actually, i do hate capitalism with all its complexity too. imo the market is a useful tool when kept in check by having to compete with planned, government-subsidised alternatives, but private ownership of capital is what generates 99% of the problems with it. either the workers should own the capital or the public should. the best option is probably somewhere between the two.
imo the distinction is between the workers of that particular organisation vs the public as a whole. there’s still value in the people actually close to the work making the decisions (a lot of the failures of the soviet system can be attributed to party officials overruling experts) but it should be counterbalanced by the public looking out for each other, so that no single org or collection of orgs stand above the rest of society.
I know that old people and children are not workers in the strict sense of the word, but in a broader definition they are. Everyone should be part of “the workers” in my opinion. In an ideal “soviet” system workers are organized in councils and democracy a grassroot endevour. The problem is the way to get there. At first every socialist system will be attacked by reactionist forces. Lenin argued that it is therefor necessary to have a communist party. This contains the danger of it getting corrupted and establising an authoritarian system. There seems no way around that. Lenin argues that in a capitalist world, it is not possible to just jump to a communist utopia. The state has to wither away.
Same logic:
You don’t hate capitalism. You hate the version of it taught to you by someone who took the easiest educational track possible.
No, I hate it because all it ever produces are societies run by ultrarich megalomaniacs who rape children.
Wow, talk about USA centric. You know there are a few other counties, right? That are not run by those?
I never mentioned the USA or suggested they were limited to one country. Buzz off troll.
Business?
actually, i do hate capitalism with all its complexity too. imo the market is a useful tool when kept in check by having to compete with planned, government-subsidised alternatives, but private ownership of capital is what generates 99% of the problems with it. either the workers should own the capital or the public should. the best option is probably somewhere between the two.
I agree - but the workers and the public should be the same entity!
imo the distinction is between the workers of that particular organisation vs the public as a whole. there’s still value in the people actually close to the work making the decisions (a lot of the failures of the soviet system can be attributed to party officials overruling experts) but it should be counterbalanced by the public looking out for each other, so that no single org or collection of orgs stand above the rest of society.
I know that old people and children are not workers in the strict sense of the word, but in a broader definition they are. Everyone should be part of “the workers” in my opinion. In an ideal “soviet” system workers are organized in councils and democracy a grassroot endevour. The problem is the way to get there. At first every socialist system will be attacked by reactionist forces. Lenin argued that it is therefor necessary to have a communist party. This contains the danger of it getting corrupted and establising an authoritarian system. There seems no way around that. Lenin argues that in a capitalist world, it is not possible to just jump to a communist utopia. The state has to wither away.
I think a significant number of us hate whatever system we are living in right now, no matter what it’s called.