redlost
19th November 2010, 16:58
Something that has always bothered me in regards to working on radical theory on contemporary standards is the absolute efficiency by which corporations, and other large buisness's, fulfill need. Clearly, the manner by which these processes are employed would have to be erased in a hypothetical leftist-revolution, but to what extent, and, should they be re-birthed, than how would it be enacted?
Obviously, there would be a much more focused output of nessecary items and, should soviets exist (which I find to be one of the most stellar theories of the left), there would be a much higher, and efficient, management of goods to meet the needs of all locals within the soviet jurisdiction.
But what of various minerals and vegetation, or, dare I say, petrol (Please sit back, vegetable-oil enthusiasts!)? These are choice nessecities, which simply cannot be managed on local levels. Though it only takes but an accountant to figure distribution levels, what of the people needed to assure efficiency, fairness, and, of course, it's shipping? Also, how would natural resources be accurately distributed internationally without a very large basis of white-collar workers in tandem?
Something that I am going to bring up which is very much debated/shut down is the apparent "ease" of white-collar, and exactly how that would effect the now-larger proletariat. Though indeed I am envisioning a united world with but one struggle (Unite!), there is still an obvious tandem between the man whom breaks his back loading freight at the docks, whom does so not by choice but by birth-location, and the man whom sits in office distributing numbers to have accurate means of plastic shipped to his soviet.
Worry not, this is not turning into a "So one guy won't do it, and everybody else won't." I care not for that garbage statement.
One thing that I have always considered heavily with contemporary revolution is a world very much enthused, and capable, of travel. Though indeed it makes no sense to train a man to be a mathmatician, fork-lift operator, fabric-sower, etc:, I don't think that would truly apply with a united, communist world. So, should one desire job-relocation/new hiring, I think the first thing to be established around the united soviets is a doctrine on the process by which one trades positions, how often they may, how long they must stay before switching, etc:.
Imagine wanting to return home after spending 20 years abroad doing whatever technical thing elsewhere. To return home, all you would need to do is simply sign up for any job near-by that is available.
But, still, I am not too sure on this matter. Something about the white-collar worker has always made me skeptical when it came to radical-theory. There is something venemous in it's title, and though I know of it's irrationality, I simply cannot disregard it. Hopefully some of you can shed some light on this matter for me.
Obviously, there would be a much more focused output of nessecary items and, should soviets exist (which I find to be one of the most stellar theories of the left), there would be a much higher, and efficient, management of goods to meet the needs of all locals within the soviet jurisdiction.
But what of various minerals and vegetation, or, dare I say, petrol (Please sit back, vegetable-oil enthusiasts!)? These are choice nessecities, which simply cannot be managed on local levels. Though it only takes but an accountant to figure distribution levels, what of the people needed to assure efficiency, fairness, and, of course, it's shipping? Also, how would natural resources be accurately distributed internationally without a very large basis of white-collar workers in tandem?
Something that I am going to bring up which is very much debated/shut down is the apparent "ease" of white-collar, and exactly how that would effect the now-larger proletariat. Though indeed I am envisioning a united world with but one struggle (Unite!), there is still an obvious tandem between the man whom breaks his back loading freight at the docks, whom does so not by choice but by birth-location, and the man whom sits in office distributing numbers to have accurate means of plastic shipped to his soviet.
Worry not, this is not turning into a "So one guy won't do it, and everybody else won't." I care not for that garbage statement.
One thing that I have always considered heavily with contemporary revolution is a world very much enthused, and capable, of travel. Though indeed it makes no sense to train a man to be a mathmatician, fork-lift operator, fabric-sower, etc:, I don't think that would truly apply with a united, communist world. So, should one desire job-relocation/new hiring, I think the first thing to be established around the united soviets is a doctrine on the process by which one trades positions, how often they may, how long they must stay before switching, etc:.
Imagine wanting to return home after spending 20 years abroad doing whatever technical thing elsewhere. To return home, all you would need to do is simply sign up for any job near-by that is available.
But, still, I am not too sure on this matter. Something about the white-collar worker has always made me skeptical when it came to radical-theory. There is something venemous in it's title, and though I know of it's irrationality, I simply cannot disregard it. Hopefully some of you can shed some light on this matter for me.