i highly doubt your last sentence. Fukuyama claimed in the 80s/90s we reached the end of history. Fukuyama doesnt believe in his own claim anymore.

Its pretty obvious that capitalism is generating poverty instead of fixing it. The refugees from africa might have a reason for streaming to europe.

Sorry, i dont now enough about the iranian revolution.

Do you think structures like soviets and shoras are scaleable? And if yes, how? I would like to read a good book about this topic.

Sorry for that short answer and that long pause, real life stepped in.

will watch the video have little time atm. will answer later.

I also thought of Fukuyama when reading that. A lot has happened since then lol.
The American journalist John Reed on the Soviets:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm

Certainly scalable, just need a global revolutionary movement that transcends national boundaries.

the soviets were the true parliament of the workers and peasants.

the film suggested by the anti-capitalist was also about selfcontrol of workers in argentinia.

Well i guess the question is how the soviets will interact with each other, will it be a free association or some hirachical structure?

The soviet idea is more compatible with the first solution, as soviets are elected to solve a problem and can be quickly dismissed if the will of the people changes or the problem is solved. Hirachys have a tendency to invent problems just to remain in power

Maybe the approach of Chile was the best one, look at Cybersyn. Maybe its that simple: Internet + Soviets = Communism

I found this document of a conspiracy nut claiming the bolshevics had a connection to wallstreet lol: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...5.pdf&pdf=true

i dont think that conspiracy theory can pass a marxist analysis. but i give 3/10 for the effort and for creativity :-)

There needs to be a degree of centralisation rather than hierarchy to mirror the way that power is distributed under the current system, power is centralised in capital cities etc. The reason why representation/delegation is necessary is because there is an uneven level of class consciousness within the workers and oppressed classes, there have to be natural leaders among the people, similar to how the trade union rank and file works or community shop stewards. The difference between this and representative democracy is that reps have no interests separate from those they represent. Problems arise when the reps become a class unto themselves, a labour bureaucracy, which is why immediate recall and other accountability measures have to be in place.
democracy under capitalism works well for those with property because their politicians are representing their interests. Under socialism the soviet is the workers parliament.
As Reed explains, property owning classes were banned from the soviets but all others were allowed. The bolsheviks were a party competing in these elections alongside others for instance.

There is a great example of how the peasants organised to redistribute the land - the central Soviet didn't ban the small peasants from taking ownership over their land they just offered no assistance, rather they supported cooperative farms. (Note the comparison with the forced collectivisation under stalin)

Does everyone realize that our top twenty five richest could easily pass out enough money to make every single American who is even occasionally homeless a MILLIONAIRE?

so your solution is bureaucracy with a little bit of terror on that bureaucracy to keep it honest.

You think Maos culturrevolutionary ideas have any room here?

China is a nationalist movement there was/is no workers and peasants involvement in decision making. There is dictatorship of the bureaucracy, the president substitutes for the central committee, the central committee for the party and the party for the class. This is an inversion of Marxism. The revolutionary culture isn't determined by the president, it is living and breathing, executed by the people, the people become their own artists, storytellers, they create the revolution. Imposition of culture is fascism.
I am arguing against bureaucracy, in favour of a radical movement which has not to take control of the state but to destroy it and replace it with a workers state. Such a state has to be centralised, for a period. Which means there is danger of degeneration. But remember what is happening while these political forces arrange themselves, the people aren't sitting idle, they have occupied the factories, they have usurped the bosses, they have taken over the armies and the police forces, they have the economic power to stop production.

You cannot live in a stock certificate, so no, this is not true.

You and microbet finally agree on something. Something ridiculous.

Wat?

Looks like some Anarcho-Syndicalism itt. Cool. If only the commies and western egoist war mongers hadn't teamed up against Orwell something bigger could have come of it.

[Citation needed]

Is this math right? How many Americans are you counting as occasionally homeless?

Top 25 people have on the order of a trillion dollars. There are on the order of a million homeless people. In America on both counts.

The number of homeless probably way undercounts people in cars and crashing in a friend's garage and stuff, but the DS's estimate is close enough for the purpose imo.

Whether or not they could actually pass out that trillion is another matter. I'd guess that would cause some property and stock crashes that would eliminate a lot of that wealth.

Those were the numbers I was estimating as well. Somehow I thought the number of Americans who are occasionally homeless to be higher than 1 million.

I am not sure there would be stock crashes. You can just hand it over in same ratio. Or are you saying most poor Americans would convert 950k in stock and 50k in cash in to 1 million in cash immediately?

QUOTE=amoeba;53565602]Those were the numbers I was estimating as well. Somehow I thought the number of Americans who are occasionally homeless to be higher than 1 million.

I am not sure there would be stock crashes. You can just hand it over in same ratio. Or are you saying most poor Americans would convert 950k in stock and 50k in cash in to 1 million in cash immediately?[/QUOTE]

Well, I think a fairly large amount would be sold in a relatively short period of time, but I had Thought about what would happen if the top 1% or whatever redistributed their money in the past and was thinking about a wider distribution where people would have to liquidate most of the stocks and real estate.

Free college would be much more effective. Teach a man to fish...

Firstly, I wasn't suggesting this should actually happen (to this extent anyway.) Rather I was trying to show those who don't really bother to familiarize themselves with numbers like thirty billion, how insanely rich these people really are. To the point that the usual admonitions against "theft" start to not apply.

Secondly, as generous as I think the super rich should feel toward people in tough circumstances, I am very ungenerous in my opinion as to how many have what it takes to benefit from free college.

The current premise that everybody should study in college is absurd, and makes it harder to educate well the ones that can benefit, because time, resources, etc. have to be dedicated to the mediocre (or worse) majority (even preferentially so, with the "client"-oriented mentality of most university administrations).

But among those who can't go to college are many who would benefit, even if they are a small minority. What needs to be improved is the filter, and removing the economic entrance barrier would make it easier to focus on that issue. The current situation leads to an under exploitation of talent, and under training of what talent does get exploited.

Yeah and that would be $3000+ for every US citizen. With the USA ~$20 trillion in debt that would lower everyone's share of the national debt by 5% or so. Does everyone realize what being $20 trillion in the hole amounts to?

The US takes in around $3.5 trillion in revenue each year and spends $4 trillion+. Does everyone realize that applying a one time payment of $1 trillion would fund the federal govt for about 3 months or so?

Nobody has a "share" of the national debt.

Party of perpetual tax cuts, financial deregulation and war.

Ron Swanson is the ****ing man.

A moron with a degree is still much better off than without one. And it doesn't have to be just college. Any type of post-high school education and/or job training.

The lifetime economic productivity of a college educated person dwarfs that of a high school grad.

A person's potential isn't optimized by being forced to choose a lesser school due to money constraints. This carries over to job opportunities after graduation, both of which hurt the potential of this person's lifetime economic output.

The lifetime economic productivity of a kid out of college in debt is stunted vs starting fresh with no debt or with savings/investments already.

Exposure to the college experience is extremely beneficial to the growth of a person as an individual. Social interaction holds economic value too...

This is for anybody. Now imagine the added impact this has for people in poverty through no fault of their own, with the ability and desire to GTFO and never look back.