KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
aren’t i paraphrasing marx? i’m sure he said something like that. zounds like a quote anyway. hope it’s not vlad the impaler.
thing is, it’s getting to the stage where the liberal democracy we grew up with is becoming indistinguishable from its supposed opposite – red or ordinary brown fascism. how do you feel about being spied on more thoroughly than the stasi? and what about priti’s demo ban? – even the nazis didn’t go that far.
not kronstadt but linking the woman question back to that time period. when i visited berlin for the centenary of rosa luxemburg’s death (i skipped the vigil – too damn cold) there was a city wide exhibition about the revolution. an especial emphasis was put on the granting to women of the rite (sic) to vote. sod the fact that they’d killed a woman. if rosa had been pretty, like sarah everhard, the forces of thw state would have raped her first. now that’s what women’s liberation through capitalism looks like. there might be no laws but you bet there’s state oppression. because the rule of law, democracy, civil society is a thin veil over the brutal reign of capital.
well i believe women are now allowed to drive in saudi. But since the status of women is now much worse in afghanistan and iran than it was 40 years when the economies of those countries were much less developed, would it not be fair to conclude that the case for capitalism brings social change is much more tenuous than one might expect.
P Abelard: are you a member? because you’re the only one here who sounds like one. absolutely agree with you about sports. it’s a problem of capitalism with its ethos of winning and achievement. this whole issue is grounded in capitalism and its stereotypes and expectations.
well, old bhoy, i’m talking about gender specifically in regards to *socialism*.
personally, i’m quite happy to snog anything that moves (ideally slow moving as i’m very lazy). and i’ve always fancied wearing a dress and high heels (not got the legs though).
but my personal predilections have nothing to do with my politics. one makes suitable placatory noises and moves on to the real issues of class.
of course, a safe space for misogynists would be as welcome as a safe space for femmoids.
although since you were originally peddling a voluntaristic line (russians didn’t want socialism, therefore they have to have capitalism), calling anarchism voluntaristic is a bit rich.
i’d go by the original deterministic spgb line (russia is not properly capitalist, therefore it can’t be socialist). except the logical conclusion from that is gulag. followed by poisoner putin.
capitalism only leads to more capitalism should be what we learn from history.
what’s more, development makes socialism less likely to be achieved. you only have to look at the working class in britain or america to see that. totally brainwashed. incapable of taking positive action.
mmm…that there was some desire for something other than state capitalism or private capitalism in russia during that time is surely incontestable. one wouldn’t like to say majority, but local majorities? sure. was it physically possible? we’ll never know because the leninists made sure their way was the only way. more private was unlikely since all the cappies had run away to america to write trashy porn (“oh mister roark you hunk of entrepreneurial dobadness, do me hard over this heap of share certificates”). however, enough with the historical speculation.
part two: interestingly indeterminate. you’re mister spgb. you’re supposed to have all the answers. i guess my answer is the same as previous. start how you mean to go on. the grand scheme is fine but it depends on people being able to act independently at a local level. democratic control don’t mean nothing if there’s the old managerial structure. this has the possibility of encouraging people to break out of consumerist dependency. plus i wanna walk around in a muumuu.
instead of saying “I’m not sure” i thought i was being more definite. socialists should not take a position one way or another. one pats the various identitarian factions on the head, sympathises greatly with their real or imagined problems. and gets on with socialism. or whatever passes for it.
yes, well, everyone fucks me off. morality mongering weasels especial.
socialism in one fortress: you know as well as i do that kronstadt was merely part of a wider movement within russia at the time. as i said earlier, if you think that russia needed development of productive forces you must give lenin and stalin all the retroactive support they require. especially the tanks. lend-lease spgb tanks with special wheels to crush sailors. drive them through the time portal now.
socialism is more than simply “free access”. it depends on the workers having the ability to exercise democratic control in a more than nominal fashion. therefore, in today’s terms, whatever strengthens that ability should be promoted. although sitting on one’s arse in the woods drumming is also good.
you got me good on the ballot box!
i was meaning democracy generally though rather than the kronstadters. who, of course, weren’t anarchists. their secret ballot demand must have been the only thing they could think of to counter leninist gerrymandering. more a protest than a practical solution. secret or open, they were going to stack them.
what do i think should have been done? then as now, if you want socialism, common ownership and democratic control, you do socialism, common ownership and democratic control. never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. or the nearest best thing. if in 1921, they needed capitalism because they didn’t have stuff, then we’ll need it until we have star trek replicators (another way of saying never).
we might treat nos. 11 and 15 on the kronstadt list (peasants and artisans) as something thrown in to please old dad. the crux of the issue is no. 1: free soviets. top of the wants list. democracy as expressed through the councils.
yes, love democracy. it’s filling up my inbox. anarchist type base democracy. as opposed to sticking a bit of paper in a box.
however, individual production and free soviets and democracy were incompatible with state capitalism. if that’s the “only way forward”, you’ve got to shoot the sailors. if you’ve got to back lenin, back him.
