Communists in Stroud Green

sincers

Communism, like religion, is inherently delusional. It is more a noble ideology than a workable social or economic system.

Arkady

And, as Orwell noted, totalitarian regimes are theocratic in form and, to a great extent in content too. They rely on certain unquestionable assumptions which, when questioned, tend to result in death or imprisonment. Their leaders are deified. Rituals abound. Etc. Incidentally, this is why the 'atheism leads to Hitler and Stalin' argument doesn't wash, but I won't elaborate on that as it upsets Andy.

commissar17

Hi, All. This is my final comment, as we seem to be going round in circles. A big thanks to Arkady for starting this thread; it's good to be noticed on the street when you put a lot of effort into setting up a stall.
In saying 'bye, let me make two closing points:
1. Arkady -- Capitalism, like feudalism before it, is a transitory, historically governed [no hyphen, just to keep you happy], social system. It's now obsolete, moribund and on its way out, and we Communists intend to keep showing it where the door is.
2. Sincers -- The oldest cliché in the book is that socialism is a great theory but it doesn't work in practice. Clearly, capitalism DOES work in practice: poverty, unemployment, cuts, war, illiteracy, religous bigotry; homelessness (and 'Etc.', as Arkady would have it).

Long live the legacy of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Forward to socialism and communism!

Steve Cook,
Secretary, North London CPGB-ML
northlondon@cpgb-ml.org

Arkady

I’m a historical materialist too Steve. And I agree that capitalism is profoundly flawed and failing the world. I just don’t think that socialism – at least how you would define and implement it – is the answer. This is far from an original thought, but I’m inclined to see each historical epoch as a synthesis of the preceding and succeeding systems, combining aspects of each. Socialism is more like capitalism’s critical shadow than its replacement. Like capitalism it combines feudal aspects (see my post above) with whatever form of ‘true democracy’ we might seek to espouse. Regardless, your denial about Stalin’s crimes is troubling. Read the critical works, check their sources – you don’t have to go far.

Arkady

If you were willing to explain it, would like to understand why you think imperialism is by definition capitalistic.

ADGS

The synthesis idea reminds me of Ken Tynan's thoughts on the matter. Though he self-identified as a socialist or possibly even a communist (I forget which exactly), his diaries contain his somewhat troubled realisation that Marx had failed to account for the effect his own publication would have; like an inoculated immune system, capitalism had brought forth antibodies, specifically Keynes.
Of course, the capitalist system is now run by lunatics who see Keynesian measures as an unacceptable brake on their antics, so the landscape has changed again. Certainly some form of revolution/collapse seems a lot more likely than it did ten years ago, but I hope to all the heavens that it's not any sort a Stalinist would endorse.

andy

Can a thread comprised of people who insist on having the last word ever come to a close?

WillM

Wow.

Firstly, well done to everyone who engaged the commisar. Obviously far too little to do on a Friday.

Secondly, commisar, I've been hoping to write a satire on left-wing idiocy - a poor man's version of what Chris Morris did to fundamentalist Islam. Do you mind if I quote you directly? In particular I liked your line about how you can't be an imperialist unless you're a capitalist, which certainly belongs in a collection or other.