Bill Bland – anti-Revisionist writings

Posted on 28/03/2026 by Michael

Bill Bland

Bill Bland (1916-2001) – anti-Revisionist writings

Bill Bland was one of those British Communists who refused to accept the Revisionism which came to power in the Union of Soviet Socialist States (USSR) with the ascendency of Nikita Khrushchev following the death of Comrade Joseph Stalin in 1953.

In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – CPSU (during the so-called Secret Speech) Khrushchev laid out the line of Soviet Revisionism but due to (perhaps mistaken) efforts by those revolutionary Communists to maintain unity it was until after the Meeting of the 81 Communist and Workers Parties in Moscow, on the 16th November, 1960, (where Enver Hoxha gave one of the most principled presentations of any Marxist-Leninist in the 20th century) that Revolutionary Marxist-Leninists worldwide were finally convinced the degeneration of the CPSU was irrevocable.

Bland was involved in the Anti-Revisionist Movement in Britain and was one of the founding members of the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain (MLOB). Following disagreements and splits within the MLOB Bland founded the Communist League in 1975. He also was instrumental in the formation of the Stalin Society in the UK in 1991. He was subsequently expelled from that organisation when the supporters of Mao Tse-tung became dominant.

Bland was very much pro-Enver Hoxha and anti-Mao Tse-tung. This would have caused difficulties in the period between 1961 and 1976 when the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania and the People’s Republic of China stood shoulder to shoulder in the struggle against Revisionism during what was known as the Polemic in the International Communist Movement during the 1960s.

This pro-Hoxha, pro-People’s Socialist Republic of Albania stance might have gained some credibility following the death of Chairman Mao in 1976 with the coup and the assumption of power by the ‘capitalist roaders’ in China but following the collapse of the Socialist society in Albania in 1991 the differences became academic.

Now the challenge is to get the parasites in control out of their positions. We can have the struggle between different lines of thought after that milestone has been passed. The documents below can be considered part of that forthcoming Cultural Revolution.

—————————————

Engels’ ‘Condition of the working class in England’, paper presented at the International Seminar held in Italy, December 1995 to commemorate the Centenary of the death of Frederick Engels, 39 pages.

German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact – 1939, presented to the Stalin Society in London, February 1990, 21 pages.

Lenin’s Testament – 1922-1923, n.d., 45 pages.

Manifesto of the Communist League, Where we stand, adopted December 1975, 5 pages.

Meeting of German and British Marxist-Leninists, between the Communist League of the UK and the Communist Party of Germany (Marxist-Leninist), April 1999, 2 pages.

Socialists and fascism, n.d., 2 pages.

Stalin and the arts, an extended and annotated version of a lecture given at the Stalin Society in London in May 1993, 65 pages.

Stalinism, address to the Sarat Academy in London on 30th April 1999, 5 pages.

The ‘doctors case’ and the death of Stalin, an extended and annotated version of a lecture given to the Stalin Society in October 1991, 82 pages.

The assassination of Trotsky, Compass, magazine of the Communist League, No. 110, February 1994, 16 pages.

The Cominform fights Revisionism, presented to the Stalin Society in London, ca 1998, 16 pages.

The Cominform fights Revisionism, presented to the Stalin Society in London, ca 1998, version produced by the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line, 16 pages.

The enforced resettlements, a paper presented to the Stalin Society in London in July 1993, 17 pages.

The historical significance of Stalin’s ‘Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR’, n.d., 31 pages.

The market under Socialism, paper presented following a presentation by Ella Rule at the Stalin Society on Stalin’s ‘Economic problems of Socialism in the USSR’, n.d., 6 pages.

The Pakistani revolution, Report of the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain, ca 1969, reprinted 2001 by Alliance, 86 pages.

The question of [trade] protection, January 1992, 2 pages.

The Revolutionary process in colonial countries, a paper presented on behalf of the Communist League, at the Marxist-Leninist Seminar in London in July 1993, 17 pages.

The struggle against Revisionism in the field of linguistics, Compass, magazine of the Communist League, No. 126, February 1997, 30 pages.

The Workers Party of Korea and Revisionism, n.d., 18 pages.

United Front tactics, paper presented to the Stalin Society in London, n.d., 15 pages.

VI Lenin badge picture gallery

Posted on 31/08/2025 by Michael

VI Lenin

VI Lenin badge picture gallery

I don’t really know when the wearing of badges with the image of VI Lenin started to become common place in the Soviet Union.

Images of the first Bolshevik leader were used soon after his death, especially in photo-montages, for example, promoting the scheme of the ‘Electrification of the whole country’. The Soviets had long understood that in a (at that time but quickly diminishing as literacy campaigns took root) predominantly peasant country with high levels of illiteracy that the visual image – especially in the form of cheap to produce posters – were an effective weapon to get over the government’s message. This was later stepped up during the 1930s with the programmes of collectivisation of agriculture and the industrialisation of the country in the Five Year Plans.

Yes, this was propaganda – but which society before or since hasn’t used all the methods to hand to get across their message?

Also, in the 1920s images of Vladimir Ilyich would have been common in state and public buildings. (This happens in the present day in the USA where there’s always an image of the present President in public buildings down to and including post offices – so not a uniquely Soviet phenomenon.) However, I don’t know to what extent this practice would have developed in private houses.

(In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea you will find the image of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in virtually every home – normally the two of them side by side. However, I have never seen an example where the image of the present leader (Kim Jong Un) is on display in either a public or private forum. It is almost virtually impossible for foreigners to acquire a badge similar to those which every citizen wears in public.)

Returning to the Soviet Union I have not come across any badges with the image of Soviet leaders (and here I’m talking principally about VI Lenin, JV Stalin and FE Dzerzhinsky – the only three I have seen personally depicted on a badge – I’m ignoring here the traitorous Gorbachev and the vodka sodden idiot Yeltsin) prior to the 1970s. If there have been personal badges earlier they tended to be of a Red Star or a Hammer and Sickle – and from the early days the Hammer and Plough. But nothing of the leadership.

1970 saw the hundredth anniversary of the birth of VI Lenin – and many of the badges produced made direct reference to that anniversary. My assumption is that in an effort to boost their credibility (and to piggy-back on the admiration the people of the Soviet Union had for the first Bolshevik leader) the then Revisionist leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union instigated the wearing of a small badge with Lenin’s image. It must be remembered that this was only a few years after the beginning of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the People’s Republic of China which included the wearing of a badge with the image of Chairman Mao.

Whenever the mass production of these badges started – and for whatever reason – there may be many readers who haven’t had the opportunity to see examples of these images of VI Lenin. Hence, the slide show below to rectify that omission.

Also included are a few examples of badges with the image of JV Stalin. These have been produced in very recent years and, to the best of my knowledge, none were ever produced in the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Monument to Courage – Tashkent

Posted on 04/08/2025 by Michael

Monument to Courage – Tashkent

Tashkent was hit by an earthquake on April 26, 1966 at 05: 23 local time. It had a magnitude of 5.1 on the Richter Scale with the epicentre right under the city at a depth of from 3 to 8 kilometres. Most of the buildings were destroyed (including the historic ‘Old Town – which is now only a replica of the original), remarkably no more than 200 people were killed but 300,000 were left homeless.

Tashkent, with the assistance of the other Union Republics of the former Soviet Union, was rebuilt and even extended following its destruction and the monument commemorates that effort and unity of purpose. (If such an event were to happen again it’s unlikely that such a joint effort would come to the city’s aid.)

The monument was created by the sculptor and artist Dmitry Ryabichev and was inaugurated on May 20, 1976.

It’s basically in three parts. On the left hand side is a black, labradorite cube with the date of the disaster on one side and a round clock face showing the time the earthquake struck on an adjacent side. This cube is split through the date and this fracture leads in the direction of the main element of the piece – a group of a man, woman and child.

The male stands in front of the woman and child, in a protective stance, with his right hand facing any approaching danger. Although this fits into the traditional trope of the male being the protector the woman herself is not entirely passive as her right arm also extends towards the threat, with the palm of her hand ready to push back. She has turned so that the child, which clings to her neck and which she supports with her left arm, is as far away as possible from the danger. The stance of both of them gives the impression they are walking towards the threat and not running away from it. Note should be taken of the plinth upon which they stand as this continues the idea of a fractured earth with the jagged line that runs away from the cube.

The other element of the monument is a number of bas relief panels which form a back ‘wall’ to the couple. Here are represented the various trades that were needed for the reconstruction of the city. As is the case in many Soviet era monuments (celebrating both military and civilian events), here women are depicted as playing a role equivalent to that of the men in the construction trades.

The story of the reconstruction reads from the left to the right, starting with basic clearing away and preparation for the new buildings and ending in the festival celebrating the completion of the rebuilding of the country’s capital city.

The area is clean and obviously well tended demonstrating that this monument still has resonance amongst the people of Tashkent.