A HISTORY of PUSHKIN SQUARE: 1967 to 2021

In Moscow, last Saturday, an estimated 15,000 demonstrators gathered in and around Pushkin Square in the city centre, where clashes with police broke out and demonstrators were roughly dragged off by helmeted riot officers to police buses and detention trucks. Some were beaten with batons.

Navalny’s wife Yulia was among those arrested. Police eventually pushed demonstrators out of the square. Thousands then regrouped along a wide boulevard about a kilometer (half-mile) away, many of them throwing snowballs at the police before dispersing.

Some later went to protest near the jail where Navalny is held. Police made an undetermined number of arrests there.

Perhaps it would bee helpful if we compare what is happening now under Vladimir Putin today with what took place in Pushkin Square in 1967 in the Soviet Communist Era when a demo took place in protesting the arrests of some then political dissidents and the use of Article 70 of the then Criminal Code with regard to its use conflicting with the constitution.

**********************************

OVER 50 years ago on the 22nd, January, 1967 at 6p.m., a group of twenty to thirty young people gathhered in Pushkin Square carrying banners calling for the release of four prisoners and calling for the revision of Article 70 of the Criminal Code. As they unfolded their banners men in plain clothes rushed up from all sides of the square, seized the banners and arrested several people. Most of the others scattered, and among the small group remaining one shouted 'Down with the dictatorship! Release Dobrovolsky!' All the prisoners were taken to the HQ of the Komsomol. After some hours' questioning, two were released (Gabay and Delaunay) and two others (Kushev and Khaustov) taken to the KGB investigation centre* at Lefortovo prison.

Later on the 25th and 26th of January 1967, Gabay and Delaunay were re-arrested and another demonstrator was taken into custody. The houses of all the prisoners were carefully searched; the police were particularly interested in samizdat manuscipts** and confistcated most of them. Some hundred witnesses were questioned by the Prosecutor's Office and the KGB.

SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION ***

'Comrade Judges! This year is a great date for us - it is the 50th year of the Soviet Regime. The struggle for the maintenance of public order continues throughout the country. In Moscow, the maintenance of public order is particularly important. We have largely been sussessful in this respect. Imagine, in the circumstances, the astonishment and indignation of the citizens who witnessed what occurred in Pushkin Square on the 22nd, of January 1967. The place which these self-syled demonstrators chose for their activities - the vicinity of a great poet's monument - is a placewhich everyon holds sacred. Their gathering might have attracted large crowds - not, of course, of like-minded citizen but of curious onlookers. Had the Druzhinniki not put a stop to it straight away, it might have led to a large disturbance.'

* * KGB: translated in English as the Committee for State Security, was the secret police force that was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until 6 November 1991, when it split into the Federal Security Service and the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.

** samizdat manuscipts: The remarkably viable underground press in the Soviet Union is called samizdat: The word is a play on Gosizdat, which is a telescoping of Gosudarstvennoye Izdatelstvo, the name of the monopoly‐wielding State Publish ing House. The sam part of the new word means “self.” The whole samizdat—translates as: “We publish ourselves”—that is, not the state, but we, the people.

*** The Demonstration in Pushkin Square by Pavel Litvinov (1968).

The Death of George Blake by Brian Bamford

GEORGE Blake, a notorious British double agent who betrayed Cold War secrets and Western spies to the Soviet Union in the 1950s and, after being caught, staged a spectacular escape to live out his life as a K.G.B. colonel in Moscow, has died. He was 98.

Like the Cambridge-educated moles Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, Mr. Blake became a dedicated Marxist, disillusioned with the West, and a high British intelligence officer while secretly working for the Soviets. His clandestine life had lasted less than a decade, but cost the lives of many agents and destroyed vital British and American operations in Europe.

Unlike the Cambridge clique, who defected when the authorities closed in, Mr. Blake was caught in 1961, tried secretly and sentenced to 42 years in prison. Five years later, with inside and outside help, he escaped from the Wormwood Scrubs prison in London and fled to Moscow. He left behind a wife, three children and an uproar over his getaway, the tatters of a case that encapsulated the intrigues of a perilous nuclear age, with flash points in Korea and Germany, where Blake served.

Settling into a new life in Moscow in 1966, Mr. Blake assumed the identity of Colonel Georgiy Ivanovich Bleyk and was awarded the Order of Lenin and given a pension and an apartment. He divorced his wife, remarried and had a son and grandson, helped train Soviet agents and in 2007, on his 85th birthday, received the Order of Friendship from President Putin. He wrote an autobiography, “No Other Choice” (1990), and a memoir, “Transparent Walls” (2006).

***********************************************

IN HIS AUTHORIZED HISTORY OF MI5 'The Defence of the Realm' Christopher Andrew wrote:

'To general astonishment, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, sentenced [George] Blake to forty-two years' imprisonment, the longest sentence ever imposed by a British court. Blake appeared stummed. Sir Dick White later said that he too had been shocked by the severity of the sentence. J.Edgar Hoover, by contrast, was delighted, telling the Washington SLO approvingly: "Anyway, the British have guts!" Macmillan, however, found the spy scandals of the early 1960s even more distastful than the furore which had surrounded his clearing of Philby in 1955. Instead of congadulating MI5 for its part in tracking down a series of Soviet spies, he blamed the Service for causing him public embarrassment. The Prime Minister complained in his diary after Blake's conviction that he public, already shocked by media reports, "do not know and cannot be told that he belonged to MI6, an organisation which does not theoretically exist. So I had rater a rough passage in the House of Commons..." Though the British press did not reveal that Blake was an SIS officer when repoting the verdict, the foreign press had no such inhibitions and the secret soon leaked out.'

This incident seems to capture the thankless job of spy-catching by MI5.

Later when Sir Roger Hollis had alerted Macmillan of the arrest of the spy John Vassal it was claimed that Hollis had told him 'I've got this fellow [Vassall], I've got him!' When Macmillan failed to show any enthusiasm for this MI5 success, Hollis allegedly remarked, 'You don't seem very pleased, Prime Minister.' Macmillan, by his own account, replied:

'No, I'm not pleased. When my gamekeeper shoots a fox, he doesn't go and hang it up outside the Master of the Foxhounds' drawing room; he buries it out of sight. But you just can't shoot a spy as you did in the war. You have to try him... better to discover him, and then control him, but never catch him... There will be a terrible row in the press, there will be a debate in the House of Commons and the government will probably fall. Why the devil did you catch him?'

This is the curious paradox presented by Sir Roger Hollis the spy-catcher to the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s, it was not unlike that described in the essay 'Shooting an Elephant' by George Orwell: 'The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant, like a mad dog, if the owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and gave me sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.'

Appearances are often more important than crude political considerations, and that's why cases like that of George Blake are so significant in so far as they often serve to ridicule and undermine political authority.

********************************************************

Britain’s First Socialist Film?

(and where you can watch it for free!)

by Christopher Draper

I GREW UP addicted to TV and loved “Robin Hood”, “Play for Today”, “Boys from the Blackstuff” and “The Monocled Mutineer” but kicked the habit long before the emergence of shopping channels, Ant & Dec and Jeremy Kyle. If Britain’s Got Talent it’s not evident from TV – the opium of the people.

Radical Cinema

RADICAL director Ken Loach was on telly in the 1960’s but as the medium grew increasingly idiotic shifted to cinema, where for decades he’s almost single-handedly kept alive the fragile flame of Britain’s socialist film culture. Loach wasn’t our first socialist director yet so little regarded is political cinema in Britain that lefties are more able to identify radical foreign film makers like Eisenstein, Vigo or Bunuel than any British pioneer.

Socialists and Film Makers

THERE were four decades of film making in Britain before in 1933 a trio of iconoclastic activists created the Socialist Film Council (SFC) with the intention of producing politically conscious films for public showing. The leading lights were Rudolph Messel (1905-1958), Raymond Postgate (1896-1971) and George Lansbury (1859-1940) with Messel the prime mover. Postgate was a writer and founder member of the British Communist Party and as a left-wing dissident, he was one of the first to resign in 1922 for refusing to follow the Moscow line. During WWI Postgate had been expelled from university, gone on the run and been gaoled for conscientious objection. George Lansbury was President of the Socialist Film Council and leader of the Labour Party, a role he’d accepted in 1931 when Ramsey MacDonald “ratted”, allied with the Tories, formed a “National Government” and imposed savage cuts and the “Household Means Test” on the unemployed.

As a Labour activist and accomplished amateur film maker Rudolph Messel was a key player in bringing socialist politics to the big screen. Like Postgate he’d enjoyed a privileged upbringing but was much slower to embrace socialism. At Oxford he’d participated in the notorious “Hypocrites Club” whose membership included Evelyn Waugh, Terrence Greenidge, Anthony Powell, Tom Driberg and Roger Hollis. In 1924 Messel and fellow hypocrite Greenidge jointly produced an amateur film entitled, “Big Dog”. The club was closed down by the University authorities the following year after staging an outrageous “Nuns and Choirboys” event. Messel’s friendship with Greenidge endured and in 1926 the pair jointly produced and directed “Next Gentleman, Please!” featuring their hypocritical associates in a film exhibited in Oxford’s “Super Cinema”. During the 1926 General Strike Messel, still firmly enamoured of the louche lifestyle, pitched in on the government side but educated by the experience he moved ever closer to socialism and developed a particular interest in Soviet film making. After visiting Hollywood in 1927, the following year he wrote “This Cinema Business”, described by his publisher, Ernest Benn, as “the first comprehensive and serious study of the Film in our language”. In 1929 and 1931 Messel stood unsuccessfully as a Labour parliamentary candidate and in 1932 was a member of a prestigious Fabian Research Bureau group that enjoyed a two month long “fact-finding” tour of the Soviet Union.

Socialist Film Council

RAYMOND Postgate and novelist Naomi Mitchison accompanied Messel touring Russia and on their return all three contributed chapters on their observations to a compendium volume, “Twelve Studies in Soviet Russia” edited by Margaret Cole and published by Gollancz. They also collaborated in producing the Socialist Film Council’s first film “The Road to Hell”, written by Postgate and directed by Messel. The film depicts the devastating effects of the National Government’s austerity policies upon a working class East End family. The novelist Naomi Mitchison, in the words of the Daily Herald critic “acted beautifully” in the role of the mother of the family. Postgate played the role of the father. Messel also appeared in the guise of a drunken playboy while fellow “hypocrite” Terrence Greenidge played the part of Freddy, the family’s elder son. Daisy Postgate, Raymond’s wife, and George Lansbury’s daughter, played Freddy’s girlfriend. With many of the domestic scenes filmed in Lansbury’s 39, Bow Road home it all made for an accomplished though economical production. Premiered in London on Friday 28 July 1933, Lansbury himself attended the show and a couple of months later introduced the film to delegates attending the Labour Party’s annual conference in the White Rock Pavilion, Hastings. Although the film was generally well received where shown it proved impossible to secure a general release. Cinemas were dominated by Hollywood and ultimately controlled by local authority licensing committees eager to ban Socialist Film Council films as did Birmingham Council in 1935.

Watch “The Road to Hell”

DESPITE Lansbury’s influence the labour movement gave little material support to the SFC and although it managed to complete one more film this spark of socialist cinema would have been extinguished if it had relied entirely on the organised labour movement. Fortunately a few isolated though determined and largely forgotten individuals did successfully produce politically radical films into the 1960’s when Ken Loach memorably lit the “Big Flame”. I’ll post more on these overlooked directors and studios in future NV posts but for now watch and be inspired by “The Road to Hell” on the British Film Institute website (no charge or registration required!)

*********************************************************************

Film Review: STALIN’S OMELETTE

  by Christopher Draper

POLISH DIRECTOR Agnieszka Holland’s important new film tells the story of Gareth Jones’ courageous reporting of Stalin’s murderous 1932-33 “Holomodor”.  This Soviet “holocaust” was alternately ignored and denied by the world’s press and remains so today.  Jones’ reports and reputation were traduced by his press colleagues, orchestrated by Walter Duranty, the celebrated, Pullitzer Prize-winning, resident Moscow correspondent of the New York Times who shockingly trivialised the deaths of four million Ukrainians with the observation, 'You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.'

Mr Jones goes Free-range

Whilst the salaried correspondents of the international press were content to remain in Moscow, wined, dined and accommodated in relative luxury as favoured mouthpieces of Soviet propaganda, Gareth Jones investigated independently as an irregular 'stringer'.  After interviewing, on his own initiative, numerous Russian representatives in Moscow, in March 1933 Jones obtained official permission to travel by rail to visit and report on a 'model' Soviet tractor factory in Kharkiv.  Gareth duly boarded the train in Moscow but got off well before reaching Kharkiv so that he could conduct his own 'unofficial' investigations into conditions on the ground in rural Ukraine.

Already aware of widespread rumours of Stalin’s ruthless treatment of rural Ukraine, Jones, a fluent Russian speaker, trudged forty miles on foot, passing through fourteen villages and everywhere encountering starving people.  Peasants expressed their fierce resentment against Bolshevik battalions corralling them into collectivized farms and then stealing away their pitiful produce with no regard for their former ways of farming, culture, co-operation and exchange.  Despite this mechanistic regimentation of rural labour resulting in a catastrophic diminution of production Stalin demanded and appropriated ever increasing amounts of grain, meat and vegetables.

Inconvenient Truths

Jones left Russia at the end of March and immediately filed newspaper reports and delivered public lectures on the starvation conditions he’d witnessed and just as promptly he came under attack from Stalin’s apologists, led by Walter Duranty.  The first of more than twenty of Jones’ published reports appeared in the Manchester Guardian on 30 March 1933 headlined 'FAMINE IN RUSSIA'.  The very next day the New York Times printed Duranty’s dismissive, 'RUSSIANS HUNGRY, BUT NOT STARVING'.  Referring to Jones by name, Duranty described Gareth’s account as 'a big scare story'.

Holland’s film does an excellent job of raising the profile of the myriad key issues around the Holodomor and its reporting.  The production values are high and visually the picture looks well alongside other 'art-house' productions but characterisation has been sacrificed to inaccurately accentuate a desired narrative.  Like the original reporting of the Holodomor, the film shows signs of clumsy political manipulation.  Absolute integrity and telling inconvenient truths were the essence of Gareth Jones’ reporting yet Agnieszka Holland has taken several absurd liberties with the truth to sex up her picture.  To be specific:

a) There is no evidence that Jones, inadvertently, or otherwise, indulged in or even witnessed any incidents of cannibalism in the Ukraine.

b) Jones explicitly states that he saw no dead bodies lying around unburied.

c) Whilst living in Paris it’s quite possible that Duranty previously indulged in the sort of sex parties depicted, there’s no evidence, and it’s most unlikely, that he did so in Moscow in the 1930’s and placing Jones at such an event is absurd.

d) Jones never met George Orwell, nor is there any evidence that his reporting inspired Animal Farm.

e) The key character 'Paul Klebb' who, in the film, posthumously inspires and informs Jones’ Ukraine journey never existed but was doubtless inserted as a spurious, politically motivated reference to a similarly named individual who was likely murdered on Putin’s orders.

Good Effort but no Cigar

Despite the film’s shortcomings it should be seen and reflected upon.  It’s not unvarnished truth, if that were ever possible, but it’s accessible, reasonably entertaining and essential viewing for anyone with a serious interest in history or politics though it’s far from the last word.

Many lies and inaccuracies about the Holomodor remain to be challenged and as this film exemplifies, new untruths are still being manufactured so in “HOLOMODOR - Part Two” (to be published shortly on this website) I’ll identify false claims made by (amongst others) authors, Anne Applebaum, Sally J Taylor, James William Cowl and the Communist Party of Great Britain and examine Stalin’s role in the 1935 murder of Gareth Jones.

*******************

How the war in Europe began?

Johnathan White

by Brian Bamford

WHAT caused the Second World War? 

Many answers can given according to A.J.P. Taylor:  'German complaints against the peace settlement of 1919 and the failiure to redress them; failure to agree general controlled disarmament; failure to agree collective principles of security; fear of communism and, on the Soviet side, of capitalism and its impact on international policy; German strength, which destroyed the balance of power in Europe; American aloofness from European affairs; Hitler's unscrupulous ambition - a blancket explanation favoured by some historians; at the end, perhaps only mutual bluff.'

A view from the Morning Star

In the Morning Star the journalist Jonathan White on Monday, September 30, 2019 wrote:

'The second world war started, apparently, because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the dual invasion of Poland. It was the dismemberment of free and independent Poland by the “totalitarians” that started the war.' 

Here he is reacting to the decision on September 18, 2019 by the European Parliament to vote by 535 votes to 66 to support a resolution 'On the Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe.'

The historian A.J.P.Taylor wrote 'English History - 1914-1945' that 'On 23 August he [Ribbentrop] and Molotov signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact.'  And 'Soviet Russia promised to stay neutral if Germany were involved in war' He adds:  Thus 'Hitler assumed almost certainly that, without the Soviet alliance, the Western Powers would run away.'  And Taylor thinks:  'Stalin probably made the same assumption.' adding 'Both seem to have expected that Poland would be diminished or dismembered without general war,'

The totalitarians, Hitler and Stalin, both got it wrong with regard to Britain, but Taylor says 'The French almost came up to these expectations.'  'French statesmen stood aside' writes Taylor, 'and let things happen during the days which settle their destiny.'

In Britain reactions were different and the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact was regarded as an affront, a challenge to British greatness'.  Thus, Conservatives turned against Hitler and Labour were equally bitter against Stalin.  Taylor records:  'Even members of the Left Book Club were determined to show that they, at any rate, were sincere in their anti-fascism.  The stir was confined to parliament.  There were no great public meetings in the week before the outbreak of war, no mass marches demanding "Stand by Poland".  It is impossible to tell whether members of parliament represented the British people.  At any rate, the M.P.s were resolute and the government tailed regretfully after the house of commons.'

 Anglo-Polish Treaty Signed & War Begins

Despite what Johnathan White now says about the Nazi-Soviet Pact; Taylor observes that: 'On 25 August the Anglo-Polish treaty of mutual assistance was at last signed.  The British government had announced on the 22 August that the Nazi-Soviet Pact would not change their policy towards Poland' 

In consequence the British ultimation was delivered to the German government at 9 a,m. on the 3 September 1939, and the Germans made no reply, and the ultimatum expired at 11a.m.

Despite all the post-facto chatter of a 'world campaign against fascism', now echoed by Comrade White in the Morning Star, only 'France, Great Britain, and Dominions were, the only powers who declared war on Germany.'  As Taylor writes:  'All other countries which took part waited until Hitler chose to attack them, the two World Powers, Soviet Russia and the United States, as supine as the rest...  Perhaps the British and French could boast that they alone joined the crusade for freedom of their own free will.'

Aa A.J.P. Taylor writes:  'Probably the British people were surprised at the noble part which events had thrust on them.'

 *******************

RUSSIA: WHEN THE NEEDLES GOT STUCK?

  International Brigade deplores EU Remembrance Resolution

 YOU'VE certainly got to hand it to those few people on the British left who still stick with the idea that Russia offers some form of hope for human civilisation.  It is an idea that somehow a remnant of a golden age ideal rooted in historical Marxist-Leninism, will emerge through the person of  Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; (a former student of law at Leningrad University and later a KGB foreign intelligence officer going on to be Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the KGB's successor agency). 

In this country the International Brigade Memorial Trust (IBMT) is seemingly one of those bodies dedicated to upholding the myth of this new Russian Saint Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.   As evidence of this on the 5th,  October 2019, at the LONDON AGM of the Chair Jim Jump moved a motion expressing dismay at the decision of the European Parliament to approve a remembrance resolution. 

The actual text of the EU resolution,  of which the IBMT so violently disapproves, reads as follows:

'This strand supports activities inviting reflection on European cultural diversity and on common values. It aims to finance projects reflecting on causes of totalitarian regimes in Europe's modern history (especially, but not exclusively, Nazism that led to the Holocaust, Fascism, Stalinism and totalitarian communist regimes) and to commemorate the victims of their crimes.

'This strand also concerns other defining moments and reference points in recent European history. Preference will be given to projects encouraging tolerance, mutual understanding, intercultural dialogue and reconciliation.'

Now the International Brigade resolution, which was agreed unanimously,  begins sa follows:  

'The European Parliament’s recent decision to equate communism with Nazism and to ignore British appeasement of fascism as one of the key factors leading to the Second World War has been roundly condemned by the IBMT.'   

This is the opening wording with which the International Brigade AGM motion begins condemns European Parliament’s remembrance resolution as an ‘insult’ to anti-fascists!   What this IBMT motion blatantly ignores is the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact,^[a] officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,^[b] was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by Foreign Ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, respectively.^[8]

In the end it was the Germans that broke with this pact not the Soviets.  The British International Brigade.  However, it would good if we could conclude the crimes of the Soviet Union with a dodgy pact taken out with a neighbouring regime in the difficult circumstances of the1930s.  Any disinterested observer of 20th century history must know this cannot be the case.  As I write this I am reviewing a book 'THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS: Reflections by Noam Chomsky & others after 50 years' which which deals with what honest journalists and academics ought to be doing to tell truth to the powerful.  In this book Craig Murray* writes about 'The abdication of responsibility':  'It is worth noting the clear-eyed recognition in Chamsky's work that the Soviet Union was also a rival empire.  Even while deporing Russophobia and continual threat posture of encirclement - which Chomsky also note in his essay - I always find it is worth reminding people that Russia itself still is an empire.  Much of its current land - and I mean Russia itself, not the former Soviet Republics - was acquired in the nineteenth century by imperial conquest precisely contempororary with British acquisitions in India or indeed the westward expansion of the USA.  These territories are majority Muslim.  Russian imperialism is quite real.'  

This is indeed an inconvenient truth which the IBMT and those who sell the Morning Star may wish to forget.  It's harder to forget the mountains of  corpses in the  Ukrainian Famine of 1933-4 or Stalin's Show Trials and purges in the later 1930s, but George Orwell described in December 1945 in a penetrating essay entitled 'Through a Glass, Rosily', an attack on a Tribune's Vienna correspondent for revealing 100,000 rape cases owing to the inappropriate misbehavior of the Russian occupying troops with the local citizenship.  At that time Orwell argued that some readers of  Tribune seemed to imply that (even if true) the '100,000 rape cases in Vienna are not a good advertisement for the Soviet regime:  therefore, even if they happened, don't mention them.  Anglo-Russian relations are more likely to prosper if inconvenient facts are kept dark.'

What the wrong-headed motion, which originates from the International Brigade Memorial Trust, and is now being promoted by the Morning Star salesmen, is doing is to throw historical facts down the Orwellian 'Memory Hole'.  What these people are saying is 'don't reveal inconvenient facts' like the Ukrainian Famine in 1933-4 or mass rapes by Russian troops of citizens in occupied wartime Vienna or the purges, simply it because it will play into the hands of the enemy.

 But the trouble with this kind of cover-up is that when it gets out that it is false then people tend not to believe you even when you are telling the truth.  The Morning Star itself has few readers and it little credibility in intellectual circles.  By contrast the International Brigade has retained some degree of integrity over the years, but now by associating itself with the motion it risks bring its own organisation into disrepute:  any body who is willing to weigh the management of the Russia's Soviet gulags more favourably than the gas-chambers of Nazi Germany has surely an unenviable task?

Orwell introduced the term 'Inverted Nationalism', to explain how some people came to embrace either Germany or Russia in contrast to their own countries in the 1930s.  With some people on the left somehow the needle got stuck, and despite Russian regime now being committed to the Orthodox Church and passionate Slav nationalism these same people still cling emotionally to this Oriental despotism.  It's as if there is some deep physological need for these attachments.

*****************

*  Craig Murray is author of Murder in Samarkand (Mainstream Publishing, 2006).  Became well known when he resigned as British ambassador to Uzbekistan in protest against British collusion with the Uzbek dictatorship during the 'war on terror'.  He received the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence in 2006.

Tale of Two Icons: Engels & General Kalashnikov

Manchester & Moscow Monuments: From Engels to
Lt. Gen. Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, designer of the AK-47

WITHIN two months of each other two statues have been unveiled,; one in Manchester of Fredrich Engels, and the other in Moscow of General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov.

At the unveiling of the Engels statue event on the 16th, July, at the NCP Bridgewater Hall Car Park, with the statue being placed in Tony Wilson Place near HOME in Manchester, Salford Trades Council ended up walking out when they found they were confronted by Showsec Security, an 'anti-trade union body'.

The statue originally situated in Maryanivka, Ukraine, 12 feet tall, had been cut in half and dumped.  But on May 15, the halves were hauled onto a truck and sent on their way to Manchester.  On its travels through Europe, captured on film, the truck stopped in Engels’s birthplace, Barmen, now part of the city of Wuppertal in northwestern Germany.

The Engels resurrection in Manchester, where he conducted research on the working class in the 1840s, is thanks to Phil Collins — the acclaimed artist who has made Engels the centrepiece of his most recent project, 'Ceremony'.

Meanwhile, less than two months later on the 19th, September 2017,  a towering monument to Lt. Gen. Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, designer of the AK-47, the Soviet rifle that has become the world’s most widespread assault weapon, was unveiled on Tuesday in the middle of one of central Moscow’s busiest thoroughfares.

The ceremony took place to the sounds of Russian military folk music, the Soviet anthem, Orthodox prayers and words about how his creation had ensured Russia’s safety and peace in the world.

While the Manchester monument was financed in part by Manchester City Council controlled by the Labour Party,the Moscow monument to Kalashnikov was financed in part by Rostec, the Russian state-owned corporation that owns the Kalashnikov Concern, the weapons manufacturer in Izhevsk where General Kalashnikov worked for decades (and which was renamed for him in 2013).

Sergey V. Chemezov, the chief executive of Rostec, who reportedly became close to Mr. Putin in Germany in the 1980s when Mr. Putin worked for the K.G.B., praised General Kalashnikov as an “example of unwavering devotion to one’s profession and one’s motherland” that should serve as “an example to our younger generation.”

The 'New York Times' reported that the General Kalashnikov’s legacy at the event was also cast in religious terms, in line with the Russian government’s depiction of itself as a protector of the Orthodox Church and of Christianity more broadly.

General Kalashnikov in 2007 with a prototype of his AK-47. Credit Misha Japaridze/Associated Press

Syria: Carry-On 'Stop the War'!

Corny Carryings-On of Stop War Coalition

Bring on the Mustard Gas Comrades!

A CRACK-POT Coalition of 'Stop the War' devotees last night ran into opposition from what the Huffington Post described as 'an enraged Syrian refugee' Hassan Akkad, who accused 'Stop the War' of trying to shut him up. 
Mr. Akkad said that he shouted 'Assad is our enemy', when he was appalled by the absence of 'a single placard or slogan' condemning the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad or indeed his Russian backers.
The highly hypocritical 'Stop the War Coalition' these days makes Donald Trump look like an enlightened Scrooge following his conversion by Little Tim, the youngest son of Bob Cratchit, in 'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens.
Not since the Soviet Union in the last century served to make Capitalism, by comparison, seem positively benevolent has a political movement behaved in such a barmy way as the 'Stop the War Coalition'.
Trump commanded the missile bombing of an Assad regime air base following a nerve gas attack last Tuesday killed many civilians including 30 children.
The Stop the War Coalition is now being accused of double standards owing to its silence about the Russian interventions which helped to prop-up the Assad regime.
Last night, the 'Stop The War Coalition' was challenged on social media for choosing to demonstrate outside Downing Street as opposed to an international embassy such as the United States, Russia or Syria.

Twitter user Josh The Duke said:  'Stop the war coalition should be protesting outside Russian Embassy - not Downing Street.'

Rohullah Yakobi added:  'Stop the War Coalition to hold a demo about Syria. No, it isn't to condemn Assad's atrocities.' 

The Stop The War Coalition issued the Newsletter yesterday, which we publish below:

Stop the War Newsletter - 7 April 2017

---

London Emergency Protest Tonight Downing Street 5-7pmThe Stop the War Coalition​ condemn​s Donald Trump's decision to launch attacks against Syrian targets. This action will only increase the level of killing in Syria, and inflame the terrible war that has already caused untold misery for the people of the country.

​​This is the worst possible way to respond to the indefensible attack at Khan Sheikhun. As well as ​deepening​ the tragedy of the Syrian people, ​this utterly​ irresponsible act ​threatens to widen the war and lead the West into military confrontation with Russia. ​

​It is shameful that​ Theresa May​ has rushed to support this act by the most xenophobic and reactionary US president in history. ​

​Stop the War calls for protests today against th​is​ or any further attacks and against British support or participation. The protest in London will take place today at​ Downing Street​ from 5 to 7pm.

Spanish Civil War event in Wakefield

Subject: Spanish Civil War meeting at Red Shed

 

Thirty six people packed into the Red Shed meeting room in Wakefield last Saturday (11 March) to discuss the Spanish Civil War and to remember those who so bravely fought against fascism.

The first speaker was the author and campaigner Granville Williams.  Granville noted that the Soviet Union, through the Comintern, was urging young workers to go to Spain.  However between 1936 and 1938 there were massive purges in the Soviet Union.  This "terror in the Soviet Union was projected into Spain" with the "persecution and extermination of Trotskyists."

Granville paid particular tribute to POUM which had "brilliant leaders" and activists who had led struggles including mass strikes.

The second speaker was Bob Mitchell, a former councillor and former Mayor of Wakefield.  He said the "democrats of Spain were defending an elected Government" and "defending reforms against a fascist and military coup."  All wars generated poetry, he said, but the Spanish Civil War in particular spawned an "immense body of work."  Bob then read a moving selection of poetry by John Cornford, Frank Ryan, Frank Edwards and others.

The final speaker was the environmental campaigner Tim Padmore.  Tim spoke in particular about a new production of the play, "Dare Devil Rides to Jamara", which tells the story of two volunteers Clem Beckett and Chris Caldwell who went to fight with the International Brigades in Spain.

The event was organised by the Wakefield Socialist History Group.  The Group's next event is on Saturday 1 April 1pm, again at the Red Shed, when Dr Martin Crick and Paul Bennett will speak at a meeting on "British Socialism and World War One." Fraternally

Alan Stewart

Convenor, Wakefield Socialist History Group

07931927451

'The Legacy of Spanish Anarchism'

Why Spanish anarchism began to flag!

TODAY, exactly 80 years ago, anarchists entered the republican government of Spain at the request of the Socialist leader Francisco Largo Caballero.  On the 4^th, November 1936, four leaders of the trade union Confederation of Labour (CNT) and the Federation Anarchists of Iberia (FAI) - Federica Montseny, Juan García Oliver, Joan Peiró and Juan López – entered the new Government of the Spanish Republic. 

Last Tuesday, in an article titled 'The Legacy of Spanish Anarchism' in the Spanish daily El País, the historian Julian Casanova wrote:

'It was an “hecho trascendental” (“an action of supreme significance”), affirmed that same day Solidaridad obera, the principal organ of libertarian expression, because the anarchists had never had confidence in government powers, their objective had always been to be abolish the State, with their policy of anti-politics and direct action, and because it was the first time in world history that such a thing had occurred.  Anarchists in the national government:  was an event transcendental and unrepeatable.'

Señor Casanova refreshes the readers about the introduction of anarchism to Spain after Bakunin's friend Giuseppi Fanelli first appearance in Spain in November 1868.  Between that time and the departure into exile of thousands of militants in 1939, the (Spanish) anarchist movement promoted a frenzied propaganda activity cultural and educative; with strikes and insurrections.  Casanova claims that 'it (anarchism) after the First World War  became an extraordinary movement of the masses – the only country in Europe where it actually succeeded – and did so because it was able to construct a cultural alternative among the workers and peasants at the “base colectiva” (“collective base”)'.  Yet , he says, '.... in this journey though accompanied  by an element of violence, the legends of  their honesty, sacrifices and combat were cultivated during the decades by their followers , which was always questioned by their enemies on the right and the left who want to stress the love of the anarchists for throwing bombs and brandishing revolvers.'

After the Spanish Civil War, according to Casanova, the anarchists 'entered a tunnel from which it was never to re-emerge.'  He writes that in the era since 1939 a gulf had emerged in the new trade union and political culture between 1939 the Transition of the 1970s:  'The imposition of negotiations had come in to form an institutionalisation of conflicts, current consumption had brought miracles:  permitting capital to extend and providing workers with a better standard of living.  Without the anti-politics, and with workers abandoning radicalism faced with better tangible and immediate things like cars and fridges compared with altruism and sacrifice, anarchism began to flag and lose its reason for existence.

'The belief is that today anarchism is only history; very degraded compared with other ideologies and parliamentary parties, yet there is no doubt that the validity and reality of some of their approaches such as criticism of the State, the power of politics and the distorted images that are always transmitted from above about disorder and spontaneity.

'Anarchists don't believe the State can bring equality among peoples and don't believe that they will make the mistakes we've seen in the Soviet Union and other countries.  They never intended to put in motion vast projects of social engineering such as were tried in communism and fascism, with the consequences we all know.'

The Spanish historian Julian Casanova then concludes:  

'Anarchism was never a bed of roses, but it was always something more than bombs and pistols.'