robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alf
How is the election of Trump a “clear product of the advancing decomposition of capitalism”? I mean, I wish it was but it strikes me that if millions of American workers are willing to put their trust in a snake oil salesman cum billionaire charlatan like Trump, capitalism still has a got some mileage to look forward to.
It’s the same with the so-called revolutionary wave in the 1920s in Germany and elsewhere inspired by the Bolshevik bourgeois revolution. The vast majority had no inkling of, or desire for, socialism. Capitalism in some form remained the only possibility at the time
Sadly, I cannot see much that is different today…
It looks like the (Anti)Labour Party is heading for the doldrums
“I think it is fair to say that Trotsky didn’t really understand what socialism was”
__________________________________________But the quote from Terrorism and Communism written by Trotsky indicates that he, at least, understood that socialism would be a stateless society. There is another quote from him (which I will try to track down) where he talks about the feasibility of a system of purely voluntary labour (which corresponds to our definition of socialism).
My reason for saying that he must have known about this definition of socialism is because it was so widely circulated at the time. For example, before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split the Russian social democrats published a text in 1897 called A Short Course of Economic Science, written by A Bogdanoff, that talked of socialism being “the highest stage of society we can conceive”, in which such institutions as taxation and profits will be non-existent and in which “there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution”. A revised edition, published in August 1919, was used as a textbook in study circles of the Russian Communist Party.
I would be inclined to say not that Trotsky – or Lenin or Stalin for that matter – were unaware of the Marxian definition of socialism but rather, that they sought instead to displace it with their own essentially state-capitalist definition of “socialism”. Their goal was state capitalism – and their view of socialism was purely academic, meaning they were not really interested in it as a goal. Nevertheless, as a goal it was endorsed at the time by the various social democratic parties (the maximum programme of the German SDP) and so it suited them to opportunistically pay lip service to socialism as we understand the term but only as some ultimate long-term goal that they were not really interested in realising themselves (Lenin talked about socialism in our sense being 500 years into the future)
Lenin saw state capitalism as a kind of preparation for socialism to the point where he saw it as being part of the very definition of “socialism”. It was just a dishonest way of trying to elicit support for his own programme of state capitalism.
Perhaps, one can say that while Lenin and Trotsky were aware of the formal definition of socialism as we understand the term, they were not aware of what it entails or in what way it is flatly incompatible with the state capitalism they advocated. In that sense, perhaps, we can say they did not really understand socialism….
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?
