robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TRUE BLOCKHEAD: “No, I was merely pointing out that socialism and a state are not incompatible.”
If the state is essentially a class tool that a ruling class use to rule over an exploited class (according to socialist theory) and if socialism is a classless society (again, according to socialist theory)
then…
How could socialism and the state be compatible???
The existence of a state must imply the existence of classes and therefore the absence of socialism
Over to you TB…
SPOT THE CONTRADICTION…
AJ¨: “Any Marxist will tell you – from the surplus labour of the worker as per the Labour Theory of Value.”
TRUE BLOCKHEAD “No shit Sherlock, but that surplus wealth is at the disposal of the community as a whole when an enterprise is nationalised.”AND
AJ: “How do those rich people acquire their wealth? Again any Marxist will tell you. From the theft of labour of the workers according to the Labour Theory of Value.”
TRUE BLOCKHEAD: Newsflash! Water still wet, fire still hot.“in case you hadn’t noticed I don’t seriously agree with the claim. Nation states are a necessary evil. The Palestinians have no nation state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves. Ask the Somalis what it’s like having no state. Socialists can and do have states. Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea. But then again nothing you say makes much sense. Your thinking is as convoluted and confused as all the other blockheads in your little gaggle of a “party”.”
__________________________Well, perhaps as a virulent anti-socialist and pro-capitalist Putinist, you are not likely to be particularly familiar with the Marxist theory of the state, I guess. A State is an institutional tool by which one class rules over another. The existence of the state, therefore, presupposes the existence of classes. A classless society, therefore, presupposes the disappearance of the state. Comprende?
So no – socialists do NOT have or can NOT logically have “their state”. The existence of a state precludes socialism and vice versa. So-called “socialists” who have assumed state power in various parts of the world are merely the administrators of capitalism (aka the wages system) in those parts of the world. Their state can only, therefore, be a capitalist state (as opposed to, say, a feudal state) since the system they operate is a form of capitalism called state-administered capitalism, or “state capitalism”.
Laughably (or should that be, disingenuously) you say “Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea.” We have already explained several times where the idea comes from but as usual, you pay no attention. The Marxist position is pretty clear on this score. To quote Engels once again:
“The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital.” (Socialism; Utopian and Scientific)
If states are a “necessary evil” as you claim they are only a necessary part of operating and perpetuating a class-divided capitalist society which you apparently want to perpetuate yourself
You say in defense of this class institution called the state: “The Palestinians have no nation-state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves” LOL. And who, pray, do you think is “tearing them asunder” if not a state, (the Israeli state in this case) – the very institution you are so proud to defend!
You think “your” state will be different as far you are concerned insofar as it affords you protective shelter much like a mother hen, her chicks. How naive can you get? Capitalist states are hostile to the interests of the working class the world over and will always side with the interests of their domestic capitalists at the end of the day – as they must, and as capitalism itself dictates.
Amusingly, you earlier drew attention to the fact that the Ukrainian state has now inflicted compulsory conscription on Ukrainian workers in order to use them as cannon fodder in its capitalist war against Russian imperialism. Even by the pathetic logic of your own argument, the suggestion that states are needed to prevent lives from being torn asunder is surely a sick joke. The lives of millions of Ukrainian and Russian workers are currently being comprehensively “torn asunder” by their respective capitalist states. So much for your precious institution called the nation-state. As if it cares a flying fuck about you, you gullible fool
And you have the nerve to call socialists “blockheads”! It’s about time you took that ostrich head of yours from out of the sand in which it has been firmly wedged and have a serious good look at the world around you…
“And that is why you are an infantile ideologue. As long as nation states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own. Without it you’re a babe in the woods moments away from being torn to shreds by the wolves.”
………………………
You have to despair at the sheer inanity of this feeble attempt to justify the continuation of capitalism and its core institution, the nation-state. Having agreed with the principle that “The working men have no country” TS continues: ” as long as nation-states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own”. Who is the “your” in your sentence TS???
It cannot be the workers you have in mind if you seriously agree with the socialist claim that “workers have no country”. It is not us you are addressing but one group of capitalists vis a vis another. And that has been clear as daylight all along. You support one capitalist regime vis a vis another and therefore the indefinite continuation of capitalism itself. The very (il)logic of your own argument commits you to indefinitely resisting socialism as an alternative to capitalism, since according to you “As long as nation states exist” you will continue to need to support the nation-state and hence capitalism
In other words a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Instead of sneering at what you characterise as the “infantilism” of the socialist position it is in fact the ONLY mature and logical way out of the impasse of endless capitalist warmongering that your position commits you to
“This is not a war of competing capitalisms. For the US/NATOstan it is an imperialist war for markets and resources but for Russia it is an existential war of defense against said imperialist aggression. The very existence of the entity known as Russia is at stake.”
========================================Of course it is a war of competing capitalisms. Russia is a capitalist state as are its backers. Ukraine is a capitalist state as are its backers. The very existence of the nation-state itself is a capitalist construct. The expansionist dynamic built into capitalism that expresses itself in a latent or manifest tendency towards imperialism in the widest meaning of the term – if not in Lenin´s absurdly narrow meaning – is fully evident in this war. In Russia´s case, the territorial expression of this imperialist tendency was pretty much self-evident in the annexation of Crimea – a place of great strategic interest – and the resource-rich Donbas as well as, more obviously, in the invasion of Ukraine itself
All the other reasons for Russia´s imperialism – like Russia is engaged in an “existential war of defense against said imperialist aggression” or Russia wants to “denazify Ukraine” (when both regimes are pretty much similar in outlook) – are just the usual BS pretexts advanced by every capitalist government to garner the support of its populace. Ukraine is no different. It is demonstrably untrue that the Zelensky regime – a far-right repressive obnoxious regime if ever there was one – stands as some kind of beacon of “democracy” and “freedom ” against Russian despotism. Zelensky himself, like Putin, is a corrupt businessman along with being head of state of a corrupt regime
All of these feeble wishy-washy excuses put forward by the sociopathic warmongers on both sides are just pure idealist explanations for a phenomenon that really requires a solid materialistic explanation. They are an ideological smokescreen and about as connected with reality as British propaganda during WW1 depicting German soldiers bayoneting babies. War brutalises all who support one side or another and turns them all into Fascists of one kind or another
Some voices raised against the madness of this capitalist war. Its an uphill struggle against the warmongers on both sides
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/11/05/ukrainians-deserve-ceasefire-now
“Thought I’d look the World Anti-Imperialist Platform up. They seem to be a bunch of “Marxist-Leninists” as the Maoists now call themselves.”
______________________________________These people are as bad as the left-wing supporters of the “Ukrainian national liberation struggle against Russian imperialism”. It is deliciously ironic that they both base their ideas and language on the same discredited and absurdly narrow Leninist definition of imperialism. They both end up supporting one capitalist regime against the other – a clear demonstration of the fact that they have no intention of ever thinking of transcending capitalism itself. In other words, both sides are pro-capitalist and therefore against the interest of the working class.
This bunch of pro-capitalists explicitly attacks the socialist position that workers have no interest in taking sides in this capitalist war:
“We further believe it to be of prime importance that workers should push back against and expose the lie that they have ‘no side’ in this war, since it is between ‘two imperialist groupings’ that are both enemies of the working and oppressed masses. ”
I have yet to hear an even remotely plausible reason as to why it would benefit Russian workers (or Ukrainian workers for that matter) to heed the call of the capitalist regime they live under and fight for the so-called “national interests”
of this capitalist state. Where is the advantage to workers to risk losing their lives, becoming seriously maimed, or having their homes destroyed all for the sake of a piece of tacky cloth called a flag? It’s dumb beyond comprehensionIt’s not just nationalist supporters of the Russian regime that socialists criticise but equally nationalist supporters of the Ukrainian regime. It is surprising – or perhaps not that surprising – the extent to which swathes of the Left, seemingly the more Trotskyist-oriented, have chosen to identify with the cause of Ukraine while the Stalinists have tended to side with Russia. Both have succumbed to the toxic anti-working-class mental disease called nationalism
Here´s a piece by one such leftist supporter of Ukraine that glosses over the repugnant nature of the Ukrainian regime. It does, however, contain some interesting snippets of information. Like this for example:
“For instance, they could have spoken with renowned historian, sociologist, and author Boris Kagarlitsky, whom I interviewed in September 2022 about the political, economic, and social factors behind the invasion. Benjamin and Davies might have been surprised to hear Kagarlitsky explain that, while it’s self-evident that NATO expansion was imperialist, it’s also true that much of the U.S. motivation was rooted not in targeting Russia but in absorbing the post-Soviet militaries of Eastern Europe into NATO (along with their hardware) in order to use them in far-flung operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Poland and Ukraine rank fourth and fifth in combat deaths in Iraq, for example.”
“And what of you? A professed socialist who despises socialism. Member of an ineffectual and irrelevant “party” with a membership of loons, snowflakes, do nothings and intellectual guttersnipes.”
________________________________________LOL This from a declared nationalist supporter of a capitalist regime who understands next to nothing about socialism which he has repeatedly dismissed with contempt. If anyone is a loon, snowflake, and guttersnipe TS qualifies eminently for the job
“Don’t bother. You use Marx to undermine Marxism and birth liberals. Marx would have nothing but contempt for you. You’ve no interest in
changing the world otherwise you’d be furiously organising the working class in this time of capitalist crisis. Face it, you like things just the way they are.”
_____________________________This shows how pathetically little our Putin bootlicker understands about Marxism. Marx held that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. It is not up to a socialist political party to “organise” the working class . That is Leninist BS.
This comment is revealing for demonstrating yet again TS’s utter contempt for the working class (some of whom he would happily turn into “fertiliser” in true Nazi fashion) in support of the interest of the Russian capital warlord Putin against the equally repugnant Ukrainian capitalist warlord, Zelensky
“My, you are a bore. No one is arguing that parts of the Russian economy are not capitalist. With the betrayal of the USSR the capitalists had a field day. But since then they’ve been put in their place. The oligarchs no longer exercise singular control over the ship of state. Imperialism is not the Russian state’s reason for being.”
__________________________________________________Just as the old nomenklatura of the Soviet Union represented the Red bourgeoisie or state capitalist class so Putin today represents the modern capitalist or oligarch class in Russia. Putin himself is an oligarch and an extremely wealthy individual. It’s not the case that “oligarchs no longer exercise singular control over the ship of state”, Rather it is a case of some oligarchs closely allied with Putin have gained power at the expense of others
Talking of Gazprom I came across this:
“The market value of Gazprom, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange, peaked at $369 billion in May 2008. Now that investors have figured out that Gazprom is working for its contractors and asset-strippers rather than its shareholders, the company currently trades at $60 billion. That means Gazprom insiders have reduced its value by some $310 billion, which must qualify as either a case of epic bad management or one of the biggest heists of all time. Chief executive Alexei Miller, a former assistant to Putin, has held the job since May 2001, indicating that Putin is satisfied with his performance.
The next most notable claim about Putin’s wealth came from Sergei Kolesnikov, a junior partner of oligarch Nikolai Shamalov. Kolesnikov fled Russia because he feared for his life. He offered a long and detailed interview to the prominent Russian journalist Yevgeniya Albats in 2012. Kolesnikov, who was involved in this project, revealed that Putin was building a grand palace near the Black Sea resort of Sochi with state funds. Kolesnikov suggested that typically half of any crony business went to Putin and half to his chief partner, while junior partners received a few percent.
The irony is that Putin has undermined all property rights in Russia. Therefore, Putin and his cronies need to transfer their wealth to offshore havens. Otherwise, if they lose power in Russia, they will be instantly expropriated.
The Panama Papers, which Putin condemned in the starkest terms, offered further insights. According to the documents, one of Putin’s childhood friends, the cellist Sergei Roldugin, turned out to be a multi-billionaire, seemingly without knowing it. The biggest gift identified in the Panama Papers was $259 million that Roldugin received from the private Russian businessman Suleiman Kerimov, who was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in April 2018.
If the allegations are true, the picture is clear: Putin and his closest friends are looting the state and its assets, primarily Gazprom, on an extraordinary scale. My guesstimate is that Putin’s cronies have moved $15 billion to $25 billion a year out of the country since 2006. Over 13 years that would total $195 billion to $325 billion. Half of that amount would belong to Putin.
And it shows. The booklet “The Life of a Galley Slave,” authored in 2012 by Nemtsov and the activist Leonid Martynyuk, concluded that Putin had at his disposal 20 palaces, four yachts, 58 aircraft and a collection of watches worth about $700,000. Like so many other critics of the regime, Martynyuk has been forced to flee Russia.
But why does Putin need all this money? Because money is power in Russia. Only the richest can rule, so Putin needs to be the richest.
In all probability, Putin holds most of his wealth in Western countries with rule of law and deep financial markets and that allow anonymously owned companies. Yet this also makes him vulnerable. If the United States prohibited anonymous ownership and started demanding information about all ultimate beneficiary owners, it could make life very difficult for the Russian president.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/05/vladimir-putin-is-russias-biggest-oligarch/
I note that TS has wriggled out of answering a previous point I made in response to his attempt to justify the existence of profits in Russia. Of course, you cannot operate capitalism without an economic surplus or profits (signifying the exploitation of the working class) but, stupidly, TS criticized me for imagining that that is precisely what I suggested – that you could. The irony is that the video he posted in support of the actions of the Russian capitalist state actually featured some commentator asserting that entities like Gazprom don’t sell their stuff “in order to make a profit”.
Once again, TS emerges with egg all over his face having shot himself in the foot, to mix a few metaphors. It is the person in the video he should be criticizing, not me, for suggesting you could operate capitalism without the need to secure a profit
“Meaning a majority of the profits go towards the state to be spent on the Russian people”
—————————
LOL. this plonker imagines the capitalist state operates in the interest of the population at large and then has the audacity to count himself amongst the “actually existing socialists”.How difficult is it to explain to him that state ownership is NOT common ownership and that it is simply a form of class ownership? In the old soviet union, this was pretty clear for all to see. A small class -the nomenklatura – by virtue of its stranglehold on the state ownership owned and controlled the means of production. Ultimate control means the same thing as de facto control. The Soviet Union was an extremely unequal society with a GINI coefficient comparable to many western capitalist countries. State capitalism (and modern Russia is not even that by TSs own admission but rather a ´”mixed economy” like most other capitalist states) is no more geared to serve the interests of workers than private capitalism. private capitalism likewise has its obscurantist mythology e.g. the concept of the “stakeholder society”
!Lol. Anti-fascist is actually fascist. Anti-imperialist is actually imperialist. No doubt boy means girl and up means down. So very post-modernist of you all. Words don’t have meaning here. Purple not very tree symptom.”
_______________________________
Our pro-Putin snowflake continues not to see the point. Calling oneself an “anti-fascist” or an “anti-imperialist” does not make one so. There are self-declared fascists fighting for both Russia and Ukraine (and some of TS´s abhorrent comments are clearly fascistic in nature). Putin´s claim that he is waging this war to denazify Ukraine is about as credible as Zelensky´s claim that his obnoxious repressive regime is standing up for “freedom” and “democracy”. They are both remarkably similar in practice and outlook, its just the labels that are different
“This is what an ideological snowflake looks like. Yes, Gazprom makes a profit but the shareholders are the Russian people not a select group of capitalist investors. The idea that there can be no surplus to reinvest into an enterprise or to redistribute among the population is so asinine it beggars belief.”
_____________________________
True Nazi (our resident pro-Putin troll who thinks it is perfectly OK to turn little kids, amongst others, into “fertiliser” to advance the cause of Russian capitalism) now presumes to lecture us on economics. Talk about beggaring belief – it should be pointed out to this simpleton that nobody here has suggested there “can be no surplus to reinvest into an enterprise” etc. We live in a capitalist economy, after all, and Russian capitalist enterprises of course have to make a surplus to reinvest and survive in a global capitalist market.
However, I would point out to TN that it is not me that is saying that GAZPROM does not sell its commodities in order to make a profit but the person in the video he approvingly posted. (see post 239) That person clearly stated that entities like Gazprom don’t sell their stuff “in order to make a profit”. It’s hilarious. True Nazi is so muddled and confused he fails to see that it is that person he should be attacking, not me
The other point our snowflake makes is about the Russian people allegedly being the “shareholders” of Gazprom. Really? In what way are the “Russian people” shareholders of GAZPROM? Do tell us TN.
Meanwhile back in the real world, GAZPROM´S actual shareholders had other things on their mind:
“MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) – Gazprom (GAZP.MM) shareholders backed Russia’s biggest ever dividend payout totalling 1.208 trillion roubles ($21 billion) at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the state-controlled gas giant on Friday.
Shareholders backed an interim dividend of 51.03 roubles ($0.8921) per share, the gas producer said in a regulatory disclosure. Gazprom shareholders in June unexpectedly decided not to pay dividends on last year’s results, doing so for the first time since 1998.Dividends offer retail investors a way to profit at a time when Western sanctions have hit the value of Russian companies. VTB Moi Investitsii brokerage said retail investors may cash in some 144 billion roubles from the dividend.
“We expect the second-half 2022 dividend may reach some 10.3 roubles (per share) with dividend yield of 4.7% due to exports decline,” it said.”TN seems to think that state-owned industries are somehow owned by the “people”. Proof if proof were needed as to just how clueless this individual is about either capitalism or socialism. I will leave him with one final quote from Engels which should put the record straight
“The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
