Log in

View Full Version : Society After Capitalism



Viva Fidel
9th January 2007, 23:23
I would like to have an indepth discussion on how you would like to see society function after the overthrow of capitalism? In other words, what "kind" of socialism/communism would we have (Parecon, Workers Councils, Centralized state, etc?). How would economics works? What are the arguments against your philosphy? I'm not sure myself, so I'm open to ideas. I've been looking into workers councils, but im still not sure how they would work, nor what they really are. Parecon doesnt appeal to me however. But, again, please be free to discuss!

RGacky3
10th January 2007, 06:20
Workers Councils definately, personally I go after the anarcho-syndicalism tendancy, if workers organise under Capitalism, when they destroy it (either quickly in a revolution or slowly chipping away at it) they are already organised and ready to take over production and distribution. Also popular assembalies also work, and assembalies of Unions, workers councils, neighborhood assembalies. Basically radical Democracy.

La Comédie Noire
10th January 2007, 06:59
I'd like to see communes based around centralized means of production that have their own democratic systems and workers councils. Everyone would vote on what would be made and how best to use resources in their area. As for communes that did'nt do so well they would be absorbed by surrounding communes as to help the workers contribute to and benefit from society.

Many people argue that this presents a danger of counter reveloution because of the lack of a strong centralized state but I beg to differ. I think dividing our workers and resources into seperate but equal areas would make what is referred to as a "many headed monster".

I'm totally up for critique and/or suggestion.

Delta
10th January 2007, 08:00
During the revolution factory committees will be needed to keep up production in a time of turbulent change. But these institutions should quickly be dissolved into the larger body of society, becoming truly owned by society as a whole. This process will not happen all at once, but the tendency should be towards it. The solidarity produced during the revolution will likely spur along this change, but it is up to the revolutionary to help lead things in this direction and oppose methods that will lead to a counterrevolution.

Organic Revolution
10th January 2007, 17:14
factory and agricultural councils, communes with popular assemblies, decentralization.

manic expression
10th January 2007, 20:53
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10, 2007 06:59 am
I'd like to see communes based around centralized means of production that have their own democratic systems and workers councils. Everyone would vote on what would be made and how best to use resources in their area. As for communes that did'nt do so well they would be absorbed by surrounding communes as to help the workers contribute to and benefit from society.

Many people argue that this presents a danger of counter reveloution because of the lack of a strong centralized state but I beg to differ. I think dividing our workers and resources into seperate but equal areas would make what is referred to as a "many headed monster".

I'm totally up for critique and/or suggestion.
I would say there is a danger if the communes remain divided. The reason the Romans and British managed to conquer so many peoples was the fact that they kept their enemies from unifying against them. Although it would be contradictory to centralize such a system, there needs to be a way to defend the communes as one. "March divided, fight united" was a Roman military maxim, and I think it fits well into what you're proposing. As long as each commune guarantees mutual aid to all the other communes, they can defend as one.

Dimentio
10th January 2007, 21:33
http://www.technocracyeurope.eu

More Fire for the People
10th January 2007, 21:49
I think speculation about communes and syndicates is out-dated. The working class, especially in modern production, extends far beyond the scope of unions—even industrial unions—and, still, syndicates are defensive blocs against capital, and consequently, they are units of anti-power and not embodiements of proletarian power.

Communes are effective political units of the working class. However, they are a localized phenomenon and represent only a section of the working class. I think it necessary for us to strive towards a new type of political organisation that represent the working class on local, national, and international levels—one that can be authentically called the dictatorship of the proletariat, thus transcending the problems of both syndicates and communes.

I think that as revolution develops, open spaces [revolutionary territories] should be organized under communal assemblies composed of committees of workers [of all strata], students, and independent peasants. These committees would be based upon freedom of discussion, consensus decision-making, and voluntary discipline. These communal assemblies would maintain links through a congress of assemblies.

Dimentio
10th January 2007, 22:00
And how do you do to manage complex equipment which requires intermingling and a certain longetivity, like for example road systems, power-plants, airports and infrastructure? I mean, where does professionalism fit into it?

Forward Union
10th January 2007, 22:13
Originally posted by Viva [email protected] 09, 2007 11:23 pm
I would like to have an indepth discussion on how you would like to see society function after the overthrow of capitalism? In other words, what "kind" of socialism/communism would we have (Parecon, Workers Councils, Centralized state, etc?). How would economics works? What are the arguments against your philosphy? I'm not sure myself, so I'm open to ideas. I've been looking into workers councils, but im still not sure how they would work, nor what they really are. Parecon doesnt appeal to me however. But, again, please be free to discuss!
Well obviously I can't outline the entire model, it would take to long. But as part of the bigger discussion, I often find myself in disagreement with many anarchists/communists over the issue of prison and prisons.

I believe that a police force must exist in any functioning Libertarian Communist society. All manifestations of Anarchism from Spain to Ukraine had workers millitias that functioned as police. Which is fine in my eyes, as long as they are democratically controlable, and serve the democratic will of the community etc.

I also believe that Rapists, Paedophiles, Murderes etc should be able to face life imprisonment and the death penalty as a potential punishment. Though obviously there are innumerable scenarios that can lead to these crimes beign commited, including mental issues, personal experiences etc, and so rehabilitation should be the primary concern.

I am against the death penalty within the context of capitalism, feudalism or whatever, but believe in some instances, in a communist society, it is justifiable, and if you propose armed and violent revolution against capitalism, then you clearly agree. But it will be up to the people who live in the communities to decide what punishments should be.

Dimentio
10th January 2007, 22:16
The most important issue is how distribution would be undertaken, and from my horizon, technocracy offers some very good hints in that aspect. ^^

More Fire for the People
10th January 2007, 22:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:00 pm
And how do you do to manage complex equipment which requires intermingling and a certain longetivity, like for example road systems, power-plants, airports and infrastructure? I mean, where does professionalism fit into it?
Wager-earning technicians without authority above members of the working class are workers. Again, this is one of the reasons syndicates fail as a proto-organisation.

Dimentio
10th January 2007, 23:23
Why not abolish wages and impose energy accounting?

More Fire for the People
10th January 2007, 23:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:23 pm
Why not abolish wages and impose energy accounting?
I'm only familiar with 'energy accounting' within eco-economics [calories as the basis of value]. However, how to accurately quantify the value of writing, education, etc. in terms of calories? How would places in the Third World account for energy [without depending on the First World]? But in the first place I was refering to wage-earners under capitalism.

Dimentio
10th January 2007, 23:47
We do not define calories in energy accounting. We do not define human labour at all.

Energy accounting is a technocratic distribution tool (http://www.technocracyeurope.eu).

1. All production capacity is divided into equal shares called energy certifikates/energy quotas.

2. The people consume what they want.

3. The technate adapts the production after the consumption.

La Comédie Noire
11th January 2007, 00:38
I would say there is a danger if the communes remain divided. The reason the Romans and British managed to conquer so many peoples was the fact that they kept their enemies from unifying against them. Although it would be contradictory to centralize such a system, there needs to be a way to defend the communes as one. "March divided, fight united" was a Roman military maxim, and I think it fits well into what you're proposing. As long as each commune guarantees mutual aid to all the other communes, they can defend as one.

Well each Commune could have a worker's militia that every month out of the year practices tactics and emergency grouping with other worker's militas. However, I'd have trouble with this myself. Can we really force someone to pick up a gun? This could also lead to the rising of competative nation states in times of great economic strife.

The possibilities are endless :wacko:

Anyone got a soloution?

I've been hearing more and more about technocracy, it intrigues me, I'm going to read up on it right now.

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 00:42
A federation taking care of communes, and a technate taking care of production?

KickMcCann
11th January 2007, 08:01
In assessing the potential for worker-owned firms/ communes we should consider the important factors.

First, in most post-industrial first-world countries very little manufacturing is left, these economies are focused primarily on service industries, management, finance, agriculture, medicine, energy, communications, transportation, education, and the creation and maintence of infrastructure.

Second, in most of these countries the populations are experiencing a steady growth in higher education rates, both secondary and post-secondary schooling.

Considering both, we have a country with an educated or highly-educated workforce trained to work in the post-industrial service economy, so unless you wish to rebuild factories from scratch, the focus of a worker-ran economy in such a country will have to be on the previously mentioned fields, though any remaining manufacturing should be proletarianized.

Your first step is to gain control of ownership, capital, and property- throw a revolution or get lots of money and start buying out all the firms.

Next introduce the concept of workplace equality and managerial democracy to the workers, building on the skills they already have while introducing them to the process of democratic control of the firm's direction.

This process should be organic and patient, introducing the necessary factors and letting it grow from there. It would be unwise to establish central planning and production quotas over any number of firms, that is for the workers to decide and discover on their own. Once they have control they should compete in capitalist fashion with like firms, turning a profit and splitting it evenly among the workers, until they gradually find areas where cooperation with other firms would be more beneficial than competition. Gradually cooperatives may merge and work together to tackle a shared task of providing a good or service. This is not glorious Bolshevism, it is evolutionary and will get the job done slower but better.

In terms of starting it all up, I've always been interested about the option outside of revoltion, though revolution is probably the most effective method. I lay no claim to this idea, many have thought it before, but it is the idea of setting up a socialistic franchize. A company with lots of money buys out 10 smaller companies and gains ownership over them. Once in control they introduce workplace democracy to the workers, giving them immediate control over operations. The parent company will collect a profit but give say 25-50% of to the workers to split amongst themselves evenly. The head company then reinvests the profits from the 10 smaller companies into the purchase of more companies, continuing the process until capitalism completely sells itself out. During the process the head company will gradually emancipate its owned companies, giving the workers of each firm 100% collective ownership and control.

Some may disagree with the idea of retaining such constructs like, ownership, profit, supply&demand and other capitalist institutions within a worker-owned context, but I think it is the only possible way to start the system and the only way to eventually get rid of them.

ComradeR
11th January 2007, 10:33
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 12:38 am

I would say there is a danger if the communes remain divided. The reason the Romans and British managed to conquer so many peoples was the fact that they kept their enemies from unifying against them. Although it would be contradictory to centralize such a system, there needs to be a way to defend the communes as one. "March divided, fight united" was a Roman military maxim, and I think it fits well into what you're proposing. As long as each commune guarantees mutual aid to all the other communes, they can defend as one.

Well each Commune could have a worker's militia that every month out of the year practices tactics and emergency grouping with other worker's militas. However, I'd have trouble with this myself. Can we really force someone to pick up a gun? This could also lead to the rising of competative nation states in times of great economic strife.

The possibilities are endless :wacko:

Anyone got a soloution?

Simple, instead of each commune controlling it's own militia they would all be placed in a single unified body (similar to an army reserve) controlled by the workers councils.


Can we really force someone to pick up a gun?

The force itself would be made up of volunteers, but in the case of a dire situation then yes.

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 11:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:01 am
In assessing the potential for worker-owned firms/ communes we should consider the important factors.

First, in most post-industrial first-world countries very little manufacturing is left, these economies are focused primarily on service industries, management, finance, agriculture, medicine, energy, communications, transportation, education, and the creation and maintence of infrastructure.

Second, in most of these countries the populations are experiencing a steady growth in higher education rates, both secondary and post-secondary schooling.

Considering both, we have a country with an educated or highly-educated workforce trained to work in the post-industrial service economy, so unless you wish to rebuild factories from scratch, the focus of a worker-ran economy in such a country will have to be on the previously mentioned fields, though any remaining manufacturing should be proletarianized.

Your first step is to gain control of ownership, capital, and property- throw a revolution or get lots of money and start buying out all the firms.

Next introduce the concept of workplace equality and managerial democracy to the workers, building on the skills they already have while introducing them to the process of democratic control of the firm's direction.

This process should be organic and patient, introducing the necessary factors and letting it grow from there. It would be unwise to establish central planning and production quotas over any number of firms, that is for the workers to decide and discover on their own. Once they have control they should compete in capitalist fashion with like firms, turning a profit and splitting it evenly among the workers, until they gradually find areas where cooperation with other firms would be more beneficial than competition. Gradually cooperatives may merge and work together to tackle a shared task of providing a good or service. This is not glorious Bolshevism, it is evolutionary and will get the job done slower but better.

In terms of starting it all up, I've always been interested about the option outside of revoltion, though revolution is probably the most effective method. I lay no claim to this idea, many have thought it before, but it is the idea of setting up a socialistic franchize. A company with lots of money buys out 10 smaller companies and gains ownership over them. Once in control they introduce workplace democracy to the workers, giving them immediate control over operations. The parent company will collect a profit but give say 25-50% of to the workers to split amongst themselves evenly. The head company then reinvests the profits from the 10 smaller companies into the purchase of more companies, continuing the process until capitalism completely sells itself out. During the process the head company will gradually emancipate its owned companies, giving the workers of each firm 100% collective ownership and control.

Some may disagree with the idea of retaining such constructs like, ownership, profit, supply&demand and other capitalist institutions within a worker-owned context, but I think it is the only possible way to start the system and the only way to eventually get rid of them.
Without access to energy and self-sufficiency, a post-capitalist society cannot do anything. It is not about what people do, but about the production capacity.