Lenin Dialectically Crushes Trotsky: Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity


Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity

Published: Published in May 1914 in the journal Prosveshcheniye No. 5.  Signed: V. Ilyin. Published according to the text in the journal.
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972, Moscow, Volume 20, pp. 325-347.
Translated: Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe Fineberg
Transcription: C. Kavanagh
HTML Markup: B. Baggins and D. Walters
Re-Markup: K. Goins (2008)
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (1996). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

The questions of the present-day working-class movement are in many respects vexed questions, particularly for representatives of that movement’s recent past (i. e., of the stage which historically has just drawn to a close). This applies primarily to the questions of so-called factionalism, splits, and so forth. One often hears intellectuals in the working-class movement making nervous, feverish and almost hysterical appeals not to raise these vexed questions. Those who have experienced the long years of struggle between the various trends among Marxists since 1900—01, for example, may naturally think it superfluous to repeat many of the arguments on the subject of these vexed questions.

But there are not many people left today who took part in the fourteen-year-old conflict among Marxists (not to speak of the eighteen- or nineteen-year-old conflict, counting from the moment the first symptoms of Economism appeared). The vast majority of the workers who now make up the ranks of the Marxists either do not remember the old conflict, or have never heard of it. To the overwhelming majority (as, incidentally, was shown by the opinion poll held by our journal[5]), these vexed questions are a matter of exception ally great interest. We therefore intend to deal with these questions, which have been raised as it were anew (and for the younger generation of the workers they are really new) by Trotsky’s “non-factional workers’ journal”, Borba.


Trotsky calls his new journal “non-factional”. He puts this word in the top line in his advertisements; this word is stressed by him in every key, in the editorial articles of Borba itself, as well as in the liquidationist Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta, which carried an article on Borba by Trotsky before the latter began publication.

What is this “non-factionalism”?

Trotsky’s “workers’ journal” is Trotsky’s journal for workers, as there is not a trace in it of either workers’ initiative, or any connection with working-class organisations. Desiring to write in a popular style, Trotsky, in his journal for workers, explains for the benefit of his readers the meaning of such foreign words as “territory”, “factor”, and so forth.

Very good. But why not also explain to the workers the meaning of the word “non-factionalism”? Is that word more intelligible than the words “territory” and “factor”?

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that the label “non-factionalism” is used by the worst representatives of the worst remnants of factionalism to mislead the younger generation of workers. It is worth while devoting a little time to explaining this.

Group-division was the main distinguishing feature of the Social-Democratic Party during a definite historical period. Which period? From 1903 to 1911.

To explain the nature of this group-division more clearly we must recall the concrete conditions that existed in, say, 1906—07. At that time the Party was united, there was no split, but group-division existed, i. e., in the united Party there were virtually twogroups, two virtually separate organisations. The local workers’ organisations were united, but on every important issue the two groups devised two sets of tactics. The advocates of the respective tactics disputed among themselves in the united workers’ organisations (as was the case, for example, during the discussion of the slogan: a Duma, or Cadet, Ministry, in 1906, or during the elections of delegates to the London Congress in 1907), and questions were decided by a majority vote. One group was defeated at the Stockholm Unity Congress (1906), the other was defeated at the London Unity Congress (1907).

These are commonly known facts in the history of organised Marxism in Russia.

It is sufficient to recall these commonly known facts to realise what glaring falsehoods Trotsky is spreading.

For over two years, since 1912, there has been no factionalism among the organised Marxists in Russia, no disputes over tactics in united organisations, at united conferences and congresses. There is a complete break between the Party, which in January 1912 formally announced that the liquidators do not belong to it, and the liquidators. Trotsky often calls this state of affairs a “split”, and we shall deal with this appellation separately later on. But it remains an undoubted fact that the term “factionalism” deviates from the truth.

As we have said, this term is a repetition, an uncritical, unreasonable, senseless repetition of what was true yesterday, i. e., in the period that has already passed. When Trotsky talks to us about the “chaos of factional strife” (see No. 1, pp. 5, 6, and many others) we realise at once which period of the past his words echo.

Consider the present state of affairs from the viewpoint of the young Russian workers who now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in Russia. They see three mass expressions of the different views, or trends in the working-class movement: the Pravdists, gathered around a newspaper with a circulation of 40,000; the liquidators (15,000 circulation) and the Left Narodniks (10,000 circulation). The circulation figures tell the reader about the mass character of a given tenet.

The question arises; what has “chaos” got to do with it? Everybody knows that Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases. But the catchword “chaos” is not only phrase-mongering; it signifies also the transplanting, or rather, a vain attempt to transplant, to Russian soil, in the present period, the relations that existed abroad in a bygone period. That is the whole point.

There is no “chaos” whatever in the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks. That, we hope, not even Trotsky will dare to deny. The struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks has been going on for over thirty years, ever since Marxism came into being. The cause of this struggle is the radical divergence of interests and viewpoints of two different classes, the proletariat and the peasantry. If there is any “chaos” anywhere, it is only in the heads of cranks who fail to understand this.

What, then, remains? “Chaos” in the struggle between the Marxists and the liquidators? That, too, is wrong, for a struggle against a trend, which the entire Party recognised as a trend and condemned as far back as 1908, cannot be called chaos. And everybody who has the least concern for the history of Marxism in Russia knows that liquidationism is most closely and inseverably connected, even as regards its leaders and supporters, with Menshevism (1903—08) and Economism (1894—1903). Consequently, here, too, we have a history extending over nearly twenty years. To regard the history of one’s own Party as “chaos” reveals an unpardonable empty-headedness.

Now let us examine the present situation from the point of view of Paris or Vienna. At once the whole picture changes. Besidesthe Pravdists and liquidators, we see no less than five Russian groups claiming membership of one and the same Social-Democratic Party: Trotsky’s group, two Vperyod groups, the “pro-Party Bolsheviks” and the “pro-Party Mensheviks”.[6] All Marxists in Paris and in Vienna (for the purpose of illustration I take two of the largest centres) are perfectly well aware of this.

Here Trotsky is right in a certain sense; this is indeed group-division, chaos indeed!

Groups within the Party, i. e., nominal unity (all claim to belong to one Party) and actual disunity (for, in fact, all the groups are independent of one another and enter into negotiations and agreements with each other as sovereign powers).

“Chaos”, i. e., the absence of (1) objective and verifiable proof that these groups are linked with the working-class movement in Russia and (2) absence of any data to enable us to judge the actual ideological and political physiognomy of these groups. Take a period of two full years—1912 and 1913. As everybody knows, this was a period of the revival and upswing of the working-class movement, when every trend or tendency of a more or less mass character (and in politics this mass character alone counts) could not but exercise some influence on the Fourth Duma elections, the strike movement, the legal newspapers, the trade unions, the insurance election campaign, and so on. Throughout those two years, not one of these five groups abroad asserted itself in the slightest degree in any of the activities of the mass working-class movement in Russia just enumerated!

That is a fact that anybody can easily verify.

And that fact proves that we were right in calling Trotsky a representative of the “worst remnants of factionalism”.

Although he claims to be non-factional, Trotsky is known to everybody who is in the least familiar with the working-class movement in Russia as the representative of “Trotsky’s faction”. Here we have group-division, for we see two essential symptoms of it: (1) nominal recognition of unity and (2) group segregation in fact. Here there are remnants of group-division, for there is no evidence whatever of any real connection with the mass working-class movement in Russia.

And lastly, it is the worst form of group-division, for there is no ideological and political definiteness. It cannot be denied that this definiteness is characteristic of both the Pravdists (even our determined opponent L. Martov admits that we stand “solid and disciplined” around universally known formal decisions on all questions) and the liquidators (they, or at all events the most prominent of them, have very definite features, namely, liberal, not Marxist).

It cannot be denied that some of the groups which, like Trotsky’s, really exist exclusively from the Vienna-Paris, but by no means from the Russian, point of view, possess a degree of definiteness. For example, the Machist theories of the Machist Vperyod group are definite; the emphatic repudiation of these theories and defence of Marxism, in addition to the theoretical condemnation of liquidationism, by the “pro-Party Mensheviks”, are definite.

Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness, for his patent for “non-factionalism”, as we shall soon see in greater detail, is merely a patent to flit freely to and fro, from one group to another.

To sum up:

1) Trotsky does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreements among the various Marxist trends and groups, although these disagreements run through the twenty years’ history of Social Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);

2) Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;

3) Under cover of “non-factionalism” Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles, and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.

All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless.


“Although there is no group-division, i. e., nominal recognition of unity, but actual disunity, among you, Pravdists, there is something worse, namely, splitting tactics,” we are told. This is exactly what Trotsky says. Unable to think out his ideas or to get his arguments to hang together, he rants against group-division at one moment, and at the next shouts: “Splitting tactics are winning one suicidal victory after another”. (No. 1, p. 6.)

This statement can have only one mending: “The Pravdists are winning one victory after another” (this is an objective, verifiable fact, established by a study of the mass working-class movement in Russia during, say, 1912 and 1913), but I, Trotsky, denounce the Pravdists (1) as splitters, and (2) as suicidal politicians.

Let us examine this.

First of all we must express our thanks to Trotsky. Not long ago (from August 1912 to February 1914) he was at one with F. Dan, who, as is well known, threatened to “kill” anti-liquidationism, and called upon others to do so. At present Trotsky does not threaten to “kill” our trend (and our Party—don’t be angry, Citizen Trotsky, this is true!), he only prophesies that it will kill itself!

This is much milder, isn’t it? It is almost “non-factional”, isn’t it?

But joking apart (although joking is the only way of retorting mildly to Trotsky’s insufferable phrase-mongering).

“Suicide” is a mere empty phrase, mere “Trotskyism”.

Splitting tactics are a grave political accusation. This accusation is repeated against us in a thousand different keys by the liquidators and by all the groups enumerated above, who, from the point of view of Paris and Vienna, actually exist.

And all of them repeat this grave political accusation in an amazingly frivolous way. Look at Trotsky. He admitted that “splitting tactics are winning [read: the Pravdists are winning] one suicidal victory after another”. To this he adds:

Numerouss advanced workers, in a state of utter political bewilderment, themselves often become active agents of a split.” (No. 1, p. 6.)

Are not these words a glaring example of irresponsibility on this question?

You accuse us of being splitters when all that we see in front of us in the arena of the working-class movement in Russia is liquidationism. So you think that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong? Indeed, all the groups abroad that we enumerated above, no matter how much they may differ from each other, are agreed that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong, that it is the attitude of “splitters”. This, too, reveals the similarity (and fairly close political kinship) between all these groups and the liquidators.

If our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong in theory, in principle, then Trotsky should say so straightforwardly, and statedefinitely, without equivocation, why he thinks it is wrong. But Trotsky has been evading this extremely important point for years.

If our attitude towards liquidationism has been proved wrong in practice, by the experience of the movement, then this experience should be analysed; but Trotsky fails to do this either. “Numerous advanced workers,” he admits, “become active agents of a split” (read: active agents of the Pravdist line, tactics, system and organisation).

What is the cause of the deplorable fact, which, as Trotsky admits, is confirmed by experience, that the advanced workers, thenumerous advanced workers at that, stand for Pravda?

It is the “utter political bewilderment” of these advanced workers, answers Trotsky.

Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering to Trotsky, to all five groups abroad, and to the liquidators. Trotsky is very fond of using, with the learned air of the expert, pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since “numerous advanced workers” become “active agents” of a political and Party line which does not conform to Trotsky’s line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand: these advanced workers are “in a state of utter political bewilderment”, whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently “in a state” of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line!… And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of intellectuals to impose their will on the workers!

Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself: is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?

The Party put the question of liquidationism, and of condemning it, before the “advanced workers” as far back as 1908, while the question of “splitting” away from a very definite group of liquidators (namely, the Nasha Zarya group), i. e., that the only way to build up the Party was without this group and in opposition to it—this question was raised in January 1912, over two years ago. The overwhelming majority of the advanced workers declared in favour of supporting the “January (1912) line”. Trotsky himself admits this fact when he talks about “victories” and about “numerous advanced workers”. But Trotsky wriggles out of this simply by hurling abuse at these advanced workers and calling them “splitters” and “politically bewildered”!

From these facts sane people will draw a different conclusion. Where the majority of the class-conscious workers have rallied around precise and definite decisions, there we shall find unity of opinion and action, there we shall find the Party spirit, and the Party.

Where we see liquidators who have been “removed from office” by the workers, or half a dozen groups outside Russia, who for two years have produced no proof that they are connected with the mass working-class movement in Russia, there, indeed, we shall find bewilderment and splits. In now trying to persuade the workers not to carry out the decisions of that “united whole”, which the Marxist Pravdists recognise, Trotsky is trying to disrupt the movement and cause a split.

These efforts are futile, but we must expose the arrogantly conceited leaders of intellectualist groups, who, while causing splits themselves, are shouting about others causing splits; who, after sustaining utter defeat at the hands of the “advanced workers” for the past two years or more, are with incredible insolence flouting the decisions and the will of these advanced workers and saying that they are “politically bewildered”. These are entirely the methods of Nozdrev,[7] or of “Judas” Golovlyov.[8]

In reply to these repeated outcries about a split and in fulfilment of my duty as a publicist, I will not tire of repeating precise, unrefuted and irrefutable figures. In the Second Duma, 47 per cent of the deputies elected by the worker curia were Bolsheviks, in the Third Duma 50 per cent were Bolsheviks, and in the Fourth Duma 67 per cent.

There you have the majority of the “advanced workers”, there you have the Party; there you have unity of opinion and action of the majority of the class-conscious workers.

To this the liquidators say (see Bulkin, L. M., in Nasha Zarya No. 3) that we base our arguments on the Stolypin curias. This is a foolish and unscrupulous argument. The Germans measure their successes by the results of elections conducted under the Bismarckian electoral law, which excludes women. Only people bereft of their senses would reproach the German Marxists for measuring their successes under the existing electoral law, without in the least justifying its reactionary restrictions.

And we, too, without justifying curias, or the curia system, measured our successes under the existing electoral law. There were curias in all three (Second, Third and Fourth) Duma elections; and within the worker curia, within the ranks of Social-Democracy, there was a complete swing against the liquidators. Those who do not wish to deceive themselves and others must admit this objective fact, namely, the victory of working-class unity over the liquidators.

The other argument is just as “clever”: “Mensheviks and liquidators voted for (or took part in the election of) such and-such a Bolshevik.” Splendid! But does not the same thing apply to the 53 per cent non-Bolshevik deputies re turned to the Second Duma, and to the 50 per cent returned to the Third Duma, and to the 33 per cent returned to the Fourth Duma?

If, instead of the figures on the deputies elected, we could obtain the figures on the electors, or workers’ delegates, etc., we would gladly quote them. But these more detailed figures are not available, and consequently the “disputants” are simply throwing dust in people’s eyes.

But what about the figures of the workers’ groups that assisted the newspapers of the different trends? During two years (1912 and 1913), 2,801 groups assisted Pravda, and 750 assisted Luch.[1] These figures are verifiable and nobody has attempted to disprove them.

Where is the unity of action and will of the majority of the “advanced workers”, and where is the flouting of the will of the majority?

Trotsky’s “non-factionalism” is, actually, splitting tactics, in that it shamelessly flouts the will of the majority of the workers.


But there is still another method, and a very important one, of verifying the correctness and truthfulness of Trotsky’s accusations about splitting tactics.

You consider that it is the “Leninists” who are splitters? Very well, let us assume that you are right.

But if you are, why have not all the other sections and groups proved that unity is possible with the liquidators without the “Leninists”, and against the “splitters”?… If we are splitters, why have not you, uniters, united among yourselves, and with the liquidators? Had you done that you would have proved to the workers by deeds that unity is possible and beneficial!…

Let us go over the chronology of events.

In January 1912, the “Leninist” “splitters” declared that they were a Party without and against the liquidators.

In March 1912, all the groups and “factions”: liquidators, Trotskyists, Vperyodists, “pro-Party Bolsheviks” and “pro-PartyMensheviks”, in their Russian news sheets and in the columns of the German Social-Democratic newspaper Vorw\”arts, unitedagainst these “splitters”. All of them unanimously, in chorus, in unison and in one voice vilified us and called us “usurpers”, “mystifiers”, and other no less affectionate and tender names.

Very well, gentlemen! But what could have been easier for you than to unite against the “usurpers” and to set the “advanced workers” an example of unity? Do you mean to say that if the advanced workers had seen, on the one hand, the unity of all against the usurpers, the unity of liquidators and non-liquidators, and on the other, isolated “usurpers”, “splitters”, and so forth; they would not have supported the former?

If disagreements are only invented, or exaggerated, and so forth, by the “Leninists”, and if unity between the liquidators, Plekhanovites, Vperyodists, Trotskyists, and so forth, is really possible, why have you not proved this during the past two years by your own example?

In August 1912, a conference of “uniters” was convened. Disunity started at once: the Plekhanovites refused to attend at all; the Vperyodists attended, but walked out after protesting and exposing the fictitious character of the whole business.

The liquidators, the Letts, the Trotskyists (Trotsky and Semkovsky), the Caucasians, and the Seven “united”. But did they? We stated at the time that they did not, that this was merely a screen to cover up liquidationism. Have the events disproved our statement?

Exactly eighteen months later, in February 1914, we found:

1. that the Seven was breaking up. Buryanov had left them.

2. that in the remaining new “Six”, Chkheidze and Tulyakov, or somebody else, could not see eye to eye on the reply to be made to Plekhanov. They stated in the press that they would reply to him, but they could not.

3. that Trotsky, who for many months had practically vanished from the columns of Luck, had broken away, and had started “his own” journal, Borba. By calling this journal “non-factional”, Trotsky clearly (clearly to those who are at all familiar with the subject) intimates that in his, Trotsky’s, opinion, Nasha Zarya and Luch had proved to be “factional”, i. e., poor uniters.

If you are a uniter, my dear Trotsky, if you say that it is possible to unite with the liquidators, if you and they stand by the “fundamental ideas formulated in August 1912” (Borba No. 1, p. 43, Editorial Note), why did not you yourself unite with the liquidators in Nasha Zarya and Luch?

When, before Trotsky’s journal appeared, Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta published some scathing comment stating that the physiognomy of this journal was “unclear” and that there had been “quite a good deal of talk in Marxist circles” about this journal, Put Pravdy (No. 37)[2] was naturally obliged to expose this falsehood. It said: “There has been talk in Marxist circles” about a secret memorandum written by Trotsky against the Luch group; Trotsky’s physiognomy and his breakaway from the August bloc were perfectly “clear”.

4. An, the well-known leader of the Caucasian liquidators, who had attacked L. Sedov (for which he was given a public wigging by F. Dan and Co.), now appeared in Borba. It remains “unclear” whether the Caucasians now desire to go with Trotsky or with Dan.

5. The Lettish Marxists, who were the only real organisation in the “August bloc”, had formally withdrawn from it, stating (in 1914) in the resolution of their last Congress that:

the attempt on the part of the conciliators to unite at all costs with the liquidators (the August Conference of 1912) proved fruitless, and the uniters themselves became ideologically and politically dependent upon the liquidators.”

This statement was made,after eighteen months’ experience, by an organisation which had itself been neutral and had notdesired to establish connection with either of the two centres. This decision of neutrals should carry all the more weight with Trotsky!

Enough, is it not?

Those who accused us of being splitters, of being unwilling or unable to get on with the liquidators, were themselves unable to get on with them. The August bloc proved to be a fiction and broke up.

By concealing this break-up from his readers, Trotsky is deceiving them.

The experience of our opponents has proved that we are right, has proved that the liquidators cannot be co-operated with.


The editorial article in issue No. 1 of Borba entitled “The Split in the Duma Group” contains advice from a conciliator to the seven pro-liquidator (or inclining towards liquidationism) members of the Duma. The gist of this advice is contained in the following words:

“first of all consult the Six whenever it is necessary to reach an agreement with other groups….” (P. 29.)

This is the wise counsel which, among other things, is evidently the cause of Trotsky’s disagreement with the liquidators of Luch. This is the opinion the Pravdists have held ever since the outbreak of the conflict between the two groups in the Duma, ever since the resolution of the Summer (1913) Conference was adopted. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma has reiterated in the press, even after the split, that it continues to adhere to this position, in spite of the repeated refusals of the Seven.

From the very outset, since the time the resolution of the Summer Conference was adopted, we have been, and still are, of the opinion that agreements on questions concerning activities in the Duma are desirable and possible; if such agreements have been repeatedly arrived at with the petty-bourgeois peasant democrats (Trudoviks), they are all the more possible and necessary with the petty-bourgeois, liberal-labour politicians.

We must not exaggerate disagreements, but we must face the facts: the Seven are men, leaning towards liquidationism, who yesterday entirely followed the lead of Dan, and whose eyes today are travelling longingly from Dan to Trotsky and back again. The liquidators are a group of legalists who have broken away from the Party and are pursuing a liberal- labour policy. Since they repudiate the “underground”, there can be no question of unity with them in matters concerning Party organisation and the working-class movement. Who ever thinks differently is badly mistaken and fails to take into account the profound nature of the changes that have taken place since 1908.

But agreements on certain questions with this group, which stands outside or on the fringe of the Party, are, of course, permissible: we must always compel this group, too, like the Trudoviks, to choose between the workers’ (Pravdist) policy and the liberal policy. For example, on the question of fighting for freedom of the press the liquidators clearly revealed, vacillation between the liberal formulation of the question, which repudiated, or overlooked, the illegal press, and the opposite policy, that of the workers.

Within the scope of a Duma policy in which the most important extra-Duma issues are not directly raised, agreements with the seven liberal-labour deputies are possible and desirable. On this point Trotsky has shifted his ground from that of the liquidatorsto that of the Party Summer (1913) Conference.

It should not be forgotten, however, that to a group standing outside the Party, agreement means something entirely different from what Party people usually understand by the term. By “agreement” in the Duma, non-Party people mean “drawing up a tactical resolution, or line”. To Party people agreement is an attempt to enlist others in the work of carrying out the Party line.

For example, the Trudoviks have no party. By agreement they understand the “voluntary”, so to speak, “drawing up” of a line, today with the Cadets, tomorrow with the Social-Democrats. We, however, understand something entirely different by agreement with the Trudoviks. We have Party decisions on all the important questions of tactics, and we shall never depart from these decisions; by agreement with the Trudoviks we mean winning them over to our side, convincing them that we are right, and not rejecting joint action against the Black Hundreds and against the liberals.

How far Trotsky has forgotten (not for nothing has he associated with the liquidators) this elementary difference between the Party and non-Party point of view on agreements, is shown by the following argument of his:

“The representatives of the International must bring together the two sections of our divided parliamentary group and jointly with them ascertain the points of agreement and points of disagreement…. A detailed tactical resolution formulating the principles of parliamentary tactics may he drawn up….” (No. 1, pp. 29—30.)

Here you have a characteristic and typical example of the liquidationist presentation of the question! Trotsky’s journal forgets about the Party; such a trifle is hardly worth remembering!

When different parties in Europe (Trotsky is fond of inappropriately talking about Europeanism) come to an agreement or unite, what they do is this: their respective representatives meet and first of all ascertain the points of disagreement (precisely what the International proposed in relation to Russia, without including in the resolution Kautsky’s ill-considered statement that “the old Party no longer exists”[9]). Having ascertained the points of disagreement, the representatives decide what decisions (resolutions, conditions, etc.) on questions of tactics, organisation, etc., should be submitted to the congresses of the two parties. If they succeed in drafting unanimous decisions, the congresses decide whether to adopt them or not. If differing proposals are made, they too are submitted for final decision to the congresses of the two parties.

What appeals to the liquidators and Trotsky is only the European models of opportunism, but certainly not the models of European partisanship.

“A detailed tactical resolution” will be drawn up by the members of the Duma! This example should serve the Russian “advanced workers”, with whom Trotsky has good reason to be so displeased, as a striking illustration of the lengths to which the groups in Vienna and Paris—who persuaded even Kautsky that there was “no Party” in Russia—go in their ludicrous project-mongering. But if it is some times possible to fool foreigners on this score, the Russian “advanced workers” (at the risk of provoking the terrible Trotsky to another outburst of displeasure) will laugh in the faces of these project-mongers.

“Detailed tactical resolutions,” they will tell them, “are drawn up among us (we do not know how it is done among you lion-Party people) by Party congresses and conferences, for example, those of 1907, 1908, 1910, 1912 and 1913. We shall gladly acquaint uninformed foreigners, as well as forgetful Russians, with our Party decisions, and still more gladly ask the representatives of the Seven, or the August bloc members, or Left-wingers or anybody else, to acquaint us with the resolutions of their congresses, or conferences, and to bring up at their next congress the definite question of the attitude they should adopt towards our resolutions, or towards the resolution of the neutral Lettish Congress of 1914, etc.”

This is what the “advanced workers” of Russia will say to the various project-mongers, and this has already been said iii the Marxist press, for example, by the organised Marxists of St. Petersburg. Trotsky chooses to ignore these published terms for the liquidators? So much the worse for Trotsky. It is our duty to warn our readers how ridiculous that “unity” (the August type of “unity”?) project-mongering is which refuses to reckon with the will of the majority of the class-conscious workers of Russia.


As to the substance of his own views, Trotsky contrived to say as little as possible in his new journal. Put Pravdy (No. 37) has already commented on the fact that Trotsky has not said a word either on the question of the “underground” or on the slogan of working for a legal party, etc.[3] That, among other things, is why we say that when attempts are made to form a separate organisation which is to have no ideological and political physiognomy, it is the worst form of factionalism.

Although Trotsky has refrained from openly expounding his views, quite a number of passages in his journal show what kind of ideas he has been trying to smuggle in.

In the very first editorial article in the first issue of his journal, we read the following:

“The pre-revolutionary Social-Democratic Party in our country was a workers’ party only in ideas and aims. Actually, it was an organisation of the Marxist intelligentsia, which led the awakening working class.” (5.)

This is the old liberal and liquidationist tune, which is really the prelude to the repudiation of the Party. It is based on a distortion of the historical facts. The strikes of 1895—96 had already given rise to a mass working-class movement, which both in ideas and organisation was linked with the Social-Democratic movement. And in these strikes, in this economic and non-economic agitation, the “intelligentsia led the working class”!?

Or take the following exact statistics of political offences in the period 1901—03 compared with the preceding period.

Occupations of participants in the emancipation movement prosecuted for political offences (per cent)
Period Agriculture Industry and
and students
No definite
occupation, and
no occupation
1884—90 7.1 15.1 53.3 19.9
1901—03 9.0 46.1 28.7 8.0

We see that in the eighties, when there was as yet no Social-Democratic Party in Russia, and when the movement was “Narodnik”, the intelligentsia predominated, accounting for over half the participants.

But the picture underwent a complete change in 1901—03, when a Social-Democratic Party already existed, and when the old Iskra was conducting its work. The intelligentsia were now a minority among the participants of the movement; the workers(“industry and commerce”) were far more numerous than the intelligentsia, and the workers and peasants together constituted more than half the total.

It was precisely in the conflict of trends within the Marxist movement that the petty-bourgeois intellectualist wing of the Social-Democracy made itself felt, beginning with Economism (1895—1903) and continuing with Menshevism (1903—1908) and liquidationism (1908—1914). Trotsky repeats the liquidationist slander against the Party and is afraid to mention the history of the twenty years’ conflict of trends within the Party.

Here is another example.

“In its attitude towards parliamentarism, Russian Social-Democracy passed through the same three stages … [as in other countries] … first ‘boycottism’ … then the acceptance in principle of parliamentary tactics, but … [that magnificent “but”, the “but” which Shchedrin translated as: The ears never grow higher than the forehead, never![4]]… for purely agitational purposes … and lastly, the presentation from the Duma rostrum … of current demands….” (No. 1, p. 34.)

This, too, is a liquidationist distortion of history. The distinction between the second and third stages was invent ed in order to smuggle in a defence of reformism and opportunism. Boycottism as a stage in “the attitude of Social-Democracy towards parliamentarism” never existed either in Europe (where anarchism has existed and continues to exist) or in Russia, where the boycott of the Bulygin Duma, for example, applied only to a definite institution, was never linked with “parliamentarism”, and was engendered by the peculiar nature of the struggle between liberalism and Marxism for the continuation of the onslaught. Trotsky does not breathe a word, about the way this struggle affected the conflict between the two trends in Marxism!

When dealing with history, one must explain concrete questions and the class roots of the different trends; anybody who wants to make a Marxist study of the struggle of classes and trends over the question of participation in the Bulygin Duma, will see therein the roots of the liberal-labour policy. But Trotsky “deals with” history only in order to evade concrete questions and to invent a justification, or a semblance of justification, for the present-day opportunists!

“Actually, all trends,” he writes, “employ the same methods of struggle and organisation.” “The outcries about the liberal danger in our working-class movement are simply a crude and sectarian travesty of reality.” (No. 1, pp. 5 and 35.)

This is a very clear and very vehement, defence of the liquidators. But we will take the liberty of quoting at least one small fact, one of the very latest. Trotsky merely slings words about; we should like the workers themselves to ponder over the facts.

It is a fact that Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta for March 13 wrote the following:

Instead of emphasising the definite and concrete task that confronts the working class, viz., to compel the Duma to throw out the bill [on the press], a vague formula is proposed of fighting for the ‘uncurtailed slogans’, and at the same time the illegal press is widely advertised, which can only lead to the relaxation of the workers’ struggle for their legal press.”

This is a clear, precise and documentary defence of the liquidationist policy and a criticism of the Pravda policy. Well, will any literate person say that both trends employ “the same methods of struggle and organisation” on this question? Will any literate person say that the liquidators are not pursuing a liberal-labour policy on this question, that the liberal menace to the working-class movement is purely imaginary?

The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is because they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous phrases. It is very easy, of course, to strike an attitude and say: “a crude and sectarian travesty”. Or to add a still more stinging and pompous catch-phrase, such as “emancipation from conservative factionalism”.

But is this not very cheap? Is not this weapon borrowed from the arsenal of the period when Trotsky posed in all his splendour before audiences of high-school boys?

Nevertheless, the “advanced workers”, with whom Trotsky is so angry, would like to be told plainly and clearly: Do you or do you not approve of the “method of struggle and organisation” that is definitely expressed in the above-quoted appraisal of a definite political campaign? If you do, then you are pursuing a liberal-labour policy, betraying Marxism and the Party; to talk of “peace” or of “unity” with such a policy, with groups which pursue such a policy, means deceiving yourself and others.

If not, then say so plainly. Phrases will not astonish, satisfy or intimidate the present-day workers.

Incidentally, the policy advocated by the liquidators in the above-quoted passage is a foolish one even from the liberal point of view, for the passage of a bill in the Duma depends on “Zemstvo-Octobrists” of the type of Bennigsen, who has already shown his hand in the committee.

The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him, for he is typical of all the five groups abroad, which, in fact, are also vacillating between the liquidators and the Party.

In the days of the old Iskra (1901—03), these waverers, who flitted from the Economists to the Iskrists and back again, were dubbed “Tushino turncoats” (the name given in the Troublous Times in Rus to fighting men who went over from one camp to another[10]).

When we speak of liquidationism we speak of a definite ideological trend, which grew up in the course of many years, stems from Menshevism and Economism in the twenty years’ history of Marxism, and is connected with the policy and ideology of a definite class—the liberal bourgeoisie.

The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional” vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.

Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was still dormant, and when every group had “ample room” in which to pose as a trend, group or faction, in short, as a “power”, negotiating amalgamation with others.

The younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are dealing with, when individuals come before them with incredibly pretentious claims, unwilling absolutely to reckon with either the Party decisions, which since 1908 have defined and established our attitude towards liquidationism, or with the experience of the present-day working-class movement in Russia, which has actually brought about the unity of the majority on the basis of full recognition of the aforesaid decisions.


 A preliminary calculation made up to April 1, 1914, showed 4,000 groups for Pravda (commencing with January 1,1912) and 1,000 for the liquidators and all their allies taken together. —Lenin

[2] See pp. 158—81 of this volume.—Ed.

[3] See pp. 158—61 of this volume.—Ed.

[4] Meaning the impossible.—Ed.

[5] This refers to Prosveshcheniye.

[6] Pro-Party Bolsheviks—conciliators with leanings towards the liquidators. (For further details see Lenin’s article “Adventurism”, pp. 350—59 of this volume.)

Pro-Party Mensheviks—headed by Plekhanov, came out against the liquidators during the period of reaction. While taking a Menshevik stand, the Plekhanovites at the same time stood for the preservation and strengthening of the illegal Party organisation and therefore stood for a bloc with the Bolsheviks. Plekhanov broke the bloc with the Bolsheviks at the end of 1911. Under the guise of fighting “factionalism” and the split in the R.S.D.L.P. be attempted to reconcile the Bolsheviks with the opportunists. In 1912 the Plekhanovites, together with the Trotskyists, Bundists and liquidators, came out against the decisions of the Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

[7] Nozdrev—a character in Gogol’s Dead Souls typifying a self-assured, impudent, and mendacious person.

[8] “Judas” Golovlyov—a character in Saltykov-Shchedrin’s book The Golovlyov Family typifying the spiritual and physicaldisintegration of the historically doomed class of feudalist landlords, social parasites, treacherous hypocrites.

[9] At the December meeting of the International Socialist Bureau (held in London on December 13—14, 1913) a resolution was adopt ed instructing the Executive of the International Socialist Bureau to call a meeting of representatives of “all factions of the labour movement in Russia, including Russian Poland, who recognise the Party Programme or whose programme corresponds with that of the Social-Democrats, for a mutual exchange o opinions (Aussprache) on points of disagreement”. In seconding this resolution, Kautsky, in his speech of December 14, stated that the old Social-Democratic Party in Russia was dead. It had to be re-established on the basis of the Russian workers’ urge for unity. In his article “A Good Resolution and a Bad Speech”, Lenin examined this resolution and called Kautsky’s speech monstrous. (See present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 528—30.)

[10] The Troublous Times—a term used in pre-revolutionary Russian historiography to denote the period of the peasant war and the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish and Swedish intervention in the early seventeenth century.

In 1608 the Polish troops under Pseudo-Dmitry II, a henchman of the Polish landed gentry who posed as the younger son of the Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible, invaded Russia, and reached the outskirts of Moscow, where they encamped in Tushino. A government headed by Pseudo-Dmitry was formed in Tushino in opposition to the government of Moscow. Some of the Russian nobles and boyar aristocracy deserted one camp for another in an effort to keep in with the winning side. These deserters were called “Tushino turncoats”.

Soviet Red Army Crushes Waffen SS – the Battle for Budapest (26.12.1944-13.2.1945)


Soviet Red Army liberates Budapest 

Soviet Press Statement (21.12.1944):

‘At the beginning of December, under the chairmanship of Dr Vasary, the mayor of Debrecen, a group was formed of representatives of the different Hungarian parties… In liberated territory the election of delegates to the Provisional National Assembly took place between December 13 and 20. 230 delegates were elected, representing the democratic parties, the town and village councils and the trade and peasant unions… The Assembly opened with the playing of the Hungarian National Anthem. The meeting was held in the Reformation College where, in 1849, Kossuth proclaimed the independence of Hungary…

An Address to the Hungarian People was adopted which said:

It is time to make peace. Salasi is an usurper,,, We call upon the Hungarian people to rally to the banners of Kossuth and Rakoszi and to follow in the footsteps of the Honweds (volunteer militia) of 1848. We want a democratic Hungary. We guarantee the inviolability of private property as the basis of our social and economic order. We want Land Reform… Turn your arms against the German oppressors and help the Red Army… for the good of a Free and Democratic Hungary!’

(Russia at War 1941-1945: By Alexander Werth [1964] Pages 909-910)

Hitler’s Nazi German regime was assisted in its widespread (highly destructive and genocidal) invasion of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, all of which had acquired politically rightwing governments. Nazi Germany was also assisted with supplies of oil and other raw materials by Sweden, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Vichy France and fascist Italy. The so-caked ‘Axis’ powers (of which there were many), coalesced around the 1936 ‘Anti-Comintern Pact’, an agreement between various rightwing countries to jointly resist the spread of ‘International Communism’. Therefore, it can be said that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was a direct manifestation of the pursuance of this pact, an act of aggression which was assisted by a number of Axis powers. Over-all, contemporary estimates suggest that around 34 million Soviet men, women and children died during the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, and the application of the Hitlerite ‘final solution’. Hitler had declared the the Slavic people to be racially inferior, and their embracing of Communist ideology to be a confirmation of this fact. To remedy this problem, Hitler demanded nothing less than the eradication of the Slavic people and their Communist ideology.

As the tide of war changed, and the Soviet Red Army started to push the Nazi German invaders out of the USSR, it became necessary to pursue the retreating Germans all the way to Berlin to ensure the complete defeat of the Nazi regime. Whilst pursuing this anti-fascist policy, the countries that had collaborated with Nazi Germany had to be invaded and ‘liberated’ from their fascist governments and Nazi German occupiers. As can be gleamed from the Soviet Press statement (above), the Soviet Authorities implemented ‘democratic’ elections, so that the ordinary citizens of countries such as Hungary, could choose a non-fascist political path. By and large, the ordinary citizens of such countries, (i.e. the ‘workers’), were treated as ‘victims’ of fascism, rather than its perpetuators.

On October 21st, 1944, the Soviet Red Army (under Malinovksy) entered and took Debrecen in eastern Hungary. Although the Red Army advance into Hungary was rapid at first, it was soon slowed by stiff (fascist) Hungarian and Nazi German resistance. This resistance increased as the Red Army fought inch by inch toward Budapest in November. In early December (1944), Hitler met with the fascist Hungarian leader Salasi in Berlin, where it was agreed that Budapest must be held at all costs (although behind the scenes, many of its industries were already being re-located to Austria). As part of this deal, Hitler allocated around 23,000 well-equipped and highly motivated troops of the Waffen SS to defend Budapest (and possibly turn the tide of the battle). These units were essentially heavily armed and highly politically motivated annihilation squads (being considered racially ‘pure’ by Hitler), whose motto was ‘Give Death and Take Death’. These men were not ordinary soldiers, and their training was designed to embody a certain ‘mindless’ brutality that existed outside of the traditions of the conventional German military. Surrender was out of the question as was taking prisoners or providing medical care to wounded enemy soldiers. In fact, the Waffen SS often tortured the enemy wounded to death, considering it a sport to invent ever more painful methods. These troops were under the direct command of Adolf Hitler himself (being considered his personal bodyguard), and were trained to believe that they personally represented the ideological foundation of the fascist ideology of National Socialism. As racially pure Aryans, these men received the best clothing, training, food, housing and weaponry, and were treated with the utmost respect (and fear) within German society. As an embodiment of ‘Nazism’, Hitler believed that these racially superior beings, entirely through an act of will, could defeat the military might of the Red Army, and in so doing trigger a collapse of its Communist ideology (bringing down the USSR from within).

The 50 day Battle for Budapest was to test this hypothesis. Around 23,000 racially pure Waffen SS troops were to spear-head the defence of Budapest and inflict a debilitating defeat upon the Red Army. By comparison, Red Army soldiers, whose motto was ‘Free the Workers!’ was comprised of ordinary men and women from the length and breadth of the vast Soviet Union. As such, they were ethnically diverse, and represented no particular race. They pursued Socialist Revolution every time they fought – freeing the oppressed workers from the tyranny of capitalism and fascism. The average Red Army soldier was selfless, supportive of his fellow Comrades, and willing to self-sacrifice to save others. These soldiers were not racially superior, did not pursue any form of fascist ideology, and were motivated by a broad non-racial ‘Internationalism’, rather than by a narrow fascistic ‘Nationalism’, and yet in the space of around 7 weeks, these quite ‘ordinary’ Communist soldiers encircled and then systematically ‘destroyed’ the 23,000 fanatical Waffen SS soldiers – killing 19,000 in the fighting! The fascist forces of Budapest surrendered on the 13th of February, 1945, and Hungary was finally liberated.

The following documentary explains who the Waffen SS were – and how they were deployed during WWII. Comprised of around 900,000 at their peak, toward the end of the war (as casualties mounted), Hitler allowed non-Germans to join, such as French, Swedes and Danes. In fact, as the Nazi regime collapsed under Soviet pressure, around 90% of the Waffen SS units defending Hitler in Berlin near the end, were comprised of foreigners who fanatically fought to the bitter end. Allowing non-Germans into the Waffen SS was thought by certain Nazi Germans as ‘weakening’ the spiritual strength of these units, and therefore lowering their fighting efficiency. However, Hitler gambled with some of his best (racially pure) Waffen SS regiments in Budapest – and despite their assumed ‘spiritual strength’, they were systematically destroyed by Slavic peasant soldiers from the Urals.

Pravda: Stalin Deconstructs Trotsky’s Duplicitous Letter (15.12.1923)


Full Article – JV Stalin – UK

Trotsky’s Letter

The resolution of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission on internal Party democracy, published on December 7, was adopted unanimously. Trotsky voted for this resolution. It might have been expected, therefore, that the members of the Central Committee, including Trotsky, would come forward in a united front with a call to Party members for unanimous support of the Central Committee and its resolution. This expectation, however, has not been realised. The other day Trotsky issued a letter to the Party conferences which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to weaken the will of the Party membership for unity in supporting the Central Committee and its position.

Judge for yourselves.

After referring to bureaucracy in the Party apparatus and the danger of degeneration of the old guard, i.e., the Leninists, the main core of our Party, Trotsky writes:

“The degeneration of the ‘old guard’ has been observed in history more than once. Let us take the latest and most glaring historical example: the leaders and the parties of the Second International. We know that Wilhelm Liebknecht, Bebel, Singer, Victor Adler, Kautsky, Bernstein, Lafargue, Guesde, and others, were the immediate and direct pupils of Marx and Engels. We know, however, that all those leaders—some partly, and others wholly—degenerated into opportunism.”. . . “We, that is, we ‘old ones,’ must say that our generation, which naturally plays a leading role in the Party, has no self-sufficient guarantee against the gradual and imperceptible weakening of the proletarian and revolutionary spirit, assuming that the Party tolerates a further growth and consolidation of the bureaucratic-apparatus methods of policy which are transforming the younger generation into passive educational material and are inevitably creating estrangement between the apparatus and the membership, between the old and the young.”. . . “The youth—the Party’s truest barometer—react most sharply of all against Party bureaucracy.”. . . “The youth must capture the revolutionary formulas by storm. . .

First, I must dispel a possible misunderstanding. As is evident from his letter, Trotsky includes himself among the Bolshevik old guard, thereby showing readiness to take upon himself the charges that may be hurled at the old guard if it does indeed take the path of degeneration. It must be admitted that this readiness for self-sacrifice is undoubtedly a noble trait. But I must protect Trotsky from Trotsky, because, for obvious reasons, he cannot, and should not, bear responsibility for the possible degeneration of the principal cadres of the Bolshevik old guard. Sacrifice is a good thing, of course, but do the old Bolsheviks need it? I think that they do not.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand how opportunists and Mensheviks like Bernstein, Adler, Kautsky, Guesde, and the others, can be put on a par with the Bolshevik old guard, which has always fought, and I hope will continue to fight with honour, against opportunism, the Mensheviks and the Second International. What is the cause of this muddle and confusion? Who needs it, bearing in mind the interests of the Party and not ulterior motives that by no means aim at defence of the old guard? How is one to interpret these insinuations about opportunism in relation to the old Bolsheviks, who matured in the struggle against opportunism?

Thirdly, I do not by any means think that the old Bolsheviks are absolutely guaranteed against the danger of degeneration any more than I have grounds for asserting that we are absolutely guaranteed against, say, an earthquake. As a possibility, such a danger can and should be assumed. But does this mean that such a danger is real, that it exists? I think that it does not. Trotsky himself has adduced no evidence to show that the danger of degeneration is a real danger. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements within our Party who are capable of giving rise to a real danger of degeneration of certain ranks of our Party. I have in mind that section of the Mensheviks who joined our Party unwillingly, and who have not yet got rid of their old opportunist habits. The following is what Comrade Lenin wrote about these Mensheviks, and about this danger, at the time of the Party purge:

“Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability . . . and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves ‘on principle,’ so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective colouring, just as a hare’s coat turns white in the winter. It is necessary to know this specific feature of the Mensheviks and take it into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred of the Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i.e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain.” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)

How could it happen that Trotsky, who lost sight of this and similar, really existing dangers, pushed into the foreground a possible danger, the danger of the degeneration of the Bolshevik old guard? How can one shut one’s eyes to a real danger and push into the foreground an unreal, possible danger, if one has the interests of the Party in view and not the object of undermining the prestige of the majority in the Central Committee, the leading core of the Bolshevik old guard? Is it not obvious that “approaches” of this kind can only bring grist to the mill of the opposition?

Fourthly, what reasons did Trotsky have for contrasting the “old ones,” who may degenerate, to the “youth,” the Party’s “truest barometer”; for contrasting the “old guard,” who may become bureaucratic, to the “young guard,” which must “capture the revolutionary formulas by storm”? What grounds had he for drawing this contrast, and what did he need it for? Have not the youth and the old guard always marched in a united front against internal and external enemies? Is not the unity between the “old ones” and the “young ones” the basic strength of our revolution? What was the object of this attempt to discredit the old guard and demagogically to flatter the youth if not to cause and widen a fissure between these principal detachments of our Party? Who needs all this, if one has the interests of the Party

in view, its unity and solidarity, and not an attempt to shake this unity for the benefit of the opposition?

Is that the way to defend the Central Committee and its resolution on internal Party democracy, which, moreover, was adopted unanimously?

But evidently, that was not Trotsky’s object in issuing his letter to the Party conferences. Evidently there was a different intention here, namely: diplomatically to support the opposition in its struggle against the Central Committee of the Party while pretending to support the Central Committee’s resolution.

That, in fact, explains the stamp of duplicity that Trotsky’s letter bears.

Trotsky is in a bloc with the Democratic Centralists and with a section of the “Left” Communists—therein lies the political significance of Trotsky’s action.

Pravda, No. 285, December 15, 1923

Andrei Sokolov: Soviet Tractor Factories & UFO’s


(Translation and Research by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Author’s Note: This article is an English translation (of extracts) of the original Russian language ‘Pravda’ article written by Andrei Sokolov and entitled ‘Советские НЛО делались на тракторном заводе Читайте больше на’, or ‘Soviet UFO’s Constructed in Tractor Factories’. Carl Jung once commented that UFO’s might well be Western humanity’s attempt at reconciling Judeo-Christian theology with modern technology (hence the ‘halo’ shape of the craft, and the mystical and transcendent nature of the sightings), and that many sightings are in fact mind generated and do not exist in the physical environment. This analysis remains valid even if a natural phenomenon is being observed and ‘mistaken’ for a UFO. Whatever the case, the notion that ‘unidentified flying objects’ are a priori ‘alien’ space craft visiting the earth for either progressive or regressive purposes, is pure fantasy without a single shred of evidence. Of course, Carl Jung was a bourgeois philosopher of psychological theory, and remained staunchly ‘anti-Communist’ throughout his career, and has been accused of holding pro-Nazi German and anti-Semitic viewpoints by various Western commentators. This explains why Jung partly explained the world-wide UFO phenomenon as being partly generated by the Communist countries (which Jung described as ‘Prison Camps’), through the paranoia and fear such regimes apparently elicited in the minds of humanity. Jung never acknowledged the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany or its ending and exposing of the holocaust (an effort that cost between 27 million-40 million Soviet casualties during WWII). The irony is that the bourgeois freedom Jung enjoyed throughout much of his life was brought with Soviet blood. However, from a strictly logical perspective, an ‘unidentified flying object’ is just that – an object that appears to be suspended in the sky – the identity and origination of which remains unspecified. Probably around 95% of all UFO sightings are either deliberate hoaxes, or misinterpreted natural phenomena.  The other 5% remain unexplained due to the circumstances surrounding the sighting, and the quality of the evidence provided, but there is every reason to believe that a logical explanation can be eventually provided, given enough advances in technological equipment. This process of debunking the ‘alien’ myth has gone on ever since the 1950’s, where quite extraordinary ‘disc-like’ objects were filmed moving across the sky.  Sooner or later, as computer technology improved, these interesting pieces of film footage were revealed to be merely ordinary ‘terrestrial’ aircrafts, with the problems of light, angle, distance, terrain and atmospherics naturally combining to create the optical illusion of a saucer-shaped object (which nevertheless still moved across the sky ‘like a plane’).  Andrei Sokolov’s article exposes the UFO ‘myth’ of religiosity, and confirms that UFO’s were first constructed in the USA as a means to ‘terrorise’ and ‘confuse’ Soviet citizenry. Sadly, for Carl Jung, his childish and prejudiced attitudes toward Socialism are exposed as being the product of the very dysfunctional archetypes his theory of mind advocates to explain abhorrent human behaviour. Where necessary, I have added explanatory notes to chosen extracts of Sokolov’s excellent narrative. Interested readers are advised that Andrei Sokolov’s article contains much more technical detail than I have had time to translate here, but as he states his work is also available in English, this can be accessed elsewhere. ACW 17.1.2017

The UFO phenomena in the West is premised upon the mystery of Judeo-Christian theology and its inversion of logic. Briefly stated, the UFO is symbolic of god’s prophet returning to earth, with its alien pilots possessing a higher technology that works ‘miracles’ on planet earth. The UFO’s are from their obviously technological and culturally advance planets and cultures that are the ‘god’ premise, or divine origination of the UFO vehicle and its mission to spread the ‘gospel’ of inter-galactic consciousness.  Furthermore, in accordance with the Marxist analysis of the bourgeois mind-set, reality is inversed, so that it is falsely believed that ‘mind’ (or ‘spirit’), through an act of ‘will’ can create or manipulate matter.  This explains the ‘ethereal’ nature of most UFO observations and alleged encounters with alien beings. In this regard, UFO sightings that are not misreading natural phenomena in the environment, are in effect purely ‘psychological’ events conveying (and imaginatively projecting) the cultural conditioning of the observer. This interpretation reveals the UFO subject as something akin to a ‘modern’ religion premised upon ‘faith’ (being fully inaccordance with its Judeo-Christian underpinnings).  As this was understood in the USSR, and given that the Soviet Union rejected the inverted mind-set throughout its culture and education system, it is highly unlikely that Soviet citizens would ‘project’ the same (capitalist-derived) mythology upon the environment (and natural events). This scenario is born-out by the observation that generally speaking, very few UFOs were witnessed over Russia prior to WWII, or if they were, they were not interpreted as ‘UFO’, but rather as potential ‘foreign’ incursions into Soviet air-space, or as atmospheric or weather conditions, etc. This held true even after the late 1950’s, when the Soviet space programme reached its peak and set the agenda for world science and space exploration. As Soviet culture operated through a ‘non-inverted’ mind-set, the Soviet population did not resort to religious mythology to explain natural phenomena.  In fact, progressive thinking would dominate in the USSR until the mid to late 1980’s, when President Mikhail Gorbachev pursued his policy of ‘destroying’ the Communist Revolution in Russia, and returning the Soviet people to the status of ‘wage-slaves’ within the capitalist system. A population operating through an inverted mind-set (i.e. ‘false consciousness’) lacks the cognitive ability to a) understand how the existential capitalist system operates, and b) muster the correct working class intelligence to collectively plan its other-throw.  The bizarre idea that UFOs are ‘alien’ space-crafts from distant planets is merely a new form of religion relevant for advanced capitalist functionality. The people remain ‘alienated’ from their ‘true’ psychological and physical essence due to class exploitation, just as they ‘imagine’ being ‘abducted’ by vague alien forces they can neither fully comprehend or control.  The UFO phenomena is in reality an updated version of the Judeo-Christian religion, but one made relevant for post-industrial, technologically modern and post-modern times.

Although the Soviet Union did not adhere to the bourgeois delusion of the Western-generated UFO craze, nevertheless, reliable Russian language sources report that the incidence of unusual atmospheric anomalies did appear to increase during the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Of course, during the US initiated Cold War, Soviet air-space was routinely ‘compromised’ by various Western spy planes, drones, missiles and other devices. The Soviet response was not a retreat into the psychological and physical ‘paralysis’ of religiously inspired mythology, but instead engaged the human intellect, and through scientific innovation, designed and developed better systems of detection and counter-measure. The Soviet response was to answer ‘uncertainty’ with ‘logic’.  This is significant, as on March 23rd, 2007, the esteemed Russian newspaper ‘Pravda’ published an article by Andrei Sokolov, entitled ‘Soviet UFO Made in the Tractor Factory’.  This article rejected completely the notion that UFOs were alien space-crafts from distant galaxies, comprised of unusual technology from an advanced extra-terrestrial culture. In other words, Andrei Sokolov retained a ‘scientific’ analysis during his assessment of the UFO issue in Russia, and rejected the religiously inspired ‘myth’ that surrounds this issue in the West (this is despite the fact that Andrei Sokolov does profess a ‘faith’ in Christianity). In fact, Andrei Sokolov is of the opinion that the first UFOs originated not on a far-off planet, but rather in 1940’s USA, and were a technological development of that (capitalist) country designed for the ‘stealthy’ and ‘illusive’ penetration of Soviet air-space, primarily for ‘spying’ and ‘counter-revolutionary’ purposes. One function of these man-made devices was to import the religious (and bourgeois) myth into the Russian mind-set that ‘space travellers’ were visiting the earth, in an attempt to re-establish inverted thinking amongst the general population, and over-turn the Communist Revolution of 1917. If a fixation on a non-existent threat from ‘deep space’ could be established in the USSR, then the USA could continue to build its anti-Communist strategy (and tactics) primarily ‘away’ from the gaze of the Soviet Intelligence Services. Andrei Sokolov states that the earlier flying saucers lacked the ability to fly great distances in straight-lines, and so were delivered into Soviet air-space from submerged US submarines, and that this explains why some UFO sightings appear to have taken place at sea.  However, as technology advanced, this delivery system was often replaced with short flights into the USSR across national borders. However, the US not only targeted the USSR with these ‘flying discs’, but also regimes that were antagonistic to US foreign policy. One such country was post-revolutionary Iran, the scientists of which reported to the Soviet Government (during a ‘Congress of Philosophy’ held at Moscow State University), that there had been a significant surge in UFO sightings around their developing nuclear reactors.  This issue was further discussed at a Seminar of Science and Para-science at the same university.  Andrei Sokolov further states that the USSR eventually developed its own version of these ‘flying discs’, as a means to spy on the US (and its allies), and continue to ‘confuse’ the capitalists by continuing to propagate the ‘myth’ (and accompanying ‘fear’) of the threat of inter-galactic invaders.

In 1989, as the infrastructure of the USSR was beginning to unravel and fall apart, there was a tremendous increase in UFO activity over Moscow and other areas (as recorded in de-classified KGB files), involving spinning, metallic discs with flashing lights that travelled at incredible speeds or suddenly stopped dead and changed direction, etc. Andrei Sokolov was interested in aerodynamics and the design of flight capable technology, because of this he attended the Physics Department of the Krasnoyarsk State University. During this time (in 1995), he successfully theorised a basic flying disc design that mirrored the UFOs of the 1940’s in the US. However, when he approached the academic authorities with his breakthrough, he was discouraged to continue, and was even told that he should not pursue this line of enquiry due to national security issues.  Andrei Sokolov did not heed these warnings, but instead continued his research independently, gathering information from libraries, writing articles, and uploading all the information onto the internet (in Russian and English), as well as publishing the results in book form.  From that time onward, Andrei Sokolov received hundreds of emails from around the world, but one that particularly took his attention was from a man named ‘Danko Priymak’ – the former chief engineer at a ‘secure’ tractor factory situated in Pavlodar (Kazakhstan). Danko Priymak explained that UFOs were man-made ‘advanced technology’, and that the Kazakhstan area was in fact a highly militarised and ‘top secret’ zone, where the USSR carried-out all of its most progressive scientific programmes. The most promising scientists (and their families) were moved to self-contained ‘cities’, and given every material advantage as an encouragement to pursue their technological breakthroughs. (This is where the Soviet space-shuttle was based, and where it still resides in its hanger today). After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Danko Priymak left the ‘new’ capitalist Russia and quietly went to live abroad, but he made it clear that in his tractor factory, the Soviet military produced a number of ‘flying disc’ machines to counter the US threat.  When Andrei Sokolov’s ideas spread to the West, they were often attacked by those that supported the ‘extra-terrestrial’ mythology of the UFO phenomena, but every so often Sokolov would receive support from notable researchers such as the NASA expert James Obert. This is where Sokolov heard of the ‘electro-kinetic engine’, and encountered how the US system’s official position of UFOs was one of deliberate obscurity and the encouragement of confusion in the minds of the ordinary people. However, after the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), issued a communique (after years of research) stating that humanity was alone in the universe, and that talk of ‘aliens’ was US propaganda, the Soviet Authorities started developing their own ‘flying discs’ during the 1960’s and 1970’s. This was when the Soviet Authorities started issuing popular and academic articles extolling technological advances, and diverting people’s attention away from the ‘alien’ mythology. This process allowed some aspects of advanced Soviet technology to be made common-knowledge as a means to demonstrate just how powerful the ordinary human mind could be. For instance, the popular journal ‘Techniques of Youth’ published an article on the civilian use of secret technology – about the electropulse defroster, which was used on the wings of IL-86 (to defrost ice). Whereas early UFOs tended to ‘vibrate’, the later versions operated within a stable vortex, and were constructed of a malleable (sometimes radio-active) metal that improved in design over the years.

The US managed to pull-off this technological hoax because it deliberately pursued two distinct currents of aircraft design – one was the ‘open’ conventional aeroplane design – whilst the other was the ‘closed’ design of the much more efficient ‘flying discs’ and their electro-kinetic engines. The former was presented as ‘terrestrial’ and mundane, whilst the latter was conveyed as ‘extra-terrestrial’ and extraordinary. In reality both designs emerged from the same human mind and there was nothing ‘alien’ about any of it.  UFOs, like their aeroplane cousins, are nothing but human-designed aircrafts, designed to fly primarily within the earth’s atmosphere (although some models could ‘high orbit’). The point is that if the delusion and mythology is swept away, then it becomes apparent that UFO technology is not ‘special’ or ‘unique’, but the product of the rational human mind given full support during scientific endeavour. Meanwhile, in 1998 a book was published entitled ‘The Science of Aviation’ written by Andrej Vitko – a teacher at the Moscow Aviation Institute, and an expert in the design and use of ultra-high frequency devices. This enabled him to develop the theory that describes these energy efficient wingless flight vehicles, which he calls ‘open acoustic resonators’.  Of course, the US government (that launched the UFO hoax) will not openly admit its complicity in this deception (due to the ‘advanced’ nature of the technology involved), but has slowly but surely allowed certain aspects of UFO knowledge into mainstream media, disguised as ‘science fiction’ TV series or Hollywood films.

Russian Language Article:

Andrei Sokolov – Soviet UFO Made in the Tractor Factory (Pravda 23.3.2007)



The USSR and Homosexuality Part III (RSFSR Article 154a)


Research By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD

Researcher’s Note: It seems logical to conclude that the 1926 Article 154a was a legislation against male on male rape – despite the peculiar wording of the opening line (an opening line that would be retained in the later Article 121, which appears to be a legal extension to prevent paedophilia). What must be considered is the ‘nuance’ of the original Russian language text, which has probably been lost in English translation, (as in English translation, these legislations appear ‘homophobic’).  The fact that the Soviet Union was considered enlightened and tolerant demonstrates that these laws were not applied as a deliberate attack upon homosexuals – although in the 1930’s, certain homosexual activity became associated with specific counter-revolutionary activity.  In this regard, homosexuals who strove to bring-down the USSR were treated as ‘criminals’ – just as their heterosexual colleagues.  Soviet records demonstrate that Joseph Stalin was not behind the apparently anti-gay legislation, but was responding to various police reports about contemporary counter-revolutionary activities (usually within major cities). ACW  5.1.2016

The USSR and Homosexuality Part I (Article 121)

The USSR and Homosexuality Part II (Czarist Article 995)

The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) officially existed as a sovereign State between October, 1917 and late December, 1922 – before being formally incorporated (as a Republic) into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  In 1917, Lenin abolished the old Czarist Legal Code – including Article 995 which ‘banned’ male homosexuality.  The decriminalising of homosexuality in Revolutionary Russia was incidental to the over-throw of the old order, and was not carried-out as a specific act of liberation.  However, for reasons apparently related to ‘religious sensitivities’, the Czarist Article 995 was legally retained in the Caucasian and Central Asian Republics, after 1917, before being finally abolished in 1920.  In 1922, homosexuality continued to be decriminalised throughout Revolutionary Russia, but in  April, 1926, the RSFSR enacted Article 154a, which reads as follows:

‘Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) – deprivation of liberty for a term of three to five years. Sodomy committed with application of violence or with the use of the dependent status of the victim, – the deprivation of liberty for a term of five to eight years.’

This legislation appears to have been interpreted as a protection against male on male rape, and not an attack upon homosexuality in general.  This stance appears to be vindicated by the fact that the Soviet Government (in 1926), invited the German Magnus Hirschfeld – the famous gay emancipator and founder of the World League of Sexual Reform – to witness first-hand the tolerance toward homosexuality in Revolutionary Russia. As a result, during the 1928 Copenhagen Congress of the Institute for the Science of Sexuality, the League stated that the Soviet Union was a model of tolerance for sexual diversity.  When Hitler came to power, however, these progressive institutes were attacked and destroyed.

As time progressed, particularly following Trotsky’s betrayal and banishment from the Soviet Union (in 1929), certain overt modes of (male) homosexuality came to be associated with counter-revolutionary activity, and a manifestation of bourgeois decadence.  Due to this heightened sense of internal attack within the USSR, a number of leading Soviets started to agitate for a law ‘banning’ homosexuality as a means to break-up groups practising ‘pederasty’ and the corruption of (male) youth.  This movement did not begin with Stalin and was not implemented from above.  Russian language sources record that the Deputy Chairman of the NKVD – Genrikh Yagoda – in a report to Stalin dated to September, 1933, that 130 people had been arrested in Moscow for facilitating the ‘…creation of a network of salons, homes, brothels, associations and other organized groups of practising homosexuals, with the further transformation of the unions into direct spy cells …  with active homosexuals using elitist pederast circles directly for counter-revolutionary purposes, decaying politically different social layers of the youth, particularly young workers, as well as trying to infiltrate the army and navy.’  Stalin’s written reply does not contain any elements of homophobia – but is matter of fact about retaining law and order: ‘It is necessary to punish the villains and to introduce relevant governing legislation to facilitate this action.’  The NKVD continued to make reports to the Soviet government relating how groups of counter-revolutionary men were using homosexual practice to undermine Soviet Authority.  The NKVD petitioned the politburo to back a change in legislation, which was unanimously supported, with the exception of Kalini – who steadfastly opposed any laws out-lawing homosexuality.  Kalini stated that he was opposed to the passing of this law, and against any NKVD action against homosexuals initiated outside of the Soviet Court System.  At this time, the Soviet press deployed a socio-political campaign against homosexuality, which saw Maxim Gorky on May 23, 1934 (on the front pages of newspapers ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestiya’) in his article ‘Proletarian humanism’, referred to ‘homosexuality’ as a ‘social crime and offense’, stating ‘Destroy homosexuality – Fascism will disappear.’  This building social and political pressure led to the 1926 Article 154a being modified into the 1934 Article 121 which stated:

Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.  Sodomy, committed with the use of physical violence, threats, or against a minor, or by using the dependent position of the victim, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding eight years.’

Russian Language Source Article:




%d bloggers like this: