Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[minorwork]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. In a Marxist society, you don't need to challenge yourself to survive. Sure, you can challenge yourself if you want, but it's not going to get you higher on the food chain.

We are both in a Maxist society and mine coal for the cause. A belt drive started and the structure that was bolted to the ground all 120 feet of it, folded up from the torque of the motors starting up with 2 miles of belt full of coal. How does a Marxist society function on a job to get this longwall belt up and running again? What differences would I notice from the way I experience it working for Exxon?

[Dan74]

It shouldn't differ. The coal workers know that society needs the coal mine, so they're going to put their effort into fixing the problem.

[minorwork]

It shouldn't differ. The coal workers know that society needs the coal mine, so they're going to put their effort into fixing the problem.

If no different then what's with the big push for different that you advocate for? It seems that you are saying there would still be bosses. Maybe in the Marxist system they won't have been lobotomized. Eh?

[BobbyO]

It's really reaching to call the Soviet Union socialist at all. Bureaucrats took the role of the bourgeoisie and workers had little ownership rights.
I would agree that Vanguardism in the Marxist-Leninist sense is very flawed.

Yep.

Of course, vanguardism is what keeps the "revolution" on target and assists in protecting it from "counter-revolutionaries" and those socialists who do not have full understanding and appreciation of "true" socialism. it also helps raise and keep "worker consciousness" and teaches what "true" socialism is all about.
Without the vanguard, the "revolution" drifts, as does the socialist project in general.

In other words, socialism is impossible to implement or to maintain by means of which most socialists would otherwise support.

[BobbyO]

They either accept the new system or face the punishment for being counter-revolutionaries.

"Punishment" as meted out by the "vanguard." This, apparently, is not one of its "deep flaws."

[BobbyO]

It's hard to tell. Industrialization in the USSR could have been achieved if they had not followed the Leninist model. Stalin and co.'s methods showed no indication of socialism, but they were not inherently capitalist either. Regardless, I support proletarian control from the start. I don't see the need for a sole leader of the party. As much as I hate harking back to historical examples, I think the failure of the Marxist-Leninist states is evidence that Marxism-Leninism is not a good strategy.

Industrialization could have been achieved had Russia stuck with the Czar- in 1914 Russia was the most rapidly industrializing nation on earth, and was growing even more rapidly than the USA (Russia was becoming a source of immigration, not emigration).

The demand for "proleteriat" control was of course achieved under Stalin and the USSR- hell Stalin was more "proleteriat" than Lennin or Marx.

It is true that marxist-Lenninism is not good strategy for enacting socialism. The bigger problems which the socialists face is that socialism is not good strategy for mankind.

[grandpa]

Industrialization could have been achieved had Russia stuck with the
Czar- in 1914 Russia was the most rapidly industrializing nation
on earth, and was growing even more rapidly than the
USA (Russia was becoming a source of immigration, not emigration).
The demand for "proleteriat" control was of course achieved under
Stalin and the USSR- hell Stalin was more "proleteriat" than
Lennin or Marx.

Few are blameless in the continuing conflict between classes. Imperial Russia did in fact exist, whether it was an "industrializing nation" or not. These days, however, I think "the Left" is more concerned with micro-scale issues, such as how agribusiness is reliant on ever-"advancing" pesticides and genetically modified crops. And, oddly enough, I think we shouldn't merely look to either the state, or the proletarian condition, for inspration. Once they were under control of the USSR, the proletariat didn't fair too well anyway. They're not doing great now, either, but the state capitalism of the USSR was obviously failing in plenty of ways.

Grandpa h.

[Dan74]

If no different then what's with the big push for different that you advocate for? It seems that you are saying there would still be bosses. Maybe in the Marxist system they won't have been lobotomized. Eh?

No, there would be no bosses. And yes, it would be different because there is no personal monetary gain to be had. Collective societies work differently.

Yep.

Of course, vanguardism is what keeps the "revolution" on target and assists in protecting it from "counter-revolutionaries" and those socialists who do not have full understanding and appreciation of "true" socialism. it also helps raise and keep "worker consciousness" and teaches what "true" socialism is all about.
Without the vanguard, the "revolution" drifts, as does the socialist project in general.

In other words, socialism is impossible to implement or to maintain by means of which most socialists would otherwise support.

Nope. Vanguardism was a strategy proposed to help prevent reformism. Ironically, it led to reformism. I stand for more of a mass vanguard, in which the party seeks to establish class consciousness in all proletarians. With the Marxist-Leninist idea of a vanguard, party bureaucrats are formed into a sort of ruling class and the proletariat is kept in chains.

"Punishment" as meted out by the "vanguard." This, apparently, is not one of its "deep flaws."

I don't want to see socialism come to a halt to meet the needs of the people who have been in control for centuries. It's not like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie wouldn't punish revolutionaries. Just look at the times where people have risen up against the ruling class.

The whole idea of "nice guy socialism" is flawed. Force must be countered with force.

Industrialization could have been achieved had Russia stuck with the Czar- in 1914 Russia was the most rapidly industrializing nation on earth, and was growing even more rapidly than the USA (Russia was becoming a source of immigration, not emigration).

I am really not interested in a debate on Russian history, let alone Russian economic history.

The demand for "proleteriat" control was of course achieved under Stalin and the USSR- hell Stalin was more "proleteriat" than Lennin or Marx.

No, it wasn't. The party had the final say in economic matters, and could veto whatever the soviets (worker councils) proposed. It was neither socialist nor a dictatorship of the proletariat. Grandpa's analysis is good.

socialism is not good strategy for mankind.

Why not?

[BobbyO]

Nope. Vanguardism was a strategy proposed to help prevent reformism. Ironically, it led to reformism. I stand for more of a mass vanguard, in which the party seeks to establish class consciousness in all proletarians. With the Marxist-Leninist idea of a vanguard, party bureaucrats are formed into a sort of ruling class and the proletariat is kept in chains.

"Reformism" in a socialist community is the socialist who disagrees with what the majority of the socialists in that community believe. The notion that there are "no bosses" in a socialist community is absurd- the boss s the majority.

I don't want to see socialism come to a halt to meet the needs of the people who have been in control for centuries. It's not like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie wouldn't punish revolutionaries. Just look at the times where people have risen up against the ruling class.

The whole idea of "nice guy socialism" is flawed. Force must be countered with force.

The history of socialism in the 20th century has been a rejection of "nice guy socialism." That has been the problem.

No, it wasn't. The party had the final say in economic matters, and could veto whatever the soviets (worker councils) proposed. It was neither socialist nor a dictatorship of the proletariat. Grandpa's analysis is good.

It was the "vanguard" in action- that you conclude that it failed in no way changes this. All you are left with is claiming they failed because they did the wrong things in building socialism. I would claim that the error was in thinking socialism could be built.

[BobbyO]

It shouldn't differ. The coal workers know that society needs the coal mine, so they're going to put their effort into fixing the problem.

A socialist community will function differently than a capitalist one. i mean, this is a pretty basic obvious comment. Yet I am sorry to say it this way, but it often seems something socialists don't really seem to understand. It isn't good enough to simply say they will "fix the problem." It has to be described. And solutions which the capitalist would use, are, by definition, closed to the socialist.
Who tells the coal miners that coal mine needed? How much coal do they need to extract ect ect ect??? These are some of the basic type of questions which need to be answered.

[Dan74]

"Reformism" in a socialist community is the socialist who disagrees with what the majority of the socialists in that community believe. The notion that there are "no bosses" in a socialist community is absurd- the boss s the majority.

I don't see anything wrong with this. The bourgeoisie have had enough time bossing people - it's time they get a taste of their own medicine.

The history of socialism in the 20th century has been a rejection of "nice guy socialism." That has been the problem.

So what? I seek a completely different approach than the 20th century socialist leaders.

It was the "vanguard" in action- that you conclude that it failed in no way changes this. All you are left with is claiming they failed because they did the wrong things in building socialism. I would claim that the error was in thinking socialism could be built.

Again, you're talking about something that I do not advocate. I don't want a Leninist vanguard - I want a truly Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. That means a "vanguard party" of which all proletarians can participate in. The idea of having a privileged few lead the revolution is a failed idea.

A socialist community will function differently than a capitalist one. i mean, this is a pretty basic obvious comment. Yet I am sorry to say it this way, but it often seems something socialists don't really seem to understand. It isn't good enough to simply say they will "fix the problem." It has to be described. And solutions which the capitalist would use, are, by definition, closed to the socialist.
Who tells the coal miners that coal mine needed? How much coal do they need to extract ect ect ect??? These are some of the basic type of questions which need to be answered.

Councils, unions, all that - workers are in control - they decide what must be done in a democratic fashion.

[BobbyO]

Again, you're talking about something that I do not advocate. I don't want a Leninist vanguard - I want a truly Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. That means a "vanguard party" of which all proletarians can participate in. The idea of having a privileged few lead the revolution is a failed idea.

But again-- the people leading the vanguard will not be "all proleterians". It will be those proleterians who are in the majority over other proleterians who are not as popular. And that proleterians who are in the majority will simply delegate (ie . elect) the nuts and bolts of the operation to a select few- as they otherwise do their work and then go home and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Councils, unions, all that - workers are in control - they decide what must be done in a democratic fashion.

In order to make a "democratic" decision. there has to be a source of knowledge upon which the workers are debating to make their "democratic" decision.