Allende was not an ultra!

If that's the case, why did Project Cybersyn have so many armchairs? Checkmate, opportunists: armchair futuristic ultraleftism is what was killed by Penishit, not "democratic socialism".

Aside from trying to consolidate production into the hands of a bureaucracy, Project Cybersyn was pretty neat, though.

Other urls found in this thread:


He does. But don't forget the books.

why do leftcoms and anarchists have such a problem with this? how else do you propose to coordinate a society until the technological development for communism is complete.

it's actually funny how soviets had so little chairs

Because if all this bureaucracy does is play the role of capitalist and allocator of goods at the same time, we have done nothing to production primarily for exchange. Ultras will oppose this because it's social democracy at the barrel of a gun, and anarchists will oppose this because it's at the gun in general (although anarchists must be credited for also having, while short and antecedental to their primary motive and duty of opposing hierarchy, a solid understanding of value production too).

First of all: the idea that bureaucratic management of capitalism constitutes socialism is already a misguided one. The aim of any movement aiming to birth in post-capital is to end production for exchange entirely, which means abolishing all structures that uphold the law of value: money, the firm and the bourgeois state (which ultimately means the state entirely; the state historically being birthed for no other primary purpose than to serve capital).

Furthermore, we, that is at least ultras, but anarchists too, do not oppose large scale organization for this at all. What we oppose is that this mass organization makes its task something only deceivingly for this purpose. This means that for ultras (the Leninists anyways), a vanguard ceases to be a vanguard when it doesn't fulfill its promised role of guiding us to an eventual post-capitalist paradigm, or at least fulfill its promise of establishing a basis for this to come. Putting production and distribution of wage labor's produce into the hands of a bureaucracy (yes: post-NEP Russia has the money value form, production for exchange, "worker-controlled" Sovkhoze and Kholkoze style cooperative units exchanging goods on the market) does neither of those things. In fact, it only makes sure that this capitalist system will eventually have to liberalize; to meet the ever-required desire of capital as automatic subject to multiply, or to recoordinate things for this bureaucracy, which more and more ceases to resemble of a bureaucracy, but a traditional bourgeoisie entirely.

Similarly, for anarchists a syndicate or anarchist/free territory would cease to be anarchistic if it went into a route promoting counter-revolutionary praxis, as it just as much ended up doing in Spain: (which is why ultras do have solidarity with anarchists, because in spite of their utopian theory, their own ideas never managed to even be properly brought to fruition and tested because its supposed ideologues deviated from their ideals and surrendered to compromise with the Whites, Spanish Republic, Korean nationalists, etc.).


WTF I love leftcoms now!!!

Bad news, Joe…

Mutualism is a TRANSITION phase dummy dummy

No it isn't; at least not in principle. Mutualism purports itself as different from capitalism already and Proudhon categorically opposed the communist movement for its desire to change things in its entirety in his commentary on communism and Marx.

Yeah but it it is called mutualism not proudhonism

If you belive that democratic capitalism, piece wages social liberalismand credit unions are capitalism response to its crises, then it is dialectical correct to consider it a transition phase

Mutualism may not be Proudhonism, but Proudhon's defense of mutualism's perogative clearly shows what kind of system it is what its immediate function is.

Marx convincingly showed that a "transitional phase" that consists of a variation of the capitalist mode of production is not able to be revolutionary or truly altering productive relations, because in the long run such a society walks to the beat of the law of value. This is why it is sooner than later always impulsed to follow measures that reply to the need for capital to expand. This is why a "transitional phase" must necessarily be a phase of complete destruction; of the abolition of the present stage of things. Failing to do this is precisely why the USSR, PRC, Catalonia, etc. all failed; they did not effectuate the immediate change to the communist mode of production, instead aiming to modernize, which if indeed necessary at the time, shows that conditions were never right.

Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution

Never did I claimed that mutualism by itself will give us communism, the transition phase must go beyond mutualism, I claim it is the beggining of it, lenin's "fascism is capitalism in decay" was proved wrong, as we continually see more and more social liberation and liberalism being pushed by the ruling class, despite the vocal right wing minority

While a purely mutualistic phase wont bring us communism, it will save us from capitalism

Source: your ass. Stafford Beer made a big deal about interfaces being easy to understand and interact with, as ordinary workers were expected to work with it. That was a time when typing on a keyboard was a specific thing some people learned, not a general thing, so the design had only a couple of huge buttons and knobs you would have been able to use with gloves still on.

You found some pretty pictures and made an ignorant hipster thread.

Okay, there are several things going wrong here.

First of:
wholly undermines the previous point I made, or seems to ignore it. To recapitulate Luxemburg's prior point:
Note here that "workers' interests" under a cooperative, as market advocates often suggest, or within capitalism in general, are never a thing within the field of production. This "workers' interest" to democratize the workforce is a pseudo-interest: the real interest is impossibilizing their relegation to multiplying capital as automatic subject; to exploiting their labor towards this end. This "interest" in cooperating to this goal are thus no more interesting to this condition than the benefits of the welfare state and, just like the welfare state, this entire point of supposed "self-interest" completely supports itself through capital enumeration; the welfare state doing this indirectly through taxation, the cooperative doing this directly through delegation in the process of allocating exchange and surplus.

So when you say:
you wholly ignore that the law of value will never allow it. Since all you've done is alter the form of exchange production, you will assume all of what material conditions henceforth produced: massive output, incredibly high social averages in production, etc. To assume that we came here because there is an upper class that is comically evil; driving us to this point of exchange, is to idealize the bourgeoisie as villain, instead of just fulfilling a necessary function in capitalism: managing and planning production to meet market demand. Here you would delegate this function to another worker and, as Marx put it in Economic Manuscripts (the first assemblage, of the 1844 period), society is simply conceived as abstract or ideal capitalist: allocating labor and performing it. The law of value is here not escaped; it is just handled differently. Capitalism is here thus not saved; its various contradictions not eliminated, no nothing: all we have is an impotent, post-modern way of organizing the productive process.

For reference of the text I'm talking about (which mentions Proudhon):
>Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.


Complete misinterpretation of what decaying capitalism is, first of all, and a quote/claim that was never proven or sourced to be Lenin's.

To take a claim we do know is properly attributed: Walter Benjamin said, in his commentary on fascism, that fascism is always a reaction to a failed revolution, and that it is such a failed revolution that is the product of a working class incapable of going on under capitalism with the giant antagonism it then presents the working class under crisis. And this is true: fascism took root in Italy and Germany because its respective revolutionary movements failed to properly challenge capitalism as well as take power against it before fascism organically developed itself against it. Because indeed, fascism was never a political movement: the merger of enterprise and state as fascism first imagined it; when it was still an offshoot of syndicalism, never came to exist as it did. Fascism as we've seen it was an adoption of working class elements, but completely gelled with and for the bourgeois state's interests. (Read more about this here:

Furthermore, to say that capitalism is today decaying is to first of all completely be ignorant of the prior point: that if it were, we'd see proper opposition to it (the most active political movements now are right-populist; and oppose left-liberalism, not capitalism in any form) and most of all, we'd be ignoring capitalism's own methods of recuperation. The ductility of capital being much too strong to collapse under its own weight; having all the tools to sacrifices its excesses, discipline labor, punish its own ruling class, et cetera.

You either don't understand what bureaucracy means, or I'm not clear enough. When speaking of bureaucracy, we speak of an interwomen, centralized point through which things are managed. This is not class-dependent; anyone can, if the bureaucracy is structured as such, become involved in the bureaucratic process. That is to say that:
completely misses the point. Under post-war communist USSR, we also saw a bureaucracy with no bourgeois character; its members not taking the role of individual investors and entrepreneurs receiving the full benefit of wage labor (especially not in the much more decentralized Soviet kholkoze and sovkhoze cooperative systems), but still the law of value persisted. Why? Because capital only needs disciplined labor to guide it; not class divisions (although capitalism was first born from class division, as developing through bourgeois reovlutions), which explains that a bureaucracy as such remained entirely functional despite being participatory.

*record scratch*
OH NOES TEH CENTRALZIED POITN! What the fuck does your opposition to this have to do with Bordiga? Drop the flag.

The point of is: You have never read anything about cybernetics. You found some pictures and made a thread. You are a post-recycling retard memer who emulates other posers on reddit and liberalcom.

>When speaking of bureaucracy, we speak of an interwomen
Really makes you think.

Haven't mentioned Bordiga in my post on the subject of Cybersyn once.


Okay, I'll bite. Which books about cybernetics have you read?