Will we have X under Gommunism!??!?!?



Other urls found in this thread:


I loathe the mind-numbing "will communism have X" threads as much as any sane person but that article is just incoherent rubbish.

I agree. You just go kick his ass.

What a horribly little brain aneurysm. It manages to combine the worst aspects of anti-intellectualism, populism, ultra sentimentality, and wishful thinking.

Caring about the organization of daily life isn't productivist necessarily. It's a totally valid practical and theoretical question that will not be solved easily and we should be prepared for it. This reeks of the idea that communism can be brought about immediately, by sheer will.

Well then you obviously care about it, since we won't be getting there in a week.

Ugh. I for one care about structures more than "People," since I've never seen the latter roaming around undetermined by the former.

Wow, mister, you are so cool, I bet ya, I bet ya could play the guitar.

Yes, comrades worried about transitioning to communism are your enemies. Shoot them on sight. (t. totally your comrade)

Won't the proletariat post-rev be concerned about how to organize production and distribution? I guess we should send them to business school.


Wasn’t this a major issue with revolutionary Catalonia, a lack of understanding of how to organize labor and production? If I am not mistaken, every communist should give a big fuck about this to avoid the pitfalls of past revolutionary bodies





I'd suggest sending that to the author for a response, but Jehu hates David Harvey with a burning passion and would probably ignore you based on the author alone


How can a proletariat exist after it has been emancipated?

The quotes are from an anarchist historian's (Ealham) book that I can't get hold of so I keep relying on Harvey's quote from the book.

Ah, yes, instant communism. Maybe read some history books? Ponder upon the DotP?

You'll the one who believes in instant revolution. No, it's not "post-revolution" when we have taken the Winter palace.

get that shit out of here.

The DotP losts long after the revolution's initial phases are successful.

Indeed. And just as long isn't the proletariat fully emancipated yet.

jehu is a better communist than half this board

Let me drop some knowledge on you:

A reply to some knuckleheads on Holla Forums


"No" - Rafiq

Marx himself wrote the Critique of the Gotha Program. There is this Soviet textbook about political economy in socialism:
And in modern days there is Cockshott.
How the fuck are we supposed to know? Are you implying that changing the socio-economic system is not a conscious effort and just happens? Then how come many thinkers have outlined liberal capitalism before it existed, like Smith?
There is labor market in socialism, nice try.
Dumb strawman.

There is no labor market*

First, a Soviet textbook about political economy in socialism is not about communism; it is about socialism. If read my post carefully, I specifically state that communists do not care how communist production will be organized.

Cockshott is also discussing socialism, not communism.

Second, if you don't know how long it would take for communist relation of production to emerge, how can you say we won't be getting there in a week? Just say you have no idea how long it takes, nor how to even judge the question.

Third, how can there be a labor market under socialism? To whom are the workers selling their labor power? A market implies the sale of commodities. We know for certain that under communism there is no production nor sale of commodities. Under socialism, there is no capitalist to sell commodities to. So, to whom are the workers selling their labor power?

Why is there no pdf. to download? Fucking marxists.org with its Stone Age coding and maintenance strikes again.

Yo Jehu do you listen to Jeru The Damaja?


It's interesting to hear a leftcom being pedantic about socialism/communism as Marx made no difference of it and spoke of lower/higher stage of communism. I think the organization of production under full communism is indeed something that can only organically arise out of socialism, I think Kropotkin talked about it in Conquest of Bread. I mean, yeah, it's utopian to think about the details of production under full communism but what the hell man, that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about practical organization under socialism, and not purge people who do this (as you stated in your first polemic).
What are you trying to say? How is this an argument? I think we can both agree it won't be a week, since revolutions tend not to be global anyway, but in one country. Looking at how long it took for feudalism or capitalism to fully emerge, I think it's fair to say that it will take a good amount of time.


Talk about disingenuous.

You can't really make universal predictions in politics. A communist revolution in India will have a totally different outcome and road of development than in the US. Back to your previous point: there are several works done by several theorists (from the humanities and sciences alike) trying to outline developmental strategies for these very particular situations. Jameson comes to mind (with his American Utopia) or Cockshott (who acknowledges that say, if x country already has supercomputers a much smoother road can be taken than for a country that only has personal computers available.) This isn't anything new. Lenin & co. were already arguing for taking into account each revolutions particularities while keeping in mind the global aim.

You are just arguing from ignorance…

Are you trolling or are you really this dense? It was a witty retort and it seems you completely missed it. Reread, plz:
>>If anyone is concerned about how to organize production, they can go to business school.
>Won't the proletariat post-rev be concerned about how to organize production and distribution? I guess we should send them to business school.

It's next level autism when you are replying to an anonymous comment on a Chinese puppet theater board on your little blog, expecting academic standards (something you don't have either).

We can safely say that it will take years, even in the most developed countries. New cultural practices, political structures, productive and distributive system will have to be adopted and experimented with. This is common sense, and have been a recurring element in every communist revolution, be it Marxist or anarchist.

I find this funny, because you are the kind of guy who BTFO's famous theoreticians like Badiou in your little blog while clearly not having read them or about them. For him a successful revolution needs a prolonged struggle, fidelity by the masses to the emerging political truth, and to sustain it they need to create the necessary organs (political, cultural, productive, etc.) for it to succeed. You come of as some idealist who thinks that post-revolution a society can act like if it were already living in a communist society while the material basis is clearly not yet there. (To add insult to injury like the half-read leftcom you are you take Marx's word as dogma and not a system of practice and analysis ever changing to the conjuncture.)

>At outset of World War II, Washington constructed 1500 brand new factories in 18 months. Is the commenter arguing that we can’t completely automate production in 18 months?
You can't. Not even in the west yet. The technology isn't there yet to fully automate everything, and even if it were there you'd need to construct them. You aren't talking about a thousand factories that were mostly geared for the same productive purpose (war machines), but the complete remaking of the complete productive spheres of society.

Can we create 1500 new automated restaurants? Yes. Can we automate everything (research, technology, maintenance, infrastructure development, million other things)? Not yet, but an egalitarian society with the aim of liberating the workforce can surely get there sooner.


You just did, at least implied.

And you are the chosen one. Fucking off yourself already.

(Again, schoolbook argumentum ad ignorantiam.) You can start here:

We are "doing" the capitalist mode of production and capitalist organization of labor and politics (unions, parliamentary parties), you dense fool.

So you are the kind of idiot who says "show me proof" then gets proof and says "hilarious, that's no proof" and feels content with himself. I'm done.

Holla Forums totally and utterly btfo. Might as well shut the site down


Based Jehu

I'm quite surprised you browse this place m8

I don't, but some of the comments popped up on my blog so I came to see what the fuss was about. :)


jehu is an absolute madman tbh

People who write things like
should be taken seriously.

being an absolute madman is not a bad thing my dude, you have to be an absolute madman to be a Communist

And they call "tankies" LARPers

I want Jehu to drop in every now and then and pop some fucker in the face.

First "article":
>To understand my point, consider that no radical ever asks, “How does Walmart or Amazon actually work.” It’s obvious that these huge capitalistic firms manage huge supply chains.
Maybe you should ask how they do that. Maybe you should look at who does the actual planning and programming, and ask yourself how do we get more people like them on board, instead of psychoanalysis babblers and film critics (and film critics who are also psychoanalysis babblers).
If you actually believe that, it follows that criticizing capitalism and arguing for communism is entirely pointless, it will all happen automagically according to you.
Second "article":
Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell: Towards a New Socialism (a similar concept is Parecon by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel). If you wonder why you haven't learned anything about that question in the social media shitstream you swim in, kindly go defenestrate yourself.

Akshully, Cockshott is discussing the lower phase of communism, which is not quite the same as the Leninist conception of socialism. Read Critique of the Gotha Program. Your conception of what constitutes a market seems to be different from Marx. You seem to think that having a duty to work and otherwise be punished in some way constitutes a labor market. It doesn't.