Lenin, Stalin and the ‘Internationalist’ Nature of the Red Army


The Red Army of Revolutionary Russia was officially formed on the 23rd of February, 1918, although elements of the Czarist Armed Forces had expressed support for the Bolshevik cause during the tumultuous events of late 1917. The October Revolution saw a transformation of the consciousness and labour of humanity. Never before had the working class successfully seized and held onto the means of production and political power. At the time of this remarkable transition, Czarist Russia was engaged in a nightmarish ‘mass war’ with Imperial Germany, but Lenin was well aware that in reality this conflict was between different sections of the International Bourgeoisie, which through its political power, was fighting an egotistical, imperialist war and using the International Working Class as cannon fodder. Whilst tens of thousands of men were murdering one another in Europe, the Heads of State and their middle class lackeys sat back in safety and watched the results come in. The very German working class men being sent to run at Czarist Russian machine guns were exactly the same Proletariat that were being forced to fire these machine guns in the Czarist Army! Lenin had to formulate a Socialist State that acted as a shield for the Soviet people, so that Socialist strength and power could be developed peacefully. Stalin was instrumental even before the death of Lenin (in 1924) in rejecting the ‘syndicalist’ views that abounded at the time, and which wanted to see disconnected and uncoordinated ‘Communes’ operating at a local level of concern and development. Stalin (with Lenin’s agreement) stated that as 90% of the Soviet people were illiterate and poverty striken, they could not be expected to spontaneously develop an advanced understanding of Revolutionary thinking, but needed to be protected and provided with the material conditions to develop their minds and bodies. As this development from nothing would take many decades, Stalin successfully argued, an interim Socialist State would have to be created that mimicked the outer power and strength of a Bourgeois State, but which was thoroughly different within. Eventually, as material conditions improved, and the thinking and physical existence of the Soviet people developed, the conditions for achieving Socialism would be generated that would eventually facilitate the transition into Communism – and the natural ‘dissolving’ of the Soviet State. In the meantime, as the capitalist world wanted to militarily attack and destroy Soviet Russia, a Red Army was needed premised not upon ‘conquering’ the enemy, but rather ‘liberating’ the working class men and women who comprised its rank and file. Whereas the bourgeois armies relied upon racism and nationalism to inspire people to fight for it, the Red Army relied upon the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels as interpreted by Lenin. This meant that the Red Army interpreted all ‘enemy’ soldiers as potential ‘Comrades’ temporarily imprisoned in the ranks of the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Red Army was originally a vehicle for working class self-defence, designed to ‘liberate’ the International Working Class, and in theory at least, spread the Socialist Revolution around the world. Lenin had to combat the Imperialist German threat in 1918, whilst striving to apply Socialist Thinking and minimising Russian and German working class deaths. As matters transpired, the Western world (including Japan and Nationalist China) invaded Revolutionary Russia in 1918, but these 14 countries were eventually defeated by the Red Army in 1921. This historical requirement demonstrates that even if an army is premised upon Socialist Thinking, its military ability must still remain top-notch until the danger to Socialism is thoroughly disarmed and removed. Even when fighting for survival, the Red Army never resorted to racism or hatefilled nationalism, this is why it represents a new era in the evolutionary development of humanity.


The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923 – Volume One: By EH Carr, MacMillan, (1950), Pages 129-135. Stalin wrote a number of theses that successfully ‘rejected’ the ‘Syndicalist’ notions prevalent at the time (i.e. 1918).

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: Buryats-Mongolian Buddhist Monks Confirm the Scientific Nature of Buddhism (1923)


FI Stcherbatsky (1866-1942) was an expert in Buddhist studies in Czarist Russia – and was elevated to a Soviet scholar specialising in Buddhist thought and practise (founding the Soviet Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture in 1928 – under JV Stalin). His books, – when translated into English – are a joy to encounter and study. He studied all over Europe and Asia during his life, and amassed an exact and reliable knowledge and understanding of Buddhist thought throughout its developmental history, and the different Buddhist cultures such thinking generated. Writing in the UK in 2017, and having had access to a very good and progressive academic and Buddhist education, I am pleasantly surprised as I encounter correct fact after correct fact (about the many and complicated facets of Buddhism) contained within Stcherbatsky’s academic out-put. However, in this article I which to convey a very interesting footnote written by Stcherbatsky in his excellent ‘The Conceptions of Buddhist Nirvana – with Sanskrit Text of Madhyamaka-Karika’ (Motilal, 2003 – Pages 33-34). Stcherbatsky is discussing the different Buddhist concepts of nirvana and samsara, and the complicated relationship Buddhist thought has with the concept of materialism – particularly in the light of the Buddha denying the existence of an eternal soul (atma). The chapter in question is entitled ‘The Vaibhasikas’ and the relevant footnote (7) reads:

‘Prof. M. Aneski, Nichiren (Cambridge, 1916) p. 137 ft. evidently alludes to the Vaibhasikas when asserting Buddhism includes a materialist school, or a school which its opponents characterised as materialistic. As a curiosity it may be added that when the educational authorities of the newly founded republic of Buriats in Transbaikalia started an anti-religious propaganda, they first of all assailed the doctrine of transmigration in its popular form and insisted on the fact that modern science favours a materialistic view of the universe. The Buddhist monks, who are Mahayanists, retorted in a pamphlet in which they developed the view that materialism is not unknown to them, since the Vaibhasikas maintained that after Nirvana, every life ceases forever.’


FI Stcherbatsky is, of course, talking about the ‘Buryats-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic’ (Бурят-Монгольская автономная область) [situated in Southern Siberia] which was officially founded in 1923. This area is comprised of ethnic Evenk and Mongolian peoples, many of whom follow various lineages of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, these people actively supported the Russian Revolution, with Soviet power first being established in the region in February, 1918. It is thought that Socialism and its ideas were popular amongst these often nomadic Buddhist peoples, and this inspired their resistance against the old and oppressive feudal system. Of course, the English wikipedia page regarding the Buryats-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic is comprised of US-derived Cold War paranoia, disinformation and myth, and disagrees at every important historical point with its Russian-language counter-part (referenced below). For instance, the US propaganda states that the Buryats Buddhists supported the 14 (capitalist) countries that invaded Revolutionary Russia in 1918 (including the UK, Japan and USA), but this is patently untrue and ahistorical. In reality, the fledgling Soviet presence in Buryats was extinguished by the fascist forces of Imperial Japan (in the summer of 1918) – which committed untold atrocities in the area looking to eradicate all support for the Socialist Revolution. The Red Army took back control of certain areas of Buryats in 1920. The Imperialist Japanese (and their White Russian and Western allies) were eventually defeated by the Red Army and a Soviet Republic established in the area in 1923. This Republic lasted until 1991 and the collapse of the USSR – but the Western propaganda states that the Soviet Authorities carried-out a systematic destruction of Buddhism in Buryats during the 1920’s at exactly the sametime that Stcherbatsky was establishing the Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture. Not only does FI Stcherbatsky not mention any such destruction of Buddhism in the USSR, but after 1991, the Western propagandists ran into the problem of trying to explain why it was that Buryats Buddhism was flourishing like never before in a very happy Socialist Republic! The answer was to go back to the original disinformation story about the USSR destroying Buddhism – and bizarrely concoct the equally false ‘suggestion’ that the USSR (after committing genocide and cultural destruction in the area), actually ‘re-invented’ Buryats Buddhism in the 1980s! What Stcherbatsky describes from personal experience, is that the Buryats Buddhists supported a) Socialism, and b) Science, apparently because of the similarities between these two systems, and that of certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy. Finally, I have written previously (see ‘Further Reading’ below) of at least two other Buddhist republics that comprised the USSR – the story of the Buryats-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic would suggest the existence of a third.

Russian language reference:


Further Reading:

Two Buddhist States in the USSR

Midwifery in the Soviet Union (1917-1991)


Research and Translation by

Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD & Gee Cheuk Wyles (BSc)

The 1917 Russian Communist Revolution was an unfolding progressive force that swept away the old and corrupt feudalistic regime of the Czar, and as its Socialist principles advocated the rule of the workers for the well-being of the workers, it is only natural to assume that the world’s first Workers’ State would devise programmes of rapid empowerment and development for all women and girls. In all regards, the Soviet Union (founded in 1922), had to build a country-wide military, political, cultural, social and medical infrastructure the likes of which the world had not yet known, and do this whilst isolated from the capitalist international community (a community that had purposely withdrawn all its finances from Russia when it became clear that Lenin was about to triumph). This was a mammoth task of systemic and cultural reorganisation designed to empower the disparate peoples of Russia, and in so doing create an entirely ‘new’ Socialist society premised upon the use of science to make life better for ordinary people.  Prior to 1917, Russian language historical documents describe Russia as being a politically and culturally ‘backward’ country, whose over-whelmingly peasant population was very much left to its own devices with regards to conception, pregnancy, birth and post-natal care for the child and mother.

Of course, the concept of a ‘midwife’ is of British origin, and its usage as a discernible historical term, stems from at least the 13th century CE (but is probably far older in concept), and translates as ‘a woman standing opposite a mother’, or ‘a woman caring for a mother’.  A midwife in the UK, particularly during the anti-pagan Christian-derived pogroms of the Middle Ages (and after), came to be associated with witchcraft (due midwifery’s ancient and non-Christian roots), and a number of unfortunate women were executed for the crime of ‘vile midwifery’. Ancient midwives in the UK used a mixture of herbalism, superstition, and a rudimentary knowledge of biology, coupled with an innate experience of pregnancy and child-birth (gained over years of assisting pregnant women through the process). This self-reliance and advocacy of herbal medicine and practical care was deemed by the medieval Church as being non-reliant upon god, and therefore a blasphemy in league with the devil.  The misogyny in this analysis is palpable and highly disturbing, as women caring for one another during pregnancy and child-birth was decreed a ‘crime’ by the Christian Church, and yet the institution of the ‘midwife’ survived all these attacks, and is now a respected (and ‘crucial’) non-medical aspect of holistic child-birth in the UK and around the world.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, Russia had its equivalent of ‘midwives’ which were peasant women who took over the responsibility of assisting other peasant women to give birth (heal and breast-feed, etc), and who helped (usually ‘young’) women by providing crude terminations.  As there was no medical services provided to the peasantry by the Czarist Russian State, midwifery as a form of folk-lore prevailed throughout the rural parts of Russia (with ‘midwives’ of a higher social standing working in cities – including foreign experts – being used by the rich, aristocratic circles, and the royal court.  On the face of it, this appears to be a very similar situation in Russia as it was in the UK (and other parts of Europe), but I have not read of any pogroms carried-out by the medieval Russian Orthodox Church against these early Russian midwives, the main function of which was to provide emotional and psychological support to pregnant women, as well as physical care.  However, as with the UK midwifery tradition, this Russian approach was ‘non-medicalised’ and entirely ‘holistic’ in nature.  This was due to the fact that objective medical knowledge did not begin to appear in Europe until around the 11th and 12th centuries CE, but which developed in sophistication and efficiency over the subsequent centuries.  Two medical disciplines associated with (but which remain ‘distinct’ from) midwifery are Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Obstetrics is the branch of medicine (and surgery) concerned with pregnancy and childbirth, whilst Gynaecology is the branch of physiology (and medicine) which deals with the functions and diseases specific to women and girls, especially those affecting the reproductive system. Modern midwives must be conversant with these two vitally important medical disciplines (and be able to assist, where necessary, medically qualified staff in the care of women), but the function of the midwife remains exclusively focused upon the ‘holistic’ care of the pregnant woman at every stage of the pregnancy, birth and post-natal situation.  A midwife over-seas a ‘normal’ pregnancy from start to finish, but should medical complications arise, a midwife is expected to immediately understand the situation, and to consult an expert is Obstetrics.  In the UK, Obstetric medical staff are generally used when there are pregnancy-related medical emergencies, but when a pregnancy runs smoothly, it is entirely midwife-led (unlike in the US, where midwives are virtually unknown and most babies are delivered by an Obstetric expert). Whereas a midwife takes care of a woman’s holistic needs, Obstetric experts deal only with the physicality of the birthing process and are not concerned with holistic care.

The Latin term ‘Obstetric’ refers to the body of knowledge relating to child-birth and midwifery. In Russia, a ‘midwife’ is referred to as ‘Акуше́рка’ (pronounced: ‘Akushérka’), which is a word derived from the Russian for ‘Obstetrics’ (i.e. ‘акушерстве’), pronounced ‘akusherstve’.  However, more informal or parochial terms used in the Russian language for ‘midwife’ are ‘бабка-повитуха’ (pronounced ‘babka-povitukha’), and ‘бабушка-повитуха’ (pronounced ‘babushka-povitukha’), both referring to a ‘grandmother midwife’.  Whereas the rich in Russia preferred medically trained ‘foreign’ experts (from Europe) in Obstetrics and midwifery, the ordinary Russian people had to make do with their old traditions, lack of modern medical knowledge, and general state of poverty (which included a high infant mortality rate).  This all changed following the October Revolution of 1917, and the coming to power of Lenin and the Communist Party.  This historical event placed the well-being of the majority of the ordinary people as its primary objective.  Feudalism, and the capitalist exploitation and oppression it encouraged and supported was abolished, and a Workers’ State built in its place.  The great achievement of Obstetrics and midwifery-led care during the Soviet period, was the creation of a unified state of maternal and childcare health. On December 28th, 1917, just weeks after the October Revolution, the People’s Commissariat of Public Charity was formed as a department tasked with the protection of infants.  Later, this was upgraded to the Department for the Protection of Mothers and Children. Since 1920, this department was merged with the People’s Commissariat of Health. In the years of chaos and civil war, the department launched a broad propaganda offensive regarding the importance of maternal and child health among the general population. The early work of this department at the time, was the drawing-up of legal decrees, the development of (Socialist) guidelines and regulations, and the convening of various meetings and conferences, etc, throughout Soviet Russia.  After the Civil War, the People’s Commissariat of Health initiated a broad reorganization of obstetric care in the country. The main objective of this reform was to create a free network of public obstetrical facilities easily accessible to the entire female population. These institutions became midwifery stations, rural maternity hospitals and antenatal clinics. By 1939, the number of obstetric beds in rural hospitals and maternity homes in Soviet Russia was brought up to 26,795, and the number of beds in maternity homes serving collective farms – was brought-up to 16,800.  During the Great Patriotic War, Soviet midwives and obstetricians carried-on assisting pregnant women (and their babies) in difficult and often terrible conditions.  Prof. KK Skrobansky worked in besieged Leningrad (co-ordinating a team of midwives) during the Nazi German blockade of that city.  Armed Soviet midwives in Leningrad (and elsewhere throughout the Soviet Union) often fought to the last round to protect pregnant women under their care, in the ruins of the cities, towns and villages, as ruthless Nazi German troops (and their allies) advanced, committing untold atrocities. In the last resort, Soviet midwives would lie over the pregnant women they were trying to defend. In the post-war period, maternal and child health continued to evolve. A significant role in this development was played by the methodical work carried out by leading specialist institutes, in particular the Scientific Centre for Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Perinatology (Moscow), the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Leningrad) and many others.

A major contribution to the development of obstetrics was made through the developed theory of the biomechanisms associated with delivery through a narrow pelvis, made by IF Jordania – the Head of the Department of Obstetrics of the 2nd Moscow Medical Institute. He is the author of the famous obstetrics textbook for students.  KN Zhmakin headed the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the 1st Medical Institute from 1948 to 1967 – together with VI Bodyazhinoy he wrote an important textbook about Obstetrics, which went through several editions. KN Zhmakin and his numerous students successfully studied such topical issues as operational obstetrics, narrow pelvis, and other subjects. A Great contribution to the development of domestic obstetrics was also made by NA Tsovyanov, BA Archangel (1890-1934), IE Quater, AE Mandelstam, II Yakovlev, IL Braude (1882- 1960), and others.  The Soviet genius LS Persianinova (and his students) undertook the successful development of such important Obstetric issues as regulation of uterine activity, the fight against obstetric injuries, and anaesthesia delivery. LS Persianinova is also credited with the development of a new trend in Obstetrics – Namely antenatal protection of the foetus, and the introduction in Obstetric Practice of modern methods of diagnostics, as well as pioneering Phonocardiography Electricity and fetal ultrasound, amniocentesis and other innovative methods.  LS Persianinova was the author of two volumes entitled ‘Midwifery Workshop’, which was repeatedly republished in 1973 and 1974.

Russian Language Reference Articles:




The End of WWI – Not What It Seems


Red Army Soldier Awaiting Execution By White Army

‘Bolshevism Must Be Strangled in its Cradle’

(Winston Churchill)

Although the Great War – also known as the First World War (or simply WWI), is often dated by historians as occurring between 1914-1918, it is not uncommon to see dates such as 1914-1919, and 1914-1921, on war memorials remembering those who died.  This discrepancy arises because the end of WWI can be taken as being three different historical points in time:

1) 1918 = November 11th, the day the Armistice (or ‘cease fire’) was declared and accepted by both sides.

2) 1919 = the signing of the Treaty of Versailles – or the official declaration of peace accepted by all nations.

3) 1921 = the US signs a separate peace treaty with Germany.

WWI was essentially an imperialist war fought between the related royal houses of Europe, designed to settle an upper class squabble about which country controlled what geographical area and which resources.  The fuel for this meat-grinder of industrialised war, was of course, the working class of the respective countries involved.  Every year in Britain, the bourgeoisie replicates the myth that the working class suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties (in warfare) is good for it, and everyone is encouraged to wear a red poppy.  The Germans are seen as the enemy, but unlike the German soldiers that fought for the odious Hitlerite ideology of WWII, the German common soldiery of WWI are generally treated with sympathy and respect by the British establishment.  The sentimentalist view is that both sides agreed to a cease fire on November 11th, 1918, and the First Great War came to an end, but what if I told you that British and German troops had already invaded Revolutionary Russia prior to this date, and had been fighting against Communism BEFORE WWI came to an end?  This information is not common knowledge because the bourgeois system that eulogises war, does not want the ordinary people to possess knowledge that breaks-up that class’s warmongering sentimentality, deception and lies.  The fact of the matter is that British and German working class men were sent as ‘foreign invaders’ into Revolutionary Russia after the 1917 Communist Uprising.  Although the newly formed Red Army tried to prevent German incursions into Russian land, its lack of experience told, and after various set-backs, Lenin was forced to sign a separate peace with Germany (the so-called Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March, 1918 – which conceded various Eastern Russian lands to Germany, for the sake of peace) German troops immediately occupied these Russian areas and started a suppression of all Revolutionary tendencies amongst the Russian people.  From at least May of 1918 (six months before the end of WWI hostilities), British troops (alongside such other countries as the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, India, Greece, Italy and even China – forming the so-called ‘White Army’), invaded Revolutionary Russia in an attempt to destroy the Communist Government.  Later that year, Russian history records that the British army committed the atrocity of carrying-out the mass execution of around 30 Russian POW at Baku.  It is said that this happened because the prisoners were Bolshevik political officers, responsible for propagating (and explaining) Revolutionary principles to the ordinary Russian people.  Therefore, it can be said that from May to November 1918, both British and German troops had invaded Revolutionary Russia, and despite both countries still murdering one another in France, fought on the same side of attempting to preserve the international capitalist system in Russia, against Lenin’s Communist Revolution.  Of course, in the end, the Bolshevik Movement and its Red Army eventually defeated all foreign forces in Russia by around 1922, with the Soviet Union being officially founded on December 30th, of that year.


Dates on war memorials

The Russian Civil War

Allied Intervention in Russia 1918-1919







British Communists at the Cenotaph (1921)


Communist Wal Hannington Addressing the Unemployed – Trafalgar Square (1922)

The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was founded in 1920 and was inspired by the Communist Revolution in Russia (led by Vladimir Lenin) in 1917.  Ironically, as oppressed British workers agitated for their rights by unionising and reading the works of Karl Marx – the British government was using the British Army (manned by the working class) in conjunction with many other countries, to invade Russia and destroy its fledgling ‘Revolution’ (a foreign incursion that became known as the ‘Russian Civil War 1918-22’).  Hundreds of thousands of British men had fought and died in WWI – and many in post-war Britain (and their families) faced governmental neglect, unemployment, grinding poverty and starvation. The circumstances were ripe for a revolution in the minds of the British working class.  For instance, on the 11th of November, 1921, a wreath was laid at the monument which read:


Following complaints from the middle class audience, the police were compelled to remove the wreath because of the ‘offence’ it caused – although, of cause, not to the working class – the mass of people who had actually fought and suffered during the First World War.  This situation was compounded by one highly decorated British soldier who marched down Whitehall wearing not his medals – but instead the paper tickets he had received when he was forced to ‘pawn’ his medals to prevent starvation.  At the Cenotaph, members of the newly minted Communist Party of Great Britain distributed newspapers to the discontented. Later, extraordinary young men would come forward to lead the British working class such as Wal Hannington – who was charged under the 1797 Incitement of Mutiny Act in 1925 and imprisoned for a year – for daring to tell the British establishment that working class people were starving and needed help from a fairer society.


Source: Portrait of An Era – An Illustrated History of Britain 1900-1945 (Readers Digest), 2011, Vivar Direct Limited, Page 252.

Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – UK’s First Communist MP


Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – 1925

Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone not only served as an officer in the Royal Navy in the early 1900’s, he was also amongst the first few to learn how to fly early military aircraft (gaining his Royal Aero Certificate in 1912), becoming a pioneer of naval aviation.  He also served in the British Army where he reached the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and during during WWI he was a Commander in the Royal Navy and eventually awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE). His extraordinary military career spanned the Royal Navy (RN), the Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS), the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the British Army.   In the 1918 British General Election, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone was elected Coalition Liberal MP for East Leyton.  He travelled to the Soviet Union during September, 1919, (whilst the UK was still involved with the USA and many other countries, attempting to destroy Bolshevism during the Russian Civil War), and met with many leading lights (including the then Bolshevik supporter Leon Trotsky) who showed him around the factories, villages and cities, where he witnessed first-hand the transformation that Communism had brought to the Russian people. This experience converted him to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and upon his return to the UK, he joined the British Socialist Party which soon transformed into the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone appears to have left the Liberal cause and formally presented himself to Parliament as a ‘Communist’ in 1920.  In this sense, he became the first ‘Communist’ MP in the UK by default.  However, in the 1922 General Election, ‘Communists’ campaigning as Labour Party candidates would win two more seats by popular vote.  He spent much of his time calling for Russia to be left alone by the Western capitalists, and attempting to affiliate the Bolshevik Communist Party of Great Britain with the Parliamentary Labour Party – but failed to achieve this objective.  Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone gave a speech at the Albert Hall on November 7th, 1920, defending the Bolshevik Revolution and stating that the working class had a right to defend itself from the military forces of the bourgeoisie – killing those forces in self-defence if need be.  For this he was charged with, (and found guilty of) sedition, stripped of his OBE and imprisoned for six months.  What decided his fate was that he said that executing people like the rightwing Winston Churchill (and others) would be beneficial in the long-run for the working class.  Not long after this, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone left the CPGB and joined the Independent Labour Party (affiliated to the Parliamentary Labour Party).  He failed to win a parliamentary seat in the 1924 General Election, but was returned to Parliament as a Labour MP for Northampton in the 1928 By-Election.  As he was considered an important historical figure within the British Communist Movement, the British Battalion of leftwing volunteers during the Spanish Civil War was named after him.  The following Times Obituary deliberately omits the details of Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone’s conversion to the Communist cause, his visit to the USSR, and the fact that he was the first Communist MP in the UK – but instead paints an entirely false bourgeois picture for its conservative-minded readers:


 Further reading:


Stalin the Great Leader


The Western criticism of the Soviet Union is essentially the Western criticism of Joseph Stalin.  The Great Patriotic War of 1941 – 1945 thrust the USSR onto the world stage following its complete and utter annihilation of the military forces of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany.  This was neither a quick nor an easy victory for the Soviet people, with estimates of 25 to 30 million casualties being suffered by the population; a combined figure which includes both military and civilian deaths.  During this time of extreme hardship and suffering, the USSR was held together by the will of Joseph Stalin.  When Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 it was with the tacit support of Western powers he was already at war with – primarily Britain led by the rightwing leaning Winston Churchill.  Prior to Britain going to war with Germany in 1939, Churchill had espoused a number of pro-Hitlerite viewpoints, and he was enthusiastic about Hitler heading his armies eastward to invade and destroy the Communist regime of the USSR – which Churchill viewed as a threat to Western class privilege and dominance.  The problem for Churchill was that Stalin politically out-manoeuvred him by persuading Hitler to move westward.  This brought crucial time for the USSR to prepare for what Stalin believed to be an inevitable conflict Soviet socialism and German fascisms.

The roots of the so-called Cold War lie with Winston Churchill.  As a typical member of the British middle class (with the accompanying delusions of grandeur) he believed that the working class was inferior and should be kept firmly in its place.  The USSR was an abhorration for Churchill who viewed it as a defiant regime that defied the laws of nature by turning the natural order upside down.  On the other hand, Churchill admired the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, as such an organising force within society was considered good by him because it firmly retained a rigid class system whilst removing all freedom of choice from the working class itself.  Under fascism the working class had little choice but to do the bidding of their over-lords or face the draconian consequences. The disgruntled masses could not effectively rise-up against the fascist regime if all their energy had to be diverted into serving that very same regime.  Arming and training young men to fight – and then embroiling the entire nation in warfare – ensured that the working class was too busy fighting for its own survival for it to tur its attention toward the matter of uniting to over-throw its middle class oppressors.  This was Winston Churchill’s, view and it became the basis of all Cold War thinking.

There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin was not only a great leader, but was probably one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known.  However, due to Churchill’s influence over various US Presidents, and given that the US system is naturally bourgeois, the vilification of the Soviet system began with a vengeance not long after the end of WWII.  Interestingly this was not the first time that the Soviet system had been attacked by Britain and the USA, as a similar pattern can be observed during the Russian Civil War (1918-1921).  Again the lurking image of Churchill can be seen in the background, pulling the strings.  Even after the carnage of WWI, Britain and the US interfered in Russian internal affairs and sent troops to try and destroy the fledgling Bolshevik Revolution.  This ploy inevitably failed and the Bolsheviks prevailed under Lenin’s leadership, but the West, even then, used allegations of Bolshevik massacres when in fact it was the Western forces that carried-out such activity.  The British, for instance, executed 26 Bolshevik commissars on the 20th of September, 1918 (without trial) who were captured at Baku.  The British did this whilst simultaneously accusing the Soviets of war-crimes.  This duplicity became a tried and tested method for the West when dealing with the Soviet regime.

The Western bourgeois regime is premised upon the dualistic thinking of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  It is a simplistic device that is designed to control the behaviour of the masses.  The world is separated into ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  Good is encouraged, supported and lifted-up, whilst evil is vilified, persecuted and put-down.  The problem with this thinking is that what is designated as ‘good’ is entirely class-led.  Therefore what is considered ‘good’ in the West is anything that supports, encourages, and perpetuates middle class values and aspirations.  This is essentially defined by the acquisition and retainment of money (capitalism), and the preservation of the social, cultural and political structures that keep middle class privilege firmly in place.  Evil, on the other hand, is anything that contradicts or interferes with the middle class image of utopia.  This includes socialism, and any other attempt at removing middle class privilege.  Any attack on the middle class is defined as an attack on anything that is ‘good’ and ultimately as an attack on ‘god’ etc.  The leaders of socialism are singled-out for particularly vitriolic treatment.  Karl Marx, VI Lenin and Joseph Stalin receive an immense amount of negative misrepresentation from the middle class and their superficial sham of a philosophy.  Such progressive thinkers from the socialist perspective, are interpreted as nothing less than the devil incarnate on earth.  For the bourgeois, stuck as they are in the tribalism of primitive religious thought, socialism and socialist thinkers represent a pure evil.

As Jung would correctly say, the bourgeois are merely projecting their ‘shadow’ (i.e. everything that is negative within the Judeo-Christian psyche) upon a group of people that they view as a ‘threat’ to their own hegemony.  Stalin propelled the USSR onto the world stage through the manufacture and use of military might.  This fact meant that the very forces that crushed Nazism could be deployed to crush capitalism.  What the Western bourgeois had to do was to create such a toxic atmosphere against socialism and communism that their own proletariat (i.e. working class) would, through social, cultural, political and psychological pressure, be averted from its study.  This would keep the international working class from effectively uniting and freeing itself from the psychological bourgeois shackles that hold it within a state of arrested development and permanent enslavement.  Stalin (together with the Soviet people) demonstrated that socialism was superior to fascism.  As Lenin defined fascism as capitalism in decay, the writing was very much on the bourgeois wall.  This is why Stalin must be seen to be attacked at every opportunity by the bourgeoisie as he represents the power of socialism at its height.  Of course, this enhanced demonstration of socialist (and communist) thinking was driven by the destructive forces of warfare, but even at its inception, the Bolshevik Revolution had to fight for its very survival.  It is the bourgeois system itself that responds to all threats through warfare.  It is the bourgeois system that commits endless atrocities to justify its own existence, and it is the bourgeois system that controls education, the media, and the political landscape that continuously perpetuates lies against socialism, the Soviet system and Joseph Stalin.  This campaign is motivated by a religious zeal that believes that it is attacking ‘evil’ – when in fact the only evil that is evident is the bourgeois system itself.  The international working class must be kept from uniting in its best interests. It must continue to exist in separate groups defined by the false bourgeois notions of race and nationality – and each group must confront and fight one another.  Whilst this is happening the bourgeois system stays intact and continues on its oppressive path.  The Soviet system did not commit any atrocities outside of the religiously orientated imagination of the bourgeoisie.  Joseph Stalin was a great Soviet leader (see the work of Grover Furr).  The working class must break away from the negative conditioning of the Bourgeois system and seek-out the real proletariat historical truth.

Tom Wintringham – How an Oxford Communist Founded the Home Guard


Tom Wintringham (1898-1949) was born in Lincolnshire and was a prominent member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). An excellent scholar in his youth at Oxford University, he delayed his education (during WWI) to join the newly formed (and highly experimental) Royal Flying Corps (the precursor to the Royal Airforce). Near the end of WWI, Wintringham was involved in a minor barracks dispute often described as a ‘mutiny’, and when the war finished, he travelled to Moscow as a private person to witness the early stages of the Communist Revolution. This was during the very difficult years of the Russian Civil War (1918-1921) which saw the UK, USA, Japan and other countries invade Russia and attempt to overthrow the early Government of the Workers (i.e. Soviet). Following the hundreds of thousands killed during WWI (where Russia was an ally to the West), this Western military action cost the lives of tens of thousands of Russians – but Lenin the leader of the Russian Revolution – never once responded with anger or racism towards the West. Instead he looked beyond this bourgeois incursion and continued to speak directly to the International Working Class. This impressed Wintringham and upon his return to Oxford in the UK, he organized a group of students to form the British section of the Third International – a general trend of leftwing political development that led to the eventual establishing of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920 – which Wintringham promptly joined. Upon graduation, he relocated to London ostensibly to pursue a career as a lawyer, but in reality to pursue his political work.

In 1925 Tom Wintringham was briefly imprisoned by the British government as one of the twelve leading CPGB officials accused of seditious libel. This was a purely political move by the conservative British establishment that opposed the empowerment of the workers who were agitating for better working conditions and higher pay. The CPGB leadership were prosecuted and imprisoned for disseminating literature to workers comprised of the works of Marx and Engels (i.e. Scientific Socialism), and the further explanatory works of Lenin. The call to International Revolution was viewed as unacceptable by the British middle class that held all the political power in the country. This experience did not change Wintringham in any way, but simply confirmed his belief that workers in bourgeois countries – and anyone who supported them – were routinely oppressed by an unjust system. Imprisonment was counter-productive and only served to strengthened his Communist beliefs. The time in enforced confinement allowed him to study and deepen his understanding of Scientific Socialism, and to plan more efficient and effective revolutionary action for the future. This is a clever ‘Marxist’ approach that sees the reality of physical circumstance used to its maximum positive effect. In a country that operates a system-wide blanket of class oppression, the prison system of that country represents a highly condensed version of that oppression – and therefore placing Marxists into its custody is the height of bourgeois stupidity, as the experience itself only serves to confirm how Marx is ‘right’ to those who already adhere to his philosophy. The illogicality of this situation is the same as using ‘oppression’ to prove that ‘oppression’ does not exist. When the full weight of an oppressive governmental and economic system is used against individuals, they must adapt quickly and learn to think on their feet. Even when living in society the establishment is used by the middle class in such an oppressive manner so as to ‘exclude’ the workers from power in every possible way. In prison that oppressive power simply intensifies and explains how the bourgeois attempts to control the working class, simply through the application of varying levels of oppression. Mainstream society is a bourgeois prison for the worker with a broad remit of oppressive operation, whilst a bourgeois prison operates through an intensified and narrow remit – either way the worker is oppressed. Learning to oppose a highly oppressive government either in society or in its prisons, must be considered one of the influential experiences that made Wintringham consider that the ideas of flexibility and adaption should be the basis for modern warfare.

During the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) General Franco rose-up against the democratically elected government of Republican Spain. Franco’s rebellion was rightwing and supported by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Catholic Church. The governments of the UK and France refused to condemn Franco’s rebellion or the atrocities he carried-out in name of fascism against the Spanish people. The UK and France also refused to support or assist the Spanish Republic. This appeasement of fascism led directly to Franco’s victory in 1939 and Hitler’s successful invasion of France and war with Britain. Only the Soviet Union came to the aid of the Spanish people and through the Communist International organized the so-called ‘International Brigades’ made-up of anyone (male or female) from around the world who wanted to volunteer to fight in Spain against fascism. It is believed that Wintringham himself suggested to the CPGB the idea of International Brigades – an idea that Stalin agreed with and endorsed. Marx had taught that the working class was truly ‘International’ in character and that racism was a bourgeois ideological sham designed to keep the workers fighting amongst themselves and not uniting to fight the bourgeoisie – the real cause of all their class-related suffering. An International Brigade operated on the Marxist principle of ‘Internationalism’, whereby all people were considered equal. Wintringham went on to command the British Battalion of the 15 International Brigade very effectively, and was wounded in the incredible Battle of Jarama that saw many British deaths.

Tom Wintringham returned to the UK after the Spanish Civil War and worked as a journalist. He used his experience of fighting fascism in Spain to call for the establishment of a ‘Home Guard’ in the UK made-up of ordinary people defending the area within which they lived from the threat of armed invasion. He wrote a number of progressive books on modern warfare which emphasized guerrilla fighting but were also critical of the class-based system of the UK military. This Communistic thinking immediately made him unpopular with the rightwing Winston Churchill and the middle class officer corps. One such book laid the theoretical roots of Britain’s Home Guard in WWII and was entitled ‘How to Reform the Army’ (1939). Wintringham suggested that twelve divisions be formed (of 100,000 volunteers comprised of ex-soldiers and youths) similar in organization to the International Brigades that fought in Spain. As Winston Churchill detested Communism, he prevented Wintringham from joining the regular British Army during WWII as an Officer (this was part of a broader British government campaign that saw all Spanish Civil War veterans from enlisting either in the Home Guard or the Regular Forces during WWII) and refused to acknowledge the validity of his ideas for home defense. Due to this official apathy, Wintringham opened a private Home Guard Centre in Osterly Park where he trained recruits in guerrilla fighting, demolitions, anti-tank operations, hand to hand combat, and street fighting techniques in July 1940. Churchill had the British Army take over the running of the Home Guard Centre at Osterly and had Wintringham and his colleagues quietly removed, whilst expanding Wintringham’s Home Guard nationwide. Churchill also made it illegal for any private citizen (such as Wintringham) to establish any military force on private property. As the International Brigades were premised upon the Marxist principle of equality between the sexes, Wintringham’s original idea for the Home Guard included women as well as men – but the British Army of the day (supported by Churchill) looked down on this idea. However, this did not prevent ‘women only’ unofficial Home Guard units being formed such as the Amazon Defense Corps and the Women’s Home Defense. Later, a small number of women were allowed to join the main Home Guard but only in non-combative supportive roles. In the final analysis the Oxford educated Tom Wintringham studied Marxism, became a Communist, fought for the rights of the workers, was imprisoned for his beliefs, fought in the Spanish Civil War, and became a remarkable and original military thinker and writer. It is obvious that the principles of Scientific Socialism (formulated by Marx and Engels) influenced Wintringham’s thinking regarding the creation and structure of both the International Brigades and the British Home Guard. It is interesting to consider that in the Soviet Union ‘Guard’ units in the military were considered prestigious military formations that probably date back to Peter the Great. A Guard formation was considered in the USSR the ideological and military backbone of the country and were expected to halt and destroy any invading enemy. The Soviet Border Guards, for instance, were comprised of highly motivated individuals who trained to defend the USSR during any first phase of an invasion. Although trained to decisively win, it was no secret that their real task was to hold-off an over-powering enemy for as long as possible, with the idea of allowing the regular military forces time to effectively deploy. This sounds very similar to the eventual purpose of the British Home Guard which was to be used as a ‘blocking’ border guard during WWII. Although Tom Wintringham died in 1949 (at just 51 years old) it is also believed that his notion of a ‘World Guard’ (which was to be drawn from men and women of every nation) was the fore-runner to the formation of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force. Whereas Churchill and other middle class politicians in the UK admired Adolf Hitler and refused to condemn fascism, it was ordinary British people like the Communist Tom Wintringham that paved the way to refusing to accept Nazism and in developing a cogent mobilizing response to the threat of German invasion of the UK after the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France in 1940. In the early days of WWII, Churchill had no idea of what to do, and so he stole the ‘Communist’ ideas of Wintringham and made them national policy – albeit whilst writing the Communist influence (and Wintringham) out of history. Whether Churchill liked it or not, the British Home Guard was a ‘Communist’ military formation premised upon the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Tom Wintringham was a British genius who should be recognized not only for his outstanding intellect but also for his immense bravery.

Books by Tom Wintringham

War! And the way to fight against it., Communist Party of Great Britain, London, 1932

Air Raid Warning! Why the Royal Air Force is to be doubled, Workers’ Bookshop, London, 1934

The Coming World War., Wishart 1935

Mutiny. Mutinies from Spartacus to Invergordon., Stanley Nott, London 1936

English Captain., Faber 1939[3] (also in Penguin)

How to reform the army (‘Fact No. 98′), London, 1939

Wintringham, Tom (1940). Deadlock War. Faber and Faber. ASIN B000OEKCHS.

New Ways of War., Penguin Special 1940

Armies of Freemen., Routledge 1940

Ferdinand Otto Miksche: Blitzkrieg, translated by Tom Wintringham, Faber, London, 1941

Levy, Bert “Yank”; Wintringham, Tom (Foreword) (1964) [1942]. Guerilla Warfare (PDF). Paladin Press. Retrieved 15 April 2014.

Peoples’ War., Penguin Special 1942

Freedom is our Weapon. A Policy for Army Reform., Kegan Paul 1941

Politics of Victory., Routledge 1941

Weapons and Tactics from Troy to Stalingrad., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, USA 1943, republished 1973 with Col. John Blashford-Snell ISBN 0-14-021522-0

Your M.P. By ‘Gracchus’. Gollancz 1944

We’re Going On – Collected Poems, Smokestack Books, UK, 2006

Muslims Rise-Up Against Capitalism (USSR)


Followers of Islam Rise-Up Against Your Oppressors!

Comrades You Fought Under the Green Banner of the Prophet,

Defend Your Land and Free It From Your Enemies!

Join the Communist Struggle North, South, East and West,

Mount Your Horses and Ride Toward Enlightenment!

Following the Russian Communist Revolution of 1917, the bourgeois forces of the West (together with Imperial Japan), launched an invasion of the fledgling Communist State that became known as the Russian Civil War (1918-1921). The USA and Europe wanted to return Russia to a backward feudal system that they could easily control, but the newly formed Red Army countered this threat and eventually drove the capitalists out of Russia and the Soviet Union. This poster (printed in Russian and Turkic Tartar) is calling upon Islamic horsemen to join the Red Cavalry and defend the Communist Revolution by driving the capitalists out from their homelands.

%d bloggers like this: