The Valve Corporation: No hierarchy and no management at all

[Yazman]

Never seen this brought up on Revleft before and I figured it might be interesting in terms of an anti-hierarchy perspective and worker control of the workplace. I figured from this perspective they might be worth noting.

Worth clarifying of course that I'm not trying to protect a capitalist structure (the corporation) but just that the workplace organisation of Valve might be worth looking at as an example of a highly productive and profitable non-hierarchical organisation. It's also worth noting that Valve is a self-funding (and self-publishing) game developer so this info is within that context and not necessarily relatable to all fields. However, it is at least relevant to anything in creative industries and anything relating to distribution, particularly as Valve happens to own and run one of the largest digital distribution platforms in the world and does so without any hierarchy, management, or traditional organisation at all.

Now, Valve employs approximately 300 people, and they don't do marketing analysis, they don't have business plans, they have no management at all and no bosses.

The first time I became aware of Valve's unusual structure was when I actually read an interview with Gabe Newell (creator of Valve) and Erik Johnson (another Valve employee) who gave brief descriptions of it throughout the interview, the funniest part to me was the incredulous attitude of the interviewer who couldn't seem to get his head around the idea of not having any bosses, business plans, marketing analysis, etc.

Recently a blog article was written by another Valve employee, where part of it describes this aspect of Valve as well as the history of it and how Gabe Newell came to organise his business that way. Originally he looked at id software and its success with a game called Doom, after seeing that it was installed on more PCs than Windows at one time and wondered how a group of 10 guys managed to outdo the largest software company in the world writing that, "something fundamental had changed about the nature of productivity."

Here's the link to the complete article. The relevant part is the section entitled, "Valve is different" that talks about the structure of Valve.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got-here-what-its-like-and-what-im-doing-2/

I'll just quote the most important part for you here - click the spoiler tags to read:

"So Valve was designed as a company that would attract the sort of people capable of taking the initial creative step, leave them free to do creative work, and make them want to stay. Consequently, Valve has no formal management or hierarchy at all.

Now, I can tell you that, deep down, you don’t really believe that last sentence. I certainly didn’t when I first heard it. How could a 300-person company not have any formal management? My observation is that it takes new hires about six months before they fully accept that no one is going to tell them what to do, that no manager is going to give them a review, that there is no such thing as a promotion or a job title or even a fixed role (although there are generous raises and bonuses based on value to the company, as assessed by peers). That it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to allocate the most valuable resource in the company – their time – by figuring out what it is that they can do that is most valuable for the company, and then to go do it. That if they decide that they should be doing something different, there’s no manager to convince to let them go; they just move their desk to the new group (the desks are on wheels, with computers attached) and start in on the new thing. (Obviously they should choose a good point at which to do this, and coordinate with both groups, but that’s common sense, not a rule, and isn’t enforced in any way.) That everyone on a project team is an individual contributor, doing coding, artwork, level design, music, and so on, including the leads; there is no such thing as a pure management or architect or designer role. That any part of the company can change direction instantly at any time, because there are no managers to cling to their people and their territory, no reorgs to plan, no budgets to work around. That there are things that Gabe badly wants the company to do that aren’t happening, because no one has signed up to do them."

Actually, they just made public the latest version of their "new employee handbook" that is almost entirely devoted to explaining to new hires how to work in a workplace with no bosses or any kind of hierarchy at all. You can see the handbook here, it is very interesting.

http://cdn.flamehaus.com/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf

Now, Valve is still a corporation and we have to keep that in mind. I'm not saying they're perfect or praising capitalism, or its structures here. However, the unique structure of Valve might give us some insight into how workplaces might be organised in a revolutionary leftist society.

There's a lot I really want to say here but I don't want to write an overly long post, so please do read a big of the relevant section in the blog post and take a look at the handbook if you like.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Doesn't DARPA also lack a central management? I mean... it only goes so far, same goes for some coöperatives.

[Yazman]

Yeah it does only go so far, the problem with a lot of co-operatives, and the reason I point Valve out, is that a lot of co-operatives I've read about, like in Spain for example, seem to still have a lot of the typical corporate bullshit, whereas Valve is one of the few I know of that actually really does lack all of that.

[Decommissioner]

While I agree it only goes so far, I feel this is still a good thing for the overall big picture. I feel a lot of people are too quick to discount co-ops or egalitarian workplaces because they operate within the confines of capitalism. Indeed, one co-op will not bring about socialism, but I feel leftists should still encourage their growth in some capacity. Activism and the party can only go so far if the working class isn't already organised into the proto-councils/communes in the form of co-ops and such. They would provide the groundwork for cooperation and the skills necessary to actually have functioning egalitarian workplaces after a revolution.

It sort of makes sense when you examine how the bourgeoisie and markets came to be the dominant mode of production. Their revolution was not an overnight process, and their market existed within the confines of monarchist rule before they actually gained any sort of power. Would it then make sense for the proletariat to form workplaces under capitalism that could form into workers councils under socialism?

[Red Rabbit]

That's all well and good, but where's my Half-Life 3?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Cooperatives aren't a revolution but they are fine in the meantime. Insofar as socialism is in the interests of the working class, and cooperatives ensure a small section of the working class can manage itself, they don't create an obstacle to revolution. On the contrary, it means fewer bourgeois to deal with. It also gives people an example of another way of organizing labor, whereas economic hierarchy is kind of taken as a given otherwise.


That's all well and good, but where's my Half-Life 3?

I was gonna say more or less the same thing ...

[Thirsty Crow]

Activism and the party can only go so far if the working class isn't already organised into the proto-councils/communes in the form of co-ops and such. They would provide the groundwork for cooperation and the skills necessary to actually have functioning egalitarian workplaces after a revolution.The italicized part IMO represents a confusion. Maybe the problem is in the terminology, since it seems that here you're not talking about what is commonly called workers' councils but employees' councils.
Namely, workers' councils, as they historically arose, were very much different from co-ops and to say that the working class can organize in proto-councils in the form of co-ops is nonsense since these don't represent business entities but organs of struggle (and possible future organs of political rule). Also, what is not evident from what you write here is how would the practice of competition enable this process of providing groundwork for cooperation - since co-ops, no matter their internal decision making and distribution structure, actually function as capitalist enteprises and have no other option but to engage in competition if they are to survive as co-ops.


It sort of makes sense when you examine how the bourgeoisie and markets came to be the dominant mode of production. Their revolution was not an overnight process, and their market existed within the confines of monarchist rule before they actually gained any sort of power. Would it then make sense for the proletariat to form workplaces under capitalism that could form into workers councils under socialism?
I don't think that would make much sense since possible workers' councils in socialism are more probable as results of class struggle and not existing businesses and their internal organization.
Anyhow, you also seem to be neglecting the fact that the modern class of wage workers is not in the same position with regard to the ruling class as was the historically ascendant bourgeoisie in relation to the feudal landowners and the absolutist state. In short, the proletariat has significantly less "manouvering position" in actually obtaining economic power in relation to the historical example of bourgeoisie.

[marl]

That's all well and good, but where's my Half-Life 3?

Holy shit, I was going to post the same exact thing. Except with Episode 3 instead of Half-Life 3.

[KurtFF8]

This seems to be an example of what Zizek is saying when he is talking about how Capitalism has really integrated the "spirit of the 60s" in its new forms of "non-hierarchical" capitalism that we find in a lot of tech/software corporations. (Not necessarily attacking the idea of Valve's structure as being "bad" but I think we need to be cautious in praising it here)

[Drosophila]

This is a good thing, yes. Especially when you think about how different they are from the rest of the video gaming industry (not to mention that Valve makes better games than almost all the others).

[The Jay]

I think that I've found something very relevant to this. I'll link it here: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003905.html.

[Lynx]

Worker run corporations are a step in the right direction, for the workers involved, and possibly for the community. Ownership is another step, enabling democratic control over profits. But ownership also brings the option of selling the business and cashing out.

[theblackmask]

While the whole "no structure" thing is cool, you have to realize that Valve only exists from the profits of Microsoft. They would have never had the money to do what they do without Gabe Newell getting rich from MS first.

[The Jay]

Every business needs start-up capital. That's not really a criticism of the system in any way.

[Geiseric]

What about the people who print their games? Aren't they technically exploited by Valve?

[The Jay]

In a capitalist system almost everybody's either being exploited, exploiting, or is off the grid. You probably agree mostly, but you must admit that this is an improvement.

[Rafiq]

Good thing us Marxists don't judge Bourgeois (or petty bourgeois) entities on how "Morally erect" or "Democratic" they are, but their relations to the mode of production. Also, who produces all of their physical merchendise?

As far as I'm concerned, they are a class enemy. Though, they make good games. They do not have a moral authority over any other gaming company, bottom line.

[The Idler]

Worker run left parties (aiming at political power not just economic) without hierarchies or management would be a step in the right direction too.

[Rafiq]

Worker run left parties (aiming at political power not just economic) without hierarchies or management would be a step in the right direction too.



Without Management or Hierarchies? What, is management also an enemy of the Libertarian grand ethical framework as well? Fucking ludicrious...

[Ocean Seal]

That's all well and good, but where's my Half-Life 3?
Valve is afraid of commitment. I'm sorry.


What about the people who print their games? Aren't they technically exploited by Valve?
Yes, and the people who have built up their means of production, and the cleaners, and obviously there is structure and there are bosses as I highly doubt that there has never been a single firing at Valve. Plus, its a 300 person company filled with high-end intellectual labor, like google and facebook, so yes the shareholders feel as if they can "trust" those workers to do a good job.

[o well this is ok I guess]

That's all well and good, but where's my Half-Life 3? Welp, time to switch to Marxist-Leninism.

[Yazman]

What about the people who print their games? Aren't they technically exploited by Valve?

Valve digitally distributes their games almost exclusively. Their only retail products are not distributed by them but by Electronic Arts.


and obviously there is structure and there are bosses as I highly doubt that there has never been a single firing at Valve.

Just because there isn't hierarchy or management this doesn't mean there isn't structure. If you actually did some reading, you'd find that BECAUSE there is no management, hiring & firing is managed entirely by the workers. The handbook details the system. Every employee of the company is part of a rotating roster that interviews everybody in the company to check how much they're contributing to the collective, etc and it is this rotating roster that does interviews for hires as well.

It's pretty straightforward and it's pretty efficient. It's funny to me that there's always people who just can't conceive of a non-hierarchical society or organisation and who deny every example and flatout deny the possibility. That there are revolutionary leftists like this blows my mind even more.


Plus, its a 300 person company filled with high-end intellectual labor, like google and facebook, so yes the shareholders feel as if they can "trust" those workers to do a good job.

Actually, since Valve is privately owned it isn't listed on any stock markets and has no shareholders. They are entirely self-funding.


While the whole "no structure" thing is cool, you have to realize that Valve only exists from the profits of Microsoft. They would have never had the money to do what they do without Gabe Newell getting rich from MS first.

I'm not really sure that's relevant in any way. It's like saying that without money, Marx would never have written the Communist Manifesto. Everything has to start somewhere, it doesn't particularly matter in this case. What matters is that they have a viable organisational model that's proven to be extremely efficient.



Without Management or Hierarchies? What, is management also an enemy of the Libertarian grand ethical framework as well? Fucking ludicrious...

Instead of just making a worthless sectarian shit-stirring post, why don't you actually elaborate on why you seem to think abolition of management, and non-hierarchical organisation is a bad thing?

[Q]

I think Yazman has the correct stance about this thing. Companies like Valve are not a solution in themselves, they will not build socialism. This is also a clear refutation that those who call for nationalisations under "workers control" while capitalism still exists is still capitalism.

However, companies like Valve do something very important: They teach the working class to be a ruling class, to overcome the need for managers, etc. This is why a working class cooperative movement is of vital importance.

But the overcoming of capitalism is an explicitly political act: The working class has to form itself as a class-collective through the fight to overthrow the constitutional order and instate its own collective hegemony over society, workers rule.

[Mindtoaster]

Valve is afraid of commitment. I'm sorry.


Yes, and the people who have built up their means of production, and the cleaners, and obviously there is structure and there are bosses as I highly doubt that there has never been a single firing at Valve. Plus, its a 300 person company filled with high-end intellectual labor, like google and facebook, so yes the shareholders feel as if they can "trust" those workers to do a good job.

The people who produce their merchandise probably work for a different company, such as a manufacturing plant, that is contracted by Valve and many other companies. The cleaners and such would likely be employees of the office building they are renting from.

They wouldn't be directly exploiting these workers, as they aren't the ones managing their production. By contracting, they are of course, accomplice in that exploitation, but its become pretty much impossible to keep your hands completely clean when working in the neo-liberal economy.

[ckaihatsu]

While I agree it only goes so far, I feel this is still a good thing for the overall big picture. I feel a lot of people are too quick to discount co-ops or egalitarian workplaces because they operate within the confines of capitalism. Indeed, one co-op will not bring about socialism, but I feel leftists should still encourage their growth in some capacity.





This seems to be an example of what Zizek is saying when he is talking about how Capitalism has really integrated the "spirit of the 60s" in its new forms of "non-hierarchical" capitalism that we find in a lot of tech/software corporations. (Not necessarily attacking the idea of Valve's structure as being "bad" but I think we need to be cautious in praising it here)


As with virtually everything that's politically progressive, this is a "mid-point" on the way to how society should eventually be organized: With workers calling *all* the shots over *everything* economic.

In many ways this may even be termed just a style of formalism, since *any* corporation will reward those who contribute constructively to the enterprise, anyway, regardless of hierarchies, etc.

And being a company in the service sector -- not manufacturing -- the line between professional-worker and management is very fuzzy, also. All white-collar types tend to work either with or in proximity to the customer, and the position always includes oversight of various logistical details, making it quasi-managerial.

[Rafiq]

Instead of just making a worthless sectarian shit-stirring post, why don't you actually elaborate on why you seem to think abolition of management, and non-hierarchical organisation is a bad thing?

Instead of being a coward and neg repping me, why don't you keep what belongs in this forum in the forum?

For one, Management would be of absolute necessity once our grand "Revolutionary spirit" has worn off post revolution. Management would be necessary to organize factories, etc.

One would almost dare to assume the opposite: What if there was no management? For how long do you think this could last?

It's good to praise valve, a bunch of gaming soft where experts, aproxemently three hundred of them, who sit on their ass and boast about not having any management while at the same time generating their revenue off of thousands of workers, who produce their merchandise, you know, real objects.


Of course something like that wouldn't be difficult to organize without management. But what of a factory with one thousand workers? What of the people who are actually producing the material valve creates, rather than designing it?


Yazman, you're pathetic. (Not that I care) The fact that you would even take the time to neg rep my post, give me a comment, and then publish this very same comment on the very same thread is pathetic. What, do you want me to see it twice? Or are you doing it not for me to see, but to make yourself look as less of a jackass in front of the people participating here?

[Rafiq]

However, companies like Valve do something very important: They teach the working class to be a ruling class, to overcome the need for managers, etc. This is why a working class cooperative movement is of vital importance.

I don't think managers are in any way a "Ruling class". Only in Capitalism they serve the bourgeois class, along with just about anything in the field of business.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh look, and M-L that doesn't trust the proletariat to manage itself. How surprising ;)


For one, Management would be of absolute necessity once our grand "Revolutionary spirit" has worn off post revolution. Management would be necessary to organize factories, etc.

One would almost dare to assume the opposite: What if there was no management? For how long do you think this could last?
Bare assertion, and as such meaningless. It would have the same value if I said "management would be absolutely abhorrent once our revolutionary spirit wore off. Self-management would be necessary to ward off political oppurtunists. One would almost dare to assume the opposite; what if there was management? How long do you think it would be before another class sytem is implemented?"

What this is, is a specific material example of a group of workers becoming petti bourg. It should be praised for its attack on the corporate superstructure and advancement of the viablitiy of worker-run enterprises. It should be disagreed with on the basis that it does not attack the capitalist system itself, and advances peti bourg interests. That is all.

[Rafiq]

Oh look, and M-L that doesn't trust the proletariat to manage itself. How surprising ;)

And all of a sudden I'm a Marxist Leninist? Wonderful!

For one, I'm a Marxist, and never is a Marxist put in a position where his social views cling to blind articles of Faith and baseless optimism.



Bare assertion, and as such meaningless. It would have the same value if I said "management would be absolutely abhorrent once our revolutionary spirit wore off.

Except It isn't particularly hard for me to do absolutely nothing without any management. And I swear, that's exactly what I would do, absolutely nothing.

Management would not require revolutionary spirit or "Faith that people will do it out of morals".

What of the generations that come after the revolutionary one?


Self-management would be necessary to ward off political oppurtunists.

If "Political Opportunists" pose that much of a threat to a post revolutionary society that you need to establish such a terribly inefficient mode of organization than fuck all to the revolution.

By the way, Revolution Starts With You, I support Self Management, only though to a certain extent and not as some sort of established rule. I oppose the Anarchist concept of self management, though.


One would almost dare to assume the opposite; what if there was management? How long do you think it would be before another class sytem is implemented?"


You haven't the slightest grasp of how class relations form if you really think this. For one, I have no Idea how management would all of a sudden even become privileged over the proletariat in a post revolutionary situation.

Care to enlighten me as to how Management would give birth to a new "Class System"? Come on, more power corrupts bullshit, I'm all ears. I can't respond to something you have not typed, though.


What this is, is a specific material example of a group of workers becoming petti bourg.

And the (Urban) Petite Bourgeoisie are a reactionary class.


It should be praised for its attack on the corporate superstructure

And such a praise would be petite bourgeois in nature. There isn't anything qualitatively wrong with Corporate Structures in contrast to any other previous form of Bourgeois organization. This Corporatephobia business, which is nothing more than cheap Liberalism, has no place among Marxists. Coprorations are just a different means of class dictatorship on behalf of the bourgeoisie, and to simply attack their mode of organization instead of the class itself is Petite Bourgeois.


and advancement of the viablitiy of worker-run enterprises.

Of which are not Proletarian owned enterprises but Petite Bourgeois.


It should be disagreed with on the basis that it does not attack the capitalist system itself, and advances peti bourg interests. That is all.


But just previously you said it should be "Praised" because it is an attack on the "Corporate Superstructure".

[Q]

I don't think managers are in any way a "Ruling class". Only in Capitalism they serve the bourgeois class, along with just about anything in the field of business.

I don't claim that managers are a ruling class, but surely managers are a distinct product of capitalist society. Overcoming managers and other top-down structures of capitalist society with a way where the working class imposes egalitarian structures where each is a "boss" in turn, thus no one is a "boss", is surely an important feature of working class self-emancipation and the liberation of humanity as such.

[Rafiq]

I don't claim that managers are a ruling class, but surely managers are a distinct product of capitalist society. Overcoming managers and other top-down structures of capitalist society with a way where the working class imposes egalitarian structures where each is a "boss" in turn, thus no one is a "boss", is surely an important feature of working class self-emancipation and the liberation of humanity as such.

Look, Q, my fingers are crossed you are right.

Do not, however, cling to this with Blind faith, with this a as a determining factor of your socialist views (Say you are dissapointed and find such is impossible, this by no means should be an Ideological problem).

I remain pessimistic. I don't think that a Worker's self management can exist as a massive scale universal organizational model for the entire Earth.

There is nothing concflicting with Proletarian emancipation to say that management can exist. Of course Radically different. Recall how, even in 1930's Russia, in the early years, Managers were treated like shit by workers, were tolerated but did not dictate the workplace, but when time came for famine, etc. They provided useful.

Of course, the analogy is half assed as Soviet Union was a Bourgeois state, but none the less this mode of organization was a remnant of the emancipatory potential of the October Revolution, later destroyed, consumed by Capital.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Revolution starts with U]

And all of a sudden I'm a Marxist Leninist? Wonderful!

For one, I'm a Marxist, and never is a Marxist put in a position where his social views cling to blind articles of Faith and baseless optimism.

You sound like one. Forgive my presumption.

It seems you do have blind faith, faith that the proles cannot function without someone telling them what to do. This is faith, I know, because you make bare assertions as if they are self-evident fact.



Except It isn't particularly hard for me to do absolutely nothing without any management. And I swear, that's exactly what I would do, absolutely nothing.

Except you wouldn't. You would come here, and do all the other things you do when you're not working... that is to say you would do more than "nothing." You would manage your own affairs, and live life the way you see fit.


Management would not require revolutionary spirit or "Faith that people will do it out of morals". What of the generations that come after the revolutionary one?

What of them? Are they no longer workers? Do they not express class interest now (in so far as class still exists at this point)?





If "Political Opportunists" pose that much of a threat to a post revolutionary society that you need to establish such a terribly inefficient mode of organization than fuck all to the revolution.
You're missing the point here. I was saying that both are bare assertions, not that I support the one over the other. I was taking the contra position of yours, but still doing nothing to prove it other than state it, like you were.

I actually agree with what you have said here. I think the same holds true for counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries, or to be more precise to the thread, unproductiveness.


By the way, Revolution Starts With You, I support Self Management, only though to a certain extent and not as some sort of established rule. I oppose the Anarchist concept of self management, though.
If specific enterprises want to elect management, I have no problem with that. I agree that it would be idealist to assume non-heirarchical business plans (I know, they don't have a "Business Plan," I was saying it in the sense of structure of productive enterprise) are going to be effective at all places at all times.


You haven't the slightest grasp of how class relations form if you really think this. For one, I have no Idea how management would all of a sudden even become privileged over the proletariat in a post revolutionary situation.
Yes, as you must not have noticed, I was making a bare assertion with as much merit and truth value as the bare assertion you made which I was critiquing. That is in no way a reflection of my position; but the contra of yours.



Care to enlighten me as to how Management would give birth to a new "Class System"? Come on, more power corrupts bullshit, I'm all ears. I can't respond to something you have not typed, though.


Again, you missed the point.

It's not a reflection of my position, but I don't think it's that far-fetched.

Management sets up new laws/rules that protect its position from public oversight, and uses this power to siphon wealth from work to themselves. It has nothing to do with "power corrupting," and everything to do with people pursuing self-interest, and using guns to do it.


And the (Urban) Petite Bourgeoisie are a reactionary class.

Tell me something I don't know, Nostradamus....


And such a praise would be petite bourgeois in nature. There isn't anything qualitatively wrong with Corporate Structures in contrast to any other previous form of Bourgeois organization. This Corporatephobia business, which is nothing more than cheap Liberalism, has no place among Marxists.
Did you even read my post?
A petit bourg attack on proper bourg domination is still an attack on bourg domination. It should be analysed speicifically, not with how true of a scotsman its practitioners are. It's not something we should be praising as a rise in prole consciousness or anything. But it is an example that can serve to weaken the "heirarchy is a natural and necessary state of affairs" liberal propaganda.


Coprorations are just a different means of class dictatorship on behalf of the bourgeoisie, and to simply attack their mode of organization instead of the class itself is Petite Bourgeois.

Really? Ya think? :rolleyes:



Of which are not Proletarian owned enterprises but Petite Bourgeois.
And I acknowledged as much.





But just previously you said it should be "Praised" because it is an attack on the "Corporate Superstructure".

Omg a thing can have both good and bad qualities at the same time! What a shock! :ohmy:

[Yazman]

I agree with Q and Revolution starts with U on this matter, really.

Although:


It's good to praise valve, a bunch of gaming soft where experts, aproxemently three hundred of them, who sit on their ass and boast about not having any management while at the same time generating their revenue off of thousands of workers, who produce their merchandise, you know, real objects.

This would be a fair and accurate statement if we were talking about virtually any other company here or if this was 10 years ago.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure how many times it has to be said that Valve doesn't really generate as much of their revenue from "real objects" these days, they distribute their goods digitally via a platform called Steam, and it is Valve employees that run it. Most of their revenue these days comes from digital distribution (which their own self-managing workers run), so I'm not sure how you justify what you're saying here.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said that Valve doesn't generate their revenue off of "real objects", they distribute their goods digitally via a platform called Steam, and it is Valve employees that run it. They have said countless times that it is a tiny fraction of their revenue that comes from hard copy sales, so I'm not sure how you justify what you're saying here. Shit man now that Team Fortress 2 is free to play I can't for the life of me recall anything physical they sell.

[Dire Helix]

Gabe Newell`s daily calorie intake exceeds that of some third-world nations. We as communists shouldn`t stand for this demented capitalist feast.

P.S. No One Lives Forever 2 > Half-Life 2.

[Rafiq]

It seems you do have blind faith, faith that the proles cannot function without someone telling them what to do.

No structure that consists of any group of human beings that belongs to a larger social order in which this social order relies on can function without regulation and management from external existence, yes.

This doesn't require any faith whatsoever.


This is faith, I know, because you make bare assertions as if they are self-evident fact.


It's based off of experience. There is no faith.


Except you wouldn't. You would come here, and do all the other things you do when you're not working... that is to say you would do more than "nothing." You would manage your own affairs, and live life the way you see fit.

When I would go to work I would probably sleep or play games, not do anything.


What of them? Are they no longer workers? Do they not express class interest now (in so far as class still exists at this point)?


The Class interest of the proletarian in abstract nature is the destruction of Bourgeois society, and capital. By this time such would have been for filled. The proletariat at this point, would be slowly abolishing itself, if not already abolished (Assuming the counter revolution is dead and gone).



You're missing the point here. I was saying that both are bare assertions, not that I support the one over the other. I was taking the contra position of yours,

What a terrible form of argument. When I assert we live in capitalism, and you take the contra position and assert that we do not, of course it's wrong.


but still doing nothing to prove it other than state it, like you were.


No, you're just asserting an invalid argument.


I actually agree with what you have said here. I think the same holds true for counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries,

And to deal with them is centralized state authoritarianism, which isn't inefficient by any means (It worked in hoarding off the allies and the counter revolution in Russia, even though the revolution failed for reasons external from this mode of organization, but that's for a different thread).


or to be more precise to the thread, unproductiveness.


Except management isn't inefficient.


If specific enterprises want to elect management, I have no problem with that. I agree that it would be idealist to assume non-heirarchical business plans (I know, they don't have a "Business Plan," I was saying it in the sense of structure of productive enterprise) are going to be effective at all places at all times.

I don't thing something like an enterprise would exist. But yes, note what I said in response to Q


Recall how, even in 1930's Russia, in the early years, Managers were treated like shit by workers, were tolerated but did not dictate the workplace, but when time came for famine, etc. They provided useful.

Of course, the analogy is half assed as Soviet Union was a Bourgeois state, but none the less this mode of organization was a remnant of the emancipatory potential of the October Revolution, later destroyed, consumed by Capital.



Yes, as you must not have noticed, I was making a bare assertion with as much merit and truth value as the bare assertion you made which I was critiquing. That is in no way a reflection of my position; but the contra of yours.


See above. The opposite of the truth is, of course, invalid.


Again, you missed the point.


I know your point. That it's "bare boned". But mine at the least has a correlation with reality.


It's not a reflection of my position, but I don't think it's that far-fetched.


It's far fetched for anyone who has the slightest grasp of how class relations develop.


Management sets up new laws/rules that protect its position from public oversight, and uses this power to siphon wealth from work to themselves.

This is why a strong Proletarian-Mob rule kind of development would be necessary, and, by the way, Management would not be able to set up New Laws or rules, lest those rules are passed down from a centralized entity.

What makes you think that they would do such ,anyway? A manager is not a class position, it is not a class interest... Besides, what do you mean, "Wealth"? Again, you are thinking within the constraint of the capitalist mode of production. You are also pressuposing old Bourgeois modes of thought, that "Power corrupts".

Can I ask you something? Politicians "Set up new laws and rules" yet the Bourgeoisie are the ones still in power, not them. All of their laws and rules benefit the Bourgeois class, not so much themselves.

We cannot think in terms of "Well, it only works for the bad guys!". A gun does it's job no matter of whether it's in the hands of a revolutionary super soldier or a Bourgeois super soldier (Assuming they have the same training, of course).


It has nothing to do with "power corrupting," and everything to do with people pursuing self-interest, and using guns to do it.


These "People" would be instruments of the Proletarian class. What, you think the proletarians would have their heads in their ass the whole time or something? The phenomena of "Power corrupting" is only something, as we know, it, unique to Bourgeois society.

We always think that the existence of the Bourgeois class will always be a result of "Power corrupting", but this is far from the truth. We think this because whenever such an act is to occur, immediately whom ever is the offender has traits similiar to the Bourgeois class. It is because it occurs within the realm of Bourgeois society itself.

You must set up the required systemic structure in order to prevent things like this, or at least do it untinetnionally. Humans, all humans, respond, act, and behave not on a basis of just "Self interest", but this Self interest is almost 100% determined by material conditions and the mode of production, and change that, then you change the very mode of operation of "Self Interest".

The Bee, for example, operates in a very command style Authoritarian state of affairs. Not once have I heard a case in which a bee acted in "Self interest" and tried to "take power".



Tell me something I don't know, Nostradamus....


Therefore, no matter how much they try to suppress it, in nature, when you strip them of their pre-petty bourgeois ideology, Worker's coops are reactionary in nature.


Did you even read my post?

yes, many times.


A petit bourg attack on proper bourg domination is still an attack on bourg domination.

And a Taliban attack on American Domination is still an attack on American domination, so? In whose hands does this play into, that is the question.

In the first world, without question, I would much rather live under the rule of the Bourgeois class than operate under the interests of the Petite Bourgeoisie (Free Market Ron Paul hell hole, or even Fascism). The Bourgeois class are conservative, the Petty Bourgeoisie are reactionary.


It should be analysed speicifically, not with how true of a scotsman its practitioners are.

What? These are concrete definitions, we criticize Co Ops not because they are "Not real revolutionaries", but because they are Petite Bourgeois, a strict, and scientific definition. It cannot merely be analyzed "Specifically". A slave owner who is nice to his slaves is by definition still la slave owner. Or should we analyze these kinds of cases specifically, as well? In what way do you propose we measure what can be "specific" and what can not be? And what makes you think you are in a position to decide?


It's not something we should be praising as a rise in prole consciousness or anything. But it is an example that can serve to weaken the "heirarchy is a natural and necessary state of affairs" liberal propaganda.

That is not Liberal Propaganda, for starters. And I ask again: Do you support Taliban attacks on U.S. soldiers?

And one could simply arguing by demanding facts about who is producing their material.


Really? Ya think? :rolleyes:


Why praise one faction of the Bourgeoisie over another?


And I acknowledged as much.


Yet you praised them for fighting against the "Status quo".


Omg a thing can have both good and bad qualities at the same time! What a shock! :ohmy:


Like the Taliban?

And what makes them better than corporate superstructure? What makes the Taliban better than the United States?

[Rafiq]

This would be a fair and accurate statement if we were talking about virtually any other company here or if this was 10 years ago.

First of all, I completely oppose all companies in their existence, and am asserting Valve has no "moral" authority over any other company, of which I oppose.

Secondly, have you ever heard of something called the Orange Box? Have you ever heard of something called Steam? The soft where that ships with hundreds of computers? Have you ever heard of the new console Steam is making, (Valve Owned) that they will release as a PC?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/valves-steam-box-console-could-revolutionize-the-pc-gaming-industry-and-beyond/7627


HOWEVER, I'm not sure how many times it has to be said that Valve doesn't really generate as much of their revenue from "real objects" these days, they distribute their goods digitally via a platform called Steam,

Even if they got only one dollar from their revenues from the "real objects", they were still produced by proletarians in mass numbers, of which without valve would not be as popular as it is today.


and it is Valve employees that run it.

yeah, they make the gaming soft where, and let all of the actual proletarians produce a certain means in which it is produced.


Most of their revenue these days comes from digital distribution (which their own self-managing workers run),

Which would make it a pety bourgeois enterprise, if and only we presuppose it.

No, they generate a lot of revenue from "The Orange Box" and probably since the fact they are even in a position to create (and are) a new gaming console, they are no only Petite Bourgeoisie, they would have became Actual Bourgeois.


so I'm not sure how you justify what you're saying here.

They are a class enemy, no matter how you sugar coat it. Slave owners who are nice to their slaves and treat them like they would treat their own kids, are by definition still slave owners.

[Revolution starts with U]

No structure that consists of any group of human beings that belongs to a larger social order in which this social order relies on can function without regulation and management from external existence, yes.

Again, this is just a bare assertion. Doesn't every group of humans belong to a larger social order in which the social order relies? So are you saying humans need God to function, then? Or Gaia, or whatever?



This doesn't require any faith whatsoever.



It's based off of experience. There is no faith.

Personal anectdotes are not experience.



When I would go to work I would probably sleep or play games, not do anything.
Right, exactly. You would play games. Or... you would come here and discuss issues, or go read things so as to better discuss them here.
Even hindu swamis who sit in a cave for 30 years think they are being productve (and within their own context, they are).



The Class interest of the proletarian in abstract nature is the destruction of Bourgeois society, and capital. By this time such would have been for filled. The proletariat at this point, would be slowly abolishing itself, if not already abolished (Assuming the counter revolution is dead and gone).

Right, exactly. They will now express their class(less) interest. If the revolution needs a formal institution, seperate from and above the general populace, for its defense it is:
1. another class system
2. unsustainable, just as is capitalism



What a terrible form of argument. When I assert we live in capitalism, and you take the contra position and assert that we do not, of course it's wrong.

The point was not that my side was right. The point was that you were making a bare assertion. If you had asserted we live on Mars and I asserted we lived on Jupiter, we would both be wrong. And still both making bare assertions.




No, you're just asserting an invalid argument.

As are you. Well, you're not really making an "argument" at all, but an assertion that you expect me to just take on blind faith.



And to deal with them is centralized state authoritarianism, which isn't inefficient by any means (It worked in hoarding off the allies and the counter revolution in Russia, even though the revolution failed for reasons external from this mode of organization, but that's for a different thread).
Again, you're just asserting this. I have every reason to believe that the authoritarianism of the USSR was just as much at fault for its "failure" as the lack of world revolution. One creates an organ of supposed class protection, and the members of this new "class" use their position to protect themselves from public scrutiny or recall. That's not really so hard to believe.
But what I did here, seperate from you, is actually make an argument. I tried to show some reasoning for my position, rather than just saying it, and thinking people are supposed to believe me.



Except management isn't inefficient.

Why? Reason this out for me. It's not that I disagree with you (I may or may not, but that's not important). I want to see why you think so.


I don't thing something like an enterprise would exist. But yes, note what I said in response to Q
And I agree with that.



See above. The opposite of the truth is, of course, invalid.

See, you just have faith that your position is true. You've yet to make any actual arguments except the one above; that management can work. You've made no arguments that management is necessary. You've just said it.
Two assertions get us no closer to the truth than one. That's my point. I don't know why you don't understand that...




I know your point. That it's "bare boned". But mine at the least has a correlation with reality.

You have faith it does. I have no reason to agree, as of yet.



It's far fetched for anyone who has the slightest grasp of how class relations develop.

How do they develop? Cuz if it's anything like what I think... meaning individuals with an economic advantage garner together to protect their common interests against the "others"... than I still don't see it as that far-fethced.



This is why a strong Proletarian-Mob rule kind of development would be necessary, and, by the way, Management would not be able to set up New Laws or rules, lest those rules are passed down from a centralized entity.

If not, that means they are publically accountable. I would have no problem with that. It's when you DO allow management to set up its own rules, independant of labor, that the "problem" comes in.



What makes you think that they would do such ,anyway? A manager is not a class position, it is not a class interest... Besides, what do you mean, "Wealth"? Again, you are thinking within the constraint of the capitalist mode of production. You are also pressuposing old Bourgeois modes of thought, that "Power corrupts".

Not at all. The assumption that people pursue what they percieve as their interest needs no attestation of "power corrupts." It's just a fact of nature. If management, or anybody, has greater access to production and consumption, they have wealth, and the means to pursue a class interest.



Can I ask you something? Politicians "Set up new laws and rules" yet the Bourgeoisie are the ones still in power, not them. All of their laws and rules benefit the Bourgeois class, not so much themselves.


We cannot think in terms of "Well, it only works for the bad guys!". A gun does it's job no matter of whether it's in the hands of a revolutionary super soldier or a Bourgeois super soldier (Assuming they have the same training, of course).

I think we are in aggreement here. "Power" is what is analogous to the gun, I take it? Yes, the proletariat will need power. Every other class needs it to. My only concern is where power lies, and how it is expressed. I have no interest in power itself (which isn't a thing. It's a reflection of social relations).




These "People" would be instruments of the Proletarian class. What, you think the proletarians would have their heads in their ass the whole time or something? The phenomena of "Power corrupting" is only something, as we know, it, unique to Bourgeois society.

I didn't say "The People." I was referring to specific persons. We would not be well advised to think reactionism will just die out post rev, and I'm sure you agree with this.
It is my position that the last thing the proles need is a set of managers and politicians with greater access to production, consumption, and legality. The proles must have comrades, not leaders.


We always think that the existence of the Bourgeois class will always be a result of "Power corrupting", but this is far from the truth. We think this because whenever such an act is to occur, immediately whom ever is the offender has traits similiar to the Bourgeois class. It is because it occurs within the realm of Bourgeois society itself.

I disagree with nothing here.


You must set up the required systemic structure in order to prevent things like this, or at least do it untinetnionally. Humans, all humans, respond, act, and behave not on a basis of just "Self interest", but this Self interest is almost 100% determined by material conditions and the mode of production, and change that, then you change the very mode of operation of "Self Interest".

I agree with this too.


The Bee, for example, operates in a very command style Authoritarian state of affairs. Not once have I heard a case in which a bee acted in "Self interest" and tried to "take power".

:thumbup: Good point.





Therefore, no matter how much they try to suppress it, in nature, when you strip them of their pre-petty bourgeois ideology, Worker's coops are reactionary in nature.

That's not really the question tho. The questions are:
1) Are they the same reactionariness as standard capitalist structures? Are they more or less progressive?
but more importantly:
2) Are they valid and useful as a way of countering the bourgiousie argument that top-down structures are more productive.



And a Taliban attack on American Domination is still an attack on American domination, so? In whose hands does this play into, that is the question.

A better question would be; can it play into our hands? That's how politics works. You use anything that furthers your cause.


In the first world, without question, I would much rather live under the rule of the Bourgeois class than operate under the interests of the Petite Bourgeoisie (Free Market Ron Paul hell hole, or even Fascism). The Bourgeois class are conservative, the Petty Bourgeoisie are reactionary
I would have to see a Ron Paulistan to make that judgement.



What? These are concrete definitions, we criticize Co Ops not because they are "Not real revolutionaries", but because they are Petite Bourgeois, a strict, and scientific definition. It cannot merely be analyzed "Specifically". A slave owner who is nice to his slaves is by definition still la slave owner. Or should we analyze these kinds of cases specifically, as well? In what way do you propose we measure what can be "specific" and what can not be? And what makes you think you are in a position to decide?

I see no reason I can't show that wage slavery is more productive than proper slavery, and still criticize wage slavery.




That is not Liberal Propaganda, for starters. And I ask again: Do you support Taliban attacks on U.S. soldiers?

It is liberal propaganda, that I deal with daily in my discussions with rightists. Do I "support" them? Not necessarily. Why can't I criticize both? Why can't I say "the US and the Taliban are both scum fucks. But I'd rather live in the US because of its technology and standard of living."



And one could simply arguing by demanding facts about who is producing their material.

I'm not. I'm "praising" (insofar as I am recognizing its merits) one action of bourgiousie class over another. They both can fuck off. But that's not to say there isn't something to learn there.

That was supposed to go to the comment below :blushing: :lol:



Why praise one faction of the Bourgeoisie over another?



Yet you praised them for fighting against the "Status quo".

I praised the specific actions taken that I percieve damage the status quo, not the people involved at all, or the structure itself.



Like the Taliban?

Sure, I hear they did a lot to stamp out opiate production. And were my father a Taliban, I'd have been glad he had a gun to protect me from imperialists.


And what makes them better than corporate superstructure? What makes the Taliban better than the United States?

Nothing makes the Taliban greater than the US, or vice versa. But what makes cooperatives better than corporatives is worker autonomy (to a limited extent) and shared "profits" (meaning a lack of direct exploitation within said factory).

[Rafiq]

Again, this is just a bare assertion. Doesn't every group of humans belong to a larger social order in which the social order relies? So are you saying humans need God to function, then? Or Gaia, or whatever?

A social order in which is connected to a higher global order is different from, say, some hippie commune in the middle of now where that survives off of each others urine. They need organization to function, and this organization need be kept in check by some sort of management.

The notion that the human animal can simply create the constant process of adjusting material conditions to itself, whether it be during times of scarcity or times of famine, is a Utopian notion. Several aspects of "Self management" will, in turn have to be sacrificed if such an order is kept in place.


Personal anectdotes are not experience.


Yet quite evidently they aren't, what you call "Personal anectdotes".

To rely on the notion that each individual region will some how magically self regulate itself to assure anothers ends are meet is ludicrous. To assume that, in the production process, there will not be needed a form of management that can pose as a connection to the higher centralized order in which all regions are connected is Utopian.


Right, exactly. You would play games. Or... you would come here and discuss issues, or go read things so as to better discuss them here.
Even hindu swamis who sit in a cave for 30 years think they are being productve (and within their own context, they are).

And yes, are discussions going to run factories? Are discussions going to re build a destroyed bourgeois society?

I would do nothing of use.



Right, exactly. They will now express their class(less) interest.

They would, for all we know, have absolutely no class interest. Class interest doesn't simply mean whatever the fuck we want it to be.


If the revolution needs a formal institution, seperate from and above the general populace, for its defense it is:
1. another class system

Obviously you don't understand the very notion of what a class relation is.

For one, I don't know if a classless society will ever exist, though even with a classless society, in a world of Seven billion a formal institution that acts in a way separate and above from the general populace would be of absolute necessity.

If we are talking about a post revolution in which the class enemy is still in existence, seiging the revolution, than a separate form is of absolute necessity, a legion of delagacy, if you will, similar to the Cheka or even the NKVD.


2. unsustainable, just as is capitalism


The world is at this point unsustainable (without this centralized authority), capitalism or no capitalism. I point out this: Capitalism is unsustainable because of the several internal contradictions that exist within it, from the explosive growth of capital, it's spreading, to the several class contradictions, which later have to be regulated in very careful and prescise ways on behalf of the Bourgeois state. And of course, the several different competing entities of the Bourgeoisie, and so on.

If the only problem capitalism would have to face, the only thing that makes it "Unsustainable" is that it is constantly under the threat that there is a world of seven billion, of which there are several factions at hand, of which several parts have not even developed the necessary class relations to uphold the system, than Capitalism in itself would not be a problem, and I would not call for it's destruction. The solution then, would simply be a kind of a Keynsian welfare state.


The point was not that my side was right. The point was that you were making a bare assertion. If you had asserted we live on Mars and I asserted we lived on Jupiter, we would both be wrong. And still both making bare assertions.

Yet the question is this: What is more likely? One doesn't require faith to come to such a conclusion, as a matter of fact, if you live in a big city, simply walking outside would maybe allow you to see it my way.


As are you. Well, you're not really making an "argument" at all, but an assertion that you expect me to just take on blind faith.


You are the one asserting the necessity of Self management and Libertarianism, no? It would, instead be helpful if you could provide me your magical blueprint as to how society would function, because I take it your whole socialist convictions would shatter to pieces should you be disillusioned with them.

Many used this as an example. I am pointing out, on the contrary, that any form of organization could produce virtual softwhere, it is the production of actual physical commodities that one should take into account when judging the several modes of organization.



Again, you're just asserting this. I have every reason to believe that the authoritarianism of the USSR was just as much at fault for its "failure" as the lack of world revolution.

Then you're an Idealist and Anti Marxist. With this disgusting logic, why can I not simply say that it was Revisionism? Why can't I say that it was simply "Bad Stalin" who ruined it for everyone?

Or maybe, just maybe, you should be analyzing the several events which generated "Revisionism", or "Bad Stalin" instead of blaming those things. In this same sense, if we presuppose several invalid arguments on your behalf (which I will address bellow this) if Authoritarianism truly was a contributing factor, than it had a base, and this base is what should be attacked, not the very enactment of Authoritarianism itself, which is a response. You could say, for one, that this "Authoritarianism" was a direct result of the isolation of the revolution, instead of a contributing factor that existed along side it, just like "Bad Stalin".

But none the less there is a flaw in this argument, which does not reside within it's materialism, but within it's very pressuposion that Authoritarianism even posed a systemic threat to the existence of the USSR.

Those who live in the USSR will tell you stories, and from these, any Marxist will come to this simple conclusion: Part of the problem with the USSR was simply because it was not Authoritarian enough, it was not Organized or Centralized enough.

The USSR was a very chaotic society, in which "Authoritarianism" was the least of it's problems. As a matter of fact, any remaining dose, or remnant of the Dictatorship of hte Proletariat that continued to survive up until the mid 1930's was only preserved due to the "Authoritarianism" of the Bolshevik Party. I said it before and I will say it again: A strong, Authoritarian centralized state is required to not pose as an interest external from the Proletariat, but on the contrary, pose as a weapon of the Proletarian dictatorship, to allow it the realm to even exist. I don't mean this in the sense you are thinking about, as in, "Worker's control from bottom" and then from top Mama State fends off those who threaten her baby or any nonsense of the likes that is Utopianism.

No, this Authoritarianism would be of totality, and would stretch from all corners of Society, would be a force directly controlled by the Proletariat itself. In the same way the Bourgeois states operate with Totality, controlled by the Bourgeoisie, such would be necessary, a Proletarian state of Totality controlled by the Proletariat.

The Bolsheviks, since the Russian civil war, of course adopted this. It is all too easy to cite this as evidence of it's failure, you know, without actually analyzing what happened. Firstly, you have the failure of the German revolution in 1919, in which the Bolsheviks, knowing this, sought to preserve the revolution at all costs. And part of this "preserving of the revolution" meant keeping the Soviet Union alive, which meant forging alliances with International Bourgeois entities (Kemalists, 1920) and adopting the NEP to increase productivity and to avoid famine. At this very same time they were trying to protect the revolution, they were forging the internal contradictions, of which were necessary to destroy it. Like Oedipus, the very act of them trying to avoid a horrible fate was for filling this horrible fate. That is the "Power corrupting" process that happened that the Liberals talk so much about. Had hte revolution spread ot the Industrialized countries, which Marx stressed, the outcome would have been totally different. So it had nothing to do with Authoritarianism, it had everything to do with avoiding the Isolation of the revolution, which was hopeless without adopting Capitalist reforms. Thus, Stalin did not kill the revolution, he merely dug it's grave.




One creates an organ of supposed class protection, and the members of this new "class" use their position to protect themselves from public scrutiny or recall.

One creates an organ for supposed protection of the Bourgeois class, and the members of this new "Class" use their position to protect themselves from the public scrutiny or recall. Oh wait, I forgot, that isn't the case at all, and the Bourgeois state, no matter how Authoritarian, serves the interest of the Bourgeois class.

My, my, RSWU, you know I think the problem that keeps forcing you to come to such conclusions is simply the fact that you have this mentality that the revolution will serve "The People". "The People" do not exist, my friend. We think of the Bourgeois class controlling the Bourgeois state as something against "The People", that this is just apart of "Government's corruption". Sorry, there is nothing corrupt about the Bourgeois state, it does exactly what it is meant to do.

And then, I say, there is nothing inherently corrupt or flawed about the concept of "The State" itself, or, for that matter, what you would deem as "Authoritarianism". The problem is in what way they are put into use. A gun is no good in the hands of a rapist, but excellent in the hands of a hunter.


That's not really so hard to believe.

It only exists within the realm of Bourgeois-Liberalism, therefore yes, it is hard for me to "Believe".


But what I did here, seperate from you, is actually make an argument.

A horrible one, at that.


I tried to show some reasoning for my position, rather than just saying it, and thinking people are supposed to believe me.

Have I not done this?


Why? Reason this out for me. It's not that I disagree with you (I may or may not, but that's not important). I want to see why you think so.


Well, for one, I am not here to make arguments about asserting my wonderful blueprint of Socialism. I am not here to make an argument about why "My model" is better than "Yours". I am merely trying to make an argument about what isn't possible, of what today we can deem as Utopian.

I can point out that without management, there a motivation for production will decrease. We can then say "Oh what about incentives!", but are incentives not things that can only be guaranteed by a management of which would regulate them and set the standards, or, at the least, speak on behalf of a universal set code (With obvious changes in accordance with X communtiy?).



See, you just have faith that your position is true. You've yet to make any actual arguments except the one above; that management can work.

Because I am not here to act as someone bringing external ideas separate from the realm of "The Given".

You have tried to make arguments against Management, that of which I have discredited time and time again. Therefore, we can assume that management in itself, based on several historical examples (The Bolsheviks before and after management in the factories) that it is useful. Why not? Why would I have any convictions to oppose management? The reasons you've stated were all invalid, and I've shown this.


You've made no arguments that management is necessary. You've just said it.


Management is necessary as within the workplace there are several (Not formal, or Material, if you will, similar to class) interests, that can collide with each other about roles in working, etc.

Also, we cannot assume that people will just work because they deem it moral, instead, we must (agree with Kant) and assume the opposite. We must ask Why would they work? Instead of Why would they not? They would not work for the same reason I don't like doing work in school: Of course it would benefit me, but in my given situation, I would much rather just not do anything at all, and relax.


Two assertions get us no closer to the truth than one. That's my point. I don't know why you don't understand that...


Whose assertion, do you think, is more grounded in reality?


You have faith it does. I have no reason to agree, as of yet.


Virtually all of the "Self Management" models that existed outside of the capitalist mode of production have been inefficient in work. Even George Orwell noted how in Catalonia, there was a big problem with organization. And unlike the Bolsheviks, the organizational structure was a part of the problem.


How do they develop? Cuz if it's anything like what I think... meaning individuals with an economic advantage garner together to protect their common interests against the "others"... than I still don't see it as that far-fethced.


Class interest, or class in general forms out of the several social relationships between individuals in relations to the mode of production, and in short, what it comes down to: Private Property. It forms largely unintentionally, for the most part, and especially in societies with relative isolation between several different factions which have several different roles, of which have nothing to do with each other in regards to benefit. Of course a merchant brings in new valuables from distant lands, but this is hardly because he is doing it for the collective. He is doing it for profit, through bargaining, etc.

It is a complicated process. Class relations do not form because of "Management", they form through the development of the mode of production in an unintentional manner, i.e. the Bourgeois class did not develop because, all of a sudden, one day it wanted to be bossy over the Peasantry or something absurd. No, it formed not in direct relations of a Communist society that has developed material conditions in which things like Private Property would be non existent, no, it developed as class, of individuals who formed as a direct response to Feudalism, who wished to pursue their own interest as a class. This could hardly be the case for State officials or management, whose sole purpose would be of organization...


If not, that means they are publically accountable. I would have no problem with that. It's when you DO allow management to set up its own rules, independant of labor, that the "problem" comes in.


Why would mere factory management do that? What a bizarre and obscure assumption on your behalf... Centralized order, which would be the embodiment of the mass party movement post revolution may do such, though.


Not at all. The assumption that people pursue what they percieve as their interest needs no attestation of "power corrupts."

Such an interest cannot exist in a society of such Totality, it would be like the leader of the Post Office attempting to become a King. Of course people will pursue self interest, and yes, many of hte problems of capitalism, including corruption, will continue to exist, just a lot less severe.

Socialism, I hope you know, is a shit hole, just less of a shit hole than capitalism. But this by no means, assures us that a strong central order will magically "corrupt" because of the self interest of those individuals. This has never been the case in capitalism, I highly doubt it would in any other society.


It's just a fact of nature.

It's too bad "Nature" beyond genetics (Eat, Fuck, Shit, Survival instincts like running away or fighting) in humans does not exist. We are robots, we act in direct correlation with the mode of production, like, if you will, a bunch of ants.


If management, or anybody, has greater access to production and consumption, they have wealth, and the means to pursue a class interest.


The only reason this was the case in countries like the Soviet Union was merely because the state had to put itself in positions that the Bourgeoisie would have (Industrialization, dealing with the Peasantry) and therefore became something external from the society bellow them, as a dictatorship of the proletariat evolved when a proletariat was a minority.

You mistake the fact as if it would be a Bourgeois state, a state serving the interests of the bourgeois class or forfililng the interests of capital. For one, what is "Wealth"? I don't know, the garuntee of food in times of perhaps famine? Well, things like this of course you cannot avoid, it is to be expected. But I remain pessimistic as to whether this will undermine the whole structure of the system. For one, if it were Libertarianism, then you would not even have the required structure to avoid famine on a global scale, in times of drought, etc. I'd much rather have an administrator who deals with the importing of food from another region snack first so he doesn't die while distributing the food or whatever they would deem necessary then lack the very structural power to deal with things like Famine.


I think we are in aggreement here. "Power" is what is analogous to the gun, I take it? Yes, the proletariat will need power. Every other class needs it to. My only concern is where power lies, and how it is expressed. I have no interest in power itself (which isn't a thing. It's a reflection of social relations).

I am referring to the state or authoritarianism. Humans act as agents of the mode of production. Those humans in power would act, I'd imagine to some extent agents of the proletarian class.



I didn't say "The People." I was referring to specific persons. We would not be well advised to think reactionism will just die out post rev, and I'm sure you agree with this.

Which even strengthens an argument for a State, which would be necessary to destroy the remnants of Bourgeois society.


It is my position that the last thing the proles need is a set of managers and politicians with greater access to production, consumption, and legality. The proles must have comrades, not leaders.

And leaders would be necessary to enact there interest in stone and blood, against the counter revolution. In all cases when you have a group of people, you need an entity that could speak for or represent them.

Again, your mind is still stuck within the constraint of Bourgeois society. What makes you even think the concept of the Politician will be retained in the same way? Of managers?


I disagree with nothing here.


Why, then, do you have a problem with people being in power who are not necessarily proletarians but carry out there interest?




That's not really the question tho. The questions are:
1) Are they the same reactionariness as standard capitalist structures? Are they more or less progressive?

I'd say less. They (Post 68 humanist structures, petty bourgeois or not like Star bucks) attempt to put a human face on capitalism. The worst of the slave owners, were the ones who were nice to their slaves (Zizek).


but more importantly:
2) Are they valid and useful as a way of countering the bourgiousie argument that top-down structures are more productive.


The concept that top down structures are more productive is not Bourgeois in nature, what is Bourgeois in nature is the Idealist concept that those who are on "Top" are the creators of wealth and prosperity in that they exemplify their Ideas, with proletarians being a means of for filling their Ideas. While in truth, Managers would simply act as agents for organizing production, by no means would be the "Nucleus" or the "Titan" of society.


A better question would be; can it play into our hands? That's how politics works. You use anything that furthers your cause.


It cannot. Not by any means.


I would have to see a Ron Paulistan to make that judgement.


Somalia. If Free Market capitalism was so efficient the Bourgeois class would have adopted it centuries ago.


I see no reason I can't show that wage slavery is more productive than proper slavery, and still criticize wage slavery.


Here you do not even know that you are making an argument for Slavery, trying to make it as if this is a positive aspect. For one, the Petite Bourgeoisie are worse than the Bourgeoisie, get it?



It is liberal propaganda, that I deal with daily in my discussions with rightists. Do I "support" them? Not necessarily. Why can't I criticize both? Why can't I say "the US and the Taliban are both scum fucks. But I'd rather live in the US because of its technology and standard of living."

That isn't Liberal propaganda, that's pure Bourgeois propaganda external from the Liberalist mystification in place that exist only for them. Social Darwinism, on one hand, is for the masses to eat.

Anyway, what is your point? I would as well, rather live in the U.S., just as I'd rather live under the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in contrast with the dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie.



I'm not. I'm "praising" (insofar as I am recognizing its merits) one action of bourgiousie class over another. They both can fuck off. But that's not to say there isn't something to learn there.


There is nothing to learn. That the democracy of the (petty?) Bourgeoisie can function? We know. They have their self management while proletarians produce their shit.

Self management for the slave owners!




I praised the specific actions taken that I percieve damage the status quo, not the people involved at all, or the structure itself.


Even Neo Nazi Militants kidnapping senators?


Sure, I hear they did a lot to stamp out opiate production. And were my father a Taliban, I'd have been glad he had a gun to protect me from imperialists.


And at the same time beat the shit out of your mother, and you as well when you don't forfill his interests?


Nothing makes the Taliban greater than the US, or vice versa. But what makes cooperatives better than corporatives is worker autonomy (to a limited extent) and shared "profits" (meaning a lack of direct exploitation within said factory).



That isn't worker autonomy. That's like saying you support Bourgeois Democracy because of the autonomy of "The people". The question is: Autonomy for who?

[Revolution starts with U]

I will respond to your post tomorow. But in short: I think you could do well to not create your opponents argument for them. I'm only half way through and you keep bringing up things I never supported.

Good so far tho :D

[Yazman]

Have you ever heard of something called Steam?

Proof you don't bother reading my posts at all, considering the cornerstone of my previous post was talking about Steam.

Also, as far as your thing about a supposed Valve "console" goes, again this shows how misinformed you are - and shows that you probably just googled a bit for Valve to pull up a link without bothering to follow up on it or check the sources. That was a mere rumour going around for a while based on: a) recent Valve hiring requirements talking about hardware and b) a blog post talking about experimentation with hardware. The reality is, that some of their employees are working on developing wearable computing technology not a console.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/14/that-was-easy-valves-hardware-is-wearable-computing/


They are a class enemy, no matter how you sugar coat it. Slave owners who are nice to their slaves and treat them like they would treat their own kids, are by definition still slave owners.

Revolution starts with U is correct; you would do well not to create our arguments for us. I never said they weren't a class enemy. I never said they had "moral authority over any other company" and I never said that they are some sort of group at the forefront of an American revolution! as you seem to be portraying me as having said. All this shit you're talking about Valve being bourgeois, class enemies blah blah blah is really pointless to even bring up since I never disputed any of that in the first place. You're arguing against a point I never made.

No, what I DID say is that the fact they have a non-hierarchical organisational structure without a dedicated management and are still extremely efficient is yet another among many examples that such a workplace model is workable at least in some industries, and that it is one we might look to when considering new organisational structures. I think it goes without saying that the prevailing model of our time is in dire need of replacement and Valve's system works quite well.

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to feel that management and hierarchy are strictly necessary and that we need people to tell us what to do to get anything done. You think the USSR wasn't authoritarian enough - I am critical of it for being authoritarian in the first place.

[Revolution starts with U]

A social order in which is connected to a higher global order is different from, say, some hippie commune in the middle of now where that survives off of each others urine. They need organization to function, and this organization need be kept in check by some sort of management.

Why is it different, other than merely having more actors? I ask again; is not every human a social order connected, at least in some small (butterfly effect type) way to global order?
What exactly is it about adding more poeple that makes a radical shift in coordination necessary?



The notion that the human animal can simply create the constant process of adjusting material conditions to itself, whether it be during times of scarcity or times of famine, is a Utopian notion. Several aspects of "Self management" will, in turn have to be sacrificed if such an order is kept in place.

... but that's what they already do...



Yet quite evidently they aren't, what you call "Personal anectdotes".

They're not?


To rely on the notion that each individual region will some how magically self regulate itself to assure anothers ends are meet is ludicrous. To assume that, in the production process, there will not be needed a form of management that can pose as a connection to the higher centralized order in which all regions are connected is Utopian.

To think something "can" happen cannot be utopian. To think it necessarily will, is utopian.
But, more importantly, you're just asserting things again.

Anybody who thinks George Bush was a bad president is an idiot!
^That's the equivalent of the majority of your argument style so far.



And yes, are discussions going to run factories? Are discussions going to re build a destroyed bourgeois society?

No, but they will give direction. Leadership/management is still going to have to have discussions, dummy. :rolleyes:



I would do nothing of use.

On purpose, just to prove a point? :lol:



They would, for all we know, have absolutely no class interest. Class interest doesn't simply mean whatever the fuck we want it to be.

Who said it does? Nevertheless they will express self-interest, and of this will be created social/class/classless interest.



Obviously you don't understand the very notion of what a class relation is.

Obviously... I'm glad to see you might actually make an argument tho... coming up... i'm hopeful...


For one, I don't know if a classless society will ever exist, though even with a classless society, in a world of Seven billion a formal institution that acts in a way separate and above from the general populace would be of absolute necessity.

Nope, no argument. Just another assertion. This grows boring...


If we are talking about a post revolution in which the class enemy is still in existence, seiging the revolution, than a separate form is of absolute necessity, a legion of delagacy, if you will, similar to the Cheka or even the NKVD.

What happens if and when the class enemy takes control, or gains massive influence, of that delegacy?




The world is at this point unsustainable (without this centralized authority), capitalism or no capitalism. I point out this: Capitalism is unsustainable because of the several internal contradictions that exist within it, from the explosive growth of capital, it's spreading, to the several class contradictions, which later have to be regulated in very careful and prescise ways on behalf of the Bourgeois state. And of course, the several different competing entities of the Bourgeoisie, and so on.

If the only problem capitalism would have to face, the only thing that makes it "Unsustainable" is that it is constantly under the threat that there is a world of seven billion, of which there are several factions at hand, of which several parts have not even developed the necessary class relations to uphold the system, than Capitalism in itself would not be a problem, and I would not call for it's destruction. The solution then, would simply be a kind of a Keynsian welfare state.

I don't follow your point. Much aplogies.



Yet the question is this: What is more likely? One doesn't require faith to come to such a conclusion, as a matter of fact, if you live in a big city, simply walking outside would maybe allow you to see it my way.
Why would simply walking outside prove that?

Or am I just supposed to believe your assertions?


You are the one asserting the necessity of Self management and Libertarianism, no?
No


It would, instead be helpful if you could provide me your magical blueprint as to how society would function, because I take it your whole socialist convictions would shatter to pieces should you be disillusioned with them.

I have no magical blueprint, management or the lack thereof... and to do so would be, as you say, "Utopian."


Many used this as an example. I am pointing out, on the contrary, that any form of organization could produce virtual softwhere, it is the production of actual physical commodities that one should take into account when judging the several modes of organization.

What is different about making soft or hardware that makes one require management, and the other not?



Then you're an Idealist and Anti Marxist. With this disgusting logic, why can I not simply say that it was Revisionism? Why can't I say that it was simply "Bad Stalin" who ruined it for everyone?

Can you not follow a simple point, Rafiq? You just asserted your position. I have every reason to believe it, as I do any other position.

I admit, sometimes I make a point I agree with. Most of the time here I'm just making a point, any point, to show that I have every reason to believe it, as much as I have to believe yours.

So again, until you can actually make an argument, I have every reason to believe the collapse of the USSR was to do with "external factors" as much as I do "internal."

Or maybe, just maybe, you should be analyzing the several events which generated "Revisionism", or "Bad Stalin" instead of blaming those things.
Except I didn't blame those things. I said you've given me just as much reason to believe them as your theory.


In this same sense, if we presuppose several invalid arguments on your behalf (which I will address bellow this) if Authoritarianism truly was a contributing factor, than it had a base, and this base is what should be attacked, not the very enactment of Authoritarianism itself, which is a response. You could say, for one, that this "Authoritarianism" was a direct result of the isolation of the revolution, instead of a contributing factor that existed along side it, just like "Bad Stalin".

All valid points. However, this is just a diversion you've created in your own head. I never made this point, and we were discussing cooperation v managment.



Those who live in the USSR will tell you stories, and from these, any Marxist will come to this simple conclusion: Part of the problem with the USSR was simply because it was not Authoritarian enough, it was not Organized or Centralized enough.

Perhaps... let's hope the next paragraph attempts to explain why...

The USSR was a very chaotic society, in which "Authoritarianism" was the least of it's problems. As a matter of fact, any remaining dose, or remnant of the Dictatorship of hte Proletariat that continued to survive up until the mid 1930's was only preserved due to the "Authoritarianism" of the Bolshevik Party.
Nope, another assertion... :crying:

I said it before and I will say it again: A strong, Authoritarian centralized state is required to not pose as an interest external from the Proletariat, but on the contrary, pose as a weapon of the Proletarian dictatorship, to allow it the realm to even exist.
Because...?


I don't mean this in the sense you are thinking about, as in, "Worker's control from bottom" and then from top Mama State fends off those who threaten her baby or any nonsense of the likes that is Utopianism.

You keep saying this word... I do not think you know what it means...


No, this Authoritarianism would be of totality, and would stretch from all corners of Society, would be a force directly controlled by the Proletariat itself. In the same way the Bourgeois states operate with Totality, controlled by the Bourgeoisie, such would be necessary, a Proletarian state of Totality controlled by the Proletariat.

The bourgiousie state can do this without strong central authority. What makes a proletarian state different?
Proles too stupid or something?

The Bolsheviks, since the Russian civil war, of course adopted this. It is all too easy to cite this as evidence of it's failure, you know, without actually analyzing what happened. Firstly, you have the failure of the German revolution in 1919, in which the Bolsheviks, knowing this, sought to preserve the revolution at all costs. And part of this "preserving of the revolution" meant keeping the Soviet Union alive, which meant forging alliances with International Bourgeois entities (Kemalists, 1920) and adopting the NEP to increase productivity and to avoid famine. At this very same time they were trying to protect the revolution, they were forging the internal contradictions, of which were necessary to destroy it.
I just wish you could see that this is exactly true; and far more weighs in on the cooperative side of the debate than the commanded side (yours).

Like Oedipus, the very act of them trying to avoid a horrible fate was for filling this horrible fate. That is the "Power corrupting" process that happened that the Liberals talk so much about. Had hte revolution spread ot the Industrialized countries, which Marx stressed, the outcome would have been totally different.
Perhaps. Why?

So it had nothing to do with Authoritarianism,
Perhaps. Why?


it had everything to do with avoiding the Isolation of the revolution, which was hopeless without adopting Capitalist reforms. Thus, Stalin did not kill the revolution, he merely dug it's grave.

So what you're saying is the world wasn't ready for the Revolution, and the USSR was doomed no matter what?

How does this establish that central command, and even MORE than the soviet state had, is necessary for the Revolution to not fail?


One creates an organ for supposed protection of the Bourgeois class, and the members of this new "Class" use their position to protect themselves from the public scrutiny or recall. Oh wait, I forgot, that isn't the case at all, and the Bourgeois state, no matter how Authoritarian, serves the interest of the Bourgeois class.
Ya, except I didn't say this is how states are created... but how class relations develop.


My, my, RSWU, you know I think the problem that keeps forcing you to come to such conclusions is simply the fact that you have this mentality that the revolution will serve "The People".
Do I?

"The People" do not exist, my friend.
Well, I mean it's possible this is all the Matrix, but I'm going to make the assumption that reality exists... and people do as well. If you're saying hte people as some kind of homogenous body independant of the individual actors within it... I agree. That doesn't exist.

We think of the Bourgeois class controlling the Bourgeois state as something against "The People", that this is just apart of "Government's corruption".
Maybe you do.


Sorry, there is nothing corrupt about the Bourgeois state, it does exactly what it is meant to do.

I agree.


And then, I say, there is nothing inherently corrupt or flawed about the concept of "The State" itself, or, for that matter, what you would deem as "Authoritarianism". The problem is in what way they are put into use. A gun is no good in the hands of a rapist, but excellent in the hands of a hunter.

I agree. ANd I'm pretty sure I've said if used correctly, I have no problem with it.
So when are you going to make the argument that strong central command is necessary? So far you've asserted it in 1000 different ways.




A horrible one, at that.



Have I not done this?

Not really.



Well, for one, I am not here to make arguments about asserting my wonderful blueprint of Socialism.
Yet that's exactly what you're doing; asserting that authoritarianism is necessary. You're a utopian idealist, comrade.

I am not here to make an argument about why "My model" is better than "Yours". I am merely trying to make an argument about what isn't possible, of what today we can deem as Utopian.
You let me know when you make that argument.
Why does A lead to B?


I can point out that without management, there a motivation for production will decrease.
Now you're starting to reason it out... :thumbup1:
I can show you evidence that without strong managment prodution increases.


We can then say "Oh what about incentives!", but are incentives not things that can only be guaranteed by a management of which would regulate them and set the standards, or, at the least, speak on behalf of a universal set code (With obvious changes in accordance with X communtiy?).

People cannot create their own incentives?

I can show you evidence that they do, in fact, do that; and that production increases when one allows them to.



Because I am not here to act as someone bringing external ideas separate from the realm of "The Given".

Ok..

You have tried to make arguments against Management,
Have I?

that of which I have discredited time and time again.
No, you just asserted a contrary position. Just like you are asserting that you destroyed arguments I didn't even make :laugh:

Therefore, we can assume that management in itself, based on several historical examples (The Bolsheviks before and after management in the factories) that it is useful.
Supposing you had actually made any arguments, and they were better than mine (which is supposing I made an argument of my own)...
You beat me in a debate, therefore leadership is necessary? :confused:
I don't follow the logic.


Why not? Why would I have any convictions to oppose management? The reasons you've stated were all invalid, and I've shown this.

See above.



Management is necessary as within the workplace there are several (Not formal, or Material, if you will, similar to class) interests, that can collide with each other about roles in working, etc.

Why need they a 3rd party to settle this, especially a formal 3rd party seperate and above them?


Also, we cannot assume that people will just work because they deem it moral, instead, we must (agree with Kant) and assume the opposite. We must ask Why would they work? Instead of Why would they not? They would not work for the same reason I don't like doing work in school: Of course it would benefit me, but in my given situation, I would much rather just not do anything at all, and relax.

So, unless someone is there to beat the proles with a stick... we'll all just starve to death?



Whose assertion, do you think, is more grounded in reality?

I have no reason to believe yours is. (Not to mention that "my" assertion was not my belief at all, but merely a contra of yours; which I was using to show that assertions establish nothing but the massively inflated ego of the jackass who thinks asserting things make them true)



Virtually all of the "Self Management" models that existed outside of the capitalist mode of production have been inefficient in work. Even George Orwell noted how in Catalonia, there was a big problem with organization. And unlike the Bolsheviks, the organizational structure was a part of the problem.

Why? You keep making these assertions, and then expect me to just believe it. I'm sorry Bishop Rafiq, but scientific minds don't work like that....


Class interest, or class in general forms out of the several social relationships between individuals in relations to the mode of production, and in short, what it comes down to: Private Property. It forms largely unintentionally, for the most part, and especially in societies with relative isolation between several different factions which have several different roles, of which have nothing to do with each other in regards to benefit.
I actually agree with this..
But why? Indulge me for a second... Why is this true?



It is a complicated process. Class relations do not form because of "Management", they form through the development of the mode of production in an unintentional manner, i.e. the Bourgeois class did not develop because, all of a sudden, one day it wanted to be bossy over the Peasantry or something absurd. No, it formed not in direct relations of a Communist society that has developed material conditions in which things like Private Property would be non existent, no, it developed as class, of individuals who formed as a direct response to Feudalism, who wished to pursue their own interest as a class. This could hardly be the case for State officials or management, whose sole purpose would be of organization...


Class developed after feudalism? Or class developed because their wasn't a communist society to compete with? This really just reads like gibberish. You might want to rephrase it. Or class develops after oppression?



Why would mere factory management do that? What a bizarre and obscure assumption on your behalf... Centralized order, which would be the embodiment of the mass party movement post revolution may do such, though.

Who manages factory managment? Who coordinates the coordinators? In whos interest are they "managing" in the first place?



Such an interest cannot exist in a society of such Totality, it would be like the leader of the Post Office attempting to become a King. Of course people will pursue self interest, and yes, many of hte problems of capitalism, including corruption, will continue to exist, just a lot less severe.

Why? Assertions, followed by more assertions. (Note that I agree with much of this anyway...)
It's like:
Raf: We must all buy horses!
Rev: Why?
Raf: Cuz horses are cool.
Rev: Are they
Raf: What are you an idiot? Everyone knows horses are better than cows.

Do you see the problem I'm having?



It's too bad "Nature" beyond genetics (Eat, Fuck, Shit, Survival instincts like running away or fighting) in humans does not exist. We are robots, we act in direct correlation with the mode of production, like, if you will, a bunch of ants.


I think it's a little more complicated than that... but you just, once again, asserted this, so I'm just going to keep on believing whatever I want.



The only reason this was the case in countries like the Soviet Union was merely because the state had to put itself in positions that the Bourgeoisie would have (Industrialization, dealing with the Peasantry) and therefore became something external from the society bellow them, as a dictatorship of the proletariat evolved when a proletariat was a minority.

I think it's funny that the two arguments you've made both weigh in on the cooperative side... :lol:

You mistake the fact as if it would be a Bourgeois state, a state serving the interests of the bourgeois class or forfililng the interests of capital. For one, what is "Wealth"? I don't know, the garuntee of food in times of perhaps famine? Well, things like this of course you cannot avoid, it is to be expected.
I'm thinking if profit is the extraction of surplus labor, wealth is the expression of that; ie, it only exists if one person or class is exploiting the labor power of another.

But I remain pessimistic as to whether this will undermine the whole structure of the system. For one, if it were Libertarianism, then you would not even have the required structure to avoid famine on a global scale, in times of drought, etc.
Why not?


I'd much rather have an administrator who deals with the importing of food from another region snack first so he doesn't die while distributing the food or whatever they would deem necessary then lack the very structural power to deal with things like Famine.

Why can't decentralized authority deal with famine? (To be fair, centralized authority proved a massively collossal failure in that regard, did it not?)



I am referring to the state or authoritarianism. Humans act as agents of the mode of production. Those humans in power would act, I'd imagine to some extent agents of the proletarian class.

Yes... one could only hope. Wouldn't that be ideal?



Which even strengthens an argument for a State, which would be necessary to destroy the remnants of Bourgeois society.

Why?



And leaders would be necessary to enact there interest in stone and blood, against the counter revolution. In all cases when you have a group of people, you need an entity that could speak for or represent them.

Do you?
Why must it be seperate and above the common worker?

Again, your mind is still stuck within the constraint of Bourgeois society. What makes you even think the concept of the Politician will be retained in the same way? Of managers?
Do I think that? What makes you think it won't?



Why, then, do you have a problem with people being in power who are not necessarily proletarians but carry out there interest?

It's not that I have a problem with it. I find it dangerous and needed to be carefully protected from tyrannical power grabbing. Again, you need to differentiate between when I"m making an actual argument, and when I'm just asserting something other than what you're asserting for the sake of argument.




I'd say less. They (Post 68 humanist structures, petty bourgeois or not like Star bucks) attempt to put a human face on capitalism. The worst of the slave owners, were the ones who were nice to their slaves (Zizek).

So you would prefer the proletarian be put back in 1850s conditions, or worse, to better facilitate revolution?



The concept that top down structures are more productive is not Bourgeois in nature, what is Bourgeois in nature is the Idealist concept that those who are on "Top" are the creators of wealth and prosperity in that they exemplify their Ideas, with proletarians being a means of for filling their Ideas. While in truth, Managers would simply act as agents for organizing production, by no means would be the "Nucleus" or the "Titan" of society.

Would they? Why?


It cannot. Not by any means.
Why not? I have every reason to believe that we could say "see, workers don't need ownership's leadership to be productive. We can do this on our own."
You do realize that most right wingers don't even know cooperatives exist, let alone succeed... right? Why do you think that is?


Somalia.
I'd really say that's a straw man of their position. Somalia has plenty of statism and statist influence.


If Free Market capitalism was so efficient the Bourgeois class would have adopted it centuries ago.

I agree. But I'm not going to say that RPvania is necessarily terrible until it has been seen, because to do so would be utopian.




Here you do not even know that you are making an argument for Slavery, trying to make it as if this is a positive aspect. For one, the Petite Bourgeoisie are worse than the Bourgeoisie, get it?

Are they?
And why does me saying "both forms of slavery and terrible, but one is slightly better" making the case for slavery?




Anyway, what is your point? I would as well, rather live in the U.S., just as I'd rather live under the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in contrast with the dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie.

You would rather live in the US with it's relatively decentralized federalism?



There is nothing to learn. That the democracy of the (petty?) Bourgeoisie can function? We know. They have their self management while proletarians produce their shit.

Do they?


Self management for the slave owners!

Are they?



Even Neo Nazi Militants kidnapping senators?

Sure. I can see the positive aspect that it means people are fed up and the times are ripe for change; I can use this as a political motivational tool to gather the anti-fascists. Notice I don't have to praise the Nazi's at all, and can strongly criticize their actions.



And at the same time beat the shit out of your mother, and you as well when you don't forfill his interests?

I'm sure not all Taliban are woman beaters...



That isn't worker autonomy. That's like saying you support Bourgeois Democracy because of the autonomy of "The people". The question is: Autonomy for who?
For... workers?
I do support bourgiousie democracy, as opposed to say monarchichal feudalism because of... gasp!... the "autonomy" of the people... relatively anyway. That doesn't mean I concretely support it. It's to say that there are shades of color, not a world of black and white. It's not worth my time to look on all of human history as absolute shit. It wil drive me crazy, and do me no good anyway.
That is to say, if I had to choose between Henry 2's England and FDR's America... that's an easy choice to make, comrade.

[Revolution starts with U]

you seem to feel that management and hierarchy are strictly necessary and that we need people to tell us what to do to get anything done. .

While at the same time calling people utopian... :lol:

[Rafiq]

Responses incoming.

*EDIT

Unfortunatly, I won't be able to respond to both of your posts today. I have a paper that is due tommarow for an academic course, of which will most likely take the whole day to complete. Friday, I'll also be busy as well, though, either late Friday Night or Saturday morning will be the times in which I will respond to both users in this thread (Whose posts I have not yet read) and Ismail's post as well here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxha-t170373/index.html?p=2426881#post2426881

You may, on the side, see me post from Tapatalk on other threads, though this is largely just to pass time in situations in which I am waiting for something.

[Yazman]

Responses incoming.

*EDIT

Unfortunatly, I won't be able to respond to both of your posts today. I have a paper that is due tommarow for an academic course, of which will most likely take the whole day to complete. Friday, I'll also be busy as well, though, either late Friday Night or Saturday morning will be the times in which I will respond to both users in this thread (Whose posts I have not yet read) and Ismail's post as well here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxha-t170373/index.html?p=2426881#post2426881

You may, on the side, see me post from Tapatalk on other threads, though this is largely just to pass time in situations in which I am waiting for something.

It's fine Rafiq! I've been having to write a paper myself hence my sort of contracted response. It's fine though, don't worry about it. We might get a bit riled up but I am 100% glad you've been engaging this topic as much as you have, it's been quite thought provoking and given me much to consider (even if that hasn't been reflected by my posts very strongly). Keep up the good work :)

[Agathor]

Unfortunately, with rising capital requirements, it's very difficult for independent game developers like Valve to survive and prosper.

I think that the remaining independent companies should collectivize. Too many of my favourite developers have gone bankrupt.

[Rafiq]

Proof you don't bother reading my posts at all, considering the cornerstone of my previous post was talking about Steam.

Also, as far as your thing about a supposed Valve "console" goes, again this shows how misinformed you are - and shows that you probably just googled a bit for Valve to pull up a link without bothering to follow up on it or check the sources. That was a mere rumour going around for a while based on: a) recent Valve hiring requirements talking about hardware and b) a blog post talking about experimentation with hardware. The reality is, that some of their employees are working on developing wearable computing technology not a console.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/14/that-was-easy-valves-hardware-is-wearable-computing/

The Steam box is, as of now beyond a mere rumor. It is something that will be mass produced and sold as a commodity in the profit of Valve. That isn't the only thing that valve has profited off of that happens to be completely physical and devoid of mere digital character, just take things like the Orange Box, and some Half Life- Portal- Left 4 dead merchandise, etc. All of which were produced by actual proletarians, and not within the confines of a petite bourgeois democratic management of the companies state of affairs.



Revolution starts with U is correct; you would do well not to create our arguments for us. I never said they weren't a class enemy.

Well, forgive me then, but it did sound like you were, to some extent praising them.


I never said they had "moral authority over any other company" and I never said that they are some sort of group at the forefront of an American revolution!

Those are two different statements. You may have implied they had a moral authority over another company, but I doubt you would have implied they should be some sort of forefront for any revolution.

It would seem that you take their model as evidence that the proletariat need not require managers in order for the hunger of the production process to be for filled, and with Valve having such a model, of which you put so much faith in, would tell us you have a belief they have to some extent a moral authority over other companies.


as you seem to be portraying me as having said. All this shit you're talking about Valve being bourgeois, class enemies blah blah blah is really pointless to even bring up since I never disputed any of that in the first place. You're arguing against a point I never made.

The point is this: To use this as an example that Management isn't required is ludicrous in that they are simply members of the petite bourgeoisie, operating within the confines of a very nice space in which they can produce their digital technologies is an argument that can be destroyed by any idiot. For one, what of the proletarians who produce their physical commodities? Are they managed in a democratic way at all?


No, what I DID say is that the fact they have a non-hierarchical organisational structure without a dedicated management and are still extremely efficient

This, this here is my problem. Why this universalist-moral distaste of what they call "Hierarchy" by members of the Left? The very definition of Hierarchy is anti scientific and very subjective in nature, depending on the class that is using it. I am very pessimistic, I don't buy into this nonsense about what you refer to "Hierarchy" dissapearing. This, perhaps, is a "Problem" external from capitalist mode of production, if even a problem at all. So much so, I don't even recognize the word as valid.

The Valve model is still "Hierarchical" in nature in that they are the bosses over the proletarians whom produce their commodities in the physical realm. Indeed, without this "Hierarchal" realm, of hte laptops that come with the softwhere produced, of the several physical commodities produced by them, by the things they invest in, of who invests in them, etc. They would shatter to pieces and no longer exist as a company.

So, this isn't proof of anything, of any structural mode of organization being "Successful".


is yet another among many examples that such a workplace model is workable at least in some industries,

Of course it is workable in some industries, hell, I would say it is necessary in industries such as the production of digital soft where (if that is an industry) or any form of the "Arts". But this is only because they usually don't consist of a large number of people and most of the work is solely done on an "Individual basis".

But tell me, who was making an argument against this model being put into practice for such "Industries"? Such a mode of organization is a given.


and that it is one we might look to when considering new organisational structures. I think it goes without saying that the prevailing model of our time is in dire need of replacement and Valve's system works quite well.

Works quite well for the creation of Video games and computer software, maybe.

The prevailing "model" in our time is not in crises because of some "Revenge" from the univeralist moral harmonious order, i.e. it is not an organizational problem at all. The problem are the several internal contradictions within the capitalist system, of which include Class contradiction.


Where I disagree with you is that you seem to feel that management and hierarchy are strictly necessary and that we need people to tell us what to do to get anything done.

Sorry, but this is maybe for you a cold reality you may have to come into terms with. The point is not the very act of command organization, to be told what to produce to get anything done, and how much to produce. The point is this: Of whom is it benefiting? In what service is this being done in? This is one of the only valid moral criticism of capitalism.


You think the USSR wasn't authoritarian enough - I am critical of it for being authoritarian in the first place.


Then you are severely disillusioned of the organizational nature of the USSR in the first place.

[Rafiq]

While at the same time calling people utopian... :lol:

On the contrary, to be so dillusioned as to think that somehow workers will magically knwo the exact calculations of what need be produced, of how it is distributed, and for them to have complete autonomy and control of how both are done is Utopian.

I agree with an unfortunate reality, which isn't Utopian by any means. There is nothing wrong with strict Organizational measures in a society.

Now, a friend has returned (And I'm just such a geek for being tempted to come on Rev Left) so I wish you farewell for now. I am going to respond to your post either when I return (unless I'm too tired) or in the morning, as promised.

Cheers. Also, to you and Yazman, despite what may appear as a confrontational nature of my posts, I don't have a problem with either of you and don't mean to insult you by any means, and Yazman, I'm also glad we are able to have such a constructive discussion, that of which is far better than ones average shoot out with, say, Ismail, or the scum who lurk in OI.

[Yazman]

Also Rafiq - one thing that needs to be cleared up first before we really proceed here - do you or don't you consider programmers & artists in the software development industry to be workers? While Valve is a unique example for sure because of its structure, I think it's incorrect to say they aren't proletarian in a broad sense given the severe exploitation of game developers throughout the industry (by publishers which are largely responsible for the shit) who are in the same position as proletarians in other industries.

Just need to clear this up before we can really proceed here so I can respond to the other points.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

@Rafiq and @Revolution-starts-with-U

Comrades, it is painful to watch you talk. You are both correct.

For instance: I don't like them, and a majority of leftists don't like them, but they will have to be operated for a few more decades since they don't just have an "off" switch: Nuclear Plants.
Would you want a direct democratic (ultra-leftist, utopian etc.) enterprise to run a nuclear facility? I Don't! I would want a Democratic Enterprise to control it. How do i mean this? I mean that the workers of all enterprises become their quasi own board of directors in that they collectively meet 2 to 3 times a year and discuss their needs. They select the communist (to use Marx's term) subsumed class positions, such as supervisors (who would get specific training, education etc.), people who do not produce the surplus and don't get to decide about the business.

Generally though, education in a socialist state would need to include a basic understanding and ability education to do various functions of society, such as planning, supervisory, or surplus producing, social positions. Communism FTW!

[Revolution starts with U]

On the contrary, to be so dillusioned as to think that somehow workers will magically knwo the exact calculations of what need be produced, of how it is distributed, and for them to have complete autonomy and control of how both are done is Utopian.

Except, I don't believe necessarily believe that; i leave open on the possibility. On the contrary, it is YOU who thinks it impossible, based on nothing more than the assertion that they can't... which would be... what again?



I agree with an unfortunate reality, which isn't Utopian by any means. There is nothing wrong with strict Organizational measures in a society.

Never said there was. I don't work well within such structures, but some do.


Cheers. Also, to you and Yazman, despite what may appear as a confrontational nature of my posts, I don't have a problem with either of you and don't mean to insult you by any means, and Yazman, I'm also glad we are able to have such a constructive discussion, that of which is far better than ones average shoot out with, say, Ismail, or the scum who lurk in OI.
:lol: I enjoy a little confrontive discussion sometimes. No worries comrade :cool:

[Rafiq]

Why is it different, other than merely having more actors? I ask again; is not every human a social order connected, at least in some small (butterfly effect type) way to global order?

Yes, but this is only unique within capitalist relations, and the capitalist mode of production. But even with this, there are still several isolated communities in existence.

With the abandonment of the dynamic capitalist social relations, there isn't going to be this, radical organic re inventing of whole social structures, in which all society is devoured by X force (Capital) with no mercy. Without capital as a means of sociological totality, in whatever proletarian dictatorship to replace capitalism, a force similar would be of necessity to stretch to all corners of society.

I remain, like I said, pessimistic that this force would be able to coexist with a Libertarian mode of organization.


What exactly is it about adding more poeple that makes a radical shift in coordination necessary?


The point is, more people would pose as a link, or connection to the higher order.

If I could make the worst possible analogy, I would say a U.S. base in X part of the world.

The point though, is not simply adding more people. The amount of people is irrelevant. It is the very structure in which they are organized that is of importance.


... but that's what they already do...


Who is "They"? I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific.

if you are implying the human animal adjusts material conditions to his ideas and thoughts, you're wrong. On the contrary, iti s the opposite, Ideas, thoughts, always change throughout the dynamic flow of the capitalist mode of production. Now we have this Neo Liberalist Humanism, before we had this Welfare State patroitism, and before that we had this social darwinism, etc. etc. etc.

Or, if you're implying Self Management is already sacrificed for such an order to keep it's place, this is quite a bizarre notion. For one, this order doesn't exist, and that, the problem is not that we don't have "Self management" in capitalism, the problem is the capitalist mode of production itself.


They're not?


No, not by any means.


To think something "can" happen cannot be utopian. To think it necessarily will, is utopian.


Wrong.

What is the difference between the Utopians who say that a Perfect Society can happen, and those who say it will?


But, more importantly, you're just asserting things again.


That's exactly what you've been doing, or anyone on this site has been doing. Again, you keep calling me out on "Asserting things" without evidence when, quite evidently the very structural nature of my post is clearly not meant to pose itself as something which requries empircal evidence.

I'm missing something, dear RSWU. I haven't any evidence to show me that each individual region would self regulate itself to altruistically assure that not only it's own ends are met, but the ends of other regions. Why should they? It is not difficult to see this is a recipe for disaster. If we lived in a world where no region needed another for resources, etc. Then I wouldn't be "Asserting" that it's ludicrous, if we lived in a world where Thoughts and Ideas pose as the basis for material conditions and the mode of production, then perhaps you'd be correct.



Anybody who thinks George Bush was a bad president is an idiot!
^That's the equivalent of the majority of your argument style so far.


But, if this was me, they would then go on to say "What makes you think George Bush was an idiot? He was!"

Then you could tell me "Yeah, he was an idiot, because X publicity stunt" and so on.

But you haven't done that. And when you have, I've addressed it as the Bush fan would "But he only did that because X!" and so on. You then dismissed it as a mere assertion.


No, but they will give direction. Leadership/management is still going to have to have discussions, dummy. :rolleyes:


Discussions aren't going to be the basis of the re building of a destroyed Bourgeois society, discussions won't be the means in which people will be motivated to do anything. This is why I asserted, that if mere Thoughts, Ideas, or "Discussions" were the basis of material conditions you would be absolutely correct.

To assert Self management is what requires evidence. What makes you so naive to think that people are just going to work, without management, without a means of producing things in mass numbers for other regions as well, because they have "Good morals"?


On purpose, just to prove a point? :lol:


Honestly, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even show up for work, I'd sleep all day. And when I got bored and actually decided to work, I'd do it in the laziest way possible. Unless, of course, I was given a reason to.

But the point isn't even that. The point is managing the work that is actually done in the factory. A Neutral, non working man, I'd imagine would be necessary to regulate the work of people who are actually working, or doing the job. What If I wanted the other guy to do my work, and so on?


Who said it does? Nevertheless they will express self-interest, and of this will be created social/class/classless interest.


You see, I could just dismiss that as an "Assertion", but I'm not like that, because obviously what you're saying doesn't necessarily require "Back Up". I know very well what you're saying, no?

Okay, on to the real point:

Class interest isn't the same as self interest. Class interest is a systemic contradiction. The problem here is yoru reduction of the defintion of class to a mere, literal Social relation, but not a social relation in the Marxist, Scientific concrete sense, i.e. A social relation to hte mode of production, but in the literal sense, relations to "Management", and "Owners". It also relies on the presupposion that Private Property will exist, though the difference is that it will just be owned by X entity. How can there be a class interest with no class? There can not. Revolutions, if you are a Marxist, are strictly the overthrow of one class by another, in the highest expression of it's interest. But if there are no classes, and you are asserting they have a class interest, you must also assume there are other classes.

And if you're simply asserting that a manager, or a delegete would be a class external from people working in whatever society, then:

You do not have an understanding of what defines class relations. The Bourgeois class isn't defined as it is because it's "Hierarchical". The point is not leveling out the distinctions between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, ultimately destroying hierarchy so everyone is a worker. The point is destroying the Bourgeoisie all together.

The Bourgeoisie is defined by it's:

-Ownership of Private Property

-As an agent of capital

-It's reliance on the proletarian class to sustain itself

-The remnants of the Merchant class from Feudalism.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how they choose to manage their factories, really.

Of course you'll just dismiss this as a mere assertion, I know. But this is Marxism, and this is how we define class.


Obviously... I'm glad to see you might actually make an argument tho... coming up... i'm hopeful...


That would, of course, depend on whether you agree with it or not. When you agree with what I say, you call it an argument, when it poses a threat to your Ideological structure, you dismiss it as a baseless asseriton.

I know this game, Revolution Starts with You, it's a common trick conjured by the Religious in their times of desperation.


Nope, no argument. Just another assertion. This grows boring...


I would say, of course, that there are several different regions and populaces, that of which have different interests (Not class interests, though) and different needs and wants, and that a Neutral Force, something, dare I say Cosmopolitan would act as a mediator of these wants and needs.

I would say that in a world of seven billion, there is a whole clusterfuck of problems, a clusterfuck of reactionary armed groups, etc. That of which could jepordize whole populations, and that by not having this unrelenting, forceful and "Authoritarian" power, that certain remnants of the old society would simply take it for themselves, just as the White Army attempted to.


What happens if and when the class enemy takes control, or gains massive influence, of that delegacy?


If it were some kind of Roman senate we were talking about, the concern would be legitimate. There is a big threat that the class enemy could sabatoge the proletarian dictatorship, which is why a form of Revolutionary Terror would have to be instituted in order to purge the class enemies influence from the state. Also, I have no qualms with the state being administrated in a sort of chaotic and mob rule type of manner.

I'm not a fan, by any means, of the Paris commune, but was this not similar? A dictatorship of proletarians controlling a "state"?

Of course, I'm not a fortune teller, I don't know what is going to be possible, what could possibly happen, etc.



I don't follow your point. Much aplogies.


you said X could lead to a society just as unsustainable as capitalism, and I pointed out that what makes capitalism unsustainable is not simply the population, the geographic issues, the several factions at hand, etc.

It's the internal systemic contradictions which are unique to capitalism.


Why would simply walking outside prove that?

Or am I just supposed to believe your assertions?


Because what you are asserting is a positive, something Utopian. That is the real assertion, and that's what requires evidence. I'd love, I swear, for you to be correct, Revolution Starts with You, and I hope you would be. That never by any means would get in the way of my views on things in general, though.


No


Yes, you are, Revolution Starts with You, and that's what this thread was about.


I have no magical blueprint, management or the lack thereof... and to do so would be, as you say, "Utopian."


Right, you just blindly accept that "Communism, as something that material conditions will adjust to". You leave it, you believe everything is going ot work out fine, and that the quesiton should be: Why not Self management?

You already pressupose that this model would be efficient, which is why you don't feel a need to assert anything.



What is different about making soft or hardware that makes one require management, and the other not?


Well, ranging from the Arts to technological experts, or, for example, movie producers, those things require hard, serious thought. Being in a room with dedicated game creators, or whatever, are obviously, as a given dedicated and enjoy what they are doing.

But when it comes to small, menial tasks, in a factory of maybe even one thousand people, where real critical thought isn't necessary to do what you are doing, that is where the problem of management resides. For example, as a stupid analogy, but none the less a functional one: I post on Rev Left, the postings I do here are probably far more than my school papers, or school work. I don't gain anything out of it, it's just something I like to do.

But I also have schoolwork, and I really need teachers to regulate my doings or else I will, most likely not do any of the work they assign me.

And please, don't use the argument that people will just "Like" to do factory work in the same way that people like Valve "Like" to do their work, it's a horribly idiotic argument to make, for obvious reasons. Christ, I cannot imagine how, on the long term scale, majority of factory workers will enjoy what they are doing, deem it a "Fun" hobby that they would dedicate their whole life to, and so on. Let's not put flowers on the act of cleaning shit, it's not fun, it should not be seen as such, it should, on the contrary, be just something that must be dealt with.

And then, the point also resides that in a factory, there is much more people, ranging from hundreds to thousands, and so on, unlikely doing computer work, which requires not even maybe thirty people at most.


Can you not follow a simple point, Rafiq? You just asserted your position. I have every reason to believe it, as I do any other position.


But I've backed up, with an argument, that the Revolution's failure was solely because of it's isolation. You said you had every reason to believe it was "Just as much" because of Authoritarianism, and this, this I claimed was bullshit, with an argument, of which you haven't addressed.

Here is the formula: If you want to equate my "Assertion" by saying it's opposite, and claiming it is just as legitiment, then you must do so with my arguments in regards as well.

that being said, when I give an explanation, you must also give an explanation for why it was "Authoritarianism". When I argue against this, when I state several factors, you must also do so as well, lest you are proving that your claim isn't legitiment at all, and that mine is.

This is how totality functions. You want to counter an "Assertion" with X, then you better be ready to counter the justification for it, or more importantly the addressing of your assertion. I addressed yours, you did not with mine, you simply asserted the opposite.


I admit, sometimes I make a point I agree with. Most of the time here I'm just making a point, any point, to show that I have every reason to believe it, as much as I have to believe yours.


Yet here, you don't have every reason to believe it. I have every reason to believe it simply because for one, I could say that it couldn't have been because of "Authoritarianism" because this fails to give us an explanation for why, what you call "Authoritarianism" was necessary, and why it was something that "Killed" the revolution.

I can easily argue that the revoltuion's isolation killed the revolution, simply because it was constantly under siege, isolated, and that it needed friends abraod, and it needed to adjust to the world market in order to survive as a country, and surpassing the capitalist mode of production wouldn't be possible given Russia's conditions (Small proletariat, Isolation, Famine, constantly under siege, etc.).

I have yet to hear an explanation for how Authoritarianism "Killed" the revolution. I could say that Workers dictatorship was stripped because it was necessary to save the Russian economy, that of which only had a minority of workers to begin with, and this could only be deterred should the revolution spread, which would make it easier to deal with the problems such as famine while at the same time a proletarian dictatorship existed (Because other proletarian dictatorships would join in effort, Industrialized economies would be of better use and so on).

Of course you may simply dismiss this as an "Assertion" because you don't agree with it.

Assertions = What you oppose.

Argument = What you have no qualms with, ideologically.

I know this game, very well at that.


So again, until you can actually make an argument, I have every reason to believe the collapse of the USSR was to do with "external factors" as much as I do "internal."


I've made an argument over and over again. You've just dismissed them as assertions because you don't agree with them. The collapse was due to factors external from "Authoritarianism" simply because Authoritarianism itself saved the Soviet state from getting obliterated by the white army. As a Marxist, I don't see how "Too much power" would counter a proletarian dictatorship, and I don't see how excess use of authority would either.

This was written in late 1917, even before the Treaty with the Germans: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm


Except I didn't blame those things. I said you've given me just as much reason to believe them as your theory.


Why don't you read my posts, then? It is well written within Marxist doctrine that Ideas, and Human behavior (Revisionism, "Bad Stalin" or "Authoritarianism) are reflections of material conditions and not predecessors of them.

If that is not enough, how about this "Batch of assertions": http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2421793&postcount=75


All valid points. However, this is just a diversion you've created in your own head. I never made this point, and we were discussing cooperation v managment.


Oh, so now you want to give up this argument and go back to the cooperative vs management argument.

Well yes, the Bolshevik experience has everything to do with this. You first dismissed my points as assertions and now that you have read what followed them, they are now "Valid points".


Perhaps... let's hope the next paragraph attempts to explain why...


Again, that would depend on whether you agree with it or not.


Nope, another assertion... :crying:


Well, I guess you don't agree, then.

How about this: Without the hegemonial ruthless status of the Bolshevik Party preserved by Authoritarianism, do you think another force in Russia would have taken hold? White Army, etc. ?

Who do you thin, even for ideological propaganda reasons, would uphold more so, to an extent, a dose of Proletarian rule: the White Army, or Stalinist Bolshevism? Of course it is Stalinist Bolshevism, as we saw in 1930's Workers had a great deal of control over their factories. Something I doubt would exist under Tsarism.


Because...?


Because the enemies of the proletarian class, should they succeed, will do the same if a force does not exist greater, more Authoritarian, more ruthless (Against them, of course) then them. In a firefight, do you not agree I'll need a better weapon to fight your Rocket launcher?

It is a given the Bourgeoisie would use, ruthlessly, use power. The point is the proletariat using it in a more dynamic, efficient and terrible way.


You keep saying this word... I do not think you know what it means...


As in Romanticism, etc.

I don't really think you know what I am trying to say when I say Utopianism.


The bourgiousie state can do this without strong central authority.

That's fucking ludicrous. Name me a Bourgeois state that doesn't have a strong central Authority. Especially in modern times. I have yet to even hear of when ever existing in History.


What makes a proletarian state different?


Exactly. The Bourgeoisie have a strong central authority in order to retain class power, what would make Proletarians different?


Proles too stupid or something?


No, just Humans and not all knowing Gods who can all simultaneously control and regulate their own destiny and history itself. No one can do such.


I just wish you could see that this is exactly true; and far more weighs in on the cooperative side of the debate than the commanded side (yours).


And why are you in a position to weigh it? You previously stated that I was just blindly asserting the same thing, but now, since you somehow agree with it, it's now a valid argument.

Can we now agree that my previous assertion that it had nothing to do with Authoritarianism itself is now valid, and not an assertion? If not, then don't tell me that bit in my post was anything but a mere assertion.


Perhaps. Why?


Well, the joint invasion of Russia on behalf of the Allies and their funding of the White army would not have happened, unless of course you think a Revoltuionary Proletarian State would invade Russia for fuck all reasons.

Without this joint invasion, without such a strong counter revolution, desperate economic measures would have not been in place, as there would have been a joint international effort to fix the Russian economy, and no international pressure to retain the capitalist mode of production.

:crying: I thought most people already knew this.

I guess not..


Perhaps. Why?


Because Authoritairanism was just one of the several measures the Bolsheviks deployed to protect the revolution, it in itself cannot be a moving force, or a factor that could be passed off as an explanation for the failure of the Revolution, as this has yet to tell us why Authoritarianism and the Revolution are some how dialectically opposed, or Antithetical to each other. This certainty never was the case for Bourgeois revolutions.


So what you're saying is the world wasn't ready for the Revolution, and the USSR was doomed no matter what?


No, the world was very ready for the revolution. The fate of the USSR was determined by the success of the revolutions elsewhere. Without this success, Russia would be doomed to Imperialist sabotage and counter revolution, resulting not only in a paranoid society, but a society constantly pressured to adopt capitalist reforms in order to coexist with the rest of the world.

But the USSR was formed in 1924, if that is the one you are implying, then yes, it was doomed from start.


How does this establish that central command, and even MORE than the soviet state had, is necessary for the Revolution to not fail?


Here is to establish it's necessity in the Soviet Situation (I've no idea why Lenin would bullshit this one)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

if we establish that the measures the Soviet State did and apply this to not just Russia, but the whole entire world, with a population far larger than the one in Russia, then yes, Central command would be of more necessity.

But really, the most important aspect is the spreading of the revolution.


Ya, except I didn't say this is how states are created... but how class relations develop.


You said class relations form in this specific case because the interests of the State would be antithetical to it's master, the proletarian class. I pointed out this is not the case at all for the Bourgeois class.

You said this was the process in which it would happen:


One creates an organ of supposed class protection, and the members of this new "class" use their position to protect themselves from public scrutiny or recall.


The average Power corrupts garbage. I responded with this:


One creates an organ for supposed protection of the Bourgeois class, and the members of this new "Class" use their position to protect themselves from the public scrutiny or recall.


Oh wait, I forgot, that isn't the case at all, and the Bourgeois state, no matter how Authoritarian, serves the interest of the Bourgeois class.


So, my post had nothing to do with the formation of a State, it had everything to do with the development of class relations. And we see there is no class contradiction in formation between the Bourgeoisie and it's state.


Do I?


In a way, almost unconsciously.

This thought that it's between "The average Joe" vs the Secret elite.


Well, I mean it's possible this is all the Matrix, but I'm going to make the assumption that reality exists... and people do as well.

What garbage. This totally ignores the point of my post. People certainly do exist, but The People do not exist. There is no "The".

It is not a question of People vs. The Government that rules over them. It is a question of class contradiction.


If you're saying hte people as some kind of homogenous body independant of the individual actors within it... I agree. That doesn't exist.


No, a homogeneous body of "average joes" whose class identity does not contradict their categorization with one and another does not exist.


Maybe you do.


I mean, you do almost subliminally. You may not formally or officially claim to hold those views, but it's clear this, this poisonous remnant of Bourgeois thought is well in existence within your posts.


I agree.


So why would the Proletarian state "corrupt", or, in terms which you like to use, "Serve itself and betray the proletariat" or whatever (Even though these are the same meaning)?

What ultimitally make the distinction between the corrupt likelihood of a Proletarian state (Which of course, to you, without limiting it's power is very likely) and a Bourgeois state (Which has the likelihood of Zero)?


I agree. ANd I'm pretty sure I've said if used correctly, I have no problem with it.


You just said it may be likely that the secret forged alliance between "The Managers" and the Proletarian state would serve themselves and not the Proletariat. Do you think "Too much Authoritarianism" is going to be a problem for a proletarian dictatorship?


So when are you going to make the argument that strong central command is necessary? So far you've asserted it in 1000 different ways.


I've made the argument several times over. One of them: Without the capitalist market dynamic that must be abolished, there is no "Self regulating Force" which could pose as a type of totality in society. Such would need to be imposed by the state, and I'm guessing a strong command would be necessary in order to impose it.



Not really.


we know, you dismiss what you disagree with as mere assertions, we know.

I could look at your post count and dismiss everything you've ever said as an assertion in the same way you do.


Yet that's exactly what you're doing; asserting that authoritarianism is necessary.

I'm also asserting that the drinking of water is going to be necessary for people, lest they die. That isn't at all a blueprint, it's just kind of common sense.


You're a utopian idealist, comrade.


But it's not a positive, it's a negative. Therefore I can't be a Utopian (A current of Romanticist thought) if it's something all together "Not good", but necessary.


You let me know when you make that argument.
Why does A lead to B?


Because Self Management implies human consciousnesses collectively has an authority over material social relations, of different regions and so on. Which is Utopian.

it sounds great, It sound wonderful, to have Autonomy, and so on. But in a lot of cases, it doesn't seem feasible to me at least, that a factory of one thousand can be administrated without a form of management to regulate the several ways in which work is distributed and done. Like you said, there are several interests there (Which aren't of class basis) which could conflict.


Now you're starting to reason it out... :thumbup1:


Why is it even necessary?


I can show you evidence that without strong managment prodution increases.


Show me.


People cannot create their own incentives?


Hell no. If you imply people can create their own incentives, it implies whatever reward they would get they already have, and it's up to them to regulate how they give it to themselves. That's really stupid.


I can show you evidence that they do, in fact, do that; and that production increases when one allows them to.


THE SURPIRZING SCIENZE OF WHAT MOTIVATEZ US! :laugh:

Not evidence, comrade. All that tells us is Jobs that require real, solid hard thought are done better without too much management, which is already common sense. It also tells us that menial factory jobs require evidence beyond that. I've already pointed out that indeed, yes, something like Valve do what they do because they like it, and nothing else.


Ok..


So what? Are you going to respond?


Have I?


Yes, supposed "Opposite" assertions, of which I have addressed. You haven't addressed my "Assertions" in a valid manner.


No, you just asserted a contrary position.

Ah, here we go. No I haven't. Anyone whose been reading this understands that.


Just like you are asserting that you destroyed arguments I didn't even make :laugh:


The point is this: The contra of my assertion I have destroyed, but my assertion itself you are incompetent in even addressing properly.


Supposing you had actually made any arguments, and they were better than mine (which is supposing I made an argument of my own)...

I have.


You beat me in a debate, therefore leadership is necessary? :confused:
I

If that's what the debate is about.


don't follow the logic.


It's not just me. There are countless historical examples.


See above.


I'm looking above and I see nothing of use to address this.


Why need they a 3rd party to settle this, especially a formal 3rd party seperate and above them?


X interests collides with Y interest. There is already a bias here, and this conflict cannot be resolved without either X overpowering Y or vice versa.


So, unless someone is there to beat the proles with a stick... we'll all just starve to death?


That's like how right wingers say "So unless we allow raping children, we are living in a sexually intolerant society"?

What the hell are you talking about, Revolution starts with You?


I have no reason to believe yours is. (Not to mention that "my" assertion was not my belief at all, but merely a contra of yours; which I was using to show that assertions establish nothing but the massively inflated ego of the jackass who thinks asserting things make them true)


I'm not here to make you believe anything, I'm simply defending my positions. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about your beliefs, RSWU.

If you don't want to make any arguments, why are we even discussing anything? What, to teach me a life lesson or something?


Why? You keep making these assertions, and then expect me to just believe it. I'm sorry Bishop Rafiq, but scientific minds don't work like that....


I think the very act of you doing this, of accusing me of just making assertions is a blind, dismissive assertion in itself.


I actually agree with this..
But why? Indulge me for a second... Why is this true?


Because this property is in itself essential to everyone, and class relations form in regards to who benefits from what, to some extent. That's the loose, Pre Marxian definition which isn't so scientific but has a grain of truth, none the less.


Class developed after feudalism? Or class developed because their wasn't a communist society to compete with?

Bad reading skills.

The Bourgeois Class developed after Feudalism.

It didn't develop because there was trouble in Utopia, because "Power corrupted" or some nonsense. Never has a class formed because "Power corrupted".


This really just reads like gibberish. You might want to rephrase it. Or class develops after oppression?


Class developes as something existent in X mode of production. When one class achieves the highest form of it's class interest (State power) It usually, historically, morphed into a different class that was an expression of a higher stage of the previous class.

But what makes a proletarian unique to this is simple: The highest expression of the interest of a proletarian (or a slave) is to abolish himself. This was not the case for the Merchant class in Feudalism, which sought to adjust society to it's interest, to rule in dictatorship so it could freely trade and own, and so on (all aspects of being a merchant in a higher sense).

The aspects of what makes a proletarian are quite simply exactly what the proletariat wants to abolish.


Who manages factory managment?

Hah, and that's where it comes down to, no?

I'll intrigue you: Those who are being managed.


Who coordinates the coordinators? In whos interest are they "managing" in the first place?


They are managing in the interest of the workers, of course. The workers assure they don't get out of line, but none the less on scale are still managed.

here is example: The Bourgeoisie is "Regulated" by the Bourgeois state, it doesn't to mind. But when something happens, when this state need be abolished out of desperation, the Bourgeoisie all untie together and form something like Fascism. In this same way, Workers would be managed by X force, but when shit happens, they'd get together in the factory and do something about it.


Why? Assertions, followed by more assertions. (Note that I agree with much of this anyway...)
It's like:
Raf: We must all buy horses!
Rev: Why?
Raf: Cuz horses are cool.
Rev: Are they
Raf: What are you an idiot? Everyone knows horses are better than cows.


Raf: We must buy all the horses!
Rev: Why?
Raf: Because if we don't, the enemy will take them from us and will have an advantage in Calvary!
Rev: Why?
Raf: You stupid or something?


Do you see the problem I'm having?


:laugh: I don't think it's a problem at all, on your behalf. It's just a means of dodging argument.


I think it's a little more complicated than that... but you just, once again, asserted this, so I'm just going to keep on believing whatever I want.


I'm no missionary, not here to change your views. It's not more complicated then that, really. Argue against it for a change?

I'd love to keep going on about why I'm right, but here I'm giving you open ground to formally establish an argument.


I think it's funny that the two arguments you've made both weigh in on the cooperative side... :lol:


Yeah, if we allow Revolution Starts With U to establish what an argument is and what isn't.

What is "Cooperative" you deem as an argument, because you agree with it. What is "Competitive" You dismiss as an assertion because you do not agree with it and you are either to lazy to confront it or simply can not.


I'm thinking if profit is the extraction of surplus labor,

This is only unique in capitalism where profit exists, or where Labor is utilized to enhance capital.


wealth is the expression of that; ie, it only exists if one person or class is exploiting the labor power of another.


What is this "Exploitation" beyond capitalism you speak of? How can it exist beyond capitalist social relations (Not before it, such as in Feudalism, but beyond it?).


Why not?


Because the required aid to deal with famine would be in hte hands of X entity which would have full autonomy over it. Sorry, in times of famine, I don't think relying on the benevolence of some autonomous collective will be enough. It must be forcibly taken.


Why can't decentralized authority deal with famine?

A decentralized Authority cannot exist as something universal, as it's decentralized and not centralized. Therefore, it can deal with famines only locally, and not, say, on the other side of the world.


(To be fair, centralized authority proved a massively collossal failure in that regard, did it not?)


Only because the capitalist mode of production was retained, which works better without a centralized authority that deals with distribution, production, and so on. The centralized authority in capitalism exists only to protect the bourgeois class and regulate the market.

And really, first you blame authoritarianism for failure of revolution, and now blame it for famine? How? You're gong to need some evidence for that. I want you to explain to me, in scientific terms, why it was Authoritarianism that precisely couldn't deal with famines, and not external factors. Every Bourgeois state is Authoritarian, and the Soviet Union is not an exception to this. The Soviet Union was a lot of things, but it just so happens it was "Authoritarian" aspects of it which couldn't deal with famine?

They used mathematics too... I guess mathematics proved a tremendous failure... Or did it have nothing to do with it?


Yes... one could only hope. Wouldn't that be ideal?


No, the Bourgeois state does this blindly and there isn't a problem. I don't need to "Hope" anything. It's not an "Ideal", it's an understanding of human social relations.


Why?


Ask daddy Makhno, who was a Libertarian forced to adopt brute Authoritarian measures. Or he did it because power corrupted in Libertarianism too?


Do you?
Why must it be seperate and above the common worker?


Because "The common worker' constitutes as a shit ton of people who have a variety of different ranging interests and situations.


Do I think that? What makes you think it won't?


Because for the same reason it didn't in the change from Feudalism to Capitalism.

Also because I'm a materialist.


It's not that I have a problem with it.

Obviously you do.

I
find it dangerous and needed to be carefully protected from tyrannical power grabbing.

Ha! You've just proved me right, Revolution Starts with you.

The assertion that tyrannical power grabbing is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend this being, the notion of the "Evil Caesar taking control" unique to Bourgeois thought!

"Tyrannical power grabbers" all serve a class, and have served a class before. Which one would they serve? The Bourgeois class? Such would be suppressed by Revolutionary Terror.

I made a good post about it either in this one above or in the one before. I forgot. But really, it's a concept of Liberalism. No single individual wants power, Revolution Starts With U. Being in power, as a politician, is not a good thing at all, and it generally sucks.

No one wants power. It's a hassle. Only classes want power, not because it's fun, but to suppress other classes. And this would assume a new class forms in proletarian dictatorship, which you would need "Evidence" for. Are you not just "Asserting" things?


Again, you need to differentiate between when I"m making an actual argument, and when I'm just asserting something other than what you're asserting for the sake of argument.

Same garbage to me. There isn't a clear distinction.


So you would prefer the proletarian be put back in 1850s conditions, or worse, to better facilitate revolution?


It would never be up to me. You should have asked: "Do you enjoy slaves being brutalized by slave owners, or ones that are treated well"? The point is that such a question itself is disgusting, the very existence of slavery (Or of capitalism) must be abolished, and by putting a human face on them, you are attempting to make them acceptable.


Would they? Why?


Fuck, really?

Are you really implying that Managers, today, are actually really the ruling class and not the Bourgeoisie? What makes managers they way they are, in nature, or them being either instruments or the same as the Bourgeois/Petty Bourgeois class?

This is almost laughable. So you think that Managers are the root of class contradiction, that they are the ones who have supreme control, and not the Bourgeois class. :blink:

Here's a note: Managers, even today, don't have a lot of power and aren't really that wealthy.

Wow.


Why not? I have every reason to believe that we could say "see, workers don't need ownership's leadership to be productive. We can do this on our own."
You do realize that most right wingers don't even know cooperatives exist, let alone succeed... right? Why do you think that is?

:confused: What the hell is your point? I was addressing something you said about the Taliban being played into our hands.

Anyway, most right wingers don't like Social Democrats, so? Fuck both.


I'd really say that's a straw man of their position. Somalia has plenty of statism and statist influence.


Wrong. Somalia is stateless and has been for a while. It's not a straw man position at all. According to them, (ron Paul is a misean) Somalia is a thriving paradise: http://mises.org/daily/2066



I agree. But I'm not going to say that RPvania is necessarily terrible until it has been seen, because to do so would be utopian.


On the contrary, to say that "Well, we need to see it first" is not only Utopian, it's completely absurd.

It doesn't take a genius to realize what is being proposed by Ron Paul would fuck a lot of things up. Marxian economists can actually probably calculate the disastrous outcome with mathematics.

I could explain to you as well, but I figured this could be a straw man. Should I explain why Ron Paul's will inevitability make us rot to shit faster?



Are they?
And why does me saying "both forms of slavery and terrible, but one is slightly better" making the case for slavery?

Christ, of course if you were a slave then the latter would be better. But for slavery, By saying one is better you are adding to the sustaining of slavery itself .



You would rather live in the US with it's relatively decentralized federalism?


Fucking shoot me now. This is now absurd.

The U.S. isn't "Decentralized Federalism". It's one of the most centralized states on Earth. Federalism doesn't mean decentralization either. Fuck, fuck. Did you really think that? You've disappointed me.... Man, mega, mega fucking facepalm.

And even if you were right, as if, as fucking if the U.S. having better living conditions has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that it's "Formally" decentralized Federalism (which it isn't). Even your Liberal champion Chomsky acknowledges that.


Do they?


Now this is becoming ridiculous. Of course proletarians produce their products. They don't. What, is that now an assertion as well?


Are they?


It was a reference to Lenin Quote: Democracy for the Slave owners.

yes, self management for the bourgeois class. Wonderful. And yes, htey fucking are. You don't need an "Argument" to come to such a conclusion.


Sure. I can see the positive aspect that it means people are fed up and the times are ripe for change;

Change in what direction? I'd rather have no change, if that is my option. Fucking hell, man.


I can use this as a political motivational tool to gather the anti-fascists.

Well I agree with Bordiga: Fuck "Anti Fascism".


Notice I don't have to praise the Nazi's at all, and can strongly criticize their actions.


You see a positive development in their actions, no? Because it's "harming" the bourgeois state.

But on whose behalf?


I'm sure not all Taliban are woman beaters...


Most, if not all. Do you want statistics?


For... workers?


Do you really think that Bourgeois democracy means autonomy for workers?


I do support bourgiousie democracy, as opposed to say monarchichal feudalism because of... gasp!... the "autonomy" of the people... relatively anyway.

Well, as a Marxist I support it because it is economically more efficient and relatively more progressive and stable, though nothing to do with "Autonomy". You're delusional, is all. You have illusions about Bourgeois Democracy.


That doesn't mean I concretely support it. It's to say that there are shades of color, not a world of black and white.

In the sense you put it, "There are no shades of color". We cannot have mixed feelings over Liberalism, or over Slavery.


It's not worth my time to look on all of human history as absolute shit.

So you're one of those Head up ass New age types? About being "Positive"?

being positive is disgusting, it literally means you have to constantly regulate your mode of thinking in order to look at positive aspects of a pile of feces. The point is to clean the feces, not say "Well, it's good for the environment" and so on. The "Positive" aspects of X feces are irrelevant to the fact it must be cleaned, and since they're irrelevant, they require no recognition.


It wil drive me crazy, and do me no good anyway.

You'll become like me. Better for you, I suppose.


That is to say, if I had to choose between Henry 2's England and FDR's America... that's an easy choice to make, comrade.

On what scale? To live in? Yes. But for what reason? Because one has a moral authority over another, or because one is in a better condition?

[Rafiq]

Except, I don't believe necessarily believe that; i leave open on the possibility. On the contrary, it is YOU who thinks it impossible, based on nothing more than the assertion that they can't... which would be... what again?

What gives you the right to hold the measuring point? Who is the one assrting anything here? The thread was about self management, that of which I am arguing against. You, apparently are arguing for.



Never said there was. I don't work well within such structures, but some do.


You don't work well within such structures? Tell me how you've lived and experienced them.... :rolleyes:


:lol: I enjoy a little confrontive discussion sometimes. No worries comrade :cool:


This should not, though, take away the essence of the argument. You're a cool guy but none the less you are asshole.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, but this is only unique within capitalist relations, and the capitalist mode of production. But even with this, there are still several isolated communities in existence.

Let's take for example the native american northwest populations, which were well isolated. Smallpox reached them long before Europeans did. How much harder of a time do you think Europeans would have had in colonizing the American northwest if the populations were 6x larger?



With the abandonment of the dynamic capitalist social relations, there isn't going to be this, radical organic re inventing of whole social structures, in which all society is devoured by X force (Capital) with no mercy. Without capital as a means of sociological totality, in whatever proletarian dictatorship to replace capitalism, a force similar would be of necessity to stretch to all corners of society.

Yes, but capital does this within a somewhat decentralized paradigm. What makes socialism different?



I remain, like I said, pessimistic that this force would be able to coexist with a Libertarian mode of organization.

Fair enough.



The point is, more people would pose as a link, or connection to the higher order.

If I could make the worst possible analogy, I would say a U.S. base in X part of the world.

The point though, is not simply adding more people. The amount of people is irrelevant. It is the very structure in which they are organized that is of importance.

So now you are saying libertarian structures don't even work in small groups?



Who is "They"? I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific.

The human animal.


if you are implying the human animal adjusts material conditions to his ideas and thoughts, you're wrong. On the contrary, iti s the opposite, Ideas, thoughts, always change throughout the dynamic flow of the capitalist mode of production. Now we have this Neo Liberalist Humanism, before we had this Welfare State patroitism, and before that we had this social darwinism, etc. etc. etc.

I guess I must have misunderstood you, because I would never imply that. I thought you were saying the opposite, that the human animal can't adjust itself to material conditions on its own, that it requires some outside force, or at least some inside force called "leadership." My mistake.



No, not by any means.

Source?



Wrong.

Right. (Honestly, I didn't even read what this is in response to yet. But if you can just make assertions, nothing is stopping me from either.)



What is the difference between the Utopians who say that a Perfect Society can happen, and those who say it will?

OIC... the difference is that one is non-dogmatic, and leave open a possiblity (like any good planner should). The other dismisses what is unlikely outright as an impossiblity. Maybe it's atopian, not utopian, or something.
It's like saying "God can exist," compared to "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist."



That's exactly what you've been doing, or anyone on this site has been doing. Again, you keep calling me out on "Asserting things" without evidence when, quite evidently the very structural nature of my post is clearly not meant to pose itself as something which requries empircal evidence.

Things which don't require material observation are useless. Even maths, tho generated through thought, still requires one to verify that 1+1 does indeed equal 2.

I'm missing something, dear RSWU. I haven't any evidence to show me that each individual region would self regulate itself to altruistically assure that not only it's own ends are met, but the ends of other regions. Why should they? It is not difficult to see this is a recipe for disaster. If we lived in a world where no region needed another for resources, etc. Then I wouldn't be "Asserting" that it's ludicrous, if we lived in a world where Thoughts and Ideas pose as the basis for material conditions and the mode of production, then perhaps you'd be correct.
1. If you have no evidence, than you have no right to dismiss the possiblity... not any kind of rational right to it anyway. You have the right, just like anyone has the right to tell falsehoods.
2. You don't have to be idealist to see that cooperation is more productive than coercion (not to say either is wrong or unnecessary). In fact I can provide evidence of it. Care me to?



But, if this was me, they would then go on to say "What makes you think George Bush was an idiot? He was!"

Then you could tell me "Yeah, he was an idiot, because X publicity stunt" and so on.

But you haven't done that. And when you have, I've addressed it as the Bush fan would "But he only did that because X!" and so on. You then dismissed it as a mere assertion.

You're again assuming I am on the side of your contra, rather than brining up your contra to make a point. But aside from that, you're still not seeing the point. When "I" said "because of x publicity stunt" I provided you with evidence. Now, saying "he only did that because of x" is counterevidence, which is something you have not been dong. In reality, your last words there would have been "no he's not."




Discussions aren't going to be the basis of the re building of a destroyed Bourgeois society, discussions won't be the means in which people will be motivated to do anything. This is why I asserted, that if mere Thoughts, Ideas, or "Discussions" were the basis of material conditions you would be absolutely correct.

I never said they would, but they do provide A material base, just like anything else that actually exists. Everywhere in this paragraph where you say "the," if you replace that with "a" they are all true. Discussions will provide "a" basis for the rebuilding of society; leadership will have to discuss which direction to go. Discussions will be "a" means in which people will be motived.
This is a tendency I have seen amongst materialist anti-idealists; they think that because idealism relies upon ideas, that even ideas are immaterial. That's an immaterialistic outlook. Ideas are just as physical as muscles.



To assert Self management is what requires evidence. What makes you so naive to think that people are just going to work, without management, without a means of producing things in mass numbers for other regions as well, because they have "Good morals"?

Or for the same reason I didn't beat up my brother if he ate the last cupcake; because it is in my interests to just let it go and avoid breaking nuckles, or getting a bloody nose.
But again, if you want, I can provide evidence (actually isn't the whole basis of this discussion on the evidence that self-managment CAN work?).




Honestly, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even show up for work, I'd sleep all day. And when I got bored and actually decided to work, I'd do it in the laziest way possible. Unless, of course, I was given a reason to.

And that reason is a gun to your face?


But the point isn't even that. The point is managing the work that is actually done in the factory. A Neutral, non working man, I'd imagine would be necessary to regulate the work of people who are actually working, or doing the job. What If I wanted the other guy to do my work, and so on?

Except, the Valve corporation seems to suggest that is not the case; not to mention all the other workplace democracies and cooperatives that operate in actual productive work.




You see, I could just dismiss that as an "Assertion", but I'm not like that, because obviously what you're saying doesn't necessarily require "Back Up". I know very well what you're saying, no?

I would prefer it if you did require me to provide evidence of that. Do people pursue self-interest, in fact? Does this abstraction of individual actions called society really coallesce into some shared interests?
Well, when I am hungry, I eat. Therefore some people at least sometimes do pursue self-interest. Lots of people eat, so there are ready-set places to go and get food. Therefore the abstraction of personal actions does coallesce into shared interests.


Okay, on to the real point:

Class interest isn't the same as self interest. Class interest is a systemic contradiction. The problem here is yoru reduction of the defintion of class to a mere, literal Social relation, but not a social relation in the Marxist, Scientific concrete sense, i.e. A social relation to hte mode of production, but in the literal sense, relations to "Management", and "Owners". It also relies on the presupposion that Private Property will exist, though the difference is that it will just be owned by X entity. How can there be a class interest with no class? There can not. Revolutions, if you are a Marxist, are strictly the overthrow of one class by another, in the highest expression of it's interest. But if there are no classes, and you are asserting they have a class interest, you must also assume there are other classes.

That's why I updated with "classless" interest. There will still be shared interests, this is intrinsic to human living (see above).
Also, I never asserted that private property would still exist just under the ownership of workers. You made that up.



And if you're simply asserting that a manager, or a delegete would be a class external from people working in whatever society, then:

I'm not saying they will. I'm saying they can. Again, leaving open a possiblity is not the same as supporting that possiblity.


You do not have an understanding of what defines class relations. The Bourgeois class isn't defined as it is because it's "Hierarchical". The point is not leveling out the distinctions between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, ultimately destroying hierarchy so everyone is a worker. The point is destroying the Bourgeoisie all together.

The Bourgeoisie is defined by it's:

-Ownership of Private Property

-As an agent of capital

-It's reliance on the proletarian class to sustain itself

-The remnants of the Merchant class from Feudalism.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how they choose to manage their factories, really.


I don't know where you got the idea I said it did... this does grow tiring Rafiq.


Of course you'll just dismiss this as a mere assertion, I know. But this is Marxism, and this is how we define class.

I could dismiss it as such, because you merely asserted it. But I, in fact, have the evidence to agree with it, and as such do.



That would, of course, depend on whether you agree with it or not. When you agree with what I say, you call it an argument, when it poses a threat to your Ideological structure, you dismiss it as a baseless asseriton.
Not at all Rafiq. When you make an argument, i see an argument. When you make an assertion, regardless of whether I agree with it, I see an assertion.



I know this game, Revolution Starts with You, it's a common trick conjured by the Religious in their times of desperation.

:lol: Ya, religous people are very inclined to argumentation, not assertion... :confused:



I would say, of course, that there are several different regions and populaces, that of which have different interests (Not class interests, though) and different needs and wants, and that a Neutral Force, something, dare I say Cosmopolitan would act as a mediator of these wants and needs.

I would say that in a world of seven billion, there is a whole clusterfuck of problems, a clusterfuck of reactionary armed groups, etc. That of which could jepordize whole populations, and that by not having this unrelenting, forceful and "Authoritarian" power, that certain remnants of the old society would simply take it for themselves, just as the White Army attempted to.


This is better.
There are several different population of differeing interests wants and needs, therefore a neutral force can act as mediator and provide common direction. This is an argument.
So why can't that neutral force be democratic decision making, as opposed to central command? Your argument further continues that; there are several armed populations of reactionaries that could simply take the Revolution for itself, therefore an unrelenting authoritarian power can safeguard the common direction against these types.

These are arguments. I'm proud of you :thumbup1:

The question now moves onto: what does the evidence say? Are there populations of armed reactionaries? Yes. Are there populations of differeing interests? Yes. Can authoritarian power safegaurd against reactionaries? That remains to be seen.

The question is; does this argument require your conclusion, rather than merely leave open the possiblity. I have every reason, still, to believe that democratic decision making can safeguard against these just as well, maybe even if not better; compare liberal democracy to fascist dictatorship.



If it were some kind of Roman senate we were talking about, the concern would be legitimate. There is a big threat that the class enemy could sabatoge the proletarian dictatorship, which is why a form of Revolutionary Terror would have to be instituted in order to purge the class enemies influence from the state. Also, I have no qualms with the state being administrated in a sort of chaotic and mob rule type of manner.

I have no problem, and leave open the possiblity of any type of proletarian dictatorship. The question is what is likely and/or effective types of proletarian dictatorships.


I'm not a fan, by any means, of the Paris commune, but was this not similar? A dictatorship of proletarians controlling a "state"?

I'm not quite as familiar with it as I should be. But I was under the assumption that it was a fairly libertarian expirment.


Of course, I'm not a fortune teller, I don't know what is going to be possible, what could possibly happen, etc.

That's kind-of been my point the whole time: we're not fortune tellers, and if the proletariat wants to mass organize on libertarian principles, or authoritarian ones, that is their right to do so.



Because what you are asserting is a positive, something Utopian. That is the real assertion, and that's what requires evidence. I'd love, I swear, for you to be correct, Revolution Starts with You, and I hope you would be. That never by any means would get in the way of my views on things in general, though.

I am saying their is the possiblity of a libertarian communism. You are saying proletarian dictatorship requires authoritarianism. You are asserting a positive, I am asserting a possiblity.

You never, after assuming that I have never lived in a Big City, provided any proof tho that "simply walking outside" proves your position.


Yes, you are, Revolution Starts with You, and that's what this thread was about.

Nope. This thread was about the Valve corporation specifically, and how we can or cannot use it's existence as a political or rhetorical tool.



Right, you just blindly accept that "Communism, as something that material conditions will adjust to". You leave it, you believe everything is going ot work out fine, and that the quesiton should be: Why not Self management?

Do I? You are right that I am asking "why not self-management." But wherein did I say that material conditions will adjust itself to communism, and not vice versa? In fact, is it not you saying that? What happens if Communism does prove to be libertarian when it finally arrives? Is it not Communism because it's not authoritarian?


You already pressupose that this model would be efficient, which is why you don't feel a need to assert anything.

Do I? Or am I simply asking you to prove that it is inneficient, regardless of my beliefs about it?



Well, ranging from the Arts to technological experts, or, for example, movie producers, those things require hard, serious thought. Being in a room with dedicated game creators, or whatever, are obviously, as a given dedicated and enjoy what they are doing.

But when it comes to small, menial tasks, in a factory of maybe even one thousand people, where real critical thought isn't necessary to do what you are doing, that is where the problem of management resides. For example, as a stupid analogy, but none the less a functional one: I post on Rev Left, the postings I do here are probably far more than my school papers, or school work. I don't gain anything out of it, it's just something I like to do.

Which, as you may or may not have noticed, I pointed out as something "you would do even without someone forcing you to work."


But I also have schoolwork, and I really need teachers to regulate my doings or else I will, most likely not do any of the work they assign me.

You've never learned anything outside of school? Dare I say you are assuming the perpetuality of the statust quo, especially when it comes to learning? That learning requires "schools" in the modern sense?
(Do you know that Cambridge has been without lectures or formal classrooms for a decade now?)


And please, don't use the argument that people will just "Like" to do factory work in the same way that people like Valve "Like" to do their work, it's a horribly idiotic argument to make, for obvious reasons. Christ, I cannot imagine how, on the long term scale, majority of factory workers will enjoy what they are doing, deem it a "Fun" hobby that they would dedicate their whole life to, and so on. Let's not put flowers on the act of cleaning shit, it's not fun, it should not be seen as such, it should, on the contrary, be just something that must be dealt with.

And who must force people to clean toilets and work in factories? How will we organize this "work nobody wants to do?" Will there in fact be a population that never has to do it, and decides when and if anyone else does?



But I've backed up, with an argument, that the Revolution's failure was solely because of it's isolation. You said you had every reason to believe it was "Just as much" because of Authoritarianism, and this, this I claimed was bullshit, with an argument, of which you haven't addressed.

What was that argument again (either one of them)?


Here is the formula: If you want to equate my "Assertion" by saying it's opposite, and claiming it is just as legitiment, then you must do so with my arguments in regards as well.

I feel that I, in fact, do. Care to show me where I have not?



This is how totality functions. You want to counter an "Assertion" with X, then you better be ready to counter the justification for it, or more importantly the addressing of your assertion. I addressed yours, you did not with mine, you simply asserted the opposite.

ANd this doubling down on assertion is getting us nowhere. That's my entire point. Neither of us should just be asserting things and getting pissed off when the other person doesn't believe it. (Not to say you got pissed off or anything :lol:)



Yet here, you don't have every reason to believe it. I have every reason to believe it simply because for one, I could say that it couldn't have been because of "Authoritarianism" because this fails to give us an explanation for why, what you call "Authoritarianism" was necessary, and why it was something that "Killed" the revolution.

Good thing my position is not that "the revolution died because of authoritarianism." I simply said you have given me just as much justification for taking one stance as the other; mere assertion without argumentation. An "argument" in the formal sense doesn't just mean two people discussing. "Argument" means you've tried to show some logical proof and provided observational evidence to verify your prepositions; something of which you've only done once in this thread, as far as I can see.


I can easily argue that the revoltuion's isolation killed the revolution, simply because it was constantly under siege, isolated, and that it needed friends abraod, and it needed to adjust to the world market in order to survive as a country, and surpassing the capitalist mode of production wouldn't be possible given Russia's conditions (Small proletariat, Isolation, Famine, constantly under siege, etc.).

This is an argument (one that I agree with, as a matter of fact. It was foolish of you to think I was of the position that authoritarianism killed the revolution, rather than my actual position that it played a role, tho minor compared to other factors). If the revolution is isolated, then it cannot withstand the constant seige. If it cannot withstand constant siege than it must adjust to the world market and compromise with standing capitalist governments. If it must compromise with capitalism, it will fail. (Is this a fair summation?) The Revoluiton was isolated, couldn't withstand constant seige, and had to adjust to the world market, therefore the Revolution failed. If then, therefore conclusion; argumentation.



Of course you may simply dismiss this as an "Assertion" because you don't agree with it.

In fact, I didn't.



Assertions = What you oppose.

No. Assertions = people just saying things as if they are true.



Argument = What you have no qualms with, ideologically.

No. Argument = provides prepositions that lead to a conclusion, preferably verified by observational evidence.


I know this game, very well at that.


Apparently not.




This was written in late 1917, even before the Treaty with the Germans: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

Evidence? Thank you.



Why don't you read my posts, then? It is well written within Marxist doctrine that Ideas, and Human behavior (Revisionism, "Bad Stalin" or "Authoritarianism) are reflections of material conditions and not predecessors of them.

I have been reading your posts. I said you've given me every reason to believe one side as the other, not that I agree with either side. I am actually, as seen above, more on your side than many would think (considering I'm usually thrown into the anarchist/libertarian camp).


If that is not enough, how about this "Batch of assertions": http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2421793&postcount=75

I'll check it out..



Oh, so now you want to give up this argument and go back to the cooperative vs management argument.

Considering I never claimed the position you have given to me, and have been trying to discuss cooperative v management the whole time.. yes.



Again, that would depend on whether you agree with it or not.

In fact, no. It depends on that, not at all.



Well, I guess you don't agree, then.

Who knows...


How about this: Without the hegemonial ruthless status of the Bolshevik Party preserved by Authoritarianism, do you think another force in Russia would have taken hold? White Army, etc. ?

I'm no fortune teller. Perhaps. A better question may be; was the Bolshevick faction in fact any better than that represented by the White army?


Who do you thin, even for ideological propaganda reasons, would uphold more so, to an extent, a dose of Proletarian rule: the White Army, or Stalinist Bolshevism? Of course it is Stalinist Bolshevism, as we saw in 1930's Workers had a great deal of control over their factories. Something I doubt would exist under Tsarism.

What's the point of this whole diversion?



Because the enemies of the proletarian class, should they succeed, will do the same if a force does not exist greater, more Authoritarian, more ruthless (Against them, of course) then them. In a firefight, do you not agree I'll need a better weapon to fight your Rocket launcher?

Not necessarily. You could just have better tactics.


It is a given the Bourgeoisie would use, ruthlessly, use power. The point is the proletariat using it in a more dynamic, efficient and terrible way.

Ok.




That's fucking ludicrous. Name me a Bourgeois state that doesn't have a strong central Authority. Especially in modern times. I have yet to even hear of when ever existing in History.

I guess it depends on how you're defining a "strong central authority." I would be more referring to a formal one, rather than informal. In that case, much of the Federalism of the states is formally comparitvely decentralized, as opposed to NAZI Germany, for instance.



Exactly. The Bourgeoisie have a strong central authority in order to retain class power, what would make Proletarians different?

Everything makes prole interest different than bourgiousie interest... their very existence makes them different.




No, just Humans and not all knowing Gods who can all simultaneously control and regulate their own destiny and history itself. No one can do such.

But do humans, as a species, not already "control and regulate" their own destiny, beyond the lines drawn by tribalism and nationalism?




And why are you in a position to weigh it? You previously stated that I was just blindly asserting the same thing, but now, since you somehow agree with it, it's now a valid argument.

Fair enough. I was willing to go along with your assertion in this instance. I'm not afraid to apologize for mistakes.


Can we now agree that my previous assertion that it had nothing to do with Authoritarianism itself is now valid, and not an assertion? If not, then don't tell me that bit in my post was anything but a mere assertion.

It was a mere assertion, and a mistake on my part to allow it to go on.




Well, the joint invasion of Russia on behalf of the Allies and their funding of the White army would not have happened, unless of course you think a Revoltuionary Proletarian State would invade Russia for fuck all reasons.

Without this joint invasion, without such a strong counter revolution, desperate economic measures would have not been in place, as there would have been a joint international effort to fix the Russian economy, and no international pressure to retain the capitalist mode of production.

See, now you're arguing :thumbup1: You're attempting to give me reasons for your position beyond "because I'm smarter than you."



Because Authoritairanism was just one of the several measures the Bolsheviks deployed to protect the revolution, it in itself cannot be a moving force, or a factor that could be passed off as an explanation for the failure of the Revolution, as this has yet to tell us why Authoritarianism and the Revolution are some how dialectically opposed, or Antithetical to each other. This certainty never was the case for Bourgeois revolutions.

Are we done with this little diversion? I would love to have the discussion, but its really irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm also more on your side than you seem to think, in regards to this issue. Tho I may prefer libertarian methods, I'm no dogmatic libertarian.




No, the world was very ready for the revolution. The fate of the USSR was determined by the success of the revolutions elsewhere. Without this success, Russia would be doomed to Imperialist sabotage and counter revolution, resulting not only in a paranoid society, but a society constantly pressured to adopt capitalist reforms in order to coexist with the rest of the world.




Here is to establish it's necessity in the Soviet Situation (I've no idea why Lenin would bullshit this one)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

if we establish that the measures the Soviet State did and apply this to not just Russia, but the whole entire world, with a population far larger than the one in Russia, then yes, Central command would be of more necessity.

But really, the most important aspect is the spreading of the revolution.

I'll give it a looksie. Here's to hoping there are arguments, not just assertions :thumbup1:




You said class relations form in this specific case because the interests of the State would be antithetical to it's master, the proletarian class. I pointed out this is not the case at all for the Bourgeois class.

I said no such thing. I said that a population is given more access to the power centers of society than the general populace and as such uses them to protect itself from the average populace.



The average Power corrupts garbage. I responded with this:

Where in that is there a "power corrupts" aspect? More likely, and I know this because it was what I said, power attracts the corruptable. If I feel like I know better than everyone else how they should live, it is in my interests to find a power center, sieze it, and attempt to force the populace to my will.
Cincinattus is an excellent example of someone being given free reign to power, and declining it for the good of the public. Obviously, power doesn't corrupt, necessarily anyway.


So, my post had nothing to do with the formation of a State, it had everything to do with the development of class relations. And we see there is no class contradiction in formation between the Bourgeoisie and it's state.
How do class relations develop?



In a way, almost unconsciously.

I think the Revolution will serve the proletariat, or it is not a true proletarian revolution. Do you agree or disagree with this position? Can a bourgiousie revolution serve the interests of the proletariat?


This thought that it's between "The average Joe" vs the Secret elite.

The history of all hitherto human society is a history of class struggle. So...



What garbage. This totally ignores the point of my post. People certainly do exist, but The People do not exist. There is no "The".

It is not a question of People vs. The Government that rules over them. It is a question of class contradiction.

I never implied otherwise.




No, a homogeneous body of "average joes" whose class identity does not contradict their categorization with one and another does not exist.

I agree.




I mean, you do almost subliminally. You may not formally or officially claim to hold those views, but it's clear this, this poisonous remnant of Bourgeois thought is well in existence within your posts.

Is it? I'm a bourgiousie thinker because you fail to use fundamental logic and argumentation?




So why would the Proletarian state "corrupt", or, in terms which you like to use, "Serve itself and betray the proletariat" or whatever (Even though these are the same meaning)?

It wouldn't... if it's a proletarian state. If it's not...


What ultimitally make the distinction between the corrupt likelihood of a Proletarian state (Which of course, to you, without limiting it's power is very likely) and a Bourgeois state (Which has the likelihood of Zero)?

We can just stop using "corrupt" because it doesn't explain anything. As you said, and I agreed, the bourgiousie state is not corrupt and does exactly what it is supposed to do. A prole state would too. The question is if it is a prole state, or something different.




You just said it may be likely that the secret forged alliance between "The Managers" and the Proletarian state would serve themselves and not the Proletariat. Do you think "Too much Authoritarianism" is going to be a problem for a proletarian dictatorship?

If it can be sold out by managers, it wasn't a prole state in the first place. Even in a prole state I think "too much authoritarianism" however we're defining that metric could be a problem. I'm no sooth sayer, so I have no idea if it will be.


I've made the argument several times over. One of them: Without the capitalist market dynamic that must be abolished, there is no "Self regulating Force" which could pose as a type of totality in society. Such would need to be imposed by the state, and I'm guessing a strong command would be necessary in order to impose it.
ugh... this isn't an argument...
For it to be more than a base assertion you would need to establish why there is no self regulating force, why one would be needed, and why only a strong central state can do that. You're just asserting that all this is true, as if it's self-evident.
"For society to work there must be a self regulating totality, because elsewise divergent interests will establish competing directions and break down the structural integrity which brings stability. Without the capitalist market metric, something else must provide. Therefore, a strong central state is necessary to bring cohesion to the general populace."
That would be an argument; something your "opponent" could actually check and argue against. Just saying "things will fall apart without the state" leaves your opponent with nothing but to say "no it won't."
Had you made the argument, like above, I could check your facts. Must there be a self-regulating totality? Do competing interests break down the structural integrity of society? Etc, etc...



we know, you dismiss what you disagree with as mere assertions, we know.

In fact, I don't.



I could look at your post count and dismiss everything you've ever said as an assertion in the same way you do.

You could try..



I'm also asserting that the drinking of water is going to be necessary for people, lest they die. That isn't at all a blueprint, it's just kind of common sense.

As long as you are stating premises which lead to a conclusion, I have no problem. What you have consistently done (almost universally until this post I am responding to now) is just state the conclusion.




But it's not a positive, it's a negative. Therefore I can't be a Utopian (A current of Romanticist thought) if it's something all together "Not good", but necessary.

I always thought "utopian" meant getting to socialism by unscientific, ie idealist, means; as opposed to Marxist socialism, which is supposedly established on scientific principles (you know, argumentation and evidence). I thought this was the case because people make the deliniation between "scientific socialists" and "utopian socialists."

You had been merely asserting the need for strong central authority, as if the other were an impossibility with no evidence to back up your claim. This is unscientific, and therefore I call utopian.



Because Self Management implies human consciousnesses collectively has an authority over material social relations, of different regions and so on. Which is Utopian.

It does no such thing. I mean, sure, if I were to say things "must be" libertarian, it would imply human choice can supercede material reality... it would just as utopian as asserting that things "must be" authoritarian.

it sounds great, It sound wonderful, to have Autonomy, and so on. But in a lot of cases, it doesn't seem feasible to me at least, that a factory of one thousand can be administrated without a form of management to regulate the several ways in which work is distributed and done.
Except this happens right now in workplace democracies. Would you care to see the evidence?



Show me.

I'll post it after I finish with this. :thumbup1:



Hell no. If you imply people can create their own incentives, it implies whatever reward they would get they already have, and it's up to them to regulate how they give it to themselves. That's really stupid.

It wouldn't imply that at all. It would imply that people have choices, and make them. I want weed, which creates an incentive for money; so I find money. I didn't need a strong central command to have a want for weed. I create my own incentive.




THE SURPIRZING SCIENZE OF WHAT MOTIVATEZ US! :laugh:

And?


Not evidence, comrade. All that tells us is Jobs that require real, solid hard thought are done better without too much management, which is already common sense. It also tells us that menial factory jobs require evidence beyond that. I've already pointed out that indeed, yes, something like Valve do what they do because they like it, and nothing else.

Again, I'll provide further evidence once I'm done here.




So what? Are you going to respond?

Not really. Why should I?




Yes, supposed "Opposite" assertions, of which I have addressed. You haven't addressed my "Assertions" in a valid manner.

That wasn't my point in the first place. I simply wanted to address your assertions and how you think they are arguments.




Ah, here we go. No I haven't. Anyone whose been reading this understands that.

I'm sure they don't, or they do. What I do know is that "people agree with me" does not establish truth.




The point is this: The contra of my assertion I have destroyed, but my assertion itself you are incompetent in even addressing properly.

1) No. You haven't
2) No. I'm not




I have.

Nope.


I

If that's what the debate is about.

So if I understand you correctly you are saying "I won a debate therefore I am right" establishes that something is true?




It's not just me. There are countless historical examples.

And now you provide your evidence. I have been told there are countless examples of miracles... I've yet to see one.




I'm looking above and I see nothing of use to address this.

Ya, that's a problem, isn't it?




X interests collides with Y interest. There is already a bias here, and this conflict cannot be resolved without either X overpowering Y or vice versa.

People cannot compromise?




That's like how right wingers say "So unless we allow raping children, we are living in a sexually intolerant society"?

Ok, so; without someone beating us with a stick we will never do anything productive? What's your point, if it is not that we need a strong central command seperate and above us to make civilization work?


What the hell are you talking about, Revolution starts with You?

I could ask the same...




I'm not here to make you believe anything, I'm simply defending my positions. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about your beliefs, RSWU.

If you don't want to make any arguments, why are we even discussing anything? What, to teach me a life lesson or something?

I don't want you to learn "what" to think, rather I would like to see you learn "how" to think.




I think the very act of you doing this, of accusing me of just making assertions is a blind, dismissive assertion in itself.

It isn't an assertion because I have made the argument that unless the premises lead to the conclusion, it is not an argument. I didn't just say they are assertions, I explained why; because they are just conclusions with no prepositions, let alone prepositions that lead to the conclusion.




Because this property is in itself essential to everyone, and class relations form in regards to who benefits from what, to some extent. That's the loose, Pre Marxian definition which isn't so scientific but has a grain of truth, none the less.

Now, do you see? "X is Y" is an assertion. "X is Y because A + B" is an argument.




Bad reading skills.

Bad writing or reasoning skills more likely.


The Bourgeois Class developed after Feudalism.

There were no bourgiousie in Roman times? Perhaps there was not, I'm just clarifying your position. But you didn't say "bourg class." You said simply "class" in general. I can't be at fault for not assuming you meant bourg when you just said class. True, you later refined it to just the bourgiousie. But at the start you merely said "class relations develop... through the development of the mode of production in an unintentional manner."



Class developes as something existent in X mode of production. When one class achieves the highest form of it's class interest (State power) It usually, historically, morphed into a different class that was an expression of a higher stage of the previous class.

Word.


But what makes a proletarian unique to this is simple: The highest expression of the interest of a proletarian (or a slave) is to abolish himself. This was not the case for the Merchant class in Feudalism, which sought to adjust society to it's interest, to rule in dictatorship so it could freely trade and own, and so on (all aspects of being a merchant in a higher sense).

The aspects of what makes a proletarian are quite simply exactly what the proletariat wants to abolish.

Word.



Hah, and that's where it comes down to, no?

Not only this; but it's a valid concern.



I'll intrigue you: Those who are being managed.

So in fact, what you are saying, is that it will be self-management through delegation?




They are managing in the interest of the workers, of course. The workers assure they don't get out of line, but none the less on scale are still managed.

So the working class is managing the managers, which manage the working class... but somehow the working class is not managing itself?


here is example: The Bourgeoisie is "Regulated" by the Bourgeois state, it doesn't to mind. But when something happens, when this state need be abolished out of desperation, the Bourgeoisie all untie together and form something like Fascism. In this same way, Workers would be managed by X force, but when shit happens, they'd get together in the factory and do something about it.

So what you are saying is they will self-manage a response to internal and external threats?




Raf: We must buy all the horses!
Rev: Why?
Raf: Because if we don't, the enemy will take them from us and will have an advantage in Calvary!
Rev: Why?
Raf: You stupid or something?

Except you never made that argument (bolded), until about halfway through this post. Had you, this thread would be going in a different direction.



I'm no missionary, not here to change your views. It's not more complicated then that, really. Argue against it for a change?

Human "nature" as far as it can be defined, cannot simply be broken down to "eat shit fuck." This is so because, although we may have genetic predispositions to behaviors (like addiction or wife beating), we can overcome them; addicts can get clean, violent people can peace out. Therefore, human "nature," again as far as it can be defined, is both eat shit fuck and smoke think, but also choice.


I'd love to keep going on about why I'm right, but here I'm giving you open ground to formally establish an argument.

Why should I need an argument to say and show that yours are bogus?




Yeah, if we allow Revolution Starts With U to establish what an argument is and what isn't.

Or basic argumentation theory, which says there must be premises which lead to the conclusion, not just conclusions.


What is "Cooperative" you deem as an argument, because you agree with it. What is "Competitive" You dismiss as an assertion because you do not agree with it and you are either to lazy to confront it or simply can not.


So what you are saying is "RSWU is afraid to confront my arguments, therefore they are true." Is this correct?



This is only unique in capitalism where profit exists, or where Labor is utilized to enhance capital.

Ya, capitalism is only unique to capitalism. Duh.



What is this "Exploitation" beyond capitalism you speak of? How can it exist beyond capitalist social relations (Not before it, such as in Feudalism, but beyond it?).

Where did I say anything of the sort? I am saying state capitalism is capitalism; that the USSR was never a proletarian state, nor has anything of the sort existed on the face of the planet.



Because the required aid to deal with famine would be in hte hands of X entity which would have full autonomy over it. Sorry, in times of famine, I don't think relying on the benevolence of some autonomous collective will be enough. It must be forcibly taken.

Sorry, in times of famine, I don't think relying on the benevolence of the central authority will be enough. This should be painfully obvious by the famines in the USSR and China, under the hands of a strong central (capitalist) authority.




A decentralized Authority cannot exist as something universal, as it's decentralized and not centralized. Therefore, it can deal with famines only locally, and not, say, on the other side of the world.

I'm glad, again, that you're finally making arguments for your position here. Now I can argue against it. My first question would be; is centralization necessary to deal with inter-regional problems? Could not the working class democratically decide to send aid to the famished regions?




Only because the capitalist mode of production was retained, which works better without a centralized authority that deals with distribution, production, and so on. The centralized authority in capitalism exists only to protect the bourgeois class and regulate the market.

And yet it still proved a massive failure in dealing with famine.

And really, first you blame authoritarianism for failure of revolution, and now blame it for famine?
Again, I never once blamed authoritarianism for the failure of the revolution. Not once have I said anything of the sort.
And I don't blame it for famine. I blame the Soviet state, specifically (regardless of whether it was or was not authoritarian enough) for not responding to famine effectively. Not in any way do I blame it for causing it.

How? You're gong to need some evidence for that.
I don't need evidence for positions I never supported.



They used mathematics too... I guess (those specific practitioners of) mathematics proved a tremendous failure... Or did it have nothing to do with it? (bolded part added by me)

I guess they did prove a massive failure. Imagine that; failures are proof of failures. Any more tautologies you want to discuss today?



No, the Bourgeois state does this blindly and there isn't a problem. I don't need to "Hope" anything. It's not an "Ideal", it's an understanding of human social relations.

There's not a problem with this in the bourgiousie state? What, then, are we experiencing right now? Is it not a clash between the more liberal and conservative factions of the bourgiousie? Or do the Tea Party types accurately represent the right, and the OWS types accurately represent the left?



Ask daddy Makhno, who was a Libertarian forced to adopt brute Authoritarian measures. Or he did it because power corrupted in Libertarianism too?

I'm not familiar with the specifics, nor would I ever assert that "power corrupts." (Especially considering, if he ruled in a libertarian manner, he wouldn't have ruled, therefore he wouldn't have had power, and how could it have corrupted him?) More importantly, you put the position of "power corrupts" on me, and insisted on diverging almost the entirety of your post to refuting a position I never supported.




Because "The common worker' constitutes as a shit ton of people who have a variety of different ranging interests and situations.

I thought you just said we were all robots to the means of production and genetics, therefore the only interests the proletariat could have would be stateless classless moneyless society. Or are you now chaning your mind that there is more to human nature beyond "eat shit piss fuck and means of production?"


Ha! You've just proved me right, Revolution Starts with you.

The assertion that tyrannical power grabbing is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend this being, the notion of the "Evil Caesar taking control" unique to Bourgeois thought!

I don't know what just happened to my font; it just changed and I can't get it to go back :lol:
Either way; how can anything involving Ceaser be "unique to bourgeois thought?"


"Tyrannical power grabbers" all serve a class, and have served a class before. Which one would they serve? The Bourgeois class? Such would be suppressed by Revolutionary Terror.

One could hope. Didn't seem to work in the USSR, regardless of whether the causes were internal or external.


I made a good post about it either in this one above or in the one before. I forgot. But really, it's a concept of Liberalism. No single individual wants power, Revolution Starts With U. Being in power, as a politician, is not a good thing at all, and it generally sucks.

"No single individual wants power" really? You're really saying this? Do you talk to people? Just ask someone "if I made you king, what would you do" and they have all sort of answers that are not "abdicate" (tho, to be fair, some do say that).


No one wants power. It's a hassle. Only classes want power, not because it's fun, but to suppress other classes. And this would assume a new class forms in proletarian dictatorship, which you would need "Evidence" for. Are you not just "Asserting" things?

If only classes want power, power would have never developed, nor classes. Power is an expression of class, with no class, there really is no power to speak of; meaning "power over" someone. If society was stateless until about roughly 5k bce, what made classes develop, and therefore power develop, if you can only have the want for power within a class society?




It would never be up to me. You should have asked: "Do you enjoy slaves being brutalized by slave owners, or ones that are treated well"? The point is that such a question itself is disgusting, the very existence of slavery (Or of capitalism) must be abolished, and by putting a human face on them, you are attempting to make them acceptable.

If I were a slave I would prefer a nice slave master if abolishing slavery is not, at that time, a possiblity. It has nothing to do with making them acceptable, and everything to do with empathizing (meaning putting myself in there position) with actual members of the dominated class.
Simply put, as a proletarian, I prefer living here in the states to living in China. I enjoy playing WoW for more than 3 hours a week sometimes. I enjoy shorter working hours and food stamps. And I don't have the possiblity, at this present moment, of abolishing capitalism.




Fuck, really?

I guess so...

Are you really implying that Managers, today, are actually really the ruling class and not the Bourgeoisie?
No, where did I say that?


What makes managers they way they are, in nature, or them being either instruments or the same as the Bourgeois/Petty Bourgeois class?

It would be insane to deny that
1. Some managers are, in fact, part of the bourgoisie.
2. The likelihood of an individual manager joining the bourg against the proles is high. The likelihood of a manager being a manager because he wants to be bourgoisie in the future, is just as high.


This is almost laughable. So you think that Managers are the root of class contradiction, that they are the ones who have supreme control, and not the Bourgeois class. :blink:

You have a penchant for putting word in other people's mouths, eh?


Here's a note: Managers, even today, don't have a lot of power and aren't really that wealthy.

Some managers don't have a lot of power. Some managers are not that wealthy. SOme managers do, and are. Regardless, if you change the fundamental nature of society, you obviously change the fundamental nature of management, wherein they may (not will) have the possiblity of codifying all property in the name of management, under the state, and establishing themselves as a neo-bourgoisie.
For example, let us hypothesis this future society; management is appointed by the state, which elects members of the state. The state establishes that management is (to borrow an Orwellian phrase) "more equal" and entitled to the fruits of labor more than and before common labor. If workers are to complain, beyond what this new state-capitalist regime can allow, they wil be beaten with stick and/or shot with guns.
In this society, it is clear that management IS the ruling class, and extracts profits from the labor of workers.

Please don't act as if I am saying this will be the natural outcome of authoritarianism, for I am not. I am saying it is not unreasonable.



:confused: What the hell is your point? I was addressing something you said about the Taliban being played into our hands.

That, in our role as political activists for communism (not in our role as communists) we can use cooperatives as propaganda tools.


Anyway, most right wingers don't like Social Democrats, so? Fuck both.

Some right wingers are open to reasonable debate, and may change their tune if exposed to evidence of the efficacy of worker self-rule.




Wrong. Somalia is stateless and has been for a while. It's not a straw man position at all. According to them, (ron Paul is a misean) Somalia is a thriving paradise: http://mises.org/daily/2066

Then I was wrong. I don't claim to know or speak for thier position.



On the contrary, to say that "Well, we need to see it first" is not only Utopian, it's completely absurd.

Nobody is in a position to say what will or will not definitely happen in a future society. The real absurdity is to think they are. There are many reason to say why it is not likely that ancapistan would be efficient. But there is not one reason in the world to say that it definitely will not be.



I could explain to you as well, but I figured this could be a straw man. Should I explain why Ron Paul's will inevitability make us rot to shit faster?

If you want. I don't really see what it has to do with the topic at hand. Again, I don't claim to care about their position, and find it just as absurd as you.



Christ, of course if you were a slave then the latter would be better. But for slavery, By saying one is better you are adding to the sustaining of slavery itself .

Damn those slaves for envying other slaves with better masters! Slavery would have been abolished thousands of years before it was if they had not made that distinction! :rolleyes:



Fucking shoot me now. This is now absurd.

That's far more your style than mine, comrade ;)



The U.S. isn't "Decentralized Federalism". It's one of the most centralized states on Earth. Federalism doesn't mean decentralization either. Fuck, fuck. Did you really think that? You've disappointed me.... Man, mega, mega fucking facepalm.

Is the US more or less centralized than China?


And even if you were right, as if, as fucking if the U.S. having better living conditions has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that it's "Formally" decentralized Federalism (which it isn't). Even your Liberal champion Chomsky acknowledges that.

Chomsky is my champion?




Now this is becoming ridiculous. Of course proletarians produce their products. They don't. What, is that now an assertion as well?

I can only go back so far using the posts in my reply page, and am not sure what brought this topic up. I am also too lazy to load another page and find it.




It was a reference to Lenin Quote: Democracy for the Slave owners.

I'm familiar with the quote.


yes, self management for the bourgeois class. Wonderful. And yes, htey fucking are. You don't need an "Argument" to come to such a conclusion.

If you didn't have an argument for that conclusion, than it definitionally was not a conclusion, but a mere assertion. What don't you get about that? Nothing is "self-evident," not even the existence of reality.



Change in what direction? I'd rather have no change, if that is my option. Fucking hell, man.

Change in a more proletarian direction, if enough class consciousness can be mustered in that situation. The existence of these neo-nazis kidnapping a senator's child shows that the system is not providing, and requires updating. We can use this to foster a revolutionary spirit.




Well I agree with Bordiga: Fuck "Anti Fascism".

It's better than pro-fascism. It's not as if the world goes fascist, or collapse happens, or in any way the proles are put in a situation of misery and therefore revolutionary spirit develops. In fact, revolutionary spirit can often develop in times of (relative) progress and abundance... for instance post WW1 America, which saw probably its biggest gains for the labor movement in US labor history.



You see a positive development in their actions, no? Because it's "harming" the bourgeois state.

I see a development that can be used positively, not a positive development. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as they say.


But on whose behalf?

Yes, that is my point. Can we use the existence and prosperousness of cooperatives for the betterment of the proletariat... even if just as propaganda?




Most, if not all. Do you want statistics?

Yes, and sound ones if you can provide it.




Do you really think that Bourgeois democracy means autonomy for workers?

Compared to Feudal monarchy? Of course I do.




Well, as a Marxist I support it because it is economically more efficient and relatively more progressive and stable, though nothing to do with "Autonomy". You're delusional, is all. You have illusions about Bourgeois Democracy.

What makes it more progressive and efficient? Of course capitalism is anything BUT more stable than feudalism, but that is besides the point. It is more progressive and economically more efficient. But far less stable. The so-called "business cycle" was relatively rare in feudal societies.

Define "more economically efficient" and "progressive" (which are, btw, far less scientific words to use than autonomy), please.



In the sense you put it, "There are no shades of color". We cannot have mixed feelings over Liberalism, or over Slavery.

So then who cares whether capitalism is more progressive than feudalism? We cannot even support capitalism for that according to your standards. But yet, of course we can, and should. A scientific mind deals with specific situations, especially when such situations cannot be universalized. It does not hold up lofty ideals and dismiss anything short of them.



So you're one of those Head up ass New age types? About being "Positive"?

I don't prefer to be pissed off, even, no especially when I see a problem that needs figured out. If that is what you are asking, yes. I don't buy into much "new age" woo woo. But being happy? Ya, I want that.


being positive is disgusting, it literally means you have to constantly regulate your mode of thinking in order to look at positive aspects of a pile of feces.
Feces can be used to fertilize. It can also be used to study the health of the pooper. There are positives to feces.

The point is to clean the feces,
One does not have to be pissed at the shit to want to clean it.

not say "Well, it's good for the environment" and so on.
Leaving it laying in the middle of the floor is not good for the environment. Beyond that, leaving it in my front yard is not clean, and makes me look bad to my neighbors.


The "Positive" aspects of X feces are irrelevant to the fact it must be cleaned, and since they're irrelevant, they require no recognition.

So just throw the shit in a pile, rather than figuring out if we can use it to our advantage? Christ we'd still be hunter gatherers with this kind of thinking.




You'll become like me. Better for you, I suppose.

Not really.



On what scale? To live in? Yes. But for what reason? Because one has a moral authority over another, or because one is in a better condition?
Who said cooperatives have moral authority over corporations?

[Revolution starts with U]

What gives you the right to hold the measuring point? Who is the one assrting anything here? The thread was about self management, that of which I am arguing against. You, apparently are arguing for.

I am arguing for the use of self-management for propaganda purposes, yes. I am not arguing for self-management as morally authoritative, or as socialism.

I am mostly just arguing for the use of the basics of argumentation theory; that there must be premises, supported by observational evidence, which logically lead to a conclusion.



You don't work well within such structures? Tell me how you've lived and experienced them.... :rolleyes:

Catholic schools, comrade :thumbup1:



This should not, though, take away the essence of the argument. You're a cool guy but none the less you are asshole.
That may or may not be true. I have a very small, select set of friends. I worry not, at any time, whether people think I am an asshole. But I try my best not to be.

You're cool too Rafiq. I don't care for much of your argument style, and some of your politics I disagree with. But I've learned from you, believe it or not :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

Bah, alright, I'll respond one last time, but that's it. The discussion has now been lost to oblivion, and it is of little use anymore. I didn't read it all but it would seem that we're just going in circles and this thread here has been consuming my time on Rev Left to a great extent...

Just give me some time, I've been feeling a little sick lately. Maybe tommarow, or the day after (Most likely) when I feel better and my head stops hurting and school stops fucking me.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, sorry... forgot I was supposed to provide evidence of the efficacy of self-management. It was a rather long post I was responding too. Wed is a busy day for me, but I'll have it as soon as I can.

[Rafiq]

How about we just fucking call it quits. At least I am. I can respond, but I don't see the point, it's a circular argument. Hey, it looks like I'm being a defeatist, but just enjoy the fact that I'm not going to respond to just 1/2 of your post (Like Ismail) and move on. Time consuming it is. Who knows, maybe we'll cross paths in another thread and have a giant clusterfuck argument that doesn't spin out of control into useless shit. Who knows..

[Revolution starts with U]

no worries

[Rafiq]

I just feel like I'm not paying any attention to other threads cuz this

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Nial Fossjet]

Here's an article (http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/) by their resident economist, Yanis Varoufakis. It's pretty long so I'll skip to the part where he mentions Marx.


3. What are corporations for?

Before we try to shed analytical light on Valve’s internal workings and management structure, let us recount what four key political economists had to say about the role and function of firms. This is how they answer the basic question: What are firms for?

Adam Smith

Smith begins his Wealth of Nations (1776) with an account of how a pin-making firm manages to produce so many pins, i.e. efficiently, via the utilisation of a clever division of labour. Clearly, for Smith, firms are the locus of the division of labour. Firms are good for the purpose of creating economies of scale and thus of making it possible to reduce costs inexorably while boosting output geometrically. However, firms sees a threat to the Good Society because an inordinate success of one firm poses a threat to competition, the solvent of market (or monopoly) power that constantly undermines the invisible hand. For that reason, Smith was adamantly opposed to the idea of limited liability, to corporations in other words. In short, firms were essential as loci of divided and synchronised labour but their ultimate contribution to society was predicated upon being kept small, free of the division between ownership and control that is the feature of modern corporations and, lastly, engaged in constant, cut-throat competition with one another.

Karl Marx

Marx posed a simple question: Where do firm profits come from? If Smith’s beloved competition works well, prices will crash to the level of per unit costs and profits will wither. So, is profit only possible when the market is insufficiently competitive? His answer was in the negative. He believed that firms can profit even when competition is as cut-throat as Smith had wanted. The key to his theory was the dual nature of labour: Employers hire labour time from selected employees (and pay a competitive wage for it – a standard price for labour time that is determined at the labour market) but, once production begins, firms receive from workers another kind of labour: the employees’ energy, work, ideas etc. Notice the ‘gap’: employers they pay for ‘labour time’, for which there is an established market and a market-determined price (the wage), but receive something different – labour’s fruits, which can and, indeed, must have a value in excess of that of the ‘labour time’ firms pay for. That difference, between the value of the type of labour received and the type of labour paid for, is the source of profit (and is known in the ‘trade’ as surplus value). In short, for Marx, firms operate as profit machines, through the generation of surplus value. Pure exchanges cannot sustainably generate profits since arbitrage is bound to eat into the latter. Firms are the realms of extractive power. It is where surplus is generated, before turning into rent and interest payments, with the residual equalling the firm’s profit.

Joseph Schumpeter

Unlike Smith, Schumpeter thought that progress and social well-being could not result from cut-throat competition between small firms that squeezes their profits to zero. He thought, instead, that corporations wielding monopoly (or oligopoly) power were the true agents of progress. For if long term improvement, and ultimately much lower costs, require expensive R&D, only monopoly-oligopoly profits can finance it. Adopting an evolutionary perspective (one that he admits to having borrowed from Marx – even though the two men were politically at odds), he conceived of large corporations as dinosaurs struggling to survive. Most become extinct, victims of upstarts with brighter ideas, better management structures and fresher products. In turn, these upstarts grow large and unwieldy and are, in time, undermined by hungrier, leaner, more innovative competitors. And so on. In short, Schumpeter emphasised the importance of the corporations’ monopoly-oilogopoly power from the perspective of cost-destroying innovations. Firms, corporations in particular, are seen as case studies of central planning in a see of competitive markets. While Schumpeter would say that companies like GM or Microsoft were not much different to Soviet style planning operations, he hoped that the marketplace within which they functioned would impose upon them Darwinian pressures that would, eventually, push them into the list of extinct outfits, giving space for newer, fresher corporations. Then again, in his famous Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter expressed grave doubts about a society whose future depends on a corporate culture that functions in hierarchical terms that are not so much different from the logic of the former Soviet Union’s Gosplan (the central planning agency).

Ronald Coase

Coase was the first economist to pose unequivocally the question that my title paraphrases: Why firms? What are they good for? Why should an entrepreneur want to hire employees rather than subcontract an activity or service to someone else? While both Marx and Schumpeter had already given interesting answers to this question, Coase’s own answer is interesting also. He pointed out simply and convincingly that the cost of subcontracting a good or service, through some market, may be much larger than the cost of producing that good or service internally. He attributed this difference to transactions costs and explained that they were due to the costs of bargaining (with contractors), of enforcing incomplete contracts (whose incompleteness is due to the fact that some activities and qualities cannot be fully described in a written contract), of imperfect monitoring and asymmetrically distributed information, of keeping trade secrets… secret, etc. In short, contractual obligations can never be perfectly stipulated or enforced, especially when information is scarce and unequally distributed, and this gives rise to transaction costs which can become debilitating unless joint production takes place within the hierarchically structured firm. Optimal corporation size corresponds, in Coase’s scheme of things, to a ‘point’ where the net marginal cost of contracting out a service or good (including transaction costs) tends to zero

[cyu]

I'll skip to the part where he mentions Marx.



Other good parts:

market-societies, or capitalism, are synonymous with firms, companies, corporations. And yet, paradoxically, firms can be thought of as market-free zones. Within their realm, firms (like societies) allocate scarce resources (between different productive activities and processes). Nevertheless they do so by means of some non-price, more often than not hierarchical, mechanism

The firm operates outside the market; as an island within the market archipelago. firms can be seen as oases of planning and command within the vast expanse of the market. In another sense, they are the last remaining vestiges of pre-capitalist organisation within… capitalism.

I would recommend a depiction of a wheel, like those which every desk at Valve comes equipped with so as to enable us to move about the company at will, to join whichever working group we want, to form new ones spontaneously and without seeking anyone’s permission.

Many corporations do a song and dance about their readiness to let employees allocate 10% or even 20% of their working time on projects of their choosing. Valve differs in that it insists that its employees allocate 100% of their time on projects of their choosing. 100% is a radical number! It means that Valve operates without a system of command. In other words, it seeks to achieve order not via fiat, command or hierarchy but, instead, spontaneously.

Hayek’s argument that markets protect us from serfdom (i.e. from authoritarian hierarchies) is weakened substantially by the fact that he has precious little to say about corporate serfdom; about the hierarchies that millions must submit to in order to make a living

Each employee chooses (a) her partners (or team with which she wants to work) and (b) how much time she wants to devote to various competing projects. In making this decision, each Valve employee takes into account not only the attractiveness of projects and teams competing for their time but, also, the decisions of others.

Co-ops are companies whose ownership is shared equally among its members. Nonetheless, co-ops are usually hierarchical organisations. Democratic perhaps, but hierarchical nonetheless. Managers may be selected through some democratic process but, once selected, they delegate and command their ‘underlings’ in a manner not at all dissimilar to a standard corporation. At Valve, each person manages herself while teams operate on the basis of voluntarism

Capitalist corporations are on the way to certain extinction. Replete with hierarchies that are exceedingly wasteful of human talent and energies, intertwined with toxic finance, co-dependent with political structures that are losing democratic legitimacy fast

[Invader Zim]

Its a shame that they make shit games and that steam is a bag of turd.

[black magick hustla]

self management is counterrevolutionary

[Prinskaj]

Its a shame that they make shit games and that steam is a bag of turd. Thank you for an enlightening and thoughtful comment, that was oh so relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Strannik]

I'm not sure if I can express this thought correctly, but as I understand it, bourgeois society can be considered a higher form of organization than feudalism precisely because it actually contains the "feudal hierarchy" within it - in its military, to be used as a tool when necessary. Therefore it can, when required, do everything that feudalism can plus all the tricks that come with the capitalism. And that's why a bourgeoise society triumphs over any "pure" feudalist society. It is able to meet them on the battlefield, but is doing better economically.

The same is true for communism - it is the highest form of human society because it contains the previous modes of organization and can select them, rationally, as the actual situation requires. It is hierarchical when necessary and collaborative when possible. And it does not elevate the "value" of any of those organizational models above actual, necessary conditions. A military where commanders don't have the power to shoot deserters is as absurd as a design bureau or institute where the director has the power to threaten with violence (or poverty) those who think differently. Neither organization is able to fulfill its social role.

And the same is true for productive organization. Valve is creating some interesting things but hasn't delivered Half-life 3, so a socially owned game design collective would perhaps need a bit more command structure in it, our outside of it. :)

[cyu]

Appears to have some similarities to http://everything2.com/title/anarchist+army

"We're here to preserve democracy (http://everything2.com/title/democracy), not practice it."
- Crimson Tide (http://everything2.com/title/Crimson+Tide)



The Network of Anarchists

How would an anarchist (http://everything2.com/title/anarchist) military work? (This is assuming they need a military (http://everything2.com/title/military) in order to fight for some common cause (http://everything2.com/title/common+cause), such as against capitalist (http://everything2.com/title/capitalist) / authoritarian (http://everything2.com/title/authoritarian) invaders.) Instead of a general who decides on a strategy / tactic and then forcing everyone else to obey, the anarchist army works more like a network (http://everything2.com/title/Arpanet): there would be strategists everywhere in the network (basically anybody who feels she has something worthwhile to contribute) - each supplying their own tactics - some may be very similar, some not. There wouldn't be a chain of command - instead, each anarchist just thinks for himself, decides which tactic is the best to follow, and acts accordingly.


Action Within Free Societies

Human being (http://everything2.com/title/Human+being)s have evolved brain (http://everything2.com/title/brain)s (or "were created with brains", if you prefer) so that each can think for himself - taken at the level of a society, it is similar to massive parallel processing (http://everything2.com/title/parallel+processing). In a way, it is similar to how you decide to vote on various things - there's nobody in the chain of command ordering you to vote for this or that (and punishing you if you disobey). You judge for yourself the relative merits of something and then act based on your own thoughts. However, mere voting is a bit different from the "direct action (http://everything2.com/title/direct+action)" described above. For the voter, their actions end after the vote. For the anarchist deciding on the merits of a military tactic, her action would be based on the military tactic she believes to be most well thought out. Perhaps she will consult with her peers about the relative merits of any given tactic, perhaps she will believe she already has enough information to act and all she needs to do is contact the people who agree, so they can help each other carry out the strategy against their common foe.

Of course, like anything else, if she finds that she is alone in the tactic she chooses and can't accomplish it without the help of others (http://everything2.com/title/cooperation), she has no right to force others to follow her - she will either have to do nothing, or select an alternate tactic that does have enough supporters to be effective.

Most militaries punish soldiers for being AWOL (http://everything2.com/title/AWOL) and for insubordination (http://everything2.com/title/insubordination). If soldiers in a "traditional" military were free to voluntarily choose to disobey their commanders, then it would be much more like an anarchist or democratic one than an authoritarian one. The more punishment (http://everything2.com/title/punishment)s there are for disobedience (http://everything2.com/title/disobedience) within a military, the more the claim that it is a voluntary military (http://everything2.com/title/voluntary+military) is merely an illusion.

The Effectiveness of Decentralized Forces

There will always be anecdotal (http://everything2.com/title/anecdotal) evidence of military defeats, successful or failed insurgencies, how one major military power lost one guerrilla (http://everything2.com/title/guerrilla) war or another to a bunch of "ragtag jungle fighters". However, anecdotal evidence differs from scientific evidence because it can not take into account all the variables. For example, did all sides have the same number of fighters and equipment and only differed in organizational structure? Perhaps one side is still waiting to hear back from their higher ups about what to do (while unknown to them, the "head of the snake" has already been killed), while the other side has already made a decision by themselves. Perhaps the one side is demoralized by "stop loss (http://everything2.com/title/stop+loss)" (perhaps to the point of frag (http://everything2.com/title/frag)ging superiors) or being forced to join the military because they have no other job prospects, and thus is at a disadvantage - would that be considered a weakness of the military structure or an "external" weakness?


The Use of the Military on the Domestic Population

In a country, the people may vote for the head of state (http://everything2.com/title/head+of+state), who then appoints the military heads. However, you come down to a few single points of weakness - all you need to do is corrupt, blackmail (http://everything2.com/title/blackmail), or otherwise compromise (http://everything2.com/title/compromise) the head of state or general, and you endanger the entire country (as various military regime (http://everything2.com/title/military+regime)s around the world have illustrated). If all power didn't rest with a single authority, but were dispersed across the population, then you don't have single points of weakness - it is much less likely that anybody is going to choose to oppress himself.


Collective and Individual Morality

As a leftist (http://everything2.com/title/leftist), I'm often criticized for favoring the "good of the collective (http://everything2.com/title/collective)" over the "rights of the individual (http://everything2.com/title/individual)" when I call for employers to share more of their revenues with the employees who are actually doing the work, and who may often have their lives put at risk (http://everything2.com/title/lives+put+at+risk) due to inadequate health care. If employees assume democratic control (http://everything2.com/title/anarcho-syndicalism) of a company, is the employer's life at risk? If the employer's life is at risk, should I draw a line between what is and what isn't acceptable behavior when balancing the "good of the collective" and the "rights of the individual"? If I don't draw a line at the point of the individual losing his life, then what line can you draw?

This is the question posed when the collective army orders individual soldiers to sacrifice their lives. If your collective has to force its people to lose their lives or otherwise face punishment, then is your society worth fighting for (http://everything2.com/title/is+your+society+worth+fighting+for) at all?

Related Nodes:
Anarchy is Order (http://everything2.com/title/Anarchy+is+Order)
decentralized democracy (http://everything2.com/title/decentralized+democracy)
Rear Echelon Mother Fucker (http://everything2.com/title/Rear+Echelon+Mother+Fucker)

[No_Leaders]

Personally I don't see the need for hierarchy in society, that's dominance over another human being. True freedom and equality can only happen when we work in solidarity and equally. Spain was a good example of various industries being run by workers without the bosses delegating and dictating onto the "uneducated workers". Here's a quote from http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html

"Thus, "[c]ommunal proprietorship of the land and the elimination of class in anarchist areas after July 1936, replaced private land ownership and capitalist or feudal power hierarchies" with a highly efficient, integrated system of self-management and co-operative production" (Breitbart 1979b: 93). The revolution was not, however, confined to the rural areas: urban workers implemented "one of the lengthiest and most extensive experiments in complete workers production of industrial production" in history, restructuring economic and social life around their trade unions (Amsden 1979: 99) . Some sense of the extent of collectivisation is provided by a contemporary observation that "railways, tramcars and buses, taxicabs and shipping,electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries were confiscated or controlled by workmen's committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance" (Bolloten cited in Conlon 1986: 20-1). He continues: "motion picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing, shops, department stores and hotels, de-lux restaurants and bars were likewise sequestered" (ibid.). Many of these industries were vast in size: for example, nearly the entire Spanish textile industry, with nearly a quarter of a million workers scattered over several cities, was placed under self-management (Flood et al 1997: 201). According to some estimates, at least 3,000 enterprises were collectivised in the massive industrial city of Barcelona (Conlon 1986: 19) ."

Point is we can't overthrow an exploitative system like capitalism and keep the old structures of society intact. Obviously we all want workers control over the means of production? Maybe that's just the anarchist in me being against hierarchy in all forms, but i think an egalitarian society is what's needed.

[jake williams]

As someone who works in the video game industry I can say that this form of organization would both be more pleasant for the individual workers, and would probably result in better products. The people who work in the video game industry are mostly nerds who want to make good games, and it's mainly their bosses getting in the way.

The concern is that in an environment like the video game industry where the predominant politics is a sort of masculine libertarianism, the natural long-run effects of something like this are likely going to replicate dynamics of clever intellectual labour self-managing itself, while indirectly managing physical labour too.

This isn't inevitable - if people put careful work into politicizing it, to building class-consciousness in workplaces like this, to moving it beyond the individual workplaces, the achievements could be incredible. But the natural trajectory without intervention is probably going to be extremely sectoral, extremely narrow, and mainly about improving the working conditions of a minority of intellectual workers. Moving beyond that is hard work.

[Invader Zim]

Thank you for an enlightening and thoughtful comment, that was oh so relevant to the topic of this thread.

Any time.

It is just that it is hard to be impressed by the self-management, when they then inflict Steam, which highly restrictive piece of software that exists only to punish regular gamers for the sins of pirates, on the world.


and would probably result in better products.

Hmm, but (with the exception of Portal) they haven't released a game worth playing since 1998.

[SkeptikalSteven]

I can safely say that Valve is probably the only company this could ever work for. It's built around Gabe's charisma. So even though there is no actual "boss" I imagine it's still a case of whatever Gabe says goes. Furthermore their actual output besides the running of steam is rather lackluster for a company that is 300 strong. I'm not talking about quality but about quantity though.

[cyu]

If the only alternative to enlightened self-management is enlightened hierarchy, I think I'd be safer without the hierarchy.

Or are there other alternatives?

[Rational Radical]

Although I don't think they make significant changes and threaten capitalism,they are nice to see and provide people with an alternative to a dog-eat-dog capitalist view. This actually proves that humans can work collectively in an equalitarian manner.The revolution should establish self-managed,free socities where people have control over their destiny immediately anything besides it isn't socialism.

[cyu]

http://www.bravenewlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hugh.png

http://www.bravenewlife.com/03/macleods-company-hierarchy-and-the-corporate-conscious/

Once the hierarchy is understood, it becomes clear why most large companies end up as the same sad soul-crushing environment. It turns out, the standard corporate environment isn’t due to poor or evil leadership – it’s just an undeniable process.

Corporate Sociopath (noun) - A person whose professional behavior lacks morality, and whose actions use manipulation and game-planning in order to achieve money, power, and prestige.

not all company owners will become corporate sociopaths, but this doesn’t matter. If the owner is not a sociopath (making him either a clueless or a loser in the MacLeod’s trichotomy), then eventually a sociopath will gain control. It might happen through a buy-out, or through manipulation – but it is destined to eventually happen. The Sociopath is like an athlete on performance enhancing drugs, determined to win at any cost – and willing to do whatever it takes. The Sociopath is willing to use manipulation and undermining techniques to gain control, and is persistent with his intents.

Corporate Loser (noun) - A person who is competent with their work and shows professional morality and integrity, and is aware of the lacking morality in corporate leadership (Corporate Sociopaths). Corporate losers do not have loyalty to their company since they are aware of how disloyal the company is to them, however they rarely leave soul-crushing employment because of self-instilled fear, laziness, or lack of creativity.

The Corporate Losers are quite aware of how the sociopaths are benefiting from the losers’ hard work and ingenuity, all-the-while only receiving small raises and plastic plaques of praise for their efforts. Over time, they begin to challenge the leadership of the sociopaths, so the leadership needs a shield. This is where the Corporate Clueless come in.

Corporate Clueless (noun) - 1. A person who is loyal to their company, completely unaware of how disloyal the company is to them. The corporate clueless person will always follow management directions, honored to even get the attention of their sociopathic leadership. The Clueless create a communication and hierarchical gap between the sociopaths and the losers, and also can be easily manipulated to be the fall guy for the sociopath when things go wrong.

you’ll see an “executive sponsor” (Sociopath) who creates the team and gives “recommendations” on the outcome, then assigns a “task force leader” (Clueless). If the outcome is successful, the Clueless “team leader” gets a plaque and public recognition, while the Sociopath gets a 7-figure bonus. If the outcome is failure, the Clueless gets blamed of incompetence with no real punishment (after all, he will be needed again), the Corporate Losers get some new token bureaucratic process improvement plan institutionalized. Most importantly, when the new initiative fails, the Corporate Sociopath faces no punishment at all.

The Losers are angry, but all they can do is complain to the Clueless – who the Losers know to be incompetent. And how can the Losers be angry at someone who is doing their best, but just happens to be incompetent. After all, there is no ill-will by the Clueless.

** This is probably also a good time to admit that I was a corporate sociopath. I viewed my job as a game, with the goal to keep moving up and gaining more power and money. While I never threw people under the metaphorical bus, I did take shortcuts, use others to my advantage through manipulation, and take more credit where I probably should have passed it on. Since I viewed employment and my career as only a game, I never felt guilt for any of this (no more than one might feel guilty for shooting an enemy in a video game – which I realize might sound ridiculous to many, but that just shows how the Corporate Sociopath thinks)

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates

Bill Gore first presented the concept of a “lattice” organization to Gore associates in 1967. a flat, lattice-like organizational structure where everyone shares the same title.There are neither chains of command nor predetermined channels of communication. Associates choose to follow leaders rather than have bosses assigned to them.

Teams typically organize around opportunities, new product concepts, or businesses. As teams evolve, leaders frequently emerge as they gain followership. This unusual organizational structure and culture has been shown to be a significant contributor to associate satisfaction and retention.

for the twelfth consecutive year, Gore & Associates earned a position on Fortune's list of the U.S. "100 Best Companies to Work For." Its European operations have also earned similar honors. Gore UK has been named seven times by The Sunday Times as one of the “Best Companies to Work For.” In 2009, Gore Germany ranked eighth in the "100 Best Places to Work in Germany" among mid-sized companies. Gore Italy ranked sixth among the "35 Best Places to Work in Italy." Gore France topped the list of “Best Workplaces in France” while Gore Scandinavia ranked fourth among small companies on the list of “Best Workplaces in Sweden.” Gore was listed 12th on the “50 Best Large Workplaces in Europe 2009.”