Why Jeremy Corbyn Should Be Proud to be a Called a ‘Communist’ (But Probably Isn’t!)


Noel Gallagher’s latest outburst, might be a ploy to ‘mainstream’ Jeremy Corbyn’s Scientific Socialist tendencies. Noel Gallagher, in his youth, was well-known for his own ‘Communistic’ outbursts, and part of his fame stems from his distinctly ‘proletariat’ approach to handling the music industry that made him rich, and the media that made him famous. One thing is for sure, Jeremy Corbyn should be proud to be called a ‘Communist’, but from the indignant response of the bourgeois left (which includes the Labour Party), and the vacuous prattling of the mindless rightwing press, it is obvious that those around him consider this an ‘insult’. There is nothing insulting about caring for humanity and striving (through the use of ‘Scientific Socialism’) to eradicate poverty, war and disease. The problem for the bourgeoisie is that this progressive process would also mean an end to that parasitic class, and it is this fear of the loss of privilege and wealth that drives the continuous (and highly misinformed) campaign against Communism. Ever since the Communist Party founded the British Labour Party, the bourgeois establishment has striven to infiltrate it, and convert it to its own hatefilled and greed-orientated ideology. This bourgeois project has been very successful and is almost complete. A keen-eyed observer knows something is afoot, when the veteran Labour Party ‘Socialist’ – Dennis Skinner – records in his biography that he visited the Soviet Union (as part of an all expenses paid union visit to Moscow in his youth), but he ‘refused’ to visit the tomb of Lenin in Red Square! This evidence may be added to such bourgeois (left) Labour figures such as Tony Benn, George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, to mention just a few, all of whom have made a career out of denigrated the Soviet Union and enthusiastically joining with the Bourgeois State in its propagation of US-generated Cold War lies. I doubt very much that Jeremy Corbyn is a Communist, or even a Marxist for that matter. He grew out of the Labour bourgeois left along with Benn and co, and I further doubt that his views differ from those of his peers. Whilst talking about saving the NHS, Corbyn has said nothing about the Welfare System, and has omitted completely any mention of raising taxes during the next Labour Party government. The reality is simple; no tax raises, no redistribution of wealth, no Welfare State and no NHS. In the meantime, Labour Party duplicity apart – the Communist Movement has done much to progress humanity, and all those ignorant right wingers and fascists have Communists to thank for the 8 hour day and basic working rights. The defeat of international fascism during the 1930’s and 1940’s can be added to this comprehensive list!

Rosa Luxemberg’s Bourgeois Dialectical Errors


SPD Party School, Berlin (1907): Rosa Luxemburg ( standing left), Wilhelm Pieck (seated to right of Luxemburg) and Friedrich Ebert (third row back on left-hand side of right row)

Rosa Luxemberg (1871-1919) was murdered on the orders of her former student – Friedrich Ebert. Friedrich Ebert had become the first President of the Weimar Republic following Imperial Germany’s defeat at the end of WW1, and in so doing, aligned himself with the rightwing of German politics. Prior to its defeat against the UK in November of 1918, Imperial Germany had deployed troops into Revolutionary Russia (alongside the USA, UK and 11 other countries), with the objective of destroying the Bolshevik Movement, and capturing or killing its leaders. It is a bitter irony that whilst British and German troops continued to follow orders and kill one another in France, a completely different set of orders (issued by exactly the same military and political authorities), demanded that British and German troops fought on the same side in an international effort to crush Soviet Socialism. Although Rosa Luxemberg opposed Germany’s participation in WW1, she remained unusually ‘quiet’ about German troops invading and attempting to destroy Revolutionary Russia in 1918.

The problem regarding Rosa Luxemberg appears to stem from her misreading of Marx and Engels, and her ‘rigid’ alignment with the Second ‘Socialist’ International which advocated (to a certain degree) a co-operation between Socialist Revolutionary forces and the existing Bourgeois State. In this regard, Rosa Luxemberg’s ideas were more ‘bourgeois’ friendly, than Socialist Revolutionary, as she spoke with the attitude of a fully empowered bourgeois individual. Rosa Luxemberg mistakenly assumed that the oppressed Working Class possessed the same bourgeois education and access to social and political institutions that she did, and that all the Working Class had to do was to ‘realise’ this apparently ‘hidden’ or ‘latent’ power. Of course, such mistaken ideas as this have more in-common with bourgeois ‘mysticism’ and ‘religion’, than with the historical materialism of Karl Marx, and firmly demonstrates Rosa Luxemberg’s thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ approach to politics. Although a woman, Rosa Luxemberg behaved with a typical (and ‘dictatorial’) paternalistic attitude. The fact that she was eventually murdered by one of her ‘bourgeois’ students only serves to highlight the reality of this interpretation.

Rosa Luxemberg hated Lenin and despised his Bolshevik Movement. Rosa Luxemberg also detested the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it is true to say that she dedicated her political activity to a continuous effort of undermining its success and hard-established power-base. Rosa Luxemberg, preempting Trotsky’s eventual treachery, utilised a corrupting bourgeois rhetoric designed to dominate and mislead the oppressed Working Class at the point of contact. One example of this rhetoric can be found in Rosa Luxemberg’s Neue Zeit Journal article of July, 1904, within which she denounces Lenin’s insistence of what she termed ‘ultra-centralism’. Working from her liberal, bourgeois ideals, Rosa Luxemberg misinterpreted Lenin’s concept of proletariat ‘centralised democracy’, with that of bourgeois bureaucracy and bourgeois dictatorship. In many ways, Rosa Luxemberg’s bourgeois attitudes laid the theoretical foundation of what would become ‘Trotskyism’, and provided the US with an ideological method to ‘criticise’ the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Rosa Luxemberg was a bourgeois reactionary exercising pretensions of leftwing revolutionary activity. Her opposition to the Bolsheviks demonstrated not an advanced proletariat mind-set at work, but rather that of a privileged ‘White’ middle class woman ‘playing’ at being a Socialist Revolutionary’. In the same article there is evidence that Rosa Luxemberg had thoroughly ‘ingested’ anti-Russian, or anti-Slavic German attitudes, as she again misinterpreted Lenin’s ‘internationalist’ and ‘proletariat’ attitude as being typically ‘Russian’ in nature, referring to Lenin as expressing ‘Russian absolutism’. Writing as she was from a distinctly ‘bourgeois’ perspective, it is laughable that Rosa Luxemberg accused Lenin of turning the revolutionary struggle upon its head! When Lenin and the Bolsheviks finally came to power, Rosa Luxemberg’s opinions were thoroughly discredited, but they still have a certain currency amongst the Trotskyite left, or those feminists who mistake middle class privilege for female emancipation.


The Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923) Vol I (1950): By ER Carr – Page 34.

Guardian Blames Patient’s Needs for NHS Demise!


The Guardian newspaper is a bourgeois left of centre British publication that rejects Socialism and fully supports capitalism and the EU. Earlier this year it led the charge in the British establishment’s attempt to oust ‘Socialist’ Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership of the Labour Party. In Saturday’s edition, it included extensive coverage of the rightwing backlash against the court decision to allow Parliament to ‘vote’ on whether the UK should leave the UK (knowing full well that most MPs fully support the capitalist EU), and continued its pro-EU propaganda by suggesting that the only opposition to the EU is from the racist far-right. Like the BBC and other British media, the Guardian completely ignored the Socialist and Communist (i.e. ‘Lexit’) reasons to oppose the EU, but instead falsely focused all its attention on the politically illiterate UKIP. In the same Saturday edition that criticises Brexit (5.11.2016) for its apparent ‘racist’ intent, the Guardian ran an indepth story about eight British Pakistani men convicted of abusing young ‘White’ teenage girls in Rotherham – publishing their photographs and their names – whilst on page 10 (under the headline ‘NHS Clogged with 40,000 Dandruff Cases a Year’), the Guardian ran an article criticising desperate people seeking treatment for lingering chest and nasal infections.  This article never once stated that the NHS is being ‘privatised’ because of EU legislation, or that due to sub-standard and inadequate treatment, vast numbers of people are not recovering from simple ailments that can become life-threatening if unchecked.  The pro-EU and pro-capitalist Guardian employs the Tory tactic of blaming the victims for NHS deficiencies (caused by ‘privatisation’), rather than drawing the attention of the public to the real issues.  After-all, the very same bourgeois Guardian would have us believe that the ‘racist’ EU is good for anti-racism!


Trotsky the Racist


It is one thing when a Communist party, firmly resting on the flower of the urban proletariat, strives through the workers to lead a peasant war. It is an altogether different thing when a few thousand or even tens of thousands of revolutionists, who are truly Communists or only take the name, assume the leadership of a peasant war without having serious support from the proletariat. This is precisely the situation in China. (Leon Trotsky)

There is a big problem on the political left in the UK at the moment, and this problem involves the lies and deception of the many groups, movements and parties that claim to be ‘Socialist’ and even ‘Communist’, when in fact that they are simply revisionist and servants of the Bourgeois State. What is the origin of this situation? The origin of this situation lies in the theoretical work of Leon Trotsky who was an integral part of the Bolshevik movement in the USSR, until his attempt to grab power from Stalin failed. He was all for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ until he was unable to secure power in the Soviet Union, then he exhibited his true philosophical colours and reverted to type, namely that of asserting the bourgeois collaborating philosophy of the Menshevik movement he had supported prior to switching his allegiance to Lenin at the 11th hour, just before Lenin successfully led the Russian Revolution to power in 1917. In 1929, Trotsky was expelled from the USSR for un-Communistic behaviour and separatist tendencies. He came to the West where he began an immediate campaign in co-operating with the capitalist bourgeoisie, and attempting to dismantle, negate, and otherwise render null and void the third ‘Communist’ International (founded by Lenin in 1919 – calling for Communist Revolution in all countries around the world).

Trotsky’s approach was to collaborate with the capitalist establishment in every manner, whilst forming a bizarre and distorted world of anti-Socialist and anti-Communist Movements that masqueraded as both alternative and legitimate Socialist Movements to that developed in the USSR – a system that Trotsky helped to build by founding the Red Army. In 1921, Trotsky led that Red Army (without permission) and crushed a workers’ uprising in Kronstadt, killing hundreds of workers in the process. Reports suggest that both Lenin and Stalin were appalled at Trotsky’s decision and subsequent behaviour. Trotsky used the Soviet Red Army – that is the army of the workers – to attack and kill the very workers it supposedly represented and existed to protect. This single action serves to give a good measure of Trotsky as a man, as it reveals his thirst for power, his willingness to compromise Socialist and Communist principles, and his non-concern for the very workers he claimed to represent. He transplanted this irreverence for the workers to West when he took the bourgeois position. Trotsky’s Socialism is in fact a version of bourgeois liberal democracy that has nothing to do with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Trotskyism is nothing but collaboration with the very bourgeois State that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao strive to overthrow. Therefore Trotsky’s notion of ‘permanent revolution’ is nothing more than ‘permanent collaboration’ with the ruling class. Many contemporary Trotskyite Movements in the UK claim to be anti-racist and anti-fascist, but as can be seen from the above quote from Trotsky – Trotsky was a bourgeois racist. His misrepresentation and deliberate misinterpretation of the ‘Chinese Revolution’ give testimony to this fact, and serves as a virulent form of anti-Chinese racism that is very active today amongst the bourgeois left.

Marx taught that all Communists are Socialists, and that by definition, all Communists are Socialists. This is because the Scientific Socialism formulated through the work of Marx and Engels clarifies that when the Bourgeois State is finally over-thrown there will be a transitional stage into Socialism which precedes the final achievement of Communism. Trotsky and Trotskyites, whilst still claiming to be ‘Marxists’, actually refer to themselves as ‘Socialists’ but never as ‘Communists’. This is a rejection of the Scientific Socialism advocated by Marx and Engels. Therefore Trotsky and the Trotskyite Movements he inspired, represent bourgeois deviations from the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements therefore, are neither ‘Socialist’ nor ‘Communist’ in the Marxist, scientific sense. Trotsky is a bourgeois political theorist who advocated a form of ‘Utopian Socialism’ such as that found in Christianity and on the bourgeois left. Utopian Socialism works under the false premise that a bourgeois society can be reformed so that it becomes ‘fair’, but this ignores the very obvious fact that as long as capitalism exists, its perpetual search for profit ensures that bourgeois society – Socialist or otherwise, will always be unequal and therefore unjust. The anti-racism that Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements appear to pursue is really an attempt to ‘hijack’ the true anti-racist and anti-fascist movements inspired by the USSR and Lenin’s Communist International throughout the world. Trotskyite anti-racism is a bourgeois sham that has no real understanding of bourgeois racism, Eurocentricism, and political bias in the West. As Trotskyites are predominately ‘white’, their natural racial prejudices and misconceptions are aimed at what they believe to be the ‘fascist’ problem, unaware that what they themselves represent is a very virulent form of left-fascism, racism and discrimination. When Trotskyites appear to attack rightwing fascism, it is not a demonstration of true anti-racism on their part, but is rather a battle between Trotskyite left-fascism and Hitlerite right-fascism. This is why Trotsky and Trotskyite Movements – despite their political rhetoric to the contrary – are not anti-fascist nor anti-racist, but instead represent the very essence of dishonest and deceptive Eurocentric racism.

%d bloggers like this: