What it means to be a communist in 2022

by Theo Russell

A contribution to the joint NCP-RCPB-ML seminar held recently in London

A thorough understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory and philosophy - dialectics, a materialist, scientific and multi faceted view of the world. Thorough knowledge of the contributions of Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and other revolutionary thinkers.
    Applying correct Marxist-Leninist positions to real day to day problems, understanding the errors of right and left revisionism, and of anarchism, and their relationship with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology.
    Understanding the different trends within bourgeois ideology, liberal and reactionary bourgeois ideology (e.g. in different periods the bourgeoisie moves from one to the other), and that in normal times, they are not the same as fascists (a common ultra-leftist error).
    Thus our fight with both Tories and right-wing Labour is against their upholding neo-liberal capitalism at home and imperialism abroad, but at the same time we still enjoy extensive democratic rights which have been won in battles from the English Revolution onwards. The same can be said of most advanced capitalist states. It’s important to remember that the Bolsheviks had to work secretly underground under the brutal Czarist dictatorship.
    Understanding that even under bourgeois rule, and when there is no possibility of revolutionary change, the working class can still be mobilised to make enormous gains, as in the period of the 1945 -51 post-war Labour government, that such reforms can strengthen the morale of the organised working class, but never losing sight of the need to educate the vanguard and to take up the fight to achieve socialism when the time comes.
    A thorough understanding of the bourgeois, capitalist state in the epoch of imperialism and monopoly finance capital, which rides roughshod over the rights of workers and the small bourgeoisie alike. Knowing our enemy well and understanding that bourgeois democracy is only genius democracy for the bourgeoisie. This explains why in the same breath as telling socialist countries to adopt multi-party “democracy” and the “rule of law”, the dominant capitalist states also back violent subversion and corrupt and undemocratic regimes.
    Understanding that the handful of rich capitalist states still enjoy overwhelming dominance over the world economy, allowing them to use sanctions and financial subversion as powerful weapons, but also that this domination – especially in the fields of science & technology – is on the wane.
    The ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to search out truth from all sources, especially communist and honest, progressive sources. This may seem obvious to communists, but it distinguishes us from those who pose as leftist or revolutionary, but who have not left behind bourgeois / petty-bourgeois thinking, and are still infected with the lies of the capitalist censored mass media.
    Understanding the need to always work in alliances, first and foremost with communists and socialists, including a non-sectarian approach and working with organisations on vitally important issues while disagreeing on other issues.
    Understanding that we can ideologically side with all sorts of strange bedfellows, such as during the Brexit referendum, and right now we would agree with both S Khan and P Patel that the Met Police have to clean out the racist and sexist pigs from their animal farm. This is something which U-Ls get into huge theoretical twists about, but which also shows the world that we share the basic norms of democracy and civilised life with the masses.
    Likewise, understanding that if and when socialism is achieved, there is no magic wand which turns the masses into revolutionaries, but that you have to work with and bring with you a very wide alliance of forces to continue the revolution.
    The ability to work in all working class and progressive organisations democratically and collectively, not imposing our ideas on others but putting forward correct positions and proposals and accepting the decision of the collective without question. Never claiming to be better than the collective or the leadership.
    Setting an example of hard work, dedication and upholding an organisation's principles, eg in a trade union working to recruit members, build branches, inform and educate members, support strike action, and never fail to join picket lines – the coal face of working class struggle; if working with the Labour Party, always turn out for canvassing and any other tasks the local branch sets.
    Never to expect too much, to be prepared to continue working for months, years and decades with possibly little or no result, but when the class is ready to move and take up the fight, to be in position where you are known and trusted by many who are not in our party, are not communists, but who know that we fight for the same goals as they do.
    There are no easy solutions to the difficult and complex problems which life throws up.

Round Two to Putin

Russia’s intervention in Ukraine will, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of a crisis that was entirely the product of imperialist intrigue.
    In 2014 Anglo‑American and Franco‑German imperialism brought down the elected government of Ukraine. They propped up a fascist regime in Kiev that has banned communist and other left-wing movements, in pursuit of violent sectarianism that forced the Crimean republic to secede and the people of eastern Ukraine to take up the gun and proclaim their independence.
    These days the Ukrainian government is little more than a US protectorate. Its refusal to implement the Minsk accords and its endless breaches of the cease-fire agreements could only have happened with the blessing of its American mentor.
    The imperialists pose as defenders of ‘human rights’ and ‘international law’ when it suits them but ignore these lofty principles when it comes to the Palestinians under the heel of a brutal Zionist occupation.
    They talk about NATO as if it were some sort of benevolent society set up to guarantee democracy and security in Europe, when it is just another US-led military machine that has brought death and destruction to innocent Africans, Asians, Arabs and Latin Americans over the years.
    These are the people who claim to uphold what they call ‘democracy’ whilst turning a blind eye to the Ukrainian fascists that prop up the puppet government in Kiev and see themselves as the heirs to those who worked with Hitler during the German occupation in the Second World War.
    The Russian move was a timely response to the constant provocations of the Kiev government that has blocked all progress towards resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine over the last eight years. It has, however, provoked a predictable response from the imperialist camp that is now bleating on about the rights of small nations which they claim for Ukraine but deny when it comes to millions of people that they have attacked and tried to enslave over the last 70-odd years.

Question More

Sir Keir Starmer is calling for a ban on the Russia Today (RT) TV station as part of his self-appointed role as cheer-leader for imperialist aggression. The Labour leader says RT is pumping out “misinformation” and pro-Putin “propaganda” and therefore it should have its broadcasting licence withdrawn.
    Starmer first raised this demand two years ago. This time he’s got the backing of Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, who is peeved at the fact that her nationalist rival, Alex Salmond, has a regular slot on the Russian channel.
    But no-one is forced to watch RT and if anyone doesn’t like what they see they can simply switch off or over to another channel. As RT’s Afshin Rattansi says: “We should be hoping that NGOs for free speech – from [Reporters Without Borders] and Amnesty International – will be there to defend this channel against Sir Keir Starmer and the British Labour party who want to ban free speech.”

What it means to be a communist, new and revolutionary today

by Michael Chant

A keynote opening given by the leader of the RCPB-ML at a joint seminar with the NCP that was held recently in London.

Taking the topic at face value, and giving an answer in a nutshell, one could say to be a communist means seeing the face of the New in the crisis of the Old, and working for the necessary change, for the transformation of the Old into the New, with revolutionary sweep.
    Further, one cannot conceive of being a communist without membership of a communist party, a modern type of party which mobilises and organises the people to defend their own interests, collective, individual and the general interests of society.
    And, as both propositions imply, the communist party takes up the problems of the day, whether national or international, with the spirit of proletarian internationalism, in order to provide solutions and to advance the progress of society.
    But, as always, the nub of the definition centres around how the question poses itself. To be a communist is not necessarily synonymous with being new and revolutionary. It is great that in our two parties, if one wants to separate them, we share the name communist; and one has New in its name and the other Revolutionary. I think this emphasises a common aspiration. It is difficult to think of a communist party worthy of the name that is not a party of revolutionary action, and which fights for the New. It seems to us essential that this quality is present.
    Being new and revolutionary is an act of being. In contrast, when it is posed, what it means to be a communist, one is invited to think of ‘communist’ as a category, how many criteria one fulfils, what the communist positions are, and so on. It is interesting how much difference a little ‘a’ can make: from ‘to be a communist’ to ‘to be communist’. In other words, ‘to be communist’ is not a question of ideological beliefs. It is a question of action, of structures, of membership. At the same time, how can it not include being new and revolutionary, immersing oneself in the struggles of the working class and people for their rights and interests, struggles which are in defence of the rights of all, and recognising the urgency of change, having a burning flame that the New has to come into being, since the political, economic, cultural and every other kind of crisis of the Old world is causing havoc and suffering to the people wherever they are in the world. In this respect, being communist is to have an optimism, to see in the movements of the people, whether against war, whether against the anti-social offensive, that the outcome can be something positive, creative, the people mobilised and organised to speak and act in their own name and have fidelity to the ensemble of all human relationships and what they are revealing, most importantly the need for political power. This looks like it is closer to how the question poses itself, and what it means to be a communist, new and revolutionary, today.
    So, ‘today’. This is crucial, because the argument is sometimes put that a communist party can only be revolutionary when there is a ‘revolutionary’ situation. So, then, what it means to be new and revolutionary today. It is the revolutionary nature and character of the party that matters, the revolutionary culture and driving force within it. But it is true that the revolutionary actions of the communist party are not to be understood as storming Parliament or Windsor Castle with an armed people’s militia. Nor is it the answer to return to a catechism of Lenin’s words that a revolutionary situation consists of when working people do not want to live in the old way and the ruling class cannot rule in the old way. Or, one could look at it from the point of view that that situation characterises the present, with the destruction of the public authority!
    But one can characterise the issue as what does the communist party take up for solution in this period of our era. When in the 1980s the world was going through its turning point from flow to ebb of revolution, of which, for example, the coming to power of Gorbachev in the Soviet Union was an example, the conclusion could be drawn that no force could act in the old way. Tony Blair tried to convince the world that there is a Third Way, but his new type of way was not in fact new, but pro-war, anti-worker, pro-covenant thesis.
    What might be said is that what is taken up for solution today is the battle of democracy, of which the defence of the rights of all is part, and which is characterised by the people being the decision-makers versus ‘representatives’ of the people claiming to act in their name but serving a fictitious person of state. In our view, not to engage in this battle of democracy condemns you to extinction today, particularly the communists. So these are crucial fronts of struggle that affect the lives of everyone: for economic well-being, for a ban on the use of force in settling conflicts, for the protection of the environment. It is our view that people are expressing their deepest desires for something new with these demands, which can be characterised as engaging in the battle of democracy, of the necessity to establish an anti-war government.
    Just to quote from the article Era, which Hardial Bains wrote in April 1991: “The main content of the era remains the same, but the forms of struggle have to be changed so that the working people can grasp and fight for the realisation of those demands which could improve their situation, bring peace, and protect the environment. The new situation demands a new approach and solutions that working people want.” So the tasks of today present themselves with profound meaning as engaging in the battle of democracy, taking it through to the end. One could say that communists present one face to the world, not a revolutionary face and a reformist face. It is a matter of our being. The working class will emancipate the whole of humanity through revolution, through the act of emancipating itself.
    In our view, confusion arises when ‘revolution’ becomes an act of belief rather than a historical outcome of the working class and people participating in making history. In this sense, ‘revolution’ as a belief simply says that the bourgeois ruling is overthrown by force with an act of revolution, to be replaced by the proletariat ruling by force. But the state form must be changed profoundly, and it is not a question of force – it is a question of bringing into being those arrangements that empower the people to be the decision-makers. We stand with the slogan: “There Is An Alternative! One Humanity, One Struggle!”
    That is to say, people are the history makers. How can the communists mobilise and organise the working class and people to this end, with this consciousness? The communists are not in a competition to best describe the ills of capitalism and of US imperialism striving for domination in the world. Communists are striving to develop the proletarian front and to provide an alternative, so that the New can overcome the resistance of the Old and prevail.
    Not only is the history-making of the 1917 October Revolution still unfolding – but the battle of democracy from the time of the English Civil Wars has still to be brought to completion! It is not a matter of indifference whether this battle is joined or not!
    The working class must stand at the head of the struggles of the people to turn things around in their own favour, and modern definitions are needed, not catechisms. That means that organising work for the communists takes pride of place. This means advancing step by step, accomplishment by accomplishment, dealing with the state disinformation that puts a veil over the need for political power. The character of the veil is that the people are told there is no question of achieving that power for themselves, but only replacing one set of ‘representatives’ by another, left-wing versus right-wing. In this way, the conception that the people are being deprived of decision-making power gets thoroughly obscured or put off sine die [indefinitely]. We need a vantage point and a line of march to impart to the working class and people!
    So, very briefly, that is what I wanted to say on what it means to be a communist – new and revolutionary – today!

Starmer the warmonger

Sir Keir Starmer has denounced the Stop the War movement as some sort of tool of Russia in a desperate attempt to further ingratiate himself with what he thinks is the dominant section of the British ruling class. Writing in the Guardian following talks with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels the Labour leader says the anti-war movement is at best 'naive' and at worst a force bolstering those who threaten democracies while telling the Times that Labour is the “party of NATO”.

   Conjuring up the ghosts of Labour’s old right wing Starmer said “Attlee, Healey and Bevin saw communism for what it was and were prepared to stand up to its aggression,” he said. “Today’s Labour party has the same clear-eyed view of the current regime in the Kremlin. We know, as they did, that bullies only respect strength. Russian tanks sit, engines revving, on the verge of annexing Ukraine but protest placards waved here by the usual suspects condemn NATO not Moscow... to condemn NATO is to condemn the guarantee of democracy and security it brings and which our allies in eastern and central Europe are relying on as the sabre-rattling from Moscow grows ever louder”.
   The people of Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria will, no doubt, have other ideas about NATO.
Starmer may think that posing as a super-patriot will convince the ruling class of his usefulness when the time comes to get rid of Boris Johnson. He also clearly believes that there is widespread public support for wars and military interventions in Britain. He’s wrong both counts. The Tories don’t need Starmer and the people don’t want war.

Bye Bye Cressida Dick

No one will shed any tears over the departure of Dame Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police chief who was finally forced to resign after a damning indictment from the Mayor of London last week.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said he was "not satisfied" Dame Cressida could "root out the racism, sexism, homophobia, bullying, discrimination and misogyny that still exist" in the force or restore Londoners' trust in the Metropolitan Police.
   The Labour politician said the last straw was the Commissioner’s less than robust response to police watchdog's report into the Charing Cross cops who joked about rape, LGBT people and violence towards women on the social media. Khan said that "the response from the Commissioner wasn't up to the scale of the change required in the Met Police Service".
   It’s surprising it took so long for Khan to see through her though to be fair, Cressida Dick’s talent was in brushing aside criticism from the public the police claim to protect. . Repeated claims of misogyny and racism in the force; the dismal handling of the “spycops” scandal and the “partygate” investigation and accusations of that the Met had failed to properly investigate claims of indecent exposure by one of the force who raped and killed a woman in 2021.
None of us will miss Cressida Dick. Whether her successor will be any better remains to be seen.

Black Humour from a Dark Age

 by Ben Soton

Hurdy Gurdy by Christopher Wilson. Faber & Faber 2021. Hardback: 256pp; rrp £14.99; Paperback: 272pp; rrp £8.99;  Kindle: 208pp; £5.03.

A comedy set during a global pandemic is inevitable in an era dominated by the Covid plague. Christopher Wilson’s 2021 novel, however, is set during the much deadlier pandemic of the mid 1300s known as the ‘Great Pestilence’. We now call it the Black Death.
    The central character, Dickory, is a monk in the fictional Order of St Odo the Disfigured and the book, named after a popular medieval musical instrument, delves into many of the similarities between the two pandemics. The most obvious being the bizarre conspiracy theories that spread across the highways of medieval Europe and today’s Information Superhighway.
    European Jews were heavily scapegoated during the Black Death. In Germany, the Jews were blamed for poisoning water supplies, and many were drowned in the Rhine. Meanwhile today conspiracy theorists blame the super-rich, the Rockefeller dynasty and the Rothschilds (who just happen to be Jewish) for using the pandemic as a means to establish World domination.
    The novel takes the form of an innocent’s odyssey through plague-ridden England. After his fellow monks are wiped out by the plague, Dickory is forced to venture into the world beyond the monastery walls. Brother Dickory, who had spent most of his life confined to a monastery, discovers the outside world. For the first time in his life, he discovers the pleasures of women. He also experiences the ignorance and superstition of the age.
    He comes across a band of blind men led by a one-eyed man. These men were led to believe that the plague was spread through the eyes, hence removal of the said organs would protect you from the plague. Dickory is himself put on trial for witchcraft along with a pig whom his accusers believe to be a man in disguise.
    The message of the novel is that we live in age where human knowledge, medical and otherwise, has come a long way since the Middle Ages. Medieval medicine had changed little since Roman times and was based on the teachings of Galen (129 AD–216 AD) and his theory that ill health was caused by an imbalance in the bodies of four humours: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile.
    Science has certainly moved on since the Middle Ages – but even today there are still those who oppose science with their bizarre and dangerous conspiracy theories.

A New Era for World Trade

by John Maryon

We live in the age of state monopoly capitalism in which large corporations, with a monopoly position across a wide range of markets, have become directly connected with government apparatus. Their aim is to use the state and its elected representatives to provide the legal and political frameworks that will enable them to increase their profits. A notable sign of the potential chaos and disorder can be seen in the challenge that exists to capitalist state power by the monopoly capitalists.
    Globalisation, the internationalism of the division of labour, has developed rapidly since the turn of the millennium. It is the product of science, technology and the development of productive forces, and should be at the service of humankind. Everyone should be able to increase their skills, talents and knowledge. But globalisation when put to work by monopoly capitalism is nothing but raw imperialism. Imperialism, through its institutions, has attempted to tighten its grip on the economies of all countries, in particular those of the developing world and others they see as competitive.
    Imperialists will attempt to use extra-governmental organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to their advantage. They may be able to remove protective restrictions that would limit imports and deregulate internal markets in terms of trade and services. By removing any restrictions on the movement of capital and eliminating export subsidies together with import tariffs that protect the home markets, a strategy of domination becomes effective. Small, poor countries, which are not capable of competing with the rich states, are confined to becoming suppliers of cheap commodities whilst being forced to import expensive manufactured products.
    Imperialist policies have been opposed by larger developing countries such as India and Brazil – at least when their progressive governments have not been replaced by ones that are allies of the USA. The establishment of regional free-trade areas can have the effect of converting groups of countries into mere satellites of primarily US imperialism. It has not only been the developing nations that have been affected but also inter-imperialist rivalry. Japan could have produced a serious challenge to Boeing with civil aircraft and attempts are now being made to prevent Germany buying cheap gas via Nord Stream 2.
    Secret negotiations started in 2014 between the European Union and USA to form the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Provisions would have allowed for full privatisation of the NHS and a reduction in food safety standards to US levels. Also the greater use of pesticides and genetically modified foods would be approved, along with increased monitoring of the Internet. Fortunately, following consumer resistance and strong opposition negotiations came to an end in 2016 and no agreement was signed.
    The suffocating agenda of blatant interference in the affairs of sovereign nations has been condemned by People's China and Russia. An event of major importance that will have a very dramatic impact on international trade and relations was the adoption by the Chinese Government in 2013 of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This global infrastructure development strategy will boost sustainable world trade, raise nations from poverty and increase international co-operation to a new high level unseen in the past.
    The BRI was put forward by President Xi Jinping just over eight years ago. An initiative that aims to build a trade, investment and infrastructure network connecting Asia with other parts of the world, initially along the ancient Silk Road trade route. Since its inception, a total of over 173 countries and international organisations have signed more than 200 co-operative agreements with China under the BRI. Cumulative trade between China and its partners exceeds $9.2 trillion and direct investment more than $130 billion.
    The scope of the mutually beneficial initiative extends far and wide. In addition to its transcontinental route, a 21st Century Maritime Silk Road includes sea lanes linking China to SE Asia, the South Pacific region, the Middle East and the east coast of Africa. Further afield, a number of countries in South America, including Argentina, have signed memorandums of intent. The socialist countries are partners in the project. The BRI aims to improve co-ordination, expand economic development, extend infrastructure connectivity and strengthen financial strategies. Importantly, it will connect more people and build trust, understanding and friendship.
    A typical project has been the recently opened China–Laos high speed railway. An important transport artery that will provide direct links between the land-locked country and Chinese cities and ports, including the opportunity to run goods trains to Europe. The impact of the BRI has been to provide opportunities in many areas including, the Middle East and Africa, which have until recently been regarded as suppliers of commodities. They are empowered to embark upon independent development, free from US diktat. Syria has now joined the BRI and will have a chance to rebuild itself amidst continued aggression and sanctions from greedy immoral Western States. Syria was in ancient times a part of the original Silk Road.
    Another new and important development is the close partnership established between China and Russia. It is a win–win situation for both countries. Russia will have a guaranteed market for its oil and gas, plus important opportunities to sell high-tech products. China will be able to invest in Russia and export manufactured goods. Russia has given full support to the One China policy, and China fully supports Russian efforts to halt the eastward expansion of NATO.
    The socialist countries have been in the front-line of US interference and aggression as they resist attempts to undermine them. Countries such as Cuba have been able to avoid the capitalist crisis but have to suffer economic sanctions from the USA at a time when they are battling COVID‑19 and a loss of tourist trade. But they have a very good friend in China.
    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), in particular, has shown the possibility of building an advanced socialist economy in the face of US-inspired sanctions. It caters for the economic, social and cultural needs of its people on the basis of self-reliance with no concessions to capitalist institutions.
    China's trade initiatives, along with mutual assistance, will play an important role in increasing the GDPs of the developing world and overcoming the effects of the Covid pandemic. The days of imperialist exploitation are surely numbered. It is the socialist countries that will be able to help the world recover, with fair trade and respect based upon full socialist principles.

Their crisis – we pay

Some Colombians say their civil war has gone on for so long that most of the fighters now have no idea what started it in the first place. That’s perhaps not surprising, given that it began in 1957. Boris Johnson, however, has no such excuse.
    Johnson’s brief premiership has been marked by a seemingly endless round of scandals. No-one can remember when they began or indeed what they are all about as the reasons all seem to blur as time goes by. Now we’re all awaiting the final stab in the back that will trigger the leadership contest that could end his political career once and for all.
    When it comes the knives will sadly be wielded by Tory backbenchers and not by Sir Keir Starmer, the supposed leader of the Opposition who until recently seemed to prefer hounding out Corbynistas from his ranks rather than rallying Labour’s supporters to challenge the austerity regime of the Johnson government.
    Although some unions are supporting the protests that will take place at the Cost of Living Crisis – We Can’t Pay demonstrations organised by the People’s Assembly Against Austerity this weekend, the whole weight of the labour movement needs to be mobilised around the campaign if it’s to have any effect on the Government.

Israel is an apartheid state

For once, Amnesty International has got it right. Amnesty has published a 280-page report detailing “Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity”, for which ​​“Israeli authorities must be held accountable”.
    The report, compiled over more than four years, analysed decades of legislation and policy that it said proved Palestinians were treated as an inferior racial group. “Israel has established and maintained an institutionalised regime of oppression and domination of the Palestinian population for the benefit of Jewish Israelis – a system of apartheid – wherever it has exercised control over Palestinians’ lives since 1948,” Amnesty said.
    “The USA, the European Union and its member states and the UK, but also those states that are in the process of strengthening their ties – such as some Arab and African states… must recognise that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and other international crimes,” reads the report.
    Amnesty called on those actors to “use all political and diplomatic tools to ensure Israeli authorities implement the recommendations outlined in this report and review any co-operation and activities with Israel to ensure that these do not contribute to maintaining the system of apartheid”.
    It says that the UN Security Council must “impose targeted sanctions against Israeli officials implicated” and demands an arms embargo on Israel. Amnesty also called for the perpetrators of apartheid to be “brought to justice” through the International Criminal Court.
    The Palestinian BDS National Committee, the broadest Palestinian civil society coalition, has warmly welcomed the Amnesty report condemning Israel’s apartheid regime.
    Amnesty’s rigorously researched report outlines a brutal and intentional system of fragmentation, dispossession, segregation and oppression against the Palestinians Arabs in historic Palestine and around the world as refugees. This system, Amnesty concludes, meets the definition of apartheid under both the Rome Statute and the UN’s Apartheid Convention.
    Like the proverbial stopped clock that’s right twice a day, this human rights organisation that long served imperialism’s interests during the Cold War has finally got it right over Israel.

Power in the Darkness

by Ben Soton

Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages by Dan Jones. Hardback: Apollo (Sept 2021), 720pp; RRP £25; Softback: Apollo (April 2022), 736pp; RRP £12; Kindle: Apollo (Sept 2021), 832pp; £0.99.

Dan Jones is a journalist best known for producing television series such as Secrets of Great British Castles and Britain’s Bloodiest Dynasty, and writing popular histories about the Crusades, the Templars and the Wars of the Roses.
    His latest romp through history, which hit the bookshelves last year, covers a thousand-year period from the last days of the Roman Empire to the European conquest of the Americas. The 600-page work is divided into four sections entitled: Imperium (410 – 750AD), Dominion (750–1215AD), Rebirth (1215–1347AD) and Revolution (1347 – 1527AD).
    Feudalism, a complex system based on obligations and duties, was the dominant economic system in Europe at the least throughout the Middle Ages. A system highly skewed in favour of the those at the top, who demanded obligations from those below them and seldom honoured theirs.
    The period covered by Jones, however, begins with a European economy dominated by slavery, the basis of the Roman economy that stretched from Palestine to Scotland and spanned both sides of the Mediterranean, and ends with the early stages of capitalism.
    The author takes a linear approach through, with a focus on particular groups and institutions. These include Romans, Franks, Monks, Mongols and Navigators. Arguably the book focus is primarily on Europe and the Middle East, although a chapter on the Mongols is included as their Empire covered the immense area from Seoul in Korea to the gates of Budapest.
    It was during the Medieval Crusades that the notion of a world divided into distinct civilisations emerged. Most notably the concept of a Christian West and an Islamic East, which became the basis of the reactionary ‘Clash of Civilisations’ theory. On a positive note, Jones rejects this theory and points out that the Crusades were simply a means of cementing the hegemony of the Catholic Church over Western Europe.
    Meanwhile, a chapter entitled {Survivors} covers the numerous rebellions that broke out in the period following the Black Death. Most notable of these was the Peasants’ Revolt in England. This was, however, part of an upturn in the class struggle that took place across Europe. There were uprisings in France, with the movement known as the Jacquerie, and Florence with the Ciompi, as well as student revolts in Bologna.
    The book ends with the sacking of Rome by the armies of the German Holy Roman Emperor Charles V; the event Jones considered to be the end of the Middle Ages.
    What is most concerning is the total lack of Marxist sources in the bibliography. I refer particularly to the works of the famed French historian Marc Bloch, who joined the resistance and was shot by the Gestapo in 1944, or British historians such AL Morton and Christopher Hill.
    Nevertheless, despite obvious flaws, the book is a useful source of reference about an important period in European and World History – the period following the Middle Ages that saw the beginning of European dominance across the globe.

Johnson in Wonderland

Boris Johnson didn’t amount to much when he was Foreign Minister in Theresa May’s government. His seemingly trivial approach to international diplomacy led the Russians to compare him unflatteringly with his famous Victorian counterpart, calling him Britain’s “New Palmerston”. Few took him seriously and it is even said that President Sisi of Egypt walked out of a meeting with Johnson simply because the conversation did not get beyond the usual pleasantries.
    So we shouldn’t be surprise to see BoJo posing as a great statesman in Kiev in a desperate attempt to show his usefulness to the Biden administration and divert domestic attention away from the ‘partygate’ scandal. But Johnson has, not surprisingly, failed to shake off the pack of Tory back-benchers baying for his blood or attract the attention of Vladimir Putin or the man in the White House Johnson is so keen to impress.
    Johnson knows that the real reason that so many Tories are turning on him is because they believe they will never be able to restore the ‘special relationship’ that many of them think is vital for the survival of British imperialism as long as he remains at the helm.
    Johnson may think that posing as US imperialism’s chief henchman à la Blair is the way to get back into Biden’s good books. But BoJo, who is still remembered as “Britain’s Trump” in Biden’s circles, needs to do much more than this to restore Britain’s standing with the current President of the USA. Rather than wasting his time talking to a nonentity like Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, Johnson would be better off working to improve relations with Ireland by ending the impasse with the European Union over northern Ireland’s Irish Sea ‘border’. But that is something Johnson clearly cannot do.

The long and winding road

Sad to see that Ken Livingstone, who was hounded out of the Labour Party by the Blairites and Zionists, has applied to join the Greens instead. Some will argue that there was nowhere else for him to go. Others that the Greens are indeed a genuinely left alternative to Labour.
    Meanwhile, reports that Jeremy Corbyn is planning to form a new party – reports almost entirely coming from the Starmer camp that want him out anyway – have fired calls from the usual suspects for the establishment of yet another left social-democratic alternative to Labour. But, needless to say, this will go nowhere without the support of the trade union movement and the unions are simply not interested.
    Past efforts have dismally failed. Arthur Scargill, the militant miners’ leader, did his best with his Socialist Labour Party (SLP) whilst even the RMT’s money wasn’t enough to get their Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) off the ground.
    There’s no point even in standing communist candidates. It is literally divisive. The old Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) abandoned the revolutionary road when it adopted the {British Road to Socialism}. Other left electoral platforms such as Respect, the SLP and TUSC all essentially express the same theory.
    The parliamentary election system in Britain is essentially a two-party system. At this stage the main working-class demands are for social reforms, and we believe that they are best carried out by reformist parties such as the Labour Party. We see the main struggle being within that party and the trade unions, and as long as Labour retains its organic links with the trade unions our policies are unlikely to change. Lenin himself said, at the time of Ramsay MacDonald in the early 1920s, that the British Labour Party was a very strange party, unlike any other social democratic party in Europe. The ‘strangeness’ is that Labour gets nearly all its members and funding from the trade unions. This is still the case.

Boris flails around

One could almost feel sorry for the Prime Minister as he flails around trying to fend off the charges from the jeering opposition benches because in the great scale of things Boris Johnson’s “partygate” lies pale into insignificance compared to Tony Blair’s duplicity over the invasion of Iraq. Blair was, in comparison, let off lightly by the Parliamentary Labour Party that let him quiet slink off to make a living on the American lecture trail and pose as a peace envoy for an imaginary UN Palestinian peace plan called the “road map” or some nonsense.
    BoJo repeatedly dismissed Labour calls to resign during heated exchanges in the House of Commons this week with one Labour MP calling him a “liar” to his face and Sir Keir Starmer saying Johnson had had “shown nothing but contempt for the decency, honesty and respect that define this country”. But it’s not Labour Johnson has to worry about – it’s the backstabbers in his own party that will bring him down sooner or later.
    There’s no shortage of wannabees waiting to take his place and the only reason that they haven’t so far moved for a motion of no confidence is that some would rather wait till after the local elections before showing their hand.
    Starmer & Co have been walking on stilts in recent days. Buoyed by the recent surge of support in the opinion polls they claim this is all down to Starmer’s embrace of Blairism and his purge of the Corbynistas. Though Labour has lost tens of thousands of members – some say up between 150,000 to 200,000 have left since Starmer took over this is seen as a “victory” for the Blairites who are rejoicing at the departure of a troublesome band of left social-democrats whose support for Jeremy Corbyn briefly derailed their “New Labour” project.
    They think that their current lead in the polls will translate into a real swing at election time that will sweep them back into government give them all the juicy perks that high office brings. But there’s no guarantee of that.
    What is certain is that a new Conservative leader will galvanise the Tories into mobilising their core vote at the next general election. Labour, on the other hand, will remain weak and divided as long as Starmer is at the helm.
    Starmer is a weak and uninspiring leader. He is clearly incapable of leading Labour to victory. He can’t even mobilise his own party let alone the working class it claims to represent. But the Labour’s problem isn’t to do with personalities. It’s policies that count. Who’s going to swayed by a Labour programme that differs little from those currently espoused by the Conservatives. Certainly not “middle England” or the mythical “hard-working families” that Starmer’s advisers from adland tell us are the keys to electoral success.
    Corbyn’s victory showed that the Labour Party is still a potentially strong weapon for our class and has vindicated our long held electoral position.The surge of support for Labour during the Corbyn era showed that workers could, albeit briefly, reclaim the party they founded and built from the agents and minions of the ruling class who have dominated its highest levels for decades.
What we need and what we must campaign for is a truly democratic Labour Party –a democratic Labour Party controlled by its affiliates; a Labour Party whose policies reflected those of a democratic union movement would become a powerful instrument for progressive reforms that would strengthen organised labour and benefit the working class. It’s a tall order but it can be done. The alternative is more Johnsons and more Starmers.

A finishing school for Nazis

by Dermot Hudson

Six Minutes to Midnight: Lionsgate 2020. Director: Andy Goddard. Writers: Andy Goddard (screenplay), Celyn Jones (story) and Eddie Izzard (story). Stars: Eddie Izzard, Judi Dench, Carla Juri, James D’Arcy, Jim Broadbent and Celyn Jones. 99mins. 12A/PG-13.

I recently stumbled on this historically based thriller, which proved to be an interesting and fairly enjoyable watch. It stars Eddie Izzard, who co-wrote the film, as an MI5 agent sent to infiltrate a school for German girls in the south of England. This was quite a change from Izzard’s usual roles, and he proves himself to be an excellent and capable actor. The film also includes veterans such as Judi Dench and Jim Broadbent.
    The film is set in August 1939, in the run-up to the Second World War. The plot revolves around an unusual private school for girls, the Augusta Victoria College in Bexhill On Sea. This is not just any old private school for posh girls however, but a finishing school for German girls, many of whom are said to be the daughters of top Nazis.
    The school is run by the Anglo-German Fellowship. It does of course need to be pointed out that the Augusta Victoria College and the Anglo-German Fellowship were both very real indeed. The Anglo-German Fellowship had many ruling-class figures as members, including a large number of Conservative MPs and peers as well as “National Labour” MPs. Although unlike the overtly ideological and political fascist movements such as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, the Anglo-German Fellowship was ostentatiously a cultural organisation – it did however reflect pro-fascist, pro-Nazi opinion within the ruling class. After all, the appeasement of Nazi Germany in the hope that it would one day destroy the socialist USSR was an official policy.
    This is reflected in the film by the fact when the school has an open day many local bigwigs attend and for the most part its activities are unhindered, although British intelligence is very suspicious.
    In the film the Swiss-style finishing school has a definite espionage function and sports teacher Frau Keller is a German agent, and a dangerous one at that. The MI5 agent sent to infiltrate the school is found dead (although the film does not explain exactly how he was killed nor by whom).
    Another MI5 agent, the German-speaking Thomas Miller played by Izzard, is sent to infiltrate the school. Miller ends up getting framed by the Nazis and going on the run.
    The fifth-column fascist-sympathising part of the ruling class is represented by James D’Arcy’s upper-class police detective Captain Drey, who initially sounds righteously patriotic but is himself a Nazi agent.
    One positive of the film is that it captures the atmosphere of Britain in the run-up to the Second World War. There is some carefree jollity and scenes of the seaside, but also hints of what is to come such as the police removing road signs because they could assist an invasion force.
    On the negative side, a few of the characters switch sides but it is never clearly explained why. I also felt that there could have been a bit more anti-fascism in the film. Although the film is supposedly set around the east Sussex coast it was actually shot on location in south Wales – and the fortress is clearly not the Pevensey castle it’s said to be!

Taking the road to prosperity

Syria took a further step along the road to economic recovery when it signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) last week – a move that will help the defiant Arab republic break out of the shackles of the American blockade and create new opportunities for cooperation with People’s China and other countries in the Third World.
    The Belt and Road Initiative was launched in 2013 to build a trade, investment and infrastructure network connecting Asia with other parts of the world along the ancient Silk Road trade routes and beyond.
    Since then the BRI has promoted economic prosperity and sustainable development. Under the initiative, a large number of highway, railway, airport and seaport projects have been carried out in Belt and Road countries, and important progress has been made in building "six corridors, six connectivity routes and multiple countries and ports", and the building of a multi-dimensional infrastructure network has been accelerated.
    The Belt and Road Initiative has also improved people's livelihoods and facilitated sustainable development in several countries. Currently, the 82 economic and trade cooperation zones under the Initiative have created about 300,000 local jobs. During the construction of the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya, more than 300 local enterprises were involved with local employees accounting for more than 90 percent of the workforce. Also, a large number of livelihood assistance projects including housing, water supply, medical care and education, have been implemented in countries participating in the initiative.
    The Belt and Road Initiative stresses the continuous pursuit of green development. China has signed documents on the Green Belt and Road Initiative with the United Nations Environment Programme, and set standards for green product certification and green infrastructure construction.
    The Initiative offers huge trade and investment opportunities to the post-Brexit UK economy. But sadly Boris Johnson has chosen to grovel to the Americans instead. Perhaps his successor will think otherwise.

Taking the principled stand

Top tennis players are not known for championing human rights unless their own personal liberty is threatened. Look at Novak Djokovic, the vain anti-vaxxer who even claimed he was upholding free speech and human rights during his failed bid to remain in Australia to defend his title in the Australian Open.
    So it was good to see another more modest man, Andy Murray, turn down immense amounts of Saudi money when he refused to take part in exhibition matches in the feudal Arab kingdom because of “what’s gone on” in the country over human rights issues.
    The Saudis have recently hosted football, Formula One, boxing and golf events – programmes that have been fiercely criticised by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for attempting to cleanse the House of Saud’s reputation on the international stage, a practice described as 'sports washing'.
    Though Murray was offered up to £1.5 million to play in Saudi Arabia the Scottish world champion insists he is not interested in “eye-watering sums of money” on offer from the autocratic kingdom that persecutes gays and treats women as chattels.

China's Democracy that Works

by John Maryon

The outstanding economic growth and progressive political development of People's China have been impressive and dramatic. With a civilisation extending back over 5000 years the country has entered a period of rapid development. It is now just over 100 years since the Chinese Communist Party was formed and 73 years since Mao Zedong was able to proclaim the People's Republic of China at an historic gathering in Tiananmen Square. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has given the leadership to transform what was one of the poorest counties in the world from a semi-feudal society into a modern socialist state. The CPC has now successfully eradicated the last vestiges of poverty for the people. Also with its Belt and Road initiative, based upon infrastructure development and fair trade practices, the developing world will be in a better position to rid itself of the effects of neo-colonialism.
    China has become a major force for peace. It can be said to have taken over the role formally held by the Soviet Union in becoming the most powerful socialist state. It offers economic assistance to poor countries and has played an important role in helping the international efforts to combat the COVID‑19 pandemic. People's China has become a beacon of hope for all oppressed people.
    The USA sees People's China as a threat to its world hegemony and attempts with sanctions, trade embargoes and military threats to weaken and obstruct their progress. It is against this background that the USA and its craven allies have embarked upon a new cold war against the People's Republic. Outrageous lies are told to support allegations of genocide against ethnic minorities in China, to allege that the country is preparing for war and is undemocratic with widespread abuses of human rights. With its own dismal record and images, still in people's minds, of a black man being choked to death, the USA is in no position to lecture others.
    Today's reality is that the past centuries of feudal autocracy in China, made worse by the 1840 opium wars, held back a great nation. Under the leadership of the CPC one could say that the dragon has awakened as all the people of China can now work to build a new free and prosperous society. The State Council of the CPC has issued an important White Paper entitled China Democracy that Works, which shows the true situation in modern China today.
    The document defines what we mean by democracy, examines the various types, and shows that it is a relative quantity that requires some qualification. It explains that democracy is a growing process that can take diverse forms as it develops along the paths chosen by different nations.

To judge a democracy the following areas are considered important:

• Is the succession of the leadership orderly and in line with the law?

• In conformity with legal provisions, can the public express their wishes without hindrance?

• Can all sections of society, including ethnic minorities, participate in political life?

• Can people of high calibre be part of the national leadership?

• Do people have the right to vote and to hold their elected representatives accountable?

• Are the people really masters of their own destiny or are forces linked to wealth, corruption and greed in control as in much of the western world?

People's China ticks all the right boxes.

The point is made that democracy is not just a useless decorative ornament that hides reality and masks the truth without offering any real choice. This could be the case with many bourgeois democracies where the election of Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee changes nothing. The National People's Congress is the highest state body in China. It has the power to appoint or remove the President and other senior government officials. Election of its over 2,980 members takes place every five years. China's constitution stipulates that all power belongs to the people and the political system includes local people's congresses.
    China's democracy thrives in a wise nation with a long history. A nation that under the leadership of the CPC has been transformed into an advanced socialist state with a mixed economy. The CPC co-operates with eight other smaller parties representing various ethnic, religious and social groups in a Broad Patriotic Front. The National Congress of the CPC takes place every five years, at which representatives of its more than 95 million members can appoint the central committee and General Secretary. The CPC represents the people – not the vested interests of a privileged elite.
    The period 1949–1978 was a time of consolidation of state power and of socialist transformation of the means of production, including the abolition of private land. After 1978 a process of opening-up and socialist modernisation was undertaken. It has, however, remained fundamental that China would always stick to a socialist political process with Chinese characteristics. The CPC has led the people to become masters of their own country. It important to realise that CPC objectives to build a full Communist society are intended to take place over an extended period of time. The creation of a new society will result from gradual changes of both a quantitative and a qualitative nature, and with changes of direction to cope with new conditions as they arise.
    The White Paper points out that civilizations are enriched by exchanges and mutual learning. The Chinese people are willing to work together with all peoples of the world to carry forward the common values of humanity: peaceful development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom.
    An important factor that can adversely affect the democratic process is corruption. President Xi Jinping has made it an important priority during his tenure to tackle all forms of corruption. The CPC spares no effort to build trust and respect between officials and the people.
    The White Paper concludes that there is always scope to improve the system of democracy and suggests that humanity’s quest for improving the process will never end. Today the world is experiencing change on a scale unseen in the past, creating new opportunities, hopes and challenges. The CPC seeks to pursue peaceful development, increased democracy and improve the people's well-being.

Along the British Road

by Eric Trevett

Some people within the labour Movement argue that the Labour Party is not a party of the working class but a bourgeois party that is is part of the capitalist state machine and that revolutionaries should oppose it in elections.
    We in the New Communist Party believe that these arguments are wrong and an example of good people getting frustrated at the right-wing policies of the Labour Government and anti-working class policies that pave the way for the return of a much more anti-working class government.
    We believe that automatically writing off the whole institution of the Labour Party as a result of the policies of the government arises from a subjective analysis and runs contrary to the efforts to promote working class unity in the day-to-day struggles and in the more profound struggles for revolution and socialism.
    Before the Labour Party was formed the skilled working class tended to give its allegiance to the Liberal Party. When it became obvious that party would not defend the interests of the trade union movement there was a struggle to establish the working class party.
    The socialist parties in those days joined with the trade union leaderships and founded the Labour Party to represent the working class interests in Parliament.
    Most trade union members pay the political levy and are therefore affiliate members of the Labour Party irrespective of whether they are communists or socialists.
    The right wing was also involved in that struggle and from that day to this has been in the ascendancy for most of the time in both the Labour Party and trade union organisations.
    But with all its weaknesses the Labour Party has, from time to time and under pressure from the trade union movement, achieved a number of reforms beneficial to the working class.
    After the First World War in 1919 Clause Four was written into the Labour Party constitution – calling for the working class to take control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
    And after the Second World War the Labour government was swept into office and launched a massive council house building programme. The railways and the coal and steel industries were nationalised. And the National Health Service was introduced.
    What the Labour government did not do was to carry through a socialist revolution and give the working class state power.
    And its foreign policy served the interests of imperialism, was strictly anti-Soviet and supported the spread of nuclear weapons.
    Historically the labour movement (the Labour Party and the trade unions) has had a reformist leadership whose priority has been to perpetuate capitalism.
    The trade unions are the Labour Party’s main source of finance. Most of the trade unions and the Co-Operative party are affiliated to the Labour Party. This is the basis of why we say the Labour Party is a working class party.
    The labour movement organisationally is not divided into warring trade union groups, as in Europe where the labour movement has been formed by different elements: socialists, Catholics and communists and this has hindered the struggle for unity. The unity of the movement in Britain is very important to maintain; it is an asset we should be proud of.
    It is true that with the introduction of individual membership it has been easy for petty bourgeois elements to penetrate the party and advance their personal careers and this has reinforced the position of the right wing in the Labour Party and trade union movement.
    But the way to counter this is to promote working class unity around working class policies. It is not for organisations to contest the Labour Party’s position in national and local elections. In truth we have seen in recent years that such efforts are futile. Both the Socialist Alliance and George Galloway’s Respect Party have collapsed and so has Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party. The tragedy of that is that Arthur Scargill has isolated himself from the movement in which he was widely respected.
    From its inception the Communist Party of Great Britain has tried to affiliate to the Labour Party; this aim was abandoned only in 1975. One of the reasons why the CPGB failed to win affiliation with the Labour Party was that it stood candidates in elections against Labour and the broad labour movement.
    In hindsight we believe this policy to have been wrong even in the days when the party’s vote was high and Gallagher, Saklatvala and Phil Piratin were elected to Parliament.
    Since then and in the post-war period the bankruptcy of standing against Labour was plain to see. Since the Second World War the emphasis on campaigning in elections in the localities has gained priority over the industrial work of the party. At one time factory branches were being closed in an effort to involve more party members in electioneering.This weakened the capability of the trade unions to exert pressure on the government of the day.
    Our declared aim is to work to strengthen the working class and its political consciousness and fight for the right to affiliate to the Labour Party ourselves as communists.
    That is the way we believe and demonstrate that we are genuinely concerned to participate in the struggles for full employment, peace and socialism in a manner that unites the working class and its allies, especially student bodies.
    It would be wrong for us to stand candidates in national elections because it would be seen to be weakening the fight against the Tories and reaction. This has not led to any watering down of our party’s critique of the right wing in the Labour Party.
    Experience has shown that communists do best in industry and at the places of work because they are a genuine, integral part of the working class and are regarded as such. It is there that we often get communists elected to leading union positions out of respect for their militancy, profound wisdom and practical understanding in the unending struggles with the employers.
    In today’s struggle against the cuts and for nuclear disarmament we can see rising levels of struggle in the localities and we must remember that most class battles are won in the field of struggle and not in parliamentary debate.
    No one knows exactly how the socialist revolution will come about in this country but the struggle outside of Parliament, which is a bourgeois institution, will be far more decisive that the struggle inside Parliament.
    If and when our party succeeds in affiliating to the Labour Party it will bring the struggle for fundamental change and socialism to a new height.
    We therefore ask those people who view the Labour Party as anti-working class to re-evaluate their positions and support the struggle as we have outlined.

Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live the struggle for working class unity in Britain and throughout the world!

first published in 2010

The King's man returns

by Ben Soton

The King’s Man. 20th Century Studios, 2021. Dir: Matthew Vaughn. Starring: Rhys Ifans, Daniel Brühl, Charles Dance, Harris Dickinson, Matthew Goode, Robert Aramayo, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Gemma Arterton, Stanley Tucci, Ralph Fiennes, Tom Hollander and Djimon Hounsou. 131mins.

What have a Zulu warrior fighting with Rasputin to the tune of the 1812 overture, Mata Hari seducing Woodrow Wilson, and VI Lenin accepting the abdication of Nicholas II got in common? Firstly, they never happened and secondly, they all feature in {The King’s Man}, a film I have been waiting almost two years to see.
    Delayed eight times due to production issues and the impact of the Covid pandemic, {The King’s Man} is a prequel to the two earlier Kingsman films, Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) and Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) – all based on the the Secret Service comic book series that debuted in 2012.
    The Kingsman Agency, a private security firm based in a Savile Row tailor’s shop, had its origins in the First World War. The Agency consists of its founder, the Earl of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes), his son Conrad (Harris Dickinson), a working-class English nanny (Gemma Arterton) and a Zulu warrior (Djimon Hounsou). Meanwhile, a sinister organisation, resembling James Bond’s Spectre, is hell bent on the destruction of the British Empire. To do this it employs Mata Hari, Gavrilo Princip, Grigori Rasputin and Lenin. Its plan is to get Russia out of the war and prevent the USA from entering it, thus leading to a German victory and British defeat.
    In recent years there has been talk of conspiracy theories and the film’s plot is ultimately based around one of them. Reactionaries have for years promoted the view that the First World War was the result of a sinister plot, either explicitly or implicitly linked to World Jewry. But in {The King’s Man} the sinister organisation intent on destroying the British Empire is has at its helm not a Jew but an enraged Scotsman.
    Right-wing historians often view the period from the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 to the outbreak of First World War as a largely peaceful period, signified by European and British dominance the globe. This is largely a myth. This imagined ‘golden age’ saw numerous wars between European Powers; perhaps most notably the Franco-Prussian conflict, as well as a number of minor conflicts. It also saw the plunder and carve-up of Africa; an important factor behind inter-imperialist conflict that led to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. Arguably, the outbreak of hostilities in 1914 was simply the conclusion of those events not a break with them.
    The film also promotes the fiction that the forceful personality of Queen Victoria prevented conflict between the three countries headed by her grandsons: George V of Great Britain, Nicholas II of Russia and Wilhelm II of Germany. Tom Hollander manages to play all three roles, with George V portrayed in the most positive light. He mentions fear of revolution in Britain and not wanting to suffer the same fate of either of his cousins.
    Ultimately the 19th Century was a period when capitalism fully established itself as the dominant system on the planet and faced no competition from rival systems, namely socialism. If you watch this film, be aware of conspiracy theories and false historical narratives. Conspiracy theories are not simply the property of the tin-foil hat brigade.

Tax the Rich

By John Maryon

Britain's bloated capitalists will have heaved a huge sigh of relief when Jeremy Corbyn was removed as Labour Party leader, in the sure understanding that they would now continue to get richer as the poor get poorer.
    Since the 1970s both Tory and Labour governments have cut public spending in real terms. Vital services such as the NHS, public transport, local amenities and social services have become seriously underfunded. The money to pay for these services is raised by various forms of taxation but that levy should be fair. It is the wealthy who should be made to pay through progressive fiscal policies that can take more of the burden of taxation from the workers whilst ensuring that the rich are fully taxed.
    For many wealthy capitalists tax avoidance appears to be regarded as a sport. They may employ sharp-witted accountants to 'do' the books, establish overseas tax havens and arrange financial transactions to indicate seemingly lower profits to reduce their tax burden. It was recently claimed that cleaners, on basic low wages, were paying more tax than the highly paid staff who worked in the offices that they cleaned.
    In 1979 the top rate of tax was 83 per cent, today it is 45 per cent (46 per cent in Scotland). Council tax and VAT, both regressive measures, play an increasingly important role. Changes have ensured that more of the tax burden has shifted from the wealthy to those who are poor. The New Communist Party  maintains that the burden should be shifted from the backs of the workers on to the wealthy who can afford it. The party is opposed to regressive taxes such as VAT.
    All income tax payers will have their personal allowances frozen for a number of years, which represents a significant and rapidly increasing tax burden. As incomes rise, in an attempt to keep pace with inflation, millions of workers will not only pay a higher percentage of their income as tax but may also become victims of 'fiscal drag' as they become eligible for a higher rate tax bracket. These changes taken with historically high VAT rates and changes to National Insurance (NI) contributions will hit hard.
    With higher tax rates it could be expected that those with higher incomes would pay more taxes. Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) presents a rather different picture.
    In 2015–16 the poorest 10 per cent of households paid 42 per cent of their income as taxes of all categories. For the richest 10 per cent that figure was just 34. 3 per cent. The NCP seeks to improve the quality of people’s lives by reducing economic inequality and urges the Labour Party to make a commitment to do so by increasing the higher tax rates.
    Higher-rate tax payers are able to gain extended tax thresholds with Gift Aid. They are able to benefit as donations will extend the basic tax band, meaning that less tax is paid at a higher rate. For those earning over £100,000 even more relief is available – in this case the tax-free personal allowance reduction of £1 for every £2 of additional income is off-set by £1 for every £2 of gift aid.
    A fundamental question is to ask why the same proportion of tax is not paid on profits as on wages and should the liability be calculated in a similar manner. Any extra revenue generated would make it possible to boost pensions and benefits to help the community. Once full socialism is created many taxes may be reduced or abolished. Essential funding would come from the surplus value generated by publicly owned enterprises.
    In November 2020 Boris Johnson announced that defence spending at £41.5 billion per annum would increase by £16.5 billion over the next four years. Whilst public services continue to suffer, no questions are raised in regard to this dangerous and unnecessary waste of money. The Labour Party has said that the announcement signalled a welcome and long overdue upgrade.
    Further financial pressures are created by tax avoidance and evasion. According to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) the amount of tax income lost through non-payment, avoidance and fraud amounted to £35 billion in 2019–20. The actual figure could be much higher.
    The government has faced criticism for raising national insurance tax on workers rather than directly taxing the wealthy. In 2021–22 the rate for Class 1 NI contributions is 12 per cent; this will increase to 13.5 per cent in 2022–23 and represents an increase of 1.25 per cent. The system is unfair because high earners do not pay at full starting rate, meaning that those with incomes exceeding £50,000 will pay proportionality less of their income in tax. The measures will place a heavier burden on the young whilst those with property and shares, who usually vote Tory, will be less affected.
    The NCP seeks a much fairer tax system; a fundamental change that goes far beyond any existing Labour Party pledges. Our Communist policy calls for a wide range of essential measures:

• PAYE personal tax allowances to be increased substantially to exempt low wage earners from tax liability.
• The employee’s upper earnings limit for NI contributions should be abolished so that higher earners pay their fair share.
• Employer’s NI should be raised to 20 per cent.
• New PAYE tax bands to be introduced for higher earners, with a rate of 98 per cent for those earning over £120,000.
• Capital gains should be treated as income.
• The abolition of gift aid.
• Removal of tax on domestic fuel.
• Taxes on insurances to be withdrawn.
• Government grants to local authorities to be increased to pre-1979 values.
• Drastically cut defence spending, which exists to support US hegemony
• Corporation tax to be increased and rebates abolished.

Communist demands for a progressive tax system would redistribute wealth. Making the rich disgorge a fraction of their wealth would go a long way to enable the repair of social provision that has been cut back since 1979. The ruling class will not give up their inflated share of wealth and it is up to the workers to step up the class struggle to achieve justice.

Calm returns to Kazakhstan

getting ready to leave

by New Worker correspondent

An uneasy calm has returned to the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan following a week of riots that pushed the country to the brink of civil war. The draconian price hikes have been suspended for six months. The hastily despatched Russian-led peace-keeping force is preparing to leave, and the government is trying to pick up the pieces following days of looting and violence that ended with 18 law enforcement officers and hundreds of civilians dead.
    Some 10,000 people have been detained amidst the unrest that began when the government doubled the price for liquefied petroleum gas and bumped up the tariffs on water supply, sanitation and heating at the beginning of the new year. But the mass street protests supported by the independent unions and the underground socialist movements soon turned ugly after an angry mob torched the presidential palace in the former capital, Almaty, whilst gunmen emerged to confront the police and security forces in the new capital, Nur Sultan, and many other cities in Kazakhstan.
    Who’s behind it nobody knows. A former Kazakh minister living in Paris has offered to lead the protest movement. Mukhtar Ablyazov, who fled the country after being accused of stealing $6 million from a Kazakh bank, sees himself as the "leader" of the ongoing protests and claims that he has routinely consulted people on the ground in Almaty on tactical issues. He says he’s ready to return to his homeland and lead a “provisional government” once the protests reach the right magnitude.
    The Russia media say the rapid descent into bloodshed shows the hidden hand of the Western powers trying to orchestrate regime-change in this strategic, oil-rich Central Asian republic, whilst the Tokayev government openly accuses sectarian Muslim movements of being behind some of the violence.
    ISIS and Al-Qaeda are said to be operating in the south of the country, and a man from neighbouring Kyrgyzstan who was arrested in Almaty told the police he was paid $200 to cross the border and take part in the protests.
    When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the corrupt Kazakh communist government of Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev carried on Yeltsin-style to plunder the country in the name of the ‘free market’ for nearly three decades. Whilst most Kazakhs were reduced to near-poverty, these former communists amassed untold riches and spent millions more on ludicrous vanity projects designed to boost the international image of the Nazarbayev clan.
    Although the “Leader of the Nation” stepped down in 2019, Nazarbayev kept his seat on the powerful State Security Committee until now. Many now believe that his successor, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, has taken advantage of the chaos to finally shunt the old man into political oblivion.
    In Moscow the decision to send peace-keeping troops to Kazakhstan has divided the communist forces. All of them support the basic demands of the protesters. But the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) says the intervention was an “adequate and timely measure” to prevent an imperialist “colour revolution” whereas the much smaller Russian Communist Workers Party gives full support to the Socialist Movement of Kazakhstan, which is calling for “organised resistance to military-police terror” in their country.
    The Union of Communist Parties – CPSU, however, warns that: “Having unleashed the bloody massacres in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, global imperialism, led by the United States, is getting closer and closer to the borders of Russia and Belarus. Hybrid war against them is already being waged on the territories of Ukraine, Moldova and the Transcaucasian states. Now the Central Asian republics are on the line. Today, it is especially important not to allow the state sovereignty of the largest of them-Kazakhstan-to be undermined. Terrorist centres that are generously financed from abroad have been active there for a long time. It is they who play a key role in fomenting pogroms, destabilising the system of government, and brutal massacres of law enforcement officers and soldiers…we support those political forces of the Republic which, defending social justice, are now resolutely fighting against the looting and lawlessness which prevailed in these days of January.”

A walk in the garden

The problem that most incorrigible liars have is their inability to distinguish reality from their own fantasies. Boris Johnson admits he was at a Downing Street lockdown garden party and gives grovelling apology but still seems unaware that the game’s up for his premiership.
    But this isn’t about the genuine wave of outrage at the latest revelations about parties in Downing Street while the rest of us were living under the Covid lockdown regime. Nor is it really about lying in Parliament though this is, to be sure, frowned on by the grandees on both sides of the House, as it gives them all a bad name.
    What it really boils down to is the fact that the key players amongst the ruling class within the corridors of power have no further use for Boris Johnson. He’s incapable of restoring the “special relationship” with US imperialism let alone building a post-Brexit working understanding with Franco-German imperialism. His antics have become an embarrassment and he’s an electoral liability that needs to be replaced before the next general election. Even Sir Keir Starmer is calling on Johnson to go and it’s not often that he gets things right.
    But as usual Starmer is incapable of exploiting the political crisis for Labour’s benefit. Though Labour is ahead, for once, in the opinion polls this is only down to Tory disaffection with their own leader rather than any genuine swing to Labour. No one knows what Starmer stands for apart from supporting Israel and loathing the Corbynistas.
    Johnson clearly is on hjs way out but there’s plenty of leading Tory wannabees ready and able to take Johnson’s place to lead their party into the next election. Starmer also needs to go but who is going to replace him?

Street protests work

The Israeli Elbit arms factory in Oldham has closed following a sustained campaign by Palestine Action that has cost the company millions of pounds worth of damages. While Elbit simply say they’ve sold the plant as part of their restructuring strategy in the United Kingdom the Palestine campaigners say it was their prolonged campaign that forced their hand.
    The Elbit Ferranti factory in Oldham is one of ten owned by Elbit in the UK. A majority of it was sold to British firm TT Electronics for £9 million.The Elbit Group makes drones and it is responsible for 80 percent of Israel’s military drones. The Israeli company’s products have been used to target Palestinians in Gaza and equip Israel’s apartheid wall with surveillance technology.
    Over the past 18 months Palestine Action supporters have blockaded the plant sprayed the premises with blood-red paint, smashed windows and occupied the entry to the factory. Some 36 people have been arrested but no one has been charged with a crime or prosecuted yet.
    This sort of direct action, which is a stage up from sit-down protests, requires the sort of agility and fitness needed to scale buildings and protest in all weathers. Some of us may not be up for this sort of robust protest but we can all support the view of the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network that said this "victory speaks to the successful nature of strong direct action to impose a meaningful and material cost upon the profiteers of the colonisation of Palestine and Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people".

Heroes of the Korean War!

by Keith Bennett

The Battle at Lake Changjin, directed by Chen Kaige, Tsui Hark and Dante Lam, premiered at the Beijing International Film Festival on 21st September 2021 and was released in China on 30th September. As part of its international distribution it has been showing at selected cinemas all over the world. With a budget of some $200 million it is the most expensive Chinese film ever made. The acclaim with which it has been received however, has also made it the highest grossing film of 2021, the highest grossing film in Chinese history and the highest grossing non-English language film.
    At just two minutes under three hours in length, the film is a revolutionary epic, with the main action centred around the Changjin Lake area of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the bitterly cold winter of 1950, shortly after the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (CPVA) intervened to help the Korean people during the conflict the Chinese call the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.
    Confronted with the harshest natural and climatic conditions, forced to survive on starvation rations and faced with an enemy that was better trained, better equipped, better fed, better armed and with complete mastery of the skies, the Chinese troops “fearing neither hardship nor death”, to use the well-known Chinese expression, continued to forge ahead in the most courageous and ingenious of ways. Armed with the element of surprise, and although making the ultimate sacrifice, by successfully blowing up the Shuimen Bridge they scored the most decisive victory, ultimately ensuring the achievement of China’s objectives in the war.
    A great strength of the film is how it weaves into a seamless whole the grand politics of national leadership and vital decisions of war and peace with the lives, sentiments and aspirations of the masses of poor and working people, those whom Chairman Mao always insisted were the real heroes. We see Mao addressing his comrades and arguing his case. We see him absorbed in contemplation. We see his close comradely relations with the CPVA commander Peng Dehuai (something that tragically was not to survive the later twists and turns of the revolution), and we see the interplay between Mao Zedong, his son Mao Anying and Peng.
    Already a seasoned revolutionary in his own right, Anying is determined to be amongst the first to volunteer for the Korean front. Peng tries his best to dissuade him. He doesn’t want the Chairman to be left without his son. But Anying cannot accept that his family should not make the same sacrifices that countless other families throughout China would make. It is Mao Zedong who tells Peng to “let him go”, not because he doesn’t love his son, but because he loves all the sons and daughters of the Chinese working people – something that recalls Stalin’s attitude when his son was held a prisoner of war by the Nazis and which reputedly originally inspired the title of Arthur Miller’s 1946 play All my Sons.
    This interplay may be said to constitute a bridge to the depiction of the mass of Chinese people in war and revolution. The film begins with People’s Liberation Army soldier Wu Qianli returning to join his illiterate parents and younger brother in their home village in Zhejiang province and carrying an urn containing the ashes of his other brother Wu Baili, who has fallen as a revolutionary martyr. Although Qianli will return to the army, he assures his worried mother, who has already lost one son, that the war is over and there are no more battles to be fought. As a result of land reform, the family have been given a modest amount of land as their own and Qianli’s great dream and plan is to build there a home fit for his parents to live in.
    He has scarcely reached home however, before he is called to leave at once for Korea. Again relating the vital questions of international politics to the daily concerns and needs of the people, the point is made that those who have at last gained their own home and land must now fight to repel those who would come and take it away. In a separate scene, Mao opines that the country has only just been liberated. There is so much to do to build a new China. He doesn’t want to fight another war at this time. But if, he presciently observes, this war brings China decades or even a century of peace, then it will be worth it. Moreover, Mao observes, by sending its military forces to Taiwan, the USA has already committed aggression against China.
    Later, in the terrible conditions of battle, the soldiers console themselves with the thought that their sacrifice will mean that their children will not need to endure the horrors of conflict. They will enjoy a better life in peace. For this reviewer, it was a touching vindication of that to be able watch the film in a cinema in London’s West End, with an audience otherwise made up of young students from China.
    Much of the film’s human story is centred on the relationship between Wu Qianli and his younger brother Wu Wanli. Wanli’s brother is a people’s army soldier and a revolutionary martyr, whilst, at least initially, he is a mischievous, somewhat ill-disciplined but in reality quite naïve peasant boy, who starts out by thinking that war is some kind of adventure or game.
    Qianli is horrified that Wanli has sneaked away to enlist together with him. Wanli’s progression from naïve teenager to heroic soldier and revolutionary, and not just in a military sense, but for example in learning to write a self-criticism, in a sense recalls the evolution of Pavel Korchagin in the classic Soviet novel How the Steel was Tempered. Towards the end, it is noted that the Wan in Wanli means ten thousand, indicating that his example will be followed by countless revolutionary successors.
    The developing relationship between Qianli and some of his closest comrades on the one hand, and Wanli on the other, plays out against the lives and interactions of the company as a whole. The good-natured ribbing conceals but also highlights and nurtures a deep camaraderie characterised by a willingness to sacrifice for others, both for the person next to you and for the wider cause, a profound humanism and a genuine comradely love. The resulting political synthesis of revolutionary heroism and class hatred, of patriotism and proletarian internationalism, becomes the living embodiment of Chairman Mao’s great call to Resist America, Aid Korea, Safeguard the Motherland and Defend our Homes.
    The film provides a vivid, intense and at times harrowing depiction of just what it means to fight with next to nothing against almost insuperable and apparently hopeless odds – in exposed terrain at the mercy of US bombers and in temperatures that often fall to more than minus 40 degrees Celsius, compounded by a lack of food and adequate warm clothing. And to triumph in the face of such adversity. There is a poignant contrast between the lavish Thanksgiving dinner enjoyed by the US troops at their base with the Chinese volunteers attempting to ward off starvation with a handful of small, rotten and undercooked or raw potatoes – sharing with each other what very little they had. But no amount of roast turkey with all the trimmings can obscure the dawning realisation that Douglas MacArthur’s boast, seen towards the start of the film, of victory by Thanksgiving and home by Christmas was not going to materialise.
    The note of caution raised at the start, that behind Kim Il Sung stood Mao Zedong and Stalin, was arrogantly dismissed with chauvinistic deprecation of peasant fighters. But the history of the 20th Century is in major part a history of Asian peasants fighting and defeating US imperialism and its stooges – in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. They were often equipped with the most rudimentary of weapons – but they were also equipped with the most advanced revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism and the leadership of a communist party. Of course, both the fact that China chose to make this film at this time, and the fact of its phenomenal box office success, is not unrelated to the New Cold War unleashed by imperialism against China and other socialist and anti-imperialist countries – a cold war that, just as it did in Korea in 1950, can all too easily become an outright military conflict. For Asian workers and peasants in power, however, the days of fighting with rudimentary weapons are over. People’s China and Democratic Korea are both proud nuclear powers, ready and able to defend their independence, sovereignty and socialist gains, as Malcolm X memorably put it, “by any means necessary”.
    It should not be the job of a reviewer to say too much about a film’s ending but suffice to mention that even a US commander is finally moved to salute the courage of the CPVA troops and to opine that it is impossible to prevail against men with such a degree of motivation. This symbolism brought to mind the words of Comrade Fidel Castro, speaking about Bobby Sands and his fellow hunger strikers in the north of Ireland: “Let tyrants tremble before men who are prepared to face death after more than 60 days without food.”


The Battle at Lake Changjin is currently freely available on YouTube and Vimeo.