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.
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?
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”
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 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 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?
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”
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.