Communism: Discussion on practicalities

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Yes Syndicalism is distinct from Marxism, as is the Anarcho-Communism that I'm talking about, for that I like to Peter Kropotkin not Marx.

there was no such thing as Trade Union, or syndicate when Marx analysed capitalist

Trade Unions/ syndicate have been a way to counter the bourgeois class and force them to make concession. Which they did in order to assure their hegemony. So we can't say trade union/syndicalism is non-marxism

Are you suggesting syndicalism is just a tactic? That's so incorrect so as to be offensive. Syndicalism is an end of itself, certainly not just a minor difference in strategy. Also, FYI, the intellectual roots of syndicalism were laid by Bakunin, at about the same time as Marx developed his thought. Bakunin was also a strong critic of Marxism.

[Fauzjhia]

Most people like their private property more than "owning" a share of their work place. From govt they own a share of the road and the park. But they do not buy asphalt and fix the pot holes. Only some of them pick up dog doo or litter. It is "someone elses problem". Compare with how quickly they fix a hole in their own roof. People care for and protect their own property.

The only way to promote collective property to those people is if they never have to work again! "Fully-automated etc"

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

because state-ownership is worker ownership... sure.
libertarian communism only recognize personnally property, still arguing for the abolition of private property

I think this dinstinction take us away from the goal of communism, we want WORKER-ownership of the means of productions.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

I think he was mocking Communism

I suppose "owning a share of your workplace" refers to worker coops.

[Genivaria]

And I want to be clear I'm not talking about some love and peace idea where there will be no resistance or crackdowns, this is why I strongly belief that working class people should be armed and unions should encourage the training of firearms.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

because state-ownership is worker ownership... sure.
libertarian communism only recognize personnally property, still arguing for the abolition of private property

I think this dinstinction take us away from the goal of communism, we want WORKER-ownership of the means of productions.

Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I specifically said that how the state works is not like how worker coops work.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

And I want to be clear I'm not talking about some love and peace idea where there will be no resistance or crackdowns, this is why I strongly belief that working class people should be armed and unions should encourage the training of firearms.

I do believe in readiness, but one of the greatest appeals of the general strike to me is that it provides a plausible road to revolution with minimal bloodshed.

[Genivaria]

And I want to be clear I'm not talking about some love and peace idea where there will be no resistance or crackdowns, this is why I strongly belief that working class people should be armed and unions should encourage the training of firearms.

I do believe in readiness, but one of the greatest appeals of the general strike to me is that it provides a plausible road to revolution with minimal bloodshed.

Well said.

[Fauzjhia]

there was no such thing as Trade Union, or syndicate when Marx analysed capitalist

Trade Unions/ syndicate have been a way to counter the bourgeois class and force them to make concession. Which they did in order to assure their hegemony. So we can't say trade union/syndicalism is non-marxism

Are you suggesting syndicalism is just a tactic? That's so incorrect so as to be offensive. Syndicalism is an end of itself, certainly not just a minor difference in strategy. Also, FYI, the intellectual roots of syndicalism were laid by Bakunin, at about the same time as Marx developed his thought. Bakunin was also a strong critic of Marxism.

no, I am suggesting that Syndicalism is responsable for multiple gains the working classes, but that is also strengthened the hegemony, (the leadership) of the bourgeois class.
I recognize the progress the movement has made for workers in occidental country, but also criticize its downside. I'm not saying its just a tactic.

while I find the idea of a general strike as a way to lead a peaceful revolution, I believe that make the same mistake as Classical marxist, ignoring the concept of hegemony.
I believe it is more important to build a counter-hegemony then to organise a revolution against the bourgeois class.
we need a real general strike, not each trade union that fight for their own working condition, as this divide the working class and make the revolution impossible.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Are you suggesting syndicalism is just a tactic? That's so incorrect so as to be offensive. Syndicalism is an end of itself, certainly not just a minor difference in strategy. Also, FYI, the intellectual roots of syndicalism were laid by Bakunin, at about the same time as Marx developed his thought. Bakunin was also a strong critic of Marxism.

we need a real general strike, not each trade union that fight for their own working condition, as this divide the working class and make the revolution impossible.

The syndicalist IWW was the primary proponent of the One Big Union, against the AFL, so I don't see what you mean here. How has it strengthened the bourgeois?

[Duvniask]

Personally the path I as I envision it is creating unions at businesses via agitation, and through those unions we establish a network outside or workplaces that connect the community as a whole.
Once the community is connected we use Mutual Aid to alleviate social ills as well as bring more people on board.
Public shelter, community clinic, and soup kitchens will help to alleviate social ills directly instead of relying on money or charity.

Meanwhile, nothing in this political project of yours about challenging capital.

[Duvniask]

Yes Syndicalism is distinct from Marxism, as is the Anarcho-Communism that I'm talking about, for that I like to Peter Kropotkin not Marx.

there was no such thing as Trade Union, or syndicate when Marx analysed capitalist

Trade Unions/ syndicate have been a way to counter the bourgeois class and force them to make concession. Which they did in order to assure their hegemony. So we can't say trade union/syndicalism is non-marxism

What the fuck are you talking about? Trade unions were already around when Marx was born. This is just pure ignorance. He wrote about them plentifully.

[Fauzjhia]

we need a real general strike, not each trade union that fight for their own working condition, as this divide the working class and make the revolution impossible.

The syndicalist IWW was the primary proponent of the One Big Union, against the AFL, so I don't see what you mean here. How has it strengthened the bourgeois?

This is my though only

But I believe syndicalism has fail its goal, because each trade union move, and negotiate independently from each other, dividing the working class. The bourgeois did make concession on working hours, on salary, working condition, but by making those conditions, they were able to proof to the other classes that they should be the class who lead the others. Hence, these concessions had the effect of strenghening the leadership of the bourgeois class.
there is no such thing as a single big trade union, fighting to improve the working condition of all workers. There are multiple trade unions.
<

there was no such thing as Trade Union, or syndicate when Marx analysed capitalist

Trade Unions/ syndicate have been a way to counter the bourgeois class and force them to make concession. Which they did in order to assure their hegemony. So we can't say trade union/syndicalism is non-marxism

What the fuck are you talking about? Trade unions were already around when Marx was born. This is just pure ignorance. He wrote about them plentifully.

I'm sorry about that, my mistake. Well, truth, I'm being ignorant here.

[Punished UMN]

Communism, as a GOVERNMENTAL system, is fine minus the atheism and anti-conservatism. It's the end goal I'm concerned about.
But you're a troll so I don't know why I felt like stating that.

Well that's assuming you're talking about the Command Economy type system we saw in the Soviet Union, Communism in its purest form is a Classless, STATEless, and Moneyless economy.
The Soviet Union in theory was the intermediate stage to the above idea.

There's also the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't transitioning from Capitalism to Communism but from a monarchist system with limited representation to begin with, and while Feudalism no longer existed at this point the nobility still wielded a massive amount of influence.

I'm sure UMN could give more information on Tsarist Russia than I could.

Frankly I think the USA as it is now could far more easily transition to the communist ideal than Tsarist Russia could, especially with how much more industrialized the US is compared to Tsarist Russia.

Disagree, because the US is in such a late stage of capitalism that there isn't really anything there to salvage frankly. If communism were to happen in the US, what would the workers really own? Most of our economy is simply not self-sustaining and it would require a massive effort to reconfigure it into something that is even feasible in the long-term.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

The syndicalist IWW was the primary proponent of the One Big Union, against the AFL, so I don't see what you mean here. How has it strengthened the bourgeois?

This is my though only

But I believe syndicalism has fail its goal, because each trade union move, and negotiate independently from each other, dividing the working class. The bourgeois did make concession on working hours, on salary, working condition, but by making those conditions, they were able to proof to the other classes that they should be the class who lead the others. Hence, these concessions had the effect of strenghening the leadership of the bourgeois class.
there is no such thing as a single big trade union, fighting to improve the working condition of all workers. There are multiple trade unions.

Ok, for one, trade union!=syndicalist. Super condensed history of trade unions in US is IWW was syndicalist and revolutionary and AFL was not, AFL won, and later tacked on the CIO, becoming the modern AFL-CIO, which is basically an extension of the Democratic establishment by this point. Syndicalism hasn't ever been seriously tried, except for maybe Revolutionary Catalonia.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well that's assuming you're talking about the Command Economy type system we saw in the Soviet Union, Communism in its purest form is a Classless, STATEless, and Moneyless economy.
The Soviet Union in theory was the intermediate stage to the above idea.

There's also the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't transitioning from Capitalism to Communism but from a monarchist system with limited representation to begin with, and while Feudalism no longer existed at this point the nobility still wielded a massive amount of influence.

I'm sure UMN could give more information on Tsarist Russia than I could.

Frankly I think the USA as it is now could far more easily transition to the communist ideal than Tsarist Russia could, especially with how much more industrialized the US is compared to Tsarist Russia.

Disagree, because the US is in such a late stage of capitalism that there isn't really anything there to salvage frankly. If communism were to happen in the US, what would the workers really own? Most of our economy is simply not self-sustaining and it would require a massive effort to reconfigure it into something that is even feasible in the long-term.

The workers will seize the service and gig based economy!

[Fauzjhia]

This is my though only

But I believe syndicalism has fail its goal, because each trade union move, and negotiate independently from each other, dividing the working class. The bourgeois did make concession on working hours, on salary, working condition, but by making those conditions, they were able to proof to the other classes that they should be the class who lead the others. Hence, these concessions had the effect of strenghening the leadership of the bourgeois class.
there is no such thing as a single big trade union, fighting to improve the working condition of all workers. There are multiple trade unions.

Ok, for one, trade union!=syndicalist. Super condensed history of trade unions in US is IWW was syndicalist and revolutionary and AFL was not, AFL won, and later tacked on the CIO, becoming the modern AFL-CIO, which is basically an extension of the Democratic establishment by this point. Syndicalism hasn't ever been seriously tried, except for maybe Revolutionary Catalonia.

I see what are you trying to say, that syndicalism was not tried
and what I say is that the Trade Union have divided the working class.

its different words, but we are not speaking about different things, we are speaking about the same situation.
Edit : we don,t really have the same definition of syndicalism. but that's words, and its not important.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Ok, for one, trade union!=syndicalist. Super condensed history of trade unions in US is IWW was syndicalist and revolutionary and AFL was not, AFL won, and later tacked on the CIO, becoming the modern AFL-CIO, which is basically an extension of the Democratic establishment by this point. Syndicalism hasn't ever been seriously tried, except for maybe Revolutionary Catalonia.

I see what are you trying to say, that syndicalism was not tried
and what I say is that the Trade Union have divided the working class.

its different words, but we are not speaking about different things, we are speaking about the same situation.
Edit : we don,t really have the same definition of syndicalism. but that's words, and its not important.

It seems you aren't an English native speaker, and I know that in many languages, trade union is rendered as something similar to "syndicate." To make clear, in English, syndicalism is a specific ideology that advocates for an anti-capitalist revolution through trade unions leading to an economy organized around worker coops. It is only one of many versions of unionism, and these days, most unions are not syndicalist.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

Not require it at least. As now, to rise beyond mid class one must buy shares. No communist should approve such a thing.

Allow an opt out for workers and it will all fall apart. At least half will cash in right away. Most of the others will let a "professional" manage their shares. You re-build the class system, with different individuals at the top.

No opt-out, no share management. Maybe allow a year after leaving a job, to sell shares in the "co op" to other workers? Or lock workers into each workplace by tearing up their shares if they leave?

Shares? Being part of a worker coop does mean you have partial ownership, but its nontransferable. It has to be tied to the job. You can't just sell your share; you own the company in the sense that you have a right to vote and share in profits, but all that is ex officio of your position as a worker-owner. In worker coops, job advancement isn't really a thing since there is no management class, so there is no getting promoted up the management chain.

[Fauzjhia]

I see what are you trying to say, that syndicalism was not tried
and what I say is that the Trade Union have divided the working class.

its different words, but we are not speaking about different things, we are speaking about the same situation.
Edit : we don,t really have the same definition of syndicalism. but that's words, and its not important.

It seems you aren't an English native speaker, and I know that in many languages, trade union is rendered as something similar to "syndicate." To make clear, in English, syndicalism is a specific ideology that advocates for an anti-capitalist revolution through trade unions leading to an economy organized around worker coops. It is only one of many versions of unionism, and these days, most unions are not syndicalist.

My native language is French, I am a Québécois. And yes, in french, Syndicat mean trade union.
In my mind that's the very definition of a cooperative communist revolution
But sadly. I,m sure you recognize that trade unions, ended up dividing the working class, rather then unifying it. And by accepting Concession from the bourgeois class, the trade unions end up strenghening the leadership of the bourgeois class. you don't exactly support unionism. apologies for that confusion, I though syndicalism was refering to unionism, because trade union = syndicat in french, sorry, I missunderstood you, because of a bad traduction mistake.


Edit : specific ideology that advocates for an anti-capitalist revolution through trade unions leading to an economy organized around worker coops ..... I certainly support that idea.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

It seems you aren't an English native speaker, and I know that in many languages, trade union is rendered as something similar to "syndicate." To make clear, in English, syndicalism is a specific ideology that advocates for an anti-capitalist revolution through trade unions leading to an economy organized around worker coops. It is only one of many versions of unionism, and these days, most unions are not syndicalist.

My native language is French, I am a Québécois. And yes, in french, Syndicat mean trade union.
In my mind that's the very definition of a cooperative communist revolution
But sadly. I,m sure you recognize that trade unions, ended up dividing the working class, rather then unifying it. And by accepting Concession from the bourgeois class, the trade unions end up strenghening the leadership of the bourgeois class. you don't exactly support unionism. apologies for that confusion, I though syndicalism was refering to unionism, because trade union = syndicat in french.

As I said, there are many many different types of unionism. Off the top of my head, syndicalism, craft unionism and business unionism are three I can think of. I support syndicalism, which is one specific type. I disagree with many of the other types, and I do agree that how unionism has developed so far is disastrous.

I don't think we actually disagree here.

[Fatimida]

My native language is French, I am a Québécois.

I mean no offense, but why have you not put more effort into learning English during the 7 years you've been on here? Or in general, given the gradual replacement of Quebecois French with English?
edit: technically 6 years but July is around the corner so who cares

[Fauzjhia]

My native language is French, I am a Québécois.

I mean no offense, but why have you not put more effort into learning English during the 7 years you've been on here? Or in general, given the gradual replacement of Quebecois French with English?
edit: technically 6 years but July is around the corner so who cares

I have no comment on this,
there are many quebecois, who like me, feel french is vital part of their identity and will never stop using it,
also, this is not the main subject. can we get back to main topic, instead of speaking of my non-native english, because words do not have the same meaning in french or in english.

[Kubra]

My native language is French, I am a Québécois.

I mean no offense, but why have you not put more effort into learning English during the 7 years you've been on here? Or in general, given the gradual replacement of Quebecois French with English?
edit: technically 6 years but July is around the corner so who cares

his English is fine, man. How's your french, Anglo?

[Fatimida]

I mean no offense, but why have you not put more effort into learning English during the 7 years you've been on here? Or in general, given the gradual replacement of Quebecois French with English?
edit: technically 6 years but July is around the corner so who cares

his English is fine, man. How's your french, Anglo?

I never said it was bad and I'm not from an English-speaking country.

[Kubra]

his English is fine, man. How's your french, Anglo?

I never said it was bad and I'm not from an English-speaking country.

you asked him why he has "not put more effort into learning English", despite the fella speaking it at an autonomous level. Effort is pretty well clear there, man.