United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

[The Idler]

Couldn't see a thread on this at first glance so I thought I would make a poll
The background to this can be found on Wikipedia

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, also known as the EU referendum, is scheduled to take place in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on 23 June 2016.[1][2] Membership of the European Union has been a controversial issue in the United Kingdom since the country joined the then European Economic Community in 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendu m,_2016
As usual have a read through the responses below before you cast your vote on this poll.

[Q]

I'm really tempted to just have this massive divisive element drop out so the EU project could finally steam ahead and continue mature the objective basis for the working class to organise and take power on a pan-European basis...

However, I will vote for the first option. Unity, even in this case with all its stupid exceptions and breaks, is better than breaking up. Besides the obvious need for workers unity, I very much doubt that the UK would leave the Union as it would drastically change her position on the world stage, for the worse. A big reason why, after all, the US allows London to remain a big financial center is because of the role it plays in keeping Europe disunited. Would the UK leave, I'd expect a strategic shift on the part of the US should the UK remain out. Being a junior partner in this "special relationship" with the US, the UK really has no option but to remain in the Union.

[Lord Testicles]

I think leaving the EU will be bad for the UK which is why I'll be voting to leave the EU.

[hexaune]

I'm really tempted to just have this massive divisive element drop out so the EU project could finally steam ahead and continue mature the objective basis for the working class to organise and take power on a pan-European basis...

However, I will vote for the first option. Unity, even in this case with all its stupid exceptions and breaks, is better than breaking up. Besides the obvious need for workers unity, I very much doubt that the UK would leave the Union as it would drastically change her position on the world stage, for the worse. A big reason why, after all, the US allows London to remain a big financial center is because of the role it plays in keeping Europe disunited. Would the UK leave, I'd expect a strategic shift on the part of the US should the UK remain out. Being a junior partner in this "special relationship" with the US, the UK really has no option but to remain in the Union.

You are correct that leaving the EU is not a sensible option for the country on many levels but the right wing press and politicians have used europe as a bogeyman/scapegoat for so long now, this whole thing might well completely backfire on them.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Why do I have to vote to see the results? It's the 2nd most annoying thing on this forum after the password policy.

Is it so the results don't influence how people vote?
Don't you see that can backfire because some people might vote randomly just to see the results?

I ended up voting leaving UE, but it's not really an informed opinion, I'm just sick of the status quo and want to stir shit up, CHAOOOOS.

[Blake's Baby]

The UK should cease to exist, as all states should, overwhelmed by a proletarian revolution.

That's not going to be an option on the poll though, because bourgeois democracy is 'a bit shit'.

[The Idler]

The UK should cease to exist, as all states should, overwhelmed by a proletarian revolution.

That's not going to be an option on the poll though, because bourgeois democracy is 'a bit shit'.
On the poll above, that comes under Other.

[Armchair Partisan]

I find it obnoxious that Britain (read: the British bourgeoisie) already has so many extra privileges in the EU and they just want more and more, constantly whining about it, so I say "leave the EU" from an emotional standpoint. From an objective, Marxist standpoint, staying within the EU can probably help the workers organize on a transnational level, so it might be a bit more sensible, but who the heck knows. Honestly, both options have their advantages and disadvantages for the workers' movement, it's hard to tell which would be better from an objective standpoint, if it even matters.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm really tempted to just have this massive divisive element drop out so the EU project could finally steam ahead and continue mature the objective basis for the working class to organise and take power on a pan-European basis...

That's some mighty wishful thinking right here, that the EU project matures anything like the "objective basis" (which is also an expression so vague that it isn't clear what is implied here; most of the time when Marxists talk about an objective basis for socialism, it refers to the productive forces of society which could ease and hasten the formation of global production for need) for the working class to organise.

So, what's this objective basis all about? What are the decisive events and developments which count as evidence for your view that a) the EU has already matured some of it and b) that it can proceed to do so in the future?

As for my two cents from the EU periphery, there was no tangible development of any basis for working class organizing. Instead, what we got is a peculiar development of a liberal nationalism which works on the basis of demarcating the European community of civilized values from tribal groupings to the east, and most of all from the waves of migrants coming in and threatening our values. And in a very peculiar turn of events, the EU membership actually fortified the basis for further social atomization of the class by providing a huge impetus for economic emigration in search for more stability and more pay (since there's no well entrenched tradition of working class action on a larger scale in this country, it's no wonder this our "objective basis" turns out to have precisely contrary manifestations than the ones we'd expect from the tale quoted above).

So yeah, we could focus on a pan-European unity, but day by day it is increasingly clear that this comes at the expense of a broader unity. The price to pay is fortress Europe.

And just to be clear, the solution isn't bring down everything and to hell with the EU. In fact, there's no solution here proposed, just dissolution of wishful thinking about actual effects of the European integration.

[Kilij]

I feel the UK needs to break apart and the monarchy completely put an end to, not the EU(for now) to keep the workers connected and keep open borders. So I suppose just having England, Wales, Scotland, and a single Ireland as separate members of the EU. Revolution would be easier with the governments separate, but the people still together.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm completely undecided. I see that there are arguments for both sides, from a socialist perspective.

On the one hand, staying in the EU obviously makes the logistics of working class unity easier, and also protects a Conservative-led UK from having human rights and health & safety legislation repealed.

On the other hand, the EU has shown that it is in the main a capitalist club. It bullied Greece into submission whilst allowing excessive leeway to wealthier nations like Britain. Its response to the migrant crisis has been shameful, it has a severe democratic deficit, and it is staffed full of and supported by almost all shades of capital.

My heart says vote 'out', purely because of what the EU is and what it represents - capital. My head is saying vote 'in', least of all because Brexit would probably lead to the restoration of the Farage political show and serve the interests of the xenophobic, anti-immigrant, islamophobic far-right more than it would to those of us who oppose the EU from the left.

I will wait and see.

[Dazhao]

I do not want to remain part of a globalist union with imperialistic tendencies. I don't want to see a European army and air force bombing parts of the world for resources, nor do I want to see depressed wages and more unfair deals for workers of European countries.

The European union is a failed undemocratic project.

I'll be voting out.

[Blake's Baby]

On the poll above, that comes under Other.

Sorry, I voted 'Other', then posted to explain what my vote meant (and when I said, 'in the poll', I meant in the referendum), but forgot to say I'd voted 'Other', so there was no context for the 'explanation', meaning it wasn't an explanation at all, it just resembled a kind of political Tourettes'.

My spell check wants to correct that to 'Courgettes'.

[bricolage]

My heart says vote 'out', purely because of what the EU is and what it represents - capital. My head is saying vote 'in', least of all because Brexit would probably lead to the restoration of the Farage political show and serve the interests of the xenophobic, anti-immigrant, islamophobic far-right more than it would to those of us who oppose the EU from the left.
I think the left needs to get rid of any delusion it might have that its 'out' arguments are going to have any relationship to an 'out' vote and that the things it thinks could be accomplished if the UK left the EU are in any way close to what will actually happen. Vote no if you want but don't get it twisted, if the referendum goes for 'out' then the UK will leave the EU under the arguments of the right and that exit will only strengthen the policies that said right wants to implement.

[LionofTepelenë]

put the diseased body of the British empire and its pompous rulers out of their misery.

I vote out.

[PikSmeet]

I voted to spoil my ballot paper, as in or out of the EU workers will still be exploited. I became a socialist to end this, not to reform capitalism.

[PikSmeet]

Lion of Tepelene...

Somehow I don't think that is why Farage is campaigning to leave the EU...

[logfish111]

There is no way that I'm siding with all of these super right-wing twats because if they end up winning then they're arguments have practically been validated. There are valid reasons to leave the EU from a left-wing perspective but they will be buried underneath all the xenophobic "lets get our country back" nonsense.

For that reason I will probably vote in or simply abstain.

[Futility Personified]

I find it concerning that TTIP still isn't being scrutinized, and now the Americans have thrown their impetus into convincing the UK to stay, I think it would be better to leave. Not from a knee-jerk anti-american perspective, but because TTIP would be of immense benefit to american business, as they could privatize the shit out of every last state asset left.

Though the EU has a better stance on things such as human rights, and environmental law, I see little evidence that this project really has any goals aside from facilitating the strength of capital at the expense of those without it. And besides, Iain Duncan Smith has continued his fucking rampage, and what have the EU done? Nada! For all the right's howling about unconstitutional changes to law, they haven't stopped any of that unpleasantness.

I see the neo-liberal reasons to stay in are the most ideologically compelling, and that makes me want out. I think about being stuck on this miserable fucking island with the tory party entrenched in power and marching further to the right, and I want to stay in.

We've been here before, haven't we? Lesser evilism?
But still, the idea that irrevocable privatisation for the whole of Europe is on its way anyway just makes me feel no matter what happens, we are completely fucked.

[PikSmeet]

I find it concerning that TTIP still isn't being scrutinized, and now the Americans have thrown their impetus into convincing the UK to stay, I think it would be better to leave. Not from a knee-jerk anti-american perspective, but because TTIP would be of immense benefit to american business, as they could privatize the shit out of every last state asset left.

Though the EU has a better stance on things such as human rights, and environmental law, I see little evidence that this project really has any goals aside from facilitating the strength of capital at the expense of those without it. And besides, Iain Duncan Smith has continued his fucking rampage, and what have the EU done? Nada! For all the right's howling about unconstitutional changes to law, they haven't stopped any of that unpleasantness.

I see the neo-liberal reasons to stay in are the most ideologically compelling, and that makes me want out. I think about being stuck on this miserable fucking island with the tory party entrenched in power and marching further to the right, and I want to stay in.

We've been here before, haven't we? Lesser evilism?
But still, the idea that irrevocable privatisation for the whole of Europe is on its way anyway just makes me feel no matter what happens, we are completely fucked.

http://www.panarchy.org/engels/freetrade.html

You mean you support protectionism instead of free trade?

[Futility Personified]

No, I mean the idea that the few elements of the public sector that have not already undergone privatisation will undergo it irreversibly. This is not an issue of free trade or protectionism, these services should not be considered a market to exploit.

[PikSmeet]

No, I mean the idea that the few elements of the public sector that have not already undergone privatisation will undergo it irreversibly. This is not an issue of free trade or protectionism, these services should not be considered a market to exploit.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/nationalization

The people that work in the public sector ARE exploited! It does not matter who is doing the exploiting, the state or private companies. Nationalization/welfare state is nothing to do with socialism, in fact most of these schemes were carried out by conservatives & liberals. I know that is the case in the UK.

[Futility Personified]

Yup, fully aware of that. But we aren't arguing for actual socialism at this point, because there is no significant body of organised working class people who will be able to advance it anyway, be they vanguardist trots who are patently insane or anarchists who are perpetually cynical. The issue of whether the UK remains within the EU is simply split between two opposing capitalist camps, and the issue is which camp will allow better opportunities for the growth of socialist ideals, or, will not completely decimate the gains of the post-war period. The UK and Greece are very different places, but what happened to the Greeks could happen to just about anyone who wants to stick it to the neo-liberal line. I could go on, but it is sunny outside and I really don't want to waste the day by reminding myself how screwed we all are.

Either choice that is made will be a bad one, though I readily admit that any positive gain from leaving the EU could only be guaranteed by a labour party that is still full of vipers and shits.

[hexaune]

I find it concerning that TTIP still isn't being scrutinized, and now the Americans have thrown their impetus into convincing the UK to stay, I think it would be better to leave. Not from a knee-jerk anti-american perspective, but because TTIP would be of immense benefit to american business, as they could privatize the shit out of every last state asset left.

Though the EU has a better stance on things such as human rights, and environmental law, I see little evidence that this project really has any goals aside from facilitating the strength of capital at the expense of those without it. And besides, Iain Duncan Smith has continued his fucking rampage, and what have the EU done? Nada! For all the right's howling about unconstitutional changes to law, they haven't stopped any of that unpleasantness.

I see the neo-liberal reasons to stay in are the most ideologically compelling, and that makes me want out. I think about being stuck on this miserable fucking island with the tory party entrenched in power and marching further to the right, and I want to stay in.

We've been here before, haven't we? Lesser evilism?
But still, the idea that irrevocable privatisation for the whole of Europe is on its way anyway just makes me feel no matter what happens, we are completely fucked.


If we leave the EU you can guarantee we will be signed up to TTIP or even worse an equivalent agreement but in which we have even less bargaining power and will loose even more from it.

[hexaune]

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/nationalization

The people that work in the public sector ARE exploited! It does not matter who is doing the exploiting, the state or private companies. Nationalization/welfare state is nothing to do with socialism, in fact most of these schemes were carried out by conservatives & liberals. I know that is the case in the UK.

There's a massive difference between having the NHS or having the American healthcare system. Just because something ''isn't socialism'' doesn't mean its not necessarily to the benefit of the working classes. As socialists surely we should be fighting to protect things like free healthcare that benefit the working classes? Yes keeping the NHS, out of work benefits, a real living wage... will not by themselves lead to socialism, but if we loose them it will hold the working classes and any chances of smashing the state/capitalism back.

[PikSmeet]

Well the Greeks sure found out that, under capitalism, you can't buck the market. Nor can you vote your way out of recession. Any gains/losses that come from the EU or leaving it, will come from the capitalist system.

[PikSmeet]

If we leave the EU you can guarantee we will be signed up to TTIP or even worse an equivalent agreement but in which we have even less bargaining power and will loose even more from it.

What could be worse than free trade?

[hexaune]

Well the Greeks sure found out that, under capitalism, you can't buck the market. Nor can you vote your way out of recession. Any gains/losses that come from the EU or leaving it, will come from the capitalist system.


That goes without saying seeing as there is only a capitalist system at the moment!

[hexaune]

What could be worse than free trade?

TTIP isn't really about free trade despite what is says on the tin. The less bargaining power you have (the UK will have substantially less against america by itself as opposed to within the EU) the more you will have to give for the least return.

[PikSmeet]

TTIP isn't really about free trade despite what is says on the tin. The less bargaining power you have (the UK will have substantially less against america by itself as opposed to within the EU) the more you will have to give for the least return.

I have? The bargaining power of the working class in the UK is 0%!
I could not care less who wins in the power struggle between the US/EU.
As it will be capitalism and not TTIP that will decide. Nothing I can do about that.
As for the NHS/Welfare state, they were welcomed and supported by the capitalist class in the UK, now are you trying to tell me they supported a step on the road to socialism. No! These reforms were introduced with the hope to strenghten capitalism in the UK. Though you only have to see the debate we are having now, which we (the working classes) cannot control, over cuts/increases to their funding.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think the left needs to get rid of any delusion it might have that its 'out' arguments are going to have any relationship to an 'out' vote and that the things it thinks could be accomplished if the UK left the EU are in any way close to what will actually happen. Vote no if you want but don't get it twisted, if the referendum goes for 'out' then the UK will leave the EU under the arguments of the right and that exit will only strengthen the policies that said right wants to implement.

It's a real catch-22 situation for a socialist because there is no 'left' option here. You either stay a part of the world capitalist club, or go it alone as a country with a rabid right-wing capitalist government. Meh.

[hexaune]

I have? The bargaining power of the working class in the UK is 0%!
I could not care less who wins in the power struggle between the US/EU.
As it will be capitalism and not TTIP that will decide. Nothing I can do about that.
As for the NHS/Welfare state, they were welcomed and supported by the capitalist class in the UK, now are you trying to tell me they supported a step on the road to socialism. No! These reforms were introduced with the hope to strenghten capitalism in the UK. Though you only have to see the debate we are having now, which we (the working classes) cannot control, over cuts/increases to their funding.

TTIP will determine how aggressively capitalism will be able to function, it could push the NHS into the american insurance based model as opposed to free at the point of entry, which would be massive loss to the working classes. It could lead to governments being sued by coporations for tax rises/attempts to mitigate climate change/attempts to improve or maintain safety standards, all of which could have massive impacts on the working classes.

The only reason we are even having a debate about TTIP is thanks to the people that have leaked the documents to wiki leaks. Which has in turn enabled a substantial amount of pressure to be put on politicians, as a result of which there is slightly more transparency and some push back on some of the worse elements of TTIP.

Yes this will probably not acheive much/enough, but their initial plan was for it to all be agreed upon in secret and signed up to before people could protest/complain, if that had happened I'm pretty sure we would have ended with a really bad deal.

I'm not trying to say any of this is us heading towards socialism, just that your weird nihilism is of even less help to the working classes, who need to regain some strength if there's ever a chance of us starting to fight back with any real strength and numbers. As I've said before, when people are struggling to keep a roof over their head, to afford the necessary medical treatment and have little to no time off work (due to trying do 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet), fighting for communism is going to be at the bottom of the priority list for most.


With regards to the NHS you are missing my point again, I am not stating that NHS=socialism or that NHS puts us on the path to socialism. My point is that without the working classes are weakened which can only be detrimental to our cause!

[hexaune]

It's a real catch-22 situation for a socialist because there is no 'left' option here. You either stay a part of the world capitalist club, or go it alone as a country with a rabid right-wing capitalist government. Meh.

If we were to leave the EU, we would be signed up to a trading block/a number of trading blocks (with negotiations done by the tories), we would loose the small number of benefits we gain out of the EU whilst still effectively being a part of a world capitalist club.

e2a but yes its a shit decision/outcome whatever way you look at it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course on the other hand, while the Tories are in power now, being in or out of the EU is a generational decision and so one wonders if leaving the EU could free up a socialist government - should it take power - to trade with other, more comradely countries.

[hexaune]

Of course on the other hand, while the Tories are in power now, being in or out of the EU is a generational decision and so one wonders if leaving the EU could free up a socialist government - should it take power - to trade with other, more comradely countries.

Its always possible to pull out of the EU, a lot harder to go back into it at a later date. I think if such a government is on the horizons and being in the EU is holding things back, only then should we push to pull out of the EU. I just don't see any benefits of us pulling out with how things stand at the moment.

[Tim Cornelis]

Abstain.

EU facilitates 'big capital', or haute bourgeois sentiment; opposition to EU panders to 'small capital', or petty bourgeois sentiment. The objective conditions are already in existence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Its always possible to pull out of the EU, a lot harder to go back into it at a later date. I think if such a government is on the horizons and being in the EU is holding things back, only then should we push to pull out of the EU. I just don't see any benefits of us pulling out with how things stand at the moment.

I can see one, big benefit:

David Cameron would have to resign. This would trigger a leadership contest for the Tories, probably before any of the big contenders like Johnson, May, Osborne and Gove are ready. Arguably, May is an ass and Osborne would go down like the Titanic with Cameron. So you'd have either Boris Johnson or Gove as potential leaders of the party.

They may try to capitalise on the perceived unpopularity of Labour by triggering a snap election, which would then give a Corbyn-led Labour Party the chance to take power back from the Tories.

[hexaune]

I can see one, big benefit:

David Cameron would have to resign. This would trigger a leadership contest for the Tories, probably before any of the big contenders like Johnson, May, Osborne and Gove are ready. Arguably, May is an ass and Osborne would go down like the Titanic with Cameron. So you'd have either Boris Johnson or Gove as potential leaders of the party.

They may try to capitalise on the perceived unpopularity of Labour by triggering a snap election, which would then give a Corbyn-led Labour Party the chance to take power back from the Tories.

Is it possible anymore to call a snap election now that we've got the fixed parliament term act?

Personally I think if the brexit camp wins it will strengthen the tories, as it will open up the route to boris leading the party and I think it would be impossible for labor to win against him as he has such massive approval ratings. Even when he's caught lieing/cheating/screwingpeople over the bulk of people still love him thanks to his carefully tailored public image.

I actually think that an in vote would be more likely to deliver a labor government. It would almost certainly ruin BJ's chances of leading the party for the near future as he staked his all on Brexit now. It could also lead to some serious splits in tory party, which is made up of a massive proportion of euro sceptics who would feel cheated by the party if they don't get their brexit, which could lead to a large number of defections to UKIP. If that does happen it would cut down quite drasticly the number of tory MPs, offset the losses labor has had to the SNP and open the way up to a Corbyn government.

[Rudolf]

Is it possible anymore to call a snap election now that we've got the fixed parliament term act?



There could have been another vote straight after the GE last year if one of two things occured: 1) a formal vote of no confidence with no alternative government being formed within 14 days resulting in a new GE. 2) by a motion calling for an early election with 2/3rds majority of the house in commons in favour.

If the government puts forth a motion calling for an early election (just after the EU referendum perhaps) Labour would probably have to vote in favour. They'd never live it down voting for a tory government to stay in government for a few more years.


as for the EU referendum i'm thinking of staying at home.

[Dazhao]

If the latest polls are anything to go by, Corb would be destroyed. It is obvious he wants to leave the EU, but he doesn't have the backbone to rally his party.

[Tim Cornelis]

If only Marx was alive to give us guidance on this issue by drawing from his source of eternal and infallible wisdom, but alas :crying:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is it possible anymore to call a snap election now that we've got the fixed parliament term act?

Personally I think if the brexit camp wins it will strengthen the tories, as it will open up the route to boris leading the party and I think it would be impossible for labor to win against him as he has such massive approval ratings. Even when he's caught lieing/cheating/screwingpeople over the bulk of people still love him thanks to his carefully tailored public image.

I actually think that an in vote would be more likely to deliver a labor government. It would almost certainly ruin BJ's chances of leading the party for the near future as he staked his all on Brexit now. It could also lead to some serious splits in tory party, which is made up of a massive proportion of euro sceptics who would feel cheated by the party if they don't get their brexit, which could lead to a large number of defections to UKIP. If that does happen it would cut down quite drasticly the number of tory MPs, offset the losses labor has had to the SNP and open the way up to a Corbyn government.

I don't think Corbyn will make it to 2020. It's unlikely he will be followed by a left-wing leader, either, unless he wins an election.

Boris will be strengthened either way - win and he can force Cameron out, lose and he will still be popular with the mainly eurosceptic Tory grassroots who will vote for the Tory leader in 3 or so years' time.

[hexaune]

I don't think Corbyn will make it to 2020. It's unlikely he will be followed by a left-wing leader, either, unless he wins an election.

Boris will be strengthened either way - win and he can force Cameron out, lose and he will still be popular with the mainly eurosceptic Tory grassroots who will vote for the Tory leader in 3 or so years' time.

Who knows! At least its slightly more entertaining than the shit on tv!

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I'm pretty apathetic to the whole thing, though i'd lean towards staying in since the majority of people supporting the out vote I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
And I'm not sure how much pleasure I'd get from Cameron resigning (if he even decides to) when you see the line of wankhogs that might replace him.

[PikSmeet]

Of course on the other hand, while the Tories are in power now, being in or out of the EU is a generational decision and so one wonders if leaving the EU could free up a socialist government - should it take power - to trade with other, more comradely countries.

Wrong. The Tories are in office but not in power. As ever it's capitalism that calls the shots.

[PikSmeet]

If only Marx was alive to give us guidance on this issue by drawing from his source of eternal and infallible wisdom, but alas :crying:

His writings live on!
In or out, it's irrelvant to the bearded one, who'd want us to campaign for World socialism.

[Futility Personified]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic

Owen Jones now wades in too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wrong. The Tories are in office but not in power. As ever it's capitalism that calls the shots.

No, they're in power. They are influenced by capital, but political power rests with the Tories, in conjunction with the ominpresent civil service.

[Burzhuin]

I think Britain will be better off out of EU.

[Blake's Baby]

And your motivation is 'what is best for British capitalism', is it?

[hexaune]

I think Britain will be better off out of EU.

In what way?

[Burzhuin]

And your motivation is 'what is best for British capitalism', is it?
Unlike you I believe in socialist revolution in one country.

I do not care for 'what is best for British capitalism', but taking in consideration my old country experience life of workers was much better off when it was independent than after joining EU.

[Burzhuin]

In what way?
Read my previous message.

[Rudolf]

I do not care for 'what is best for British capitalism', but taking in consideration my old country experience life of workers was much better off when it was independent than after joining EU.


The working class in Britain was on a better footing before the EU but that's not because of the EU that's because of the massive defeat of the organised sections of the class. Leaving the EU isn't going to make life better for workers here. Whether in the EU or out we're on the same trajectory of diminishing living standards because of a distinct lack of meaningful organised struggle.

[PikSmeet]

The working class in Britain was on a better footing before the EU but that's not because of the EU that's because of the massive defeat of the organised sections of the class. Leaving the EU isn't going to make life better for workers here. Whether in the EU or out we're on the same trajectory of diminishing living standards because of a distinct lack of meaningful organised struggle.

Living standards have been dimishing? Come off, are you trying to suggest that workers a 100 years ago had it easy compared to us, it's the other way around mate! Life under capitalism sucks but it was worse back then. But you are spot on about the leaving/staying in the EU being an irrelavance to our struggle.

[PikSmeet]

Unlike you I believe in socialist revolution in one country.

I do not care for 'what is best for British capitalism', but taking in consideration my old country experience life of workers was much better off when it was independent than after joining EU.

Socialism in one country? Eek, I'd rather have the EU than that.

But, Bruzhuin, can you have socialism in one country without gulags & show trials?

[Burzhuin]

Socialism in one country? Eek, I'd rather have the EU than that.

But, Bruzhuin, can you have socialism in one country without gulags & show trials?
I believe in Proletariat Dictatorship as a means to build socialism. State apparatus is serving of ruling class. In capitalism it is oppressing Proletariat. In socialism... If you find any other way to oppress class of Bourgeoisie I am all ears. You probably believe in peaceful coexistence Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. But, as for me, it is a diagnoses.

[PikSmeet]

I believe in Proletariat Dictatorship as a means to build socialism. State apparatus is serving of ruling class. In capitalism it is oppressing Proletariat. In socialism... If you find any other way to oppress class of Bourgeoisie I am all ears. You probably believe in peaceful coexistence Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. But, as for me, it is a diagnoses.

We all know how that one worked out, eh comrades?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

[Rudolf]

Living standards have been dimishing? Come off, are you trying to suggest that workers a 100 years ago had it easy compared to us, it's the other way around mate! Life under capitalism sucks but it was worse back then. But you are spot on about the leaving/staying in the EU being an irrelavance to our struggle.

No that's what you're saying. I'm saying that living standards are diminishing compared to a few decades ago.

When my dad was my age he had a decent job with a decent wage and he left school at 15 with no qualifications. In comparison me and my siblings are reliant on benefits to live. There has been a fundamental shift in the labour market between these two temporal points and it corresponds to 'deindustrialisation'. Where my dad could jump from factory to factory, jump from working on the docks to on ships with pretty decent employment terms i face casualised work of a dozen hours a week mixed with periods of unemployment. A factory worker could manage to buy a fucking house! There's no factories now, though. It's just a few call centres and shops... endless fucking shops.

I have less bargaining power and much lower income in real terms.

[Burzhuin]

We all know how that one worked out, eh comrades?

Yes, it did. At least Russians can answer they lived in socialism for almost 60 years. In my opinion 72 days of Paris Commune are more valuable than hundreds years of British capitalism.

[Laika]

Voted "Remain in the EU". I haven't been convinced that we are better off leaving, and I suspect a large number of the reasons for leaving are manufactured by the tabloid press. I'm going to have to sit down and research it in more deatil in the run up to the Referendum, but the only thing that has shifted my view more recently is the on going negiotations of the TTIP between the US and the EU and the Greece-Eurozone Crisis, both of which underline the very "capitalist" nature of the EU.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Voted "Remain in the EU". I haven't been convinced that we are better off leaving, and I suspect a large number of the reasons for leaving are manufactured by the tabloid press. I'm going to have to sit down and research it in more deatil in the run up to the Referendum, but the only thing that has shifted my view more recently is the on going negiotations of the TTIP between the US and the EU and the Greece-Eurozone Crisis, both of which underline the very "capitalist" nature of the EU.

The EU is a parasitic out-growth of a trade agreement in the first place. There is literally nothing salvageable about the EU. The only thing positive it has offered to anyone is that it has allowed more open borders, but as before, not many are able to enjoy that, since it hinges often on economics if you're able to-- the movement of capital of course trumps the movement of people.

If you're from the UK, imagine then the EU as the entirety of the UK; the European People's Party, that is to say, the tories, are guaranteed victory indefinately and have basically always had control when not challenged by some equally scummy former social-democratic degenerates. The EU cannot ever become a socialist organisation.

There is, of course, nothing objectionable about a union as such; it is the nature of this union, it's political machinery, it is after all aiming for a supra-national state body, which, like it's composite parts, is capitalist. Change cannot come from within, even if foolish liberal idealists like to imagine that somehow this lobby-bloated corrupt shitfest of drunken under-the-table deals and systemic sickness could become a basis of a 'socialist union'-- they are wrong.

Take for example that social-democratic dreamer, Corbyn's proposal to renationalise the railways. Dreamy as this is, it is literally against the laws of the EU (EU Directive 440/91 of 1996 specifies that maintenance and operation of railways in all countries of the EU are to be split from one another and open to access by any company meeting requirements), and were the UK to implement this suggestion, it would face terrible penalties and fines up until the law was overturned. This is but one example of the EU's nature; and by this time, they have already implemented passport checks and border controls at many places, so the open borders are basically de-facto abolished already.

[PikSmeet]

I'm glad Corbyn can't renationalise the railways, I remember British Rail, it was just another capitalist company, run by the state. It was expensive, ineffecient and industrial relations were poor.

[wehbolno]

The EU is a parasitic out-growth of a trade agreement in the first place. There is literally nothing salvageable about the EU. The only thing positive it has offered to anyone is that it has allowed more open borders, but as before, not many are able to enjoy that, since it hinges often on economics if you're able to-- the movement of capital of course trumps the movement of people.

If you're from the UK, imagine then the EU as the entirety of the UK; the European People's Party, that is to say, the tories, are guaranteed victory indefinately and have basically always had control when not challenged by some equally scummy former social-democratic degenerates. The EU cannot ever become a socialist organisation.

There is, of course, nothing objectionable about a union as such; it is the nature of this union, it's political machinery, it is after all aiming for a supra-national state body, which, like it's composite parts, is capitalist. Change cannot come from within, even if foolish liberal idealists like to imagine that somehow this lobby-bloated corrupt shitfest of drunken under-the-table deals and systemic sickness could become a basis of a 'socialist union'-- they are wrong.

Take for example that social-democratic dreamer, Corbyn's proposal to renationalise the railways. Dreamy as this is, it is literally against the laws of the EU (EU Directive 440/91 of 1996 specifies that maintenance and operation of railways in all countries of the EU are to be split from one another and open to access by any company meeting requirements), and were the UK to implement this suggestion, it would face terrible penalties and fines up until the law was overturned. This is but one example of the EU's nature; and by this time, they have already implemented passport checks and border controls at many places, so the open borders are basically de-facto abolished already.

Yes, an EU exit for Britain would most likely give the conservatives a mandate for passing all their dream legislation, neutering the trade unions, revising the human rights act, privatising the NHS, putting children back to work. That's why I will vote to stay within the EU.

[PikSmeet]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14296494.display/

Well, the bankers want to stay in, well some of them do. I doubt they want to stay in so that the EU can be reformed into a workers paradise.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, an EU exit for Britain would most likely give the conservatives a mandate for passing all their dream legislation, neutering the trade unions, revising the human rights act, privatising the NHS, putting children back to work. That's why I will vote to stay within the EU.

And you think that because of what? How the hell would the EU be against privatising the NHS? It sure hasn't stopped health care privatisation anywhere else in Europe, how would it stop it in the UK? The EU is not pro-trade unions. You can dream all you like but it's not the EU that is stopping those things (temporarily).


I'm glad Corbyn can't renationalise the railways, I remember British Rail, it was just another capitalist company, run by the state. It was expensive, ineffecient and industrial relations were poor.

I know you're a bit of a stupid troll from the stupid shit you post elsewhere which varies from things that are true but are framed so daftly it's nigh unreadable; though it is true that it was a capitalist company, already neutered from it's sock-dem intentions by the 1950's when the British Transport Commissions all transport monopoly was broken up, but ticket prices today are considerably higher, and the cost of subsidies are considerably higher (BR's lossess at the highest were equal to about 1 billion pound a year in current values, the present subsidies to franchises exceeds this fivefold or greater). The fragmented nature of the franchising system as well as the open-access goods services also thwart meaningful industrial organisation of labour-- this the intention.

[PikSmeet]

So what would you say to British workers who, even after you nationalised the railways, still could not afford to travel on them?

[Lord Testicles]

So what would you say to British workers who, even after you nationalised the railways, still could not afford to travel on them?

Fuck off you blubbering moron.

[PikSmeet]

Thanks, anything else you care to add?

[Lord Testicles]

Thanks, anything else you care to add?

Yeah, stop shit-posting and fuck off already.

[PikSmeet]

Ok, thank you very much.

[Burzhuin]

So what would you say to British workers who, even after you nationalised the railways, still could not afford to travel on them?
You know why public transportation company are not privately hold? I am working for one of them. The fare right now is $2.10 but in order to meet ends the fare has to be $6.75 according to our analytics.

[PikSmeet]

You know why public transportation company are not privately hold? I am working for one of them. The fare right now is $2.10 but in order to meet ends the fare has to be $6.75 according to our analytics.

Interesting. So how is the shortfall made up from? Does the company break even or is the deficiet made up by other public companies showing a profit?
As in the UK all public companies were set up with the express instructions to be profitable. Of course they weren't always but that was the ethos underpinning them. Indeed, those that support them always trumpet this point, they are not so inefficient that they cannot turn a profit.

[Lord Testicles]

As in the UK all public companies were set up with the express instructions to be profitable. Of course they weren't always but that was the ethos underpinning them. Indeed, those that support them always trumpt this point, they are not so inefficient that they cannot turn a profit.

:laugh:

Why do they need all that public money then? As well as having some of the highest ticket prices in the world.

[PikSmeet]

:laugh:

Why do they need all that public money then? As well as having some of the highest ticket prices in the world.

The cost of running the railways can never be met from ticket prices alone, so the government needs to subsidise the rail companies. Costs have increased in maintaining the network and would not be reduced is your nationalised them. Private companies have to pay higher interest rates than governments in the money they borrow and have to shareholders too.

http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/hardcastle/railways.htm

From the above article on how nationalisation of the railways affects the worker.

What of the workers? The workers merely change one employer for another; little else is changed, for the State undertaking, as the Daily Herald specially emphasises (November 19th, 1946), has got to pay its way. The Evening Standard remarks that nationalisation cannot bring any possible benefit to the railway worker—“for him it can mean neither higher wages nor shorter hours” (November 19th, 1946) And the Observer, in like vein, says, “It . . . leaves the transport workers and the consumers to wonder what difference it can make to them except for the worse” (December 1st, 1946). The sudden solicitude of these two journals for the worker is naturally suspect, but “Critic“ writing in the Labour New Statesman (November 30th, 1946), also confesses that “nationalisation of the railways . . . really doesn’t much matter to anyone except the shareholders, who seem likely to make an uncommonly good thing out of it”. This deserves notice, coming as it does from a year-long supporter of nationalisation.

[Burzhuin]

:laugh:
Why do they need all that public money then? As well as having some of the highest ticket prices in the world.

According to my knowledge there is no profitable public transportation company.

[PikSmeet]

According to my knowledge there is no profitable public transportation company.

So, faced with this dilema, each capitalist state has to choose the option what costs the least. Either to run it themselves or to subsidise private companies.

[Lord Testicles]

As in the UK all public companies were set up with the express instructions to be profitable. Of course they weren't always but that was the ethos underpinning them. Indeed, those that support them always trumpet this point, they are not so inefficient that they cannot turn a profit.


So, faced with this dilema, each capitalist state has to choose the option what costs the least. Either to run it themselves or to subsidise private companies.

So can they or can they not turn a profit?



From the above article on how nationalisation of the railways affects the worker.

What of the workers? The workers merely change one employer for another; little else is changed, for the State undertaking, as the Daily Herald specially emphasises (November 19th, 1946), has got to pay its way. The Evening Standard remarks that nationalisation cannot bring any possible benefit to the railway worker—“for him it can mean neither higher wages nor shorter hours” (November 19th, 1946) And the Observer, in like vein, says, “It . . . leaves the transport workers and the consumers to wonder what difference it can make to them except for the worse” (December 1st, 1946). The sudden solicitude of these two journals for the worker is naturally suspect, but “Critic“ writing in the Labour New Statesman (November 30th, 1946), also confesses that “nationalisation of the railways . . . really doesn’t much matter to anyone except the shareholders, who seem likely to make an uncommonly good thing out of it”. This deserves notice, coming as it does from a year-long supporter of nationalisation.

That's from 1947. It has no bearing on today, back in 1947 they weren't paying £1000 for a train ticket.


The cost of running the railways can never be met from ticket prices alone, so the government needs to subsidise the rail companies. Costs have increased in maintaining the network and would not be reduced is your nationalised them. Private companies have to pay higher interest rates than governments in the money they borrow and have to shareholders too.


The costs of maintaining the railway wouldn't decrease if you nationalised them but only an idiot would think that the ticket prices reflect the actual costs of running a railway. The ticket prices would decrease because they could run at a loss without worrying about paying some shareholder parasites. Right now the people who use the trains are paying for them twice, once in taxes and twice when they buy a ticket. All it is, is a way to funnel public money into private hands.

As Burzhuin points out a publicly owned transportation company can offer lower ticket prices and run at a loss because it is subsidised. In Britain, the train companies charge outrageous prices for tickets (The highest in Europe by far) and then turn around to the public and go "We need more of your money."

[Lord Testicles]

So can they or can they not turn a profit?

That was supposed to be "can they or can't they turn a profit?"

I would edit my post but I can't because Revleft is shit.

[hexaune]

So can they or can they not turn a profit?



That's from 1947. It has no bearing on today, back in 1947 they weren't paying £1000 for a train ticket.



The costs of maintaining the railway wouldn't decrease if you nationalised them but only an idiot would think that the ticket prices reflect the actual costs of running a railway. The ticket prices would decrease because they could run at a loss without worrying about paying some shareholder parasites. Right now the people who use the trains are paying for them twice, once in taxes and twice when they buy a ticket. All it is, is a way to funnel public money into private hands.

As Burzhuin points out a publicly owned transportation company can offer lower ticket prices and run at a loss because it is subsidised. In Britain, the train companies charge outrageous prices for tickets (The highest in Europe by far) and then turn around to the public and go "We need more of your money."

There's also the example of the east coast main line, which national express were running it, they handed it back to the state early as they were loosing money on it when revenues dropped after the financial crash (another great example of profits being privatised but the risks nationalised). In public hands customer satisfaction improved and it even handed money back to the treasury, it was the least subsidised franchise (virgin were subsidised 7x more) and it has since been reprivatised.

[PikSmeet]

There's also the example of the east coast main line, which national express were running it, they handed it back to the state early as they were loosing money on it when revenues dropped after the financial crash (another great example of profits being privatised but the risks nationalised). In public hands customer satisfaction improved and it even handed money back to the treasury, it was the least subsidised franchise (virgin were subsidised 7x more) and it has since been reprivatised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company)#Profitability

Yet the above links explains how they did it.
Let's not get too excited about the government making a profit as that means that a) They are overcharging b) underpaying their staff and c) the profit will strengthen the state.
That's 3 reasons to hate them for running this line.

[hexaune]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company)#Profitability

Yet the above links explains how they did it.

That explains some (£250m of £500m difference when comparing virg west coast to DOR east coast) of the discrepancy between DOR and Virgin, but national express who were running it before DOR took over were running the same trains as DOR and kept coming back for more money as it was supposedly unprofitable.

The point still stands that privatising the trains does not automatically save either the taxpayer or the user money. The usual argument that private is better due to competition, doesn't stand on the rails as there is no real competition due to the franchise system and the money that is going back to shareholders could go to reducing the cost of tickets, which would be good for workers who have to spend a stupid proportion of their income on travel.

[Lord Testicles]

Let's not get too excited about the government making a profit as that means that a) They are overcharging b) underpaying their staff and c) the profit will strengthen the state.
That's 3 reasons to hate them for running this line.

Obviously the above never, ever happens under private ownership.

Also, who's getting excited?

[Blake's Baby]

Pik isn't saying it doesn't happen under private ownership, he's saying it does happen under state ownership. Therefore, state ownership isn't 'better'. Pretty sure Pik is opposed to both private and state-owned capitalist enterprises, unlike some so-called socialists who are quite happy with the latter.

[Burzhuin]

Pik isn't saying it doesn't happen under private ownership, he's saying it does happen under state ownership. Therefore, state ownership isn't 'better'. Pretty sure Pik is opposed to both private and state-owned capitalist enterprises, unlike some so-called socialists who are quite happy with the latter.
Any suggestion, but without bla-bla-bla, what would you suggest? Privately own is bad. Agree. State own is bad. What other options are there?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, France has promised to allow more refugees to pass through toward Britain, if Britain leaves the EU. Considering that "electable" Euroskeptic parties tend to be UKIP or from UKIP's side of the spectrum, that would be a recipe for something violent.

[Blake's Baby]

Any suggestion, but without bla-bla-bla, what would you suggest? Privately own is bad. Agree. State own is bad. What other options are there?

As you believe in 'socialism in one country' there are no options left for you. Bad, or bad. All your ideas are bad.

[Futility Personified]

Had an interesting conversation, where they claimed that if immigration truly was restricted to 'sensible levels' that UKIP would have no power. Where I find fault with this, and being especially brave and controversial I will post this on a website of leftists, is that what sensible means is always equated to Australia, that is the go-to country. Where racism is quite apparent, prejudice seems to be encouraged, and we just don't really hear about that all that much. Imagine for a moment it was right to placate these people, are they really naieve enough to think that it would be a panacea? Of course, there are some who think that borders are a key issue, and then.... but it just seems to me to be ceding a vital piece of territory to the right. It is entirely plausible that immigration drives down wages due to an expanded labour market, as it makes withholding labour much more difficult and thus means there is little leverage, but what then? We have a hostile state of affairs, where anti-migrant sentiment is encouraged, and actively tolerated by the state. They say that "it is a step towards" is an argument fallacy, but I don't see many examples of restrictive immigration breeding a more open society.

Nobody is illegal, and nobody should be treated as lesser.

[hexaune]

Had an interesting conversation, where they claimed that if immigration truly was restricted to 'sensible levels' that UKIP would have no power. Where I find fault with this, and being especially brave and controversial I will post this on a website of leftists, is that what sensible means is always equated to Australia, that is the go-to country. Where racism is quite apparent, prejudice seems to be encouraged, and we just don't really hear about that all that much. Imagine for a moment it was right to placate these people, are they really naieve enough to think that it would be a panacea? Of course, there are some who think that borders are a key issue, and then.... but it just seems to me to be ceding a vital piece of territory to the right. It is entirely plausible that immigration drives down wages due to an expanded labour market, as it makes withholding labour much more difficult and thus means there is little leverage, but what then? We have a hostile state of affairs, where anti-migrant sentiment is encouraged, and actively tolerated by the state. They say that "it is a step towards" is an argument fallacy, but I don't see many examples of restrictive immigration breeding a more open society.

Nobody is illegal, and nobody should be treated as lesser.

The argument that immigration drives down wages is a moot point imo, there's a simple solution to it, which is a strictly enforced minimum/living wage which is properly adjusted every year (as opposed to the measly increases we currently get). That would pretty much stop immigration from driving down wages (it's debate if it does significantly anyway), in any material manner. Whatever excuses they give racism is at the core of anti immigration. We have had much more significant levels of immigration in the past without any real issues, the problem is that the right and their control of most media is so strong their message has become the accepted "common sense" and it's sadly gaining hold on the left as well.

[Blake's Baby]

The way to make sure immigration isn't used to drive down wages is for 'native' workers to reach out to and to help immigrant workers organise to keep wage levels up, isn't it? If the bosses need immigrant workers so badly, that puts those workers in a position of relative power.

The working class is allowing itself to be divided, and it's the native workers here who are mainly allowing this to happen. If wages are low, they should perhaps be looking at their own relationships to the bosses and to other workers and questioning why it's happening.

[The Idler]

Any suggestion, but without bla-bla-bla, what would you suggest? Privately own is bad. Agree. State own is bad. What other options are there?
Surely communists reject the Thatcherite saying 'There is no alternative' (TINA).

[hexaune]

The way to make sure immigration isn't used to drive down wages is for 'native' workers to reach out to and to help immigrant workers organise to keep wage levels up, isn't it? If the bosses need immigrant workers so badly, that puts those workers in a position of relative power.

The working class is allowing itself to be divided, and it's the native workers here who are mainly allowing this to happen. If wages are low, they should perhaps be looking at their own relationships to the bosses and to other workers and questioning why it's happening.

I agree, my point re minimum/living wage was directed at the arguments coming from politicians that immigration drives down wages and the only thing they can do about it is to restrict immigration.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, your solution seemed to be, to get the state to regulate the capitalists. My solution is to encourage unity of the working class.

One of those is potentially revolutionary. The other isn't.

[Burzhuin]

Well, your solution seemed to be, to get the state to regulate the capitalists. My solution is to encourage unity of the working class.

One of those is potentially revolutionary. The other isn't.

OK. We all working for the Proletariat Revolution. But realistically I do not expect we can get it tomorrow. But today we discussed simple problem: Private against State ownership. I would certainly prefer worker's own the company they work on. But in current capitalist system it is not achievable.

[Burzhuin]

As you believe in 'socialism in one country' there are no options left for you. Bad, or bad. All your ideas are bad.
Do you have your own idea, beside "All my ideas are bad"? I am all ears.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you have your own idea, beside "All my ideas are bad"? I am all ears.

And in the post above that one:


OK. We all working for the Proletariat Revolution. But realistically I do not expect we can get it tomorrow. But today we discussed simple problem: Private against State ownership. I would certainly prefer worker's own the company they work on. But in current capitalist system it is not achievable.

I honestly don't know sometimes if someone fed garbage phrases into a random generator and got it to post here. You are both 'all ears' and dismissive of the only answer there is.

'Private or state?'

'Aids or cancer? Bullet or knife? Drowning or burning?'

It's not my concern how capitalism exploits us. My concern is ending exploitation.

[Burzhuin]

And in the post above that one:



I honestly don't know sometimes if someone fed garbage phrases into a random generator and got it to post here. You are both 'all ears' and dismissive of the only answer there is.

'Private or state?'

'Aids or cancer? Bullet or knife? Drowning or burning?'

It's not my concern how capitalism exploits us. My concern is ending exploitation.
So, you have no idea. I guess so.

[Blake's Baby]

Yup, you ignore what I keep telling you and then you can say I have no idea.

Instead, why don't you do what has failed again and again and again? Because. you know, as Einstein said, madness lies in trying the same things and expecting a different result. Promote state ownership. Extol the virtues of national 'socialism'. And then you can blame, oh, I don't know, Trotskyist wreckers, or Jews (sorry, 'rootless cosmopolitans') or the 'privileged white working class' or some other bullshit when it all goes to shit. Last of all, you can arrange to have everyone who disagreed with you you shot, while wringing your hands and saying 'how was I to know?'.

[LionofTepelenë]

Lion of Tepelene...

Somehow I don't think that is why Farage is campaigning to leave the EU...

Thank you for the post captain obvious...

[PikSmeet]

You are welcome sergeant sarcasm.
You heard the latest from Boris Johnson, funny he got caught out like this.
What a hypocrite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35749084

[Burzhuin]

Yup, you ignore what I keep telling you and then you can say I have no idea.

Instead, why don't you do what has failed again and again and again? Because. you know, as Einstein said, madness lies in trying the same things and expecting a different result. Promote state ownership. Extol the virtues of national 'socialism'. And then you can blame, oh, I don't know, Trotskyist wreckers, or Jews (sorry, 'rootless cosmopolitans') or the 'privileged white working class' or some other bullshit when it all goes to shit. Last of all, you can arrange to have everyone who disagreed with you you shot, while wringing your hands and saying 'how was I to know?'.
No, I did not ignore it. I just fed up with demagogues who is shouting about liberation of worker's class but when you ask them about details of the economical model they have in mind, the form of ownership and, my favorite, about the way step by step, from capitalism to socialism including government organization and first economical decisions you get no answer. In many cases it cause what in our professional term called 'system overload'.

According to you unsuccessful experience of Paris Commune should teach socialists never try to establish Proletariat Dictatorship. I am not religious man, I do not believe in socialism, as some of my neighbors believe in Jesus Christ. I KNOW that Marxism-Leninism is the only way to guide us in overthrowing old, outlived capitalism and building new, progressive economical and social formation Communism.

Recently I travelled to my old countries where my brothers-communists fighting in underground, where Communist party is banned and to be communist is the shortest way to prison. But regardless all that I KNOW the day will come and socialism in my little old country will be victorious.

[PikSmeet]

No, I did not ignore it. I just fed up with demagogues who is shouting about liberation of worker's class but when you ask them about details of the economical model they have in mind, the form of ownership and, my favorite, about the way step by step, from capitalism to socialism including government organization and first economical decisions you get no answer. In many cases it cause what in our professional term called 'system overload'.

According to you unsuccessful experience of Paris Commune should teach socialists never try to establish Proletariat Dictatorship. I am not religious man, I do not believe in socialism, as some of my neighbors believe in Jesus Christ. I KNOW that Marxism-Leninism is the only way to guide us in overthrowing old, outlived capitalism and building new, progressive economical and social formation Communism.

Recently I travelled to my old countries where my brothers-communists fighting in underground, where Communist party is banned and to be communist is the shortest way to prison. But regardless all that I KNOW the day will come and socialism in my little old country will be victorious.

Not even Marx told us how we would live under socialism! That is for those that create it to decide. Marxism-Leninism has failed. Everywhere. It is just capitalism by another name.

[Burzhuin]

Not even Marx told us how we would live under socialism! That is for those that create it to decide. Marxism-Leninism has failed. Everywhere. It is just capitalism by another name.

What tendency do you belong to? Please enlighten me where and when your tendency has been victorious.

[PikSmeet]

What tendency do you belong to? Please enlighten me where and when your tendency has been victorious.

My tendency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism

No, we have not been victorious, but on the upside at least we have not liquidated anyone in a purge, nor would we.

[Burzhuin]

My tendency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism

No, we have not been victorious, but on the upside at least we have not liquidated anyone in a purge, nor would we.

Good luck. If you change Capitalism to Socialism by any means and it lasts for over 60 years our Grandchildren (at least in my case) can discuss then which way is better.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I did not ignore it. I just fed up with demagogues who is shouting about liberation of worker's class but when you ask them about details of the economical model they have in mind, the form of ownership and, my favorite, about the way step by step, from capitalism to socialism including government organization and first economical decisions you get no answer. In many cases it cause what in our professional term called 'system overload'...

Except, you've done no such thing. You asked, whether private or state ownership of capitalism was better.

I've got news for you, news that you don't seem prepared for, but yet again, I'll tell you.

Neither is better.

If you want an 'economic model' of socialism, you will be waiting a long time, because socialism is the destruction of the economy. If you want a sketch of 'government organisation', you'll wait even longer, for there is no government in socialist society.

Until you grasp these basic facts about definitions you're going to continue asking questions tat don't make sense.


...

According to you unsuccessful experience of Paris Commune should teach socialists never try to establish Proletariat Dictatorship...

Don't be an idiot. The Paris Commune teaches us 1-that a war is not a good time to launch the overthrow of the bourgeois state, even though the rulers may be weakened and the proletariat angry; 2-that the cities must try to spread the revolution as rapidly as possible to the countryside; 3-that the revolution in the cities must be as bold as possible in order to secure itself against the counter-revolution; and that's just off the to of my head.

Still; the implication of what your saying - 'you criticise Stalinism because it failed' - at least implicitly recognises that Stalinism failed. I am heartened that you have, at least, learned something, even if it is something obvious to the point of tautology.


...
I am not religious man, I do not believe in socialism, as some of my neighbors believe in Jesus Christ. I KNOW that Marxism-Leninism is the only way to guide us in overthrowing old, outlived capitalism and building new, progressive economical and social formation Communism...

Oh dear, I'll take it back, you still continue to defend your religious conception of revealed nonsense.



... Recently I travelled to my old countries where my brothers-communists fighting in underground, where Communist party is banned and to be communist is the shortest way to prison. But regardless all that I KNOW the day will come and socialism in my little old country will be victorious.

Yes, you have faith in the Big Moustachioed God in the Sky from whom the Sun Shines Blessed Be His Name blah blah. We know.

Unfortunately in the real world, it will be the working class, acting in its own interests, that makes the revolution, and not some schoolboys playing Red Alert for real and some old men who cry when they remember how many tractors were made in 1963.


Good luck. If you change Capitalism to Socialism by any means and it lasts for over 60 years our Grandchildren (at least in my case) can discuss then which way is better.

There was no 'socialism', just state capitalism. Even the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (which, as you seem to be so poor with definitions, is not the same as socialist society) didn't even last until Stalin took over. Stalin took over a capitalist country, ruled a capitalist country, and handed a capitalist country over to Bulganin and Khrushchev. No grandchildren were involved, just the counter-revolution.

[Burzhuin]

Let's see what are of Left Communists achievements... O my, I did not find any.

If left communists, trotskyists, impossibilists (whom I miss?) ever build such "state capitalism" as, according to you, was in USSR before Gorbachev I would move to that country in heartbeat.

[Burzhuin]

I can understand Communism where the conscious of people so high they do not need government, but in Socialism (formation between Capitalism and Communism) the government will be needed a lot.

[Burzhuin]

One thing for sure. I NEVER said Marxism-Leninism failed. USSR? Even Gorbachev admitted that he NEVER was Marxist-Leninist, but Social-Democrat.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, exactly, you continue to believe the words of your idiot prophet who poisoned the word 'communism' for three generations at least.

I'm sorry that you can't even see the logic of your own words, but in asking me whether I thought the lesson of the failure of the Paris Commune was that we should never even try, and linking that to my criticism of the failure of Stalinism, you implicitly accept that Stalinism was as much a failure to achieve a socialist society as the Commune.

Of course, Stalinism was more of a faiure, at least the Commune was a attempt, Stalinism was what happened 8 years after an attempt had failed. Stalin has the same relationship to the revolution as the Third Republic after 1877 did to the Commune.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalinists are hilarious. How does it make any sense to argue that this system - Stalinism - is so great and profound, get ONE GUY (i.e Gorbachev) managed to mess it up completely because he was too much of a "social democrat"? (Stalinism could even be construed as a form of uniquely authoritarian social democracy)

If Stalinism was so great, the model could have survived one or two leaders with social democratic leanings, as well as liberal Capitalism can survive if not thrive with a few socialist or social democratic leaders.

[Blake's Baby]

No, no but evil 'revisionists' (Gorbachev, Andropov, Khrushchev... any bald leader after Lenin basically). Even though, because Russia wasn't capitalist, there was no social class that could produce these evil revisionist capitalists and their ideas, and anyway Uncle Joe was so brilliant he steered the ship perfectly until he died and accidentally left it in the hands of evil idiots that he had wisely appointed.

[Burzhuin]

I am wondering. According to history American so called Democratic model exists over two centuries. But look how people are painfully reacted on idea of Trump-president. Is it because they are stupid or they realized he can mess up the country?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

United Kingdom topic and we're talking about stalinism and ussr?

Since we're on that subject, is there any difference between state capitalism and state socialism? Even wikipedia pages are very similar.


state socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself.[1] It is often used, sometimes interchangeably with state capitalism, in reference to the economic systems of Marxist–Leninist states such as the Soviet Union to highlight the role of state planning in these economies.[2] However, these states had only a limited number of socialist characteristics

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The funny thing about Stalinism is that it was meant to create a 'new socialist man', yet it allowed a capitalist like Gorbachev to be a communist politician for decades. That says a lot about the failures to create this new socialist outlook amongst the people.

It also shows how incredibly difficult it is to alter the psyche and the culture of a large group of people, which is a challenge to communists who want to do more than pass a raft of reforms under the existing social system.

[Blake's Baby]

United Kingdom topic and we're talking about stalinism and ussr?...

Everything is about the Russian Revolution, in that the situation we have now is predicated on its failure.

Of course if you ask a Stalinist, everything is about Uncle Comrade Moustache.


... Since we're on that subject, is there any difference between state capitalism and state socialism? Even wikipedia pages are very similar.

Yes, the former exists, the latter doesn't.

My avatar is a pic of Wilhelm Liebknecht, who said in 1895 "no-one has done more than I to show that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism".

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Yes, the former exists, the latter doesn't.

My avatar is a pic of Wilhelm Liebknecht, who said in 1895 "no-one has done more than I to show that 'state socialism' is really state capitalism".
Well, that quote is meaningless if one doesn't know about his work, besides he died in 1900, he wasn't alive to see how USSR functioned.

State capitalism makes sense, but state socialism too, because no matter how much most people dislike Stalin, he was still inspired by Marx to a point.

But anyway, if you go by the usual definition of capitalism and socialism USSR is neither.

[Blake's Baby]

In which case, Marxism can be discarded.

But, as a Marxist, I think differently. I really can't see that the USSR was anything but capitalist. It certainly wasn't socialist as Marx used the term. Not that Marx is the be-all and end-all of everything, but it plain revisionism to claim that Lenin's or Stalin's use of socialism to mean one thing means that Marx meant something other than he did, 40 or more years before Lenin or Stalin used socialism to mean whatever they chose it to mean.

[Burzhuin]

In which case, Marxism can be discarded.

But, as a Marxist, I think differently. I really can't see that the USSR was anything but capitalist. It certainly wasn't socialist as Marx used the term. Not that Marx is the be-all and end-all of everything, but it plain revisionism to claim that Lenin's or Stalin's use of socialism to mean one thing means that Marx meant something other than he did, 40 or more years before Lenin or Stalin used socialism to mean whatever they chose it to mean.
I am amazed, how some people are looking at Marxism as something static. Somehow nobody surprised that Physic Science moved a lot of forward since Isaac Newton. Marx was genius, no doubts about it. So was Lenin. But they could not predict how socialism would work in each and every country.

I was wondering how leftists are considering struggle between Capitalism and Socialism. According to socialist I spoke to recently it is like Family arguing. For me it is a War. That is why I always laugh when somebody tells me that Marxism-Leninism failed. It did not. We retreated, but, as one of American hero said, we did not even start to fight. I am working to see the moment when we will start to advance again.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, it did. At least Russians can answer they lived in socialism for almost 60 years. In my opinion 72 days of Paris Commune are more valuable than hundreds years of British capitalism.

Even assuming the USSR was actually "socialist", if what was left of their revolution was worth fighting for and if the Russian workers had real power, the people would have done more to defend it or restore it. This notion that Gorbachev singularly reintroduced capitalism over a Soviet people with no choice or political power, yet at the same time the nation simultaneously was ruled by the working class just flies in the face of reason.

[Burzhuin]

Even assuming the USSR was actually "socialist", if what was left of their revolution was worth fighting for and if the Russian workers had real power, the people would have done more to defend it or restore it. This notion that Gorbachev singularly reintroduced capitalism over a Soviet people with no choice or political power, yet at the same time the nation simultaneously was ruled by the working class just flies in the face of reason.
If you check you will find out that Gorbachev was talking about to improve socialism. Literally until August 1991 he never told about capitalism as his goal.

My fault as CPSU member that I did not fight strong enough against so called Perestroika. That experience proved one more time how right was Stalin with his idea that class struggle will be increasing by the movement from capitalism to communism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If you check you will find out that Gorbachev was talking about to improve socialism. Literally until August 1991 he never told about capitalism as his goal.

My fault as CPSU member that I did not fight strong enough against so called Perestroika. That experience proved one more time how right was Stalin with his idea that class struggle will be increasing by the movement from capitalism to communism.

Even if his goal was to restore capitalism, how can one man do it in a society ruled (ostensibly) by the entire working class?

[Burzhuin]

Even if his goal was to restore capitalism, how can one man do it in a society ruled (ostensibly) by the entire working class?
Trust me he was not alone. A lot of the party functionaries were in the same boat with him.

Working class, unfortunately, not always see what is the best for them. But at least in CPSU those who opposed Gorbachev politics in majority were workers.

I know a lot of communists, including myself, were expelled from CPSU for voicing disagreement with Gorbachev politics. But when Gorbachevists started to through their membership cards we started to move back to the party. But it was too late.

[Blake's Baby]

I am amazed, how some people are looking at Marxism as something static. Somehow nobody surprised that Physic Science moved a lot of forward since Isaac Newton. Marx was genius, no doubts about it. So was Lenin. But they could not predict how socialism would work in each and every country...

Except gravity isn't different in every country, and neither is socialism. But you're right that neither Lenin nor Marx could accurately predict the future. Neither could Stalin. At best, at most generous to Stalin, his revisionism was a total ghastly failure. At worst of course, he was the gravediggwer of the revolution. Not its executioner, however, it was already dead.


... I was wondering how leftists are considering struggle between Capitalism and Socialism. According to socialist I spoke to recently it is like Family arguing. For me it is a War...

So it is. And you're on the side of capitalism.

[Burzhuin]

So it is. And you're on the side of capitalism.
I can say the same about you, and your tendency in general. But I do not. Because the future will judge us all. And only future will show if Left Communism will produce the result other than bla-bla-bla...

[Blake's Baby]

The successes of Marxist-Leninism in defending capitalism have been plain for 80 years. The future may judge the Communist Left harshly, but our excuse must be our time hasn't yet come to fail the working class. Your time was 1927. What's your excuse now?

[Burzhuin]

The successes of Marxist-Leninism in defending capitalism have been plain for 80 years. The future may judge the Communist Left harshly, but our excuse must be our time hasn't yet come to fail the working class. Your time was 1927. What's your excuse now?
Why 1927?

About 'defending capitalism'... Your tendency is doing that for longer than 80 years. You can dislike Soviet socialism, but so far you DID NOT PRODUCE ANY RESULT. Unlike you we are not looking for excuses. Because by doing nothing your time will never come. I think it is what you hope for...

[Blake's Baby]

You can think what you like, Burzhin. You can even think that your national 'socialism' has something to offer the working class, if it makes you happy. But you don't seem to realise that it is neither Stalinists nor Left Comms that make the revolution, it is the working class. Either, they will make a revolution (in spite of you and your co-thinkers) or they will not.

[Burzhuin]

But you don't seem to realise that it is neither Stalinists nor Left Comms that make the revolution, it is the working class. Either, they will make a revolution (in spite of you and your co-thinkers) or they will not.
Wow! It is probably first time I completely agree with you. However I hope you would not argue the point that workers have to be organized and united. Actually when I started to work in our Local I was surprised that my coworkers never heard from any left party. I do not know if US Labor Party can be defined as left. Question: Is there any left communism party in USA?

[Blake's Baby]

If you mean, the workers have to accept the leadership and direction of politicos, of course I disagree. The task of the political organisation is not to direct the proletariat. There's a lesson from the failure of the revolutionary wave of 1917-27.

I don't know if there is a party (as opposed to organisation) of the Communist Left in the USA, there are various splits from the International Communist Party that may have people in the US. Why? What difference does it make?

[Burzhuin]

If you mean, the workers have to accept the leadership and direction of politicos, of course I disagree. The task of the political organisation is not to direct the proletariat. There's a lesson from the failure of the revolutionary wave of 1917-27.

I don't know if there is a party (as opposed to organisation) of the Communist Left in the USA, there are various splits from the International Communist Party that may have people in the US. Why? What difference does it make?
Because I cannot work in all Unions and in all communities here in Boston area. However the rest of lefists I came across here only interested in bla-bla-bla. That is why some time ago I left CPUSA.

[Blake's Baby]

You would not be welcome I think, as you're a class traitor. The Communist Left tends to be pretty hard-line about those, like youself, that support the politics of the bourgeoisie.

[Futility Personified]

I keep checking this thread in the hope of some sort of golden nugget of information that will sway my insignificant contribution in one way or another, or at least help me frame the whole miserable context in something approaching accuracy. Instead it's just a load of shite about how fearing the secret police who processed repressionary laws on behalf of a load of bastards living it up at the expense of everyone else (and not listening to rock music!) was part and parcel of a society free from a ruling class and exploitation. Split this thread please! Stalinist bullshit is ten a penny, but some sort of interesting analysis on this latest catch 22 would be interesting.

[Blake's Baby]

But surely the point is that there isn't any 'interesting' analysis because the whole thing is a non-question? Both 'in' and 'out' pre-suppose capitalism, and therefore, the question becomes 'what sort of capitalism do you prefer?'

Neither camp has anything to offer the working class.

[Futility Personified]

Interesting analysis, pure conjecture, whatever, something a bit more than rehashing stuff about stalin, and that wasn't a dig at you. In the EU or out the EU is still capitalism, but which route is better for the british working class immediately, or the international working class later on? That wasn't a loaded statement either, just plucking questions out of the air. Neither route beckons imminent socialism, but what are the compelling accelerationist arguements? Is it really less harmful for everyone if we stay or we go? Despite the fact that either option is unpalatable, I don't think this is the same as a bourgeois election as we are not selecting a candidate, we are refuting a continental power bloc, a proto-government, and the consequences are enormous. If someone could find some sort of secretive bit of news that isn't new ageist nonsense that actually seems like things might turn out ok i'd love to see it. But in many ways, arguing about stalin in this thread is a metaphor for our general relevance. Whilst this significant change (or non change) is in the offing, it needs discussing properly. Whatever that means is up to whoever is still reading this.

But this is the biggest change in at least the next generation, depending on how the vote goes. We are no united left, we are just the tinklings of an empty pisspot in the far flung darkness of the collective psyche, but something, anything, actually with regard to current events from one of you quite intelligent people, has got to be better than going on about fucking stalin. Do it for me, do it for the lurkers, do it for the fence sitters, but come on! Someone do something. Anywhere!

[Blake's Baby]

But I don't think it is a major change. It is very much like an election, except this time, both major parties are divided on policy. Whatever happens, capitalism remains. That makes it a non-question really, it's just about the arrangement of exploitation. Better from Brussels or London? No, not better from Brussels or London.

[Burzhuin]

You would not be welcome I think, as you're a class traitor. The Communist Left tends to be pretty hard-line about those, like youself, that support the politics of the bourgeoisie.

From my experience many of workers "support the politics of the bourgeoisie". That is why I am curious: How are you working with workers? O-o, I forgot, you do not work with them.

[Burzhuin]

But this is the biggest change in at least the next generation, depending on how the vote goes. We are no united left, we are just the tinklings of an empty pisspot in the far flung darkness of the collective psyche, but something, anything, actually with regard to current events from one of you quite intelligent people, has got to be better than going on about fucking stalin. Do it for me, do it for the lurkers, do it for the fence sitters, but come on! Someone do something. Anywhere!
Trust me it much easier to criticize Stalin, call people names than to go and work with workers, try to listen to them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but you have to have patience and a lot of it. Of course it is easier just to call a worker 'class traitor' if he is not ready to grab a gun and go to barricade. That is probably through all my work I never met left communists till I join this site.

[Blake's Baby]

From my experience many of workers "support the politics of the bourgeoisie"...

Of course, if that were not the case we would already be well on our way to a communist society. But that is no reason to support the bourgeoisie too. Communists go against the flow. Communist society will be the overthrowing of all existing social conditions. You don't get there by agreeing with the status quo.


... That is why I am curious: How are you working with workers? O-o, I forgot, you do not work with them.

By 'working with' do you mean recruiting? You're right, I don't. But then, I'm not a member of any organisation. If you mean 'discussing' then, no you're wrong. If you're referring to supporting strikes and other actions, then, wrong again.

[Rudolf]

Trust me it much easier to criticize Stalin, call people names than to go and work with workers, try to listen to them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but you have to have patience and a lot of it. Of course it is easier just to call a worker 'class traitor' if he is not ready to grab a gun and go to barricade. That is probably through all my work I never met left communists till I join this site.

Yeah probably because workers don't like stalin.

You'll notice that people have harsher words for you than they would a standard 'apolitical' worker. The reason for this is obvious: your pretense to being a communist which opens you up to harsher critiques and polemics from communists

[Comrade #138672]

I am pro-EU because it exposes the common enemy.

[Sewer Socialist]

I am pro-EU because it exposes the common enemy.

The EU exposes the common enemy? Funny, it doesn't seem like Europe has shifted to the left after the EU came into being. In fact, it seems to have shifted to the right. The only new "common enemy" to EU members seems to be Muslims.

Of course, I don't think leaving the EU will do anything for the left or against the racist right.

[notforthelikesofus]

As the old signs in Cuba say

Socialismo O Muerte!

Spoil the paper why vote for the maintenance of capital.

[Burzhuin]

Yeah probably because workers don't like stalin.

You'll notice that people have harsher words for you than they would a standard 'apolitical' worker. The reason for this is obvious: your pretense to being a communist which opens you up to harsher critiques and polemics from communists
Actually you are wrong. Most of workers I spoke to, do not give a shit one way or another. Some of them did not even heard about him.

Actually recently we have discussion about USSR and what it meant for simple workers. Some of my coworkers are women they did not believe me that in USSR maternity leave was with 100% pay for 18 months. Universal health care more or less was familiar to them. But anti-Soviet propaganda has deep root even in heart of workers. What was funny when some of my colleagues started to tell ME, former Soviet citizen, how Soviet people lived. I 'discover' so much about our life in USSR.

[Futility Personified]

There are probably a billion threads about how the USSR was actually not a miserable police state and it was actually the thing leftists have been trying to achieve since forever, this is not one of those threads!

[Comrade #138672]

The EU exposes the common enemy? Funny, it doesn't seem like Europe has shifted to the left after the EU came into being. In fact, it seems to have shifted to the right. The only new "common enemy" to EU members seems to be Muslims.

Of course, I don't think leaving the EU will do anything for the left or against the racist right.OK, maybe the EU does not expose the common enemy as much as leaving the EU would further obscure the common enemy. In that sense, I am not actually pro-EU. By "pro-EU" I meant pro-"not leaving the EU", because it only distracts from the main issue, which is capitalism.