16 February 2006
Same old theme
I see that the lad, Eric, over at Hand-Shandyists for War has quoted this update to a posting I made last night. I argued that the "enemy, as always, is at home". The lad, Eric, believes that this is "the hard-left case for the Iraqi insurgency. . ." Actually it is neither a hard, nor a soft, case. It is a simple socialist case and nothing more.
Socialism is nothing more than a belief that the economy would be run better if it were run collectively. The people who reach that conclusion are the people who live collectivised lives already, and who are aware that they do. That sense comes about through the normal process of day to day living, but it is also something that is helped out by the way others see us. In other words self-identification is bolstered by the way people of other classes treat us.
Now, when I say that the economy will be run better if run collectively, I mean that it will be better for us. Nothing in the above should be read as meaning that it will be just a good for the people who either owned the economy prior to socialism, or who were given benefits by it.
A lot of things can flow from these basic premises. In Latin-America, socialism comes draped in the national flag of the country that is trying to collectivise. The Cuban example is the one that is obviously being copied, but Venezuela and Bolivia both seem to be doing a fine job of not only the basic collectivisation, but also of ensuring that the classes that fomerly ruled and had privileges are throughly demonised now. These creatures are presented not as anti-socialist elements, but as anti-national. Thus socialism and nationalism are becoming one, at least in this part of the world.
This coming together of nationalism and socialism may be something that British socialists might find a useful tactic. However, it is a tactic, it is not an end. The end is what it always has been: the collectivisation of the economy and the destruction of all those who benefited from the old order. I favour punitive taxation and high inflation, but I am willing to accept that there is a socialist argument for a bullet in the back of the neck.
Now, there is a world of politics beyond these economically based views. The problem is that none of those positions are socialist ones. They may be radical or liberal, but they are not socialist. Socialism is the belief that the economy should be ordered along collectivist lines by people who are used to leading collectivist lives. How many times does this have to be repeated?
Now, Eric, here's the thing. When you've got some years under your belt - after puberty in other words - get back to me and tell me about your years on the dole, or the collection of shit jobs for shit wages with shit gaffers, that you have done. Or you can tell me about how you wanted to put your fist into the face of some snot-gobbling git in a cheap suit who told you that he was there to manage and you were there to work. If you cannot do that, Eric, then I will just assume that you are either middle class filth or an arse-licking scab. Either way your opinions will not count for shit to any socialist. The aim is not to convert people like that: it is to bury them.
'Morning all - I see that Eric the lad has changed the text of his posting. First I was giving the "hard-left" case, and now it is the "National Bolshevik" one. I suspect that someone has had a quiet word in his little ear and told him that some other knob in the comments here had described me as a "fascist." Anyway, it's nice to see the lad running to catch up.