Worker control provides more of a balance of powers that a hierarchical economy provides under capitalism. It’s simply false to believe that two opposing forces result in more balance. Capitalism creates inequality through hierarchy, socialism creates equality through democracy.
While this may be the most feasible option in the modern day, we should not only stop increasing labor’s power to be equal with corporations, labor should exceed and surpass capital.
That is corruption, but the workplace would be nonetheless democratic, which would result in a more equal spread of wealth, and less ability for individuals to bribe government officials. Union leaders wouldn’t have supreme power, and would only be allowed to pursue what the majority of workers decided upon. While unions can be useful in organizing labor, the workers themselves should ultimately be delegated the decentralized power to run the workplace without oversight from a hierarchical organization.
While investors are often responsible for morally reprehensible acts, the very act of un-democratically extracting surplus labor value is unethical in and of itself. It denies the employee both sufficient representation in the business, and the full value of their labor. It results in inequality and allows for more corruption. Even if bosseses may not see what is wrong with their actions, and may be a pleasant character who is attached to their workers and businesses, their actions are fundamentally unjust, whether they see that or not.
no, not even when it was state capitalist did it even come close to mirroring the previous feudal society. Also, you treat the USSR’s nationalism as If its out of place, there has never been a socialist society without nationalism, even anarchist’s can’t escape it, as Orwell noted in anarchist spain.
Stop the ad homenim. He’s entirely right. Authoritarian socialism either always becomes capitalism with more state control or totalitarianism. The only forms of socialism have seen even remote success are Syndicalism and Social Democracy. Everything else has been a failure. Stop trying the same thing over again expecting different results, it gets you nowhere
So you haven’t read much Marxian material, at least that answers that question.
which variant, some forms are not socialist
….this alone exposes that you don’t know what socialism is.
Marxism Leninism is pretty shit, but im guessing the term ML is new to you.
Did I say I was an ML? A revolution by the way is an incredibly authoritarian act by default, you are forcing an entire society to convert to your ideology, this was true for both liberal revolutions, facist , anarchist and socialist ones.
Read enough to know that he’s an idiot for not putting any checks or balances in place. Marxism presents the world in a very black and white manner without taking the various nuances into account. I can get where he’s coming from but other socialist writers of the time had the brains to actually put checks and balances in place. Marx didn’t
Anarcho-syndicalism. Its pretty damn socialist if you ask me
[quote=“Goon_mog, post:44, topic:113386”]
….this alone exposes that you don’t know what socialism is. [/quote]
No, I most certainly do. Closest thing I could think of
Agreed, and actually no, its not, I’ve known about it for quite some time. And let’s not limit ourselves to ML. Maoism, whatever the hell Cambodia had, the list goes on. Authoritarian socialism has failed in every form it has taken. Its time to go back to the drawing board
You can do it without creating mass starvation and killing a massive chunk of the population. Athens did it, Rome did it, the UK did it…
Authoritarianism inherently breaks the NAP and thus infringes on the rights of others. It is unjustifiable no matter the context.
ahahaahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHA christ you havent read anything.
please demonstrate this
I will put it in a nutshell why you are wrong, Marx didnt design the ideology of communism, his theory PREDICTS its occurance, the idea of marx coming up with “checks and balances” is fucking ridiculous because hes not designing anything, hes not writing an ideology like that. His theory is literally the analysis of capital in the 19th century, and what he thinks will come after it, thats it. Dialectical Materialism, thats how I know you havent read his material because you havent a fucking clue on its basic’s like this.
Marx literally says capitalism will produce the conditions for a revolution, this revolution will overthrow liberal society along with capital, he then describes the transition from lower phases of communism to full communism. He gives a very bare set of characteristics that define communism, because no communist alive today even, let alone himself have any idea how a successful revolution’s society would actually look like beyond having these basic characteristics, being stateless, classless etc , primitive communism which is probably the “natural state” of man would be extremely different compared to this society.
Marxism is only an analysis of capitalism, and where we believe it will end up. Nothing more. dusts you off, come back when you learn more.
Markets have alot of problems with them that lead to degeneration back to capital, most notably capital accumulation. I remember when I was sympathetic to anarchism I ended up agreeing with marxist contemporaries that accepting markets is accepting a truncated socialism, at best.
Maoism is Marxism-leninism Mao ze dong thought, or shortened to MLM , or maoism.
Had nothing, murdering glasses wearers has nothing to do with any kind of socialist (its actually ironic because you are expected to read) , the man was a flip flopper who took the name opportunistically, and was also dealing with communist guerillas.
Are any on this list non ML? I mean if you copy what the USSR did, adapt it to your state, dont come back to me and then blame it entirely on the Marxian thought, majority of communists rejected the USSR as a workers state by the late 40s,
In almost all of the states that this shit occured, these were happening prior to their takeover, ive discussed this before,
Not a great example
the NAP is an anarchistic pipe dream, the very concept would require a state like entity to enforce to begin with.
So liberal revolutions where not justified, gotcha.
AuthSoc is the MoP in the hands of the state not the people nor the workers. Nobody gets to decide what they produce or how much. Nobody gets to determine anything about themselves, and it makes people slaves to the collective, so I’m gonna be one of those guys and call it not real Socialism.
Also, LibSocs can instate their system in a violent revolution, it’s just more likely that the leader of the revolution will just make himself Supreme Comrade or something. If LibSocs want to take the violent route, make the movement popular and make sure the leader is Like Washington or Karensky and not like Robespierre or Mao.