Socialism In Exile

Artwork of the exiled partisans of WW2, marching through the downtrodden masses in a metaphysical depiction.

I was listening to a wonderful lecture that is one of my favorites, I actually cited it in my first article on this website. Namely “Europe is Kaput! Long live Europe!” A fantastic lineup of Yanis Varoufakis, Slavoj Zizek, Slavoj Zizek’s friend, and Julian Assange.

Assange made a good point about ideology, and about the future of Marxism. I have for a long time examined the historical parallels between Christianity and Marxism, in terms of the obstacles, development and courses of action taken by each in order to survive what is often terrible persecution and constant marginsalisation.

These days the idea of persecuted Christians sounds absurd of course, having become a very strong cultural majority in most of the world. But it wasn’t always like that. What fascinates me is how these often diasporic tribes in Rome managed to somehow take over most of the world.

Obviously this lead to a lot of terrible crimes, and I certainly do not want to see this outcome reproduced. However the sheer dynamism of such a feat is not to be dismissed, and I believe that aside from vagueness and prejudice, some sort of superstition of ideology wherein study is assimilation, there’s few arguments against exploring it.

What Assange spotted was how something is missing from Marxism, because Marxism cannot be mere politics at this point, the history has advanced too much, and the content is too radical for mere pedestrian reform. To simply compound a set of positions on singular issues within the overton window, and form a party on such a basis, would be anti-Marxist if anything, it would completely reject the analysis of dialectical materialism.

Rather, much like the first Christians, we have reached a new stage. A stage also familiar to the Jews. Christians overcame this with greater ease than the early Jews, likely because of a stronger universalism.

Jewish conversion often required a lot of dedication and study, and was generally motivated by marrying into one of the tribes of Israel. However with Christianity, all you needed was active participation and a baptism, and suddenly you were one of the gang.

And just like Judaism, Christianity was a tribal system, when you were in, you had access to a society. People could help you out, and you could help others, it gave people a strong since of belonging. Michael Parenti discusses this in History As Mystery, covering how Christianity grew within Rome.

Obviously I do not admonish Jewish tradition, there was good reason for these precautions. Christianity left itself very vulnerable to outer influence in order to do this, so while it was certainly a very effective way to grow, we also see the consequences of this. How the Jewish faith has a far less terrible history than the Christian one does.

So you do need to examine both, and learn to recognise the best of both worlds so to speak. And the Jewish tradition actually offers a lot of answers to Assange’s observation.

James Mason wrote a book called Siege, which has been the inspiration of many barbarians. It is a fascist book, and the manifesto of the modern Neo-Nazi. Is it not poignant then to examine Exile? The opposite of a siege.

White supremacists in the US feel as though these exiled peoples are encroaching upon them, and they are damn right, it’s about time. I am not some idiot politically correct person who is saying make way for the refugees, how white people should be put to justice for their crimes and what have you, it’s just as ridiculous in either direction.

What I am saying is that it’s about time we let in some fresh air. That the greatest societies in the world experienced renaissances by opening themselves up to such a world. How culture, language, literature and people are like chemical compounds which demand reaction to one another. That stable compounds is generally the opposite of life. It is petrified oceans and barren wastelands.

Yugoslavia is in fact a beautiful example of this, in fact, socialism in general is. It was Chinese communists who came up with the theory of the three worlds, and they considered the Soviet Union as a first world country. At first upon hearing this I felt skeptical, but then I realised it was absolutely true. The Soviet Union did produce first world conditions, because they were the ones to let in the fresh air.

Yugoslavia prior to being Yugoslavia was a sectarian and backwards country, rife with war, illiteracy, poverty and ethnic feuds. Atrocities and suffering was very commonplace, and the unification of the Yugoslav people was like day and night, battle fields became wheat fields, scribes became librarians, and empires became societies.

The first country to fully electrify was the Albanian socialist republic.

The first country to introduce women’s suffrage in Europe was Latvia following the first Bolshevik revolution of 1905.

The first country to travel to space was the Soviet Union. The first country to eliminate homelessness was the Soviet Union.

The first country to introduce prison rehabilitation was the Soviet Union.

The first country to give equal rights to trans people, and provide them with gender reassignment surgery was East Germany.

The first country to grant Jews and Romani equal rights under the law was the Soviet Union.

A very good book about this is Blackshirts and Reds, it covers a lot of the achievements of socialism. Time and again, we see the liberal powers lag behind, being forced to adopt Soviet policy in order to keep their own people from growing discontent.

In fact, speaking of civil rights, RT’s documentary Black in the USSR talks about how one of Stalin’s favorite films was Circus, which as made in 1936. The film was a black production, by African-American refugees from the US who were escaping persecution from western liberal racism.

This is because according to the Soviet constitution, every people have a right to cultural production, and so in 1936, it was perfectly natural for them to fund and publish films from their black community.

Stalin was also elected an honorary Indian chief by the Indian Confederation of America, which comprised 27 tribes. So technically speaking, Josef Stalin was the first ever native American head of state in Europe, even if his status was produced by naturalisation. Meanwhile the liberals have Elizabeth Warren.

A lot of people have said that Stalin disliked or rejected this honour; And that’s true, because Stalin hated personal honours. He would constantly reject medals, titles and awards on a regular basis, because from his perspective: Millions were out dying on the eastern front while he was doing relatively safe logistical labour, he found it obscene to take credit for their sacrifice.

That is why, as he did with literally all such things, he donated it to the museum of the revolution as to give the award to the people who rightfully deserved it.

“I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet.”

– Stalin, June 1926

“You speak of your ‘devotion’ to me. Perhaps this is a phrase that came out accidentally. Perhaps… But if it is not a chance phrase, I would advise you to discard the ‘principle’ of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals.”

– August 1930


Stalin was famously so adamant about rejecting his Hero of the Soviet Union honours that they had to pin it on his dead body during his funeral.

One amusing thing I learned as well as how Stalin personally prohibited the publishing of “The Childhood of Stalin”, the Eastern bloc equivalent to The Life of Washington, the book with aggrandising stories like Washington and the cherry tree, and so on.

Just like Washington’s book, Stalin’s book was full of propaganda and nonsense, and Stalin absolutely hated it. America is the land built on personality cults, not the USSR.

But my point is this: Socialism really did build what we today call the first world, and they did it through a very simple formula, they took all that imperial wealth from the former monarchs and redistributed it to the people who had produced it. The government effectively paid taxes to the people in the value form of hospitals, infrastructure, cities and public works.

THIS is what took Europe out of feudalism. It’s ridiculous when woke progressives try to credit slave traders with this, and talk about how the cholera ridden European peasant of paradises such as Victorian England or the Prussian empire were living on the lap of luxury thanks to colonialism. Where is the evidence of this?

Since the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the average European has grown a foot in height, and the reason why is because they no longer grow up malnourished. This is not the accomplishment of slave traders or monarchs, and I find it vulgar to try and say that their entirely self-serving industry provided even a morsel of public good.

Most of us have stories about our great grandparents, and the abject horrors they had to live through under monarchism, and then you have these woke Americans shelling out settler-colonial mythology about how even the slave trade had trickle down economics, it’s obscene and ahistorical.

The slave trade was a detriment, and only benefitted the slave traders. It’s like giving the tobacco industry credit for introducing cigarette filters, or the automotive industry credit for unleaded petrol. It is the fiction of idiots.

What produced first world conditions was the abolition of slavery, and the abolition of monarchism. It was the weakening of the classes that hoarded wealth and human welfare.

There was always money to build hospitals, and schools, and subsidised food, but it took a Bolshevik to do it. Quit giving slave traders credit for this by presenting the same tired fiction that Europe was some sort of El Dorado during the colonial era. That the realities of workhouses, coal mines, public hangings, land enclosures and divine right by kings didn’t last well into the industrial revolution.

In fact, the last recorded WITCH BURNING happened in 1895. This is what colonialism gave us, we were fucking animals. Don’t pretend we all sauntered around in togas and discussed the true nature of justice all day.

Socialism built the living standard we now know in the first world, and then proceeded to spread it to a lot of other places through mutual co-operation and trade, by breaking the embargoes and monopolies of former colonial powers.

This is not to say that they gifted places like Viet Nam or China in some kind of saviour narrative, but it is to say that they helped them fight the constant sabotage that held indigenous people back, and constantly toppled their achievements. Viet Nam was built by the Vietnamese, the Soviet contribution was simply to aid in the prevention of the French and the Americans burning it all down.

Similarly, the same liberals who would sneer at the USSR for how getting a personal automobile was a lengthy bureaucratic process in the 80s, are in modern times lamenting the wastefulness, environmental and destructive forces of the automotive industry.

Even now, after having been toppled for some 30 years in a brutal US-backed coup d’etat, the liberals are presiding over Soviet history and taking notes, trying to figure out how to advance their own societies using Marxist policy.

Latin used to be the language of scholars, but today it is Cyrillic and Mandarin.

My point is, Marxism is no longer a mere idea, it is a legacy. A legacy being picked apart by vultures and philistines, as well as desperately preserved by scholars and visionaries.

This is why we are exiles. We are no longer idealists pursuing the future, but rather exiles trying to restore order. Just like how the exiled Christians would draw fishes on the walls of Rome, so do the exiled Marxists draw hammers and sickles on the walls of Moscow.

Everywhere around the world, we see exiled Marxists holding on to the fragments of a great civilisation, moving towards a better tomorrow during which we may restore its legacy, and build upon what was once lost.

Until we realise that vision, and until we begin to understand our true role as the inheritors of the world, who hold the truth which will set the people free, we will be lost. We will continue to be trapped in the inertia of history, and retreat into bitterness.

Until we see the rims on our shoulders, produced by the shining light of the past; By the incontrovertible evidence of our truth, and our purpose, then we will remain blind. Do not look forward at blind intellectuals, but rather, look back at our great history, and examine its many guiding truths.

Become a Marxist in exile, embody the culture, the tradition and the union of the Soviet legacy. Learn to read the books, sing the songs, tell the stories, and share the traditions. Let yourself build a community of exiles, and cultivate a proletarian diaspora, in which we are slowly, and in the blind spots of neoliberalism, growing into the restored order of the workers.

We are not intellectuals dreaming of a new tomorrow, we are rather partisans behind enemy lines, dreaming of homecoming.

Socialist realism painting featuring workers from every corner of the world holding a flag together.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store