Holla Forums, how are workers supposed to seize the means of production when all the factories have been outsourced to Asia? What are people in the first world supposed to seize? Banks and tech offices in New York and San Francisco?
Neoliberals like Thatcher made sure developed countries shut down their industrial sector and rely on the service """economy""" and the financial sector. And most of them are also dependent on food imports, there is not enough land and farms to feasibly feed their current population. We can see this very clearly in countries like the UK and Japan.
Makerspaces sort of replace the old union hall workshops, in a slightly bourg fashion, as they do. Otherwise, consider ordering MoP from China and offering it up for the use of your neighbors and friends, and/or start a public tool library.
…do none of you work a line? You realize they sell off all the machinery they can when they go under? All they'll have is 1950's era shit that's not worth the shipping cost.
But do they work?
I'm aware, you don't need to make the same products in the same factory though.
No. They'll need a shitload of maintenance. Even then, you'll have to make the rest of the line that got sold off.
What? You could adapt the packers and palletizers with enough ingenuity, perhaps, but the rest is specialized.
It's almost like Marxism was developed in response to the material conditions of the 19th century and isn't fully applicable to the present day situation…
glad you asked
Yes it is. Marxism doesn't mean "the revolutionary program Marx and Engels advocated for in a meme pamphlet".
SO basically, the only method for global liberation is to hope the third world gets its arse into gear? Damn, what are we in the west meant to do then?
First day? Infrastructure: power stations, communications (cell towers, internet), government buildings, railways - and, yes. Banks too.
After it, I would imagine some sort of crusade around the globe - if we are talking about US of A (because the only thing that there is in abundance in US are weapons).
Exaggeration. Either way, Russia was much much less industrialized than US now is. That didn't stop Bolsheviks.
I've been told about 10 times in one thread that US produces an overabundance of food and has no problem with it.
Where did I hear this before? Oh, yes. Kautsky. Bolsheviks will not last long.
Where did Marx say anything about necessity of global Revolution? It was Engels, and he meant that Revolution will inevitably spread.
What in the fuck is a global revolution? Goddammit Trotcucks are retarded as fuck
Workers in asia are still workers dummy
lmao that's more than population of my country
But thats wrong you faggot.
Thatcher's energy policy was definitely designed to weaken the working class. She closed profitable coal mines and made a transition to expensive natural gas, because she wanted to destroy the NUM.
Seizing the means of production does not literally mean seizing the current method of production.
And about not enough land and farms…. You've never tried your hand at gardening have you?
Thatcher didn't empty the coal mines, Thatcher didn't make British leyland produce crap.
The person who tells you you're wrong, is not the person who caused the wrong.
Yes, the US could probably be okay. But most European countries, Japan and a good amount of latin american ones simply don't have enough land to be able to sustain their populations. Famines would be inevitable.
That's exactly the rationale behind Maoism-Third Worldism.
jesus christ how horrifying
With proper organization? No, I think famines could be avoided without much problems.
Maybe Latin America, but they are effectively starving there already.
I N T E R N A T I O N A L I S M
China is communist, so the workers have already seized the means of production.
This always felt to me like an artificial contrivance to basically provide something like universal basic income except they still have to work Like, most of those jobs are of no significant benefit to society. Resteraunts are good but there are SO MANY OF THEM. Its like providing something that takes labor and effort to provide soley because it technically increases the amount of "value" in the economy.
Couldn't the means of production also be interpretted as the capital the bourgeois accrued shipping jobs overseas?
If you seize their capital, couldn't it be used to invest in new infrastructure and manufacturing back here at home?
What does that have to do with seizing the means of production? You can own property in a communist society, numb nuts.
I suppose, but how do you seize fiat capital, and in international banks at that? All their money in the banks will be theirs to keep, I'm afraid.
Europe is fine. Most of our food comes from within Europe anyways. Germany for example is the third largest exporter of agricultural goods and 70% of its agricultural imports came from other European countries.
But in a communist society, private property is abolished. Private property is not personal property.
Baka desu senpai
No it isn't. Marx was only correct in some of his criticisms of capitalism. Otherwise, shit.
This. With the rise of shareownership, multinational corporations, managerialism, etc.
The people who "own" the means of production are no longer the people that manage the means of production.
A man can dream.
Revolution in any modern "post-industrial" nation will necessarily involve a period of re-industrialization, based on local and regional production and supply chains, of essential commodities. The current system of global supply chains and just-in-time delivery, governed by profit margins and marginal costs, is intensely exploitative of both people and the environment, and entirely too fragile to be allowed to exist.
Don't tell me it's impossible to build new factories and industrial plants in service-sector-land, we have the resources and the knowhow and will find a way. This may mean shortages of goods during the transition, but first worlders are just going to have to deal with it.
Are you trying to imply that Bookchin magically solves the problems created by neoliberalism? I literally don't understand communalists, do you actually think a small decentralized community will be able to produce everything in the year 20XX? Wouldn't that dramatically lower the efficiency of producing goods? What about getting raw materials, they certainly aren't abundant in every location.
Is trade/exchange between communites not allowed under Bookchinism?
Is it? I'm honestly talking out of my ass, I haven't read any Bookchin other than the excerpts posted here, which seemed to fetishize small local organization and I (quite potentially incorrectly) assumed this implied self-sufficiency, as well.
So is communalism just communities where workers are paid the full product of their labor who democratically decide on internal decisions and trade? How does this get people who live in oil fields to stop pumpin dat oil?
Legitimate question, not shitposting. I even removed my shitposting flag.
International revolution. The workers of the world have no country.
Pay Asians to do it for you.
News flash : Asian workers are, indeed, workers.
As I understand it, the small municipalities proposed by Bookchin are confederated together, and exchange goods and services between themselves based on mutual agreements.
So you would have division of labor between agricultural regions, industrial regions, etc. but each population would have to come to agreements on what to trade with one another, and there'd be an overarching administration to facilitate and carry out what the municipalities decide.
This is textbook capitalism (including the "agreement" fantasy that was invented by and for capitalists).
If you and your neighbors collectively work the plot of land behind your house they can eat what they need and as a group democratically vote on what to do with the excess. If the people across town all work in the steel mill you might collectively decide to trade some bananas for some shovel upgrades.
If the working the land directly own the land and decide how to manage it through direct democracy you suddenly have a working system.
And if I have no land and no mill I can "democratically" decide to trade the only thing I have: my workforce.
I'm not a Bookchinite myself (or much of a Marxist), but I believe decentralised communities are probably the best way to counter the multiple environmental crises humanity is facing
And it's best to save the "golden age of fully automated NEEThood" dreaming until it's feasible
In an age when local decisions can have global consequences more than ever before, that is quite a strange belief.
There are plenty of factories in the west, you dork. Not only that, so-called intellectual property can be seized irrespective of where the company actually is located. So, I don't think the doom-and-gloom view makes sense.