Italian worker co-ops

What's going on in Italy with worker co-ops? Listening to Richard Wolff, it sounds like the italian state is really trying to build up a co-operative sector of the economy. Why are they doing this? Is Italy actually existing socialism?

I agree with the more traditional Marxist or Marxist-Leninist view that a bunch disconnected co-operatives in an otherwise capitalist economy isn't socialism, but it's undoubtedly attractive as an egalitarian, democratic alternative to "normal" capitalism.

Attached: f9906b8f-f8d5-4f84-a5d4-2cf08cce9f0c.jpeg (4298x2868, 1.42M)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

— Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution (1900)

The law was passed in 1985: when the majority of the Italian Parliament was the Italian Communist Party, or the Socialist Party of Italy. It is suoer popular with conservatives as they see is as basically a business subsidy (as because it beats having people on the dole), liberals as a monopoly breaker, soc dems as social democracy in action and socialists & communists for obvious reasons. 5SM too think it is dope because they are syncratic.
So yeah the law was passed by Communists and Social Democrats because they both thought it furthered their goals: now that''s what I call left unity.
The best part is that many of these groups now support the refounded communist movement: Power to the People. The PCI were fucking clever.

Yes, it's AES. And it's growing.

t. canal inspector

SOMEONE GULAG THIS FAGGOT

...

That's a lot of gibberish to not make an argument.

If your policies make conservatives and liberals happy, you might want to reflect critically upon your achievements.

Defeating the nazis made a lot of cons and libs happy, doesn't make Zhukov a capitalist.
The true art of of replacing a system is to sell it to your opponents as if they want it. This is exactly what Lenin did with the NEP.

Defeating the Nazis wasn't an economic policy, it was a necessity for self-survival. They're not even remotely comparable.

That's why I mentioned the NEP. A similar policy would be the marrage allowances & family support found across the eastern bloc (which social conservatives liked).

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm

Ohshiet.png

Nigga if anything italy proves that coops are overrated. I'm pretty sure most of these coops are in the central region of Emilia Romagna and they don't have the highest standards of living nor the most democracy than the rest of Italy. This country is beyond fucked coops are fucking useless

Marx and Engels adhered to an increasingly gradualist approach to social change towards the end of their life. I believe they were wrong. They overestimated the potential of such steps to make a lasting difference and not simply be co-opted by and absorbed into capitalism.

Attached: deepfried_1525783764095.png (640x805, 953.18K)

the problem with co-ops is that at the ed of the day, it is still capitalism. Arguably the workers are less alienated, and one can look at them as a way to disrupt overmonopolised capitalism, but they exist, and can only exist in a capitalist economy. Co-ops are basically a tool of reformism. So an arguement about reformism, is by extension, an arguement about reformism as well. And reformism has been shown to be less effective at furthering socialism numerous times.
Wanna make capitlism more sustainable and less alienating? Sure, go ahead and support co-ops. Wanna actually replace capitalism with a better system? Start a revolution and sieze the means of production, damn it.

Attached: supreme.jpg (380x380, 26.84K)

t. Guy who thinks capitalism is just markets

Attached: flat,800x800,070,f.u1.jpg (660x800, 54.14K)

"Building up" is not the same as taking over.

Isn't this a very reductionist view of how political change happens though? The same could be said about unions. What they do is make life in capitalism less miserable, but the bolsheviks still thought union work, and other kinds of boring political, "non-revolutionary" work was important.

Has any revolutionary movement that actually achieved something ever had this sort of attitude of "well if it's not revolution it's just making capitalism more bearable, so let's not do it"? It's been a long time since I read it but this is exactly the sort of thing Lenin argues against in Left Wing Communism iirc.

yeah, I guess that's a fair point

The idea that we're idle socialists waiting for an epic revolution is a major aspect of anti-Marxist propaganda on the mainstream, and unfortunately many people who are new to Socialism mistake that for fact and internalize it.

market sphere expansion lead to the restauration of capitalism
the soviet union and yugoslavia collapsed for that very reason
Stalin called it, titoism btfo by history
now shush it fgt

*compatible

Lenin supported strikes because it is a good way to prganise the proletariat and spread agitpop (this is actuallynwhat isnhappening right now in the US with the teachers' strikes). Coops can work in a similar manner, coops are not socialism in itself, but they are a path to socialism.
Also for all those that state Rosa was an impossibilist, remember she organised within the SPD, and founded a communist party well before any overt revolutionary activity.

It's something.
It ain't socialism, but it's a bit less capitalism (although it's still capitalism).

Attached: 3248a94e967d5b1adf7f9e35296ba7405cbdb84ae34f3a6c7bebfed0d9d4bf48.jpg (480x729, 46.15K)

It's capitalism but it's also working people learning that there's an alternative and learning to operate that alternative.