privatisation

iceland is higly dependent on imports but is self sufficent in food and energy but still has to import oil though but hybrids are on the rise.

Iceland is so rich in energy that it could produce 15tW of electrcyti

The reason why i dug up this thread is because im bored. This thread has been saved from dying.

comrade110397 wrote:

The reason why i dug up this thread is because im bored. This thread has been saved from dying.

Hooray!

Before people think this is spam I'm justr happy this thread is saved again.

the reason I have posted in this thread is to blame you too for your acts of spamming, keep it up and you will be banned.

Liche wrote:

the reason I have posted in this thread is to blame you too for your acts of spamming, keep it up and you will be banned.

This was a very good thread. It was at the very edge of page 10 and i decided to save it. The site needs more threads like this.

comrade110397 wrote:

This was a very good thread. It was at the very edge of page 10 and i decided to save it. The site needs more threads like this.

Why is this thread so good according to you?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

comrade110397 wrote:

This was a very good thread. It was at the very edge of page 10 and i decided to save it. The site needs more threads like this.

Why is this thread so good according to you?

We dont see threads like this anymore. new ones anyway

comrade110397 wrote:

We dont see threads like this anymore. new ones anyway

You didn't answer my question unless you think that the only thing that makes a thread good is that its rare.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

comrade110397 wrote:

We dont see threads like this anymore. new ones anyway

You didn't answer my question unless you think that the only thing that makes a thread good is that its rare.

What i ment was that we dont get any good ligitiment threads any more. This thread is from when people on this fourm were acually serious. Now its mostly trolling, spam, and bad arguments.

Everything should be collectivised or nationalised.
The factories and plants should be under Soviet control, agriculture under Collective Farms control and energy, eletricity, water and financial sector totally state-owned.

Wakizashi wrote:

Everything should be collectivised or nationalised.
The factories and plants should be under Soviet control, agriculture under Collective Farms control and energy, eletricity, water and financial sector totally state-owned.

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

lets start a new rationalistic revolution.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

Everything should be collectivised or nationalised.
The factories and plants should be under Soviet control, agriculture under Collective Farms control and energy, eletricity, water and financial sector totally state-owned.

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

That's why I said almost all plants shoul be controlled by the Soviets, which are Worker's Councils.

Wakizashi wrote:

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

That's why I said almost all plants shoul be controlled by the Soviets, which are Worker's Councils.[/quote]

Then what for would you mention the state?

Wakizashi wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

Everything should be collectivised or nationalised.
The factories and plants should be under Soviet control, agriculture under Collective Farms control and energy, eletricity, water and financial sector totally state-owned.

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

That's why I said almost all plants shoul be controlled by the Soviets, which are Worker's Councils.

It seems Zealot's trying to distinguish between State and Soviet control. There's a big difference. If it is under control of the State, then it is centralized, manipulated by a few elites. If it is controlled by a Soviet, it is run from the bottom up by a council of workers that are nearest to the specific industry you have in mind.

Never assume that the State can represent everyone, and not just the interests of the individuals who form the conglomerate that we call the State. It doesn't care to represent everyone, and its very existence is counterposed to any form of democracy, autonomy, and so on, so it can't represent everyone.

Wakizashi wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

Everything should be collectivised or nationalised.
The factories and plants should be under Soviet control, agriculture under Collective Farms control and energy, eletricity, water and financial sector totally state-owned.

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

That's why I said almost all plants shoul be controlled by the Soviets, which are Worker's Councils.

there is such a large difference between worker's councils and the state.
for one the councils are hierarchical, unlike the state
another being that the councils were created to ensure collective consciousness, and give each individual a voice.
the state on the other hand was created to stifle all democratic movements, and ensure that worker's have been quited.
the council is a non hierarchical entity, in which it functions from the bottom up (ever heard the old saying "we got build from the bottom what we want at the top; we gotta work together if we want this to stop"?).
the state is the most vicious form of autocracy imaginable.

as for your statement on collective farms, fuck state control.
i want workers' control.
if you dont want to work, that is perfectly fine.
you wont be able to support yourself as well, but you wont be beaten or forced.
fuck the right to work. i want the right to not work.
i want the right to be lazy.

if you dont want to work in a self managed factory, or a collective farm, i say you should have the ability to create your own municipality. no one should profit or control our labor and the fruits of it, except for us.
end of story.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

If state owned then it's collective-masqueraded privatisation for the state serves exacly in the same way as the shareholders and managers of an enterprise would work: exploiting the workers by making them produce what will be sold back to them in order to generate profit for the state and so suffice the needs of the individuals that compose said state.

That's why I said almost all plants shoul be controlled by the Soviets, which are Worker's Councils.

Then what for would you mention the state?[/quote]

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

The "state-capitalist" nonsense is invented by the capitalists in their struggle against Communism and the Soviet Union.

Wakizashi wrote:

The "state-capitalist" nonsense is invented by the capitalists in their struggle against Communism and the Soviet Union.

No, state-capitalism is a term derived from factual evidence on the workings of USSR's economy which in essence was a state-run social capitalism.

To understand USSR's fall it must be understood that USSR's economic system was nothing but state-capitalism.

The state had a capital which it invested in order to serve as the wage for workers to produce products that would be latter sold to the very same workers in order to recover said capital and even gain surplus value so reinvestments could be done while the state profitted from this. Lots of investments however were done in non-profitable and even constatly expensive enterprises like education, housing and the military, this is the main factor tat brought USSR to its economic unstability: it invested more than it would recover. The soviet state was acting just like bourgeoisie would do: own the means of production and control the workers into producing something that sufficed their needs that would be sold back to them while profiting from this. The essential difference between bourgeoisie and the Soviet state was that the Soviet state claimed to own the means of production in behalf of te soviet peolpe, in behalf of the workers.

Logically, USSR was a state capitalist system. State for being controlled entirely by the state, capitalist for what has been mentioned earlier and social because lots of enterprises were used in social welfare and development programs without reporting any profit to the soviet state and actually implying, economically, an expenditure. The "sociality" and non-profitability (the latter being partially a derivate of the former) of USSR's state-capitalism is the reason it was so unstable and eventually entered into a deadly crisis that economically finished it up. Capitalisms are intrinsically weak and prone to crisis, but non-profitable capitalist systems just accelerate this problem and make it nearly irrepairable.

The Soviet Union didn't fall because it was sieged by the hostile western capitalisms, the Soviet Union failed because its system was quite weak from deep within itself: it was an economic system reliant to both a small group of men prone to corruption and opportunism and on a non-proditable capitalist system. Even inspite of those tremendous political and economical limitations, USSR had become an economic behemoth with an unrivaled rate of development.

USSR was an autarchic country that, if properly and scientifically managed within a socialist framework, would have been actually able to really make possible socialism in one country. It would have developed scientifically even more than it did (thanks to Stalin, lots of valid scientific theories were dropped and several scientists dismissed or even exiled), it would have had an unbreakable political system and would have had enough resources to withstand economic isolation. It would have been based on such an ideological and economic strength that, unlike the Anarchist communities in Spain, would have stood a chance against the attempts of any military power trying to crush it. Its success would have been such that it would have been exported, it would have meant workers' movements gaining strength all over the world.

Why do I say this with so much certainity if its nothing but mere speculation? Because if USSR had really been a socialist country (country merely meaning "community within a delimited territory") it would have meant 100+ million emancipated workers controlling 5.7 million square km of arable land, the greatest forests in the world, enormous reserves of coal, palladium, iron ore, oil, water, uranium, etc. 22 million square kilometers of land controlled by emancipated workers, 100+ million workers not eager to go back to a system of exploitation controlling a soil that would provide them autharchy. It would have attracted workers from all over the world, it would have served as a real stronghold for international socialist struggle, it would have attracted thousands of scientists and artists that were socialist from genetists like Müller (who was rejected by Stalin) to physicists like Einstein (who was known to be a socialist). It would have been a massive extension of land inhabited by free men working within a really unbreakable political scheme and an economic scheme of which efficience would simply rely on their organizational capabilities and will. What about military? A military is strong in the proportion to its economic back up, the technology on its hands and its experience which ought to provide proper strategy. USSR would have had all these 3 making a formidable army and, if we take for granted that many prominent scientists liek Einstein would have gone there it's probable it would have been even able to develop nuclear weapons first than any nation, nulifying the effectiveness of any conventional attempt at invading it.

It's all speculation indeed, but quite plausible speculation. The thing is that USSR really had an excellent potential to boost the struggle for international socialism while in practice and thanks to vanguardism became the opposite in many senses.

Wakizashi wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

The "state-capitalist" nonsense is invented by the capitalists in their struggle against Communism and the Soviet Union.

oh ya thats funny because you completely ignored my entire post.
and no, actually if you have read marx, you would know that if someone other then the workers control the means of production, it is capitalist by proxy.

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

The "state-capitalist" nonsense is invented by the capitalists in their struggle against Communism and the Soviet Union.

oh ya thats funny because you completely ignored my entire post.
and no, actually if you have read marx, you would know that if someone other then the workers control the means of production, it is capitalist by proxy.

In the USSR the Workers DID control the means of production.
The state merely calculated how much production was necessary for the nation.

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

Oh yes, and your system really lasted long ...

Wakizashi wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

The state should own the most important branches: water, energy, electricty, etc... and make the quotas for the plants and collective farms.

I support the Soviet Russian system.

state control=state capitalism.

really because i think the people should have control of all means and modes of production.
kind of like what karl marx wanted, you are familiar with him, no?

how could you support that fucking oligarchy?
my blood fought in the revolution, only for it to be betrayed.

that is funny because, i support the (anti)system used in catalonia during the spanish revolution.

Oh yes, and your system really lasted long ...

it would have lasted longer if it was actually given support.
oh and what about the ukrainian free territory?

Wakizashi wrote:

In the USSR the Workers DID control the means of production.
The state merely calculated how much production was necessary for the nation.

Soviet workers would entirely disagree with you, though.

The state controlled and owned the means of production, then coordinated the workers into producing goods and then sold those goods to the workers... Else, what you call "calculation" was actually "control" meaning the state actually controlled all the economy.

Wakizashi wrote:

Oh yes, and your system really lasted long

What's the relevance of this?

A working socialist system that last 4 years is worth inmensely more than a disfunctional state capitalist social dictatorship that call sitself socialist that lasts 69 years.

The problem the spanish revolutionaires faced was not lack of wrokability of their system but rather lack of autharchy and an overwhealming military pressure.