Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Is Socialism back? Is Socialism back?

02-16-2016 , 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
For the ex-militant members:

What's your view on Derek Hatton and on the Kinnock speech. Any thoughts on the BBC drama GBH?
Hatton was generally pretty likeable. I didn't know him well, there was a couple of years overlap in activity and I met him a few times but when he carved out a career in the media it shouldn't have been much of a surprise. He changed his views and went and did his thing, he wasn't influential in terms of policy though many who had been alright with him came to detest him. Whatever.

Kinnock's speech was a disgrace. He knew that the issuance of the redundancy notices was done on advice and with no intent of enforcement. The council had always known that it would set a legal budget in time. To say this was not communicated well is a massive understatement and was a massive error but no one was made redundant. I was with my local Militant MP Terry Fields when he went round explaining at street corner meetings and the response was remarkably positive, he was returned with a much larger share of the vote in 1987.

The council were subsequently vindicated, their claims about the attack on local authorities have been shown to be correct. The problems with affordable housing in the UK can be directly traced to the attacks on local authorities by centrai government under Thatcher in the mid 80's. They realised strong local authorities in Labour. Via rate caps, cuts to the rate support grant and extending council tenants right to buy they decimated local authority investment in social infrastructure and you're still reaping the costs.
02-16-2016 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Patriarchy isn't just discrimination anymore than racism is. No, discrimination isn't caused by capitalism, are you high? Capitalism has only been around ~400 years. And no, the means of production being firmly in the hands of the workers will not magically make patriarchy go away. You know we got archeological evidence of what life was like before the Neolithic Revolution, don't you?

Your quote above is pretty much a textbook example of class reductionism.
I'm not sure what your point, question or issue is.

A socialist society has one class, the workers. Why would there be a 'patriarchy'?

Neolithic mode of production was primitive communism. No private property etc. for many thousands of years before Slavery, feudalism or capitalism. If you are quoting history, it should be easier for you to see why socialism would be an improvement.

Society would be democratically organised for it's needs. No need for heirachys. It's not magic, just no need for it, so it withers away.
02-16-2016 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk

A socialist society has one class, the workers. Why would there be a 'patriarchy'?

.
In what way does one class exclude the possibility of patriarchy?
02-16-2016 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
Classical Marxism holds that there'd be sufficient production under a socialist society to meet everyones needs and thus the economic motivators for discriminatory practices removed. There's a couple of problems with this, the first is that it's clearly false socialism doesn't solve economic scarcity. The second problem is given the first you need a theory of how you address unequal relations caused by factors other than class in a classless society given there remains economic scarcity. Classic Marxism doesn't address this because it presumes issues of scarcity are resolved.



The fact that during 5 years membership you didn't have one meeting topic on those subjects. The classic problem with the tool of dialectical materialism is that it answers everything, if it predicts something that is incorrect the problem is with the methodology employed or the practitioner not the principle, this makes it unfalsifiable and thus uninteresting. The worst of the claim is that it can't be wrong yet it manages to be.
I think it would solve economic scarcity. You produce what you need. No profit, no waste.

What unequal relations are you predicting?

I don't see where that is a classic problem. I am not sure I understand your point.
02-16-2016 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Its not hard.

Marxists claim that come the revolution, all power relations are moot, hence their wont be any sexism or racism etc.

So imagine you are a feminist, a Marxist turns to you and says, "wat you waste your time for?" They are wasting there time because if they devoted their efforts to the class revolution they would solve their problems but if they try and end sexism under capitalism they will fail.

So you are reducing all struggle to class struggle because its the only way to ultimately and truely end what ever repression you are struggling against.

Its for this reason why the more relevant criticisms of Marxism come from those involved in the politics is the personal, e.g. from those fighting for womens rights, those struggling against racism and those fighting for sexual politics.

Its pretty blinkered on the scope of debate to say well it cant be coz it never come up at our lodge meetings.
But they are two different things. One is a situation under capitalism (Yes, sexism cannot be resolved) and one is what society would be like under socialism.

Its because of prejudice, discrimination, poverty, war, et. that the system needs to change. Why stick with the system that causes all those things? If I tell a feminist that her issues can be solved under capitalism, I am telling a lie.

So class consciousness is primary to ALL the other issues. No-one is denying the other issues, but they are secondary.

Last edited by lofcuk; 02-16-2016 at 05:43 PM. Reason: said capitalism twice in error
02-16-2016 , 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
For the ex-militant members:

What's your view on Derek Hatton and on the Kinnock speech. Any thoughts on the BBC drama GBH?
The party line, is Hatton was a maverick, and it was Tony Mulhearn the brains of the outfit.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...our-party-1991

Kinnock was part of the move to the right. Removing clause IV being the end of old labour.
02-16-2016 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
In what way does one class exclude the possibility of patriarchy?
Equality.
02-16-2016 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
Equality.
You have to do much much much better than that.
02-16-2016 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
You have to do much much much better than that.
I don't think so. It's probably too difficult for you to imagine. A completely different society, in just about all ways you can think of. Releasing the brake on history that is capitalism, and progressing the species to it's rightful place. It's too radical for you.

I understand we won't agree. I have enjoyed the debate though.
02-16-2016 , 05:58 PM
Dont be such a condescending patronizing douch.

Firstly because its lol obvious from this debate I understand Marxist theory so much better than you do, you are not much more than a parrot repeating its sound bites and technical phraseology you heard at the lodge whilst demonstrating non to little understanding of what you are talking about.

If you had a clue you would offer some actual exegesis, some rationalisation, some discourse, some substance, something.

Instead you offer the nothing of "equality" and then claim I lack the imagination to realise the devastating truth of your one word epiphany.

The way you say equality and justify it is no better than a religious person making claims to faith and claiming I dont hear god etc etc.

If you dont have a substantive credible intellectual response just gtfo.
02-16-2016 , 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds


The fact that during 5 years membership you didn't have one meeting topic on those subjects.
We had a good diverse mix of sex, sexualities, race, and nobody saw it as an issue.

Did you ever go to conference or summer camp? I could be wrong, but don't remember it being discussed there either.
02-16-2016 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
... A socialist society has one class, the workers...
Uhh, no. Just because the means of production are in the workers hands, doesn't mean that peeps can't be divided in other ways.

Quote:
... Why would there be a 'patriarchy'?...
This isn't some kinda theoretical question. Find a buncha niches without significant boss/worker hierarchy. See which ones have significant male/female hierarchy. Or better yet, which one have a cisnormal/other hierarchy. And WTF scare-quoting patriarchy.

Quote:
... Neolithic mode of production was primitive communism...
Sure. And that's a form of socialism. The means of production, the hunting and gathering fields, were the hands of the workers, the hunters and gatherers. The archeological records are clear: woman were beaten, beaten badly, all throughout human history. That's patriarchy.

Quote:
... It's not magic, just no need for it, so it withers away.
LMFAO !!!1!
02-16-2016 , 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Uhh, no. Just because the means of production are in the workers hands, doesn't mean that peeps can't be divided in other ways.



This isn't some kinda theoretical question. Find a buncha niches without significant boss/worker hierarchy. See which ones have significant male/female hierarchy. Or better yet, which one have a cisnormal/other hierarchy. And WTF scare-quoting patriarchy.



Sure. And that's a form of socialism. The means of production, the hunting and gathering fields, were the hands of the workers, the hunters and gatherers. The archeological records are clear: woman were beaten, beaten badly, all throughout human history. That's patriarchy.



LMFAO !!!1!
Equality tho.
02-16-2016 , 06:19 PM
Radical feminists see patriarchy as a trans historical phenomenon.

Must be wrong though, because socialist revolution, abra cadabra

Equality.
02-16-2016 , 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Radical feminists see patriarchy as a trans historical phenomenon...
Stupid bitches. Don't they know that before c1600 there wasn't any of anything bad at all, badness itself was simply unimaginable... because there wasn't any capitalism yet.
02-16-2016 , 06:40 PM
Not sure if I want socialism now.

Dont want to do 50% of the housework.
02-16-2016 , 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
... Come on anti-commies, post some theory you disagree with, lets debate.
Well so far by my reckoning you're 0-2 with the faith based gibberish, and class reductivism. Wanna go for the Silver Sombrero? I still got better.

You we're expecting to be attacked, so to speak, from the left... were you ??
02-17-2016 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Dont be such a condescending patronizing douch.

Firstly because its lol obvious from this debate I understand Marxist theory so much better than you do, you are not much more than a parrot repeating its sound bites and technical phraseology you heard at the lodge whilst demonstrating non to little understanding of what you are talking about.

If you had a clue you would offer some actual exegesis, some rationalisation, some discourse, some substance, something.

Instead you offer the nothing of "equality" and then claim I lack the imagination to realise the devastating truth of your one word epiphany.

The way you say equality and justify it is no better than a religious person making claims to faith and claiming I dont hear god etc etc.

If you dont have a substantive credible intellectual response just gtfo.
Calm down, resorting to name calling is not very constructive or enhancing your anti-communism.

I can't be responsible for how you interpret my tone. It wasn't meant to me patronizing. I honestly don't think you can imagine an alternative society to capitalism. I think you should try.
02-17-2016 , 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
... I honestly don't think you can imagine an alternative society to capitalism...
I certainly can imagine such an alternative. In fact, I've lived the dream, in little slices here & there. I ain't calling you any names.

But you're still 0-2. Wanna go for 0-3?
02-17-2016 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Uhh, no. Just because the means of production are in the workers hands, doesn't mean that peeps can't be divided in other ways.
If the workers own and control the means of production. There are no other classes.

Is it understood and agreed that capitalism is a class system?

Ruling class own the means of production and benefit from the system.
Middle class own and work tm of p in small businesses
Working class are wage slaves tm of p.

The working class after the revolution become the owners of tm of p. The old ruling class and middle class cease to be. No need for them, they wither away.

One class left. With a real, active and equal democracy to organise society based on it's needs.

Equal, fair and free.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
This isn't some kinda theoretical question. Find a buncha niches without significant boss/worker hierarchy. See which ones have significant male/female hierarchy. Or better yet, which one have a cisnormal/other hierarchy. And WTF scare-quoting patriarchy.
So because history has not experienced communism, it never can? It can only be theoretical until it happens. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to plan or consider an abstract, that could be reality. It's just a matter of using imagination. Someting humans are excellent at.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Sure. And that's a form of socialism. The means of production, the hunting and gathering fields, were the hands of the workers, the hunters and gatherers. The archeological records are clear: woman were beaten, beaten badly, all throughout human history. That's patriarchy.



LMFAO !!!1!
Then what a goal genuine socialism would be, an end to injustice, discrimination, poverty, war, enviromental abuse and all the other wastes of capitalism.
02-17-2016 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
I certainly can imagine such an alternative. In fact, I've lived the dream, in little slices here & there. I ain't calling you any names.

But you're still 0-2. Wanna go for 0-3?
I haven't been keeping score, but don't mind losing another one, about as good as my poker!
02-17-2016 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
If the workers own and control the means of production. There are no other classes...
Uhh, you've said this before. What you haven't done is explain why you keep saying this.

Quote:
... So because history has not experienced communism, it never can? It can only be theoretical until it happens...
Does it have to be the whole damn wide world before this 'magic' kicks in? Don't you think you might have some scaling issues here?

Quote:
... Then what a goal genuine socialism would be, an end to injustice, discrimination, poverty, war, enviromental abuse and all the other wastes of capitalism...
The goal of socialism is to put the means of production in the hands of the workers. Period. These other problems are just that... other problems. And once again, capitalism only dates to c1600. How do you explain the existence of these other problems before that time?
02-17-2016 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Dont be such a condescending patronizing douch.

Firstly because its lol obvious from this debate I understand Marxist theory so much better than you do,
I have not seen or read any evidence of this yet, but looking forward to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
you are not much more than a parrot repeating its sound bites and technical phraseology you heard at the lodge whilst demonstrating non to little understanding of what you are talking about.
It's just an opinion on a theory, that I hope will enhance our species. Not sure what you are so offended about. Unless you are major shareholder in Walmart or somesuch, then I understand your defence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1

If you had a clue you would offer some actual exegesis, some rationalisation, some discourse, some substance, something.
I thought that was what I was doing. You asked for some classic marxist theory regarding democracy, I found some with a five second google search. To think Engels is not marxism demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Instead you offer the nothing of "equality" and then claim I lack the imagination to realise the devastating truth of your one word epiphany.

The way you say equality and justify it is no better than a religious person making claims to faith and claiming I dont hear god etc etc.

If you dont have a substantive credible intellectual response just gtfo.
Equality is a good word and something we should strive for, again, I don't understand your anger against equality.
02-17-2016 , 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk

I can't be responsible for how you interpret my tone. It wasn't meant to me patronizing. I honestly don't think you can imagine an alternative society to capitalism. I think you should try.
Amazing.

I was not patronising but will proceed to be massively patronising.

Your lack of self awareness is off the charts.
02-17-2016 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lofcuk
I haven't been keeping score, but don't mind losing another one, about as good as my poker!
OK, here's the strikeout pitch...

Well, to an outsider, it *seems* that mythical endgame Communism, after the LOLtastical 'withering away', is indistinguishable from anarchism. Here's the problem: you can't build a non-hierarchical world, using hierarchical means. Not anymore than I can draw a square-circle. The only way to build a non-hierarchical world is from the bottom up, and from inside the shell of the old world.

      
m