According to Communization Theory, what can communists actually do in terms of action. Is it actually like some users on here say, that communists and communist organizations can't even serve a supplementary role in the real movement? Is it really just sitting back and waiting for the proletariat to spontaneously rise up and then finally communists should get involved?
>>2935045>what can communists actually do in terms of actionVote. Mutual aid. Unionize. Protest. Universal healthcare. Jews of conscious. Black lives matter. Punch Nazis. Unequal exchange is a myth. The American Revolution was historically progressive. Nuke Iran.
>Is it really just sitting back and waiting for the proletariat to spontaneously rise up and then finally communists should get involved
That is what these people believe yes, that is why they're called armchairs
>What Can be Done According to Communization Theory?
Nothing. But isn't that the point?
>>2935045Train your local community to craft drones and explosives.
Can we stop having these shit threads?
>>2935234Just kill the website, it’s entirely pointless, a failed experiment
>>2935105>nuke IranYoure bringing up American talking points, I'm assuming you're American. I'm American too. Why should we nuke Iran? Thanks
Read the bible book of acts to know more!
>>2935753The weakness of communization theory is its incredibly vague and voluntaristic conception of communism. It should be plainly obvious over the past 150 years that while workers are capable of suspending capitalist relations via local revolts, they replace it with incredibly simplistic and localist means of distribution which cannot be scaled up into a regional or planetary economy.
It's the task of communists to articulate and impose a scalable model of communist production and distribution which can actually function as a future mode of production without repeating the stagist mistakes of the past.
>>2935796>without repeating the stagist mistakes of the pastWhich particular stagist mistakes?
>>2935797Either the various social-democratic developmental states, or systems of central planning which leave wages, alienated labor and the embryo of the value-form intact. History has shown that these 'socialist' forms do not lead to communism, and instead inevitably collapse back into capitalism based on the tides of the global market.
Pseu
>>2935797>Which particular stagist mistakes?Son
>>2935820Comunisationtheory is empty
>>2935802Read the principles of communism
<Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?<No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
<In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.And besides that, none of what you have brought up here has anything to do with stagism, which stipulates that capitalism must first be constructed before socialism can be constructed. I know with your dumb memebased buzzword saled talking about social democrats and systems of central planning you just mean marxist leninist states, so just say that. You don't have to hide behind this pseud pretention.
What alternative choices could these specific states and parties have made that would result in the immediate abolishment of wages alienated labor or commodity production? Explain without using voluntarism
>>2935820Name them without resorting to memes and buzzwords, I'll wait
>>2935796I don't think any communizer disagrees with this. In the first article I sent, it specifies how these communist measures must be generalized in order to survive and to be properly effective. We aren't proposing an Owenite "communism in one city".
>>2935861>What alternative choices could these specific states and parties have madewho cares? they dont exist anymore
>>2935898The point under question was about repeating "stagist" mistakes from the past dumbass
<Gilles Dauvé (French: [dove]; born 1947), also known as Jean Barrot, is a French writer and theorist associated with the ultra-left and the current of left communism. His work involves a synthesis of different traditions, primarily the German-Dutch Left (including council communism), the Italian Left (associated with Amadeo Bordiga), and the Situationist International. He is a central figure in the development of the theory of communization, which conceives of communist revolution not as the establishment of a transitional society but as the immediate abolition of capitalist social relations, including wage labour, exchange value, and the state.
did he reinvent anarchism
>>2936210Its crazy how trotsky was right about nearly everything that happened
>>2936223>doesn't that just make it a waiting game which depends too much on some predicted self-deterimination of the working class?Always has been, do you think the Bolsheviks caused the revolution to happen?
>>2936247>do you think the Bolsheviks caused the revolution to happen?October? Yes. February? No.
>>2936271The working class has the revolution well underway, the bolcheviks merely seized state power for them
What is communization theory?
>>2936303Thanks. I hate it already.
>>2936278seizing state power is the revolution
>>2936348Not for marxists or anarchists, as the state is merely the instrument of class domination, the tip of the spear might be able to take it but it needs the shaft to thrust behind, or it's just a coup, a color "revolution", and then there is nothing to hold or you revert back to doing the biding of the bourgeois. In truth the working class in Russia was really well organized and going so fast building power ("all power to the soviets!") the vanguard itself was sometimes left behind, the October bid by the bolcheviks was a just a moment - an important one mind you - of this worker revolution.
>>2935796>It's the task of communists to articulate and impose a scalable model of communist production and distribution which can actually function as a future mode of production without repeating the stagist mistakes of the past.Welcome back utopian socialism
>>2935861>What alternative choices could these specific states and parties have made that would result in the immediate abolishment of wages alienated labor or commodity production?Institute a system of labor-time accounting as articulated by the GIC, supported with modern information technology. Support it with workers' self-management and some form of political democracy for directing administration of social services.
>>2935894Some of the smarter ones would agree, but there's still those who would probably argue that having a unit of account or a division of labor is still 'capitalism.'
>>2936425>No one can have any idea of what communism is everAww yeah das it mane
>>2936434I'm not saying you can't have an
idea of what communism will look like, but whatever blueprints we are able to come up with today are going to be deficient. I'm also interested in this subject but you shouldn't work under the illusion that whatever you come up with can function as a MoP
>>2936208I'm just going to copy-paste my post from the Communization Theory vs Anarcho-Communism thread:
Many anarcho-communists see unions as a legitimate way to organize workers, while communizers see unions as a mediators who do not further the class struggle towards the enactment of communist measures and in fact see unions as obstacles that must be overcome during the social revolution.
Some anarcho-communists see bartering as a viable replacement to monetary exchange which communizers do not.
I've also seen someone make a distinction between commuzation and anarcho-communism by pointing out that anarcho-communists view the democratic self-regulation of factories by workers as one of the main components of communism; while communizers reject the notion that the workplace should stay as a separate enterprise, as they view such a thing as perpetuating capitalist social relations.
As some of the people in this thread have also pointed out, communization theory comes from a Marxist background, with many communizers using Marx's theoretical frameworks to analyze past and present capitalist society. Also, unlike anarchists, communizers do not view hierarchy itself as the ultimate object that should be opposed.
Someone else asked a similar question on reddit, so if you want to check that out the link to it is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1u6z1op/how_is_communization_different_to_anarchism/>>2936280Communization theory rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition stage towards communism, and sees communism itself as a means to combat capitalism; this will be done through "communist measures" (
https://www.sicjournal.org/communist-measures-2/index.html) which are communist social relations implemented within the areas under revolutionary control. These measures must be generalized across many regions and countries in order to survive.
test
>>2936217maybe
sniffmaybe
but what's the diff btwn dauve's critique of substitutionism and trotsky's critique of substitutionism
>>2936348>seizing state power is the revolution>>2936424<Not for marxists or anarchiststhen what is "revolution" according to them? because I always thought of it as the moment when the proletariat seizes the state and uses it to suppress the bourgeoisie, and establish proletarian class-dictatorship, and then enact changes that "gradually transform" (Engels!) society. I.e. you seize the state and do reforms that weren't possible under the previous class dictatorship because they were always sabotaged or blocked by the previous ruling class. So we see in this view that revolution and reform are not opposites, it's just that the latter must happen after the former, not before.
>>2936446Thank you for this, doesn't seem as retarded as I thought it was.
>>2936446>communizers see unions as a mediators who do not further the class struggle towards the enactment of communist measures and in fact see unions as obstacles that must be overcome during the social revolution.i think it depends on whether those unions are labor-aristocratic/collaborationist/imperialist or not
>>2936434I didn't ask for a list of prescriptions from you "real"tm socialism checklist. I asked what choices could these people realistically and concretely make that would have resulted in different outcomes. The "mistakes" the we were supposedly to learn from
Why should anyone care about some accounting done by dutch faggots that never amounted to anything? Which already got dogwalked by Lenin over a century ago. The soviet union tried various methods of accounting for labor-time and all it did was return to some kind of wage form.
Most socialist states tried to integrate and advance modern technology to the maximum extent possible. The soviet union for instance went from a semi-feudal backwater to putting people in space in the span of a few decades. If you're talking about the lack of computerization in the SU I agree it was an mistake, though mostly a meme atp, a throwaway issue
Again "support workers self management" is just a vague platitude regarding stuff that historic socialist countries have already done and continue to do, same with political democracy, etc.
I ask again, what alternative choices could these specific states have made? What are the supposed "stagist mistakes" that we are supposed to learn from?
Unique IPs: 29