Review of No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine

by Joseph Nevins / December 4th, 2025

In author Jeff Schuhrke’s own words:

This book tells the story of why and how US labor became one of Israel’s most stalwart defenders and generous benefactors through the Zionist State’s tumultuous and controversial history. Importantly,  this is also the story of  Palestinian trade unionists and various  rank-and-file union members – including Arab-Americans, anti-Zionist Jews, Black radicals, and anti-imperialists who, despite the odds, courageously organized in support of Palestinian freedom and dignity over the years and to whom today’s pro-Palestine labor activists can look for inspiration.¹

Schuhrke’s main thesis in No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine (Haymarket Books, 2025) is that the U.S. labor movement has never been a neutral observer in the conflict over Palestine—contrary to the common claim that labor unions “should stay out of foreign policy.” Rather, Schuhrke argues, U.S. unions have been deeply complicit for well over a century: backing Zionist settler-colonialism, helping build and sustain the state of Israel, and supporting U.S. foreign-policy alignments tied to Israel—thereby undermining Palestinian rights and working-class solidarity.

The book aims not just to expose this history, but to offer a corrective: Schuhrke invites today’s labor activists to re-think union internationalism and stand in solidarity with Palestinian workers and unions, as part of a broader working-class internationalism. The book’s title refers to a line from the mineworkers’ ballad “Which Side Are You On?” “They say in Harlan County, there are no neutrals there. You’ll either be a union man, or a thug for J. H. Blair.”

No Neutrals There appeared in October 2025 as a marked upswing in support for the Palestinian cause, in the US and internationally, developed in a world shocked as never before by two years of the televised savagery of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Similarly, much of the Jewish community in the US, hitherto Israel’s reliable bulwark of support, was also shaken by rubble-strewn scenes of genocide in Gaza. Jewish organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace have staged large public demonstrations against US support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Perhaps the latest sign of this shift in Jewish sentiment was the November 2025 New York City Mayoral contest where fully 33% of Jewish voters cast their ballots for the victor, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim, the most progressive candidate in the race who has made no secret of his support for Palestinian rights.

In Chapter 1, “Laying the Foundations” Schuhrke tells the story of two different meetings in 1897 in Eastern and Central Europe that were to have historic implications.  In October 1897, thirteen working-class men and women representing Jewish socialist groups met clandestinely in Vilnius, Lithuania to form the General Jewish Labor Bund (“Bund” means union). It was a revolutionary organization with a connection to the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s party, though he often criticized the Bund for its separatism and other ideological deviations).  Nevertheless, the Bund would be at the center of anti-Tsarist rebellion in the early 20th century. A month earlier,  a very different public meeting took place in Basel, Switzerland attended by more than two hundred middle-  and upper class Jews from across Europe, to found the Zionist Organization whose chief aim as stated in the platform they approved at the gathering was to establish a legally protected home for the Jewish people in the Middle East, specifically in Palestine. Schuhrke writes,

“The Bund and the Zionist Organization embodied different answers to antisemitic oppression.  The former represented a proletarian Jewish movement  dedicated to liberation through class struggle and socialism; the latter was a more bourgeois configuration  that sought Jewish emancipation through nationalism and settler colonialism.”²

He adds: “eventually an attempt would be made to reconcile these competing movements in the form of Labor Zionism which would have an important influence on labor officialdom in the US, right as they started, coincidentally, seeing themselves as partners in realizing Washington’s foreign policy objectives.”

Schuhrke contends that one of the multiple factors that led to the alliance between the top US labor leadership and Zionism was the AFL-CIO’s “traditional ideological commitment to Labor Zionism, the particular current within the wider Zionist project that centers the role of Jewish workers in laying the economic foundations for building and maintaining the Israeli state.”³ Long before 1948, Labor Zionist leaders in Palestine intentionally cultivated personal relationships with US union officials, Jewish and non-Jewish.

Moreover, Labor Zionism appealed to both major sectors of the US labor movement. It appealed to the craft unions of the AFL and their non-radical, “pure and simple” trade unionism, and loyalty to American capitalism in exchange for limited gains and protections for skilled workers. It appealed to the CIO industrial unions whose social vision sought to create a more humane economy and more egalitarian society.

Labor Zionism also struck a chord with the American origin myth of the westward moving pioneers who plowed up virgin soil, transformed empty lands into a modern economy, and made the prairies and deserts bloom.  As the Cold War (1946-1989) intensified, Israel became a US ally in staving off Soviet influence in the Mideast. AFL-CIO Cold Warriors believed Israel offered a non-communist model for countries in the Third World. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, instead of being described as a bulwark against communism, Israel was celebrated as a rampart against Arab dictators and Islamic fundamentalism.

In Schuhrke’s narrative the forms of US labor support for Israel have been many and varied. Political support came early. A week after the Balfour Declaration⁴ (1917) became public, AFL President Samuel Gompers at the AFL convention in Buffalo promoted and successfully passed a jingoist platform calling for US participation in the European war, and it included a plank calling for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.⁵

Direct material support from US unions to Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, was all-important. This took the form, often enough, of the sale of Israel Bonds to unions. In 1994 the Development Corporation for Israel  reported that US labor had purchased over one billion dollars in bonds over the previous four decades.⁶ Schurke does his best to estimate the amounts raised by such sales. Cleverly, the sales figures have ceased to be published, lest they become a target of criticism.

Turning Point

In the chapter “Labor for  Palestine,” Schuhrke recounts the turning point where the decades-long alliance between top union leadership  and Zionism — with little or no input from rank-and-file members — began to be questioned and challenged. In the wake of the Oslo Accords (1993) and  Second Intifada (1995-2005), and in the context of the end of the Cold War (1989) and the declining power of unions, high-ranking US trade union officials “increasingly  found themselves having to react to a more assertive and racially diverse rank and file demanding that US labor stand in solidarity with Palestinians.”⁷

This new era really began in 2002, the author maintains, in the tense atmosphere after the 9/11 attacks and during the Second Intifada, when new organizations such as NYCLAW (New York City Labor against the War) and similar committees on the West Coast began protesting President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and championing Palestinian rights. These groups in 2004 created Labor for Palestine whose founding statement  demanded US unionists and labor bodies give full support for Palestinian rights including the right of return, an end to US economic and military support for Israel, and divestment of US labor investments in Israeli apartheid.⁸

An even more important development occurred a year later. Inspired by the South African example, in 2005 a coalition of more than 170 Palestinian civil society groups launched the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.  They called on allies around the world to boycott, divest from, and sanction the State of Israel. BDS demanded an end to the occupation and colonization of Arab lands since 1967, full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and respect for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. The AFL-CIO leadership, alarmed by the quickly growing support for the BDS movement, mobilized against it. Many local union officials and rank and file members continue to support it. BDS has made significant headway in parts of Europe but in the US it remains highly controversial.

To tell the story in the six chapters⁹ of No Neutrals There Schuhrke had to summarize a vast amount of  history: the history of Zionism from its birth in the late 19th century; the growth of Labor Zionism; the emergence of Histadrut¹⁰ and its developing connections to US union officialdom; the Second World War and the Holocaust; the birth of Israel in 1948 as a settler-colonial state implanted in the Arab world  and the resulting expulsion of hundreds of thousands of  Palestinians from their homes and farms; the Cold War; the 1956 Suez crisis;¹¹ Israel’s multiple wars; Palestinian resistance including two Intifadas, failed “peace processes” and peace “accords;” the slow decline of  US unions and of  Labor Zionism; and in recent years, especially since the war in Gaza, the growth of rank and file opposition in US unions to US labor’s alliance with Zionism.

Why is this history important? Schuhrke declares,

…studying this history can therefore help today’s US unionists  understand why it is imperative that they and their organizations not try to remain neutral  (or worse) on Palestine but rather take a bold and principled stand  especially amid the Gaza genocide. The systematic eliminationist violence inflicted on Palestinians today—not by Israel alone, but also by the US, the UK, Germany and other western countries—at once serves as a horrifying reminder of the worst atrocities carried out by the racist and colonial regimes of the 20^th century…¹²

Schuhrke is a careful writer. Indeed he has to be, in dealing with so sensitive a subject. The US right is determined to promote the bogus equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. He writes,

Although it asserts the supposed right of Jews to control Palestine, Zionism is by no means driven exclusively by Jewish people, nor should the term “Zionist” be taken as a synonym for “Jew.” Indeed, throughout the history of Zionism, Jews have been among its most vocal and dedicated opponents. What’s more, non-Jews particularly Christians have been essential players in the Zionist movement. European Protestants were issuing apocalyptic calls for the Jewish “restoration” of Palestine centuries before Jews themselves began advocating Zionism. The largest Zionist organization in the modern US is Christians United for Israel, an Evangelical group boasting approximately ten million members, which is more than the total number of Jewish Americans. President Biden, a Catholic, repeatedly referred to himself as a Zionist during his time in the White House.¹³

No Neutrals There does not take up all questions, for example, the debate about a two-state versus a one-state solution.  Schuhrke notes that the Palestine Liberation Organization adopted a one-state solution in the late 1960s, “calling for the establishment of a single, secular state for both Arabs and Jews,”¹⁴ but Schuhrke leaves the debate to the Palestinians themselves.

One of the most interesting aspects of No Neutrals There is that it recounts how long many Jews of all social backgrounds resisted Zionism. For example, the only Jew in the UK War Cabinet when Balfour was foreign secretary, Edwin Montagu, advocated against creating a Jewish national home in Palestine.  Montagu thought it would exacerbate antisemitism around the world by causing governments to question the loyalty of Jewish citizens. He also believed that the present inhabitants of Palestine, Muslim and Christian, would have to be driven out and Jews put in a position of supremacy.¹⁵

Similarly, David Dubinsky (born 1892 in Russia), longtime head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, although often thought of as the epitome of a Jewish labor supporter of Israel, in fact, from his early days in the Bund, had a distaste for Zionism. As late as 1937 he was keeping his distance from it.¹⁶

The author, Jeff Schuhrke, is a labor historian and assistant professor at the Harry Van Arsdale School of Labor Studies, SUNY Empire State. He is also the author of Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anti-Communist Crusade (Verso: 2024, 352 p.).

Jeff Schuhrke is to be commended not only for writing a well-researched and timely book. In this time of genocide in Gaza when pro-Palestine voices are censored in the US mainstream media, when Palestinian activists on American campuses are threatened with deportation, when university administrations face pressure from pro-Israel donors on their boards of trustees determined to curb academic free speech, to write such a book as No Neutrals There took courage.

In his Conclusion, Schurke holds up as his ideal Harry Bridges, the renowned West Coast longshoremen’s leader. In the 1930s Bridges and his men had refused to load scrap iron bound for Japan while Imperial Japan’s armies were marauding through China. More than thirty years later, in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers, the retired Bridges defended his action from charges of “interfering with the foreign policy of your country.” Bridges boldly replied “We sure as hell were [interfering]. That’s our job. That’s our privilege. That’s our right. That’s our duty.”  Schuhrke is hoping that similar boldness can be found in this generation of US trade unionists.

• First published at Marxism-Leninism Today.

ENDNOTES:

• 1
  No Neutrals There p 11.
• 2
  Ibid. p 20.
• 3
  Ibid. p 6.
• 4
  The Balfour Declaration was a Nov. 2, 1917, letter by UK Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour stating that the UK government  “favored the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” promising Britain’s “best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective.”
• 5
  Ironically, Gompers’s platform met with its strongest opposition from the largely Jewish needle trades who opposed it on antiwar grounds. No Neutrals There, p 40.
• 6
  Ibid., p 111.
• 7
  No Neutrals There, p 213.
• 8
  Ibid., p 225.
• 9
  Chapter 1: Laying the Foundations; Chapter 2: Holocaust and Nakba; Chapter 3: Bonding with Israel; Chapter 4: Strained Friendship; Chapter 5: Intifada; Chapter 6: Labor for Palestine.
• 10
  The Histadrut was (and is) a federation of Israel’s Jewish trade unions, in some ways like the AFL in the US. But it was more; it would also drive and direct the construction of a Jewish-only economic sector. Besides the trade unions, the Histadrut also established kibbutzim and moshavim (cooperative villages), new industrial enterprises, housing and construction companies, a transportation network, a workers’ bank, and workers’ sick fund.  All of these would deliberately deny  job opportunities or social services to native Palestinian workers to further build up ‘Hebrew Labor’.  The paramilitary Haganah was also folded into the Histadrut.
• 11
  Schuhrke’s summary of so much historical material is ably done, but in this reviewer’s opinion there was an error when he wrote (p. 123) that in the Suez crisis “Moscow threatened to use nuclear weapons on the three aggressor nations,” namely Israel, Britain (already a nuclear power), and France. They had invaded Egypt after Egyptian President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The Soviet Union which fought tooth and nail over its whole existence for arms control and nuclear disarmament would never have made such a threat. Soviet premier Bulganin’s letter to President Eisenhower (available to read on the Internet) was interpreted by some in the West as implying such a threat. It was a far-fetched interpretation.
• 12
  No Neutrals There, p 17.
• 13
  Ibid., p 5-6.
• 14
  Ibid., p 150.
• 15
  Ibid. p 38. He would later move toward Zionist views.
• 16
  Ibid. p 38.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Joseph Nevins teaches geography at Vassar College. Among his books are Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid (City Lights Books, 2008), and Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond: The War on “Illegals” and the Remaking of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary (Routledge, 2010). Follow him on Twitter @jonevins1 Read other articles by Joseph.

Starbucks baristas launch strike on chain’s ‘Red Cup Day’


By AFP
November 13, 2025


Starbucks workers protest outside one of the chain's coffee shops in New York in October 2025 - Copyright AFP/File TIMOTHY A.CLARY

Hundreds of unionized Starbucks baristas kicked off an indefinite strike Thursday in cities across the United States, protesting working conditions and stalled labor negotiations.

Like last year, the work stoppage came on the coffee chain’s popular Red Cup Day, when Starbucks gives reusable cups to customers who purchase holiday-themed drinks.

The “Red Cup Rebellion” will see rallies at 4 pm local time in more than a dozen US cities, and a work stoppage by about 1,000 baristas, according to Starbucks Workers United.

More than 65 cafes in over 40 cities are part of this first phase of the strike, which the union said could expand to include more than 550 unionized locations representing over 10,000 employees.

The baristas are demanding better wages, improved working conditions, and stable and adequate hours.

“It’s hard to get more than 19 hours a week, which isn’t enough to qualify for the health care,” said Dachi Spoltore, who has worked as a barista for five years in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In the United States, health insurance is commonly provided by employers, and Starbucks only gives the benefit to employees working more than 20 hours per week.

For Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, which represents more than 90,000 employees across all industries in the United States, Starbucks management has refused to negotiate in good faith.

Founded in 2021, the Starbucks union is trying to develop a “foundational framework” on key issues such as wages, scheduling policy and access to health care.

Talks have been deadlocked since April.

In the United States, Starbucks owns nearly 10,000 cafes and has more than 7,000 franchise locations.

The company told AFP it was experiencing very little disruption on Thursday morning, ahead of the work stoppage.

“We’re disappointed that Workers United, who represents less than four percent of our partners, has called for a strike instead of returning to the bargaining table,” spokesperson Jaci Anderson said, adding that less than one percent of cafes were experiencing disruptions.

“We’ve been very clear — when the union is ready to come back, we’re ready to talk,” she added.

Organizing for a Breakout

by Chris Townsend / November 12th, 2025

There is a military axiom that if your positions are encircled by far superior forces, you will inevitably be annihilated,  unless you break out. I have been a member of our labor movement and left wing since I got out of high school in 1979. For every one of those 46 years our labor movement has been under heavy attack, and at the end of every year we were smaller and more exhausted than when it began. This year will be no exception.

With only a few scant exceptions the U.S. labor movement continues to avoid the key question of new organizing. The call to “Organize the Unorganized!” is no longer heard. Embattled unions must draw to their support the masses of unorganized – or face destruction. As the left, we had better face up to the fact that unorganized workers do not get organized by themselves. That’s our job. William Z. Foster taught us the simple fact that, “The left wing must do the work.”  

New union organizing today continues to dwindle in scale and in degree of success, with only a few contrary examples. Much of today’s labor journalism – what little remains – tries mostly to rally the faithful by extolling mythic breakthroughs and upsurges. Readers of this good-news-only reporting might not realize that our labor movement has already been exterminated from entire industries and regions of this vast country.  They might not know that most of the unions do little to organize the unorganized.

But the recent UAW win at Volkswagen, the Staten Island Amazon success, the Teamsters’ Corewell Health East victory, UE’s addition of 35,000 new members, or the remarkable 13,000 workers in the 650+ store Workers United organizing wave at Starbucks, are all proof that large numbers of workers can be organized even in today’s hostile climate. Public opinion polls blare that overwhelming majorities of working people strongly support unions. Who among us is surprised by this fact? But why, at such a moment, are the unions doing so little to make new organizing any sort of top priority?

The only force capable of reversing labor’s decline is a unified, activated, and focused left.  A labor left which works diligently to bring the healthy center elements inside the unions to the realization that mass campaigns of new organization are not just vital to our very survival, but actually possible today. A left that comprehends the consequences of further inaction. With the legality of the NLRA now headed for our thoroughly corrupted and Trump-controlled “Supreme” Court – there is no time to waste.

Scattered but expanding efforts such as the Emergency Workers Organizing Committee (EWOC), the Inside Organizer School (IOS), various Workers Assemblies, numerous salting initiatives, and other assorted left organizing projects are reflections of the wide support for labor organizing among workers. These efforts cannot substitute for the labor unions lacking coherent organizing programs, but they are adding greatly to the process of training members and organizers in the push towards new organization.

The broad labor leadership must be challenged on this key question. Only the left possesses an understanding of the significance of new organizing. We are part of the most financially wealthy labor movement in the history of the world, yet our small organizing efforts putter along as ineffective as ever. Some unions make sporadic forays into new organizing, but timid and erratic approaches doom much new union organizing long before the employers begin their bombing.

Yes, some unions are organizing and winning, but it is largely disconnected and scattered. Sitting atop this failed organizing situation is the AFL-CIO itself, both incapable and unwilling to show leadership on this life-and-death question. My own extensive efforts to generate organizing leads, to salt, to train organizers, and to initiate real organizing campaigns ends up too often searching in vain for even a single union interested in new organizing. An end must be put to this situation.

Faced with this crisis it’s time to turn the members loose!  Members in great numbers can be trained and deployed with little delay. Then mobilized to reach out to the unorganized workers who surround us on all sides. There is no need for more complicated “studies” to find them, or expensive conferences to delay the task. New organizers must be trained basic-training style, and sent to the workplaces. Older and retired organizer talent must be tapped and mobilized, offsetting today’s dire experience deficit. It’s time for salting to be deployed on a massive scale in multiple industries, joining those salts already in place.

There is no time to wait for perfect targets to be discovered or developed. The unions who come forward can be pushed to do more. Those who sit it out will be bypassed. The labor left must mobilize, to stimulate individual participation as well as to place pressure on the unions to take this necessary action. A left obsessed with a grab-bag of disparate issues must set them aside. To the workplaces! Organize the unorganized!

Such a push will bring new drives, some wins, some losses, and valuable experience will be gained. It will certainly stimulate the employers and governments to combine and counterattack. The class struggle battle will be joined. We bet on the mood of the masses, workers across many sectors hopeful for progress, fed-up with the status quo, and tired from decades of backward steps. There are real signs that such a strategy has merit. The Starbucks organizing phenomenon itself offers one example.

Such a course of action – even if only launched in a few sectors or regions – would be electrifying. Thousands even tens of thousands would be put into motion. And the unions, now being decimated, will begin to move forward. The unorganized will join in small detachments at first, but in larger numbers as momentum builds. Breakout will become a possibility.

Is success guaranteed? Of course not. But we can proceed with the knowledge that with history as our guide, labor organizing upsurges are made possible by this chemistry. If you want to play a part in saving and rebuilding the labor movement you must jump-in and help row. It’s as simple as that. A labor left that complains, daydreams, waits on complacent labor leaders, or chooses to avoid the working class with 101 peripheral issues, will accomplish nothing.

To sum up; if we do not get out of this encirclement, and move forward towards break out, the labor movement will be annihilated. It’s that simple. All of us have a role to play, old and young, experienced and new. The labor left has a role to play, directly in the workplaces and within the unions themselves. As volunteers of all types, as organizers, as salts, and as community supporters. It’s time to go for broke and push as hard as we can on the labor leadership to either lead, or get out of the way.

• First published at Marxist-Leninism Today.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Chris Townsend spent two entire careers in the U.S. labor movement, in both ATU and UE. He has organized many thousands in several hundred campaigns.  He founded the Inside Organizer School (IOS) along with Richard Bensinger and Larry Hanley in 2017. He may be reached at: cwtownsend52@gmail.com. Read other articles by Chris, or visit Chris's website.

UK

Over 500 people arrested at Palestine Action protest

Olivia Barber 

11 August, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

Half of those arrested were aged 60 or over, data has revealed

Police arrested 532 people over the weekend at a protest linked to the now-proscribed group Palestine Action.

According to Metropolitan police figures, over half of those who were arrested were aged 60 or above, including 100 in their 70s and 15 in their 80s.

A blind disabled man was also among those arrested. Labour has come in for fierce criticism for proscribing Palestine Action last month and for the mass arrests at the weekend.

Saturday’s protest was organised by Defend Our Juries, which is campaigning to have the ban lifted through “mass actions” where protesters hold signs reading: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Since it was proscribed as a terrorist organisation, it is now an offence to show support for Palestine Action. All but 10 of the arrests were for displaying supportive placards or signs.

In a social media post, Defend Our Juries said that 474 people had been arrested so far, but that hundreds more left before it was due to end. It added that “the sheer numbers of people” made it “extremely difficult” for police to enforce the ban.

In a later statement, the group said: “We can now confirm that every arrestee from the Lift The Ban sign-holding action has been released. None have been charged.”

On X, former Labour MP Zarah Sultana, who is setting up a new left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn, praised the protesters, writing: “Heroes. Every single one of them.

“Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, David Lammy — and the rest of this Labour government enabling genocide — aren’t fit to lace their boots.”

Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo prisoner, who was arrested on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda member and later released without charge, attended the protest and was among those arrested.

He said: “I’m no stranger to arrests under nonsensical terror laws. But yesterday was something else.

“Under the statue of Gandhi in Parliament Square, I was one of 474 silent protesters arrested by an army of police.”

In a statement following the mass arrests, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the government’s decision, saying: “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority”.

She added: “The assessments are very clear – this is not a non-violent organisation”.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

UK justice minister defends ban on Palestine Action after more than 500 arrested

August 11, 2025 

Middle East Monitor – MEMO

Hundreds gather at the Parliament Square to support the ”Palestine Action” group, with many demonstrators taken into custody during the protest on August 9, 2025, in London, United Kingdom. [Raşid Necati Aslım – Anadolu Agency]

The UK government on Monday defended its decision to ban Palestine Action, warning that anyone showing support for the organization “will feel the full force of the law,” Anadolu reports.

Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones said the group, which has been designated a “terrorist organization,” carried out violent acts and posed a threat to public safety.

Her comments came after a large demonstration in London over the weekend opposing the ban during which police arrested 532 people. Official figures show that 348 of those detained were aged 50 or over.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Davies-Jones said: “I want to thank the police for their bravery and their courage in carrying out their diligent duties in the line of public protection, and I want to state that the right to peacefully protest in this country is a cornerstone of our democracy, and of course, we respect that.

“But with regards to Palestine Action, they are a proscribed terrorist organization and their actions have not been peaceful. They have violently carried out criminal damage to RAF aircraft. We have credible reports of them targeting Jewish-owned businesses here in the UK, and there are other reasons which we can’t disclose because of national security,” she said.

READ: US-based contractor hired by UK to continue spy flights over Gaza

“But they are a proscribed terrorist organization and anyone showing support for that terrorist organization will feel the full force of the law.”

In June, the government announced a ban under the Terrorism Act 2000 after activists from Palestine Action spray-painted planes at a Royal Air Force base, an act being investigated under counter-terrorism laws.

The ban was later passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords in July.

Palestine Action describes itself as a direct-action network targeting companies involved in supplying Israel’s military.

The UN high commissioner for human rights also publicly criticized the UK’s decision to ban Palestine Action.

And the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights has been granted permission to intervene in the judicial review.

The High Court has granted permission to Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, to bring a full judicial review against the order of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, banning the group as a terrorist organization.

Holding a placard is not ‘terrorism’

HubMP2012

AUGUST 1O, 2O25

By David Osland

At some point in the mid-1980s, I rocked up at a National Organisation of Labour Students conference raffishly clad in a T-shirt celebrating Brigade Rosse, a Kensington Market knock-off version of a garment originally hand-stencilled by Joe Strummer of The Clash.

The ensemble was tastefully topped off with a fake leopardskin neckerchief, skin tight leather jeans and motorcycle boots, and I recall spending an inordinate amount of time backcombing my barnet to complete the look.

How stupid of me. Brigade Rosse were an Italian terror faction of the period, who murdered 50 people in Italy in the name of Marxism-Leninism. Sporting their logo on my chest was ostentatious posturing on the part of a youthful idiot.

On top of that, I must have looked a dick and the fashion police would have had me bang to rights. But at that time, my garb would have been of no concern to the actual Old Bill.

Forty years later, I wouldn’t be able to take that for granted. In Belfast yesterday, a 71-year-old woman was busted for wearing a Palestine Action T-shirt.

This, in a city which only weeks previously had seen Orange Lodge marchers traipse around brandishing the flag of the Ulster Volunteer Force, a paramilitary faction that killed hundreds of Catholics during the Troubles.

The cops were even more heavy-handed in London, where 476 were arrested for carrying placards demonstrating support for Palestine Action, with many taken into custody.

The group was earlier this year proscribed by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper under the Terrorism Act 2000, a piece of legislation that dates back to the New Labour era.

Her decision came after Palestine Action activists broke into RAF Brize Norton earlier this year and daubed jet fighters with red paint. The aim was to symbolically highlight RAF reconnaissance flights over Gaza and the alleged subsequent provision of intelligence to the Israeli government.

The incident will have been costly, although the proclaimed price tag of millions of pounds looks heavily inflated. But the key point is that nobody was harmed in any way; what we witnessed seems more akin to what earlier generations would have regarded as non-violent direct action.

The matter could more appropriately have been handled by charging those involved with criminal damage. That is itself a serious offence, which can attract prison sentences of up to ten years.

But the logical if ludicrous corollary of Cooper’s designation is that any expression of support for Palestine Action now constitutes terrorism.

As a result, hundreds of people motivated by revulsion at Israeli brutality in Gaza could potentially end up behind bars for the crime of holding a placard.

Were that to happen, it would mark one of the worst incursions on civil liberties this country has seen in peacetime.

As Amnesty UK correctly pointed out on X: “The arrest of otherwise peaceful protesters is a violation of… international obligations to protect the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.”

Approval or disapproval of the actions of Palestine Action is beside the point here. The right to express disagreement with government policy has traditionally been extended across the political spectrum.

That is why Covid conspiracy loons are given permission to organise rallies in Trafalgar Square. That is why racists get to picket asylum seeker hotels. It is why overtly fascist parties are allowed to propagate their evil creed.

None of these arrested yesterday were engaged in anything that equates to terrorism in any plain English sense of the term. They were not concocting ricin in their kitchens. Nor were they churning out letter bombs in their spare bedrooms, or even collecting funds for those intending to do so.

Their treatment is entirely disproportionate to anything that happened in Parliament Square on Saturday. If they are ultimately charged, the hope must be that commonsense prevails among the juries that will hear their trials. But the likelihood is far greater that an example will be made of them.

Once waving a placard places Quaker pacifists in the same moral and legal category as those who blow up kids at an Ariana Grande gig, a precedent has been set that harms us all.

David Osland is a member of Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP and a long-time left wing journalist and author. Follow him on Twitter at @David__Osland

Image: Protest outside Downing Street on July 25th 2025, c/o Labour Hub.

Pull Every Lever for Gaza – Ben Folley

Leave a Commenton Pull Every Lever for Gaza – Ben Folley

“For those dying on the ground in Gaza, the UK must pull every lever it can.”

By Ben Folley

The Labour Government’s approach to the Israeli genocide in Gaza came under fresh scrutiny this week as Keir Starmer announced,

‘the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two State Solution. And this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank.’

Starmer’s announcement, conditional on terms the Israeli Government was not expected to be prepared to fill – and which they immediately condemned – effectively commits the UK to recognising the State of Palestine in September.

The decision is a significant shift. It happened following months of repeat demands by Labour and left MPs to act against Israel’s military action, in terms of strict measures to pressure Israel into a ceasefire in Gaza, but also through recognition of the State of Palestine.

That pressure escalated ahead of this week’s reorganised UN Conference on a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.

Ahead of it, over 200 Labour MPs signed a letter by International Development Select Committee chair Sarah Champion on Friday 25th July. Cabinet Members were also making clear to journalists their support for the demand.

Starmer felt pressured to act and having met Trump on Monday and held a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, he announced his proposal.

It is a shift of policy that is to be welcomed. But the manner of its introduction has generated hostility – not only from Israel’s supporters, but also supporters of the Palestinians.

Starmer has made state recognition a bargaining chip – and a threat of punishment for Israel – to be deployed in six weeks time – if it does not cease its military action and allow the UN to restart aid. And he has done so because he was at risk of isolation from too many of his own MPs.

But the reality is, state recognition is not the most urgent issue for the Palestinians of Gaza, or in fact the Palestinians in the West Bank.

The threat of state recognition, and his conditions, have already been condemned by Netanyahu and Israel and will not be effective in securing the ceasefire required.

Those conditions set out do highlight the key issue of the situation on the ground in Gaza – where the stranglehold on aid delivery by Israel means the UN has now declared that famine conditions have taken hold, and the sytematic displacement and destruction of people and homes through military action is widely identified as amounting to genocide.

The numbers dying from starvation and malnutrition are mounting. The numbers killed in gunfire whilst queuing for food continues to grow. Palestinian deaths now exceed 60,000.

The UK is right to demand a ceasefire and restoration of aid delivery to the UN but it should be focused on what concrete action it can take which might affect that.

The demand for sanctions – an embargo on arms and on trade has been made repeatedly by MPs. It has been demanded in the Commons Chamber, by Private Members Bill, and by petition to the Foreign Office. Some have urged the government to consider support for a UN peacekeeper role in delivering aid.

There is a debate amongst Labour MPs that those on the left has been insufficiently supportive of the government’s announcement. But the day after Israel rejected Starmer’s announcement, its soldiers reportedly killed 91 Palestinians queuing for food.

But those MPs demanding colleagues show support for the recognition proposal must demand further action from their own government to stop the killing of starving civilians desperately looking for food, as the numbers of casualties continue to rise.

The government has argued that it cannot take action on arms or on trade alone, that it would be ineffective, that it has to act in concert with allies. But this week has shown the potential impact of a domino effect from a new announcement. First Macron, then Starmer, now Canada’s Mark Carney have all made their own announcements regarding bringing forward recognition of the state of Palestine.

The same could happen with sanctions. If the UK could announce new state level sanctions – on arms, or trade, or both – then it may have a limited material impact on Israel – but it may have political significance, if other states follow suit.

It should do what is right and take that action. For those dying on the ground in Gaza, the UK must pull every lever it can.

---

• Ben Folley writes for Labour Outlook and is on x/twitter and on bsky.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

Dancing with the Devil: Is It Possible to Evaluate Stalin Dialectically?

LONG READ

by Bruce Lerro / August 11th, 2025

Orientation

Boogey men on parade
“How can you like Putin? He is a dictator who has been in power for 20 years. There is no democracy in Russia. Besides, Russia is not a socialist country, so why are you rooting for him?” Here is another one. “Venezuela is a failed country run by drug cartels. There is no democracy. Maduro is an incompetent strongman who suppresses freedom of speech. Finally, Gaddafi: “He dresses like a king and wants to control all the African gold. He murders his own people”. Here we have three different countries on three different continents but the leaders have the same characteristics: authoritarian, one party, lacking democracy, poverty stricken, lacking human rights. In fact all these terms are loaded vice words concocted by the CIA in the early 1950s and still being circulated though their application applies less and less. In this article I will do an in-depth analysis of perhaps the biggest boogey man in the world, Joseph Stalin. My purpose is to show that if we understand the complexities of the Soviet Union between 1921 and 1956 we might better understand what Putin and Maduro are up against now as well as what Gaddafi was up against before he was murdered. So too, the real evolution of these men and their states will predicably be distorted, exaggerated, denied and censored.

Fights between socialists
Among Marxists there is no more polarizing revolutionary than Vladimir Lenin. The social democrats draw the line with him and claim that Leninism was authoritarian and undemocratic. The anarchists point to the killing and betrayal of their comrades during the Russian and Spanish revolutions.
Council communists like Pannekoek and Gorter claimed that Leninism had little to do with Marxism. They say that Marxism is about worker-self organization and that Marx never talked about a vanguard party. All three groups claim that what took place in Russia was not socialism.

For Marxist-Leninists, the key figure is Stalin. To what extent did he follow Marxist practice and in what ways did he depart? Trotskyists imagine that Stalin took Marxist-Leninism in the wrong direction and they claim they are the true inheritors of Lenin’s legacy. Stalinists claim that Social Democrats are not real socialists because they compromise with capitalism by advocating for a market even within socialism, and siding with imperialists internationally. Anarchists are dismissed as being unrealistic in expecting a revolution to occur without parties, hierarchies or the state. Council communists are dismissed because they don’t see the importance of a vanguard party. Lenin’s book Left-Wing Communism: An infantile Disorder deals fully council communism.

Liberal and conservative anti-communism
For liberals and conservatives Stalin is the devil incarnate. He is a monster who advocated for a totalitarian, one party rule. They say Stalin caused peasant famines, was responsible for the infamous show trials of the 1930s and killed millions of people. In this article I try to take the heat out of Stalinism. I attempt to say, most of the claims made by liberal and conservative historians against Stalin are either exaggerated or completely wrong, products of anti-communism. The book I will use to defend Stalin against his attackers is Ludo Martens’ book Another View of Stalin. But neither will I claim that Stalin did nothing wrong. I will save council communist criticism of Stalin until the end of this article.

Lenin’s Legacy
Lenin was a great politician in the 20  years he was most active from 1903 to his death in 1924. He was manipulative and very realistic about what was possible for communism. He was very smart in how he dealt with the Western powers when he took Russia out of World War I. It was under the lead of Lenin and Trotsky that Russia was pulled out of the Czarist Middle Ages. A Communist party could only be secret in a country that had no constitution and not even a liberal party. It took 10 years, but the lives of peasants and workers improved compared to life under the Czars. Martens says that compared to Belgium and France, the majority of peasants in 1900 lived as if they were in the fourteenth century. One third did not have a horse or oxen to work the land. The harvest was done with a scythe.

Socialism in One Country vs Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution
There  was a major struggle between Stalin and Trotsky as to who would inherit the leadership of the Bolshevik party after Lenin. Both agreed that in the best possible world there would be a revolution in Germany because then Germany could help Russia industrialize. When the German revolution failed, Russians were on their own. Stalin took the stance of attempting to build socialism in one country as best he could. This meant normalizing relations with capitalist countries. Trotsky wanted to foment revolution all over the world. Trotsky did not want to give up on Russia, but he had no illusions about the limitations of socialism without a strong industrial base coming from the West. In hindsight, Stalin was right. The life for workers in Russia would improve faster if the socialist state could pay full attention to them. Socialism would be much harder to build anywhere if there was no home base and simply batches of revolutionary parties and their followers isolated inside capitalist states. However, because Russia was the only socialist country in the world at the time, most of Stalin’s industrialization process was producing for real and anticipated wars with capitalist imperialists. Much industry for consumer was not implemented.

Lenin’s Will
Trotsky tried to denigrate Stalin’s revolutionary past but Stalin did have a revolutionary past. He met Lenin in 1905 and he led the radical wing of socialist democracy in Russia. He was arrested five times and he was imprisoned for five years between 1912-1917. Trotsky only joined the Bolsheviks in 1917. Before than he was sympathetic to the Mensheviks (social democrats). As far back as 1904, Trotsky called Lenin a fanatic, a dictator who wanted to substitute himself for the proletariat. Trotsky did everything he could to depict Stalin as a dictator ruling over the party. Yet when Lenin created the Bolshevik party, Trotsky accused him of creating an orthodox theocracy and autocratic Asiatic centralism. Martens says Trotsky was individualistic and had disdain for cadres. His leadership was authoritarian and his taste for military discipline frightened many party members. Lenin picked no clear successor.

Trotsky had his moment in 1919 commanding the Red Army during the Civil War. Besides fighting the imperialist countries of the West, Trotsky led the suppression of the sailors’ strike in Kronstadt and fought a civil war in the countryside against Nestor Makhno and the anarcho-peasants. Trotsky was a great military leader but he was not shrewd politically. Between 1921-1923 Stalin was second in command in Russia. Lenin suffered his first stroke in 1922 and another in December of that year. The doctors told Bukharin, Stalin and Kamenev that any further excitement would be fatal. The Politburo made Stalin responsible for relations with Lenin, not Trotsky. Lenin judged the five main leaders of the party and criticized them all. Stalin was perceived by Lenin as too heavy-handed; Trotsky was too bureaucratic; Bukharin the most capable theorist, but scholastic in his theoretical orientation. The relations between Stalin and Lenin’s partner, Krupskaya, were not good. She complained about Stalin that he needed to be more polite and less blunt in dealing with the ailing Lenin. However, because Lenin or Krupskaya might have found Stalin psychologically crude does not mean Lenin favored Trotsky to lead the party. Lenin was critical of all the major leaders.

The Struggle Against a Bureaucracy
It was filled with reactionaries and careerists

To lead a giant, complex country still trying to catch up on its industrial backwardness was an extremely difficult task. Trotsky invented the term bureaucracy in 1927. He called it the “Soviet Thermidor”, analogous to the French counter- revolution where right-wing Jacobins executed the left-wing Jacobins. Quoting Trotsky, the higher levels of the bureaucracy lived approximately the same kind of life as the well-to-do bourgeois of the US and other capitalist countries. The enemy is the new aristocracy, the new Bolshevik bourgeoise. In reality, Russia was a poor country. They hardly produced enough material wealth to live high on the hog as the Western upper classes. The Russian bureaucracy contained Tsarist elements and other reactionary classes, but those classes’ presence was not Stalin’s fault. The Soviet Union desperately needed people who could read and write to build up a coherent state. Stalin could not renounce them for revolutionary purity. He had to take what he could get. In fact, as was pointed out, Stalin’s purges were designed to get rid of these hangers-on.

What Trotsky ignored in his analysis of the Russian bureaucracy was that the Bolsheviks had to retake part of the old Tsarist state apparatus which had only partially been transformed in a socialist direction. Those with a certain capacity for organization were immediately accepted into the party. In 1917 the party had 30k members; 1922, 600k; 1929, 1.5 million and in 1932 2.5 million. One fourth of the members did not meet the most elementary requirements of a communist. Communists could not be fussy about who was helping to run the state. Trotsky would have faced the same dilemma had he come to power.

The Charge of Totalitarianism
The term “totalitarian” was an anti-communism word that was used after World War II to equate Communism and fascism. The term has been discredited in research theories of politics but still circulates in mass media and the CIA which ignores the scientific research. Usually the charge of “totalitarianism” includes at least the following:

• Abolition of the right to freedom of speech, assembly and religious worship
• Elimination of all political parties other than the ruling party
• Subordination of all economic and social life to structural control of the single party bureaucracy
• Liquidation of free enterprise
• Destruction of all independent trade unions and creation of labor organizations servile to the totalitarian state
• Establishment of concentration camps and the use of slave labor
• Utter disregard for an independent judicial system
• Social demagogy around race and class
• Expansion of the military
• Reduction of parliamentary bodies to rubber-stamp status
• Establishment of a system of nationwide espionage and secret police
• Censorship of the press and media
• Disregard for the rights of other nations and disregard of treaties
• Maintenance and encouragement of fifth columns abroad

It could be argued that Soviet Russia aspired to do some of these things and to some extent it was successful. But the charge of totalitarianism as having iron control over all these processes is ludicrous — in Russia or anywhere else. Take a look at a map of Russia. Far and away, it is the largest country in the world. Russia had neither the communication system nor a transportation system to pull this off. The Communist party may have exercised control over some of the largest Russian cities but they had little control of the peasantry over vast tracks of land. Their spying systems and secret police might have some control over cities but most of Russian land is agricultural and the Communist Party had some influence over peasant life. However, as we shall see, much of peasant life remained untouched just as before the Czar. Try as they might the Communist Party could not abolish capitalism. Many of the other characteristics above, like international and domestic espionage, expansion of military and control of mass media are just as prevalent in the United States and Western Europe. In fact the control over mass media in the United States is for more totalitarian in breadth and depth than anything the Communist party came up with. By comparison, the Catholic Church had a much more expanded and integrated totalitarian system.

The Collective Farms
Did Stalin destroy the peasantry in his drive towards collectivization?
According to Martens, collectivization began in 1929, a period of bitter and complex struggles. To begin with, there were three kind of peasants who were subjected to the collectivization process. The kulaks were the highest class of peasants who had better farms, better horses and better machinery. They hired agricultural workers. Below them were the middle and poor peasants. Why liquidate the kulaks as a class?

The kulaks aggressively resisted collectivization. In response they burned crops and houses, set buildings on fire and killed militant Bolsheviks. All the work done on the farm was with draft animals. The kulaks killed half the draft animals rather than cede their cattle to the collectives. They killed them and incited middle peasants to do the same. There were over 34 million horses in the country in 1928.  There remained 15 million in 1932. By Martens’ perspective the Communist party was justified in putting an end to this. I agree

How many upper middle class kulaks were killed?
Robert Conquest (a self-described “cold warrior” who worked with the CIA) calculated 6.5 million kulaks were massacred and 3.5 million in Siberian camps. Martens  says these figures are ridiculous. During the most violent period of the collectivization in 1930-31, the peasants expropriated 381,000 kulaks and sent their families to unplowed land in the East. The number of kulaks  in the colonies never exceeded 1,317,000. The repression of this class and the reactionaries who supported them was absolutely necessary for collectivization to have taken place. Furthermore, only those who were guilty of terrorist or counter-revolutionary activity would be executed. Even with all this, Stalin and Molotov signed an agreement to liberate 50% of the people sent to work camps during collectivization. Furthermore, once collectivism was firmly established, peasants were allowed to cultivate a private plot and raise livestock. This is are hardly a process of a crazed, totalitarian dictator.

Additionally, the essential urge for collectivization came from the most oppressed peasants. The party could not prevent deep antagonisms (of the lower classes) against the kulaks who oppressed them long before the revolution and the backward state of the countryside. What the party did was to destroy the economic bases for the kulaks. In 1928 the state seized the wheat of the kulaks to avoid famine in the cities. The liquidation of the kulaks as a class was due to their capitalist exploitations, not the physical end kulaks as peoples.

Was collectivization imposed by the party leadership and by Stalin and implemented through terror?
The state had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or ensure its best implementation policy. Between 1929-1933 the Soviet State did not have the technical means, the required personnel and the sufficient Communist leadership to direct collectivization in a planned and orderly manner. In 1930 there were 339,000 communists among a rural population of about 120 million people. That meant there were 28 Communists for a region of 10,000 inhabitants. The Communist Party was in no position to impose its will. They had their hands full with the kulaks alone.

Treachery of social democrats and Trotsky in relationship to collectivization
The kulaks were supported by social democrats in Belgian, German and French Social Democracy. Kautsky, turned right-wing social democrat said that a democratic revolution was necessary against the Soviet aristocracy. He called for a wide, united front with the Russian right for a democratic, parliamentary republic. Trotsky’s domestic program in the 1920s after being expelled from the party, was to systematically chose positions opposed to that of the Party. He denounced accelerated collectivization and liquidation of kulaks.

Peasant Economic and social creativity
The central committee of the Communist Party called up 25,000 experienced industrial workers from the large factories to go to the countryside and help with collectivization. They were told they were the eyes and ears of the central committee, thanks to their physical presence on the front lines. They were told they would have to judge the Communist quality of the party functionaries and if necessary, purge the party of undesirable elements. The decision was in the hands of industrial workers within the party not the upper echelons of the Communist Party.

Poor peasants had no idea about how to implement collectivization. There was no inventory of machinery, tools or spare parts, no stables or fodder reserves. The city workers introduced regular work days with morning roll call. They invented a system of payment by piecework and wage levels. They set up worker tribunals where violation of rule and negligence were judged. These workers would send agricultural equipment, generators, books and newspapers to the peasants. Needless to say, their system had problems but the problems were due to inexperience and the fact they were trying to set up an entirely different social system, not one to be of a terroristic Stalinist bureaucracy. Nevertheless, it did end the periodic crises which characterized earlier market relations between city and countryside

Instead, revolutionary creativity was shown by the workers, peasants, the cadres and party leaders. Most of the traits were invented during the 1929-31 period. By 1929 most of the tractors were in the hands of the agricultural cooperatives.  A decree dated in 1933 placed the different agricultural tasks in seven renumeration categories. The most difficult or arduous work paid three times as much as the easiest or lighter work. The total number of tractors increased steadily during the 1930s, from 210,900 in 1933 to 276,400 in 1934; 360,000 in 1935; 422,700 in 1936 and 522,000 in 1940. Collectivization was not imposed by force. Even the Catholic Church, operating over the centuries, with more money, a highly developed bureaucracy, deployed all over Europe was unable to stomp out magic in the countryside. The Communist Party with less than 20 years of state control under its belt could never have turned the peasants into mindless Communists. In 1930-1935 the Soviet Union was short of labor. Why would they kill men who were working the land by sending them to Siberia or Kazakhstan?

Famine and Black Propaganda
The causes of the famine
The first cause was due to kulaks and the treachery of lingering aristocrats hoping for the return of the czar. There was a famine in 1932-1933 caused by the struggle that the Ukrainian far right was leading against socialism and the collectivization of agriculture—the  killing of horses and cattle—to attack Soviet agriculture. Horses dwindled from 30 million to less than 15 million; cattle from 79 million to 38 million. A similar proportionate of numbers was lost numbers in sheep, goat and hogs. The second cause of the famine was a drought that hit certain areas of Ukraine in 1930. The third cause was typhoid epidemic that ravaged Ukraine. The fourth cause of the famine was the inevitable disorder provoked by the reorganization of agriculture and the upheaval of economic and social relations. Lastly, there was a lack of experience which resulted in improvisation and a lack of preparation.

The number of deaths during the famine
Martens reports that the numbers of one to two million dead from the famine are clearly important. However, they are largely due to the ferocious opposition of the exploiting classes to the reorganization and modernization of agriculture on a socialist basis. The figure of one to two million should be compared to the 9 million dead caused by the 1921-1922 famine that was provoked by military intervention of eight imperialist powers and the support they gave to reactionary armed groups. These figures of the death of communists at the hands of white reactionary forces is conveniently left off of bourgeois statistics as to why things were so difficult under communist rule.

Bourgeois reliance on fascist sources on Soviet famine
Robert Conquest had worked for the disinformation services of the British secret service. In his book the Great Terror he claimed collectivization accounted for 5-6 million dead. During the Reagan years of anti-communist hysteria, they needed figures exceeding most of those 6 million Jews to make Stalin appear worse than Hitler. Conquest dutifully revised his estimate to 14 million dead. One problem with Conquest’s sources is that over half the references came from extreme right wing Ukrainian emigres including the youth movement of Stefan Bandera. Furthermore, Conquest cites interviews from Harvard Refugee Interview Project which was financed by the CIA. In short, lies about Stalin. The holocaust of Ukrainian people was created by Hitler.

Suppressed Neo-Nazi crimes against Russians
Furthermore  Neo-Nazi revisionism around the world revises history to justify above all the barbaric crimes of fascism against communists.

• It denies the crimes it committed against the Soviet Jews.
• They invent holocausts supposedly perpetuated by communists.

Thousands of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators entered the US and testified as victims of communist barbarity. In one book, Black Deeds of the Kremlin, fake photographs of Tsarist killings were transferred to Stalin. He gave high estimates of 4-7 million dead. But the two low estimates came from US journalists in Moscow known for their professionalism. One spoke of 1 million-2 million due to famine.

Conquest’s film propaganda
The 1983 Film Harvest of Despair was made for the masses. However, the 1986 Harvest of Sorrow was made for the intellectuals by Robert Conquest. The eye witness accounts are made by German Nazis who hate communists. This disproves the fact of the anti-Ukrainian genocide by Russians that could parallel Hitler’s antisemitic holocaust. Ludens points out:

The formula against Hitler and against Stalin served to invent Stalin’s crimes and holocausts to better cover up and deny Hitler’s monstrous crimes against Russians. To anyone who understands the Soviets’ desperate need for manpower shortage in these years, the notion that its leaders would deliberately reduce that scarce resource of people is absurd. (103)

The Purges
Purge of 1928-1931
Between 1928-1931 the Party accepted 1.4 million new members — including political illiterates, kulaks, and old Tsarist officers who easily succeeded in infiltrating the party. These factors all lend to problems with bureaucratic degeneration. What bureaucratic degeneration existed was not Stalin’s fault. It was at the intermediate level that careerists and opportunists could most easily set up and hide. Stalin called on the leadership and base to mobilize and hound out the bureaucrats from above and below.  According to Ludens, Stalin devoted a lot of energy to the struggle against bureaucracy within the party and the state apparatus.

1933 Purge
In 1933 there was a new purge of bureaucrats which lasted two years. The Party’s control mechanisms were so weak that it wasn’t even possible to plan and effect a verification campaign. Eventually 18% of the party was expelled. They included:

• Kulaks, white officers, counter-revolutionaries
• Corrupt and overly ambitious people
• People who ignored party discipline and the Central committee
• People who had committed crimes like drunkenness and sexual abuse

In order to organize a new society, culture and education were necessary. So Intellectuals from the old society, both young and old who were sufficiently able and flexible people recognized the opportunities. Yet many of these people were trojan horses who had infiltrated the communist fortress with no intention of building socialism. J. Arch Getty, in his brilliant study, Origins of the Great Purges, writes that local party leaders were no longer political leaders but economic administrators. They resisted political control from above and below.

At the regional level, since the beginning of the twenties, individuals and clans had solidly entrenched themselves in the Party Even massive anti-bureaucratic campaigns could not budge them. Cadres had forgotten the capitalist encirclement at the beginning of the revolution and the increasing bitterness of the class struggle. Many had become submerged by little management questions and no longer preoccupied themselves with the major issues of national and international struggle. The bureaucratic and arbitrary attitude of the men in provincial apparatuses was enforced by petty management questions and had virtual monopoly on administrative experience. In sum the real danger of bureaucratization came from the parts of the administration that were in no sense communist that wanted to get rid of the party controlling it and acquire privileges and benefits of all kinds for itself.

The anti-bureaucratic revolution
Geographical conditions made centralization unrealistic as much as the Party tried. In a regional committee, there was lack of attention to the economic development of the region, and the leadership had with no connection with the base. In the May 1937 electoral campaign there were 54,000 Party base for which we have data and 55% of the directing committee was replaced. In the Leningrad region, 48% were replaced. According to Getty, this was the most important, most general and most effective anti-bureaucratic campaign that the Party ever affected. This was crucial for the Red Army to later defeat fascist Germany. Stalin’s second consideration was to deepen the political education within the party. Training had to be increased from four to eight months for all the cadres, from cell leaders all the way to the highest leaders.  Stalin also attacked the “family atmosphere” of the bureaucracy in which there can be no place for criticism for defects in the work or for self-criticism of the work.

The Great Purge of 1937-1938
No episode in Soviet history has provoked more rage from the old bourgeois world than the purge of 1937-38. Yet there are few periods of Soviet history that have been studied so superficially including Conquest, Deutscher, Schapiro, and Fainsod. This purge of 1937-38 was completely different from the previous periods. It focused mainly on cadres. During the previous years, elements that have nothing to do with communism–common criminals, drunkards and undisciplined people constituted the majority of the expelled. Ludens points out that just because someone is an “old Bolshevik” doesn’t mean that they can’t change for the worse. Certain party leaders proved to be careless, complacent, naïve and lacked vigilance with response to enemies of communists who had infiltrated the party.

Old Bolsheviks Social Democratic tendencies in the 20s: Bukharin
The next great ideological struggle was led by Bukharin’s rightist deviation which developed during collectivism period. He put forth a social democratic line and class reconciliation protecting the kulaks. Bukharin’s group was a very powerful part of the party and his political influence was great. He had great influence in the Soviet scientific community and in the Academy of Sciences. During 1928-1930 Bukharin was bitterly criticized for his social democratic ideas, including:

• His opposition to collectivization (supporting individual ownership)
• His policy of social peace with the kulaks
• His attempt to slow down the industrialization process with light industry
• His advocation of state-capitalism

Bukharin and the military conspiracy
In 1935-36 Bukharin developed closer links with groups of military conspirators plotting to overthrow the party leadership. He admitted during his trial in front of the tribunal that in 1918 after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty there was a plan to arrest Lenin and Stalin and to form a new government composed of left communists and social revolutionaries. Bukharin colluded with all sorts of clandestine opponents some of whom were dedicated anti-communists. Incapable of leading open political struggle, he placed his hopes in a coup resulting from a military plot that might result from a mass revolt. Bukharin allowed himself to be approached by enemies who were planning to overthrow the Bolshevik regime. He did not take a principled stand against the prospect of a directed anti-Bolshevik attack from abroad. In Paris, he paid a visit to Menshevik Theodore Dan to whom he confided that “Stalin was not a man but a devil.” Martens says Bukharin’s confessions allow us to later understand the latter appearance of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.

Trotsky and military conspiracies
Martens claims that among others Trotsky was conducting negotiations with the Germans and promised them territorial concessions, including Ukraine. In 1932 there was an attempt to create an oppositional block that included Trotsky and Zinoviev. There was proof that a plot existed to overthrow the party and put into power the oppositional leadership

Oppositional leaders have their say
Despite all these machinations almost all oppositional leaders—Trotsky, Radek, Preobrazhensky, Zinoviev and Bukharin-who remained in important positions were invited to the 17th congress where they made speeches. It is patently false that Stalin did not allow other leaders to express themselves freely and that he ruled like a tyrant. Debates took place openly and over an extended period of time. Stalin really believed in the honesty of self-criticisms.

Were all old Bolsheviks eliminated?
In general, the purges within the Red Army are presented by anti-communists as acts of foolish, arbitrary and blind repression. The accusations were all set-ups, according to the anti-communists, and were diabolically prepared to ensure Stalin’s dictatorship. One of the best-known slanders claims that the purge was intended to eliminate the Old Bolsheviks. However, in 1934 there were 182,600 old Bolsheviks (members who joined no later than 1920). In 1939 there were 125,000. Therefore 69% were still in the party. Some died of natural causes, others were expelled and others executed.

According to Getty, from November 1936-39 there were fewer than 180,000 expulsions from the party. Before 1938 there were 53,000 appeals against expulsions. After 1938 there were 101,223 appeals. At that time, out of a total of 144,933, the party committees had examined 85,273 appeals and 54% were readmitted No other information could better give the lie to the statement that the purge was blind, terror, without appeal, organized by an irrational dictator.

The reality of the plot against the Stalin
Four years before the purges, in 1934 there was a plot to start a revolution by arresting the whole of the Stalinist-packed 17th Congress of the Party. A comrade from the group proposed in mid-1936 to kill Stalin. Tukhachevsky was pro-German. Even Deutscher admits there was a plot among the Germans. The discovery of such a plot at the head of the Red Army, which had links with the opportunistic factions within the party, provoked complete panic on Stalin’s part. Getty concludes that entrenched officeholders were destroyed from above and below in a chaotic wave of voluntarism and revolutionary puritanism. The actual purge was decided upon after the revelation of the Tukhachevsky military conspiracy. The decision to physically eliminate this fifth column was not a sign of a dictator’s paranoia.

The degree of anarchy within the purges
The purge was often characterized as maniacal and relentless which was hardly the case.

The purges were inefficient and chaotic. There were cadres of infiltrated enemies. These enemies hiding within the party led conspirators to expel the greatest possible numbers of loyal communist cadres. Lastly, there was the presence of communists who were only concerned with their careers.  Yes, some communists were unjustly hit and crimes were committed during the purge. Yet Stalin wanted to include an individualized approach to questions of expulsions.

Myths and reality about the purges
Martens points out that the 1934 Robert Conquest counted 5 million political detainees. In fact, there were between 127,000 and 170,000. The exact number of all detained in work camps, political and other security organizations combined was 510,307. The political prisoners formed only 25%-35% of the detainees. Conquest added 4,850,000. Annually Conquest estimated an average of 8 million detainees. Medvedev wrote it was 12-13 million. The reality was between 127,000 in 1934 to 500,000 during the two war years of 1941-42. The real figures were exaggerated by 15-26 times. As I said earlier, most of those politically detained were Nazi collaborators.

Necessity of purges before the showdown with Germany
The purge within the Red Army had a great deal to do with the imminent war with Germany.

Stalin was successful in getting rid of all the opposition circles within the army and he succeeded in making sure that there would be no counter-revolutionary currents within that army against the Germans. Yehova signed an executive order condemning to death 75,959 individuals whose hostility to the Soviet Union were known to be common criminals, kulaks counter-revolutionaries or spies. Most of the men and women in the Nazi 5th column fell during the purge. When the fascists attacked the USSR, there were few collaborates within the state or the party apparatus.

The great disarray and extreme confusion provoked by the first defeats against the Nazi invasion created a very precarious political situation. Bourgeois nationalists, anti-communist and anti-Jewish racists all thought that their time had come. What would have happened if the purge had not firmly been carried out, if an opportunist opposition had held important positions? The party launched a campaign educating the workers about what was going on in newspapers, films and theaters. It was precisely because of the purge and the education campaigns that accompanied it that the Soviet people found the strength to resist and defeat the fascists.

Trotsky’s Role on the Eve of Second World War
Trotsky was one of the first to put forward the Cold War liberal idea that Bolshevism and fascism were interchangeable. Secondly, he supported any opposition against Stalin. He made no distinction between capitalists, the heads of foreign states and military plotters and schemers. Despite not having much of a following in Russia, from 1934 on Trotsky called over and over for the overthrow of the Communist Party. He was calling on the Red Army to effect a coup. In fact, he planned his insurrection for when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

Western Treachery Against the Soviet Union During the Two World Wars
Western historians and their naïve publics present the Soviet-Hitlerian pact as a bolt-from-the-blue, a betrayal that had neither rhyme not reason. Here we  are told we have the secret truth we’ve should have known all along: Fascism and Communism were the same thing. In truth, before Hitler even came to power, Great Britain had led the crusade against the Soviet Union. It was in 1918 that Churchill mobilized armies in 14 countries to attack the Soviet Union.

During the Spanish Civil war, Italy and Germany sent their troops to Spain in support of fascism to fight the republican government. France and England adopted a non-intervention policy and did not help the Soviet Union fight in Spain. In fact, Britain and France reassured Hitler that he could march against Stalin without being worried about the West attacking Germany. In fact, from June to August of 1939 there were secret talks between Britain and Germany. The deal was:

• Germany promises not to interfere in British empire affairs
• Britain promises to give up the present negotiations for a pact with the Soviet Union

England’s ultimate goal was to embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself. Even when France and Britain were forced to declare war on Germany, on the Western Front not single bomb was used against the Nazis. They kept hoping the Nazis could defeat the Russians. Stalin’s reached out to Germany only after having been rejected by the West. The Soviet Union had succeeded in signing with Japan a non-aggression pact that held until the defeat of fascism. Stalin’s pact with Germany was crucial to winning WWII. The pact was a turning point that allowed for the preparation of the necessary conditions in order for the German defeat when it was invaded.

Did Stain Prepare Poorly for the Anti-Fascist War?
This ludicrous claim is what Khrushchev said about Stalin. Stalin had to maneuver against all the Western powers who were anti-Russian. This included not only fascist Germany, Italy and Spain, but also, England, France and the United States. Against all of them Russia defeated Germany and preserved the Soviet Union. Does this sound like an incompetent leader? In 1921 in almost all areas of military production they had to start out from nothing. During the years of the first and second five year plans the party made sure that the war industries would grow faster than the other industries. During the third 5 year plan between 1938 and 1940, industrial production increased 13% annually. Furthermore, Stalin prepared the defense of the USSR by having more than 900 factories built between 1928-1941.

Khrushchev’s image of Stalin as a lone man who leans on no-one is falsified by an event during the war in the beginning of August 1941. In general, Stalin proceeded with extreme caution, weighing the pros and cons of what to do. Stalin called in responsible people directly in charge of the problem. The central committee politburo and army leadership always relied on collective decision-making. One general said Stalin did not like to decide for himself important questions about the war. Furthermore, he would not tolerate hit and miss answers or not being familiar with the situation on the map or in exaggerating situations. He wanted the utmost accuracy and clarity. He had a knack of detecting weak spots in reports and documents. He had a tenacious memory. He was extremely exacting, a quality essential during wartime. He never forgave carelessness in work or failure to finish a job the right way. Stalin fully criticized bureaucratic and formalist leadership methods. During the war Stalin firmly fought against any irresponsible or bureaucratic attitude. He insisted on real presence on the ground. He would demand that military action be carried out in a creative way, with a full account of military science. Even Averell Harriman, US imperialism’s representative, admitted his high intelligence, a fantastic grasp of detail, his shrewdness and his sensitivity. Harriman says, “I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill. In some ways the most effective of the war leaders.” He was hardly the blind dictator.

Nazis’ Attack on Russia
On September 30, the Nazis began their final offensive to take Moscow. In Moscow, some 450,000 inhabitants of the city, including 75% women, were mobilized to build fortifications and anti-tank defensives. Moscow was bombed by German aviation. Panic began to seize the city population. The Nazis were only 80 kilometers away. Part of the administration was evacuated, but Stalin decided to remain in Moscow. He needed to stay at the general headquarters but he visited the fronts regularly. The battles became more and more fierce. The first extermination campaigns, in fact the biggest, were against the Soviet people, including Soviet Jews. The people of the USSR suffered the most and endured the greatest number of dead at 23 million. The Hitlerian aggression drenched the Soviet Union in a bath of blood and steel that surpassed all the horrors that the world had ever previously seen. The reality of the unbelievable terror that the Nazis practiced in the Soviet Union is almost systematically covered up or minimized in the bourgeois literature. Even this year, 2025, on the celebration of the Russia defeat of the Nazis, Western leaders boycotted the celebration. Clearly the West prefers fascism to communism.

Russia Defeats the Nazis
In early November, the Nazi offense was stopped. After having consulted all of his commanders, Stalin decided on a large counter-attack which began on December 5. Some 720,000 Red soldiers pushed back 800,000 fascists to 100—300 kilometers. For the first time, the invincible German troops were defeated. The fascists lost more than 500,000 men, 1300 tanks and 2,500 canons. The Russians showed utter determination and amazing heroism. These Germans has to face adversaries that were fighting to the last man

Germany’s Final Solution of Jews came about after German defeats in Russia

The exterminating rage of the Nazi’s emerged with their first massive losses. When the fascist beast started to bleed under the Red Army blows, it dreamed up a final solution for the Soviet people. In a remarkable book Arno Mayer explains that the extermination of the Jews only began once the Nazis suffered great losses. Without operation Barbarossa, there would and could have been no Jewish systematic annihilation. Once the Nazis had to face the defeats on the Russian front, they decided on a global and final solution of the Jewish population. Many rich Jews succeeded in escaping to the US. After the war they went to work for American imperialism and its beachhead, Israel. The great majority of poor Jews were gassed.

Russia 1947-1953
Positive aspects
Between 1939 and 1940 the Soviet Union had an annual rate of industrial production of 16.5 %. Some said it would take decades to recover from what the fascists did to its industrial apparatus. Yet after three incredible years, 1948 industrial production surpassed that of 1940. In 1950, at the end of the 4th year of a five year plan, industrial production was 73% above that of 1940. Stalin’s foreign policy with regard to western states was peaceful co-existence. The Communist parties throughout the world were not agitating to overthrow western rulers. In the United States, either Communists were to run their own candidates in elections or they were to support the Democratic Party. To the extent that it was possible Stalin helped revolutionary movements of different countries in providing arms, funding industrialization and offering technological know-how. Stalin supported colonized peoples who sought independence and encouraged a vast international movement for peace. During the same period the US military plans called for the building of numerous military bases. In reaction to this, in 1947 the Soviet Union built its own nuclear weapons, breaking US “nuclear nightmare” diplomacy.

Negative aspects
Despite the rapid industrialization it would have been better to have mixed some of this with lighter industry and more consumer goods. It is a great deal to ask of people to produce for war rather than for goods that would make their lives a little better. As early as 1951, Stalin was seriously worried about the state of the Party. The most important tendencies that Stalin had to fight against in the 20s and 30s were:

• Trotskyism
• Bukharinism
• Militarist professional tendencies within the army technocrats that were substantially reinforced
• Bourgeois Russian nationalism

They all continued between 1945-1953

Khrushchev’s Revisionist Groups and a Conservative Bureaucracy

With Stalin’s death, two revisionist tendencies within the Party arose. Beria wanted better international relations with the West and restoration of relations with Tito in Yugoslavia. Khrushchev had Beria executed after Stalin’s death and then assumed power. With the division of the Party leadership that followed, the control mechanisms over the bureaucracy were weakened, the military’s own interests and values emerged into the open and became stronger.

Under Khrushchev the bureaucrats no longer had to fear threats from either serious communist in the higher echelons of the party of from the working or middle classes from below. There was bureaucratic intolerance of criticism which came from below. The bureaucrats stifled criticism and settled scores with those who dared criticize them. They had a smug complacency. Leaders turned meetings into vainglorious displays, into cases of self-laudation. These were not communist revolutionaries. They strove for a self-satisfied and tranquil life. These bureaucrats forgot that they were running state enterprises and tried to turn them into their own private domain. They ignored any attempts to advance communism in the Soviet Union. Circles would form around Khrushchev and Brezhnev, completely estranged from revolutionary, popular action.

Meanwhile, the reformist socialist state rehabilitated opportunists and enemies who had been purged. Khrushchev allowed the resurrection of social democratic and Tsarist ideological currents. Enemies of Leninism who were sent to Siberia were rehabilitated by Khrushchev.  He fished Solzhenitsyn out from a work camp who made an alliance with Khrushchev to combat Stalinism. Solzhenitsyn has become the official voice of the 5% of Tsarists, bourgeois, speculators and kulaks.  He hated socialism. By the mid-1980s Gorbachev denounced the division of the world into socialism and capitalism and converted himself to universal values. He initiated social democracy while provoking the collapse of the Soviet State.

Summing Up

As I said in the introduction, the purpose of this evaluation is to move beyond dualistic arguments which either condemn Stalin as the worst political figure of the 20th century next to Hitler or blindly praise him as mindless dogmatic Stalinists are apt to do.  What I tried to do in this evaluation is to say that most of the bourgeois attacks on Stalin are the product of anti-communist propaganda which are either black propaganda lies or exaggerations compared to what really happened.

A second purpose of this evaluation is as a prediction that any leaders today, socialist or not who oppose decaying western capitalist imperialism will be called the same kind of names as Stalin. What are the similarities between the names Gaddafi was called and Stalin? What about the name calling of Stalin and Nicolas Maduro? What about Vladimir Putin: dictator, authoritarian, kills his own people? So we can expect that also the real evolution of these men and their states will be distorted, exaggerated, denied and censored just as Stalin was.

Nevertheless, author Ludo Martens failed to address the following criticisms coming from the left communists about the Soviet Union.

Left Communists’ Evaluation of Ludo Martens’ Book Stalin: Another View
Can workers only achieve trade union consciousness?
My first criticism of Stalinism is not focused on the specific political actions Stalin took as much as they are criticisms of Leninism in which Stalinism is a variant. The Bolsheviks claim that by themselves workers can only achieve a trade union consciousness has been disproven numerous times by the Paris Commune of 1871; the Russian Soviets in 1905, the Russian factories during the 1917 revolution and the anarcho-communism of the Ukrainian peasantry under Nestor Makhno. The greatest example of the workers self-management was in the cities and countryside of Spain during the revolution between 1936-1939. Martens mentions nothing about the contradiction between what the Bolsheviks said about workers on their own only achieving trade union consciousness and what the workers actually did.

Did Marx advocate the forming of a vanguard party?

The second problem is the presence of a secret vanguard party to lead the revolution. This is something that Marx and Engels never talked about. This is because they believed that the socialist revolution would break out in an advanced capitalist country first where socialist parties would be legal. For them the work of the Communist Party was to embed themselves in workers’ movements; organize and systematize all workers struggles under a single program, not lead the workers with a program of their own. I have no problem with Lenin developing a secret vanguard party in Russia because of the conditions in Russia at the time. At that time in Russia there was no constitution and not even a liberal party. My problem with a secret vanguard party is when it was applied to capitalist countries in the West when it was possible to organize in the open along with a mass political party, not a party with paid, full-time revolutionaries. Marx and Engels never talked about vanguard parties. In fact, as I recall, they made fun of the secret societies of Auguste Blanqui.

Socialism in one country and subordination of all Communist parties to Russia in peacetime

I agree with Stalin’s decision to build socialism in one country and against Trotsky’s naïve proposal for permanent revolution everywhere given that there was no industrial revolution in Germany. The Communist movement needed a home base to have a chance to really develop new forms even if they were limited because of being surrounded by hostile capitalist countries. I also agree that in times of war, communist parties around the world should subordinate themselves to the Russian Communist Party. My problem with Stalinism is to insist on subordination of communist parties in times of peace. Golden opportunities were missed for Communist parties all over the world to experiment with new forms based on local conditions.

This policy robbed the Communist parties all over the world of adapting themselves to local conditions rather than following a single country. An example of this was in the movie Reds, when John Reed argued fruitlessly with the Central Committee of the Communist Party that the Communist Party endorse working with the radical Industrial Workers of the World. Instead, the Russian Communist Party insisted that any proto-communist party in the United States join the AF of L, the most conservative of all American unions. Within the United States between 1926 and 1956 the American Communist Party was dragged through all of Moscow’s changed lines, swerves and backtracking with no opportunity to develop its own program based on its unique understanding of Yankee conditions. Up until the Russian Revolution, the Socialist Party of America had a much better understanding of the working conditions in Yankeedom. But the Russian Communist Party did not care to learn anything from the American Socialist party.

Undermining the Spanish Revolution

In Spain between 1936 and1939 during the revolution, under the direction of the CNT, the anarchists had Barcelona organized under worker self-management. In the countryside, the worker collectives involved one third of a million people. The Communist Party in Spain was small and not influential, and the Spanish revolutionaries were also fighting fascist Franco in their country. The Communist Party offered weapons to help the collectives fight the fascists in exchange for influence. The Communist Party of Russia was not interested in a socialist revolution in Spain, they just wanted to defeat fascism. As part of defeating the fascists they also turned on the self-management collectives and destroyed them. Since this hostility to workers’ self-management occurred during both Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin’s time it seems fair to say that hostility to workers councils is a characteristic of Leninism and cannot be laid solely at Stalin’s doorstep. Martens never writes about this or the international justification for the suppression of the collectives. It was clear that the self-managed collectives were absolutely committed to socialism and could not be manipulated by capitalists, either domestically or internationally. In my opinion the reason they were attacked is because the Communist Party imagined it had the lock and key to everything and saw socialist rivals as enemies. It is understandable that the social democrats (the Mensheviks) became enemies because part of their program was to restore capitalism, but the anarchist collectives posed no such threat.

Stalin’s short-sighted decree abolishing religion

Stalin showed very little understanding of why people are religious. If religion is the opium of the masses, the need for religion doesn’t disappear if you take away its forms. A real materialist policy would be to improve the standard of living and then expect that as heaven is gradually created on earth the need for religion would become less. On one hand an expansion of the number of atheists would be predictable. At the same time, those who continued to be religious would find their gods and goddesses immanent rather than transcendental. Just as primitive communism had earth spirits of rocks, rivers and trees, so under advanced communism the spirits would come back to earth because communists were in the process of creating heaven on earth

The dogmatic nature of dialectical materialism
Unfortunately Marx and Engels’ work cast a long shadow over future generations of Marxists and too many of them have never come out of the shadows. This is not unique to Leninism. For example, after Engels wrote The Family, Private property and the State it took 80 years for Marxists to stop repeating what Engels said about these subjects and accept that anthropologists were scientists that have discovered new processes about social evolution.

Even now, some Marxists who are otherwise very creative in their fields, repeat the tired old story of social evolution going from primitive communism to the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism and back to socialism.

Secondly, Marxist philosophers have mindlessly insisted that all philosophy can be divided into materialism and idealism. Please see my article Out on A Limb With Dialectical Materialism for six ways to categorize philosophy. In addition, these Leninist philosophers have crudely tried to directly link philosophy to political positions like fascism, imperialism and capitalism. So, for example, Maurice Cornforth, whom I’ve learned quite a bit from, tries to connect the pragmaticism of William James and Charles Sanders Peirce to imperialism because of what the United States was doing during World War II at the time they were writing.

Lastly, in the Lysenko affair, Soviet agricultural policy took a very bad turn because Soviet scientists were not allowed to favor in Mendelian genetics into their policy. This was because dialectical materialism had no place for how biological and social processers might interact in the raising of crops. The randomness of Mendelian genetics was attacked as “bourgeois” and dismissed in favor of Lamarckian causal laws. Random mutations were attacked as liberal a world view projected onto science and over 3,000 natural scientists were dismissed. This policy undermined the prospect of scientists solving agricultural problems using the best science in the world.FacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his three books found on Amazon. He is a co-founder, organizer and writer for Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.