Re: Venture Communism

[Dmytri Kleiner <dk@xxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Waistline2@xxxxxxx wrote:

> In my first reply  . . . I believe in my heart a  valid question was asked:

Yes, I agree, and I appreciate the question.

> "If American history is to be used as a framework one must ask  why the slave
> oligarchy refused the offer to be compensated - bought out, to end  slavery.
> Why did the slave oligarchy refuse to be bought out as a transition  program
> to end slavery? "

As I said in my last resonse, I would like to know more about the terms of
the proposed buy out and it's refusal.

> We are dealing with cold economic logic and human beings who  conceived the
> world a certain way and earnestly believe that we have come to the  end of
> human history when one challenges their right to be ruling class.

Perhaps yes, but still we must strugle against them. I want to know how.
I'm not satisified simply having ample theory describing the faults and
failing of the ruling the class. I want to know what I can do right now,
and tomorow, and every day to change things.

> In theory we cannot buy back the productive forces because  they operate on
> the basis of being put to work . . . on the basis . . .  of paying the workers
> a sum total that is smaller than what the owners  realized as profits in the
> process of buying and selling. In other words our  collective wages are not
> greater than that portion of capital the bourgeoisie  appropriates for itself as
> a class.

This is why venture communism attempts to subvert the system by sharing
profit equaly, instead of making surplus value into private accumulation,
it makes into shared wealth.

> Individual capitalist do not have to be bought out and a  handful goes over
> to the revolutionary upsurge of the people.

We are losing the revolution. The capitalists are accumulating more, and
we are left with less. When do you imagine this upsurge will change that?

> As a statement of fact the Molotov cocktail is not  historically obsolete.
> Does it not depend on terrain and conditions of warfare?

I have my doubts that there are any conditions or terrains in which a
revolution of the people can defeat the forces of the capitalists. I also
believe that violent revolutions put violent people in charge. Never mind
the fact that existing social accumulation is destroyed.

> It is not "my" revolution or this guys or girls revolution . .  . but social
> revolution that can only be resolved by a political transition to  something
> we like and agree with . . . in general.

I reject the notion that political transition can only be achieved by
violence.

> OK where do I throw my little dough to prove that we will not  and cannot buy
> out a class or improve the lot of the American people through  capitalistic
> market financial schemes.

Venture communism, on it's own can not "buy out a class" but by diverting
the value create by labour away from capitalist and into more equitable
and democratic organisation it can change the balance of power.

> The most we do is improve the lot of the individual investor .  . . with
> thoughtful investments.

Yes, that is what venture communism is, an investment strategy that seeks
to improve the lot of the individual investor. The major difference is
that it uses a form of Capital (labour) that is better distributed than
money.

As I've said Venture Communism is not a new politcal ideal, simply a
transitional strategy.

> Exchange of labor schemes do not work in a system of private  ownership of
> the material power of production. "Do not work" means that the  bottom 30% of
> American society cannot be help by investment in the financial  markets.

The bottom 30% of American society is better served working for an
organizations that are more equitable and more democratic than their
current work place.

> You suggest creating another - alternative . . .  infrastructure where the
> labor of real human beings can be exchanged and  converted on the market into
> products of consumption.

Not really, I'm trying to map out a strategy that is functional within the
current infrastructure while at the same time compatable with a better
one, not designed by me, but the end result of engaged democratic
participation.

> Great.  The plan need a hell of a lot of development.

Yes, I agree. That's why I appreciate these comments and feedback. The
plan does still needs a lot of work.

What is your plan?

Regards,
Dmytri.