Proletariat Fish: Marx and Engels are in the Building! (12.1.2018)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Mei-An and Kai-Lin have been promised fish for sometime now, and neither has caused a fuss for having to wait patiently. A picture of Lenin adorns the back, together with a Red Flag on the front. The two ‘Revolutionary’ goldfish are now known as ‘Marx’ anf ‘Engels’! Long Live the Socialist Revolution!

(Purchased as a ‘Starter Kit’ with tank, pump, filter, food and two goldfish from Pets Place, 105 Central Rd, Worcester Park KT4 8DY)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution (2017) – Trust in the Communist Party!

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The USSR lives on in memory and in material fact. It collapsed from the combined pressures of Trotsky, Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Western capitalism. What the USSR represented – as the first Workers’ State – is a tremendously powerful psychological and physical image that serves as a rallying point for millions of oppressed peoples around the globe. The 1917 October Revolution will always be significant because it signalled the successful rising of the Working Class and the smashing of predatory capitalism! Although there is much lying and disinformation in the West about the USSR, nevertheless, the internet allows opportunities to study that by-pass the bourgeois educational facilities, and which allows individuals and groups to find more reliable and authentic sources of information. The Cold War lies are still very much in operation, but as time goes by, and the work of people like Grover Furr, Andrew Alexander and Alexander Werth (and many others), become better known, the wholesome truth about the USSR (and its vital importance for the evolution of humanity) will move ever more to the fore-front of general perception. This positive counter-swing is strengthened by the presence of the Collected Works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (amongst others) being readily (and freely) available on the internet. As usual, the greatest challenges above and beyond the confrontation with predatory capitalism for the Communist Party is that of successfully countering Trotskyism (i.e. ‘pseudo-Socialism’), and the crippling forces of revisionism from the left. There is a wealth of legitimate proletariat literature available in the public domain which must be logically studied from a Scientific Socialist point of view. Even if certain ‘expedient’ compromises must be made with the Bourgeois State on the surface (due to prevailing socio-economic conditions), the true (and non-inverted) underpinnings of Marxist-Leninism must always serve as the dialectical ‘prime mover’ of any Communist Movement. The Working Class must always trust the Communist Party which is a collective expression of its proletariat ‘will’. The Communist Party came to power through a wave of Revolutionary activity in 1917 – and the same Communist Party exists throughout the world today, always representing and leading the ordinary people, and continuously agitating against the capitalist system. The ‘Communist Party’ in principle did not begin with the 1917 Russian Revolution, and did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is an ongoing and unfolding process of historical materialism. Trust in the Communist Party and support it with all your proletariat being!

Joseph Stalin as Proletarian Fact

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If an individual walks into an average book-shop in the UK, around 80%-90% of all books available pertaining to cover Soviet history, will not be worth the paper they are printed upon. This is because these books carry the preferred ‘capitalist’ interpretation of Soviet history, which whilst packaging its content as ‘history’, is in fact a tissue of lies. This is not a matter of opinion whereby this observation needs to be debated, but rather is a matter of provable fact. The preferred capitalist narrative is nothing but an ‘ahistorical’ exercise in Trotskyite ‘disinformation’, one that is easily dispelled through even a cursory attempt to establish the observable facts. A particular vitriol is reserved for the biographies of Joseph Stalin – which are by and large fictionalised diatribes containing no academic merit. The problem is that young or impressionable people who are genuinely seeking-out knowledge about the USSR and Joseph Stalin run into this wall of institutional lies and deceit. It is better to carry-out more indepth research before subjecting the human-mind to this kind of bourgeois brain-washing. Seek-out books and articles that expose people like Trotsky, Khrushchev and Orwell, and learn to discern the difference between a proletarian fact and a bourgeois lie. Learn to understand the Cold War mentality in the West, and its facade will come tumbling down. Dialectical truth can be found in the strangest of places (take Andrew Alexander’s ‘America and the Imperialism of Ignorance: US Foreign Policy Since 1945’, for instance), and when assessing the place of Joseph Stalin in world history it is logical to begin with his Collected Works (available ‘free’ online). This research must also coincide with a study of the collective psychology of the USA, which exposes its immature and violent nature. Remember that Joseph Stalin was a great Socialist leader who represented the Working Class in a very strong and robust manner – this explains why the capitalist West hates him, and seeks to sully his good historical reputation with bizarre lies delivered through the agency of rightwing mythology. Communists use logic and reason to progress society and to develop their characters – this is what Joseph Stalin did – and this is how a progressive student of history should behave. The lies about the USSR and Joseph Stalin must not be confronted with bourgeois sentimentalism, but rather countered with the strict use of proletarian fact. This is the manner in which Joseph Stalin handled an ever increasingly hostile USA and belligerent West under its control and influence. It is also the basis of the manner in which Joseph Stalin led the USSR in its decisive war against Nazi Germany. Do not be afraid of stating proletariat fact, after-all it is part of the process of establishing the truth. Of course, the capitalists and the Trotskyites will ‘knee-jerk’ respond with simply re-stating their lies – as if the exercise of the agency of ‘repetition’ somehow adds ‘truth’ and ‘gravitas’ to their fallacious arguments. In reality a Trotskyite lie only has to be exposed once, even if those brain-washed by Trotskyite ideology feel the need to ‘repeat’ that lie. Remember that capitalism and Trotskyism are actually ‘cult-mentalities’, within which people are psychologically and physically ‘trapped’. See this situation clearly for what it is, and relay this understanding to the Working Class. If dialectical truth can be firmly established, then the millions of words used by liars will come tumbling down – this is the nature of Scientific Socialism.

Expunging Trotsky from ‘Socialist’ History – a Dialectical Necessity

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘The whole foundations of Leninism at the present time is built on lying and falsification and carries within itself the poisoned element of its own disintegration.’ (1)

Even before he was expelled for treasonous activities from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky’s distorted version of ‘Socialism’ had attracted the attention of the anti-Soviet ideologues in the USA. Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that after WWII, what had by then become referred to as ‘Trotskyism’ was used as the basis for the US anti-Soviet (and anti-Communist) Cold War rhetoric. This is why most people are confused by ‘Trotskyism’ and the many organisations that follow his anti-Soviet ideology – whilst still insisting on calling themselves ‘Socialist’. Trotsky, for many, is known the wrong way around back to front, and in many ways ‘ahistorically’. What must be understood is that Trotsky was not a true Revolutionary, but rather a political ‘opportunist’ of the worst kind. He temporarily aligned himself with Revolutionary Movements to further his own political career, and as a means for him to attain influence and personal power at any cost. In this regard, he certainly was not a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist, and had no theoretical interest in those ideologies.

Trotsky was criticised by Lenin – and later by Stalin – for continuously failing to understand and interpret history from a Marxist perspective. This led to Trotsky attempting to undermine the hard-earned Soviet System from within, by advocating a thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ counter-revolution, with himself at the helm. For this treachery, he (and many of his followers) were expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 – but a number of his followers remained behind ‘undetected’ within the Soviet System to spread their particular brand of ‘unrest’ and ‘discontent’. Many, as the years went by, attempted acts of sabotage against the Soviet State, destroying technology and machinery, and interfering with scientific research. Some even attempted to undermine the morale of the Red Army, and turn its officers against the Soviet State it had helped to build.

As Trotsky became the darling of the West, he attracted a great attention from the supporters of capitalism – which included many members of the rightwing and far-right political establishment in America, Europe and Asia.  This inspired Trotsky to actively call for all of his supposedly ‘Socialist’ supporters to enter into an alliance with Nazi Germany and fascist Imperialist Japan in 1938, and work to over-throw the Soviet Union AND the liberal democracies of the West! A year before (in 1937), many of Trotsky’s ‘sleeper cells’ in the USSR had become active, and were immediately identified by the NKVD and ‘neutralised’. This policing action was necessary to prevent what would today be interpreted as a comprehensive ‘terrorist’ attack on a sovereign government and the country it administers. If Trotsky had been successful, the Soviet Union would have collapsed prior to WWII, and the Red Army would not have existed to confront and eventually destroy the military forces of Nazi Germany.

As it is now the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution (2017), it is important that Trotsky is nolonger viewed as a legitimate ‘Revolutionary’, and that his path of ideology (which he and his followers deceptively term ‘Socialism’), not be associated with either Marxism-Engelsism, or Marxism-Leninism. Trotsky’s work must be historically ‘re-oriented’ and removed from the glittering history of Revolutionary Struggle, and placed firmly within the realms of capitalist-supporting, bourgeois counter-revolutionary thought. Trotsky’s duplicity cost the lives of immeasurable numbers of people due to the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union – despite this beginning a year after Trotsky’s death. Presumably Hitler was of the opinion that Trotsky’s followers had carried-out enough damage to the infrastructure of the USSR, and that the time was now ripe to invade. Of course, the distorted history of the capitalist West blames all this on Stalin – as Trotsky demanded. Indeed, in 1925, just one year after the death of Lenin, the US Time magazine already began to exhibit the interfering-style of developed US Cold War rhetoric – by implying that Trotsky (and his ‘distorted’ Socialism) should now run the USSR – over Joseph Stalin. The myth here, is that Soviet citizens did not vote. In fact, ‘voting’ in a proletariat society is a central activity to every citizen’s life, but of course, proletariat democracy is not liberal democracy, and does not favour or privilege the bourgeoisie. The point continuously omitted in Trotskyite accounts of the USSR, is that from 1924 until his death in 1953, Comrade Stalin was continuously re-elected into office – despite trying to resign ‘twice’ after 1945. The citizenry of the USSR was organised around the trade union model, where from lowest to the highest in society – everyone voted for representatives on numerous committees. This organisational model did allow the bourgeoisie to manifest and/or exercise power within a Socialist society. Trotsky wanted to reverse this Revolutionary change, and allow the resurgence of capitalism in the USSR, and along with it the predatory capitalist system.

The very idea that Stalin had millions, or hundreds of thousands sent to the gulags – and/or executed – is an ‘ahistorical’ lie perpetuated by Leon Trotsky and his followers. Alexander Werth was a British BBC correspondent who was of Russian parentage. He was with the Red Army virtually throughout the entirety of the ‘Great Patriotic War’ (1941-1945), and was allowed at the frontline. During August, 1944, Alexander Werth was with the Red Army when it liberated the Majdanek Concentration Camp in Poland – built by the Nazi Germans. His initial reports to the BBC in London were the first to reach the allies regarding the Nazi German holocaust of the Jews and other minorities. Winston Churchill, still looking for ways of absolving the Hitlerite regime, had Werth’s reports quashed – stating that they were Soviet lies about Nazi Germany. As a result, Werth spent much of his later life repudiating US and UK anti-Soviet propaganda, proving it to be ‘untrue’. In 1959, Werth visited the Soviet Union once again, and met-up with a number of American friends who lived and worked in the USSR. As incredible as it seems, and despite the rabid anti-Soviet propaganda in the US, American people still travelled to the USSR, with some making their homes there. When Werth asked one or two prominent Americans about the supposed ‘purges’ of the late 1930’s, he was usually met with laughter! The general consensus was that a Trotskyite plot was uncovered that involved around 10,000 traitors. Many were sent to prison, whilst a minority were executed for treason. There were not hundred of thousands, or millions of people involved – Trotsky was just not that popular in the USSR – where life was very good for most people!

The Nazi German holocaust cost the lives of around 11 million people (6 million Jews, and 5 millions of other ethnicities, political and sexual orientations, the disabled, and anyone who disagreed with fascism). Meanwhile, Imperial Japan is estimated to have caused around 60 million deaths in China, a figure that does not include those killed throughout other parts of Asia by Japanese troops. When the Nazi German forces invaded the Soviet Union, between 27-40 million casualties were suffered (both military and civilian). The conquered Ukraine area of the USSR saw some of the worst Nazi German excesses of the holocaust – aided and abetted by a minority of rightist Ukrainians – the political (and in some cases ‘biological’) descendents of whom comprise the contemporary ‘Madan’ neo-Nazi government of Western Ukraine. All this anti-Socialist death and destruction is exactly the political policies that Trotsky advised his followers to embrace in 1938. A question worth asking is why the Trotskyite Movement today, remains entirely ‘free’ of any criticism from the bourgeois press. The answer, of course, is that the Trotskyites support capitalism, and are not averse to fascism, or fascist atrocity.

(1) Trotksy’s (1913) letter to the Georgian Menshevik Chkheidze – quote reproduced in EH Carr’s ‘The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923’, MacMillan, (1950), Page 63. Carr explains that this letter was intercepted by the Czarist Authorities and only discovered in the Archives after the 1917 Revolution. This letter was used against Trotsky after Lenin’s death (in 1924), when Trotsky was presenting himself as the ‘natural’ air to Lenin’s ideological leadership.

An Atheist God (Email: 5.7.2017)

aChrist-01
Dear A
As far as I am aware – Christians meditate all the time! They meditate and contemplate God’s unquestioning love and mercy as shown through the life of Jesus and his disciples (and the saints). Of course, it does depend upon the type of Christian – the C of E for instance, often focuses upon political power and money in much the same way as the Roman Catholics – but my Christian monastic friends are busy trying to empty themselves of ego so as to become a purified vessel to receive God’s grace – which may or may not happen – they tell me! Anyway, the bible seems to say that what is good for man is not good for God – meaning personal sacrifice is on the agenda. I have Christians friends who are atheist because they do not believe in the church definition of a god.  The god they realise is far greater. Every so often I also meet an old Christian abbot who likes to sit with me in the garden and discuss Marx and Buddha. he agrees with both narratives. If that is not a gong-an, I don’t now what is!  One thing is for certain, the rubbish the church spills out to the laity is certainly not worthy of the god they worship, nor the sincerity of those who attend. As I am unburdened by belief, I see through the schemes and scenarios concocted by those who would control us. Although not a Christian in much the same way as I am not a Buddhist – there is a certain something holding everything together. Of course, it could well be the lack of structure.
With Metra
Adrian
PS: Off to the Ukrainian Embassy later – to give some fascists a kicking!

Proud to Vote Red!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin, all stated that wherever liberal democracy existed, (and it did not exist everywhere in the 19th century), and wherever Workers were allowed to participate in the voting process by the bourgeois class that oppressed them, then Workers should use their vote in a Revolutionary manner, as part of the general process to usher in a Proletariat Revolution! Why note vote? After-all, just as long as the Bourgeois State uses its power to keep keep ordinary people oppressed and imprisoned in a world of psychological and physical inequality, voting is a means through which who controls the State can be peacefully and lawfully changed. Workers who do not vote are deliberately falling into the bourgeois trap of abandoning the political field to their political enemies. The Bourgeois State prefers that masses of Workers live in isolated squalor, with no intellectual or material means to unite, organise and over-throw the powers of stifling conservatism. Although the Trotskyites will try and brain-wash the workers into not voting (after-all, the Trotskyites actually co-operate with the capitalist system and betray the Workers whilst pretending to represent their best interests), the simple fact remains that voting is ‘free’ and available to every single citizen. The Bourgeois State (and its political representatives) will try every trick in the book to keep the Working Class oppressed and in a sub-ordinate possession within society. The Workers must resist this pressure in a manner that is dialectically applicable for the contemporary historical epoch. In other words, different societies will possess different socio-economic, cultural and historical conditions, that will necessitate different modes of protest and resistance. In the UK, which is very rich after decades of imperialist exploitation of the world, and in the centuries following the English Civil War, has developed a very advanced capitalist economy, and has extended the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18 (barring one or two exclusions). The point is that if all Working Class people registered to vote – and then voted ‘Labour’ – the Tory Party would never again rule the country – how could it, when it only represents the interests of a privileged few? Not only this, but such a voter turn-out would ensure that Labour only followed Socialist principles and Working Class values.

Seeing Through Alan Watts

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is perhaps the most ironic of facts, that if the theosophy of Alan Watts is pursued to its ultimate rational conclusion, it does not matter whether you listen to him or not. Of course, this former public schoolboy from Britain – transplanted into the US – lectured for money, whilst advising those who paid to see him, not to worry about money. Obviously those without money could not pay to hear him lecture. The point is that alternative spirituality has always been a cash-cow in the West where people with no social consciousness whatsoever, are perfectly willing to part with their money in pursuit of religious imaginations and theistic myths. Alan Watts was well educated and well-spoken. He was in every way the perfect incarnation of the British middle class that had spawned him. As is usual for that class, the economic freedom that it experiences as enhanced leisure, is mistaken as universal spiritual freedom, and presented as such, but where does this ‘freedom’ originate? The bourgeoisie itself would have you believe that it is ‘god given’, and therefore ‘natural’, but this is part of the dishonesty that defines middle class existence. The leisure time and opulent lifestyle that the middle class enjoys originates solely through the toil of the working class. Through the efforts of the working class all of society’s needs are met. All the technological goods, food, clothing and medicines, etc, are produced through the labour of the workers, who are never paid the true value of the work they perform. If the workers send 12 hours producing in a factory per day, the management pays the minimum to survive for perhaps 6 of those hours – and spreads the money over the full 12 hours (Marx termed this base exploitation the generation of ‘surplus value’). This exploitative situation exists because the workers do not own the means of production, or the product produced – all they own is their physical labour which they have no choice but to sell to the lowest bidder. The middle class own the means of production (and the products manufactured) and ensure that the workforce generates the maximum output for the least pay. The workers earn the leisure time within society that the middle class steal for their own enjoyment. The middle class organise the workers, but do no physical labour themselves. They steal the wealth created by the workers, and use it to sustain their own lavish lifestyles. This freedom enjoyed by the middle class is a socio-economic category that has nothing to do with ‘god’, or any other imagined ‘spiritual’ existence. The workers are paid the least to eke-out a basic living, whilst the middle class take the maximum to embellish further their already privileged lifestyles. Once this understanding is established, it becomes obvious that all these middle class ‘gurus’ are doing nothing but moving random ideas around in their heads, in an expressed manner that brings a certain kind of re-assurance to other members of their own class. Working class people have their existences taken-up with the practicalities of material life and how to survive it (such is the poverty enforced upon the proletariat by the bourgeoisie). The middle class, however, whilst inhabiting the inverted mind-set that it undoubtedly does, believe that all the (stolen) freedom they enjoy could be enjoyed by the workers, if only the workers were not so lazy, ignorant, or prone to vice. The reality is that no matter what vices infect the existence of the workers, they have been planted there by the middle class that exploits them. The workers, through their hard work, generate the conditions of high cultural leisure that their middle class exploiters enjoy. If the workers were paid what they were worth, and shared in the leisure their labour generates, then the bourgeoisie would lose its lavish lifestyle. The only times in history when this has occurred is during Socialist upheavals and Communist Revolutions. Perhaps this is why Alan Watts refers to Adolf Hitler as a ‘force of nature’ (like an earthquake), rather than telling the truth of the matter, namely that fascism is capitalism in decline, and that Hitler’s crimes were allowed to happen by the very capitalist economic system that the middle class had already created. In exactly the same socio-economic ‘space’ that Alan Watts peddles his pseudo-intellectualism, Adolf Hitler contrived his pogroms and Concentration Camps.

James Gralton and Ireland’s Unfinished Revolution

0000000000000000000000

In the early 1900’s, the men and women of Ireland were inspired to fight for their freedom through the strictures of Scientific Socialism, and the activities and teachings of one Vladimir Lenin – who was busy leading the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party against the regressive forces of Czarist Russia.  Marxist-Engelism (Scientific Socialism), and Marxist-Leninism (its application), stress that religion is part and parcel of the bourgeois, oppressive, greed-riddled capitalist state. British imperialism for the Irish, represented a permanent loss of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination. Whilst applying the forces of unchecked and brutal capitalism in Ireland, the British authorities used violence and intimidation to an astonishing degree of brutality, the likes of which has seldom been seen on the British Mainland in modern times.  There was certainly no ‘liberal’ Britishness at work in Ireland during the colonial occupation what was in reality, ‘English’ imperialism, (with the Scots, Walsh and perhaps even the Cornish suffering historical subjugation on the British Mainland).  The Irish people rose-up to over-throw the British occupiers, and as a consequence died in their hundreds and thousands (with many being hung or shot by the British State in 1916).  The Roman Catholic Church which dominated Ireland under British Rule, never opposed the occupation and did not question the executions.  In reality, for the Irish Revolution to have been fully achieved, the British imperialists, the Irish bourgeoisie, AND the Christian religion should have all been permanently and thoroughly over-thrown and stripped of all political and military power and influence.  Throwing the British out was a major achievement for the Irish people, but the Revolution should have progressed further and uprooted and expelled the insidious tentacles of the Roman Catholic Church.  Not only were its priests rampaging through the parishes sexually abusing children at will, but Church dogma was making life hellish for the ordinary Irish people.  In 1921, the British, (weakened by WWI and the continued Irish resistance), granted the majority of the landmass of Ireland independence, but left its imperialist, colonial structures in place in the north-east (i.e. ‘Northern Ireland’).  The problem with this ‘granted’ freedom was that the British State ensured that the bourgeois-supporting Catholic Church remained fully in power in both free ‘Southern Ireland’, and the Protestant (Anglican) Church in occupied Northern Ireland.  Of course, even in Southern Ireland the Protestant Church still exists in a subordinate position to the dominant Catholic Church, and in Northern Ireland, the Catholic Church still existed subordinate to the Protestant Church.  What is typical of bourgeois subterfuge is that the Irish people were historically conditioned to perceive themselves as primarily ‘religious’ pawns in an ecclesiastic game of imperialist chess.  In reality, the Irish people are the oppressed masses who are the victims of continued bourgeois oppression perpetuated through the dogma and false morality of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.  In Southern Ireland after independence in 1921, the Catholic Church began a more open campaign opposed to Socialism in all its forms, as a means to protect its exploitative position of political and cultural power amongst the oppressed Irish people.  (Bizarrely, many Irish people fled to the more ‘secular’ British Mainland to escape this type of religious persecution.)   However, the Vatican, situated as it is in the centre of Rome, fully supported the rise to power of the fascist dictator Mussolini, and aligned itself with the political far-right.  This was extended in 1933 to a full embracing and endorsing of Adolf Hitler’s ‘Nazi’ regime when it gained political power.  Also in 1933, the Irish Catholic Church successfully agitated to have leading Irish Catholic – Jimmy Gralton (1886-1945) – ‘deported’ from his own country as an ‘enemy of the people’.  Jimmy Graton remains the only ‘Irishmen’ ever to have been deported from his own country – all at the instigation of the rightwing and intolerant Roman Catholic Church.  In 1936-39, the Roman Catholic Church advised all good Irish Catholic men to travel to Franco’s fascist Spain, and join his anti-Socialist armies in opposition to the Communist-backed International Brigades.  In modern times, as the church continues to lose ground to the forces of secularism, the Roman Catholic Church has been forced by public pressure to ‘apologise’ for supporting Nazi Germany’s holocaust against the Jews, Romany, Slavs, homosexuals, Communists and others, and recently the Irish government has issued an official apology to the surviving family of Jimmy Gralton.

Claim of 800 children’s remains buried at Irish home for unwed mothers

An Apology Long Overdue

Vatican Apologises for Holocaust Support

Trotsky the Racist

aTrot-001

It is one thing when a Communist party, firmly resting on the flower of the urban proletariat, strives through the workers to lead a peasant war. It is an altogether different thing when a few thousand or even tens of thousands of revolutionists, who are truly Communists or only take the name, assume the leadership of a peasant war without having serious support from the proletariat. This is precisely the situation in China. (Leon Trotsky)

There is a big problem on the political left in the UK at the moment, and this problem involves the lies and deception of the many groups, movements and parties that claim to be ‘Socialist’ and even ‘Communist’, when in fact that they are simply revisionist and servants of the Bourgeois State. What is the origin of this situation? The origin of this situation lies in the theoretical work of Leon Trotsky who was an integral part of the Bolshevik movement in the USSR, until his attempt to grab power from Stalin failed. He was all for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ until he was unable to secure power in the Soviet Union, then he exhibited his true philosophical colours and reverted to type, namely that of asserting the bourgeois collaborating philosophy of the Menshevik movement he had supported prior to switching his allegiance to Lenin at the 11th hour, just before Lenin successfully led the Russian Revolution to power in 1917. In 1929, Trotsky was expelled from the USSR for un-Communistic behaviour and separatist tendencies. He came to the West where he began an immediate campaign in co-operating with the capitalist bourgeoisie, and attempting to dismantle, negate, and otherwise render null and void the third ‘Communist’ International (founded by Lenin in 1919 – calling for Communist Revolution in all countries around the world).

Trotsky’s approach was to collaborate with the capitalist establishment in every manner, whilst forming a bizarre and distorted world of anti-Socialist and anti-Communist Movements that masqueraded as both alternative and legitimate Socialist Movements to that developed in the USSR – a system that Trotsky helped to build by founding the Red Army. In 1921, Trotsky led that Red Army (without permission) and crushed a workers’ uprising in Kronstadt, killing hundreds of workers in the process. Reports suggest that both Lenin and Stalin were appalled at Trotsky’s decision and subsequent behaviour. Trotsky used the Soviet Red Army – that is the army of the workers – to attack and kill the very workers it supposedly represented and existed to protect. This single action serves to give a good measure of Trotsky as a man, as it reveals his thirst for power, his willingness to compromise Socialist and Communist principles, and his non-concern for the very workers he claimed to represent. He transplanted this irreverence for the workers to West when he took the bourgeois position. Trotsky’s Socialism is in fact a version of bourgeois liberal democracy that has nothing to do with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Trotskyism is nothing but collaboration with the very bourgeois State that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao strive to overthrow. Therefore Trotsky’s notion of ‘permanent revolution’ is nothing more than ‘permanent collaboration’ with the ruling class. Many contemporary Trotskyite Movements in the UK claim to be anti-racist and anti-fascist, but as can be seen from the above quote from Trotsky – Trotsky was a bourgeois racist. His misrepresentation and deliberate misinterpretation of the ‘Chinese Revolution’ give testimony to this fact, and serves as a virulent form of anti-Chinese racism that is very active today amongst the bourgeois left.

Marx taught that all Communists are Socialists, and that by definition, all Communists are Socialists. This is because the Scientific Socialism formulated through the work of Marx and Engels clarifies that when the Bourgeois State is finally over-thrown there will be a transitional stage into Socialism which precedes the final achievement of Communism. Trotsky and Trotskyites, whilst still claiming to be ‘Marxists’, actually refer to themselves as ‘Socialists’ but never as ‘Communists’. This is a rejection of the Scientific Socialism advocated by Marx and Engels. Therefore Trotsky and the Trotskyite Movements he inspired, represent bourgeois deviations from the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements therefore, are neither ‘Socialist’ nor ‘Communist’ in the Marxist, scientific sense. Trotsky is a bourgeois political theorist who advocated a form of ‘Utopian Socialism’ such as that found in Christianity and on the bourgeois left. Utopian Socialism works under the false premise that a bourgeois society can be reformed so that it becomes ‘fair’, but this ignores the very obvious fact that as long as capitalism exists, its perpetual search for profit ensures that bourgeois society – Socialist or otherwise, will always be unequal and therefore unjust. The anti-racism that Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements appear to pursue is really an attempt to ‘hijack’ the true anti-racist and anti-fascist movements inspired by the USSR and Lenin’s Communist International throughout the world. Trotskyite anti-racism is a bourgeois sham that has no real understanding of bourgeois racism, Eurocentricism, and political bias in the West. As Trotskyites are predominately ‘white’, their natural racial prejudices and misconceptions are aimed at what they believe to be the ‘fascist’ problem, unaware that what they themselves represent is a very virulent form of left-fascism, racism and discrimination. When Trotskyites appear to attack rightwing fascism, it is not a demonstration of true anti-racism on their part, but is rather a battle between Trotskyite left-fascism and Hitlerite right-fascism. This is why Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements – despite their political rhetoric to the contrary – are not anti-fascist nor anti-racist, but instead represent the very essence of dishonest and deceptive Eurocentric racism.

The Problem with Trotsky

Trotsky in 1918 - Every Inch an Avid Bolshevik

Trotsky in 1918 – Every Inch an Avid Bolshevik

‘Nobody wrote as many caustic, malicious, offensive, vile, and degrading remarks about Stalin as Trotsky.’

General Dmitri Volkogonov – Biographer of Trotsky

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) played a prominent role in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) since its formation in 1896, and for much of the early 1900’s, he remained a fervent opponent of Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik (i.e. ‘Majority’) faction – choosing to support instead the Menshevik (i.e. ‘Minority’) faction founded by Julius Martov. Ironically, at the time of this RSDLP split – in 1903 – the Bolsheviks had fewer adherents than the Mensheviks, but they (and Lenin) would eventually go on to dominate not only Russian, but also world political affairs. Understanding the ideological differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks is important if Trotsky’s political views are to be understood. The Mensheviks advocated alliances with liberal-left bourgeois political movements – whilst Lenin advocated an independent party (strongly led from the centre) with no alliances or compromises with other bourgeois political entities. Both Lenin and Martov philosophically justified their respective ideological positions by claiming authoritative (and orthodox) interpretations from the work of Marx and Engels. Indeed, both factions shared a common goal – namely the transition from capitalism to socialism and then communism – but differed in agreement about how this might be carried-out and achieved. Lenin preferred an approach of total independence for a vanguard party that led the people through strict discipline and direct action, whilst Martov advocated a non-centralised approach to the party, with a broad membership that involved alliances with the liberal-left. The Mensheviks advocated compromise and a leisurely approach to revolution, whereas Lenin demanded a far more concentrated, dynamic and direct approach to the attainment of political power.

This dichotomy is important in the understanding of Trotsky and the influence that his thought has had on the West. He was not a supporter of Lenin nor his Bolshevik thinking, and indeed actively campaigned against it. Trotsky was a Menshevik and as events transpired, something of an opportunist. He only officially joined Lenin’s Bolshevik faction in 1917, when it was obvious that the Bolshevik faction was in the best position to take and consolidate power in Russia following the collapse of the monarchy during the February Revolution. Whereas the Menshevik tendency was always toward the principle of compromise with the political bourgeoisie (with some members actually supporting the imperialist war with Germany!), Lenin – who had always denounced Russia’s participation in WWI – called for an immediate revolution with all power going to the soviets, or committees of industrialised workers. For Lenin, this move was indicative of a vanguard communist party leading the workers, successfully seizing power, and immediately transferring it to the workers. On this point of political realism, the Mensheviks dithered and this lack of directed political activity further discredited their ideological position. Trotsky, motivated no doubt by the apparent and sweeping success of the Bolshevik thinking in times of tumultuous change for Russia – simply changed sides and left the Menshevik cause which he had supported for years as a means of opposing Lenin. It is interesting to note that Lenin (and later Stalin) continuously criticised Trotsky for lacking political vision, although admitting that he knew how to organise.

Despite being a relative late comer to the Bolshevik cause Trotsky was nevertheless propelled into the upper echelons of Communist Party power – holding a number of influential posts – one of which was Commissar of Army and Navy Affairs in 1918. Trotsky was given the remit to reform the original Red Army which was compromised of revolutionary volunteers and elected officers. He did this by immediately dismantling this communistic arrangement, and instigating the re-organisation around the old style czarist model – with professional generals leading conscripts who were subjected to draconian discipline. To many, this seemed something of a counter-revolution and the turning back of the revolutionary clock. Here was a man who had participated in revolutionary politics for decades, and yet when it came to applying that revolutionary zeal, his apparent Menshevik preferences for co-operation with bourgeois institutions came to the fore. Trotsky faced ardent criticism for the manner in which he set about reforming the Red Army and his re-instigation of bourgeois militarism – an aspect of the USSR that the capitalist West would use in its anti-communist propaganda offensives after WWII. Furthermore, in early 1921, soldiers, sailors, and workers staged an uprising in Kronstadt, the home of the Soviet Baltic Fleet. This was essentially a protest about the austerity measures involved in the Soviet Union during the Civil War, initiated through the policy of War Communism. All food and resources had been centralised in an attempt to keep the USSR fed and clothed during the conflict, but as the Western forces assisting the Russian bourgeoisie had been defeated – workers and military personnel began to agitate for the relaxing of these harsh austerity measures. However, there is some evidence that foreign powers may have been at work in Kronstadt, trying to undermine the Communist Revolution by sowing seeds of discontent amongst the Soviet people. Whatever the case, Trotsky unleashed tens of thousands of Red Army troops upon the base, and killed or wounded thousands of rebels. In this action, the Red Army also suffered thousands of casualties. It is clear that Trotsky – and Trotsky alone – gave the order for the Red Army to attack the rebels in Kronstadt in the manner that it did.

During this time, (around 1920/21), Trotsky openly disagreed with Lenin over the position of Trade Unions within the Soviet System. Lenin preferred a more open arrangement where all citizens willingly partook in meaningful labour through constructive interaction and co-operation. Trotsky’s ideas were very different. Trotsky viewed each individual worker as a ‘soldier’ who should have no choice in the following of orders. The military-style discipline the worker should be subjected to, has to be enforced and directed by the Trade Union – which is expected to act like a military authority. Any worker who disobeys or refuses to follow an order is to be considered guilty of insubordination and considered a deserter. Lenin stated that true worker co-operation is a matter of building class consciousness through a process of full labour inclusion, and that this type of development cannot be enforced ‘from above’ as Trotsky appeared to be doing. This criticism of Trotsky reveals that Lenin in no way viewed him as a suitable candidate to lead the USSR, despite the position of influence that he had attained. Again, Trotsky’s top-down attitude and approach to organisation has been yet another feature that Western capitalist countries have used in the past in their propaganda against the USSR – when in fact Lenin was thoroughly opposed to such behaviour in both principle and practice.

Following Lenin’s death in 1924, Trotsky made a grab for power that saw him lose to Stalin. Trotsky supporters in the West have contended that Trotsky was Lenin’s ‘true’ successor, when in fact even a broad assessment of Lenin’s opinions point to the exact opposite position. According to Lenin, Trotsky was not ideologically fit to lead the Soviet Union because he lacked the correct attitude and relevant political insight. This is because at heart, Trotsky always remained a Menshevik and only followed the Bolshevik cause for reasons of personal advancement. When it came to tackling Joseph Stalin, Trotsky’s limitations were readily exposed. All along, Stalin had agreed with Lenin about the dangerous limitations of Leon Trotsky, and when the time came, Stalin and his supporters in the Bolshevik Movement ensured that Trotsky did not attain to supreme power. In many ways, this can be viewed as the defeat of political deception at the highest levels of the Bolshevik Movement, although in the West, Trotsky cultivated the myth that he was the ‘true’ face of the October Revolution, and that Stalin was a usurper. Trotsky’s continued opposition to Stalin and the Bolshevik regime eventually led to his expulsion firstly from the Central Committee, and then from the Communist Party in the late 1927. He was finally deported from the Soviet Union to Turkey in early 1929. This exposed Trotsky to possible threats from former white Russians, and Westerners opposed to the Soviet regime.

Between 1929 and 1940 – a mere 11 yeas – Trotsky set-about a propaganda offensive in the West (designed to attract supporters and adherents) that essentially was a justification for why he thought he should have run the USSR and not Stalin. Trotsky the unrepentant Menshevik with draconian ideas and tyrannical policies – managed to convince gullible Westerners that something had gone wrong in the USSR – and that he ‘Trotsky’ was the only possible answer to this error. In this regard, Trotsky’s denigration of the USSR played firmly into the hands of the Western bourgeoisie, which although in no way agreeing with either socialism or communism, were happy to accept Trotsky as long as he was powerless and seen to be criticising the then only communist regime in the world. In an attempt to soften the blow for Westerners, Trotsky started to refer to his belief system as ‘Socialism’ rather than ‘Communism’, and a number of socialist movements in the West claim a lineage to Trotsky-thought. This is true of the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers’ Party, amongst others, and many Trade Unions- including the newly formed Trade Union Socialist Coalition (TUSC), which seeks to replace a historically broadly leftist Labour Party, with a narrow Trotskyite Movement disguised as a popular front. In reality, movements like TUSC exhibit the ‘entryism’ and deception associated with Trotsky, whereby the ‘true’ political aims of participants are ‘hidden’ behind false agendas. Just as Trotsky tried to usurp power from Stalin using deception and subterfuge – TUSC and its socialist supporters are attempting to replace a Labour Party that has lurched to the right, with a Trotskyite alternative that although professing leftist policies, actually adheres to the obvious tyrannical aspects of Trotsky’s character and preferred rightest methods.

In the mid-1930’s – the USSR moved to end all of Trotsky’s influence from within its government organisations. These trials sentenced many supporters of Trotsky to death – with Trotsky also being sentenced in abstentia. These actions appear to have been triggered by Trotsky deliberately splitting the Communist Movement by giving his backing to a Fourth International in 1933, and thus undermining Lenin’s Third International (founded in 1919 and dissolved by Stalin in 1943). This formed part of Trotsky’s parallel communist universe where he viewed himself as the evolved intellect controlling everything from the centre. Instead of advocating solidarity with the socialist and communist cause around the world at the rise of Adolf Hitler’s regime in Germany in 1933, Trotsky sought to divide and weaken it further. This is typical of Trotskyite tendencies today that seek to use deception and sleight of hand to gain influence and political power. It is odd that so-called socialists still persist in this method when it obviously did not work for Trotsky or any of his early followers. This situation unleashed a robust political backlash in the USSR that severely punished Trotsky’s former allies – and which is believed by some to have led directly to Trotsky’s death in 1940. Trotsky died before the USSR was invaded by Nazi German forces, and did not live to see the eventual victory of Stalin over Hitler – a victory that cost the Soviet Union around 27 million dead. All this was achieved regardless of the fact that followers of Trotsky continued to oppose the Soviet Union even during its Great Patriotic War (1941-45) against Nazi fascism.

Trotsky helped to build the Soviet Union, and although not a central architect by any means, he was pivotal in the development of its perceived ‘militarism’, as well as its apparent top-down approach to planning and leadership, through his actions at Kronstadt, and his known undemocratic ideas regarding the unions, it is clear that he both differed from Lenin whilst attempting to mould the Soviet regime in his own image. It is remarkable that the socialist tradition Trotsky is linked with in the West espouses the exact opposite, and links Trotsky with ‘freedom’ and ‘true democracy’. This has come about through the Menshevik habit of trying to be all things to all people. Although it can be argued that the differences may have been slight between Lenin and Martov at the beginning of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split, nevertheless these differences proved to be crucial and decisive. Lenin was a revolutionary Marxist who saw directly what had to be done and when to do it. Trotsky was a leftist opportunist who sought to gain power and influence whenever he could, not because he possessed an earth-shattering theory or interpretation of Marx, but in fact because he did not. Trotsky made a name for himself by doing just what he wanted – or by opposing the official line of the USSR. When residing in the West, he clearly pandered to Bourgeois sentiment and criticism of the Soviet Union, whilst claiming to formulate a ‘different’ approach to communism. Not only is Trotsky’s ideas seen as unique – but Trotsky himself is afforded an almost religious status of infallibility. These kind of socialists in the West, whilst aligning themselves with the anti-Soviet criticism of the Western bourgeoisie, nevertheless purport to be representing a ‘different’ strand of socialist thought to that of Lenin. In reality, however, Trotsky – despite being a follower of Marx and Engels – is very much a child of Lenin and Stalin. Lenin made Trotsky and Stalin (through his criticism), moulded him, but Trotsky always pursued the over-riding imperative of attempting to attain personal power at all costs. When this failed – he turned to criticising the very Soviet Union he had helped build, and had tried to lead. This is surely a clear demonstration that Trotsky’s intentions were motivated primarily by a search for personal power and not the freedom of the people.   This has tainted the historical reputation of the Third Communist International in the West, and has misled millions of otherwise left-leaning individuals into the arms of Trotsky’s deception. The American Marxist Howard Zinn (1922-2010) for instance, did much good work in promoting the thinking of Marx and Engels to new generations of young Americans – but as a member of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party (SWP), he did this by denigrating not only the memory of the Soviet Union, but also that of any regime that grew out of support from the USSR – such as the communist regimes of China, Vietnam and Cuba, etc., and this re-writing of history remains the de facto apriori position of the Trotskyite left in the world today. From a Marxist perspective, this type of deceit packaged as superior knowledge cannot even rescue itself from bourgeois exploitation – so how can it be used to rescue the oppressed masses? It cannot in any way, shape or form. Indeed, the climate of disunity that Trotsky created for international communism led directly to the 1956 Khrushchev denunciation of Stalin – and the subsequent Sino-Soviet Split.

%d bloggers like this: