Globalism And Capitalism Are Dead, Long Live Socialism?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6533
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 12:28 am » by Fatdogmendoza


Socialism's comeback

Image

At the beginning of the century, the chances of socialism making a return looked close to zero. Yet now, all around Europe, the red flag is flying again.

"If socialism signifies a political and economic system in which the government controls a large part of the economy and redistributes wealth to produce social equality, then I think it is safe to say the likelihood of its making a comeback any time in the next generation is close to zero," wrote Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, in Time magazine in 2000.

He should take a trip around Europe today.

Make no mistake, socialism - pure, unadulterated socialism, an ideology that was taken for dead by liberal capitalists - is making a strong comeback. Across the continent, there is a definite trend in which long-established parties of the centre left that bought in to globalisation and neoliberalism are seeing their electoral dominance challenged by unequivocally socialist parties which have not.

The parties in question offer policies which mark a clean break from the Thatcherist agenda that many of Europe's centre-left parties have embraced over the past 20 years. They advocate renationalisation of privatised state enterprises and a halt to further liberalisation of the public sector. They call for new wealth taxes to be imposed and for a radical redistribution of wealth. They defend the welfare state and the rights of all citizens to a decent pension and free health care. They strongly oppose war - and any further expansion of Nato.

Most fundamentally of all, they challenge an economic system in which the interests of ordinary working people are subordinated to those of capital.

Nowhere is this new leftward trend more apparent than in Germany, home to the meteoric rise of Die Linke ("The Left"), a political grouping formed only 18 months ago - and co-led by the veteran socialist "Red" Oskar Lafontaine, a long-standing scourge of big business. The party, already the main opposition to the Christian Democrats in eastern Germany, has made significant inroads into the vote for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in elections to western parliaments this year, gaining representation in Lower Saxony, Hamburg and Hesse. Die Linke's unapologetically socialist policies, which include the renation alisation of electricity and gas, the banning of hedge funds and the introduction of a maximum wage, chime with a population concerned at the dismantling of Germany's mixed economic model and the adoption of Anglo-Saxon capitalism - a shift that occurred while the SPD was in government.

An opinion poll last year showed that 45 per cent of west Germans (and 57 per cent of east Germans) consider socialism "a good idea"; in October, another poll showed that Germans overwhelmingly favour nationalisation of large segments of the economy. Two-thirds of all Germans say they agree with all or some of Die Linke's programme.

It's a similar story of left-wing revival in neighbouring Holland. There the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP), which almost trebled its parliamentary representation in the most recent general election (2006), and which made huge gains in last year's provincial elections, continues to make headway.

Led by a charismatic 41-year-old epidemiologist, Agnes Kant, the SP is on course to surpass the Dutch Labour Party, a member of the ruling conservative-led coalition, as the Netherlands' main left-of centre grouping.

The SP has gained popularity by being the only left-wing Dutch parliamentary party to campaign for a "No" vote during the 2005 referendum on the EU constitutional treaty and for its opposition to large-scale immigration, which it regards as being part of a neoliberal package that encourages flexible labour markets.

The party calls for a society where the values of "human dignity, equality and solidarity" are most prominent, and has been scathing in its attacks on what it describes as "the culture of greed", brought about by "a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy money". Like Die Linke, the SP campaigns on a staunchly anti-war platform - demanding an end to Holland's role as "the US's lapdog".

In Greece, the party on the up is the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), the surprise package in last year's general election. As public opposition to the neoliberal econo mic policies of the ruling New Democracy government builds, SYRIZA's opinion-poll ratings have risen to almost 20 per cent - putting it within touching distance of PASOK, the historical left-of-centre opposition, which has lurched sharply to the right in recent years. SYRIZA is particularly popular with young voters: its support among those aged 35 and under stands at roughly 30 per cent in the polls, ahead of PASOK.

In Norway, socialists are already in power; the ruling "red-green" coalition consists of the Socialist Left Party, the Labour Party and the Centre Party. Since coming to power three years ago, the coalition - which has been labelled the most left-wing government in Europe, has halted the privatisation of state-owned companies and made further development of the welfare state, public health care and improving care for the elderly its priorities.

The success of such forces shows that there can be an electoral dividend for left-wing parties if voters see them responding to the crisis of modern capitalism by offering boldly socialist solutions. Their success also demonstrates the benefits to electoral support for socialist groupings as they put aside their differences to unite behind a commonly agreed programme.

For example, Die Linke consists of a number of internal caucuses - or forums - including the "Anti-Capitalist Left", "Communist Platform" and "Democratic Socialist Forum". SYRIZA is a coalition of more than ten Greek political groups. And the Dutch Socialist Party - which was originally called the Communist Party of the Netherlands, has successfully brought socialists and communists together to support its collectivist programme.

It is worth noting that those European parties of the centre left which have not fully embraced the neoliberal agenda are retaining their dominant position. In Spain, the governing Socialist Workers' Party has managed to maintain its broad left base and was re-elected for another four-year term in March, with Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero promising a "socialist economic policy" that would focus on the needs of workers and the poor.

There are exceptions to the European continent's shift towards socialism. Despite the recent election of leftist Martine Aubry as leader of the French Socialist Party, the French left has been torn apart by divisions, at the very moment when it could be exploiting the growing unpopularity of the Sarkozy administration.

And, in Britain, despite opinion being argu ably more to the left on economic issues than at any time since 1945, few are calling for a return to socialism.

The British left, despite promising initiatives such as September's Convention of the Left in Manchester, which gathered representatives from several socialist groups, still remains fragmented and divided. The left's espousal of unrestricted or loosely controlled immigration is also, arguably, a major vote loser among working-class voters who should provide its core support. No socialist group in Britain has as yet articulated a critique of mass immigration from an anti-capitalist and anti-racist viewpoint in the way the Socialist Party of the Netherlands has.

And even if a Die Linke-style coalition of progressive forces could be built and put on a formal footing in time for the next general election, Britain's first-past-the-post system provides a formidable obstacle to change.

Nevertheless, the prognosis for socialism in Britain and the rest of Europe is good. As the recession bites, and neoliberalism is discredited, the phenomenon of unequivocally socialist parties with clear, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist messages gaining ground, and even replacing "Third Way" parties in Europe, is likely to continue.

Even in Britain, where the electoral system grants huge advantage to the established parties, pressure on Labour to jettison its commitment to neoliberal policies and to adopt a more socialist agenda is sure to intensify.

http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008 ... -socialism
Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 12:45 am » by Spock


I think the movement itself is full of good intentions as well as capitalism. Any "ism" to an extreme is evil, and what seems to happen is the political movement of "change" swings the pendulum in either direction, depending on the current of momentum, until the majority mindset reaches that critical point when it sways in the opposite direction, only to eventually settle things back to baseline, then swing overwhelming disproportionate in the other direction - then, it happens again.

There's that small window or honeymoon period, when the masses that are led in a particular direction are appeased, then even they turn on the idea which a few years earlier seemed to be the panacea.

Obama's approval rating is a prime example.

It all boils down to greed, ego and power - no matter what political structure someone lives under. As long as there are at least two people on the face of the earth, someone will suspect a conspiracy against them.

We are human, and this is a human epidemic. The only alternative is to inject a technology into our DNA and meld together as a hive mind, "The Borg", then we would all get along and our sole desire would be to further the collective. Until that happens, the pendulum will continue to swing, cutting us into scattered pieces.

At least it makes for good forum fodder.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6533
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 12:48 am » by Fatdogmendoza


Spock wrote:
At least it makes for good forum fodder.


One of the few people I would say thank you to on the forums...I like to think you understand my motives... :cheers:
Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 12:52 am » by Spock


indeed

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 1:46 am » by Toxic32


Fuck socialism it has been tried, tested and found wanting. North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, In fact where ever you look the word socialism has been misused. There is always without exception a group or individual that will take advantage of the the rest of the group. The problem is that groups of people got to big. Continents are a figment of our imagination, Countries will always look to exploit other countries, counties are a lose mess of nothingness trying to act like country, Cities are failing in slow motion like a decaying orbit, towns are trying to become cities but for the most part they can't quiet reach the apple and will fail as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Villages will live on or small communities, as they have interdependency and co-operation and display altruistic behaviour and have a tendency to look out/after each other. I live in a village thank fuck. I lived in towns and my last place was a city. I never knew or talked to the person next door to me. I knew nobody on my street or wanted to. When I think back I was that chicken in that cage laying an egg every day. The only difference between me and the chicken was I was doing it willingly.

Anyway to get back to the point there is no such thing as socialism. It's a concept created by someone like you and me exploring his or her imagination by what, why, where , when, how. We are all capable of fantastic things. It maybe you can make a great chest of draws or build a barn, dig a well, are accurate with a bow and arrow or throw a spare strait and hit the target. You maybe caring, strong, weak but creative in lots of ways. What I'm trying to say is we all contribute and the best way we can given the chance. But the fact that I can find water and dig a well doesn't make me better than you who are caring or you who are a carpenter. We lost sight of community that's what communism is really about....Shit I'm ranting on a bit....You get my drift. One last thing read this.


Social behavior[edit]


Bonobos are very social


Bonobo searching for termites
Most studies indicate that females have a higher social status in bonobo society. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male derives his status from the status of his mother.[35] The mother–son bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank plays a less prominent role than in other primate societies.
The limited research on bonobos in the wild was taken to indicate that these matriarchal behaviors may be exaggerated by captivity, as well as by food provisioning by researchers in the field.[34]
Bonobo party size tends to vary because the groups exhibit a fission–fusion pattern. A community of approximately 100


Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (though a pair of western gorillas has been photographed performing face-to-face genital sex[37]), tongue kissing, and oral sex.[38]
Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual activity between mothers and their adult sons. When bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding.[39]
Bonobo clitorises are larger and more externalized than in most mammals;[40] while the weight of a young adolescent female bonobo "is maybe half" that of a human teenager, she has a clitoris that is "three times bigger than the human equivalent, and visible enough to waggle unmistakably as she walks".[41] In scientific literature, the female–female behavior of pressing genitals together is often referred to as genital-genital (GG) rubbing, which is the non-human analog of tribadism, engaged in by human females. This sexual activity happens within the immediate female bonobo community and sometimes outside of it. Female bonobos rub their clitorises together rapidly for ten to twenty seconds, and this behavior, "which may be repeated in rapid succession, is usually accompanied by grinding, shrieking, and clitoral engorgement"; it is estimated that they engage in this practice "about once every two hours" on average.[40] Because bonobos, like humans, mate face-to-face, "evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk has suggested that the position of the clitoris in bonobos and some other primates has evolved to maximize stimulation during sexual intercourse".[40]


Group of bonobos
Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male–male genital behavior,[39][42] which is the non-human analog of frotting, engaged in by human males . In one form, two bonobo males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".[39][43] This also may occur when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. Another form of genital interaction ("rump rubbing") occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. Takayoshi Kano observed similar practices among bonobos in the natural habitat.
But more often than the males, female bonobos engage in mutual genital behavior, possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of bonobo society. The bonding among females enables them to dominate most of the males. Although male bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females.[39] Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes these new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity.
Bonobo reproductive rates are no higher than those of the common chimpanzee.[39] During oestrus, females undergo a swelling of the perineal tissue lasting 10 to 20 days. Most matings occur during the maximum swelling.[citation needed] The gestation period is on average 240 days. Postpartum amenorrhea (absence of menstruation) lasts less than one year and a female may resume external signs of oestrus within a year of giving birth, though the female is probably not fertile at this point. Female bonobos carry and nurse their young for four years and give birth on average every 4.6 years.[5] Compared to common chimpanzees, bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, enabling them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, bonobo females which are sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.
It is unknown how the bonobo avoids simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and its effects.
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 2:24 am » by Doogle


Well written guys.

For me, in a rose tinted outlook of yesteryear, it was the left that was about ordinary peoples rights. Safe working environments, equal pay, anti-fascist, anti-racist.

They were the antithesis of runaway greed and corruption. The route to a better a world.
Shame they all piss in the same pot.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 2:43 am » by Toxic32


Doogle wrote:Well written guys.

For me, in a rose tinted outlook of yesteryear, it was the left that was about ordinary peoples rights. Safe working environments, equal pay, anti-fascist, anti-racist.

They were the antithesis of runaway greed and corruption. The route to a better a world.
Shame they all piss in the same pot.


And they still do. Make no mistake they are looking for away to use you to get what they want. What did Sir Isaac Newton say? I stand on the shoulders of giants. Socialist will say I stand on the backs of idiots. Lets have Equalism. It could work it's just a state of mind. Which is the most important organ in your body? Try living without any one of them Liver, Kidneys, heart, stomach, brain and the rest. They are all as important as the other for the the greater good. Try living without an arse.
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:54 am

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 5:01 am » by SonOfGodEternalFlame



Upload to Disclose.tv



Anybody who is a rational person would see this lady and understand it as truth
and understand where socialism leads

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1936
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 8:33 am » by mediasorcery


your all gonna love socialism, heaps of fun. :vomit: :hell: :lol:
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6533
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

PostTue Oct 22, 2013 9:19 am » by Fatdogmendoza


Britain needs Marxism

Workers must aim to take the organisations of the movement - including the Labour Party - away from the bureaucracy's control.

Welcoming the recent formation of Labour Party Marxists (labourpartymarxists.org.uk), comrade John Bridge opened a full day’s discussion on the Labour Party at the Sunday October 9 CPGB aggregate in London’s Conway Hall. “It is more than timely for Marxists to actively intervene,” he said, when capitalism is not only deep in crisis, but in visible decline as a social system, and the Labour leadership, together with the whole trade union bureaucracy, is under pressure from below.

Labour has always been a bourgeois workers’ party dominated by pro-capitalist leaders, and it remains so today. Tony Blair’s dream of breaking the trade union link has not been fulfilled. Overcoming Labourism in the opposite direction, by breaking the rightwing grip, is a strategic task for communists.

Lenin urged the early CPGB to seek affiliation to the Labour Party. The rebellious Left Wing Movement of Labour Party organisations achieved a circulation of 100,000 for its Sunday Worker, edited by communist William Paul. The London Labour Party and about one third of constituency parties were expelled for refusing to accept the exclusion of CPGB members. This is an example we should seek not to copy, but to emulate. When the CPGB closed the LWM in 1929 - on instructions from Comintern in its sectarian ‘third period’ - this was an “idiotic blunder”, said comrade Bridge.

Praising the report of Labour’s conference written by delegate Jim Moody and published in the Weekly Worker (October 6), comrade Bridge said he had followed conference on TV - and found it excruciatingly boring. A few 16-year-olds were on display, having their “William Hague moments”. Speakers from the floor, apparently randomly picked by the chair - “that gentleman there ..., that lady there ...” - almost always turned out to be carefully selected and on-message. The real differences of opinion had been suppressed. The hall was often half-empty, as delegates escaped the tedium of the media show to talk politics with each other - elsewhere.

The Blair-Brown conflict is continuing with new faces, commented comrade Bridge. While Blair had sought the rebirth of Gladstone’s Liberal Party, Brown had emphasised “Labour values”. Although Ed Miliband won the leadership contest by positioning himself “a cigarette paper’s width” to the left of his brother, he still operates within the paradigm of ‘triangulation’ - chasing the centre votes and therefore in effect taking for granted the working class base. He may be pulled to the left or right, but we do not expect principled working class politics from him.
SPEW confusion

In a recent issue of The Socialist, said comrade Bridge, under the telling title ‘Can Labour be reclaimed?’, Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, replied to a reader who had expressed “frustration with the Socialist Party stance towards the Labour Party”. A “counterrevolution” had occurred in the party, but comrade Taaffe did not say exactly when. Labour had ceased to be a bourgeois workers’ party, and is now just a bourgeois party. Surprisingly, however, comrade Taaffe wanted to have his cake and eat it, said comrade Bridge. “If a mass workers’ party is not urgently built,” wrote comrade Taaffe, “the impulse for a new party could come from within even a bourgeois party” - as in 1974 with the overthrow of the Greek colonels, “the mass socialist party, Pasok, was born from a left split in the liberal capitalist party, the Centre Union.”

“Conversely,” continued comrade Taaffe, “if Labour is to be ‘transformed’, as some [a veiled reference to those like Labour Party Marxists] still hope, then this would effectively mean setting up a new party, which by standing on clear socialist policies would represent a clear break” (The Socialist September 21).

Comrade Bridge pointed to “a clear lacuna” in comrade Taaffe’s argument: he did not mention the trade unions in the Labour Party. In fact the affiliated unions were able to amend Refounding Labour to win - as the product of Peter Hain’s consultation is now called. Instead of the new category of supporters encroaching solely on their own representation in the party, the unions successfully insisted (in pre-conference behind-the-scenes negotiations) that it will also take equally from the shares of CLPs and of MPs in the party’s electoral college.

Furthermore, the bourgeoisie has largely withdrawn its financial support, so Labour is more dependent on the trade union bureaucracy, and “he who pays the piper calls the tune”, said comrade Bridge. Ed Miliband is currently under left pressure from the unions. He denounced the June 30 actions, but not the united pension strikes coming on November 30. And deputy leader Harriet Harman has indicated - if the unions ballot, and if the government “remains unreasonable” - Labour will back the action.

While Labour can be transformed into a real workers’ party, insisted comrade Bridge, it can never be “reclaimed”, because it was never just “a workers’ party, full stop”. Ralph Miliband (father of Ed and David) in his very useful 1960 book Parliamentary socialism, showed that the Labour leadership was “always shit”, but also that the reformist opposition on the left was never up to much. There was no ‘golden age’ to reclaim, when Labour was socialist or under rank-and-file control. Marxists must fight to transform the party because our task is to overcome Labourism and win the workers’ movement for Marxism.

Organising to fight the cuts, said comrade Bridge, is not in contradiction to fighting to transform Labour. Of the competing ‘united’ anti-cuts projects set up by left groups, only the Coalition of Resistance stood a chance of developing into anything, and then only on the basis of the backing of left trade union bureaucrats, who then call the tune. The anti-cuts movement is not a re-run of the anti-war movement. The ruling class is not split, as it was over the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Marxists in the Labour Party should fight openly for the full communist programme of winning the majority of the working class to overcome capitalism. That includes overcoming the bureaucratic sect mentality of the divided left, and uniting the left, presently inside and outside Labour, into a Communist Party. The task of defeating Labourism is a job for the whole of the revolutionary left, organised together as Marxists.

It would be “dishonest”, said comrade Bridge, for Marxists to stand as Labour candidates for local councils on anything less than a Marxist programme - and that is more or less impossible under the present party regime. In fact left MPs, like John McDonnell, can speak more freely than Labour councillors.
Debate

In the debate that followed, Yassamine Mather said that the non-Labour left had to be convinced to address the whole question. But Labour was not the only arena where Marxists should intervene, and she feared that if Marxist become active in the Labour Party it would limit the anti-cuts work they could do. Labour is very unpopular among anti-cuts activists, she noted. The “historical arguments” used by comrade Bridge for involvement in the party should be accompanied with “health warnings”.

Comrade Mather said that Ed Miliband’s remarks in his conference speech, which she summarised as “markets have problems”, reflected the confusion of the Brownites. Likewise, Ed Balls, arguing that “markets support public services”, was displaying “post-2008 madness”. Even Wall Street journalists are to the left of the two Eds, she said, in that they recognise capitalism is the problem. The trade union bureaucracy is saying ‘Tax the rich’ and calling for Keynesian solutions to produce growth, but this will not work. But these inadequate remedies are not accepted by the Labour leaders. And on the left - in the Labour Representation Committee, for example - arguing against Keynesianism produces astonishment, she said.

Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson rejected the idea that Labour members could not play a full part in the anti-cuts movement, and in their union. The Marxist left is small in number, but “our strength is in the power of our ideas”. The unions are the key to transforming Labour, he said. It is the union link which makes the party qualitatively different from the bourgeois parties.

For comrade James Turley, the left is “mired in sub-Keynesian gibberish” both inside and outside Labour. Keynesianism, to be implemented by the state, is an anti-working class idea, he said. The communist idea is that the working class is the agency for change. Comrade Turley added that Labour’s new ‘supporter’ category is “a nod towards the US system”, where the media determines atomised opinion.

I emphasised the need for Marxists to challenge the reluctance of trade unionists and anti-cuts activists to intervene in the Labour Party, which actually means leaving it in the hands of the bureaucracy. But the domination of Keynesian ideas across the spectrum of the left shows that we communists must concentrate our efforts on winning the left, inside and outside the party, for genuine Marxism and getting itself organised into a communist party, so that it will be capable of carrying out effective mass work, including transforming Labour.

In his reply comrade Bridge recalled how the Keynesian “alternative political and economic strategy” produced in the 1980s by right-moving Eurocommunists such as Sam Aaronovitch had been denounced by the Socialist Workers Party at the time, but is now “common sense” for SWP guru Alex Callinicos. Against the great challenge of capitalism in crisis, the left in its present condition is almost useless. Instead of challenging the dominant bourgeois ideas, most of the left is “putting salt into the sea”. Transforming the Labour Party will require not only winning the existing left to unite into a Communist Party, but then winning the majority of the working class away from Labourism, he concluded.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-work ... ds-marxism
Image


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook