1) Groups of like minded individuals save up enough money to start small businesses together...

1) Groups of like minded individuals save up enough money to start small businesses together. They agree to run these on a co-operative basis. They agree between other groups to form networks of mutual support.

2) Once up and running, these businesses agree to pool profits in order to buy out completely all means of production for one of these co-ops. Land, machinery etc. All debts paid. This, under the agreement that once bought out this co-op will pump funds into the liberation of other co-ops.

This will be the first stage, at this stage potential revolutionaries should be attracted by democratic working conditions and better remuneration. At this stage it will be necessary to enter any and all industries possible with no real focus but building a financial power base.This stage must be allowed to grow until there is a substantial network of both liberated and non liberated co-operatives.

3) The second stage will be the creation of infrastructure for collective use, at this point the buying power of the network should become more focused. The revolutionaries should pool resources to build or buy out schools, hospitals and other public services. These for the families of co-op workers but ALSO to provide free healthcare and education where possible for non co-op workers. This to gain support from the public. We simply start out providing public services. At this point we start to have real public power. Once a certain relationship has been attained we may be able to start demanding, for instance, tax exemption.

4) This brings us to stage 4. These are really the two goals that need to be aspired to, a self sustaining network with fully integrated systems of production in all areas, and secession from the state. As the power of the co-op network grows we will be able to demand more and more secession.

I understand that at certain points these secession's will be withheld. I understand that at these points violence will be necessary to defend the network. This is a blueprint for a peaceful revolution however I fully understand that it may not go that way, I fully understand that our enemies have no limits and will stop at nothing.

So stage 4 is secession. Once the network is able to provide for itself entirely, it will secede from the state.

Problems? One I can see is getting enough co-operatives to start over a small enough geo-graphic area to make it efficient. Also, to be fully integrated the network would pretty much HAVE to be international to be able to have access to all the worlds resources. So this would need to happen in pockets all over the world and grow.

There are probably others. What do you think?

I've been thinking about the exact same thing for more than a year now, so obviously I think it's a very good idea.

My two cents:

Some democracy in everyday decisions (more than in a capitalist corporation) is fine. However, we cannot count on democracy to keep this network's workers on the track you've set here. We live in a capitalist world, and, if they follow their self-interest (which they'll do if they have the opportunity), your co-operatives will degenerate into capitalist companies.

So the leading role must be given to people who are not part of the network, or, to be more accurate, who cannot benefit in any way from it. Of course, these people must share the same goal and be organised. This is typically the definition of a party.

The party at least, the whole network at best, must be as international as possible, as soon as possible.

There must be absolutely no trade inside the network. The goal is to remove production from trade. Of course the workers must get paid, but only to compensate what cannot be distributed to them directly.

I think the best "businesses" to begin with are supermarkets.

The capitalist states will resort to violence to destroy the network, the network will resort to violence to defend itself… and eventually destroy the capitalist states. It's an absolute certainty. In other words: the network will organise itself to impose it's rule, the rule (dictatorship) of the proletariat: it will be a state.

...

No. It's in anyone's interest, taken individually, to become a capitalist. We live in a capitalist world, buddy.

but it isn't in the workers interest to degenerate into capitalist companies.

For what reason would a co-op decide that actually, one of them should take home more than the others without working extra?

Why do you keep posting this image?

It's not in my interest to eat shit, but i'll do it anyway if i'm at gunpoint, which describe coops in capitalist environment. Coops are not designed with capital accumulation in mind, something capitalists companies are better at.

and yet are empirically shown to be just as good (or better) at it

if it was up to me you could post without an image

The fact that greed isn't "muh human nature" doesn't mean it doesn't exist, today, in a capitalist society.>>840159
Precisely: not one of them. At some ppint, the co-operatives always find a way to avoid having to accept new co-operators to share the profit with. This happens all the time.

[citation needed

Detroit commune without Detroit. This was pretty much the plan we formulated back then.

This is only true if those capitalist companies work outside the country, where they can pay less than the minimum wage of the country of the cooperative. Sadly, most corporations do this.

Why didn't it work?

Nobody who lived near Destroit wanted to move and those who were able to move and start a bussiness didn't want to give up their job to plunge themselves into a pipedream without any real cooperative plan.

Basically there was lots of focus on the commune part, not on the bussiness part, which caused all the anarchists to jack off over aquaponics in warehouses and other hipstery non-viable business things.

Presumably this was focused only on Holla Forums? What if the idea had wider scope?

That's why I think a supermarket would be a good start.

I don't think the workers would have to be communists, anarchists, or even leftists tbh. They will come simply to get a job.

You would need to find people with the brains to run a bissuness, the skills to run a bussiness, are communists AND don't think we are brocialist scum / fucking tankies / hippy anarchokiddies.

That kinda runs down the list of people. Oh right they also need to be able to run bussiness that is not something like a vegan something something or anything like that. Building a network like that requires very pragmatic people who are willing to work together with people they disagree with and even capitalists (duh). The people you need must be ideological, pragmatic and skillfull at the same time.


Too bad working in a supermarket is fucking shite work. Or maybe I just have bad experience because of my cunt boss. The DIY shop was much more fun, perhaps because you had more agency over your work and your boss didnt tell you you were useless. Cunt fired me because I didn't want to work overtime on a schoolday so I would miss my classes, shouldn't have fucking put me on the roster then, kevin, you dick.

A supermarket I think is a good idea. First our own supermarket, then you just need to fill in the supply chain.

Scottish?

You are correct about the list being narrow but at the same time, at least for me I know plenty of educated or at least politically engaged people who are under employed. Because everyone goes to university now there is actually an abundance of these sorts of people.

And starting with supermarkets or in the service industry is really not that hard, I have supervised bars and cafes and I know the management process isn't such a huge step up.

And yeh, imagine working in a supermarket where your boss wasn't a cunt, because he'd be you. But maybe you're a cunt.

Nah just picked up slang from all englishs.

Who here considers themselves or people they know
1) Ideological *sniff*

2) Pragmatic

3) Skillful

Probably a good few of you no?

Anyway, Being a supermarket manager would not be fit for me. I would rather be some sort of manager at an IT firm. Not much of a peoples person, but I am good with people I get to know.


Well yea I consider myself skillfull but only this little far into my education so far aint that much for being a manager for a company or cooperation or even work there.

What if we made a website where you could meet people in your area to start a co-op with or something? You become a member, state your skills, say how much money you would be willing to put in etc etc and then once a few get going the website can be used for inter co-op democracy or something

So start some kind of IT co-operative? Or manage the IT of an entire movement?

Lets not rush here, compadre. Let me finish my education first. If I magically make something worthwhile before that youll hear from me.

Yet another reason the whole thing cannot be lead by its workers themselves.

Any work within capitalism is shite work tbh.


Exactly. Plus, with a supermarket you can distribute all kinds of goods to the workers instead of paying them a wage.

It can though, starting one is just hard as fuck. The economic site and managing funds will always be done by people who know how to do that, but that doesn't mean they are not just an employee just like anyone else.

You need money for more things than just food, matey.

Keeping stock levels isn't that hard. Really, you are just listing inputs and outputs and predicting orders based on that.

I know, I'm more talking about the whole buying a store and rent and appliances and such.

I could probably run a supermarket, probably automate a bit of it too.

Was thought bookkeeping and such in highschool so if I brush up on that I could do it. Not really a big hard on for running a supermarket though.

(Not to mention the fact that to be a super market nowadays you need to be a franchise, else you need to do all the deals yourself which is expensive and hard as fuck.

Also getting funding for the supermarket.

I should really think of all I want to say before I post.

Start with a small grocery store then

What I mean is that, above the employees, there must be people who make sure the whole thing doesn't degenerate into a simple capitalist co-operative. The strategic, political objectives must come before the economical ones.


That's my point actually: a supermarket sells all kind of things. But yeah, there still would have to be some wages (less and less).

I agree that a worker cooperative supermarket could benefit the workers by of the network/supermarket by selling them the goods at cost price. Some supermarkets do this, but not doing so gives the owner of the supermarket slightly more money.

Also agree with the organisational one. But one has to question why a cooperative would want to stay inside a group if its having to pay for "newcomers", not really benefiting themselves.

people have killed for communism. I'm sure others will be willing to work and be paid for it

Imo this is why we need a two pronged attack. While organizing into co-ops it is also imperative to try to influence the government to favour co-operative production over private enterprise. We would have to gain mass popular support in order to do this.

Certainly a tall order but it's clearly possible, especially in the current anti-establishment climate.