Thread: Join "Politsturm", Comrade!

Results 1 to 15 of 15

  1. #1
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default Join "Politsturm", Comrade!

    Hello. I am a representative of the Marxist edition of "Politsturm", situated mainly in Russia. Our task is to create a competent and modern international socialist information resource that will conduct high-quality agitation and propaganda and serve as a platform for the unification of all healthy Marxist forces.
    Our principles:
    1. We stand for Marxism-Leninism, without the admixture of other trends, such as "Trotskyism", "Stalinism", "Maoism", or other "-izms".
    2. The struggle for the dictatorship of proletariat, for the socialization of private ownership of the means of production, the complete abolition of the dictatorship of bourgeoisie and the abolition of exploitation of man by man.
    3. The main revolutionary class is the working class (the proletariat), the class of wage workers who are deprived of the means of production, who sell their labor power and create surplus value.
    4. Democratic centralism - the basic principle of Marxist organization.
    5. Complete rejection and struggle against all forms of the reformist, "legal" path to socialism through the bourgeois parliament, etc., as these "tactics" appropriate to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Only a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist class and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat will open the way to socialism for the working class.
    6. Internationalism - solidarity and unity of the working class of all countries in the struggle against world-wide capital, against imperialism.
    The exposure and struggle against all forms of chauvinism, bourgeois patriotism and nationalism, as well as various forms of bourgeois cosmopolitanism and theories of "tolerance".
    7. Work in the bourgeois parliament is possible only for the purpose of propaganda, only in the case of favorable historical conditions and not at the expense of the parallel basic activity of the Marxist organization.
    If you agree with our position, we need your help. We plan to establish connections between communists of all countries. We need people, willing to write articles about their countries. Our editorial staff is glad to any volunteers, after writing the first article, we immediately include you in our team. If you are ready to participate, write to PM.
    Regards, "Politsturm".

    Our resources:
    ????????????.jpg

    P.S. Also we are open to any questions. Feel free to ask it in the comments
    Last edited by AngryDwarf; 10th August 2017 at 21:56.
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to AngryDwarf For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 990
    Rep Power 29

    Default

    This looks interesting and I wish you all the best - we often get fed a propaganda filled understanding of Russia in British news but even from a biased perspective it seems obvious that the toxic nationalism led by the strongman of Putin, the homophobia and the disastrous militarism, needs to be challenged and from a working-class perspective instead of a bourgeois liberal one.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  4. #3
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You've got to understand that Putin is just a top Manager of the big capitalists of Russia, their protege. Putin became President not because of nationalism, but because he chose bourgeois (Putin - a direct successor of Yeltsin) Nationalism and all the other problems you described, is the riser of the problem, in other words, the bourgeoisie of the whole world, deceiving the workers, nationalism they keep people ignorant so that they do not understand that their main enemy - the bourgeoisie of the whole world, and the best friends working all over the world. The main problem of all this lies in the economic basis: capitalism. Which is characterized by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of human exploitation through appropriation of surplus value. To solve this problem is possible only with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And in order to achieve success, the Marxists whole of the world must act as one. So far, we proceed from the work of Lenin, "where to start". And as written above, calling everyone to take part in the creation of an INTERNATIONAL socialist resource. While we can broadcast only in the postSoviet countries. We want to change that. What is written above.

    I apologize in advance for mistakes, I'm not very good English, but I'm working on it.
  5. #4
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 990
    Rep Power 29

    Default

    Just a basic question, what's your membership like and how is it spread across Russia so far?
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  6. #5
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    About our team, "Politsturm": no bureaucracy, just a team ideologically close people related to one goal. We do what we can: who is writing the news, someone is making posters, someone all together. Everything is based on a voluntary basis.

    About Russia: in general, I understand you want to ask about the state of the left movement here? Answer: the left in Russia defeated, dropped to the level of the circle spirit, the working class is not aware of themselves and their interests. In Russia, hundreds of "leftist" "parties," with the hundred or two people biting each other. That shows an absolute misunderstanding of what the Communist party, so - it's opportunism. A real Communist party is the vanguard of the working class, the "headquarters" of the working class. So it can exist only when there are hundreds of thousands of class-conscious workers who are ready to lead the revolutionary struggle. Prior to this, the party is not needed. About the CPRF do not say anything. This photo say it all for me.
    1020482_640.jpg
    In the photo the leader of the CPRF - Gennady Zyuganov and Russian Orthodox Patriarch - Kirill


    At least in Russia most people are nostalgic for the Soviet Union, social gains, such as free education, free medical care, free housing. But they don't understand Marxism. The struggle for workers ' rights weak, the unions sold out to the capitalists, and the few independent trade unions, that is, very weak.
  7. #6
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,886
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    So far, we proceed from the work of Lenin, "where to start".

    I would have pressed the 'Thanks' button on this whole post of yours, except for the line above -- Lenin tends to be *controversial* around here at RevLeft (due to the anarchist camp), but I myself have been viewing Leninism lately as possibly being anarchronistic, because of contemporary material conditions that are so different from those of 100 years ago.

    So, if you don't mind, would you care to comment on Leninism at all? Do you think a revolutionary upheaval would benefit from such a *concentrated* leadership, even to term it a mass reliance on a 'strongman'?

    Perhaps the process today would be a better one if some kind of consistent, *broad-based* participation was enabled -- a generic 'vanguard', as here at RevLeft, collectively determining revolutionary policy only in a bottom-up way, with no fixed, professional 'representatives' whatsoever, and no standing 'vanguard party' (for reasons of substitutionism).



    A real Communist party is the vanguard of the working class, the "headquarters" of the working class. So it can exist only when there are hundreds of thousands of class-conscious workers who are ready to lead the revolutionary struggle. Prior to this, the party is not needed.

    From this part it may seem that all of the ideological divisiveness over revolutionary strategy (party vs. no-party) is ultimately just hair-splitting since the prerequisite involvement of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of class-conscious workers would be the main thing itself, and would be decisive in those numbers. Do you have any comment on this? Thanks.
  8. #7
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    The principles of our team described above, you may not agree, I will not impose, but myself I will not back down.

    About Marxism in modern conditions: today's world is no different from the world 100 years ago. Like 100 years ago, and now the basis of the world economy - capitalism in the stage of imperialism. Moreover, it is now much more pronounced, because 100 years ago in many countries not yet fully been eradicated feudalism. Lenin described capitalism in this stage, and how to deal with it. His personal example shows that this tactic works. And so Marxism-Leninism as relevant as ever.

    About "warlordism" and the role of personality in history: it would be naive to believe that there is any kind of grass-roots organization without leaders in principle. In any event always stand out the most talented, hard-working, honorable person is an informal leader, by the way, this happens with anarchists, whom you, as I understand it, are. Not only that no "warlord": if he will slide into opportunism, it immediately shift. It is not a dictator, no, not a guru, not a leader of the sect.

    About concentrated leadership: here comes to the aid of democratic centralism, which is a dialectical unity of democracy and centralization. Workers delegate Deputy in the Supreme Council, but have the opportunity at any time to withdraw, if they do not like the words and actions of the Deputy. And take the bourgeois Parliament. Where is more democracy? At the same time everything should be centralized to avoid confusion and disorder and anarchy, to good work. The same Lenin was not decided, he had to CC one voice along with all. The view that Lenin was a "strongman", deciding everything, wrong. Let's just say he was the first among equals. What's wrong with that?

    About the party: the party is the organization with the bureaucratic machinery where there are managers, leading the paperwork, built a formalized hierarchy. All this is definitely needed when in a party of hundreds of thousands of people, it really helps. In the early stages it's all unnecessary, even harmful, because it distracts from the urgent work. Hundreds of thousands of class-conscious workers themselves do not appear, it is all the result of long and laborious work, lasting for years. This is the work of the Marxists. When it runs out, so will the conscious working class, which is for Marxists, then there will be a Comparty. As mentioned, the Communist party is the vanguard of the working class,consisting of the most conscious representatives.
    Last edited by AngryDwarf; 11th August 2017 at 14:12.
  9. #8
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,886
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    The principles of our team described above, you may not agree, I will not impose, but myself I will not back down.

    About Marxism in modern conditions: today's world is no different from the world 100 years ago. Like 100 years ago, and now the basis of the world economy - capitalism in the stage of imperialism. Moreover, it is now much more pronounced, because 100 years ago in many countries not yet fully been eradicated feudalism. Lenin described capitalism in this stage, and how to deal with it. His personal example shows that this tactic works. And so Marxism-Leninism as relevant as ever.

    About "warlordism" and the role of personality in history: it would be naive to believe that there is any kind of grass-roots organization without leaders in principle. In any event always stand out the most talented, hard-working, honorable person is an informal leader, by the way, this happens with anarchists, whom you, as I understand it, are. Not only that no "warlord": if he will slide into opportunism, it immediately shift. It is not a dictator, no, not a guru, not a leader of the sect.

    About concentrated leadership: here comes to the aid of democratic centralism, which is a dialectical unity of democracy and centralization. Workers delegate Deputy in the Supreme Council, but have the opportunity at any time to withdraw, if they do not like the words and actions of the Deputy. And take the bourgeois Parliament. Where is more democracy? At the same time everything should be centralized to avoid confusion and disorder and anarchy, to good work. The same Lenin was not decided, he had to CC one voice along with all. The view that Lenin was a "strongman", deciding everything, wrong. Let's just say he was the first among equals. What's wrong with that?

    About the party: the party is the organization with the bureaucratic machinery where there are managers, leading the paperwork, built a formalized hierarchy. All this is definitely needed when in a party of hundreds of thousands of people, it really helps. In the early stages it's all unnecessary, even harmful, because it distracts from the urgent work. Hundreds of thousands of class-conscious workers themselves do not appear, it is all the result of long and laborious work, lasting for years. This is the work of the Marxists. When it runs out, so will the conscious working class, which is for Marxists, then there will be a Comparty. As mentioned, the Communist party is the vanguard of the working class,consisting of the most conscious representatives.

    Okay -- thanks for the quick response.

    No, I'm definitely not an anarchist -- you can always do a search on my username and any search term, for background from past posts of mine.

    I have become more inclined towards the formulation of 'organic centralism', though -- do you have any comments on this?

    I acknowledge your point about 'informal leaders', and I agree it's inevitable. (Ditto on your 'strongman' point.)

    There are definitely advantages of expediency to having an organizational hierarchy, but it also seems like a trade-off: Party specialization around *only* political tasks means a *professionalization* of sorts, where political-administrative work is *separated* from regular material-*productive* work on-the-ground, inviting claims of institutional *elitism* -- a potential for ignoring bottom-up input.

    Concentrated leadership is certainly understandable during the initial open class warfare, where political agility is needed for neutralizing bourgeois forces, but I admit to sharing some concerns about substitutionism (again) in the long-term, when under better conditions, a more *broad-based* bottom-up structure of participation may be objectively called-for instead of a specialized professional party formulation, to transition towards fully-automated communism.

    I also have a standing statement on vanguardism, which is at tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism.
  10. #9
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    No elitism Marxists should not be: the vanguard of the working class are not shepherds leading the sheep, the elite theory is the invention of the exploiters. The vanguard of the working class - the working class itself, that is, its best representatives nominated by workers themselves.

    Regarding your post, to which you gave a link: a lot of arguments about how we will live under communism. In fact, we have no idea how we will then live, we don't know the laws by which the society will live, and this is logical, because full communism was not yet on the Earth, was only its first stage - socialism.

    And in General: don't need these arguments. We live under capitalism, when a handful of billionaires and billions of poor, hungry people. And my first thought was: this is how to deal with capitalism. That's what needs to be addressed. Bringing one of favorite quotes Lenin:

    "Less political ballyhoo. Fewer highbrow discussions. Closer to life"
  11. #10
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,886
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    No elitism Marxists should not be: the vanguard of the working class are not shepherds leading the sheep, the elite theory is the invention of the exploiters. The vanguard of the working class - the working class itself, that is, its best representatives nominated by workers themselves.

    True, but I still have concerns about this conventional dependence on specialized political representatives, even if they're from the working class itself. I think that the representatives political body itself would tend toward institutionalization and elitism, even if individual delegates are immediately recallable at any time.

    You haven't addressed the point about the division of labor -- if elected representatives only do *administrative* work then they're by-definition *specialized*, and would collectively have different empirical interests from those who are working class and are *not* strictly administrative / political.

    With today's communications technologies (like RevLeft), we wouldn't *have* to use representatives, because all revolutionary workers could weigh-in with comments, discussion, and even bottom-up 'voting' / collective self-determination, without resorting to intermediaries of any kind. I developed a model for 'mass prioritization lists' that are aggregated, by geographical scale, from individuals' *personal* daily prioritization lists of demands / requests / orders for any goods / resources / materials from collectivized social production. Here's a schematic illustration, with relevant excerpts from the model:


    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'







    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] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

    consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

    consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

    consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

    ---



    Regarding your post, to which you gave a link: a lot of arguments about how we will live under communism. In fact, we have no idea how we will then live, we don't know the laws by which the society will live, and this is logical, because full communism was not yet on the Earth, was only its first stage - socialism.

    You obviously weren't reading the post that I provided -- it's post #41 at that thread, 'Vanguardism'. Here's the thesis of the statement:



    [T]he world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

    ---



    And in General: don't need these arguments. We live under capitalism, when a handful of billionaires and billions of poor, hungry people. And my first thought was: this is how to deal with capitalism. That's what needs to be addressed. Bringing one of favorite quotes Lenin:

    "Less political ballyhoo. Fewer highbrow discussions. Closer to life"

    I think we *do* need these arguments, to make sure that we're not just duplicating the past. Not all approaches done in the past are the best, so it's worthwhile to *rethink* everything through, to make sure that we're doing things correctly for the times that we live in -- again, I maintain that political representatives are no longer needed, and that everything needing a mass decision could be done from the bottom-up.
  12. #11
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    We do not know whether we are doing something until we try. You can sit for years on RevLeft and rethink, but you will not achieve anything. We, "Politsturm", sorry for bragging, not sitting in the place we work, and we achieve success. If we fail, and everything we've done will be in vain, and this failure is not due to repression of the bourgeoisie(which means we all do right), and for other reasons, then we get together and think: what is the problem. But to discuss this now - empty talk, which is the working class will not help.

    About new technologies, Internet and the like - of course, in the current situation under the dictatorship of the proletariat will be much more direct democracy, but without delegates is still not enough. Still, the delegates will tackle pressing local issues in which the participation of every citizen is optional, but it will exercise control over its delegate, and new technologies will be actively used for this.

    And add: we are not dogmatic, and do not do everything the same as in the writings of Lenin. We adapt these works to the new conditions, but to rethink all of those books that fundamentally we are not going because one hundred years have changed only the superstructure. The economic basis remains the same - capitalism in the stage of imperialism. Lenin described it and showed the ways of combating it. These ways worked. And to give them up, you have to make sure that it doesn't work anymore.

    "True, but I still have concerns about this conventional dependence on specialized political representatives, even if they're from the working class itself. I think that the representatives political body itself would tend toward institutionalization and elitism, even if individual delegates are immediately recallable at any time." - it must be fought. no elitism, if the party breaks away from people, sooner or later it will degenerate, and socialism will come to an end. And I have not heard that Marxism is about elitism. Marxism is about equality
    Last edited by AngryDwarf; 11th August 2017 at 17:02.
  13. #12
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,886
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    We do not know whether we are doing something until we try. You can sit for years on RevLeft and rethink, but you will not achieve anything. We, "Politsturm", sorry for bragging, not sitting in the place we work, and we achieve success. If we fail, and everything we've done will be in vain, and this failure is not due to repression of the bourgeoisie(which means we all do right), and for other reasons, then we get together and think: what is the problem. But to discuss this now - empty talk, which is the working class will not help.

    About new technologies, Internet and the like - of course, in the current situation under the dictatorship of the proletariat will be much more direct democracy, but without delegates is still not enough. Still, the delegates will tackle pressing local issues in which the participation of every citizen is optional, but it will exercise control over its delegate, and new technologies will be actively used for this.

    And add: we are not dogmatic, and do not do everything the same as in the writings of Lenin. We adapt these works to the new conditions, but to rethink all of those books that fundamentally we are not going because one hundred years have changed only the superstructure. The economic basis remains the same - capitalism in the stage of imperialism. Lenin described it and showed the ways of combating it. These ways worked. And to give them up, you have to make sure that it doesn't work anymore.

    Well, thanks for your time and attention, anyway -- I don't want to prolong any issues that may not be substantive in the long run. I wanted to get your estimation on a few points, and you've provided some of the feedback I was looking for.

    Yes, of course I agree with Lenin's 'imperialism', but it's the overall *approach* to working class (internal) self-representation that continues to interest me particularly.

    Since you're open to the use of technological advances, I'll include the following exchange from a past thread, about the model that I developed and advocate:



    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.

    The database used could be made up of these fields:


    ISSUER

    AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

    ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

    FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

    FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

    GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

    GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

    FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

    INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

    RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

    TITLE-DESCRIPTION


    WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

    TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

    ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

    TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

    ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

    SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

    SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

    AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER


    DENOMINATION

    QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

    TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

    SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

    SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING



    https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads...04#post2878604
  14. #13
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Your submitted ID or e-passport, so to speak. It is interesting of course. But all this will be important after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now we need to do clubs Marxists in their cities, to multiply Marxists, then, having a team of Marxists in the city, to go and to agitate the working class. Such is the challenge we have. As far as I know(is that true?please tell me) US Communists in a difficult situation. In the United States to publicly admit that you're a Communist is tantamount to committing Russia to coming out, that is to say that you are from the LGBT community. This must have something to do. And development of IDs this will not solve the problem.
  15. #14
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,886
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    Your submitted ID or e-passport, so to speak. It is interesting of course.

    The model / framework isn't really about creating identifiers for everyone, though that's one component, obviously, for liberated-labor participants -- from the database fields listing that I included in my previous post. (It would be necessary, regardless, if the 'paperwork' is to correctly correspond to any and all participants in collective projects for the common good.)

    For your information, here's the complete description of the framework:


    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'






    communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors





    http://www.revleft.com/vb/entries/11...ly-amp-demand)


    A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits



    To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

    [I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

    In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

    We can do better than the market system, obviously, since it is zombie-like and continuously, automatically, calls for endless profit-making -- even past the point of primitive accumulation, through to overproduction and world wars, not to mention its intrinsic exploitation and oppression.

    Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

    What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

    If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

    And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

    I'll contend that I have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

    In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

    This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.

    Mass demand, then as now, would be a matter of public discourse, but in a societal context of open access to all means of mass communication for all, with collectivized implements of mass production at its disposal. It would have no special claim over any liberated labor and would have no means by which to coerce it.

    The administration of all of this would be dependent on the conscious political mass struggle, on a continuous, ongoing basis, to keep it running smoothly and accountably.

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673




    But all this will be important after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Well, this is a controversial statement to make -- in the interests and spirit of socialist-type *planning* it's much better to have as many particulars of our approach to be *detailed* as much as possible, *before* actual events take place. I consider the above content to be a *proposal*, well in-advance of conditions that may be looking for such a type of framework for a proletarian political economy.



    Now we need to do clubs Marxists in their cities, to multiply Marxists, then, having a team of Marxists in the city, to go and to agitate the working class. Such is the challenge we have.

    As far as I know(is that true?please tell me) US Communists in a difficult situation. In the United States to publicly admit that you're a Communist is tantamount to committing Russia to coming out, that is to say that you are from the LGBT community. This must have something to do. And development of IDs this will not solve the problem.

    I'm not sure about this -- I'm probably not the best person to ask about it. Undoubtedly there are stereotypes, but I'd say that it's usually more about the 'socialism = Stalinism' misconception that people often have.
  16. #15
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location Russia
    Posts 14
    Organisation
    Politsturm.com
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    The model / framework isn't really about creating identifiers for everyone, though that's one component, obviously, for liberated-labor participants -- from the database fields listing that I included in my previous post. (It would be necessary, regardless, if the 'paperwork' is to correctly correspond to any and all participants in collective projects for the common good.)

    For your information, here's the complete description of the framework:


    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

    I think I already made clear that it is not interesting this question until we come to the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's all empty talk.

    Well, this is a controversial statement to make -- in the interests and spirit of socialist-type *planning* it's much better to have as many particulars of our approach to be *detailed* as much as possible, *before* actual events take place. I consider the above content to be a *proposal*, well in-advance of conditions that may be looking for such a type of framework for a proletarian political economy.
    It's interesting, but Marxism has nothing to do.

    This is what conditions? Did not have to wait. These conditions have long been ripe, ripened. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, it hurts us, it is dangerous for us. Opportunists and Compromisers of all stripes making this up: we have to wait, it's not time yet, let's talk about the LGBT community. Right now in the mine "Mir" in Yakutia are dying because of an accident that occurred because of the greed of the owners of the mine. We will wait for conditions? Another 100 years to wait? I apologize for being rude, but I hate to hear that.
  17. The Following User Says Thank You to AngryDwarf For This Useful Post:


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