• @trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    What I meant with the lack of industrialization is that those revolutions could be fought with rifles. Today you need tanks and drones. Any revolution is interrupted by cutting global supply lines.

    Cooperatives don’t have to be dominant. It could be that people prefer to work in classical hierarchies. There should just be so many cooperatives that whoever wants to live a socialist life can find a place to do so.

    I indeed believe that revolution is not needed. There is no unified capital owning class. If you don’t change the political system and let them have their power, why should they waste resources on fighting cooperatives?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      -61 year ago

      That’s complete and utter nonsense. First of all, revolutions happen when significant parts of the military choose to side with the populous against the ruling class. Second, modern military runs on logistics. If the workers do not support the regime then fuel won’t be delivered for the tanks, food won’t be delivered to the troops, and so on. Fighting a civil war is completely different from invading other countries.

      Meanwhile, this notion that cooperatives don’t have to be dominant is also nonsensical. As I’ve repeatedly explained to you here, the whole system is designed to make large scale cooperative movements a nonstarter. What you’re proposing here is a fantasy that’s based on your lack of understanding of how businesses actually work under capitalist system. You have this romanticized notion that’s completely divorced from the real world. I highly encourage you to educate yourself on the subject instead of arguing out of ignorance based on your made up idea of how things work.

      There very much is a unified capital owning class, but it’s not unified in the simplistic way you seem to imagine it to be. The capital owning class is unified by their shared class interest. It’s not bunch of people in a room doing a conspiracy. It’s a bunch of individual actors acting in their own interest, and they all favor certain types of policies because it provides a common benefit for the capital owning class.

      The relationship between a capitalist and a labourer is that the labourer sells their labour to the capitalist in return for a wage. The capitalist wishes to maximize their profit which means paying as low wage as they can while the worker wants to maximize their wage and get as much value out of their work as they can. This is the fundamental contradiction between the interests of the worker and the capitalist.

      Under capitalist rule, it’s the capital owning class that holds power in society. This is precisely what analysis of many decades of policy in US shows:

      What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

      If the cooperative structure does not threaten class interests of the oligarchs then it’s not achieving anything of value. And if cooperatives actually started cutting into the profits of the capitalists then it would be in the shared class interests of the capitalists to fight cooperatives.

      You continue to argue a subject that you have superficial understanding of. Perhaps spend a bit of time actually learning about how political economy works before trying to form ideas on how to improve it.

      • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        It’s interesting that 3 people seem to disagree with you without telling you why. I also would like to know why they reject your detailed comment.

        Unfortunately I cannot agree with you about my lack of knowledge. I believe in cooperatives despite the valid problems that you have mentioned.

        If the capital class turns full fascism to destroy cooperatives then you have your revolution. But for capitalism, cooperatives are just another member of the capital owning class. Everybody wants a monopoly but not everybody gets it.

        The key problem is the reserve army of labor. If cooperatives show some restraint and don’t destroy labor market rates by cornering markets themselves and distributing that surplus, then capitalism can continue uninterrupted. Not everybody wants to participate in discussions as much as cooperatives require.

        If everybody wants to be a socialist then cooperatives should even create incentives to maintain capitalism. That’s where I lack knowledge. I don’t see how value can be determined without competition. Do we want a society without value?

        Let the capitalists have their boats. You need people who dedicate their lives to business processes. There is enough value created when there is a choice to work in a socialist cooperative. Communism is not only prevented by capitalists but also by the people themselves who don’t vote differently. Capitalists work with those weaknesses while communists hope that they are not a problem.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          -41 year ago

          Simply believing in something doesn’t make it viable. You have to look at the history of cooperatives, how they operate under capitalism, and how they fare against capitalist companies. People have been trying to achieve what you’re proposing for many decades with little to show for it. You need to address why that is and why you’re so convinced that it can be different given all the evidence to the contrary.

          The other aspect you need to consider is that capitalist companies will always have an advantage over cooperatives because they are much more willing to exploit the workers. The willingness to exploit allows the company to increase profit and market share, so competition fundamentally favors such companies. While you could argue that workers would prefer to join cooperatives, reserve army of labour ensures that there are always enough workers to go around. And of course, traditional companies can always temporarily improve their working conditions to run a cooperative out of business. We even see this dynamic with traditional companies competing.

          Meanwhile, competition is perfectly possible under the communist model. For example, USSR had plenty of different design bureaus that would compete with each other. The difference was that it was friendly competition, and results were shared. The system was more efficient than capitalist competition as evidenced by USSR leading the space race.

          Communism is prevented by people buying into the current capitalist model. Traditionally this has been the case because the standard of living in the west was relatively high due to the fact that most brutal exploitation was done in the countries the west subjugates. However, we are now reaching the stage of capitalism where exploitation is turning inward and people in the core of the empire are seeing their living standards deteriorate. As this process continues going forward, more and more people will reject the system.

          Communists understand the inherent self destructive dynamic of capitalism and that you can’t just paper over these problems with cooperatives.

          • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Cooperatives don’t have to pay owners nor a management layer. Workers also shouldn’t slack. These advantages should overcome the benefits of exploitation.

            Ussr won space race and lost the microchip race. The availability of cad systems created a big advantage.

            Capitalism is not inherently self destructive. Exponential growth is only needed if all investors should succeed. That’s not necessary.

            Capitalism will thrive when times get tough because the majority will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Cooperatives could create space for those who want to cooperate.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              -41 year ago

              Cooperatives still need a management layer just like any other large organization. Meanwhile, the reason that cooperatives don’t have to pay owners is also the reason cooperatives are unable to get the initial investment.

              You keep repeating here that the advantages of coops should overcome exploitation, but the reality is that they don’t. We have over a century of history showing this. You just keep ignoring the elephant in the room here and repeating over and over how you think this shouldn’t be the case, while it demonstrably is.

              Ussr won space race and lost the microchip race. The availability of cad systems created a big advantage.

              I’m not sure what this has to do with the point regarding competition and innovation under a communist system. USSR could demonstrably innovate, and was doing so better than the west in many areas.

              Capitalism is not inherently self destructive. Exponential growth is only needed if all investors should succeed. That’s not necessary.

              Yes, it actually is and many books have been written on this subject over the years. It’s not just the exponential growth that’s the problem, it’s the whole capitalist competition which leads to capital concentration and monopolies. Capitalism isn’t a stable system. Winners of competition grow, and they become harder to compete with because it takes increasingly more initial capital to do so. A scrappy startup isn’t going to take on Amazon for example. And even in cases where new companies do better, the established ones can simply buy them out.

              Capitalism will thrive when times get tough because the majority will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Cooperatives could create space for those who want to cooperate.

              Based on the actual history of capitalism it does not thrive in tough times. Once again, I implore you to learn some actual history instead of just making things up. Spend some time to educate yourself.

              • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Since the sovjet union was not fully communist, there hasn’t been a successful communist revolution. That doesn’t stop you from trying. Why are you convinced that there is no way to establish cooperatives. Right, it’s not easy but it’s easier than a communist revolution. Unless you believe that capitalism breaks down on its own because it is not suited for tough times.

                Instead of reading literature, socialists could develop and show their political competence by running cooperatives.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -31 year ago

                  Since the sovjet union was not fully communist, there hasn’t been a successful communist revolution.

                  That’s a nonsensical argument. You don’t flip a switch and transition from a capitalist model to a communist one. The revolution puts the working class in charge of society, and then it’s a process of figuring out how to build a communist system. The transitional period is called socialism. Again, I encourage you to read this explanation https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

                  Why are you convinced that there is no way to establish cooperatives.

                  I’m simply pointing out to you, that this has been tried in many different ways for over a century with little to show for it. Since you’re the one claiming this is a viable approach despite over a century of failure, it’s on you to demonstrate why people should continue trying this when it’s not working.

                  Right, it’s not easy but it’s easier than a communist revolution.

                  Lots of successful communist revolutions happened, no successful examples of what you’re proposing exist.

                  Unless you believe that capitalism breaks down on its own because it is not suited for tough times.

                  Capitalism breaking down is a big aspect of what leads to revolutions. And the tough times are directly caused by late stage capitalism as we’re seeing happening today in the west. If the ruling capitalist class was capable of changing course then revolutions wouldn’t happen.

                  Instead of reading literature, socialists could develop and show their political competence by running cooperatives.

                  People who don’t understand the value of learning from prior experiences can be safely dismissed because they will never accomplish anything.

                  • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Thanks for the high quality references.

                    The article here nicely stresses that there is only one way to communism and that there can even ony be one party. That’s true in theory, but a single party can make a mistake in implementing communism so that it would be a valid option to have various parties each representing one approach to communism among which the population has to choose.

                    Likewise I think that requiring the destruction of state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is a nice theory but in reality, everybody in the state administration is proletarian, if we identify everybody but the billionaires as proletarian. Otherwise, the state would collapse because nobody with an education would be able to participate in the administration.

                    You argue that there were successful communist revolutions. But those were only starting to implement communism since there hasn’t been a place with communism yet.

                    My point of view is that there is no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to create a place for communist relations. A cooperative can be such a place. Instead of having to wait for a revolution, communist and socialists could live in the reality of their preferred relations right now.

                    Thus it doesn’t matter how many times people failed. People constantly start small businesses. Communists must have the resources to do that, too. Run a restaurant as a cooperative and expand it. This creates the resources to create more advanced cooperatives. Without going full oppressive, the capitalist class cannot do much to prevent such a cooperative.

                    The problems that will arise will show the real problems of communism. Without an army to suppress dissidents, a cooperative has to deal with those problems. To me, that’s a better way to figure out communism than to wait for a revolution.

                  • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    The difference to regular businesses is that management as a class doesn’t require higher compensation. Similarly, the owners of the cooperative don’t want to be compensated when they don’t want to be part of the capitalist class.

                    This, together with the members being motivated workers, gives cooperatives room to compete with regular businesses.

                  • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    The other text mentioned the state machine. Do communists distinguish between the necessities of that state machine and the capitalist class’ dictatorship? The repressive capitalist state, how much is it just a consequence of the authority of the state machine?