Re: More on Venture Communism

[sartesian <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The proposal for "venture communism," is above all, ahistorical, derived
from a moral sensibility and not the determinants of social organization.
And in passing, but more than an in passing, it must be noted that for
Marxists there is no such thing as "natural social law," except perhaps in a
list of oxymorons that would include "fair competition" and "equal profits."

I don't think I need to summarize the The Poverty of Philosophy, but I do
think  D. Kleiner should take the time to study this work as it anticipates
and refutes his proposed system 155 years prior to his presentation.

Creation of utopian communes has been attempted and executed any number of
times, the venture version is not essentially different than any of these
attempts.  It attempts a pretense of originality with its labor financial
instruments, but even these are old hat.  Remember Huey Newton's picture on
the dollar bill?

The real detail of how such a venture would function, of course, are left
out.  How for example, would  products be distributed within and without the
venture?  How would that expense be absorbed when and if market returns of
production do not coincide exactly in time to sustain reproduction of the
entire venture?  How would the needs of the producers be satisfied, outside
the realm of production.  Say the medical needs of those who can't work,
those with many children, those who need to work less.  If  their labor
times are different, then their labor money will be different, and the equal
distribution goes down the drain.

But even if not-- what about providing for those needs?  Education,
medicine, infrastructure?  How will the alternative venture enterprise
achieve that?  And how will it pay its taxes?

And you know what?  The answers don't even matter.  Because the economic
concentration of power and production inside the capsule of private
property, under the control of the bourgeoisie, was a product of historical
necessity-- and the solution to the conflict between the means and relations
of production is not amenable to alternatives to the overthrow of that
specific, obsolete property relation.  That's what it's all about.  It is
definitely not about celebrating "individual empowerment and individual
responsibility" that capitalism has created, first and foremost because
capitalism has created no such thing-- it has empowered a specific class and
only those individuals who meet the needs of that class; it has, in the
corporation, created the exact antithesis of individual responsibility, only
holding individuals responsible for transgressing upon the dictates of
private property.

Although perhaps you could sell shares in venture communism to those seeking
"Marxist Financial Advice."