• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Communist revolution has nothing to do with the level of industrialization. Cooperatives would not be taking over as the dominant form of labour organization as long as a country is ruled by the capital owning class because that wouldn’t be in the interest of the capital owning class. If capitalists were willing to give up their wealth and power without a struggle than revolutions wouldn’t be needed in the first place. It’s kind amazing that you don’t understand this basic fact.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

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

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

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

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

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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