/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


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

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(4.06 KB 158x214 Bike lock.jpg)
Sage 11/14/2019 (Thu) 16:03:59 No. 126583
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


The party should also be organising around the environment, in the form of confronting and opposing polluting big business

On top of this, the party should be promoting a healthy lifestyle, both physically and mentally.

It should be providing both ideological and physical training.

It should have an armed wing which in the immediate focuses on physical training, defence of marches, co-ops, strikers etc, but should ultimately be preparing for a defensive armed struggle, or a guerrila struggle when the time occurs.

This party should stay out of electoral politics entirely, until such a time as it has local neighbourhood density across most of its national area, at this stage, they may enter parliament in an attempt to take it over. Before that, this is wasted energy and will only demoralise the party members and working class.
>>126583
Sounds pretty based to me.
>>126583
Why are you naming yourself "Sage" ? Is it because you are larping as an old communist sage ?
>>126583
>You may not like it, but this is what the ideal communist party looks like:
What's not to like? I would add about creating specific and official cadre orgs for the party, like the sports and theory reading orgs so people know where to go. Also add the imperative mandate for all delegates.
>>126616
He's a namefag. Don't ask namefags to explain themselves. They can't. They do it because otherwise they feel insignificant and insecure.
>>126616
It's because he put sage in the wrong field once, and now he just leaves it in there. That's what he said in another thread, at least.
>>126620
That's rather rude, don't you think?
>>126616
I’m here to promote my beliefs. Makes them more recognisable. I saged before and now my laptop and phone just keeps it there
>>126618
Many people get antsy about co-ops over the whole ultra left “self managed capital “ thing
>>126657
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problems with co-ops. The only problem comes when people want to make it market socialism rather than having the coops plugged into a central cybernetic plan led by Chairman dickblast.
>>126651
It's an excuse.

>>126655
>my laptop and phone
Just admit you're a namefag, it's impossible to have your phone put your name as "Sage" if you typed it on PC. However just because you're a namefag that doesn't automatically make you a bad person, or make your opinion wrong. It seems that some people are just retards who can't have nuance and resort to bashing people who put a name in their field (like >>126620).

Good thread tho, I agree with OP here.
>>126620
Projection
>>126657
>ultra left “self managed capital “ thing
There's nothing "ultra left" about it. It's the mainstream Marxist view.

<One of the greatest misconceptions about capitalism is the notion that these tendencies flow from the motivations of a class of private owners of the means of production. Yet the reality is quite different: the drive to accumulate by means of exploitation is inherent in the generalization of the commodity form. An economy based on that form, in which economic reproduction occurs by means of exchange according to market criteria (socially necessary labour-time), will inevitably produce all of its basic relations, irrespective of the precise form of ownership. For what is crucial to capitalism is not a specific form of ownership of the means of production, but rather the capital relation, that relation in which the direct producers are dominated by the means of production and the incessant drive to develop and expand them. ‘The rule of the capitalist over the worker’, insists Marx, ‘is nothing but the rule of the independent conditions of labour over the worker.’ It is not the capitalist who creates these conditions; these conditions create the capitalist: ‘The capitalist functions only as personified capital, capital as a person ...’ This is what it means when Marx writes elsewhere that ‘capital is essentially capitalist’, capitalism refers to that specific set of social relations in which workers are subjected to the pressures of exploitative accumulation in order that the producing unit can survive in the world of commodity exchange.

<Indeed, these relations can exist even where there is no apparent capitalist. It makes little difference if workers ‘sell’ their labour-power to collectives under their own control. So long as these enterprises are engaged in commodity production, so long as their revenues are governed by market prices, then wage-labour will prevail since the fund for wages will be determined by the market prices for their commodities. And so long as they are forced to accumulate in order to meet socially necessary labour-times, which are determined on the market, then the provision of these wages themselves will depend on the success of strategies of ‘self-exploitation’, i.e. the accumulation of a surplus from their own labour which enables the workers to utilize a quality and quandty of means of production which ensure the market viability of the firm. 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.

<Workers acting as ‘their own capitalist’ may sound odd to those who have accepted the image of capital as identifiable private owners and employers. But once we grasp capital as a social relation inherent in the generalization of the commodity form - especially with respect to labour-power - then it becomes clear that the precise form in which capital is personified is an entirely secondary question. The key issue is the compulsion to competitive accumulation which entails the domination of living labour by dead labour - something which can occur even within a worker-managed firm producing for exchange.

>>126655
>I’m here to promote my beliefs. Makes them more recognisable.
How lucky for us. But you mean "advertise" rather than promote, because you intentionally brand yourself. I love conversing with an advertisement.
>>126659
The co-ops in this instance are means to an end, a way to provide a slightly better standard of work, as well a financial base for a protracted struggle, as well as teaching co-op workers self management, while kept in a coherent direction by the party, and checks on a new class emerging from the co-ops via the unionisation of these workers. The idea to replace the private businesses in neighbourhood with party controlled co-ops, which then become a beacon of support for all the other community organisations.

In this way, dual power can built up and at the right time, the power wielded by the party can seize the state organs and the two blocs can carry out the communist program proper, backed by working class communities who are not bound to large capitalist enterprise, and where they are, have strong unions, with the capability and influence to defend themselves from reaction, in this way pushing at capital from every angle
>>126674
>working class communities who are not bound to large capitalist enterprise
Mondragon, the most successful coop in history, is a large capitalist enterprise, employing and exploiting more than 70k people.
>>126670
it’s ultraleft in that it holds a purist rather than pragmatic stance. Name an example of actually existing socialism which has not utilised co-ops to at least some extent?

We cannot go straight from capitalism to communism, there must be stages, and through these stages there must be a revolutionary party, and this revolutionary party must have resources sustainable for a protracted struggle. It must also gain mass support. In an age where work is degraded and unions on the backfoot, unions alone cannot be the entire revolutionary strategy, we need strong bases in communities


>>126667
I saged in all fields on both. Plus now it has the added bonus of triggering people
(569.88 KB 900x533 drftgzh.jpeg)
why did you choose a bicyclic-lock as thread pic?
>>126680
Mondragon wasn’t set up by a communist party in order to supplement already existing community survival programs.

It is also still has better working conditions than non co-operatives, I’m also well aware it is still exploitative, but the nature of the exploitation is different and you are ignoring the means to an end part
>>126655
>I'm namefagging because muh laptop, muh phone
>>126685
>I'm namefagging because it triggers people
As >>126667 said, just admit that you're a namefag. Own up to your shit.
>>126685
>it’s ultraleft in that it holds a purist rather than pragmatic stance
You explicitly said that it's ultraleft because the >>126657
> “self managed capital“ thing
You are changing your positions on the go, as usual. There are advantages to anonymity, you know.
>>126705
Yeh, the idea that you don’t have to self manage capital before you can abolish it is ultraleft

You haven’t actually made a proper argument against the tactic in that respect. Just tried to a gotcha.
>>126695
It stayed on my laptop, then I found people recognised it, then I found people were triggered by it. These things are t mutually exclusive
>>126686
It’s on my laptop from ages ago when based bike lock attacker posted here. I was scrolling for a random image
(128.76 KB 330x488 meatball sub.png)
>>126583
>On top of this, the party should be promoting a healthy lifestyle, both physically and mentally.
>It should be providing both ideological and physical training.
>It should have an armed wing
big emphasis
>>126772
In my mind, in the west at least, in the early stages, this armed wing would be for stewarding marches, defending strikers from strike breakers. For anything else, there would need to be a clandestine wing of the armed wing that was ready to donthe big dirty if needed. In the later stages it is this force that would develop into community policing etc. Like the John Brown Gun Club does
>>126583
Spoken like a true socdem. All resources should be used for revolutionary action.
>>126883
such as
>>126883
also
>socdem

"This party should stay out of electoral politics entirely, until such a time as it has local neighbourhood density across most of its national area, at this stage, they may enter parliament in an attempt to take it over."

hmmmm

sounds like a shite hottake to me
>>126883
So no arguments at all then?
>>126883
this
>>126987
>socdem with a few extra steps
>>126740
You are missing the point intentionally, as usual. Neither is a sufficient reason for your namefaggotry - this is the point. You push away responsibility for your actions. Your namefaggotry leaves a stain, people start to recognize not just your hot takes but your flaws as well. You will turn into a namewhore to counter the phenomena soon enough, like most namefags do.
>>127734
>say something
>refuse to back it up
>take flag off
>"wow great post my guy"
kek
>>127742
>refuse to back it up
What is to be Done by mongoloid communist guy
>>127734
Actually I take it back I just realised you're the CPGB-ML boomer that doesn't know how to use computers and you're just taking an opportunity to get a jab in.
>>127750
fuggin gautsgyides :DDDD
>>127753
whatever works for you, fam
>>127734
>don't take part in elections

>social democracy

retard


>>127740
have you ever been on an imageboard before? Your salt, it goes on my chips m8, the more sour you get, the more its like vinegar to me.

Please engage with the actual strategies I have laid out now.

>>127742
>>127753
thanks friend

>>127750
oh look I can name a book. (pamphlet), about what is to be done in a feudal society in 1917.

I'm sure its 100% relevant to the UK in 2019 and requires no tweaks.

How about you actually engage with what I have said?
>>127945
Nice reddit spacing there.
>>127945
Honest question. Did you read this book? Yes or no?
(393.76 KB 516x724 06_00-32-31.png)
>>127945
>the more retarded I get, the more posting history is recognizably behind my namefagging persona, the strengthier I get
lel, good luck with that, noob
(1.17 MB 350x335 1545912021091.gif)
>>127956
He can't help it. He's been already asked to drop it in like 5 threads, but he insists this is how he only knows to post. So get used to it, faggot. Mr. Namefag is here to stay. And the more you point out how unbearable he is the more he will feel that he is justified to stay the way he is!
Why?
Because it """"triggered"""" you.
Why?
Because he would LOVE to become the next star on our board. So sit back, eat your popcorn, and watch how this faggot becomes the next Rebel/Yui/etc.
>>128388
Honestly?

No.

And I'm not planning to.
>tenant unions
sounds gay.

Better idea, The Communist party works through a network of proxies, i.e. ones for organizing people politically, others for securing revenue, and an enforcement arm.

Like win nearly half of all labour disputes, because management fears you.
>>127945
>have you ever been on an imageboard before?
He said while reddit spacing. It's time to go back.
(269.41 KB 468x600 witbd.png)
>>128402
Better idea: the communist party starts fighting for the thing only IT can and will fight for: mother fucking revolution.
>>128407
There was a reason why the mafia literally owned the unions.
>>128407

Ridiculous.



We should build horizontal structures FIRST that TRAIN our people to become reformist.
>>128411
>Horizontal organization
Never works. Leaderships are natural to any group of people
(462.13 KB 300x160 473477g.gif)
>>128410
This is a literal counter-history, you stupid faggot. The unions NEVER became "maffia-owned" - an interpretation pushed by the McCarthy administration.

Consider killing yourself, you cold war dupe.
>>128412
Horizontalism worked for each and every NGOs, and they did more for the communist cause than actual communist "parties".
>>128414
It actually did happen, despite what your dsa lecturer stated.
My point was that due to the structure of the American Mafia, it was easy to take over unions. Communists should literally take notes on that.
>>128417
>dsa
Nigger, I'm a fucking European communist who knows more about US working class history than you do. The McCarthy administration LITERALLY PUSHED THIS MOTHER FUCKING CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE US UNIONS WERE CONTROLLED BY THE "MAFIA," YOU STUPID FUCKING SHIT.

DON'T CONSIDER KILLING YOURSELF, AS I SAID ABOVE.

ACTUALLY DO IT.
>>128416
Stop impersonating a leftist/communist or face a ban.
If you want to argue as a fascist on this board, be upfront about your position.
>>128417
iirc you mentioned some time ago that your folks fought in wildcat strikes across the US back in their time, got any stories to share?
(63.36 KB 850x400 6f6f65465f65f4.jpeg)
>>128419
If you are from europe fucking dox yourself g'rman
>>128422
No i am not that guy
>>128425
This person was unbanned because vol was stupid.
>>128510
turns out vol wasn't only to blame
>>128391
What an actual fucking little worm.


THIS IS NOT MY POST. THIS IS THE CPGB-ML AUTIST IMPERSONATING ME.

Fucking hell what a triggered little cunt he is.

Imagine spending your spare time doing this.

Thanks for shitting up abour 5 threads now, probably more if ic an be arsed to look

>>128411

this post also


>>128416
imagine trying this hard t0 make a strawman of my actual positions, which are clearly spelled out in the above post.
>>128388
Yes i have read that book. I have undoubtedly read more the the CPGB-ML guy, who has probably read only that book and now considers himself the next stage of ascended marxism or something.

>>128390
nah, i will never show you my face, twitter, any of that shit. I will just talk about the above program


>>128402
isn't this almost what ive suggested? just the "proxies" are unions and they are not proxies we are up front about it?

also this is literally what trots do in the UK

>>128405
you would only know what "reddit spacing" looked like if you posted on reddit no? Enough to recognise the format.

I on the other hand, have only ever posted on /leftypol/ and 4pol. That is my only engagment with imageboards etc.


>>128407
yes, HOW
imo capital accumulation only happens when capital becomes exchangable
miss me with that gay commodity shit

>>126583
>>128402
ur both truth, 402 just hates the specific labels for some of the groups.
Every groups gets rep, and all who wish for a better world are proxy as/with the vanguard
>>126688
If the struggle is protracted (which it will have to be if we're being honest about it) what's to stop the co-op leadership from exacting an unequal amount of influence on the political wing due to economic power relations? How to prevent it from becoming degenerate due to capital's drive towards accelerating its own contradictions?

Mondragon is a good example because see https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049

You say that simply being set up by a communist party will stop it degenerating because of the ideological element inherent, but that's not how capital works. Current criticism of Chinese corporations (general lack of worker welfare, low wages, overtime beyond legal limits, etc.) in particular shows that.
>>129785
>what's to stop the co-op leadership from exacting an unequal amount of influence on the political wing

Which part is the political wing to have unequal influence over?

I have read about Mondragon 1000 billion times.

I know that co-ops are not socialism and have many issues.

The co-ops are a means to an end.

>You say that simply being set up by a communist party will stop it degenerating because of the ideological element inherent

no, I didn't.


The timelines is this. Set up original party, with party organise community survival programs, with these, build party, once party is of a sufficient size, start building co-ops, tax these co-ops in order to fund the community survival programs and grow. The co-ops will be staffed by party members, who also be part of a trade union, which will be a further check on the leadership and I know I KNOW many co-ops also already have unionised workers and also that co-ops resist this unionisation sometimes. Like in Bolivia for example.

The form of such a co-op as I describe is different than Mondragon. They exist as a facet of the party, providing services to party members and the general community, who live and work in the same community they do.

They exist to give party members jobs and the party money. The party has funded the co-ops, if the co-ops want to stop doing community survival programs and take the money for themselves, they will be thrown out of the party, and party assets reclaimed. Democratic centralism is truly a wonderful thing.

>china
Is not built on co-ops? ...??????

On top of all this, I have not heard one single alternative suggestion to the party as I describe it besides "muh read what is to be done" Many have. Many do. All of them are failing in the west, to an embarrassing extent.

>>129636

>imo capital accumulation only happens when capital becomes exchangable
miss me with that gay commodity shit
yes commodities suck... how do you plan to get rid of them tho?
>>130769
>Which part is the political wing to have unequal influence over?
Having a political organisation that has an actual means of production is in essence like creating a state without borders. Considering this "state" must operate within the capitalist framework, it will be especially difficult to make sure that the relationships of production are not imposed on the co-ops from the outside because of "economic realities" and the need to observe bourgeois law since you must operate within it until a point of actual insurgency. There will be a constant tug of war between what is "economically sound" and what is necessary to build the party, this is just part of the usual capitalist mode of production. Once the co-ops grow to the point of profitability, there will be pressure against working outside the bourgeois system because that will threaten the profitability of the co-ops, and you'll have an internal conflict set up between the communists and the co-op managers. The challenge is to set up the power structures in such a way that co-op managers can't start building influence, and that the overriding goal isn't undermined by capital.
>They exist to give party members jobs and the party money. The party has funded the co-ops, if the co-ops want to stop doing community survival programs and take the money for themselves, they will be thrown out of the party, and party assets reclaimed. Democratic centralism is truly a wonderful thing.
Depends on who is in the central committee. The co-op managers are party members, if they ever get on the CC it's game over, they will co-opt the political wing and demobilise anti-capitalist work because it threatens profit. If the CC are in any way compromised by capital it's game over too. I'd like to believe that that would never happen, but my experiences with trot democratic centralism in the uk (with the party newspaper being the stand-in for co-ops because believe it or not it was de facto operated for profit) says that this is very possible. Democratic centralist parties always need realistic options for the membership to be able to eject the CC, and these options can never be undermined by the CC.
>Is not built on co-ops?
No, but their entire economy is supposed to be an extension of the CCP and it's still up for debate whether dengists are or aren't just lying to people when they say they are unleashing productive forces, and not entrenching capitalism for pragmatic reasons.
>I have not heard one single alternative suggestion
There is no need to be defensive. Criticism is how ideas are fleshed out. I'm not saying what you are suggesting is bad, but it needs work and thought put into it.
>>130889
>Depends on who is in the central committee. The co-op managers are party members,
Old school working class tradition was that if you get promoted to management you resign from your union fwiw
https://struggle-sessions.com/2018/09/05/all-about-that-base-no-struggle/

Mass support is built through class struggle and not through community survival programs. These programs cant compete with professional NGOs and religious charities and should only play a secondary role. Activity should be based on attacking class enemies, eg militant anti-gentrification work, anti-fascist work
>>130971
Keeping open connections with charities and sending help wearing red t-shirts with the hammer and sickle when they need boots on the ground for some work esprcially manual work pamphleteering extra hands for the soup kitchen etc etc woulds be worth it
>>130971
>Mass support is built through class struggle and not through community survival programs.
completely ignores the existence of the black panther party, as does this article, which conveniently skips over the community survival programs they create and only talks about self defence.

It also completely ignores all other groups who have done these sorts of community survival programs with great success.

Kurds for example, Naxals providing health care etc.

I don't mean to be rude but that article is terrible. Not once does it actually refer to material reality, or compare the effectiveness of various tactics or their successes with anything tangible.



Its just "look I quoted lenin therefore I must be correct"

The fact that i mentions the BPP yet ignores entirely their success in building dual power and community survival programs is a clear and glaring sign of a) the writers own ignorance or b) the more likely option IMO, sectarian dishonesty.

When you think of the BPP, you think free breakfast. To mention that in an article like this is flat out pretending reality aint like it is.

On top of that, one of the main critisms of the BPP (if you can call it that, given then racism in US unions) was their lack of a strong connection to the labour struggle.

It is with the program described above that I seek to overcome that.
>>130889
>Considering this "state" must operate within the capitalist framework, it will be especially difficult to make sure that the relationships of production are not imposed on the co-ops from the outside
This is true of every single socialist project ever, and will be true until most of the world has been liberated from capitalism.


>There will be a constant tug of war between what is "economically sound" and what is necessary to build the party
contradiction will exist until communism.

Under a traditional communist party there is a contradiction between the unions and the state as soon as those unions seize power and become the state.

That does not mean we should abandon labour unions.

> and you'll have an internal conflict set up between the communists and the co-op managers.
hence the unionisation of the co-op workers and internal party discipline.

>The challenge is to set up the power structures in such a way that co-op managers can't start building influence, and that the overriding goal isn't undermined by capital.
this is true. My answer is that everything is a challenge and nothing is perfect.

The same is true of any structure whereby power can be concentrated in a few hands, even as you say, within a communist party.

I think a framework of semi self management creates conditions whereby the co-op workers are empowered by the conditions of their work, they are used to self management and therefore more opposed to concentrations of power, particularly when coupled with unionisation.

>Depends on who is in the central committee.
we great man now?

> The co-op managers are party members, if they ever get on the CC it's game over, they will co-opt the political wing and demobilise anti-capitalist work because it threatens profit.
except its a co-op not a corporation, so they can be voted out of their office. If they start dismantling the services you and your fellow workers use, it is very likely they will be voted out, particularly in the context of a communist party which is doing all of these other things I mentioned at the same time.

>trot papers
I am sorry for the difficult times you went through in a trot organisation truly.

Thing about this is there is nothing inherently attractive to the proletariat about selling papers.

Crank newspapers do not stop their kids going to school hungry, does not house them, does not defend them.

The character of the good is entirely different, as is the structure of how it is sold.

I remember a trot trying to recruit me gave me a bunch of papers one day, then the next time i saw him was like oh btw you owe me £5 and they weren't even recent papers

>china
im not a dengist, but soviet communism russia style also collapsed back into capitalism, so where does that leave us?

Cockshott says that one of the problems with the USSR was its lack of proper democracy, simply because it made proper economic feedback more difficult.

I do believe in a more highly democratised form of communism, hence the co-ops. I think they would help for this collapse not to happen.

Even though hes not strictly talking about capitalist co-ops in his conception in TANS, i still hold that the slightly greater level of democratisation does provide that feedback loop to a better extent, in fact i think it is essential to a mass line strategy.

>There is no need to be defensive.
soz m8, the CPGB guy impersonating me has clearly made me defensive.

I see you actually want to discuss. Which is as you say good and proper.
>>131176
>This is true of every single socialist project ever, and will be true until most of the world has been liberated from capitalism.
Glad we agree, but it's still something that has not been thoroughly solved and will continue to plague every socialist project. I think in this case because a borderless state is subservient to the bourgeois laws of the actual state it is operating in it actually is a much bigger concern than what an actual socialist state would face. I'll elaborate more below.

>contradiction will exist until communism. Under a traditional communist party there is a contradiction between the unions and the state as soon as those unions seize power and become the state.
The difference being that those contradictions manifest on mainly a political basis and not a mainly economic one. In a borderless state you inherit the economic agenda of the state you operate in. This means that an economic revolution is already two steps back as opposed to the one step back of an armed insurgency. It's also why it won't be fought by states when it is being organised, because capital is very sure of its ability to subsume and rehabilitate basically everything. But it's also why it is in more danger of being co-opted by capital than anything else.

One way to sidestep this is to be aggressively multinational in your approach (just like capital is), but I don't think we're even conceptually at the stage where something like that could be organised without the nation spook ruining things. There's always a lot of chat about international unions (which seems like something that would be relevant here), but practice in this regard (esp. actual multinational organising) has been painfully inadequate.

>hence the unionisation of the co-op workers and internal party discipline.
>I think a framework of semi self management creates conditions whereby the co-op workers are empowered by the conditions of their work, they are used to self management and therefore more opposed to concentrations of power, particularly when coupled with unionisation.
Unionisation is another can of worms in the current late capitalist conditions. I'm not against unions, so bear with me, I'm mostly basing this off of my own experiences in unions and some time spent processing Fisher's Capitalist Realism. He has a big point about target based structures, how they are a result of neoliberal decentralisation of management, and how they cause stalinist levels of bureaucracy and worker disengagement and mental health deterioration in practice. Unions nowadays are mostly powerless because of this shit, precisely because they focus on services and not class struggle, and an organisation where co-ops are (even nominally) under the control of a communist party that aims to prove that business can operate for the workers too seems like exactly the sort of place to take class struggle out of the "officially imposed" unions. That's exactly how they'll be seen, and there's a high chance that an independent union might show up if the contradictions between capital and the party are high enough, which puts the party itself in a massive conundrum.

I think official unionisation in a place like this has a gigantic chance of failure if the overall workplace culture isn't radically changed towards (paradoxically) a greater degree of centralisation with an easily identifiable managerial class. This of course then creates the conditions for class struggle within the organisation, as well as the possibility that the workers will be defeated, which is mental for a communist organisation. So the answer is something else entirely, but I am not sure what yet. Perhaps completely independent unions is the way, even if they'll have to be de facto outside of the party structure?

cont'd.
>>131176
>we great man now?
no, it was meant to set up the following sentence about managers

>Thing about this is there is nothing inherently attractive to the proletariat about selling papers.
wasn't my point, I was making a conceptual comparison with regards to power relations between capital, party leadership and party membership. Everything about trot papers is shit including the people and the structures and I would never seriously propose this model actually be followed or even considered

>Cockshott says that one of the problems with the USSR was its lack of proper democracy, simply because it made proper economic feedback more difficult.
>I do believe in a more highly democratised form of communism, hence the co-ops. I think they would help for this collapse not to happen.
Cockshott's point I think was that a proper democratic tradition would've conceivably kicked the bureaucrats out before they fucked with and stonewalled the post-1950 planned soviet economic reforms and steered the country on a path to reaction. Being honest, the actual worker's councils experiment has never been seriously tried (it was killed in the USSR fairly quickly), I'm a fan of Cockshott so perhaps some kind of cybernetic council communism is the way to go in terms of political organisation. Now if we can just translate it to co-op organisation to avoid centralising economic power in the hands of a few managers, we might be onto something maybe.
>>126686
>HDMMEYI DID SYSLEYIY
>>126685
>Name an example of actually existing socialism which has not utilised co-ops to at least some extent?
Anon, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialist. It's capitalist.
>We cannot go straight from capitalism to communism, there must be stages, and through these stages there must be a revolutionary party, and this revolutionary party must have resources sustainable for a protracted struggle.
Dude, that's not how any of this shit works. A communist society isn't something that you can just "build" by enacting policies. Socialism/Communism is just the negation of capitalism, AKA a society of freely associated individuals producing everything in common without wage labor or capital to restrain them.
>How do we get from capitalism to communism?
Capitalism is a global system, and today the tentacles of wage labor strangle the proletariat of every country. Nothing short of world revolution allows for total victory over capitalism.
However, we recognize the need for political pragmatism, and real decisions obviously shouldn't be based on impossible ideals. The Bolshevik revolution taught us that some things don't always go as planned. Still, some things are indispensable to the communist movement.
1) World Revolution - There can be no socialism while capitalism still exists. As we learned with the vicious overthrow of the USSR, capitalist enemies will relentlessly try to crush revolutionary powers with sanctions, sabotage, and propaganda.
2) The revolution is always hanging on by a thread. Without continuous communist expansion throughout the world, the revolution is lost forever. Whether the revolution takes 100 days or 100 years, we must not forget that socialism is still a long ways off.
3) There is no "socialism in one country". The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to overthrow the capitalist world order, but the DoTP itself is still capitalist. The insistence that socialism had somehow already been "built" in the USSR led to a huge number of grave theoretical errors, many of which endangered the communist movement as a whole. (e. g. "Socialist commodities", "Peaceful coexistence", "party of the whole people", glasnost)
>>131176
>>131819
>Cockshott stans
Labor vouchers don't work if value still exists, anons. Also, Marx never advocated for central planning
>I do believe in a more highly democratised form of communism, hence the co-ops. I think they would help for this collapse not to happen.
Anarchist-tier logic. Simply putting more "democracy" into something doesn't change what that thing fundamentally is. You're just putting form over content. Capitalist co-ops and state-run companies aren't suddenly "socialist" just because you got rid of your boss.
<The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss
- Bordiga
>>131818

It has taken me a long time to respond to this cos i wanted to give a proper response.

>In a borderless state you inherit the economic agenda of the state you operate in. This means that an economic revolution is already two steps back as opposed to the one step back of an armed insurgency.
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, the state sets the wages and the prices, the rents, if these are out of step with the workers need, then those workers will feel that the state is not providing and will organise against it. Particularly in the early stages. This is a political situation born from the material contradictions of the working class, whom though liberated, will still want to gain as much resources as they can from the state. There may also be contradictions between the state and different industries of unionised workers, who have different requirements,their work is of a higher or lower importance with a higher or lower bargaining power therefore, or would be at a disadvantage if say, they worked in petroleum and we wanted to change over to renewables.

These are all material relationships.

>One way to sidestep this is to be aggressively multinational in your approach
>but I don't think we're even conceptually at the stage

well exactly, we need to build in order to get to that stage. yes we should be aggressively international, and such co-operative networks should help to start overseas parties of course. This entire approach is looking at the struggle in as a protracted thing. We need to build the roots.

>unions
I think we probably agree on a lot of things, judging by my above post about unions. I am not against unions either, but they are considered basically by many to be the be all and end all of organising, anarchists and ML's alike. While they are important, they are as we say riddled with contradiction particularly in the modern day. This is because in my opinion they are fundamentally reformist outfits, they are pushing for the biggest piece of the pie capitalism can give them. Now communists and anarchists want this piece to be the whole pie, but that is a long fight that requires extreme discipline and in many respects it is a fight that capital has won. 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.
>>131818
>an organisation where co-ops are (even nominally) under the control of a communist party that aims to prove that business can operate for the workers too seems like exactly the sort of place to take class struggle out of the "officially imposed" unions.
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. Communist parties have had backing from all sorts of people, capitalists etc. All I'm really suggesting is we bring that in house. It has several advantages, 1) cash 4 commies 2) lifting up the working class/lumpen class in a certain neighbourhood in a way that is tangible and visible, is the perfect way to gain the trust of people who are so used to being fucked over they largely trust nobody. It shows them the power of organising together. The whole thing serves as a pipeline, the unions feed into the co-ops feed into environmental campaigning feed into the self defence feed into the communist party. Aside from this, in and of itself providing for people who are in need is objectively good for the working class. NOT in the manner of charity, but in the manner of organised solidarity and building power to eventually topple the ruling class.
3)comrades all working together at the same jobs. 4) slightly better working conditions for these workers, as they have in most co-ops. Better working conditions mean they are more able to organise other workers, as they themselves are financially stable and they work at business that doesn't mind if they take the weekend off to travel to a different city and take part in a rally or some such thing, or needs a night off a week as they work for their local tenants union/ soup kitchen what have you. I want you to really think about the day to do day of building a revolutionary party in a developed nation. People have to get by, they have to feed kids, they have to eat, -40 hours from that and there is very little time. You make that easier and you free up the possibilities.


Also, before you say it, I know this advantage of co-ops to the workers also equals a disadvantage on the market, making them noncompetitive and unable to gain a large market share. The goal here is not to gradually grow the co-ops until all of society is co-ops. The goal is to use the limited advantages of the co-ops to strengthen wider struggle and in doing so unite the wider struggle under the direction of a communist party.
>>131818
>
I think official unionisation in a place like this has a gigantic chance of failure if the overall workplace culture isn't radically changed towards (paradoxically) a greater degree of centralisation with an easily identifiable managerial class.

this is interesting, as the tendency to centralise anyway is usually a critique of co-ops. Workers don't actually want to be making decisions all the time, so they use delegates and these delegates become the de facto managerial class, which brings them close to a petit bourg interest. This is one of the reasons I was specific about unionisation within the co-ops and I think I even mentioned that many co-operative workers are already unionised for various reasons, and co-ops can sometimes resist this change.

Again, as with other unions, I recognise the contradiction in both unions and co-ops, but the conditions of the unionised co-operative worker are better than those of the ununionised corporation worker and better conditions, by themselves, are agitation, this is the entire reason the Americans got the New Deal. Furthermore the ability to get better conditions once realised in the worker is strong, once organised effectively they realise the power of organisation.

But again, recognising these conditions, I also recognise that everything has contradiction and that we will not move to a world without contradiction in one step, therefore we must think about how to resolve the contradictions we see.
>>131819
>I was making a conceptual comparison with regards to power relations between capital, party leadership and party membership.
its gone over my head then, what were you trying to say?

>Now if we can just translate it to co-op organisation to avoid centralising economic power in the hands of a few managers, we might be onto something maybe.
This is basically the contradiction in Marxism Leninism and all variants. 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. I used to believe this, anarcho communism, left communism whatever you want to call it, but after organising I realised the sheer time it takes to organise people means in the meantime while you do this you have to have plan b's in place for when you can't fully communise. Even if you use synicalist unions to overthrow/destroy the state or seize the state through unions you are still going to be left with a big load of capital to manage in the first instance. You must set about destroying it, but you cannot do that all at once, particularly while fighting reaction. The transition has to be smooth. You have to remain popular enough to carry out your program and so that the people after you are considered legitimate to maintain stability.

What I am suggesting is merely a way to build a party that can sustain itself for a protracted struggle, in order to communise be that via expansion of self managed programs or (in the later stages) by seizure of that state. Probably some degree of both at the same time would be the most effective. Lay the foundations outside of the state, seize the state and use its power to finish off the project, while you have created strong extra state organisations, you have built in the counter weight to the state, thus bringing with it also, a whole bunch of new contradictions because even here still, under a workers state, as i ...stated... before I believe the workers to be in contradiction with the state. Regardless of the fact I believe in building a workers state and specifically a "state" wholeheartedly. Once we are at this stage, then we will know these contradictions first hand, once we are at this stage however we will be several stages ahead of where we are now. The struggle would be greatly advanced, and that is why I am for these tactics.
>>132090
>Anon, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialist. It's capitalist.
I have said this several times.
>A communist society isn't something that you can just "build" by enacting policies.
how else do you get a communist society?

how is

>1) World revolution
not a policy?

>2)Without continuous communist expansion throughout the world, the revolution is lost forever.
sounds an awful lot like a policy of continual communist expansion to me bucko

>we must not forget that socialism is still a long ways off.
is pretty much my entire point.
> There is no "socialism in one country".
how are you going to have global revolution without socialism in some countries to start with? What makes you think you can organise the entire world into one workers party without large amounts of infrastructure got by a protracted struggle?

You post with a leftcom flag but you sound awfully trot like. I even agree with you about global and permanent revolution but it seems we have come to very different conclusions about the significance of that.
>>132096
>Labor vouchers don't work if value still exists, anons.
so how do we get rid of value.
>Also, Marx never advocated for central planning
centralisation of some resources is far more efficient, for example, energy. Therefore, there will be some degree of central planning. Any decentralised planning, however democratic, will always centralise into an administration unit. This is not a bad thing, this is the society we want, telescopic central planning by consent, where we need it.
>>126583
total overhaul of society needs total organization. I like it.
>>134102
thanks comrade
>>134054
>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.

>>134056
>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.

>>134068
Agreed. I guess this will be determined during the process of struggle rather than ahead of time.
>>134081
>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?
>>126670
>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?
>>126883
>says the lenin hat

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?