Re: Venture Communism

[sartesian <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1.  The fallacy in this type of proposal, "venture communism," has been
examined and exposed many times before you have re-proposed an essentially
archaic notion.   Marx demolished this notion in many of his works-- and
took Proudhon apart in The Poverty of Philosophy.  You will need to
familiarize yourself with that work if you want to make sense of and in this
discussion.

2.  You propose a false "strategy," of workers either "doing nothing" or
engaging in hedge-fund socialism.  Rather than pursue self-capitalist
alternatives, the real struggles of the class are "what the workers should
do."

3. Yes capital can be purchased.  But it's still capital.  Purchase is not
expropriation.  Expropriation means the emancipation of labor and the means
of production from the constraints of profit, of private property.


4.  Oh yeah, it's a trick all right, the sharing of profits "equally," so
much of a trick that it doesn't, can't, won't exist in anything other than a
Ponzi scheme.

5. How so?  Because in order to purchase material from the "non-venture
communist" world, the medium of exchange, money, will have to be absorbed
into your hedge-fund utopia, and with money, debt, and then production
becomes organized necessarily, for the service of money, and the servicing
of the debt.

6. Glad to hear of your religious belief in your venture communist
corporations.  Let me know when the comet comes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmytri Kleiner" <dk@xxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Venture Communism


> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:11:58PM -0700, sartesian wrote:
>
> > Shares of what acquired by labor instead of property?
>
> Share of a new organisation, a startup. That's why I all it //Venture//
> Communism instead of say //Investment// Communism or //Merchant//
> Communism.
>
> The Venture Commune invests third party capital, in the form of labour,
> in new ventures.
>
> >  What are you going to
> > acquire buy your  "arm and hammer" buy outs?  Exxon?  Flextronics?
Tinto
> > Rio?  Coca-Cola? I don't think so.
>
> Not as a start up, but if the start up grows enoough it starts to
accumalate
> other kinds of Capital as well as labour capital, i.e. Money Capital,
Capital
> Goods, it can infact buy out large organisations, or simply take away
> there markets.
>
> > You cannot buy out, substitute, or displace the existing "social
> > accumulation."  You can seize it, destroy it, etc.
>
> Please explain why you believe this is so.
>
> Capital can be seized, social accumulation is accumulated capital,
> therefor social accumlation can be seized.
>
> Capital can be destroyed, social accumulation is accumulated capital,
> therefor social accumlation can be destroyed.
>
> Capital can be purchaced, social accumulation is accumulated capital,
> therefor social accumlation can be purchaced.
>
> Why do you think the last syllogism is different from the first two?
>
> > Splitting profits equally?  No such thing.  Oxymoron.  Profits by
definition
> > are a function of inequality.
>
> Thats the trick in Venture Communism, all share holders are equal, all
> workers are shareholders, profits are thus shared equaly.
>
> > And as soon as your isolated communist community comes into contact with
the
> > world of finance capital, you're venture begins its morping into good
old
> > private capitalism.
>
> How so? All workers are shareholders. Shares can not be purchased with
money.
> Profits are devided equaly.
>
> > Plenty of history to demonstrate all of the above and all of the above
are
> > compressed in the history of the Russian Revolution.
>
> I see, so what do you suggest workers do in the mean time, give up? Be
> happy working for capitalists and having no stake? Starve? Or should we
> grab a molitov cocktail and hit the streats immedietly to die for your
> revolution? Perhaps we should just read about history and do nothing at
> all?
>
> Venture Communism is not a politcal system, as I've explained, it is a
> (emerging) plan for starting new organisations, organisations that are
> equitable and democratic. Dispite your unexplained insistenance to the
> contrary, I believe than new organisations can replace old organisations
> and change the world.
>
> Regards,
> Dmytri.