if you don't walk around all day with a banker in a headlock

[Synergy]

then you're not a true communist

confirm/deny?

[Sasha]

i have mine in a jar of formaldehyde, does that count?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, I know you're not really supposed to post serious responses to chit-chat threads, but I'm a rebel. Am I the only one who's slightly miffed by anti-bank sentiment? I mean, yeah, banks are part of the capitalist system and they screw a lot of people over, but for the last five years or so it seems banks have surpassed even the nebulous "corporations" as the things people point to as uniquely bad when they don't to blame capitalism as such. And it's gotten to the point I've heard people rail against bank tellers. Also a lot of this is mixed with some pretty disgusting conspiracy lunacy.

Not saying the OP is like that, it's just that I was reminded of all that.

[Hit The North]

If you don't blame the capitalism of bankers and corporations then you are blaming a strange, empty kind of capitalism.

...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you don't blame the capitalism of bankers and corporations then you are blaming a strange, empty kind of capitalism.

...

I "blame" capitalism as it is, which includes both corporations and unincorporated businesses, international conglomerates and Ma and Pa shops. In fact international conglomerates are closer to socialism than bloody Ma and Pa shops are.

Also banks are necessary to run capitalism, getting angry at banks in abstract is like getting angry at the suspension because you got run over by a car.

[Synergy]

i have mine in a jar of formaldehyde, does that count?

they also make good worm food


getting angry at banks in abstract is like getting angry at the suspension because you got run over by a car.

just for future reference, a lot of my posts are half-joking or mocking certain empty/misinformed ideas.

and yeah you're right about banking executives being only a piece in the larger capitalistic picture

[Hatshepsut]

Am I the only one who's slightly miffed by anti-bank sentiment?

Indeed, if you want to do a revolution, see your loan officer right away. All that mass support in the streets does have to be paid for in some way. Even Lenin had bankers, albeit stingy ones who didn't give him much. :grin:

[Hit The North]

I "blame" capitalism as it is, which includes both corporations and unincorporated businesses, international conglomerates and Ma and Pa shops. In fact international conglomerates are closer to socialism than bloody Ma and Pa shops are.

Also banks are necessary to run capitalism, getting angry at banks in abstract is like getting angry at the suspension because you got run over by a car.

So you do blame banks then, but think that the criticism of banks is blind to them being intrinsic to capitalism? Does your impatience with this lead you to patiently explain the link or do you just get angry?

As far as I'm concerned when millions of people are questioning the role of the banks - which as you say, are intrinsic to capitalism - then this is a step towards their enlightenment.

BTW, if you think that the capitalist conglomerate takes us closer to socialism then you must be a fan of neo-liberalism which promotes them. Why not support TTIP which enhances the power of the corporations which, presumably by your reasoning, promotes the cause of socialism further?

Phew, talk about adopting abstract positions!

...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

just for future reference, a lot of my posts are half-joking or mocking certain empty/misinformed ideas.

Like I said, I wasn't criticising you, I was commenting on something I see a lot among ostensible socialists and leftists.


So you do blame banks then, but think that the criticism of banks is blind to them being intrinsic to capitalism? Does your impatience with this lead you to patiently explain the link or do you just stamp your feet like a self-righteous Trot?

I don't blame banks as such, no, it's absurd to blame them when they're an indispensable part of the current mode of production (and an indispensable part of the transitional society as well, unless you think it is possible for a nationalised economy transitioning to total planning but still existing in the context of a global market to ignore the banking sector).

As for how I react to anti-bank populism, that depends. If we're talking about workers without political education, then sure, I will explain (not that it often does much good, but there you have it). If we're talking about people who proclaim themselves to be socialists, Marxists etc. then I'm more inclined to roll my eyes. When we get to conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Illuminati lizard-Jewry I slowly start backing off.



BTW, if you think that the capitalist conglomerate takes us closer to socialism then you must be a fan of neo-liberalism which promotes them. Why not support TTIP which enhances the power of the corporations which, presumably by your reasoning, promotes the cause of socialism further?

Phew, talk about adopting abstract positions!

...

I don't support TIPP because it's not the job of communists to develop capitalism. That is the job of capitalists and - you know what, we have to hand it to them, they've done it well. Capitalism already includes the objective prerequisites for socialism, including globalised, objectively socialised industrial production. Now it's time for the workers to shock the world with the depth of their ingratitude and overthrow them. It is still a fact that the international conglomerate, financial oligarchies and state capitalism are closer to socialism in terms of organisation of production than small shops many seem to idealise. This isn't some crazy idea I cooked up in my spare time, it was the basic Leninist position in e.g. the debate about the NEP and state capitalism. The modern "left's" appreciation for small enterprise comes, not from Lenin but from interwar social-democracy.

[Hit The North]

I don't blame banks as such, no, it's absurd to blame them when they're an indispensable part of the current mode of production (and an indispensable part of the transitional society as well, unless you think it is possible for a nationalised economy transitioning to total planning but still existing in the context of a global market to ignore the banking sector).


I don't get your point here. If the banks are an indispensable part of the capitalist mode of production, and you are opposed to that MOP, then why are you so hostile to critical attacks on the banking system?

My point is that if you put criticism to one side of the banks and the corporations, on the basis that they are just behaving according to their nature, then you are subtracting a good deal of actual content from your critique of the capitalist MOP. Who are you going to agitate against if not the prime movers of the capitalist system; the Mom 'n' Pop stores? Besides, capitalism as a MOP also only behaves according to an intrinsic logic, should we therefore not blame it for the subjugation of labour and all the woes that pile up at the door of the international proletariat? It seems a brainless point to make.


As for how I react to anti-bank populism, that depends. If we're talking about workers without political education, then sure, I will explain (not that it often does much good, but there you have it). If we're talking about people who proclaim themselves to be socialists, Marxists etc. then I'm more inclined to roll my eyes. When we get to conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Illuminati lizard-Jewry I slowly start backing off.
Don't dismiss those "socialists" and "Marxists" who have fallen into error, comrade. You might have more in common with them than you think.


I don't support TIPP because it's not the job of communists to develop capitalism. Well, the real question is whether you oppose it. Or is it just capitalism being capitalism?


Capitalism already includes the objective prerequisites for socialism, including globalised, objectively socialised industrial production. Now it's time for the workers to shock the world with the depth of their ingratitude and overthrow them. It is still a fact that the international conglomerate, financial oligarchies and state capitalism are closer to socialism in terms of organisation of production than small shops many seem to idealise. This isn't some crazy idea I cooked up in my spare time, it was the basic Leninist position in e.g. the debate about the NEP and state capitalism. The modern "left's" appreciation for small enterprise comes, not from Lenin but from interwar social-democracy.The basic Leninist position might need, ahem, revision. Adopting bourgeois "scientific management" and giving it a socialist spin did not do much for the Russian workers, except subject them to the authoritarian law of accumulation. It might have been necessary to grow the economy but it didn't produce one step towards socialism. More to the point, the modern era of conglomeration has not produced the effects which Marx and Lenin attributed to former organisational forms of big capital: namely, a concentration of labourers, growth of trade unions and class consciousness. At least, this has not been the effect of neo-liberalism in the West, where we have seen massive declines in working class organisation and a decrease in the socialisation of the means of production.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't get your point here. If the banks are an indispensable part of the capitalist mode of production, and you are opposed to that MOP, then why are you so hostile to critical attacks on the banking system?

Because these attacks - which constitute anti-bank populism - take one aspect of the mode of production and attack it in isolation, meaning they amnesty other elements of capitalism. The politics they express is not progressive socialism but a reactionary longing for the days of early capitalism before finance capitalism, before imperialism and so on.


My point is that if you put criticism to one side of the banks and the corporations, on the basis that they are just behaving according to their nature, then you are subtracting a good deal of actual content from your critique of the capitalist MOP. Who are you going to agitate against if not the prime movers of the capitalist system; the Mom 'n' Pop stores?

Socialists agitate against the system, not individual actors in the system. Sometimes our agitation is focused against large capital, sometimes not. The recent outrageous hike in drug prices, for example, was not because of large capital but because of small, innovative capital. The near-miraculous feat of recuperation that Argentinian capital pulled off after the crisis there was mostly due to co-operatives, which are certainly not large capital, and so on.


Besides, capitalism as a MOP also only behaves according to an intrinsic logic, should we therefore not blame it for the subjugation of labour and all the woes that pile up at the door of the international proletariat? It seems a brainless point to make.

Except it's not possible to oppose capitalist logic without opposing capitalism; it is possible to oppose banks without opposing generalised commodity production, wage labour and private ownership.


Don't dismiss those "socialists" and "Marxists" who have fallen into error, comrade. You might have more in common with them than you think.

But I'm not interested in finding common ground. Anyone can do that, just lose all your principles and you can find common ground with anyone. Socialists are surely interested in clarifying their position, exposing disagreement, sharpening contradictions with the movement itself so the revolutionary elements can join together on the basis of a clear, firm position and the opportunist elements can split off.


Well, the real question is whether you oppose it. Or is it just capitalism being capitalism?

For the most part it is. Anyone who considers themselves a socialist should oppose things like lessening pesticide regulations, but when it comes to Parmesan makers and their precious DOC, let them rot. Generally it's not our concern if the state adopts a protectionist or free-trade attitude, the workers are fucked either way.


The basic Leninist position might need, ahem, revision. Adopting bourgeois "scientific management" and giving it a socialist spin did not do much for the Russian workers, except subject them to the authoritarian law of accumulation. It might have been necessary to grow the economy but it didn't produce one step towards socialism. More to the point, the modern era of conglomeration has not produced the effects which Marx and Lenin attributed to former organisational forms of big capital: namely, a concentration of labourers, growth of trade unions and class consciousness. At least, this has not been the effect of neo-liberalism in the West, where we have seen massive declines in working class organisation and a decrease in the socialisation of the means of production.

Industrial production is more socialised today than it has ever been, even if that is not always visible in Europe, with its overabundance of the parasitic middle strata, and while the unions have declined, it was not due to increased centralisation, but the success of their petit-bourgeois leadership in averting the threat of revolution. The bourgeoisie no longer needs the union tops. But even today, large capital creates new proletarian strata, producing, for example, a strong young proletariat in Southeast Asia.

And obviously no one was trying to build socialism in Russia; socialism in one country hadn't been invented yet. The point was that petty commodity production was more dangerous to the workers' state than ten thousand imperialist concessions and that the planned economy of the workers state could only develop on the basis of methods inherited from finance and state capitalism. This has been proven time and again.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

This debate is awfully intense for chit-chat.

[Asero]

This debate is awfully intense for chit-chat.

thats because communist shit-shat is dialectical

[Sewer Socialist]

Do the hammerlock you reformist turkeynecks

8UQ9bKBnIO4