Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – UK’s First Communist MP


Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone – 1925

Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone not only served as an officer in the Royal Navy in the early 1900’s, he was also amongst the first few to learn how to fly early military aircraft (gaining his Royal Aero Certificate in 1912), becoming a pioneer of naval aviation.  He also served in the British Army where he reached the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and during during WWI he was a Commander in the Royal Navy and eventually awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE). His extraordinary military career spanned the Royal Navy (RN), the Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS), the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the British Army.   In the 1918 British General Election, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone was elected Coalition Liberal MP for East Leyton.  He travelled to the Soviet Union during September, 1919, (whilst the UK was still involved with the USA and many other countries, attempting to destroy Bolshevism during the Russian Civil War), and met with many leading lights (including the then Bolshevik supporter Leon Trotsky) who showed him around the factories, villages and cities, where he witnessed first-hand the transformation that Communism had brought to the Russian people. This experience converted him to the Marxist-Leninist cause, and upon his return to the UK, he joined the British Socialist Party which soon transformed into the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone appears to have left the Liberal cause and formally presented himself to Parliament as a ‘Communist’ in 1920.  In this sense, he became the first ‘Communist’ MP in the UK by default.  However, in the 1922 General Election, ‘Communists’ campaigning as Labour Party candidates would win two more seats by popular vote.  He spent much of his time calling for Russia to be left alone by the Western capitalists, and attempting to affiliate the Bolshevik Communist Party of Great Britain with the Parliamentary Labour Party – but failed to achieve this objective.  Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone gave a speech at the Albert Hall on November 7th, 1920, defending the Bolshevik Revolution and stating that the working class had a right to defend itself from the military forces of the bourgeoisie – killing those forces in self-defence if need be.  For this he was charged with, (and found guilty of) sedition, stripped of his OBE and imprisoned for six months.  What decided his fate was that he said that executing people like the rightwing Winston Churchill (and others) would be beneficial in the long-run for the working class.  Not long after this, Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone left the CPGB and joined the Independent Labour Party (affiliated to the Parliamentary Labour Party).  He failed to win a parliamentary seat in the 1924 General Election, but was returned to Parliament as a Labour MP for Northampton in the 1928 By-Election.  As he was considered an important historical figure within the British Communist Movement, the British Battalion of leftwing volunteers during the Spanish Civil War was named after him.  The following Times Obituary deliberately omits the details of Lt. Col. Cecil John L’Estrange Malone’s conversion to the Communist cause, his visit to the USSR, and the fact that he was the first Communist MP in the UK – but instead paints an entirely false bourgeois picture for its conservative-minded readers:


 Further reading:


When Britain Ethnically Cleansed Its Chinese Populations

Racism from the Tory Party was an important ingredient for their political campaigns for London Mayor (Zach Goldsmith’s Islamophobia) and the recent EU Referendum for the UK (which saw Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage united through racial hysteria).  Indeed, the Tory Party is the natural party of choice for mainstream British racists, and when these ignorant individuals feel that the Tory Party is not doing enough to represent that racism, they migrate to the far-right off-shoots of the Tory Party – namely UKIP, BNP, NF and Britain First, etc.  So biased is the British political system at this present time, that an activist of the Christian-Nazi Britain First movement can murder a Labour MP – and the fascist organisation that spawned him (Britain First) continues to functions normally today (presumably creating more rightwing murderers).  The treatment of Britain First maybe compared to peaceful British Muslims groups that were ‘banned’ by David Cameron for stating that they thought the wars in the Middle East are wrong.  There is no doubt that British racism played its part in the recent Brexit ‘out’ vote, although I do not personally think it was a deciding factor.  Nevertheless, it would be wrong to all the victims of British racism – past and present – to deny that there is no racism in the UK.

I fully acknowledge that many ‘white’ British people are opposed to racism, and fight and resist it in their own ways (that are often unacknowledged).  This resistance to tyranny is the foundation of the true British people, and I believe, the essence of Brexit.  However, it is important to understand the past so that it is not repeated through ignorance.  According to police reports, racial hate crime was up by 57% following the Brexit vote – with apparently Polish people taking the brunt – although it is probably correct to state that ALL perceived foreigners in the UK (which includes British-born Black, Asian and Chinese people) have suffered increased racialised aggression.  A point missed by the UK media is that Polish people (who should be left in peace) are ‘white’, and that consequently, the hatred aimed at them by other white people is ‘prejudice’ and not ‘racism’.  True racism is aimed by white people (who possess all the power) at Black, Asian and Chinese people who do not.  Polish people may well be from another country, but their European ethnicity is the same as the ‘White’ ethnicity that culturally dominates the UK – albeit in its distinct British form.  I condemn any and all crimes against Polish people, but do not believe that they are the victims of post-Brexit  ‘racism’ in the manner that Black, Asian and Chinese people in the UK are (a subject the British media is quiet about).  To the British media it seems that hate-filled prejudice is only reportable if white people are suffering it.

After the British victories of WWI and WWII, the British government, aided and abetted by the rightwing press, encouraged a highly toxic racist and xenophobic attitude in the UK that called for the expulsion of all ‘foreigners’ from British soil.  This attitude of hate-filled ‘confidence’ was used to bind the country together and used non-white people as the scapegoat.  In 1919, the British government was concerned that the British working class would rise-up (like the Russians) and create a Socialist State in the UK (despite the fact that the UK invaded Russia n 1918 in an attempt to crush the successful Bolsheviks).  Thousands of Chinese people had fought alongside the British Army in France during WWI and many had settled in the UK.  However, n 1919, the British government sent the British Army into Liverpool and rounded-up 20,000 Chinese people at bayonet-point – to the general applause of the white British population.  These people were placed on boats and forcibly ‘returned’ to China.  This is why the population of Chinese people dropped to a few hundred.  Following the victory of WWI, the British government used the agency of ‘racism’ to divert the British working class from revolution.  Many people will be surprised to learn that the Labour Party of 1945 also rounded-up Chinese men from the streets of London in 1946 and forcibly returned them to China – breaking-up families, with those who remained never knowing what happened to their relatives.  English women who had married Chinese men were warned by the police and social services that they were sexually deviant, and that their ‘mixed’ children should be taken into care (as many were).  The descendants of those who suffered this ethnic cleansing in 1946 still live in the UK today, with their story being revealed by the BBC journalist George Alagiah in his documentary entitled ‘Mixed Britannia’.





The Red Lizard

I enjoy the manner in which David Icke speaks because it has the quality of ‘freedom’ for the listener on many levels.  I also support his right to think freely and express that freedom as he sees fit.  What he says is designed as a radical counter-narrative to the established paradigm that operates within mainstream society.  In every way he operates from a lucid mind-set that suggests a progressive, (and dare I suggest) a leftwing political stance that is constantly attacking fascism (which he defines as the instruments of government and big business colluding to force the people to conform to their self-serving agendas).  In the recent EU Referendum in the UK, David Icke supported the ‘out’ campaign – as did the Communist left and a minority of British unions in the UK.  Of course, this does not make David Icke a Communist, and a number of his previous statements would suggest that his opinion of Soviet Communism (and Communism in general) is that of the mainstream bourgeoisie.  In the above video, David Icke relays a bizarre story about the ‘Communist Party’ at Oxford University.  He states that the Communist Party has two branches – a political and biological section – this is pure fiction.  Having attended numerous progressive meetings, marches and demonstrations, I can state that the Communist Party pursues the cause of Scientific Socialism as espoused through Marxist-Leninism, and that its primary aim is to ‘liberate’ the workers.  It is difficult to assess just exactly what David Icke is talking about here, is it a debating group at Oxford, or a meeting of the local Communist Party branch?  Whatever the case, meetings of the nature suggested are open to the general public and anyone can attend – as would be expected from a grass-roots organisation.  There is no ‘biological’ branch of the Communist Party and this sounds suspiciously ‘fascist’ in nature – again another example of how David Icke follows the bourgeois habit of conflating the Communist Movement with that of fascism (as if the two are the same, but I will come back to this point).  He then continues to describe the rightwing ‘Blairites’ of the Labour Party as ‘Communists’ apparently unaware that the Labour Party proscribes Communists from joining.  The idea that serving Communists would join the Conservative Party is probably the oddest thing Mr Icke has ever said, although, of course, ex-Communists (who have rejected Scientific Socialism) have migrated into the Labour Party – Gordon Brown in one notable example, (he is not alone), but I know of no Communists that have joined the rightwing Tory Party.  On another occasion, David Icke stated that fascism, Communism and South African Apartheid are all examples of totalitarian governments that the people rose-up against and over-threw.  Again, this is pure bourgeois ideology being espoused by Mr Icke.  Although he continuously reacts against the bourgeois establishment, and despite the mind-altering nature of his discourse, Mr Icke remains firmly rooted in the privileged narrative of the white bourgeoisie.  He does not understand that fascism and apartheid are manifestations of capitalism (and he misses the salient point that South Africa was a liberal democracy), and does not recognise that Communism is the antithesis of capitalism.  Furthermore, by exercising the run of the mill bourgeois conflation of Communism with fascism, Mr Icke ignores the fact that it was the anti-capitalist ideology of the Soviet Union that powered its immense and highly destructive battle against German Nazi ‘capitalism’ during WWII, which cost the lives of at least 27 million Soviet men, women and children.  It was the Nazi Germans that killed these Soviet people in the name of imperialist greed.  The Soviet people did not rise-up and other-throw their government simply because those who lived in the Soviet Union were already ‘free’ of capitalist oppression.  The USSR was eventually brought-down not by its people, but by the power of capitalism – exactly the same capitalism which when in decline becomes fascism.  David Icke is very welcome to his lizard theories and conspiracy theories of dark forces moving behind the scenes, as there may well be elements of truth in what he says, but it would be better for his general approach if he threw-off the bourgeois mentality.

Great Britain (GB) and the United Kingdom (UK) Explained

images (18)

The name ‘Great Britain’ (Latin: ‘Magnae Britanniae’) refers to a large geographical landmass when compared to a relatively small geographical landmass (Latin: ‘Minorem Brittanniam’), and does not historically refer to an over-inflated sense of political or cultural importance of the British people, although this connotation has often been applied since at least the Victorian era by some, to refer to British imperialism and the spread of British political and cultural influence throughout the world. This is a distortion of the term ‘great’, which within this context refers to a broad expanse of land, and which has no connection to the use of political power to dominate others. Those who reject the imperialist associations of the term ‘Great Britain’, tend to use the shorter name of ‘Britain’.  Ancient Greeks mention the earliest recorded names of ‘Albion’ and ‘Prettan’ (for the landmass that is now known as ‘Great Britain’) as far back as the 4th century BCE.  This is not surprising, as Pytheas of Massalia (350-285 BCE) is believed to have been the first Greek to have ‘discovered’ the island.

The name ‘Albion’, was used by Pytheas as a description of what is today known as the white cliffs of Dover.  Although the works of Pytheas are nolonger extant, its content lives on through numerous quotations contained in the works of other scholars, and it appears that Pytheas may have also referred to ‘Albion’ as ‘Prettan’ (or similar) and to the indigenous people as ‘Prettanic’.  This observation is given credence in the 1st century CE, as the Roman occupiers of this landmass referred to it as ‘Britannia’ (a Latin transliteration of ‘Prettan’), in reference to its inhabitants – the Celtic-speaking ‘Britons’ (also known as the ‘Brythonic’ and ‘Pict’). Whatever the case, a shift from the use of the Greek ‘Albion’ and ‘Prettan’ to the Roman ‘Britannia’ is confirmed in the work of the 2nd CE century Greek scientist named Claudius Ptolemy, who referred to the landmass as ‘Greater Britain’ and its neighbour to its west as ‘Lessor Britain’ (what is today the landmass of Ireland).  Later, the name ‘Lesser Britain’ would be used to refer to the area of France known as ‘Brittany’, a place eventually settled by Cornish Celts in the service of Rome (c. 5th and 6th centuries CE).  It is probable that Pytheas – who landed in Britain – may well have asked the indigenous people what they called their land, and the reply he received was ‘Pretani’ – a Celtic word that refers to a people that ‘paint’ (or ‘tattoo’ their bodies).  In Latin, this terms appears to have been also rendered in translation as ‘Picti’ or ‘Pict’, again referring to a ‘picture’ painted or tattooed onto the skin.  Politically, the term ‘Great Britain’ refers to the whole of England, Wales and Scotland, but does not include Northern Ireland.  However, ‘Great Britain’ does include the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, but does not include the self-governing islands of Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Whereas the term ‘Great Britain’ is an ancient reference to comparative geography and cultural practice, by way of contrast, the term ‘United Kingdom’ is far younger and entirely political in nature, and represents the spread of English political hegemony over the home nations.  Technically speaking, the full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is often seen in its shortened form of ‘UK’. Between the early Middle Ages and the 11th Century Norman Conquest of England, Wales was considered an independent nation.  However, its independence was slowly eroded by the Norman (and later) English military incursions, that saw Wales invaded and its sovereignty ended. In 1535 and 1542, the Welsh monarch of England – King Henry VIII (i.e. ‘Henry Tudor’) – passed the Laws in Wales Acts (sometimes referred to as ‘Acts of Union’) which saw ‘English’ law extended to include the entirety of the geographical area of Wales.  In 1603, the formerly independent kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were united under King James VI (King of Scotland) who had also inherited the crowns of England (which included Wales) and Ireland, before moving his royal court from Edinburgh to London (where he ruled as ‘King James I’ of England).  This is often referred to as a ‘personal union’ (through the 1603 ‘Union of Crowns’) established through the rule of an absolute monarch, but which is not necessarily expressed in formal law.  However, it was not until 1707 that the parliaments of Scotland and England passed the Acts of Union that ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union.  This formally united Scotland and England into a single political (legal) entity referred to as the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’.  Ireland had in fact been in a ‘personal union’ with England since the Irish Parliament had passed the Crown of Ireland Act (1542), recognising English King Henry VIII as King of Ireland.  In 1800, the parliaments of Britain and Ireland both passed the ‘Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland’ and established in law the union of Ireland and Britain.  This saw the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that lasted until 1922.  In 1922, around 80% of Ireland seceded from the union with Britain and away from British rule (becoming the ‘Irish Free State’), with the remaining 20% becoming known as ‘Northern Ireland’ (which remained under British rule). This created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  As the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and the British Overseas Territories (BOT), (or what is left of the British Empire), are dependencies of the Crown, they are not considered part of the UK.

Buddhism Should Not Have a Flag


‘By which four motives does he do no evil actions? Evil action are done from motives of partiality, enmity, stupidity and fear.  But as the Aryan disciple is not led away by these motives he does no evil actions through them’.

Advice to Sigala (Sigalavada-Sutta)*

The infiltration of the Buddha’s teachings with bourgeois nationalism not only involves ‘angry’ Buddhists attacking non-Buddhists, or Buddhists living lavish lifestyles in the West whilst attempting to undermine other sovereign states, but is perhaps best exemplified by the ‘invention’ of a multi-coloured flag.  This ‘Buddhist’ flag represents a disturbing trend within certain areas of the Buddhist world actively engaging Western-style ‘nationalism’.  According to the logical assessment of the Buddha, this ‘flag’ is simply a collection of different coloured material, and has no other meaning beyond its material construction.  The philosophy of Buddhism rejects society premised upon greed, hatred and delusion that gives rise to ‘religious’ (or ‘theistic’) imagination.  The Buddha rejects this type of society because it is the conditioned essence of all human (and animal) suffering.  The Buddha at no time during his 45 years of teaching did he ever state that a follower of the Dharma should ‘compromise’ with greed, hatred and delusion, and uncritically accept the prevalent structures of society as being ‘valid’and ‘worthy’ of respect and support.  The flags of capitalist nations are premised upon ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ of the masses and as such should not be emulated by the Buddhist Sangha.  It is not a piece of coloured material that uproots greed, hatred, and delusion from within the fabric of the mind, but rather the practice of disciplined seated meditation, and strict behaviour modification through the following of the Vinaya Discipline.  Buddhists may be political, but politics are a matter of good judgement and wise decision. Good judgement and wise decision arise out of extended periods of intense meditation practised within an appropriate and conducive Dharmic environment.  Good judgement and wise decision is the product of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion.  In other words, although the Buddha’s teachings are ‘apolitical’, Buddhists can apply the fruits of their meditative labours to assisting outer society move in a direction ‘away’ from greed, hatred and delusion.  Invariably this does not mean the supporting of capitalism, as that ideology is premised entirely upon greed, hatred, and delusion, and routinely inflicts suffering upon the masses.  Buddhists who think that greed, hatred, and delusion are compatible with non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, are existing firmly within the realm of non-enlightenment.  The idea of a Buddhist flag is tantamount to Buddhist terrorism in as much as it symbolises the alignment of Buddhism with the modern, capitalist State, and signifies a disturbing trend of replacing Buddhist philosophy with the ideology of greed.  This is a false Buddhism that ‘normalises’ suffering in the mind and body of the masses.  In fact it is not ‘Buddhism’ at all, but rather a superficial mirage in saffron robes.

*Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978), Page 119

Why I Voted ‘Out’ of the EU

images (17)

The opposing of fascism is the duty of every progressive leftist (Socialist or Communist).  Following the end of WWII, the newly de-Nazified countries of Western Europe were inclined to form a Socialist Bloc designed to share resources and assist one another to recover from the devastation of war. The USA, however, which had just voted in a rightwing (Christian) President (Harry Truman), had other ideas.  The staunchly capitalist US, whilst issuing hardship grants to returning ‘white’ US soldiers (and excluding ‘Black’ US soldiers from this aid), immediately began a policy of intimidation of the European States.  This involved the threat of withdrawing all US investment and the immediate calling in of all US loans.  At that time, this US policy would have rendered Europe bankrupt.  As matters transpired, many European States developed Socialist policies within, but stopped short of uniting in a region-wide ‘Socialist Bloc’.  The US was of the opinion that this natural ‘leftwing’ trend of Europe was coming very close to sympathising with the policies of the Soviet Union which had suffered at least 27 million casualties defeating German Nazism during WWII, and as an ally of the West, was greatly respected.  As a consequence of ‘liberating’ many countries of Eastern Europe from German Nazi occupation, the Soviet Red Army created the conditions where workers took power in these countries, which then became natural allies of the USSR.  As a response to maintain their capitalist hegemony, the US launched a rightwing counter-initiative in Western Europe which saw ex-Nazis given prominence in a post-war project to ‘unite’ the European countries around predatory capitalism, and to create a ‘European Superstate’, the citizens of which would be so brain-washed with greed, that the message of Scientific Socialism would fall upon death ears.  The European Superstate project, therefore, has its roots in German Nazi ideology, and can be correctly viewed as having its ideological roots in fascist Germany’s ‘National Socialism’.

Although the USSR dissolved in 1991, the ‘European Union’ – as a mouthpiece for US foreign policy – now pursues the US propaganda of racially hating modern Russia, whilst extending membership of the EU into former Communist countries.  This US policy of predatory capitalism has demanded that European workers must be stripped of all ‘Socialised’ unionisation, welfare provision, and free medical provision, and that all ‘nationalised’ industries and utilities must be placed into private hands and run for ‘profit’.  Not only this, but as the European workers have no rights, they are ‘forced’ to migrate to other areas of Europe in desperate search for low-paid jobs – a demeaning process that degrades the living conditions for all workers, and leads to resentment, aggression and racism.  This is exactly what the US intended post-WWII.  Its policy was to create such a ‘toxic’ wasteland of predatory capitalism, that the workers would not be able to understand the greed-infested quagmire they occupied, or workout how to get out of it (through the instigation of ‘Socialism’).  Modern Germany, due to its Nazi past and US policy, run the EU through the pretence of ‘democracy’ in Brussels.  The point of the EU is to ‘legally’, ‘politically’, ‘socially’ and ‘culturally’ prevent the workers rising-up in the name of Scientific Socialism, and creating a fairer world for everybody concerned.  The keeping of the workers in a disempowered state of being, is the primary function of the European Union.

The EU is a fascist superstate that seeks to ‘de-Socialise’ Europe as part of an ongoing post-WWII US foreign policy.  Contrary to the statements of the arch racist Nigel Farage (of UKIP), the EU is not, and has never been a ‘Communist Bloc’ but is the exact opposite.  The far-right in the UK have had to face the counter-intuitive prospect of opposing the EU on the grounds of ‘racism’ (UKIP, BNP, BF, and NF, for instance, all oppose foreign workers in the UK), when the very same EU is pursuing exactly the same policies that Adolf Hitler would have approved, and which create the fertile soil which sees fascism emerge from the scapegoating of ‘foreigners’ – a classic Hitlerite policy.  So moribund of ideological direction is the British far-right that it must ‘reject’ EU fascism to maintain its own sense of distorted, domesticate hegemony.  Adolf Hitler stated that ‘lying’ is a required part of fascist politics, and that ‘dishonesty’ must be employed wherever and whenever it can in the pursuance of establishing rightwing rule.  The point of this is that Farage and others actively collaborate with the US project of demeaning the ‘worker’ at every turn, so that no mass movements can occur that will usher in Socialism.  This is why UKIP agree with the EU policies of privatising the NHS (UKIP is a capitalist party, after-all), and the dismantling of welfare provision.  The formal improvisation of EU law is the next stage of worker disempowerment, although this tendency has been creeping through the UK for quite sometime.  Innocent until proven guilty (UK law) is slowly morphing into ‘guilty until proven innocent (EU law), and explains why Tony Blair abolished Legal Aid for ordinary people – he did not want EU hegemony challenged in British courts. I, and millions of others voted ‘out’ in the EU Referendum – not because we agree with the arch racist Nigel Farage, but because we do not agree with him.  We, the British people, reject the US and Nazi fascism of the EU, and the fascism of UKIP.  It is ‘we’ the working people of Britain that will decide our future, and no one else.  We have this right and we protected this right on June 23rd, 2016 by rejecting the EU.

Problems with the Left ‘Out’ EU Referendum Campaign (2016)

The Communist Party of Britain (CPB), and its newspaper the Morning Star, presented the economic and legal argument for leaving the European Union (EU).  Briefly stated, the EU is a constitutionally ‘capitalist’ political entity that ensures, through is regulatory laws, that all Socialist entities such as nationalised industries, free healthcare provision, social housing, and unions, must be either ‘privatised’, ‘prohibited’ or ‘abolished’.  Once these Socialistic entities have been ‘privatised’, EU legislation prevents any re-nationalisation, or re-socialisation to occur.  With unions weakened to the point of impotency, the EU ensures that predatory capitalism has a free hand throughout Europe.  The UK being a member of the EU, the Communist left is of the opinion that the British cannot elect a Socialist government, and even if a Socialist government were elected, it would be prevented from carrying-out any Socialist reforms.  For instance, none of the damage inflicted on the UK by the Thatcherite, Blairite regimes, as well as Nick Clegg and David Cameron, could be reversed because such a reversal would be prohibited by EU law.  The Communist left argument is that British welfare and its NHS are being ‘privatised’ and its unions marginalised because of EU legislation, and that for this to be reversed the UK needs to leave the EU – the source of the UK’s anti-left political agenda.  This situation is compounded by the fact that the EU insists on the free movement of migratory labour that is not regulated or protected by worker’s rights or effective unions.  The Communist left has always adhered to a staunch anti-racist (internationalist) position, and has continuously stated that all people are welcome to visit and/or work in the UK, but also acknowledges that workers stripped of all their rights and being ‘forced’ to travel for work is undemocratic and a direct assault upon the working class.  Workers being forced to fight one another for ‘scraps’ from the EU capitalist table, ultimately does not benefit the working class.  The insistence upon the agency of a mass migratory work-force by the EU to fuel its free market capitalism, adversely effects all the communities concerned.  This includes the communities that workers have to leave, and the communities that serve as economic hot-spots that attract workers.  Whereas the political rightwing reacts to this situation with xenophobia and racism (which unjustly blames the migrant), the Communist left responds with correct, dialectical assessment of the situation that empowers ALL workers concerned.  This is intended to lead the workers into developing solidarity and collectively fighting for workers’ rights.

By way of contrast, the ‘Brexit’ (i.e. ‘Britain out’) campaign, disconnected as it was from the Communist left, possessed no sound and dialectical historical analysis.  Although many people supported Brexit for legitimate reasons, it is also true that the lack of a sound ideologically worker-friendly basis, opened the Brexit doors for the racists to barge through.  Despite the Communist left providing a correct and sober analysis of the EU being against the interests of the working class, Brexit had no leftist ideology to hold it together.  This in part was a situation created by the BBC and other mainstream media outlets, that routinely gave (and continue to give) blanket coverage to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – a notoriously racist party that draws its key support from the political far-right.  UKIP has no discernible policies other than the incoherence of xenophobia and racism.  As a result, UKIP (a clear fascist manifestation of capitalism in decline), has been used to obscure the Communist left from the attention of the majority of the British workers, and high-jack the political agenda regarding the EU for the far-right. This demonstrates how the British bourgeoisie would rather support a fascist organisation, than disseminate Communist ideology that empowers the workers.  UKIP does not represent or empower the workers, but rather assists in the establishment of further manipulating and misleading the masses.  Whereas Brexit should have facilitated a broad range of reasons for leaving the EU, instead the British media kept the county’s attention firmly fixed on the racist message of UKIP and its far-right allies (such as Britain First, the BNP, and the NF, etc).  So appallingly bias was the Brexit message that those on the left formed ‘Lexit’, or ‘Left Exit’ of the EU.  This situation demonstrates the marginalisation of the left.  So excluded is the left by the UK mainstream media that it was compelled to form its own social media-led campaign to try and get its message of non-racist solidarity across to the general public.  The Communist left was part of the broad lexit campaign and contributed its Marxist-Leninist ideological foundation.  Workers do not need to fight one another or resort to racism to secure good working conditions.  All workers need to do is understand that the EU is a class enemy, unite together and through voting, negotiation and the threat of withholding of labour, change the situation for the better.  Racism is an ideological tool of the bourgeoisie and the far-right (anti-worker) politics it encourages and supports.  The problem with lexit was that it relied on the Trotskyite left for support and this tended to ‘weaken’ the good and clear Marxist-Leninist analysis provided by the Communist Party.  Trotskyites, although referring to what they do as ‘leftist’, in fact pursue a thoroughly rightwing agenda that is antagonistic toward Marxist-Leninism, and which seeks to mislead the workers down blind allies that only benefit the ruling elite.  Another ‘weakening’ issue surrounding the broad left campaign to leave the EU was that the Parliamentary Labour Party decided to back the ‘stay’ in the EU campaign, as did 90% of the Labour affiliated unions.  This demonstrates a terrible error of judgement on the part of the Labour Party, which put capitalist, cooperate interests above those of the workers it claims to represent.

On the face of it, the left campaign to leave the EU was a disconnected and contradictory effort from start to finish.  By contrast, the Brexit campaign more or less focused on British xenophobia toward migratory workers –and nothing else, whilst the ‘stay’ campaign focused entirely upon greed, fake internationalism, and the maintenance of class privilege.  Despite all of this disorganisation and chaos on the left, however, it does seem that the British working class decided for themselves and delivered a truly ‘crushing’ blow to the capitalist establishment that is still wheeling from its effects.  It seems that Labour MP Peter Shore’s message from 1975 finally sank-in!



Leaving the EU – A Revolutionary Act by the British Workers

images (12)

The British working class has been exposed to a continuous and enhanced attack since the rise of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, and the lurch to the right of the Labour Party.  Twelve years of ‘New’ Labour saw not the re-establishment of worker’s rights, social housing, free education, medical care and welfare, but rather the Blairite continuation of the Thatcher ‘counter-revolution’, and the cementing of the hegemony of the British middle class over the workers.  The workers have been relentlessly attacked from all sides by the British political establishment in an effort to take away every single and hard-earned right achieved through intense worker struggle, sacrifice and spilt blood.  Entering the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1972 was a foundational step in the disempowerment of the British worker.  This process continued with Thatcher signing into law the Single European Act in 1986 (which was further confirmed by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993).  These developments called for the formal de-Socialisation and de-Unionisation of Europe, and the instigation of a rightwing predatory, free market capitalism (presumably as part of a US policy to move the naturally leftwing culture of Europe away from any compatibility with the Communistic worker’s State of the Soviet Union then situated to the East).  This EU process of rightwing ‘reform from above’, has led to the systematic erosion of worker’s rights and improvisation of significant poverty throughout the working population of Europe.  The EU’s attack on the ordinary people of Europe has meant that workers cannot get adequate work, welfare payments, or medical treatment.  Zero-hour contracts are so appallingly bad that many workers have to sell their labour for less than they would have received from benefits paid for through taxation.  The EU is a rich, white man’s club, the legislation of which is thoroughly bourgeois in essence and structure, and designed to crush the workers, and further empower the already privileged middle class.  Since the rise of Thatcher in 1979, the loss of worker security has unfolded with a sinister and insidious certainty.  The workers have been pushed further and further into a ghetto-like existence where they are punished at every turn should they try to ‘break-out’ of this oppressive encirclement.  The vote to ‘leave’ the EU on June 23rd, 2016 was a culmination of continuous worker disappointment, set-backs, betrayals, and outright oppression inflicted by a middle class that has moved ever further to the political right.

Capitalism is the basis of all racism premised upon the enforced division of labour, and competition to separate the workers. Nationalism and race are bourgeois shams designed to cement this fictitious separation in the minds of the workers throughout the world.  If workers are brain-washed into thinking that competing with one another is more important than fighting the middle class that oppresses them, then middle class privilege and hegemony continues unabated.  Racism emanates only from the middle class and is imposed upon the minds and bodies of the workers who are victims of it.  Workers are brain-washed by the middle class to see themselves as ‘white’ and ‘hate’ other workers who are assumed to be Black, Asian, and Chinese, etc, (i.e. ‘non-white’).  Racism prevents workers from uniting and transcending the ‘false consciousnesses’ that middle class oppression has imported into the interior of their minds.  Racism represents a hate filled, highly dangerous and destructive false dichotomy that has to be confronted, exposed, uprooted, and eradicated as a middle class, capitalist and righting ideology.  Bourgeois liberals simply state that racism must be uprooted (as EU rhetoric suggests), but never acknowledges that the true root of racism is not ‘ignorance’ but ‘capitalism’.  The conditions that capitalism creates has within it the basis of all racism.  This means that no matter how many superficial changes in the law that bourgeois societies introduce, as long as exploitative, predatory capitalism exists, the conditions for racism also continue to exist.  As the EU is a system that enshrines capitalism in law, it ensures the survival of racism despite any EU-related platitudes to the opposite.  Furthermore, the EU, being a capitalist club, demands that capital and labour must be able to move throughout Europe, and that for this to happen, all Socialist and Union opposition must be removed.  Socialism and Unions are the bulwarks of worker rights, and the only social structures that can protect workers and ensure their rights.  The free movement of capital means that workers must go to wherever the capitalists want cheap labour to be – irrespective of the social, cultural and political destruction this policy means for working class populations.  As the middle class is employed primarily within management roles, its individuals are not expected to ‘move’, but rather act as stationary ‘controllers’ of the migratory labour that passes through their work areas.  As a result of EU legislation, the power of the middle class is enhanced and secured, whilst the collective power of the working class is diminished and eradicated, and the working class impoverished as a result (such as in the UK where the NHS is being privatised and welfare provision dismantled).  The EU policy of ‘forcing’ workers to leave their homeland and travel to other countries to take jobs, only serves to make workers ‘compete’ as ‘enemies’ and not ‘friends’ – this is the essence and basis of racism – and clearly explains why the EU is a ‘racist’, capitalist organisation.

The EU Referendum ‘stay’ campaign, being essentially ‘middle class’ in nature, (i.e. the product of the bourgeois protecting its own class interests), it has utilised ‘racism’ in a new and destructive manner.  The ‘stay’ campaign has deliberately presented the capitalist, racist basis of EU legislation as being ‘anti-racist’ in nature.  This is not surprising as it represents the working of the ‘inverted’ bourgeois mind-set linked historically to institution of theistic religion (as a means to control the workers).  In the past the bourgeois has stated that the religion that oppresses the workers, is at the sametime the religion that ‘saves’ the workers.  The middle class would have the UK population believe that the EU that inflicts racism upon the workers, is exactly the very same EU that ‘saves’ the workers from that racism.  This is why the ‘leave’ campaign (which has ample non-white worker support) has been misrepresented by the middle class as ‘racist’ even though for the workers, getting ‘out’ of the EU is a necessary course of action to confront the destructive nature of EU capitalism (and the racism its generates).  Of course, getting out of the EU does not ‘stop’ capitalism (or ‘racism’), but it does limit the damage being done to the UK workers by an incredibly callous manifestation of it.  If the UK can become ‘free’ of EU tyranny, then it would be possible for its electorate to democratically elect a truly leftwing and Socialist government.  It would also mean that a major source of racial tension and antagonism in British society would be removed.  The UK could also remove the block that the EU places on immigration from outside the EU –and welcome Black, Asian and Chinese people into the UK as ‘friends’ and not EU-enforced ‘competitors’.  A clean break with the EU would ensure that European citizens could come the UK and benefit from worker’s rights, rather than the stresses of zero-hour contracts.  Furthermore, if other European countries left the EU, then worker’s rights could be re-established in other areas of Europe and the EU hegemony could be smashed for ever.  Capital should not ‘move’ freely, and nor should workers.  Wealth generated in communities should be retained for the betterment of those communities.  As matters stand, the international middle class is using the Eurozone as a giant wealth-producing exercise at the expense of the well-being of the workers who generate that wealth, but do not benefit from it.  The EU is not ‘progressive’ in anyway, but entirely ‘regressive’ in nature.  Its particular brand of capitalism is destructive to the working class and no good can be found within it.  Those who voted ‘leave’ the EU – that is the British working class – are true revolutionary heroes and their example should not be sullied by duplicitous bourgeois rhetoric that accuses them of ‘racism’, when they are fighting for the end of capitalism (and the racism it produces).

Time to Abolish UKIP


The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was originally founded by academics specialised in economics and law, but soon became over-run with nationalists and racists.  This led to the original founders being ousted, and a definite and racist rightwing agenda premised upon hatred of difference, being used to replace its original ideological foundation.  UKIP transformed from a moderate and logical protest group against the tyranny of the European Union (EU), into a dangerous and highly unpredictable extremist group that attracted fascists and neo-Nazis.  As a single issue party, UKIP only ever officially campaigned against leaving the EU, but unofficially (and behind the scenes), UKIP kept-up a relentless policy of creating racial division within UK society, in its pursuance of the Hitlerite dogma of manufacturing a ‘race war’ on British streets.  As the leftwing of the UK has voted to leave the EU (something UKIP failed to achieve despite blanket media support in the UK) – the rightwing aberration that is UKIP nolonger has a legitimate political purpose, and should be disbanded.

Parasitic Trotskyites of the SWP

download (5)

Adolf Hitler, in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle) displays a fervent anti-Communist rhetoric and states that in his opinion, ‘lying’ is a legitimate political policy to be used in the attainment of political aims.  Leon Trotsky, the bourgeois Menshevik who betrayed the Communist Revolution in Russia – would readily agree with Hitler.  The irony is that the so-called Trotskyite ‘left’ rejects the dialectical and historical development of Marxist-Leninism (it has to do this because Trotsky was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1929 for his opposition to it) and instead attempts a ‘ahistorical’ turning back of the clock, and claims that by rejecting ‘Leninism’, and embracing Marx in his original form, it can create a ‘new’ type of politics referred to as ‘Marxist-Trotskyism’ – an absurdity that is as illogical as it is ‘un-Marxist’.  Whereas Marxist-Leninism has brought working class freedom to numerous countries around the world (because it is dialectically and historically correct), by comparison, ‘Marxist-Trotskyism’ is a fallacy that has not led to one single revolution of the working class in any country.  This is because the Trotskyite movement represents only the bourgeois-left, and has no real connection with the working class it claims to represent.  Its supposed ‘Socialism’ is nothing but bourgeois liberalism deceptively presented as ‘working class’ emancipatory ideology.  A demonstration of this inherent ‘lying’ that permeates Trotskyism can be seen in the behaviour of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) that hijacks all the concerns, movements, and progressive projects of the Marxist-Leninists.  This parasitic behaviour is based upon ‘Marxist-Trotskyism’ mimicking the dialectical and historical trends of Marxist-Leninism, and deceiving the general public into falsely believing that all that happens on the left is the product of SWP initiatives.  This opportunism (or ‘entryism’) by the SWP is expressed by the fact that during every major march, demonstration or gathering, the SWP sets-up its Trotskyite propaganda stalls around public transport exists, and uses this as a ‘first contact’ with unsuspecting and non-Trotskyite protesters as they arrive and gather.  One tactic is to ask all arrivals to sign a petition about the cause at hand, when in fact such a ‘signed’ document is implying ‘support’ for the Trotskyite SWP  without the signer’s prior knowledge or agreement.  This is part of the SWP’s tactic of hiding its true Trotskyite allegiance, implying instead that it represents a ‘broad’ leftist consensus, despite the fact that in reality it rejects the Marxist-Leninist foundation of that broad leftist movement.  The SWP augments this policy of deception by handing out placards with slogans tailored to the broad leftist cause at hand – with the words ‘Socialist Workers Party’ printed above and below.  Unsuspecting (but otherwise genuine) protesters readily accept these placards and carrying them for miles on marches – thinking that they are protesting about a cause important to them, whilst not realising that they are providing ‘free’ advertising for the duplicitous Socialist Workers Party.  This dishonesty is cemented by the fact that the SWP does not attract any real grass-roots support amongst the working class, and has to ‘lie’ to the people to encourage them to carry SWP placards.  In many cases, after the SWP placards have been given-out to unsuspecting members of the public, the small number of SWP activists leave the area and do not participate in the protest that they have encouraged.  This is believed to be a cowardly insurance policy against any members of the SWP being arrested if the police take a hard line. A particularly odious policy of the SWP is its pretentious ‘anti-racism’.  Leon Trotsky was a notorious racist, and it is only the Marxist-Leninist movement that truly opposes racism.  As the SWP lacks support throughout the international working class, it must ‘manufacture’ an apparent support. In doing this, the SWP is continuing the bourgeois oppression and exploitation of the working class, and needs to be ideologically exposed for the bourgeois sham that it is.  In the meantime, comrades should be aware of the strategy and tactics of the SWP and withdraw any and all coerced support.








%d bloggers like this: