KAZ
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wikipedia has a page entitled “Uyghur genocide” but strangely enough doesn’t list any deaths on “Lists of genocides by death toll”. what a peculiar omission – and quite unique. much as we all hate state capitalism (although china hasn’t been state capitalist since 2004 or so), piggybacking on new cold war propaganda is daft.
i would say that genocide here is applied in the same way that antisemitism is applied to critics of israel.
absolutely, ALB. it’s obviously one of those new cold war campaigns. what’s interesting, and overlooked, is the economic aspect. china has just mechanised cotton production in the area, putting vast numbers out of work. no wonder the locals are pissed!
we’re getting there old bhoy, we’re getting there. orban and erdogan and trump have got their personality cults, rather more than that boring little suit xi. mass rallies – yanks have always had those, over hear that “door step clapping” is pretty fascistic if you ask me. internment camps – little mex children and immigrants not good enough? single party – they may as well be. single ideology – consumerism is pretty much dominant.
perhaps the comparison is not with the hardcore fascists of yesteryear but with the (de/e)volved red fascism of today. a convergence towards illiberal democracy. preserving the form of democracy, to placate the guardian reading liberal, but in reality sharing many of the characteristics that one would associate with undemocratic regimes.
cheers for calling me an anarchist by the way. i’m a very bad anarchist. sloppy, lazy and pedantic, i am a natural spugubber. alas there are limits even for supersloth.
aren’t i paraphrasing marx? i’m sure he said something like that. zounds like a quote anyway. hope it’s not vlad the impaler.
thing is, it’s getting to the stage where the liberal democracy we grew up with is becoming indistinguishable from its supposed opposite – red or ordinary brown fascism. how do you feel about being spied on more thoroughly than the stasi? and what about priti’s demo ban? – even the nazis didn’t go that far.
not kronstadt but linking the woman question back to that time period. when i visited berlin for the centenary of rosa luxemburg’s death (i skipped the vigil – too damn cold) there was a city wide exhibition about the revolution. an especial emphasis was put on the granting to women of the rite (sic) to vote. sod the fact that they’d killed a woman. if rosa had been pretty, like sarah everhard, the forces of thw state would have raped her first. now that’s what women’s liberation through capitalism looks like. there might be no laws but you bet there’s state oppression. because the rule of law, democracy, civil society is a thin veil over the brutal reign of capital.
well i believe women are now allowed to drive in saudi. But since the status of women is now much worse in afghanistan and iran than it was 40 years when the economies of those countries were much less developed, would it not be fair to conclude that the case for capitalism brings social change is much more tenuous than one might expect.
P Abelard: are you a member? because you’re the only one here who sounds like one. absolutely agree with you about sports. it’s a problem of capitalism with its ethos of winning and achievement. this whole issue is grounded in capitalism and its stereotypes and expectations.
well, old bhoy, i’m talking about gender specifically in regards to *socialism*.
personally, i’m quite happy to snog anything that moves (ideally slow moving as i’m very lazy). and i’ve always fancied wearing a dress and high heels (not got the legs though).
but my personal predilections have nothing to do with my politics. one makes suitable placatory noises and moves on to the real issues of class.
of course, a safe space for misogynists would be as welcome as a safe space for femmoids.
although since you were originally peddling a voluntaristic line (russians didn’t want socialism, therefore they have to have capitalism), calling anarchism voluntaristic is a bit rich.
i’d go by the original deterministic spgb line (russia is not properly capitalist, therefore it can’t be socialist). except the logical conclusion from that is gulag. followed by poisoner putin.
capitalism only leads to more capitalism should be what we learn from history.
what’s more, development makes socialism less likely to be achieved. you only have to look at the working class in britain or america to see that. totally brainwashed. incapable of taking positive action.
mmm…that there was some desire for something other than state capitalism or private capitalism in russia during that time is surely incontestable. one wouldn’t like to say majority, but local majorities? sure. was it physically possible? we’ll never know because the leninists made sure their way was the only way. more private was unlikely since all the cappies had run away to america to write trashy porn (“oh mister roark you hunk of entrepreneurial dobadness, do me hard over this heap of share certificates”). however, enough with the historical speculation.
part two: interestingly indeterminate. you’re mister spgb. you’re supposed to have all the answers. i guess my answer is the same as previous. start how you mean to go on. the grand scheme is fine but it depends on people being able to act independently at a local level. democratic control don’t mean nothing if there’s the old managerial structure. this has the possibility of encouraging people to break out of consumerist dependency. plus i wanna walk around in a muumuu.
instead of saying “I’m not sure” i thought i was being more definite. socialists should not take a position one way or another. one pats the various identitarian factions on the head, sympathises greatly with their real or imagined problems. and gets on with socialism. or whatever passes for it.
yes, well, everyone fucks me off. morality mongering weasels especial.
