WITH THE SECOND WORLD WAR COMING TO ITS CONCLUSION IT NATURALLY LEFT AN UNDIGNIFIED POLITICAL SCRAMBLE IN ITS WAKE. ~ Rob Ray ~ As summer arrived in June 1945 both the USSR and the Allies, now let off the hook for their wartime alliance, began the long process of competitive propagandising that came to be known as the Cold War. For much of the British left, still tied to the Communist Party of Great Britain and its Soviet inclinations (a situation that would last until Hungary 1956) this meant all effort would need to go to the cause of promoting the new Utopia. This was, of course, largely a fabrication. As we now know in great detail, Stalin’s projection of a happy society, especially in the rebuilding of a shattered Germany, was covering for the imposition of a brutal police state. Freedom Press was quick off the mark in critiquing Russia from the left. In the early June 1945 issue of War Commentary it ran a trenchatn piece accurately pinpointing the nature of the propaganda front being pushed, warning that tales of good works would not be as they seemed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STALIN’S ‘LEFT’ TURN: ANOTHER POLITICAL TRICK It seems clear today, with the defeat of the German army and the unconditional surrender of the Reich, that none of the major problems of European politics has been solved by the victorious powers. The inevitable contradictions which have been foreseen during the war by a revolutionary minority cannot remain hidden any longer from the public by official and unanimous declarations or promises of a wonderful peaceful world.  Only a few days after the final act of the European war, when the VE-Day celebrations were still going on, when the flags of the United Nations were still displayed in all the public places of Great Britain, France and the USA., the reactionary press of America started to call a war with Soviet Russia inevitable, pointing out that Europe cannot be reconstructed so long as it is dominated by the evil power of Russian Imperialism, At the same lime the Soviet papers started a campaign, which still continues, to prove that the Western Allies are collaborating with the big shots of the Nazi regime and to point out that the liquidation of the German Army must be parallel with the extermination of the last survivors of the Nazi regime.  Behind these accusations by the Soviet press and radio lies something quite different. Stalin has once more surprised the world with one of those somersaults of policy which are possible only if you have absolutely no public opinion to reckon with, if all liberty of thought and of expression have been carefully suppressed beforehand.  The trend of the Soviet foreign policy appears now to be concentrating on one major objective: the neutralisation of Continental Europe. It has always been clear to the Russians that to dominate Europe they must dominate Germany, exactly as it is necessary for Germany to dominate Russia in order to keep its position in Europe and the world.  In other words, Stalin would like a friendly Germany, while the western powers are not interested for the time being in the friendship of the German people, and seem to have in mind to exploit themselves the industrial power of the Reich rather than to build up a new German economy.  The British, Americans and French have decided to bring “order” into defeated Germany, even by means of “collaboration” with the most reactionary German elements. The Russians are able to establish order by themselves, for the GPU [secret police, succeeded by the NKVD – ed] can take care of any internal opposition. There need not to be collaboration. Indeed, the fear of Russia still prevailing among many Germans, particularly the bourgeoisie, makes collaboration with reactionary elements difficult for the present. Stalin knows this, and that is why he decided to enter Germany as a “liberator*’, while Churchill and Roosevelt spoke of “conquering”. It is true that the Russian policy during the war was ostensibly one of conquest and of domination. But, now the war is over, Stalin starts to try to win over the German people, to convince them of the necessity of co-operation with “mighty Russia”. This is the scheme.  First, conditions of life must be improved. The food rations in Russian-occupied Germany are increased (at least temporarily). The reconstruction work is done with the greatest possible speed. The Berlin underground is running. The shops are opening. Cinemas are featuring Russian pictures. The orchestras are playing once more — Tchaikovsky has replaced Wagner. At the same time the radio stations are again on the air. The propaganda from the Berlin stations starts to “prove” that the Russians have only the best intentions towards the German people, and announcers with German accents ask the listeners to thank the Red Army for liberation from the Nazi yoke. Here is a typical item:  “One Miss Ursel Friedman says: ‘Now we know what lies the Goebbels propaganda told about the Red Army. Nfot only shall we not starve, but the working man gets more than under the Nazis. All this is a revelation to us. We are simply amazed. We shall want to work in any case. It is now up to us to organise the distribution of work swiftly and efficiently. We all see rolling past us the Red Army lorries carrying food to the German population. Altogether a new life is beginning. We have started on the way towards a better world. Even theatres have reopened. Things are looking brighter and they will look brighter still’.” (Berlin Radio, 18/5/45).  At the same time the new German municipal administration of Berlin takes over. General Barjanin, Soviet Commander of Berlin, pointed out during the opening session of the council that “Marshal Stalin has long ago ordered the preparation of food for German civilians.” It seems that Stalin took this measure at the same time as his spokesman Ehrenburg spoke of the awful “Fritz”, the Hun who will have to pay for the Nazi crimes.  So far everything seems clear. The Russian government wants a “friendly” Germany. So it shows the “humanitarian” and “liberal” aspect of the Soviet regime. M Mikoyan, Deputy Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR., ie. deputy to Stalin himself, recently made a tour to study the food situation in occupied Germany, especially in Berlin and Dresden. On his return to Moscow he gave an interview to Pravda. Here is what the “communist” Mikoyan had to say:  “The seriousness of the German food situation is mainly due to the German government’s mistaken policy in agricultural production and distribution. According to the German law the peasants had to deliver all their produce to the State except for a certain quantity they could keep for their own use. They could not sell any grain, fats, meat or potatoes on the free market or through trade organisations. This naturally weakened the stimulus towards increasing production. To enable Germany to feed her own towns, the peasants must be allowed to sell in the free market after fulfilling the compulsory deliveries to administrative organs. Trade in any articles of mass consumption was previously forbidden in Germany and the population had to be content with the very few wares they were given on ration cards. To improve the population’s supplies the Soviet Command has allowed free trade in Berlin. This will be another way to raise the standard of living of the urban population.” It will also be another way to return to the most classic system of capitalism. A few years ago M Mikoyan would have been shot as a traitor to the “progressive” Soviet regime of trade control and of suppression of the “kulak” or enriched peasant.  The Russian policy in Germany, the policy of “friendship” with the German people is only one of the features of the scheme set up by Stalin to form the European bloc to protect the Soviet Union. What Stalin is doing now is a “cordon sanitaire In reverse.” This cordon sanitaire must of course include countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia, not to mention Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. It is in connection with the formation of this bloc of Central and East European countries that there appears the “new” formula of Soviet policy. In fact it is not new at all, as we shall see in a moment.  In his order of the day, announcing the capitulation of the German armies, Stalin spoke of the “historic struggle of the Slav peoples”. A few days later, 19/5/45, one of the Stalinist agents, M. Zdenek Nejedly, Education Minister of Czechoslovakia, emphasised the meaning of this historic sentence. He said in his first speech upon his return to Prague: “I return from Moscow as Minister of Education, firmly convinced that the destiny of the nation, liberty and civilisation have been defended by the Red Army … The most important fact for us is that, in the future Europe, the leading role will belong to the Slav nations. The Slav idea, vague in times of Kolkar, has to-day become a reality. The Slav nations, centred around the great Russian nation, represent a force which no European coalition can oppose.”  As I said, the idea is not new. Replace, for instance, the word “Slav” by the word “Germanic” and see if it does not remind you of something …  So today, in the month of the “most crushing victory in human history”, power blocs are already forming. I have attempted to analyse the trend of the Soviet foreign policy as it appears now. Of course, the British and the Americans are preparing to counter these moves. They have their own interests and their own plans. It is perhaps too early to speak of the results which the logical development of the situation may bring. There is not always much logic in traditional politics. But the movements which can overthrow regimes, can also upset foreign policies.  ~ DIMITRI TVERDOV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pic: Brandenburg Gate, 1945, from the German Federal Archive The post Radical Reprint: Stalin’s ‘left’ turn appeared first on Freedom News.

I WAS TRAPPED IN LENINISM AND READ SWATHES OF LENIN’S RHETORIC – NOW I KNOW THE ANARCHISTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG ~ Killian Flynn ~ Amongst the shadow puppets of English radicalism, lie inert various guises of Leninism: self-perpetuating central committees run tiny irrelevant organisations and use them as a vector to punt their books to young people more familiar with Super Mario than Mikhail Bakunin. This type of Leninist party has mundane job “building cadre”, selling a newspaper in the streets and helping sell the trite utterances of a nonentity, usually a history or philosophy professor of low ability, trapped young radicals. Protecting Russia and building pro-Russia parties was the strategy. Young bright people who want major change get tied up in such organisations and are lost, disillusioned and join the rat race. I was trapped in Leninism and have read swathes of Lenin’s rhetoric. I understand how modern Leninists cherry pick rational statements from a torrent of crap. Leninist groups may have a growth phase but the structure produces regular splits leading to a myriad of small Leninist groups all with their central committees of wise men (and a few women). The best-case scenario is when a Leninist group acts as an old boys club. A meeting is followed by a few pints. Worst case scenario: Police recruit central committee members as informers. It has been argued that Lenin delivered. The people wanted revolution. Lenin and his Bolshevik mates won it with and for them. Gold star for Lenin. But let’s take a closer look. Lenin in power wrote Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I bought and read it recently. It is pure excrement. The book of a chancer and opportunist who seizes power in a power vacuum and then insists that Russia is a model for the world. Arrant nonsense. Lenin is the big Daddy and the communists and radicals in the West are children. Lenin is truth and decisive. The Western radicals, according to big Vlad, don’t know the ABC of Marxism. Here’s the A: the Communist Manifesto penned by Marx states “communists SHALL NOT form a party separate from the workers” Here’s B: A lack of understanding of the power of the British monarchy and empire stymied Lenin’s world view. Marx had to avoid criticism of the Surrey toffs so that he could get on with writing Capital. The Czar was an amateur compared to the English royals who survive to this day with vast estates and willing vassals. Here is C (or K): Peter Kropotkin. Despite the book title Lenin makes no critique of anarchism and anti-statism. Kropotkin rightly realised a revolution in urban areas had to link with the peasants to avoid famine. People centred revolution! However, in the USSR, Lenin copied the Prussian state structure of pyramidal power which outwardly appears democratic but in reality, a few at the top dominate. In the early days old Vlad probably couldn’t believe the extent of his power. But once he had, his iron will was determined to keep power for himself. It’s also essential to mention that feminism and women’s freedom were not central to the Bolsheviks who were thoroughly workerist. Alexandra Kollontai, the only woman on the first Central Committee to convene after the revolution, repeatedly advocated female liberation but was told “wait till after the revolution”. Women made important gains but their freedoms were ephemeral and Stalin quickly returned to czarist style appeals for Russian women to make babies for the greater good of Russia. Moreover, Lenin and Stalin were prudes. The old maxims of the orthodox church carried over to the USSR. Lenin would have disapproved of the youth rebellion of the 1960s involving free love and fun. Lenin would have said “It’s a distraction from your duty to work for the party!” In France Lutte Ouvriere made party members not have children so as to dedicate their time to party building. The revolutions of Russia and China have proved Karl Marx wrong. The state in these countries never withered away, but only became totalitarian. The state became an end in itself. History would have been better off if Bolshevik Russia had fallen like Bolshevik Bavaria and Hungary (perhaps after the execution of the Czar and family might have been best). Lenin was ultimately wrong and the anarchists were right. Time for a new chapter. The post The Death of Leninism appeared first on Freedom News.