Just Transition or Revolution

Well u cant transition without a revolution and a revolution without a transition is a wasted revolution. We need both

A revolution with a transition is counterrevolution.

The period of transition is the revolutionary period – the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Haven't read the OP yet, but I think Just Transition refers to something specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Transition

-

Do comunist revolutionaries feel that these activities are also useless because they do not involve the active firebombinb of the bourgeoisie,

You really just don't understand the politics of the site, do you?

Chilli Sauce

Do comunist revolutionaries feel that these activities are also useless because they do not involve the active firebombinb of the bourgeoisie,

You really just don't understand the politics of the site, do you?

No reason to be negative. If you think you have some knowledge to share, then share

Oh don't mind Chilli Sauce, he's only trying to start the class war by attacking me, as my familly has a fraction the wealth that Engels did.

Oh don't mind Chilli Sauce, he's only trying to start the class war by attacking me, as my familly has a fraction the wealth that Engels did.

True. However, I think Engels' wealth did impact on his political perspective.

timthelion

However, I do feel that the only way of fighting capitalist realism is by creating non-profit groups such as community farms, autonomous social centers, free software/non-copyrighted/copylefted colaborative intelectual efforts. Do comunist revolutionaries feel that these activities are also useless because they do not involve the active firebombinb of the bourgeoisie

Firstly few on this site consider individual (grouplet) acts of firebombing a good idea.

The things you list as ways of fighting capitalism are not bad things to do. You cannot copyleft yourself of of capitalism however. So the value of your projects are mainly in how they help build working class power and help abolishing the working class.

Ending capitalism means ending the bourgeoisie, means empowering the working class. Unless you aim for a new minority to control society. So as a bourg you need to act against your class interest to end capitalism. Perhaps in your case self perceived individual interest doesn't align with your class interest? Then look at your class interest, what your fellow property owners gain from, and find the most efficient way of acting with the working class against it.

timthelion

and that often times ONLY the petite bourgeuisie is even capable of engaging in such activities due to the fact that the poor have to work?

Building alternative economy within capitalism can get somewhere but it will never accomplish to get to the goal. The goal is to get rid of capitalism and get socialism.

If you have two factories next to each other, one run by the workers and another under the control of a capitalist, you still have capitalism. You cant produce capitalism away, only through revolutionary collective action can capitalism go away.
But having an alternative economy certainly makes it easier to go through with a revolution.

Gulai Polye

Chilli Sauce

Do comunist revolutionaries feel that these activities are also useless because they do not involve the active firebombinb of the bourgeoisie,

You really just don't understand the politics of the site, do you?

No reason to be negative. If you think you have some knowledge to share, then share

I'm much prefer to just firebomb things cause, ya know, that's what us communists do.

Chilli Sauce #13

Now you’re just being naughty.

Gulai Polye

Building alternative economy within capitalism can get somewhere but it will never accomplish to get to the goal. The goal is to get rid of capitalism and get socialism.

Today, very few people believe that any system other than capitalism can exist. Very few people can even imagine a non-market economy (with the exception of FALC, Fully Automated Luxury Communism). This inability to imagine alternative ways of life is what is refered to by Mark Fisher as Capitialist Realism. I see Capistalist Realism as being the biggest problem for revolution. There are pleanty of people who are unhappy. But right now, they are Trump supporters. They cannot even imagine an actual revolution. But having small scale non-comercial communities allows people to imagine something that is different. Once they can imagine that new world, only then, can they fight for it. Just as crusaiders and djihadists cannot exist without a heaven.

Non-comercial spaces are also important for ironing out the wrinkles in the idea of a non-comercial economy. For example, I was a member of a hackerspace for several years. It was a non-comercial, and the maintenence of the tools there was a constaint cause of conflict. Every day, somewone would write to the mailing list: "I came into the hackerspace and the table was a mess." or "the 3D printer doesn't work and the extrusion head is in peices on the table. WTF?!" or "someone left the god damn soldering iron on! We could've all been killed!!!"

Indeed, I left the hackerspace to some degree due to a truely non-comercial dissagreement. Me, and some other members, wanted to purchase a metal turning lathe. However, the majority of members were against this idea, because such lathes are dangerous, and some newbie could get hurt. The majority believed that having a communal lathe is impossible.

By solving problems with communal non-comercialism at a small scale first, it increases the chance of a successfull revolution later. Indeed, I would say that no revolution can be successfull untill these problems have been solved.

There are pleanty of people who are unhappy. But right now, they are Trump supporters

This is just silly. While I have deep, deep criticisms of Bernie Sanders, his rise is just as indicative of widespread unhappiness as Trump. His supporters are imaging a different world - even if it's just based on Scandinavian-style "socialism".

And that's even before we get into things like Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street - which, again, aren't perfect movements but sure as hell aren't full of Trump supporters.

As for non-commercial spaces, people inhabit non-commercial spaces all the time. I mean, I'm going to a family barbecue later on. The problem with the non-commercial economy is that's it's not non-commercial. Co-ops and the like still operate according to the laws of capitalist accumulation and reproduce the relations of capital.

On the wider point, though, I agree most people can't imagine a truly socialist society. But I think if you've never had an experience of true, mass solidarity, that's fairly reasonable. But we build those experiences in struggle, not by creating social centers or co-ops or whatever.

Pretty sure not every unhappy person is a Trump supporter, not least because most people don't live in the United States.

fwiw, lathes are dangerous. I wouldn't let anyone who doesn't know how to use it properly anywhere near mine. The majority in your group had a very good point.

Its funny how people say they dont wanna have a lathe because its dangerous but then they say they wanna have a revolution? Is a revolution not also dangerous? :D

Yeah but there's a difference between a revolution and some idiot ripping their finger off because they don't know how to use a piece of machinery and want to make a doodad at a makerspace.

In any half functioning communist society, health and safety should be taken pretty damned seriously.

Fleur

In any half functioning communist society, health and safety should be taken pretty damned seriously.

Of course - I was just thinking if someone doesnt know how to operate a machine then they will not operate it or they will ask someone to educate them about the issue?

My point, is that it is good to try to solve these conflicts before the revolution. How would you decide who had access to the lathe? Only people with a certain machinists education? Wouldn't such a restriction be a form of eletist domination of those without such an education?

timthelion

Only people with a certain machinists education? Wouldn't such a restriction be a form of eletist domination of those without such an education?

No because it would be based on reason and not of arbitrary will + people are not kept in the dark, so if they want to learn its available to them

Wouldn't such a restriction be a form of eletist domination of those without such an education?

No, it's just common sense. Would you want to be personally liable for any injury? If you're not responsible enough to unplug a soldering iron then you probably shouldn't be anywhere near a piece of machinery which can actually seriously injure you.

timthelion

My point, is that it is good to try to solve these conflicts before the revolution. How would you decide who had access to the lathe? Only people with a certain machinists education? Wouldn't such a restriction be a form of eletist domination of those without such an education?

No, this extract from Bakunin is the clearest explanation of the subject I've read

https://libcom.org/library/bakunins-bootmaker

Gulai Polye

Fleur

In any half functioning communist society, health and safety should be taken pretty damned seriously.

Of course - I was just thinking if someone doesnt know how to operate a machine then they will not operate it or they will ask someone to educate them about the issue?

if its just there where anyone can use it without restriction then someone will get over confidant and fuck up spectacularly

Gulai Polye while machinists seem to be unusually friendly, and it is easy to find an old hand willing to share his/her trade. I find that many professions are extremely closed and eletist to the point where one simply cannot learn them. For example, try having a straight conversation with a doctor without the doctor implying that you are some untouchable ignorant. How would it be decided how long a person had to study before they got a lathe pass? Would it be two months, six months, two years? A weekend course? Would the lathe be kept in a special room with a lock, and only people with lathe passes would have a key to the door. Or would they all be in a room that was gaurded by the lathe pass checker?

timthelion

I find that many professions are extremely closed and eletist to the point where one simply cannot learn them.

I think this is because of capitalism. If there was a communist system people would gladly share knowledge just as people would gladly share products of their labour in the name of the common good

GP #20
‘I was just thinking if someone doesnt know how to operate a machine then they will not operate it or they will ask someone to educate them about the issue?’

I wish that were true unfortunately many people are ignorant about the use of tools and machinery. Instructions are left in the box, as any fool can learn as they go along - ask your A&E department. The damage to tools by inappropriate use is widespread. Knives and hammers used as screwdrivers, wood chisels used as paint scrapers, etc. Unfortunately now there are certain tools I just do not lend.

Auld-bod

Unfortunately now there are certain tools I just do not lend.

And what does this tell you about private property? I'm not a proponent of remote private property who's ownership is designated by deed, but if you have a tool in your own home, it seems reasonable to me that you can maintain exclusive use of that tool and not have to risk its damage via lending. Especially if it is something like a milling machine and a single chip in its ways can significantly lower its value, and the cleaning of the ways is the only means of maintaining its value. I think that when poeple own their own milling machine, things work well, but it is highly inefficient, because it means under-utilization of the machine. I am planning on trying to solve this issue in the hackerspace by purchasing a lathe myself, and letting people use it several afternoons a week, in which case I would breath over their shoulders, or just do what they wanted.

I'd have to say that capitalism also suffers from this problem just as much as communism does, because employees who do not own a machine often don't care about it much. Anytime people don't own something, either because it is owned by theri employer or their community, there is a subset of the population which will fail to maintain that thing. Mutualism tries to solve this problem by ensuring that the worker owns his/her own tools. This is often times, at the expense of being highly inefficient. Personally, I have no trouble with maintaining other's machines. Indeed, the social pressures for me to always return something in tip-top shape are far greater than my own desire for cleanliness.

I think there is a difference between private property and personal property.

In a libertarian communist society I could see private property collectivized and run by direct democracy.
Personal property are things that an individual need not share with the collective. Exactly what these things are is decided democratically. I would suggest everyone has the right to choose domestic privacy if they wish, to have exclusive use of certain artifacts, toiletries, etc.

All tools for production I imagine are collectivized though not everyone may use or choose to use them. Again who does what is openly arrived at through discussion and debate. Matters of collective property and personal property are open and transparent; importantly as everyone is in some respects a member of a minority care would be taken to save minorities from being trampled on (as all decision making is problematic).

timthelion

Auld-bod

Unfortunately now there are certain tools I just do not lend.

And what does this tell you about private property? I'm not a proponent of remote private property who's ownership is designated by deed, but if you have a tool in your own home, it seems reasonable to me that you can maintain exclusive use of that tool and not have to risk its damage via lending.

Its about trial and error. If someone has the feeling of owning an object it can be a small thing or a big machine in the factory, if they fail to maintain that object, the object will fail and will have to be replenished. Now if the object is privately owned only the owner will have to spend money to replenish the object.
But if the whole community experience that community money has to be spend to replenish an object the whole community will be aware of maintenance.

Like i had this lock that was getting harder and harder to turn. Then one day i couldnt turn it with my key. So i took a tool and kept applying more and more force. And then it broke.
So i had to go out and buy a new lock and key. It was a very difficult task, because the door had special screws from Canada so i had to buy a special screwdriver from Canada, actually i had to buy two screwdrivers the other local though, and the lock was complex to dismantle from the door. Then i had to go out and buy the correct lock with the correct size and make sure it wasnt over dimensioned in safety.
It was a much bigger process than i would ever had thought, and all in all it took me like 3 weeks to fix it.

Well i can tell you know i am much more aware of maintaining my shit because i went through this trial and error

-

There's no contradiction between communal property and rule-governed resource access. A public health service doesn't mean any old random can perform surgery, for example. Still haven't managed to read the OP so apologies if this is off-topic.

Do comunist revolutionaries feel that these activities are also useless because they do not involve the active firebombinb of the bourgeoisie [?]

Firstly few on this site consider individual (grouplet) acts of firebombing a good idea.

I think our fellow user was speaking metaphorically.

tim #32

I'd agree with you, if that is what I was saying. Everyone wants that type of freedom, so why or who would prevent you? Everyone wants to express themselves, what possible reason would you or anyone else be singled out for persecution. It makes no sense.

-

-

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx

I know that many people are too timid to do that, and would rather not step out of their private bubble.

Tim

Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him, and he said, 'You need to do one thing more. Go and sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in earth; then come, follow me.'

Mark

For I and I to overcome
Babylon and their polluted ways
It's better to seek Jah first

Gus

Just a few of my favourite quotes, some of which may be relevant to the original post.

I feel the world is full of people with good will. Surprising really, as everyone has to compete to survive.

As I see it, if we stick with the present system of private property it allows those with money to stay in control. This must be maintained by law guaranteeing property rights and defended by force. The only way to dismantle this apparatus is to abolish private property (including property owned by the state).

The only way then to run society is collectively, which means that money no longer buys privilege. Indeed money ceases to have any meaning. Yes, the price for this transition is the tyranny is having to reason with the common herd. The result however is worth it, as labour is no longer alienated and cooperation allows for the first time in human history a post scarcity world. The need to hide in a private bubble disappears.

-

Ok so on-topic, I've read the OP:

- Agreed that Just Transition is not revolutionary or anti-capitalist. I don't think it claims to be, however. The transition is one from fossil fuels to post-fossil fuels. All other things held equal that seems a desirable thing, even though we can and should want more than capitalism with a cleaner energy infrastructure.

- I think it's valid to raise the huge investments and sunk costs in fossil fuels that make capitalists unlikely to transition. But I think the assumption (or at least a common assumption) behind Just Transition is an environmentalist-trade unionist alliance forcing such a transition on terms favourable to workers. So when e.g. environmentalists occupy or blockade a coal mine or power plant, they can do so within a pro-worker framework rather than being pitted against one another.

- I think that's a considerable (if limited) improvement over the kind of workerism that dismisses climate change as a middle class hoax to smash the working class (e.g. Dave Douglass’ pamphlet*), which tips over from justified critique of the often anti-working class assumptions and composition of green movements to right-wing press-sourced climate change denial and industry ‘clean coal’ propaganda. We know how devastating pit closures on the bosses terms are - Just Transition seems like a serious attempt to find a way to do it on workers’ terms.

- I think it's a mistake to juxtapose class analysis to ‘identity politics’ and to conflate the former with a structural and the latter with ‘interpersonal’ framework. This is especially pertinent with climate change, the effects of which are hugely unevenly distributed in ways that are structured by white supremacy, border violence, gendered divisions of labour etc. Harsha Walia’s Undoing Border Imperialism is really helpful here imho, and Naomi Klein wrote a good piece recently too (ignoring the Said references which seem somewhat shoehorned-in as she was giving a Said Lecture).

* Can't find this online but have a copy at home. Will add a reference later.

-

Tim #42

Capitalism has developed the means of production to the point where production for profit, can be replaced with production for need. I do not consider for example, gardening tools the ‘means of production’. Indeed it is sensible for everyone (who wants), to have a set of hand tools*. People making stuff is great.

By ‘means of production’ I’m referring to the productive machinery essential to create the necessities for any reasonable life. In this, no person or group should have a monopoly of ownership or control. Mutual aid replaces competition. If things are planed out in the open everyone knows what is going on. Central to this succeeding is everyone feeling a sense of ownership and control. It is not perfect, just better than what we have now.

I for one, hate the idea of, ‘if you don’t work you don’t eat’. That is the ethos of the workhouse – the fight is for free communism, libertarian communism.

*I write hand tools because who would want their own machine shop? A space where people could help each other on large projects sounds like a good idea. Believe it or not I’ve had good times working in factories and you discover how generally speaking people like to help each other.

-