Tell Me :
Talk
Do you mean you don't take me seriously,kleermaker ?
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Not at all. Wasn't it you yourself who said "I don't take myself seriously"?. But I always did and still do.
You're right, proudmary, you deserve as much credit too.
The political concept of anarchism, better called 'social anarchism' (to avoid confusion with the other meaning of the word, which is chaos, disorder and lawlessness) has certainly some attractive elements, though the concept of the free will still needs some philosophical research, as for the question if it really exists and if so, if it's absolute or relative.
There was a civil war going on between 1917 and 1920. Terror from both sides, as usually during civil wars, and this was a very harsh civil war with foreign interference.
As for Trotskism: it's a collective term for the ideas and political views Trotski had and has written about (socialist revolution, democracy, economy, fascism, religion, Stalinism, etc.).
The French aristocracy regarded itself as pro-revolutionairy for a great deal, and even Louis XVI had sympathy for the revolution. They underestimated the force of it, but I was told that some of the aristocrats were important industrialists as well. The conception of the French revolution as a classical Marxist class struggle has long been dismissed by scholars. It was a meritocratic, capitalist revolution foremost and feudalism did not exist in France much at that time anymore. Turgot wanted to abolish some remains of it in 1776 but his edicts were met with much resistance, including of a large part of the common people.
"In 1954, Alfred Cobban used his inaugural lecture as Professor of French History at the University of London to attack what he called the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution. The lecture was later published as "The Myth of the French Revolution", but his seminal work arguing this point was The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1963). The main point he made was that feudalism had long since disappeared in France; that the Revolution did not transform French society, and that it was principally a political revolution, not a social one as Lefebvre and others insisted."
[en.wikipedia.org]
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-22 04:27 by lsbz.
Good point. I agree that the French Revolution mainly was a political revolution as a result of economical and social changes that already were going on for quite a long time. As for aristocrats being also factory owners: of course history doesn't follow rigid schemes. It's too dynamic and dialectic for that matter. But I consider the FR just like the other bourgeois liberal revolutions all over Europe as the political result of a shift from mainly feudal power relationships and a dominant feudal economic system to bourgeois liberal power relationships and a dominant capitalist economic system (as a result of which socialism came into being, because a working class had come into being as a result of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution). So those revolutions were essentially indeed a matter of class struggle, but mainly on the political front (as a result of changed economic power relationships and the victory of capitalism as the dominant economical system).
BTW: In this aspect the history of Le Nozze di Figaro, Mozart's opera, is interesting. Its main theme is the struggle between the aristocrat (the count Almaviva) and his servant (Figaro), the latter forcing the former to abstain his 'ius primae noctae'. Le Nozze di Figaro was absolutely not popular among the (aristocratic) powers that were in Vienna 1786. Mozart's opera Don Giovanni was also politically very provocative, its main message being 'Viva la liberta!'. Everyone knew what was meant here.
I don't really think so. Before the revolution there was capitalism and after it was capitalism; only the the power over the system changed, because more economic flexibility was needed. I think that it is very telling that the common people were opposed to Turgot ('guerre des Farines'). They did not want to lose their protectionistic priviledges; they've always been small capitalists themselves.
Socialism was a real step forward, but the revolution in many respects wasn't. The most enlightened idea's often have come from the aristocrats, and that's only logical.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-24 02:09 by lsbz.
The very reason why the Russian 'socialist' revolution failed was the fact that feudal/capitalist (especially feudal) economical structures were still dominant in Russia and that not any shift from the feudal/capitalist economical system to any socialist economic system had taken place at all. So the socialist political revolution in Russia was doomed to fail from the very beginning on, different from the liberal/bourgeois political revolutions in Europe. The latter could be based on a dominant liberal/bourgeois economical system (capitalism), while the socialist political revolution in Russia had no (socialist) economical basis at all. So it couldn't but fail in the end. And so it did, as we all know.
Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore. There were, wat are sometimes called, "feudal taxes", but the feudal system was of the Middle Ages and before. As a direct result of the revolution, France caused twenty years (1795-1815) of Napoleonic wars in Europe. For many commomon men, that would have meant joining the army, and an existence that in many respects would not have been better than before the revolution.
Also, Russian communism was much different from the European socialist political influences that we have in Europe today.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-29 06:10 by lsbz.
It seems as if we are passing each other by like ships in the night. But I give it another try:
<Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore.> That's exactly what I said in my former posts. Read them again and you'll discover it. So we agree here.
As for Russian communism I argued that it never existed at all because the economic system was still feudal/capitalist when the political Russian Revolution took place. It succeeded in military terms, but it failed in political and certainly in economical terms.
The socialist influences we have today in Europe are actually not socialist but social democratic. Social democracy has capitalism as economical base and accepts and supports the current western capitalist system . Its goal is to soften it by social laws etc., but social democracy has little or nothing to do with socialism in the economical sense of the word.
In your post of December 21, 2010 17:49, you wrote:
You did seem to suggest that capitalism replaced feudalism in France.
That depends on how you look at it. But I never referred to communism at all; only to socialism as a real improvement.
A semantical matter.
But my point really was that capitalism wasn't a real improvement over the economical system in France before the revolution. Meritocratic capitalism is a cruel hierarchical system that may be worse than the aristocratic and religious hierarchies that existed, and they could have been replaced peacefully without a revolution, like for instance in England. Capitalism supposes that everyone has equal economical chances to earn money, and that has never been true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-29 18:29 by lsbz.
As for the semantic matter: I disagree. The difference between socialism (socialist economic system) and social democracy is fundamental. I said enough about social democracy: it's based and it accepts and supports capitalism. As for socialism 'sec': it's (theoretically) based on a socialist economic system which means socialisation of all means of production. That means for instance no more free enterprises conform the capitalist economic system.
As for your last sentence: I agree.
I regard socialism and capitalism as two very different ideologies that don't really have anything to do with eachother. In real life, there is a mix between the two, but presently the capitalist influences in my opinion are much to strong. Real socialistically motivated politicians don't accept that. The balance should be in favor of socialism mostly, and I think that many Western societies have been moving slowly in that direction for the past century.
Democracy is a different topic alltogether. To my knowledge, most or all socialist political parties are democratic by definition. Assuming socialists to have communist sympathies is a cheap exaggerating discussion technique.
The problem is that 'communism' generally is associated with the former Soviet Union and China, but neither the SU nor China can be considered as communist or socialist. The old revolutionary theorists didn't distinct between socialism and communism, using those terms interchangeably for an economic system that is based on social property of the means of production instead of privately owned means of production (capitalism). So they considered socialism/communism as democratic if only because social property of the means of production would mean democracy also in the most important (because decisive) sector of society, knowing the economic power relationships had to change from capitalist towards socialist first. As we know they never did until today and it's questionable if they ever will.
As for your remark that "many Western societies have been moving slowly in that direction [socialism] for the past century" I fundamentally disagree. I would use the following definition for (the result of) that process:
state capitalism is a term that is used to describe a system where the state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance the interests of Big Business on one hand and to maintain a certain degree of social security on the other. This practice is often claimed to be in sharp contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Social democracy certainly has played a role in this process, though I think that process is the result of (changing) economic power relationships in society in the first place and not of a struggle between different political ideologies.
Not anymore, but I was referring to a previous quote of yours:
I do not agree that the Russian revolution failed, nor that the French revolution succeeded. I see them both as socio-economic experiments that partly succeeded and partly failed. All three major ideologies of the beginning of the previous century, capitalism, fascism and communism, were IMO about equally inferior.
I think that China and Russia are now developing nicely. In the former Eastern Bloc, Stalin is often still very popular, and surveys show that many people there think they were better off before the Wende. It's all been very relative, and common sense and a holistic view of the world are a better angle than any ideology.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-30 09:37 by lsbz.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: December 21, 2010 18:30
We're talking about philosophy and history here, Sway, thanks to Mick Jagger, so don't worry.
Can I get some credit too, please?
capitalism and anarchism and mafia state (Russia)
Anarchism is all about free will and there is nothing so opposite to the idea than Putin's Russia. Mafia that's it, you're right
Can I get some credit too, please?
capitalism and anarchism and mafia state (Russia)
Anarchism is all about free will and there is nothing so opposite to the idea than Putin's Russia. Mafia that's it, you're right
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: December 21, 2010 18:38
Quote
kleermaker
We're talking about philosophy and history here, Sway, thanks to Mick Jagger, so don't worry.
Do you mean you don't take me seriously,kleermaker ?
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 21, 2010 18:52
Quote
SwayStonesQuote
kleermaker
We're talking about philosophy and history here, Sway, thanks to Mick Jagger, so don't worry.
Do you mean you don't take me seriously,kleermaker ?
Not at all. Wasn't it you yourself who said "I don't take myself seriously"?. But I always did and still do.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 21, 2010 19:02
Quote
proudmary
We're talking about philosophy and history here, Sway, thanks to Mick Jagger, so don't worry.
Can I get some credit too, please?
capitalism and anarchism and mafia state (Russia)
Anarchism is all about free will and there is nothing so opposite to the idea than Putin's Russia. Mafia that's it, you're right
You're right, proudmary, you deserve as much credit too.
The political concept of anarchism, better called 'social anarchism' (to avoid confusion with the other meaning of the word, which is chaos, disorder and lawlessness) has certainly some attractive elements, though the concept of the free will still needs some philosophical research, as for the question if it really exists and if so, if it's absolute or relative.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: December 21, 2010 19:44
"Trotskism, I doubt if anyone knows what it really means"
Easy: trotskists think their mentor was a clean man while Stalin was the horrible butcher of the Russian people. Trotski fled URSS in 1929 so he had no involvement in the bloodbath that happened under Stalin's reignn (the trails the Gulag).
That's true but trotskists forget Leon had thousands of people killed between 1918 and 1920...
Easy: trotskists think their mentor was a clean man while Stalin was the horrible butcher of the Russian people. Trotski fled URSS in 1929 so he had no involvement in the bloodbath that happened under Stalin's reignn (the trails the Gulag).
That's true but trotskists forget Leon had thousands of people killed between 1918 and 1920...
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 21, 2010 20:14
Quote
dcba
"Trotskism, I doubt if anyone knows what it really means"
Easy: trotskists think their mentor was a clean man while Stalin was the horrible butcher of the Russian people. Trotski fled URSS in 1929 so he had no involvement in the bloodbath that happened under Stalin's reignn (the trails the Gulag).
That's true but trotskists forget Leon had thousands of people killed between 1918 and 1920...
There was a civil war going on between 1917 and 1920. Terror from both sides, as usually during civil wars, and this was a very harsh civil war with foreign interference.
As for Trotskism: it's a collective term for the ideas and political views Trotski had and has written about (socialist revolution, democracy, economy, fascism, religion, Stalinism, etc.).
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: December 21, 2010 23:59
Trotsky, being a leading bolsjevik, was directly responisible for the civil war. He was also instrumental in creating the Red Army with it's extensively brutal politruk system, punitive brigades etc.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 22, 2010 00:46
Quote
kleermaker
It wasn't the class of aristocracy but that of the bourgeoisie and the reason of its growing political power had an economical background that had its roots in a developing new economic system instead of feudalism: capitalism.
The French aristocracy regarded itself as pro-revolutionairy for a great deal, and even Louis XVI had sympathy for the revolution. They underestimated the force of it, but I was told that some of the aristocrats were important industrialists as well. The conception of the French revolution as a classical Marxist class struggle has long been dismissed by scholars. It was a meritocratic, capitalist revolution foremost and feudalism did not exist in France much at that time anymore. Turgot wanted to abolish some remains of it in 1776 but his edicts were met with much resistance, including of a large part of the common people.
"In 1954, Alfred Cobban used his inaugural lecture as Professor of French History at the University of London to attack what he called the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution. The lecture was later published as "The Myth of the French Revolution", but his seminal work arguing this point was The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1963). The main point he made was that feudalism had long since disappeared in France; that the Revolution did not transform French society, and that it was principally a political revolution, not a social one as Lefebvre and others insisted."
[en.wikipedia.org]
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-22 04:27 by lsbz.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 22, 2010 20:32
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
It wasn't the class of aristocracy but that of the bourgeoisie and the reason of its growing political power had an economical background that had its roots in a developing new economic system instead of feudalism: capitalism.
The French aristocracy regarded itself as pro-revolutionairy for a great deal, and even Louis XVI had sympathy for the revolution. They underestimated the force of it, but I was told that some of the aristocrats were important industrialists as well. The conception of the French revolution as a classical Marxist class struggle has long been dismissed by scholars. It was a meritocratic, capitalist revolution foremost and feudalism did not exist in France much at that time anymore. Turgot wanted to abolish some remains of it in 1776 but his edicts were met with much resistance, including of a large part of the common people.
"In 1954, Alfred Cobban used his inaugural lecture as Professor of French History at the University of London to attack what he called the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution. The lecture was later published as "The Myth of the French Revolution", but his seminal work arguing this point was The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1963). The main point he made was that feudalism had long since disappeared in France; that the Revolution did not transform French society, and that it was principally a political revolution, not a social one as Lefebvre and others insisted."
[en.wikipedia.org]
Good point. I agree that the French Revolution mainly was a political revolution as a result of economical and social changes that already were going on for quite a long time. As for aristocrats being also factory owners: of course history doesn't follow rigid schemes. It's too dynamic and dialectic for that matter. But I consider the FR just like the other bourgeois liberal revolutions all over Europe as the political result of a shift from mainly feudal power relationships and a dominant feudal economic system to bourgeois liberal power relationships and a dominant capitalist economic system (as a result of which socialism came into being, because a working class had come into being as a result of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution). So those revolutions were essentially indeed a matter of class struggle, but mainly on the political front (as a result of changed economic power relationships and the victory of capitalism as the dominant economical system).
BTW: In this aspect the history of Le Nozze di Figaro, Mozart's opera, is interesting. Its main theme is the struggle between the aristocrat (the count Almaviva) and his servant (Figaro), the latter forcing the former to abstain his 'ius primae noctae'. Le Nozze di Figaro was absolutely not popular among the (aristocratic) powers that were in Vienna 1786. Mozart's opera Don Giovanni was also politically very provocative, its main message being 'Viva la liberta!'. Everyone knew what was meant here.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 22, 2010 21:45
One size fits all...
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 23, 2010 00:58
Quote
kleermaker
But I consider the FR just like the other bourgeois liberal revolutions all over Europe as the political result of a shift from mainly feudal power relationships and a dominant feudal economic system to bourgeois liberal power relationships and a dominant capitalist economic system...
I don't really think so. Before the revolution there was capitalism and after it was capitalism; only the the power over the system changed, because more economic flexibility was needed. I think that it is very telling that the common people were opposed to Turgot ('guerre des Farines'). They did not want to lose their protectionistic priviledges; they've always been small capitalists themselves.
Quote
kleermaker
(as a result of which socialism came into being, because a working class had come into being as a result of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution).
Socialism was a real step forward, but the revolution in many respects wasn't. The most enlightened idea's often have come from the aristocrats, and that's only logical.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-24 02:09 by lsbz.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
TippyToe
()
Date: December 24, 2010 01:03
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: December 24, 2010 11:09
Last night an Italian anarchist group, the FAI or Informal Anarchist Federation, claimed responsibility for the blasts.
"We have decided to make our voice heard with words and with facts, we will destroy the system of dominance, long live the FAI, long-live Anarchy."
Who could think in 21st century....
"We have decided to make our voice heard with words and with facts, we will destroy the system of dominance, long live the FAI, long-live Anarchy."
Who could think in 21st century....
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 29, 2010 00:16
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
But I consider the FR just like the other bourgeois liberal revolutions all over Europe as the political result of a shift from mainly feudal power relationships and a dominant feudal economic system to bourgeois liberal power relationships and a dominant capitalist economic system...
I don't really think so. Before the revolution there was capitalism and after it was capitalism; only the the power over the system changed, because more economic flexibility was needed. I think that it is very telling that the common people were opposed to Turgot ('guerre des Farines'). They did not want to lose their protectionistic priviledges; they've always been small capitalists themselves.
Well, that's exactly what I was saying(!): "But I consider the FR just like the other bourgeois liberal revolutions all over Europe as the political result of a shift from mainly feudal power relationships and a dominant feudal economic system to bourgeois liberal power relationships and a dominant capitalist economic system..."Quote
kleermaker
(as a result of which socialism came into being, because a working class had come into being as a result of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution).
Socialism was a real step forward, but the revolution in many respects wasn't. The most enlightened idea's often have come from the aristocrats, and that's only logical.
The very reason why the Russian 'socialist' revolution failed was the fact that feudal/capitalist (especially feudal) economical structures were still dominant in Russia and that not any shift from the feudal/capitalist economical system to any socialist economic system had taken place at all. So the socialist political revolution in Russia was doomed to fail from the very beginning on, different from the liberal/bourgeois political revolutions in Europe. The latter could be based on a dominant liberal/bourgeois economical system (capitalism), while the socialist political revolution in Russia had no (socialist) economical basis at all. So it couldn't but fail in the end. And so it did, as we all know.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 29, 2010 06:06
Quote
kleermaker
The very reason why the Russian 'socialist' revolution failed was the fact that feudal/capitalist (especially feudal) economical structures were still dominant in Russia and that not any shift from the feudal/capitalist economical system to any socialist economic system had taken place at all. So the socialist political revolution in Russia was doomed to fail from the very beginning on, different from the liberal/bourgeois political revolutions in Europe. The latter could be based on a dominant liberal/bourgeois economical system (capitalism), while the socialist political revolution in Russia had no (socialist) economical basis at all. So it couldn't but fail in the end. And so it did, as we all know.
Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore. There were, wat are sometimes called, "feudal taxes", but the feudal system was of the Middle Ages and before. As a direct result of the revolution, France caused twenty years (1795-1815) of Napoleonic wars in Europe. For many commomon men, that would have meant joining the army, and an existence that in many respects would not have been better than before the revolution.
Also, Russian communism was much different from the European socialist political influences that we have in Europe today.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-29 06:10 by lsbz.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 29, 2010 17:30
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
The very reason why the Russian 'socialist' revolution failed was the fact that feudal/capitalist (especially feudal) economical structures were still dominant in Russia and that not any shift from the feudal/capitalist economical system to any socialist economic system had taken place at all. So the socialist political revolution in Russia was doomed to fail from the very beginning on, different from the liberal/bourgeois political revolutions in Europe. The latter could be based on a dominant liberal/bourgeois economical system (capitalism), while the socialist political revolution in Russia had no (socialist) economical basis at all. So it couldn't but fail in the end. And so it did, as we all know.
Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore. There were, wat are sometimes called, "feudal taxes", but the feudal system was of the Middle Ages and before. As a direct result of the revolution, France caused twenty years (1795-1815) of Napoleonic wars in Europe. For many commomon men, that would have meant joining the army, and an existence that in many respects would not have been better than before the revolution.
Also, Russian communism was much different from the European socialist political influences that we have in Europe today.
It seems as if we are passing each other by like ships in the night. But I give it another try:
<Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore.> That's exactly what I said in my former posts. Read them again and you'll discover it. So we agree here.
As for Russian communism I argued that it never existed at all because the economic system was still feudal/capitalist when the political Russian Revolution took place. It succeeded in military terms, but it failed in political and certainly in economical terms.
The socialist influences we have today in Europe are actually not socialist but social democratic. Social democracy has capitalism as economical base and accepts and supports the current western capitalist system . Its goal is to soften it by social laws etc., but social democracy has little or nothing to do with socialism in the economical sense of the word.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 29, 2010 18:28
Quote
kleermakerThat's exactly what I said in my former posts.Quote
lsbz
<Again, at the time of the French revolution feudalism did not even exist in France anymore.>
In your post of December 21, 2010 17:49, you wrote:
Quote
kleermaker
It wasn't the class of aristocracy but that of the bourgeoisie and the reason of its growing political power had an economical background that had its roots in a developing new economic system instead of feudalism: capitalism.
You did seem to suggest that capitalism replaced feudalism in France.
Quote
kleermaker
As for Russian communism I argued that it never existed at all because the economic system was still feudal/capitalist when the political Russian Revolution took place. It succeeded in military terms, but it failed in political and certainly in economical terms.
That depends on how you look at it. But I never referred to communism at all; only to socialism as a real improvement.
Quote
kleermaker
The socialist influences we have today in Europe are actually not socialist but social democratic.
A semantical matter.
But my point really was that capitalism wasn't a real improvement over the economical system in France before the revolution. Meritocratic capitalism is a cruel hierarchical system that may be worse than the aristocratic and religious hierarchies that existed, and they could have been replaced peacefully without a revolution, like for instance in England. Capitalism supposes that everyone has equal economical chances to earn money, and that has never been true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-29 18:29 by lsbz.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 29, 2010 19:09
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
The socialist influences we have today in Europe are actually not socialist but social democratic.
A semantical matter.
Capitalism supposes that everyone has equal economical chances to earn money, and that has never been true.
As for the semantic matter: I disagree. The difference between socialism (socialist economic system) and social democracy is fundamental. I said enough about social democracy: it's based and it accepts and supports capitalism. As for socialism 'sec': it's (theoretically) based on a socialist economic system which means socialisation of all means of production. That means for instance no more free enterprises conform the capitalist economic system.
As for your last sentence: I agree.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 29, 2010 22:04
Quote
kleermaker
I said enough about social democracy: it's based and it accepts and supports capitalism.
I regard socialism and capitalism as two very different ideologies that don't really have anything to do with eachother. In real life, there is a mix between the two, but presently the capitalist influences in my opinion are much to strong. Real socialistically motivated politicians don't accept that. The balance should be in favor of socialism mostly, and I think that many Western societies have been moving slowly in that direction for the past century.
Democracy is a different topic alltogether. To my knowledge, most or all socialist political parties are democratic by definition. Assuming socialists to have communist sympathies is a cheap exaggerating discussion technique.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 30, 2010 00:18
Quote
lsbzQuote
kleermaker
I said enough about social democracy: it's based and it accepts and supports capitalism.
I regard socialism and capitalism as two very different ideologies that don't really have anything to do with eachother. In real life, there is a mix between the two, but presently the capitalist influences in my opinion are much to strong. Real socialistically motivated politicians don't accept that. The balance should be in favor of socialism mostly, and I think that many Western societies have been moving slowly in that direction for the past century.
Democracy is a different topic alltogether. To my knowledge, most or all socialist political parties are democratic by definition. Assuming socialists to have communist sympathies is a cheap exaggerating discussion technique.
The problem is that 'communism' generally is associated with the former Soviet Union and China, but neither the SU nor China can be considered as communist or socialist. The old revolutionary theorists didn't distinct between socialism and communism, using those terms interchangeably for an economic system that is based on social property of the means of production instead of privately owned means of production (capitalism). So they considered socialism/communism as democratic if only because social property of the means of production would mean democracy also in the most important (because decisive) sector of society, knowing the economic power relationships had to change from capitalist towards socialist first. As we know they never did until today and it's questionable if they ever will.
As for your remark that "many Western societies have been moving slowly in that direction [socialism] for the past century" I fundamentally disagree. I would use the following definition for (the result of) that process:
state capitalism is a term that is used to describe a system where the state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance the interests of Big Business on one hand and to maintain a certain degree of social security on the other. This practice is often claimed to be in sharp contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Social democracy certainly has played a role in this process, though I think that process is the result of (changing) economic power relationships in society in the first place and not of a struggle between different political ideologies.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: December 30, 2010 08:53
Quote
kleermaker
The problem is that 'communism' generally is associated with the former Soviet Union and China, but neither the SU nor China can be considered as communist or socialist.
Not anymore, but I was referring to a previous quote of yours:
Quote
kleermaker
The very reason why the Russian 'socialist' revolution failed was the fact that feudal/capitalist (especially feudal) economical structures were still dominant in Russia and that not any shift from the feudal/capitalist economical system to any socialist economic system had taken place at all. So the socialist political revolution in Russia was doomed to fail from the very beginning on, different from the liberal/bourgeois political revolutions in Europe. The latter could be based on a dominant liberal/bourgeois economical system (capitalism), while the socialist political revolution in Russia had no (socialist) economical basis at all. So it couldn't but fail in the end. And so it did, as we all know.
I do not agree that the Russian revolution failed, nor that the French revolution succeeded. I see them both as socio-economic experiments that partly succeeded and partly failed. All three major ideologies of the beginning of the previous century, capitalism, fascism and communism, were IMO about equally inferior.
I think that China and Russia are now developing nicely. In the former Eastern Bloc, Stalin is often still very popular, and surveys show that many people there think they were better off before the Wende. It's all been very relative, and common sense and a holistic view of the world are a better angle than any ideology.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-30 09:37 by lsbz.
Re: Mick Jagger-"Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 31, 2010 19:04
Isbz, we can't go on arguing here endlessly, so let's conclude that we agree to disagree on almost everything we've discussed.
To say a last word about the questions asked in the first post by proudmary:
<Mick said "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Where and under which circumstances did he say that? I guess 60-s. Did he mean it? Was he an anarchist?
Btw, isn't anarchy a middle class thing?>
I suppose that Mick has said this (though I don't know the quote) in the 60ties because that was the very period things were changing almost 'anarchically' at first sight. During the 70ties it had become clear that societal order hadn't changed fundamentally, so talking about anarchism would have been an anachronism at that time. I don't think Mick was ever an anarchist in any sense, I think he meant something like a great measure of personal freedom in the first place, which can rather be considered as liberal than as anarchist and which was one of the main themes of the 'cultural revolution' of the sixties.
Anarchy/anarchism is (or better said: was) certainly not an exclusive middle class thing. From Wikipedia: "The Spanish Workers Federation in 1881 was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement; anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), founded in 1910. Before the 1940s, the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics, attracting 1.58 million members at one point and playing a major role in the Spanish Civil War.[62]"
To say a last word about the questions asked in the first post by proudmary:
<Mick said "Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope."
Where and under which circumstances did he say that? I guess 60-s. Did he mean it? Was he an anarchist?
Btw, isn't anarchy a middle class thing?>
I suppose that Mick has said this (though I don't know the quote) in the 60ties because that was the very period things were changing almost 'anarchically' at first sight. During the 70ties it had become clear that societal order hadn't changed fundamentally, so talking about anarchism would have been an anachronism at that time. I don't think Mick was ever an anarchist in any sense, I think he meant something like a great measure of personal freedom in the first place, which can rather be considered as liberal than as anarchist and which was one of the main themes of the 'cultural revolution' of the sixties.
Anarchy/anarchism is (or better said: was) certainly not an exclusive middle class thing. From Wikipedia: "The Spanish Workers Federation in 1881 was the first major anarcho-syndicalist movement; anarchist trade union federations were of special importance in Spain. The most successful was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labour: CNT), founded in 1910. Before the 1940s, the CNT was the major force in Spanish working class politics, attracting 1.58 million members at one point and playing a major role in the Spanish Civil War.[62]"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1StonesRecluse , child-of-the-moon , DavidinAustin , georgie48 , Jfk19562003 , jimpietryga1 , keefmick , kkhoranstoned , micha063 , MonkeyMan2000 , nbutton , philrock90 , rastakeith , shattered , Sir Mick , slewan , spunky , Stoneswolf , StonyRoad , thecitadel , tiffanyblu , Topi , vibrolux , vlaci66
Guests:
2453
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10