Algebraic Formula for the Achievement of Communism (i.e. ‘Scientific Socialism’)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A mathematical formula is believed to ‘prove’ something to be logically correct through reasoned argument. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that they had discovered and developed a new kind of social science applicable to the capitalist, industrialised world. As a ‘science’ opposed to a faith-base religion, utopian Socialism or sets of superstitious beliefs, the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels, provided an ‘objective’ observation of the material world (in its socio-economic and political-cultural manifestation), whilst operating a predictive model of changes yet to come, premised firmly upon concrete existential conditions. This is a model of the world free of religious speculation or any form of ‘inverted’ thinking – where thoughts generated in the head are mistaken for actual objects (or processes) in the material world. Once this inverted mind-set (which existed for millennia prior to the emergence of rational thought in humans), is the reason why people have believed in non-existent gods and spirits, built their entire lives on these empty beliefs, and have been prepared to murder one another as a means to ‘prove’ whose ‘inverted’ mind-set is better than all the others. This switch from imagination to the objective observation of the real world and the processes that operate through it, is the foundational premise of the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. The mind is not ignored or negated in this model, but assumes its correct and pristine function of ‘reflecting’ external conditions within, whilst being able to initiate modes of behaviour (through patterns of progressive and non-inverted thought), that modify and/or sustain various modes of operation or functionality in the material world. The human mind is shaped by external conditions, and given the correct development, also serves to transform the external world (through advanced modes of well-considered behaviour or manifest ‘labour’ in various types). Assuming the correctness of this Marx-Engels (and by extrapolation ‘Marx-Lenin’), the ‘correctness’ of Karl Marx’s understanding can be expressed in a succinct mathematical formula in the following manner.

Key:

Communism = K (Kommunism)

History = Passing Time (pt)

Matter = Social Constructs (sc)

Conscious Awareness = Human Perception (hp)

The long formula reads:

Communism (k) = History (passing time) x Matter (social constructs) ÷ Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

K = H x M  – (which is the shorter version of K = pt x sc)

C                                                                            hp

Conscious awareness (i.e. ‘human perception’) is intimately entwined with physical matter, and indeed is a result of matter that has become aware of its own existence during the evolutionary developmental process. Soviet literature quite rightly referred to this process as a ‘special arrangement of matter’. As a consequence, conscious awareness is ‘divided’ throughout all the sensory universe without exception, providing there are no illnesses or injuries that interfere with the cognitive process, and the individual is alive. With the death of the brain and body, the conscious awareness in its ordinary sense, ceases to function and the individual concerned no longer directly influences the world, through thought and behaviour. However, an individual may continue to assert an influence of sorts upon the world, through his or her deeds whilst alive, and the manner in which the living hold the memory of the deceased. For instance, it can be reasonably argued that the memory of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin – to mention just three Communist Revolutionaries – live on with a considerable ‘power’ or ‘force’ in the minds (and behaviours) of others – and yet all three are now dead. Human consciousness, when freed from an inverted functionality, takes its place to correctly reflect the world as it actually is, rather than in a manner premised upon wishful thinking and imagination. No imaginary ‘god’ is going to rescue the Working Class, simply because such a god is a fabrication manufactured by the very same Middle Class that oppresses the workers. This is why the workers must train their minds to ‘see through’ the bourgeois religious myth, and strive to achieve in the physical world, a Proletariat Revolution which transforms the material conditions of that world away from mythology and toward a collective Scientific Socialism.

As Trotskyism is a bourgeois attitude pretending to support ‘Socialism’, its adherents, whilst appearing to confront and protest various aspects of the capitalist system, are in reality supporting the foundation of the capitalist system (seeking power and influence through selfish compromises here and there), whilst opposing Marxist-Leninism, and the achievement of any genuine Communist Revolution. This Trotskyite opposition to a Marxist-Leninist Revolution may be expressed through a slightly modified version of the above mathematical formula.

The Long Formula reads:

Trotskyite Socialism (ts) = History (passing of time) x Matter (social constructs) – Conscious Awareness (human perception)

Or more succinctly:

TS = (H x M) – C – which is the shorter for of TS = (pt x sc) – hp

As the Trotskyites refuse to dialectically participate in the Marxist-Leninist process toward a transformation of the physical world through a Communist Revolution, it can be stated that the Trotskyite approach is ‘unscientific’ and represents a ‘negation’ or ‘withdrawal’ of a correctly focused Revolutionary consciousness. Therefore, the Trotskyites exist to preserve the capitalist system as it exists (i.e. through the passing of time, the capitalist socio-economic constructs remain unchanged), and exercise a deliberately ‘falsified’ state of mind that remains ‘inverted’ and thoroughly bourgeois in essence, and which mimics the Communist Revolutionary spirit – whilst rejecting the very ideology that underlies this spirit. The above formula is straight forward and designed for anyone to understand why the Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin is a mathematical (scientific) fact, and why Trotskyism is simply another aspect of the bourgeois preference for capitalism, and a false vehicle for securing power in an oppressive system. In other words, Trotskyism is not ‘scientific’ and should be abandoned by the International Working class, as being an ideology that is against its best class interests. Finally, with perhaps the exception of the Socialist Albert Einstein, the bourgeois academic system, wedded as it is to the capitalist system, refuses to recognise the ‘scientific’ nature of Marxism (and Marxist-Leninism), and heap scorn and derision upon it. It may well be that Marxist-Leninists represent the most advanced human-beings on the earth to date, and that the persecution such people suffer from the establishment, is tantamount to the persecution Galileo faced from the Roman Catholic Church, when he dared to reject the ‘inverted’ teachings of theology, and to state that the earth was round and travelled around the sun! As workers, we must learn all the important facts discovered by the bourgeois establishment, whilst developing our own proletariat science and mathematics.

China: Myths Surrounding the Anti-Sparrow Campaign (1958)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A Typical Sparrow Hunt

The West is awash with (primarily US-derived) Anti-China (and anti-Communist) stories, that depict Mao Zedong as an insane leader of a racially inferior and morally deficient Chinese race. Furthermore, so these maniacal narratives inform, but so stupid was this policy that 40 million Chinese died of a result of a famine caused by an influx of insects (which were no longer eaten by the sparrows). Even if the more obviously race-hate related issues are removed from these fictional narratives, the fact remains that it is the details contained within this mosaic of distortion, that provides the ‘accepted’ version of events in the West. The primary myths are:

  1. Mao Zedong was an insane dictator – not true – he was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China – which practised centralised democracy, and which regularly elected delegates to sit on various committees from the local level up to the national government. Just as ‘capitalism’ cannot be voted-out in the West (through the liberal, democratic process), ‘Communism’ cannot be voted-out in China (through the elections associated with centralised democracy).
  2. Communist China practises an insane type of ideology that is illogical – not true – Communist China pursues the path of ‘Scientific Socialism’, which advocates the society is governed solely by secular science and evolutionary theory. This approach rejects religious theology and ignorant superstitions as political ideologies as they arise from an ‘inverted’ bourgeois mind-set that has its origin in the false idea that a ‘god’ construct (or disembodied ‘thought’ in the head), created all of reality. Scientific development is for everyone and everything within a ‘Communist’ society, and not just the privileged or chosen few as is the case in bourgeois, capitalist societies.
  3. Mao Zedong conceived and initiated an insane agricultural policy in 1958 that ultimately led to a famine that killed millions – not true – not only was there no famine (an opposite reality to that suggested by various skewed bourgeois accounts), but Mao Zedong was not responsible for this policy.
  4. The Chinese people are an inferior race that act in a stupid and sub-ordinate manner to the superior ‘White’ race – not true – not only has science (particularly the genetics part of it) proven the fallacy of ‘race’ as a biological entity, but Karl Marx pointed-out that the bourgeoisie – the middle class that owns the means of production and which exploits the workers – invented the notions of ‘race’ and ‘nationalism’ as a means to keep the Working Class from uniting. It achieves this by instilling a sense of racial discrimination in the minds of the workers, so that various groups of proletariat spend their time fighting one another, rather than targeting the real architects of all their troubles – the bourgeoisie.
  5. Western agriculture does not use dangerous chemicals to kill and control insects, birds and rodents, as a means to keep designated ‘vermin’ off of farming land – not true – the capitalist Western farmers (which manufacture food for profit and not the well-being of humanity), use dangerous chemicals and highly questionable farming methods to kill insects and other animals all the time.
  6. Mao Zedong hated animals – not true – Mao Zedong (and his family) had been associated with Buddhism, and as a consequence of its proscription against harming any living creature, Mao was not naturally in favour of hurting animals.
  7. A final salient point is that whether in the capitalist West, or Communist China – exactly the same agricultural science is pursued (albeit driven by different motivations and objectives), that aims to maximise yield and minimise waste. In this pursuit, the profit driven West has come in for criticism over many decades, for its environmentally unfriendly policies, animal cruelty and poorly researched genetic modification of crops. Communist China, on the other hand, is well known throughout the world today for its sustainable farming methods, and regulations to protect farm-animal welfare.

From an academic position, however, virtually all these assumptions are incorrect and lacking any genuine Chinese language source material or references. As this is the case, this article references ‘three’ Chinese language papers, all covering different aspects of the 1958 anti-sparrow campaign. As most Western sources are bias and deficient, this article will provide the historical facts as experienced and preserved within Chinese academic sources.

The name of the 1958 ‘anti-sparrow campaign’ in the Chinese language is expressed as ‘打麻雀运动’ (Dǎ máquè yùndòng), – ‘Attack Sparrow Movement’ – or as ‘消灭麻雀运动 ‘ (Xiāomiè máquè yùndòng), which translates as ‘Eradicate the Sparrow Movement’. This campaign was part of the broader ‘Great Leap Forward’, which was announced by Mao Zedong during February, 1958 (and was planned to run until 1962). Four ‘pests’ or ‘vermin’ had been identified by the Chinese government as severely interfering with farming in China, and the production of good or ample harvests (particularly in relation to grains and cereals). To be eliminated alongside the sparrows were the rats, flies and mosquitoes. Although controlling or eradicating animals, birds and insects deemed ‘pests’ in the West is common-place (usually through the use of dangerous chemicals), China’s similar policy is treated with a racist scorn that ignores all the facts.  For instance, attributing this policy to Mao Zedong is historically and politically incorrect. On January 18, 1957, an article was published in the ‘Beijing Daily’, authored by the then Deputy Minister for Education – the renowned biologist – Zhou Jianren (周建人) and entitled ‘Do Not Doubt that the Sparrow is a Harmful Bird’ (雀是害鸟无须怀疑 – Què shì hài niǎo wúxū huáiyí). Zhou Jianren, speaking with the authority of a biologist, stated that the ‘Sparrows are a threat to farming, and should be eradicated without hesitation.’ This caused a debate at the highest levels of the government, with Mao Zedong being given different advice. On the one hand there was Zhou Jianren, who advocated ‘revolutionary’ action against the sparrows, whilst on the other, there were advisers (such as Zhu Xi – 朱洗) quite rightly stated that in different places and times in the West (including Czarist Russia, the USA and Australia) this kind of farming experiment had already been tried – and it had failed every-time. However, although Mao Zedong was not completely sure about this policy, (in his youth, Mao had advised peasants not to kill their oxen so that rich people could eat beef, but instead to keep them alive and well-fed to work as ‘living tractors’ for work on the land), others argued that the West had failed due to its decadence and emphasis upon selfish individualism, and that China could succeed due to its collectivist attitude and ideal of serving others. As matters transpired, the anti-sparrow policy did go ahead, but despite killing tens of millions of birds, the species simply managed to survive and adapt. Mao Zedong himself called a halt to the anti-sparrow campaign on March 16, 1960, switching to a policy of eradicating bed-bugs. This policy reversal was a result of the general insect population growing beyond normal bounds because the sparrows were no longer eating them. As regards the lies of huge famines, in reality people were eating the millions of sparrows that had been killed, providing a useful source of meat protein. At the time, this practice was wide-spread (until Mao effectively ‘protected’ the sparrows in early 1960), with the added bonus that sparrow meat was known to cure sore throats and chest infections.

Chinese Language References:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/打麻雀运动

http://thaishin.blog.163.com/blog/static/254535772010111143625917/

http://pansci.asia/archives/97876

Pol Pot (in Chinese Sources): How It All Went Wrong

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Pol Pot (1925-1998)

It is a simple and obvious fact that the greed for profit (i.e. predatory capitalism), kills people every single day, and in many different ways. Its victims are uncountable, and the manner of their deaths varies greatly from starvation, thirst, war, disease, injury, sexual exploitation, child abuse, homelessness, violence, poor education, misogyny, racism, homophobia, ageism, psychological programming (and brain-washing), physical exploitation and general medical neglect, to mention just some methods that the division of labour generates. However, as the capitalists benefit from this method of economic organisation, these deaths are portrayed as being the result of the individual (or group) concerned, and not the fault of the capitalist system. Those that die from the deliberate excesses of the capitalist system are deemed to have done something wrong, or otherwise be ‘deficient’ in some fundamental manner. It is this mythical ‘deviation’ from the expected norms of capitalism that is blamed for the deaths, and never capitalism itself. As a result, those that control the capitalist system sleep soundly in their beds at night, and keep a ruthless control of the very system that oppresses the majority entirely for the material benefit of the few. Although the ongoing death-toll is probably in the hundreds of millions, capitalists never acknowledge the true extent of their crimes. What capitalists do, however. is continuously attack any attempt at evolving the capitalist system into a Socialist or Communist system. It does this by ‘projecting’ the hideous nature of its own crimes upon any attempt to reform society and curb the excesses perpetuated by capitalism. In other words, this inverted mind-set (as Marx called it), is projected outward and used to demonise any attempt at building Socialism and Communism. Indeed, this rhetorical approach has been the basis for the entire US-led Cold War era since 1945, with the Soviet Union being equated with the Nazi German enemy it confronted and destroyed (at a terrible cost), and Communist China viewed as being ‘racially’ inferior and its Socialist system the product of a devious Asian mind. As a consequence, as basic academic research confirms, the Cold War lies told by the West amount to nothing more than the capitalist system protecting itself from its own demise via an evolutionary phase of Socialistic development. The price for this accomplished state of capitalist arrested development, is that of historical truth. Although this can be remedied over-time, it is a fact that requires acknowledgement as a crucial first stage to dialectical recuperation.

Working from Russian and Chinese language sources, I have discovered over and over again how the US lied continuously about the USSR and Communist China, accusing each expression of Socialism as being murderous, unnatural and against the apparent ‘natural’ human compulsion for greedy accumulation. As a matter of dialectical consistency, I have pondered the enigma of ‘Pol Pot’ (波尔布特 – Bo Er Bu Te), for sometime. My initial thoughts were that his Khmer Rouge (i.e. Communist Party of Cambodia) was somehow caught-up in this Western misrepresentation of all Socialistic Revolutions, happenings and events. My general rule of thumb is not to trust mainstream English language sources, as these are the very conveyors of the dialectical ‘non-truth’ that I am attempting to deconstruct. As Pol Pot was an ally of Communist China, I decided to focus my efforts upon Mainland Chinese academic sources, and to avoid the US-friendly Taiwanese equivalents. (For my article on Pol Pot derived from from Russian sources, please see: Pol Pot (in Russian sources) An Assessment of Conditioned Events). Much to my initial surprise, I discovered that ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ Mainland Chinese language sources all conveyed the general history of the political development of the individual known as ‘Pol Pot’ (formerly known as ‘Saloth Sar), all agreeing that despite his genuine motivation for Revolution, and close association with Communist China (including Mao Zedong), he committed immense crimes against the Cambodian people in a very short space of time (coming to power in 1975 and being ousted in 1979). The irony is that Pol Pot was born into an affluent peasant family (in 1925) in Cambodia, and as he grew-up, he was known to be a very quiet, kind and courteous person. The exact date of his birth is unknown, but of all his brothers, he is known to have been the smallest. He had two wives, with the first being a well-known intellectual in Cambodia, with his second wife giving birth to his two daughters. One of his brothers once stated that as a child, Pol Pot disagreed with hurting animals, and would hide when it was time to kill chickens for food. In accordance with the Cambodian tradition of all male children serving in a Buddhist temple in their youth, Pol Pot became a ‘temple servant’ at the age of 6 years old, where he was taught to read and write the Cambodian language at the Lotus Temple (莲花寺 – Lian Hua Si) situated in Phnom Penh. He continued his education after returning to lay-life at the age of 12 years, and finally graduated in 1949 from the only technical college in Cambodia. As he was a gifted scholar, he earned a scholarship to study in Paris, France – the Western imperialist power that controlled Cambodia in those days.

It was in Paris that he first encountered the ideology of Marxist-Leninism, and became interested in Revolutionary activities. Pol Pot and other Cambodian students in Paris, actively joined the Communist Party of France, and founded the ‘Cambodian Marxist Study Group’. Not long after this, Pol Pot visited Yugoslavia, and this was the first time he saw a Socialist country in operation. In 1952, Pol Pot returned to Cambodia with many other Cambodian students determined to free their country from colonial French rule. The first problem was that the only Revolutionary organisation was Vietnamese in origin, even thought it was known as the ‘Khmer Liberation Movement’. Pol Pot joined this organisation in 1953 as a short-term solution – stating that the Vietnamese were in many ways just as despotic as the French. However, following the French withdrawal from the area in 1954, the Geneva Peace Agreement ensured that the Vietnamese also withdrew from Cambodia – handing-over control of the ‘Khmer Liberation Movement’ to the Cambodian people. Throughout the remainder of the 1950’s, Pol Pot (and others) gradually worked toward the founding of their own Communist Party. This was achieved during March, 1960, when in a deserted railway carriage, the ‘Khmer Workers Party’ was formally initiated, and its first congress held. In 1962, following the death of the then General Secretary, Pol Pot was elected into that post, and under his leadership, the ‘Khmer Workers Party’ changed its name in 1966 to that of the ‘Communist Party of Cambodia’.  Although Pol Pot had worked as a teacher in the city, following Sihanouk declaring the Khmer Rouge an illegal organization in 1963, Pol Pot (and others) had relocated into the jungle areas to carry-out their further training, and illicit Revolutionary activities. After 1965, Pol Pot collaborated with the Vietnamese anti-US war, with Cambodia and Laos unofficially allowing personnel, supplies and weapons to travel through their respective territories. As a consequence, Pol Pot at the time, became a very popular Revolutionary in China, Vietnam, Laos, and his native Cambodia. When visiting China and Vietnam, Pol Pot was treated with great respect. This popularity explains why he remained the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Cambodia from 1963 to 1979.

As his dialectical understanding developed and matured, Pol Pot began to change his view regarding local ethnic tensions, and adopted a much more ‘internationalist’ position with regard to China and Vietnam, and even played a part in US negotiations in China (during 1970), when America was searching for a way-out of the Vietnam War. In 1967, initiated by a ruthless rice tax upon the poor peasants of Cambodia, the Communist Party of Cambodia led an uprising (with Pol Pot leading much of the fighting), that secured a partial success, but stopped short of winning complete political power in the country.  In March, 1970, all this changed when Prince Sihanouk visited the USSR, and during his absence, a coup occurred involving a US-backed rightwing military group which took power, immediately establishing the ‘Republic of Cambodia’ and announcing an instant co-operation with any and all US military action (including the bombing of Eastern Cambodia section of the ‘Ho Chi Minh’ trail by B-52’s). This destructive action coincided with US Advisers building a ‘new’ rightwing military in the country, which was used to attack and kill ordinary Cambodian people that had any leftwing affiliations. This bombing campaign lasted until 1973, when the US Congress called a halt to the destruction on the grounds that it was ‘illegal’. In the meantime, Prince Sihanouk joined forces with Pol Pot, combining royalist and communist forces in a common effort against US imperialism in Cambodia. This time saw numerous Khmer Rouge bases being developed all over Cambodia, with various Khmer Rouge military units seeing action in South Vietnam (fighting for Ho Chi Minh against the Americans). As time progressed, the popular Khmer Rouge were able to join-up their bases, and expand political power throughout Cambodia. These events demonstrate the ‘popular’ nature of the Khmer Rouge movement and how it was generally supported throughout Cambodia, leading up to its seizure of power in the country (contrary to Eurocentric accounts that suggest the opposite). In fact, the Khmer Rouge could not have come to power without a wide-spread popular base amongst the ordinary people. The Khmer Rouge swept to power in 1975, with the collapse of US influence in the region (following the US military defeat in South Vietnam).

With the Khmer Rouge victory, Pol Pot sought to create a classless society with no distinction between the urban and the rural. This meant the abolition of all bourgeois cultural influences, as well as the eradication of money. Pol Pot stated that as Cambodia was backward and feudalistic, its population had to undergo a radical (and sudden) ‘re-education’ process. This involved the emptying of all cities and towns, and the people driven into the countryside to form collective communities dependent upon agriculture. This put an end to what Pol Pot stated were ‘leisure meals’ eaten in the cities, where the rich lived on an ample food supply they purchased, but did not themselves, cultivate or harvest. These communes became single sex barracks – where married couples could meet once a week – providing they had attained prior permission. Around 80% of the population was driven into the countryside (with all schools and temples closed), where Pol Pot started the process separating the trusted from the collaborators. After this, Pol Pot began a campaign of execution where Chinese sources speak of around one-third of the Cambodian population being killed (a number believed to be over two million men, women and children). It is generally stated that Pol Pot decided that any and all bourgeois ideas could not be ‘re-educated’ out of the individual, and that it was more efficient to simply ‘kill the body’ to end a certain type of thought. Whether this is true or not is open to debate, as this fascist policy does not exist in any form within Scientific Socialism, and was either an aberrant creation by Pol Pot himself, or a Eurocentric fabrication (in fact, some sources suggest that a great many deaths under Pol Pot were the result of famine and a failed agricultural policy). However, the narrative that Pol Pot committed mass murder states that he ordered the deaths of all dissidents, monks, ethnic minorities and class enemies, and had their bodies dumped in large open fields for all to see. As Pol Pot seems to have reverted to his old ethnic prejudices against the Vietnamese – he particularly targeted this group of people. In 1978, this led to the Vietnamese ‘Communist’ Army invading Cambodia and destroying the Khmer Rouge regime – forcing Pol Pot and his supporters to flee into the jungle – where he lived in virtual internal exile until his death in 1998. The People’s Republic of China, from at least 1981 onwards (with the establishment of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea by the occupying Vietnamese forces), re-considered its position on Pol Pot, and worked with the ‘new’ Cambodian government (which was essentially Khmer Rouge dissidents that had fallen out of favour with Pol Pot), in an attempt to pacify the remaining Khmer Rouge, and persuade Pol Pot to agree to voluntary house arrest. Although the Vietnamese destroyed Pol Pot’s original regime in 1978, the reality is that factions of the Khmer Rouge continued to run Cambodia until the restoration of the monarchy in 1993.

Chinese Language References:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/波尔布特

http://www.baike.com/wiki/%25E6%25B3%25A2%25E5%25B0%2594%25E5%25B8%2583%25E7%2589%25B9

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_46f0bb70010001rc.html

Palestinian ‘Sandra Solomon’ and the Embracing of Eurocentric (Zionist) Racism

ss1

“We are the Arabs. We occupy the land of the Jews. This [Israel] is Jewish land. It’s going to be there for ever and ever.”

The three monotheistic religions of the world all have a common root – Judaism. Both Jesus and Mohammed were Jews prior to their spiritual awakenings that took them on different paths to the that preferred by the mainstream religions of the day. All three religions share exactly the same belief in a single god concept, but disagree on the name of that god, and on how he should be worshipped. All three religions share a pre-modern theology developed over thousands of years, and premised upon the unproven idea that ‘god’ exists. The Jews reacted with religiously inspired violence against Roman occupation of Palestine and Judea, whilst Mohammed led a ‘holy war’ against non-Muslims as a means to spread the Qur’an. Once Christianity became the State Creed of Rome, the so-called ‘Roman Catholics’ initiated a widespread persecution of non-Christians, and attacked and destroyed other Christian groups that did not adhere to ‘official’ church dogma. With the spread of Christianity across Europe, Muslim and Jews soon became victims of Christian pogroms of genocide and destruction. This stabilisation of a politicised church also involved the destruction of any and all ‘pagan’ religions throughout the West, and more or less the same time as the ‘Crusades’ were unleashed by the West upon the Islamic populations of the Middle East.

Scientific Socialism – as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – reveals that the religious mind-set is premised upon a pre-modern and ‘inverted’ state of mind that mistakes thoughts in the head for material reality in the universe. By throwing-off the shackles of religion, a human-being can adopt a ‘non-inverted’ mind, and proceed on a development path of scientific endeavour (designed to assist the entirety of society). In this regard, religion should not be permitted to ‘politically’ control the direction of any modern society due to the pre-modern nature of its theologically informed attitudes (which generally run-counter to the method and practice associated with modern science). Of course, there are modern scientists that profess a religious faith in their private lives, but keep that faith ‘separate’ to their modern academic work. What someone like Sandra Solomon (or her handlers) need to remember is that the Roman Catholic Church actively collaborated with Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945, and was complicit in the Holocaust.

Sandra Solomon is either mentally ill, easily led, or a deliberate ‘plant’. Her attitude is that of a ‘White’ supremacist, with the added twist of ‘White’ supremacist ‘Zionism’. Zionism is a virulent, racist and highly destructive ideology, developed by ‘White’ Jews in 19th century Europe, and designed to convince non-Jewish ‘White’ supremacists that European Jews were just like them, and subscribed to the racist idea that all other races were ‘inferior’. Sandra Solomon (made-up name) is not ‘White’, but her rhetoric is one of pure religious-inspired intolerance toward Islam and the Palestinian people. Without a shadow of irony, this woman appears on White supremacist media programmes and as if working from a script written by a privileged White man, she sets about peddling her particular form of religiously inspired intolerance and bigotry – to the delight of the White racists that surround her. The White supremacists wheel Sandra Solomon out to a predominantly ‘White’ audience, to legitimise White racist rhetoric – which she does to varying degrees of success. The point is that all people who look like her are victims of the very ‘White’ racism she espouses, and although she mouths the pro-Israeli and pro-Eurocentric racist viewpoints, it is difficult to take her seriously. Of course, she might be a CIA-plant with ‘no discernible’ history, or she perhaps a very confused woman who thinks that replacing one monotheistic religion with another, is somehow a radical act.  As matters stand, this odd woman is broadcasting religious intolerance – whilst accusing the victims of her intolerance – Islam – as being the ‘true’ harbinger of this religious hatred. I doubt she really understands Islam, for if she did, she would not confuse diverse Islam culture with a unified theological interpretation of the Qur’an.

The Sangha Kommune (僧伽公社) Defined

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Ch’an Master Caotang siad:

There is nothing special to leadership – essentially it is a matter of controlling the evils of biased information and autocracy. Do not just go by whatever is said to you first – then the obsequities of petty people seeking favour will not be able to confuse you.

After all, the feelings of a group of people are not one, and objective reason is hard to see. You should investigate something to see its benefit or harm, examine whether it is appropriate and suitable or not; then after that you may carry it out.

True Record of Sushan (Song Dynasty)

The Chinese Buddhist monastic community is referred to as a ‘Sangha’ (Sanskrit for ‘spiritual community’), whereby men and women form a voluntary association premised upon following a strict set of rules known as the ‘Vinaya Discipline’. Within this community, there is ‘equality’ between all members, with the leaders being those who have followed these rules for the longest times. This is because such people are thought to have more experience at adhering to the Vinaya Discipline (which includes celibacy and vegetarianism), and are therefore able to effectively advise all others through the difficult times they my face in their practice. As those with little experience have less to share, they are not considered leaders whilst more experienced practitioners live in the vicinity. Of course, this is a relative matter depending upon the size of population of a community, and the length of time it has existed, and the quality of the masters (male or female) that have led it. Those who cannot keep the Vinaya Discipline (of over 200 rules) generally choose to leave on their own accord, with those who confess breaking the major rules being asked to leave and expelled from the monastic community (due to the bad example they set). However, the term ‘Sangha’ is often more loosely applied to the devout or dedicated lay community, the members of which follow at least 5, 8 or 10 vows as a life routine, and who regularly visit the local temple and volunteer their time in worthwhile social or charitable activities. In this manner, the monastic Sangha teach and guide the lay Sangha, and the lay Sangha applies the Buddha’s teachings of compassion, loving kindness and wise action to the outside the temple, and thereby expand the Buddha-Dharma beyond the temple. As the Buddha originally taught that there is no ‘difference’ in enlightened essence between the monastic and lay community, the monastics do not consider themselves ‘superior’ and the lay community does not consider itself ‘inferior’ to one another. The principle of ‘Sangha, therefore, denotes a sacred space defined and maintained through the principles of psychological and physical self-discipline and learning, premised upon a general attitude of mutual respect. The Sangha, in both essence and function, is a model for a ‘commune’ operating through the vigorous principles of  equality’, ‘discipline’ and ‘wisdom’. These are the principles embodied within this blog – regardless of the scope of its subject matter.

994627_1

The term ‘Kommune’ is taken from the German word for ‘Commune’, and is directly related to the principles of Scientific Socialism, as formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Indeed, within German language editions of the works of Marx and Engels, the term ‘Kommune’ is often encountered. This type of ‘Kommune’ is also a voluntary association, albeit distinctly ‘modern’ in origination, and designed to serve the Revolutionary needs of the Proletariat – or the mass of peasants forced to work in the industrialised factories produced by the oppressive capitalist system. Working 12 to 16 hours a day, strictly by the clock, whilst being dictated to by brutal managers and the movement and operation of monotonous machines, these peasants were transformed into self-disciplined and highly exploited automatons of industry, waiting for the right historical epoch to free themselves from their endless toil for little reward. Just as the collective mind is ‘dulled’ by endless hours of repetitive toil, it is ‘freed’, ‘activated’ and ‘expanded’ when encountering the strictures of Scientific Socialism, and a non-resisting ‘false consciousness’ is replace by a resisting ‘true consciousness’. Generally, when the mind is freed from the straitjacket of oppression, the body soon follows, even though it is equally true that if the body is freed by a Revolution caused by others, then the mind soon follows! In these post-modem times, proletariat ‘true consciousness’ is much more amorphous in manifestation, particularly as factory work becomes ever less prevalent in the West. Although the modes of capitalist exploitation change with the epoch, the nature of capitalist exploitation (and class distinction) remains exactly the same. Striving for the establishment of a ‘Kommunistic’ society remains the duty of all right-minded working class people across the globe, with the Marxist principle of ‘Internationalism’ replacing nationalism and racism, etc. The point is that the ‘true consciousness’ of the working class is premised entirely upon non-hatred for one another, as this hatred has been imported into the working class by the very capitalists that exploit them! By rejecting capitalism, the working class is rejecting the greed, hatred and delusion that underlies all capitalist thought and action. This working class mission is no less ‘sacred’ than its Buddhist counter-part, and shares exactly the same essence. The author of this blog strives to agitate for the peaceful achievement of both inner and outer Revolution amongst by any means necessary (to quote Malcolm X).

0o0o

Having defined two interpretations of ‘Kommune’, it is important to also emphasis the pivotal notion of ‘education’ and the training of the human mind to discern a relevant ‘truth’ in any given situation or circumstance. Learning in a classroom, through a book, encounter groups, political meetings, protest marches, meditation sessions, or the internet, are all crucial aspects of ‘refining’ the memory and ‘honing’ the intellect. The thought processes (and emotionality) must be ‘calmed’ for the sake of ‘wise’ action and non-action when young, so that avoidable errors and mistakes are reduced to the minimum, and progressive activity increased to the maximum (to selflessly benefit humanity).  This is not always easy, and the ability to recognise non-efficient thought-patterns and behaviours should also be cultivated as a means toward achieving self-forgiveness, and the forgiveness of others. The important point is that the mind should be kept in a positive frame of operation, so that the body can be used for various types of ‘enlightened’ political, cultural and social action. The physical body must be clearly (and cleanly) directed by the mind (the seat of volition), and kept physically fit through appropriate activities. This psycho-physical training sets the stage for the refined individual to understand the frequency and quality of inner and outer energy, and immediately understand the best action (if any) to take, or instantly ‘know’ when others are ‘lying’, or presenting ‘untruth’ as ‘truth’. This ability can be further used to generate ‘correct’ work that counters the lies of a society motivated entirely by greed, racism and an indifference to the suffering of humanity and other life forms. Therefore, this ‘Sangha Kommune’ blog is a work in progress that covers a bewildering array of topics, opinions, and research data. By taking a step back away from its content – the general reader will begin to understand the underlying (and motivating) paradigm. This is essentially a ‘Kommunist’ zone where all beings are automatically ‘freed’ at the point of contact. The need for money is already ‘transcended’, and the energy frequency of the Sangha Kommune should be used by all to achieve a state of permanent ‘freedom’ in all circumstances. This is a space of permanent Cyber Kommunism, and ongoing Revolutionary activity in the form of ‘exposing’ and ‘dissolving’ the bourgeois system and its redundant mode of capitalist organisation.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Ch’an Wuzu said:

The Ch’an community is a place for the moulding of Sages and ordinary people, and for nurturing and developing potential ability. It is a source of teaching,. Even though many people are living together, gathering in kind, they are guided and made equal. Each has a transmission from the teacher.

Now in many places they do not strive to maintain the standards of the Sages of the past. Biased feelings of like and dislike are many, with people bending others to what they personally think is right. How should later students take an example?

Records of Equanimity (Song Dynasty)

Flying the Red Flag – An Odd Encounter (London NHS March 4.3.2017)

The Socialist Setting

Myself, my partner Gee, our eldest daughter Mei-An, and our youngest daughter Kai-Lin, arrived at Russell Square Tube Station around 11:50am. We had left Sutton by car at about 10:30am, and caught a Northern Line Tube (North-Bound via Bank) to Kings Cross, where we changed for the Piccadilly Line and travelled one-stop to Russell Square. The tone of the day was set at this point, as thousands upon thousands of good-natured and kind-hearted people began to alight from regular tube trains – and the narrow Victorian Station, with its broken lift and its equally narrow, spiralling staircase – started to fill-up with people getting caught in queues that were not moving, or moving too quickly. Although the sign stated that there were 175 steps, we did not realise just how steep or continuous this was at the time, and started to carry Kai-Lin up the stairs (Mei-An walked, whilst initially Gee held the back of the pram, and a person unknown to us picked-up the front before I could act). About a quarter of the way-up, this kind person (a very helpful woman), handed-over the front of the pram to me. Gee and I then carried the pram another quarter of the way up, before we changed ends (as the exertion was beginning to tell with oxygen-debt and tiring leg muscles). All these issues were amplified by the crowds, and the fact that we had to move quickly due to the extent of people trying to exit the station. As we moved-up the outside of the spiral, every so often we had to manoeuvre around individuals that had to rest at various points on the stair-well to get their breath going-up, whilst trying to avoid people coming-down the stair-case into the station! For some reason this stair-case was serving both as an access and exit route. As we progressed another quarter, Gee asked to rest – but a man we did not know picked-up the front of the pram and helped to carry our daughter up and into daylight –  this is how our protest began! When we were finally in the street, we had to paused for about five minutes to get our breath back – Mei-An – who is only four and three-quarters did an excellent job climbing all these stairs with minimum guidance or support.

The March

People began to gather in Tavistock Square (and the surrounding streets) at around 11am, and probably earlier. The march was supposed to start at 12pm – but as is usual with these kind of things, no one moved until about 1:30pm. In the meantime, we had to unfurl our Red Lenin Flag and stand in the road and wait. We tried to move into Tavistock Square earlier to find other Communists and Socialists, but the sheer weight of crowds prevented this. Our Red Flag remained the only one in the street we were in, and so people started to gather around it, who held suitable leftwing views (after-all, the NHS is a Socialist institution modelled on the healthcare system of the former Soviet Union). As we waited, Gee would breast-feed Kai-Lin whilst standing (covering the upper body with a blanket), and Mei-An – who had very tired legs from the earlier exertions – sat in the push-chair playing on her ipad. An elderly lady came up to us and said ‘long live Vladimir Lenin!’ – and some NHS Staff that knew Gee (who is a NHS Midwife) came to say ‘hello!’). The atmosphere was very good natured, and the police presence was very inconspicuous, although the growing crowd was routinely monitored from the air via police helicopters. Many people used our Red Lenin Flag – which was flying high – as a navigation point in the crowd, advising others to make their way towards it. As matters transpired, the march was so fast moving when it did begin, that we never managed to find the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) Banner – although we did manage to obtain a ‘free’ copy of the Morning Star Newspaper, apparently paid for by Unite the Union – my union as it happens.

Questioning the Flag

As law abiding British citizens, we peacefully exercise our legal, lawful and democratic rights to protest, albeit from our own leftwing position. We believe that this ability to do so, is one of the strongest elements of British cultural identity that has been known (historically) for its tolerance and understanding. We also believe that it marks-out Britain as one of the potentially ‘progressive’ countries in the world. However, these facts do not mean that everything is perfect. The Tory (and LibDem) policy since 2010 of courting neo-Nazism in the Ukraine (and opening the UK to non-EU Ukrainian students that support fascism) has led to our Red Flag being ‘questioned’ during marches by lonesome individuals from Eastern Europe (although once in Croydon, the questioner was of Southern Irish background). The narrative is always the same – as the Ukraine (and other Eastern European countries) – have ‘banned’ the Communist Party and the Red Flag, then why are we in the UK flying it? This is the quintessential paradigm of the intolerance of fascism, and the bedrock of neo-Nazism. This is a contrived rightwing assault on the political freedoms associated with Western European liberalism, orchestrated, I believe, from the United States of America, and avidly embraced by those Eastern European nations that enthusiastically ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany and its invasion of the USSR – a disastrous continuation of the Hitlerite holocaust that cost the lives of between 30 – 40 million Soviet deaths. The manner in which I have experienced this form of fascism has involved an individual approaching me on the march and openly questioning ‘why’ I am carrying a Red Flag. Their attitude is insidious and creepy (typical of the brooding hatred that underlies far-right political rhetoric and action), but packaged to appear ‘friendly’ in an attempt to ‘dominate’ and ‘intimidate’ at the point of contact.

Questioner: What is this flag you are carrying?

Answerer (me): British Socialism and Communism.

Q: What makes it British?

A: It is ‘International’ but we are British.

Q: I hope you do not find me aggressive, but I am enquiring.

A: Are you American?

Q: Yes.

A: You are taught to dislike leftwing politics – I can tell this by your odd questions.

Q: Why do you support the leftwing?

A: We all embody differing historical narratives. Britain has a close association with the leftwing, the US does not. People are a product of their upbringing and I like mine.

Q: Why did the UK vote to get out of the EU?

A: The EU is a rightwing, anti-Socialist, anti-worker institute that exists to advance US-style predatory capitalism in Europe.

Q: Why does it do this?

A: To ensure the Eastern European countries bordering Russia embrace neo-Nazism, and reject Russian influence, acting inaccordance with US foreign policy. Making workers migrate en mass to make a living destroys local communities, and eradicates the point of unions. Masses of cheap labour only benefits the bourgeoisie.

Q: That sounds like how the Mexicans flood the US with cheap labour.

A: It’s nothing like it. The US invaded Mexico in the 1840’s – and its West Coast is basically former parts of Mexico that were annexed by the US. When Mexicans cross the fabricated US-Mexican border today, they are in fact entering their own country. Furthermore, as Mexicans are the product of Spanish mixing with indigenous Indian, the US hatred toward them is ‘racially’ based, but as the EU involves ‘White’ Europeans being used to oppress one another, there is no racism involved in opposing it.

Q: Why do you carry the Soviet flag?

A: In WWII the Soviets lost 30-40 million people fighting Nazi Germany – and the UK was an ally of Russia. I had a family member who directly assisted the Soviet war effort.

Q: What about the famine in the USSR caused by Stalin during WWII?

A: Give me the Russian language reference for that allegation.

Q: Stalin considered mass death to be a statistic.

A: Having read the Collected Works of Lenin and Stalin I can find no such quote.

Q: How do you know?

A: I work with Chinese and Russian source language materials.

Q: (Asks me in Russian whether I can ‘speak Russian?)

A: I answer ‘no’ in English.

Q: My family were from the Soviet Union.

A: Really, what part?

Q: What is the NHS?

A: A Socialist healthcare system derived from the Soviet Union and implemented in the UK in 1948 by the Labour Party.

Q: Why did Russia invade the Crimea?

A: When did they do that?

Q: Recently – before that there were no Russians in the Crimea!

A: (Laughing loudly) Are you saying there are no Slavic people in the Crimea?

Q: Is Socialism possible?

A: Why not – we’ve achieved capitalism. I think Socialism is a matter of human evolution and is inevitable in the end.

Q: I do not believe we have achieved capitalism.

A: (Laughing again!) What did you study to get your degree in?

Q: Biochemistry.

A: Then you will know the importance of defining terms and providing reliable references to support your conclusions.

Q: The Soviet system did not work.

A: Are you opposed to the USSR?

Q: No – it nolonger exists

A: OK – see you later!

He approached me using a Western Cold War rhetoric mixed with a current Obama-esque anti-Russian racist attitude – and did not present anything that could be called ‘ethnic’ Russian. In fact, he was unsettled by my insistence of defining terms and providing Russian language references. Towards the end he became agitated and I decided to end the conversation and walk away.

MI Kalinin: Soviet Democracy Explained (1917-2017)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Mi Kalinin (1875-1945) Soviet Educator – President of the USSR (1919-1946)

Lenin wrote of the Soviets: “What has been won by the Russian Revolution is inalienable. No power on earth can deprive us of that, any more than any power on earth can deprive us of what the Soviet State has already created. This is a world-historic victory. For hundreds of years States have been built according to the bourgeois model, and for the first time a non-bourgeois form of State has been discovered. Our apparatus may be a bad one, but it is said that the first steam engine to be invented, was also a bad one, and it it is not even known whether it worked or not. That is not the point; the point is that it was invented. Even assuming that the form of the first steam engine was unsuitable, the point is that we now have steam engines. Even if our State apparatus is very bad, it has been created, the great historical invention has been made, a proletarian type of State has been created.” (1)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The path of Soviet rule is the path of struggle for the people’s interests. Its achievements in this direction are common knowledge. To demonstrate the essence of Soviet rule, and the superiority of its form of government over all other existing ones, one would need to write a huge work. Therefore I will only deal with two aspects which, from my point of view, are the most essential.

This two aspects are the complete democracy of the Soviet State; and the full equality existing between the various peoples of the Soviet Union. The Stalin Constitution reflected the social and economic changes which had taken place in the Soviet Union between 1924 and 1936. The structure of the Soviet State is now based on this constitution which in its essence marks the completion of the democratisation of our country. The Soviets – whether local, regional, national or All-Union – our elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage, by secret ballot.

The highest organ of government in our State is the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. It exercises legislative powers. The Supreme Soviet appoints the Government, the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR consists of two chambers: the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet  of Nationalities, which possesses equal legislative initiative. The Soviet of the Union is elected by the citizens of the USSR divided into electoral districts on the basis of 1 deputy per 300,000 inhabitants. The Soviet of Nationalities is elected by the citizens of the USSR in their Union and Autonomous Republics, autonomous regions and national areas on the basis of 25 deputies from each Union Republic; 11 deputies from each Autonomous Republic; 5 deputies from each autonomous region, and 1 deputy from each national area.’

MI Kalinin: The Soviet President Speaks (Hardback), The Fleet Street Press (East Harding Street, EC4), (1945), Page 58

(1) Selected Works (Lawrence & Wishart, 1938), Vol. IX, p. 361

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000The cover of the Hutchinson edition. As the Soviet Union was an ally of the UK during WWII, and suffered terribly under Nazi German oppression, for a few years after 1945, prior to the rise of the US-inspired Cold War deception, there was a very real interest in the West about the Soviet Union. However, as Winston Churchill and Harry Truman had their ‘anti-Socialist’ way (assisted by the Trotskyites), the USSR was (falsely) demonised and all interest discouraged. One such ‘myth’ was that the USSR was not ‘democratic’ and its people ‘enslaved’. In reality, what this meant for the Western bourgeoisie was that the USSR was not ‘capitalist’, and its society was not run by a small number of billionaires that they could influence against the best interests of the people. This article is a ‘corrective’ text against these Cold War lies, in recognition and celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Even today, in the UK’s bourgeois press, the Guardian, Telegraph and Mail are running articles condemning the 1917 Russian Revolution, ignoring the fact that it was the Soviet people that defeated Nazi Germany and saved the UK from invasion, suffering 27 – 40 million casualties in the process, but then again, this is exactly the same bourgeois press that has unquestionably supported the US-backed neo-Nazi regime in the Ukraine (funded and encouraged by former President Barak Obama).

Keeping the ‘X’ in Xmas!

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I am a secularist that believes in two important attributes in society, (in this order of importance):

1) Scientific Socialism

2) Freedom of thought within a progressive society.

Progressive Scientific Socialism has to replace destructive capitalism, that is an a priori essential – but if an individual or group wants to follow a religious belief within a Socialist context, they should be allowed to do so unharassed – providing it is understood that theology cannot be used in a political manner.  Once that is established, religiously minded people can believe whatever they want – after-all, such belief will not affect the premise of secular science. Evolution and gravity will continue without interruption.  I do not agree with the concept of a capitalist Xmas – nor do I believe that children should be indoctrinated with capitalism and Christianity.  I think my declared ‘beliefs’ are modest when compared to a virgin birth, or an alleged disembodied spirit that cannot be seen in the physical world, but which apparently controls everything in that world.  Occasionally, I get harassed by theists for my use of ‘Xmas’ over ‘Christmas’, and this does show a terrible lack of education in the more ethereal minded amongst us.  Although it is true that ‘Xmas’ is often used as a ‘secular’ preference to the theistic ‘Christmas’, its history may not be what you might expect (and certainly not what many theists believe it to be).  ‘Xmas’ is a Greek term that breaks down in this manner:

1) Χ = represents the 14th letter of the Greek alphabet ‘ξι’ (pronounced ‘chi’).

2) mass (is a religious celebration).

X (chi) is used as a short expression for the word ‘Christ’ – and when placed together with ‘mass’, maybe originally interpreted to refer to an abbreviation for ‘Christmas’.  I know this because of science, and not religion.

The Bourgeois Construct of Cultural Marxism

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed their theory of Scientific Socialism in the 19th century, they systematically and completely exposed the highly exploitative economic system of modern capitalism as it functioned in the UK, Europe, the Americas and throughout the world (via European imperialism and colonialism) – and the capitalist system has never recovered.  When Marx clearly explained that theistic religion was premised upon an ‘inverted’ mind-set (through which theology falsely assumes that mind or spirit creates matter), he gave ordinary people the means to correct their own false consciousness, and see through the oppressive nature of their capitalist inspired existence.  Marx and Engels revealed how the bourgeoisie (middle class) had built-up their economic, political, cultural and social power over hundreds of years, usurping the upper classes as they progressed.  This middle class remained deliberately small in number, whilst ensuring that the working class remained far more numerous, but possessing very little real power in society.  This disparity in numbers ensured an endless supply of mindless workers trapped in a cycle of poverty and degradation, that possessed very little formal education and could not see through the nature of the oppression they routinely experienced. Marx and Engels brought an objective and scientific analysis to the capitalist system, clearly defined and explained how it worked throughout his collected works (but particularly in Das Kapital).  This shocked the capitalist State, which desperate in its efforts to retain bourgeois hegemony, started to grant certain and limited rights to workers, in an attempt to prevent those workers from uniting and over-throwing the bourgeoisie.  Although this process of placating the working class was more or less slow and relatively limited toward the end of the 19th century, following the successful Bolshevik Revolution in early 20th century Russia, the liberal reforms started to gain momentum.  There limited experiments in granting union rights at work, and redistribution projects through equally limited welfare payments and pensions, etc.  This type of liberal compromise probably reached its peak in the UK with the 1945 Labour Party government that initiated a broad and fully comprehensive welfare and health system, and similar social experiments in Europe. Even in the US immediately following WWII (and the stunning Soviet victory in the East), various (but short-lived) and highly discriminative welfare schemes existed for returning US (White) soldiers.  The liberal premise of attempting to prevent a Socialist Revolution by granting the workers just enough money and health care to prevent them collectivising and rising-up, is the origin of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’.  Cultural Marxism, regardless of what the bourgeois system may have told you, has nothing to do with Marx or Engels, and does not derive from within their theory of Scientific Socialism.  Cultural Marxism has been a self-imposed straitjacket manufactured by the bourgeois system in its ongoing efforts to control the working class, and keep it in a subordinate and easily exploitable position.  These pseudo-welfare systems in the West have come under ever more criticism and attack in recent years from the bourgeois system that gave rise to them, which has led to an intensification of their dismantling and annulment since Communist China’s embracing of Socialist market forces in the 1980’s, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The bourgeois system now perceives the workers to be in one of their weakest positions for hundreds of years, and has made its move by depriving the working class of all the concessions it previously granted. However, the historical impetus built-up over-time – which suggests that the bourgeois system should at least provide a reasonable standard of living for its workers – has been ‘inverted’ by the very same bourgeois system that created it, and made to appear as if it were appearing ‘outside’ of the bourgeois system, enacted from an external source (i.e. ‘Marxism’).  Cultural Marxism is in reality the bourgeois system mimicking various elements of Marxism – whilst insisting that Marxists are ‘forcing’ them to do so.  This is yet another example of the bourgeois system manufacturing realities that do not exist. Nowadays, whenever a fascistic bourgeois government inflicts pain and suffering upon its own people – which attracts criticism for that treatment, usually from other elements of the bourgeoisie – the very same bourgeois system replies with the false assertion that such concerns about the welfare of others is the product of a ‘Cultural Marxism’ enforced from the outside, designed to bring-down the capitalist system.  What they are complaining about is the historicity of their own political and cultural duplicity.

Alternative Right – Nazism for the 21st Century

The so-called ‘Alternative Right’ in the US is in fact simply a new wave of populism amongst the White Supremacy Movement (that has been encouraged into the mainstream by the election of Donald Trump – a President that openly expresses racist attitudes and opinons).  This movement has its ideological origination in Adolf Hitler’s book entitled ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle), which is a tome designed to facilitate Hitler’s anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist rants, and make those rants easily accessible to the general public.  This book provides an incoherent ideological framework for the political movement known as ‘National Socialism’, that binds its lack of underlying logic and consistency, with the requirement to ‘lie’ to the masses, as a means to politically manipulate their opinions and choices toward racism and hate. One vital point that must be understood, is that ‘National Socialism’ is not the ‘Scientific Socialism’ as devised by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the 19th century. Hitler identified Marxism as his number one enemy, and his hatred of Marxism led to his disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.  The problem Hitler had when he came to power in 1933, was that Marxism (and Scientific Socialism) was very popular amongst the German working Class.  Hitler had to appeal to the collective instinct of the German working class, whilst quietly moving German society ‘away’ from any and all forms of Marxist influence.  His compromise was to use the word ‘Socialism’ in an entirely new (and anti-Marxist) manner.  Whereas Marxism rejects all forms of racism as a bourgeois sham designed to keep the working class disunited (replacing it with ‘internationalism’), Hitler rejected ‘internationalism’, and instead advocated a blatant ‘nationalism’ premised entirely upon racial identity as defined by the State. National Socialism is not Marxist Scientific Socialism or Communism – it is the exact opposite.  National Socialism (or ‘Nazism’), is in fact simply a form of non-liberal democratic capitalism, whereby a social-military elite take over society and operate a limited re-distribution of wealth toward the general populace, whilst continuing to exploit that populace and deprive it of any real political power.  Nazism is a totalitarian, capitalist dictatorship that oppresses the working class by mobilising the entire population for conquest through war – this is how Hitler transformed Germany and eradicated unemployment.  Originally, Nazi Concentration Camps were places where the German unemployed were sent to work ‘freely’ for the Nazi State prior to being conscripted into the Nazi military – only later were they used as extermination camps for German Jews, Communists, Romany, Gays, the Disabled, and political dissidents, etc.  Mass murder was the preferred method through which Adolf Hitler dealt with the problem of ‘diversity’ within Nazi Germany. Wealth production was solved by invading over countries and ‘stealing’ that country’s wealth, resources and land.  After ethnically cleansing and exterminating millions of racially impure people from the lands surrounding Germany, Hitler then moved racially pure German citizens into these areas, occupying the homes of those who had previously fell victim to Nazi troops. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany existed to solve the problem of ‘diversity’ as Hitler perceived it. For National Socialists, ‘diversity’ is the root of all evil because it feeds into the non-racial ‘internationalism’ advocated by Marxism.  As Nazism is an extreme form of capitalism in decay, Marxism naturally opposes such an ideology – as can be seen by the all-out war the Soviet Union pursued to finally crush it in Europe during WWII (at a terrible price in human life).  Nazism continues the oppression of the working class, and prevents the working class within a particular country, linking-up with other chapters of the working class around the world, and over-throwing the bourgeoisie that exploits it.  Hitler’s ruling elite represented nothing other than militarised adventure capitalism.

%d bloggers like this: