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


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

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

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

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


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

What is this “non-factionalism”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a fact that anybody can easily verify.

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

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

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

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

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

To sum up:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Let us examine this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Let us go over the chronology of events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough, is it not?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[4] Meaning the impossible.—Ed.

[5] This refers to Prosveshcheniye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zionism is ‘Racism’ (UN Verdict 1975)


Kenyan Jew Denied Access to Israel

Many people get confused with regards to legitimately opposing ‘Zionism’, whilst simultaneously exposing and resisting the broader far-right and its historical policy of ‘anti-Semitism’. Opposing ‘Zionism’ is not ‘anti-Semitic’, but rather a legitimate act  ofanti-racism opposing the fascist policies of the modern State of Israel. In reality, there should be no confusion, as although sharing a common far-right root, there is a clear historical and dialectical difference between ‘Zionism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’. Whereas ‘anti-Semitism’ is probably thousands of years old and denotes an irrational fear and hatred of anyone of the ‘Semite’ ethnicity (which is composed of both Arabs and Jews), ‘Zionism’ dates back only to the late 19th century, and represents an attempt by a certain strata of ‘White’, middle class, secular Jews (living in Germany and elsewhere in Europe), to create a political alliance with the forces of racial ‘White Supremacy’ as advocated not only by the political far-right, but also as practised in reality by many of Europe’s colonial powers. As the Jews responsible for founding ‘Zionism’ did not participate in any practice of Jewish ritual or tradition, and did not attend the synagogue, they were free to contrive a rhetorical distance between their own Jewish heritage and that of the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’, privileging the latter over the former. This development signified the rejection of Jewish Scripture, and the embracing of the ‘Gentile’ ideology of ‘race-hate’.

What this means is that ‘Zionist’ Jews are ‘racist’. Not only are ‘Zionist’ Jews racist, but the Zionist movement itself is necessarily aligned with the forces of far-rightwing ‘anti-Semitism’, as a means to 1) assert secular Jewish ‘White’ racial identity, and 2) rhetorically ‘distance’ White Jews from the ‘Jewish ethnicity’ that the broader political far-right in Europe finds so repugnant. The modern State of Israel, of course, is not built upon the wisdom contained within Jewish Scripture, but is entirely premised upon the strictures of secular (and racially divisive) ‘Zionism’. In other words, the modern State of Israel is a ‘White Supremacist’ State, whose primary victims of ‘Zionist’ inspired racist torture, abuse and murder, are the ‘non-White’ Palestinians. The ‘White’, European ‘Zionist’ Jews who settled in Palestine (and who stole the land from the indigenous Palestinian people), are very much involved in a blatant act of imperial aggression and genocide. However, the racism does not stop there, any ‘non-White’ person is defined by ‘Zionist’ thinking as ‘racially inferior’, and this includes any and all Jews (White or not), who reject ‘Zionism’, the secular premise of the State of Israel, and the continued Israeli violence aimed toward the Palestinians.

The ‘Zionist’ government of Israel routinely imprisons Israeli citizens who refuse military service, or who oppose the abuse of the Palestinians. It is therefore clear that opposition to ‘Zionism’ is a matter of valid ‘anti-racist’ protest, just as it is equally valid to resist ‘anti-Semitism’. There is no contradiction involved in fighting both distinct aspects of ‘White Supremacist’ ideology. Fighting racist ‘Zionism’ is exactly the same as fighting racist ‘anti-Semitism’ as both have their roots firmly within ‘White Supremacist’ thinking. In an attempt to hide its racism, the government of Israel makes half-hearted attempts to welcome ‘non-White’ Jews to Israel, but as can be seen with the appalling treatment of Ethiopian Jews, life for ‘non-White’ people within the racist, Zionist State is just as bad as life in the US, or perhaps the neo-Nazi regime of Western Ukraine. Finally, Trotskyite supposed ‘anti-racist’ protest groups do not include ‘Zionism’ as a form of ‘racism’ – and never protest the murder of Palestinians by Israeli forces. This is because Leon Trotsky – following his exile from the Soviet Union in 1929 – received financial and moral support from a number of Zionist Movements in the USA, that backed and encouraged his one-man rhetorical campaign against the Soviet Union. Perhaps because of his association with Zionism, in 1938, Trotsky called upon all his adherents to support the forces of International Fascism against the USSR (and the capitalist West).

Why was Sergey Korolev (Сергей Королев) Arrested? (1938)


(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Author’s Note: Despite the Cold War being over for at least 26 years, it is extraordinary how Western academic discourse has not been able to shrug-off US-generated ‘disinformation’ about the Soviet Union, and directly access reliable Russian-language texts as a means to ‘correct’ the bizarre lies and improbable myths. Probably about a year ago, I attended a ‘Cosmonaut’ exhibition held at London’s Science Museum. Despite the esteemed reputation of this fine British institution, the narrative it pursued was the usual ‘illogical’ plurality that the Soviet Union was both extraordinarily ‘advanced’, whilst simultaneously being ‘backward’ and ‘despotic’. Sergey Korolev was treated as a genius who produced his best work after being arrested by Joseph Stalin, imprisoned on trumped-up charges, tortured and finally released. In fact, none of this is recorded as true within Soviet-era records. It was the NKVD (Soviet Secret Police) which moved against Korolev, with Stalin being informed at the end of the evidence gathering process. Korolev was not sentenced to death (as incorrectly stated by the English language Wiki-page dealing with his biography). Korolev was sentenced to 10 years hard labour, (which transpired to mean being well-cared for within a technological, working environment). Korolev was not tortured, and did not confess any crimes during his imprisonment. The only time that Joseph Stalin had any direct involvement with Korolev, is when he personally ordered Korolev’s release in 1944 (after just 6 years of imprisonment). During his imprisonment, Korolev carried-out vitally important scientific work for the Soviet State – hardly the behaviour or actions of a man supposedly betrayed by the State that he served. From my own research, Sergey Korolev was a potential target of Nazi German and Trotskyite agents operating in the USSR during the latter part of the 1930’s. The Soviet Authorities devised a plan to remove Sergey Korolev from public view until the threat of fascism was removed – by 1944 – that situation had arrived as the forces of Nazi Germany were being driven back to Berlin. Sergey Korolev was a staunch supporter of the Soviet System, and he used his genius to beat the US during the early Space Race. ACW (10.12.2017)

In the quite frankly ‘illogical’ world of US Cold War hysteria, paranoia, disinformation and plain bad Western academia, the Soviet Union is depicted as an armed Concentration Camp bristling with a disaffected population seeking ‘defection’ to the ‘capitalist’ (free) West at the earliest opportunity. This almost comical misrepresentation of world history is not so funny, when it is considered that the warmongers in Washington were seriously prepared to put the lives of tens of millions of people at risk around the world, simply in the maintenance and pursuance of this myth. The Soviet Union was a vast improvement upon the backward and corrupt feudal system it had replaced in 1917, but its success irritated the US ideologues due to its complete rejection of predatory capitalism. This meant that the dominant US corporate families (such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and the Rothschild, etc) spread throughout the capitalist world (together with the Catholic and Protestant Churches) had no direct say (or influence) over a large swathe of humanity. (The Jewish Rockerfeller and Carnegie families, amongst others, funded ‘eugenic’ programmes in the US prior to the outbreak of WWII). This general rightwing capitalist approach to the expansion of markets and generating of profit, led directly to an expressed antipathy toward the ‘Socialist’ USSR, which intended to inspire and support a world-wide Revolution, and the usurption of the capitalist system. In-short, the Soviet System protected millions of people from the ruthless expansion of a free market economy, and got in the way of the extension of predatory capitalism into Russia (at least until the end of 1991).

The rise of Leon Trotsky complicated matters between 1929 and his death in 1940. Whilst receiving financial support from leading American Zionists, Trotsky embarked upon the mission of developing a capitalist-friendly ‘pseudo-Socialist’ movement, which whilst appearing to support ‘Revolution’ in the name of the workers, actively strove to co-operate with the Bourgeois State and wed his movement to an alliance with world fascism. Trotsky, acting in concordance with the Roman Catholic Church, openly opposed the existence of the Soviet Union, and supported any and all rightwing movements around the world. This reached a peak in the mid to late 1930’s, where Trotsky and his supporters opposed the democratically elected ‘Socialist’ Republican government, and supported the fascist General Franco (the British Trotskyite George Orwell heeded this call and even travelled to Spain to join a Trotskyite militia). In 1938, Trotsky openly called for his followers to fully support Nazi Germany and its preparation for an attack on the USSR. Trotsky also called for the population of the Soviet Union to murder Joseph Stalin, and where possible, carry-out acts of sabotage and terrorism against the Soviet State. Although never ‘popular’ in the USSR, nevertheless, Trotsky did have a minority of followers in influential places, who were able to put into practice his call for illegal activities. The point of this sabotage was to weaken the Soviet State from within, and make it easier for the military forces of Nazi Germany to destroy the Red Army in open combat. By sabotaging the development of military equipment and technology, the Red Army would have its fighting efficiency drastically reduced.

This is the historical background to the time period within which Sergey Korolev (1907-1966) – the eventual father of the Soviet Space Programme – was arrested in 1938, and imprisoned within the Soviet Union. As usual, most Western narratives (including the English-language Wikipedia) are deficient or misleading when dealing with this episode. Korolev was not ‘tortured’ whilst in custody awaiting trial, or whilst in prison. In fact, he was treated very well, and was allowed to continue his scientific work whilst within a secure environment. The fact that he continued to develop scientific innovations whilst ‘detained’, is hardly the activities of a man under duress, and has led some to speculate that the Soviet State took him into protective custody to continue his crucial scientific work (concocting a ‘criminal’ cover story in the process). It could be that Nazi German and Trotskyite spies were conspiring to kill Sergey Korolev, and so it was in his best interests that he ‘disappear’ from public view for a time.

During the Spring of 1937. Reactive Scientific Research Institute No. 3 (RNII-3 – Scientific Research Institute for Jet Propulsion, later – NII-3) – came under intense governmental scrutiny. This was because of the action taken by the Head of Division Andreya Kostikov (Андрея Костикова) who wrote to Nikolayu Yezhovu (Николаю Ежову) of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B), stating that funds had been embezzled and new technology sabotaged by the Institute’s Director Ivana Kleymenova (Ивана Клейменова), the Deputy Director Georgiya Langemaka (Георгия Лангемака), and leading engineers Valentina Glushko (Валентина Глушко) and Sergey Korolev (Сергея Королева). Initially, the charges were aimed primarily at Kleymenova and Langemaka, with the two engineers accused of incompetence and mediocrity rather than collusion. Indeed, during the nights of the 2nd and 3rd of November, 1937, Kleymenova and Langemaka were arrested, and under interrogation, both admitted to ‘wrecking activities’. In the general narrative, it is believed that at this time, Kleymenova and Langemaka also implicated Glushko and Korolev (as well as others), but a close examination of the historical facts (within Russian language sources) indicates that at least in the case of Sergey Korolev, this assumption is incorrect. As matters transpired, once the NKVD had gathered and verified all the evidence pertaining to this case, acting in accordance with Soviet Law (which specified the ‘Death Sentence’ for this type of ‘political’ crime), Kleymenova and Langemaka were executed (by being ‘shot’). Although all the engineers were also ‘recorded’ as participating in ‘wrecking activities’, no further action was taken against them at the time. This suggests that Kleymenova and Langemaka, as corrupting influences, were removed so that Sergey Korolev (one of the USSR’s most prolific rocket experts), could do the progressive work that his bosses had prevented him from developing.

However, not long after these events, engineer Valentina Glushko was arrested and admitted to ‘wrecking activities’ alongside Nikolayem Il’inym (Николаем Ильиным) – the former Head of the Gas Dynamic Laboratory – but records show that no mention was made (either by Glushko or the NKVD) of Sergey Korolev.  It was surprising, therefore, that the NKVD arrested Sergey Korolev on the 27th of June, 1938 (as he was being released from hospital). Writing in the Russian-language book entitled ‘Father’ (Отец),  Natalia Korolev (Натальи Королевой) confirms that her father’s arrest had nothing to do with Glushko (or his bosses Kleymenova and Langemaka). Although Western narratives continuously assert that Sergey Korolev was arrested on ‘false charges’, this interpretation is incorrect – as Soviet-era records clearly show that Sergey Korolev was arrested with ‘no charges’ being levelled at him. It is interesting to note in passing, that in the opinion of Yaroslav Golovanov (Ярослава Голованова), in his book entitled ‘Korolev: Myths and Facts’ (Королев: факты и мифы), that Sergey Korolev had made an enemy of Kostikov – by standing in the way of him becoming the Director of Reactive Scientific Research Institute No. 3. Kostikov had been behind a number of reports implying that engineers had been involved in sabotage activates – but there is nothing in writing directly linking Kostilov to Korolev. Even so, biographer Georgiy Vetrov (Георгий Ветров), in his book entitled ‘SP Korolev and Cosmonautics’ (С.П. Королев и космонавтика), states that Korolev was ambitious to be in-charge of his own Institute – and was actively competing with Kostilov to influence the direction of jet engine design.

An intriguing clue as to the genius of Sergey Korolev is given by fellow employee Georgiy Vetro Leonid Dushkin (Георгий Ветро Леонид Душкин), who stated in an interview published in the Russian-language magazine entitled ‘Wings of the Motherland’ (Крылья родины), that one of the reasons for Korolev’s arrest, was that he had developed his own cruise missile device, as well as a rocket-propelled aeroplane. The engine did not use oxygen, but rather nitric acid (a development which Glushko knew about, but did not report). Again, it is assumed that whatever else was happening at Reactive Scientific Research Institute No. 3, it was a personal grudge held by Kostilov that led to Korolev being arrested. Yes, Korolev had broken protocols by acting without permission or direction, but on the other hand, he had demonstrated advanced ‘Socialist’ thinking in the service of the Soviet Union. This explains why the Soviet Authorities arrested Korolev without any ‘charge’ being given. He was removed from the obstructing influence of Kostilov, and within a highly disciplined and controlled technological environment, he was allowed to safely pursue his own developmental direction.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Russian Language Source:


The Fabricated Zinoniev Letter – How the British Establishment Brought-Down the 1924 Labour Party


Winston Churchill and His Close Personal Friend Major Desmond Morton

In the 1930’s, the conservative (bourgeois) establishment in the UK made much of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Indeed, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph continued to support Hitler’s policies and military adventures right up until the eve of war between the UK and Nazi Germany, whilst Winston Churchill made glowing written comments about Hitler, and the British royal family (including Queen Elizabeth II) were photographed making straight-armed (fascist) salutes! The rightwing proclivities of the British middle and upper classes are quite clear for all to see, and are active today in the British State’s support for the ‘Madan’ neo-Nazi government, currently active in Western Ukraine. What many are unaware of, however, is that whilst the conservative British establishment harps on about the merits of ‘liberal democracy’, it has historically behaved in a distinctly ‘illiberal’ and ‘non-democratic’ manner on a number of notable occasions.

The ‘minority’ Labour government of 1923 was established with the cooperation of the Liberals – this was the first Labour government and the Liberals only allowed it access to power as a means to discredit and bring-down this working class movement. In this respect, the Liberals were acting in concordance with the Conservatives and the British State. Just ten months later, the Labour Party (under Ramsey MacDonald) lost the October, 1924 General Election to a landslide Tory victory. In November, 1924, a delegation of British trade unions arrived in Moscow, and subsequently published a report stating that its representatives had studied the minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Comintern and had not found traces of anti-British activity. However, it is believed that the Labour Party was ousted from its tenuous grip on power by a plot perpetuated by White Russians, MI5, MI6, the Daily Mail, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, Winston Churchill and Major Desmond Morton (amongst many other colluding individuals in positions of power and influence). This notorious episode in British politics has become known as the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ scandal, but is highly disturbing in its non-democratic and rightwing nature. I am researching from contemporary Russian language sources, but include a short English language video for reference purposes.

Although the Soviet Union was allegedly involved in this plot to incite a Socialist Revolution in the UK (by exporting the idea of armed worker uprisings via the various branches of the Communist Party), very little direct reference is made in Western sources to Soviet thoughts on this matter. Georgy Zinoniev (1883-1936) was the head of the ‘Communist International’ (i.e. ‘Comintern’) during the 1920’s, which served as the coordinating hub for all the Communist Parties of the world. Georgy Zinoniev (originally supported Joseph Stalin against Trotsky’s attempt to bring-down the Soviet System (following Lenin’s death in 1924), but slowly gravitated toward the Trotskyite Insurgency after this date.  This ideological about-face eventually led to his arrest, trial and execution for ‘Treason’ in 1936. However, in September, 1924, the British MI6 stated that one of its operatives (in Latvia) had been handed a letter signed by Georgy Zinoniev on behalf of the Comintern, which was directed toward the Communist Party of Great Britain, and suggested that the Labour Party could be used to incite an armed uprising in the UK. The letter was handed to the British MI5, and subsequently found its way to Ramsey MacDonald – the Labour Prime Minister. However, British Secret Intelligence Services also took matters into their own hands (despite being instructed by the Prime Minister to keep this letter ‘secret’), and distributed copies to the heads of the army and navy, as well as to the rightwing press and various other establishment figures – without the knowledge or consent of the British Labour Prime Minister. The motivation for this underhand (and non-democratic) activity stemmed from the Labour Party’s willingness to recognise the existence of the Soviet Union, and enter into formal trade agreements.

As the Labour Party struggled to hold on to power, the rightwing and racist British newspaper the Daily Mail published the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ under the alarmist headline ‘Civil War Plot by Socialist Masters’ four days before the 1924 General Election (on the 25.10.1924). The Daily Mail falsely stated that if the UK became a Socialist State, it would directly fund the development of the USSR. In the meantime, in the Soviet Union an investigation was underway with Georgy Zinoniev denying any involvement and pointing-out obvious structural and rhetorical errors in the text. The Soviet Government had not issued any orders for such a letter to have been written, and it was proven through investigation that Georgy Zinoniev had not written this letter. Despite Soviet denials, and the fact that Georgy Zinoniev wrote an open letter exposing the fake letter that carried his name, the British press conspired not to publish Zinoniev’s ‘real’ letter until a month after the 1924 General Election. By that time the Tories had won power and had cancelled all previous diplomatic and trade agreements with the USSR, and nobody in the government was listening. In 1925, however, the German Language newspaper entitled ‘Red Flag’ published an article exposing the White Russian emigre named ‘Sergei Druzhilovsky’ (Сергей Дружиловский), who was immediately expelled from Germany. In 1926 he was arrested by the Soviet Border Guards after illegally crossing the Latvian-Soviet border. After an open trial held in Moscow (by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR) Sergei Druzhilovsky was sentenced to be shot. Soviet sources make it very clear that the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ episode in the UK was the work of intelligence operative Major Desmond Morton, and that in the shadows behind him was the nefarious Winston Churchill.

The original letter was discovered in 1965, resulting in a book-investigation entitled ‘Zinoviev’s Letter’ and written by three journalists of the British newspaper The Sunday Times.  In February, 1968, The Sunday Times published an article stating that photocopies of the original ‘Zinoniev Letter’ had been inexplicably found in the archives of Harvard University. The graphological analysis carried-out by the expert John Conway, suggested that the hand-writing within the ‘letter’ belonged to the British spy Sidney Reilly, who thus also was involved in fabricating the fake letter. Interestingly, Soviet Intelligence lured Sidney Reilly into the USSR in 1925, under the pretension of him contacting a fictitious anti-Soviet underground movement. Two stories then compete for attention, one is that Sidney Reilly was ‘shot’ for spying, whilst the other story suggests that he changed sides and started spying for the USSR. In the late 1990’s, Robin Cook, Foreign Minister of the Labour Government of Tony Blair, ordered the opening of certain archives. According to these files, the Zinoniev Letter was transferred to the Riga residence (in Latvia) by a Russian emigrant from Berlin, who earned money by creating such fakes. The research was conducted by Dr. Jill Bennett, and although placating the British establishment (whilst ‘hinting’ at impropriety), it nevertheless falsely claims that the exact identity of the original forger cannot be known. This demonstrates how the Labour Party had moved to the right, and how it was willing to ‘ignore’ the Soviet research on this subject.

Perhaps a lasting testimony to the corruption of the bourgeois British State and the Conservative Party, lies in the Labour Party’s rejection of true Socialism, and the 1925 pogrom aimed at the 12 leading Members of the Communist Party of Great Britain by the Tories, all of whom were put on trial and found guilty of seditious libel and incitement to mutiny – before being sentenced to various prison terms. All this was allowed to happen due to the anti-Socialist (and anti-Russian) atmosphere created in the UK by the fake ‘Zinoniev Letter’.


Of course, this entire episode is bizarre and indicative of an inverted bourgeois mind-set. Why would a letter addressed to the headquarters of the CPGB situated in London, be ‘discovered’ in Latvia? Logic dictates that if it was genuine, it would have been openly published by the Comintern and thereby made public. The Comintern made no secret of its Marxist-Leninist ideology, or the idea of its preference for a world-wide Socialist Revolution. However, such a Revolution arises from indigenous and spontaneous Workers’ Movements, and cannot be imposed ‘from above’ so to speak (as the fake ‘Zinoniev Letter’ and distorting bourgeois rhetoric suggests).

Russian Language Reference:


Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution (2017) – Trust in the Communist Party!


The USSR lives on in memory and in material fact. It collapsed from the combined pressures of Trotsky, Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Western capitalism. What the USSR represented – as the first Workers’ State – is a tremendously powerful psychological and physical image that serves as a rallying point for millions of oppressed peoples around the globe. The 1917 October Revolution will always be significant because it signalled the successful rising of the Working Class and the smashing of predatory capitalism! Although there is much lying and disinformation in the West about the USSR, nevertheless, the internet allows opportunities to study that by-pass the bourgeois educational facilities, and which allows individuals and groups to find more reliable and authentic sources of information. The Cold War lies are still very much in operation, but as time goes by, and the work of people like Grover Furr, Andrew Alexander and Alexander Werth (and many others), become better known, the wholesome truth about the USSR (and its vital importance for the evolution of humanity) will move ever more to the fore-front of general perception. This positive counter-swing is strengthened by the presence of the Collected Works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (amongst others) being readily (and freely) available on the internet. As usual, the greatest challenges above and beyond the confrontation with predatory capitalism for the Communist Party is that of successfully countering Trotskyism (i.e. ‘pseudo-Socialism’), and the crippling forces of revisionism from the left. There is a wealth of legitimate proletariat literature available in the public domain which must be logically studied from a Scientific Socialist point of view. Even if certain ‘expedient’ compromises must be made with the Bourgeois State on the surface (due to prevailing socio-economic conditions), the true (and non-inverted) underpinnings of Marxist-Leninism must always serve as the dialectical ‘prime mover’ of any Communist Movement. The Working Class must always trust the Communist Party which is a collective expression of its proletariat ‘will’. The Communist Party came to power through a wave of Revolutionary activity in 1917 – and the same Communist Party exists throughout the world today, always representing and leading the ordinary people, and continuously agitating against the capitalist system. The ‘Communist Party’ in principle did not begin with the 1917 Russian Revolution, and did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is an ongoing and unfolding process of historical materialism. Trust in the Communist Party and support it with all your proletariat being!

Joseph Stalin as Proletarian Fact


If an individual walks into an average book-shop in the UK, around 80%-90% of all books available pertaining to cover Soviet history, will not be worth the paper they are printed upon. This is because these books carry the preferred ‘capitalist’ interpretation of Soviet history, which whilst packaging its content as ‘history’, is in fact a tissue of lies. This is not a matter of opinion whereby this observation needs to be debated, but rather is a matter of provable fact. The preferred capitalist narrative is nothing but an ‘ahistorical’ exercise in Trotskyite ‘disinformation’, one that is easily dispelled through even a cursory attempt to establish the observable facts. A particular vitriol is reserved for the biographies of Joseph Stalin – which are by and large fictionalised diatribes containing no academic merit. The problem is that young or impressionable people who are genuinely seeking-out knowledge about the USSR and Joseph Stalin run into this wall of institutional lies and deceit. It is better to carry-out more indepth research before subjecting the human-mind to this kind of bourgeois brain-washing. Seek-out books and articles that expose people like Trotsky, Khrushchev and Orwell, and learn to discern the difference between a proletarian fact and a bourgeois lie. Learn to understand the Cold War mentality in the West, and its facade will come tumbling down. Dialectical truth can be found in the strangest of places (take Andrew Alexander’s ‘America and the Imperialism of Ignorance: US Foreign Policy Since 1945’, for instance), and when assessing the place of Joseph Stalin in world history it is logical to begin with his Collected Works (available ‘free’ online). This research must also coincide with a study of the collective psychology of the USA, which exposes its immature and violent nature. Remember that Joseph Stalin was a great Socialist leader who represented the Working Class in a very strong and robust manner – this explains why the capitalist West hates him, and seeks to sully his good historical reputation with bizarre lies delivered through the agency of rightwing mythology. Communists use logic and reason to progress society and to develop their characters – this is what Joseph Stalin did – and this is how a progressive student of history should behave. The lies about the USSR and Joseph Stalin must not be confronted with bourgeois sentimentalism, but rather countered with the strict use of proletarian fact. This is the manner in which Joseph Stalin handled an ever increasingly hostile USA and belligerent West under its control and influence. It is also the basis of the manner in which Joseph Stalin led the USSR in its decisive war against Nazi Germany. Do not be afraid of stating proletariat fact, after-all it is part of the process of establishing the truth. Of course, the capitalists and the Trotskyites will ‘knee-jerk’ respond with simply re-stating their lies – as if the exercise of the agency of ‘repetition’ somehow adds ‘truth’ and ‘gravitas’ to their fallacious arguments. In reality a Trotskyite lie only has to be exposed once, even if those brain-washed by Trotskyite ideology feel the need to ‘repeat’ that lie. Remember that capitalism and Trotskyism are actually ‘cult-mentalities’, within which people are psychologically and physically ‘trapped’. See this situation clearly for what it is, and relay this understanding to the Working Class. If dialectical truth can be firmly established, then the millions of words used by liars will come tumbling down – this is the nature of Scientific Socialism.

Expunging Trotsky from ‘Socialist’ History – a Dialectical Necessity


‘The whole foundations of Leninism at the present time is built on lying and falsification and carries within itself the poisoned element of its own disintegration.’ (1)

Even before he was expelled for treasonous activities from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky’s distorted version of ‘Socialism’ had attracted the attention of the anti-Soviet ideologues in the USA. Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that after WWII, what had by then become referred to as ‘Trotskyism’ was used as the basis for the US anti-Soviet (and anti-Communist) Cold War rhetoric. This is why most people are confused by ‘Trotskyism’ and the many organisations that follow his anti-Soviet ideology – whilst still insisting on calling themselves ‘Socialist’. Trotsky, for many, is known the wrong way around back to front, and in many ways ‘ahistorically’. What must be understood is that Trotsky was not a true Revolutionary, but rather a political ‘opportunist’ of the worst kind. He temporarily aligned himself with Revolutionary Movements to further his own political career, and as a means for him to attain influence and personal power at any cost. In this regard, he certainly was not a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist, and had no theoretical interest in those ideologies.

Trotsky was criticised by Lenin – and later by Stalin – for continuously failing to understand and interpret history from a Marxist perspective. This led to Trotsky attempting to undermine the hard-earned Soviet System from within, by advocating a thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ counter-revolution, with himself at the helm. For this treachery, he (and many of his followers) were expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 – but a number of his followers remained behind ‘undetected’ within the Soviet System to spread their particular brand of ‘unrest’ and ‘discontent’. Many, as the years went by, attempted acts of sabotage against the Soviet State, destroying technology and machinery, and interfering with scientific research. Some even attempted to undermine the morale of the Red Army, and turn its officers against the Soviet State it had helped to build.

As Trotsky became the darling of the West, he attracted a great attention from the supporters of capitalism – which included many members of the rightwing and far-right political establishment in America, Europe and Asia.  This inspired Trotsky to actively call for all of his supposedly ‘Socialist’ supporters to enter into an alliance with Nazi Germany and fascist Imperialist Japan in 1938, and work to over-throw the Soviet Union AND the liberal democracies of the West! A year before (in 1937), many of Trotsky’s ‘sleeper cells’ in the USSR had become active, and were immediately identified by the NKVD and ‘neutralised’. This policing action was necessary to prevent what would today be interpreted as a comprehensive ‘terrorist’ attack on a sovereign government and the country it administers. If Trotsky had been successful, the Soviet Union would have collapsed prior to WWII, and the Red Army would not have existed to confront and eventually destroy the military forces of Nazi Germany.

As it is now the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution (2017), it is important that Trotsky is nolonger viewed as a legitimate ‘Revolutionary’, and that his path of ideology (which he and his followers deceptively term ‘Socialism’), not be associated with either Marxism-Engelsism, or Marxism-Leninism. Trotsky’s work must be historically ‘re-oriented’ and removed from the glittering history of Revolutionary Struggle, and placed firmly within the realms of capitalist-supporting, bourgeois counter-revolutionary thought. Trotsky’s duplicity cost the lives of immeasurable numbers of people due to the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union – despite this beginning a year after Trotsky’s death. Presumably Hitler was of the opinion that Trotsky’s followers had carried-out enough damage to the infrastructure of the USSR, and that the time was now ripe to invade. Of course, the distorted history of the capitalist West blames all this on Stalin – as Trotsky demanded. Indeed, in 1925, just one year after the death of Lenin, the US Time magazine already began to exhibit the interfering-style of developed US Cold War rhetoric – by implying that Trotsky (and his ‘distorted’ Socialism) should now run the USSR – over Joseph Stalin. The myth here, is that Soviet citizens did not vote. In fact, ‘voting’ in a proletariat society is a central activity to every citizen’s life, but of course, proletariat democracy is not liberal democracy, and does not favour or privilege the bourgeoisie. The point continuously omitted in Trotskyite accounts of the USSR, is that from 1924 until his death in 1953, Comrade Stalin was continuously re-elected into office – despite trying to resign ‘twice’ after 1945. The citizenry of the USSR was organised around the trade union model, where from lowest to the highest in society – everyone voted for representatives on numerous committees. This organisational model did allow the bourgeoisie to manifest and/or exercise power within a Socialist society. Trotsky wanted to reverse this Revolutionary change, and allow the resurgence of capitalism in the USSR, and along with it the predatory capitalist system.

The very idea that Stalin had millions, or hundreds of thousands sent to the gulags – and/or executed – is an ‘ahistorical’ lie perpetuated by Leon Trotsky and his followers. Alexander Werth was a British BBC correspondent who was of Russian parentage. He was with the Red Army virtually throughout the entirety of the ‘Great Patriotic War’ (1941-1945), and was allowed at the frontline. During August, 1944, Alexander Werth was with the Red Army when it liberated the Majdanek Concentration Camp in Poland – built by the Nazi Germans. His initial reports to the BBC in London were the first to reach the allies regarding the Nazi German holocaust of the Jews and other minorities. Winston Churchill, still looking for ways of absolving the Hitlerite regime, had Werth’s reports quashed – stating that they were Soviet lies about Nazi Germany. As a result, Werth spent much of his later life repudiating US and UK anti-Soviet propaganda, proving it to be ‘untrue’. In 1959, Werth visited the Soviet Union once again, and met-up with a number of American friends who lived and worked in the USSR. As incredible as it seems, and despite the rabid anti-Soviet propaganda in the US, American people still travelled to the USSR, with some making their homes there. When Werth asked one or two prominent Americans about the supposed ‘purges’ of the late 1930’s, he was usually met with laughter! The general consensus was that a Trotskyite plot was uncovered that involved around 10,000 traitors. Many were sent to prison, whilst a minority were executed for treason. There were not hundred of thousands, or millions of people involved – Trotsky was just not that popular in the USSR – where life was very good for most people!

The Nazi German holocaust cost the lives of around 11 million people (6 million Jews, and 5 millions of other ethnicities, political and sexual orientations, the disabled, and anyone who disagreed with fascism). Meanwhile, Imperial Japan is estimated to have caused around 60 million deaths in China, a figure that does not include those killed throughout other parts of Asia by Japanese troops. When the Nazi German forces invaded the Soviet Union, between 27-40 million casualties were suffered (both military and civilian). The conquered Ukraine area of the USSR saw some of the worst Nazi German excesses of the holocaust – aided and abetted by a minority of rightist Ukrainians – the political (and in some cases ‘biological’) descendents of whom comprise the contemporary ‘Madan’ neo-Nazi government of Western Ukraine. All this anti-Socialist death and destruction is exactly the political policies that Trotsky advised his followers to embrace in 1938. A question worth asking is why the Trotskyite Movement today, remains entirely ‘free’ of any criticism from the bourgeois press. The answer, of course, is that the Trotskyites support capitalism, and are not averse to fascism, or fascist atrocity.

(1) Trotksy’s (1913) letter to the Georgian Menshevik Chkheidze – quote reproduced in EH Carr’s ‘The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923’, MacMillan, (1950), Page 63. Carr explains that this letter was intercepted by the Czarist Authorities and only discovered in the Archives after the 1917 Revolution. This letter was used against Trotsky after Lenin’s death (in 1924), when Trotsky was presenting himself as the ‘natural’ air to Lenin’s ideological leadership.

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.

%d bloggers like this: