• trailing9
    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 ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      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
        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 ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do cooperatives need a management layer? Does communism need management?

              • trailing9
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The other text mentioned the state machine. Do communists distinguish between the necessities of that state machine and the capitalist class’ dictatorship? The repressive capitalist state, how much is it just a consequence of the authority of the state machine?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, communists distinguish between the state machine and the class who holds power. The problem communists have with the capitalist state is that it’s built by the capital owning class in its own interests. Communists think that the working class has to build its own state machine that serves the interests of the workers.

                  Once again, if you actually study history, you will see that state style organization arises regardless of the political system, and societies that use this sort of organization outcompete those that don’t. Communists aren’t uptopians, we want tangible and practical improvements in the realm of the possible.

              • trailing9
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The difference to regular businesses is that management as a class doesn’t require higher compensation. Similarly, the owners of the cooperative don’t want to be compensated when they don’t want to be part of the capitalist class.

                This, together with the members being motivated workers, gives cooperatives room to compete with regular businesses.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I understand how cooperatives work, the point you continue to ignore is that none of what you say is seen working in practice despite over a century of people trying to compete with traditional business model under capitalism. Cooperative organization would work perfectly fine after the capitalist system is overthrown however.

          • trailing9
            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 ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              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.

              • trailing9
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thanks for the high quality references.

                The article here nicely stresses that there is only one way to communism and that there can even ony be one party. That’s true in theory, but a single party can make a mistake in implementing communism so that it would be a valid option to have various parties each representing one approach to communism among which the population has to choose.

                Likewise I think that requiring the destruction of state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is a nice theory but in reality, everybody in the state administration is proletarian, if we identify everybody but the billionaires as proletarian. Otherwise, the state would collapse because nobody with an education would be able to participate in the administration.

                You argue that there were successful communist revolutions. But those were only starting to implement communism since there hasn’t been a place with communism yet.

                My point of view is that there is no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to create a place for communist relations. A cooperative can be such a place. Instead of having to wait for a revolution, communist and socialists could live in the reality of their preferred relations right now.

                Thus it doesn’t matter how many times people failed. People constantly start small businesses. Communists must have the resources to do that, too. Run a restaurant as a cooperative and expand it. This creates the resources to create more advanced cooperatives. Without going full oppressive, the capitalist class cannot do much to prevent such a cooperative.

                The problems that will arise will show the real problems of communism. Without an army to suppress dissidents, a cooperative has to deal with those problems. To me, that’s a better way to figure out communism than to wait for a revolution.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The article here nicely stresses that there is only one way to communism and that there can even ony be one party. That’s true in theory, but a single party can make a mistake in implementing communism so that it would be a valid option to have various parties each representing one approach to communism among which the population has to choose.

                  Having a single party simply means that society has decided on a political system they want which is communism. Plenty of debate and change can happen within that scope. In fact, we can see this in practice with China where the political system proved to be far more flexible and adaptable than the multiparty systems seen in the west.

                  What actually happens with multi party systems is that they favor homeostasis. Since you have elections every few years, that becomes the horizon for doing large scale projects. Once a new party is voted in, they can abandon the project and change course. This makes it very difficult to make large scale changes and long term planning. This is why stuff like large scale infrastructure projects is effectively impossible to do in western countries.

                  Likewise I think that requiring the destruction of state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is a nice theory but in reality, everybody in the state administration is proletarian, if we identify everybody but the billionaires as proletarian. Otherwise, the state would collapse because nobody with an education would be able to participate in the administration.

                  A proletarian is any person whose primary source of income is their labour, so all skilled workers and administrators belong to the proletarian class. This is also not a hypothetical as you can look at how this works in practice in Cuba, Vietnam, or even China.

                  You argue that there were successful communist revolutions. But those were only starting to implement communism since there hasn’t been a place with communism yet.

                  What there have been as a result of revolutions is tangible improvement in the living conditions for the majority. Everywhere communist revolutions happened we’ve seen people get education, food, housing, jobs, and healthcare.

                  And frankly, communism isn’t going to be possible until capitalism is abolished as the dominant global system. It’s not as if these societies are allowed to develop peacefully towards communism. They are constantly under siege from the capitalist empire headed by the US. The blockade on Cuba is a perfect example of this.

                  My point of view is that there is no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to create a place for communist relations. A cooperative can be such a place. Instead of having to wait for a revolution, communist and socialists could live in the reality of their preferred relations right now.

                  You keep saying this, and the elephant in the room continues to be that no evidence of this has been seen in over a century of people trying. So, unless you have something dramatically new to add here that hasn’t been tried before, there is no reason to think that this approach will work going forward based on prior experience.

                  Thus it doesn’t matter how many times people failed. People constantly start small businesses. Communists must have the resources to do that, too. Run a restaurant as a cooperative and expand it. This creates the resources to create more advanced cooperatives. Without going full oppressive, the capitalist class cannot do much to prevent such a cooperative.

                  It does matter how many times people failed, because doing the same thing over and over produces same results over and over. There are very clearly limits on how far cooperatives can expand, and we see what those limits are in practice. And if this model somehow did threaten the capitalist class then they will go full oppressive, as they have done in the past. You can look at how worker organization was violently put down in US in the 30s as an example.

                  The problems that will arise will show the real problems of communism. Without an army to suppress dissidents, a cooperative has to deal with those problems. To me, that’s a better way to figure out communism than to wait for a revolution.

                  And I simply don’t expect this to achieve much of anything based on looking at prior experience. I also don’t think people should wait for a revolution. What people should do is educate others and explain the fundamental problems with the capitalist system, why it’s heading into a crisis now, and what sort of system should replace it.

                  As I’ve mentioned before, people don’t try to make violent revolutions happen as their first choice of finding a resolution, it’s the last resort measure that people end up arriving at because the class that holds power does not allow for any peaceful resolution.

                  We end up with revolutions, as class contradictions sharpen within society. More and more people start demanding change as they see their standards of living erode, and the ruling class inevitably resorts to increased repression. At that point, the revolution becomes the only path towards resolution of these contradictions.

                  • trailing9
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The standard of living erodes in the West because resources are starting to be shared globally. A communist revolution would have even less resources unless there is a willingness to continue exploitation.

                    Even if the revolution comes and currently big cooperatives are bound to be destroyed, why not start a small cooperative restaurant now?