Difficult, but not impossible. Also much more possible in most western countries than instantly picking up arms, occupying what, the parliament? And getting swatted in minutes. Or you could agitate through workers councils as suggested by others, but as I already said there are many traditional parties trying to do this in the west and failing. You could try trade or municipal unionism, but these are swamped by reformist unions who hold all the clout, plus union membership in most places is dropping rather than going up. Co-ops are already existing, in fact their use is getting bigger, not smaller, like unions or workers councils or the class party or whatever. All I'm suggesting is starting a network of these already existing businesses with an extra twist. I'm suggesting a constructive program for class struggle, for so called communists to engage in order be able to have a real material effect in communities, thus allowing their views to be shared and proliferated. Seriously, this board hates antifa because they are too smashy, and when they critique this they say "doesn't get the community on our side, doesn't fix the underlying problem of capitalism which creates fascism" which are valid points, but then you deliver something the liberals would probably be mostly on board with, thus bringing them onside, which they are currently not, because they have no material reason to side with communists currently and you shit on that too. Even if there was a crash or some other event that created revolutionary conditions,the communists have nothing to offer as relief, beyond some bloodbath or Bernie Sanders. There is no established communist party in the west that actively benefits the proletariat. Furthermore, Lenin, Mao, etc are good theorists, but a large part of their theory is also time and place specific. They understood, which many do not, that their own theories would not be universally applicable. Therefore, we need a specifically developed theory for our conditions, and they are as I have stated above.
Beyond Surplus-Value
give me one good reason five co-operatives couldn't each save enough between them to open another small business over the course of one or two years, lets say they each give 4,000, so, for a bar or a restaurant about one days gross earnings. So, a tiny amount, roughly one 365th of the annual budget. With every new co-operative, the budget gets bigger. 6 co-operatives can save for a seventh faster than 5. This is, as they say, basic economics, pretty much no economist in the world disagrees with the concept of economies of scale, beyond retarded ancaps. What you a forgetting is that a communist organisations primary purpose is to struggle, this is a form of struggle you can fit into your daily life, providing you with work, and working conditions that allow and are specifically catered for the pursuit of other forms of agitation, while at the same time providing community services for the public at large.
also you did not answer this
why didn't you answer this part of my post? Do you have nothing to say in this regard?
As a matter of fact, it is impossible for the proletariat, by definition.
Competition. As surprising as it may seem to you, most businesses don't grow up into multinational corporations.
by definition, "axiomatic" fuck off outta here with this ancap shit. You are telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for co-ops to exist… yet exist they do. Seems you are a fucking retard.
yes im sure one word is an adequate answer
point me to the part where I said the co-ops have to do this individually? Because you can't, because I didn't.
oh and still no answer for
Are you avoiding this simple question because you don't even have the beginning of an answer?
rt.com
I think its important for the guy up the thread claiming capitalists don't take very much surplus to understand hes a fucking moron
Look up the MoP owned by Exxon Mobile. It would take something like 31 years of working at that company to make the worker's investment beneficial compared to working at Exxon Mobile (if we assume that they were able to get all that money somehow; employees are paid equally; the market doesn't fluctuate in any way; they were able to purchase the MoP at its assumed value, even things like oil fields and that they were able to assume the same position in the market as Exxon Mobile simply by purchasing the same type and amount of MoP owned by EO).
forgot the source stock-analysis-on.net
Property, plant and equipment, at cost, less accumulated depreciation and depletion: 244 224 million dollars
244 224 000 000 / 75000 = 3 256 320
3 256 320 / 106 000 = 30.72
What a load of gibberish.
Which company compared to exxon mobil?
who said the workers were investing? How is this in any way a response to what I said, which was, capitalists take roughly 7.8 billion in net profits from Exxon mobil and if you diide that equally between each worker you get roughly 106,000 dollars, so, with obvious controls, this is roughly the surplus value extracted.
You haven't really made a point you've just said some things
The entire point is that you would have many other businesses in the network, who would pool funds to buy the larger ones. Nobody is suggesting they save and buy it themselves.