22:00 The Emergence of Scientific Socialism
City Builders and the Vandals of Our Age by Caleb Maupin
Robert Owen
1848 German Revolution
German Nation State
Communist Manifesto
Analysis of human society
The Spectre of Communism
Proletariat
Irrational greed of factoryowners
Surplus value
Economic crises
Means of production
Anarchy of production
Growth and human progress
Social hierarchy and oppression
Antithesis of physical labour
To each according to his ability to each according to his means
Centrally planned economy
Bakunin
Paris Commune
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
1875
SDP
New York Tribune
US Civil War
Anti-slavery war
Ohio 9th Infantry Regiment
Lincoln's Second American Revolution
33:00 Britain and the cotton industry
Socialist International
Social Democratic parties
35:00 Edward Bellamy
36:00 Immigrants and the crisis of Marxism
37:00 Bankers had usurped factory owners
Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
38:00 Monopolies
39:00 International cartels
Export of capital
Credit and lending
Henry Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford
Financial elite
Financial middle man
Superprofits of imperialists
Great nations reduced to captive client states.
Stratifying the working classes
English-speaking v non-English speaking proletariat
Aristocracy of labour
Militarism
Social relations
Atlanticist pathology
WASPs
1066 and the Norman Conquest
East India Company and the London Stock Exchange
Atlanticism
Thalassocracy
India and Bangladesh
Opium wars
HSBC
Heroin and opium
Captive markets
Globalist model of international capitalism
Crippling the developing world
The Belgians in Congo
Rubber
Philippines
Adam Smith
Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest
Rhodesia, Cecil Rhodes and Zimbabwe
48:00 The East End
New lands to be settled by the working class of the East End
British parenting
The British serial killer
Glorifying war and plunder
50:00 Jack the Ripper
51:00 Progressivism v Imperialism
52:00 WW1
Belgium and Austria
Class solidarity
Lenin
The East
Monopoly stage of imperialism
Socialism
United fronts against imperialism
The party of new type - Bolshevism
Liberal Democratic model
Bolshevic movement v Czarist autocracy
Second International
Bolshevic - majority group
February Revolution
Russia's withdrawal from the war
Communist v Marxist
Peace, land and bread
October 1917
59:00 Kaiser
1:00:00 Lenin shot
Trotsky's permanent revolution
1:01:00 Stalin
Raising living standards
Socialism in one country
USSR
Central planning
1:05:00 Electrification and industrialisation
1:07:00 Great Depression
LED lights
16 NATO countries
Home computer system
Economic miracle
Life expectancy doubled
Albert Einstein, H G Wells, Nelson Mandela, Sidney and Beatrice Webb
1:11:00 Joseph Stalin
1:16:00 YouTube algorithms
1:19:00 Contradiction in the Hegelian dialectic
1:20:00 Neoliberalism
1:21:00 Friedman, Hayek, Greenspan, Austrian School
1:23:00 Unexplained terms
1:24:00 Academia
1:25:00 Average people
1:28:00 Abortion
1:30:00 Free market, libertarians, culture war
1:31:00 Cryptocurrency
1:32:00 Aesthetics
1:34:00 Mass movement aesthetics
1:35:00 Who and what is fascist?
1:36:00 Anarchy
1:39:00 Any socialist who gets shit done will be called a dictator by the New York Times.
1:40:00 Venezuela
1:42:00 Chavez, Falun Gong
1:43:00 Fox News
1:44:00 Liberal lies
1:51:00 Malthusians
Tacking whiteness
Racial hierarchy
1:54:00 Autistic white male
1:55:00 Group therapy, economic reform, white privilege
Libertarians
Inflation
1:57:00 They want to kill their own people.
1:58:00 Lenin, free love
1:59:00 The inventrix of socialism
Scientific socialism
Bakunin and Communism
Social Democrats
Lower and higher state of Communism
2:02:00 Walmart
2:04:00 Global warming
Weird propaganda exercise
46 comments:
Why did the Soviet Union abandon Communism but not China?
The US helped them along in the process by interfering in their political processes, helping Yeltsin ascend to power. Many, possibly most, Russians who were adults prior to the fall of the USSR regret it and wish for a return to socialism.
I suppose China was more culturally protected from a seductive America.
in the 80s USSR have many problems including:
1) defeat in Afganistan
2) Stagnating economy
3) their industry get sabotage in every direction by Imperialist power
4) many social and cultural problem within the Soviet union itself
so the leader at that time propose to adopt Liberal market policy like US, but by doing so, they open themself to a Coup by NATO and US puppet Leader, Boris Yeltsin.
It would make sense to restore their one-party state!
apperatly they didn't want 1 party state
Were they bounced into giving it up?
China was spared from American interference because China was collaborating with the Americans after Nixon met Mao and a warming of relations, as well as gradual opening of markets, proceeded. The reason why the CCP stands today, and the CCCP is dead, is because China was allowed market entry into the imperialist economy, and the CCCP was not.
All these ideological explanations, all these relitigations of the Yeltsin coup, fall flat in the face of the material explanation. As Marxists we should bear in mind, that the base (political economy) informs the superstructure (ideology and culture). Everything else is mystification.
I would also argue that the reason why the Soviet Union developed such economic stagnation in the first place, was that its war communism model of planning was highly dysfunctional, and could not diversify beyond production of basic machine tools, electronics and war materiel. By routing all requests for production and demand through the party itself, decision making became bottlenecked. By producing to targets, instead of finding alternate methods of establishing demand, overproduction of intermediate goods became an insurmountable problem.
Caleb makes much of how the Soviet Union made the most steel or concrete, or so forth. This is not actually a good thing. A highly efficient planning system, should be able to deliver the maximum amount of finished goods for the minimum of production intermediates. Raw materials and intermediates in excess, means that people are hoarding supply and producing large amounts of irrationality - driven again by production to targets.
The great tragedy is that Khruschev was close to achieving a real breakthrough with OGAS and Soviet planners could have had a real revolution in the efficiency of planning had the more conservative apparatchiks in the Party had not obfuscated the project into oblivion. These apparatchiks are analogous to the neoliberal technocrats in the financial and technology "industries" of today. They have their own petty fiefdoms. The problem was that OGAS would, due to the need for true accounting of goods, reveal the massive waste and hoarding inherent in a system producing to targets, and indict the apparatchiks - which at that point, was basically everyone in the Party who had any proximity to planning.
Every society that develops a professional managerial strata - from the Chinese Imperial mandarins, to the Soviet Apparatchiks, to the European and American technocrats - inevitably finds itself slipping into stagnation, decline, and disintegration. The obfuscation - as with the Chinese, the Soviets, and the American PMC today - can actually go on for quite a long time, sometimes decades. But the rot is observable. Unfortunately for the Soviets, and unfortunately for ordinary Americans today, this rot might be irreversible. This is the source of the Soviet ennui and massive alcohol abuse in the late 80s. And it is analogous to the mass overdose from fentanyl in Middle America today. Deaths of despair happen when systems of systems propping up society are in terminal decline. More pain is coming.
What lessons are we to learn from this?
Well, Caleb takes the lesson that there has to be a market sector in a transition to eventual communism, which Dengism is. Markets, however maligned, do provide a more honest accounting than production targets under war communism.
Personally, I believe that capitalism has already provided a model of planning that is similar to the Soviet OGAS. Indeed many of the operations researchers from the defunct CCCP wound up in the USA and some in Silicon Valley, whose ideas, together with Stafford Beer's cybernetic management, inform much of the economic planning today in private firms.
That model of planning is Amazon and other online retailers. The social and technical innovations behind online shopping provide people with much more information than the market fundamentalist's old saw, prices.
Amazon would not be possible without: barcodes (popularised by American railways), just in time delivery (from Toyota), ARPANET (from DARPA, operations research (from the Soviets), and global logistics (from the US military).
People can choose the colour, shape, provenance, even compare multiple retailers, for goods and services. If OGAS were operating today, it might not look too dissimilar to Amazon. The difference is that its warehouses and suppliers would not be a hellscape of exploitation.
Amazon is the antithesis of worker's autonomy and rights, reducing them to cogs to be worn out and replaced. But its thesis is rapid supply of a panoply of consumer goods at a reduced price due to vertical integration of a global logistics network. The ideal synthesis would be an Amazon equivalent that is operated not for profits but for public good, and one that incorporates workers into its planning rather than de-skilling them and robotising them.
The second argument I would put forth, is that populism - the rule of the many, is not only good, but necessary for socialism. The technocracy and later gerontocracy that plagued the CCCP in its twilight years was a mere shadow of the Bolsheviks that basically built up a nation from scratch. Brezhnev's initiatives for differential pay to reward high achievers, far from encouraging people to work harder, instead drove resentment and depoliticisation.
The rise of an elite that claims special knowledge or privileges, should be suppressed. The "meritocracy" of the US and European elites in the academy, finance and industry, disprove that notion every day this fundamentally irrational economy lumbers on.
Do socialists ever consider Islamic finance which is neither capitalism nor communism?
Do you think the problem might be the materialist ideologies of Communism and Capitalism that do not cater for the spiritual needs of the masses? In the end, Capitalism and Communism is about the worship of Mammon, and both ideologies are about which class should get more: the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being born working class or middle class so neither should be preferred.
We can all agree that we would like our government to govern in the national interest.
If we define nationalism as government in the national interest, we would rehabilitate a lot of people, making them happier.
If ask ourselves what policies would give the greatest happiness to the greatest number, we might just agree that the fair enough policies of Islam could just work.
If we incentivise the political establishment with the prospect of individuals and governments defaulting on their debts and the prospect of a flat rate income tax of 20% plus the encouragement of charity, that might be considered fair enough to the rich and the poor, men and women wishing to create stable families as well as the young and the old.
I agree with your criticisms of materialism as being insufficient in the full appreciation of reality. As far as necessities and wealth goes, however, i think the Marxist approach is correct. The spiritual realm for the Spirit, the material realm for the body
We are motivated by both so it is just foolish to ignore either!
true, but as to the Spirit, it is a dimension each consciousness must engage with in itself. The material well-being, however, is something we can share out in collective action
I would argue that Islam has the right balance of both spiritual and material goodies.
I like Islamic philosophy, but I'm not a Muslim myself. It's a wonderful tradition
Neither am I!
This is idealism and ideology to justify Islamic capitalism, which is still capitalism. The optimal moves under capitalism are still for the capitalist to exploit people for profit. You are conflating the material with the spiritual.
There is nothing in the New Testament that clearly forbids usury. It was Calvin who said it was OK for Christians to practise usury based no doubt on the fact that there is no clear prohibition in the New Testament. quran.com/2/275 is quite clear, however. Obviously, this would only work if Israel and the America adopted Secular Koranism in which case we would have global Secular Koranism instead of global liberal democracy, which is coming to an end anyway. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/96RQWJV
Capitalism is impossible without usury.
Hitler also wanted to abolish usury but decided to keep it because he wanted to finance his imperial wars.
Again, Islamic capitalism is still capitalism. Regardless of the ideology, regardless if usury is or is not banned, the incentive is towards more alienation and more exploitation.
And, if usury is fully banned, that does not mean that other financial instruments will not be used or will not emerge, that increase capital accumulation through other means. Debt based instruments are but one. Slavery is another. Feudalism, like that of the millet system under the Ottoman empire, is another still.
The point, is that instruments of capital accumulation that are not socialism, that do not reproduce co-operative planning of the economy, inevitably produce goods and services that benefit the few while enslaving the many.
Like I said, my critique of Islamic, or Christian, or Buddhist, or Taoist, or Hindu or whatever capitalism, is that it is still capitalism. It turns humans into cogs to be ground up into dust and sets people against each other, scrambling over each other, to escape it. Even the capitalist themselves - be they Christian, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever, is not immune to this.
If he does not increase exploitation, someone else will and outcompete him. If he does not increase alienation and robotise his workers both flesh and steel, someone else will. If he does not gamble on debt based instruments and crash the economy, someone else will. If he does not short and asset strip a previously functioning company, someone else will. If he does not enjoin the state to invade another for its resources, someone else will.
This is the incentive structure behind capitalism. You do not change it by changing its face.
My argument is not moral, it's economic. It's not personal, it's political.
But what is it that you propose to replace capitalism with, in one sentence, please?
Instruments of capital accumulation that are not socialism, that do not use co-operative planning of the economy to deliver goods and services, inevitably lead to exploitation.
Or to put it another way, socialism is the co-operative planning of the economy to deliver goods and services, in an effort to eliminate exploitation.
That's what I propose.
But people think "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and it didn't work."
That's not a political or economic argument, that's an ideological argument.
My argument, is that populism and only populism, will be able to overturn elitism. The elitist ideologies of woke capitalism, Islamic capitalism, Christian capitalism, and state capitalism are wounded, but not out. And nothing fights more viciously or more deviously than a wounded animal.
Socialism today is more accepted in the most anti-communist country on the planet. People are seething at the hedge funds, the banks, the multinationals, and the politicians that represent them, that have robbed them of their present and endangers their future.
Only obfuscation and moralising stands in their way. Idealism like the insanity at CHAZ/CHOP and wokeness of the professional managerial class stands in their way. And Christian and Islamist ideology that claims salvation in heaven while promulgating hell on earth by failing to repudiate political economy of capitalism and instead providing a parallel capitalism also stands in their way.
The mob is roused, baying for blood. Instruments of confusion will be deployed. The truncheon and the shield will make their return, more and more. Elites will beg for "normalcy", and "civility" and hope for a return of the sanctity of institutions. In other words, a maintenance of that which they manage: an instrument of subjugation.
The question now becomes: do you believe in subjugation, or emancipation? I believe in no gods, no masters, only the inherent dignity of humanity. And its boundless potential if competition is suppressed and co-operation is unleashed.
When you criticise my position as being "an ideological argument", are you saying I am guilty of thinking that my ideology is better than your ideology? If so, I put my hands up to it, but surely you are guilty of the same thing too?
No, I'm not saying that you are making the "my ideology is better than your ideology" argument.
I am saying that you are not taking into account the systematic effects of capitalism. I'm not making a judgement of your ideology. Like I said, I don't care if it's capitalism with a social democratic, or Christian, or Islamic, or whatever face.
The logic of capitalism, concentrates power and wealth to the few while squeezing the many. Changing the face does not change the underlying logic.
Islamist capitalism does not change the logic of capitalist accumulation. That's all I'm saying.
Like I said, it's not personal, it's political. It's not ideological, it's economic. You're not making an economic argument that proposes a change to the economic logic of capitalism. That's what I'm criticising.
Islamist capitalism has moral arguments against certain aspects of capitalism. It does not change the systematic, economic fact that the bank will want to stiff the prospective shop owner and encourage debt based contracts. It does not change the fact that the shop owner will want to stiff his workers so he makes more money to pay back his loans. It does not change the fact that his workers will need to stiff each other when competing for a job.
All this time you have kept making ideological arguments instead of economic ones. That's what I am criticising.
There is no such thing as "Islamist capitalism" and I think everyone knows that capitalism is impossible without usury and Islam would ban usury. I do not acknowledge the existence of "Islamist capitalism" and I don't think anyone else has heard of it either. Is it because it is a term of abuse like Islam being a "death cult"?
I still have no idea what you mean by "an ideological argument".
Capitalism existed before usury and it will continue even after it is banned. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism as a system of production. The Abrahamic religions explicitly called out usury, sure.
But that did not prevent capitalism as a system from emerging from the religiously dominated feudal eras both in the East (under the Ottomans) and the West (under the Roman empire successor states).
This failure, to me, represents the systematic failure of whatever you call Islamic finance, or patronage, or whatever else. And the systematic failure of Catholic patronage, and the divine right of kings, and so on.
We cannot go back. Not because it's not practical to do so. Not even because I think it would be a terrible idea to do so. But because the systems of production of today are more efficient and do produce more things for more people than what came before. Going back to a less efficient system invites mass starvation and a worsening of inequality which is already bad enough.
Your assertion that just because "usury is banned under Islam" means that "Islamic capitalism doesn't exist" is specious. You are misunderstanding modes of finance for systems of production. But at least it is an economic argument, so it's better than before.
Under capitalism, things are produced, not because they are needed, or wanted, but because they are profitable. That's the reason why Islamic development banks issue debt instruments, even non-usurious loans. It's not because they do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it out of expectation that profit will be made.
And the debtor applies for the loan out of expectation that the capital, if invested, will also make profit. And he pays his workers, less than the amount they make for him, because otherwise he could not possibly make payments back to the bank otherwise.
Do you see now why I call Islamic finance "Islamist capitalism" instead of whatever you idealise? The full set of humanity's needs and wants is not always profitably produced. Neither still, are the full set of capitalism (and Islamist capitalism's) goods and services that are profitable, necessarily wanted, needed, or good.
Capitalism's failure - and Islamist capitalism's failure by extension - is not that they don't produce good things. It's that they don't produce enough for humanity. What is produced is constrained by what is profitable.
Islamist capitalism, and social democracy, and Christian capitalism, can paper over these cracks - what economists call "market failures" - with tax transfers, tithes, charity, goodwill trusts and volunteer work. This can mask the fact and ameliorate the failures to capitalism as a system of production. But it does not address the failures at the root itself.
I don't oppose Islamist capitalism because of what you think I think about Islam as a religion. I don't think it's a death cult. I would even say that it might be marginally better, like social democracy and its wealth transfer systems, than the capitalism of today. But I oppose it because I see it as always subordinate to profit, and always reproducing, the systems of conflict and exploitation.
But surely the profit motive is what makes profit seekers embark on any commercial enterprise which should not be discouraged or restricted provided they are not usurious or for purposes deemed unIslamic.
Ah, I think I see now why you are so confused when I say you are making ideological arguments instead of economic ones. For you, Islam's moral imperatives are so totalising, and capitalism as a mode of production so normalised to you, that you won't, or can't, seem to separate the economic imperatives of profit, from the moral imperatives that are imposed by Islamic ideology. If anything this is proof that socialism as a whole, has lost the ideological arguments, not long (it's been barely 1 generation) after socialist parties gave up on the economic arguments. And that the Islamist moralising ideologies, imposed largely by the likes of the CIA have been successful.
If you have the time, consider looking into the history of the CIA-supported Islamic revolutions against the socialist movements. First in Indonesia, massacring some 1 million Partai Komunis Indonesia members and so-called "sympathisers" and replacing it with a state Islam ideology; then in Iran, first with the Shah massacring the Tudeh party, but then his repression resulting in the Ayatollah's cleric led revolution massacring what remained of Iranian Tudeh Party members, torturing them and forcing the survivors to adopt state Islam or be hung off of light poles.
In both cases, the Islamic case was made - "neither communism nor capitalism!" as a rallying cry for the people carrying out the massacres - that the Islamic system was more moral, more respectful of tradition, and better suited for the society that lived under the control of its clerics. Khomeini in particular adopted anti-capitalist, almost Marxist slogans that his demonstrators marched with as they overthrew the Shah:
Islam belongs to the oppressed, not to the oppressors.
Islam is for equality and social justice.
Islam represents the slum dwellers, not the palace dwellers.
Islam will eliminate class differences.
We are for Islam, not for capitalism and feudalism.
Islam originates from the masses, not from the rich.
In a truly Islamic society, there will be no shantytowns.
In a truly Islamic society, there will be no landless peasants.
The duty of the clergy is to liberate the hungry from the clutches of the rich.
Islam is not the opiate of the masses.
The poor were for the Prophet; the rich were against him.
The poor died for the Islamic Revolution; the rich plotted against it.
The martyrs of the Islamic Revolution were all members of lower classes: peasants, industrial workers, and bazaar merchants and tradesmen.
Oppressed of the world, unite.
The oppressed of the world should create a Party of the Oppressed
The problems of the East come from the West — especially from American imperialism
That you redound to the profit motive as a method of driving what is produced. That you can see that places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other Islamic states have rampant inequality and utilise slave labour. That there are some $2 trillion USD of assets under management by Islamic financial corporations - yet there are cyclical crises, poverty, rampant war, corruption and failing economies across the MENA region. I think this to me, says something.
To me it says that I have lost the ideological argument. Islamist capitalism has won. It destroyed the PKI, destroyed the Tudeh Party, destroyed Abdul Nasser's vision of a secular Arab socialist federation. At the same time, I do think that the recent history of the world, has proven my criticisms of Islamist capitalism, and capitalism's weaknesses more generally. It cannot provide stability for the Islamic world. It cannot provide security of the Islamic peoples across all those nations. And it cannot do anything, other than replicate the same criticisms of capitalism that liberal progressives do, while reproducing the same problems and the same failed solutions.
Charity? Patronage? 20% tax transfers from rich to poor? You sound like a secular liberal watching the Keynesian consensus crumble as Nixon took the United States off the gold standard during the Gulf State induced oil shocks. You and the liberal democrat are not so different.
I am proposing that the West adopt Secular Koranism and believe that is more likely to happen than America adopting Socialism with American Characteristics.
I was actually thinking of you at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goCnnYijlcI from 49:00
Islamic capitalism is not so different from the Keynesian consensus. It will replicate the profitability squeeze leading to crisis and recession, just as it did in the 1970s and 80s.
Secular Koranism is the height of Islamist idealism. Americans are no more likely to adopt the tenets of a faith so incongruous to its Protestant origins and culture, than they are to suddenly start believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
On the other hand, Americans do see, day by day, hour by hour, that the oligarchy that runs the United States economy, is corrupt, sociopathic and hateful. Just as they saw the Arabs in the times of the two Gulf Wars, and the Afghans from 2001 to today.
The base informs the superstructure. The economy and how it is run, influences people more than ideology - Islamist, Christian, liberal, conservative - or otherwise.
That the CCCP fell after decades of economic stagnation. That the Western powers adopted financialisation, mass criminalisation and austerity after the Gulf State oil shocks. That the Arab socialist federation foundered as Arab economies failed to diversify away from oil and its constituents were torn apart by Israeli expansionism. That the Asian "tiger economies" could only rise to prominence through massive infusions of Western capital while workers in America and Europe were systematically impoverished.
Time and time again, the ideology rises after an economic development. Just as Khomeini found success by wresting control of oil away from the British Petroleum concessions, Cuba by adopting import-substitution-industrialisation, South Korea by accepting massive amounts of Western liquidity to build up heavy industry, and so on.
I fail to see how the economic base of Islamic finance - call it Secular Koranism if you like - it's still capitalism to me - will somehow find more success in delivering the economic goods to Americans, than a rising class consciousness leading to a left populism.
Keep your faith. Islamism has killed more leftists like me, than it has delivered economic gains to people like you.
I'll keep mine - not in the existence of some Abrahamic god - but in the potential of humanity to co-operate and strive - if only the capitalist competitive struggle of all against all were moved away from.
You don't seem to understand the premise of Secular Koranism. It is not "Islamist idealism" because I am agnostic and therefore not Islamist in the sense of being a believing Muslim. You don't have to agree with me, but you should not be deliberately falsifying my position. Secular Koranism is Khavian Pragmatism. It is saying that you don't have to believe in God to agree that it would make sense to abide by the rule of law based on a moral system that has had a better track record than any secular political ideology.
You don't seem aware that all the Abrahamic faiths worship the same Abrahamic God and there is only one Abrahamic God. The narrative of the Abrahamic God is that He revealed the Torah first to Jews and then the Koran to gentiles having first divided humanity into Jews and gentiles. While Jews and Muslims believe their scripture to be from God Himself, even Christians themselves do not claim that the New Testament was from Jesus, let alone God. It is the easiest thing to show that Christianity is a cooked up religion cooked up by a bunch of bishops who couldn't even agree called to attend a council by an emperor who wasn't even Christian. In fact, it was the American Republic's First Amendment based on quran.com/2/256 that destroyed Western belief in Christianity. The moral vacuum of Christianity should be replaced by the legal system of Secular Koranism as soon as possible to shorten the period of chaos from transition from matriarchy (a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents) back to patriarchy (a society that prioritises the preferences of married parents) using the vehicle of theocracy.
Again, you switch back to ideology, once you run out of arguments beyond "but no usury!" when putting forth Secular Koranism - Islamist Capitalism - as an alternative to neoliberal capitalism.
But thank you for finally recognising that yes, I in fact, do not care about Abrahamic monotheism and its tributary religions after only 5 replies. Yes, I don't care. Because I care about the real, not the ideal. I don't care about capitalism with a Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or liberal, or conservative face. Because they all lead back to the failing systems we have today.
I don't think it should be controversial of me to say that the stifling blockades and encirclements that attempted to destroy the Soviet Union in its infancy, then the multiple invasions, then the multiple wars that decimated its population, still produced a superpower that stood astrode the world and posed a credible threat to American hegemony passed down from the British Empire.
Meanwhile, the CIA blowback regime of Islamist theocracy in Iran, the State Department subsidised regimes in Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Turkey; the increasingly radical State Islam governments of Malaysia and Indonesia who used CIA backing to slaughter socialists - these countries still remain poor, corrupt, dependant on the indulgence of Western capital for investment.
Clearly, something must be deficient in Islamist capitalism - what you call Secular Koranism - to fail across multiple regions, multiple cultures, to deliver economic gains for normal people. These regimes have had CIA or State Department backing for nigh on 3-4 decades! And yet they crack at the first sign of global financial hiccuping. Many of these regimes rely on either slave labor, or an immigrant underclass, or both, to prop up a Islamist patronage capitalist economy. Or they rely on foreign direct investment to even have a chance at growth. And even with these profit-maximising moves, they still can't develop beyond Third World, or Second World conditions.
But let's set all of that aside, since you seem so insistent to talk ideology. I want to call out this segment in particular:
The moral vacuum of Christianity should be replaced by the legal system of Secular Koranism as soon as possible to shorten the period of chaos from transition from matriarchy (a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents) back to patriarchy (a society that prioritises the preferences of married parents) using the vehicle of theocracy.
It should go without saying that if you do not know what you are fighting, you will fail before even picking up arms. You fail to understand even the basic tenets of capitalism - how could you possibly hope to reform it to Islamist capitalism?
Capitalism isn't patriarchal, or matriarchal. It does not care who runs families. It will expand capital accumulation into every nook, every cranny, every social relation, every political relation.
All that is solid, melts to air under capitalism. American capitalism isn't Christian, or matriarchal, despite your assertions. It's just capitalism - where all production is for profit.
And, contrary to your assertions, the American system also has a progressive tax system, it has patronage and welfare and charity, it has special benefits afforded to religious organisations, including Islam.
And yet it is still immiserating people. Just as Islamist capitalism immiserates people in Muslim countries, despite $2 trillion USD (and growing) in assets under management with sharia compliant financial institutions. Despite many of these countries being beneficiaries of US aid. Despite many of these countries enjoying a relative amount of stability, especially the Gulf States and the successor states of the Dutch East Indies and Indochina.
Something is not quite right, in the house of Islamist capitalism. Maybe, just maybe, it's because profits are in command, instead of a state that plans for the benefit of its people.
Who else apart from you talks about "Islamist capitalism"?
"Clearly, something must be deficient in Islamist capitalism - what you call Secular Koranism - to fail across multiple regions, multiple cultures, to deliver economic gains for normal people."
Please note that I do not call "Islamist capitalism" Secular Koranism. I *deny the existence of "Islamist capitalism"* which is a figment of your imagination. Please do not invent new concepts, label Secular Koranism with it and then expect me to defend the label you have put on it. If you want to label me, at least put a label on me that I will not immediately remove.
For the avoidance of doubt, I deny the existence of "the house of Islamist capitalism". Secular Koranism would ban usury.
"the increasingly radical State Islam governments of Malaysia and Indonesia who used CIA backing to slaughter socialists" Which socialists were "slaughtered" when?
"You fail to understand even the basic tenets of capitalism - how could you possibly hope to reform it to Islamist capitalism?"
Again, I remove the label of "Islamist capitalism" that you have put on Secular Koranism. Capitalism cannot exist if usury is forbidden. If you don't think usury can be abolished, say so, instead of putting inaccurate labels such as "Islamist capitalism" on Secular Koranism.
If the US itself adopts Secular Koranism and bans usury, then the problem of usury can be dealt with at source and the serpent's head cut off. The inducement would be irresistible. Abolishing usury would allow individuals and governments all over the world adopting Secular Koranism to default on their usurious loans.
And who else but theocratic radical imams tries to whitewash Islamic finance, Islamist capitalism?
As though it were anything other than plain old capitalism, just with Imams involved in the state?
Khomeinism, whatever passes for ideology in the House of Saud and the other Emirati states, all of them deliberately positioned themselves as anticommunist.
All of them disappeared, or tortured, or killed leftists as Nasser's project foundered. You live in the shadow of Nasser's failures and the CIA's efforts in the region to use Islamism as a foil to the radical social changes fomenting in the era of decolonisation.
Which makes it all the more ironic to me that you position yourself as an "agnostic" yet express views entirely congruent with the attitudes that the American intelligence services wanted to foster in the Muslim world.
For a politicised clergy and state. For a retraction of whatever social gains Arabic labor organisers fought and died for. For a reimposition of a current of Islam that was literally promoted to counteract Soviet communism.
I'm beginning to believe that you have no goals for progress in society - only re-imposition of religion. Well, I got news for you: capitalism has already destroyed the power of religion more thoroughly than socialism with its express atheism, ever could. Because socialism at least respected freedom of faith - even if you don't respect freedom of faith in others.
Let's be real, here. You are not so different from the liberal democrat, economically. Post-production redistribution and charity and patronage has already been tried.
Ideologically of course, you could not be any more diametrically opposed. But the base - economics - informs the superstructure - ideology.
How soon will it be before you run into the same problems, the same contradictions? And how many are you willing to kill to suppress them?
Denial that profits are in command under "Secular Koranism" did not change the fact that it is still capitalism with an Islamist face.
"And who else but theocratic radical imams tries to whitewash Islamic finance, Islamist capitalism?
As though it were anything other than plain old capitalism, just with Imams involved in the state?"
You see to be saying that you don't believe Secular Koranism would ban usury or that it wouldn't be successful.
We are just talking about things in theory anyway. I am saying it is the intention of Secular Koranism to ban usury.
If you are saying I won't be successful then you are also in pretty much the same boat as far as anyone who is skeptical about your proposal to introduce Communism to America ie whether it would be successful.
Let us not confuse things in theory with things in practice. The Koran explicitly and specifically bans usury in quran.com/2/275 Communism does not forbid usury, does it? The Koran encourages commerce and even endorses loan agreements as well as protecting private property. quran.com/2/282 I think the average American mindful of his property would find the bargain offered by the Koran more attractive than believing in the promises of Communists of a centrally planned economy. We all know that Communism will always be attractive when most in a country are feeling poor.
'Which makes it all the more ironic to me that you position yourself as an "agnostic" yet express views entirely congruent with the attitudes that the American intelligence services wanted to foster in the Muslim world.'
What attitudes are you referring to?
"For a politicised clergy and state."
There will be no clergy under Secular Koranism. The closest thing you would get to clergy would be the judiciary whose role it is to apply and interpret Koranic principles.
When you say "politicised" clergy, do you mean a clergy that not independent?
"For a politicised clergy and state."
There will be no clergy under Secular Koranism. The closest thing you would get to clergy would be the judiciary whose role it is to apply and interpret Koranic principles.
When you say "politicised" clergy, do you mean a clergy that not independent?
"Because socialism at least respected freedom of faith - even if you don't respect freedom of faith in others."
It is my contention that the First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256 The White House Koran belonged to Thomas Jefferson and it was he who drafted the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom which subsequently became the First Amendment.
"How soon will it be before you run into the same problems, the same contradictions? "
What are these problems and contradictions that you predict global Secular Koranism would face?
People do need to be motivated by profit to embark on risky commercial enterprises. Without usury, the economic consequences of greed would be more manageable.
Without usury the economic consequences of greed would be more manageable
You keep coming back to usury - is this actually your one and only point?
Capitalism is not about greed. It is not a moral failing to exploit workers, for lenders to exploit debtors, for factory owners to externalise environmental costs.
It's just a consequence where profits drive planning, instead of democracy driving planning. That you fail to realise this - or deliberately obscure with a moral argument this fact - this more than anything is why you will fail to change capitalism.
You keep saying that you are an agnostic, yet your goal is the re-imposition of religion, instead of any goal of material improvement for the common person - Both Communism and Liberalism are categories of progressivism. Jews, Christians and Muslims do not believe in progressivism since they are supposed to believe that the only form of progress is towards the afterlife. This life is but an examination hall
If this is the case - why are you even bothering with Secular Koranism as an alternative to capitalism?
This is the core contradiction of presupposing that a moral framework, imposed on an amoral system of production will somehow lead to any change.
But if you don't even care that there is material changes for people - why bother imposing the moralistic framework in the first place?
Surely this would produce an accelerationist tendency, where the goal of this ideology is not to fight for better conditions on earth, but to worsen conditions on earth so that people would kill themselves as a method of escape.
I'm not sure if by your responses you are actually trying to convince me that Islam is a death cult, instead of my pre-existing belief that it can be a force for good.
Let's be real here. Time after time, I keep holding the mirror up to you - trying to get you to rationalise your contradictions - and you keep clowning yourself.
Capitalism is not about usury, it's about profits driving planning. Any basic bitch business owner can tell you that.
If you believe that just "banning usury" is going to result in an explosion of "Secular Koranism" (Islamist capitalism) - while believing that religion itself is a sufficient substitute for human desires of a better life in the material world - what are you even doing?
If you don't care about progress, just push your religion. And if you do care about progress by banning usury - why justify it with a material argument like "banning usury would encourage mass defaults on usurious loans" - instead of quoting scripture?
You are a neoliberal with an Islamist face. That's all. Like I said - you keep demonstrating yourself to be no different economically from the liberal democrat, materially. While justifying it, morally. But the material world is what matters to most people. The dead will take care of themselves, so the saying goes. And this being the case - you may as well argue for no economic changes whatsoever. Your rewards are not on this earth, but when your bones become worm food.
If you care not for progress and consider that to be the source of durability of religion, then you shouldn't bother advocating for change at all. Just sit back and read the Koran, content that your enlightenment will guarantee transcendence in death, even if life is pain.
https://islamicmarkets.com/index.php/publications/derivatives-in-islamic-finance
When even Islamic finance analysts say that the reliance on a juridicial class, whose judgements using scripture on the material costs and benefits of a financial instrument are too subjective, this is what I mean by a politicised clergy, or a religion-imposed framework in political economy.
There are material interests at the basis of every financial instrument proposed. Those who have access to the jurists - who make pronouncements not on material cost and benefit to the capitalist or worker, but on subjective interpretation of a religious text will simply create a system rigged to benefit jurists and those who can lobby them.
This sounds familiar. It sounds like, neoliberal capitalism. It sounds like, capital concentrations pushing their material interests by regulatory capture.
Islamic finance - Islamist capitalism - poses that by "limiting" investment and risk taking to "purely material" goods and services, while banning usury - yet recognising the time value of money by issuing loans is totally incongruent and contradictory.
These are the contradictions that I have tried to allude to you - yet you keep brushing them off and saying "but no usury!"
The project of Islamic finance, which is not "neither communism nor capitalism", is just capitalism. I don't know why you invest so much intellectual energy in denying this, even as you insist that the profit motive is necessary for individuals and businesses to take on risk.
If future profits drive planning, just like capitalism and if the reliance on jurists interpreting scripture becomes a necessary component of Islamic finance - just like financial regulators in capitalism - at what point is "Islamic finance" not just capitalism with an Islamist face?
And while you say that "oh actually the Abrahamic religions don't care about progress while capitalism and communism have progressivism at their core" - if this is the case - why even have profit sharing, or debt instruments, or loans, or any other financial instrument?
Surely if you "did not care about progress" then you would not care about future profits. Surely if the rewards of faith were a place in heaven, the time value of money would be immaterial to you. Surely if there should be a specialised class of jurists that are needed to produce judgements on financial instruments, a "second opinion" should be able to be sought - and a regulator placed on the regulators.
I'm sorry, but you're just a liberal capitalist. An anti-democrat who believes that religion should replace democracy, to be sure. But a liberal capitalist nonetheless.
"You keep coming back to usury - is this actually your one and only point?"
How many points do you want me to have? You were complaining about capitalism so I offered the solution to the ills of capitalism by proposing to ban usury without which capitalism is impossible.
"It's just a consequence where profits drive planning, instead of democracy driving planning."
What do ordinary voters know about planning the economy?
"It's just a consequence where profits drive planning, instead of democracy driving planning. That you fail to realise this - or deliberately obscure with a moral argument this fact - this more than anything is why you will fail to change capitalism."
Banning usury would make capitalism impossible because capitalism is impossible without usury.
"If this is the case - why are you even bothering with Secular Koranism as an alternative to capitalism?"
If what is the case? Why shouldn't I propose a better solution to your tried and failed Communism if I think my solution would solve the problem of capitalism better than yours?
"This is the core contradiction of presupposing that a moral framework, imposed on an amoral system of production will somehow lead to any change."
I am saying banning usury would abolish capitalism but fail to see how there is any "core contradiction" to this proposal.
"But if you don't even care that there is material changes for people - why bother imposing the moralistic framework in the first place?"
People do have enough to live on, but they are just not happy with their government. Secular Koranism is not about material things but also about catering to the spiritual needs of the people as well as their material needs. The one thing that capitalism and communism have in common is their obsession about material things. Man cannot live on bread alone.
The "moralistic framework" of Secular Koranism is intended to restore the patriarchy because the West is now a degenerate matriarchy and a declining empire with governments resented by its populace because nothing they do is in the national interest of any Western nation operating liberal democracy.
"Surely this would produce an accelerationist tendency, where the goal of this ideology is not to fight for better conditions on earth, but to worsen conditions on earth so that people would kill themselves as a method of escape."
The Koran actually tells people not to kill themselves. https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=29
"Capitalism is not about usury, it's about profits driving planning."
Capitalism is impossible without usury. Do you understand what I am saying?
People would not be motivated to embark on any risky venture without the prospect of profit, so let them be enterprising entrepreneurs and engage in commerce but without usury.
'If you believe that just "banning usury" is going to result in an explosion of "Secular Koranism" (Islamist capitalism) - while believing that religion itself is a sufficient substitute for human desires of a better life in the material world - what are you even doing?'
Secular Koranism offers the prospect of governments and individuals defaulting on their loans contracted under usurious loan agreements. What's there not to like?
"If you don't care about progress, just push your religion. And if you do care about progress by banning usury - why justify it with a material argument like "banning usury would encourage mass defaults on usurious loans" - instead of quoting scripture?"
I care about government in the national interest and it would be in the national interest to restore patriarchy because only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.
Why would I need to quote scripture to you again when you do not disagree with me that the Koran does indeed forbid usury? I have in any case previously cited quran.com/2/275 which is authority for the proposition that the Koran forbids it.
"You are a neoliberal with an Islamist face."
Have you known me to express approval of the policies of neoliberalism?
Are you in fact saying that you do not trust any government to ban usury, even when it says it will? I am sure there will be many who will try to pretend that something that is in fact usurious is not and seek the approval of an Islamic government. Here is a how a non-usurious loan under Secular Koranism would work:
I lend you $100.
Every year you fail to pay me back $100, you pay me $10.
No, abolishing usury, would simply change the nature of capitalism, it would not end capitalism. It would not eliminate exploitation, it would not eliminate externalities, it would not eliminate the powerful exploiting the poor.
All you are doing by instituting "Secular Koranism" - Islamist capitalism - is replacing financial regulators with a scripture-interpreting class.
You're just replacing one group who drives incentives for investment and capital allocation, with another.
Somehow this is supposed to be fundamentally different. Except the optimal moves - production for profit - remain the same. What isn't produced for lack of profit, remains the same. The harms reproduced that are profitable, remain the same.
Capitalism is production for profit. That's all it is. It's not democratic, it's not moral, it's not Christian, or Islamic, or Jewish, or patriarchal, or matriarchal.
A business does not invest to go into usurious debt. It invests to make future profits. It takes on debt - usurious or not - not because it wants to, but because it recognises the time value of money and wishes to accelerate its growth by taking on a capital infusion now to pay it off later. That's all investment is. Non-usurious investment is still investment for capital accumulation. It's still capitalism.
This is basic economics. There is no calculation of interest at the heart of investment - interest is only taken into account when calculating the liability or risk of an investment against future profits. But the basic drive for capital accumulation and investment - increased future profits - is still there. Still capitalism.
This is what I mean when I say that you misapprehend the basic tenets of capitalism. Or that you purposely obscure it.
Debt based instruments, credit lines, profit sharing, leasing, insurance taken out against voided contracts, having a "financial priesthood" that interprets scripture (a body of laws) - that's just capitalism.
You can give it Islamic names like murabaha or ijara or qard hasan but at the end of the day, these are just capitalistic financial instruments. And they exist because of prospects for increased profits for the lender. And debtors take them because of the time value of money - money today is better than money in one year. People are wanting something they do not have, by taking on debt.
Which is itself, a material want for progress, accelerated by a creditor. If it were the case that these devout Muslims - so devout that they forsake all but only Sharia-compliant financial instruments have "transcended the need for progress on earth" as you say - then the whole point of Islamic finance would be void!
Either they don't want progress on this earth - in which case taking on debt, usurious or not - is useless. Or if they do want accelerated progress, then Islamic finance by facilitating this material want, is inducing people to want what they do not yet have!
So which is it? Do people want progress, or not? Is Islamic finance progressive - in which case it violates your assertion that Abrahamic religions don't want progress on this earth - or is it somehow "non-progressive"?
And if people want what they do not yet have - does that make them apostates in your eyes? After all, the whole point of credit and debt is to give people something today even though they don't yet have the money to pay for it.
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92355/2/A%20Critical%20Study%20of%20Debt%20Instruments%20in%20Islam.pdf
I would argue, that the very existence of Islamic finance, and Catholic finance, and capitalist finance, and communism and socialism proves, that whether people are Muslim, or Christian, or capitalist, or socialist, people have an inherent material want for progress on this earth. People want what they do not yet have, because they want to see tomorrow better than today. They want their children to live better than they, they want their community to prosper. And they want that progress today, or at least faster than what tomorrow could normally bring.
Your assertions that the believers of Abrahamic religions do not themselves believe in progress, are contradicted by the very existence of debt financing under capitalism and Islamist capitalism, and collective planning under socialism.
It is planning for profits under capitalism and Islamist capitalism, and Christian capitalism, that perverts this drive for progress, and promotes heirarchy, exploitation and externalisation. It sets people against each other as each one anarchically tries to increase their capital accumulation at the expense of another, rather than progress together by co-operation and sharing and collectively planning.
What you think will bring progress to people - Islamist capitalism, which is just capitalism - will instead fracture and divide people. But you already disavow progress - so why bother changing the system? Just adopt accelerationism and join an Islamist death cult like ISIS if that's the case. Become the shock troops for accelerating harms on this earth so that people long for death and a heaven in the next life.
The increasing fracturing of the Arabic speaking world after Nasserism was forcibly snuffed out - is a consequence of Islamic finance. Not merely American or Israeli influence in the region. Only socialism with collective planning, can bring people together instead of drive them apart. Only under socialism, where the self-interest is aligned with the collective-interest and planning is done for progress in society instead of for profits is how history can truly begin.
The Koran banning usury but not commerce which is motivated by profit would make the consequences of commerce more manageable. Secular Koranism has not bee tried, but Socialism has been tried and has failed. Communism will always be attractive when most people are feeling poor. In the end, the ideological argument will be won by the political activist with the most persuasive narrative. Secular Koranism offers to deal with the spiritual needs of people as well as their economic needs. You offer them nothing more than the proposal of "Let's try Communism again, harder and faster this time."
'So which is it? Do people want progress, or not? Is Islamic finance progressive - in which case it violates your assertion that Abrahamic religions don't want progress on this earth - or is it somehow "non-progressive"?'
The belief of those who want theocracy is that theocracy is more likely to give us heaven on earth than progressive secular political ideologies.
"Only under socialism, where the self-interest is aligned with the collective-interest and planning is done for progress in society instead of for profits is how history can truly begin."
I am reminded of the fanaticism of the born-again Christian.
Carl Schmitt was right when he implied in Political Theocracy that we make gods of our political views and force others to worship them.
Again you attach on Secular Koranism the label of being "Islamist capitalism" that I immediately remove. Again, you do not answer my question of how it is possible to operate capitalism if usury is banned. If you think I am lying that I intend to ban usury, then say so. If you think I cannot ban usury *even in the theory*, then say so. I have already demonstrated that it is possible to make loan agreements commercial viable for the lender by charging a flat rate fee.
Carl Schmitt was right when he implied in Political Theocracy that we make gods of our political views and force others to worship them.
The belief of those who want theocracy is that theocracy is more likely to give us heaven on earth than progressive secular political ideologies.
These are literally your own words coming from what apparently is supposed to be an agnostic.
Look. I don't ask for much of my interlocutors, but at least I would prefer that people be consistent.
If you agree with Schmitt's theory - which I don't - I believe that people are motivated by material interests first, and justify it with ideology after the fact - does this not make you as guilty as you charge me for dogmatism when you push theocracy?
Are you an agnostic, or not? Do you agree with Schmitt, or disagree with him?
But moving away from ideological questions, I like how you explicitly recreate usury with this example:
I lend you $100.
Every year you fail to pay me back $100, you pay me $10.
Replace the "late fee" with "10% flat annual interest" and you have... usury
You have literally recreated the "zero interest" credit card and denied that it is usury. It's like you've never walked into a bank before when you're recreating the same financial instruments that you can get at a normal capitalist bank. It might not have Sharia compliant or Halal loans on the door but the principles are the same.
Bank fees are usury too. That's how banks accumulate capital with "zero interest" or "micro-finance" loans. Again: profits have to be made. Capital has to accumulate. Transactions must extract excess value from the user under capitalism, Islamist or not.
Debt in principle already produces an inequitable transaction because the lender has power over the debtor through the imposition of any condition or any safeguard against contract breaking.
Again, I refer you to this analysis of debt instruments under Islam to illustrate how takfir Islamic financial instruments are even when put up against their own principles.
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92355/2/A%20Critical%20Study%20of%20Debt%20Instruments%20in%20Islam.pdf
The only way a loan could be non usurious in principle and in intention would be if:
- No interest was charged
- No fees were levied, even if late payment occurs
- No contracts binding the debtor to some kind of financial or legal punishment if violated were possible: this violates the agency cost of debt which alters the behaviour of a debtor even before taking on a debt contract.
Only these principles - which basically zero the cost of default - would produce a truly equitable transaction under Sharia. But if this is done, then there's no money to be made! No profit motive to drive the investment and risk taking you so admire!
Again you are conflating commerce - which is trade of goods and services - with finance - which is the use of capital, to grow capital stock through various instruments. Trade might produce equal exchange because material goods and services must change hands, but finance is by definition an extractive process where one party serves another party's financial interest under contract. One party must lose under finance or else there would be no profit and excessive risk for the creditor. Which already violates the principles you purport to espouse of equal exchange
I'm sorry, but I feel like you are no longer engaging in good faith at this point, you're just trolling. I don't know if you are being deliberately inconsistent to annoy me, but whatever the intention, it's working.
I am muting this comment thread on my end. Feel free to respond but I won't, any more.
Post a Comment