Marxism Festival 2012 - Organised by the SWP (I think)

[C. Flower]

Will there be speakers from the Communist Party of Ireland, the Workers Party and maybe even the Labour Party and Sinn Fein or is it just a love-in for one self-righteous group?

Regarding Eagleton's book CF, you can have mine. It doesn't do what it says on the cover - just a few essays setting up imaginary views and knocking them down. If you want that kind of thing just look at the threads on the ULA or even this one.

I would like to see that kind of debate myself. This site is an opportunity for people from different political tendencies to debate. It does happen, at times in spite of the strange reluctance for people to deal with the full realities, rather than the paper-cutout versions of politics. It is my impression that there are big knowledge gaps filled in by imaginary views, on all sides. Well worth trying to overcome them. The event, I think, is an SWP one, and it is oriented at promoting the standpoint of the SWP and I presume recruiting to it.

Thanks for the offer of Eagleton's book. Having read his biography, it was hard to see how he could possibly be a defender of Marx, as his own views are in very important respects the opposite of Marxism. Marx's name still sells books, it seems

[Summerday Sands]

Lenin wrote constantly against all forms of religious ideology: in the years up to 1917 one of his most important pieces of work was his study of Hegel's dialectics, which he "turned upside down" and placed on a materialist basis, in the years of WW1 (Vol. 34 of his collected works). This work enabled the political analysis that led him to believe that the working class could take power in the conditions prevailing in Russia, in a "leap" - in opposition to the view that first capitalism must first be developed.

The Bolsheviks when they took power ridiculed religion and constantly and militantly campaigned against the Church.

It was only much later that Stalin accommodated with it.

What Lenin wrote prior to 1917 is one thing, but the realities of actually governing the country is another. Its important to look at what the Bolsheviks actually did. The anti religion campaign was specific to Western Russia, attempting to destroy religion in Holy Russ but down in the Republics it was a totally different matter, Religous practices, beliefs & customs were safe guarded. Any notion of encouraging secularism was vehemently denounced by the Bolsheviks in their usual gung ho hyperbolic way. Bad news if you had your copy of Lenin's pre 1917 work & were trying to apply it.

So its not really true to say Stalin accommodated it much later, Lenin had already come to a comprise with religion much earlier.

I suppose like much of early Soviet history they tried to ride two horses at the same time

[C. Flower]

What Lenin wrote prior to 1917 is one thing, but the realities of actually governing the country is another. Its important to look at what the Bolsheviks actually did. The anti religion campaign was specific to Western Russia, attempting to destroy religion in Holy Russ but down in the Republics it was a totally different matter, Religous practices, beliefs & customs were safe guarded. Any notion of encouraging secularism was vehemently denounced by the Bolsheviks in their usual gung ho hyperbolic way. Bad news if you had your copy of Lenin's pre 1917 work & were trying to apply it.

So its not really true to say Stalin accommodated it much later, Lenin had already come to a comprise with religion much earlier.

I suppose like much of early Soviet history they tried to ride two horses at the same time

Without Lenin's pre-17 work it is very likely there would not have been a revolution. He would undoubtedly have given Eagleton's views a thorough drubbing and asked why had he been invited as a headliner to a "Marxist" event - "Materialism and Empiriocritism, that he wrote in 1909, homed in even on fairly well-concealed religiosity in politics and philosophy.

Policy in the Soviet Union was tolerance of religion, while carrying out militant pro-materialist education and propogandahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist...ninist_atheism.

Lenin had no tolerance for any trace of idealism in the views of either his opponents or his collaborators, and considered that anything short of a fully atheistic materialist outlook was a concession to the ideological dominance of the ruling classes and their religious beliefs. He considered religion to be political by nature and the primary target of ideological attacks.

Lenin considered militant atheism to be so critical to his faction that he went beyond the Russian atheist tradition of Belinsky, Herzen and Pisarev and organized a systematic, aggressive and uncompromising movement of antireligious agitation. He founded a whole institution of professional atheist propagandists in the USSR who spread all over the country after 1917 and who were the ‘foot-soldiers’ of the antireligious campaigns meant to eliminate religion so as to make the populace atheists.

Lenin’s unequivocal hostile intolerance towards religious belief became a distinctive feature of Ideological Soviet Atheism, which was contrasted with milder antireligious views of Marxists outside the USSR. His hostility to religion allowed no compromises, such that it even alienated leftist religious believers who sympathised with the Bolsheviks. It even alienated some leftist atheists who were willing to accommodate religious beliefs.[33] Attacking religion became far more important for Lenin than it had been for Marx.

Hotly debated at the time, there was that bust up in Baku over a "Bolshevik" speech that praised Allah, amongst other things. These concessions were arguably opportunistic, and were tactical, to hold together a very fragile situation together when the survival of the young revolutionary state was at stake. They were also very much subordinate to the main approach to religion - which was to establish a secular state and to base actions on a materialist analysis of conditions.

Do you have a link to some kind of reference to the Bolsheviks denouncing encouragement of secularism?

[C. Flower]

What Lenin wrote prior to 1917 is one thing, but the realities of actually governing the country is another. Its important to look at what the Bolsheviks actually did. The anti religion campaign was specific to Western Russia, attempting to destroy religion in Holy Russ but down in the Republics it was a totally different matter, Religous practices, beliefs & customs were safe guarded. Any notion of encouraging secularism was vehemently denounced by the Bolsheviks in their usual gung ho hyperbolic way. Bad news if you had your copy of Lenin's pre 1917 work & were trying to apply it.

So its not really true to say Stalin accommodated it much later, Lenin had already come to a comprise with religion much earlier.

I suppose like much of early Soviet history they tried to ride two horses at the same time

Without Lenin's pre-17 work it is very likely there would not have been a revolution. He would undoubtedly have given Eagleton's views a thorough drubbing and asked why had he been invited as a headliner to a "Marxist" event - "Materialism and Empiriocritism, that he wrote in 1909, homed in on fairly well concealed religiosity in politics and philosophy.

Policy in the Soviet Union was tolerance of religion,while carrying out militant pro-materialist education and propaganda.

Lenin had no tolerance for any trace of idealism in the views of either his opponents or his collaborators, and considered that anything short of a fully atheistic materialist outlook was a concession to the ideological dominance of the ruling classes and their religious beliefs. He considered religion to be political by nature and the primary target of ideological attacks.

Lenin considered militant atheism to be so critical to his faction that he went beyond the Russian atheist tradition of Belinsky, Herzen and Pisarev and organized a systematic, aggressive and uncompromising movement of antireligious agitation. He founded a whole institution of professional atheist propagandists in the USSR who spread all over the country after 1917 and who were the ‘foot-soldiers’ of the antireligious campaigns meant to eliminate religion so as to make the populace atheists.

Lenin’s unequivocal hostile intolerance towards religious belief became a distinctive feature of Ideological Soviet Atheism, which was contrasted with milder antireligious views of Marxists outside the USSR. His hostility to religion allowed no compromises, such that it even alienated leftist religious believers who sympathised with the Bolsheviks. It even alienated some leftist atheists who were willing to accommodate religious beliefs.[33] Attacking religion became far more important for Lenin than it had been for Marx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist...ninist_atheism

Hotly debated at the time, there was that bust up in Baku over a "Bolshevik" speech that praised Allah, amongst other things. These concessions were arguably opportunistic, and were tactical, to hold together a very fragile situation together when the survival of the young revolutionary state was at stake. They were also very much subordinate to the main approach to religion -

Do you have a link to some kind of reference to the Bolsheviks denouncing encouragement of secularism?

[Summerday Sands]

Without Lenin's pre-17 work it is very likely there would not have been a revolution. He would undoubtedly have given Eagleton's views a thorough drubbing and asked why had he been invited as a headliner to a "Marxist" event - "Materialism and Empiriocritism, that he wrote in 1909, homed in on fairly well concealed religiosity in politics and philosophy.

Policy in the Soviet Union was tolerance of religion,while carrying out militant pro-materialist education and propaganda.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist...ninist_atheism

Hotly debated at the time, there was that bust up in Baku over a "Bolshevik" speech that praised Allah, amongst other things. These concessions were arguably opportunistic, and were tactical, to hold together a very fragile situation together when the survival of the young revolutionary state was at stake. They were also very much subordinate to the main approach to religion -

Do you have a link to some kind of reference to the Bolsheviks denouncing encouragement of secularism?

I dunno Cass, Bolshevik conduct during 1917 had very little to do with Lenin or Vanguardism or What is to be Done or any of that craic.

Also the Insurrection itself in October was a defensive act to protect democracy which was fortuitous for the Bolsheviks & especially Lenin, giving him what he wanted irrespective of doubts or wishes of others who were unsure if it could successfully be pulled off.

Now on the religion issue, your mention of Baku is very interesting. What a spectale it must have been to see 2000 delegates from all over Asia, in exotic attire, letting off guns & waving swords in the air on hearing the Bolsheviks calling for a Holy War

If we look at what the Bolsheviks were saying at Baku, in line with Lenin. We see a visciously hostile attitude taken against secularism & Socialists who attempt to take an anti religious line like you have in this thread. Radek & Zinoviev denounce such such Socialists as "Counterrevolutionaries who must be destroyed", "West European Brigands" & "Red Imperialists".

That doesnt sound to me like a quibble over tactics but the protecting of a fully accepted policy of compromise with Religion.

I have an oul book on Baku, I'll root it out for you if you want.

[C. Flower]

I dunno Cass, Bolshevik conduct during 1917 had very little to do with Lenin or Vanguardism or What is to be Done or any of that craic.

Also the Insurrection itself in October was a defensive act to protect democracy which was fortuitous for the Bolsheviks & especially Lenin, giving him what he wanted irrespective of doubts or wishes of others who were unsure if it could successfully be pulled off.

Now on the religion issue, your mention of Baku is very interesting. What a spectale it must have been to see 2000 delegates from all over Asia, in exotic attire, letting off guns & waving swords in the air on hearing the Bolsheviks calling for a Holy War

If we look at what the Bolsheviks were saying at Baku, in line with Lenin. We see a visciously hostile attitude taken against secularism & Socialists who attempt to take an anti religious line like you have in this thread. Radek & Zinoviev denounce such such Socialists as "Counterrevolutionaries who must be destroyed", "West European Brigands" & "Red Imperialists".

That doesnt sound to me like a quibble over tactics but the protecting of a fully accepted policy of compromise with Religion.

I have an oul book on Baku, I'll root it out for you if you want.

I may well have the same book

Also the Insurrection itself in October was a defensive act to protect democracy which was fortuitous for the Bolsheviks & especially Lenin, giving him what he wanted irrespective of doubts or wishes of others who were unsure if it could successfully be pulled off.

Precisely my point - Lenin was able to see that it could and should be pulled off. That wasn't a happy accident of birth - it came out of the theoretical and practical work he had done in the years preceding.

It is incontrovertible that Lenin, to a great degree, and the Bolshevik party, to an important extent, were based on atheism and materialism and propaganda for it.

A revolution, to protect the status quo ? -- essence of dialectical contradiction

Do you really think that Eagleton's views would have got a platform and a free ride in a Bolshevik congress ?

[Summerday Sands]

I may well have the same book



Precisely my point - Lenin was able to see that it could and should be pulled off. That wasn't a happy accident of birth - it came out of the theoretical and practical work he had done in the years preceding.

It is incontrovertible that Lenin, to a great degree, and the Bolshevik party, to an important extent, were based on atheism and materialism and propaganda for it.

A revolution, to protect the status quo ? -- essence of dialectical contradiction

Do you really think that Eagleton's views would have got a platform and a free ride in a Bolshevik congress ?

Hmm.What if there was no Garrison crisis & that piece of good fortune didnt fall into Lenins lap, but he still called for insurrection only to find the party wavering & unwilling, what then? Go to the streets on his own without the Bolsheviks like he threatened in September? Is that in the work preceding 1917 & if so what was the point of building the party up, if he's just going to flounce off if he doesnt get his own way?

Of course Lenin & the Bolsheviks were atheists, but he was also a crafty bugger & they practical politicians who saw compromise with Religion as the best option in the Republics. You said it earlier they were oppurtunistic

On Eagleton I supppose it all depends on which side of the border he was in. Ifi n Western Russian then his lucks out but if he is in Taskent then he'd have got Lenin support, after all when the workers created a Soviet there & based it on Marx's atheist teachings, Lenin & the boys put the Red Army on them.

[C. Flower]

[quote]

Hmm.What if there was no Garrison crisis & that piece of good fortune didnt fall into Lenins lap, but he still called for insurrection only to find the party wavering & unwilling, what then? Go to the streets on his own without the Bolsheviks like he threatened in September? Is that in the work preceding 1917 & if so what was the point of building the party up, if he's just going to flounce off if he doesnt get his own way?

Well, there are no end to the what ifs. And indeed, it could have easily enough not happened. The point I'm making was that he was able to recognise the opportunity when it came.

Of course Lenin & the Bolsheviks were atheists, but he was also a crafty bugger & they practical politicians who saw compromise with Religion as the best option in the Republics. You said it earlier they were oppurtunistic

Taking opportunities as they arise is of course not the same thing as political opportunism.

Lenin was not always right, by his own admission, and changed position on many occasions. Political opportunism carries with it a burden of damage that may or may not be survived. It is a good while since I read Baku, so will see if I can dig it out before saying any more about it.

Eagleton would not be having Lenin's support, as E. is not some guy from Tashkent in the 1910s. He purports to be a Marxist scholar and supporter.

On Eagleton I supppose it all depends on which side of the border he was in. Ifi n Western Russian then his lucks out but if he is in Taskent then he'd have got Lenin support, after all when the workers created a Soviet there & based it on Marx's atheist teachings, Lenin & the boys put the Red Army on them.

What is your source on this ?

Was it not the SRs and British that did for them ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_Baku_Commissars

It is worth looking at what happened in Afghanistan, far more recently. A heavy handed approach to introducing secularism helped to lay the ground for US intervention, on the back of jihadism. Having a bit of patience and working with people to raise the level and educate over time would surely have been better ? And would not have required anyone to compromise in conveying their beliefs, or lack of them.

[Summerday Sands]

[quote=C. Flower;288707]

It is a good while since I read Baku, so will see if I can dig it out before saying any more about it.

Eagleton would not be having Lenin's support, as E. is not some guy from Tashkent in the 1910s. He purports to be a Marxist scholar and supporter



What is your source on this ?

Was it not the SRs and British that did for them ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_Baku_Commissars

It is worth looking at what happened in Afghanistan, far more recently. A heavy handed approach to introducing secularism helped to lay the ground for US intervention, on the back of jihadism. Having a bit of patience and working with people to raise the level and educate over time would surely have been better ? And would not have required anyone to compromise in conveying their beliefs, or lack of them.

Yeah I cant find my copy either

Well you had Eagleton up in front of a Bolshevik congress a minute ago. I was replying in a similar vein.

I think we are on the wrong page Cass, your link doesnt seem to refer the Tashkent Soviet. It was set up by oil workers in 1917, followed a very secular line & was crushed in I think 1920 by the Red Army in the Bashmati Wars because The Bolsheviks were happier with local religious leaders down there instead of Socialists.

Your point on Afghanistan is apt because the only actually successful war in that unfortunate country is the virtually unknown Bashmati Wars waged by the Bolsheviks. Winning that war was important but it involved coming to a compromise with religion, backing local Muslim leaders & Lenin duly did Incidently the guy who got rid of same Muslim leaders & restored secularism was our old friend Stalin in 1928

[C. Flower]

[quote=Summerday Sands;288711]

Yeah I cant find my copy either

Well you had Eagleton up in front of a Bolshevik congress a minute ago. I was replying in a similar vein.

I think we are on the wrong page Cass, your link doesnt seem to refer the Tashkent Soviet. It was set up by oil workers in 1917, followed a very secular line & was crushed in I think 1920 by the Red Army in the Bashmati Wars because The Bolsheviks were happier with local religious leaders down there instead of Socialists.

Your point on Afghanistan is apt because the only actually successful war in that unfortunate country is the virtually unknown Bashmati Wars waged by the Bolsheviks. Winning that war was important but it involved coming to a compromise with religion, backing local Muslim leaders & Lenin duly did Incidently the guy who got rid of same Muslim leaders & restored secularism was our old friend Stalin in 1928

I'll read more about this: but to adopt a purist position that national movements under religious leaderships should never be supported or worked with would be ridiculous, and not at all what I am talking about with respect to Eagleton, who poses as a pro Marxist thinker.

To take that position would mean turning the back on most national liberation movements, and rejecting the progressive content of the Arab Spring.

Bolshevism took the stance that propaganda against religion should be conducted and that their own state should be secular.

They were not in the position to impose the same on states that were predominantly religious.

Will take a look at Tashkent, and again would appreciate links to any sources that you have in mind, that would make the looking easier. On Baku - the Soviet /Red Army there was secular and anti-religious in a heavy handed way - reminiscent of the way the Russians treated Afghanistan. They were also drunk for much of the time, according to the source I gave

Surely it is fairly straightforward that Marxists should stick to their ideological guns, patiently discuss, and propogandise in favour of secular scientific thought, and at the same time work with and support non-Marxist-led progressive movements, national and workers ? If you can find me somewhere that Lenin was prepared to say "there may be a God" then you will have proven that he compromised with religion. Eagleton took time out to write against Dawkins.

I don't think I have lost "Baku" but it will not be looked for today due to other commitments.

[Sam Lord]

I think we are on the wrong page Cass, your link doesnt seem to refer the Tashkent Soviet. It was set up by oil workers in 1917, followed a very secular line & was crushed in I think 1920 by the Red Army in the Bashmati Wars because The Bolsheviks were happier with local religious leaders down there instead of Socialists.

I'm not sure that your history is correct. I can't find any reference to a Tashkent Soviet being "crushed by the Red Army" in 1920. Could you provide a link?

Are you possibly referring to the Turkestan Commission established by the Bolsheviks in October 1919 and which arrived in Tashkent in Nov. 1919 after access to Turkestan (which had been cut off for two years in the Civil War) was finally achieved? This Commission did introduce new policies but I can't find any reference to it crushing anyone. The Red Army in Turkestan would have been a local entity which fought on it's own for two years.

The principal problem that existed and required a change in approach was, to my understanding, not that the Tashkent Soviet (for example) was too secular but that it was based entirely on the small Russian minority population and there was an issue of Great Russian chauvinism. To assert that "the Bolsheviks were happier with local religious leaders down there instead of Socialists" is not just simplistic but essentially incorrect.

As one observer at the time put it, "Turkestan's "left communism" .... meant the rapacious feudal exploitation of the wide mass of the native population by Russian Red Guards, settlers, and bureaucrats." This might have been overstating the case but you will get the picture.

I think perhaps the fundamental issues the Bolsheviks had to deal with in this region were national ones as opposed to religious. The latter, of course, would be encompassed to some degree in the former.

[Summerday Sands]

[quote=C. Flower;288714]

I'll read more about this: but to adopt a purist position that national movements under religious leaderships should never be supported or worked with would be ridiculous, and not at all what I am talking about with respect to Eagleton, who poses as a pro Marxist thinker.

To take that position would mean turning the back on most national liberation movements, and rejecting the progressive content of the Arab Spring.

Bolshevism took the stance that propaganda against religion should be conducted and that their own state should be secular.

They were not in the position to impose the same on states that were predominantly religious.

Will take a look at Tashkent, and again would appreciate links to any sources that you have in mind, that would make the looking easier. On Baku - the Soviet /Red Army there was secular and anti-religious in a heavy handed way - reminiscent of the way the Russians treated Afghanistan. They were also drunk for much of the time, according to the source I gave

Surely it is fairly straightforward that Marxists should stick to their ideological guns, patiently discuss, and propogandise in favour of secular scientific thought, and at the same time work with and support non-Marxist-led progressive movements, national and workers ? If you can find me somewhere that Lenin was prepared to say "there may be a God" then you will have proven that he compromised with religion. Eagleton took time out to write against Dawkins.

I don't think I have lost "Baku" but it will not be looked for today due to other commitments.

Well I'm not at all arguing that a purist line should be adopted. Its why I wouldnt get so het up about something Marx wrote in a book. The realities of actually running the government were complex & Lenin was right to back the Muslim leaders at the expense of local Socialists. He did it in other areas too.

I think we also have to realise that prior to 1917 Lenin hadnt really given much thought to the actual governance of the Republics. So after the revolution & as the Bolsheviks stumble from one crisis to the next, its understandable that Lenin didnt want to get mired down in another crisis so he left running of the place to the Muslim leaders.

You say Marxists should stick to their ideological guns & thread softly patiently trying to wean the peoples of the republic away from religion onto a secular path. But isn't that the point Cass, none of that actually happened. The Bolsheviks take a hardline approach in favour of religion whilst denouncing secularists in the most vitriolic ways. The Bolsheviks kept their noses out Also you'd be a brave woman Cass to go down there to talk patiently to people who see you as interfering in their affairs, racist even (that was one of the troubles the secularist Tashkent Soviet caused) & not even have the support of Lenin & co. I dont think you'd have many other Socialists follow you on your mission And in reality there wasn't. No such policy was encouraged. Religion was protected, Marxism was off the agenda

With regards the Tashkent Soviet, there is a book by a French historian called the war in Afghanistan I think which discusses it, sorry I cant be of more help, I dont own a copy.

[Summerday Sands]

I'm not sure that your history is correct. I can't find any reference to a Tashkent Soviet being "crushed by the Red Army" in 1920. Could you provide a link?

Are you possibly referring to the Turkestan Commission established by the Bolsheviks in October 1919 and which arrived in Tashkent in Nov. 1919 after access to Turkestan (which had been cut off for two years in the Civil War) was finally achieved? This Commission did introduce new policies but I can't find any reference to it crushing anyone. The Red Army in Turkestan would have been a local entity which fought on it's own for two years.

The principal problem that existed and required a change in approach was, to my understanding, not that the Tashkent Soviet (for example) was too secular but that it was based entirely on the small Russian minority population and there was an issue of Great Russian chauvinism. To assert that "the Bolsheviks were happier with local religious leaders down there instead of Socialists" is not just simplistic but essentially incorrect.

As one observer at the time put it, "Turkestan's "left communism" .... meant the rapacious feudal exploitation of the wide mass of the native population by Russian Red Guards, settlers, and bureaucrats." This might have been overstating the case but you will get the picture.

I think perhaps the fundamental issues the Bolsheviks had to deal with in this region were national ones as opposed to religious. The latter, of course, would be encompassed to some degree in the former.

Howya Sam You'll have to forgive me Sam if I'm mistaken in some areas, its a while since I've read up on this & both myself & Cass seem to have waylaid out books.

I do though think the secularist attitude taken by the Tashkent Soviet was a factor in creating tension down there. Didnt the oilworkers which your right were a small group ban Muslims from the Soviet? Also when the Muslims formed their own government the Tashkent Soviet dispersed it by force.

With regards the demise of the Tashkent Soviet itself, I need to get my hands on that French book

[Sam Lord]

With regards the demise of the Tashkent Soviet itself, I need to get my hands on that French book

You may find this of interest:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=rZ_j...kestan&f=false

[C. Flower]

[quote][QUOTE=Summerday Sands;288725]

Well I'm not at all arguing that a purist line should be adopted. Its why I wouldnt get so het up about something Marx wrote in a book. The realities of actually running the government were complex & Lenin was right to back the Muslim leaders at the expense of local Socialists. He did it in other areas too.

While this is all interesting and a useful discussion, the issue of Eagleton's religiosity, while he is being promoted as a Marxist thinker by the SWP, is a completely different one to the national religions of undeveloped eastern states in the 1910s.

I think we also have to realise that prior to 1917 Lenin hadnt really given much thought to the actual governance of the Republics. So after the revolution & as the Bolsheviks stumble from one crisis to the next, its understandable that Lenin didnt want to get mired down in another crisis so he left running of the place to the Muslim leaders.

When it came to Georgia, Lenin changed his mind twice over whether there should be Russian intervention or a self-determined government. There were huge pressures on the Bolsheviks in 1917 - they were in the middle of a World War, had a hungry population and were staving off multiple internal and external attacks. Imo, they did amazingly well.

You say Marxists should stick to their ideological guns & thread softly patiently trying to wean the peoples of the republic away from religion onto a secular path. But isn't that the point Cass, none of that actually happened. The Bolsheviks take a hardline approach in favour of religion whilst denouncing secularists in the most vitriolic ways. The Bolsheviks kept their noses out

I'm not at all sure that was the case. It is easier to find cases of over-heavy-handed secularism from the Bolsheviks and their successors. I've posted a number of links that you may not have followed that show how systematic work was done to advance atheism. Hence of course the great loathing of communism by the Church - in Ireland communists were excommunicated and attacked and buildings burned at the instigation of the Church.

Also you'd be a brave woman Cass to go down there to talk patiently to people who see you as interfering in their affairs, racist even (that was one of the troubles the secularist Tashkent Soviet caused) & not even have the support of Lenin & co. I don't think you'd have many other Socialists follow you on your mission And in reality there wasn't. No such policy was encouraged. Religion was protected, Marxism was off the agenda

Down where ? And not really. Never pretended to be anything else other than an atheist in Egypt, where a lot of people asked me what religion I was. Still in one piece, thanks very much. There are plenty of secularists in Egypt and at least one is speaking at the SWP event.

With regards the Tashkent Soviet, there is a book by a French historian called the war in Afghanistan I think which discusses it, sorry I cant be of more help, I dont own a copy.

I believe Sam Lord has looked at this. It doesn't appear that the Bolsheviks attacked a secular Soviet, even though it may have been a bit on the flaky side.