Archives for category: Uncategorized

Stalin’s reply to Ivan Philipovich Ivanov on question of final victory of Socialism in one country, that is, USSR in 1938.
“It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.”
Brilliant dialectical understanding of the situation. Stalin not only replied to the pertinent question but even did justice to Ivan and restored him as Chief Propagandist, from where he was removed!

The Espresso Stalinist

Ivan Philipovich Ivanov, staff propagandist of the Manturovsk District of the Young Communist League in the Kursk Region of the U.S.S.R., addressed a letter to Comrade Stalin requesting his opinion on the question of the final victory of Socialism in the Soviet Union.


Dear Comrade Stalin,

I earnestly request you to explain the following question : In the local districts here and even in the Regional Committee of the Young Communist League, a two-fold conception prevails about the final victory of socialism in our country, i.e., the first group of contradictions is confused with the second.

In your works on the destiny of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. you speak of two groups of contradictions – internal and external.

As for the first group of contradictions, we have, of course, solved them – within the country Socialism is victorious.

I would like to have your answer about the…

View original post 2,403 more words

Digitalisation, robotisation, super technology, etc has further brought capitalism, based on private property & wage slavery, on the brink of fascism.

Fascism means the most rotten and violent form of capitalism, to save itself! Capitalism, more than 250 years old, has lived its life, has over done its progressive work of defeating feudalism or monarchy system and now is diseased and living on the working class sweat, blood & flesh.

Gigantic development of the progressive forces and accumulation of astronomical wealth, close to 500 Trillions USD, has made 90% of the humanity almost pauper, remain in perpetual fear of losing employment and the life itself, despite working for 10–12 hours/day, slaves to further create Surplus Value for less than 1%!

To free the productive forces, to free the working class, peasants and the mankind itself from the yoke of capital, to free them from the beastial long working hours, manual works and yet live like beasts, capitalism must be buried and next economic, social, political order must be brought in, from the womb of capitalism, which itself is product of the womb of feudalism.

New human society must be on the common or social ownership of the means of production, means of subsistence, the natural & public wealth of the society and distribution. This and only this will free the mankind from the bestial lives, rotten minds based on religion, caste, colour, region. This will ensure end of parasitism as well as enough time for all the individuals to work for oneself to participate in cultural, spiritual, artistic or scientific hobbies.

In short, a society where all working hands must work, all humans must get free education and health services, remain in a progressive and scientific environment, free of coercion and fear and finally live like a human, is inevitable.

Yes, Marxism Leninism is a science, a method to work to bring out the necessary historical event, revolution and is more relevant than before!

News: India’s Corruption Index Rank has been falling since last 3 years!


Analysis : The Corruption Index Rank is a relative term. The corruption in our country vs rest. That means, the least corrupt country, may have become more (or less) corrupt than in the past but yet may remain least corrupt, compared to the rest! We can understand this and also know well that corruption (as well as crime, colour/caste/religious discrimination, terrorism, war, unemployment, etc) has risen manifold, since 2008, after the longest economic crisis, started in US and spread the world over. This phenomenon is the by-product of degeneration in capitalism.

Yes, capitalism is old, terminally diseased, unable to meet the need of 90-95% of the population of any country, it’s own profit rate is down miserably despite most modern productive forces, technology. Even throwing workers back to streets, reducing wages, terrorism, war, forcibly taking over the land of the natives, looting people’s money “legally” through inflation & tax system, etc is not sufficient to solve the deep contradictions in capitalism.

Contradiction in capitalism has many manifestations. Like, rising wealth but rising unemployment and poverty, more scientific discoveries and yet rising superstition & ignorance among the masses due bourgeois education system, gigantic production capacity but falling profit due massive unsold products, rising commotion among the workers and farmers, etc. So, in short, the corruption is another, small symptom of capitalism, which gives it’s birth. It also emanates due cut throat competition among the bourgeois class to remain afloat in the market!

It’s impossible to weed out unemployment, corruption from a capitalist society.

Solution : Class unity and struggle to overthrow the hegemony of capitalist class and establish hegemony of the working class and construct Socialism! Do away with wage slavery and class division in the society!


Fascism is rising in all countries! Resistance of fascism is only through proletarian class unity and struggle.

Fascism is the most rotten and violent form of capitalism. So, the resistance must continue to dismantle bourgeois class, its state and all machinery, its all production relations to establish socialism.

Fahwad Al-Khadoumi (nsnbc) : Alparslan Durmus, head of Turkey’s national board on education, said in an online statement earlier this week that a chapter entitled “Beginning of Life and Evolution” will be deleted from the standard biology textbooks and the material will be available only, to students who go on to university studies from age…

via Turkey’s decision to remove Darwinist evolution from curricula is divine idiocy: Lehmann — nsnbc international


Did Stalin know of the intrigues that the revisionists around him were preparing?

The main report presented by Malenkov to the Nineteenth Congress in October 1952, along with Stalin’s book Economic Problems of Socialism, published on the same occasion, showed that Stalin was convinced that a new struggle against opportunism and a new purge of the Party had become necessary.

Malenkov’s report had Stalin’s brand. It defended the revolutionary ideas that would be dismantled four years later by Khrushchev and Mikoyan. It virulently criticized a number of negative tendencies in the economy and in the life of the Party, tendencies that would be imposed in 1956 by Khrushchevian revisionism.

First, recalling the 1937–1938 Purge, Malenkov noted:

`In the light of the war and its results, we perceive in all its magnitude the importance of that implacable struggle which over a period of many years our Party waged against every brand of enemy of Marxism-Leninism — the Trotskyite and Bukharinite degenerates, the capitulators and traitors who tried to deflect the Party from the right path and to split its ranks …. By demolishing the Trotskyite and Bukharinite underground …, the Party in good time destroyed all possibility of the appearance of a “fifth column” in the U.S.S.R., and prepared the country politically for active defence. It will be easily understood that if this had not been done in time, we should, during the war, have found ourselves under fire from the front and the rear, and might have lost the war.’

Malenkov, op. cit. , pp. 108–109.

Four years later, Khrushchev would deny that the Trotskyists and the Bukharinists had degenerated to the point of defending a social-democratic and bourgeois platform, as he would deny that some among them had made contacts with hostile foreign forces. Khrushchev then invented the theory according to which socialism had definitely triumphed in 1936 and there was no longer a social basis for treason, nor for capitalist restoration! Here are the main declarations:

`(T)he Soviet state was strengthened, … the exploiting classes were already liquidated and socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy’.


Khrushchev, Special Report, op. cit. , p. S17.

`(S)ocialism in our country was fundamentally constructed, … the exploiting classes were generally liquidated, … the Soviet social structure had radically changed, … the social basis for political movements and groups hostile to the party had violently contracted’.


Ibid. , p. S15.

Khrushchev concluded that the Purge was an arbitrary act that was in no way justified, thereby rehabilitating the political positions of the opportunists and the enemies of socialism.

In his Report to the XIXth Congress, Malenkov underscored four major weaknesses of the Party. It was precisely those weaknesses that Khrushchev would use four years later to achieve his revisionist coup.

Malenkov underscored that many bureaucratized cadres refused criticism and control from their base, and were formalist and uncaring:

`Not in all Party organizations, and nowhere by any means in full measure, have self-criticism, and especially criticism from below become the principal method of disclosing and overcoming our errors and shortcomings, our weaknesses and maladies ….

`There are cases when people are persecuted and victimized for criticism. We still meet with responsible workers who never tire of professing their fidelity to the Party, but who actually cannot tolerate criticism from below, stifle it, and revenge themselves on those who criticize them. We know of plenty of cases where a bureaucratic attitude towards criticism and self-criticism has … killed … initiative … and infected some of the organizations with the anti-Party habits of bureaucrats, sworn enemies of the Party.

`(W)herever … control by the masses over the activities of organizations and institutions is weakened, there … bureaucracy and degeneration, and even the corruption of individual sections of the Party apparatus, invariably appear ….

`(A)chievement has bred in the ranks of the Party a tendency to self-satisfaction, to make a pretence of all being well, a spirit of smug complacency, a desire on the part of people to rest on their laurels and to live on the capital of their past services …. Leaders … not infrequently turn meetings, gatherings of active members, plenary meetings and conferences into vainglorious displays, into occasions of self-laudation, with the result that errors and shortcomings in work, maladies and weaknesses are not brought to light and subjected to criticism …. A spirit of negligenge has penetrated our Party organizations.’


Malenkov, op. cit. , pp. 113–116.

This was a recurrent theme in Stalin’s work of the thirties: appeals to the base so that it criticizes and controls the bureaucrats who are looking for the quiet life, who repress the active members, are uncaring and behave as enemies of Communism. This text leaves one to wonder about the torrent of criticisms that Stalin wanted once again to raise against the revisionists.

Four years later, when Khrushchev denounced the `insecurity, fear and despair’ that supposedly reigned under Stalin, he promised to the bureaucratic and opportunistic elements that he could now doze in tranquility. They would no longer be `persecuted’ by the `leftist’ criticisms from the base. Self-satisfaction and the tranquil life would be the principal characteristics of the revisionist bureaucracy that definitely took power under Khrushchev.

Second, Malenkov, denounced the Communists who ignored Party discipline and behaved as owners:

`A formal attitude to decisions of Party and government, and passivity in carrying them out, is a vice that must be eradicated with the utmost ruthlessness. The Party does not need inert and indifferent executives who prize their own comfort higher than the interests of the work; it needs men who will fight indefatigably and devotedly ….

`There are quite a number of executives who forget that the enterprises to their charge are state enterprises, and try to turn them into their own private domain, where … they … can do anything they fancy …. there are quite a number of executives who believe that Party decisions and Soviet laws are not written for them ….

`Anyone who attempts to conceal the truth from the Party and to deceive the Party cannot be allowed to remain in its ranks.’

Ibid. , pp. 119–121.

Those that Malenkov denounced in this passage would soon find Khrushchev to be their representative. Khrushchev became the spokesperson for the bureaucrats when he criticized the `excessive replacement of cadres’.

Khrushchev, `Central Committee Report’, The Documentary Record of the 20th Communist Party Congress and its Aftermath (New York: Frederick A. Praeger), p. 58.

Malenkov’s text allows us to better understand what was really going on in Khrushchev’s diatribes against Stalin. Stalin had, he said, `abandoned the method of ideological struggle’; using the expression `enemy of the people’, Stalin systematically had recourse to `mass repressions and terror’.

Khrushchev, `Secret Report’, op. cit. , pp. S14–S15.

These phrases were designed to ensure the position of those who had been attacked in Malenkov’s text, those who made State enterprises into their own personal fiefdoms, those who hid the truth from the Party so that they could steal and redirect without punishment, those who blathered on with `Marxist-Leninist’ phrases without the slightest intention of adhering to them. With Khrushchev, all those who aspired to become real bourgeois no longer had to fear the `mass repressions and terror’ of the socialist power.

Third, Malenkov attacked those cadres who formed clans not subject to any control and that enriched themselves illegally:

`(S)ome officials themselves engage in filching collective-farm property …. these men convert to their own use common land, compel collective-farm boards and chairmen to supply them with grain, meat, milk and other produce at low prices, and even gratis’.

Malenkov, op. cit. , p. 76.

`(S)ome of our executives do not base their selection of personnel on political and business qualifications, but on considerations of kinship, friendship and hometown ties …. Owing to such distortions of the Party line in the matter of selection and promotion of personnel, we get in some organizations close coteries who constitute themselves into a mutual insurance society and set their group interests higher than the interests of Party and state. It is not surprising that such a state of affairs usually results in degeneration and corruption.’

Ibid. , p. 124.

`An unscrupulous and irresponsible attitude towards the carrying out of the directives of leading bodies is the most dangerous and vicious manifestation of bureaucracy.’

Ibid. , p. 122.

`(T)he primary purpose of verification of fulfilment is to disclose shortcomings, to expose infringement of law, to help honest executives with advice, to punish the incorrigible’.

Ibid. , pp. 125–126.

Under Khrushchev, cadres would no longer be chosen for having the best political qualities. On the contrary, those would be `purged’ for being `Stalinist’. Bourgeois circles would form around Beria, Khrushchev, Mikoyan and Brezhnev, circles completely estranged from revolutionary, popular action, exactly as Malenkov described. Stalin would no longer be there to `punish the unrepentant’, but the unrepentant would now punish the real Communists.

Finally, Malenkov criticized the cadres that neglected their ideological work, allowing bourgeois tendencies to emerge once again and become the dominant ideologies:

`Many Party organizations underrate the importance of ideological work, with the result that it falls short of the Party’s requirements, and in many organizations is in a state of neglect ….

`(I)f the influence of socialist ideology is weakened the effect is to strengthen the influence of the bourgeois ideology ….

`(W)e still have vestiges of the bourgeois ideology, relics of the private-property mentality and morality. These relics … are very tenacious and may strengthen their hold, and a determined struggle must be waged against them. Nor are we guaranteed against the infiltration of alien views, ideas and sentiments from outside, from the capitalist countries, or from inside, from the relics of groups hostile to the Soviet state ….’

Ibid. , pp. 126–127.

`Whoever … relies upon formulas learned by rote, and has no feeling for the new, is incapable of understanding home and foreign affairs’.

Ibid. , p. 128.

`Some of our Party organizations tend to devote all their attention to economic affairs and to forget ideological matters …. Whenever attention to ideological questions is relaxed, a favourable soil is created for the revival of views and ideas hostile to us. If there are sectors of ideological work which for any reason fall out of the purview of Party organizations, if there are sectors in which Party leadership and influence have slackened, alien elements, the remnants of anti-Leninist groups smashed by the Party, will try to get hold of these sectors’.

Ibid. , p. 127.

Khrushchev would empty Leninism of its content, transforming it into a series of slogans with no revolutionary spirit. The resulting vacuum drew in all the old social-democratic and bourgeois ideologies, that would be taken up by the youth. Furthermore, Khrushchev would falsify or simply eliminate the essential notions of Marxism-Leninism: anti-imperialist struggle, socialist revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, continuing the class struggle, basic concepts of a Leninist Party, etc. When he spoke of `Marxist education’, he proposed the opposite to Malenkov:

`It must be admitted that for many years our Party cadres were insufficiently indoctrinated in the … practical problems of economic construction.’

Khrushchev, `Central Committee Report’, op. cit. , p. 57.

By rehabilitating opportunists and enemies who had been purged, Khrushchev allowed the resurrection of social-democratic, bourgeois and Tsarist ideological currents.

During the plenum that followed the Nineteenth Congress, Stalin was even harsher in his criticisms of Mikoyan, Molotov and Voroshilov; he almost openly clashed with Beria. All the leaders understood perfectly well that Stalin insisted upon a radical change of course. Khrushchev clearly understood the message and, like the others, made himself very scarce:

`Stalin evidently had plans to finish off the old members of the Political Bureau. He often stated that the Political Bureau members should be replaced by new ones.

`His proposal, after the 19th Congress, concerning the election of 25 persons to the Central Committee Presidium, was aimed at the removal of the old Political Bureau members and the bringing in of less experienced persons ….

`We can assume that this was also a design for the future annihilation of the old Political Bureau members and, in this way, a cover for all shameful acts of Stalin.’
Khrushchev, `Secret Report’, op. cit. , p. S63.

At the time, Stalin was a old man, tired and sick. He acted with caution. Having made the conclusion that the members of the Politburo were no longer trustworthy, he introduced more revolutionary minded youth to the presidium, in order to temper and test them. The revisionists and plotters like Khrushchev, Beria and Mikoyan knew that they would soon lose their positions.

Still according to Khrushchev, Stalin is to have said to the members of the Politburo, after the Doctor’s Plot in the end of 1952:

`You are blind like young kittens; what will happen without me? The country will perish because you do not know how to recognize enemies.’

Ibid. , p. S49.

Khrushchev put forward that statement as proof of Stalin’s folly and paranoia. But history has shown that the comment was correct.

(Note: From facebook by Comrade Yaralagadda Venkata Rao. My comments on this post is below)

“These phrases were designed (By Khrushchev & cliches)to ensure the position of those who had been attacked in Malenkov’s text, those who made State enterprises into their own personal fiefdoms, those who hid the truth from the Party so that they could steal and redirect without punishment, those who blathered on with `Marxist-Leninist’ phrases without the slightest intention of adhering to them. With Khrushchev, all those who aspired to become real bourgeois no longer had to fear the `mass repressions and terror’ of the socialist power.”
And: “`(W)e still have vestiges of the bourgeois ideology, relics of the private-property mentality and morality. These relics … are very tenacious and may strengthen their hold, and a determined struggle must be waged against them. Nor are we guaranteed against the infiltration of alien views, ideas and sentiments from outside, from the capitalist countries, or from inside, from the relics of groups hostile to the Soviet state ….'”
Conclusion: This effectively shows how the CPSU and it’s leaders, including Stalin (read next paragraphs) understood “existence of class” in USSR and were not totally either unaware or unaffected by it. In fact they were planning to purge them but Stalin’s death and khrushchev’s rise to power reversed that another “victory” of the socialist society.
This post is very important for us to understand the reason for restoration of capitalism in USS and ultimately it’s demise and also the brilliance of Stalin, his understanding of the ground reality!


British culture, democratic norms or even constitution is not stagnant and is guided directly by the production relation, status of circulation of products (Overproduction or not), social and political turmoil thereof.
This is universal for the mankind. One who sees it in stagnation, the present without its relation with the past and denying the future pregnant with changes, is nothing but philistine.
Present economic slowdown, recession since 2008 has “forced” finance capital, imperialist powers to smash all the “democratic” rights of the working class, peasants to plunder them outright, as the market, even with monopolisation, is unable to garner profit and grow!
The undeveloped countries are facing worse condition and rise of fascism (the most rotten form of capitalism), is discernible, like in India, Ukraine, Poland, etc!
The working class, peasants and other exploited sections of the society, world over, are pushed to the corner, where unemployment, poverty, reduced wages is common. And all this is in name of nationalism!
The resistance is also visible. Any call to protest is taken enthusiastically, be it Europe, Russia, Africa, Arab or Latin countries, India, etc. Millions of proletariat come out on road to denounce reform, which eventually is pro capital and anti labour, in form of cut in wages, labour laws, land acquisition, cut in people’s amenities, like education, health, public transportation and utilities, higher taxes, allow degradation of environment and to “counterbalance” waiving off billions worth unpaid taxes and loans of the big capitalists, financiers!
What we need is a unifying ideology and that has to be only a revolutionary one, which will guide/lead the working class to take over the power of few big elites to hire millions of workers and appropriate the surplus value and negate such privilege in future and thus destroying the base of all forms of exploitation, oppression of a man by another man!
And that is Marxist Leninist ideology!



When I was young, we were taught at school that as we lived in a post-modern and affluent multicultural society, we had the moral and ‘legal’ right to choose our own identities, and to pick any aspect of any culture (or none) that suited the best way that we felt, expressed our inner ideals and values in the outer world. Although we were technically ‘British’, and possessed many different ethnicities (such as English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Indian, Chinese, or West Indian, etc), we had no ‘ideological’ notion whereby we ‘objectified’ our own identity, or related in any way to a racist ‘nationalism’ as professed by the far-right neo-Nazi ‘National Front’, or any number of its off-shoots or imitators. There was no need to emphasis our national identity (as we were ‘naturally’ the product of the prevailing culture), and we were not forced to relate to a ‘sterile’ notion of ‘Britishness’…

View original post 183 more words

Reformist election campaigns focus on trying to fix capitalism, a system that can’t be fixed!
Revolution is not series of reforms, however long and progressive that may be. And we need a revolutionary party for revolution!


Marxism-Leninism seeks revolution through organizing the working class & its reserve forces into a vanguard which acts as a front line & general staff of the revolution. This can be achieved through democratic centralism which combines the effectiveness of unity & discipline with democracy. Marxism-Leninism rejects loose disunited organizations & movements without leadership. Marxism-Leninism advocates leadership through example & guidance, by the most politically conscious members of the working class. If the party’s policies, tactics and positions are correct it will succeed in rallying support around it and to revolution.



Some people still idealize spontaneity and spontaneous grassroots movements. But such movements never lead to successful revolution. You need a popular mass movement, but you also need leadership and clear political goals. Without political consciousness these mass movements wither away and die and nothing changes, we’ve seen movements like this come and go a million times. Some people…

View original post 2,951 more words