A personal issue with unions... [Archive]

The Broke Cycle

19th October 2009, 22:01

I work at a pizza shop. Most of my coworkers are in their mid-twenties. Most of them are uneducated. Most show up late, work sparingly and steal from the owners. Most are paid minimum wage, but make anywhere from $30-130 per shift in tips. They are able to work the hours they want, and they are treated fairly by management. Raises are given annually or when especially good work is demonstrated. With tips, I make about double the average income of a person in my industry.

In other words, I have a decent job. Not great, but good.

My problem is that, simply put, I would not want to give my coworkers a voice in how they run the business. I think that if they were given a voice, they would abuse their powers horribly, and probably drive the business out of existence.

In my experience - and I'll be the first to admit that it is not that vast - about 50-60% of people are lazy, incompetent and unwilling to work hard. They have a sense of entitlement and are notoriously selfish. Obviously I cannot demonstrate this is objectively true, but it is what I have come to conclude after working various jobs over the past two decades.

So my problem is, why should I want them to get a say in their jobs? What means would a communist system use to ensure that those who are intentionally lazy or overly slothful do not benefit the same as someone who works hard or even just does what they supposed to?

FSL

19th October 2009, 23:22

about 50-60% of people are lazy, incompetent and unwilling to work hard. They have a sense of entitlement and are notoriously selfish.

Sure they are. Or try to be. How else would anyone make easy money in this day and age?

If they're happy with their situation and have no desire to change it but instead like it, then they 're happy with their situation.
At least -and that is just a personal opinion- some forced labor for a couple or 3/4/10 years would make up for any laziness.

And your issue seems to be more about worker's management than about unions?

Chicano Shamrock

19th October 2009, 23:55

In my experience - and I'll be the first to admit that it is not that vast - about 50-60% of people are lazy, incompetent and unwilling to work hard. They have a sense of entitlement and are notoriously selfish.
Of course they seem lazy to you. How can you expect someone to do a job with heart if they have no interest in it? We are forced to get jobs and you want us to love wage slavery?

CELMX

20th October 2009, 00:36

cyu

20th October 2009, 20:39

Most show up late, work sparingly and steal from the owners.

There are two kinds of field slaves: Those who sabotage the master whenever they get the chance. And those who kiss the master's ass hoping to be made into a house slave.

h9socialist

20th October 2009, 21:03

Axle

20th October 2009, 22:09

In my personal experience, I'm much more likely to screw off during a job I hate than at a job I actually enjoy.

Case in point: I worked third shift at a gas station for about ten months. Management expected me to do the bulk of the store's cleaning because of the low customer count. I hated that job, so I did just enough to keep the store looking presentable. Honestly, I probably spent two or three hours a night just reading in the office. However, there was another employee who loved working nights and would actually go above and beyond what was expected for the shift.

So am I just lazy and incompentent and unwilling to work hard like you suggest? Hell no, these days I work as a cook in a restaurant and I love it. I bust my ass at that job and I take pride in my work because I actually enjoy it.

And yes, this are examples straight out of my life, and as such, they'll be more subjective, but I challenge you (and anyone else who reads this) to look on your past work history and ask yourself if you really were a model employee at a job you loathed compared to a job you didn't.

A person's work ethic is not static. It all depends on whether or not they're doing something they enjoy. In a socialist or communist society, no one will be forced to work a job they hate, but I'm willing to make a bet that everyone will be able to find a job they love and not a whole lot will suffer for it.

The Ungovernable Farce

21st October 2009, 00:40

As numerous others in this thread have said: scamming, being lazy and unwilling to work hard is a perfectly rational response to alienated labour. They're not stealing from themselves, they're stealing from the boss, and they have every reason to. On the other hand, if they actually ran the business and directly benefited from it doing well, they'd have much more incentive to work hard and be much less likely to steal from themselves.
Of course, trying to take back control of an individual workplace is always tricky in the long-run, and you'll always have problems until you get rid of the profit system as a whole. But yeah, don't interpret unwillingness to do waged labour as unwillingness to work.

The Broke Cycle

21st October 2009, 04:29

The opening testimonial in this thread is about as petty-bourgeois a condemnation of the working class as I've ever read. Dear Broken Cycle are you sure Left- Wing politics is for you? This much disdain for fellow members of the working class sounds more like Glenn Beck.

Discussing my subjective experience and asking others for a reasonable explanation of how communism should deal with inefficiency, theft and laziness is not "petty-bourgeois." But jumping to a conclusion like the one you've made on the basis of one post is certainly "petty-annoying."

I make no apologies for asking questions. Perhaps you ought to try and get a handle on the full spectrum of my political beliefs before you rush to pass judgment.

Of course they seem lazy to you. How can you expect someone to do a job with heart if they have no interest in it? We are forced to get jobs and you want us to love wage slavery?

Well generally speaking they enjoy their jobs. It is easy, you get to hangout with cool people, you get all the free food you want and the wages are actually quite good. Not only that, but it is a family-owned business.

I understand why they do it. I do. They work long hours, for low pay, late at night. They probably feel under-appreciated, and rightfully so. I have felt everything they have.

I just don't understand how this feeling translates into the right to steal, cause your co-workers to work harder than they have too, show up late, etc. By doing so, you aren't improving your life, making a difference on the political system or changing your workplace. In fact, you are basically giving up any chance you have of organizing the workplace because you will be looked upon as a scumbag by the bosses, a slacker by your coworkers, and a jackass by customers.

I think being decent is the same regardless of political system.

There are two kinds of field slaves: Those who sabotage the master whenever they get the chance. And those who kiss the master's ass hoping to be made into a house slave.

Absurd. There is nothing more intellectually lazy then making analogies like this. Definitely echos George W. Bush's "with us or against us."

A person's work ethic is not static. It all depends on whether or not they're doing something they enjoy. In a socialist or communist society, no one will be forced to work a job they hate, but I'm willing to make a bet that everyone will be able to find a job they love and not a whole lot will suffer for it.

I take your point. However I am not sure that it is possible for every person to work a job they love. Logistically, that just isn't possible.

As numerous others in this thread have said: scamming, being lazy and unwilling to work hard is a perfectly rational response to alienated labour. They're not stealing from themselves, they're stealing from the boss, and they have every reason to.

I simply disagree on this point. You should not steal unless it is a matter of life and death. I understand the temptation, and even that wage workers are being stolen from, but two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, I think behaving like this does nothing to advance the socialist cause, and may actually harm it by giving ammunition to the ruling class.

chimx

21st October 2009, 05:22

So my problem is, why should I want them to get a say in their jobs? What means would a communist system use to ensure that those who are intentionally lazy or overly slothful do not benefit the same as someone who works hard or even just does what they supposed to?

First of all, pay no mind to the liberal idealists infecting this thread. They're retards that haven't the first clue about unions and class struggle.

But to answer your question, you probably wouldn't want them to have a say in your work place as is. They sound very unaware of their class interest and instead are looking out for their individual interests. They are sabotaging their shops for their own personal gain, not for the benefit of coworkers. That's the real problem.

As for your second question, most Marxists believe that current capital production is actually an over production and work should be able to be scaled back, i.e. less work. There are social responsibilities in any community, communists aren't any different. There would obviously have to be some sort of consequences for leeching off the labor of others.

Stranger Than Paradise

21st October 2009, 06:59

h9socialist

21st October 2009, 14:27

cyu

21st October 2009, 19:10

There is nothing more intellectually lazy then making analogies like this.

Don't blame me if you can't understand the analogy. The point is that there are many different responses to oppression:

1. Accept it and do nothing about it.

2. Resist the oppression in petty ways.

3. Support the oppression in hopes that the oppressor will elevate you above the others.

4. Open revolt.

Those that just clock-in and clock-out fall into category 1. Those you call lazy and thieves fall into category 2. Those who are trying to be promoted into managers fall into step 3.

Of course, in an environment without oppression, there wouldn't be any of these categories to fall into.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 02:15

I had no intention of being annoying. My only point is that moving to a socialist society encompasses accepting the "wheat with the chaff" -- the working class isn't perfect, and individual failings will impact all aspects of society, just like in any other human arrangement. To achieve socialism, we will have to accept our fair share of inefficiencies and failings. Otherwise, I meant no offense.

I apologize for overreacting myself. I've only been here for a little while, but I've already noticed that many people here have elitist attitudes, and are really into "purity of thought." So I get a bit jumpy :)

Sorry again.

As to your point, I see where you are coming from, but why should we accept not performing your duties? Assuming that massive pay discrepancies and inter-labour competition disappears; that socialism is successful and drastically increases the material and mental well-being of the average person, and that people are given satisfying jobs that they, at the very minimum, do not hate.... why should we tolerate sloth, thievery, laziness?

There is a difference between giving according to your ability and free-loading.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 02:25

The Broke Cycle, you ask how inefficiency, laziness and theft will be dealt with in a Communist society, but these things won't exist in Communist society. Ineffeciency is a result of isolation and alienation as some have already pointed out, it is a result of Capitalist society, it is the effect it has upon the working class. Laziness comes out of this too because our labour and the results of our labour are two very different things for two different groups in Capitalism and the desire to work is not there, if we are working somewhere where we directly see the results of our labour and can claim the fruits of our labour we will not be lazy. Finally theft will no longer exist because each person will have free access to goods, and no one will have the need to steal.

And also, do you really think it is a bad thing that your fellow workers are stealing money from the bosses? They are an illegitimate part of society and if thats what your co-workers need to do to get by then so be it.

Frankly, the entire first paragraph is one of most naive things I have ever read. That is a bit harsh, but the point stands: do you really think that laziness, theft and inefficiency will disappear? To me that is the political equivalent of believing in unicorns.

Realize that in some people, violence, greed, selfishness - they are born in. Sociopaths and psychotics exist. Pedophiles. Murderers. Kleptomaniacs. Those with ambition so great they are willing to do anything...

As for your second paragraph, it isn't a matter of "getting by." They make anywhere from 400-800 every five days. Now for cooking fast food, that is a damned good wage. They aren't stealing because they need the food, they are stealing because they see nothing wrong with that.

Stealing is wrong regardless of political ideology, and can only be justified in the case of emergency.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 02:37

Don't blame me if you can't understand the analogy. The point is that there are many different responses to oppression:

1. Accept it and do nothing about it.

2. Resist the oppression in petty ways.

3. Support the oppression in hopes that the oppressor will elevate you above the others.

4. Open revolt.

Those that just clock-in and clock-out fall into category 1. Those you call lazy and thieves fall into category 2. Those who are trying to be promoted into managers fall into step 3.

Of course, in an environment without oppression, there wouldn't be any of these categories to fall into.

The analogy is absurd.

In your first post, you separated every person under oppression into two categories. Once challenged, you said there are many categories. Then you defined four of them, and put everyone we were talking about into those four categories.

What Would Durruti Do?

22nd October 2009, 07:48

The analogy is absurd.

In your first post, you separated every person under oppression into two categories. Once challenged, you said there are many categories. Then you defined four of them, and put everyone we were talking about into those four categories.

Those four could still fall under each of the original two categories. I think he was just trying to be more detailed and broke it down some more so you could maybe understand it easier. (Generally even workers that are indifferent to their oppression take sides subconsciously depending upon whose interests they deem more noble: that of the owner who gives him work and a service to the people, or themselves and the plight of wage slavery)

What is absurd about his analogy?

Chicano Shamrock

22nd October 2009, 10:53

As my union brothers and sisters tell me all the time "take it easy we get paid by the hour not by the amount of work done". Not that they have to tell me that but it's just something we say. :)

ZeroNowhere

22nd October 2009, 12:02

Discussing my subjective experience and asking others for a reasonable explanation of how communism should deal with inefficiency, theft and laziness is not "petty-bourgeois." But jumping to a conclusion like the one you've made on the basis of one post is certainly "petty-annoying."Heh. Well played, I must say.
Oh, wait, sorry, I mean: Calling things annoying is petit-bourgeois!

First of all, pay no mind to the liberal idealists infecting this thread.And in response to the misuse of petit-bourgeois, we have the misuse of 'liberal' (and 'idealist', for that matter. Are they negating matter, then?) Ah yes, classic Revleft.

Realize that in some people, violence, greed, selfishness - they are born in. Sociopaths and psychotics exist. Pedophiles. Murderers. Kleptomaniacs. Those with ambition so great they are willing to do anything...I'm not sure we know that all of those things are genetic. Though yes, people are shaped by far more than the mode of production, that much is true, and seems to be more or less your point.

Anyhow, when it comes to ensuring that people work sufficiently, isn't that more or less what managers are for? If somebody slacks off too frequently, they can just get kicked out. As for theft, in a system of labour credits, presumably by a fine. For more on those, see here (http://deleonism.org/v.htm). Though many advocates of such do generally think that some basic necessities should be available for free to a certain extent (food, water, appliances, electricity, etc). So if one wishes to live more or less like a hermit, but still get food and water, then that would be possible without having to work, but if you need a load of electricity, you're going to need to pay.

On the morality of theft, perhaps that would be better in a thread in the Philosophy section?

The Ungovernable Farce

22nd October 2009, 13:37

I think being decent is the same regardless of political system.

See, this I massively disagree with. Morality is context-dependent. If you work in a hospital, showing up one morning, killing your boss, and then running away would be a pretty terrible thing to do; if you were a conscript fighting in an imperial war then it'd be pretty reasonable.

As to your point, I see where you are coming from, but why should we accept not performing your duties? Assuming that massive pay discrepancies and inter-labour competition disappears; that socialism is successful and drastically increases the material and mental well-being of the average person, and that people are given satisfying jobs that they, at the very minimum, do not hate.... why should we tolerate sloth, thievery, laziness?

I don't particularly think we should. But none of that has happened yet, so we're in an entirely different situation, where different rules apply.

I simply disagree on this point. You should not steal unless it is a matter of life and death. I understand the temptation, and even that wage workers are being stolen from, but two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, I think behaving like this does nothing to advance the socialist cause, and may actually harm it by giving ammunition to the ruling class.

They aren't stealing because they need the food, they are stealing because they see nothing wrong with that.

Stealing is wrong regardless of political ideology, and can only be justified in the case of emergency.
Where does this point come from? Why do you believe stealing to be wrong? If you could show that they'd acquired their property legitimately, then you might have a case; but all the wealth of employers is created by paying their workers less than the amount of value they create. In this case, stealing from them is just stealing back what's already been stolen.

cyu

22nd October 2009, 19:34

Assuming that massive pay discrepancies and inter-labour competition disappears; that socialism is successful and drastically increases the material and mental well-being of the average person, and that people are given satisfying jobs that they, at the very minimum, do not hate.... why should we tolerate sloth, thievery, laziness?

Excerpts from http://knol.google.com/k/j-y/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/gcybcajus7dp/6

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal - some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm also documents how giving someone a "reward" for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from "Leaves of Grass," and then asked his students the following:

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they'd accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing. Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done. The only real question is, are they able to make these activities sound enjoyable. To that end, they just need to employ the same psychological tools that product advertisers have been honing for years.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

cyu

22nd October 2009, 19:37

Stealing is wrong regardless of political ideology, and can only be justified in the case of emergency.

From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/Reconciling+Property+Rights+with+Conquest

There are many definitions of theft – different societies have different laws governing control over objects and resources. This control is basically how property is defined. Different kinds of laws mean different concepts of property. Some wealthy property owners, when confronted with the possibility that the (more numerous) poor may vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, will argue that taxation is theft. Other less wealthy people, particularly those who work under someone else, may believe exploitation is theft. Then there's Proudhon's famous declaration that, "Property is theft."

The following are reactions to the concept of conquest from two different types of pro-capitalists.

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified

This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees "conquer" their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a "legitimate" form of conquest.

Ownership Through Conquest is Not Justified

Other pro-capitalists do not believe conquest is justified and yet they oppose returning conquered land and resources to the natives (or their descendents). They believe conquest is an injustice, but do not have a good idea of how to rectify that injustice.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes - not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn't originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a "statute of limitations"? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?

Personally, I don't (that's right, don't) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it's later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an "axiomatic" right - if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with - especially if it is causing the death of others.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 22:04

Those four could still fall under each of the original two categories. I think he was just trying to be more detailed and broke it down some more so you could maybe understand it easier. (Generally even workers that are indifferent to their oppression take sides subconsciously depending upon whose interests they deem more noble: that of the owner who gives him work and a service to the people, or themselves and the plight of wage slavery)

What is absurd about his analogy?

The simple fact that it is wrong. I have already demonstrated why. Trying to neatly sort human beings into categories based on ideological differences is absurd. "Field slaves" are more complex than that, and they certainly can't be lumped into convenient categories just because some guy wants to sound witty.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 22:56

I'm not sure we know that all of those things are genetic. Though yes, people are shaped by far more than the mode of production, that much is true, and seems to be more or less your point.

They needn't be genetic, as you say. There are other environmental factors at work. For instance, an increase in temperature has been associated with an increase in criminal behaviour. The hotter it gets, the more likely people are to flip out. I can certainly attest to this.

Anyhow, when it comes to ensuring that people work sufficiently, isn't that more or less what managers are for? If somebody slacks off too frequently, they can just get kicked out.Presumably. So you agree that there ought to be some hierarchy within an enterprise, to maintain a certain level of productivity. What are the limits? For instance, let us consider two sanitation workers. One of them is highly productive, while the other does the bare minimum. Should the productive one earn more money?

As for theft, in a system of labour credits, presumably by a fine. For more on those, see <link removed due to restriction>. Though many advocates of such do generally think that some basic necessities should be available for free to a certain extent (food, water, appliances, electricity, etc). So if one wishes to live more or less like a hermit, but still get food and water, then that would be possible without having to work, but if you need a load of electricity, you're going to need to pay.So, in essence, a minimum salary.

The Broke Cycle

22nd October 2009, 23:30

See, this I massively disagree with. Morality is context-dependent. If you work in a hospital, showing up one morning, killing your boss, and then running away would be a pretty terrible thing to do; if you were a conscript fighting in an imperial war then it'd be pretty reasonable.

I agree with you. Morality is dependent on context; there is no "universal" morality that applies at all times in all situations. My contention was that stealing is wrong unless in times of emergency. Being enslaved by the State and forced to fight against your beliefs certainly qualifies as an emergency in my opinion.

Nonetheless, stealing for no good reason is wrong.

Where does this point come from? Why do you believe stealing to be wrong? If you could show that they'd acquired their property legitimately, then you might have a case; but all the wealth of employers is created by paying their workers less than the amount of value they create. In this case, stealing from them is just stealing back what's already been stolen.

A family business is as close to a legitimate business that exists in this world. I think that my bosses did acquire their property legitimately. Sure they did it within a system that has tons of faults, but I can assure you that they themselves work hard, and that they provide reliable, well-paying jobs to those unable to compete for better jobs.

I have been a farmer for many years. This farm will be passed down to me when my parents have retired. And yet I do not consider myself a "slave-master." We provide good jobs for those who don't have other options. Our loyalty is to our community, not our bottom-line. If that is all we cared about, we would have sold that farm years ago, trust me.

There is a difference between ripping off Wal-Mart and stealing from a family. There is a difference between stealing to survive and thieving because you can.

To sum it all up: two wrongs don't make a right.

Stranger Than Paradise

23rd October 2009, 08:11

I agree with you. Morality is dependent on context; there is no "universal" morality that applies at all times in all situations. My contention was that stealing is wrong unless in times of emergency. Being enslaved by the State and forced to fight against your beliefs certainly qualifies as an emergency in my opinion.

Nonetheless, stealing for no good reason is wrong.

In my opinion, stealing is justified when you are reclaiming something that is rightfully yours out of the bosses pocket.

A family business is as close to a legitimate business that exists in this world. I think that my bosses did acquire their property legitimately. Sure they did it within a system that has tons of faults, but I can assure you that they themselves work hard, and that they provide reliable, well-paying jobs to those unable to compete for better jobs.

I have been a farmer for many years. This farm will be passed down to me when my parents have retired. And yet I do not consider myself a "slave-master." We provide good jobs for those who don't have other options. Our loyalty is to our community, not our bottom-line. If that is all we cared about, we would have sold that farm years ago, trust me.

There is a difference between ripping off Wal-Mart and stealing from a family. There is a difference between stealing to survive and thieving because you can.

To sum it all up: two wrongs don't make a right.

You are wrong and misleaded, I don't think you can actually remain unrestricted because of your views on their rights to exploit workers. No one can legitimately be owner of a business and not be an enemy to revolutionaries. It is just a fact.

ZeroNowhere

23rd October 2009, 15:35

No one can legitimately be owner of a business and not be an enemy to revolutionaries. It is just a fact.
Wow, really? Shit, I'd better go and tell a friend of mine that his father is my enemy. Despite the fact that I don't even know the guy.

Stranger Than Paradise

23rd October 2009, 16:28

Wow, really? Shit, I'd better go and tell a friend of mine that his father is my enemy. Despite the fact that I don't even know the guy.

What I meant was their interests conflict the interests of the working class, therefore they are our class enemies.

cyu

23rd October 2009, 18:37

Being enslaved by the State and forced to fight against your beliefs certainly qualifies as an emergency in my opinion.

Wrong. If people aren't willing to volunteer to fight for your government of their own free will, then your government doesn't deserve to survive since it obviously wasn't doing enough for its people. Anyone forced to fight in this way is justified in shooting their commanders.

I think that my bosses did acquire their property legitimately.

The point is that almost no property is acquired legitimately. As St. Jerome said, "Opulence is always the result of theft, if not committed by the actual possessor, then by his predecessor."

The long historical line of "legal and voluntary" exchanges of almost all land and resources is ultimately rooted in violent conquest.

But exploitation isn't a "either you're an exploiter or the exploited" thing - a mom and pop grocery store may be exploiting their employees, but they in turn are exploited by their banks and landlords.

PRC-UTE

23rd October 2009, 21:28

The Broke Cycle

23rd October 2009, 22:52

In my opinion, stealing is justified when you are reclaiming something that is rightfully yours out of the bosses pocket.

You are wrong and misleaded, I don't think you can actually remain unrestricted because of your views on their rights to exploit workers. No one can legitimately be owner of a business and not be an enemy to revolutionaries. It is just a fact.

I think that your obvious sense of "ideological purity" is a shameful and somewhat disturbing facade for the fact that you can't make a credible rebuttal.

I also think the naivety you have is pretty hilarious. I get the fact that you want this world to change - and I probably agree with you on the rough image it should take - but you seem to think that, in the mean time, people should stop requiring food, water, electricity, rent, cars, phones, etc.

You can make a fair income by starting your own business. That doesn't mean the entire concept of doing so is justified, merely that if that is what is required to get by in this world, who the hell are you to judge people for doing so?

The logical conclusion of your argument would be that it is wrong for people to join the military to avoid starvation, since it means upholding the very political system that is starving them. The point is, until a viable alternative is realized, what are people supposed to do? Die? Join a commune? Throw molotovs at Starbucks? Not everyone is a martyr, and being "part of the system" doesn't make you an enemy, it makes you a potential convert.

The Broke Cycle

23rd October 2009, 22:57

What I meant was their interests conflict the interests of the working class, therefore they are our class enemies.

:lol:

You seem to think that everyone schemes constantly, that all people think about is politics, and that your class automatically determines everything about you. Fortunately, you are wrong on all counts.

I think you really need to look at the facts. Small businesses are the lesser evil. Sure they use the same exploitative system as everyone else, but all I've said regarding this issue is that they are the least exploitative, and that this particular one pays its employees a very generous wage while providing them with an easy job and all sorts of untaxed income. Not to mention full medical benefits, unheard of in fast food.

Go ahead and shit on them. I think it is childish and petty.

Oh, and your emphasis on "with us or against us" thinking is actually kind of frightening.

The Broke Cycle

23rd October 2009, 23:04

Wrong. If people aren't willing to volunteer to fight for your government of their own free will, then your government doesn't deserve to survive since it obviously wasn't doing enough for its people. Anyone forced to fight in this way is justified in shooting their commanders.

...

You need to reread what I posted.

I said that morality is context-dependent, but that stealing is wrong unless in the case of an emergency. You replied by mentioning shooting your commander. I replied by saying that if you are enslaved by the State, and forced to fight against your will, that qualifies as an emergency - and shooting your commanding officer/slave master is therefore not immoral.

I think you just misinterpreted my last post.

The point is that almost no property is acquired legitimately. As St. Jerome said, "Opulence is always the result of theft, if not committed by the actual possessor, then by his predecessor."

The long historical line of "legal and voluntary" exchanges of almost all land and resources is ultimately rooted in violent conquest.

But exploitation isn't a "either you're an exploiter or the exploited" thing - a mom and pop grocery store may be exploiting their employees, but they in turn are exploited by their banks and landlords.I agree almost no property is acquired legitimately. I do. But I think that when defining what is legitimate and what is not, there are two ways of looking at it: legitimacy in the context of the future or legitimacy in the context of reality.

The reality is we live in an exploitative system. The business I work for pays their employees extremely well, offers health benefits, is very easy to work for and hires many people who would not get hired anyplace else. Therefore, within the context of this system, they are not our enemies, they are potential allies.

The potential is judging them according to a standard of behaviour that doesn't exist, because the Socialist Revolution has not occurred. I fear we do to much of this, instead of working with what we got.

Stranger Than Paradise

24th October 2009, 06:28

I think that your obvious sense of "ideological purity" is a shameful and somewhat disturbing facade for the fact that you can't make a credible rebuttal.

Explain to me how I have not made a credible rebuttal you said we shouldn't steal from the bosses. I said we should because the workers make all the money and the boss is going to steal it.

I also think the naivety you have is pretty hilarious. I get the fact that you want this world to change - and I probably agree with you on the rough image it should take - but you seem to think that, in the mean time, people should stop requiring food, water, electricity, rent, cars, phones, etc.

No, people who earn a living by exploiting the labour of others are restricting the well being of those they exploit.

You can make a fair income by starting your own business. That doesn't mean the entire concept of doing so is justified, merely that if that is what is required to get by in this world, who the hell are you to judge people for doing so?

You won't be making a fair income by doing so. You will be exploiting your work force. Are you seriously telling me you do not understand class analysis? Do you not understand that the workers do the work and the bosses reap the rewards?

The logical conclusion of your argument would be that it is wrong for people to join the military to avoid starvation, since it means upholding the very political system that is starving them. The point is, until a viable alternative is realized, what are people supposed to do? Die? Join a commune? Throw molotovs at Starbucks? Not everyone is a martyr, and being "part of the system" doesn't make you an enemy, it makes you a potential convert.

No being part of the proletariat makes you a potential convert. Members of the boss class have no revolutionary potential my friend. If you own a business you will have relative ease of living, your position in society is supported by Capitalism. Their class position means they will not support revolution.

Stranger Than Paradise

24th October 2009, 06:32

:lol:

You seem to think that everyone schemes constantly, that all people think about is politics, and that your class automatically determines everything about you. Fortunately, you are wrong on all counts.

I think you really need to look at the facts. Small businesses are the lesser evil. Sure they use the same exploitative system as everyone else, but all I've said regarding this issue is that they are the least exploitative, and that this particular one pays its employees a very generous wage while providing them with an easy job and all sorts of untaxed income. Not to mention full medical benefits, unheard of in fast food.

Go ahead and shit on them. I think it is childish and petty.

Oh, and your emphasis on "with us or against us" thinking is actually kind of frightening.

Your patronisisng tone is laughable considering you have little understanding of class analysis. The bosses of small businesses are still exploiting their fucking workers. So we are supposed to make allegiances with them because they are less exploitative? They will NOT support revolution because of their position in society, Capitalism works for them.

The Broke Cycle

24th October 2009, 17:20

You won't be making a fair income by doing so. You will be exploiting your work force. Are you seriously telling me you do not understand class analysis? Do you not understand that the workers do the work and the bosses reap the rewards?

...

No being part of the proletariat makes you a potential convert. Members of the boss class have no revolutionary potential my friend. If you own a business you will have relative ease of living, your position in society is supported by Capitalism. Their class position means they will not support revolution.

You, my friend, are obviously a fourteen year old wearing a Che Guevara shirt. Your understanding of how people, business and politics works certainly reminds me of how I thought at that age. My Che shirt was red - what color is yours?

Anyways, now that you have determined that all boss-employee relationships are necessarily exploitative, and cannot be built upon to form the sort of economic equilibrium we are looking for, perhaps you can answer a simple question:

How is a person supposed to pay for food?

You say that owning a business makes you an "enemy" of the proletariat class. So owning a business is out. I cannot do it because it is exploitative.

On the other hand, you said working for a business makes you a wage slave. So working for a business is also out. I cannot do it and keep my dignity.

Obviously work of any kind, no matter how egalitarian, makes the participants slaves to the ruling class. So...

I think perhaps the only solution is for the Prancing Unicorn of Socialism to deliver food and water and electricity and phone service and gas and health care to me, free of charge. At least, this seems to be the only solution capable of coming out of your mouth.

Oh, that and stealing. I suppose I should organize the rest of my wage-slave friends, and we can go down to the local grocer (owned by the evil and exploitative seventy-three year old widow Ms. Hemming) and take everything we need. Because that wouldn't be doing any harm at all, right? It would be justified because I think the political system is exploitative, therefore, I have the right to do anything I want.

Grow up.

cyu

24th October 2009, 19:00

I don't think most on here accept the idea that the employees are doing something wrong in "stealing" from the boss considering that it sounds like the workers do all the actual work.

Well said.

ZeroNowhere

24th October 2009, 19:01

They will NOT support revolution because of their position in society
An interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) pronouncement.

On the other hand, you said working for a business makes you a wage slave. So working for a business is also out. I cannot do it and keep my dignity.Ah, but you must do it, in order to spread the word and relate to the common man!

cyu

24th October 2009, 19:05

I replied by saying that if you are enslaved by the State, and forced to fight against your will, that qualifies as an emergency - and shooting your commanding officer/slave master is therefore not immoral. I think you just misinterpreted my last post.

Good to see we agree =]

they are not our enemies, they are potential allies.

I see everyone as a potential ally. Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Rocker#Political_activism

"Although Rocker is unlikely to have grasped all of the political and philosophical implications of what he read, he became a socialist and regularly discussed his ideas with others. His employer became the first person he converted to socialism."

...but that doesn't mean they are currently our allies. If I am advocating employees assume democratic control of their companies, and if the capitalist or his minions attack the employees, then I would support the employees when they fight back - with rifles if necessary.

blake 3:17

25th October 2009, 02:41

Hello Broke Cycle,

We pretty clearly disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but I am very sympathetic to your OP. My guess is that you`re dealing with pretty immature co-workers. Been there. I`ve found it challenging working with younger co-workers who don`t have a long term stake in the job or much life experience.

I`ve found two main problems:

1) They abuse it in some of the ways you describe.

2) They overachieve, don`t ask to be paid on time, and put up with lousy working conditions.

They may not require the same wages or benefits that older workers do. They may also think they`re just passing through, so who cares?

I`ve also been in a couple of tricky situations as an active union member and dealing with other members who were really screwing things up.

Given the situation you`re describing I`d try approaching co-workers you were on the best (least worst?) terms on and explain what your issues were -- you need stability in the job, need to be able to trust each other, need to pay the rent.

Unionized workplaces can alleviate some of the pressures you`re describing. The rules are clearer, there are forms of due process, and so on. No legitimate union defends members stealing cash or wrecking a workplace. Unions, the good ones anyway, do provide forums for workers to deal with conflicts outside the eyes of management. A friend has been doing some of this work as a steward, and it is a pretty good process -- people can figure out what the real issues are, keep things discrete and confidential and work out other snags.

To the rest of you cats: Yeah, bosses are exploitative and bossy and so on. In a lot of small work places and businesses, owners or managers are often pretty close to employees economically. I`m not denying that there are differences in material relations, but often the bigger gap is ideological. In my sector, some workers make more money than low level management. That sector of management tends to be the worst and most interfering. They tend to spend a fair bit of time reminding you that they are somehow in charge.

Being an "owner", "business man" (excuse the sexist term), "manager", "supervisor", "director" often brings with the idea that they need to be a big shot, are big shots, have the right to be nasty. They tend to identify with or aspire to be part of the ruling class, or at least a wart on its big toe.

As for petty theft as part of the class struggle? Doesn`t work. To build a successful left in a workplace or union structure, left activists need to be above that kindof foolishness. It only makes problems and gives the bosses something to bust you. To do workplace organizing requires you to be free of those kinds of associations, and be seen as competent, honest, and reliable. Co-workers should be able to trust you. When you are going to break rules, make sure there is a good reason. Otherwise you`re more a liability than anything else.

Stranger Than Paradise

25th October 2009, 13:30

An interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) pronouncement.

Did Engels own a business and exploit workers? Just because you are born into a bourgeois family does not mean you are actually someone who owns the means of production and I never said that. I said I don't believe people who own businesses will support class struggle.

The Broke Cycle

26th October 2009, 01:58

Did Engels own a business and exploit workers? Just because you are born into a bourgeois family does not mean you are actually someone who owns the means of production and I never said that. I said I don't believe people who own businesses will support class struggle.

I think you are being presumptuous. You can be sure that certain types of business will never go along with your agenda. Corporations have a legal obligation to do what is best for the shareholder, and that means paying lower wages, consolidating authority and generally enforcing the capitalist system. Arms dealers, mega-corporations, currency speculators, and a great many more, will oppose you.

On the other hand, small business owners will not oppose you, unless you start being unreasonable.

For instance, farmers are very sympathetic with the ends (but necessarily the means) of socialism. But they will not stand to be told they have no right to their land, and that they do not have the final say about it. That is because you are dealing with people who have lived and worked the same land, over multiple generations, sometimes for a hundred or more years.

My own family has had the farm for 80 years. You could try to come up with a nice ideological reason why it doesn't belong to us, but I tell you, my family has tilled that land much longer then you or I have been alive. Everything on it is a product of our labour. Taking that away from people would make you blood enemies, and rightfully so.

The point, as I see it, is that successfully providing for a socialist revolution requires money. Seeing as how it won't just materialize - and neither will food, medical supplies, computers, weapons, etc. - I don't think you can afford to be so blatantly ignorant about the realities of successful rebellion, nor so ignorant towards those who do the best they can under the circumstances.

Decommissioner

26th October 2009, 07:54

Stranger Than Paradise

26th October 2009, 12:17

Ok maybe I made a generalisation. Maybe there are exceptions, I am not convinced of the petit-bourgeois' revolutionary potential but maybe there are some cases which say otherwise.

cyu

26th October 2009, 19:28

Seeing as how it won't just materialize - and neither will food, medical supplies, computers, weapons, etc.

There's an old guerillia song that goes something like this (translated):
Don't have food, don't have clothes,
Only our enemies bring them to us.
Don't have guns, don't have cannons,
Our enemies produce them for us.

The point, as I see it, is that successfully providing for a socialist revolution requires money

Oh really? Excerpt from Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money):

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

What Would Durruti Do?

28th October 2009, 05:51

The simple fact that it is wrong. I have already demonstrated why. Trying to neatly sort human beings into categories based on ideological differences is absurd. "Field slaves" are more complex than that, and they certainly can't be lumped into convenient categories just because some guy wants to sound witty.

Actually, as much as you want to believe humans are far too complex to categorize like that, they can be and always have been. There's only two positions you can take as a wage slave: a supporter of the workers struggle, or a supporter of the capitalist oppressors. What other possibility is there?

ComradeOm

28th October 2009, 13:58

For instance, farmers are very sympathetic with the ends (but necessarily the means) of socialism. But they will not stand to be told they have no right to their land, and that they do not have the final say about it. That is because you are dealing with people who have lived and worked the same land, over multiple generations, sometimes for a hundred or more yearsI love how you suggest that farmers are "very sympathetic" towards socialism (history would suggest otherwise BTW) before going on to note that they absolutely and uncompromisingly uphold the right to private property :glare:

The Broke Cycle

30th October 2009, 21:31

Actually, as much as you want to believe humans are far too complex to categorize like that, they can be and always have been. There's only two positions you can take as a wage slave: a supporter of the workers struggle, or a supporter of the capitalist oppressors. What other possibility is there?

You could support one side once, and the other side once. You could support one side all the time, then decide you support the other side. You could play the two sides off against each other to profit from the unrest. You could support either side, but disagree with their means.

Anybody who seriously suggests that human beings can be understood and categorized into two categories is an intellectual sloth. You might as well say that people can only be "good" or they can only be "evil."

The Broke Cycle

30th October 2009, 21:50

I love how you suggest that farmers are "very sympathetic" towards socialism (history would suggest otherwise BTW) before going on to note that they absolutely and uncompromisingly uphold the right to private property :glare:

Understanding nuance is a pretty formidable thing. Unfortunately, ideology tends to destroy nuances and make base assumptions about vast groups of people, usually without any sort of objective evidence.

In this case, you are saying that farmers have historically supported capitalists. Outside the American Revolution, I am not sure such an assertion is supported by the evidence. For the most part, poor or modest farmers support socialist governments for the simple fact that they usually get more assistance - even the premier "capitalist" country pays out a trillion or more dollars a year to farmers.

Rich farmers operate the same as every other capitalist operation. They try to get the best terms for themselves and fuck everyone else.

In Cuba, the government is massively expanding the private agricultural industry, due to the fact that farmer cooperatives (perhaps one of the best examples of worker-organized socialism in action) are exponentially more effective than state-run farms. That is because, believe it or not, many people actually want to own land.

You are pursuing social change because you believe you have a right to the product of your labour. Seeing as how the farm is their labour, why should farmers feel any differently?

Kwisatz Haderach

31st October 2009, 04:22

So my problem is, why should I want them to get a say in their jobs? What means would a communist system use to ensure that those who are intentionally lazy or overly slothful do not benefit the same as someone who works hard or even just does what they supposed to?
Well, first of all, don't the lazy people already benefit the same as someone who works hard or even just does what they are supposed to? The way you've described your workplace, it sounds like the lazy people are already slacking off, stealing from the workplace, and generally being less productive than they could be. But all of this is happening in capitalism. That flies in the face of the argument that capitalism promotes hard work. If capitalism is so great at providing incentives and motivation, why aren't your co-workers motivated to work hard?

It would be silly to pretend that laziness will go away in communism and everyone will work hard. No, it won't be like that. Some people will be lazy and slack off. But I see no reason to believe that there will be any more laziness or slacking off than in the current system.

With regard to worker-run factories and shops, I do not believe that all the decisions about running a workplace should be made solely by the people who work there. Some decisions about production will have to be made by the entire population of a large area, not by individual workplaces.

cyu

31st October 2009, 19:36

it sounds like the lazy people are already slacking off, stealing from the workplace, and generally being less productive than they could be. But all of this is happening in capitalism. That flies in the face of the argument that capitalism promotes hard work.

Good point. If he's arguing for capitalism, maybe he should be doing it in Opposing Ideologies.

ComradeOm

1st November 2009, 15:06

In this case, you are saying that farmers have historically supported capitalistsI suggested no such thing. I implied that farmers throughout history have almost uniformily supported the right to private property. Or can you point to a peasant revolt in which farmers advocated the destruction of their plots?

But then, based on the quoted post, you fully agree with this sentiment. Which is where the humour arises

PRC-UTE

1st November 2009, 15:55

Understanding nuance is a pretty formidable thing. Unfortunately, ideology tends to destroy nuances and make base assumptions about vast groups of people, usually without any sort of objective evidence.

In this case, you are saying that farmers have historically supported capitalists. Outside the American Revolution, I am not sure such an assertion is supported by the evidence. For the most part, poor or modest farmers support socialist governments for the simple fact that they usually get more assistance - even the premier "capitalist" country pays out a trillion or more dollars a year to farmers.

Rich farmers operate the same as every other capitalist operation. They try to get the best terms for themselves and fuck everyone else.

In Cuba, the government is massively expanding the private agricultural industry, due to the fact that farmer cooperatives (perhaps one of the best examples of worker-organized socialism in action) are exponentially more effective than state-run farms. That is because, believe it or not, many people actually want to own land.

You are pursuing social change because you believe you have a right to the product of your labour. Seeing as how the farm is their labour, why should farmers feel any differently?

Your own example is undermining what you're saying. The farmers in Cuba who sell produce at the market resent the state for putting on price controls. Conflict is definitely emerging there. Ironically it's because the Cuban Revolution did such a good job of eliminating big landowners and provided the peasants with an opening to expand their plots- which is their goal- not socialism. Peasants and workers can only be temporary allies under certain (usually transitionary) historical moments.

Outside of the USA I can think of a few countries off the top of my head where farmers/peasants were a reactionary class. The best is probably Germany, where probably the most enthusiastic Nazis. The Nazis didn't even have to take their campaigns into rural Saxony to increase their vote.

Another good example is the Ukraine and the USSR- peasants had to be largely eliminated as a class to go on building socialism. Peasants were the social base for anarchism there, and support for anarchism basically disappeared after the NEP satisfied them.

The Broke Cycle

1st November 2009, 19:38

Well, first of all, don't the lazy people already benefit the same as someone who works hard or even just does what they are supposed to? The way you've described your workplace, it sounds like the lazy people are already slacking off, stealing from the workplace, and generally being less productive than they could be. But all of this is happening in capitalism. That flies in the face of the argument that capitalism promotes hard work. If capitalism is so great at providing incentives and motivation, why aren't your co-workers motivated to work hard?

It would be silly to pretend that laziness will go away in communism and everyone will work hard. No, it won't be like that. Some people will be lazy and slack off. But I see no reason to believe that there will be any more laziness or slacking off than in the current system.

With regard to worker-run factories and shops, I do not believe that all the decisions about running a workplace should be made solely by the people who work there. Some decisions about production will have to be made by
the entire population of a large area, not by individual workplaces.

And once again, an utter failure to actually address my question.

I asked: "What will communism do to ensure that lazy or slacking people do not benefit the same as those who work hard?"

In capitalism, you can fire the person. Would that be the same under communism? And who would be the decision-maker... fellow workers? A management figure? A council? Would a person receive the same salary if they did basically nothing? Would productivity determine wages at all, or should a person who takes pride in what they do make the same as a person who couldn't give two shits about it?

The Broke Cycle

1st November 2009, 19:42

Good point. If he's arguing for capitalism, maybe he should be doing it in Opposing Ideologies.

Every time you get a chance, you try to have me restricted. This is annoying, but also hilarious, since it is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read what I've said that I have not lent my support to capitalism.

I have, on the other hand, asked a perfectly reasonable question. Instead of simply answering it, pathetic ideologues such as yourself choose to cover your eyes and plug up your ears, while screaming "COMMUNISM! DOWN WITH CAPITALISTS! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! I NEED TO BAN EVERYONE WHO ASKS QUESTIONS BECAUSE QUESTIONS ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THEM AND THAT FRIGHTENS ME!"

PRC-UTE

1st November 2009, 20:20

And once again, an utter failure to actually address my question.

I asked: "What will communism do to ensure that lazy or slacking people do not benefit the same as those who work hard?"

In capitalism, you can fire the person. Would that be the same under communism? And who would be the decision-maker... fellow workers? A management figure? A council? Would a person receive the same salary if they did basically nothing? Would productivity determine wages at all, or should a person who takes pride in what they do make the same as a person who couldn't give two shits about it?

There would be no external force compelling people to work harder under communism, and the producers in socialist states were less productive than in capitalist nations.

However:

communists would counter that there will be continued advances in technology and production such as automation that would make those engaged in work more overseers than actual workers;

with all the unproductive/parasitic jobs eliminated, like prison guards, judges, capitalists, soldiers etc, there will be more people to share the work among;

only ultra lefties argue for an overnight transition to communism- the rest of the revolutionary left argues for a transitionary phase that is somewhat capitalist, in which one must earn income, but there are strict price controls, state support, etc, therefore there is time to develop a communist culture with moral incentives and community/social peer pressure to do one's work;

we'd also argue that not forcing people to work as hard is a positive feature of communism. why should people spend their lives toiling to make someone else rich?

The Broke Cycle

1st November 2009, 20:21

I suggested no such thing. I implied that farmers throughout history have almost uniformily supported the right to private property. Or can you point to a peasant revolt in which farmers advocated the destruction of their plots?

But then, based on the quoted post, you fully agree with this sentiment. Which is where the humour arises

Again, nuances.

Farmers have supported the right to the fruits of their labour, which can be the same - but is often quite different - than the right to private property. If you don't see the difference between the rights (or even the difference between building a car part and building a working farm) there is no point in continuing this conversation.

ComradeOm

2nd November 2009, 17:57

Again, nuances.

Farmers have supported the right to the fruits of their labour, which can be the same - but is often quite different - than the right to private property. If you don't see the difference between the rights (or even the difference between building a car part and building a working farm) there is no point in continuing this conversation.These are not mere nuances but major fundamental differences that provides the reason for traditional peasant hostility to communist movements. Communists do not support the right to private property; indeed, to paraphrase the Manifesto, our entire theory can summed up in a single sentence - the abolition of private property. This is one of, perhaps the, defining feature of communists

In contrast, as you have repeatedly noted yourself, the peasantry and farming classes are implacably hostile to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production, a measure that inevitably leads to the abolition of land ownership

Now frankly I don't particularly care what petit-bourgeois notions you hold. The reality is that that communist movement has traditionally held that land ownership is not "fruits of their labour" but rather a means of producing produce and cannot possibly be subject to individual ownership in a socialist/communist society. Hence the equally traditional conflict with the peasantry and the absolute nonsense that farmers are "very sympathetic" towards socialism

And you are right, if you don't see the difference between building a car part and owning a farm then there really is no point in continuing this conversation :glare:

cyu

2nd November 2009, 18:50

I have, on the other hand, asked a perfectly reasonable question. Instead of simply answering it, pathetic ideologues such as yourself choose to cover your eyes and plug up your ear

Reread this from earlier in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1576227&postcount=21

Who is the one covering their eyes and plugging their ears?

Stranger Than Paradise

4th November 2009, 19:06

Every time you get a chance, you try to have me restricted. This is annoying, but also hilarious, since it is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read what I've said that I have not lent my support to capitalism.

I have, on the other hand, asked a perfectly reasonable question. Instead of simply answering it, pathetic ideologues such as yourself choose to cover your eyes and plug up your ears, while screaming "COMMUNISM! DOWN WITH CAPITALISTS! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! I NEED TO BAN EVERYONE WHO ASKS QUESTIONS BECAUSE QUESTIONS ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THEM AND THAT FRIGHTENS ME!"

That is because you persist in supporting the exploits of small business owners and refusal to recognise their contribution to enslaving the working class.

What Would Durruti Do?

5th November 2009, 00:32

You could support one side once, and the other side once. You could support one side all the time, then decide you support the other side. You could play the two sides off against each other to profit from the unrest. You could support either side, but disagree with their means.

Anybody who seriously suggests that human beings can be understood and categorized into two categories is an intellectual sloth. You might as well say that people can only be "good" or they can only be "evil."

Yes, opinions can change, I won't deny that. But back and forth so much as you describe? Highly unlikely, unless that person is completely lost mentally and has no idea what his position on such issues are.

"good" vs. "evil" is a simplistic way to look at it. From one point of view that may be exactly what it is though, but objectively speaking people always take the side that benefits them most. So apparently you benefit most from supporting capitalist oppression, can I ask why?

RHIZOMES

5th November 2009, 03:12

In this case, you are saying that farmers have historically supported capitalists. Outside the American Revolution, I am not sure such an assertion is supported by the evidence.

In NZ it's completely 100% the case. The farmers are basically all big-time capitalists and so on. Our main centre-right's party main political base were historically farmers, although recently they've been usurped a bit by lawyers.

The Broke Cycle

5th November 2009, 03:48

These are not mere nuances but major fundamental differences that provides the reason for traditional peasant hostility to communist movements.

Before I can address this point (and what I suspect is historical inaccuracy), what do you mean by peasant? A farmer, or more generally a poor person?

Communists do not support the right to private property; indeed, to paraphrase the Manifesto, our entire theory can summed up in a single sentence - the abolition of private property. This is one of, perhaps the, defining feature of communists

Oh, I see.

So, in a communist society, I can enter your house at any time, eat your food and wear your clothes, then fall asleep in your bed?

Similarly, I can walk into any business and take whatever I want?

What these questions demonstrate is the obvious fact that some form of private property is called for, no matter what the political system.

In contrast, as you have repeatedly noted yourself, the peasantry and farming classes are implacably hostile to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production, a measure that inevitably leads to the abolition of land ownership

We are not hostile to the idea of collective ownership of our crops, but there is simply no way farms can be run through some sort of public bureaucracy. Decision-making on how they are run needs to be decentralized. Running a farm requires a long-term perspective; it's not like you can make a decision and it will only effect one thing, one time.

All of these facts make private ownership with strict regulatory oversight and public ownership of crops the best possible option.

Furthermore, once the corporate system is destroyed, we are going to have to start growing our food locally again. This is a good thing, but it is going to require alot of farmers. So I see nothing dishonorable with distributing plots of lands to the poor.

Now frankly I don't particularly care what petit-bourgeois notions you hold. The reality is that that communist movement has traditionally held that land ownership is not "fruits of their labour" but rather a means of producing produce and cannot possibly be subject to individual ownership in a socialist/communist society. Hence the equally traditional conflict with the peasantry and the absolute nonsense that farmers are "very sympathetic" towards socialism

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a field ready for crops? Picking out rocks, tilling the soil, testing nutrients, making windbreaks, etc. The product of your labour when you are finished is not food - it is a usable field.

On a personal level, the government didn't build my parent's house. My grandfather did. The neighbours didn't make the roads that make the fields accessible. We did. An organization doesn't dredge the creek every year so that it stays healthy. My whole family does.

Farmers don't want alot - they want their land and a living, like anyone else. But the nature of their work requires a participation unlike that of a normal worker. You don't wake up at 9 on a farm and then go home at 5. It also requires a long-term involvement.

Farmers are sympathetic towards socialism, but socialism is not sympathetic with them. Well, at least not on this forum :lol:

tellyontellyon

5th November 2009, 16:02

If they had the responsibility of running things they would realise how important it was to take things seriously.
People adapt to their situation.

ComradeOm

5th November 2009, 18:39

Before I can address this point (and what I suspect is historical inaccuracy), what do you mean by peasant? A farmer, or more generally a poor person?In this regard both peasants and small farmers have traditional shared the same attitudes towards private property. Agribusiness obviously approaches the same attitude from a more obviously capitalist angle

Oh, I see.

So, in a communist society, I can enter your house at any time, eat your food and wear your clothes, then fall asleep in your bed?

Similarly, I can walk into any business and take whatever I want?

What these questions demonstrate is the obvious fact that some form of private property is called for, no matter what the political systemI advise you to check out the Learning forum because I certainly do not have the patience to school you in the basic differences between personal and private (or social) property. Which is not even to mention the difference between individual and collective ownership

Regardless, the point remains the same - this is not a matter of opinion, or something to be argued on an internet forum, but a principal tenet (ie, the abolition of private property) held by almost every communist movement of note in the past two hundred years. Again, I emphasise that I don't care if you disagree with this because you are not at all representative of this movement

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a field ready for crops? Picking out rocks, tilling the soil, testing nutrients, making windbreaks, etc. The product of your labour when you are finished is not food - it is a usable fieldDo you have any idea how much effort is expended on the creation and maintenance of the modern means of production? Vast amounts of capital, material, and labour are expended in the development of modern industrial enterprises. I recently worked in a facility that had cost over €2 billion to construct and several years to begin production. Yet you don't see me suggesting that this enterprise should remain in individual ownership or the hands of the engineers who designed it or the capitalists that own it

On a personal level, the government didn't build my parent's house. My grandfather did. The neighbours didn't make the roads that make the fields accessible. We did. An organization doesn't dredge the creek every year so that it stays healthy. My whole family doesAgain, an entirely irrelevant statement. Or are you suggesting that, as a rule, governments do not build houses, lay roads, or dredge creeks?

Farmers don't want alot - they want their land and a living, like anyone else. But the nature of their work requires a participation unlike that of a normal worker. You don't wake up at 9 on a farm and then go home at 5. It also requires a long-term involvementWell duh, that's petite-bourgeois farming. You could say the exact same about any micro enterprise in which the owner is heavily involved in operations. Such individual enterprises are being steadily destroyed by capitalism (which favours larger corporate units) and will be completed by the introduction of collective ownership under socialism. Certainly in Western Europe the remnants of the peasantry and small farming class are almost entirely dependent on state aid for survival in the face of capitalist competition

Farmers are sympathetic towards socialism, but socialism is not sympathetic with them. Well, at least not on this forum :lol:Communism has never been "sympathetic" towards the farming classes (outside Maoism at least) because it both disavows the right to own private property and upholds the revolutionary role of the proletariat

cyu

5th November 2009, 21:07

So, in a communist society, I can enter your house at any time, eat your food and wear your clothes, then fall asleep in your bed?

Yes, anarchists do recognize the difference between possession and property. That is, possession is something you actually use, while property in the form of businesses equipment used by employees and homes you rent to tenants would not be considered valid.

However, even then, with the end of consumer advertising, I could easily imagine a world where even possessions aren't such a big deal. It would be like driving a car to get some groceries. If you want to keep that car, then nothing changes. However, if it doesn't make a difference to you, then people would just leave the car unlocked, with keys in ignition, for anybody to come and use. When the shopper is done picking out groceries, then they just pick out some other car left there, or a bicycle left there, or just walk / take a bus.

Similarly, I can walk into any business and take whatever I want?

Yes, since all work is voluntary anyway, who cares? Of course, it would be a problem if the people currently there think you are sabotaging society - then they'd probably try to stop you, as gently as possible, but using whatever means necessary.

I see nothing dishonorable with distributing plots of lands to the poor.

Neither do I.

Farmers are sympathetic towards socialism, but socialism is not sympathetic with them. Well, at least not on this forum

So you think for all socialists on this forum now? I believe Maoists in India and Nepal would beg to differ. I believe the MST in Brazil would beg to differ.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

8th November 2009, 23:31

Perhaps because you work with some lazy people (and let's be honest, there are lazy workers just as there are lazy managers and professionals) you over-estimate the amount of people that are actually as you describe.

I would say that many people are un-motivated by their job. I do not agree with sabotage in such places as you work. However, if you look at the current BA and Royal Mail situation, you can then udnerstand why people would 'go slow', sabotage and strike.

If one is treated like a fool, one tends to act the fool.

Tribune

10th November 2009, 17:57

Irish commie

11th November 2009, 16:29

Before I can address this point (and what I suspect is historical inaccuracy), what do you mean by peasant? A farmer, or more generally a poor person?

Oh, I see.

So, in a communist society, I can enter your house at any time, eat your food and wear your clothes, then fall asleep in your bed?

Similarly, I can walk into any business and take whatever I want?

What these questions demonstrate is the obvious fact that some form of private property is called for, no matter what the political system.

We are not hostile to the idea of collective ownership of our crops, but there is simply no way farms can be run through some sort of public bureaucracy. Decision-making on how they are run needs to be decentralized. Running a farm requires a long-term perspective; it's not like you can make a decision and it will only effect one thing, one time.

All of these facts make private ownership with strict regulatory oversight and public ownership of crops the best possible option.

Furthermore, once the corporate system is destroyed, we are going to have to start growing our food locally again. This is a good thing, but it is going to require alot of farmers. So I see nothing dishonorable with distributing plots of lands to the poor.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a field ready for crops? Picking out rocks, tilling the soil, testing nutrients, making windbreaks, etc. The product of your labour when you are finished is not food - it is a usable field.

On a personal level, the government didn't build my parent's house. My grandfather did. The neighbours didn't make the roads that make the fields accessible. We did. An organization doesn't dredge the creek every year so that it stays healthy. My whole family does.

Farmers don't want alot - they want their land and a living, like anyone else. But the nature of their work requires a participation unlike that of a normal worker. You don't wake up at 9 on a farm and then go home at 5. It also requires a long-term involvement.

Farmers are sympathetic towards socialism, but socialism is not sympathetic with them. Well, at least not on this forum :lol:

I am similarily from a farming background exept one in which all the local farmers and there families worked together to help eachother and bought shared equipment and spent alot of the summer picking stones from a field. Your point is flawed becasue under commhnism the whole community works and does these types of jobs and the fruits of this labour are shared between them. Just becasue they have worked the land for however many genrations doesnt mean it is there ultimete right to this land. They have also reaped the rewards form all this work. It is far more likely my uncle will lose his land as result of larger farmers in the area and in other parts of the world that can produce cheaper milk than him due to there expoitation of labour. simpley put my uncle is far mor elikely to lose his land becasue of capitalism. in a revolutionary situation he would still be working on the landd and reaping the rewards as would the whole community.

How you are unrestricted on this forum i have no idea, your views are very reactionary and conservative.

The Broke Cycle

12th November 2009, 01:47

I am similarily from a farming background exept one in which all the local farmers and there families worked together to help eachother and bought shared equipment and spent alot of the summer picking stones from a field. Your point is flawed becasue under commhnism the whole community works and does these types of jobs and the fruits of this labour are shared between them. Just becasue they have worked the land for however many genrations doesnt mean it is there ultimete right to this land. They have also reaped the rewards form all this work. It is far more likely my uncle will lose his land as result of larger farmers in the area and in other parts of the world that can produce cheaper milk than him due to there expoitation of labour. simpley put my uncle is far mor elikely to lose his land becasue of capitalism. in a revolutionary situation he would still be working on the landd and reaping the rewards as would the whole community.

How you are unrestricted on this forum i have no idea, your views are very reactionary and conservative.

Well I think you are right about capitalism making it more likely for someone to lose their land. Farmers are being driven off the land and rural communities are being extinguished to feed the growth of cities. That is because the factory farm has become the dominant form of agricultural production. They are vastly more efficient, but incredibly harmful to workers, animals, the environment and our general well-being.

What I am arguing for is autonomy. I think that the community has the right to the produce of the farm, but the farm itself should be owned and run by those who work it. Running a successful farm requires long-term involvement and some sort of incentive, since farming is not a 9-5 and requires a truly massive expenditure of energy. Land ownership is a hell of an incentive, especially if land is distributed equitably to those deserted by the capitalist system (i.e. the poor). Bringing back family farms would be a fantastic way for us to replace the current food system, especially since doing so would require us to achieve self-sufficiency.

I would not describe my views as reactionary, I simply differ from most people here in that I am not only willing to endure, but also willing to support, social evolution over social revolution.

I do not think the goals of communism can be established without weening people off capitalism. I think simply replacing one system with another, with no regard for how our "class enemies" feel will just result in counter-revolution down the road. The third law of motion (or change) holds in the political world: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The only way to create an actual, long-term revolution is through the careful manipulation of common culture, not by jamming it down every throat that belongs to someone who disagrees.

blake 3:17

12th November 2009, 02:55

These are not mere nuances but major fundamental differences that provides the reason for traditional peasant hostility to communist movements. Communists do not support the right to private property; indeed, to paraphrase the Manifesto, our entire theory can summed up in a single sentence - the abolition of private property. This is one of, perhaps the, defining feature of communists

In contrast, as you have repeatedly noted yourself, the peasantry and farming classes are implacably hostile to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production, a measure that inevitably leads to the abolition of land ownership

I can't see that as right. Capitalism was, and continues to be, founded on the smashing of the commons -- ripping people from the land in socially and ecologically destructive ways. Certain conservatisms within "the peasantry" (a pretty diffuse term) are beneficial for an ecologically sound socialism.

There are massive contradictions here -- the relationship of agricultural settlers to indigenous peoples, the political economy of farming in the US and Canada, petty bourgeois ownership vs mega corporation ownership vs state ownership. I think too many revolutionaries have been in a hurry to see corporate ownership pave the way for statist "collective" ownership.

Under socialism should there space for small production units? Small providers of services or distributors of goods? On the centre left and amongst some anarchists, the local is seen as the be all and end all. Should revolutionary socialists be anti-local? In favour of one size fits all? Should we wish to tear people from their homes in order to benefit a process of collectivization/nationalization?

I have absolutely no problem with large scale nationalizations of major industry or resource extraction. I'm less convinced in regards to smaller scale production and service provision. Degrees of state ownership, regulation or subsidy can push things in the right directions. Or not.

The Broke Cycle

12th November 2009, 03:50

I can't see that as right. Capitalism was, and continues to be, founded on the smashing of the commons -- ripping people from the land in socially and ecologically destructive ways. Certain conservatisms within "the peasantry" (a pretty diffuse term) are beneficial for an ecologically sound socialism.

There are massive contradictions here -- the relationship of agricultural settlers to indigenous peoples, the political economy of farming in the US and Canada, petty bourgeois ownership vs mega corporation ownership vs state ownership. I think too many revolutionaries have been in a hurry to see corporate ownership pave the way for statist "collective" ownership.

Under socialism should there space for small production units? Small providers of services or distributors of goods? On the centre left and amongst some anarchists, the local is seen as the be all and end all. Should revolutionary socialists be anti-local? In favour of one size fits all? Should we wish to tear people from their homes in order to benefit a process of collectivization/nationalization?

I have absolutely no problem with large scale nationalizations of major industry or resource extraction. I'm less convinced in regards to smaller scale production and service provision. Degrees of state ownership, regulation or subsidy can push things in the right directions. Or not.

Great post.

The way I see it:

Capitalism is making you work for someone else, so they can profit. There is nothing more socialist, in my opinion, then working for yourself. So long as those who cannot work for themselves are provided for fairly, what is wrong with a plumber fixing a drainpipe and then keeping what he charged?

I just don't understand why all business is bad business. Why can't there be room for creativity, independence, control over your own destiny?

Robocommie

23rd November 2009, 21:38

Patchd

23rd November 2009, 22:07

Great post.

The way I see it:

Capitalism is making you work for someone else, so they can profit. There is nothing more socialist, in my opinion, then working for yourself. So long as those who cannot work for themselves are provided for fairly, what is wrong with a plumber fixing a drainpipe and then keeping what he charged?

I just don't understand why all business is bad business. Why can't there be room for creativity, independence, control over your own destiny?
Because the point about charging means that you have control over accumulating capital, if you're in a position to charge for services, or goods. You don't get to that position without owning a means to produce, in the case of the plumber, their means to produce are their tools. Obviously they will be exploiting less people as a result of their work, however they can still accumulate capital, in the form of gaining profit.

All it means for someone to be able to accumulate capital is to allow society to remain exploitative and as a result, oppressive. As communists, we want to see the complete emancipation of people, and to do this the wage system and money has to be abolished. Don't think people only work for money, charity volunteer work is an example of how that's not true, in addition to the fact that many people enter a profession because they enjoy most, or some aspects of their work. In addition to that, technology has developed to the extent where a lot of work which was once done by humans has been replaced by machines, we're seeing this continue and possibly may even see this intensify. Under a capitalist framework it means more exploitation and oppression with greater access to better technology, under a communist framework it means the abolition of mandatory labour, and therefore the ability for the human race to fulfil it's greatest desire. As Marx would put it; laziness.

Robocommie

23rd November 2009, 22:15

Ok maybe I made a generalisation. Maybe there are exceptions, I am not convinced of the petit-bourgeois' revolutionary potential but maybe there are some cases which say otherwise.

It's not good to be rigidly doctrinaire. Keep an open mind, don't assume people always fit into rigid class structures without exceptions. There will always be people like Friedrich Engels, the sons of the petit-bourgeois who saw the truth behind economics and joined the fight for justice.

Robocommie

23rd November 2009, 22:22

Great post.

The way I see it:

Capitalism is making you work for someone else, so they can profit. There is nothing more socialist, in my opinion, then working for yourself. So long as those who cannot work for themselves are provided for fairly, what is wrong with a plumber fixing a drainpipe and then keeping what he charged?

I just don't understand why all business is bad business. Why can't there be room for creativity, independence, control over your own destiny?

Interestingly enough, there's a lot of reason to support the notion of small farms over big agricultural complexes. In Zimbabwe, the small plots of land owned by native Zimbabweans tended to outproduce the enormous plots of land, acre-by-acre, owned by the wealthy white landowners. Also in the Soviet Union, the mismanaged kolkhozy system tended to see an enormous percentage of agricultural production stem from the tiny plots of privately farmed land given to workers, rather than the large collectively farmed fields.

I think part of the problem though remains in that small business models like you mention are not entirely removed from the problems of capitalism. For example, the nature of supply and demand and the nature of competition puts all actors in a capitalist system at odds with one another. A farmer on a small commercial farm is not REALLY rewarded for his labor or the usefulness of his commodity, but for the value of his goods on a market, which is itself extremely susceptible to exploitation.

Thank you for bringing this issue up. I can't say I'll agree with you on everything but I think this needs to be talked out and I hope you stick around to do so.

Robocommie

23rd November 2009, 22:34

What I am arguing for is autonomy. I think that the community has the right to the produce of the farm, but the farm itself should be owned and run by those who work it. Running a successful farm requires long-term involvement and some sort of incentive, since farming is not a 9-5 and requires a truly massive expenditure of energy. Land ownership is a hell of an incentive, especially if land is distributed equitably to those deserted by the capitalist system (i.e. the poor). Bringing back family farms would be a fantastic way for us to replace the current food system, especially since doing so would require us to achieve self-sufficiency.

My grandfather was, for most of his life, a hog farmer who also grew corn on land he rented, or on occasion worked for other farmers. He worked very hard his whole entire life, save for the end when his health abandoned him, but even after all the hard work he had done, he didn't have much to show for it. He was the last of a dying breed, a small family farmer, who even as far back as the '60s knew that the old way of doing things was going to be gone and replaced by large scale commercial farming. So, I'm sympathetic. I feel much the same way as you do about small scale farms, though a friend recently pointed out that with the urbanisation of American society, the rural labor force has changed in it's nature somewhat.

I think the problem people are going to have with your views are that they sound very Jeffersonian; very enamored with the idea of the agrarian republic, and with yeomanry. As I said, I'm sympathetic, and land reform is one of the crucial planks in Socialist platforms, but part of the reason people are going to conflict with your views is that the Jeffersonian vision of America fell apart for a reason; namely, that small scale farmers as a class proved to be monumentally vulnerable to exploitation, and that those who aren't exploited are very often "gentleman farmers" who do so well in part because they exploit migrant labor.

You also have to understand that the agricultural situation is not the same in the US as it is everywhere. In places like the British Commonwealth and it's former colonies, for example, most land has not been held by small holders for centuries. In fact, as I understand it, in the UK a lot of the noise about "rights for farmers" is another way of sticking up for upper class twits. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, British comrades.