Ukraine

[RichardB]

You seem so keen to equate being anti-NATO and left-wing with Stalinism. Why?

Yes, this is really getting tiresome. Everyone here who has expressed a critical view of NATO would I am sure hold a much more critical view of the Putin régime. Surely that goes without saying. I remember often being accosted by boorish individuals telling me to "go back to Russia" when I was selling a newspaper with the words "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism" emblazoned on its front page. Some things don't change.

[Bryn]

Maybe, but like me you may be assuming that the people you know are representative of the whole and that their views, as passed on by you, should have greater weight. I know, or have known, personally many people who would not share the opinions you mention, though you have qualified your statement with a restrictive filter. You might also know people who "have considerable experience of living and studying in Soviet satellite regimes" who have not been filtered by the constraint of "those on the 'left'", but you have not stated that.

My point was prompted by a claim to the contrary in #970. I make no attempt to generalise from my personal experience but merely to challenge the generalisation in #970.

[Frances_iom]

Yes, this is really getting tiresome.

International Socialism from Lenin's time onwards meant a Dictatorship nominally of the Proletariat but in practice by those who operated the system - it is remarkable that those countries that have at one time espoused Marxist-Leninism (Russia + China) operate highly repressive regimes for some if not all of their populace - maybe it is age but I now believe that systems, imperfect as they might be, that have well engineered systems of checks and balances on power can offer the greatest happiness to it populations - maybe these will evolve into a form of Communism but all previous regimes that are based on an ideological belief that all men can live under a single belief system be it Christianity, Islam or Leninism have proved significantly unpleasant regimes to live under for the bulk of the population. The Open Society offers a much better solution.

[french frank]

Yes, this is really getting tiresome. Everyone here who has expressed a critical view of NATO would I am sure hold a much more critical view of the Putin régime. Surely that goes without saying.

That is the point. That one argument is repeated ad nauseam, the other - which 'goes without saying' - goes unsaid. I don't think a balanced view of the world can be presented unless the whole picture, the way everything fits together, is considered.

[Serial_Apologist]

That is the point. That one argument is repeated ad nauseam, the other - which 'goes without saying' - goes unsaid. I don't think a balanced view of the world can be presented unless the whole picture, the way everything fits together, is considered.

You should be really careful there, ff - people who think polyvalently are always in serious danger of ending up as dialectical materialists!

[french frank]

You should be really careful there, ff - people who think polyvalently are always in serious danger of ending up as dialectical materialists!

Don't worry. "I know my place."

The point about my graphic is that the part of the picture you can see is "real". I'm not one to dispute that. It's equally "tiresome" to hear that view being regurgitated.

[Serial_Apologist]

International Socialism from Lenin's time onwards meant a Dictatorship nominally of the Proletariat but in practice by those who operated the system - it is remarkable that those countries that have at one time espoused Marxist-Leninism (Russia + China) operate highly repressive regimes for some if not all of their populace - maybe it is age but I now believe that systems, imperfect as they might be, that have well engineered systems of checks and balances on power can offer the greatest happiness to it populations - maybe these will evolve into a form of Communism but all previous regimes that are based on an ideological belief that all men can live under a single belief system be it Christianity, Islam or Leninism have proved significantly unpleasant regimes to live under for the bulk of the population. The Open Society offers a much better solution.

Many mistakes occurred while capitalism was establishing its rule, from whose lessons its beneficiaries and would-be ameliorators have had a good five centuries to learn a few things, mainly about consent and how in its absence to use force where needed to cling onto power. Socialism has not been afforded that luxury in its century and a bit of quasi-existence.

[Frances_iom]

..Socialism has not been afforded that luxury in its century and a bit of quasi-existence.

Socialism is in many respects merely Christianity (which was itself heretical Judaism mediated thru Greek Philosophy + Roman Power structures) with its belief in the perfectibility of Man but without the need for a supernatural controlling entity - such early 'socialist' societies can exist but rapidly fall apart when numbers involved exceed the size of a small village.

[Dave2002]

My point was prompted by a claim to the contrary in #970. I make no attempt to generalise from my personal experience but merely to challenge the generalisation in #970.

OK - I apologise. Looking back my own post was also possibly open to the criticism of prompting an unwarranted generalisation. The problem is that people sometimes make statements which are true, or which may not be true, but reflect their own opinions, and then perhaps expect others to generalise from that. So from my own POV "There exist people [whom I have known] from Russia and former communist countries who thoroughly dislike Russia - and from your statement "There exist people [whom you have known] with considerable experience of living and studying in Soviet satellite regimes - and who have left wing views - but who also take the view that 'It's all down to NATO'."

The existence of such people is not contradictory - it's perfectly possible. The statements are likely to be correct. The concern is that such statements will be taken and generalised. An added factor at the present time is that I believe that many who hold pro Putin/pro war [but they can't say that ...] views do not have such a clear picture. That's not to say that mine is automatically better, but I do have what I consider to be the benefit of having many different sources of information, and can make judgements based on them. It is unlikely that a majority of people in Russia or countries which support the current action have access to so many sources, and of course some of the people will be uninterested anyway. I suppose I and others may hold the view that they would be less likely to support these actions if they had much richer and wider ranging sources on which to base their opinions.

[Dave2002]

Socialism has not been afforded that luxury in its century and a bit of quasi-existence.

And that justifies its continued existence and our acceptance of it?!

[french frank]

And that justifies its continued existence and our acceptance of it?!

In what way are we obliged to "accept" it?

[Serial_Apologist]

Socialism is in many respects merely Christianity (which was itself heretical Judaism mediated thru Greek Philosophy + Roman Power structures) with its belief in the perfectibility of Man but without the need for a supernatural controlling entity - such early 'socialist' societies can exist but rapidly fall apart when numbers involved exceed the size of a small village.

There is a lot to be said for that. Places decimated by events like the 2008 crash such as inner city Detroit have been effectively handed over to the resultant impoverished communities, who have pulled together in order to reconstruct neighbourhoods communally and informally on practicable ideas based on barter, re-cycling, utilising alternative "letts" economics and existing skills, creating community allotments, grass-roots organised clinics, schools and so on. This could lie in store for Ukraine once the destruction stops - it is happening on an ad hoc basis the moment people pull together in the midst of tragedy - as was seen on a much smaller scale in NW London in the wake of Grenfell. Ideas of solidarity borne as much of urgency as of principles - Christian or other. Capitalism confuses needs with wants in its later stages in its indiscriminate quest for consumers who must be persuaded into having goods whose worth in terms of longevity is as dependent on profitability and competitiveness as the associated inducements of "keeping up with the Joneses" - we're mammals hardwired for belonging, cohering which are the governing protocols defining and conferring status and exclusivity. An "exemplary" socialistic society would be one that succeeded in generalising its practices on the larger scale: democratic accountability based on differentials taking account of time spent upon necessary skills acquisition and circulated responsibilities, as in the early Kibbutzim, rather than the putative, often falsely claimed superiority today invested in company ceo's and top state officials; structures tying in the local with the national and, ultimately, the international. The oft-made point made by socialist theorists about taking the best and abandoning the worst of capitalism applies as much to technology, under capitalism used to rationalise competitivity rather than reduce working time, as the sometimes realised principle of democratic accountability. For example it would ask, is this update really necessary? These are a few of the things that even someone lacking in much imagination, such as myself, could envisage.

[Dave2002]

In what way are we obliged to "accept" it?

We're not - but I think you know that. Of course we similarly accept "democracy", but that is also a hopeless mess, but arguably it's better than many of the other systems.

[Serial_Apologist]

In what way are we obliged to "accept" it?

And in any case, it hardly exists anywhere today, even in the adulterated version represented by Cuba. The few remaining examples of collective funding and social provision in Britain apart from the armed forces, police and judiciary, namely the primary and secondary educations sectors and the welfare state, are and were consciously devised as adjuncts to the efficiency of the private sector, which included those checks and balances only under constant vigilance, rather than the main generating wealth-creator predicated firstly on meeting basic social need. I would be interested to hear if from the benefits of all the sources he is free to form his own views about the state of the world Dave2002 has found any linking principle or principles at work.

[Serial_Apologist]

We're not - but I think you know that. Of course we similarly accept "democracy", but that is also a hopeless mess, but arguably it's better than many of the other systems.

But the question is, what is it that "democracy" is trying to govern?