Forwarded from Marx Engels Lenin Institute
As my childhood football club have now entered into administration its worth revisiting this article I wrote for the Class Consciousness Project earlier this year. In it I reflected upon how this is crisis was one born out of the very nature of the Premier League itself which encouraged debt financed attempts at growth by clubs who could not possible sustain it. In the end almost no clubs could sustain the business model imposed upon them by the premier league era and many are now either hovering on the edge of bankruptcy or (like Sheffield Wednesday) plunging into it.
https://classconsciousnessproject.blog/2025/08/27/owls-on-the-brink-the-deep-rooted-financial-crisis-at-sheffield-wednesday/
https://classconsciousnessproject.blog/2025/08/27/owls-on-the-brink-the-deep-rooted-financial-crisis-at-sheffield-wednesday/
Class Consciousness Project
Owls On the Brink: The Deep-Rooted Financial Crisis at Sheffield Wednesday
The owls are the latest venerable football club facing financial armageddon. Choosing a football club is something of a rite of passage for working class people in England. I grew up in a small tow…
Forwarded from Joti Brar
Every day more British workers are waking up to the way that accusations of ‘antisemitism’ have been weaponised in order to justify the relentless spreading of islamophobia and to whitewash zionist (and British) war crimes.
All in the interests of Anglo-American imperialist interests in the middle east and against the interests of jewish (and all other) workers.
https://thecommunists.org/2025/10/25/news/maccabi-hooligans-do-not-speak-for-jews/
All in the interests of Anglo-American imperialist interests in the middle east and against the interests of jewish (and all other) workers.
https://thecommunists.org/2025/10/25/news/maccabi-hooligans-do-not-speak-for-jews/
The Communists
Maccabi hooligans do not speak for jews
With its shameful response to the Maccabi fans ban, the British government is exploiting jewish suffering to protect itself, not protecting jewish people
PLAID CYMRU TAKE CAERPHILLY – ANOTHER BLOW TO THE ILLUSION OF LABOUR’S WORKING-CLASS ROOTS
Labour has never represented the working class, it managed capitalism in our name and sold it back to us as progress. What’s happening now isn’t a fall from grace; it’s the mask slipping.
Plaid Cymru taking Caerphilly shows the collapse of that old pretence. But Plaid are not the answer either. People are still desperately searching for change through the ballot box, when the truth is, that box was built to contain us, not free us.
A turnout that barely scrapes 17%. That’s not apathy, that’s awareness. Working-class people already mostly understand that all these parties are all serving the same system that exploits us.
Labour hasn’t stopped serving the working class — it never did.
Plaid didn’t “win” them — the workers are just desperate for change.
Real change won’t come from voting another colour in.
It’ll come when we stop mistaking the polling booth for democracy.
Labour has never represented the working class, it managed capitalism in our name and sold it back to us as progress. What’s happening now isn’t a fall from grace; it’s the mask slipping.
Plaid Cymru taking Caerphilly shows the collapse of that old pretence. But Plaid are not the answer either. People are still desperately searching for change through the ballot box, when the truth is, that box was built to contain us, not free us.
A turnout that barely scrapes 17%. That’s not apathy, that’s awareness. Working-class people already mostly understand that all these parties are all serving the same system that exploits us.
Labour hasn’t stopped serving the working class — it never did.
Plaid didn’t “win” them — the workers are just desperate for change.
Real change won’t come from voting another colour in.
It’ll come when we stop mistaking the polling booth for democracy.
💯3👏1
Qatar’s Royals Now Own More of London Than King Charles” – But None of It Belongs to the Workers.
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The headlines say Qatar’s royal family now owns more property in London than King Charles.
That might sound like a royal turf war, but whoever holds the deeds, none of it belongs to us.
This isn’t a story of “foreign ownership” or “Britain losing control.” It’s the story of imperialism coming home to roost.
The same empire that once carved up the Middle East to serve British capital now watches its old client monarchs reinvest their oil wealth into London’s bricks, banks, and luxury hotels.
The Al-Thani family’s power was built under British protection. In 1916, the Sheikh of Qatar signed a treaty handing foreign affairs and defence to London in exchange for his throne — a standard imperial arrangement that lasted until 1971. Britain’s navy guarded their coast; British firms drilled their oil. The Al-Thani dynasty survived because the empire needs reliable compradors.
Now, the grandchildren of that same dynasty pour billions back into the old imperial capital. They own Harrods, Canary Wharf, The Shard, and swathes of Mayfair. According to investigations, Qatar’s holdings in the UK exceed £100 billion — so vast that parts of the city are jokingly called “Little Doha.”
And the British monarchy? Still playing host. The Windsors meet Gulf royals hundreds of times a decade, fronting trade missions, arms deals and photo-ops that dress up exploitation as diplomacy. It’s the same ruling class in different costumes, two monarchies, but the same bourgeoisie
So when the press gasps that “Qatar owns more of London than the King,” remember what that really means:
Imperial wealth flowing in reverse — the colonies buying back the metropole.
A city turned into a global vault for surplus capital.
Two royal families, one capitalist parasitical class.
It isn’t Qatar’s London or the King’s London. It’s capital’s London.
And until the working class owns the soil beneath its feet, the ruling class will continue to exploit us in every way they can for profit.
"The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported; while, therefore, it may somewhat accelerate the development of capitalism there, it also extends and deepens the subjection of those countries to the monopolies of the exporting countries, and the exploitation of these countries by the exporting countries.”
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The headlines say Qatar’s royal family now owns more property in London than King Charles.
That might sound like a royal turf war, but whoever holds the deeds, none of it belongs to us.
This isn’t a story of “foreign ownership” or “Britain losing control.” It’s the story of imperialism coming home to roost.
The same empire that once carved up the Middle East to serve British capital now watches its old client monarchs reinvest their oil wealth into London’s bricks, banks, and luxury hotels.
The Al-Thani family’s power was built under British protection. In 1916, the Sheikh of Qatar signed a treaty handing foreign affairs and defence to London in exchange for his throne — a standard imperial arrangement that lasted until 1971. Britain’s navy guarded their coast; British firms drilled their oil. The Al-Thani dynasty survived because the empire needs reliable compradors.
Now, the grandchildren of that same dynasty pour billions back into the old imperial capital. They own Harrods, Canary Wharf, The Shard, and swathes of Mayfair. According to investigations, Qatar’s holdings in the UK exceed £100 billion — so vast that parts of the city are jokingly called “Little Doha.”
And the British monarchy? Still playing host. The Windsors meet Gulf royals hundreds of times a decade, fronting trade missions, arms deals and photo-ops that dress up exploitation as diplomacy. It’s the same ruling class in different costumes, two monarchies, but the same bourgeoisie
So when the press gasps that “Qatar owns more of London than the King,” remember what that really means:
Imperial wealth flowing in reverse — the colonies buying back the metropole.
A city turned into a global vault for surplus capital.
Two royal families, one capitalist parasitical class.
It isn’t Qatar’s London or the King’s London. It’s capital’s London.
And until the working class owns the soil beneath its feet, the ruling class will continue to exploit us in every way they can for profit.
❤3👏1
In our latest article we look at how the Unite leadership, by endorsing the social chauvinist "Ukraine Solidarity Campaign", are actually standing in solidarity with the British ruling class.
https://classconsciousnessproject.blog/2025/10/27/the-unite-leaderships-betrayal-in-solidarity-with-imperialism-not-the-ukrainian-worker/
https://classconsciousnessproject.blog/2025/10/27/the-unite-leaderships-betrayal-in-solidarity-with-imperialism-not-the-ukrainian-worker/
Class Consciousness Project
The Unite Leadership’s Betrayal: In Solidarity with Imperialism, Not the Ukrainian Worker
The Unite Leadership Consistently Proves It’s Loyalty To The Ruling Class We have said it before, and current events force us to say it again: the Unite leadership, from Len McCluskey to its …
Forwarded from Marx Engels Lenin Institute
This story relies upon the illusion that these nuclear "secrets" are britain's to share. The entire programme is built out of US systems and the Pentagon retains a veto on what the brits can do with it.
Forwarded from The Communists
Why did the anticommunist alliance at Bristol university feel the need to crop the photograph they circulated of our comrades on campus?
https://thecommunists.org/2025/10/29/news/imperialist-alliance-attacks-communist-symbols-bristol-university/
https://thecommunists.org/2025/10/29/news/imperialist-alliance-attacks-communist-symbols-bristol-university/
The Communists
Pro-imperialist alliance attacks communist symbols at Bristol university
A cornered animal is a dangerous animal.
🔥4
The propaganda against communism is right when they call it a dictatorship.
They just never say whose.
Yes — communism is a dictatorship.
But it’s not the dictatorship of a few over the many, like the one we live under now.
It’s not the dictatorship of landlords, bosses, and bankers who own everything and let us fight over scraps.
Communism is the dictatorship of the working class, the majority ruling in its own interests, not those of a handful of parasites who hoard wealth, land, and power.
Not for those who continually oppress the workers for profit.
Every state in history has been a dictatorship of one class over another.
Under feudalism, it was the nobility over the serfs.
Under capitalism, it’s the bourgeoisie over the workers.
Under socialism, it becomes the dictatorship of the proletariat — the working class finally commanding their future and seizing the means of production.
The capitalists call that “tyranny” because it strips them of the right to exploit us.
They scream about “freedom” while every one of us is chained to rent, debt, and wages that barely keep us alive.
The “tyranny” they denounce is simply the balance of power shifting — our freedom secured at the expense of theirs.
So yes — communism is a dictatorship.
But it’s the only kind that serves the workers.
Just as capitalism is a dictatorship of the ruling class over the workers, socialism is the dictatorship of the workers over the ruling class, those who’ve ruled and robbed us for generations.
That’s why they fear it.
That’s why they smear it.
Because deep down, they know what it really means:
their rule ends — and ours begins.
They just never say whose.
Yes — communism is a dictatorship.
But it’s not the dictatorship of a few over the many, like the one we live under now.
It’s not the dictatorship of landlords, bosses, and bankers who own everything and let us fight over scraps.
Communism is the dictatorship of the working class, the majority ruling in its own interests, not those of a handful of parasites who hoard wealth, land, and power.
Not for those who continually oppress the workers for profit.
Every state in history has been a dictatorship of one class over another.
Under feudalism, it was the nobility over the serfs.
Under capitalism, it’s the bourgeoisie over the workers.
Under socialism, it becomes the dictatorship of the proletariat — the working class finally commanding their future and seizing the means of production.
The capitalists call that “tyranny” because it strips them of the right to exploit us.
They scream about “freedom” while every one of us is chained to rent, debt, and wages that barely keep us alive.
The “tyranny” they denounce is simply the balance of power shifting — our freedom secured at the expense of theirs.
So yes — communism is a dictatorship.
But it’s the only kind that serves the workers.
Just as capitalism is a dictatorship of the ruling class over the workers, socialism is the dictatorship of the workers over the ruling class, those who’ve ruled and robbed us for generations.
That’s why they fear it.
That’s why they smear it.
Because deep down, they know what it really means:
their rule ends — and ours begins.
💯11👏2❤1
Circular 16 — How Labour Tried to Purge the Working Class Communists.
In 1928 the Trades Union Congress issued Circular 16. A quiet little order with a big aim: kick those pesky communists out of the labour movement.
It told trades councils up and down the country not to seat delegates from “proscribed organisations.”
That meant the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Minority Movement, and any group that refused to toe the reformist Labour line.
Councils that defied it were threatened with expulsion from the TUC. In places of strong agitation like Liverpool, South Wales, and Scotland, this meant elected, working-class communists, often the most active organisers, were banned from the very institutions they helped build.
Circular 16 split the movement right when the ruling class feared another 1926-style general strike.
The Labour and TUC leaders referred to it as “protecting unity.” but what it really did was protect the Labour aristocracy, the layer of officials, MPs and careerists who lived comfortably on capitalist concessions and were terrified of a real workers’ movement challenging British capitalism itself.
The Labour Party as an organisation was never built for the whole working class. Incidents, and there have been many, like this prove its real objectives.
It was built for the privileged section of workers that enjoyed concessions from the ruling class and wanted them to continue.
And Circular 16 was another enablement at the time, not against the Tories (their pantomime enemy), but against the revolutionary workers inside their own ranks.
In 1928 the Trades Union Congress issued Circular 16. A quiet little order with a big aim: kick those pesky communists out of the labour movement.
It told trades councils up and down the country not to seat delegates from “proscribed organisations.”
That meant the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Minority Movement, and any group that refused to toe the reformist Labour line.
Councils that defied it were threatened with expulsion from the TUC. In places of strong agitation like Liverpool, South Wales, and Scotland, this meant elected, working-class communists, often the most active organisers, were banned from the very institutions they helped build.
Circular 16 split the movement right when the ruling class feared another 1926-style general strike.
The Labour and TUC leaders referred to it as “protecting unity.” but what it really did was protect the Labour aristocracy, the layer of officials, MPs and careerists who lived comfortably on capitalist concessions and were terrified of a real workers’ movement challenging British capitalism itself.
The Labour Party as an organisation was never built for the whole working class. Incidents, and there have been many, like this prove its real objectives.
It was built for the privileged section of workers that enjoyed concessions from the ruling class and wanted them to continue.
And Circular 16 was another enablement at the time, not against the Tories (their pantomime enemy), but against the revolutionary workers inside their own ranks.
👍2
Councils in Decay
Local councils are fading into insignificance. They’ve been gutted by decades of cuts, privatisation, and deliberate neglect. At one point, they were used to manage concessions to the workers, now they only manage decline and sign off the profits of private firms.
Between 2010 and 2023, councils in the North West and North East lost nearly 30% of their funding, compared to 18% in the wealthy South East. Libraries, youth centres, and housing budgets have been erased. Dozens of councils, from Liverpool to Birmingham to Nottingham, are now effectively bankrupt — yet still paying millions to private “delivery partners.”
This is an inevitable part of capitalism. Any profit that can be squeezed out of the workers will be taken as capitalism enters its moribund, decaying form.
Before the Second World War, councils existed to manage the poor, not protect them. They enforced order, ran workhouses, and pushed workers into poverty-like conditions, forcing them into the bludgeoning industries so capitalism could thrive. It was only after 1945, when the ruling class feared socialism spreading from the Soviet Union and the strength of the organised labour movement, that councils were forced to reform.
The post-war welfare state was a class truce, not a moral awakening. The ruling classes offered workers concessions in the hope of placating a war-weary population. Public housing, transport, and local services were built because the working class had the power to demand them. With the growth of the socialist bloc emanating from the success of the Soviet Union, workers had seen what a planned economy could achieve — and how revolution could bring real change. Councils became engines of reconstruction and stability, a brief moment where the ruling class conceded ground to prevent revolt.
But those concessions were temporary. From Thatcher onwards, local government was stripped of its power and cash. “Rate-capping” stopped councils taxing the rich; Right to Buy gutted public housing; compulsory tendering handed services to private contractors. The Labour Party under Blair didn’t reverse it — he rebranded it under “public-private partnerships,” turning councils into corporate intermediaries.
Now, in this moribund stage of capitalism, councils have no desire to provide, they only commission. They act as administrators for private profit, pushing contracts to developers and consultants while claiming poverty. When they collapse, bailouts come not to save services, but to protect creditors and preserve the illusion of control.
Capitalism’s decay is written into the bricks of every boarded-up town hall and abandoned library. Councils once built by working-class struggle are now monuments to its erosion. The working class forced the state to care once before — but for lasting change, it can’t just be concessions we demand. As James Connolly once wrote:
Local councils are fading into insignificance. They’ve been gutted by decades of cuts, privatisation, and deliberate neglect. At one point, they were used to manage concessions to the workers, now they only manage decline and sign off the profits of private firms.
Between 2010 and 2023, councils in the North West and North East lost nearly 30% of their funding, compared to 18% in the wealthy South East. Libraries, youth centres, and housing budgets have been erased. Dozens of councils, from Liverpool to Birmingham to Nottingham, are now effectively bankrupt — yet still paying millions to private “delivery partners.”
This is an inevitable part of capitalism. Any profit that can be squeezed out of the workers will be taken as capitalism enters its moribund, decaying form.
Before the Second World War, councils existed to manage the poor, not protect them. They enforced order, ran workhouses, and pushed workers into poverty-like conditions, forcing them into the bludgeoning industries so capitalism could thrive. It was only after 1945, when the ruling class feared socialism spreading from the Soviet Union and the strength of the organised labour movement, that councils were forced to reform.
The post-war welfare state was a class truce, not a moral awakening. The ruling classes offered workers concessions in the hope of placating a war-weary population. Public housing, transport, and local services were built because the working class had the power to demand them. With the growth of the socialist bloc emanating from the success of the Soviet Union, workers had seen what a planned economy could achieve — and how revolution could bring real change. Councils became engines of reconstruction and stability, a brief moment where the ruling class conceded ground to prevent revolt.
But those concessions were temporary. From Thatcher onwards, local government was stripped of its power and cash. “Rate-capping” stopped councils taxing the rich; Right to Buy gutted public housing; compulsory tendering handed services to private contractors. The Labour Party under Blair didn’t reverse it — he rebranded it under “public-private partnerships,” turning councils into corporate intermediaries.
Now, in this moribund stage of capitalism, councils have no desire to provide, they only commission. They act as administrators for private profit, pushing contracts to developers and consultants while claiming poverty. When they collapse, bailouts come not to save services, but to protect creditors and preserve the illusion of control.
Capitalism’s decay is written into the bricks of every boarded-up town hall and abandoned library. Councils once built by working-class struggle are now monuments to its erosion. The working class forced the state to care once before — but for lasting change, it can’t just be concessions we demand. As James Connolly once wrote:
"For our demands most moderate are,
We only want the earth."
👍3❤1