nothing but a racist misrepresentation of the leftwing perspective. Trotskyism also serves as the basis for the British Labour Party leftism – with even Jeremy Corbyn criticising China’s Yulin Dog Festival in Parliament in 2015 – with no Chinese-based evidence informing his views. This is the same Labour Leader who says nothing in Parliament about 24 hour slaughter houses in the UK, etc.

Communist understanding should be a continuous process of dialectic development and should not be stuck in the past, or congeal around a set of dogmatic ideals. When a Communist government seizes control of the means of production, capitalism is over-thrown with exploitative capitalist market forces replaced by working class representative Socialist market forces. Whereas in the former all profit is concentrated into the hands of a small and privileged group, in the latter all profit is radically re-distributed throughout society to directly benefit the majority of the ordinary people.  Obviously China has rejected the former and embraced the latter. Today, China seeks to master and over-come the Western capitalist system by learning its method from a Socialist perspective, and turning its method against the capitalists. The Western powers dominated China for hundreds of years and in that time ruthlessly exploited its people and stole its considerable wealth – leaving China thoroughly impoverished by 1911. By engaging the capitalists and beating them at their own game does not make China a ‘capitalist’ country – as even the USSR traded with the capitalist West. What it demonstrates is not the failure of Marxist-Leninist ideology, but rather its success. In just over 60 years, a backward and impoverished country has been completely transformed through the leadership of the Communist Party of China. This fact flies in the face of the false US propaganda that Socialism equals poverty. What capitalists and fascists either conveniently forget, or just do not know, is that Karl Marx stated that Socialism (and then Communism) emerge out of a very well developed and successful capitalist system – he never taught that Socialism is ‘anti-capitalist’. Marxists are anti-bourgeois and anti-exploitation, but they take economic market forces and re-define their uses so that society is benefited rather than oppressed. In 1949, 90% of China’s population were impoverished and illiterate – today, after just over 60 years of CPC guidance, this situation has been completely reversed, with 90% of the population being able to read and write, and live a life of greatly improved economic circumstances.

Trotskyite Origins of ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ – Bodleian Library (2017)


Karl Marx stated that the working class must throw-off the shackles of a ‘false consciousness’ as enforced upon it by the controlling masters of capital – the bourgeoisie. What is this ‘false consciousness’? It is defined by Marx as the ‘inverted’ (and non-scientific’) use of the mind, which justifies a theistic religious oppression, and the mythology that an ‘unseen’ and ‘non-material’ world lurks behind the very real material world (of suffering and oppression), and controls it through the equally unseen hand of a theistic entity. The implications of this ‘inverted’ mind-set are tremendous, because through the perpetuation of theistic religion (even in its secular form), the capitalist system is maintained and justified through a bourgeoisie which presents itself as the ‘natural’ choice (decreed by god) to run society. Karl Marx (and VI Lenin) begged to differ, but not so Leon Trotsky – but more about him in a moment. Marx suggested that once the ‘inverted’ mind is recognised for what it is, abandoned and rectified, then a ‘true consciousness’ is adopted and developed. This views the material world correctly without recourse to fearing a non-material world that does not exist ‘behind the scenes’ as it where. Whatever evolutionary conscious awareness maybe – according to Marx – it is certainly not theistic or religious in nature. As the working class is taught to view things the wrong way around from birth, everything in that reality must be ruthlessly questioned and criticised to establish a grasp of reality as it is. Of course, like all great intellectual undertakings, this process is a matter of dialectical assessment and application of the mind. Opposites must be correctly assessed, and the correct dialectical action taken. As Marxist-Leninist Socialism is Scientific, this means applying a ‘scientific’ mind to all things working class – so as to benefit that class in its totality from the cradle to the grave. This signifies a radical improvement for each individual on a personal and public level – with a Socialist Society providing the optimum material conditions for an enhanced human existence. This is what the Scientific Socialism of Marxist-Leninism strives to achieve.

The book in question – ‘Revolution! Sayings of Vladimir Lenin’ was published in 2017 by the Bodleian Library (Oxford), probably in anticipation of the 100th anniversary of the Russian ‘October Revolution’ that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Generally speaking, the bourgeois press is either openly hostile to this Socialist Revolution (perpetuating all kinds of ahistorical disinformation), or more or less indifferent. This book is undoubtedly ‘bourgeois’, but whilst presenting the surface idea that the work of VI Lenin is being impartially conveyed, it is in fact pursuing quite a different agenda. This book is not anti-Socialist per se, and whilst in its brief Introduction it claims to have referenced the Marxist Internet Archive, there is an issue with the type of quotes selected, the presentation of those quotes without a proper historical context, an incorrect criticism of Joseph Stalin, and a complete omission of any of the substantial and continuous criticisms Lenin made about the thinking of Leon Trotsky for probably over ten year period (or more) prior to Lenin’s death in 1924. What this book does include, however, is an ‘edited’ quote that appears to show Lenin heaping praise upon Trotsky (something that Lenin never did – as we shall see).  This is the page from the book (which proves the ‘Trotskyite’ intentions of the authors):


This single (and altered) quote from VI Lenin proves the true Trotskyite nature of this book. This quote has two defining sentences missing, which when included confirms that Lenin is being sarcastic about Trotsky’s tendency to ‘disrupt’ routine Communistic planning and direction of policy (despite his organisational abilities which he later deployed in a world-wide attempt to bring-down the Soviet Union). The full quote can be accessed here Letter to the Congress and reads:

‘Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People’s Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.’

If this book was genuinely about VI Lenin, the authors would have included the fact that Lenin made serious criticism about Trotsky’s thinking – effectively accusing him of being bourgeois in his assessment of the principle of revolution and the needs of the peasants and workers, etc. Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, was constructively criticised by Lenin in an attempt to mould him into a better leader. This policy of Lenin’s must have worked, as Stalin’s Collected Works are fully inaccordance with the thinking of Marx-Engels and Marx-Lenin – even though Stalin had to guide the USSR through its early development and very tumultuous times (such as the Great Patriotic War – 1941-1945). Trotsky’s work, on the other hand, reads like a mimicry of Socialism – a bourgeois mirage or smoke-screen designed to mislead the workers down a dark ally from which they cannot escape. The camouflage employed by the authors to cover their Trotskyite tendencies is that of occasionally supplying a well-known Lenin quote between one or two suspicious or misleading ones, but it is this dubious use of quotes which is designed to do much damage to Lenin in the mind of the general reader. For instance, there are a number of non-contextualised quotes which give the impression that Lenin advocated the use of ‘terrorism’ – this is untrue. Both Marx and Lenin (and Stalin for that matter), where against the use of anarchic or indiscriminate violence, as its victims were often innocent members of the working class, who were further punished by a vengeful Bourgeois State! This is the type of ‘terror’ that is seen in the West today – usually of a religious nature. This is very different to the entire working class rising-up together and taking control of the means of production. This book makes no attempt to convey the true Marxist-Leninist attitude against terrorism, but instead conveys the false idea that Lenin supported indiscriminate terrorism – he did not.  A typical and non-contextual quote from this book reads:


This book is very poorly referenced, and one gets the impression that it is because the authors do not want the general reader to find-out for themselves the true context of such quotes – which when presented out of historical context – are designed to make Lenin seem monstrous. I have had to research each quote separately – so poor is this book’s referencing system. The full quote can be accessed here On Combating The Famine and actually reads:

‘Vladimirov’s data indicate that the old ration should not be changed. Measures must be taken to find what there is available in Petrograd.

All these data show that the workers of Petrograd are monstrously inactive. The Petrograd workers and soldiers must understand that they have no one to look to but themselves. The facts of abuse are glaring, the speculation, monstrous; but what have the mass of soldiers and workers done about it? You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action. A plenary meeting of the Soviet must be called to decide on mass searches in Petrograd and the goods stations. To carry out these searches, each factory and company must form contingents, not on a voluntary basis: it must be the duty of everyone to take part in these searches under the threat of being deprived of his bread card. We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.

The rich section of the population must be left without bread for three days because they have stocks of other foodstuns and can afford to pay the speculators the higher price.’

Not only was Revolutionary Russia invaded by fourteen countries from around the world (including the UK, USA, Germany, the Republic of China and Japan), but there was much turmoil within Russian as all foreign money and trade was immediately withdrawn in an attempt to punish the Russian working class for daring to stand-up to bourgeois tyranny, and quite literally ‘starve’ them out. Like any leader in such a position, Lenin takes control. He tells the workers to strive for their own survival and welfare – and in this time of warfare and hardship, the proletariat is to defend itself against class enemies at every turn. The combined interventionist forces were eventually defeated by 1921 under Lenin’s leadership – so that the ‘Soviet Union’ could be declared in late 1922. The so-called ‘Russian Civil War’ was in fact a mass invasion of Socialist Russia by the reactionary forces of the world in support of capitalism. None of this is made clear in this book because the Trotskyite author’s want to paint Lenin in a bad light, and make him appear to be thinking and acting like a contemporary ‘terrorist’ – whilst proper research shows clearly that as a great leader of a country – Lenin certainly was not a ‘terrorist’, driven by a misplaced religious zeal. This book attempts to disparage the Russian Revolution by sullying the good name of its leader – VI Lenin – and his successor JV Stalin. the authors do this to elevate the name of their hero Leon Trotsky – the true traitor to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and the true disparager of Scientific Socialism. This is typical of the dishonest Trotskyite tactic of ‘entryism’, whereby lies and deceptions are used to mislead the people. Whereas the authors contend that Stalin was ‘untrustworthy’, he was apparently trustworthy enough for Lenin to allow him to become Secretary-General of the Communist Party. The positives of this book are the well-known and inspirational sayings uttered by VI Lenin – but these are out-weighed by the ambiguous nature of many of the less well-known sayings (quoted out of context), which appear deliberately chosen to mislead the general reader along a negative path. This book gives ‘glimpses’ of the brilliance of VI Lenin – which the discerning reader might research further – but is designed to make the USSR appear to be premised upon Lenin’s ‘terrorism’, distorted by Stalin’s fanaticism, and saved by Trotsky’s intelligence – all three assumptions being completely wrong! Lenin was dialectically correct. Stalin was dialectically correct. Trotsky was dialectically incorrect – and Trotskyites would do well to recognise this fact! However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Trotskyite authors can be out-manoeuvred simply by ‘acknowledging’ and ‘ignoring’ their ‘entryism’ and attempts at deception. The discerning reader should use the legitimate sayings of Lenin contained in this book to over-throw both capitalism and its bourgeois lackey Trotskyism!


Algebraic Formula for the Achievement of Communism (i.e. ‘Scientific Socialism’)


A mathematical formula is believed to ‘prove’ something to be logically correct through reasoned argument. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that they had discovered and developed a new kind of social science applicable to the capitalist, industrialised world. As a ‘science’ opposed to a faith-base religion, utopian Socialism or sets of superstitious beliefs, the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels, provided an ‘objective’ observation of the material world (in its socio-economic and political-cultural manifestation), whilst operating a predictive model of changes yet to come, premised firmly upon concrete existential conditions. This is a model of the world free of religious speculation or any form of ‘inverted’ thinking – where thoughts generated in the head are mistaken for actual objects (or processes) in the material world. Once this inverted mind-set (which existed for millennia prior to the emergence of rational thought in humans), is the reason why people have believed in non-existent gods and spirits, built their entire lives on these empty beliefs, and have been prepared to murder one another as a means to ‘prove’ whose ‘inverted’ mind-set is better than all the others. This switch from imagination to the objective observation of the real world and the processes that operate through it, is the foundational premise of the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. The mind is not ignored or negated in this model, but assumes its correct and pristine function of ‘reflecting’ external conditions within, whilst being able to initiate modes of behaviour (through patterns of progressive and non-inverted thought), that modify and/or sustain various modes of operation or functionality in the material world. The human mind is shaped by external conditions, and given the correct development, also serves to transform the external world (through advanced modes of well-considered behaviour or manifest ‘labour’ in various types). Assuming the correctness of this Marx-Engels (and by extrapolation ‘Marx-Lenin’), the ‘correctness’ of Karl Marx’s understanding can be expressed in a succinct mathematical formula in the following manner.


Communism = K (Kommunism)

History = Passing Time (pt)

Matter = Social Constructs (sc)

Conscious Awareness = Human Perception (hp)

The long formula reads:

Communism (k) = History (passing time) x Matter (social constructs) ÷ Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

K = H x M  – (which is the shorter version of K = pt x sc)

C                                                                            hp

Conscious awareness (i.e. ‘human perception’) is intimately entwined with physical matter, and indeed is a result of matter that has become aware of its own existence during the evolutionary developmental process. Soviet literature quite rightly referred to this process as a ‘special arrangement of matter’. As a consequence, conscious awareness is ‘divided’ throughout all the sensory universe without exception, providing there are no illnesses or injuries that interfere with the cognitive process, and the individual is alive. With the death of the brain and body, the conscious awareness in its ordinary sense, ceases to function and the individual concerned no longer directly influences the world, through thought and behaviour. However, an individual may continue to assert an influence of sorts upon the world, through his or her deeds whilst alive, and the manner in which the living hold the memory of the deceased. For instance, it can be reasonably argued that the memory of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin – to mention just three Communist Revolutionaries – live on with a considerable ‘power’ or ‘force’ in the minds (and behaviours) of others – and yet all three are now dead. Human consciousness, when freed from an inverted functionality, takes its place to correctly reflect the world as it actually is, rather than in a manner premised upon wishful thinking and imagination. No imaginary ‘god’ is going to rescue the Working Class, simply because such a god is a fabrication manufactured by the very same Middle Class that oppresses the workers. This is why the workers must train their minds to ‘see through’ the bourgeois religious myth, and strive to achieve in the physical world, a Proletariat Revolution which transforms the material conditions of that world away from mythology and toward a collective Scientific Socialism.

As Trotskyism is a bourgeois attitude pretending to support ‘Socialism’, its adherents, whilst appearing to confront and protest various aspects of the capitalist system, are in reality supporting the foundation of the capitalist system (seeking power and influence through selfish compromises here and there), whilst opposing Marxist-Leninism, and the achievement of any genuine Communist Revolution. This Trotskyite opposition to a Marxist-Leninist Revolution may be expressed through a slightly modified version of the above mathematical formula.

The Long Formula reads:

Trotskyite Socialism (ts) = History (passing of time) x Matter (social constructs) – Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

TS = (H x M) – C – which is the shorter for of TS = (pt x sc) – hp

As the Trotskyites refuse to dialectically participate in the Marxist-Leninist process toward a transformation of the physical world through a Communist Revolution, it can be stated that the Trotskyite approach is ‘unscientific’ and represents a ‘negation’ or ‘withdrawal’ of a correctly focused Revolutionary consciousness. Therefore, the Trotskyites exist to preserve the capitalist system as it exists (i.e. through the passing of time, the capitalist socio-economic constructs remain unchanged), and exercise a deliberately ‘falsified’ state of mind that remains ‘inverted’ and thoroughly bourgeois in essence, and which mimics the Communist Revolutionary spirit – whilst rejecting the very ideology that underlies this spirit. The above formula is straight forward and designed for anyone to understand why the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin is a mathematical (scientific) fact, and why Trotskyism is simply another aspect of the bourgeois preference for capitalism, and a false vehicle for securing power in an oppressive system. In other words, Trotskyism is not ‘scientific’ and should be abandoned by the International Working class, as being an ideology that is against its best class interests. Finally, with perhaps the exception of the Socialist Albert Einstein, the bourgeois academic system, wedded as it is to the capitalist system, refuses to recognise the ‘scientific’ nature of Marxism (and Marxist-Leninism), and heap scorn and derision upon it. It may well be that Marxist-Leninists represent the most advanced human-beings on the earth to date, and that the persecution such people suffer from the establishment, is tantamount to the persecution Galileo faced from the Roman Catholic Church, when he dared to reject the ‘inverted’ teachings of theology, and to state that the earth was round and travelled around the sun! As workers, we must learn all the important facts discovered by the bourgeois establishment, whilst developing our own proletariat science and mathematics.

Anti-Corbyn Dark Forces at Work within British Society


There are dark forces at work within the Labour Party, the British media and social media, where people purporting to represent Jeremy Corbyn – are in fact working to undermine him continuously and insidiously. Misrepresenting Marxism in-particularly, and British Socialism generally, is part and parcel of this neo-liberal agenda, which is designed to confuse and deceive the working class – creating the conditions where disempowered and misled workers will vote for anyone, even against their own class interests. Genuine Corbyn supporters should be aware that he was very much mentored in the Labour Party by the great Tony Benn, and anyone with a modicum of common-sense, understands that Karl Marx (1818-1883) is considered a towering intellectual figure whose critique of capitalism cannot be dismissed or ignored by any serious economist or sociologist – although many try to turn a blind eye. Although Socialism existed in its ‘utopic’ (i.e. ‘religious’) form before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels formulated their theory of Scientific Socialism, it was the insightful and creative genius of Karl Marx that thoroughly ripped apart the capitalist system exposing its corrupt core and revealing its festering functionality. In fact, the capitalist classes have never recovered from the sheer historical (and dialectical) intellectual power that Marx unleashed upon the world. This is why the bourgeoisie – that is the ‘middle class’ that owns the means of production – must attack continuously any and all manifestations of Marxism, be it in the Labour Party, or throughout history. The main weapons employed for this task are lying and misrepresentation, as well as character assassination and ‘actual’ assassination (as employed by the CIA). Within social media, if you look carefully, you will see posts on pro-Corbyn sites written by people purportedly ‘supporting’ Jeremy Corbyn, that are in fact engaged in the process of ever so subtly discrediting him and his supporters. Of course, in a typically bourgeois (and hypocritical) manner, this behaviour is tolerated and justified as an exercise in ‘freedom of expression’, and even packaged as the ‘cut and thrust’ of genuine debate, when in fact it is nothing than a concerted attack upon the left, designed to further the neo-liberal cause. Be aware of this behaviour and counter it through direct exposure, for when brought into the light of day, it loses much of its coercive power.

Opposing BJP (Hindu) Fascism


BJP calls hartal in Kerala village to shut down beef stalls, CPI (M) holds parallel beef fest

Marx states (in Capital I) that prior to the rise of Industrialised (capitalist) farming, the British diet was mostly grains and fruit, with only the rich eating meat. Farmers massed produced meat simply because it generated more profit. There is a strong presence amongst Labour and Communist voters (in the UK) of those who voluntarily assume a meatless diet as a means to bring down industrialised farming (which is cruel and inefficient), and this ‘Communist’ endeavour should not be conflated with the pursuance of the fascist ideology (and extreme theological interpretation) of the rightwing Hindu BJP – which must be criticised and exposed wherever it arises. Although BJP members do not eat beef (and wrongly enforce this on others), the reality is that they still eat other forms of meat, and by and large support industrialised (capitalist) farming. However, it must also be said that the policy of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) also supports the capitalist meat industry, how is this ‘Revolutionary’? On the one-hand, the CPI (M) is fighting religious extremism and the notion of an ‘enforced’ diet, by providing the very beef that is disallowed by the BJP, on the other-hand, the industrialised farming and slaughtering of cows is encouraged. It is an interesting dialectical situation peculiar to Indian socio-economic conditions. The BJP should not be allowed to hijack the vegetarian agenda through its fascist agenda, and the CPI (M) should consider a blanket vegetarian (vegan) response to the situation, and pull the economic rug from under industrialised (capitalist) farming industry – which I am sure provides ample profit to the BJP government.

Pol Pot’s Explanation of Events


Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge Delegation – Beijing (c. 1975)

For the intimate expressions of Pol Pot, I have accessed a number of Chinese language source articles (referencing two below). I have taken this path because Pol Pot was a close ally of Mao Zedong, and according to the memories of Chinese people, Pol Pot was a very charming and likeable person. This is an interesting assessment from a Chinese culture that even within its Communist manifestation, puts much emphasis upon good behaviour and conformity to social and cultural norms that secure a peaceful and stable society. In the West, which has perpetuated the myth that Karl Marx’s ‘Scientific Socialism’ is exactly the same as Adolf Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’, the matter of Pol Pot is cut and dried – Pol Pot is simply (and unquestioningly) presented as a genocidal murderer. The problem is a lack of objective evidence for his apparent crimes, and a reliance upon an unsubstantiated Western Cold War rhetoric, that is as much motivated by anti-Asian racism, as it is by anti-Socialist ideology. Even though the Soviet Union supported Vietnam in its invasion and annexing of Cambodia in 1978 (establishing the Soviet controlled ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ to replace the ousted Khmer Rouge), Russian encyclopaedia sources dealing with this matter, state that the figure of between 1 to 3 million people killed by the Pol Pot regime is ‘theoretical’, as it has never been proven in a court of law.

Chinese sources also question this figure, pointing-out that it arises only within anti-Socialist Western sources, that have in the past routinely accused Socialist and Communist sources of committing all kinds of false, imagined and fabricated acts (similar to those actually committed by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime). In this regard, the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot resemble the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany, but the numbers simply do not add-up. Today, the official figure for the Cambodian population stands at about 16 million, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is believed to have been around 9 million. Many Chinese scholars point-out that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were extremely popular amongst the Cambodian people, who flocked to support his call for Revolution. The logical question is how could a population that by and large supported Pol Pot also ‘massacre’ itself in such large numbers, in a short space of time, lacking the technological know-how and advanced industrial capability possessed by the Nazi Germans? The Western rhetoric suggests that between 1/9th and 1/3rd of the population was ‘killed by itself’. When confronted with the illogicality of this situation, those that support this theory state that its accomplishment just goes to ‘prove’ what a maniac Pol Pot was, not realising that in reality just one man is being accused of being so well organised and efficient at political and practical leadership (whilst apparently being ‘mad’), that he achieved all this through an act of mass hypnosis. Whatever the case, the current Western narrative suggests that the Cambodian population of 9 million was either reduced to 6 million or 8 million between 1975 and 1979 – and yet by 2017 – that very same Cambodian population had risen by either 10 million or or 8 million (to 16 million) in just 38 years!

The Khmer Rouge wore ‘black’ uniforms together with a chequered neck-scarf to wipe-away sweat, and because of this they were often referred to as the ‘Black Guards’. Following Pol Pot’s ascending to power on April 17th, 1975, every citizen of Cambodia was required to dispose of the ‘bourgeois’ clothing that had penetrated the cities and towns, and revert to what was thought to be a more traditional form of ethnic Khmer peasant clothing. When asked why he emptied the cities, Pol Pot stated that the US had already been bombing areas of Eastern Cambodia, and that he (and the Khmer Leadership) were apprehensive that the US would launch a vast and sustained bombing campaign upon Cambodian cities and towns – much like the years’s of US destruction wrought upon North Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge also feared a US ground invasion, and their answer to these problems was to mobilise the entire Cambodian population within the relative safety of the countryside, living in communes of single-sex barracks, training in the day to farm the land, and prepare for a ‘People’s War’. When asked in the late 1970’s, and again by an American journalist just prior to his death (in 1998) why there was evidence of mass graves found in certain areas of Cambodia, Pol Pot gave exactly the same answer. Pol Pot’s answer is written in the Chinese language as ‘敌特破坏’ – which translates as the ‘enemy spies were destroyed’. In other words, Pol Pot ordered these killings to be carried-out by the Khmer Rouge, as a means to destroy what he perceived to be ‘enemies of the people’ operating within Cambodia. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the invading Vietnamese forces, and US-backed insurgency forces could have been responsible for at least some of these deaths. There is also a suggestion that Pol Pot’s policies have been skewed and misrepresented over the years. When asked about his policy of ‘eradicating’ the city-dwellers, Pol Pot replied that he had meant it was the principle of bourgeois (Westernised) living that was to be eradicated – and not necessarily the people who had been subject to this kind of pollution (although this position does seem to contradict the known dictates of the Khmer Rouge once in power). This information does not excuse the terrible crimes that apparently occurred in Cambodia under Pol Pot, but it does provide a more complete picture when viewed alongside the more commonly known facts in this case. My research is ongoing.

Chinese language References:波尔布特




%d bloggers like this: