USSR: Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (1928)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Author: Stcherbatskay F.I. – Title: Theory of knowledge and logic according to the teachings of later Buddhists. Part 1: Dharmakirti’s “Textbook of Logic” with Dharmottara interpretation.

The Soviet Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (INSBC) was first proposed in 1927 as a coordinated academic project by scholar FI Stcherbatsky, and supported by his fellow academics SF Oldenburg and MI Tubyansky – all of whom professed an in-depth interest in Buddhist thought.  On April 4th, 1928, at the 7th meeting of the Department of Humanities of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, FI Stcherbatsky reported that the Council of People’s Commissars (responsible for the creation, development and function of Academic Institutions within the Socialist State), had formally approved the establishment of the Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (a decision included in the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR dated March 13, 1928 – entitled “On the Composition of Scientific Institutions of the Academy of Sciences USSR”) and discussed the desirability of taking measures to immediately start the organizational work of academically developing the Institute. When discussing the report, it was supposed to FI Stcherbatsky that he assume the temporary duties of the Director of the Institute (a post he accepted and held between 1928-1930). During its academic activity of developing a sound interpretation and understanding of Buddhist philosophy and practice throughout the Soviet Union (and the world), the INSBC organized a number of important scientific expeditions, and produced many ground-breaking papers, books and journals, etc.. In 1930, the INSBC was structurally incorporated into the Institute of Oriental Studies, as part of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Russian Language Source Article:

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

Институт буддийской культуры (ИНБУК) был создан как скоординированный проект, предложенный академиком Ф. И. Щербатским совместно с академиком С. Ф. Ольденбургом и М. И. Тубянским в 1927 году. «4 апреля 1928 года на VII заседании Отделения гуманитарных наук Академии наук СССР Ф. И. Щербатской доложил об утверждении Советом Народных Комиссаров в составе Академических учреждений Института по Изучению Буддийской Культуры (Постановление СНК СССР от 13 марта 1928 года “О составе научных учреждений Академии Наук СССР”) и о желательности принять меры к началу организационных работ Института. При обсуждении доклада было положено просить Ф. И. Щербатского взять на себя временно исполнение обязанностей Директора. За время своей деятельности ИНБУК организовал ряд научных экспедиций. В 1930 году ИНБУК структурно был включён в состав Института востоковедения АН СС

 

 

DPRK: Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) Red Flag (Explained)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Workers’ Party of Korea (WKA) was founded in 1949 (with the support of the Soviet Union) from the merger of a number of Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist groups that covered all parts of Korea (including the South prior to its annexation by the United States).

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Its Red Flag represents its historical association with the Soviet Union and contains the usual hammer (representing industrial workers), and a sickle (representing agricultural workers), but also includes a central calligraphy brush traditional to Korean scholarship (representing intellectuals).

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This addition to the Soviet Red Flag demonstrates Korea’s intellectual independence from the Soviet ideologues (despite their important historical association), and represents Korea’s unique departure from the more formal strictures of Marxist-Leninism. In many ways, the North Koreans interpret their Juche philosophy as an ‘improvement’ or ‘progression’ of Marxist-Leninist thinking – although this is a contested issue. The Juche philosophy views humanity as the driving force of history (and not ‘class’), a humanity that must be led by a strong military (for self-defence purposes).

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Although Western narratives try to shoe-horn Juche into Stalinism (suggesting that Stalinism was a departure from Marxist-Leninism) this is incorrect on both counts.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Stalin did not depart from Marxist-Leninism – but did have to apply this ideology during the most extraordinary of situations in the world. Similarly – Korean Juche – has nothing to do with the Soviet system – but is a unique Asian adaptation of Marxist-Leninism – perhaps involving a secular Confucian influence (hence the scholar’s brush). Whatever the case, the North Koreans have a right to self-defence and self-determination. Regardless of North Korea’s development of its own pathway – as a nation it still considers itself part of the International Communist Movement – and I have personally seen North Korean delegations visit the grave of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery on the anniversary of his death in march of each year (usually accompanying Communist Chinese representatives).

Chinese Language References:

http://m.baike.so.com/doc/5601797-5814400.html

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/朝鲜劳动党

Defending the Red Flag: Rules and Regulations for Official Flag Bearers

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Definition: A flag-bearer is anyone – male or female, young or old – who either volunteers to carry the Red Flag (with a golden hammer and sickle, golden star, or any other identifying Marxist-Leninist Communist or Socialist symbols), or who is ordered to carry the Red Flag by an Official of the Communist Party (or another individual – either civil or military – who is suitably empowered to issue such an order). The Red Flag should be affixed to a suitable flag-pole, or hung in a correct manner from a window, door or wall. Whether carried on a pole, or placed on a building or other object (either stationary or movable), generally a single flag-bearer should is responsible for the cleanliness, state of repair and safety of the Red Flag. Secondary flag-bearers are often selected to theoretically take-over these duties, should the primary flag-bearer be incapacitated or otherwise unable to meet these duties. It is an offense of the highest order to wantonly ‘abandon’ a ‘Red Flag’.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Red Flag Defined:

The Red Flag is ‘red’ because it represents the blood of the Workers sacrificed all over the world to secure rights, justice and freedom for the ordinary people. The tradition of a ‘Red Flag’ may have began during the 1871 Paris Commune. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ hammer represents industrial workers, whilst the ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ sickle represents agricultural workers. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ colour represents a ‘New Dawn’ for the International Proletariat. Within the Soviet Union, the Red Flag was ‘red’ with a yellow hammer and sickle emblem on each side – but in 1980 – a new flag was instigated. This Red Flag was ‘red’ on both sides, but only carried the yellow hammer and sickle on one =-side. This 1980 Red Flag did not invalidate the pre-1980 version – with both types being regularly flown.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Rules & Regulations:

  1. Never relinquish control of the Red Flag unless officially ‘relieved’ of this duty by a suitably qualified individual.
  2. The Red Flag must never fall into the hands of the fascists.
  3. When carried in public, the Red Flag must be held high and be easily visible.
  4. The flag-pole must be suitable for both the Red Flag and venue within it is flown.
  5. When marching, the Red Flag must be permanently on display and not ‘wrapped’ around the pole (due to the wind).
  6. The Red Flag must be held either vertically or diagonally and not be allowed to ‘catch’ in surrounding obstacles.
  7. The Red Flag must be kept in good repair and a clean state.
  8. Verbal challenges to the Red Flag must be met with either a crushing silence, or dialectical clarity.
  9. A Red Flag bearer must be progressive of nature and suited to this task.
  10. The Red Flag represents the power of the combined Working Class,
  11. Unless otherwise stated, Red Flag bearers are unarmed.
  12. The Red Flag represents the blood of the Workers spilt in the name of greed by the bourgeoisie.
  13. If a Red Flag is discovered on the ground, it is the duty of every Communist to pick it up and assume responsibility for its welfare until relieved.
  14. The Red Flag represents the power of Marxist-Leninism and the spirit of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong (as well as other Revolutionaries).
  15. The Red Flag represents the International Communist Party (and all its contemporary factions), with impartiality (regardless of any personal allegiance of the Red Flag bearer).
  16. The Red Flag represents Proletariat Unity and rejects Bourgeois Division.
  17. The Red Flag (of the Soviet Union) represents all oppressed people.
  18. The Red Flag symbolises universal hope for the masses.
  19. When the Red Flag is lowered (for whatever reason), it must be folded with respect, and suitably placed in storage for safe keeping.
  20. The Red Flag is imbued with the dialectical power of Socialism and Communism. In times of warfare, unless otherwise ordered, the Red Flag bearer advances upon the enemy positions ‘unarmed’.

“Glory to the Soviet troops, who hoisted the banner of victory over Berlin!”0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

My family have carried the Red Flag for decades – and now it is the duty of myself and my partner:

20170701_130443

20170701_122804

Soviet Red Army Liberates Manchuria (North-East China) August-September – 1945

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

At the behest of the United States under President Roosevelt – the Soviet Red Army Declared War on the fascist Empire of Japan in 9.8.1945 – and fought their way into the Chinese city of Harbin not long after. Although the Japanese Authorities hinted that Japanese Forces (in the form of the 700,000 man Kwantung Army) would offer little resistance, in reality however, Japanese resistance was very strong in places, leading to many Soviet casualties. The Imperial Japanese had been agitating in ‘Manchuria’ (i.e. North-East China) since at least 1931, and their forces had committed continuous atrocities against the local Chinese population, and prisoners of war. The Japanese plan was to eradicate the Chinese presence from North-East China, and use this ‘new’ space to accommodate millions of Japanese migrants. This strategy reflected that of Adolf Hitler and his plans for a ‘Greater Germany’ in the Soviet Union (by eradicating the Slavic race). Following the bloody and brutal Battle of Okinawa, President Roosevelt was not keen on the idea of further large scale conventional battles with the Japanese Imperial Forces, and certainly did not favour the idea of a conventional US military invasion of the Japanese homeland. As he had been discussing with Britain’s Winston Churchill about the possibility of encouraging the destruction of the Soviet Red Army by bleeding it dry against Nazi Germany – a plan was hatched to try and bleed it dry against the Japanese. The problem was that instead of bleeding it dry – the Soviet Red Army grew ever stronger with each campaign and victory! As matters transpired, the Red Army was spectacularly successful in China and the islands off the North-Coast of Japan. The local Chinese population welcomed the Soviets with open arms, and when the campaign was complete, the Soviets handed the captured area over to Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China (together with all its captured Japanese industry and weaponry). This acquisition allowed the CPC to consolidate power in North-East China, and eventually defeat Chiang Kai-Shek in the South. As a consequence, and contrary to the English wikipedia pages that still espouse false US Cold War propaganda as ‘fact’, there were no atrocities committed by the Soviet Red Army in China. There are no Chinese language texts, Japanese language texts, or indeed Russian language texts recording any untoward behaviour. As can be scene from some of these photographs (all gathered from the Russian language internet), there were even Westerners present in Harbin during the Soviet ‘Liberation’ and not one recorded any incidence of bad behaviour on the part of the Soviet Red Army.  It is remarkable today, to witness in the West a pro-fascist mentality developing which attempts to re-write history and present the perpetuators of world fascism as being the ‘victims’ of those who fought back against the real atrocities. The Nazi Germans (who committed the holocaust), and the imperial Japanese that pursued a genocidal policy against the Chinese – are falsely packaged as being the real victims! This is nonsense and nothing but a rightwing attempt at clearing its own conscience that has the deaths of countless millions upon it.  The historical evidence is clear – Nazi Germany and fascist Japan both thought that they could eradicate large swathes of humanity from the earth through military aggression – and both failed due to the strength of the Soviet Red Army and the resistance to invasion Of China by the CPC. I include a documentary with these pictures that clearly describes the Soviet campaign in Manchurian. The Soviets recorded 9 ineffectual Kamikaze attacks – with Japanese troops surrendering en mass after each defeat suffered. Of particular note is the successful use of Soviet paratroops to quickly ‘liberate’ forward areas before being relieved by Soviet infantry and tanks within 24 hours.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

On Why Stalin was not a Homophobe

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Of course, LGBTQ people are people first and fore-most, and a sexual preference secondarily, although the persecution this group of people face everyday throughout the world, due to their sexuality, draws that sexuality out into the open so that it often obscures the personalities and characters of those concerned. This is because ‘gayness’ (and its many varieties) has not been allowed to ‘normalise’, and is still seen by any people as being ‘wrong’ or even an ‘aberration’. As a consequence, gay people do not all think the same, and certainly do not all agree on he finer points of politics. Gay people have been known to hold leftist, centrist, and rightist political view-points, even though it has been the rightwing that has enshrined their persecution in ideological lore. I have also noticed a Trotskyite tendency within the gay left that purposely demonises and misrepresents the Soviet Union, referring to Lenin and Stalin as homphobes. Gay people who think this way should be ashamed of themselves. Lenin was one of the first world leaders to abolish homophobic laws in 1917, and Stalin, during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) committed hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops into areas of the Western USSR that were facing the grim possibility of Nazi German occupation – as a means to hold-out as long as possible to prevent a holocaust against Soviet Citizens being perpetuated! As a consequence, during the Battle of Kiev for example, hundreds of thousands of Soviet men and women died or were taken prisoner trying to stop the Nazi Germans from occupying the land. This sacrifice was on the direct orders of Joseph Stalin – who knew only too well what laid in store for the Soviet populations of homosexuals, Romany, disabled, Jews, Bolsheviks and anyone not considered racially pure or ideologically sound. Of course, many gay people are misled by the US-generated Cold War lies -which after 1945 depicted the USSR as being nothing different to Hitler’s Nazi German regime. The differences are in fact stark and multitudinous. I once asked a gay person who was espousing anti-Soviet propaganda what he thought of the 40 million Soviet men, women and children who died during the war with Nazi Germany? He just stared at me open mouthed and muttered something about Communist propaganda! There is no evidence that Stalin was homophobic in any Russian language text, but the idea that he was, has a certain currency in (false) Western narratives that seek to demonise Communism and Communist leaders. It was the Nazi German regime that was homophobic – and not the Soviet regime that confronted it. This video explains the circumstances surrounding the Battle of Kiev – and details the Nazi German holocaust that was committed in the Ukraine almost immediately after the Nazi Germans conquered the area.

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.

%d bloggers like this: