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


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

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


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

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

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

Russian Language Source:Международная_Сталинская_премия_«За_укрепление_мира_между_народами»



JFK’s Pro-USSR Speech (10.6.1963)


‘Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries (the USA and the Soviet Union) have in common, none is stronger than the mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Russians suffered in the course of the Second World War… At least twenty million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s (European) territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base, were turned into waste-land.’

President John F Kennedy – Speech delivered at the American University in Washington – two months prior to the USSR initiating the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty. (Quoted from the Introduction of ‘Russia at War 1941-1945’ – By Alexander Werth).

President Kennedy made a peculiar mix of rightwing and predatory capitalist-supporting speeches, together with the occasional leftwing speech supporting Unions and empathizing with the Soviet Union. Of course, he also made the usual anti-USSR speeches, formulated by the CIA and designed to sully and misrepresent the Socialist reality of the Soviet Union. President Kennedy was wrong on one vital point in his above speech, and it is significant of the level of ignorance within the US that it was not picked-up at the time. The US had previously been at war with Revolutionary Russia from 1918-1921 – where thousands of US troops participated in an ‘invasion’ of Russia – alongside the troops of 13 other nations. This ‘capitalist’ coalition was eventually defeated and expelled from Revolutionary Russia, and this part of shameful US history was quietly pushed into the background of America’s collective memory. Of course, President Kennedy was only adopting this conciliatory attitude toward the USSR, because he wanted a ‘ban’ on the arms race that the US had initiated since 1945. As Socialist Science was proving itself vastly superior to its Western capitalist counter-part, President Kennedy wanted to defuse the situation and move the US and USSR away from this type of conflicting competition. On the other hand, the Trotskyite Nikita Khrushchev was a fool who missed a vital opportunity of conserving the progressive nature of the USSR, whilst disengaging from direct conflict with the USA. Khrushchev blustered on about the USSR encouraging the International Proletariat to ‘rise-up’ in the US – whilst his domestic policies simultaneously ‘stripped’ the USSR of its self-respect and ability to ‘project’ Revolutionary power around the world.

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




Lenin: The Hypocrisy of the Russian Orthodox Church (1917-2017)


The mummified body of VI Lenin still lies in his mausoleum situated in Red Square. Once, this tomb also contained the mummified body of Joseph Stalin, but after the betrayal of Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, that body was removed for burial alongside the Kremlin wall. In fact, the duplicitous Khrushchev tried to bribe the renowned Soviet telepath Wolf Grigorevich Messing into ‘pretending’ that he had ‘communicated’ with the disembodied spirits of both Lenin and Stalin who apparently asked for their respective bodies to be taken out of the mausoleum and re-buried in the Kremlin grounds. Wolf Messing was apparently shocked by this dishonesty, and informed Khrushchev that as he was a loyal  atheistic Soviet citizen, he did not believe in an after-life and did not communicate with ‘spirits’. This incident demonstrates the degenerate nature of Khrushchev’s thinking whilst leading the Soviet Union, and the kind of ideological damage he was prepared to unleash in pursuit of his Trotskyite tendency. However, the attitude of re-burying Lenin’s body and dismantling his mausoleum was brought-up again recently in modern Russia, this time by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1917, VI Lenin declared that the working class had took-over power in the USSR, and that the church was to be stripped of all its political power in the country, and influence in the class-room. Following the re-emergence of the bourgeois (capitalist) control of Russia in 1991, the Russian Orthodox Church was immediately re-instated and started to re-assert its particular brand of religious bigotry. One of the main victims of this backward thinking has been Russia’s LGBTQ community, which has had to watch Russia’s new governments ‘swayed’ to adopt homophobic policies by an ascendant church. Recently, I read that the Russian Orthodox Church made a statement saying that the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia was a tragedy for humanity that should not be celebrated – and that Lenin’s body should be quietly re-buried because he was a despot and a tyrant! This is the Christian church yet again interfering in politics and getting away with it.This behaviour is exactly ‘why’ the church should be permanently ‘separated’ from the State, and due to its child-molesting habits, not let anywhere near children.

1962: Cuban Missile Crisis – Myth & Reality


‘I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realising it.’

President John F Kennedy to Jean Daniels (October, 1963)

The Myth

North American television, film and media depict the so-called ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ as a trial of strength between the noble (capitalist) United States (which stood for freedom and democracy), and the evil (Communist) country of the Soviet Union (which stood for despotism, tyranny, and slavery). The general mythic narrative still found in text-books and popular entertainment is that US Intelligence discovered that the USSR intended to ship nuclear missiles to the island nation of Cuba (situated just off the coast of North America), together with thousands of expert Soviet military and civilian personnel, to install, service and if need be, ‘fire’ these missiles at the US on behalf of the Soviet Union. President Kennedy instantly ordered a naval blockade of Cuba, awaiting the Soviet fleet. As the Soviet fleet approached (carrying the missiles and personnel) the war of words intensified between the USA and the USSR, with each threatening the other. As the Soviet fleet approached the US naval blockade, General Secretary Khrushchev ordered the fleet to stop, turn-around and return the missiles to the USSR. The capitalist world rejoiced at this victory of US sabre rattling and brinkmanship. The problem with this narrative is that none of it is true.

The Reality

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a historical 13 day event that occurred between October 16th – October 28th, 1962. It is important to remember that Soviet nuclear missiles were already present on Cuba prior to this ‘crisis’ breaking-out, and that the US version of events is purely fictional. When Fidel Castro led the Cuban people to a successful Socialist Revolution in 1959 (ousting the US-backed dictator Batista),  he was undecided on which form of Socialism he followed, or if Cuba would align itself with either China or the USSR. Nikita Khrushchev was a reformists, revisionist Trotskyite, who had demonised Joseph Stalin in 1956, and steered Soviet Russia away from the direct Revolutionary path. China rejected the criticism of Joseph Stalin, and the subsequent Soviet policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ between capitalism and Communism, because it meant that the oppressed masses of the world had no ‘right’ or ‘ability’ to rise-up and over-throw their oppressors. Indeed, whilst Castro led his band of Cuban volunteers in Cuba, it was China that openly backed his Revolution, with the USSR staying very much on the sidelines. This initial difference can be seen as Fidel Castro had leading members of the Cuban Socialist Party exiled to Czechoslovakia for daring to create a direct link with Moscow that by-passed his governmental authority. As the Soviet Union was concerned about losing influence in the world to Communist China, it started making a more concerted effort in the region to court Fidel Castro and influence the direction of the Cuban Revolution.

Between April 17th –19th, 1961, President Kennedy was persuaded by the CIA to launch the disastrous ‘Bay of Pigs Invasion’ of Cuba, which saw the US Airforce, and US Navy support a CIA-trained Brigade of essentially Cuban exiles in an attempted counter-revolution. This force was decisively defeated, and eventually surrendered to Cuban Revolutionary forces. This led to an intensification of Cuban-USSR diplomatic activity behind the scenes which led to the Soviet Union placing SA-2 missile sites across Western Cuba. The SA-2 was a highly effective Soviet surface to air missile self-defence system, that granted the Cuban military the ability to shoot-down US military aircraft with ease. President Kennedy was made aware of the presence of these missiles in August, 1962, following a CIA intelligence report gathered from U-2 spy-plane fly-overs of Cuban territory. John McCone, the head of the CIA, was agitating for a show of strength against the Communist Bloc, and President Kennedy responded by putting thousands of military reservists on alert, coupled with a media offensive demonising Cuba and its under-hand Soviet allies (but at the same time, President Kennedy ordered the halt of all further U-2 flights over Cuba). What had irritated John McCone was the fact that the Soviets were able to operate with impunity on the high seas – transporting whatever they wanted to Cuba. McCone briefed Kennedy that the next logical step for the Soviets was to place nuclear weapons on Cuba. In September, 1962, Khrushchev authorised the first shipment of Soviet R-12 medium-range nuclear missiles to Cuba, aboard the merchant vessel Indigirka – these missiles arrived in Cuba on October 4th, 1962. US spies operating in Cuba, began reporting a substantial build-up of Soviet military and civilian personnel on Western Cuba, stating that it involved the importation and installation of missiles. Following yet another CIA briefing informing President Kennedy of developments, he authorised the re-instatement of U-2 flights over Cuba in October, and it was during these fly-overs that the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons was detected. In the meantime, the Soviets continued to send nuclear weapons and associated technology to Cuba, prompting President Kennedy to initiate a naval blockade of the island. The problem with this was that US naval ships were told not to engage the Soviet ships, and this led to Soviet ships simply steaming through the blockade, rendering it ineffective. The image presented to the US populace, however, was that the ‘evil’ Soviets were being kept at bay by the blockade. In reality, President Kennedy could do nothing tangible to stop the Soviets. The false propaganda offensive in his own country was nothing but a face-saving device, designed to make him look re-electable to the general public. On the surface, President Kennedy had to appear to be standing-up to the ‘nasty’ Soviets, when behind the scenes there was considerable panic. This issue was not decided by Soviet ships turning-back (away from US power), but rather in secret, behind closed doors. In clandestine diplomatic communications, President Kennedy buckled to Soviet demands for US nuclear missiles to be removed from Turkey and Italy, although in public only the deal about Turkey was announced at the time. For this US back-down, Khrushchev ordered the removal of Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba – a move that frustrated Fidel Castro at the time, who interpreted it as a betrayal of Cuba.

Book Reference:

Reid-Henry, Simon, Fidel and Che – A Revolutionary Friendship,Walker * Company, (2009) Pages 251-271.

USSR: Dyatlova Pass Incident (1959) and the Triumph of Reason!


Students Consulting Maps

This tragic event probably happened during the night by 2nd of February, 1959, in an area now known as the Dyatlova Pass, situated on the Sverdlovsk region of the Northern Ural mountains.  A group of nine university students (7 men and 2 women) from the Ural State Technical University (UPI) Tourist-Skiing Club – led by Igor Dyatlova – were skiing in the area (aiming to reach the Otorten mountain – 10 kilometres north of the site of the incident), when a disaster struck their camp which led to the deaths of all nine participants. This incident occurred three years after (Trotskyite) Nikita Khrushchev took power in the USSR and controversially ‘denounced’ Joseph Stalin (initiating the Sino-Soviet Split), and two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although life continued to evolve and improve in the post-WWII  USSR for the Soviet people, the capitalist West (led by the United States), pursued its policy of attempting to bring-down all Communist regimes by any means possible. The generally disregardful treatment of the deaths of nine young Soviet citizens in 1959 in the West, is very much part of that undermining process. I reject this bourgeois process, and attempt here to bring respect back to the passing of these nine Soviet students, most of whom were born in the late 1930’s – just prior to the dark-days of WWII, and the brutal Nazi German occupation of their country.


Students at Base-Camp 


Although accidents of this type are not uncommon in the mountainous areas of modern Russia and the former USSR (with similar incidents occurring in 1975 and 2004 which involved 111 deaths), Western researchers, as part of the previous ‘Cold War’ policy of pouring scorn on every happening in the USSR, and the modern anti-Russian racism originating from within the USA, have fixated on this quite routine set of unfortunate events, and projected all kinds of imagined and non-sensical speculation on what may have happened. In reality, there were no UFOs, undeclared nuclear bunkers, or exposure to any ‘secret’ Soviet technology.


Happier Times!

This bizarre body of Western folklore (which is supported by some modern ‘capitalist’ Russian researchers) includes secret KGB experiments (denied by the KGB), secret Soviet nuclear tests (denied by the government of the USSR), the brutal action of over-zealous Soviet border guards (denied by the USSR Border Guards), attack by UFOs, and alien abduction and return, etc, and so on. As Western (bourgeois) researchers are wedded to the capitalist system they serve, the USSR and modern Russia are depicted a priori as being despotic, tyrannical and untruthful. The fact that modern Russia is now ‘capitalist’ makes no difference to the Western powers, which want to colonise Russia and take away its independence.


Bodies of the Students Found After the Thaw

During 1959, it saw the last period of official Soviet governmental support for amateur tourism throughout the wilderness areas of the USSR. Groups of Soviet students were trained and encouraged to venture out into the wilderness to build character and confidence. This developed social responsibility, leadership, group co-ordination and concern for the welfare of others, as well gender equality and an appreciation for the power of nature. This system of outdoor exploration was organised nation-wide by the Sports Committee of the Union of Sports Associations and Organizations (SSSOO), but was gradually phased-out and replaced with more localised activities, because it was decided that the national government could not ensure the over-all safety of the primarily ‘young’ participants that generally operated in an independent manner, free of older adult supervision. In other words, in 1959, expeditions into the Soviet hinterland was very common, and although there was the occasional tragedy (as occur yearly on Western ski-slopes), by and large the teams of exploring Soviet youths gave good accounts of themselves, often surviving to tell tales of prevailing against the odds through the use of logical thought processes.


Soviet Authorities Recovering the Bodies on Dyatlov Pass

Official searching began in March, after it was assumed that something untoward had happened to Igor Dyatlova’s group, and immediately some bodies and equipment were found. In April more bodies were discovered further away from the last known campsite, with the final bodies being discovered with the thaw that had set-in in May. Having recovered all the dead bodies and equipment (which included functioning cameras), the Soviet Authorities tried to piece together the series of events that had led to this tragedy. One of the tents recovered exhibited signs of being cut-open from the inside (which many Western researchers equate with foul-play), when in fact it is commonly observable in tents that have been subject to avalanche – with their occupants trying to find a way out.


Soviet autopsy reports suggest that all nine students died of exposure to very low temperatures, with three suffering broken bones such as fractured ribs, and in one case a broken-skull. These three students had been struck by a great force or weight (such as avalanching snow and/or dropping rocks, etc). All had extensive external wounds to their soft-tissue, much of it caused by exposure to low temperatures and the elements post-mortem, with one body showing evidence of 2nd and 3rd degree burns possibly experienced during and just after the dying process. All had died around 8 hours after their last meal, and there was no evidence of alcohol consumption. On May 28th, 1959 the Medical Examiner B. A. Vozrozhdennyy (Б. А. Возрожденный) was questioned about the injuries found on three of the bodies (found in the river), and the possible duration of life after receiving such injuries. His opinion was that the skull-breakage was odd as there was no corresponding damage to the external (soft-tissue) of the skin and other structures around the skull. He felt that the bone-breakages of the skull and ribs might of have been caused by a very high impact (which caused massive internal damage) such as that found after certain auto-mobile accidents. One other student had a skull-breakage, but had died not of that fracture, but rather of exposure to low temperatures. Many of the bodies (if not all) had extensive soft-tissue damage to the exterior skin area, together with limb and torso damage – but the Russian language Autopsy Report that I have read, makes no mention of one of the women missing her tongue (an assertion common in Western sources). However, B. A. Vozrozhdennyy further stated that some of the students may have been alive (or conscious) from anything from 10 minutes to 3 or 4 hours after the catastrophic events that over-whelmed their group, before succumbing to shock, blood-lose and the cold. However, it was later revealed that  B. A. Vozrozhdennyy had not been in possession of all the surrounding environment facts – together the chronology of events – that had led to the accident, until after he gave his considered verdict. Such information may have led to a re-assessment of the ‘impact’ comments, but whatever the case, the general thrust of the autopsy would not have been effected. Finally, there was no evidence of radiation pollution on any of the bodies in the official medical report. As the students died in unusual circumstances, many were buried in zinc coffins, in an attempt to contain and retain the remains for possible future analysis.


Soviet-Era Monument to the Nine Students – Mikhailovsky cemetery

Official ‘natural’ reasons for this accident include:

  1. Sudden avalanche
  2. Sudden strong and freezing wind.
  3. Localised but sudden and heavy deluge of snow onto the tents.
  4. A combination of the above three reason.

Western sources also speculate an ‘animal attack’.

As the Soviet Union rejected the inverted mind-set of the bourgeois system, such notions of a theistic nature involving ghosts, spirits, ghouls and UFOs, etc, were not even considered as being viable or valid explanations of the Dyatlova Pass Incident during the days of the USSR, although today such explanations are common currency. However following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and the subsequent sweeping of capitalist market-forces across Russia, the trends of exploitation and monetary gain were re-imported from the West, and all kinds of nonsensical and far-fetched theories about the Dyatlova Pass Incident. These nine brave Soviet students were brought-up within the logical environment of Scientific Socialism. They did not entertain any psychological fear originating from the belief in things that do not exist. They were intrepid and prepared to take on the elements using logic and reason. Soviet society had equipped them with good training and equipment of the highest quality – they wanted for nothing – this is how we know that what happened to them was sudden, violent, unexpected, and out of the ordinary, but not ‘unnatural’. In fact, the forensic investigation of the tent-site and subsequent attempt to leave the area after the disastrous event, clearly suggests that the group was moving in good order, and following logical thought-processes until they were finally over-whelmed (and killed) by natural conditions that they apparently could not have reasonably been expected to predict.

The name of the nine students that died are:

Igor Alekseievich Dyatlova (Group Leader), born January 13, 1936 (aged 23)

Yuri Nikolaievich Doroshenko born January 29, 1938 (aged 21)

Lyudmila Alexandrovna Dubinina born May 12, 1938 (aged 20)

Yuri (Georgiy) Alexeievich Krivonischenko born February 7, 1935 (aged 23)

Alexander Sergeievich Kolevatov born November 16, 1934 (aged 24)

Zinaida Alekseevna Kolmogorova born January 12, 1937 (aged 22)

Rustem Vladimirovich Slobodin born January 11, 1936 (aged 23)

Nicolai Vladimirovich Thibeaux born July 8, 1935 (aged 23)

Semyon (Alexander) born February 2, 1921 (aged 38)

Russian Language References:Гибель_тургруппы_Дятлова


German Atrocity at Katyn (1941)


Alexander Werth (1901-1969)

Alexander Werth (1901-1969) was a British journalist of Russian birth.  His family fled Russia in 1917, following the October Revolution, and settled in England.  As he was born in St Petersburg, and spent much of his young life in Russia, he could read, write and speak Russian fluently.  During the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), Werth was the BBC Correspondent in the USSR.  His BBC credentials, and his inherent understanding of Russian language and culture gained him entry to many places off-limits to other journalists.  He spent a number of years writing clearly and concisely about Soviet history in English, and often dispelled Western Cold War lies and deception with thorough academic research.  Although not known to have been a Communist, or sympathetic to the Communist cause, his journalism was based upon the twin premise of ‘truth’ and ‘fairness’.  His historical work upon the Soviet Union (often drawn from personal experience) is excellent for an unbiased assessment of this crucial phase in world history.  What follows is a selection of information gathered from Werth’s 1964 book entitled ‘Russia at War 1941-1945’.  Interestingly this book is dedicated to the memory of Mitya Khludov, aged 19, killed in action in Belorussia, July 1944.  It is important to state that Alexander Werth does not state that he thought the Nazi Germans definitely committed the atrocity at Katyn – but he does offer excellent research as to why the Nazi Germans might have carried-out this atrocity.

Although the Soviet Union is no more, since its demise in 1991, the racial and class based hatred against a) Russia, and b) Communism, emanating from the West, has known no bounds.  Every despicable act known to humanity has been heaped upon Russia and its Communist past – aided and abetted from within Russia by the new breed of predatory capitalists (who see it in their own best interests to denigrate the former USSR).  This new ‘openness’ has included an apparent ‘admission’ of guilt regarding the disgraceful events surrounding the murder of thousands of Polish military officers in the Katyn Forest in Smolensk, 360km west-southwest of Moscow, probably around springtime, 1941.

During WWII, Winston Churchill (a known admirer of Adolf Hitler, and a detester of Communism), agreed to establish a rightwing Polish government in exile, ostensibly based in London.  This government was antagonistic to the USSR and often operated from an attitude of accommodation toward the Nazi Germans.  Following the invasion of the USSR in 1941, it was thought that between 300,000 and 400,000 Polish people either lived in the USSR as citizens, or as refugees from the fighting.  The Soviet Union had an official policy of looking after these people, and of arming and training independent Polish military units – despite the fact that the rightwing Polish government in exile (in London), often issued ‘edicts’ stating that they did not support the USSR and did not want Polish military units fighting to defend the USSR.  This bizarre situation designed by Churchill to de-stabilise the USSR from within, eventually backfired, as an independent, pro-USSR Polish government developed in Russia that eventually raised its own pro-USSR military units.  This rendered the rightwing Polish government in exile redundant.  However, as the war of words between Moscow and the Polish government in exile was reaching its peak with questions being asked by the former to the latter concerning ‘missing’ Polish POW’s, Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda machine issued a well placed announcement (in April 1943), that the Nazi German Army had discovered a mass grave in the Katyn Forest containing thousands of executed Polish military officers.  The Germans then established a much publicised Committee of Enquiry that claimed to have ‘proven’ that the POW’s had been shot by the Soviet NKVD (the fore-runner of the KGB) in 1940 and buried them in hastily dug mass graves.

What is astonishing about this situation is that as the Nazi German war machine was committing massive and endless acts of barbarity, murder, executions, rape and genocide both within and outside of the Soviet Union, the likes of Churchill and Roosevelt (both apparently sworn enemies of German Nazism) would take this claim seriously.  However, during the Russian Civil War (1917-1921) both the British and US made false claims against the Bolsheviks and their Communist forces committing similar atrocities involving the execution of POW’s (in fact it was the British Army that massacred 26 Communist Commissars at Baku in 1918).  This strategy was designed to use fear to turn the Western working class against the Socialist cause of the Bolsheviks.  It is interesting to note in passing, that many contemporary ‘holocaust deniers’ use this German allegation of ‘murder’ and ‘atrocity’ aimed at the USSR, as a means to discredit holocaust survivors (and their recollections) and shift the blame for the holocaust from Nazi German, toward the USSR.  This is yet another example of the strength of bourgeois hatred toward anything Socialistic.

The Nazi German military over-ran the Katyn area in July, 1941, and Soviet forces re-took the area in September, 1943.  The Nazi Germans had been in control of the Katyn area for just under two years before they announced any hint of a Soviet atrocity.  This was because the Nazi German forces were busy with the practicalities of arranging the deportation, genocide and murder of Communists, Jews, Romany, the disabled, and any kind of dissident living in the area (and disposing of the bodies).  The Russians launched their own enquiry starting in January, 1944.  In attendance was a large retinue of Western correspondents – including Katherine Harriman (the daughter of the US Ambassador to the USSR – Averell Harriman).  The Soviets claimed that around 10,000 bodies had been recovered (but only a few hundred had been chosen as ‘examples’).  Witnesses stated that despite the freezing cold, the place still stank of decaying flesh.  The Soviets assembled a number of prominent academics and politicians, a group that even included the famous writer Alexei Tolstoy.  Alexander Werth makes the following observations:

1) The technique of killing the victims was distinctly ‘German’ and not Russia (i.e. shot in the back of the head).  In countless other places the Nazi Germans used exactly the same method of execution.

2) The Soviet NKVD on the other hand, were not known for using this method.  Individuals did undoubtedly die whilst in NKVD custody, but generally through neglect, over-work, bad food and exposure to cold.  Occasionally groups of people died in this way, but the NKVD were not given to mass murders of the Katyn-type.  (This is an important point with regard to the post-1991 assumption of Soviet responsibility).

3) Why would the USSR kill Polish POW’s in 1940, when Russia was at peace, and there was no military urgency or pressure to deal with ‘class enemies’?

4) Without doubt the Polish officers were murdered with the use of Nazi German ammunition – even the Nazi German Committee of Enquiry had to admit this.  It has been stated elsewhere by anti-Soviet protagonists that the Nazi Germans had sold ‘Geco’ bullets to the rightwing resistance movements in the Baltic States, and that Soviet troops had simply helped themselves to their use.  Werth points out that this counter-argument does not make sense because the Russians were accused of carrying-out the atrocity in March 1940, but did not actually arrive in the Baltic States until three months later.

5) The rightwing London-Polish government in exile alleged that the Soviets had arranged to exchange the Polish officers for 30,000 Ukrainian prisoners and that the Nazi Germans had refused to accept the Poles.  There had then been a misunderstanding between Joseph Stalin and the NKVD when he ordered the camps ‘liquidated’ (through prisoner exchange) with the NKVD mistaking the order for apparent ‘mass’ execution.  Werth mentions that there was no apparent evidence for this version of events, (given the other contradictory evidence).

6) The Soviets revealed that the Katyn Forest area was a favourite holiday location for the people of Smolensk, and that barbed wire had only been placed around the area since the German invasion of 1941.  The Soviets pointed-out that people still holidayed there until the Nazi German occupation.

7) The Nazi Germans had been in Smolensk since July 1941, and yet they waited nearly two years before revealing the apparent Soviet atrocity.

8) It is conceivable that the Nazi Germans murdered the Polish officers in 1941 (possibly in a different area) with a view of deliberately using the bodies against the Soviets at some future date.

9) An alternative story emerged from the British Embassy in Moscow which stated that the Soviets had not murdered the Polish officers in 1941, but had despatched these ‘fascists’ in early 1941, as the Soviet forces disintegrated from the force of the Nazi German attack on the USSR.  However, the problem with this story is that contact with these Polish officers had ceased in early 1940.

10) A number of articles such as letters, postcards and newspapers from 1941 were discovered on or around the bodies.

Katherine Harrison stated in January, 1944, that in her opinion (which represented all the Westerners present), the Russian version of events was correct, and that it was the Nazi German military forces that were responsible for the massacre, just as it was for countless others, across the USSR and Europe.  In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev, seeking to cement his position as the leader of the Soviet Union, issued his infamous ‘Secret Speech’ within which he demonised the legacy of Joseph Stalin, and made him responsible for every real and imagined horror that had been associated with the USSR.  However, despite Khrushchev obviously striving to exchange the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the USSR with rightwing Trotskyism, he did not blame Stalin for the Katyn massacre.  Although Khrushchev’s Secret Speech has now been debunked as a complete falsehood by the academic research of Grover Furr, nevertheless, it is curious that Khrushchev left-out a major allegation against Stalin if it were ‘true’ (and hidden in NKVD files), or ‘untrue’ (and hidden in the recesses of Khrushchev’s imagination) would be damaging nonetheless.  This is interesting because it suggests that whilst Khrushchev was planning his power-grab in the USSR, neither he, nor his co-conspirators, had the idea of ‘blaming’ Stalin for the Katyn massacre.  This would have been a straight-forward demonization of Stalin if people had a) suspected this was true, or b) it was recorded as being ‘true’ in Soviet intelligence files.  As Khrushchev did not care about the reputation of the USSR when he made his Secret Speech, it is unlikely that he refused to ‘use’ this allegation to spare Soviet blushes.  On the contrary, Khrushchev used every means possible to denigrate the Soviet past and even asked the Soviet psychic Wolfe Messing to ‘pretend’ that he had had a vision of Lenin and Stalin asking from the spirit world to have their bodies taken-out of the mausoleum and properly buried – but Messing refused, stating that he did not believe in spiritualism and could not communicate with the dead.  If the opportunist Khrushchev would not blame Stalin (either rightly or wrongly) with the Katyn massacre, why is it that the modern, capitalist State of Russia has apparently ‘admitted’ to carrying it out, whilst not releasing any definitive documents?  It is probably because modern, capitalist Russia wants to distance itself from its Soviet past, and does not care if the USSR is blamed with the Katyn massacre.  This means that the true victor of this situation is the Nazi German regime which carried-out endless extermination campaigns along the lines of that discovered at the Katyn site.  This plays into the hands of the modern rightwing which has always tried to ‘negate’ Nazi German atrocities, whilst pursuing a policy of race-hate – the very same race-hate that killed thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest.  Anti-Russian racism, and anti-Communist fear in the minds of the Western bourgeoisie has ensured that the Katyn massacre out-shines all the many other atrocities perpetuated by the Nazi German regime, which includes around 27 million Soviet men, women and children who were killed during WWII in the fight against Nazi German fascism.

Factionalism in the British Communist Left

images (4)

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels founded the First International Workingmen’s Association in the UK that lasted from 1864-1876.  Marx eventually dissolved this movement because he was of the opinion that circumstances were not yet right for world revolution.  Marx withdrew from direct confrontation with the establishment, and instead focused on the further theoretical development of his theory of Scientific Socialism.  This switched the emphasis for revolution from physical to the world of ideas and this is exactly what Marx advocated.  Although he called for the worldwide overthrowing of the bourgeoisie and the corrupt capitalism that it represented, he was very well aware of the power of ideas to inspire others to decisive physical actions.  Marx was wise and knew when physical action should be carried-out, and when it should not.  His method was the perfect integration of advanced and progressive thought carried-through by actions when the circumstances were right.  For Marx the pursuit of world revolution was often a smooth interchange between thought and action – with occasionally the two dramatically coinciding.  Marx (and Engels) developed their theory of Scientific Socialism with a definite long-view perspective which took into account the attempting and failing of world revolution many times, until the final accomplishment of the permanent replacement of capitalism with Socialism.

The Second Socialist International (1889–1916) was founded in Paris six years after the death of Marx and was essentially a trade union and labour movement.  This dissolved in 1916 because of a system failure of its constituent nation parties to hold a united, working class internationalist front in opposition to the bourgeois war that had developed in France and elsewhere.  As Marx was against nationalism, and taught that the bourgeoisie created nationalism and racism to prevent the international working class from uniting and working together to effectively confront and over-throw bourgeois oppression, and its corrupt capitalist system.  Competing royal houses in Europe (all of whom were blood related) encouraged their respective bourgeois governments to go to war, and in so doing, use the lives of their working class men as canon-fodder.  Although there did exist Socialist opposition to WWI, many prominent members of the Second International voted to support their national bourgeois governments, and instructed their working class membership to join national armies.  As the Second Socialist International completely failed to apply the Scientific Socialism of Marx, it was dissolved in 1916 at the height of the murder and savagery in France and Belgium (and elsewhere) which saw different groups of working class men pointlessly opposing one another for the class interests of the bourgeoisie.

Vladimir Lenin founded the Third Communist International which lasted from 1919 to 1943.  Lenin called all working class people around the world to come to the theoretical and practical aid of the fledgling Communist State in revolutionary Russia.  Since the successful taking of power (and its consolidation) by the Bolsheviks, the bourgeois Western powers (and their Japanese allies), ruthlessly attacked Russia and supported the counter-revolutionary movement.  This was an economic, military and rhetorical attack on Russia that was opposed to the international working class uniting in the pursuance of its best class interests.  The Third International sought to establish a worldwide, Communist movement in both theory and practice, and founded the International Communist Party which eventually had branches in virtually every other country.  These branches were part of the Soviet Union and represented a united proletariat throughout the world, and its purpose was to support (theoretically and practically) all working class movements throughout the world in preparation for the eventual world revolution.  During WWII, Joseph Stalin dissolved the Third Communist International in 1943, because its theoretical premise of working class unity throughout the world was impractical to pursue, whilst fascist Germany, Italy and Japan were unleashing total war and destruction across the globe.  Furthermore, Stalin understood that the Western (liberal) bourgeois States were then allies of a USSR (that was fighting for its very existence at the time, trying to stop and push back a very strong Nazi German invasion), were needed to provide material aid and moral support.  An uprising of working class movement at that time would have interrupted the direct material aid and internationally weakened the coalition against Nazi Germany and her fascist allies.  Of course, a working class uprising in the fascist countries could have immediately stopped their aggression – but such an uprising was considered unlikely due to the oppressive nature of the fascist States and the draconian measures taken against any refusal to toe the official rightwing line.  Instead, Stalin advised the International Communist Parties to work for world revolution in a manner that best suited their local conditions, and he called for the various Communist Branches to act in a more independent manner, whilst also trying to co-ordinate their local activities with the premise of international solidarity.  Although the USSR remained the central focus for International Communist action, the Communist Party branches were now given a new latitude in their functionality, which was designed to increase flexibility and effectiveness of action.

The first major trauma that tested this new climate of flexibility, was the betrayal of Joseph Stalin (and the International Communist Movement) by the Trotskyite traitor – Nikita Khrushchev.  Communist China under the guidance of Mao Zedong rejected the Khrushchev line, as did the famous Che Guevara, and many other Communists around the world.  Khrushchev – as a Trotskyite – sought to take power in the USSR after the death of Stalin in 1953, by courting the anti-Soviet rhetoric emanating from the USA and the UK, as these two countries attempted to build an anti-Communist front in Europe and beyond.  Many branches of the International Communist Party attempted to come to terms with Khrushchev’s so-called ‘Secret Speech’ in 1956, within which he issued an attack on Joseph Stalin that was a tissue of lies (see Grover Furr’s research in this area).  Khrushchev’s betrayal of Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, and the Soviet Union eventually led to the premiership of Mikhail Gorbachev and the final demise of the USSR through his pro-capitalist corruption.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (and its Communist Party) in 1991, the International Communist Party branches were officially dissolved.  The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) transitioned into a bourgeois left intellectual movement, with the ‘CPGB’ name being resurrected by a UK Trotskyite group that seeks to demonise and belittle the entire Soviet-era achievement.  In the late 1970’s, a group split from the CPGB regarding a dispute over the legacy of Joseph Stalin.  The CPGB was moving away from a position of support for Stalin, and as a consequence, the ‘New Communist Party’ (NCP) was formed and officially recognised.  Today, the NCP follows a position of supporting North Korea and its ‘Juche’ theory.  In 1988, another group split from the CPGB as it did not agree with the bourgeois liberalism emanating from Mikhail Gorbachev.  This group took the Morning Star newspaper with it and became the ‘Communist Party of Britain’ (CPB).  The CPB today follows a policy of unquestioning support for the Labour Party, and advocates the ‘British Road to Socialism’ – a premise it originally rejected in 1988, as it stemmed from a revisionist movement in the 1960’s in the original CPGB.  The CPB supports parliamentary Socialism and officially plays-down any ideas of direct revolutionary action.  The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninism) – CPGB (ML) – was formed out of the Socialist Movement in the early 2000’s, and has its historical roots in the parliamentary Labour Party.  Today it has a hard-left approach to Communism (that supports Stalin and Mao), and rejects the tyranny of Khrushchev.  The Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG) is a Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist group that grew out of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party – its current relationship with Trotskyism is unclear – but it does appear to support Joseph Stalin’s unconditional anti-imperialist struggles.  It follows a staunch anti-racist and anti-capitalist line.

There are many leftist groups, parties, associations, and movements in the UK and across the world.  All behave in a unilateral manner that presumes each faction is the ‘only’ faction in existence.  This means that a single world vision emanates from the many revolutionary steering committees that ignores all other movements and approaches.  This has led to a potential international communist movement scattered into tiny parts, with each behaving as if it possesses the power and moral right to lead the World Communist Movement, even though in reality each faction only possesses the immediate power of attracting only a few hundred supporters at any one time.  What a genuinely ‘Communist’ seeker must understand is that ‘Scientific Socialism’, and its development of ‘Marxist-Leninism’ are dialectical, historical trends that are not, (and cannot) be limited to any single group, party, or movement that claims to singularly represent it.  A dialectical and historical trend involves the entire international working class movement, irrespective of theoretical groups that claim to represent it.  In fact, a singular claim to exclusively represent a dialectical movement in history is in itself non-dialectical in nature and a hindrance to true internationalist development.  This would suggest that any genuine working class movement will represent itself spontaneously, and be simultaneously ‘free’ of artificial contrivance.  As things stand today, the Western Communist Left is riddled with ego, factionalism, fetishism, arrogance, lack of Marxist insight, and racist attitudes.  This demonstrates a remarkable infiltration of the Communist Left from Trotskyites and the broader right wing.  This demonstrates the paradox that whilst claiming to represent the International Communist Movement, many of these factions have in fact abandoned true ‘Internationalism’ and have – like Khrushchev – betrayed both Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.  Considering this current climate of corruption and dysfunction within the Communist Left, a genuine seeker of the Marxist path should personally study the works of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and learn to understand dialectical materialism, and think independently in a progressive manner that is not being represented by the many factions that vie for their membership.  Marx, Engels and Lenin, advocated that the working class mind must be freed from its bourgeois oppression and its inversion cured through adopting a correct class consciousness that interprets events correctly.  Dialectical events will unfold regardless of how many factions come into being or pass out of existence.  When the truly Communist ground-work has been achieved through personal education, then a progressive individual may join (or not join) any faction that is useful, although it must be remembered that the Communist factions are currently failing in their presumed function of a) uniting the international working class, and 2) leading it correctly.  As Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao achieved these objectives, their example should be followed.




Joseph Stalin Against Anarchist Terror & Assissanation

Chinese Text Reads: Great Stalin - Saviour of the Peace

Chinese Text Reads: Great Stalin – Saviour of the Peace

Joseph Stalin died in 1953.  In 1956 – Nikita Khrushchev – in an attempt to consolidate his own premiership of the Soviet Union – issued his now famous ‘Secret Speech’ which was extensively ‘leaked’ to the world’s media.  In it, Khrushchev made allegations against Joseph Stalin that mirrored the anti-Socialist distortion of world history as perpetuated by the United States since the end of WWII, and which played directly into the anti-working class hands of the UK’s racist Winston Churchill.  In fact, it can be accurately stated that Khrushchev’s deceptive rhetoric caused the Sino-Soviet Split, and led directly to the collapse of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev just 35 years later.  Since the collapse of the USSR, the US academic professor George Furr has had unlimited access to the Soviet era government archives.  His meticulous and well researched findings have been published in the West – conveying the obvious conclusion that Khrushchev’s allegations against Stalin are fallacious and have no bearing in historical fact.  Khrushchev’s argument has been dismantled point by point and the only conclusion left is that Khrushchev lied.

Contained in Stalin’s Collected Works Vol. II, there is a chapter entitled ‘Economic Terrorism and the Labour Movement’.  This is embarrassing reading for the bourgeois capitalist forces of the West, as Stalin clearly speaks out about pointless acts of anarchist inspired terrorism.  The entire chapter reads:

The workers’ struggle does not always and everywhere assume the same form.

There was a time when in fighting their employers the workers smashed machines and set fire to factories. Machines are the cause of poverty! The factory is the seat of oppression! Therefore, smash and burn them!— said the workers at that time.

That was the period of unorganised, anarchist-rebel conflicts.

We know also of other cases where the workers, disillusioned with incendiarism and destruction, adopted “more violent forms”—killing directors, managers, foremen, etc. It is impossible to destroy all the machines and all the factories, said the workers at that time, and besides, it is not in the workers’ interests to do so, but it is always possible to frighten the managers and knock the starch out of them by means of terrorism— therefore, beat them up, terrify them!

This was the period of individual terroristic conflicts stemming from the economic struggle.

The labour movement sharply condemned both these forms of struggle and made them a thing of the past.

This is understandable. There is no doubt that the factory is indeed the seat of exploitation of the workers, and the machine still helps the bourgeoisie to extend this exploitation, but this does not mean that the machine and the factory are in themselves the cause of poverty. On the contrary, it is precisely the factory and the machine that will enable the proletariat to break the chains of slavery, abolish poverty and vanquish all oppression—all that is needed is that the factories and machines be transformed from the private property of individual capitalists into the public property of the people.

On the other hand, what would our lives become if we set to work to destroy and burn the machines, factories and railways? It would be like living in a dreary desert, and the workers would be the first to lose their bread! . . .

Clearly, we must not smash up the machines and factories, but gain possession of them, when that becomes possible, if we are indeed striving to abolish poverty.

That is why the labour movement rejects anarchist-rebel conflicts.

There is no doubt that economic terrorism also has some apparent “justification,” in so far as it is resorted to in order to intimidate the bourgeoisie. But what is the use of this intimidation if it is transient and fleeting? That it can only be transient is clear from the one fact alone that it is impossible to resort to economic terrorism always and everywhere. That is the first point. The second point is: Of what use to us is the fleeting fear of the bourgeoisie and the concessions this fear may wring from it if we have not behind us a powerful, mass, workers’ organisation, which will always be ready to fight for the workers’ demands and be capable of retaining the concessions we have won? Indeed facts tell us convincingly that economic terrorism kills the desire for such an organisation, robs the workers of the urge to unite and come out independently—since they have terrorist heroes who are able to act for them. Should we cultivate the spirit of independent action among the workers? Should we cultivate the desire for unity among the workers? Of course we should! But can we resort to economic terrorism if it kills the desire for both among the workers?

No, comrades! It is against our principles to terrorise the bourgeoisie by means of individual, stealthy acts of violence. Let us leave such “deeds” to the notorious terrorist elements. We must come out openly against the bourgeoisie, we must keep it in a state of fear all the time, until final victory is achieved! And for this we need not economic terrorism, but a strong mass organisation which will be capable of leading the workers into the struggle.

That is why the labour movement rejects economic terrorism.

In view of what has been said above, the resolution recently adopted by the strikers at Mirzoyev’s against incendiarism and “economic” assassination is of special interest. In this resolution the joint commission of the 1,500 men at Mirzoyev’s, after mentioning the setting fire to a boiler room (in Balakhany) and the assassination of a manager on economic grounds (Surakhany), declares that it “protests against such methods of struggle as assassination and incendiarism” (see Gudok, No. 24).

By this the men at Mirzoyev’s announced their final rupture with the old, terrorist, rebel tendencies.

By this they resolutely took the path of the true labour movement.

We greet the comrades at Mirzoyev’s and call upon all the workers to take the path of the proletarian mass movement as resolutely as they have done.

Gudok, , No. 25, March 30, 1908


%d bloggers like this: