ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I thought I'd explained that I was not talking about top-level reformist politicians and ideologues but about lower level grass roots ones (such as many Socialisr Party members might once have been or, for that matter yourself, when you were in the SWP). The fact that they call themselves "socialists" must show that they have some criticism of "capitalism" and want to see it replaced eventually even if only as a vague ideal or far-away ultimate aim. I don't see them necessarily siding with Repression if real socialism was on the agenda. If they were, then us real socialists/communists are doomed to fail.By the way, Edouard Bernstein doesn't illustrate your point. Even though he was an open and self-proclaimed reformist (the archetypal one) he was one of the German Social Democrats who came round to opposing the WW1 and joined the breakaway Independent Social Democratic Party rather than stay with the pro-war Majority Social Democrats who did choose Repression. You never can tell.
I agree that reformists in one sense are elitists in that they want to do something for people instead of people acting for themselves, but I was thinking of it in a wider sense that most of the working class today have a "reformist consciousness", i.e they don't see any alternative to capitalism either and just seek the best they can within the system. Which is why they vote for and follow reformists in the narrower sense.I still don't think it necessarily follows that, given a choice between socialism and an openly repressive capitalism, reformists in the narrower sense would necessarily choose repression rather than revolution. After all, many of themselves consider themselves to be "socialists" (including Piketty as a member of the French PS).
LBird wrote:The real conundrum is whether there is an internal dynamic to capitalism which compels a choice from between only Regression or Revolution.Piketty wants reform, but fears the ‘compulsive dynamic’ does exist. I think if he’s pushed in the direction he fears, he will choose regression.I don't think that there is much point in debating which way Piketty would jump confronted with a choice between Revolution or Regression, but it could be of interest to speculate which way reformists in general might.If we're talking about a democratic, majority revolution (rather than some minority-led insurrection) I don't see why they would want to opt for regression/repression. After all, mosr of them will be reformists today not because they want to "save capitalism" but because they want to improve things for people but don't see any alternative to capitalism. I would have thought (would like to think) that, with socialism/communism as the only remaining way to do this, that they'd opt for this. In fact, won't the future socialist majority inevitably have to be made up of former reformists?
LBird wrote:Leaving aside the nonsense about ‘American strengths’, it shows that even supporters of capitalism are, in effect, saying ‘Marx was right’.The real issue, then, for both them and us, is whether political action (ie. either peaceful reforms or destructive wars, separately or together) can overcome the tendencies of the system to do what it says on the tin: markets transfer wealth to the rich.Piketty is arguing ‘yes’. A judicious mixture of war and reform worked last time, and his book displays the ‘facts’ to support his argument. How will the 'market reformists' within the socialist movement react to this prescription for 'war socialism'?LBird wrote:I’d suggest that the only thing that compels the ruling class to divest itself of its wealth is ‘FEAR’. Both fear of other ruling classes (actual war) and fear of its own exploited classes (potential revolutions produced post-war by war).It’s not democracy, decency or enlightened self-preservation that drives the ruling class, but fear.And… just in case any comrades think that Piketty actually believes in his own ‘peaceful’ solutions of ‘world reformism’:Now we are getting somewhere. Having read the book you have been able to confirm (a) that Piketty regards the 'natural or spontaneous' tendency of capitalism is for the rich to get richer proportionately as well as absolutely; (b) that he thinks that this tendency can be, and has been, stopped or reversed by certain outside events at least temporarily (c) that he himself doesn't think that the political interventions he proposes to try to do this are likely to be implemented.In other words, he is being inconsistent. He ought to draw the conclusion that we do — that the only way out is to replace capitalism with socialism (or communism, the same thing).I don't think (b) invalidates the socialist argument. Yes, the tendency can be temporarily slowed down (even you concede this) but the point is that this will always only be temporary; in due course the 'natural or spontaneous' tendency will begin to win out again.I would also add that we don't necessarily have to be committed to (a) in full, i.e we only need accept that the tendency under capitalism is for the rich to get richer absolutely, i.e that they don't necessarily have to get richer relatively to the rest of the population. That depends on the specific property and inheritance laws in force at a particular time and place. It didn't apply to the sort of state capitalism in the old USSR where the ruling class collectively monopolised the means of production without individual private property rights and where being a member of the exploiting class was not handed down through inheritance. The point is that, as Marx explained, the logic of capitalism is the accumulation of more and more capital out of surplus value extracted from the wage working class, irrespective of who owns or benefits from the accumulated capital.Finally, there are of course no 'market socialists' nor advocates of 'war socialism' here, though there are plenty around elsewhere, e.g amongst the Leninists and Trotskyists.
Just read the rather disturbing news that Ofcom is branching out into censorship and is investigating Russia Today TV for broadcasting "slanted" news about this incident and events in the Ukraine generally. Yes, we know that RT is controlled by the Russian government and so is interpreting events from the point of view of its interests. But then the BBC and the whole of the British media are putting over the point of view of the Western capitalist bloc which has a strategic interest in bringing the Ukraine into its sphere of influence that directly comes up against Russian capitalism's interest to have it in its sphere. Both sides are propaganda.The call has gone out to take RT off freeview, etc so that only Western propaganda is easily accessible but the advantage of world tv is that people can listen to both sides and make up their own mind. If Ofcom is going to ban propaganda it doesnot like it should change its name to f-ofcom.
You've got to admit, L. Bird, that you can be infuriating and also that you dish it out too as, for instance, accusing those who disagree with you of being religious. Perhaps you don't realise what an insult this is in the SPGB.PS I still refuse to accept that the Sun went round the Earth until it came to be generally accepted that it was the other way round. For me this conclusion of yours is a sufficient refutation of your theory on the grounds of reductio ad absurdum.
I think you've missed the point. YMS wants to know if it is a fact that you are a communist. I think it is, but do you/can you?
We all know that Piketty is a reformist who wants to try and regulate capitalism to benefit the majority, which can't be done. But you've still not, L. Bird, given your opinion on the statistics produced by Piketty in chapter 10 on the 'Inequality of Capital Ownership'. Are they underestimates, overestimates, biased, complete fabrications or what? Are you saying that we can't use them to back up our case that capitalism is based on the ownership and control of the means of production by a tiny minority?
I agree that we should be wary of seeing these things as an upper class or Establishment 'vice' as certain populists are (a couple of members came across a demonstration outside parliament on Friday which they described as a 'lynch mob' chanting "Kick the pedos out of parliament"). After all, this was what some on the left traditionally saw homosexuality as.
Here's another example I just remembered about which shows that at one time there was general agreement as to what socialism meant. It's from, of all people, Stalin in 1907:
Quote:Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed— there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists—there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.From here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
As one of the papers pointed out yesterday this event is going to provide material for conspiracy theorists for years to come. On a more serious level, I recall the US shooting down an Iranian airliner in (I've just checked) 1988:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655What I don't recall is the media's concern at the time for the innocent travellers who were killed, eg no stories about the 66 children who perished, but then of course Iran was the enemy of the West whereas Russia is becoming again particularly over into whose sphere of influence Ukraine falls. And of course I don't think any Europeans were among the victims.
The other side of the coin, illustrating another way capitalism distorts things but is quite normal under it:http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/jul/16/karl-marx-das-kapital-sold-for-40000-dollarsNot that this disproves the labour theory of value as this is about the value of something that can be reproduced whereas a first edition of Das Kapital, like unique works of art, can't be. So their price (they have virtually no labour-time value) reflects only the demand for them, as Marx explained in Das Kapital (if the purchaser bothers to read it).
There's chapter 3 of this 1967 pamphlet of ours which argues that at one time there was more or less agreement amongst those calling themselves socialists as to what the aim was (even if only the "ultimate" aim for some and there was much disagreement over how to get there) but that later on, in the 20th century, there came to be disagreement not only over means but also over the aim:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917-1967-socialist-analysis
