Sunday, September 6, 2015

Towards the History of Maoist Dissidence in the Soviet Union – an article by Alexei Volynets. English followed by Russian Language Version



Democracy and Class Struggle publish this translation by Afoniya of article by Alexei Volynets on Maoists in the Soviet Union as part of the recovery of history of Maoist dissidence in the Soviet Union - this history apart from being erased is also controversial - a critic of this article points out the following :

I have to say that Alexei certainly exaggerated things - most people he mentioned either simply weren't Maoists or they just flirted with Maoism for a bit. The only notable person he mentions is of course Razlatsky (I think he wrote about him in part 2). Razlatsky was a real communist dissident, a serious Marxist thinker and a political organiser, who was jailed for trying to create an independent proletarian party in his hometown. But, Razlatsky was more like anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, than Maoist

We welcome any contribution from Russian and Ukrainian comrades on the history of Maoist Movement in Soviet Union.

Our past is our present and the reconstruction of the Maoist past in the Soviet Union can guide and inspire our present.





From the 1960s to the 1980s tens of Maoist groups operated in Russia fighting against the ‘bourgeois, degeneration’ of the bureaucracy.

When histories of the dissident movement in the Soviet Union get written the “democratic”, pro-Western sector of this movement get the bulk of the attention for reasons that are rather obvious. Far less attention is paid to the nationalists of the ‘Russian party’ and the various Left dissidents. But far the most unfortunate groups of dissidents are the followers of Chairman Mao, the Soviet ‘Red Guards’. They have been left out of the story by both the “western voices” of those years and have been ignored by the contemporary historical memory of all other groups. And yet those who attempted the repeat the lessons of the “Great Cultural Revolution” in the Soviet Union were no fewer than those who preached the models of Western-style democracy in the Soviet Union.

After the death of Stalin, and especially after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, for many citizens of the USSR who sincerely believed in Bolshevism, the leader of the ‘International Communist Movement’ naturally became Mao Zedong. Comrade Mao, an old honoured partisan, leading under his red banner the most populated country in the world, seemed to received wisdom to play far more effectively the role of world leader than a professional party apparatchik with unclear biography like Khruschev.

From the 1960s to the 1980s tens of Maoist groups operated in Russia

Soviet People for Leninist Socialism.

And the Soviet leader certainly felt ill at ease with this fact. Like, for example, in March 1962, when a 40 year old worker named Kulakov, a member of the Soviet Communist Party, working in the construction of Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station in the Irkutsk region, sent a letter to Khrushchev. In the letter, the proletarian didn’t mix his words to the First secretary of the Central Committee:

“The main mass of Soviet peoples believe you to be an enemy of the Party of Lenin and Stalin. In a word you have remained a living Trotkyist… V.I. Lenin dreamed of making China a friend of the Soviet people and this dream was realized by Comrade Stalin but you have destroyed this friendship. Mao is against your defilement of the Leninist Party and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin audaciously fought against the enemies of the revolution and were victorious in open battle not fearing imprisonment. You are a coward and an agent provocateur. While Comrade Stalin was alive you kissed his arse, and now you pour dirt on him…”

For this letter the worker Kulakov was sentence to a prison term of one year, accused of ‘anti-Soviet propaganda’. And similar declarations, some of them public, were not lacking. In Kieve on March 18 of the same year (1962) during the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a 45 year old Kolkhoz chairman by the name of Boris Loskutov and a member of the Soviet Communist Party, distributed leaflets with the text:

“Long live the Leninist Party without the windbag and traitor Khrushchev. The politics of this madman has led to the loss of China, Albania and millions of our former friends. The country has reached a dead end. Let’s close ranks. Let’s save the country.”

The arrested kolkhoz chairman was later sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

In the night of June 18 1963 in the town of Mena of Chernigovskaya region in the Ukraine, a 27 year old artists of the town theatre, Ivan Panasetsky, put up some self-made placards with the slogans “Khrushchevian anarchy killed the truth during the reign of Stalin so as to grab power!” “Down with Khrushchevian anarchy! Long live the Chinese Communist Party!” “Long Live Mao Zedong – the leader of workers throughout the world!”

In the night between the 3rd and 4th of August 1963 in the city of Batumi in Georgia where the once-young Stalin began his first practical activities as a revolutionary, three citizens of the Soviet Union- 28 year old G. Svanidze, his wife 24 year old L. Kizilova and their 23 year old comrade V. Miminoshvili (all three of them Komsomol members) posted up fly-sheets with the demand that Khrushchev be overthrown and to defend the memory of Stalin. In the text the young Komsomol members had written “Our leader is Mao Zedong!” and “The USSR needs Mao Zedong!”.

June 1 1964 in the town of Donetsk a 37 year old miner Vasilii Poluban’ pasted fly-sheets in the town with the call: “Support links with the People’s Democracy of China which is fighting for world peace and democracy! Lenin! Stalin! Khruschev get the hell out!”;

“Lenin and Stalin will live through the ages! Down with the Khruschev dictatorship, contaminating the minds of the working class!” “The Party of Lenin and Stalin will lead us to victory, to communist unity! Down with N.S. Khruschev! Long live the friends of China!”

These were only a few examples of the red dissidence of those years when the formal leader of the USSR, Khruschev, was opposed by the informal leader of the “world communist movement”, Mao. These social moods, among other things, were also to lead to the exclusion of Nikita Sergeevich from power. But it is remarkable that even after the resignation of Khruschev those citizens of the USSR who supported the ideas of Comrade Mao still did not call an end to their activities. Moreover, it was at this very time that the “cultural revolution” in China was at its peak and many Soviet citizens were not against applying all the methods of Red Guard to their own bureaucrats…

From January to March of 1967 a 21 year old student of the aviation training college A. Makovsky was to distribute leaflets in Moscow on numerous occasions. Leaflets in which, according to the investigators of the Office of the Prosceutor General of the Soviet Union “were propagated the ideas of Mao Zedong”. Part of the leaflets were scattered in Red Square, near the Kremlin. It is worth noting that this action at the kremlin happened a year before the well-publicised “demonstration of the seven” in August 1968 praised to high heaven by the western media.

On February 13th 1967 in the city of Komsomolsk on the Amur 6,000 kilometres from Moscow, a 20 year old Komsomol member, an engineer of the city shipping club, V. Ermokhin, a 21 year old Komsomol member and student of the Medical Institute, M. Chirkov and a 30 year old communist and professional diver, P. Korogodsky, pasted fly-sheets which declared

 “Mao Zedong is a red sun in our hearts! Proletarian communists, struggle against this gang of modern revisionists, successors of Khrushchev!”

At almost the same time on February 16th 1967 at the other end of the USSR in the Ukrainian Donetsk a 35 year old miner P. Melnikov hung up on a billboard some leaflets written in his own hand praising Mao Zedong and calling for the overthrow of Brezhnev.

These are only a few single examples of similar actions which have been preserved for us by the Procurators Office and the Soviet KGB. But apart from the single individual actions in the Soviet Union of those years, circles of a “communist underground” also emerged and were formed which based themselves on the ideas and revolutionary slogans of Mao.

The Romanenko Brothers, Soviet Maoists who gained fame in China.

One of the first groups of this kind emerged in 1964 in Ukraine in the industrial Kharkov region where the ‘proletarian tradition’ were still not as yet a simple late-Soviet propagandistic cliché. There in the town of Balakleya, not far from Kharkov, a Marxist group was formed under the title of “Workers and Peasants Revolutionary Party of Communists”. Its founders were the brothers Adolf and Vladimir Romanenko. The 35 year old Vladimir Romanenko worked as an electrician in Kharkov and then studied in the Faculty of Journalism of the University of Leningrad. His 33 year old brother Adolf worked for a newspaper named “Hammer and Sickle” in the industrial district of the city.

In Leningrad Vladimir Romanenko get to know sudents from China from whom he received Maoist literature. Already in September 1963 the brothers wrote a declaration to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the new programme of the CPSU which had been adopted at the XXII Congress in 1961. A copy of this declaration was given to the Chinese citizen Tchzan Dadi, a student of the Leningrad Institute, to be sent to China to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

As the Procurator of Kharkov region was to write later in his report to the Kremlin, the Romanenko brothers “falling under the influence of Chinese propaganda, decided to create an illegal radical leftist organization because they came to the conclusion that the CPSU had stopped representing the interests of the workers and became deformed from a revolutionary party to one representing petty bourgeois interests and ultimately becoming a reactionary force”.

In September 1964 the Romanenko had finished drawing up the programme of their “Workers and Peasants Revolutionary Party of Communists” project. The programme included the following declaration:

The gap in wages between the average worker and major specialists or bureaucratic pen pushers continues to grow day by day … and even now the service bureaucrats and even the organs of so-called party-state control thieve surplus produce from the productive classes…

The assertion that the dictatorship of the proletariat has been rendered obsolete is not needed by either for the working class, nor by the peasant classes but by those who even the mention of the term the dictatorship of the working class gives them a toothache, by those who it is more convenient to plunder the surplus product in the framework of a “national” semi-bourgeois state. And when the ruling party doesn’t struggle with this but helps to legalize it, then this party is a petty bourgeois party…

The CPSU has run its course as a political party capable of leading the masses on the path set out by the great Lenin…Therefore there is no time to lose. One must, as quickly as possible, arm the working class and the peasants of the collective farms with the authentic Marxist revolutionary theory… To do this it is necessary to create organisations in every factory, in every plant, in all the collective farms (kolkhozes) and the state forms (sovkhozes), in all the educational establishments, in the military units in order to explain the revisionist nature of the CPSU programme.

At the end of Autumn 1964 the Romanenko brothers were arrested by the KGB. During the criminal investigation Adolf Romanenko continued to speak his thoughts fully in the spirit of the “cultural revolution” of Chairman Mao:

“I even now believe that up until now in our country there are all the conditions for the flourishing of petty bourgeois elements. In my view so long as the leaders of the CPSU both at the centre and in the periphery, the leaders of the Soviet government and local soviets, the leaders of the administrative apparatuses have all imaginable privileges, as long as material wealth is distributed, in my view, incorrectly, until that time, I believe, that in our country a petty bourgeois ideology will flourish. And the Soviet, Party and administrative apparatuses will try to authorize in law their privileges and inequality in the distribution of material wealth.

From this I draw the conclusion that fraternity and equality is out of the question in the present set up and believe that the CPSU can’t be an expression of the people’s will… I believe that the interests of the working people and the leadership are diametrically opposed to each other and from this, I believe, that there is no unity of Party and the People”

The Romanenko brothers were saved from a long prison sentence practically through the intercession of Mao Zedong.

The brothers were arrested a day before the extraordinary Plenum of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union where Khrushchev was toppled from power.

The new leaders of the CPSU Brezhnev and Shelepin, organizers of the removal of Khrushchev, hoped at that moment without changing the domestic and international policies of the USSR to somehow overcome the schism with communist China.

Therefore at a meeting in the Kremlin, where the managers of the Procurators Office and KGB department of the Kharkov region were specially summonsed, a decision was taken not to bring the case to court against these Soviet Maoists who were well-known in China.

The Romanenko brothers after a few months were released from prison but from that time were under the close supervision of the KGB which excluded for them under possibility to continue their political activity.

Against Revisionism

A wide array of underground Maoist groups arose in the capital of the USSR in the second half of the 1960s when the example of the “Great Cultural Revolution” was especially intense. In Western Europe it played out in the guise of the Parisian student revolt, in the Soviet Union such an open revolt was impossible but the echo of the Red Guard was felt even here. Thousands of students and doctorate students from Maoist China were studying in Soviet universities and higher education establishments. And it was through these students that Red Guard literature came into the hands of our fellow citizens.

Between 1965 and 1967 a small Marxist group operated in Moscow headed by two research assistants of the Economic Institute of World Socialist Systems at the Soviet Academy of Sciences. These were a 35 year old citizen of the Peoples’ Republic of China Ho Dantsin and a 30 year old Soviet citizen G. Ivanov. Together these Chinese and Soviet communists circulated agitational literature from China in Moscow and also created a whole gamut of their propaganda material which they entitled “Manifesto of Socialism (the Programme of the Revolutionary Socialist Party of the Soviet Union)”. In February 1967 the Chinese Ho and the Russian Ivanov were arrested by the KGB.

In 1968 in Moscow a 30 year old bricklayer G. Sudakov and his 20 year old brother V. Sudakov created a small group “The Union of Struggle against Revisionism”. From February through to June 1968 they circulated literature from revolutionary China as well as their own leaflets which they produced on their own through their own primitive printing press which they had built.

On February 24th 1976 on the day of the inauguration of the XXV Congress of the CPSU, four youths scattered and stuck more than 100 leaflets to the doors of homes along the central Nevsky Prospekt in Leningrad. The leaflets hand-written ended with the call “Long live the new revolution! Long live communism!”



Only after some time did the KGB manage to work out that the participants of this action were first-grade students of Leningrad universities Arkady Tsurkov, Alexander Skobov, Andrey Reznikov and a tenth-grade school student Alexander Fomenko. They were the organisers of an illegal Marxist group which called itself the “Leningrad School”. The informal leader of this group was the talented mathematics student 19 year old Arkady Tsurkov. From the beginning of the 1970s he was fascinated by the ideas of Mao Zedong and used to illegally listen in to the Russian language service of Radio Peking.

At that time Chinese students (who in the 1960s had been the main distribution source of Maoist literature amongst Soviet citizens) no longer studied in Russia. But in the 1970s a sea of published materials appeared (books and brochures) in the Soviet Union which unmasked and criticised the course of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao. At the beginning of the 1970s Soviet agitprop more actively and willingly worked against Maoist China than against “the bourgeois West”. As with all hostile propaganda in this literature it was necessary to describe those phenomena and actions which it inveighed against. But that which was a negative for the propagandists of the Central Committee became a plus for “leftist dissidents”. In this way Arkady tsurkov was to become a Maoist having read all the Soviet anti-maoist propaganda.

In 1977 and 1978 the leaders of the “Leningrad School” organised in a house in the outskirts of Leningrad a commune where young people lived together, studied and propagandised amongst students the ideas of comrade Mao. In 1978 the “Leningrad School” established links with student sympathisers’ from Moscow, Gorky (now Nizhni Novgorod), Riga and a number of other cities in the Soviet Union. While attempting to organise an illegal youth conference with the aim of creating a large association- the “Revolutionary Communist Union of Youth”- the leaders of this “Leningrad School” were arrested by the KGB.

Soon after their arrest on the 5th December 1978 in Leningrad a previously unheard of event took place: at the Kazan Cathedral (the site of the first mass student demonstration against the Czar in 1876) several hundred young men and women gathered from the institutes and schools of Leningrad to protest these arrests. About 20 people were detained. During the trial against the leader of the “Leningrad School”, A. Tsurkov, from April 3-6 1979 a large mass of protesting students gathered in front of the building. Arkady Tsurkov received a sentence of 5 years to a strict regime prison camp and a further two years of exile.

Maoists- Leaders of the Strike Movement of Soviet Workers.

But the revolutionary ideas of Mao were not confined just to school and university students. The existence of at least one illegal Marxist group not only studying the experience and ideas of Mao Zedong but also taking part in the organization of successful strikes of Soviet workers has been well documented. I am referring here to the emergence in the 1970s in the industrial city of Kuibyshev (Samara) of the political group, the “Workers Centre”. The group aimed to found an illegal Marxist Party, the “Party of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.

In the spring of 1974 in Kuibyshev in the Maslennikov Factory a strike of the workers in one of the shop floors took place. The factory also produced equipment for the Soviet military-industrial complex. The workers didn’t make any political demands but managed to achieve some improvements in their working conditions from the administration and local authorities who were taken completely unawares by such an organised action. On the model of this successful strike during the next year in the Maslennikov factory and in a number of other enterprises in the city more than ten strikes took place. Such a significant event for the Soviet Union immediately caught the attention of the KGB but they were only able after two years of thorough investigations to establish the fact that the illegal Marxist organization “Workers Centre” was organizing in the city.


The Maslennikov Factory in Kuibyshev.

The leaders of the organization were 31 year old Grigory Isaev, a worker from the foundry shop floor of the Maslennikov factory and 39 year old Alexei Razlatsky, an oil engineer.


Alexei Razlatsky

It was Isaev and Razlatsky who were the inspirational force and organizers of a series of strikes in the factories of Kuibyshev in 1974. After two years this illegal Marxist organization could already count on more than 30 clandestine activists. One should emphasise that the “Workers Centre” was one of the most successful of dissident organizations in terms of its conspiratorial planning. Its activists carefully and persistently studied the conspiratorial experience of Russian revolutionaries before 1917 and that of Underground Partisans of the Great Patriotic War. This permitted the “Workers’ Centre” to successfully operate from 1974 to 1981.




In 1976 the leaders of the “Workers’ Centre” created a “Manifesto for a Revolutionary Communist Movement”:

The counter-revolutionary coup d’etat in the USSR has taken place so quietly and so unexpectedly that no one has realized. Today’s increasingly dictatorial Soviet administration in the course of a decade has managed to pose as Marxist-Leninist leadership, and succeeds in brainwashing the workers with their democratic play. Even the international communist movement as a whole doesn’t come near to a true Marxist evaluation of what is happening in Russia. But the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat has taken place and the first thing that we must do is to stop this very coup d’etat.

In 1961 the CPSU Programme and then the latest 1977 Constitution have stated that the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat have been accomplished and the Soviet Union has now been declared an all-peoples state. But to Marxists it has always been clear that until the victorious proletariat can go without the need for a state, then this state can not be other than a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The activists of the “Workers’ Centre” called for the thorough study of the experience of Communist China. Their manifesto was to include the following declaration:

Until the middle of the 1950s the political development of China at an accelerated pace repeated the experience of the Soviet Union. It is possible that other principles and possibly events linked to the arrival on the political arena of N.S.Khrushchev, forced Mao Zedong to consider the validity of the system which was able to promote such people to the supreme leadership. An analysis of the situation has confirmed our worst fears: with certain national divergences the Chinese system was a copy of the Russian one. And in China there has been a clear separation of the Party from the masses, and the formation at its apex of a parasitical organism.

The politics of the “Great Leap Forward” was an attempt to stir the initiative of the masses, arouse its conscious relation to the events taking place in comparison to a ‘peaceful’ road … The “Cultural Revolution” is a direct appeal to punish this formative bureaucracy, an attempt by crude facts to demonstrate to the masses that it is they who are the masters of the situation in the country, that in its collective actions it is all-powerful.

The death of Mao Zedong for China has meant, like the death of Stalin for the Soviet Union, the end of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Andropov’s final rout of Maoists.

Towards the beginning of the 1980s the activists of the “Workers’ Centre” set up illegal links with their supporters in many cities of the Soviet Union from Moscow to Tyumen’. The question of the creation of an illegal revolutionary Marxist organization was raised which it was suggested would be called The Party of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. At this time the number of clandestine activists of the “Workers’ Centre” amounted to several hundred.

Thanks to the well organised conspiratorial methods the KGB didn’t manage to locate and discover the identities of a large amount of the activists. By 1981 the security services could only find out the names of the leaders of the organization even though according to the laws of the Soviet Union no facts were discovered which were sufficient to detain or arrest the leaders of the “Workers’ Centre”.

But by the end of the 1981 the international situation for Brezhnev’s USSR was growing more complicated. At the Central Committee of the CPSU they were very fearful that the mass actions of workers in Poland and the Solidarity Movement could find some support amongst Soviet workers.

Therefore an order for the arrest of the leaders of the “Workers’ Centre” was given personally by Yuri Andropov even though the KGB had no proof of their illegal activity.

This took place on December 14th 1981 on the day after a State of Martial Law was declared in Poland.

In Kuibyshev Isaev and Razlatsky were arrested. In spite of the fact that neither searches nor the subsequent investigation could gather any proof of their illegal activity, the leaders of the “Workers’ Centre” were condemned to long prison sentences in November 1982. Alexei Razlatsky received a sentence of 7 years and 5 years exile and Girgory Isaev 6 years prison and 5 years exile.

The frustrated Soviet Red Guards from Leningrad and Samara would only be freed after a few years at the very height of prestroika.

And here begins a completely different history- Arkady Tsurkov who once propagated the ideas of Mao in Brezhnevian Leningrad would emigrate to Israel and an authentic Red Guard would establish himself in a paramilitary kibbutz…


Советские хунвейбины: «СССР нужен Мао Дзэдун!»

Мао Цзэдун, 1958 год. Фото: Цзи Гуань-щань / Синьхуа / ИТАР-ТАСС
Мао Цзэдун, 1958 год. Фото: Цзи Гуань-щань / Синьхуа / ИТАР-ТАСС

В 1960-80-е годы в стране действовали десятки маоистских групп, боровшихся против «буржуазного перерождения» бюрократии

В истории диссидентского движения СССР, по понятным причинам, выпячена именно «демократическая», прозападная его часть. Националистам «русской партии» и различным левым диссидентам внимания досталось куда меньше. Но больше всех в отечественном диссидентстве не повезло последователям председателя Мао, «советским хунвейбинам» - они остались вне внимания и «западных голосов» тех лет, и современной исторической памяти любых направлений. А ведь тех, кто пытался повторить уроки «Великой культурной революции» в СССР было не меньше, чем тех, кто проповедовал в Союзе образцы западной демократии.
После смерти Сталина, и особенно после XX съезда, для многих граждан СССР, искренне веривших в большевизм, лидером «международного коммунистического движения» естественным образом стал Мао Цзэдун. Товарищ Мао, старый заслуженный партизан, приведший под красное знамя самый многочисленный народ планеты, в роли общепризнанного международного лидера явно выигрывал у профессиональных партаппаратчиков с невнятной биографией, типа Н.С.Хрущева.

Советские люди за ленинский социализм

И последний очень быстро почувствовал этот дискомфорт. Как пример: в марте 1962 года 40-летний рабочий Кулаков, член КПСС, работавший на строительстве Братской ГЭС в Иркутской области, направил письмо в адрес Хрущева. В письме пролетарий незатейливо писал первому секретарю ЦК: «Основная масса советских людей считает вас врагом партии Ленина-Сталина. Одним словом, ты оставшийся в живых троцкист… В. И. Ленин мечтал сделать Китай другом советского народа, и эту мечту выполнил т. Сталин, а ты нарушил эту дружбу. Мао против того, чтобы ты порочил Ленинскую партию и Сталина. Ленин и Сталин смело шли против врагов революции и в открытом бою побеждали и не боялись тюрем, а ты трус и провокатор. При жизни т. Сталина целовал ему жопу, а сейчас льешь грязь на него…»
Никита Хрущев на отдыхе, 1963 год. Фото: Василий Егоров /Фотохроника ТАСС
За это письмо рабочий Кулаков был приговорен к одному году тюремного заключения, по обвинению в «антисоветской пропаганде». И подобных выступлений, зачастую публичных, тогда было немало. 18 марта того же 1962 года, во время выборов в Верховный Совет СССР, в Киеве 45-летний председатель колхоза Борис Лоскутов, член КПСС, распространял листовки с текстом: «Да здравствует ленинское правительство без болтуна и предателя Хрущева. Политика безумца привела к потере Китая, Албании и миллионов наших бывших друзей. Страна зашла в тупик. Сплотим ряды. Спасем родину!»
Арестованный председатель колхоза был приговорен к 4 годам лишения свободы.
В ночь на 18 июля 1963 года в городе Мена Черниговской области на Украине 27-летний художник городского театра Иван Панасецкий вывесил сделанные им транспаранты с лозунгами: «Хрущевская анархия убивала за правду при Сталине, чтобы захватить власть»; «Долой Хрущевскую анархию! Да здравствует Коммунистическая партия Китая!»; «Да здравствует Мао Цзэдун — вождь трудящихся всего мира!»
В ночь с 3 на 4 августа 1963 года в Грузии в городе Батуми, где когда-то молодой Сталин начинал свою первую практическую деятельность революционера, трое граждан СССР – 28-летний Г.Сванидзе, его жена 24-летняя Л.Кизилова и их 23-летний товарищ В.Миминошвили, все трое комсомольцы – расклеили по городу листовки с требованием свержения Хрущева и защитой памяти Сталина. В тексте листовки молодые комсомольцы писали: «Наш вождь Мао Дзэдун!» и «СССР нужен Мао Дзэдун!».
1 июня 1964 года в городе Донецке 37-летний шахтер Василий Полубань расклеил по городу листовки с призывами: «Поддерживайте связь с Народно-демократическим Китаем, который борется за мир и демократию во всем мире! Ленин! Сталин! Вон Хрущева!»; «Ленин и Сталин будут жить в веках. Вон хрущевскую диктатуру, засоряющую мозги рабочему классу!»; «Партия Ленина-Сталина, ведущая к победе, сплочению коммунизма! Долой Н.С. Хрущева! Да здравствуют друзья Китая!»
Это лишь немногочисленные примеры красного диссидентства тех лет, когда формальному лидеру СССР Хрущеву противопоставлялись неформальный лидер «международного коммунистического движения» Мао. В том числе и эти общественные настроения, среди всего прочего, поспособствовали отстранению от власти Никиты Сергеевича. Но примечательно, что и после отставки Хрущева выступления граждан СССР в поддержку идей товарища Мао не прекратились. Тем более, что в красном Китае как раз пошел пик «культурной революции», и многие советские люди были не прочь применить к своим бюрократам всю хунвейбинскую практику…
С января по март 1967 г. в года Москва 21-летний студент авиационного техникума А. Маковский неоднократно распространял листовки, в которых, как писали в деле следователи Генпрокуратуры СССР, «проповедовал отдельные идеи Мао-Цзэ-дуна». Часть листовок была разбросана на Красной площади, рядом с Кремлем. Примечательно, что это выступление у Кремля случилось за год до распиаренной «демонстрации семерых» в августе 1968 года, которую тут же подняли на щит все западные СМИ.
13 февраля 1967 года в шести тысячах километрах от Москвы, в Комсомольске-на-Амуре 20-летний комсомолец, инженер городского морского клуба В.Ермохин, 21-летний комсомолец, студент медицинского института М.Чирков и 30-летний коммунист, профессиональный водолаз П.Корогодский расклеили листовки, где в частности писали: «Мао Цзэдун - красное солнышко в наших сердцах! Пролетарские коммунисты, боритесь с шайкой современных ревизионистов, продолжателей Хрущева!»
Почти в те же дни, 16 февраля 1967 года, на другом конце СССР в украинском Донецке 35-летний шахтер П.Мельников вывесил на щите с плакатами собственноручно написанную листовку, восхвалявшую Мао Цзедуна и призывавшую к свержению Брежнева.
Все это лишь отдельные примеры подобных выступлений, которые сохранили для нас следственные дела прокуратуры и КГБ СССР. Но помимо отдельных личных выступлений в Советском Союзе тех лет возникали и организованные кружки «коммунистического подполья», опиравшегося на идеи и лозунги революции Мао.

«Ставшие известными в Китае советские маоисты братья Романенко»

Одна из первых групп такого рода возникла в 1964 году на Украине в промышленной Харьковской области, где «пролетарские традиции» еще не вполне стали штампом позднесоветской пропаганды. Там в городе Балаклея, недалеко от Харькова, сложилась марксистская группа под названием «Рабоче-крестьянская революционная партия коммунистов». Ее создателями были родные братья Адольф и Владимир Романенко. 35-летний Владимир Романенко работал электриком в Харькове, а затем учился на факультете журналистики Ленинградского университета. Его 33-летний брат Адольф трудился в промышленной районной газете «Серп и Молот».
В Ленинграде Владимир Романенко познакомился со студентами из Китая, от которых получал маоистскую литературу. Еще в сентябре 1963 года братья написали заявление в ЦК Коммунистической партии Китая с критикой положений новой программы КПСС, принятой на XXII съезде в 1961 году. Экземпляр этого заявления они отдали китайскому гражданину Чжан Дади, студенту Ленинградского института, для передачи в Китай, в ЦК КПК.
Китайские хунвейбины, 1969 год. Фото: РИА Новости, архив
Как позднее писал в своем докладе в Кремль прокурор Харьковской области, братья Романенко «попав под влияние китайской пропаганды, решили создать нелегальную организацию леворадикальной направленности, так как пришли к выводу, что КПСС перестала защищать интересы трудящихся и переродилась из революционной партии в мелкобуржуазную и в конечном счете в реакционную».
В сентябре 1964 года братьями Романенко был подготовлен проект программы «Рабоче-крестьянской революционной партии коммунистов». В программе, в частности, говорилось:
«Разрыв между заработком среднего рабочего и крупных специалистов и партийных чинуш продолжает возрастать с каждым днем... И поныне служивая бюрократия и даже органы так называемого партийно-государственного контроля воруют прибавочный продукт у его производителей...
Утверждение о том, что диктатура рабочего класса изжила себя, нужно не рабочему классу, не классу крестьянства, а именно тем, у кого даже упоминание о диктатуре рабочего класса вызывает зубную боль, тем, кому удобнее грабить прибавочный продукт в рамках «общенародного» полубуржуазного государства. И когда правящая партия не борется с этим, а юридически способствует этому, то такая партия есть — мелкобуржуазная…
КПСС исчерпала себя как политическая партия, способная вести массы по пути, указанному великим Лениным… Поэтому медлить нельзя. Надо в самые короткие сроки вооружить рабочий класс и колхозное крестьянство настоящей революционно-марксистской теорией... Для этого необходимо создание организаций на всех заводах, фабриках, во всех колхозах и совхозах, учебных заведениях, воинских частях, которые будут разъяснять ревизионистскую сущность положений программы КПСС».
В конце осени 1964 года братья Романенко были арестованы КГБ. Во время следствия Адольф Романенко продолжал высказывать свои мысли, вполне в духе «культурной революции» председателя Мао:
«Я и сейчас считаю, что до последнего времени у нас в стране есть все условия для процветания мелкобуржуазной стихии. На мой взгляд, до тех пор, пока руководители КПСС как в центре, так и на местах, руководители Советского правительства и местных советов, руководители административного аппарата будут иметь всевозможные привилегии, пока материальные блага будут распределяться, на мой взгляд, неправильно, до тех пор, я считаю, у нас в стране будет процветать мелкобуржуазная идеология. А советско-партийный и административный аппарат будет стремиться узаконить свои привилегии и неравенство в распределении материальных благ.
Отсюда я делаю вывод, что о равенстве и братстве не может быть и речи, и считаю, что КПСС не будет являться выразителем воли народа... Я считаю, что у нас существуют диаметрально противоположные интересы между руководством и трудовым народом, а отсюда считаю, что нет единства между партией и народом».
От длительного тюремного заключения братьев Романенко спасло фактически заступничество Мао Цзэдуна. Братья были арестованы за день до того, как на внеочередном Пленуме ЦК КПСС Хрущева отстранили от власти. Новые лидеры КПСС Брежнев и Шелепин, организаторы смещения Хрущева, на тот момент надеялись, не меняя внутренней и внешней политики СССР, все же преодолеть раскол с коммунистическим Китаем. Поэтому на совещании в Кремле, куда специально вызывали руководство прокуратуры и отдела КГБ по Харьковской области, приняли решение не доводить дело до суда над ставшими известными в Китае советскими маоистами. Братья Романенко через несколько месяцев были освобождены из тюрьмы, но с тех пор находились под тщательным надзором КГБ, который исключил для них любую возможность продолжения политической деятельности.
Читайте в рубрике «История»Крылатая легенда: «летающий Калашников»Созданный более полувека назад, ветеран войны во Вьетнаме, самолет МиГ-21 пережил всех своих «современников» — и остался в строюКрылатая легенда: «летающий Калашников»

Против ревизионизма

Целый ряд подпольных маоистских групп возник в столице СССР во второй половине 1960-х годов, когда пример «Великой культурной революции» был особенно силен и ярок. В Западной Европе он обернулся парижским студенческим бунтом, в Советском Союзе такой открытый бунт был невозможен, но эхо хунвейбинов прозвучало и здесь. В советских вузах тогда еще обучались тысячи студентов и аспирантов из маоистского Китая, именно через них пропагандистская литература хунвейбинов попадала к нашим соотечественникам.
В 1965-67 годах в Москве действовала небольшая марксистская группа, которую возглавляли два научных сотрудника Института экономики мировой социалистической системы Академии наук СССР – 35-летний гражданин Китайской Народной Республики Го Даньцин и 30-летний гражданин СССР Г.Иванов. Вместе, китайский и советский коммунист распространяли в Москве агитационную литературу из Китая, а также создали целый ряд своих пропагандистских материалов, которые назвали «Манифест социализма (программа Революционной социалистической партии Советского Союза)». В феврале 1967 года китаец Го и русский Иванов были арестованы КГБ.
В 1968 году в Москве 30-летний рабочий-каменщик Г.Судаков и его 20-летний брат В.Судаков создали небольшую группу «Союз борьбы с ревизионизмом». С февраля по июнь 1968 года они распространяли полученную из революционного Китая литературу и свои листовки, для производства которых самостоятельно изготовили примитивное печатное оборудование.
Плакат на здании Исторического музея, посвященный XXV съезду КПСС. Фото: Олег Сизов /Фотохроника ТАСС
24 февраля 1976 года, в день открытия XXV съезда КПСС, в центре Ленинграда на Невском проспекте четверо юношей разбросали и расклеила на домах свыше 100 листовок, написанных от руки печатными буквами, которые заканчивались призывом: «Да здравствует новая революция! Да здравствует коммунизм!».
Только через некоторое время КГБ удалось вычислить, что участниками данного выступления были студенты-первокурсники ленинградских вузов Аркадий Цурков, Александр Скобов, Андрей Резников и школьник-десятиклассник Александр Фоменко. Они были организаторами нелегальной марксистской группы, которая называла себя «Ленинградская школа». Неформальным ее лидером был талантливый студент-математик 19-летний Аркадий Цурков. С начала 70-х годов он увлекся идеями Мао Цзэдуна, нелегально слушал вещавшее на русском языке Пекинское радио.
К тому времени, в СССР уже не прибывали китайские студенты, которые в 60-е годы были основным источником распространения литературы об идеях товарища Мао среди советских граждан. Но в 70-е годы в Советском Союзе появилось буквально море изданий, разнообразных книг и брошюр, разоблачавших и критиковавших курс КПК и Мао. К началу 70-х годов советский агитпроп активнее и охотнее работал против маоистского Китая, чем против «буржуазного Запада». Как во всякой враждебной пропаганде, в такой литературе вынужденно описывались критикуемые явления и действия. Но то, что было минусом для пропагандистов ЦК, воспринималось как плюс «диссидентами слева». Так Аркадий Цурков и стал «маоистом», начитавшись советской антимаоистской пропаганды.
В 1977-78 годах лидеры «Ленинградской школы» организовали в одном из домов на окраине Ленинграда коммуну, где молодые люди вместе жили, изучали и пропагандировали среди студенчества идеи товарища Мао. К 1978 году «Ленинградская школа» установила связи с сочувствующими студентами из Москвы, Горького, Риги и ряда других городов СССР. При попытке организовать нелегальную молодежную конференцию с целью создания большого объединения – «Революционный коммунистический союз молодежи» - лидеры «Ленинградской школы» были арестованы КГБ.
Вскоре после ареста, 5 декабря 1978 года в Ленинграде произошло беспрецедентное событие: у Казанского собора (место первой в России массовой демонстрации студентов против царя в 1876 году) собралось несколько сотен юношей и девушек из институтов и школ Ленинграда, которые протестовали против арестов. Около 20 человек было задержано. Во время суда над лидером «Ленинградской школы» А. Цурковым 3-6 апреля 1979 года перед зданием так же собралась большая масса протестующих студентов. Аркадий Цурков получил 5 лет лагеря строгого режима и 2 года ссылки.

Маоисты – лидеры забастовочного движения советских рабочих

Но идеи революции по Мао исповедовались не только студентами и школьниками. Документально известна, как минимум, одна нелегальная группа марксистов, не только изучавших опыт и идеи Мао Цзэдуна, но и практически участвовавших в организации и проведении успешных забастовок советских рабочих. Речь идет о возникшей в 70-е годы XX века в промышленном городе Куйбышеве (Самаре) политической группе «Рабочий центр». Группа стремилась основать нелегальную марксистскую партию – «Партия диктатуры пролетариата».
Весной 1974 года в Куйбышеве на заводе имени Масленникова произошла забастовка рабочих в одном из цехов. Завод производил в том числе оборудование для военно-промышленного комплекса СССР. Рабочие не выдвигали политических требований, но сумели добиться от администрации и городских властей, не ожидавших такого организованного выступления, некоторого улучшения условий своего труда. По примеру этой успешной забастовки в течение года на заводе имени Масленникова и ряде других предприятий города прошло более десяти забастовок. Такие нетривиальные для СССР события сразу же привлекли внимание КГБ, но только чрез два года тщательной слежки они смогли установить, что в городе действует нелегальная марксистская организация «Рабочий центр».
Лидерами организации были 31-летний Григорий Исаев, рабочий литейного цеха завода имени Масленникова, и 39-летний Алексей Разлацкий, инженер-нефтяник. Именно Исаев и Разлацкий были вдохновителями и организаторами серии забастовок на заводах Куйбышева в 1974 году. Через два года их нелегальная марксистская организация насчитывала уже свыше 30 хорошо законспирированных активистов. Надо признать, что «Рабочий центр» был одной из самых успешных в плане конспирации диссидентских организаций: его активисты целенаправленно и тщательно изучили конспиративный опыт русских революционеров до 1917 года и партизан-подпольщиков Великой Отечественной войны. Это позволило «Рабочему центру» успешно действовать с 1974 по 1981 год.
Завод имени Масленникова в Куйбышеве. Фото: Валерий Шустов / РИА Новости, архив
В 1976 году лидеры «Рабочего центра» создали «Манифест революционно-коммунистического движения»:
«Контрреволюционный переворот в СССР произошел так тихо и таким неожиданным путем, что этого никто не заметил. Диктаторствующей ныне в СССР администрации в течение десятилетий удается выдавать себя за марксистско-ленинское руководство, удается морочить рабочим голову игрой в демократию. Даже международное коммунистическое движение, в большей части, и не приближается к верной марксистской оценке происходящего в России. Но контрреволюционный переворот произошел, и первое, что мы должны сделать - это установить сам факт переворота.
В 1961 году Программой КПСС и затем окончательно Конституцией 1977 года задачи диктатуры пролетариата в СССР признаны выполненными и Советский Союз объявлен общенародным государством. Но марксистам во все времена было ясно, что пока победивший пролетариат не обходится вообще без государства, это государство не может быть ничем иным, кроме как революционной диктатурой пролетариата».
Активисты «Рабочего центра» призывали тщательно изучать опыт коммунистического Китая. Их «Манифест» в частности говорит:
«До середины пятидесятых годов политическое развитие Китая ускоренными темпами повторяло опыт СССР. Возможно, иные причины, а возможно - события, связанные с появлением на политической арене Н.С. Хрущева, заставили Мао Цзедуна задуматься о состоятельности системы, способной выдвигать подобных деятелей в высшие руководители. Анализ ситуации в Китае подтвердил худшие опасения: с некоторыми национальными отклонениями китайская система была копией российской. И в Китае уже явственно обозначился отрыв партии от масс, оформление ее верхушки в качестве паразитирующего организма.
Политика «Большого скачка» была попыткой разжечь инициативу масс, пробудить их сознательное отношение к происходящим событиям сравнительно «мирным» путем… «Культурная революция» - прямой призыв к расправе над сформировавшимся чиновничеством, попытка на жестоких фактах продемонстрировать массе, что именно она является хозяином положения в стране, что в своих коллективных действиях она всесильна.
Смерть Мао Цзедуна для Китая, также как и смерть Сталина для СССР, означала завершение периода диктатуры пролетариата».

Разгром маоистов довершил Андропов

К началу 80-х годов активисты «Рабочего центра» установили нелегальные связи с единомышленниками во множестве городов СССР, от Москвы до Тюмени. Был поднят вопрос о создании нелегальной революционной марксистской организации, которую предполагалось назвать «Партия диктатуры пролетариата». К тому времени численность хорошо законспирированных активистов «Рабочего центра» составляла несколько сотен человек.
Благодаря хорошо организованной конспирации, КГБ не удалось найти и установить личности большей части активистов. К 1981 году спецслужбы смогли установить лишь имена руководителей организации, хотя даже по законам СССР не было найдено фактов, достаточных для задержания и ареста лидеров «Рабочего центра».
Но в конце 1981 года осложнилось международное положение брежневского СССР. В ЦК КПСС очень боялись, что начавшиеся массовые выступления рабочих «Солидарности» в Польше могут найти поддержку и у советских трудящихся. Поэтому приказ об аресте лидеров «Рабочего центра», несмотря на отсутствие у КГБ доказательств их нелегальной деятельности, был отдан лично Юрием Андроповым. Произошло это 14 декабря 1981 года, на следующий день после введения военного положения в Польше.
В Куйбышеве были арестованы Исаев и Разлацкий. Несмотря на то, что ни обыски, ни следствие так и не смогли собрать доказательства их нелегальной деятельности, лидеры «Рабочего центра» в ноябре 1982 года были осуждены на длительные сроки лишения свободы. Алексей Разлацкий получил 7 лет лагерей и 5 лет ссылки, Григорий Исаев – 6 лет лагерей и 5 лет ссылки.
На свободу несостоявшиеся советские хунвейбины из Ленинграда и Самары выйдут уже через несколько лет в разгар «перестройки». И здесь начинается уже совсем другая история – некогда проповедовавший идеи Мао в брежневском Ленинграде Аркадий Цурков эмигрирует в Израиль и, как настоящий хунвейбин, поселится в военизированном кибуце

Saturday, September 5, 2015

British Establishment Shame verses German Peoples Humanity : Syrian Refugee's receive people's welcome in Munich has British Tory Establishment voice Michael Portillo says refugees should be dumped on Libyan Beaches





    Why the Tories have been and always will be vermin - British Tory establishment voice Michael Portillo competes with David Davies of Monmouth and Nigel Farage for most inhuman comment about refugees





Portillo the British voice of Shame


He said: "I agree with Nigel Farage, that you do have to return these people, once they've been landed safely."
Asked where he would return them to, he said: "You return them to where they came from."
Host Andrew Neil pointed out many migrants are originally from war-torn Eritrea and Somalia, making it difficult if not impossible to return them to their country of origin.
Portillo replied: "It's not where they embarked"
Neil said: "No, but they're not Libyans. There's no point returning them to Libya, they don't belong in Libya"
Portillo shot back: "They don't belong in the European Union either, I'm afraid"

Asked if he was suggesting the refugees be "dumped back on the Libyan beach", Portillo said, with a steely expression: "I'm afraid so."





LISTEN TO A CHILD 






I AM A REFUGEE
(Have Mercy)


Thursday, September 3, 2015

Lin Biao : In Memory of his 50 years since his speech on "Long Live People's War" by Harsh Thakor





This article expresses the personal views of Harsh Thakor and not the views of Democracy and Class Struggle.

The Democracy and Class Struggle view on Lin Biao can be found here 

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/seek-truth-lin-biao-refuting-unknown-mao.html


In memory of his 50 Years since his speech on  ‘Long Live the Peoples War. ‘

Today on September 3rd we commemorate 50 years since Lin Biao gave his historic speech on ‘Long live the Peoples War!’

Today in the Communist movement on Lin  Biao we have  views of  2 extremes.

One view classes Lin as solely a renegade and gives him credit for no achievements or contribution.

They class him as a modern day ‘Confucius.’They hardly  throw light on his role in the peoples war in the 1940’s or his role as a military leader.

The other camp upholds Lin Biao as the true Maoist and a figure who represented the  correct line. They term Mao’s line as counter revolutionary from 1969.

To me there were 2 Lin Biao’s .One was before 1966 and the other from 1966 till his death in 1971.

Maoists should uphold his positive contributions and negate his  gross errors towards the end.

In my view whatever wrong deeds he committed as a result of erroneous political thinking he had played a great role in the Chinese revolution, and in the period from 1959-65.

Lin played an immortal role in the victory of the Chinese Revolution, the political transformation of the Peoples Liberation army and in publishing and projecting Chairman Mao’s teachings .

However he reversed his role in the era of the Cultural revolution where he principally played the role of a military bureaucrat projecting his revolutionary credentials.

Overall I may rate him around 50% correct and 50 % wrong.


1. MILITARY ACHIEVEMENTS DURING PEOPLES WAR

In the 1940’s he played a heroic role as a military commander.

Quoting Wickepedia: Lin was absent for most of the fighting during World War II, but was elected the sixth-ranking Central Committee member in 1945 based on his earlier battlefield reputation.[17] After the Japanese surrender the Communists moved large numbers of troops to Manchuria, and Lin Biao moved to Manchuria to command the newly created "Communist Northeast Military District" in the fall. The Soviets transferred Japanese military equipment that they had captured to the Communists, making Lin's army one of the most well-equipped Communist forces in China. By the time that units from the Kuomintang were able to arrive in the major cities of Manchuria, Lin's forces were already in firm control of most of the countryside and surrounding areas.[25]

By the end of 1945 Lin had 280,000 troops in Manchuria under his command,[26] but according to Kuomintang estimates only 100,000 of these were regular forces with access to adequate equipment. The KMT also estimated that Lin also had access to 100,000 irregular auxiliaries, whose membership was drawn mainly from unemployed factory workers. Lin avoided decisive confrontations throughout 1945, and he was able to preserve the strength of his army despite criticism from his peers in the Party and the PLA.[27]

For the sake of bargaining with the Kuomintang in peace negotiations in 1946, Mao ordered Lin to assemble his army to take and defend key cities, which was against the previous strategy of the Red Army. Lin disagreed with this position, but was ordered by Mao to draw the KMT into a decisive battle and "not give an inch of land" around Siping, Jilin. In April 15 Lin orchestrated an ambush and forced KMT forces there to withdraw with heavy casualties. When the local KMT commander, Du Yuming, launched a counterattack on April 18, Mao ordered the troops there to hold the city indefinitely. The fighting continued until Mao finally allowed Lin to withdraw on May 19, which Lin did immediately, barely saving his army from encirclement and destruction.[28]

desertion during the retreat. On June 10 the two forces agreed to a ceasefire brokered by George Marshall, and fighting temporarily ceased. Mao ordered Lin to counterattack that winter, but Lin refused, replying that his forces were exhausted and not logistically prepared to do so.[29]

When Du led the majority of his forces to attack Communist forces on the Korean border in January 1947, Lin finally ordered 20,000 of his soldiers to cross the Songjiang River, where they staged guerrilla raids, ambushed relief forces, attacked isolated garrisons, and avoided decisive confrontations with strong units Du sent to defeat them. While they did so they looted large quantities of supplies and destroyed the infrastructure of the KMT-held territories that they passed through, including bridges, railroads, fortifications, electrical lines, and boats. When Du sent his forces back south, they were ambushed and defeated. When Du requested reinforcements from Chiang Kai-shek, his request was rejected.[30]

On April 8 Lin moved his headquarters from Harbin to Shuangcheng in order to be closer to the front. In May 5 he held a conference with his subordinates and announced that his armies would change tactics, engage in a large-scale counterattack, and seek to defeat Du's forces in a decisive battle. On May 8 Lin launched the first of his "three great campaigns", the Summer Offensive, intending to engage a large garrison at Huaide while a second force positioned itself to ambush the force that would predictably be sent to relieve it. On May 17 they won a major victory and forced the survivors to retreat to Changchun and Siping. By the end of May 1947 Lin's forces had taken took control of most of the countryside (everything except for the rail lines and several major cities), infiltrated and destroyed most KMT forces in Manchuria, and re-established contact with isolated Communist forces in southern Liaoning.[31]

After the victory of the Summer Offensive, Lin's forces gained the initiative and Kuomintang defensive strategy became static and reactionary. Lin ordered his forces to besiege Siping, but they suffered very high casualties but made little progress, partially due to the defenders' strong entrenched position and air support, and due to the attackers' poor artillery support (he only had seventy pieces of artillery around Siping). Lin's forces broke into the city twice and engaged in street-to-street fighting, but were driven back both times with heavy casualties. By June 19 Lin's assault troops had become increasingly exhausted, and Lin began to rotate them to prevent them from becoming completely ineffective. On June 24 Nationalist reinforcements arrived from the south to lift the siege. Lin recognized that he did not have enough manpower left to defeat them, and on July 1 he ordered his forces to retreat back to the north of the Songhua River.[32]

The Communists suffered over 30,000 losses at Siping, and may have suffered a desertion rate of over 20% during the withdrawal, while the Nationalist garrison at Siping fell from 20,000 to slightly over 3,000 before the siege was broken. 

Lin volunteered to write a self-criticism after the defeat. He also criticized his commander at Siping, Li Tianyou, for demonstrating poor tactics and for lacking "revolutionary spirit". 

Despite the army's setbacks he reorganized the army, combining surviving regiments and raising local militia forces to the status of regular units. 

By the fall of 1947 he had 510,000 soldiers under his command: approximately equal to Nationalist forces in the region.[33]

Before Du's replacement, Chen Cheng, could cross north and begin an offensive, Lin moved his army south and began the Autumn Offensive, in which his forces destroyed rail lines and other infrastructure, attacked isolated Nationalist units, and attempted to provoke and ambush strong Nationalist forces. Chen's forces responded to the campaign by withdrawing into their city garrisons. The Communists were not able to provoke a decisive confrontation, and the Autumn Offensive ended in a stalemate.[34]
Chen's forces remained static and reactionary, at the end of 1947 Lin led his armies back south in his final Manchurian campaign, the Winter Offensive. 

His initial plan was to repeat the goal of his last offensive, to besiege Jilin City and ambush its relief force, but after reviewing Kuomintang troop dispositions he determined that southern Manchuria would be an easier target. On December 15 Lin's forces attacked Fakui, Zhangwu, and Xinlitun. Chen sent reinforcements to relieve Fakui, and when the Communist ambush failed Lin ordered his forces to withdraw and join in the siege of Zhangwu. When Chen did not intervene and the town fell on December 28, Lin assumed the main part of the campaign was over and he dispersed his forces to rest and attack secondary targets.[35]

Chen saw Lin's withdrawal as an opportunity to seize the offensive. He ordered his forces to attack targets in northern Liaoning on January 1, 1948, and on January 3 Lin successfully encircled the isolated Nationalist 5th Corps. Its commander, Chen Linda, realized that he was being surrounded and requested reinforcements, but Chen Cheng only responded that he would "allow" Chen Linda to withdraw. The attempted breakout failed, and the 5th Corps was destroyed on January 7. After this defeat Chen Cheng was replaced with Wei Lihuang ten days later, but Wei was not able to prevent the Communists from capturing Liaoyang on February 6, destroying the 54th division, and severing an important railroad that linked Wei's forces from their ports on the Bohai Sea.[36]

Lin continued his advance, defeating all garrisons in western Manchuria or inducing them to defect by late February. On February 26 Lin reorganized his forces as the Northeast Field Army and began preparations to return and take Siping, whose garrison had been transferred elsewhere by Chen Cheng and never re-strengthened. 

Lin began the general assault on the city on March 13, and took the town one day later. The capture of Siping ended Lin's Winter Offensive. The KMT nearly lost all of Manchuria by the end of the campaign and suffered 156,000 casualties, most of which survived as POWs that were indoctrinated and recruited into Lin's forces. By the end of winter 1948 the Kuomintang had lost all of its territory in the Northeast, except for Changchun, Shenyang, and an area connecting the rail line from Beiping to those cities.[37]

Following Lin's Winter campaign, Mao wanted him to attack targets farther south, but Lin disagreed because he did not want leave a strong enemy at his back, and he believed the defeat of a strong city would force Chiang to abandon the Northeast. By May 25, 1948, the Northeast Field Army had completely encircled Changchun, including its airfield, and for the rest of the siege the Nationalist commander, Zheng Tongguo, depended entirely on supplies airdropped into the city. On May 19, Lin submitted a report to Mao in which he expected heavy casualties. 

By July 20 the siege was at a stalemate, and Lin deferred to Mao, allowing some of his army to attack Jinzhou farther south, beginning the Liaoshen Campaign. When Chiang airlifted reinforcements to defend Jinzhou, Lin ordered his army to abandon the siege and return to Changchun, but Mao disagreed and overruled him, and Lin was ordered to engage the defenders in a decisive confrontation. On October 14, the Northeast Field Army began its assault on Jinzhou with 250,000 men and the bulk of Lin's artillery and armour. 

After nearly 24 hours of fighting, Lin's forces were victorious, suffering 24,000 casualties but capturing the enemy commander, Fan Hanjie, and 90,000 enemy soldiers.[38]

After hearing the news about the defeat at Jinzou, a KMT regiment from Yunnan and its commander, Zeng Zesheng, defected and abandoned its position on the outskirts of Changchun on October 14. This doomed the remaining Nationalist forces in the city, and Zheng Tongguo was forced to surrender two days later. Chiang ordered an army of 500,000 men to travel north and take Jinzhou, but Lin directed nearly all of his forces to stop them, and they began to encircle it on October 21. After a week of fighting, the Nationalist army was destroyed on October 28. Remaining KMT garrisons in the Northeast attempted to break out of the region and flee south, but most were unsuccessful. After Changchun, the only major KMT garrison in the Northeast was Shenyang, where 140,000 KMT soldiers were eventually forced to surrender. By the end of 1948 all of Northeast China was under Communist control.[39]

Defeating the Kuomintang

After taking control of the Manchurian provinces, Lin then swept into North China. Forces under Lin were responsible for winning two of the three major military victories responsible for the defeat of the Kuomintang. Lin suffered from ongoing periods of serious illness throughout the campaign.[17] Following the victory in Manchuria, Lin commanded over a million soldiers, encircling Chiang's main forces in northern China during the Pingjin Campaign, taking Beijing and Tianjin within a period of two months. Tianjin was taken by force, and on January 22, 1949 General Fu Zuoyi and his army of 400,000 men agreed to surrender Beijing without a battle, and the PLA occupied the city on January 31. The Pingjin Campaign saw Lin remove a total of approximately 520,000 enemy troops from the enemy's battle lines. Many of those who surrendered later joined the PLA.[40]
After taking Beijing, the Communists attempted to negotiate for the surrender of the remaining KMT forces. When these negotiations failed, Lin resumed his attacks on the KMT in the southeast. After taking Beijing, Lin's army numbered 1.5 million soldiers. By the end of 1949 the Red Army succeeded in occupying all KMT positions on mainland China. The last position occupied by Lin's forces was the island of Hainan.

Lin Biao was considered one of the Communists' most brilliant generals after the founding of the People's Republic of China, in 1949. Lin was the youngest of the "Ten Marshals" named in 1955, a title that recognized Lin's substantial military contributions.[17]


Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Kashmir : The Case for Freedom - Arundhati Roy and Pankaj Mishra





Democracy and Class Struggle says the visit of Narendra Modi to UK in November provides us with an opportunity to not only expose the social but also the national oppression of the Narendra Modi's Indian Hinduvuta State.

There are few more glaring examples of national oppression than Kashmir and just like our Bourgeois Cosmopolitan Leftists in British Isles who oppose self determination for the people of Scotland, Wales and Kernow  - there  are also Indian Leftists who oppose Kashmiri Independence not only in India but also here in the UK.

The visit of Narendra Modi to Wembley will make clear who are the friends of national and social liberation not only in India but also in the UK.





Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Heinrich Himmler: The Nazi Hindu by Palash Ghosh

         


                                                           Heinrich Himmler

More than 65 years after the fall of the Third Reich, Nazi Germany remains an obsession with millions of people around the world.

Adolf Hitler was one of the most prominent historical figures from the 20th century, evoking both disgust and fascination. While other totalitarian regimes from that period -- including Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan -- have largely faded from the public's consciousness, Nazi Germany still exerts a powerful hold on many for a variety of reasons.

Among the most interesting and perplexing aspects of the Nazi regime was its connection to India and Hinduism. Indeed, Hitler embraced one of the most prominent symbols of ancient India -- the swastika -- as his own.

The link between Nazi Germany and ancient India, however, goes deeper than just the swastika.
The Nazis venerated the notion of a pure, noble Aryan race, who are believed to have invaded India thousands of years ago from Central Asia and established a martial society based on a rigid social structure with strict caste distinctions.

While scholars in both India and Europe have rejected and debunked the notion of an Aryan race, the myths and legends of ancient Vedic-Hindu India have had a tremendous influence on many nations, none more so than Germany.

Perhaps the most fervent Nazi adherent to Indian Hinduism was Heinrich Himmler, one of the most brutal members of the senior command.

Himmler, directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and others as the architect of the Holocaust, was a complex and fascinating man. He was also obsessed with India and Hinduism.
International Business Times spoke with two experts on German culture to explore Himmler and Hinduism.

Victor and Victoria Trimondi are German cultural philosophers and writers. They have published books on religious and political topics, including Hitler-Buddha-Krishna-An Unholy Alliance from the Third Reich to the Present Day (2002), a research about the efforts by National-Socialists and Fascists to construct a racist Indo-Aryan warrior ideology with strong roots in Eastern religions and philosophies.

IB TIMES: Heinrich Himmler was reportedly fascinated by Hinduism and ancient Indian culture, and he read the Bhagavad Gita, among other classic texts. How and when was he introduced to Indian culture? Was it prior to his joining the Nazi party or afterwards?

MR. &; MRS. TRIMONDI: Himmler kept a diary where he not only listed the books he read but also provided extensive comments on these manuscripts. His entries regarding India and Indians were always very positive.

Himmler's Indian reading list started in 1919 [before the Nazi Party was formed] with a German translation of a novel called Mr. Isaacs: A Tale of Modern India by Marion Crawfords. Six years later, in 1925, Himmler also praised Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha as a magnificent book.

Himmler was also drawn to The Pilgrim Kamanita by the Danish author Karl Gjellerup, which was a contemporary best-seller. In his diary, Himmler commented: A precious narration. The content is the teaching of salvation.

Gjellerup's book quoted several verses from the Vedas, including: The one who kills believes that he is killing. The one who has been killed believes that he dies. Both of them are wrong, for one doesn't die and the other doesn't kill.

Later, Himmler delivered some of these same philosophies in his speeches to his SS officers.
In the 1920s and the early 1930s, Himmler read some popular books about Hinduism and Buddhism. Yet, his actual interest in classic Hindu texts came later, when he founded the SS-Ahnenerbe, the brain trust of the Black Order, a group of highly qualified academics and occultists that attempted to forge the ideology of a racist warrior religion.

In 1937, Himmler chose Professor Walter Wüst to serve as the president of the SS-Ahnenerbe. Two years later, Wüst became the curator of this notorious organization. Incidentally, in addition to being one of the leading Sanskrit scholars of his time, Wüst served as the president of the Maximilian University in Munich. In the academic world, Orientalists from this particular university were considered the top experts in their field.

Wüst was keenly interested in extracting ideas from the Vedas and Buddhism of the so-called Aryan tradition in order to give National Socialism a religious dimension. One slogan of his was: Also above India hovers the sun-sign of the Swastika.

To Wüst, Hitler appeared as the manifestation of a Chakravartin - Indo-Aryan world emperor.
Wüst tried to support this particular speculation by verses from classical Indian scriptures. Moreover, in one of his emotion-driven speeches, he compared Hitler with the historical Buddha.

IB TIMES: Germany's fascination with ancient India and its culture began in the 19th century, no? That is, long before the advent of the Nazis. Is it correct?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: Indeed, Germany had been a true center for Sanskrit studies in the nineteenth century. To be exact, there were scholars and writers in this field who either put the emphasis on the peaceful aspects of Indian culture (e.g. Johann Gottfried Herder and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling) or pointed out the nihilistic side of Buddhism or Shankara philosophy (like Arthur Schopenhauer).

However, with the radicalization of German nationalism, writers began to put more emphasis on the martial aspects of Hindu culture. One of the first who tried to blend the warrior ideology of ancient India with Aryan racism was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an English-born author who lived in Germany and who was later held in a high esteem by the Nazis.

IB TIMES: Is it true that Himmler could read and speak Sanskrit fluently? Where and how did he learn such a difficult foreign language?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: We do not have any evidence that he mastered Sanskrit. However, Himmler did not need to read this ancient tongue since he always had Wüst by his side.
By constantly interacting with Himmler, Wüst was directly involved in his philosophical and ideological projects, and he could provide an answer to any linguistic questions coming from the Reichsführer SS.

IB TIMES: As Reichsführer of the SS, Chief of the German Police, Minister of the Interior and head of the Gestapo and the Einsatzgruppen killing squads, Himmler was responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people. How did he reconcile such brutality with the tenets of Hinduism, which is generally peaceful?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: The image of Hinduism as a totally peaceful religion is a widespread fallacy. In fact, one can find plenty of martial aspects in Hindu culture, which had been emphasized by various individuals even before the Nazi period, during Hitler's reign, and even today by the extreme right wing in Europe and elsewhere.

For example, in his introduction to a popular edition of the Bhagavad Gita, Leopold Schroeder, a student of ancient India, wrote that this poem describes the powerful ethics of Kshatriya (Warrior) religion at a time when the warriors and kings of India provided a spiritual leadership instead of the priestly caste.

It is very likely that Himmler used this particular edition of the Bhagavad Gita. It was the Kshatriya, the ancient Hindu warrior caste, and its ethical ideals that fascinated the Nazis so much among other elements of Indian history and culture.

IB TIMES: Aside from millions of Jews, Himmler was also responsible for the mass murder of up to half-million Roma (gypsies). Was he not aware that the Roma are also of Indian descent?

MR. &; MRS. TRIMONDI: He must have known it. At the same time, we should remember that Western racist intellectuals usually divided Indian society into two castes: light-skinned Aryan conquerors (priests, warriors and merchants) and dark-skinned indigenous Dravidians or Chandalens -- the latter expression goes back to a Sanskrit word Chandala - or, 'The Untouchables.' Himmler surely viewed the Roma as a part of this outcast group.

IB TIMES: Bhagavad Gita partially focuses on the adventures of Arjuna, the world's greatest warrior.

Did Himmler fantasize that he was a 20th-century Arjuna fighting for the glory of the Aryans? Did Himmler view Hitler as his god Krishna - like a reincarnation of god Krishna?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: When speaking about the Aryan culture proper and the old German or Nordic gods, Himmler clearly viewed them as parts of the same spiritual ideology.
In this sense, Himmler was indeed fighting for the glory of the Aryans. Thus,

Himmler was convinced that the thunderbolts mentioned in both Indian and European mythologies were references to the super-weapons of Aryan Gods, who possessed incredible knowledge of electricity.

However, we do not know whether Himmler identified himself with Arjuna or not. At the same time, considering the fact that he did indeed compare Hitler to Krishna, it is quite possible that he cast himself as the character of Arjuna.

On one occasion, Himmler recited to other people the following passage from the Gita, in which Krishna says to Arjuna: Every time when man forgets the sense of justice and truth, and when injustice reigns in the world I become born anew, that is the law.

Having read these words, Himmler added: This passage is directly related to our Führer. He did arise during the time when the Germans were in the deepest distress and when they did not see any way out. He belongs to these great figures of light (Lichtgestalt). One of the greatest figures of light reincarnated himself in our Führer.

Based on this statement, one can assume that perhaps Himmler viewed Hitler as a manifestation of Krishna and himself as Arjuna.

IB TIMES: Did Himmler envision the SS as a modern version of the ancient Kshatriya Hindu warrior caste?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: This was really a sensation what we discovered in the archives: In 1925, shortly before he became a member of Hitler's SS, Himmler read about the Freemasons and anti-masons in Their Fight for World Domination by an Austrian writer named Franz Haiser.

Strange as it may sound, the greater part of the book deals not with Freemasons but with the Indian caste system. Haiser praised this caste system as the most reasonable and the most sophisticated social model. He also glorified the Kshatriya (the Warrior) caste as the natural leaders in society.

Haiser also compared the decline of the caste system in India to the decadence of Western culture. As a way to prevent this decline, the author proposed the creation of a well-organized, international and racially pure elite order of warriors that he called the All Aryan Union (all-arischer Bund).

In addition, he advocated for an all-Aryan world revolution and for the emancipation of the Kshatriya from above.

Haiser derided the so-called lower races as crows, rats, sparrows, louses and fleas and also endorsed the reintroduction of slavery.

He envisioned a society in which the Kshatriyas would not be permitted to mingle with other races. In addition, he drew attention to the Hindu cosmology of global eras: the Yugas, the Holy Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and the Indian law code of Manu, which he interpreted as a guidebook on how to keep the Aryan race pure.

After familiarizing himself with all these ideas Himmler wrote excitedly in his diary: A wonderful book [...] I agree with most of it. One needs such books. They encourage those who instinctively feel what is right and what is wrong, but do not dare to think about it because of their false education. Kshatriya caste [is what] we have to be. This is the salvation.

Two years later, in 1927, as a twenty-seven year old man, Himmler already came to occupy the high position of the Stellvertretender Reichsführer SS.

Much of the agenda articulated in Haiser's book could be found later in the ideology and the structure of the Black Order.

Himmler was also familiar with the writings of the Italian philosopher Julius Evola, a fascist prophet of the Kshatriya ideology.

IB TIMES: Is it true that Himmler always kept a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in his pocket and read passages from it every night?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: Yes, this is true. In fact, it has been well documented by Felix Kersten, his Finnish masseur, that Himmler liked to indulge in philosophical monologues in his presence. The Reichsführer SS called the Gita a high Aryan Canto.

Kersten also reported that Himmler read the Vedas, especially the Rig-Veda, the speeches of the Buddha, and the Buddhist Visuddhi-magga. Himmler made frequent references to karma, especially when he was talking about providence.

He also believed in reincarnation: With one life life is not finished. What good and bad deeds a man has done has an effect on his next life as his karma.

IB TIMES: Discuss Himmler's fascination with Yoga and what he sought to gain from this practice.

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: The practice of Yoga was already well known during the Nazi regime -- but we do not know whether Himmler did Yoga exercises or not. We only know about his plan to introduce meditation practices and spiritual retreats for the elite members of the SS in a special center located at Wewelsburg, a medieval castle.

Himmler confided to Felix Kersten: I admire the wisdom of the founders of Indian religion, who required that their kings and dignitaries retreat every year to monasteries for meditation. We will later create similar institutions.

IB TIMES: Did Himmler (and other top Nazi leaders) use the Bhagavad Gita as a kind of an ideological blueprint for the Holocaust and World War II?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: Several historians believe that Himmler's notorious Posener Speech in front of a hundred SS officers in 1943 was highly influenced by the spirit of the Bhagavad Gita.
In this particular speech, Himmler stressed that if the destiny of the nation called for it, every member of the SS had a duty to conduct drastic measures brutally and without pity and without regard to blood relationship and friendship.

This utterance brought to mind the instructions Krishna issued to Arjuna, demanding from the latter to attack his kin and kill them.

In the same speech, after mentioning unworthy human beings who were going to be murdered (an indirect reference to the Jews), Himmler assured his listeners: These deeds do not inflict any damage on our inner selves, our souls, and our characters. In the same manner, Krishna assured Arjuna that the latter acts would not pollute his higher self by completing his murderous duty: Whatever I do, it cannot pollute me. [...] The one who merges with me, frees himself from everything, and he is not bound by his deeds

Thus, Himmler encouraged the members of the SS to conduct their murderous acts, unemotionally in a cool detached manner just as Krishna instructed the charioteer Arjuna.

On the whole, the Posener Speech was focused on the spiritual dimensions of war and the conduct of the warrior, which is the chief element of the Kshatriya philosophy of Hinduism.

The German diplomat and undercover U.S. agent in Nazi-Germany Hans Bernd Gisevius concluded: There is no doubt that for Himmler the Bhagavad Gita is the book of the Great Absolution.

IB TIMES: During the war, there was a community of Indian nationalists living in Berlin. The most prominent among them was Subhash Chandra Bose, who met with many top Nazi officials, including Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goering and Hitler himself. Is it true that Himmler was generally interested in helping Bose to achieve independence for India, whereas most of the other German leaders only used Bose in a ploy to stoke anti-British sentiments in India?

MR. & MRS. TRIMONDI: Unlike other Nazi leaders, Himmler and the curator of the SS-Ahnenerbe Walther Wüst, provided some ideological support to Bose's political agenda.

Wüst spoke about the need to work closely with Bose and contemplated holding a German-Indian congress of Indian scholars representing both countries.

Yet, except for these utterances, neither Himmler nor Wüst did anything specific to support Indian nationalists.

Bose delivered an emotional speech for British soldiers of Indian origin, who were captured by the Wehrmacht in Africa and who were held in Germany as POWs. He said to them: Hitler is your friend. He is the friend of the Aryans, and you will return to India as the liberators of your motherland.

The Indian Kshatriya legacy was not the only Oriental culture that attracted Himmler and his ideologists when they were working to construct their racist Indo-Aryan warrior religion.

In addition to Hinduism, the Reichsführer SS was also interested in the militant Samurai Zen philosophy of Japan as well as the occult scriptures of Tibetan Buddhism.

Indeed, one of the goals of the famous SS expedition to Tibet headed by Ernst Schaefer in 1939 was to find in the Lamaist monasteries scrolls containing secret Aryan teachings.

SOURCE:

http://www.ibtimes.com/heinrich-himmler-nazi-hindu-214444