- 26 Nov 2022 21:44
#15256935
Okay, you *got* me -- *workers* state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators ... roletariat
*Fortunately* that's not what I'm doing -- I mean to say that the world's working class doesn't *logistically* require a global landscape of nation-states. The bourgeoisie, by contrast, *does*, because it parcels out land, etc., according to *rentier* values (non-commodity-productive private property), which then necessitates overarching administration / government.
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
---
Effectively they *don't*, like Julian Assange, because "their" country -- Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India -- allows them to be exploited and used by a foreign country.
Qatar World Cup: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
If you like, I have something for your perusal, along these lines:
---
Also:
---
The missile arms race with the West was a major factor:
---
'It' being what, again -- ?
'Bonds of social cohesion' *is* socially-liberal.
Political Interest wrote:
How do you propose to build socialism without a state?
Okay, you *got* me -- *workers* state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators ... roletariat
Political Interest wrote:
Everyone has a homeland and a country, it's no use trying to tell the working class they have no country.
*Fortunately* that's not what I'm doing -- I mean to say that the world's working class doesn't *logistically* require a global landscape of nation-states. The bourgeoisie, by contrast, *does*, because it parcels out land, etc., according to *rentier* values (non-commodity-productive private property), which then necessitates overarching administration / government.
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
Spoiler: show
---
Political Interest wrote:
Maybe you would like to tell the nations oppressed by neo-colonialism that they have no country.
Effectively they *don't*, like Julian Assange, because "their" country -- Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India -- allows them to be exploited and used by a foreign country.
Qatar World Cup: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Political Interest wrote:
Well, my dear communist, I don't think we will have much in common but on the economic question I dislike how Western liberalism makes everyone into mere utilitarian workers, and a person is only the worth of their economic value. I think everyone in a country must be taken care of, they need good housing, good employment and stability for their families. Neo-liberalism reduces all relations to mere economic relations, who can make the most money and who is best at maximising value for a business. That is a cold and rabidly individualistic way to structure social relations. It leads to destitution, misery and all sorts of social dysfunction. Such an economic system is completely alien to me. At the same time I don't like communism, people should have the right to make money to ensure a proper availability of consumer goods.
If you like, I have something for your perusal, along these lines:
...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:
- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
---
Also:
[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.
---
Political Interest wrote:
Soviets and Warsaw Pact failed in this and that's what partly led to their downfall in the end.
The missile arms race with the West was a major factor:
[T]he breaking of the Polish workers’ movement could not remove the underlying forces which had given rise to it. Rates of economic growth in the Eastern bloc were now no higher than in the bigger Western economies. What is more, the Reagan government in the US was embarking on a new arms build-up (with the stationing of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe) which the Russian government wanted to match. But the resources simply did not exist to meet the demands this put on the economy. The state capitalist regimes had to reform or risk class confrontation and internal collapse.
Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 590-591
---
Political Interest wrote:
Culturally I dislike the crassness of it,
'It' being what, again -- ?
Political Interest wrote:
the way it's making people into crass, rude and materialistic idiots devoid of morality. The bonds of social cohesion are eroding and we're losing any sort of uplifting influence in our culture.
I suspect you're one of these American communists who are socially liberal, well that doesn't appeal to me either.
'Bonds of social cohesion' *is* socially-liberal.