Daily reminder that socialized/co-operative capital is still capital and thus follows the same laws. An economy based on socialized capital functions exactly the same as capitalism as we know it and is thus not a single step towards socialism of any kind. Read the poverty of philosophy and critique of the gotha programme or fuck off.
Daily reminder that socialized/co-operative capital is still capital and thus follows the same laws...
The problem with that is it you want everything all at once or nothing at all. Plenty of leftist ideologies are Stepping Stones to full communism. Socialism is a direction. Stop being such a fucking purest, societal punctuated equilibrium happens when there is a revolutionary consensus.
So you get beat out in the other thread and think you can start another. Why don't you answer me there. As I explained in the other thread and you have no answer for, co-ops are for a transitional stage. There is no army for seizure of property and so we have to go about it another way
Also we know that it is not communism, but it isn't capitalism, and EVERY SINGLE ideology that includes stages only abolishes value later and therefore is beholden to capital. Unless the revolution is total and global, any socialist experiment will continue to be beholden to capital until the social union is the dominant global force.
Name a single reason why socialized capitalism would be a "stepping stone" to communism.
Planning, not markets. All market anarchist/socialist shills can fuck off where they belong.
These are the threads.
Because the market will be under the direct control of the workers, rather than under the control of bosses, which is step better than being under the control of bosses
You need to seize the property first before you can the planning, also the planning has to implemented gradually and most include means of gathering funds to get resources from still capitalist areas
Cooperative ownership isn't transitional though. It just divides private property to a larger number of people. There is nothing seriously pointing from cooperative companies towards worker control of production. The point of socialism is social ownership, which is partially achieved with state ownership combined with institutional mechanisms ensuring representative control over industry. It would be practically achieved with the abolition of the state and full public ownership and democratic control of the productive forces. Coops just invite bourgeois behavior.
I can see market socialism "working" in a straightforward way. I have no idea how to achieve communism. It sounds like a monumental task and even the end-goal is unclear aside from vague concepts.
Even Karl Marx thought Anarchism as a transitory system was a dumb fantasy. Read about the Withering away of the state. You can't directly abolish the state.
fucking kill yourself OP
Anything that doesn't make communism now is worthless. Communism is an immediate, immanent process, not a future forever postponed. More efficient ways of sublimating class conflict aren't radical or revolutionary
What do you think class struggle is? Under feudalism, one person owns most things and others are beholden to their whims, just below him his lords own everything he does not, under constitutional democracies the kings job was weakened, his property split and the lords enhanced with new property, as the process of liberalisation continued the kings job was removed entirely, and beneath the lords the merchants began to clamour for rights, now the merchants are in control and the proletariat clamours, each of these stages is a further division of property to be spread over a larger group. It is only when the division is absolute that no private property exists, when all property is so divided that only those in use of it own it in any way.
Also the nature of the property changes fundamentally, nobody actually owns it if decisions in regards to its use are decided democratically.
co-operative ownership is social ownership
Co op ownership Is is worker control, what do you think it is?
why? How can you have worker control and state control in tandem without one outweighing the other making it useless?
like direct democracy at the point of use?
and you need to build up institutions within the state before you can abolish it
so everybody getting a vote at their working conditions and community services are run?
how do they do this? They eliminate the petit bourgeoisie
this board has more than one ancom, black flag posters are fucking retarded
Why the fuck would you take half-assed measures when you've had a succesful revolution? And what makes socialized capitalism transition to communism when reproduction of capital is impersonal and the bourgeoisie is just capital personified? Fucking utopians. Socialized capitalism leading to communism makes as much sense as strawberry ice cream leading to communism.
Yeh but theres a specific one that has taken it upon themselves to denounce the idea of co-operative ownership and I think it is you.
But we haven't had a successful revolution and we are nowhere near having one.
Because it gives the workers real power to abolish capital which they do not have now, it puts the capital in their hands and under their management. If your argument is that no matter what, capital manages itself and we can't effect that, then doesn't that also negate the possibility of any kind of program every abolishing capital, because we simply do not have the human power to control the market?
You call me a Utopian, and yet you think we can have a revolution which will go straight from capital to the abolish of value and free distribution straight away. This is essentially what Kropotkin advocates, and I agree with him in spirit, I just think before the revolution can take place we must first seize all the capital, it is only then it can be turned straight over to free distribution by democratic federation. Its more like a military tactic than socialism itself. Tanks aren't inherently socialist, but tanks can bring you socialism, think about it like that.
What an utterly ridiculous straw man. One which almost no serious mind of the left would agree with, there is a history of successful co-operative and collectivist ownership being successful and increasing the lot of the worker.
Removing the boss, who has to be plead with, and replacing him with… yourself and your comrades, means you and your comrades can manage things your way, if you can't see this as a step towards communism you are just being obtuse to be frank. I feel like it gotten to the point where you know I'm right, so you're just flinging shit instead of admitting it.
(flags don't represent one person)
(flags do represent one person)
make your mind up
what the fuck does critique of the gotha programme have to do with workers cooperatives.
here's your (You)
just linking my other thread cos its related I think. Its about co-operative ownership among Honduran Peasants in the Aguan Valley in recent years and its context within a history of such ownership schemes in Honduras and central America at large.
The laws are not the issue, Marx clearly outlined that the laws of capital, if left to their own devices, would destroy capital, and socialize production. The Socialization of property is thus the primary responsibility of the working class.
Where Marx's contemporaries go wrong is that mutualism/market socialism would not stop the law of value, and that simply eliminating the results of the law of value, through strong social forces that cut down on capital accumulation and consolidation, would at once perpetuate the growth for the sake of growth as well as universal mediocrity by preventing larger, more efficient social organizations.
That's nice but consolidation and capital accumulation will only re-create the capitalist class.
You're both wrong. Planning will be the natural result of the socialization of production, it's already occurring under capitalism through companies getting larger and larger market share, and vertically integrated supply chains.
To say planning is good or planning is bad is beyond the point, planning should come about when it is the most effective form of organizing production.
Consolidation is precisely how production is socialized.
Yeah, consolidation under capitalism will lead to socialism. Why would you want a revolution to have a different form of capitalism?
Market socialists are fucking retarded.
Stay mad utopian. Let the grown ups build real working socialism.
how the fuck would it do that
a democratic coop where the majority of the people have a say in how the wealth is distributed literallly prevents a capitalist class
say that one coop became a conglomerate monopoly that dominated all aspects of industry, how the fuck would that be any different from a dictatorship of the proletariat/ workers state/ syndicate or whatever the fuck you want to call it?
Here's a thought, think of what happened when Mao and Stalin tried to force centralization of production. The amount of blood spilled was enormous and also needless, especially in regard to agriculture. The US centralized agricultural production in the 80's under the guidance of the Department of Agriculture and it caused very little disruption. The only problem was, the centralization in the US benefited no one but shareholders!
Precisely this, they are just caught up in being autistic about sticking to old theories that they refuse to accept it. Its basically syndicalism but instead of unions you have direct worker democracy
(with a wider union of co-operative workers in their various forms)
Let me stop you right there. The collectivization of agriculture was entirely necessary for both China and the USSR to industrialize, and in both cases it needed to be completed quickly.
but it isn't growth for the sake of growth, its growth in order to bring more capital under worker management and thus pave the way for free distribution agreements which when completed for all products will be communism
Didnt we have this thread yesterday too?
When we BTFO the titoists?
You mean these threads? where you all stopped responding and were thusly BTFO (or bored)?
Whatever the justification for it may be, the contradiction built into the necessity for perpetual growth is still there. The system that replaces capitalism cannot carry the same inefficiencies or it will die in the cradle.
but it isn't perpetual growth, it is growth only until all capital has been subsumed by the network, or if perhaps the network as expanded as far as to be able to produce all necessities and trivialities over a portion of the globe to the citizens within, assuming a large militant capitalist other section of the earth which was not conquered.
I don't deny that, I'm saying it could have been done without all the death that came with it.
The point is to show people what it's like to labor without a capitalist and to nudge them lefter. Class is the easiest part of capitalism to explain, so that's the best place to start when building a mass movement.
i can't see how this is so hard to understand really
Leftcoms please leave. There is nothing wrong with coops.
And just to add to this, you need the co-operative stage to develop the planning, you need the direct feedback of the workers managing themselves, so you can know how to set up the distribution networks, this has to develop organically, rather than be calculated as some abstract quota which we will attempt to fill, a growing co-op network will be and excellent place for this process to be carried out, as increased participation allows people to see directly how things work.
Daily reminder that Anarchism is Pure Utopianism, and it will get crushed in less than a second.
this. /end thread
I'm not actually sure how you can consider yourself an anarchist and be opposed to co-ops. That goes against almost
Democracy only works to legitimate it and make the transfer of information necessary for postfordist production more efficient. Might as well start a woke silicon valley startup.