Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Ajidica]

An alternative option, or one that can be combined with the above, is Syndicalism, the gradual take-over of production by organised labour. Socialism should not be understood as fundamentally dependent on the state.

Blech. I've been reading too much Lassalle.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of Syndicalism, so apologies if I completly butcher it.
I'm assuming that by organized labor you are reffering to unions, correct?
If so, what is to prevent certain trade unions from becoming the next bourgeoisie? Some commodities or services are more important than others. Because of that, what is stopping unions in those important roles from exploiting those who rely on them.

That is usually where class conciousness is presumed to play a part. Even in the softest form of capitalism, the majority of workers are still exploited, and all workers are, to some degree, held under the sway of the Capitalist class. The trick is for the workers to realise that their investment in the Capitalist system is ultimately counter to their own interest, which is objectively true for the majority, and, if one takes a Libertarian line, true for all.

Does the class conciousness have to endorse a Communist or Socialist line of though? If the proletariat want capitalism (can't see why, but lets run with it), wouldn't them wanting it be a manifestation of class conciousness?
As soon as we say "Class conciousness is only when the proletariat wants Communism/Socialism", aren't we being as bad as the Libertarians who are saying "Only rational people can be Libertarians, and only Libertarians can be rational"?

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[civver_764]

Working at McDonald's isn't the same as discovering/researching/inventing new stuff.

I didn't say it was.

Say Perfection invents a satellite that can scratch your ass from space, should he not be allowed to reap the benefits of this possible billion dollar industry?

Some of them. Your example is a bit hard to take seriously though.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of Syndicalism, so apologies if I completly butcher it.
I'm assuming that by organized labor you are reffering to unions, correct?
If so, what is to prevent certain trade unions from becoming the next bourgeoisie? Some commodities or services are more important than others. Because of that, what is stopping unions in those important roles from exploiting those who rely on them.

Well, each individual worker would sit at the intersection of several associations of various types and scales, rather than pledging his loyalty entirely to one corporate entity. As such, it would require a rather grand conspiracy for any coalition to wield the sort of power described, and this could be prevented through various institutional means. While this may indeed be a concern, the issue of prevention lies in the proper construction of the appropriate institutions, rather than in the principal of the thing.

It's probably worth observing that Syndicalism is usually posed as a transitional form of organisation, with Collectivism or Communism being seen as the end route, so it's hard to give definite answers in regards to the sort of institutional organisation necessary (which I realise sounds like a bit of a cop-out). It's a method by which Socialism is achieved, rather than an illustration of mature Socialism.

Does the class conciousness have to endorse a Communist or Socialist line of though? If the proletariat want capitalism (can't see why, but lets run with it), wouldn't them wanting it be a manifestation of class conciousness?
As soon as we say "Class conciousness is only when the proletariat wants Communism/Socialism", aren't we being as bad as the Libertarians who are saying "Only rational people can be Libertarians, and only Libertarians can be rational"?

I suppose this may be ideological bias on my part, but it's presumed that some form of Socialism would be the result of class conciousness, yes. Obviously, the exact form is far from certain- I don't hold to the notion popular in some Marxist circles that these things can be objectively established- but the nature of class conciousness, assuming that the Socialist model of class is indeed correct, suggests that any mass movement would be aimed towards greater autonomy for the worker, whatever form that takes, and that this autonomy would demand the rejection of the exploitation which results from the Capitalism system of property.
And, yes, I realise that this comes dangerously close to (big-L) Libertarian claims of unique "rationality", but I suppose it hinges on whether or not you accept the Socialist analysis of Capitalism as correct in the first place. That is quite probably what determines whether or not endorses Socialism or not in the first place.

 

[civver_764]

Which is why you wishy washy socialist libertarians, syndicalists, and anarchists were never successful and won't get anything done. You're afraid to shed blood and to use force. That's why the Bolsheviks were so successful while the Greens, Anarchists, and Mensheviks were crushed.

Better to accomplish nothing(which we actually haven't) than to accomplish the further oppression of the workingman.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Joecoolyo]

I didn't say it was.

You said that you think you should be paid a billion dollars for working at McDonald's, while the other person was arguing that a person who invented something new should be paid that amount. Which do you think is more justified?

Some of them. Your example is a bit hard to take seriously though.

Well, not everything needs to be super-serious.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but then again, without that invention, all those people would be out of a job.

Because no-one ever had a job before the establishment of the Ass-Scratching Satellite industry?

Seriously? Are you trying to suggest that the workingman was oppressed by the Soviet state?

Oppressed, repressed, suppressed and, on occasion, compressed.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[civver_764]

Seriously? Are you trying to suggest that the workingman was oppressed by the Soviet state?

Yeah, that's what I said isn't it?

collective property, central planning and a workers state.”

If that's what socialism is count me out. I think Marx would disagree though.

What examples can you point to of your success? The short lives Paris Commune, and the short live Anarchist Catalonia. Do you have anything else? No. Because they were crushed. But the Bolsheviks were strong and forceful and did what was needed to ensure the success of socialism at any cost.

At least they didn't collapse on themselves

You said that you think you should be paid a billion dollars for working at McDonald's, while the other person was arguing that a person who invented something new should be paid that amount. Which do you think is more justified?

I was saying just because someone thinks they should be entitled to something doesn't mean they are, I wasn't meaning to say they were the same level of "labor".

 

[Traitorfish]

Are we still playing Karalysia-the-Stalinist? I thought you'd moved on from that.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Azula would be a Stalinist. Don't you?

I thought the Fire Nation was a monarchy? Or does she know how to move with the times?

 

[amadeus]

If you wanted to, but it wouldn't be Syndicalism. It would just be Capitalism, co-existing alongside Syndicalism, as it does now, and can be expected to do for the foreseeable future.

My point exactly.

 

[Perfection]

1) There is no state in communism.
2) I don't quite understand the rest of your question.

A couple commitees? You could travel all around the world looking for a community to accept you if you wanted. Plus you would have an easier time getting "approval" because it wouldn't be based on profitability.

Alternatively if you think you've saved up enough you could just stop working yourself and completely ignore the communities.

I'm not buyin' it. What incentives would communities have for funding your stuff? Communities would by and large only vote for things that benefit themselves, and since most of your product's benefit would probably be to other communities, why should any community bother supporting you?

What do you mean?

Most ideas suck, it's quite difficult to separate the good ones from the bad ones.

Thinking up a new product is not worth billions of dollars.

That's not all entrepreneurs do. Entrepreneurs take a vision and make it reality, which is quite difficult!

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to research and develop without wanting that much, in fact I know there are because they exist today.

But they aren't entrepaneurs and they aren't getting billions of dollars.

And that's because entrepreneurs aren't just R&D guys. They are and need to be so much more.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Because no-one ever had a job before the establishment of the Ass-Scratching Satellite industry?

There are only so many jobs in the world.

I was saying just because someone thinks they should be entitled to something doesn't mean they are, I wasn't meaning to say they were the same level of "labor".

Oh, ok, I see what you're saying

 

[GhostWriter16]

But what of the farmers? They don't glean; they actively alter the environment to provide a huge population base's support. Shouldn't power rest with them, given that they make everyone else's lifestyle possible?

They tried that in Shin in The Way of Kings novel.

I thought it was rather funny actually.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know I find the tendencies of fellow lefties to denounce the Soviet Union disturbing. Sure it was imperfect, and made plenty of mistakes, but it was the first socialist country in history so of course it was going to make mistakes. I bet if the Paris Commune or Anarchist Catalonia had lasted longer they would also have made mistakes.

But there can be no denying the fact that the Soviet Union was a great thing which made fantastic advancements in living standards, literacy, workers rights, social progression in terms of women's rights and abortion, secularization, infrastructure and reduction in wealth inequality.

These are all positive achievements of the Soviet state and the Soviet citizens were better off thanks to Soviet rule. As I said before Gorbachev's ham handed reforms were responsible for its collapse nothing else.

So I am not ashamed of the Soviet Union. I do not denounce it. I praise it for it's many successes and defend it's achievements. We should learn from and build off it's mistakes to create a better socialist state.

Killing 20 million people is "A mistake?" (And that's just under Stalin.)

More like genocide. The Soviet Union was a scar in history much as how Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini were, and much how North Korea, Afghanistan's Taliban, and Sudan are today.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete