What is the economic theory which accompanies Communalism...

What is the economic theory which accompanies Communalism? Seems to me like you could have all the local democracy crap without actually changing the economic system, and Rojava is still just capitalist.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Christ I hate people who critisize things before they're even close to done.
It's like a bunch of construction workers show up to the first day of work on a new contract to build a school. Then start bringing in the equipment to start digging the hole to put the foundation in. At this point some lone kid shows up with a backpack full of new school supplies, sits down in the dirt and screams "WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SCIENCE TEACHER OH MY GOD WHY DOES THIS SCHOOL SUCK SO HARD IM TELLING MY MOM!!!!"

For Christ sake they're even fighting ISIS and Turkey right now. Give them a break.

Well, they're not going to survive as an independent entity for much longer, so they'd better hurry up with the communism they've been preparing in secret if they hope to create a basis for the same nostalgia as Kekalonia (which didn't wait years before doing anything remotely leftist, I might add).

Catalonia wasn't even close to communism so I'm not sure what your point is.

...

Bookchin advocates a decentralized planned economy with each municipality entitled to the resources in it's vicinity.

It's closest to Syndicalism, with the municipality and citizens replacing the trade union and workers

that was never socialism and you know it


literally the USSR

In the time you fags messed around and gave yourself excuses Marxism Leninism defeated all its enemies and build the greatest industrial power of the world in few decades inclusive rebuilding it entirely and even greater.

You fail with the first steps, every fucking time. Marxism Leninism failed once - in organizing against revisionism efficiently enough. Yet still, what was created is still in the substance of many great nations which people are longing back for Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Eat shit, anarkiddy faggot.

Grow up.

which is cool and all but try building socialism next time

This is greatly amusing, kakalonia shiteating faggot.

Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent–and to that extent alone–"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change. marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2

no one cares about your forced rivalry
the 20th century was a shit show and there is no pretending otherwise

And so, what is to be done if not all, but only part of the means of production have been socialized, yet the conditions are favourable for the assumption of power by the proletariat - should the proletariat assume power and should commodity production be abolished immediately thereafter?

We cannot, of course, regard as an answer the opinion of certain half-baked Marxists who believe that under such conditions the thing to do is to refrain from taking power and to wait until capitalism has succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium producers and converting them into farm labourers and in concentrating the means of production in agriculture, and that only after this would it be possible to consider the assumption of power by the proletariat and the socialization of all the means of production. Naturally, this is a "solution" which Marxists cannot accept if they do not want to disgrace themselves completely.

Nor can we regard as an answer the opinion of other half-baked Marxists, who think that the thing to do would be to assume power and to expropriate the small and medium rural producers and to socialize their means of production. Marxists cannot adopt this senseless and criminal course either, because it would destroy all chances of victory for the proletarian revolution, and would throw the peasantry into the camp of the enemies of the proletariat for a long time.

The answer to this question was given by Lenin in his writings on the "tax in kind" and in his celebrated "cooperative plan."

Lenin's answer may be briefly summed up as follows:

a) Favourable conditions for the assumption of power should not be missed - the proletariat should assume power without waiting until capitalism has succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium individual producers;

b) The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property;

c) As to the small and medium individual producers, they should be gradually united in producers' cooperatives, i.e., in large agricultural enterprises, collective farms;

d) Industry should be developed to the utmost and the collective farms should be placed on the modern technical basis of large-scale production, not expropriating them, but on the contrary generously supplying them with first-class tractors and other machines;

e) In order to ensure an economic bond between town and country, between industry and agriculture, commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants, and Soviet trade - state, cooperative, and collective-farm - should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity.

The history of socialist construction in our country has shown that this path of development, mapped out by Lenin, has fully justified itself.

There can be no doubt that in the case of all capitalist countries with a more or less numerous class of small and medium producers, this path of development is the only possible and expedient one for the victory of socialism.

Grow up. Might as well be an anarkiddy with that level of retardation.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

this autist isnt even a leninist jesus

Read Lenin. Oh wait, you're an anarkiddy. Just drink bleach then, should solve your problems of your inherent flaws.

You literally never had a socialist state

All you and your ideology has achieved is failure

You need to kill yourself, for the betterment of mankind

Okay.

Read Ocalan's Democratic Confederalism and Bookchin's The Next Revolution. Also his works on Social Ecology.

Also see these links to get an idea of what it looks like in practice:

cooperativeeconomy.info/the-economy-of-rojava/
rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/21042016
opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/rojava-revolution-on-hoof
rojavaplan.com/join-3-2-personal-account.html


Oh this is golden. They might not have achieved communism, but they're clearly working towards a communalist society. What do you suggest they've been doing all these years instead?


Best answer so far.

YPG with the quints

why bother responding? he knows nothing and will continue shrilling and asking you to suicide

I know what I would have done: chose a side. They needed to either play to the liberal capitalists well enough to get real help from the Brits and the French or go full bolshevik and get Stalin's help. Vascilating between factions displayed a complete lack of strategic planning.

If they had made toppling Assad their goal they would have been destroyed by now.
Likewise if they had refused foreign (American) aid.

Literal armchair geopolitics. I'm glad people like you are not in charge, for Rojava would have never gotten anywhere.

Wait, I thought you were responding to his dig at Catalonia.

Kill me.

At least get the Stalin mustache or the tank, geez.

Participatory economics and decentralised planning economy, i would think.

No such thing as a transitional society, ergo it's capitalism. You're either on a socialist mode of production or a capitalist mode of production. It's capitalism with communalist characteristics, but still capitalism. If the fucking USSR doesn't get a pass, then neither does the DFSNS participatory """"social"""" economy.