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
As a political commissar, one of my main tasks is to assist existing religious practitioners and institutes to ‘align’ their ideology with that of Marxist-Leninism. This is not a ‘choice’ but rather a ‘necessity’. The reality is that millions of people follow a religion of some type, and given that religion is not ‘out-lawed’ in a Socialist Society – but rather ‘guaranteed’ - it is important that the two ideologies understand one another and know how to constructively interact. This process is already far advanced within the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and North Korea (DPRK), etc, but is still not understood as a concept amongst many areas of Western Marxist thinking. One thing is certain – Marxist-Leninism does not ‘out-law’ or ‘oppress’’ religion in any way, but rather shifts the place within society within which religions operate. Religion is moved from the ‘public’ to the ‘private sphere for its own protection and security. Religious institutions are shifted out of the political arena and will play no further role in that direction (as the Communist Party develops society through the use of modern science). As religion was founded around the principle of finding existential ‘freedom’ within (or outside of) society, it has no place interfering in the political process. As such, by relocating it into the ‘private’ sphere it may reassert its speciality of providing a vehicle for individual ‘freedom’ from whatever issue or reality it deems responsible for human suffering. In reality, this places religion in a much stronger traditional setting and encourages freedom of worship and tolerance of difference. As no single religion is permitted to ‘dominate’ society (or any other religion), existing in the ‘private’ sphere is a new position of ‘empowerment’ for the religiously minded. As Western religions are in bed with the forces of predatory capitalism, these people resent any attempt at interfering with the positioning of religion within society. From this profit-seeking perspective, moving religion from the ‘public’ to the ‘private’ sphere is deliberately interpreted as ‘oppressive’ - because these people equate ‘religion’ with material ‘profit-seeking’ here on Earth! None of this matters, of course, but Marxist-Leninists must be aware of the process of administering religion within a Socialist society.
For Marx religion is like a fix of opium designed to take the minds (and bodies) of the collective working-class off of the daily suffering implicit within the life of a capitalist society! Whilst for Lenin, religion of any sort is nothing but a ‘fog’ which distorts the collective thinking of the working-class. Furthermore, Marx exposes the underlying philosophical premise of any form of theism as being the product of ‘inverted’ thought processes, or to put it another way, a body of knowledge built upon a foundation of illogical thinking and incorrect conclusions. Marx explains that the idea of an ‘all-knowing’ God is nothing but a ‘thought’ in the human mind – a product of wishful thinking and imagination – which is then mistaken as existing ‘independently’ somewhere ‘out there’ in the universe. This argument is as powerful as it is simplistic and straightforward. For Marx, the vast body of theological literature does not matter – as it is all premised upon a false understanding of reality that relies upon ‘blind faith’ to exist and continue to exist. This is where religion receives its greatest support, as ‘faith’ does not require logical though or correct scientific scrutiny to ‘exist’ and ‘function’ throughout society. The Church Authorities are political entities that support the predatory capitalist system, and they sustain this influence (regardless of its obvious ‘corruption’) through the propagation of the agency of ‘faith’. Just as the Medieval Church gained its political power by aligning itself with the imperial Roman apparatus – modern Christianity has been developed by the bourgeoisie to represents its own best class interests – and grew-out of the process of industrialisation over the last four-years or so. Modern Christianity, therefore, exists as a statement of class dominance by the bourgeoisie which masquerades as a vehicle for personal development and deliverance. By transferring ‘religion’ from the ‘public’ to the ‘private’ sphere – as Marx and Lenin agree – the power-mongering of its modern priesthood is dismantled and disempowered. Religious doctrine is then replaced into a position of its founding – where it becomes a vehicle for self-cultivation with NO political ambitions or political power. An argument can be made that by placing religion into the ‘private’ sphere – religion is being returned to its ‘genuine’ state and purpose of being a vehicle for ‘inner’ development. This private-undertaking should be the only ‘lawful’ function that religious possesses. The ideology of Marxist-Leninism suggests that as times unfolds throughout a ‘Socialist’ society (which sees the working-class seizing control of the means of production) - it is believed that the ‘impulse’ toward religion will eventually die-out quite naturally as society is transformed from one of exploitation’ to that of ‘collective co-operation' - from ‘daily suffering’ to ‘daily collective and personal empowerment’! As the outward aspect of social organisation becomes ‘classless’, ‘just’, ‘productive’ and ‘equalitarian’, etc, the ‘inner’ health and vibrancy of the human-condition will becomes so ‘purified’, ‘positive’ and ‘progressive’ that there will no longer appear the impulse for the need for religion to arise as a psychological, emotional and physical habit. Therefore, Marxist-Leninist ideology offers a critique of religion that is so devastating to the Bourgeois Church that its power-brokers would rather support the ideology of ‘fascism’ and declare Marxism to be ‘evil’ than honestly and truthfully face the allegations levelled by Marx and striving to work with its conclusions rather than propagandising against it. Religion, if handled the right-way, can be useful for the development of a Socialist society, with any Socialist government possessing the moral responsibility of ‘integrating’ religionists into a new Socialist world-order with as little friction as possible. ACW (15.4.2021)
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|