Similar Posts

6 Comments

  1. Capitalism today – sharemarkets up, house prices soaring in NZ. Apple valued at $2 trillion. Facual recognition technology taking away our right to just be ourselves unwatched. Something smells in the State of Myopia.

  2. Decent analysis – weak conclusions, eh?

    Self-defeating, as no practical way out of the status quo is offered.

    “Exposing” social democracy never could be sustained as a successful political strategy for the Left.
    Such has been attempted hundreds of times.

    Only if you can direct very, very, very substantial resources within Labour, you may give it another try-run.

    If not, you may have to think on alternative, less wasting options.

    Venceremos.

    1. Thanks Manfred, I appreciate a friendly debate. I don’t agree that we can used past attempts to transcend social democracy as a reason to try to detour around it. It remains a deadly trap as long as workers are diverted into the parliamentary chat show. It has always been the critical barrier to revolution.

      Chris Trotters piece on the people and the law in TDB today, raises the example of the role of SD in Germany at the end of WW1. It stood up against the Kapp putsch, but only because it mobilised the masses by offering the illusion of a peaceful, ‘democratic’, road to socialism which meant suppressing the revolutionary road.

      The reason it is a trap still is because without it, the worsening contradictions of capital now exploding in crash, burn and plague, would make revolution unstoppable. Social democracy is premised on the acceptance of capitalism as it presents itself – a rational, free, and stable system subject to aberrations which can be corrected.

      Once this facade begins to blow open as is evident today, then all bets are off, and the conditions that allow SD to operate as the pacifier of the people, also blow apart.

      In the case of the NZLP we see social democracy t its limits stretched to breaking point by the compound crises, straining to paper over the class divide with the “team of 5 million” yet unable to resolve the basic contradiction between nature and society without itself become part of the repressive apparatus of the state.

      So today’s conditions require today’s analysis and today’s solutions based on our uses of physical and social science. By my analysis “directing substantial resources to Labour” is exactly what is required, but which, unless it backed by a powerful social movement, that becomes capable of overturning the rule of capital (which as National shows will sacrifice the last worker to stay in power), will be paid for by the long term misery of workers, and ultimate extinction, of humanity.

      So whatever you are offering as some other road to our survival, you have to convince me that it is not another trap.

      1. Good Day Dave. Thank you very much for the response. … I beg to disagree on a few points.

        Naturally, it is very much possible to make predictions and forecasts based on previous or historical behaviors or patterns of a subject bound by known structural elements.

        Leading deductions from these is not only affirmative and realistic, but also the genuine challenge of ‘Marxism’ as a scientific approach; I am confident that you appreciate such statement, in principle.

        Over the past 200 years, the organizations assembled under the headers of ‘social democratic / labour parties’ usually share the same or similar inputs, ideas, practice, experience, outcomes and results.

        In these days of terrestrial destruction and plundering of resources, the central piece of global social democratic / labour manifestation can be summarized as staunchly defending neoliberalism / capitalism, most unfortunately.

        We can realistically forecast what the NZLP will do – and what not – after the next national election, even if the party would gain absolute majority.

        With all due respect,

        all possible conclusions will strongly advice you, not to build upon the Labour Party’s capacity as genuine engine for the urgently needed socioeconomic and ecological transformation.

        With luck, NZLP will follow, if other forces in society are able to establish optional pathways and show theoretical and practical alternatives.

        Vote for Labour, if you like, but do not think it will structurally change anything.

        It lacks an avant-garde.

        In formal parliamentarism this would be the historical function that the Greens – or an attested other, eco-socialist Party.

        Non-formally, these are horizontal and vertical networks of community organizations, academic institutions, professionals, individuals that exercise self-empowerment with emancipation from the nation-state.

        Avanti Popolo.

        1. Manfred, of course the lessons of SD all point to its bankruptcy and betrayal. But unfortunately while many of us know that, most do not. Those of us who do even know that SD is largely responsible for stopping the revolution in Europe in the 1920s, creating the conditions for fascism, and isolating and ultimately destroying the revolution in Russia.

          So SD has a lot to answer for. Therefore the tactic I speak of is the opposite of sowing illusions in Labour’s ability to meet the survival needs of today. It is to get it elected as a majority govt so that workers will see clearly that their hopes in SD are futile and that they need an independent party of workers and allies.

          If you suggest that the Greens, plus social movements and academics etc can offer anything better, I think history would say no.

          Such groups, intellectuals so sum them up, do not free float in society but serve the ruling class of the time, or break away to align with the workers movement. Gramsci’s analysis of traditional and organic intellectuals is good on this.

          That is why Greens do no better then SD and end up with an Utopian ‘greening’ of capitalism as an ‘avant guard’ section of the traditional intellectuals serving the bourgeoisie.

          The change we need can only come from a mass movement of workers and their organic intellectuals (in every capacity from wage workers, unpaid, self-employed, and allied to small farmers) overturning the state.

          So I think the difference between us is in the view of the state. I see it not as a locus of power that can be contested and won (how against the ruling class?) by horizontal formations outside the state, but rather has to be overthrown by the power of the mass of those who work replacing those who live off their labour.

Comments are closed.