>>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.