(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Geary's drawing a distinction between the strict definition of the proletariat as specifically industrial monetary-wage-for-labor earners and the loose definition of the working class as a whole including peasantry, pay-in-kind or pay-in-housing rural labor, artisans, and lower management such as foremen.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
There's also a lot pulling at the benevolent capitalist to not continue to be benevolent. Needing an intermediate state capitalist phase in which the collective workers as a whole, rather than just those of one site, place themselves as the "owners" and reinvest those "profits", has historically been necessary to fund the fallout from failed attempts, socialization on an increased scale, and the development of associated sectors to not be at the whims of less polite capital, even for successful revolutions. And while a rainy day fund of this sort is eminently justifiable it's hard enough to keep said rainy day fund from being tapped to fund manager salaries even when there's a self-examining party whose decisions have the force of law keeping watch over it. Conversely, if they're well and truly out once things stabilize, their ability to do this stops where it began, barely managing the cafe where a factory's workers get lunch but never touching the factory. And even without hostile actions from other capitalists, you're left with the likelihood that the worker-controlled enterprise sans ideological leadership will desocialize itself '90s Russia style, whether through a clique reestablishing themselves as managers or through a mutual decision to cash out which benefits all the current workers handsomely but transfers the actual capital of the enterprise back to capitalist control. Mandoric has issued a correction as of 15:41 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:I guess, the idea would be, for the workers to nominate someone among themselves for ideological training, an on-the-ground representative they already know and trust who ceases/reduces their daily duties temporarily to spend some time learning about the good stuff, then bring that back to the workplace and keep it going, the continually voted-on representative of each business would then form the basis of a higher level committee if more businesses join the syndicate. It wouldn't be about the buyer(s) doing a one-and-done then boosting, they'd still be around and contactable and working on the next thing + putting the larger network together, tho not drawing a salary from that business any more. And if the workers do decide to cash out, that'd be perfectly fine, it's their call to do so. The question is what reason they'll have to keep it going, given the concrete example of hundreds of thousands of men and women like that in the former USSR realizing that it also left them in a position to sell the enterprise to themselves while explaining how it was for everyone's good once a party-lead government left the stage. If the protagonist you're envisioning doesn't retain actual power rather than an advisory role, the situation looks much like that in Russia in 1992; if he or she does without truly revolutionary aims which would require absorbing all the profit to scale up, it's nothing more than ~responsible capitalism~ in the style of Costco that still uses prison labor or Hy-Vee who are currently on a crash program to beef up armed private security in anticipation of upcoming food instability, a few pennies to create the sort of labor aristocracy that loyally enforces the interests of capital. The ability to cash out also severely limits what positive impact such a program could have. At that point, you're not ensuring worker control for their collective good, you're just minting fresh capitalists who turn around to exploit other workers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:Gotcha, so it would actually be better for it to be an explicit attempt at forming a revolutionary parallel structure with checks and supervision in place to guide it, rather than obscuring the ideology and just being a worker-friendly business model. I guess that also reduces the time it would take for the organisers to start having unfortunate accidents. Yeah. Syndicalism doesn't particularly deal with the class conflict between those who own machines, who won the previous class conflict against those who administered the fruits of nature, and those who operate them; it simply seeks to transform small groups of operators into owners, maintaining class relations but putting them on the favored side. It's kind of a mirror of Jeffersonian democracy, which saw the incipient conflict between the then-favored administrators of the fruits of nature and those who built machines and attempted to solve it by giving everyone (who met the bar to be a historical subject rather than object--women and minorities need not apply) the opportunity to administer the fruits of nature. The goal, the hope, is to remove all classes and thus all class conflict by removing legally-enforced privilege, which can't be done by simply declaring particular individuals now also privileged any more than land grants preserved agriculturalism against industrialization, or selling titles and knighting individual soldiers preserved monarchy against liberalism. But also if you do this while being sufficiently white, rich, and connected to not be "shot by a rival local kingpin", your plane will crash one day and nice men in suits will be along to conclude that the pilot had a heart attack. Mandoric has issued a correction as of 17:49 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Shiroc posted:What would a Marxist line on indigenous rights movements and things like land back be? Its important to recognize the destruction wrought by colonialism and stop the continuing immiseration of indigenous peoples. The parts where it turns into 'returning land' by declaring a tribe as the original owners feels at odds with a project that would ultimately want land to be returned to the common ownership of everyone. Speaking of Stalin: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm A rough tl;dr of the writing and the writer's eventual policy is that federalization based on nationality contributes to atomization and the ability of outside forces to pick a state apart, but local-policy autonomies based on identifying viable minority regions on all levels that have a plurality (in some cases, a historical plurality or a planned plurality after accepted resettlement, or limitation of resettlement by the majority) of a particular heritage must be recognized with rights to in particular local language and education policy, proportionality or better in party and government selection, and encouragement of local culture, with an eye to producing populaces that are satisfied enough in their immediate demands and needs that they don't feel they are being oppressed and thus are willing to begin to consider themselves as internationalist Soviet proletarians who happen to be from (whatever). It's hard to analogize to America, because of our weird-rear end "middle points both ways" organization as opposed to bottom-up, but presumably you'd be talking reservation lines redrawn to not just be "wasteland surrounding the useful stuff", tribal leadership chosen from members who are also party members but also party membership in these lands more intensively chosen from tribal membership, and that merged government taking over the role of state or county for national or state representation rather forming an overlapping restricted authority. Mandoric has issued a correction as of 21:56 on Aug 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:On that we can agree
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i think these are both technically correct, but also compromises the bolsheviks had to make in the middle of civil war and devastation. they couldn't do collectivization until they'd actually established control of the country, and part of establishing the control was giving various regional communists the surety that this wouldn't be a russian chauvinist country. the experiences of actual collectivization (should've followed the bukharin plan or done whatever it was the CPC did) and the eventual breakup along these ethnic lines showed that these compromises bit them in the rear end pretty hard though The split was eventually along SSR lines and the politicians that eventually climbed to the top of post-Soviet states tend toward a particular flavor of ethno-shitbag, yes, yes, but didn't the various original SSRs (leaving out the Baltics) also vote heavily for preservation of the USSR, with the motive force for its dissolution instead being Great Russians getting their way? I'm not sure you can draw a clear line through from Lenin's self-determination policy to the present day, especially since the west needed to paradrop political emigres back in following the metropole's abandonment of the SSRs to get them to where they are now..
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
double nine posted:what's that hedgehog the emblem for anyway? mechanised forestry? Anyone with better Russian than mine, please correct, but: Arzamas Light Machinery Fittings Works machinery, presses, power saws, and hardware
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:douglas dowd (who is a veblenist rather than a marxist) had an interesting point of military goods/military keynesianism being an economic dead end because while building bombs et al themselves will have an economic growth effect, the bombs themselves dont contribute to future economic growth unlike say a school or a highway Wouldn't this only be true in a closed system, though? Whereas, as dismal as it is to contemplate, in an open one their possession and use is zero-sum but effective for the purpose of putting some other poor bastard on the negative end of the transaction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 07:11
|
|