Sometimes I think that “the masses” who are sick of the concentration of capital in the hands of the few be more receptive to the idea of worker ownership and democratic control of companies/enterprises. It seems to me it would be much more palatable to people that productive (in the Marxist sense) companies in their current form just be given to the workers and the board of directors for day-to-day operations would be elected by the workers not the shareholders, with major decisions made by plenum of the workers. Unproductive companies would just become artisanal, small-scale neighborhood/city-level reach.
Plus I’m thinking worker-owned companies would eventually be easier to nationalise, since it is no longer the decision of a few looking to increase profits but rather a decision of many who’d be looking out in the workers’ interest.
I avoided the word “co-op” cause of the connotations but yeah, pretty much. I also think Yugoslavia had the right idea (perhaps execution was lacking) with direct worker control and allowing small (up to 5 people) companies all in a tightly controlled market. It always seemed to me Yugoalavia was on the right path.
I’m thinking about this because I feel like the left doesn’t have a “moderate” alternative. The only parties who wish to change our economic system are the Communist/Marxist-Leninist parties, who aren’t present everywhere in the West. The socdems, the liberals, the “centrists”, the conservatives, the fascists, the Christians… these are all slightly different flavours of the same thing economically speaking. And then the only alternative to this is the hardcore Marxist-Leninists who people have literally been programmed and brainwashed into hating. Why not a market socialist party?
Feel free to dispel my idealist, petit-bourgeois notions. ;)
NB. I am for state-ownership, central control, basically I’m for any kind of change in the communist direction and away from our current system, but for the sake of this thread I’m a market socialist.
Precisely. I think people are more willing to accept a viewpoint/analysis if that viewpoint also provides more than one solution or possibility of a solution.
People look at problems in capitalism but are hopeful for a solution because there are so many offered so the reasoning is that something’s gotta work [we know it won’t]. When people think of socialism/communism they have one image in their head, which is wrong.
This reminds me of another point. When one looks at debates and disagreements between leftists who subscribe to different ideologies within communism one gets a sense of hostility. “The left” can’t even figure out how to work with people who are more or less on the same page as them, how can a reasonable person on the fence expect anyone from that camp to be able to solve anything?
Not only that, the left seems to be infected with essentialism, where if a person/group holds or expresses an idea or performs an action then that person/group’s is defined by that idea or action. I’m not talking about things like murder, r*pe, genocide, inexcusable things, but things like “following the wrong line” or “liking/not liking Hoxha” or “supporting/not supporting the DPRK”.
For example Rojava (I’m reminded cauee of recent happenings in Syria), the fact that they accepted US aid has become their defining, essential feature. Even if (or rather when) the US leaves Syria, Rojava will still be marred by that. It doesn’t matter that SDF/DAANES have created a peaceful, multicultural, multiethnic society, they have made huge strides when it comes to rights of women, they have organised demcoratic councils in towns where everyone over 16 can participate (14 to observe) [don’t quote me on the numbers, but it’s something low like that], they have a cooperative market economy, etc.
But Rojava must be opposed with every fiber of our being because they accepted US’s help when no one else was helping them, help they needed to literally stop a genocide that the Turkish-backed militants and ISIS were planning on visiting down upon them…
Instead of using that help to create a Kurdish ethnostate, to ethnically cleanse the Arabs or to start oppressing other ethnicities and religions as for example Israel had done, they did the exact opposite.
For sure, it’s incredibly important to establish common understanding as a basis for action. The problem with the western left is that there are a lot of competing narratives, and they’re all competing with each other for dominance. A single dominant narrative needs to emerge that gains a critical mass of support in order to move forward in a meaningful way. This is basically what Lenin and the Bolsheviks realized and why they rejected the big tent approach.
A single dominant narrative needs to emerge that gains a critical mass of support in order to move forward in a meaningful way.
Exactly, and this narrative doesn’t even need to be detailed or explain the solution/response to every single problem and eventuality, it just needs to resonate with people and speak to their concerns. “Peace, Land, Bread.”
