A History of the king's Bodyguard

 

 Last month I was invited to a lecture held by a local History society, the speaker was a member of the King's Yeomanry (whose full title is King's Guard of the Yeoman of the Guard), which functions as his bodyguard, though nowadays the police and army do much of the grunt work of guarding the Monarch. It was well attended, as a republican I have no interest in the pomp and "grandeur" of the Royal family and its institutions, but I do enjoy history, and I was curious to see how someone who has devoted themselves fully to it acts and what case they'd put forward. I decided I wouldn't ask hostile questions, if I did ask a question it would be purely for clarity. In the end, he answered most of my questions before I asked them.

The speaker is a former Army serviceman and from a Yorkshire Mining town, there's a stereotype of Yorkies being a bunch of militant socialists, I've experienced enough of them to know that isn't true, though it was still a little weird to reconcile that accent and attitude with constant deference to privileged poshos. Just seemed wrong to me. The historical part of the talk was quite interesting, the King's bodyguard was first established in the aftermath of the death of Richard III at Bosworth field, the victorious Henry VII was quite shaken seeing Richard hacked to pieces and resolved not to let that happen to him. So, in effect, one of the most important institutions in a system of unquestioned obedience was started by a rebel and regicide.

The talk continued up to the present day, some interesting titbits include that despite serving under several Queen's Mary, Elizabeth I, Anne, Victoria etc. It wasn't until Elizabeth II that they changed the rules to call themselves protectors of the Queen. Another bit I found interesting was that the reason why a deceased Monarch's coffin is carried by the Grenadine Guard and not the King's Yeomanry is because they dropped Queen Victoria's dear Albert, and thus lost that "privilege". Another interesting bit that caught my ear was that up to 1830 civilians were allowed to purchase positions within the Yeomanry and used it as a source of enrichment, either by getting the King's ear or by paying attention at court and profiting through insider information. The speaker did not give specific examples of this corruption, but he did mention expeditions to Australia and the Virginia Colonies were influenced by this system, which was a brief reminder that the Monarchy was an active and key participant in the Imperial expansion with its evils of war, plunder, slavery etc. Afterwards membership of the Yeoman of the Guard was restricted to serving military, first the army then eventually expanding over the years to include all branches of the Armed Forces, eventually expanding to allow service women to join.

Currently, the membership of the Yeoman of the Guard is around 200 members, including a number of retired and pensioned members. The speaker wanted us all to appreciate that the money for the Guard comes directly from the King, not the government, not the public, but the King personally. Of course, this raises the question of where the King gets his money from, but I promised not to start an argument. We all know where the King gets his money from, either the British public, or his massive commercial holdings, which he has thanks to the British government so again the British public, or straight up dodgy dealings with foreign super wealthy.

 But a fraction of this money goes to the Guard for their service, though there is a difference between retired and pensioned, only 14 Yeomen have a pensioned paid by the King, the rest don't get anything until one of the fourteen die. That's not my words, that was the speaker's words. Again, I could've asked him why the King doesn't pension all retired Yeoman's since ceremonial duties aside they are still expected to get a bullet or dagger for him. But again I held my tongue, and as reward received even more evidence of the King's penny-pinching and ingratitude.

Eventually we got to the part where Elizabeth II died and the funeral arrangements. It was quite brutal, the Speaker and his fellow Yeomanry had to work 24-hour shifts fulfilling all the requirements of the ceremony. If you're wondering how they managed that, they worked on a rotation basis with a break every hour, but they couldn't leave or get proper rest because they would be needed to go stand by a door or a corner of a room or next to some painting or artefact or crowd management. In addition, they had nowhere to sleep when they did get some time off. He showed us photographs of them slumped in chairs because Mice would run over them if they slept on the floor. The death of Elizabeth II was an important event in the history of the Monarchy and yet despite the thousands of flunkies working overtime to get the event just right, no one thought to get some of the hundreds of unused rooms in the palace prepped for rest. 

Or perhaps, they just didn't care, while he was telling us anecdotes about the funeral he recounted one where the new King Charles came into the rodent infested room full of exhausted Guardsmen slumped in chairs and made no effort to improve their lot. The whole talk gave me feelings like I was in another world, this man was gushing about the Monarchy, but he never said anything I would consider worthy of praise or admiration. The Monarchy at best seemed distant from him even when he was in the room with them, and at worst completely uninterested in his welfare or the service he was providing. His sword forged by Wilkinson's Sword was nice, it put my 1934 German Policeman's Sabre to shame, and his uniform that resembled a Beef Eaters looked fancy, but I imagine it's a nightmare to clean, my old Cadet dress uniform was, and it was made in the 20th century. But apart from getting to go to some Royal Garden parties, which the majority of them have no King in attendance, there wasn't anything he said that I could even parse as reason for any of this nonsense to continue to exist. I did not even get a sense that he liked, and respected the current King Charles, he and his wife had a couple anecdotes about Charles's mother that seem like they were supposed to be endearing but when Charles was mentioned it was purely as an acknowledgement that he is the current holder of office.

 It was an interesting talk, but my object to understand what lies within the minds of the Crown polishers remains elusive.

 

This was unrelated but while writing this I found this poster in an Archive

What is to be Done? By Errico Malatesta

 "What is to be done?” is the question that, more or less intensely, always troubles the minds of all men struggling for an ideal, and urgently comes back in moments of crisis, when a failure, a disillusionment induces one to re-examine the tactics adopted, to criticize possible errors and to seek more effective means. Comrade Outcast is right to bring up the question again and invite the comrades to think and decide about what to do.

Today our situation is difficult, and even dreadful in some areas. However, he who was anarchist before, remains anarchist after all; although we have been weakened by many defeats, we have also gained a valuable experience, which will increase our effectiveness, if only we are able to treasure it. The defections occurred on our side, which were actually rare, help us after all, because they rid us of weak and unreliable persons.

So, what is to be done?

I am not going to dwell upon the unrest occurred abroad against the Italian reaction. Certainly we can only expect benefits from anything that helps the proletariat of the world to know about the true conditions of Italy and the incredible infamies that have been committed and keep being committed by the bourgeoisie cops in order to stifle and destroy any emancipatory movement. We just read about an international rally of protest against fascism, that took place in New York on the 18th of the current month — and we are sure that our friends and those who have a sense of freedom and justice will do whatever they can in America, England, France, Spain, etc.

However, we are mainly interested in what is to be done here in Italy, because this is what is to be done by us. Although it is good to take into account all the auxiliary forces, it is very important not to rely too much on others, and seek our well being in ourselves and our own work.

In recent years we have approached the different avantgard parties with a view to joint action, and we have always been disappointed. Must we for this reason isolate ourselves, or take refuge from impure contacts and stand still trying to move only when we have the necessary strength and in the name of our complete programme?

I think not.

Since we cannot make the revolution by ourselves, i.e. our forces alone are not sufficient to attract and mobilize the large masses necessary to win, and since, no matter how long one waits, the masses cannot become anarchist before the revolution has started, and we will necessarily remain a relatively small minority until we can try out our ideas in the revolutionary practice, by denying our cooperation to others and by postponing the action until we are strong enough to act by ourselves, we would practically end up encouraging sluggishness, despite the high-sounding words and the radical intentions, and refusing to get started, with the excuse of jumping to the end with one big leap.

I know very well — if I had not known for a long time I would have learnt recently — that we anarchists are alone in wishing the revolution for good and as soon as possible, except some individuals and groups that champ the bit of the authoritarian parties’ discipline, but remain in those parties in the hope that their leaders will resolve someday upon ordering a general action. However, I also know that the circumstances are often stronger than the individuals’ will, and one day or another our cousins from all different sides will have to resolve upon venturing the final struggle, if they do not want to ignominiously die as parties and make a present to the monarchy of all their ideas, their traditions, their best sentiments. Today they could be induced to that by the necessity of defending their freedom, their goods, their life.

Therefore we should always be prepared to support those who are prepared to act, even if it carries with it the risk of later finding ourselves alone and betrayed.

But in giving others our support, that is, in always trying to use the forces at the disposal of others, and taking advantage of every opportunity for action, we must always be ourselves and seek to be in a position to make our influence felt and count at least in direct proportion to our strength.

To this end it is necessary that we should be agreed among ourselves and seek to co-ordinate and organize our efforts as effectively as possible.

Let others keep misunderstanding and slandering our goals, for reasons we do not want to qualify. All comrades that seriously want to take action will judge what is better for them to do.

At this time, as at any time of depression and stagnation, we are afflicted by a recrudescence of hair-splitting tendencies; some people enjoy discussing whether we are a party or a movement, whether we have to associate into unions or federations, and hundreds of other similar trifles; perhaps we will hear again that “groups can have neither a secretary nor a cashier, but they have to entrust one comrade to deal with the group’s correspondence and another to keep the money”. Hair-splitters are capable of anything; but let practical men see to taking action, and let hair-splitters in good faith, and those in bad faith above all, stew in their own juice.

Let anyone do whatever they like, associate with whoever they like, but let them act.

No person of good faith and common sense can deny that acting effectively requires agreeing, uniting, organizing.

Today the reaction tends to stifle any public movement, and obviously the movement tends to “go underground”, as the Russian used to say.

We are reverting to the necessity of a secret organization, which is fine.

However, a secret organization cannot be all and cannot include all.

We need to preserve and increase our contact with the masses, we need to look for new followers by propagandizing as much as possible, we need to keep in the movement all the individuals unfit for a secret organizations and those who would jeopardize it by being too well-known. One must not forget that the persons most useful to a secret organization are those whose beliefs are unknown to the adversaries, and who can work without being suspected.

Therefore, in my opinion, nothing that exists should be undone. Rather, it is a matter of adding something more; something with such characteristics as to respond to the current needs.

Let nobody wait for someone else’s initiative; let anyone take the initiatives they deem appropriate in their place, in their environment, and then try, with due precautions, to connect their own to others’ initiatives, to reach the general agreement that is necessary to a valid action.

We are in a time of depression, it is true. However, history is moving fast nowadays: let us get ready for the events to come.

Everything to Play For Review

 

Marijam Didžgalvytė (Marijam Did) has a book coming out in Autumn called Everything to Play For, How Videogames are Changing the World (EPF). I was one of the lucky few to be given an advance copy. My deadline for getting my notes into shape was extremely tight but I found the book an engaging read, EPF is a mix of autobiography, artistic review and criticism, sociological research, consumer activism, history of workplace organising and appeal for further activism and resistance to build a better gaming industry as part of a better society for everyone.

The book covers plenty of ground, and despite its grand scope EPF is newbie friendly - gaming terms are explained when they first appear in the text. Did’s target audience appears to be people who are committed left wingers of one stripe or other but are not into games or are sceptical of them and possibly even hostile to them. There are several passages lamenting the arbitrary treatment of games compared to film, art, literature etc. While every game terminology and technology is explained left wing terminology is only explained if it’s somewhat obscure. For example, the Situationist concept of Derive (Drift) is explained for the reader but Did’s usage of Historical Materialism is not.

I share Did’s frustrations on common left wing disdain for games and the blind spots that come with it. I’ve experienced the disapproval and belittling attitude first hand and I’ve been trying to chip away at that wall of disinterest for some time in my own small way. I was surprised when Organise expressed interest both in my writing and commentary about games in general as that is not a typical response for an older established platform. Film, music and literature are staples of left wing critical commentary, and entire schools of thought have risen to prominence pondering the impact of these media institutions on the minds of the working masses, but videogames are still shut out of those conversations. EPF’s publisher is Verso books, which is both another positive sign of change and a good platform to reach the audience of sceptics. Did makes an effective case that to ignore one of the largest industries on the planet is to seriously undermine any strategy for resistance to capitalism and hinders attempts to construct a world that is free from the exploitation and violence of infinite growth and productivity improvements.

The games industry is a major contributor to land clearance, modern slavery, resource depletion and pollution. If we wish to stop hyper-exploitation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other regions of the world we can’t limit ourselves to illegal logging and conflict diamonds, we have to challenge the role of tech and game companies in cobalt and other mineral mining. Tens of thousands of people around the world are employed in the games industry and just like their fellow workers on the docks, in the fields and factories they are exploited, overworked, underpaid, harassed sexually, bullied, fired on short or no notice, and through their labour create products that they will not own and will enrich someone else. Their struggles are just as worthy of moral and practical support.

Ignorance of these areas also presents the danger of sleep walking into a trap as the cultural, social and psychological effects of the lessons learnt in the gaming industry seep out into areas of our society and personal lives that at a glance are completely separate from the world of point winning and level climbing. Gamification is marketing buzzword, but annoyingly and dangerously it’s a buzzword that describes a real process that has proven time and again to be quite effective, at least effective at generating profit. The impact that the logic of video games being exported outside its traditional sphere is something we don’t fully understand yet as the process is still in early stages, but its quickly becoming inescapable even for those who have never touched a joystick and only use keyboards and mice for writing emails and browsing videos of cats being random. My audio book and podcasts apps recently added medals and experience points as an example of the future fast approaching.

All of these issues and more are summarised and examined in EPF, there’s lot of blood, sweat and tears that go into making plumbers jump up and down and hedgehogs collect shiny rings, and sadly that is often literal. I’ve never experienced crunch time developing a video game but I’ve experienced similar conditions in a factory, and its mind, body, and soul draining work, so I can empathise with conditions for game developers. There’s plenty to critique and lament in gaming spaces and the industry that shapes it right now, and EPF could easily have been another entry in the growing left wing genre of political pessimism, pointing out and cataloguing at length the many faults of the world as it is and then despairing about how insurmountable it all is. Thankfully EPF is not like that, although it does catalogue the many faults of the world as it is. It also credits the successes, games that engage politically with their players and raise awareness of issues, the growth of video game and tech worker unions, independent developers and games co-operatives that are experimenting with new ways of working that promote sustainability, collaboration and equability in compensation and decision making. EPF couples these positives with outlines of a potential better future for gaming that more support from the wider left could assist in making a reality sooner.

EPFs vision of a possible future is not a blueprint and there are parts of the puzzle that remain unanswered by the end of the conclusion. To me that isn’t a detriment; the history of the schools of socialism is littered with impressive schematics that breakdown and become obsolete within a year. The remaining ambiguities in EPF leave room for independent thought, and there were points in the text where Did asked a question and while reading I thought of a rough outline of an answer or potential avenue for discussion and examination. I really hope that in the near future I will find enough time to start writing some of them.

I’m not in the target demographic (well I am partially in that demographic - I am convinced that we need a revolutionary overhaul of society after all), but I’m not new to games and I doubt anyone who reads Red & Black Gamers would need the definition for a LAN party. If that’s the case should you still read EPF? I would hope that I’ve already answered that question, but just in case I’ll be blunt: yes, yes you should. I consider myself a well-informed gamer who has documented issues within the industry and supported early attempts at resistance, and yet I’ve learnt quite a bit, both new examples and some more information or another perspective on cases and incidents I was already aware of. To pick just one example I was aware of the game Dead Cells, but was not familiar with its studio Motion Twin nor that it is open about its support for Anarcho-Syndicalism.

“Follow games industry unions on social media and support their calls for action. Enjoy and encourage artistic experimentations in this field and support smaller creators. Do not dismiss political action within these spaces as isolated aberrations, but engage with them, give them merit, be curious.”

Is it a perfect book? No, but I don’t believe those exist and my negative notes were trivial, so I won’t bother including them as just mentioning them would give them greater weight than they merit. I think EPF is good contribution to the discourse about video games and I hope it proves to be a successful step in the process of getting video games as an industry, and as a subject for criticism, resistance and improvement out of the lefty sin bin and into the mainstream. Getting it on the bookshelf is a good start.■

Reddebrek
You can find more of Reddebreks writing and reviews on their website: reddebreksbowl.blogspot.com

Pre-orders of "Everything to Play For" are available from Verso Books with 20% off, £13.60 paper book / £8 Ebook which shipping commencing on 17 September.

Anti-Fascist Ballots?

 

You can tell a meme is worn out when the jpeg gets blurry

 It's election time in the United States, this means that many people are understandably worried about the results. Unfortunately, this means that a tired historical myth about elections and fascism. The argument goes something like "fascists come to power due to apathy". With the implication being that we must hold our noses and quash our principles and rally around a compromise administration and candidate. 

On paper this seems perfectly logical, the snag is that it simply isn't true, Fascism doesn't bother with electoral niceties when it comes to the struggle for power. And today I will demonstrate this fallacy with a quick history lesson.

 “A massive resistance not having been possible in 1933, the best of those at the heart of the
workers movement had to disperse their forces in a guerrilla war without hope. But if,
from this painful experience, the workers movement, the workers will draw from this
the lesson that only united defence at the right moment is effective in the struggle
against fascism, those sacrifices will not have been in vain”. FAUD member Ernest Binder in 1946

Prologue: Fiume 1919

We start our history of Fascism with an Italian despot, just not the one you're thinking of. General Gabriel D'Annunzio dictator of the free city of Fiume. After the First World War the map of Europe was redrawn. Part of that redrawing involved Italy giving up control of the city of Fiume to the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Incensed by this, the former socialist now ultranationalist D'Annunzio called out his troops and attempted to force the annexation of Fiume to Italy.

Italy refused to take Fiume back which left D'Annunzio in an awkward position, so he tried to turn lemons in lemonade by building an independent regime where he was. He instituted the first program for a Corporatist state, which was heavily copied by the Italian fascist movement. He also popularised the black shirts for political thugs and the act of torture by force-feeding of castor oil, which in some cases doubled as a form of execution. The Fascist* petty republic was defeated in 1920 by the Italian military after D'Annunzio's attempts to spread his vision through war failed to take off. 

D'Annunzio with his voting block

1922: Italy

 "Our program is simple, we want to rule Italy" Benito Mussolini

The blackshirts march on Rome, they meet very little resistance from the Italian authorities, the governing coalition of liberal and conservative parties collapses and King Emmanuel III offers Mussolini the position of Prime Minister, which he accepts. There had been a general election in Italy one year earlier in 1921, the Fascists won just two seats with less than half a percent of the votes cast. 

Party		Votes	%	Seats	+/–
	Italian Socialist Party	1,631,435	24.69	123	−33
	Italian People's Party	1,347,305	20.39	108	+8
	National Bloc	1,260,007	19.07	105	New
	Democratic Liberal Party	684,855	10.36	68	−28
	Liberal Party	470,605	7.12	43	+2
	Social Democracy	309,191	4.68	29	−31
	Communist Party of Italy	304,719	4.61	15	New
	Italian Republican Party	124,924	1.89	6	−3
	Reformist Democratic Party	122,087	1.85	11	New
	Combatants' Party	113,839	1.72	10	−10
	Lists of Slavs and Germans	88,648	1.34	9	New
	Economic Party	53,382	0.81	5	−2
	Independent Socialists	37,892	0.57	1	±0
	Dissident Populars	29,703	0.45	0	New
	Fasci Italiani di Combattimento	29,549	0.45	2	New
Total		6,608,141	100.00	535	+27
Valid votes		6,608,141	98.61
Invalid/blank votes		93,355	1.39
Total votes		6,701,496	100.00
Registered voters/turnout		11,477,210	58.39

Mussolini got to work cementing his rule with the active collaboration of politicians from several conservative and liberal parties, so cosy were Mussolini's relations with the bourgeois political establishment that on the 31st of December 1924 his own Black Shirt officers threatened to remove him if he did not step up the pace of dictatorship, by 1925 all parliamentary pretences were gone. His regime is regarded in popular culture as a joke due to its incompetence and poor war time record, but Giacomo Matteotti wasn't laughing when Mussolini had him murdered for publishing proof of Fascist corruption and brutality, nor were the people of Ethiopia when his planes sprayed poison gas or when Italian colonists murdered tens of thousands. Fascist Italy also operated concentration camps in which thousands perished.

Italian soldiers posing during the burning of a village in Croatia 1941

1923: Spain

General Rivera and King Alonso XIII

I accepted the military dictatorship because Spain and the Army wanted it to put an end to anarchy, debauchery and the surrendering weakness of political men. I accepted it as Italy had to embrace fascism Because communism was its immediate threat. And because of energetic therapy had to be used against the malignant tumors that we suffered in the Peninsula and in Africa.

King Alonso XIII interview with the Daily Mail 1924

 

General Primo de Rivera with the support of the King and the army establishment topples a liberal cabinet and rules as dictator until 1930. Rivera attempted to establish a Corporatist state in Spain and improved relations with Mussolini. In 1925, he established a Civilian Directorate, a sort of parliament which included direct representation for Spanish business interests he also collaborated with the Catholic Church on programs for patriotic and "correct" ideas amongst the population. 

Oh, and he also cracked down on the usual suspects, Spain's minorities, people who spoke Basque or Catalan, the Anarchists in the CNT etc. Not the Spanish Socialist party though, their leadership collaborated with Rivera and were represented in his officially approved Cortes (parliament) and Largo Caballero was made Minister of State for Labour. 

The repression and declining economy lead to growing opposition and a fracturing of Rivera's support base, in 1930 the King was forced to sack him, too late to save himself he too was soon looking for another job as Spain's second Republic was established.

1926 Portugal

 'I consider more urgent the creation of elites than the necessity to teach people how to read.

Antonio Salazar

Portuguese fascist troops attacking the wives and children of striking workers

 

In 1926 the Republic of Portugal was overthrown by a coalition of army officers, the Junta wasn't particularly stable and rearranged itself several times, eventually it rallied round Antonio Salazar who christened the Estado Novo (New State) a fascist regime that ducked out of the Second World War and limped on until 1974 when another uprising of the military toppled in what is known to history as the Carnation Revolution. 

Salazar was yet another Corporatist Fascist, and his regime was as brutal as it was corrupt. He wisely collaborated with the Allied Powers in World II as his government was dependent on trade with the United States of America, this good favour would pay off heavily in the Cold War.
 

  "Every four years, Premier António de Oliveira Salazar preserves Portugal's image as a democracy by blowing the dust off a few selected "opposition" leaders and relaxing police controls just enough for a few weeks to permit them to run for Portugal's 130-seat National Assembly. There are a few cracks in the facade. The assembly functions only as a rubber stamp. The opposition candidates are usually feeble old men left over from a regime that was discredited and overthrown four decades ago, and Salazar decides what they can and cannot talk about" - Portugal Against the Situation Time Magazine 1965

 1933 Germany

As previously discussed, contrary to popular folklore Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933 by Hindenburg who was caving to pressure from his own coalition of support, an alliance of Conservative power brokers, industrialists and army officers. Hitler's first cabinet was dominated by these people, with only a handful of positions for his fellow party comrades. Despite that, the Nazi party was able to integrate its paramilitary the SA with the police nationally and carry out campaigns of active repression within several German states, including Prussia, the largest state in the Republic. This prevented the elections of 1933 being considered free and fair (see photograph) and gave Hitler the access to power that he needed to usurp his coalition partners and build a full-fledged dictatorship that ruled by decree, first using constitutionally guaranteed emergency powers and then getting rid of all pretence. 

I don't think I need to explain the many atrocities of Nazi Germany here, so for brevity I'll just add that in March 1932 Germany held presidential elections, Hitler came second losing out to Hindenburg, who was supported by several parties including the SPD on an anti Hitler platform. Less than a year later in January 1933 appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany. The state and government are not empty vessels waiting to be filled.

This is a police officer with his SA Auxiliary. The photograph is dated 5th of March 1933, which the day of the first 1933 Elections, meaning the SA were already on the streets at that time with police powers

1936 Spain

We're back in Spain, after the Spanish right failed to beat the left electorally in July 1936 the Army rebelled against the government. When the workers also rose up to meet that threat, the coup turned into a civil war. This time the coalition of Catholic fanatics, aristocratic landowners and military officers were joined by the explicitly fascist Falange party. The coalition of the far right was supported by Hitler, Mussolini and Salazar, in the early days of the conflict the army rebels had no access to ports and relied on Portugal as its main supply route. 

Alas, as we all know and lament, they were victorious and the regime of Francisco Franco brutalised Spain into the 1970s. Another victory for bullets over ballots.

1939 Slovakia

 

In the aftermath of the Munich agreement and German occupation of Prague, Hitler decided to create a client regime in Slovakia. Bishop Tiso was appointed with German backing the head of a new administration for a new state the Slovak Republic, this regime collaborated entirely with the Axis, including the invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union and the Holocaust. 60,000 Slovak Jews were deported after being beaten, humiliated and robbed by the Fascist Hlinka guard to give just one example of the fruits of this relationship.

The regime would die in 1944-5 under the twin blows of the advancing Soviet Army and the Slovak National Uprising.

1940 France

Laval was a key backer of Petain and the collaborationist position. Cartoon printed in 1942 in the Chicago Tribune

After the routing of the French army Field Marshal Petain signed an armistice given over the North of France including Paris to German occupation. Oddly the southern part of the country and Algeria and its colonial positions** were allowed to remain quasi independent, in the vacuum of power Petain drew to his side representatives from the various factions of the French Far right including Action Francaise. This collaborationist regime became known as Vichy France, named after the town in which its motley crew of reactionaries set up their government in.

The collaborationist government carried out its own political and social counter revolution, assisted Hitler in his wars with other countries, especially in the East where French regiments took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union and the SS formed the Charlemagne division mostly staffed with French volunteers. Vichy also deported tens of thousands of Jews to their deaths. In 1944 when the German army was expelled from France Vichy collapsed and De Gaulle became the leader of a liberated France. The last Vichy holdouts were defeated in 1945.

Petain and Hitler meet in October 1940 and formally agree to collaborate with each other on many matters

1941 Croatia

In 1941 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was invaded by a mostly German army and occupied and broken up by most of the European Axis powers. Germany, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria were all given territory to annexe and occupy. Parts of Croatia were given over to the Fascist Ustasha movement though with German and Italian support, they also had to accept an Italian royal as their King and formal head of state.

Like their Slovak counterparts, the Ustasha were enthusiastic proponents of their benefactors policies. Vicious campaigns of mass murder against Jews and Serbs were common and crackdowns on suspected partisans saw entire towns and villages destroyed. Despite this campaign of violence resistance continued and the regime collapsed once the German and Italian armies withdrew from the Balkans.

 1944 Hungary

 

The Kingdom of Hungary under the dictatorship of Admiral Horthy was an early member of the Axis and ally of Nazi Germany. Horthy's regime was brutal and reactionary but it kept its local Fascist movement the Arrow Cross Party as a junior partner in its system. That chaged in 1944, the war was going terribly for the Axis powers but especially so for Hungary, the Soviet Army occupied much of the east and the frontline was approaching the capitol city Budapest. Horthy who had joined the Axis to enlarge his Kingdom not shrink it decided to cut his losses and appealed for a separate peace with the Allied powers.

Hitler didn't take break ups well. Instead of withdrawing from Hungary his forces launched what's called a coup de main, which essential a coup from without. Horthy's administration was overthrown and Frenec Szalasi and the Arrow Cross party in there place as loyal stooges to keep Hungary or what was left of it in the fight. This action kept Hungary which was essentially the city of Budapest and the lands around it west of the Soviet advance in the war for 163 days, 102 of which were occupied by the siege of Budapest, ensuring thousands more Hungarians were killed. The new regime also found time to end resistence to the state persecution of its Jewish population as the previous administration bloody as it was had been sceptical of genocide.

In the end Budapest fell, the German army was encircled and the Szalasi and his cronies were hanged.

1967 Greece

Student protestors at Athens Polytechnic

 

When we think of Fascism in popular culture its relegated to the 1930s and WWII movies. Franco and Salazar are viewed as political dead ends hanging from a cliff awaiting their inevitable fall. Unfortunately this is not true, and Greece gives us a clear example of this.  In 1967 a group of army officers with the support of the King seized power. Many of these men had the rank of Colonel and so their conquest is known as the Colonel's Coup and their dictatorship as the regime of the Colonels. 

The relationship between the Fascist officers and the Monarchy quickly soured with the latter trying and failing to launch a coup of his own in December 1967. Thousands were arrested and many were tortured under suspicion of being "Anarcho-Communists". Despite the repression and reluctance by the international order to pressure the new regime too much over its strategic value the Junta failed to push the population into obedience. In 1973 students at Athens Polytechinic (pictured) rose up against the dictatorship. The Colonels responded with the full force of their arsenals, but despite killing 24 people failed to break the rebellion which continued to spread. The regime collapsed soon after in 1974 with its last actions enabling the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus and bringing Greece to the edge of war with Turkey.

1973 Chile

 

 After surviving the Tanquetazo (Day of the Tank), a revolt by a tank regiment and the Fascist fringe group Patria y Libertad, Allende's government was overthrown by another much larger military revolt in that same year. The more revolt on the 11th of September rallied around Augusto Pinochet whom Allende had trusted with ensuring such a military revolt could not happen.

In addition to the insult there were plenty of injuries, thousands disappeared, football stadiums turned into concentration camps, torture and humiliation, assassinations. Pincohet's inclusion in a list of Fascist gets some pushback in certain corners. Some point to his embrace of the neo-liberal economics of Milton Friedman and his students in Chicago as a disqualifying factor, this ignores both the extensive bailouts of the Chilean economy and ownership of industry by the military and the major role and input of private business within the "classical" fascist regimes of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.

It is a fact that the Nazi government sold off public ownership in several
state-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of
sectors; for example, steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways. It
must be pointed out that, whereas modern privatization has run parallel to liber-
alization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework
of increasing state control of the whole economy through regulation and political
interference. - Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatisation in 1930s Germany

It also overlooks the active collaboration by overt Chilean and international fascist groups with the regime. In the fallout of the Tanquetazo's failure Patria y Libertad went underground and officially disbanded after Pincohet's Coup. Most of their members resurfaced within Pinochet's military intelligence units and death squads. And the ailing Franco was an early international supporter of Pinochet's new government, Pinochet returned the favour by being the only foreign leader to attend Franco's funeral in 1975.

Appendix One: An Exception?

"I too am a Fascist" pro-Fascist anti-Dolfuss cartoon

Austria 1930s

For the sake of clarity I've outlined the main body of this article chronologically, in the spirit of conciliation I have given space to what some could consider an example of the electoral rise of fascism. I personally don't consider the following case an example of fascism being voted into power but we'll get to that.

I'm speaking of an Austrian who became Chancellor of a right wing coalition who took advantage of a crisis to become dictator. I am of course referring to Englebert Dolfuss. Dolfuss became Chancellor of Austria in 1932 running a coalition of right wing parties which managed to hold majority of one vote. So, while that's not that impressive he was a fascist with an electoral mandate right? Well, not really no. He was a reactionary nationalist as were most of the politicians in his political coalition but he didn't stand as an overt Fascist on a "give me supreme power for life!" ticket.

Dolfuss the Chancellor became Dolfuss the dictator in 1933 during a constitutional crisis in which the Austrian parliament nullified itself. During that crisis in stepped into the political vacuum with a new political vehicle the Fatherland Front. Dolfuss used an obscure emergency law to justify his rule by decree which was backed up by the army and police who arrested parliamentarians who insisted on trying to run a parliamentary republic. He outlawed all other political groups including the Social Democrats and Austria's Nazi party, the former would be defeated in a three day civil war that they try to ignore until most of their fighters were in prison and the latter launched a slightly more sucessful uprising that failed to put them in power but did suceed in killing Dolfuss.

Dolfuss styled his new movement the Austro-Fascist movement and attempted to build a corporatist state inspired by Mussolini's Italy who was Dolfuss's main international backer. After the demise of Dolfuss the Austrofascists stumbled on until 1938 when Hitler send troops over the border, the regime collapsed with littel opposition and after the Anschluss and the annexation of Austria into Germany was complete most members defected to the Nazis. It would not end well for them, Vienna was split into multiple occupation zones like Berlin until 1955.

Conclusion

This concludes a short summary of the rise of Fascism throughout history. The point is to bust the myth of fascism coming to power through the ballot box, but why is that myth worth busting? I don't wish to present representative democracy as some effective tool for rational government, extreme ideologies find representation all the time including Fascistic parties. It is entirely possible that a fascist movement can tap into enough popular resentment to build an electoral path to victory, it just hasn't happened yet. I'm bursting this myth precisely because I believe liberal democracy to be a poor solution to fascism and and all other forms of extreme reactionary authoritarianism. 

In all of these examples electoral results have no bearing on whether a Fascist group forms a government. They're all imposed by force either from within a country with the active support of several institutions of state or from without via an external force. And in all cases they aren't voted out of office at the next elections whenever they happen to be, but are defeated by opposing forces, whether insurrectionary as in the case of the Partisans in Croatia and Slovakia and Portugal or through the intervention of other powers as was the case in Hungary and France and Italy and Germany, or through massive generalised resistance as was the case in Spain, Greece and Chile.

To believe that Fascism can be voted away is to wilfully blind yourself to the danger of the much more typical path to Fascist control, and it will cripple your ability to resist that regime as you are essentially fighting in only one field electoral politics, which often only exists on paper if at all once the fascist thugs have taken over. 

This credulous faith in liberal democracy is also the reason why despite all its crimes and failures fascism and its fellow travellers doesn't go away. While resistance to fascism has been heroic the struggles of anti-fascism have failed to go beyond the logic of bourgeois society, once the secret police offices are raided and the main butchers hanged the rubble is cleared and elections are held and its back to normal.

The Anarchist partisans of Italy and the Friends of Durruti in Spain were ultimately correct***, the way to defeat fascism is to destroy its support structure and logic for existence, hierarchical relations, exploitative economics and the state and its policing and disciplinary functions. Direct action is the counter to symptoms of fascism and social revolution is the cure for the cause.

Collaborationism is to be deplored at all times. There must be no collaboration with capitalism whether outside the bourgeois state or from within the government itself. As producers our place is in the unions, reinforcing the only bodies that ought to survive a revolution headed by the workers.

Class struggle is no obstacle to workers continuing at present to fight on in the battlefields and working in the war industries. But it is imperative to keep it in mind that we proceed to each new initiative with a class sense, giving the unions the priority that is their due.
Towards a Fresh Revolution, the Friends of Durruti group

Partisans in Venice, April 1945.

 *I suppose I should mention that D'Annunzio never used the label for himself or his followers, which is not surprising as the term was still not in common usage at that point in Italy, but labels aside the connections are obvious.

**Several French colonial governments sided with De Gaul's Free French forces but the majority stayed loyal.

*** Both groups operated within a general resistance to Fascism the Italian resistance and the Spanish Civil War, both argued that fighting to restore a non-fascist Italy and Spanish nation were not worth the sacrifices and ultimately futile. Both groups pushed to expand the conflicts into struggles for a new revolutionary society.

The role of the Political Albatross

 

The UK has had an election, but you can find out about that everywhere else on the net. Instead of adding to the pile of discourse, I am once again ignoring SEO 101 by choosing to write about something only tangentially related to the battle for Number 10, the career politician as a phenomenon.

This has been a topic I've wanted to discuss for some time, but never found the right foothold. I still haven't, but thanks to someone else's hard work, I don't have to. A friend of mine showed me a website (https://www.corbyn41years.com/) made to support former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's bid to stay a Member of Parliament without the backing of his former party. I must stress that I do not know who made this website nor if they have any connection to said campaign, my friend saw it on social media and the interactive map function seems to be broken, it won't let me scroll down to where the authorship information usually is. I am assuming that it was made by a volunteer supporter, but I do not know for sure. Regardless, whoever made this site has my thanks, your list has created a clear foundation to work from. Or at least you would've done had it worked properly*, I'm finding this snapping back really annoying and time-consuming.

The map of Islington North has 26 stops on it. I'm not going to go through all of them, some of them are similar enough that that'd be redundant.

1. Number 5 on the list: "Jeremy's first ever constituency surgery was held at the old Red Rose Centre on Seven Sisters Road in 1983. In the 41 years since then, he has been re-elected X times and has done his utmost to serve constituents and help those in need".
2. Number 6: "In 2015, Jeremy secured the funding for the train line that means you can hop on at Upper Holloway and go to Gospel Oak, or all the way to Barking".
3. Number 7. "Unveiled a state [sic] of Philip Noel-Baker in the Peace Garden, Elthorne Park".
4. Number 8: "After turning a disused railway line into Gilliespie Park, we fought off efforts to close it".
5. Number 15: "Last year, Jeremy stopped plans to close down multiple railway ticket offices.
   
6. Number16: "Jeremy is proud to have joined workers on the picket line fighting to protect their pay and save our public services!"

I could go on, but these are enough to illustrate my concerns. This is a standard CV for a long time MP, especially Number 5, constituency surgeries are a requirement of the job, they're how constituents get in touch with their MPs and petition for help. Holding them is not an achievement for an incumbent. But moving on to the other points above, what this is doing is magnifying the importance of an individual in processes that involve many actors. For example Number 6, I know that Corbyn is a supporter of public transportation, so I don't doubt that he was in favour of keeping the line, but the London overground including Upper Holloway is run by Transport for London, which is part of the Greater London Authority, and MP even one from the governing party (which Corbyn wasn't) has no say on their decisions. The best he could do is support a community campaign.

The statue unveiling in Number 7 is nice but unless Corbyn funded its commission unveiling just means that he was invited to preform a ceremonial role. Number 8 reads like placeholder text, but I've chosen to include it, as I think it's letting slip the truth. The we in that description indicates that instead of "Jeremy" the Titan keeping the park open it was the work of many within the Islington community and which Corbyn played a role. 

Number 15 is what we call a lie. Corbyn did not stop the Tories proposed mass ticket office closures, no individual did, the credit for that should go to a massive nationwide effort involving the rail workers Unions, disability and elderly advocacy groups, large sections of the wider public and the pressure from many MPs including Corbyn, Labour and even a number of back bench Tories who saw the massive groundswell of support for the opposition and panicked. I honestly hope that the Corbyn campaign team had nothing to do with this website, because the gall of taking credit for initiatives like this is sickening.

Number 16, this is far more honest, Corbyn has attended a number of pickets to show his support. But again the praise should go to the picketers, surely?

This is the fundamental problem with career politicians, all of them, regardless of personality or political stances. Their very existence requires them to latch onto wider movements and activism. Their very presence obscures the reality that changes come from below. Hostility and apathy towards politicians is at an all-time high in the UK, but much of it misses the mark by focussing on the perception real or not (but mostly real) that "They" are just cynical creatures out for themselves, we see through Corbyn that even the sincere politicians suck away oxygen. Whoever made this website must be a local resident of Islington and genuinely have wished for Corbyn to keep his seat, but even they have been affected and given power and prominence to a man who at best aided initiatives whose driving forces were in the community and the work force. 

It's a form great man of history in the present day. Don't develop your own capabilities, trust in the chosen few to solve our problems. If we must take action then let us knock on doors at election time, donate to the fund for leaflets, spend our time making websites, all in the service of empowering someone else and given them access to a slither of power so that we trust that they will act on our behalf when the time comes. 

It's just sad.

*In the interest of fairness, my own old blog can creak and break when Google remember to update it.

An Esperantist died at the frontlines in Ukraine - Esperantisto pereis ĉe la fronto en Ukrainio

 

Vadimas his friends would like to remember him

 El Libera Folio

English Version

Vadim Bikov was killed in the last days of May while serving at the front in Ukraine, he was 54 years old. He voluntarily joined the Ukrainian army immediately after the start of the war, and for over two years served in several dangerous hotspots along the frontline. He is mourned by his Esperantist wife, Julia Dmitrieva.

Vadim Bikov was born on the 30th of November 1969 in Soviet Qazaqstan, and spent his childhood in Uzbekistan. He grew up with Russian language media and completed his education in Donbas in the east of Ukraine, and settled there. 

When conflict erupted in Donbas in 2014 Vadim fled to unoccupied territory and joined the Ukrainian army to defend the country whose citizenship he had obtained after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

In February 2022 after Russia launched its full scale invasion of Ukraine, Vadim joined the Territorial Defence and spent some weeks guarding a hospital. However, he wished to rejoin the professional army, but in the beginning of the war there were many volunteers and the lines outside recruitment centres were very long.

For several days, Vadim queued outside the recruitment office as a volunteer, but the authorities announced that everyone in the line must go home because it was not possible to take on any more recruits. The majority of the volunteers obeyed the order but Vadim and a friend remained outside the office. It was close to midnight and the martial law mandated curfew when they were finally able to sign up, and only thanks to both having prior military experience. 

In civilian life, Vadim had been a chef and businessman, he ran a stall in the centre of Kyiv selling baked goods similar to pizza. They were delicious according to the Esperantists who tasted them. During the Summers he sometimes worked as a chef for a chess players camp on an island in the Dnieper River in the middle of Kyiv. These experiences are why he was giving the task of cook in the army.

However, that posting did not mean that his time on duty was without danger. Among the tasks he was assigned included the responsibility of delivering food to soldiers who were close to the enemy, and transportation of supplies was often a dangerous task. In addition, like everyone else, he was often deployed to the farthest perimeter of the frontline and had to guard positions close to the enemy and fire on enemy troops crawling toward the trenches. He described those nights in discussions with his Esperantist friends as the most difficult experiences of his life.

On several occasions, Vadim's Detachment had the difficult task of defending retreating Ukrainian troops after they were forced to evacuate positions that could no longer be defended. Among other things he fought in Severeodonetsk during the intense battles there in May-June 2022, the fighting cost both sides high casualties before Ukrainian forces withdrew at the end of June.

Vadim was a native Russian speaker, but he intensively studied the Ukrainian language and later the English language and Esperanto, aided by his wife Julia Dimitrieva. They met at an English language course that she taught. For Vadim learning languages was a great struggle, and he never learnt to speak Esperanto fluently. Though he still enthusiastically took part in informal events, especially those organised by the younger generation of Ukrainian Esperantists.

On several occasions, Vadim obtained leave from the front and was able to reconnect with friends who always feared that they would see him for the last time. Vadim took part in an Esperanto gathering for the last time just two weeks before his death, he used an internet link in an underground location close to the frontline. He spoke about how he, like the others, did not realise and appreciate how free and rich the pre-war life outside the trenches had been.

On the 26th of May, he stopped responding to his wife's messages. Information soon came that explained that on that day he had been killed by a rocket explosion. His burial was on the 6th of June in Kyiv. His wife and two other Kyiv Esperantists attended the service. Members of the chess club that he cooked for in the Summers also attended, along with thirty of his soldier comrades, some baring prostheses instead of legs.   

 Fine de majo en la aĝo de 54 jaroj pereis ĉe la fronto la ukraina esperantisto Vadim Bikov. Li libervole aliĝis al la ukraina armeo tuj komence de la nuna milito kaj dum pli ol du jaroj servis en pluraj danĝeraj partoj de la fronto. Lin funebras lia esperantista edzino Julia Dmitrieva.

 

Vadim Bikov naskiĝis la 30-an de novembro 1969 en sovetia Kazaĥio kaj infanaĝe loĝis en Uzbekio. Li kreskis en ĉefe ruslingva medio kaj finis la lernejon en Donbaso en la orienta parto de Ukrainio, kie li poste loĝis.

Kiam komenciĝis la milito en Donbaso en 2014, li fuĝis al neokupita teritorio kaj libervole aliĝis al la ukrainia armeo por defendi la landon, kies civitano li iĝis lige kun la disfalo de Sovetio.

Kiam en februaro 2022 komenciĝis la grandskala atako de Rusio kontraŭ Ukrainio, Vadim unue aliĝis al la teritoria defendo kaj dum kelkaj semajnoj gardis hospitalon. Li tamen deziris aliĝi al la efektiva armeo, sed en la komenco de la milito estis multaj volontuloj kaj la vicoj ekster la rekrutejoj estis longaj.

Vadim dum kelkaj tagoj atendis sian vicon por aliĝi al la armeo kiel libervolulo, sed la respondeculoj de la rekrutejo fine anoncis, ke ĉiuj en la vico iru hejmen, ĉar momente ne eblos ekipi pliajn volontulojn. La plej multaj obeis kaj iris hejmen, sed Vadim kune kun amiko plu restis ekster la rekrutejo. Jam ekproksimiĝis la noktomezo kaj la horo de la dummilita nokta elirmalpermeso. Tiam oni fine alvokis ilin kaj registris ilin kiel rekrutojn, ĉar ili jam havis militan sperton.

En la civila vivo Vadim Bikov estis kuiristo kaj entreprenisto – li posedis en centra Kijivo budon, kie oni vendis bakaĵojn similajn al pico. Tre bongustajn, laŭ esperantistoj kiuj ilin gustumis. Dum someroj li kelkfoje laboris kiel kuiristo en tendaro de ŝakistoj sur ĝardena insulo en Dnepro en la centro de Kijivo. Tial ankaŭ en la armeo li ekhavis la taskon de kuiristo.

Tio tamen ne signifas, ke lia deĵorado estus sendanĝera. Al liaj taskoj apartenis porti manĝaĵojn al la batalantoj tre proksime al la malamiko, kaj la transportado de la manĝaĵoj ofte estis tre riska entrepreno. Krome li samkiel ĉiuj devis gardodeĵori ĉe la absoluta frontlinio kaj regule pafi kontraŭ la malamikoj kiuj rampe proksimiĝis al la tranĉeo. Tiujn noktojn li en diskutoj kun esperantistaj amikoj priskribis kiel la plej malfacilan sperton de sia vivo.

La taĉmento de Vadim plurfoje havis la tre danĝeran taskon protekti la retiriĝon de ukrainiaj trupoj, kiuj estis devigitaj forlasi siajn ne plu defendeblajn poziciojn. Li estis interalie en Severodonecko, kie en majo kaj junio 2022 daŭris intensaj bataloj kun grandaj perdoj ambaŭflanke, ĝis fine de junio la ukrainaj defendantoj pleje fortiriĝis.

Vadim estis denaske ruslingvano, sed intense studis la ukrainan lingvon, poste la anglan, kaj poste ankaŭ Esperanton, helpe de sia edzino Julia Dmitrieva. Ŝin li renkontis pro kurso de la angla lingvo, kie ŝi estis instruisto. Lerni lingvojn por li estis granda peno, kaj li neniam lernis tute flue paroli Esperanton. Li tamen kun granda ĝuo regule partoprenis precipe en neformalaj aranĝoj de la juna generacio de ukrainaj esperantistoj.

Kelkfoje dum la milito li havis forpermeson de la fronto kaj povis renkonti amikojn, kiuj ĉiam timis, ke ili lin vidas la lastan fojon. Lastfoje Vadim partoprenis en kunveno de esperantistoj nur du semajnojn antaŭ sia pereo, per retligo el ia subtera ejo proksime al la fronto. Li parolis pri tio, ke li samkiel aliaj ne komprenis kaj aprezis, kiel riĉa kaj libera estis la antaŭmilita vivo ekster la tranĉeoj.

La 26-an de majo li ne plu respondis al mesaĝoj de la edzino. Baldaŭ venis informo, ke en tiu tago li pereis pro raketa eksplodo. La enterigo okazis en Kijivo la 6-an de junio. Ĉeestis krom la edzino du aliaj esperantistoj el Kijivo. La ceremonion partoprenis ankaŭ anoj de la ŝakoklubo, ĉe kiu li en iuj someroj laboris kiel kuiristo, kaj trideko da liaj soldataj kamaradoj, kelkaj el ili kun protezo anstataŭ gambo.

 

The Weakest Defence of Leon Trotsky I can muster

 

Daily Mail 1925, Trotsky returns to work in the Communist Party

 

I don't care for Leon Trotsky, I don't agree with his ideas, I don't care for his writing, and the anecdotes of him as a person leave me unmoved. I certainly don't approve of his tenure in government*. Nevertheless, Leon Trotsky is blessed in that many of his critics are some of the worst people around and their arguments are just awful. This includes the antisemites who peddled anti-Jewish conspiracies, but I'm mainly talking about his most vocal critics, the Stalinists and their offspring. 

While he was still alive, Trotsky and his apostles were libelled heavily in the Moscow affiliated press and this legacy has evolved to the present where Leon Trotsky the man might as well be a fictional character, a mythological dragon that must be slain by the virtuous Knight on his quest to saving the Kingdom from calamity.

People just make up any bad thing about him. My stance is why bother? Leon Trotsky the real person had plenty of evidence for his condemnation, but I'm in danger of wandering from my point. I'm not particularly interested in defending Trotsky, his open defenders are just as bad as his Stalinist accusers. Unfortunately, The false staining of Trotsky sets a precedent, if they can get away with making up crimes and accusations with Trotsky who is both comparatively well-known, well-documented and in some small circles well liked, then the many other revolutionaries of the period who weren't so fortunate have no chance of being taken as they were.

An artists impression of the "Merciless retribution" Trotsky ordered in Astrakhan and elsewhere.

 

Outsiders are often puzzled by the sheer volume of hatred thrown Trotsky's way, how could one man deserve a brutal murder and decades of teeth-gnashing? For Stalin and his offspring, Trotsky became a sort of Anti-Christ figure, he opposed the correct teachings (usually scoffing over utopian idealistic world revolution) and the correct leader (Stalin and occasionally Lenin when the accuser has read a few approved histories of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) and as such he became the number 1 enemy. In the 1930s, Trotsky was denounced as a spy for the Nazi party and the small cluster of Trot parties were publicly denounced as "Trostky-Fascists". This line would be used in 1937 in Spain to justify the fratricidal campaign of extermination against the P.O.U.M. who were neither Fascist collaborators nor even Trotskyists, Trotsky had little to do with that party and what few followers in Spain he did have belonged to much smaller groups such as the Bolshevik-Leninists. 

The witchhunt against the POUMists was carried out in order to show that both inside and outside Russia the friends of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, etc. were a gang of counterrevolutionaries, agents of fascism, enemies of the people, and traitors to the fatherland, who had to be shot in whatever country or region. And also in order that the suspicious should put aside their objections. It was not Stalin’s personal phobia that caused the extermination of the old guard – the case of Spain proved it. Here, in a democratic country, ruled by a Popular Front, here too they were being unmasked and executed as traitors. I grasped the political ‘motive’ easily. What I didn’t imagine – I was not long in finding out – was the criminal lengths to which the GPU’s henchmen were capable of going in the struggle against the men of the ideological opposition.

How the NKVD framed the POUM.

And the sad truth is that the false accusations instead of weakening as our access to sources improves, it seems to have got worse. I now see self-declared "Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries" and "Maoist Cadre" repeat total fables that even the gutter red press didn't stoop to. Many seem to have genuinely convinced themselves that the arch-traitor Trotsky moved to Mexico City as some kind of evil plan to corrupt and destroy the USSR. 

So, I'll address that in the hopes I can to puncture a few of these balloons of ignorance. Lenin as we know died in 1924, his health had been deteriorating for several years prior to that, which meant leadership of the Communist party and the Nation(s) of the Soviet Union increasingly fell to the collective leadership of its highest positions. Alas, they all hated each other, differences of opinion and personality quickly grew into factional disputes and struggles, with Trotsky eventually losing out to Stalin. Before Stalin's anointment as the personification of socialism, Trotsky spent several years increasingly on the outs. In 1925, he was manoeuvred out of his position at the People's Commissariat for War, ending his military career and cutting off access to the powerful military establishment. Shortly after, he was given three comparatively minor chairmanships for the Concessions Committee and both the electro-technical and scientific-technical board. In his autobiography, Trotsky puts a brave face on this time, claiming he was taking a break from politics and that he threw himself into his new work.

It didn't work out for him, in that same book he accuses Stalin and Molotov of actively sabotaging his new positions and by 1926 Trotsky is trying to take back power by allying with Zinoviev and Kamenev. Well, according to Trotsky, they crawled back to him after opposing him earlier. Did I mention that I'm not a fan of Trotsky's writing or character? This marriage of convenience also collapses, with Stalin gaining even more ground, Trotsky blames this partially on a high temperature, I struggle to give Trotsky the benefit of the doubt in his own words, but I have also made the mistake of giving a presentation while burning up, and he did take a trip to Berlin for treatment so while I won't go so far as to call Trotsky's warm brow his opponents "most steadfast ally" it certainly wouldn't have helped. 

To cut the story short, Trotsky survived both his temperature and his political defeat in 1927, his punishment initially was internal exile in Almaty in Qazaqstan. But not for long, on the 31st of January 1928 he was kicked out of the Soviet Union and his time wandering the globe began. His allies Zinoviev, Kamenev etc and his followers who remained in the country would in time experience the full weight of the repressive machinery that they had built. By the time of the great purges 1936-38, most of them would be executed. Trotsky would not be too far behind. On the 20th of August 1940, Operation Duck was successfully completed, the Spanish NKVD agent Ramon Mercader beat Trotsky to death with an ice axe, which is different from an ice pick which is commonly credited as the murder weapon.

The Ice Axe in question

 Its poetic that Trotsky's face was eaten by a Leopard he fed and nurtured. Trotsky was more than willing to send secret policemen and firing squads against his own Trotsky-Fascists. But, that's often not what's happening when you see a meme celebrating making "his ears burn". The sad truth is while there are differences between Trotskyism and Stalinism and Leninism and Maoism, there isn't that much water between them. To all them the Soviet Union with its secret police, political courts, dictatorship of officials and expansionism are vehicles for revolutionary transformation. Both Trotsky and Stalin were involved in the invasion and occupation of Ukraine, both were heavily involved in the failed invasion of Poland, Stalin's actions in particular are often seen as key to their defeat in that war. There's lots of hot air about World Revolution vs Socialism in One Country but the actual differences between these two doctrines is rarely brought up and often I get the impression the two sides don't even know what their own position is in depth. 

No tears for Trotsky, no need to lie about him either.

* It's usually at this point that Trotskyists start downplaying and belittling the Kronstadt Commune, even though I did not mention it. It's quite annoying to be on the receiving end of this pre-emptive revisionism, though I find bringing up the massacres in Astrakhan shut them up.