This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

The Trotskyist/Communist Vanguard Can’t be ‘Bourgeois’



It doesn't matter if Trots drink Chardonnay, send their children to prep/public schools and then on to Oxbridge, as long as they say the right things and aren't 'racist'.


Marx stresses the Communist “vanguard” must lead from the front.

Marx himself says that the non-Communist ‘bourgeoisie’ at some stages also ‘educated’ the proletariat. Of course Marx sees his comments as being equally applicable to the Communist Vanguard  itself, even though it too is ‘bourgeois’. He says of the Communist bourgeois that it

‘supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education… These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.’

This distinction between the Communist middle class and the non-Communist middle class it neatly encapsulated, by Communists themselves, with the term ‘bourgeoisie’ or ‘bourgeois’. That is,

If one is middle class and a Communist as well, then one is not ‘bourgeois’.

However, the non-Communist middle class is bourgeois. Thus:

If a member of the SWP/Counterfire today earns, say, between £50,000 to £150,000 a year, or even if he owns shares, etc., and if he is still nonetheless a Trotskyist or a member of the SWP, then he quite simply isn't bourgeois.
Lots of starving middle-class Leftists.

Today even that is not likely. SWP members who are professors, lecturers, journalists, professionals, etc. count themselves as ‘workers’ and therefore members of the working class! No matter how much they earn, and how different their lifestyles are from the working class, they will still class themselves as ‘workers’, and therefore also not bourgeois, because of their revolutionary political affiliations. Thus a self-employed man on less than £15,000 a year, but who also supports the Conservative Party, or UKIP, or the EDL, will be more ‘bourgeois’ (to the SWP) than a SWP-supporting professor, etc. (on £50,000 to £150,000 a year) simply because of his non-revolutionary political affiliations.

This is the logic of the SWP today. This logic was made clear by Martin Smith (sex-abuser and violent criminal), the former National Secretary of the SWP and spokesman for Unite Against Fascism, when he recently classed the English Defence League as a “petit bourgeois organisation”. He did so quite simply because it is at odds, politically, with the SWP - and even has the audacity, according to the Trotskyist Sex Beast, to include a few “self-employed businessmen” in its fold!

No comments:

Post a Comment