marxists.org/archive/lenin/w … 5zz99h-331
So I rediscovered this article and this website.
I read a wee bit years ago.
Appearantly the writer feels that these 5 things could help society out, and are simple to do.
The article is fairly short too, just a ‘chapter’ was linked to.
They are simple in the sense that all workers need to do is carry on the work they do anyway, but without their employer directing money away from employees and towards themselves.
But they aren’t simple because these employers are seen as extremely powerful despite their tiny numbers, and within the current economic environment it is still trusted that being bought-out by these people will help you - provided you don’t sufficiently know about the alternative (which most people don’t).
This means tons of counter revolution (within and without the nation in which revolution is occurring), which historically proves catastrophic towards making such simple changes.
These 5 things would undoubtedly help out society:
The reason they aren’t currently in place is ideological: it is deemed more “free” for companies to be restricted by the individuals who provide market competition based on self-interest, than by individuals who vote for or against the same effects that such competition has but with both self-interest and the interests of the community at heart.
Nationalising certain aspects of the work environment, and making others into syndicates enables this extra degree of financial control without any loss in motivation or competition. A win-win proposition obviously, but not many people understand why.
At some point the banks can make up money out of thin air.
My favorite on the list was the abolishing of commercial secrecy.
That will never happen. We would have to get rid of our trade and banking monopolies where nobody is going to do that especially since now everybody has been convinced that capitalism benefits everybody on the lines of the privatization arguement. As we all know secrecy is inherent in all forms of privatization.
They already do that. Are you guys arguing for a communist or state socialist economy here? I don’t really favor capitalism or communism. Since my current beliefs aspire towards a kind of dictatorship of the proletariat I favor fascism, but albeit a kind of fascism that benefits the working class ruled by workers.
I said ‘at some point’, referring to when they have enough means. It doesn’t take much I figure.
We’re already communist in that we don’t have classes anymore. Also racism is something communism is against. But, despite all social change, they kept the capitalism and the banks.
Workers already have allot of control and power, but they waste it or don’t use it. I think it would require propaganda in order for them to behave differently. At the end of the day they are nothing but complex, outdated machines.
Technology is part of the problem Dan. They want to replace everybody with robots, machines, and computers to inherit the world to themselves in order to dispose the rest of us.
You change the workers by also making them warriors. It would be like the ancient Athenians. When they weren’t in battle they were farmers and workers. You must transform the working class to be much more than just mere workers and laborers.
Of course?
This is essential to any economy that at least wants to stabilise the value of the currency (if not inflate it, which there are many advantages to as well as risks).
Even if the volume of goods and services transacted doesn’t increase, the population apparently insists on increasing. So unless more money is introduced, either in physical cash or digitally, or in credit, each new person is going to require money that’s already in the system to be passed by them instead of the others who it would have otherwise been passed by. Meaning the same amount of money is spread over more people, which reduces the amount of money each person has, deflating the value of the currency.
But economic theory aside, what was your point?
That’s the whole point of nationalisation…
In conjunction with the essence of genuine Socialism: direct democracy, there can be no commercial secrecy - ironically in the same way as private markets work today… those in charge simply won’t be elected unless they provide sufficient transparency.
Are you shitting me?
Maybe you’re thinking in terms of social class rather than economic class (which is the type of class that Communism is concerned with):
There is a capitalist “class” consisting of people who could essentially own any business, it doesn’t matter. All you need is money enough to use as capital (to make more money as opposed to using for your own consumption).
And there is a working “class” consisting of people who can’t or won’t use their money as capital, who have to earn their living by selling their labour to capitalists. It matters not what kind of labour - the class is identified by the need to sell it.
Class.
It most certainly exists.
Completely backwards.
Racism or no is not an economic concern. Communism isn’t built on it, but is not necessarily against it. That’s a politcal issue to be dealt with amongst communes as they see fit. And keeping Capitalism in Communism? What on earth have you been filling your head with, boy?
On an unrelated note, you persistently use the non-word “allot”, when linguistic convention would have you use the words “a lot”. Up to you of course, but personally I find it annoying.
Technology isn’t a problem if it lets people off the hook.
But they aren’t let off. People are required to work at something - anything. Doesn’t matter what, as long as they work - even if technology means they don’t need to and the added value of employing such a person is minimal. Under Capitalism…
You have insufficient understanding of how Capitalism works. Capitalists NEED workers in order to transfer the value that workers create to themselves. This is the only way possible for profit to be made: have workers put in more value than they get out, so capitalists can get rich off them. Capitalists require them.
Yes, but if you own all the machines and they’re all your property human workers become largely irrelevant where they can be made obsolete.
Notice most of the working class in the United States have been pushed into lowly menial labor until a machine replaces them also. The middle class might laugh at the lower working class now feeling superior because machines haven’t been created to replace their occupations, but within time their fate will be the same under the current world’s leadership.
This is already happening in all industrial civilizations and will become progressively worse as technology advances.
This is why the elites who own all the machines and infrastructure constantly fantasizes about killing ninety percent of the world’s population so that only they and their army of mechanical laborers are left to inherit the world.
A machine doesn’t need healthcare or rights. A machine can be programmed to obey all orders on command without any slightest revolt.
A machine doesn’t require a income or wages.
A machine only needs energy which another machine can supply.
Are you understanding Silhouette?
I personally don’t like that vision of a total technological future. For me it’s a nightmare and dehumanizing in that it takes the human element out of things which is why I have contrasting ulterior ideals for the future of men.
That was written in 1917. By 1921, the Soviet economy had collapsed and Lenin had to implement The New Economic Policy:
Are you being serious?
I think one has to look at the history of the Russian revolutions to understand what happened. When the Bolsheviks took charge under Lenin he cancelled Russia’s foreign debt obligations, returned land ownership to the peasant class and took Russia out of WW1, all of which were consistent with Leninist philosophy and, in that time and space, were good ideas.
Then MI6 tried to assassinate him and the Western powers created a civil war in Russia pitching the ‘White Russians’ (who wanted a military dictatorship and/or the return of the Tsarist system) against the Bolshevik ‘Red Russians’. That’s what really screwed Leninism - the fact that after he was shot Lenin lost power to the likes of Trotsky and Stalin, the former a morally lesser man, the latter a raving psychopath, and that Russia could make no economic progress whilst having to fight off the White Russians being supported by the US, UK and so on.
So they didn’t ‘keep capitalism and the banks’, indeed they never had ‘capitalism and the banks’ to begin with. Russia went from being an agrarian monarchy to a socialist state to a military dictatorship…