The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[Richard Barrett]

Socialism is indeed a force for good but where it presents itself undiluted it always morphs back into the very worst form of capitalism - as evidenced most clearly by all the various forms exhibited under the Soviet Union and in China.

Always. Always.

I don't think one can say "always" until a lot more time has gone by. At a certain point in history it would have been possible to say that whenever monarchies are overthrown, they always morph back into feudalism, as in Britain in the 17th century and France at the end of the 18th. Also with the benefit of hindsight it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that any political entity so far in history could be described as "undiluted socialism". But these arguments always go around in circles, until history decides them.

[Joseph K]

.

... Joseph : yes, Catalonia was in revolt. But Orwell's (and Richd: T's) point is that it was not a 'revolutionary society' ...

.

… then it was a revolutionary what, precisely?

And Richard T: it was insulting to claim that I hadn't absorbed the message of the book; if there is one it would be that societies based on anarchist-communism will struggle when their opposing forces are as powerful as those funded by the Nazis, Stalinist Russia and western capitalist corporations. My memory is hazy of the book; but I do remember quite vividly that Orwell was impressed by Catalonia and thought it worth fighting for; the various techniques (some quite amusing) used to fight fascists; how Stalinists used the press to try to make out the various non-Stalinist leftist movements were actually counter-revolutionary etc.

[Joseph K]

There will always be small groups on the far left, notwithstanding the hilarious if, for satirical purposes, simplistic representation of the sectarianism I was too well aware of in the late 1970s, presented in "The Life of Brian". In this country, at least, the Trotskyist or now more generally post-Trotskyist left of today is having its arguments out in and through the Labour Party. Two things which in some senses are an improvement on the 1970s, when I was active, are that some tacit, if unacknowledged theoretical changes in thinking that are not just tactical, but, I think, strategic changes in terms of political objectives, are an acceptance that speaking of "smashing the state" - still back then commonly unquestioned, though at that time should have been seen as relevant (probably) in the situation of Russia ca. 1917, whose experience of what the Leninist-Trotskyist left thought of as "bourgeois (ie parliamentary representative) democracy was no way comparable with how Britain's relatively privileged colonial postion, however reluctantly, "permitted" reform, such as the vote. Secondly, no one on the left prior to WW2 could have anticipated the manner in which US aid towards rebuilding capitalism in Britain and Europe as a viable tradeworthy bloc would cement parliamentary legitimacy in the working class collective psyche. Today, with some whose echoing of Trotsky's predictions of either the imminent collapse of capitalism or the coming of barbarism seeming like a reality in prospect, and the irony of the reawakening of the political class's awareness of its own powers post-2008 banking crisis, (the state having been used to bail them out) - when for decades mainstream politicians had been speaking of national political impotence in the face of the power of global economics and the mega corporations - a further ingredient promising to eclipse all other considerations, given that if unaddressed threatens the previous impregnability of the ruling class, is of course climate change, and its role in radicalising an entire generation of youth literally facing no future at all short of drastic change in how we do things.

Thankfully the rhetoric of smashing all the institutions of the state has now come up against the realities of the state as enabler as well as protector, and that if anyone wants to undermine it the threat comes from the right and rar right. The situation cries out for thinking in terms of a coalition: in the first place ideological, but in the nearest possible future practicable, between Greens and socialists. For that to happen, I believe that the Green parties have to question their ostensible commitment to capitalism, at the same time as not ditching their promulgation of lifestyle options for centuries advocated by the "best" spiritual/religious traditions, and summed up in the concept of anti-materialism - not it should be said in the Marxist sense of materialism! - while at the same time the traditional socialist left has to re-think the wholesale assumption that for decades if not centuries held with the idea of the earth as an inexhaustible, exploitable source of wealth, in whoever's hands such wealth is held, and however equitably it is shared.

Not sure if I've posted this here before, but it discusses and compares the pros and cons of Marxism and anarchism. You might find it interesting, S_A:

http://davidharvey.org/2015/06/listen-anarchist-by-david-harvey/

[Richard Tarleton]

… then it was a revolutionary what, precisely?

(Back now) - there was no "it"- that's what I keep trying to say - there was no homogeneous Catalan "society", revolutionary or otherwise. The Catalan question (to borrow the title of Chapter 2 of Gerald Brenan's The Spanish Labyrinth, - no better place to start) was immensely complicated. The Catalan countryside had traditionally been Carlist....

I can see no point in continuing the discussion, especially in view of the remainder of your last post. I can if you like suggest a reading list: as Jonathan Meades recently reminded us, all the important authors on 20th C Spain have been Anglophone.

And Richard T: it was insulting to claim that I hadn't absorbed the message of the book; if there is one it would be that societies based on anarchist-communism will struggle when their opposing forces are as powerful as those funded by the Nazis, Stalinist Russia and western capitalist corporations. My memory is hazy of the book; but I do remember quite vividly that Orwell was impressed by Catalonia and thought it worth fighting for; the various techniques (some quite amusing) used to fight fascists; how Stalinists used the press to try to make out the various non-Stalinist leftist movements were actually counter-revolutionary etc.

To quote such an important text on such shaky foundations, you're bound to be found out.

[Jazzrook]

'Boris Johnson's brutish parliamentary performance':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/26/boris-johnson-brutish-parliamentary-performance-democratic-dignity-mps

JR

[Joseph K]

To quote such an important text on such shaky foundations, you're bound to be found out.

Oh really. This sentence makes little sense. What have I been found out about, exactly? I never suggested that Catalonia society was homogeneous; you claim absurdly that it wasn't a society, and all you do is claim it 'was complicated'; that I don't doubt. How are my foundations shaky? You appear to be engaging in some scoffing belittlement that's most irksome, but never mind; it's strange to suggest in one sentence that I can quote a text and yet the foundation upon which I do so is shaky - how can that be? Have I misquoted it?

[Serial_Apologist]

Not sure if I've posted this here before, but it discusses and compares the pros and cons of Marxism and anarchism. You might find it interesting, S_A:

http://davidharvey.org/2015/06/liste...-david-harvey/

Thanks TS, I'm a big fan of David Harvey, I'll have a look at that.

The argument I remember on the left in the early 1970s was that the main problem with anarchism was that its belief in unplanned spontaneism, voluntarism if you will, and doing away with centralism of any organisational kind in the process of change, as well as in the new society, failed to acknowledge the centralism of ruling class power - support from the press and institutions of state ranging from law courts to the armed forces - and that that centralism made it a force to be reckoned with and confronted on "equal terms". And there was no accountability for terrorism, a tactic of anarchists, which, being counter to the principle of mass action in the Leninist tradition, was always to be reserved as a final resort, eg in the event of the revolutionary organisation being forced into clandestinity. Personally what I always liked about the anarchist philosophy was that it lent more credence, and paid more attention, to "the subjective", if you like - whereas "the left" had, until the 1960s at least, tended to regard subjectivity, along with the whole issue of mental health and illness, as a middle class preserve, concerning itself with the salvation of the individual in terms of adjustment rather than changing the conditions of malaise through identifying with the oppressed and exploited, and therefore a diversion. I think this aspect of consciousness changing, which was very much taken up by the womens movement in the early '70s along with the notion of the personal being political, might well account for the popularity of anarchist ideas among radical artists eager to embrace change - particularly in the light of what became of music and the arts in the young Soviet Union. I would go so far as to hazard a guess that Mr GG's ideas might well have been moulded by what happened in Russia post-1917.

[CGR]

I completely agree - except that we need a partner in the coalition alongside the socialists and the greens. Socialism is indeed a force for good but where it presents itself undiluted it always morphs back into the very worst form of capitalism - as evidenced most clearly by all the various forms exhibited under the Soviet Union and in China. To further the debate on Orwell above I believe this to be his message.

"Socialism is indeed a force for good " - Unbelievable !!!!

Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il = 100 MILLION people killed by socialism in the 20th century.

[John Locke]

100 MILLION people killed by socialism in the 20th century.

Ah, socialism doesn't kill anyone.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-communist-and-a-socialist-a6708086.html

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

[Richard Barrett]

"Socialism is indeed a force for good " - Unbelievable !!!!

If you take the time to explore what the word actually means you'll find that none of the people you cite, with the possible exception of Lenin, had anything to do with socialism, or for that matter communism either. That's not so unusual of course: very many authoritarian politicians (and indeed priests) have called themselves Christians while having very little to do with the principles normally understood as characterising Christianity. Our present "prime minister", to return to the original subject matter, lies almost every time he opens his mouth.

[Bryn]

If you take the time to explore what the word actually means you'll find that none of the people you cite, with the possible exception of Lenin, had anything to do with socialism, or for that matter communism either. That's not so unusual of course: very many authoritarian politicians (and indeed priests) have called themselves Christians while having very little to do with the principles normally understood as characterising Christianity. Our present "prime minister", to return to the original subject matter, lies almost every time he opens his mouth.

Interesting. Of the five listed by CGR, only three had any part to play in attempting to establish socialism, having fought to depose the previous part capitalist, part tribute-paying economies they were faced with. Of those three, only two, Stalin and Mao, were able to spend more than a very few years struggling to build a socialist society in the states they had control over, and those two faced massive international capitalist (imperialist) barriers in their ultimately failed attempts. Lenin did not live long enough to get beyond the initial stage of the task of transforming the Soviet Union into a socialist society. I think we have to bare Lord Acton's famous dictum into consideration when criticising those who actually took on the responsibility of trying to transform their devastated economies towards a socialist form.

[Richard Barrett]

Stalin

(state capitalism innit)

[vinteuil]

I think we have to bear Lord Acton's famous dictum into consideration when criticising those who actually took on the responsibility of trying to transform their devastated economies towards a socialist form.

Acton is so quotable - which pertick'ler quote did you have in mind - any of the following?

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.

History is not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.

Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.

.

[Bryn]

(state capitalism innit)

Are you familiar with Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"? I got hounded from a political organisation I was once associated with shortly after attempting a critical appraisal of that little tome, back in the '70s.

[MrGongGong]

Are you familiar with Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"? I got hounded from a political organisation I was once associated with shortly after attempting a critical appraisal of that little tome, back in the '70s.

Slippery merchants ?