What do you believe class is? If ownership of industry and its control is all owned by the same class, and everyone belongs to the same class, then there is no class as such and class struggle dissolves.
I really am just concerned about whether collective ownership is really achieved. Something can look collectivized just because it is controlled by the state, but without a radical democratic apparatus you will never see the dissolution of class.
You’ve not produced any argument as to why you think so in all your arguments. Most of your messages are abstract and purposely avoid making a point. What are you trying to accomplish here?
A dubious nomination process for political officials
Together, this doesn’t give me confidence that the Proletariat has seized power, but instead there has emerged some kind of Platonic state with a permanent political class.
There’s no such thing as a “political class,” and you’re still repeating the Bordigist error of using mere fears based on your own unfamiliarity to oppose a proletarian state. Class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. All of what you said is either sensible given the DPRK’s existence as a country in siege, or is a misunderstanding on your own part, a misunderstanding that can be alleviated through study.
As I already explained, class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. The DPRK’s economy is overwhelmingly publicly owned, there’s nearly no private ownership. Administration is not a class by itself, but a subset of a larger class, in this case the proletariat. Government employees have the same relations to production and distribution as other workers, just with different responsibilities in the production chain.
Classless society will still have administration and management, as is necessary for large-scale production and distribution. This future communism will also be stateless, as administration is not the same as a state.
Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear they might slip into opportunism; there are insufficient guarantees against this; etc. His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative: they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their own point of view and their solutions. They end up spreading doubt and distrust without offering anything constructive.
You haven’t given me the opportunity to propose a positive argument for anything. I believe that the primary goal of the Left should be to develop radical new forms of horizontal collaboration, in order to promote class solidarity and revolutionize forms of production in a democratic manner.
You have described an aspiration, not yet an argument. What are the actual mechanisms here? What institutions would embody this horizontal collaboration, how would they be built, and how would they survive internal and external threats? Why should this model be preferred to Marxism-Leninism as it has existed in practice in countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and China? More specifically, in the case of the DPRK, how would it be workable, and why would it be preferable to Juche given the country’s political and economic position as a state under siege?
If we look in history, we see major changes in class antagonisms and productive forms following breakthroughs in physical and social technology. The end of the trans-atlantic slave trade and guild economies coincided with the first industrial revolution. The Roman Licinio-Sextian laws that saw a gain in political power for Plebians came after great increase in transportation capacity, connecting members of that class, such as the completion of the Appian Way. Feudalism collapsed with the rise of corporations. The french revolution was possible partly due to the printing press.
The shared interest of the Proletariat or any large class exist only in a latent form, unless the capacity exists to collaborate in its realization. No amount of pressure or destitution will force a group into collaborative action; political capacities are necessary. Existing representative democracies succeed in mobilizing groups, but fail in mobilizing toward their collective interest. Any representative put in a position of power over others loses a personal material interest in pursuing class solidarity.
What are the actual mechanisms here?
Democracy by design. A method of organizing that provides large groups with the ability to reach broad consensus and act upon it. There is a growing body of research coming from Chinese universities about LSGDM (Large Scale Group Decision Making), which is very relevant. I propose that leftists pursue this kind of research. More crucially, a horizontal solution to the collective action problem is needed.
What institutions would embody this horizontal collaboration
All institutions.
how would they be built
Their invention can be done by anyone, and their application can be seen in any institution, capitalist or not. The availability of these tools will spread if they are effective, and eventually provide the masses with the tools for their emancipation.
how would they survive internal and external threats?
The increase in productive power scales exponentially with the size of a collaborating group. If a majority of people participate in such a system they will overpower their opposition in collective intelligence, manpower, etc.
Why should this model be preferred to Marxism-Leninism as it has existed in practice in countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and China?
Because those projects dubiously represent the collective interests of their citizens, and economic achievements aside, have failed to move convincingly toward communism. The use of delegation and vanguardism create the conditions for the development of a Red Bourgeoisie, which appears to be exactly what emerged.
In the case of the DPRK, how would it be workable, and why would it be preferable to Juche given the country’s political and economic position as a state under siege?
As you have seen, I am still learning about North Korea, and I agree with the sentiment that every country’s transition toward communism will look different. With that in mind, I will not speculate on how this would work in that country.
I’m curious to see how they respond. Because I’m thinking the answer to these questions is basically “I’m an ultra/anarchist who hasn’t thought this out at all and I’m being contrarian with no substance so I can feel like I’m contributing without doing anything”
What do you believe class is? If ownership of industry and its control is all owned by the same class, and everyone belongs to the same class, then there is no class as such and class struggle dissolves.
I really am just concerned about whether collective ownership is really achieved. Something can look collectivized just because it is controlled by the state, but without a radical democratic apparatus you will never see the dissolution of class.
You’re worried far more about the possibility of imperfection than what’s actually happening on the ground, and what can best be done to achieve that.
I’m not concerned with imperfection. What I know about North Korea that concerns me goes far beyond imperfection.
You’ve not produced any argument as to why you think so in all your arguments. Most of your messages are abstract and purposely avoid making a point. What are you trying to accomplish here?
I don’t think you’ve established that beyond your current belief that universal conscription during war time is equivalent to slavery.
I am also very concerned with
Together, this doesn’t give me confidence that the Proletariat has seized power, but instead there has emerged some kind of Platonic state with a permanent political class.
There’s no such thing as a “political class,” and you’re still repeating the Bordigist error of using mere fears based on your own unfamiliarity to oppose a proletarian state. Class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. All of what you said is either sensible given the DPRK’s existence as a country in siege, or is a misunderstanding on your own part, a misunderstanding that can be alleviated through study.
Do you have a reason to claim that there is no such thing as a political class?
As I already explained, class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. The DPRK’s economy is overwhelmingly publicly owned, there’s nearly no private ownership. Administration is not a class by itself, but a subset of a larger class, in this case the proletariat. Government employees have the same relations to production and distribution as other workers, just with different responsibilities in the production chain.
Classless society will still have administration and management, as is necessary for large-scale production and distribution. This future communism will also be stateless, as administration is not the same as a state.
You haven’t given me the opportunity to propose a positive argument for anything. I believe that the primary goal of the Left should be to develop radical new forms of horizontal collaboration, in order to promote class solidarity and revolutionize forms of production in a democratic manner.
You have described an aspiration, not yet an argument. What are the actual mechanisms here? What institutions would embody this horizontal collaboration, how would they be built, and how would they survive internal and external threats? Why should this model be preferred to Marxism-Leninism as it has existed in practice in countries like Vietnam, Cuba, and China? More specifically, in the case of the DPRK, how would it be workable, and why would it be preferable to Juche given the country’s political and economic position as a state under siege?
My argument:
If we look in history, we see major changes in class antagonisms and productive forms following breakthroughs in physical and social technology. The end of the trans-atlantic slave trade and guild economies coincided with the first industrial revolution. The Roman Licinio-Sextian laws that saw a gain in political power for Plebians came after great increase in transportation capacity, connecting members of that class, such as the completion of the Appian Way. Feudalism collapsed with the rise of corporations. The french revolution was possible partly due to the printing press.
The shared interest of the Proletariat or any large class exist only in a latent form, unless the capacity exists to collaborate in its realization. No amount of pressure or destitution will force a group into collaborative action; political capacities are necessary. Existing representative democracies succeed in mobilizing groups, but fail in mobilizing toward their collective interest. Any representative put in a position of power over others loses a personal material interest in pursuing class solidarity.
Democracy by design. A method of organizing that provides large groups with the ability to reach broad consensus and act upon it. There is a growing body of research coming from Chinese universities about LSGDM (Large Scale Group Decision Making), which is very relevant. I propose that leftists pursue this kind of research. More crucially, a horizontal solution to the collective action problem is needed.
All institutions.
Their invention can be done by anyone, and their application can be seen in any institution, capitalist or not. The availability of these tools will spread if they are effective, and eventually provide the masses with the tools for their emancipation.
The increase in productive power scales exponentially with the size of a collaborating group. If a majority of people participate in such a system they will overpower their opposition in collective intelligence, manpower, etc.
Because those projects dubiously represent the collective interests of their citizens, and economic achievements aside, have failed to move convincingly toward communism. The use of delegation and vanguardism create the conditions for the development of a Red Bourgeoisie, which appears to be exactly what emerged.
As you have seen, I am still learning about North Korea, and I agree with the sentiment that every country’s transition toward communism will look different. With that in mind, I will not speculate on how this would work in that country.
I’m curious to see how they respond. Because I’m thinking the answer to these questions is basically “I’m an ultra/anarchist who hasn’t thought this out at all and I’m being contrarian with no substance so I can feel like I’m contributing without doing anything”