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


Full Article – JV Stalin – UK

Trotsky’s Letter

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

Judge for yourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pravda, No. 285, December 15, 1923

Lenin: American Mind Control Indeed


Youtube can be a great place to ‘learn’ and expand one’s knowledge, appreciation and awareness. Of course, Youtube also contains a corresponding downside of myth and delusion, and since its take-over by Google, inappropriate adverts now pop-up even during relaxation videos, sombre occasions, and even children’s TV. There are many good ad reliable leftwing videos just as there are many terrible and odious rightwing videos, but I have chosen the video below for critique, as in typical Trotskyite rightwing fashion, it presents the falsehood that Soviet Communism was no different to fascism or capitalism. It incorrectly states that Lenin advocated the adoption of capitalist ‘Taylorism’ in the USSR (implying that Lenin was a hypocrite), when in fact Lenin advocated the exact opposite:

Lenin actually said that increased productivity (the objective of Taylorism) can only be achieved ‘outside’ of capitalism by an emancipated workforce that is in control of its own working environment. Taylorism stated that the workforce must be completely controlled and entrapped in the working procedure from start to finish, and to achieve this, they must have no rights or self-determination. This is rightwing, US predatory capitalism at its absolute despotic. This is what Lenin actually said:

The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” (Original Version)

‘Of course, employment of the labour and guidance of the bourgeois intellectuals in combination with proper control by the democratic organisations of the working people and the Soviets, will create a number of new problems, but these problems will be quite solvable. No difficulties can stop us from solving these problems, as we have no other way out towards a higher organization of production under the present situation.

I shall go further. Big capitalism has created systems of work organization, which, under the prevailing conditions of exploitation of the masses, represent the harshest form of enslavement by which the minority, the propertied classes, wring out of the working people surplus amounts of labour, strength, blood and nerves. At the same time they are the last word in the scientific organization of production, and as such, have to be adopted by the Socialist Soviet Republic and readjusted to serve the interests of our accounting and control over production on the one hand, and raising the productivity of labour, on the other. For instance, the famous Taylor system, which is so widespread in America, is famous precisely because it is the last word in reckless capitalist exploitation. One can understand why this system met with such an intense hatred and protest on the part of the workers. At the same time, we must not for a moment   forget that the Taylor system represents the tremendous progress of science, which systematically analyses the process of production and points the way towards an immense increase in the efficiency of human labour. The scientific researches which the introduction of the Taylor system started in America, notably that of motion study, as the Americans call it, yielded important data allowing the working population to be trained in incomparably higher methods of labour in general and of work organisation in particular.

The negative aspect of Taylorism was that it was applied in conditions of capitalist slavery and served as a means of squeezing double and triple the amount of labour out of the workers at the old rates of pay regardless of whether the hired workers were capable of giving this double and triple amount of labour in the same number of working hours without detriment to the human organism. The Socialist Soviet Republic is faced with a task which can be briefly formulated thus: we must introduce the Taylor system and scientific American efficiency of labour throughout Russia by combining this system with a reduction in working time, with the application of new methods of production and work organisation undetrimental to the labour power of the working population. On the contrary, the Taylor system, properly controlled and intelligently applied by the working people themselves, will serve as a reliable means of further greatly reducing the obligatory working day for the entire working population, will serve as an effective means of dealing, in a fairly short space of time, with a task that could roughly be expressed as follows: six hours of physical work daily for every adult citizen and four hours of work in running the state.

The adoption of such a system would call for very many new skills and new organisational bodies. Without doubt, this will create for us many difficulties, and the posing of such a task will even evoke perplexity if not resistance among certain sections of the working people themselves. We may be sure, however, that the progressive elements among the working class will understand the need for such a transition, and that the appalling extent of the economic chaos witnessed in the towns and villages by millions of men returning from the front who had been torn away from it all and now saw the full extent of the ravages caused by the war-all this, without doubt, has prepared the ground for shaping public opinion in this direction, and we may be sure that the transition which we have roughly outlined above will be accepted as a practical task by all elements among the working classes who have now consciously sided with the Soviet government.’

Lenin required the Soviet Union to progress through the industrialisation of the peasantry into a proletariat workforce and productivity was the obvious way ahead as a means to implement this process. Taylorism was capitalistic, but it demonstrated a method of increasing the productive output of an oppressed workforce. Lenin ‘rejected’ capitalist Taylorism because of its oppressive nature, but nevertheless was of the opinion that a liberated workforce could produce so much more because it was ‘free’ and engaging in what amounted to voluntary work for the betterment of humanity. Therefore, Lenin did not accept or endorse capitalistic ‘Taylorism’ as this anti-Soviet documentary suggests, and neither did Lenin’s decision lead to the counter-revolutionary actions of bourgeois-infected workforce at Kronstadt. Of course, Noam Chomsky, as a Trotskyite, will not miss any opportunity to denigrate the Soviet Union.


Czar Nicholas II (1868-1918)


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.

How Mao Preserved Chinese Tradition


‘Contemporary China has grown out of the China of the past; we are Marxist in our historical approach and must not lop-off our history. We should sum up our history from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen and take over this valuable legacy.’
Mao Zedong: ‘The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War’, Selected Works of Mao Zedong (Beijing. Foreign Languages Press), Vol. II (1967), p.209
Quoted from: Inheriting Tradition – Interpretations of the Classical Philosophies in Communist China – 1949-1966: By Kam Louie, OUP, (1986), Page vii (Preface).
This was Mao’s position from the earliest days of the Communist evolution n China, which was known and agreed to as dialectically correct in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. This was the position of the USSR until (the Trotskyite) Khrushchev took-over the leadership in 1956. When China, (that is Mao Zedong) took exception to Khrushchev’s anti-Stalinist revisionism, Khrushchev (assisted by Trotskyites in the West), initiated a vicious ‘anti-China’ campaign, (premised upon Eurocentric, anti-Chinese racism), that continues to this day. Mao never ‘invaded’ Tibet, and never ‘oppressed’ or ‘banned’ religion – but he did declare the Communist Government of China to be both ‘secular’ and ‘scientific’. This is why today, Communist China, with its non-inverted mind-set and humanitarian approach to learning, leads the world in scientific development and technological development. The racist Trotskyite counter-narrative would have us believe that China leads the world due to its ‘backwardness’, ‘duplicity’, and ‘totalitarian’ government. This false analysis proves the ‘inverted’, bourgeois mind-set that underlies the divisive Trotskyite ideology.

Identifying Trotskyite Anti-Fascist False Fronts


It is sobering to think that leading up to, and during the Great Patriotic War – Leon Trotsky and his acolytes in the West, never supported the Soviet Union and its people in its desperate life or death struggle against the invading forces of Nazi Germany. The impression evident in Trotsky’s writings is that he would have favoured a Nazi victory over the Soviet Union – surely this attitude may serve as a defining ‘mark’ of the character of this despicable man.  This should not be surprising, as  Leon Trotsky betrayed the Soviet (i.e. Marxist-Leninist) Revolution in Russia, and from 1929 until his death in 1940, spent his life writing a plethora of bourgeois-backed books denigrating Lenin and Stalin.  Trotsky developed a ‘cult of personality’ in the West, where he himself encouraged a religious-like atmosphere around his movement – demanding that he be perceived as a ‘prophet’.  His racist attitudes are well known (particularly with regard to China), and his popularity in the West (but never Russia or China), stemmed from his embracing of capitalism and bourgeois values, whilst maintaining a superficial facade of ‘revolutionary’ action.  Trotsky attracted capitalists who fantasised about revolution, whilst being quite happy to remain living within a capitalist system – this is why Trotskyism has never led to, or inspired any successful revolution in the world.  Today, the Trotskyite attack on Marxist-Leninism (and the history of the Soviet Union) continues unabated.  Part of this capitalist-friendly, pseudo-revolutionary activity evolves around ‘anti-fascism’ – but a point to remember here, is that it was the Marxist-Leninism of the USSR that fought against, and defeated Nazi German fascism during WWII, and not Trotskyism (Trotsky was already dead when Nazi Germany invaded the USSR in 1941).  Like Hitlerism, Trotsky emphasised ‘lying’ as a means to pursue his political agenda.  As Trotsky’s lies were exposed by Stalin, Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union.  Trotsky’s lies continue today,particularly in the field of anti-fascism, where many Trotskyite groups ‘hide’ their true identity, and ‘pretend’ to be protesting against capitalist inspired fascism.  The problem with this is the Trotskyites continue to collaborate with the reactionary forces of capitalism, whilst pretending to fight those forces (through anti-racism).  A Trotskyite group can be easily exposed by asking its position on Zionist Israel, and that despicable regime’s continuous murderous Human Rights abuses against the Palestinian people.  A Trotskyite anti-fascist facade will not criticise Zionist Israel in anyway – but instead (falsely) state that Zionist Israel is the ‘victim’ of racism, and never its perpetuater. The same flawed analysis holds for any (non-White) group that has ‘internalised’ White racism,  and which co-operates with the bourgeois system, projecting that racism ‘outward’- perpetuating a racist-like ‘nationalism’ that divides the working class through the perpetuation of ‘hatred’, etc.  Trotskyites conveniently ‘ignore’ any racist tendencies that originate within the bourgeois system, or which co-operates with that system.

Notes on Arthur Miller’s Anti-Communism


‘The ladies’ ferocity toward Communism was matched only by their duplication of some of its practices – as I was reminded in the Soviet Union a decade later when I read the Party’s directions to Soviet writers to cease linking wisdom to criticism of the country and either praise or shut up.’

(Arthur Miller – Timebends – A Life – [2012] Page 440)

Whatever else this man may have achieved during his long lifetime, and regardless of assumed ‘Communist’ leanings, I can state after reading his 1987 biography entitled ‘Arthur Miller – Timebends – A Life’, he was nothing more than a bourgeois playwright with vague leftwing leanings, that for a time thought it was trending to associate himself with the Soviet Union and Communist China.  In so doing, he strove diligently to bring-down both those Marxist-Leninist States, through a rhetoric that can only be described as ‘Trotskyite’.  In fact, his Trotskyite disparaging of Marxist-Leninism is Miller’s elephant in the room, hidden in plain sight.  As with the emperor’s new clothes, no one appears willing to point-out this obvious truth – Arthur Miller was not a Communist – he was an ‘anti-Communist’ working to bring that alternative system to capitalism, down from the inside.  Like Trotsky, Miller viewed the anti-bourgeois Revolutions as inspired by Marxist-Leninism, to equate with a ‘lack of freedom’.  This typically Eurocentric and capitalist idea that the eradication of the exploitation of the working class is a ‘lack of freedom’, is exactly the attitude of a long successions US governments, that interpret ‘freedom’ as the eternal right of the bourgeoisie to exploit the working class without remorse or limit.  When viewed in this traitorous light, the rest of Miller’s career is irrelevant from a Revolutionary perspective simply because it opposes that Revolution.  Typical of his White bourgeois mentality, Miller made a living out of once being the husband of Marilyn Monroe. As for his writing output, it is only of interest to Eurocentric reformists who do not want Revolution, but rather a slight altering of the rules of exploitation, in this regard, just like his hero Trotsky, Miller was every inch a Menshevik, and ‘Socialist’ in name only, as he obviously possesses very little understanding of Marxism or dialectical materialism.  Instead, Miller practised the age old bourgeois habit of dominating at the point of contact, all Socialist cultures, and presenting these cultures in the worst possible light to a Western (bourgeois) audience.  Although this is the essence of imperialism and neo-imperialism, Miller used this tactic to inoculate the Western working class ‘against’ the very (and only) ideology designed to empower and save it from terminal exploitation.  Arthur Miller was a despicable ‘enemy of the people’ who never questioned the privileged bourgeois ‘Whiteness’ of his opinions.  Indeed, in later life, Miller made it clear that he regretted his dalliance with Marxism and Soviet Communism, preferring the safety and security of his preferred US capitalist existence (after-all, he was a multimillionaire in his old age). Miller’s liberal familiarity with Communism in his book, is the very basis of his criticism of it, and explains the success of his dangerous anti-Communist rhetoric.  Miller perceives everything Communistic as conspiratorial, under-hand, dishonest and destructive.  In many ways, being a bourgeois artist, Miller has to interpret Communism in this manner, because a successful Communist Revolution would mark the end of the dominance of the very bourgeois, capitalist culture he served, and that had served him.  His willingness to play along with the official US distortion of Soviet and Chinese Communism, defines exactly his approach to ‘pretending’ to be a Communist (presumably for some vague artistic reason), whilst roping ever more people in (through his work), to supporting the notion that these two regimes were corrupt, and that Marxist-Leninism was not suitable as a means to save the Western working class. Of course, Miller’s plays do not concern me simply because they are the product of the bourgeois mind, designed to entertain a bourgeois audience, and as such, are an ideological irrelevance to the working class, or its eventual emancipation.  After-all, bourgeois leftists are still capitalists motivated by sentimentality, and their viewpoints mirror the interests of their class.  Arthur Miller pretended to be a Communist at one point in his life because it was in ‘fashion’ (rather like the bourgeois habit of ‘marrying’ Marilyn Monroe).

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


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

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


 Further reading:


Trotskyites Not Welcome Here!


Only true Socialists and Communists are welcome on this Proletariat site!  If you support the bourgeois Trotsky and his rightwing agenda, and adhere to his distorted version of history that denigrates the USSR – you will find nothing here to placate your prejudice.  Your comments will not be ‘published’ and your appreciation for post will be ignored.

Review: Discovery Civilisation – Legends of the Russian Revolution – Cold War Rhetoric in Post-Soviet Times

Review russia 1

It is the duty of every worker to educate him or herself. Without access to ideologically sound education, the worker is destined to remain in the psychological and physical vacuum of a highly oppressive, destructive, and repetitive existence. Without access to good quality education, nothing can change for the worker, or the working class. Living in a bourgeois, capitalist society means that the ‘default’ setting for all education is that of the historical and philosophical justification of greed and profit accumulation. Implicit in this is a sustained and highly developed (and directed) hatred toward anything remotely ‘Socialist’, or indeed ‘Communist’, and this is particularly true of the history of the Soviet Union (1917-1991). In a secular society that has grown out of its Judeo-Christian past, a pious honesty has been replaced with the routine practice of ‘disinformation’, or to put it in plain language, the official sanction of institutional ‘lying’. Governmental news networks present what they consider to be the ‘news’ through a format that has more to do with effective advertising, than it does with any academic consideration of current events. The providing of news and education within a modern, capitalist, liberal, and supposedly democratic society, has become nothing more a sophisticated operation in the insurance of ‘thought control’ throughout its populace. Regardless of the actual facts of the matter, national governments, (controlled as they are purely by selfish bourgeois class interests), concoct versions of the truth that can be altered at a whim, and mixed and matched to suit a sudden change in current events, or directional shifts in popular mood and belief. The UK and the USA today, present an official news and educational face to the world that can only be described as ‘fictional’ in its rather ‘elastic’ relationship to reality. This relentless ‘Disney-fication’ of reality is designed to create a passive, receptive, and unquestioning docility in the mind of the average citizen. Within liberal democracies, an individual is considered ‘free’ as long as he or she does not dare to think ‘beyond’ or ‘through’ the official policy of the moment. All truth – to the bourgeoisie – mimics the bible they so admire and is considered ‘absolute’ – until circumstances changes that politically render each former ‘ultimate’ truth immediately obsolete, leaving it automatically abandoned as if it never existed! This curious blend of unquestioned religious theology and secular pragmatism, leads to bizarre statements such as the following ‘disclaimer’ (which accompanies the Discovery Civilisation DVD and magazine box-set entitled ‘Legends of the Russian Revolution’):

‘The views in this magazine are those of the author but they are general views only and readers are encouraged to consult the relevant and qualified specialist for individual advice in particular situations.’ (2013: Legends of the Russian Revolution’ Magazine: by Hilary Brown)

In other words, the information contained on the 4 DVD’s (just over 5 hours), and within the 82 page accompanying magazine, is not to be taken seriously, and must therefore be considered academically unsound! This is not surprising, as this particular box-set about the Russian Revolution has 2 discs dedicated to Lenin, and 1 disc each dedicated to Trotsky and Stalin. This is not an impartial or objective treatment of an important epoch in world history, but is rather an obvious rightwing attack not only upon established history, but also upon modern Russia. In an attempt to appear ‘international’ in its scope, this (American) Discovery Civilisation presentation has on its cover, the following description:

In Association with Russia Television and Radio’           

This post-Soviet Russian Broadcasting Corporation has provided very interesting historical film footage of the era, involving all the main characters concerned, together with what must be described as the strangest so-called Russian speaking ‘historical experts’ on the revolutionary period. The footage all seems ‘dated’, even that involving the ‘historians’, which raises the suspicions that the continuous anti-Soviet viewpoints they express are in fact ‘dissident’ opinions recorded outside of USSR at some earlier date, and presented here as ‘contemporary’. Whatever the case, the opening salvos in the documentaries, (presented in Russian dubbed over in Russian accented English), depict Lenin as a ‘mixed-race’, and highly dangerous individual who was hell-bent on gaining personal political power in Russia, regardless of the cost in human lives. This so-called ‘historical’ assessment is highly flawed and superimposed over film footage loosely relating to the topic at hand. The message is clear – Lenin was a clever lunatic who came to power due to a distinct set of historical accidents that he later packaged as ‘Marxist’ in nature – but which in reality had nothing to do with Scientific Socialism. The political assessment contained within this box-set does not go much deeper than this basic crudity. An attempt at credibility is attested by the fact that it seems that even Russian citizens – in the shape of the interviewed historians – resent Lenin’s presence and achievements upon the world stage.

The bourgeois hypocritical eulogising of religion is present in the form of the highly sympathetic treatment the Romanov imperial family receive. This family of parasitic aristocrats lived a life of opulence and luxury in a country where people routinely died of starvation, drought, disease, cold, and warfare, etc. The vast majority of the subjects of Csar Nicholas II could not read and write, and even if they managed to avoid the usual demeaning calamities associated with feudal existence, their life expectancy was low. The magazine author – Hilary Brown – presents the case that the Romanovs were nothing short of Christian saints living on earth, and the fate that befell them after the revolution (they were executed by Soviet forces as enemies of the state in 1918), nothing short of the influence of the devil on earth! Brown disturbingly dedicates an entire page to the fact she conveys, that in 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church decided to ‘canonise’ the former imperial family, and to finance the building of an ornate church on the land the family were executed. Brown also claims that the post-Soviet Russian government has formerly acknowledged that the Romanov’s were the victims of political persecution – which completely ignores the fact that before 1917, the Romanov’s were the source of all political persecution in Russia and beyond.

Brown demeans the Soviet dead during WWII as being between ‘15-20 million’, and in so doing removing around 10 million from the final reckoning. All this serves her demeaning policy toward the USSR quite well, as she depicts Joseph Stalin as a deranged mass-murderer who somehow managed to ‘save’ and ‘inspire’ a diverse Soviet Union in its fight against the Nazi German invasion. Despite the fact that the 30 million Soviet sacrifices saved Western Europe from defeat, very few pages are dedicated to Stalin – although Brown does manage to sneak-in a photograph of her rightwing hero Winston Church into the section on Stalin. Stalin’s obvious effectiveness as a coherent leader of the Soviet people is presented as yet another mark of his insanity. The impression is that Stalin – like Lenin before him – was an opportunist who simply took advantage of events that favoured his political ambitions. Trotsky is very much presented as a victim of the Soviet system, whereby his loyalty to Lenin was ultimately punished by Stalin with his exile, and in Brown’s opinion – eventual murder in Mexico. Trotsky – a major early influence in the revolution itself, presents Brown with something of a problem, as he contributed to so much anti-Soviet propaganda whilst living in the West, and yet was present at the inception of the USSR itself. Whilst presenting Trotsky as a victim of Soviet barbarity, Brown conveniently ignores the fact that Trotsky was quite happy to brutally put-down the Kronstadt rebellion in the USSR in 1921, whilst he voiced many of these rebel’s opinions during his exile, etc. Lastly, a strange diversion occurs in this box-set purportedly concerning the Russian Revolution, which can only be viewed as an example of clear ‘fetishism’ in the extreme, with the inclusion of the story of the Romanov’s association with the Christian mystic known as Rasputin. The only consistency here is that Brown clearly misrepresents the historicity of Rasputin as she does Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. The endearing image that Brown tries to portray is that of a kindly Csar trying desperately to seek spiritual solace from any quarter he could. However, with the current anti-Russian racism (and pro-Ukrainian fascist support) sweeping across Europe and the USA, the point of this box-set seems obvious and clear. Near the completion of the magazine Brown lets the cat out of the bag as she reveals that the modern Russian leader Vladimir Putin – in her opinion – is nothing more than a contemporary incarnation of Joseph Stalin! The true nature of this box-set is perhaps revealed by a photograph of the former rightwing US President Ronald Reagan. This is not a good narrative and serves as a very bad influence for legitimate students of history. It is a clear bourgeois distortion and should be avoided.


%d bloggers like this: