Judeo-Bolshevism Is Real: A Response to Rev Laskaris of RTSG

by DoomerNationalist and Zoltanous

Introduction 

In recent months, a discussion thread on X (formerly Twitter) initiated by RTSG, a component of the Infrared collective (with contributions from numerous members), has aimed to dismantle the concept of "Judeo-Bolshevism," primarily referencing data from a Substack post entitled Judeo-Bolshevism: Fact from Fiction. This article aims to address and refute the claim made in the original thread, which questions the significant influence of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution, its party, and the establishment of the Soviet Union (USSR). By drawing on references from both the original thread and those cited in the Substack article, we will argue that Jewish figures indeed played a pivotal and disproportionately large role in the inception of Bolshevism. This, in turn, has (rightfully) shaped the perception of Communism in the Western world as a Jewish movement.

The Jewish Role In Soviet Communism 

Initially, the original discussion fails to clarify what is meant by "Judeo-Bolshevism," merely showing that Jewish participation in the party and their representation in significant positions were minimal in a certain year. Hence, it argues that Bolshevism couldn't be influenced by Jewish characteristics or that Jews couldn’t have significantly contributed to Bolshevism's rise. The discussion's broad and unspecific refutations could dismiss the concept of "Judeo-Bolshevism" by examining any Soviet department and finding a lack of Jewish presence. However, this article contends that Jews were disproportionately represented and crucial to the early success of Bolshevism. This assertion will be supported by beginning with some straightforward statistics from Richard Lynn:

“Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks during the Civil War between the Red and the White Russians of 1917-1921. The Red Army was led by Trotsky, who was Jewish, and Jews were 40 percent of the top elected officials in the Army. At the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets in 1917, 31 percent of the Bolshevik delegates were Jews. In the Second Congress of Soviets, Jews were 37 percent of the Bolshevik delegates. The first two heads of the Soviet State-Lev Kamenev (born Rozenfeld, 1883- 1936) and Yakov Sverdlov (1885—I919)-were both Jews, and so also were the first Bolshevik bosses of Moscow and Petrograd-Kamenev and Zinoviev. From 1919 to 1921, Jews were approximately 25 percent of the Party’s Central Committee.”

— Richard Lynn, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

In Arkady Vaksberg's book Stalin Against The Jews,  he documents: 

“On the third anniversary of the October Revolution there was published a colorful album, which opened with a photomontage of a gallery of the founders of the revolution- Lenin surrounded by his closest comrades. To the right of Lenin is Zinoviev, to the left, Trotsky. There are sixty-one men in the photographs, but Stalin is not among them. We can imagine his frustration and anger. And of the pictured Bolsheviks, more than a third, twenty-two, are Jews. And the picture, moreover, does not include Kaganovich, Pyatnitsky, Goloshchekin, and many others who were part of the ruling circle, and whose presence on that album page would have raised the percentage of Jews even higher.”

— Arkady Vaksberg, Stalin Against The Jews

Jews held prominent positions within Lenin's closest group of associates. Seth Frantzman, in his article Was The Russian Revolution Jewish? discusses Lenin's journey to Thayngen, Switzerland in a sealed train accompanied by his nearest allies and party members. According to Frantzman, the train carried 19 members of Lenin's Bolshevik party, allies from the Menshevik faction, and six members from the Jewish Labor Bund, with nearly half of the passengers being Jewish. This significant presence of Jews within the early Bolshevik party and their close association with Lenin played a crucial role in shaping his favorable views towards Jewish people.

Kevin Macdonald also touches upon this:

“For example, Lenin openly and repeatedly praised the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement; he was one of the most adamant and consistent in the party in his denunciations of pogroms and anti-Semitism more generally. After the revolution, he backed away from his earlier resistance to Jewish nationalism, accepting that under Soviet rule Jewish nationality might be legitimate. On his deathbed, Lenin spoke fondly of the Jewish Menshevik Julius Martov, for whom he had always retained a special personal affection in spite of their fierce ideological differences.”

— Kevin Macdonald, The Culture of Critique

A chart presented in the discussion illustrates that, between the years 1918 to 1924, Jewish members constituted between 40% and 60% of the Politburo. This significant representation highlights the prominent role Jews played in the early Soviet leadership, during a critical period of the Soviet Union's formation and consolidation of power. This data underscores the influence of Jewish leaders in shaping Soviet policies and direction in the years following the Bolshevik Revolution.

Data also reveals a noticeable, though reduced, overrepresentation of Jews after Stalin assumed power, an important observation given Stalin's anti-Semitic tendencies and focus on Russian identity later. Stalin's differentiation between what he called a "true Russian faction" and a "Jewish faction" as early as 1907 helps explain the swift decrease in Jewish influence when he came to power. Additionally, the thread discusses the composition of CHEKA Commissars, indicating a mere 4% were Jewish, a statistic that is misleading.

As Lynn states:

“When Cheka (the secret police) was set up in 1918, Jews were 19 percent of the investigators; they made up 50 percent of the investigators employed in the department for combating counter-terrorism. In 1923, Cheka was replaced by OGPU; Jews composed 15 percent of the senior officials and half (four out of eight) of the governing Secretariat.”

— Richard Lynn, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

The original thread does not mention that the CHEKA, known for its brutal and inhumane actions, initiated the Red Terror as state policy, resulting in at least 10,000 deaths within months. The discussion of CHEKA's brutality leads inevitably to the gulags, with death toll estimates ranging from 2.3 million to 17.6 million. Key figures in the establishment and management of the gulags included Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel and Matvei Davidovich Berman, both of whom were Jewish. Frenkel played a significant role in organizing forced labor, particularly at the Solovetsky Islands camp, an early gulag site. Berman, on the other hand, was instrumental in developing the gulag system and led the Gulag from 1932 to 1937, receiving the Order of Lenin in 1933. The NKVD, CHEKA's successor, was overseen by its first head, Genrikh Yagoda, who was Jewish. Additionally, Jews constituted 63% of the NKVD’s senior leadership.

The role of Jewish individuals in the Soviet Union's harsh actions goes further than their participation in the NKVD and the labor camps, also including involvement in tragedies such as the Holodomor. The Holodomor refers to the artificially induced famine in Ukraine that led to the deaths of millions of Russians and Ukrainians. Some Communists attempt to justify the Holodomor, arguing it wasn't specifically targeted at Ukrainians. However, contemporary historical research has debunked this claim. For instance, research documented in The Causes of Ukrainian Famine Mortality, 1932-33 reveals:

“Anti-Ukrainian bias in Soviet policy explains up to 92% of famine mortality in Ukraine and 77% in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus; approximately half of the total effect comes from bias in the centrally planned food procurement policy.” 

— Andrei Markevich, Natalya Naumenko, Nancy Qian, The Causes of Ukrainian Famine Mortality, 1932-33 

In this context, the role of Lazar Kaganovich in amplifying the death toll in Ukraine warrants discussion. As a prominent figure close to Stalin and his brother-in-law, being the sibling of Stalin's third wife, who was Jewish, Kaganovich was the only Jewish member of the Politburo in the 1930s. His influence was considerable; he was dispatched to Kharkov, the Ukrainian capital at the time, with orders to enforce an annual grain procurement quota of 356 million pood. Despite appeals from the Ukrainian Politburo to lessen the grain requisitions from peasants, Kaganovich, together with Molotov, steadfastly refused these appeals. They then enacted a policy demanding higher grain output and imposed severe penalties for failure to comply. 

A notable edict from Stalin and Kaganovich criminalized the theft or damage of state or collective farm assets, making it punishable by death. Kaganovich's measures, including his directives on grain procurement and his involvement in the demolition of major religious sites like Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, have been criticized for their severity. His actions, especially during the 1932–33 Holodomor famine, led the Kyiv Court of Appeal to cite them as evidence of his participation in genocidal acts against Ukrainians. Raised in an environment steeped in Jewish ethnocentrism, Kaganovich's upbringing and actions are detailed in Stuart Kahan's biography, The Wolf of The Kremlin, highlighting his early influences, including his uncle's teachings.

“‘Whatever is good for the Jews,’ Uncle Levick had said to him. ‘Follow only that line of reasoning.’”

— Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of The Kremlin

A key figure close to Stalin, and related through marriage as the brother of Stalin's third wife, who was Jewish, Kaganovich held a unique position in the 1930s as the sole Jewish member of the Politburo. His influence was significant; he was sent to Kharkov, then Ukraine's capital, to mandate a grain procurement quota of 356 million pood annually. Despite pleas from the Ukrainian Politburo for reduced grain requisitions from peasants, Kaganovich, alongside Molotov, firmly rejected these requests. Following this, they issued a directive for increased grain production and strict penalties for non-compliance. Notably, a decree passed by Stalin and Kaganovich made the theft or sabotage of state or collective farm property a capital offense. Kaganovich's actions, including his directives on grain procurement and his role in the destruction of significant religious buildings like the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, have been scrutinized for their harshness. His actions have been cited by the Kyiv Court of Appeal during an investigation into the 1932–33 Holodomor famine as evidence of his involvement in genocidal actions against Ukrainians.

The brutality of Bolshevik policies is also exemplified by the Red Terror. Yakov Sverdlov, who served as the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee from 1917 to 1919, was lauded by Lenin as an exemplary revolutionary. Sverdlov's call for "merciless mass terror" against revolution adversaries in August 1918 and the subsequent adoption of his resolution for widespread terror reflect the severe measures employed by Bolshevik leadership. Furthermore, Sverdlov's significant role in the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family underscores the extent of these actions. The historical records vary, with some attributing the execution order directly to Sverdlov, while others suggest a collective decision with Lenin. Trotsky's recounting indicates a mutual agreement between Sverdlov and Lenin on the necessity of the Tsar's execution.

Yuri Slezkine in The Jewish Century states:

“Early in the Civil War, in June 1918, Lenin ordered the killing of Nicholas II and his family. Among the men entrusted with carrying out the orders were Sverdlov, Filipp Goloshchyokin and Yakov Yurovsky.”

— Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century

The individuals in question, including Yakov Yurovsky, known for his role in the execution of the Tsar and his family, were of Jewish descent. Yurovsky oversaw key aspects of this grim event, from weapon distribution to the final disposal of the bodies. Such instances highlight not just the significant presence of Jews in Bolshevik ranks but also their involvement in critical and controversial actions under the USSR. Jews found themselves in influential Soviet positions, a shift largely attributed to Lenin's favorable stance towards them, enabling a level of cultural influence previously unattainable. The Soviet Constitution of 1918, particularly Article 22, endorsed the rights of all ethnic groups, while a decree issued by Lenin on July 25, 1918, explicitly condemned anti-Semitism, marking it as “counter revolutionary.” This legal and state support paved the way for Jews to ascend to prominent cultural and social positions. Richard Lynn's analysis further illustrates the disproportionate representation of Jews across various spheres of Soviet life, underscoring their ascension and impact during this period.

It's notable that in 1949, amidst the onset of the anti-cosmopolitan campaign, Jews continued to hold numerous top-tier professional roles. The anti-Semitism exhibited by Stalin and the Soviet regime appeared to be more surface-level, primarily targeting Jewish members within the party who diverged from Stalinist ideology. The notion that Jewish Bolsheviks were stripped of their Jewish identity is clearly unfounded. This is extensively discussed in Kevin Macdonald's Culture of Critique, particularly in Chapter 3, which delves into the Jewish identity of communist Jews.

“Several factors favor supposing that Jewish identification occurred in a substantial percentage of ethnic Jews: (1) People were classified as Jews depending on their ethnic background at least partly because of residual anti-Semitism; this would tend to impose a Jewish identity on these individuals and make it difficult to assume an exclusive identity as a member of a larger, more inclusive political group. (2) Many Jewish Bolsheviks, such as those in Evsektsiya and the JAC, aggressively sought to establish a secular Jewish subculture. (3) Very few Jews on the left envisioned a post revolutionary society without a continuation of Judaism as a group; indeed, the predominant ideology among Jewish leftists was that post revolutionary society would end anti- Semitism because it would end class conflict and the peculiar Jewish occupational profile. (4) The behavior of American communists shows that Jewish identity and the primacy of Jewish interests over communist interests were commonplace among individuals who were ethnically Jewish communists (see below). (5) The existence of Jewish crypsis in other times and places combined with the possibility that self-deception, identificatory flexibility, and identificatory ambivalence are important components of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.”

— Kevin Macdonald, Culture of Critique

Similarly, there are numerous anecdotal instances of Jewish communists who strongly identified with their Jewish heritage. Ilya Ehrenburg, a renowned journalist in the USSR, is a prime example. Friends of Ehrenburg have noted that nothing infuriated him more than anti-Semitism.

As stated in a biography of Ehrenburg:

“Ehrenburg never denied his Jewish origins and near the end of his life often repeated the defiant conviction that he would consider himself a Jew ‘as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth.”

— Joshua Rubenstein, Tangled Loyalties: The Life and Times of Ilya Ehrenburg

Many writers have pointed out that Jews maintained their distinct identity and did not fully merge into the broader Soviet culture. Rather, they often resisted Marxist-Leninist policies based on Jewish perspectives, as seen in the Jewish resistance to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This reflects Stalin's recognition of separate "Jewish" and "true Russian" groups within the Bolshevik party. Moreover, Henryk Cimek’s study Jews In The Polish Communist Movement, highlighted that Jews were significantly overrepresented in Communist parties across Eastern Europe. For instance, Henryk Cimek notes in “Jews In The Polish Communist Movement (1918–1937)” that in January 1936, the national makeup of the KPP (Communist party of Poland) central committee was 31.6% Jewish. Furthermore, Jews constituted a majority in several key areas of the KPP, and during 1927-1936, they accounted for 90% of communists persecuted in Polish courts. By 1938, Jews made up 25% of KPP membership. Leaders of Communist Poland from 1948 to 1956, including Berman, Boleslaw Bierut, and Hilary Minc, were also Jewish. Jaff Schatz's research illustrates that Jewish communists in Poland were deeply influenced by their Jewish upbringing, primarily spoke Yiddish, and were largely influenced by other Jews, including notable figures like Trotsky and Rusenberg. Similarly, the Hungarian revolution of 1919 saw a predominance of Jewish leaders, with Béla Kun, Tibor Szamuely, and Jenő Landler among its leading figures, all of Jewish descent, except for Sándor Garbai. 

The RFSG argues that Bolshevism cannot be considered Jewish due to the minimal Jewish representation within the party and the broader Jewish community's preference for the Mensheviks and Bundists over the Bolsheviks. However, this logic doesn't hold when we compare it to contemporary American politics. For example, it's clear that the Jewish American community does not universally support Neo-Conservatism, yet this does not negate the reality that Neo-Conservatism is significantly influenced and led by Jewish intellectuals.

As documented in a 2003 article by HAARETZ:

“In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer).”

— Ari Shavit, White Man's Burden

Certainly, the lack of universal support from the Jewish community does not inherently disqualify a party or movement from being considered Jewish. 

Finance Capital and The Bolshevik Revolution 

This section primarily relies on Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton as its main source. Although the book has faced considerable criticism, some of which is justified, Sutton's work, including In Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, has been used by Infrared’s community to argue that Wall Street capitalists also supported Hitler. Likewise, Sutton’s work was cited in the very thread this article is responding to. Given this context, it seems reasonable to reference Sutton’s work here out of spite. Despite some debatable points, such as the claim about President Wilson giving Trotsky his passport, Sutton provides compelling primary source evidence to support his broader assertion that New York bankers indeed supported Bolshevik revolutionaries. Our discussion begins with Trotsky's journey to New York.

As Sutton documents: 

“Joseph Nedava estimates Trotsky's 1917 income at $12.00 per week, "supplemented by some lecture fees." Trotsky was in New York in 1917 for three months, from January to March, so that makes $144.00 in income from Novy Mir and, say, another $100.00 in  lecture fees, for a total of $244.00. Of this $244.00 Trotsky was able to give away $310.00 to his friends, pay for the New York apartment, provide for his family — and find the $10,000 that was taken from him in April 1917 by Canadian authorities in Halifax. Trotsky claims that those who said he had other sources of income are "slanderers" spreading "stupid calumnies" and "lies," but unless Trotsky was playing the horses at the Jamaica racetrack, it can't be done. Obviously Trotsky had an unreported source of income.”

— Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution

Where did Trotsky acquire this undisclosed income? The amount, $10,000 in 1917, equates to approximately $241,000 in today’s currency. Sutton presents evidence suggesting the funds originated from Germany.

“An amount of $10,000 of German origin is also mentioned in the official British telegram to Canadian naval authorities in Halifax, who requested that Trotsky and party en route to the revolution be taken off the S.S. Kristianiafjord (see page 28). We also learn from a British Directorate of Intelligence report4 that Gregory Weinstein, who in 1919 was to become a prominent member of the Soviet Bureau in New York, collected funds for Trotsky in New York. These funds originated in Germany and were channeled through the Volks-zeitung, a German daily newspaper in New York and subsidized by the German government.”

— Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution

It should not come as a surprise that the Germans provided funding to the Bolsheviks. It is now widely accepted among mainstream historians that Germany did indeed support the Bolsheviks financially. This is corroborated by a telegram from the State Secretary to the Foreign Ministry Liaison Officer at General Headquarters.

“The disruption of the Entente and the subsequent creation of political combinations agreeable to us constitute the most important war aim of our diplomacy. Russia appeared to be the weakest link in the enemy chain. The task therefore was gradually to loosen it, and, when possible, to remove it. This was the purpose of the subversive activity we caused to be carried out in Russia behind the front — in the first place promotion of separatist tendencies and support of the Bolsheviks. It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under different labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ, Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow basis of their party. The Bolsheviks have now come to power; how long they will retain power cannot be yet foreseen. They need peace in order to strengthen their own position; on the other hand it is entirely in our interest that we should exploit the period while they are in power, which may be a short one, in order to attain firstly an armistice and then, if possible, peace.”

— Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry, Germany and Revolution In Russia 1915-1918

In Russian Revolution: A New History, Sean McMeekin asserts that German funds were crucial in purchasing a new printing press for the Bolsheviks, an expenditure that would equate to about 12.5 million dollars in today's currency. The process of funneling German money to the Bolsheviks involved several intermediaries, with the Jewish Communist Alexander Parvus being a notable figure. Parvus helped establish a financial network, supported by German intelligence, which operated through offshore accounts in Copenhagen. This network facilitated the transfer of German funds to Russia through a series of sham transactions involving front companies. While many transactions by these companies were legitimate, they were used as cover to discreetly channel funds to the Bolsheviks. This scheme took advantage of the inadequate fiscal and customs infrastructure in Scandinavia, which was overwhelmed by the wartime black market activities in the region.

The Twitter thread by RSTG discusses Olof Aschburg, characterizing him as a minor banker whose ideological leanings were personal and disconnected from the broader banking industry. RSTG suggests that Aschburg might have misappropriated funds from some Wall Street clients to support the Bolsheviks, but also highlights the lack of concrete evidence for this claim. This stance is taken despite referencing Sutton’s book that details Aschburg's financial contributions to the Bolsheviks without proving their insignificance. Contrarily, Sutton's research emphatically establishes Aschburg's significant role in mobilizing financial support for the Bolsheviks, indicating a more substantial involvement than RSTG acknowledges. 

“We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917 Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskom-bank foreign department.”

— Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution

Sutton further elaborates in his summary of evidence on the extent to which Wall Street and Corporate America financially supported the Bolsheviks:

“Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik Revolution for propaganda purposes.”

“Quite apart from finance, we identified other, and possibly more significant, evidence of Wall Street involvement in the Bolshevik cause. The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd George in December 1917. We have reproduced statements by director Thompson and deputy chairman William Lawrence Saunders, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, strongly favoring the Bolshevists.”

— Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution

In his thread, RSTG poses the question, "Why the fuck would Wall Street support the people who voided all foreign debts?" However, Sutton provides a straightforward answer to this:

“What motive explains this coalition of capitalists and Bolsheviks? Russia was then — and is today — the largest untapped market in the world. Moreover, Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy. (A glance at a world map is sufficient to spotlight the geographical difference between the vast landmass of Russia and the smaller United States.) Wall Street must have cold shivers when it visualizes Russia as a second super American industrial giant.”

— Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution

The rationale behind Germany's support for the Bolsheviks is straightforward; their aim was to sow as much political disruption as possible in the country they were at war with. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks' financial backing wasn't limited to German bankers and government support. After coming to power, they engaged in looting. On February 23, 1922, the VTsIK issued a decree that called for the confiscation of church possessions, particularly items adorned with jewels and precious materials, which were to be sold for foreign currency to purchase food from abroad. While some members of the Orthodox clergy, criticized for their apathy towards the famine victims, obeyed the decree, others, including Patriarch Tikhon, opposed it. Their resistance led to the looting of churches, and the trials and executions of priests amid public outcry. By July 1922, the state had appropriated a vast amount of valuable items from the church. Although RSTG implies that the Bolsheviks represented the peasants, it prompts the question of the peasants' actual reaction to the church's looting. The Bolsheviks' destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church is well-documented, yet the peasants' perspective on this remains a topic of interest. Lynne Viola's, Peasant Rebels Under Stalin, explores this aspect. 

“The campaign against the church was eventually, at least formally, moderated in March 1930 by Stalin's temporary retreat. Troubled by international outcry and peasant rebellion, Soviet power would, for a time, take a somewhat more restrained approach to the church. Peasant protests against church closures had served to unify and mobilize village communities against the state. A report from Tambov in spring 1930 made this point clear by noting that it was one thing to deal with the kulak, but another thing to deal with church and priests who are supported by all peasants. According to the report, the attack on the church was not helping collectivization. In some areas, peasant protests actually led to the reopening of churches. In Sukhinicheskii raion, in the Western Region, for example, ten of sixteen closed churches were reopened after March 1930.”

— Lynne Viola, Peasant Rebels Under Stalin

Peasants strongly resisted Collectivization, a notorious policy of the Soviet Union designed to dismantle peasant culture.

Viola continues:

“Collectivization transformed the countryside into an internal colony from which tribute—in the form of grain, taxes, labor, and soldiers—could be extracted to finance the industrialization, modernization, and defense of the country. The Soviet peasant colony, like most colonies, had a "native culture" that was a repository of identity, independence, and resistance, and, as such, an impediment to full colonization. Collectivization was as much an onslaught on that culture as it was a struggle over resources. The cultural clash of collectivization began as a clash between town and countryside and developed into an effort to create a new Soviet culture in the village. The party's goal was to eliminate differences between town and countryside, worker and peasant—in effect, to destroy the peasantry as a culture. This war of occupation was reflected and waged in the dis- course of collectivization and Stalinist cultural revolution.”

“The countryside was engulfed in what peasants called a Bartholo- mew's Night massacre. As state repression increased, peasant violence increased, and as peasant violence increased, state violence increased, lead- ing to a seemingly never-ending crescendo of arrests, pillage, beatings, and rage. The crescendo came to an abrupt halt, however, when, on 2 March 1930, Stalin published "Dizziness from Success," blaming the out- rages on the lower level cadres who were indeed dizzy from success, but failing to admit any central responsibility. Soon collectivization percent- ages began to tumble, as peasants appropriated Stalin's name in their struggle against the cadres of collectivization. Peasants quit the collective farms in droves, driving down percentages of collectivized households in the USSR from 57.2% in March to 38.6% in April, 28% in May, and further downward until hitting a low of 21.5% in September. The decline in regional rates was equally drastic.”

— Lynne Viola, Peasant Rebels Under Stalin

Peasants unequivocally opposed the oppressive nature of Collectivization and mounted rebellions against it. Their resistance is understandable; their cultural identity and societal structures were systematically dismantled. They perceived themselves as being colonized anew, likening Collectivization to a modern form of serfdom. Moreover, the peasants' material conditions deteriorated under Collectivization. Due to excessive government quotas, peasants often ended up receiving less for their labor than before the policy was implemented. This led to a significant disruption in agricultural productivity, which did not recover to pre-Collectivization levels until 1940. In The Russians, Hedrick Smith references a Soviet article from 1975 revealing that private farms, which occupied less than 1% of the arable land (about 20 million acres), produced 27% of the total value of Soviet agricultural output, highlighting their efficiency as approximately 40 times higher than that of collective farms. 

Merle Fainsod further explores this topic:

“In 1952, it has been estimated, total cash distributions to kolkhozniks from collective-farm earnings were only about one fourth of the cash income which they received from the output of their private plots.”

— Merle Fainsod, How Russia Is Ruled

It's clear that Collectivization was far from successful. It sparked widespread riots among peasants, many of whom, in protest, slaughtered their own livestock. This raises a question: if the Bolsheviks were purported to be the party of the peasants, why would they implement a policy so drastic that it led to a famine, causing the deaths of millions of peasants? As mentioned earlier in this discussion, the Bolshevik party was significantly comprised of, and perhaps even dominated by, urbanized ethnic groups, including but not limited to Jews and Latvians. The presence of a predominantly urbanized demographic within the party, alongside a strong adherence to ideological beliefs, likely fueled the unwavering commitment to Collectivization, despite its catastrophic impact on the lives of countless peasants.

Stalin’s Russification of Bolshevism

Under Stalin, negotiations with Nazi Germany, highlighted by discussions with Joachim von Ribbentrop, signaled a shift towards aligning Soviet policies with anti-Semitic sentiments, as demonstrated by the replacement of Maxim Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov as Foreign Minister in 1939. This change was accompanied by the removal of Jews from the ministry, reflecting Stalin's efforts to appease Nazi Germany and pave the way for a non-aggression pact. This era is marked by an increase in anti-Semitic tendencies within Stalin's policies, fueled by his animosity towards Leon Trotsky and Zionism. Consequently, the late 1930s to the early 1940s saw a dramatic decline in Jewish representation in Soviet leadership, dropping to 5% by 1940.

Following the Soviet invasion of Poland, Stalin initiated the relocation of Jews, along with other ethnic groups deemed at risk of Nazi persecution, to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Siberia. These relocations, part of a broader strategy during the Second World War, subjected these groups to harsh conditions. However, it's crucial to contextualize Stalin's actions not purely as anti-Semitic but also as part of a broader strategy against perceived dissenters. The nuanced analysis by Yu Xiang and Ji Zeng in Antisemitism or Political Purge? Stalin’s Jewish Policies Revisited, suggests that Stalin's anti-Semitic policies were intertwined with his broader political purges, targeting those he saw as threats to his regime rather than solely acts of ethnic or religious discrimination.

“The persecution of Jews under Stalin’s regime has been widely taken as proof that antisemitism was an innate element of Stalinism. Reexamination of the tyrant’s Jewish policies, domestic and international, would however reveal that Stalin can hardly be defined as antisemitic. The political purge of Jews was predominantly caused by his fear of the growing national sentiments of Soviet Jewry following the establishment of the State of Israel (to which he gave decisive support), and driven by his paranoiac desire for internal subservience and political conformity in the context of the early Cold War.”

— Yu Xiang and Ji Zeng, Antisemitism or Political Purge? Stalin’s Jewish Policies Revisited

The motivation was not an animosity towards Jews, but rather an ideological pragmatism. Stalin's USSR did not hesitate to purge numerous ethnic groups, a fate that did not specifically befall the Jewish population. J. Otto Pohl illustrates this using diverse sources in a Substack post.

“Nonetheless, looking at the data on total NKVD arrests and from 1 January 1936 to 1 July 1938 we can make some generalizations. The total number of arrests by the NKVD during these two and half years was 1,420,711. The largest number were ethnic Russians with 657,799 arrests or 43.6% of the total. Ethnic Russians made up 58.4% of the Soviet population and thus were considerably under represented among victims of the Great Terror. Similarly Ukrainians with 189,410 arrests or 13.3% of the total were also under represented since they made up 16.5% of the population. In contrast Poles with 105,485 arrests or 7.4% only made up 0.4% of the population and were over represented by a factor of 18.5. Latvians with 21,395 arrests or 1.5% were the next most over represented. They made up only 0.1% of the Soviet population and were over represented among arrests by a factor of 15. Finns with 10,678 arrests came in next with 0.7% of arrests and 0.1% of the population or an over representation by a factor of 7. Germans with 75,331 arrests made up 5.33% of arrests and 0.8% of the Soviet population for an over representation of 6.625 times. In contrast Jews were just slightly over represented in the total arrests. The had 30,545 arrests or 2.1% of the total and made up 1.8% of the population of the USSR. The mass arrests and executions of the Great Terror in 1937-1938 thus did not disproportionately target Jews.”

— J. Otto Pohl, The Myth That Jews Were The Ethnic Group Most Persecuted By The Soviet Regime

During the most severe times in the USSR, despite widespread persecution of diaspora communities, Jews were not disproportionately targeted relative to their population size. It has been noted that Jews thrived during all phases of the USSR's history, unaffected by the anti-cosmopolitan campaign or other broad measures by the USSR that led to widespread persecution. RSTG argues that when it was stated that anti-Semitism was punishable by death under Stalin, it specifically referred to "pogromists," or those committing acts of mass violence against Jews, which were notably prevalent during the civil war. However, he fails to provide evidence for this assertion. Below is Stalin’s full reply for your judgment on whether he meant "pogromists” or not.

“National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”

— Joseph Stalin, Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States

Anti-Semitism is described as an "extreme form of racial chauvinism." Clearly, Stalin's reference was to individuals who harbored animosity towards Jews, not solely those who engaged in violence against them. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the Soviet Union did take action against anti-Semites. Dr. Norman F. Cantor discusses this in The Jewish Experience, where he states:

“So sensitive to the Jewish question was the Soviet establishment that even the hint of so-called "hidden anti-semitism" was enough to cause expulsion from the Communist Party. Even criticizing someone who was Jewish was enough to cause dire consequences. For example, two Ukrainian leaders, Grigory Petrovsky and Vlas Chubar, came to Moscow to personally complain to Stalin about Kaganovich's harsh measures in the Ukraine which were killing off all the most capable workers. Stalin defended Kaganovich and accused Petrovsky and Chubar of anti-semitism. Chubar was eventually shot, Petrovsky arrested, and Petrovsky's son was executed.”

— Dr. Norman F. Cantor, The Jewish Experience

Following World War II, the Soviet Union initiated a crackdown on what it labeled "cosmopolitanism," which adversely affected many intellectuals, including a substantial portion who were Jewish. Despite this, Stalin made considerable efforts to distance the anti-cosmopolitan campaign from allegations of anti-Semitism.

 Kevin Macdonald observes

“Thus Stalin mixed his measures against Jews with overt expressions of philo-Semitism and often included a few non-Jews to mask the anti-Jewish intent. For example, just prior to a series of trials in which 11 of the 16 defendants were Jewish, there was a widely publicized trial of two non-Jews on charges of anti-Semitism. In the trials of the Jews, no mention was made of Jewish ethnic background and, with one exception, the defendants were referred to only by their (non-Jewish sounding) party pseudonyms rather than their Jewish names. Stalin continued to give honors and awards to Jewish artists during the 1930s even while he was removing the top Jewish political leaders and replacing them with gentiles. The campaign to remove Jews from administrative positions in the cultural establishment began as early as 1942, again accompanied by prizes and awards to prominent Jewish scientists and artists to deflect charges of anti-Semitism.”

— Kevin Macdonald, The Culture of Critique

This campaign indiscriminately targeted individuals of various ethnic backgrounds who showed any affinity for Western ideals, leading to widespread job losses and imprisonments. The intensification of actions against Jews fueled speculation about a mass relocation to Birobidzhan, a distant outpost in the Far East, a plan halted by Stalin’s death. It's essential to understand that Stalin’s policies were not rooted in nationalist or conservative ideologies per se. He employed nationalism during World War II to foster unity, boost morale, and counter the Axis powers. His regime’s repressive measures were not exclusive to Jews but included other ethnic and religious groups perceived as threats, such as Poles, Baltic peoples, Finns, and Tatars. The persecution of Jews became more acute when it intersected with Zionist leanings or when Israel seemed to lean towards the United States.

Stalin's approach towards Jewish leaders and the broader Jewish community, particularly those pivotal during the Bolshevik revolution, reflects a complex interplay of political strategy, ideological battles, and geopolitical maneuvering, rather than outright anti-Semitism. Despite significant Jewish participation in Soviet leadership, Stalin's policies often negatively impacted Jewish interests, leading to accusations of anti-Semitism. However, these actions, including his opposition to Zionism and the purging of Jewish Bolsheviks like Trotsky, were motivated more by Stalin's vision for communism and leadership rather than ethnic or racial bias. Stalin saw Zionism, with its goal of establishing a Jewish national state, as antithetical to communist ideals, arguing it promoted nationalism and divided the global proletariat, thereby weakening the fight against capitalism and imperialism.

Stalin's opposition to Zionism and the purges directed at Trotsky and his adherents, many of whom were Jewish, need to be seen as part of a wider ideological effort to safeguard communist cohesion, rather than as acts of anti-Semitism. This viewpoint indicates that Stalin's actions were aimed at countering dissent within the communist ranks and were elements of a broader geopolitical strategy, not manifestations of inherent racial or ethnic bias. The significant presence of Jews within the Soviet leadership, followed by targeted purges, reveals a nuanced interaction where perceived oppressive measures were actually components of Stalin's overarching political and ideological objectives, not fueled by anti-Semitic intent.

“There can be no serious doubt that Trotskyites in alliance with other old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev and Kameneff were complicit in attempting to overthrow the Soviet state under Stalin. That was after all, the raison d’etre of Trotsky et al, and Trotsky’s hubris could not conceal his aims. The purging of these anti-Stalinist co-conspirators was only a part of the Stalinist fight against the Old Bolsheviks.”

— Kerry Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy

As noted by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in Two Hundred Years Together, following Stalin's death, efforts were made by the Soviet government to reduce the overrepresentation of Jews in high-status roles.

Conclusions 

Jews were significantly overrepresented and played a crucial role in the formation of the Bolshevik party and the development of the USSR, as highlighted by the substack that provided much of RSTG's data.

“It’s undoubtedly true, as we’ll see, that among early Bolshevik elites Jews were substantially overrepresented.”

— Mischling Review, Judeo-Bolshevism: Fact From Fiction

This article in The Mischling Review should be criticized for containing errors, selective reporting, and excluding certain information from its sources, which we believe reflects a specific Jewish bias. Despite these issues, the article does acknowledge the significant role played by the Jews. Discussions about the influence and power of Jewish individuals within various political movements are often sidestepped by Infrared. Instead of addressing these points, there is a tendency to attribute societal and cultural issues to other groups, such as the WASP elite and the concept of the "Eernal Anglo," thus diverting attention from the actual influences on the challenges facing White working-class Americans.

Marxism, since its origins with Karl Marx, has been intertwined with Jewish intellectual traditions. Although Marx's family converted to Christianity, it is important to recognize that Moses Hess, known as the father of Labour Zionism, reportedly had a significant influence on Marx's thinking. Hess is also credited by his biographer with pivotal involvement in converting Engels to communism. Despite widespread accusations from various political angles labeling Marx as an anti-Semite, these claims overlook critical nuances. For instance, Marx's work, On The Jewish Question, was actually a response to Bruno Bauer's anti-Semitic views, serving as a defense of Jewish people rather than an attack. This perspective is supported by British sociologist Robert Fine in his analysis, Karl Marx and The Radical Critique of Anti-Semitism.

“Marx’s 1843 essay On the Jewish Question was an important and early case in point. In this essay Marx’s aim was to defend the right of Jews to full civil and political emancipation (that is, to equal civil and political rights) alongside all other German citizens… Marx affirmed the claim of Jews to full civil and political rights regardless of whether or not they choose to remain Jewish. While Marx was a critic of all religions and religious sects, including Judaism, he affirmed the right of everyone to practice religion freely without state privilege or discrimination. There was no reason to make an exception of the Jews. There could be no freedom from religion without the freedom to be a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Moslem, etc. while at the same time being a full citizen of the state. While Bauer echoed the generally prejudicial representation of the Jew as ‘merchant’ and ‘moneyman’, Marx’s riposte was that in the modern world ‘money has become a world power and the practical spirit of the Jews has become the practical spirit of the Christian peoples’. In other words, why pick on the Jews?”

— Robert Fine, Karl Marx and The Radical Critique of Anti-Semitism

In truth, Marx consistently maintained respectful relations with Jewish communities and held a positive sense of Jewish identity. Jerrold Seigel, in his book Marx's Fate, highlights this aspect, noting:

“Toward Jews and Jewishness Marx always retained many positive ties. Among his closest friends were the Jews Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Kugelmann; for a time he was close to Moses Hess, and he helped the former Cologne communist Abraham Jacoby emigrate to America (where he became an influential physician).”

— Jerrold Seigel, Marx's Fate

Marx advocated for the integration and emancipation of Jews within non-Jewish societies, focusing not on criticizing Jewish communities, but on a broader critique aimed at dismantling the prevailing norms and institutions of both European Christian and religious Jewish cultures. His ideology, Marxism, has been interpreted by Kevin Macdonald as serving as a safeguard for secular Jewish interests, by providing a critical framework for understanding and transforming societal structures.

“Moreover, a universalist utopian ideology such as Marxism is an ideal vehicle for serving Jewish attempts to develop a positive self-identity while still retaining their positive identity as Jews and their negative evaluation of gentile power structures. First, the utopian nature of radical ideology in contrast to existing gentile-dominated social systems (which are inevitably less than perfect) facilitates development of a positive identity for the ingroup. Radical ideology thus facilitates positive group identity and a sense of moral rectitude because of its advocacy of universalist ethical principles… universalist ideology thus functions as a secular form of Judaism. Sectarian forms of Judaism are rejected as “a survival strategy” because of their tendency to produce anti-Semitism, their lack of intellectual appeal in the post-Enlightenment world, and their ineffectiveness in appealing to gentiles and thereby altering the gentile social world in a manner that furthers Jewish group interests. Indeed, while the universalist ideology is formally congruent with Enlightenment ideals, the retention of traditional Jewish separatism and patterns of association among those espousing the ideology suggest an element of deception or self-deception.”

— Kevin Macdonald, The Culture of Critique

Additionally, some Jewish Marxists have posited that Marx's theories were developed from a distinctly Jewish perspective. Isaac Deutscher, in his essay The Non-Jewish Jew, contended that Marx, alongside other notable figures like Heine, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Freud, were part of a secular Jewish tradition. This tradition, rooted in Spinoza's philosophy, focused on universal liberation. 

Deutscher elaborates on this idea:

“Have they perhaps impressed mankind’s thought so greatly because of their special “Jewish genius"? “I do not believe in the exclusive genius of any race. Yet I think that in some ways they were very Jewish indeed. They had in themselves something of the quintessence of Jewish life and of the Jewish intellect. They were a priori exceptional in that as Jews they dwelt on the borderlines of various civilizations, religions, and national cultures.”

— Isaac Deutscher, The Non-Jewish Jew

Marx is frequently acknowledged as a Jewish thinker, and his ideas are often seen as part of a broader Jewish intellectual heritage. The roots of what is known as "woke" Leftism, which Infrared critiques, are linked to Jewish intellectuals as well. This form of Leftism combines elements of Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis (with Freud, a Zionist who identified strongly with his Jewish roots, positioning himself against the Catholic Church), and the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School (developed by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, both of whom identified positively with their Jewish heritage and sought to combat anti-Semitism). Jacques Derrida's Deconstructionism (Derrida, with a nuanced relationship to his Jewish identity, also made significant contributions to this intellectual tradition) is another key influence on the version of Leftism that Infrared challenges as the Regressive Woke Left. Nonetheless, Infrared seems to neglect the Jewish foundations of modern Leftism, which significantly weakens their political critique by omitting crucial influences on today's political dialogue. The Jewish Learning Institute hosted a seminar with Professor Glenn Dynner, who explored the historical participation of Jews in communism with clarity and insight. However, after addressing these contributions, he shifts focus, embracing an approach similar to The Mischling Review's denial of reality, thus disregarding the deeply Messianic Jewish vision of communism as a utopian society (Heaven on Earth).