*********************************************************************************My interview with Kerry Bolton is accessible here. (http://voiceoftherevolution.blogspot.com/2017/03/interview-with-kerry-bolton-author-of.html) he was able to answer some questions and clear-up some of his thinking expressed in the book. He was very gracious in taking the time to answer my questions, and I sincerely appreciate it.
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (New Edition)
Kerry Bolton
Black House Publishing
£12.00
In January of this year, Dr. Kerry Bolton’s “Stalin: The Enduring Legacy” was re-released as a ‘new version,’ of which the author was completely un-aware of (although it has since disappeared from Amazon.com, where I originally purchased it). Bolton’s volume, which contains praise of the famed Soviet leader, is of an ilk I can almost guarantee you have never encountered before. To start off with, the author, Kerry Bolton (of “The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion In Context” fame) is a national-Socialist, that is, the same ideology that Communists have long found abhorrent and ‘fascistic’. That a far-right author is writing an enthusiastic book about Stalin is bizarre, but the ‘surprises’ continue.
The publishing house, Black House Publishing, is “one of the most prolific neo-fascist publishers coming out of Europe” according to Anti-Fascist News. Their other titles include “public domain Nazi books”, such as the Programme of the NSDAP, as well as “My Life” (Oswald Mosley), “The Psychotic Left” (another Bolton production), “False Gods” (Adolf Eichmann), “Germany Speaks” (Joachim von Ribbentrop), and “Essays On Fascism” (Benito Mussolini). Anti-Fascist news has accused Black House of trying to “confuse Anarchists” by re-publishing certain older, public-domain volumes that could be used to support Rightist thinking.
In an almost ‘how many contrary statements can I write-fashion,’ the back cover of “Stalin” features this text:“Stalin: The Enduring Legacy” considers the “Man Of Steel” in a manner that will outrage dogmatists, both Left & Right, Stalinist Russia is reassessed as a state that transcended Marxism, and proceeded on a nationalist and imperial path rather than as a citadel of ‘World Revolution’.Stalin reversed many early Bolshevik policies re-instituting, for example, the traditional family. He abolished the Communist International, championed ‘realism’ in the arts and rejected post-1945 US plans for a ‘new world order’. Despite so-called ‘de-Stalinization’ after his death, the Soviet bloc continued to oppose globalism, as does Putin’s Russia. “Stalin: The Enduring Legacy,” examined the anti-Marxist character of Stalinism, the legitimacy of the Moscow Trials against the ‘Old Bolsheviks’, the origins of the Cold War, the development of Trotskyism as a tool of US foreign policy, and the question of Stalin’s murder…”
It is clear from perusing the back of the book, that this is going to be a narrative that differs radically from the official history of the Soviet Union. The overall effect of the book, and its many claims, can make one feel disoriented and overwhelmed (especially if one is a traditional Marxist), but there are some uncontested truths in what Bolton writes. These truths may make both pro-Stalin and anti-Stalin Communists uncomfortable, because it disrupts the symbolic mapping and ideological assumptions that “Stalin” as a man, a concept, and a ‘Leftist Psychopath’ that have long been assumed to be true. “Stalin” maintains that if you are a fan of Stalin, you most likely are for the wrong reasons. He is not a ‘Leftist hero’. In fact, according to the book, Stalin should be seen not as a Leftist figure at all, but as a ‘conservative’, nationalist, traditionalist Rightist. This is obviously unorthodox and now we will examine the factual edifice that Bolton yokes his claims to.
The Foreword to the book already associates Trotskyism, the main oppositional current within Communism during Stalin’s life, with the United States and specifically the Washington government. According to this Rightist idea, Trotskyism was perpetrated on Russia by the West (and specifically the United States) as a method of destabilizing the USSR, re-Bolshevization, and of inviting finance capital to plunder Russian lands. Bolton writes that Stalin, above all, was a Russian nationalist (he was Georgian), and that Trotsky represented the pre-Stalin Bolshevik tendency toward internationalism, ‘cosmopolitanism,’ modern as well as commercial art, and plutocracy. Stalin is “folkish”, whereas Trotsky represents “rootless cosmopolitanism”, which was a unique locution first presented by Stalinist voices as a code-word for “Jewish”. Jews, scattered about the lands as they were, in many places were seen as outsiders (or intruders at worst). Several regimes, dating back the Dark Ages had seen these ‘people without a home’ as potential ‘fifth columns’ within polities. As a consequence, pogroms, persecutions, and holocausts were inflicted on the Jewish people, which had raised the ire (and jealousy) of native peoples due to their wealth and banking interests.
In this book, Trotsky is consistently associated with Jewishness and this idea of the ‘rootless cosmopolitan’, as compared with Stalin the strong man-of-his-principles who represented and propagated ‘authentic’ culture of the Russians. The foreword goes on to say that “Stalin” reveals “the unquestionable integrity of Stalin as a nationalist leader” and that the ontologically ‘true/real’ value of the Cold War was not Capitalism versus Socialism, but Nationalism ‘of the soil’ versus rootless, American-led ‘globalism’. The constellation of Kerry Bolton’s book requires the reader to completely re-orient the notions, concepts, and markers they had learned previously. It would be a perfect example of ‘alternative facts’ if that moniker did not carry with it an automatically- negative connotation. The book is nothing less than a complete alteration/rejection of the common narratives of Stalin, whether they are American or Communist (and, according to Bolton, these were the same interests!).
It is not only Trotsky that is bereft of a connection ‘with the soil’, but America as well, suffering from “its separation from the native European soil and culture.” (1) To see Jackson Pollock, Leon Trotsky, the Rockefeller family, flax-seed merchants in France, a ‘British super-spy’, Christian Rakovsky, and Bertrand Russell as falling along the same axis of power is certainly unique, if only digestible through the lens of the ‘globalist conspiracy’.
The introduction begins with probably one of the least controversial statements found in this book: “Joseph Stalin’s legacy continues to haunt geopolitical developments across the world.” It is true, that for Communists/Marxists and for those who see parallels between Vladimir Putin and Iosef Stalin, this ‘haunting’ is true. Certainly for those who read Žižek, who constantly refers to and quotes Stalin ‘as if he were the latest philosopher’ (in the words of one memorable Amazon.com reviewer), Stalin retains some relevance. But in the grand scheme of things, Stalin is fading into the past. The number of people who lived under his reign are dwindling. The number of Stalinist holdouts is small and growing more irrelevant with the passing of the Socialist bloc. Is Stalin really relevant to people outside of the far-Left? Apparently, according to people like Bolton, Stalin is, in fact, relevant but moreso to today’s ‘traditionalist’ Right.
Says Bolton on page 3, “His individual resolve placed Russia on a course to national greatness by reversing the Bolshevik-Marxist psychosis that would have reduced Russia to chaos and destroyed the very soul of the Russian people.” Excepting the ‘soul of the Russian People’ part (how could one honestly quantify that?) let us challenge this statement. Yes, Stalin was a major ‘personality’ as we would say today. His stature in the empire was unique, his power unquestionable, but it is important to point out that he ruled within the Bolshevik confines. He did not dis-establish the Soviet Union (that was up to Parliamentarians in 1991), he did not publically repudiate the goal of Communism or the actions of ‘building Socialism’. On the contrary, he instituted the kolkhoz (collective farm) system vigorously and often violently. He log-jammed this Leftist and collectivist ideology onto the countryside, while throwing out the ‘bourgeois specialists’ who would have been needed to provide expertise on large-scale farming. He demolished churches, most notably the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in 1931. He actively worked to bring down the rule of the church, to show clerics and everyone, that the power of the Party, the power of the state was above all. How this adheres to ‘traditionalism’ is not found in the book, as the kolkhoz and The Church are not discussed.
To answer one of the early charges of the book that, during Stalin’s reign, the Soviet Union revised its internationalism and instead followed a strictly national course, I will quote a blog post of mine that indicates exactly the opposite: Under Stalin, the USSR was involved in countless interventions, attempting to establish total control of certain parts of the world. Stalin’s rule specifically can be cited for these--China (Xinjiang,especially), Mongolia, Spain, Finland, and Romania (pre-Communist.) Also consider this from “GOD- Chapter 8 (Ethnic Cleansing)”, a blog post I wrote last year:
“Reading the story of Saul & David, I can't help but feel that there is a large similarity with another group of seemingly-heartless political leaders: Stalin & his underlings in Eastern Europe. I have always been very interested in the various manifestations of Marxism throughout history, but in particular as of late, the Soviet Union & its particular system of what Erich Fromm would call 'vulgar Marxism' has been very much on my mind...The authoritarian principle was strong in YHWH, & it is strong in Stalin & co. Unknowingly following in YHWH's footsteps, Stalin & his successors in the Communist Party Of the Soviet Union played king-maker for a variety of Soviet satellite states, with these victims/victors:
Adyg-Tyulyush Kmechik-Ool - Tuvan People's Republic - Executed in a Stalinist purge
Dogsomyn Bodoo - Mongolian People's Republic - Killed in purge with Soviet support
Tseren-Ochiryn Dambodorj - Mongolian People's Republic - Suspected Soviet poisoning.
Olzin Badrakh - Mongolian People's Republic - Executed in Moscow after being removed by Soviets
Peljidin Genden - Mongolian People's Republic - Installed with Stalinist support; executed in Moscow after being removed with Stalinist support
Zolbingiin Shijee - Mongolian People's Republic - Executed in Moscow after being deposed
Banzar Javyn Baasanjv - Mongolian People's Republic- Purged @ behest of Soviets & executed
Dashiin Damba - Mongolian People's Republic - Rose to power carrying out Soviet-inspired purges
Yumdaagiin Tsendbol - Mongolian People's Republic - Formerly a Soviet agent, deposed by USSRThe Mongolian PR suffered some of the most severe Soviet interventions during the 20th century, with several leaders being shipped off to Moscow & executed.
Spain during its Civil War - The Soviet Union intervened, intensely concerned with controlling the Republicans rather than leading them to success in the war. KGB agents assassinated non-Stalinist Leftist leaders, with the funds being funneled through the Comintern. Fought allies in the 'Popular Front', including allied Anarchists, Trotskyists, & others, instead of fighting supposed 'enemies' on the Right.
Ja'far Pishevari - Azerbaijan People's Government - Azerbaijani Democratic Party created by order of Stalin, intended to assume leadership of Soviet-occupied Iran under the name Azerbaijan People's Government. Pishevari's government fell after Red Army troops withdrew. Pishevari died in a car accident that may have been orchestrated by the KGB.
Kim Il-Sung - Democratic People's Republic of Korea - Selected by Soviets to run the North Korean party. He accepted reluctantly. His descendants still chair the party to this day. Stalin made what would be perhaps his most lethal foreign policy decision with the appointment of Kim Il-Sung ('One-star Kim') to lead the North Korean party.
Józef Unszlicht - Provisional Polish Revolutionary Comittee - Led a Soviet-Sponsored government-in-waiting for Poland. That attempt failed to last, & he was purged & executed in the Soviet Union.
Pawel Finder - Communist Party of Poland (Underground) - One of three Communist agents parachuted into Nazi-occupied Poland to re-start the Communist Movement.
Władysław Gomułka - People's Republic of Poland - Deposed by Soviet Union
Bolesław Bierut - People's Republic of Poland - Appointed by USSR as head of government-in-waiting for Poland & to head newly-created Stalinist party in Poland. Died in mysterious circumstances after attending Kruschev's anti-Stalin speech. It is said that the Stalinist Bierut was 'so shocked' by the speech that he had a heart attack.
Stanisław Kania - People's Republic of Poland - Forced to resign by Soviets after he was heard being critical of the Soviet Union by recording equipment.
Georgi Dimitrov - People's Republic of Bulgaria - Allegedly poisoned by USSR
Vitali Holostenco - Romanian Communist Party - Soviet Union deposed him & was he was purged & executed.
Alexander Danieliuk-Stefanski - Romanian Communist Party - Deposed by Comintern & purged & executed by USSR
Gheorghe Gheorgiu- Dej - Socialist Republic of Romania - Most likely killed by Soviet Union during Moscow visit. His alleged murder was one of the few times the Soviets were able to play a decisive role in the politics of the Socialist Republic of Romania.
Alexander Dubček - Czechoslovakia - Deposed by Warsaw Pact Invasion. Was purged & spent the rest of his career in forestry.
Hafizullah Amin - Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. USSR sent intelligence agents to assassinate Amin in concert with their invasion of the country
Babrak Karmal - Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - Flown in by Soviets from Prague to Kabul to head the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Soviet forces had assassinated his predecessor, & they needed a replacement to run the country. He did not live up to their expectations, & they removed him from power.
Mohammad Najibullah - Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - Selected by the Soviet Union to run the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan after they removed Babrak Karmal. One of the least stable of Soviet Satellites, Socialist Afghanistan was chaotic from the start, & the cost in maintaining the government is sometimes cited as a factor in the fall of the Union”
Bolton’s focus in the book beside Stalin as an ‘anti-globalist’ was his struggle against ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’, The ‘Moscow Trials’, The Cold War, Trotsky, and then his death. It is this constellation of concepts that string together Bolton’s portrayal of Stalin as a conservative hero. Bolton, again on page 3, admits that he “contends that had it not been for Stalin, we would have been living under a one-world state decades ago,” and cites the ideas of Bertrand Russell, The League Of Nations, and The United Nations as evidence of this embryonic world establishment that was only halted, single-handedly, by Stalin. Kerry Bolton contends that, after World War II, the United States intended to use the United Nations to subsume the entire world under its domination, creating the literal ‘New World Order’ and that it wanted to include the USSR in its projects, only as a “junior partner.” The fact that American Empire favoured the so-called gendarme strategy of overthrowing governments in quick special operations and installing rulers loyal to Washington, backed by American military power during the Cold War is not discussed. It is as if Bolton really believes that the ‘world-government’ would actually include an entire-world nation with the only borders being natural ones. Is this not the same fantasy as the Communists?
In the first section of the book proper, “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism”, Bolton accedes that “The notion that Stalin ‘fought communism’ at a glance seems bizarre.” (3) I would think most readers can’t disagree with that. He continues, “Many on the Left regarded Stalin’s Russia as a travesty of Marxism” (5). Can’t disagree with that either. And enter the villain of our tale (which is almost-universally the part that Stalin usually occupies): “The most well-known and vehement was of course Leon Trotsky who condemned Stalin for having ‘betrayed the revolution’ and for reversing doctrinaire Marxism.” (5) After introducing our cast, Bolton moves on to his treatment of ‘The Moscow Trials’ or ‘The Show trials’, the name given to the highly-publicized and ornately-orchestrated judicial proceedings that occurred in Moscow several times in the 1930’s. Those put on trial were not German Nazis, or remaining ‘Whites’ from the Civil War. Nor were they the class-enemy the “bourgeoisie” (which could be said to have been extinct by that time in Russia.) The defendants in the Moscow trials were Party officials, and not just two-bit functionaries, but huge figures of Soviet governance. These included revolutionaries from 1917, GPU leaders, Central Committee members and other proud Bolsheviks. The entire ‘old Bolshevik’ generation was either sent to labour camps or executed, to the extent that Trotsky was the only one who had seen 1917 with his own eyes and remained free by the eve of the 40’s (Apart from Stalin, of course). According to Soviet authorities at the time, the Union was endangered, almost constantly, and with increasing-speed by varying groups of conspiracists. Bolsheviks were tried as ‘collaborating with foreigners to bring down Socialism’, as ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, as Zionists, as Titoists, or just as ‘left’ or ‘right’ deviationists. The charges were endless and flexible, and that was the point. Authoritarian law is left vague enough so that authority has the flexibility to snatch anyone, at any time from freedom. Most in the West laughed at the notion that wealthy peasants, hundreds of doctors, Stalin’s most trusted advisors (notably excepting Beria), foreign leaders installed by him, and the entire old generation of Bolsheviks were all plotting against him and the Soviet Union. In fact, it would seem to be an impossible feat. What other government or polity was to have been so opposed as the Soviet Union? The USSR created more ‘traitors’ than any other nation on earth.
These purges were seen as ‘show trials’ in the West, but Kerry Bolton takes them seriously, at face value, and quotes Lawyer’s Associations and the British ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time, whose impressions of the event were positive. The quoted witnesses to the show trials portray them as orderly events, where the accused invariably took responsibility for his ‘crimes’ and even as a “freewheeling debate”. Is that not exactly what a ‘show trial’ is? It is a ‘judicial procedure’ only in facade. In actuality, the ‘outcome’ of the tribunal was determined from the start-- all brought up were guilty. But how was that possible? No other government in the world had created so much traitorism. The numbers and the stature of those accused render the Moscow Trials unbelievable. What did this say about the Soviet Union that it was producing the most rebellious (but sneaky) ruling class, possibly of all time?
In examining the phenomenon of ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’, Bolton positions it as being served and duplicated by American culture, specifically Abstract Expressionism, which was exemplified by Jackson Pollock (whom Bolton alleges was funded by the CIA for these purposes.) “‘Cultural imperialism’”, he writes on page 29, “is a primary means of imposing the American Dream’ over the world.” One cannot help but think bringing up Hollywood films (which actually *have* had demonstrable connections with the CIA and military over the years) or even ‘rebellious Rock N Roll would serve better the case for ‘American cultural imperialism’ tending to form the ‘new world order,’ but Bolton goes for Abstract Impression. Bolton singles out 1949, “the same year that America launched a decade’s long world offensive in the arts, Chernov (a Soviet Ministry of Culture functionary) returned to and developed Zhadnov’s theme, and termed cultural degeneracy ‘rootless cosmopolitanism.’” (29) According to Kerry Bolton, “the term is precise in describing the character of artistic nihilism. Rootless cosmopolitans produce their art as narcissists detached --rootless- from any cultural heritage” How is this possible? How could any human being develop or express artistic ideas and concept ‘rootless’ from any culture? We have an understanding today that the idea of the ‘individual auteur’ is as much a cultural phenomenon, contingent on social circumstances and time period, rather than that of a ‘rootless’ individual who simply acts alone. Even thinking a true ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ is possible is naïve individualism in and of itself, representative of an almost ‘tabula-rasa’ view of human nature. That we can ever be ‘emptied’ of culture at all is redolent of the type of individualism of ‘gilded age’ America, not the cynical, disaffected Expressionists of the 20th century.
Every source I have read, both anti-Soviet and ones that treat the Soviet Union with ‘kid-gloves’ all refer to the uses of ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ as a political code-word for Jews. It was being utilized in a period of anti-Trotsky fervor (Trotsky was a Jew) and also at the end of Stalin’s life, when some believe he was planning a major assault against Jewish Bolsheviks. This is touched on in Bolton’s book, where he mentions the rumour spreading in the Jewish community of the time that Stalin was preparing to export the Jews en masse to Siberia (There is to this day an Autonomous Jewish Oblast in Siberia.) He died, thankfully for the Jews, right as this was about to occur.
Bolton, in furthering his argument that Trotsky was a tool/agent of American ‘New World Order’ states that “Trotsky has been published by major corporations, and is generally considered the grandfatherly figure of Bolshevism. Footnote: One of Trotsky’s publishers was Secker and Warburg, London, which published the Dewey Commission’s report, The Case Of Leon Trotsky, in 1937. The proprietor, Fredric Warbur, became head of the British section of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.” (55) Both the Dewey Commission and the Congress For Cultural Freedom play large roles in the case that Bolton is attempting to make. The Dewey Commission, which was undergone while Trotsky was in exile in Mexico, was designed to ‘prove’ that Trotsky was innocent of the charges of Stalin’s judicial system. From Bolton’s point of view, it was a sham from the very start, and supported by American corporations afterward via publication. The very attitude that people usually display toward the Moscow Trials is how Bolton reacts to the Dewey Commission.
The Congress For Cultural Freedom was one of many American ‘fronts’ for the intelligence establishment, intended to spread American influence throughout the world and to combat the Soviet bloc. In Bolton’s imaginary, this organization, by sponsoring exhibitions of American Abstract Expressionism, was not just showing off American “freedom of expression”, but was actually weaponizing Abstract Expression in the fight for the New World Order. How effective Pollock paintings were in regime change is debateable.
Bolton’s allegations of Pollock are as follows: “Jackson Pollock, the central figure in Abstract Expressionism, was sponsored by the CIA’s Congress For Cultural Freedom. He had worked in the Federal Artist’s Project, 1938-42, along with other Leftist artists painting murals under Roosevelt’s New Deal regime.” (30) This, receiving funding from the government, like several thousand artists do to this day through the Endowment For The Arts, and working as part of the FAP is enough for Bolton to centre Jackson Pollack as a Cold Warrior.
Here he also situated Trotsky as associated with the CIA: “Given that the manifesto (of Abstract Expressionism) was published in The Partisan Review, which was later to receive subsidies from the CIA, Trotsky’s provided the basis for the CIA’s ‘cultural cold war’” (32). It is long-shot associations such as the one above that characterize Bolton’s entire work. One can go along with and try to believe Bolton’s narrative, that Trotsky and the United States were on the same side, that the United States was halted in established the NWO by Stalin single-handedly, and that Stalin was not given a fair shake by history, but these are only believable if you jettison everything you have previously learned or read about the topic. It is true that because of some of his policies, he could be seen as more Conservative than the previous leader. But Stalin was hardly a consistent Conservative -- he quite simply destroyed the traditional life of the Russian peasant, instituted a police state of no precedent, perhaps anywhere in the world at any time, and broke families apart by using the secret police and GULAGs. What is Conservative or traditional about that?
To revisit the allegation that “Trotsky has been published by major corporations”, this is hardly exceptional. Right now, one can order Marx’s “Capital” by Penguin, Lenin’s “Essential Works” by Dover. I could order Mao’s “Quotations” from Amazon Digital Services immediately on my Kindle. Known bastion of revolution, Scribner, offers Fidel Castro’s Autobiography. Gramsci is published through NYU. Rosa Luxemborg is published by Dover. Clearly there isn’t any connection between ‘corporate’ publishers and some sort of lack of Communist veracity. Were all of these authors in on the conspiracy of the New World Order? Simply put, these works are seen as products, like any other, and they sell them to make profits, even if the content in the books would have their assets collectivized and their wealth taken from them. Didn’t Marx teach us that the Capitalist will sell us the noose that we would hang him with?
In fact, it would have been more suspicious if one of the major political celebrities of that time were *not* published by a major house. Trotsky was a writer, and needed to make a living as well as propagate his ideology (Which, I assure you, was not pro-capitalist ‘new world order’) and in the capitalist countries this would fall to the mostly-corporate publishers who moved big volumes of books by known personalities. This is similar to how memoirs are sold today.
One of the points that Bolton makes, which is actually extremely cutting (and true) is that Trotsky himself, as a leading Bolshevik at the inception of the Soviet Union, was partly-responsible for the formation of the very legal system that tried him in absentia (55). Although, just a few pages after this very sane point, Bolton, again seeing a conspiracy, writes “The guilt complex of Stalinist tyranny is supposed to keep Russia subservient like the guilt complex over Hitler in regard to Germany” (57) as if Stalin has simply not gotten his ‘fair-shake’ from history. Like Stalinist Russia itself, Bolton finds conspiracy after conspiracy as the reason most people believe the things they do about Stalin, including the belief that he was a Communist. Bolton comes across as believing that people would not naturally recoil at the information of Stalinist crimes, that they had to be cudgeled into thinking they were negative, inhumane, or unfair by the vast NWO conspiracy, which included Trotsky. People, especially those on the Right, as well as Liberals, did not need Trotsky to point out to them why they should disapprove of Stalin’s acts. He gained the infamy on his own accord.
Bolton says in the 4th section of the book “Trotsky, Stalin, and the Cold War,” that Stalin and Khrushchev could only “aver to the association of Trotsky with foreign powers...albeit vaguely” because to fully point out the (alleged) association of Bolshevism with ‘foreign capital’ would undermine “the founding myth of the USSR as being the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’” (93) This is provided as the reasoning behind why the leaders themselves never publicly took many of the views that Kerry Bolton espouses in this book. Conveniently (for Bolton), he doesn’t have to ‘aver’ himself to the standards of what people actually said and expressed in their writings. I don’t know if Mr. Bolton has read Stalin’s “History Of the Communist Party Of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course” but it paints the picture of an absolutely-committed Communist, firmly believing that the Bolsheviks (not just himself, but the party, as well) had a grand mission in the scheme of History. What Bolton has to rely on is the fact that some Fascists had endorsed Stalin during his reign, and sometimes pursued policies that would be considered Rightist (though his ‘re-instituting the traditional family’ charge is wholly ridiculous when one considers what ‘The Terror’ did to families.)
Bolton, also in this section of the book, makes connections between the early Bolsheviks/Trotsky and other ‘undesirable’ figures. It seems Trotsky was the most well-connected, yet powerless man in the world! Bolton writes that Trotsky had connections to “British super-spy Reilly, and bankers such as Aschberg, who served as a conduit of funds to the Bolsheviks…” (96) He also alleges that Trotsky was released in 1917/8 from British custody, to join the revolution that was on-going in Rus only after them holding him on suspicion of being a German spy. Then Bolton alleges that this ‘suspicion’ could also be the British way of averting the gaze from their ‘agent’ Trotsky (Bolton doesn’t answer the question as to why this ‘agent’ of Britain would be leading the Red Army against British forces just months later.) The Red Cross? Also a conspiracy. He states of the Red Cross in Russia, “The real purpose of the American Red Cross Mission in Russia was to examine how commercial relations could be established with the fledgling Bolshevik regime, as indicated by the fact that there were more business representative in the Mission than there were medical personnel.” (100)
If this list of alleged conspiracies is exhausting you, imagine what reading the book is like. It is difficult to keep integrating the far-flung accusations, and then Bolton’s attempts at proofing through long-winded explanations into one’s consciousness. He says of Christian Rakovsky, an early Comintern figure, (later purged) “Rakovsky, as instructed, met several French industrialists, including the grain merchant Louis Dreyfus, and the flax merchant Nicole both Deputies of the French Parliament...Rakovsky even then alluded to his belief than an accord between Hitler and Stalin was possible” (105) Wow, an accord between Hitler and Stalin?! What an outrageous belief……...that actually happened in real life, as I’m sure Mr. Bolton knows. And also, he may know of the incredible famine that was taking place that had started at the end of the Empire and continued through the bourgeois republic into the beginning Soviet years. It would not have been totally out-of-the-question for the Soviet government in infancy to be looking for sources of grain. Actually, that would point towards its humanity, something which it displayed a sore lack of in the Stalin years.
“The USSR was a bastion of conservatism and tradition.” (123) I guess everything is comparative. As Marxists especially, we are told to always keep the Event within its historical context. So let’s look at the Stalin years, say the 1940’s. Perhaps by 1940’s standards the USSR was really a bastion of ‘tradition and conservatism’. Let’s examine again Stalin’s record -- interventions to spread Communist Party rule, particularly in western China, Korea, Eastern Europe, and Finland, demolishing churches, ripping families apart by depriving children of their parents (to the GULAG), encouraging family members, friends, and neighbours to report each other to the GPU, the sweeping away of the old agricultural order in favour of heavy industry and industrialization at a rapid-pace, and authoring volumes of Communist theoretical literature and Soviet historiography. Does any of this sound Conservative to you? Iosef Stalin may have been inconsistent, judging by the conventional Left-Right spectrum, but he was hardly a committed traditionalist.
Even Bolton seems to contradict himself in this section. If the USSR was a ‘bastion of Conservatism and tradition”, why would it have revolutionized and modernized the economy, sweeping away the old ways of country and city life? On page 124, he writes “ Industrialists and financiers looked optimistically to a post-Czarist Russia with a new government that would embark on industrialization, which implied the need for foreign capital and expertise, regardless of the revolutionary rhetoric about foreign capitalists” which would make Rakovsky’s overtures toward foreign merchants totally understandable, not the object of conspiracy and suspicion.
In one of the brief moments that the attention turns toward the United States as something other than the perpetuator of the ‘New World Order,’ Bolton makes one of his cogent points, “Japan had been A-bombed whilst seeking peace terms, their only real condition being the sanctity of their Emperor. America’s position was unconditional, and of course it can be assumed that the Administration knew the Japanese could not accede to anything that would compromise Hirohito or the imperial house. Allen Dulles, who became head of the CIA, related in an interview in 1963 that he had been in contact with Japanese faction that were in a position to sue for peace...Just weeks later...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed”. (129) If we didn’t already know this information from documents released since 1945 and the book “Hiroshima”, this would seem like conspiracy-talk as well.
I assure you that reading the book, while challenging in the sense of just trying to keep all the conspiracies and ‘secret intentions’ and machinations in line, when the specific claims are laid out, some are incompatible with each other. It is hard to say that Bolton ‘makes his case’. I would not say the book should be ‘avoided’ though, as it truly was an exercise for my brain, and also caused me to re-evaluate Stalin, if only to determine what I *didn’t* think he was. And that was a traditionalist. Nationalist, perhaps, but not a traditionalist. A traditionalist would not boldly thrust their nation into the future, kicking and screaming, whatever the human cost. There was nothing pastoral about Stalin.
The section on Stalin’s death proceeds upon the assumption that Stalin was killed. The book does not explicitly state this, but discusses the so-called ‘Doctor’s plot’ and then basically pins the death of Stalin on scheming Jews. On page 141, it is written, “Many other Jews were mentioned as co-conspirators and were implicated in a cabal that included influential US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter (I know this is getting ridiculous, JM), described as a ‘Jewish Nationalist’, and Mosha Pijade the ‘Titoist Jewish Ideologist’ in Yugoslavia. It was alleged that a conspiracy against the state had been hatched at a secret meeting in Washington (!) in 1947...between President Truman, Secretary of State Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., and Israeli leaders David Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In the indictment Slansky was described as ‘by his very nature a Zionist’ who had, in exchange for American support for Israel, agreed to place ‘Zionists in important sectors of Government, economy, and Party apparatus’. The plan included the assassination of President Gottwald (of Czechoslovakia, JM) by a ‘freemason’ doctor.” The only things missing here are the Clintons, George Soros, and ‘the Lizard People.’
One of the final very out-there persecutions that took place in the Soviet Union before Stalin departed this world was the so-called ‘Doctor’s Plot’ which “allegedly involved hundreds of doctors and was centred on the death in 1948 of AA Zhadnov, Stalin’s likely successor, who had formulated the doctrine on Soviet arts that repudiated ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, which was synonymous with ‘Jewishness.’” (141) So essentially the reader, if they are still hanging out at this point, is subject to the implication that ‘The Jews’ killed Stalin’s successor. He even writes of the GPU, “The Soviet secret police had always had a disproportionate number of Jews, and was the power base of Lavrenti Beria...Stalin wished to remove Beria...The rumour of a ‘Day X’ when Jews would be deported en masse to Siberia spread throughout the Jewish population. It is in these circumstances that Stalin died in March 1953” (142) Again, what is the implication here? Challenge those Jews and you will die, even if you are arguably the most powerful person in the world!
In the last two sections of the book Bolton doubles down on the ‘Jews’ theme. In VII The USSR After Stalin’s Death, he writes “However, Karl Marx was a secularist Jew who was antagonistic towards what he considered to be the ‘Jewish spirit in capitalism.’ Given his own money-grubbing mentality, this might have been no more than psychological projection” (150) and “Stalin, in his fight for leadership, was up against a large number of veteran Jewish Bolsheviks,” and then explained away Stalin’s early support for the creation of Israel as ‘realpolitik’ not ‘real conviction’ (which would be to impinge on his hero of “unquestionable integrity.”)
This perplexing tome ends on page 156, “...the radical Right around the world, can be expected to intensify this pro-Russian outlook as they continue to see the potential of a revived Russia as a bulwark against a regime that is seen as more ‘Semitic’ than ‘American.’” (156) That’s right ladies and gentleman, this volume on the legacy of Stalin ends with the emphasis of how, by following his example, the Right can combat the ‘Semitic’ America.
The Bottom Line: I wouldn’t necessarily tell you ‘not to’ read this book, but I also wouldn’t necessarily suggest it. Only those of a certain mental fortitude (maybe regular readers of Žižek or post-modern gobbledygook) should go through it. Maybe if you are a regular reader of mysteries or some other genre of contrived complication, you may enjoy the twists and turns of the never-ending conspiracies. “House Of Cards” fans may enjoy this. Just don’t take this as the ‘last word’ on Stalin. This is not it. What is *is* a look into the ideas of a section of the far-Right that looks toward the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin as a bastion of “tradition and conservatism” as opposed to the ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’ of the United States and its affiliates. This is a novel response to the excesses of American Empire, but it is a definitely Rightist one. I would implore you to turn to the other sources that I have cited in the footnotes, but also read Stalin himself. He wasn’t the most prolific writer, but he did complete a number of works before his death. In his ‘own’ words (that is, those not written by committee), you can see for yourself that he was what he thought and said he was, a Communist. Now, how he interpreted that was up to him.
Sourcing:
https://www.amazon.com/Protocols-Zion-Context-Kerry-Bolton/dp/1904911366/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489111978&sr=1-1&keywords=Protocols+Zion+Context which not only carries a statement from the Anti-Defamation League, but by Amazon as well.
When I refer to works I have read, I am referring primarily to Orlando Figes, Slavoj Žižek, & David Priestland, as well as the famed dissident work “The Gulag Archipelago” by Solzhenitsyn
Trostsky was one of the most prolific of Marxist writers. And one does not have to order the ‘corporate publisher’s’ versions. At https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm we have access to a meticulous archive of his works. Bolton cites this very website, but I am not sure if he read any Trotsky while he was there
