Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Am I the only one who’s quite enjoying the schadenfreude caused by the shock, bewilderment and terror of the western world’s establishment power brokers because of Trump’s policies? The greatest weakness of all establishments is their complete inability to imagine any kind of change. From a working class perspective it is rather amusing to see our ‘leaders’ in such disarray.
So, no contact sports allowed in socialism? No motor racing coz it’s too dangerous? No martial arts or sumo? I could go on but you get my point. What’s a testosterone filled young man to do? – take up competitive knitting perhaps or tiddlywinks.
Perhaps we should ask why some people join the party and never leave? For me it’s because every major problem in the world is caused by capitalism and all of the reforms that have been tried, in my lifetime, have failed. You just have to ask yourself if a democratically arrived at answer to any problem by the working people involved is preferable to ideologically driven careerists who have no other interest than to please their parasitic masters? It’s what young people call ‘a no brainer’ and if you want blueprints for how problems are caused and overcome usually you can turn to those working in the industry concerned. They are usually rightly cynical that these answers will be ignored by their employers but if we can destroy that political cynicism most of the answers already exist.
In terms of the obvious failure of ‘liberal’ democracies in the US to deliver any of its promises the political context does seem to have parallels with the 1930s as far as those who voted for Trump as a ‘strongman’ outside of the political establishment who can deliver them from their miseries. Also probably those in the Republican hierarchy might be having second thoughts about their ability to control him – another parallel with Hitler. As for his personal ideology- he seems not to have a coherent set of political beliefs which, of course, has always been both the strength and weakness of ‘fascism’. We accept ‘state capitalist’ as a legitimate label for extreme leftist ideology so why are we so wary of describing extreme right-wing ideology as ‘fascist’? We also believe, despite being constantly told that capitalism has drastically changed over the years, that it is essentially the same beast as it ever was so what prevents a replay of the 1930s? An important difference, in real terms rather than ideological ones, is the role of the US military – does Trump have support from the generals? Perhaps the trauma of the defeat in Afghanistan might be a factor? Anyways if it looks like a duck, behaves like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s probably a fookin’ duck.
Since Adam’s perspective on fascism has been posted here I thought I would add my own – also published in the Standard. As you can read I have a rather different view, proving perhaps that socialist writing does not represent an ideological monolith? https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2024/no-1438-june-2024/fascism-as-ideology/
TM – I have had the reverse experience with people when they learnt of my ‘extensive’ reading habits (not so much now as I tend to fall asleep quickly these days when reading or watching TV) – especially from those who regard themselves as ‘uneducated’. Of course it’s all dependent on how you speak with people and the ‘dialectical’ approach wins out every time against the ‘didactic’ preaching that always turns people away. I know of many who are highly educated and intelligent but who come across as elitist and arrogant. Not implying that you are one of these TM but perhaps your conversational approach might need modifying?
TM – ‘We will only know it was possible when it happens. If something possible never happens, then it wasn’t possible.’
Look at it the other way around – if socialism never comes to pass does that mean it was always ‘impossible’? At this time it seems that its establishment is ‘improbable’ but that doesn’t make it impossible. Our species has the ability to imagine alternatives and given the right material conditions they can be considered possible – indeed without this synthesis there could be no change.
paula – ‘If we accept that humans were born equal, where did it all go wrong? Why did private property develop? Was it because men overpowered women. At what point in human history did we go so far wrong?’
The question assumes that our species had a choice as to its future. Like the natural environment for other species humanity had to adapt to the world created by its own technology. The invention of agriculture had social and political consequences that could not be predicted at the time. Humanity did not have the understanding (consciousness) to have any chance to control these consequences. It is only now possible, through socialist consciousness, that such a possibility exists. Our work and tech inventions define us as a species just as the natural environment defines the success (or otherwise) of other animals.
Presumably it will advocate numerous and impossible reforms to capitalism like so many of its kind have done before.
ALB – I think you were one of the editors who rejected my summary of the theory for publication in the Standard many years ago – I’m surprised that you forgot. Here’s the link: https://wezselecta.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-instinct.html#comment-form
ALB – My main influences in this area were ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ by Adorno and several others and Marcuse’s ‘Eros and Civilisation’. I am fascinated by the dialectical relationship between life and death that the theory of the ‘Death Instinct’ postulates.
BD – Thanks with providing me with some material to study but you seem to be distancing yourself from a lot of it? You ask about some of Freud’s other theories and I would have to go back and read the context of your assertions/quotes as it has been a long time since I read old Sigi. Of course Freud himself did junk a lot of his early ‘libido theory’ in favour of the Id, Ego and Super Ego hypothesis together with, of course, the Eros/Thanatos construction. I don’t know if many have found psychoanalysis helpful as patients as my main interest was its implications for political theory as expounded by members of the Frankfurt School (my answer to ALB’S inquiry above).
DJP – ‘Regardless of if you want to call something ‘scientific’ or not, I still think it makes sense to subject our cherished views to some kind of logical and empirical standards.’
Of course that’s true, I’m just pointing out that such standards are not the exclusive domain of ‘science’.
BD – I keep trying to answer all of your requests but you never attempt to answer mine. Give me something to work with such as a name of a psychologist you recommend who has produced a psychological analysis of the Holocaust – pretty please.BD – I think we are making some progress. There are no grounds for dismissing a theory because its originators were Victorian gents and indeed in terms of the origins of the holocaust Freuds work with Austrian petite bourgeois patients can be very helpful. It is also notable that you praise the work of Marx and Darwin for their universality thus admitting that sometimes one size does, in fact, fit all. I think it self evident, especially to parents, that the child/parent relationship can often be a battle ground (especially in a capitalist cultural context). Thanks to LBird (and I don’t often get to say that) I have revisited the debate concerning the nature of science and in the absence of any agreed definition I think we can dispense with the criticism of a theory being ‘unscientific’ thus barring it from any serious consideration. Marx is often accused of this heresy but as a dialectical philosophy of cultural evolution its success far eclipses any of the contemporary ‘scientific’ theories that specifically try to refute the class struggle. I notice you still haven’t provided me with any examples of an alternative psychological explanation for the Holocaust and Auschwitz. Perhaps we can turn to Freud’s theory of the unconscious and its role in irrational behaviour?
BD – You asked me for evidence to support my statement that: “The child’s relationship with its parents is paradoxical from the start.”
I’ve just encountered a mother shouting at her child to ‘behave himself’ and I suspect this scenario is repeated millions of times up and down the country during the summer school holidays. The dysfunctional nuclear family is an arena for this unending power struggle between parent and child. This doesn’t exclude the presence of love but many parents seem to see their children as their ‘property’ which gives them the right to enforce their values on them. Indeed many will do this in the name of ‘love’ hence my description of the relationship being paradoxical and contradictory.
