Roberto
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree. Whatever personal experiences or grievances someone may carry, this forum is not the place to air them in this way—especially when they are used to indict an entire membership or reduce a body of ideas to personal attacks. That kind of approach sheds far more heat than light.
If there are political disagreements, they should be addressed politically: by engaging with arguments, principles, and analysis, not by slinging accusations or attempting guilt by association. No organisation is defined by the worst behaviour of individuals, and serious claims require appropriate channels, not public mud-slinging.
At this point, the discussion risks drifting away from its stated purpose altogether. Some moderation to bring things back to a constructive and relevant exchange would seem entirely appropriate.What you describe involves real harm, and that has to be acknowledged first. Abuse, violence, intimidation and narcissistic domination are not “political disagreements”; they are serious crimes and betrayals of basic human decency. No political organisation, tradition or set of ideas can excuse or relativise that. Anger toward those experiences is entirely justified.
At the same time, those acts were not expressions of socialism, class consciousness, or the idea of working-class emancipation. They were abuses of power by individuals who happened to belong to an organisation — just as abusers exist in churches, families, unions, states and corporations. Their behaviour indicts them as individuals; it does not constitute an argument for capitalism, nor a refutation of socialism as a social system.
The claim that the SPGB is a “cult” also needs to be addressed seriously. Cults are defined by unquestionable leaders, enforced loyalty, emotional dependency, suppression of dissent, secrecy, and isolation from society. None of these are built into the structure or principles of the SPGB. There are no gurus, no charismatic leaders, no required rituals, no personal devotion demanded, no promises of salvation. Members are free to leave, disagree, criticise — and many have done so over more than a century.
What has existed, and this matters, is something far more common and far less mystical: the tendency of small political organisations to become insular, overly abstract, impatient, and sometimes dismissive toward workers who do not share their conclusions. That can slide from criticism of capitalism into contempt for people trapped within it. That is not cultism; it is political alienation reproduced inside a hostile class society.
It is also important to say this plainly: socialists are not morally superior beings. They are workers shaped by the same alienated society as everyone else. Capitalism produces damaged relationships, damaged personalities and damaged power dynamics, and those do not magically disappear when someone adopts socialist ideas. Political labels do not cleanse character.
Socialism does not depend on the moral quality of past members of any organisation. If it did, no emancipatory idea would survive history. Rejecting the goal of a classless, moneyless society because some individuals betrayed it would be like rejecting medicine because doctors committed crimes.
The working class does not need to be romanticised — but neither does it need to be despised. It needs clarity, honesty and conscious organisation. That includes being honest about failures, including internal ones.
Ego, authoritarianism and cruelty are poisons — but they are products of class society, not proofs that class society should continue. They are reasons to abolish the conditions that reproduce them, not excuses to defend the system that generates them.
To put it simply: socialism does not begin with better people; it exists because capitalism systematically produces broken people and broken relationships. The task is not to worship organisations or personalities, but to abolish the social conditions that keep reproducing abuse, hierarchy and alienationI think people are mixing up two very different things: collapse and decline.
I’m not saying capitalism will collapse by itself. History shows the opposite. It survives crises by adapting, restructuring, shifting power, and protecting property relations. The Great Depression didn’t end it. The 2008 crisis didn’t end it. Even world wars ended up stabilising capitalism rather than abolishing it.
What we are witnessing with the United States is not collapse but relative decline. US dominance is being challenged, alliances are shifting, trade relations are changing, and global competition is intensifying. But capitalism itself is still functioning: profits are being made, markets continue, and the state still defends the system.
That’s why changing political leaders does not change the fundamentals. The system remains intact.
Capitalism won’t disappear because it’s unjust or unstable. It will only be replaced when the majority consciously decide to replace it.I am not arguing that capitalism will collapse by itself. I am fully aware that only the conscious political action of the working class can bring about systemic change.
What I was referring to is something different: the decline of US global dominance and the reconfiguration of alliances among capitalist states. These are not signs of capitalism’s collapse, but normal features of a system based on competition between rival blocs of capital.
We are clearly witnessing shifts in power: • New trade agreements that bypass traditional US influence
• Greater autonomy among former allies
• Increasing rivalry between capitalist powers
• Realignment of geopolitical interests
This does not mean the system is ending. It means the terrain of capitalist competition is changing.
At the same time, changing political leaders within this framework does not alter the fundamentals. Whoever governs must manage the same economic imperatives: profitability, competitiveness, labour discipline, and state power. That is why swapping politicians does not equal real change.
Collapse theories fail because capitalism adapts. Reformist theories fail because adaptation is not emancipation.
The conclusion is simple: Capitalism will not fall on its own, and it will not be voted out by changing personalities. Only conscious, organised action by the working class can replace it.The system doesn’t collapse because of bad leaders. It produces bad leaders because that’s what the job requires.
Different clown, same circus.Exactly. We are constantly told to “adapt”, to “prepare”, to accept catastrophe as inevitable — climate breakdown, permanent war, mass displacement, even escaping to another planet. Everything is imaginable except the one solution that addresses the root cause: abolishing capitalism itself.
The ruling class presents capitalism as eternal, but treats human survival as optional. Instead of questioning a system that produces ecological destruction, poverty and war, we are offered technological fantasies and individual coping strategies.
As Marx put it, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” Today, that idea is that capitalism is unavoidable — even when it is visibly incompatible with the continuation of a decent human life.
Socialism is not unrealistic. What is truly unrealistic is believing we can preserve a profit-driven system on a finite planet — or export it to another one without repeating the same disaster.I understand your comments. Marx warned that “men make their own history, but they do not make it under conditions of their own choosing.” The working class does act, but always within social conditions shaped by capitalism and its ideology.
When workers support their own class enemy, the result is not moral failure but historical contradiction: consciousness lagging behind material reality. To recognise this gap is not to abandon hope, but to take responsibility for changing it.
Lucidity, not illusion, is the foundation of any real emancipation.
Or, as Rosa Luxemburg expressed it with stark simplicity:
“Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.”From a socialist perspective, social change does not unfold according to the lifespan of individuals. The transformation of one mode of production into another is a historical process that often stretches across generations. Even Marx, writing when global capitalism was still in its infancy, understood that he would not live to see a socialist society. His work was not based on personal hope of witnessing the outcome, but on an analysis of historical development.
Today, our situation is even more uncertain. Humanity now possesses the capacity for total self-destruction through nuclear weapons. A future world war would not be a “third” war in the old sense — it would likely be the last. This adds a tragic urgency to the question of social change.
Yet from a socialist standpoint, this does not justify despair. As long as humanity continues to exist, the struggle for a world beyond capitalism remains both necessary and possible. The task is not to predict whether we will personally witness socialism, but to contribute — however modestly — to the growth of understanding that makes it achievable.
Paraphrasing Gramsci, this means combining pessimism of the intellect with optimism of the will: recognising clearly the dangers and limits of our time, while refusing to abandon the commitment to human emancipation.`It’s true that class consciousness is possible even under difficult conditions. History gives many examples of workers with little formal education who nevertheless understood that capitalism, nationalism and war serve ruling-class interests. Those individuals deserve real respect.
But the existence of conscious workers does not mean we can simply blame the majority for “not learning fast enough.” Consciousness does not develop in a vacuum. People are shaped by their material conditions, their education, the media they are exposed to, and the political choices they are offered. Under capitalism, all of those forces systematically push people toward nationalism, reformism, fear, and resignation — not toward socialist understanding.
The fact that some workers break through that conditioning proves that socialism is possible.
The fact that most do not yet do so shows how powerful the system of ideological control really is.
It is also worth remembering that workers are never offered a genuine socialist choice at election time. They are asked to choose between rival managers of capitalism. When a population repeatedly votes for pro-war candidates, that reflects the poverty of political options, not some inherent failure of the working class.
Socialism has never been about admiring the few who “see clearly” and condemning the rest. It is about building understanding patiently, recognising that emancipation must be collective or it will not happen at all.People didn’t vote for Trump because they suddenly became evil or irrational. They voted out of frustration, fear, habit, lack of alternatives, or because the entire political system limits the choice to rival managers of capitalism. Elections under capitalism are not about workers choosing their own interests, but about choosing which faction of the ruling class governs.
The problem isn’t “stupid voters.”
The problem is a political system that never offers a real alternative to capitalism.The US interest in Greenland isn’t symbolic or eccentric — it follows the normal logic of great-power competition under capitalism.
Greenland has major strategic value. It occupies a key military position between North America and Europe, hosts critical US radar and defence infrastructure, and gives access to the Arctic as melting ice opens new shipping routes. Control of that region means military advantage and geopolitical leverage.
There is also the issue of resources. Greenland contains significant reserves of rare earth minerals and other strategic materials essential for modern industry and military technology. Securing access to these resources benefits powerful corporations and strengthens national economic power.
At the same time, the US wants to block rivals such as China and Russia from expanding influence in the Arctic. This is not about democracy or concern for Greenlanders — it is about power, profit, and strategic dominance.
Greenland, like many places around the world, becomes a pawn in conflicts between rival capitalist states. The real issue is not which power controls Greenland, but the fact that under capitalism land, resources, and people are treated as assets in geopolitical competition rather than as part of a shared human inheritance.Yes, Venezuela’s reliance on oil made the economy extremely vulnerable, but that is a feature of capitalism, not a failure of “socialism.” The Bolivarian government never abolished capitalism — manufacturing, markets, wages, and private property largely remained. Under capitalism, no state can truly be independent: investment, trade, and revenue are dictated by global markets and profit. True economic autonomy and stability would only be possible if the working class collectively controlled production, investment, and trade — not under any capitalist elite, however nationalistic or left-leaning. The crisis shows the limits of reforming capitalism, not of socialism itself.
From a socialist perspective, AI is not the problem — capitalism is. Under capitalism, technology is used to cut costs, increase exploitation, and concentrate wealth. That is why every advance in automation generates fear: fear of unemployment, insecurity, and loss of control. The technology itself is neutral; its social use is not.
In a genuinely socialist society — based on common ownership, democratic control, and production for use — AI would be a powerful ally. Instead of threatening livelihoods, automation would free people from unnecessary and exhausting labour. The aim would not be to replace workers to raise profits, but to reduce the total amount of labour society needs to perform.
AI could help plan production according to real human needs, optimise the use of resources, eliminate wasteful duplication, improve healthcare, education and infrastructure, and allow people more free time to develop creatively and socially. The goal would be abundance and freedom, not efficiency for profit.
What capitalism presents as a danger — a future with less work — would become one of socialism’s greatest achievements: more leisure, more autonomy, and more human flourishing.
The tragedy is not that AI exists, but that such powerful tools remain trapped inside a system that uses them against the interests of the majority.Exactly. Capitalism will not commit suicide, nor will the capitalist class willingly undermine the conditions of its own existence. The idea that the system will simply “automate itself out of existence” misunderstands how capitalism actually works.
Figures like Musk indulge in fantasies about a jobless future, but they never explain how profits would be realised in such a world. Without a mass of workers receiving wages, there is no effective demand, no market, and no source of surplus value. Capital does not reproduce itself through machines alone; only living labour creates new value. A fully automated capitalism is therefore not a future system but a contradiction in terms.
What is more likely is not the disappearance of capitalism but its further concentration. As unit costs fall through automation, smaller firms are squeezed out, while larger corporations consolidate their dominance. We already see this in the rise of oligopolies and quasi-monopolies in tech, finance, logistics, and energy. These giants are less exposed to competitive pressure and gain greater power to influence prices, markets, and even states themselves.
This concentration can partially offset falling profit rates, but it does not abolish the underlying contradictions. Profit still ultimately depends on a sufficiently employed working class capable of buying what is produced. That is why capitalism constantly oscillates between technological expansion and social restraint: it wants productivity without unemployment, automation without collapsing demand.
The idea that this could lead to a slowdown in innovation is plausible. If profitability, market stability, or social control require limiting disruption, investment in certain technologies may be delayed, redirected, or politically managed. Innovation under capitalism is never driven by human need but by profitability.
It is also telling that institutions like the IMF, WEF, and US labor authorities predict that AI will reshape work rather than eliminate it. Historically, new technologies have not abolished wage labour; they have reorganised it, intensified it, and often made it more precarious. Capitalism adapts. It always has.
The real problem, then, is not whether AI will destroy employment, but that as long as production remains organised for profit rather than for need, every technological advance will be used in the interests of capital accumulation, not human emancipation. Without a conscious move beyond the wage-labour system itself, the future will be one of continued exploitation — whether mediated by algorithms or factory foremen.Hinton is right to say that the problem is not the technology itself but the economic system that deploys it. Artificial intelligence, like every major advance in productivity, is introduced under capitalism to cut labour costs and increase profits, not to liberate people from drudgery. The predictable result is greater insecurity, deeper inequality and rising poverty for the majority.
However, many of the predictions about a “jobless future” ignore a basic contradiction at the heart of capitalism. The system depends on workers not only to produce wealth, but also to buy the goods and services that are produced. If employment were to fall close to zero, where would mass purchasing power come from? Who would realise profits?
The idea that capitalism could automate most production and still function smoothly is a fantasy. It would amount to a system undermining its own foundations. Capitalism cannot abolish labour without abolishing itself.
History suggests something different. Every wave of automation has not eliminated work, but restructured it, displaced workers, created new forms of precarious employment and intensified exploitation, while periodically triggering crises. Technology is used to defend profitability, not to meet human needs.
The real issue is not whether AI will destroy jobs, but who controls the technology and for what purpose. In a system organised around human need, automation would mean shorter working lives and more freedom. In a system organised around profit, it means insecurity for the many and enormous gains for the few.
The problem is not AI.
The problem is the system that puts it at the service of profit.
