Guevarista wrote:
More unsubstantiated Gue-ano, I see.

Good idea. Let me give you a hand

www.bookrags.com/resarch/mondragn-cooper...on-este-0001_0003_0/

I think you might be overestimating Griffin's influence and credibility.

Or was that comment born from wishful thinking?

Guevarista wrote:
The autonomy from the state is practised via the corporation which pays sod all tax and provides for its own workers.
Mondragon has nothing to do with nationalism because it wants nothing to do with any state.

It has its flaws, the biggest imho is the factory floor manufacturing that it relies on. China will piss all over before long.
However, the AS method can be applied to any company and indeed the corporation does consist of much more than the manufacturing side of things but it is a big part of their income.

National syndicalism nazism/fascism does actually work and very well initially and because of this the fervour and belief of the majority can be used against minorities and for various divide and conquer tasks which the daily mail would relish.
And then ofc war as it must expand to keep going.

AS was tried in the past in the UK with the rochdale pioneers who had a brainfart by putting up shares for sale to outsiders who bought up the cotton mill.

Nationalism is an odd and varied word with somewhat confused interpretations.

Sometimes its born of an occupying force and is an attempt to regain control over a land from the occupier.
Other times it's born of not liking the fact there's a mosque at the end of the street.....

The motivation and intention of those two examples is very.different. i therefore consider the sloppy use of the word in 'debate' as a smear tactic to be poor. Very poor.

This is not an endorsement of nationalism.


I was unaware that an organism is defined by that which it grew from....thanks for that gue, i learnt something

What i'm seeing too much of late is sloppy smeary gloopy shite masquerading as debate. I'm seeing threads being pissed all over. I'm seeing a disruptive little fekker who's bringing no ideas or fresh thought to the table. I'm seeing someone who looks to the thoughts of long dead thinkers for answers, quotes them verbatim ad infinitum and tries to whip other posters for not doing the same. I'm seeing guevarista basically.

As i've said before, i suspect gue is given his dole by the gov on the condition he does everything he can to drag marxism through the dirt by acting like a dick.
I'm with mikey gue, you aint no marxist. Its just something you cling to like a comfort blanky or an old smelly teddy.

You don't even understand what Marxism is Dubs imho.
Inaccurate and insincere imo to call Mondragon Anarcho Syndicalist in one breath, say how great Mondragon is then go on to attack the tactic of Syndicalism/Trade Unions in the UK.
www.thenews.coop/it/node/8928

Thats yer best effort gue? "you don't even understand what marxism is?"

dubmeup wrote: Effort at what?

Pardon?

Guevarista wrote:
Show me a single union that has achieved what Mondragon has.

Just to add and keep things simple, Griffin and his mates are cunts, he can tweet wtf he likes becuase he will never gain any power

Nick Griffin is a racist arsehole

However good for him for trying tip the Labour/Conservative divide............

Personally I do not like Nick Griffin or anything he stands for but admire his balls

I don't really see on what basis Trade's Unions and the Mondragon Corporation can be compared?

One being a Distributist Worker owned Corporation set up by a Priest in post war Spain the other being a tactic developed under hundreds of years of Class struggle in the heart of the Capitalist Industrial nations on which the former was based.

Can you answer me a question gue please?
Unions. I've been a union member. I've also had cause to go the union for assistance with a work issue.

Where do you see british unions sitting in the socio-economic spectrum? As in do you think they operate within a sphere that marx would have endorsed?


Yes i know that's technically 2 questions

Good questions though.

#1 Well Leadership is definitely in the lap of the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie
#2 IMO no, I think Marx would have been highly critical of the moderate reformist policies of the Labour party and inneffectualTrades Unions, Engel's and he were both critical of the Social Democratic reformist trend in their own era:
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

I'm a Nietszchean Marxist btw if you're interested, "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going"...
I'd say Mondragon and the Coop movement is a definite part of that, but it's development in recent years IMO has been a departure from it's Radical Leftist roots.

It's a similar pattern in a similar organism to the trade's unions ie the increase of financial aspirations and decrease of radical aspirations.

Cheers. I agree with both answers.

i see nothing in the current british unions that is working towards raising what marxists call class consciousness and nothing in them that shows any sign of taking over production.
what i see is them essentially being an extension of the capitalist control system. a trojan horse so to speak.
i see them actually contributing to the oppression of the workers.

so you may have already guessed my next question
do you support the british unions?

dawnbreak wrote:
I agree with you up to a point. I think we must be careful not to mistake courage for hate fueled, power-ambition.

Guevarista wrote:
Answer= Mondragon workers have it much better than any UK union workers.

Game over, end of story. The Mondragon crowd achieved something the union workers achieve little.
One is more effective than the other, its really as simple as that and I fail to see why the matter needs to be complicated any further or why there needs to be any so called 'argument' over it.

As for Nick Griffin if the media decided to back him then he could win in the UK.

dawnbreak wrote:
His eyeballs?

The ones under his chin?

On some Issues I support the British Unions, they undoubtedly have potential for influence at a high level in government.It all has that potential, organized labour, labour and money in general are a small and potentially insignificant part of being human, that imo under the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie and owing to the unstopped development of the Merchant and Owning classes in Europe is grossly inflated, and violently enforced, Michel Foucault writes about this in Madness and Civilization, the Christian work ethic in early Europe and purges on mendicancy.

Would you agree with me that "Class consciousness" and the working class is developing, regardless and outside of economics, and this will inevitably be reflected at some point in Organized Labour committees?

Nowadays in my view there are probably more economically middle class people interested in Radical socialist ideas, political activism and the basis of the problems (inequality, exploitation, class oppression) Marx was writing about, there are also countless quickly developing international nations in which Marxist Ideas are also growing in popularity as the Western Imperialist model disintegrates..

China interests me in terms of class consciousness, it's highly oppressive and totalitarian, extremely rich but rife with inequalities and exploitation, in terms of political participation it's a closed shop to management, capitalist production and wage slavery are enforced violently, media and internet commications are monitored and censored, workers organization is stamped out, despite all this it remains based on Maoist/Leninist Communist Principles (with added Capitalist Reforms) and retains therefore the germ of it's own destruction the next time the oppressed masses in China decide enough is enough.

IMO and experience there's more potential for serious change outside the economic paradigm through the NGO, Political, even Digital activism, but the most important area is in one's personal life and situation as it is

Guevarista wrote:
This makes sense apart from the 'political' bit precisely because of the very reasons you have mentioned above yourself.

The most important area is indeed what you can do for your own personal situation, there are some ways and means of being somewhat distanced from the system but never completely apart from it. Maybe as a monk in Tibet or something

The immediate obvious answer if you're married have kids and all the associated commitments is to go self employed. Play the bastards at their own game. It works but takes effort, in fact every option takes monumental effort, its this willingness to put some effort in thats lacking.