A number of proposals have been kicked around for decades. There hasniot been the will to implement.
That’s the point. A dictatorship of the bourgeoise will not implement progressive policies unless you fight hard for them. They will however, in the absence of resistance, implement increasingly reactionary policies in a heartbeat.
The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class.
No, the overarching goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless and moneyless society.
Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.
No. At best, you could say that coops are a proto-socialist element within a capitalist society. Firstly, I am using the term “socialist” as separate from “communist” here, and secondly, a proto-socialist element is a very different thing from an enclave of socialism within a capitalist world.
The simple problem is that capital is capital. A capital is a self-reproducing social relation that competes with other capitals in a sort of evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection on the markets. The problem is capital itself, and the solution is to destroy capital. Creating a new type of capital that is less destructive, or one that operates under less destructive modes is fine for countries where development has not reached to the point that they can directly gun towards communism. However, for advanced, and especially late-stage capitalist economies, the task is not to pursue further development of market forces, because market forces have already matured. The task is to eliminate market forces (although this may take time).
Coops may give a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, but the aim of the communists is to abolish wealth, because the very meaning of wealth is that a private individual gets to command the labor of others. That is the fundamental social relation that money embodies and facilitates. The only way to remove the power to exploit other people’s labor is to remove the ability to command labor. But if you cannot command labor, then money becomes worthless and your ownership of the coop doesn’t mean anything.
Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?
Yes. A quick google search shows examples such as the international labor organisation
If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?
Part of the fundamental problem is just that the bourgeois class is not stupid. They want exploitable workers and profits. If you deprive them of that, prepare to face their wrath as they abandon all pretenses of human rights or fairness or the sanctity of markets.
They’re a powerful ally.
An ally in what? Bombing third world nations? In that case, yes. If you’re talking about an ally in terms of protecting the interests of european people, then lmao they aren’t.
Oscar Jenkins, 33, was convicted in a Russian-controlled court in occupied eastern Ukraine on Friday of fighting in an armed conflict as a mercenary.
Mr Jenkins, a teacher from Melbourne, was captured last December in the Luhansk region.
Prosecutors said he arrived in Ukraine in February 2024, alleging he was paid between 600,000 and 800,000 rubles (£5,504 and £7,339) a month to take part in military operations against Russian troops.
The article seems to claim that this guy is a mercenary, but someone in the comments is claiming that this guy is not a mercenary because he is a member of the UAF’s foreign legion. I don’t know if there is any additional context here that I am missing.
It sure seems to love selling American military secrets to Russia though.
And so do Americans. Like your argument that the colony controls America is that the colony does bad shit to America. But what part of America doesn’t fuck over America on the regular?
so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation
They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.
The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.
I’m not sure what your point here is. Whether or not the occupation allows American military bases, or whether or not they can get away with sinking the USS liberty is moot. Because the occupation literally is an American (and partly european) operation. Claiming that the occupied zone controls America is like claiming that south Africa controlled Britain.
why would the US care about gaza
Petrodollars, settler colonialism and imperial control. Israel and the Gulf monarchies are the linchpin of the petrodollar, aka the American government’s ability to run a massive trade deficit over decades with minimal inflation, something no other country can do. This gives the American government unlimited spending power (for its military).
There is also the geopolitical aspect of dividing the middle east, figuratively and literally, as well as having a forward base there to put pressure on Europe, Russia and China.
Finally, a huge number of “israelis” are really just American settlers. From the standpoint of the American bourgeoise, having a settler colony with a racialised underclass is very profitable, as this underclass (the Palestinians) are easily exploited workers. Furthermore, the American firms can test weapons on Gaza and their partnership with companies in the occupation yield them economic benefits.
That depends on which side of “math is an invention” or “math was discovered” you fall into.
Information is physical?
Information only exists in the world in the form of physical media, such as computer circuits, DNA or electrical/neuron pattern in your brain.
Eh, supposedly, FDR practically ruled like a God-king of America back in those days. They certainly added the 22nd amendment to stop “populism” and curb working class power, but he did genuinely have an insane level of control over the government that as far as I am aware, even Trump doesn’t have. One of the users here commented how Trump is actually a lot of FDR (but right-liberal instead of left-liberal).
Guy who is the son of a drug lord and is going to college. Has to balance coursework, doing crimes and being gay (dad is phobic, but not as much as the son thinks). Pilot is about the first day of college where the son’s room mate finds out about the criminal activities because son brought too much cash to the dorms (rich kid, out of touch about how carrying $10,000 in cash is not normal). Hijinks ensue. Comedy happens. The episode ends with the room mate accidentally dying.
The year is 2027. Travelers from a parallel universe/alternate timeline have arrived on earth. They are very technologically advanced. Except these travelers are just researchers studying other timelines for cultural exchange. Unfortunately, the machine they came to our universe with broke by accident. The researchers will have to stay on earth and find a way to fix their machine. All the while struggling to navigate the absolute chaos their arrival has caused on earth. The pilot follows one of the researchers as he gets repeatedly kidnapped by different groups and tries to escape. The pilot ends with … uh… I haven’t thought that far.
Its not euros being salty about the defeat of nazism.
This is precisely the case. I’m sick of the casual racism and love for imperialism that even the most “left-wing” europeans will just say to my face because they think I am one of them. It is so fundamentally baked into every dominant ideology in europe that it feels like there is no possible escape.
This is the consequence of having an entire continent dedicate itself to colonialism and capitalism for 400 years. Both of these things become the total norm. People in europe don’t even understand what empire is, or what empires do, even the extent of their own existing empire.
I mean, look at Macron’s comments. He literally runs an old school colonial empire (that is thankfully collapsing under his reign). And yet he lectures other countries about “imposing capitals”. I don’t think he even realises he is being hypocritical here, because European ideology has redefined European imperialism as not counting as imperialism.
Unsurprising to see the euros be salty about the defeat of nazism/fascism.
“Many compare Moscow and Brussels, I’ve heard that … But Moscow is a capital that has been imposed whereas Brussels is a capital that has been freely chosen through our treaties,” said Macron.
Oh fuck off Macron, you little colonist man who still runs an empire.
Reduce gas imports?
Please reduce gas imports more. Cripple any semblance of industry and power you have left. You will only use industrial power for killing children in Gaza and maintaining policing infrastructure either way. Better to let the gas be used by Chinese and Indian consumers (unironically).
That means that Marxism states that the development of communism is inevitable
This is a fatalistic argument and borders on a prophecy. The annihilation of humanity from nuclear war or climate collapse is also a possibility. At best, a few scattered survivors might practice a type of primitive communism in such a scenario.
And yes, while under “normal” conditions a communist society is what present day capitalist societies will be forced towards, the details of what such a society look like cannot be predicted so far in advance. Nor can such a society be proclaimed as the “ultimate” form of society unless one is to proclaim that communist societies are to simply stay frozen in time. A period of what we call communism lasting, say 10,000 years in the future would, from the perspective of these communists, most likely be split into countless epochs, likely distinguished by factors and processes and systems that are simply alien to us.
IMO a durable socialism is ultimately required for the modernist communist apotheosis because modernist communism would need to be systemic as well.
Something can be a systemic phenomena without being durable. Capitalist-imperialism for instance is world-systemic and yet it has a chronological progression that takes it inevitably to the next stage of history.
This doesn’t actually answer the question of what made it work or if it was necessary or if it could be improved by future states.
As far as I can answer the question, there were many things going on at the time
It took herculean effort for the Chinese state to build its world famous HSR and solar power industry. And even then, China is still not energy independent and I believe it still has to import significant amounts of food, although the latter might be the result of too much animal agriculture and neglecting the countryside until the poverty alleviation campaign.
When you talk about durable socialism, that quote from Marx comes to mind
Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse
In so far as China is building “durable” socialism, they really are following this theory from Marx that they need to develop new technologies of the future that can surpass the capitalist countries.
This is a similar kind of thing where we can talk about these kind of “no duh” vagaries, but the moment we look at what this practically means everyone gets knives out sectarian.
Yeah cause that’s the hard part 😅
Your argument here is based on a hypothetical demcen system full of good faith actors.
Part of the point of the DemCen system is to increase the prevalence of good-faith actors and decrease the prevalence of bad faith ones. It is not as if MLs have historically just ignored education of the youth or the cultivation of good faith actors.
Regardless my arguments here aren’t about proving horizontalism as “better than”
Then what are we even arguing about?
Unless you are arguing that there is a different historical materialist argument possible that you could make that doesn’t rely on appealing to the laws of the centralization?
Kind of a late reply, but yeah. There are actually many phenomena simultaneously ongoing these days that place a hard limit on the perpetuation of capitalist society, which kind of makes it strange to me that some Marxists are arguing about centralization (as if monopoly capitalism hasn’t been around for a 100 years now).
You don’t get the point. You know how “systemic racism” describes a system that is durably racist that does not need to be occupied by good faith racist operators to make racist outcomes? Socialists need systemic socialism, a system that is durably socialist that does not need to be occupied by good faith socialist operators for socialist outcomes.
The reproduction of a system from generation to generation can be durable without getting rid of the human element. In fact, the attempt of getting rid of the human element itself is idealistic. Socialism will always be a movement (not system) composed of humans. And it is certainly the case that socialism is not simply a system, but rather the movement of those who aim to abolish the present state of affairs. There will necessarily be many types of systems produced by socialists, and many disagreements in the socialist camp, and even reactionary brain-worms stuck in the minds of socialists young or old. Thus a “durable” socialism of the type you seek cannot really exist, because just as “scientific racism” evolved, waned, and waxed over time, so will socialism. The durably socialist system you create today could also simply become obsolete tomorrow.
Why was this not centered in Third or Fourth Generation thought?
Because conditions in China were different at the time.
How do we ensure that 6th generation thought does even better with these types of commitments?
Through ideological struggle, for which there is no substitute.
Your article is focused on poverty alleviation that has mainly happened within the last 10-15 years, and the elimination of “extreme poverty”.
I more so aimed to give you more details for how the CPC operates, which you thought there was a lack of in Yog’s substack article.
How to keep the system of redistribution up to date and politically durable over time such that extreme poverty is not recreated in another name?
Through educating the future generations and continuing development and reforms. Through adapting the existing system to changing geopolitical and technological conditions.
Oh, I didn’t even realize this. Thanks.