Skip to main content

A working-class voice who played major role in disseminating global labor movement

By Harsh Thakor* 
Dmitry Fyodorovich Pirozhkov, a longtime member of the Proletarskaya Gazeta editorial board and occasional editor-in-chief, passed away on June 19th at the age of 79. He was known for distributing the newspaper at a public spot near Gostiny Dvor on Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg.
Pirozhkov contributed to the Russian labor movement through his work with Proletarskaya Gazeta from its founding in 1999. The newspaper, published in 46 issues, covered developments in the global labor movement, historical references, and analytical articles. He devoted significant effort to its production and dissemination.
Colleagues described him as intelligent, well-read, attentive, kind, and supportive. Even in challenging health conditions or difficult circumstances, he remained actively involved. His commitment to Marxist-Leninist principles persisted despite obstacles.
Despite his age, Pirozhkov maintained high energy levels. He readily offered advice on current topics and possessed an exceptional memory, recalling relevant classical works for articles when needed.
Two or three times a week, including weekends and after work, he distributed the newspaper and other communist literature in various weather conditions. He regularly set up a folding table with printed materials at left-wing rallies and demonstrations in Leningrad and St. Petersburg. He engaged directly with the public at these events rather than remaining in the office.
Though not physically strong in later years, his ideological resolve was steadfast. In debates with opponents, he firmly defended communist ideas and occasionally faced physical confrontations. During periods of liberal governance, he encountered frequent police interventions while challenging state policies.
Pirozhkov co-founded the newspaper with Anatoly Vasilyevich Pyzhov. It critiqued the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and its decline. Initially, they distributed various communist publications at public places and factory entrances. In 1994, with assistance from V.N. Leonov, they published the first issue of Arguments and Counterarguments in Gatchina. Proletarskaya Gazeta followed in 1999, upholding Leninist positions. After Pyzhov's death, Pirozhkov handled editing, printing, and distribution alone.
The newspaper's content was developed collaboratively: every weekend, the editorial team reviewed submissions, most written by members themselves, ensuring coherence and promotion of communist perspectives. Many ideas from earlier issues, now available online, remain relevant today. These include analyses of ongoing class struggles in the USSR from 1917 to 1991, and predictions of challenges for the European Union, drawing on Lenin's works and the Greek economic crisis in the early 2000s. Pirozhkov's broad knowledge strengthened its theoretical foundation.
The close-knit editorial process had drawbacks: a small group sometimes rejected external input, limiting the newspaper's theoretical depth and serving as a cautionary example for communist organizations.
Proletarskaya Gazeta built connections with activists across Russia and communist groups abroad, including in Germany, Greece, Turkey, India, Iran, and Canada. Editorial board members, including Pirozhkov, attended international congresses and conferences, often as Russia's sole representatives.
Pirozhkov and the board worked to pass leadership to younger activists, achieving success in this transition. Though never a CPSU member, he embodied communist principles by rejecting privileges. As geopolitical tensions escalated into armed conflict, he maintained an internationalist position and supported activists who left the Russian Communist Workers' Party (RCWP) and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (OKP) over disagreements on leadership. In recent years, he collaborated with the Russian Communist Party (International) and published their materials.
Pirozhkov represented those who, amid Russia's counterrevolutionary period, advocated for working-class empowerment and emancipation.
---
 *Freelance journalist

Comments

TRENDING

How strategic is India's commercial expansion in the Mediterranean?

By Vijay Prashad  On 26 October 2026, Greece’s foreign minister George Gerapetritis stood at the United Nations headquarters and rejected the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya. Gerapetritis spoke on behalf of Greece of course, but also Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, the European Union, and the United Arab Emirates. Five days later, the Indian frigate INS Trishul entered Souda Bay in Crete as part of activities with the US Navy installation (Naval Support Activity) and with the NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre. The sequence illuminates a developing strategic geography: India’s naval reach, its confrontation with Pakistan’s new Turkish partner, and its ambition to connect Indian capital to European markets increasingly converge in the eastern Mediterranean.

India among targets as China-linked hackers 'exploit' VPNs, firewalls

Counterview News   Cyberattackers grew faster and harder to detect in 2025, increasingly slipping through trusted systems rather than breaking in with obvious malware, claims U.S.-based  cybersecurity technology company CrowdStrike's 2026 Global Threat Report . The report says adversaries "grew more evasive than ever before," exploiting trust in supply chain partners, legitimate software, internal systems and employees. CrowdStrike now tracks 281 adversaries after naming 24 new ones in 2025, plus 150 activity clusters and emerging threat groups.

Letter to Modi seeks cancellation of "coercive" anti-NGO order on foreign funding rules

By A Representative  Around 70 civil rights organizations have come together to strategize “a collective response to the stifling of civil society space” in the wake of the recent Government of India clampdown on NGOs, telling Prime Minister Narendra Modi that government steps are “coercive” in nature, are “without reasonable cause or due process”, and seek to “cripple” the ability of NGOs to “carry on their legitimate and sanctioned work.”