Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘because average wages in all advanced capitalist societies today are well above subsistence level.’
I thought that the price of labour power (wages) was defined, like all other commodities, by the amount of labour time that creates and sustains it. Thus a highly skilled worker (surgeon, architect etc.) will receive higher wages than an unskilled worker because of the amount of training etc. involved (assuming his or her skills are needed by the market and so subject to the law of supply and demand). The ‘minimum wage’ does represent subsistence level and there are millions who receive this in our ‘advanced capitalist society’. In this context I don’t think the concept of an ‘average wage’ is relevant or helpful. I’m no economist so these are just my musings. Good debate.
Couple of things:
‘Writing in 1847 Marx would have had in mind indirect taxes on the goods workers bought not a direct tax on their wages. No workers paid that then. In fact
capitalists didn’t either.’Capitalists did pay ‘land tax’ didn’t they?
‘I am guessing that Marx wrote that article for the money and was writing what he thought the editor would like his readers to read. But, anyway, that passage is wrong.’
Marx has been accused of many things to which we now have to add a lack of integrity?
Alan – I didn’t think that the Nazis went in for ‘nationalization’ of industries – they just made sure there were Nazis in control in the boardrooms?
‘Soldiers are some of the most reactionary people on the planet.’
‘It’s the most bonkers thing I’ve ever heard!’
These remarks just emphasize once again your lack of Socialist consciousness. Unfortunately you’ll never be able to understand socialism since you are one of the reactionaries of which you speak. Without mass consciousness (including the armed forces – who are just ordinary members of the working class like the rest of us) there can be no socialism. The reason your beloved Soviet Union fell was because Russians didn’t believe the propaganda any more and did not wish to defend it. I only debate with you to show comrades just how mistaken some of them are to believe the Left are more liable to become socialists – like you they believe socialism to be ‘ the most bonkers thing they’ve ever heard.’ Having made this point several times I now close discourse with this individual.
‘So no answers to those very simple questions then? Come on, humor me? Or am I to presume you are that naive that you believe there will be no capitalist counter-reaction?’
It’s just as if the Left have never read any Marx at all and are still stuck with the bourgeois consciousness of the 18th century!
For the zillionth time here’s what Marx said in the Manifesto: “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.”Who will pose a threat after the revolution? 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, will be part of the movement. It will be like the demise of your beloved ‘Soviet Union’ without a shot being fired by those loyal to the old regime.
‘And how is that going to happen if there are no leaders? How is the capitalist class going to be overthrown? If your revolutionary moment is successful, how are you going to protect yourselves from the inevitable capitalist counter-reaction? You’ll need a military for that. Who’s going to lead it? No one? Serious questions. What are your answers.’
How old Marx and Engels would have laughed at that. Sorry to keep emphasizing the point but this guy is the very paradigm of Leftist bourgeois thinking and exposes the fact that the Left are no closer to socialist consciousness than are the Right.
‘Of course most aristocrats are now capitalists, even though some of them are still great landowners a part of whose income is ground-rent.’
‘Most aristocrats’? Again confusing since we know there are only two classes – working and capitalist. Are you saying that some live entirely off of ground rent and that this makes them a separate economic class called aristocrats?
‘We only have two choices’
MS- I think there’s a 3rd choice which is to try and understand the psychological motivation behind such perverse ideologies. As you say we have encountered similar Left/Right reactionary delusions on countless occasions. Belief in any ideology is primarily emotional and irrational and our logical approach has no impact on it. You may be correct that very occasionally a casual reader might be impressed by our coherent case but this, in my experience, is very rare. We, of course, like to believe that our socialism is entirely logical and coherent but there is much more to it than that. Comrades like Alan and yourself believe socialism to be a matter of ‘common sense’ that people can access through rational debate but I see little evidence for this. A good insight into why we believe what we believe, in terms of psychology and emotion, may help us understand why our opponents believe what they do.
‘I find debate with reactionaries pretty dreary going too, so it works both ways. I mean, Alan calls the CIA “friend”, a sentiment you no doubt all share. At any rate, no one’s forcing you to read along. on your bike then, rack off.’
This is the kind of ludicrous statement that stopped my attempting to communicate with this guy in the first place – what interests me is why comrades continue to debate with him.
Clearly TS cannot be influenced by rational debate and anything we say will not change his mind. We have to ask why he has to believe what he does. I think there are three elements symptomatic of the Leftist mindset and ideology: a) the need to identify with authoritarian structures and the power and leadership they personify, or seem to personify. b)paradoxically, a hatred of US power. c) the inability to imagine an alternative to capitalism (because it does not exist yet) alongside a desperate need to believe those who proclaim that socialism does exist somewhere. As comrades know I’ve never believed that the Left are necessarily more likely to achieve socialist consciousness than the rest of the population and TS is a great example of why.
‘delusional adherence to Stalinism’
Alan – that question is relevant and entirely within the realms of psychology – something that Reich (who you’ve already quoted) and the Frankfurt School dedicated their lives to try and understand.
‘I have no idea who you are talking about and nor do I care. You are a cowardly reactionary who snipes from the sidelines rather than engage in debate like a grown up. Sad little budgie.’
Sadly the usual mixture of ignorance and arrogance that characterizes the Left. Can you not get it in your head that no socialist is interested in your defense of a militaristic, fascistic one party state that masquerades as some kind of ‘socialism’.
‘I mere saying that I can sympathise with left-wingers when Stalinists slander Trotsky.’
Just out of curiosity Alan, why are you interested in an internecine struggle between Bolsheviks? Is it born of esoteric historical inquiry? Like the internal struggles within the Nazi Party, which were similar, they represent a kind of morbid curiosity but they have no relevance or importance for socialists.
