/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

There is none because Marx decisively made sure to never leave a direct manifesto on what to do, it should be noted however he derided labor notes, value hours, and a bunch more stuff, how much of this was just critique or openly disownment is questionable, so you can vaguely estimate what Marx wanted, but he wouldn't care for it either, Marx like Nietzsche was about the process and less about any end goal because end goals are utopian in of themselves.

I'm not a communist anymore, all I know is that marxism is objectively the best ideology, more than that I don't care about le revolution that will come when I'm dead or too old to give a fuck.

>>2573868
>What even is the endgoal that we want ?
It's when no iphone

>>2573868
Welfare state with strong man leader, proletarian wage labor and red flag.

>>2573868
1. Steps that fit our current stage of development

Right now the productive forces operate inside a market driven mode of production. This is the reality of our material conditions. Yet we can expand worker control through cooperatives and state owned firms competing on the same markets without any utopian great leap forward beyond material conditions that currently exist. The focus should be on clear, immediate gains for workers rather than arguments about distant future goals.

2. Steps that become possible as productive forces grow

As automation, data systems and planning tools advance, society can move toward more coordinated resource allocation. Labour time accounting and voucher systems become feasible once a substantial part of production is socialised through cooperative and state monopolies. These mechanisms cut wasteful competition and enable long term planning while still preserving responsibility and incentives through labour based accounting. This is an achievable intermediate stage even with current technology. Debates on full scale planning should remain secondary while communists should emphasise the first step and its direct benefits for workers.

3. Goals for a future only possible with abundant productive forces

We have to be honest that a money free and stateless society is not currently possible but it still remains a desirable long term goal that we can hope to reach as productive forces grow. Such goals would require near post-scarcity economical resources and nearly fully automated economic structure. Until then transitional forms such as labour vouchers and a minimalist state remain necessary. These long term aims should be clear to communists, but kept outside discuorse with workers. What matters now is demonstrating how the first practical steps increase worker control, security and most importantly living standards.

>The biggest rebutal I see in the eyes of the average person to "socialism" and "communism" is that it's utopic, that it relies on bad assumptions, that it doesn't work in reality etc. In essence, that we're advocating for something that can't be and that we have no alternative to capitalism.
In my personnal experience the best antidote to this is just telling the person all about the history of infighting during the 1st international and all the shittalking Marx and Engels did against utopians. Marx making fun of Nechayev and Barracks communism is always a good one for when someone who thinks socialism is when you have a group toothbrush. If they think socialism is when the government does stuff just explain the whole lasalle beef. Just acknowledge that utopian socialism is actually a thing(for burgers you can even point out how actually existing utopian socialism has and still somewhat exists in their countryside) and than show them Marx and Engels endlessly shittalking it.

>>2575745
>just explain the whole lasalle beef
Lasalle was for worker cooperatives not a statist version of socialism. What makes him utopian is his childish view on the semifeudal Prussian state. Lassalle actually thought that Prussian aristocracy would help him to create this utopia if you asked them nicely enough because they were gentlemen with high morals.

Meanwhile Marx mocked him and wrote that bourgeoisie would never let go of their private property without bloodshed due to dialectical materialism and class struggle.

>>2575778
marx wasnt a "dialectical materialist"

>>2575780
Historical materialism whatever. The point is that class antagonism is real phenomena where the collective classes have differing material interests.

>another fucking idiots thread on leftypol

yep business as usual

>>2575788
Yes we know its the real movement that changes present things quote.

>>2575794
No. There needs to be more than just endless critique of present things. Workers crave for alternatives and we are currently failing to provide them this.

the endgoal of communism is the government controlling everything

Abolishing private property can be done at first, in production of commodities called necessary/essential. Food, appartment, etc. Which will eliminate poverty, reduce work day, allowing you to study something that is not just your profession. etc.

>>2575783
That was already observed by pre-Marxian economists. Marx's contribution is the theory of the proletarian dictatorship, what actually should be our goal.
>>2573868
>Apart from small intellectuals scattered everywhere (Cockshott, Schweickart etc), there seems to be an evident lack of clear model that actually adresses the critique of marx's ambitions and dismisses its apparent utopianism.
Have you read The Civil War in France? It's pretty clear what Marx thinks should be our immediate steps if we seize state power.

>>2575798
Wrong. The end goal is abolition of system of exploitation and to eliminate all exploiter classes

>>2575787
>>2575788
>bro you just don't understand we just need to go forward
>towards what ?
>no don't worry, just go forward

Unless you're an accelerationnist, you need to go towards something. You know this, right ?

>>2573868
Again, I will post this for anyone who is confused about what communism and communists are according to scientific socialism:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
[…]
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
[…]
<The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
[…]
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now I will go to the explanation of the economy in communism in its lower stage so you can understand better:

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

I'll leave you with a quote from Engels to help you:

<With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history, pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

<Frederick Engels, 1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Chapter III: Historical Materialism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Here you can see the need to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialize the economy and plan collectively with a national plan, abolish private property so that there is only public property and cooperative collective property that does not compete with each other, with an exclusive relationship with the state, with personal property existing in the relationship of use and not in the sale and purchase that exists in private property in a capitalist society. The anarchy of production and social classes are abolished for the planning of the economy for the needs of the workers. The withering of the state depends on other future factors, other contradictions in society that need to be resolved, having global socialist hegemony and some level of abundance in production in a socialist society.

Society is ever-changing. There is no "end goal", only a directive. What is that directive?
>abolition of private property, abolition of capitalism, abolition of alienation

From my comment in another thread, sorry if I shouldn't copy paste but cbf typing again

"For a long time, I've wanted to write a piece on the potential of a social networking platform as the facilitator of voluntary collective labour coordination.

From everyday communication, to house parties, and large scale mass mobilisations, it is clear the internet has revolutionized relations. Why not extend it to organizing production?

Of course tankies prefer to fantasize about political power, but why in general do communists never actually talk about how to organize production in a communist world."

>>2577608
Because its math heavy. You have to start from linear regressions.
The best planners would probably bd quantitative analysts in my opinion and they have no interest in communism.

>>2577658
You are right in that sense but I am talking about something different. I'm talking about the real world mechanics of the relations of production, not the math or accounting etc side.

In capitalism, to produce goods, you have real world social relations. People get hired by companies and work at private companies who extract surplus labour through wage labour.

How do people come together to produce a good under hypothetical communism? This is never talked about. All we have seen is nationalization of industry and different uses of the surplus labour, this is all within the capitalist productive formula.

What I propose is using some sort of social network to organize activities of labour, similar to how a protest is planned and executed. Of course geared towards production. This bypasses private property, wage labour, money, making capital redundant, not just trying to morph it into something more favourable to the proletariat.

Of course it requires a lot of thinking on how to create such a network so that it remains this way, but the core is public voluntary collective labour projects organized via the network. Seizing the means of production to put them into the social ownership of the network is another question, but it can always start small. The main part is that we would have an alternative MODE of production. Then the math nerds can come in and optimize it.

>>2577702
Parecon talks about workplace management
https://youtu.be/cj_sL9bK6IE
Bug if you ask me were getting pretty close to automated luxury communism either way with robots and all.
Id say it might be 10 to 20 years away but could be sped up big time with some old fashioned state capitalism.

>>2577702
I already answered how socialist society is organized by citing Critique of the Gotha Programme for you. Communism in its highest stage requires a level of abundance to have been acquired by society, the contradictions between countryside and city and the contradictions between manual and skilled mental labor to be resolved, and global socialist hegemony to be achieved. Only then can the state begin to wither away, as Engels puts it:

<By increasingly transforming the great majority of the population into proletarians, the capitalist mode of production creates the force which, under penalty of its own destruction, is compelled to accomplish this revolution. By increasingly driving towards the transformation of the vast socialized means of production into state property, it itself points the way to the accomplishment of this revolution. The proletariat seizes state power and to begin with transforms the means of production into state property. But it thus puts an end to itself as proletariat, it thus puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, and thus also to the state as state. Moving in class antagonisms, society up to now had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, that is, particularly for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, villeinage or serfdom, wage-labour) given by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of the whole of society, its concentration in a visible body, but it was so only in so far as it was the state of that class which in its time represented the whole of society: in antiquity, the state of the slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the feudal nobility, in our time, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877, Part III: Socialism, II. Theoretical

http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/AD78.html#p3s2

Read what I posted here:
>>2576132

>>2577749
I’ve read Critique of the Gotha Programme, none of it actually answers the question I’m asking. Quoting Engels about the end state of communism doesn’t explain the mechanism of how labour is coordinated once wage labour is abolished.

Marx and Engels talk about classes disappearing, the state withering away, and “administration of things.” Fine. But what is the concrete social form through which people actually come together to produce goods?

In capitalism the mechanism is obvious, the firm coordinates labour through wage relations enforced by private ownership.

In socialism (as historically practiced) the mechanism was also obvious, the state coordinates labour through hierarchical management, basically reproducing the firm in nationalized form.

None of this touches the real issue

"What replaces the capitalist firm as the basic unit of labour coordination?"
What actual social process brings people together to produce goods without wages or private property?
Saying “abundance will resolve contradictions” or “the state will eventually wither away” does not answer this.

My point is precisely that communists almost never discuss the real-world relation of production beyond ownership. I’m proposing that modern networked communication already shows how large groups self-organize (protests, mutual aid, open-source software). That’s a potential embryonic form of non-capitalist labour coordination.

This isn’t about ideal abundance or a distant “higher phase.”
It’s about the transition, the creation of a concrete social mechanism today that can actually coordinate labour differently than capital.

If the only answer is “the state takes over the means of production,” then we’re just talking about a different manager of the same productive form, not a new mode of production.

So I’m asking again in a precise way

What is the actual social relation of production under communism?
Not in the end state, but in practice, as a lived mode of coordination?

If there’s a serious answer beyond “the state does it until the state dissolves,” I’d genuinely like to hear it.

>>2577766
The socialization of the means of production is not the same as state ownership to be bought and sold. There is no industrial reserve of unemployed because employment is guaranteed as a right in a socialist society; there is no production of goods to sell on the market and extract surplus value as profit with private property abolished; transportation, education, health, housing, means of communication, industry belong to the whole society; society's social responsibility for the care of the elderly and children does not allow the transfer of costs to another person. Workers in a socialist society receive the means of consumption after deductions for the total work done, receiving from public stocks for the socially necessary labor time; there is no way to accumulate capital with the abolition of private property, anarchy of production, and social classes. The state will wither away as an entity separate from society, but the administration of things will still exist, and because the workers are disciplined in collectively organizing popular councils, with a greater surplus produced in the means of production, there will be organization of each according to their ability, each according to their need, instead of each according to their work, due to this abundance.
There is no problem with what I posted, and you seem to be concerned about something that has already been answered. Cooperatives that do not compete with each other in an exclusive relationship with the socialist state are also acceptable, but it would be better if the cooperatives belonged to the whole society as public property.

Perhaps if you read Marx and Engels' programs you will understand what I am writing:

<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
<9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
<10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

<(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

<(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

<(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

<(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

<(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

<(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

<(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

<(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>>2573868
>Shouldn't we
who? by the way, the fact that you are asking for some utopian blueprint (on the internet) kind of proves your critics right, you are mentally retarded and you shouldn't engage with politics. marxism is not utopian, there is no universal strategy

>concentrate on clear objectives and goals
most socialist do have those

>before having all this talk about how marxism-leninism-maoism-gonzalo thought is superior to cybernetic-trotskism-councilism in achieving [we run into the problem here]?
not a thing outside the internet. you think the left is like this because the internet is your only contact with politics (and you are too dumb to understand that online discussion is just words)

>can't actually base our objectives around these vagues goals though
yes you can. as a matter of fact, that's the only way to structure an international movement because the specifics are subjected to the local conditions of local parties. it would be stupid and counter-productive to ask socialist in namibia to adopt exactly the same program as the socialists in france, and vice-versa. use your brain for 2 seconds. any internet discussion has to, necessarily, be around the more abstract and long-term objectives because nobody cares what a guy in country A has to say about the strategies that should be adopted in country B (that he has never been to, doesn't speak the language, etc.)

>Marx laid us many goals
no he didn't. any "goal" he observed was, at most, a review of the already existing socialist agendas of his time, in the european context

>there seems to be an evident lack of clear model
because your country either doesn't have a communist party, or if it does, you are completely disconnected from it, to the point you are asking the most basic stuff here instead of looking up what they have to say, and the concrete strategy they have adopted (what do they do?)

>>2577608
>>2577702
>why aren't communist parties discussing fiverr but with labor vouchers?
your idea is bad and retarded
but that aside, most parties struggle to unionize places. you are asking why aren't scientists discussing how to build fusion reactors in mars, when they can barely sustain fusion for a few minutes here on earth

>>2577835
Labour vouchers are for retards of course I don't mean that

>>2577801
You are dancing around the question. Concretely, how will a person involve himself in production? What social relations, are involved in the organisation and process of production?

I like Marx and Engels of course, but what you are doing is saying what attributes could describe communism. Like saying capitalism is exploitive, highly corrupt etc.
How does production actually happen? Under capitalism it is private property, wage labourers produce goods to exchange on the market for which they are reimbursed their own cost of reproduction.

>>2577836
>>2577841
chatbot or zero reading comprehension?

>>2577843
Wants to discuss actual social relations of communism productive organization and not just basic principles, must be bot.

God you are worse than reddiors

WTF is that first reply.
>>2573875
>Marx decisively made sure to never leave a direct manifesto on what to do, it should be noted however he derided labor notes
Marx and Engels literally wrote the Communist Manifesto (with ten points (quoted by >>2577801) and they were tentatively in favor of labor notes, as can be inferred from Critique of the Gotha Programme (quoted by >>2576132) as well as a few other comments ("no more “money” than a ticket" - Volume I "These vouchers are not money" - Volume II).

>>2577864
And then Marx critiqued the concept later.
This is why most people don't like the Manifesto as much. He and Engels put down the starting blocks of the road to communism, he did not state the ENDGOAL which OP asked for.

>>2577826
>most socialist do have those
They don't retard. Show me one example of a major socialist/communist party that has clear goals by which they would resolve contradictions without falling further into other ones.

>not a thing outside the internet. you
It is very much a thing dumbass. Do you think that all the splintering doesn't mean anything ?

>yes you can. as a matter of fact
Is that why almost every socialist movement/organisation has failed anon? Perhaps there is something that was common in many of these (hint: might have to do with the fact that their models didn't work as intended ;] )

>no he didn't
Did you read the manifesto ? Do you know anything about what Marx did ? fucking dumbfuck

>because your country either doesn't have a communist party
Sure bro, France totally doesn't have one of the historically pro-eminent communist parties.

>>2577801
>>2577749
>>2576132
These texts fall exactly in what I called "vague goals". Each country will have specific and different paths, but a goal implies a concrete system at some point.
The problem, in other words, is that there is no actual alternative proposed. We know the contradictions, we know what must be done in terms of long-term achievements, we know how to organize, but we don't know what to do.
For instance, let's say we abolish private property, distribute it amongst the workers whilst keeping an actual state control. What does it look like ? What does it imply for the worker ? How do we manage to keep it working over time etc.

You can't just base yourself on the manifesto without falling into meaningless actions and reforms here and there.

>>2576132
>>2577749
>>2577801
>>2577826
In other words, how do you take the different goals as criterias, whilst also not delving further into contradictions.

It's a bit of game theory somewhat. You can't just abolish private property because you have at some point to replace its capitalist mechanism with a new one.
This isn't contingent on local variations btw. How we do it is, but at some point there needs to be a new organization that supplants the capitalist one.

To give an example. Capitalism has private property. Whilst its management to allow for such property to exist varies, it always possesses certain characteristics that have to exist to guarantee some form of private property and commodity production : legalization of said-property, presence of trading hubs/exchange, presence of a wealth-owning class etc. Without these, private property can't exist. Thus, despite having an abstract goal (private property), and different local iterations (saudi arabia is capitalist but much different than Germany), there still remains a core which enables this type of property to exist.
We as socialist/marxists don't actually have one.

>>2579314
>And then Marx critiqued the concept later.
No, what he critiqued was the specific combo of labor notes with decentralized decisions in co-operatives. Capital was later than that. And CotGP is one of the last things he ever textiqued, so you failuriqued to get the order of events right.

>>2580571
Finally someone willing to comment that doesn't just reference vague statements about the development of productive forces and the withering of the state.
Interested in your perspective about potential future organisational methods? What do you think of a social network as a sort of hub for direct voluntary organisation of labour. Instead of wages and or private property, just straight suggestion and coordination if people are interested, if not, like a shit meme it goes unnoticed.
I know it can sound a bit retarded at first, but just look at events today, parties, huge protests that have legitimately destabilized governments (Arab spring), all prove the power of social networks in mass mobilization of voluntary energy. If it could translate to production of goods, it becomes real interesting.

>>2580554
negation is not an argument
you say you are from france, all the big socialist parties there seem to have pretty clear and concrete objectives. you are quite literally nonsensical

>>2577845
>Wants to discuss
a blueprint for your ideal falanstere and fiverr with labor vouchers
when you can't organize a union and have little to no contact with actual politics
you are what marx stood against, and you have the brain of a child. you completely missed the point I was making because you are too dumb to talk about this stuff. no everyone can talk about socialism just like how not everyone can do math or whistle

<inb4 abolition of private property, abolition of capitalism, abolition of alienation
>We can't actually base our objectives around these vagues goals though, or at least not at the current time and at the forefront. Abolition of private property doesn't mean anything if there's no framework to offer an alternative or to replace it. Marx laid us many goals but, given that he didn't specify what or how, shouldn't it be up to us to conceptualize the type of system which we want in accordance with the relevant theories he proposed.
We can and it has been done in the past. Revolutionary Spain and anarcho syndicalism provide the frame and goals on which this can be achieved. It just sounds like you have not read much theory.

>>2580585
The endgoal can be found in science fiction such as startrek or irobot where people have nanobots erect vertical farms in martian soil with fusion reactors and meteor minerals.

>>2580663
Shut up retard, you are too dumb to do anything but circlejerk theories 200 years old. Unions and the workers party ain't gonna achieve shit. Have you actually engaged with the world today outside your computer? This nonsense will never gain any traction in the West again.
And also, id kill myself before I ever suggested anything to do with labour vouchers.

>>2580766
Revolutionary Spain was a mess though. The anarchists refused to seize state power and ended up propping up the liberal republicans. And the attempt at post-capitalist social relations was an incoherent hodgepodge of local systems which barely worked and had to be superseded by an abortive attempt at central planning.

>>2580651
They don't though. They propose many reforms but they fundamentally don't have a way to coordinate labor whilst simultaneously negating private property.

>>2580588
>What do you think of a social network as a sort of hub for direct voluntary organisation of labour
That's a bit like parecon. Imo it could work but it's highly idealistic if it aims to suppress the bulk of production.
I could see it however in a socialist or post-capitalist setting progressively supplanting small services

>>2581203
>Imo it could work but it's highly idealistic if it aims to suppress the bulk of production.
>I could see it however in a socialist or post-capitalist setting progressively supplanting small services
Yeah, of course, it would be impossible to supplant the bulk of production instantaneously. But it is something that could as you say progressively supplant services, and work in conjunction with state seizure. As an alternative economic model it does have possibilities, and could constitute the slow withering of state control of industry.
Something I haven't seen proposed from people purely interested in taking control of the political apparatus. Both are required.

>>2581119
This nonsense is playing out with ubi and job loss due soyence and technology

>>2573868
A society where classes have been smashef, the state been demolished and the money burned, where the workers manage the means of production and where resources are allocated through central planning from one's abilities according to one's needs.

>>2573868
This thread is a great place to repost my very relevant Effort post about the “Aesthetics of Communism” from my thread of the same title https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/2545468.html , ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

This Effort Post will describe what exact superstructural changes will occur in the aftermath of a Global Maoist Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution once the Material Base has been transformed after the Socialist Mode of Production has been established Worldwide. Enjoy Comrades, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

I will present a thought experiment, what will the World look like a century from now, decades after the World Maoist Protracted People's War (PPW) swept the forces of Capital and Reaction into the dustpan of History in the aftermath of World War III (it started in the Late 2020s as a High-Intensity Conventional Conflict between the U$ and China that escalated into a Global Nuclear War, but contrary to most Pseudoscientific Bourgeois Liberal and Revisionist expectations did not cause an apocalyptic "Nuclear Winter", but instead completely destroyed the entire Global Capitalist-Imperialist System and allowed for a World Maoist PPW that saw Maoist rebels seize control of the entire planet after decades of guerrilla warfare), 🤔? This Effort post will seek to answer that question, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

First, I will explain the political structure of this future Socialist world. There will be a Global USSR, in which every major Nation/Ethnic group will receive their own SSR or ASSR according to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principle of Self-Determination of all Oppressed Nations in their own SSR (as articulated in Stalin’s “Marxism and the National Question” https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm and Lenin’s “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm , along with the National Delimitation Policy of the USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_delimitation_in_the_Soviet_Union ), including New Afrika, Aztlan (in a Hispano-American SFSR that includes all the Spanish-speaking Multiracial regions of the Americas), the First Nations, Azawad (in a Berber SSR), Oromia, Afaria, Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland, Wales, Sapmi, Palestine (in a Arab SFSR that includes all the Arab majority regions of West Asia and North Africa), Kurdistan, Circassia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Arabistan (in a Arab SFSR that includes all the Arab majority regions of West Asia and North Africa), Balochistan, East Turkestan/Uyghuristan, Tibet, Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh, Manipur, West Papua, Aboriginal Australia, Hawaii, and many others as shown in the Map of all the SSRs and SFSRs of the future Global USSR I posted. Obviously, this Global USSR will have a Socialist Mode of Production (Centrally Planned Socialist Economy) and Dictatorship of the Proletariat (One-Party Marxist-Leninist-Maoist State). This Centrally Planned Socialist Economy is characterized by State ownership of all companies, a State Planning Agency, the outlawing of Stock Exchanges, and a massive Social Safety Net consisting of Free Housing, Free Healthcare, Free Education, a Job Guarantee, and a Universal Basic Income, along with a long-term effort to Automate the entire Economy (hence the need for Universal Basic Income) on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

The first great Superstructural transformation brought by the Global Maoist Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the final destruction of that great “Opiate of the Masses” that had been used by all the ruling Classes of every previous Mode of Production to neuter the oppressed Classes, Religion. This was done by sending the International Red Guards to bulldoze/burn down all Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Temples/Pagodas worldwide and arrest all Priests/Ministers/Monks/Nuns/Imams/Rabbis and force them to March through the streets wearing Dunce Caps on their way to the re-education camps where they were re-educated to embrace the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (This also happened to all Fascists, Liberals, and Revisionists as well), ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

Another key aspect of this Superstructural transformation was seen in the dramatic transformation of Urban planning that was carried out by the Global USSR. This process was made easier by the aftermath of World War III (especially the Nuclear Exchange) and the subsequent World Maoist PPW that left most cities as smoldering ruins and thus in desperate need of rebuilding. The new “People’s cities” were built to be as efficient, environmentally friendly, and high-density as possible, with the entire population living in high-density Concrete Commie Bloc Apartment buildings, and all Suburban McMansions/“Single-Family Homes” bulldozed and left to be reclaimed by nature (most had already been destroyed anyway). At the center of every major city is a single massive Skyscraper that contains all the administrative agencies of the various SSRs/ASSRs, including the local CPSU headquarters. Additionally, these cities have been designed to be as walkable as possible (this, combined with the Worldwide ban of all GMOs, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Preservatives, excessive Sodium, and Trans Fats, ended the Global Obesity epidemic that was already reduced significantly by the decades of Conventional and Nuclear Warfare), with all Automobile ownership outlawed, and most transportation carried out by Fully Automated Mass Rail Transit (ie. Subways, Streetcars, Bullet trains, etc.) powered by Electricity from exclusively renewable sources (ie. Wind, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear, Geothermal, etc.), thus ending Global Warming (The Global Nuclear War already helped this, by thinning the World population and reducing temperatures with the mild fallout). All Rural populations employed in agriculture live in Collective Farms until this sector can be completely Automated and they can be moved to the Cities, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

Finally, the Superstructural changes that resulted from the necessary Global Maoist Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution included dramatic changes in the nature of Sexuality, Gender Roles, and Personal Expression. In order to flatten the Socially Constructed Reactionary Gender Binary, all Women are forced to have extremely short hair (Pixie cut or shorter, with a Shaved head being the most Historically Progressive), and Dresses and Makeup were banned in order to liberate Women from the chains of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity, while all Western Business Suits and Traditional Religious Clothing were banned as well with everyone wearing Mandatory Mao Suits. Interestingly, their has been a noticeable decline in Transgenders in the aftermath of the Global Destruction of Bourgeois Femininity/Domesticity, though Sex Changes are still Free and Legal to anyone who wants one. The nature of Sexuality has changed dramatically with the elimination of the Reactionary emphasis on Reproduction, considering that that are now Artificial wombs, in order to finally free women from the oppressive nature of child birth. Homosexuality is obviously completely Legal and totally accepted, with the caveat that the institution of Marriage (both Homosexual and Heterosexual) has been completely phased out as a relic of Reactionary culture in favor of much looser sexual relationships between consenting adults. Finally, all Drugs have been legalized for recreational purposes, in order to simultaneously end the discriminatory Racist and Classist nature of the Global War on Drugs waged by the Old Reactionary Bourgeois order, and unleash the creativity of the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World as they travel on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!