Strikes Under Socialism?

Would workers be allowed to strike under socialism?

Who are they striking against? Themselves?

yes, but in socialism there would be no reason to, since they own the means of production; witholding their labor is no longer a meaningful tactic.

Assuming it's the MLs that seize power, they'd be striking against those who (indirectly) own the means of production, the nomenklatural

This, in true socialism we wouldn't need bosses where we're going.

It depends what you mean by socialism. If you mean a "socialist" state then yes workers should go on strike in Cuba, China or Vietnam or in state that is transitioning to socialism.

State socialism? yes they definitely could, and it would have to be discouraged. Individual workplaces don't control the product of their labor, the greater democratic society controls it. They would have to vote if they wanted to change distribution (The more egalitarian the distribution the easier planning would be, ideally most essential goods would be distributed evenly to all citizens)
co-op/market socialism? No, they own the co-op, no reason to strike against themselves.

but, I doubt workers would strike under socialism because there's no capitalist class continually trying to compete and lower workers wages/workers would be paid much more than bare subsistence

What if part of the workforce of a co-op is upset about perceived unequal treatments or breaches of contract?

Then they're wrong and should be beaten the fuck down.

How would that even work? I mean maybe if a minority of workers don't like how a certain workplace is run, they could take their share of the MoP and go make a new workplace elsewhere. What would not working at all accomplish though?


revolution -> vanguard bureaucracy -> strike them -> economic democracy

The only shame is that such strikes in Eastern Europe in the 80s ended in implementing capitalism.

That's fair, I think much less likely than strikes under capital

"Give me my share of this oil rig!"

You're retarded if you think I was giving a universal scenario.

You're retarded if you believe that communal property would allow one to take one's "share" of the property in virtually any case at all. That was one of Stirner's problems with the whole concept, that if it was truly his property he should be able to destroy or discard it at will, but this would not be allowed for common property.

It's not properly any individual's property though. You don't have your personal share, you have a share of the whole thing equal with everyone else. If the communal property isn't being used to full capacity, anyone can take what remains to use it for production. They can't destroy it because it's not their private property. The whole distinction is that using or possessing the property cannot make it private. It's still owned communally, but people have a share in that they can hold it as long as they're using it. Stirner is wrong because in no sense is it his property, and nobody should pretend it is.

That's something that need to be stressed out when people are shilling for common ownership of MoP, most people are thinking in terms of private, individual property because it's the model we grew up with.

Good question

I think so, yes, though I would prefer to see the unions and states cooperate.

One of many things. Education is a crucial part of the process.

Isn't that the stance of Fascist corporatism?

They wouldn't need to. If they did they would most likely be counter revolutionaries who simply didn't want to work.

Corporatism benefits the capitalist class and compromise is desired (at least in theory) between two diametrically opposed classes, which will never work in the long run. Despite its claims to find a "third way", it's really just a mask for maintaining capitalism and private property.

Under socialism, there is only one class, and my idea of cooperation is more for purposes of coordination and efficiency in favour of the workers.

I don't understand this, hierarchical structures will still exist, in one way or another, there will be always people with more power over others because of their superior knowledge, you can't expect a mass of people to work efficiently without a leader or leaders who possess the knowledge to run the factory as efficiently as possible.


Even people who know each other well and are friends have conflicts and misunderstandings. There WILL BE conflict over working conditions. There are different types of strike actions. Striking in the sense of refusing to work because of disagreement with the working conditions is one thing, blocking access to the means of production is another. The former should be allowed, the latter not.

Someone who knows how to run the factory as efficiently as possible is a co-worker who knows how to run the factory as efficiently as possible, not a boss, and the other co-workers would value his input because he's gone to uni and studied this kind of thing or has bretty gudd experience.

No. Strikes and unions would be banned by the revolutionary government because the working class won't need them (they already have the vanguard party to fully represent them).


Of course they would. Even in a genuine proletarian society you would have situations where one section of the workers would be at odds with others. For example the worker's state may itself have financial problems leading to pay cuts, or changes in tech and industry may cause conflicts between workers in different industries coal miners and uranium miners would be at odds over coal vs nuclear power plants for example. Say that an economic plan is drafted that calls for the building of nuclear power plants, coal miners may strike in protest.

Some ecofeminist wacko would sabotage her share of the oil rig. Don't deny it.

workers own the factory. that is socialism.

what hierarchy would exist under that condition?

If they will be allowed by other workers.

Just because you work is crucial to the industrial cluster, doesn't mean that you are allowed to blackmail the rest of the workers.

Did you read Wikipedia again?

What a fucking surprise. How unexpected. Who could've guessed. It's not like somebody explained everything over 60 years before.

Only if Capitalism is sustained.

People aren't equal.

> But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege.

Why would you want a share of the MoP rather than a share of production itself?

state capitalists not welcome

Care to defend your meme?

Tankies gonna tank