Oliver Cromwell abolished the absolute monarchy that ruled Britain for centuries (in one form or another) in 1649 - and it was NEVER reinstated! What was established in its place was a 'Constitutional' monarchy allowed by Act of Parliament - and institution that is more 'theatre' than institute of governance - and which possesses NO real power (as it is legally and lawfully 'subordinate' to the Will of Parliament). This makes perfect sense - as this marks how the Bourgeoisie (or the 'middle-class') usurped political power from the Aristocracy - even though King Charles I made the valid point that as all the power of the British State resided in his personage (and his personage alone) - Parliament did NOT possess the legal right to a) try him, or b) inflict any sentence upon him. King Charles I, from the perspective of the aristocracy - retained ALL the power of the State in his personage which was represented only by his Will! In other words, his word was law. This arrangement was formulated centuries before by aggressive groups that simply assumed political dominance over the populace - and then enforced this dominance with arbitrary 'violence' termed 'justice'. Added to this dominance was the equally false assumption that this situation was 'Willed' by a God concept - and was therefore beyond dispute or alteration! Any attempt at altering this situation was viewed as contradicting the divine Will of God! This explains why Cromwell, although a very devout Christian, nevertheless, believed that the State enforcement of a religion (any religion) was wrong because it was 'evil'! He changed the definition of 'God', 'State' and 'Religion' - and he did this by fundamentally changing the relationship between these three distinct entities. As this was the case, Parliament pulled the legal rug from beneath the King Charles I feet, leaving him no legal or lawful defence following his complete military defeat. What is interesting is that NOTHING changed with the so-called 'Restoration'! Cromwell's basic re-definition of these relations stayed in place (empowering and justifying the Bourgeois seizure of political power) and still form the dominant legal framework today - despite a superficial legal fiction that gives the false impression that a 'Constitutional' monarch is the same as an 'Absolute' monarch - an assumption that is an obvious absurdity! If the British Crown today attempted to exercise any type of political power - Parliament would immediately 'abolish' it. If this is the case, what is the point of the British Crown? As an institution it signals which class the Bourgeoisie politically favours (that is, the 'Aristocracy' it overthrew) and which class it does not favour (the Proletariat - or that class which comprised the soldiers in the Parliamentarian 'New Model Army')! Although Cromwell's political orientation was the exact opposite - when his influence was overthrown in 1660 - the emerging Bourgeoisie abandoned its support (and promises made) to the ordinary masses that had fought and died for its cause - and instead switched its allegiance to the class it had fought against! By continuously supporting the aristocracy over the workers - the workers (although numerically superior) are politically the least powerful and are unable to influence society in their own favour.
0 Comments
The suffering this man unleashed upon humanity has been intense, ongoing and ever-increasing! Like Khrushchev before him, he was an arch 'Trotskyite' who manoeuvred his way into the position of 'General Secretary' of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - and was even 'President' of the Soviet Union between 1990-1991 - whilst he oversaw the final destruction of the then 74-year-old Workers' State! The US, UK and EU flooded the post-Soviet space with perpetuators of religious extremism, fascism and free market economics - a process which has saw ‘minority’ Neo-Nazi (and Neo-Fascist) fringe groups brought to mainstream power in the Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, etc! Although modern Russia is now a poverty-stricken, capitalist country suffering from the fascistic-leanings associated with Pan-Slavism, the Russian State has at least seen fit to unleash its military (the successor to the Soviet Red Army) upon its Ukrainian neighbours to combat the Neo-Nazi ‘Euro-Maidan’ regime which was illegally brought to power in 2014 by the US Obama Administration! The Americans have chosen Neo-Nazism as its primary foreign policy tool as it remains staunchly ‘anti-Russian’ in both its early anti-Bolshevik ‘Mein Kampf’ phase – and in its later post-1945 ‘Soviet crushing’ of Nazi Germany phase! This despicable fascist regime has subsequently been further armed, financed and politically supported by the US, UK and EU – with its military being primed for a major push into the territory of West Russia (advancing the cause of ‘NATO’ in the process)! In reaction, the people of the Crimea voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia – whilst a number of left-leaning ‘Republics’ were declared throughout East Ukraine – all stating their secession from the Ukraine, their self-determination and their eventual intention of merging with Russia! Although the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi ‘Nationalist’ Battalions were used to ruthlessly destroy a number of these ‘Republics’ - two managed to hold-out for the full eight-years – namely Lugansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region. A UN Report states that between 2014-2022 the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi ‘Nationalist’ Battalions killed between 10,000-15,000 men, women and children in the breakaway region, maiming a further 50,000 people! As a consequence, the military actions of Russia are entirely legal - as Russia is coming to the aid of a population that has declared its ‘independence’ and which has ‘requested’ such assistance! Of course, it is ironic that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are also the successors of the Soviet Red Army, and that the Ukraine is the area that suffered the most during Nazi Germany’s invasion of the USSR between 1941-1945 (killing around 41 million Soviet citizens). Indeed, the USSR took care to build as many defensive areas as possible throughout the Ukraine without openly effecting the quality of life for the local population, in an effort to ‘protect’ the population of the USSR from the threat posed by a NATO ground and air assault! Today, whilst the Neo-Nazi Ukrainians flaunt their Swastikas and their unbridled Western support – Russia abounds with working-class dereliction, racism, religious extremism and religious stupidity, homophobia and an intellectual and cultural poverty that has taken just 31-years to instil into their minds and bodies! Russian people in general are as ‘nationalistic’ as the Ukrainians they are fighting, and the Donbass inhabitants they are liberating! This fact underlies the power of the betrayal that the man pictured at the top of this article unleashed on the people of the USSR! A people that just 31-years ago viewed themselves as being ‘united’ and part of the ‘International Working Class’ - now view themselves as a ‘separate’ and ‘distinct’ (superior ‘Slavic’) race which hates all non-Russians and views the political left-wing of Europe and America (a political left-wing the USSR helped to nurture and grow throughout the 20th century) as being some type of ‘liberal’ conspiracy designed to import homosexuality (which modern Russians incorrectly associate with paedophilia) into Russia as a means to deprive Russia of its natural manliness! All this bourgeoise greed, hatred and delusion had been educated out of the minds and bodies of the citizens of the USSR through their Soviet (Marxist-Leninist) education – but in just 31-years of the bourgeoisie throughout the post-Soviet space taking back control of the means of production – nationalism, racism, hatred and discrimination are the new norms! The capitalist West may criticise the war between Russia and the Ukraine – but behind the scenes the Western leaders will be happy! The capitalist division of labour is nothing less than the division of the working class! When groups of limited self-interest form that possess no underlying and unifying base – then conflict and competitiveness are the inevitable result! When the working class is divided and fighting itself for the petty control of land – then it is too busy to ‘unite’ and form ‘Socialist’ groups that could effectively challenge the status quo! Surely, this is the greatest achievement of the man pictured at the top of this article – who lived just long enough after the collapse of the Soviet Union he engineered to see its constituent people start the processes of killing one another!
The Western philosophical and religious tradition has often assumed that 'thought' is separate and distinct from 'matter' - as if arising within (and representing) a 'non-material' and 'unseen' realm. However, the above-linked neuroscience research offers proof that 'thought' is a physical phenomenon that possesses physical characteristics and can be both 'observed' and 'measured'. Moreover, all trends in bourgeois science confirm the observations of Karl Marx - but 'stop' only at the measurement of matter - adopting an ideological position of ignoring the socio-economic conditions that humanity has created throughout its long evolution, and which a) influence and b) manipulate how matter manifests and c) conditions 'how' this matter is 'interpreted' in the best interests of the ruling class. Bourgeois science exercises a brutal control of material resources so that its class dominance can be perpetuated and defended (often through naked aggression and warfare). What is interesting is that bourgeois science perpetuates the myth of 'neutrality' as its public face - whilst behind the scenes it cooperates fully with the bourgeois system it serves, supports and endorses. Although bourgeois science is continuously 'proving' the attitudes and opinions of Marx (and Engels) correct - this fact remains suppressed as the bourgeois system itself does not want the masses 'knowing' or 'understanding' this, and thereby being 'influenced' into 'changing' the dynamics of the 'class' that runs and administers Western society. It is probably correct to say that the world prior to the rise of capitalism (and the bourgeoisie control of society) possessed a much more uninhibited and fertile ground for 'free thought' (outside of religion) than it does today - but that without Marx (and Engels) to focus this thought, it lacked the potential for meaningful Revolution!
The Buddha developed a system that generates the conditions of ‘inner’ Socialism by uprooting greed, hatred and delusion from the functionality of the ordinary human mind. Through a corresponding physical behaviour that is ‘free’ of greed, hatred and delusion, Socialism In the ‘outer’ world is built. The Buddha’s path is an expression of early Socialism that places the emphasis upon the individual ‘freed’ from the collective tyranny of the faceless caste-system. Marx and Engels, by way of contrast, denies the ultimate validity of the individual, and instead defines the collectivity of ‘class’ as the only genuine driving-force behind any and all genuine Revolutionary action. Things are not quite this simple, for instance, as the Buddha (whilst advocating the ‘disciplining’ of the individual mind) describes how the notion of ‘self’ (that is, the ‘individual’) is a culturally conditioned concept with no basis in material reality. The ‘Sangha’ in Early Buddhism may well be an indication of the formation of an early-class system. In this case, made-up entirely of ordained Buddhist monastics whose function was to preserve, practice and convey the ‘Dhamma’, or Buddha’s enlightened Teaching. The non-ordained laity, by way of contrast, circumnavigated the Sangha and drew inspiration, guidance and support from it. The Sangha of Early Buddhism was a primitive ‘Communist Party’ defined around the concept of ‘membership’ and ‘non-membership’. The ‘members’ (monastics) conditioned the ‘non-members’ (laity) to develop to the extent where they were psychologically and physically prepared to become Buddhist monastics themselves. Although all Buddhist monastics are ‘equal’, it is also true that the Buddhist monastic community is led by the eldest (and ‘wiser’) strata of the population. This is generally comprised of those monks and nuns who have been ‘ordained’ the longest and not necessarily those who are the eldest in the (literal) chronological sense. These qualified elders had spent a lifetime carefully studying the Dhamma, teaching and advising others, as well as personally putting into practice each minute element of the teaching. In this sense, this ‘inner core’ of the Buddha’s elite disciples formed what might be termed a ‘Polit-Buro’ concerned with the perpetuation of an ideological purity and orthodoxy.
Later, with the liberalisation of Buddhism, the term ‘Sangha’ was expanded to include not only the ordained Buddhist elite, but now also included all lay-people who considered themselves a ‘follower of the Buddha’ (but not those ordinary people who did not support Buddhism). This expanded the membership of this primitive ‘Communist Party’ to include a non-ordained laity. Furthermore, Buddhist monastics lost their ‘elite’ status and became quite literally ‘beggars’ who existed in a privileged position (where they did not have work or participate in family life), that was ‘inferior’ to the lowest lay-person! Why was this? Everything each monk or nun used was not owned by them per se, but was the collective property of the monastic community ultimately provided by the hard-work of the lay-community that had provided it! Now, with the biographies of Hui Neng (the Sixth Patriarch of the Chinese Ch’an tradition), and the Indian merchant Vimalakirti (the ‘married’ contemporary of the historical Buddha) were well-known, lay-practice within Buddhism was transformed into ‘matching’ or even ‘transcending’ that of the Buddhist monastics. Although a profound example of democratisation, Buddhism today is still led by an elite monastic core, although with one or two lay-practitioners now included in the ‘Polit-Buro’! As the Buddha ‘rejects’ greed, hatred and delusion, it is inherently anti-capitalist. It is a philosophical and ideological impossibility for Buddhism to follow or advocate the predatory capitalist system. Buddhist meditation is a Proletariat device for clearing the human mind of the conditioned (habitual) patterns that generally define human society. As the Buddha states that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the post-enlightened state – it is logical to assume that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the pre-enlightened state. These two concepts only appear to exist because they are common elements of pre-Buddhist (Indian) religion that many Buddhist practitioners brought with them when they decided to approach the Buddha for discipleship. The Buddha used these terms to inspire morally ‘pure’ actions on the physical plane so that the inner mind could be more readily transformed through meditation. Only when advising advanced practitioners did the Buddha decide to ween them off of these childish concepts of religiosity. As there is no ‘rebirth’ or ‘karma’, the Buddha’s path is a purely material ideology centred around the Vinaya Discipline which modifies the external behaviour so that the inner mind (and its functionality) can be permanently modified into a Proletariat (enlightened) state. |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|