/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Thread

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan

(563.11 KB 723x606 rojava.png)
RWG - Rojava War General Anonymous 10/09/2019 (Wed) 12:45:10 No. 86498 [Reply]
Here we post news, rumors, opinions, etc. related to the war between Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), often referred to as Rojava and T*rkroaches. Please keep the tankie-anarkiddie shitposting in other threads. Assad/Syria/SAA supporters are welcome too.
495 posts and 157 images omitted.
old BO was right, as usual
>Their line was always pro Assad
wat, fighting independently while asking and effectively having independance, AND aiding the imperialist nation that launched the war in the first place, is pro assad ?
>and it failed
oh, he isn't in control of majority of the country ?

US have been tried, and they failed, they're just here to use YPG as meat shield for their fucking oil field, how the fuck can anyone defend this shit

>What exactly are they supposed to do at this juncture
break all relations with US tards and accept to join force with assad to kick them out
yet another proof he is a hack with incredibly shitty geopolitical analysis
stay on analyzing films fam, you suck at IRL politics
>to oversee probable demographic replacement of Kurdish areas with concentrated resettlement of Arab refugees
I mean, after the fuckers literally help USA keep your oil fields, I find it totally legitimate for any nation to plan to annihilate them.
I liked their inner political org, but their geopolitics have been iraqi kurds level of stupidity, and they gonna end up like them
Yekîneyên Parastina Petrolê, biji YPP

(57.74 KB 474x600 henri iv.jpg)
Anonymous 11/10/2019 (Sun) 15:36:44 No. 121425 [Reply]
who was the medieval/elizabethan /ourguy/ ?
35 posts and 12 images omitted.


This is worse than NazBol.
(78.65 KB 500x505 image0.jpg)
>This is worse than NazBol.

(80.68 KB 1024x1073 KKE.png)
International Leftist Movements around the World Anonymous 11/29/2019 (Fri) 04:11:27 No. 142803 [Reply]
What are the best leftist parties/organizations in the world at the moment and what chances do they have implementing socialism (and eventually communism) in their country? Heard the MLs and Anarchists in Greece are pretty cool.
5 posts and 1 image omitted.
It's fluoride.
the young and old are kinda at odds as the CPC organizes many different anti-gentrification programs and yet as of recent a lot of real estate companies in places like BC and toronto have been getting bought up by chinese companies and chinese businessmen, so some of the dumb and young types think this is unironically a good thing even though these landlords are just as brutal and unforgiving as the original ones.
(79.53 KB 940x627 state-capitalism.jpg)
(148.21 KB 1200x675 private-market.jpg)
(158.91 KB 1278x717 farm-cooperative.jpg)
Workers' Party of Korea is doing a decent job given their circumstances maintaining a blend of state capitalism, regulated private markets and socialism.
(1.72 MB 1000x657 EFF.jpg)
>What are the best leftist parties/organizations in the world at the moment and what chances do they have implementing socialism (and eventually communism) in their country?
In terms of parties that are not currently running a country somewhere, I think the EFF is probably the most serious in terms of functioning as a mass organization and posing a real threat to the status quo in their country. But the idea that we're heading for an ecstatic end-state communism is exceedingly unlikely anytime soon and definitely won't happen in our lifetimes, so it's really not how I would think about it, but it's not a bad goal to have.
>Communist party of canada is okay, but a lot of the young people are PSL types, young stupid mixed race middle class kids that think marx and lenin were black supremacists
Most of these North American micro-parties function more like fan clubs for the communism "brand" with actually successful communist leaders treated as like celebrities. I would use the word "cult" but this isn't to suggest they're like Heaven's Gate but cults in the same sense of cult fandom. They're not anywhere close to being mass organizations and the ability for members -- who shuffle in and out -- to think and act critically as Marxists is smothered by party leadership which both flatters their (young, naive and extremely impressionable) membership and leaves them at the mercy of whatever the "national" core decides. It's actually more in the interest of these micro-parties' leadership to keep them small and the cadres isolated, because if they expanded too rapidly or grew too big, then that would threaten this puffed-up pretense of "democratic centralism," which in actual practice is just a veneer for handful of people to keep the churn going and handle the money.
And when I say "celebrities" I mean like how they treat these communist leaders in a fetishistic way as like demigods and rock stars rather than real human beings who led mass movements of millions and with the useful content -- and context -- of their ideas stripped out. They even internalize bourgeois myths about communism, but flip them around so communism comes to mean Big Dick Joey Steel shooting kulaks in the head because they deserved it. It's basically all of this complicated, dynamic and nuanced history being boiled down to red flag = good. This also smothers the ability to gain real knowledge, like the fact that governments that waved red flags fought wars with each other and sent assassins to try and murk each other. Enver Hoxha thought the USSR was as bad as the U.S. and after breaking with Mao accused Mao of trying to form an alliance with Japan as a precondition for a global race war, which might testify some kind of flaw in Hoxha's analysis. But the fandom aspect of the communist "subculture" -- which these micro-parties exploit -- makes bringing up this goofy stuff impolite and overall preventing the development of an actual movement; i.e. something that moves. It becomes purely passive, like the communist equivalent of Swifties

Anonymous 11/29/2019 (Fri) 18:33:48 No. 143232 [Reply]
Anons do you think there is any credibility to this theory of china releasing a gold backed currency of some kind to tank the dollar or it a lolbertarian delusion? This guy seems to be sincere but he also shills bitcoin constantly so I dont know what to think.

A gold-backed yuan is possible depending on the outcome of the trade war.

(77.77 KB 640x427 jacob rothschild.jpg)
Seems like China wants some trouble.
Pure crankery. Gold backed currencies constrain the economy, they will never make a comeback, and they don't need to. A state can using modern information economies perfectly align expenditures with potential productive outputs and adjust the money supply accordingly. Especially China, because still have unapologetic capital controls.

(348.84 KB 667x541 IMG_20191115_191635.jpg)
Anonymous 11/29/2019 (Fri) 19:03:14 No. 143255 [Reply]
>be me
>be a closeted faggot with homo desires
>everyone is pro lgbt now maybe I should try it out
>mfw I realize the only reason they are is because capitalism has exhausted all markets and is looking to establish consoomer identities and porkies don't give a shit about preventing diseases
>mfw I realize safe sex guidelines are still stuck in the stone age and there is no way this lifestyle is anywhere near healthy
>mfw I look at cdc statistics that say every 1 in 4 fags has hiv
What will we do with fags in a socialist society anons. Will we moniter their activity much more rigoursly or force them to integrate
13 posts omitted.
Also you might just be horny. You sound pretty young, and young people are horny all the time and think about sex constantly because of hormones.
>how do you do fellow leftists? btw kill the gays

nah I'm not buying it
Homosexuality isn't part of socialism.
Who the fuck said I'm a leftist. I just said I'm a closeted faggot

(9.72 KB 181x278 download (9).jpg)
Why are leftist uniforms so boring nowadays? Anonymous 11/22/2019 (Fri) 23:02:07 No. 136677 [Reply]
I see the far-right having all these goofy-ass costumes at their rallies, but Antifa isn't much better fashion wise. What happened to stuff like pic related here in the US?
24 posts and 12 images omitted.
>No one has posted NVA yet
smh boys
(59.77 KB 520x450 12098714091049810.jpg)
(276.07 KB 1500x1000 -1081-48019649187429827948.jpg)
(27.10 KB 400x236 47658756875687.jpg)
oh fuck yeah balaclava boys posting hours starts now
Meh. Someone has to say it.
The Black Panthers were very awesome fashionwise too.
looks almost like bronze armor

Marxist History of the World 11/29/2019 (Fri) 02:51:24 No. 142762 [Reply]
Hi I'm reading this marxist history book and I don't get this passage:

>Poverty is a general condition. Traditional agricultural economies
do not produce enough to provide abundance for all. Sometimes
they do not produce enough to provide even the necessities. Property
is a privileged, a priori claim to scarce resources. It allocates wealth
to certain individuals, families, landowners, temples, tribes, or city-
states. Property can be private or collective, but is never universal.
This contradictory pairing – poverty and property – gave rise to
class inequality, state power, and warfare. The religious and military
specialists of prehistoric Sumer had been granted control over the
surplus so that they could carry out their functions on behalf of
society as a whole. At first, their position had depended on public
sanction. But control over surplus made them powerful, and as they
consolidated their authority, they found that they could use it to
enrich themselves further and maintain their position without public
sanction. In this way, the high priests, war chiefs, city governors, and

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

3 posts omitted.

>Traditional agricultural economies do not produce enough to provide abundance for all.

?? doesn't poverty exist because surplus value is being controlled by the elite?


>Property can be private or collective, but is never universal.

isn't collective and universal the same thing??

>This contradictory pairing – poverty and property – gave rise to
class inequality, state power, and warfare.


Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>Traditional agricultural economies do not produce enough to provide abundance for all.
Productive forces are not developed enough

>isn't collective and universal the same thing??
no. collective many, universal the concept of property implodes

the very concept of poverty as we understand it has as precondition the existence of private property.
a concept which is entirely made up by society. there is nothing in nature actually possesing the property of being property to some entity.
poverty in our understanding means less or a lack of private property in comparison to some set of entities having private property.

>what surplus, i thought you said society can't produce enough for the bare necessities sometimes?
Development of productive forces.
Surplus value is specific to capitalism, the author is talking about prehistoric times
> >Traditional agricultural economies do not produce enough to provide abundance for all.
>Productive forces are not developed enough
Also note that before capitalism production wasn't (as) socialized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization_(Marxism)
To me, it just sounds like the author thinks agricultural societies failed to eradicate poverty, war, inequality and state power because of 2 reasons-
1) the hierarchical distribution of property, which led to abuse of power; and,
2) agriculture's inability to produce enough food to provide it to everyone.

I'm curious, what does this book say about pastoralist societies?

(193.01 KB 1545x869 coomer.png)
Anonymous 11/26/2019 (Tue) 06:02:08 No. 139828 [Reply]
So what's your take on the question of pornography/prostitution?

There are a lot of angles to approach it from. /pol/ocks and redpill grifters have correctly identified that a lot of young men are becoming addicted to both due to unprecedented ease of access to increasingly extreme content and widespread cultural normalization. The nofap movement found its first converts among these insecure, low-energy headcases and seems to be changing their lives for the better.

Why shouldn't the left also combat this as a public health issue?

You only hear insane idpol libs crying utter nonsense like "unionize sex workers" as if the puny minority of camgirls doing this for fun can speak for the vast majority who are victims of human trafficking. It is no question that the latter group is the single most negatively affected and worthy of consideration when forming opinions on this subject. Why they are consistently ignored in favor of shills for the industry should be clear to any communist or person with an ounce of skepticism for that matter.

Do you think socialist state from the past improperly handled these issues? Was there a healthier cultural atmosphere when it came to sex?
260 posts and 35 images omitted.
I’m not arguing for prostitutes, I’m saying that banning porn, specifically drawn/animated porn or porn made by individuals is purely reactionary.

I agree with you on some of the things here honestly, except this idea that porn is exploitative to women simply by existing. and the idea that we should do away with or abolish sex and sexuality is utter lunacy.
Based. Go coom yourself to death you degenerate
>I’m saying that banning porn
Banning porn was at not a single post argued by anybody,I'm saying it now so you stop arguing in circles,and if somebody did indeed do it,then he can complain to me about it.
>that porn is exploitative to women simply by existing.
The sex industry and porn under capitalism,is,by definition,exploitative,and I'm saying it again,of both women AND the men,this is not a moral argument about whether or not it's a cool work environnement.
>the idea that we should do away with or abolish sex and sexuality is utter lunacy.
I,personnally,also don't agree with it,but I don't have any real argument to make to those who see this as an endgoal,same as anything about "transcending" our own flesh,it's made with good intentions,but I just don't think it's necessary,except maybe biological immortality,but I'm going to derail the thread and make it about transhumanism if we talk about that.
I know this is Bait Land,but you didn't have to had more to the pile.
aight I agree with all of this.

I’m bailing out of this thread now though, it’s giving me a headache.
>Sadly, this. I highly doubt this site or any one from it is actually capable of running anything other than harassing others and bitching about e-celebs.>>142959
Questions of
Specifically, queasyness about the inevitable tension between what is, and what could be, is something that dogs many special interest forums.not just political forums.
For an example, martial arts forums:
<how many real fights have you been in
<you can't control the knife hand, when stabbed just run
Pagan forums
<armchair occultists don't do anything
<it's all Jungian archetypes
Even escort review boards:
<in a relationship you pay for it anyway
<once a punter always a punter, abandon hope ye who enter this board

(93.62 KB 670x503 65zw4w5w4q3.jpeg)
Śoviet cold war strategy Anonymous 11/20/2019 (Wed) 22:20:53 No. 134007 [Reply]
I have doubts that the Soviets pursued an optimal strategy during the arms race in the cold war.

The large arsenal of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles were intended to produce deterrence by threatening the capitalist nato-block. While there was comparably similar amount of weaponry on both sides that was supposedly producing a balance of power. The capitalist side however was considerably more aggressive in terms of various cold-war power-struggle theatres like proxy wars.

The question here is why the higher willingness for brinkmanship ? This cannot be explained with bravado, because the capitalist class is demonstrably risk-averse. So is it possible that the soviets threatened the wrong target. Was the general population in the nato-block considered to be more expendable than in the Soviet-block ?

Did the Soviets threaten the wrong target or at least had a sub-optimal aim ?

I have a hypothesis, that the soviets could have gotten a much cheaper and a lot less nuclear arsenal that would have produced a lot more restraint during cold war power-struggle, if they had focused on threatening targets the capitalist cared about the most, which probably was capital goods and money support systems, more than population centres.

In terms of weaponry this would have been more an long the lines of precise decapitation weapons rather than weapons of mass-destruction.
18 posts and 4 images omitted.
>Lets say you replace the nuclear war-head with a kinetic impactor, if you pile drive a 10 ton kinetic mass at say mach15 into a weapons factory it will be vaporised even more ferociously than with a nuclear detonation, but there would be very little effect beyond the target aera, maybe a few tremors and broken windows

A 10 ton ICBM throw weight is massive, the world's biggest ICBM is the Soviet SS-18 and that carries about 9 tons.
Those 10 tons at 7km per second, will, in the best case have the energy of about 60 tons of TNT. That's a big explosion, but it's only big enough to cause partial damage to large industrial installations and paired with the inherent inaccuracy of ICBMS (best case CEP of around 45m -Soviets never got close to this-) means that hardened targets are going to require many warheads to achieve a kill.
By contrast, in real life the SS-18 could carry a single 25000000 ton equivalent warhead, or 10 750000 ton of TNT equivalent warheads.

This shows the flaws in your logic: the reality is that nuclear weapons are practically magical in the sheer amount of destructive power they have compared to conventional weapons.
ICBMs are incredibly expensive, the thing that makes them economical is the incredible energy density of nuclear weapons.
You cannot meaningfully deter a nuclear armed force that has equivalent productive forces to you by using conventional weapons, and unfortunately the Warsaw Pact had less productive forces than the NATO states.
A good reason to go to Berlin.
(124.28 KB 400x455 rtvzg.png)
interesting thanks for the info, although this seems to be mostly about evading the anti-missile-missiles. Still the kinetic impactor looks pointier than i would have imagined.

Well to be fair if they had pursued the strategy i described they would have put R&D towards more accuracy and cargo capacity, both these technical developments would have been usable for civilian space-missions. The biggest cargo capacity for a rocket concept had 500 tons. And for aiming you could have bounced video-feed off a satellite if you trained people to compensate for a few seconds latency, you'd probably get about a dozen course-corrections and get close to pin-point accuracy even with the crude tech from that time.

Also your calculation about payload are not reasonable, because the energy that a nuclear explosion actually delivers to the intended target is a tiny fraction compared what is released overall. And radiation and heat which makes a large part of the energy release is no where as efficient at breaking down a weapons factory building compared to kinetic energy.

If you build giant static MIRV ICBMs, your nuclear armed enemy will easily launch a decapitation strike against you using MIRV SLBMs.
This is infact the entire reason that silo based MIRVs were banned; they are massively destabilising.

With Silo based MIRV weapons, one enemy warhead targeting a silo can take out potentially 10 warheads, this puts a massive incentive on first strike, 'use it or lose it' mentality.

Your suggestion to use even bigger and ultimately less destructive MIRVS makes this even worse.
One enemy warhead could take out maybe hundreds of kinetic impactors; a single Ohio class SSBN could launch 280 warheads with little warning time.

Midcourse interception also becomes allot more economical if you put all of your eggs into one basket like that.

Then there are the logistical issues of using heavy launchers:
As they rely on liquid fuel they cannot be launched at short notice or even prepared discretely.
They require huge infrastructure to launch and transport.
They are pretty much impossible to harden.
They are pretty much impossible to hide.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

You have some points here, so in order to fix the accuracy and energy coupling problem, the impactors are filled with pellets inside so it's intercontinental ballistic buckshot, and use variable altitude fuse to determine the radius the hypersonic buckshot is sprayed.

You are also correct that it's probably better to abandon the land based silos and instead use a submerged solid fuel heavy launchers, toed behind a sub, with a few tanks with variable buoyancy, to orient the thing horizontally while being toed underwater.

This gives a utility-submarine with a lot of toe-capacity, and the heavy lifter rocket can easily be reconfigured as submarine cargo-pod. This combo would allow for bypassing embargos which would stop the ability for the capitalists to use sanctions as weapon to starve populations.

As far as the interception goes, that's irrelevant, because impactors are dirt cheap in comparison. Consider that the lower stage of the heavy lifter can be made reusable just by attaching drag-bags to slow it's decent back into the sea, making this much more economical, in the sense that i can use this and its infrastructure during peace time for civilian purposes. So that the war stuff might just mean schedule & payload changes.


I will grant you that this is very debatable whether they could have achieved a non nuclear deterrent with yesteryear-technology, but if we expand this debate to current time, it's very possible, if you change the threat model, to only target the capitalist class power-structure-components rather than populations.

(4.06 KB 158x214 Bike lock.jpg)
Sage 11/14/2019 (Thu) 16:03:59 No. 126583 [Reply]
You may not like it, but this is what the ideal communist party looks like:

Party members are members of both trade and tenants unions, not only this, but a certain department of the party will be trained so that they are active within these unions and are competent organisers in both these areas. If necessary, they can go knocking on doors and organise a neighbourhood, or salt a workplace and organise a workers union.

So, at this point they would be attacking rent and profit, two main drivers of capital.

One that is not organised around is interest, debtors servitude. The parties union department should be developing debtors unions. This is semi uncharted territory, but a very large area of exploitation.

This section of the party should be actively dedicated to organising as many workplaces and neighbourhoods of renters into unions as possible

The next department of the party is the community survival department which is divided into two stages. The first stage is the organisation of community survival programs. This may be anything that benefits a community. What benefits that community must be discerned by that community, thus this must be approached in a mass line fashion. The best way to achieve this in the immediate is to go round, knocking on doors, getting information and feed back, then through the party giving the people what they need, be that food, health clinics, shelter in the form of expropriated buildings, etc.

The second stage of this is the long term stage, which recognises the protracted nature of the struggle. All of these programs are the basis from which support grows, they are applied in certain communities who are receptive to them and solidified and developed, in order to strengthen the organs of working class power for the eventual crisis in capitalism coming to a head. Thus, these community survival programs must have a strong economic base to work from, this should take the form of a network of co-operatives controlled by the party, with its workers fully unionised, with taxes on the co-operatives by the party, in order to fund the gradual development of the other survival programs, which might then include co-operative housing, as well as the funding of full time union agitators and political organisers

>muh co-ops
this is literally in the BPP ten point program

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

80 posts and 9 images omitted.
>I am advocating this as specifically a measure to back and broaden an armed insurgency though. As a resource base for the armed insurgency that will come,specifically tied in to the labour movement and a communist party.
>As well as this, I don't believe the contradictions between unions and the workers state are political
This is the way I understood it too, however it has the same fallacy as the stalinist plan for transition to communism: just like the state must relinquish its centralised control at the point of transition (something that is against its material interests), so here the transition to armed insurgency will mean going against the material interests of the co-ops and potentially even the less radicalised workers who are already benefiting from the redistributive policies that the co-ops will run on. Political situations, unlike material conditions, are realistically impossible to plan for in an abstract context, so any plan that will require a political escalation of the workers struggle (realistically the armed insurgency will only really happen if the workers absolutely support it/demand it by virtue of necessity, that's how it occurred every other time) will need to account for the acceleration of contradictions between the state and the party to a point where it can only be resolved by bringing down the state. I'm not really sure how this can be approached considering that the co-op stage by itself will no doubt help (and in fact must help, otherwise the project fails) the material circumstances of the workers employed in them in the first place. This is not acceleration of the contradictions of capital, this is comparable to Keynesian policies aimed at cushioning the contradictions. Unless we are relying on building a political consensus that the state must be brought down? This is not certain to happen at all, and workers will need to be convinced to rise up despite their material conditions being improved.

The only way this can work is if the state is expected to try to confront and shut down this entire operation first, but as I mentioned before capital will be perfectly fine with an "economically just company" that is still beholden to the rules of the market anyway. At that point the discussion within the party is likely to be of the sort: "is it possible to pressure other companies to adopt our policies and reform capitalism into socialism" which is counterproductive and overly reliant on the supposition that redistributive justice on a company scale will be possible to sustain within capitalism forever which, again drawing on the lessons of Keynesianism and the neoliberal reaction, it won't be.

So the question is how do we convince the workers to abandon their material interests at a certain point in the struggle to take up the immensely personally risky prospect of taking on the capitalist state directly, and how do we guard against the inevitable attempts at diluting that goal? The answer is only political development, which is the sticking point of all modern socialist movements really because the only really successful ones had their political development almost entirely driven by applying marxism to their at the time absolutely terrible material circumstances (think hunger, homelessness, banditism, death as opposed to today's kafkaesque bureaucratic exercises that give you just enough to keep you hooked without you going completely rogue).

The contradiction that I see here is that improving material circumstances do not necessarily drive political development informed by marxism, especially not in the long term. But maybe this is an overly accelerationist point of view, I dunno.
>This has meant that many workers have settled for a small piece. That piece is though now shrinking, and we are seeing resurgence in the labour movement.
Exactly, which is why this needs to be taken into account. My personal fear is that traditional unions such as they are (USDAW is a great example of a union that has settled for basically jack shit and actively collaborates with management to the detriment of workers, organising against Corbyn and for Owen Smith was in particular a litmus test that they failed with regards to class struggle) would actually undermine this project to some extent by decoupling the political goals from the material circumstances of its members, but at the same time the answer isn't to fight against them, like at all. While in a worker's state the contradictions between unions and the state won't be political, in a borderless state-like organisation that operates under bourgeois law they very likely will be (obv. in addition to the material ones) with the union's taking the side of capital out of defeatism or even outright liberal hostility to the project, and that's the problem that I'm seeing.

>right, the thing is I'm not trying to prove firms can work for workers to, I'm trying to command/destroy/change some capital to re-purpose it as a quasi-socialist-social democratic worker controlled capital whatever you want to call it fund for communist activity.
Yep, I got this point, the problems I'm trying to point out are present during the transition from lifting up a community's material circumstances to giving them a political consciousness. I suppose the question is actually this: say we start out with nothing, what do we organise first? The party or the co-ops? If the answer is either build the party or build both, how do we convince workers to support the party before "proving it" by lifting their material circumstances using co-ops? Material circumstances will inevitably lead to putting co-ops first at the initial stage to prove the concept. Which leads to: if the answer is build the co-ops first, all of my criticism stands in full, and I think this is the part that needs development.

It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem I guess.

>Also, before you say it, I know this advantage of co-ops to the workers also equals a disadvantage on the market
I agree that in the end this doesn't matter much, I guess it depends on how the organisation is organised initially whether the co-op managers will start accelerating the contradictions by their demands for greater market competitiveness.

Agreed. I guess this will be determined during the process of struggle rather than ahead of time.
>its gone over my head then, what were you trying to say?
It's basically the contradiction in Marxist-Leninist states, how it was uncritically reproduced by a trot sect in full, and what you touched upon below in the same post.

>How do you build a disciplined organisation that can take on concentrated capitalist power but doesn't succumb to concentrations of power inherent in capital and thus repeating them.
>In theory, you have to completely abolish capital at every single step, but I just can't get behind this.
>What I am suggesting is merely a way to build a party that can sustain itself for a protracted struggle
Agree with all of this, and also at such an advanced stage a lot of these contradictions will be worked out through the process of internal struggle, and the "drop in replacements" for state structures developed during the struggle will be instrumental for remaking the state. Hence why I keep shifting focus to the initial stages of organisation, and the transitions from early stages to the later stages. These are the only potential fault points that I see that I personally think must be organised against from the very beginning and cannot be simply resolved at the point when they appear, and additionally must be resolved by the leadership of the movement itself with approval from the workers (or failing that the leadership must be removed and replaced), if eastern european socialist states (or maybe even China) are any indication.

Just to summarise: the major fault points (imo) are the contradiction between what co-op managers think is best for the co-ops vs. what will advance the worker's struggle; the development and launch of the transition from passive resistance against capital to active resistance; and the role of non-revolutionary unions during the entire process of building up to active resistance.

Also I know you're a scotfag from the britpol thread. glasgow? edinburgh?
>This is why even workers’ cooperatives producing commodities for the market will tend inevitably to ‘become their own capitalist’ - they will be driven by market competition to accumulate a growing surplus from their own labour in order to invest in new means of production which give them a fighting chance to meet the survival conditions established on the market.
I love these tenured academics write against co-ops, when their boss is some limp-wristed liberal. If he did a day of manual labour in his life he'd know that for a worker, working in a co-op is a massive improvement over working for a "regular" company. Yes, I'd rather exploit myself than have someone else exploit me, how is that controversial?

I don't see him on the barricades, why is he against the improvement of the conditions for the working class?
>says the lenin hat


no cookies?