Why the left is losing - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14803001
Beren wrote:You've changed the original article, you just didn't cut out the unbolded sections, then you put it in the wrong subforum to generate the impression that it's not really an exclusively American article, so now we have discussions unrelated to the original article all around here. I wonder whether you consider that a success.

This is not a debate. You are accusing me of having some nonsensical and illogical ulterior motive and have made several posts that suggest that I have changed the content of the article. I'm telling you to back off and go do something more productive.
User avatar
By Beren
#14803002
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:This is not a debate. You are accusing me of having some nonsensical and illogical ulterior motive and have made several posts that suggest that I have changed the content of the article. I'm telling you to back off and go do something more productive.

Who cares what you're telling me to do? Who do you think you are? You're not even a decent poster posting things where they should be posted.
User avatar
By fuser
#14803004
Sorry for being pedantic but I have to say something on political terminology i.E. how everything that is not this current alt right, right wing populist is suddenly left. The space for right it seems has shrunk dramatically or else how the hell Marcon is representative of left as this article suggests?

On non violence and Indian Independence :

Of course it's nonsense to say that non violence won the day no maaltter how much liberals worldwide like to pretend so as Potemkin pointed out but I wouldn't use Nehru as an example.

It was SC Bose and his violent army INA, the violent red fort trial protests, the violent indian naval mutiny that won the day not Gandhi and his non violence. The 1942 protests lead by Gandhi was a complete dud.
Last edited by fuser on 07 May 2017 15:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14803005
Rapperson wrote:Give us an example.


Unification of Germany.
Unification of Italy.
US independence movement.
Most if imperalism related wars.
Anglo-Dutch war.
Glorious revolution.
First world war.
Many Russian Serf rebellions including Yemelyan Pugachevs rebellion.
French revolutions to a degree.
US Civil war.

To name a few.
Last edited by JohnRawls on 07 May 2017 15:27, edited 1 time in total.
#14803006
JohnRawls wrote:Unification of Germany.
Unification of Italy.
US independence movement.
Most if imperalism related wars.
Anglo-Dutch war.
Glorious revolution.
First world war.
Many Russian Serf rebellions including Yemelyan Pugachevs rebellion.
French revolutions to a degree.

To name a few.


What does any of this have to do with our conversation?
#14803007
Beren wrote:Who cares what you're telling me to do? Who do you think you are? You're not even a decent poster posting things where they should be posted.

Sorry to say, but you do need a good telling off. Again, if you have any grievances about this thread, go to the basement. You might also want to ask yourself why this bothers you so much. It's quite odd frankly.
User avatar
By Beren
#14803008
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sorry to say, but you do need a good telling off. Again, if you have any grievances about this thread, go to the basement. You might also want to ask yourself why this bothers you so much. It's quite odd frankly.

You Germans (or maybe you're Austrian) keep answering until you run out of words. How many do you still have left?
Last edited by Beren on 07 May 2017 15:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14803009
Rapperson wrote:
With violence, all except 4).
JohnRawls wrote:
Why do you think capitalism was not achieved by violence? Did the aristocracy simply give away their rights and priviligies or perhaps they fought for them to the bitter end and lost? (In some cases after several tries)

It is a bit hard to fully explain the transition because it did not happen at the same time but in a span of several centuries from different kinds of economic models to capitalism.


My point is that violence simply does not work in this day and age. Gandhi, knew that he could not directly fight the British to liberate India. Mandela learned that violent terrorist attacks would not give his movement any traction. Palestine has only seen success via diplomatic means. Nations like Canada, Australia, and others broke away diplomatically and still have strong ties to Britain (Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada recognizes the Queen of England).

Meanwhile, an example of violent revolution may be ISIS. They are quickly loosing due to their use of violence and atrocities, and they have little favor, even amongst the people whom they claim to represent. Maybe in 1776, when all nations had a more equal degree of military power, but not now, when the west easily crushes any rebellion it sees as unworthy.

Now lets take your examples one by one.

1) How did Napoleon managed to create the French Republic?
Napoleon did not create the first republic. He created the first empire. The first republic was created via a mixture of violent, but not militaristic, and diplomatic means, and defended by radical left forces. It was only after the right got into power that the republic significantly weakened. Reactionaries repealed many reforms of the previous stages of the French Revolution, stirring discontent with the government and allowing for Napoleon's take-over.
2) How did the Bolsheviks managed to create the RSFSR and later the Soviet Union?
The initial revolution was a completely bloodless coup, well planed by Lenin. The violence only started when western-supplied white forces retaliated.
3) How did the Church managed to Christianise most of Europe?
It was not the church that cristianised Europe, it was Ancient Rome, who forced the religion on everyone in the empire.
4) How did capitalism came to being in the UK and the rest of Europe?
Through violence against workers. The free market embodies violence by allowing workers to be fired, arrested, or worse when they strike, unionize, and conduct other "anti-capitalist actions." That is why is advocate for a global revolution towards communism @JohnRawls. In this way, a mass strike could be organized, bringing the global economy to a screeching halt, and tactics such as arrest cannot be used.
5) How do most countries achieve their independence?
Pre World Wars, through violence; Post world wars, through peaceful protest.

Hope I answered all of your questions :excited:
#14803010
@Rapperson

You wanted examples of wars that are fought to establish capitalism. I gave you examples. As i mentioned before capitalism is slow process and it is also a changing process of sorts. Capitalism in the 18th century is not the same capitalism that we have now hence the wars happen over time to suit the current needs of capitalism.

First step of capitalism was usually to emancipate the serfs from servitude so they could become workers instead of serfs. (Removal of Feudalism basically)
Then later on countries started fighting for control over the trade lanes and trade itself ( Imperialism )
With the rise of industrial production and the need for more workers such things as Slavery was being abolished.
Even nowadays, things like gay marriage acceptance and LGBT rights are direct consequence of capitalism. (For the same reasons as before)

I am not saying that capitalism is bad per se or what it brings is bad. I am saying that you can't view establishment of capitalism as a singular 1 event and after that nothing happens.


My point is that violence simply does not work in this day and age. Gandhi, knew that he could not directly fight the British to liberate India. Mandela learned that violent terrorist attacks would not give his movement any traction. Palestine has only seen success via diplomatic means. Nations like Canada, Australia, and others broke away diplomatically and still have strong ties to Britain (Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada recognizes the Queen of England).

Meanwhile, an example of violent revolution may be ISIS. They are quickly loosing due to their use of violence and atrocities, and they have little favor, even amongst the people whom they claim to represent. Maybe in 1776, when all nations had a more equal degree of military power, but not now, when the west easily crushes any rebellion it sees as unworthy.

Now lets take your examples one by one.

1) How did Napoleon managed to create the French Republic?
Napoleon did not create the first republic. He created the first empire. The first republic was created via a mixture of violent, but not militaristic, and diplomatic means, and defended by radical left forces. It was only after the right got into power that the republic significantly weakened. Reactionaries repealed many reforms of the previous stages of the French Revolution, stirring discontent with the government and allowing for Napoleon's take-over.
2) How did the Bolsheviks managed to create the RSFSR and later the Soviet Union?
The initial revolution was a completely bloodless coup, well planed by Lenin. The violence only started when western-supplied white forces retaliated.
3) How did the Church managed to Christianise most of Europe?
It was not the church that cristianised Europe, it was Ancient Rome, who forced the religion on everyone in the empire.
4) How did capitalism came to being in the UK and the rest of Europe?
Through violence against workers. The free market embodies violence by allowing workers to be fired, arrested, or worse when they strike, unionize, and conduct other "anti-capitalist actions." That is why is advocate for a global revolution towards communism @JohnRawls. In this way, a mass strike could be organized, bringing the global economy to a screeching halt, and tactics such as arrest cannot be used.
5) How do most countries achieve their independence?
Pre World Wars, through violence; Post world wars, through peaceful protest.

Hope I answered all of your questions :excited:


@MememyselfandIJK

Not really. You seem to divide the history between and after world wars. You think that our politically processes have changed and they have but not to the same degree that you think.

Post world-war 2 successes were possible because the colonial powers were significantly weakened by the world war. That is why Britain technically had no other choice but to let go India,Canada etc or face a fight on several fronts that it could not possible win. French were much more stupider in this regard and tried to maintain their control over Far Asia and Northern Africa but lost militarily and had to retreat.

You on the other hand, advocate a massive change that is akin to the rise of Communism in Tsarist Russia. There is no doubt that foreign powers will simply not accept this kind of change the same way that they did not accept the change in the Tsarist Russia. Most of your explanations were something along the lines "It started peacefully but then x evil power intervened and made it a bloody mess". But this is what happens when even moderate amount of change happens, you are bound to step on somebodies interest/toes. Be it somebody within your country or outside.

This is especially important when massive change happens. (Emancipation of serfs, emancipation of slaves, change in world super powers etc)
As much as you like it or not, your ideology is a very massive change to what is currently considered the norm.

First of all you want to relinquish most of govermental authority as i understand. (Do you think simply think that goverment will not fight back against this?)
Second of all, you wish the owners to give away their rights to the profits and let the people/communes be in charge of production(Again, do you think they will not push back against this?)
Third of all, even if for some miracle this succeeds in your country, do you really think you will have the power to fight back against other countries with no authoritative structure? (Obviously you represent a threat to other countries because you just managed to "topple" the government and basically rob the rich)
Last edited by JohnRawls on 07 May 2017 15:50, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By fuser
#14803012
Lol Gandhi did jackshit. He basically retarted the struggle for independence when he pulled off congress' organisational support to a massive movement in 1922 after chauri chaura incident where 22 policemen were burnt alive in police station. British were never ever on such brink as they were at that moment.

As said earlier it was INA red fort trials naval mutiny that won independence and all of them were violent.
#14803013
fuser wrote:Sorry for being pedantic but I have to say something on political terminology i.E. how everything that is not this current alt right, right wing populist is suddenly left. The space for right it seems has shrunk dramatically or else how the hell Marcon is representative of left as this article suggests?

He used to be a member of the Socialist Party until 2009 and has served under Hollande's government until his resignation last year, when he re-branded himself as a centrist for the election. Perhaps he had some kind of conversion last year, but chances are the re-branding is purely cosmetic.
#14803014
Post-stalinist workers' paradise, june 1962:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

According to now available official sources, 26 protesters were killed by the machine-gun-equipped[5][6] Soviet Army troops, and 87 were wounded with 3 of those dying later of their wounds. After the initial demonstrations, a curfew was implemented in the town. The dead bodies were secretly buried in the cemeteries of other towns of the Rostov Oblast. However, the following morning, a large group of several hundred demonstrators again gathered in the square. One hundred and sixteen were arrested, of which fourteen were convicted by show trials, seven of those receiving a death sentence and were executed. The others were sentenced to prison terms of ten to fifteen years.[7]


####

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_uni ... viet_Union

During the Great Terror, the distortion of interests, whereby unions fought for state production interests rather than workers' direct interests of compensation and safety, reached the point of absurdity, as no degree of unsafe working conditions or low pay could be countered by the unions if the party and state decided that the sacrifices must be made. The head of the trade union council during the 1920s, Mikhail Tomsky, first was deposed and some years later committed suicide to avoid the false persecution of the purges.





JohnRawls wrote:
@Rapperson

You wanted examples of wars that are fought to establish capitalism.



None of these wars/conflicts were "fought to establish capitalism". They happened at roughly the same time, that's all. If you want to make this case you'll have to show evidence.
Last edited by Rapperson on 07 May 2017 15:46, edited 1 time in total.
#14803017
Rapperson wrote:...


Okay, to answer your question then I need to know what do you exactly view/consider establishment of capitalism? Do you view it as 1 event? ( It was feudalism and then poof its capitalism?) Do you consider capitalism to be unchanging? If it does change then how does this change happen?
#14803018
JohnRawls wrote:Okay, to answer your question then I need to know what do you exactly view/consider establishment of capitalism? Do you view it as 1 event? ( It was feudalism and then poof its capitalism?) Do you consider capitalism to be unchanging? If it does change then how does this change happen?


No you don't need to know that. You have to show that in a given conflict, one side or targeted victims were opposing the establishment/introduction of capitalism and the other side was attempting through this violence to establish/introduce captalism where it had not been before, or at a significantly lower degree of development.

Example: The Russian Civil War was fought to establish communism, i.e. a society and in particular an economy on marxist principles. One side fought to make this happen, the other side fought to prevent it. Couldn't be clearer. That was a conflict fought to establish communism. Find something similar where capitalism was at stake in a similar context. Or rather try, because you won't find it.
Last edited by Rapperson on 07 May 2017 16:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14803019
You could reformulate the central argument of this thread in more objective terms, and have a far more interesting (and revealing) discussion. For instance, Why the center-right is losing, or more generally, Why liberalism is losing.

What is actually losing is, of course, the combination of Chicago School economics with political libertarianism (the Reagan/Thatcher worldview, which has now devolved into the Paul Ryan/Freedom Caucus idiocy). Bizarrely, this has only served to accelerate the decline of capitalism and aggravate its inherent instability - but it supports the short-term interests of capital, so whatever. At this point, the oligarchy seems to have given up on any hope democratic stability, and is just going for straight extraction. This "centrist" worldview (which the OP identifies as "the left") is now accepted by most academic economists, the political establishment, and a substantial portion of the voting public.

Until people start connecting actual cause and effect, this process is unlikely to change.
#14803020
JohnRawls wrote:
Not really. You seem to divide the history between and after world wars. You think that our politically processes have changed and they have but not to the same degree that you think.

Post world-war 2 successes were possible because the colonial powers were significantly weakened by the world war. That is why Britain technically had no other choice but to let go India,Canada etc or face a fight on several fronts that it could not possible win. French were much more stupider in this regard and tried to maintain their control over Far Asia and Northern Africa but lost militarily and had to retreat.

You on the other hand, advocate a massive change that is akin to the rise of Communism in Tsarist Russia. There is no doubt that foreign powers will simply not accept this kind of change the same way that they did not accept the change in the Tsarist Russia. Most of your explanations were something along the lines "It started peacefully but then x evil power intervened and made it a bloody mess". But this is what happens when even moderate amount of change happens, you are bound to step on somebodies interest/toes. Be it somebody within your country or outside.

This is especially important when massive change happens. (Emancipation of serfs, emancipation of slaves, change in world super powers etc)
As much as you like it or not, your ideology is a very massive change to what is currently considered the norm.

First of all you want to relinquish most of govermental authority as i understand. (Do you think simply think that goverment will not fight back against this?)
Second of all, you wish the owners to give away their rights to the profits and let the people/communes be in charge of production(Again, do you think they will not push back against this?)
Third of all, even if for some miracle this succeeds in your country, do you really think you will have the power to fight back against other countries with no authoritative structure? (Obviously you represent a threat to other countries because you just managed to "topple" the government and basically rob the rich)


I chose to divide the world into pre world wars and post world wars, because after WWII, the US became large enough of a threat to prevent popular violent revolution (i.e. Vietnam). If India had taken up arms against the British and won, they would have probably been the site of another war (i.e. North India vs South India, its not unfeasible -- there is a huge cultural distinction between the two regions) like Vietnam or Korea.

My point is, US tended to interviene in violent revolutions after WWII.

For your latter three points
[1]Yes that is correct. My plan is to weaken the government so much that they cannot possibly fight back. If they tried, they would be effortlessly overthrown by the people. The government is just a means of carrying out the popular will.
[2]Yes, those who benefited from Capitalism will fight back. However, the proletariat will simply far outnumber them. I propose a salary cap at about 80-90k which does not affect the lower 85%. Even with fewer resources, 85% will always outvote 10-15%.
[3] Yes, I am well aware of this. This is by far the principle reason that communist economies are failing today. The idea does work, but it is prevented from doing do by capitalist nations. A world wide revolution would distract all of the governments and force their hand-- they cannot possibly sanction all the other countries on Earth. Only Cuba has survived without trading with any other nations.
User avatar
By fuser
#14803028
Ummmm India still got divided, ummm you know Pakistan Bangladesh. Seriously give it a rest, the non violence didn't win Indian independence, stop parroting liberal propaganda if you think yourself as communist, you are only embarrassing actual communists and in this case specially Indian communists like me.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]