Left-wing opposition wins Greenland election

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[marxistcritic]

victory for the proletariat of the north!!!!

[LeninBalls]

And we should care if a Social Democrat party wins the elections...?

[cyu]

And we should care if a Social Democrat party wins the elections...?

Well, actually the social democrats (or what you might call "center-left") are in second place with 26%, while in first place with 44% are further left "socialists" - even if they just call themselves "socialists" and are merely a bit further left than the main "social democrats", it's still better than the country moving right instead.

One step at a time.

[Leo]

It is kinda funny to see anarchists cheering about election results :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

why shouldnt an anarchist be happy that a socialist party won?

This is great news.

[Dimentio]

Greenland is actually quite big, although its population is about the same size of a medium town.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, its pretty cool!

[Dimentio]

Yeah, its pretty cool!

Its probably the last vast area characterised by some sort of ice age environment. Its size is one eight of South America.

[Leo]

why shouldnt an anarchist be happy that a socialist party won?

Because anarchism is supposed to be against parliamentarianism.

Besides a so-called "socialist" party that is actually very nationalist and which claims to have brought a "solution" only serves spreading illusions among the working masses.

[Dimentio]

Because anarchism is supposed to be against parliamentarianism.

Besides a so-called "socialist" party that is actually very nationalist and which claims to have brought a "solution" only serves spreading illusions among the working masses.

At least, it shows that people is imagining some sort of more progressive society. Problem with "pure radicalism" is that it assumes that all people are very interested in ideology. Most people, especially in the working class, only gets overtly political when dissaffection levels are high.

[Leo]

At least, it shows that people is imagining some sort of more progressive society.

From a marxist perspective, the only more progressive society is a communist one, no capitalist society is progressive. Of course people are imagining a better society, better lives etc. but they do so regardless of whatever party they vote for and imagining that the party they voted for will provide anything better is an illusion again regardless of the party. It is classes, not political parties that really rule under capitalism.

[Dimentio]

From a marxist perspective, the only more progressive society is a communist one, no capitalist society is progressive. Of course people are imagining a better society, better lives etc. but they do so regardless of whatever party they vote for and imagining that the party they voted for will provide anything better is an illusion again regardless of the party. It is classes, not political parties that really rule under capitalism.

Yes. But it is still better that they are susceptible to socialist ideas, and not to values put forward by centrists or right-wingers, or fascists. I cannot really understand this contempt for the people expressed by many marxists. It is quite unlikely that a majority of the people will ever become marxist puritans.

You have to work with what you got, and try to move it more to your direction. But it is extremely unlikely that people who have lots to sacrifice would be willing to put their weight behind a revolution at this point in time.

Only when the price of keeping the capitalist system is higher than the price of sacrificing it, the working class in the west will rise up, I guess.

[Leo]

Yes. But it is still better that they are susceptible to socialist ideas, and not to values put forward by centrists or right-wingers, or fascists.

Working people actually are always susceptible to genuine socialist ideas, regardless of which party they vote for.


I cannot really understand this contempt for the people expressed by many marxists. It is quite unlikely that a majority of the people will ever become marxist puritans.

This isn't about people becoming marxists at all. Certainly revolutionaries always will be a minority within the class. What we are saying is that the working people should not have any illusions about what bourgeois parties can give them and should act accordingly to what is in their interests. This is hardly working for everyone to be a marxist, it is simply an attempt to contribute to the development of class consciousness.


You have to work with what you got, and try to move it more to your direction.

No proletarian direction can come out of working in the framework of bourgeois politics.


But it is extremely unlikely that people who have lots to sacrifice would be willing to put their weight behind a revolution at this point in time.

Only when the price of keeping the capitalist system is higher than the price of sacrificing it, the working class in the west will rise up, I guess.

I don't think this is the issue at all though, I don't think what people allegedly have which they don't want to sacrifice has anything to do with the revolution also. On the other hand, a proletarian revolution is not merely something that happens when things like war, barbarism and crisis are causing massive problems for the working class (which they are even now, they've been doing so for the most of the century in different levels). It also is a level of the development of class struggle against all those things which, in its progress necessarily assumes a more and more revolutionary character.

[Revy]

Now we get to see what actions they take. Even parties that come to power calling themselves socialist can still just manage capitalism...

I don't know enough about them to know whether they are social democrats or not - it seems a bit knee-jerk, to call them social democrats without showing why they are....if it's because they participate in elections, I honestly don't want to hear that.

[ZeroNowhere]

IA leader Kuupik Kleist told supporters celebrating in the capital Nuuk: "Greenland deserves this."Well, at least they're not nationalist.

[KurtFF8]

It is kinda funny to see anarchists cheering about election results :rolleyes:

Right, because anarchists should ignore bourgeois politics and the consequences that follow from things like election...

[cyu]

Because anarchism is supposed to be against parliamentarianism.


For anti-capitalist anarchists, an anti-capitalist parliament is better than a pro-capitalist parliament. Just like for anti-terrorist Muslims, an anti-terrorist Christian is better than a pro-terrorist Christian.


Besides a so-called "socialist" party that is actually very nationalist and which claims to have brought a "solution" only serves spreading illusions among the working masses.

Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_Ataqatigiit says their ideology is "socialism, Greenlandic nationalism, and independence."

However, there are different kinds of nationalism. I would support nationalists that don't want to be oppressed by "outsiders" but I wouldn't support nationalists that want to oppress "outsiders" - in the same way, I would support people that don't want to be enslaved, but I wouldn't support people that want to enslave others.

[Leo]

Right, because anarchists should ignore bourgeois politics and the consequences that follow from things like election...

There is a difference between following the consequences that follow from bourgeois politics and participating in them, even if it is only by giving support to contestants. The relationship of bourgeois anarchism with bourgeois politics is the latter. In that way it of course is similar to the relationship of bourgeois "socialists" with bourgeois politics.


For anti-capitalist anarchists, an anti-capitalist parliament is better than a pro-capitalist parliament.

Parliaments aren't "pro" or "anti" capitalist. Parliaments are capitalist as parts of capitalist states. Members of parliaments claiming to be "pro" or "anti" capitalist does not change the capitalist nature of parliaments themselves and of course that of members of parliaments as well.


However, there are different kinds of nationalism.

There has only been and can only be one kind of nationalism: bourgeois nationalism.


I would support nationalists that don't want to be oppressed by "outsiders" but I wouldn't support nationalists that want to oppress "outsiders" - in the same way, I would support people that don't want to be enslaved, but I wouldn't support people that want to enslave others.

Nations are entities made out of classes which have totally conflicting interests. It is not in the natural interests of the proletariat of any country to oppress that of another. It is the ruling classes that have created, that continue organizing and that feed from national oppression just like it was the ruling classes that created nations as their own forms of social unity. Nationalism has always been an ideology serving the interests of the bourgeoisie, and in our epoch the bourgeoisie is not capable of offering any solution to national oppression. Thus what you call "nationalism against outsiders" is nothing but another form of bourgeois nationalism, feeding from the conditions of national oppression, recreating those conditions and spreading illusions among the working class who are the only ones who through their international class struggle can solve this problem.

[Dimentio]

Nevertheless, the Greenlandic Inuit people deserves autonomy and control over their own natural resources, something which they have been denied by Danish colonialism since the viking era.

[Leo]

You would be fooling yourself if you think "the Greenlandic Inuit people" will have "control over their own natural resources" if Greenland becomes independent. "Peoples" are made of classes. If Greenland becomes independent, the Inuit bosses will have full control over natural resources and the workers will still have no control over them.

[Dimentio]

You would be fooling yourself if you think "the Greenlandic Inuit people" will have "control over their own natural resources" if Greenland becomes independent. "Peoples" are made of classes. If Greenland becomes independent, the Inuit bosses will have full control over natural resources and the workers will still have no control over them.

There are really no Inuit bosses in Greenland. Most of the people is quite low-income. Who owns most of the resources in Greenland are capitalists from Denmark.

[cyu]

Parliaments aren't "pro" or "anti" capitalist. Parliaments are capitalist as parts of capitalist states. Members of parliaments claiming to be "pro" or "anti" capitalist does not change the capitalist nature of parliaments themselves and of course that of members of parliaments as well.

So what is the structural nature of parliaments that make them capitalist? Sure I'd agree that most parliaments are currently dominated by capitalists, because the media in these countries are owned by capitalists, and capitalists spend much more money on the politics of the various countries than the poor, but if there were no capitalists in these countries (ie. socialism, anarchism, or something else that results in economic equality), I don't see how a parliamentary system could still be structurally pro-capitalist.


There has only been and can only be one kind of nationalism: bourgeois nationalism.

So what would you call people who want more autonomy and don't want to be oppressed by "outsiders"? It doesn't really matter to me what name you give them, I'd still support them.


Nations are entities made out of classes which have totally conflicting interests.

Yes, I agree - the poor in both countries would be better off if they worked together across national lines, than if the poor in both countries were tricked into working with the rich in their own countries.

However, that doesn't mean the poor in Denmark know what's better for Greenland than the poor in Greenland. I'd say the people living in an area generally care about what's best for that area than those who are far away. In the same way, dictators or CEOs looking around from their ivory towers are much less likely to know what's really going on, than each of the various groups of people operating in different locations "on the ground".


You would be fooling yourself if you think "the Greenlandic Inuit people" will have "control over their own natural resources" if Greenland becomes independent. "Peoples" are made of classes. If Greenland becomes independent, the Inuit bosses will have full control over natural resources and the workers will still have no control over them.

Agreed - however, you'll note that the party is both socialist and pro-independence, not capitalist and pro-independence. It doesn't mean they actually stand for what they say they stand for, but I'd still take them over the unapologetic capitalists.

[Dimentio]

Republicanism/parliamentarism are in themselves reactionary political systems, as they deny people the direct right to make laws. They are made with the explicit motivation to protect the haves from the have-nots.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

From a marxist perspective, the only more progressive society is a communist one, no capitalist society is progressive.

This isn't Marxism..it's just empty rhetoric. Monopoly capitalism isn't progressive in comparison to early industrial capitalism? Capitalism isn't progressive in comparison to feudalism?


Of course people are imagining a better society, better lives etc. but they do so regardless of whatever party they vote for and imagining that the party they voted for will provide anything better is an illusion again regardless of the party.

So Swedish style welfare capitalism isn't better than capitalism in say, India?


It is classes, not political parties that really rule under capitalism.

That is the most redundant statement ever.

[Leo]

There are really no Inuit bosses in Greenland. Most of the people is quite low-income. Who owns most of the resources in Greenland are capitalists from Denmark.

This sounds very... dubious. Sure, capitalists from Denmark might own a lot of resources, but I am sure the locals do so also.


So what is the structural nature of parliaments that make them capitalist?

That they are ossified parts of capitalist state machines. Parliaments have no autonomy from the rest of the state machine either.


So what would you call people who want more autonomy and don't want to be oppressed by "outsiders"? It doesn't really matter to me what name you give them, I'd still support them.

As good as your intentions might be, the problem is that by supporting bourgeois nationalism you would be supporting the bourgeoisie of that "people" who is spreading such ideology, not the proletariat of that "people".


Agreed - however, you'll note that the party is both socialist and pro-independence, not capitalist and pro-independence.

I don't buy this party's "socialism" more than I buy that of any other parliamentarian parties "socialism".


This isn't Marxism..it's just empty rhetoric. Monopoly capitalism isn't progressive in comparison to early industrial capitalism? Capitalism isn't progressive in comparison to feudalism?

Monopoly capitalism obviously isn't progressive in comparision to early industrial capitalism, that's exactly the point both Lenin and Luxemburg makes: rather than being a progressive step, it marks the entrance of world capitalism to its era of decay, it makes capitalism completely reactionary. This is exactly why today nothing but the destruction of the capitalist order can be progressive - because world capitalism is a decaying, reactionary order.

Obviously capitalism was progressive in comparison to feudalism in the times that both were around - of course feudalism itself was decaying and reactionary order at the time.


So Swedish style welfare capitalism isn't better than capitalism in say, India?

No, capitalism is capitalism. This doesn't mean that the conditions in which the Swedish and Indian working classes live is the same, but that has nothing to do with capitalism being better or worse in either place.

[cyu]

Republicanism/parliamentarism are in themselves reactionary political systems, as they deny people the direct right to make laws.
Sure, as someone with anarchist leanings, I'm obviously not going to argue that representative democracy is better than direct democracy. I would prefer decentralized democracy / self-determination. However, that doesn't mean I see all parliamentary activity as a lost cause and irrelevant. To me, it is just a tool and one of the fronts of revolution - certainly not the most important front, but a front nonetheless - for example, even if you didn't believe in its legitimacy, you can still use it to pass things that will make things easier for you - the more areas you surrender to your opponents, the stronger they become.

As an anarcho-syndicalist, obviously I think the most important front is the one between employee and employer - however, if there are existing laws that make even union organizing illegal, then you've got to attack those shackles from as many directions as possible. Of course, if your resources are limited, then you want to focus on winning the more important fronts first, but as your movement gains momentum, then you'll also gain resources, which enables you to start moving into new fronts as well - including using the constitutional process to completely rewrite the constitution, if that happens to succeed for you. If it doesn't, of course, that doesn't mean your movement should give up this front and every other front as well.


I don't buy this party's "socialism" more than I buy that of any other parliamentarian parties "socialism".

Don't think I'm any less suspicious than you - in any country where there is large disparities in wealth, only parties that have a lot of funding from rich donors or approval from the owners of the mass media stand a chance, which probably means there is a lot of capitalist infiltration.

Still, pro-capitalist infiltration or not, like I said before, better them than unapologetic capitalists. At least it reflects the feeling from the people there, that capitalism is not the way to go. If the country is currently moving toward the left, I'm going to take that as a good sign they can move further.

To put it another way: if right-wing fascists win an election in a country, we consider it a bad thing. If self-proclaimed left-wingers win an election in a country and we also consider it a bad thing, then what exactly do you want out of their elections? Nothing? Fine, if you want to ignore every country's elections, then why bother reading threads about them?

[Dimentio]

Greenland is actually somewhat of a colony, or rather a dominion. The indigenous population have rather high alcoholism- and suicide rates. But I like the Greenlandish culture. It is humane and tolerant. They don't have prisons there.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Monopoly capitalism obviously isn't progressive in comparision to early industrial capitalism, that's exactly the point both Lenin and Luxemburg makes: rather than being a progressive step, it marks the entrance of world capitalism to its era of decay, it makes capitalism completely reactionary. This is exactly why today nothing but the destruction of the capitalist order can be progressive - because world capitalism is a decaying, reactionary order.

"it marks the entrance of world capitalism to its era of decay"

That sounds...progressive.



No, capitalism is capitalism. This doesn't mean that the conditions in which the Swedish and Indian working classes live is the same, but that has nothing to do with capitalism being better or worse in either place.Semantics and empty rhetoric. Good for gaining rep points, but you avoided the point entirely. I think it's fairly obvious that a social democratic party is going to provide better standards of living than say, a libertarian party. Yes, it's still capitalism, but that's kind of obvious considering that I called it "welfare capitalism." To you it may be an "illusion" but to any normal working class person, it's better. I realize that it may be hard to combine with your revolutionary rhetoric, but focusing more on reality than theory is sometimes helpful.

[Ismail]

You would be fooling yourself if you think "the Greenlandic Inuit people" will have "control over their own natural resources" if Greenland becomes independent. "Peoples" are made of classes. If Greenland becomes independent, the Inuit bosses will have full control over natural resources and the workers will still have no control over them.So let's see, the Inuit people have two choices:
1) Struggle against Danish chauvinism and colonialism, achieve independence, eventually have entrenched (albeit not very prosperous) Inuit bourgeoisie who will eventually fall after a socialist revolution overthrows them, meanwhile the Danish (quite a few are defensive about this and don't want to lose Greenland) bourgeoisie lose and the cause of internationalism gains an ally in the Inuit people or;
2) Condemn Inuit separatism as nationalist and foolish, wait further development and socialist revolution to be dictated across the ocean by a European state and culture, wait for inevitable Inuit nationalism in response, crush said nationalism with the Danish Anarchist People's Revolutionary Equality Army and institute the glorious Danish Commune of Greenland.

[Niccolò Rossi]

"it marks the entrance of world capitalism to its era of decay"

That sounds...progressive.

What point are you trying to make?


Semantics and empty rhetoric. Good for gaining rep points, but you avoided the point entirely. I think it's fairly obvious that a social democratic party is going to provide better standards of living than say, a libertarian party. Yes, it's still capitalism, but that's kind of obvious considering that I called it "welfare capitalism." To you it may be an "illusion" but to any normal working class person, it's better. I realize that it may be hard to combine with your revolutionary rhetoric, but focusing more on reality than theory is sometimes helpful.

I'm replying to this because I think your comment about rep points is directed at me.

The point Leo made is not a matter of semantics and rhetoric and he did not avoid the point. Whilst you may think it's fairly obvious that "a social democratic party is going to provide better standards of living than say, a libertarian party", you haven't even bothered to justify the statement.

However, aside from this point and more importantly Leo notes that no capitalism is any 'better' than any other. Today no capitalism is not any 'better' anywhere on earth. If we want to speak however in more concrete terms we would say that capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere on earth. Leo's point is valid and so is my rep.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What point are you trying to make?

The point is that he's entirely wrong to say that "capitalism is never progressive."


I'm replying to this because I think your comment about rep points is directed at me.That my comment followed quoting him would seem to indicate otherwise...


The point Leo made is not a matter of semantics and rhetoric and he did not avoid the point.Yes he did. He said the idea that Swedish style welfare capitalism can provide a better society and better life than capitalism in India is an illusion and incorrect because "capitalism is capitalism." Right after that he said "This doesn't mean that the conditions in which the Swedish and Indian working classes live is the same." Semantics, left-communist rhetoric, etc. as opposed to just agreeing that welfare capitalism can provide a better standard of living than capitalism in the example I gave. The point is that the people that think this way tend to be petty-bourgeois intellectuals that focus more on Marxist theory than the reality of the working class' position.


Whilst you may think it's fairly obvious that "a social democratic party is going to provide better standards of living than say, a libertarian party", you haven't even bothered to justify the statement.Is that honestly necessary? Libertarians are against any interference with the free market, eg: no minimum wage, no limit on the working day, no safety regulations, etc.


However, aside from this point and more importantly Leo notes that no capitalism is any 'better' than any other.Better as in providing a "better society, better lives etc." I don't know about you, but I'd prefer soviet state capitalism or Swedish capitalism to capitalism in a place like Cambodia.


Today no capitalism is not any 'better' anywhere on earth. If we want to speak however in more concrete terms we would say that capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere on earth. Leo's point is valid and so is my rep.Whilst you may think it's fairly obvious that "capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere on earth", you haven't even bothered to justify the statement.

[FreeFocus]

Greenland should become fully independent. This is good news.

For all of you condemning the nationalism of the oppressed, you likely have no clue what it feels like to be on the losing side of history, losing your language, land, and culture by force.

[Dimentio]

Greenland should become fully independent. This is good news.

For all of you condemning the nationalism of the oppressed, you likely have no clue what it feels like to be on the losing side of history, losing your language, land, and culture by force.

The first contact between the Inuits and the Danes were made under the viking era, when Norse settlers established themselves in the south-western coast of Greenland. Neither group during that time had any sort of state-like entity, and the Inuits lived further inland. While there was occasional fighting, neither ethnic group tried to dominate the other, and trade between them actually flourished.

In the 15th century, plagues and English slave raids decimated the Norse settlements in Greenland, until the original Norse settlements were gone by the end of that century. It was first in the 19th century when Denmark took over Greenland directly.

An independent Greenland would be awesome. But the question is if its feasible. We are talking about a country which is as large as western Europe with a population of 55 000, with a rather high unemployment, high median age and enormous dependency on imported goods. The main resource for the moment is fishing waters.

http://geology.com/news/images/satellite-image-of-greenland.gif

[FreeFocus]

The first contact between the Inuits and the Danes were made under the viking era, when Norse settlers established themselves in the south-western coast of Greenland. Neither group during that time had any sort of state-like entity, and the Inuits lived further inland. While there was occasional fighting, neither ethnic group tried to dominate the other, and trade between them actually flourished.

In the 15th century, plagues and English slave raids decimated the Norse settlements in Greenland, until the original Norse settlements were gone by the end of that century. It was first in the 19th century when Denmark took over Greenland directly.

An independent Greenland would be awesome. But the question is if its feasible. We are talking about a country which is as large as western Europe with a population of 55 000, with a rather high unemployment, high median age and enormous dependency on imported goods. The main resource for the moment is fishing waters.

I'm familiar with the history of Greenland. I'm assuming since you wrote all that out that you disagree with my stance that the Inuit have been oppressed?

Moreover, even if Greenland became nominally independent, it would still be pulled into the sphere of Canadian and American imperialism. I mean, it is in the North American imperialist sphere now, but it would be wholly swallowed, especially considering Greenland's resources.

[Dimentio]

I'm familiar with the history of Greenland. I'm assuming since you wrote all that out that you disagree with my stance that the Inuit have been oppressed?

Moreover, even if Greenland became nominally independent, it would still be pulled into the sphere of Canadian and American imperialism. I mean, it is in the North American imperialist sphere now, but it would be wholly swallowed, especially considering Greenland's resources.

Of course the Inuits have been oppressed! Evidence is that they search for independence.

I also agree they will probably be pushed into the North American sphere if becoming independent. The problem is the size of Greenland (population-wise). The country cannot muster its own defense.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The point is that he's entirely wrong to say that "capitalism is never progressive."

No, he is not wrong. Capitalism was once progressive, this is an undeniable truth that GO acknowledges. However, GO did not say "capitalism can never be progressive", he said "capitalism is never progressive", using present tense. I would agree he could have phrased it better, ie. "Capitalism is not and can not be progressive anywhere in the world today"


That my comment followed quoting him would seem to indicate otherwise...

That your comment referred to GO's post as an easy way to get rep points indicates to me otherwise.


Yes he did. He said the idea that Swedish style welfare capitalism can provide a better society and better life than capitalism in India is an illusion and incorrect because "capitalism is capitalism." Right after that he said "This doesn't mean that the conditions in which the Swedish and Indian working classes live is the same."

No he didn't. GO makes a valid distinction. Capitalism is no better or worse (ie. more or less progressive) anywhere on earth. However, the conditions in which the working class lives can be better or worse (ie. vary geography)


as opposed to just agreeing that welfare capitalism can provide a better standard of living than capitalism in the example I gave.

He did agree with this, however this was not your original question. If you want to be ambiguous and ask abstract answers don't turn around and cry about "semantics, left-communist rhetoric".


The point is that the people that think this way tend to be petty-bourgeois intellectuals that focus more on Marxist theory than the reality of the working class' position.

This is an assumption of your own and has no bearing on the matter at hand.


Whilst you may think it's fairly obvious that "capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere on earth", you haven't even bothered to justify the statement.

Ironic for a user with the name "Socialism or Barbarism". The question of capitalist decadence has received a fair bit of 'air time' on the board as of late. If you want you are happy to join in the discussion group going on in the "Research and Online Classes" board.

Since I don't have the time and energy to devote to a more thorough response to the question I will leave it at this. Capitalism is a decadent system because with the capture of the entire globe and capitalism's generalisation, like all modes of production which have preceded it, "from forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters".


Greenland should become fully independent. This is good news.

Who needs liberals when you have anarchists like these?


For all of you condemning the nationalism of the oppressed, you likely have no clue what it feels like to be on the losing side of history, losing your language, land, and culture by force.

There is not real political argument here.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No, he is not wrong. Capitalism was once progressive, this is an undeniable truth that GO acknowledges. However, GO did not say "capitalism can never be progressive", he said "capitalism is never progressive", using present tense. I would agree he could have phrased it better, ie. "Capitalism is not and can not be progressive anywhere in the world today"

What I said still applies to the present. The developments in Venezuela are surely progressive, for example. I think that capitalism is plenty progressive in many parts of the world.


No he didn't. GO makes a valid distinction. Capitalism is no better or worse (ie. more or less progressive) anywhere on earth. However, the conditions in which the working class lives can be better or worse (ie. vary geography)Read the whole thread. It was about providing a "better society, better lives." From a theoretical perspective, yes, it's capitalism, and not fundamentally different. From the perspective of the people that actually have to live and work under those conditions, it's certainly better, not an "illusion," "not in their interests" etc. His posts seem so divorced from the working class.


He did agree with this, however this was not your original question. If you want to be ambiguous and ask abstract answers don't turn around and cry about "semantics, left-communist rhetoric".
The question was concerning whether it could provide a better standard of living. You need to view it in the context of the discussion. He was just using semantics to avoid saying that capitalism in Sweden is better(as far as providing a standard of living) than in India.


Ironic for a user with the name "Socialism or Barbarism". The question of capitalist decadence has received a fair bit of 'air time' on the board as of late. If you want you are happy to join in the discussion group going on in the "Research and Online Classes" board.I don't see the irony. Capitalism is barbaric. So were feudalism and slavery. That has nothing to do with them being progressive developments at one point.


Since I don't have the time and energy to devote to a more thorough response to the question I will leave it at this. Capitalism is a decadent system because with the capture of the entire globe and capitalism's generalisation, like all modes of production which have preceded it, "from forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters". I see a lot of development of the productive forces still going on in most of the world.


No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed

[Niccolò Rossi]

What I said still applies to the present. The developments in Venezuela are surely progressive, for example. I think that capitalism is plenty progressive in many parts of the world.

I'm sure you do think that. The communist left do not. In the heritage of Marx and the revolutionary workers' movement we identify the advent of the era of workers revolution with the era of capitalism's decadence.


Read the whole thread. It was about providing a "better society, better lives." From a theoretical perspective, yes, it's capitalism, and not fundamentally different. From the perspective of the people that actually have to live and work under those conditions, it's certainly better, not an "illusion," "not in their interests" etc. His posts seem so divorced from the working class.

I think maybe GO could clarify this question a little more.

I think one reality we do have to accept is that, as GO says, "It is classes, not political parties that really rule under capitalism". The political representatives of the bourgeoisie, both left and right are always still ultimately at the service of the ruling class and the needs of capitalism. At times of crisis whether they be economic, military or social, the state is forced to assert the interests and needs of capital and the bourgeoisie upon the working class.


I don't see the irony. Capitalism is barbaric. So were feudalism and slavery. That has nothing to do with them being progressive developments at one point.

Why not "Socialism or Capitalism" then? Certainly 'barbarism' only confuses things?

The slogan "Socialism or Barbarism" as raised by Rosa Luxemburg had everything to do with capitalisms decadence. It signified that capitalism had ceased to be progressive and could only guarantee war, destruction, economic crisis, poverty, and the most brutal exploitation.


"Friedrich Engels once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” What does “regression into barbarism” mean to our lofty European civilization? Until now, we have all probably read and repeated these words thoughtlessly, without suspecting their fearsome seriousness. A look around us at this moment shows what the regression of bourgeois society into barbarism means. This world war is a regression into barbarism. The triumph of imperialism leads to the annihilation of civilization. At first, this happens sporadically for the duration of a modern war, but then when the period of unlimited wars begins it progresses toward its inevitable consequences. Today, we face the choice exactly as Friedrich Engels foresaw it a generation ago: either the triumph of imperialism and the collapse of all civilization as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration – a great cemetery. Or the victory of socialism, that means the conscious active struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism and its method of war. This is a dilemma of world history, an either/or; the scales are wavering before the decision of the class-conscious proletariat. The future of civilization and humanity depends on whether or not the proletariat resolves manfully to throw its revolutionary broadsword into the scales. In this war imperialism has won. Its bloody sword of genocide has brutally tilted the scale toward the abyss of misery. The only compensation for all the misery and all the shame would be if we learn from the war how the proletariat can seize mastery of its own destiny and escape the role of the lackey to the ruling classes." (Junius Pamphlet)


"The World War confronts society with the choice: either continuation of capitalism, new wars, and imminent decline into chaos and anarchy, or abolition of capitalist exploitation.


"With the conclusion of world war, the class rule of the bourgeoisie has forfeited its right to existence. It is no longer capable of leading society out of the terrible economic collapse which the imperialist orgy has left in its wake.


"Means of production have been destroyed on a monstrous scale. Millions of able workers, the finest and strongest sons of the working class, slaughtered. Awaiting the survivors’ return stands the leering misery of unemployment. Famine and disease threaten to sap the strength of the people at its root. The financial bankruptcy of the state, due to the monstrous burdens of the war debt, is inevitable.


"Out of all this bloody confusion, this yawning abyss, there is no help, no escape, no rescue other than socialism. Only the revolution of the world proletariat can bring order into this chaos, can bring work and bread for all, can end the reciprocal slaughter of the peoples, can restore peace, freedom, true culture to this martyred humanity.



[...]


"In this hour, socialism is the only salvation for humanity. The words of the Communist Manifesto flare like a fiery menetekel[/URL] above the crumbling bastions of capitalist society:
"Socialism or barbarism!" (What does the Spartacus League want?)



I see a lot of development of the productive forces still going on in most of the world.

Yes development. Yes decadence.

All you are doing here is selectively quoting Marx without consideration and drawing incorrect conclusions from this. In the study group Socialist links to [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/total-halt-productive-t107775/index.html"]we have already discussed this matter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm#foot-1) under chpt 4 "A total halt to the productive forces?" of "The Decadence of Capitalism". To quote from the pamphlet:


"Even if a large part of this production is used only for military purposes; even if the gap between industrialised countries and underdeveloped countries grows, it seems obvious that 'the productive forces have not stopped growing'. Even if the evolution of political structures indicates the decomposition of the dominant value system, the development of class antagonisms as well as conflicts within the ruling class are all evidence of a 'crisis of civilisation' - a decline of capitalism at the superstructural level - it seems that many marxists find it difficult to speak of 'decadence in the capitalist system' when they see so much 'economic expansion'.


"Marx wrote: "No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have developed..." (Marx, Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)


"A certain way of interpreting this passage led Trotsky, for example, to write at the beginning of his Transitional Programme (1938):"The economic prerequisite for the proletarian revolution has already in general achieved the highest point of fruition that can be reached under capitalism. Mankind's productive forces stagnate".


"Trotsky was describing a reality that was more or less borne out by the statistics of the time. But apart from the realities of 1938, to prove that humanity has entered an age of social revolution and therefore the phase of capitalist decadence, must one hold that the productive forces have definitively stopped growing? And when twenty years later the same statistics show a relatively strong growth in world production must one then come to the opposite conclusion? In short, for a society to have irreversibly entered its period of decline, must the productive forces have entirely stopped growing? The problem raised by Marx in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is in fact the question of defining the economic conditions in which the passage from one form of society to another becomes possible.
Marx's answer can be summarised in this way: the relations of production which men enter into for the social production of their means of existence and which constitute the real basis of their society, correspond to a given degree of development of the productive forces. In the course of history, the full development of these forces necessitates important and repeated changes in these relations of production.


"For a social form based on new relations of production to be viable, a corresponding evolution in the productive forces must have taken place. If these forces are not 'sufficiently developed', there is no objective possibility for a new system of production to arise and survive. The problem is to determine what 'sufficiently developed' entails, and what is the maximum development of productive forces for which the old 'social order... is sufficient' and which once attained makes a new society possible and necessary. The marxist response does not refer to any particular quantitative level, determined without reference to the economic mechanisms (zero growth included). On the contrary, it refers to a qualitative level of relationship which links the relations of production themselves and the development of the productive forces.


" "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 which they have operated hitherto...Then begins an era of social revolution." (Marx, Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, our emphasis).


"It is the appearance of this definitive and irreversible 'conflict' and not a halt in the development of the productive forces which opens 'the era' of the decadence of the old society. Marx states this criterion clearly: "From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters." (Ibid).


"Marx's statement must be understood in this sense: a society never expires before the development of the productive forces has begun to be definitively checked by the existing relations of production. According to the marxist view, the period of a society's decadence cannot be characterised by a total and permanent halt in the growth of the productive forces but by the definitive slackening of this growth. Absolute halts in the growth of the productive forces do, in fact, appear during the phases of decadence. But these stoppages appear only momentarily in the capitalist system because the economy cannot function without a constantly increasing accumulation of capital. They are the violent convulsions which regularly accompany the progression of decadence. " (The Decadence of Capitalism, A Total Halt to the Productive Forces, ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/134/what-method-to-understand-decadence))

also on this question:


"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.


"Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation."



"In this next passage, Marx further stresses the importance of basing a perspective for social revolution not on the purely moral abhorrence inspired by a system of exploitation, but on its inability to develop the productivity of labour and, in general, the capacity of human beings to satisfy their material needs.


"The argument that a society never expires until it has worn out all capacity for development has been used to argue against the idea that capitalism has reached its period of decadence: capitalism has clearly grown since 1914 and we can't say it is decadent until all growth ceases. It's true that a great deal of confusion has been caused by theories such as Trotsky's in the 1930s, who asserted that the productive forces had ceased to grow. Given that capitalism was in the throes of its greatest ever depression at the time, this view seemed plausible; furthermore, the idea that decadence is marked by a complete halt in the development of the productive forces, and even a regression, can to some extent be applied to previous class societies where the crisis was always the result of underproduction, an absolute inability to produce enough to sustain society's basic needs (and even in those systems, the process of "descent" was never without phases of apparent recovery and even vigorous growth). But the basic problem with this view is that it ignores the fundamental reality of capitalism - the necessity for growth, for accumulation, for the expanded reproduction of value. As we shall see, in the system's decadence, this necessity can only be met by tampering more and more with the very laws of capitalist production, but as we shall also see, the point will probably never be reached when capitalist accumulation becomes absolutely impossible. As Rosa Luxemburg pointed out in The Anticritique, such a point was "a theoretical fiction, because capital accumulation is not just an economic but also a political process". Furthermore, Marx had already posited the notion of growth as decay: "The highest development of this basis itself (the flower into which it transforms itself; but it is always this basis, this plant as flower; hence wilting after the flowering and as a consequence of the flowering) is the point at which it is itself worked out, developed, into the form in which it is compatible with the highest development of the forces of production, hence also the richest development of individuals. As soon as this point is reached, the further development appears as decay, and the new development begins from a new basis".



"Capitalism has certainly developed sufficient productive forces for a new and higher mode of production to arise. In fact from the moment the material conditions for communism have been developed, the system enters into decline. By creating a world economy - fundamental for communism - capitalism also reached the limits of its healthy development. The decadence of capitalism is thus not to be identified with a complete cessation of production, but by a growing series of convulsions and catastrophes which demonstrate the absolute necessity for its overthrow." (What scientific method do we need to understand the present social order...?, International Review, ICC)


However, aside from all this, the fact remains, all Marxists accept some sort of 'decadence theory'. If you refuse to assert that capitalism is not decadent because the productive forces have not ceased to grow, you must accept the reality that this is in fact not the era of proletarian social revolution and that communism is still off the agenda of history.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm sure you do think that. The communist left do not. In the heritage of Marx and the revolutionary workers' movement we identify the advent of the era of workers revolution with the era of capitalism's decadence.

Uh, cool.


I think maybe GO could clarify this question a little more.

I think one reality we do have to accept is that, as GO says, "It is classes, not political parties that really rule under capitalism". And that is perhaps the most redundant/idiotic statement ever. It's not "classes" that rule under capitalism, it's a class, the capitalist class, and that's pretty obvious when it's called capitalism.


The political representatives of the bourgeoisie, both left and right are always still ultimately at the service of the ruling class and the needs of capitalism. At times of crisis whether they be economic, military or social, the state is forced to assert the interests and needs of capital and the bourgeoisie upon the working class.
The political representatives of the bourgeoisie are always at the service of the bourgeoisie? Yes, I know this.


Why not "Socialism or Capitalism" then? Certainly 'barbarism' only confuses things?

The slogan "Socialism or Barbarism" as raised by Rosa Luxemburg had everything to do with capitalisms decadence. It signified that capitalism had ceased to be progressive and could only guarantee war, destruction, economic crisis, poverty, and the most brutal exploitation.Even when capitalism was progressive it was still characterized by war, destruction, economic crisis, poverty, and brutal exploitation.


Yes development. Yes decadence.

All you are doing here is selectively quoting Marx without consideration and drawing incorrect conclusions from this. So when I do it it's selective quoting. Alrighty.


In the study group Socialist links to we have already discussed this matter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/total-halt-productive-t107775/index.html) under chpt 4 "A total halt to the productive forces?" of "The Decadence of Capitalism". To quote from the pamphlet:Cool, a long quote that doesn't even deal with the issue.


also on this question:And another long quote that doesn't deal with it. The only time they came close to actually dealing with the issue is this:


Capitalism has certainly developed sufficient productive forces for a new and higher mode of production to arise. In fact from the moment the material conditions for communism have been developed, the system enters into decline. By creating a world economy - fundamental for communism - capitalism also reached the limits of its healthy development. The decadence of capitalism is thus not to be identified with a complete cessation of production, but by a growing series of convulsions and catastrophes which demonstrate the absolute necessity for its overthrow."They assert that there are enough productive for worldwide communism, but provide no proof. They also say it is no longer capable of "healthy development" because it is globalized, but they don't elaborate. Then they say it's decadent when crisis appear that demonstrate the necessity of it's overthrow, which is pretty vague, because they could use that to demonstrate that capitalism was decadent 80 years ago, or 140 years ago, etc. It doesn't help that crisis are not as frequent or long as they used to be. So, why do you place so much value on a pamphlet that seems to provide little answers?


However, aside from all this, the fact remains, all Marxists accept some sort of 'decadence theory'. If you refuse to assert that capitalism is not decadent because the productive forces have not ceased to grow, you must accept the reality that this is in fact not the era of proletarian social revolution and that communism is still off the agenda of history.The economic growth we see in the US is a lot different from the kind of growth we see in places such as India or Angola.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It seems to me you are only still responding for the sake of responding (You don't need to quote me endlessly line by line just for the sake of saying "Uh, cool", "Yes, I know this" or "Alrighty"). Given this, and the fact that this discussion has gone way off topic this will be my last post in this thread.


And that is perhaps the most redundant/idiotic statement ever. It's not "classes" that rule under capitalism, it's a class, the capitalist class, and that's pretty obvious when it's called capitalism.

This is embarrassingly petty. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with Leo's use of the word "classes" to denote bourgeois class rule. Nor do I think this point is redudant. The fact that social democracy or any any 'progressive' party can never circumvent the laws of capital is a correct and important one (something it seems clear to me that certain people on this board would like to ignore).


Even when capitalism was progressive it was still characterized by war, destruction, economic crisis, poverty, and brutal exploitation.This is a very good point. But I think what we can say is that there is a qualitative difference here. Military expenditure made up only a small fraction of national economies, war manifested itself in skirmishes between individual nation states which left levels of destruction magnitudes smaller than those today which always take on a imperialist and international dynamic and whose respective combatants economies and largely dependant upon militarism. Economic crises, likewise, were quantitatively smaller, were often confined to only individual national economy's or even individual industries, etc.

I think this is an interesting topic, however, one that neither belongs here, nor that I have the time for at the moment.


They assert that there are enough productive for worldwide communism, but provide no proof. They also say it is no longer capable of "healthy development" because it is globalized, but they don't elaborate.Obviously every distinct concept such as these can not be elaborated at length every article where they may come up or be referred to in passing! These questions must be and have been elaborated elsewhere.


The economic growth we see in the US is a lot different from the kind of growth we see in places such as India or Angola."[You] assert that there [there is a difference between the economic growth we see in the US and that in India and Angola], but provide no proof".

"[You] also say [that there is a difference between the economic growth we see in the US and that in India and Angola], but [you] don't elaborate."

Pointlessly annoying, isn't it?

On a serious note, I'm not sure why you wrote this in response to the quoted text of my post, or what the significance of this is.