56. Lived in London : Uncle Ho

Born Nguyen Sinh Cung [1890-1969], HoChi Minhlater he was known as Nguyen-Ai-Quoc, and before, as a young man in Paris, embracing a radical internationalism[i], Nguyen stayed in south east England, taking on jobs as a waiter, baker, and pastry chef. Prior to arriving in England, Nguyen had arrived from Vietnam firstly in France in 1911, before traveling on to New York and Boston in 1912.

He moved to Paris France in 1919  where political awakening saw Nguyen-Ai-Quoc (the later known as Ho Chi Minh) speaking at the foundational congress of the French Communist Party in December 1920.


Before he served his revolutionary apprenticeship in France, Ho arrived in London in 1913, living in West Ealing and Crouch End, though the addresses are unknown, and spent several years there before moving on to Paris, Russia and China, before returning to French occupied Vietnam.

Little is known about Ho Chi Minh’s time in England, according to Quynh Le from the BBC’s Vietnamese Service [ii] ,”His time in Great Britain is among the least documented of his life. We don’t know exactly when he worked at the pub, or how long he was there,” said Quynh Le, adding “He wasn’t very political at that time.”

An official ten-volume chronology notes only that President Ho shovelled furnace coal when he first arrived in London. After a two-week illness, around February 1914, he took work at the Drayton Court Hotel on The Avenue in West Ealing .Nguyen worked in its kitchens, as a cleaner and dishwasher.[iii] The hotel was and still is a pub owned by Fuller’s.

He then went on to work at the Carlton Hotel at the Corner of Haymarket and Pall Mall, (later destroyed during the 1940 bombings and its replacement is New Zealand House, a modern office building) which has a plaque commemorating his time there placed by the Britain Vietnam Association.  It is suggested that he was “probably working as a pastry chef”[iv]

So it was entirely conceivable that Ho Chi Minh  did work as a pastry chef on the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry in the year following the First World War [v]. Indeed, a statue of communist leader Ho Chi Minh has been given to a Sussex town when the Vietnam Ambassador to the UK, Vu Quang Minh, unveiled a bronze statue at the town’s museum in May 2013.[vi] There is scant supporting evidence to support this but Newhaven council is using its link with Ho Chi Minh as part of its tourism drive.

It was during the six years that he spent in France (1917–23), he became politically active under the name Nguyen Ai Quoc (“Nguyen the Patriot”), and started his revolutionary course that saw his name chanted throughout the world, as anti-war protestors gave voice to Ho Chi Minh.

And in his own words, why he embarked upon that political journey, an article from Ho Chi Minh, Selected Writings 1920-1969, Foreign Language Publishing House , Hanoi 1977 : THE PATH WHICH LED ME TO LENINISM.

[i] Ian Birchall, The Young Ho Chi Minh.


[ii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3725891.stm  May 18th 2004

[iii] Retracing the steps of Ho Chi Minh October 11th 2005 http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/shared/conhist07.htm?site=2

[iv] Ditto.

[v] Tom Batchelor Ho Chi Minh in Newhaven April 5th 2015 The Independent Online

[vi] Ho Chi Minh ‘friendship’ statue unveiled in Newhaven. May 19th 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22587514




55. The British Upper classes & the Nazis

newspaperIn 2015 what surfaced was a black and white film obtained by The Sun tabloid: the seven-year-old future Queen and her mother are seen raising their rights arms to perform the Heil Hitler salute. The 17-second clip ends with the Queen’s mother and her Uncle Edward saluting.

“I don’t think any criticism of a seven-year-old child would be remotely appropriate and I don’t intend to make any” said Board of Deputies of British Jews President Jonathan Arkush condemning criticism of the Queen after a film of her giving a Nazi salute was revealed.[i]

Indeed the child and her younger sister Margaret did not know the symbolism of what they were doing, although it raises questions about what kind of dysfunctional family would teach the Hitler salute to children. Obviously it was Edward – known within the family as David – who had urged his sister-in-law and ignorant nieces in fascist horseplay.

Jonathan Arkush voiced a common response: “It’s really important for us not to judge this event with hindsight. Obviously the Nazi salute now carries horrible memories and bitterness for us, but I do not think for one moment that it would be appropriate for me to suggest that the full horror of Nazi Germany was known at that point.”

There is a much more sinister undertone to the story. There is a vast news cuttings collection, TV documentaries and scholarly studies that point to the affinity and unsavory historical connections between the British upper classes and Nazi Germany. However it is easier to avoid “the challenging past” if speculation replaces disclosure, after all rumors, never proved definitively the narrative and the Royal Archives have always ensured that letters from German relatives of the royal family in the run up to World War II remain closed.

No members of the current Royal Family have Nazi sympathies. Occasional lack of Prince Harry Nazi-Costumejudgement or ‘bad taste’ is shown: the racism passed off as Prince Philip’s gaffe, “If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.” (to British students in China, during the 1986 state visit).[ii] Or the 20-year-old Prince Harry after the publication of a photograph showing him wearing Nazi insignia at a private party. It runs in the family: Edward, then the Prince of Wales, future King Edward VIII and Duke of Windsor, his racism on a visit to Australia in 1920. He wrote of Indigenous Australians: “they are the most revolting form of living creatures I’ve ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys.” [iii]

The Duke of Windsor’s dalliances with the Nazis, detailed in cables, telegrams and other documents, has been examined over the years by historians and journalists. With the former King Edward VIII the smoking gun seems more evident as he is widely thought to be Nazi sympathizer. Although there is a common defence along the lines that whether the reports on the Duke of Windsor accurately reflected his thinking at the time or whether they were merely inaccurate cocktail party gossip is impossible to tell from the diplomatic reports.

The weight of evidence from others tips the scales unfavorably:

British diplomat Sir Robert Gilbert Vansittart wrote in his diaries that in the early 1930s the Prince of Wales, expressed his full support to Hitler’s dictatorship, turning a blind eye to the persecution of Jews.

His pro-German feelings frequently found expression in indiscreet remarks that were not only insensitive to the brutalities of the Nazi regime but critical of “slip-shod democracy.” In July 1933, he told former Kaiser Wilhelm II’s grandson, Prince Louis Ferdinand, that it was “no business of ours to interfere in Germany’s internal affairs either re Jews or re anything else.” “Dictators are very popular these days,” Edward had added. “We might want one in England before long.”[iv]


 Duke of Windsor    Section 2

 Nazi in the family  Section 3

British enthusiasts for Nazi Germany  Section 4

 Cultural exchange  Section 5

 Readings  Section 6


[i] Questions prompted by royal Nazi salutes. https://www.bod.org.uk/questions-prompted-by-nazi-salutes-of-royals/

[ii] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/04/48-prince-philips-greatest-gaffes-funny-moments/

[iii] Godfrey, Rupert, ed. (1998), “11 July 1920”, Letters From a Prince: Edward to Mrs. Freda Dudley Ward 1918–1921, Little, Brown & Co.

[iv] Fact-checking ‘The Crown’: Did the Duke of Windsor plot with Hitler to betray Britain? by Michael S. Rosenwald December 30th 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/12/30/fact-checking-the-crown-did-the-duke-of-windsor-plot-with-hitler-to-betray-britain/?utm_term=.127e79ece0cd

54. Juche : a philosophical upgrade?

korean dymastyKim Jong Il’s birthday is one of the biggest national holidays in the DPRK and designated on February 16, 2012 , it is called the “Day of the Shining Star” . It was the literary output attributed to him that did more than anything else to popularise the concept of the Juche idea authored by his father. Under Kim Jong Il it was given a greater international dimension emphasising its originality in its philosophical gaze.

echo 1 echo 2

Kim Hun Hyok (ed) 2014 (Juche 103) Echoes Down the Centuries. Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House pp 7-8

Mao and Kim 1 Mao and Kim 2 Mao and Kim3.jpg

Chairman Mao Zedong  and North Korean leader Kim Il-sung share a warm handshake at Mao’s home in Beijing’s Zhongnanhai garden on April 18, 1975.

In a book review[1] of Echoes Down the Centuries, Dermot Hudson, leading member of the Korean Friendship Association (KFA), repeats the inference that Mao told the Korean communist leader that he hoped that Kim Il Sung would lead the international communist movement and world revolution after he passed away.

Whether the story is genuine or not is immaterial as it illustrates a truth that is part of the mythology that Korean authorities want to portray: the idea of continuity and rupture in the development of the Juche idea was convey most starkly in the writings attributed to Kim Jong Il as he codified the ideas of his father.

In 1980s Britain, the chances are good that it was a newspaper advert that was the first introduction to Kim Il Sung. A paid article in smaller newsprint type would be the text of his speech on the importance of Korean independence. It was the ideological and theoretical exploits of Kim Jong Il, his son and successor, who took that central emphasis on independence and applied it to wider spheres such as philosophy to build a universalist ideological edifice around the Juche idea. It was Kim Jong Il and his successor, and son, Kim Jong Un, in their speeches advanced the idea of a “Golden Age of the Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist” in the systemization of Juche idea. The evolution of the idea has seen it emerged, in the wake of the collapse of Soviet-style “existing socialism” promoted as “an original idea and perfect revolutionary theory of communism the great leader created reflecting the requirements of the new era of history, the era of independence.”

Now people in many countries of the world are envious of our form of socialism, calling it a “model of socialism” and a “unique socialism”. Reality graphically proves that the Juche idea on which our socialism is based is the greatest ideology.[2]  


Despite the propaganda, Juche does not travel well outside the state sponsorship of North Korea. Adherents are few in number and the many friendship associations that populate cyberspace today are maintained by a handful recycling the circular arguments and mutual support that sustains the foundation of the international allegiance.

The crusade to promote the DPRK as a model goes against the self-professed tenants of the Juche idea that was rooted in the Korean experience. Despite the number of leftist organisations that signed the 1992 Pyongyang Declaration, officially titled Let Us Defend and Advance the Cause of Socialism, support for the country (not necessarily the regime) is on terms of its defence against continuing US hostility towards the regime. On the tenth anniversary of the Declaration on April 20, 2002, the Korean Central News Agency announced that it had been endorsed by 258 parties .Ideological identification with the ideas of the ruling WPK is rare on the political left – in Britain a single organization (with as many members) declares itself for Juche, while others fringe communists express solidarity with the DPRK. From that same mielu comes, understandably, accusations of revisionism – after all, dynastic succession is an ill-fit with an ideology that has a classless society as its end goal.

[1] https://friendsofkorea.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/echoes-down-centuries.html

[2] Kim Il Jong On Some Problems of the Ideological Foundation of Socialism Juche 79 (1990)

dpkp logo

There was a struggle to convince the ranks of the WPK of the interpretation that was being promoted. He alluded to opposition to his father’s ideas “anti-Party, counterrevolutionary factionalists, steeped in worship of big powers and dogmatism, would slander them, measuring them against the theories and propositions advanced by the authors of Marxism-Leninism.” [1]

On numerous occasions Kim Jong IL, in talks to senior officials of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea had to lay down instructions and argued that the Juche idea, “our Party’s outlook on the world”, is the guiding idea of our times which illuminates the absolutely correct way of achieving independence for the popular masses.[2]

[1] Kim Jong Il, On Correctly Analysing and Reviewing the History of the Preceding Revolutionary Ideology of the Working Class. Juche 55 (1966)

[2] e.g. , On Having A Correct Viewpoint and Understanding of the Juche Philosophy Juche 79 (1990)

It was in 1966 that Kim Jong Il directed that analysing and reviewing the revolutionary ideology of the preceding working class was necessary for overcoming flunkeyism and dogmatism in Marxism-Leninism and establishing Juche in the field of ideology and theory.[1]

It was a constant repeated theme, that underlined the Korean approach of analysing, and valuing, the feats and limitations of Marxism-Leninism from the standpoint of Juche, so as “to give our Party members and other working people a correct understanding of the originality and superiority of the socialist ideology and theory of our Party.”[2]

Kim Jong Il, in talks to Social Scientists in the summer of 1966, had launched a “comprehensive analysis and review of Marxism-Leninism”. The context of “Leftist” and Rightist opportunism emergent in the international communist movement, and what was rightly being challenged the sycophantic and dogmatic approaches towards Marxism-Leninism as “its proponents are interpreting Marxism-Leninism in their favour”. Instead, there was an ideological offensive that the “great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung’s revolutionary Ideology–his ideas, theories and policies –should be our sole yardstick for analyzing and assessing the preceding theories.”

It was argued that some cadres and intellectuals have not yet relinquished the habit of interpreting the leader’s revolutionary ideas within the framework of Marxism-Leninism, under the misapprehension that the latter contains solutions to all the problems arising in the revolution and construction. What was identified was a very practical mistaken stance that was described as “exerted a considerable negative influence” that tried to define Korean developing reality according to set formulae and propositions that did not conform to the actual conditions in the DPRK.

[1]Kim Jong Il, On Correctly Analysing and Reviewing the History of the Preceding Revolutionary Ideology of the Working Class. Juche 55 (1966)

[2] Kim Jong Il, Socialism Is The Life of Our People Juche 81 (1992)


The aim was clearly stated:

“a comprehensive examination, analysis and review of the 100-year-long history of the working-class ideology, Marxism-Leninism. To analyse and review the preceding revolutionary ideology of the working class is a prerequisite for eliminating sycophantic and dogmatic approaches towards Marxism-Leninism and establishing the Juche orientation in the field of ideology and theory.”

Kim Jong Il advised, having identified “more than 30 of their works” [Marx, Engels and Lenin], “relinquish the old habit of worshiping the classics of Marxism-Leninism blindly. You should study each and every phrase of the works and, in the context of their settings and purposes, analyze their historical significance and limitations. You should also assess whether the individual propositions contained in the works suit our present situation or not.”

The prescribed framework for an assessment of the historical limitation set out a number of observation offered by Kim Jong Il that underplays any universalist element, and in highlighting these limitations, historical, ideological and theoretical, of Marxism-Leninism doctrine, Kim Jong Il was underlining the view that this historical legacy was less relevant than those ideas promoted as Korea’s own, the Juche of Kim Il Sung. Arguments for the alternative abandons basic Marxist methodology, historical materialism, political economy, and essentially argues “times have changed” before going on to prescribing idealist assertions devoid of explanation and reasoning.

  • This doctrine [Marxism-Leninism] does not provide solutions to the theoretical and practical problems in the revolution and construction in former colonies and semi-colonies which make up the overwhelming majority of the nations on earth.
  • They could not anticipate the theoretical and practical problems that would arise in setting up socialist system and then building socialism and communism after the seizure of power by the working class, nor could they give specific solutions to these problems.
  • The works they wrote contain elements of the preceding bourgeois theories, those of Hegel’s philosophy in particular, and there are more elements of them in their earlier publications.
  • It is impossible to find solutions to the theoretical and practical problems of the present times in Marxism, which emerged as a result of a theoretical analysis of pre-monopoly capitalism on the social foundations of a few developed capitalist nations in Western Europe. And among the revolutionary theories advanced by Marx and Engels, several lost their viability after the shift from capitalism to imperialism.
  • You should not refer to Marxism for theories concerning the building of socialism and communism in our era. Because they had no experience in building socialism and communism, the authors of the doctrine could not give solutions to the pertinent problems, and their theories with regard to the building of socialism and communism are highly superficial and simplistic and lie within the confines of speculation.
  • Leninism, as a variant of Marxism, defending the revolutionary essence of Marxism against a diverse range of opportunistic distortions and assaults and developing its fundamental principles in line with the specific conditions in the Russian revolution and the changed circumstances of the times.
  • Lenin, could not anticipate the legion of problems that have been raised in the present times and, accordingly, no answers to these problem s are given in his theories and works.
  • You need to know that the Leninist theory on the socialist revolution, to all intents and purposes, presented a strategy and tactics that reflected the reality of contemporary Russia.
  • Lenin provided answers to some of the theoretical and practical problems raised in the early days of socialist construction, but died shortly after the revolution. So he could not provide specific solutions to the theoretical and practical problems arising in the building of socialism and communism as he lacked practical experience of it.
  • Leninism is, above all else, formulated, based on the same world outlook as Marxism, and the two doctrines are similar in composition. This defines the scope of the originality of Leninism. All in all, Lenin was a staunch champion of and faithful successor to Marxism. But his achievements in the creative development of Marxism pale into insignificance compared to those in championing and inheriting it.


Kim Il Jong On Some Problems of the Ideological Foundation of Socialism Juche 79 (1990)

In a Speech Delivered to the Senior Officials of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea on May 30, 1990, Kim Jong Il explained

As we have the Juche idea, we have solved with credit the problem of consolidating the ideological foundation of socialism. If we had not the Juche idea or had we blindly followed others, we would not have been able to build our unique form of socialism which is the most advantageous in the world.

The essential point driven home in the elevation of Juche idea within the WPK was that it was not be viewed as a simple inheritance and development of Marxism-Leninism; it must be viewed as a new and original idea. This ideological rupture and upgrading intensified with the collapse of Soviet-style “existing socialism” at the beginning of the 1990s.

juche poster

“Socialism devoid of ideological foundation and perfect guiding ideology cannot be called genuine socialism and it might be frustrated, unable to check the anti-socialist schemes of the imperialists and reactionaries. This is shown graphically by the lesson of those countries where socialism was frustrated and capitalism has been restored. Our socialism is advancing victoriously unperturbed amidst the continuing vicious moves of the imperialists and reactionaries just because it is based on the Juche idea and guided by this idea.”


Any respect given to the historical achievements of the dialectical materialism of Marxism, as it smashed the reactionary idealistic and metaphysical outlook on the world, in this view is due to the role it played in facilitating the development of Kim Il Sung’s Juche idea as the ideological foundation of socialism.

“We must recognize the exploits Marx, Engels and Lenin performed for mankind and respect them. Thanks to the creation of Marxism-Leninism, the socialist theory developed from fantasy to science; the working class was able to have a guiding ideology for the first time in history and they could struggle vigorously against capital and for class emancipation, national liberation and socialism. Respecting the authors of the theories is an obligation on us in view of the principle of the juniors of the revolution respecting their seniors.”[1] Kim Jong Il, Socialism Is The Life of Our People Juche 81 (1992)

The claim is that the Juche idea must not be viewed as a simple inheritance and development of Marxism-Leninism; it must be viewed as a new and original idea. That we should see originality in context with derivations in understanding means that the Juche idea is not an ideology, which contrasts with Marxism-Leninism:

In the seminar work, On Having A Correct Viewpoint and Understanding of the Juche Philosophy (1990), Kim Jong Il’s talk to the Senior Officials of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea chided the WPK for an error “we must correct the tendency to explain the superiority and originality of the Juche idea from the point of view of Marxist dialectical materialism”.

Explaining Marx’s philosophy as a critical inheritance, the contribution of Marxism-Leninism that had shaped the initial philosophical stance of the WPK was characterised as a stepping stone to later insights.

Marx directed his main efforts to critically examining the existing philosophical theories so as to free the working class, which was making a fresh appearance on the historical stage, from the outdated and reactionary outlook on the world. By discarding what was unscientific and reactionary in the preceding materialism and dialectics and by inheriting and developing a reasonable core, Marx created dialectical materialism.

A crude orthodoxy, long since challenged in theory and practice, is set up by the Korean authorities to contrast with the Juche idea. Thus the description that Marxism considered the development of society to be the history of replacement of the mode of production taking place by the law of adaptation of the relations of production to the character of the productive forces. According to this opinion, one can understand that revolution is carried out in the main when a socialist mode of production has been established and therefore it is concluded that there remains only work to consolidate and develop the socialist mode of production. Asif nothing has occurred to challenge this schematic view.

It is argued that the revolutionary idea created by the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is an integrated system of idea, theory and method of Juche. It is said to be a completely original idea that can be called upon only in association with the august name of the leader. The Juche idea created by the great leader is an original philosophical ideology in that it presented, to start with, a new fundamental question of philosophy and systematized its structural system and content.

The improvement is said to lie in the emphasis that “the essential attributes of man, a social being, are not products of evolution; they have been formed and developed socially and historically.” Kim Jong Il was critical of those who still attempting to consider man’s essential characteristics with the evolutionary methodology arguing, simplistically and not without contention from others, that Man is the only social being in the world, therefore, we cannot compare him with animals. The idea is further refined: “Man is a social being. This implies that he is a being who lives in a social relationship. This term is used to distinguish man from natural being. As man is a social being, he has independence, creativity and consciousness, attributes which are peculiar to him and which other material beings cannot have.”

Again stressing the questionable “originality of the Juche philosophy” not as a derivative but a rupture as “present bourgeois thinkers, revisionists and reformists are infusing people with spontaneity and the matter-first doctrine, considering all things and phenomena from the biological and evolutionary point of view and the vulgar materialistic viewpoint. In explaining and propagating the Juche philosophy, we ought to direct the spearhead of criticism to such a biological and vulgar materialistic outlook on the world.”

When Kim Jong IL and others argues that “Socialist construction shows in practice that the advantages of socialism cannot be given full play and the masses’ and the cause for independence cannot be accomplished unless revolution is carried on in the field of ideology and culture after the establishment of the socialist system.” It could be demonstrated that this was hardly an original insight of a new philosophy, when a principle evident in Soviet life in the 1920s and 1930s.

The bland assertion, oft repeated in the literature of supporters, again without supporting evidence and argumentation, (and excuse the gender bias) is that “The basic advantage of our form of socialism is that it is a man-centred society, a society which considers everything with man at the centre and makes everything serve him. This advantage is defined by the Juche idea, a man-centred idea.” From this arises the claim that by elucidating the philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything, the Juche idea gave the most correct answer to the question of man’s position and role in the world.

Far from giving a scientific solution to the question of continuous revolution in the socialist society, the Juche idea repeats the exhortations of selfishness and self-sacrifice that many voluntarists’ campaigns have employed. Establishing the threshold that “the masses are completely freed not only from socio-political subjugation but also from the fetters of nature and outdated ideology and culture” resembles a utopian science fiction scenario rather than reflective of society’s future development.

Facing the vestiges of the old society with its class structure, gender inequalities, racist oppression and sexual divisions, the prescription for freeing people from the fetters of nature and outmoded ideas and culture, as practiced in the DPRK, is far from transparent and dependent upon circular argumentation that has evolved to justify a move away from a materialist and dialectical understanding to a more idealist, nationalist and mystic exhortation to focus on the leader. DSC_0321


This emphasis on the value of an individual’s contribution, that is Kim Il Sung’s, should not be confused with other currents such as ‘Guiding Thought.’ Although equally focused on an individual leader, this marginal trend tries to maintain a fidelity to marxist science rather that replace it. In this school of thought, those individuals are not “genius” with great “ideas”, but people judged to have understanding reality in the dialectical materialist way, a synthesis and not an assembly of teachings, and accepting it as it is. This, essential Gonzalist tendency promotes the concept of Guiding Thought of revolution as at the heart of Maoism, “it explains that a Leadership is generated in the revolutionary process, that a person synthesizes in a Dialectical Materialist way the understanding of the situation, showing the path to follow”[1] .

The argument is that in each country, class struggle generates individuals who proceed to the analysis of their own social and national reality, understanding the contradictions they live in, paving the way for progress through revolution, i.e. New Democratic Revolution or Socialist Revolution. The “thought” is genuine and correct only if it means a real confrontation on all aspects of old society, the practical aspect being on the forefront. Hence their emphasis on Marxism-Leninism Maoism Gonzalo thought, principally Gonzalo thought.[2]

[1] Lenin’s Thought. Communism No.2 November 2016

[2] See: COMMUNISM No.5 –published September 2017 on the theme “In defense of Gonzalo, theoretician of Maoism” http://lesmaterialistes.com/fichiers/pdf/revues/communism-005-gonzalo.pdf

Questions and Answers On the Songun Idea . FLPH Pyongyang Juche 101 (2012) p16

Q and A 27

The Korean emphasis on the Juche idea and the family that is identified with its creation and application has served to maintain an independent stance for the DPRK in the face of a hostile world. It has made a virtue out of an autarkical necessity but even then clothes any [unacknowledged] assistance or dependent economic relationships. Even with the body of literature it has produced to underpin its claims, its ulitarian political convenience is illustrated by the adoption of Songun politics under Kim Jong Il. In light of difficult international and domestic situation in the 1990s, he was first to establish the military-first policy [although back-dated to the armed revolutionary struggle under Kim Il Sung] and it moved the WPK further away from it Marxist foundations. The narrow application of such an idea, similar to Soviet development thinking in the 1960s that identified the army of third world states as the most stable national institution for progressive advance, could only be applied by parties holding state power. In all, this school of thought, promoted as some kind of upgrade to revolutionary science, provides a retrogressive step reinforcing  the sycophantic and dogmatic approaches that it was said to challenge.

nk laughs

Irish Revolutionary Tradition in Cork Workers Club’s Publications (Part 2 )

Small press publications have traditionally been the vehicle for radical political argument and providing an alternative record from the dominant narrative that makes up the general fare of public and academic publishing. Throughout the 1970s, the Cork Workers’ Club were industrious in publishing a series of historical reprints of classic texts of Irish socialist republicanism, including James Connolly. There was eventually twenty pamphlets in the series that reflected an orthodox Marxist analysis of Ireland’s radical tradition. These long out of print pamphlets had an international distribution.  

The Cork Workers Club emerged from the Cork Communist Organisation. The latter had itself been formed in 1972 in reaction to the Irish Communist Organisation’s shift from a Republican standpoint to a ’two nations’ and functionally pro-Unionist one. Through a number of organisational developments the Cork Workers’ Club, operated out of the same premises in St Nicholas Church Lane in south Cork that the republican Saor Éire had used since 1968 as its headquarters. The premises acted as a meeting place, bookshop and printing house.

Memories of CWC posted by Fintan Lane on the Irish blogsite The Cedar Lounge Revolution in 2007 recalls:

The ‘Cork Communist Organisation’ was made up largely, I believe, of the Saor Eire people (publishers of ‘People’s Voice’ etc.), who had earlier merged with the ICO. Their politics was a mixture of Marxist-Leninism (Maoism in this instance) and republicanism. My father – Jim Lane – was involved….

The CCO later morphed into the Cork Workers Club, which survived into the late 1970s as a real group and, afterwards, as a sort of publishing house. The bookshop in Nicholas Church Place remained open until the early 1980s, when it was actually an IRSP bookshop/office. It was a centre for the anti-H-Block campaign during the hunger strikes and was later used by the Release Nicky Kelly Campaign. In its early years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, public meetings were held upstairs at times. I remember once seeing a poster advertising an appearance there by Eamon McCann.

I ‘staffed’ the bookshop for a while in the early 1980s, when it was open only on Saturday and some week nights. There were some regular customers, but, as time moved on, few people slinked in besides the affiliated. Its heyday really was at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s when it was the place to go in Cork to get left-wing and republican literature. It was a genuine backstreet bookshop and when other places opened, such as the bookshop in the Quay Co-op in the early 1980s, it effectively no longer had much of a purpose. It was too far off the beaten track. A strange place, in some ways. Internet shopping would have wiped it out, had it survived that long, because it primarily dealt in political material that mainstream shops wouldn’t sell.

Source: Fintan Lane – October 30, 2007

— February 2018


Reprints of pamphlets, booklets and newspaper articles of historical value to the study of the Socialist Movement in Ireland

 No.1   James Connolly and Irish freedom. A Marxist analysis G.Schuller


No.2  British Imperialism in Ireland  by  Eleanor Burns


No.3  Marx, Engels and Lenin on the Irish Revolution


No.4    The Irish Republican Congress by George Gilmore


 No.5    The James Connolly Songbook (1972)

No. 6   Workshop Talks  by  James Connolly                              

No.7   The Irish Question (1894)  by  John Leslie


No.8 The Historical Basis of Socialism in Ireland  by Thomas Brady


No.9   The Connolly-Walker Controversy on Socialist Unity in Ireland

No.10 The Story of Irish Labour  by J.M.MacDonnell

Read Here cwc 10 

No.11 Ireland Upon The Dissecting Table – James Connolly on Ulster &             Partition.

No.12 Convict No. 50945: Jim Larkin, Irish Labour Leader

No.13 Irish Labour and its International Relations in the era of the 2nd             International and the Bolshevik Revolution.

No.14 Freedom’s Road for Irish Workers (1917)

No.15 The Connolly-DeLeon Controversy:On Wages, Marriage and the Church (1904)http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/index.htm

No.16   The Irish Crisis, 1921 – The C.P.G.B. stand by William Paul

Read Here cwc 16

No.17  The Struggle of the Unemployed in Belfast October 1932


No.18   The Irish Free State and British Imperialism  by “Gerhard”

Read Here cwc 18

 No.19   Sinn Fein and Socialism: James Connolly, “Charles Russell”,  Selma Sigerson

No.20   The Irish Case for Communism: Sean Murray, Jim Larkin Jun., Seamus MacKee & the C.P.I.



History in instalments: The Irish Revolutionary Tradition (Part 1 )

While visiting relatives in west Cork appreciative comments on the illustrated copy of the 1916 Proclamation hanging on the wall led to an afternoon of stories and recollections . I had found my republican relatives: Michael Collins may have stayed his last night at a cousin’s hotel, but here were the part of the family that sided and fought with the anti-treaty forces. That personal connection to the fight for Irish freedom came long after my own republican sympathies were expressed campaigning on the streets of London, but that family continuity was pleasing, and although never known, I could share their pride in that history.

Any reading of the Irish struggle generally present it as alternating between radical and constitutional republicanism each building upon the legacy of the previous failure to secure a united Ireland. Between the waning and waxing of these periods there is a connecting thread of ideas and people, even organisations which contribute to re-ignite a dormant struggle. The preservation of these connections will often be found in print, with history in instalments in the format of a small circulation pamphlets. More often than not, the arguments of yesteryear are echoed in the positions taken by contemporary activists, take one example relevant to the Irish struggle, most of the British ‘left’ still consider the national struggle to be a diversion to the class struggle. There are some at variance   with that position that draws upon a past recorded radical tradition. James Connolly pointed out a century ago that it would not be enough to win formal independence – that without taking the banks and industry into social ownership Ireland would remain dominated by imperialism through its economic power which in the end, means political power. With the movements of the oppressed for their national self-assertion, the national struggle is, therefore, not only the first stage in the revolution, it is the necessary springboard to socialist transformation and development of society.

Any exploration of the revolutionary tradition in Ireland would appreciate the sterling work of Einde O’Callaghan (Administrator, James Connolly Internet Archive) who provides a  selection of Connolly’s writings, although there are alternative websites providing access to some of the writings of James Connolly , some organisational related , others individual labour as with this selection of the best known writings of the leader of the Irish Citizen Army executed in the aftermath of the Easter Rising of 1916

There are various interpretations within the broad sweep of radical positions that looks to assess the legacy of past struggles and there are many landmarks in Ireland’s complex and enduring struggle. Out there there are a vast selection of material that seeks to maintain that revolutionary legacy. Here are links to three random instalments from this diverse history:

  1. An overview on Ireland’s revolutionary tradition Read Here Ireland RT   , and Michael Harrison’s ‘Left side of the Road’ website has made available a number of pamphlets with a radical perspective on Irish history.
  2. The landmark republican rising of 1798,    Read Here 1798
  3. and The Limerick Soviet of 1919                  Read Here Limerick


History on the Left

woodsmokeInformation overload is a curse. The inability to match one’s interests with the overwhelming amount of material that can be accessed from a keyboard is both frustrating and adds to the backlog of material to read even on a minority interest like the left in Britain. Previously the grey literature of bibliophiles was the print medium, found in obscure, often agitational pamphlets and publications, with the internet it has exploded beyond reasonable levels.

History sources on the Left are varied and many but still small radical presses and distributors are found via their web pages and more easily accessed. Individual local initiatives still exist like the Workers Educational Associations talks and course that may provide a print record. More commonly there are the limited distribution of self-published material of little known episodes in the class war that reflect an activist’s dedication. These can refer to quite localised events.

And obviously there are the archive builders. These often find expression with a dedication to provide a legacy of previous labour as in the provision of the work online of the Communist Historian Group and its publication “Our History”. There is a selection online of the 83 studies produced over 20 years of its operation. http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/shs/index_frameset1.htm

Now superseded by the Socialist History group http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/.

The digital medium makes somethings possible that would be very difficult in the physical world such as the international co-operation and co-ordination for such political depositories as Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line that allows access to material that is scattered, rare and uncatalogued. There is no equivalent resource as it allows access and has more holdings than even a National library collection of record. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/erol.htm

There are the products of stakhanovite activism, the perspective of those political groups and individuals, always an interesting exploration from the anarchist perspective, is the libcom library which contains nearly 20,000 articles of international history from the other side of the barricades. https://libcom.org/library . Many leftist sites are worth exploring for accounts [undoubtedly partisan] of Leftist history.

Other examples of contemporary online promotion of the local radical history revival are these two sites

  1. past tense promotion of London’s radical history https://pasttenseblog.wordpress.com/ and
  2. Bristol Radical History Group http://www.brh.org.uk/site/pamphleteerRecount episodes forgotten, uncelebrated and still worthy of acknowledgment.

Listing the obscure, out-of-print and difficult to now obtain pamphlets to add to the awareness of this history would not be much assistance, so instead more accessible material from a home Library listing of “Books on the History of the English Left” that can be found in the diminishing libraries of Britain, and from online booksellers like http://www.leftontheshelfbooks.co.uk/ , or try http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/buyingbookswithoutamazon/radicalbookshopsdirectory.aspx


Beer, M (1940 ) A History of British Socialism. George Allen & Unwin

Blatchford ,Robert (1893/ 1977) Merrie England. The Journeyman Press

Cole, G.D.H & Postgate, Raymond (1938) The Common People 1746-1938.Methuen

Cornforth ,Maurice ed.(1978) Rebels and their Causes: essays in honour of A.L.Morton. Lawrence & Wishart

Gerhold, Gerhold (2007) The Putney Debates 1647.Self-published

Harrison, Stanley (1974) Poor Man’s Guardian: a survey of the Struggles for a Democratic Press,1786-1973. Lawrence & Wishart

Hampton, Christopher (1984)A Radical Reader: the struggle for change in England,1381-1914. Penguin

Horspool, David (2009) The English Rebel: one thousand years of troublemaking, from the to the Nineties. Penguin Books

Jones, Colin (1983) Britain and Revolutionary France: conflict, subversion and propaganda. University of Exeter

MacCoby, S (1957) The English Radical Tradition 1763-1914.New York University Press

Manning, Brian (2003) Revolution and Counter-Revolution in England, Ireland and Scotland. Bookmarks

Samuel, Raphael & Jones, Gareth Stedman (1982) Culture, Ideology and Politics. Routledge & Keegan Paul

Royle, Edward (2000) Revolutionary Britannia? Reflections on the threat of revolution in Britain, 1789-1848. Manchester University Press

Thompson E.P. (1984) The Making of the English Working Class. Penguin

Walzer, Michael (1966) The Revolution of the Saints: A study in the origins of radical politics. Weidenfield and Nicolson

Wells, Roger (1986) Insurrection: the British Experience 1795-1803. Alan Sutton



Briggs, Asa (1962) Chartist Studies. MacMillan

Briggs, Asa & Saville, John (1971) Essays in labour history 1886-1923.Macmillan

Charlton, John (1999) ‘It just went like tinder’: The mass movement & New Unionism in Britain. Red Words

Cherry, Steven (1981) Our History– a pocket history of the Labour Movement. Self-published

Coleman, Stephen ed. (1996) Reform and Revolution: three early socialists on the way ahead. Thoemmes Press

Fox, Ralph (nd) The Class Struggle in Britain in the epoch of imperialism 1880-1923 (two volumes) Martin Lawrence

Hobsbawm E.J. (1965) Labouring Men: studies in the history of labour. Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Kynaston, David (1976) King Labour: The British Working Class 1850-1914. George Allen & Unwin

Lane, Tony (1974) The Union Makes Us Strong: The British working class, its politics and trade unionism. Arrow

Marcus, Steve (1985) Engels, Manchester and the working class .Norton

Morris, Williams (1979) Political Writings. Lawrence & Wishart

Morton, A.L. & Tate,George (1973 I 1956) The British Labour Movement 1770- 1920. Lawrence & Wishart

Murphy, J.T. (1934/1972) Preparing for Power: a critical study of the history of the British working class movement. Pluto Press

O’Brien, Mark (2009) Perish the Privileged orders: a socialist history of the Chartist Movement. New Clarion Press

Pelling, Henry (1977) A History of British Trade Unionism. Penguin

Rosenberg, David (2015) Rebel Footprints: a guide to uncovering London’s radical history. Pluto Press

Samuel, Raphael (1982) Village Life and Labour. Routledge

Stearns, Peter (1975) Lives of Labour: work in a maturing Industrial Society. Croom Helm

Torr, Dona (1956) Tom Mann and his Times Vol One: 1856-1890.Lawrence & Wishart



Bealey, F & Pelling, H. (1958) Labour and Politics 1900-1906: a history of the Labour Representation Committee. MacMillan

Burgess, Keith (1980) The Challenge of Labour: shaping British society 1850-1930. Croom Helm

Cliff, Tony & Gluckstein, Donny (1988) The Labour Party – a Marxist History. Bookmarks

Clough, Robert (1992) Labour, a party fit for imperialism. Larkin Publications [RCG]

Howell, David (1980) British Social Democracy, a study in development and decay. Croom Helm

Lyman, Richard (nd) The First Labour Government 1924. Chapman & Hall

Miliband, Ralph (1979) Parliamentary Socialism: a study in the politics of Labour. Merlin Press

Ramsay, Robin (2002) The Rise of New Labour. Pocket Essentials



Challinor, Raymond (1977) The Origins of British Bolshevism. Croom Helm

Duncan, Rolbert & Mcivor, Arthur (1992) Militant Workers: labour and Class Conflict 1900-1950. Essays in honour of Harry McShane (1891-1988). John Donald

Kendall, Walter (1971) The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900-21: the origins of British Communism. Weidenfeld and Nicolson

Northedge F.S. & Wells, Audrey (1982) Britain and Soviet Communism, the impact of a revolution. Macmillan

Paul, William (nd) The State: its origins and function. Socialist Labour Press

Rosenberg, Chanie (1987) Britain on the brink of revolution 1919. Bookmarks

Skelly, Jeffrey (1976) The General Strike 1926. Lawrence & Wishart

Thrope, Andrew (1989) The Failure of Political Extremism in inter-war Britain. University of Exeter

Weller, Ken (1985) ‘Don’t Be A Soldier!’ The radical anti-war movement in North London 1914-1918 . Journeyman

Werskey, Gary (1988) The Visible College: a collective biography of British scientists and socialists of the 1930s. Free Association Books



Adereth, Max (1994) Line of March: an historical and critical analysis of British Communism and its revolutionary strategy. Praxis Press

Attfield, John & Williams, Stephen (1984) 1939:The Communist Party and War. Proceedings of a conference held on 21April1979 organised by the Communist Party History Group. Lawrence & Wishart

Beckett,Francis (1995) Enemy Within: the rise and fall of the British Communist Party. John Murray

Beckett,Francis (2004) Stalin’s British Victims. Sutton Publishing

Bell, Tom (1937) British Communist Party, a short history. Lawrence & Wishart

Black, Robert (1970) Stalinism in Britain, a Trotskyist analysis. New Park Publication

Bronstein, Sam & Richardson, AI (nd) Two Steps Back: Communists & the wider labour movement 1934-1945. A study in the relations between vanguard and class. Socialist Platform

Clegg, Arthur (1989) Aid China 1937-1949.A memoir of a forgotten campaign. New World Presss

Cohen, Phil (1997) Children of the Revolution: communist childhood in Cold War Britain. Lawrence & Wishart

Croft, Andy (1998) A Weapon in the Struggle: the cultural history of the Communist Party in Britain. Pluto Press

Croft, Andy ed. (2012) After The Party: reflections on life since the CPGB. Lawrence & Wishart

Dewar, Hugo (1976) Communist Politics in Britain: The CPGB from its origins to the Second World War. Pluto Press

Drake, Bob (1952) The Communist Technique in Britain. Penguin Press

Green, John (2014)  Britain’s Communists: The Untold Story. Artery Publications

Gollan, John (1978) Reformism and Revolution. Communist Party

Hannington, Wal (1979 I 1936) Unemployed Struggles 1919-1936: My life and struggles amongst the Unemployed. Lawrence & Wishart

Hinton, James & Hyman, Richard (1975) Trade Unions and Revolution: the industrial politics of the early British communist Party. Pluto Press

Hyde, Douglas (1952) I Believed: the autobiography of a former British communist. The Reprint Society

Macintyre, Stuart (1980) A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-1933.  Lawrence & Wishart

Macleod, Alison (1997) The Death of Uncle Joe. Merlin Press

Mcilroy, Morgan & Campbell (2001) Party People, Communist Lives; explorations in biography. Lawrence & Wishart

Mitchell, Alex (1984) Behind the Crisis in British Stalinism. New Park Publication

Morgan, Kevin, Cohen, Gideon and Flinn, Andrew (2007) Communists and British Society 1920-1991 .River Cram Press

Murray, Andrew (1995) The CPGB , a historical analysis to 1941. Communist Liaison

Parker, Lawrence (2008) The kick inside: revolutionary opposition in the CPGB 1960-1991. Self-published. Second edition published by November Publications, 2012.

Pearce, Brian & Woodhouse, Michael (1975) Essays on the History of Communism in Britain. New Park Publications

Pelling, Henry (1958) The British Communist Party, a historical profile. Adam & Charles Black

Piratin, Phil (1980/ 1948) Our Flag Stays Red. Lawrence & Wishart

Rust, William (1949) The Story of the Daily Worker. People’s Press

Samuel, Raphel (2006) The Lost World of British Communism. Verso

Thompson, Willie (1992) The Good Old Cause: British Communism 1920-1991.Pluto Press

Trory, Erine (1974) Between the Wars: recollections of a communist organiser. Crabtree Press

Zinkin, Peter (1985) A Man To Be Watched Carefully. People’s Publication


HISTORY of the Communist Party of Great Britain

Published by Lawrence & Wishart

  1. Formation and early years 1919-1924 (Klugmann)
  2. The General strike 1925-1926                (Klugmann)
  3. HISTORY of the Communist Party of Great Britain 1927-1941 (Branson)
  4. HISTORY of the Communist Party of Great Britain 1941-1951 (Branson)
  5. Cold Wars, Crisis and Conflict: the CPGB 1951-1968                  (Callaghan)
  6. Endgames and New Times: the final years of British Communism 1964- 1991 (Andrews)



Alleyne, Brian (2002) Radicals Against Race; Black activism and cultural politics. Berg

Callaghan, John (1987) The Far Left in British Politics. Blackwell

Caute, David (1988) Sixty-Eight, the year of the barricades. Hamish Hamilton

Chun, Lin (1993) The British New Left. Edinburgh University press

Clutterbuck, Richard (1980) Britain in Agony, the growth of political violence. Penguin

Heinemann, Benjamin J. (1972) The Politics of Powerless: a study of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination. Institute of Race Relations. Oxford University Press

Shipley, Peter (1976) Revolutionaries in Modern Britain. The Bodley Head

Smith, Evan & ‎ Worley, Matthew (2017)   Against the Grain: The British Far Left from 1956. Manchester University Press

Tariq Ali (1972) The Coming British Revolution. Jonathan cape

Thayer, George (1965) The British Political Fringe, a profile. Anthony Blond

Tomlinson, John ( 1981) Left, Right : the march of political extremism in Britain. John Cape

Widgery, David (1976) The Left in Britain 1956-1968. Penguin



Ash,William (1978) A Red Square: the autobiography of an unconventional revolutionary. Howard Baker

Beil, Robert (1985/2015) Eurocentrism and the Communist Movement Kersplebedeb Publishing Montreal.

McCreery (n.d.) The Way Forward: a Marxist-Leninist of the British state, the CPGB and revolutionaries. WPPE

Podmore, Will ( 2004) Reg Birch: engineer, trade unionist, communist. Bellman books

Sherwood, Marika (1999) Claudia Jones, a life in exile. Lawrence & Wishart




Bronstein, Sam & Richardson, Al (1986) War and the International: a history of the Trotskyist movement in Britain 1937-1949. Socialist Platform

Cliff, Tony (2000) A World To Win: life of a revolutionary. Bookmarks

Crick, Michael (1986) The March of Militant. Faber

Downing, G. (1991) WRP Explosion. The Socialist Fight Group

Essays on Revolutionary Marxism in Britain and Ireland from the 1930s to the 1960s. Revolutionary History Vol.6 No.2/3 Summer 1996

Grant, Ted (2002) History of British Trotskyism. Wellred Publications

Grant, Ted (1989) The Unbroken Thread: the development of Trotskyism over 40 years. Fortress Press

Groves, Reg (1974) The Balham Group: how British Trotskyism Began. Pluto Press

Higgins, Jim (1997) More Years for the Locust ; the origins of the SWP. IS group

Ratner, Harry (1994) Reluctant Revolutionary: memoirs of a Trotskyist 1936-1960. Socialist Platform

Taafe, Peter (1995) The Rise of Miltant : Militant’s 30 years. Militant Publications

The Fourth International, Stalinism and the origins of the International Socialists: some documents (1971) Pluto Press



Bone, Ian (2006) Bash The Rich; true-life confessions of an anarchist in the UK. Tangent Books

Cohen, Nick (2007) What’s Left: how Liberals lost their way. Fourth Estate

Kilfoye, Peter (2000) Left behind: Lessons from Labour’s heartland. Politico

Mitchell, Alex (2012) Come the Revolution: A Memoir. UNSW Press

Saville, John (2003) Memoirs From The Left. Merlin Press

Steel, Mark (2001) Reasons To Be Cheerful: from Punk to New labour through the eyes of a dedicated Trouble Maker. Scribner

Stuart, Christie (2005) Granny Made Me An Anarchist. Scribner

50. John MacLean


John Maclean, Scottish Marxist, one of the leaders of the ‘Red Clydeside’ era died on 30 November 1923 in Glasgow at the age of 44 .His funeral was attended by thousands of his fellow Glaswegians and at the time, was the biggest funeral ever seen in the city. Even today John Maclean is remembered by a Commemoration in November with a march and graveside oration at Eastwood Cemetery.

Maclean’s daughter, Nan Milton, provided a biography on her father and her selected works of Maclean, In the Rapids of Revolution was the first published collection of essays, articles, pamphlets and letters by the revolutionary organiser and educator of Clydeside. The indispensable Marxist Internet Archive have his articles from Justice and Forward, available online https://www.marxists.org/archive/maclean/index.htm

January 2018 saw the publication of Gerard Cairns new book on John MacLean titled: ‘The Red and the Green – a Portrait of John Maclean. The former Secretary of the John Maclean Society has a chapter in the book that highlights Maclean’s links with Irish revolutionaries on Clydeside, and the practical assistance hejohnmacleanbook on saale at Lighthouse, Edinburgh's radical bookshop. gave to the cause of Irish freedom. The author of “The Irish Tragedy: Scotland’s Disgrace”, is known better on the Left than in wider society. There has been a gradual increase in the literature that focuses on John Maclean and his political life but he remains still a controversial icon, partly because of his advocacy of a Scottish Workers Republic and rejection of the then newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain, an issue explored in John MacLean and the CPGB by Bob Pitt, on the Trotskyist left, who political disagreements with Maclean’s conclusions are open and reflective of the British Left’s attitude http://www.whatnextjournal.org.uk/Pages/Pamph/Maclean.html

That Maclean is published by others who politically oppose him, like the SWP’s 1998 study by Dave Berry, reflects the problem of how to incorporate an obvious revolutionary internationalist who stands for Scottish Republicanism in an essentially unionist Left. There was renewed interest in the importance of Maclean in the context of the debate about Scottish independence that saw the image of MacLean as a meme! While others equally ideologically hostile strangely try to claim him as their own [see Terry Brotherstone’s introduction to the WRP’s  Accuser of Capitalism published in 1986.]

Accuser 1918 cover

Then [as today] radical socialists operate on a British stage to an agenda set largely in response to the British state centred on London. The perspective offered by Maclean did not gel with that metropolitan-influenced analysis. As Graham Bain states Historians on the whole have been unkind about John MacLean.” Drawing upon his own mythologies, MacLean argued for an anti-war class patriotism, to refuse to fight each other over the interests of Europe’s capitalist classes. The call to break up the British state through Scottish Independence was “All Hail the Scottish Workers Republic” and not the patrician bourgeois call of ‘Scotland Free’.

All hail MayDay 1923

“Scotland must again have independence, but not to be ruled over by traitor chiefs and politicians. The communism of the clans must be re-established on a modern basis. (Bolshevism, to put it roughly, is but the modern expression of the communism of the mir.) Scotland must therefore work itself into a communism embracing the whole country as a unit. The country must have but one clan, as it were – a united people working in co-operation and co-operatively, using the wealth that is created.”

There are a minority of activists who will regard John Maclean as a legacy for today. His dedication and determination alone means he should not slumber in some ill-deserved obscurity. His expression and contemporary analysis maybe dated, his Marxist optimism and appeal to the working class endure:

1918 in the dock

MacLean turning to friends in the court shouted, "Keep it going, boys; keep it going".

Gerard Cairns (2018) ‘The Red and the Green – a Portrait of John Maclean. Connolly Books £6.99

Mail order: http://www.calton-books.co.uk/books/the-red-and-the-green-a-portrait-of-john-maclean/

Of Interest

Accuser of Capitalism. John MacLean’s speech from the dock, May 9th 1918. New Park Publications 1986

Bain, Graham (nd) John MacLean, His Life and Work 1919-1923. John MacLean Society

McHugh J. and Ripley, B.J.,   John Maclean, the Scottish Workers’ Republican Party and Scottish Nationalism Scottish Labour History Society Journal, No.18, 1983.

MacLean, John (1973) The War After The War Socialist Reproduction.

MacLean’s pamphlet ‘The War After the War’ has been republished by the Bristol Radical History Group.

Milton, Nan (ed) (1978) In the Rapids of Revolution. Allison & Busby

Milton, Nan (1979) John Maclean. Pluto Press

Sherry, Dave (1998) John Maclean. Socialist Workers Party

John Maclean – “The Most dangerous man in Britain” –   http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/john-maclean-most-dangerous-man-in.html   [July 1, 2014]

Sean Ledwith, The Scottish Lenin: the life and legacy of John Maclean http://www.counterfire.org/revolutionary/17009-the-scottish-lenin-the-life-and-legacy-of-john-maclean [February 21, 2014]

John Maclean’s Pollokshaws http://www.glasgowwestend.co.uk/people/johnmaclean.php

Legacy ayecomrade

49. Keke ~ fighter for freedom

Last year saw the publication of a rather expensive academic book, Youth Activism and Solidarity: the Non-Stop Picket against Apartheid.  The supporters of the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group [City Group] had maintained a Non-Stop Picket outside the South African Embassy in Trafalgar Square calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. City AA drew upon a wider geographical support that those who resided in the City, although affiliated as a local group of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, City AA, as it became known, had been founded by Norma Kitson in April 1982. The accompanying blog https://nonstopagainstapartheid.wordpress.com/  provides a commentary on the personalities and struggles around the campaign that was strongly influenced by the Revolutionary Communist Group (formed in 1974, having been part of the “Revolutionary Opposition” faction of the International Socialists (IS), (forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party).

In February 1985 City Group was de-recognised as a local branch of the national Anti-Apartheid Movement. The prolonged picket outside the South African Embassy in Trafalgar Square, a protest not supported by the AAM.

In justifying City Group’s expulsion, the AAM’s executive committee circulated a report quoting a letter from the then Chief Representative of the ANC in London, Solly Smith, which stated:

we are aware of the activities of these people and if they are not brought to a stop a lot of damage will be done in the field of solidarity work in this country. (The Anti-Apartheid Movement and City AA: a statement by the AAM executive committee, 1 December 1985).

In 1993, the ANC revealed that Solly Smith had confessed, prior to his death, that he had been a spy for South African Military Intelligence inside the London ANC.

RCG produced a pamphlet South Africa – Britain out of Apartheid; Apartheid out of Britain that gives some details of the City AA activism at the time. http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/images/pdf/rcg_south_africa_pamphlet_lq.pdf

Personally pleasingly was that sharing the book’s dedication was Zolile Hamilton Keke, the Chief Representative in the UK of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) in the mid-1980s.  In London he was a hard-working representative in a very difficult and hostile terrain where the British Anti-Apartheid Movement was a sworn enemy of the PAC. Those were hard and financially precarious years in exile, but he would  travel throughout London to speak at meetings on the freedom struggle. When City Group launched its Non-Stop Picket of the South African embassy, in April 1986, Keke was there at the rally to speak on behalf of the PAC.

He was a militant of Poqo (pure/ alone) the armed wing of the PAC,  Prisoner 325/64 on Robben Island , subject to a banning order on release in 1973 when he began recruiting youths to join the PAC in exile. A defiant Keke was a defendant in the secret Bethal treason trial after the Soweto Uprising by school students in 1976. In 1981 Keke went into exile as representative for the Pan Africanist Congress. In Britain the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) in practice only support the African National Congress, freezing out the representatives of the PAC and the black consciousness movement AZAPO, In 1992 he returned to South Africa with his family and he never gave up the fight for the liberation of his homeland.

As the authors state, “Zolile Keke helped educate a generation of British solidarity activists that it was not enough  to achieve a ‘democratic South Africa’, Azania had to be fully decolonized.”

A tribute to Zolile Hamilton Keke [October 31 1945 – February 6 2013] by fellow fighter for freedom, Motsoko Pheko, who worked with him in London exile can be found at   http://www.pambazuka.org/resources/zolile-hamilton-keke-tribute.

48. Looking at Yugoslavia (2)

quote-i-am-the-leader-of-one-country-which-has-two-alphabets-three-languages-four-religions-josip-broz-tito-75-55-69         yugoslavia

These links involves the question of how to appraise the Tito clique: whether as a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism or a renegade from the international communist movement and a lackey of imperialism. Was Stalin wrong in condemning Tito’s policies, not accepting ‘Titoism’ as a specifically Yugoslav form of Marxism-Leninism? The Chinese were praising Mao for his application of Marxism to China, and a couple of years later the British Road had the endorsement of the Soviet Communist Party, and from Stalin himself. However the judgement was that Tito followed a bourgeois-nationalist line and ultimately fell into the American imperialist camp despite protestation of neutrality and non-alignment from Belgrade.

The expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform resulted in a massive  purge within the ruling party that was reflected in the overwhelming number of arrests: between 100,000 and 200,000. Most of these were tortured and killed as “Stalinists.”

Stalin’s failure to overpower Tito’s leadership had vast significance for Soviet ideological and political hegemony in both the bloc and the international movement: here was an alternative communism. After its expulsion, Yugoslavia continued to chart a self-declared communist, but distinctly independent, pathway in its domestic and foreign policies. The United States was delighted with the Soviet-Yugoslavia split, and actively courted Tito with economic and military aid in the late-1940s and 1950s. As Stalin had already discovered, however, Tito refused to be the puppet of any government.



Where is the Nationalism of Tito’s Group in Yugoslavia Leading To

J.V. Stalin

This article was first published in the Soviet Union in December 1948 in the name of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). The identity of the author became known only after the dissolution of the USSR and the opening up of the CPSU archives. The examination of the documents and materials relating to the publication of the ‘Works’ of Stalin revealed that the article was planned to be published as part of volume 15. The article had been preceded by the correspondence of Molotov and Stalin to Tito and Kardelj between March and May 1948 detailing the political and economic errors of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and which culminated in the resolution of the Cominform of June, 1948.1 The immediate background to this article were the reports presented at the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia which indicated that Tito and his associates planned to continue to pursue their anti-socialist and anti-Soviet course.2 These negative developments were confirmed in the following months and were recorded in the resolutions and reports of the Cominform meeting which was held in Hungary in November, 1949.3 Today when the full consequences of the path of Tito are clear the struggle of Molotov, Stalin, the CPSU(b) and Cominform stands as a monument to their commitment to preserve Bolshevik principles in the face of the onslaught of modern revisionism.


1. The Correspondence between the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), London, 1948.

2. Josip Broz Tito, ‘Political Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.’ Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948; Edvard Kardelj, ‘The Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Struggle for New Yugoslavia for People’s Authority and for Socialism. Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948; Boris Kidric, ‘On the Construction of Socialist Economy in the FPRY’, Speech Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948.

3. ‘The Struggle for Peace, National Independence, Working Class Unity’, CPI, Bombay, 1950. Particularly important is the resolution, ‘Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Murderers and Spies,’ pp. 54-58. See also: ed. G. Procacci, ‘The Cominform, Minutes of the Three Conferences 1947/1948/1949’, Feltrinelli Editore, Milan, 1994.

Vijay Singh

In the well-known resolution of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties adopted in June 1948 ‘On the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’ it is pointed out that in recent months the nationalist elements that covertly existed even earlier have come to dominate the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, that the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has broken away from the internationalist traditions of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and has taken up the course of nationalism. 

All the Communist Parties, the entire camp of Peoples’ Democracy and Socialism unanimously accepts the Resolution of the Information Bureau ‘On the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’. All the Communist Parties of the world recognize that the present Yugoslavian leadership i.e. Tito’s group, by pursuing a nationalist policy, is playing into the hands of the imperialists, isolating Yugoslavia and weakening it. 

Has Tito’s group learnt any appropriate lessons from these facts? 

Has Tito’s group understood that a nationalist policy means losing Yugoslavia’s most loyal allies represented by the Communist Parties of the world and that it has already led to the isolation of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and weakening of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia both within and outside the country? 

Has Tito’s group understood that the only way out of the difficult situation into which it has lead the party and the country is to recognize its mistake, break with the policy of nationalism and return to the fraternity of the Communist Parties? 

No, Tito’s group has not learnt any lessons and it does not appear that it understands these simple and unmistakable facts. 

On the contrary, to all justified and comradely criticism of Tito’s group by the fraternal communist parties and the entire camp of Peoples’ Democracy and Socialism, Tito’s group is responding in the pages of Belgrade’s press with the foul language of the street, by igniting nationalist hatred towards the people of neighbouring democratic countries, widespread repressions, arrests and murders of communists and non-communists who dare to express doubts regarding the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group. Very recently, Colonel-General Arso Iovanovich, a hero of the liberation struggle of Yugoslavia was murdered by the agents of Tito’s assistant, the infamous Rankovic. He was killed because he expressed doubts about the policy of nationalism and terrorism of Tito’s group. In this connection it is openly said in Yugoslavia that ‘Tito’s group has degenerated into a clan of political murderers.’ 

Evidently, Tito’s group has no intentions of recognizing and rectifying its mistakes. It is afraid and does not have the courage to recognize the mistakes because to recognize and rectify ones mistakes would need courage. Even worse, out of ‘fear’ it is arresting and subjecting to repression anyone who dares to remind it of its mistakes.

Lenin says: ‘How a party relates to its mistakes is the most important and convincing criteria of a party’s significance and its capacity to fulfill in deed its obligations towards its class and the working masses. Ability to recognize one’s mistakes openly, reveal its causes, analyse the conditions leading to it and conscientiously discuss the means of rectifying it is the sign of a determined party, of fulfilling one’s obligation and educating and teaching the class and, following it, the masses.’

Evidently Tito’s group just cannot be put in the rank of such courageous, honest and devoted party leaders that Lenin speaks of.

The most important point in the evolution of nationalism of Tito’s group occurred in the spring of 1948 just before the summoning of the Information Bureau. The unconcealed policy of nationalism of Tito’s group began with its refusal to participate in the Meeting of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties and discuss the situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia with the fraternal Communist Parties. Notwithstanding numerous requests to send a delegation of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to and explain its position in the Meeting, following the example set by other Communist Parties in earlier meetings, Tito’s group blatantly refused to participate in the working of the Meeting. It became evident that Tito’s group attaches no importance to the friendship with other communist parties, including the Communist Party of the USSR. This constituted an open split with the international united front of the Communist Parties. It was breaking away from the position of internationalism and a shift to the rails of nationalism.

The newspaper ‘Borba’ printed from Belgrade asserts that Tito and his accomplices support the united anti-imperialist front. This, certainly, is a sham, designed to deceive ‘simple people’. In reality, which anti-imperialist positions can we talk about when this group cannot stay together in a family even with the Communist Parties of the countries close to Yugoslavia. 

The second major fact indicating the falling of Tito’s group into the sin of nationalism is the improper, hypocritical and anti-Leninist conduct at the V Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Some naïve people expected the Congress would work under the banner of friendship with the Communist Parties, under the flag of strengthening of the anti–imperialist front of the countries of People’s Democracy and the USSR. In reality, however, everything happened to the contrary. In reality, Tito’s group converted the Congress into an arena of tussle against the Communist Parties of the neighbouring countries, into an arena of a tussle against the united anti-imperialist front of the countries of Peoples’ Democracy. This Congress was a campaign against the countries of People’s Democracy and their Communist Parties, against the USSR and its Communist Party. 

Of course in Yugoslavia it is not totally safe to speak openly about the campaign against the USSR and the countries of People’s Democracy as the people of Yugoslavia fully support unity with the countries of People’s Democracy and the USSR. Therefore, Tito’s group has taken to deceit and has decided to disguise this reactionary campaign behind pompous words of praise for the USSR, friendship with the USSR, the enormous role of the USSR in the national liberation movement etc. Things reached a stage that Tito’s accomplices advised Stalin to join up in this deceitful campaign and to take on himself to defend Tito’s nationalist group from criticism by the Communist Parties of the USSR and other democratic countries. The Belgrade press let loose all possible tricks and intrigues, tried out the most unexpected and ludicrous twists and turns in order to prove to the peoples of Yugoslavia that black is white and white is black, that the campaign of Tito’s group against Socialism and Democracy is of secondary importance and that ‘alliance’ with the USSR and a ‘united front’ with it is the main concern of Tito’s group. In reality it turns out that Tito’s group in this period has placed itself in a common camp with the imperialists by rubbishing the Communist Parties of countries of Peoples’ Democracy and the USSR to the satisfaction of the imperialists of the whole world. Instead of a united front with the Communist Parties we have a united front with the imperialists. The V Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has approved and strengthened the nationalist policy of Tito’s group. 

The political acrobats from the newspaper ‘Borba’ demand that the Communist Parties stop exposing the mistakes of the group and that they extend support and confidence to this group as, otherwise, such a campaign can seriously harm Yugoslavia. 

No gentlemen, the Communist Parties cannot trust or extend support to the nationalist policy of Tito’s group. It is possible that such a situation can hurt Yugoslavia. It is not the Communist Parties that need to be held responsible for it, but Tito’s nationalist group which has broken away from the Communist Parties and that has declared war on them.

The political acrobats from the newspaper ‘Borba’ must be clear in their minds that Marxism and nationalism are incompatible, that nationalism as a bourgeois ideology is antagonistic to Marxism. It must be clear to them that Marxism cannot reconcile with nationalism or nationalist leanings in the Communist Parties and that they must eliminate nationalism in whatever form it covers itself in the name and interests of the workers, in the name of peoples’ freedom and friendship and in the name of the triumphant construction of socialism.

Lenin says: ‘Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism are two ceaselessly incompatible slogans that correspond to the camps of the two large classes of the whole capitalist world and reflect two policies (even more so, two world perceptions)’.

In circumstances when the power of the bourgeoisie has already been put an end to, the exploiter class and its agents are trying to use the poisoned weapon of nationalism in order to reestablish the old formation.

Regarding this Stalin says: ‘Nationalist leanings are an adjustment of the internationalism of the working class to the nationalism of the bourgeoisie… nationalist leanings are a reflection of the attempts by ‘our’ nationalist bourgeoisie to restore capitalism’.

Nationalism in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is a blow not only for the common anti-imperialist front, but above all, for Yugoslavia herself, the peoples of Yugoslavia and the interests of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia both in the field of foreign and internal affairs.

The nationalism of Tito’s group in foreign affairs leads to a break with the united front of the world revolutionary movement of the working people, to a loss of Yugoslavia’s most trusted allies and to self-isolation of Yugoslavia. Nationalism of Tito’s group works against Yugoslavia in the face of her external enemies. 

The nationalism propagated by Tito’s group in the sphere of internal politics leads to a policy of compromise between the exploited and the exploiter, to ‘uniting’ the exploited and the exploiter into a single ‘national’ front, to a policy of retreat from the class struggle, to propagating the falsehood of a possibility of constructing socialism without a class struggle, of a possibility of peaceful transformation of the exploiter under socialism i.e. to wrecking the combativeness and morale of the working people of Yugoslavia. The nationalism of Tito’s group is incapacitating the working people of Yugoslavia before their internal enemies. 

A year ago, when Tito’s group did not yet expound nationalist leanings and cooperated with the fraternal communist parties, Yugoslavia was forcefully and fearlessly marching ahead supported by its closest allies represented by the Communist Parties of other countries. This was the situation in the recent past. However, after the change of course by Tito’s group towards nationalism, the situation is altered radically. As Tito’s group broke away from the united front of the Communist Parties and became scornful towards the countries of Peoples’ Democracy it began to lose its most loyal allies and found itself isolated in the face of its external and internal enemies.

Such is the distressing outcome of the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group.

Tito’s group has not understood that which is absolutely clear and obvious for any Communist. It has not understood the simple truth that in the present conditions of the international situation, the solidarity of the fraternal Communist Parties, mutual cooperation and friendship of countries of Peoples’ Democracy and cooperation and friendship with the USSR is the crucial prerequisite of growth and prosperity of the countries of Peoples’ Democracy in the construction of socialism and the main guarantee of their national freedom and independence in the face of imperialist coercion.

The political tricksters from the newspaper ‘Borba’ further assert that the criticism of the mistakes of Tito’s group has now ballooned into a campaign against the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and against its people.

This, certainly, is a falsehood. There never was and there is no campaign against the peoples of Yugoslavia. It would be criminal to conduct any campaign against the peoples of Yugoslavia whose heroism is known to everyone. It is also known that the peoples of Yugoslavia strongly support a united front with the countries of Peoples’ Democracy and the USSR. They are not at all responsible for the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group. We look upon the peoples of Yugoslavia as our true allies. 

There never was and there is no campaign against the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as a whole. We know very well that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia stands determinedly for friendship with the Communist Parties of other countries, for friendship with the USSR and its Communist Party. The persistence of anti-imperialist traditions among the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is not doubted at all. We also know that the majority of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia does not approve of the policy of nationalism of Tito’s group. We know that for this particular reason it is being subjected to brutal repression by Tito’s group and his agents.

A ‘campaign’ is being conducted not against the peoples of Yugoslavia and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as a whole, but against Tito’s nationalist group in order to help the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to figure out the mistakes of Tito’s group and reverse the nationalist policy of the Yugoslavian leadership.

The political tricksters from the newspaper ‘Borba’ assert that, after all, Tito’s group is inseparable from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and that it represents the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

This is also incorrect. A year ago Tito’s group, perhaps, represented the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. But that was one year ago. At present, after it has broken with the Communist Parties, after having fought the neighbouring republics and after defecting to the camp of nationalism, Tito’s group does not any more represent the majority in the party. Now Tito’s group represents Tito’s faction enjoying the trust of only a minority in the party, that uses the State apparatus for the purpose of suppressing the internationalist majority in the party, that has thrown the party under the domination of the hangman Rankovic and that has established a regime of terror with its repressions, mass arrests and murders. Indeed, now Tito’s faction is in a state of war with its own party. Only the blind cannot see this. If Tito’s faction has been incapable of maintaining discipline in the party through usual democratic methods and has been forced to make use of mass repressions, then it means that it has already lost the trust of the majority of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

Tito’s faction represents only a minority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and does not enjoy the trust of the party but only of the administrative-police apparatus of Yugoslavia.

(Central Committee)

‘Pravda’, 8th December, 1948.

With acknowledgements to Svetlana Alekseyevna Bondareva and Tim Davenport.
Translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar.

Revolutionary Democracy Vol. VIII, No. 2, September 2002

The Yugoslav-Soviet reconciliation :  Link Yugoslav-Soviet Split


Twists and Turns and U-turns : Link to document

“In 1953-1954 I spoke out [against reconciliation with Tito’s] Yugoslavia at the Politburo. No one supported me, neither Malenkov nor even Kaganovich, though he was a Stalinist! Khruschev was not alone. There were hundreds and thousands like him, otherwise on his own he would not have gotten very far. He simply pandered to the state of mind of the people. But where did that lead? Even now there are lots of Khruschevs. . .”

“Tito is now [1970s at three different talks–ed.] in a difficult situation. His republic is going under, and he will have to grab onto the USSR for dear life. Then we shall be able to deal with him more firmly.”

“Nationalism is causing him to howl in pain, yet he himself is a nationalist, and that is his main defect as a communist. He is a nationalist, that is, he is infected with the bourgeois spirit. He is now cursing and criticizing his own people for nationalism. This means that the Yugoslav multinational state is breaking up along national lines. It is composed of Serbs, Croatians, Slovenes, and so forth.”

“When Tito visited us for the first time, I liked his appearance. We didn’t know everything about him at the time. . . .”

“Tito is not an imperialist, he is a petty-bourgeois, an opponent of socialism. Imperialism is something else again.”

 – Albert Resis intro. & ed., Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics, Conversations with Felix Chuev (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993), pp. 83-4.


Link to the 1958  Chinese publication : In Refutation of Modern Revisionism

Link to  :   Reading  – IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY 1963 


Link :  https://www.marxists.org/subject/yugoslavia/maoism/index.htm


 CWM  NC Minutes November 1978:Internal Bulletin No.5: Item 4. Yugoslavia  


“I met with Comrade Tito just as an old soldier. We had a cordial talk and agreed to forget the past and look to the future. This is the attitude we adopted when we resumed relations with other East European parties and countries; we take the present as a fresh starting point from which to develop friendly, cooperative relations. Of course, it’s still worthwhile to analyse events of the past. But I think the most important thing is that each party, whether it is big, small or medium, should respect the experience of the others and the choices they have made and refrain from criticizing the way the other parties and countries conduct their affairs. This should be our attitude not only towards parties in power but also towards those that are not in power. When we had talks with representatives of the Communist parties of France and Italy, we expressed this view that we should respect their experience and their choices. If they have made mistakes, it is up to them to correct them. Likewise, they should take the same attitude towards us, allowing us to make mistakes and correct them. Every country and every party has its own experience, which differs from that of the others in a thousand and one ways.”

Deng Xiaoping. Fundamental Issues in Present-Day China.  Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. 1987:186.


Literature Search on Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute and Socialist Yugoslavia

Banc, Ivo (1984) The National Question in Yugoslavia. Cornell University Press

Banc, Ivo (1988) With Stalin Against Tito: Cominformist Splits in Yugoslav Communism. Cornell University Press

Bogdan Denitch (1990) Limits and Possibilities: The Crisis of Yugoslav Socialism and State Socialist Systems, University of Minnesota Press.

Boris Ziherl (1949) Communism and the Fatherland. Jugoslovenska Knjiga

Dedijer, Vladimir (1953) Tito Speaks: his self-portrait and struggle with Stalin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson

Dedijer, Vladimir (1978) The Battle Stalin lost: memoirs of Yugoslavia 1948-1953. Nottingham: Spokesman Books

Djilas, Milovan ( 1966 ed; 1957) The New Class, an analysis of the communist system. London: Unwin Books

Djilas, Milovan (1980) Wartime with Tito and the partisans. London: Martin Secker & Warburg

Hoxha, Enver (1982) The Titoities, historical notes. Tirana: The <8 Nentori> Publishing House

Immanuel Ness and Dario Azzellini (eds.) (2011) Ours to Master and to Own: Workers’ Control from the Commune to the Present, Haymarket Books.

Isyar, Levent (2005 Thesis) Containing Tito: US and Soviet policies towards Yugoslavia and the Balkans.

Kardelj, Edvard (1960) Socialism and War. A survey of the Chinese criticism of the policy of coexistence. New York: McGraw-Hill

Kardelj, Edvard (1982) Reminiscences. The struggle for recognition and independence, the new Yugoslavia 1944-1957.London: Blond & Briggs

Klugman, James (1951) From Trotsky to Tito. London: Lawrence & Wishart

Luther & Pusnik (2010) Remembering Utopia: the culture of everyday life in Socialist Yugoslavia. Washington: New Academia Press

Maclean, Fitzroy (1957) The Heretic: the life and times of Josip Broz Tito. New York: Harrap

Mehta, Coleman Armstrong (2005 Thesis) “A rat hole to watch”? CIA analyses of the Tito-Stalin Split 1948-50.

Michael Barratt Brown (2005) From Tito to Milosevic: Yugoslavia, the Lost Country,Merlin Press.

Milojko Drulovic (1978) Self-Management on Trial, Spokesman.

Niebuhur, Robert Edward (2008 Thesis) The Search for Communist Legacy – Tito’s Yugoslavia.

Patterson, Patrick Hyder (2001) Bought & sold: Living and losing the good life in Yugoslav. Cornell University Press

Programme of The League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1981; 1958) Belgrade: Socialist Thought and Practice

Rajak, Svetozar (2011) Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in the Early Cold War Reconciliation, comradeship,confrontation, 1953–1957. London: Routledge

Rajak, Svetozar (2004 Thesis) YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953-1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation.

Ramet, Sabrina P. (2002) Balkan Babel: the disintegration of Yugoslavia from the death of Tito to the Fall of Milosevic. Westview Press

Rubinstein, Alvin Z. (1970) Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned World. Princeton University Press

Swain, Geoffrey (2011) TITO- A Biography. London: I.B.Tauris & Co.

Velikonja, Mitja (2008) TITOSTALGIA –A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz. Ljubljana: Peace Institute

Vuksic, Velimer (2003) Tito’s Partisans. Osprey Press

Wlodzimierz Brus (1975) Socialist Ownership and Political Systems, Routledge and Kegan Paul Books.

Zukin, Sharon (1975) Beyond Marx and Tito: theory and practice in Yugoslav Socialism. Cambridge University Press


Chapman, B. (2014) Yugoslav-Soviet Split. In War in the Balkans: An Encyclopedic History from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Richard C. Hall (Ed.). (Volume 1, 353-354).

Chen Po-ta. Yugoslav Revisionism – product of imperialist policy. In Refutation of Modern Revisionism 1958

Coleman Mehta. (2011) The CIA Confronts the Tito-Stalin Split, 1948–1951. Journal of Cold War Studies 13:1101-145.

Danhui Li, Yafeng Xia. (2014) Jockeying for Leadership: Mao and the Sino-Soviet Split, October 1961–July 1964. Journal of Cold War Studies 16:124-60.

Dr. Gabriele Vargiu. The June 1948 Yugoslav-Soviet Crisis: The Italian and American Political Perception and its Consequences over the Trieste’s Dispute. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol.2 no.9 October 2003

Gheorghiu-Dej. Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the power of Assassins and Spies. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy 1950

Jakopovich, Daniel. Yugoslavia’s self-management. Unknown

Jeronim Perović, The Tito-Stalin Split: A Reassessment in Light of New Evidence

Johnson, A. Ross. The Sino-Soviet Relationship and Yugoslavia 1949-1971. Rand Corporation 1971.

Josip Broz Tito, Concerning the National Question and Social Patriotism – speech Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences, November 26th 1948

Journal of Cold War Studies, Spring 2007, Vol. 9, No. 2 , Pages 32-63

Majstorovi, Vojin. The Rise and Fall of the Yugoslav-Soviet Alliance, 1945-1948. Past Imperfect 16 (2010)

Medvedev, I. Tito Clique in service of the Instigator of a new war. Bolshevik, No.11, June 1950

Milojevic, Louie. Building Tito-Land: America’s Cold War Fantasy , Manuscript undated.

People’s Daily, Is Yugoslavia A Socialist country? Comment on the Open letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (III) September 23rd 1963

Perovi, Jeronim. The Tito-Stalin Split: A Reassessment in Light of New Evidence. Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 9, Number 2, Spring 2007


Popivoda, Pero. Tito Clique Wipes Out Communist in Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.14 July 15th 1949

R.Zambrowski, Yugoslav Trotskyites Path of Betrayal and Treachery. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.10 May 15th 1949

Rajak, Svetozar. New Evidence from the Former Yugoslav Archives. COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN, ISSUE 12/13

Reinhartz, Dennis. The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas. Modern Age Summer 1985

RESOLUTION of the Information bureau Concerning the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, For A Peoples Democracy No.13 July 1st 1948

Salaij, Djuro. Achievements of the Working Class in Building the New Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.9 May 1st 1948

Where the Nationalism of the Tito Group in Yugoslavia is leading. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.18 September 15th 1948

Yugoslav Nationalists Ally With Greek Monarcho-Fascists. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.14 July 15th 1949



47. Looking at Yugoslavia (1)



Soviet Union condemns the

Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia


1948 | 1948_The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute_Published Correspondence

London: Royal Institute of International Affairs

1949 | Communist Party of Yugoslavia In The Power of Assassins and Spies. Resolution of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the latter half of November 1949.  1949_Meeting_Information Bureau_Communist Parties_November

1950 | Medvedev, Tito clique in service of the instigator of a new war . Bombay: People’s Publishing House Text of Medvedev

1953| May 1953 Zimianin reports to Molotov on the internal and foreign policy of Yugoslavia after breaking with the USSR.    Zimianin report

Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin. First published by Harcourt Brace 1962. London: Penguin [2014]

Author of The New Class [1957], Djilas was once an orthodox communist and former partisan general, expelled from the Party in 1954, his disillusion is record in this account of meeting Stalin as a representative of the Yugoslav government on three occasions.


Restoration of Capitalism in Yugoslavia

1949 Restoration of Capitalism in Yugoslavia Articles from For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy!

1951 |James Klugmann, From Trotsky To Tito London: Lawrence and Wishart


 Exchange of Letters marking improvements in relations between the two countries and the two parties.

1954 | June 22, 1954 Letter from Khrushchev to Josip Broz Tito and the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Letter from Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev to Yugoslav leader Josep B. Tito suggesting that the time is ripe for a rapprochement between the two states and parties. Blaming former NKVD chief Lavrenty Beria and former Yugoslav leadership member Milovan Djilas for doing the work of the imperialists by attempting to drive a wedge between the Soviet and Yugoslav people and parties, Khrushchev suggests that the ousting of both will increase rapprochement between the two countries and be the catalyst for a a summit between the two leaders.

Exchange of Letters  

06 | Reply of August 11th to Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Yugoslav response to Soviet approaches about normalizing relations between the two countries and the two parties. While encouraged by the Soviet gestures, the Yugoslav leadership remains cautious and suggests that the rapprochement take a slow and steady course, taking into account the differences as well as the similarities between the two countries.

07 | Letter dated September 23rd   from Khrushchev to Tito and the Central Committee of the League of Communists Of Yugoslavia

Nikita Khrushchev’s letter to Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito concerning the possibility of improving relations between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The Soviet leader suggests that rapprochement between the USSR and Yugoslavia can only be accomplished if both parties continue the exchange of views regarding mutual non-interference in the internal affairs of the other country, peaceful coexistence, equality among parties, and world peace. Khrushchev goes on to suggest that a summit between party representatives should meet in order to further rapprochement.

1956 | Khrushchev reports on his conversations with the Yugoslav leaders during his visit to Yugoslavia

Document 08

                                                                Yugoslavia’s Socialism

1950 | Workers Manage Factories in Yugoslavia. Speech by Josip Broz Tito

Tito’s Speech

1958 | Extract from Programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia



China’s changing attitude towards      Yugoslavia

1955 | June 30 1955 Conversation of Mao Zedong and the Yugoslav Ambassador [V.] Popovic

Conversation Text



1958 |  InRefutationOfModernRevisionism

Editorials and articles on modern revisionism that appeared in the Chinese press in May and June, 1958 and the Resolution on the Moscow Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties adopted by the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress.

1963 | Is Yugoslavia a socialist country

Comment on the Open letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (III) by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) September 26, 1963


Enver Hoxha on his neighbours

Enver Hoxha and the Great Ideological Battle of the Albanian Communists Against Revisionism


1964 |The Belgrade Revisionist Clique – renegades from Marxism-Leninism and Agents of Imperialism

Tirana: The <<Naim Frasheri>> State Publishing Enterprise [1964]


1978 | Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav “Self-Administration” – Capitalist Theory and Practice

(Against the anti-socialist views of E. Kardelj in the book “Directions of the Development of the Political System of Socialist Self-Administration”)

Tirana: Institute of Marxist-Leninist studies of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania [1978]


1982 | Enver Hoxha, THE TITOITES Historical Notes

Tirana: The <<Naim Frasheri>> Publishing House [1982]