On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 10:13:12AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Comment > > Venture Communism would face several real world obstacles that are economic > and social in my opinion. This is not to say I am against socially > responsible investments . . . with "socially responsible" increasing defined on the > basis of protecting the metabolic process of the earth and women as priority > one.
Well, it seems that my propspectus has caused a little confusion in that that the primary difference between a venture commune and a venture capital fund is two fold. 1- Shares are purchaced with labour not money and are non-transferable. 2- All Shareholders are equal. To be a part of a Venture Capital Fund you need to have spare money, which almost nobody has. To be a part of a Venture Commune, you need to have spare labour, which not everybody has, but a lot more people have then have spare money. Other than that, a Venture Commune operates exactly in the same way that a Venture Capital Fund does, and would face the exact same obstacles. > All the economic data I have read over the past period of my life speaks of > the technological revolution ousting increasing large masses of labor from > the production process as fewer and fewer hands are need to produce a previous > mass of goods. Yet labour, especial higly skilled technical labour, is needed to operate the technology. > In fact the venture communism proposal is predicated on a > vision of the expanding capacity of production. No more so than Venture Capitalism, the differences are limited to the manner in which one aquires a voting share, and how profits are devided. > This means how is this going to help the lowest 30% of the American workers? By pooling there labour in to Venture Communes they can build their Capital wealth. > Without question there is no need for the state to be a property holder in > America or serves as central authority of production and distribution. Venture Communism is not opposed to state-based efforts to make society more equitable... I'm just not holding my breath, I image Venture Communes to be allies in the strugle for social justice along with many others. > 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? I don't know, but I would love to hear more about this. Who offered to by out the slave oligarchy? What terms where refused? > I do not advocate a program of violent change in America and urge the > bourgeoisie to stop beating up demonstrators and protesters . . . but strongly > believe that if you are shot at you must shoot back. I agree. But shooting back when you've got a slingshot and they have a apache helicopter is futile and playing into their hands. > Actually venture communism is what was attempted in the old Soviet Union > during the entire decade of the 1980s . . . in my opinion. There is no simularity between when Venture Communism and the Soviet Union in the slightest. Venture Communism is an investment scheme, not a political system. Thanks you for your comments, I appreciate it! Regards.
