Maarten van Rossem fileert Left Laser bij Tim Hofman

Dear Bob, how do you look at that? How do you look at the Soviet Union? How on earth is it possible that you have a conversation with poor Tim lasting 1:50 minutes? Sorry, 1:49. in which the Soviet Union isn't mentioned, where you wonder why people were so nasty to the communists after '45. Yes, how could that have happened, Bob? What a strange idea. I'll even admit that in some respects that resistance was a bit exaggerated, but nonetheless very understandable. Good. The sound is on. Let me think for a second. Just now I had something to say. Oh, the letters. Yes. Yes, I was being judged quite regularly, and an academic from Piet Prik mentioned that I hadn't prepared at all for that conversation about Bob Scholte. Bob? Yes, Bob. Sorry. Bob Scholte. Yes, what can I say about that? I had never heard of Bob Scholte. I had never heard of Left Laser. I must confess to our listeners that I absolutely do not follow the Far Left and its wondrous contours. So when you started talking about Bob Scholten it was a total surprise to me. Yes. And I hadn't the faintest idea who it was about or what his wondrous intentions are. Now I have prepared in the meantime, because I watched an interview with Rob Scholte or Bob Scholt see, there you have it already. I just can't get rid of that now. That's how it always is when you have such an expert in a little talk like that. Once you have that name wrong in your head, you can't get rid of it anymore. Right, so it's Bob Scholte, then. Yes. Bob Scholte, well now. The two gentlemen spoke with each other for almost an hour and a half, what am I saying, more than an hour and a half. And I must confess, I have never in my life heard such mindless drivel as in those 1:49 minutes. Because it's a mystery what it's even about. The gentlemen are probing each other's emotional depths. It soon becomes clear that Bob Scholte thinks that, uh, what's it called? Tim Hofman is dependent on BNNVARA, because that seems to be a part of it. I didn't know that at all either. But BNNVARA, as you understand, is part of the global capitalist system. So, in fact, that poor Tim is no good at all either. So he has to keep saying against the current that he has the best intentions and, uh, and so on and so forth. while both gentlemen keep laughing rather nervously at each other. But did I find out if, let's say, there were more substantial ideas hidden in it than what you told me in a minute or half a minute? No. No. And I do want to touch upon that, because it seems to me this is some kind of Disneyland where I just can't muster any understanding. Where I don't understand anything either. I must tell you. It is, it is constantly big words. It is the working population . It is world capitalism. It is Marxism . It is communism. Also such a peculiar thing that you can talk for 1 hour and 49 minutes about communism without even mentioning the Soviet Union once. Well, that's quite a feat, I would say. We should touch on that in a moment. Absolutely. Yes. The historical communism is a historical phenomenon, but the communism that Bob Scholte adheres to, that has nothing to do with history. That much is clear. That is an invention he probably made in an attic room after he had likely read a few pages of Marx. It couldn't have been many more if I look at it this way. And well, he has the best intentions for the world. So that's what it is constantly. The working population, the revolution, the capitalism. Yes, which revolution? Where is it going to happen ? Which capitalism does he mean? The nuanced capitalism in Western Europe, or is he talking more about Anglo-Saxon , American capitalism? That remains completely obscure. where he spouts all kinds of enormities, where you think: " Where does he get this nonsense from?" Because at one point he says: "Yes, that is a good example of how it can work, how communism can indeed accomplish something." And that is China, the industrialization of China. And then, of course, Tim Hofman says: " Yes, but it's not so pleasant there for the working population." Sorry that I keep laughing about it, but well, it is also a very laughable interview. And then Bob Scholte says: "Well, those Chinese employees have a lot more to say than the Dutch employees." Where you think: "Well, Bob, wouldn't you like to read a book for once? What I can highly recommend to you is extremely interesting. There is a whole chapter about it in the book 'Apple in China'. Because due to a lot of international pressure and indignation, Apple has tried in China to create a kind of space for, let's say, employee activism." Powerless and crushed extremely quickly by the regime, which of course wanted nothing to do with it. Bob, just read that chapter, boy. Before you start spouting nonsense about things you clearly have absolutely no understanding of. Because that's what I kept wondering during the course of the interview. What does he actually have any understanding of, then? Not communism. We will try to describe the drift of communism in a moment. But even there, you get the impression it's a communism that just floats around in the air like some sort of puff, without maintaining any meaningful relationship with a recognizable historical reality. Because that is the...that is the strange thing. Communism has a long history, and certainly not a happy history. And then, finally, Tim Hofman asks: "What...what have you actually accomplished?" Well, "he says," that we can actually use the word communism as a label without any trouble. "I can well believe it. If I were an AIVD employee and I had studied that, I would immediately think, sorry, we had better stop dealing with Bob Scholte, because it doesn't mean a thing. This is, yeah, boys 'romanticism. These are the boy scouts of the left. This is a, yeah, it is...it is a...Well, I can highly recommend it to anyone who thinks I'm painting this a bit too negatively. But it really is, I’m keeping it civilized and calm, and we’re laughing about it, because it is quite the interview, let's say. And well, it’s also constantly about psychology, of course. Whether you should always work hard or, in fact, not. So that you can also take it easy once in a while. Tim Hofman wants to take it easy sometimes, but Bob never wants to take it easy. Never ever. His compass is always set to his boyishness . No idea, by the way, what that" left "is exactly up to. Because if you think :" Yeah, that’s the embryo of a revolutionary movement. "" No, that's not it, "he says. Where that revolutionary movement is supposed to come from, that remains completely obscure. Whether that becomes a revolutionary movement only in the Netherlands or only in Europe—by the way, the EU is also never mentioned in 1 hour and 49 minutes. Actually, capitalism is mainly the American CIA, which—if I listened correctly, it could be that in the confusion I wasn't able to follow entirely. Not where the gentlemen had arrived. But did the CIA even exist at the time of the founding of the Soviet Union? And that is absolutely not the case. A lot of power is also attributed to the CIA. Yes, they have done all sorts of terrible things. But to think that the world is run by the CIA is also a misconception. The CIA was often completely wrong. Sometimes the CIA actually had it right , but then the American government didn't listen to them. Now, briefly, the history of communism and the question of where that revolution is headed and what the chances are that it will be a great success? Right? A revolution that relies on the working population. Did I listen correctly, Tom ? Then I have a disappointing announcement for you. You are completely worthless and uninteresting. For me, that applies squared. I can do nothing but talk and operate a keyboard , as you know. And even the latter is, in my case, with my new equipment, very , very questionable. Because the working population, that means bricklayers, pavers, plumbers, welders. I mean, that is just the working population as it largely existed in 1850, but which of course largely no longer exists today. The number of people who are actually employed in a construction trade is, I estimate, not much larger in the Netherlands than about 20 percent of the population, because the rest of the population sits behind a desk. Bob, you're going to run into problems with that. Because the question is whether that working population, well, sorry that I'm adding this, Bob, but the working...You can also work behind a desk. I admit, from your perspective, that is unthinkable. I don't know if you have taken a bricklaying course yourself to show a little solidarity with the working population. I don't know. But anyway, I wish you all the best with the bricklaying. Seems to be very pleasant and satisfying work, I've heard. You know that Churchill was also an amateur bricklayer. They said he wasn't any good at it and wasn't allowed to join the English bricklayers' union. Maybe, Bob, I think you wouldn't be allowed to join the Dutch bricklayers 'union either, if it exists. I don't know. It'll be a construction union or something like that. So yes, it could well be, Bob, that by the time you have your revolutionary train running, it turns out that the working population is, in fact, such a small part of the population that you can't make a revolution with it. Because you first have to show your masonry diploma, or that you're a plumber, or whatever else . But even stronger, there is a danger that a large part of the working population has no desire at all to make a revolution. And that is the path we need to follow for a moment. Why, how did communism end up after it—let's keep it simple—was invented by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto halfway through the 19th century? Because, yes, I have to add that. Bob brings it up at every conceivable moment, he says:" I am a Marxist. "" Fine, he is a Marxist. "So yes, because that is a, let's say, an ideology or even a scientifically justified doctrine, if I have understood it all correctly, which says something about the structure of society. Because every , every mode of production, that was an idea of Marx, had its own class structure in itself. At the time it was written, that was a very correct idea. And capitalism, as Marx saw it, would automatically lead to a revolutionary uprising of the working population. Because in his view, and looking at the industrial development of the 19th century, the workers were doing worse and worse and worse, right? And the capitalists were pocketing more and more and more of the surplus. what the economy produced. Um and that would eventually lead to the working population, right, they would rise up out of misery and then there would be a big revolution and then, right, the industrial system would be taken over by those who are allowed to and can take it over. Namely the people who work, who do the work there. Not those capitalists, because they are, as you know, fat men with top hats and a huge cigar. In that respect, something has changed fundamentally in the sense that the cigar has disappeared. Whether those capitalists are smoking cigars behind closed doors, I don't know exactly. But anyway. Uh, how did that end? Marxism was therefore not just a social analysis. It was also a model, a predictive model about a revolution that would inevitably come as a result of the dynamics of the industrial system, as Marx saw it in 1850, broadly speaking. Yes, in fact, the annoying fact presents itself to Bob that since 1850 that industrial system has changed in nature very strongly and that the current industrial system in no way resembles the industrial system of 1850 anymore. And that also resonated in the class system, which was put together very differently then than it is now. And how did that go? Well, initially, the communists—the Communist Manifesto—aimed for a great" Kladeradatsch, "a great revolution. But as industrial capitalism continued to develop further and further in the second half of the 19th century. A very interesting development occurred, of course. Namely, that capitalism was already generating so much prosperity that not the entire population, but a segment of it, could already significantly benefit from the wealth that the system—that the capitalist system—was generating. And certainly around 1900, the question naturally arose:" Wait a minute. "" In fact, a part of society has already become so prosperous that the chance of them standing on the barricades to start a nice revolution isn't really there. "A classic example is the Paris Commune. Whether you can view that as an uprising of the working population, I honestly doubt to a high degree, but I know too little about the Paris Commune to state that with certainty. In any case, it ended badly, because, let's say, the leadership of the commune was shot dead at that cemetery in Paris. But by 1900, the question was:" Yes, how should we actually proceed with our revolutionary plans? "Is it still meaningful to work toward a revolution? Is there still a chance for revolution, or would it be wiser to actually work with the democratic possibilities that exist, however limited they may be? And then, of course, a labor movement emerges, an extensive labor movement that also gains a political component. Think of the SPD in Germany. Very quickly, I believe, the largest party, which initially had no influence, but naturally began to gain more and more influence over time. In short, the industrial system changed so significantly between 1850 and, let's say, the beginning of the First World War. That the revolution, or that idea of revolution, was actually in retreat. In the Netherlands, we can think of Troelstra, who misjudged the situation and thought there were still revolutionary possibilities. He rhetorically started a kind of mock revolution, and nothing came of it. And with that, Troelstra was effectively finished, though he did remain in parliament to my knowledge. So yes, that entire socialist...or no, let me put it differently. The organization of the working population changed its nature quite drastically. A large part of that working population was willing to cooperate with the existing system, provided they were better compensated. And that was increasingly the case. And that is, in fact, how the social-democratic movement was born. In most Western European countries, a social-democratic movement emerged that , in many respects, got its way and increasingly gained influence over the socioeconomic landscape. But then something terrible happens. We can conclude that in hindsight. Namely, a revolution does break out in Russia. But Russia, if you look at Marxism for a moment, Bob, perhaps that is why you apparently take absolutely no account of Russia and the Soviet Union. Because what happened in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the ideas of Karl Marx. In the sense that Russia—let's put it as sharply as possible—was a completely backward country, which did have industry in St. Petersburg and perhaps a bit in Moscow, but was in fact still a country that, in terms of class structure, had only just escaped feudalism in the late 19th century. And many socialists in Western Europe also said," Wait a minute. "" Russia is not at all ready to have a revolution. "" That shouldn't be happening at all. " And from that, Leninism emerges. Because Lenin says," No nonsense. "" If you have the goose, you must grab it. " " We are going to make a revolution. " And those Bolsheviks were, of course, initially a tiny part of the rebellious population. The problem was just that, due to the First World War, not only in Russia but elsewhere—think back to the Netherlands—the existing authority had been enormously eroded. You see, for example, in Germany, as a result of the First World War. The classic Germany of the Empire disappears; the Emperor, as you know, emigrates to the Netherlands. Yes. Yes, nowadays Geert would have said," No way to a German Emperor. "" What are we to do with him? "" He can report to a desk first, and then we'll see what we should do with the German Emperor. "But that is not at all how it went back then, because Wilhelmina was quite willing to offer hospitality in the Netherlands. So yes, in those years a split arises between, let's say, moderate communists—better called socialists, or democratic socialists— on the one hand, and the Leninist-Bolshevik tradition on the other. Namely, that it is perfectly fine to use large-scale violence to bring the glorious future closer. And that split has, of course, proven to be a disaster in the ensuing decades. Just as the revolution in Russia has actually proven to be a disaster for the whole idea of a revolution and that you can thereby bring about a more just society. Because we can agree on one thing. Yes, the Bolsheviks did industrialize the Soviet Union. Although you have to wonder in hindsight, right, how meaningful that was in all sorts of ways. But still, perhaps that is precisely why they were able to resist the German army in the Second World War. That is one of the few positive aspects of Soviet communism. Because the Soviet Union was a horrific, a horrific dictatorship with concentration camps. Right? And it is assumed that the Stalinist regime murdered 20 million of its own people, of its own population, before the horror of the Second World War arrived. So yes, dear Bob, how do you look at that? How do you look at the Soviet Union? How on earth is it possible that you have a conversation with poor Timmen lasting an hour and 50 minutes? Sorry, 1 hour and 49 minutes, in which the Soviet Union is not brought up, and in which you wonder why people were so nasty to the communists after '45. Yes, why would that have been, Bob? What a strange idea. I even admit that, in a certain sense, that resistance was a bit exaggerated, but nonetheless very understandable. And how do you stand now regarding what took place in the Soviet Union? If you also consider that the working population in China on the assembly line, huh, that there my my, what's it called? Take a look. are making my Apple watch. Although I am not sure where. By the way, my phone , I just turned it off, because it was made in India. It is not in China, but this is one part of those new production lines they have set up in India. Anyway, but on my watch. Yes, sorry for interrupting for a moment, ladies and gentlemen. It is, uh, difficult to talk with Bob, of course. I have put on the Apple watch now. It is a very strange watch, because it keeps asking if I am a man or a woman. And yes, that investigation is still ongoing, so I think that still has to be, uh, that still has to be decided. But I have a very complex watch face now. where you can see the craziest things. And you can change the watch face by swiping a little. I swiped from left to right, from right to left, but the watch face doesn't change for me, so I'm doing something wrong. That shows you, ladies and gentlemen, if you are not well-informed, just like with Bob, then you say all sorts of things that are absolutely untrue and have nothing to do with reality. So the working population hasn't been defined anywhere. If I understand it correctly, I might as well kill myself, because I am an obstacle on the road to the glorious revolution. Tom, by the way, is sitting there looking as if he’s invented the wheel. But no, my dear sir , that’s not such a big question. If you don't define what the working population is or who could be considered as such, then the question is:" Do you actually know exactly what you're talking about? "And my impression is that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I am also baffled that, even under that interview , you see reactions like:" Finally a sensible conversation, "which makes you think: what do...what do those people hear that I apparently can't? A revolution, yes, where? By whom, exactly? Because that’s already the problem; you don't even know who the working population is. And it must be the working population that makes the revolution, because that is, of course, the Marxist adage. Uh, but anyway, that is also not clear at all. Uh, is that revolution a Dutch phenomenon, or is it a European phenomenon, or should I see it globally? I have the impression it is a global project. Who is going to lead that is not entirely clear to me. How, uh, say, the immensely complex global financial system will be brought down, which in fact dominates capitalism. Also capitalism. Yes, they are always such big words. Capitalism, the working population, the revolution, Marxism. There is no specification provided anywhere. It’s just pleasant chatter from guys who have...well no, a glass too many, because they, of course , represent a...I don't know if they are supposed to be teetotalers. That is not entirely clear to me. But especially that poor guy, that poor Timofman, who asks if he can rest every once in a while. No Bob, Bob, you are not allowed to rest. As long as you are alone in the world, there is no resting . Absolutely not. It is really Leninism through and through. A bit of Leninism; the name Lenin doesn't even come up in this conversation. Bolshevism doesn't come up in this conversation. You know, you think, guys, what on earth is this about? So yes, those people complained about the fact that an academic should be properly informed before engaging in a conversation with someone. And besides, the letter writer also thought it would be enormously useful for Bob and me to have a conversation. That seems totally useless to me, honestly. We are not going to do that, because I am not going to waste my valuable time on this kind of complete nonsense. Every form of historical dimension is missing. Any form of reality check is missing. Any attempt at defining all those great scholarly terms is missing. I mean, where is it supposed to lead? Uh, yes, what does it remind you of? It reminds me of a group of, uh, not-so-bright boy scouts setting off without a compass and without, uh, proper clothing for a hike, a long hike on the moors. Well, you know how that ends. Before you know it, you have to call emergency services. Then a helicopter from capitalism has to come to save them from their plight, I think . Yes, it is, uh, 1 hour and 49 minutes . I swear. I watched it all the way through. I did think after an hour that I can't take this any longer, I can't stand this. But in the end, I watched it through. It is utter nonsense. I hope Leftlezer does useful things. Helping old ladies across the street. Uh, people who can no longer do their own groceries. Helping with buying cookies. I really hope for all that. Kind of, kind of just as good as Tim Hofman. He does all kinds of very useful work. But yeah, Tim Hofman is also, uh, that question that those within BNNVARA don't dare to ask at all . Well, okay. Uh, so much for Popschot. If you listen to this podcast regularly , but you don't follow us in your podcast app yet, please take a moment to do so now. It is, in fact, the very best and fastest way to support this podcast. Thank you. Did you also hear things that you actually did agree with ? Where you thought," There's something to that? " No, absolutely nothing. No, it is so vague that you never know if you can agree with it or not. Yes or no. But you didn't mention one part about politics. The, the, the current politics on the left. No, the current politics is completely pointless. No, it does not align with the wishes of the working population. My impression is also that if you would vote for revolution, for the completely theoretical idea that you would spark a revolution. And then you will see that, of course, a large part of the working population thinks," Yeah, get lost. "We have a very nice semi-detached house. We have a little car parked in front of the door. We go on vacation twice a year. The kids are in pre-university education. I mean, you can get lost with your revolution. That is actually the theme that I have briefly discussed between 1850 and now. That is, it is the problem. But now the question: does this all have something to do with the powerlessness of the left? Uh, I don't think so, that's actually, this is a helpless attempt to root around in the past of socialism and communism to extract something from it and find a living root that you could do something with. But it is clear that his historical knowledge is simply zero. So you, you effectively have nothing to gain from that. If he were to read up on it, he would find out very quickly that it's useless, I think honestly. But now, the powerlessness of current social democracy. Which is currently the largest party in the polls in the Netherlands. Let's, let's not pretend it's one of those fringe groups, right? Yes, maybe Bob also wants to become part of the fringe. That could naturally be the case. Just another party to add. He mentioned BIJ1. That is indeed a fringe group. Yes, but BIJ1 has disappeared from parliament, of course, right? That is courageous. But, but that hasn't yielded anything either, because also, also what is it called? That, that Black broadcasting organization and, uh , all those other black cycling clubs and whatever else they are. That is all being gathered together by Bob. Those are all subsidy projects that are of no use to you. That is, those have already sold themselves out to capitalism. Then comes the big" also. "Capitalism never really comes into its own. What is capitalism exactly? Is the Netherlands still a capitalist country? Is France less capitalist? Uh, what should we think of Russia and China? Right, it has sometimes been argued. I think rightly, that current China is in every respect the most successful capitalist country in the world. The fact that it happens to have an upper floor where that crazy party lives, that is, that is a whole different matter. What is capitalism according to you? Well, let's say, that the, the entrepreneurs can go their own way freely. Well, they've shown that in China. And you see that if you let them go their way freely, it is extremely effective. You know, that you set an investment flow in motion that is truly impressive, given that China in...20, well, let's round it off to a little less than half a century, has become the most important industrial country in the world. So you see that it, that it is possible, but not, but not very, uh, not very democratic, of course. Let alone that the working population in China would have much of a say. That is not the case. Uh no, we were talking about the Social Democratic parties and their visible powerlessness. I personally think that has several causes. Strangely enough, I think one of the most important causes is, of course, that the basic idea of social democracy has been realized. Namely, real prosperity for the vast, the vast majority of a population. To my surprise, Rob Scholt—sorry, Bob Scholte—did say that income inequality in the Netherlands wasn't actually that large. So apparently he had read something about that, but that it concerned the wealth gaps, which are indeed enormous. Not just in the Netherlands, by the way. That is a problem that, in fact, occurs in all Western countries. And as we know, also occurs in China and in Russia. Apparently, they are not immune to this problem of extreme wealth either? I have to open a capitalist can of water, ladies and gentlemen. It's just complete madness that you can sell water in an aluminum can. That right there already shows how sick this society is, and those assembly line workers—you also wonder, where is that still...could there still be an assembly line somewhere? Well, surely there must be. Yes. It's mindless nonsense.