Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What will be will be. No doubt about that.
Or are we to say what will be won’t be?One is a logical phrase. The other is nonsense.
She means we are part of it, not outside observers. What is to happen has antecedents already, and we are among them. Whether our wishes prevail or not, we don’t know. But we must act on them, which is what we do.
Only when we make socialism will we know.I’m not in a hole. Necessarianism is not fatalism, because we are in the chain of cause and effect, not outside of it.
The Bolshevik states were/are capitalist states too. Communism (socialism) has never existed, save in its primitive form in hunter-gatherer societies.
The Robespierrists were a petit-bourgeois faction frantically holding power briefly from 1792-94 and ruthlessly murdering mostly members of the working class.
Btw, Paine was sentenced to death by the Robespierrists and only escaped due to a blunder. Washington abandoned him to his fate, not lifting a finger to save him.
“Fascism is the merger of capitalist entities with state entities.”
I.e. Bolshevism.
Our position has been held by us since 1904, so we are hardly bemuddled by “these days” jargon.
There were fascistic elements in the French Revolution: namely the petit-bourgeois Robespierrists – admired by Lenin.
Fascism had its heyday in the 1920s-40s, and does not really exist today as a movement. It’s in the mouths of the Leftists, of course, and they tend to apply it to everyone they disagree with – as is the case with those Lefties who support the present war in Ukraine (see “Russian Tensions” thread).
Fascism was still capitalism. The state anyway is the executive arm of the capitalist class.
There is footage of Hitler, hat in hand, meekly visiting a steel magnate .
The Nazis took the fall, but the capitalists behind them were rewarded with bonuses after the war and are still here.
By Communism do you mean Bolshevism? Bolshevism is red fascism – capitalism with state ownership.
A communist (socialist) state is a contradiction in terms. Far from it being a new idea spread by the Right, as you suggest, we were exposing Bolshevism already in 1918.We don’t have blueprints. There is no blueprint for socialism. We exist solely as a tool for the workers to use when they are ready to. Once capitalism is overthrown, the Socialist Party will be no more.
Nazi Germany was a capitalist state. Particularly obnoxious, the same as the Bolshevik state in Russia, but essentially no different from any other capitalist state. Wage-labour and capital accumulation the principal ingredients.
It is neither more nor less the “antithesis”, as you say,of socialism than any other bourgeois ideology.
We, well I in particular, would not use the word “ideology” in referring to our convictions. We do not follow anyone laying down an ideology and we reject leadership. The Leftist parties, like all capitalist parties, follow a laid-down ideology and a so-called “vanguard.” We are all equals and we have only come together because we independently agree with our party’s object and declaration of principles. We don’t follow anyone, nor an ideology.
We are not intending to “lead” people into socialism. That would be impossible anyway. We reject all minority action to overthrow capitalism, which can only be done by the workers themselves.Apart from your saying socialism must be global, which I agree with, I don’t understand a word of your definitions above stated. They make no sense to me.
We are not Leftists because we have no intention of running capitalism: neither in a right wing nor a left wing way.
We reject the left’s common notion, whether Leninist or Labourite, that socialism = nationalisation. We say it does not. We say that if a society is based on wage-labour and capital accumulation, that society is capitalist, regardless of who controls the state. In socialism (a.k.a. communism) there will no longer be a state as there will be no one to suppress; no wage-labour and no capital, as money won’t exist.
“Otherwise, we might as well just sit back and see whether or not Socialism will or will not come.”
I’ve already answered you on that misrepresentation.
If you have no interest in what way the chain of causation proceeds, then by all means just sit back and do sod all. That would be fatalism, but it’s not my position, as already stated.
Of course motives are determind. They spring from causation, like everything else.
We want to instil in others the same motive for socialism that we have.
In us, that motive was produced by thoughts which responded to prior motives, ad infinitum.When people tell you, “There must have been a beginning to the cosmos” you will rightly say that it has neither beginning nor end. Yet, while having no problem with that, you seem unable to really accept it.
Exactly. Lizzie’s post did not motivate (move) me to anger, and there was no stronger motive than that which produced my little quip about “impatience with deep thought.”
I could not do otherwise because I didn’t. If I had done otherwise, I would not have been able to do what I did instead. We think we have the power to choose other than how we choose, but that’s an illusion. We balance, and come down on the side of the weightiest motive moving us.
