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

zmdS-fxrcizu3704160

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

Modern Fascism: Beware the National Bolshevist Party (of Russia)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

National Bolshevist Flag (Mimicking the German Swastika)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Swastika: National Socialism

In his ramblings recorded in ‘Mien Kampf’, Adolf Hitler made it clear that the number one enemy of the Third Reich was the Scientific Socialism developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more commonly referred to as ‘Communism’. As the father of Karl Marx had been a Jew before converting to Christianity (and marrying a non-Jew), Hitler was of the opinion that ‘Marxism’ was a Jewish plot to secure world domination. Hitler thought that the Jewish race might gain popularity around the world by ‘sharing’ their wealth with everyone and thereby creating a Socialist World State (despite the fact that Karl Marx never considered himself a Jew, and Friedrich Engels was a non-Jewish Prussian aristocrat). Paradoxically, Hitler also subscribed to the contradictory idea that all Jews were money-grabbing parasites that sought to control society through predatory capitalism. Hitler could entertain this two diametrically opposed ideologies because he was quite insane. Within the work of Marx, fascism is a ruthless ideology that is created by capitalism whilst in a state of decay. Fascism is the opposite to Communism, and is viewed as all the vicious elements of capitalist greed condensed into a single and deadly political system. When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, a fight to the finish was initiated between these two ideologies that led to around 40 million Soviets losing their lives before Nazism was finally crushed in early 1945 (in Berlin). Although the USSR was an ally of the West during WWII, following 1945, the USA developed a false Cold War strategy that misrepresented the USSR (and its Communist ideology) as nothing more than just another a form of German Nazism. From that time onwards, many commentators in the West bizarrely (and illogically) compared Stalin with Hitler, and routinely demeaned the Soviet contribution and sacrifice in the defeat of International Fascism. The political rightwing likes to endorse this thinking, and takes it one step further by stating that the USSR was far worse than Nazi Germany, and that it was the USSR that perpetuated the holocaust, etc. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and the violent suppression of its supporters in 1993, the capitalist West demanded that all manner of political rightwing ideologies be imported into the Russian hinterland. This included the Cold War ‘false flag’ idea that Soviet Communism (i.e. ‘Bolshevism’) was identical with German Nazism. As a counter to Communist ideology, Russian racist nationalism was encouraged amongst the younger generation, and many White supremacist movements developed (particularly centred around martial arts clubs and anti-migrant violence). Out of this mess developed the ‘National Bolshevik Party’ (NBP), a movement that accepted the lie that Soviet Communism was identical with German Nazism, and which adopted a modified Hitlerite swastika as its flag. The NBP has a flag has a central white circle superimposed on a red rectangular background, and within the white circle there is a black hammer and sickle emblem (which replaces the black swastika proper). The NBP is NOT Communist or Socialist in a Marxist-Leninist sense, and should not be mistaken as such. The NBP is a racist organisation that encourages White Russian nationalism, and advocates total war to achieve its political ends of racial purity and world domination.

Flying the Red Flag – An Odd Encounter (London NHS March 4.3.2017)

The Socialist Setting

Myself, my partner Gee, our eldest daughter Mei-An, and our youngest daughter Kai-Lin, arrived at Russell Square Tube Station around 11:50am. We had left Sutton by car at about 10:30am, and caught a Northern Line Tube (North-Bound via Bank) to Kings Cross, where we changed for the Piccadilly Line and travelled one-stop to Russell Square. The tone of the day was set at this point, as thousands upon thousands of good-natured and kind-hearted people began to alight from regular tube trains – and the narrow Victorian Station, with its broken lift and its equally narrow, spiralling staircase – started to fill-up with people getting caught in queues that were not moving, or moving too quickly. Although the sign stated that there were 175 steps, we did not realise just how steep or continuous this was at the time, and started to carry Kai-Lin up the stairs (Mei-An walked, whilst initially Gee held the back of the pram, and a person unknown to us picked-up the front before I could act). About a quarter of the way-up, this kind person (a very helpful woman), handed-over the front of the pram to me. Gee and I then carried the pram another quarter of the way up, before we changed ends (as the exertion was beginning to tell with oxygen-debt and tiring leg muscles). All these issues were amplified by the crowds, and the fact that we had to move quickly due to the extent of people trying to exit the station. As we moved-up the outside of the spiral, every so often we had to manoeuvre around individuals that had to rest at various points on the stair-well to get their breath going-up, whilst trying to avoid people coming-down the stair-case into the station! For some reason this stair-case was serving both as an access and exit route. As we progressed another quarter, Gee asked to rest – but a man we did not know picked-up the front of the pram and helped to carry our daughter up and into daylight –  this is how our protest began! When we were finally in the street, we had to paused for about five minutes to get our breath back – Mei-An – who is only four and three-quarters did an excellent job climbing all these stairs with minimum guidance or support.

The March

People began to gather in Tavistock Square (and the surrounding streets) at around 11am, and probably earlier. The march was supposed to start at 12pm – but as is usual with these kind of things, no one moved until about 1:30pm. In the meantime, we had to unfurl our Red Lenin Flag and stand in the road and wait. We tried to move into Tavistock Square earlier to find other Communists and Socialists, but the sheer weight of crowds prevented this. Our Red Flag remained the only one in the street we were in, and so people started to gather around it, who held suitable leftwing views (after-all, the NHS is a Socialist institution modelled on the healthcare system of the former Soviet Union). As we waited, Gee would breast-feed Kai-Lin whilst standing (covering the upper body with a blanket), and Mei-An – who had very tired legs from the earlier exertions – sat in the push-chair playing on her ipad. An elderly lady came up to us and said ‘long live Vladimir Lenin!’ – and some NHS Staff that knew Gee (who is a NHS Midwife) came to say ‘hello!’). The atmosphere was very good natured, and the police presence was very inconspicuous, although the growing crowd was routinely monitored from the air via police helicopters. Many people used our Red Lenin Flag – which was flying high – as a navigation point in the crowd, advising others to make their way towards it. As matters transpired, the march was so fast moving when it did begin, that we never managed to find the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) Banner – although we did manage to obtain a ‘free’ copy of the Morning Star Newspaper, apparently paid for by Unite the Union – my union as it happens.

Questioning the Flag

As law abiding British citizens, we peacefully exercise our legal, lawful and democratic rights to protest, albeit from our own leftwing position. We believe that this ability to do so, is one of the strongest elements of British cultural identity that has been known (historically) for its tolerance and understanding. We also believe that it marks-out Britain as one of the potentially ‘progressive’ countries in the world. However, these facts do not mean that everything is perfect. The Tory (and LibDem) policy since 2010 of courting neo-Nazism in the Ukraine (and opening the UK to non-EU Ukrainian students that support fascism) has led to our Red Flag being ‘questioned’ during marches by lonesome individuals from Eastern Europe (although once in Croydon, the questioner was of Southern Irish background). The narrative is always the same – as the Ukraine (and other Eastern European countries) – have ‘banned’ the Communist Party and the Red Flag, then why are we in the UK flying it? This is the quintessential paradigm of the intolerance of fascism, and the bedrock of neo-Nazism. This is a contrived rightwing assault on the political freedoms associated with Western European liberalism, orchestrated, I believe, from the United States of America, and avidly embraced by those Eastern European nations that enthusiastically ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany and its invasion of the USSR – a disastrous continuation of the Hitlerite holocaust that cost the lives of between 30 – 40 million Soviet deaths. The manner in which I have experienced this form of fascism has involved an individual approaching me on the march and openly questioning ‘why’ I am carrying a Red Flag. Their attitude is insidious and creepy (typical of the brooding hatred that underlies far-right political rhetoric and action), but packaged to appear ‘friendly’ in an attempt to ‘dominate’ and ‘intimidate’ at the point of contact.

Questioner: What is this flag you are carrying?

Answerer (me): British Socialism and Communism.

Q: What makes it British?

A: It is ‘International’ but we are British.

Q: I hope you do not find me aggressive, but I am enquiring.

A: Are you American?

Q: Yes.

A: You are taught to dislike leftwing politics – I can tell this by your odd questions.

Q: Why do you support the leftwing?

A: We all embody differing historical narratives. Britain has a close association with the leftwing, the US does not. People are a product of their upbringing and I like mine.

Q: Why did the UK vote to get out of the EU?

A: The EU is a rightwing, anti-Socialist, anti-worker institute that exists to advance US-style predatory capitalism in Europe.

Q: Why does it do this?

A: To ensure the Eastern European countries bordering Russia embrace neo-Nazism, and reject Russian influence, acting inaccordance with US foreign policy. Making workers migrate en mass to make a living destroys local communities, and eradicates the point of unions. Masses of cheap labour only benefits the bourgeoisie.

Q: That sounds like how the Mexicans flood the US with cheap labour.

A: It’s nothing like it. The US invaded Mexico in the 1840’s – and its West Coast is basically former parts of Mexico that were annexed by the US. When Mexicans cross the fabricated US-Mexican border today, they are in fact entering their own country. Furthermore, as Mexicans are the product of Spanish mixing with indigenous Indian, the US hatred toward them is ‘racially’ based, but as the EU involves ‘White’ Europeans being used to oppress one another, there is no racism involved in opposing it.

Q: Why do you carry the Soviet flag?

A: In WWII the Soviets lost 30-40 million people fighting Nazi Germany – and the UK was an ally of Russia. I had a family member who directly assisted the Soviet war effort.

Q: What about the famine in the USSR caused by Stalin during WWII?

A: Give me the Russian language reference for that allegation.

Q: Stalin considered mass death to be a statistic.

A: Having read the Collected Works of Lenin and Stalin I can find no such quote.

Q: How do you know?

A: I work with Chinese and Russian source language materials.

Q: (Asks me in Russian whether I can ‘speak Russian?)

A: I answer ‘no’ in English.

Q: My family were from the Soviet Union.

A: Really, what part?

Q: What is the NHS?

A: A Socialist healthcare system derived from the Soviet Union and implemented in the UK in 1948 by the Labour Party.

Q: Why did Russia invade the Crimea?

A: When did they do that?

Q: Recently – before that there were no Russians in the Crimea!

A: (Laughing loudly) Are you saying there are no Slavic people in the Crimea?

Q: Is Socialism possible?

A: Why not – we’ve achieved capitalism. I think Socialism is a matter of human evolution and is inevitable in the end.

Q: I do not believe we have achieved capitalism.

A: (Laughing again!) What did you study to get your degree in?

Q: Biochemistry.

A: Then you will know the importance of defining terms and providing reliable references to support your conclusions.

Q: The Soviet system did not work.

A: Are you opposed to the USSR?

Q: No – it nolonger exists

A: OK – see you later!

He approached me using a Western Cold War rhetoric mixed with a current Obama-esque anti-Russian racist attitude – and did not present anything that could be called ‘ethnic’ Russian. In fact, he was unsettled by my insistence of defining terms and providing Russian language references. Towards the end he became agitated and I decided to end the conversation and walk away.

Raoul Wallenberg – CIA Operative

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Raoul Wallenberg (1912-1947)

During WWII, a number of Eastern European countries such as Hungary, actively supported Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German regime, and enthusiastically endorsed and applied its racial and sexual hygiene laws (which served as the ideological underpinnings of the holocaust that murdered 11 million people – including 6 millions Jews – as well as Romany people, the Disabled, the Homosexuals and all kinds of dissidents, including Socialists and Communists). Hungary possessed a very strong anti-Semitic rightwing that thought nothing of applying the destructive Nazi ideology against its own people. Raoul Wallenberg was not Hungarian, however, but rather a very successful Swedish businessman and diplomat stationed in that country during WWII. Not only this, but as Sweden was also a supporter of Nazi Germany during WWII (providing natural resources for the Nazi war machine), Raoul Wallenberg – as a ‘racially pure’ Swedish citizen – was permitted to travel around Nazi Germany and its conquered European territories unhindered. During these travels, he was able to observe first-hand how Nazi anti-Semitic policies were applied and developed a deep disgust for Hitler’s murderous regime. As he possessed extensive business interests in Hungary, he applied his considerable abilities to rescuing around 100,000 Jewish people, and preventing them from being transported to the gas chambers. For this remarkable anti-fascist activity (that placed his life in continuous danger), the modern State of Israel conferred upon Raoul Wallenberg the designation of ‘Righteous Gentile’ – a title very seldom used to describe non-Jews.

When the Soviet Red Army ‘liberated’ Hungary from its fascist over-lords in 1944, a worker’s government was implemented that set about purging the country of its fascist past. For reasons that are not yet clear, Raoul Wallenberg was detained by the Soviet Authorities in January 1945, and transported to Russia (probably Moscow). At the time, he was escorted by two Soviet Red Army motorcyclists, and Raoul Wallenberg was reported as saying that he wasn’t sure whether he was being protected or arrested. When relatives and friends made concerned enquiries between 1945 and 1947, the Soviet Authorities stated that as a diplomat, Raoul Wallenberg was under USSR protection, and that there was nothing to worry about (a contrary story appears in Western accounts, which state that the Soviet Authorities also claimed in March, 1945, that Raoul Wallenberg and his driver were killed en route to the Soviet Headquarters in Debrecen – by Nazi troops). Two years later (in 1947), the Soviet Authorities denied any knowledge of Raoul Wallenberg (and his driver detained with him). Although modern (capitalist) Russia has made public virtually all the previously ‘secret’ Soviet Archives – the file regarding Raoul Wallenberg remains firmly ‘closed’. This seems odd on the face of it, as Raoul Wallenberg was an avid anti-fascist, but of course, being an anti-fascist does not necessarily equate with being ‘pro-Soviet’. However, with the information that is available within Russian language sources, Raoul Wallenberg does not appear to have made any overt anti-Soviet statements. What is clear, is that the ‘secret’ information regarding Raoul Wallenberg must be so sensitive that every Russian leader from Stalin to Putin has refused to reveal it. However, new information appeared in 1957. A file pertaining to Raoul Wallenberg contained a single document. This report was from a prison doctor stationed at Lubyanka Prison, and stated that the prisoner – Raoul Wallenberg – died of a heart attack in his cell on July 17, 1947,with his body being cremated (without autopsy) in the grounds of the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow.

In the US 1996, it was revealed by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that Raoul Wallenberg was a CIA operative working in Hungary during WWII – tasked with ‘spying’ on the Nazi Germans, the collaborating Hungarian Authorities, and the Soviet Authorities. His cover-story was exposed in part as being that of an ‘anti-fascist’, and his activities in rescuing Jewish people was part of his espionage work. As modem Russia is now a (capitalist) bourgeois State, Raoul Wallenberg was declared a ‘hero’ in 2000, and in 2001, a statue was raised in his honour in the grounds of the State Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow. In the meantime, whilst still not opening the Soviet era files on Raoul Wallenberg, Russia (and Sweden for that matter), continues to ‘ignore’ the fact that Raoul Wallenberg was a CIA operative, and that this information has now been made public in the USA.

Russian Language References:

http://inosmi.ru/history/20110806/172967492.html

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Валленберг,_Рауль

Czar Nicholas II (1868-1918)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Prince Nicholas in Nagasaki, Japan (1891)

The Russian royal family (together with servants and supporters) was believed to have been extra-judicially executed on July 17th, 1918, in the Yekaterinburg area of Russia, but there are a number of other theories surrounding the disappearance of the Czar and his family. Trotsky, in his early writings, was of the opinion that the decision to execute the royal family was taken locally and had no direct input from VI Lenin – the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, once Trotsky had been expelled from the USSR (for counter-revolutionary activities), and was living in the West, his ‘revised’ version of Soviet history declared that Joseph Stalin (although he was not in-charge of the USSR) was responsible for the execution of the Czar and his family. What is interesting is that in the collected works of Lenin and Stalin, there is nothing said about the demise of the Czar’s family, when every significant event of the revolution (and post-revolutionary time period) is recorded. As there are other theories, and given that there is scant objective evidence for the execution of the Czarist family, it might well be the case that the Czarist family was not executed on July 17th, 1918. The death of the Czar is often used by the capitalist system as a means to attack and denigrate Socialism and the Russian Revolution, and turn the Western workers against supporting the Soviet Union in international revolution. Even when Czar Nicholas II (as a prince) visited Japan in 1891, he was attacked by an escorting Japanese police officer (who slashed his fore-head with a sword). Despite this international incident, just nine years later, the imperialist Japanese forces joined with Czarist Russian forces (and other Western powers) in a revenge attack on Beijing (in 1900) in retaliation for the Boxer Uprising – an attack that killed 50,000 Chinese men, women and children. Then, around 1903-1904 Czar Nicholas II sponsored anti-Semitic riots throughout Russia that saw innocent Jewish people attacked and murdered. The Czarist royal family has participated in the death of millions during its reign over Russia, and it is only the capitalists that eulogise its passing. The Russian royal family went missing during 1918, when the Western allies (including fourteen nations comprising of the UK, USA, Japan, Germany and others) invaded Revolutionary Russia with the intention of crushing Socialism and placing the Czar back on the thrown. This is why a local Soviet group might have taken the decision to ‘remove’ the Czar without first seeking authority from Moscow.

USSR: FI Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942) – Expert in Buddhism

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

There is much disinformation not only in the West, but also in modem (capitalist) Russia, about the history of the Soviet Union (1917-1991). A number of contemporary Russians, in their haste to make a living, are prone to taking on the flawed anti-Soviet perspective of the Cold War (emanating from the USA), and mindlessly replicate all this false propaganda as if it were true. Obviously this is not the case with all Russian historical literature, but the reader is advised to remain forever vigilant. For instance, as the Nazi Germans invaded the USSR in 1941, many important Soviet intellectuals and innovators were relocated to the relative safety of Kazakhstan, where there existed well-stocked, well-supplied and well-protected Soviet towns and cities. In fact, this area became known as the scientific heart of the USSR, and the place where the Soviet Space Shuttle would eventually be developed. Being sent to Kazakhstan was always a privilege and never a punishment, but one modern Russian text, playing to the Western anti-Russian agenda, falsely stated that FI Shcherbatskoy was ‘exiled’ to Kazakhstan – as if being sent to safety to continue one’s work was a punishment. Certain other Russian texts follow the Western texts by implying that the USSR attacked ‘religion’ and this included Buddhism, again, this is false. State was separated from church, and the church from the classroom, but religion continued as a ‘private’ matter, with uncorrupted Buddhist thinking not being included as ‘religion’ due to the fact its philosophy did not conform to the inverted thinking inherent within Judeo-Christian theology. In fact, a Buddhist temple (replete with Buddha statues) is featured in Sergei Eisenstein’s 1928 Soviet film entitled ‘October 1917 (Ten Days that Shook the World)’. It was also a matter of historical fact that Marx and Engels had positive viewpoints about Buddhism (with Marx even claiming to have once tried Buddhist meditation).

Fedor Ippolitovich Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942) was Polish born, and dedicated his academic career to the study of Indian philosophy. In 1889, he earned his PhD from the Historical-Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University in Russia, after presenting (and defending) his thesis regarding the pronunciation of two types of Indo-European languages. So impressed were the educational authorities that FI Shcherbatskoy was immediately employed by the university, where he pursued his studies for a professorship. Also in 1889, he was sent to Vienna to further improve his knowledge. In Vienna he studied Sanskrit and Indology under Prof G. Buhler, a renowned expert in the field of Indian poetics and broader Indian culture. Prof G. Buhler played a significant role in the development of Indian Philology. This is where he was introduced to Brahmanic texts and the Sanskrit language, (a book he wrote on the Sanskrit language was considered so good that it was published by the Soviet authorities in 1923). He was introduced to Buddhism proper by Prof. Jacobi in Bonn during another of his travels to acquire reliable knowledge. Meanwhile, between the years 1893 to 1899, FI Shcherbatskoy left his studies to deal with matters in his homeland, but permanently returned to academia when he attended the 12th Congress of Orientalists held in Rome during October, 1899. This conference dealt with the discovery of ancient Northern Buddhist texts in the oasis of Tarim, which included remarkable works of art and pieces of Buddhist manuscripts written in both Sanskrit and Tibetan script, that attracted much interest in the West. This is where FI Shcherbatskoy transitioned from the exclusive study of Brahmanic texts, and decided to specialise in the field of Buddhology. 

FI Shcherbatskoy was able to read Sanskrit to a very high level of accuracy, and was therefore ideally positioned to translate Mahayana Buddhist texts into Russian. So good were his Russian translations, that they were soon translated into many other European languages. Following the October Revolution of 1917, FI Shcherbatskoy was left to continue his Buddhist studies, but such was his reputation amongst the Bolsheviks, that in 1918 he was elected a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (under Lenin).So encouraged was he by the revolutionary mood in Russia that in 1923 he published his work entitled ‘The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma’ to widespread acclaim (from both within and without the USSR). In 1927, he published his masterpiece ‘The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana’ which revolutionised the manner through which Mahayana Buddhism was understood in the West. In the same year, FI Shcherbatskoy worked upon a comprehensive ‘Buddhist Encyclopaedia’ for use in the Soviet education system, whilst in 1928 (under Stalin) he was appointed to head a new academic facility dedicated exclusively for the study of Buddhism within the USSR entitled ‘Institute for the Scientific Study of Buddhist Culture’ (ISBC). The remit of the ISBC was to establish a scientific dialectical history of the development of Buddhism in ancient India, how the teaching spread throughout Asia, how Buddhist culture integrated into previously existing cultures, and how contemporary Buddhism functioned in the modern world. This undertaking required a precise and accurate interpretation of the Buddha’s philosophy, together with an assessment of Buddhist art and culture in Tibet, Mongolia and China (as well as Russia, which had at least two Soviet Buddhist Republics). The ISBC developed such a good academic reputation throughout the world, that it established permanent academic relations with its German counterpart – the Heidelberg Society for the Study of Buddhism – a very good working relationship that was abolished by Adolf Hitler in 1933, after the rise to power of his fascist Nazi Party. FI Shcherbatskoy continued to specialise in the translation of important Mahayana Buddhist texts up until his death in Northern Kazakhstan in the village of Borovoye, on March 18th, 1942. 

Russian Language Sources:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Щербатской,_Фёдор_Ипполитович

http://www.orientalstudies.ru/rus/index.php?option=com_personalities&Itemid=74&person=242

 

 

 

C0-Op Bank – Lurching to the Right

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

As far as I am concerned, the Western banking system (and all banks within it) are thoroughly bourgeois and supportive of cut-throat capitalism. In fact, such financial institutions are the quintessential essence of this brutal and self-serving capitalist mode of class exploitation, and this is doubly so for the so-called ‘Co-Operative Bank’ that claims to have its roots within 19th century ‘Socialist’ (i.e. ‘Unionist’) movements of the workers. Today, I am hearing one story after another, emanating from various leftwing sources, that state a number of leftwing groups (such as those dealing with Palestinian rights, Cuban revolutionary freedom, and the study of great Soviet leaders), have come under such concerted and aggressive attacks from the ‘Co-Op Bank’, that decades old accounts have had be closed, and ‘new’ banking avenues sought after. The Co-Op idea did not have its roots in the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels, but rather in the ‘Utopian’ (and religiously based) Socialism that generally supported the bourgeois status quo (mirroring Trotskyism), and which had no intention of supporting Marxist-led revolution. This is why those groups being attacked by the Co-Op Bank today, are inherently linked to Marxist-Leninist movements, and by implication, to Russia. It is clear that the Co-Op Bank is following the anti-Russian dictates of the Tory government, which in turn is being directed by the US and EU. All leftists should withdraw their money from the Co-Op Bank and destroy it legally from within! After-all, the Co-Op Bank has been complicit in the destruction of the British economy (as part of the greedy bankers system), and has remained ‘quiet’ about the injustices of banker-led ‘Austerity’ against the people. The greedy banks are bailed-out whilst the ordinary people are made to suffer for their incompetence.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) – Deconstructing a Trotskyite

Author Christopher Hitchens

‘Of course, I do everything for money.’

(Christopher Hitchens)

Christopher Hitchens was born a privileged bourgeois (i.e. middle class) person, who was educated in Britain’s public school, before attending Oxford University and reading philosophy, politics and economics. As a student, he was a Member of the Labour Party, before being expelled in 1967 for opposing the Vietnam War. It is logical to assume that at this time in his life, his ideological viewpoint was defined as Marxist-Leninist, as he certainly espoused an opposition to capitalist war, imperialism, colonialism and racism. However, all this changed when he encountered the work of Soviet dissident Victor Serge, although it is certainly true that Hitchens had been taken with the works of George Orwell before that time. His conversion to the religion of Trotskyism can be traced through a foundation laid by George Orwell’s anti-Soviet writings, confirmed and strengthened by Victor Serge’s direct ideological inv olvement with the counter-revolutionary movement of Leon Trotsky. When Trotsky’s power grab in the Soviet Union failed in the mid-1920’s (following the death of Lenin), Trotsky switched tactics to that of attempting to’bring down’ and ‘destroy’ the USSR from within, fuelling discontent and rebellion throughout a Soviet population whose lives had improved immeasurably since the 1917 Russian Revolution. The capitalist West, seeing an opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union, assisted the Trotskyite movement from without, in an attempt to ferment a counter-revolution that would destroy Soviet Communism, and initiate a modern (bourgeois left) capitalist society administered by Trotsky and his cronies. Victor Serge was one of these cronies – whose counter-revolutionary activities are falsely eulogised by the Trotskyite left, where every villain is transformed into a hero.

The defining feature of Trotskyism is its dishonesty. Trotskyites share a common ideological bond with Adolf Hitler in that both assume that ‘lying’ is a legitimate political activity. This dishonesty is most obvious in the reluctance of Trotskyite groups and individuals to openly admit their ‘Trotskyite’ affiliations. This is a mainstay in the Trotskyite left’s ability to continue to attract and recruit the politically naive, and the easily led, by ‘pretending’ that they alone represent the ‘true’ Communist movement. If this were true, why not clearly state on all descriptive literature that such movements are ‘Trotskyite’ in nature? Trotskyites do not openly advertise their ideological affiliations because they know that as soon as it is understood that they follow the bourgeois left ideology of Trotskyism, it is also understood that such movements do not, in fact, follow revolutionary Marxism or Leninism. Trotskyites do not clearly state their ideological affiliation because such an honest and open policy would immediately indicate their bourgeois, corrupt, and counter-revolutionary status. The point of such people as George Orwell, Victor Serge and Christopher Hitchens, is to sully true revolutionary working class politics, and replace it with a bourgeois sham, or parody of ‘revolution’, where everything stays the same for the workers, but the White middle class feel better about themselves. A study of the life of Christopher Hitchens, is in fact a study of the ‘fetishisation’ of the revolutionary path of the working class, by a White, privileged, middle class man, who thought that what he had to say as an individual member of the bourgeoisie, was more important than the ‘collective’ revolutionary path of the working class. The hypocrisy that underlay Hitchens’ later political mercenariness, can be clearly discerned by his backing of New Labour’s neo-colonial ‘oil’ wars in the Middle East, and his whole-sale abandonment of anti-racism and peace activism (strong elements within Marxist-Leninism).

As his Trotskyism allowed for the distortion and misinterpretation of Marxism, Hitchens became something of a mouthpiece justifying ‘Islamophobia’ from the British left. This essentially racist attitude mirrored that of Trotsky, and as the mainstream press in the West was busy peddling anti-Muslim racism, Hitchens – as a White member of the privileged Bourgeoisie – was invited to express his anti-Islamic views throughout the UK and USA media – gaining much right-wing support in the process. Hitchens’ racism toward non-White people was camouflaged by a thin veneer that masqueraded as a Marxist critique of religion. However, this perversion of interpretation demonstrates exactly how Trotskyites misrepresent the very Marxism they claim to uphold. This is because Trotskyites exist within a ‘deluded’ interpretation of material reality, which is in fact a ‘mirage’. Trotskyites actually occupy a parody of historical materialism, where they firmly operate through the very inverted mind-set that Marx exposed as the basis of the bourgeois class. This is why the Trotskyite interpretation of Marxism is not ‘Marxist’, but rather a bourgeois inversion designed to disempower the working class, prevent the working class from uniting, and present ‘racism’ as real, religion as ‘evil’. Marx never said religion was ‘evil’ (as he rejected such Judeo-Christian notions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’), as Hitchens’ suggests, in fact Marx stated that theistic religion is a product of an inverted imagination, and that once this is abandoned, the human intellect begins to function the ‘right way around’. The working class throws-off the yoke of inverted religion ‘collectively’, and not with a personal age to grind, as suggested by the behaviour of Hitchens throughout his life. The bourgeois delusion that Hitchens presents, is that of a White bourgeois, who can, through the weight of his class privilege, gain access to State media and perpetuate his particular creed of middle class sentimentality. His pointless middle class ‘fetish’ attacks on religion (often facilitated by an equally ‘Trotskyite’ BBC), were only matched in their deluded sophistry by his attacks on the USSR and its history. These two attacks often ‘blended’ when Hitchens tried to laughingly convince the Western world that Lenin and Stalin were ‘religionists’ that founded and administered an ‘atheistic’ Soviet State. His lies about the Soviet Union are many and numerous and would justify a separate study. Suffice to say, Hitchens was a bourgeois Trotskyite who dedicated his life to destroying any genuine working class revolution by reducing all politics to the fetish of the capitalist individual.

Soviet Casualties During the Korean War (1950-1953)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

From the US plan to divide Korea at the 38th in 1945, until the outbreak of the Korean War in June, 1950, there were at least 2000 border incidences involving the US-backed Republic of Korea (ROK) military forces, and those of the Communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Most of these incursions were carried-out by highly aggressive ROK troops that had been specially trained and indoctrinated against Communism by US Advisor’s. These ROK troops would ‘invade’ North Korea and carry-out the routine murder of North Korean citizens and the destruction of important DPRK buildings, and other assets. In June, 1950, all this changed as the DPRK leader – Kim Il Sung -launched a well-planned counter-offensive across the 38th Parallel into US controlled South Korea (this action was carried-out with the knowledge and permission of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong – although Mao advised waiting). This was initially planned a a ‘limited’ military operation with punitive objectives, but as the ROK forces literally fell apart and exhibited cowardly behaviour, the DPRK forces simply kept on advancing – nearly succeeding in pushing the US out of Korea altogether. However, the DPRK soon became the victims of its own success, and with logistics being overly extended, the US struck-back with the Inchon Landings in September, 1950 (a move that out-flanked the Communist forces).  As the DPRK forces had to retreat, the US and ROK troops advanced. In the meantime, the US attempted to justify their imperialist and aggressive actions in Korea by manipulating the United Nations (UN) into backing the war, and supporting US neo-colonialists policy in the area.

As a consequence, the US drew-in numerous countries into the Korean, whilst the bulk of the fighting was done using the best troops the US had to offer (keeping the unreliable ROK troops in reserve). However, as the US troops neared the boundary between North Korea and China, the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army entered North Korea as an act of self-defence.  This Chinese Communist army inflicted a number of devastating defeats on the US (and allied) army (generally referred as ‘UN forces’), and successfully ‘liberated’ North Korea from capitalist control.  The Korean War eventually ended in a stalemate situation, and an Armistice was signed in 1953. Although the Soviet Union did not get ‘officially’ involved in the Korean War (issuing a declaration to this effect in 1950, soon after hostilities had commenced), nevertheless, Joseph Stalin ordered that Red Army Anti-Aircraft Artillery Units be deployed in North Korea (together with their troop support), together with the best ‘aces’ of the Soviet Red Airforce, flying Migs with North Korean insignia. This action was needed as the DPRK and Chinese armies lacked substantial airforces and were vulnerable to attack from the air.  According to declassified Soviet Records, throughout the Soviet Union deployed 12 divisions of the Soviet Red Airforce – numbering an over-all figure of 72,000 combat (and supporting) personnel throughout the entire three years of the war – peaking with 26,000 operating in 1952. During that time, Soviet pilots shot-down 1097 enemy planes, and the Soviet Anti-Aircraft Artillery shot-down 212 enemy planes. The Soviet Airforce lost 335 planes and 120 pilots.  Over-all, the full Soviet casualties are listed as 282 people.

 

 

Chinese Language References:

http://baike.baidu.com/item/朝鲜战争/5310

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/history/2016-11-29/doc-ifxyawmm3819526.shtml

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/朝鲜战争

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

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уголовное_преследование_мужеложства_в_РСФСР

 

 

%d bloggers like this: