TrueScotsman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“you are an apologist for a despotic murderous military regime”
That’s pretty rich coming from a “socialist” who calls the CIA a “friend”. As usual you mistake an analysis of reality for support for one or other government. Pointing out that the US is behind the violence in Myanmar is not a declaration of support for the government of Myanmar. You however clearly do support the terrorists who are targeting schools. Alan enemy of schooling. Marx would be so proud of you.
“but for most Burmese, the misery continues”
The opposition is responsible for the misery. Their terrorists are bombing and burning down schools. As usual, Alan has no idea what he’s talking about.
“Hear yourself, for goodness sake.
And you have the audacity to throw about the word
racism when you have just exposed yourself as
utterly unconcerned by settler colonialism because
they don’t count because they are no longer as
numerous as the invaders.”You are funny. You talk of Taiwan belonging to the tiny fraction of indigenous people as though everyone else should exit the island. You’d have them run an industrial society all on their own? You think there are enough of them with the expertise to run the power stations, airports, sewerage treatment plants, train network, ports, banks, etc? You’d allow all the empty houses, factories and all other infrastructure to crumble around them? Spare me your faux outrage. Communism brings uplift to marginalised groups. Your pathetic attempts to label me racist are just that, pathetic. Lol
“Would you say such things to the First Peoples of
America? To the Aborigines and Maoris? To the
Hawaiians? The adivasi of India? To the
Palestinians in Israel?”Palestine-Israel does not belong on your list. The Palestinians are the majority of the population and the colonisation happened within our lifetimes. But what are you saying, Alan? That everyone else should just pick up sticks and leave? And where would they all go? You want 350 million homeless Americans to descend on Britain? Listen to yourself. Lol
“I never suggested the deportation of settlers. You
made a claim for Taiwan being “rightfully” a
province of Mainland China and
I showed that the Han, regardless of politics,
hold no claim to Taiwan other than as conquerors”No claim? Really? They’ve had a claim there longer than many countries have existed, including my own.
“and that it is bombastic jingoism for the PRC to
assert sovereignty over Taiwan.”No, it is recognised under international law as part of China. I appreciate that you don’t care much for international law but most people in the world do.
“Should the UK insist that the Irish Republic still be British?”
That’s a matter for the Irish and British to resolve.
“As for numbers, TS. I count only one of you. When
asked to name any political party you would
consider comrades, you came up with absolute zero.
Zilch. Not one organisation could you name that
you would join or attach yourself to.”Sure, but I have allies in the hundreds of millions because I’m not busily alienating every socialist on earth. How many allies do you have? Only Trotskyists? Oh, that’s right, you hate them too. You got no one. How’s the view from oblivion? BTW Is it white or black there?
“Why else other than being a lonely outsider should
you devote your time and energy to this forum?”Because I can. Why else?
“Perhaps it is if we accept you live in Japan and
are unable to speak the language, you suffer from
isolation and even this little contact compensates
your alienation.”Not at all. I’m blessed with a family, friends and ample free time. It’s just that I enjoy playing with you like a cat does a mouse.
“This website is devoted to taking a shit on world socialism.”
There, fixed it for you.
“We have no interest in nation-states or in their rivalries and squabbles. We are not nationalists nor patriots. In both world wars, members of this organisation were required to either go on the run to avoid compulsory military conscription or they were sent to labour camps – Yes, Britain had its form of gulags, too.”
So your cowardly comrades left it to the brave Soviets to kill 8 out of 10 Nazis. How honorable of them.
“Taiwan is a province of China…There is only one China…”
“What surprised me is your support for nationalism. What does it matter to you if the ROC remains separate or if it becomes part of the PRC?”
It doesn’t matter to me. It matters to the Chinese.
“Why are you so emotionally attached to the idea of unification?”
I have no emotional attachment to the idea. The Chinese do. Why are you so emotionally attached to the idea that the quisling marionettes ruling Taiwan should be allowed to declare independence?
“What concern is it of you if a region chooses self-determination?”
It doesn’t concern me. It concerns the Chinese. What concern is it of yours?
“But to return to your own national chauvinist beliefs.”
Lol. What are those, exactly?
“You don’t mention that the indigenous inhabitants of Taiwan have been dispossessed and oppressed for hundreds of years.”
Not by the communists.
“If any group has a claim to Taiwan it is those people, the original Taiwanese, ethnically very different from the Han.”
Right, and everyone in the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand should return to Britain. Lol
“These islanders have been subject to colonisation and invasion by the Dutch, the Mainland Han, the Japanese and then the Kuomintang army.”
Not by the communists. And how many people are we talking about? A few tens of thousands? A couple hundred thousand?
“As world socialists, our interest extends to every industry and every country. What happens to the workers anywhere is the business of us here.”
Yeah, right. Your only concern is that their socialist experiments fail. Because you are naval gazers. You do nothing but snipe from the side lines.You will never make any mistakes because you do nothing. As Homer Simpson says, “If you try and fail, why try?”. Sums up you mob perfectly.
“We are not at all worried about the accusation that we are “poking our noses” into matters that do not concern us.”
I count 6 of you. No one gives a toss about you. Your sense of self importance is pretty impressive though. If there was a prize for that, you’d be in the running.
“However, your position is very much different. You don’t take the side of your class but support particular governments.”
The governments that are representatives of my class. But I don’t expect you to understand the nuance.
“I think you don’t quite comprehend the Marxist conception of authority”
And I don’t think you understand reality. I think I know which I’d prefer to understand.
“We defer to the knowledge, skills and experience of others. We take doctors advice even if sometimes we seek a second opinion.”
Yet you ignore history. So no, you don’t defer to knowledge.
“I have already said that the biggest mistake has been having made the revolution, the masses permit the politicians and intellectuals to usurp and co-opt it for their own interests and agenda. It demonstrates that the level of consciousness has not been achieved.”
You’d have preferred the tsars remained in power then, or the fascists? Thankfully you weren’t around to have any influence on events.
“Elitists like yourself”
Yeah, I’m the elite. Lol
“reinforce the bourgeois thinking that workers cannot liberate themselves and require a saviour from a-high for their salvation”
No, they do it together.
“Blanqui said, “Revolutions must take place in the mind before they can be carried out on the streets.””
Blah blah said blah blah, masturbation society blah blah! Ahhhh, I’ve cum!
“As Gandhi once supposedly have said, “There goes my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.””
Gandhi was racist, a member of the petty bourgeoisie, supporter of British imperialism in WW1, friend of the capitalist class and a pedophile. You might want to distance yourself from him, Alan. Lol
“The Left has always assumed that there will be counter-revolution by the threatened ruling class.”
Erm, because that’s what has happened every time throughout history.
“We do not dismiss such a rear-guard action by the ruling class as impossible but in the key countries, we consider such a counter-revolution as unlikely because our strategy is based upon a majoritarian principles as the CM explains.”
Then you are ignoring history. Anyone who believes a counter-revolution “unlikely” is a fool ignorant of history. Such fools, having overthrown the ruling class will shortly be dead/imprisoned/tortured unless they prepare against the certainty of counter-revolutionary violence.
“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.”
What happened in Germany? Huge socialist/communist movement in a vicious war of annihilation against fascist reaction. Fascists 1- Socialists-nil.
“Our goal is a volutarist society which leads to the conclusion that the means cannot be coercive.”
Then you will fail. The fascists will sooner shoot you than give up their place in the hierarchy or allow you to deny them a return to their place in the hierarchy.
“That is a very difficult concept for you to accept, I know that.”
It is, because it is fantasy. I don’t deal in a world of fairy tales. I deal in the real world where socialism’s mortal enemy, fascism, actually exists. In your playschool cosplays your only enemies are rainbow fairies (and real socialists).
“The SPGB reject ALL forms of minority action to attempt to establish socialism, which can only be established by the working class when the majority have come to want and understand it.”
So never then?
“Without a socialist working class, there can be no socialism.”
Well, thankfully, just about every socialist on the planet disagrees with you. While you naval gaze they build socialism in the real, actually existing world.
“The establishment of socialism can only be the conscious majority, and therefore democratic, act of a socialist-minded working class. In many of the so-called revolutionary situations in the past that majority did not exist within the working class.”
So you’ll just wait forever? Great strategy. Have fun with that. Oblivion…how’s the view?
“Can we prove that achieving socialism requires little bloodshed? The SPGB has perhaps the most thought out argument for maintaining that there is all possibility that socialism can be achieved by little violence.”
Then you know nothing of history. What do they say? Doomed to repeat it and all…
“So far, it has been a matter of the Socialist Party unfortunately saying “we told you so”
Huh? You said they couldn’t win socialism but they have and you think you’re right? You gotta start taking your meds Alan, they will help, I promise.
“But we are a miserable lot of gloom and doom merchants”
Wow, something we can agree on. Finally, never thought the day would come.
“but again at same time, we are rosy eyed optimists too in our views that the workers are fully capable of eventually understanding socialism and organising for it with the minimum of social disruption and upheaval and chaos, normally associated with revolution.”
Because of counter-revolution. A threat you dismiss despite history showing it will emerge every single time.
“The SPGB position is that we deem it as very unlikely that the capitalist class would be capable of resisting socialism violently and have argued that in my posts.”
Tell Hitler that, tell Mussolini that, tell Suharto that, tell every American President since 1917 that, tell Pinochet that, tell the Colombian death squads that, and on and on. You are delusional.
“if the people effectively withhold their consent, even the strongest of regimes can collapse.”
Or, they can exterminate, imprison, drive out and terrify you into inaction. See examples above.
“Without the consent of the working class – either their active support or their passive acquiescence the ruling class would have little power and little basis for rule.”
The socialist governments you condemn all had the support of the majority of their working classes.
“The only place violence comes into the revolutionary process is to defend the new revolutionary system from attack by the ancien regime.”
The only violence in which we should engage is that which is reasonably necessary in self defence”
But you’ll need leaders to organise that defence. You don’t believe in leaders. You can not square the circle.
“Although we always have the right to use reasonable force in self defence, it is sometimes the wiser course not to exercise that right. Sometimes it’s better to take the hit and make our enemy pay by exposing them publicly.”
Right, I’m sure Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet et al were all wounded by the exposure. Lol
“This can be especially effective when the perpetrator has a reputation to uphold. And sometimes the best response to violence is not counter-violence.”
Well, you can frog march off to the soccer stadium for your date with the executioner’s bullet, I think I’ll take my chances shooting back.
“We take damage because the use of force encourages the authoritarian idea that might makes right.”
Expropriating the power and wealth of the ruling class is inherently authoritarian. They’re not going to give everything up voluntarily. They’ll use all the resources at their disposal to prevent it from happening; not least of all counter-revolutionary violence. You’re not cut out for the struggle Alan. You are ignorant of history, a defeatist and coward. A traitor to the cause. Friend of the CIA no less. Why don’t you just join the fascist team wholeheartedly? You’ve already got one foot in the door.
“It disorients people on our side and entrenches our opponents in their positions. The more force we have to use in the course of the Revolution to prevail, the more difficult will be our problems afterwards.”
Well, Alan, if winning power isn’t the goal then this sport isn’t for you. I suggest joining a mutual masturbation society. That way, everyone’s a winner!
“If we must use force in self defence, then let us do it without hesitation and with all vigour necessary to prevail in the concrete situation. But let us not use force to substitute for having insufficient numbers on our side, because that is a confession of political weakness.”
Who’s going to organise and lead that “force”? You don’t believe in leaders.
“What defeated the attempted Kapp Putsch in Germany 1920. The trade unions did. They downed tools. Folded arms rather than taking to arms is an option.”
And how many of them were rotting away in concentration camps 13 years later?
“We do not envisage a Red Army or Workers’ Militia but that by holding constitutional power we state clearly in our Declaration of Principles Clause 6”
Which is why you are fools and will never win power. Safe from the dirty work of actually exercising authority you can naval gaze, scold and castigate to your heart’s content. You will never make any mistakes because you will never do anything. How self-congratulatory the head that doesn’t wear the crown.
“including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”
But who will lead the military, Alan? You don’t believe in leaders.
“The working class in possession of the State holds the ability of force to ensure the capitalist class gives up its position of privilege.”
No shit Sherlock. But it also needs leaders. There are no historical precedents anywhere of large, complex societies existing without them. And you certainly can’t organise the defence of such a society without military leaders. That’s history. It can’t be ignored.
Still no answer, eh Alan? This is comical. I’ll ask yet again! How are your lot going to deal with counter-revolutionary violence? How? How? How? How? How? How?
This video seems made about you lot. It’s title, “The Uselessness of the Western Left”. Enjoy.
“This forum was created in order to learn, discuss and study the socialist party case”
That’s precisely what I’m doing right now. I’m trying to learn what is your strategy for combating the inevitable counter-revolutionary violence. Instead I hear there will be none, Lol, or I’m insulted. Why won’t anyone directly answer the question?
Here’s what I think. You won’t answer the question because you cannot deny you need leaders to organise military violence. You can’t run an army in which every decision is run through committees of soldiers. It just wouldn’t work. You’d be destroyed by the side that doesn’t do that. Instead of facing this reality you obfuscate. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
“All the adults are in the room but we have a nasty child playing in the backyard”
The lunatics in the insane asylum don’t count. I mean the competent adults.
So not one off you clowns is capable of answering my very simple question? I’ll ask it again then. How does the revolution defend itself against the inevitable counter-revolution?
You’ll need leaders for that. You despise leaders therefore you will not be able to defend your revolution. Have I got that right?
“I think the real point is that many social
revolutions have been relatively peaceful.”I wasn’t arguing about the revolution, I was arguing about the counter-revolution. Those are never “relatively peaceful”.
“The fall of the Shah in Iran”
What followed? Sanctions and the bloodletting of the Iran-Iraq war sponsored by the US of A. Millions upon millions dead. As we speak the US is still sanctioning Iran and just a couple years back Trump was threatening to nuke them. If not for their fearsome military capabilities the Islamic Republic would be no more.
“and Marcos in the Philippines”
That was a political revolution not a social revolution. Capitalism was maintained. Therefore there was no need for a reactionary counter-revolution.
“for instance, and in most cases, they were spontaneous acts of the masses and not instigated by the political parties and in this sense, they were leader free although they were quickly co-opted and the people power usurped.”
Not what I asked. Who is going to protect the gains of the revolution against counter-reaction? You’ll need a disciplined military for that will you not? Leaders to lead them both military and civilian, no?
“The Arab Spring is another example of when having
disposed of dictators, people were misled into
supporting other despots.”The Arab Spring? Libya? A CIA dirty war. Syria? Another CIA dirty war. Egypt? Muslim brotherhood.
“I happen to view October 1917 as a counter-revolution against the February revolution and the creation of the soviets which once in power, the Bolsheviks proceeded to dismantle.”
The country faced a massive counter-revolution from tsarist reactionaries and was invaded by 17 foreign countries! The Bolsheviks had to create the Red Army to survive. How do you imagine you’d have defeated the counter-revolution? Serious question.
“Wez’s point is I believe (and he can correct me if
I am wrong) that a dictatorship depends upon the
passive acquiescence of the majority and when that
is withdrawn, the legitimacy of the government
disappears and a regime can fall. And the more
involved and participate in the social unrest, the
less violence occurs.”The…counter…revolution…how…do…you…organise…a…defence…against…it?
“You may not accept it but in 1989 the situation
existed where a substantial part of the Chinese
army and a number of prominent CCP politicians
plus elements within the media were perceived as
being disaffected and they had the popular support
of the local people. That was the trigger for such
a brutal crackdown. Fear.”The Communist Party defeated a colour counter-revolution. They acted properly.
“The Hong Kong pro-democracy protests did not
spread to the mainland and could be isolated
because as you say, Xi Jinping, holds the support
of most of the Chinese people because of the
economic prosperity that has arisen over recent
years. A full belly is rarely the cause of
rebellion. If in the future economic conditions
change for the detriment, he will lose that
sympathy.”More than that. People want equity, justice and sovereignty also. Which is why big capital is being chastened, corruption is being throttled and the military invested in to guard against imperialist aggression.
“Having made this point several times I now close discourse with this individual.”
What discourse? There wasn’t any. I heard you talking about rainbow unicorns and marshmallow waterfalls but nothing reality based. You can’t wish away counter-revolutionary violence because…??? Alan, is this your view also? Are you as airy-fairy as comrade Wez?
“Who will pose a threat after the revolution?”
So in your utopian fantasies you imagine that the entire world will erupt into socialist revolution at exactly the same time? Without leaders, because…Engles?
“A few fat bourgeois with weapons they don’t know how to use? Laughable. The armed services will be of no use to them as they, as members of the working class”
Soldiers are some of the most reactionary people on the planet. Mussolini’s black shirts were all former soldiers as were Hitler’s brown shirts. The contras, who nailed babies to kitchen tables and executed nurses and teaches, were all ex soldiers. ISIS were largely former Iraqi soldiers. These people will kill you unless you kill them first. But…you’re just going to imagine the bullets they’re shooting at you don’t exist because…Marx? Seriously? Is this view shared by your entire “party”? It’s the most bonkers thing I’ve ever heard! I’d say you have rocks in your head but it’s more like the Rocky mountains. My God, you people…Lol
“It will be like the demise of your beloved ‘Soviet Union’”
The Soviet Union was dissolved by counter-revolutionaries. You do know that, right? It was catastrophic for almost every member state. Gangster capitalists looted the nations’ wealth. The standard of living plummeted and hasn’t returned to the same levels since in most former Soviet republics.
“without a shot being fired by those loyal to the old regime.”
Boris Yeltsin killed around 150 when he bombed parliament, the immiseration of former Soviet states and Russia in particular killed hundreds of thousands. You really don’t know your history do you?
