The Centenary of the October Revolution of 1917

Lenin, Stalin and Dzerzhinsky at the Smolny

Lenin, Stalin and Dzerzhinsky at the Smolny

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’

More on the USSR

The Centenary of the October Revolution of 1917

The centenary of the most important event in the history of the world occurs on the 7th November 2017. On that day a hundred years ago the working class and peasantry of Russia took power into their own hands and attempted to build a new world order.

I have already looked at that event in another, earlier post, but as we live in a world that is obsessed with anniversaries (and I’m falling into that trap, being in Leningrad at the time of the centenary) perhaps it’s time to re-address the issues that were brought up by that tremendous, earth shattering event.

We can gauge the magnitude of the events in that year by the way capitalism did it’s best to destroy the nascent Soviet state.

Lenin – the leader of the Bolsheviks – together with James Connolly of the Irish Republican Army, were the only socialist leaders to condemn the slaughter of the First World War as soon as it started. Social democratic apologists for capitalism (such as the British Labour Party) reneged on their declarations against war (made at Stuttgart and Basel in 1907 and 1912 respectively) as soon as they were put to the test. Only the true Communists had kept to their principles and the imperialist countries knew they were dealing with a dangerous proletarian force when Lenin was at the head of the revolutionary party.

The capitalist countries saw red and realised that the Bolshevik Revolution was like no other that had preceded it. What the Parisian workers had attempted to achieve, in the Paris Commune of 1871, had been suppressed with the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of men, women and children. Capitalism would go to the same extremes to achieve a similar result in Russia. As the tools for this they used their pathetic, confused and ignorant workers (who had spent more four years killing each other for the benefit of their own oppressors) who were told to attack the first workers’ state. Like the sheep they had become they fed the resulting ‘Civil War’ when more people were killed than in the imperialist war itself.

The Revolution was celebrated by revolutionary workers all over the world as the harbinger of a new society, free from exploitation and oppression. A revolution ‘is not a dinner party’, as Chairman Mao said, and the ignorant, pusillanimous and forelock tugging workers and their collaborationist ‘Labour/Socialist’ parties have attacked and condemned the October Revolution for the necessary measures taken to defend, promote and develop the workers state on the road to build Socialism – and eventually Communism.

The road followed by the Soviet Union, alone, until joined by the People’s Republic of Albania in 1944, the People’s Republic of China in 1949, and much later, after an heroic battle against American Imperialism, the People’s Republic of Vietnam in 1975, was tortuous, long and hard.

Massive achievements were made – as well as mistakes. If a revolution is predictable it’s not a revolution. But what was achieved by the Soviet people, in the field of industrial production, the collectivisation of agriculture and the fearless, heroic and self-sacrifice that led to the defeat of the Nazi beast, was of immeasurable benefit to the people’s of the world – and a lesson which those exploited and oppressed of the world need to understand and emulate.

But those that inherit a revolution are not those who made it. They benefit from the achievements but want more – those ‘benefits’ of capitalism with which no socialist state can compete. And that’s things. Things like consumer goods, the fickle trinkets of mass production, that entice stupid people away from what is truly meaningful for a full and fruitful life – those necessities, like health, education and the ability to contribute to society through productive activity.

The revolution in the Soviet Union was lost in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) where Nikita Khrushchev denounced Comrade Joseph Stalin and all the achievements of the previous 29 years and the period of Socialist construction in a sixth of the world’s land mass ended.

For a further 24 years the ‘Revisionist’ version of Communism promoted by the CPSU spread like a virus throughout the world, creating confusion and division within the working class. This was the task that had been taken on board by Social Democracy, after it’s betrayal of the working class in 1914 (by calling upon the workers in their respective countries to kill each other for the benefit of capitalism) but the Soviet renegades sowed more confusion by continuing to call themselves Communists and claiming to follow the revolutionary ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Their pathetic demise in 1991 was too long in coming.

A hundred years after the magnificent event (the images of which are more influenced by those who have seen the film’ October’ by the revolutionary Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein than what actually happened) the situation is very different.

Capitalism has been re-introduce in tooth and claw. Instead of free health, education, secure employment, pensions and an infrastructure that benefits the majority everything has now been privatised. The collective wealth created by Socialist workers has been stolen by opportunist thieves. One of these scumbag ‘oligarchs’ has a boat sitting of the coast of Turkey which is bigger than the Cruiser ‘Aurora’ that signalled the start of the attack on the Winter Palace and the virtual beginning of the Socialist Revolution.

(Perhaps it’s a sign of our times that a grand, ancient name has been given to a bunch of opportunist thugs and common thieves.)

But that’s the problem for the people of Russia of today. They are not the brave and courageous innovators of the past. Revolution is not passed down through the genes. They are the submissive, afraid and confused that populate most countries, especially those in the ‘so-called’ civilized ‘west’, Europe, North America and certain parts of the South-eastern Asia.

Putin plays the nationalist card, courts the church – of whatever denomination – in an attempt to maintain his power. After Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Gobshite, and the Vodka Soaked Drunk Yeltsin, Putin is just a greedy opportunist who prays on civil society. After this bunch of cretins how can anyone, with a modicum of sense, criticise Uncle Joe’s policy of purging the Party of opportunist elements?

So no real celebration of the most important event in the history of the world in the place where it occurred.

That’s good.

Leningrad (it will always have that name to me), the cradle of the revolution, has been renamed St Petersburg (the Germanic name that was used before the First World War, and not even the Russified version of Petrograd) was where it all started 100 years ago. If there’s any ‘official’ attempt to recognise the event this is manifested in museum gallery exhibitions that seek to denigrate the success of the Bolsheviks rather than celebrate it.

Re-writing of history is the name of the game.

Denigration of the Socialist past is almost at a fascist level. Having had to suffer the ‘impartiality’ of the British media for so long, it’s quite refreshing to see a total ideological war against the past.

The Russian state has not decided to ignore the past – that would be impossible even in the present circumstances – rather they have chosen to re-interpret it.

Exhibitions in both Moscow and Leningrad at the end of 2017 that relate to the events of 1917 are a propaganda attempt to undermine the Revolution. In an effort to denigrate the importance of both Lenin and Stalin (as well as other truly revolutionary leaders) they promote Trotsky – if anyone was unsure of his counter-revolutionary nature the adoption of him as a ‘revolutionary icon’ by Putin’s state should clarify matters. (There was even an advert on Russian TV about a mini series around Trotsky’s life. He was considered a capitalist agent in the times of Socialism and he is becoming a ‘revolutionary’ icon by those who have been restoring total capitalist control of the country.)

For some reason, which I don’t really understand, Voroshilov has been added to the ‘devils’ of the past alongside JV Stalin. There’s obviously an agenda there but I’m not sure what. As with the so-called ‘rehabilitation’ of the traitors and foreign agents of the 1930s those who have been chosen by the present, capitalist regime are chosen for a reason – they are symbols of their aspirations.

This has been taken to bizarre extremes at times. At an exhibition in Leningrad, for example, in a section about propaganda (I don’t see this word as necessarily having a negative connotation) during the building of Socialism the information cards declare that the Soviet State only sought to eliminate illiteracy because this would make more people susceptible to brain washing Soviet propaganda.

The perfidious Communists were trying to out-do the obsfucators of the past, in Britain for example, who used Latin in the church and the courts so that the ordinary people wouldn’t be able to understand what was being said. By actually teaching them to read and write the Soviet ‘propaganda machine’ could be more easily absorbed by the basically ignorant workers and peasants. The double thinking here is remarkable.

Socialism goes contrary to all previous social systems based on class, exploitation and oppression. The most important aspect of the creation of a new kind of man and woman is the changing of the selfish mindset that is a close partner of class systems. This is the cultural revolution that all socialist societies have instituted in one form or another. Socialist values of collectivity and respect for all is an anathema to capitalism. Only an intellectually adept people are capable of building a society free from all the evils of the past.

Those in power in Russia today are quite happy to feed their population with the garbage that capitalism has to offer, from the likes of McDonald’s, KFC and Coca-Cola to the cheap, nasty and moronic TV shows copied from western Europe, the only difference being the language. Shit in,shit out.

If you placed these cretinous curators of exhibitions in a novel nobody would believe them credible.

But that’s not really an issue. The country has betrayed its revolutionary past. It has no right to claim the Revolution as its property as it’s people have rejected that revolution for a capitalist lifestyle – together with all the consequences of a capitalist society. If they complain about their present reality then they only have themselves to blame.

The present ‘Communist Party of the Russian Federation’ is more akin to the revisionist party that betrayed the Revolution than the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin. I wouldn’t trust them to change a light bulb let alone a country. They make token gestures to the event of a hundred years ago but chose to hold a meeting in Moscow at the exact time of the centenary. If nothing else they display no concept of history – something important for a revolutionary. If you don’t know, care or understand where you come from how can you know where to go in the future?

The people of St Petersburg walk the same streets as the revolutionaries but they don’t walk in their footsteps. The chances of them reversing the changes of the last 60 years are nil – unless the country has to confront another major crisis such as WWI. (But then they are no different from the workers of any other country where revolutions are only made when people are weak and in crisis rather than from positions of strength and stability.) If the lesson of the October Revolution is anything else it’s that we haven’t learnt the lessons of the October Revolution.

If the workers, peasants and poor of the world made a revolution when they wanted rather than waiting until it was a necessity then their future would be easier. They wait until the last moment and build the new from the literal ruins of the old rather than using the old as a foundation for the new.

Whether the centenary of the October Revolution will prompt the exploited and oppressed to look at their own situation anew is doubtful. But one thing is certain, for those who want to exert their own dignity the Great October Proletarian Revolution will remain a beacon which lights the future.

Long Live the Revolution of the 7th November 1917!

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’

More on the USSR

El Meco – Quintana Roo – Mexico

El Meco

El Meco

More on the Maya

El Meco – Quintana Roo

Location

The pre-Hispanic settlement was built on a slight elevation 4 m above sea level, in an area of marshlands and mangroves. Although relatively small, El Meco is one of the largest settlements on the north coast of Quintana Roo. The site was split down the middle when the current road was built, with part of the residential area and a pre-Hispanic pier occupying the section closest to the sea. El Meco lies north of the city of Cancun, just 2.7 km away on the Puerto Juarez/Punta Sam road.

History of the explorations

We owe the earliest mention of El Meco to Alice and Augustus Le Plongeon, who visited the site briefly in 1887 and described the plaza and main pyramid. In 1891, Teobert Maler published a few notes and a map, as well as the first known photograph of the central building. A few years later, in 1895, William Holmes made a short expedition to the site and contributed new descriptions and sketches, and also discovered two new serpent heads. The British researchers C. Arnold and F.K.T. Frost passed through the site between 1907 and 1908. The most important work of the early 20th century was conducted in 1918 by Samuel K. Lothrop, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, who contributed descriptions and detailed drawings of the main structure. Thomas Gann, a member of the same expedition, published his impressions in 1924. Thirty years passed before the first stratigraphic wells were excavated, shedding light on the first ceramic sequence at the site; we owe this knowledge to William T. Sanders, who worked at the site in 1954. In the 1970s, a team of archaeologists from the INAH, led by Fernando Robles C. and Anthony P. Andrews conducted the first official excavations at the site, and since the 1990s Luis Leira G. (INAH) has been in charge of the works.

Pre-Hispanic history

The research conducted to date has confirmed that the first human occupation of El Meco dates back to the Early Classic, when it must have been a small fishing village that owed allegiance to a larger site further inland, such as Coba. Everything suggests that the site was abandoned for an interval of some 400 years and then reoccupied around 1000 to 1100 AD. Judging from the architectural style and ceramics corresponding to that period, the new population appears to have been of Itza and Cocom descent, from the western part of the Yucatan Peninsula. Between AD 1200 and the arrival of the Spaniards in the 16th century – namely, the period known as the Postclassic – El Meco experienced a construction boom and developed closer political and economic ties with all the sites on the east coast. We do not know the original name of the site. El Meco is a reference to the limp of a local resident in the 19th century who owned a coconut palm plantation near the lighthouse by the beach and whose nickname was adopted for the ruins. Some researchers have suggested that El Meco might be the Belma of the 16th century mentioned by the chronicler Oviedo y Valdes as the administrative centre of Ecab, one of the most important provinces in the region on the arrival of the Spaniards.

Site description

The orientation and layout of the buildings in the core area of El Meco confirm their dual ceremonial and administrative function. All of the constructions are arranged around a plaza, at the centre of which stands the most important structure of all, known as the Castillo. This building faces east, towards Isla Mujeres (‘Island of Women’), with which it maintained close ties. Square in plan and standing 12.50 m high, it is the tallest building on the north coast of Quintana Roo and probably served as a reference for the ancient seafaring Maya. It displays three construction phases and is composed of a four-tier platform with a balustraded stairway in the middle culminating in two serpent heads, nowadays greatly eroded and barely recognisable as such. At the top of the structure is a temple with a tripartite entrance in the East Coast style. The excavations revealed the existence of a substructure – a single-tier platform and a small temple with a single entrance. Nowadays, part of this substructure is exposed and visible on the west side of the building. Flanking the building are two constructions; the smaller of the two corresponds to a temple and the other, fronted by columns and small altars, probably to a residence. The architecture around the main plaza is defined by elongated buildings with hypostyle rooms, which may have been used for political or administrative purposes. Given the importance of the site as a commercial port, some of the buildings may well have served as warehouses for products or a market.

Ceramics

Three ceramic groups have been identified at El Meco, providing us with an insight into the cultural development of the site:

Cochuah ceramic group (AD 400-600).

This is the earliest manifestation of human activity and the ceramics found suggest that during the Early Classic their relations were limited exclusively to sites in the north of Quintana Roo.

Hocaba-sotuta ceramic group (AD 1000-1200).

Between the former period and this one, the site was vacated. During this time, El Meco appears to have maintained relations with communities in the Peten/Belize region.

Tases ceramic group (AD 1200-late 16th century).

This period corresponds to the last pre-Hispanic occupation and increased construction activity. The site must have had connections with sites on the east coast of Quintana Roo, although there are certain stylistic similarities with the architecture of the western part of the peninsula. El Meco was abandoned in the late 16th century, like most of the sites on the east coast, due to the new economic, political and religious patterns that accompanied the Spanish Conquest.

Importance and relations

El Meco almost certainly operated as a religious centre during the Postclassic. Due to its coastal location and close ties with Isla Mujeres, it may well have played an important role as a trading port and part of an important trade network along the coast of Quintana Roo during the Postclassic.

Maria Jose Con Uribe

From: ‘The Maya: an architectural and landscape guide’, produced jointly by the Junta de Andulacia and the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, 2010, pp 433-435.

El Meco

El Meco

1. The Castle; 2. Structure 3; 3. Structure 6; 4. Structre 8; 5. Structure 12; 6. Structure 18.

How to get there:

From Cancun. Combis leave Parque el Crucero to the north of the main ADO bus station in downtown Cancun. Their destination is Puerto Juarez and/or Puerto Sam. It’s a short 10-15 minute journey. Cost M$10 each way.

GPS:

21d 12’ 38” N

86d 48” 05” W

Entrance:

M$70

More on the Maya

El Rey – Quintana Roo – Mexico

El Rey

El Rey

More on the Maya

El Rey – Quintana Roo

Location

The pre-Hispanic settlement is situated on Cancun Island. Measuring 21 km in length and 400 m at its widest, this is a long strip of land delimited by the Caribbean to the east and by Lake Nichupte to the west. It is surrounded by vast wetlands and mangroves. No one knows the original name but the present-day one is a reference to a sculpture of a human face with an iguana headdress found at the site. El Rey is the largest and most important of the 12 pre-Hispanic sites on the island and chronologically corresponds to the Late Postclassic. It coexisted with San Miguelito, the second largest, Yamil Lu’um (‘undulating land’), Punta Cancun and Pok Ta Pok. However, some of the settlements on the island date back to the Late Preclassic, the most important of which are Coxolnah or ‘house of the mosquito’, situated on a peten or island in the lake area, and El Conchero, a mound of shells and conches left by mollusk-gathering human groups.

History of the explorations

The first geographical reference to the Island of Cancun or Cancuen can be found on a map from 1776 drawn up by the cartographer Juan de Dios Gonzalez. During the 19th century, the island was visited by Captain Richard Owen Smith, John L. Stephens and the Englishman Frederick Catherwood, Alice and Augustus Le Plongeon, William H. Holmes, C. Arnold and F. J. T. Frost; the latter two produced the first drawing of the anthropomorphic head that lends the site its name. In the 20th century, Thomas Gann and Samuel K. Lothrop produced descriptions of various structures as well as several maps and photographs. In 1954, William T. Sanders conducted the first excavations in an attempt to find ceramic materials that would indicate a timeline for the sites of El Rey and San Miguelito. Nine years later, Wyllys Andrews IV led excavations at El Conchero. In the 1970s, Pablo Mayer Guala of the INAH launched the first official research and consolidation project at El Rey. In the subsequent years, the same institution has conducted various consolidation and maintenance works, led by Enrique Terrones G.

Pre-Hispanic history

When the Spaniards arrived with Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba in 1517, the Yucatan Peninsula was divided into 19 chieftainships and Cancun Island belonged to Ecab. The principal economic activities were fishing, farming and the production of salt, honey, copal (a type of resin) and cotton. Between the 13th and 16th centuries, these products were traded via a vast network of terrestrial and maritime routes covering every coast on the peninsula, from Campeche to Central America. Thanks to its location on the edge of the island and status as just one of several coastal enclaves in the pre-Hispanic commercial network, El Rey was able to trade its marine products: dried fish, stingray spines, utensils and ornaments made of shell and conch. In the same way, various foreign goods were imported into the region: basalt grinding stones, knives and flint projectile points, obsidian cores and daggers, beads and earrings made of jadeite and quartz, rings, ornamental bells and copper tweezers. The limited terrain and saline soil shaped the economy of the ancient inhabitants of Cancun Island. Farming alone could not support a large population where scaly fishing, gathering mollusks and turtles provided the staple diet. The island’s occupants build underground pits (chultunes) to store rainwater and supplement the natural sources of fresh water from cenotes and sinkholes.

The pre-Hispanic occupation of the site is denoted by the Tases ceramic group, essentially composed of the Payil, Mama, Navula and Matillas varieties, the latter obtained through trade with the Gulf region of Campeche and Tabasco. The Spanish Conquest led to the disintegration of the trade network on the Caribbean coast, with serious consequences for communities such as El Rey. All the coastal settlements entered a population decline and between the 16th and 18th centuries became prey for English, French and Dutch pirates.

Site description

The architectural ruins at El Rey correspond to the Late Postclassic and the East Coast style, and coexisted with the constructions at Tulum, Tancah, Xelha, Xcaret, San Gervasio, Playa del Carmen and even certain buildings at Coba. There are 47 structures at El Rey, which itself covers an area measuring 520 m along the north-south axis and 70 m along the east-west axis. The principal unit or Civic-Ceremonial Precinct is composed of two plazas surrounded by religious constructions comprising temples, altars, adoratoriums and a pyramid platform with architectural evidence of a sub-structure. There are also hypostyle constructions with palatial columns and benches, used as beds, adjoining the interior walls. Situated north of the core area is a 200-m causeway, flanked by residential platforms on which wood and palm dwellings were built. Just south of the core area, three colonnaded temples flank another causeway, this time 300 m in length. Over 500 human burials were found beneath the residential platforms; most show that the humans were buried in a kneeling position. The offerings vary from a simple obsidian or conch knife to ceramic pots and jadeite beads and necklaces. A high ranking dignitary was buried on top of the pyramid platform and the offering associated with this tomb includes a ceramic goblet, two copper tweezers, an arrow shaft made of deer, a conch bracelet and a jadeite necklace. Cranial deformation and dental mutilation can be observed on several skulls, and pathologies such as arthritis and osteoporosis have also been detected, as well as a high degree of vitamin C deficiency. The average lifespan of this population has been estimated at 35 to 40. Like other coastal settlements from this period, El Rey had a texcatl or stone slab for sacrificial use, which confirms that this practice was conducted at the site. The temple known as Structure 3B still contains traces of murals on the interior walls of the vaulted chamber.

Enrique Terrones Gonzalez

From: ‘The Maya: an architectural and landscape guide’, produced jointly by the Junta de Andulacia and the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, 2010, pp 436-437.

El Rey

El Rey

1-6. Structures 1 to 6.

How to get there;

El Rey is located almost towards the end of the long spit of land which houses the so called ‘hotel’ district of Cancun. It’s to be found just over a kilometre after the Museo Maya de Cancun (Cancun Mayan Museum). Buses R1 and R2, to and from downtown Cancun, run regularly along this road. M$12 per journey.

Entrance:

M$70

More on the Maya