Democracy At Work

The ideologically impure must be purged before the revolution

This. If you aren't following Danny DeVito's 1852 pamphlet "36 treatises for revolution" you are fucking revisionist scum

A co-operatives network not controlled by an international communist party is a dead end for the proletariat.

Preach! What we need to do is follow markusz Robeson's 1352 "seizing the power for the proletariat". Nothing else will work

What we need to do is use our brain; which you obviously don't.

The objective worker co-operatives is to make work better for the worker. But it will have a side effect of raising class awareness as well. It is just a means to an end

goodluck

but it sounds unscalable, it will just be a tiny zone that relies on the capitalism that surrounds it, it has no threat to capitalism,

instead when soldiers try to recruit you, recruit them into a radical union.

Lmao what radical union?

An end it can't achieve.

The co-operatives are still in competition with other companies, and thus have to be just as harsh to survive.

Also I don't see how turning proletarians into capitalists will raise their class consciousness. Quite the opposite, IMO.

Everything you seek to achieve through co-operatives alone, you can achieve way more efficiently through co-operatives controlled by an international communist party. There, you can raise their class consciousness.

Sounds like it could work. But don't tell me. Go join the group and tell them!

I'd like to be I can't without losing my (good) job. Actually that's my plan for retirement!

don't co-operatives still base themselves on the entirely bourgeois legal structures of ownership?

weren't co-operatives tried by hippies and all either failed or became hierarchal pseudo-ethical businesses within a couple of years coming out of the 60s?

don't cooperatives still muh privilege the idea of selling your labour power for a profit?

Am I missing something here? Is the point just to have a nicer boss?

To bring more attention to Wolffism.

It's like calling Reich Socialist, because Nazies used word "Socialism" in Nаtiоnаl Socialism.

Except Marx himself described why co-ops will not solve anything. The whole concept of the Proletariat is that it doesn't own MoP. It can't own MoP. It doesn't have the money, the resources, to own it.

Even if several poor workers will make a co-op this will not make them all rich enough to buy MoP for everyone. They will stay poor and will be exploited anyway (or will become bums). If several rich (petit-bourgeois rich) make a co-op this will not change situation for the Proletariat.

Such co-ops are Anarcho-Syndicalist mirage. The one Marxists laughed at, and the one Anarchists themselves abandoned in 19th century.

Not really.

But I must clarify that US doesn't have a codified (legal) description of co-op. I.e. it could be anything.

i just mean they would as a group apply for a business license, pay rent or a mortgage on their physical building, and they would fill out legal paperwork to have ownership of said business, and buy business insurance and get a business bank account to pay everyone, and all the rest of it.

Democracy at Work is basically an international socialist organization, except it basically lays the economic foundation for change while letting its members take political actions on their own.

The proletariat largely doesn't exist in the US anymore. But if you actually paid attention to Wolff's strategy, it involves using unions creating cooperatives as an action of class warfare when employers threaten to lower benefits, wages or move overseas.

democratic self exploitation, woo fucking hoo

pure ideology

There were hippy communes, but as a general rule of thumb don't leave anything serious to a hippy.

In a cooperative you own your own surplus, a massive source of power in a capitalist society. Think of it in terms of class warfare.

...

...

M-C-M' is still capitalism and unless you got a proper rebuttal I won't really answer to your strawman

The difference between Bourgeois and Socialist enterprises is the exploitation: when the property rights (Capital) are used as a leverage to get additional benefits and increase said Capital.

Basically, if the owner gets to call shots and gets the lion's share of income - that's Bourgeois. Socialist is when everyone has the same rights and decision-making is democratic.

Thus, it is possible to create Socialist co-ops and function as a Socialist co-ops within the legal framework of US (or any other Capitalist society). Except - even if people will get the money from somewhere - such co-ops will be unviable on a large scale: open decision-making process means that it is almost impossible to engage in criminal and borderline criminal practices - stuff that is practically mandatory for livelihood of any major corporation.

Not to mention, without Socialist state nothing prevents such co-ops from degenerating into Bourgeois enterprises that exploit others or get exploited themselves.

there is no socialism in one enterprise; socialism is a mode of production and not a way of organizing your working place.

The economic foundation for the revolution has been there for 150 years now.

Obviously you don't know what a class is.

thanx for the response.

if i had the choice to work in this co-op idea or where I work now, obviously I'd prefer the co-op.

I think the co-op method is the best way (other than a proletariate controlled state power) that I know of to bring about post-work, fully automated labour - as in,our co-op could vote to invest in robots to replace work, then we can all go home 5 hours early each day, and we take that profit.

I can't tell if the co-op idea appeals More or Less to Humanist Marxists, what do you think?

I've heard a strange thing, where americans think all americans are middleclass. and since there is only 1 class, the middleclass, then class doesn't even exist LOL

i hope this isn't really true, but I don't doubt it

You don't even know definition of Proletariat, do you?

That is not an action of class warfare. I literally explained why they aren't. There isn't even any wealth redistribution involved (which doesn't solve anything in the long run, but at least it sorts out immediate situation).

Yo. Marxism-Leninism here. Do you want me to start quoting Lenin at you?

Except this would work only if you already were rich enough. But IRL you don't have the money to invest.

And if you would've had the money, chances are it would be more profitable to invest into hiring wageslaves, instead of buying robots.

yeah so this is basically a petite bourgeois plan then. using some kind of rich hyper skilled super proletariate that can run successful businesses. who choose not to get even more rich the conventional ways.

can't the state just replace all the jobs with fucking robots already and deliver us food and housing with drones???

Why do you think organising workers to take control of their workplaces would not raise class consciousness? Why would putting the control of their workplaces in the hands of someone else (an "international communist party", one that doesn't exist) do a better job of this?

No you didn't. You said they wouldn't solve anything by themselves, which we all realise already.

If that was the case we would have had revolution 150 years ago.

Proletariat are industrial workers. Many Americans are working class but proletariat is a mis-nomer

WEW

so you have to make steel, usually at above minimum wage or assemble cars, and not stock shelves for minimum wage to be a proletariate? who have you been reading?

I don't know what Lenin you're talking about but Vladimir Ilyich would've cringed at your moralist interpretation of "socialism". Socialism isn't about "fair" (who's to decide what is fair?) distribution of value, it's the abolition of value production! The thing you're describing is something rather reminiscent of unproductive labor (ie not producing surplus value) which is entirely possible within capitalism. Petty commodity producers and substitution farmers are already doing it and you wouldn't call that socialism, would you?

It's hard to deny that when Marx spoke of the proletariat, he was referring to industrial workers

Nice goat

What does this even mean? Class struggle is to be fought for the sublation of private property, not for another more horizontal form of capitalism.
Coops won't lead to anything new as big capital is ultimately the more progressive (ie productive, unless you think progressive=muhfeels) configuration of commodity production. If anything, the destruction of petty commodity production (which includes muh coops and other petit borurgeois wet dreams) would lead to the "dialectical progression of history". But I don't think that capitalism is progressive anymore.
So instead of fighting for a seemingly less exploitative form of capitalism the working class should focus on seizing political power.

And throwing around words you don't understand doesn't help your case either tbh.

That is highly idealist. Certainly, the way class struggle works in the real world is different classes fighting for immediate material gains. It is through the resolution of these conflicts, usually where the more numerous class wins over the other, that a new society is created.

Studies have shown coops are just as productive as other forms of businesses. Also, is it wrong to say that those who control the surplus in capitalism control the wider political economy? This is the project of a cooperative movement, to give workers control over the surplus, and thus have the ability to prevail over the capitalist class.

Of course, but it is also quite possible that left to its own devices capitalism would lead to an even worse system after commodity production is rendered pointless.

The fuck are you guys arguing about?

I think we can all agree that cooperatives aren't the end all be all final answer. Yes, cooperatives aren't socialism.

But unions aren't socialism, workers rights isn't socialism, parties aren't socialism, nationalized industry and services aren't socialism. Just because it isn't socialism by itself doesn't mean you can't use it to build the socialist movement.

It isn't that hard. If Marx meant industrial workers rather than all workers he would have specified how their relation to the means of production is different. It isn't, so he didn't.

No.

Seriously? This again?

“Left-Wing” Childishness, April 1918:

Thus we see Socialist economy existing as an "element, particle, fragment" not only alongside, but intermingling with similar particles of Capitalism. It is not some grand totality that has only a binary state.

It's the goal, not a method to reach the goal.

Full and complete abolition of value production is possible only under the "final stage Communism". The post-scarcity economy that is called Communist economy in ML discourse. Socialism - in ML discourse - is the so called "first stage Communism". The one that is still unavoidably filled with the flaws of Bourgeois exchange system - as per Marx (do you need a quote from him too?).

But it is acceptable to refer to such economic relations - elements, particles - as Socialist as long as those are no longer based on exploitation of workforce by Capitalists, even if such economic relations rely on (essentially, Bourgeois) "to everyone according to his contribution" - it is still a scarcity economy, after all.

RDWolff and SocDem Reformism in general.

Your lord and master literally calls cooperatives Communism in his Class Theory. He even referred to (some) kolkhozs as Communist there.

it's not, it was the political program of three internationals and various revolutions.
yes, and the resolution of these conflicts isn't a form of gradualism, instead it's. as I said, the sublation of private property. After all property relations define class lines.
I said big capital for a reason. But still, I'd like to see those studies.
Yes because to continue value production you have to subject yourself to the interest of your own individual capital which is accumulation for its own sake. If working class coops want to prevail on the market even when profits are in danger they'll have to act against their own interest and impose wage cuts and longer working hours. Workers might have the power to decide what happens but the economy doesn't leave them much room for making decisions. This is because domination in capitalism isn't a form of personal but rather impersonal domination. What dominates the working class is capital THROUGH the acting bourgeois. Replace the bourgeois with workers and you still got capital dominating workers.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02.htm

this is why capitalism isn't progressive anymore.
It doesn't if you still have to follow the dictate of the individual capital you're subjected to.

We've had this discussion a thousand times. No, you don't need to quote the Gotha Critique on me, I've read it myself a thousand times and quoted it at least a hundred times while discussing the transition with you and other MLs. Yes, there are still some fragments of capitalism, no the transition into "final stage communism" doesn't imply a post-scarcity economy as to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability to each according to his need is applicable without having post-scarcity.

Sure, petty agrarian and self-employed producers are living socialism *right now*.
Holy fuck

Stalinists can keep people like Jason unruhue and the Kim dynasty to represent them, and I'm sure everyone else is fine with Wolff spreading socialist ideas.

Final stage Communism is literally defined as by being post-scarcity. If you created your own definition without telling anyone (which is called revisionism), that's your personal problem.

Really? How? Are you going to stealthily redefine "needs"?

Socialism - just like Capitalism - is economic relations, roles, not specific people.

And all those people are clearly part of the world economy - Capitalist economy. Therefore, just like service industry, they are being exploited by Capital without being directly employed.

What can I say? Your methods are flawed and you've been called "idealist" for a reason.

Capitalists are extremely fine, yes. Also, "socialist" ideas.

Please tell me what left wing movement is ideologically pure enough for you to support. I'm honestly ignorant

all of which failed

Are we to then ignore the lessons of all previous revolutions were class struggle was perused within the system until a breaking point was reached?

uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
This one is actually an aggregate of multiple studies

You act as though this interest and this dictate is unambiguous! As though the bourgeois have only one route to follow to reproduce their capital! But certainly the Koch brothers and Tim Cook have wildly different ways of going about this! Each have their own political programs and interests. And certainly the interests of a group of workers in a large cooperative would be different from them! Replace the bourgeois with the workers and suddenly you have people in power who's interest is to absolve the conflict between capital accumulation and wage labor!

You deny the power of billionaires to influence politics? In the US you can even delegate the job of following that dicate to lobbyiests and special interest groups.
youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

explain how then

The capitalists are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of Richard Wolff spreading Marxism to average Americans who haven't considered it anything other than an evil word, because it's this revisionist reformism that holds back the pure ideas of stalinism from creating a true socialist state. Again.

Yes, again. It worked out so well the first time after all.

How is that applicable without post scarcity?

Come on. I'd support even (most) Trots over Wolff.

I thought we've already established that it's Marxian economics, not Marxism.

And - yes. It does hold back actual Marxism. People get ancient Anarchist ideas - not even modern, but the ones that failed spectacularly in 1871 - and think "that's Marxism!"

If you create a very special definition of "needs" (stuff that government decides) everything works.

No one has done more for the left in the US than Wolff with the exception of B████ ██████ and maybe Kshama Sawant

Who?

that's what I thought. sad!

Anyone near chicago willing to team up with me to start this thing? The guy on the [email protected]/* */ page who was supposed to start the group is inactive.

It's prolly rude to look someone up but w/e
Pic related is the guy that handles the local group.
He's into fringe ecology, has some old connection to writing poetry for psychotics and schizophrenics and ends almost all of his sentences with "??!!"

Would it be worth joining groups in general? And how much should I worry with this one?

>inb4 he's one of the autists around here

That's me??!! Delete this???!!!

mail me back first with post number fgt

I've got a bridge to sell you

I thought too quickly, so I accidentally deleted it anyways.
So how much is that bridge?

And an even more flattering image of his.
I'm pretty sure those are bretels.
Is that still a thing?

Yeah but the point of co-ops is to show workers what it's like not to be exploited. Ideological conditions are holding revolution back (among other things). Co-ops are a propaganda campaign.

how's althusser not a marxist u mongrel?

Sure thing buddy, that bridge is a real bargain at $4 million dollary doos.

"How do you do, fellow workers?"

Four million!!??
I meant that I haven't evaluated the risk to the possibility properly yet of you being serious, so I did the impulsive scared-person thing and deleted it

You don't have the Capital. You need Capital to not get exploited in the Capitalist economy. What's so hard to understand? That's like the elementary level of Marxism.

If you don't have Capital it means you are being exploited - or are having such measly productivity that this "work" is indistinguishable from immersive LARPing (i.e. you are not actually working, not earning living).

It's like hairdresser who believes that he is middle class, because he owns his MoP. He doesn't understand that his income ultimately depends on the income of the people he services - workers - who do not own their MoP and, consequently, earn much less money and have much less disposable income - the income that trickles down to hairdresser and is the source of his income.

A what?

As is, co-ops are bullshit.

…you do realize that workers own the capital of a given enterprise if its a cooperative, right?

Who gives a shit?

Maybe it's difficult for tankies to understand supporting a guy you think is making progressive change without worshiping every shit he takes.

Read Althusser dumb monkey

Bump in honor of glorious get

When you say capital, are you referring to income based on the exploitation of others, or do you mean wealth? Because I would argue without surplus value being created and taken from you, you aren't being exploited, and that even if you had immense wealth you could still be exploited by someone creating income off of the surplus value you created.

Not having capital doesn't equal exploitation by itself, it is other factors.

Muh vanguard aristocracy will lead us to communism

You can't get to market socialism by buying the wealth back from the capitalists retard, you have to take legal measures.

wew
muh three worlds theory

literally wat
not even workers of capitalist companies get paid as little as third world workers

You do realize that any cooperative is still part of the world economy, that it is not a thing in itself, and could be exploited by other economic entities it relies on to function?

Maybe it's difficult for liberals to understand, but we've been literally discussing how "his change" is not progressive in any way.

What

Because it isn't "prepare to die in a bloody revolution so we can replace your boss with a government official… why can't our movement so much as fill up a room with supporters? Must be fugging liberals like Professor Wolff distracting people from our otherwise super attractive revolutionary movement, stupid liberals ;_;"

By itself, being underwater does not mean that you are drowning, yes. You are completely correct there.

But we are discussing a very specific situation: co-ops used as a panacea. And for Proletariat this doesn't solve anything. To use modern newspeak: unexploited Proletariat doesn't have the Capital to stay competitive to the Proletariat that gets to use Capital in exchange for being exploited.

In this case I'm primarily referring to Industrial Capital (direct ownership of expensive equipment necessary for productive labour in modern economy), but the same is obviously true for Financial Capital.

Sure, you can pretend that use-value (the very same in every other respect) created for poor people and for rich people is somehow different: that this use-value somehow has less use-value if it is used by poor people (a blasphemy unto St.Marx), and therefore there could be no surplus value to be indirectly appropriated by the Capitalists who directly exploit only poor consumers of this use-value (customers of the hairdresser from previous example).

But if you get much less income than you would've gotten in Socialist economy, I would say the semantic acrobatics that claim you "unexploited" are somewhat meaningless in face of objective reality.

I.e. Wolff is progressive because he is popular?

He's making progressive change by trying to rekindle the labor movement.

Yeah but he's doing it according to the tenants St. Marx(pbuh) laid out so he's bourgouise

*not doing it

...

It's more like St. Lenin, or even more accurately St. Stalin.

I think he was being ironic.

We have the productive ability to provide everyone with their needs without moving to post scarcity. Self-explanatory.

This is a meme-tier understanding of exploitation.

Perhaps you should point out when you aren't being literal, or when you speak in theory but mean 'reality'. Especially when you switch so often between the two.

God damn it

Add yourself as a potential contact so other people there might find out they're not alone

Sauce of this gif plz?

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Part 4: Diamond is Unbreakable

thx

For some reason, most people don't take kindly to agent provocateurs. You should really try explaining to those - undoubtedly dogmatic and Stalinist - morons that trying to "rekindle the labour movement" is not a bad thing. Preferably IRL. And I want to watch what will happen.

If he didn't pretend that it was Marxism, I wouldn't have had any special issue with his bullshit. Not more than with any other Anarchist or even S█████ supporter.

Unfortunately, he "does not shy away from being called Marxist"(c). And lets not pretend that quite a bit of his fanclub doesn't think that his is the Real Marxism (the grand secrets of which was revealed only in 1970s! Behold! - what the fuck people were doing before? what ideology took over a third of the planet and fueled dozens of revolutions?).

I have no choice but to intervene.

Let him openly admit that he is Reformist Anarchist (or whatever name he would prefer) and totalitarian teachings about State Socialism that he abhors so much - the stuff that is commonly known to practically everyone as Marxism - have nothing to do with his ideas and are a completely different thing - I'll gladly fuck off into the sunset.

But I don't see this happening. He uses terms like "classes", he talks about Communism, he actually claims that not only he mastered True Marxism (apparently, the only one to do so; because even post-Trotskyists balk at his revisionism), but he is also true to Lenin! What the actual fuck?

And - no. He is not Bourgeoisie. He is a fraud who was turning Marxism into caricatures during Cold War, but now - being no longer paid for defacing Communism - decided to change the repertoire and to earn money by pretending to be Communist himself and "rekindling labour movement".

If anything qualifies as Zizek's "eating from trashcan" - this does.

So, yeah. Apologies for being annoyed by this kind of "progressive" bullshit.