A couple of questions about the true Communism [Archive]

unf13

27th October 2012, 14:12

Blake's Baby

28th October 2012, 13:37

Yeah, no wages, or differentails, or states, or inheritance, or acquiring property, in communism.

All of your questions are kinda meaningless and have no connection to socialism. Are you sure you're from Russia? You don't have much of an uderstanding even of the rhetoric of the Stalinist regime. In fact, you sound like an American libertarian to me.

Flying Purple People Eater

28th October 2012, 14:05

Hello everyone,

I'm from Russia and I know that most of the people on this website consider the Soviet Union a stalinist or 'state capitalism' state.

So would anybody mind to answer a few questions about a true communist / socialist state compared to what we once had in Russia?

In the late 1970s and later on untill the fall of the Soviet Union there was the following situation quite common.

Imagine two workers working at a state factory. Let's call them 'Peter' and 'John' respectively.

Peter works hard trying to overfulfill his task. John tries to do as little as possible. At the end of the month when the time comes to get wages (usually paid on a monthly basis in the USSR) both workers get EQUAL wages.

Of course, that's unfair and sooner or later Peter ceases to work hard too.

As I assume, such thing will not be the case in the true socialist / communist society.

So let's suppose that Peter from the above example gets more than John as he works harder.

Then after years of hardworking Peter would be able to acquire more property than John. I mean a better house, car etc.

But then Peter's children will probably have a better start that John's because they are going to get a better inheritance.

Then inequality arises.

So my question is basically this how under a communist / socialist rule the problem of inequality is resolved
if more talented and hardworking people are likely to get more than others?
Is there any restrictions or something that should limit such succesful people?
Or a certain amount of inequality is acceptable in a true communist state?

The worker doesn't get paid by some mystical, profiteering aristocrat. She produces for the community and organises where the commodities go, within that community with her follow workers.

And no, there has never been such a thing as a 'restrictive' equality for socialism. If someone works longer and harder, then they get access to more shit and can cruise for a while. If someone doesn't want to do that, then all they need to do is work......say....for four hours, three days a week (tiny!) to make sufficient produce. The entire point is that since the capitalist class has been liquidated, there is no longer any incentive or need for longer working hours or unemployment.

People have these illusions about a communist planned economy where workers have to 'labour 'till they expire, Gulag style'. The reality is quite the opposite. One of the major benefits of communism is the massive amount of leisure time you have to yourself (in my opinion, anyway).

Rugged Collectivist

28th October 2012, 15:45

Peter works hard trying to overfulfill his task. John tries to do as little as possible. At the end of the month when the time comes to get wages (usually paid on a monthly basis in the USSR) both workers get EQUAL wages.

You do realize that this happens in capitalism right? People are almost never paid based on the amount of work they do. I honestly can't think of a real life situation where this would happen.

There would of course be no wages in a communist society. Work would be done because it needs to be done. As far as how the work would be allocated, that could happen in a variety of ways.

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th October 2012, 16:13

Peter works hard trying to overfulfill his task. John tries to do as little as possible. At the end of the month when the time comes to get wages (usually paid on a monthly basis in the USSR) both workers get EQUAL wages.

The above is still true in America and other nations today. Go to any store or restaurant and I guarantee you that you will find your Peters and Johns. Not mentioning the fact that, in more cases then not, Peter will never be rewarded for his extra efforts and even in some cases John would be promoted over the Peter for seemingly no reason at all. Unless you're in a commission based job, you'd be hard pressed to find any job where the above situation wouldn't be true and hard work actually pays off (most of the time). With this being said, under Communism the ambitious Peter would also have the ability to switch professions or take innumerable other routes to his own personal 'success' however he would define it.

Rafiq

29th October 2012, 01:31

In Liberal capitalism workers get paid by hour, not by how hard they work.

Income inequality is a product of social class relations, not of Donald Trump working harder than american proletarians working minimum wage 8 hours a day barely getting by.

...

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

29th October 2012, 01:59

Hello everyone,

I'm from Russia and I know that most of the people on this website consider the Soviet Union a stalinist or 'state capitalism' state.

So would anybody mind to answer a few questions about a true communist / socialist state compared to what we once had in Russia?

In the late 1970s and later on untill the fall of the Soviet Union there was the following situation quite common.

Imagine two workers working at a state factory. Let's call them 'Peter' and 'John' respectively.

Peter works hard trying to overfulfill his task. John tries to do as little as possible. At the end of the month when the time comes to get wages (usually paid on a monthly basis in the USSR) both workers get EQUAL wages.

Of course, that's unfair and sooner or later Peter ceases to work hard too.

As I assume, such thing will not be the case in the true socialist / communist society.

So let's suppose that Peter from the above example gets more than John as he works harder.

Then after years of hardworking Peter would be able to acquire more property than John. I mean a better house, car etc.

But then Peter's children will probably have a better start that John's because they are going to get a better inheritance.

Then inequality arises.

So my question is basically this how under a communist / socialist rule the problem of inequality is resolved
if more talented and hardworking people are likely to get more than others?
Is there any restrictions or something that should limit such succesful people?
Or a certain amount of inequality is acceptable in a true communist state?

Yes, the Socialism of the USSR had some backward aspects that arose from its conditions. The ideal communism, the advanced socialism, would of course have all contradictions within society abolished. But a new socialism will definitely seek to and must, integrate more direct collective workers' control over their surplus.
I personally am for a corporate model where the state/Party gets to vote for half the board of directors and the workers get to select their representatives to the board. Yearly (or every few years) all workers of one corporation (and later one economic sector when competition in the whole economy has been abolished) would have a national meeting and discuss the policies and path of the Corporation. As the productive forces advance, the less workers there are needed to produce the goods and services we need, the smaller the national meetings of certain economic sectors will become and the farther the borders of the yearly meetings can go (national >> transnational >> international).

The collective board of directors control the macro management of the State "corporation" and workers have workplace committees where they regularly select a worker to manage the relations between the workplace committee and the central "board of directors" organ of the State "corporation". As said, the differences, contradictions, tensions between the stakeholders depends on the political situation of each country, and a centrally sent manager "Political Commissar" will have to be sent to control production.

Let's Get Free

29th October 2012, 02:35

You seem to have the misconception that workers get paid in capitalism according to how hard they work.

Blake's Baby

30th October 2012, 11:10

... I know that most of the people on this website consider the Soviet Union a stalinist or 'state capitalism' state...

Just noticed something that I hadn't before - the OP is putting 'state capitalism' in quotes. That suggests to me 'so-called state capitalism'.

Which suggests two alternatives to me:

1 - the OP is a Stalinist (or maybe unreformed Trotskyist) that doesn't accept the validity of state capitalist theory;
2 - the OP is an Objectivist/'anarcho-capitalist' type who thinks that capitalism and the state aren't the same thing (indeed, who thinks the existence of the state = 'socialism').

But (and this may be reading a little too much into it) if they were a Stalinist wouldn't they have given 'stalinist' a capital letter? Can't imaging a Stalinist not thinking Stalin was important enough for a capital.

Hahaha, I've just thought of a joke about being 'non-capitalist'.

Lowtech

2nd November 2012, 00:04

this is a myth and not a problem that capitalism resolves while communism ignores.

i'm sure the OP won't be commenting on any of our posts, probably another one comment warrior that drops a vomit statement that he knows is false and disappears into ballmart where he works, never to be seen again.

this is hardly a question but instead a prod at communists. even if we were to entertain this garbage and say, yes, we agree that the more productive worker should be paid more than the unproductive one, what we have agreed to would not be capitalism. capitalism is not based on pay for performance, rather, it is forced subjugation that facilitates retention of value the few (rich) have not produced themselves.

a true pay for performance system would produce a workers state, it would not produce the economic system and nowhere even near income inequality of the magnitude we have today. and although economically sound, for this workers state to be fully humane it would require provisions for the sick, disabled and the elderly.

in the eyes of evangelists of capitalism, communism starts and ends with lenin and his legacy. in reality, communism is only described by Karl Marx and simple observation of capitalism today is enough to understand it is a defunct economic system.

hetz

2nd November 2012, 01:39

In the 30s if you fucked around or slacked off in the workplace you'd be sentenced for wrecking and sabotage. Sometimes, though, that'd happen even to innocent people...

unf13

3rd November 2012, 20:27

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

Just noticed something that I hadn't before - the OP is putting 'state capitalism' in quotes. That suggests to me 'so-called state capitalism'.

the reason is simpler English is not my native language so, please, excuse me.

From my experience, if a man works hard and doesn't get paid adequately then he quits the job and finds another one or starts

his own business or begins to earn some money on the side. I mean if a man REALLY wants to earn more money and he tries hard

to do so he usually get what he desires. I judge by the people who I know today in my town.

On the other hand, those who accept their life circumstances and do not try to change them never achieve anything.

At the same time many of them accusing the state or the rich that their life is miserable.

So in capitalism if you really want to get more because you work more usually you get it anyway.

But what should motivate a man work harder if there is no material reward?

In the USSR that strategy of motivation worked as stalinets854 remarked

in the 30s if you fucked around or slacked off in the workplace you'd be sentenced for wrecking and sabotage

but as soon as the Stalin's era had actually passed people lost any incentive to work hard. And that was the point the USSR started to lose the competition to the capitalistic West.

For example, my father used to work at a state factory in the late 1970s and most of the workers there didn't want to work hard. Why? They just didn't see any sense in it. Firstly, the amount of money they got never reflected the amount of their effort put in. Secondly, the workers knew that no one of them could get fired and left on the pavement, everybody knew that there was no competition for their job. And the state must provide them with a new job in any case.

So I wonder what makes revlefters think that in the true Communist society everything will be different? Because I know only two ways of motivation:

1) Forcing people to work (like in 1930 - 40s in the USSR)
2) Rewarding them materially (like it happens in Capitalism)

Are there any other methods?

Jimmie Higgins

4th November 2012, 10:13

So I wonder what makes revlefters think that in the true Communist society everything will be different? Because I know only two ways of motivation:

1) Forcing people to work (like in 1930 - 40s in the USSR)
2) Rewarding them materially (like it happens in Capitalism)

Are there any other methods?

Well first, people are not rewarded in capitalism - they work because all other resonable and available means for self-support don't exist which does force people to sell their only renewable commodity, their labor effort/skills and time.

But in general about work: if someone owns their own book-shop because they love books and they end up having to put in a lot of unpaid time themselves because they don't have other employees and to compete with the much more profitable monopolistic-chains the owner/worker must make up for the exploitation (low wage workers in the big chains) by him/herself.

It's a loosing proposition economically, but they might do it anyway because they want to keep independant or niche bookstores alive. So they are not "forced" in a direct sense (though competition with the big chains causes them to be forced to work more than just a sustainability level) because in a very general way (and no completely) they are not as alienated as some guy working at a large corpoarte chain bookstore who has no control over their hours, wages, or what books are put out for sale.

No one forced people to work for most of human history, people were only forced by material needs. It would be the same if workers rather than profiteering capitalists or natiaonal state beurocrats decided what and how to produce what we all need and want.

A society organized by workers themselves - where the economy is also democratically and collectivly guided, then improvements in productivity or products or technology would actually benifit the workers. If you can satisfy demand for X product in less time or with less effort, then you can simply make your own job easier, produce something else that you want that may not yet be produced, or shorten the time required by people in that occupation. In capitalism, however, increased productivity dividends go striaght to the capitalists who can then fire a section of the workforce or deskill and then lower the pay of workers - in a larger sense such increased productivity could also lead to overproduction and declining profits which then wreack the economy despite increaseing the potential for abundance. So people won't get products because production has been depressed in order to perserve profitable rates and people loose jobs despite demand for what their labor produced.

For example, my father used to work at a state factory in the late 1970s and most of the workers there didn't want to work hard. Why? They just didn't see any sense in it. Firstly, the amount of money they got never reflected the amount of their effort put in. Secondly, the workers knew that no one of them could get fired and left on the pavement, everybody knew that there was no competition for their job. And the state must provide them with a new job in any case.Yeah this is exactly what I mean about workers being alienated from the production process - why work, so that the national product of the USSR is enriched even though that doesn't necissarily mean anything for the general working population? It's amassing surplus for the state is more or less the same as amasssing profits for the boss if workers are not in control of this process.

What you describe above is the same as work in the US. People try and slack off as much as they can get away with because work is just to get a wage because if you work harder, then the bosses will not necissarily give you a raise or anything, but that faster pace will now be expected all the time for the same amount of money. Fireing doesn't convince people to work, it's because people have no other option that they work in capitalism and it doesn't matter if there are lots of jobs or not in that regard. So increased fireings don't result in increased poductivity by themselves - more often among workers it causes demoralization and resentment - for the labor pool, lost of fireings don't increase motivation, but it does tend to depress wages as people have to compete for anything they bosses offer.

LordAcheron

4th November 2012, 10:42

Imagine two workers working at a state factory. Let's call them 'Peter' and 'John' respectively.

Peter works hard trying to overfulfill his task. John tries to do as little as possible. At the end of the month when the time comes to get wages (usually paid on a monthly basis in the USSR) both workers get EQUAL wages.

First off, there are no wages in communism, as there is no money

Of course, that's unfair and sooner or later Peter ceases to work hard too.

As I assume, such thing will not be the case in the true socialist / communist society.
It could happen in some forms of market socialist societies that have not yet abolished wage slavery or money yet. Remember, socialism is just worker ownership of the means of production.

So let's suppose that Peter from the above example gets more than John as he works harder.

Then after years of hardworking Peter would be able to acquire more property than John. I mean a better house, car etc.

But then Peter's children will probably have a better start that John's because they are going to get a better inheritance.

Then inequality arises.
Since private property is abolished under communism (as well as many other forms of socialism) this scenario would not take place.

Or a certain amount of inequality is acceptable in a true communist state? Communism would most likely function (since Communism is a stateless, classless society, making the term "communist state" an oxymoron) in a non-hierarchical fashion, since it is anarchist by its very definition (differences between anarchists and marxists is how to reach communism ie; via anarchist tactics or through state control) so no real political, social, class, wealth, etc. based inequality would exist.

Strannik

4th November 2012, 11:41

So my question is basically this how under a communist / socialist rule the problem of inequality is resolved
if more talented and hardworking people are likely to get more than others?
Is there any restrictions or something that should limit such succesful people?
Or a certain amount of inequality is acceptable in a true communist state?

Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume existence of money and private property, both of which do not exist in communism (indeed, that's why its called "communism").

USSR was according to its own propaganda a system for "building" prerequisites for communism by any means.

Talented and hardworking people in communism get their social tasks done sooner and have more time for private interests.

There is no reason to restrict success because

1) success benefits all of society
2) success in communism brings no permanent reward in the form of abstract right to private property.

If someone works better in communism they get more and better results, respect from society, other will want to work with them, they are pushed forward in the service queues of others. But at the moment they stop working hard, they start to lose these benefits.

A slacker who produces no results in a communist society will find that he has to do everything by himself - others do not want him in their work groups and he has no means to command the labour of others: no property rights, no money. On the other hand, if a slacker decides at any time that he wants to start to work hard, he has as much opportunity to do this as anyone.

Communists can accept concrete inequality in people - some are strong, others weak, some are smart and others not that smart. But they do not accept for a moment abstract legalized inequality - where nine men work and tenth can slack off because he happens to possess abstract right to means of production.

Baseball

4th November 2012, 12:29

It's a loosing proposition economically, but they might do it anyway because they want to keep independant or niche bookstores alive. So they are not "forced" in a direct sense (though competition with the big chains causes them to be forced to work more than just a sustainability level) because in a very general way (and no completely) they are not as alienated as some guy working at a large corpoarte chain bookstore who has no control over their hours, wages, or what books are put out for sale.

But how is the "control" by the independent bookshop worker any greater than that of the lager behemoth's? The former still has to respond to demand for people who want books. Granted, the former can choose a "niche" focus, but that still requires demand for that niche.
It still seems that this "control" which socialists claim will occur as a result of socialism seems an illusion. Unless you wish to argue that bookstores will only provide books which the workers in those stores themselves choose to provide. But that makes little sense.

No one forced people to work for most of human history, people were only forced by material needs. It would be the same if workers rather than profiteering capitalists or natiaonal state beurocrats decided what and how to produce what we all need and want.

Why should the producers decide anything? Who cares what books the booksellers wish to sell? What ought matter is the books which such customers wish to read.

A society organized by workers themselves - where the economy is also democratically and collectivly guided, then improvements in productivity or products or technology would actually benifit the workers. I

But of course, such a society needs to be explained? How is it guided? What is the "logic" used in making such choices ect.?

f you can satisfy demand for X product in less time or with less effort, then you can simply make your own job easier, produce something else that you want that may not yet be produced, or shorten the time required by people in that occupation. In capitalism, however, increased productivity dividends go striaght to the capitalists who can then fire a section of the workforce or deskill and then lower the pay of workers

The former can be a viable solution in a stationary society. The latter however reflects what has always been true-- society is constantly changing.

- in a larger sense such increased productivity could also lead to overproduction and declining profits which then wreack the economy despite increaseing the potential for abundance. So people won't get products because production has been depressed in order to perserve profitable rates and people loose jobs despite demand for what their labor produced.

"overproduction" can be a problem certainly. But more so for the socialist community, since after all, the producers are the ones who are making the production decisions. The mechanisms for the socilaist system to deal with this problem seems to be to cut the hours of the workers in the overproduced industry, while leaving the same labor level. The problem with that is as above-- it reflects a stationary way of looking at things. Terminating workers i such a situation is generally the only rational way to go, as this frees up labor to work in those areas where those goods are not presently being overproduced.

Yeah this is exactly what I mean about workers being alienated from the production process - why work, so that the national product of the USSR is enriched even though that doesn't necissarily mean anything for the general working population? It's amassing surplus for the state is more or less the same as amasssing profits for the boss if workers are not in control of this process.

Is the objective of production to "amass surplus" or would it just be a happy side effect?

Blake's Baby

4th November 2012, 16:50

...

"overproduction" can be a problem certainly. But more so for the socialist community, since after all, the producers are the ones who are making the production decisions. The mechanisms for the socilaist system to deal with this problem seems to be to cut the hours of the workers in the overproduced industry, while leaving the same labor level. The problem with that is as above-- it reflects a stationary way of looking at things. Terminating workers i such a situation is generally the only rational way to go, as this frees up labor to work in those areas where those goods are not presently being overproduced...

But the point is to not overproduce goods.

If there is overproduction (4,000,000 are needed this month and 5,000,000 have been produced), all the workers in that industry can have a week off before producing 3,000,000 next month. What's the problem?

...
Is the objective of production to "amass surplus" or would it just be a happy side effect?

Neither.

Ammassing surplus would be an unhappy side effect because the point is not production for the sake of production. Overproduction is a sig of inefficiency.

Baseball

5th November 2012, 01:31

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2529061]But the point is to not overproduce goods.

If there is overproduction (4,000,000 are needed this month and 5,000,000 have been produced), all the workers in that industry can have a week off before producing 3,000,000 next month. What's the problem?

Its called a "layoff." Capitalists often use this technique to deal with the problem of unnecessary costs (naturally, similiar layoffs on a socialist community would result in the same benefit).

The problem is of course is that the socialist complains when the capitalist does it. The question then becomes if the socialist community adopts the same strategies, what are the implications for it on the socialist community.

Blake's Baby

5th November 2012, 01:41

Baseball

5th November 2012, 01:55

The socialist community does it because the necessary work has been done already, the workers give themselves a holiday. That's a good thing.

The capitalist community does it to avoid giving the means of subsistence to the worker, so the workers are unemployed. That's a bad thing.

How come you can't see that difference?

The socialist community does it so as to avoid the cost of using labor which is not not needed.

As does the capitalist.

The difference is that in the capitalist community labor is now available to be used in lines of production that perhaps is being underproduced.
That's a good thing

In the socialist community, the labor simply goes on vacation. Other lines of production perhaps remain underproducing.
That's a bad thing.

Blake's Baby

5th November 2012, 02:15

The socialist community does it so as to avoid the cost of using labor which is not not needed.

As does the capitalist.

The difference is that in the capitalist community labor is now available to be used in lines of production that perhaps is being underproduced.
That's a good thing

In the socialist community, the labor simply goes on vacation. Other lines of production perhaps remain underproducing.
That's a bad thing.

Ah, that's why every time a steelworks closes in the western world, all the steelworkers are immediately paid to go and work on infrastructure projects in Africa, I wondered about that.

In a socialist system, when the necessary work has been done yeah the workers get time off.

If there is still necessary work to do why would workers be giving themselves time off?

The 'underproducing lines' are necessary work.

The thing is baseball, we've been at this on different threads over and over again. Multiple people have explained this to you in a variety of ways. Either, we're all very bad at explaining (even though, we have little problem understanding each other), or you're very bad at understanding. Which do you think it is?

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2012, 09:12

But how is the "control" by the independent bookshop worker any greater than that of the lager behemoth's? The former still has to respond to demand for people who want books. Granted, the former can choose a "niche" focus, but that still requires demand for that niche.
It still seems that this "control" which socialists claim will occur as a result of socialism seems an illusion. Unless you wish to argue that bookstores will only provide books which the workers in those stores themselves choose to provide. But that makes little sense.What? Did you completely miss the point? I'm not debating bookstore policies here, I'm offering a common example of someone who works not because they were directly forced to: i.e. a small shop-keeper who "exploits himself" in a sense by putting in more labor than he might be paid for similar work on the market in order to bridge the gap and continue his shop in the face of much more powerful competition.

Why should the producers decide anything? Who cares what books the booksellers wish to sell? What ought matter is the books which such customers wish to read.Because if there are no producers... nothing gets produced. But producers would want to respond to public demand since they probably wouldn't want to produce things they don't have to.

"overproduction" can be a problem certainly. But more so for the socialist community, since after all, the producers are the ones who are making the production decisions. The mechanisms for the socilaist system to deal with this problem seems to be to cut the hours of the workers in the overproduced industry, while leaving the same labor level. The problem with that is as above-- it reflects a stationary way of looking at things. Terminating workers i such a situation is generally the only rational way to go, as this frees up labor to work in those areas where those goods are not presently being overproduced.
When the harvest is over, does the farmer "fire" himself? No, he either kicks back if there's nothing left to be done or uses his labor-time to attend to other things he either needs to work on or wants to work on. This is because this abstract "farmer" example is not alienated from his labor - he farms to produce what he needs, any surplus he creates can be used how he wants it to. We'd like to see this be the basis for industrial production: people collectivly do the same thing that some idealized version induvidual subsitance farmer would decide things.

So yeah, if people work at a paper mill and they have met what has been estimated as the demand, then rather than lay people off as in capitalism while then making the remaining people work just as fast and hard as before (while the extra savings in labor costs just go to enrich profits) - people could either decide to reduce the workforce or cut hours across the board. Either way, the potential labor is freed up to take on other needs or wants in society.

Yes, an estimation for how much product to make might not always be correct, but it can be adjusted and I think in a society that would probably want to maximize free-time as much as possible, there would be room for people to pick up slack when needed without anyone having to work as we do now. But what the hell does capitalism do - it guesses what can be sold and that's how they decide to produce. Of course their estimation isn't based on actual demand, but an estimation of what they will be able to sell at a profitable rate. Overproduction in a socialist society would be a waste of resources and time and people's effort - overproduction in capitalism caused crisis that led to the freaking NAZIs coming to power and the Dust Bowl and shit! So I'd say that when producing enough to fill demand is a problem that actually cause the entire system to potentially crash, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the system.

LordAcheron

5th November 2012, 11:03

no, in the capitalist community labor loses its job, its house, its food, etc. and cannot find another job because capitalism functions on false scarcity and other bullshit economic tactics to build profit.

In a socialist community, the workers would take the time off because there would be enough people working all the needed jobs to support society.

EDIT: free labor in capitalism= unemployment and suffering to promote a failed system. Or are you an an-cap who thinks that the "free market" will naturally balance everything out and the money fairies will provide for the unemployed/oppressed laborers?

campesino

5th November 2012, 14:00

you want to know the truth OP. you work in true communism because your fellow worker's will beat you up if you don't.

Imagine this

A fishing village has a growing population and all the inhabitants of the village decide they need another fishing ship, so the people get onto the task for building a fishing ship, except for one lost little libertarian who eats from the communal catch of fish, who lives in communal buildings built by the villagers and rides the train to the big city the community help lay the tracks for. So all the villagers are building a ship and contributing except for this little parasite, the workers who are contributuing to the betterment of all are going to ask themselves "why is the slacker not helping us?" so they remind the slacker to help them build the ship. The slacker then says "muh property, muh individual rights, muh liberty" while scarfing down a sardine sandwich. The worker's will then proceed to beat him up, and teach him a lesson. which is don't fuck with workers, when they control the means of production.

Baseball

8th November 2012, 01:08

Ah, that's why every time a steelworks closes in the western world, all the steelworkers are immediately paid to go and work on infrastructure projects in Africa, I wondered about that.

In a socialist system, when the necessary work has been done yeah the workers get time off.

If there is still necessary work to do why would workers be giving themselves time off?

The 'underproducing lines' are necessary work.

The thing is baseball, we've been at this on different threads over and over again. Multiple people have explained this to you in a variety of ways. Either, we're all very bad at explaining (even though, we have little problem understanding each other), or you're very bad at understanding. Which do you think it is?

OK. In the socialist system, unemployment is called a "vacation." In a socialist system, a "vacation" is GOOD because it reduces unnecessary labor from production.
In the capitalist system, unemployment is BAD because it exploits workers by keeping wages and salaries sown and profits up.
Glad that is cleared up.

Baseball

8th November 2012, 01:27

Because if there are no producers... nothing gets produced.

True. But who cares what and how they wish to produce?

B
ut producers would want to respond to public demand since they probably wouldn't want to produce things they don't have to.

In the capitalist community, true. No public demand= no profits to accrue resulting in ceasing production of that item.

But, in the socialist community, why and how would the workers in a particular line of production, HAVE to produce that item? Because they want to do so (but that goes back to above- who cares what they want to do?)?

When the harvest is over, does the farmer "fire" himself? No, he either kicks back if there's nothing left to be done or uses his labor-time to attend to other things he either needs to work on or wants to work on. This is because this abstract "farmer" example is not alienated from his labor - he farms to produce what he needs, any surplus he creates can be used how he wants it to. We'd like to see this be the basis for industrial production: people collectivly do the same thing that some idealized version induvidual subsitance farmer would decide things.

But the difference here is that you keep talking about the worker (producer) deciding what he or she wishes to produce, because it strikes his fancy. But that's just something an individual level. It can't be an organizing principle for a society for its means of production. Imagine the waste involved, the inefficienciencies which follow.

So yeah, if people work at a paper mill and they have met what has been estimated as the demand, then rather than lay people off as in capitalism while then making the remaining people work just as fast and hard as before (while the extra savings in labor costs just go to enrich profits) - people could either decide to reduce the workforce or cut hours across the board. Either way, the potential labor is freed up to take on other needs or wants in society.

How, and why, in a socialist community would it be an advantage to reduce the workforce in that papermill as opposed to simply cutting hours? What would be a disadvantage to the socialist community in doing the latter? what does the socialist papermill hope to accomplish by making either of those choices? Why do the the workers in that papermill, in that socialist community, face those choices?

Blake's Baby

8th November 2012, 02:08

True. But who cares what and how they wish to produce? ...

Everyone does. The community decides it needs something - whatever it might be - and the local productive units say, yeah, we can make a bunch of those. the community as a whole has decided it needs something, the workshops say how many they can make and how fast.

...
In the capitalist community, true. No public demand= no profits to accrue resulting in ceasing production of that item.

But, in the socialist community, why and how would the workers in a particular line of production, HAVE to produce that item? Because they want to do so (but that goes back to above- who cares what they want to do?)?

The community's decided it needs - whatever it might be - and the workers were part of that decision-making process. "Yes, we need - whatever it might be - and we work at a -whatever it might be - plant, let's got on with it, and then we will have the -whatever it might be -s that we want".

Why is that hard for you to grasp?

...
But the difference here is that you keep talking about the worker (producer) deciding what he or she wishes to produce, because it strikes his fancy. But that's just something an individual level. It can't be an organizing principle for a society for its means of production. Imagine the waste involved, the inefficienciencies which follow...

Two different things. Social needs (what the community has decided needs to be produced) comes before what the individual wants to produce. If the community has said, "we need x-amount of product y", and at the end of that process there's a bunch of stuff left that's not needed, or there's a bunch of time left because the production unit (factory, farm, whatever) produced it faster than expected, then yeah why not have time off, create some art, research the properties of the stuff you're dealing with, any or all of those - why not?

...
How, and why, in a socialist community would it be an advantage to reduce the workforce in that papermill as opposed to simply cutting hours? What would be a disadvantage to the socialist community in doing the latter? what does the socialist papermill hope to accomplish by making either of those choices? Why do the the workers in that papermill, in that socialist community, face those choices?

To take the last question first - because they've done the work at that mill they need to do that week or that month. The community needed 50 tonnes of paper of different kinds that month. 2 weeks in, the mill has already delivered 40 tonnes. It's doing 20 tonnes a week, they thought they could only do 14 tonnes, but someone had a bright idea and improved the process. So they're working faster.

Once they hit that 50 tonnes, there is literally no work that the mill needs to do for another 16 days.

So, when they've produced 40 tonnes, they have a choice. They could continue for another 4 days and complete the whole order 12 days early. They could work slower, and take longer, and complete the whole order on time, but have longer rest-periods over the next couple of weeks. They could mix and match - four of the workers want to finish the work so they can have some time off all together, 6 of the the workers want to work more slowly and take longer breaks.

So they compromise. The workers who want to work on and get a block of time off go on shift for the next four days, and work as hard as they would anyway; they've done their shifts and can take the next 12 days off, there are 5 more tonnes of paper (4 produced by the 4 'hard-working' guys in 4 days, average 1/4 tonne per worker per day), 1 produced by the 'slow-work' guys). The slow-work guys complete the rest of the order over the following week (6 of them take 7 days to make 5 tonnes), and then have five days off before the new orders come in.

The 'efficiency' differences are that the 'fast' workers produce 1/4 tonne per 'day' of 8 hours - 1 tonne every 36 hours they work. They work 4 days straight and produce 1 tonne each. The slow workers, on the other hand, produce 5/6 of a tonne each over 7 days, plus another tonne between them in the first 4 days. But they still produce 1 tonne over every 36 hours. They just each worked (6 tonnes between 6 workers over a total of 11 days) on a different shift pattern, instead of working 4 8-hour days and having 12 days off, they each work 8 4-hour days over that 11 day period, have a few days off at the end of the job, a few more days of while it's going on, and shorter woring days while they're doing it.

In the end, the community gets its 50 tonnes of paper and the workers get to work flexible patterns as it suits them, because they control their work processes.

Althusser

8th November 2012, 03:27

You're not fooling anyone Rand Paul.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

8th November 2012, 05:46

Hahaha, I've just thought of a joke about being 'non-capitalist'.

Oh my god, am i the only one who's curious?

Let's hear it!

Blake's Baby

8th November 2012, 21:36

Oh that's very sweet UM - but I think the time has passed.

Baseball

10th November 2012, 19:51

Everyone does. The community decides it needs something - whatever it might be - and the local productive units say, yeah, we can make a bunch of those. the community as a whole has decided it needs something, the workshops say how many they can make and how fast.

The community's decided it needs - whatever it might be - and the workers were part of that decision-making process. "Yes, we need - whatever it might be - and we work at a -whatever it might be - plant, let's got on with it, and then we will have the -whatever it might be -s that we want".

Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Two different things. Social needs (what the community has decided needs to be produced) comes before what the individual wants to produce. If the community has said, "we need x-amount of product y", and at the end of that process there's a bunch of stuff left that's not needed, or there's a bunch of time left because the production unit (factory, farm, whatever) produced it faster than expected, then yeah why not have time off, create some art, research the properties of the stuff you're dealing with, any or all of those - why not?

To take the last question first - because they've done the work at that mill they need to do that week or that month. The community needed 50 tonnes of paper of different kinds that month. 2 weeks in, the mill has already delivered 40 tonnes. It's doing 20 tonnes a week, they thought they could only do 14 tonnes, but someone had a bright idea and improved the process. So they're working faster.

Once they hit that 50 tonnes, there is literally no work that the mill needs to do for another 16 days.

So, when they've produced 40 tonnes, they have a choice. They could continue for another 4 days and complete the whole order 12 days early. They could work slower, and take longer, and complete the whole order on time, but have longer rest-periods over the next couple of weeks. They could mix and match - four of the workers want to finish the work so they can have some time off all together, 6 of the the workers want to work more slowly and take longer breaks.

So they compromise. The workers who want to work on and get a block of time off go on shift for the next four days, and work as hard as they would anyway; they've done their shifts and can take the next 12 days off, there are 5 more tonnes of paper (4 produced by the 4 'hard-working' guys in 4 days, average 1/4 tonne per worker per day), 1 produced by the 'slow-work' guys). The slow-work guys complete the rest of the order over the following week (6 of them take 7 days to make 5 tonnes), and then have five days off before the new orders come in.

The 'efficiency' differences are that the 'fast' workers produce 1/4 tonne per 'day' of 8 hours - 1 tonne every 36 hours they work. They work 4 days straight and produce 1 tonne each. The slow workers, on the other hand, produce 5/6 of a tonne each over 7 days, plus another tonne between them in the first 4 days. But they still produce 1 tonne over every 36 hours. They just each worked (6 tonnes between 6 workers over a total of 11 days) on a different shift pattern, instead of working 4 8-hour days and having 12 days off, they each work 8 4-hour days over that 11 day period, have a few days off at the end of the job, a few more days of while it's going on, and shorter woring days while they're doing it.

In the end, the community gets its 50 tonnes of paper and the workers get to work flexible patterns as it suits them, because they control their work processes.[/QUOTE]

Baseball

10th November 2012, 20:02

In the end, the community gets its 50 tonnes of paper and the workers get to work flexible patterns as it suits them, because they control their work processes.

However, the workers in the papermill are NOT controlling their work processes, in the example you had cited. Their production and decisions are based upon providing that 50 tons of paper. The workers in that factory have to conform to that objective.

You also continue to leave out cost in the equation. Never mind cost in the sense of choosing 50 tons of paper versus other items; rather cost involving the production of 50 tons of paper itself.

Blake's Baby

10th November 2012, 22:06

However, the workers in the papermill are NOT controlling their work processes, in the example you had cited. Their production and decisions are based upon providing that 50 tons of paper. The workers in that factory have to conform to that objective...

Yeah they are. You seem to have some fucked up idea that workers in socialism will all go crazy and make 200 trillion lampshades out of hippos and OMG no onez kan stopz them its all teh socializmz man!

What you're complaining about is capitalism, where companies do produce random shit then try to convince the rest of us to buy it. Socialism isn't like that. Instead of producing whatever the 'companies' fancy, as there won't be any companies, factories or other productive units will deal with production requests - 'orders' if you like, not as in 'commands' but as in 'contracts to fullfil a request' - and the factory (or other productive unit) will decide how to fullfil that request. Yes the workers 'have' to conform to that objective. What's the point of production if you don't?

We have a request for 400 notebooks to be sent to schools in the district in two weeks' time.

Fuck that, we're going to make a scale model of the Battle of Lepanto out of papier mache! Fuck the kiddies and their stupid writing! HAHAHAHAHA!

So, instead, back in the sane universe, the request for the notebooks comes in to the papermill, and the workers decide whether can fullfil the request (they may already be be too busy for instance, maybe they can partly fullfil it) and if they can they then decide if they're going to pull an all-nighter and get the notebooks out early or leave them a week until they've sorted out the 50 tonnes of various paper that they're already committed to and do them then or do 200 this week and 200 next week, or whatever.

IE, they control their work processes. They don't control the requests society as a whole makes - they control whether they can fullfil those requests, and how. That's what 'controlling your work processes' means.

...
You also continue to leave out cost in the equation. Never mind cost in the sense of choosing 50 tons of paper versus other items; rather cost involving the production of 50 tons of paper itself.

You didn't mention 'cost' in the things you wanted explained. You were asking what was the difference between being on holiday and being unemployed. So, you're the one leaving cost out of the equation (what equation?).

There is no 'cost in the sense of choosing 50 tons of paper versus other items' - if the community wants 50 tonnes of paper of varying kinds for writing and printing and whatnot, and the lads at the papermill want to use all that woodpulp to make a 50-tonne diorama of the Battle of Lepanto, then the cost of doing what the community doesn't want is 50 tonnes of woodpulp wasted. There is no 'cost' of doing what has been requested. I think these are called 'opportunity costs' - 'if I do this, what can't I do?' - but as one outcome has been requested and the other not, the only cost is if you don't provide what was asked for and instead provide what wasn't asked for.

But in terms of 'cost involving the production of 50 tons of paper itself' - many things are part of a process. The community needs a whole bunch of drawing and writing and printing paper for schools, let's say, and another bunch of paper for printing posters, and another bunch for turning into books, and another bunch for those paper towels you get in public toilets, and another bunch for toilet paper.

The books and the posters - one of the major 'costs' of those is the paper. They can't be produced without using paper in their production. So the paper is itself a resource used in the production - a 'production cost', I think - along with ink an electricity and labour and wear-and-tear on the printing machines. So part of the cost of producing one set of things - books - involves producing something else - paper.

So what is the 'cost' of the paper? Well, again, labour and raw materials (eg wood pulp, water) and energy inputs (eg electricity). (And obviously you can do an analogous breakdown for the ink, for the generation of electricity, for the provision of the machines etc).

And what's the 'cost' of these factors? In each case you can break them down into labour and raw materials and tools and further break each of these down.

Making things - whatever they are - uses energy, materials, time and effort. They are 'costs' on a project, whatever it is. What is it you want to know about them?

Baseball

11th November 2012, 17:13

What you're complaining about is capitalism, where companies do produce random shit then try to convince the rest of us to buy it. Socialism isn't like that. Instead of producing whatever the 'companies' fancy, as there won't be any companies, factories or other productive units will deal with production requests - 'orders' if you like, not as in 'commands' but as in 'contracts to fullfil a request' - and the factory (or other productive unit) will decide how to fullfil that request. Yes the workers 'have' to conform to that objective. What's the point of production if you don't?

Indeed. The point of production is to satisfy the needs of people who want those 400 notebooks, who want those 50 tons of paper. The workforce and the production structure of the papermill has to be designed to best satisfy the needs of those consumers. The interests and desires and needs of the workers of the papermill factory are of secondary importance.

We have a request for 400 notebooks to be sent to schools in the district in two weeks' time.

Fuck that, we're going to make a scale model of the Battle of Lepanto out of papier mache! Fuck the kiddies and their stupid writing! HAHAHAHAHA!

So, instead, back in the sane universe, the request for the notebooks comes in to the papermill, and the workers decide whether can fullfil the request (they may already be be too busy for instance, maybe they can partly fullfil it) and if they can they then decide if they're going to pull an all-nighter and get the notebooks out early or leave them a week until they've sorted out the 50 tonnes of various paper that they're already committed to and do them then or do 200 this week and 200 next week, or whatever.

Yet again-- the papermill doesn't exist in a vaccum. The decisions when and how to produce 50 tons of paper vs. 400 notebooks can never be theirs alone. And primarily that is because there are people who value the 50 tons of paper greater than 400 notebooks, and there are people who value the 400 notebooks greater than the 50 tons of paper. Telling them to "take turns" may be nice on an individual factory level, but as you indicate, it results is slowdown in production and inefficiencies. That certainly does not benefit the people who want either 50 tons of paper or 400 notebooks, and since such an approach is the guiding principle for the entire community, one can easily see the chaos and inefficient production which follows. Basically, the consumers of 400 notebooks are being told they have to wait upon the papermill workers to get their act together-- and why should those consumers have to do that?

So the workers in that papermill are going to have to figure out a way prioritize their production- to figure out which is truly more valuable and more needed sooner-- 50 tons of paper or 400 notebooks. And in order the papermill workers to do that, there must be an objective way of assigning and determining value-- just because the notebook folks think their product is more valuable than the 50 tons of paper folks, doesn't mean its true, and vice-versa. And why should the workers in the papermill produce less valuable goods ahead of more valuable ones?

Now, there may very well another papermill somewhere that could produce those 400 notebooks in a manner which satisfy the needs of those consumers. That could be where the notebook people turn. But then again, that mill exists because somebody else wants paper products. So that papermill would still have the same issues to resolve as the first one.

There is no 'cost in the sense of choosing 50 tons of paper versus other items' - if the community wants 50 tonnes of paper of varying kinds for writing and printing and whatnot, and the lads at the papermill want to use all that woodpulp to make a 50-tonne diorama of the Battle of Lepanto, then the cost of doing what the community doesn't want is 50 tonnes of woodpulp wasted. There is no 'cost' of doing what has been requested. I think these are called 'opportunity costs' - 'if I do this, what can't I do?' - but as one outcome has been requested and the other not, the only cost is if you don't provide what was asked for and instead provide what wasn't asked for.

We are assuming here that people want things other than notebooks and 50 tons of assorted other paperproducts. Labor which is at the papermill is not on a farm; energy which is fueling the production of notebooks is not being used create electricity to power the streetlamps or hospitals.
Those are the costs we are talking about here.