Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)The U.S. seems to throw a spanner in the works of that particular "correlation" - perhaps you should just leave it out of the sum.[/b]
It does, if you like, throw a spanner in the works of the basic correlation....but that doesn't mean that America, or for that matter Italy, Spain and Ireland can't be explained.
Firstly, of course, the basic correlation, in a loose form, still holds true for these countries....I mean, whilst the U.S. is Religious, it's nowhere near the levels of say Iran or Nigeria. Two countries that are underdeveloped and are also plagued by superstition.
But, you asked "how would "objective material conditions" explain this?"....so I'll do my best to give you and answer for each country.
America, in the strictest sense, never saw a bourgeois revolution and therefore, unlike in France, there was never the need to attack Christianity (and it structures) that vigorously. Indeed whilst the Civil War can be described as the moment America became a a bourgeois republic, the War still had highly Religious rhetoric from both sides.
So unlike in France and some other countries, there was never the need to seriously attack and undermine the objective position of the Church in American society.
This is, if you like, an example of the "constrains" and how loose or tight they are....the ascendant American bourgeois could have killed Christianity centuries ago; but, for some reason, they didn't. Possibly because many American settlers were Christians themselves and, unlike in France, there wasn't really the need to confront this in order to progress.
Additionally, the re-introduction of Christianity into mainstream American political life, only started in the 1980's when certain sections of the Republican Party decided to try and mobilise the Christians as a support base.
At this point, the Republican "high command" probably has more Christian fascist foot soldiers than Hitler and Mussolini had combined. Yet, even now, they've won very few battles against bourgeois secularism....a few states have banned abortion and that's about it.
Additionally, if you'd like a really "vulgar" economic reason, then I'd be a fool not to point out that in America, Christianity is big business. I don't know of anywhere else in the world where you can make as much money out of Religion as you can in America....what did that Scientology bloke say, something like "if you want to make a million dollars, start a Religion"!
All of these factors contribute to the way Christianity continues to fester in America....in my opinion, the money that can be made out of it and the bourgeois political establishments promotion of it, are the two main factors as to why it stays around.
In Italy, well, the Vatican's presence is important to note....they've managed to "wheel and deal" they way into Italy's political life and, in my opinion, like the British Monarchy, instead of being a remnant of the past, they've bought their way into the Italian bourgeois.
They obviously learnt their lessons from France and decided to do favours for Mussolini and every bastard after him....and this, ultimately, stopped the bourgeois from chucking them out.
The largest factor in Spain would be, in my opinion, the decades of a clerical fascist regime. The Spanish Civil War was framed by Franco in the context of a War against atheism....and I've no doubt, that during the mass killings afterwards, people would avoid suspicion not only if they distanced themselves from left politics but also if they said they were Christians.
And in Ireland, Northern Ireland particularly, the economic divide British Imperialism paced between Catholics and Protestants undeniably allowed Religion to fester there.
Though I've been reliably informed, that a couple of decades of relative economic prosperity has led to a general decline in Religion there.
As I noted above, these countries aren't in the same kind of situation that faces some of the really Religious and underdeveloped countries, but superstition does still pose a problem in these countries.
Indeed, a few posts back, I think I mentioned that the "bigger" the "picture" gets, the tighter the "constraints" get; where as the "smaller" it gets, the looser said "constraints" get.
And really, if we look at the modern-capitalist world from a far, then the general correlation I noted is present....but when we start to look at the finer details, then we see the differences.
The bourgeois in these countries could have undercut Religion, in a very effective manner. But, instead, they didn't do this....and, in a sense, by not doing this, they failed to complete one of the tasks history "appointed" to the ascendant bourgeois.
I, as you know, would have favoured them doing a more thorough wrecking job on Religion....pikes and all. But you've made it quite clear that you'd oppose that; indeed, you'd likely oppose turning Our Lady of Paris into the Temple to Reason.
So a discussion here on how to undercut and undermine Religion, would really be pointless.
Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)This had a significant impact on the trade union movement, I feel.[/b]
Well, I'll take your word for that....I'm not old enough to remember the events in any detail and I've not met anyone who thought that the fall of the old USSR was "demoralizing and demotivating"; indeed, if I remember correctly, someone rewrote the Internationale to celebrate this.
But, if you've come across people who feel this way, then I'll take your word for it.
If I was going to suggest something that "had a significant impact on the trade union movement", I'd say, aside from the economic stability I've discussed, it was the Thatcher era attacks on the Unions....these, of course, happened before the fall of the "Socialist Motherland".
Now, as my as you dislike my "vulgar" economic reasoning, I'd say that this too, had a fundamental economic reason....similar in a way, to the reasons I gave about the shift right of the British Labour Party.
You see, in my opinion, rather than it being "relational", the reduction in the profits generated by capitalism, made it so that the bourgeois had to do something about the constant economic demands of the working class.
As the Miners Strike showed, it was a risky move because it goaded the working class into militant action....but nevertheless, from an economic perspective, the bourgeois had to reduce the power of the Unions. If things had carried on like they did, then I think there's a good chance bourgeois society would have begun to crumble.
You can view the Thatcher era as an era of political attacks if that's what you wish; but in my opinion, it was an era where the bourgeois took decisive action in order to secure their class (economic) interests.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Think about it, even on here, a comrade close to me, Severian, thinks that the "nationalized property relations" were something worth defending, a "gain" for the working class. I have stand up rows with him about defending "socialist Cuba".
Severian, is as "Old Left (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49689&view=findpost&p=1292065835)" as they come....which makes him, almost a living fossil. <_<
And funnily enough, I'm not saying that to sound spiteful....well, there's something else to it than spite anyway. There are a lot of left groups, of all varieties, who defend "socialist" Cuba; but none of these, as far as I can see, are "Old Left" in the way your description would have it.
Indeed, outside of the internet, I've never met a real life Stalinist; granted, I live in a small city, but I'm not aware of the London Stalinists or the Glasgow Maoists. I mean, as far as I know, the nearest "Marxist-Leninist" Party of any note, is in Belgium....if memory serves me correctly, their Chairman, Ludo Martens (?), wrote, what is apparently, a good defense of Stalin.
Has the political orientation of the British left really changed that much over the last decade or so? I've certainly seen nothing to indicate that Stalinism and/or Maoism were "big" within the British left in the 80's.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Really? If you talk to most people about socialism, do they not say "it's been tried in Russia"? I know the people I speak to do.
Nah; I get "Communism failed in Russia" where as Socialism is identified with "Old Labour"....it would be easier to just get a whole new word.
There's certainly no word in the English language today that is widely used and basically means workers democratic control of the means of production; Socialism and Communism both basically refer to, as you put it, "nationalized property relations".
What's as, if not more curious, is that although most people associate both Socialism and Communism with mass Nationalisations, people seem to think having "Socialist" Nationalised Railways is "good"....but "Communist" Nationalised Railways are "bad". :huh:
It's a peculiar world we live in....
Originally posted by YKTMX
But I don't think that an explanation which includes only an economic analysis would suffice, or make much sense, to be honest.
Indeed; but once again, you're attributing the word "only" to me, where as I've actually said that that economic analyses should form the "basis".
In my opinion, we should start an analyses by looking at the economic factors....and then go on to discuss the other, "superstructural" factors; and were we can, we draw the line back from those factors to the economic factors.
So, like I did with the Thatcher era, first I gave an economic analyses, albeit a very basic one, and then I discussed the politics of the moment....and I finished, by lining that back to the economic situation.
You've read Mark Steel's Vive La Revolution right? It's a pretty decent introduction to the French Revolution....and throughout that piece, Steel analyses the "base" factors and then discusses the "superstructural" factors; discussing how one "gives birth" to tother.
Originally posted by YKTMX
From that evidence, we know that its not a direct correlation.
Well, this is where the "constrains" come in....like, for instance, the events of the Thatcher era. I'd still say that, at the roots, these actions took the form of pure economic interest; but as I've pointed out, the "fine details" are not that tightly "constrained".
But still, as a correlation from "a far", like with the Religion example, the general equation: relative economic stability = low levels of class struggle....seems a pretty valid correlation to me.
Originally posted by YKTMX
But whether it "creates it", I'm not sure. Possibly.
Well, the fella' you quoted earlier in this thread seems to agree with my proposition....
Originally posted by Mandel
But it is only in the revolution itself that the majority of the oppressed can liberate themselves from the ideology of the ruling class. [3] For this control is exerted not only, nor even primarily, through purely ideological manipulation and the mass assimilation of the ruling class’ ideological production, but above all through the actual day-to-day workings of the existing economy and society and their effect on the consciousness of the oppressed. (This is especially true in bourgeois society, although parallel phenomena can be seen in all class societies.)
(Emphasis added.)
Is Mandel a "vulgar economist" as well now??? :lol:
Originally posted by YKTMX
So Marx was an idealist then? He didn't understand his own theories. That's basically what you're saying, yes?
Well I don't know....Marx was pretty young when he wrote that and additionally, it was a Manifesto. Manifestos, if there any good, do try to sound "inspiring"; and therefore, there tends to be a lot of powerful rhetoric in them.
Whether Marx really thought the "spectre" was about to "haunt", is something I wouldn't be able to tell you. But he was still wrong anyway....the workers movement was really in its infancy back then; with the Chartists being the closest thing to mass working class radicalism.
I'd say the most plausible reason for that sentence is, as I said, that Marx was writing a Manifesto and the line "In a time far far away, a spectre is going to haunt Europe - the spectre of Communism" wouldn't have really been any good.
If you have another reason for why Marx decided to write about a "spectre" that was about to "haunt" which didn't really "haunt" until over 50 years later, then I'll be glad to here it.
Originally posted by YKTMX
I think Stalin was more concerned with protecting the interests of the bureaucracy than analysing the political situation in post-war Europe.
See his speech to the Soviet Politburo on 19 August 1939....it might be on MIA.
Originally posted by YKTMX
At the end of the day, Germany didn't become a Soviet republic. But at no point was this outcome an inevitability.
I don't know if I would use the word "inevitable"....I'd probably prefer the phrase "highly probable". In other words, it was "highly probable" that Germany wouldn't become a Soviet Republic.
And, as I've already said, I also think that had it become a Soviet Republic, that it was also "highly probable" that it wouldn't have become a communist society....instead, in my opinion, it is likely that it would produce a new capitalist ruling class.
There's no real world example from which we could try to formulate a probability factor; so really, "highly" is about as accurate as it can get.
Originally posted by YKTMX
It's quite possible to have a perfectly reasonable materialist analysis and be wrong.
Possibly. Some materialist analyses can be both "perfectly reasonable" and "wrong"....I think, based on the evidence we have now, that they weren't "perfectly reasonable materialist analyses".
But, of course, that is based on the evidence we have now....back then, it may well have been a completely different case.
An example of this, if you like, is Marx and Engels approach to the "imminent" Russian Revolution. In, if memory serves me correctly, the 1870's, Marx concluded that there was a possibility of Russia "going communist"....I think this conclusion, was in a letter to a Russian friend.
Engels, in one of his last written pieces, On Social Relations in Russia (1891?), dismissed the idea of Russia "going communist" with contempt!
He did a touch of linguistic dancing so as to spare Marx from criticism, but he still fundamentally disagreed with Marx's conclusion....indeed, I think he said something like "if you think present day Russia is ready for Socialism, you haven't even learnt the ABC of Socialism".
Now, looking from the vantage point of 2006, I think Engels materialist analysis was incredibly perceptive; where as Marx's, was, in my humble opinion, shit.
Indeed, I may even venture as far as saying that Marx's analyses wasn't "perfectly reasonable"....but that it was wrong, is the only piece of information that I think is relevant.
Originally posted by MIA
political theory that society must follow definitive stages of class society. Thus, it is essentially impossible for a feudal society to transition into a socialist society, in much the same way that a tribal society could not transition to a capitalist society.
They use the phrase "essentially impossible"....where as I would prefer to ask whether it is probable.
Right there, we have two propositions that are scientifically falsifiable:
1) Is it possible for a feudal society to transition into a socialist society? and;
2) Is it possible for a tribal society to transition into a capitalist society?
The questions, as they stand, are poorly worded....the word "transition" could imply many different things; but here, we'll assume that it means to "skip over" an historical epoch.
I gave my opinion on question 2 here....
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292044566 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47892&view=findpost&p=1292044566)
Though, really, question 1 is the more important of the two.
So, to start with, we need some positive evidence in favour of this. We have plenty of examples to look at....Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.
Now, out of all of those countries, none were able to successfully undertake the transition from pre-capitalism to socialism....you would not argue with this of course, as you agree with the State-Capitalist analysis.
So, the ratio of successful transitions to failures is 0 to 4, 5 or whatever. Now, such a ration, in my opinion, doesn't warrant the term "essentially impossible"....extermely unlikely seems better to me.
Do you agree with that? Or not? And most importantly, if you don't agree, why?
Funnily enough, Severian with his "deformed workers' state" and the Stalinists/Maoists with their "Socialism was there when Joe and Mao were alive" would be able to dispute my conclusion....but because you've chosen the more theoretically sound State-Capitalism model, you can't.
And whilst you may consider my materialism "vulgar", "Stalinist" or "stagist", the evidence in support of it is overwhelming....should a country successfully make the "transition", then the ratio would have to be re-worked (becoming, what, 1:5).
And in a way, despite your disapproval of "stagism", you pay homage to it in a roundabout way. Both you and I support the Iraqi Resistance, where as "close comrade" is waiting for a "genuine workers' movement" to support.
Indeed, my decision to support the Iraqi Resistance is, in his eyes, "evidence" of some kind of "cloaked racism". Yet, whilst a secular communist resistance would be nice, the conditions in present day Iraq aren't conducive to it....both you and I realise that, so instead of wafting around in fantasy land waiting for the "perfect" resistance, we support whatever anti-imperialist forces emerge.
Now tell me, on this issue, what differentiates you and I from, the basic, Stalinist position of, as you put it, "alliances with foreign bourgeoisies"? True, we're not funding them, but the position, in principle, of supporting bourgeois anti-imperialist forces is the same.
And you can't get out of this one, after all, I've already won "Gold Medal in the 2006 Olympic Intellectual Gymastics". <_<
Originally posted by MIA
The stagists particularly argued, in countries lacking the basic preconditions for capitalism (let alone socialism), that a large, organised and educated proletariat, a high level of urbanisation, industrialisation, concentration of capital, and a democratic political culture were necessary before Socialism could be achieved. They explained that the preconditions of socialism have to be secured by a development of the market, including private ownership in the means of production, and conversely that the passage to socialism cannot be secured by means of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Some versions of "stagism" hold that the "intermediate stage" must include a bourgeois-democratic regime, and rules out the possibility of a dictatorship of the proletariat overseeing the development of the market and raising the cultural level, and postpones the seizure of power by the working class until the "normal" course of capitalist development has been completed. Other versions of "stagism" envisage a workers' government overseeing a stage of normal capitalist development.
Well, I haven't argued, as far as I can recall, that "a democratic political culture" was neccessary....the "window dressing" of capitalism, in my opinion, is irrelevant.
Really, my position would be, that in order to lay the foundations for communist society, it is likely that modern infrastructure, developed by the bourgeois, will be required.
As for the last sentence -- "Other versions of "stagism" envisage a workers' government overseeing a stage of normal capitalist development" -- as poorly worded as it is, that sounds a touch like normal State-Capitalist theory.
Originally posted by MIA
"Stagism" is generally contrasted with the idea of the "growing over" of the bourgeois democratic revolution into a socialist revolution, a social process which can take place under a dictatorship of the proletariat, understood as the fullest development of participatory democracy, but suppressing large-scale capital accumulation if not entirely eliminating private ownership of the means of production.
This is what the Stalin cabal thought they were doing!
You'd be more likely to fall under this definition of "stagism" than any of the Stalinists/Maoists on this board....after all, they maintain that USSR Inc. was "paving the way" for communism; where as you think it was State-Capitalist.
Like I said above though, there's no positive evidence in favour of the proposition that a "bourgeois democratic revolution" can "grow into" a "socialist revolution"....certainly not in the sense that we've actually seen a socialist country. Never mind, of course, the evidence in favour of this "path" leading to communism.
Originally posted by MIA
Stagism leads to the belief that reformism must be exhausted before revolution is possible.
Sounds more like Plekhanov's position than Stalin's....or for that matter, Lenin's Trotsky's or Mao's.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Of course, all revolutionary movements start somewhere and "get out of control".
My point was, that achieving the goals was all that they really wanted; hence why it all died down so quickly.
That the French bourgeois was able to meet the demands, suggests that it wasn't "time" for a revolution. An old and decaying social order after all, tends to be unable to meet the simplest demands made by the general populace.
Either that, or for some reason, they don't want to concede to even the simplest demands....like, for example, in Russia; the Csar and his cabal, remember, were outright opposed to even the most simple liberal reforms that were demanded.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Have you read Harman's 'The Fire Last Time'?
Nope....is it available online?
Originally posted by YKTMX
Couple this with the particularities of France that I mentioned above, I feel it's quite solid.
Yeah, it's not really objectionable....still leaves unanswered economic questions in my opinion; but I'll save that for another time.
But given all this, and your analysis the "the lack of a class conscious, politically independent vanguard" was what led to failure; what do you make of my basic summary of the odds with regards all this?
That is, the odds that a revolution that will install the working class as the ruling class for a period of time (never mind the odds about socialism and communism) are 22356 to 1.
If you are right and capitalism has been "decaying" since 1914; then the lack of success and the odds of success, make the prospect of successful revolution pretty bleak.
I'm speculating here, but you'd be an adherent to some kind of "world revolution" theory right? So given how low the odds are for one country even having the working class come to power for a short period of time....imagine what the odds would be for world revolution happening? :o
To borrow a phrase from MIA, it seems "essentially impossible"!
Originally posted by YKTMX
Capitalism will always be dynamic.
That was not Marx's opinion; nor is it mine....though it seems to be an opinion that you share with Christopher Hitchens.
I pointed to two examples, the internet and Architecture, which, show, in my opinion, how capitalism is beginning to "fetter"....additionally, most European economies (I'm think specifically of France, Germany and Italy here) have been in a general state of decline over the last decade or so.
Certainly, compared to a "new" capitalist country, China, Europe and North America is looking rather less "dynamic".
Additionally, you yourself, think that capitalism has been "decaying" for almost a century now....and I fail to see how a social order can be both "decaying" and "dynamic"; certainly when feudal France was about to fall, it looked anything but "dynamic".
Originally posted by YKTMX
How can you tell what human society would look like now if socialist revolution had taken place? How do you know that we wouldn't be even more advanced had we had socialism?
I can't tell; I can only speculate.
However, been as there is no positive evidence in favour of the proposition that socialism, never mind communism, was possible back then....speculating on what it may or may not have "looked like", just seems like an exercise in intellectual masturbation to me.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Because there will never be a capitalist society that is completely incapable of useful production.
Is that an "iron law" of history that capitalism, if left alone, will carry on "forever"?
Seems to me to be a rather a-historical assertion; one that is commonly found in the Opposing Ideologies forum. Social orders, as Marx pointed out all those years ago, fall apart.
Originally posted by YKTMX
The very nature of the system means there will always be a way back. Always.
Planning on pursuing a career in pantomime are you?
"HE'S BEHIND YOU!" :lol:
Originally posted by YKTMX
Well, precisely because factors other than economic ones distort the process.
They must be some powerful factors....I mean, to produce odds like the ones I gave above.
Indeed, if we've had 92 years of a decaying system and yet only one, in your opinion, half decent attempt at overthrowing it, it doesn't seem like there's much room for optimism in your outlook.
As I commented in my last post, we'd probably be better off trying to win the lottery....the odds, after all, are likely better.
Given the "power" of these other factors and your opinion that only one Vanguard Party of sufficient calibre has ever emerged, how can you conclude that the prospect of communism is anything other than a distant fantasy?
Originally posted by YKTMX
Surely the WO were also a radical section of the bourgeoisie as well though?
That's debatable.
In my opinion, for a time at least, Kollontai and co. articulated the demands of a working class in its political infancy....much like, in a way, how Marx was (mostly) able to articulate the political positions of the working class in his day.
The Workers' Opposition, in my opinion, made mistakes....but generally speaking, from say 1920-21, they spoke "for" the Russian working class. Then, a few prominent members of the WO were given career breaks and the overall demands were marginalised and that, as they say, was that.
Originally posted by YKTMX
They were Bolsheviks, after all.
Marat was a Jacobin; yet he still managed, at times, to articulate the demands of the emerging (and tiny) French working class....just as some members of the French aristocracy had articulated the demands of the ascendant bourgeois.
History is sometimes curious in this way....a group (or person) from outside of a class, will end up articulating the demands of that class; it's very rare mind you, and often only happens for a short period of time.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Their "objective actions" were to strike. Who cares that it was a racist strike?
You are missing the point of what constitutes objective in this context....the objective, is the act and the demand. Where as the "subjective motives" are the reasons the individuals involved have for participating in the act.
The objective facts about, say, the Iraq War, are, simply put, that it was a War for Oil....whether George Bush Jr. supported it "because" he was told to by "God" or "because" he had some bad pizza, doesn't matter.
Originally posted by YKTMX
Also, you've now introduced the rather bizarre concept of an "objective demand". How can you demand something "objectively"?
Well, usually, you get a piece of paper and write down what you want to achieve from the action you are about to partake in....and that's about it.
Originally posted by YKTMX
So how can a "demand" be important and "objective" but a "motive" be worthless.
Because a demand, by its very nature, is a demand for a specific objective action....and therefore, we can, if we desire, rationally analyse this.
A "motive" alternatively, could be absolutely anything, which means there is, as far as I know, no way to rationally analyse whether that "motive" is favourable or not.
As the old saying goes, what counts is not what men think they are, but what they actually do.
Originally posted by YKTMX
No, it doesn't, because I would oppose burning synagogues no matter who's doing it.
Then why, instead of framing said thread in the context of people "supporting" fascism, didn't you frame it in the context of you politically disagreeing with the demolition of Religious buildings?
After all, if the point of your opposition is that you don't want Religious buildings to be demolished, why bother bringing the issue of fascism up at all? Seems like a cheap attempt to score "political points" to me.
[email protected]
How can someone who left school at 14, got a job in a factory, worked for a trade union and them became a socialist Labour MP, having never bought or sold any Capital, be considered "bourgeois".
You know, you should really make sure to get better sources; at least you should check to make sure they are accurate before you decide to take this piss.
Wikipedia; emphasis added
Asian Voice
Galloway has been involved in several publishing companies. He owned Asian Voice, which published a newspaper called East from 1996. An investigation by BBC Newsnight found that Galloway had secured payments of £60,000 and £135,000 from the Pakistani governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Galloway insisted this was for advertising space and bulk copies, but Newsnight alleged that it was for favourable coverage of Pakistan.
He is currently one of two Directors of Finjan Ltd.; the other Director is his former wife. In May 2005, he launched a new publishing house, Friction, an imprint that will publish "books that burn, books that cause controversy and get people talking."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Asian_Voice
Maybe he's another Robert Owen? :lol: