Is it possible to establish a socialist society within a capitalist one?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Why isn't this plausible?

[stoneMonkey]

For one thing, the laws of the capitalist society will still apply. From the first day you'd have the problem that you can't get the means of production, because they "belong" to the capitalists, and realistically they're not going to just give us huge chunks of land, machinery, etc necessary to sustain a fully functioning modern society. So if you appropriated the capitalists' "possessions", they will invade to get them back, not to mention probably even more importantly because they do *not* want the rest of their people to get any ideas, e.g. the Paris Commune.

[Delirium]

It is possible to create a socialist society(in the marxist sense) , but not a communist one. Workers can take over the means of production, wage labor can be abolished, etc... But at the same time, there will be a counter-revolution with at least one of the major imperialist nations supporting it if not directly invading.

Your society will have to defend itself, without reproducing hierarchy or economic explotation.

look at examples of attempted communist revolutions, china, russia, cuba, etc...

[#FF0000]

USSR's a pretty good example of why that's a bad idea.

Not to mention the fact that it really can't be communist (or socialist) in any meaningful way unless it is 100% self-sufficient and doesn't have to trade on the world market, which is a pipe dream, and a good way to get your little pet project on the trajectory to a shitty closed society.

[Revolution starts with U]

Both of your questions are vague and unanswerable.
Is it possible to establish x within y? Sure, I don't see why not. It's also possible to fart and lift-off into space. There could be mass movements of control of the business going to workers, whether through voluntary or forced means. There's nothing saying it's not possible. A better way to phrase it would havebeen "how is it possible" or "is it probable."


Why isn't this plausible?

We call this a loaded question. You are assuming the answer in the question. "Is this plausible" would havebeenan answerable question.

[thesadmafioso]

I think you need to establish parameters for the scope and scale of the capitalist society and of the socialist society within it for this question to be answerable in a realistic manner. Even in the theoretical realm though, I think it's hard to say that this sort of relationship would be sustainable given the generally confrontational nature of these two ideologies. The goal of socialism are opposite of those represented by capitalism, so naturally one is going to eventually overcome the other.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's also possible to fart and lift-off into space.
Screw class struggle, I've just found a perfect goal I can strive for :thumbup1::D

[Dimentio]

For one thing, the laws of the capitalist society will still apply. From the first day you'd have the problem that you can't get the means of production, because they "belong" to the capitalists, and realistically they're not going to just give us huge chunks of land, machinery, etc necessary to sustain a fully functioning modern society. So if you appropriated the capitalists' "possessions", they will invade to get them back, not to mention probably even more importantly because they do *not* want the rest of their people to get any ideas, e.g. the Paris Commune.

Buy through front organisations?

[RadioRaheem84]

A similar question that answers your question; Can you establish a socialist society within a capitalist world? Very hard.

The scope is the same. Only hope is to abolish capitalism altogether.

[Apoi_Viitor]

We call this a loaded question. You are assuming the answer in the question. "Is this plausible" would havebeenan answerable question.

Well kind of... I knew the answer the revleft community was going to give me before I even asked the question, so I just wanted the rationale.

Anyways, I was referring to something like this... To the best of my knowledge, they aren't fighting off imperialist aggression, and the society is not based upon expropriated property ---

RO8gSl1l9CU

[Thug Lessons]

USSR's a pretty good example of why that's a bad idea.

It's not like the USSR had other options, or that the problems with the USSR were wholly, (or even primarily), a result of the fact that other countries were capitalist rather than socialist. In any case, if communism can only survive by being rapidly adopted everywhere, then I wouldn't be too confident about its prospects.

[#FF0000]

It's not like the USSR had other options, or that the problems with the USSR were wholly, (or even primarily), a result of the fact that other countries were capitalist rather than socialist. In any case, if communism can only survive by being rapidly adopted everywhere, then I wouldn't be too confident about its prospects.

Yeah I agree. Isolation was only one of the USSR's problems.

[Thug Lessons]

Yeah I agree. Isolation was only one of the USSR's problems.

Cool. Now we can move on to the real question: why do anarchists start so many anarchist businesses?

[RGacky3]

Socialism (I'll define it as an ecnomy is mostly in the public domain and democratic), is absoltely possible in a Capitalist world.

[Dimentio]

*cough*

Buy through front organisations?

[ZeroNowhere]

In the sense of communes? In the first place, those aren't 'within' capitalist society if they are in any sense socialistic, they're more on the outskirts; of course, due to this they're generally pretty dull places at best, and within the capitalist system as self-managed exploitation otherwise. Of course, being communists, our aim is the political rule of the proletariat, and as such these communes don't matter.

[RGacky3]

Socialism is not a single system, its an organizing principle, so of coarse it can exist in certain degrees in Capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Socialism is not a single system, its an organizing principle, so of coarse it can exist in certain degrees in Capitalism.Capitalism is a world system which depends on the expansion of capitalist productive relations, which in turn engender broader social relations corresponding with the basic mode of production.
Considering this, how is it possible that a rupture within this world system be made without repercussions and attempts at reintegrating the "lost" within the system?

And another thing: you're definition of socialism betrays a lack in understanding capitalism. Public ownership of capital leaves capitalist relations intact.

[Viet Minh]

In purely practical terms yes in a relatively liberal capitlaist society you can create co-operative communes to some degree, though they nearly always rely on outside trade. There are bizarrely right-wing 'communes' of sorts as well in America! :blink: Usually though these enterprises are just classified as cults. I think there is a limit in size to these communities, it may be that all these people know each other and are therefore motivated to work together as a society, remember they also have the luxury of exiling those who they see as unproductive.


In the sense of communes? In the first place, those aren't 'within' capitalist society if they are in any sense socialistic, they're more on the outskirts; of course, due to this they're generally pretty dull places at best, and within the capitalist system as self-managed exploitation otherwise. Of course, being communists, our aim is the political rule of the proletariat, and as such these communes don't matter.

If by 'dull' you mean not the exciting daily grind of capitalist labour and consumerist culture then i'll take it any day! :thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

In the sense of communes? In the first place, those aren't 'within' capitalist society if they are in any sense socialistic, they're more on the outskirts; of course, due to this they're generally pretty dull places at best, and within the capitalist system as self-managed exploitation otherwise. Of course, being communists, our aim is the political rule of the proletariat, and as such these communes don't matter.

www.technate.eu

Check in "about"

[Bud Struggle]

I thnk not. Socialism, Communism has to work as a perfect closed system or else it degrades into USSR type State Capitalism.

On the other hand Capitalism can exist anywhere which gives Capitalism a certain edge.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is a world system which depends on the expansion of capitalist productive relations, which in turn engender broader social relations corresponding with the basic mode of production.
Considering this, how is it possible that a rupture within this world system be made without repercussions and attempts at reintegrating the "lost" within the system?


Its not, obviously there are always problems in Capitalism, that does'nt mean you cannot have democratic institutions within Capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its not, obviously there are always problems in Capitalism, that does'nt mean you cannot have democratic institutions within Capitalism.

Well, democratic institutions operating within the socioecnomic framework of capitalist productive relations do not and can not eliminate the basic preconditions for the very functioning of these relations.

It's interesting to see you insisting on the impact of these democratic institutions...do you believe that the basic antagnonisms may be abolished by such means? Moreover, do you think that a permanent stabilization of capitalism may occur by means of such democratization?

[ZeroNowhere]

Its not, obviously there are always problems in Capitalism, that does'nt mean you cannot have democratic institutions within Capitalism.Perhaps, but we're socialists, not democrats. "Democracy cannot be a principle for us."

[T-Paine]

You may not have a socialist society, but I think it's totally possible for worker-controlled cooperatives to compete in the marketplace and do well.

[RGacky3]

Well, democratic institutions operating within the socioecnomic framework of capitalist productive relations do not and can not eliminate the basic preconditions for the very functioning of these relations.

I mean economic democratic institutions, for example, a co-op is a democratic institution, most people would say thats an example of socialism, especially if its a non-proft.

Or lets say you have a country where most of the productive industries are socialized, thats socialsit aspects in a Capitalists country.


do you believe that the basic antagnonisms may be abolished by such means? Moreover, do you think that a permanent stabilization of capitalism may occur by means of such democratization?

No, you are not getting rid of those class antagonisms, also no, the entire Capitalist system is un stable, to half measures don't really permanently stabalize it.

Take Norway and Germany, they are Capitalist with a large socialized section and aspects of socialism, the crash did'nt hit their so hard, not because their capitalism was stable, but because the socialized part of the economy essencially saved them, the class antagonisms are still there, but they are not nearly as destructive as they are in other places.

Now in those countries obviously people should push for more socialism, because I don't think that social-democracies ARE totally stable because there is still the drive to maximise profits.

But the socialist aspects of hte economy are there and can be used as an example of how socialism works.


Perhaps, but we're socialists, not democrats. "Democracy cannot be a principle for us."

Socialism IS economic democracy, so it is the main principle.

[Dave B]

I think when it comes to setting up communes, or co-operatives, within capitalism they are old ideas and was the basis of perhaps one of the first major disagreements in the early communist movement around the time of the communist manifesto.



Cabet and his French Icarian movement wanted to rush off and set up communes in the USA, Marx and Engels were opposed to the idea as a distraction to the main objective of dispossessing the capitalist class.


And the French communist working class movement did in fact throw a lot of their resources and best people into it, and it failed.



It is mentioned briefly in the Communist manifesto itself.

There were working and successful examples of it at the time eg

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm)

However then it was possible due to the low level of technology and the requirement for large scale mass production etc for such communes with a decent amount of arable land to produce almost all that they required and trade for the rest eg Iron. The possibilities of onsite iron works and coal and iron ore mines being limited.


On co-operatives Marx although seeing something positive in them still thought that they still reproduced the capitalist mode of production or basically operated like capitalism.

In the following passage suggesting that this process could be facilitated by the co-operative workers borrowing money from the money capitalists, at interest, to buy out the ‘functioning capitalist’ and in thus doing take one step further to running the whole system themselves;

Capital Vol. III Part V Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital Chapter 27. The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production




The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories.


Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm)


When these co-operatives succeed as they sometime do they do just degenerate as with Mondragon employing Polish workers who went on strike for better wages or the kibbutz’s employing ‘Palestinian’ wage slaves.

[Thirsty Crow]

I mean economic democratic institutions, for example, a co-op is a democratic institution, most people would say thats an example of socialism, especially if its a non-proft.How does an enterprise, even if we're talking about an enterprise marked by "democratic institutions" as part of their internal organization, function within capitalist, market economy if it is "non-profit"? Massive government subsidies or donations?
Even if we allow for such an absurd notion (since real, existing co-ops are profit driven enterprises), what possible effect could they have upon the vast sea of capitalist social relations proper? Would it in some way enable and encourage workers to cas off the shackles of capital?

Or better yet - can you show me the effects which the existing co-ops have had upon the overall world situation of proletarians?



Take Norway and Germany, they are Capitalist with a large socialized section and aspects of socialism, the crash did'nt hit their so hard, not because their capitalism was stable, but because the socialized part of the economy essencially saved them, the class antagonisms are still there, but they are not nearly as destructive as they are in other places.This is a fairly simplistic argument, but another lack is that it is not supported by evidence. Can you provide it? Or can you at least offer some sources which deal with the issue?


Now in those countries obviously people should push for more socialism, because I don't think that social-democracies ARE totally stable because there is still the drive to maximise profits.I don't think that it has anything to do with "more-or-less socialism" line which is, quite frankly, ridiculuous since public ownership of capital does not and can not abolish capital (in other words, capitalist relations proper remain intact; the management is different). It seems to me that you're buying the libertarian/neo-liberal propaganda which states that public and state institutions must not temper with the economy (thereby proclaiming any kind of macro-management of capital which abandons such principles "non-capitalist"; and that's empty rhetoric which should be fought tooth and nail on the ideological battlefield).


But the socialist aspects of hte economy are there and can be used as an example of how socialism works.See above. There are no "socialist aspects" when it comes to capitalist economy.
Sure, one model of accumulation and regulation is, in practice, more favourable for immediate working class conditions and wages. But we, as revolutionaries, shouldn't confuse this with socialism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

With the earthquake in Christchurch it reminded me, along with a letter in the most recent adbusters, of a group of people who started a buy-nothing Xmas movement. After breaking into the parade, which they didn't get kicked out of, they now have a community of people who live an anticonsumerist lifestyle.

I think that's really cool. Meeting your neighbors, living as a community. Seems so romantic in the 21st century. I realize that many of the scientific socialist types who dominate this site and see people as pawns under one banner or another may not think it's special but i certainly do.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that's really cool. Meeting your neighbors, living as a community. Seems so romantic in the 21st century. I realize that many of the scientific socialist types who dominate this site and see people as pawns under one banner or another may not think it's special but i certainly do.
Well, define "special".
I for one think that a person does not have to be a "scientific socialist" to understand that groups such as this one can not and will not bring about any serious change (social change, that is; considering the "big picture").
As you've said, it seems so romantic and...acceptable. But it cannot change anything except the lives of the people involved.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree. But isn't this thread about socialist society in a larger capitalist world? There are dozens of threads about plotting the overthrow of the capitalist system and changing the world and yadda yadda yadda. There are dozens of threads about "Socialism in one country" vs whoever it was that argued against all that and yadda yadda yadda.

This here is a break from all the plotting and looking at the world like a Risk board. A cup of coffee with the morning paper kinda thread. A 'You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution' kinda thread.

At least that's how I took it because frankly I'm tired of talking about Lenin and Stalin and mao and spanish anarchists and hitler and marx whenever one these things comes up and I want to talk about life. And most of all, fuck talking about the USSR. The USSR ceased to fucking exist and I'm tired of people applying it to theory now. Not that there aren't lessons to be learned but let's give it a rest.

i.) I think that instead of all that we should all make a pact to talk to our neighbors and invite them to have dinner together, at a table with no TV on and have a chit chat. About life and weather and sports and where we're from and whatever else comes up.

ii.) Unless needed for survival or work, I'm not buying any more new fangled consumer products. My first gen iPod works, I have enough clothes, my shoes fit, store name deodorant works just as good, my computer has a crack in the screen but I'll survive, my tv is 30" and not hd but who cares, and I'm going to cook my meals from now on. There will be a few exceptions, to be sure, but I'm making a determined effort.

First it was plasma, then lcd, then led, now 3d tv will be the needed purchase. I say fuck all that. My tv works fucking fine and I don't feel like i need to upgrade to show people i'm succesful.

[RGacky3]

function within capitalist, market economy if it is "non-profit"? Massive government subsidies or donations?


Many of then do get government subsidies, some are charities, others are simple worker funded, i.e. the workers put up the capital and get the return.

Infact many times non-profits do even better in the market for many reasons, worker loyalty is one, manegement loyalty (the workers are the mangement), much less overhead, and much less money being sent to shareholders and so on.

They have disadvantages too, but they also have advantages.


Even if we allow for such an absurd notion (since real, existing co-ops are profit driven enterprises), what possible effect could they have upon the vast sea of capitalist social relations proper? Would it in some way enable and encourage workers to cas off the shackles of capital?


Well it depends on the Co-op, Co-ops with outside investment are neccessarily for profit, if they have internal funding only (which many of them do), their concern is staying large enough and get enough return to cover the workers needs.

Which means they don't have to compete for investment, for the bottom line, i.e. consumers they still need to compete, and you could argue that because they have to compete with eocnomies of scale they have pressure to grow, and thats a valid argument, but its not 100% clear cut.


Or better yet - can you show me the effects which the existing co-ops have had upon the overall world situation of proletarians?


Thats a different issue, I'm not saying its revolutionary, but that does'nt mean it does'nt follow socialist principles, one thing it does do is give a model to move forward with.


This is a fairly simplistic argument, but another lack is that it is not supported by evidence. Can you provide it? Or can you at least offer some sources which deal with the issue?


What evidence do you need? The fact thet their economies are doing well? (pretty common knowledge) the fact that their economies have relatively strong socialist aspects? (Again pretty common knowledge), or the fact that those aspects saved their economies? (which can be shown simply by making the connections)

Which part did you not believe?


I don't think that it has anything to do with "more-or-less socialism" line which is, quite frankly, ridiculuous since public ownership of capital does not and can not abolish capital (in other words, capitalist relations proper remain intact; the management is different).

The manegement being different does actually change the relations, especially when its done on a relatively large scale.


It seems to me that you're buying the libertarian/neo-liberal propaganda which states that public and state institutions must not temper with the economy (thereby proclaiming any kind of macro-management of capital which abandons such principles "non-capitalist"; and that's empty rhetoric which should be fought tooth and nail on the ideological battlefield).


I'm saying they should absolutely temper with the economy, because I believe in Socialism, not only temper with the economy, but they should BE the economy. I would argue that all national industries should be public, while smaller ones should be worker controlled.

They are non Capitalist because they are 1. Not privately controlled, 2. Not competing in a market, 3. Not for profit, which means that they are non-capitalist institutions.


See above. There are no "socialist aspects" when it comes to capitalist economy.
Sure, one model of accumulation and regulation is, in practice, more favourable for immediate working class conditions and wages. But we, as revolutionaries, shouldn't confuse this with socialism.

I'm not talking about regulatoin, regulation is just Capitalism with rules. I'm talking about taking instutions OUT of the profit motive, OUT of the Market, and OUT of private ownership. I'm talking public industries and collectives, which are insitutions that follow certain socialist principles.

[RGacky3]

I'm not saying those should be the goal, I am saying they are examples of socialist principles in action and are models of how socialization works.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that instead of all that we should all make a pact to talk to our neighbors and invite them to have dinner together, at a table with no TV on and have a chit chat. About life and weather and sports and where we're from and whatever else comes up.Social interaction is frequently dull. I would much prefer Gould's "world where nobody cared what anybody else was doing." Fortunately, none of this has anything to do with socialism.


A 'You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution' kinda thread.You can't be the revolution either, so that's not of much good. I would probably prefer a nih-com 'You can do nothing' thread.


First it was plasma, then lcd, then led, now 3d tv will be the needed purchase. I say fuck all that. My tv works fucking fine and I don't feel like i need to upgrade to show people i'm succesful.You are clearly very skillful at saving money, I suppose.


Socialism IS economic democracy, so it is the main principle.Socialism isn't economic democracy. As communists, we are concerned with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, irrespective of whether it passes the test of the head-count. Head-counting has no class content, and as such we hold to no democratic principle. Capitalist co-operatives have worth only inasmuch as they form a part of class struggle, which they don't necessarily do, and are not socialist in any case. Economic democracy as an aim in itself is essentially a waste of time.


A system of commercial exchange between free and autonomous enterprises such as might be supported by cooperators, syndicalists, libertarians, has no historical possibility nor any socialist character. It is even a step backward compared with numerous sectors already organised on a general scale in the bourgeois epoch, as required by technology and the complexity of social life. Socialism, or communism, means that the whole of society is a single association of producers and consumers.

[RGacky3]

Socialism isn't economic democracy. As communists, we are concerned with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, irrespective of whether it passes the test of the head-count. Head-counting has no class content, and as such we hold to no democratic principle. Capitalist co-operatives have worth only inasmuch as they form a part of class struggle, which they don't necessarily do, and are not socialist in any case. Economic democracy as an aim in itself is essentially a waste of time.


Thats your narrow definition of Socialism, its not universal, but it fits in the general view of socialism, i.e.

Head counting absolutely has class content, the minority class rules over the majority, also how do the proletariat actually make decisions? Democratically, thats the point.

YOU may not hold a democratic principle, but most socialists do.

[UjimaTribesman]

Why isn't this plausible?

it can be plausible depending on your definition of socialism.
I'll say this; don't let people discourage you if you're interested in intentional communities.
Once you get passed the stigma the idea of intentional communities actually makes sense.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You can't be the revolution either, so that's not of much good. I would probably prefer a nih-com 'You can do nothing' thread.


This thread isn't about bullshit 20th century failed ideologies like Marxism-Leninism. It's about attempting to create a socialist living in the larger capitalist context.



If you believe you can't do anything then you are not a revolutionary leftist.





Socialism isn't economic democracy. As communists, we are concerned with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, irrespective of whether it passes the test of the head-count. Head-counting has no class content, and as such we hold to no democratic principle. Capitalist co-operatives have worth only inasmuch as they form a part of class struggle, which they don't necessarily do, and are not socialist in any case. Economic democracy as an aim in itself is essentially a waste of time.



Dictatorship of the Proletariat?



Is it 1917 where you are? Cause to those of us here in 2011 that bullshit died a long time ago. A long, long time ago.




Democracy in the workplace, and indeed the democraticaztion of the economy in general, is exactly what socialism should be about (for those of us who are past the Trotsky v Stalin and all the other meaningless debates on things like proletarian dictatorships) and is indeed the goal of most leftists I know at least. An end to the top-down, heirarchal system that is in place and creation of one that empowers people from the bottom up while doing nothing less than redifining society itself. A whole paradigm shift is the only way the species may survive the next century.




God I cannot believe you brought up dictatorship of the proletariat. I can't get over it. Are you a Marxist Leninist, a Maoist? Come on now, let's here it. Not that it matters, the idea of creating a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is as relevant today as restoring full power of the British Monarch was a hundred years ago.



BTW, I very much agree with Gacky's idea to use state funding to support co-ops of businesses that are being outsourced or closed. The workers should at least be given the opportunity to compete, and opposed to being laid off and called wage slaves who asked for too much.

[RGacky3]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat?



Is it 1917 where you are? Cause to those of us here in 2011 that bullshit died a long time ago. A long, long time ago.


Dictatorship of the proletariat is a meaningless term unless it has an actual structural meaning.

Yeah, Leninists are still living in the 1910s, they just can't let it go, MARXISM-LENINISM FAILED EVERYWHERE!!!

Instead of finding solutions to modern day problems, and confonting modern day Capitalism, they're still arguing stalin vrs trotsky.

[Thirsty Crow]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a meaningless term unless it has an actual structural meaning.

Yeah, Leninists are still living in the 1910s, they just can't let it go, MARXISM-LENINISM FAILED EVERYWHERE!!!

Instead of finding solutions to modern day problems, and confonting modern day Capitalism, they're still arguing stalin vrs trotsky.[/LEFT]

First of all, screaming that Marxism-Leninism failed when communicating with a DeLeonist might not be such a great rhetorical strategy.

Secondly, modern day problems are problems inherent to capitalism as a mode of production. The ultimate solution to these is the abolition of capital, which might reasonably be expected to take the form of a more or less protracted process of expropriation of the current owners of capital and creating political institutions and mechanisms which ensure that the basic requirements of a functional society be met. That IS the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If you, on the other hand, feel that "modern" problems are out of reach when it comes to communist politics - feel free to ponder on possible ways to manage capital better. Hell, you may even want to agitate in favour of establishing co-ops (which are market operating enterprises, driven by the structural need to accumulate capital; charity foundations, on the other hand, are something different, and I think they shouldn't be evne referred to as "co-ops"). But, I'm afraid that the long history of the destruction of class compromise in the form of the traditional welfare state sets the tone for any debate on possible merits of fierce reformism.

[RGacky3]

The ultimate solution to these is the abolition of capital, which might reasonably be expected to take the form of a more or less protracted process of expropriation of the current owners of capital and creating political institutions and mechanisms which ensure that the basic requirements of a functional society be met. That IS the dictatorship of the proletariat.


First of all "capital" meanin actualy capital in the economic term is'nt abolished, unless you want to destroy all the machines and industry (thats what capital means).

Second of all, what you basically mentioned could be from an absolute monarchy, to versions of Social democracy (where a large section of the economy is taken and make for basic functions of society).

Your definition is basically "take it away, give it to someone else (not even mentioning who), and make them be good."

Thats not an actual structure.

Would the economy the means of production be controlled by the workers? If so through what and how? The only way that can happen is through a democratic process (meaning the workers control the means of production through deciding collectively).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is an outdated term that, clearly from your post, is meaningless.



If you, on the other hand, feel that "modern" problems are out of reach when it comes to communist politics - feel free to ponder on possible ways to manage capital better. Hell, you may even want to agitate in favour of establishing co-ops (which are market operating enterprises, driven by the structural need to accumulate capital; charity foundations, on the other hand, are something different, and I think they shouldn't be evne referred to as "co-ops"). But, I'm afraid that the long history of the destruction of class compromise in the form of the traditional welfare state sets the tone for any debate on possible merits of fierce reformism.


I don't think its out of the reach of communist politics.

I support various forms of fighting Capitalism, syndicalism, direct action, workers co-ops, revolts, and yes, sometimes social-democracy.

I support things that actually make workers lives better, not waiting until the international total destruction of Capitalism before I call anything socialism.

[Dr Mindbender]

I thnk not. Socialism, Communism has to work as a perfect closed system or else it degrades into USSR type State Capitalism.

On the other hand Capitalism can exist anywhere which gives Capitalism a certain edge.

I disagree. It only appears that way, because we've never lived in a socialist dominated world. The USSR and socialist sphere of influence failed because the world of the day was capitalist dominated and failed to spread (thanks to Stalin's hard headed isolationism). I suspect a capitalist nation trying to survive in isolation, would go rather much the same way.