/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Out, glowie.

>Socialism as a subsystem
And yet the entire point of the Matrix was that rebellions by humans were inevitable and even attempting to use the leaders of the rebellion as pawns was eventually doomed to fail

What if I told you to study historical and dialectical materialism

>>689102
Then I would tell you it doesn't refute anything in that post and, incidentally, is entirely ineffective rhetoric.

>>689118
You’ll start to realize after a certain point that all this
>Read [X] text
Shit is entirely the opposite of attempting to appeal to normies

>>689155
I've always considered it a shitpost meme. Something like the post above where they actually supply a modern relevant text is a solid 5/10 post (needs a sentence blurb to get 7+), but 'read diogenes' is utterly worthless unless they're posting for the sake of their own fun.

>>689123
Just sped through the introduction so far.
Firstly, this thread never implied localism. Worker co-operatives aren't inherently local, in fact some have grown to substantial scale. Consider the seventh-largest Spanish company (in terms of asset turnover), with over 80,000 workers and covering a lot of ground. It's not about being local and the associate values from what I can see.
There are valid counterpoints about their struggles and forced decisions resulting from working within a system dominated by capitalist entities, and those are adjacent to some points in the book, but they're not a result of localism.

The author also mentions and appears to accept and not refute the idea of pluralism. This post isn't saying "don't support communist orgs or anarchist activities or socialist parties". Not at all. It's saying we shouldn't neglect this front at the expense of immediate, real-world change. Bandaids aren't solutions, but they are vital nonetheless.

Another argument they raise is the idea that capitalism forces consumers to neglect ethical preferences in order to stretch their money. Having worked in retail and purchased my own goods, I can say this isn't some universal truth. Boycotts exist. Customers have asked me about where things are made and their sustainability and they in fact choose products on that criteria. People I know look at where a food product was made to "support local farmers". It's a pressure, not an inevitability. Additionally, that argument makes the implication that expensive or overpriced products wouldn't sell. Companies like Apple and fashion products would have died years ago! Money optimization is a pressure in the economy, not an inevitability. Why do you think large companies are tripping over themselves pretending to be ethical? Lots of people buy based on these factors.

What you're suggesting is just gradually adopting market socialism, nothing new. The problem is it misses the forest for the trees, the end goal of socialism should be a society built on cooperation instead of competition. Market socialism won't abolish the profit motive, won't solve looming environmental catastrophe, etc

>>689087
Then I would know that you’re a fucking moron.

>>689118
If you would just study historical and dialectical materialism then you would know why your proposal is stupid and why your answer is even stupider.

>>689087
I'd say congrats you've independently discovered instances of the social character of production now read a fucking book on how this is a contradiction to capitalist society.

>>689340
In a sentence or more, substantiate your claim.

>>689357
no

The state abdolutely enforces and is part of capitalism. Co-ops are not workers owning the means of production, do not mean production for use and not profit, and do not end the profit motive.

>>689087
>What if I told you that a leftwing system can, and do, exist within a rightwing political environment?
OP does not know the words "opposition" and "backlash"

>>689364
>The state abdolutely enforces and is part of capitalism.
In what way does a liberal state enforce capitalism within a business?
Doesn't the mere existence of non-for-profit organizations contradict the idea of a state enforcing capitalism within every business? It DIRECTLY contradicts one of the core aspects of capitalism. It proves that the profit motive isn't a be-all-and-end-all of a for-profit ecosystem.
They're still affected by capitalism, pressured by capitalist competition and all that, but I fail to see how that means it's enforced.
>[Worker] Co-ops are not workers owning the means of production
Why can't they be? It's not an inherent requirement of that label but I fail to see how worker co-ops can't be internally socialist. Are you claiming that no known worker co-ops have their means of production owned by their workers?

Again, I am not claiming this is a path to full socialism. I believe it is a worthwhile concurrent pursuit and one that would improve people's lives within years, not centuries.

>>689367
I don't see opposition and backlash as terminating concepts. There are real, long-lasting anarchist communes inside capitalist nations. Some of them face or did face backlash and opposition, some have found remarkable stability within that system. How on earth can you implement any economic anything without backlash or opposition???
However, a point of the post is that the opposition faced for socialist businesses isn't a military.

>>689383
I mean that should a left wing economic system be implemented in a country that is predominantly right-wing, it will face immediate backlash, also you think those anarchist communes that stayed stable may not get approval from the general populace, or even the stae?

>>689087
>What if I told you socialist systems can, and do, exist within a liberal or libertarian political environment?
Then i would say that you need to read a book.

>>689087
>What if I told you socialist systems can, and do, exist within a liberal or libertarian political environment?
I would call you a retard

>>689383
Well for one a liberal state tends to be a very weak state dominated by big buisness or special interest groups that seek to use the state to cut taxes and gain subsidies or other legal advantages

After all liberalism and libertarianism tends to breed very weak states that are so weak they can't regulate control the corporations. And thus corporations get larger and proceed to take over the state and then use it as a tool to further corporate interests

Isn't this literally just what the 19th century Proudhonists were arguing for

Co-ops are fully subservient to the profit motive and other capitalist pressures. The oft touted Spanish co-op referenced upthread ended up engaging subcontractors to keep costs down and remain competitive. You're just doing capitalism with extra steps.

>>689118
>analysis is rhetoric
OH NO NO NO
LOOK AT THIS DOOD

>>690720
Telling someone "study/read X" is rhetoric.

>>689087
This state power question is about who controls not about should there be control. Its absolutely imperative that there is direct democratic control over the means of production and the state apparatus in the socialist stage. Only with proletarian democracy all the failures and fuck ups made by leninoids can be prevented. Also the quality of life will constantly improve when workers decide together what is beneficial for them instead of a party bureaucrats. With proletarian democracy most of problems with socialism are solved.

>>690879
Look into comrade Stalin's democratisation campaign then curse Hitler and Kruschev

>>690881
I hope you are joking.

>>690882
Why?

>>690885
I was arguing against Leninism and party dictatorship over proletarian dictatorship and then you come here supporting literal dictatorship and the tyrant Džugašvili.

>>690889
Lurk moar newfag your ignorance is showing

>>690892
>kek lol lurk moar
Maybe you should try to make actual arguments instead of this brainrot memery.

>>690895
I did, I told you to look into comrade Stalin's democratisation campaign then curse Hitler and Kruschev

If you don't like that then Paul Cockshott's thoughts on sortition are interesting

>>690897
Yeah i should read a book argument is another classy one.