I asked Microsoft Copilot to name my bad political self-theory from when I was a teenager.
This should be a meme. It needs a symbol. It needs to be in the Polcompball Wiki.
(No joke, I thought this was a good idea as a teenager. I thought this was a foolproof way to eliminate capitalism.)
(For reference, I'm now a post-left anarchist.)
(This model would lead to so much corruption lmao; especially if tankie think tanks get involved.)
(Now, if you want to meme this aborted train wreck, you can depict SyndiCentralist ball as a manipulative, corrupt, almost cult-like leader, despite running being part of a seemingly-democratic organization. Despite the workers making the vote, he's pretty much the thought leader. And he's only really concerned with achieving his own political gains, and is willing to accept advice and collaboration from MLs.)
"
Lenin said: "The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of power, an organized force for suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and for readership of the great masses of the population, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and also for the establishment of socialist ownership". (Lenin State and Revolution page 142, Russian edition, free translation). "But it should not be forgotten", says Lenin, quoting Marx. "That the proletariat needs only the state which is withering away".
That is how Lenin refers to this matter. And what does the bourgeoisie need? The bourgeoisie, the exploiting class, needs the state as a permanent force for maintaining the exploited classes in subjection, meaning the majority of the people. The bourgeoisie does not contemplate the weakening of the state machinery, to say nothing of its withering away, for it considers its system, the system of exploitation, immortal and perfect.
Accordingly, the difference between the bourgeois state, no matter how disguised it may be by a democratic screen, and our state, for instance, is that the bourgeois state, an apparatus of force in the hands of a minority, meaning the class exploiter, oppresses the majority of the people and has the tendency to increase in strength. Here, although the state has the job of restraining the minority of exploiters and enemies of new Yugoslavia, it is gradually dying away, for its functions, primarily in the economy, are gradually being transferred to the working people.
According to Marxist science, the state is a product of "class conflicts", and it will wither away when classes disappear, when there is no longer anyone to suppress or any reason to suppress them.
Where is the beginning of this withering away process in our country? I shall mention only the following examples. First, decentralization of the state administration, especially in economy. Secondly, turning over the factories and economic enterprises in general to the working collectives to manage themselves, etc. The decentralization of economy and political, cultural and other aspects of life is not only profoundly democratic but has inherent in it the seeds of withering away not only of centralism, but of the state in general, as a machine of force. This is a fact which anyone can check on here if they want to.
How do things look in the Soviet Union thirty-one years after the October Revolution? The October Revolution made it possible for the state to take the means of production into its hands. But these means are still, after 31 years, in the hands of the state. Has the slogan "the factories for the workers" been put into practice? Of course not. The workers still do not have any say in the management of the factories. They are managed by directors who are appointed by the state, that is, by civil service employees. The workers only have the 'possibility and the right to work but this is not very different from the role of the workers in capitalist countries. The only difference for workers is that there is no unemployment in the Soviet Union, and that is all.
Therefore, the leaders of the Soviet Union have not, so far, put through one of the most characteristic measures of a socialist state, that of turning over the factories and other economic enterprises to the workers so that they may manage them. Since the Soviet leaders consider state ownership as the highest form of social ownership, the fact that they have not turned over the means of production to the workers to manage probably issues from such a conception of state ownership. Besides, this is altogether in accordance with the strengthening of their state machine. That is also a fact that anyone can ascertain for themselves, if they want to learn the truth."
Josip Broz Tito, 'Workers Shall Manage Factories in Yugoslavia', June 26, 1950.
Have you ever heard of Silvio Gesell and Natural money?
I hadn't until you asked, but then again I haven't read as much into market socialism as other forms of socialism.
So I looked into his Freiwirtschaft system; you can certainly see the influence of Henry George, and that peculiar mix of radicalism and capitalism that you get at the point where left-liberalism borders on socialism. For the uninitiated, the system consisted of the "Three Fs:"
Freigeld (which is properly translated as "free money" rather than "natural" money) is a fiat currency issued by a central bank that ensures it will neither inflate nor deflate, and that ensures that money will circulate through demurrage (i.e, that money would expire after a certain point, and to prevent money from expiring you would have to pay a tax or fee that would make it no longer profitable to hoard cash). Gesell believed that this full circulation would reduce interest rates to zero.
Freiland ("free land") is where Gesell goes beyond Henry George to propose abolishing the private ownership of land in favor of it being owned by the public and then rented out to workers - in essence nationalizing economic rent. Gesell believed that this would prevent landlords from reaping the benefits of the welfare state by raising prices.
Freihandel ("free trade") is his proposal for a global free trade regime conducted through an international currency union that would maintain stable exchange rates of fiat currencies and abolish the gold standard in international commerce.
I would argue that Gesell's market socialism is distinctive from Marxist socialism in that he takes a very Georgist approach to "the labor question" - he doesn't really analyze wage labor outside of the context of agricultural labor, and believes that without rent or interest there would be no exploitation and the free market would be genuinely meritocratic. I think this is a major flaw in his scheme, because he doesn't confront the inherent inequality that comes from unequal ownership of capital (in forms other than land or bank balances) and the need to sell your labor to live. Presumably, the idea is that with full production of land and capital, you'd have very tight labor markets, but that's not guaranteed and it's especially not a guarantee that workers get a fair share of their labor.
In a Freiwirtschaft economy, you might get less inequality because of the abolition of interest and private rents, but you might also see inequality simply transforming into new forms. We see in the case of the ager publicus that the wealthy can monopolize state land and come to think of it as their private property to the point where they murdered the Gracchi brothers to defend their privileges. Likewise, while you wouldn't be able to make much money off of money in the bank, Gesell's system absolutely allowed for rentier capitalism through the ownership of stocks and bonds, so you're still getting r>g and thus rising inequality over time.
Freiwirtschaft is also distinctive from social democracy in that it largely aims to correct inequality in the market rather than redistributing after the fact. Given the context of late 19th century/early 20th century Germany, it makes sense that Gesell did see social insurance as insufficient for combatting poverty and inequality . From his actions as the People's Representative for Finances in the Bavarian Socialist Republic, it does seem that Gesell intended the money from his freigeld and freiland systems to go to providing a more comprehensive basic income.
Over the past couple weeks, I’ve been reading some studies on worker cooperatives (in addition to a more general Wikipedia article) as part of the effort to improve my rhetorical skills in anticipation of potential debates.
Consistently, the studies I’ve read have found that worker cooperatives, while not always more productive than traditional firms, sometimes are and are furthermore never found to be LESS productive. And while there can be an underinvestment problem in the early stages of cooperatives, it’s possible to overcome or circumvent this by engaging in co-op mutual funds, seeking loans from credit institutions that specifically work with co-ops (which are rare but do exist), investing in other businesses to get some dividends/capital returns, etc. So on some of the capitalists’ own ground, co-ops are still better.
But that’s not what really matters to me -- I support degrowth, so I’d even be okay with them being less productive -- rather, what matters is the pretty ubiquitously accepted fact across the literary landscape that worker co-ops are all around better for the workers than the structure of traditional firms. In just about every aspect of “is life good” that you could measure, worker co-ops are better than traditional firms -- mental health, happiness, commitment and fulfillment at work, job/income stability, that kind of thing.
Now some of the more theory minded among you might say, “this sounds like market socialism, but I thought you were an anarcho-communist?” That’s true, I am -- but it’s almost impossible for me to think of anything we could do to legislate or write that reality into existence, and a proletarian revolution isn’t exactly close by for America or any other country in the west. So, market socialism seems like a good intermediate stage, where you could have high incentives for worker co-ops (as well as very high disincentives for traditional firms), a welfare state, strong unions (if only as a form of redundancy), dual track pricing so that essentials aren’t necessarily subject to market trends, and this would all be possible to write into law with a state legal structure. That, and it would shift the Overton window to a point that makes anarcho-communism a bit more imaginable and tangible than it is right now.
It is eminently possible to have a market-based economy that requires no such brutality and demands no such ideological purity. A free market in consumer products can coexist with free public health care, with public schools, with a large segment of the economy - like a national oil company - held in state hands. It's equally possible to require corporations to pay decent wages, to respect the right of workers to form unions, and for governments to tax and redistribute wealth so that the sharp inequalities that mark the corporatist state are reduced.
𝐀 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐁𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐒 38. then who's flying the plane???
prev | masterlist | next
SUMMARY ▸ in which you work at the starbucks where heeseung is a regular at (and considered a public enemy). also he only goes when he’s stoned off his ass.
i know this isnt what i usually post, "shut up fat kink blog" i dont fucking care sit the hell down and listen.
You're aware of the Huion New Year AIGI Tweet, right?
LEST WE FORGET, back in november last year:
If you want to buy a Wacom, Huion or Gaumon device, I'd recommend either looking into an alternative or buying secondhand/refurbished from 3rd party sellers on Ebay or something. Avoid Amazon for all the obvious reasons.
This is fucking disgusting. This is embarrassing. This is unacceptable.
I say this in the kindest way possible, but I think this style of prose is more appropriate for a personal account rather than an update account. I have no idea who's being talked about half the time. 🥲