LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Bakery Hill]

Well fundamentally the welfare state couldn't be defended because it was unworkable. From that point full employment, good services and an industrial economy were totally incompatible with capitalism from the late 70s crisis, regardless of whether Marxists coherently defended it in whatever debates they had at universities.

What we have now doesn't seem much more workable.

Of course it isn't. And?

[Ostroeuropa]

What we have now doesn't seem much more workable.

Of course it isn't. And?

And nothing. I just think we could have defended the situation rather than switch to this one, given that this one is likewise shit. There was a resource crisis involved there too, and so on. At least they had coherent reasons for an economic crisis rather than it just being the same idiotic ideas failing over and over again and causing the economy to crash repeatedly.

[Proctopeo]

I wonder why Ba`athism has never succeeded in the Arab world? Maybe its appeal wasn't strong enough or there were too many differences among the Arab people

taking a Ba'ath is expensive when you're in a desert

[Bakery Hill]

Of course it isn't. And?

And nothing. I just think we could have defended the situation rather than switch to this one, given that this one is likewise shit.

No, that's how you get Venezuela. When capital refuses or is incapable of investing the capitalist economy stagnates and begins to die. That was what was going on in the 70s, the crisis was that capital was increasingly unable to make the profits it needed to invest. The choice you have there is to smash labour and give their profits to capital, or abolish capitalism altogether. Defending the status quo continues the crisis.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Read: "People who study things tend to be more leftist than I'm comfortable with and that makes me mad!"

Yes. I think that pretty much sums up the usual argument. People are not referring to Marxists. They are referring to anyone to the left of themselves.

[Ostroeuropa]

And nothing. I just think we could have defended the situation rather than switch to this one, given that this one is likewise shit.

No, that's how you get Venezuela. When capital refuses or is incapable of investing the capitalist economy stagnates and begins to die. That was what was going on in the 70s, the crisis was that capital was increasingly unable to make the profits it needed to invest. The choice you have there is to smash labour and give their profits to capital, or abolish capitalism altogether. Defending the status quo continues the crisis.

I'm fine with abolishing capitalism. But defending the welfare state to continue the crisis seems to me a necessary component of doing that. By framing the arguments around the welfare state not being negotiable and defending it on its own merits and the merits that brought it about, you're left with no choices but abolishing capitalism.

Instead of framing them around "The welfare state isn't working and indeed cannot work so let's try something else" as Marxists and Neoliberals did (for opposing reasons), we should have framed it around "No the welfare state is doing its job just great, the problem appears to be the economy funding it.".

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I wonder why Ba`athism has never succeeded in the Arab world? Maybe its appeal wasn't strong enough or there were too many differences among the Arab people

The problem with Baʻathism (Arabic, بَعْثِيَّة [MP3 pronunciation], Baʿ°aṯiyyaẗ, “Awakening”) is that it is secular. Although there is increasing secularization in the Arab world, Baʻathism started well before that time.

[Bakery Hill]

No, that's how you get Venezuela. When capital refuses or is incapable of investing the capitalist economy stagnates and begins to die. That was what was going on in the 70s, the crisis was that capital was increasingly unable to make the profits it needed to invest. The choice you have there is to smash labour and give their profits to capital, or abolish capitalism altogether. Defending the status quo continues the crisis.

I'm fine with abolishing capitalism. But defending the welfare state to continue the crisis seems to me a necessary component of doing that. By framing the arguments around the welfare state not being negotiable and defending it on its own merits and the merits that brought it about, you're left with no choices but abolishing capitalism.

Then you've basically arrived at a Marxist position.

The Marxist approach, as you've sourced yourself a few pages back, is that the welfare state was unsustainable and simply not enough, that we need a better welfare state that is not dependent on the health of capital. It was never about dismantling the welfare state. Marxists have continually defended the institutions of the welfare state while stating this perspective. They have always opposed privatisation and the intrusions of the market into public life and for all the faults of various Marxists continue to do so.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

It's not a conspiracy and i'm not alleging one. I'm alleging dogmatism and insularity in an institution when it became overrun with such people caused negative consequences.

One problem is that you never defined Marxism. However, if you are defining Marxism as most Marxists define it, I would say you are incorrect, on both sides of the pond.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fine with abolishing capitalism. But defending the welfare state to continue the crisis seems to me a necessary component of doing that. By framing the arguments around the welfare state not being negotiable and defending it on its own merits and the merits that brought it about, you're left with no choices but abolishing capitalism.

Then you've basically arrived at a Marxist position.

The Marxist approach, as you've sourced yourself a few pages back, is that the welfare state was unsustainable and simply not enough, that we need a better welfare state that is not dependent on the health of capital. It was never about dismantling the welfare state. Marxists have continually defended the institutions of the welfare state while stating this perspective. They have always opposed privatisation and the intrusions of the market into public life and for all the faults of various Marxists continue to do so.

I accept I have more overlap with the Marxist position than the Neoliberal one, but I fundamentally disagree with their approach and method of thinking about these problems and how they are framed. I think it leads to social ills and makes the defense of the welfare state more difficult.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

When you organize society and its political conversation around conflict between groups instead of the elimination of suffering, this is the kind of society that results. The fundamental flaw in marxism is the same kind of nasty social darwinian tendency that defines the new right, rather than striving for solidarity against humanities enemies.

In this long posting, you never once defended your argument. By the way, Marx despised so-called Social Darwinism (really, Social Lamarckianism, since Darwin despised it).

[Bakery Hill]

No, that's how you get Venezuela. When capital refuses or is incapable of investing the capitalist economy stagnates and begins to die. That was what was going on in the 70s, the crisis was that capital was increasingly unable to make the profits it needed to invest. The choice you have there is to smash labour and give their profits to capital, or abolish capitalism altogether. Defending the status quo continues the crisis.

Instead of framing them around "The welfare state isn't working and indeed cannot work so let's try something else" as Marxists and Neoliberals did (for opposing reasons), we should have framed it around "No the welfare state is doing its job just great, the problem appears to be the economy funding it.".

The welfare state was and could do its job great if it was not dependent on capital. However it was dependent on capital and therefore was not working. There's no actually conflict in your phrases, only semantics. And if you would rather alter the semantics tell people in the Winter of Discontent that things are doing just great, I doubt your PR acumen.

[Ostroeuropa]

When you organize society and its political conversation around conflict between groups instead of the elimination of suffering, this is the kind of society that results. The fundamental flaw in marxism is the same kind of nasty social darwinian tendency that defines the new right, rather than striving for solidarity against humanities enemies.

In this long posting, you never once defended your argument. By the way, Marx despised so-called Social Darwinism (really, Social Lamarckianism, since Marx despised it).

He may have despised it but it still operates along the same fundamental conceit, merely in collectivized terms, that of self-interest, perpetual conflict, competition and elimination of opposition being the natural order and unchangeable state of things. In the same way the social darwinist opines about self-interest, competition, and so on of the individual, Marxists apply to groups. Collaboration is seen as unnatural or duplicitous, ultimately only serving the goals of one group and tricking or exploiting another, and true cooperation to eliminate human problems is not considered a possibility.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

He may have despised it but it still operates along the same fundamental conceit, merely in collectivized terms, that of self-interest, perpetual conflict, competition and elimination of opposition being the natural order and unchangeable state of things. In the same way the social darwinist opines about self-interest, competition, and so on of the individual, Marxists apply to groups. Collaboration is seen as unnatural or duplicitous, ultimately only serving the goals of one group and tricking or exploiting another, and true cooperation to eliminate human problems is not considered a possibility.

Sorry, but that is not an argument.

[Bakery Hill]

In this long posting, you never once defended your argument. By the way, Marx despised so-called Social Darwinism (really, Social Lamarckianism, since Marx despised it).

He may have despised it but it still operates along the same fundamental conceit, merely in collectivized terms, that of self-interest, perpetual conflict, competition and elimination of opposition being the natural order and unchangeable state of things. In the same way the social darwinist opines about self-interest, competition, and so on of the individual, Marxists apply to groups. Collaboration is seen as unnatural or duplicitous, ultimately only serving the goals of one group and tricking or exploiting another, and true cooperation to eliminate human problems is not considered a possibility.

It would be more accurate to say that Marxism philosophically relies on synthesis, which it gets from its Hegelian background. It seeks to eliminate oppressive hierarchies, centrally the owner/worker dichotomy, to better enable true cooperation.

[Bakery Hill]

He may have despised it but it still operates along the same fundamental conceit, merely in collectivized terms, that of self-interest, perpetual conflict, competition and elimination of opposition being the natural order and unchangeable state of things. In the same way the social darwinist opines about self-interest, competition, and so on of the individual, Marxists apply to groups. Collaboration is seen as unnatural or duplicitous, ultimately only serving the goals of one group and tricking or exploiting another, and true cooperation to eliminate human problems is not considered a possibility.

Sorry, but that is not an argument.

okay thanks for your contribution bro

[Ostroeuropa]

Instead of framing them around "The welfare state isn't working and indeed cannot work so let's try something else" as Marxists and Neoliberals did (for opposing reasons), we should have framed it around "No the welfare state is doing its job just great, the problem appears to be the economy funding it.".

The welfare state was and could do its job great if it was not dependent on capital. However it was dependent on capital and therefore was not working. There's no actually conflict in your phrases, only semantics. And if you would rather alter the semantics tell people in the Winter of Discontent that things are doing just great, I doubt your PR acumen.

Well we know for a fact the Marxists failed in terms of their PR, so thinking something else might have succeeded seems a necessary position to hold.

[Bakery Hill]

The welfare state was and could do its job great if it was not dependent on capital. However it was dependent on capital and therefore was not working. There's no actually conflict in your phrases, only semantics. And if you would rather alter the semantics tell people in the Winter of Discontent that things are doing just great, I doubt your PR acumen.

Well we know for a fact the Marxists failed in terms of their PR, so thinking something else might have succeeded seems a necessary position to hold.

Thinking yours would succeed is not. As I've tried to explain. But I'll take that to mean you are disengaging.

[Ostroeuropa]

He may have despised it but it still operates along the same fundamental conceit, merely in collectivized terms, that of self-interest, perpetual conflict, competition and elimination of opposition being the natural order and unchangeable state of things. In the same way the social darwinist opines about self-interest, competition, and so on of the individual, Marxists apply to groups. Collaboration is seen as unnatural or duplicitous, ultimately only serving the goals of one group and tricking or exploiting another, and true cooperation to eliminate human problems is not considered a possibility.

It would be more accurate to say that Marxism philosophically relies on synthesis, which it gets from its Hegelian background. It seeks to eliminate oppressive hierarchies, centrally the owner/worker dichotomy, to better enable true cooperation.

Perhaps, but the problems with it as a method of looking at social problems are evident in many areas, such as mens issues and the resulting oppression caused there.

Well we know for a fact the Marxists failed in terms of their PR, so thinking something else might have succeeded seems a necessary position to hold.

Thinking yours would succeed is not. As I've tried to explain. But I'll take that to mean you are disengaging.

Ish. I think if we've reached the point of agreeing that Marxism has failed in its objectives in terms of how it framed, understood, solved, and explained issues and something new needs to be tried, then we're basically in agreement, even if what to replace it with remains in dispute.

[Torrocca]

Thinking yours would succeed is not. As I've tried to explain. But I'll take that to mean you are disengaging.

Ish. I think if we've reached the point of agreeing that Marxism has failed in its objectives in terms of how it framed, understood, solved, and explained issues and something new needs to be tried, then we're basically in agreement, even if what to replace it with remains in dispute.

Ez pz: Anarchism's the solution. Or just any form of Libertarian Leftism really.

[Cekoviu]

I wonder why Ba`athism has never succeeded in the Arab world? Maybe its appeal wasn't strong enough or there were too many differences among the Arab people

The problem with Baʻathism (Arabic, بَعْثِيَّة [MP3 pronunciation], Baʿ°aṯiyyaẗ, “Awakening”) is that it is secular. Although there is increasing secularization in the Arab world, Baʻathism started well before that time.

jesus, you're adding mp3s now?

[Aellex]

Ish. I think if we've reached the point of agreeing that Marxism has failed in its objectives in terms of how it framed, understood, solved, and explained issues and something new needs to be tried, then we're basically in agreement, even if what to replace it with remains in dispute.

Ez pz: Anarchism's the solution. Or just any form of Libertarian Leftism really.

So is nuclear holocaust if you wanna go that way...

[Torrocca]

Ez pz: Anarchism's the solution. Or just any form of Libertarian Leftism really.

So is nuclear holocaust if you wanna go that way...

Hint hint: Anarchism doesn't mean rampant destruction, chaos, or """evilness""".

[Washington Resistance Army]

So is nuclear holocaust if you wanna go that way...

Hint hint: Anarchism doesn't mean rampant destruction, chaos, or """evilness""".

This kinda clashes with your earlier posts about stealing property and what would presumably happen to those who say No though.

[Torrocca]

Hint hint: Anarchism doesn't mean rampant destruction, chaos, or """evilness""".

This kinda clashes with your earlier posts about stealing property and what would presumably happen to those who say No though.

Seizing the means of production doesn't mean destruction or chaos. :^)