The renewed promotion of Victor Serge—by anarchists, the pseudo-left, liberal academics, and the entire spectrum of anti-Trotskyist intellectual circles—requires a clear and honest political assessment. Republishing and celebrating Life and Death of Leon Trotsky is not just a literary act; it is a political move intended to distort the history of the October Revolution, undermine Bolshevism, and diminish Trotsky’s revolutionary legacy.

Serge’s biography reveals more about Serge’s personal political downfall than about Leon Trotsky’s life and lasting historical impact. While this is true, the wider implications are even more significant. His later writings act as a political weapon born from defeat, demoralisation, and capitulation to bourgeois ideas. Today, they serve the same purpose as in the 1940s: to hide the class struggle behind Stalinism and to obscure the clear, principled divide between Bolshevism and its Thermidorian opponents.

The Political Degeneration of Victor Serge: From Bolshevik to Fellow‑Traveller of the Bourgeoisie

Victor Serge’s early revolutionary history is undisputed. He joined the Bolsheviks in 1919, when Petrograd was starving and under siege, and he held significant roles within the Communist International. He faced imprisonment and exile during Stalin’s rule. His novels, particularly The Case of Comrade Tulayev, vividly portray bureaucratic terror. However, Serge’s tragedy is not a literary issue but a political one.

The setbacks of the 1930s profoundly affected him. The rise of Hitler, the betrayal of the Spanish Revolution, the Moscow Trials, the Stalin-Hitler Pact, and Trotsky’s assassination didn’t inspire in Serge the steadfastness of a Trotskyist; instead, they led to a loss of political direction. However, Serge was among those who “held on for a long time, but he did not hold on to the end.”

The key indicator of this collapse is Serge’s infamous letter to André Malraux, written just six days before his death, in which he pledged support to Charles de Gaulle. This document highlights the gravity of his betrayal: “A man who had once manned a submachine gun post in defence of the Bolshevik Revolution ended his life supporting a bourgeois French general.” This isn’t merely a biographical detail; it reflects the political perspective from which Life and Death of Leon Trotsky was authored.

II. Trotsky’s Break with Serge: A Necessary Political Separation

Political reasons, not personal ones, drove the split between Trotsky and Serge. Trotsky severed ties because Serge shifted towards centrism—succumbing to vacillation, moralism, and political impressionism that typically surface during reactionary periods. Serge’s attempts at conciliation with the “left” critics of Bolshevism, his flirtation with anarchism, and his increasing doubts about the dictatorship of the proletariat directly conflicted with the core principles of the Fourth International.

Trotsky recognised that opposing Stalinism demanded a clear understanding of Bolshevism’s historical role. Meanwhile, Serge increasingly argued that the origins of Stalinist terror stemmed directly from the October Revolution. This idea is a core theme of the entire “god that failed” genre, and Serge emerged as one of its earliest and most refined proponents.

The Theoretical Bankruptcy of Life and Death of Leon Trotsky

Serge’s biography reflects the doubts and moral introspection that characterised his later years. It quotes Serge asking, “Could we have misunderstood something crucial?” “Did we achieve the opposite of our intentions?” “Have we neglected man and his soul?” These questions are not typical of a Marxist. They reveal a man who has forsaken historical materialism and turned towards petty-bourgeois moral philosophy.

The biography serves a political purpose: it subtly links Bolshevism with Stalinism, revolutionary violence with bureaucratic terror, and Lenin with his executioners. As noted, “Serge’s late writings blur this distinction.” This conflation is deliberate, forming the ideological basis of Cold War anti-communism. It explains why the American right favoured Serge, the New York Review of Books, and the post-Trotskyist intellectual circle.

IV. Why Serge Is Useful to the Pseudo‑Left Today

The renewed interest in Serge today is driven more by political reasons than literary value. Groups such as the International Socialist Tendency, anarchist publishers, liberal academics, and the pseudo-left support Serge because he provides a left-leaning justification for opposing Bolshevism. This allows them to appear aligned with the revolutionary tradition while avoiding its core principles: the dictatorship of the proletariat, the necessity of a vanguard party, the legitimacy of revolutionary violence, and the fundamental doctrines of Trotskyism. “Serge is utilised to challenge the more severe aspects of Bolshevik policy… and to imply that the divide between Leninism and Stalinism was less pronounced than Trotsky claimed.” This encapsulates the political strategy behind the entire effort.

V. What Should Be Read Instead: The Marxist Tradition Against Demoralisation

Despite Serge’s discouraging moralism, the Marxist tradition remains robust. Trotsky’s My Life, as noted by David North in a recent article, is “an enduring contribution to Marxism and world literature.” Works such as In Defence of Marxism and The Revolution Betrayed provide essential theoretical frameworks for interpreting Stalinism as a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy rather than as a continuation of Bolshevism.

Despite its centrist biases, Deutscher’s trilogy is grounded in careful historical scholarship rather than existential doubt. Pierre Broué’s biography remains the most comprehensive historical account of Trotsky’s life. All these works approach the subject from a perspective rooted in historical materialism, unlike the despairing self-examination of a defeated thinker.

Conclusion: Serge’s Biography as a Political Warning

Serge’s biography “tells us more about Serge’s own political disintegration than about the life and enduring importance of Leon Trotsky.” While this is accurate, the political meaning extends beyond that. “Life and Death of Leon Trotsky” by Serge is not just a flawed book; it symbolises a wider trend: the decline of parts of the intelligentsia from Marxism in response to historical setbacks. It serves as a warning of the consequences when revolutionary ideals shift to moralism, when in-depth historical analysis gives way to existential uncertainty, and when the class struggle is replaced by a focus on the “soul.”

The task today is not to rehabilitate Serge, but to understand the political forces that shaped him—and to reject the use of his writings as a weapon against the revolutionary legacy of Leon Trotsky and the program of the Fourth International.

I. Introduction: Republicanism and the Contemporary Academy

Rachel Hammersley’s *Republicanism: An Introduction* emerges at a time when the crisis in liberal-capitalist societies has sparked renewed interest in alternative political vocabularies. In the English-speaking academic world, this has led to a prominent revival of “republican” political theory, primarily associated with the Cambridge School and its focus on contextualist intellectual history. Hammersley’s book exemplifies this trend: it offers a clear, well-informed overview of the republican tradition from ancient times to today, crafted with the pedagogical clarity typical of an introductory work.

The features that make the book accessible also expose its limitations. As your original assessment states, it is “an introduction to bourgeois political thought about itself.” The work is part of an intellectual project that, although presented as historical, is fundamentally ideological. The republican revival has served more as a way for the current intelligentsia to adopt a vocabulary of near-radicalism, while leaving the core structures of capitalist society intact, rather than as a genuine critique of modern political systems.

II. The Cambridge School and the Depoliticisation of Intellectual History

Hammersley’s text clearly reflects the influence of Cambridge School methodologies. Its focus on analysing political ideas within their linguistic and discursive frameworks has provided valuable insights into early modern political thought. Nonetheless, the approach consistently hesitates to address the material and class roots of political ideologies. In Hammersley’s interpretation, republicanism is portrayed as a timeless discourse centred on notions such as “virtue,” “non-domination,” and “civic participation,” often divorced from the social relations that shape these concepts.

This abstraction is more than just a methodological oversight; it embodies the wider ideological trend in today’s academia, which has shifted away from materialist analysis toward textualist and normative approaches that align with the interests of the professional-managerial class.

III. Neo‑Republicanism and the Ideology of the Professional Class

The contemporary revival of republican theory, especially in Philip Pettit’s work, should be understood within this sociological backdrop. It emerged following the setbacks faced by radical movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Neo-republicanism proposes a view of freedom as “non-domination” that initially seems to oppose the atomistic individualism typical of neoliberalism. However, as your evaluation rightly highlights, this opposition is limited. Pettit’s approach deliberately omits the most widespread forms of domination in capitalist societies, such as exploitation through wage labour, market coercion, and the class nature of the modern state. It “deliberately excludes domination rooted in wage relationships, market dictatorship, and class structures.”

Neo-republicanism operates as a political theory designed to resonate with the academic upper-middle class: it is critical in tone, reform-minded in its core ideas, and ultimately aligns with maintaining capitalist social structures.

IV. The Historical Class Character of Republicanism

A materialist approach to republicanism must recognise that, in its early forms, it was the political ideology of the emerging bourgeoisie. From Renaissance Italy’s civic humanism to the radicalism of the English Commonwealth and the Jacobinism of the French Revolution, republicanism expressed the goals of a class aiming to overthrow feudal and absolutist systems and create the conditions for capitalist growth.

Marx’s early writings emphasise the shortcomings of this ideology. In ‘On the Jewish Question,’ he distinguishes between political and human emancipation, arguing that the republican state: “abolishes feudal distinctions in the political sphere only to leave the real inequalities of civil society… untouched.” This realisation signifies Marx’s departure from the republican tradition and his acknowledgement that, although abolishing political privilege is a historic step forward, it does not eliminate the underlying systems of class control based on private property.

V. Marx’s Analysis of the Bourgeois Republic

Hammersley’s survey, along with the broader republican revival, overlooks the deeper insights of Marx’s advanced analysis of the bourgeois republic. In works such as *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* and *The Class Struggles in France*, Marx maintained that the republic is not simply a neutral institutional structure but is the political form most suited to serve capitalist interests. While it appears to represent popular sovereignty, real power remains concentrated within the market, bureaucracy, and—if needed—the repressive state apparatus.

The June Days of 1848, when the French bourgeois republic massacred the Parisian proletariat, stand as the most conclusive historical refutation of the claim that republicanism has universal validity.

VI. The Attempt to Recast Marx as a Republican Thinker

Recent scholarly efforts, such as those by Bruno Leipold, to interpret Marx as a form of republican theorist aim to domesticate Marxism by aligning it with bourgeois political ideas. Your evaluation rightly dismisses this revisionism, emphasising that the core task isn’t to find superficial similarities between Marx and republican thought, but to understand the crucial break Marx made with traditional ideas—notably, his recognition of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject and his belief that true emancipation depends on abolishing capitalist property relations.

VII. Conclusion: The Limits of Hammersley’s Project

Hammersley’s ‘Republicanism: An Introduction’ effectively surveys how mainstream academia interprets its own intellectual background. However, it falls short of offering what is most essential: a materialist perspective on republicanism as the political ideology of a particular class during a specific stage of history. Your assessment concludes that it “cannot provide what is most necessary: a materialist analysis of republicanism… and an understanding of why that ideology… cannot be the basis for the liberation of humanity from class exploitation.” Such an analysis lies beyond the conceptual horizon of the republican revival. It belongs, instead, to the Marxist tradition, which alone situates political ideas within the dynamics of class struggle and the historical development of the capitalist mode of production.

Yehoshua Yakhot’s biographical appendix in *The Suppression of Philosophy in the 1920s* describes this record as, beyond just a metaphor, a form of political extermination, similar to a death register. The most prominent early Soviet Marxist philosophers vanish suddenly during the dark years of 1936 to 1938 — specifically in 1936, 1937, and 1938. The Great Terror not only stopped Marxist intellectual progress but also physically eliminated its supporters. It is evident that, “after people were executed, they were virtually erased from history.”

This fundamental truth is often avoided by bourgeois academics, Stalinist defenders, and post-Soviet nationalists. The abolition of Soviet philosophy wasn’t accidental or a mistake; it wasn’t a tragic mistake from a mainly logical socialist project. Instead, it was a deliberate move by a bureaucratic elite that seized power from the working class. They could only stay in control by erasing the intellectual, political, and moral legacy of October.

The Bureaucracy’s War Against Memory

Yakhot’s accomplishment isn’t just in reconstructing the philosophical debates of the 1920s; it’s also in revealing how the bureaucracy aimed to suppress them. The Stalinist regime recognised that maintaining its nationalist, anti-internationalist «socialism in one country» program required eradicating the living link to Marxism. This involved not only eliminating Oppositionists but also destroying any chance of their being remembered.

The Great Terror was primarily a political and epistemological campaign. Following executions, authorities worked to erase names from textbooks, libraries, and encyclopaedias. The bureaucracy aimed to eliminate any record of the Left Opposition, erase the philosophical debates of the 1920s, and ensure Lenin and Trotsky’s ideological legacies had no successors. This explains why the appendix in Yakhot’s book is so unsettling — it functions as a list of those whom history was ordered to forget.

Writing Under the Shadow of the Terror

Yakhot authored his book within the USSR before his compelled emigration in 1975. Born in 1919, he was a young man during the Terror era. He experienced the abrupt disappearances, hushed rumours, and the empty spaces where colleagues and teachers once stood. When he discusses the “Menshevizing Idealists,” he is not simply reconstructing history academically but is instead engaging in a form of historical revival.

He understood that the names he revived were those condemned to obscurity by the bureaucracy. He also knew that the philosophical discussions he pieced together were debates the bureaucracy claimed never occurred. The men whose ideas he examined had been executed, starved, or forced to die in the camps. Writing such a book under these circumstances was a bold act of intellectual bravery and political resistance.

The Destruction of the Institute of Red Professors

The Institute of Red Professors, whose students are listed in Yakhot’s “death register,” served as the core intellectual hub of the early Soviet Union. It trained a generation of Marxist philosophers, economists, and historians dedicated to building the ideological foundation of the workers’ republic. Many of these individuals had supported the Left Opposition in 1923. By 1936–38, simply having this affiliation was enough to sentence them to execution. The Soviet bureaucracy recognised that these people embodied the enduring spirit of October, making their purge a necessary political act.

Instead, the regime promoted the Mitins, the Yudins, and the Konstantinovs—officials whose job was not to think but to monitor ideas. They oversaw the shift of Marxist philosophy into a formalised excuse for bureaucratic privileges.

Theoretical Murder as the Essence of Stalinism

The core insight—and that of Yakhot’s book—is that the violent suppression of Marxist philosophers represented the logical endpoint of the Stalinist counter-revolution. Trotsky had warned since 1923 that the bureaucracy, rooted in scarcity and isolation, would inevitably clash with the revolutionary and internationalist spirit of Marxism. The Terror was the outcome of this conflict. Stalinism could not coexist with true Marxist thought; it needed to eliminate it. Therefore, equating Marxism with Stalinism is both historically inaccurate and politically reactionary. Stalinism was not a continuation but a negation of Marxism—a brutal, bloody rebuke to it.

Yakhot’s Final Act of Fidelity

Yakhot never abandoned Marxism. He spent his final days working on a study of Spinoza. This alone counters the cynical notion that the crimes of Stalinism undermine the revolutionary legacy. Yakhot’s life shows that the Marxist tradition persisted not through official Soviet philosophy but through those persecuted, exiled, and silenced. His book is thus more than a historical study; it serves as a memorial — a tribute to the murdered generation of Soviet Marxist philosophers — and as a polemical challenge against the falsification of history.

Conclusion: The Meaning of the “Death Register”

The “death register” at the end of Yakhot’s book is more than just an appendix; it serves as the core argument. It demonstrates that Stalinism was a form of counter-revolution, with the bureaucracy maintaining control through murder, and that the fall of Marxist philosophy marked the near destruction of the intellectual vanguard of the working class. Recalling these names is a way to recover the truth, and by doing so, to revive the revolutionary tradition that Stalinism aimed to wipe out. Yakhot’s work stands as both a testament to that tradition and a warning that fighting against historical distortion is inherently linked to the fight for socialism.

Introduction: A Historian for the Age of Reaction

Sean McMeekin has established himself over the past fifteen years as a leading figure in the spread of anti-communist falsehoods in the English-speaking world. His publications—including *The Russian Revolution: A New History* (2017), *Stalin’s War* (2021), *The Ottoman Endgame* (2015), *July 1914* (2013), and *To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall of Communism* (2024)—form a consistent ideological agenda.

These are not neutral scholarly works but political efforts to undermine Marxism, justify imperialism, and revive reactionary myths from the 20th century. McMeekin’s body of work is centred on a single premise: the October Revolution was disastrous, socialism is fundamentally authoritarian, and imperialist crimes are minor compared to the supposed atrocities committed by Marxist revolutionaries. This is more of an ideological battle than a historical account. It should be noted that McMeekin is not the only historian of the reactionary era.

Richard Pipes: The Court Historian of the American National‑Security State

Richard Pipes was less a historian of the Russian Revolution and more its prosecutor, assigned by the American ruling class to justify its worldwide anti-communist efforts. His work exemplifies Cold War reaction, dismissing class struggle, condemning Marxism, and displaying a contempt for the working class that approaches the pathological.

Pipes’ main claim—that Russia lacked a true “civil society” and thus couldn’t generate a real revolution—was more a political dogma than a historical analysis. It enabled him to dismiss the entire mass movement of 1917 as driven by a conspiratorial minority. In Pipes’ perspective, millions of workers, soldiers, and peasants are invisible except as mere scenery for the scheming of “fanatics.”

His approach was straightforward: disregard the extensive documentary evidence of mass participation, select quotes that align with his thesis, invent unsubstantiated motives for Lenin and Trotsky, and blur the lines between Bolshevism and Stalinism to discredit both. Pipes’ work had a political aim: to give the Reagan administration and the CIA a pseudo-scholarly basis for their global counter-revolutionary efforts. He was the key architect of the “evil empire” narrative. His books are more ideological tools than history; they serve political purposes. By the late 20th century, Pipes was the most influential fabricator regarding the Russian Revolution.

Robert Conquest: The CIA’s Poet‑Propagandist

Robert Conquest was not truly a historian. Instead, he served as a propaganda officer for the British Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD), a secret anti-communist division supported and led in partnership with the CIA. His publications were created as components of an intelligence effort rather than scholarly works.

Conquest’s approach was blunt but successful: he accepted hearsay as fact, inflated figures without evidence, uncritically used émigré testimony, presented speculation as certainty, and ignored archival material that contradicted his narrative. His most renowned works—The Great Terror and Harvest of Sorrow—were created to serve Cold War political agendas. They aimed to depict communism as fundamentally genocidal and to discredit socialist movements by linking them to mass murder.

Conquest’s legacy lies in popularising anti-communist myths within Western academia. Despite the opening of Soviet archives discrediting many of his assertions, his figures and stories persisted because they aligned with the ideological interests of the ruling class. Conquest was a Cold War propagandist posing as a historian.

Robert Service: The Biographical Assassin

Robert Service represents the degeneration of anti‑communist historiography in the post‑Soviet era. Unlike Pipes or Conquest, he had access to archives. Unlike Figes, he had no literary talent. Unlike McMeekin, he lacked even the energy of a polemicist. What he produced instead was character assassination disguised as biography.

His Trotsky biography exemplifies scholarly malpractice, with numerous factual errors, misquotations, distortions, and fabrications. It was so blatant that other historians reluctantly criticized it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies, methodological bias, and errors. The American Historical Review also condemned its inaccuracies. Even scholars who opposed Trotsky felt embarrassed. Service’s approach depends on psychological reductionism: depicting Lenin as cold and manipulative, Trotsky as vain and egotistical, and Bolshevism as a pathology rather than a political movement.

This isn’t history; it’s sensationalist psychoanalysis. The aim is to undermine Marxism by portraying its leaders as emotionally unstable. Instead of explaining the revolution, he diagnoses its figures. Service is a superficial biographer whose work falls apart under close examination.

Orlando Figes: The Liberal Tragedian of the Revolution

Orlando Figes seems the most superficially “balanced” within the group, but politics equally shape his work. His narrative approach and literary style conceal a fundamental liberal hostility towards the working class and a pronounced scepticism of revolutionary politics. Figes’ central claim is that the revolution was a “tragedy”—driven by cultural backwardness, emotional excess, and luck. This view allows him to dismiss the class dynamics of 1917, simplify political movements to psychological triggers, and portray the revolution as a moral failure rather than a social necessity.

The liberal concern about mass politics influences Fige’s work, viewing the working class’s rise as dangerous. His narrative laments the failure of the “moderates”. His career was marred by scandal when he was caught writing anonymous Amazon reviews to praise his own books and criticise rivals. This minor misconduct reflects the broader dishonesty in his historiography. Figes is a liberal moralist who romanticises the revolution, removing its political substance.

Sean McMeekin: The 21st‑Century Falsifier

Sean McMeekin exemplifies this entire tradition, where anti-communist history dismisses even the appearance of rigorous scholarship. His work compiles every slander, falsification, and falsehood ever associated with the Russian Revolution. McMeekin is known for reintroducing discredited claims such as Lenin being a German agent, an anti-Semite, Trotsky as a Bundist, and October as a foreign-funded coup. These assertions were debunked over a century ago, yet he continues to repeat them to serve his political aims. As David North pointed out, he manipulates sources by misrepresenting scholars like Lyandres and distorting their conclusions to support statements they explicitly oppose. He dismisses the working class, framing the revolution as a criminal conspiracy rather than a mass movement.

This aligns with Pipes’ thesis, but McMeekin strips it of its original scholarly context, turning it into a crude political polemic. His writing style is that of a political combatant. His epilogue, “The Spectre of Communism,” openly states his goal of warning against contemporary socialist ideas. He is not an objective historian but is instead crafting a political manifesto for the right. McMeekin stands out as the most blatant falsifier of the Russian Revolution in the 21st century.

Final Synthesis: The Anti‑Communist School Exposed

These five historians vary in style, era, and approach. Yet, they serve a common political purpose: to deny the revolutionary power of the working class and to delegitimise socialism as a historical force. Conquest contributed propaganda, Pipes supplied ideological framing, the service offered character assassination, Figes expressed liberal lamentation, and McMeekin fuelled culture-war hysteria.

McMeekin’s newest book is part of a well-known genre of anti-communist propaganda. It gathers all accusations ever made against socialism and communism, takes them out of context, dismisses any evidence that might suggest their innocence, and presents the biased story to a publishing industry eager to discredit the revolutionary tradition. This characterisation applies not just to ‘To Overthrow the World’ but to McMeekin’s entire body of work.

The Method: Falsification as Historical Practice

The Inversion of Evidence

McMeekin’s signature approach involves turning evidence upside down. He cites reputable research exclusively to oppose its conclusions. A well-known example is his treatment of Semion Lyandres’ “The Bolsheviks’ German Gold” Revisited. Lyandres explicitly stated that: “There was no evidence of the ‘German connection.’” McMeekin references Lyandres but asserts the opposite. This is not a mistake; it appears to be intentional deception.

The Fabrication of Motives and Events

In *The Russian Revolution: A New History*, McMeekin incorrectly asserts that the 1903 Bolshevik–Menshevik split revolved around “the Jewish question,” claims Martov founded the Bund, and alleges Lenin supported anti-Semitic views. This is a significant error—more than simple inaccuracy, it’s a calculated defamation disguised as scholarship. McMeekin’s distortions are consistently motivated by political agendas, seeking to undermine the Bolshevik legacy by associating it with reactionary chauvinism.

The Psychologization of History

McMeekin often replaces material analysis with psychological speculation. He portrays Lenin as a fanatic, Trotsky as a conspirator, Stalin as a misunderstood pragmatist, and imperialist politicians as sober realists. This approach lets McMeekin sidestep the social forces shaping history—such as class struggle, economic crises, and imperialist rivalries—and instead simplifies events to the acts of “armed prophets” and “utopian dreamers.”

The Sanitisation of Imperialism

In Stalin’s War, McMeekin reinterprets the foreign policy of Western imperialist powers, depicting them as hesitant actors compelled into global conflict by Soviet treachery. The narrative omits the crimes of colonialism, the genocidal actions of the British Empire, and the economic interests driving imperialist wars. The sole villain allowed to stand is communism.

McMeekin openly reveals his political bias saying “Social inequality will always be with us… The necessary response… [is to] strengthen our defences and resist armed prophets promising social perfection.” This reflects the core of his ideology: inequality is constant, revolution is risky, and the ruling class must be ready to use violence to suppress social equality movements. His regret that Kerensky did not “physically exterminate the Bolsheviks” in July 1917 exemplifies this worldview. McMeekin writes history to justify repression, turning his books into guides for counter-revolution.

McMeekin in the Anti‑Communist Canon

McMeekin is recognised alongside Robert Service, Stephen Kotkin, Timothy Snyder, and Frank Dikötter as a prominent figure in the “rise and fall of communism” genre. These works often: “equate Stalinism with communism… and thereby obscure the revolutionary legacy of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.” Notably crude distortions of sources mark McMeekin’s role in this field, a tendency to revive discredited accusations (such as “German gold”), and an open endorsement of counter-revolutionary violence. While Kotkin seeks scholarly seriousness and Snyder adopts a moralistic stance, McMeekin prefers the blunt force of reactionary polemics.

The Real History: Revolution and Counter‑Revolution

Against McMeekin’s distortions, it is important to reassert the essential truth: “The October Revolution was the greatest event in human history—the first time the working class took state power and began the construction of a society free from exploitation.”

McMeekin cannot explain the revolution because he fails to acknowledge the role of the masses. To him, history is driven by conspirators rather than the millions of workers, peasants, and soldiers who actively participated in the 1917 crisis. Likewise, he cannot account for Stalinism because he refuses to recognise the political struggle led by the Left Opposition. As Vadim Rogovin shows, Stalinism was not the realisation of Bolshevism but its opposite— a bureaucratic counter-revolution based on the Soviet state’s isolation. McMeekin collapses these distinctions because his purpose is not to understand history but to destroy the revolutionary tradition.

Why McMeekin Matters: The Bourgeoisie Arms Itself

The resurgence of anti-communist falsifications responds to the worsening crisis of global capitalism. As I previously noted, “Books like McMeekin’s are a measure of the ruling class’s fear, not its confidence.” The ruling class detects a revival of revolutionary feelings and reacts by hiring intellectual mercenaries to rewrite history, vilify socialism, and justify repression. McMeekin exemplifies one such mercenary. His work serves as an ideological counterpart to state militarisation, the suppression of dissent, and preparations for new imperialist conflicts.

Conclusion: Exposing the Falsifier

Sean McMeekin’s work is more propaganda than scholarship. It manipulates evidence, twists motives, ignores class struggle, sanitises imperialism, and vilifies revolution. It aligns with the political interests of a ruling class facing its most significant crisis since the 1930s.