Proletariat Fish: Marx and Engels are in the Building! (12.1.2018)




Mei-An and Kai-Lin have been promised fish for sometime now, and neither has caused a fuss for having to wait patiently. A picture of Lenin adorns the back, together with a Red Flag on the front. The two ‘Revolutionary’ goldfish are now known as ‘Marx’ anf ‘Engels’! Long Live the Socialist Revolution!

(Purchased as a ‘Starter Kit’ with tank, pump, filter, food and two goldfish from Pets Place, 105 Central Rd, Worcester Park KT4 8DY)




Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution (2017) – Trust in the Communist Party!


The USSR lives on in memory and in material fact. It collapsed from the combined pressures of Trotsky, Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Western capitalism. What the USSR represented – as the first Workers’ State – is a tremendously powerful psychological and physical image that serves as a rallying point for millions of oppressed peoples around the globe. The 1917 October Revolution will always be significant because it signalled the successful rising of the Working Class and the smashing of predatory capitalism! Although there is much lying and disinformation in the West about the USSR, nevertheless, the internet allows opportunities to study that by-pass the bourgeois educational facilities, and which allows individuals and groups to find more reliable and authentic sources of information. The Cold War lies are still very much in operation, but as time goes by, and the work of people like Grover Furr, Andrew Alexander and Alexander Werth (and many others), become better known, the wholesome truth about the USSR (and its vital importance for the evolution of humanity) will move ever more to the fore-front of general perception. This positive counter-swing is strengthened by the presence of the Collected Works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (amongst others) being readily (and freely) available on the internet. As usual, the greatest challenges above and beyond the confrontation with predatory capitalism for the Communist Party is that of successfully countering Trotskyism (i.e. ‘pseudo-Socialism’), and the crippling forces of revisionism from the left. There is a wealth of legitimate proletariat literature available in the public domain which must be logically studied from a Scientific Socialist point of view. Even if certain ‘expedient’ compromises must be made with the Bourgeois State on the surface (due to prevailing socio-economic conditions), the true (and non-inverted) underpinnings of Marxist-Leninism must always serve as the dialectical ‘prime mover’ of any Communist Movement. The Working Class must always trust the Communist Party which is a collective expression of its proletariat ‘will’. The Communist Party came to power through a wave of Revolutionary activity in 1917 – and the same Communist Party exists throughout the world today, always representing and leading the ordinary people, and continuously agitating against the capitalist system. The ‘Communist Party’ in principle did not begin with the 1917 Russian Revolution, and did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is an ongoing and unfolding process of historical materialism. Trust in the Communist Party and support it with all your proletariat being!

Materialism – A Brief Introduction


Materialism is a set of related theories which hold that entitles and processes are composed of – or are reducible to – matter, material forms or physical processes. All events and facts are explainable, actually or in principle, in terms of body, material objects or dynamic material changes or movements. In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct form, or independent of material changes or processes. Since it denies the existence of spiritual beings or forces, materialism typically is allied with atheism and agnosticism.’

The English word ‘matter’ has its origins in the Latin words ‘mater’ (i.e. ‘mother’), and ‘materia’ (i.e. ‘all physical things’). As existence is composed of matter, matter is viewed as the foundation of all things. Generally speaking, all matter is said to possess both volume and mass. Within the Chinese language, the concept of ‘matter’ can be expressed using the ideograms ‘物质’ (wu4zhi2). ‘物’ (wu4) is written using the left-hand particle ‘牛’ (nui2) – meaning ‘cow’, ‘bull’, or ‘ox’, and the right-hand particle ‘勿’ (wu4) – originally meaning ‘flag’. When combined together, the ideogram ‘物’ (wu4) literally means ‘matter’, ‘things’, and ‘objects’. ‘质’ (zhi2) is written using the ideogram ‘贝’ (bei4) – meaning a hard sea shell, and the right-hand particle ‘斦’ (yin2) – originally written as ‘two axes’, but also used to refer to a measure of weight equalling around one kilogram (i.e. ‘two catty’). Within Chinese thought, when taken together, the concept of ‘物质’ (wu4zhi2) represents the entirety of existence, or by implication, that physical substance which possesses  (measurable) mass and volume. Ancient India, despite its association with spirituality within popular culture, developed a school of materialist thinking named ‘Lokayata’ (लोकायत) in Sanskrit, which suggests a system of developed thought grounded in the observation (or perception) of the physical world (which is directly accessible to the senses). This school rejected all religious thought that advocated karma and karmic retribution, a belief in ‘invisible’ theistic constructs, and any notion of ‘rebirth’ or ‘reincarnation’. Therefore, the validity of inference and the authority of scripture are firmly rejected. For the Lokayata followers, only that information directly perceived through the senses is real. The Lokayata developed a theory of physical existence that involved four basic elements which combine to generate all of material reality. As a consequence of this thinking, Lokayata is associated with ‘atheism’. The origin of this school is problematic (due to the loss of primary texts), but evidence suggests a date anywhere between 600 – 300 BCE – with the possibility that the ideas associated with this school could be far older.

Whatever the case, the Buddhist Pali suttas mention the Lokayata, which is associated within the tradition of Buddhist commentary, as representing a ‘hard materialism’ (not favoured by the Buddha). However, detailed with the ‘five aggregates’ teaching of the Buddha, it is clear that his system of mind-matter integration is a form of ‘soft materialism’, which recognises a plurality, (but not a duality). This is because the Buddha’s system is premised upon ‘rupa’ (रूप) – or ‘physical matter’, which he defines as particles (paramanu) that flash in and out of existence (similar to the observed behaviour of sub-atomic particles within quantum physics). The Buddha sees the physical world as ‘existing’, but being non-substantial and changeable in nature. This ‘Buddhist’ definition of matter is different to that of the ‘Ucchedavada’ (ဥေစၧဒ) – which the Buddha criticised for assuming a permanent and unchanging physical world – despite the fact that the Buddha agreed with the Ucchedavda that there is no ‘atma’, or permanent soul. The Buddha’s soft materialism deviates away from the hard materialism of the Ucchedavada (which maybe directly linked to the Lokayata), by stressing that karma does function (in a limited, non-theistic sense), and that moral behaviour is required to escape worldly suffering.

Western scholars tend to date the Buddha as living either 563-480 BCE, or 483-400 BCE, whilst within traditional Chinese Buddhism, his date is given as 1028/29-948/49. Obviously, the Buddha’s existence, if dated accurately, would determine the antiquity of the Indian schools of materialism. In ancient Greece, however, the materialist origins of philosophy are said to have developed through the thinking of Democritus (460-370 BCE), who conceived of the universe as being composed of tiny, irreducible atoms unobservable to the naked eye. These atoms operate in a deterministic fashion, and combine to form the various forms associated with physical existence. Epicurus (341-270 BCE) – the student of Democritus, developed this thinking by asserting that every so often atoms ‘swerved’, as a means to explain unusual behaviour or happenings in the physical world. Ancient India developed a theory of materialism, whilst Buddhism developed a theory of the atom, but the (modern) Western world follows the ancient atomic models as devised within the Greek philosophical tradition. Whatever the origin, the doctrine of materialism stands in philosophical opposition to that of ‘idealism’. Idealism is usually understood as advocating that ‘mind’ is primary, and that the physical world exists only as an expression or appearance of that mind. This suggests that the physical world is not truly ‘material’, but rather ‘psychological’, or ‘mental’ in origination and nature. Within the Western philosophical tradition, theistic idealism is associated with Berkley, transcendental idealism of Kant, and the absolute idealism of Hegel. Idealism is often interpreted as being a secular version of theology, and directly related to ‘creationism’, whereby the physical world is viewed as being created by an unseen theistic entity (theology), or ‘projected’ into existence by the agency of mind (idealism), as if by an act of will and/or perception.

Within the subject of ‘philosophy of mind’, the theory of materialism has three distinct definitions, the first two of which represent ‘hard’ materialism, and the third ‘soft’ materialism:

  1. Eliminativism. This theory seeks to ‘eliminate’ entirely any notion of ‘mind’, and all theories of ‘psychology’ from modern science, on the grounds that such notions are the product of misunderstanding, and akin to ‘fairy tales’ that are the product of the residue of religious thinking. How human beings perceive their own minds is viewed as erroneous and the consequence of historical and cultural conditioning. As a consequence, as there is ‘no mind’ in reality, there can be no true experience of ‘raw feelings’ (qualia), or the exercise of intentionality. Theories of psychology are viewed as expressions of out-dated science which need to be abandoned as a necessary means to progress scientific understanding.
  2. Reductionism. In its simplest form, ‘reductionism’ reduces all psychological states to that of easily observable and measurable behaviour (i.e. ‘behavourism’). This reduces mind states to a mode of expression acceptable to modern science. Mind processes might exist as a function of the physical brain, but are viewed as knowable only through the measuring of behaviour. Other than as a producer of behaviour, the mind cannot be directly understood (because although it might generate qualia and intentionality, it does not ‘independently’ exist), and is of no further interest to reductionist.
  3. Irreducibility of mind. Although it might be accepted that ‘mind’ could exist as an apparent independent entity, nevertheless, its existence is so inherently related to matter, that this apparent ‘independence’ is not an issue. The mind is related to matter in a matter far more profound than mere causal independence. This means that the irreducibility of the mind is not a threat to the primacy of the materialist theory. Mind is a product of matter, even if the exact process of the emergence of consciousness from matter is as yet not fully understood.

Karl Marx studied Hegel’s absolute idealism, and understood it (through the work of Feuerbach) to be ‘inverted’ in nature. When turned the right way around, Marx developed the theory of ‘historical materialism’ (which replaced Hegel’s theory of ‘historical idealism’). The theory of historical materialism is ‘scientific’ in nature, and states that it is the economic reality of a society that determines the physical reality of that society. This is an ongoing historical process that does not allow for any ‘divine intervention’ in the affairs of humanity. It is through this materialist theory that Marx explains the historical reasons why it is that the impoverished working class (i.e. proletariat) exists in a subordinated and exploited manner, whilst being dominated by affluent middle class (i.e. bourgeisie), and how it is that this situation contains within itself, the seeds of its own inevitable transformation (through the agency of ‘revolution’). On this point, Marx states ‘In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.’ (Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). Marx goes on to say that at some point in time, the material productive forces if become so strong that they out-grow the current organisation of society, and come into direct conflict with the existing (bourgeois) relations of society. As the workers become aware of their own material and productive powers, they mass organise and initiate an era of social revolution, eventually seizing the means of production, and radically transforming society through the agency of a socialist revolution. This is the playing-out of class antagonisms, and explains why Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov further developed this idea (in 1891), by referring to this process as ‘dialectical materialism’. This was developed from the work of Friedrich Engels (found in his book entitled ‘Dialectics of Nature’) whereby Engels uses the term ‘materialist dialectics’ as a means to combat and neutralise ‘idealistic dialectics’. The theory of scientific socialism as developed by Marx and Engels adopts a materialist outlook to explain human society and the human condition, but Marx and Engels rejected two forms of materialism prevalent in the 19th century, namely those of the ‘mechanistic’ and the ‘metaphysical’ variety. Marx rejected the mechanistic view because it suggested nothing could be changed, and he rejected metaphysical view because he recognised the existence and purpose of a human consciousness – even if it is generated from the brain and conditioned by outer circumstances and events. Marx views the immense productive forces of labour as the driving force behind the unfolding of history. The unfolding of the historical process is not a passive or indifferent passing of events, but is a dynamic, directing and transformative force within human affairs. Metaphysical materialism, strictly speaking denies the existence of this dialectical and historical materialism that Marx clearly sees as operating throughout human history, where it has reached a particular intensity after the Industrial Revolution. The concept of ‘dialectics’ within Marxism can also be applied to personal education, and the development of a proletariat mind that is freed of the oppression and limitations of the past, and which is collective in outlook, and thoroughly progressive and scientific in nature. This maybe taken as the use of Hegel’s dialectic of thesis, antitheses and synthesis – reworked to interpret the changes of the material world (through the negation of the negation) rather than the changes of the ‘idealistic’ (or ‘religious’) world.



Rightwing Bigotry Never Invented Anything!


If it wasn’t for the fact that Albert Einstein was so clever, I am sure the United States would have expelled him, and banned him from re-entering the country.  Furthermore, the US authorities may well have opted for ‘assassination’, to stop a possible ‘defection’ to the Soviet Union  – particularly after Einstein conclusively condemned the modern Zionist State of Israel from it inception.  Einstein was one of the greatest minds created by humanity (and evolution), and in his considered intellectual opinion, capitalism was stupid because it keeps people in a deliberate state of ‘exploitable’ arrested development, as the last thing the exploiters want, is for the exploited to realise and understand what is going on.  Einstein, as a genius, stated quite plainly and clearly that the Socialist path is the scientifically ‘superior’ path for humanity, so if the greatest thinker of our age (or any age) thinks this, then why hasn’t Western society listened to him?  After-all, the Western establishment has been quite happy to ‘steal’ Einstein’s scientific ideas and sell them for profit, but nevertheless steers clear of his preference for Socialism.  Einstein was perfectly correct, or course. Humanity has evolved together in the past, and for it to progress in the future, its must evolve ‘collectively’ yet again.  Capitalism, with its emphasis upon exploitable individuality, runs philosophically and biological counter to the natural forces of evolution, whereas the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels runs entirely inaccordance with it.  Capitalism, with its incessant ‘greed’ for personal wealth keeps humanity as a whole  dumbed-down, and unable to effectively ‘imagine’ and ‘think’. Capitalism, and those wedded to it, are inherently ‘stupid’ because that is the default setting of ‘greed’.  Humans living within bourgeois society mostly conform without any sense of awareness or objectivity, but occasionally, individuals do rise to the top, being able to ‘transcend’ the conditionality of their circumstances.  This is the development of a Socialist mind-set within the capitalist system, and can be used to precipitate a system-wide Revolution of thinking and behaving.  It is only through Socialist thinking that humanity can scientifically progress, this is why the Soviet Union was technologically far ahead of the West, and why Communist China is now leading the world.  One thing is for sure, being happy to wallow in capitalist indifference, is simply being happy to be in one’s prison cell, even though the door is perpetually ‘open’.  Such stupidity!

Stalin Empowers Women


From a Chinese language blog:

In the 1930’s, Joseph Stalin was in-charge of the USSR.  At this time he sought to empower Soviet women by encouraging them not to wear ‘bourgeois’ and ‘sexist’ make-up, and to participate in all areas of the workforce as full citizens equal to their male counter-parts.  This concept of gender equality and feminist-empowerment was very ‘new’ in the world, although Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote about this in the 19th century.  Of course, women must free themselves and decide their own paths, but men can assist by getting-out of the way, and not replicating the backward patriarchalism of the past.

Chinese Language Source Article:


James Gralton and Ireland’s Unfinished Revolution


In the early 1900’s, the men and women of Ireland were inspired to fight for their freedom through the strictures of Scientific Socialism, and the activities and teachings of one Vladimir Lenin – who was busy leading the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party against the regressive forces of Czarist Russia.  Marxist-Engelism (Scientific Socialism), and Marxist-Leninism (its application), stress that religion is part and parcel of the bourgeois, oppressive, greed-riddled capitalist state. British imperialism for the Irish, represented a permanent loss of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination. Whilst applying the forces of unchecked and brutal capitalism in Ireland, the British authorities used violence and intimidation to an astonishing degree of brutality, the likes of which has seldom been seen on the British Mainland in modern times.  There was certainly no ‘liberal’ Britishness at work in Ireland during the colonial occupation what was in reality, ‘English’ imperialism, (with the Scots, Walsh and perhaps even the Cornish suffering historical subjugation on the British Mainland).  The Irish people rose-up to over-throw the British occupiers, and as a consequence died in their hundreds and thousands (with many being hung or shot by the British State in 1916).  The Roman Catholic Church which dominated Ireland under British Rule, never opposed the occupation and did not question the executions.  In reality, for the Irish Revolution to have been fully achieved, the British imperialists, the Irish bourgeoisie, AND the Christian religion should have all been permanently and thoroughly over-thrown and stripped of all political and military power and influence.  Throwing the British out was a major achievement for the Irish people, but the Revolution should have progressed further and uprooted and expelled the insidious tentacles of the Roman Catholic Church.  Not only were its priests rampaging through the parishes sexually abusing children at will, but Church dogma was making life hellish for the ordinary Irish people.  In 1921, the British, (weakened by WWI and the continued Irish resistance), granted the majority of the landmass of Ireland independence, but left its imperialist, colonial structures in place in the north-east (i.e. ‘Northern Ireland’).  The problem with this ‘granted’ freedom was that the British State ensured that the bourgeois-supporting Catholic Church remained fully in power in both free ‘Southern Ireland’, and the Protestant (Anglican) Church in occupied Northern Ireland.  Of course, even in Southern Ireland the Protestant Church still exists in a subordinate position to the dominant Catholic Church, and in Northern Ireland, the Catholic Church still existed subordinate to the Protestant Church.  What is typical of bourgeois subterfuge is that the Irish people were historically conditioned to perceive themselves as primarily ‘religious’ pawns in an ecclesiastic game of imperialist chess.  In reality, the Irish people are the oppressed masses who are the victims of continued bourgeois oppression perpetuated through the dogma and false morality of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.  In Southern Ireland after independence in 1921, the Catholic Church began a more open campaign opposed to Socialism in all its forms, as a means to protect its exploitative position of political and cultural power amongst the oppressed Irish people.  (Bizarrely, many Irish people fled to the more ‘secular’ British Mainland to escape this type of religious persecution.)   However, the Vatican, situated as it is in the centre of Rome, fully supported the rise to power of the fascist dictator Mussolini, and aligned itself with the political far-right.  This was extended in 1933 to a full embracing and endorsing of Adolf Hitler’s ‘Nazi’ regime when it gained political power.  Also in 1933, the Irish Catholic Church successfully agitated to have leading Irish Catholic – Jimmy Gralton (1886-1945) – ‘deported’ from his own country as an ‘enemy of the people’.  Jimmy Graton remains the only ‘Irishmen’ ever to have been deported from his own country – all at the instigation of the rightwing and intolerant Roman Catholic Church.  In 1936-39, the Roman Catholic Church advised all good Irish Catholic men to travel to Franco’s fascist Spain, and join his anti-Socialist armies in opposition to the Communist-backed International Brigades.  In modern times, as the church continues to lose ground to the forces of secularism, the Roman Catholic Church has been forced by public pressure to ‘apologise’ for supporting Nazi Germany’s holocaust against the Jews, Romany, Slavs, homosexuals, Communists and others, and recently the Irish government has issued an official apology to the surviving family of Jimmy Gralton.

Claim of 800 children’s remains buried at Irish home for unwed mothers

An Apology Long Overdue

Vatican Apologises for Holocaust Support

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.

The Philosophical Irrelevancy of the Bourgeois Critique


Modern, industrialised, technological societies are permeated by class bias. Ever since the ‘bourgeois’ or ‘middle class’ swept to power around the world through its bloody civil wars, pogroms, atrocities, genocides, and suppressions; the prevailing interpretative social, economic, and historical narratives (that is the dominant manner through which ‘reality’ is presented to the masses), has been thoroughly one-sided. The bourgeois approach to the interpretation of society presents the rhetoric of middle class thought, behaviour, and action (i.e. ‘bourgeois culture’) as not only ‘normal’, ‘civilised’, and self-evidently ‘perfect’, but also as being the only possible way in which society can be run and events influenced, moulded, directed, scrutinised and otherwise conceived. The bourgeois mind-set is a priori that of the domineering class that presents its hegemony to the world not in an impartial, or even benevolent fashion, but rather in a highly oppressive format designed to eternally preserve its own privileges at the expense of the working class. The bourgeois must pursue this course, because throughout history its existence has been premised upon the accumulation and retainment of wealth (and political power) within a given society at the expense of the majority of the other occupants of that society.

Although the affluent bourgeois have always been in the minority within a society, it retains its socio-economic, cultural and political dominance through the acquisition and maintaining of political power, prestige, and force. The forceful component involves the controlling of academia (so that only bourgeois thinking is emphasised through official educational programmes); the police (which exists to protect the rich bourgeois from the working class poor) and to apply bourgeois law in an asymmetric manner that profits the already wealthy and powerful over the poor and disenfranchised; the legal systems which hides behind the false notion that ‘all’ citizens have an ‘equal’ access to a law that is ‘neutral’. The reality of bourgeois societies is that the citizens only have the ‘legal rights’ that they can financially ‘prove’ they possess through access to an expensive lawyer, or other legal professional. This principle of ‘access through wealth’, ensures that only the wealthy bourgeois can fully take advantage of, and benefit from, a legal code specifically designed to represent their own class interests. This is why within bourgeois societies the working class is ‘subjected’ to the law, and not directly ‘supported’ by it. This legal disparity is the essence of socio-economic and class inequality in a bourgeois society. The bourgeois also control the political system and within liberal democracies ensure that only the wealthy can realistically enter the process of democratic elections and stand for parliament. Bourgeois political systems – even if on occasion allow some type of working class-friendly policy to materialise in the country – are pre-set to subsequently dismantle every progressive policy that benefits the workers, and re-address the balance in class relations by firmly placing the bourgeois back in a position of dominance. This is because bourgeois politics are premised upon attacking the working class relentlessly and without mercy. Of course, should the working class ‘rise-up’, the bourgeois system simply deploys the armed forces (which are generally used to protect the bourgeois State and bourgeois privilege), so that any working class movement of self-assertion is shot-down in blood and murder. Should the working class develop a class consciousness, this is stifled from becoming the dominant narrative within a bourgeois society because the media is controlled by those who retain the wealth. Working class people are fed a steady diet of nonsense, prejudice, sleight of hand, deception, misinformation, disinformation, racism, misogyny, discrimination, and blatant lies, through media outlets that peddle the ‘news’ as a cross between information and entertainment; a continued process that becomes normalised to the extent that no distinction between ‘information’ and ‘entertainment’ can be discerned.

As the bourgeois process of cultural dominance and oppression is ongoing, the propaganda it produces is designed for one purpose only, and that is the maintenance of its own power and prestige within society. The bourgeois paradigm is presumed to be the only way of viewing and knowing the world that is accepted as ‘true’, ‘worthwhile’, ‘credible’ and ‘useful’, and yet from a logical, reasonable and scientific perspective, the philosophical underpinnings of bourgeois society is premised upon the creation and perpetuation of faulty knowledge. Even bourgeois science is designed to further human knowledge through a class bias filter – so that any advances in understanding are presented around the maintaining of middle class privilege. Working class society, media, politics, culture, academia and science, free as it is from bourgeois corruption and oppression, is a thoroughly different way of viewing the world that in reality leads to a classless society. The bourgeois interpretation of Socialist and Communist movements, uprising, societies, regimes, and inclinations must be logically viewed as both flawed and false. The bourgeois historical narrative is easy to discern with practice, as it automatically associates working class notions of   ‘freedom’ with that of ‘oppression’. It deliberately conflates the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels with the fascist thought of Adolf Hitler (and his supporters). Bourgeois thought interprets every progressive advance of the working class in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries as being regressive, immoral and evil. This in part stems from the bourgeois obsession with its Judeo-Christian religion, and the use of its mythology and theology to scare workers into conforming to the norms of oppressive bourgeois society, even though these norms are not in their best class interests. The obvious hypocrisy here is that whilst pursuing logical science as a means to dominate society on the one hand, the bourgeoisie also perpetuate the ignorance of a ‘faith’ based religion to keep the workers firmly in their place. The working class view of the world is so different, progressive and free, that the bourgeois cannot possibly conceive of it, or appreciate it, without first giving-up the bourgeois mind-set. The capitalist system of brutality and oppression that the bourgeois has created is so corrupt, unequal, and unjust that it is actually holding humanity back from progressing further in its evolution. Capitalism is vicious and murderous. If a record was kept of the crimes of capitalism, it would be ongoing, comprise of untold volumes of details, and could never be completed. Capitalism kills those subjected to it, and this is an everyday occurrence that the bourgeois insist is never questioned. Every act of war and brutality is presented by the bourgeois as being both normal and natural. Bourgeois racism ensures that the suffering of theirs is viewed as inferior to the suffering of Europeans, and every ill in bourgeois society is blamed upon the working class, or migrants. The bourgeois must tirelessly work to prevent the working class from realising that all the ills within bourgeois society are caused entirely by the bourgeoisie itself, and that it is this highly exploitative class that must be over-come by working class revolutionary action. These reasons are why the bourgeois view of the world, being the self-serving illogicality that it is, should not be taken seriously by the workers. Instead the workers should educate themselves to ‘see through’ the bourgeois paradigm and free themselves from it. This is the first crucial step toward revolutionary change.

2003: China Government Officials Visit the Most Venerable Yi Cheng


Original Chinese Language Article: By Hui Hai Buddhist Resource Library (Xin Hua Net)

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Translator’s Note: This even took place in 2003, but this article was not posted until 2009. Master Yi Cheng was a disciple of Master Xu Yun (1840-1959), and is considered a very eminent Ch’an Buddhist monk in his own right. Such is the respect within which he is held by the Communist government of China that he remains sitting whilst government officials stand in his presence. My English translation of his biography can be read at: ACW 13.4.15

On March 14, 2003, Vice-President Zeng Qing Hong and Vice Committee Chief Xu Jia Fu – as representatives of the Tenth Session of the National Political Consultative Conference (NPCC), visited the President of the China Buddhism Association – the most Venerable Yi Cheng.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2015.

Original Chinese language Source Text:


2009年09月24日 18:58慧海佛教资源库【大 中 小】 【打印】 共有评论0条


Lucid Marx

Shining Wisdom,

Shining Wisdom,

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) reminds all Marxists of a free and lucid psychological-physical space within which existence and the machinations of life unfold. This is the historical materialism of Marx (and Engels) understood free of any unnatural or ideological constraint, or artificial boundary. In a very real (and unimagined) sense, this reality represents what can be referred to as a ‘spiritual’ state whereby all human beings exist together in an uncontrived and unforced togetherness, that offers the security of group existence (and shared progression), and the flexibility of individual self-determination. As this existential reality is reliant upon the perceptual and cognitive awareness of its presence, it can be termed ‘spiritual’ if spirituality is directly related to the development of the mind, and the enhancing of its functionality. Even the old Soviet Union (1917-1991), in its English translations of Marxist texts, used the term ‘spiritual’ to refer to ‘consciousness’, and in so doing, marked a clear separation between socialist and communist theory, with that of the theology of the established Judeo-Christian tradition that had dominated Europe with its ecclesiastical imaginations for over a thousand years. The body of work recognised as ‘Marxism’ (whether or not Karl Marx himself would have agreed with this description), is in fact an unfolding understanding of the physical world and its functioning, from the point of view of the advanced and evolved conscious mind that is doing the observing and the defining. In this regard, the understanding of Marx resembles the teachings of the Buddha who lived in ancient India. This is because Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy that includes the expansion of awareness through mind development, and an explanation and critique of the socio-economic situation (i.e. caste function and caste relations) prevalent at the time of the Buddha. Both Men – that is Marx and Buddha – possessed advanced minds that saw through the relative nature of the socio-economic situations of their times, and which further formulated a method for others to follow, so that they might achieve the same level of progressive freedom.

%d bloggers like this: