robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quite an interesting piece I came across today in substack. Some of the observations seem a bit iffy to me, but I was curious about something that was mentioned in the piece about the Trump regime wanting to access Venezuela´s oil to drive down the price to $50 per barrel to stuff China and Russia.
You can read half the article, but you have to subscribe for free to read the rest…
There is also this piece I came across
As an experiment, I asked this WSWS AI a question and got this answer. It confirms my suspicion that Trots are muddleheads who haven’t got a clue:
_____________________________________
does the Socialist Party of Great Britain advocate the original Marxian conception of socialismShort answer
The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) does formally advocate the classical Marxian end-goal — a society free of money, wages, classes and the state — but it advances that goal in a political and methodological framework the SEP regards as inadequate. While agreeing on the objective content of “socialism,” the SPGB’s approach diverges from Marxism as a historical‑material, revolutionary program grounded in the class struggle.Theoretical foundation: what Marx actually meant
Classical Marxism locates the socialist goal in the transformation of social property relations and productive forces, not in abstract moral formulations. Marx and Engels insisted that the abolition of money‑mediated commodity exchange, wage‑labour, classes and a class state is the historical outcome of changing the material basis of society — the relations of production — through mass political struggle (see Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto). The dialectical materialist method links means and ends: you cannot separate the form of future society from the concrete historical processes by which it is created (see Plekhanov on Marx and dialectical materialism).Historical-materialist critique of the SPGB method
The SPGB emphasizes persuasion, the winning of a parliamentary majority for an immediate system‑change, and a refusal to engage in transitional programs or mass industrial‑political organisation beyond “propaganda” and electoral work. From a Fourth International/Trotskyist standpoint this is problematic for three interrelated reasons:Abstract ends divorced from process: Marxism treats the abolition of capitalist forms as the result of concrete revolutionary transformation. Merely asserting the end without a strategy for seizing and socialising the instruments of production risks turning program into moralism rather than a science of social revolution (Marx: mode of production conditions social life; Communist Manifesto on class struggle).
Neglect of transitional demands and mass organisation: Trotsky’s Transitional Program (1938) explains that the objective maturity of conditions for revolution often outpaces the consciousness and organisation of the working class; hence the need for concrete transitional demands and a revolutionary leadership to bridge that gap (Trotsky, The Transitional Program). Refusing such tactics undermines the capacity to politically centralise and mobilise the proletariat.
Underestimating the political obstacles of bourgeois state power: The state is not a neutral machine to be politely inherited; it is the organised power of a class. Marx explained that political power must be taken and exercised to transform social property relations. Expecting a peaceful parliamentary majority to accomplish full socialisation without confronting entrenched capitalist institutions and global capital flows is unrealistic absent mass class organisation.
Contemporary relevance
Capitalism today is global, dominated by finance and complex supply chains, and defended by interconnected state, military and ideological apparatuses. Winning socialism therefore requires an international strategy, rank‑and‑file organisation in workplaces, and a revolutionary program that can both defend gains and dismantle capitalist property relations. This is precisely the argument Trotsky developed in insisting on an international Fourth International and the transitional method (Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism; Transitional Program).The SEP position on the SPGB
Agreement on the goal: We recognise that the SPGB’s description of the end corresponds to Marx’s classical definition of communism: abolition of wage‑labour, commodity‑money forms, and class rule.
Fundamental disagreement on method: The SEP insists that revolutionary theory must be rooted in the material conditions and class forces — a program linking immediate struggles to the overthrow of capitalist property. We criticise tendencies that treat socialism as an instantaneous juridical change effected by a parliamentary majority or as a programme of abstract persuasion without building a mass revolutionary party and transitional demands (Trotsky on party, theory and method; Plekhanov on dialectical materialism).
Conclusion
The SPGB preserves the classical Marxian definition of socialism, but from a historical‑materialist and Fourth International standpoint its politics are insufficiently connected to the real processes that create socialism. For Marxism, the program is not a slogan but a scientifically grounded strategy: analysing the objective balance of class forces, building revolutionary organisation, and linking everyday struggles via transitional demands to the political conquest and socialisation of the means of production. Only by combining theory and practice in that way can the classical goal — a moneyless, wageless, classless and stateless society — be made a real historical possibility.I can’t access this article in The Economist since it is behind a paywall, but it might be of interest to Ste and others reading up on Adam Smith
It is always assumed that he is talking about the “free market” here. My query is – is that correct or is it still god doing the leading? and if it is correct, can we argue that it is still mystical as it was providence that determined how society would work?
I think it’s just a metaphor. By the time Smith was writing, mechanistic-cum-deistic thinking was quite well established, and you sometimes come across arguments to the effect that the invisible hand meme is an echo of the role gravity plays in Newtonian science. Theistic beliefs in a directly intervening God were on the wane, though “natural theology” in the hands of people like William Paley was still going strong in the 19th century
Russia is not going to agree to NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine, and sanctions on Russia are proving increasingly ineffectual, so I suspect all that is going to happen is that the war is going to drag on until finally the whole of Donbass falls under Russian control. Given the steady, if slow, advances of the Russian army, this outcome seems increasingly inevitable.
It’s probably at that point that there will be a real prospect of a peace treaty being signed. For all the warmongering bluster of Starmer, Macron and Merz, the war will come to an end probably sooner than later. It’s quite like that Zelensky will soon be ousted and maybe move abroad so that a more accommodating successor government might be installed in Ukraine. I can’t imagine support for this stupid, senseless war continuing much longer after four years of misery and power cuts in the middle of winter.
Of course, the war will have adversely impacted the Russian economy too, so the Putin regime will likewise be forced to compromise. He is no less an obnoxious poseur than those politicians on the other side of this conflict. To hell with the lot of them. It makes my stomach turn having to watch this bunch of manipulative sociopaths on the telly
Roberto
I came across this, if it is any help…
https://www.dialogoglobal.com/texts/grosfoguel/Grosfoguel-Decolonizing-Pol-Econ-and-Postcolonial.pdf
Isn’t he supposed to be a critic of both neoliberal globalisation and nationalist fundamentalism? It is depressing the extent to which the Left is infested with nationalist (that is, capitalist) ideology
Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal! I question its usefulness.
And the examples they give definitely show that there definitely is some kind of family resemblance between what Trump is doing and all-out fascism, even if you don’t want to call it that.
DJP
I have never heard of the “American Spectator” before but I dont think it has any connections with the UK-based “Spectator” magazine. I am just curious as to why you say it is “definitely not a well-respected political science journal”.
I wouldn’t dispute that there is a family resemblance between what Trump is doing and all-out fascism, but that doesn’t necessarily make the Trump regime a fascist regime. A deeply authoritarian, anti-democratic and reactionary regime, yes, but a fascist regime? Hmmmm
If the Trump regime is a fascist, then perhaps the Democratic Party is as well….
Spotted this on FB, a post from Labour Heartlands. Copied and pasted it here for people not on FB. Things don’t look good for Your Party….
””””””””””””””””’
“Remember when I called it last week, and half of Facebook lost its mind because they couldn’t smell the coffee burning?
Well… here we are.
Zarah Sultana has now been openly invited by the Green Party leader to jump ship, exactly as predicted.
🔥 So let me repeat it clearly: barring divine intervention from the liberal gods, Sultana is heading for the Greens. And the signs aren’t subtle.
While Your Party publicly tears itself apart, Sultana’s been quietly cosying up to someone who represents everything Your Party was supposedly built to challenge: Zack Polanski, the leader of the Greens.
This is the same Green Party she dismissed in July as “not radical enough,” too compromised, too establishment.
Yet according to the New Statesman, they’re “WhatsApping again.” They’ve been seen deep in discussion at Portcullis House. They sat on friendly panels at TWT. And Polanski himself told The News Agents:
“I like Zarah. Come join the Green Party.”
Not exactly coy, is he?
Now look at Sultana’s recent behaviour:
She unilaterally announced Your Party ten minutes after Corbyn said he didn’t agree to co-leadership and wanted a delay.
She launched her own membership portal, raised £800,000, and collected 22,000 members’ data without approval.
She accused Corbyn and the Independent Alliance MPs of running a “sexist boys’ club.”
Both sides threatened legal action.
She’s in it to win it, but only if she’s calling the shots…
“Team Zarah” has been operating as a parallel organisation ever since.
This isn’t coalition-building. This is exit-strategy testing in real time.
And the Liverpool conference (29–30 Nov) will be the flashpoint. Delegates chosen by lottery will vote on a constitution written to favour Corbyn’s faction, while Sultana controls roughly £800,000 of party funds. If the room doesn’t swing her way? If she doesn’t get the authority she wants?
Well… she already has the justification prepared.
She’ll say Your Party cannot be changed. She’ll say it’s a “sexist boys’ club.” She’ll say she has no choice but to take her supporters somewhere more “progressive.”
And she’ll walk – likely in January – straight into the Greens’ open arms.
Polanski would bite her hand off.
He’s said it publicly.The Greens need MPs. They need profile. They need someone who can speak to younger voters and Muslim communities. Sultana gives them everything they lack, overnight.
Imagine the headlines by spring:
“Greens gain star socialist MP as Sultana defects.”Just in time to front their May local election campaign.
After all… the Greens love joint leaders.
They’re just so progressive like that. 😉”Your Party: The People’s Money Ivory Towers and Empty Coffers
#yourparty
Thomas
Maybe the Ukraine war might end sooner than we think, and all this ridiculous warmongering bluster and posturing by various warmongering elites will fizzle out in the rush to take advantage of investment opportunities – in both Ukraine and Russia
Anyway, here´s the latest bit of news on the subject I came across this morning
Also this
The party still silent on the approaching European, and probably global, war.
Well, personally, I am sceptical that there is an “approaching” European war. It may happen, but it is unlikely in my opinion. To a large extent, I think all this warmongering is just nationalistic bluster. Most workers have the common sense (even if the politicians are bereft of such faculty) to realise that if Russia were seriously intent on “invading Europe”, then the prospects of it doing so seem pretty remote if, after 3-4 years of military conflict, Russia has only managed to secure about a fifth of the territory of Ukraine.
Anyway, for the duration of the war, Europe has already been involved in providing personnel and armaments on the ground in Ukraine.
I think the fact that we find increasing movement in the direction of wanting to get Russia to agree to a ceasefire is significant. The war has been costly for Europe (and Russia, too, of course), and the proles are getting restless.
Apart from that, I suspect the next wave of elections will bring to power political parties that are less committed to continuing the war. Farage and his cronies spring to mind (Farage having been accused of being a Kremlin sympathiser). The same is true of other parts of Europe. Madam von der Leyen´s days are numbered
I told him that even Lenin admitted that state-capitalism is not socialism.
Did he, though?
I think he talked of state capitalism in two different ways. The state capitalism of the capitalist state and the state capitalism of the so-called “proletarian state”, which he seemed to conflate with “socialism”. He also talked of big banks constituting nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus and workers being employees of the state in “socialism”
I think the clearest indication of this conflation of socialism with state capitalism by Lenin was in his 1917 work, The Impending Catastrophe:
“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm”
More electoral victories for the Greens. Could it mean potential YP supporters gravitating to the Greens?
It appears that internal dissent is hindering the growth of YP. Here´s the latest news
I suspect more people are going to gravitate towards the Greens as a result
“Greens neck and neck with Labour, new poll shows, as voters turn away from Starmer”
Extraordinary. Particularly the bit about Corbyn´s Party beating the Tories into sixth place….
“Nigel Farage – if the predictions are right – will not only be prime minister in a few years but will be one with the biggest Commons majority ever. A poll by communications firm PLMR with Electoral Calculus – and shared first with the Daily Mail – suggests Reform would get 445 MPs if an election was held right now. The threshold to win an outright parliamentary majority is 326 MPs. For context – looking back at recent landslides – in 1997 Tony Blair’s Labour won 418 seats, in 2019 Boris Johnson’s Tories won 365, and in 2024 Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour won 411.
If the PLMR poll is correct, Labour would be reduced from 411 to 73 MPs, the Lib Dems would drop from 72 to 42 MPs, and the Tories (hold your breath!) would fall from 121 to just 7 seats – beaten even by Jeremy Corbyn’s Your Party into sixth place. Ouch! Now, for the caveats. This poll assumes no tactical voting. With such voting – over one-third of Labour voters could hold their noses and vote Conservative to keep Reform out – and Farage could be deprived of his majority”.
