geikei

Personaly im not American.

I believe every imperialist American senetor should be put in jail at the very least for their crimes and that. That includes Bernie with his support and votes for the Afghanistan war, for the intervention of Yugoslavia, for supporting and agreeing in basicaly every Syria and Libya related action while it happened , for voting on the Iraq Budgets and the support for troop actions there and much more. Being less imperialist than the most imperialist people on earth still makes you an imperialist of the highest degree in action. If you wish severe punishment for the other senators its completely legit to wish a proportionate one to a lesser degree for Bernie Sanders and his votes and actions.

If anything reacting so negatively to the somewhat out of line "he should get shot" thing (which isnt that out of line with usual "american imperialist senators should be shot" opinions here ) and jump in to say it can only be edginess and condemnable lack of appreciation for the hero to our cause, Bernie Sanders, is what makes the american left seem less good to me.

Oh and the "we owe so much to him , he brought the socialist movement so much forward" isnt some objective truth you can just state. The degree it holds up its a material analysis that people can have validly different conclusions, especially since there still no actual large scale tangible results of the "gains"

Its natural to feel the urge for sympathy and forgiveness towards his old , somewhat remorseful and ptsd riddled self but its hard not to think the reality. That american soldiers in Korea were basicaly indistinguisable from Wehrmacht soldiers in the Eastern front. Even worse arguably since they traveled a globe away to do it, more volunteered as a % and there wasnt an outward ideological framework comparable to the anti-slavic/bolshevik genocidal Nazism behind their actions

Is it really usual or comparable ? Exxon for example seems to have had similar profits as Hauwai in 2021 and has around 80k employees. The equivalent of what Huawei does would be an annual distribution or "bonus" of around 100k to their employees .From what i see their bonuses were at average 15k but in their bulk bellow 10k. With CEOs racking up dozens and dozens of millions over the years , even just in bonuses. And on top of that it seems that even the employee bonuses have been obliderated in recent years due to "oil crisis". justifications . Same seems to be the case with the other companies you mention. "average" bonuses of 10k (a lot under that and inflated due to CEO and other high level bonuses,) on companies where the equivalent clear profit/employees would put it at 100k . And also an abandonment of a lot of these bonuses in recent years

But Huwaei is relatively evenly dividing a majority of pure annual profits among the general employee population . And thats not as a bonus scheme but a direct result and part of Huwaei being majority ESOP structured in a very unique way, which also translate to worker control ,union and voting mechanisms inside the company. You can maybe argue that this counts as "labor aristocracy" only if you argue that fairer profit distributive among employees co-op/esop structures of large profitable tech company like Huawei exising makes their employes much better compensated compared to others. But thats not a problem with the structure , its a reason for more and more of China's and the worlds tech and other companies to be restructured like that. Also idk about comparing inflated monstrous oil giants that have exerted influence in some of the worst policies and disasters of modern times to Huawei

Also it seems like if this was anything in line with a western giant like Exxon or even some silcon valey company it would be easy after the economic warfare and sanctions the west and Trump(now biden) unleased against Hauwai, forcing them out of markets to find an excuse just not give "the treats" and instead trickle down the "losses" to their employees as an excuse for the ceos to get richer and for more individual accumulation of wealth. But the highest decision making body in Huawei is the Employee Shareholders' Representative Commission representing and being voted up in 1 share 1 vote stages from the 130,000 Huawei employees that own collectively 95%+ of the companies shares with no huge discrepencies of share holding between employees.

Also the more i read the more i see that their system is pretty complicated and interesting, more Based than just "its ESOP" but with also interesting peculiarities due to historical development

I know its not a pure co-op structure in the Richard Wolf's bonner Mondragon sense or smth but you can call Huawai the largest co-op in the world i feel. And if you do the numbers for the largest co-ops globaly as well as for the numbers of people or % of the economy being in different co-op or communal structures, you will likely get China topping the charts

That must be a weird realization for some of the feverishly anti-china demsoc/libsoc co-op socialism lovers. Turns out China or places like Vietnam are the best examples of and the closest thing to co-op AES? well well well

Stalin smartphone case spotted at 2:30

lmao

: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities"

So how does this apply in the USSR even after the "Stalinist counterrevolution" as you say ? At what level and for which individuals did this accumulation of commodities prevailed as wealth ? Where was ownership leading to that short of accumulation observed ? By the party members that even at the most extreme earned 3-4 times what an average factory worker did and lived in somewhat larger appartments than the average worker ? Is the phenomenon was so rampant you should be able to present proof of how that wealth from immense accumulation of commodities existed widely in the capitalist USSR

The USSR could not be communist because communism is an international movement, not something that can be realized in a single nation. Look at any capitalist country, trade(exports and imports) makes up a giant chunk of the GDP.

Sure but

The USSR called itself communist

This never happened. The party called it self a communist party. Maybe at most the society was called one with communist values. The economy and mode of production and organization of the USSR was never descibed as an existing communist one by the party OR leaders , especially under stalin.

Stalinist counterrevolution, they were simply opportunists who seek to enforce their own different version of capitalism while pretending they were communists (ring a bell? China, Cuba, NK all do the same thing)

Just quoting this cause its a distilled and pure leftcom momment to a very funny degree. And even misunderstands leftcoms of that era who despite not considering the USSR socialist or communist they usualy refrained and distanced themselves from the baby brained "its just capitalism" analysis. Just linking to lasagna man with no context isnt enough

In general you seem quite confused about the exploitation of workers and malding over the boogeyman of "state capitalism" . The "capitalist" USSR economy magicaly wasnt run for profit and didnt include accumulation of wealth or control over production by indivisual people . The image of capitalist opportunists enacting their version of capitalism to materialy benifit them selves is Disney level ahistorisism since even western anti-communist historians or even cia reports dont point out towards rgar. There wasnt a class in the economic sense profiting from the labor of the underclass or enacting a "dictatorship of X class" in the marxist sense over the workers. No one got rich in USSR by making his fellow people poor and exploiting them or even more so from exploiting the rest of the world. Even Stalin for all his faults basicaly died with nothing on his name and living an ascetic life. You can very rightfully argue about the shittiness of the bureocracy and the disconnect of the party from the working class and the elitism. You would be correct. But jumping from there to "state capitalist" hysteria is unfounded

Yes there was exploitation in the USSR and sucking labor value from workers .How else would you finance the enormous military budgets or rebuilt the entire country from strcatch multiple times after ww1/civil war and then after ww2. Since USSR wasnt imperialist in the "exploiting third world labour or extracting resources from the rest of the world" sence and since it was economicaly isolated and sieged Surplus value was extracted from the workers in order to be redirected to those stuff. Its simple as that. And idk about how the USSR could avoid having to maintain huge military expensess or having to rebuild a vast country from rubble 2 times using the labour and value created only within their borders. And yes there wasnt a complete ablolition of wages , commodities class struggle . But the USSR never was and never claimed to have reached communism in order to do so

Another thing that ties with most other points is that , by little choice of its own and due to cold war shennanigans, the USSR for decades even afterWWII spend a good 20-25%+ of their GDP on the military and intelligence operations. Thats a huge handicap to have for a country with their starting material conditions that went through a devestation such as WWII and limited the wiggle room they had domesticaly for more treats to the citizens and in general more whole scale departure from exploitation and overtaking the west in many cultural and economical ereas

"previous"

lol