Category Archives: Rants

Thoughts on Georges Soria’s Denunciation of “Trotskyism in the Service of Franco”

soria_trotskyismby Espresso Stalinist

Recently I was reading a PDF of the 1938 pamphlet Trotskyism in the Service of Franco: Facts and Documents on the Activities of the P.O.U.M. in Spain by Georges Soria. Soria was a representative in Spain of the French communist paper L’Humanité and also wrote for the International Press Correspondence of the Comintern. The material for the pamphlet was originally published as a series of articles reporting on the situation of the Spanish Civil War.

Forty years after its original publication, Soria is said to have denounced the work and its contents as a forgery.

The work has subsequently been dismissed as a fabrication for a number of years. It is now cited by Trotskyists as evidence of a “Stalinist” campaign to smear the P.O.U.M. as fascist agents. Jeffrey Meyers, a biographer of George Orwell, called it “a vicious book” and Orwell himself dedicated lengthy passages in his novel “Homage to Catalonia” to blaming the Communists for similar accusations, and for the loss in Spain as a whole. The pamphlet has become a tool to denounce the heroic role of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) in the Spanish Civil War as counterrevolutionary.

The copy of the full pamphlet in its 1938 form on the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) comes with an editor’s note that cites the original author apparently claiming the work and its contents are a complete forgery:

“Forty years later, in a work about the Spanish civil war (Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939, III, 78-79), Soria himself stated – without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation  – that ‘the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence’ and the whole story was ‘an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism’” (Marxists Internet Archive).

It’s worth noting MIA are not the first ones to use these quotes to “disprove” the Soria pamphlet. Many scholarly and non-scholarly books have used them as well.

As the MIA editor’s note shows, the original source for these quotes from Soria is the book “Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939.” This source is not available to me. However, I did find another source that details the full unedited quotes by Soria which are being cited as proof his work is a forgery: the book “Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution” by Burnett Bolloten.

Within this source there is enough information to argue that the way the quotes from Soria are often presented is quite deceptive. Here I will present only what are actual quoted words from Soria, and omit the words and phrases MIA inserted between them. The first quote that is commonly used is that Soria said that:

“[…] the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence.”

The second quote, which MIA and others present as being about “the whole story,” (more on this later) meaning about the entire contents of Soria’s pamphlet, says:

“[…] an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

These passages in quotes are the only portions of the editor’s note that were actually said by Soria. Now I will present the full and unedited Soria quotes in their original context as cited in Bolloten’s book. All portions in brackets [ ] without the annotation “E.S.” appeared in brackets in the original Bolloten text. The first full quote reads as follows:

“Forty years later however, in an attempt to exculpate the Spanish Communists from responsibility for the death of Nin, he [Soria – E.S.] stated that ‘the accusations leveled against Nin in Spain in the form of the couplet: ‘Where is Nin? In Salamanca or Berlin?’ were ‘purely and simply…an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.’”

So Soria was not, in fact, talking about his pamphlet, but rather the story surrounding the disappearance of Andrés Nin, the founder of the P.O.U.M., where he was freed from prison by fascist agents. Soria then blames the NKVD for the death of Nin, which is what he dismissed as “an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

Bolloten even goes on to condemn Soria for his “attempt…to exonerate the PCE by shifting responsibility for the crusade against the P.O.U.M. and for the disappearance of Nin to the phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’” (507). So the Soria quote specifically speaks of the charges against Nin and one story of his disappearance.

The MIA editor’s note however, frames this quote as being about “the whole story,” implying that it’s about his original work and all charges of the P.O.U.M. acting as agents (either de-facto agents or actual spies) of Franco or Hitler:

“the whole story was ‘an extension…[Soria quote continues as above].”

As we can clearly see however, in this first quote Soria was not talking about his pamphlet or the “whole story,” but specifically about the alleged liberation of Andrés Nin from prison by fascist agents, which Soria recounts in the pamphlet, though he does not mention the involvement of the Gestapo but rather implies that fascist agents may have been involved.

Bolloten then cites the second Soria quote used by MIA in the same paragraph, which contains even greater pronounced differences with the MIA citation. The original says:

“On the one hand, the charge that the leaders of the POUM, among them Andrés Nin, were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence. On the other hand, although the leaders of the POUM were neither agents of Franco nor agents of the Gestapo, it is true that their relentless struggle against the Popular Front played the game nolens volens of the Caudillo [General Franco]” (Bolloten 507).

So despite Soria claiming that the charges of the P.O.U.M. leadership, including Nin, being fascist spies was without evidence, he still blamed the P.O.U.M. for taking an ultra-left position and undermining the popular front in Spain, which still rendered de-facto service to the fascists. In other words, even if the Trotskyists and ultra-lefts in the P.O.U.M. were completely innocent of all charges and were not agents of the Gestapo or Franco, they “only” offered de-facto, and not de-jure, service to Franco.

The phrasing here says that even though he claims there is no evidence of the P.O.U.M. leadership being fascist agents and spies, Soria does not deny the fact that they rendered service to Franco, using the phrase, “nolens volens,” meaning “whether willing or unwilling.”

The editor’s note on MIA omits this second phrase for obvious reasons. There are a number of other interesting points regarding these full, unedited quotes that are worth pointing out.

In these quotes Soria does not denounce his original work – merely the specific charge that the P.O.U.M. leadership were spies of the Gestapo and Franco. He does say it was “impossible to adduce the slightest evidence,” which can be said to imply that the documents and sources he cites in the pamphlet are, at least in part, forgeries. However, this is not stated specifically. In fact, Soria does not mention his work at all! This is implicitly stated by the editor’s note on the MIA page, which states that Soria spoke “without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation.” His “role,” of course, was the pamphlet!

To some extent MIA makes a valid point about Soria never mentioning his own “role” in the charges that he claims was a “fabrication…[without] the slightest evidence.” Assuming the work is a complete fabrication, Soria never claimed to have been coerced to write the pamphlet, and never mentions an outside party forcing him to do so. Therefore, even in the case that it is a complete forgery, until there is proof that Soria authored it under the influence of an outside force, the blame must be placed not on the Soviet Union, “Stalinism” or the PCE, but on Soria the author for allegedly forging the evidence in his articles in the first place, and allowing those articles to be published as a pamphlet.

It’s also worth repeating that though Soria expresses his belief that the charges against the “P.O.U.M. leadership” being fascist spies was false and without evidence, this does not mean everyone in the P.O.U.M. was innocent of such activities, and Soria says explicitly that the P.O.U.M.’s actions still helped Hitler and Franco, even if unwillingly. One must ask then: how does this in any way exonerate the P.O.U.M.?

Furthermore, why Soria should choose forty years after the publication of the original document, long after such a “confession” of forgery could have had any effect whatsoever on the anti-fascist war in Spain or its outcome is unclear, thought it must be pointed out that these words were said after Soria became sympathetic to the Eurocommunism of the PCF, and during the era of “de-Stalinization,” where the virtues of making slanderous statements and denunciations regarding the Stalin era were looked upon with favor both inside and outside the Soviet Union. The pace for this was set by the many utter falsehoods uttered by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress, and the decades of revisionism that followed.

CONCLUSION: Until there is more direct evidence that Georges Soria denounced his articles and the documents he cited in them as forgeries, there is no reason to “dismiss” them from consideration as evidence, and though he later claimed the charges against the P.O.U.M. leadership were baseless and there was no evidence for them, implying that at least part of the original work was false and/or mistaken, the conclusion that Soria admitted his work and all of its contents were complete forgeries cannot be supported by the existing facts.

Leave it to the Market?


For more than twenty years now, the “free market” has been the rallying cry of American politics. Conservatives sing its praises while occasionally betraying it when it suits their constituency, liberals won’t criticize it but claim that it needs to be fixed, and then you have the libertarians, for which the market is, for all intents and purposes, a stand-in for God. Like many other words often heard in politics such as “liberty” or “democracy,” the “free market” has been used so frequently that it is rarely ever questioned. This concept of a “free market” is accepted as something real; the only disagreements arise when people discuss what constitutes a violation of free market principles, or in other words, what actions fetter the market to the point where it can no longer be called “free?” All the loudest voices in American politics tell us that one way or another the market will solve our problems, either with prudent regulation by the state or by leaving it completely unfettered by government interference. What you will not hear, at least in the mainstream discourse, is that the market itself, or more correctly its dominance of our society and our entire way of life, is the real root of the problem facing human society.

Before tackling the market and its influence over human society, one point should be clarified. This article will deal primarily with the arguments of neo-liberals and libertarians as opposed to modern liberals. Since liberals do not openly preach the virtues and supremacy of the free market, choosing instead to insist that market excesses can be limited, fixed, or altogether prevented by wise government regulation, their arguments fall outside the scope of this article. There are plenty of arguments to explain why the regulation proposed by liberals will either not succeed or will not have a lasting, much less permanent impact, the strongest being the fact that liberals themselves often point to the regulation and government intervention of past decades to support their own arguments. It stands to reason that if past regulations could be repealed over time thanks to successful lobbying on the part of wealthy corporations and businesses, the same thing could happen again five, ten, or maybe twenty years after the passing of new regulatory laws in some hypothetical future. And of course, this also assumes that these regulations would even pass through the political system at all. In any case, the liberal solution of correcting the market via limited government intervention is a topic for another article. This article shall deal specifically with the arguments of those who exalt the market the most, namely, the libertarians.

Libertarianism has a long history in the United States and a few other privileged countries, all of which, incidentally, achieved their economic greatness by doing more or less the exact opposite of what libertarians believe in. While the Libertarian Party has existed since 1971, the ideology seems to have gained widespread mainstream attention with the presidential campaigns of Representative Ron Paul and his “Ron Paul Revolution,” which has effectively utilized the internet to bring his message to a wider audience. It is amusing to note that the internet, which has its roots in government-sponsored research, serves as the basis for the success of Ron Paul’s movement. Ironic though that may be, no objective observer can deny that Paul’s populist message has gained considerable success among many segments of the population who should otherwise be politically opposed to one another. This fact speaks to two fundamental truths about American politics. The first is that populist messages, which are specifically designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of political belief systems, are highly potent. The second is that widespread dissatisfaction with the mainstream political system and the usual politics of our two-party system has left many people wide open to such populist messages, and it would do well for many of them to dig a little deeper into the ideology espoused by Ron Paul and his ilk. While Paul sets himself up as a hero of the so-called “middle class” against the powerful elite represented by the mainstream candidates of both parties, he is in fact nothing more than an agent of the wealthiest segment of the American ruling class. While Ron Paul and his supporters claim that they oppose corporate power over the United States, the ultimate result of his libertarian rhetoric is the preservation of that very same power.

Of course stating this inevitably causes outrage among Paul’s cultist-like supporters. Many Ron Paul supporters, and in particular the disturbingly large amount of confused “leftists,” insist that they oppose large corporations. In fact they insist that our system is not “real capitalism” and hasn’t been for some time; they say it is “crony capitalism” or “corporatism.” In the past the Red Phoenix has dealt with this question of “real capitalism” vs. “crony capitalism,” and suffice to say that asking people who make this claim to clarify just when the American system was “real capitalism” can provoke some really ridiculous answers, if any answer at all. Here, however, we shall look at one aspect of libertarian ideology, namely the claim that libertarianism opposes corporate power. We shall see that the solution to this problem, like the libertarian solution to every problem, is to leave everything to the market to decide. Lastly, we will see why this non-solution, assuming it actually could be implemented, would only lead to literal corporate tyranny with no democratic accountability.

Many of Ron Paul’s supporters, particularly those lured from the left, are unaware of his ideological background. As it turns out, in the political realm what you don’t know can in fact hurt you. Paul’s economic and social theories are inspired primarily by the so-called Austrian School of economics, so named for the nationality of its original founders and adherents such as Karl Menger, Eugene Bohm-Bauwerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. This article is no place to delve into the myriad of problems with Austrian economic theory, so we shall focus rather on the modern arguments advanced by populists such as Ron Paul when it comes to the market and our current system.

The Austrians were not the first to propose that the market reconciles the self-interest of individuals for the better of society; this idea can be traced to Adam Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” which would promote the general welfare even though individuals in the market would be acting out of self-interest. There are a few key differences between this classical view and that of Austrian Schoolers, however. The first is that adherents to Austrian School economics, and indeed virtually all libertarians in general, express no concern over whether market activity promotes a better society; society does not matter, only individuals. Secondly, Austrian school supporters see the market as the only reliable source of information which can be used by individuals to allocate scarce resources in the most efficient way. In other words, without the market, which labels commodities with prices, it would be impossible for investors to know the best avenues for investing their capital. Hence it is necessary to leave the market alone so as not to cause any distortions which might lead bad investments. It is obvious that this theory contradicts those in favor of a planned economy, and indeed Austrian School theorists such as Bohm-Bauwerk, Hayek, and von Mises all received great praise for their attempts to “refute” Marxist theory. In fact, while the Austrian School is generally rejected even by mainstream neo-liberal economists, they just happen to more or less agree on the idea that socialist planning will always be inherently flawed. Even the most ridiculous ideas will find their proponents if they serve the status quo, and that is the main reason why people like Ron Paul still have a job.

According to libertarians like Ron Paul and his supporters, government regulation and intervention are to blame for “too-big-to-fail” banks and the consolidation of power into the hands of a small group of multi-national companies. The market, left to its own devices, would supposedly prevent the rise of such mega-corporations, which we are told received their power via government aid on their behalf, including stifling regulations which supposedly bar potential competitors from entering the market. In fact, whatever the issue, you can rest assured that to the libertarian, the culprit is always “government,” and the answer is always the free market. If one wants to try to get a handle on what libertarian society would actually look like, it is necessary to dig into these concepts a little deeper.

First, there is no disputing the claim corporations and private companies have benefitted from government largesse, and this certainly does benefit the largest multinational corporations. Businesses lobby the government, back electoral campaigns, and in return they receive deregulation legislation, subsidies, favorable trade deals and other perks. Libertarians tell us they are against this unholy marriage of the private and state sector, but there are a number of flaws with their understanding of this relationship.

According to libertarians, large corporations use their lobbying power to support stifling regulations which will bar potential competitors from entering the market. In other words, if it weren’t for mean old Monsanto and their lobbying efforts, you’d have all kinds of mom and pop chemical producers popping up all over the country to engage in healthy capitalist competition and prevent the rise of monopolies. Now some people might suggest, for example, that one reason it’s difficult to start your own airline is because airplanes are expensive to buy and operate. This would be wrong however; the market decides the price of airplanes, spare parts, and so on, ergo it is fair and just. Government regulation is the problem!

The problems with this claim are so manifold it’s difficult to decide where to begin. Perhaps the most glaring flaw is the idea that corporate lobbyists support regulatory legislation. In almost all cases the opposite is true; corporations lobby to eliminate, not implement, government regulation in their various spheres. The second most obvious error is the implication that if we could somehow roll back our current system to that non-existent form which libertarians insist is “true capitalism,” successful capitalists wouldn’t use their wealth to influence the remnants of the state to their favor. We’re supposed to believe that the new generation of capitalists, without any restriction whatsoever, will all play fair and not try to gain any unfair advantage by lobbying the government for benefits such as tax breaks or subsidies. The very idea is laughable, but it is by no means the most serious logical flaw this ideology has to offer.

We must at some point in the debate ask, “What is the market?” The market, in abstract, is an institution where exchange and distribution take place. In concrete terms, however, the market consists of people, that is to say individual buyers and sellers. This condition, where individuals confront each other in the market for the purpose of exchange, and more importantly the dominance of this institution in the case of capitalist society, forms the basis for the liberal cult of the “individual,” but this is a matter for another article. Here it is enough to say that in theory, buyers and sellers enjoy formal equality. This is where the problem lies, for while buyers and sellers are formally equal, they are unequal according to their possessions, that is to say they differ according to how much and what kind of property they own, what they have to sell, and how much money they have. Since distribution is determined by market transactions, agents must enter and participate in market exchange to get their necessities of life. To engage in exchange, agents need money, and in order to get money they must have a commodity they can sell. The worker’s commodity is labor power, the capacity to perform productive labor. Again, in theory, the worker and capitalist are allegedly on an equal footing when they confront each other in the market. Outside of the realm of economic theory, we can easily see this isn’t the case. Capitalists own capital, that is both money capital and means of production, hence in the market they hold all the cards. Since workers don’t possess necessary property, that is means of production, to produce everything they need to survive, they do not have the choice of withholding their labor power from the capitalists; starvation would be the result.

Once we step out of the realm of ruling-class economic theory and into the real world, we understand that “leaving it to the market” doesn’t mean leaving our fate to some abstract institution but rather putting it in the hands of a few real, live people, and hoping they will somehow arrive at the best, most beneficial results for all of society out of their own self-interest. In other words, it’s not that far removed from the libertarians’ inaccurate description of socialism, only replace government with private capitalists.

Worse still, libertarians exalt the individual and openly declare that they do not care about society, nor the “greater good,” indeed some have routinely and openly insisted that society doesn’t exist. That should give one pause any time a libertarian evangelist insists that their way of thinking would be best for “our nation.” Try as they might, however, libertarians cannot bend material reality. While their worldview divides human civilization into the “state” and “private sector” and holds as sacred the concept of “private property,” in the real world there can be no private property without the state and its organs of violence with which it enforces the existing property relations. If we look back into history we see that the rise of the very first state coincides with the emerging necessity to establish and enforce property rights, and as these rights and relations changed over time, so too has the state.

Ron Paul and his populist goons are selling a chimerical Utopian vision which runs contrary to the historical record. While his supporters will claim that our contemporary system isn’t “real capitalism,” they aren’t so forthcoming when asked to say when this “real capitalism” allegedly existed. When they attempt to do so, it is only a matter of pointing out the atrocious living conditions of the majority of people, crushing restrictions on civil rights, poor quality products, and of course the ever-present government intervention in the economy, if not in the form of regulation but rather protectionism, subsidies, and other handouts. Whenever they insist that we had a truly “free market” at some time in the past, ask for specifics, do a little research, and you’ll find that the market had restrictions on it then. In fact as Ha Joon Chang so eloquently pointed out in his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, there is no such thing as a free market, and never has been. More importantly, there has never been a single country in world history which has followed Austrian School economic theories to economic prosperity, if at all; anyone who tells you otherwise is either blatantly lying or simply ignorant. Support for Ron Paul is ultimately support for the ruling class, only by another route. Do not be fooled by populist hucksters who promise to explain the world in bite-sized nuggets of bumper-sticker “common sense.” If Ron Paul truly believed in his principles he wouldn’t work for the federal government, and that goes doubly if he were truly a threat to the working class. Paul may seem a world apart from Obama or Romney, but he exists to lead us to the very same destination.

The Austrian School of economics is a complicated subject. Though it is generally rejected by all mainstream schools of economic thought, the latter more or less agree with the former on some key concepts, such as the concept of marginal utility. With this in mind, the reader is invited to look into the matter further with a number of critiques of Austrian theory from several different perspectives, including Marxist and mainstream.

Further Reading


Tears Behind the Mask


Ending all religions
Changes yet to come
Whole new situation
Fear became too strong
Send a spark of hatred
To where I cannot rest
My fate’s depending on me
Pushed to the test
Depression unrest
As I watch the sky

 – Krayzie Bone, “Depression Unrest”

Hath not a Palestinian eyes?

I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Rant & Personal Account: A Disturbing Revelation

By the Espresso Stalinist

As a kid, one of my favorite games was Contra for the original Nintendo NES. As an adult, I now know this game was a propaganda effort to raise support for the reactionary Contras in Nicaragua fighting against the Sandinista government.

  • The ending theme of the original game was titled “Sandinista” (サンディニスタ?).
  • You’re known as a “Contra” and you fight against evil aliens called “Red Falcon.”
  • The two main characters were modeled after reactionary action actors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone.
  • They are on a mission from the U.S. imperialists to kill all Red Falcons that are planning “an invasion” of Earth (the U.S.).
  • To make matters worse, in the Japanese version you fight on the fictional Oceania archipelago of “Galuga.”
  • The American NES version takes place in the present (1980’s at the release of the game), in South America. Yes, they were that ballsy.


“Contra” literally meant counterrevolutionary for those in Nicaragua. They were fighting against the democratic socialist Sandinistas with help from Ronald Reagan’s cronies. Congress was so horrified by the Contras they even cut off funding in 1985, which led Reagan and the CIA to start covert illegal funding, ergo, the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Contras committed atrocities:

“But despite the efforts of the White House PR machine, the Contras increasingly appeared to be a particularly ruthless and bloodthirsty bunch. Stories of atrocities against civilian noncombatants certainly didn’t help. In the words of human rights group Americas Watch, ‘the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses … so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war.’ Another NGO compiled a year’s worth of Contra atrocities, which included murder, rape, torture, maiming children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, and amputating genitals.”

Good stuff, eh?

Imagine all the people who donated 53¢ to see people…kill people. For democracy.

President Ronald Reagan explains who is fighting to overthrow the current Nicaraguan regime:

“Thousands who fought with the Sandinistas have taken up arms against them and are now called the Contras. They are freedom fighters.”

President Ronald Reagan attempts to drum up public support for the Contras:

“They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I’ve spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they’re fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance.”

Try saying video games are “class neutral” now, liberals.

CIA Report on Smurf Communism

Isolated Utopian Village said to be model for Communist society

By Christian Bladt

I think we all recognize this evil salute.

Earlier this month, the CIA recently de-classified thousands of pages of documents from the Cold War era pertaining to what was referred to as “The Blue Menace”. For decades, the US government has kept a watchful eye on a small village of mushroom-shaped homes nestled deep inside an enchanted forest that is touted as a Socialist Utopia. Now, for the first time we take an exclusive look at “The Smurf Files”:

This village's blind faith in their leader is of great concern to us.

“The Smurf society is an unspoiled socialist utopia, and they are quite intent on preserving the utmost secrecy with regards to the location of their home. Smurfs never worry about their own safety and well-being, but, instead about how their actions directly affect the residents of the Smurf Village. They all work together, knowing that their position within this society directly corresponds to the amount of effort they put forth for the betterment of the society as a whole.

For the better part of the past century, Smurf society has been run by a hard-line Marxist known as Papa Smurf. Papa Smurf is the only Smurf in a red uniform, clearly distinguishing him as the cult of personality. Even though his patriarchal title seems to show that the Smurf Village is truly a family, it is really a patriarchal dictatorship, with the figurehead of this puppet government being Papa himself. He cares about them. He is the father. Everyone knows he is in charge, and will handle disputes and make decisions for the good of the society. His rule began by ousting the previous ruler, Grandpa Smurf, who spent decades banished to the wastelands of the forest. Recently, Papa Smurf allowed Grandpa to return to the society to live out his final years, under his late-1980s social reform policies of “smurf-nost” and “peri-smurf-a”.

A great deal of Smurf ideology is instilled in this blue army through chants and songs that are recited whenever they are together in a group. The village holds regular events, in which all 100 Smurf citizens are required to dance exactly the same. Although they are billed as “fun” and “celebrations”, these events are seen as more of an organized rally reinforcing Smurf way of life. When the Smurfs march by, everyone takes notice. Although it has been years since the Smurfs have faced any kind of armed conflict, their reputation precedes them as ruthless military masterminds.

Today, the Smurf village has no needs for a police state, and even the Elite Military Operations Unit’s only assignments seem to be rescuing fellow citizens from being eaten. The only real threat that the Smurfs face is from Gargamel, an evil wizard whose preoccupation with turning them into gold repeatedly reinforces to all of the Smurfs the failure of, and the evils associated with Capitalist Society.

A rare image of Nicholas Smurfanoff (left), the last czar in the Smurfanoff dynasty. He was forced from power under Papa Smurf’s socialist revolution.

For the Smurfs, there is no King, no queen, no heaven, no hell. Religion has no place in Smurf Society, instead they know that they are at the mercy of Mother Nature and Father Time, both of whom the Smurfs have had numerous run-ins with, always meeting with results beneficial to their society.

This society is totally self-reliant. The Smurfs use no form of hard currency, and there is rarely even the need to trade goods or services, because as they are taught to say from infancy: “Papa Smurf always says: share and share a like”. As a classless society, the division of labor in Smurf Village is designed without the possibility for surplus of production, ensuring that no one class will benefit by taking advantage of the others.

While there are definitely members of society whose designation might be more high profile than others, the good of the Smurfs is put before all else. One way the Smurfs are continually conditioned to this idea is by the usage of the word “smurf” itself. Conversationally, it can be substituted for any part of speech.

Under Smurfy Socialism, everyone finds equal means for the development of their respective faculties and utilization of their labour. Each Smurf is assigned a specific role, or a place in the society. Handy Smurf is in charge of any repairs necessary. Hefty Smurf performs the bulk of the manual labor. Farmer Smurf does the hard work of harvesting their food, and Greedy Smurf prepares it for all to enjoy.

Other Smurfs abilities are not as immediately clear. Poet Smurf is a tool Papa Smurf’s propaganda machine. Jokey Smurf’s exploding presents serve to provide a lighthearted respite in what could easily prove to be a dreary existence. (Also, his proficiency with explosives makes him a valuable tool should Papa Smurf ever desire the formation of a “Blue Ops” assassination team.)

Some Smurfs’ roles are to set an example of what good little Smurfs should strive not to be. Vanity Smurf illustrates how pre-occupation with one’s self can be bad for the society as a whole. Lazy Smurf’s lackadaisical lifestyle shows what can happen if everyone decided that they were too tired to do their required tasks. Nosey Smurf, by asking bothersome questions and continually investigating the unknown, demonstrates the perils of troubling your mind with things that do not concern you.

Papa Smurf's words are with the Smurfs at all times.

Interestingly enough, there is only one female member of the Smurf society. She is referred to as “Smurfette”, a very demoralizing title, in order to immediately place her into a secondary and subservient role. For, as the only female, Smurfette definitely would have the means to pose a real threat to Papa Smurf’s rule. However, she is not viewed as dangerous, as she spends all of her free time working on her garden.

The only real threat may be Brainy Smurf. Every one of these recently released files concludes with Brainy Smurf being forcibly ejected from the Smurf Village. He clearly represents the contempt for intellectualism this type of society has. His intellect rivals that of Papa Smurf, who realizes that Brainy Smurf could very easily start a revolution against him. Brainy Smurf knows that he is capable of running things in the Smurf village, but he lacks the maturity to take charge and the support of the other Smurfs.

Brainy’s isolation is part of Papa Smurf’s plan for keeping himself at the top of the food chain. Brainy’s volumes of “Quotations of Brainy Smurf” are often referred to, and yet, none of the other Smurfs ever reads them. The possibility of all the Smurfs being capable of the same intellect of Brainy, or even Papa Smurf himself, is a very real threat. As such, Brainy is sought after only whenever completely necessary, but banished outside of the Smurf village whenever it seems likely that he would get any of the other Smurfs to question the structure of their society.

Brainy Smurf’s subjugation to a tertiary role and the potential threat it poses to Papa Smurf’s leadership makes the Smurf Village a potential hotbed of military activity, one which will need to be continually monitored for the foreseeable future. If Brainy Smurf were to make any inroads amongst the other Smurfs, it is our belief that the United States would benefit greatly from Brainy Smurf’s rule. As such, it is the Central Intelligence Agency’s proposal that an exploratory commission be set up to see what steps could be taken now, to put the U.S. in the best position if and when an uprising occurs.”

Sources: The above works have been adapted from the following articles.
All credit where credit due.

The Smurfs Were Communists!
By Dave Morgan, Published on his Home Page February 14, 1996

Better Dead Than Blue – Are the Smurfs Closet Communists?
by Kristen M. Sonntag, Esq.

S.M.U.R.F – Socialist Men Under a Red Father
Author unknown

Author unknown but posted on

The Theory of Smurfian Communism
by Andrew Dougherty

Isolated Utopian Village said to be model for Communist society
By Christian Bladt

The Smurfs as a Paradigm for Communist Society
Written by Eric Lott in Spring, 1995 and published on his personal web page September 27, 1997

Socio-Political Themes in The Smurfs
by J Marc Schmidt, author of Egg Story

Smurfy Sexism: Drawn with a Biased Hand
By Mariruth Graham


On Lavrenty Beria: One Criticism on Marten’s “Another View of Stalin.”

From Red Comrades:

This (ON BERIA) is related to Ludo Martens’ book “Another View of Stalin.” It is a critique of his assessment of Beria. The rest of the Martens’ book relies on facts. However oddly, in stark contrast to the rest of the book, the analysis of Lavrenty Beria does NOT show facts at all. Martins has only theories and/or rumor or gossip, which is what Kremlinologists used to create the totalitarian paradigm against all of Soviet society! Why would he believe this or believe Khrushchev?

This is like the Forward to “The Beria Affair,” where the author goes into all the things THE WEST “knew” about what “power” Beria had – and then states that even 4 months after Stalin died, Beria did not make a grab for ultimate power. Yes, Beria did NOT make any such grab and it is evident that had he wanted to make that grab for power, he could have easily done it. So the Western anti-Soviet writers are left to invent a “reason” that this was so. So then, they conclude that Beria didn’t make a grab because he was arrogant. (!?)

Nonsense! This only makes sense if you abide by the totalitarian paradigm of Soviet society, which is blatantly false.

A more logical deduction would be that Beria never considered there to be ANY power grab and was not at odds with his Comrades, at least not at odds in such a big way that he’d grab power and use it against them.

Consider it: Beria had BOTH the NKGB and NKVD under him. With all the rumors and suspicions about Stalin’s death, he could easily have gotten his “rivals” arrested and shot. Therefore, one must also wonder IF THERE WERE ANY rumors or suspicions immediately after Stalin’s death! Surely, if there were, they’d have made their way to the NKVD and the NKVD would have acted on it; at least they’d have arrested the people who found Stalin on the floor.

But WAS Stalin found laying on the floor? Or is that more “after the fact” rumor? And why didn’t Beria do away with his rivals even 4 months after Stalin’s death? Apparently they were NOT his rivals, as the totalitarian paradigmists suggest.

I can’t agree with Martens’ arguments against Beria at all. Anyone investigating a crime would have problems with the way the entire affair was handled.

It was enemies that considered Beria an enemy, enemies that were in fact capitalists, never communists, and who proved this of themselves later on by wrecking collectives that worked well!. There were only THEORIES or ACCUSATIONS against Beria to that effect, primarily based on his desire to return to a NEP-type system for awhile after WWII . Well, Lenin did it after the Civil War for the same reasons Beria wanted to do it after World War II. Accusations are insinuated due to Beria’s desire to keep friendly with the West – who, after all, were ALLIES in WWII. Why not be friendly with allies?

In going along with the idea of Beria that Martens presents, Martens is falling INTO the same totalitarian paradigm that his entire book seeks to dismantle.

Beria did a good job for Stalin, in fact, an EXCELLENT, SUPERB job. Far from wanting to kill Stalin, Beria did everything in his power AGAINST STALIN’S ORDERS to try to prevent Stalin from wandering into mined areas of land during the time Stalin insisted on staying in Moscow in the war. Stalin could have been easily killed: Beria was trying to prevent this. Beria also had MANY occasions to kill Stalin AND get away with it!

Martens cites Thaddeus Wittlin on Beria, but does Martens know to what extent Wittlen INVENTED whole scenes in his book? I do: right out of pornographic books. It’s so lurid that it’s funny to bump into it in the middle of his huge book. PURE, graphic, lurid invention, pure pornography. Fantasy! If Martens is going to believe Wittlin on Beria, why not just believe Robert Conquest on Stalin? Conquest is kinder to Stalin than Wittlin is to Beria!

The data Martens has on Abakumov and Beria is not correct here. Since the creation of two groups, the MGB and the MVD, the MVD being the former NKVD, there was hostility. Ignatiev and Ryumen were Khrushchev’s men. It is possible, as Martens and everyone else seems to believe, that Beria was “the only person” capable of eliminating Stalin’s personal security, but others could have also done it. It is also possible that the personal security was no longer trusted and Stalin ordered it changed. That would go along with the “orders from the top” school of thought. But in this case, they WERE STALIN’S OWN guards and he’d have every right to have them removed. It is NOT possible to believe that Stalin didn’t know they were no longer his security guards! Stalin had good eye-sight!

The totalitarian paradigm presents a dualist image of Stalin: he’s either a diabolical genius or he’s a dull-witted idiot. People who write with a STRONG desire (emotion) to defend Stalin and trash the totalitarian paradigm, often fall right back into the paradigm when they attempt to present Stalin as either a Saint and Genius or a Duped Victim who’s not to blame for anything. And these are the types of people that DO NOT want to make a “cult of personality” out of Stalin? They are doing exactly that with this attitude.

I don’t think we can really know what happened in the end. It ispossible to believe that Stalin’s closest people thought he was sleeping when he lay there sick or unconscious. (Personal proof that this could have happened: I was in a coma, or unconscious at least, unable to be awakened on several attempts, and my dearest friend, someone closer to me than anyone was close to Stalin, thought I was ‘SLEEPING and didn’t want to be disturbed’: yet this was the day after I was smacked by a car going 30 mph as I sat at a stop light in my car and was knocked out cold! He thought I was sleeping! He tried to wake me up only a few times and then let me continue “sleeping.”) – So it IS POSSIBLE people thought Stalin was sleeping. Was Stalin really found laying on the floor? Or, as said above, is that just more after-the-fact rumor designed to make something look suspicious? Did he look as sickly as we are told? Or did he look as if he were asleep?

But herein is the puzzle that it seems NO scholar out there can see through: they don’t WANT to see it clearly. The picture presented by ALL sources, pro and con, shows Stalin’s closest, long-time, trusted employees afraid to go into his room!! WHY?? Rybin’s account is no better (“Next to Stalin”) as he’d have Stalin as Saint Josef, while not grasping that his inferences lead one to think that his personal staff were so terrified that they would not even knock on Stalin’s door if they had to. They waited hours, yet they all thought something was wrong when Stalin didn’t come out of his room on time? Or is it that they “remember” thinking something was wrong AFTER they really KNEW something WAS wrong and after they all got it into their heads to get suspicious?

Why didn’t they knock or go in his room? No one has seemed to grab hold of THIS INITIAL data on the fatal day. Long BEFORE Beria was around to see Stalin sleeping ON A COUCH, WHY didn’t anyone ELSE call the damned doctor? THEY found him on the floor! Beria DID NOT SEE Stalin laying on a floor, he saw him on a couch! He looked asleep. This, in any kind of U.S. investigation, even by small-town cops, would incriminate those people RIGHT THERE AT THE TIME long BEFORE Beria or the others were called, if any suspicions were held at all!

I don’t like, and therefore have real criticism for, the tendency of people to trash their own appointed police chiefs, (even if they trash J. E. Hoover* for “doing a good job” against Communists – he was appointed TO DO this! So why blame him?) This smacks of shifting blame, scapegoatism and “the one who appointed him can do no wrong” mentality, it’s the same old cult of personality exculpation rubbish that they claim doesn’t exist! That the people right there that knew Stalin’s habits did NOT go into his room when (IF!) they thought something “was wrong,” is highly suspicious. Stalin was not known to fly off the handle at his maid or anything of that sort! (He welcomed visits from friends and relatives, as many accounts show, or as Svetlana would back up.) The maid couldn’t knock on his door? WHY NOT?

IF there is something fishy about how Stalin died, I doubt the answer will be found by looking at the “obvious suspects” by hashing out theories that make them INTO “obvious suspects” AFTER THE FACT, especially by using the same old totalitarian paradigm! Everyone seems, on this subject, to have a political agenda so they invent suspects when the REAL SUSPECTS are right there, WERE there the whole while, and NEGLECTED to do a damned thing, like call a doctor when THEY found Stalin on the floor! In ANY court of law in the USA, the maid and those right there at the time would have been charged at least with negligence leading to death or “murderous indifference” in Stalin’s death. (By U.S. law, if I find a person I live with laying on a bed apparently not breathing and am unable to wake that person up – if I have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person is in need of medical attention and I DO NOTHING – I can be charged with a crime.)

*Re J. E. Hoover. Does anyone doubt there WERE Communists in the USA at the time of the McCarthy witch hunt? EH? SURE there were Reds here. SURE there were atomic spies, too. There even were “Communist Parties” here right out in the open!

From the literature, and here I strongly feel Martens fails too, it is made to sound like NO ONE EVER died in U.S.S.R. except by some political intrigue. Smearing Beria in this manner, after years of loyal service, is no different from what Trotsky said against Stalin, spreading a rumor that Stalin poisoned Lenin! I don’t think this belongs in the book; it’s not political analysis, it’s theory and almost slander. It is also possible that Stalin would have died no matter what was done for him. Cerebral hemorrhage is not a common cold!

With people coming here from the Soviet Union, what would one EXPECT them to say if they ended up here? GOOD NEWS? All one ever gets to read about it are things written either by enemies or defecting spies (some of whom are double agents, to boot). The fact is that Khrushchev was a dictator, things went awful for the economy after he got into power. Whereas people (who do not write books about it) known to me personally that LIVED/WORKED in 1930’s USSR under Stalin and then ended up in the U. S. A. living/working here in the post Roosevelt 1950’s said it FELT the same to be there as it did to be here, with a few minor details about how economic matters are transacted.

The TOTALITARIAN MODEL of Stalin’s Soviet years is permeating. Even revisionists use it, BOTH SIDES use it, and don’t even REALIZE they use it: the example is like how the maid is somehow “too scared” to knock on Stalin’s door even though Stalin was such a friendly guy, or how Beria is “obviously” out to take over the country, but he fails to do this when he certainly could have – but does not do it for some unexplained, mysterious reason – that’s all still totalitarian paradigm.

Check Amy Knight, Beria’s biographer, for an objective view written by a capitalist.

NEW INFO: A must read: “Beria Inside Stalin’s Kremlin” by Sergo Beria. Eye opening and mind blowing information there.


Junk food as ‘Addictive as Drugs’ – Why Junk Food is Addictive

“When researchers electronically stimulated the part of the brain that feels pleasure, they found that the rats on unlimited junk food needed more and more stimulation to register the same level of pleasure as the animals on healthier diets.”

Junk food is almost as addictive as heroin, scientists have found.

A diet of burgers, chips, sausages and cake will programme your brain into craving even more foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat, according to new research.

Over the years these junk foods can become a substitute for happiness and will lead bingers to become addicted.

Dr Paul Kenny, a neuroscientist, carried out the research which shows how dangerous high fat and high sugar foods can be to our health .

“You lose control. It’s the hallmark of addiction,” he said.

The researchers believe it is one of the first studies to suggest brains may react in the same way to junk food as they do to drugs.

“This is the most complete evidence to date that suggests obesity and drug addiction have common neuro-biological foundations,” said Paul Johnson, Dr Kenny’s work colleague.

Dr Kenny, who began his research at Guy’s Hospital, London, but now works at Florida’s Scripps Research Institute, divided rats into three groups for his research, due to be published in teh US soon.

One got normal amounts of healthy food to eat. Another lot was given restricted amounts of junk food and the third group was given unlimited amounts of junk, including cheesecake, fatty meat products, and cheap sponge cakes and chocolate snacks.

There were no adverse effects on the first two groups, but the rats who ate as much junk food as they wanted quickly became very fat and started bingeing.

When researchers electronically stimulated the part of the brain that feels pleasure, they found that the rats on unlimited junk food needed more and more stimulation to register the same level of pleasure as the animals on healthier diets.

28 Oct 2009


“The right combination of tastes triggers a greater number of neurons, getting them to fire more. … The message to eat becomes stronger, motivating the eater to look for even more food. … “

Why junk food really is addictive

Ice cream and chocolate bars are addictive because the mix of ingredients in them activates our “bliss point”, according to Professor David Kessler, a leading scientist.

By Ben Leach
29 Jun 2009

Snacks, cereals and ready meals can trigger the brain in the same way as tobacco, according to the former head of America’s food standards watchdog.

Professor Kessler, ex-commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), claims that manufacturers have created combinations of fat, sugar and salt that are so tasty many people cannot stop eating them even when full.

Living near fast food restaurants ‘increases obesity risk’ He argues that manufacturers are seeking to trigger a “bliss point” when people eat certain products, leaving them hungry for more.

“It is time to stop blaming individuals for being overweight or obese,” he said. “The real problem is we have created a world where food is always available and where that food is designed to make you want to eat more of it. For millions of people, modern food is simply impossible to resist.”

While at the FDA, Prof Kessler was well known for his criticism of the tobacco industry, which he accused of manipulating cigarettes to make them even more addictive.

In a new book, The End of Overeating, he suggests precise combinations of fat, sugar, salt and texture have been used by foods manufacturers to make products “hyper-palatable”.

Heinz tomato ketchup and Starbucks white chocolate mocha Frappuccino are cited as examples of the thousands of modern foods that have been engineered to stimulate feelings of pleasure.

“The right combination of tastes triggers a greater number of neurons, getting them to fire more,” he said. “The message to eat becomes stronger, motivating the eater to look for even more food.”

“Many of us have what’s called a ‘bliss point’ – the point at which we get the greatest pleasure from sugar, fat or salt. As more sugar [and fat or salt] is added, food becomes more pleasurable until we reach the bliss point, after which it becomes too sweet and the pleasure drops off.”

Prof Kessler, who ran the FDA from 1990 to 1997 and is now professor of paediatrics, epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, added that at the optimum point, food stimulates many people’s appetites instead of suppressing it.


More on Right-Wing Hedonism

Postmodernists chafe against all forms of what they call “the norm” except moral equivalences. Postmodernists may rebel against this or that societal expectation, but no matter what they rebel against, they never cease to compare things that aren’t comparable and insist that everything is relative. One example is their perception of violence as being “all bad,” and thus magically a slave rebellion becomes “just as bad” as John McCain dropping bombs on Vietnamese. Oddly, this “moral equivalency” argument is one of the top weapons of the US ruling class, but the postmodernists use it nonetheless. This leads to pacifism, of course. They would make a world entirely out of things being all the same, all people having “rights” and being “equal,” even while they insist Postmodernism sometimes leads to pacifism (fascifism), but sometimes it also leads to right-wing hedonism.

The bedrock of the right-wing hedonist worldview is that people are too stiff, too shallow and too uptight to be damned properly, and perhaps if a human soul can muster some eye-catching depravity, they can be an exceptionally interesting being and leave a mark behind. Good, it announces, is easy while evil is unique. For a few particular souls, the path of debauchery and drinking deep the bitter dregs of human experience becomes as saintly as your typical crucifixion, in a different way of course. This isn’t even some sort of wallowing in degradation to pass through it like a baptism by fire, or some plucky fantasy about walking through hell in order to deepen existence. Rather, it is a seeking of one’s own ruin in order to obtain the “ultimate” carnal knowledge, indifferent to such concepts as good and evil in the first place.

Obviously it’s a mistake to believe that any sort of authority, regulation or limitation is restrictive. In fact such delusion should have died with the crass Romanticist era. Anyone who feels “oppressed” by a healthy bureaucracy in the form of an organization must be terribly insecure, or at least oversensitive. Right-wing hedonism is the chief sign of a petty-bourgeois intellectual who has overdosed on reality and is now dumb enough, hopefully temporarily, to believe that whatever breaks a norm is politically radical.

Right-Wing Hedonism

What hedonists and postmodernists revived and kept alive in the deeply conservative and libertarian writings of Anton LaVey and the Marquis De Sade probably like about perverted, forbidden things is their hostility to the commonplace.

To Ayn Rand life is selfish, rational egoism. People who are steeped in the orthodox myths of religion naturally find their fascination in the conception of outlawed horror. Such people take the idea of “sin” seriously and of course, drink in the dark allurement.

People like myself, with a materialist view of history, see little charm in things banned by religiousity. We recognize the primitiveness of religious attitude and thus find no element of attractive devil’s dance in the wholesale violation of its morality insofar as the action does not inherently cause fun within itself outside of such “sin.”

Meanwhile, the filth and perversion to which De Sade and LaVey’s obscenely orthodox minds visit upon their own universes seems like nothing more than a profound maladjustment, no more enlightening or interesting than a bout of fever.

Now that the veil of hocus-pocus mystery has been ripped away from such carnal things by science, they are no longer sufficient distraction for the human being as a producer. We seek to produce new things outside of the carnal, which is merely a side-dish as of now. We must be obliged to hunt settings and constructions beyond the new designs for Caligula’s bedroom.

40 Helpful Tips for Becoming a Successful Anti-Communist

by J. Slavyanski of the APL

1. Constantly insist that Marxism is discredited, outdated, and totally dead and buried. Then proceed to build a lucrative career on beating that supposedly ‘dead’ horse for the rest of your working life.

2. Remember, any unnatural death that occurs under a ‘Communist’ regime is not only attributable to the leaders of the state, but also Marxism as an ideology. Ignore deaths that occur for the same reason in non-Communist states.

3. Communism or Marxism is whatever you want it to be. Feel free to label countries, movements, and regimes as ‘Communist’ regardless of things like actual goals, stated ideology, diplomatic relations, economic policy, or property relations.

4. If there was a conflict involving Communists, the conflict and all ensuing deaths can be laid at the feet of Communism. Be careful when applying this to WWII. Fascist movements who fought against the Soviets or Communist partisans are fine, but try not to openly praise Nazi Germany. Save that for private conversations if you must do so.

5. You decide what Marxism “really means”, and who the rightful representatives of Communism were. Feign interest that Trotsky was somehow robbed of power by Stalin, despite the fact that you hate him as well.

6. Constantly talk about George Orwell. Quote from Animal Farm or 1984. Do not worry about the fact that Orwell never set foot in the Soviet Union and both of those books are novels.

7. Quote massive death tolls without regards to demographics or consistency. 3 million famine deaths? 7 million? 10 million? 100 million deaths total? You need not worry about anyone checking your work, which is good for you seeing that you probably haven’t done any.

8. Everyone ever arrested under a Communist regime was most likely innocent of any crime. Communists only arrested harmless poets and political prophets who had a beautiful message to share with the world.

9. Everything Stalin did or didn’t do had some sinister ulterior motive. Everything.

10. Keeping with the spirit of #9, remember that Stalin was an omnipotent being, perhaps an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu, who had full awareness of everything going on in the Soviet Union and total control over every occurrence which took place between 1924 and 1953. Everything that occurred during that time was the will of Stalin. Stalin knew the exact details of every criminal case that took place during that era and out of his boundless cruelty, had tons of innocent people shot for no reason regardless of where they were or their position in life. Being omnipotent, he was not dependent on information passed up from tens of thousands of subordinates.

11. Constantly attack ‘Communist’ regimes for actions that occur in capitalist regimes up to this very day.

12. Claim that Marxism is utopian because of its description of a possible future society. Alternately claim that Marxism failed because it never gave a detailed description of how a Communist society would look. Do not pay attention to the massive contradiction here.

13. Start referring to Marxism as being some kind of religious faith, Messianic, or whatever other spiritualist bullshit you can come up with. When people point out that you can draw similarities between virtually any political ideology and other religions, ignore them.

14. Remember the one-two anti-Communist attack: Attack the post-Stalin system on economic grounds, and claim it just doesn’t work. Since an informed opponent will most likely point out that actual socialist economics did indeed work during the Stalin era, and in fact worked very well, attack that era on human rights grounds.

15. Two words – Human nature. What is human nature? For your purposes, human nature is a quick explanation why political ideas or systems you don’t like are wrong.

16. Bolshevik revolutions were carried out with violence and bloodshed. Bourgeois revolutions were all carried out by democratic referendums, and there was no violence whatsoever.

17. Use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ constantly. Do not accept any challenge to define these terms.

18. Communists can be for or against whatever is popular in your particular area. If you are preaching to a right-wing crowd, Communists are for degeneration and homosexuality. If you are preaching to a more mainstream audience, Communists were homophobic. Essentially, Communists are for moral degeneration and puritanical prudery at the same time. Again, do not notice the contradiction.

19. Constantly flog Stalin over the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, while totally ignoring massive support and collaboration with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan on the part of America, Britain, and France, long before the war and even after in some ways. As usual, do not allow your opponent to examine the context of the non-aggression pact.

20. Praise the newfound “freedom” of Eastern Europe. Ignore the massive depopulation via migration, plunging birthrates, huge alcohol and drug problems, political instability, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking and child prostitution, organized crime, high suicide rates, unemployment, disease, etc. Who cares about all that when you have freedom of speech?!

21. Constantly talk about the culture of fear in Communist nations, about that ‘knock on the door’ in the middle of the night. Ignore the ‘kick in your door in the middle of the night, stick a shotgun in your back, and haul your ass out of bed etc. because you are suspected of dealing,’ a normal occurrence in the American War on Drugs.

22. Attack Communists for suppression of religion. Attack Islamic fundamentalists for not being secular. What contradiction?!

23. Do not notice the irony that the US is currently fighting an incredibly expensive, losing war against an opponent which it funded, supported, and even handed its first victory in Afghanistan.

24. What should you say when confronted with all the continuing and often worsening problems in the world today, and asked for a solution? FREEDOM!! (Repeat as necessary until your opponent goes away)

25. Nothing from “Communists” can be trusted. Unless it somehow works in your favor, ala Khrushchev’s ‘Secret Speech’ from 1956, or anything Trotsky wrote.

26. Communist leaders were ‘paranoid’ for devoting so much time to security against counter-revolution. Ignore the mountains of evidence, including the restoration of capitalism in the East Bloc, that this threat was indeed real.

27. Communist regimes were never popular. If proof is presented in various cases to show otherwise, claim that the people were brainwashed. Make no effort to consider the budgetary and logistic constraints on such an undertaking.

28. Communist propaganda is crude and primitive. If someone mentions Red Dawn or worse, mentions the J. Edgar Hoover-endorsed comic book series known as The Godless Communists, run away.

29. Praise secularism in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘pluralism’ until faced with a Communist. Then play the religion card.

30. Atrocities and other bad things that happen under non-Communist regimes are the fault of individual ‘bad people’. Anything bad that happens under a ‘Communist’ regime is the fault of the ideology and system. And Stalin.

31. Being an anti-Communist means not having to have any sort of ideological consistency whatsoever. Preach populist left-wing pseudo-socialism 90% of the time, and then compare the capitalist system to “Stalin’s Russia”(if you never really studied the subject, just read 1984 and Animal Farm). Bitch about capitalism 99% of the time, but balk when someone suggests Communism as an alternative. Far right wing Fascist? Constantly bitch about cultural degeneracy under capitalism, while remaining fanatically opposed to Marxism for no discernable reason save for your affinity for historic nationalism.

32. If you’re an anarchist, keep pointing out the ‘failure’ of Marxism while ignoring the fact that your ideology has a 100% failure rate throughout its entire history. Blame those failures on Communists, or stronger military powers. Ignore the fact that the most wonderful society is worthless if it can’t defend itself from reaction.

33. Neo-Nazi? Communism is Jewish!! Debate over.

34. Neo-Hippy? Tibet!

35. Constantly condemn the genocide that allegedly occurred under Mao, while ignoring the US’ relations with China established by Nixon, and the massive role capitalist China has played in the modern US economy. When you want to talk positively about China, it’s a capitalist country. If you need to criticize it, it’s still ‘Communist’.

36. Claim Marxism is not empirical. Neither are neo-liberalism, ‘democracy’, or ‘freedom’, but don’t worry about that.

37. Always insist that despite the location, country, historical era, past experience, and all other factors, Communists must want to recreate a modern-day copy of Stalin’s Russia, and all that entails according to you. Do not notice the inherent idiocy in this concept, such as your particular country being already industrialized, and not having a historical problem of severe backwardness.

38. Learn to use the magic word ‘totalitarian’. This word allows you to link two ideological opposites, Communism and Fascism.

39. Ignore the fact that socialist states experienced more economic problems parallel to the number of market reforms they made.

40. When challenged about numbers or historical context, resort to labels like “ruthless tyrant”, “cruel murderer”, and such. Remember, people like Stalin were mass-murderers because of all the people they killed, and we know they killed all those people because they were mass-murderers. It totally tracks!

Feudalism and Hollywood

As with all things, art and class struggle are related. As far as revolutionary content, television is absolutely the worst, because it is entirely state and monopoly controlled. Even in liberal Hollywood, which romanticizes the bloodthirsty limb-chopping feudalism of the Russian Czar and the Dalai Lama, filmmakers still have more autonomy than those who produce TV shows. The main television channels in the imperialist countries are the worst purveyors of reactionary drivel. Television offers no audience interaction with the directors, only the final products.

Hollywood loves feudalism, whether it’s “Anastasia,” “Seven Years in Tibet,” “The Last Samurai” or every Disney flick ever made. Psychology is a social product, and under a system which teaches you to think of yourself as a king, standing alone and “getting yours,” what more can be expected but a romanticizing of the period of “rule by divine right,” no matter how many eyes and limbs might fly by?

Jello Biafra Cancels Israel Show, Attacks Boycotters

Jello Biafra, "Democratic Socialist," tool of apartheid

The former lead singer of the Dead Kennedys has pulled out of a planned concert in Tel Aviv this weekend, but says he will still go to Israel.

Jello Biafra, who was set to play in Tel Aviv for the first time on July 2 with his band the Guantanamo School of Medicine, said the cancellation absolutely did not mean he or his band were endorsing or joining a boycott of Israel.

Instead he delivered a blistering attack on the boycott, divestment and sanctions groups, including one called “Punks Against Apartheid”, who campaigned for him to cancel.

He also said he refused to be “a poodle for Hasbara, Peace Now, BDS or anyone else”

Mr Biafra said he would still go to Israel and Palestine “to check things out myself” and may yet change his mind about his decision.

He said his only intention in going to Israel had been to do some good, and criticised those who attempted to stop him.

“What about the people on the same side of the human rights fence we are, who now don’t get to see us play?” asked the punk star. “Should they be boycotted too?

“I’ve been doing this long enough to know better than buy into hardline absolutes such as playing in Israel automatically supports apartheid or Israel’s government. That threat is ridiculous.”

Palestinian victims of Israeli white phosphorus - less important than Jello Biafra's pocketbook.

He condemned the way in which discussion about playing in Israel had descended into a “childish bickerfest” from both Palestinian and Israeli groups, and noted that many of the “Punks Against Apartheid” petition signatories had no idea who he was.

He added: “I can’t back anyone whose real goal or fantasy is a country ethnically cleansed of Jews or anyone else, where people who think for themselves or talk to the wrong person are automatically a sellout.”

“Speaking personally, I currently favour two democratic states in the admittedly naive hope that in our lifetime they can somehow evolve into one.”

Boycott poster from the era of South African apartheid.

About A Certain Newspaper

Newsweek is a weekly newspaper. It has achieved something amazing in its years of existence, in that is has managed to be one of the most widely read and cited papers in the country while undoubtedly being one of the least deserving of such an honor. The substance of the paper is, in form, quite up to the American “standard,” with news, articles and cartoons dripping with nationalist propaganda and imperialist slant, but in content astoundingly and insultingly simplified even by US media standards. It is the only mainstream newspaper that has the reputation of being written on a second-grade level. Many times its articles pander to eclectic, preachy “both sides are right” politics (the kind we’ve learned to expect from such imperialist trash like South Park), while at the same time remaining firmly planted in the camp of the bloodthirsty bourgeoisie, and of course reading as if it was written by lobotomized monkeys.

As an example, one if its most famous and popular issues, after 9/11, whined from the cover “Why Do They Hate Us So Much?”

One would regard such an idiotic publication with nothing more than scoffs and dismissal if it were not so widely read and available, and if its headlines and so-called “opinions” were not do die-hard reactionary and anti-socialist, not to mention anti-leftist. Yes, we have here a center-right paper with a sneering and smug “left” and “moderate” veneer of the goodwill-towards-your-slaveowners-and-executioners and –shake-hands-and-make-up type. How typical.

Thoughts on Postmodernist Attitudes

Kipling, Conrad and Robert Louis Stevenson all address the colonial experience through a hermetically sealed bubble of subjective, individual unreality. Alex Garland in The Beach, Chuck Palahniuk in Fight Club and Bret Easton Ellis in American Psycho all explore the emptiness of bourgeois ideology in modern urban man within this same bubble, frequently arriving at the most reactionary and hedonistic of places. Why are they reactionary?

Let’s take a novel as an example. Ellis’s novel The Rules of Attraction consists entirely of stream-of-consciousness rantings from a revolving door of different narrators. As might be expected, each narrator has his/her own voice and subjective take on things.

The characters themselves are all incredibly empty and tainted by what can only be called “selfishness,” and they all find solace in hedonism through drug abuse and promiscuous sex. Do I even need to say all of them are secretly depressed and feel hollow, corrupted and lost?

What does this plot mean? Either this is supposed to be a representation of the state humanity under bourgeois ideology finds itself in (which would be a progressive work), or, more likely, it is meant to be a moralistic social critique of the state of young people today with the idea that they should “correct themselves” by falling back into the places alloted for them by the dominant social order.

Fight Club fares even worse. It starts off as an idealist “liberal” critique of consumerism, which then evolves into a promotion of primitivism and secular humanism, and then of course takes its petty-bourgeois ideas to their logical conclusion at the end, where it becomes an essentially fascist and militarist work.

Most entertainment today does this sort of thing — showing a world that has no meaning with all the class interests and prejudices that entails.

Never have intellectuals and artists displayed the hubris they show here, attributing to themselves the power to arbitrate all meaning. In the postmodernist movement, their celebration of complexity and ambiguity becomes a form of boundless egoism. Richness of meaning, which sounds good to most of us, cannot take the form of no limits on meaning, which would amount to meaninglessness.

For more information, see: Samuel Beckett. (Yes, ANY of his works.)

As Marx said, the dominant ideas of any era are the ideas of its ruling class. What does this culture say about the class nature of our society and what class interests does this movement represent? It is a petty-bourgeois, or small landowner or producer, way of thinking.

Why is this? Generally speaking, the petty-bourgeoisie, when tackling a problem, thinks in a subjective and one-sided way.

He does not practice Marxist dialectics, which analyzes things concretely and rationally from every possible angle in order to get an objective and complete picture of reality, but instead starts from his own wishes, preconceived notions and subjective desires about how actual conditions should be.

People who live in imperialist countries, intellectuals or more privileged strata of society (wealthier people, whites, petty-bourgeois) who are detached from the concrete conditions of reality often think in this way, because they have only book smarts and lack practical knowledge.

What the idealists, the postmodernists and the “free speech” advocates fail to understand is that a man’s mind is not his own. Who would deny that in each society throughout history man has operated in personal relations independent of their own will?

One of the chief discoveries of the science of Marxism, and materialism in general, is: it is not consciousness that determines reality, it is reality that determines consciousness. To imagine that the mind alone, in this case the individual mind, and the will, in this case that treasured idealist concept of the “free will,” can change reality based only on its own individual wishes is the most vulgar form of bourgeois and capitalist ideology.

How is this inherently capitalist ideology? Since subjectivism and relativism (“nothing is true, it’s all just in your mind”) is the logical ideology of late industrial capitalism, where individualism has taken its toll and everything becomes dependent on what you think, rather than what exists. This sort of thinking is also beneficial to capitalism, since it fuels the “I can make the world my own” attitude of the small producer.

This is reflected especially in the idea that scientific and materialist minds are somehow “intolerant” or “imposing” by subjecting others’ beliefs to the scientific method. This view ignores the fact that it doesn’t matter at all what one thinks of reality; what matters is what is objectively true and what is not.

The argument is frequently made that if the individual believes it hard enough or passionately enough, then it must be true. Hence, “religion is objectively true for religious people.”

Putting aside the fact that this so-called “objective truth” is therefore neither objective nor truth, this whole capitalist and postmodernist way of thinking digs its own grave.

To expand on this, here are a few key points to consider, that MUST be conceded:

  1. Reality functions and exists outside man’s own individual mind. This must be a given, since if one individual dies, reality does not cease to exist. Therefore reality is separate from the individual.

  2. Reality is not changed by the individual mind alone. If someone is falling from a cliff, wishing it is not so does not make it stop. Similarly, no matter how hard you wish it, you cannot push your hand through a solid wood table. You can imagine it, but the fact remains that your molecules repel the molecules of the wood. Even if you got two people together, one who admitted he could not pass through walls, and one who was absolutely convinced he could, the fact could still be shown objectively that both of them were incapable of it. The man who believed he could pass through walls would not be able, materially, to cross into the next room.

  3. If reality is separate from the individual mind, and is not affected by it, we must then admit that the two can disagree and be completely parallel.

  4. If we admit that the two can disagree, then there must be such a thing as concrete objective truth and mere fantasy. If the desires of the mind were the same as reality, then they could never be separate.

  5. Therefore, what is true and existing can only be measured not in wishes, but in matter.

  6. Finally, if all of the above is true, then we must say that not everything the individual mind believes is true, and that in order to be proved true it must pass the scientific method.

From these points, we can see that there are perceptions that are correct, right and actually existing, and there are those that are incorrect and not actually existing.

Logically, if something cannot be weighed or measured, it does not exist. Otherwise the very concept of “not existing” becomes moot, since the sole definition of “not existing” hinges on not being able to prove that it DOES exist.

Why? Because it is impossible to prove a negative. It is impossible for me to prove that something can’t be done.

Likewise, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. So the only definition that there can be for not existing is the absence of proof that it does exist.

For example, it would be impossible for me to prove that there are not pink dragons flying everywhere, except for me to point out the absence of material evidence: no sight of them, no feeling of wind from their wings.

Conclusion: the capitalist ideas of relativism and postmodernism are bankrupt. Reality exists outside the individual mind, and there are right ideas and wrong ideas, as well as true and false ideas.