there is no freedom under Bolshevist rule,get your head together karl.communism is state capitalism.but go live in a gulag if you want.You are brainwashed.the greatest socialist was adolf hitler.but if you want to remain brainwashed for the rest of youre life,carry on.
When these same companys were making billons per year was any of that filtering down to the workers mmm...Now they ain't making the same money they want to slash and burn their workforce and service b....................s.
'Fred the shread' runs R.B.S into the ground and get's a golden handshake for his trouble.Adam crozier runs royal-mail into the ground and get's a golden handshake for his troubles mmm... it's a funny old world...
Employers are now using the 'recession' as a stick to beat their employees.Look at b.a.,royal-mail, council staff,railway workers.The working-class are the backbone of this country and these people are attacking us..Keep up the good work KARL..THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND GOD BLESS YOU..
I did retract my statement and said "sorry" but I said I wouldn't be surprised.- given Stalin's subsequent actions. and I stick by that. (Freedom of thought on a freedom page) we then got into a discussion about truth You used the Foot Kinnock analogy why? I'm a dogmatist- perhaps- but i'm not a dictator telling people what to think. Simple people like me are often asked to accept official versions of "the truth" e.g. WMD's I'm always willing to let others think what they want.
The Green Party are to some extent capitalist. You have to understand that the title of a party has little meaning in terms of the socioeconomic system which they preside over.
For example, the Green Party would preside over a economic system of private enterprise featuring the profit motive (capitalism), with the hope that they could implement some social democratic policies without big business stopping them (such as on climate change). Well intended, but ultimately lacking analysis.
Hi Sam? let's hear your theory for an eqitable and fair society in a competitive world. Parties have to start somewhere and they can be changed from within if people have the desire to do so, we can't re-invent the wheel Industrialisation and Capitalism seem inextricably entwined. It would just be a case of all men are equal but some more so than others The hegemony of Capitalism seems here to stay.. My comment on joining the Green Party was just a sad attempt at a joke.
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. I thought it was serious because some people 'do' believe it.
I don't think you're right to say that industrialisation and capitalism are inextricably entwined (although in the West, capitalism did allow the development on industry). A counter-example would be the USSR's Gosplan, or China's "Great Leap Forward". If socialism were realised here in the industrialised West we could also say that industrialisation is entwined with socialism (in fact, socialism depends
In answer to your question, though, my point is that I feel we should reject bourgeois democracy for the scam that it is. In terms of the Greens, that means understanding the structural methods by which capital controls the state. Hence we often hear the phrase "Labour, Tory, Republican, Democrat - all the same". The Greens think they'll escape that vice-like grip of capital (as do some reformist socialist parties). When they take power, they'll be under the thumb.
yes I agree there seems no difference or real alternative to various parties.
My question is how dowe resolve the problem of the hegemony of capitalism without bloodshed or causing untold suffering to specific sections of society. How can we still maintain high standards of living for all and what makes industrial workers any more worthy a human being than any other human explain please??
I opted out of voting some time ago, also gave up working for capitalists feel as free as a bird
So how do you feed yourself? Benefits? Freegan lifestyle? Self-employment?
Not everyone can be self-employed, and the first two options are far from ideal alternatives, or ultimatums ("work for the boss or live in poverty").
How to do it without bloodshed? That's outwith the people's control, unfortunately. The state is a violent institution. It maintains capitalist control with the threat of violence (and sometimes more than a threat). You can make peaceful demands - take millions into the
streets and demand that institutions are delivered into worker control and that 'real' democracy is installed. Then hope that the ruling class will say "ok", and stand aside. Perhaps with enough threat of revolution, they will - no one can know for certain that they won't.
But history tells us to be prepared for self defence. May '68 in France saw a general strike which brought the De Gaulle government to its knees. De Gaulle announced "return to work or martial law will be imposed". To put
it bluntly - begin making us profits once again, or we'll send the army and the police in to shoot you. Realistically, the capitalist class isn't going to let itself be voted out of power.
For that reason, I personally feel that the army has to be on side in a revolutionary situation, given the state's monopoly on violence. Lenin's seizure of power is often depicted as a bloodbath. In reality, I think two people were shot. The violence began afterwards in defence against counter-revolution.
Not on benefits or a freegan and not self employed. Not involved in any criminal activities either, I'll leave that to the politicians and capitalists.
How effective do you think passive resistence is in relation to the state?
France seems a lot more left wing and radical compared to the UK. I'd like to see all the young people out of the armed forces its sickening the way young lives are being lost needlessly in like Afghanistan.
On passive resistance, it depends on the conditions. We can never know for sure how a weak state may react, but again, I'd point to May '68. Durruti once said: "The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history" - there's nothing capitalists won't do to maintain the privilege, as we've seen with Mussolini, Hitler, Pinnochet, etc.
When you look at the acts of imperialists down through the centuries, it seems to me highly
unlikely that capitalists will just stand aside without bloodshed - so for me, it's all but inevitable that violence will occur. That's the nature of class war, unfortunately. Peaceful revolution would be wonderful - but if you're unwilling to fight and you lose, what happens? Back to the same old imperialism, same wage slavery. Who does that help? "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." ~ Guevara
At the same time, people need to see for themselves that pacifism has very
limited application. If you go around waving banners of Mao, they'll think you're a lunatic. If you help workers in unions and agitate, but exhaust all peaceful means they'll begin to realise those limits for themselves. All the same, workers have to be prepared for a fight. The capitalist is never a pacifist, and has no problem sending the army or police in to crack open the skulls of peaceful protesters if they feel the need to silence dissent, so it makes sense to have a contingency plan.
True but it seems that so- called communist regimes are equally brutal.
There needs to be a third way for true and meaningful revolution. All the necessary conditions need to be in place. It won't happen for a long time. Capitalism and State Socialism have not reached burn out. It would take great human endeavour for a third way as these two philosophies appear to dominate human thinking, so we seem stuck in no man's land.
I think we ought to be careful with this use of the term "Third Way". Mussolini considered himself Third Way, as do Labour.
In the Third-Way syestem, power still serves the interests of corporations. It's never transfered to workers, and so, all of the problems of capitalism remain. Hence the wars, like Iraq, go on.
The real solution is worker ownership of the means of production, and one way or another, they have to be expropriated and delivered, and preferably, as peacefully as possible.
I see the point u r making. I thought that industrialisation was only really realised in the USSR by initially allowing capitalism to remain till the 1930's. Then they hit the wealthy peasants, their agriculture never really recovered. millions starved, and they always seemed to have a poor infratructure for distributing food that the bread queues persisted right up until at least the 1970's. Does industrialisation depend on capitalism and does socialism depend on both . Explain please??
Capitalism wasn't developing industry into the 30s. The industrialisation programme was carried out in a series of "Five Year Plans" by the Gosplan (central commitee). Rather than the market developing undustry, as in capitalism, it was centralised planning. It took the capitalist nations 100 years to industrialise themselves. The USSR did it in 10 because of the intent focus on it.
I think what you're refering to was the NEP. It didn't develop the industry and was never really intended to.
It followed the economic policy of War Communism, which had been designed to keep the Red Army fed in the war against the Whites. The real industrialisation programme didn't begin until those 5 year plans. I'm not sure what you mean by "hit" the wealthy peasants. They intent was to remove them by collectivising.
Agriculture did recover. Workers in industry and transport grew from 4 to 12 million in the first 5 years.
Had the process not undergone, the Nazis would have wiped the Soviets out.
Stalin did not murder Lenin. Lenin was shot by a White some years before his death, then suffered three strokes. He spent the last six months of his life bed-ridden and demented.
It's important to remain objective so that people can be free from rumour. Stalin presided over enough cruelty of which to be critical without obfuscating the truth and inventing new stories out of thin air. Even the wildest Red Scare propoganda would never claim that Stalin murdered Lenin.
I'm sorry that I said Stalin murdered or had Lenin murdered. But I wouldn't be surprised I wasn't there but then again neither were you? PS I don't pluck things out of thin air I make observations on what others have investigated. My ideas came from the writings of Isaac Deuscher (a Marxist biographer of Stalin) and Mary McAulay( a University lecturer and author) amongst others
It's not a case of "who's" truth, but rather "the truth". You weren't there when Michael Foot died, but I assume you wouldn't announce that Neil Kinnock murdered him, simply for the reason that it's a wild assertion in lieu of evidence. Meanwhile, there are pictures and video footage of Lenin in his wheelchair with his eyes clearly maddened and staring into another dimension. The man simply died following three strokes - it was never questioned by anyone at the time, so why should we now?
I think the comparison with foot and kinnock unfair. We live under the rule of law it is unlikely that would ever happen and go unquestioned. But post 1917 Bolshevik revolution was a very different and scary place. People were getting bumped off Lt Rt and Centre in the persuit of power. Going to drop this argument now and agree to disagree yes u r right there is no proof but alas that was often the way of it in the USSR and they are still re writing history books.
Ok, you can make that your last comment, but I'm going to retort.
I would have prefered if you had retracted your evidence void claim that "Stalin murdered Lenin" (a statement of 'fact' on your part), but since you haven't, it's clear that you're a dogmatist, as your refusal to acknowledge the Foot and Kinnock example demonstrates.
You willingly accept one statement to be true without evidence, but not the other. You could also have said that Trotsky murdered Lenin - but you didn't. Defamation
Stalin might have been wise, but he was evil. On the war, I dont think you can ignore that (a) on thefear of a nazi take most machinary and infrastrure was rendered useless.(b) come a certain point America began significantly supply Russia with food weapons and tanks and (c) Hitler had made too man enemies. While he commited massive resources to the invasion of Russia, he still had less at his disposal due to other 'ventures'
@ronniembow Well my comments was in no way ment to be supportive of Stalin, I consider him one of the big monsters of the entire history of civilisation.
But he got things done, and often defying many odds - such as their space programme and THAT canal which blew people of day away (such as George Bernard Shaw who wasn't known for being complementary) Although I didn't think he knew most of it was made with the bones of gulag victims.
there is no freedom under Bolshevist rule,get your head together karl.communism is state capitalism.but go live in a gulag if you want.You are brainwashed.the greatest socialist was adolf hitler.but if you want to remain brainwashed for the rest of youre life,carry on.
kaptainbastard 9 months ago
Right-Libertarianism is a contradiction? I thought you were more intelligent than that...
DeepSixed300 1 year ago
Fucking scumbag
assholewithteeth 1 year ago
"An employer can sack you at a minutes notice" --> what the fuck is this guy on?
What a ridiculous load of shit.
Total moron.
yington 1 year ago
@yington In the UK or USA, yeah. We're not talking about France, sir
Redcarpet01 6 months ago
@Redcarpet01
And you can't sack an employer at a minutes notice, either in the UK.
Tool.
yington 6 months ago
When these same companys were making billons per year was any of that filtering down to the workers mmm...Now they ain't making the same money they want to slash and burn their workforce and service b....................s.
MegaTrainspotter 1 year ago
'Fred the shread' runs R.B.S into the ground and get's a golden handshake for his trouble.Adam crozier runs royal-mail into the ground and get's a golden handshake for his troubles mmm... it's a funny old world...
MegaTrainspotter 1 year ago
Employers are now using the 'recession' as a stick to beat their employees.Look at b.a.,royal-mail, council staff,railway workers.The working-class are the backbone of this country and these people are attacking us..Keep up the good work KARL..THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND GOD BLESS YOU..
MegaTrainspotter 1 year ago
Samson must be gay..
gentian5corby 2 years ago
I did retract my statement and said "sorry" but I said I wouldn't be surprised.- given Stalin's subsequent actions. and I stick by that. (Freedom of thought on a freedom page) we then got into a discussion about truth You used the Foot Kinnock analogy why? I'm a dogmatist- perhaps- but i'm not a dictator telling people what to think. Simple people like me are often asked to accept official versions of "the truth" e.g. WMD's I'm always willing to let others think what they want.
ronniembow 2 years ago
Thatcher permamently ruined the north east
GuevaraismforUK 2 years ago
To hell with communists and capitalists vote for the GREEN PARTY
and return to the garden of eden
make love not war
and always use contraception until you are responsible enough to care for your own kids.
the beatles rule.......
ronniembow 2 years ago
The Green Party are to some extent capitalist. You have to understand that the title of a party has little meaning in terms of the socioeconomic system which they preside over.
For example, the Green Party would preside over a economic system of private enterprise featuring the profit motive (capitalism), with the hope that they could implement some social democratic policies without big business stopping them (such as on climate change). Well intended, but ultimately lacking analysis.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Hi Sam? let's hear your theory for an eqitable and fair society in a competitive world. Parties have to start somewhere and they can be changed from within if people have the desire to do so, we can't re-invent the wheel Industrialisation and Capitalism seem inextricably entwined. It would just be a case of all men are equal but some more so than others The hegemony of Capitalism seems here to stay.. My comment on joining the Green Party was just a sad attempt at a joke.
ronniembow 2 years ago
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. I thought it was serious because some people 'do' believe it.
I don't think you're right to say that industrialisation and capitalism are inextricably entwined (although in the West, capitalism did allow the development on industry). A counter-example would be the USSR's Gosplan, or China's "Great Leap Forward". If socialism were realised here in the industrialised West we could also say that industrialisation is entwined with socialism (in fact, socialism depends
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
on that industrialisation).
In answer to your question, though, my point is that I feel we should reject bourgeois democracy for the scam that it is. In terms of the Greens, that means understanding the structural methods by which capital controls the state. Hence we often hear the phrase "Labour, Tory, Republican, Democrat - all the same". The Greens think they'll escape that vice-like grip of capital (as do some reformist socialist parties). When they take power, they'll be under the thumb.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
yes I agree there seems no difference or real alternative to various parties.
My question is how dowe resolve the problem of the hegemony of capitalism without bloodshed or causing untold suffering to specific sections of society. How can we still maintain high standards of living for all and what makes industrial workers any more worthy a human being than any other human explain please??
I opted out of voting some time ago, also gave up working for capitalists feel as free as a bird
ronniembow 2 years ago
So how do you feed yourself? Benefits? Freegan lifestyle? Self-employment?
Not everyone can be self-employed, and the first two options are far from ideal alternatives, or ultimatums ("work for the boss or live in poverty").
How to do it without bloodshed? That's outwith the people's control, unfortunately. The state is a violent institution. It maintains capitalist control with the threat of violence (and sometimes more than a threat). You can make peaceful demands - take millions into the
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
streets and demand that institutions are delivered into worker control and that 'real' democracy is installed. Then hope that the ruling class will say "ok", and stand aside. Perhaps with enough threat of revolution, they will - no one can know for certain that they won't.
But history tells us to be prepared for self defence. May '68 in France saw a general strike which brought the De Gaulle government to its knees. De Gaulle announced "return to work or martial law will be imposed". To put
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
it bluntly - begin making us profits once again, or we'll send the army and the police in to shoot you. Realistically, the capitalist class isn't going to let itself be voted out of power.
For that reason, I personally feel that the army has to be on side in a revolutionary situation, given the state's monopoly on violence. Lenin's seizure of power is often depicted as a bloodbath. In reality, I think two people were shot. The violence began afterwards in defence against counter-revolution.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Not on benefits or a freegan and not self employed. Not involved in any criminal activities either, I'll leave that to the politicians and capitalists.
How effective do you think passive resistence is in relation to the state?
France seems a lot more left wing and radical compared to the UK. I'd like to see all the young people out of the armed forces its sickening the way young lives are being lost needlessly in like Afghanistan.
ronniembow 2 years ago
But how do you support yourself?
On passive resistance, it depends on the conditions. We can never know for sure how a weak state may react, but again, I'd point to May '68. Durruti once said: "The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history" - there's nothing capitalists won't do to maintain the privilege, as we've seen with Mussolini, Hitler, Pinnochet, etc.
When you look at the acts of imperialists down through the centuries, it seems to me highly
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
unlikely that capitalists will just stand aside without bloodshed - so for me, it's all but inevitable that violence will occur. That's the nature of class war, unfortunately. Peaceful revolution would be wonderful - but if you're unwilling to fight and you lose, what happens? Back to the same old imperialism, same wage slavery. Who does that help? "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." ~ Guevara
At the same time, people need to see for themselves that pacifism has very
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
limited application. If you go around waving banners of Mao, they'll think you're a lunatic. If you help workers in unions and agitate, but exhaust all peaceful means they'll begin to realise those limits for themselves. All the same, workers have to be prepared for a fight. The capitalist is never a pacifist, and has no problem sending the army or police in to crack open the skulls of peaceful protesters if they feel the need to silence dissent, so it makes sense to have a contingency plan.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
True but it seems that so- called communist regimes are equally brutal.
There needs to be a third way for true and meaningful revolution. All the necessary conditions need to be in place. It won't happen for a long time. Capitalism and State Socialism have not reached burn out. It would take great human endeavour for a third way as these two philosophies appear to dominate human thinking, so we seem stuck in no man's land.
ronniembow 2 years ago
I think we ought to be careful with this use of the term "Third Way". Mussolini considered himself Third Way, as do Labour.
In the Third-Way syestem, power still serves the interests of corporations. It's never transfered to workers, and so, all of the problems of capitalism remain. Hence the wars, like Iraq, go on.
The real solution is worker ownership of the means of production, and one way or another, they have to be expropriated and delivered, and preferably, as peacefully as possible.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Comment removed
ronniembow 2 years ago
I see the point u r making. I thought that industrialisation was only really realised in the USSR by initially allowing capitalism to remain till the 1930's. Then they hit the wealthy peasants, their agriculture never really recovered. millions starved, and they always seemed to have a poor infratructure for distributing food that the bread queues persisted right up until at least the 1970's. Does industrialisation depend on capitalism and does socialism depend on both . Explain please??
ronniembow 2 years ago
Capitalism wasn't developing industry into the 30s. The industrialisation programme was carried out in a series of "Five Year Plans" by the Gosplan (central commitee). Rather than the market developing undustry, as in capitalism, it was centralised planning. It took the capitalist nations 100 years to industrialise themselves. The USSR did it in 10 because of the intent focus on it.
I think what you're refering to was the NEP. It didn't develop the industry and was never really intended to.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
It followed the economic policy of War Communism, which had been designed to keep the Red Army fed in the war against the Whites. The real industrialisation programme didn't begin until those 5 year plans. I'm not sure what you mean by "hit" the wealthy peasants. They intent was to remove them by collectivising.
Agriculture did recover. Workers in industry and transport grew from 4 to 12 million in the first 5 years.
Had the process not undergone, the Nazis would have wiped the Soviets out.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Comment removed
ronniembow 2 years ago
Comment removed
ronniembow 2 years ago
Stalin did not murder Lenin. Lenin was shot by a White some years before his death, then suffered three strokes. He spent the last six months of his life bed-ridden and demented.
It's important to remain objective so that people can be free from rumour. Stalin presided over enough cruelty of which to be critical without obfuscating the truth and inventing new stories out of thin air. Even the wildest Red Scare propoganda would never claim that Stalin murdered Lenin.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
@samsonlovesyou
Hi Sam Who's truth are you talking about
I'm sorry that I said Stalin murdered or had Lenin murdered. But I wouldn't be surprised I wasn't there but then again neither were you? PS I don't pluck things out of thin air I make observations on what others have investigated. My ideas came from the writings of Isaac Deuscher (a Marxist biographer of Stalin) and Mary McAulay( a University lecturer and author) amongst others
ronniembow 2 years ago
It's not a case of "who's" truth, but rather "the truth". You weren't there when Michael Foot died, but I assume you wouldn't announce that Neil Kinnock murdered him, simply for the reason that it's a wild assertion in lieu of evidence. Meanwhile, there are pictures and video footage of Lenin in his wheelchair with his eyes clearly maddened and staring into another dimension. The man simply died following three strokes - it was never questioned by anyone at the time, so why should we now?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I think the comparison with foot and kinnock unfair. We live under the rule of law it is unlikely that would ever happen and go unquestioned. But post 1917 Bolshevik revolution was a very different and scary place. People were getting bumped off Lt Rt and Centre in the persuit of power. Going to drop this argument now and agree to disagree yes u r right there is no proof but alas that was often the way of it in the USSR and they are still re writing history books.
ronniembow 2 years ago
Ok, you can make that your last comment, but I'm going to retort.
I would have prefered if you had retracted your evidence void claim that "Stalin murdered Lenin" (a statement of 'fact' on your part), but since you haven't, it's clear that you're a dogmatist, as your refusal to acknowledge the Foot and Kinnock example demonstrates.
You willingly accept one statement to be true without evidence, but not the other. You could also have said that Trotsky murdered Lenin - but you didn't. Defamation
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Stalin might have been wise, but he was evil. On the war, I dont think you can ignore that (a) on thefear of a nazi take most machinary and infrastrure was rendered useless.(b) come a certain point America began significantly supply Russia with food weapons and tanks and (c) Hitler had made too man enemies. While he commited massive resources to the invasion of Russia, he still had less at his disposal due to other 'ventures'
JustB3NJI 2 years ago
@JustB3NJI was he was wise? (sly)
When lenin died he left a hand written testament lots of people got their character. to quote Lenin:
"Stalin has amassed great power into his hands as secretary and I am not always sure that he will use it wisely" (fact)
But did Stalin visit Len a few days before his death? and did he know about the above ?
Lenin's wife was also threatened by Stalin to shut up or he'd find Lenin a new widow (unsure) if you find a source let me know
ronniembow 2 years ago
@ronniembow Well my comments was in no way ment to be supportive of Stalin, I consider him one of the big monsters of the entire history of civilisation.
But he got things done, and often defying many odds - such as their space programme and THAT canal which blew people of day away (such as George Bernard Shaw who wasn't known for being complementary) Although I didn't think he knew most of it was made with the bones of gulag victims.
Stalin entombed Lenin, I think that says it all.
JustB3NJI 2 years ago
Bourgeois freedom, according to the Tom Robinson band:
"Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
Prostitutes, pansies and punks
Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
Lesbians and left wing scum
Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions
Freedom from the Gypsies and the Jews
Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals
Freedom from the likes of you."
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Brilliant Video here Karl! Love your conversations to Galloway. You always hit the nail when where it needs :)
danielshacalis 2 years ago 4
love our posts and your style karl,your calls to georges talk sport radio show are always eagerly anticipated
pharoahsoulero 2 years ago 4