Sir Oswald Mosely - The True Revolutionary

Nationaal-Syndicalist, why do you keep trying to show that corporatism is better than state socialism? Regardless of whether it is or not, no one on this forum is arguing in favour of state socialism. Everyone I've seen express an opinion on the matter believes in market socialism via syndicates. If you're going to prove to us that corporatism is a viable alternative to socialism, use that as a benchmark.

RedSun wrote:Everyone I've seen express an opinion on the matter believes in market socialism via syndicates.

While I do advocate the implementation of a socialist market economy (i.e., workers' control of the means of production within the context of a competitive market) immediately following the proletariat revolution, I only support it insofar as a transitional stage toward a participatory planned economy.

Alright, Nationaal-Syndicalist could also argue against that. In any case, I don't see why he's expending all his energy debating against an ideology which no one is debating for.

RedSun wrote:Nationaal-Syndicalist, why do you keep trying to show that corporatism is better than state socialism?

As I stated before I'm against every form of dogmatism and sectarism. I'd like to discuss more than one view or doctrine instead of focussing only on one doctrine. I do support socialism, but am also critical in regard of some of it's manifestations. In that sense I'm always looking for new insights to form my own worldview or synthesis. If I was only on this forum to preach for own parish it would be a true waste of time; discussing fundamental different insights I find more usefull. On a fascist forum I would rather discuss socialism instead of corporatism.

I never claimed corporatism is "better", but I think it contains some legimite arguments and is a straightforward ideological manifestation. Modern fascists and corporatists don't consider themselves to be agents of the bourgeoisie, on the contrary; modern "fascism" is globalist and multicultural, a whole new manifestation. Mussolini and Hitler or "oldschool" fascists are obsolete as a enemy, we entered the 21st century already.

Regardless of whether it is or not, no one on this forum is arguing in favour of state socialism. Everyone I've seen express an opinion on the matter believes in market socialism via syndicates.

Ok, maybe I got the wrong picture. In my opinion it would be somewhat hypocrite to preach down on fascism and corporatism without doing the same on statesocialism.

Celtiberian wrote:I disagree that individuals on welfare are taking advantage of the system and, thus, "exploiting" middle class workers.

If these individuals are voluntary unemployed they make advantage of their community. It's a phenominon many European welfare states have to deal with. Ofcourse if they are unvoluntary unemployed because of a lack of work or illness it's a different story.

As Lenin was fond of quoting, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Something I fully support.

With respect to "meritocracy," it's not as though anyone is opposed to the notion of positions being given to the most qualified individuals. What socialists do oppose, however, is granting unaccountable authority to some technocratic elite.

Statesocialists don't oppose to that and not all corporists are proponents of that.

Not even the most anti-fascist partisan historians of fascism claim that corporativist theory was a bourgeois "conspiracy." No one doubts that the corporativist theoreticians were honestly attempting to formulate a more just economic system, but the theory was clearly a form of capitalism nonetheless—private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and generalized commodity production were are all retained.

It does maintain some form of capitalism; they have a more conservative look at the past and see a solution in a limited form of statecapitalism.

Furthermore, when the bourgeoisie in Italy and Germany were faced with growing radical movements, they turned to fascism simply because, of the two most popular movements at the time (i.e., socialism and fascism), fascism didn't threaten to expropriate their property. They obviously found fascism distasteful in its own right, but it was still manageable in their eyes.

I agree, but that's a fate almost all ideological manifestations had to endure.

The difference is individuals within state socialist regimes are no longer capable of accumulating wealth merely by virtue of privately owning means of production. Consequently, class distinctions and inequality are somewhat reduced, albeit far from completely. Radical economist Paul Cockshott explains the distinguishing features of Soviet socialism as follows:

"Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of extraction of a surplus. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that workers were still paid ruble wages, and that money continued in use as a unit of account in the planned industries, but the social content of these 'monetary forms' changed drastically. Under Soviet planning, the division between the necessary and surplus portions of the social product was the result of political decisions. For the most part, goods and labour were physically allocated to enterprises by the planning authorities, who would always ensure that the enterprises had enough money to 'pay for' the real goods allocated to them. If an enterprise made monetary 'losses', and therefore had to have its money balances topped up with 'subsidies', that was no matter. On the other hand, possession of money as such was no guarantee of being able to get hold of real goods. By the same token, the resources going into production of consumer goods were centrally allocated. Suppose the workers won higher ruble wages: by itself this would achieve nothing, since the flow of production of consumer goods was not responsive to the monetary amount of consumer spending. Higher wages would simply mean higher prices or shortages in the shops. The rate of production of a surplus was fixed when the planners allocated resources to investment in heavy industry and to the production of consumer goods respectively.

In very general terms this switch to a planned system, where the the division of necessary and surplus product is the result of deliberate social decision, is entirely in line with what Marx had hoped for. Only Marx had imagined this 'social decision' as being radically democratic, so that the production of the surplus would have an intrinsic legitimacy. The people, having made the decision to devote so much of their combined labour to net investment and the support of non-producers, would then willingly implement their own decision. For reasons both external and internal, Soviet society at the time of the introduction of economic planning was far from democratic. How, then, could the workers be induced or compelled to implement the plan (which, although it was supposedly formulated in their interests, was certainly not of their making)?

We know that the plans were, by and large, implemented. The 1930s saw the development of a heavy industrial base at unprecedented speed, a base that would be severely tested in the successful resistance to the Nazi invasion. We are also well aware of the characteristic features of the Stalin era, with its peculiar mixture of terror and forced labour on the one hand, and genuine pioneering fervour on the other. Starting from the question of how the extraction of a surplus product was possible in a planned but undemocratic system, the cult of Stalin's personality appears not as a mere 'aberration', but as an integral feature of the system. Stalin: at once the inspirational leader, making up in determination and grit for what he lacked in eloquence was capable of promoting a sense of participation in a great historic endeavour, and the stern and utterly ruthless liquidator of any who failed so to participate (and many others besides). The Stalin cult, with both its populist and its terrible aspects, was central to the Soviet mode of extraction of a surplus product."
Cockshott, Paul. Towards a New Socialism, p. 5.

Thanks for this info.

Since the primary objective of the bourgeoisie is to accumulate as much profit for themselves as possible, I think state socialism (like all forms of socialism) is the antithesis of capitalism.

I don't share that opinion.

In practice, there was no collaboration.

You're right about that, there was no full corporatism. Nevertheless there where some significant benefits for workers and their rights that was ahead of it's time (especially in Germany).

These laws, to the extent they were actually followed, were the least the fascist regimes could do considering they banned independent trade unions.

I don't think you can state that the trade unions at that time where "independent", this movement has always had a distinct red colour in Europe. It was a consequence of the anti Marxist sentiment within Fascist movements backed by the corporist theory of class "equality".

From the perspective of a socialist, this represents a regression.

Ofcourse, but I choose not to look at these kind of things from only one perspective.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Ok, maybe I got the wrong picture. In my opinion it would be somewhat hypocrite to preach down on fascism and corporatism without doing the same on statesocialism.

This is a revolutionary socialist forum, not a bourgeois bargaining board. We readily admit the faults of state socialism, both in theory and in historical manifestations, but this does not at all lend credibility to corporatism. Socialist theory, particularly Marxist theory, is independent of the practical applications its adherents have attempted to implement. Even if there existed incontrovertible demonstration that corporatism was superior to state socialism, which it certainly was not, this would not at all detract from the aim of socialism and its accompanying charges against exploitation.

Corporatism is, simply put, a worthless attempt at social justice.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:If these individuals are voluntary unemployed they make advantage of their community. It's a phenominon many European welfare states have to deal with. Ofcourse if they are unvoluntary unemployed because of a lack of work or illness it's a different story.

Voluntary unemployment is obviously problematic for a number of reasons, but there's no way to conclusively prove that there are a significant number of able-bodied individuals capable of finding work, who instead choose to abuse the welfare system. Moreover, one should juxtapose welfare benefits with the current nature of whatever jobs happen to be available in the private sector (which tend to be precarious, low paying, service sector work) and ask themselves if it's really unreasonable for people to prefer abstaining from such employment.

Statesocialists don't oppose to that and not all corporists are proponents of that.

Corporativism advocates for bureaucrats to play a prominent role in the management of national economic activity; and since most theories of corporativism are fascistic—and therefore opposed democracy—it does grant state technocrats unaccountable authority.

I agree, but that's a fate almost all ideological manifestations had to endure.

All manifestations of fascism, certainly. That, however, does not apply to several socialist movements (e.g., the Paris Commune, anarcho-syndicalist Spain, etc.) throughout history—which never compromised their principles and were instead overthrown by the forces of reaction.

You're right about that, there was no full corporatism. Nevertheless there where some significant benefits for workers and their rights that was ahead of it's time (especially in Germany).

I never denied that some benefits were granted to workers.

I don't think you can state that the trade unions at that time where "independent", this movement has always had a distinct red colour in Europe.

They were independent insofar as they weren't under the control of the government and membership was voluntary. Whether or not the unions happened to be affiliated with a particular political party is inconsequential.

Ofcourse, but I choose not to look at these kind of things from only one perspective.

I'm perfectly capable of viewing issues from a plurality of perspectives as well, but that doesn't preclude me from ultimately viewing one as being fundamentally correct.

Celtiberian wrote:Voluntary unemployment is obviously problematic for a number of reasons, but there's no way to conclusively prove that there are a significant number of able-bodied individuals capable of finding work, who instead choose to abuse the welfare system.

For a lot of immigrants and other people that's certainly the case in my country; they choose for themselves and deny their responsibility to society. Ofcourse the situation in my country is probably completely different from the U.S. and most other European country's.

Moreover, one should juxtapose welfare benefits with the current nature of whatever jobs happen to be available in the private sector (which tend to be precarious, low paying, service sector work) and ask themselves if it's really unreasonable for people to prefer abstaining from such employment.

Ofcourse I do understand the reason why they won't. But in my opinion everybody should work because else it's simply a form of exploitation of those workers who pay to sustain the welfare state. Ofcourse it's easy to blame capitalism for this passivity and laziness, and for a part it's probably true, but it's also the individual own responsibility and duty to society, to their fellow men.

All manifestations of fascism, certainly. That, however, does not apply to several socialist movements (e.g., the Paris Commune, anarcho-syndicalist Spain, etc.) throughout history—which never compromised their principles and were instead overthrown by the forces of reaction.

Ofcourse it's very easy to take the political manifestations that never came to solide power as an example. These are undamaged because they were never fully applied.

Most socialist movements that did prevail came with a lot of errors and abuses. The ones that didn't prevail became romantic exaples of the idealistic struggle (the same we see with Trotskism and Strasserism). When ideals become hard practice they lose their romatic mystery; it's more important that it consolidates it's power than that the ideals stay as pure as possible in the minds of a few dreamers.

I never denied that some benefits were granted to workers.

From the standpoint of a lot of political neutral workers these benefits where probably more desirably then the uncompromising workersstruggle that ended in sheer horror for millions of workers in several socialist "salvation States" of the past.

I'm perfectly capable of viewing issues from a plurality of perspectives as well, but that doesn't preclude me from ultimately viewing one as being fundamentally correct.

I believe there is no perspective fundamentally correct because it's all subjective.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:For a lot of immigrants and other people that's certainly the case in my country; they choose for themselves and deny their responsibility to society. Ofcourse the situation in my country is probably completely different from the U.S. and most other European country's.

I haven't any knowledge of Dutch sociology, so I'll refrain from commenting on the conditions of unemployment in the Netherlands.

Ofcourse I do understand the reason why they won't. But in my opinion everybody should work because else it's simply a form of exploitation of those workers who pay to sustain the welfare state. Ofcourse it's easy to blame capitalism for this passivity and laziness, and for a part it's probably true, but it's also the individual own responsibility and duty to society, to their fellow men.

Capitalism is entirely at fault because the system is structurally incapable of providing full employment—as a matter of fact, employers prefer inflated labor markets—let alone decent wages or working conditions. Moreover, market competition exacerbates man's selfish instincts, thereby preventing our more cooperative and solidaristic traits from expressing themselves in social relations.

Ofcourse it's very easy to take the political manifestations that never came to solide power as an example. These are undamaged because they were never fully applied.

Some of them were applied for appreciable lengths of time and were quite successful while they were allowed to function (e.g., anarcho-syndicalist Spain). As a matter of fact, microcosms of socialism, in the form of labor-managed firms, continue to exist to this day—conclusively proving the operational viability of non-capitalist institutions.

Most socialist movements that did prevail came with a lot of errors and abuses.

There isn't a single mode of production which man has hitherto lived under which hasn't featured "errors and abuses," so it's unfair present that as being unique to the socialist experience.

When ideals become hard practice they lose their romatic mystery; it's more important that it consolidates it's power than that the ideals stay as pure as possible in the minds of a few dreamers.

Then let's just examine the socialist states which experienced decades of development.

Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was encircled and invaded by foreign interventionists operating in conjunction with reactionary elements of the old regime, and the bourgeois hostility to the Soviet Union never subsided from that point on. Consequently, a significant amount of resources were diverted to military production, and industrialization had to proceed at an extremely rapid pace in order to provide national defense. That process came at a high human cost, but, again, it was required to adequately handle the antagonistic geopolitical climate the Soviet Union faced. Likewise, whenever radical movements in the global south emerged, the United States (the epicenter of bourgeois imperialism) quickly suppressed them or sabotaged their development.

These obviously aren't ideal conditions for socialism to develop under. However, when you fairly analyze the economic and sociological statistics of the former state socialist regimes, you find that they performed quite admirably considering the aforementioned obstacles. In fact, the only reason the state socialist regimes collapsed was because unaccountable bureaucrats, following their unenlightened self-interest, chose to liberalize their nations' economies. Yugoslavia—which, unlike the Eastern bloc nations, implemented an exemplary policy of workers' self-management—on the other hand, collapsed due to ethnic strife (which arose as a result of the government failing to follow an appropriate policy of national self-determination).

So, if you want to shy away from ideology and focus exclusively on practical application, be mindful of factors external to economic performance.

From the standpoint of a lot of political neutral workers these benefits where probably more desirably then the uncompromising workersstruggle that ended in sheer horror for millions of workers in several socialist "salvation States" of the past.

Perhaps, but the millions of proletarian soldiers and civilians who perished in the imperialist wars initiated by the fascist regimes certainly wouldn't agree. Neither would the socialist, communist, and syndicalist workers who were sent to forced labor camps, for that matter.

Celtiberian wrote:Capitalism is entirely at fault because the system is structurally incapable of providing full employment—as a matter of fact, employers prefer inflated labor markets—let alone decent wages or working conditions. Moreover, market competition exacerbates man's selfish instincts, thereby preventing our more cooperative and solidaristic traits from expressing themselves in social relations.

I certainly don't deny this aspect of capitalism in these regards and acknowledge what you're saying.

BUT in my opinion this becomes to often an excuse to tolerate laziness. A lot of the "proffesional protestors" of the leftwing squatmovement use these kind of "ideological" arguments as an excuse not to work and to make easy use of the welfare benefits. In fact a lot of these people (not all ofcourse) don't want to work despite all of their "workingclass" retorics. That's something every political movement has to be very aware of; with a bunch of freaks of society that don't want to work or take any responsibality and see life as one big party - financed by social-democracy - you can not and will not represent the working class. In that sense I associate more with workers, selfemployed or small entrepreneurs (although I'm against wagelabour) than with the socalled "proffesional protesters" I come across on most leftwing protests in my country.

As a matter of fact, microcosms of socialism, in the form of labor-managed firms, continue to exist to this day—conclusively proving the operational viability of non-capitalist institutions.

Microcosm or the state apparatus are two very different things on a organization level. But I do believe the federalism syndicalism promotes is a much better alternative than centralisation. Ofcourse it does work but it does have it's flaws.

There isn't a single mode of production which man has hitherto lived under which hasn't featured "errors and abuses," so it's unfair present that as being unique to the socialist experience.

I never said it was unique to the socialist experience. But it's unfair to deny the terrible crimes against humanity some of these regimes have commited (and so did many other regimes as it's entangled with humanity). It's also a good reason to get rid of the Messian insights and the utopian strive for a end of history.

Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was encircled and invaded by foreign interventionists operating in conjunction with reactionary elements of the old regime, and the bourgeois hostility to the Soviet Union never subsided from that point on. Consequently, a significant amount of resources were diverted to military production, and industrialization had to proceed at an extremely rapid pace in order to provide national defense. That process came at a high human cost, but, again, it was required to adequately handle the antagonistic geopolitical climate the Soviet Union faced. Likewise, whenever radical movements in the global south emerged, the United States (the epicenter of bourgeois imperialism) quickly suppressed them or sabotaged their development.

From an ideological standpoint one can always justify the horrific means to achief a ideological goal. In my opinion these forms of apologism aren't any different than the arguments Nazi apologists state; self-critisism is alien to most hardliners and they are always forced to their "crimes" by others. But I'm not here to preach some kind of morality; brutality is simply a part of human existence and not connected to a certain ideology.

These obviously aren't ideal conditions for socialism to develop under.

In practice there won't be ideal conditions.

However, when you fairly analyze the economic and sociological statistics of the former state socialist regimes, you find that they performed quite admirably considering the aforementioned obstacles. In fact, the only reason the state socialist regimes collapsed was because unaccountable bureaucrats, following their unenlightened self-interest, chose to liberalize their nations' economies.

I agree.

So, if you want to shy away from ideology and focus exclusively on practical application, be mindful of factors external to economic performance.

Pragmatism is the eternal enemy of idealism, but in the end one can't exist without the other in the real world.

Perhaps, but the millions of proletarian soldiers and civilians who perished in the imperialist wars initiated by the fascist regimes certainly wouldn't agree. Neither would the socialist, communist, and syndicalist workers who were sent to forced labor camps, for that matter.

That's a clear point. But imperialism is not unique to fascism or capitalism. In practice communism as a universal and internationalist ideology can be very imperialistic as well. What someone can consider as liberation, can be sheer oppression for the other. In fact all these ideological manifestations engaged their personal political wars over the backs of the working class.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:I never said it was unique to the socialist experience. But it's unfair to deny the terrible crimes against humanity some of these regimes have commited (and so did many other regimes as it's entangled with humanity). It's also a good reason to get rid of the Messian insights and the utopian strive for a end of history.

Nobody here is denying any crimes against humanity. Socialists have probably acted as the harshest critics of past socialist regimes, and consequently, most serious socialists today reject state socialism, as it fails to adequately represent the proletariat, generates a new coordinator class, completely disregards workers' self-management, and of course, facilitates authoritarian abuses. Nevertheless, I do believe that objective factors must be taken into account when considering atrocities committed under state socialist regimes. The egregious death tolls from famines, rapid industrialization, and purges were largely a result of the negative development occurring within a hostile political, social, and economic climate encompassing both intranational and international relations. It can be said even for Stalin that it was probably too great a risk to allow control to slip into the hands of those who were no less eager to suppress their opposition.

This does not justify such barbarism, but it does allow us to explain it in the hopes of perhaps avoiding it.

From an ideological standpoint one can always justify the horrific means to achief a ideological goal. In my opinion these forms of apologism aren't any different than the arguments Nazi apologists state; self-critisism is alien to most hardliners and they are always forced to their "crimes" by others. But I'm not here to preach some kind of morality; brutality is simply a part of human existence and not connected to a certain ideology.

It is true that gruesome acts can always be justified on the grounds of ideological vision, but you are contradicting yourself by offering a moral criticism whilst rejecting the moral intent behind it. Brutality manifests itself under conditions which elicit it, not on account of some incorrigible defect in humanity.

In any case, self-righteous morality plays are cheap and boring. If you have a serious argument for corporatism, I ask that you present it. We are more than prepared to dismantle your attempts at justifying the retention of capitalist class relations and capitalist production. Striking at state socialism simply won't gain you much ground.

In practice there won't be ideal conditions.

This is no different than stating that the real world never perfectly meets human expectations. It is no argument at all, but a statement of the obvious. This does not somehow indicate that real world events should be discounted when appraising the success of a theory in practice. For what it is worth, I applaud the many achievements of the Soviet Union and do not find that Lenin's approach, if not often Stalin's, was truly flawed. The Soviet Union grappled, better than most regimes, with the difficulties of adapting Marxist theory to practical effect in light of the dismal state of Russian society, and I say the same for Communist China.