covvie99
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for the elongated vitreous ad hominem. I’m obviously anti-capitalist, your bile comes from the intolerance of views that differ from yours. I’ve already said I read your principles, they are outdated, ideologically insular and questionable. You can’t even admit anyone who agrees with Marxist principles is an ally, you’d rather abhor the left and socialists with a different perspective.
I’ve had a wonderful, eloquent, intelligent, thought-provoking debate, but this wasn’t it…
Feel free to enjoy the singular-minded silence of righteous anonymity…
Yes, a resource-based economy is a socialist-style system with the con of finance being removed and I have read and approve of the Zeitgeist movement as a possible vehicle for this.
However, While I don’t want to continue a circular debate the term state capitalism including Nationalisation is a total misrepresentation that I will never agree with. We live in a society where Privatisation has usurped Nationalisation at a huge cost to the general public, not just in financial cost but also control. We are now exploited by energy prices that have gone up 800% since August 2020.
From my point of view, an instant change in the form of revolution is unlikely and while I’d be on the front lines, the only other option is incremental change. Not my first choice, but as I said I’m a realist. To believe that you can accomplish your goals with such little support seems extremely optimistic at best. Anyways take care!
Please read my reply just after yours. As it works for both of you. But essentially agreed on the main point that we want to replace capitalism with a system of communal ownership and a resource-based economy.
Yes, Thomas, it seems that works both ways between people with ideological differences who are unable to see the importance of common ground.
There are plenty of Socialists who are not in the SPGB mindset and don’t enjoy circular debate and inferences suggesting they aren’t socialists. Nationalisation is taking away power from corporate entities to exploit us. Industry and Infrastructure under Socialism are produced in the same way, by the people for the people. Incremental change is the option left if outright support for your ideals/revolt fails. If no one will join your revolution, then it’s simply a protest of a few. Moving society towards Socialism is necessary to get support for the previously stated revolution. Helping to shift people’s thinking by pushing the Overton window to ideologies that are communal-based ownership from privately owned. Removing Capitalism by supplanting it, is still removing capitalism.
I understand your arguments around different interpretations of Marxism, but if we can just agree that we want a replacement of Capitalism based on a resource-based economy that’s ecologically friendly, sustainable and communally run and owned then we get past the preconceptions/misconceptions of socialism and appeal to everyone. You may have to compromise on the name of that system to appeal to all and remove misconceptions and erroneous stigmas. Most of us in Society just want security, food and shelter and the opportunity to thrive, concentrate on those similarities between people and we can grow support for real change. The removal of hierarchy, Capitalism and greed. Move towards a society that applauds individual growth over personal financial gains.
Right and left-wing ideologies exist outside of capitalism! Socialism is not Capitalist, Social Democracy is Socialism within a Capitalist framework and is only meant to temper the existing state of things. While Democratic Socialism is used as a stepping stone to replacing Capitalism with Socialism. Something you claim to want… You are a leftist if you believe in Socialism…
Incremental change in society’s belief systems and incremental change to remove Capitalism. This is about as much use as teaching a whale to fly, you keep misinterpreting me. I have said I want to remove Capitalism and that incremental change is the only option I can see, but I’m willing to join the front lines if another option presents itself. The ideological war you dismiss has been going on in the media and right-wing Capitalists are winning hands down. Ignoring that is about as much use as a rubber beak to a woodpecker…
Thomas, “And people saying just that ensures there never will be.” I’m a realist, why wouldn’t I accept the situation for what it is? should I live in a delusion? or tabloid illusion? I’ve read your party’s beliefs and agree with much of it, more in sentiment than fact. But what are you doing to make positive change? To challenge the predominant belief systems? It seems you have a small membership that doesn’t have much representation on social media, judging from what one of your members has said. You’ve had over 100 years and I see little representation from your group, and little challenge to the approaching corporatocracy. Get involved with people who share similar base belief systems like getting rid of Capitalism and proposing a resource-based economy with communal ownership. Take the fight to the real enemy instead of arguing insular views on politics amoung yourselves.
“They should look us up.” No, you should work hard to encourage them to share the fight based on similar ethics and ideologies rather than constantly insulting them. You think a proud Socialist will join a group that call them a Faux Socialist? A group that claim absolutism regarding political change? If you can’t get support for a change in Capitalism after a hundred years and are losing support while allowing the Overton window to shift further to the right, then incremental change to move society back to the Socialist perspective should be your goals. At least in my opinion.
I’ll stick around and join debate if I’m welcome, but the ideological war is being fought on social media and in the tabloids.
Seducing? While I’m no longer affiliated with the Labour party since Blair dropped clause 4 – the socialist base of Labour ideology – I still see them as the only option to reduce the excesses of Capitalism. If we can’t get Socialism via support of its ideologies and by using direct action then we have to adapt to the world in which we live. While like you, I’d prefer a clean break from Capitalism there just isn’t enough support to make that happen. Due to the media and entrainment of the masses, Socialism isn’t getting the support it needs to contend against Capitalism. We need plurality of the media, investigative journalism and honest criticism/challenging of the government and its policies. They’ve done a number on Socialism and even Social Democracy is seen as hard-left these days as the Overton window shifts further right. While I used to hope for ideological shift through increments, since the hijacking of the Labour party that isn’t likely.
As I’ve previously stated many on the left who are Socialists and supported the historical Labour party via Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism have been let down. Especially in recent years with the purge of Socialists from the Labour party. I’ve heard on this forum that you consider these people faux socialists, I’d argue they are realists. If you can’t get support to overthrow Capitalism then you just become a talking shop – see Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ for examples.
Yes since the 80s the Labour party has been infiltrated by centrists such as Blair who use thatcher’s neoliberalism more than Social Democracy. They’ve turned the party into a corporate puppet via state and corporate lobbyists as opposed to relying on Union funding and member fees. Since Starmer took over from Corbyn the party has lost 30% of its membership and is back in debt.
People often accuse us of being a cultist when we mention Corbyn, but I’d support anyone who had his integrity and ideological values. I usually reply to this that I’m off to pray to a 10ft effigy of Corbyn:
Our ideology that art for everyone. Socialism be thy name. Our time will come as capitalism is undone on earth as it is inevitable. Give unto those your daily charity and forgive us our profits. As we forgive neoliberals who use profit against us. And lead us not into greed, but deliver us from monopolies. For thine is dialectical materialism, class struggle against the Tories. Forever and ever, ahem…
National infrastructure is part of the social contract between a government and the people. We pay taxes to provide infrastructures such as roads, schools, hospitals, and industry to supply our needs etc. These infrastructures are still required and therefore still exist outside capitalism. Yes in a Capitalist system there are other industries that are private and not considered state infrastructure.
In 2021 the taxpayer paid over £120.1 billion in subsidies to corporations (over £2 billion a week). That’s before we mention grants, tax breaks, bailouts etc that privatisation requires. As well as topping up our own wages through tax credits. Then there’s the tax gap of £40 billion per annum from non-payment of taxes, which some independent sources suggest is actually between £40-120 billion per annum. Corporate welfare is unnecessary, if capitalists can’t compete in their chosen system then their enterprise should be allowed to go bankrupt. Rather than being saved by the taxpayer with bailouts.
What we have is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. We also predominantly tax working income in this country and not wealth. There are two lists produced each year of the richest people in Britain and the highest taxpayers in Britain in each year. Surprisingly there are very few commonalities on that list. Most of the very wealthy in Britain pay less than 1% tax, while the working wealthy pay 45%.
Before the 1980s and Thatcher’s neoliberalism; privatisation didn’t really exist in Britain. There was no other way of doing things. The industry was built from the ground up with taxpayer money, it’s national infrastructure. Bonds are only required to ‘buy back’ national infrastructure from private enterprises.
Privatisation – The art of siphoning taxpayer money to the offshore accounts of the rich and infamous while reducing public infrastructure to a debt-ridden corpse run by mindless managers on extortionate salaries.
Thomas, I split it and added a few words which as you said works, but the reason why it had happened wasn’t apparent to me. So thanks for the info I know now 🙂
I agree with some of what you say regarding Corbyn and Sanders and how they were betrayed. But All profit under Nationalised industry is used to reduce costs to the public and to reinvest to improve services. It is a nation being self-sufficient and not being at the mercy of a profit-driven hostile market.
Profits from Privatisation go to shareholders and predominantly find their way out of our economy to offshore accounts for tax purposes. Failures in nationalisation in the UK were due to the Tories usual run down, underfund, create complex expensive management and admin. A routine they reuse in order to offer our taxpayer-funded industry to private finance for asset-stripping. Then when it all goes wrong we’re expected to bail them out again and again. While the rich bet against failing industries on hedge funds.
Privatisation is the polar opposite of nationalisation.
As for Socialism, it’s always subject to embargoes, sanctions, regime change from US assets etc. For example Libya was a socialist-style country they used ‘The Green System’. Gaddafi was essentially just a figurehead because he’d fought US imperialism all his life and was respected. Libya had no IMF debt, no international debt. Libya had $150 billion in reserves, 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver. Libya also created the world’s largest irrigation project. Having a house was a human right, each Libyan had a share in the country’s 50 billion barrels of oil and petrol was $0.14 per litre. Then Libya decided to create an African currency ‘The Dinar’ to challenge the petrodollar for oil sales in Africa and the Middle East. Many countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria all dropped the petrodollar for oil sales. America’s reaction wasn’t to legitimately compete in a capitalist system, they chose to invade to enforce regime change and to loot Libya’s gold, precious metals and oil. US Capitalism brought human trafficking and slavery to Libya and caused the death and migration of millions.
You could argue that. But it’s mostly misdirection using exceptions to the rule to disprove the rule. And capitalists improving the lifespan of their workforce for their own benefit vs a communal system of welfare provided by the people for the people. Tories voted down the NHS 21 times, Bevan fought tooth and nail for it.
The re-emergence of neoliberalism was Thatcher and Reagan’s baby. Thatcher then went for a Pinochet-inspired attack on the working class through culling production and legislation to deny workers’ rights and their power of representation. Blair is well known as Thatcher’s greatest legacy and not just because he used Thatcherite policies. The Overton window started shifting to the right at that point and now people like Bevan, Keir Hardie and Attlee would be considered extreme left, whatever the flock that means.
Yes, Beveridge and other liberals contributed to the ideas and arguments for the change in direction. Some capitalists did so too out of self-interest. But, it matters not. Labour used socialist policies via Social Democracy and the Marshall plan money to create a better society for us and fought every step of the way to make it happen. Sorry but I’m being sealioned by right-whingers on YT and so am trying to be concise.
