Page 169 of 169
#6721
Having worker co-operatives wouldn't solve the alienation problem nor would they necessarily solve the fact that movement of capital is built on uneven work:payment (before we get into consumption).

Under core marxist theory there is no state and no capital - having loads of co-operatives isn't necessarily the same as this.

You might be more interested in syndicalism or mutualism, which often place much more attention on co-operatives, syndicates, unions and other blah

the most rampant capitalist wouldn't necessarily consider them good because their core moral bases are likely to be vastly different to those somebody who advocates co-operatives would have. What the Marxist calls exploitation the capitalist does not.

There are different kinds of socialism, most of which are state socialist. The reason why the common "understanding" of communism is as it is, is because communism was treated as a "goal" by state socialists such as Lenin. You get other state socialists/state capitalists like the recently deceased Cuban leader - these people have come to represent Marx's theory. However if you compare their praxis (and their theory) to Marx's writings, they have little to nothing in common, and many of them (pretty much all of them) are incapable of being Marxist in nature.

Another way of thinking about this is in terms of collectivism. Take lenin - he was a vertical collectivist. Hierarchies - work managers, state forces etc. Marx was a horizontal collectivist.
Last edited by Banjocal at Dec 12, 2016,
#6722
Yeah, I'm talking about pure Marxism, i.e what Marx alone wrote about and thought about, not what anybody else later did to further down that theory (be it whoever it may)

Quote by Banjocal
Having worker co-operatives wouldn't solve the alienation problem nor would they necessarily solve the fact that movement of capital is built on uneven work:payment (before we get into consumption).


If it doesn't solve the alienation problem then nothing will IMO. Even a "social capitalist" state like USSR or whatever would have the same effect. You have to work for something that will be used by some dude in the other part of the country.
At the very least in the cooperative the worker has a say if he wants to do some different kind of work (something more rewarding), or change the way the work is done or something.

Under core marxist theory there is no state and no capital - having loads of co-operatives isn't necessarily the same as this..


That's Marx's "polished" theory though, isn't it? But wouldn't it solve most of his core criticisms of capitalism, in terms of worker exploitation, etc? If a world were everything was a worker cooperative existed, maybe Marx would have second thoughts about the rest of his theory if he got to live in that world for a while.

I'm saying this mostly because I wouldn't see the justification of Marx's theory of "no state" and "no capital" ever coming to fruition, if worker cooperatives "solve" most of the valid criticism he had (and a state/world/etc that exists to make them work).

P.S: I'm going on about what I've read and skimmed about Marx. I've yet to read Das Kapital or the like (I'm planning to tho)
#6723
You asked earlier why Marxism is perceived in its odd little way: I am simply explaining that almost all attempts at his theory have directly violated it, and many of them were more state-capitalist than they even were state-socialist. If we discuss the praxis we are essentially talking about people who pretended to be communists but were demonstrably not - unfortunately this is why the theory is still so prevalent in commu circles. It's an unfortunate shittyness that most followers of his ideas go through at some point or another

They wouldn't necessarily solve it (alienation I mean) because not having a democratic say in how your product is produced isn't the sole cause of Marx's alienation. You could conceivably still have a class-based system even if it were based in unions or co-operatives and that alone is enough to produce the alienation, as one's economic/material reality could still be dictated by a ruling class. To give a comical example, you could have a state capitalist society with a seemingly benevolent autocrat, that was organised into a series of externally monitored co-ops. As a co-op doesn't require absolute worker ownership (merely majority) a governmental member with some form of external authority could also exist, and puts a spanner in the works.

Marx may well have thought such a society would be basically alright, but his lack of a rigid praxis for his theory was imo no coincidence: he was quite explicitly laying down the conditions for which he considered the worker to be truly capable of being free of class-based oppression. I would expect that he would, as he and his followers did with socialism, consider it a bandaid where an amputation was needed.

This isn't to say that a universalised co-operative-driven society couldn't work but if it were built on vertical collectivism it would likely recreate many of the conditions Marx criticised in regards to the state, and if it were horizontally oriented it would likely resemble a more extreme version of anarcho-syndicalism.

this ended up longer than I intended sorry
Last edited by Banjocal at Dec 12, 2016,