robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“I’m not defending anybody. I’m defending the truth”
___________________________
The truth is that war brutalises anyone and everyone who engages in it. Both the Russian and Ukrainian regimes are committing crimes against humanity while blaming the other side for doing just that. They are as bad as each other. To hell with both of them!
Whatever either side may say about it to justify the killing of workers on the other side, this is just a capitalist war being waged for the usual sordid capitalist reasons – resources, markets, sphere or influence, and so on. The nation-state itself is the capitalist political unit par excellance and the issue of sovereignty – whether or not, for example, the Donbas has the “right” to secede – presupposes a capitalist mindset and is a purely capitalist issue about which socialists have no interest whatsoever in taking sides
The sooner Russian and Ukrainian workers abandon this senseless slaughter being carried out for the benefit of their respective masters, the better.
Some interesting links relating to Putin’s bogus claim about wanting to “denazify” Ukraine. (Russia and Ukraine are remarkably similar in both being repressive right-wing oligarchies but neither would qualify as “Nazi regimes” in any meaningful sense of the term – although of course there are self-identifying Nazis living in living in both countries as well as elsewhere in the world )
https://unherd.com/2022/06/the-truth-about-ukraines-nazi-militias/
“Putin Doesn’t Combat Nazism, He Cultivates It”
How the Putin regime helped the Far Right in Germany. Putin’s claim to want to denazify Ukraine is about as credible as Hitler’s claim to be a socialist
https://theconversation.com/how-russians-have-helped-fuel-the-rise-of-germanys-far-right-105551
Putin’s fascists
Will TS now be urging us to wage war against Russia in order to “denazify” it?
“there has been no mention from Moscow that their intention is to remove the illegitimate government.”
Shall I say it more slowly so you can understand child? D-e-N-a-z-i-f-c-a-t-i-o-n.
______________________________Sigh. Here we go on. More drivel from our resident bore and Putin bootlicker.
Why is the Ukrainian regime considered to be a “Nazi regime” but not the Russian regime when they are both so remarkably similar in practice and outlook – i.e repressive, right-wing oligarchies that muzzle their opponents, restrict free speech and pretend to be democracies
How does it make sense for one “Nazi” regime to try to de-Nazify another?
“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.
