Thread: Do you think that a communist revolution from above is possible?

Results 41 to 57 of 57

  1. #41
    Join Date May 2017
    Location Texas
    Posts 2
    Organisation
    Socialist Alternative
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    We all know that most poor people in USA and in other countries are too far to the right-wing, too right-wingers. So I think that waiting for all poor people to become communists requires a super powerful patience. Besides it is very hard for people to ideologically shift from being right-wingers to left-wingers
    This is slowly but surely changing in places like Greece, but it will be a long road converting the US proletariat to the left. It is not very hard to shift, I was originally populist left, then populist right, then began my drastic move to ancom. It is simply a matter of what information you're being fed that changes how you think. The right tends to withhold, and straight up lie about facts, which is why it is so easy to become a right winger.
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ancom.Texas For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,009
    Rep Power 162

    Default

    This is slowly but surely changing in places like Greece, but it will be a long road converting the US proletariat to the left. It is not very hard to shift, I was originally populist left, then populist right, then began my drastic move to ancom. It is simply a matter of what information you're being fed that changes how you think. The right tends to withhold, and straight up lie about facts, which is why it is so easy to become a right winger.
    I think this is true on a subjective individual level, but on a large scale (in the US specifically - and likely due to the lack of a sustained organizational Left.. basically a more developed labor movement and/or labor/reformist socialist political parties) ideas tend to change in fits with lulls in-between.

    The US tends to organize history by decade and really the major political shifts among the population happened in short radical blasts... then they are defeated and a period of conservatism sets in. Not necessarily political conservatism, but a restoration of class stability on capitals terms more or less. So there's the 30s (mid30s to early 40s, really) that built the labor movement and changed the US industrial working class and therefore their position and politics and ideas). Then there's the 60s (mid 60s to mid 70s, really--lol) that again changed ideas on a mass scale.

    It's not like people didn't have these ideas before, it's not like people just "woke up" one day and realized that their exploitation or social oppression fucking sucked... it's just that momentum and vehicles to carry these ideas had no where to go. Larger objective things had to change, organizations of workers or oppressed people had to actually show that taking on the bosses or the entrenched systems were possible and fights were winnable in order for larger numbers of people to see ideas about alternatives to the status quo are not just an, "oh well what can you do?" fleeting thought... but are viable.

    As a small example, 10 years ago people would scoff at the idea of capitalist crisis being regular and inevitable and hard facts about inequality in the US were marginal even among the technocrats and liberals who pride themselves on basing everything on rational facts and science.

    Similarly, and probably in a sharper political way, a successful strike-wave would totally change ideas about "helpless workers" on a mass scale, virtually overnight.

    History in the US shows this over and over and has been known for a long time here: without struggle there is no progress. But the flip-side is that the small efforts, the one-on-one outreach you described are important preparations for the larger explosions. The small groups or struggles help build initial veterans of struggle and test new methods of organizing and pushing-back.
  4. #43
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts 8,659
    Organisation
    Revolution/IMT, Vänsterpartiet (Left Party, Sweden)
    Rep Power 81

    Default

    Maybe our experiences differ, but that's not what I experienced. It was exactly the active cadre, those we aimed to convince, that saw the CWI as parasitic and treated it as such. It was, I think, a main reason why the CWI never took off in the SP. I mean, it entered the SP in 1998, shortly gained traction by recruiting whole branches to its politics, but then staled and waned.
    I've been contemplating this; maybe the way the CWI conducted entryism in the Netherlands in the late 90's and early 00's was different to the way it used to successfully do it back in the days of Militant. Probably this was symptomatic of the bureaucratic degeneration that occurred in the organisation. After all, the tactic had been generally abandoned by then, maybe it was done for different reasons than initially in the few exceptions it still occurred.

    I don't really recognise the way you describe it at all, recruiting to the own group without committing to the party itself.. The IMT has for example in Sweden had a guy on the NC of the youth wing of the Left party, in Greece two people on the CC of Syriza, etc. Surely that would have been impossible without actively engaging in the building of the parties.

    Responses have varied, but the rank and file cadres or the parties left wing have not been negative as I perceive it.

    There have always been different kinds of entryism, a more sinister kind indeed striving to build the own group ignoring the needs and prospects of the mass party - even striving for a split to begin with in the worst cases, not saying that that was your intention at that time, I would not know, but it has happened - and another kind where you actually enter to make a positive impact; to turn the party revolutionary together with others that are likeminded.

    As for attempting to become an alternative leadership, it doesn't need to conflict with that, in fact surely that would be the logical goal of any marxist tendency in a mass party, organised in what ever way.
    Last edited by Sentinel; 19th May 2017 at 21:46.
    I am a communist, love from top to toe. Love to the child that is born, love to the progressing light. -- Nazim Hikmet
    Farewell comrade Edward Clark, aka redstar2000 (1942-2011). RevLeft will never forget you.


    Support
    RevLeft -
    Donate Now!
  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Sentinel For This Useful Post:

    Q

  6. #44
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    I think we are broadly in agreement here. Where we differ, it is probably based on local experiences
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


  8. #45
    Join Date Aug 2016
    Location Israel unfortunately
    Posts 80
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits
    So of their own accord.

    I'd welcome an elaboration on this particular approach to post-capitalist political economy that you're indicating -- I've heard various versions of 'market socialism' in this context, which is what I addressed in my previous post.

    How can allocation-of-resources be direct, at the same time that decision-making for the same is participatory, as over an extended area of geography (maybe up to an entire continent) -- ? (In other words what if the population of Mineralstown collectively says 'We don't want to be a part of the globally popular Five-Year Plan 2022 for neo-industrialization and -modernization, and we don't want others from outside Mineralstown digging up our lands as part of that globally-centralized plan' -- ?)
    Central planning is top-down; decentralized planning is bottom-up, in it that decision-making is collective, with democratic participation of the people as a whole, in contrast to a single technocratic elite.

    There are different models of the mechanism. I imagine something to the effect of the delegate system of workers' councils.

    Decentralized planning is localized planning, in it that decision-making begins at the local level, but obviously it can be simultaneously both local and national, as well as transnational, forasmuch as there are different levels of state organization (central/federal, provincial, municipal, etc.).

    In the US today especially, it's quite routine for a decision of a lower level of government to be overriden by that of a higer one (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Smaller, local decisions could be left up to the discretion of the local councils, whereas others could be made on a wider scale.

    If Mineralstown has some important natural resources that are necessary for the wider economy and cannot be effectively obtained elsewhere, then it's probable that extraction will continue, after negotiations and possibly compromise between the town and the higher level.

    This doesn't sound very different to me from what you're proposing.
    “[T]he notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ … ha[s been] rendered … into an oxymoron.” —Peter Thiel, VC-ist, PYPL, FB, $2.6B.
    “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” —Warren Buffet, investor, BRK, $81.1B.
  9. #46
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits


    So of their own accord.

    'Yes, but...' -- everyone would have full discretion over their own potential labor-power for the common good ('self-determination'), but *collectively* everyone would see the material *results* from what people did or didn't do, work-wise.

    This portion is meant to speak to the issue of *societal incentives*, without resorting to the market mechanism (exchange values) whatsoever. We can't pretend that all work roles are objectively the same, so if the sewers objectively need to be cleaned out but everyone is 'subjectively' repulsed by the mere thought of actually doing this kind of labor, there needs to be a *collective* approach to getting this accomplished -- societal incentives through the circulation of non-monetary labor-hour credits. (And none of this method would preclude more-innovative, long-term proposals, such as backyard composting or whatever.)

    Many could make arguments against the consumption of animal products and animals, but if just *some* people really wanted dairy and meat, there *should* be a mature, robust material-economics in place to satisfy consumer-type needs as long as that kind of consumption was at least controversial, even if empirically *marginal* in demand ('specialty' / 'luxury' services). (According to the labor-credits model people interested in the goods and/or services would feel compelled to work *more*, to provide the necessary number of labor credits to those who -- at greater rates of labor credits per hour -- would do the generally-distasteful liberated labor of raising animals or whatever.)


    ---



    How is decentralized planning balkanized when allocation of resources *is* direct but decision-making is participatory?


    I'd welcome an elaboration on this particular approach to post-capitalist political economy that you're indicating -- I've heard various versions of 'market socialism' in this context, which is what I addressed in my previous post.

    How can allocation-of-resources be direct, at the same time that decision-making for the same is participatory, as over an extended area of geography (maybe up to an entire continent) -- ? (In other words what if the population of Mineralstown collectively says 'We don't want to be a part of the globally popular Five-Year Plan 2022 for neo-industrialization and -modernization, and we don't want others from outside Mineralstown digging up our lands as part of that globally-centralized plan' -- ?)


    Central planning is top-down; decentralized planning is bottom-up, in it that decision-making is collective, with democratic participation of the people as a whole, in contrast to a single technocratic elite.

    There are different models of the mechanism. I imagine something to the effect of the delegate system of workers' councils.

    I have a standing critique of this conventional, hierarchical approach of delegated representation -- here's from a recent thread:



    is this correct it is Democracy in the Workplace thank you for your time did Marx ever say this ?

    Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses.


    I find this conventional approach to be a non-starter since it implicitly creates a kind of elitism based on whether one's duties are productive-labor-oriented, or are more *administrative*-labor-oriented. Sure, one could have duties that include some of each, but that's not what's being proposed here -- it's a division of labor that resembles the current class divide a little *too* much.

    Another problematic with this conventional 'voting' approach is that it establishes administrative duties as an *institution*, no matter who's a part of it, or how little or long they stay in that kind of position -- the *institution* would have to be preserved, maintained, and defended from any and all threats, giving it an inherently *separatist* kind of social status that's similar to elitism if not being elitist outright.

    Under Socialism are Bosses/Management/Supervisors/Industry Representatives still ?

    https://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/1...47#post2882647


    ---


    I'll return to the following premise (post #16):



    [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.

    I'll state that the conventional 'voting' method (political representation) is inherently too *personnel-focused*, when we would be better-off focusing on the *policy* itself, since that's what politics is ultimately all about, anyway.

    Here's again from the other thread:



    from huppi website

    Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.

    Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.


    Again any system of 'representatives' would give rise to *politicking* -- political efforts for oneself instead of for the collective as a whole -- since the specialist standing administrative roles would be sought-after by some.

    ---



    Decentralized planning is localized planning, in it that decision-making begins at the local level, but obviously it can be simultaneously both local and national, as well as transnational, forasmuch as there are different levels of state organization (central/federal, provincial, municipal, etc.).

    In the US today especially, it's quite routine for a decision of a lower level of government to be overriden by that of a higer one (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Smaller, local decisions could be left up to the discretion of the local councils, whereas others could be made on a wider scale.

    If Mineralstown has some important natural resources that are necessary for the wider economy and cannot be effectively obtained elsewhere, then it's probable that extraction will continue, after negotiations and possibly compromise between the town and the higher level.

    This doesn't sound very different to me from what you're proposing.

    Please allow me to be clear here -- my own approach / proposal to this issue is that the collective decision-making process needs to be *non-representative* (non-hierarchical) in *any* way, because the dichotomization of the population into standing 'productive work', and 'administrative', work roles is too schismatic / problematic in its very founding (even if the elected administrative positions also had to continue doing productive work roles additionally to their administrative duties).

    Your position is unable to be clear and descriptive of how this conventionally *bourgeois* federal-vs.-local dichotomy would be resolved / determined for any given issue -- as things are now an issue-at-hand (like abortion or drug usage) can get batted-around from the local level to the federal level and back again. This is simply too much procedural ambiguity because there's no overall A-to-Z process defined *in-advance* of these resulting political machinations. If remanded to the states, there could be a vast *inconsistency* in policy from state to state. A nascent socialist society would not have the time or patience to use this kind of *bourgeois* approach since socialism is all about encouraging and needing a collectively *hands-on* mass-participatory process, as a virtually *daily* social practice for all, optimally.

    The model I developed and advocate uses a *non-voting*, different, unique approach to collective policy decision-making that is truly, indisputably bottom-up, leaving no room for any ambiguity or representative-institutional internal culture.

    I'll introduce it here by first using a detour -- given a range of currently active policy proposals, consider that everyone has 100 'points' to 'spend' on any combination of these proposals:


    [17] Prioritization Chart




    By 'granulizing' a conventional 'vote' into 100 (or whatever) separate 'points', this kind of approach lends a quality of 'priority' over a range of proposals -- it's very, very unlikely that any two issues would receive identical counts of points from a significantly-sized population, and even if it did there could simply be an additional 'runoff' iteration subsequently, using the same process, to clearly determine between the two (or more) deadlocked proposals (assuming those parallel policies are in-competition over material resources like a specific plot of land).

    Now, past this 'detour', what if people didn't use 'points', but could simply *rank* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) their own personal prioritizations over any batch of policy proposals that may be in front of them, of their own choosing -- ? (One could *convert* the rank positions to decimal fractions by just *dividing* the number '1' by the rank position, so that #1 would be '1/1', or '1.00', #2 would be '1/2', or '.50', #3 would be '1/3', or '.33', #4 would be '1/4', or '.25', etc.)

    So with this 'ranking' approach, higher rank positions (lower numbers) for a proposal would receive more notoreity and attention because such aggregated higher-ranked selections for a given proposal would equate to more-popular-demand. (So for any given day Proposal 'A' might have its highest-aggregated-rank at rank position #2, with 10,580 #2-rankings in a particular locality, while Proposal 'B' might have *its* highest-aggregated-rank at rank position #1, with 9,872 #1-rankings. Proposal 'B' would obviously be more-prioritized by more people than Proposal 'A', and would thus win-out.

    This process could be used at *any* scale, or combination of scales, from local to regional to continental, to global, and could be reiterated on a daily basis for an appropriate pace of input from anyone / everyone.


    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

    Last edited by ckaihatsu; 28th May 2017 at 15:21. Reason: changed '11,901' to '9,872'
  10. #47
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default

    I have to add that, with my (labor-credits) 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors', there is *no* locality 'ownership' or sovereign-type 'control' of *any* means of mass production:



    communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

    So what this aspect amounts-to is the liberated productive process on a *per-item*, *per-policy* basis, irrespective of geography, population, liberated labor, productive assets, and goods / resources / materials.

    Here's a sample scenario from a past thread, for perspective:



    All of this is *independent* of collectivized assets and resources, like factories and oil deposits. If a locality became *very* debt-ridden it certainly wouldn't be in a position to *utilize* any of its "own" (nearby) assets or resources, and so other localities would be able to prioritize *their* use of the assets and resources for actual, *funded*, *labor-ready* project plans for *their* localities.
    https://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/1...11#post1608511
  11. #48
    Join Date Aug 2016
    Location Israel unfortunately
    Posts 80
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    Please allow me to be clear here -- my own approach / proposal to this issue is that the collective decision-making process needs to be *non-representative* (non-hierarchical) in *any* way, because the dichotomization of the population into standing 'productive work', and 'administrative', work roles is too schismatic / problematic in its very founding (even if the elected administrative positions also had to continue doing productive work roles additionally to their administrative duties).
    I beg your pardon, but do you really believe it's possible to completely eliminate the need for any sort of "management" or coordination? Do you not agree that the large a group is, the greater becomes the need for unifying and directing agents? Otherwise, how would workers in large organizations even know what each of them should do? How would their labor credits be counted and paid to them? Who would prevent them from all going in different directions? Who would ascertain that none was slacking at the expense of another? If a disagreement arose between workers as to what course should be taken, what should be done, or how it should be done, then who would have the final say?

    I'll introduce it here by first using a detour -- given a range of currently active policy proposals, consider that everyone has 100 'points' to 'spend' on any combination of these proposals

    Now, past this 'detour', what if people didn't use 'points', but could simply *rank* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) their own personal prioritizations over any batch of policy proposals that may be in front of them, of their own choosing -- ?
    Suppose a consumer fills in one of these forms; where do they send it to? What happens with it next?

    communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only
    I'm still kind of trying to wrap my head around a "communist administration" without communist administrators.

    The model I developed and advocate uses a *non-voting*, different, unique approach to collective policy decision-making that is truly, indisputably bottom-up, leaving no room for any ambiguity or representative-institutional internal culture.
    It's interesting that such an approach, at this scale and frequency, has only become possible in recent decades, with the breakthroughs in information technology. Have you ever given any in-depth thought to the technological aspects of this?
    “[T]he notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ … ha[s been] rendered … into an oxymoron.” —Peter Thiel, VC-ist, PYPL, FB, $2.6B.
    “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” —Warren Buffet, investor, BRK, $81.1B.
  12. #49
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    Please allow me to be clear here -- my own approach / proposal to this issue is that the collective decision-making process needs to be *non-representative* (non-hierarchical) in *any* way, because the dichotomization of the population into standing 'productive work', and 'administrative', work roles is too schismatic / problematic in its very founding (even if the elected administrative positions also had to continue doing productive work roles additionally to their administrative duties).


    I beg your pardon, but do you really believe it's possible to completely eliminate the need for any sort of "management" or coordination?

    No, I don't think that there should be no overall coordination. I'm decidedly a *centralist*, and not a decentralist. (Though the model / framework I developed and advocate could be called a 'hybrid' of centralizing *and* localizing dynamics -- *not* a contradiction, due to empirical realities of *scale*.) (More explained below.)

    To address your question directly I'll refer to relevant portions of the model:



    communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

    So what this means is that the actual available-and-willing-and-selected (on the basis of sufficient pooled labor credits to be passed-forward) liberated laborers can *internally* organize (see 'labor credits framework' illustrated schematic at post #46) however they like, but the active liaison(s) back to the public as a whole will be those initial *proponents* of that particular policy package that enjoyed the participation of sufficient numbers of liberated laborers (either with the inclusion of the labor-credits process, or not -- *zero* labor credits per hour, or a fully-voluntary communistic gift economy).


    Also, again, for the sake of context:



    I'll return to the following premise (post #16):


    [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.

    ---



    Do you not agree that the large a group is, the greater becomes the need for unifying and directing agents? Otherwise, how would workers in large organizations even know what each of them should do?

    Yes.

    Please see the 'premise' above -- one can think of it as a 'synapse' between formally expressed mass public demand, and the self-organization of liberated labor (possibly with the vehicle of circulating labor credits) to *fulfill* -- or not -- any given particular mass demand.

    I don't think liberated workers would need to be 'directed' as much as they would simply need to know the specific, formal *work roles* for any given policy package -- which would be a prerequisite for the use of any (necessarily) collectivized productive assets, and goods / resources / materials:



    communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

    labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

    ---



    How would their labor credits be counted and paid to them?

    It would be specified in-advance, as an integral part of any given 'policy package'.



    labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

    labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

    labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

    ---



    Who would prevent them from all going in different directions?

    You have the mindset of conventional societal-institutional groupings of laborers, which is understandable, but with this model there are no 'standing' groupings of (liberated) laborers, as one would think of with a present-day union hiring hall.

    Groupings of liberated laborers would only be formed by per-item / per-project *policy packages*, by work roles needed and defined by such -- while these ad-hoc groupings could internally self-organize however they like, the formal policy package would have a great influence upfront since it would define the component formal work roles and would indicate specific personnel, if those people were also so-willing, given the formal terms (including funding of labor credits per-work-role). Internally, the grouping of availing-and-willing-and-selected liberated laborers may also be largely influenced by the provision / *distribution* of allocated labor credits per work role, so that more distasteful / hazardous / difficult work roles would confer greater rates of labor credits per hour to specific workers, which then would probably give those specific workers a *disproportionate* say / power within the internal grouping of per-project liberated-laborers.

    Once the policy-package project is fulfilled and completed the particular grouping of liberated laborers would no longer exist and everyone could go their separate ways, or whatever.



    Who would ascertain that none was slacking at the expense of another?

    (Again)



    communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


    If a disagreement arose between workers as to what course should be taken, what should be done, or how it should be done, then who would have the final say?

    The policy package would be the 'framework' for the fulfillment of each specific project -- specific necessary work roles would be pre-defined in advance, and specific desired liberated-laborers would be selected and 'funded' according to the provisions of the policy package. Liberated workers could internally self-organize as they liked, but the overarching goal would be the fulfillment of the project / policy-package -- if internal disagreements became problematic for the project as a whole then perhaps a different, *modified version* of the original policy package would be introduced into the regular political process (aggregated mass-prioritizations, per specified geographic context) to specify either a resolution, or to select *other* specific personnel.


    ---



    I'll introduce it here by first using a detour -- given a range of currently active policy proposals, consider that everyone has 100 'points' to 'spend' on any combination of these proposals

    Now, past this 'detour', what if people didn't use 'points', but could simply *rank* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) their own personal prioritizations over any batch of policy proposals that may be in front of them, of their own choosing -- ?


    Suppose a consumer fills in one of these forms; where do they send it to? What happens with it next?

    Here's from a past thread:



    So as a consumer in your system you would put your demand on some form of online or institutionalized list of demands.


    It's actually *not* an institution -- all it is is a computer-sorting function, that would then automatically publish the aggregated mass-prioritizations daily out to the public, as online, at certain locations on displays, and in newspapers, etc.

    I've considered that, in the interests of no-institutions and full transparency, the hardware itself could even be replaced on a daily basis with *brand-new* hardware (a regular PC), and those who are so interested could participate in installing the Linux operating system (OS) onto the computer (in an open, public space), then installing the 'sorting' open-source software (compiled fresh from the source code), and putting that PC into service for just that one day. There could also be observers in-person, and live video feeds of this daily process broadcast out over the Internet, with cameras and video feeds remaining pointed at the machine itself over the course of the day so that people can see both in-person and remotely exactly what's going on with this automatic-centralized process of information aggregation and distribution.

    ---



    communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only


    I'm still kind of trying to wrap my head around a "communist administration" without communist administrators.

    (See above.)


    ---



    The model I developed and advocate uses a *non-voting*, different, unique approach to collective policy decision-making that is truly, indisputably bottom-up, leaving no room for any ambiguity or representative-institutional internal culture.


    It's interesting that such an approach, at this scale and frequency, has only become possible in recent decades, with the breakthroughs in information technology. Have you ever given any in-depth thought to the technological aspects of this?

    Yes, thank you. (See above.)
  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  14. #50
    Join Date Oct 2014
    Location USA unfortunately
    Posts 303
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    We all know that most poor people in USA and in other countries are too far to the right-wing, too right-wingers. So I think that waiting for all poor people to become communists requires a super powerful patience. Besides it is very hard for people to ideologically shift from being right-wingers to left-wingers
    This is slowly but surely changing in places like Greece, but it will be a long road converting the US proletariat to the left. It is not very hard to shift, I was originally populist left, then populist right, then began my drastic move to ancom. It is simply a matter of what information you're being fed that changes how you think. The right tends to withhold, and straight up lie about facts, which is why it is so easy to become a right winger.
    I used to be right wing.

    Fiscally speaking, I was always left wing. I always believed in things like universal healthcare and higher taxes for the rich. But socially speaking? I was very reactionary. I held patriotic, even nationalistic beliefs. I was somewhat racialist, though never explicitly racist. I also had ideas that the me of today would consider anti-semitic. Yet, I changed. How?

    It took a while. I began educating myself - reading whatever I could get my hands on, staying informed with the happenings in the world, reading philosophy and delving into human sociology. I began being moved by injustice and human suffering. I began developing a heart - a deep concern for human beings to the point that it deeply bothers me to see people wronged, bullied, and mistreated. Even after changing there was still a stage where I would find myself sympathizing with people and ideas from my old persuasion. Over time, though, a period of a couple of years, your heart eventually follows your brain.

    Even today I am not completely free of reactionism - no matter how small and insignificant it may be, I'm not totally free. I have to challenge myself constantly, correct myself constantly, and critically examine every thought. Even though I'm not at all religious, sometimes I find myself praying under my breath for no other reason than the fact it comforts me. I was raised in an extremely right-wing, conservative Christian home in Texas. I'll never be completely rid of it.

    It's one of the reasons why I am reluctant to completely dismiss identity politics. Even though I know most of it is bullshit, I find it therapeutic to be exposed to it and to promote it a little more than I probably should, simply because the old me absolutely despised it.

    People CAN change. Education is the key. You also have to at least be a decent human being. Some people know better but still don't become leftists simply because they're evil, nasty people. But the poor? They lack education and that makes them easy pickings for the right-wing. Education, education, education - it cannot be stressed enough.
    Last edited by GLF; 1st June 2017 at 19:21.
  15. #51
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    [I] am reluctant to completely dismiss identity politics. Even though I know most of it is bullshit, I find it therapeutic to be exposed to it and to promote it a little more than I probably should, simply because the old me absolutely despised it.

    Identity politics -- in the political arena -- is at least left-wing, while nationalism and everything to the right of it, *isn't*.


    [3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals [CORRECTED, 170602]






    But -- to use a visual metaphor -- if we imagine the left-right political spectrum as a *spinning* object, driven by a vertical center / centrist axis, then the greater the weight (participation) on the far-left extent, the *slower* the 'spin' would be, which is a *good* thing for the revolutionary left. (If the spinning *stopped* altogether, that would mean that the bourgeois nation-state / empire could no longer effect 'spin' on the rest of the political spectrum, to keep the left-wing and right-wing extents from *confronting* one another -- activists could finally mass together in numbers to repress the far-right fascists once and for all.)


    Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism






    The 'identity politics' camp is about "halfway" from the center to the far-left, so any 'weight' (participation) there would not be nearly as effective in cutting against the 'spin' as would participation ('weight') at the actual far-left position (if-you-will). (Imagine a figure skater spinning-in-place with either arms extended -- slower -- or arms pulled-in -- faster -- to get a 'feel' for this kind of angular velocity.)

    So, obviously, this is to assert a *physical* analogue / metaphor to the significance of the left-right political spectrum -- you'd be doing more of a service to the revolutionary cause by actually espousing *revolutionary* politics, rather than identity-politics.



    [I] find it therapeutic to [...] promote [identity politics] a little more than I probably should, simply because the old me absolutely despised it.

    And I'll also hold this up as an example of the problematics of making politics *personal*, when it really shouldn't be.
  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:

    GLF

  17. #52
    Join Date Oct 2014
    Location USA unfortunately
    Posts 303
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I generally fancy myself as able to detach from hot button issues and look at them objectively from a materialist standpoint. Usually when I make politics personal I do so deliberately, as a means of weeding out any reactionism that may or may not still exist in me. Exposing myself to certain unpleasantries has been a very effect method of deprogramming myself. As communists, we like to think that we are impervious to reactionary ideas and right-wing thinking - but we're not. Every idea and thought must be placed under intense self-scrutiny. When one can browse revleft and find gems like "white privilege is bullshit" and a poll where 20% are against abortion, we know that reactionism exists even among the far left. And if I'm contributing to that in any way, I have to do my part to get a handle on it - even if it means making politics personal. Just my two cents.
  18. #53
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    I generally fancy myself as able to detach from hot button issues and look at them objectively from a materialist standpoint. Usually when I make politics personal I do so deliberately, as a means of weeding out any reactionism that may or may not still exist in me. Exposing myself to certain unpleasantries has been a very effect method of deprogramming myself. As communists, we like to think that we are impervious to reactionary ideas and right-wing thinking - but we're not. Every idea and thought must be placed under intense self-scrutiny. When one can browse revleft and find gems like "white privilege is bullshit" and a poll where 20% are against abortion, we know that reactionism exists even among the far left. And if I'm contributing to that in any way, I have to do my part to get a handle on it - even if it means making politics personal. Just my two cents.

    It's a fascinating topic -- the life/style - logistics - politics framework (socio-political life)....

    Certainly as revolutionary / leftists we can't just make our personal lives *wholly* different from the aims we espouse in our politics, but at the same time the issues in our personal lives (I would argue) are *not* in the same realm as the *political* issues we deal with at the societal level. (Just like being at a job -- the 'you' there is still you but you're also implicitly filling a *work* role that requires a particular 'side' of you, with certain duties and skills that one would not be doing in one's *home* life.)

    I'll refer to a past thread, with one post in particular, that covers 'complexity theory' -- as around this tri-level framework:


    Complexity and dialectics

    https://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/1...36#post2876736
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:

    GLF

  20. #54
    Join Date Jun 2017
    Location India
    Posts 38
    Organisation
    Guevarist League of India(GLI) , ex-HSRAist,pro-communist
    Rep Power 0

    Exclamation Depends on your Mindset

    Revolutionary beliefs always ask you to stay active and actively resist oppression .It depends on various factors .Howeve , I believe soon there will be a revolution


    ----Red Salute Comrade ------
    We stand together
  21. #55
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    Revolutionary beliefs always ask you to stay active and actively resist oppression .It depends on various factors .Howeve , I believe soon there will be a revolution


    ----Red Salute Comrade ------
    We stand together

    If our politics depended on our own personal *beliefs* we'd be as arbitrarily splintered over different fictions as religious people are. (And the revolutionary left *is* splintered, but for organizational -- 'carrying-on-the-legacy' -- reasons rather than around "belief".)

    'Belief' is definitely the wrong term to use here, especially when we're each ready to explain the reasons for the historical and present state of the world being what it is, due to societal-*material* causes.
  22. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  23. #56
    Join Date Jun 2017
    Location India
    Posts 38
    Organisation
    Guevarist League of India(GLI) , ex-HSRAist,pro-communist
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    If our politics depended on our own personal *beliefs* we'd be as arbitrarily splintered over different fictions as religious people are. (And the revolutionary left *is* splintered, but for organizational -- 'carrying-on-the-legacy' -- reasons rather than around "belief".)

    'Belief' is definitely the wrong term to use here, especially when we're each ready to explain the reasons for the historical and present state of the world being what it is, due to societal-*material* causes.
    What do you mean ? And what are the root words behind "belief" . I didnt understand
  24. #57
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,965
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    If our politics depended on our own personal *beliefs* we'd be as arbitrarily splintered over different fictions as religious people are. (And the revolutionary left *is* splintered, but for organizational -- 'carrying-on-the-legacy' -- reasons rather than around "belief".)

    'Belief' is definitely the wrong term to use here, especially when we're each ready to explain the reasons for the historical and present state of the world being what it is, due to societal-*material* causes.


    What do you mean ? And what are the root words behind "belief" . I didnt understand

    To put it simply, our revolutionary politics doesn't rely on any kind of 'belief', because we already know enough about how the human social world works to say that it's *class struggle* that drives developments forward through the centuries. Those who have power have an interest in *hanging onto* that power, even if it costs millions and billions their well-being -- and even their lives -- so that the elite power structure is kept intact (the bourgeoisie). For the sake of entrenched power the ruling class would rather see death and destruction (etc.) than allow regular people to have access to that which is already produced (food, technology) so that people can live better lives.

    Thus 'belief' in how the world works *isn't* required, because we already *know* how the world works, including the overarching dynamic of class struggle, also known as 'historical materialism' (how history is determined in the most broad / general ways).



    Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of human societies and their development over time that was first articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as the materialist conception of history. It is principally a theory of history according to which the material conditions of a society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence or, in Marxist terms, the union of its productive capacity and social relations of production, fundamentally determine its organization and development.

    Historical materialism[1] looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, along with the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity.[2]

    ---


    Also:


    History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle




    And, invaluable:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=harm...hrome&ie=UTF-8
  25. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Views of Stalin as a person and his actions?
    By Always Curious J in forum Learning
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26th May 2013, 09:00
  2. Why one party and why a command economy?
    By Lyev in forum Learning
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 8th March 2010, 20:25
  3. Socialism From Below
    By RED DAVE in forum Learning
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 7th January 2010, 01:46
  4. The revolution delayed: 10 years of Hugo Chávez’s rule
    By Sasha in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23rd February 2009, 21:58
  5. Socialism as a Class Society
    By redstar2000 in forum Theory
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11th August 2004, 23:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Website Security Test