One Degree wrote:
I was hardly the first to believe in community socialism. I don’t actually believe in socialism however. I just have nothing against communities trying it if they want.
You are arguing socialism will provide basic necessities in a world where that is not an issue. We have been willing to provide basic necessities, but people prevent it. Not rich capitalists, but ruthless individuals and gangs who don’t believe in your humanistic view.
There's no such thing as 'community socialism' just as there's no such thing as Stalinistic socialism-in-one-country, the reason for both being that many people of the world, in various areas, would inevitably be left-back in backward market-based social relations.
It's unfortunate that what resulted from the Bokshevik-Revolution-countered-by-Western-imperialism, was *Stalinism*, but that tragedy shouldn't be taken as any sort of *model* for future socialism -- a common fallacy adopted by many.
One Degree wrote:
I view ‘community’ as being a group of people who place the general welfare above their own. How they accomplish this socially, economically, and politically is irrelevant. If the people control the community then they control everything in it including the means of production no matter who has their name on the title. Worker ownership of the physical means of production is not necessary.
Okay, so you're for workers-collective *local* control of social production -- in *this* meaning of 'community' I'm in agreement here.
Perhaps our differences, though, would be about how to *generalize* and *centralize* those geographic locations of localist workers control. Basically you're an anarchist, and I'd welcome any description from you about how these various communities / workplaces would handle material interchanges with one-another.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
The Marxist dictatorship-of-the-proletariat is meant to indicate a workers *hegemony*, particularly in open class warfare against (existing) *bourgeois* hegemony.
One Degree wrote:
A division that is not clear cut today. Many workers do not feel oppressed.
It doesn't matter if this-or-that person *feels* oppressed, the political point is that they / we *are* oppressed, namely by being economically *exploited* and socially *alienated* by the conditions of work under capitalism.
One Degree wrote:
The unsafe factories are gone. They may want a raise, but they don’t want to own the company.
Sure, workers shouldn't be expected to be businesspeople, especially while capitalism is still around -- this is another solid counterargument to the 'workers ownership' propaganda that often pops up.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *tricky*, though, because at the same time the proletariat has to have *centralized coordination* for the workers state, which requires some degree of authoritarianism, for the purpose of nimbly responding to bourgeois offensives, etc. -- events of class struggle in realtime, basically, no matter the scale or scope.
One Degree wrote:
No, they don’t. I have repeatedly argued voluntary cooperation can accomplish anything centralized control can. No one has proven differently.
Hmmmm, sorry, yeah, here it is -- I'd definitely prefer a revolutionary-workers vanguard / party / state for the phase of socialism, to topple capitalist class rule and organize internally. If it *could* be done strictly at the ground-level in a decentralized way I'd have no problem with it, but I really don't think that that kind of organization would be effective / nimble-enough to be formidible.
One Degree wrote:
I have no disagreement that all ideologies try to destroy other ideologies. This is why global ideologies don’t work, because they are not globally wanted. People are different. It is the stupidity and hubris of forcing our ideology on others that creates nonstop conflict.
I agree that no one can *force* an ideology on others, and even it could it would be counterproductive because the *point* of any ideology is that the person has *chosen* it, hopefully from much learning and self-reflection -- politics definitely doesn't benefit from cultivating any top-down, clone-like groupthink mentality among participants.
That said, though, what *can* be forced is the socio-political-material *paradigm* of one kind or another, based on a certain ideology and its principles. In other words many people don't think of themselves as being 'political' at all, and would probably like to just see a better world take shape -- instead of 'being political' they'd probably be okay with just continuing on with their work and their lives, not giving much thought to *what* the political economy *should* be, just as long as it's *better* and not-fucked-up. For *this* kind of people I'd prefer to see them *politically educated*, and more on-board with socialism, but if not, they'd be mostly indifferent to a *competent* political economy paradigm that would be handled by *others* who are actual active proponents.
One Degree wrote:
Your socialism seems to remove itself from humanism and treat people as cogs in the economic machine.
No, this is a Stalinistic-type stereotype that you have no grounds for making. Yes, it's a *systematic* approach, being a *framework*, but it does *not* advance any finished, 'blueprint'-type plans since the specifics would necessarily be up to the people / participants themselves of a socialism-type society, if it decides to use this model of mine.
One Degree wrote:
I see no real difference between ‘labor credits’ and ‘Cash’. Sorry.
Okay, glad to explain -- 'cash' implies 'exchange values', while the 'labor credits' is *not* cash, nor is it a *commodity*, nor does it facilitate commodity-production.
The relevant parts from the introduction are here:
In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.
This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Socialists like myself aren't calling for a *world* *culture* of egalitarianism, but rather a *political economy* of egalitarianism, in structure. If people want to be very individualistic and just work for their own personal accumulation of labor credits (in my model), that would be absolutely fine. If people wanted to just be consumers and partake from what others were willing to do freely, that would be absolutely fine as well.
One Degree wrote:
Yes, this further verifies what I said above. I don’t really have a problem with treating humans as objects when devising a ‘best plan’ for humans, but I can’t accept it for economic reasons. The economic is simply not that important to creating the best human environment imo. It should never be given primary importance.
Well, I happen to be *critical* of those, like yourself, who conceive of a 'no-materials, people-only' kind of socialism, like one big worldwide hippie commune of nothing but flowers and grass.
Stripping the revolutionary socialist political-economy of any component of *mass industrial production* means something almost akin to what the Khmer Rouge practiced, which is not to be repeated, and is a historically reality that's *detrimental* to the purpose of real socialist aims.
I think many socialists don't realize that the modern capitalist economics of currency / cash usage is *fairly sophisticated* and empowering (for those who have it), mainly because it's *flexible* and universal. We shouldn't be arguing to *retreat* into a paradigm of balkanized localist political-patronage social ties for our material needs, because such is simply too geographically limiting and isolating. Here's a portrayal of that, in graphic form:
Rotation system of work roles
---
One Degree wrote:
Exactly and the only way for this to happen is each community accepting it on their own in their own time. You can not hurry it. It will just result in suppressed anger that will eventually rise up and destroy your plans.
"My" plans -- ??
*I* don't have any political plans, aside from seeing the worldwide implementation of socialism, and then communism.
You're imputing a Stalin-type *stereotype* onto me personally, which is inappropriate, and the stereotype realized would be bad politics, anyway, as we've seen from history. The social world in its development is *way past* the point of needing to depend on any 'strongman'-type *ruler*, and my politics *explicitly* reject such, as seen in my 'labor credits' framework. I resent your lackadaisical mischaracterization of my politics.
What *can* be potentially 'hurried' is the *implementation* of working-class hegemony, to topple capitalist class rule.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, now this is just *unkind* -- you're making out Marx to be some sort of master marionette manipulator, with everyone below only capable of acting according to how their strings are being pulled. That's just *caricature*.
One Degree wrote:
Not my purpose, humans just have a tendency to jump on one man’s ideas and grant them a ‘God status’. It blinds them to their hubris because it becomes a religion. Marx was a brilliant man. There is no reason for the entire world to agree to one man’s view, whether Marx, or variations of Marx, or Locke, or Plato etc.
Yes, there *is* a reason: Because the view happens to be *correct* -- that is, reflected by the world's actual functioning.
No, it's *not* a religion, or at-least *shouldn't* be. Proletarian revolution should include mass (workers) *involvement*, which is the prerequisite, anyway, for an actual proletarian revolution, by definition.
One Degree wrote:
Global ideology is not logical or natural unless it evolves naturally in all the different communities.
I will, and do, give credit to the anarchistic ground-level / localist focus, on this matter.
One Degree wrote:
Any centralization is unnatural because it dictates the outcome.
No, rather, centralization should be as bottom-up as possible, and should be on a per-item basis, I would argue. Here's an illustration of the same:
Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *mistaken* -- nowhere do I claim that 'communes' should be the material basis for socialism. (In my model I do have the component of a geographically-specific 'locality', but that's mostly for *consumption*-type social activity.)
My point that location-bound 'communities' are not sufficient a social force to truly overhaul social relations, stands.
One Degree wrote:
I disagree and we are seeing that force showing itself right now in rebellion against liberal globalism. Dedication to local community has destroyed every previous empire attempt. Humans are communal, but only up to a certain number in the community. They will always rebel to get back to that arbitrary number.
I'm *in agreement* with any kind of rebellion against the existing capitalist status quo -- the trickier part is *what should replace it*, and such needs to be as *conscious* as possible, on the part of all participants, and should not be treated as an *afterthought*, as it often is.
Proletarian revolution, I'll remind, is *not* 'empire', as you seem to be implying. It is about the overthrow of existing class relations.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
As with SSDR, I'll say that you're not-understanding 'base' and 'superstructure' accurately -- sure, communities and civilization exist, to varying degrees and extents, but these are still 'superstructure' to society's *productive* *base*.
Without feasibly organized *social production*, as with feudal- or capitalist-oriented exploitation of labor power, or, with socialism's egalitarianism, material production just doesn't get done and people will be too distracted by lower-level *biological* matters, like having to eat, than to enjoy healthy *communities*, as you'd like to see -- no civilization there, either, in such desperate material conditions.
One Degree wrote:
People living together came first then they created the structure. It is the communal that is the essence. Many different types of political/economic systems have produced material goods. Even if I accept ‘labor’ as the basis of humanity, that does not mean socialism is the only way to organize that labor.
Yes, it is, and the reason is because society has developed *industry*. We shouldn't all have to do subsistence / small-scale farming, redundantly across the landscape, by eschewing modern industrial methods. Egalitarian industry is the feasible, realistic 'base' that's possible through socialist social relations.
Here's Wilde again:
The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
---
One Degree wrote:
Class division does not exist without communities.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, it does -- people could be impoverished and living badly, individually alienated and mostly disconnected from each other, but still toiling for the capitalist employer.
One Degree wrote:
Please explain how you can have an employer without a community of employees. They must live close enough together to work at the same place.
No, that's not necessarily the case at all -- consider contemporary urban realities where workers either drive or take public transportation from all over the city, to get to the workplace. Unless they collectively, self-consciously *organize* on the basis of their common, exploited status, they would not otherwise have cause to be physically near each other outside of the workplace.
---
One Degree wrote:
You are reversing priorities to justify authoritarianism. You are not advocating Socialism when you say authoritarianism is necessary. That is a basic contradiction.
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're mistaken here, too -- the *priority* is international-workers-solidarity and worldwide collective control of social production, which is socialism. Such workers control *could* use authoritarian means to achieve political objectives, or it may not. I happen to think that such dotp authoritarianism *will* be necessary, given the lengths that the counterposed bourgeoisie has gone to, to repress and destroy such forms of rank-and-file organization.
One Degree wrote:
And I am 100% sure they will continue to impede one another like they have throughout all history until we accept the fact we need to leave others alone. We need to quit trying to make the world better as a whole and just work at making our one little area better. This doesn’t mean we can’t offer a helping hand, but we can’t attach ideological strings to that helping hand.
Well, sorry, but this particular political attitude is *insufficient* for proletarian revolution -- you're sounding much more *liberal* here, and tolerant of the capitalist class status quo with your 'go-slow' politics.
Worse, you're basically conflating *imperialist*-type interventions / invasions, with a potential *revolutionary-minded* overhaul of worldwide social relations, to socialism, which is certainly a misguided comparison.
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I am not paranoid lol. You can't manipulate me but you're trying to lol. And no you aren't a Stalinist, something you are correct about.
Look, this is a public forum and we're both using *text*. If you can't handle *political discussions* this way, then maybe it's just too much for you. Take a break, relax, return if you like.
SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a type of socialism.
Nope.
SSDR wrote:
The left opposition were traitors to socialism.
Nope -- the opposite. You're just being a contrarian now.
SSDR wrote:
A socialist doesn't have to be a pure INTERNATIONALIST.
Yes, socialism has to be internationalist because its mode of production, workers collectively self-organized social production to meet human *need*, is inherently *incompatible* with capitalism's private-property-based mode of production, for circumscribed *private* benefit.
There's no point in 'leaving people behind' to remain mired in existing class relations while only certain areas advance on into socialism -- that's *favoritism*, or elitism, which *isn't* socialism.
SSDR wrote:
Some fascists are socialists because they are progressive and not reactionary, and that they use socialism to achieve their "national glories." And fascism DOES have socialist roots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Futurism
Marinetti expresses an artistic philosophy
If fascist movements happened to *incorporate* parts of this *artistic* philosophy, then that's incidental, and inherently has nothing to do with explicitly *political* movements, like those for *socialism*.
SSDR wrote:
That is just one example.
Full technological innovation is also good for capitalism because it allows company owners to produce more wealth for themselves.
Yes, I agree *empirically*, that capitalist social relations unleashed greater potentials for *material production* than the preceding modes-of-production, like that of feudalism / slavery.
SSDR wrote:
Rape can be caused by stronger sexual desires which can have no capitalist motives.
Okay, if crimes-of-passion are the *worst* that could conceivably realistically happen within socialism, that would be *acceptable*, considering the voluminous *upside* to its realization, for humane ends.