my preferred method would be a civil war where the old system is abolished by force and lots of bourgeois filth die. but considering I live in a first world country, the chances of that happening in the current conditions is very slim.
I’m not entirely sure. While I fly an ancom flag I do recognize arguments from all tendencies, and some I’m more educated on than others. I stead of saying I think one tendency is right and all others are incorrect, I think that they are situationally advantageous, and furthermore various tendencies can be implemented in tandem and in combination to produce the desired revolution. For instance, workers unions could be revitalized and radicalized, while intense campaigns fought to increase workers cooperatives and market socialist systems implemented. All the while grassroots activist parties can be unified and armed, which focuses on mounting pressure on the state, and potentially capturing the state apparatus and installing a DotP. While this is occurring, other grassroots organizations can focus on communities, implementing dual power organizations such as community gardens, paupers hospitals, and charitable organizations for homelessness, in an attempt to generate mutual aid. I think eventually attack on all fronts is the best praxis, as each of these have little potential on their own for succeeding, and we need to win hearts and minds at all levels.
I just accepted that I'm bi.
Stage #1: Low T males go off to university. Stage #2: R/K selection kicks in hard, males adapt to in group pressure (leftist thought) and begin to signal. Stage #3: Signalling phase is complete. Male is now self-proclaimed marxist, socialist, communist etc. while at the same time comfortably living inside and passively feeding most advanced corporatist nations on Earth. Stage #4: Retreat onto leftist boards/forums. Stage #5: Read X Stage #6: Global implementation of 1800s utopian economics enforced by the state to bring peace and equality to all through violent revolution.
Currently on stage five filling my big enlightened brain with as much economic theory as possible.
you're aware that elaborate mating rituals are a characteristic of a K selected species, not an r selected one, right? trouts don't care how good other trout's sight and memory are, they just want the biggest fastest trouts to jizz on their eggs. The r fags are the STEM Chads making big bucks and getting into 3 year long marriages with christian bitches and then cheating on them out of habit.
I got my radicalization from first contact with schooling institutions - kindergarten. Socialist theory (whether you echo chaimber claims to or not) does not teach socialist theory. The only way you would get into contact with it would be if you study sociology, as there Marx needs to be mentioned (most often in passing) due to being a _central figure_ in the social science field's inception. I pirate not just all my literature, but all my media. Like a real communist.
You can thank the instability of capitalism and it's state enforcement for the social turmoil that results in the repeated bubbling up of revolutionary social movements. You can either choose to educate yourself (yes, that requires that you actually study the source material before coming to conclusions and no, repeating what a favowite talking head of yours spouted through x mass-media corporation does not count) or ignore the obvious problems inherent in the global economic system defining our lives and the ever worsening state of the planet of which we have no realistic alternative to (no, Musk will not save -you-).
So what I'd suggest for you would be to read about the various revolutionary movements and tendencies, be able to distinguish between them and then finally come to some conclusion. You may be surprised by what you find.
What specific revolutionary movements do you recommend I read about? I've been reading a lot about the Gay Rights Movement a lot lately. Very interesting stuff.
The kind that establishes socialism.
Well to get it clear that 'the left' (here meaning actual socialists, not progressive liberals; left-of-centrists) is hardly some big monolithic blob ready to kidnap your wife and dog but a rather diverse set of theories, many being in complete strategic conflict with one another. Specific historical moments worthy of analysis: - the October revolution up to the 1920s - the November revolution (Germany) - the Spanish revolution
Rights are liberal phantasms and who you want to fuck is just another non-issue made a focal point for IDpol-based divide & conquer from the 'progressive' part of the ruling class. The more time you waste concentrating on individual sexual preferences, genders, genetic variation (shallow stuff) the less time you spend considering your weekly, monthly, yearly, life-long condition of programmatic, violently enforced subservience to a fixed idea that only retains 'value' as long as you 'believe' in it, containing logic of making you work your ass off for the subsequent surplus profit of an employer. Capitalism; the economic system which has you and I fully consumed within it.
That would definitely by my ideal scenario but I'm not idealist enough to think that they would ever allow this to happen.
I want LARPERS off my board.
im proud of you papi
Cop is long gone and there are some very radical groups and factions within the D.S.A. Its a big tent org.
Don't turn "transition to Socialism" into a new form of Utopian socialism where you attempt to describe in detail what a new society would look like, you dipshits. This is regressing to pre-Marxist socialism and is already proven to be a waste of fucking time.
Form parties, form or join radical labour unions, get elected into parliaments and just try to keep a steady growth until a political or economic crisis hit without degenerating into a social-liberal movement or a FBI operation. Let the rest to historical processes, the development of productive forces and post-revolutionary geopolitics, all of which will have more impact on your transitional period than any fantasy of what it would look like unchained from material conditions and political circumstances.
eyy you got a source on that pic tho?
I really really really like this image
VIOLENT NUCLEAR WAR
MAKE TOTAL DESTROY
Well it's more a matter of improvisation, isn't it? Lenin more or less said so after absolutely every damn thing that could go wrong did.
That's interesting, I'm an ancom too and I agree with your post pretty much.
Market socialism obviously. The state would slowly take over economic sectors and if it doesnt work out they can reverse back to direct worker ownership.
I'm obviously not a communist. However I intend to reach my preferred Technocratic state the following way:
1) Start a religious/philosophical organisation modelled off of Comte's 'Religion of Humanity'. 2) Use this organisation to attract a core membership required for a Technocratic political organisation. 3) Target recruitment for both the religious and political organisations at military personnel (current and former). 4) Build both organisations until a workable number of the given nations military (especially officers) are members. 5) Use this loyalty to seize the military from the current state and declare the creation of a Technate; A sovereign Technocratic state. 6) Round-up and liquidate the now powerless members of the former government. 7) Nationalise all infrastructure, foreign assets and important industries (entering what is effectively a State-Capitalist transitory phase). Foreign influencers (business officials, NGOs, ect) would also be quickly removed. 8) Start 're-industrialisation', build the infrastructure required for a modern planned economy and seize the opportunity for a mass re-standardisation. 9) Start the construction of Urbanates (Technocratic cities of tomorrow) and perform a second round of nationalisation, limiting private industry to nothing more then a distribution role in the economy. 10) Fully nationalise the last elements of capitalism, start moving people into the Urbanates and formally 'switch on' the national economic planning system. 11) Recycle the remains of the capitalist cities, move the last of the population into the Urbanates and enjoy the prosperity and security that Technocratic (effective) post-scarcity offers its citizens.
Commutiy Self Managment Collective Manifesto: Global North Protracted Peoples Urban Economic War
Find a group of people, criteria: Communist, willing and able to save up £$ Euroes,2000/3000/4000??, willing and able to take a central active role in planning and carrying out party activities, these groups should function democratically. The activities are as follows:
Each group should start a recruitment program based around education as a priority and as far as possible drawing membership from local communities, in the inital stage party members should set up a school of socialism that teaches a broad range of Marxist, Anarchist and general socialist theory, history from a left wing perspective, and about local class struggle and issues, as well as the network's aims and goals. This could take the form of a monthly or weekly gathering, from these schools and from the broader socialist community party members can be gradually brought in. Alongside this, party members should conduct physical and self defence training and build an armed wing, preparing specifically for the task of defending the network, with a view to the future of the network and the possible threats it may face.
At the same time, these groups should go into communities and find out how they can help them with their labor and resources, what they need. Inititally use this for sponsorsed fundraisers in order to build funds to purchase a business to be a co-operative, so that the task carried out can be funded by that co-operative and a real need is met and this provision is sustainable for the future. These events can also be used for recruitment and therefore the founding of other co-operatives. The groups should raise money in any other way they see fit besides borrowing at interest, but personal labor and sponsored community services must be part of it, this will also help in the creation of co-operatives, allowing them to come into being already connected to the communities they establish themselves in.
The party members will work in the co-operative,these co-operatives will : be directly democratic, pay in shares instead of wages, provide a needed community service free of charge, pay into a network fund for the expansion and improvment of the network as a whole, including the outright purchase of private property to become collective property, and benefits for the workers such as child care in the initial stage. They will also be constitutionally bound to remain collective property and to function in an environmentally sustainble manner.
As a network they will fund education(for instance by hosting the school of socialism and funding propoganda) and agitation (by providing representatives to help with wage disputes for example, enabling direct action) as well as physical resitance to the state and reactionary groups. At the early stage, these community needs will most likely be small scale, regular food drives, perhaps providing school tutors for struggling children.
Party members will recruit, guide and mentor new groups building new co-operatives.As well as this, once established, the party members able should begin again saving for new co-operatives in a different industry(but this time with the help of the network for funding), in the same community, that provides a different service. When they leave, the party should recruit directly from the local community while providing education to this new recruit so that they are equipped to understand the nuance of a democratic work place and the project as a whole, thus providing jobs within the community and creating the conditions whereby the community manages itself.
In the ideal situation, several co-operatives will have opened at roughly the same time in several different cities.Once established, the collective fund drawn from these will enable these projects to be scaled up, the network might begin providing a house call nurse for a community for example. A food drive might become a food bank, tutoring becomes a night school and so on. Similarly, the industries the groups enter into initially should be easy to access, however once the network is stable they may buy into industries with higher costs of entry, thus two cafes, a food truck, a bar and a corner grocery store, open a supermarket. New co-operatives should be focussed on, but not limited to key industries such as food.
At this stage or perhaps before it, the network should be considering setting up its own mutual bank, so that all funds in the network are controlled as directly by the network as possible, (it may wish to consider alternative currencies such as bitcoin).
From here, with a large and well established network, with popular support generated from community outreach, funds can begin to be accrued for supply chain integration, locking out the capitalist, cutting costs to be given back to the workers and the community around them, as well eventually allowing whole products to created within the network from scratch and therefore being able to be completely freely distributed without exchange value.Supply chain integration will naturally spread the network abroad, and allow for dramatic raising of third world working conditions, if one imagines what started as a cafe eventually integrating its supply chain to include coffee farms in central america, created and run by central american workers themselves with resources provided by the network. Alongside this, with larger and global, industrial spending power comes the ability to build whole power plants, hospitals, and schools, and other necessary services.
The goal of the network is simple, to become so large as to supercede the state in the localised "nation" area, as well as eventually superceding the international capitalist state, undertaken by the combined process of providing free services to communities and providing benefits such as free housing to workers, until all necessary services are provided by the network free of charge, and all employment is within the network. In tandem with this, money will be phased out, as services are provided for free their cost can be deducted from pay according to democratic agreement, until all services are simply provided, as the network grows into new industries so capital is gradually abolished and the state of capitalism has no reason to exist, in its place standing a democratically run network without private property.
The energy industry is key here, once the state has been superceded or perhaps before this point has been reached, the network can begin the process of automating physical labour, the conditions now such that they are able to do this without ultimately creating unemployment and making the workforce work harder. Energy should therefore be the first large scale industry entered into, once the network has a large spending power. In the immediate this will allow co-operative housing and businesses to operate on free energy, the network providing maintainence, reducing overall costs. In the long term, the comittment to environmental sustainablitily is essential, community owned, sustainable energy sources can provide unlimited free energy, from this base, in combination with automation, we may create a world where all human needs are provided as part of one fully automated machine, one that does not pollute or waste, its functions controlled directly by the people whose needs to it must satisfy, politics will become the perfection of the machine.
until i see a better answer we should push for this
The whole point of the full idea about worker owner ship as I understand it, is that communism, abolition of the value form, as you say, will not come about through some grand revolution, there may be a grand revolution, but the revolution itself will only take it so far, just like other modes of production, it will exist alongside and within the outmoded modes for an extremely long time, modes of production are also never completely distinct in themselves, each has its own stages and progressions within that specific mode of production, for example the difference between capitalism now and capitalism in 1850 or feudalism as it stands today versus feudalism in 1500. On top of this, total abolition of the value form requires a total system, that is one which dominates if not the whole globe than at least the most significant part of it, considering the demands of modern technology, minerals and such, really to be able to fully distribute goods you need to be in control of the entire thing. No matter what happens, in every eventuality, even after "conquering" this globe from capitalism which will in itself take an extremely long time, the development of the industrial forces in these areas will be an extremely long process. In short, there will be a lower stage, perhaps (and most likely in my opinion) even a lower lower stage. I am not saying that muh co-ops are socialism, but a co-operative economy is one in which the work force is more directly engaged with production, much more, they themselves oversee it even if market forces still control it. Further, they are the ones making the decisions which effect their relationship to it, through working standards and practices and so on. Worker ownership therefore creates conditions by which class consciousness is "organically" imbued on the worker. These conditions are not communism, but they are conditions from which communism in my opinion is more likely to emerge. On top of this, when the ownership of the property is literally in their hands, they have much more power, should they have the inclination to Communism. Sure, they would still have the market, but the market can be more easily abolished when production is in the workers hands It gets workers into the practice of managing themselves, which is necessary are we ever to achieve a stateless, classless society. On top of that, radical reform agitates the populace and causes reaction, while we have absolutely zero chance of revolution in the west, we need to build reformist structures, if only to agitate with their existence. Agitate directly for revolution in any European country and you will be laughed at. You can't go zero-revolution.
As well as this,the material gain they will have from the private owner no longer existing is a short term benefit that sustain the revolution. Plus such a union could fund other types of agitation and education and organise organically
Fucking come at me leftcom and ☭TANKIE☭ larpers
the word you're looking for is the more generalized org*. "party" is mostly associated with electoral politics or vanguardism.
Good theorizing, anarcomrade.
Absolve B.O. of her illegitimate authority: >>>/leftpol/
So your idea is to create one big coop which you would use to outcompete the entire world by giving people free shit and at the same protect the environment, provide fair wages/working conditions and for these to happen acquire capital through a "network of funds" (I can only speculate what did you mean by this, but if I had to choose I would go with donations because it's pretty obvious that you won't get any money out of free services and paying people for their work).
A democratic technate in which workers had increasingly direkt controll over the MoP.
The term I used was "collective fund" i.e a portion of the surplus value willingly given for the creation of further co-operatives, and it will FIRST outcompete other businesses in the area and the combine with others to outcompete on a national or global scale.
You are not supposed to get money out of free services, that is something the network does not get back in money, what it does get is the support of the proletariat by feeding them, tutoring their child, etc. You gain a lot of extra surplus value by removing the private owner, all you are doing is simply re-purposing his share in combination with other co-operatives, and spending the money on community services and new co-operatives, couldn't be simpler.
Your (baseless) assertion that there simply won't be enough money is a frankly puerile criticism when it is clearly stated the idea is to start with small, easy to do things and move up from there and clearly when workers are in control of the proceeds of a business they have the power to apportion some of that to community services. Are you under the impression that the capitalist does not in fact extract surplus value and that when you get rid of him there is none for the taking? I am aware we are talking merely of the petit bourg here but even still, he claims a share, which we will claim for ourselves
TANS says nothing about transition.
bump this is the only thread that matters
How are you going to outproduce the entire world if you are starting from scratch? You would start with almost no money, and no MoP. From this situation, you would have to gradually produce enough value equivalent to every piece of equipment, factory, land etc. because you can't really afford to fall below the SNLT. Outcompeting everyone instead of just getting by will put an immense strain on your workers and nobody will fucking care about voting (if we take for granted that a bureaucracy won't exist in the coop), that's for sure. The only actual difference between your coop and a corporation would be very small, especially after you stopped providing free services to people because it would be just a very expensive way of doing marketing, nothing more. I have no problem spreading theory and maybe providing free stuff for proles from the money gathered from the more generous and well-off members of our movement or even making some coops to create an example, but there is a reason that this could never really create any kind societal change in itself, especially if your main goal is to extract as much surplus value as you can from your workers, even more ruthlessly than most capitalists. I also find your view that removing the boss will compensate all of this pretty weird. Not just weird, but outright untrue. For the sake of an example, looked up the yearly gross profit of McDonald's. It was about 10 billion $. In contrast to this, the CEO's salary was something like 7 million $.
Salary doesn't account for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of indirect compensation. In reality his remuneration from the company is much higher than whatever his salary is on paper. For example, Craig Meneer got millions of dollars in stock options when he was taken on at Home Depot, something like $40M dollars worth, which roll out in $5M chunks over the next several years. That doesn't take into account either the severance package he's promised when he eventually is fired or leaves, which is something like $140M iirc. And all of that isn't counting the innumerable perks and benefits the company gives him and all the other compensation he makes that doesn't come up as such because of corporate accounting.