How Lenin Still Claims the Antarctic!


In 1956, the Soviet Union despatched the 2nd Soviet Antarctic Expedition to the most remote and coldest area of the Antarctic, where temperatures are known to drop to as low as −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; or 184.0 K) – this is the ‘naturally’ coldest place on earth – permanent frosts and wind-speeds of around 100 mph. The Soviets established the ‘Vostok’ Research Station (led by VS Sidorov) on December 16th, 1957, situated around 1,300 km (800 mi) from the Geographic South Pole, at the centre of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (which lays within Australian Antarctic Territory). However, as a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty System, Australia does not exercise sovereignty over this territory. The name ‘Vostok’ simply means ‘East’ in the Russian language, and refers to the name of the Russian ‘sloop’ vessel that lead the 1st Russian (i.e. Czarist’) Expedition to the Antarctic (1819-1821). The Soviet intention was to further science through ice-drilling, and magnetometry – which is the scientific measuring and mapping of patterns of magnetism in the soil. Ancient activity, (particularly burning), leaves magnetic traces that can be detected today, with the right equipment. Other studies included actinometry, geophysics, medicine and climatology.


The expedition took a statue of Lenin that was placed outside on a raised platform – representing the principle of Communist Revolution and the development and practice of Proletariat Science. This research station has been occupied more or less continuously by the Russian scientific establishment, and despite the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Lenin has been left to look-out over the vast, snowy expanse, as if still claiming the area for Soviet Science.


Russian Video: Station “Vostok”. On the threshold of life. Documentary

Russian Language Sources:Восток_(антарктическая_станция)


George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Zionism and the Misrepresentation of the USSR


Inquiry Call After Israeli Agent Plot To ‘Take Down’ MPs

As usual, I make the disclaimer that I respect and admire George Galloway and Ken Livingstone as a solid men of the left, and in the case of George Galloway – as a friend of China. I also agree with George Galloway regarding the matter of Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah. These two Labour politicians have been the victims of Zionist forces at work not only within British society, but also within the very heart of the British political system and governance. Zionism in reality, has nothing to do with Judaism or Judaic theology, but is an expression of the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’ as adopted by non-religious and secular Jews living in Western Europe (specifically Germany) during the 19th century. Why did certain secular Jewish intellectuals side with the very European fascism, that for centuries had made life a living nightmare for most Jewish people? The answer lies in the fact that those secular Jews who perceived themselves as ‘White’, decided to ‘side’ with the White (non-Jewish) community, and emphasis their racially superior ‘Whiteness’, over what the fascists termed their ‘inferior’ Judaic culture. Of course, this whole-sale conversion to White Supremacy facilitated a ‘rejection’ of religious Judaism and the thinking connected with Judaic theology, but retained a link to Judaism as distorted through Eurocentric ‘nationalism’. For the White Supremacist Jews, their Jewish heritage served as the basis for a ‘new’ type of ‘Zionist’ nationalism that sought to usurp the authority of the rabbis, and supersede the dominance of traditional theology within Jewish culture, society and politics. Zionism intended to re-interpret Jewish existence along Eurocentric, nationalist lines, and racialised myth-building. The average Jewish person was now depicted not necessarily as a ‘chosen’ person as defined by god, but rather as a ‘superior’ person as defined by ‘biology’, or more specifically ‘genetics’. This is the philosophical ‘Zionist’ underpinnings of the modern State of Israel, and the justifying ideology that is used daily in the persecution and murder of the (non-White) Palestinian people. This explains why many ‘religious’ Jews reject Israel and its ideology as a form of ‘blasphemy’, or radical and unnecessary departure from the Jewish scripture.

An Al Jazeera investigation into Labour Party funding has recently revealed that donations from Israel amounting to £1million was forwarded to Zionist-supporting MPs within the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), as a means to disrupt Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to power, and effectively remove him as Labour Party Leader. This Israeli Zionist interference in British democracy is alarming enough, but the fact that a British Asian woman (Naz Shah) can be persecuted within the Labour Party at the whim of a foreign ‘White’ and ‘racist’ power defies belief!  Ken Livingstone, as a key supporter of Jeremy Corbyn was targeted by the Labour Party Zionist because such ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ fervently reject the notion of British Socialism, and prefer a right of centre, Zionist-supporting Labour Party, Furthermore, the Israeli Zionists want desperately to prevent Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister of Britain, because he has promised to ‘recognise’ the State of Palestine, and hold Israel responsible for its continuous terrorist atrocities, land grabbing, and intimidation against the Palestinians and their supporters.

Whilst defending Ken Livingstone, George Galloway went from one interview to another, continuously pointing-out the Zionist distortion of history, and educating the general public as to the ‘true’ history and nature of Israeli Zionism. However, one tactic that he used involved comparing Soviet Russia to Zionist Israel – stating that wanting to free the Russian people from Soviet Communism was not an expression of ‘race-hate’ toward the Russian people, just as wanting to free the ‘Semitic’ people (both Arab and non-Arab) from the dominance of ‘Zionism’ was not the practice of ‘race-hate’ (i.e. ‘anti-Semitism’) toward Jewish people! Both Ken Livingstone and George Galloway even deployed this argument whilst being interviewed on Russia Today – much to the surprise and shock of the host! The irony here, is that RT’s naturally ‘left of centre’ perspective, has given George Galloway ample air time with little or no interference, whilst he also appears regularly on the Russian chat-show ‘Sputnik’.  Why would George Galloway compare the ‘fascist’ ideology of Zionism, with the Scientific Socialism of the Soviet Union – particularly given the fact that the USSR lost between 30 – 40 million men, women and children fighting Nazi Germany during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945)? This is a particularly disturbing analogy, as much of the Jewish holocaust was perpetuated in the Soviet Union by the occupying Nazi German forces (particularly in the Ukraine), and was only ‘stopped’ when the Soviet Red Army eventually managed to roll-back the Hitlerite monolith and ‘liberate’ vast areas of the USSR from Nazi German control. In this instance, George Galloway’s attitude (and that of Ken Livingstone) reveal the depth of disrespect that is evident within the British left for the Soviet Union and the sacrifice of the Soviet people – a sacrifice that helped ‘save’ the UK from Nazi German occupation and subjugation.

How Churchill Stole the ‘Socialist’ Home Guard


International Brigades Memorial Trust (UK)

Marx Memorial Library

Tom Wintringham – How an Oxford Communist Founded the Home Guard

During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Churchill remained resolutely opposed to any British support (either official or unofficial) for the democratically elected (and overtly ‘Socialist’) Republican government, which was under-siege and fighting a rear-guard action against a fascist insurgency led by General Franco (whose forces received financial and material aid from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy). Only the Soviet Union (and the International Communist Movement under the guidance of Joseph Stalin) came to the aid the legitimate Republican Spanish government. To this end, the USSR backed the formation, arming and training of the ‘International Brigades’, which were comprised entirely of ‘volunteers’ from around the world, often (but not always) recruited through the various Branches of the Communist Party. One such British individual was Oxford graduate and Communist Party of Great Britain Member – Tom Wintringham  (1898-1949) – who not only fought bravely and demonstrated excellent leadership skills in Spain, but upon his return to the UK was instrumental in founding the original ‘Home Guard’, which was intended to be organised around Socialist principles (recruiting both men and women in the hundreds of thousands), with its units trained to defend local (and familiar) terrain using defensive guerilla war tactics, designed to slow down an invading enemy, and give the much smaller professional British Army time to deploy and manoeuvre. However, since at least 1938, Winston Churchill had been taking measures to officially persecute any British men and women returning to the UK, who had fought in the Spanish Civil War, often ensuring they lost not only their jobs, but also their Union Membership and their right to join the professional British military forces (even under ‘conscription’). Churchill viewed his policy as preventing the British Armed forces from being taken-over by what he feared was a growing ‘Socialist insurgency’ in the UK. Meanwhile, Tom Wintringham (together with other Veterans of the Spanish Civil War), had begun training a ‘People’s Army’ on private property as a means to resist the Hitlerite invasion of the UK when it finally arrived, only to have Winston Churchill ‘outlaw’ any such ‘paramilitary’ activity anywhere in the UK. This was followed by British military officials taking over the command and administration of the fledgling ‘Home Guard’ and forcibly taking it out of the hands of Wintringham and his fellow Socialists (using the threat of arrest and detention). Winston Churchill then ordered that a ‘new’ history be fabricated for the ‘Home Guard’, one that expunged all references to ‘Socialism’, and which accredited himself with its invention. Part of this propaganda coup was to present the Home Guard as a second rate and slightly incompetent military formation which although necessary in time of war, probably did not stand much of a chance against professional armed forces. (This attitude has been preserved in the much loved British comedy ‘Dad’s Army’). However, history demonstrates that wherever People’s Armies have took to the field, their truly ‘democratic’ nature has replaced the usual ‘fascistic’ and ‘hierarchical’ traditions of the conventional military, have had no problems recruiting, and been proven highly effective on the battlefield. Winston Churchill understood that should such a ‘People’s Army’ be allowed to thrive and grow on the British Mainland, and if it was ever victorious in battle against the forces of International Fascism, then it could also be used as a ‘van guard’ to establish a Socialist Revolution in the UK.

Further Reading:

Unlikely Warriors: The British in the Spanish Civil War and the Struggle Against Fascism: By Richard Baxell


Successful Corbyn Drives Political Rightwing into a Tight Corner!


The misled Scottish people turn to the racist Tories to cement their sovereignty and their freedom, the racist Tories turn to the equally racist, homophobic and terroristic DUP to legitimise Theresa May’s electoral failure, and the bias BBC have just asked Jeremy Corbyn to resign – but remains absolutely ‘silent’ about the dangerous political lurch to the right by the British political establishment! This fascistic insanity maybe added to the general mainstream media (such as the radio channel LBC) claiming that if only Jeremy Corbyn was not the leader of the Labour Party, and a more moderate (i.e. ‘capitalist supporting’) Candidate was in his place, then Labour would have won an outright majority – completely ignoring the historical fact that the Labour Party had already (and unsuccessfully) tried this compromising approach with Ed Miliband in 2015! What is happening is that the middle class is flexing its political muscle – and has been doing so since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 – completely unafraid of the consequences of its own (often illegal or unlawful) behaviour. The USSR offered a tangible threat to the Western Bourgeoisie which nolonger exists, whilst a vicious, ruthless and relentless racist campaign against Communist China ensures that the Western Working Class imbues these anti-Chinese racist attitudes, and does not ideologically associate itself with the Chinese proletariat. In fact, so successful has this racially motivated campaign been that its attitudes have become associated with logic, and are equally pervasive as much on the political left as on the political right.  This lurch to the right can be easily discerned across Europe (with the EU’s anti-Socialist agenda), and the rise of Donald Trump in the US. It may well be safe to say that only Jeremy Corbyn now genuinely represents the Socialist position within mainstream politics, and that the British establish will try anything to get rid of him in anyway that it can. I think the Tory position amounts to ‘do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain’! I think there is now a distinct possibility of race riots developing on the British streets, if the British people do not put a stop to this madness!

JV Stalin: On Why the Communist Party is Not Like an Army (1923)


JV Stalin – UK

In my article in Pravda (No. 285) “The Discussion, Rafail, etc.” I said that according to a statement Ra-fail made at a meeting in the Presnya District “our Party has practically been turned into an army organisation, its discipline is army discipline and, in view of this, it is necessary to shake up the entire Party apparatus from top to bottom, because it is unfit.” Concerning this, Rafail says in his article in Pravda that I did not correctly convey his views, that I “simplified” them “in the heat of debate,” and so forth. Ra-fail says that he merely drew an analogy (comparison) between the Party and an army, that analogy is not identity. “The system of administration in the Party is analogous to the system of administration in an army—this does not mean,” he says, “that it is an exact copy; it only draws a parallel.”

Is Rafail right?

No. And for the following reasons.

First. In his speech at the meeting in the Presnya District, Rafail did not simply compare the Party with an army, as he now asserts, but actually identified it with an army, being of the opinion that the Party is built on the lines of an army. I have before me the verbatim report of Rafail’s speech, revised by the speaker. There it is stated: “Our entire Party is built on the lines of an army from top to bottom.” It can scarcely be denied that we have here not simply an analogy, but an identification of the Party’s structure with that of an army; the two are placed on a par.

Can it be asserted that our Party is built on the lines of an army? Obviously not, for the Party is built from below, on the voluntary principle; it is not materially dependent on its General Staff, which the Party elects. An army, however, is, of course, built from above, on the basis of compulsion; it is completely dependent materially upon its General Staff, which is not elected, but appointed from above. Etc., etc.

Secondly. Rafail does not simply compare the system of administration in the Party with that in an army, but puts one on a par with the other, identifies them, without any “verbal frills.” This is what he writes in his article: “We assert that the system of administration in the Party is identical with the system of administration in an army not on any extraneous grounds, but on the basis of an objective analysis of the state of the Party.” It is impossible to deny that here Rafail does not confine himself to drawing an analogy between the administration of the Party and that of an army, for he “simply” identifies them, “without verbal frills.”

Can these two systems of administration be identified? No, they cannot; for the system of administration in an army, as a system, is incompatible with the very nature of the Party and with its methods of influencing both its own members and the non-Party masses.

Thirdly. Rafail asserts in his article that, in the last analysis, the fate of the Party as a whole, and of its individual members, depends upon the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee, that “the members of the Party are regarded as mobilised, the Registration and Distribution Department puts everybody in his job, nobody has the slightest right to choose his work, and it is the Registration and Distribution Department, or ‘General Staff,’ that determines the amount of supplies, i.e., pay, form of work, etc.” Is all this true? Of course not! In peace time, the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee usually deals in the course of a year with barely eight to ten thousand people. We know from the Central Committee’s report to the Twelfth Congress of the R.C.P. that, in 1922, the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee dealt with 10,700 people (i.e., half the number it dealt with in 1921). If from this number we subtract 1,500 people sent by their local organisations to various educational institutions, and the people who went on sick leave (over 400), there remain something over 8,000. Of these, the Central Committee, in the course of the year, distributed 5,167 responsible workers (i.e., less than half of the total number dealt with by the Registration and Distribution Department). But at that time the Party as a whole had not 5,000, and not 10,000, but about 500,000 members, the bulk of whom were not, and could not, be affected by the distribution work of the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee. Evidently, Rafail has forgotten that in peace time the Central Committee usually distributes only responsible workers, that the Registration and Distribution Department of the Central Committee does not, cannot, and should not, determine the “pay” of all the members of the Party, who now number over 400,000. Why did Rafail have to exaggerate in this ridiculous way? Evidently, in order to prove “with facts” the “identity” between the system of administration in the Party and that in an army. Such are the facts.

That is why I thought, and still think, that Ra-fail “is not clear in his mind about what the Party and what an army is.”

As regards the passages Rafail quotes from the decisions of the Tenth Congress, they have nothing to do with the present case, for they apply only to the survivals of the war period in our Party and not to the alleged “identity between the system of administration in the Party and that in an army.”

Rafail is right when he says that mistakes must be corrected, that one must not persist in one’s mistakes. And that is precisely why I do not lose hope that Rafail will, in the end, correct the mistakes he has made.

Pravda, No. 294, December 28, 1923

JV Stalin: Collected Works Volume V – A Necessary Comment –
(Concerning Rafail) – December 28, 1923 – Pages 398-401

Soviet Red Army Crushes Waffen SS – the Battle for Budapest (26.12.1944-13.2.1945)


Soviet Red Army liberates Budapest 

Soviet Press Statement (21.12.1944):

‘At the beginning of December, under the chairmanship of Dr Vasary, the mayor of Debrecen, a group was formed of representatives of the different Hungarian parties… In liberated territory the election of delegates to the Provisional National Assembly took place between December 13 and 20. 230 delegates were elected, representing the democratic parties, the town and village councils and the trade and peasant unions… The Assembly opened with the playing of the Hungarian National Anthem. The meeting was held in the Reformation College where, in 1849, Kossuth proclaimed the independence of Hungary…

An Address to the Hungarian People was adopted which said:

It is time to make peace. Salasi is an usurper,,, We call upon the Hungarian people to rally to the banners of Kossuth and Rakoszi and to follow in the footsteps of the Honweds (volunteer militia) of 1848. We want a democratic Hungary. We guarantee the inviolability of private property as the basis of our social and economic order. We want Land Reform… Turn your arms against the German oppressors and help the Red Army… for the good of a Free and Democratic Hungary!’

(Russia at War 1941-1945: By Alexander Werth [1964] Pages 909-910)

Hitler’s Nazi German regime was assisted in its widespread (highly destructive and genocidal) invasion of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, all of which had acquired politically rightwing governments. Nazi Germany was also assisted with supplies of oil and other raw materials by Sweden, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Vichy France and fascist Italy. The so-caked ‘Axis’ powers (of which there were many), coalesced around the 1936 ‘Anti-Comintern Pact’, an agreement between various rightwing countries to jointly resist the spread of ‘International Communism’. Therefore, it can be said that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was a direct manifestation of the pursuance of this pact, an act of aggression which was assisted by a number of Axis powers. Over-all, contemporary estimates suggest that around 34 million Soviet men, women and children died during the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, and the application of the Hitlerite ‘final solution’. Hitler had declared the the Slavic people to be racially inferior, and their embracing of Communist ideology to be a confirmation of this fact. To remedy this problem, Hitler demanded nothing less than the eradication of the Slavic people and their Communist ideology.

As the tide of war changed, and the Soviet Red Army started to push the Nazi German invaders out of the USSR, it became necessary to pursue the retreating Germans all the way to Berlin to ensure the complete defeat of the Nazi regime. Whilst pursuing this anti-fascist policy, the countries that had collaborated with Nazi Germany had to be invaded and ‘liberated’ from their fascist governments and Nazi German occupiers. As can be gleamed from the Soviet Press statement (above), the Soviet Authorities implemented ‘democratic’ elections, so that the ordinary citizens of countries such as Hungary, could choose a non-fascist political path. By and large, the ordinary citizens of such countries, (i.e. the ‘workers’), were treated as ‘victims’ of fascism, rather than its perpetuators.

On October 21st, 1944, the Soviet Red Army (under Malinovksy) entered and took Debrecen in eastern Hungary. Although the Red Army advance into Hungary was rapid at first, it was soon slowed by stiff (fascist) Hungarian and Nazi German resistance. This resistance increased as the Red Army fought inch by inch toward Budapest in November. In early December (1944), Hitler met with the fascist Hungarian leader Salasi in Berlin, where it was agreed that Budapest must be held at all costs (although behind the scenes, many of its industries were already being re-located to Austria). As part of this deal, Hitler allocated around 23,000 well-equipped and highly motivated troops of the Waffen SS to defend Budapest (and possibly turn the tide of the battle). These units were essentially heavily armed and highly politically motivated annihilation squads (being considered racially ‘pure’ by Hitler), whose motto was ‘Give Death and Take Death’. These men were not ordinary soldiers, and their training was designed to embody a certain ‘mindless’ brutality that existed outside of the traditions of the conventional German military. Surrender was out of the question as was taking prisoners or providing medical care to wounded enemy soldiers. In fact, the Waffen SS often tortured the enemy wounded to death, considering it a sport to invent ever more painful methods. These troops were under the direct command of Adolf Hitler himself (being considered his personal bodyguard), and were trained to believe that they personally represented the ideological foundation of the fascist ideology of National Socialism. As racially pure Aryans, these men received the best clothing, training, food, housing and weaponry, and were treated with the utmost respect (and fear) within German society. As an embodiment of ‘Nazism’, Hitler believed that these racially superior beings, entirely through an act of will, could defeat the military might of the Red Army, and in so doing trigger a collapse of its Communist ideology (bringing down the USSR from within).

The 50 day Battle for Budapest was to test this hypothesis. Around 23,000 racially pure Waffen SS troops were to spear-head the defence of Budapest and inflict a debilitating defeat upon the Red Army. By comparison, Red Army soldiers, whose motto was ‘Free the Workers!’ was comprised of ordinary men and women from the length and breadth of the vast Soviet Union. As such, they were ethnically diverse, and represented no particular race. They pursued Socialist Revolution every time they fought – freeing the oppressed workers from the tyranny of capitalism and fascism. The average Red Army soldier was selfless, supportive of his fellow Comrades, and willing to self-sacrifice to save others. These soldiers were not racially superior, did not pursue any form of fascist ideology, and were motivated by a broad non-racial ‘Internationalism’, rather than by a narrow fascistic ‘Nationalism’, and yet in the space of around 7 weeks, these quite ‘ordinary’ Communist soldiers encircled and then systematically ‘destroyed’ the 23,000 fanatical Waffen SS soldiers – killing 19,000 in the fighting! The fascist forces of Budapest surrendered on the 13th of February, 1945, and Hungary was finally liberated.

The following documentary explains who the Waffen SS were – and how they were deployed during WWII. Comprised of around 900,000 at their peak, toward the end of the war (as casualties mounted), Hitler allowed non-Germans to join, such as French, Swedes and Danes. In fact, as the Nazi regime collapsed under Soviet pressure, around 90% of the Waffen SS units defending Hitler in Berlin near the end, were comprised of foreigners who fanatically fought to the bitter end. Allowing non-Germans into the Waffen SS was thought by certain Nazi Germans as ‘weakening’ the spiritual strength of these units, and therefore lowering their fighting efficiency. However, Hitler gambled with some of his best (racially pure) Waffen SS regiments in Budapest – and despite their assumed ‘spiritual strength’, they were systematically destroyed by Slavic peasant soldiers from the Urals.

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

USSR: Forgive Us Class of 1967 (Soviet Time-Capsule Opened!)


Original Russian Language Article By: Olga Basurova

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Yesterday, my Alma Mater – the Ryazan Radio Engineering University – opened a time-capsule buried 50 years ago, containing a message from the student body of 1967, to their descendants half a century later – in 2017. What can I say … Read it for yourself:

‘Dear comrades (of the future Soviet Union), We, the participants of the Student Conference entitled ’50 Years of Soviet Radio Engineering’ – held on May 13th, 1967 in the Assembly Hall of the RREI – send you our greetings to the (Soviet) students of the 21st century. We have gathered together to assess the over-all development of Soviet Radio Engineering in the last 50 years (since the 1917 Russian Revolution). We hope that you will gather in the future, to also assess the great Soviet Achievements 50 years later in your time, understanding how fortunate you are to live in the world’s first Communist State which for you is now 100 years old! How has Soviet Radio Technology moved forward and progressed between 1967 and 2017?

Our Ryazan Radio Engineering Institute was founded in 1952. Now, it trains about 5000 students in the usual full-time academic manner, supplemented by both evening and correspondence faculties, where a further 2000-1000 students respectively, are now being trained.

The Institute has five faculties (not counting the evening and correspondence courses), which train engineers in 14 specialities. The faculties are entitled: radio engineering, electronic engineering, automatics and telemechanics, automatic control systems, and radio equipment design. These specialities span 31 departments. The Institute employs over 500 teachers (mostly young people), including 120 professors and associate professors.

For the years of its existence, our progressive Socialist Institute has produced about 4,500 Specialists in the latest branches of technology. They work in almost every city of our great Soviet Union. Scientific candidates for training at our Institute, are prepared through attending graduate school.

We enjoy very interesting lives. We have very good and varied amateur interests, facilitated through various clubs and interests groups. Many of us participate in the scientific work of all the departments. We love sports, theatre, and cinema. During the entire academic year, we work hard in classrooms, laboratories, and reading rooms. In the summer we leave for the collective farms and for the as of yet uncultivated lands, where we help build clubs, houses and various other structures (as a means to further the development of Socialism).. This is our work semester. A more complete picture of our life (and study) will be provided to you through the enclosed photographs and newspapers.

We are sure that in the year 2017, our progressive Institute will represent an even larger and perfect higher educational system in the USSR, training engineers of the 21st century – a century of new scientific discoveries and achievements. Therefore, we are envious of you, our future Comrades. However, you must not be conceited about this, and remember that we, (and our fathers), by labour and sacrifice, have created your great (Soviet) future in which you now live and prosper!

With Comradely Greetings.’

Published by Olga Basurova, 05/16/2017 at 10:33 am

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

Original Russian Language Reference Article:


Вчера в моей Альма Матер – Рязанском радиотехническом университите вскрыли заложенную полвека назад капсулу с посланием студентов 1967 года своим потомкам через полвека. Что тут сказать… Прочитайте сами:

Дорогие товарищи! Мы, участники студенческой конференции „50 лет советской радиотехники“, состоявшейся 13 мая 1967 года в актовом зале РРТИ, шлем вам, студентам XXI века, свой студенческий привет. Мы собрались, чтобы подвести итоги развития советской радиотехники за 50 лет. Надеемся, что и вы будете тоже подводить итоги, но уже за сто лет, и оценивать, как шагнула вперед советская радиотехника.

Наш Рязанский радиотехнический институт основан в 1952 году. Теперь в нем обучается только на дневном отделении около 5000 студентов. Имеются и вечерний, и заочный факультеты, на которых обучается соответственно 2000-1000 студентов.

В институте пять факультетов (не считая вечернего и заочного), которые готовят инженеров по 14 специальностям. Факультеты называются так: радиотехнический, электронной техники, автоматики и телемеханики, автоматических систем управления, конструирования радиоаппаратуры. Они объединяют 31 кафедру. В институте работает свыше 500 преподавателей (в основном это молодежь), среди которых 120 профессоров и доцентов.

За годы своего существования институт выпустил около 4500 специалистов по новейшим отраслям техники. Они работают почти во всех городах нашей Родины. Готовит институт и научных работников через аспирантуру.

Живем мы очень интересно. У нас хорошая самодеятельность, различные кружки. Многие из нас участвуют в научной работе кафедр. Любим спорт, театр, кино. Весь учебный год мы напряженно трудимся в аудиториях, лабораториях, читальных залах. Летом уезжаем в колхозы и на целину, помогаем строить клубы, дома и различные сооружения. Это наш трудовой семестр. Более полное представление о нашей жизни и учебе дадут вам прилагаемые фотографии и газеты.

Мы уверены, что в 2017 году наш институт будет представлять еще более крупное и совершенное высшее учебное заведение, готовящее инженеров XXI века — века новых научных открытий и свершений. Поэтому мы по-хорошему завидуем вам, товарищи. Но вы не особенно зазнавайтесь и помните, что и мы, и наши отцы своим трудом создали то великое будущее, в котором вы живете. С товарищеским приветом.

Опубликовала Ольга Басурова , 16.05.2017 в 10:33


Pol Pot’s Explanation of Events


Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge Delegation – Beijing (c. 1975)

For the intimate expressions of Pol Pot, I have accessed a number of Chinese language source articles (referencing two below). I have taken this path because Pol Pot was a close ally of Mao Zedong, and according to the memories of Chinese people, Pol Pot was a very charming and likeable person. This is an interesting assessment from a Chinese culture that even within its Communist manifestation, puts much emphasis upon good behaviour and conformity to social and cultural norms that secure a peaceful and stable society. In the West, which has perpetuated the myth that Karl Marx’s ‘Scientific Socialism’ is exactly the same as Adolf Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’, the matter of Pol Pot is cut and dried – Pol Pot is simply (and unquestioningly) presented as a genocidal murderer. The problem is a lack of objective evidence for his apparent crimes, and a reliance upon an unsubstantiated Western Cold War rhetoric, that is as much motivated by anti-Asian racism, as it is by anti-Socialist ideology. Even though the Soviet Union supported Vietnam in its invasion and annexing of Cambodia in 1978 (establishing the Soviet controlled ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ to replace the ousted Khmer Rouge), Russian encyclopaedia sources dealing with this matter, state that the figure of between 1 to 3 million people killed by the Pol Pot regime is ‘theoretical’, as it has never been proven in a court of law.

Chinese sources also question this figure, pointing-out that it arises only within anti-Socialist Western sources, that have in the past routinely accused Socialist and Communist sources of committing all kinds of false, imagined and fabricated acts (similar to those actually committed by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime). In this regard, the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot resemble the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany, but the numbers simply do not add-up. Today, the official figure for the Cambodian population stands at about 16 million, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is believed to have been around 9 million. Many Chinese scholars point-out that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were extremely popular amongst the Cambodian people, who flocked to support his call for Revolution. The logical question is how could a population that by and large supported Pol Pot also ‘massacre’ itself in such large numbers, in a short space of time, lacking the technological know-how and advanced industrial capability possessed by the Nazi Germans? The Western rhetoric suggests that between 1/9th and 1/3rd of the population was ‘killed by itself’. When confronted with the illogicality of this situation, those that support this theory state that its accomplishment just goes to ‘prove’ what a maniac Pol Pot was, not realising that in reality just one man is being accused of being so well organised and efficient at political and practical leadership (whilst apparently being ‘mad’), that he achieved all this through an act of mass hypnosis. Whatever the case, the current Western narrative suggests that the Cambodian population of 9 million was either reduced to 6 million or 8 million between 1975 and 1979 – and yet by 2017 – that very same Cambodian population had risen by either 10 million or or 8 million (to 16 million) in just 38 years!

The Khmer Rouge wore ‘black’ uniforms together with a chequered neck-scarf to wipe-away sweat, and because of this they were often referred to as the ‘Black Guards’. Following Pol Pot’s ascending to power on April 17th, 1975, every citizen of Cambodia was required to dispose of the ‘bourgeois’ clothing that had penetrated the cities and towns, and revert to what was thought to be a more traditional form of ethnic Khmer peasant clothing. When asked why he emptied the cities, Pol Pot stated that the US had already been bombing areas of Eastern Cambodia, and that he (and the Khmer Leadership) were apprehensive that the US would launch a vast and sustained bombing campaign upon Cambodian cities and towns – much like the years’s of US destruction wrought upon North Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge also feared a US ground invasion, and their answer to these problems was to mobilise the entire Cambodian population within the relative safety of the countryside, living in communes of single-sex barracks, training in the day to farm the land, and prepare for a ‘People’s War’. When asked in the late 1970’s, and again by an American journalist just prior to his death (in 1998) why there was evidence of mass graves found in certain areas of Cambodia, Pol Pot gave exactly the same answer. Pol Pot’s answer is written in the Chinese language as ‘敌特破坏’ – which translates as the ‘enemy spies were destroyed’. In other words, Pol Pot ordered these killings to be carried-out by the Khmer Rouge, as a means to destroy what he perceived to be ‘enemies of the people’ operating within Cambodia. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the invading Vietnamese forces, and US-backed insurgency forces could have been responsible for at least some of these deaths. There is also a suggestion that Pol Pot’s policies have been skewed and misrepresented over the years. When asked about his policy of ‘eradicating’ the city-dwellers, Pol Pot replied that he had meant it was the principle of bourgeois (Westernised) living that was to be eradicated – and not necessarily the people who had been subject to this kind of pollution (although this position does seem to contradict the known dictates of the Khmer Rouge once in power). This information does not excuse the terrible crimes that apparently occurred in Cambodia under Pol Pot, but it does provide a more complete picture when viewed alongside the more commonly known facts in this case. My research is ongoing.

Chinese language References:波尔布特




Pol Pot (in Russian sources) An Assessment of Conditioned Events


The Trotskyite – Nikita Khrushchev – ascended to power in the USSR in 1956, and immediately set about destroying the reputation of his predecessor – Joseph Stalin. This move immediately set in motion the Sino-Soviet Split – which saw the Leader of Communist China – Mao Zedong – declaring Khrushchev a ‘revisionist’, and stating that China considered Stalin’s style of Leadership to have been correct. This led to immense political and military tensions between the USSR and the PRC, with Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam trying to balance both sides. However, following Ho Chi Minh’s death in 1969, the new Vietnamese Leadership took a definite pro-USSR direction, and began to ‘distance’ itself from direct PRC influence (this included removing ‘Mao Zedong Thought’ from Vietnamese textbooks). This was the geopolitical situation that Cambodia’s Pol Pot emerged within. Although encountering Soviet-style Marxist-Leninism in France during the early 1950’s, Pol Pot’s preference lay with Communist China, and it was in that ideological direction that he steered the Communist Party of Cambodia (i.e. ‘Kampuchea’). In 1978, following crop failures, famine and persecution by the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ousted Pol Pot from power (in 1979), establishing the pro-Soviet ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’. This effectively ended Chinese political influence in Cambodia, and as an act of retaliation, Communist China briefly invaded and occupied Vietnam in 1979. The ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ lasted until the collapse of the USSR, and in 1993 was replaced by a restored monarchy in Cambodia. Whereas previously I accessed Chinese language sources to build a picture of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (see: Pol Pot (in Chinese Sources): How It All Went Wrong), I am now accessing Russian language sources to create a ‘balanced’ interpretation of the complex events surrounding Pol Pot’s rise to power, and ultimate demise.

The pseudonym ‘Pol Pot’ is an abbreviation from the French term ‘politique potentielle’ – or the ‘politics of the possible’.  Salin Sar began to use the name ‘Pol’ in the 1950’s, adopting ‘Pol Pot’ in 1976. Pol Pot was born in 1925 and died on April 15th, 1998. He served as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Cambodia from 1963 to 1979. As the leader of the Khmer Rouge (another name for the Communist Party in Cambodia), his rule of Cambodia was typified by wide-spread famine and massive repression, with various reports recording the death-toll as being somewhere between 1 to 3 million in total, spanning years 1975 to 1979 – the years the Khmer Rouge held political power in the country.

His exact date of birth is unknown, but is believed to have been in 1925. He was born as ‘ Salot Sar’ into a wealthy peasant family and was 1 of 9 children. His family enjoyed a certain elevated social status due to the fact that one of his female cousins served as a ‘concubine’ to Prince Sisovath Monivong – giving birth to his son Kossarak – and one of his elder brothers was employed at the palace. A sister of Pol Pot used to dance in the royal ballet – but after seeing her – Prince Sisovath Monivong took her as yet another concubine. These facts demonstrate that Pol Pot’s family were considered ‘noble’ within Cambodia’s feudalistic society. At the age of 9 years old, Pol Pot was sent to live with relatives in Phnom Penh, where he atended Wat Botum Waddey, – a Buddhist temple – within which he worked as a servant, and was taught how to read and write the Cambodian language, and to understand Buddhist philosophy. In 1937, Pol Pot enrolled in a local Catholic School, where he received the basics of a classical education. In 1942, Pol Pot continued his studies at Norodom College of Sihanouk in Kampong Cham, before failing his exams at the prestigious Lyceum of Sisovata. This situation forced him to finish his education at the Technical School in Phnom Penh – from which he graduated in 1949 – winning a full scholarship to study in Paris, France.

Arriving in France, Pol Pot went to Paris, where he studied radio electronics. Recalling the first year of his student life at the University of Paris, Pol Pot later noted that he worked hard and was a good student. In the summer of 1950, together with other students, Pol Pot went to Yugoslavia, where he worked for about a month in Zagreb. At the end of the same year, an old friend (Sarah-Ieng Sari) arrived in Paris. Ieng Sari introduced Pol Pot to Keng Vannsak, a patriotic nationalist with whom he had studied at the Lyceum of Sisovath. It was at Keng Vannsaka’s flat that the Marxist Study Group began to function, the initiators of which were Ieng Sari and Rat Samoyon. Among the works discussed was Marx’s ‘Capital’.

In the middle of 1952, Salot Sar (i.e. ‘Pol Pot’), under the pseudonym Khmer Daom, produced his first political work entitled ‘Monarchy or Democracy?’ – which was published in a special issue of the Cambodian Student magazine entitled ‘Khmer Nisut’. Probably the same year, Salot Sar joined the Communist Party of France. By this time, Salot Sar had lost interest in studying and was expelled from the university. On December 15th, 1952, he left France. After returning to Cambodia, Pol Pot requested membership of the Vietnamese-dominated ‘Communist Party of Indonesia’ in 1953, on the grounds that he was already a member of the Communist Party of France. However, Pol Pot eventually joined the ‘People’s Revolutionary Party of Cambodia’ in August, 1953, where he set performed propaganda work. His abilities at this time were considered mediocre but consistent. Through hard-work and diligence, Pol Pot (and the ‘gang of six’ – Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Ieng Sari, Son Sen and their wives – Khieu Ponnari, Ieng Tirith, and Yun Yat), lead the Communist Party of Cambodia (now more commonly known as the ‘Khmer Rouge’) in a Maoist ideological direction, as it was felt that the socio-economic conditions of feudal Cambodia resembled those of China, rather than those of Russia. Furthermore, Mao Zedong had developed a blue-print for a peasant-led revolutionary war, operating from bases in the countryside. (Mao had proven his ideas correct by leading the Communist Party of China to victory in 1949). In this regard, Pol Pot’s thinking appears logical and correct, and he achieved notable successes in the fighting that occurred throughout Cambodia in the 1960’s and 1970’s – against the Cambodian monarchy and US military interference in the area. Indeed, it was these tactics that made Pol Pot very popular amongst the Cambodian peasant population that eventually propelled him to victory over his enemies, and complete political power throughout Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.

The Khmer Rouge successfully entered Phnom Penh on the 17th of April, 1975 and established governance over Cambodia (On the 30th of April, the North Vietnamese launched a substantial military offensive upon South Vietnam – effectively ending US influence in the region). Between the 25th – 27th of April 1975, an Extraordinary National Congress was held in Phnom Penh, where it was announced that the new Khmer Rouge authorities intended to build in Cambodia a ‘national consensus community based upon equality and democracy, through the eradication of exploiters and exploited, and the dichotomy between rich and poor, where everyone will be assigned Work.’ Having come to power, the Pol Pot government advocated three tasks that required immediate resolution:

  1. Stop the ruining of the peasantry – as a ‘pure’ peasantry was to serve as the foundations of the future Kampuchean society.
  2. Stop corruption and usury.
  3. Eliminate the eternal dependence of Kampuchea on foreign countries;

As US interference in Cambodia, (together with royalist intrigue), was plunging the country into lawlessness, Pol Pot stated that a strict and disciplined political regime was required to establish social stability through law and order. To achieve this transformation, Pol Pot devised a system of dividing the Cambodian population into three distinct categories:

a) This comprised the ‘main’ or ‘indigenous’ Cambodian peasantry living historically in the rural areas. This was the most important and politically progressive part of the population.

b) The second group was categorised as those living in cities and towns, and who had come under the ideological influence of the Americans, or their rightwing allies – the ‘Lol Noi’. This group was considered ‘untrustworthy’ but able to be reformed through extensive re-education.

c) The third group was comprised of the intelligentsia, reactionary clergy, military officers and NCO’s that had served the royalists, the Vietnamese or the Americans, and any and all people that had served the previous regime in any capacity. This group was labelled ‘beyond reform’, and was designated for eradication (i.e. ‘execution’). Pol Pot termed this process the ‘cleansing’ of Cambodian society.

Pol Pot emptied all the towns and cities of their populations, and relocated this mass of humanity into rural communes consisting of single sex, military-style barracks. This policy essentially eradicated any form of bourgeois modernity throughout Cambodia, and returned the country to a state of dependence upon primitive agricultural living. However, this radical re-adjustment of society co-incided with crop failures and the outbreak of famine and disease. This fact alone led to the deaths of a substantial number of Cambodian people, even before the arbitrary ‘cleansing’ began. The Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia in 1978 because of the ‘racist’ policy pursued by Pol Pot – which singled-out Vietnamese people for execution. As Pol Pot lost his grip on power, he and his forces retreated westward, toward the jungle areas of the Cambodian-Thai border (where he lost complete political power in 1979). This is where he lived-out the remainder of his life, before dying at the age of 73 years old in 1998.

Russian Language Sources:Пол_Пот


%d bloggers like this: