|
does anybody have that clip from the Russian movie 'Burnt by the Sun' where Kotov describes the goals of the Revolution to his daughter while they're floating around a pond on a little boat
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
holy poo poo a reply to a rudatron post from january 2016
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:So if co-ops aren't the answer. (I have to admit I thought they were, but I do see you guys points.) What would be a good way to organise ourselves to do labour to make all the things that we need and and want to do? there's no "one answer" op, it's going to take many avenues and co-ops are likely one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Social democracy as represented by Sanders is not a stepping stone to communism- it's more or less the status quo in many European countries now. You said before the promises the Left makes ring hollow but the immediate benefits of universal healthcare, free tuition, etc. are evident. The US Left was basically destroyed in the 30's and never recovered, so I would say the fact that a Left even exists as a (barely) viable political force is quite a change. Agreedo, but in contrast the european left tore itself apart in the beginning half of the 20th century through communists refusing all co-operation with social democrats (and indeed further going to war with each other), and in particular in germany brought the nazis to power by refusing to use their combined parliamentary majority to fight them
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:So if co-ops aren't the answer. (I have to admit I thought they were, but I do see you guys points.) What would be a good way to organise ourselves to do labour to make all the things that we need and and want to do? there isn't a single silver bullet, but co-ops are perfectly fine (and should be encouraged) under capitalism, much like unionism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:there's no "one answer" op, it's going to take many avenues and co-ops are likely one of them. ah, cool. I figured one of the other avenues would be the states does it. What would some other ones be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:holy poo poo a reply to a rudatron post from january 2016 well everyone always tells you to read the thread first...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
lollontee posted:when you do things for someone else you don't quite know and fully trust, you do expect to get some sort of a guarantee that your efforts will be repaid in some form. just saying that in a socialist society, everybody will trust each other fully and it'll be fine is not a satisfying answer to me to view every interaction between human beings as some sort of transaction is capitalist brain damage
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
lollontee posted:when you do things for someone else you don't quite know and fully trust, you do expect to get some sort of a guarantee that your efforts will be repaid in some form. just saying that in a socialist society, everybody will trust each other fully and it'll be fine is not a satisfying answer to me socialism is the democratic control over the means of production. this means that yes, you will still need to work and contribute to society, but how your labor is used and how society functions will be a product of democratic decision making, instead of the product of the whims of the super wealthy and politically powerful. labor can be democratically utilized to reap societal benefits, instead of being used to maximize individual profits
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:holy poo poo a reply to a rudatron post from january 2016 I was responding to rudatron generally and just picked the one post that stuck out to me. It seems he thinks the Left, on a geopolitical scale, is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Lollontee read the critique of the gotha program: Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today. Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society. The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society. It's misunderstanding Marx entirely to suggest that full product means everything, it's always meant everything after the required reductions to maintain society of which exploitation of surplus value (being an unnecessary deduction forced on the worker by the laws of bourgeois society) isn't. namesake fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Serf posted:to view every interaction between human beings as some sort of transaction is capitalist brain damage lmao at the idea of "okay so we have all these resources and the people who need them, but how will we assign a VALUE to the TRANSACTION, which is of course the most important part"
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:ah, cool. I figured one of the other avenues would be the states does it. What would some other ones be? co-ops make sense in certain industries, trade unions work in others. China's SOEs are basically corporate structures that have embedded Communist party representatives. it really depends on the situation. the United States has a history of trade unionism, and to a lesser extent co-ops. google Mondragon Corporation, it'll blow ur mind war communism is what people describe the soviet union between WW1 and WW2, which reflected a strict hierarchy and top down control from the Politburo... when times are tough that's certainly one route you can take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Serf posted:maybe i'm overthinking it here, but it seems to me that in a socialist system not getting the full value back from your labor would be offset by the fact that you would no longer have to spend money on things like food, housing, medical care etc you don't get the full value back from your labor either way. the difference between modes of production is who gets to decide to where the surplus goes to. under capitalism, the capitalist hoovers it all up, and they get to decide, and they get to spend it on yachts, the police, econ faculties, anti-union propaganda, and lobbying the government to become more libertarian under socialism, you and your co-workers get to decide, democratically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
lollontee posted:yeah, that's not gonna work I don't think Agreed. The reason that surplus labor -> productivity expansion is systematically maximized under capitalism is that it is necessary to maintain productivity parity in order to continue producing for exchange. That means: if any participant expands their productivity to increase their cut, then you have to at least maintain the same growth as they do or lose market share and risk being unable to continue participating. Marx identified the circulation of exchange value as a necessary component of that system, and thus recommended the adoption of something like labor vouchers to continue remuneration of labor but without circulation of exchange value (or even exchange value at all). Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Serf posted:to view every interaction between human beings as some sort of transaction is capitalist brain damage Well it's a good thing then, that I laid out some very specific conditions for when it is required in human interactions, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
I think part of the confusion in the discussion here stems from the intentional capitalist propaganda to confuse value extraction with value creation. Making the $ numbers go up does not mean there has been any creation of value as capitalists have shown time and time again that they can perform such an act by not only the exploitation of labor, but also corporate welfare and the creation of demand through advertising. True value is created when we 1. increase labor capacity 2. improve labor or living conditions 3. direct labor towards satisifying 1 and 2. Making workers perform longer hours for the same pay is exploitation because we did not actually increase labor capacity, we merely simulated it by decreasing working and living conditions, and pocketing the difference. A coop does not typically increase labor capacity unless they are making products that others can use to do so, thus their typical value creation would need to come from improved labor or living conditions. Being democratically run helps ease psychological stresses that typically malign such conditions, but being in a capitalist system means they are still forced to simulate an increase in labor capacity through self-governed self-explotiation in order to remain market-viable and not be trampled underfoot by the corporate behemoths who are much better at exploitation, and have a larger pool of labor to exploit from. That doesn't mean a coop can't operate with signifigantly less exploitation, of course, it just means that coops will never be a method for empowering workers to seize the means of production, because they cannot win the war against the capitalists. Only through class consiousness and solidarity can we construct a movement capable of liberating workers.
Emmideer fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:socialism is the democratic control over the means of production. this means that yes, you will still need to work and contribute to society, but how your labor is used and how society functions will be a product of democratic decision making, instead of the product of the whims of the super wealthy and politically powerful. labor can be democratically utilized to reap societal benefits, instead of being used to maximize individual profits yes I know and I agree, but democracies have borders between, even if they are friendly with each other, and within themselves as well. and i think one could argue such subdivisions are necessary for democracies to actually even work. democracies work best when you yourself personally know all the people you're deciding things with and trust them as well, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
quote:Only through class consiousness and solidarity can we construct a movement capable of liberating workers. hmm interesting, and how do you do that
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Well it's a good thing then, that I laid out some very specific conditions for when it is required in human interactions, isn't it? don't know/fully trust? those are pretty vague imo. i don't know/fully trust most people and i both do things for them without the expectation of repayment and also do things with that expectation and get hosed over so it seems like its a wash
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Agreedo, but in contrast the european left tore itself apart in the beginning half of the 20th century through communists refusing all co-operation with social democrats (and indeed further going to war with each other), and in particular in germany brought the nazis to power by refusing to use their combined parliamentary majority to fight them hmm yeah let me ask rosa and karl what they think on this
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:hmm interesting, and how do you do that If your desire is to start a coop then start a coop. My point is only they are not a silver bullet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
namesake posted:It's misunderstanding Marx entirely to suggest that full product means everything, it's always meant everything after the required reductions to maintain society of which exploitation of surplus value (being an unnecessary deduction forced on the worker by the laws of bourgeois society) isn't. the problem at some point becomes 'how do you tell the difference', but thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
I'm certainly not going to make fun of anyone for wanting to start what is ultimately a capitalist enterprise, because one of the functions of capitalism is to force others to operate by their rules or get out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Jon Joe posted:If your desire is to start a coop then start a coop. My point is only they are not a silver bullet. this argument happens every time someone brings up co-ops, literally no one thinks this or has ever claimed it. co-ops, trade unions, etc are all just important tools to build class consciousness. it's a bunch of alienating pedantic academic BS when people bring up that point. sorry for getting feisty. radical candor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
lollontee posted:the problem at some point becomes 'how do you tell the difference', but thanks yes how could you ever tell the difference between having surplus value vacuumed up by rich assholes vs. democratically getting to decided, with your fellow workers, what to do with that surplus value 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Serf posted:and also do things with that expectation and get hosed over so it
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:this argument happens every time someone brings up co-ops, literally no one thinks this or has ever claimed it. co-ops, trade unions, etc are all just important tools to build class consciousness. it's a bunch of alienating pedantic academic BS when people bring up that point. sorry for getting feisty. Nah it's cool, I don't at all advocate for ideological purity. Functional advancements are critical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Postoyevsky posted:yes how could you ever tell the difference between having surplus value vacuumed up by rich assholes vs. democratically getting to decided, with your fellow workers, what to do with that surplus value because there are shades of existance between those two points you dolt
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
lollontee posted:because there are shades of existance between those two points you dolt no there's not, brain genius. in a socialist society private property wouldn't exist, therefore you wouldn't have a class of people sucking up profits from industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
uhhuh
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Sounds like a lot of theory going around is there any fully co-op society examples? Mondrogon is cool as poo poo, but it's still mixed with a bunch of privately owned businesses
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:co-ops make sense in certain industries, trade unions work in others. China's SOEs are basically corporate structures that have embedded Communist party representatives. it really depends on the situation. the United States has a history of trade unionism, and to a lesser extent co-ops. google Mondragon Corporation, it'll blow ur mind Ah cool, I know about mondragon and yes it did blow my mind. I guess my question to everyone is what does a good future look like to you? For me communism would look like, Machines do all the work and basically keep us like pets. Or everyone gets a brain implant and we do everything as a hive mind, or replicators and startrek but without the super AI to do the thinking for us. I don't think anyone this real communism is gonna be any time soon. And good Socialism to me would look like democracies in both the state and the work place (using PR, FptP and AV depending on what fitted best to the situation) all corporations would be Co-ops. You would have a maximum wage that was tied to the minimum wage. (10x or something) there would be a maximum amount of wealth you could own like 5 million or something. The government would have structures in place to provide everything that people need. (Healthcare, food, water, ability to travel, I think internet counts as a need now, etc, etc) I would get rid of inheritance. Everyone has to make it on their own. But there would be a generous safety net for those that can't. I think jobs/education should be previded if wanted. I don't think the idea of people sitting around all day not wanting to work is a realistic idea, I have spent time with people who have money but no work and honestly their lives suck. But if it does become an issue then you institute a work lottery or something. As for the jobs no one wants to do, then you improve the quality of the job, pay more for people to do it, or divide the work up so much that you are doing and hour of sucky job a month or something. A little bit of a stream of consciousness there, (phone post) but it would be cool if you guys want to add to what you're idea of a good socialist structure would look like, or pokes holes in mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Co-ops are apart of the toolkit. I believe it was Argentina where factories were shutdown after the recession and the owners wanted to shell the machinery. The workers took over the factories and ran them democratically. It was a response to a material situation, but not the end goal of the labor movement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
NNick posted:Co-ops are apart of the toolkit. I believe it was Argentina where factories were shutdown after the recession and the owners wanted to shell the machinery. The workers took over the factories and ran them democratically. It was a response to a material situation, but not the end goal of the labor movement. this happened in Chile under Allende, and more recently in Venezuela under Maduro
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
My socialist paradise is a functioning democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Under communism I will perform labour as an anime appraiser. Under socialism I will work a job where I make and appraise anime. lollontee posted:uhhuh That's literally how you tell the difference though; how is the social value produced being directed? What process allowed a person to say that something should be allocated in such a way and have that happen? Are they part of a group that agreed with them, were they given the authority to do that from the masses, are they relying on a legal structure to punish those that disagree (and even if they are, is that structure actively and consciously approved by the masses)? The defense of Chinese billionaires and NEPmen under a socialist system is that the social value they unfairly take is balanced by the adapability they supposedly offer the society as a whole and that these 'impurities' in socialist society are permissable because the overriding structure of society is still a working class one. It's a matter of perspective and degrees rather than absolutes though, I can understand NEPmen but not billionaires for instance, and it's why what is written in Cubas constitution actually matters. gradenko_2000 posted:this happened in Chile under Allende, and more recently in Venezuela under Maduro I'd be surprised to hear of expropriation under Maduro that wasn't coming on the orders of the PSUV which is a very different thing. namesake fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
i unironically think we need to put our pwactice where our mouth is and stage ICE facility prison breaks. but thats just me
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
no political or social policy will be as effective or as neccessary as people's war now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:i unironically think we need to put our pwactice where our mouth is and stage ICE facility prison breaks. but thats just me Go on then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:23
|
|