- 09 Nov 2018 13:42
#14961396
Yes, I tend to agree with this sentiment -- in my model I have the component of 'localities', which may or may not be similar to your conception of 'autonomous communities'.
But keep in mind that the idea of 'communities' tends to connote laid-back, consumeristic groupings based on personal attractions, in a *casual* way. The actual dynamics of marketless egalitarian social production requires more components, such as those from the working class that can *defeat* the bourgeois ruling class in the first place.
Your conceptions, in other words, are *very* simplistic, to the point of being practically *religious*, instead of being *scientific*.
A *refinement* of that is this, at the FAQ:
And:
---
Yeah, I guess this is the clean break -- I certainly don't 'believe', or think that 'cultural autonomy' would be the key social factor to displace private property ownership and profit-making on that same basis.
*Any* culture can exist anywhere, but if it's still based on private property ownership then it's going to continue to exploit the working class there, which is just bad economics and bad politics.
I continue to be anti-imperialist, though -- a cultural grouping *should* have collective self-determination, bottom-up, like the Kurds (which Turkey is currently opposing). But any such anti-imperialism wouldn't be based on *culture*, but rather on socio-political grounds of their current oppression by the dominant, hegemonic ruling class and its militaries in the world today.
You're only drawing the line at foreign ownership, which is a *nationalist* (possibly national-liberation) conception of politics, unfortunately.
One Degree wrote:
You evolve to socialism (if that is indeed the natural outcome) by having autonomous communities small enough for people to make a personal connection to the community. Otherwise Socialism is a theoretical concept that is not relatable to the individual.
Yes, I tend to agree with this sentiment -- in my model I have the component of 'localities', which may or may not be similar to your conception of 'autonomous communities'.
But keep in mind that the idea of 'communities' tends to connote laid-back, consumeristic groupings based on personal attractions, in a *casual* way. The actual dynamics of marketless egalitarian social production requires more components, such as those from the working class that can *defeat* the bourgeois ruling class in the first place.
Your conceptions, in other words, are *very* simplistic, to the point of being practically *religious*, instead of being *scientific*.
communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]
A *refinement* of that is this, at the FAQ:
The use of labor credits frees everyone from *geography*, so that location itself doesn't determine access-to and use-of any given factories and/or equipment
- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)
The use of labor credits frees everyone from *geography*, so that location itself doesn't determine access-to and use-of any given factories and/or equipment -- localities with more of their own *debt-based-issued* labor credits in circulation (issuance of all labor credits is noted publicly at the time of issuance, indexed by discrete serial numbers on the physical units) will have less material-economic social standing, or 'reputation', since they've been *directly* exploiting liberated labor through debt until people of their own locality go out to do work issued by *other* localities, to bring back sufficient numbers of labor credits to undergird / erase *their own* issued debt. (In other words new issuances of new debt-based labor credits from a debt-encumbered locality will not generally be seen by liberated-labor as acceptable, giving that locality far worse chances for future general social acceptance of any proposals or policy packages from it that specify certain nearby equipment for its own use. *Other* localities' policy packages for use of that same equipment would undoubtedly be better-favored as long as those localities weren't too debt-burdened as well.)
And:
On 'Day One', all separate, local localities around the world may initially each begin with their own local objective of being self-sufficient in production, but as this guideline is achieved -- or not -- *meta*-type organizing could take hold after awhile and commonalities of production *across* several neighboring localities would allow those localities to *generalize* mass production at larger scales for greater efficiencies, per type of item -- it would be a kind of 'centralization' but not necessarily having to be fully global, and not necessarily for *every* item produced. (Should *every* person in the world have to devote a significant part of every day for *farming* activities, or could *that* socially-necessary task be increasingly generalized / centralized across larger areas, for more efficient use of people's time and of land / space, for agriculture -- ?)
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions
---
One Degree wrote:
Why do volunteer fire/ambulance services work in small communities?
We need to change structure, not propagandize people in a way of thinking. Simply agreeing to a standardized method of people voting for their own autonomy and banning foreign ownership will naturally solve the other issues of capitalism and social/racial divisions. Cultural autonomy ‘trumps’ all other divisions.
Yeah, I guess this is the clean break -- I certainly don't 'believe', or think that 'cultural autonomy' would be the key social factor to displace private property ownership and profit-making on that same basis.
*Any* culture can exist anywhere, but if it's still based on private property ownership then it's going to continue to exploit the working class there, which is just bad economics and bad politics.
I continue to be anti-imperialist, though -- a cultural grouping *should* have collective self-determination, bottom-up, like the Kurds (which Turkey is currently opposing). But any such anti-imperialism wouldn't be based on *culture*, but rather on socio-political grounds of their current oppression by the dominant, hegemonic ruling class and its militaries in the world today.
You're only drawing the line at foreign ownership, which is a *nationalist* (possibly national-liberation) conception of politics, unfortunately.