Elvis Presley: Racist and Anti-Communist (1970)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Nixon-Presley Meeting 21.12.1970

Much is made about an alleged racist comment Elvis Presley is supposed to have made in 1958 – but in reality his 1970 letter to President Richard Nixon reveals his true support for the White establishment and how he was prepared to use his celebrity to deceptively infiltrate minority ethnic and leftwing political groups (that liked his music) on behalf of the rightwing US government of the corrupt President Nixon. In 1958, Elvis Presley is said to have commented that Black people were only fit to shine his shoes and buy his records – but the White establishment (with help from sections of the middle class African-American community in the US) have continuously worked to ‘negate’ this statement and even disassociate Elvis Presley from it. Whatever the case, privileged White people such as Elvis Presley, writing about a ‘ghetto’ he has never experienced and which has been historically generated by White racism in the service of capitalism, is the quintessential example of a Eurocentric racism that cannot see itself. The point is that the White establishment (which Elvis Presley served as a ‘federal agent’), and the music industry that made him rich, has created a myth about Elvis Presley that does not reflect or represent Elvis Presley the real person. Therefore, stating the obvious about Elvis Presley will cause the bourgeois mind-set to ‘react’ with anger and aggression – but never logic or reason. So be it – this is the price of dialectical progression, and Elvis Presley, regardless of his talent and wealth, and whatever kindnesses he showed people in his life, did not understand the racism perpetuated by his own ethnicity, and remained ignorant of the working class Black experience that various Socialist Movements sought to remedy.

For the White (bourgeois) establishment in the USA, it is important that if African-American people feel the need to oppose (and fight) racism, they must do so whilst simultaneously supporting the capitalist system, and never associating the racism they suffer with the exploitative socio-economic system within which they exist. concomitant with this non-resistance to capitalism is the requirement for African-Americans to remain mired in Judeo-Christian thinking and never question established (bourgeois) religious narratives. The ironies inherent in this position are many. Capitalism was the driving force behind the European practice of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade – which for hundreds of years kidnapped and transported millions of African men, women and children to the Americas – where White slave-owners ‘beat’ African culture out of their prisoners, and instilled instead a subservient mentality mediated by the theology associated with the Judeo-Christian religion. The economic drive to expand markets for making profit is the basis of European racism, whereby the European Church aided and abetted this process through the use of justifying biblical scripture. Opposing racism, whilst not recognising the facts that racism has its roots in European capitalism and religion, is a grave dialectical error of interpretation. If capitalism and religion are not acknowledged as the progenitor and preserver of racism – the underlying foundation of European racism continues from one generation to the next unopposed, with only cosmetic changes to how racism manifests in outer society. Protesting about racism whilst ignoring the part capitalism and Christianity play in its existence only leads to superficial change, and only then in a way that only benefits wealthy African-Americans – as racism continues to oppress the working class in the same manner as it did hundreds of years ago.

The Black Panther Movement – as an African-American initiative – did indeed recognise the capitalist basis of European racism, taking its opposing ideological direction from the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx. This was one of a number of African-American developments that demonstrated a progressive and advanced working class consciousness, and which directly took on the White establishment by confronting its racism and continuous outrages. This is the Black working class actively protecting itself against the abusive power of the White (bourgeois) establishment. This is Socialism (and Communism) in action. However, the brain-washing of the broader African-American community by the White establishment has led to many Black people ‘internalizing’ White racist attitudes, and assuming that kowtowing to White dominance, capitalism and Christianity is in their own best interests. This is a reactionary position whereby a certain economic category of African-American subconsciously think that White middle class culture is superior and worthy of emulation – not realising that in so doing they are legitimizing the historical racism of the White community which has been inflicted upon the Black community in America. This paradoxical (and inverted) situation will continue as long as White racism is allowed to exist unopposed. At the moment, the post-modern White community is busying itself by co-opting as many ‘non-White’ minorities into supporting its historical racist narrative as possible – with each minority remaining ‘inferior’ to their White over-lords (as complicity with racism does not guarantee ‘equality’ with the oppressor).

Elvis Presley was a racist because he opposed the Black Panther Movement and possessed no understanding of White racism and what it is like to live under such a historical tyranny. He associated the fighting of racism with Communist ‘brain-washing’, and suggested that Black people in the US were only acting in this manner because of outside influences (presumably from the Soviet Union). In other words, what Presley referred to as ‘America’ was nothing other than the White, racist establishment, which in his view should be supported and never opposed. Of course, Presley was a successful entertainer and fully fledged capitalist, but it is curious how a White man who made millions out of mimicking Black music, could possess such little understanding of the historical or existential plight of the African-American people whose music he stole. This is the letter Elvis Presley wrote to President Nixon asking to be empowered as a Federal Agent so that he could fight the hippies and Black Panthers (amongst other group he considered ‘undesirable’):

Dear Mr. President.

First, I would like to introduce myself. I am Elvis Presley and admire you and have great respect for your office. I talked to Vice President Agnew in Palm Springs three weeks ago and expressed my concern for our country. The drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. do not consider me as their enemy or as they call it the establishment. I call it America and I love it. Sir, I can and will be of any service that I can to help the country out. I have no concern or motives other than helping the country out.

So I wish not to be given a title or an appointed position. I can and will do more good if I were made a Federal Agent at Large and I will help out by doing it my way through my communications with people of all ages. First and foremost, I am an entertainer, but all I need is the Federal credentials. I am on this plane with Senator George Murphy and we have been discussing the problems that our country is faced with. Sir, I am staying at the Washington Hotel, Room 505-506-507. I have two men who work with me by the name of Jerry Schilling and Sonny West. I am registered under the name of Jon Burrows. I will be here for as long as long as it takes to get the credentials of a Federal Agent. I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and Communist brainwashing techniques and I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good. I am Glad to help just so long as it is kept very private. You can have your staff or whomever call me anytime today, tonight, or tomorrow. I was nominated this coming year one of America’s Ten Most Outstanding Young Men. That will be in January 18 in my home town of Memphis, Tennessee. I am sending you the short autobiography about myself so you can better understand this approach. I would love to meet you just to say hello if you’re not too busy.

Respectfully,

Elvis Presley

P. S. I believe that you, Sir, were one of the Top Ten Outstanding Men of America also.

I have a personal gift for you which I would like to present to you and you can accept it or I will keep it for you until you can take it.

Mr. President

These are all my PVT numbers

Beverly Hills 278-3496
278-9535
Palm Spring’s
Pvt #
325-3241
Memphis
Pvt. #
397-4427
398-4882
398-9722
Col P.S. # 325-4781
Col B.H. # 274-8498
Col. Off M.E.M. 870-0370

WASHINGTON HOTEL PHONE ME  85900
                                                Room 505-506
                                                Under the name of Jon Burrows

PRIVATE 
AND CONFIDENTIAL
            Attn. President Nixon
            via Sen. George Murphy                    

from

Elvis Presley

George Carlin – Bourgeois Reactionary

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I was recently asked what I thought of US comic George Carlin (1937-2008), and whether he was leftwing, a Marxist, Socialist or Communist, etc. In many ways, due to the refined climate of US anti-intellectualism, the many hours of recorded George Carlin material, certainly provides some sound-bites that on the surface would make him appear leftwing, but these utterances when taken in isolation, lack an over-all narrative context. In many ways, George Carlin reminds me of that other US intellectual (and academic) Howard Zinn (1922-2010), who was a confirmed ‘Trotskyite’. Trotskyism, of course, is a type of rightwing reactionary, pseudo-Socialism that fully co-operates with capitalism and all aspects of the Bourgeois State. Trotskyism has historically defined itself around a (false) agenda of sullying the reputation of Marxist-Leninism, and the history of the Soviet Union. Quite often Trotskyites make use of a limited (and misconstrued) Marxist critique of society, whilst not taking any real ‘Revolutionary’ action to empower the working class. George Carlin’s approach to social and cultural commentary in his act certainly has the feel of a Trotskyite paradigm in operation. His take on ‘class’ within a capitalist society is ‘flawed’ and ‘non-Marxist’. Carlin states that the ‘upper’ class earns the most money but pays the least tax (?), whilst the ‘middle’ class does all the work and pays most of the taxes (?). Finally, Carlin says the ‘poor’ (constituting the ‘lower’ class) keep the entire system ticking-over. This is nonsense. The ‘upper’ class is the ‘aristocracy’, which today is kept in a life of luxury through government hand-outs. The ‘middle’ class is the ‘bourgeoise’ that possesses all the political power, does very little work, pays the minimum of tax, but appropriates most of the money (which it steals from the working class). The lowest class is the working class, the members of which make-up the majority within any capitalist society, and who do all the work, pay the most taxes, and receive the lowest wages and the least share of political power. As the middle class owns the means of production, and has accumulated all the political, legal, social and cultural power within society, it ruthlessly exploits the workers – stealing their income, their health and their leisure time. George Carlin has nothing to say about this Marxist analysis of capitalist society and appears completely unaware of its existence. More to the point, in the video shared below, George Carlin is featured being openly ‘racist’ and expressing a typical rightwing narrative that Europe has been over-run with Muslims, and that as a consequence the ‘White race’ is finished because it cannot reproduce at the rate of the ‘uncaring’ Muslims, etc. All this diatribe is rightwing mythology that falsely presents the White race as being a victim of its own historical racism and criminality. I suspect that George Carlin felt very relaxed in this interview and forgot to ‘check’ his more rightwing viewpoints. In effect he deviated from his own script, which generally applies a broad leftist critique to US politics and culture. Like a Trotskyite – Carlin uses the idea that White America is ‘racist’, but when viewed in the light of his support for ‘Governor Bush’ after the 911 terrorist attacks in New York, and his inability to ‘see through’ the collective cultural hysteria of the moment, it is obvious that what George Carlin produced was merely an ‘act’. He was not a Marxist, he was not a Marxist-Leninist, he was not a Socialist, and he certainly was not a Communist. He may have been a Trotskyite utilising the usual ‘opportunism’ (or ‘entryism’) familiar with that mode of expression, but I suspect that he was a rightwing anarchist, acting in complete agreement with the historical bourgeois project of spreading a virulent ‘individualism’ around the world. The hidden motive behind his ‘humour’ and distinct brand of ‘intellectualism’ seems to be the continuous criticism of any form of ‘collectivity’, be it bourgeois or leftist. George Carlin was not a working class intellectual, but rather an intellectual in the service of the Bourgeois State.

Bolshevik Revolution in Stamps – 100th Anniversary (2017)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

Decoding Bourgeois Science

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Bourgeois science is the product of the controlling class that currently dominates Western society. The bourgeoisie control society and therefore provide the dominant ideas of the age. Bourgeois science emerged out of Judeo-Christian theology, and developed an entirely new way of viewing  the world. This process is generally perceived as a historical extension of ancient and classical Greek thought, although bourgeois science is much more advanced, in as much as it has proven its hypotheses through devising logical experimentation. The problem is that the thought community that preserves, and perpetuates bourgeois science is more or less fully divorced from the real world as experienced by the working class. Bourgeois science exists in a rarefied world that is elitist and exclusive in nature (i.e. ‘alienating’) – designed only to serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system it has established. As a consequence, the pristine logic of bourgeois science has become enshrined in a type of ‘rational’ mysticism that is designed to befuddle and confuse anyone not of a middle class background. This is because bourgeois science, at its core, remains fully ruptured from the material world it seeks to understand, define and explain. In-short, bourgeois science has no direct association with ‘labour’, other than in the fully exploitative sense. Workers may use their labour to produce scientific equipment – but at no time is it explained to the worker what the equipment does, and why it is important. It is assumed a priori that although the worker obviously possesses the ability to manufacture advanced scientific equipment, he or she simultaneously does not possess the intellectual ability to ‘understand’ the bourgeois scientific method. For the worker to ‘decode ‘bourgeois science, its findings, methods and techniques must be re-explained in a practical manner, directly related to the ‘real’ world as the worker experiences it. This is science devoid of its elitist elements and made universal in scope. The working class must find new ways to transcend the bourgeois logical mysticism that permeates that type of science.

Materialism – A Brief Introduction

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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.

 

 

Cutting Through Alan Watt’s Bourgeois Mind-Set

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This gentleman – the Scottish-Canadian Alan Watt – is not to be confused with the British philosopher Alan Watts (1915-1973) whom I have written about elsewhere on this blog. Alan Watt is a ‘free-thinker’ of considerable intellect and ability, who uses the internet to perpetuate his particular brand of ‘conspiracy theory’. As I have noted in other articles debunking and deconstructing various aspect of many conspiracy theories, much of this genre is in the service of the Judeo-Christian tradition (in both its old religious and new secular manifestations), and the bourgeois, capitalist State. In my opinion, the work of Alan Watt is no different, despite his obvious charisma and ability to tell a good story. He makes the cardinal error of unquestioningly following the post-WWII US (Cold War) rhetoric of falsely equating Scientific Socialism (i.e. ‘Communism’) with that of Hitlerite fascism (i.e. ‘Nazism’ and ‘neo-Nazism’). Like virtually all of these kinds of self-proclaimed ‘one man revolutions’, Alan Watt perpetuates the Trotskyite agenda of misrepresenting and misappropriating the work of Karl Marx, in a deliberate attempt to sully the correct thinking of the working class, and ultimately prevent a truly ‘Socialist’ Revolution. He does this by misrepresenting bourgeois liberal (and ‘capitalist’) democracy in the West, as being a combination of fascist AND Socialist control of society. Although it is true that capitalism and fascism are two-sides of the same coin – other than in Cuba – there has never been any successful ‘Socialist’ Revolution in the West that has succeeded in over-throwing the capitalist system. This means that in Europe (and the US) the workers have never succeeded in taking control of the means of production. As the workers have never taken control of the means of production in any Western country, Alan Watt is incorrect in assuming that (Western) local and regional socio-economic and political organisation is ‘Socialist’ in nature. Following the Trotskyite habit of striving to bring-down all Soviet-style Marxist-Leninist thinking, Alan Watt falsely teaches that the oppression of ‘fascism’ is exactly the same as the ‘freedom’ of Scientific Socialism. Whilst claiming that his insight emerges from being well-read, he nevertheless fails to understand that many agencies of social organisation and social control have emerged historically from medieval (ecclesiastical) structures, perpetuated at a time when the feudal Church and monarchial State went hand in glove with one another, and conspired to oppress and direct the masses into acceptable directions of behaviour and activity. Alan Watt is just another peddlar of ‘bourgeois’ individualism with poorly defined anarchist tendencies. He has built-up a large collection of videos and podcasts propagating his particular bourgeois nonsense – even at one point depicting Black Rap music as a ‘conspiracy’ – whilst completely ignoring the obvious ‘anti-racist’ nature of much of its essential content. Like many of his ilk, his thinking is scattered and unfocused, flipping from one subject to another with no real connecting theme (other than denigrating Socialism).

The Trotskyite Sharks Are Circling…

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Politicians of the British political left inhabit a strange world of having to present their leftwing beliefs, whilst constantly batting-off the allegation from the liberal and rightwing press of being ‘Marxists’, or worse still ‘Marxist-Leninists’. The term ‘Socialist’ is tolerated, but the related term of ‘Communist’ definitely is not. Not only does this position demonstrate a certain political illiteracy existing within the British media, but also highlights the fact that the Labour Party – originally founded by Socialists (later termed ‘Communists’) influenced by VI Lenin – has spent much of its existence treading the thin ideological line of purportedly naming itself after a key point of socio-economic analysis carried-out by Karl Marx, whilst simultaneously claiming to have ‘nothing to do’ with Communism. This bipolar existence has led to the Labour Party being infiltrated by Trotskyites – i.e. the followers of the deluded Leon Trotsky – at numerous times in its history, with the so-called ‘militant tendency’ probably being one of the most public expressions of this ‘entryism’. Trotskyites pretend to be ‘revolutionary’ in spirit, and even make use of revolutionary rhetoric, whilst working behind the scenes to attain political power and influence within a capitalist society, by collaborating with that very same capitalist system. Trotskyism, as a consequence, is full of contradictions and bourgeois sentiment designed to mislead the Working Class and divert it away from a truly ‘Marxist-Leninist’ revolution. This collaboration with capitalism and the Bourgeois State, the Trotskyites term ‘Socialism’, and mislead young and old alike into joining this or that ‘Socialist’ movement. This Trotskyite ‘Socialism’ is not ‘Socialism’, but rather a fake bourgeois counterfeit designed to retain the capitalist status quo – whist claiming to the gullible that it has been ‘over-thrown’. Prime examples of this Trotskyite distortion are the various incarnations of the Socialist Party, and the so-called Socialist Workers Party. As the Labour Party proscribes Communists from joining it, the Marxist-Leninist influence is either non-existant, or very well hidden. Many have suggested that ‘Momentum’ – which appears to exist to get Jeremy Corbyn into 10 Downing Street – is simply the latest (and more sophisticated) incarnation of the Trotskyite infiltration (i.e. ‘entryism’) into the Labour Party. As politicians acting within a liberal, democratic, capitalist setting cannot (and do not) advocate the over-throw of the Bourgeois State (and its oppressive capitalism) by the Working Class that suffer because of it, this compromise with Trotskyism dove-tales with ‘realistic’ political expectations premised upon short-term reformism. A politician like Jeremy Corbyn can be presented to appear as an ‘Everyman’, seeming to some to be a Marxist, to others a Trotskyite, and perhaps to a few a ‘Marxist-Leninist’. The point is that he is playing his hand very carefully to include as many people as possible, speaking at a Communist May Day Parade – whilst also serving to inspire the Trotskyite Socialist left. What he actually thinks is difficult to discern, as the one-thing a successful politician must never do in a capitalist system, is give-away exactly what he or she thinks. In the meantime, the Labour Party is being supported by some Marxist-Leninists and rejected by others, but is being universally supported by the Trotskyite ‘Socialist’ movement. This reality may serve to demonstrate the ‘feel’ of the Labour Party in general, and its ideological direction under Jeremy Corbyn inparticular. Why would some Marxist-Leninists support Labour? It can only be an ‘expedient’ move aimed to weaken the ruling classes and (temporarily) improve the living conditions of the Working Class (which has been suffering under a brutal Tory Austerity since 2010). Other Marxist-Leninists reject Labour out of hand, simply because of its Trotskyite tendencies, and unwillingness to ‘over-throw’ capitalism through a direct confrontation. The Trotskyites support Labour because they are quite happy with its collaboration with capitalism and see this very much as a completed ideological project. As a result, the up-turn in Labour’s fortunes is not as important for Marxist-Leninists as it is for Trotskyites, as all Marxist-Leninists know that the bourgeois political system is designed to repeat itself every decade or so, so that the rule of capital is maintained. For the Trotskyites, the assumed (coming) success of Labour will signify the end of a process, whilst the Marxist-Leninists understand that political success and failure within a bourgeois political system is part of an ongoing class antagonism and (historical) dialectical unfolding. This is why the Trotskyite sharks are circling Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, and looking forward to enjoying political power whilst wallowing in capitalist contradiction – the Marxist-Leninists, on the other hand, are working to dialectically finish capitalism off once and for all!

Supporting Leftwing Veganism but Rejecting Vegan Fascism and Intolerance

MarxPortrait-02

I am of the opinion that humanity treats animal life in a generally appalling manner, in one way or another, and that an effective (and moral) manner to confront the ruthless industrialised (capitalist) farming industry, is to refuse to eat meat and fish, drink dairy milk, or wear (or use) any products made from animal products. This is, of course, primarily a dietary response to the 24 hour slaughter industry in the West. There are vegans, vegetarians and a number of diets that ‘limit’ the intake of animal products. Within Chinese Buddhism (or that system which inspires my dietary habits) advocates a strict vegetarian diet for its followers. Ordained Monks and nuns eat a ‘vegan’ diet of plain rice and mixed vegetable, whilst drinking water, certain types of tea, and perhaps soya milk. Devout lay-followers within Chinese Buddhism is also expected to be a ‘vegetarian’, but within the Chinese language, and due to the ‘strictness’ of Chinese Buddhist moral rules, there is no distinction between ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’. Of course, in the UK things are very different, with some so-called ‘Animal Rights’ groups openly engaged in the rhetoric of anti-Chinese racism, and intolerance toward other cultures, as well as some vegan associations (and individuals) actively attacking anyone who does not hold their righting views, or who do not follow their particular dietary habits. Of course, I do not mean to say that ‘everyone’ who is vegan is intolerant to vegetarians or meat-eaters, or routinely practises racism, but some do, advocating an aggressive policy of attack and demean. Furthermore, just because someone is a vegan it does not necessarily follow that they adhere to a leftwing political doctrine – as some vegans manifest a distinctly ‘fascistic’ attitude and behaviour, and can in no way be described as ‘Marxist’, or ‘Marxist-Leninist’. These people ma not eat meat or use animal products, but nevertheless are fully supportive of the destructive capitalist system. The point is that individuals control their own diets and behaviours, and it is completely counter-productive to attempt to ‘force’ people to follow a diet (or political doctrine) that they do not yet understand, or have no reason to follow. The only way to change people for the better is through a non-coercive educational process – and the use of a fascistic forcefulness.  Although I am a vegan-vegetarian, as a Marxist-Leninist, I am continuously striving to peacefully and politically transform the current ‘brutal’ and predatory capitalist system we currently live under as a means to free the British Working Class from the tyranny of bourgeois oppression. Eating meat in the modern era (as Marx Explains in Das Kapital I) is entirely premised upon the industrialisation of farming (prior to this, the European peasantry ate a mostly grain-related diet). Intolerant vegans must stop ‘attacking’ those who do not share their views, and understand that the true enemy of humanity (and animals) is the capitalist system.

Communist University in South London (CUiSL)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

COMMUNIST UNIVERSITY IN SOUTH LONDON

Ruskin House (Croydon)

Communist Party of Britain

Croydon Communists (Blog)

Venue:  Party Centre, (Top Floor) of Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Road, Croydon CR0 1BD

(Please attend these classes if possible, however, as these classes are preceded by a Branch Meeting, please continue to send apologies to croydon@communist-party.org.uk if you cannot attend).

Details Provided By Dr Martin Graham – Branch Secretary:

The Communist University in South London is facilitated by the Croydon (South London) Branch of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), and is held on the 3rd Thursday of each month (possibly excepting August and December), running from 19hrs – 21hrs (with those participating arriving at least 10 minutes before the start time to ensure ‘promptness’ of schedule). The first 30 minutes is taken-up with Branch Meeting details, followed by 90 minutes of educational discussion and debate focused around a specific topic, interpreted through a Marxist-Leninist dialectical analysis. There are no fees or top-down lecturing, with the discussion delivered in a democratic forum open to everyone who wishes to learn about Marxism, and how to apply it, so as to effect change in the world.

 

 

Anti-Corbyn Dark Forces at Work within British Society

Tony-Benn-in-1961-008

There are dark forces at work within the Labour Party, the British media and social media, where people purporting to represent Jeremy Corbyn – are in fact working to undermine him continuously and insidiously. Misrepresenting Marxism in-particularly, and British Socialism generally, is part and parcel of this neo-liberal agenda, which is designed to confuse and deceive the working class – creating the conditions where disempowered and misled workers will vote for anyone, even against their own class interests. Genuine Corbyn supporters should be aware that he was very much mentored in the Labour Party by the great Tony Benn, and anyone with a modicum of common-sense, understands that Karl Marx (1818-1883) is considered a towering intellectual figure whose critique of capitalism cannot be dismissed or ignored by any serious economist or sociologist – although many try to turn a blind eye. Although Socialism existed in its ‘utopic’ (i.e. ‘religious’) form before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels formulated their theory of Scientific Socialism, it was the insightful and creative genius of Karl Marx that thoroughly ripped apart the capitalist system exposing its corrupt core and revealing its festering functionality. In fact, the capitalist classes have never recovered from the sheer historical (and dialectical) intellectual power that Marx unleashed upon the world. This is why the bourgeoisie – that is the ‘middle class’ that owns the means of production – must attack continuously any and all manifestations of Marxism, be it in the Labour Party, or throughout history. The main weapons employed for this task are lying and misrepresentation, as well as character assassination and ‘actual’ assassination (as employed by the CIA). Within social media, if you look carefully, you will see posts on pro-Corbyn sites written by people purportedly ‘supporting’ Jeremy Corbyn, that are in fact engaged in the process of ever so subtly discrediting him and his supporters. Of course, in a typically bourgeois (and hypocritical) manner, this behaviour is tolerated and justified as an exercise in ‘freedom of expression’, and even packaged as the ‘cut and thrust’ of genuine debate, when in fact it is nothing than a concerted attack upon the left, designed to further the neo-liberal cause. Be aware of this behaviour and counter it through direct exposure, for when brought into the light of day, it loses much of its coercive power.

%d bloggers like this: