[Kaiserschmarrn]

Which is precisely why true socialists must reclaim that legacy, as Corbyn is trying to do in the Labour Party. The long betrayal must end.

Lol. So selling out to the enemies of the working class is being "mature and pragmatic" now, eh? That's probably what Petain thought he was being when he decided to collaborate with the Nazis, or what Benedict Arnold thought he was being when he betrayed the revolutionary cause in America. Defeatism, cowardice and treason are not mature and they are not even pragmatic, in the long run.

I agree that the Liberal Democrats are a better fit for most Labour MPs strictly speaking. On the other hand, most conservative parties are very different today compared to 50 years ago as well. So depending on your perspective, you could argue that things have changed, socialism is dead/not realistically possible, the Labour party had to move on and adjust, etc. Let's say I can understand why Labour MPs/progressives lay claim to the Labour party. Obviously, I can also understand why people like you do so as well.

As for Corbyn, he strikes me as a weird mix of liberal progressive and socialist; certainly nothing like the socialists of Eastern Europe or Russia. It seems that socialism when implemented in the real world doesn't tend to produce people like Corbyn. As mentioned before, in Eastern Europe at least it has produced people who are by and large social conservatives, and interestingly more conservative than the centre right in Western Europe.

Indeed. Back in the 1930s and 40s, most of these types were praising Stalin to the skies, but once the tide of public opinion turned against them during the Cold War, they suddenly decided to switch sides. This clearly wasn't for moral reasons - after all, they had supported the Soviet Union at the height of the bloodletting of Stalin's purges, but denounced it when it was merely a rather dreary bureaucratic dictatorship under Brezhnev. No, it was just defeatism, cowardice and opportunism on their part, which they have represented (even to themselves) as 'maturity' and 'pragmatism'. Ha!

As far as I know, many remained sympathetic until much later. I can remember reading that the left in Germany was reluctant to denounce the Soviet Union when it crushed the Prague Spring, while at the same time they wouldn't stop criticising the BRD, with some going as far as calling it an oppressive Nazi state.

I don't know if this is a more general phenomenon, but Joschka Fischer, by his own account at least, had a change of heart when he witnessed the murder of Schleier by the RAF and the Entebbe hijacking. Clearly, he must have heard and been aware of violence and atrocities before that point, but we know that people are able to blend out facts that they don't like or that are inconvenient. Perhaps age has something to do with it as well; the willingness to use violence to achieve an end seems to naturally decrease with age.

[Atlantis]

This is what half a century of socialism did to Europe:

[Potemkin]

I agree that the Liberal Democrats are a better fit for most Labour MPs strictly speaking. On the other hand, most conservative parties are very different today compared to 50 years ago as well. So depending on your perspective, you could argue that things have changed, socialism is dead/not realistically possible, the Labour party had to move on and adjust, etc. Let's say I can understand why Labour MPs/progressives lay claim to the Labour party. Obviously, I can also understand why people like you do so as well.

Indeed. My own position is actually far to the left of any mainstream thinking in the Labour Party at any time in its existence, so I can't really make any claims on the Labour Party in that respect. But many other people can make such a claim. I can remember a TV documentary about politics in Britain a few years back, and they interviewed an ex-miner in Yorkshire. He told them that he had voted Labour all his life, but had decided not to vote for them at the enxt election. When they asked him why he had left the Labour Party, he told them: "I didn't leave the Labour Party. It left me." That pretty much sums it up. Corbyn is basically just trying to return the Labour Party to people like him.

As for Corbyn, he strikes me as a weird mix of liberal progressive and socialist; certainly nothing like the socialists of Eastern Europe or Russia.

Corbyn is very much a child of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when 'progressivism' was beginning its transition from the 'Old Left' to the 'New Left'. Corbyn, unusually among his peers, simply didn't abandon the political programme of the New Left after it collapsed in the late-1970s and early-1980s. He appears to be a strange mix of New Left and Old Left because he is a product of the period of transition between the Old Left and the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s, and also because his political views have not significantly changed since then. I suspect that this refusal or inability to change is partly due to personal integrity, and partly due to inflexibility of mind. Being inflexible is not necessarily a bad thing, of course - it has served him well in the currently leadership struggle. Lol.

It seems that socialism when implemented in the real world doesn't tend to produce people like Corbyn. As mentioned before, in Eastern Europe at least it has produced people who are by and large social conservatives, and interestingly more conservative than the centre right in Western Europe.

Socialism and Communism were always socially conservative. You only have to read the personal correspondence between Marx and Engels to realise this. It should not be surprising, of course - socialism was a product of the 19th century, and bears the marks of its origin. We can only imagine utopia from the perspective of this world.

As far as I know, many remained sympathetic until much later. I can remember reading that the left in Germany was reluctant to denounce the Soviet Union when it crushed the Prague Spring, while at the same time they wouldn't stop criticising the BRD, with some going as far as calling it an oppressive Nazi state.

Political naivete is characteristic of the young, Kaiserschmarrn. And Germany's rather peculiar historical experiences meant that such naivete manifested itself in particularly acute and destructive forms.

I don't know if this is a more general phenomenon, but Joschka Fischer, by his own account at least, had a change of heart when he witnessed the murder of Schleier by the RAF and the Entebbe hijacking. Clearly, he must have heard and been aware of violence and atrocities before that point, but we know that people are able to blend out facts that they don't like or that are inconvenient. Perhaps age has something to do with it as well; the willingness to use violence to achieve an end seems to naturally decrease with age.

What did Fischer think a revolution is like? Did he think the ruling elite would just give up because a few students marched through the street carrying placards expressing their ideals? As Chairman Mao once put it, "A revolution is not a picnic...." and "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." Remember what I said about naivete?

[Frollein]

Fischer didn't have a change of heart, he just realized that he could do much more damage if he infiltrated the system, and for that he had to tone down the rhethoric. Oh yes, and perform a tear jerker conversion act.

[Potemkin]

Fischer didn't have a change of heart, he just realized that he could do much more damage if he infiltrated the system, and for that he had to tone down the rhethoric. Oh yes, and perform a tear jerker conversion act.

In other words, he became slightly less naive as he got older.

[Atlantis]

In other words, he became slightly less naive as he got older.

Not really, he is just your typical spineless wannabe revolutionary. Today he has become an ardent advocate of Nato and NSA spying and is doing advertising gigs for BMW.

PS: What this forum is lacking is a throwing up emoticon. I can never appropriately express myself.

[Potemkin]

I seriously doubt that Fischer ever really seriously believed in the socialist cause, if losing his naivete caused him to lose his faith in socialism too. He believed in his idea of what socialism was, which seems to have had little connection with "actual existing socialism". As soon as he grew up and looked at reality for the first time, he dropped his earlier 'idealism' like a hot potato. For me, the opposite happened of course. Losing my naivete caused the scales to fall from my eyes regarding capitalism. And there is nothing naive about actual existing socialism. In fact, Marxism is the perfect ideology for those who have lost all of their illusions about the world. Beyond cynicism... there is Marxism.

[Atlantis]

For me, the opposite happened of course.

Pray tell us dear Pote, for how many years did you have to carry the responsibility of government?

Fischer morphed into what he is now because he had to assume responsibility. That cannot be said of any socialist theorist. Oh hang on, there is Maduro in Venezuela who is still sticking to his guns. But if I where him I would worry the people would tear me apart alive.

[Beren]

I find it hard to analyse East Germany as an individual entity. It was an artificially created buffer state subjugated by the USSR totally, so it was a typical Cold War phenomenon with lots of specialties. I don't think it was fascist though, it was rather strict and disciplined, so to speak. If we want to discuss a left fascist state indeed, then we should rather debate Stalin's USSR, with a special focus on the 30's perhaps.

[Potemkin]

Pray tell us dear Pote, for how many years did you have to carry the responsibility of government?

You are forgetting, my dear Atlantis - I am a Brit, and therefore one of the secret rulers of the world. *unhinges jaw and swallows live hamster*

[Beren]

Pray tell us dear Pote, for how many years did you have to carry the responsibility of government?

Fischer morphed into what he is now because he had to assume responsibility. That cannot be said of any socialist theorist. Oh hang on, there is Maduro in Venezuela who is still sticking to his guns. But if I where him I would worry the people would tear me apart alive.

And what about Schröder, who turned out to be Putin's whore?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Indeed. My own position is actually far to the left of any mainstream thinking in the Labour Party at any time in its existence, so I can't really make any claims on the Labour Party in that respect. But many other people can make such a claim. I can remember a TV documentary about politics in Britain a few years back, and they interviewed an ex-miner in Yorkshire. He told them that he had voted Labour all his life, but had decided not to vote for them at the enxt election. When they asked him why he had left the Labour Party, he told them: "I didn't leave the Labour Party. It left me." That pretty much sums it up. Corbyn is basically just trying to return the Labour Party to people like him.

Corbyn is very much a child of the 1960s and 1970s, a period when 'progressivism' was beginning its transition from the 'Old Left' to the 'New Left'. Corbyn, unusually among his peers, simply didn't abandon the political programme of the New Left after it collapsed in the late-1970s and early-1980s. He appears to be a strange mix of New Left and Old Left because he is a product of the period of transition between the Old Left and the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s, and also because his political views have not significantly changed since then. I suspect that this refusal or inability to change is partly due to personal integrity, and partly due to inflexibility of mind. Being inflexible is not necessarily a bad thing, of course - it has served him well in the currently leadership struggle. Lol.

That makes a lot of sense and it raises the question in my opinion how attractive Corbyn and people like him are for the working class. I may be wrong but from personal experience a party like the FN in France and their leadership seems an overall better fit than Labour under Corbyn. Of course, Britain doesn't have a party that is similar to the FN since UKIP are much more libertarian/liberal and Corbyn's Labour party will quite likely to be more attractive than Labour in its current form at least. It's not going to be easy for Labour though I think unless they tone down their progressive side a bit.

Socialism and Communism were always socially conservative. You only have to read the personal correspondence between Marx and Engels to realise this. It should not be surprising, of course - socialism was a product of the 19th century, and bears the marks of its origin. We can only imagine utopia from the perspective of this world.

That's true of course, but they were progressive for their time. While some of the developments, such as equal right to vote, education and work were already underway, partly fueled by capitalism and later labour shortage due to the wars, many of the ideas and inspiration of the revolutionary left which would later become liberal progressives came from socialism.

One of the most important ones is perhaps the idea of the international brotherhood of workers ("comrades"). Yet very little of this idea seems to have remained in Eastern Europe now that it isn't the official line of thinking that cannot be questioned any longer, and I'm not even talking about non-Europeans but the brotherhood of, say, Russians and various Eastern European peoples, or Slovaks and Czecks, or Serbs and Croats. You could even argue that it never existed and people were just parroting the official party line.

I'm interested in this for two reasons. One, you seem to believe that socialism (or communism) will automatically eradicate these differences - correct me if I'm wrong - so I'm wondering if what happened in Eastern Europe doesn't make you pause or reconsider. Second, I'm having a discussion in the Europe subforum with Pod and Godstud about the possibility that Canadian are, at least in part, only pretending to be tolerant of diversity because they censor themselves due to the political climate, which could be seen as somewhat similar to the situation in Eastern Europe under socialism.

Political naivete is characteristic of the young, Kaiserschmarrn. And Germany's rather peculiar historical experiences meant that such naivete manifested itself in particularly acute and destructive forms.

What did Fischer think a revolution is like? Did he think the ruling elite would just give up because a few students marched through the street carrying placards expressing their ideals? As Chairman Mao once put it, "A revolution is not a picnic...." and "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." Remember what I said about naivete?

Of course, and that's why the result of many revolutions turns out to be completely different to what the majority of revolutionaries expect beforehand. My point was that while some of socialists might have been opportunistic in denouncing the Soviet Union and socialism, there were also some who just realised/decided that they weren't prepared to go that far or, as you say, they shed their naivety about what would be required to achieve it.

[Potemkin]

That makes a lot of sense and it raises the question in my opinion how attractive Corbyn and people like him are for the working class. I may be wrong but from personal experience a party like the FN in France and their leadership seems an overall better fit than Labour under Corbyn. Of course, Britain doesn't have a party that is similar to the FN since UKIP are much more libertarian/liberal and Corbyn's Labour party will quite likely to be more attractive than Labour in its current form at least. It's not going to be easy for Labour though I think unless they tone down their progressive side a bit.

There are differences between the French and the British working classes in terms of their values and attitudes. This is hardly surprising - they have, after all, had differing historical experiences and live in differing social and political systems. They therefore tend to support differing political parties as being representative of their values and attitudes. A party such as FN would have great difficulty gaining any sort of traction in British politics, just as a party such as UKIP would have a hard time of it in France (though UKIP is largely supported by sections of the British middle classes rather than the working classes, as its neoliberal ideology suggests). Corbyn's version of the Labour Party is therefore probably the best fit to British working class attitudes and values than any other extant political party in Britain; the Blairite 'New Labour' party appeals mainly to the middle classes and relied on political inertia and the lack of any realistic alternatives to maintain its support among the working class as well as gaining middle class support (which is why New Labour was electorally supremely effective during the 1990s but has begun to falter over the past decade as that political inertia among the working class voters has ebbed away).

That's true of course, but they were progressive for their time. While some of the developments, such as equal right to vote, education and work were already underway, partly fueled by capitalism and later labour shortage due to the wars, many of the ideas and inspiration of the revolutionary left which would later become liberal progressives came from socialism.

Capitalism must constantly keep changing in order to survive; it must constantly keep revolutionising the mode of production and the cultural and social superstructure which results from it in order to avoid stagnation and extinction. It therefore constantly needs new ideas and new ideological paradigms, and it will take these ideas from anywhere it finds them, even from its opponents. A smart capitalist reads Karl Marx as well as Adam Smith - ideological 'purity' is anathema to capitalism, which is probably why it doesn't have any fixed ideological canon comparable to the 'classics' of Marxism-Leninism. Adam Smith won't do, because of the disturbing implications (for capitalists) of many of his ideas - for example, Marx based his economic analysis of capitalism on Adam Smith and the other classical economists. It was, after all, Adam Smith who first proposed the Labour Theory of Value, upon which Marxist economics is based. Ironically, by rejecting the LTV, the 'neo-classical' economists have actually departed farther from Adam Smith's ideas than the Marxists have.

One of the most important ones is perhaps the idea of the international brotherhood of workers ("comrades").

You should read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme some time. He had a few things to say about the concept of the 'Brotherhood of Man', most of it uncomplimentary. He could think of quite a few men whom he didn't want as his 'brothers'. Lol.

Yet very little of this idea seems to have remained in Eastern Europe now that it isn't the official line of thinking that cannot be questioned any longer, and I'm not even talking about non-Europeans but the brotherhood of, say, Russians and various Eastern European peoples, or Slovaks and Czecks, or Serbs and Croats. You could even argue that it never existed and people were just parroting the official party line.

Your average member of the Soviet nomenklatura probably cared as little about his 'comradeship' with, say, an African worker as an average member of the American middle class cares about his 'equality' with said African worker. They pay lip service to the slogan that "all men are born equal", but they don't actually believe it.

I'm interested in this for two reasons. One, you seem to believe that socialism (or communism) will automatically eradicate these differences - correct me if I'm wrong

You are wrong, if you think that I believe that communism would erase all cultural differences between human beings. Dreary cultural uniformity is not part of the agenda of socialism or communism. Why would it be?

so I'm wondering if what happened in Eastern Europe doesn't make you pause or reconsider.

Why would it do so? Cultural differences persist among Eastern Europeans because such cultural differences have little or nothing to do with class exploitation or class antagonism, and actual existing socialism made no attempt to erase them. Does the American ideal that "all men are born equal" mean that Americans wish to erase all cultural and national differences between people? Of course not; why would it?

Second, I'm having a discussion in the Europe subforum with Pod and Godstud about the possibility that Canadian are, at least in part, only pretending to be tolerant of diversity because they censor themselves due to the political climate, which could be seen as somewhat similar to the situation in Eastern Europe under socialism.

Of course people censor themselves; every human being does this in every human society which exists and which has ever existed. We even censor what we think as well as what we say. Such self-censorship is a form of adaptation to enable the individual human being to exist and function within society. You can call it 'hypocrisy' if you wish, but it is an absolutely inevitable part of being human.

Of course, and that's why the result of many revolutions turns out to be completely different to what the majority of revolutionaries expect beforehand. My point was that while some of socialists might have been opportunistic in denouncing the Soviet Union and socialism, there were also some who just realised/decided that they weren't prepared to go that far or, as you say, they shed their naivety about what would be required to achieve it.

I agree. But such people are not, and never were, really revolutionary. A revolution is an act of massive violence, as all intelligent revolutionaries have always known and explicitly said, from Engels to Che. The reason why Lenin's October Revolution did not collapse within just a few months in the same way that the Paris Commune had collapsed was because he understood this point, and was therefore prepared to be unflinchingly ruthless (as well as pragmatically flexible when necessary).

[Atlantis]

And what about Schröder, who turned out to be Putin's whore?

It is his great merit that he has intensified relations between Germany and Russia. Schroeder has always seen to our interest first, which is good relations with Russia and energy security. Unlike the Obama-dick-sucking Merkel, Schroeder has kept us at a safe distance from the Yanks and out of Iraq. As German chancellor, the first thing I would do would be to mend fences with Putin. Relaunching EU/Russian cooperation will give Europe (including Russia) new impulses and vision.

You are forgetting, my dear Atlantis - I am a Brit, and therefore one of the secret rulers of the world.

Why didn't you guys join up with the Nazis to become the true masters of the universe? You know that Hitler was a sucker for all things British, he just wanted a little pat on the back. Your snobbery will be your undoing.

[Beren]

It is his great merit that he has intensified relations between Germany and Russia. Schroeder has always seen to our interest first, which is good relations with Russia and energy security. Unlike the Obama-dick-sucking Merkel, Schroeder has kept us at a safe distance from the Yanks and out of Iraq.

Schröder is on Putin's payroll literally, he must have been a great chancellor indeed. Do you believe Merkel would have gone to Iraq with Bush and Blair?

I just find it strange that Fischer, who's a Euro-federalist, should be careful on the streets of Germany, while Putin's stooges are safe anywhere.

As German chancellor, the first thing I would do would be to mend fences with Putin. Relaunching EU/Russian cooperation will give Europe (including Russia) new impulses and vision.

What vision? Orbán's vision?

Why didn't you guys join up with the Nazis to become the true masters of the universe?

Potemkin wouldn't have had a problem with that. It's too bad the Nazis turned against Britain as well as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact didn't work out in the long term.

[Atlantis]

Potemkin wouldn't have had a problem with that.

You don't say ...

It's too bad the Nazis turned against Britain ...

Germany never turned against Britain. It always was the other way around. That's the arrogance of the empire. They can't help it. It's genetic.

[Beren]

Germany never turned against Britain. It always was the other way around. That's the arrogance of the empire. They can't help it. It's genetic.

It turned against Britain when it invaded Poland after the Polish-British common defense pact, due to which Hitler postponed the invasion. However, the British wouldn't have minded much if Hitler had kept going further in the East, but he turned against the North and the West instead and began a war in the North Atlantic unfortunately, which altogether means he turned against Britain as well.

[Atlantis]

It turned against Britain when it invaded Poland after the Polish-British common defense pact, due to which Hitler postponed the invasion. However, the British wouldn't have minded much if Hitler had kept going further in the East, but he turned against the North and the West instead and began a war in the North Atlantic unfortunately, which altogether means he turned against Britain as well.

I know history Beren. But there is always a history to history. The feelings that the Brits couldn't be trusted run deep in Berlin since the end of the 19th century. They had been snubbed by the Brits again and again.

[Beren]

I know history Beren. But there is always a history to history.

If you know history, then why do you talk rubbish?

The feelings that the Brits couldn't be trusted run deep in Berlin since the end of the 19th century. They had been snubbed by the Brits again and again.

It's like the scorpion and the frog. Let the scorpion jump down and drown.

[Atlantis]

It's like the scorpion and the frog. Let the scorpion jump down and drown.

Doesn't work like that, Beren. They'll always drown together. That's history for you.

They are both part of the same cosmos, already forgotten?