Comrade Alastair

(this is a debate between me and the Resident Action Movement’s #1 candidate, Oliver Woods. I think it’s quite illuminating. He shows himself to be pro-capitalist, anti-socialist, and a denier of class struggle and indeed the very existence of classes with irreconcilably hostile interests. Socialist Worker is a key component of RAM, and it’s saddening to think that the former Communist Party of New Zealand has swung right to the point where it would endorse a candidate like this)

The original post I responded to can be found on Oliver’s blog.

comradealastair said…

Oliver, how on earth can you “work co-operatively in a non-market sense” with capitalist businesses? And why should we work co-operatively with the very forces that caused the problem in the first place?Also, how are New Zealand owned capitalist enterprises any better than foreign owned ones? Are you suggesting that they exploit NZ worker’s labour power any less than their foreign owned counterparts? And why should we care about their profitability?

September 15, 2008 2:01 PM

Oliver Woods said…

Comrade Alastair,I’ll break your questions down to make answering easier.

“how on earth can you “work co-operatively in a non-market sense” with capitalist businesses?”

This is what social democracy does. It’s also what industrial policy does too. Finland, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand in the post-war period, Germany and France for a while too.

Working together with business delivers the best results. I don’t really know what the alternative is. Working against business? How would that put food on people’s tables every day?

“And why should we work co-operatively with the very forces that caused the problem in the first place?”

I’m not out on the Marxist blame game for global warming. Of course, a large measure of the responsibility for this all lies with big corporations who callously destroyed entire eco-systems, particularly in the third world but also in Western countries.

The problem also lies with many nations in the former Second World, like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc whose states massively promoted highly polluting industrial development.

But what I see as an issue is that states in the first world did not have adequate regulations to protect the environment from capitalism. Capitalism is a dynamic, powerful mode of production that, to paraphrase Marx and Polanyi, devastates environments, both social and physical, if it is left to its own devices (a la neo-liberalism).

So I see it as all of society is responsible for environmental destruction: regulators, voters, politicians, farmers (who are certainly not capitalists) and big business of course.

“how are New Zealand owned capitalist enterprises any better than foreign owned ones?”

Because they’re in New Zealand and owned by New Zealanders, and foreign owned ones are neither. New Zealand needs to build up our economic self-suffiency and exporting capacity to become wealthy as we once were, and to build higher living standards (not just wages) for our workers and poor. Every other nation in the world prioritises their national economic development first, so I don’t know why we’re locked into a free trade/quasi Marxist dogma.

“Are you suggesting that they exploit NZ worker’s labour power any less than their foreign owned counterparts?”

Yes, absolutely. Heard of unions and laws?

“And why should we care about their profitability?”

We shouldn’t, don’t use idiotic strawman arguments like that just because that fit within Marxism’s hermetically sealed universe. We should care about how enterprise benefits ordinary New Zealanders through jobs, technological transfer, improved quality and quantity of goods (better and cheaper), through building up New Zealand’s economic base to be more self-sufficient, and to foster more exporting to turn us into a ‘Pacific Tiger’ economy.

September 16, 2008 11:10 AM

comradealastair said…

“This is what social democracy does. It’s also what industrial policy does too. Finland, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand in the post-war period, Germany and France for a while too.”The end of the post-war boom heralded the end of any material basis for social democracy. The only reason the Western capitalist countries allowed a small amount of their wealth to be put into the creation of a welfare state (the sole purpose of which was to placate the working class and prevent the rise of the kind of radical militancy that took place after the end of the First World War) was because they were rolling in money thanks to the economic boom that followed the second World War.

Are you seriously upholding Singapore and the ROK as models we should be following? They still kill trade unionists in the ROK, is that the “industrial policy” you plan on putting forward?!?

To think the former Socialist Worker comrades, who once put forward such a militant class struggle line calling for workers control and total opposition to the bourgeoisie, are suporting a candidate with policies like yours.

“Working together with business delivers the best results. I don’t really know what the alternative is. Working against business? How would that put food on people’s tables every day?”

Just when you thought RAM’s number one candidate could become no less socialist and no more pro-capitalist… he does.

Have you ever heard of class struggle? A rationally planned socialist economy? Worker’s control of the workplace? Why do we need the capitalist parasites who produce no value for society, and simply appropriate the value created by others?

“I’m not out on the Marxist blame game for global warming. Of course, a large measure of the responsibility for this all lies with big corporations who callously destroyed entire eco-systems, particularly in the third world but also in Western countries.”

It’s not a “blame game”, it’s an asessment of the situation and the placing of the blame where it belongs.

“The problem also lies with many nations in the former Second World, like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc whose states massively promoted highly polluting industrial development.”

Lol are you one of the greenies who thinks it’s bad for Third World countries to promote industrialisation and the development of their countries?

The former socialist countries promoted industrialisation and development in order to deliver a better standard of living to their people. If they’d had access to cleaner, more enviromentally friendly technology to do so with they would have used it, but none existed. Why? Because it wasn’t and still largely isn’t profitable for capitalism to invest in creating that technology. How terrible of these countries to try and improve their people’s lives!

“But what I see as an issue is that states in the first world did not have adequate regulations to protect the environment from capitalism. Capitalism is a dynamic, powerful mode of production that, to paraphrase Marx and Polanyi, devastates environments, both social and physical, if it is left to its own devices (a la neo-liberalism).”

There used to be way more state intervention in capitalism than there is now, but the moment the post war boom ended, recession struck and the pockets of the capitalists began hurting they stopped wasting their hard earned money on welfare and such rubbish. It is impossible to reform away capitalism, and it is impossible to change it’s character so that it isn’t based on exploitation, inequality and opression – if you did, it wouldn’t be capitalism anymore! If you get between the capitalist class and their profits they will move against you, history has shown that time and time again, and those that choose not to oppose the capitalist class (like you) end up serving it.

There is no enviromental solution to the huge problems we face that can be found within capitalism. Capitalism cannot be controlled, the economy cannot be planned to ensure that it doesn’t create all that nasty (but profitable) pollution.

“So I see it as all of society is responsible for environmental destruction: regulators, voters, politicians, farmers (who are certainly not capitalists) and big business of course.”

How are cleaners responsible for environmental destruction? How are supermarket workers? Wharfies? Factory hands? How are any of them responsible for the environmental problems we face?

And actually, most farmers today are capitalists, and would be happy to admit it. Farms are run as businesses out to make a profit, and the employer (the farmer) buys the labour-power of workers (farmhands) to operate his business (the farm) and create surplus-value for him. That sounds pretty capitalist to me.

We support small farmer’s struggles, but the small farmer is a dying breed, being steadily replaced by agribusiness. You have to differentiate between the two.

“Because they’re in New Zealand and owned by New Zealanders, and foreign owned ones are neither. New Zealand needs to build up our economic self-suffiency and exporting capacity to become wealthy as we once were, and to build higher living standards (not just wages) for our workers and poor. Every other nation in the world prioritises their national economic development first, so I don’t know why we’re locked into a free trade/quasi Marxist dogma.”

The post war boom is over and no amount of bourgeois nationalism on your part will make it come back. NZ will not become wealthy “as it once was” (I could have sworn I’ve seen pictures of poor people from back then, but I guess RAM has a different definition of wealthy) just because you throw some tariffs up.

NZ is a junior imperialist country whose high standard if living is based off the super-profits extracted from the Third World. Your nationalism means support for that imperialism. Neither free trade nor protectionism will deliver a decent life to the working class in Dunedin, because the two are just different brands of capitalism.

Exactly how is taking a position of socialist internationalism and opposition to our ruling class “quasi Marxist”?

“We shouldn’t, don’t use idiotic strawman arguments like that just because that fit within Marxism’s hermetically sealed universe. “

I’m glad you agree that we shouldn’t, but you should really get new speech writers, they’re contradicting you -

—yet force small businnesses and New Zealand owned firms into situations that will ruin much of their profitability and incentive to remain here—

“We should care about how enterprise benefits ordinary New Zealanders through jobs, technological transfer, improved quality and quantity of goods (better and cheaper), through building up New Zealand’s economic base to be more self-sufficient, and to foster more exporting to turn us into a ‘Pacific Tiger’ economy.”

So basically… you support capitalism, so long as it’s capitalism with CEOs born in New Zealand! That whole paragraph could have come out of a NZ First brochure.

September 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Oliver Woods said…

Comrade Alastair,I momentarily forgot how close you were with Socialist Worker before RAM formed and before heathens like myself diluted your perfect ideology.

But your discussion, particularly from your Spark e-mail loop, really does depress me. Previously I had seriously supported working with the Workers Party – unlike your childish rhetoric, I’m sure many people in the Workers Party would have recognised working with moderate people on the left like myself could have good consequences.

Your obsession with making judgements about things. These arbitrary labels and judgments you’re so obsessed with throwing around about capitalism, about certain types of farmers being capitalists and others being hard workers. About manual workers somehow being better people than New Zealand businesspeople (when in fact they’re just the same). It reminds me of a class oriented form of biological racism.

“The former socialist countries promoted industrialisation and development in order to deliver a better standard of living to their people. If they’d had access to cleaner, more enviromentally friendly technology to do so with they would have used it, but none existed. Why? Because it wasn’t and still largely isn’t profitable for capitalism to invest in creating that technology.”

HAHAHA! So you’re telling me that a ‘rationally planned socialist economy’ can’t develop it’s own green technology and relies on capitalism for innovation? That’s a spectacular own goal.

September 17, 2008 6:45 PM

comradealastair said…

“I momentarily forgot how close you were with Socialist Worker before RAM formed and before heathens like myself diluted your perfect ideology.”I wasn’t, but others were. There are members of our organisation who were in Socialist Worker, including back when it was still called the Communist Party and Grant Morgan was a Hoxhaist!

And I wouldn’t call you a heathen Oliver, just a bourgeois liberal who should not be endorsed by people who call themselves Marxists (i.e. Socialist Worker).

“But your discussion, particularly from your Spark e-mail loop, really does depress me. Previously I had seriously supported working with the Workers Party – unlike your childish rhetoric, I’m sure many people in the Workers Party would have recognised working with moderate people on the left like myself could have good consequences.”

Nobody in the Workers Party supports working with people who support capitalism and oppose socialism.

“Your obsession with making judgements about things. These arbitrary labels and judgments you’re so obsessed with throwing around about capitalism, about certain types of farmers being capitalists and others being hard workers. About manual workers somehow being better people than New Zealand businesspeople (when in fact they’re just the same). It reminds me of a class oriented form of biological racism.”

The labels I use aren’t applied arbitrarily, they’re applied because they’re accurate.

Do you honestly believe that a big farmer who owns thousands of acres and employs dozens, if not hundreds of workers, is not a capitalist? You don’t have to wear a top hat to be a capitalist!

My opposition to and contempt for the capitalist class and it’s followers is in no way similar to “a form of class based biological racism”. That’s ridiculous. Racism is an ideology that upholds the oppression of ethnic minorities and the priviliged position held by white people, and it is an ideology that flows directly from capitalism.

I am hostile to the capitalist class (or “business people” as you refer to them) not because I think they’re “bad people”, but because they’re a class of parasitic exploiters who live in luxury paid for with the surplus-value created by the labour of the working class. Saying that capitalists and workers are “the same” is not only feelgood liberal garbage, it’s like saying that slave owners and slaves are the same, or that landlords and peasants are the same. One class is exploiting and oppressing the other class, and they are enemies, not friends. Someday you’ll be forced to realise that, and you’ll have to choose a side.

“HAHAHA! So you’re telling me that a ‘rationally planned socialist economy’ can’t develop it’s own green technology and relies on capitalism for innovation? That’s a spectacular own goal.”

Not at all. A rationally planned socialist economy is perfectly capable of developing “green” technology, but when your just emerging from feudalism, and your country is in ruins with large scale starvation, little or no infrastructure or industry, your first priority is and should be to fix this mess and develop your country, delivering a better life to your people in the process. Environmental considerations have to take second priorty to human ones. Imperialism is responsible for the underdevelopment of the Third World, and thus is also responsible for the fact that once these countries break with capitalism, they are unable in the short term to prioritise funding the development of green technology.

An economy driven by human need and subject to the democratic control of the working-class is the only long term solution to environmental destruction. Capitalism cannot and will not do it.

September 20, 2008 2:49 PM

Oliver Woods said…

I don’t have a dichotomous understanding of society and don’t view things like you do in extremes.And I’m a ‘bourgeois liberal’? How am I bourgeois? How am I a liberal? I am a left nationalist social democrat, I find liberalism tiresome, wishy-washy and ineffectual and never have called myself a liberal of any variety.

If one’s class conditions make one bourgeois as you’ve repeatedly ascribed to me relating to my employment situation, then coming from one of the most elite private/integrated schools outside of Auckland in the country must count for something for you, right?

Being complicit in a bourgeois ideological state apparatus in your analytical framework yet criticising others for similar things must be hypocrisy!

September 20, 2008 3:11 PM

comradealastair said…

“I don’t have a dichotomous understanding of society and don’t view things like you do in extremes.”Ater your talk of how workers and their bosses are “the same” and how big farmers aren’t capitalists, that much is obvious.

“And I’m a ‘bourgeois liberal’? How am I bourgeois? How am I a liberal? I am a left nationalist social democrat, I find liberalism tiresome, wishy-washy and ineffectual and never have called myself a liberal of any variety.”

Semantics.

“If one’s class conditions make one bourgeois as you’ve repeatedly ascribed to me relating to my employment situation, then coming from one of the most elite private/integrated schools outside of Auckland in the country must count for something for you, right?”

Nicely researched Facebook?

Things are a little more complex than that. One’s class background is a factor in this, and yeah, I come from an upper middle-class background, with a doctor and university lecturer for a father. While my background isn’t overly rich, I certainly didn’t grow up in poverty! I’ve never claimed to be from a working-class background.

However, just because you’re born into the petit-bourgeoisie (or the proletariat for that matter) doesn’t mean that defines who you are for the res of your life. It’s an important factor that influences your attitude and your personality, but isn’t the defining one. Marx and Lenin both came from quite priviliged backgrounds, and Engels was a freaking capitalist! Human beings do have free will and are able to consciously change themselves and their surroundings, and one’s political ideas and class allegiance is more important than the class they were born into and the neighbourhood they grew up in.

Yes, I currently attend an integrated school full of middle and upper class white boys. Yes, this is an indication of my class background. But does it definne my political character? No, because I haven’t allowed it to. I came to revolutionary Marxist conclusion while attending my school, and perhaps to an extent because of attending this school (nothing like spening most days with the sons of the bourgeoisie to turn you into a communist!). Hell, I even rented out and read a copy of Das Kapital from the school library.

You are, as a “budding small business entrepeneur”, part of the petit-bourgeoisie, a class that as a rule vaccilates between the working class and the capitalist class depending on which side is winning at the time. But this doesn’t necessarily mean you have an outlook that 100% reflects you’re class – it’s possible to contradict that. However, you don’t. You support capitalism and oppose socialism, you deny the existence of classes with irreconcilably hostile interests, you oppose revolutionary movements of workers and peasants and the workers states that have existed in the past and are being fought for in the present. Your outlook is completely bourgeois.

An exchange between Zhou Enlai, a leader of revolutionary China, and Krushchev, then leader of the Soviet Union sums this issue up quite well.

Khrushchev: “The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class.”

Zhou: “True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class.”