robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If their leader known as Leon Trotsky was confused his followers are more confused too. Trotsky never knew what socialism really is
————————————
I am not quite sure that this is the case. It would actually be very surprising if he did not know about socialism as it was much more widely understood back then in Trotsky’s day than it is today. Same with Lenin. Kautsky referred to Lenin´s idea of a moneyless version of socialism but of course, Lenin defined socialism in other ways too that contradicted each other. For example, he talked of socialism as being a form of “state capitalist monopoly” run in the interest of the whole people and also a society in which everyone is an employee of the state. That is a non-Marxist definition of socialism, clearly.
I think both these individuals knew of socialism in its classical Marxian sense but decided to put forward another definition of it or else advocated an approach that would allegedly lead to socialism (but could not possibly do so). In that sense, they were not really socialists but propagandists for state capitalism. But even non-socialists or anti-socialists can “know about” socialism without being socialists themselves.
In Trotsky´s case, there is a passage in his book on Terrorism and Communism (Ch 8) where he actually talks of socialism being a non-statist society just as Stalin did (as you point out) in his book on Anarchism (1906)
Here´s the passage;
In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. Nonetheless, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction (25)
Came across this quite interesting post on X (Twitter) by some geezer called
Arnaud Bertrand:“What’s happening Syria is probably the most incoherent geopolitical event I’ve come across, and the more you look into it, the more confusing it gets.
I mean, just look at this list:
– First of all, the speed of Assad’s collapse still makes very little sense: after successfully holding out against multiple enemies for 13 years with Russian and Iranian backing in a brutal civil war, his regime suddenly crumbled in just 11 days with almost no bloodshed.
– The “liberators” of Syria being celebrated by the West are Islamist groups on their own official terrorist lists. The country’s new leader, Al-Julani, still has a $10 million bounty on his head as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” for founding the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.
– Biden called this “a historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria to build a better future” while his administration continues to occupy a third of Syria, control its oil fields, maintain crippling sanctions, and bomb its territory… thereby obviously very much compromising this better future.
– Assad’s Prime Minister immediately agreed to work with the rebels and they accepted him – despite being mortal enemies in a brutal 13-year civil war.
– Al-Julani, after years of orchestrating suicide bombings and sectarian massacres against civilians, is now suddenly positioning himself as “diversity friendly”.
– Russia, despite being in an alliance with Syria dating back to the Soviet era, billions invested in protecting Assad, and their only Mediterranean naval base in Tartus, essentially shrugged it all and let their ally fall.
– Syria’s new leaders remain bizarrely silent about Israel invading their territory and the U.S. bombing and occupying their country. They’ve said nothing about their strategic assets – including the entire navy and air force – being destroyed in U.S. and Israeli air raids.
– The U.S. maintains its occupation of a third of Syria (including most oil fields), claiming it’s necessary to “ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS” – despite Trump declaring in 2019 (and the U.S. repeatedly confirming since) that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria”. Western media largely ignore this ongoing occupation while celebrating Syria’s “liberation”.
– Hamas, while in the middle of a war with Israel, took time to congratulate the Syrian rebels – even though Assad was their (and Iran’s) longtime ally and Syria’s fall significantly weakens their own strategic position.
– The U.S. celebrates the liberation of Syrian prisoners while operating its own concentration camps in the country (https://newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/18/the-open-air-prison-for-isis-supporters-and-victims) holding tens of thousands indefinitely without trial – half of them children – but that apparently doesn’t count as oppression.
– Türkiye is fighting against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) with apparent U.S. approval, while the SDF was fighting Assad (which the U.S. wanted) – meaning U.S.-backed forces are effectively fighting other U.S.-backed forces.
– Iran, normally eager to defend its regional interests, suddenly abandoned billions in investments and a crucial strategic ally in their “Axis of Resistance”, evacuating their personnel and citizens within hours.Truly one of the strangest chapters in modern geopolitical history. Every possible explanation contains its own contradictions, and most players are acting against their own stated principles and interests.
At this stage it looks like the simplest explanation might go something like this: the U.S. welcomes the fall of a longtime opponent; neighboring powers like Israel and Türkiye see an opportunity for territorial gain; rebel leaders seem willing to accept loss of sovereignty and territory in exchange for domestic control over a diminished Syria; Russia and Iran chose to cut their losses given other regional priorities; and smaller players like Hamas are scrambling to adapt. Still, the unprecedented speed and coordination of these events suggests we’re missing some crucial pieces of this very strange puzzle.”
There´s nothing like war to bring out the hypocrisy and double standards of the politicians
Israel has just grabbed a chunk of Syria about twice the size of Gaza and has continued bombing the country after the Assad regime has fallen.
Yet far from Israel being condemned by the West as Russia was condemned for its invasion of Ukraine, the regime continues to receive military support
W
You couldn’t get more blatant than this. The future trump regime put to the service of the billionaire parasite class
I had a look at the post referred to in Libcom. The person says “But once the community is sufficiently large that it is no longer viable for an individual to know everyone else in the community, there is inevitably a Trust Problem”
It seems to me that people who argue along these lines are unconsciously projecting into a post-capitalist future, a pattern of behaviour that pertains to capitalism. Ferocious competition in capitalism certainly provides one with grounds for distrust. The expression “caveat emptor” – let the buyer beware – wasn´t invented for no good reason. According to the expression, the seller has an incentive to deceive the buyer in various ways and so the the buyer has reason to be distrustful
But of course, in a socialist society, there is no more buying and selling and the grounds for distrust disappear along with market trade itself. On the contrary, we would have a mutual interest in ensuring each other’s well-being and prosperity since our mutual dependence in such a society would become utterly transparent unlike in capitalism. In fact, even under capitalism, there is plenty of evidence that people have a tendency to trust even complete strangers. Scammers like Anna Delvey and the Tinder Swindler wouldn’t exist if that was not the case.
I think a lot of this nonsense about the inability to scale up a socialist society stems from, or is reinforced by, a misreading of what is called “Dunbars Number”. This alludes to the theory put forward by the British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, in the 1990s that basically holds that there is a cognitive upper limit to the number of meaningful social relationships that individuals can develop with other individuals. Beyond that number, it is suggested, the human brain is simply incapable of grappling with the sheer computational complexities involved in maintaining these social relationships. Dunbar cites as examples of what he is saying various small-scale societies such as religious farming communities such the Hutterites, military units (companies), villages in 18th century England and Christmas card networks.
Of course, there is no reason to disbelieve what Dunbar is saying – that the maximum number of people with whom we can have a meaningful social relation is about 150 (though you can argue about the precise figure). The point is that it is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether a socialist society is possible since the assumption that such a society depends on its citizens knowing each other is quite absurd and unwarranted. It doesnt.
The bit you quote seems a bit far-fetched.
…………………
Possibly so -although it has to be said that the situation with the Assad regime is not looking good. The rebels have captured Aleppo and Hama and there has apparently been rebel activity on the outskirts of Damascus. Russia has scaled back on its support for the regime because of the Ukraine situation and of course, Hezbollah has been badly damaged in the war with Israel
Murray is basically saying there is a chance the regime may be soon overthrown. I wouldn’t rule it out completely…
Very interesting – and comprehensive – article by Craig Murray on developments in the Middle East. Also something on how it´s impacting the local Muslim community in the UK…
“A truly seismic change in the Middle East appears to be happening very fast. At its heart is a devil’s bargain – Turkey and the Gulf States accept the annihilation of the Palestinian nation and creation of a Greater Israel, in return for the annihilation of the Shia minorities of Syria and Lebanon and the imposition of Salafism across the Eastern Arab world.
This also spells the end for Lebanon and Syria’s Christian communities, as witness the tearing down of all Christmas decorations, the smashing of all alcohol and the forced imposition of the veil on women in Aleppo now.”
I think Karl Polanyi´s approach is relevant here. According to him, prior to capitalism, you couldn’t really talk in terms of such a thing as “the economy” – something that existed in some sort of stand-alone sense. Everything was mixed up – politics, culture, religion … and economics”.
The rise of capitalism marked what he called the “disembedding” of the economic domain. It came to be seen as something separate from the various other aspects of society and subject to its own generic laws of movement (the law of value etc). Adam Smith was the guy who first clearly articulated this view of the economy with his metaphor of the invisible hand of the market
Here´s a random link on Polanyi that I came across. Polanyi is quite an interesting thinker who has quite a lot of useful things to say that we could èrhaps tap into more
As Adam Buick wrote: Gates Vs Musk and I think that Bezos must be included
————————————–
Yes, its interesting you should mention Gates and Musk. As members of the parasite class they still nevertheless seem to have different agendas. For instance, Gates wants to reduce population numbers while Musk is obsessed with wanting to raise the birth rate. Why the difference? Also, Trump himself is opposed to electric vehicles, climate change and so on whereas Musk as CEO of Tesla takes a quite opposite view. Yet despite that, he is now a central player in team Trump.
It’s gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out when Trump gets in
Is Musk going to start up a bank (and possibly add even more to $314 billion fortune)? Will the banksters have even more of a field day when Trump ascends the throne?
This kind of reminds me of the Republic of Gilead in The Handmaid’s tale – only its real-life Murica (shortly to be) run by those billionaire buddies, Trump and Musk.
What is it with these right-wing nationalists with their obsession with America´s supposed population decline and wanting to turn women into broodmares? If Trump and Musk are so concerned about America’s population decline why threaten to boot out illegal immigrants? They should be opening the doors to all and sundry and encouraging more immigration if they are that concerned – surely?
Musk was recently going on about how new technology is gonna make the workers superfluous and we will all be living on UBI. So why is he so worried about depopulation? What’s the hidden agenda?
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/09/us-population-decline-down-projections-data-chart
Interesting interview though the guy being interviewed, a professor Werner, seems to subscribe to the mystical theory of banking as mentioned elsewhere on this thread ….
This type of self-satisfied thinking is definitely part of the problem.
__________________________________________
I agree. Although I think that, being such a comparatively tiny organisation, our future prospects are at this stage, largely in the hands of forces beyond our control (and that, for that reason, we need to develop a kind of stoic approach to our lack of progress), I can’t help also thinking that there are a number of things we could be doing to expedite that progress.
I can see the potential for progress – you just have to visit some FB groups like the one I linked to, to see this – but it’s as if there was a pane of glass that stands between us and making progress. You can clearly visualise the possibilities on the other side
There are stacks of people around who, if they are not exactly on our wavelength, are pretty close to it and it surely won’t take a lot to encourage them to join. In today’s political climate with the political Right and the death cult of nationalism in the ascendancy, a lot of people feel politically homeless
I think Rueben has started something very useful – to encourage the party to look at ways in which we can raise our profile. How can we go about doing this?
“Message to Robbo – please organise a week in Andalucia!”
……………………………….
Hi Paula,
That is doable but I would need somebody, or some committee, to liaise with to begin with – the central organiser perhaps. The concept would need to be advertised within the Party. Dates have to be sorted out (time of the year can be a factor as it can get very hot here in late summer), location (rural or urban?), transportation, money arrangements etc etc. It would be nice to imagine a group size of between a dozen or two dozen to hopefully include sympathisers as well…
Just out of curiosity what do people think of the place I linked to? Believe me, it’s very remote – but there is a tiny village with a bar that is within walking distance. The Alpujarras is a beautiful part of the world, mountainous and rugged, with lots of trails to explore and not too far from the great city of Granada
_______________________________________________________________-
“It might not be summer sunshine in Malaga, but the crack should be canny. (there are cheap flights to Newcastle to and from Malaga Robbo, if you are prepared to cope with the cold, a warm welcome and transport from the airport is available and ham and pease puddin’ stotty may not be on the Michelin to do list, but they’re bloody lovely)”
………………………………………….Bijou,
Thanks for the offer – I might well take you up on it. It sounds a fantastic event you’ve got planned there. I’ve only been once to your neck of the woods and it would be great to revisit. Dont think I’ve ever had “ham and pease puddin’ stotty”. What is that? A sort of pie?
