The Apathetic British Working Class and the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution (2017)


The celebrations regarding the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution that brought Lenin and the (Communist) Bolsheviks to power in 1917, have been ‘muted’ in the UK to say the least. The British working class, compromised and infiltrated as it is by bourgeois Trotskyism, has remained generally apathetic in its recognition and praise for Lenin, with spontaneous (and even ‘planned’) celebrations in favour of Communism, and protests against the oppressive and unjust nature of capitalism, remaining virtually non-existent. The British working class has allowed the ruling bourgeoisie to set the agenda, and has remained ‘quiet’ whilst that bourgeoisie denigrates the memory of the Russian Revolution, suggesting in its usual self-serving middle class manner, that there was something ‘morally’ and ‘historically’ wrong about the Communist Revolution that overthrew its power-base in 1917, and gave the international working class hope. Of course, parody and disinformation from the (bourgeois) rightwing is to be expected, but exactly the same fallacious arguments are also employed by the (bourgeois) left! The British working class, as representatives of the industrialised proletariat, should be setting an entirely ‘positive’ agenda for the celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution, and be agitating against any and all bourgeois attempts at stealing proletariat history, and misconstruing that history for its own nefarious ends. The Russian October Revolution was one of the greatest and most important world events in working class history! Bourgeois attitudes are irrelevant to this fact, simply because the Russian Revolution marks the transcendence of Bourgeois domination and oppression. However, if the British working class does not adequately stand-up for itself, the bourgeoisie will use every deceptive tactic it can to sully the good reputation of the Russian Revolution, and dismiss any relevance it would otherwise have for the working class. The bourgeoisie limits the memory of the Russian Revolution to its broadsheets and its museums – as if it was an event of limited historical import, with no relevance to the modern era. The British working class should stop its association with the corrupting bourgeois ideology of Trotsky, and take its rightful historical place in the world proletariat movement of Marxist-Leninism.

DPRK: Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) Red Flag (Explained)


The Workers’ Party of Korea (WKA) was founded in 1949 (with the support of the Soviet Union) from the merger of a number of Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist groups that covered all parts of Korea (including the South prior to its annexation by the United States).


Its Red Flag represents its historical association with the Soviet Union and contains the usual hammer (representing industrial workers), and a sickle (representing agricultural workers), but also includes a central calligraphy brush traditional to Korean scholarship (representing intellectuals).


This addition to the Soviet Red Flag demonstrates Korea’s intellectual independence from the Soviet ideologues (despite their important historical association), and represents Korea’s unique departure from the more formal strictures of Marxist-Leninism. In many ways, the North Koreans interpret their Juche philosophy as an ‘improvement’ or ‘progression’ of Marxist-Leninist thinking – although this is a contested issue. The Juche philosophy views humanity as the driving force of history (and not ‘class’), a humanity that must be led by a strong military (for self-defence purposes).


Although Western narratives try to shoe-horn Juche into Stalinism (suggesting that Stalinism was a departure from Marxist-Leninism) this is incorrect on both counts.


Stalin did not depart from Marxist-Leninism – but did have to apply this ideology during the most extraordinary of situations in the world. Similarly – Korean Juche – has nothing to do with the Soviet system – but is a unique Asian adaptation of Marxist-Leninism – perhaps involving a secular Confucian influence (hence the scholar’s brush). Whatever the case, the North Koreans have a right to self-defence and self-determination. Regardless of North Korea’s development of its own pathway – as a nation it still considers itself part of the International Communist Movement – and I have personally seen North Korean delegations visit the grave of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery on the anniversary of his death in march of each year (usually accompanying Communist Chinese representatives).

Chinese Language References:朝鲜劳动党

Communist University in South London (CUiSL)



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 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.



Paul Robeson (Поль Робсон): A Full Human-Being in the USSR!


“In (Soviet) Russia, I felt for the first time like a full human being – no colour prejudice like in Mississippi – no colour prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being!” – Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson at Russian Embassy Party
















London: May Day March (1.5.2017)


Thousands of people (holding various and diverse leftwing political views) converged upon the Clerkenwell Green area of Farringdon (opposite the Marx Memorial Library), to celebrate ‘labour’ and the ‘solidarity’ of the international working class. This is one of the few events that gathers Trotskyites and Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and bourgeois leftists together in equal number. As usual the parasitic (Trotskyite) Socialist Workers Party set-up its stalls outside of all major public transport exits, as a means to give-out its propaganda leaflets and placards to unsuspecting marchers. These marchers (who are not members of the SWP, and probably do not support Trotskyite revisionism) then unwittingly carry this SWP nonsense for free, whilst the SWP members never participate in the marches they infiltrate. When the march starts off, the SWP stalls are quickly shut-up and moved to the end location of the march – where the deceitful SWP anti-Marxist-Leninist indoctrination begins all over again!  This diversity of leftism is evident in the many different groups all trying to sell their various magazines and journals to one another’s followers, often failing unless given-out for free. Many wander about elucidating on this or that matter, often espousing bourgeois leftist rhetoric, rather than any genuine Scientific Socialist understanding. On the other hand, if you listen carefully to some of the older people, true leftwing Socialist and Communist understanding is evident. What is one of the defining points of London’s May Day March is that many people from abroad attend simply to be in the city that Karl Marx lived within, and wrote much of his defining theory. The British leftwing is not united in the traditional sense, but split into many factions all striving to establish hegemony over the Scientific Socialist middle ground, each with their own unique take upon current dialectical interpretation. The Labour Party. for instance, is a sticking point for the Communist left. Being a bourgeois revisionist out-fit that has often (historically) betrayed the very working class it has claimed to represent, the Communist left (such as the Communist Party of Great Britain – Marxist-Leninist and the Revolutionary Communist Group) is generally scathing about its history, its capitalist friendly policies, its middle class tendencies and the behaviour of its current MPs, (quite rightly pointing-out Labour’s imperialist and revisionist priorities). Other elements, such as the Communist Party of Britain (often just called the ‘Communist Party’), has retained a historical link with the Unions, and through the Unions – the Labour Party (despite the fact that the Labour Party prohibits Communists being members of it as individuals, and has rejected the idea of the Communist Party formerly affiliating with it in the past). The irony here, is that many CPB members do not support the Labour Party due to its bourgeois, capitalist embracing policies, despite the fact that the CPB leadership has called upon its members to support Jeremy Corbyn (and by default the Labour Party he leads) in the upcoming 2017 General Election. If Trotskyism is removed from the picture (due to its collaboration with capitalism and fascism), then it has to be said that each faction of the British Communist Movement manifests an important and valid aspect of the complete dialectical truth. The Labour Party is bourgeois and revisionist, but it also remains the only and most likely vehicle for Socialists and Communists to be elected into Parliament, but this is a subject that each individual must carefully think about and decide for themselves. Today, at least, the whole world met in London and marched together!




































The Demise of Fascist Trotsky (1940)


The United States Embraced Rightwing Trotskyism 

‘A man descended into the grave, whose name is scorned and cursed by the working people all over the world, a man who for many years fought against the cause of the working class and its vanguard – the Bolshevik party. The ruling classes of the capitalist countries lost their faithful servant. Foreign intelligence agencies lost their long-term, material agent, the organizer of the killers, who did not squeamish by any means to achieve their counter-revolutionary goals.’

Pravda, August 24th, 1940


Evidence: Mountaineering Ice-Pick that Killed Trotsky in Mexico

‘The victory of the imperialists of Britain and France will be no less terrible for the main destinies of mankind than the victory of Hitler and Mussolini.’

Fourth International Manifesto – A New World War – Leon Trotsky

When Leon Trotsky was expelled from the USSR in 1929, he initially stayed in Turkey, and then moved on to France, Norway and before being granted a visa to settle in Mexico (issued in December, 1936). Despite a leftwing Revolution in Mexico in 1910, even by 1937, Mexico did have any diplomatic relations with the USSR, and this fact meant that the Soviet Union could not directly assert any diplomatic pressure to confine Trotsky’s counter-revolutionary activities, or to threaten Trotsky with deportation. Prior to this, the countries of Europe had moved Trotsky around following political pressure from the USSR, but although the bourgeois capitalist system (encouraged by the USA) had embraced Trotskyism as a means to fragment the solidarity of the international working class and bring down the (Marxist-Leninist) USSR – the United States government continuously refused to grant Trotsky a visa from 1933 onwards, on the grounds that he would interfere in the internal workings of the USA (Trotsky had in fact tried to make the case that he should be granted visas on health grounds, and/or to lecture at the University of North Carolina – both grounds being firmly rejected). As the Spanish Civil War began in 1936, the Socialist (and democratically elected) Republican government was forced to take-on the fascist forces of General Franco (supported by Hitler and Mussolini). The Soviet Union organised a world-wide volunteer force (the ‘International Brigades’) to support the Spanish Republican forces, but a number of Anarchist militia groups – ostensibly opposing any form of official government – openly opposed the Soviet Union and its ideology of Marxist-Leninism (but avoided any direct criticism and confrontation with the fascist forces). These Anarchists militias generally aligned themselves with the Trotskyite movement and deliberately worked for the downfall of the Socialist Republican government (one famous Anarchist militia contained the British Trotskyite known as George Orwell – who wrote a number of books criticising the Soviet Union – such as Animal Farm, and 1984). From 1935 onwards, Trotsky began his campaign advocating a ‘Fourth International’ as a direct ideological means to denigrate and demean the ‘Third International’ as devised by VI Lenin in 1919 (the latter of which called for an international ‘Communist’ Revolution in all countries) – the Third International was eventually dissolved by Joseph Stalin in 1943 as a sign of good faith toward the Western ‘capitalist’ countries that were the allies of the Soviet Union against Nazi German military aggression at the time. Trotsky, however, decided to steer his idea of ‘Revolution’ for his ‘Fourth International’ in the direction of collaborating with fascism, and accommodating the excesses of capitalism. At the Founding Congress of the Fourth International (in 1938), Trotsky stated that there was no difference between the Marxist-Leninist USSR, the capitalist (democratic) countries, and the fascist countries of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. This being the case, Trotsky continued, there was no reason for the Trotskyite Fourth International to openly oppose capitalism or fascism, but that the main enemy was the USSR (which must be brought-down through continuous negative propaganda). Trotsky, as a supporter of fascism (and opposer of the USSR), even wrote into the Manifesto of the Fourth International, that the Trotskyite ideology preferred a victory of world fascism over the democratic countries. In reality this was nothing new from Trotsky, as his ideological background was within the Menshevik movement and never Marxist-Leninism. Trotsky only aligned himself with the Bolshevik movement when it was obvious that Lenin was about to come to power. As matters transpired, Trotsky termed his ‘revisionist’ and ‘reactionary’ ideology to be ‘Socialist’ (thereby hi-jacking the legitimate Marxist term and causing confusion in the mind’s of the workers), and at the Founding Congress, representatives from over 30 countries attended – with the Socialist Workers Party of the USA being perhaps the strongest contingent.


NKVD Agent Ramon Mercader (left) Killed Trotsky (right) in 1940

Following the defeat of Marxist-Leninist Socialism at the end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939, which correlated with the powerful rise of international fascism, the Soviet Union acknowledged that the divisive nature of Trotskyism had prevented the working class from effectively uniting and defeating fascism in Spain, and because of this weakness, was allowing fascism to successfully spread throughout the societies of the world. This attitude was prompted by the expressed Trotskyite opinion that in a war between the Western (capitalist) countries and the fascist (capitalist) countries, Leon Trotsky preferred a fascist victory (this was even the case when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, with Trotsky advocating ‘collaboration’ with the fascist invaders). This perspective of Trotsky corresponded with his racist disregard for the Chinese Communist movement and its Revolutionary intentions and activities. As Trotsky was working to establish a different kind of watered-down Socialism in the West (and elsewhere), a decision was taken within the USSR to terminate the life of Leon Trotsky as a ‘class enemy’. This was considered a legitimate ‘Revolutionary act’ as a means to protect the international working class from the genocidal excesses of the fascist governments around the world. Trotsky survived a machine-gun attack on his home, but on August 20th, 1940, Leon Trotsky arranged a meeting (at 1720hrs) with under-cover NKVD agent Ramon Mercader – who had infiltrated the Trotskyite community by pretending he had written a ground-breaking article in support of Trotskyism. As Trotsky began to read, Ramon Mercader produced an ice-pick hidden within the lining of his jacket, and hit Trotsky in the back of the head – and then tried to finish the job by strangulation – but Trotsky’s bodyguards entered the room and began to beat Ramon Mercader to death. However, as Trotsky was still conscious, he ordered that Ramon Mercader’s life be spared. Despite being taken to hospital, Leon Trotsky died from his wound at 0735hrs, on August 21st, 1940. Ramon Mercader was a member of the Communist Party of Spain who was a major in the Republican army, and fought in the battle of Guadalajara. He was recruited by the Soviet NKVD in Spain during 1938,  and began his covert intelligence work. After assassinating Trotsky in 1940, Ramon Mercader was tortured and abused for several weeks before his trial, but did not reveal his NKVD membership, the names of those who assisted him, or his connection with the USSR. His trial ended with Ramon Mercader being sentenced to 20 years imprisonment without parole, and when he was released in 1960, he was deported to the Soviet Union. Once in the Soviet Union, he was granted Soviet Citizenship (under the name ‘Ramon Ivanovich Lopez’) and was awarded the ‘Hero of the Soviet Union’ medal, the ‘Order of Lenin’ medal, and the ‘Gold Star’ medal. In Moscow, Mercader worked as a senior research fellow at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism through the Central Committee of the CPSU. Since October 1974 he was in Cuba, where with the rank of general, he was an adviser to the Cuban Ministry of the Interior. He died in Havana on October 18, 1978 from a sarcoma. He was buried in Moscow at the Kuntsevo cemetery under the name of Ramon Ivanovich Lopez.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Russian Language Sources:Убийство_Троцкого


Gay Communism Goes West

A cursory examination of the lyrics of the Pet Shop Boys (PSB) reveals a familiarity with Marxist critique – perhaps even a Marxist-Leninist critique.  Of course, VI Lenin- the founder of the Bolsheviks and the inspiration behind the 1917 Russian Revolution – was one of the first world leaders to de-criminalise homosexuality (around 1918), and it is obvious that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (the founders of modern Scientific Socialism) would have had no tolerance for the fabricated and sentimentalised hypocrisy of the pretence that is bourgeois ‘morality’.  The PSBs are obviously politically aware, and although I cannot speak for them, or have any knowledge of their political views, it is interesting that in their 1992 ‘Go West’ cover of the Village People classic, they seem to be suggesting that Soviet Communism should spread Westward, and create heaven on earth.  They got away with this because a year earlier, the Soviet Union had been voted out of existence by a Western-backed counter-revolution in Russia.  One of the PSB’s commented that the song ‘Go West’ sounds suspiciously like the Soviet National Anthem, and indeed it does.  The beginning of this video has the Swedish inscription:

Rappad Av Rosa Mannen

Which translates as:

Ripped Pink Man

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

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

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

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



Was Ho Chi Minh a Taiwanese Hakka?


Original Chinese Language Article By: Chinese History & Literature Institute (中華文史學會)

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

The name of ‘Ho Chi Minh’ (胡志明 – Hu Zhi Ming) is a very familiar name in Vietnam, Taiwan, Mainland China, and through the Chinese diaspora.  In fact the name Ho Chi Minh is held in the same respect as that of Sun Yat-Sen (孫中山 – Sun Zhong Shan).  He handled, fought and then defeated the imperialist Japanese and French regimes in Vietnam, and successfully steered Communist North Vietnam toward a final victory over the imperialist forces of the Western, democratic camp.

In 1930, Ho Chi Minh established the Indochinese Communist Party (which later became known as the Vietnamese Labour Party, and then the Communist Party of Vietnam).  In 1941, Ho Chi Minh founded the ‘Viet Minh’ (越南獨立同盟會 – Yue Nan Du Li Tong Meng Hui) – also referred to as the ‘Union of Vietnam’ (越盟 – Yue Meng).  Following Japan’s defeat in 1945, Ho Chi Minh led the Viet Minh as a Revolutionary Army, and unified the whole of geographical Vietnam under a single Vietnamese rule.  On September 2nd, 1945, Ho Chi Minh formally declared the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.   As the Republic of China had sent around 180,000 Chinese troops into Vietnam (to disarm the defeated Japanese), the Democratic Republic of Vietnam arranged its government along Kuomingtang lines – with a ‘Nationalist’ faction and a ‘Communist’ faction working together (later, the Nationalist faction would be liquidated, with its members fleeing to South Vietnam where it formed a ‘puppet’ government backed by the USA – becoming the ‘Republic of Vietnam’).  Ho Chi Minh set about ruling a united nation until the French colonialist troops landed on the 17th parallel (separating Vietnam into ‘North’ and ‘South’ sections) – and initiating the First Vietnam (or ‘Indochina’) War.  A major player in these events was Ho Chi Minh.

In the records of the Communist Party of Vietnam (supported from evidence from Communist Parties around the world), Ho Chi Minh was born into a Vietnamese family of Confucian scholars.  In the Chinese language, Ho Chi Minh is known as ‘Ruan Ai Guo’ (阮愛國).  This is pronounced in Vietnamese as ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’.  Ho Chi Minh was born in 1890, in the Nghe An province of Vietnam.  Nguyen Ai Quoc joined the Communist Party of France in 1923, and through this action came into contact with Zhou Enlai (周恩來) of the Communist Party of China.  At this time, Nguyen Ai Quoc also joined the Communist Party of China.  He then travelled to the Soviet Union in 1923, at the same time that Sun Yat-Sen in China had begun negotiations with the Communist faction – moving the Kuomingtang to the left.  Part of this policy included the founding of the new officer training centre at the Whampoa Military Academy.  Whilst living in Guangzhou, China, Nguyen Ai Quoc founded the Marxist-Leninist ‘Vietnam Revolutionary Youth League’.   This led to many momentous events within history, and during the Anti-Japanese War, Nguyen Ai Quoc changed his name to the famous ‘Ho Chi Minh’.  He founded North Vietnam and the North Vietnamese Army that defeated the French, before he passed away during North Vietnam’s successful war against the US.

Above is the generally accepted historical narrative for Ho Chi Minh in the East, but now there is a dissenting voice from Taiwan that claims that the man the world knows as ‘Ho Chi Minh’ is not Vietnamese, but rather a Taiwanese Hakka.  This idea has been voiced by Mr Hu Junxiong (胡俊熊) from Miaoli County – who has written an excellent scholarly work entitled ‘Research into Ho Chi Minh’s Biography’ (胡志明生平考 – Hu Zhi Ming Sheng Ping Kao).  Hu Junxiong correctly states that ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc was an important Communist innovator in Vietnam, and Ho Chi Minh must be considered the Socialist founding father of the modern Vietnamese nation.’  However, he then goes onto state that ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc is not Ho Chi Minh.’  What does he mean by this statement?

In this book, Hu Junxiong states that within his family there was a Communist hero named Hu Jizhang (胡集璋).  During the era of the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, Hu Jizhang was a member of the Communist Party of Taiwan.  In this book, there is the presentation of much archived newspaper articles, reports, important biographical material, and details of his imprisonment.  After his release from prison, Hu Jizhang fled Taiwan and travelled to Guangzhou in China. It is here that Hu Jizhang was ordered to assume the identity of ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ to further the Communist Revolution in Vietnam (and Indochina) along Soviet lines.  In the early 1930’s he was recognised as a prominent member of the Third Communist International.  This book states that records in Moscow have revealed that the real ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ in fact died of tuberculosis in 1924.  However, history also shows that ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ again appears on the world stage in 1931 as a member of the Communist Party of China, and a builder of Marxist-Leninist movements in Vietnam.  This culminated in the founding of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and Nguyen Ai Quoc was sent to the Soviet Union for advanced study – this is known through Soviet records, which include identity photographs.


Hu Jizhang – Communist Party of Taiwan Report

When the Japanese imperialists invaded East Asia – Nguyen Ai Quoc first took on the pseudonym ‘Hu Guang’ (胡光), and then later ‘Ho Chi Minh’.  At this point it is important for the reader to understand that the Chinese surname ‘胡’ is usually pronounced ‘Hu’ within Chinese culture, and ‘Ho’ within Vietnam, and is a common Hakka surname in Taiwan.  The theory in the book is that ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ later reverted to his real family name of ‘Hu’, or ‘Ho’.

There is discussion in the book about a visit by Ho Chi Minh and a number of other officials, after Independence, to meet the (pre-revolutionary period) wife of ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ (it is unclear whether it was in China or Vietnam), but it was reported that when this lady set eyes on ‘Ho Chi Minh’, she stated that she did not know this man.  It is interesting to note that ‘Ho Chi Minh’ seems to be ‘unknown’ amongst the ordinary people – even those who supposedly knew ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ quite well.  A close examination of a photograph of ‘Nguyen Ai Quoc’ taken in France in 1923, and a photograph of ‘Ho Chi Minh’ taken in Moscow in 1924, reveal a number of differences, including the eyes and ears.

apf2320090414101825105      apf2320090413064345211

This book investigates interesting questions about whether Ho Chi Minh was a Taiwanese Hakka, or an ethnic Vietnamese?  It also keeps alive the memory of Hu Jizhang and the Taiwanese Communist Party that was eradicated by the Nationalists when they took control of the island.  It also offers narratives about the ‘disappearance’ of Hu Jizhang, and draws attention to the many vagaries surrounding the life of Ho Chi Minh.

This is an excellent piece of historical research by Mr Hu Junxiong that links old Taiwan to modern Vietnam, and Taiwanese Hakka to ethnic Vietnamese culture.  This suggests that other people should research their own family history and bring to light new and interesting information that helps build a better understanding of history and historical events.  I suspect that in time more information will come to light about the assumed connection between Hu Jizhang and Ho Chi Minh.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.

Original Chinese Language Source Article:、yuegongdizaozhe–huzhimingshitaiwanjikejiaren



胡志明 (Hồ Chí Minh),這個名字是全體越南人再熟悉不過的稱謂,就差不多像台灣、大陸地區與海外華僑心底的國父 孫中山先生一樣的地位。



就越南共產黨官方與世界上所有共產黨的資料都顯示胡志明的原名是阮愛國 (Nguyễn Ái Quốc)是出生在1890年的越南義安省的學者家庭。阮愛國最早在1923年加入法國共產黨,依此與中國共產黨的周恩來有了聯繫。此時的阮愛國也加入了中共,並在中國國民黨仿效蘇聯黨軍化、納共化(中共黨員加入國民黨,即第一次國共合作時期)時,成為了陸軍軍官學校(黃埔軍校)的教職人員。在中國廣州的同時,他也組織了一個叫做越南青年革命同志會的同鄉會。等等經歷許多歷史事件與歷程後,此時的阮愛國已於抗戰時改名為”胡志明”,並開始建黨、建軍、建國,最終帶領北越人民參與抗法戰爭,最終因病辭世。

但在台灣有人開始提出了反對意見,他就是苗栗客家的胡俊熊先生。他寫了一本名作【胡志明生平考】的籍冊,當中主要說明著 :「阮愛國是越南共產的先驅,而胡志明是社會主義越南的建國者……」在這裡看起來胡俊熊是沒有錯的,但其內涵表示著”阮愛國不等於胡志明”。這是怎麼回事呢 ?



後來在日本侵略東亞之時,這一個”阮愛國”開始化名為”胡光”,且在接下來的所有假名都是以”胡”做為姓氏。最後到抗戰後期,他化名作”胡志明”。在我們台灣人眼中這有著神奇的韻味,就是他竟然叫作”志明”,這不是台灣男性中最普遍的名字嗎 ? 他取這個名字後就再也不化名,不取假名了。就以”胡志明”作為真正性命使用下去。



不過就筆者言,仔細一瞧阮愛國於1923年的照片與1924年的胡志明照片竟然有些許差別,像是在眼神方面、頭型方面,最明顯的是耳朵的部分。如下 :



Why China is Important for World Revolution

Long Live Marxist-Leninist, and Mao Zedong Thought!

Long Live Marxist-Leninist, and Mao Zedong Thought!

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: