China’s Revolutionary Path is Correct


 The remnants of the Communist (Soviet) Left in the West have in general taken an antagonistic stance toward China – accusing around one-fifth of the earth’s population – of deviating from the path of Marxism, and onto the bourgeois path of Capitalism. However, Marx (and Engels), clearly stated in their 50 volumes of theoretical postulation, that ‘Scientific Socialism’ is the natural outcome of the highest level of the development of Capitalist market forces. Without the presence, functioning, and advanced development of Capitalist market forces – a point agreed upon by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao – ‘Scientific Socialism’ cannot be developed as the material conditions have not yet been produced (through the labour of the masses) and as such, are not present to serve as the socio-economic foundation for the next essential step of the evolution of society into a distinctly ‘Socialist’ manifestation, as an epoch-making stepping stone into the state of Communism.

Why is this the case? Why doesn’t the Western Left, in general (excluding sympathetic individuals and various special interest groups), choose to act in Marxist-Leninist solidarity with its comradely Chinese counterparts? Why does the Western Communist Left – which has never succeeded in leading a revolution, nor in the establishing a Socialist State, take the position that the Chinese people – who have fought (and died) to successfully achieve a revolution, and subsequently established (through their labours) a Socialist State – take the position that the Chinese example of purposefully applying the theory of Marxist-Leninism to concrete reality, is not equal to, or worthy of, as yet untried Western notions of the same theory?

Of course, the answer lies purely in historical conditions, the strands of which can be clearly discerned through logical analysis. Khrushchev’s betrayal of Stalin (and Marxist-Leninist theory) in 1956 firmly set the course of the USSR to its inevitable collapse in 1991, and laid the foundation for the so-called Sino-Soviet split. The Sino-Soviet split saw China’s leader Mao Zedong openly disagree with Khrushchev’s line, declaring it ‘unMarxist’, and through this rejection, saw the enforcing of the Chinese Communist idea that Stalin’s example was correct, and that Khrushchev’s action was motivated by a bourgeois desire to pander to Western capitalist opinion. At this time, (and throughout the subsequent years that culminated in the collapse of the USSR), China asserted that Stalin was correct and that Khrushchev was wrong. China’s action elicited the predictable Soviet response of the time, which saw the USSR ceasing to acknowledge the relevancy or correctness of the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949, and the summary ideological dismissal of all progressive achievements produced by the Maoist regime. Despite Stalin’s formal dissolution of the Communist International in 1943 – due to what he viewed as its redundancy at that particular point in time – the Soviet Union retained a more or less iron-grip on all ideological disseminated throughout the world-wide national branches that comprised the Communist Party. From 1956 onwards, it became Soviet State creed to nullify and denigrate any and all Chinese Communist achievements, and re-write Marxist-Leninist history by excluding the legitimacy of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist movement permanently from it.

As Khrushchev effectively betrayed the October Revolution of 1917, (and the Soviet movement in general), it logically follows that his policy toward China was also corrupt and ideologically untenable, as it deviated from the rigors expected of historical dialectical analysis. In this regard, the October Revolution of 1917 ended on February the 25th, 1956 with Khrushchev’s so-called ‘Secret Speech’ (soon afterwards conveniently ‘leaked’ to the Western media) which was delivered to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Strong leadership and centralisation – all Marxist-Leninist policies – were all called into question by Khrushchev as he criticised what he believed to be the ‘dangerous cult of personality’ associated with Stalin’s tenure as the leader of the Soviet Union. Part and parcel of this ideological sleight of hand, was the concomitant demonization of Communist China.

The problem with this ‘rightest’ deviation from Communist comradeliness, is that it plays directly into the hands of the political rightwing and gives fuel to the racially motivated ideologues. Many in the West oppose China from a position of residual racism. This is the bourgeois position of the need to denigrate and demean at the point of contact, used as a means to control and subordinate anyone, or anything that is perceived or ‘declared’ as ‘different’, and deviating from the presumed ‘norm’. On the political Right, the pseudo-science of racial eugenics and social Darwinism is encouraged by this racialization of the ‘other’, whilst on the Left, Eurocentric racism is hid behind a thin veneer of justifying, and misconstrued pseudo-Marxism. In both cases, bourgeois racism is the motivating force that Khrushchev – either deliberately or unwittingly – unleashed upon the world. Whatever the effect of this bias and distorted policy, China – and Chinese Communism – ignores its presence and continues unabated. This ‘ignoring’, although ideologically correct, nevertheless tends to encourage the racists – who perceive this independent and confident behaviour as more examples of barbarous deviations from the established norms of bourgeois civility.

The dialectical reality is that China has steadfastly pursued the path of Marx (and Engels), which has included learning from Lenin and Stalin. However, as the Soviet Union is no more, it is China (amongst a number of other Communist countries and former Soviet Republics) who are following the path of Scientific Socialism, and continuing to authentically apply the Marxist method to ever changing times. The contemporary Left in the West should unite its disparate and competing branches, before further uniting behind process of the development of contemporary of Marxist critique, and actively assist this world-wide process in peace and equality. China has unflinchingly followed the revolutionary path without deviation, which has meant the need to development capitalist market forces in her country as a means to develop Scientific Socialism, and her example should serve as a beacon to progressive humanity.

Why China is Important for World Revolution

Long Live Marxist-Leninist, and Mao Zedong Thought!

Long Live Marxist-Leninist, and Mao Zedong Thought!

Mao was loyal to Marxist-Leninism, and to Stalin, but Khrushchev in 1956 betrayed that cause by demonizing Stalin. The USSR then slowly drifted into desolation and its demise in 1991. The USSR and China had an ideological split because of this, with China viewing the USSR as departing from Marxist-Leninism. Ironically, this saw the development of the Soviet policy in the post-Khrushchev era, of deliberately demonizing their former ally – the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – in every sphere of socio-economic activity it participated within. As the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had branches that were spread throughout the world (which served as national Communist Parties), the demonization and denigration of the PRC was an easy policy to disseminate amongst the people. Despite radically departing from Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist line of thinking under Khrushchev, the USSR continued to function as the guardian of world Socialism, and the protector and perpetuator of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy – a line of thought that even if true, defied the Marxist-Leninist line of not participating in, and encouraging the creation of ‘dogma’ which prevents all further truly proletariat scientific development and endeavour. This is because, just as much for Marx as it was for Lenin, dogma represented an ideological dead-end similar to that found within religion.

On the other hand, China has continued to evolve Marxist (and Leninist) theory, and has developed new ways of viewing the contemporary world through Marxist eyes. This has meant that Leninism has been retained in essence (as Lenin was never an enemy of China), and partly reformed in practice, not because it is wrong – far from it – but because it is sometimes out of date with regard to the socio-economic situation it assesses. Marxism (and Leninism) as applied to China is relevant to the historical, socio-economic, and cultural conditions of contemporary China. Modern Chinese thinking is premised entirely upon the Marxist method of analysis, and it does not differ from Leninism in essence, but only in outer form, or practice. The Marxist method must not stagnate, but be forever evolving or it merely becomes yet another political dogma destined to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Communist Party was officially dissolved at its headquarters in Russia, along with its constituent branches in other countries throughout the world. However, many of these branches, although officially ‘disbanded’, continued to function as ideologically disparate and independent entities, all agreeing on the pursuance of the general goal of leading the proletariat to world revolution, whilst simultaneously disagreeing with one another on various issues of ideological interpretation, policy, and general direction. In effect, each former branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became in 1991, a self-contained, and isolated political entity that retained much of the ideological baggage associated with the post-Khrushchev era of the Soviet Union. A central pillar of this dogma has been the casual and routine denigration of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and a thoroughly unMarxist attempt at deconstructing China’s evolution of Marxist thought, together with the development and application of Socialist policy to suit an ever changing modern, and post-modern world. The major and most obvious contradiction evident in this situation is that the people of China have already achieved their Socialist Revolution, whilst the people of the West have yet to achieve theirs.

A Socialist Solution: P Verses NP


Bourgeois science in the West – like its ancient and classical Greek counter-parts (from which it has logically originated) – has benefitted and progressed the world, whilst simultaneously hanging the heavy weight of oppression upon the shoulders of the masses. The majority of the people, are of course, permanently omitted and excluded from the elitist educational establishments that the bourgeois system has developed to secure their dominance within and through the socio-economic structures common to capitalist existence. The masses benefit over-all as a class, but in a piece-meal fashion, limited by access to commodities and services through inequality, poverty, and unemployment, etc. In other words, although the material standard of society has progressed from that found within, for instance, the feudal system, the fundamental inequality of bourgeois society ensures a state of perpetual and grinding poverty as an existential reality for the majority of people entrapped within it. Bourgeois science is no exception to this description, and is a codification of capitalist thinking, wants, and desires. This is why the proletariat, being of a thoroughly different and more progressive class in potential, are more or less permanently excluded from its hallowed academic halls, as such a presence threatens to transform ‘greed’ as a defining impulse, into that of ‘need’. In other words, the bourgeoisie temporarily ‘solve’ the problem of the presence of the proletariat by excluding it from all relevant narratives of political and cultural influence. This has implications for the assessment of the bourgeois computer logic problem currently defined as P verses NP, which will be explained shortly.

As the bourgeois system refuses to recognise the pre-eminence of the thinking of Karl Marx (and Frederick Engels), it remains fully stuck in the past, and in a self-perpetuating ‘pre-Marxist’ state. This is because Marx solved the myriad fetish problems thrown-up by Western thought, (much of which was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian theology), by creating a self-sustaining philosophical narrative that transformed limited thinking (within closed systems) into a permanent and ‘new’ method of analysing data. This perspective created a method of continuous deconstruction of the present – as it immediately presented itself to the senses – and in so doing exposed the true historical materiality of the present moment, as being conditioned solely upon the previous socio-economic conditions, which were in turn the product of the various historical epochs preceding the current time. Individuals became, through Marx, collectivised waves on the sea of unfolding historical activity, but which simultaneously possessed the way out through creating a true consciousness that fully understood the present, the past, and consequently how to build a better future. Those who do not acknowledge the evolutionary (and revolutionary) thinking of Marx, also miss the chance to progress not only to the next level of human development, but potentially to an intellectual appreciation of all levels yet to come.

As a means to secure the ongoing persecution of the proletariat throughout the bourgeois education system and the capitalist system, simple problems are unnecessarily developed into an exclusive closed system of expression that has a special coded language associated with it. This coded language can only be learnt at the best universities, attended by those who already possess the ‘correct’ socio-economic circumstances that privilege their social standing within a society whose interaction is premised upon accumulating profit, whilst making a virtue out of ‘greed’. This coded language constitutes a shared dominance of particular aspects of knowledge, the study of which has become a ‘fetish’ for the middle class. This coded language – so removed as it is from the rigors of the everyday struggle for existence – only serves to further alienate the working class from its study due to a lack of relevance, but what is it that is being seen during this process?

Bourgeois thinking is a particular assessment of facts as interpreted from a logic base that has not entirely detached itself from the religiosity of the past. Exclusive universities – which developed out of the Christian monastic institutions of the Middle Ages – continue to monopolise knowledge and dictate the socio-economic direction of its use. In this respect universities (and the research foundations they support), are the ‘new’ churches which peddle the ‘new’ interpretation of knowledge, which like the theology that preceded it, is not allowed to be questioned in any meaningful, and proletariat manner. This casts the lecturers and staff as the new priests of the bourgeois academic order, and de facto ‘defenders of the faith’.

P verses NP is really a coded expression of the issue of ‘problems’ and ‘problem solving’ in relation to computer programming. In typical bourgeois style, this issue has become typically ‘mystified’ and so rarefied that it is apparently beyond the minds of the ordinary people to solve.  However, this is nothing short of bourgeois ‘inverted’ thinking that once justified the belief in a god construct, and the notion that physical life suddenly appeared as if out of nothing. Computers and computer programming are examples of ‘closed systems’ of logic at work. These systems are nothing more than self-contained channels of directed thought, comprising of a logical chain of cause and effect events, with each leading toward a particular and isolated objective. This is exactly how the bourgeois control and protect the flow of knowledge their academics produce. These closed systems of privileged knowledge are deliberately made to be obscure and opaque to outside influence and understanding. It is implicitly assumed within these closed systems that a person without the right or correct bourgeois background with access to elitist educational establishments, does not historically possess the intellectual ability to either ‘understand’ or ‘see through’ the conundrums that signify the bourgeois presence. This approach becomes self-sustaining because for the bourgeois, knowledge is traded for money that enriches the individual, and is not shared to aid the progression of humanity as a collective.

Computers are not gods, and computer logic (i.e. that body of knowledge relating to computer use) is not theology. Computers are nothing more than the logical manipulation of material resources, organised through the minds and bodies of humanity. Thoughts and ideas merge through and with the division of labour, and a functioning computer is produced. A computer, regardless of its sophistication, is only as clever as its computer programmer – but this is not strictly true – as the computer is really only as clever as one part of the intellectual function of the computer programmer who programmed it. Computers represent a limited logic used to ever absurd heights of sophistication, but as of yet, no thinker has been able to break the cycle of limited logic as forming the basis for computer operation. If computer programming and functionality is viewed as two-dimensional, no single research has been able to breakout of this limitation, as such a breakout would mean the end of the logical parameters of computer functionality, and by inference, the end of all computers and computing. In short, it is the limitation associated with two dimensional closed systems that defines the developed functionality of modern computers. The supposed next step is the divergence into ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) which at the moment is defined through purely bourgeois sentiment – as if a functioning machine will suddenly (as in a miraculous event) develop endearing human qualities – like a lovable old aunt, or favourite nephew, etc. Such a development would require the movement out of two-dimensional computer programming, and into three-dimensional computer programming, which would in effect, require a functioning human mind to replicate a fully functioning human brain comprised of metal, plastic, and electricity, so that it could be self-sustaining and self-propelling, etc.

P verses NP can only be solved by a human mind at the moment – simply because it is the human mind that has produced it. A computer cannot solve P verses NP without the technical and mechanical philosophy that defines contemporary computer science being radically altered out of its current bourgeois dominated format. This is nothing short of a proletariat revolution and the seizing of the means of production. As modern computers reflect the bourgeois minds that have produced them, therefore it can be correctly stated that problems that P verses NP represent, are nothing less than the inherent contradictions implicit within the bourgeois mind set. Or to put it another way, how can greed for profit create a system of technological expression that is not limited by the rationale of ’greed for profit’? To achieve this the bourgeois scientists would have to think beyond the socio-economic conditions that have produced them. P verses NP is simple: human beings can gather information from various sources, using different and varied means to do so, a process which may involve the including of certain data, excluding other specific data, whilst verifying an original solution to a particular problem. The resultant gathered information can then be fed into a computer programme, or data storing device. Depending upon the computer programme, this stored (or ‘kept’) data can then be analysed and used in a number of ways. However, no matter how strong or elaborate a computer programme is, a computer does not possess the ability to gather the information itself (in the first instance), nor exclude certain information from its data-base, whilst keeping other data. In other words, a computer programme – which is the product of a bourgeois mind set, does not possess the ability to recognise the presence of a ‘problem’ and automatically adjust its data harnessing, storing, and organising capabilities. Therefore the formula P verses NP is the recognition that a computer retains two-dimensional data assessing skills, but completely lacks the ability to develop three-dimensional data assessing skills – with the intention to problem solve. As the computer (and its function) is limited to the bourgeois system that has produced it, it is unlikely that a solution to this riddle can be produced without a fundamental shift in class consciousness occurring. The bourgeois parameters that currently define contemporary Western society are the very limitations that P verses NP represent. Attempting to solve this riddle is nothing more than the bourgeoisie starring at its own naval, regardless of how much money is thrown at the problem. It is not money that will progress society, but rather the development of true class consciousness.

London TUC March 18.10.14 – Workers United!


The bourgeois state was shook to its boots yesterday when tens of thousands of workers took to the streets of London on Saturday to protest every aspect of the dictatorship inflicted upon the people, since the so-called election ‘victory’ of the coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. Ironically, the last time the UK had a coalition government was during WWII – which saw the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Parties temporarily uniting to fight the forces of international fascism – this can be compared to the 2010 ConDem Coalition instigation, which has seen exactly the same fascistic forces applied to the Socialistic institutions of the UK, which has led to a resultant increase in the suffering of the masses already living under capitalist oppression. The National Health Service (NHS), already suffering from decades of neglect, down-sizing, rationalising and brutal cuts, has been finally privatised by the current rightwing administration, at exactly the same time that Welfare cuts have forced workers into ever desperate levels of impoverished existence. These acts of terrorism against its own population by the ConDem Coalition has been compounded by the continuation of the Thatcherite policy of selling-off council houses and the refusal to build any new stock, and the cutting of legal aid for workers (and the very poor) so that they can no longer take on the bourgeois system through its judicial system in an attempt to divert the worst excesses of the greedy profit-mongers.

DSC_0733  DSC_0734  DSC_0771  DSC_0747

Teachers, lawyers, academics, cleaners, cooks, road sweepers, musicians and many other comrades, concerned individuals and groups, gathered together under the TUC banner along London’s Victoria Embankment, (and around the impressive Communist presence) from around 10am onwards – before the UNITE trade union led the march off (at 1215pm) on its way through the streets of central London, and on its way toward Hyde Park – where many and varied inspirational speakers addressed the crowds – explaining why the workers are campaigning for better pay and fairer rights. Amongst the different branches of the various British leftists movement was the New Communist Party of Britain (NCPB), Bradford Socialist Students, the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), independent NHS campaigners.  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (NHS Not Trident protestors), Stop the War Coalition, Left Unity, Revolutionary Socialism 21st Century, People’s Assembly, Communist Party of Britain (and its various branches including London, Oxfordshire and Plymouth amongst others), Royal College of Midwives (RCM) – who recently went on strike for he first time in their 130 year history, UNISON, UCU, and a plethora of leftwing student bodies representing Marx and Lenin.

DSC_0730  DSC_0761

The Communist Party exhibited excellent discipline as its members marched shoulder to shoulder in front of a banner calling on the British people to ‘Rise Up’, whilst under a sea of red flags waving in the morning breeze coming off the River Thames. As usual, the bourgeois authorities wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds policing the entirely peaceful event – with a strong police presence which increased to a new paranoid high around the area of the Savoy Hotel – where lines of police officers formed a ‘Cordon sanitaire’ around the entrance to Victoria Embankment Park with the intention of protecting the already rich and privileged from the righteous anguish of the people. The majority of police officers are from the working class and they should abandon their service to the bourgeoisie and join the Communist movement in its effort to lead the proletariat to revolution and the building of Socialism.

DSC_0752  DSC_0773

The current rightwing mayor of London – Boris Johnson – issued an edict demanding that as soon as the march moved from its start-line, an army of workers employed by the authorities should move in with brushes, dustcarts, refuse lorries, road sweepers and copious amounts of disinfectant, immediately behind the last members of the protests – who happened to be the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) – effectively sweeping the very dust from beneath their feet! This action was obviously designed to intimidate and harass the comrades of the leftwing movement who were trying their best to represent the poor and oppressed through lawful (and peaceful) protest. This demeaning process was witnessed by hundreds of people scattered over the various bridges the marched moved under and through – shouting their support and waving banners and flags – as the march moved through a routinely crowded Trafalgar Square a group of elderly pedestrians standing behind the barricades (designed to keep the protestors out of Trafalgar Square) clapped their hands with joy as they saw the fluttering red flags, voicing their support!

DSC_0738  DSC_0743  DSC_0732

The TUC march evolved around the common principle that ‘Britain Needs a Pay-rise!’, which is particularly poignant at a time that sees the young, the old, the vulnerable, the disabled, the workers and unemployed, pregnant women and those suffering from illness and disease, as well as many others (such as workers with such low wages that they have to depended upon food-banks), are suffering from cuts in policing, fire brigade cover, prison services, state benefits, disability benefits, housing benefit, income support and incapacity benefit, maternity services, medical services, local services and amenities, advice services, transport, access to free education, access to free travel, adequate housing, employment opportunities and social services, watch the top 10% of the wealthiest people in Britain receiving pointless tax-cuts that they neither need nor deserve! The richest strata of the UK get to keep a little bit more of their money (which they do not need) so that they can use it to buy shares in the previously nationalised industries that this ConDem Coalition – (acting in cahoots with the anti-Socialist tendencies of the European Union [EU] they pretend to dislike) – has ruthlessly dismantled and privatised. The majority of the British people are forced -through the false policy of ‘austerity’ – to suffer immeasurably, and be plunged back into a state of poverty that has not been seen in the UK since the Victorian times. As workers’ rights are linked to pay, thousands upon thousands heeded the call to take to the streets of London on Saturday and voice their righteous opposition to this backward and regressive set of policies that this current national government has inflicted upon the working people of the UK. Workers united – we will never be defeated!

DSC_0749  DSC_0750

DSC_0751  DSC_0781

DSC_0741  DSC_0772  DSC_0756



China’s Struggle for the Hong Kong People


(This letter appeared in the New Worker – the newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain [NCPB] No. 1796, dated the 24.10.14 – Pages 8-9)

The international news is filtered through to us in the West, and presented in a manner that reflects the current viewpoint of the bourgeois governments and their rightwing media supporters.  Many placards in the recent Hong Kong demonstrations read things like ‘Down with Capitalism’, and ‘More Power to Hong Kong’, etc – very different to what much of the Western press was reporting.  The irony is that the treaty that applies to Hong Kong is regulated by the Privy Council and not Beijing.  This body threatens China with economic sanctions should it be decided that China has deviated from the 1997 agreement – which is nothing more than a ‘new’ unequal treaty.  The only way for Hong Kong to have more devolved power (within Communist China) at this current time, is through the breaking of this new unequal treaty.  The USA (and its Western allies) view China (and its developing Chinese economic power) as a threat to their hegemony, and as a consequence, the Western media is default set on demeaning and misrepresenting everything China does and achieves.  This seems to be the same old Eurocentric imperialism at work attempting to dominate everything (and everyone) it encounters.  In Hong Kong now, (as the New Worker has been reporting), ordinary citizens are tearing down the barricades and asking the protestors to go home because their point has been made.  Many in Hong Kong have been disappointed and alarmed by the misrepresentation emerging through the Western media.

%d bloggers like this: