The Two Forms of Socialism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15110513
ckaihatsu wrote:You're sounding like an echo of *all* past promotions of this scheme -- you seem to think that the overall capitalist economics would somehow become *different* just because *workers* would somehow be able to acquire the workplaces that they currently work *for*, as wage-slaves.

You sound like you're trying to *denigrate* and *degrade* the vanguardist violent-revolution-leading-to-seizure-of-power approach, when it's the vanguardist approach *only* that can adequately address the issue of how workers would *acquire* the means of mass industrial production / workplaces, in the first place.

The 'recipe for failure' is expecting capitalist economic dynamics to *behave differently* just because workers somehow manage to acquire ownership of their workplaces, on a localist basis. You sound like an anarchist / Frankfurt-School type with this line of yours.

Yeah yeah yeah. Great. So tell me why the gradualist approach worked with the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
#15110529
Senter wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah. Great. So tell me why the gradualist approach worked with the transition from feudalism to capitalism.



The gradualist "approach" from feudalism to capitalism occurred as a matter of sheer *emergence* -- the merchant class was able to rise as a new ruling class, displacing monarchs and aristocracies, simply due to -- what do you want to *call* it -- *geography*?

Or, more accurately, it was the development of a distinctive *agricultural surplus* due to the use of new farming technologies, from about the year 1000 onward.



The importance of what happened in the countryside between about 1000 and 1300 is all too easily underrated by those of us for whom food is something we buy from supermarkets. A doubling of the amount of food produced by each peasant household transformed the possibilities for human life across Europe. Whoever controlled the extra food could exchange it for the goods carried by the travelling traders or produced by the artisans.

Crudely, grain could be changed into silk for the lord’s family, iron for his weapons, furnishing for his castle, wine and spices to complement his meal. It could also be turned into means that would further increase the productivity of the peasant cultivators—wooden ploughs with iron tips, knives, sickles, and, in some cases, horses with bridles, bits and iron shoes.

By supplying such things at regular markets the humble bagman could transform himself into a respectable trader, and the respectable trader into a wealthy merchant. Towns began to revive as craftsmen and traders settled in them, erecting shops and workshops around the castles and churches. Trading networks grew up which tied formerly isolated villages together around expanding towns and influenced the way of life in a wide area.101 To obtain money to buy luxuries and arms, lords would encourage serfs to produce cash crops and substitute money rents for labour services or goods in kind. Some found an extra source of income from the dues they could charge traders for allowing markets on their land.

Life in the towns was very different from life in the countryside. The traders and artisans were free individuals not directly under the power of any lord. There was a German saying, ‘Town air makes you free.’ The urban classes were increasingly loath to accept the prerogatives of the lordly class. Traders and artisans who needed extra labour would welcome serfs who had fled bondage on nearby estates. And as the towns grew in size and wealth they acquired the means to defend their independence and freedom, building walls and arming urban militias.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 144



---


The transition from feudalism to capitalism *cannot* be compared / is-not-comparable to the desired transition out of capitalism, to workers-of-the-world socialism, because all of the prior changes in the mode of production have been *emergent*, and wholly *unintentional* on the mass scale, while the transition to socialism *has* to be fully mass-intentional, or else it won't be of the proletariat -- as we've seen with the historical examples of Stalinism.

Overthrowing the class divide / class relations can't happen 'accidentally', or 'incidentally' to something else going on -- it has to be a fully-conscious, mass-intentional *revolution*, by-definition.
#15110701
So you're essentially saying that socialism cannot emerge gradually from within capitalism because it has to be an intentional change and that mean a violent revolution and seizure of the state by force. Right?
#15110703
ckaihatsu wrote:The transition from feudalism to capitalism *cannot* be compared / is-not-comparable to the desired transition out of capitalism, to workers-of-the-world socialism, because all of the prior changes in the mode of production have been *emergent*, and wholly *unintentional* on the mass scale, while the transition to socialism *has* to be fully mass-intentional, or else it won't be of the proletariat -- as we've seen with the historical examples of Stalinism.

Overthrowing the class divide / class relations can't happen 'accidentally', or 'incidentally' to something else going on -- it has to be a fully-conscious, mass-intentional *revolution*, by-definition.


If there's ever a mass turn towards socialism it will happen out of historical conditions of capitalism failing somehow. That's the only way the masses of people will want to overthrow capitalism. Similar to how Marx described the historical dialectic process. Lenin wasn't willing to wait around for that to happen. Capitalism was and is still being productive so his ideas lost.

That's why I don't think Marx or any modern theorist or politician can convince the masses to turn to socialism. It has to happen organically based on real conditions and pressures. If capitalism fails for good it has to do so on its own. If may never happen, but if it does i'd just keep waiting.
#15110706
Unthinking Majority wrote:If there's ever a mass turn towards socialism it will happen out of historical conditions of capitalism failing somehow. That's the only way the masses of people will want to overthrow capitalism. Similar to how Marx described the historical dialectic process. Lenin wasn't willing to wait around for that to happen. Capitalism was and is still being productive so his ideas lost.

That's why I don't think Marx or any modern theorist or politician can convince the masses to turn to socialism. It has to happen organically based on real conditions and pressures. If capitalism fails for good it has to do so on its own. If may never happen, but if it does i'd just keep waiting.


No, unthinking majority. There are different forms of capitalism and there are different forms of basic socialism.

I like Richard Wolff's explanation.

#15110708
Doug64 wrote:The standard definition of Socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Von Mises' single change is eliminating "ownership" from the definition, at least de jure ownership. After all, if the government essentially runs your business along the Fascist model, they are the de facto owners regardless of whose name is on the deed. He also recognizes that as a practical matter, "the community as a whole" actually means the State.

Same old:

Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and by a repressive authoritarian government.
#15110709
Unthinking Majority wrote:If there's ever a mass turn towards socialism it will happen out of historical conditions of capitalism failing somehow. That's the only way the masses of people will want to overthrow capitalism. Similar to how Marx described the historical dialectic process. Lenin wasn't willing to wait around for that to happen. Capitalism was and is still being productive so his ideas lost.

That's why I don't think Marx or any modern theorist or politician can convince the masses to turn to socialism. It has to happen organically based on real conditions and pressures. If capitalism fails for good it has to do so on its own. If may never happen, but if it does i'd just keep waiting.

I believe capitalism culminantes in socialism. This happens when wealth becomes redundant and when technology has created everything MANKIND needs and more.

Food production is a good example of redundancy. Capitalists nations generally produce more food than needed and hence many can eat for free.
#15110711
Unthinking Majority wrote:
If there's ever a mass turn towards socialism it will happen out of historical conditions of capitalism failing somehow.



Um, have you stepped *outside* lately?


Capitalism And The American Pandemic Response




Unthinking Majority wrote:
That's the only way the masses of people will want to overthrow capitalism.



Yup, that's pretty-much an axiom among revolutionaries.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Similar to how Marx described the historical dialectic process. Lenin wasn't willing to wait around for that to happen.



*No one* should have to wait-around for conditions favorable for socialism, but if / when there *are* conditions favorable to socialism, socialism will be more favorable, so that's always a plus.

Keep in mind that Russia had just overthrown a tsar, and also didn't want to get entangled / involved in World War I.



The October Revolution[a] (commonly referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution,[2] the October Uprising, or Red October), officially known in Soviet historiography as the Great October Socialist Revolution,[b] was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd on 25 October (Old Style, O.S.; 7 November, New Style or N.S.) 1917.

The October Revolution had followed and capitalized on the February Revolution earlier in the year. The February Revolution had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy, resulting in a provisional government. The provisional government had taken power after being proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, Tsar Nicholas II's younger brother, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down.

During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. After the Congress of Soviets, the new governing body, had its second session it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (Left SR) to important positions within the new state of affairs. This immediately initiated the establishment of the Russian Soviet Republic. On 17 July 1918,[c] the Tsar and his family, including his five children aged 13 to 22, were executed.

The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military-Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 25 October (O.S.; 7 November, N.S.), 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia) was captured.

The slogan of the October revolution was All Power to the Soviets, to mean that power would rest with democratically-elected local councils.



Antiwar demonstrations

In a diplomatic note of 1 May, the minister of foreign affairs, Pavel Milyukov, expressed the Provisional Government's desire to continue the war against the Central Powers "to a victorious conclusion", arousing broad indignation. On 1–4 May, about 100,000 workers and soldiers of Petrograd, and, after them, the workers and soldiers of other cities, led by the Bolsheviks, demonstrated under banners reading "Down with the war!" and "All power to the soviets!" The mass demonstrations resulted in a crisis for the Provisional Government.[11] 1 July saw more demonstrations, as about 500,000 workers and soldiers in Petrograd demonstrated, again demanding "all power to the soviets," "down with the war," and "down with the ten capitalist ministers." The Provisional Government opened an offensive against the Central Powers on 1 July, which soon collapsed. The news of the offensive's failure intensified the struggle of the workers and the soldiers. A new crisis in the Provisional Government began on 15 July.[citation needed]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Capitalism was and is still being productive so his ideas lost.



No, sorry, but this is an oversimplification. I place the blame on Western imperialism's intervention / interference in the Bolshevik Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War


Also, economics doesn't automatically determine politics, as we saw with the initiation of the Bolshevik Revolution, above.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
That's why I don't think Marx or any modern theorist or politician can convince the masses to turn to socialism. It has to happen organically based on real conditions and pressures. If capitalism fails for good it has to do so on its own. If may never happen, but if it does i'd just keep waiting.




Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and around 46% of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 54%. His campaign was noted for its supporters' enthusiasm, as well as for rejecting large donations from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated Super PAC.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sa ... l_campaign



To his surprise, Sanders's June 2015 campaign events drew overflow crowds across the country.[196][197][198] When Clinton and Sanders made public appearances within days of each other in Des Moines, Iowa, he drew larger crowds, even though he had already made many stops around the state and Clinton's visit was her first in 2015.[199] On July 1, 2015, his campaign stop in Madison, Wisconsin, drew the largest crowd of any 2016 presidential candidate to that date, with an estimated turnout of 10,000.[200][201] Over the following weeks, he drew even larger crowds: 11,000 in Phoenix;[202] 15,000 in Seattle;[203] and 28,000 in Portland, Oregon.[204]



A self-described "democratic socialist,"[288] Sanders is a progressive who admires the Nordic model of social democracy and has been a proponent of workplace democracy.[289] He advocates for universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, as well as tuition-free tertiary education.[290] He supports lowering the cost of drugs by reforming patent laws to allow cheaper generic versions to be sold in the U.S.[291] He supported the Affordable Care Act, though he said it did not go far enough.[292] In November 2015, he gave a speech at Georgetown University about his view of democratic socialism, including its place in the policies of presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.[293][294] In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad."[293]
#15110713
Tainari88 wrote:
No, unthinking majority. There are different forms of capitalism and there are different forms of basic socialism.

I like Richard Wolff's explanation.

p7x7oVwhHok




Politics

In July 2015, Wolff endorsed Massachusetts physician and Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President.[24]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff#Politics



---


Julian658 wrote:
Same old:

Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and by a repressive authoritarian government.



But to repress the bourgeois *ruling class*, which monopolizes the nation-state apparatus in all countries worldwide. Would you really rather that the plutocracy *continue* -- ?


Julian658 wrote:
I believe capitalism culminantes in socialism. This happens when wealth becomes redundant and when technology has created everything MANKIND needs and more.



No, those conditions have existed for *centuries* now, and yet we *still* haven't been automatically ushered into any kind of 'socialism', due to the bourgeois ruling class still being in power.

Also, this statement of yours *contradicts* your previous one.


Julian658 wrote:
Food production is a good example of redundancy. Capitalists nations generally produce more food than needed and hence many can eat for free.



You're assuming that the extra food is somehow automatically *distributed* exactly to those who need it the most, and that's *not* the case, thanks to capitalism's exchange values.


Dumped Milk, Smashed Eggs, Plowed Vegetables: Food Waste of the Pandemic

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/busi ... -food.html
#15110717
ckaihatsu wrote:Um, have you stepped *outside* lately?

Sure there's tough economic times for many right now, but COVID isn't capitalism systemically collapsing though. People believe that the economy will recover when the virus is cured with a vaccine.

Also, outside America, western countries are helping their citizens a lot better with money relief.

*No one* should have to wait-around for conditions favorable for socialism, but if / when there *are* conditions favorable to socialism, socialism will be more favorable, so that's always a plus.

If you want a grassroots revolution of workers, then you have to wait for everyone to get on board.

Westerners outside the US are more content with the capitalist system because they have social programs like universal healthcare and free or subsidizes post-secondary education. Americans are far more distrustful of government. I'm not sure centralized socialism would ever work there. A lot of Americans don't even like unions, so I dunno, they might choose to go down with the ship.
#15110720
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Sure there's tough economic times for many right now, but COVID isn't capitalism systemically collapsing though. People believe that the economy will recover when the virus is cured with a vaccine.



Where's the GDP *growth*, then? The stock market has been getting bailed out with *trillions* of dollars of public funds, but that doesn't have any impact on the *fundamental* economic dynamics, and the bailouts aren't even affecting the *stock market* that much, either.

You sound far too complacent for the way things really are.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Also, outside America, western countries are helping their citizens a lot better with money relief.



References, please.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
If you want a grassroots revolution of workers, then you have to wait for everyone to get on board.

Westerners outside the US are more content with the capitalist system because they have social programs like universal healthcare and free or subsidizes post-secondary education. Americans are far more distrustful of government. I'm not sure centralized socialism would ever work there. A lot of Americans don't even like unions, so I dunno, they might choose to go down with the ship.



You mean *Sandersian* / populist socialism, which isn't even anti-capitalist.

I don't look to bourgeois government because workers-of-the-world socialism doesn't require it -- workers can collectively control their *own* workplaces / factories, because obviously capitalism can't, and state intervention has been required (2008-2009, and now) to bail them out, which is an indictment of capitalist markets. Why can't your capitalism handle an outbreak adequately, instead of allowing it to become a *pandemic*?
#15110722
ckaihatsu wrote:Where's the GDP *growth*, then? The stock market has been getting bailed out with *trillions* of dollars of public funds, but that doesn't have any impact on the *fundamental* economic dynamics, and the bailouts aren't even affecting the *stock market* that much, either.

You sound far too complacent for the way things really are.

If massive bailouts keep happening every 10 years or so the size needed in the 2008 recession and now during COVID, the capitalist system could collapse under its own debt, and then the economy would be rebuilt with fundamental changes. Whether that's socialism or some other system, who knows.

I'm not complacent, the US economy and social conditions are a total mess, not to mention its terrible COVID response which is as much a result of many of its stupidest citizens refusing to social distance or wear masks as it is its stupid politicians. The US is a laughing stock to the rest of the world right now.

References, please.


Canadians out of work from COVID get to stay home and receive $2000 every 4 weeks from the government. Government is also giving a 75% wage subsidy to employers in order to help keep workers employed.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... ation.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency ... bsidy.html

You mean *Sandersian* / populist socialism, which isn't even anti-capitalist.

Right, that's more of a mixed system, which is my preference, as it's shown statistically to be the most effective ever put in practice in terms of socioeconomic outcomes for the masses.

I don't look to bourgeois government because workers-of-the-world socialism doesn't require it -- workers can collectively control their *own* workplaces / factories, because obviously capitalism can't, and state intervention has been required (2008-2009, and now) to bail them out, which is an indictment of capitalist markets. Why can't your capitalism handle an outbreak adequately, instead of allowing it to become a *pandemic*?

I don't believe capitalism alone can manage the economy properly, nor can governments. Clearly a mix of both has produced the best results in both the developed and developing world. Scandinavia and the "asian tigers" are examples.
#15110729
Unthinking Majority wrote:
If massive bailouts keep happening every 10 years or so the size needed in the 2008 recession and now during COVID, the capitalist system could collapse under its own debt, and then the economy would be rebuilt with fundamental changes. Whether that's socialism or some other system, who knows.



If I may, though, I'd like to say that you're being somewhat *vague* here -- please keep in mind that the critical variable here is nations' debt-to-GDP ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ublic_debt


My understanding is that, like *any* debt, at some point potential investors will see ratios of over 200%, and finally just throw up their hands and say 'no way', because that's just too much of a risk for *default*.

I don't know what you have in mind for 'rebuilding' all of that, because, at that *international* level, you can't just 'rachet-down' these ratios in relation to each other, or something, as countries do for their internal currencies. This is *top-level*, and there's nowhere else to go -- the globe is finite.

People would still want to make money through private ownership and profit-making, but if *every* financial step is a land mine, with towers of junk bonds everywhere, what is any given individual investor to *do* in that kind of environment, except to become a 'subprime mortgage'-type lender?


Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm not complacent, the US economy and social conditions are a total mess, not to mention its terrible COVID response which is as much a result of many of its stupidest citizens refusing to social distance or wear masks as it is its stupid politicians. The US is a laughing stock to the rest of the world right now.



Well, thanks for the self-reality-check, at least.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Canadians out of work from COVID get to stay home and receive $2000 every 4 weeks from the government. Government is also giving a 75% wage subsidy to employers in order to help keep workers employed.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benef ... ation.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency ... bsidy.html



Okay, that's better than here in the U.S. since they're going to be *cutting off* unemployment benefits even though the coronavirus is *surging*.

Also, why are employers there being incentivized to get people into employment while working conditions are still so hazardous, and even deadly -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You mean *Sandersian* / populist socialism, which isn't even anti-capitalist.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Right, that's more of a mixed system, which is my preference, as it's shown statistically to be the most effective ever put in practice in terms of socioeconomic outcomes for the masses.



Well, the *economic* system isn't 'mixed' -- it's still fucking capitalism and profit-making for private ownership. It's not like a 'mixed' pizza, where half of the workplaces would be in workers-of-the-world socialism, with collectivist, non-monetary production, while the other half would continue-on with capitalism.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
I don't believe capitalism alone can manage the economy properly, nor can governments. Clearly a mix of both has produced the best results in both the developed and developing world. Scandinavia and the "asian tigers" are examples.



Scandinavia benefits from *finance*, and the Asian Tigers benefit from technological *leapfrogging* -- these have nothing to do with capitalism itself, as a social dynamic of organizing the production of commodities.

If you're expressing concern with capitalism itself what would you say to a non-monetary, post-capitalist paradigm of *workers* control over social production?
#15110741
Tainari88 wrote:
No, unthinking majority. There are different forms of capitalism and there are different forms of basic socialism.

I like Richard Wolff's explanation.

p7x7oVwhHok



Okay, just saw the video. Here's how I would *expand* on Wolff's categories:


1. Wolff's 'government regulation' = government spending on social services / progressive tax structure

2. Wolff's 'Communism' = nationalization / Stalinism / bureaucratic-elite / professional state administrators [EDIT: not 'professional ruling-class state administrators]

3. Wolff's 'enterprise / workplace focus' = workplace democracy / workers co-ops / anarchism / syndicalism / communalism


I myself would add a *fourth* 'socialism', that of outright collective workers-of-the-world control of worldwide social production, without nation-states even being *necessary*, or retained, in the slightest. Each active liberated-worker, on a strictly *voluntary* / uncoerced basis, would decide how many hours to devote to production of goods and services for the common good, with *zero* correlation of that labor to what they *receive* from society. This means people could conceivably not-work *at all* and still take as much as they could personally physically consume 24/7/365.

In reality I think most people would jump in and organize with others, and would collectively determine what goods and services should be *prioritized* for production, for the common social good, and would work a reasonable amount to effect such plans. I'll remind the reader that, under capitalism, production is increasingly *industrialized* and even *automated*, so that less and less actual human labor is required, per unit of output, to consumers.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



A post-capitalist collectivist society would have a *collective interest* in *fully automating* as much production as possible, meaning potentially *everything* so that everyone could fully *benefit* from any and all technologies in existence (developed by capitalism), while ultimately not necessarily *having* to contribute any labor power since everything would then be fully automated, and would no longer physically *require* any work effort from anyone.

All active liberated-laborers would effectively be collective *co-administrators* over their own, and any *related*, production efforts. which could always be *generalized* 'up' into any greater scale that's appropriate, on a *per-item* basis (water, any particular fruit, any particular vegetable, etc.). This would yield economies-of-scale, instead of being stuck with a sheerly *localist* / subsistence farming / self-sufficiency scale of *communally-constrained* internally-collectivist production.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 31 Jul 2020 19:06, edited 1 time in total.
#15110756
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, just saw the video. Here's how I would *expand* on Wolff's categories:


1. Wolff's 'government regulation' = government spending on social services / progressive tax structure

2. Wolff's 'Communism' = nationalization / Stalinism / bureaucratic-elite / professional ruling-class state administrators

3. Wolff's 'enterprise / workplace focus' = workplace democracy / workers co-ops / anarchism / syndicalism / communalism


I myself would add a *fourth* 'socialism', that of outright collective workers-of-the-world control of worldwide social production, without nation-states even being *necessary*, or retained, in the slightest. Each active liberated-worker, on a strictly *voluntary* / uncoerced basis, would decide how many hours to devote to production of goods and services for the common good, with *zero* correlation of that labor to what they *receive* from society. This means people could conceivably not-work *at all* and still take as much as they could personally physically consume 24/7/365.

In reality I think most people would jump in and organize with others, and would collectively determine what goods and services should be *prioritized* for production, for the common social good, and would work a reasonable amount to effect such plans. I'll remind the reader that, under capitalism, production is increasingly *industrialized* and even *automated*, so that less and less actual human labor is required, per unit of output, to consumers.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



A post-capitalist collectivist society would have a *collective interest* in *fully automating* as much production as possible, meaning potentially *everything* so that everyone could fully *benefit* from any and all technologies in existence (developed by capitalism), while ultimately not necessarily *having* to contribute any labor power since everything would then be fully automated, and would no longer physically *require* any work effort from anyone.

All active liberated-laborers would effectively be collective *co-administrators* over their own, and any *related*, production efforts. which could always be *generalized* 'up' into any greater scale that's appropriate, on a *per-item* basis (water, any particular fruit, any particular vegetable, etc.). This would yield economies-of-scale, instead of being stuck with a sheerly *localist* / subsistence farming / self-sufficiency scale of *communally-constrained* internally-collectivist production.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



I love Richard Wolff's number three "Democracy at work". I think it is the best. I would prefer a group of 15-40 co-workers for an ideal democratic structure and a lot of fresh ideas for production that is collaborative.

I like serving people and doing things for people. It motivates me more to do for others than for myself. I work a lot harder for other people i can serve than I would just for myself.

I like how Wolff structures that democratization in the third tier Ckaihatsu.

I have learned that is you love and care for people with a lot of attention and concentration? They usually like helping you a lot. I love that. I find that an ideal existence.

You would be a fine man to integrate into my democracy at work society. You are invited always. ;)
#15110813
Tainari88 wrote:
I love Richard Wolff's number three "Democracy at work". I think it is the best. I would prefer a group of 15-40 co-workers for an ideal democratic structure and a lot of fresh ideas for production that is collaborative.

I like serving people and doing things for people. It motivates me more to do for others than for myself. I work a lot harder for other people i can serve than I would just for myself.

I like how Wolff structures that democratization in the third tier Ckaihatsu.

I have learned that is you love and care for people with a lot of attention and concentration? They usually like helping you a lot. I love that. I find that an ideal existence.

You would be a fine man to integrate into my democracy at work society. You are invited always. ;)



Yes, thank you very much for the kindness and warmth, Tainari. It means a lot to me.

I understand and appreciate the closeness of one's co-workers, but, politically, I have to point out, again, that there are good reasons for not leaving things at the strictly *local* level of workers organization.

I don't think that every locality should have to do its own *food production*, for example, when current industrial farming techniques have *freed* people for better things, and for their own lives.

With full automation perhaps people *will* raise their own food, but it'll be done with a TV-remote-like device, just a simple point-and-press-a-button kind of thing, since all of the actual work will be done automatically, with a fully robotized process.


Meet FarmBot




Also, Tainari, I have to point out that many modern products require *extended* supply chains, meaning many individual local factories passing components along, to finally be assembled into the final product at the last factory, and packaged, and sent on to the consumer.

Sorry to be the guy who passes along the *complicated* stuff, but I think political people like yourself need to be able to *deal* with such realities in the process of transcending capitalism.
#15110823
ckaihatsu wrote:
2. Wolff's 'Communism' = nationalization / Stalinism / bureaucratic-elite / professional state administrators [EDIT: not 'professional ruling-class state administrators]



Btw, I just made an edit to yesterday's post -- it came to my attention that a Stalinist-type bureaucratic elitism *wouldn't* really be a 'ruling class' since such a bureaucracy wouldn't be actively *expropriating* value, and wealth, the way that *capitalist* states do, with *their* ruling classes.

Stalinist-type state collectivism *would* be a specialized mass-administration, but it would remain mostly collectivist, without having to resort to the institution of private property.
#15110893
The United States was founded by a bunch of disloyal, ungrateful, parasitic freeloaders. The British government in the late eighteenth century was the biggest government the world had ever seen. The British government although it gave considerable liberty, for the time to to its upper and middle class subjects was able to raise taxes and win a number of wars culminating in the seven years war. The Seven Years war left the British Empire hegemonic in North America, so the free loader settler parasites of the Thirteen Colonies no longer needed the British government, hence the war of independence where the immoral low life of the American founders formed an Axis of Evil with absolutist France.

Europe was land hungry, hence its huge inequalities, excruciating poverty of large section of the population, where even the lower middle class, often went to bed hungry and its lack of opportunity. Britain and other European polities were Apartheid States, but based on social class, not skin colour (or symbolic racial colours). Creating liberty in Culturally British, land abundant North America was like falling off a log. Hence the great success of even intemperate Canada and Australia, without the worthless toilet paper that is the US Constitution.

Meanwhile in Europe National Socialism was about to appear with the French Revolution. Competition between States within Europe required huge land armies. Huge land armies that were hugely expensive, that had to pre built in peace time, so they could be mobilised at short notice. This necessitated the drive towards ever greater levels of National Socialism.

As well as oodles of land, abundant natural resources and amazing transport enabling river systems, America's new Anglo citizens were bequeathed an Empire with no serious hemispheric competitors. Hence the only serious war the Americans had was with themselves. And of course in their brief experience with real serious war, they themselves started down the National Socialist path. The great tragedy of the so called United States is that the Civil War didn't go on longer, because if it had the Confederacy would very probably have abolished slavery. The National Socialist needs of mass mobilisation warfare, the need for men willing to throw themselves into the meet grinder in service of the national cause would necessitate the, de-slaving and encitizenment of the Confederacy's Black population.
#15110943
Rich wrote:
The United States was founded by a bunch of disloyal, ungrateful, parasitic freeloaders. The British government in the late eighteenth century was the biggest government the world had ever seen. The British government although it gave considerable liberty, for the time to to its upper and middle class subjects was able to raise taxes and win a number of wars culminating in the seven years war.



The colonists were paying taxes to Britain, so that fact contradicts your characterization of them being 'freeloaders'.



Growing dissent and the American Revolution

Main article: American Revolution

In the colonial era, Americans insisted on their rights as Englishmen to have their own legislature raise all taxes. The British Parliament, however, asserted in 1765 that it held supreme authority to lay taxes, and a series of American protests began that led directly to the American Revolution. The first wave of protests attacked the Stamp Act of 1765, and marked the first time that Americans met together from each of the 13 colonies and planned a common front against British taxation. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 dumped British tea into Boston Harbor because it contained a hidden tax that Americans refused to pay. The British responded by trying to crush traditional liberties in Massachusetts, leading to the American revolution starting in 1775.[86]

The idea of independence steadily became more widespread, after being first proposed and advocated by a number of public figures and commentators throughout the Colonies. One of the most prominent voices on behalf of independence was Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense published in 1776. Another group which called for independence was the Sons of Liberty, which had been founded in 1765 in Boston by Samuel Adams and which was now becoming even more strident and numerous.

The Parliament began a series of taxes and punishments which met more and more resistance: First Quartering Act (1765); Declaratory Act (1766); Townshend Revenue Act (1767); and Tea Act (1773). In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts: Second Quartering Act (1774); Quebec Act (1774); Massachusetts Government Act (1774); Administration of Justice Act (1774); Boston Port Act (1774); Prohibitory Act (1775). By this point, the 13 colonies had organized themselves into the Continental Congress and begun setting up independent governments and drilling their militia in preparation for war.[87]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_ ... Revolution



---


The colonists were also going into *debt* from consuming British goods, and I don't know if you'd characterize *that* as being 'freeloading', or as being 'commercial'.



Consumption of British goods

Another point on which the colonies found themselves more similar than different was the booming import of British goods. The British economy had begun to grow rapidly at the end of the 17th century and, by the mid-18th century, small factories in Britain were producing much more than the nation could consume. Britain found a market for their goods in the British colonies of North America, increasing her exports to that region by 360% between 1740 and 1770. British merchants offered credit to their customers;[81] this allowed Americans to buy a large amount of British goods.[citation needed] From Nova Scotia to Georgia, all British subjects bought similar products, creating and anglicizing a sort of common identity.[79]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_ ... tish_goods



---


Rich wrote:
The Seven Years war left the British Empire hegemonic in North America,



The British Empire was *hardly* 'hegemonic' in North America at the end of the Seven Years War:



The British government was close to bankruptcy, and Britain now faced the delicate task of pacifying its new French-Canadian subjects as well as the many American Indian tribes who had supported France. In 1763, Pontiac's War broke out as a group of Indian tribes in the Great Lakes region and the Northwest (the modern American Midwest) said to have been led by the Ottawa chief Pontiac (whose role as the leader of the confederation seems to have been exaggerated by the British), unhappy with the eclipse of French power, rebelled against British rule. The Indians had long established congenial and friendly relations with the French fur traders, and the Anglo-American fur traders who had replaced the French had engaged in business practices that enraged the Indians, who complained about being cheated when they sold their furs.[136] Moreover, the Indians feared that with the coming of British rule might lead to white settlers displacing them off their land, whereas it was known that the French had only come as fur traders.[136] Pontiac's War was a major conflict in which the British temporarily lost control of the Great Lakes-Northwest regions to the Indians.[137] By the middle of 1763, the only forts the British held in the region were Fort Detroit (modern Detroit, Michigan ), Fort Niagara (modern Youngstown, New York) and Fort Pitt (modern Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) with the rest all being lost to the Indians.[138] It was only with the British victory at the Battle of Bushy Run that prevented a complete collapse of British power in the Great Lakes region.[139] King George III's Proclamation of 1763, which forbade white settlement beyond the crest of the Appalachians, was intended to appease the Indians but led to considerable outrage in the Thirteen Colonies, whose inhabitants were eager to acquire native lands. The Quebec Act of 1774, similarly intended to win over the loyalty of French Canadians, also spurred resentment among American colonists.[140] The act protected Catholic religion and French language, which enraged the Americans, but the Québécois remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolution and did not rebel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Yea ... ar#Outcome



---


Rich wrote:
so the free loader settler parasites of the Thirteen Colonies no longer needed the British government, hence the war of independence where the immoral low life of the American founders formed an Axis of Evil with absolutist France.



Yes, France provided the financing for the American Revolution, but the nascent U.S. got out of debt blindingly quickly:



Beginning in 1777, Congress repeatedly asked the states to provide money, but the states had no system of taxation and were of little help. By 1780, Congress was making requisitions for specific supplies of corn, beef, pork, and other necessities, an inefficient system which barely kept the army alive.[95][96] Starting in 1776, the Congress sought to raise money by loans from wealthy individuals, promising to redeem the bonds after the war. The bonds were redeemed in 1791 at face value, but the scheme raised little money because Americans had little specie, and many of the rich merchants were supporters of the Crown. The French secretly supplied the Americans with money, gunpowder, and munitions to weaken Great Britain; the subsidies continued when France entered the war in 1778, and the French government and Paris bankers lent large sums to the American war effort. The Americans struggled to pay off the loans; they ceased making interest payments to France in 1785 and defaulted on installments due in 1787. In 1790, however, they resumed regular payments on their debts to the French,[97] and settled their accounts with the French government in 1795 by selling the debt to James Swan, an American banker.[98]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... on#Finance



---


Rich wrote:
Europe was land hungry, hence its huge inequalities, excruciating poverty of large section of the population, where even the lower middle class, often went to bed hungry and its lack of opportunity. Britain and other European polities were Apartheid States, but based on social class, not skin colour (or symbolic racial colours). Creating liberty in Culturally British, land abundant North America was like falling off a log. Hence the great success of even intemperate Canada and Australia, without the worthless toilet paper that is the US Constitution.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'creating liberty' -- your meaning is ambiguous and vague.

Even though the American Revolution was bourgeois, it was still *anti-imperialist*, against the British crown, which was significant.



Yet the American Revolution was more than just a political break of the colonies from Britain. Out of the turmoil of the war emerged a society which had shaken off features which harked back to a pre-capitalist past. The feudal rights of the great landowners in New York disappeared. The deference of people for the ‘great families’ was shaken. Hundreds of thousands of people in the northern and central colonies were won to ideas of human equality and liberty from oppression which, they could see, should apply to black people as well as white. For many followers of the Enlightenment in Europe, the language of the Declaration of Independence seemed a living fulfilment of their ideals.

The radical forces which had done so much to fortify the revolution did not keep power in their own hands anywhere. In places such as Pennsylvania they were able, for a time, to implement measures which brought real benefit to the middle and lower classes. There were state constitutions which gave all men the vote, annual assemblies, measures to protect farmers against debt and controls on prices. But by the time the states agreed to a Federal Constitution in 1788, forces wedded to the creation of an all-American free market had gained control of the state assemblies. This cleared the ground for economic change on a scale that would have been inconceivable otherwise, but also brought the spread and intensification of new and old forms of oppression and exploitation.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 276



---


Rich wrote:
Meanwhile in Europe National Socialism was about to appear with the French Revolution. Competition between States within Europe required huge land armies. Huge land armies that were hugely expensive, that had to pre built in peace time, so they could be mobilised at short notice. This necessitated the drive towards ever greater levels of National Socialism.



You're mixing-up Germany, with France, and the 1900s with the 1700s -- Nazism didn't appear until the 20th century, and was an outgrowth of German nationalist sentiment after the defeat of the German Empire in World War I, and was due to the harsh treatment of the German people at the hands of the Allies.



Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty required Germany to disarm, make ample territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US$442 billion or UK£284 billion in 2020). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes (a British delegate to the Paris Peace Conference), predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace"—and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that, since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side, such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch, criticized the treaty for treating Germany too leniently.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles




Discontent in Germany

The rise of Nazism and fascism included a revival of the nationalist spirit and a rejection of many post-war changes. Similarly, the popularity of the stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstoßlegende) was a testament to the psychological state of defeated Germany and was a rejection of responsibility for the conflict. This conspiracy theory of betrayal became common, and the German populace came to see themselves as victims. The widespread acceptance of the "stab-in-the-back" theory delegitimised the Weimar government and destabilised the system, opening it to extremes of right and left.

Communist and fascist movements around Europe drew strength from this theory and enjoyed a new level of popularity. These feelings were most pronounced in areas directly or harshly affected by the war. Adolf Hitler was able to gain popularity by using German discontent with the still controversial Treaty of Versailles.[420] World War II was in part a continuation of the power struggle never fully resolved by World War I. Furthermore, it was common for Germans in the 1930s to justify acts of aggression due to perceived injustices imposed by the victors of World War I.[231][421][422] American historian William Rubinstein wrote that:

The 'Age of Totalitarianism' included nearly all the infamous examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust, but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world, other mass killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also the Armenian Genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here, had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a result of World War I, without which surely neither Communism nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators and crackpots.[423]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... in_Germany



---


Rich wrote:
As well as oodles of land, abundant natural resources and amazing transport enabling river systems, America's new Anglo citizens were bequeathed an Empire with no serious hemispheric competitors. Hence the only serious war the Americans had was with themselves. And of course in their brief experience with real serious war, they themselves started down the National Socialist path. The great tragedy of the so called United States is that the Civil War didn't go on longer, because if it had the Confederacy would very probably have abolished slavery. The National Socialist needs of mass mobilisation warfare, the need for men willing to throw themselves into the meet grinder in service of the national cause would necessitate the, de-slaving and encitizenment of the Confederacy's Black population.




The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862, during the Civil War. It changed the legal status under federal law of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from slave to free. As soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, either by running away across Union lines or through the advance of federal troops, the slave was permanently free. Ultimately, the Union victory brought the proclamation into effect in all of the former Confederacy. The remaining slaves, those in the areas not in revolt, were freed by state action during the war, or by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in December 1865.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Long-term problems in younger low-risk COVID-19 p[…]

You seem *confused* -- why aren't you denouncing […]

End of maduro - hopefully.

Maduro's government elected by the people, and tha[…]

Why do you want to know about my insurance? W[…]