The Black Bark of Communism

By J. Slavyanski

As the reader is no doubt aware, there has been quite a stir over this video of a US Marine allegedly trying to throw a 'Hail Mary' with a puppy. I say allegedly because there are some suspicious aspects of the video, to my mind, the sound of the dog. I advised others on a forum that they should listen for the Doppler effect on the puppy's squealing to determine whether or not the sound might be made by someone off camera. I advised others to do that because personally I don't give a shit. I would rather see a little more outrage over something like the Haditha massacre, no matter how much I love dogs.

Of course some of the reaction to video has been rather bizarre. If it turns out to be a real video, I would not be surprised to hear some pundits claiming that the Marine confused the puppy for one of his grenades, a common mistake in military history which has often brought fatal consequences. A few military historians have posited the theory that the initial success of the Spanish Republican forces in the initial phase of the Ebro offensive may have been due to the Nationalist defenders having mistaken crates of puppies for hand grenades. Soldiers of the encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad were often outraged when supply drops often turned out to be puppies instead of grenades and mortar shells.

Taking a page from the Abu Ghraib playbook, some will naturally suggest that this Marine's actions do not represent the USMC as a whole. This is bullshit to anyone who is aware of the USMC Silent Puppy-Throwing Drill Team, the Corps' answer to the US Army's Kitten-Juggling Honor Guard. Also, I can say from personal experience that while I was in the army working in signal, the generators for our Radio Access Unit and other shelters ran on puppies rather than diesel fuel. You just shovel them into the burner and try to ignore the screams. You try to forget...you lie awake at night years later drenched in sweat and you can still hear them squealing...you drink yourself to sleep every night to stop the screams. But I digress...

This recent controversy brings up an interesting subject, that is the issue of Canine Rights under Communism. So far anti-Communists have totally ignored the subject, possibly because they have hidden Communist sympathies. But REAL anti-Communists know better, and it is time the story be told. Conservative estimates state that under Communism in Eastern Europe, as many as 100 million dogs were killed, possibly more. Today Eastern European dogs are free to roam the streets in packs, occasionally attack children, and be made into sharuma by local street vendors. But in the Communist era it is very likely that many dogs were spayed or neutered, part of an insidious eugenics programme not much unlike Nazi Germany.

Much is said about the industrialization of formerly backward nations under socialism. Yet we must ask, at what price? Few realize exactly how Lenin electrified the Soviet Union; while other nations utilized coal power or hydroelectric dams, the Soviet Union used puppy fuel to generate 90% of its electricity. During WWII, the Soviets occasionally used "dog mines", strapping explosives to dogs and sending them toward German tanks in order to destroy them. Naturally any explosive-laden dog who tried to retreat was most likely shot. Stalin often served puppies as the main course at banquets, and was said to have once remarked, "Eat one puppy and it's a tragedy, eat ten million puppies, and it's a delicious statistic."

Those of us in the free West may scoff at the idea of eating dogs, but in the USSR it was a reality. There are many eyewitness reports of dog eating from the years 1941-1944. This was not some countryside phenomenon either; even in major cities like Leningrad dogs were being eaten in 1941! Communist apologists will flail about with limp-wristed rage and bloodstained hands, claiming that there was a blockade and something they like to call 'the largest war in human history', going on at that time. The fact is, however, that the Soviet Union made no specific effort to create a strategic reserve of food that could have prevented this dog eating, and thus the eating of dogs can be seen as deliberate genocide of dogs, circumstances be damned. Plus Josef Stalin personally controlled all aspects of life in the Soviet Union at the time, ergo every dog eaten was more or less personally eaten by Josef Stalin, whose control was so omnipotent that dogs eaten by Soviet citizens actually nourished him, and not the actual consumer of the animals. Stalin killed these dogs, Stalin ate these dogs, Communism killed and ate these dogs.

Some might claim that the Soviet Union liberalized after the Stalin era, improving Canine Rights. This is a grotesque lie; well after Stalin's death the Soviet Union sent no less than three dogs into space, letting them die as they ran out of air above the Earth. It is possible that they may still be up there today...watching us with silent, pleading, accusing eyes. Dogs were also demonized under Communism; their culture was degraded and their language suppressed. Proof of this can be seen in the insidious children's propaganda program known as "Nu Pogodi!", translated roughly as "Just you wait!" In it the hero was depicted as a hare, who would be chased by an evil wolf who frequently smoked. The message is clear- every dog is a wolf, who wants to hurt innocent animals. Rather than speak in his own language, the wolf spoke Russian, further degrading dogs by preventing them from speaking in their native language on state run television.

Before closing we must add that 100 million is just a conservative estimate. We may never know how many dogs were killed by this evil ideology known as Communism. Possibly 1 billion dogs may have fallen victim to the plague. The youth must never forget this unprecedented evil. There is no system on Earth better for dogs than the free market and democracy...and freedom! To these facts we must bear witness for the future generations, lest they too fall for the Communist dogma, and again choke the rivers with the corpses of puppies, and stain the fields with puppy blood.

by J. Slavyanski








'I see Revisionists. Walking around like regular Communists. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're totally ineffective.'

Eventually it had to come to this, I have to say something about the CPUSA. Now to be fair, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the CPUSA. As far as I know I have never met anyone who was affiliated with the CPUSA at the time of our meeting. I embraced Marxism-Leninism when I had already left the US, so we don't really have a history. Yet early on I read many critiques of their ideology, if you can even call it that, and even the most scathing seem far too generous. Using terms like "tailing the Democrats" is just far too nice; it would be just as accurate to say "kissing the Democratic Party's collective ass more passionately than a sizable portion of America's liberals, most of whom grew fed up with the Democrats in 2006 if not 2004."

What follows is not another analysis of the CPUSA's history of revisionism and betrayal of Marxism. Subjects like that have been dealt with plenty of times, and up-to-date critiques sometimes come up on Marxism-Leninism Today. Enver Hoxha dealt with the issue of 'Browderism' and the CPUSA in 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism'. My aim in writing here is to simply ask, 'What does it take for these people to realize that they are revisionists, of the most impotent sort, possibly in the entire world?' How can they put out the line they do, and still call themselves a 'Communist' party? It's not as if there aren't plenty of revisionist parties in the world today, but most of these parties exist in countries with proportional representation, and thus they actually run candidates in elections. As such, many of them hold seats in their respective nations' parliaments, and due to this they are, reformist though they might be, at least able to exercise some power in the interests of the working class. The Russian presidential elections are coming up on 2 March, and while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation(KPRF) and their program may be far from Marxist-Leninist, at least they have a program, they run candidates in hopes of implementing it, and the accomplishment of their goals would have real meaning for working people. More than this, it would raise the prominence of class struggle in 'mainstream' political discussion, as well as create an environment that raises class awareness in general, assuming there is a real Marxist-Leninist party present to take advantage of the situation.

The CPUSA, due to its extreme revisionism, deserves a little credit here and there. In terms of its history, perhaps a lot of credit. The US labor movement owes a great deal of gratitude to Communists and their fellow-travelers, and one has to understand the massive negative effect things such as the second Red Scare of the McCarthy era as well as the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other events, gutted the party and organized labor in general. While there were revisionists like Earl Browder, there were also great leaders such as William Z. Foster. Perhaps most admirable is the fact that CPUSA played a crucial role in the recruitment and organization of the Lincoln, Washington, and MacKenzie-Papineau battalions, which fought for the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. But today their revisionism seems so blatant that there are many 'liberals' that stand to the left of them, and its no longer anarchists this time.

The revisionism of the CPUSA is so extremely pronounced that one need not even read their program to see it; just visit their website at any given time and read some of their statements. Take for example, an article from the CPUSA's 'Labor Up Front' newsletter I found on their site just a couple days ago. Apparently Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), was giving a pep-talk at a Hillary Clinton rally, and said some negative things about Barack Obama. I can remember about a month ago when it seemed like they were supporting both Hillary and Obama unquestionably. Given the fact that Obama since pulled ahead in the primaries, it is now apparent why they were supporting both Clinton and Obama as opposed to someone far more progressive, such as Kucinich. Basically, they support whoever is likely to win the nomination, and support democrats unquestionably. Take a look at some excerpts from this article alone.

Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists' union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)

Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.

In the first place it’s ironic that a labor leader should ridicule good oratory. The history of the labor movement is replete with labor leaders who inspired and moved workers to action with their ability to put into words the hopes, aspirations and demands of those who dream of a better life and a better world for working people.

Eugene Debs spoke eloquently of an industrial union for rail workers. One of his most famous speeches called for an end to workers dying in WWI as cannon fodder for the narrow interests of the industrialists and capitalists. He brought millions into the labor movement and got millions of votes on the Socialist Party ticket with his inspiring speeches. 1

Granted there is one good reason to attack the guy in question; he supports Hillary Clinton. Clinton as a the nominee is a surefire loss for the Democratic Party in 2008. A direct repeat of 2004's Kerry vs. Bush. Of course if one was reading the CPUSA's rhetoric, both a Clinton or Obama victory would be a triumph. As such they don't really have room to criticize. The bizarre thing is that they actually believe that somehow an Obama victory will be good for the working class. Head on over to the ultra-left PLP and you'll get the real scoop on Obama, such as this article and here's another one. Have a look at the Maoist RCP's Revolution Newspaper and you'll find more ugly truth about Obama. As far as 'Communist' parties go, the CPUSA is the only one fooled by Obama. Hell, it's not just Communists that aren't buying Obama's nonsense, take a look at Black Agenda Report for example. And keep in mind we're only talking about Obama here; the CPUSA actually found Hillary to be a desirable candidate before Obama started pulling ahead. Whereas after 2004 serious 'progressives' became increasingly critical of the Democratic party, particularly after 2006's midterm elections, it's all good with the CPUSA. Any Democrat will do.

So how is this related to the CPUSA's line? Revisionism usually means a Communist Party weakening its own platform until it becomes a social democratic party at best. The CPUSA is far beyond revisionism; they're not just tailing liber- uh..I mean progressives, they're kissing the ass of the Democratic party itself. Mainstream democrats are the same people who used to call themselves liberals, and out of sheer cowardice started calling themselves "progressives". Their candidates are so weak that they rarely even refer to themselves as progressives. And why? All because a fat guy on the radio and a couple hundred of his clones were allowed to make "liberal" a dirty word, and the liberals didn't have the balls to fight back. And those are people in which the CPUSA wants the working class to put its trust. As bizarre as the situation is, it is not some kind of fluke or strategy, the roots of this ultra-revisionism can be found right in the party's own program.

See, the CPUSA doesn't wage a class struggle. In the bizarre, G-rated Marxism of the modern CPUSA, the struggle is against something called "the ultra-right." Take a look at an excerpt from their party program:

The working class and all who work for a living—the vast majority of the people—face a relentless, vicious, and amoral enemy: the capitalist class. Our country is oppressed by one of the most controlling, despicable, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever, concentrating enormous political, economic, and military power in the hands of a few transnational corporations. These corporations seek to steal, embezzle, extort, and scheme all wealth from the tens of millions of working people, from small businesses and family farmers, from men, women, and children, from seniors and youth, and from the employed, underemployed, and unemployed. They exploit people as workers on the job and the same people as consumers at the checkout counter. Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism, used to divide working people and achieve extra profits. They work hard to extend ultra-right control over the government and government policy.

The ultra-right is led by the most reactionary, militaristic, racist, anti-democratic sectors of the transnationals. They gain support for their ultra-right agenda from other political trends and social groups, most of which are misled as to their real interests, sometimes blinded by the propaganda of fear and scapegoating.

Note that in the first paragraph, the program points out that the working class and the capitalist class are enemies. Yet right after that it says that Americans have a certain type of capitalist class, 'the most controlling, despicable, entrenched' etc. Immediately we see the major problems with this kind of reasoning. For Communists, a capitalist class is a capitalist class; there may be different shades under various conditions, but this is mostly inconsequential. Based on this it follows that the CPUSA's statement here is incorrect, the American ruling class does not fit that description, at least at this time. The control of the ruling class of Russia, for example, is far more controlling and entrenched than that of the US. But the illusion of a special 'evil' ruling class in modern times is designed to set up the straw-man enemy known as "the ultra-right". What exactly is the 'ultra-right'? Let's find out:

The first tendency represents the most reactionary section of the transnationals. It took over the Republican Party and in 1980 elected Ronald Reagan and then in 1988 George H. W. Bush as President. In the 1970s and dramatically escalating following the election of Reagan, the U.S. government increased the U.S. military build-up. Across the “mainstream” political spectrum, among most Republican and Democratic elected officials, support for capitalist globalization led to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the WTO, and other international trade agreements and organizations, and to increased outsourcing of union manufacturing jobs. It attacked the very existence of unions and bargaining rights, imposed tax cuts for the rich, cut social programs, demonized foreign opponents of the U.S., covertly funded the right-wing-initiated civil war in Nicaragua, and gave weapons to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq. They picked small countries to invade, including Panama and Grenada, testing new military equipment and strategy, and breaking down resistance at home and abroad to U.S. military invasion as a policy option.

While the ultra-right suffered some setbacks during the Clinton years, it did not receive a major lasting rebuff. The election of Clinton led the ultra-right to step up attacks on Democrats, liberals, and all social programs, and to intensify their efforts in a vast right-wing conspiracy. With the election to the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2000, this ultra-right trend took an even further turn to the right, winning a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.

The main problem here is that many of the problems they attribute to the 'ultra-right', such as foreign interventions and anti-labor laws, occurred under and were sometimes even implemented by democrats as well. Democrats were more than willing to pass the Taft-Hartley Act, expanded the Vietnam war, initiated the support of the Afghan mujahadeen, bombed Iraq and maintained the sanctions against that country which led to the death of possibly one million people, bombed Serbia, and handed Bush his Iraq war on a platter while refusing to even consider impeachment for his lying to Congress. I am not trying to deny the existence of this 'ultra-right', but what has the right done that hasn't been either aided or at least unopposed by the 'left'?

The other problem with this general idea is that 'the ultra-right' is not a class. Marxism-Leninism is about class struggle, not focusing on a particular movement on the side of the ruling class at a particular time. For example, it was natural that Marxists worldwide would find themselves fighting Fascism, a movement that deserved the term 'ultra-right' 100%. However, few Marxists ever deluded themselves into thinking that Fascism, in itself, had become the main enemy of the working class in a permanent sense. To do so would be to believe the Fascists' own rhetoric about being a 'Third Way' between Communism and Capitalism. Fascism was a movement used by the ruling class of the 20s and 30s in order to thwart spreading revolution. Today's ultra-right is nothing but a tool of the ruling class; but they do not represent the ruling class as a whole. If anything they serve a very crucial purpose because their loud presence obscures the anti-working class nature of the so-called "mainstream" left. But the CPUSA takes the bait hook, line, and sinker.

It is often a tell-tale feature of revisionism to support the idea of socialism achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means. But the CPUSA is doing them one better- revisionism by proxy. At least when a Communist party runs candidates and wins seats in parliament or joins with a coalition, it at least appears possible to legislate socialism. The CPUSA would like us to believe that somehow electing Democrats is going to bring about all sorts of measures and changes which such candidates never mention. 'Progressives' have been progressively moving to the right for well over a decade, but rather than boost attention for people like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, the CPUSA prefers to back Democratic front-runners. This is beyond revisionism, this is insanity.

What this article really represents is a question that needs to be posed to the CPUSA. Perhaps it needs to be posed directly, by the membership. Namely, 'What the hell are you doing?' What possible benefit can there be from supporting Democrats, which have been proven time and time again to be every bit as planted in the pockets of big business as the Republicans? How can the CPUSA be changed so that it is a Communist Party again, and if it cannot change, is it time to start seeking another party? Until those questions have answers, one thing is certain: The CPUSA's 'Road to Socialism' is nothing but a dead end.


1. Marshall, Scott "Buffenbarger election speech could strip gears of labor unity."

23 February, Day of the Defender of the Fatherland

by J. Slavyanski

For those who are not aware, one of Russia's many national holidays is 23 February, known as Day of the Defender of the Fatherland. Sadly today's meaning, like those of most national holidays back in America as well as here, has been greatly diluted. Today it is seen, quite erroneously, as "Men's day", and it is closely followed by "Women's Day". Given the fact that most Russian men skip out on their compulsory service, and the psychotic hazing in the military gives them good reason to do so, the very fact that it is celebrated is an insult. Not to mention the fact that women played a major role in the defense of this country as well, and thus it should not have the strictly male connotation. Likewise, it is worth noting that the celebration of 'Women's Day' in a country in which women are treated with such contempt is just another sad irony of modern Russia under the tri-color failure flag.

Who will be celebrating 23 February? Well of course there will be the veterans and military personnel, but there will also be the businessmen, the bureaucrats, the millionaires and billionaires, enjoying their day off from their 'work', liberally spending money on overpriced goods and prostitutes of course. But I guess we can forgive them, after all, they don't have a 'Day of the Traitors, Exploiters, and Parasites of the Fatherland' holiday, so they have to take what they can get. And naturally they deserve such a great lifestyle because they take so many 'risks'! Far more than the soldier who is allegedly the object of the holiday's honor; what else could explain the difference in pay between the soldiers and the businessmen? Such tiring 'work' they do, attending conferences, going on business trips, and making phone calls, taking all those 'risks' that form the basis of their rights to so much of the nation's wealth. Poor souls the lot of them!

Some, especially Russians, might find what I wrote here to be greatly offensive. Do you know what I find offensive? Click on the photo at the beginning of the entry. It is a photo I took in January, inside the memorial complex of Stalingrad's Mamaev Kurgan. For those who do not know, Mamaev Kurgan was the site of virtually non-stop combat during the battle of Stalingrad, and there inscribed on the walls of the rotunda are the names of real defenders of the Fatherland, defenders of socialism and Marxism-Leninism. One cannot be the former without being the latter, for what is a Fatherland, Motherland, a nation, but the masses? And who are the masses but the working people, those who till the soil, who hew natural resources from the earth, who turn those resources into useful products, those who put the talents of their mind to work in order to inspire, to educate, and to lead? Are the businessmen, the bureaucratic 'managers', the consultants, and the investors, truly part of the nation? They are but a small minority, and though they may be of the same blood and speak the same language, their loyalty is to their minority class worldwide. Given that this small ruling minority has no concern for their respective nations, so should we, the working class, work across borders against them as they do against us, seeing that it is we who represent the nations of mankind and not them. Workers can, collectively, do the jobs of the managers and businessmen, whenever and wherever needed. The inverse is physically and logically impossible- they are two few in number to operate the economy on their own and produce the necessities of life.

I often say, more and more, that Russia is a very fortunate country for one reason- that the dead remain dead. Mamaev Kurgan was an ancient burial ground long before the city of Stalingrad ever existed. From September 1942 to roughly February 1943, many more men would be buried on that artificial hill, many of them were churned up again and again by the near-constant artillery and mortar fire. The scorched ground was drenched with blood, mixed with flesh, bone, and metal; so much so that grass would not grow on the soil long after the battle. It is said that even today bits of shell fragments and bone can be found in the surrounding area. Just try to visualize that, and then add to it the scream of Stukas diving in to drop their bombs, the sniper shots, and the lashing of machine gun fire- this was just one small nightmare in a war in which their were countless other horrors. And yet the people of the Soviet Union, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Tatars, Yakuts, Buryats, Kazakhs and others, answered the call to arms and faced those horrors over and over again until the final victory in 1945. They did so in defense of the revolution, they did so in defense of socialism, which brought them literacy, education, health care, and many things we take entirely for granted today such as electricity or written alphabets. And yes, they defended this society, the society led by Josef V. Stalin and the loyal Bolsheviks on his side. While bourgeois hacks try to re-write history today, highlighting traitors and nationalists who enabled the German war of extermination, no amount of faulty logic or distortion can change the fact that the vast majority of Soviet people were more than willing to lay down their life for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, led by Stalin, and were willing to make that sacrifice again and again even when they had every opportunity to shirk that responsibility. In fact one could say that the very triumph of the Red Army owes much to that fact alone; it certainly owes nearly all to socialism, which brought about the necessary education, training, and industrialization in order for the first socialist state to defend itself.

On days like these I am reminded of an old famous French film called J' Accuse(I accuse), where thousands of French soldiers who died needlessly on the Western front arise and march back to Paris to judge the living. Russia is indeed fortunate that this is only fantasy, because in the Great Patriotic War alone losses may range from 25-30 million. What would they have to say about Russia today? What would they say to Putin? What would Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya have to say about prostitution and women trafficking in Russia; or perhaps the behavior of the modern Russian woman? Is that why she volunteered to go behind German lines as a partisan, eventually being hanged while screaming for her comrades to avenge her? What would those unnamed Guardsmen who died in Stalingrad train station #1, in the Univermag, or the 'nail factory' have to say about today's misogynistic, amoral, cowardly Russian 'men'?

Offended yet? One ought to be, but not at me. Be offended on behalf of those to whom Russian society today would be most offensive. Speak out for the dead who are silent. Heed Zoya's cry for vengeance, regardless of your nationality or location, for as she fought for socialism she fought for you, that the working class not be crushed by Fascism, capitalism's hired thugs. And let me repeat once more, so that it is entirely clear.

No one defends their nation, who does not defend socialism. No one defends socialism who does not defend the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha.

Anti-Stalinism for Dummies

by J. Slavyanski

In the past, I wrote an article on how to be an anti-Communist. Today we are going to focus on the proper techniques of handling Josef Stalin. See, just as Tupac Shakur has somehow released albums long after his death, so has Josef Stalin committed crimes. In fact, it's very likely that somewhere, somehow, Stalin is having people put to death, possibly in your very neighborhood. Any unsolved murders in your city lately? It could be him!

1. This is the most important technique: Everything Stalin ever did, or didn't do, was negative if not evil. Stalin never did anything right, and anything he did that could be seen as positive actually had some hidden evil motive. All your work should begin from this starting concept.

2. Everything that happened in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin's leadership was the direct will of Stalin. If someone was shot- Stalin did it. He may have done it personally, possibly bursting through the window of a room full of innocent people, wielding matching gold-plated Tokarev TT-33s, diving sideways in slow-motion as he squeezed off round after round into the surprised occupants. If someone died in a mine accident in the Urals, that was also Stalin's fault. If someone was run down by a bus in Stalingrad, you had better believe that was a planned murder, the death warrant having been signed by Stalin.

3. Stalin's orders regarding Red Army POWs was cruel. His application of those same rules to his own son was also cruel. Of course had he not applied those rules, he would have been an evil hypocrite as well.

4. Stalin was evil because he directed the famine against Ukrainians. Of course there is a great deal of documentary evidence showing that he was not even aware of the extent of the famine until conditions were severe- but that was his fault too. He had to have been feigning ignorance about the genocide he ordered!

5. Stalin's "Dizzy with Success" was actually written to cover the fact that everything in the countryside was actually going precisely as he planned it! Remember, whenever Stalin openly criticized something, it was because he actually devised and ordered that to occur.

6. Stalin's cynical quotes on some subjects prove how cruel he was. George Orwell's cynical comments show how well he grasped "ugly truths".

7. Stalin was only supporting the Spanish Republic in order to foment a Communist revolution in that nation. However, Stalin is also evil for curtailing the "real" revolution there in favor of the Republican government. The weapons Stalin provided were actually "obsolete"; pay no attention to the fact that the small arms were often standard issue in the Red Army at the time, the I-16 fighters dominated the Nationalists' CR-32 Fiats and Heinkels, the SB-2 was an exceptional bomber at that time, and the T-26 dominated Nationalist armor until the last year or so of the war. Stalin was also evil because he charged the Spanish Republic for these things. Pay no attention to the fact that the Spanish Republic was desperately trying to buy weapons but was prevented from doing so by the Non-Intervention agreement.

8. Stalin helped start WWII. Never mind the fact that France and Britain had totally emboldened Hitler and Mussolini for years while the USSR was practically begging for some kind of anti-Fascist pact. Never mind the fact that the USSR only considered such a non-aggression pact until there were no viable options left.

9. All regimes after Stalin were in fact Stalinist. No matter the insane lengths they went to remove Stalin from their history, to denigrate him and his regime, even if they opposed him during his life time, they were Stalinist. Whenever a capitalist or layperson asks why such and such socialist country failed, one need only blame Stalin, and the argument will be over!

10. Stalin was in favor of a bureaucracy. Never mind all the articles he wrote encouraging people to struggle against it; remember everything Stalin criticizes, he was actually for! Stalin's will was omnipotent, despite the fact that there are plenty of contemporary source documents showing Stalin's proposals being ignored and opposed in the Central Committee throughout his entire term.

Follow these steps and you'll be on your way!

Anarchists, Trotskidiots, Liberals... OH MY!!!

by J. Slavyanski





From time to time I have to take a break from RevLeft due to the overwhelming rhetoric is Trotskidiots, liberals, and the Anarchists. It's not that their arguments aren't easily refutable, but there is something deeply disturbing about people who are supposedly anti-capitalist, and yet when the discussion turns to real, existing socialism they are suddenly indistinguishable from the most vociferous anti-communists. When these people are confronted by pro-capitalist arguments on any other issue, they resist. When confronted by those whom they call "Stalinists", also known as anyone who actually defends real-world socialism, they are suddenly accepting of any anti-Communist claim ever written. When confronted with actual evidence from archival sources, as well as that which was never secret to begin with, they squirm and worm their way around the argument, presenting still all those magical alternatives that didn't really exist back then.

Since I am from the West, and yet live in Eastern Europe, I have developed some theories about what makes people embrace Trotskidiocy and Anarchism. Given that we are all essentially "converts" since we are all usually raised under American or Western anti-Communism, making the step towards any radical left ideology that presents and alternative to capitalism is a bit of a leap. What makes certain people gravitate towards Trotsky, Anarchism, Third Positionism, or any kind of revisionism, is simply moral cowardice. They are too afraid to break outside of the bourgeoisie's framework when it comes to discussing real world socialism. They are too afraid to do some damn research and challenge anti-Communist claims, they are too afraid to analyze the reality of property relations in socialist countries and consider that some countries were truly socialist at one time while others weren't, and most of all, they are far too terrified to offer a coherent explanation about the failure of revisionism in 1991.

So how do Trotskidiots explain it all? One word- Stalinism. Yes folks, EVERY socialist nation that existed from 1924 on was actually 'Stalinist', regardless of the reality of their economic systems, their relations with Stalin and the Soviet Union, massive changes in opposition to the economic system which existed under Stalin, and so on. The post 1956 Soviet Union was still 'Stalinist', Gorbachev was still 'Stalinist', China was 'Stalinist', Czechoslovakia was 'Stalinist', Poland was 'Stalinist', Yugo-fucking-slavia was 'Stalinist'. Yes, according to the Trotskidiot Marxism is just fine and dandy, as interpreted by a guy who spent most of his life opposing the Bolsheviks, but somehow every nominally Marxist or Marxist-inspired revolution around the world was actually Stalinist and therefore anti-Marxist, even long after Stalin's death and his denunciation by Khruschev. The whole idea is to try to avoid fighting for socialism's real record by pretending it was never really tried, thus preserving Marxism's virginity.

This is the kind of shit that might fly on some university campus I'd imagine. But try telling 9-to-5 workers somewhere that you got this wonderful system, but all the revolutions of the 20th century which were supposedly based on that system in fact had nothing to do with it. That's exactly what every hard worker with his or her personal problems and trials needs to hear. Most people, would be willing to listen to cold, hard facts. I've worked in a sand and gravel mine basically shoveling sand all day and getting covered in a mixture of dust, sand, and axle grease. I could definitely understand that in light of other issues, sometimes you have to appreciate what changes you can actually get. I could appreciate that when you try to make changes in favor of the working class, the old ruling class is not going to leave you alone, and you are going to have to fight. I was educated enough at the time to know that Russian politics and society of that era were by no means 'civil' by modern standards. Yet if someone were to tell me that Marxism as they preached it would emancipate me, but all those revolutions and states had nothing to do with Marxism, I'd be gone in a heartbeat. One of the reasons why I resisted Marxism for so many years was because of nonsense like this. And that is ignoring all the insane contradictions in Trotsky's theories.

Then of course there are the Anarchists. These geniuses have a 100% failure rate when it comes to constructing a society, but rest assured their society would be far better than anything else out there, including Communism! Just pay no attention to the fact that the only time they have been able to maintain some sense of society came in the context of two major wars. They never smashed any states, someone else did that for them. The common argument I get is "it's not fair to point out our failure, we were crushed by overwhelming military power!" Well until your ideology can initiate a revolution on its own for a change, and sustain the inevitable counter-revolution, that's too damn bad. The Red Army withstood the military might not only of the Whites but of the many interventionalist forces, then withstood one of the largest military invasions in history by Europe's greatest military power and her allies in WWII. Anarchists continually put ideals above reality, get their asses kicked, and then think they should get a free pass to criticize Communist states because they failed to reach their end goal, ignoring all the massive achievements they gained while accepting any anti-Communist claim uncritically at the drop of a hat, so long as it serves their purposes. On one occasion, Anarchists in Spain had been forewarned that the Fascists were approaching their city. Always the idealists, the Anarchists refused to build fortifications and dig trenches based on the idea that this showed cowardice. And these people criticize Stalin. You won't see them siding with Thomas Friedman or David Horowitz if the subject were globalization or US military intervention, but you can be damn sure they'll accept anything the latter two might have to say about the Soviet Union.

As one HU member pointed out, and I am paraphrasing here- the idea is that since these peoples' ideology has never really existed in the real world for any significant amount of time, they are basically blameless. They can criticize existing socialism all they want. What they fail to realize about their all-or-nothing ideologies, be they Anarchism or Trotskidiocy, is that when you uncritically accept the bourgeois narrative of socialist history, and when you suggest that either your impossible-to-achieve society or capitalism with perhaps reforms is the only choice, you are effectively defending capitalism. Yes Trot, you are defending capitalism. Yes Anarchist, you are defending capitalism no matter how many streets you dance in or trash cans you set on fire. Yes, we know you don't positively advocate capitalism, you are selling your own ideology. But because that ideology has been a proven failure that has never got off the ground anywhere, you are thus leading people towards failure and away from the only force that has shown it can oppose capitalism- Marxism-Leninism. Is it not telling that Anarchism or Trotskyism have been such failures, while Marxism-Leninism created dozens of socialist societies, which lasted even when the Marxist-Leninist concepts were discarded and actively sabotaged?

And this gets to the crux of the matter. I am not one to defend revisionism of the East Bloc or post-1956 Soviet Union, nor Cuba, China, etc. But no matter what I have to say about any of these states, I can at least accomplish what good they did when they were following a more or less Marxist path. Why do I have the ability to do this? Perhaps because I never was exposed to campus Communism and instead was working at various jobs starting at 14. Perhaps it was because I live in Eastern Europe and I can acknowledge, in agreement with many here who lived through the time, that even in the revisionist Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, there were advantages for working people. Perhaps it is because of my study of women trafficking, an industry that got a huge shot in the arm since the fall of revisionism. I still remember well the story of a girl in Viktor Malarek's book The Natashas, who was forced into the business while underage, and may have been raped as many as 1200 times. I remember how she begged her clients, NATO military personnel, to help her, and they either ignored it or even told her pimp with devastating consequences. Can you imagine why it might make my blood boil to hear someone tell me how terrible it was to live in the Soviet Union when they never even visited Eastern Europe at all?

The fact is that under Marxism-Leninism, and even under revisionism, these horrors were not happening. Even if we accepted without criticism all the disproven lies of anti-Communists about the so-called "crimes" of Communism, we ought to be able to look at the history of socialism since those alleged crimes, compare them to the far greater crimes that occurred in creating the capitalist industrialist powers, and suggest that perhaps this was necessary. Not so with the anarchist and Trots, more often than not young, in college, and living in privileged nations. All or nothing it is for them. And on the part of the anarchists, they have not a leg to stand on to declare, with the same glee as a neo-conservative, that Marxism 'failed'. The comparison is pretty simple; the Wright Brothers' plane, in comparison to subsequent advances in aviation, failed for all intents and purposes. By stark contrast, it was leagues ahead of all the ridiculous flying machine contraptions that preceded it. Remember those old films depicting guys riding bicycles off of cliffs with wings attached? That's anarchism. When there's a good wind, like a revolution started by Bolsheviks in 1917, or a state crisis such as the military uprising in Spain in 1936, they might get some distance, but they always land flat on their face.

The fact is that Marxism-Leninism accomplished something. It created nations, it liberated nations from colonial prisons, in eliminated illiteracy, it fought Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, it modernized agriculture and industrialized some of the most backward nations on earth, it defeated Fascism at its apogee, it kept US imperialism at bay, it reconciled ethnic tensions, it brought universal health-care, women's rights, ended child labor, suppressed and even eliminated prostitution; all these things during the time it existed, to varying degrees. And yet when we listen to the list of anarchist and Trotskyist accomplishments, we are treated to the symphony of crickets. And yet these folks still insist that their idea is somehow superior, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Even when they lose, they win, according to their debate tactics. It's easy to criticize existing systems when yours has never been in the driver's seat.

Lastly, for the sake of argument, let me point out that just because an argument or claim comes from the ruling class' intellectuals, this does not necessarily mean that it must be false. Indeed many false claims of the anti-Communists actually originate either from Trotsky or Khruschev. But it one ought to expect that anyone who is supposedly an anti-Communist ought to be a little more critical, seeing that it's not as if anti-Communists don't have a slough of arguments ready to attack anyone who claims to be anti-capitalist. You can't fight them tooth and nail one minute, and accept every word they say the next just because it suits you politically. More than this, the anti-Communist narrative of 'Communist crimes' is in fact largely a matter of fallacious perspective, once you break down their telephone number death-tolls with factual evidence. Much of what is left entails considering those things which are or have been commonplace under capitalism to be intentional, 'crimes' when they occur under any socialist regime. And if you can make that leap, what right does an anarchist have to defend the very real atrocities committed in Spain by anarchists, which were often opposed by the Communists? What right has an anarchist to criticize the Soviet Union under Stalin, going along with the anti-Communist narrative that casts so many political prisoners as automatically innocent, while insisting that those killed by anarchists in Spain must have been true Fascist sympathizers? A logical person can conclude that perhaps a great many of those killed were fifth-columnists, but one must also apply that logic to the USSR as well, in light of the archival studies that have been done regarding the purges and GULAG system.

In conclusion, there is a serious problem when one can find themselves in a debate with self-proclaimed anti-capitalists, whose arguments seem no different than that of anti-Communists and in some cases even Fascists. One of the last arguments I was in focused on rape in Eastern Europe in 1944-45. I was surprised to find the anarchists and Trots to be arguing this case using the same tactics so common amongst Neo-Nazis. Who could possibly suggest that this occurrence was somehow related to 'Stalinism'? What it all goes to show is that Trotskidiocy and anarchism are de facto pro-capitalist, and in the past have been de facto pro-Fascist from time to time. If you propagate propaganda which aids capitalists and Fascists, while not presenting any viable alternative to capitalism, and while attacking Marxist-Leninists who have proven accomplishments in this respect, you are indirectly aiding the ruling class. Perhaps in the 30's, they had an excuse, but decades later with the benefit of hindsight there are no excuses left. Marxism got somewhere, Anarchism and Trotskidiocy never made it off the tarmac. Ergo Marxism-Leninism is the correct line against capitalism, and victory is a matter of correcting those mistakes which were made in its application, as opposed to these other ideologies which were based on shaky foundations and mistakes from the beginning. And finally, just for the benefit of the doubt, I try to remind these people that even if somehow Anarchism or Trotskyism could ever be successful in the future, it would never have achieved one inch of progress had it not been based on an honest, materialistic analysis of existing socialism, and as such Marxism-Leninism and real-world socialism would inevitably be linked to the foundation of that future hypothetical society. Of course I'm not going to hold my breath.

Rant over.

Phora actually not dead, Lyceum Dead!

Ok, while the Phora got really slow for a month or so, and I was invited to the Lyceum, I assumed that it would basically replace the former. What I didn't know, is that some of the people that run that board, are more interested in some kind of live-action role playing nonsense that involves hacking into other peoples' boards or some other nerd shit of that sort. Thankfully, the activity at the Phora picked up, so I will link to it. In addition to this I am going to link to the board RevLeft, because thanks to the Hoxhaist Union, the Trotskites and Anarchists are being put on the defensive and forced to try to explain their utopian ideologies. It's amazing how many people one can find that seem to thing Animal Farm is a valid history of the Soviet Union.

Amateur Night a Complete and Utter Failure

Well it looks like all those conservatives who were upset about the blog's lack of a comments section never showed up. I'll leave the comments section open though.