Shares of what acquired by labor instead of property? What are you going to acquire buy your "arm and hammer" buy outs? Exxon? Flextronics? Tinto Rio? Coca-Cola? I don't think so.
You cannot buy out, substitute, or displace the existing "social accumulation." You can seize it, destroy it, etc. Splitting profits equally? No such thing. Oxymoron. Profits by definition are a function of inequality. 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. Plenty of history to demonstrate all of the above and all of the above are compressed in the history of the Russian Revolution. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dmytri Kleiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Venture Communism > On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 09:25:07AM -0700, sartesian wrote: > > Well, if you want another view.. > > > > It seems to me that "Venture Communism" is little different than Proudhon's > > "people's banks" dealing in "labor money." > > Thanks for the tip! I will investigate Proudhon's "people's banks." > > > Rather than "Venture > > Communism," this proposal should be called finance Proudhonism is no > > alternative to advanced capitalism or social revolution. > > It is only meant to be an alternative to existing ways to start new > organisations, it is an investment scheme, it is not a politcal system. > > However, by making these new organisations more equitable and more democratic > it paves the way to socialism and is therefore an alternative to violent > revolution, with the advantage that existing social accumulation is > preserved and not destroyed. > > > The utopian formula at the heart of "Venture Communism" might have some > > application in isolated, and essentially agrarian, communities, but it has > > no application in class struggle between labor and property. > > Why so? The forumla at the heart of Venture Communism is shares aquired by > labour instead of money and profits split equaly, why do you imagine that > limits its application as you describe? > > Please explain. > > Regards, > Dmytri.
