Kindly explain Communism

This one. What do these states have in common. No, not the coops. What allowed them? What are the demographics? Something is similar about them, or they wouldn't all be together on this.

 

We're trying to get to 'stateless', correct?

So the mechanism for making decisions would be direct democracy, or majority rules.....

which means what for the minority?

 

Oh. Got it.

These states passed their legislation over the last several years and I know of nothing that they share making them similar in any way. Here are links to the actual legislation of most of them. you might want to compare them.
http://democracyatworkpdx.freeforums.net/board/1/discuss-cooperative-law

 

Actually no. That communist stuff is all theory. Let's let the future take care of itself. Right now the work involves formation of WSDEs and advancing the support structures, state-by-state.

Are you familiar with Robert's Rules of Order?

 

Robert's Rules of Order is procedure, not the mechanism.

 

I disagree that the governance must change as much as you think.

I'd need an explanation to understand. As far as I know profits go the wealthy few who own the businesses and the government, who writes out a stipend(cash assistance), food stamps, a medicare card, and a social security account. Not much difference from what we have, except those getting rich.

You can't buy a house. You can't save for retirement. You can't create any of your own wealth. You can't buy a camp or a spot of land to park a trailer on. You can't own a gun, since you are protected by the state. You can't change anything by writing your Congressional representative. You don't need rights organizations, so there is no way to speak out about injustice that will happen in any society. You can't decide you don't like what you are doing for a living and you can't own your own business.

 

Then you want a Constitutional Republic with as few laws as possible. I think you should look into the Libertarian party.

Entitlements is what socialism is all about. Everything comes from the governing body. Nothing comes from the employer, until it goes to the government first. Or, they could take out what the government will pay yu and give you a direct deposit . Still, it's not like you negotiate a wage.

You'll have to look up what vices are. It will be easier to understand.

Why would the working class want to be controlled? We are the most controlled part of society. Are you saying only the less educated will be working under socialism? Maybe I misunderstand?

Today, most people would opt for having more freedom to practice vices they believe they have been forbidden to choose. They lack the knowledge to understand liberty. So, it's not a choice for them.

I have no clue what you mean by, you and I deciding what it would be.

 

Thanks, man.

 

You're thinking of existing systems, none of which grew from a few co-ops to a national system with a government that changed and adjusted to accommodate the changes in the economy. So you're talking about systems that are trying to impose socialism to a degree.

It makes a huge difference when the economy gradually grows and the politics gradually morph to meet the changing economic needs rather than trying to impose government programs on society and calling it "socialism".

I think you asked about my comment on a changed relationship. What I meant by that was that the relationship between those who run a business and those who work and produce for a business under capitalism is that of owner to employee. But under a socialist system, as we can see from the structure of worker co-ops, is that the relationship is identity: they are one and the same. The workers collectively run the business in every respect. Under capitalism, the workers have no say in what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits. That is the capitalist relationship between owner and employee. But under socialism, the workers collectively decide all of that.

And note that in Russia and China, the relationship didn't change for the worker. The running of businesses was always done by others. That fundamental and necessary change that characterizes socialism never happened.

 

Which proves that this is what the military industrial complex is all about - welfare for the rich. Small wonder why the far right loves them so much.

 

No thanks. They are capitalists and won't be able to solve the problems of capitalism either.

You keep referencing what "is", which would mean something other than socialist economies because none exist, and all that tried or are trying, as I said, consist of governments imposing their ideas on society. That is backward from what Marx advocated. He urged a socialist economy that would give rise to a new, supportive government, bit-by-bit, adapting as it goes.

Like alcohol, cigarettes, prostitutes, gambling?

You tell me. You're the one considering it. I think workers would much rather control.... -control their destiny, their stake in their work lives, their goals, their lives.

-under capitalism.

How do you get that out of this conversation??? We need engineers, accountants, physicists, chemists, etc. etc.

Times are changing.

It's the most fundamental aspect of socialism! You and I and all the workers of the businesses where we work will be the ones deciding everything about that business. That's what I said the structure of workers' co-ops is. There really is a surprising amount of information available on what is being done and how it works. I have about 50 links covering just about any aspect of WSDEs you can think of. So it's out there.

 

Existing systems? Not really. What I see from this post is below.

It's the natural progression toward communism. It doesn't work. There is always someone in charge. What will end up happening is, the poor will still be poor, but they will work. Economically they will have less, rather than more. Only an illegal business will help them. Many will form. My bet is, more than today.

The only difference in slow progress is, folks will be like lobsters in a pot of water on the stove. The end is the same as if it was quick.

The Scandinavian model allows business owners, the few there are, and economists to determine what to make. The government simply tells workers what they will be doing and for whom. No average worker tells any business what to do. They can make suggestions on how to do things more efficiently, but that's it.

 

Whatever, man. I think you are confused.

 

Personal attack noted. Thanks for your concession.

 

Is that how you would run it? Do you think your coworkers would? Forget communism! We can't plan or anticipate it! It's a waste of time and energy. Forget it.

You're predicting how your coworkers would "impose on you" and "keep you down". Do you really believe that? I don't. That is done today for private profits and under socialism private profits would eventually be outlawed. You're confusing the class nature of the capitalist with that of the worker. My advice: read up on Mondragon and co-ops in general.

Egad. You're really having trouble with grasping this.

You should see quickly and easily now that that is not socialism. It provides managers running the business and government assigning the workers to jobs. That doesn't change the fundamental relationship of worker to work. It is a form of state capitalism that you described. All that you omitted is the way profits are handled. I'll bet the workers have nothing to say about it. FACE IT: that is not socialism. It's a sham. It's state capitalism.

Are you an American? You seem to know more than most about Scandinavian economies.

 

I hear you. Okay.

Communism won't do that. You don't work for yourself. You work for all. Everyone is the same. No one wants anything because they all have everything, but that isn't true, because you can't give everyone a chalet. You can have one and then those with the greatest friends will get to use it. Regular folks can apply.

Underpaid, like under socialism or communism.

Has nothing to do with what I said. You said the working class. Define that term and include their relationship to the above, please.

Yes, and more will want freedom, not liberty.

Do you really think I am that stupid? That hurts, after all this discussion has occurred.

Alright, thank you. I'm tired of thinking about this. I'm fairly bored from it.

 

What personal attack? Is it not human to be confused? I've been plenty. Ask anyone who has followed my posts in this thread. Sheesh. Relax a little. I'm not after you.

 

@Kode, I'll look at that last one tomorrow. I need a break.

 

`
Democracies can be just as evil as communistic governments.
`

 

OK I'm not going to reply to anything about communism. It's a theory only.

Read up. Co-ops pay better then equivalent capitalist businesses. That's what you will find.

The working class sells their labor power. There is one other class in Marxian ideology, -the capitalist class. Anyone who is not a business owner or controller profiting from the business like the Board of Directors, is a worker. Engineers, accountants, physicists, chemists, all sell their labor to the capitalist; they work for him. That makes them of the working class. Beware the right. They like to pretend "working class" only refers to laborers.

Well then it will be very convenient under socialism that they are in charge and have control over all that.

Not at all, Chester. Again, realize I am talking about worker co-ops and increasing them, and growing them, over time. And in each one the structure is in place, due to Articles of Incorporation, for the workers of the enterprise to actually be in control. They hire and fire the CEO and the Board. They decide what to produce and how much to charge of the product. They decide what to do with the profits. These are facts today. This is what is happening. it's not a theory or a hope or expectation. It's reality. And I can understand how it can be difficult to switch gears to grasp it all when we've had a lifetime of the opposite, but it is real.

 

Good night.

 

Communism is a utopia supposed to be brought about by the application of socialism which results in an end to class divisions.

Read Animal Farm to find out why it goes wrong. The middle class intelligentsia allies with the masses in the working class to overthrow the upper class. Then, what used to be the middle class becomes the upper class, and everyone else is held down, but this time through force and ideological kool-aid drinking rather than voluntary association and the inequalities that entails. A cautionary tale about how power corrupts absolutely and the revolution is inevitably subverted.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship"

 

Gasp! Really? Although in reality you are talking about banana republics that get blindsided by a dictatorship in midstream. OR by ones that get blindsided by innately nation despising leftists who manage to initiate a Marxist/Socialist dream of theirs that inevitably turn out to be a ****-hole resulting Cuba or Venezuela.

 

The only reasons that Scandinavia gets away with it is two-fold; first, we absolutely guarantee their sovereignty with the existence of our military might, and North Sea oil supplies. Eliminate one or the other and Scandinavia couldn't 'afford' their socialistic pipe dream.

 

`
No. I'm talking about the US.
`