# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs

LeftWing2

Campaign 4 Public Ownership

FASO

FASSIT

Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos

Unity-Injustice




Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner

Machetera

Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist

Agitprop

British Politics

Censorship 01

Collaborators

Gimlet

Imperialism

Memories

Mexico

New Britain 01

New Britain 02

Sleaze

Social Work Industry

Wankblogs

Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed





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.

Update, 8.30am:

'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.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Well I've worked on building sites, in temp jobs, at pubs, bars, restaurants, office jobs that paid the same as bar jobs, and many more. I've been abused by parasitical bosses time and time again (there's one sat right next to me now as I type this). In other words I consider myself to be a socialist. and I think you're a wanker. In fact I'd normally favour some form of economic sanction whereby you have to live in the USSR (you probably wouldn't mind) or other slum of your own devising. However, to quote a total wanker I just read 'I can see a socialist argument for a bullet in the back of the neck'.

You. Twat.

16 February 2006 at 13:30  

Re "This coming together of nationalism and socialism may be something that British socialists might find a useful tactic."

The problem here is that Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian etc "national identity" has been formed historically through anti-imperialist struggles. British "national identity", in contrast, was formed historically to bolster imperialism.

For that reason I'd reject the notion that there could ever be such a thing as a progressive British national identity. The meanings of terms like "British" or "Venezuelan" can't be conjured out of thin air – they are embedded in the history of the class struggle.

16 February 2006 at 13:35  

A very perceptive and useful commentary.
The real wanker is the idiot who commented first. Is that your friend, Eric the "Red"? I too have worked some of the most proletarian jobs around. I've also been to university a few times. This is how I know "Anonymous" is indeed a wanker of the First Order. The second commentator points to what I want to get at: that it's been my own considered opinion for a very long time that the european working-class will follow a very different trajectory to reach the same goal as the latin american masses (because of the aforementioned historically-different paths taken).

In Europa, our future lies with a pan-european mass working-class struggle along classic marxist lines -- and not too dissimilar, in a broad sense, to what occurred with the (frankly premature) 1848 revolutions -- only wildly successful this time, and proletarian internationalist, rather than bourgeois nationalist in nature. This is also one consequence of the so-called "Iron Curtain" and the Berlin Wall coming down. The imperialists are such greedy fools: they should have kept the stalinoids in power for nearly ever: Uncle Joe & FDR were really the best friends these neocon fools ever had. Now, the masses of Eastern Europa are One again with their komrads in the West. Just like in the old days. Only this time, the ground is not so favorable to fascism (even though we on the Left still have a surfeit of social-democrat class-collaborators to cast off, etc.)

Let the NATO imperialists use nukes on their own people (or whatever toys they've got now): we'll make them EAT them. The only thing I can't figure yet is if the first national working-class to go for power will be the french, as usual; or if it will be the italians to lead off this time... but I don't think it will be the brits in the vanguard -- sorry. Too burdened by the imperial heritage -- UK or US -- comparatively, as has been more-or-less stated above. But they'll catch up quick, I'm sure. As will the presently dazed and disoriented East-Europeans.
;>

To the barricades, komrads!!

16 February 2006 at 23:37  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home