robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting commentary from an interview with an underground journal in Kharkov in Ukraine. Apart from socialists and a few others, there are not many who oppose this sordid capitalist war and its capitalist protagonists on both sides – imperialist Russia and its backers on the one hand and Ukraine and its own imperialist backers in the West. It’s encouraging to see that at least some people are questioning this state of affairs and hopefully also the BS ideology of putrid nationalism…
_________________________________-“Since the summer of last year, spontaneous anarchism has noticeably increased among the masses – many already believe that the choice between two right-wing Latin American dictatorships is not a choice. This has significantly increased the popularity of our website – news about military and police brutality is now easily gaining thousands and thousands of views.
…
What do you think about the Zelensky government?
We live in a military dictatorial regime, similar to Russia in the 2000s, but rapidly approaching the current one, therefore, in such conditions, the only real ways of social resistance remain mutual information and evasion or boycott (this is not only about mobilization, but also, for example, about companies that do not pay wages using the wartime conditions. The conscripts are now more and more behaving like street guerrillas: they saw a military patrol with subpoenas – they crossed to the other side of the road, lay down behind the curb, crawled under parked cars and left by the yards. It is sad that the whole city, where now there is about a million people, is afraid of several hundred camouflaged “postmen”, but until the Russian army turns its bayonets against own power, radical social struggle in Ukraine is practically suicidal. And everyone understands this.”
“Interesting that people in South Africa, on hearing the case for real socialism, should react by saying that that’s like how the Bushmen used to live”
_________________________________Talking of the San (“Bushmen” is regarded as a derogatory word these days) I came across this which is interesting
“Mutual Aid and the Foraging Mode of Thought: Re-reading Kropotkin on the Khoisan”
Robbo – I don’t know this guy’s work but his objections are probably ideological i.e. irrational. Scratch a liberal and you usually find a reactionary underneath.
—————————
Maybe so Wez but all the same, it is interesting this objection he raises – the so-called “scaling up” problem with the implication that while “socialism” can work on a small scale face-to-face basis (e.g. a commune) it cannot work for a large scale society. Frederich Engels cited the example of the religious communities of North America as proof positive of the practicality of communism (socialism). What this guy is saying and many others have said, is that on the contrary, socialism cannot be scaled up.
I would like to know what is it that lies behind this argument that leads people like him to come to this conclusion. What is it about socialism that they think prevents it from being implementable on a large scale?
Dealing with this argument effectively I think involves developing a kind of anthropology of a future socialist society. Sometimes we tend to send out mixed messages. Is establishing and operating a socialist society a question of self-interest? Or altruism? Or both? I think it is both myself (you cannot logically talk about the self-interest of the working class since “self-interest” pertains to particular individuals, not collectivities, so to that extent, class solidarity entails altruism).
In clarifying this we might better be able to get to grips with the “scaling up” objection to socialism which ranks alongside the economic calculation argument and the human nature argument as the principal objections to socialism
“The closest society to true socialism then was the ancient San of the Kalahari. There was no private ownership for example of say an ostrich egg or anything else. One took what one needed ( a gazelle) without over consuming. If one needed something you crafted it, for example a bow and arrow, which then was shared when others needed it. So it can and did work for 10 000 years or more with small clans of 10 or 20 people. What it lacks is progress though. And it could never work with 60 million people.”
_________________________
Well, clearly, Ivo cannot then use the argument that socialism is “against human nature” because if hunter-gatherer groups like the San are representative of our paleolithic past – that is to say, over 95% of our existence – then you could argue that if anything socialism is the expression of our human nature, far more so than say capitalism which is only a few hundred years old. Except, of course, we don’t really say “socialism is just human nature” like the exponents of “capitalism say is in our human nature”. What we do say is that our human nature shows us to be a highly adaptable species capable of living under a wide variety of social arrangements including capitalism and socialism and much more besides…
Which begs the question – why then does Ivo say socialism cannot work for 60 million people?
This refers to what is called the “scaling up” problem. Socialistic or communistic relations are feasible on a small scale characterized by face-to-face interactions – like the family unit or a commune – but not, goes the argument, on a large scale among complete strangers. I have never really understood what it is about the fact that socialism is a large-scale society that makes it impractical. What are the people who make this kind of argument actually assuming about socialism? Are they saying for socialism to work relations between members of a socialist society have to be face to face – or direct – otherwise society will simply collapse? But the argument doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
People who argue along these lines fall back on concepts such as Dunbar’s number named after the British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, who are argued that there cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships – about 150. Beyond that, you need more impersonal mechanisms – like the market – to mediate and coordinate large numbers of people.
Granted a socialist society, being a global society, will be one in which everyone in that society will be technically a “stranger” to almost everyone else. But why is this a problem? I don’t see this as being a problem at all. If we can characterize a socialist society as a system of generalized reciprocity without any quid pro exchanges then are plenty of examples of large-scale pro-social behaviour involving strangers.
The Internet itself has been compared to a gift economy. There are other examples such as the custom of hospitality towards strangers such as practiced by people living in harsh environments like the Bedouin or the Inuit. This is not entirely altruistic. There is an element of enlightened self-interest involved insofar as you never know when you might have to rely on the hospitality of strangers next time you find yourself stuck in a desert running out of water. You will thank your lucky stars that the local culture is one that values hospitality towards strangers.
It does not really matter whether the population is 6 million, 60 million, 600 million, or 6 billion. It’s the principle that counts. Are you willing to in effect cooperate with complete strangers you will never get to meet to provide for your and their means of subsistence? Of course, you will. Gawd, if people today succumbing to the mental disease of nationalism are willing to give their lives for the “imaginary community” that is the capitalist Nation State, they sure as hell won’t have any problem cooperating with each other globally to sure their own mutual benefit!
Protests against plans to reform the Judiciary in Israel
Lizzie
I am not taking it upon myself to chastise others on this forum. I am merely pointing out that the time has perhaps arrived for the moderator himself now to do some chastising in the case of this particular individual whose behaviour is completely unacceptable
Well, I guess it’s probably not worth trying to get into a debate with this individual, TS, whoever he is. I’m not quite sure why he is even on a socialist forum anyway seeing as he is so hostile to socialism.
I would only add that if you are going to make some outrageous claim about an individual the onus is on you to prove it, not the individual who the claim is about it. TS has said “Notice All-in hasn’t denied his friendship with the CIA” but is not willing to provide any supporting evidence to back up this slur. Quite rightly it needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves – like a lot of other things this individual has said
“Notice All-in hasn’t denied his friendship with the CIA? Come on All-in, fess up. Don’t keep Bojo’s half brain waiting.”
_____________________Come on TS, fess up and provide us with a precise link where Alan suggested such a thing. Knowing what a dolt you are you probably mistook a tongue-in-cheek joke for an actual sentiment
lol. TS You get dumber and dumber with every post. I literally told you that your use of the expression Waffen SS was obviously code for your claim that what Russia was fighting against was a Nazi regime. But you still didn’t get it. And no I did NOT “mean to tell me the Nazis didn’t lose in 1945”, you silly sausage. Gawd you are so slow on the uptake. I’m talking about the ideology of Nazism that the Waffen SS embodied. Do you know what I mean by ideology?
Oh well never mind – there is nothing one can do if you are so determined to remain stupid
And yes I know there are one or two overtly fascist battalions fighting for the Ukrainian regime. There may not be any overtly fascist battalions on the Russian side but, I suggest, you don’t need to call yourself a fascist in order to be one. The Wagner group, for example, certainly exhibits some of the hallmarks of a fascist group. Besides, there are self-declared fascists fighting on the Russian side as well.
But this still doesn’t answer my main point – what is it about Russia that makes it “not fascist” but that Ukraine has that makes it “fascist”? Saying that the latter venerates some ultra-nationalist who was also a fascist is not a good enough answer, I am afraid (Putin and other high-ranking figures in the Russian government, also venerate a fascist in the form of Putin`s ideological mentor, Iván Aleksándrovich Ilyín. Nor is the fact that the Ukrainian regime muzzles its opponents a good enough answer. So does Russia and this is undeniable. See for example this
Both the Russian and Ukrainian regimes as I’ve said countless times are authoritarian right-wing oligarchies remarkably similar in character. If one is “fascist” then so must be the other…
Lastly, you say I “hate all socialists and socialist governments and you have no respect for the truth.” Gawd, you are truly thick. Do you know what Marxian socialism stands for? Are people who advocate this not socialist? Do I hate my comrades in the SPGB for advocating this?
Of course, I am fully aware there are organizations – and countries – that claim to be “socialist”. I don’t “hate” them but I do oppose them because what they are actually supporting is a form of capitalism, not Marxian socialism.
The funny thing about all this is that Russia does not even claim to be socialist yet you support it. You identify fully with the cause of Russian capitalism and you are an unapologetic nationalist and craven supporter of this capitalist regime. What more needs to be said on the matter?
“Serious question. Which side are you talking about? The Russian military or the Ukrainian military? It could be either by your logic.”
I don’t know how much clearer to say it. T-H-E W-A-F-F-E-N S-S. Clear enough now?”
_____________________LOL it seems you wouldn’t know how to argue your way out of a paper bag, let alone cope with a serious debate with seasoned socialists. Let´s run through this argument once again, kid, so your simple mind might just be able to wrap itself around the rudiments…
You don’t obviously literally think the Waffen SS is involved in the Ukrainian conflict – or perhaps you do seeing as you’re such a “dopey twit”, you’ve might have got the wars and the dates mixed up. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion and assume that you are only using the expression, “Waffen SS”, as code for “Nazi”. In your little mind, the Ukraine conflict is all about the wonderful humanitarian Russian military doing its “duty” and facing up to the evil fascist regime of Zelinsky and its degenerate Western backers.
So I ask you once again for the umpteenth time- you’ve constantly evaded this question, haven´t you? – what is the difference between the Zelinsky regime and the Putin regime that would allow you to say the former is a fascist regime and the latter is not? Both regimes are remarkably similar in their political character. Yes yes yes I know the Ukrainian armed forces have self-identifying fascists (Banderites) fighting for it. But so has the Russian side (and as I have pointed out, Putin himself is an admirer of the Russian fascist ideologue, Iván Aleksándrovich Ilyín).
But having some fascists supporting your side does not necessarily make your regime a fascist one, does it? You could much more plausibly argue that the repellent authoritarian regime of Zelensky (a Jew, BTW) is simply making use of the relatively small number of overt fascists in the ranks of its military. After all, fascists are ultra-zealous nationalists and the regime has an interest in promoting the putrid ideology of nationalism -as do you
……………
“You ain’t a socialist and don’t speak for socialists. How did socialists stop the SS? They defeated them on the battlefield.”
………………How am I not a socialist? I advocate for, and fully endorse, Marxian socialism: the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production. You don´t. You are a craven supporter of Russian capitalism. Your problem is you haven’t got a clue what socialism is. I imagine you think the Nazis were socialist cuz they called themselves the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”…
——————————
“Erm and the Holocaust ended. Real world consequences resulted from that defeat you dopey twit.
————–LOL, this from the dopey twit who characterizes the present war as a fight against the “Waffen SS” yet tells us that “Waffen SS” was defeated in 1945. You are endlessly amusing in your rank stupidity, TS
More on the relationship between Putin and his fascist mentor, Iván Aleksándrovich Ilyín…..
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-putins-views
“Actually, no. That’s not what they’re “both” doing. The Russians are engaged in warfare against the army of a fascist regime. The army of a fascist regime, unfortunately including the unlucky conscripts, is not “innocent”. It is the instrument of fascist violence and oppression. Resisting such a force is one’s duty. Unless, of course, you’re physically unable or a coward.”
___________________________________If Ukraine is a fascist regime then so too is Russia. There is little to choose between them. They are both repellent, right-wing authoritarian oligarchies.
There are, of course, fascists involved in the Ukraine war but they can be found on both sides of the conflict. Indeed there is a strong case for saying that Putin himself (and certainly that nutjob Medvedev, his sidekick) is a fascist or a fascist sympathiser, soft on fascism. Putin´s ideological mentor is Iván Aleksándrovich Ilyín – a promoter of “Russian Christian fascism”. See this fascinating youtube video
————————————-
“Putin is not a “capitalist warlord”. He is the president of the Russian Federation.”
—————————————He is both. He is a capitalist parasite and represents the interest of the Russian capitalist parasite class. Here´s a random link about his (mostly hidden) wealth
—————————–
“In the name of nationalism the deluded worker killed the madman threatening the infant with an axe. Erm, no. Stopping he madman with the axe is always the right thing to do.”
—————————-Your analogy is laughable and asinine. A more accurate description would be two axe-wielding mad men trying to kill each other, each caring nothing about the fate of the random infant who happens to have gotten in the way
—————————————-
“How? They have artillery, missiles, tanks aircraft and machine guns. They’re the Waffen SS. They’re on a tear. How you gonna stop them? “Urging”? Tell me, how you gonna urge the Waffen SS to stop? Serious question.”
—————————————-Serious question. Which side are you talking about? The Russian military or the Ukrainian military? It could be either by your logic.
I don’t pretend there is much that can be done under the present circumstances given the extent to which workers on both sides have succumbed to the putrid and disgusting ideology of nationalism. Socialists are few in number. We have little influence. But the socialist approach of refusing to fight in capitalism´s wars is still the ONLY approach that makes any sense. “Armed struggle” is just a recipe for tens or even hundreds of thousands of our fellow workers getting killed. Is that what you call a “solution”? Also, armed struggle is no way to eliminate fascism. If anything it breeds a fascist mentality in all but name
…….
“Actually, they do solve problems. Defeating the Waffen SS in battle is the only way you can actually stop their rampage. The application of violence does solve problems. ”
…………BS. The Waffen SS may have been defeated in battle but has the ideology it espoused disappeared? No, it has not. Right-wing ultra-nationalism is alive and well. Oddly enough you claim Ukraine is a fascist regime. How could that possibly have come about if fascism was defeated in the second world war?
—————–
““There are indications that significant numbers of Russian soldiers are questioning the very purpose of their mission in Ukraine.”Rubbish. Provide a link. Nothing sourced to Ukraine or western MSM is acceptable.”
……………………https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-war-the-wives-left-behind-by-russian-deserters/a-63568056
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-searching-soldiers-abandoning-war-en-masse-ukraine-1769993
“What is one to do when “workers” go rampaging about slaughtering the innocent.”
—————————————
The thing is this is EXACTLY what BOTH sides in this sordid capitalist war are doing and yet you are asking us to support the imperialist Russian side against Ukraine and its imperialist backers. Socialists don’t support capitalist warlords like Putin or Zelensky. War itself brutalises people and turns them into fascists. In the name of a putrid nationalism, deluded workers give their lives to the cause of their respective capitalist ruling classes
What is one to do? The only thing any decent human being would want to do. Stop the war and urge the combatants on both sides – fellow members of the working class – to lay down their arms. There are indications that significant numbers of Russian soldiers are questioning the very purpose of their mission in Ukraine. Good. The same needs to be happening on the Ukraine side. The utter stupidity of fighting for the right to plant a particular flag on a particular patch of land needs to be made crystal clear.
Socialists can’t do much against the overwhelming forces of national chauvinism and reactionary capitalism but at least what we are doing makes sense. Your recipe, on the other hand, will ensure that a legacy of hatred towards fellow workers who happen to live under another capitalist regime to yours will endure for generations. Wars don’t solve problems. They create them
“Isn’t it strange that our message is received by the American right-wing (recall the Fox TV repetition of one of our tweets) but not by the American Left who persist in ignoring ourselves?”
—————–I guess it must be discomforting for them to come across a socialist organisation fiercely critical of the usual mantras of left-wing capitalism. They are just not accustomed to the experience and it clearly flummoxes them. So they fall back on the standard feeble argument that socialism has been tried as in Venezuela etc and has failed.
My response is to say if that is socialism then I am opposed to socialism but it has nothing to do with what was classically meant by socialism. You will note that the more knowledgeable of them will tend to cite evidence such as the ten reformist planks in the Communist Manifesto to support their claim that what exists in Venezuela etc is “socialism”. They forget that Marx and Engels were talking about a (still) capitalist society in which these reforms were intended to be implemented. They also forget that M & E later more or less disowned what they had written in the Manifesto in 1848 (see the German preface for example) because circumstances had changed by then – the 1870s onwards
