Question about jobs in communism

[Benzos]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?
for example; a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?

[Habermas]

In my mind everyone would be paid the same amount. 8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours to do as you will. Who are we to judge the value of someone's labor? When you put anyone higher than someone else, in my mind creates a state of serious inequality.

[ckaihatsu]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?
for example; a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?





[H]ow [is] liberated labor [to] be compensated for its labor input. A more sophisticated, quality manufactured good would require relatively more labor attention and background education / training / expertise, at least initially in the creative and design process. My idea is to implement a mass survey that allows a massively parallel inter-subjective index to emerge from "exit polling" on labor roles of every sort.

This survey-derived labor role index would show the relative *difficulty* and/or *hazard*, of labor roles to each other on a 1-through-10 scale, providing a set 'multiplier' on labor hours for each labor role. Labor hours times the difficulty/hazard multiplier would yield various rates of *labor credits* per hour of freely chosen work by liberated labor.





http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1738752&postcount=45


---





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?

No, people are not paid anything in communism. The labour theory of value describes what the value of commodities is in capitalism; it doesn't prescribe some sort of "fair pay" to be implemented in socialism (in socialism, of course, commodity production is abolished, making any sort of value inapplicable, and there is no money or the market, precluding payment).


for example; a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?

Who knows. But of course, most socialists would not agree that the ditch digger is "not as valuable" as a software programmer.

[ckaihatsu]

a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?





Who knows. But of course, most socialists would not agree that the ditch digger is "not as valuable" as a software programmer.


---





[M]any would argue that the doctor's / programmer's 3-minutes isn't equal to a ditch digger's 3-minutes because there's a lot of learning and expertise that goes into the white-collar 3 minutes. I find this to be a valid point.




The problem here is that if *everyone's* labor is valued the same, people would have no social incentive to do anything difficult or complicated -- it would be a race to the bottom, on the whole.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It isn't equal in terms of exchange value of the commodities produced - but in socialism there are no commodities and exchange value. But the "value" the OP was getting at was presumably something else entirely. And the empirical evidence doesn't bear your last assertion out - garbage-men, after all, tend to be paid pretty well. In fact I'm sure that here they get paychecks with sum I'll never see in my life. People aren't lining up to be garbage-men, though.

[tuwix]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?
for example; a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?

To ultimate objective of communism is to assert for anyone possibility to do whatever s/he wants and how long s/he wants. Certainly it's possible in its higher phase.

[ckaihatsu]

It isn't equal in terms of exchange value of the commodities produced - but in socialism there are no commodities and exchange value. But the "value" the OP was getting at was presumably something else entirely. And the empirical evidence doesn't bear your last assertion out - garbage-men, after all, tend to be paid pretty well. In fact I'm sure that here they get paychecks with sum I'll never see in my life.




People aren't lining up to be garbage-men, though.





To ultimate objective of communism is to assert for anyone possibility to do whatever s/he wants and how long s/he wants. Certainly it's possible in its higher phase.


I find this to be an outstanding, unresolved question, then: What if no one wants to handle the garbage in a revolutionary / post-capitalist society -- ?

Generally I'm not *really* concerned, though, because there would be an overall incentive to *automate* all such gruntwork tasks, so that *no one* has to do them -- it would be like those who have chosen to add their hours to make the Internet what it is today in its totality.

But still the *generic* question remains that what if everyone thinks 'revolution = cool' and everyone just wants to be rock stars, 'cause that's what revolution is all about -- !

Would there be a way for society to *actively* organize itself so that all necessary tasks get done, at least until they can be automated -- ?

(See post #2.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I find this to be an outstanding, unresolved question, then: What if no one wants to handle the garbage in a revolutionary / post-capitalist society -- ?

Generally I'm not *really* concerned, though, because there would be an overall incentive to *automate* all such gruntwork tasks, so that *no one* has to do them -- it would be like those who have chosen to add their hours to make the Internet what it is today in its totality.

But still the *generic* question remains that what if everyone thinks 'revolution = cool' and everyone just wants to be rock stars, 'cause that's what revolution is all about -- !

Would there be a way for society to *actively* organize itself so that all necessary tasks get done, at least until they can be automated -- ?

(See post #2.)

A revolutionary society in the sense of a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist society, though.

As for socialism, ultimately socialism is a consciously planned society, with conscious human decision taking the place of the anarchy of the market. If people don't want to handle the garbage, then garbage will pile up, and people will wonder why everything stinks now.

I wouldn't be worried about that possibility, though, people generally reach some sort of arrangement when it comes to, for example, cleaning snow. (Well, except the people in the quarter right next to mine. They are the inferior races and must be destroyed.)

[ckaihatsu]

A revolutionary society in the sense of a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist society, though.


Post-revolution, then, with the counterrevolutionary threat far back in the rear-view mirror.





As for socialism, ultimately socialism is a consciously planned society, with conscious human decision taking the place of the anarchy of the market. If people don't want to handle the garbage, then garbage will pile up, and people will wonder why everything stinks now.




I wouldn't be worried about that possibility, though, people generally reach some sort of arrangement when it comes to, for example, cleaning snow.


Okay, so we've got the 'high' -- rampant individualistic wish-fulfillment -- covered, and the 'low' -- reality-checks from creeping chaos -- covered, but what about the 'forward' -- ?

I'll repeat that:





The problem here is that if *everyone's* labor is valued the same, people would have no social incentive to do anything difficult or complicated -- it would be a race to the bottom, on the whole.


So:





[T]he more-realistic possibility is that there would be a lack of *complex-enough* production, at least to match today's output under capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

Is the only reward for social labour material? Wouldn't you want to become a brain-surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or whatever, because you liked doing it? In which case, not all 'jobs' carry the same reward. I wouldn't want to be a bus-driver, because a) I wouldn't enjoy it and b) I'd likely kill people as I don't know how to drive. So I won't do that. But there are other things I would do. Especially if there was 'nothing (material) stopping me'.

So, no, I think the idea that we'd all do relatively easy jobs that require little training is false. The fact is, we'd be free to train up in doing all sorts of difficult and challenging (you know, interesting) things that currently aren't on offer. I'm rather of the opinion that we'd be more likely to all be really highly-trained pilots, welders, brain-surgeons and multi-lingual opera-singing pole-vaulters, all at the same time.

[ckaihatsu]

Is the only reward for social labour material? Wouldn't you want to become a brain-surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or whatever, because you liked doing it? In which case, not all 'jobs' carry the same reward. I wouldn't want to be a bus-driver, because a) I wouldn't enjoy it and b) I'd likely kill people as I don't know how to drive. So I won't do that. But there are other things I would do. Especially if there was 'nothing (material) stopping me'.

So, no, I think the idea that we'd all do relatively easy jobs that require little training is false. The fact is, we'd be free to train up in doing all sorts of difficult and challenging (you know, interesting) things that currently aren't on offer. I'm rather of the opinion that we'd be more likely to all be really highly-trained pilots, welders, brain-surgeons and multi-lingual opera-singing pole-vaulters, all at the same time.


That's great and everything, but then we're back to the 'rock star' problematic -- if people are just looking to do what they like, that doesn't necessarily mean that the sum total of all those activities will be appropriate for society's actual needs. If people are doing what they like with no real demand for it then that's called 'a hobby'.

I'm not *trying* to make this discussion go around and around in circles -- here's an illustration of what's *objectively* required:


Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Ckaihatsu, it sounds like you just want to recreate the existing society with a veneer of communist social relations. Who says we need to adhere to your ridiculous chart? If no one is picking up the garbage, it's because no one wants to pick up the fucking garbage. What post-capitalist institution is going to force human labor to perform tasks against it's will?

[Sinister Intents]

Ckaihatsu, it sounds like you just want to recreate the existing society with a veneer of communist social relations. Who says we need to adhere to your ridiculous chart? If no one is picking up the garbage, it's because no one wants to pick up the fucking garbage. What post-capitalist institution is going to force human labor to perform tasks against it's will?

Well, he is a centralist, so the state would ensure people would do that. It'd be business as usual after the revolution, just like with the French Revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, it sounds like you just want to recreate the existing society with a veneer of communist social relations.


According to what that I've said -- ?





Who says we need to adhere to your ridiculous chart?


It's called 'material reality' -- interesting that you find it so objectionable.





If no one is picking up the garbage, it's because no one wants to pick up the fucking garbage.


And then:





As for socialism, ultimately socialism is a consciously planned society, with conscious human decision taking the place of the anarchy of the market. If people don't want to handle the garbage, then garbage will pile up, and people will wonder why everything stinks now.





What post-capitalist institution is going to force human labor to perform tasks against it's will?


You're misunderstanding -- I'm not calling for a post-capitalist *institution*, or the use of coercion. I'm calling for a *social order* that can handle material social reality as it would need to be handled.





Well, he is a centralist,


According to what that I've said -- ?





so the state would ensure people would do that. It'd be business as usual after the revolution, just like with the French Revolution.


Nope, I refute this characterization, and the one from EG as well.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes, it's the 'material reality' of the existing society, which is what I meant when I said you wanted to recreate this society with the veneer of communist social relations. This society is incompatible to communism, communism won't be a giant mall where everything is free and everyone still goes to work out of responsibility to others, it will be fundamentally different. So different in fact, that if no one picks up the trash, its because everyone has decided that having trash lay around isn't really a problem in the first place.

[human strike]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?
for example; a ditch digger workers harder than a software programmer but isnt as valuable as software programmer, how can you judge this?

You can't judge the use value of labour. This is why far from people being paid according to how much they labour, communism means the abolition of work (and with it wages) altogether.

[Sinister Intents]

I more meant business as usual as in a transitional society, it'd still be basically capitalist, and people would have to work to make a living still.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, it's the 'material reality' of the existing society,


You're mixing contexts now, since this thread of discussion is about a *post*-capitalist society.





which is what I meant when I said you wanted to recreate this society with the veneer of communist social relations.


You may want to clarify here.





This society is incompatible to communism, communism won't be a giant mall where everything is free and everyone still goes to work out of responsibility to others, it will be fundamentally different.


Again you may want to specify what you mean here, since it's not saying much to just say that communism 'will be so different that we can't even imagine it from the standpoint of today' -- that's a dodge, in my opinion, since certain social realities would *certainly* continue to exist, like production, etc., which are outlined in the graphic at post #12.





So different in fact, that if no one picks up the trash, its because everyone has decided that having trash lay around isn't really a problem in the first place.


*Or* a post-capitalist social order could be organized enough to *not* allow trash lying around since that could lead to poor sanitation, which leads to disease.





You can't judge the use value of labour.


A post-capitalist society *would* have to make value judgments on the use-values of labor, since that's the exact definition of what socialism / communism is (so that the world doesn't have to remain dependent on the market and the elitism it spawns).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

we're trying to talk about a post-capitalist society but you keep bringing us back to this one. What supernatural force will intercede on sanitation's behalf if everyone in a communist society decides that they don't care about it anymore? You're taking for granted that what society finds useful and good now is not tied to specific relations, relations that will disappear with capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

we're trying to talk about a post-capitalist society but you keep bringing us back to this one.


I certainly don't see how so. I'm not the one who has been talking within the context of the current capitalist society -- it's you.





What supernatural force will intercede on sanitation's behalf if everyone in a communist society decides that they don't care about it anymore?


Yeah, stay with this line of yours and see how it goes for you.





You're taking for granted that what society finds useful and good now is not tied to specific relations, relations that will disappear with capitalism.


Feel free to elaborate.

[Sinister Intents]

I'll pick up my own trash whenever communism comes around. I'll do my own thing and do my own unalienated labor. I'll do the work I love doing

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think you grasp what communism is, and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way ckaihatsu. Your graph is making assumptions regarding how life will organize itself in a post-capitalist society without taking into account how people's desires will change. I'm not saying that people won't pick up trash, I suspect they will, I'm saying the possibility exists that they won't. Communism does not necessarily entail a completely automated workforce and space ships, it's not a predefined reality, like your graph would have us believe. Maybe people will decide that they want to continue picking up garbage and will organize according to do so, but there is no natural law that demands it.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll pick up my own trash whenever communism comes around. I'll do my own thing and do my own unalienated labor. I'll do the work I love doing


No prob -- you do that.

And what about toilets and rainwater? Would there still be a general need for sewer systems -- ? And who then would maintain the sewer systems -- etc.





I don't think you grasp what communism is, and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way ckaihatsu.


Okay.





Your graph is making assumptions regarding how life will organize itself in a post-capitalist society without taking into account how people's desires will change.


This is another unexplained assertion -- you may want to elaborate so that I know what the basis is for your characterization (that my illustration is "making assumptions regarding how life will organize itself in a post-capitalist society".)





I'm not saying that people won't pick up trash, I suspect they will, I'm saying the possibility exists that they won't.




Maybe people will decide that they want to continue picking up garbage and will organize according to do so, but there is no natural law that demands it.


What I'm trying to impress upon you, and everyone here, is that certain individual behaviors, when magnified over millions and billions of people, have definite *social* consequences, like poor sanitation and the spread of disease, for example.

The whole point of getting rid of capitalism is so that people / workers can finally be *pro-active* in a collective way to address social ills that are currently *unaddressed* -- certainly such a society wouldn't be *less* attentive and conscientious about social matters than the one we have today, or else it wouldn't be worth doing then.





Communism does not necessarily entail a completely automated workforce and space ships, it's not a predefined reality, like your graph would have us believe.


Somehow my illustration implies "a completely automated workforce and space ships" -- ?? Again, that's on you, entirely, if you'd like to explain your reasoning.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I concede to the power of your infographic, I'm not stoned enough to talk to you anymore.

[Sinister Intents]

Well people would maintain those things, just like I do what I enjoy doing and would try to do my part. But it wouldn't just be that. Perhaps the community would have specific chores that need done, but people would do as they have for thousands of thousands of years. They'd cooperate snd organize, the drive to survive, both survival of the fittest and mutual aid. I'm sure humanity could become more primitivist potentially. I like my technology though. There would be people freely organizing and cooperating on both small and large scales

[ckaihatsu]

I concede to the power of your infographic, I'm not stoned enough to talk to you anymore.


Hey, for whatever it's worth I appreciate the back-and-forth -- I'd be disheveled and wild-eyed, endlessly making diagrams in a cellar somewhere if not for participants like yourself.





Well people would maintain those things, just like I do what I enjoy doing and would try to do my part. But it wouldn't just be that. Perhaps the community would have specific chores that need done, but people would do as they have for thousands of thousands of years. They'd cooperate snd organize, the drive to survive, both survival of the fittest and mutual aid.





I'm sure humanity could become more primitivist potentially.


This part says a lot about your politics.





I like my technology though. There would be people freely organizing and cooperating on both small and large scales


And I tend to be concerned with the political logistics of how that organizing and cooperating would / could potentially take place.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not a primitivist, but I like some of what I've read. What's it tell you?

Also you have years of study and practice and your belt while I have about 9 years into politics. I'm a business major and a business owner so I can extrapolate how life under socialism would be, and it'd be significantly better for all of humanity, both bourgeois and proletarian. Those classes would no longer exist and the state and capitalism would disappear. Not be inversed. I know how capitalism works, I'm pretty great with economics, though I haven't always the words to articulate the way I'd like but that'll come in time

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not a primitivist, but I like some of what I've read. What's it tell you?


I mean to say that if you happen to like primitivism in some manner then that will be very influential on the direction of your politics -- how you imagine society *should* be, and what would be worth fighting for.





Also you have years of study and practice and your belt while I have about 9 years into politics. I'm a business major and a business owner so I can extrapolate how life under socialism would be, and it'd be significantly better for all of humanity, both bourgeois and proletarian. Those classes would no longer exist and the state and capitalism would disappear. Not be inversed. I know how capitalism works, I'm pretty great with economics, though I haven't always the words to articulate the way I'd like but that'll come in time

[Sinister Intents]

I mean to say that if you happen to like primitivism in some manner then that will be very influential on the direction of your politics -- how you imagine society *should* be, and what would be worth fighting for.

This is true, but I can't particularly say I think primitivism is necessarily a goal, I'm not anti civilization, but the proponents that aren't reactionary certainly present interesting arguments, I also like my technology and I'm pro anarchist communism and I'm pro Marxist, but only Marxist in so far as I love Pannekoek, Lenin, Luxemburg, and Marx and Engels, who I always group together. I'm not a primitivist and I'm not exactly an anarchist either. I'm gonna have to say I'm more of a libertarian Marxist. I agree with the communists more, but I'm also influenced by the individualists like Stirner. I'm politically confusing perhaps. I can't predict the direction society is going in and I don't advocate primitivism. The end goal I seek is the one you seek but through direct revolution rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat route, which I've made it a piunt to understand it.

[ckaihatsu]

This is true, but I can't particularly say I think primitivism is necessarily a goal, I'm not anti civilization, but the proponents that aren't reactionary certainly present interesting arguments, I also like my technology and I'm pro anarchist communism and I'm pro Marxist, but only Marxist in so far as I love Pannekoek, Lenin, Luxemburg, and Marx and Engels, who I always group together. I'm not a primitivist and I'm not exactly an anarchist either. I'm gonna have to say I'm more of a libertarian Marxist. I agree with the communists more, but I'm also influenced by the individualists like Stirner. I'm politically confusing perhaps. I can't predict the direction society is going in and I don't advocate primitivism.




The end goal I seek is the one you seek but through direct revolution rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat route, which I've made it a piunt to understand it.


I'll note that I find the orthodox route (dotp) to be somewhat *prescriptive*, and even stagist, since actual conditions might lend themselves to a much quicker transition out of capitalism -- or they may not:





Best-case is that everything happens quickly and money instantly becomes obsolete and anachronistic -- this would equate to the resounding defeat of the bourgeoisie on a worldwide mass basis and the quick dissolution of its state. It would be replaced more-or-less in a bottom-up organic way with production rapidly reorganized on vast scales (for economies of scale and efficiency).

Worst-case is that there's an ongoing situation of dual-power where contending forces from the bourgeoisie and proletariat linger on in protracted labor-based battles, both political and physical. World public opinion remains divided and the class war takes on the characteristics of a country-by-country civil war between the classes. In such a situation it would be more-than-understandable for revolutionary forces to call for the seizing of the state, and to use it in an authoritarian, top-down way in the interests of the workers' forces, against the imperialists. This could include a system of labor vouchers, in an attempt to assert some kind of consistent economic valuation system, as counterposed to imperialist/colonialist resource extraction, corporatist/militarist syndicalism, and market-type commodity-production valuations.

[Sinister Intents]

We cannot be sure what will happen at all, tge statists could completely dissolve all progress and ensure business continues as usual with tighter controls and a smaller population. I want immediate revolutionary action with an ongoing conflict, a permanent revolution until further notice. Based on my readings I'm pro decentralization, and I'm very sure it can perform just as well as a centralized system if not better. Humanity lived for thousands of years without living in centralized states, humanity has also worked and progressed without the existence of work for thousands of years as well

[ckaihatsu]

We cannot be sure what will happen at all,


No, but as with anything material, we can narrow things down to certain main trajectories of possibilities -- the 'railyard' metaphor:





I'll sum up my position on free will / reflective intentionality with a metaphor: the trainyard and rail lines.

Your dogmatic emphasis on the overarching ("macro") deterministic aspects of material determinism entirely leaves out the agency of the individual, and it's for this reason that I've continued this discussion. You *only* focus on the extended straightaways of the rail lines, when a person is in the midst of working *towards* the fulfillment of a particular, *chosen* avenue in their overall life. In *this* kind of situation it is *very* easy to see and comprehend material determinism in one's own life because the routines involved in "staying on track" are very clear-cut.

But there are *junctions*, or *crossroads*, in people's lives when they *must* make some kind of decision between this or that, or which rail line to switch to. *Not* making a decision at such a point would be disastrous since one can soon find oneself too far down a certain path that *wasn't* of one's own choosing. And, of course, even a well-informed, reflected-upon, reasoned decision at such a point is no *guarantee* of success. But it *is* better than *not* using one's 'free will'.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1688850&postcount=339


---





tge statists


Who are the 'statists', exactly, and what are their politics -- revolutionary, I presume -- ?





could completely dissolve all progress and ensure business continues as usual with tighter controls and a smaller population.


This part is absolutely cryptic -- you would need to elaborate here.





I want immediate revolutionary action with an ongoing conflict, a permanent revolution until further notice. Based on my readings I'm pro decentralization, and I'm very sure it can perform just as well as a centralized system if not better.





[A] pre-formulated top-down 'blueprint' [...] approach to planning would be too constraining and brittle. Rather, as soon as power was seized by the workers, at any given location(s), there should be as much *generalization* of worker-controlled production as possible, to confer logistical-production advantages (economies-of-scale, preventing duplication-of-effort).




Without a pre-formulated 'blueprint'-type plan it would be impossible to make up a grand roster of every person in the world who would be participating in (liberated) labor, as to include in such a grand plan.

But such a grand plan isn't necessary, since the initial self-organization of a post-capitalist liberated labor could be done on *various scales* all at once, while also generalizing efforts as much as possible over time, for successively greater, *emergent* degrees of centralization.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)


Also:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)


---





Humanity lived for thousands of years without living in centralized states, humanity has also worked and progressed without the existence of work for thousands of years as well


However, since centralized states -- bourgeois ones -- *do* currently exist, it would require counter-forces of at least the same magnitude to *repel* and *usurp* such large-scale organizations. Hence 'vanguardism':





From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[GanzEgal]

To my understanding workers are paid according to how much labor they put, but how can you judge this? how do you judge skill?
Monetary society has found a way to judge and reward skill and labour productivity.

Doing so has some philosophical weaknesses, however. People are not born equal, some are born smarter or stronger than some others. By rewarding skill, such as high education, we end up rewarding the inborn qualities of these individuals, their inborn high IQ. What did a person do to be born smarter or stupider than the others? The philosophical foundation of straightforwardly rewarding skill is not very profound.