Is capitalism really such a good system?

[Serial_Apologist]

I never want to see a revival of communism led by those who seem to want to gloss over the horrors of the regimes inspired by it, in the mistaken belief that somehow it will be different this time.

I haven't come across any such for, what? 35 years now, it must be. By the time the 1960s radicalised left in the west came of age it was too late! Ideas worthy of practical consideration had rightly acquired Green dimensions, offering a re-grounding principle of ideological focus amid a sea of "identity politics". Those who didn't understand the centrality of class were ripe for political exploitation. That was the time I should have shifted my position and active focus, I now realise.

[ahinton]

That was only six years ago, and none of the conditions which led to it have changed in the meantime. I think it's likely to have been the first and probably not the largest of a series of upheavals. As for electoral support, large numbers of people no longer have any faith in voting systems to deliver anything but a different subgroup of the same political class; more fundamental change seems to me unlikely to come about through such means.

Then presumably you believe that "more fundamental change" is only ever likely to stand some chance of coming about other than via democratically conducted elections; much as I understand and recognise the increasingly widespread disdain amongst electorates for "voting systems (that) deliver (nothing) but a different subgroup of the same political class", would such a situation be a good thing for democracy?

Also there's no reason to assume that any future change will begin in "the West". While it's true that recent elections in Europe have seemed to indicate a shift to the right, this is by no means the case in South America for example. Of course it's true that nobody wants a return to Stalin-like dictatorships which claimed to be communist while being nothing of the sort, but those régimes didn't have a monopoly on lying about their political nature, as we see for example in the way Western governments talk about their priority being "wealth creation" when they mean "wealth creation for the rich".

Indeed - but if indeed "any future change" doesn't begin (or even occur later) in "the West", might it not be the case that it would occur only outside "the West" to the point of making little impact upon "the West", "in South America for example"? And, were that to be the case, might it not risk bringing about an even greater divisiveness between those nations wherein it had occurred and those wherein it had not and showed little sign of doing so? As I've suggested before, more than once, no such changes are likely to mushroom beyond their own territoires if only unilaterally implemented.

[Serial_Apologist]

Then presumably you believe that "more fundamental change" is only ever likely to stand some chance of coming about other than via democratically conducted elections; much as I understand and recognise the increasingly widespread disdain amongst electorates for "voting systems (that) deliver (nothing) but a different subgroup of the same political class", would such a situation be a good thing for democracy?

My own answer would be that the unlikelihood of the existing parties making up most of the vote bringing about change from the status quo in no way precludes the possibility of such a party, or parties, emerging in the future. This might come about "ab ovo", as instanced by the Green Party, or it could emerge from within an existing electoral party as a split-off or expulsion. We may be talking in the abstract, but these things have been known to happen!

Indeed - but if indeed "any future change" doesn't begin (or even occur later) in "the West", might it not be the case that it occurs only outside "the West" to the point of making little impact upon "the West", "in South America for example"? And, were that to be the case, might it not risk bringing about an even greater divisiveness between those nations wherein it had occurred and those wherein it had not and showed little sign of doing so?

It might bring division between one national ruling class and another, in the unlikely circumstance of the ruling class in the country affected by change throwing in its lot with the bringers of change; it is more than likely to have a positive, galvanising effect on the confidence of people in other countries disillusioned with the existing order, like the striking dock workers in Glasgow in 1919 sending their message of support to the workers and peasants of Russia with words to the effect that, "If you can do it there, we can too", and the ANC's message of support to the British striking mineworkers in the 1980s.

Internationalism, to a socialist, means recognising the need for counterforces to the existing global order being their equal in terms of organising across races and national borders. It represents the material grounding of the Christian solidarity message of the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Humankind, and stands in contradistinction to the idea of "socialism in one country", with its nationalistic implications*, dreamed up by Stalin as a pretext for prioritising "supporting the Soviet Union" at the expense of all other political considerations.

*Being used by Stalin's political descendents like Putin to this day.

[ahinton]

My own answer would be that the unlikelihood of the existing parties making up most of the vote bringing about change from the status quo in no way precludes the possibility of such a party, or parties, emerging in the future. This might come about "ab ovo", as instanced by the Green Party, or it could emerge from within an existing electoral party as a split-off or expulsion. We may be talking in the abstract, but these things have been known to happen!

Sure, but such a party would have to garner and maintain the support of a sufficient proportion of the electorate for it to be able to secure a majroty in Parliament if it's to bring about such changes in a democratic manner.

It might bring division between one national ruling class and another, in the unlikely circumstance of the ruling class in the country affected by change throwing in its lot with the bringers of change; it is more than likely to have a positive, galvanising effect on the confidence of people in other countries disillusioned with the existing order, like the striking dock workers in Glasgow in 1919 sending their message of support to the workers and peasants of Russia with words to the effect that, "If you can do it there, we can too", and the ANC's message of support to the British striking mineworkers in the 1980s.

To my mind (for what that may or may not be owrth), one thing that needs to be done first is get rid, once and for all, of the unhelpful term "the ruling class" when what's actually meant is "the wealthiest class" - or rather "the wealthiest people who are determined to use their wealth as a means of seizing and exercising power".

Internationalism, to a socialist, means recognising the need for counterforces to the existing global order being their equal in terms of organising across races and national borders. It represents the material grounding of the Christian solidarity message of the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Humankind, and stands in contradistinction to the idea of "socialism in one country", with its nationalistic implications*, dreamed up by Stalin as a pretext for prioritising "supporting the Soviet Union" at the expense of all other political considerations.

*Being used by Stalin's political descendents like Putin to this day.

Indeed. As a Conservative politican once observed to me, those who are unwilling or unable to accept and understand the best that socialism has to offer are invariably those who are at the same time willing to accept all the worst that capitalism has to offer; that person's view of capitalism, what it should stand for, how it should work and whom it should benefit is grounded in an appreciation of what socialism is supposed to be about, which is, as you note, the very opposite of the oppressive and anti-human Stalinist / Maoist, one-nation socialism.

[Richard Barrett]

Internationalism, to a socialist, means recognising the need for counterforces to the existing global order being their equal in terms of organising across races and national borders.

Indeed, and this is the main principle behind socialists' opposition to the EU.

[aeolium]

I haven't come across any such for, what? 35 years now, it must be. By the time the 1960s radicalised left in the west came of age it was too late! Ideas worthy of practical consideration had rightly acquired Green dimensions, offering a re-grounding principle of ideological focus amid a sea of "identity politics". Those who didn't understand the centrality of class were ripe for political exploitation. That was the time I should have shifted my position and active focus, I now realise.

Well, the late Eric Hobsbawm remained unrepentant about his support for the Soviet Union. But my point is more that even though AFAICR every single communist-inspired regime has, if in power for any length of time, become an authoritarian one-party state which has suppressed dissent and freedom of expression and persecuted its opponents, I have never encountered a clear exposition of communism which addressed this and proposed ways in which the authoritarian tendency of revolutionary communism could be mitigated - for surely those advocating communism, particularly philosophers and artists, do not really want to live in a one-party state which suppresses freedom of expression?

Of course it's true that nobody wants a return to Stalin-like dictatorships which claimed to be communist while being nothing of the sort, but those régimes didn't have a monopoly on lying about their political nature, as we see for example in the way Western governments talk about their priority being "wealth creation" when they mean "wealth creation for the rich".

But the dictatorship of Stalin was only made possible because Lenin's Bolshevik government had created a one-party state with significant powers for the party leader, and that state had in its early policies been strongly influenced by communist ideas and implemented a number of Marx's transitional proposals (at the end of ch 2 of the Communist Manifesto). But it's not just Stalin - if just one regime inspired by communist ideology had been able to preserve political freedoms it would provide some evidence that communism did not inevitably result in oppression. But I cannot think of one.

[Richard Barrett]

But I cannot think of one.

There isn't one. (As S-A has said, "socialism in one country" is a contradiction in terms.) But nor can I think of very many wars in the last century which haven't been caused by imperialistic capitalism. It's a system that "works" for a certain proportion of the populations of certain parts of the world. For many more people it doesn't mean "freedom of expression" but hardship and exploitation.

[french frank]

if just one regime inspired by communist ideology had been able to preserve political freedoms it would provide some evidence that communism did not inevitably result in oppression. But I cannot think of one.

Allende's Chile? Hardly long enough to know?

[aeolium]

There isn't one. (As S-A has said, "socialism in one country" is a contradiction in terms.) But nor can I think of very many wars in the last century which haven't been caused by imperialistic capitalism. It's a system that "works" for a certain proportion of the populations of certain parts of the world. For many more people it doesn't mean "freedom of expression" but hardship and exploitation.

Yes, though there has been plenty of hardship and exploitation in avowedly communist regimes also.

Nothing is easier than to point out the failings in the capitalism under which we live. The challenge, surely, is to come up with workable proposals for a better social system, one which combines protection for the environment, a more equal distribution of resources, the accountability of those in powerful positions (whether in government or not) and a respect for important human freedoms that allows people to fulfil their potential. And preferably not proposals for a utopian end-state but ones which plot out how we move from where we are now to where we want to be.

[Richard Barrett]

The challenge, surely, is to come up with workable proposals for a better social system, one which combines protection for the environment, a more equal distribution of resources, the accountability of those in powerful positions (whether in government or not) and a respect for important human freedoms that allows people to fulfil their potential. And preferably not proposals for a utopian end-state but ones which plot out how we move from where we are now to where we want to be.

Whichever way you look at it this is going to have to involve a planned economy, and ultimately the pooling of all resources, natural, human, technological and so on... in other words it's going to have to look like socialism. Which is going to require a shift in consciousness of the order that S-A has been talking about. Actually, very few writers on socialism from Marx onwards have framed it in terms of a "utopian end-state", mainly because it's literally unimaginable what human beings might be capable of if their full potential is really unlocked on a global scale - it could be as different from present-day society as we are from the Neolithic. As for the mechanism to set this process in motion, it's clear that substituting a central bureaucracy for collective emancipation isn't the way it's going to come about, but that's been clear at least since the early years of the Russian revolution.

Anyway I would prefer to live my life thinking that human beings are or will eventually be capable of such things than believing that neoliberal capitalism is itself some kind of "end-state" because people will always be happy to trample on one another in order to own things. I guess there's something comforting about such pessimism for some people though.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, the late Eric Hobsbawm remained unrepentant about his support for the Soviet Union.

Richard has more-or-less replied to most of the points you've made, but in all due respects, though far be it from an old only partly reconstructed Trot like me to be in the biz of defending well-known historians of dubious political provenance, Hobsbawm has more than once in my experience expressed his misgivings about his own one-time adherence to the "creed". I think in respect to him the record should be put straight, because I for one was touched by his unconditional admissions in old age. But the quote I have to offer is on casette from a BBC broadcast in the 1980s which I will need to go to the other room to transcribe before reproducing it here, so please bear with me, and I'll try and do that after my lunch.

[aeolium]

Anyway I would prefer to live my life thinking that human beings are or will eventually be capable of such things than believing that neoliberal capitalism is itself some kind of "end-state" because people will always be happy to trample on one another in order to own things. I guess there's something comforting about such pessimism for some people though.

I don't think it pessimistic to seek to examine critically proposals for alternatives to the present system, nor do I think that such examination reflects an endorsement of that system, particularly when past attempts to replace capitalism have resulted in some cases in even worse systems. I could just as well say that it is comforting to some people to go on rehearsing the evils of capitalism rather than the much more difficult task of proposing specific remedies.

[Serial_Apologist]

The programmes were called "What's the Big Idea?" and first in the series was "The End of the Socialist Dream?". It was broadcast in November 1991.

Below is my transcript of presenter Bryan Magee's question and Eric Hobsbawm's reply, which I will try and fit into one post:

Brian Magee: I don't want to put you on the spot about this, Eric, because we all, in the past, have held beliefs that we now think were seriously wrong - I certainly have - but you are in a special position; having been a lifelong Communist and having your intellectual reputation, it would be very interesting to have one or two personal recollections from you about the situation as you now see it.

Eric Hobsbawm: The difficulty, I think, for intellectual Communists, for intelligent Communists, has always been that it's perfectly clear that the Soviet Union was not a desirable country. At least, I have never regarded it as such. The first time that I went there - that was after Stalin's death in the 1950s - I came back deeply depressed, and on the whole I tried to avoid going back there. On the other hand, one often felt that, without it, in some sense, the Communist movement, or indeed, the anticapitalist movement, would undoubtedly be weakened.

This may be, in the case of somebody of my generation - almost certainly is - the consequence of having been brought up in the 1930s, when the major danger, recognized by everybody, not only by the left, was fascism - Nazism - so much so that even in the United States, until even in 1939/40/41, people when asked which is preferable, Hitler or Stalin? they said Stalin, you see. So, to that extent, we were stuck; and a lot of people - not only Communists - were.

Where I think we were wrong is, in some way, in believing in the possibility of the World revolution - a major all-in, if you like, change, which looked likely to those who founded the Communist movement, immediately after World War I, and which still in some sense did not look impossible in the 1930s. If you like, this utopian, or messianic element of saying, it is possible to change the World utterly. There were plenty of reasons for believing that it was necessary to change the World, between 1914 and 1945, and in the aftermath of 1945, because everything in the old world was going wrong: including Liberalism, which was being destroyed, knocked down like ninepins; including the economy, including everything.

Now, I think, we believed that it could not last; and in this we were wrong: there's no other way of saying this. We also believed that in some ways a total commitment to a movement to transform the World, was necessary. Well, up to a point it was. Beyond that point, it seemed to me, that it got tied up with the specific problem of the socialist countries; and I think we were greatly mistaken in believing that the Communist countries, themselves, did not have quite fundamental weaknesses - not simply that they were backward, inadequate, and so on, but that the structure of the political systems, was not fundamentally flawed, because of the absence, if you like, of not just the market, but, if you like... well, put it like this: freedom: the ability to exist against the state".

[Richard Barrett]

I could just as well say that it is comforting to some people to go on rehearsing the evils of capitalism rather than the much more difficult task of proposing specific remedies.

You're absolutely right, that's another tiresome kind of pessimism.

[Flosshilde]

I don't think it pessimistic to seek to examine critically proposals for alternatives to the present system,

Well no, as long as the people making the critical examination also examine the problems of capitalism;

nor do I think that such examination reflects an endorsement of that system,

Unfortunately it does tend to, as the people critically examining alternatives don't also examine the problems with capitalism - or at least start with the assumption that the so-called benefits of capitalism are what everyone wants and benefit everyone, and that capitalism is the 'natural' system of humanity.