robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Get involved with people who share similar base belief systems like getting rid of Capitalism and proposing a resource-based economy with communal ownership.”
But, Covvie, these beliefs are quite alien to what the Labour Party stands for – whether in the past (Old Labour) or the present (New Labour).
Those (few) people left in that organisation who still talk in terms of “getting rid of capitalism” as opposed to reforming or modernising it, generally have in mind, by “capitalism”, merely private enterprise. They equate capitalism with private enterprise and the free market and imagine that nationalisation etc is somehow non-capitalist or even “socialist”.
But it’s not. Nationalisation, state interference in the market economy and state welfare have also been closely associated with the (explicitly anti-socialist) Political Right – historically speaking. Look at the example I earlier gave of Bismarck; there are many other such examples. State capitalism is not the province of the Left only and, in any case, it’s got nothing to do with socialism as we are using the term here in its classical Marxian meaning as a synonym of communism – a stateless moneyless wageless and non-market alternative to capitalism. Or what you call a “resource-based economy”.
This is the frustrating thing for us as socialists. I can appreciate the point you make about the need to approach those who see themselves as socialists (but don’t hold our definition of socialism) in a positive and constructive manner. Unavoidably, however, the interactions between us and them will have to eventually boil down what Schumpeter called (in relation to the market econony) an element of “creative destruction”. We cannot pretend that we share the same objective when we don’t. One of us has to give ground if the other viewpoint is to prevail.
What you might be thinking of is that we share much the same values and have the same broadly pro-worker outlook. I can go along with that and this might indeed be a useful basis for a fruitful discussion with such people. But we have to be honest and open about where we differ.
The socialist movement, in the sense of people wanting to establish the kind of society we are talking about here, is indeed small and has made little progress in all the years it has been operating. But is not going to make more progress by accommodating itself to a conception of socialism that is, in fact, a form of capitalism, however humanised or reformed that capitalism may be.
All that is going to achieve is to change us from an organisation advocating for socialism in the explicit sense that we are talking about here, into an organisation advocating something else. We may attract more members but it won’t be for the cause we currently espouse.
There are deluded leftists who defend this brutal disgusting capitalist state. I just cannot fathom it all. This is a regime that ruthlessly exploits its working class so a pampered coterie of privileged parasites can live in luxury and yet has the effrontery to call itself the “Workers Party”
Came across this which might be of interest
The usual line of argument put forward in defence of the regime is that it is some kind of bulwark against American imperialism. This obsession with anti-imperialism fails to grasp that the roots of modern imperialism lie in capitalism. Imperialism as such is not the problem only the symptom of the problem. The problem is capitalism itself. This is what these deluded leftists seek to draw our attention away from in their support for the capitalist state of North Korea in the name of so-called anti-imperialism
“we used to have a real Labour party that took the poor out of the slums by giving them social housing, gave them legal aid, free healthcare, the welfare state, public transport and national industries.”
_____________________________One could argue, Covvie, that these things would have come about anyway, given the contingent conditions of capitalism in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War – irrespective of which political party came to power. There was a considerable degree of economic consensus between the capitalist political parties with respect to Keynesian economic policies. There was also considerable support among the Tories for things like the welfare state and the NHS.
Samuel Courtauld, a Tory industrialist, enthusiastically endorsed the Beveridge Report during the war on the grounds that nationalised health care would be more efficient than the old ramshackle system of private health care in the prewar years. Similarly Quentin Hogg, later Lord Hailsham, argued along the lines that if “we don’t give the workers reforms they will go for revolution” (or words to that effect). The welfare state is not necessarily the province of the capitalist Left; think of Bismarck in late 19th century Germany. The state capitalist policies introduced by his right-wing regime to improve workers’ health (and by extension industrial productivity) drew increasing interest from the British capitalist class at the time who wanted to adopt much the same measures and were concerned that Britain was falling behind Germany in the industrial league table.
Of course, since the contingent conditions of capitalism changed in the post-war era, notably, since the rise of so-called neoliberalism in the 1970s, the policies of political parties – Labour and Tory – seeking to administer capitalism have correspondingly changed. This is why appealing to some distant memory of “Old Labour” when it was in power is quite misleading.
Firstly because the circumstances were quite different and arguably needed the reforms Labour introduced to facilitate the smoother and more efficient exploitation of workers at the time and secondly because these reforms would almost certainly have been introduced as well had their Tory opponents been in power instead – albeit in a slightly different form
“The rich aren’t worried about the rest of us, they can wait it out in bunkers. What plan do you have to deal with billionaires their bunkers and private armies?”
_______________________
I have this image of the billionaires (or, to be more precise, ex-billionaires) emerging from their bunkers blinking in the dim light of a nuclear winter and wondering where the bloody hell Jeeves has got to when he is needed to chauffeur them back to their stately home (now sadly in ruins). Or Julia and the other kitchen staff to a prepare sumptuous meal (now sadly impossible without a functioning power grid).
Meanwhile, Jeeves and Julia will have joined the rest of us in the massed ranks of the “Walking Dead”. The only difference between us and the billionaires is that our deaths will have been mercifully short and swift; theirs will be prolonged and agonizing with the comfort of a servant class to wipe their bottoms becoming an increasingly distant and dim memory.
So, nope, I cannot imagine the billionaires wanting to bump us off any time soon; they need us far more than we ever needed them
“Starmer is a second-rate Blair tribute act. Until you overthrow Capitalism then we have to deal with the consequences of the current system. Labour are the lesser of two evils, ”
____________________________Hi Covvie and welcome to the forum.
I will be brief. The problem with the lesser evil argument is that the “lesser evil” always and invariably prepares the ground for the “greater evil” to take its place (I put these terms in inverted commas because the distinction between Labour and the Tories is one that you would struggle to shove a cigarette paper through, it’s so wafer thin).
Capitalist politics is, by its nature, cyclical. It is the system that runs the politicians, not the politicians the system. Consequently, when the politicians fail to live up to their promises, as they inevitably and invariably will (you cannot run the profit system in the interests of wage labour any more than you can run the abattoir in the interests of the cattle), they will be replaced by some other set of politicians with a slightly different spin but no less foredoomed to failure.
It’s like the SPGB has always said “Labour-Tory, same old story”. To encourage the illusion that Labour will be any different is to sow the seeds of a future disillusionment.
Another example of the fallout from the World Cup.
“Beckham signed up to represent Qatar before and during its hosting of the World Cup two years ago and has reportedly been paid £120m for his input.”
£120m????!!!?? What “Input”???
FFS
This is on top of the controversy about Human rights in Qatar and the deaths of 6500 migrants involved in building the Qatari football facilities so that the Qatari parasite class can get a leg up in the status league of the international capitalist class
I don’t know how true this is or if there is any truth in it at all. Does anybody know? I wouldn’t touch the Daily Express with a bargepole usually. Its basically just toilet paper, a rag for propagating the most reactionary political sentiments
“Workers at the armament factories in Russia move to 6-day week and 12-hour shifts and suspend holiday entitlements when required”
_______
An intensification of capitalist exploitation in other words, while the parasitic Russian oligarch class represented by Putin and his henchmen, and supported here by True Imperialist, continue to enjoy an astonishingly luxurious lifestyle at the expense of Russian workers
_
“Erm, you’re forgetting NATOstan. This is a war waged by NATOstan and its proxy Nazis against Russia.”
I am well aware that Ukraine is supported by NATO countries so what’s your point? You keep on calling Ukraine “Nazi” and justifying your support for Russia in this stupid war in terms of want to “denazify” Ukraine. It’s like it’s just a silly word game with you.
My point – that you keep on evading – is that 1) it is technically incorrect, an abuse of the word itself, to call Ukraine a “Nazi” regime.
Saying that a third of the Ukrainian armed forces (or whatever) are self-identifying Nazis will not cut it as an argument and I challenge you to show where the Zelensky regime, abhorrent though it is, has ever actually called itself “Nazi” or explicitly endorsed nazism. Saying that it eulogizes a Nazi-supporting figure like Bandera is NOT an argument you can legitimately use since it is quite possible to endorse his Ukrainian nationalism without endorsing his fascist outlook.And 2) if Ukrainian is Nazi then so too is Russia since they are very similar in political outlook and practice. The ideological differences between them are completely superficial – just like your own analysis of the situation.
“76% and 64% Nazi. Still a lot of de-Nazification necessary by the looks.”
_____________________________So according to True Imperialist, 76% of Ukraine men and 64% of Ukrainian women are Nazis because they the war to continue until Russia is forced to leave all occupied territory including Crimea
Is that how you define a Nazi – by the fact that you are a warmonger? In which case what percentage of the Russian population are Nazis by this criterion?
What a clown
We are talking about two corrupt authoritarian repressive right-wing capitalist regimes at war with each other that are pretty similar in political outlook and practice. Socialists emphatically oppose both of them. Only someone who is inclined to support corrupt authoritarian repressive right-wing capitalist regimes would support one of these regimes against the other.
By the questionable logic of True Imperialist’s own argument, that makes him a Nazi supporter. TS is merely supporting one Nazi regime fighting another….
The outlook for Ukrainian workers, much like their counterparts in Russia, looks grim
https://www.facebook.com/ClareDalyMEP/videos/541888080846752
This might be of interest. Touches on some of the economic motives behind the war
“Russia has committed more than 30 per cent of its entire budget across defence, security and law enforcement, British defence chiefs have said.”
No doubt this will be at the expense of other categories of state expenditure such as health education and housing.
A further example of the ballooning structural waste of capitalism
“She’s Russian, a member of the working class and was opposed to the war with Ukraine. …etc ”
_______________________________
Try not to be even more stupid than you usually are, TS.
So what if she is a member of the working class and went to Donbas where her mind was changed into supporting Putin’s war? Does that make her views on the matter right, eh? Are we supposed to concur with her – and you – just because she saw the “reality of Ukrainian fascist terror with her own eyes” She, or a Ukrainian version of her, could just as easily have gone to the other side of the front line and seen the “reality of Russian fascist terror with her own eyes” (sic)
There is nothing pleasant about war. It brutalises people and can turn them into warmongers. It can twist people’s minds into supporting any disreputable disgusting cause. If the missiles are raining down on you it is understandable that some people, even erstwhile liberal pacifists like this woman, can come to see the enemy as those firing those missiles and your “friends” as those fighting this enemy. Liberal pacifism is compatible with nationalism after all whereas class-conscious socialism most certainly is not
Being a worker does not mean you cannot make very bad judgments. Million of workers support the capitalist warlord, Zelensky. Millions of other workers (yourself included) support the other capitalist warlord, Putin, in this capitalist conflict. These are very bad judgments and the fact that they are made by fellow workers has not prevented them from being made, has it now? Or do you think a Ukrainian worker is right to support Zelensky just because he or she is a worker?
