There is implicit isolation when resources should remain the same for American workers. When you have global communism, resources would be shared which means there is significantly less available.

But when capitalism collapses, will there be communism or will there be wars redistributing resources? That’s what I meant with the expectation that the world will not just watch.

The Chinese reduction of poverty, I got that wrong. I thought China kept their number of people in extreme poverty. But since they reduced that number, how is that article an argument against the spread of wealth by outsourcing? China receives most of the outsourcing and thus received most of the wealth. Other countries just increased their population which keeps the number of people in powerty the same.

From my point of view you are stuck in a desire to keep capitalism as bad as possible so that the communist revolution happens as soon as possible. But capitalism isn’t the single source of evil and actually has positive outcomes.

Take that outsourcing text. It tells you that capitalists don’t want to invest into capital intensive businesses, which is funny by itself. We started with cooperatives that should issue bonds. Don’t you see the opportunity that capitalist could support cooperatives to run those businesses?

I know, I should do it myself. But I am more the capital relations kind of person which makes it very difficult for me to run a cooperative. All I can do is tell you that there is an opportunity.

If native Americans claim every land taken by capitalists, how much is left for communism?

For China, you have to know that they burned their blue water navy before European traders arrived. Their choice of isolation is the origin of their past losses. That was the context of my argument about the problems of isolation.

You cannot expect to have a communist revolution in America with the world just watching.

I don’t get your argument about communist relations in China. If China hasn’t increased extreme poverty headcount, how is that good enough?

The text is interesting but the author doesn’t seem to know that Smith’s invisible hand was invented to explain away the risk of outsourcing that was already known back then.

But outsourcing is not bad. It spreads wealth globally. It’s interesting that you argue for isolation when communism usually is a global approach. That’s the exploitation I was hinting at. You want to keep ‘your’ resources instead of sharing them with the world. But even if you do, look at China’s history to know the problems that will come with that strategy.

Do you remember the end of the text? That virtualization will make any revolution unnecessary. If you want communist relations, you better come up with something new if you don’t want to find a new way to have working cooperatives.

The standard of living erodes in the West because resources are starting to be shared globally. A communist revolution would have even less resources unless there is a willingness to continue exploitation.

Even if the revolution comes and currently big cooperatives are bound to be destroyed, why not start a small cooperative restaurant now?

But not the one you need. When she notices a smell it’s already too late.

You could try to change the browser ID string that is sent with every request.

Remember that cache goes stale

The other text mentioned the state machine. Do communists distinguish between the necessities of that state machine and the capitalist class’ dictatorship? The repressive capitalist state, how much is it just a consequence of the authority of the state machine?

The difference to regular businesses is that management as a class doesn’t require higher compensation. Similarly, the owners of the cooperative don’t want to be compensated when they don’t want to be part of the capitalist class.

This, together with the members being motivated workers, gives cooperatives room to compete with regular businesses.

Thanks for the high quality references.

The article here nicely stresses that there is only one way to communism and that there can even ony be one party. That’s true in theory, but a single party can make a mistake in implementing communism so that it would be a valid option to have various parties each representing one approach to communism among which the population has to choose.

Likewise I think that requiring the destruction of state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is a nice theory but in reality, everybody in the state administration is proletarian, if we identify everybody but the billionaires as proletarian. Otherwise, the state would collapse because nobody with an education would be able to participate in the administration.

You argue that there were successful communist revolutions. But those were only starting to implement communism since there hasn’t been a place with communism yet.

My point of view is that there is no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to create a place for communist relations. A cooperative can be such a place. Instead of having to wait for a revolution, communist and socialists could live in the reality of their preferred relations right now.

Thus it doesn’t matter how many times people failed. People constantly start small businesses. Communists must have the resources to do that, too. Run a restaurant as a cooperative and expand it. This creates the resources to create more advanced cooperatives. Without going full oppressive, the capitalist class cannot do much to prevent such a cooperative.

The problems that will arise will show the real problems of communism. Without an army to suppress dissidents, a cooperative has to deal with those problems. To me, that’s a better way to figure out communism than to wait for a revolution.

Why do cooperatives need a management layer? Does communism need management?

Since the sovjet union was not fully communist, there hasn’t been a successful communist revolution. That doesn’t stop you from trying. Why are you convinced that there is no way to establish cooperatives. Right, it’s not easy but it’s easier than a communist revolution. Unless you believe that capitalism breaks down on its own because it is not suited for tough times.

Instead of reading literature, socialists could develop and show their political competence by running cooperatives.

Cooperatives don’t have to pay owners nor a management layer. Workers also shouldn’t slack. These advantages should overcome the benefits of exploitation.

Ussr won space race and lost the microchip race. The availability of cad systems created a big advantage.

Capitalism is not inherently self destructive. Exponential growth is only needed if all investors should succeed. That’s not necessary.

Capitalism will thrive when times get tough because the majority will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Cooperatives could create space for those who want to cooperate.

It’s interesting that 3 people seem to disagree with you without telling you why. I also would like to know why they reject your detailed comment.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you about my lack of knowledge. I believe in cooperatives despite the valid problems that you have mentioned.

If the capital class turns full fascism to destroy cooperatives then you have your revolution. But for capitalism, cooperatives are just another member of the capital owning class. Everybody wants a monopoly but not everybody gets it.

The key problem is the reserve army of labor. If cooperatives show some restraint and don’t destroy labor market rates by cornering markets themselves and distributing that surplus, then capitalism can continue uninterrupted. Not everybody wants to participate in discussions as much as cooperatives require.

If everybody wants to be a socialist then cooperatives should even create incentives to maintain capitalism. That’s where I lack knowledge. I don’t see how value can be determined without competition. Do we want a society without value?

Let the capitalists have their boats. You need people who dedicate their lives to business processes. There is enough value created when there is a choice to work in a socialist cooperative. Communism is not only prevented by capitalists but also by the people themselves who don’t vote differently. Capitalists work with those weaknesses while communists hope that they are not a problem.

What I meant with the lack of industrialization is that those revolutions could be fought with rifles. Today you need tanks and drones. Any revolution is interrupted by cutting global supply lines.

Cooperatives don’t have to be dominant. It could be that people prefer to work in classical hierarchies. There should just be so many cooperatives that whoever wants to live a socialist life can find a place to do so.

I indeed believe that revolution is not needed. There is no unified capital owning class. If you don’t change the political system and let them have their power, why should they waste resources on fighting cooperatives?

It’s interesting that parents prefer to maintain their own space.

You can’t tell because I am arguing.for a position that communists somehow want to ignore.

For a communist revolution today the means of production are already necessary. Russia and China were possible because they were not industrialized.

Are there capitalist relations within a cooperative? If not then why do you need a revolution when everything is already there?

What can you do with a communist revolution that you cannot do with cooperatives, apart from using violence?

I was nowhere near that cow!

Does difficulty matter? Any communist revolution will be more difficult than establishing a network of cooperatives. I believe that if there is a desire for Socialism, people will spend the time to establish cooperatives.