Bottom up organizing by forming worker owned co-ops is the exact opposite of electoralism. I'm not saying that leftists should try to find another Corbyn, I'm saying that we should abandon the thought that we can take over bourgeois state institutions. I think that bottom up vs top down is explicitly against electoralism and I really am not understanding how that could be interpreted any other way.
Unions are better than worker owned co-ops because they are directly antagonistic towards the class struggle.
Look, much love to like, teachers' and nurses' unions, but the SEIU local that represented me at Albertsons was not "directly antagonistic." Here's what they did: take union dues and use them to lobby the dems for free childcare. When I asked them to enforce chemical labeling rules the rep was suddenly out of the office. We don't just need unions, we need militant orgs within the unions.
I’m saying that we should abandon the thought that we can take over bourgeois state institutions.
By elections and reform sure, but when did communists pretend or believed otherwise?. This is a 100 year old realization. Its just that you think that the central focus of the approach onn grassroots organizating should be co-op based as an socio-economic and political unit which isnt a new thing either . It was just never was that and rejected theoreticaly and practicaly at every revolutionary turn. And for good reasons imo. It cant be
Can't wait for my technological western state with a fully armed police force to slide back into feudalism so I can follow the lead of Lenin and Mao to enact a successful revolution.
Thing is, Lenin and Mao agreed with you about the need and usefullness of pushing for and providing alternative economic and social organizational structures like co-ops as part of a revolutionary movement and building of socialism, or of just its foundations. They actualy did so in scales and revolutionary character not dreamed of even by the most ambitious demsoc. The point and their point would be that it can be a part of building socialism and historicaly has been so ONLY when persued and enacted by a well organized non reformist revolutionary movement . Co-ops are cool but to actualy be a part of a move towards socialism they must be part of a larger revolutionary project and connected with the work or actual revolutionary socialist orgs.
You think Mao aand even Lenin werent alive to see socdem/demsoc politicians with more radical agendas than corbyn and who campaigned on all shorts of co-op , nationalizing etc etc ? They saw them win and rule actualy, they had them in their own countries as well. They wouldnt tell you to not vote for Corbyn in todays context in the UK but they would laugh at the idea that the their agenda and party in power can catalyse any move towards socialism or spreading of class conciousness or that if their campaigns were shot down that meant that capital viewed them as a existential threat. And its not the specific policies of their agendas , like nationalizations or promotion of co-ops , that cant have that character and use, they CAN and Lenin and Mao used them more extensively than any politican in history lmao.
So yeah you do need to in some large degree follow the lead of Lenin and Mao and emulate the character of their movements in order to make those things and policies in Corbyns agenda be important revolutionary stepping stones to socialism and a threat to capital. Until then they arent and they never were despite dozens of chances that they had to prove otherwise . If a successfull non reformist revolutionary movement is impossible in America or the UK then its impossible for those policies to be a an actual threat to capital and to be the foundations of a socialist transformation
Bottom up organizing by forming worker owned co-ops is the exact opposite of electoralism. I'm not saying that leftists should try to find another Corbyn, I'm saying that we should abandon the thought that we can take over bourgeois state institutions. I think that bottom up vs top down is explicitly against electoralism and I really am not understanding how that could be interpreted any other way.
deleted by creator
Look, much love to like, teachers' and nurses' unions, but the SEIU local that represented me at Albertsons was not "directly antagonistic." Here's what they did: take union dues and use them to lobby the dems for free childcare. When I asked them to enforce chemical labeling rules the rep was suddenly out of the office. We don't just need unions, we need militant orgs within the unions.
deleted by creator
By elections and reform sure, but when did communists pretend or believed otherwise?. This is a 100 year old realization. Its just that you think that the central focus of the approach onn grassroots organizating should be co-op based as an socio-economic and political unit which isnt a new thing either . It was just never was that and rejected theoreticaly and practicaly at every revolutionary turn. And for good reasons imo. It cant be
Can't wait for my technological western state with a fully armed police force to slide back into feudalism so I can follow the lead of Lenin and Mao to enact a successful revolution.
Thing is, Lenin and Mao agreed with you about the need and usefullness of pushing for and providing alternative economic and social organizational structures like co-ops as part of a revolutionary movement and building of socialism, or of just its foundations. They actualy did so in scales and revolutionary character not dreamed of even by the most ambitious demsoc. The point and their point would be that it can be a part of building socialism and historicaly has been so ONLY when persued and enacted by a well organized non reformist revolutionary movement . Co-ops are cool but to actualy be a part of a move towards socialism they must be part of a larger revolutionary project and connected with the work or actual revolutionary socialist orgs.
You think Mao aand even Lenin werent alive to see socdem/demsoc politicians with more radical agendas than corbyn and who campaigned on all shorts of co-op , nationalizing etc etc ? They saw them win and rule actualy, they had them in their own countries as well. They wouldnt tell you to not vote for Corbyn in todays context in the UK but they would laugh at the idea that the their agenda and party in power can catalyse any move towards socialism or spreading of class conciousness or that if their campaigns were shot down that meant that capital viewed them as a existential threat. And its not the specific policies of their agendas , like nationalizations or promotion of co-ops , that cant have that character and use, they CAN and Lenin and Mao used them more extensively than any politican in history lmao.
So yeah you do need to in some large degree follow the lead of Lenin and Mao and emulate the character of their movements in order to make those things and policies in Corbyns agenda be important revolutionary stepping stones to socialism and a threat to capital. Until then they arent and they never were despite dozens of chances that they had to prove otherwise . If a successfull non reformist revolutionary movement is impossible in America or the UK then its impossible for those policies to be a an actual threat to capital and to be the foundations of a socialist transformation