I enjoy being proven right as much as any analyst. Unlike most analysts, I have the fortune of being right more often than not.
I am not as foresighted as Metternich. But I am usually on the right track.
In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn threatens to put to the test my theory that Progressive Fabian Socialists are not Communists because the Fabians (and related groups across America and Europe) are anti-proletarian “Communists”. Which defeats the whole point of a truly Communist dictatorship of the proletariat.
If I am correct, should Corbyn form a government, the first major act of the Labour party will be to sack him in favor of an anti-proletarian Blairite Labour leader who will sink a Brexit that was backed by the proles. Corbyn has made noises in the past unfavorable to the European Union, and genuinely seems sympathetic to what remains of the British working class. Unfortunately for him, the anti-proletarian wing of his party is strong enough to remove him just for daring to have these sentiments.
If Corbyn is not be reliable on Brexit, the likes of Mandelson and such will not take chances with him and be sure to install a Labour leader fully opposed to exit at the nearest opportunity.
But, Britain, please do not put this theory – Progressives are “anti-proletarian Communists”, hence, not Communists – to the test.
I have more than sufficient evidence for this case. It does not need a Corbyn government as an extra data point to the existing historical record.
In this system there are three characteristic elements: 1) a series of brilliant thoughts, which however are nearly always spoiled to some extent because they are incompetently set forth likewise; 2) a narrow, philistine way of thinking sharply contrasting with that brilliant mind; 3) a hierarchically organised religious constitution, whose source is definitely Saint-Simonian, but divested of all mysticism and turned into something extremely sober, with a regular pope at the head, so that (Thomas) Huxley  could say of Comtism that it was Catholicism without Christianity.
Then there is another point I should like to correct, the note on p 513.  Marx never was Secretary General of the International but only Secretary for Germany and Russia. And none of the Comtists in London participated in the founding of the International. Professor E Beesly  deserves great credit for his defence of the International in the press at the time of the Commune against the vehement attacks of that day. Frederic Harrison  too publicly took up the cudgels for the Commune. But a few years later the Comtists cooled off considerably toward the labour movement. The workers had become too powerful and it was now a question of maintaining a proper balance between capitalists and workers (for both are producers according to Saint-Simon) and to that end of once more supporting the former. Ever since then the Comtists have wrapped themselves in complete silence as regards the labour question.
I will be more than happy to leave what the Fabian reaction would be in the aftermath of a Corbyn victory as a historical hypothetical.