Confessions of a Marxist

Norwich North; Result

2009-07-25T17:38:00.003+01:00

There was no real surprise in the Conservative candidate Chloe Smith winning the Norwich North by-election on Thursday. It was indeed expected that the Conservatives would win, you would have been a brave man to bet against that. A swing towards the Torys of over 16% may seem impressive, however their vote count actually went down by over 2000 when compared with the 2005 election. Obviously this being due to the low turn out of 45%.

The Greens only managed a disappointing 5th place, but percentage wise, on 9.7% it was their best result ever. The real surprise was UKIP coming 4th with almost 12%, up over 9%. I hate to repeat myself but this result really shows the need for electoral reform; 60% of the votes were not for the Conservative candidate, meaning that the majority of the electorate do not want a Conservative MP. Yet this corrupt winner takes all systems mean they are stuck with one now.

Could this be a sign of a Tory landslide in the next election?

Well all I can say is I seriously hope not. For the sake of the British working class. A victory for the Conservatives would be a step back into the dark days of Thatcherism. And as George Galloway put it on Question Time; "For the Conservatives to be talking about Social Mobility really is a complete joke, the Conservative front bench is full to the brim of old Etonians".

Norwich North

2009-07-23T18:47:00.003+01:00

The polls have been opened for the Norwich North by-election today, making it the first parliamentary election since the "expenses crisis" broke. Ian Gibson, of Labour, the current MP for the constituency was barred from standing again as a Labour candidate after details emerged of how he claimed expenses for a flat in London that his daughter lived in, then in protest at "doing nothing wrong" he stepped down with immediate effect.

What's going to happen then in the election?

Firstly what happened in the last election in 2005?

General Election 2005: Norwich North
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Ian Gibson	21,097	44.9	−2.5
	Conservative	James Tumbridge	15,638	33.2	−1.4
	Liberal Democrat	Robin Whitmore	7,616	16.2	+1.4
	Green	Adrian Holmes	1,252	2.7	+1.0
	UK Independence	John Youles	1,122	2.4	+1.4
	Independent	Bill Holden	308	0.7	N/A
Majority			5,459	11.6
Turnout			47,033	61.1	+2.0
	Labour hold		Swing	−0.6

Source

A clear win for Mr. Gibson. Conservatives a far second, Liberals a distant third, Greens and UKIP not really making an impact, and the usual Independent which a few hundred votes.

So what's going to happen this time?

Well it seems almost certain that Labour aren't going to win. With national approve of Gordon Brown and his chums at seriously low levels combined with the association of Mr. Gibson and his eager claiming, it can be almost guaranteed that Labour will lose masses of it's vote.

So where's the Labour vote going to go?

We'll really just have to wait and see, but I predict that some of it will pass to the Greens, some to the Liberals and a minor part to the BNP who are fielding a candidate in this constituency for the first time.

Could this be a breakthrough for the Green party, given the current anti-politics mood?

Unlikely given that they are still seen upon as a minor party and the first past the post system crippling smaller parties. But I wouldn't be surprised if they came a close third or even second. It is worth pointing out that in local Norwich councils the Greens have a large number of councillors, and that the Greens came first in several small districts in the EU elections in and around Norwich. So unfortunately it seems this will not be the breakthrough the Greens have been hoping for, but perhaps, and I secretly hope, I will be proved wrong.

It is also the first time the ultra-capitalist Libertarian party have fielded a candidate for a parliamentary seat. Little have they noticed the huge economic crisis that has played out due to the exact policy they preach; privatisation. It will be interesting to see just how spectacularly they lose.

Of course given the first past the post system, "democracy" doesn't come into the equation at all. Until a fairer system of proportional representation is implemented this severe lack of democracy shall continue.

With results due out in a few hours now, I for one, can't wait.

Moon Landing

2009-07-21T14:47:00.002+01:00

40 years ago yesterday, or to be precise it was 9.18pm, July 20th, 1969, Man achieved the most amazing feat. The greatest scientific breakthrough in all history. It was of course the first human being to set foot upon the Moon. We all know his name, it was Neil Armstrong. While this has completely nothing to do with politics nor class struggle it is something we must celebrate. So here are just a few pictures that show just how incredible that achievement was.

Mr Armstrong takes the first ever step on the moon.

The famous "Earth Rise"

Footprint on the Moon

More Pictures by the BBC here

I am a Communist

2009-07-14T19:54:00.003+01:00

The Communist Party of the USA recently added a new, what I guess you would call advert, for their party. It was recorded at a Marxist gathering they held at their headquarters in New York a few weeks back. Somewhat surprisingly I was seriously impressed. Check it out, oh and watch out for Nightcrowred's star part;

I am a Communist.

To Burqa or not to Burqa?

2009-07-11T19:13:00.003+01:00

The Burqa, "modeled" above, seems to be making the news again. Recently President Sarkozy called for the Burqa to be banned in France, saying it was "not welcome". But what is the Burqa? Why do some Muslim women feel they should wear it? and is it really Islamic?

To answer these questions I'm going to reproduce a piece in the Independent, by the regular journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who happens to be a female Muslim;

I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.

Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.

The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.

We on the left must do all the can to end anti-Muslim discrimination around the world, but in doing that we must not lend our support to Islamists. The enemy of our enemy is not, and never will be, our friend.

Iranian Revolution? Part 2

2009-07-09T16:22:00.008+01:00

A few weeks ago now, I began to analysis the electoral crisis in Iran. I apologise for the delay in releasing the second part. In trying to understand the recent mass protest against the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad I felt it necessary to put everything into it's correct context by looking in more depth at the last 50 years or so of Iranian history. While events may no longer be in the mainstream news, it would be foolish to assume now that everything is okay.

Last time, I discovered how British and American interventionism in Iran during the 1950s when Mohammed Mossaddeq, and his threat of Oil nationalisation, was removed in a coup and the Shah, or King, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was put in his place.

The Shah

The longer the Shah remained in power, the more authoritarian he became, indeed many of his behaviours violated the 1906 Iran Constitution. The Communist party at the time, the Tudeh Party of Iran, was shutdown and forced underground by the state. Political activists from the whole spectrum were arrested or spied on. Speaking against the Shah became a crime. The Shah created a cult of personality for himself. Pictures of him where everywhere throughout Iran, including massive posters on the streets and honorific pictures were shown before movies at the cinema. If anything, the Shah became a Stalinist dictator. But while the US was bitterly locked in the Cold War with the USSR and it's allies, it was all to happy to support and prop up the Shah's dictatorial regime. This such hypocritical behaviour did not escape the Iranian people.

In 1963, the Shah introduced, well at least tried to introduce, a series of political and economic reforms aimed at improving the life's of the Iranian people, namely the White Revolution. This included 19 "elements", among them; allowing Women to "vote", ending feudal practices, increasing public health care, combating illiteracy and so on. While these reforms appeared to be such positive moves to us, they were severely criticised by the elitist Conservative Islamist religious clergy. This band of clergy was led by Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini. Such was the opposition to said reforms that it led to mass protests, which due to the oppressive regime of the Shah quickly led to the deaths of many student protesters who were shot by armed police and military. Speaking at a protest on the 22nd of March 1963 Khomeini showed his opinion to Jews and Christians by saying;

I have repeatedly pointed out that the government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. ... The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims.

And later he in June of that year he showed more Antisemitism by asking at a protest if the Shah was a "infidel Jew". Khomeini then went into exile in November of 1964.

In 1971 the Shah, pictured above, left, was invited to the US to meet and greet with then US President Richard Nixon, above middle. Further angering the oppressed Iranian people.

The Shah celebrated 2500 years of Iranian monarchy in October of 1971. It was reported to have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, all while millions of Iran people were still living in poverty. Dozens of western and indeed non-western, leaders attend the celebrations.

In 1975, the Shah abolished completely a multi-party "democracy" and created his one party rule under the newly formed Rastakhiz Party. Democracy had slowly been eroded since '53 and now had completely gone. A Persian volcano of anger was building up in the Iranian people, the coming explosion was inevitable.

To be continued....

We Don't Want Them - New Lowkey Single

2009-07-08T00:46:00.006+01:00

You may remember a few months ago, I blogged on British rapper Lowkey, and his charity single "Tears to Laughter/ Long Live Palestine". Well, Lowkey is back again. This time with a new single, titled, We Don't Want Them, which has been made in partnership with the anti-Racist and anti-BNP campaign group Love Music Hate Racism. Yet again, profits will not be made on the track, with all money raised going to Love Music Hate Racism. As expected that song has hard hitting and brilliant lyrics which convey such anger and emotion at the rise of racism in the UK. So I encourage all the buy this new track, because as well as getting an amazing piece of music for your money you will be helping the effort to help stamp out the ugly face of racism in modern Britain.

Single cover;

Info from the official Love Music Hate Racism website;

A number of artists have already reacted to the election of the fascist BNP to the European Parliament in song - but LowKey is the first to release a new song specially written in response the Nazis’ election win. As well as being a brilliant track with sentiments every anti-fascist can chant along to, “We Don’t Want Them” is released via iTunes today with every penny of the profits going to LMHR - that’s almost 50p for the cause from everyone who buys it - so what are you waiting for. We need your support to build an even bigger campaign against racism and fascism

The brand new single We Don’t Want Them by British Hip Hop artist Lowkey and produced by The Last Skeptik. The track is being released in association with Love Music Hate Racism as a response to the fascist British National Party and their recent growth in the face of the recession with Lowkey donating all profits from the single to LMHR.Lowkey is a Poet, Playwright, Political Activist and award winning Hip Hop Artist who has received airplay on numerous major radio stations including BBC Radio 1, Capital FM, Kiss FM, Choice FM and BBC 1Xtra and this year alone has toured internationally performing to crowds everywhere from Glastonbury and Trafalgar Square to Palestine, Israel, New York and Austria.

I wish that there was a video accompanying the single so that I could give readers a chance to hear the song before you part with your money. However at this time that seems impossible, so if you are determined to hear a sample then I shall suggest the 30 second sample on the Itunes store.

"We Don't Want Them" is available on Itunes and on Play.com now.

... and if you are still unconvinced check out this review on a UK Hip Hop blog

On a closing note, I wanted to add that I am working on the much belated part 2 to my Iranian election crisis analysis, which should be up in the next few days. So check back when you can.

Michael Jackson

2009-07-05T15:46:00.002+01:00

Micheal Jackson (29/7/1958 - 25/6/2009), although a man sparked with controversy, was undeniably a huge global superstar and probably this biggest celebrity of this generation. While that by it's self is not really something to celebrate, what should be celebrated is the charitable work which the King of Pop devoted himself to throughout his life and the political and environmental messages in several of his songs, including Earth Song, Man in the Mirror, We Are the World and Heal the World.

Michael even set up his own charity, named Heal the World Foundation, after the song of the same name.

So for that reason here is the powerful and emotional video to Earth Song with the lyrics underneath. Enjoy. RIP Michael, you will be missed.

What about sunrise
What about rain
What about all the things
That you said we were to gain.. .
What about killing fields
Is there a time
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we've shed before
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores?

What have we done to the world
Look what we've done
What about all the peace
That you pledge your only son...
What about flowering fields
Is there a time
What about all the dreams
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice
All the children dead from war
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores

I used to dream
I used to glance beyond the stars
Now I don't know where we are
Although I know we've drifted far

Hey, what about yesterday
(What about us)
What about the seas
(What about us)
The heavens are falling down
(What about us)
I can't even breathe
(What about us)
What about the bleeding Earth
(What about us)
Can't we feel its wounds
(What about us)
What about nature's worth
(ooo,ooo)
It's our planet's womb
(What about us)
What about animals
(What about it)
We've turned kingdoms to dust
(What about us)
What about elephants
(What about us)
Have we lost their trust
(What about us)
What about crying whales
(What about us)
We're ravaging the seas
(What about us)
What about forest trails
(ooo, ooo)
Burnt despite our pleas
(What about us)
What about the holy land
(What about it)
Torn apart by creed
(What about us)
What about the common man
(What about us)
Can't we set him free
(What about us)
What about children dying
(What about us)
Can't you hear them cry
(What about us)
Where did we go wrong
(ooo, ooo)
Someone tell me why
(What about us)
What about babies
(What about it)
What about the days
(What about us)
What about all their joy
(What about us)
What about the man
(What about us)
What about the crying man
(What about us)
What about Abraham
(What was us)
What about death again
(ooo, ooo)
Do we give a damn

Apologies

2009-07-04T18:25:00.002+01:00

You may have noticed I have been absent from blogging for a while. I can only apologise. My Laptop broke (indeed, only after I dropped a beer bottle on it). Now finally I have a new one. So without further ado let's get back to business.

A good friend of mine, Mr "Nightcrowred", managed to bag an interview with Sam Webb, leader of the Communist Party of the United States of America, (CPUSA). While I myself have issues with the CPUSA I felt that this interview went very well and that Mr Webb gave some brilliant answers to some difficult questions. The questions themselves were mainly suggested by viewers of Nightcrowred's youtube channel, something which I congratulate as an ingenious idea. Even I left a few questions which I would have liked to be raised, and indeed was very thankful when they were. So here, in five separate parts it is;

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

(My questions are in this part)

And finally Part 5

Iranian Revolution? Part 1

2009-06-21T21:22:00.006+01:00

A protester. From Al Jazeera

Iran. A nation with thousands of years of rich history. But, this week, it has become a nation of rioting, protests and murder. Democracy, human rights and self respect, or at least what such little there once was, have gone out the window. After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "won" the June 12th election, to the reaction of mass protest, could we be seeing a second Iranian Revolution, almost exactly 30 years after the first, or will this be a Persian Tiananmen square?

Before we can attempt to understand why the current situation has occurred we need to understand modern Iranian history. To just observe the present situation and determine it's causes, effects and possible outcome is impossible. Such a familiar story is uncovered that it appears merely an echo from around the world. This is my simplified take on such a complex series of events. Names and key events are linked with more information;

In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddeq was democratically elected the Prime Minister of Iran. He won on a campaign to nationalise the vast oil production and to remove the intervention of foreign powers in Iran.

Mohammed Mossaddeq, Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953.

But, as always, there was a problem with that. At the time the Oil was owned by the British oil giant BP. They raked in billions of pounds profit each year selling Iranian oil. They weren't happy. This became known as the Abadan Crisis, named after the city where the oil refinery was located. Now because capital for UK business is, and always will be in a capitalist mode of production, more important than both Iranian democracy and human rights the then UK Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, enlisted the help of the US to remove Mossadeq from power. Harry S. Truman, the US president at the time refused. But then in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced Truman and agreed to overthrow Mossaddeq. Winston Churchill, the very man who led the defeat of Nazism was now plotting to remove the elected Prime Minister of Iran. Oh, the irony.

So the coup began. The CIA and MI6 moved in arrested Mossaddeq and set the Shah, or monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, complete political power. The oil fell back into the hands of BP and other foreign companies. Everyone was happy again; the money was rolling in, Iran was under control of a US puppet government, there was no danger of Soviet influence. In a word -perfect. Except, of course for the people of Iran. The person they had chosen to be their leader and use oil revenues to improve the impoverished nation had been removed. To make matters worse they now had to live under the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who, just to rub things in, was supported and funded by the western world.

To be continued....

Last.fm Communists

2009-06-20T02:21:00.005+01:00

Just for a bit of fun, this is a plead for all "leftist" users of Last.fm, the "free" social music website, to join the leading Communist group, named simply, Commies. For those who are not yet registered with Last.fm, or those who really have no idea what it is, Last.fm could be described as a social networking site based upon music. You can sign up here. The Commies group has nearly 1000 members now and still is growing daily. There are many great, and simply comical, debates that happen in the chat forum and "shoutboxes" of the group. Debates that cannot be missed. From being called an idiot, to being told that Communism is for stupid people, this really is welcoming gift to beginners of Marxist ideology in how to debate down those with such oversimplified views. As well as this there is a great guide , and recommendations, for many Communist musicians.

So join the group here and make yourself known. We won't bite.

Finally here is the link to My profile, so sure, add me as a friend if you want, or leave me a comment or a question and I'll get back to you.

In the next day or two I plan to add my ideas and thoughts concerning the recent Iranian crises - so keep an eye out and check back.

Without Leaders?

2009-06-17T18:03:00.004+01:00

Loosely following from a previous entry titled, The "Human Nature" Myth, here is an extract from a recent lecture by Peter Gronn, Professor of Education at Cambridge University, that briefly explores the very "naturalness" of our present social hierarchy and contrasts this with the apparent classless structure of early hunter gatherer societies. It is obvious that humanity has achieved such incredible progression in 100,000 years and that to return to the simple life of a hunter gatherer would be such a huge leap in the wrong direction however, one must agree that it is all to fascinating to see how human social structure has transformed throughout the ages.

Early human society hunted, gathered – and worked without 'leaders'

For about 94,000 of the 100,000 years of human history, people lived and organised themselves as hunter-gatherers without a centralized leadership apparatus. Hunter-gatherers began the transition to early chiefdoms and embryonic states between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. Only in the previous 100-500 years have there been state-level polities.

The earliest human societies were acephalous: they existed without formal rulers or leaders. For this reason, they were also probably without heroes, a pattern which is starkly at odds with what has been claimed of human history generally and which also contrasts with the contemporary leadership field.

Here, thanks to the influence of charismatic and transformational leadership, a cult of exceptionally or a hero paradigm has influenced leadership strongly during its re-emergence. In hunter-gatherer societies, however, nomadic individuals had "no real authority over each other" and there was "the closest approximation to equality known in any human societies". Distinctions based on power, wealth, prestige and rank, although not gender, were largely eliminated.

A major co-ordination problem for hunter-gatherers was the capture and killing of game: male band members worked together to achieve a kill as they (and their families) were dependent on one another for this food source.

There may have been nominal or incipient chiefs and leaders, "sometimes women but usually men" and usually adult heads of households, but these were kept in line by a strict regime of scorn, ridicule, criticism, irony, intimidation, ostracism, disobedience, desertion, expulsion and even killing. A wise hunter with pretentions to lead, therefore would learn to sit quietly with the other men, and "[allow] the blood on his arrow shaft to speak for him". At best, we have evidence here of a rudimentary division of leadership labour. In practice a headman or an informal leader might step forward to make decisions only "as long as the band welcomes him to do so", with bands having a series of such individuals "who come forward when their particular expertise is needed".

Taken from the inaugural lecture by the Professor of Education at the University of Cambridge, 'Leadership: Its genealogy, configuration and trajectory'

Lecture extract taken from The Independent.

Freedom of Speech

2009-06-13T16:51:00.004+01:00

Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right in a democratic society. That means some people will say thing you don't like, things you disagree with and even things you find offensive. That is no reason to silence them. All forms of censorship are unjust and undemocratic.

That is why I must condemn the recent attacks on Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, the new BNP MEPs, organised by Unite Against Fascism. Let's be clear here; the BNP are a vile bunch of racists - but that is no excuse to attack them and it is defiantly not an excuse to censor them. Let them have their say, peacefully protest against it and engage in debate with them. That is the only way to show people how wrong the BNP are. Attacking them plays into their hands, makes them appear the victims and gives them positive publicity.

Oliver Kamm, of The Times, gave this interview to Sky News, to which, unusually, I agree with everything he says.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/06/does-eggpelting-help-the-bnp.html

After all, it was Noam Chomsky who said;

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

EU Results; What Went Wrong?

2009-06-08T18:50:00.007+01:00

As I'm sure you are aware the European Election results came in the earlier hours of this morning. Bad news. The UK now has a holocaust denier and a neo-Nazi representing us in the EU Parliament. A very sad day for British Democracy. There's nothing democratic in voting away ethnic minorities rights.

But how did these racists manage to slip in?

It's easy. There are two main reasons;

1. The Left as a whole, yet again, was completely divided amongst it's self. Here I'll show you what I mean...

Results for North West Region where Nick Griffin, Leader of the BNP, won his seat;

	Votes		MEPs
Party	Total	%
Conservative	423,174	25.6 (+1.5)	3
Labour	336,831	20.4 (-6.9)	2	-1
UK Independence Party	261,740	15.8 (+3.7)	1	0
Liberal Democrats	235,639	14.3 (-1.6)	1	0
British National Party	132,094	8.0 (+1.6)	1	+1
Green Party	127,133	7.7 (+2.1)	0	0
English Democrat	40,027	2.4 (+0.8)	0	0
Socialist Labour Party	26,224	1.6 (+1.6)	0	0
Christian Party-Christian Peoples Alliance	25,999	1.6 (+1.6)	0	0
No2EU	23,580	1.4 (+1.4)	0	0
Jury Team	8,783	0.5 (+0.5)	0	0
Libertas	6,980	0.4 (+0.4)	0	0
Independent - Francis Apaloo	3,621	0.2 (+0.2)	0	0

Source; BBC

Seats are allocated by the d'hont Method of Proportional Representation - so Conservatives, Labour, UKIP and Lib Dems have the first seven seats. Okay - so now the final 8th seat - after applying the formula the seat goes to the party with the highest count; that being their number of votes divided by one plus their current number of seats. So the last seat falls to the BNP. But wait - take a look at the Green Party, the next party in the list behind the BNP;

British National Party	132,094	8.0 (+1.6)	1	+1
Green Party	127,133	7.7 (+2.1)	0	0

Can you see, the Greens trail the BNP by only 5000 votes - or about 0.3%. Okay so fair and square the Greens lost - but what if we take a look at the other leftist parties further down the list;

Socialist Labour Party	26,224	1.6 (+1.6)	0	0
No2EU	23,580	1.4 (+1.4)	0	0

Combined these two parites gained 50,000 votes. Ten times the number needed to put the Greens ahead of the BNP. And guess what- exactly the same thing happened in Yorkshire and the Humber. So clearly then if the left/Green as a whole were to unite the BNP would have lost spectaculary. A lesson to learn perhaps?

And 2. The most obvious reason - 3,554,649 people that is 68% of the electorate sat on their but all day. These are the people who left the racists walk right in. The most amazing fact about this is that the BNP actually lost in raw number of votes compared with the 2004 election - but due to a much lower turnout they had a higher share of the vote. Those who didn't vote should feel ashamed of themselves. You let Nick Griffin walk straight into the European Parliment. Just to remind you who he is let's see a clip of him in action shall we - here he is ealier this year being interviewed on the BBC suggesting racial segregation.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Why oh why did people vote for this fool?

Finally away from the fascists and a look at some of the other stories of the night...

The UK Greens couldn't quite gain another seat - despite having the biggest gain of all UK political parties. But EU wide Greens made huge gains - primarly at the expence of the "Socialists". That is something feel good about.

And the Swedish Pirate Party gained their first seat - a further kick in the face to Corperate Copyright monopolyies.

But the main winners, unfortunately, were the far right and the center right.

So quite a dissapoiting night, unless of couse you are a racist or a free Marketeer - but chin up, there's always next time. Bring on eu2014.

Thinking UKIP? Think again

2009-06-02T21:13:00.003+01:00

As you may know some polls are suggesting that The United Kingdom Independence Party are set to gain in the European Elections on Thursday, with added "protest" support from the "expenses scandal" that has rocked British Politics to the core recently.

But I really don't understand why.

Maybe people can't remember that Nigel Farage MEP the leader of UKIP pictured above, claimed £2million pounds in expenses, that being top of his £64,000 salary. Or that 2 of the 12 MEPs that UKIP won in 2004 where charged with fraud - and another member fell out with the party. Or even that 5 of the ten least efficient UK MEPs belong to UKIP. And to top it all of the Party has been involved in hundreds of controversies in their short history. Or that Nigel Farage was infamously the only MEP to refused to applauded Prince Charles' talk in the EU Parliament on fighting climate change. Even the Euro-sceptic "think tank" Open Europe has called UKIP the worst UK party in Parliament - with the Greens coming out the best.

Now surely that's even worse than MPs claiming for Duck Houses and Church Donations. So why are people planning on voting for them?

The only decency they have is their opposition to the anti-democratic nature of the EU. But please, don't be fooled; the Greens, the Lib Dems, the new Libertas, heck even the Conservatives have campaigned for more EU democracy.

And so with that the Green Party have published a brilliant new report, titled Thinking of voting for UKIP? Think again, that exposes UKIP. Here's just a few priceless highlights, and really I recommend you read the full report, it's only a few pages long;

...Pollution knows no boundaries. Yet UKIP oppose, for instance, the banning of harmful pesticides and weed-killers...

..UKIP repeatedly claims that the EU costs Britain £41 million a day. But they never mention that we get £18 million a day of that back...

...they (UKIP) persist in peddling the idea that there is still no solid scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from humankind’s activities are leading to dangerous levels of global warming...

... UKIP MEPs go on claiming attendance allowances for attending a body they regard as a sham. Simultaneously, UKIP have opposed closer scrutiny of MEP expenses and refuse to reveal their own...

Report here [PDF]

Simply we don't want a bunch of fraudulent, Climate change deniers representing us in a Parliament they so militantly oppose.

So, with some polls predicting UKIP beating Labour into second place on Thursday we need to ask ourselfs; Are UKIP better than the current politicians? Do they offer any answers? Have they made any progress? Are they a party for the future? Simply the answer to all these questions in no.

But if you so militantly believe the EU is not reformable and the only solution is for the UK to leave, then please, don't waste your vote on UKIP - vote for NO2EU instead.

And if you do believe in reform, progress, democracy, Human rights, and securing a future on this earth - then join me and

Vote Green.

Something a Bit Different

2009-06-01T19:03:00.004+01:00

So, as you "regular readers"- if indeed there is any- know, I've been running this blog for a few months now. There's been a few bumps along the way, a few issues and crises, but overall I'd say this has been very successful so far, at least judging by the comments I've received. With that I've decided to do something a bit different in this entry. Right from the very start I've wanted this to be a place of debate and openness rather than a place of lecture, I've wanted the opinions of all my readers to be put forward and feel welcomed especially those opposing my views. Certainly in many past posts debate has flared, and seriously I am thankful to all those who have added their opinion, including those who've given me a difficult time.

So that is why this entry is going to be what you might call an "evaluation" attempt - I'd like to hear comments, recommendations and indeed criticisms of my blog. Please, I really would. And be honest, I'll get more offended with dishonestly than criticism. Tell me what you like about my blog, what you don't like, what you would improve, how you would improve it, hat it is you'd like to see more of, what you'd like to see less of, etc. etc. These can be over any subject - from the petty like the font I use right across to the serious in my analysis of Marxian economics.

I'd also like to use this opportunity to welcome any question you might have, be that related to Marxism and Communism or something completely different. I'll do my very best to answer every last question or issue - but please keep in mind time isn't a commodity I have excess of right now.

So I really look foreword to hearing from you.

Thanks.

One Chance. Vote Green.

2009-05-29T16:57:00.007+01:00

Such is the state of British politics that after watching last night's "European Election special" Question Time, available here on BBC Iplayer, you might be tempted to think that the sole job of MEPs is to claim extravagant expenses, employ family members and generally make a whole lot of cash. Here was me thinking that with the EU elections less than a week away now we might actually have a serious debate on the question of the UK's part in the EU or how the EU plans to respond to issues such as the recession, unemployment, climate change, North Korea's nuclear test, the on going war Pakistan, Middle East peace etc etc. But no, clearly these are far less important than expenses. What a very British kerfuffle. At least one can take hope in the audience's disapproval of both the ultra-Capitalist UKIP and the far-right BNP.

However in the infinite list of issues changing the British public right now, there is one whose importance eclipses all others, whose importance is paramount, one issue that if ignored could spell an end to all human existence. That issue is, of course, Climate Change and Global Warming. Given the current global recession combined with the spectre of mass unemployment, Climate Change may seem insignificant, but it remain in fact the most important crisis facing mankind. Let us not forget; We've only one chance. The Environment won't do a bail out. Unless we act properly and act now it will be too late. Too late for us all.

So while my heart tells me to back NO2EU, a coalition of Socialists, Communists, Trade Unionists and anti-Capitalists opposed to the EU's neo-liberal agenda, my head tells me to back The Green Party, a genuine environmentalist, reformist party committed to stopping our destruction of the environment and upholding human rights and democracy across the world. Being a Marxist, one does not fully agree with their policies on the economy and their analysis to the causes and solutions to the present economic situation, but as stated above, the environment comes above the economy every time.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

Do not be fooled into thinking that the Green Party is a one issue party. Here is just a selection of their policies;

Constitutional reform such as;

Creating a written Constitution
Implementing proportional representation as a fairer electoral system
Ending the powers of the British Monarchy
Creating an elected upper house plus

Others

The boycotting of Israel until it stops violating UN resolutions
Legalisation of recreational drugs
Protecting human and animal rights
Fairer taxation
More powers for Trade Unions
Renationalisation of the Railways

Tears to Laughter - Offical Charity Single

2009-05-26T19:41:00.005+01:00

[Apologies for the recent lack in activity here - with college exams this and next month my spare time seems to have all but disappeared. Activity should be as normal towards the end of June.]

You may remember that a few weeks ago I posted Lowkey's "Tears to Laughter / Long Live Palestine". I became addicted to such an intelligent and indeed powerful song. But now it has come to my attention that Lowkey has released the track as a Charity song with all profits going towards the Disaster Emergency Committee Gaza appeal. So that is why I pressure you to spare with your hard earned cash to support the Palestinian people, who, may I remind you, are still living in harsh conditions after Israeli bombardment in January. The song is available on iTunes.

Lowkey released Tears to Laughter on Monday 9th March which was performed by Lowkey at the demonstrations against the invasion and massacre of Gaza."Long Live Palestine, Long Live Gaza" has become the rallying cry of the movement calling for justice for the Palestinians.Lowkey is donating all of his profits from 'Tears to laughter' to the DEC Gaza Crisis appeal. You can purchase the track at iTunes...

From the Official Site; http://www.tearstolaughter.com/

New Official music video;

Although I must add that the final cut of the song falls far from the original version, for the reason that one and half verses have inexplicably been cut.

http://www.myspace.com/lowkeyuk

http://www.tearstolaughter.com/

http://www.dec.org.uk/

The Rise of Morales

2009-05-12T16:14:00.004+01:00

Rodrigo Vazquez - Al Jazeera; Witness special: President Evo

I recommend you watch this eye opening, informative 60 minute documentary on the rise of Evo Morales and the violent opposition to him by the wealthy European colonialists in Bolivia. The film illuminates facts such as how pre-Morales 91% of the farming land in the whole country was owned by 15 families, how all previous presidents had been part of the 20% ruling "European" elite and how anti-"indigenous Indian" racism runs rife in upper class. Especially take note of how the opposition leaders claim to represent democracy and then go against all democratic principles when they loose out or how the rich and powerful will do anything to keep control away from the proletariat. Mind opening stuff.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Site Info;

In 2005, Evo Morales made history by becoming the first indigenous person to be president of Bolivia.
He was elected on the promise that he would get the poor indigenous people that make up 60 per cent of the population out of poverty through a revolution in democracy.

Evo never imagined that this promise would lead to the worst period of socio-political instability that the country has seen for decades.
His election promises - to lift the poor indigenous majority out of poverty and share the country's resources more equitably - were met with huge opposition from the wealthy land-owning minority of European descent.
Filmmaker Rodrigo Vazquez spent three years following Morales, from his presidential campaign through the years of bitter struggle for constitutional and economic reform.
The film follows his rise to power and his first three years in government. The business elite, the corporate media and the landowners violently oppose the president's plan to redistribute the nation's wealth amongst the have-nots.
Peaceful peasant demonstrations turn into confrontations with right-wing paramilitary forces, there are battles between the rich and the poor.
The filmmakers' unique access to Evo Morales reveals a dramatic story of power struggles, street battles and strategic alliances. But mostly it is about the power of democracy itself.

Viva Morales!

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/witness/2009/05/20095106340458692.html

We are all Insignificant

2009-05-11T19:45:00.006+01:00

[I understand this entry is far removed from normal business, but I recommend you read it anyway - it is enlightening. If you really insist on passing, then I'm not insulted. In the next few days I'll be releasing a mini-Project on the EU elections, so stay tuned ]

If I told you that you are insignificant, not only would you find me incredibly rude and probably resort to slapping me, but I'd wager that you'd try and disagree. After all your life is important and special to all the people you know, which I agree is true.

If I told you that everyone you've ever known and further everyone you've ever seen are all insignificant you'd probably just think I'd had too many drinks.

And if I continued and stated finally that everything object observed by you, including the beauty of the sky at night was still insignificant you'd probably resort to having me sectioned under the Mental Health act.

But I'm right. There is no evidence to suggest that there exists even one iota of uniqueness about the Earth we inhabit, the Star we orbit, the Solar System we belong to even the Galaxy we swirl upon. Honestly it is quite the opposite - we are part of a normal Galaxy cluster in an average Galaxy in a standard position with a bland star upon a planet that is a nobody in the social status of space. However one claim we can be proud of is at present our reservation to the title of the only landscape with observed life. This claim is one which it would be ignorant, even quasi-Religious, to believe or assume true. There is no perceivable, conclusive nor logical explanation against the existence of other intelligent lifeforms on another land. Scary. Of course the communication or observation of said lifeforms is a whole different kettle of fish.

This very evening, indeed only a few hours ago, an upgrade and repair to the wondrous Hubble Space Telescope was launched. A moderate story in today's headlines of MP's expenses and brutality by the Sri Lankan Government, but one that should excite us all like children let loose in a candy shop. The exploration of the unknown - the very satisfaction of human curiosity.

This is why the Hubble Telescope exists;

This picture of course represents a minute part of the observable Universe. Each tiny speck, believe it or not, is a whole galaxy - each with hundreds of billions of stars exactly like our own. That is why all you have ever known is insignificant.

In the words of Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

http://hubblesite.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8044041.stm

The Global Communist

2009-05-09T17:20:00.006+01:00

I'd like to draw your attention to The Global Communist. This new project, headed by Doug and Yvette, serves to unify all Communist, Socialist and Anarchist blogs together for ease of reference and reading. The site simply provides links to useful and informative blog entries. It is already updating from 48 different blogs and this number is rapidly growing. Naturally there is a huge variety in the articles published, varying from Maoists to Anarchists, from New York to Venezula, from Political Parties to individuals with everything imaginable inbetween. I recomend you bookmark the site now and regularly check back to it.

http://global-communist.com/

Of course, if you want your blog, or a blog you know of, to be added to the site then please provide the link in a comment below. We'd really like to add as many blogs as possible and no blog will be rejected.

Through the website we are also working on releasing a regular Blog Carnival, so if you'd wish to contribute then please speak up, any help will be greatly appreciated!

When Is a Stalinist right?

2009-05-07T18:33:00.009+01:00

Note - I do not support the CPGB -ML, or any other Stalinist for that matter. Now on with the show.

You may have heard of the CPGB-ML , that's the Communist Party of Great Britain - Marxist Leninist, if you didn't know. You may have heard negitive comments said about them. You may have heard accusations against them. Let me tell you frankly that what you've heard is probably true. These guys are proud and unrepentant Stalinists. They pledge allegiance to Kim Jong- Il, Mao, Mugabe, and any other murderous nutjob who claims to be on the left. They've lost track of what Communism really represents and simply corrupt Marx' message to furthe their authoritarian adgenda.

Wave the banner for Stalin. Or not.

As suprising as it may be though, their Chairman, Harpal Brar, is a very intelligent man. His analysis of the terror that is Capitalism is near perfect. It would be ignorant to reject his words merely on the basis of his Stalinism. Recently he gave a public talk on the origins of the current Capitalist crisis. Here it is for you to see. I recommend it fully. Look past the Stalin admirer and you'll find an intelligent analysis of Capitalism. Apologies for the not so perfect quality.

For the rest of the speech click here.

And so to answer the question "When Is a Stalinist right?" - when they show the evils and contradictions of Capitalism.

CPGB-ML's Homepage: http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=home

CPGB-ML's Youtube page; http://www.youtube.com/user/ProletarianCPGBML

This is How Hip Hop Should Be

2009-05-02T01:28:00.004+01:00

Hip Hop. A genre that is now only associated with the female body, sexual promiscuity, guns, gangs, violence and drugs. But this, as we shall now see, is only half the story. What fails to make the charts are the songs documenting world oppression, suffering, poverty, injustice and western hypocrisy. That is why it is my duty to present here a song that sends out all the right messages. The author of the song I'm going to present to you goes by the name of Lowkey and the song is called "Tears To Laughter / Long Live Palestine". Even if you are not a fan of this music genre, I still recommmend you hear the song at least once whilst reading the lyrics, which are printed below. The song creates such raw emotion that the atmosphere becomes electric.

While we listen to tunes, made by ignorant fools,
Israel blocked the UN from delivering food,
They'll bring in the troops and you won't even glimpse at the news,
They make money of the products that we are quick to consume,
It's not simply a question of differing views,
Forget emotions, this is fact, what I spit is the truth,
Makes no difference if you're a Christian or if you're a Jew,
They are just people living in different conditions to you,
They still die when you bomb their schools, mosques and hospitals,
It is not because of rockets, please god can you stop it all,
I'm not related to the strangers on the TV,
But I relate because those faces could have been me,
Words can never ever explain the raw tragedy,
It's not a war they're just murdering more rapidly,
We are automatically supporting pure savagery,
Imagine how you'd feel if it was your family,

This is for Palestine, Ramallah, West Bank, Gaza,
This is for the child that is searching for an answer,
I wish I could take your tears and replace them with laughter,
Long live Palestine, Long live Gaza,

Palestine remains in my heart forever,
We stand for peace, in times of war we shan't surrender,
Remember, it didn't start in that dark December,
Every coin is a bullet, if you're Mark's and Spencer,
And when your sipping Coca-Cola,
That's another pistol in the holster of a soulless soldier,
You say you know about the Zionist lobby,
But you put money in their pocket when you're buying their coffee,
Talking about revolution, sitting in Starbucks,
The fact is that's the type of thinking I can't trust,
Let alone even start to respect,
Before you talk learn the meaning of that scarf on your neck,
Forget Nestle,
Obama promised Israel 30 billion over the next decade,
They're trigger happy and they're crazy,
Think about that when you're putting Huggies nappies on your baby,

This is for Palestine, Ramallah, West Bank, Gaza,
This is for the child that is searching for an answer,
I wish I could take your tears and replace them with laughter,
Long live Palestine, Long live Gaza,

This is not just a war over stolen land,
Why do you think little boys are throwing stones at tanks?
We will never really know how many people are dead,
They drop bombs on little girls while they sleep in their beds,
Don't get offended by facts, just try and listen,
Nothing is more anti-Semitic than Zionism,
So please don't bring bad vibes when you speak to me,
I know there's plenty of Rabbi's that agree with me,
It's your choice what you do with this message,
Don't get it confused; I view this from a truly human perspective,
How many more resolutions have to be violated,
How many more children have to be annihilated
Israel is a terror state, there terrorists that terrorise,
I testify, my television televised them telling lies,
This is not a war, it is systematic genocide,
But whatever they try, Palestine will never die!!!

For more tracks please visist Lowkey's Myspace; http://www.myspace.com/lowkeyuk Or search for "Lowkey" on youtube.

Alternative mix of the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGWy6uA18sk

Disaster Capitalism

2009-04-30T18:49:00.004+01:00

In 2007 a Canadian journalist by the name of Naomi Klein published a book. It was called "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". In it she argued how Free Market Capitalism had been forced onto the general public during, or while recovering from, social upheavals or disasters. Through this she also noted the hugely excessive profits that are made by private insitutions during national and international disasters.

The work was celebrated by all those on the "left" as well as economists. The Independent called the book "a compelling account of the way big business and politics use global disasters for their own ends". Paul B. Farrell, from the Dow Jones Business News, said "you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century". William S. Kowinski, of the San Francisco Chronicle, who stated that "The Shock Doctrine could turn out to be among the most important books of the decade."

While the acceptance of creating profits through the misery of society should be unsuprising to those who understand the Capitalist mode of production, we are reminded in that what sets the author of this text apart is her ability to clearly demonstrate examples of this inhumane and exploitive behavior. This is a book I recommend to everyone who is grasping for a better understanding into the manner to which Capitalist businessess function.

With that in hand it is in our interest to present the spectre of Disaster Capitalism and profiteering in light of the present world crisis; Swine Flu.

As news of the flu emerged CEOs of multi-billion dollar drug companies rejoiced in the knowledge of their inevitable gains. Shares in all medical related companies continue to rally day upon day as investors scurry to get in on their own slice of the pie. As this situation gets worse expect to see more and more profits fall into the hands of the exploiters.

What low level is it that the world has sunk to that each new social crisis is not seen as an ethical humanitarian mission to save the vulnerable, but instead seen as just another business opportunity to "earn" cash on the exploitation of the deprived?

It is time once and for all we put People Before Profits. After all, the only casualty will be the corrupt capitalist system.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/profiting-disaster-capitalism

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/paperback-the-shock-doctrine-by-naomi-klein-832704.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8026978.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

To Tell the Future...

2009-04-26T16:07:00.006+01:00

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last year, you should be aware that the whole world is presently in the grips of what will probably be the biggest recession since the 1930s. One result of this is that millions of people worldwide, especially those from developing nations, are expected to be pushed into hunger and poverty. However what you might not be aware of is the accuracy of the predictions made in relation to this economic turmoil.

Imagine that you had been warned of the economic collapse a few weeks before the first signs emerged, would you act to minimise the damage? Imagine instead that you had been informed one whole year in advance, would you act? Finally imagine you were told 160 years ago that unless radical changes were made to the global mode of economic production these downturns, and the poverty and death resulting from them, were an inevitable product, would you act to prevent it? Would you act to save innocent lives?

Now imagine this was reality. Who possibly could have predicted such an event so far in future? How could they have done that? And why is it that I haven't heard of them or their work?

Let me tell you now that that person is none other than Karl Marx (pictured below), the very founder of Modern Communism.

And this is what he had to say on the subject of economic crises;

Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells... It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. ...The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.

[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians - Karl Marx]

The Communist Manifesto, a epoch making text written in 1848, shows us why, through Marx' analysis of Capitalism and it's inherent contradictions, economic recessions are inevitable in a Capitalist mode of production. Over-Production. The phenomena of creating more commodities than can be consumed. So how is this relevant in the present economic crisis? Well, let's observe an assortment of this weeks business news stories first...

Low chip and TV sales hit Samsung

GM to close factories for weeks

Small slide in US manufacturing

Microsoft suffers first sales dip

Lower prices lift Amazon profits

UK car production falls by half

Can you see the common factor yet? Over-Production. There are too many commodities being produced and the public are not buying them.

Then Marx continues...

And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians - Karl Marx]

Which again is exactly what is happening. Finally, Marx notes this;

That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians - Karl Marx]

Through these actions the bourgeois are paving the way for a greater crisis in the future.

Isn't it about time we listened to a man who, through research into contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, made such accurate predictions of the economy 160 years down the line?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

Marxism in 4 Minutes

2009-04-21T19:24:00.004+01:00

While it is not the aim of this blog to act merely as a relay, or a publicity machine, to the work of others, it seems pointless to waste time reiterating information that has previously been perfectly presented. With that in hand I replicate to you here a short youtube video, titled simply "Marxism", that explains breifly, with no previous knowledge necessary, the basic philosophical and political thoughts that define Marxism and how that stands in relation to other ideologies. The reason I decided to present the video here is due to it's accuracy and simplicity. I highly recommend you watch it and even pass it on to others.

With thanks to the author, "ktownpoet".

US Military asks for Change

2009-04-17T15:18:00.003+01:00

Futher to yesterday's post, "Change" to Cuban American Relationship, which examined some aspects of the US blockade on Cuba, I felt the need to provide more evidence to how counter-productive, hypocritcal and unpopular the blockade is. This new evidence comes in the form of a letter to the US President, Barack Obama, from a large number of senior US military personel. The letter speaks for it's self so there is no need to add further comments. For ease of quick reading, if one hasn't the time to read it all, the most important phrases are in bold.

Here is the letter presented in full;

To: The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States

As former senior officers of the United States armed forces, we are writing today to encourage you to support the Congressional initiatives to end the ban on travel to Cuba for all Americans.

The current policy of isolating Cuba has failed, patently, to achieve our ends. Cuba ceased to be a military threat decades ago. At the same time, Cuba has intensified its global diplomatic and economic relations with nations as diverse as China, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, and members of the European Union. It is hard to characterize such global engagement as isolation.

Though economically weak, the Castro government has kept the broad support of its people by responding to economic shocks and providing universal access to health care and education. There will be no counter-revolution any time soon. Instead, the current embargo serves more to prop up the Castro regime and shows no sign of triggering a popular uprising against the communist government it runs. When hard times fall on the Cuban people, inevitably, the Cuban government blames the U.S. ―"bloqueo" for the suffering. And the people, with a strong sense of national sovereignty, rally to their flag.

Even worse, the embargo has inspired a significant diplomatic movement against U.S. policy. As military professionals, we understand that America's interests are best served when the United States is able to attract the support of other nations to our cause. When world leaders overwhelmingly cast their vote in the United Nations against the embargo and visit Havana to denounce American policy, it is time to change the policy, especially after 50 years of failure in attaining our goals.

The congressional initiative to lift the travel ban for all Americans is an important first step toward lifting the embargo, a policy more likely to bring change to Cuba. It begins to move the United States in an unambiguous direction toward the kind of policy--based on principled engagement and proportional and discriminate action that was the hallmark of your presidential campaign. Combined with renewed engagement with Havana on key security issues such as narcotics trafficking, immigration, airspace and Caribbean security, we believe the U.S. will be on a path to rid ourselves of the dysfunctional policy your administration has inherited.

It is a clear cut case. During the Cold War, the U.S. encouraged Americans to travel to the Soviet bloc resulting in more information, more contact, and more freedom for captive peoples, and ultimately the end of the Berlin Wall and the Cold War itself. This idea of engagement underlies our current policies toward Iran, Syria and North Korea all much graver concerns to the United States - where Americans are currently free to travel. By sending our best ambassadors--the American people--to engage their Cuban neighbors, we have a much better chance of influencing the eventual course of Cuban affairs. Broader economic engagement with the island through additional commercial and people-to-people contacts will in time promote a more pluralist and open society. And, by actually striking down an element of the embargo, that signal will be sent to the government in Havana.

Mr. President, around the world, leaders are calling for a real policy shift that delivers on the hope you inspired in your campaign. Cuba offers the lowest-hanging fruit for such a shift and would be a move that would register deeply in the minds of our partners and competitors around the world.

From:
General James T. Hill (Ret.)
General Barry R. McCaffrey (Ret.)
General Johnnie E. Wilson (Ret.)
Lieutenant General John G. Castellaw (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (Ret.)
Major General Paul D. Eaton (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret.)
Brigadier General John Adams (Ret.)
Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret.)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/04/us_military_lea/

"Change" to Cuban American Relationship

2009-04-16T20:23:00.004+01:00

US President Barack Obama, elected on the promise of "change", has eased travel rules on Cuban Americans. From now on there will be less rules and regulation on traveling to, or sending money to relatives in Cuba. During George Bush' years Cuban Americans were denied the right to visit their family more than once every 3 years and strict laws were passed on sending money home, limiting cash amounts to a slither.

From The Independant. Referencing the US plot to assassinate Fidel with an explosive cigar.

While this may appear a positive move closer examination reveals it to be, in the major scale of things, microscopic to what is needed for justice in the change to American foreign policy on Cuba. The trade embargo,which makes all trade or business by US companies with Cuba punishable by hefty fines, remains intact with no plans for it's removal. This is despite popular opposition by American citizens and continuous international condemnation by the UN. Even 55% of Cuban Americans living in Miami who fled Cuba after the revolution oppose the embargo[1].

Fidel Casto, ex-President of Cuba and leader of the 1959 Cuban Revolution which ousted the US backed dictator Batista, commented on the change in policy, stating how it was "positive, although minimal". He continued by saying how the "wet foot - dry foot" policy, which allows all Cuban immigrants to the US to stay if they reach American land, and the trade embargo need to be ended. Raul Castro, current President of Cuba, called for the Cuban 5, the five Cubans who were arrested for inflitrating anti-Castro terrorist groups in the US, to be released as a sign of real change.

The US claimed that their loosening of restrictions will help further "democracy and human right" in Cuba. Not only is this statement basless but it comes as the US is again been challenged for human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay. It's somewhat hypocritical to criticise "human rights abuses" in Cuba when your record is tainted with blood from illigal wars and prisoner abuses. Equally hypocritical is how Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay yet keep the illegally snatched Cuban land it is on. Real change does not appear to be coming from Obama.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3182150.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7999038.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7997063.stm

Understanding Somalian Pirates

2009-04-15T18:05:00.008+01:00

Piracy is a threat to world trade once more, just it's not quite the friendly swashbuckling romanticism portrayed in Hollywood. There's no parrots nor eye patches in sight and swords and hand guns have been replaced by AK-47s and RPGs. News headlines, claiming as always to represent the full story, have spoken of constant brutal unprovoked attacks by Somalian pirates on passing ships. Unfortunalty, as expected, that's only half the story.

Somalia, a mainly Muslim country in North East Africa, is a nation savaged by deprivation and poverty; with the average life expectancy, as estimated by the UN, at 48 years. Wrecked by past colonialism and civil war, the transitional government now strugles to impliment even the most basic law and order.

With this lack of workable government western nations have been quick to expoilt all that is possible within Somalian territory. European companies have been dumping rubbish, including dangerous radioactive Nuclear waste and toxic mercury, along the coastline whilst at the same time stealing fish from the surrounding waters. Recent sources have indicated more than 300 Somalians have died as a result of radiation poisoning. Somalia is being raped for the second time in it's history by westerners.

Democracy Now! asks "Why did Somalian piracy begin?"

Part 2; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrFWrZQhkQE

Those Pirates you see as terrorists highjackers on the news are not really terrorists at all, neither are they really Pirates. They are freedom fighters. Fighting for the freedom of the

Somalian people in a war against the rape of Somalian land and seas by western companies. The only way to stop this "piracy" is to work with the Somalian people and not against them. So to world governments, western ones especially, I say this: if you clear the dumped waste, stop stealing Somalian fish, stop the poverty and deprivation in Somalia you will be rewarded with a huge reduction in piracy, however if you continue to act in your selfish ways pirate gangs will grow and the problem will get worse.

For a brilliant in article by Johann Hari of The Independant about these "pirates" see;

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

Happy Easter.. I Think...

2009-04-12T20:47:00.007+01:00

Before I begin I wish to apolgise for my recently inactivity. Paradoxically having time out from college means I actually have less free time than before. I hope that you have been busying yourselfs with deep political thought in my absence. It is my personal aim to have at least 2 long posts and 2 shorter breif posts per week. I shall see how this works out, hopefully it will be a workable goal. However it is possible I will have time for more, equally I may not even have time to reach that. So let's just see.

As you must be aware Easter is upon us. The celebration of Jesus' death, apparently for our "sins", and yes I mean you, you damn filthly sinner, followed 3 days later by his magical "resurrection".

The Pope preparing to address a crowd on Easter Sunday

In other news aparently now even football on Easter Sunday is anti-Christian [1], I guess God doesn't like watching football with his busy schedule answering all those prayers and everything.

Seriously though I've yet to find a Christian who can actually explain the whole Jesus kerfuffle. Logically it makes about as much sense as Santa Claus. Now, sure, I respect your beliefs, and if you want to follow that book for your whole life then fine by me, but can we at least debate the nonsensical faith you have? I'm appealing to Christians here to provide evidence for why you hold such logically perverse ideas. Jesus would be a lot more believable if every aspect of his life wasn't so inexplicably mystical and scientifically impossible. Think about it; born to a virgin, completely impossible, curing the ill, impossible for his time, raising from the dead, equally impossible and I could go on.

The problem with faith is exactly that, faith. Faith removes all reason from belief. And such, faith represents the complete failing of humanity. Was Jesus born to a virgin, oh sure have faith he was, is evolution true? Oh no, my faith is greater than your scientific evidence. I have faith in evidence, which by defintion means I have no faith at all. Prove it I say, have faith they reply. No wonder progress is never made.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7995840.stm

The Passing of a Hero

2009-04-02T17:47:00.003+01:00

As must be aware to all by now, yesterday's anti-G20 protests saw the tragic end to one innocent man's life. It has now been revealed that his name was Ian Tomlinson and he was a 47-year-old who worked in a local newsagents. Firstly I wish to express my condolences to the all Ian's freinds and family after such a tragic event, I fully send by hope and support for you in this difficult time.

Pictures have since surfaced of Ian during the protests;

Current reports are suggesting than Ian suffered a deadly heart attack whilst being held captive in a police corden aimed at preventing protesters from moving. However certain witnesses have revealed that Ian may have been hit by police just moments before. Evidence suggests that police, with dogs in hand, rushed forward into the trapt crowd only minutes before Ian's fatal accident.

Large marches where later held in solidarity with Ian and his loved ones, and in opposition to police brutality and unethical tactics.

Police have lauched an inquiry into his death, yet the general feeling remains that any result is

unlikely, in echo of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by police, to lead to any disciplinary action.

Once again I add my sympathies with Ian's friends and family. He was a true working class hero.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-summit-protester-death

Political Suicide

2009-03-28T20:03:00.007Z

Eric Pickles, Chairman of the Conservative Party and MP for Brentwood and Ongar, perfectly executed what will be known as his political suicide on Thursday evening's Question Time programme. When questioned about his MP's second house allowance by the presenter, David Dimbleby, Eric justified his claim of tens of thousands of pounds of tax payer's money by arguing that he needed his second home as 37 miles was too far the travel to and fro each working day, claiming that a day of work of 5.30am to midnight was too long. What he failed to reveal however was that MPs work only 5 days a week and don't work many weeks of the year. Recieving a welcoming unified boo from the audience, he continuously failed to justify his claim. Eric further stooped low enough to insult his fellow pannel member, Edward Davey Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston, by claiming how Eric's work was more important than his.

This comes as the Conservative party have recently criticised Labour MP's for claiming questionable expenses on second homes. It seems the elite class are all as bad as each other. Offically MP's with constituencies in inner London are not allowed to claim a second home allowance and all others, including those from outer London like Eric, are free to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds in second home allowances each year. MPs can claim expenses on many things, including second homes, bathrooms, food, travel etc, on top of their basic wage of £60,000 per year.

The working people of the UK are fed up with this. We demand change. All politicians seem willing to stick their hand in the piggy bank and spend other people's money, money that should be going on education or healthcare. It's time we demanded major changes to MP's pay. It is in fact time we demanded radical changes to the whole UK, winner takes all, electoral system, including the abolishment of constituencies in favour of a more democratic national proportional representation, however we must never get too carried away. Small steps will eventually lead to large changes.

Initial proposed demands to MP's pay;

1. Basic pay to be lowered to £35,000, still £10,000 above UK average of £25,000.

2. All expenses to be immidieately halted.

3. MPs be provided with designated optional basic flat accommodation in central London in a form similar to student accommodation. As their second "home" this will allow them to work in the House of Commons and in their constituencies without being left without a place to stay. As many MPs have their constituencies hundreds of miles away from London it would be impractical to deny them any accomodation.

4. All previous excessive claims be pay back to the taxpayer.

Until these changes are brought in, MPs will continue to live their elite lifestyle and alienate the real people that should be running the country, the working class of the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pickles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7965195.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7837852.stm
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

G20; You have been Warned.

2009-03-27T21:19:00.009Z

Next week we will see the gathering in London, UK, of 20 world leaders, and their accomplices, from the richest economies in the world. These nations represent 66% of the worlds population yet, by some measures, 85% of world trade. They are a collective of elite capitalists who've no interest in the world's poorest citizens and global workers, except, obviously, that of profit making. Priority will first be on attempting to reduce the effects of the economic crisis, without the need for even suggesting, the effectiveness of this will be, at best, temporary, unless their agreement is to oust the corrupt capitalist system in favour of a equal and just mode of production.

There could never be a more perfect time to demonstrate against the deranged economic systems that these leaders dictate. That is why so many organisations are now obliged to stand up for the working class of the world and show these leaders the opinion of real people in respect to the global economic situation and capitalism in general. The protests are being led by anti-Capitalist groups, environmentalists, anarchists, peace activists along with many others minor organisations.

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to take to the streets of London, essentially bringing the whole city to a standstill.

The Metropolitan police have, as expected, promised opressive violence and "terrorism" charges against protestors, even if they are peaceful in their actions. Hundreds of extra police have been called in preparation of the events. City workers have been warned to "dress down" in fear of violent attacks.

I encourage all to travel to London to voice your opinion, as loud as physically possible, for improvements to the working class ands the world's poor, for enviromentally reasonable production, for world peace and against the corrupt capitalist system that caused this economic situation.

A selection of organisations that are protesting, see individual websites for dates, locations and specific aims:

http://www.g-20meltdown.org

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1121/1/

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/g20

http://www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk/

http://www.cnduk.org/

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17416

http://www.stop-g20.org/

http://www.londonclasswar.org/index3.php

http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/

http://www.graveyard.at/

http://www.altg20.org.uk/about-us/

For general information;

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/britain/thousands_to_march_for_a_better_future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G-20_London_summit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2009/mar/23/online-guide-to-g20-protests

Banker Taught a Lesson

2009-03-25T18:54:00.009Z

The infamous Fred Goodwin, former head of the 'bailed out' Royal Bank of Scotland, has had his luxurious house and vehicle vandalised by heroic guerillas.

Mr. Goodwin, and I outright refuse to address him as "Sir" for 2 reasons; 1. as a method of rejecting ancient monarchical traditions and 2. due to his complete lack of worth for the title, led RBS to a record breaking loss of over £24,000,000,000, that's £24billion, during the recent financial crisis. Known as Fred "the Shred" he barely yawned during the dismissal of thousands of his workers in exchange for constant expanding capital throughout his time in office. However, as with all capitalist institutions, all that goes up must come crashing back down. Inevitably due to the events of the "credit cruch", the bank suffered major difficulties. Then at expense to the tax payer of the UK the failing bank recieved billions of pounds to ensure that it did not completely collapse.

Most controversially, through complete incompetence of bourgeoise politicans, Fred kept his £700,000 a year for life pension, meaning the state was now funding his luxurious lifestyle.

In times of difficulty for millions of workers, not just in the UK, but around the world, the last person the state should be funding is the bourgeois fool who's ignorance and greed caused his own downfall.

When the state allows it's self to be stolen from, that is theft of state funds by banking imbeciles, it is up to the working people to stop the actions of the state by any means necessary.

All other state funded bourgeois should take this as a warning of things to come.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7911722.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7667214.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7962825.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Group

Refuting Frank Zappa; "People like to own Stuff"

2009-03-23T17:08:00.005Z

Frank Zappa, (1940 - 1993), seen above, was a world renowned composer, musician and director who led a hugely successful career spanning more than three decades. He continues to be regarded as one of the greatest guitar players in history. Known for his outspoken views for freedom of speech and against all forms of censorship, he presented an alternative view during the "hippie revolution" of the 1960s in the USA. While I respect his musical achievements, that is not why he has been raised in this entry, instead we shall analyse a famous quote of his.

Perhaps his most famous sound bite, presented, what he believed, to be a complete critism of the theory of Communism, that was;

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.

However his claim, as we will now explore, turns out to be completely contradictory, illogical and ill-informed. The statement, if understood correctly, is actually the biggest argument for Communism there is.

We shall not question the validity of the statement, that is we shall presume true the claim that people do indeed like to own "stuff". It would be an interesting philosophical debate to question this presumption, but that is not necessary for this analyses.

Firstly, as with all analyses and criticism, let us define the terms Frank presents in the statement, starting with Communism. This, as should be evident by now, has been covered many times previously so there is at present no need to readdress it, next we have "work", as before we shall define this to be a society that fuctions adequately following the Communist mode of production. Finally, and most importantly, we have the vague and inaccurate phrase "own stuff".

But what does Frank define as "stuff"?

The most probable situation is that Frank was refering incorrectly to property, property being any real or imaginary entity that has one or many owners. Yet logicaly there are three seperate types of property; public, private and personal. So we must analyse these distinctive types of property independently.

We shall begin this process by reiterating the definitions of these types of propety.

Public Property is defined as any property that is jointly owned by a group, the whole community or the state. Private property is property that is owned exclusively by one or a group of idividuals and is not owned by the whole community together, this includes the means of production in the capitalist system. Personal property is then items that you have the right to exclude others from, that are not means for production of commodities, including general personal possesions, ie clothes, cars etc.

So let us analyse, in line with Frank's statement, each seperate distintive type of propety.

Firstly we have Public property. In this situtation each and every member of the group or community owns part of, or collectively own together, the property. The most simplistic example of this would be a house that is owned by both persons in a relationship, neither one owns the house themselves, nor controls the home, they both collectively own it and should have an equal say in it's management. This type of property ownership is how Communists would prefer to see the means of production, that is all the tools, factories, etc used to produce commodities. In this ownership method every person owns an equal part of the property, so according to Frank's statement each and every person owns the "stuff", thus everyone is satisfied, and mode of production, the Communist one, would "work". With every individual owning a "part" of the property, and having an equal say in it's management, all individuals are "own[ing] stuff" so, the statement predicts this mode of production, the Communist mode, should work.

Next we encounter private property, property owned by a single or a small group of individuals. Inevitably this means that other persons do not own the property. In a capitalist mode of production a boss, or capitalist, owns the means of production as private property. This means that their employees, the workers, do not own the property. The boss owns and controls the factory and the workers have only a minor, if not no say at all in its management. This means that for one capitalist owning the property, the large number of workers working for the capitalist cannot own it. Thus, refering back to the statement, the workers will not be satisfied as they do not own the property, the means of production, the "stuff". This mode of production, the capitalist one, cannot then "work". From this it becomes aparant that Frank's statement in fact criticises the capitalist mode of production, providing an argument for the Communist mode of production. In Communism private propety is abolished so that each and every person, and not just the boss, owns the means of production. Private property in Communism becomes public property, thus each and every person owns part of the "stuff" and controls it's management. Instead of one person owning all the propety in Capitalism, everyone owns the property in Communism. I hope you can understand the contradiction present in the statement, that, in a capitalist mode of production, by definition, a many larger number of people, the workers, do not own the property compared with the smaller number, the bosses, that do, thus the statement criticises capitalism.

Finally we arrive at personal property, Communist have no intention of transforming this into public property, what is your own "hard won" property remains yours as long as it is not a means for production. Your house is your house, your car is your car, your shirt is your shirt.

In conclusion an all too famous statement that attempts to criticise Communism, in fact by logical analyses, not only fails to achieve that, but provides evidence against Capitalism and the Capitalist mode of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Zappa

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1104.html

George Galloway Banned from Canada

2009-03-21T01:29:00.007Z

UK MP George Galloway, of the Respect party, fresh from his journey delivering much needed aid in Gaza, has been been interviewed on the British television network Channel 4 after the Canadian government refused to allow him the enter the country.

Galloway was planning to tour Canada and the USA to raise the awareness of the crises in Palestine, following the Israeli 3 week war. However the Zionist lobby, also interviewed in the video, managed to pressure the government to refuse his entry claiming Galloway's support for "terrorism". There was major confusion after the Canadian government first cited Galloway's campaign against Canadian involvement in the Afghanistan war as the reason for his refusal, then changed their view and cited his support for Hamas, the elected government of Palestine, which Canada labels terrorists.

Galloway stated that he was still determined to continue with his tour and said the decision was “irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada’s good name”.

The events also came as George W. Bush, a man directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, recently spoke with the government in Canada.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=89208&sectionid=351020701

http://www.georgegalloway.com/

http://www.respectrenewal.org/

The "Human Nature" Myth

2009-03-18T20:04:00.006Z

In true parrot fashion the most continuously reoccurring and perhaps the most flawed anti-Communist myth is that "Communism will never work because it goes against Human Nature". In this entry we will analyse, and thus, refute this myth by demonstrate it's total absurdity and meaninglessness.

Firstly, as with all logical and structured arguments, we must define each term we are using in the presented claim. Communism we have previously covered, so that needs no further analysis at present (see previous entries, Communism "has killed 100 million" and What is Communism?). Now an undefined term is used, "work". Here the defining dificulty arises; how, when and by what standards is a society or ideology judged to be working, or sucessful? For simplicity's sake we will here define a working Communist society to be a Communist society (that is one where the means of production are owned by the community, class differentials have been removed and there is no longer any state) that is stable, peaceful and functioning in the long term. Working as a definition should not be laboured on excessively, as the next term, "Human Nature" is where the presented claim really fails to solidify.

What is "Human Nature"?

"Human nature is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common"

[Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology And The Persistent Quest For Human Nature. (2005) - Buller, David J.]

Instantly there arises the most fundemetal fault, Human Nature is a concept, merely an idea or thought, not a proven factual certainty. This causes difficulties of an unprecedented scale, for you cannot build any argument if your foundations are not secure. You cannot build a stable house if you don't have solid immaculate foundations, the house would fall over in the lightest of breeze. Thus unless your presented argument's foundations are solid and definite your argument will never stand. In a general form, if we presume A to be true and also if A is true then B is true, then we can present the case that B is true, yet actually this never can be accepted untill A is definitively proven true, an assumption of truth is never adequate. Specific to the presented claim, unless Human Nature as a concept can be proven to exist beyond all doubt any argument built upon it can never be accepted. While this could be seen as a "get out of jail free card" it is in fact a perfectly logical and non-refutable process. However this makes our task all too easy, so in order to fully dismantle the claim we shall ourselves make the presumption that "Human Nature" exists. We will do this to demonstrate that even if "Human Nature" does exists, which is not yet proven, the presented claim still does not hold.

What is Natural Behavior?

The next flaw in understanding "Human Nature" is to define what specific characteristic are natural, or "normal" and which ones are not. This inevitabely is a near impossible task, for how common does a characteristic need to be to be considered normal or abnormal? From a purely statistical view, what percentage of the population needs to have this characteristic for it to be considered abnormal? If 20% of the population act in a specific way is it normal? What if it's only 10%, 5%, 1% or even 0.01%? Thus truthfully you can never conclusively draw a line at one value and assign that as normal, you can only attempt this by again assuming that a certain value, for example 5%, denotes normality. So once more we shall assume that any characteristic or behavior that is common to 95% of the population is natural and "normal".

Is "Natural" static or fluid, is it culturally universal?

Again we are prevented from progression, for is "normal" for me the same as normal for you? Is normal here the same as normal there? Is normal then, in the past or even in the future, the same as normal now? Culture and society is constantly changing and along with this are it's norms. If I were to wear "normal" clothes from 100 years ago, would it still today appear normal? If I were to eat "normal" food here, would it appear normal in a different place? Evidently, even if we define abnormal to be 5% or less, the characteristics of a population are, not only different in all cultures, but also constantly evolving so our 5% becomes meaningless for a universal definition. To sum up, what is "Human Nature", that is "natural" characteristics, today at the present time will be different to what is seen as natural in a different place at a different time. For example, Homosexuality was seen as unnatural and abnormal in certain societies during certain times, yet today, in certain places, it is accepted as a perfectly natural and normal way of life. Yet again however we will make the leap of faith that "Human nature" and "normality" are constant, universal and static. This is to futher demonstrate how weak the agrument present is. We can still defeat the claim even if we make these asumptions.

What specific part of the Communist Ideology goes against "Human Nature"?

By the time I arrive at this question the person who made the mythical claim that "Communism goes against human nature" has usually accepted their absurdity. However if determined enough, one could still fight the cause. So we now addresses the question, assuming, understanding fully the consequences of asumptions, that "Human Nature" and "normality" exist and are constant, universal and static, which specifc part of the Communist Ideology goes against nature? Honestly now, I must confess that I have never heard an answer for this question, so I must put it out to you the reader. Whatever your political views, whatever your background, I challenge you to address to me one specific part of the Communist Ideology that is "unnatural". I encourage you to comment this entry with any "unnatural" critique of Communism. I look forward to hearing from you.

Can Nature be wrong?

On a final note, asumming once more that a "unnatural" critique of Communism can be found, does that justify the complete rejection of all Communist thought? Or, to put this another way, should all that's "natural" be accepted and all that "unnatural" be rejected, even if what is "unnatural" improves the lifes and wellbeing of others? Looking at an example, you could justify murder by somehow suggesting that it is "normal". Homocide happens thousands of times every day across the globe, so that could define it as natural and if so why is homocide illigal? Or pedophilia, which is documented to occur throughout all societies in history, does this quasi- "normality" mean pedophillia should be accepted? If not, then why should some "unnatural" behaviors not be accepted? If we are rejecting what is natural why do we not accept what is unnatural?

Victory in El Salvador!

2009-03-16T17:41:00.006Z

Leader of the Leftist FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front), Mauricio Funes, has won the Salvadoran presidential elections. Mauricio gained a huge 51.3% of the vote putting a historic end to the 18 years in power for the right wing ARENA party. Even slanderous lies spread by ARENA and threats by the US government did not stop the people from making the right choice.

"This is happiest night of my life, and I want it to be the night of El Salvador's greatest hope" said Mr. Funes. "I want to thank all the people who voted for me and chose that path of hope and change"

During a bitter civil war from 1980 to 1992 the right wing government, with support from the USA, fought against the Marxists FMLN guerillas. Eventually the FMLN agreed to put down their weapons and work within the current political system, however they were met with limited sucess.

Mauricio led a more "mainstream" campaign, deserting FMLN's previous Marxists ideology in favour of a "moderate" approach. He even promised to work together with the USA. Evidently this could be seen by some as a "sell out" in order to win power, however I feel that by Mauricio winning the Salvadoran left, including Marxist, will have an infinitely louder voice in national policies.

Yesterdays victory for FMLN is of great significance in both the national and international situation; for national reasons because it represents a dramatic and unprecedented shift in the political situation and for international reasons because it demonstrates further the growing South American Left Revolution, inspired by great leaders such as Chavez and Morales.

I wish Mauricio Funes all the best in his term of office and hope that he will improve, as promised, the lifes of millions of Salvadorans.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/03/20093161551720784.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7944899.stm

Not the Ukrainian Famine...

2009-03-14T00:17:00.014Z

Recent pictures released in Ukraine to demonstrate the suffering of the 1930s famine are now understood to instead be pictures from the great depression in the USA.

In an embarrasing case for the Ukranian government 4 out of the 6 pictures shown in a exhibition about the famine turned out the to be images not from Ukraine.

The Ukraine famine in the 1930s, also know as the Holodomor, is understood to be the result of forced Soviet collectivism combined with uncontrolable natural events. Estimates understand that the number of deaths were probably in the millions. Since being elected President of Ukraine Yushchenko has fought for the recognition of the famine as a crime against humanity by the Soviet government, however recent documents have shown that the Soviet Government actually sent aid to help the starving people.

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-03-10/Erroneous_famine_photos_spark_foul_cries.html

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-02-25/Great_famine_in_Ukraine_was_downplayed_by_local_Soviet_authorities_.html

Interview with Anti-War Protester

2009-03-12T01:00:00.011Z

In light of the so called "controversial" protests against the illigal ocupation, invasion and mass murder by UK armed forces in Iraq, the leader of the protest, Anjem Choudary, has been interviewed on a popular morning TV show.

As the British soldiers "proudly" paraded through the streets of Bedfordshire on Tuesday afternoon, after a tour in Iraq, a small group of Muslim protesters held signs saying "Butchers of Basra", "Anglian Soldiers Go To Hell" and "British Government, Terrorist Government". Protesters then suffered abuse from the hands of the "great" British public, leading to 2 arrests. The protesters allegedly spoke for support to the Taleban and Iraqi Ressitance movement.

Leaders of the fascist BNP were quick to spout their racist, anti-Muslim vile in responce to the protest, however they could never quite bring themselves to condemn the attacks against the protesters. Their hypocrisy continued as many stated how the protesters should not have been allowed to voice their opinion; somewhat refuting their claim to be warriors against the erosion of Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately in fascism your only freedom is the freedom to agree.

I want to make clear that I support many, but not all, of the comments made by the protesters but I am disappointed with the disorganization of the action. I am severly worried with the reaction of the mass media in labeling the protesters "sick" "disturbing" and "disgusting" and my belief is that it is disgraceful to deny anyone a voice, no matter how "wrong" you think their opinion is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

Communism "has killed 100 million"

2009-03-09T18:55:00.007Z

Almost immediately after the word Communism is even mentioned, especially in the "free" center of the world, the USA (read; Evil Empire), the automatic responce is Communism "has killed 100 million people", so surely that makes Communism the most evil force on the planet?

...Right?

This entry will briefly demostrate;

1. The illogical conculsions of associating communist ideology with mass murder,

2. The comparitive "death count" of Capitalism.

Notice that, even though I do believe the 100 millions figure is greatly exaggerated, I will not even attempt in this article to refute the figure. There will be no need. We will accept that the 100 million and work with that as a base figure. Perhaps in the future we may further analyse the figure, in attempt to fully understand it's validity, but for now I am accepting it as fact.

1. The illogical conculsions of associating communist ideology with mass murder.

To begin this analyse of logic we must again refer back to our definition of Communism. In a previous blog entry, "What is Communism?" we defined communism as; "..Abolition of private property." and "..the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat". However it now becomes necessary to look at a more in depth definition. This is where a new defining point comes in, in the higher phase of Communism, that is when society actually reaches Communism, the state no longer exists. Communism is a stateless ideology. Only when a society becomes stateless, that is when there are no longer leaders or a government, can it be called Communist.

Here is a quote that demonstrates why, when Communism is reached, a State is not only not necessary, but in fact impossible.

"As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out."

[Anti-Dühring (1877), Part III: Socialism - Friedrich Engels]

If there is a state then society has not reached communism. From this it becomes evident that all communist attempts thus far have never actually become Communist. By definition, unless a society becomes stateless, classless and has the means of production owned by the community it is not communist, whatever label you, or it's enemies, stick to it. Now, you may feel that I am pressing this point too much, but it is essential in understanding this next logic.

In the beginning, the claim made was that "Communism has killed 100 million". But by definition we have shown that Communism is a stateless ideology, that is one without any form of government or leaders. If there is no government then logically there can not be any murder commited by that government. So there can never be a murder committed by Communist "government". Or the other way round, if the state is commiting murder, then there is a state. If there is a state then it is not, and cannot be, Communist, precisely as Communism is stateless.

This point also demostrates the absurdity in labeling countires with "Communist" rule as "Communist states". It is an oxymoron, a contradition in terms. If there is a state, then it is not Communist, if it is Communist then there cannot be a state. The critical point to be made here is that your opinion of what Communism is, is unfortunately irrelevant. Communism is defined to be a statless, classless society where the means of production are owned by the community, you can't change that definition to suit your purpose. Much in the same way I can't change the definition of murder if I was accused of it.

Further to this it is essential to understand that however many muders "Communists" may have commited, it does not mean that all Communists are murderers. A perfect example of guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. Look it up if you are unsure of it's meaning.

The final point to be made is that Communism is an ideology, the beliefs of a group. Blaming Communism for the murder of 100 million people is exactly like blaming a Kitchen Knife for a murder commited by it's user. Communism can not be guilty, much in the same way the Knife can not, the individual that uses it is.

2. The comparitive "death count" of Capitalism.

For this argument we are going to accept that "Communism" is to blame for the deaths of 100 million people, even though it is cleary illogical to make such claims. Following from the same thoughts we can blame Capitalism for the deaths it has caused. All we are doing here is using the "Communism has killed 100 million" logic applied this time to Capitalism. Anyone who choses not to accept the logic of argument 1, will thus be defeated by the logic of this argument.

If anyone wishes to raise the argument that this is not "capitalism" then please refer to argment 1, that is, the deaths attributed to "Communism" neither is Communism. You can't have it both ways.

Capitalist can, and often do, dispute these figures. But theres a hypocrisy in that. If a Communnist attemps to dispute a figure presented from the deaths caused by "Commmunism", they are labeled a liar, or a falsifier of history, so why aren't capitalists suject to the same fate?

For the source we are going to use "The Black Book of Capitalism", Capitalism, in this defintion includes capitalist imperialism;

- Slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries: 10 000 000
- Settlement of American Indians from 1500 to 1860: 70 000 000
- Crimean War: 252 000
- (GB and Gb against Russia) in 1854 which
  Russian: 100 000
  French: 93 000
  English: 22 000
  Tip: 35 000
  Piedmont: 2 000
- American Civil War 1860-1865: 617 000
- War of 1870 (Eng. against Germans): 220 000
- Crushing of the Paris Commune in 1871: 20 000
- Colonization of Algeria, by Fr in 1840: 10 000
- Colonization of Africa by the 19th century Fr: 112 000
- Colonization of the Congo by the Belgians in the 19th Century: 1 000 000
- War USA - Spain in 1898: 100 000
- Boer War in South Africa in 1900: 57 000
  which Boers: 35 000
  English: 22 000
- War 1914-1918: 10 000 000
- Spanish Civil War 1936-1939: 410 000
- War 1939-1945: 50 000 000
- Suppression of the army en, in Madagascar in 1948: 80 000
- Algerian War: 380 000
  Dont algériens: 350 000
  Fr: 30 000
- War of Independence of Vietnam: 3 107 000
  which
  * Against the fr
  Vietminh 500 000
  Fr: 100 000
  Civilians: 1 000 000
  * Against the U.S.
  Vietcong and North Vietnamese: 750 000
  U.S.: 57 000
  Southern: 200 000
  Civilians: 500 000
- Anti-communist repression in Indonesia in 1965: 500 000
- May 68 crackdown in France: 4
- Student massacre in Mexico City 1968 Olympic avt: 400
- Biafra War of 1966-1969: 1 000 000
- Dictatorship in Chile 1973-1990: 3167
- Dictatorship in Argentina 1976-1982: 30 000
- Escadrond of death: 50 000
- Guatemala and Slavador 1975 - 2000
  Falklands War: 1005
  England-Argentina in 1982
- Plant exploded in Bhopal (India) in 1984: 2900
- Gulf War in 1991: 160 022
  which Iraqis: 160 000
  Allies: 22
Total: 147 387 051

This does not include,

The millions of deaths from starvation in the Third World (even if the European community destroyed stocks of food)
The millions of deaths (annually) malaria, of sleeping sickness, and AIDS in Africa and elsewhere preventable if Western pharmaceutical companies distributed free vaccines and treatments instead of making them pay.
Wars or conflicts after 1991, (Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, etc)

And many more....

http://www.lilavert.com/eredutant-airderien/lebilan.htm

So from this logic, capitalism has killed well over 50 million more than Communism.

Which really is more evil then?

Closed Zone

2009-03-05T00:40:00.007Z

Closed Zone.

A short, but powerful, film perfectly showing the harshness of life in the Gaza strip. The most shocking fact to understand is that the creater of the film, Yoni Goodman, is an Isreali, known for his work on "Waltz with Bashir". "I want people in the West to see it, to see that there are people in Israel who are against war, who want peace," he said.

A quote from The Offical Closed Zone Website:

Despite declarations that it has "disengaged" from the Gaza Strip, Israel maintains control of the Strip’s overland border crossings, territorial waters, and air space. This includes substantial, albeit indirect, control of the Rafah Crossing. During the past 18 months, Israel tightened its closure of Gaza, almost completely restricting the passage of goods and people both to and from the Strip. These policies punish innocent civilians with the goal of exerting pressure on the Hamas government, violating the rights of 1.5 million people who seek only to live ordinary lives – to be reunited with family, to pursue higher education, to receive quality medical treatment, and to earn a living. The effects of the closure were particularly harsh during the military operation of Dec. 2008 - Jan. 2009. For three weeks, Gaza residents had nowhere to flee to escape the bombing.

http://www.closedzone.com/

In solidarity with the people of Palestine, I encourage all readers to donate any spare money they can afford to help rebuid Gaza after the destruction caused by Isreal. Although no money can save the 1300 dead, every last penny, I assure you, will be gratfully recieved by the people of Palestine.

Follow the British convoy, lead by MP George Galloway, and donate at http://www.vivapalestina.org/

Donate Via the Disaster Emergency Committee http://www.dec.org.uk/

Thanks.

World Markets Crash!

2009-03-03T19:00:00.007Z

World markets come crashing down. On Monday 2nd of March the Dow Jones fell below 7000 points, on Tuesday the freefall continued, closing at 6,732 the lowest since April 1997.

Only by removing this corrupt Capitalist system can we stop this. Government bailouts will only make the problem worse. Marx predicted these crises in 1850, how many more will you take before you listen to his warnings?

No to Capitalism!

No to bailouts!

Yes to Communism!

Viva la Revolution!

What is Communism?

2009-03-02T20:14:00.011Z

Instantly as we attempt to begin the first barrier crashes down and obstructs our path, before we can discuss, debate or critically analyse any matter we mush first establish it's fundamental basis. If we fail to start from a truly unified position then chaos becomes the only certainty.

To do this we must answer one question, this one questions becoming the most important yet most difficult question this blog aims to answer; what exactly is Communism?

Inevitably this becomes an increasingly complex task, so let's again begin at the basics, with a quote by Karl Marx, someone who we will study in a much greater depth in the future...

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists - Karl Marx]

So what does this mean? "Abolition of private property". We must again define, or understand Marx's definition of private property. Private property is thus defined as any property that is owned by one individual or a small group of individuals, and used to make a profit, that is, private property is as such not owned by the community as a whole or by the state. This does not included your own personal "hard won" property as Marx put it, you own your house. It would be absurd to suggesst that you couldn't have your own house. Only if you use property to make profits should it be controlled by the commune.

From this we can draw the conclusion that if you are in possession of your property that is used to make profits, ie field, factory, farm etc then that is your private property. These are unique in being examples of the 'Means of Production' also included in the this definition of Private property. Of course, the 'Means of Production' needs a definition too, these are the tools, machinery, infrastructure, equipment etc, that are used to produce, or transform, goods or commodities to make capital, that is profits. Your own personal possessions, including your house, are not classified as private property, they are yours personally. Why this abolition of private property is essential will be covered in the near future.

We can now understand what this phrase means, “The abolition of private property." - a point where all land, property and means of production are controlled and owned by the community or the state as a collective whole, and not by individuals.

With one definition down, it is time to turn out attention to another, this one instead put forward by Friedrich Engels;

"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."

[The Principles of Communism (1847) 1, What is Communism? - Friedrich Engels]

With "doctrine" meaning the teachings and principles of a certain group, "liberation" to set free, the only term in here that needs studying is "proletariat" what, or indeed who, is a proletariat? A Marxist definition is that a proletariat is a label, for a class in society, a label for those who do not own the means of production, and thus by definition their only income method is to sell their labour power (something again we will cover in great detail). More commonly we hear these people labeled with the term "working class". The proletarians are the workers in society, they are not the owners. They work in the factories, using the means of production, to produce commodities as a way of generating income. Of course they do not own these factories, nor the means of production, nor in fact the commodities they produce (that "honour" is reserved for only the bourgeoisie, the class of owners of the means of production). For the reason that the proletarians do not own the means of production, they are under the control of the bourgeoisie. If a proletarians does not follow the orders of the bourgeoisie then he will not only lose his job, but his whole life and liveliood.

So the "...liberation of the proletariat." means to set free from the control of the bourgeoisie the proletariat, the only way to do this is by giving the proletariat the control of the means of production. Which is exactly how Marx described Communism.

From two distinct definitions, we have fundamentally the same meaning. We have, to some extent, understood what communism is, that being the “The abolition of private property.", the communal control of the means of production and the " ...liberation of the proletariat". It would be indeed naive to presume that this is the only definition and meaning of the word Communism, yet this is the fundemental stem and backbone of the Communist ideology.

These slanderous lies about Communism being "dictatorship", "lack of freedoms", "strict government control", "mass murder" etc, evidently have no factual meaning.

Welcome.

2009-03-01T17:48:00.004Z

Firstly I'd like to welcome everyone to read these words I write, not a single person should feel unwanted or unwelcome in this place. I hope you enjoy what I have to say, but if not, then tell me about it. I encourage you all to read, comment and spread the word of this blog. I would rather this be a place of dicussion than lecture. Challenge me for what I say, convice me I'm wrong. Defeat me in debate, I'll always accept your viewpoint. Even if there's a single word you feel i've used incorrectly then tell me about it.

The folowing words are for all, whether capitalist buisnessman or third world slave, to attain a greater understand of Communist theory in general, what it's aims are, how it intends to achive them and it's relevence today. From Marx to Prachada, from Lenin to Mao, this blog hopes to educate all into the key figures of Communism throughout history, their viewpoints, their significance and their critiques. All I ask from you is to drop all previous misconceptions and spoon fed propaganda about Communism. Some of your knowledge gained though life will, of course, be correct, other parts not so. I set the aim to attempt to filter through these previously learnt conceptions show their thruth or falsehood. I will also cover worldwide current afairs from a Marxist standpoint. Sometimes the best things learnt are from assessing a situation from a previously unknown viewpoint.

Before we begin I'd like to just tell you a bit about myself. I am a well educated young man from the South West of England in the United Kingdom. I am 18 years of age, inevitably this may lead to the critisim that I must instantly be too young to understand, so to all those older and wiser than myself, I challenge you to point out the mistakes and error in my words. I am currently at Sixth Form studying Maths and Physics, and have an offer to study Maths at the University of Cambridge begining October 2009. I have been a Communist, or at least a radical leftist, all my teenage life, since my first understanding of politcal science. I have read many works of many great, and not so, authors and continuously update my knowledge with new, as well as old, information. Without a doubt there are theories and writings I do not currently understand, or have not yet experinced, so I remind you that my quest for understanding has never, and will never, finish.

I hope that not only will you learn from me, but that I will learn even more from you. Tell me your view, demonstrate your understanding, together we will further our grasp of the world and it's inhabitants, their history, their past and, most importantly, their future.

Untill next time, I wish you all the best.