[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1652545222730.jpg (1.26 MB, 5400x3600, Apartments_729637354.jpg)

 No.969319[Last 50 Posts]

Realistically, would it be feasible for a communist party or any worker's organization for that matter to invest in real estate for the sake of freely housing those in need? I was thinking that maybe the party could start out small by buying out a few apartments at first and renting them out for as small a fee as possible so that they could amass some capital at first before expanding outwards and buying more real estate while freeing up some of those apartments to be rented completely for free, that way a party could probably gradually take over entire blocks whose inhabitants would have undying loyalty to the party whose housing them.
Of course there is the issue of real estate holders jacking up prices to keep the party out of the market or even refusing to sell to them entirely but regardless of that would it still even be possible? Has anything like that even been tried before?

 No.969340

>>969319
>undying loyalty

lol

also yeah im living in 'cooperative' house in moscow (commieblock) that was built with 'private' money (fund) in the 60s, buy a separate contractors (firm)
we have several such buildings/projects, it sin't too uncommon

 No.969342

*by a separate firm of contractors

 No.969348

also wasn't uncommon if some factory would build say summer camp that they liked, half of them built that way
or commieblock for workers, or kindergarden. shit was really diverse

 No.969370

>>969340
>>969342
>>969348
I was specifically talking about housing in capitalist countries built under capitalism, but that's cool too bro

 No.969394

File: 1652546479237.jpg (162.34 KB, 1024x768, Studentenboot_Zwolle.jpg)

>>969370
in eussr they build something like this for students, mostly as temporary housing
its cheaper, one container can cost like 1000$ or less

 No.969405

File: 1652546654005.jpg (162.21 KB, 1200x600, berlin.jpg)

truly a solarpunk

 No.969411

File: 1652546779205.jpg (196.28 KB, 1024x739, 39 - IcnLOVL.jpg)


 No.969412

>>969394
In America they rent those out for $1000 a month.

>The unique apartment units will be rented starting at about $906 a month including utilities and are restricted to residents earning 60% or less of the area median income.

 No.969413

File: 1652546794607.png (610.8 KB, 794x746, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.969419

>>969394
>>969405
>>969413
I don't know what it is but there's something so alluring about living in something like this, even if the insulation probably sucks ass.

>>969411
Now THIS is peak sovl. We need to go back asap

 No.969420

>Realistically, would it be feasible for a communist party or any worker's organization for that matter to invest in real estate for the sake of freely housing those in need?
no communist party worth it's salt would do this

 No.969421

File: 1652546980557.png (994.21 KB, 812x695, 43 - qii0oIV.png)

THIS IS WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU
>>969413
these would be sovlful lest for the sovless bug statement in >>969412

 No.969428

>>969420
Why not?

 No.969429

>charge low rent
>Still make money to expand the amount of houses you own in a market where house prices are determined by the rental house market
Choose one

 No.969430

>>969428
because communist parties are not in the business of becoming landlords and construction contractors

 No.969431

>>969419
you can add some foam insulation, basically it can be improved. with foam panels in between.

they should be sealed too and are made from relatively heavy thick metal

 No.969441

>>969429
I said as low as possible, so even then the rent your tenants would have to pay wouldn't exceed the local rate and it would only go down from there.

>>969430
>landlords and construction contractors
Who said anything about that? You would just need to buy out already existing real estate.

 No.969443

>>969441
> You would just need to buy out already existing real estate
that's what landlords and capitalists do, communist parties don't

 No.969449

>>969425
commieblocks is just internet term for such constructions. it is somewhat mass housing that is usually built in 'projects'.
it also originally comes from eastern europe iirc (like some balkan or czech)

 No.969453

File: 1652547440543.png (3.39 MB, 1900x1140, ClipboardImage.png)

>>969340
>>969342
Whenever we talk about housin where is there laways this one autist that tries to portray normal ass blocks of flats as 'commie blocks'?
Please stop, throwing around right-wing memes is peak retarded anon.
>>969319
>Realistically, would it be feasible for a communist party or any worker's organization for that matter to invest in real estate for the sake of freely housing those in need?
No because this is not how life works. When you enter a system it changes you, you rarely change it. I don't see how this would somehow become untrue for becoming a property owner.

 No.969459

also commieblock literally doesn't mean communism, it means 'communal housing'
this term existed long before internet

 No.969460

or 'communal building'

 No.969464

>>969449
>commieblocks is just internet term for such constructions.
Nah, it's burger right wing propaganda to make flats seem something other and alien and to imply they are not a dsirable thing, (see how communism is understood in the burger context).

 No.969465

>>969443
>>969446
>When you enter a system it changes you, you rarely change it. I don't see how this would somehow become untrue for becoming a property owner.
Any radical party that has any hope of achieving some real change would have to engage with the already dominant system on its own term one way or another like how all communist parties have to engage in things electoral politics and union organizing, things which operate withing the system and according to its already existing rules. I don't see why that would be any different when it comes to something like housing as long as the goal is building a revolutionary base with direct ties to the party, how is this any different than party organized labor unions for example?

 No.969470

>>969464
lol no
read skyscrapercity if you need more info
thats some zoomer bullshit

 No.969474

in germany its called plattenbau for instance, but means virtually the same (except it means its built from panels)
not all commieblocks built with panels

 No.969479

>>969465
> Any radical party that has any hope of achieving some real change would have to engage with the already dominant system on its own term
buying up housing is not "engaging" on it's own terms, do you even know what the purpose of a communist party is?
> another like how all communist parties have to engage in things electoral politics
the only "communist" parties that engage in electoral politics are the liberal ones.
>I don't see why that would be any different when it comes to something like housing
because buying up houses does not support the labour movement or hasten the revolution.

 No.969494

>>969479
M8 if a communist party bought some buildings and only charged enough to cover the costs of maintaining the place, then why would this be an issue? It would provide workers with affordable housing, which would already predispose them to seeing the party in a favouravle light. It would then concentrate those positively disposed workers in a communal location where they would be easy to organize and talk to. On a large enough scale it could even drive housing costs down altogether.

 No.969510

>>969494
> M8 if a communist party bought some buildings and only charged enough to cover the costs of maintaining the place, then why would this be an issue
because that's not what communist parties do, that's what landlords and capitalist do
> It would provide workers with affordable housing
said every landowner and real estate tycoon literally ever
> which would already predispose them to seeing the party in a favouravle light
are workers cats that you have to entice with treats? Are you supposed to lobby and bribe workers into liking you? Communist parties attract workers by actually being of use to the labour movement not by giving out gift bags.
> It would then concentrate those positively disposed workers in a communal location where they would be easy to organize and talk to
so workers just take a vow of complete silence and ignorance and just not talk to their coworkers about workplace problems unless they're living in Jonestown?

Go get a job, work for a living and learn how the real world works

 No.969521

File: 1652549072469.png (2.92 MB, 1600x981, ClipboardImage.png)

>>969465
>like how all communist parties have to engage in things electoral politics and union organizing, t
>how is this any different than party organized labor unions for example
Lol, I am unsure how this contradicts what i I say. How well did those things go for anyone? though? You know the history of the modern union and labour/workers/socialist/communist parties, right? Can you name me many western communist parties or unions that have been around a while, have grown and have not been a complete disapointment at best? Let alone all of those individuals in said structures who simply crossed the hall to become neoliberals.
>>969470
I am not a zoomer. Even if it was not built as a propaganda it is still one. Look at when the term is used, literally only by poltards (and funnily enough people here..), normal (non online reactionaries) dont call them this, even a normal american probably would simply call them 'apartments'.

 No.969550

>>969510
>that's what landlords and capitalist do
No, what landlords do is buy up housing and gouge people on the prices. In this case the point would be to charge the lowest possible price, ie literally only cover the costs of maintaining the place.
>said every landowner and real estate tycoon literally ever
Yeah because those are profit seeking enterprises, this wouldn't be.
>Are you supposed to lobby and bribe workers into liking you?
Yes, you earn people's support by providing tangible improvements to their lives.
>Communist parties attract workers by actually being of use to the labour movement not by giving out gift bags.
The labour movement is only one front in the struggle, another is mutual aid, community organizing, political action, etc. Did the Black Panther's breakfast and educations programs benefit organized labour? No, but what they did do was improve the lives of black workers, make them receptive to the party's message, and gave them a stake in its success. Besides, such an environment would be conducive to the spreading of communist ideas and the creation of proletarian solidarity, which in turn directly benefits the labour movement. Imagine if you could get an apartment block's worth of people to turn out in support every time one resident was on strike.
>so workers just take a vow of complete silence and ignorance and just not talk to their coworkers about workplace problems unless they're living in Jonestown?
Come on, such a thing would hardly be comparable to an isolated compound in the middle of nowhere. This would simply be a project whereby a communist party would provide an essential service to workers at no profit to themselves. It would he no different than the BPP's mutual aid programs.
>Go get a job, work for a living and learn how the real world works
I work 12 hour shifts at a factory.

 No.969571

>>969550
> In this case the point would be to charge the lowest possible price
ok so a communist party would own a house at a loss, what happens when party funds run out when they've spent it all on buying property instead of using it for strike funds and covering workers living costs like what it's meant for?
> Yeah because those are profit seeking enterprises
every piece of private property is a profit seeking enterprise
> Yes, you earn people's support by providing tangible improvements to their lives
yes by actually helping the labour movement not by playing monopoly
> The labour movement is only one front in the struggle
no, it is the whole struggle, the movement of the proletariat that seeks to abolish the present state of things.
> The labour movement is only one front in the struggle
useless activism
> community organizing, political action
not vague at all
> Did the Black Panther's breakfast and educations programs benefit organized labour?
no and i don't care
> No, but what they did do was improve the lives of black workers
what a shining bastion of socialism a soup kitchen is, the international quaked in awe at the raging revolutionary fury that was the salvation army.

it's also funny that you think the black panthers targeted the working class when they were explicitly targeting the lumpenproletariat, which was the basis of Huey Newtons writings.
> such an environment would be conducive to the spreading of communist ideas and the creation of proletarian solidarity
how? by workers just being near each other? Are workers nowadays just completely isolated from one another?
> This would simply be a project whereby a communist party would provide an essential service to workers at no profit to themselves
ok, good luck when the party's funds run out in two weeks
> It would he no different than the BPP's mutual aid programs
you say that like it's a good thing lmao
>I work 12 hour shifts at a factory.
no you don't

 No.969572

>>969521
Can you name any communist movement which has completely shut itself off from any sort of reformist activity and was still able to achieve anything of worth? If no then stfu

 No.969576

>>969572
> Can you name any communist movement which has completely shut itself off from any sort of reformist activity and was still able to achieve anything of worth
did the bolsheviks just not exist?

 No.969578

>>969576
And what were the Bolsheviks doing prior to 1917? I doubt it was all bombing churches and robbing banks all the time.

 No.969582

>>969578
> And what were the Bolsheviks doing prior to 1917
not running election platforms, they were forming communist cadres, connecting unions and workers with each other, directing the proleteriat and connecting the workers of rusiia with the other workers in europe

 No.969601

Why can't communist parties just go out and build houses for the homeless? We could spend a day a week building bungalos for people that need them. When I brought this up at the org everyone was against it.

 No.969603

File: 1652551746719.jpg (1.35 MB, 4032x1816, 20220213_172536.jpg)

>>969571
>ok so a communist party would own a house at a loss
No, they would own it and break even, and ideally ownership would be split with the tenants.
>what happens when party funds run out when they've spent it all on buying property instead of using it for strike funds and covering workers living costs like what it's meant for?
That's why budgeting is a thing. If they can't afford it then obviously don't do it.
>no, it is the whole struggle
No it isn't. Not a single successful revolutionary movement has confined its activities entirely to labour organizing.
>what a shining bastion of socialism a soup kitchen is, the international quaked in awe at the raging revolutionary fury that was the salvation army
There's a huge difference between apolitical charity and communist mutual aid. The FBI literally considered the BPP to be the greatest threat to America's ruling institutions in its heyday, they pulled out all the stops to violently crush them, and they were by far the strongest revolutionary movement in American history at least since the CPUSA during the Depression. Moreover the Mass Line successfully implemented by the CPC consisted of working constructively with workers and peasants to identify problems in those communities, develop solutions through a Marxist lens, and put the resources of the party and PLA at the disposal of those communities to carry out those solutions.
>it's also funny that you think the black panthers targeted the working class when they were explicitly targeting the lumpenproletariat
They targeted black communities, which had a high proportion of both.
>by workers just being near each other?
By workers being concentrated in a place where they are already positively disposed to the communist party, and where the kind of community events sometimes seen in apartment blocks would be organized by communists.
>no you don't
Here's a pic I took from the driver's seat of my loader.

 No.969607

>>969582
>not running election platforms
Yeah because Russia wasn't a bourgeois democracy. After the February Revolution they participated in Constituent Assembly elections.

 No.969613

>>969578
>you either bomb churches or practice electoralism.
Your lack of imagination is both outstanding and horrific.

 No.969630

>>969601
> Why can't communist parties just go out and build houses for the homeless
because that's not what communist parties do
> We could spend a day a week building bungalos for people that need them
ok, who's gonna buy the land, equipment, materials and workforce to do that?
> When I brought this up at the org everyone was against it.
probably because it's retarded
>>969603
> No, they would own it and break even
you can't break even on owning a house, bills fluctuate and mortgages have interest.
> That's why budgeting is a thing
"hey we're going to be broke in a week"
"oh just start budgeting"
thanks man
> If they can't afford it then obviously don't do it
how about you just don't do it at all because it's retarded and there are other things that need attention.
>No it isn't. Not a single successful revolutionary movement has confined its activities entirely to labour organizing.
The russian revolution was literally launched off the backs of workers establishing soviets.
> There's a huge difference between apolitical charity and communist mutual aid.
not really
> The FBI literally considered the BPP to be the greatest threat to America's ruling institutions in its heyday
i'm sure you can find a state department figure saying the same thing about maga hats, doesn't make it apart of the struggle
> they pulled out all the stops to violently crush them
good for them
> they were by far the strongest revolutionary movement in American history
between the years 1900-1929 there were practically nationwide strikes in the US every year including the coal wars and almost all of them ended in hired thugs, police and strike breakers being sent in and gunning down strikers.
Please try to learn literally anything about the US labour movement.
> Moreover the Mass Line successfully implemented by the CPC consisted of working constructively with workers and peasants to identify problems in those communities
are there many peasants in brooklyn and los Angeles?
>They targeted black communities, which had a high proportion of both.
no they explicitly targeted the lumpenproletariat and rejected the idea that the lumpenproletariat are counter revolutionary, read literally anything from newton
> By workers being concentrated in a place where they are already positively disposed to the communist party
"hey instead of actually assisting workers and unions like we're supposed to how about we pull millions of dollars out of our ass and buy homes for them hoping that they like us"
> and where the kind of community events sometimes seen in apartment blocks would be organized by communists.
you're fucking retarded, communists are not salesmen who go around trying to sell their political tendency as if they're selling vacuum cleaners
> Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite
do me a favour and look up who said that
>Here's a pic I took from the driver's seat of my loader.
doesn't change the fact that you're a retard
>>969607
> they participated in Constituent Assembly elections
yeah i remember when they abided by those elections and democratically took power

 No.969641

>>969319
This would compete against finance capital that speculates with real estate like the infamous Blackrock hedge fund. If you are ruthless enough to convince these vultures you're not food, maybe.

You also need to get the money for buying up properties from something other than selling labor power. For example if you have insider information and you can do rational stock trading.

 No.969657

File: 1652554358007.png (945.58 KB, 1130x759, Screenshot.png)

>>969319
What are those things between the balconies? Are they like little windows where you can see the your neighbors chilling on their $20 patio furniture?

 No.969659

>>969630
>you can't break even on owning a house, bills fluctuate and mortgages have interest
They don't fluctuate so much as to make it impossible to roughly break even.
>"hey we're going to be broke in a week"
You realize it's possible to make budgets that account for costs years in advance right?
>The russian revolution was literally launched off the backs of workers establishing soviets.
And the Bolsheviks did not restrict their activity entirely to operating within the Soviets.
>not really
Of course there is. One is a way for rich and middle class people to feel good about themselves. The other is a way for workers to pool their resources for collective benefit, spread communist ideas, recruit new members, and provide a material basis for a mass movement, ie a way to establish relations of mutual benefit between revolutionaries and workers.
>i'm sure you can find a state department figure saying the same thing about maga hats
MAGA hats aren't communist. Any revolutionary movement that is able to top the FBI's shitlist is worth studying.
>are there many peasants in brooklyn and los Angeles?
The Mass Line is universally applicable. How else are we supposed to earn the support of workers unless we demonstrate clearly that we are fighting for their interests? How are we supposed to convert them to communism if we don't help them understand why capitalism is the source of their problems?
>between the years 1900-1929 there were practically nationwide strikes in the US every year including the coal wars
Those weren't a unified revolutionary movement. Most strikes are not revolutionary, they are designed to secure gains and concessions within the capitalist system, and this was also true during the First Red Scare. The leading revolutionary movement in this period was the IWW, which was supplanted by the CPUSA which engaged in a far wide array of tactics than just strikes, and was also much more successful.
>read literally anything from newton
Feel free to cite anything by him which claims they were not interested in organizing workers.
>hey instead of actually assisting workers and unions
Who is saying we shouldn't be involved with labour? I'm talking about other fronts in the struggle such as mutual aid. Obviously if resources are limited we may have to prioritize, and I'm not even suggesting that such a housing project should take priority over involvement with labour organizing. What I'm saying is that if such a project were feasible, it would be worthwhile to pursue. You're strawmanning acting as if I'm opposed to labour organizing.
>you're fucking retarded, communists are not salesmen who go around trying to sell their political tendency as if they're selling vacuum cleaners
You're right, they are servants of the working class who earn their respect and admiration by fighting for their interests and providing them with necessary services when the capitalist system fails them. Affordable housing is a necessary service which capitalism has proven incapable of providing, hence where possible communists should be working to find solutions to this problem.
>yeah i remember when they abided by those elections and democratically took power
The point of participating in bourgeois elections isn't to come to power through them, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 No.969668

>>969319
Haven’t read the whole thread, but look into US Labor Banks, specifically the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. They started Amalgamated Bank, which still exists and is technically still majorly controlled by labor unions (they have a 40% stake), but went public in like 2010 and is mostly a shadow of what it was in the 20s and 30s. Most of the labor banks were basically a pyramid scheme for a couple of unions, which is unfortunate, but the Amalgamated was pretty legit. It used union member funds to build cooperative housing in New York, some of which still exists. But I think the Amalgamated still made a mistake in that it funded the creation of cooperative housing that it didn’t own, and it should have retained ownership. Otherwise, Community Land Trusts do something similar in America, but they’re non-profits. I think that is a dead end, non-profits are structurally weak because they thrive on contributions and grants. They’re too dependent on outside wealth or state sponsorship, so they can’t be an independent challenge to either wealth or the state. But I still think their model is interesting.

 No.969680

>>969641
> You also need to get the money for buying up properties from something other than selling labor power. For example if you have insider information and you can do rational stock trading.

I think using labor power is fine, the problem is getting people to agree to it. People freely lend their money to banks in the form of demand deposits, and the banks can expand that as credit. People also give their money to asset managers like BlackRock who turn around and buy housing with it. I think the key is challenging them either on promises (for BlackRock it is a return on capital) or on loyalty. Like, as I mentioned here:
>>969668
The Labor Banking movement in the US was started when unions formed their own banks and asked members to put their money in them. Theoretically the point of this was to stop allowing capitalist banks to use union member money to support capitalist businesses that the unions were fighting against. That was actually the direct reason the unions even took an interest in banking, because the idea of labor banks had been around pretty early in the 20th century and even brought to vote in union halls, but it was always quickly struck down as a boondoggle for the unions. In the 20s though, it became a widely held belief among unions that banks were actively working against them and trying to support the business owners in fighting unions. So suddenly an interest built up in the banking idea as a matter of necessity. They realized that it was true that union members were basically giving their money away to banks to be used against them, so they formed their own banks. In that way they had something the banks of that day didn’t have, which was solidarity in the union.

Currently that doesn’t exist, since there aren’t really any orgs to establish trust and solidarity in. But theoretically you could compete with asset managers and banks for working class money if the working class hated those institutions as enemies, like the union members did. That just isn’t the case at the moment.

 No.969691

>>969630
kill yourself

 No.969718

>>969659
>You realize it's possible to make budgets that account for costs years in advance right?
oh i forgot, yeah that could work in tandem with the annual income the communist party makes, just hope workers don't stop giving money to the oarty when they realise that money is being used to maintain a few shitbox houses a tiny fraction of them are living in. People totally love paying for others living costs.
>And the Bolsheviks did not restrict their activity entirely to operating within the Soviets.
that's right, they worked on building communist cadres, directing unions and strikes and connecting the international proleteriat. Not buying up dachas
> MAGA hats aren't communist
and neither were the BP so why bring them up
> Any revolutionary movement that is able to top the FBI's shitlist is worth studying
so are drug lords and people who murdered their girlfriends, wanna study them as well?
> How else are we supposed to earn the support of workers unless we demonstrate clearly that we are fighting for their interests
proletarians are not retards and communists are not running on elections campaigns who need to run PR, communist parties and their arms attract workers by workers requiring what they provide (strike funds, militancy, connection with other workers in other industries and countries as well as directing the labour movement as a whole towards revolution.) parties achieve this by finding militants in workers orgs and building from there, not by running charity
> How are we supposed to convert them to communism
if you want to go around trying to convert people then go become a priest.
> Those weren't a unified revolutionary movement
and neither is jonestown lite
> Most strikes are not revolutionary
not if the communist party pisses around with useless shot like becoming landlords
>Feel free to cite anything by him which claims they were not interested in organizing workers.
>and if the ruling circle remains in power the proletarian working class will definitely be on the decline because they will be unemployables and therefore swell the ranks of the lumpens, who are the present unemployables. Every worker is in jeopardy because of the ruling circle, which is why we say that the lumpenproletarians have the potential for revolution, will probably carry out the revolution, and in the near future will be the popular majority
- To Die for the People page 28
> Who is saying we shouldn't be involved with labour?
you are since you want to devote a significant amount of resources to landownership which would come at the express express of the parties other actions
> I'm talking about other fronts in the struggle such as mutual aid
mutual aid is literally useless and is just activism, it doesn't do anything for the labour movement
> Obviously if resources are limited we may have to prioritize
resources are always limited for the proletariat which is why this idea is retarded
> What I'm saying is that if such a project were feasible
it never would be
> it would be worthwhile to pursue
no it wouldn't
> they are servants of the working class who earn their respect and admiration
jfc they're not firemen
> and providing them with necessary services when the capitalist system fails them
and communist parties are not good will, they're not charities, they're revolutionary militant organizations that focus on overthrowing the government and launching a revolution not soup kitchens
> The point of participating in bourgeois elections isn't to come to power through them, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
they're not useful and the bolsheviks did not get to their position in the assembly by way of local elections
>>969680
>I think using labor power is fine, the problem is getting people to agree to it
every worker agrees to it, that's what accepting a wage job is, if you don't accept your labour being siphoned then you don't get a job.
>>969691
you should use a shotgun to make room in your head for some original insults

 No.969733

>>969718
> every worker agrees to it, that's what accepting a wage job is, if you don't accept your labour being siphoned then you don't get a job.
I might’ve misread, I thought they were saying the working class can’t try to buy property with its wages. I just meant they can, but it’s very difficult to do. In a sense the banks and the big Wall Street asset managers already accumulate tons of capital with working class savings and deposits. That’s also why unions have historically liked to use pensions as a weapon in the fight with business owners. In a way the working class has their labor stolen twice, once in the wage relation and again in the fact that their savings get taken by capitalist banks and lent back out to business.

 No.969736

>>969733
most workers buy houses (as in they pay a deposit and get a loan to from a bank to pay the rest and pay a mortgage from then on) banks make most of their money this way

 No.969746

>>969718
>and neither were the BP so why bring them up
Yes they were lmao. And you're accusing me of not knowing anything about the revolutionary movement in America?
>so are drug lords and people who murdered their girlfriends
There's an obvious difference for being on the FBI's radar for general criminality and being on there because you pose a threat to the bourgeois social order in America.
>communist parties and their arms attract workers by workers requiring what they provide
Exactly, and workers require affordable housing, so why not give it to them?
>as directing the labour movement as a whole towards revolution
You do understand that many labour unions provide additional services to their members right? They run summer camps, provide scholarships, run sports programs, raise funds for members in need (medical bills, etc). So in other words, the labour movement itself is actively engaged with the kind of things you denounce as useless.
>which would come at the express express of the parties other actions
Unless they had the resources to sustain major action on both fronts. You're literally just suggesting that we should only wage struggle on a single front, when no successful revolution has ever done this.
>To Die for the People
Nothing he says there implies that he rejects the notion of workers as a revolutionary subject.
>they're revolutionary militant organizations
And how do they attract members? How do they earn the support of working class communities? How do they make people receptive to their ideology? They do it by fighting for their interests, by improving their lives, and by providing them with the organizational and intellectual tools to do this more effectively. Ultimately this is a large part of why labour organizing is a valid strategy in the first place, and mutual aid operates from that same principle. Anything which increases bonds of community and solidarity helps the struggle. Anything that earns the support of workers and draws them into the orbit of the revolutionary movement helps the struggle. Anything that increases their receptiveness to communist ideology helps the struggle. So far you haven't actually given me any reasons why you don't think mutual aid is effective in accomplishing these tasks, you just continuously assert that it doesn't without explaining your reasoning. Just repeating "communists don't do charity" ad nauseum isn't an argument. So explain to me, why don't you think mutual aid is an effective way to build support among workers and their communities?

 No.969768

>>969746
> Yes they were lmao
no they weren't, they were black nationalists and explicitly rejected marxism and thought it was outdated
>Exactly, and workers require affordable housing, so why not give it to them?
because communist parties are not in the business of being landlords, they don't waste vital resources and funds on bullshit like that
> They run summer camps, provide scholarships, run sports programs
what fucking Mickey mouse unions are you in? not even the biggest unions provide fucking scholarships or summer camps
> raise funds for members in need (medical bills, etc)
they use strike funds to sustain striking workers when they no longer get income which you would like to see wasted on buying property
> Unless they had the resources to sustain major action on both fronts
buying property costs millions and those funds would never be wasted like that
> You're literally just suggesting that we should only wage struggle on a single front
real estate is not a "front" of the communist movement
> when no successful revolution has ever done this.
show me a revolution that was fought off the back of condos
> Nothing he says there implies that he rejects the notion of workers as a revolutionary subject
that passage and the rest of his writing is him talking about how the lumpen are the true revolutionary subject and that is why their efforts are focused on them
> And how do they attract members
other militant communists join them
> How do they earn the support of working class communities
they don't "earn" it, the position of the proletariat makes a communist party necessary, communist don't have to justify their own existence
> How do they make people receptive to their ideology
they don't
> Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite

 No.969771

>>969680
>I think using labor power is fine
In that case you can scrap the idea altogether. It's mathematically impossible. The proletariat as a class does not have high enough wages. After living expenses are deducted, there simply is not enough financial power left-over to compete with the financial power of the bourgeoisie to bid for real estate.

You have to come up with another scheme. Neo-liberalism is specifically designed so that workers can't save up wages to buy real estate.

 No.969778

>>969319
There's a history of labor unions building housing for their members. Class organizations could do it but it would require resources and strength

 No.969779

>>969778
> There's a history of labor unions building housing for their members
show it

 No.969814

>>969771
It’s only because they don’t combine their money for that purpose. The working class has money, it’s just unevenly distributed among their ranks. And I’m not just talking about managers or something. But my point in bringing up the labor banks is to say even in the 20s when industrial workers were very poor they could pool their money to build housing. That really happened, the main reason it collapsed as a movement was because the majority of the banks were a part of a stupid pyramid scheme, which caused faith in the project to falter, and then after the Great Depression you had the Securities Act passed and it was very hard to raise money among average people. Before FDR you could basically raise money from anyone. Now you can’t, you have to either make a public offering, which is very expensive to comply with, or you can generally only raise capital among rich people. Working people are “protected” from scams in this way. And in a way the securities regulations do protect people from scams, but they also make it harder for normal people to raise capital. You basically have to either turn to banks or rich people. The labor banks would raise small amounts of capital from thousands of union members and build a co-op apartment complex or whatever. Or they’d even fund strikes. It was just a giant savings account controlled by the working class instead of bankers. You can’t do that now in such a direct way, it’s actually illegal. You have to be more creative about it to not be flagged as committing securities violations.

 No.969816


 No.969819

>>969816
>affordable housing in the bronx
yeah ok

 No.969827

>>969819
It was made in 1927, the housing was originally made to be affordable housing controlled by workers. I dunno why you are in disbelief, the early labor movement was a lot more experimental in stuff like this. It only got institutionalized and turned into a very narrow; bureaucratic affair after the New Deal. Or rather, conservative unions existed in the early 20th century too, but there was a lot more experimentation around the margins. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers originally wanted to use their bank to support strikes and build security in the membership by having them own their own cheap housing, and back then that meant a lot of multi-family apartments in the city. Single-family home ownership by industrial workers was less common in these big urban areas. So they built co-op apartment projects, some of which managed to survive until today.

 No.969831

>>969827
> It was made in 1927
and rent has remained unchanged since
>I dunno why you are in disbelief
because new york is fucking expensive

 No.969854

>>969831
U seem like you’ve got some personal hang up about this, the original question was whether there was proof unions got into building housing. They factually did, and it shifted to whether the housing was affordable. Why would there be an assumption that the leadership of an independent union like ACW would fund co-op housing for wealthy people? The ACW started in open conflict with conservative unionism in the AFL and maintained a good reputation as a “progressive union” for decades. It seems like it’s more reasonable to assume that they’d make cooperative housing as a part of a project to help their members, and you can read their founder saying that was his interest in labor banking in his own words (there are free articles by Sidney Hillman on JSTOR from the 20s or 30s I think). It’s just a historical fact that this happened.

 No.969862

>>969768
>no they weren't, they were black nationalists and explicitly rejected marxism
No they didn't. They explicitly endorsed it and used it as a framework for their analysis. Their pamphlet "On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party" literally begins with
<We have said : the ideology of the Black Panther Party
is the historical experience of Black people and the wisdom
gained by Black people in their 400 year long struggle
against the system of racist oppression and economic
exploitation in Babylon, interpreted through the prism of
the Marxist-Leninist analysis by our Minister of Defense,
Huey P . Newton.
>that passage and the rest of his writing is him talking about how the lumpen are the true revolutionary subject
Not what he said. Arguing that lumpens are A revolutionary subject is not the same as claiming that they are THE revolutionary subject. Viewing lumpens as a potential basis for revolution is not the same as rejecting the revolutionary character of workers.
>other militant communists join them
And how do you turn people into militant communists? By showing them that communism is a movement which aims to emancipate them, which aims to improve their lives and defend their interests.
>communist don't have to justify their own existence
Yes they do. People don't just flock to a political movement for no reason, they do so because that movement acts as an advocate for and defender of their interests, ie it takes active measures to improve their lives. No political movement has ever found success without doing this. Why would anybody ever support a movement which has no ability to demonstrate its commitment to their interests?
>they don't
Not an argument. Tell me why it doesn't work, tell me how you can build a communist movement without actively working to improve the lives of workers.

 No.969887

>>969862
> They explicitly endorsed it and used it as a framework for their analysis
they based their action on the idea that the lumpen are revolutionary which directly goes against and abandons marxism so no they weren't
> interpreted through the prism of the Marxist-Leninist analysis
just another reminder that they were black nationalists who weren't marxists
> Arguing that lumpens are A revolutionary subject is not the same as claiming that they are THE revolutionary subject
their writings are about the lumpen becoming the primary revolutionary force and their actions reflect this. Almost all of their members were former gangsters
> And how do you turn people into militant communists
capitalism does that
> Yes they do
no they don't
> People don't just flock to a political movement for no reason
they do it because their social position forces them to turn to it.
> Why would anybody ever support a movement which has no ability to demonstrate its commitment to their interests?
communists do that, but not by embezzling workers funds and using it to buy houses
> Not an argument
posting lenin talking about how retarded your notions of "converting" people are is my evidence, stop ignoring it

 No.969933

File: 1652563170814.jpg (12.79 KB, 241x272, patrick shrug.jpg)

>>969431
What about plumbing and shit? By the time you make one of these livable it seems like it'd be cheaper to back to concrete and sheetrock.

 No.969936

Nooooo you can't put labor and capital toward doing things to help the proletariat directly, you have to build an electoral-revolutionary party that wins support by having the most correct political line!

 No.969944

>>969936
> Nooooo you can't put labor and capital toward doing things to help the proletariat directly
i'm sure the proleteriat will appreciate millions of dollars of their union fees being used to buy houses only fraction of them will live in

 No.969955

>>969887
>they based their action on the idea that the lumpen are revolutionary which directly goes against and abandons marxism
So Marxism is when you dogmatically copy all of Marx's opinions without any regard for changing context or conditions?
>just another reminder that they were black nationalists who weren't marxists
Openly proclaiming that they follow the analysis of Marxism-Leninism proves that they aren't Marxists?
>their writings are about the lumpen becoming the primary revolutionary force and their actions reflect this
Not really. In that passage he predicts that lumpens may eventually outnumber workers, and that they are capable of being a revolutionary subject. He doesn't say they are the "primary" revolutionary force, only that they can be revolutionary and that they will eventually outnumber workers. This in no way denies the revolutionary character of the workers, and they openly proclaimed proletarian revolution as their goal.
>capitalism does that
Really? So where are they then? The vast majority of workers are apolitical or libs. Capitalism produces discontent, but that doesn't automatically translate into communist ideology or organizing. That can only be forged by engaging with working class communities, acting as defenders of their interests, and improving their lives.
>no they don't
Not an argument. A political party can't expect to just waltz into a community and be instantly popular. Communist parties have to justify their existence insofar as they have to prove their worth to the people they want support them. The workers don't owe anything to the communist party, but the party owes everything to the workers. It can't hope succeed without being their most consistent and resolute ally and defender.
>they do it because their social position forces them to turn to it
Again, then why are communist parties so small and weak? Even in the global South this is the case most of the time. Just because a person is pissed about their experience under capitalism doesn't mean they automatically will become affiliated with a communist party. Being pissed about your shitty job or corrupt politicians doesn't automatically translate to a correct diagnosis of the problem, or a correct assessment of the solution. However if communists can alleviate those problems, it will clearly make people more receptive to their message.
>communists do that
How?
>posting lenin talking about how retarded your notions of "converting" people are is my evidence
So is it your belief that Lenin didn't think that workers needed to be convinced of the communist worldview? That passage is from a speech talking about convincing peasants to submit to centralized grain procurement, and how their resistance to it can't be overcome overnight. You're very clearly taking it out of context. It isn't saying that communists shouldn't try to convince workers to join our movement, because without doing so a communist party can't hope to grow.

 No.969956

>>969944
more low cost housing lowers property values and hence the rent they pay so yeah uh they fuckin would

 No.970006

File: 1652564808856.jpg (54.38 KB, 260x360, healy.jpg)

The Workers' Revolutionary Party actually did this. They were one of the big three Trot parties that each claimed to be the biggest in the UK up until its collapse in the mid 80s (more on that later). I'm not sure of the specifics, but I think they were only available for party members. The reason I know about it was because it exposed the dark side of the "undying loyalty to the party who's housing them": the cultlike leader of the party, Gerry Healy, would knock unannounced on female party members living in the party-owned apartments and "persuade" them to have sex with him. Ultimately this led to the collapse of the party when dozens of young women simultaneously accused him of sexual assault in 1985 (although over the course of four decades he could have had hundreds of victims).

 No.970012

>>969630
>do me a favour and look up who said that
ITS THIS AUTIST AGAIN! I knew you were still around!

Have fun sustaining your unpopular revolution. Protip: it historically tends to end up falling within a month and the participants being executed. Lenin himself performed popularity stunts to gain support.

 No.970028


 No.970042

File: 1652565768010.png (799.54 KB, 1493x1400, laughingwhoroes.png)

>>969887
This is why they limited your type to 140 characters.

 No.970046

File: 1652565849118.jpg (281.08 KB, 1920x1080, ex-USSR.jpg)

>>970028
>building in good lighting good
>building in bad lighting bad
tripfag has a shit opinion ZOMG! :000

 No.970073

>>970046
sorry for thinking that living in a literal shipping container like some commodity would suck horribly

 No.970086

>>969933
every house has that,what are you on about ?
you're gonna have to add it to your house,concrete or not,do you think the plumbing grows in the concrete walls or something ?
concrete houses also need to be insulated btw.

 No.970089

>>970073
I accept

 No.970095

>>970046
>building in good lighting good
>building in bad lighting bad
this but unironically

 No.970108

>>970006
>Gerry Healy, would knock unannounced on female party members living in the party-owned apartments and "persuade" them to have sex with him.
sasuga trots

 No.970114

>>970095
Look, alright, if it's the sun then yes, if it's the camera/post-processing then no

 No.970116

File: 1652568179914.png (78.33 KB, 255x253, pope.png)

>>969319
Housing cooperatives are housing cooperatives and a communist party is a communist party. Being a communist should never be a requirement to join a co-op or a union. One can talk all they want about reactionary (or whatever adjective they want to use) co-ops and unions, but it's the job of communists to infiltrate those organizations and not to make barriers to entry for average workers. Lenin was more than right on that one.

 No.970131

File: 1652568439004.png (28.65 KB, 538x94, papajzbrodniarz.png)

>>970116
this is literally heckin popescaling

 No.970146

File: 1652568707271.png (525.79 KB, 545x459, pawół.png)

>>970116
Of course. I don't think they were implying that being communist was a requirement for living there, more that they assumed the inhabitants would somehow realize the party were providing aid to them and therefore suck its cock.

That said, tangentially, the absolute biggest missed target by communist parties I've seen isn't the lack of mutual aid but the lack of bragging about it. Be the new church, be the only fucking political party to say "we actually help the poor, look at these hundreds of times we performed mutual aid. Sick of useless elections? Go beyond voting, we accomplished more to help this place even without electoral power."

 No.970178

File: 1652569297649.png (225.58 KB, 474x395, ClipboardImage.png)

>>970131
>1,836
and /pol/ can't even reach 10

 No.970185

>>970146
Yea i did sort of ignore the OP to molest him with some Lenin since the thing that he's proposing is so retarded that i'm worried about him

 No.970191

>>970185
>pic
i want a lumpenpope now

 No.970795

>>969955
> So Marxism is when you dogmatically copy all of Marx's opinions without any regard for changing context or conditions?
they're not opinions, the lumpen are not revolutionary and abandoning marxism abandons the workers struggle as a whole.
> Openly proclaiming that they follow the analysis of Marxism-Leninism proves that they aren't Marxists
yeas because marxist leninism is a liberal ideology
> Really? So where are they then?
getting fucked over by degraded unions and the lack of a proper communist party
>The vast majority of workers are apolitical or libs
and every worker in Petrograd has a copy of the manifesto in their pocket?
> Capitalism produces discontent, but that doesn't automatically translate into communist ideology or organizing
yes it does, workers do not just stay idle while they're starving and going into poverty. The conditions of the proletariat necessitate the creation of workers orgs, workers do not take steps towards unions only when they are told so.
>A political party can't expect to just waltz into a community and be instantly popular
and communist parties don't try to be popular either
> Communist parties have to justify their existence insofar as they have to prove their worth to the people they want support them
there is no "want", the conditions of capitalism and the proletariat necessitate a militant organisation and it that militant org actually does what it's meant for then it wont run short of militants
> then why are communist parties so small and weak
for the same reason why union membership decreases every year, because the vast majority of them are dogshit and full of liberals. Also doesn't help that for a decade most major communist parties gave up their revolutionary role as directed by the USSR and were hijacked by liberals of any kind of sext be it MLS or maoists
>How?
creating communist cadres, connecting unions together to direct them as a whole, connecting workers with other workers in other industries and nations.
> So is it your belief that Lenin didn't think that workers needed to be convinced of the communist worldview
noone needs to be "convinced", communists are not missionaries, the conditions of capitalism necessitate the creation of a communist party and people who's survival will depend on the party's success will support it.
> It isn't saying that communists shouldn't try to convince workers to join our movement
that's what he's saying, peasants resist change because of their conditions and proleteroaans come together to fight against exploitation because of their conditions. "converting" people has never, literally ever been a priority for any proper communist party, when the first international got together do you think they were talking about which posters seem more appealing.
>>969956
> more low cost housing lowers property values
the amount of money to buy enough houses to do that would be in the billions
>>970012
> Have fun sustaining your unpopular revolution
ass opposed to your raging fire of socialism?
> it historically tends to end up falling within a month and the participants being executed
well my name isn't rose so i don't think i'd have a problem
> Lenin himself performed popularity stunts to gain support.
he didn't devote a significant chunk of his resources and effort to them though

 No.970797

>>970042
reading do be hard

 No.970925

Isn't this similar to tenants unions buying out their place? I mean i get that its different, but it's always good to have housing owned by non-capitalists right? That way they can put their foot in the ground and refuse to play the price hike game, yes even if they do have to raise prices based on inflation, wages, maintenance costs, etc. But overall it would be an amazing thing.

Probably right too that you'd have a hard time doing it just on people's money. But it could be possible if you can show a bank steady membership fees coming in that could cover the cost of a mortgage. The biggest problem would be people feeling like they have no benefit. Housing is expensive as fuck so you probably couldnt get enough for everyone to live in. But also to the haters (why be a hater for this btw?), if people get to live in it for cheap as shit rent, then they will have way more disposable income, and so your power can increase from there.

BTW what do people who are actually organizing think about dues? Stalin said everybody gotta pay up. Kinda like a gang. Does this alienate people, or is it necessary? Does it change how u gotta approach people to recruit them (like ur asking for money now and not just loyalty). Do y'all pass around the donation basket? Whats ur money strat

 No.971172

File: 1652602145406.png (22.47 KB, 552x527, 5f4eaddd7d451.vichan.png)


 No.971352


 No.971406

>>969494
No you're not gonna take random proles and put them in a cult block so you can use them as minions for this autistic strategy game view of the world you have

 No.971448

>>970925
>But also to the haters (why be a hater for this btw?), if people get to live in it for cheap as shit rent, then they will have way more disposable income, and so your power can increase from there.
I think the haters just want to split a communist party from a union type org. I have a host of criticisms of that complaint, but it is whatever. It doesn’t matter, time would be better spent just actually trying to pursue either strategy rather than arguing over it with strangers on the internet.

 No.971516

>>971406
>capitalism fails to provide proles with basic services
>communists should step in to fill that gap as a way to improve workers lives and build support
<NOOO YOU WANT TO START A CULT

 No.971541

>>971516
Fair point. Modern housing is just garbage that's wasting space because nobody's buying it for the insane prices landlords put out.

 No.971543

>>969494
>M8 if a communist party bought some buildings and only charged enough to cover the costs of maintaining the place, then why would this be an issue?

Because they could never compete with finance capital in the long run, the more compassionate capitalist goes broke eventually. Not saying it's a horrible idea but if communist parties had enough money to start real estate empires then we wouldn't be in such a bad situation to begin with.

 No.971548

>>969319
Yes. Communists need to form an alter-economy funded by crime (like the Bolsheviks did, don't call me a fed for suggesting that). If the party can successfully meet the needs of the proletariat in times of crisis, it can build tremendous influence. In Amerikkka, there are a lot of mutual aid networks in different cities, and if they were to unite under one banner, they would be highly effective.
>>971516
Based, Communists who shit on mutual aid are idiots

 No.971551

>>971548
Crime is too hard to get away with nowadays though. Computers and omnipresent surveillance ruined everything.

 No.971570

>>971548
> Communists need to form an alter-economy funded by crime (like the Bolsheviks did
the bolsheviks did not "create an alter-economy" whatever the fuck that means, they used bank robberies to fund their militant activities and even then it wasn't worth it. Just pulling off a heist and getting away with it was very difficult and most people involved either got shot or arrested. After that they couldn't use the money because it was hot so they had to move it around and try to launder it, which by itself cost money. by the time they could use it the money wasn't nearly enough to justify the efforts made to get it. all it did was bring down unneeded attention from the police, kill and imprison party members and just create unnecessary disruptions.
> If the party can successfully meet the needs of the proletariat in times of crisis
communist parries don't distribute stimulus checks to try and soften the blow of capitalist meltdowns. this is so retarded

 No.971572

>>971551
This. Legal avenues of funding are more reliable anyway.
>>971543
The point isn't to compete with finance capital, the point is to provide basic services to workers.
>>971570
>communist parries don't distribute stimulus checks to try and soften the blow of capitalist meltdowns
Except they do that all the time. Mutual aid is a very common practice among communist and leftist groups in general.

 No.971575

>>971551
Not true, only some things
>>971570
>the bolsheviks did not "create an alter-economy" whatever the fuck that means
I was only talking about the crime part there, and I know about all of the issues they had, but in the 21st century we have the technology at our disposal to make crime less risky, more lucrative, and more effective.
>>971570
>communist parries don't distribute stimulus checks to try and soften the blow of capitalist meltdowns. this is so retarded
Most orgs already do some sort of mutual aid, care to explain to me what is wrong with that?

 No.971577

>>971572
>This. Legal avenues of funding are more reliable anyway.
If you have enough people with the right experience and knowledge, crime can be very reliable and a better payout than legal means.

 No.971581

>>971577
It would have to be something that doesn't negatively impact the communities you are trying to recruit though. Something like credit card fraud could work.

 No.971583

>>971575
> care to explain to me what is wrong with that?
it's practically useless and it's not what communist parties do, unions have strike funds to support their workers when they have no income during a strike. Communist parties buy guns and fund cadres

 No.971584

>>971575
Okay, so what's a good form of crime that can get you enough funding to buy an apartment block, without getting caught?

 No.971588

File: 1652629017199.jpeg (94.49 KB, 1572x582, CNtoMEuUEAAFdBl.jpeg)

>>971584
"mum i want communist parties"
"we have communist parties at home"
>communist party at home

 No.971590

>>971581
>Something like credit card fraud could work.
Bingo
>>971583
Why shouldn't they do all of those things though?
>>971584
Scamming the state

 No.971595

>>971583
I guarantee you that there are way more communist parties engaging in mutual aid than there are ones buying guns. You seem to be under this nonsensical impression that a communist party can seize power without a mass movement behind it, when this has literally never happened.

 No.971596

>>969657
It looks like frosted privacy glass, because people are too alienated to say hello to their neighbours without feeling uncomfortable

 No.971597

>>971590
>Why shouldn't they do all of those things though?
because running stimulus packages for a nations proletariat costs billions of dollars and those funds should be used to overthrow the government not try to keep the proletariat alive in a mode of production that relies on their culling

 No.971598

>>971588
Drugs are something but it's a highly saturated market with stiff competition and lots of risks, do you really want communists getting into turf wars and murdering snitches?

>>971590
I tried scamming the state, they found out and I gotta pay back my benefits for the last like 3 years (£14 grand)

 No.971600

>>971597
>and those funds should be used to overthrow the government
You know what really helps to overthrow the government? Having the widest possible base of support among the working population.

 No.971602

>>971597
I'm not saying that they should provide stimulus packages or just give out money, I'm saying that communists would be wise to help the most destitute populations with shit like housing and food because it would go a long way towards gaining influence.
>>971598
Damn, that's rough. Shouldn't have done it in your own name though.

 No.971606

>>971602
So what do I do? Go beat up an old lady and steal her pension book?

 No.971607

>>971602
>it would go a long way towards gaining influence
Read the thread m8, this mf literally doesn't think that communists should try to recruit people to the cause. His theoretical justification for this is a single Lenin quote taken massively out of context.

 No.971610

>>971606
Stop strawmanning me. There are ways to do it safely, effectively, without harming the working class, but I am not going to post a manual or some shit here.
>>971607
You right, arguing with types like that is a waste of time.

 No.971618

>>971595
>I guarantee you that there are way more communist parties engaging in mutual aid than there are ones buying guns
and that's why most communist parties are genuinely dogshit
> You seem to be under this nonsensical impression that a communist party can seize power without a mass movement behind it
your right, but when the proletariat are overthrowing the present state of things a communist party will not be able to help when they've spent most of their resources on buying houses and making sandwiches
>>971598
> Drugs are something
kill yourself
> You know what really helps to overthrow the government? Having the widest possible base of support among the working population
yeah when the capitalist mode of production demands their death, they are not going to need to be "convinced" to be against their own demise.
You know what helps more than soup kitchens and houses? Guns and organised militants
>>971602
> I'm saying that communists would be wise to help the most destitute populations with shit like housing and food because it would go a long way towards gaining influence.
communist parties do not bribe people into liking them, go read about anything the international or the bolsheviks did
>>971607
> this mf literally doesn't think that communists should try to recruit people to the cause
not to the extent of devoting millions and millions of dollars into it and acting as if communists are missionaries or that the proletariat are retards that just need to be enlightened about their position in society.

 No.971621

>>971610
Okay cool, so you have nothing then.

Even if you could scam the state, it's hardly likely you can get enough money from that in order to fund a huge real estate purchase

 No.971645

>>971618
>but when the proletariat are overthrowing the present state of things a communist party will not be able to help when they've spent most of their resources on buying houses and making sandwiches.
Except if the proletariat is really agitated to the point of revolution this presupposes a massive increase in support for communism, which brings with it an increase in available resources through donations, dues, etc.
>acting as if communists are missionaries or that the proletariat are retards that just need to be enlightened about their position in society
The proletariat DO need to be enlightened, that's the entire purpose of a vanguard party. Are you not familiar with the basics of Leninism? No, they aren't stupid, but to the vast majority of workers, the correctness of the communist position is not immediately obvious. They may get shit on by their boss, they may pay outrageous rents, but that doesn't mean they will automatically see the entire capitalist system as the culprit, or socialism as the solution, or revolution as the best means of achieving it. This isn't a question of stupidity, but of ignorance and misinformation which are deliberately fostered by the ruling class. The job of a communist party is to cut through that bullshit and foster the growth of class consciousness, which is best done through exposing the inability of capitalism to resolves its contradictions as well as demonstrating our own commitment to the workers and their interests. Historically speaking, the great masses of workers have only ever spontaneously developed a trade union consciousness. A revolutionary consciousness must be instilled in them by a revolutionary vanguard, which then serves as their agent. This is literally Leninism 101, read "What is To Be Done?"

 No.971647

>>971621
>Even if you could scam the state, it's hardly likely you can get enough money from that in order to fund a huge real estate purchase
It is. People made millions off of all of the covid programs.

 No.971664

>>971645
> The proletariat DO need to be enlightened
no they don't, they're not children you condescending retard

 No.971667

>>971664
What the fuck do you think the point of a vanguard is?

 No.971675

>>971667
run revolutionary militant operations like infiltrating military units, getting weapons and munitions, assassinating strike breakers leaders and informants, when revolution breaks out they would form military fighting units, as well as train revolutionaries and form cadres.

They don't hand out pamphlets and soup

 No.971676

>>971675
We are nowhere even close to that point yet.

 No.971678

>>971664
Gee i wonder why capitalist states bother with proaganda, don't they know people are adults and don't need to be taught?

 No.971680

>>971676
then stop acting like that's what communist parties aren't supposed to do, if you just want to work at a soup kitchen the work at a soup kitchen, i do as well, but i don't delude myself into think it's praxis.
>>971678
they also have this thing called the police and armed forces who aren't afraid to kill and maim when the proletariat get too unruly, good thing they have sandwiches though so they don't get shot on an empty stomach

 No.971681

>>971664
>We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.14 The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia…

>There has never been too much of such ”pushing on from outside“; on the contrary, there has so far been all too little of it in our movement, for we have been stewing too assiduously in our own juice; we have bowed far too slavishly to the elementary ”economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government“. We professional revolutionaries must and will make it our business to engage in this kind of ”pushing on“ a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto.

t. Lenin

 No.971683

>>971647
Yes but that's the bourgeois running scams, they have mates in local government who will cover for them in exchange for a kickback, or they have businesses already that they can apply for relief on, you an average person is not going to be able to steal millions in COVID contracts/relief funding

 No.971685

>>971680
The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. You're more likely to give weight to the words of someone who pulled you out of the river than from somone who just tell you to have cake.

 No.971688

>>971680
>then stop acting like that's what communist parties aren't supposed to do
Supposed to do according to whom? Communist parties are supposed to build a revolutionary movement, and such a movement will be much stronger if it has mass appeal, and it will have mass appeal if it can demonstrate its ability to improve the lives of the working class. You seem to have zero understanding of the distinction between different phases of struggle, the distinction between a War of Position and a War of Maneuver. Without first establishing a solid basis in the working class, and without conditions of elevated class antagonism, these kinds of militant actions are just adventurism and counterproductive. A small band of revolutionaries with no mass support can't expect to wage an armed campaign against the government and have any real success, at least not without pre-existing revolutionary conditions.

 No.971690

>>971681
this is from "what is to be done" which was written when lenin was still abiding by the group of crackpots known as the second international, which is why he talks about bullshit like "Social-Democratic consciousness", there's a reason why lenin never republished this after 1907

 No.971695

>>971690
>this is from "what is to be done"
Yeah where he lays the foundation of the theory of the revolutionary vanguard, which is the basis of Leninist praxis, the most successful revolutionary strategy to date, and the model for practically every communist party in the world today.
>when lenin was still abiding by the group of crackpots known as the second international
This was actually a rejection of a lot of the second international's praxis, which at the time was mainly rooted in reformism and economism. This was the beginning of the split between communism and social democracy.
>which is why he talks about bullshit like "Social-Democratic consciousness"
"Social democracy" at that time referred to the socialist movement as a whole since the split between communists and socdems hadn't happened yet. Hence by saying that workers are unable on their own to achieve a "Social democratic consciousness" he is talking about how they do not spontaneously derive class consciousness and a wholesale rejection of capitalism simply from engaging in trade union struggle. They need to be educated as to the political character of class struggle, and this is the purpose of the vanguard.

 No.971704

>>971683
Maybe so, but there were crews of hackers and fraudsters who made millions as well. With enough people and coordination, it is certainly possible.

 No.977048

>>969319

If a government could provide a stable job and a standard apartment (a studio for singles , 2 bedrooms for adults with dependent children) as a basic right then they would firmly lock in a whole pile of loyalty from most people.

The average lumpen only wants stability and comfort and if a communist system can offer that to them they would be quiet and loyal to the party that makes them comfortable. And if you make sure their favorite TV shows and sports are not interrupted they will pretty much do whatever they are told.

panem et circenses

 No.977111

>>977048
>bread and circuses are…… le bad


Unique IPs: 44

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]