Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Congratulations to the Greek left! The movement against austerity.... watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It's the same old airbrush tactics except it doesn't work very well when you don't actually have the power to ban books, censor the internet, or send your critics to concentration camps. In particular the "Marx was an anarchist" *******s seems to be flatly contradicted by his own writings.

    I do notice though that all these "libertarian Marxists" seem to end up supporting uniformly statist solutions to any practical problem. There's actually a poster on this board called Anarchism101 who embodies the type completely. Almost everything he posts is in defence of statist socialist policies and parties.
    Have you ever actually read any Marx? Marx undeniably was an anarchist in the sense that he wants to see a stateless society. The only real difference between Marx's ideology and an anarchist one is that Marx saw the state having a role in reaching that society and anarchists dont.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Have you ever actually read any Marx? Marx undeniably was an anarchist in the sense that he wants to see a stateless society. The only real difference between Marx's ideology and an anarchist one is that Marx saw the state having a role in reaching that society and anarchists dont.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post51250057
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well the successors to him are the Islamists, and the West is currently working on getting rid of that too.
    By buddying up with the world's largest exporter of wahhabist Islam and the bank of Al-Qaeda?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, because socialism will solve a completely screwed Greece, won't it?

    They need to stick to austerity and invest tax revenue properly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    ChaoticButterfly is right that the West was happy to ally with lesser-evil dictators, or dictators with ideologies that weren't likely to spread or be dangerous (as you seem to admit), like Pinochet and Franco. It did this for expediency. But now there's no big enemy, so the West doesn't need these people, and all the idiots of every flavour seem to have coalesced onto a side that doesn't have any coherent beliefs, except a sense that the West is an enemy and that if they don't stick together everyone is doomed.

    In the old days for instance Putin's Russia would have been an obvious candidate for a right-wing dictatorial ally against the officially communist PRC, but today we have rather better relations with the PRC than we do with Russia, since we believe the PRC is willing to get with the program eventually whereas Russia has overtly refused to budge on a few key issues. (I'm not convinced this analysis is correct, btw, but it is certainly believed in the West.)

    In the old days you would have never seen an alliance between communist Cuba and clericalist, anti-Ba'athist Iran. But today we have the hilarious spectacle of Casto writing op-eds condemning the morality of nuclear brinkmanship in an effort to help preserve this key member of the Axis of Losers.

    The last remnants of the old Western puppet dictatorship system are places like Saudi and Bahrain and to a lesser extent Pakistan. But as we saw in the Arab Spring, it's a fair weather support at best. If you can preserve yourself, we will pretend that you are our friend, but if your subjects break into your palace and start bayoneting the courtiers of their own accord, we are happy to join in dancing on your grave. And maybe lob a few bombs for good measure.
    Oh yes of course, I'll freely admit that the West often sides with evil in an effort to preserve its own interests, primarily when the alternative is yet more evil or a greater evil. Saudi Arabia is a good example, as you point out.

    You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room though: Islamists. That's the new "axis" in my opinion, though it could be thought of as two opposing axes:

    1. Iran and its shia proxies
    2. Sunni rebel groups (including Islamic State, Al Qaeda etc.) and their underhand gulf state supporters

    I'm not convinced Cuba is significant, now that the USSR is gone. Cuba is an example of an anti-Western state which just sides with whatever tyranny is currently available. Tragically, much of the Western left shares this attitude, which is why you see them rallying behind things like Palestinian terror groups.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The intellectual left's reaction to the collapse of the USSR is quite interesting, anything that is not a narrow libertarian brand of marxism is regarded as not really socialist.
    Libertarian socialists and anarchists existed well before the soviet union was even a thing. The height of libertarian socialism was in the Spanish civil war. It never got any bigger than that. You talk as if the only socialism that existed in political philosophy was what the Bolsheviks and their copy cats did. It was their communism that spread all over the world.

    Anarcho syndicalists were always enemies of Leninists (as were left marxists). George Orwell was a democratic socialist who is famous for being one of the first lefties famous for seeing Communist Russia for what it really was. Opposition and disgust of what the Soviet Union became is nothing new and didn't just arise out of the left post Berlin Wall collapse.

    The only reason I know libertarian socialism existed is due to people like Noam Chomsky who were always anti Marxist Leninism and skeptical of whole deity worship that embodies a lot of Marxism (anything named after someone should be treated with skepticism, we don't have Einsteinism) who was always a socialist. He isn't even a Marxist. Which brings the point you can be a socialist without being a marxist. Most of marx work was on analyzing capitalism, some of it is useful, some of it has been discredited. His views on how to get to socialism were terrible. I don't even think the communist manifesto is good on paper.

    To me the Soviet Union with and its copy cats are completely separate from libertarian socialism. I don't care what other socialists think. Personally socialism isn't socialist unless it is organized form the bottom up with high levels of democracy and freedom to associate with whom you like. The Spanish anarchists had the right idea and it would have been interesting to see where that lead if they hadn't been inevitably crushed by the fascists and Stalin backed communists.

    But since libertarian socialism to the degree I described isn't really on the cards (or may be totally unrealistic), I will take a balance between social democracy and capitalism (not crony capitalism).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    By buddying up with the world's largest exporter of wahhabist Islam and the bank of Al-Qaeda?
    Hardly got a choice, unless they want to invade the country.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Libertarian socialists and anarchists existed well before the soviet union was even a thing.
    Yes but the left was historically a wide movement like the right is today. Since the USSR you've essentially engaged in a marketing exercise to limit 'real socialism' to a narrow type.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Hardly got a choice, unless they want to invade the country.
    Why are the two choices be BFF's or invade? Is there no happy medium? Why can't we make them a pariah state as we have done with Iran?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'll go through that post tomorrow, but scanning over it I see nothing to prove that Marx was a statist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Why are the two choices be BFF's or invade? Is there no happy medium? Why can't we make them a pariah state as we have done with Iran?
    Because BFFs is more conducive to economic activity regarding the huge amount of oil which sadly exists under Saudi Arabia. I bet if the mullahs in Iran were friendly to the West, they'd be licking their arses too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You realise the Greeks haven't completely said no to Austerity yet?

    You realise they are simply planning reforms so that they get permission to help the very most desperate in Greek society? You realise this still means austerity affecting the vast majority?

    You realise the EU and IMF can still withdraw funding?

    You realise the Greek governments finances are entirely dependent on foreign loans?

    You realise the far left government led by Marxists have already broke their main election promise of saying "no" to the continued bailout?

    Not what I'd call "a win"


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Because BFFs is more conducive to economic activity regarding the huge amount of oil which sadly exists under Saudi Arabia. I bet if the mullahs in Iran were friendly to the West, they'd be licking their arses too.
    Exactly. So we're not looking to get rid of the Islamists then? We're looking out for our economic interests as we have always done.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Because BFFs is more conducive to economic activity regarding the huge amount of oil which sadly exists under Saudi Arabia. I bet if the mullahs in Iran were friendly to the West, they'd be licking their arses too.
    Until 79 i'd wager that Iran was probably our preferred friend for centuries.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Oh yes of course, I'll freely admit that the West often sides with evil in an effort to preserve its own interests, primarily when the alternative is yet more evil or a greater evil. Saudi Arabia is a good example, as you point out.

    You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room though: Islamists. That's the new "axis" in my opinion, though it could be thought of as two opposing axes:

    1. Iran and its shia proxies
    2. Sunni rebel groups (including Islamic State, Al Qaeda etc.) and their underhand gulf state supporters

    I'm not convinced Cuba is significant, now that the USSR is gone. Cuba is an example of an anti-Western state which just sides with whatever tyranny is currently available. Tragically, much of the Western left shares this attitude, which is why you see them rallying behind things like Palestinian terror groups.
    I agree that Islamism is more coherent than any of the other constituents; no doubt if they became strong enough, they would act in a way that made them intolerable to the other members of the Axis of Idiocy. It's even possible these differences could erupt into shocking brutality, like the 1941 Nazi-Soviet split.

    But how else do you explain the weird confluence of Putinite Russian nationalists, North Korea, Palestinian, Iraqi, or Iranian religious chauvinists, and the Western far left (which is increasingly being represented by the environmentalist movement rather than geriatric Marxists)? All of these movements seem to me to dislike the West more than they dislike one another.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Exactly. So we're not looking to get rid of the Islamists then? We're looking out for our economic interests as we have always done.
    Islamist groups are not in our economic interest.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Until 79 i'd wager that Iran was probably our preferred friend for centuries.
    Yes, even though the Shah was also a tyrant. It's such a shame that the disgusting revolution happened.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Exactly. So we're not looking to get rid of the Islamists then? We're looking out for our economic interests as we have always done.
    Cut them some slack. They've been fighting Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and a few others. Yes, they can do more, but at least they're doing something!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Libertarian socialists and anarchists existed well before the soviet union was even a thing.
    There were, however these people were purged from the movement by the Marxists. The socialism of the 20th century was Marxism. The socialism of today is a sort of deprecated pseudo-Marxism.

    Without reading materials from the time, it is difficult for those born post-90s to understand just how seriously the USSR was taken in the West, both as an ideological role model for the left, and as a real competitor civilisation that might actually prove to be superior. Islamism by contrast has no real intellectual constituency in the West and no one thinks it is either desirable or likely to win; its useful-idiots can only deny that its worst crimes are real or that Islam is causal of them, but this is the least of what the Western left did in the Soviet era.

    A good place to start is George Orwell's book Homage to Catalonia, in which he describes having to flee the country not because of the Nationalist victory but because the Soviet-backed Republican faction started purging all the others. Then move on to his essays, which give a good flavour of the intellectual climate of the time. The Lion and the Unicorn is particularly interesting; it is truly a window into a vanished world.

    If you're ready for something more, read the Webbs' Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes but the left was historically a wide movement like the right is today. Since the USSR you've essentially engaged in a marketing exercise to limit 'real socialism' to a narrow type.
    I edited in a load of ****

    I haven't done anything. My own preferred political ideology is on the fringe. Where is the worker cooperative movement? Lenin shut down the worker ran factorizes when he got in power. My side has always been loosing.

    I haven't even read Das Capitol. I'm not a marxist

    The Syriza government has marxists in it yes. But they are not enacting anything communist. They are just trying to do damage control to the version of capitalism being thrust on Greece.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.