baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I'm not sure I get you - surely the USSR had far more influence, financial or otherwise, on (say) Poland in 1960 that the USA did?

And again, at that time, were there people trying to get from Britain and France and West Germany to Poland and Hungary, or the other way around?

On the first point, obviously most immigrants to poor countries don't land a cushy job, and many get massively exploited, but I think you're doing them a disfavour by suggesting they've all been brainwashed by propaganda, especially given that many communist countries have extremely stringent controls on what information is allowed into the country, as well as ubiquitous negative propaganda about the USA on state media channels. If most of them found life was actually worse than where they'd left, they'd tell their folks back home (or simply return) and eventually they'd stop coming at all.

On the second, sure, many of them send money home, but then we're back to the question of why that would be necessary in socialist countries where apparently one's every need is met by the state.

The US was tying to bring the USSR down by economic means, so obviously it had a massive influence also upon east European countries.

Not sure of your point there - the overwhelming reason people ever try to get to Britain and France is because those countries have stolen and appropriated more wealth from the rest of the world. Do you think that if salaries were equivalent, that would be happening?

No-one said brainwashed - you try this misquoting again and again. Or to put it a different way - only as brainwashed by capitalist propaganda as you or I, if we want to use 'brainwashed' in a less pejorative way. Of course people are affected by propaganda and it's almost impossible to escape - to pretend otherwise is beyond the realms of the absurd.
"If most of them found life was actually worse than where they'd left, they'd tell their folks back home (or simply return) and eventually they'd stop coming at all." - No, obviously not, because they need the money.

As to the rest - there is an interconnected world economic system, so not sure what the 'one's every need is met by the state' line has to do with anything. It's like saying that poor countries are poor solely because they're really badly run. Jesus.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
Interesting thread - also a drive by sorry. To mount my familar hobby horse, what you're talking about (Baboon and Jon) sounds very much like Reich's work. He got fed up of fixing individual trauma and began to look at birthing, child-rearing and education practices as ways of basically producing less fucked up people. He began a study in New York (in '51 IIRC) that was going to work with a group of new mothers seeing if he could prevent the formation of what he called armouring (musular tensions caused by frustration of primary needs that later go on to structure character). It got derailed by his FDA case though and subsquent legal troubles. What happened to Reich is pretty instructive in terms of changing the world. I definitely am very excited about new developments in our understanding of trauma but (as Baboon says if I remeber right) it tends to see trauma as unique cases caused by x horrific incident, rather than a low level spectrum we're all on somewhere. No one has really taken on the implications of Reich's work in that broad spectrum way though afaik - to critique and advocate for new models of obsterics, child rearing and education with a view to producing more "unspolied protoplasm" (as he called babies somewhere). Anthropology also factored into his world view as he felt some "primitive" societies offered us instructive and useful insights into human development.

I've not read all of Tea's interjections here but I'll just note, Olly, you read like a man trying to prove Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism thesis in real time.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
the problem with tea is he thinks communism is what people define it to be, not a concrete movement. by that logic we could say that islam is whatever i want it to mean, which is of course bollocks.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
philosophically that's interesting of course. but it just restricts everything to the Kantian and Hegelian problematic of consciousness and not material. so really it should engender an absolute,passive and indifferently slouching nihilism. Nietzsche was far more bourgeois than he perceived himself to be. aristocracies of taste and all that were just an excuse for him not to interrogate the shortcomings of his system - for he was not really anti-systemic.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
I'm not arguing for no true communism hasn't been tried before blah blah blah crap. I'm saying let's look behind all the rhetoric, just like we look behind Putin's anti-imperialist rhetoric. and what do we get? it's mad how some people have so much ingrained historical anglo-american prejudices.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Right but the point is not to cheerlead for capitalism or to claim that it's either perfect or the best system we could have, which would be manifestly untrue. The point is that communism - as it has been instantiated historically - is not an attractive alternative. The margin of uncertainty in the death toll associated with China's Great Leap Forward is about twice the total casualties of WWI - and for what? China is now thoroughly capitalist in all but name.

And the "real communism hasn't been tried yet" argument just sounds like No True Scotsman to me. Even accepting that it's true, the question remains: what reason is there to think it'll turn out any better next time?

however if you add up british caused colonial deaths in India and the Bengal, deaths of the irish population, Africa, the south americas, resistance to the enclosures, civil war etc etc you will probably get a death toll higher than the GLF. this is not to excuse the glf. but was China a capitalist economy before the Maoists took power? very minimally so. frankly i find this ranking a system over number of deaths caused to be extremely gross, inhumane and insulting.

China did what it took England 300 years to do. that's why you can have collective amnesia because you are resting on the blood of thousands who are not even in your historical memory. so am I, before you start pulling a hissy fit.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The US was tying to bring the USSR down by economic means, so obviously it had a massive influence also upon east European countries.

And vice-versa, don't forget. The two superpowers were engaged in an entirely reciprocal arrangement of proxy wars, propaganda, espionage and all kinds of black ops, to say nothing of the space race (in which the USSR had a big head start on the USA) and the nuclear arms race (the USSR's warhead stockpile overtook the USA's in the 1970s and Russia maintains about the same number of nukes as the USA does today, despite having an economy less than a tenth as big).

Not sure of your point there - the overwhelming reason people ever try to get to Britain and France is because those countries have stolen and appropriated more wealth from the rest of the world. Do you think that if salaries were equivalent, that would be happening?

Not convinced by this at all. Why did so many people try to get from one half of Germany to the other half, when they obviously shared an imperial history? Ditto Austria and Hungary, neither of which ever had an overseas colonial empire. Come to that, how come the Scandinavian countries are so wealthy and developed?

As to the rest - there is an interconnected world economic system, so not sure what the 'one's every need is met by the state' line has to do with anything.

Well communism is supposed to supersede capitalism, isn't it? It doesn't say much for communism if communist countries are dependent for their prosperity on trade with capitalist countries.

It's like saying that poor countries are poor solely because they're really badly run. Jesus.

Conversely, you're surely not seriously suggesting that this doesn't have a pretty big impact?!
 

droid

Well-known member
Apologies for a drive by:
So where does that leave us? I'll be completely honest here, we are probably fucked. The most likely new way of organising the planet is some technocractic form of fascism. Compounds for the rich elite in an area which is shielded from the eco-catastrophe. A periphery of people like security guards and non-robot employees in other areas. And then everyone else - at best with some kind of minimal universal basic income.

In this situation it doesn't seem too zany to be thinking about alternative models. And of course it is easy to knock alternative models and pretend that everything is going to be fine. But it won't be. So your options are to accept that or try and do something about it.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...nomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
however if you add up british caused colonial deaths in India and the Bengal, deaths of the irish population, Africa, the south americas, resistance to the enclosures, civil war etc etc you will probably get a death toll higher than the GLF. this is not to excuse the glf. but was China a capitalist economy before the Maoists took power? very minimally so. frankly i find this ranking a system over number of deaths caused to be extremely gross, inhumane and insulting.

China did what it took England 300 years to do. that's why you can have collective amnesia because you are resting on the blood of thousands who are not even in your historical memory. so am I, before you start pulling a hissy fit.

But you're missing the point which is not that I'm not arguing for imperialism, nor for "good imperialism" or "real imperialism" or a different, nice kind of imperialism that hasn't been tried before.

I just feel like we're going around in circles because the true believers are always ready to say "Once more, with feeling". Your comparison with Islam is apt because I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the Maoists 30 years later regarded themselves as practising real, true communism, just as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's followers are convinced they're the true Muslims and it's all the others who are kafir. So I'm left wondering why some sort of fake or pretend communism has been tried so many dozens of times. (This is a general point - I appreciate that you reject the "no true communist..." position yourself.)
 

droid

Well-known member
That’s really interesting, thanks for posting it. I’ll need to give it a proper read.

First impression is that the “optimism” of option 5 is genuinely terrifying. You can see Boris Johnson being all over that.

Im as pessimistic as you, more so - BUT I think a lot of projections of the future fail to account for human factors. Business as usual just isnt gonna happen. People are gonna react in all kinds of ways to climate breakdown. For example, I don't think population projections have taken into account the fact that a shit ton of people just arent gonna have kids. Consumption will fall of a cliff as well.

Its gonna be messy. A lot of people are going to die, but there's still hope.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
But you're missing the point which is not that I'm not arguing for imperialism, nor for "good imperialism" or "real imperialism" or a different, nice kind of imperialism that hasn't been tried before.

I just feel like we're going around in circles because the true believers are always ready to say "Once more, with feeling". Your comparison with Islam is apt because I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the Maoists 30 years later regarded themselves as practising real, true communism, just as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's followers are convinced they're the true Muslims and it's all the others who are kafir. So I'm left wondering why some sort of fake or pretend communism has been tried so many dozens of times. (This is a general point - I appreciate that you reject the "no true communist..." position yourself.)


not quite. there were obliquely internal dissenters in China who were putting forward demands far more radical than western hobbyhorse type people.

https://libcom.org/library/whither-china-sheng-wu-lien
 

john eden

male pale and stale
And see also the entire left opposition in Russia.

I don’t think people understand how patient you have to be when you’re inspired by a political tradition that was murdered by totalitarians and some people accuse you of basically being the murderers.

Kollontai? Stalinontai AMIRITE guys?
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
What ARE you arguing for, Tea?

that ideas take precedent over material conditions and individual consciousness, if not applied to the methodological individual as such consists of grouplets of collective individual consciousnesses.

it's actually pretty close to the garden variety small scale petty-bourgeois lifestyle anarchism. good luck trying to curb enterprising initiatives though because it will end up far more totalitarian and lax than stalinism.

as for the eco-anarchists thing. no, eco anarchists haven't killed 20m people but environmental conservation and ecological sensitivity was a key part of nazi doctrine. this tells us nothing.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
And see also the entire left opposition in Russia.

I don’t think people understand how patient you have to be when you’re inspired by a political tradition that was murdered by totalitarians and some people accuse you of basically being the murderers.

Kollontai? Stalinontai AMIRITE guys?


not just Russia, Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, turkey, Greece. that last one was the ungodly alliance of Stalin and churchill to dispell peoples illusions...

https://libcom.org/history/massacre-internationalist-communists-greece-december-1944
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
this is the stalinist idea right? that there is a base and a superstructure and once you dispell the ideological muck voila people become obedient partisans. except that has never happened, and that is not what Marx said in that passage - and yes he did use the terms base and superstructure...
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
actually marx wasn't saying anything genius or complicated here (academics rinkle your noses at dr. red terror!) he was just reiterating a self-evident truism apparent to all of us today.

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society."

Note here Marx is talking in very anti-political terms, whereas of course Stalin and Mao were of course political statesmen.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
what you need to answer is why communism was deployed as an ideological form or veil and not some kind of other type of ideology - such as John Stewart Mill type representative govt?

and i also highly doubt that any initiatives towards common ownership of production in the future are going to be expressed in 19th-20th century marxist terms are they?

why be a liberal anti-racist when full scale white supremacy will do the trick? it's not as if 19th-20th century liberals didn't denigrate blacks and Indians did they? no of course they had to justify their political class position.
 
Top