There’s plenty of Myths and Arguments floating around by Right-Wing and Conservative Think-Tanks that use bad faith arguments and logic fallacies to exert their preconceived notions on subjects that have no intellectual honesty or knowledge on such subjects. In many cases they don’t care whether they’re purposely being malicious in distorting history to appeal to the Imperialist status-quo. Though I’m not going to cover and DEBUNK every argument out there as this document would take at most hundreds of pages to cover, but I’ll DEBUNK the important ones that need addressing, because it’s clear that most of these so called “intellectuals” never once read a Book in their life when sincerely discussing and critiquing certain –isms like normal Philosophers and Intellectuals did back in the ‘Enlightenment Age’. It’s time to be Dialectical and Scientific about the subject instead of gloating one own Egos and Opinions.
1 “Communism doesn’t Suit Human Nature because we’re Greedy”
Right. So, what is Human Nature? Do we have a static / fixed Nature where we’re always Greedy? Or does our Nature change within the Material and Environmental Conditions we live in? Philosophers have already answered this age-old Question, such as such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hegel, Darwin, Freud, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and even Karl Marx himself answered it, yet not one of these so called “Intellectuals” admit that Capitalism as an Economic System that governs Human Societies, Institutions, Organisational Structures, Social Relations, Means of Production and Relations of Production, is the reason most Humans are Greedy, or are nurtured in becoming Greedy. In relation to the effects of the capitalist mode of production on society Marx stated in 1844:
“We have seen what significance, given socialism, the wealth of human needs acquires, and what significance, therefore, both a new mode of production and a new object of production obtain: a new manifestation of the forces of human nature and a new enrichment of human nature.
Under private property their significance is reversed: every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of enjoyment and therefore economic ruin.
Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.
Man becomes ever poorer as man, his need for money becomes ever greater if he wants to master the hostile power. The power of his money declines in inverse proportion to the increase in the volume of production: that is, his neediness grows as the power of money increases.” – Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 – Human Requirements and Division of Labor Under the Rule of Private Property and Under Socialism. Division of Labor in Bourgeois Society
Indeed, surely anyone out there who’s experienced Poverty or Destitution understands clearly what Marx expresses. You don’t need to even experience it, you can look outside, talk to your coworkers, read statistics. People are becoming more depressed and desperate, crime is linked to Poverty and always has, I’ll cite two reports on this matter, one by the UK’s ‘Ministry of Justice’ Reported that Young people are being drawn into lifelong offending by “crimes of despair” linked to poverty, trauma and discrimination, the second report by ‘Journal of Economic Structures’ Stating; Piatkowska examined the social cost of Poverty (POV) in terms of increasing suicides rates, crime rates, and total violent rates in the United States and across 15 European nations during the period of 1993–2000. The results show that suicides–crime–violent rates are substantially increasing due to increase in relative POV and infant mortality rates across countries.
Capitalism forces Humans to fight over Capital for survival, whether you’re a Shareholder competing against other Shareholders, a coworker that competes against the rest of the team, or a Homeless person Mugging or Shoplifting to survive, is it the fault of the Homeless to commit such a Crime? Or is it simply the Nature of the System that forces Humans like him to survive?
As I’ve mentioned previously in my ‘Dialectical History of the Philippines’ I explained that:
“Nothing in the world stands by itself. Every object is a link in an endless chain and is thus connected with all the other links. And this chain of the universe has never been broken; it unites all objects and processes in a single whole and thus has a universal character. We cannot move so much as our little finger without “disturbing” the whole universe. The life of the universe, its history lies in an infinite web of connections.” – Dialectical History of the Philippines, Introduction
Marx opposed the supposed “common-sense” idea that humans have a fixed nature which exists independently of the society they live in. He demonstrated that many of the features attributed to unchanging human nature in fact vary enormously in different societies. However, Marx did not reject the idea of human nature itself. He argued that the need to labour on nature to satisfy human needs was the only consistent feature of all human societies, the everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence. Human beings, like all other animals, must work on nature to survive. The labour of humans, however, was distinguished from that of animals because human beings developed consciousness. Marx gave a famous description of this at the beginning of Capital, Volume I:
“A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.”
Working on nature alters not only the natural world, but also the labourer himself. Marx frequently reinforced this idea, as in the following quote from Capital, Volume I:
“By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway.’ Thus labour is a dynamic process through which the labourer shapes and moulds the world he lives in and stimulates himself to create and innovate. Marx called our capacity for conscious labour our ‘species being”.
Our species being is also a social being, as Marx explained in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844):
“The individual is the social being.”
People have to enter into relationships with each other regardless of their personal preferences because they need to work together to get what they need to live. In the Grundrisse, Marx emphasized the point:
“Society does not consist of individuals; it expresses the sum of connections and relationships in which individuals find themselves.”
Humanity relates to the physical world through labour; through labour humanity itself develops and labour is the source of human being’s relationships with each other. What happens to the process of work, therefore, has a decisive influence on the whole of society.
Our ability to work, to improve how we work and build on our successes, has tended to result in the cumulative development of the productive forces. One such development gave rise to class society. When society became capable of producing a surplus, it also became possible for a class to emerge which was liberated from the need to directly produce and could live from its control over the labour of others. This process was necessary in order to develop and direct the productive forces, but it also meant that the majority of society, the producers, lost control of their labour. Thus, the alienation of labour arose with class society.
The first tool contains within it all the potential future ones. The first recognition of the fact that the world can be changed by conscious activity contains all future, as yet unknown, but inevitable change. A living being which has once begun to make nature his own through the work of his hands, his intellect, and his imagination will never stop. Every achievement opens the door to unconquered territory.
But when labour is destructive, not creative, when it is undertaken under coercion and not as the free play of forces, when it means the withering, not the flowering, of man’s physical and intellectual potential, then labour is a denial of its own principle and therefore of the principle of man.
The emergence of class divisions in which one class had control over the means of producing what society needed, led to a further division between individuals and the society to which they belonged. Certain forms of social life drive a wedge between the two dimensions of the self, the individual and the communal, producing a separation between individuals’ interests and those of society as a whole. However, alienation is not an unalterable human condition which exists unchanged in every class society.
So, in knowing that, why can’t Humans adapt to newer Economic Systems (like Communism) as we’ve already done in the past historically? This argument is nothing but Metaphysical nonsense that appeals to ignorance as “common-sense”.
2 “Communism always resorts / leads to Dictatorships”
People that say this act like Capitalist States aren’t forms of ‘Dictatorships’ either, Western folk simply don’t know what a Dictatorship is, because clearly they aren’t educated objectively what Dictatorships are, they consider ‘Dictatorships’ to be Authoritative rule of One man, in many cases that’s true, but also greatly highlights the fact how undemocratic it is, refusing to also educate that Dictatorships are determined by State and Class Character than superficial structure. They consider their own Dictatorship (Bourgeois Dictatorship) not a Dictatorship, but “Democratic”. So, what is a ‘Dictatorship’ and ‘Democracy’?
Anyone that’s read Plato and Socrates would know the nature or essentials of both these systems. Dictators of then weren’t or didn’t have any negative connotations as they do now under Bourgeois Media, especially given recent history where most so called “Dictators” are supported by the Bourgeoisie (e.g., Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee, Fulgencio Batista etc), but they want to Horseshoe Fallacy the argument that Dictatorships under Socialist States are no different from Fascist and/or Bourgeois States. Plato and Socrates clearly didn’t like ‘Democracy’ for many reasons, good reasons that have been proven for countless times. They asked the question of; who would rather have managed a voyage on the sea. Some random passenger, or a well-trained, educated, and experienced captain? They then extend the metaphor to the state, asking why we would let just anybody try to manage the ship of state. Commonly, when people think of Democracy, they think of electing Parties, not the individuals behind them. The common criticism is that Single-Party Democracies are ‘Oxymoronic’ when in reality it isn’t. Democracy isn’t about choosing a Party to represent you, but the individual that’ll govern your whole country or community. Majority of people overtime solely forget this important responsibility when it comes to Elections, they choose parties as if it’s a recreational Football Club than an educated political decision and duty of society.
This is not the only criticism of the intelligence of the voting population, we have from the cradle of democracy. Plato suggests that democracy is one of the later stages in the decline of the ideal state. One which is so bad that people ultimately cry out for a dictator to save them from it. This idea was big for Plato, Democracy would lead to tyrants, as was evident in his Five Regimes, these five regimes progressively degenerate starting with aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny at the bottom. Aristotle, for his part, listed democracy as the failed version of rule by the multitudes. “Timocracy”, rule by the propertied class or even just a more constitutional form of republican government was the ideal kind of rule by the many, in his mind. He would have seen Athens as an ever-decaying city, moving away from its original timocratic constitution as laid out by Solon.
The idea that democracy is fundamentally flawed even had sponsors in later, more liberal, thinkers. Voltaire, who supported all of the liberal freedoms of speech and religion, told Catharine the Great of Russia that:
“Almost nothing great has ever been done in the world except by the genius and firmness of a single man combating the prejudices of the multitude”
Can you blame him? This same mentality continues today, Democracy (or more specifically Bourgeois Democracy) and so-called ‘Human Rights’ has become such a religious and holistic term, a cult even, where majority don’t comprehend its essentials or values. The Status-Quo use it as form of ‘Bread and Circus’ and holistic duty equivalence to the Holy See saying ‘DEUS VULT’, a justification for regime change, for imperialism, whether domestic or abroad. Western countries have long justified their imperialism of direct colonialism or indirect influence on the ruling and political classes of Third World countries through hypocritical discourses.
During the 19th century, they were openly racist, speaking of the “White Men’s Burden” and his mission to civilize the rest of the world. In the mid-20th century, amid decolonization, racism was unaffordable and the favored discourse was of development. In the post-Cold War period, it has been democracy and human rights.
Democracy works wonderfully when guided by the right people under a Proletarian State, whom are Educated, with right merits, but like Christ himself, those ideas are bastardized in interests of certain Classes, Democracy is not compatible with Bourgeois rule, Bourgeois Democracy is a Democracy for the Oligarchy, not for the workers, the people. In Western Bourgeois Democracy anyone and anybody can say unmerited nonsense without repercussion of their abuse, such abuse leads an unproductive society of ignorant mobs electing Oligarchs furthering their Class Interests, as Issac Asimov said:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
In China when the Communist Party of China won the War of Liberation (I.e., Second Civil War), Mao established the principle ‘Seek Truth from Facts’ a form of Meritocracy that was needed to educate the masses to lead the country to its rejuvenation from the Century of Humiliation that was felt by all Chinese of the period and in many instances still do today. The masses were educated in not speaking nonsense, but to be always pragmatic, scientific and factual with their studies and lifestyle mixed with Confucius Philosophy, no matter whether in political or scientific institutions. As Mao states in ‘Oppose Book Worship’:
“Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
When they come across difficult problems, quite a number of people in leading positions simply heave a sigh without being able to solve them. They lose patience and ask to be transferred on the ground that they ‘have not the ability and cannot do the job’; These are cowards’ words. Just get moving on your two legs, go the rounds of every section placed under your charge and ‘inquire into everything’ as Confucius did, and then you will be able to solve the problems, however little is your ability; for although your head may be empty before you go out of doors, it will be empty no longer when you return but will contain all sorts of material necessary for the solution of the problems, and that is how problems are solved. Must you go out of doors? Not necessarily. You can call a fact-finding meeting of people familiar with the situation in order to get at the source of what you call a difficult problem and come to know how it stands now, and then it will be easy to solve your difficult problem.
Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.”
When we contrast these both societies (I.e., USA and China), we can clearly see both have Freedoms to speak, but only one lacks the responsibility of it. Freedom of speech as it states in the ‘Equality and Human Rights Commission’ (EHRC):
“Your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.
This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:
• published articles, books or leaflets • television or radio broadcasting • works of art • the internet and social media
The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine. “
But with that freedom comes implied responsibility. In the West you have the right to shout obscenities out the window, scream racial slurs in a crowd, or be downright nasty on social media, but why would you? Even in the EHRC states this Right has Responsibility behind it:
“Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.
Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
• protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety • prevent disorder or crime • protect health or morals • protect the rights and reputations of other people • prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence • maintain the authority and impartiality of judges
An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.
However, the relevant public authority must show that the restriction is ‘proportionate’, in other words that it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned.”
“2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Freedom of speech carries responsibility, and in many instances there’s no punishment. Westerners love to gloat that they can say whatever they like, no matter how sensational, tabloid, rumormongering, nonsensical, ignorant, degenerative and disharmonizing it is affecting society.
But in China, Freedom of Speech comes with Responsibility, no one is allowed to shout obscenities out the window, scream racial slurs in a crowd, or be downright nasty on social media, you’re warned of such vulgar and intolerable language, plus in Chinese Confucius Culture it’s outright disrespectful and hooligan behavior. This doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to criticize the Government as majority of Chinese have been able to since the founding of the People’s Republic and Communist Party, Mao expressed this:
“In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily “from the masses, to the masses”. This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge” – The Little Red Book
There’s a difference between ‘Free Speech’ and ‘Criticism’.
Constructive Criticism is valued very much in both the Central Committee and across the Country, especially if the person has INVESTIGATED the issue and critiqued a better method to resolve it, this kind of Free Speech needs to be encouraged to have a more Productive and Educated Society in comparison to childish and vulgar “F*ck (insert Leader or Government)” mentality of the multitudes. But chauvinists of the West assert that in this case Chinese are “oppressed” and want / need Western Ideas and Values, but in reality, they don’t and they’ll fight tooth to nail if any Western Power attempts to once again subvert the Chinese People again, as more than 90% support the Government in compared to USA’s average 24%. It’s evidently clear that China follows these Rights in accordance with International Law. But they’ll be people out there dismissing this due to suppression of Tabloidism out of double-standards of superiority. For example, recently this year of 2021 the UK Banned / Restricted CGTN under false accusations, whilst China’s state TV channel, CCTV, happily lies beyond the reach of western censorship, the London-based CGTN, China’s equivalent to the BBC’s World Service (minus the lies), has been closed down in the UK by Ofcom, ending CGTN’s broadcasts on the Sky and Freesat platforms.
CGTN suffered harassment from the ‘independent’ regulator Ofcom when it complained that the company that had secured CGTN’s broadcasting licence, Star China Media, did not (in Ofcom’s opinion) exercise sufficient editorial control over the content, which was instead being guided by CCTV. When CGTN suggested a compromise solution, offering to set up another go-between company that would satisfy even Ofcom’s exacting criteria of independent control, Ofcom kept moving the goalposts. In the end, Ofcom simply asserted that CGTN was run by CCTN, CCTN was run by the Chinese state, the state was run by the Chinese Communist Party, the party was a political body and the law forbids political bodies from holding broadcast licences. Ofcom’s childish caricature of the way in which Chinese society works and the guiding role that the CPC exercises within it is beneath contempt, and could have equally been brought into service (with equal invalidity) at any point in the past. It is happening now because British and US imperialism are anxious to mould public opinion in preparation for confrontation with, and ultimately for war with, China.
To soften up the public, it is necessary to paint China as both aggressive and expansionist abroad and a tyrannical human rights abuser at home. The mainstream western media are more than happy to keep pumping out this disinformation, owned as they mostly are by corporate interests and taking their ideological direction not from, God forbid, a ‘political body’, but from the permanent and unelected dictatorship of monopoly capital. For Ofcom to accuse CGTN, as it does, of broadcasting one-sided coverage of the demonstrations in Hong Kong is particularly rich, given the many hours devoted in the British media to glorifying the western-backed, deluded and violent protesters as champions of freedom and democracy, with never a dissenting voice to be heard above the hubbub.
Now that most of the sound and fury over Hong Kong has died down somewhat, thanks to the firm rebuff administered by Beijing, the main thrust of the hostile propaganda is focusing on the supposed ‘genocide’ occurring in the Xinjiang province of China. This campaign of lies and distortions hopes to reinforce the lies about China’s ‘human rights record’, something that imperialism is particularly eager to do to distract attention away from the continued detention of whistle-blower Julian Assange in Belmarsh prison for the ‘crime’ of publicising the war crimes committed by imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Imperialism has zero interest in human rights abuses, as its sponsorship of Saudi Arabia’s genocide in the Yemen and Israel’s genocide in Palestine, not to mention its own adventures in waterboarding and assassination by drone strike, amply attests.
What does interest it greatly is trying to use the Xinjiang issue as a wedge to crack open the unity of China, taking advantage of the province’s strategic location to disrupt the progress of China’s Belt and Road initiative – in particular the building of an oil pipeline that could help China to avoid the threat of imperialist blockade on the Malacca strait.
Chinese know very well from their own history that power brings wealth. This rule applies everywhere and anytime. Western sovereigns don’t do any better in this regard, but worse. What truly fascinates me is that common Westerners tend to believe that Chinese people are blinded from the truth about politics. In today’s world, China is probably the only country which teaches its citizens since junior high that the nature of a nation state is a violent tool for the ruling class to oppress the ruled class.
Every State that’s ruled by certain Class needs to restrict rights to establish itself and maintain its status-quo in periods of stress and threat. Take the Sedition Act and Repression of Loyalists in the United States or restrictions on press freedoms during the American Slavery war. Liberal Capitalism dominance is certainly paved with blood. Without the Spring of Nations or the French revolution it certainly would not have taken hold as the Monarchies of old would never let their power be challenged, yet this socio-political aspect isn’t taught in Western Schools, and for good reason by the Status-Quo.
Capitalists won’t let Socialists develop a peaceful and gentle Socialism. When Allende tried to in Chile the democratic government was overthrown in a U.S. backed military Coup. They are forced to adapt ‘authoritarian’ measures to stay alive. This all being said, the extent of ‘authoritarianism’ is often greatly exaggerated by western propaganda. When America does it, it’s a prison. When the Soviets do it, it is a Gulag. Despite the fact Prison Populations in USA is higher in comparison to both USSR and CHINA. And the fact the Slavery in the USA still exists under different definitions and Law like the 13th Amendment stating:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The idea that Communism is inherently authoritarian is misleading, just the so-called ‘Democracy’ of America is, because it only developed these things after capitalism tried to crush it. In 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations invaded Soviet Russia to overthrow the communists with the years of the civil war intensifying the Bolshevik’s siege mentality. The same pattern of imperialist, capitalist countries invading to protect capital can be seen in other countries that try to move beyond capitalism. The Spartacist Uprising in Germany was suppressed by the Social Democrats with fascist paramilitary forces in 1919, Catalonia was crushed by fascists in the Spanish Civil War in 1939, Cuba in 1961 suffered from an invasion and afterwards decades of terrorism from the U.S., Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in 1986, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and so much more. As we can see, capitalism will stop at nothing, even going as far as supporting fascism, if it means stopping communism from threatening the flow of capital. The reality is that revolutionary countries are not going to be allowed to develop a socialism that is unhindered. Instead, what we see is a sort of “siege socialism,” similarly with the Paris Commune, which the idea of Dictatorship of the Proletariat comes from with the authoritarian measures being adopted just to fight back the onslaught of the West. In the whole context, we see that the “totalitarianism” of communism is not a natural development, but an unnatural one caused by the constant barrage of capitalist terrorism.
For example, did anyone ask why “Stalin” committed the Purge? I know many would say; “Oh, because he was a Power-Hungry Dictator” or “He was Paranoid Psychopath”. Both incorrect, first of all, many of Stalin’s close-friends has already debunked the slander of both these statements. The Purge happened due to Counterrevolutionary gravitas by the Petty-Bourgeois and Bourgeoisie strata of the Party, both these Classes attempted Opportunistic and Assassination against many Senior Members of the Party like Stalin’s friend ‘Sergei Kirov’ which was the catalyst for the whole purge. Plus, it wasn’t just Stalin that agreed to this Purge, but the whole Central Committee, as subterfuge and overthrow the Socialist State was a real threat, I go into detail on this in my ‘Dialectical History of the Soviet Union’:
“But I believe it started when Stalin’s best friend Sergei Mironovich Kirov was assassinated in Leningrad on December 1, 1934; it served as a pretext for a wave of political repression against counter-revolutionary forces. On the day Kirov was killed, the Soviet government reacted with an official announcement of Kirov’s murder. It spoke of the need for “the final elimination of all enemies of the working class.”
Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR “On amendments to the existing criminal procedure codes of the Union republics”:
‘Introduce the following changes to the existing criminal procedure codes of the Union republics for the investigation and consideration of cases of terrorist organizations and terrorist acts against workers of the Soviet government:
To complete the investigation of these cases within a period not exceeding ten days;
The indictment shall be handed over to the accused one day before the consideration of the case in court;
To listen to cases without the participation of the parties;
Cassational appeal of sentences, as well as filing petitions for clemency, should not be allowed;
The sentence to capital punishment shall be carried out immediately upon sentencing.
- Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR M. Kalinin.
Secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR A. Yenukidze.
December 1, 1934’
What led after this was a series events of trials called the ‘Moscow Trials’ lasting from 1936 – 1938. While the Congress, which had opened on November 25, 1936, was attending to the new Constitution the Soviet leadership was between the first two large-scale Moscow Trials. Grigorii Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev had gone on trial along with some others in August 1936. The second trial, in January 1937, involved some of the major followers of Trotsky, led by Iurii Piatakov, until recently the Deputy Commissar of Heavy Industry.
At the public Moscow trials of 1936, 1937, and 1938, the prosecution charged that a clandestine criminal bloc of the various opposition groups was formed in 1932, had murdered Kirov, and continued to conspire against the Stalin leadership. From exile Leon Trotsky vigorously denied that he and his followers had joined or ever would join such a bloc. But in 1980 Pierre Broue, at that time the most prominent Trotskyist historian in the world, discovered that this bloc did in fact exist and that Trotsky had approved it.
On December 1, 1934, Sergei M. Kirov, First Secretary of the Leningrad oblast’ and city Party Committees, was murdered in Party headquarters at the Smolny Institute in Leningrad. The Stalin-led Soviet government stated that their investigation proved that the assassin, Leonid Vasil’evich Nikolaev, had acted on behalf of a secret Zinovievist group.
Trotsky claimed that Stalin was lying. Khrushchev’s and, later, Gorbachev’s men claimed that no secret Zinovievist group existed and that Nikolaev had been a lone assassin. Western anticommunist scholars either echo Khrushchev and Gorbachev or claim that Stalin had had Kirov killed. Thanks to evidence from the former Soviet archives and the Harvard Trotsky archives we now know that the Stalin-era police and prosecution were correct.
At the first Moscow Trial in August 1936, Zinoviev and Kamenev confessed to collaborating in Kirov’s murder. They admitted that the goal of the bloc of oppositionists including Zinovievists, Trotskyists, and others was to seize power in the USSR by violence. Other Trotskyists confessed to plotting assassinations of Soviet leaders, including Stalin.
The defendants in the 1936 Moscow Trial had disclosed the existence of a parallel leadership for the bloc and had named Trotskyists and Rightists as participants.
Between September and December 1936, Radek, Piatakov, and others involved with them revealed details about Trotsky’s conspiracies with Germany, Japan, and with anti-Soviet and pro-fascist forces inside the USSR. At the second Moscow Trial of January 1937, the defendants detailed Trotsky’s plans to dismantle socialism in the USSR in exchange for German and Japanese support in seizing power. They implicated Bukharin, Rykov, and other Rightists as members of the bloc who were fully informed about Trotsky’s plans.
The February-March 1937 Plenum of the Central Committee, the longest ever held, dragged on for two weeks. This plenum dramatized the contradictory tasks that confronted the Party leadership: the struggle against internal enemies, and the need to prepare for secret, contested elections under the new Constitution. The discovery of more groups conspiring to overthrow the Soviet government demanded police action. But to prepare for truly democratic elections to the government, and to improve inner party democracy—a theme stressed over and over by those closest to Stalin in the Politburo—required the opposite: openness to criticism and self-criticism, and secret elections of leaders by rank- and-file Party members.
On June 17, 1937, just prior to the June CC plenum, Nikolai Ezhov, who had replaced Iagoda as Commissar of the NKVD, transmitted a message from S.N. Mironov, NKVD chief in Western Siberia, reporting the threat of revolts by subversives in concert with Japanese intelligence. Mironov reported that Robert I. Eikhe, Party First Secretary of Western Siberia, would request the ability to form a “troika” to deal with this threat.
Other historians claim that this mass repression was led by Stalin, who was trying to kill anybody who might be disloyal, a “Fifth Column”, if the Soviet Union were invaded. Still others claim that Stalin was out to murder any and all possible rivals, or was paranoid, or simply mad. There is no evidence to support these notions.
In fact, the reason for the campaign of repression stands out clearly in the evidence we have. The subversive activities and rebellions that Mironov, Eikhe, and other regional Party leaders and NKVD men reported were a logical consequence of the conspiracies that had been gradually discovered since the assassination of Kirov over the previous years.
Before Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” few specialists in Soviet studies doubted the real existence of these conspiracies. Only the Trotskyist movement, faithful to their murdered leader, claimed that these conspiracies were fabrications by Stalin.
This changed after Khrushchev’s speech. Virtually all anticommunists, as well as most communists and, of course, all Trotskyists, chose to believe Khrushchev’s allegations against Stalin. It followed from what Khrushchev implied in 1956, and from what his supporters claimed at the XXII Party Congress in October, 1961, that the defendants in the Moscow Trials, plus the Tukhachevsky Affair defendants, had all been innocent victims of a frame-up. Mikhail Gorbachev’s lieutenants made the same assertions. Since Khrushchev’s day, the consensus among professional students of Soviet history has conformed to the Khrushchev-Gorbachev position: there were no conspiracies, all were inventions by Stalin.
This is all false. There has never been any evidence that any of these conspiracies were frame-ups or that any of the defendants were innocent. Just the opposite is the case. The evidence is overwhelming that Kirov was indeed murdered by the clandestine Zinovievist group and that Zinoviev and Kamenev were involved in the group’s activities, including Kirov’s murder. Trotskyists and Trotsky himself were also implicated.
We have a great deal of evidence that the conspiracies alleged in all three Moscow Trials were real and that all the defendants were guilty of at least what they confessed to. In some cases, we can now prove that defendants were guilty of crimes that they did not reveal to the Prosecution. We also have a great deal of evidence on the Tukhachevsky Affair. All of it supports the hypothesis that the defendants were guilty as charged. The evidence that all these conspiracies did in fact exist allows us to view the Yezhov mass repressions of July 1937 to October-November 1938 objectively and in their proper context.
From the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the study of Soviet history has developed as an adjunct of political anticommunism. It has always had a dual character: that of discovering what happened, and that of defaming Stalin, the Soviet Union, and communism generally. The result is that academic historiography of the Soviet Union is rarely objective. It has “sacred cows,” tenets that are never questioned. This is the “anti-Stalin paradigm.” Academic historians of the USSR are pressured to conform to this paradigm, or at least not openly violate it.
Chief among the tenets of the anti-Stalin paradigm is that all the Moscow Trials, plus the Tukhachevsky Affair, were frame-ups. Today, we know that this is false. An objective study of the evidence now available from former Soviet archives, from the Trotsky archives, and elsewhere, proves that these conspiracies did indeed exist. This false paradigm deprives academic historians and their readers of the ability to understand the conspiracy trials. It robs them and us of the ability to understand the context for the Yezhov-era mass repressions.”
So, when communist states fail to defend themselves from the capitalist massacres and genocides, then capitalists laugh and pin the blame on communism’s inherent weakness. But when communist states do defend themselves, when they implement strict security measures to protect their people from capitalist death squads, then the capitalists run away crying, decrying the commies for being power-hungry monsters who were just authoritarians seeking to seize state power all along. So, if communism is bad and weak when it fails to defend itself, but it’s also bad and authoritarian when it does defend itself, then when would communism ever not be depicted to be villainous? The answer is never, because no matter what communist states do, it’s always spun to be bad. This…is not an argument. It’s a dogma!
Heck, Engels criticizes this in ‘On Authority’:
“Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with-it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case, they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.”
The STATE itself IS Authoritative, whom ever controls it protects its Class Interests, no matter whether it’s the Nobility, Capitalists or Proletarians. Human History is filled with History of Class Struggles. When the Soviet Union was established, it was a ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, the Proletariat being the People, the Workers. They were the voice and arbiters of the State, this State was a threat to the Capitalists domestically and globally, whom were the oppressed class, the country was under constant threat during its existence, Imperial Capitalists States supported Noble / Bourgeois Revolutions and Coup attempts to overthrow these States under their sphere of influence. These Dictatorships were supported massively by Working People of the Time Period, as well being able to elect their own councilors and representatives, and Communists use the State, not only to protect these Class interests of the Working People I.e., Proletariat. But to develop Productive Forces from Capitalism, to Socialism and then to withering the State away leading to Communism.
Though I know many out their love to regurgitate that “Stalin was a Dictator and abused his power”, which simply wasn’t true in any historical records, as he was voted many times in the Central Committee and as General Secretary which is similar to position of President in the USA, his rule is limited to the Central Committee and the Supreme Soviet Council, his power was never ABSOLUTE, and even so, the Soviet people loved him, even the CIA admits this in their report on majority of accounts of Stalin’s rule was fabricated for propaganda purposes, especially the whole GULAG System, I did a whole dissertation on Stalin’s Leadership in ‘Dialectical History of the Soviet Union’.
Marx’s early writings on the state were formulated as a critique of Hegel’s political and social philosophy. Hegel understood the modern state to be the embodiment of rationality and universality as developed over the course of human history. As such, it was the means by which the social fragmentation caused by narrow conceptions of individual freedom (property rights, commerce) facilitated by the emergence of bourgeois society in England, as well as the radical political egalitarianism of the French Revolution, would be reconciled. By virtue of their membership in the political state, individuals could transcend their personal, familial, and commercial interests, thereby attaining the self-consciousness of their own freedom in the objective laws of the state.
Hegel saw constitutional monarchy as the state form that best combined the universal lawmaking power of the legislature (elected by corporate bodies in civil society) and the particular executive power of the civil service, forming a unity represented in the figure of the individual sovereign. The civil service in particular, composed of qualified professionals and open to entrance from all ranks of society, was tasked with upholding the “universal interest of the state”.
Marx’s critique rested on the claim that by locating universality and equality in the bourgeois constitutional state (Rechtsstaat), Hegel inverted the relationship between the state and civil society. Hegel had correctly recognized that bourgeois claims to the right to private property created social antagonisms that alienated individuals from both their social bonds and the products of their labour. However, the overcoming of this condition would not take place through the state, which was itself merely the objectified form taken by social alienation, but rather through changes in the structures of the family and civil society — those very spheres that Hegel had subsumed to the state.
Marx traced the growing separation between civil society and the state as part of the transition from the estate and guild societies of the late medieval period to the consolidation of mercantile capitalist society in eighteenth century northwestern Europe. During this time, law took on an increasingly abstract and formal character, replacing estates as the primary way of mediating between individuals in the new “independent” realm of civil society. The claim to equal political rights made during the French Revolution was the apex of the separation that had emerged between the universal political identity of the citizen and the actual social standings of the individual in civil society. The state now came to appear as the realm where individuals’ political equality as citizens could be recognized and expressed.
However, Marx argued this was an illusory freedom, for the state merely reinforced their political alienation from their material existence as producing and consuming beings. Bourgeois rights were thus a vehicle for political emancipation, but the granting of formal equality under the law was not enough to overcome the individual’s estrangement from social existence so long as civil society remained fractured by property rights. In contrast, true emancipation could not occur through the “merely political state” but by the democratic re-appropriation of the power that had been alienated in bourgeois society. Writing that “the state is an abstraction”, and that “only the people is a concrete reality”, Marx counterposed Hegel’s constitutional monarchy with a defense of democracy. Democracy was the “essence of all political constitutions”, because it took socialized human beings as its starting point. Under a democratic constitution, the alienated and mystified universality of the political state would disappear, for the constitution and the law would rest on the unalienated and direct “self-determination of the people”.
Although he retained the basic idea of the overcoming of the state, beginning in the late 1840s Marx largely shifted from examining the state’s philosophical underpinnings to historical and political analysis, as well as its specific role in relation to class struggles. In ‘The German Ideology’, he and Engels maintained that the modern state had emerged from the social division of labour until it separated itself from civil society to become “the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests”. Two years later, writing with the goal of articulating the principles of the communist movement, the Manifesto referred to the executive of the “modern representative state” as the “committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. it suggests a relationship where the economically dominant class directly controls and exploits state institutions for its own benefit.
In knowing that, seemingly what people criticize at that point isn’t ‘Communism’ but Socialism, or more specifically, a ‘Socialist State’, because Communism is the absence of State. So, what and how does these Socialist States function? These States functioned like any other State in the world, difference being is their Class and Political Character that govern it and rest of Society. The Soviet Union, China. DPRK and Vietnam all operate vastly differently than their counterparts of Capitalist States of the rest of the world. All Socialist States run under the concept of Vanguardism. What is Vanguardism?
The historical task of Vanguardism is the proletariat and to liberate it from all ideological ties with other classes, but also to be based on its unique class position and the independence of class interests derived from it. Establish its own class consciousness. Only in this way can it lead all the oppressed and exploited in bourgeois society in the common struggle against their economic and political oppressors. The objective foundation of the leading role of the proletariat is its position within the process of capitalist production. Lenin is the first and the only important leader and theorist who has dealt with this problem from the fundamental and therefore decisive and practical aspects (i.e., the organizational aspect) for a long period of time. ‘The Communist Manifesto’ Clearly stipulates the relationship between the revolutionary party of the proletariat and the class as a whole:
“The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”
In this sense Vanguardism is an idea where the Party guides, educates and agitates towards liberation, the vanguard party would lead the revolution to depose the Bourgeoisie, and transfer government state power to the working class. In the pamphlet ‘What is to be Done? (1902)’, Lenin said that a revolutionary vanguard party, mostly recruited from the working class, should lead the political campaign, because it was the only way that the proletariat could successfully achieve a revolution; unlike the economist campaign of trade union struggle advocated by other socialist political parties and later by the anarcho-syndicalists. Like Karl Marx, Lenin distinguished between the two aspects of a revolution, the economic campaign (labour strikes for increased wages and work concessions), which featured diffused plural leadership; and the political campaign (socialist changes to society), which featured the decisive revolutionary leadership of the Bolshevik vanguard party.
“The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrase mongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.” – “LEFT-WING” COMMUNISM—AN INFANTILE DISORDER, Vladimir Lenin
So how does this differ from Bourgeois Liberal Democracies? Representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which a particular class can purchase (through bribes, transmission of propaganda through mass media, economic blackmail, donations for political parties and their campaigns and so on). Thus, the public interest in so-called liberal democracies is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain the appearance of representation. Because of this, multi-party democracies under capitalist ideology are always distorted and anti-democratic, their operation merely furthering the class interests of the owners of the means of production.
The bourgeois class becomes wealthy through a drive to appropriate the surplus-value of the creative labours of the working class. This drive obliges the bourgeois class to amass ever-larger fortunes by increasing the proportion of surplus-value by exploiting the working class through capping workers’ terms and conditions as close to poverty levels as possible. Incidentally, this obligation demonstrates the clear limit to bourgeois freedom even for the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie’s predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, the bourgeoisie (such as bailing out Wall St investment banks; direct socialisation/subsidisation of business—GMH, US/European agricultural subsidies; and even wars to guarantee trade in commodities such as oil).
Vladimir Lenin once argued that liberal democracy had simply been used to give an illusion of democracy whilst maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, giving as an example the United States representative democracy which he said consisted of “spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties” led by “multimillionaires”.
[… RAN OUT OF CHARACTERS, READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZqxNRZGgG1IjQ4IlR0hVo8MEdVNFDINd3y …]