Question on Private Property [Archive]

View Full Version : Question on Private Property

JazzRemington

16th April 2005, 00:14

I have, obviously, a question on private property that I have never been able to figure out. I know the difference between private and personal property, but I'm still trying to till over in my head WHAT would be legitimately considered private property and personal property.

Let's take an example of a factory. Under communism, the commune would own it as a whole. But, the factory workers would manage it. Now, though the workers don't OWN the factory, they still have power over the other members of the commune since they can operate and use the factory and the others cannot. Thus, they can exploit the others into doing what the workers want or they will get nothing.

But this assumes that not everyone will be able to use the factory. Am I to assume that everyone involved in the commune would be able to operate the communual property? I feel this is the only way to prevent it, but this still begs the question as to whether or not there would be people who cannot or have no interest in using the communual property. What about them? With the idea that everyone would be able to use the communual property, what is to prevent those who can use from coercing those who cannot into following along?

LSD

16th April 2005, 00:35

Let's take an example of a factory. Under communism, the commune would own it as a whole. But, the factory workers would manage it. Now, though the workers don't OWN the factory, they still have power over the other members of the commune since they can operate and use the factory and the others cannot.

Yes, but likewise other workers in other sectors have control over their respective factories and means of production and hence control industries that the former workers do not.

You see, everyone has power over everyone else. This is the point of the system! By empowering all, power dynamics and disparity dissappears. If everyone is equally powerful then that power, from a political sense is itself effectively nullified.

That means that while, technically, your hypothetical workers do possess a power that no one else shares, this power is exactly counterballanced by the power they do not have that other workers do!

Everyone is co-dependent and interreliant. As in any advanced society, no one can live fully autonomously and must rely upon the work of others. What communism does is to simplify the equation such that instead of this power=reliance being slanted, it is perfectly level.

Thus, they can exploit the others into doing what the workers want or they will get nothing.

No they can't.

They need the work of the rest of the commune just as much as the commune needs their work, perhaps more even, depending on the type of work in question.

This is the "check" that keeps the system working.

But this assumes that not everyone will be able to use the factory.

"use the factory"?

You mean can a doctor randomly wake up one morning, head down to the local shoe plant and make himself 12 pairs of shoes?!?

No.

The means of production will be controlled by the workers in that field.

The doctor (allong with his colleagues) will control their industry, the shoe-makers will contol theirs.

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 02:07

You mean can a doctor randomly wake up one morning, head down to the local shoe plant and make himself 12 pairs of shoes?!?

No.

Why not?

OleMarxco

16th April 2005, 14:37

Becauce's the doctor's not worth it ;)
Nah, in all seriously, all referances to l'Oreal commercials aside, it's because he doesn't have the skills to it, that, and there are still some "playing rules" of this society 'tho; The shoe-workers will prevent the doctor from doing so. And vice versa. The doctors cannot let the shoe-workers come and work at the hospital at the same time being a shoe-worker. You have to take work-education to "switch" industry and abandon your previous. You can't control both parts. Then you help decide where you work, and someone making shoes cannot judge over the hospital, or the doctors cannot control the shoe-factory.

Originally posted by Mr. Remington
...under communism, the commune would own it as a whole. But, the factory workers would manage it. Now, though the workers don't OWN the factory....

Yes, they do. The workers are the commune and the commune are the workers. So in a way, they both own AND manage it. The commune is only broken down into parts....one department for each industry, me thinkesth, led by the same workers who manage it ;)
They own, they work. They are both the boss and the employee.

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 14:58

Nah, in all seriously, all referances to l'Oreal commercials aside, it's because he doesn't have the skills to it, that, and there are still some "playing rules" of this society 'tho; The shoe-workers will prevent the doctor from doing so. And vice versa.

Of course you have some rules -- but a rule permitting someone from using means of production to make their own shoes if they choose? That seems like more than a rule. Can the doctor just barge in an kick some guy off a machine and do it? No -- there should be some order. But in the case of an open machine? Who says he doesn't know how to do it? Why would he be going down there to make his own shoes if he didn't know how? Maybe he wanted to learn, should we not teach people new trades?

The person preventing the shoemaker from working on them should be the patient.

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 14:59

double posted by accident due to database trouble -- server's still on the fritz :(

LSD

16th April 2005, 15:10

Of course you have some rules -- but a rule permitting someone from using means of production to make their own shoes if they choose?

If a doctor enjoys making his own shoes, knows how to do so, wants to do so and has the permission of the shoe-makers in question, then by all means he can do so!

But what I wrote was that he cannot "randomly wake up one morning, head down to the local shoe plant and make himself 12 pairs of shoes".That's a far cry from making "his own shoes" in an organized and pre-arranged manner. I didn't mean to say that doctors would be "barred" from making shoes! Merely that anyone won't be able to use anything at anytime.

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 15:46

If a doctor enjoys making his own shoes, knows how to do so, wants to do so and has the permission of the shoe-makers in question, then by all means he can do so!

You know, if someone enjoys making their own shoes now, knows how to do so, and wants to do so and has the permission of the majority of stock holders, then by all means he can do so!

You've maintained private control -- whether or not you realize it is another question -- with this formulation. Yes, you expand the resource to the general public in the economic organization (the commune) yet you isolate control of the means of production to the will of a few.

Again, are there rules? Yes. Not any single person can go and have all the machines shipped out from the shoe factory to the middle of a desert -- nor should it require the permission of EVERYONE to determine what is to be done in certain instances. But actually limiting personal production of such goods?

There's some things that must be "given" -- why must they be given? Because it assumes the same kind of "people will change" argument that we use in terms of how society will progress to make socialism/communism possible.

One of these givens would be that it would be the case that the doctor would call up the shoe factory and ask when they had an open machine, or when off time was, or when a lunch break was for some of the workers, etc, rather than just barging in and demanding use on his own time. In general there would be communication and organization extending far beyond the commune itself, into the general public and use of these means. What it comes down to is the difference between someone being able to utilize these means, when you have them open, and regardless of them being open, the workers of that specific factory maintaing complete control. It would give whole new meaning to the words "labor aristocracy" if this were the case.

Indeed a balance must be found, and indeed there are "rules" -- but again, a rule to effectively deny someone access to even a portion of a means of production is NOT acceptable.

OleMarxco

16th April 2005, 16:19

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 17:07

If they wanted, they could make their own goddamn shoes - But they should leave the shoe factories alone whether or not they want...that's a mass-producing facility, and more than the doctor's going to use 'em. Make them for own use, yes, but try to set up buisness and sell...no.

But this isn't just about businesses and "selling" -- it's about control over the means of production, and the exploitation which comes out of that control, and in current society the ownership.

There's more to the purpose than just limiting "business." Think about when Marx attacks the division of labor under capitalism. Smith was flawed in crediting the division of labor as wholeheartedly to the advancement of society the way he did. This isn't to say division of labor has no place -- but Smith recognized this as a primary means by which richer nations develop over poorer ones.

This separation too is generally carried furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and improvement; what is the work of one man in a rude state of society, being generally that of several in an improved one. -- Adam Smith

This goes far beyond industrial separation alone, and goes so far as to say the jobs within these institutions should too be fractured. What Marx talks about is escaping these roles, not just the destruction business and market sales.

The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop. -- Karl Marx

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

If you isolate the means of production you are ensuring earlier systems where the division of labor plays such a role -- which is completely unnecessary. It is a necessary step from class society, and may be attributed to the massive and rapid growth of an industry. But where we are capable of removing ourselves from such roles of bondage, is based on the existing growth from these societies.

If the doctor chooses to make shoes too, he should be able to do so. Both for himself, or his friends, or as a function of society as a whole. Eliminating control serves also the purpose of eliminating these roles -- the role that says "this is what you do." If the doctor ENJOYS making shoes (as has been stated) he is free to do so, if he enjoys it so much he is free to make that as big a portion of his labor towards society as he chooses.

You don't have to share what you make your own, I think, but then you won't recieve what others make, hm?

Well let's go on to TRULY differentiate personal vs. private property. The nature of personal property is inherently, NOT private. In any sense of the word. Even under capitalist society it is temporary -- goods are shifted, traded, bought and sold on a market as open to the individual as it is to the corporation. That is to say, I can sell you my computer for the money to buy someone elses car stereo system. Or maybe I can trade straight up for it.

Private property takes two forms, that of land, and that of other means of production, for the most part immobile and unhinged from simple "trade." However, under communism we remove this market -- even under socialism Marx makes it a point to say that "money" should not be used in circulation.

On the nature of normal money, which is free to circulate as it does:

In the circulation of tokens of value all the laws governing the circulation of real money seem to be reversed and turned upside down. Gold circulates because it has value, whereas paper has value because it circulates. If the exchange-value of commodities is given, the quantity of gold in circulation depends on its value, whereas the value of paper tokens depends on the number of tokens in circulation. -- Karl Marx

On the nature of socialist economics:

With collective production, money-capital is completely dispensed with. The society distributes labour-power and means of production between the various branches of industry. There is no reason why the producers should not receive paper tokens permitting them to withdraw an amount corresponding to their labour time from the social consumption stocks. But these tokens are not money. They do not circulate. -- Karl Marx

The freedom to self produce, using the shared and very public means of production is a necessity -- not only for the sake of equality, but for the sake of overcoming market economics in general. Can one sell their own labor? No -- how could they if such tokens are NOT deemed usable for general circulation? Can they trade their labor and gain profit? NO -- this becomes "illegal."

Trade IS exploitation of labor. Let's look at an example:

Doctor makes 10 pairs of shoes, taking 1 hour of labor, thus, it is 6 minutes of labor per pair. Doctor seeks to trade a pair of shoes for a hand crafted chest, taking over 3 hours of labor. Why can he do this? The chest maker has no shoes -- this is a conversion of "personal property" to a very obscured form of capital, and thus, private property. In trading, one man's labor has been exploited. You remove all the abstraction of money and see directly where the labor has been "lost."

The question is of course, why should one trade such expensive labor for a cheaper labor? Are shoes unavailable due to underproduction or scarcity? Maybe. Are the shoes *nicer* than other shoes? Marginal value? Why can to chest maker not use the same means of production to create a similar pair of shoes? Why can he not ask that such a pair be made by the doctor, and have it freely granted to him? As he freely grants his work to society or even specific members of society?

Where the idea of a "gift" economy, and a market, trade or currency, differ, is in the direct control of this property, both private (immobile means of production, land, etc) and personal property with private rights.

It is a return to the tooth brush argument (which you may not be familiar with if since you're fairly new here). To what extent could one control a tooth brush? A piece of personal property, which most people might not even want to use, but may NEED if such scarcity arose? The answer should be, to no extent can they control it's usage. To do so would be an infringement on societies relations as a whole and the shared nature of the tooth brush's production. Did the maker of the toothbrush (possibly the "owner," possibly not) harvest all the materials to produce it on their own? Did they build the means by which they molded the plastic? Or did they just mold the plastic? What portion of that labor used in it's product (in total) was really theirs to begin with? Capitalist society determines these owners through private property. That is to say, the owner of the means of production owns the products made through it's use. Socialist society determines these owners through, as you have pointed out, the productive forces (the work force in their separate organizations), communist society determines NO OWNERSHIP and further, TOTAL OWNERSHIP.

However, the social condition which essentially upholds private property, which is what makes it PRIVATE property, is what is abolished. Not the property itself. To abolish this one must abolish such control, the private nature, and the social condition which says I am able to exploit your labor because of your necessity and my so-called "right" to maintain ownership of said necessity.

We should seek to abolish this on all levels. Whether it be groups of workers exacting such control over other groups of workers, even if there is fairness and equality in production and consumption between these groups of workers, or whether it be a whole mass of a population, in any confined region, over a single individual.

If one does not share what they make their own, they are controlling these pieces of property. If the shoe makers do not share the means of production equally with the whole of society, no such social condition has been abolished. Did they create the machines used to produce the shoes? Did they acquire the resources and material to do so? The means of production is not theirs to own or control, nor is the product of their labor, as it is a product of someone elses labor. Much the same, the doctor cannot maintain that his labor at the shoe factory and the products it produces are wholely his.

What you are left with is a far more subtle rule. One which says, the means of production are turned to society, for society's use, they are then used to produce for society. The products from them are in turn turned to society, for society's use, they are then used to produce for society (people need shoes to work in most environments). And we see a cycle -- one which makes no ownership... one which loses the concepts of ownership as a whole.

Where you get confused is when you ask "what happens if someone barges in and steals my shoes?" -- steals them? your shoes? Classic bourgeois thought at it's best. This is not meant to be an insult, nor is it meant to be an easy concept to grasp. But you have to forget about such property relations when looking at communist society. You must drop them altogether. Pretend such concepts never existed, and never will again.

Or perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to that and just get from the produced shoes.

They can "get" whatever shoes they wish. So can you, so can the doctor, so can the shoe makers -- even if those shoes are "your shoes."

The question is of course, would they? Why would they? What type of greed to you invision here? Would you be so spiteful to hoard your shoes when people are shoeless? If it was you or a child who must go shoeless, would you not give him the shoes on your feet (even if they did not fit him, but may protect his feet?) If it was you, a doctor, or that wo/man over there a concrete worker or a landscaper, would you not give them "your shoes"?

They shouldn't, and they will not, have to be "allowed" such things. It is already theirs as much as it is already yours. For you NOT to recognize this, is not their flaw, but yours.

LSD

16th April 2005, 19:38

You've maintained private control -- whether or not you realize it is another question -- with this formulation. Yes, you expand the resource to the general public in the economic organization (the commune) yet you isolate control of the means of production to the will of a few.

Well, ultimately all that communism is is the expansion of the franchise.

Workers' control over the means of production means workers' control over their means of production. Once you start arguing that the workers in an industry do not have the right to self-regulate, the obvious question is who does?

All I suggested was that the permission of the hypothetical shoe-maker worker collective must be a prerequisite for any non-member of the aforementioned collective to utilize the factory of that collective.

You seemed to disagree. I can only assume, then, that you believe that such permission should not be required and that, accordingly, any member of the commune should be perfectly free to produce their own shoes, the workers oppinions be damned.

Surely you can see the chaos this would cause!

Again, are there rules? Yes. Not any single person can go and have all the machines shipped out from the shoe factory to the middle of a desert -- nor should it require the permission of EVERYONE to determine what is to be done in certain instances. But actually limiting personal production of such goods?

I'm not limiting such production, I am merely advocating that the workers who actually work the factory be the ones to make such decisions.

If, as you fear, they go "out of control" and become a "labour aristocracy", they would be quickly tempered by the fact that they need the food/water/electricity... that the rest of the commune is producing more than the rest of the commune needs shoes!

One of these givens would be that it would be the case that the doctor would call up the shoe factory and ask when they had an open machine, or when off time was, or when a lunch break was for some of the workers, etc, rather than just barging in and demanding use on his own time.

Well then... aren't you, in effect, agreeing with me? I suppose the question you have to ask is what if the workers say...no?

I have a clear answer to that hypothetical. If the workers do not give permission, than the doctor cannot make his own shoes. That's my answer.

What's yours?

What it comes down to is the difference between someone being able to utilize these means, when you have them open, and regardless of them being open, the workers of that specific factory maintaing complete control.

Ahh... but who's to say if a machine is open or not?

Who's going to determine if there are resources available, time available, machines / space / room available?

If you don't trust the workers themselves to make these judgments, and clearly you don't, then who do you want to make such decisions?

In your hypothetical model, if the workers don't want our hypothetical doctor to use their factory, they will lie and say the requisite tools / machines are in use. I indeed these workers are as callous and power-hungry as the "aristocracy" you predict them to become, why wouldn't they simply claim that there's "no room"?

You see, your plan is just as open to abuse as mine, the critical difference is that at least my plan is honest. If the workers believe that they can't or don't want to spare the time / machines for this doctor they can say so without resorting to trickery and deception. But the fact is that most of time they will give permission!

This fear you have that, somehow, the shoe-makers will, out of some desire for shoe-making powers, deny all "outsiders" the right to use their machines is...well... laughable. But moreso, you haven't offered a genuine alternative!

If people are really as dishonest and malicious as you seem to be implying than your plan does nothing to rectify the situation.

Again, I am not proposing that only shoe-makers be allowed to make shoes. Merely that the shoe-making workers must consent before others can use their factories.

That's what ownership over the means of production means.

NovelGentry

16th April 2005, 20:50

Well, ultimately all that communism is is the expansion of the franchise.

Indeed, but an expansion to few? or an expansion to all?

Workers' control over the means of production means workers' control over their means of production. Once you start arguing that the workers in an industry do not have the right to self-regulate, the obvious question is who does?

If this is what you've confused what I've said for, I apologize for my wording. What I am talking about, however, is out of the realm of regulation, and within the realm of property relations, which was indeed what the question was about to begin with. What must be recognized is the tie between these property relations and regulation to begin with.

Do you seek for limited workers regulation? Or the regulation of society as a whole? What you have said is a positive step forward, yes, but one which determines a remaining private nature. One which is completely applicable and usable in terms of socialism, as I have pointed out in my previous post. But communism? I'm not so sure.

All I suggested was that the permission of the hypothetical shoe-maker worker collective must be a prerequisite for any non-member of the aforementioned collective to utilize the factory of that collective.

And this is where we disagree, at least, in the realm of communist production. Certainly such a system would not be unreasonable for a mid-term socialist society.

You seemed to disagree. I can only assume, then, that you believe that such permission should not be required and that, accordingly, any member of the commune should be perfectly free to produce their own shoes, the workers oppinions be damned.

I believe the workers opinions should be accepted no more than any other workers opinions, particularly when one seeks to see the doctor as a worker. Again, division of labor becomes FOOLISH to uphold, so why uphold that the division of labor should in turn uphold any other ruling? The doctor can be a shoe-maker, as any other shoe-maker could be a doctor. It becomes pointless to draw such boundaries.

Surely you can see the chaos this would cause!

I'm afraid I do not. Democracy is key yes, but not democracy of a few over certain means of production which will affect a many. Democracy of the whole in which is effected must be put in it's place.

I'm not limiting such production, I am merely advocating that the workers who actually work the factory be the ones to make such decisions.

You're advocating that they have a right to limit the production, more, they have a right to limit the use of these means of production which are not even theirs to limit. Again, ignoring the total social nature of production leads you down the same path of control and ownership we see today. Would it be controlled by MORE? Yes. Would this be a step forward from capitalism? Of course. But I don't think anyone should concede that this is the nature of what we seek to achieve. No more than saying equal wages can be said to seek what we achieve and no more can saying that equal stock in a company can be said to be what we seek to achieve. All I'm asking is that you look beyond what you see as necessity due to the current mode.

There are far too communists, at least I feel there is, who are willing to admit such drastic changes in society and see far beyond the current form under capitalism, but still seek to maintain a good deal of the old line of thinking, including such limited control.

If, as you fear, they go "out of control" and become a "labour aristocracy", they would be quickly tempered by the fact that they need the food/water/electricity... that the rest of the commune is producing more than the rest of the commune needs shoes!

Why even let it get that far? Why present the possibility. The goal should be to constantly revolutionize the means of production and the means of consumption too until it is controlled by society as a whole, NOT just by the workers in that trade. This is the only thing I think one can presume Marx to mean when he says "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible..." as opposed to him saying "trade union/guilds regulate the general production..."

Well then... aren't you, in effect, agreeing with me? I suppose the question you have to ask is what if the workers say...no?

There is a difference between one group controlling the means of production itself and society as a whole determining the flow of this production. It should not even be a position for the workers to say "no" -- instead, it should be the position of society, regionalized by where this production affects to say "this is what we need, this is when we produce it." Outside of that necessity, no control needs to be placed.

The problem of control itself should only present itself in the form you have given, on the condition that scarcity exists. On the idea that there is a priority to be met -- that all these shoes be made so that everyone has shoes. Would such a condition exist? Possibly -- but even still, it would not be strictly a trade decision, but the decision of society in total for where this production affects.

I have a clear answer to that hypothetical. If the workers do not give permission, than the doctor cannot make his own shoes. That's my answer.

What's yours?

My answer is that it is never the worker's decision alone. It is the decision of society, and these decisions alone should be adhered to. The doctor, as a member of society, would have his say in the production of the needs of society, as would anyone else outside the shoe trade. Again, you talk about the expansion of a franchise, but you expand it only so far as you are capable of seeing it reasonable, for you, that is within the realm of the trade itself. The "shoe-makers" -- as if there is some defined group of who is to be a shoemaker.

I cannot bring myself to these intentions. Instead I propose (as I believe Marx did) that the franchise be expanded to everyone. In doing so, anyone can be a shoemaker.

Ahh... but who's to say if a machine is open or not?

No one needs to say it. It is, or it isn't. Let me ask you something... if you go to an ATM do you cut ahead in line and push everyone else out of the line and say "I'm using this ATM... it's not yours, and I need to use it." No... why would you suspect anyone in communist society would be so bold? Furthermore, why do you suspect one could get away with such nonsense. The doctor has no more and no less right to these means of production than anyon else. That is what I am saying, as such, the doctor cannot limit the production of the shoe makers, and the shoe makers cannot limit his production simply through an archaic mechanism of control.

If a machine is open, it's open. If the material is available, it's available. This information would be public, this information would be analyzed by all, and this information would determine the decisions of society as a whole for what is OK and what isn't.

It's frequent around these boards and from communists as a whole that you hear "workers can organize and run things themselves." Indeed, so can society, beyond any single trade and for EVERY and ALL trades. I put no more or less faith in people's ability to do this, but I put that faith in more people it would seem.

Who's going to determine if there are resources available, time available, machines / space / room available?

Again, why do such things have to be determined? It's like arguing over whether a glass of water is empty or not.

If you don't trust the workers themselves to make these judgments, and clearly you don't, then who do you want to make such decisions?

Anyone and everyone who this production affects. From the people who maintain the machines, to the people who made the machines, to the people who harvest the material for making shoes, to the people that acquire and need shoes, and of course, the people who make the shoes as well. Again, not limiting the scope, broadening it.

In your hypothetical model, if the workers don't want our hypothetical doctor to use their factory, they will lie and say the requisite tools / machines are in use. I indeed these workers are as callous and power-hungry as the "aristocracy" you predict them to become, why wouldn't they simply claim that there's "no room"?

In my hypothetical model, it is not determined by workers alone. This is my point. I think you see me as wanting to remove control from workers... this is not the case. I want to give control to all those affected by it, which is far more than the shoemakers alone.

My point is not that they are this way, or even that they will become this way, my point is that limiting control to workers alone presents them the option to become this way -- it makes saying "no, you can't use this" an available option. Such an option should never exist, nor should it be necessary to decide on it, by anyone. If no one is using said means, someone is free to use them -- regardless of what the workers decide. In fact, I think it would be completely logical to set aside a portion of these means for direct use by people who are not frequently doing this as an every day task.

Lastly, given the technological progression, I find it extremely questionable as to why such issues would ever arise. The point, remains, however, there should never be a capability of them arising.

You see, your plan is just as open to abuse as mine, the critical difference is that at least my plan is honest. If the workers believe that they can't or don't want to spare the time / machines for this doctor they can say so without resorting to trickery and deception. But the fact is that most of time they will give permission!

Your plan ensures the workers can turn off access to the means of production in their given field, regardless of what the circumstances of it's current use are. The entire factory could be empty in terms of workers, with no one using it, and one would still need to be granted permission by the workers to utilize this.

My plan does not do this. Further, I think it's hilarious you've gathered the nature of my plan from only a few sentences. The nature of yours is apparent, not so much in the practical implementation of the plan itself, but what it seeks to protect. Hell, you even bolded it when you said it: "and has the permission of the shoe-makers in question."

You make this point further in the quote I'm replying to, "or don't want... they can say so without resorting to trickery and deception." Again, what I propose is that they can't actually SAY NO, at least not enforceably. The doctor calling, and whether or not the shoe makers admit or properly determine whether or not a machine and material is available is a courtesy, one which I can only presume would exist amongst 99.9999% of the population, as such courtesy exists under capitalism for such public uses (at least amongst people of the same class). Again, the ATM example.

This courtesy, while afforded to both sides, is not law, nor is it any written rule which is to be applied in all circumstances. It is, as I said, a subtle rule, and it is in fact, simply a courtesy. There should be nothing in the end that prevents anyone from making use of the means of production, whether or not they are a determined "shoemaker" or not, with the single exception of a majority decision by ALL peoples, NOT SHOEMAKERS ALONE.

LSD

17th April 2005, 01:01

My plan does not do this. Further, I think it's hilarious you've gathered the nature of my plan from only a few sentences.

Whereas you've derived the nature of mine from in-depth pyschoanalysis? We're both gathering what we can from the lines of the page, nothing more.

...with that said, let's dive right in!

The problem of control itself should only present itself in the form you have given, on the condition that scarcity exists. On the idea that there is a priority to be met -- that all these shoes be made so that everyone has shoes.

The problem of control is far more complex than that.

Beyond the simple equation of "how many" and "by when" come the questions of "how" and "by whom" and "through what method" and "by what tool" and "on what schedule" and "using what plan"...

These are the decisions which only the workers themselves can make. Yes, the entire society can, and must, make the general judgements, indeed one can hardly imagine any other possibility. But the detailed functional decisions can only be made by those who are in direct contact with the work in quesiton. Not only because of expertise, which, of course, is an issue, but also because they simply have the time and energy to do so. The general society cannot be spending its collective time deciding specifically how a specific pair of running shoes should be specifically made. Surely we can agree that the minutae, the details, can only be worked out by the workers on the ground.

Furthermore, it is wholly unreasonable to assume that the greater society could deal with the problems that will undoubtably emerge in any production effort. Quite simply, the reaction time isn't there. Again, it must be up to the workers who are actually doing the work to make the specific decisions on the scene.

Once we accept this rather unavoidable premise, it becomes clear that a certain level of specifc worker control is both nescessary and unavoidable. For practical reasons, every member of society cannot deal with every problem. The doctors are solving their oen local problem, the firemen are solving theirs, and, yes, the shoe-makers are solving theirs as well. We are not talking about "grand scheme" decisions here, we're talking about all the "little things" that, as we all know, end up taking most of our time.

That's the "problem of control".

If a machine is open, it's open. If the material is available, it's available. This information would be public, this information would be analyzed by all, and this information would determine the decisions of society as a whole for what is OK and what isn't.

Well...it's more complicated then that. How would a doctor half-way across town know if a machine were open of not. He'd call, no?

But, beyond that, "open" is a relative term. Sure a machine could be unused, but for all the doctor knows, Bob is about to start his shift and needs that machine in 3 minutes. If the factory is going to produce the 674 shoes it plans to that month, than Bob really needs to stick to the plan the workers have worked out. Our doctor using that machine instead will not only inconvienence Bob, but will put the entire collective plan at risk.

Yeah, its a minor issue; one doctor, one worker...

...but if everyone could come in whenever they pleased and use any machine that appeared open, it would soon be impossible to run production. Again, in the end, the doctor has to ask. There's simply no way around it. He can't know if a machine is genuinely available, or only temporary unused as the worker takes a shit. Only the workers on the scene know, and the doctor must consult with them.

My point is not that they are this way, or even that they will become this way, my point is that limiting control to workers alone presents them the option to become this way -- it makes saying "no, you can't use this" an available option. Such an option should never exist, nor should it be necessary to decide on it, by anyone.

Such an option will always exist, whether it's acknowledged or not.

As long as workers are working an industry they have tacit control over that industry. Moreover, as I've discussed, it is wholly impossible for an outsider to truly judge what is or is not "available" and hence it will always be up to the specific workers to make such determinations

Why even let it get that far? Why present the possibility. The goal should be to constantly revolutionize the means of production and the means of consumption too until it is controlled by society as a whole, NOT just by the workers in that trade.

There is a difference between one group controlling the means of production itself and society as a whole determining the flow of this production. It should not even be a position for the workers to say "no"

Again, such a level of control will always be surface only. It is impossible for the deep-level stuff, the "what kind of rubber should be use in the inner layer of the sole padding" stuff, to be generally controlled. The time, energy, knowledge, and desire are simply not there.

My answer is that it is never the worker's decision alone. It is the decision of society, and these decisions alone should be adhered to. The doctor, as a member of society, would have his say in the production of the needs of society, as would anyone else outside the shoe trade.

He would have his "say" indeed, but such a say would be limited by energy, time, and knowledge.

Not only general educational kind of knowledge, which certainly is an issue, but more importantly, by knowledge. Knowledge of the present production problems, knowledge of the workers involved and their abilities, knowledge of the materials and tools available...and which ones are being used....and who's using them...and why.

Now, I suppose it's possible that there's some doctor out there who will spend all of his free time studying shoe-making and visiting the shoe-making plant and thinking about shoes, and yeah, he might have some productive ideas on making shoes. But at this point, he's practically a shoe-maker himself!

I never suggested that "worker" become a guild classification of "secret society"! Anyone who works in a field has a right to make the decisions in that field, and by no means is anyone limited to one. If a doctor genuinely spends so much of his time working with shoes that he is a productive member of the industry then, yes, he can make full decisions with regards to that industry, but only then.

[b]Again, you talk about the expansion of a franchise, but you expand it only so far as you are capable of seeing it reasonable, for you, that is within the realm of the trade itself. The "shoe-makers" -- as if there is some defined group of who is to be a shoemaker.

Because there is.

And there always will be. No matter how "evolved" society or economics become, no matter how much we "multi-task" the fact that we have both been using the work "doctor" throughout this conversation shows that we both realize that, ultimately, people can only do so much.

Can people do more thant one thing? Of course, but that thee number of things they can do is always finite. That is, you can be a doctor, a tailor, and a candle-stick maker, but you're still a doctor, tailor, and candle-stick maker. You still have defined occupational industrial concerns. And as long as humans are mortal, that will always be so.

Again, division of labor becomes FOOLISH to uphold, so why uphold that the division of labor should in turn uphold any other ruling? The doctor can be a shoe-maker, as any other shoe-maker could be a doctor. It becomes pointless to draw such boundaries.

Ah!

I think this is the major issue of contention: is division of labour nescessary.

Clearly, you would say no. Indeed you find it "FOOLISH". I can hardly see how it is avoidable. As I said above, so long as the abilities of humanity are finite so are its occupational options. So long as we only have 24 hours in the day, there are only so many things we can do.

"Division of labour" has gotten a bad name by the abuses carried out in its name under capitalism, but the simple fact is that it has always been a part of human history, and will continue to be so long as we live in an advanced society.

The only alternative is...what? Hermitage? Autarky?

As long as we live in complex modern societies in which we are interreliant and inter-dependent, different people will do diffrernt things. You're right "the doctor can be a shoe-maker, as any other shoe-maker could be a doctor", but they ae on or the other. In some exeptional instances, they could, I suppose be both, but then that is what they are, and they are not a computer technician. They could, I suppose, do that as well but then that is what they are.

No matter how many proffessions, no matter how many jobs, they will always always ALWAYS be categorizable.

Basically, this entire discussion comes to practicality. I understand that you seek to "revolutionize" production, all of us on this website do. But the fact is that society cannot control every aspect of production and, in the end, local worker control is inevitable.

NovelGentry

17th April 2005, 19:54

Whereas you've derived the nature of mine from in-depth pyschoanalysis? We're both gathering what we can from the lines of the page, nothing more.

True, but you've said a lot more telling things here, including what I quoted earlier. I have presented little more than general rule of thumb. The specifics are always questionable, and really, we can theorize all we want, but in the end none of this is really up to us in particular.

What can be said, however, is that if, as you propose, people need the "permission of the <insert line of workers here>." You maintain the social relation which upholds private property. You've given it to more yes, and while every worker may have somewhere where they have this -- the idea isn't that some control this stuff over here, and others control other stuff over here, and because of that everyone is even. The idea is we abolish that level of control. The part that allows us to say "no, you can't use this!" Because this is the exact same statement which we can hear today from the capitalist. No doubt somene would have to enforce the rule too.

What we recognize instead is everyone's right to access EVERY means of production. It is not a fight between two four year olds for a basketball in a playground. There is no difficulty in keeping order and sanity while providing that people have equal access to the means of production -- ALL people, not just what you see as the seemingly dedicated workers in those fields.

If the issue at hand wasn't the control, I'd be pretty disgusted at that idea alone -- the idea of the dedicated shoemaker, etc.

The problem of control is far more complex than that.

Beyond the simple equation of "how many" and "by when" come the questions of "how" and "by whom" and "through what method" and "by what tool" and "on what schedule" and "using what plan"...

I'm not gonna quote the whole block, but up until your next response, this issue is primarily about method. Aside from "on what schedule" there is nothing here that conflicts with anyone using the machines -- and even still, the question of time is quite easily overcome. Let me remind you that the doctor making shoes for himself means one less person needs shoes. Let me also remind you that this is not a company. While some level of productive output must be ensured, this is not a question of "are we meeting our production deadlines? If not profits will drop!!"

The issues you bring up here are mainly issues of methods and process. Which I agree, completely should be decided by the workers in that field. But control SHOULD NOT.

For practical reasons, every member of society cannot deal with every problem.

And let me just point out that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is quite simple. Society as a whole will determine the general productive process. This is simply the way it will be more than any aimed goal. If the shoemakers need to make 700 shoes, how do they know this? By the needs of society! If they need all the raw materials to do so, they need to be talking to the people who supply those raw materials, other members of society. They too need food, and houses, and as such, their position as a productive force is tied to those aspects of society.

This is something unavoidable. Because of all these links, it should be these societies as a whole who are capable of coming together and saying (when necessary), "this is what we need, and this is when we need it by." But as I may or may not have mentioned before, this is only an issue when scarcity arises.

Until the point where people actually NEED a certain number of shoes, there need not even be talk about it, and there need not be any control which disallows someone from using the means to make a shoe. Why should there be? Have you never seen kids visiting a firestation and the firemen showing them whats up with the trucks? Did a bunch of houses burn down when this happened? Ever see a mechanic explaining to someone what happened with their car? Were they unable to fix all the other cars because of it?

The common deadlines and necessary productive output is a side product of capitalism which says "If we don't get this shipment out in time, we lose such and such an amount of money." This is not our concern, it will never be a concern, and in general, there will neve be ANY concernt, unless there's an issue of scarcity. In which case, I'd be glad to see the doctor in the shoe factory down there helping out when he's got free time.

You present the outside worker as a threat to the stability of a given trade. You actually seemed frightened by what I propose. You believe that if just anyone can waltz in and use the machines they all will, without any courtesy, without any second thought as to the existing use, and without any care if those people already using it are trying to get work done for society. I'm not sure how you can have enough faith in divided groups of workers to maintain their own industries and work willfully within a gift economy, but not have enough faith in all these people as a whole to be able to properly coordinate and organize equal access to the means of production.

It's not magic, and it has nothing to do with deciding what kind of rubber to use in the soles of shoes (as you put it later). It is the general role in which society will take. You should know your shoemaker like you should know your next door neighbor. He may BE your next door neighbor. Surely as a doctor, he could very well be a patient too.

Your statements have really segregated the different trades. Alienating them from society by placing them into these roles and saying "you are the shoemaker, you make shoes, you do it, and you do it well, as such, you have free reign and control over the shoemaking productive forces."

Such an option will always exist, whether it's acknowledged or not.

To be quite honest, I find the rest of what you're saying repeats, and misguided on the issue at hand, which is control. I will respond to this statement, as it's interesting you would bring this up.

Why do you believe such an option will always exist? Why must it always exist? This is the fundamental condition presented by private property. It is what allows for exploitation, it is what makes one person force someone elses labor for something they need or want. In maintaining control there is no alternative for the wage slave. You believe this always exists? Maybe one can always say it, but it will not be always acceptable to say.

In general, your response deviated from the issue at hand. You turned control over access into an argument of control over proccess (or at least you tried to). The process may always and should always be determined by the laborers undertaking that process. If it's a group of shoemakers, they decide democratically, if it's a single man making a shoe he can make the shoe however the hell he wants. But method and process, again, are not the same decisions as what was presented before. What was presented before was a decision that decided someone's right to the means of production, it allowed for private control (even if it was shared private), little different than a company that gives equal stock to all employees, etc. Is it better, yes, but it's not the fix.

EDIT: I'm gonna starta new thread on the division of labor topic. Because it's something that deserves it's own thread. It'll be in theory.

OleMarxco

17th April 2005, 20:19

LSD

17th April 2005, 20:30

EDIT: I'm gonna starta new thread on the division of labor topic. Because it's something that deserves it's own thread. It'll be in theory.

Very good idea, I was actually thinking about that.

But, to be fair, the question of whether or not division of labour should or will exist in a communist society is a central point of what we're discussing in this thread.

Your statements have really segregated the different trades. Alienating them from society by placing them into these roles and saying "you are the shoemaker, you make shoes, you do it, and you do it well, as such, you have free reign and control over the shoemaking productive forces."

Yes.

Aside from "on what schedule" there is nothing here that conflicts with anyone using the machines

In general, your response deviated from the issue at hand. You turned control over access into an argument of control over proccess (or at least you tried to).

But method and process, again, are not the same decisions as what was presented before.

Process and access are not seperate issues. They are merely different aspects of the same problem. Control over process requires management of access, otherwise planning and organization are impossible. You suggested making consulation with the relevent workers a "courtesy". Were this to be practiced, it would quickly become obvious that when such "courtesy" is not offered, production problems insue.

On site workers need access control in order to regulat process control. One cannot exist without the other. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, it is practially impossible for an outsider to gauge what machines / tools/ workstations are truly free and which are in use or soon to be in use. Such information is possessed only by those who either made such determinations (the workers) or those directly affected by such determinations (the workers) or those who carry out those determinations (the workers).

What we recognize instead is everyone's right to access EVERY means of production. It is not a fight between two four year olds for a basketball in a playground. There is no difficulty in keeping order and sanity while providing that people have equal access to the means of production -- ALL people, not just what you see as the seemingly dedicated workers in those fields.

And who will "keep" this order?

Again, the issue is more complex than you suggest. Someone has to determine if a machine / tool / resource is available, someone has to determine a queue priority if there are more applicants than tools. Inevitably, in any free society, it must be the on-site workers who make this judgment. Not only are they the ones who work there every day, but they also are the experts in the fields and can determine a proper course. No matter how democratic the society, the entire commune cannot determine whether Fred or Sam gets to use a particular workstation first.

Until the point where people actually NEED a certain number of shoes, there need not even be talk about it, and there need not be any control which disallows someone from using the means to make a shoe. Why should there be? Have you never seen kids visiting a firestation and the firemen showing them whats up with the trucks? Did a bunch of houses burn down when this happened? Ever see a mechanic explaining to someone what happened with their car? Were they unable to fix all the other cars because of it?

Granted, there are fields in which response is the primary function (firefighters, EMS, pretty much any repair work..) and there are fields in which production is the primary function.

Certainly, there are industries in which scarcity will not be a problem, similarly there will undoubtably be industries in which it will. However, since it is ludicrous to have double-standard in which those industries with pressing production needs are closed to the public and those without are open, it is far simply and far more logical to simply allow the workers to control their individual means of production. We must trust that if, indeed, production needs are met and there are free machines, they will be more than willing to allow others to utilize their factory / industry.

The idea that somehow worker control of industry corrupts, but control of society does not is bizzarre to me. Surely if the workers are as susceptable to corruption as you believe, they will find a way within the kind of structure you outline as well!

Why do you believe such an option will always exist? Why must it always exist?

You present the outside worker as a threat to the stability of a given trade. You actually seemed frightened by what I propose. You believe that if just anyone can waltz in and use the machines they all will, without any courtesy, without any second thought as to the existing use, and without any care if those people already using it are trying to get work done for society.

I don't believe that "they all will", in fact I believe that most won't. But I fear that enough will that it will quickly become a problem. So much so, that I think it most likely that this "courtesy" will quickly become much more, if not officially than certainly de facto.

It become quite apparent that this consulation is required to keep operations running, and as addressed earlier, you are still relying on the local workers to determine what is open or closed, what is available or not.

Therefore, in the end, whether it is admitted or not, the workers will end up controlling their means of production.

NovelGentry

17th April 2005, 23:01

But, to be fair, the question of whether or not division of labour should or will exist in a communist society is a central point of what we're discussing in this thread.

Quite the contrary. This thread is about control over the means of production and limitations placed on it's use and the perceived control the original poster saw this having over society.

Your answer seems to be "Well other workers will have control over other industries that they rely on and thus will *keep them in line*" (obviously not an exact quote). In my opinion, my answer is far more elegant and far more in line with the idea of abolishing private property as Marx theorized was possible. That answer is to exert no such control, at least not by any limited organization/group of workers, but with society itself, as a whole.

These issues have little to nothing to do with division of labor, except that the division of labor becomes a coerceive condition under your solution. Where as mine, it becomes the personal decision of every individual to determine what they will or will not do for society and for that matter, themselves.

Process and access are not seperate issues. They are merely different aspects of the same problem.

Maybe so, but they are two separate issues in terms of what role they take in society. Access to the means of production, and decisions on the extent to which the productive forces will be used to maintain and upkeep society should be UP TO SOCIETY, as it AFFECTS SOCIETY -- Not just the workers.

Control over process requires management of access, otherwise planning and organization are impossible.

And no doubt the input of the people who work most aptly in these areas and who are known as "shoemakers" will have a great amount of influence when and IF these issues arise.

You suggested making consulation with the relevent workers a "courtesy". Were this to be practiced, it would quickly become obvious that when such "courtesy" is not offered, production problems insue.

I suggest making no such courtesy, merely presume such courtesey will exist. I suggest making NOTHING necessary to determine use of the means of production, other than someone using them. I do not feel any single person, any group of people (majority or minority), should have total dictatorial control over a given set of the means of production that will inevitably affect a larger portion of society than said parties. You propose democracy of the tradesmen in that field, I propose democracy of the portion of society which this production affects. If it is only the shoemakers who need/want shoes, then there will be no interest for anyone to use their means of production, and it would not be an issue at all.

You extend the range and control over property, which maintains a private nature. I abolish the private nature.

On site workers need access control in order to regulat process control. One cannot exist without the other. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, it is practially impossible for an outsider to gauge what machines / tools/ workstations are truly free and which are in use or soon to be in use.

You assume there is far more thought involved in this than there needs to be. I've never seen such a selfish person (outside of fiction and kindergarten through 4th grade classrooms), even under capitlaism, that demands use of a tool regardless of it's current availability.

Determining the availability would certainly take into account asking those currently populating the factory -- might I suggest the "shoemakers." It is not a library book that will be checked in and out, although such time schedules might be completely feasible, with a portion of the time devoted to "free for all" use of the machines so to speak. It is the same every day conversation between one person and another that breeds statements such as "Do you mind if I use that chair?" "Can I use that after you?" "Is there anyone at this table?"

Such information is possessed only by those who either made such determinations (the workers) or those directly affected by such determinations (the workers) or those who carry out those determinations (the workers).

And this is of course another place we differ. Such information should be widely available, publically available -- even down to the productive output and work records themselves as Marx put it "The social relations of the individual producers, both toward their labour and the products of their labour, are here transparent in their simplicity, in production as well as in distribution." and further, "Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force."

And who will "keep" this order?

Who will keep any order?

Again, the issue is more complex than you suggest. Someone has to determine if a machine / tool / resource is available, someone has to determine a queue priority if there are more applicants than tools. Inevitably, in any free society, it must be the on-site workers who make this judgment. Not only are they the ones who work there every day, but they also are the experts in the fields and can determine a proper course. No matter how democratic the society, the entire commune cannot determine whether Fred or Sam gets to use a particular workstation first.

Again, you're confusing the nature of this. There is not going to be some superfluous vote on who gets to use a particular workstation first. There will be determinations made for all needs of society, and probably beyond needs, luxuries. The consumption and, thus, necessary production are already determined by society. No shoemaker is forced to go make shoes to meet the production quota, no shoemaker is even forced to make shoes, nor are they forced into labor. No such production is guaranteed to begin with, instead, society defines the needs, and people rise to meet those needs. Whether they be "every day shoemakers" or John, the guy who builds birdhouses in his garage, who is going to make shoes, it's going to happen.

There will always be people respected in these fields, and with respect may come influence, but it is not guaranteed, nor it protected by any "legal" means. If people decide differently, and a majority are swaying a certain way, it will be doen that way, regardless of what shoemakers or the most skilled in any trade want. No one maintains such control except society as a whole, plain and simple. That is all I'm saying. I'm not saying there is a vote every few seconds on what to do down at a factory here or there, I'm saying the control over productive forces is simply not let into the hands of a single group -- no matter what their relation to those means are.

Certainly, there are industries in which scarcity will not be a problem, similarly there will undoubtably be industries in which it will. However, since it is ludicrous to have double-standard in which those industries with pressing production needs are closed to the public and those without are open, it is far simply and far more logical to simply allow the workers to control their individual means of production.

Well hey... why have workers decide these things. If you want REAL efficiency and control, why not set up a boss... or a single more isolated group of the workers who controls the production. Even though there are industries where it might be somewhat efficient to allow workers to maintain control over the means, there are some where it's simply inefficient and illogical... so yeah let's just keep it in a few peoples hands. Please, listen to what you are saying.

I have no problem if you believe this to be the case, but don't paint it up and label it communism.

We must trust that if, indeed, production needs are met and there are free machines, they will be more than willing to allow others to utilize their factory / industry.

Why trust? Why NOT maintain control over such allowances elsewhere in total view of what is needed and what is available?

The idea that somehow worker control of industry corrupts, but control of society does not is bizzarre to me.

I'm not saying it corrupts. I'm saying what you propose does not abolish the social conditions set fourth by private property -- Even if everyone gets what they need/want, including access to the machines, it does not change the nature of who's in control. Much the same way if everyone had a great paying job, and bosses even allowed them to come in and use these things to make some stuff for themselves, it would not change the nature of capitalism.

But since you brought this up, I'll explain it. If you keep control within a portion of society (as opposed to a whole of society), a control which affects a larger portion than those in control, you create a social condition where control over the means of production becomes equivalent to control over the portion outside.

This cannot occur with society at large because there is no portion outside the realm of control. No alienation occurs because they all have the same right and responsibility to uphold the same aspects of control. So yes, while society may become corrupt, the corruption affects no one outside of that society, and thus, it is their own problem, which they can fix and deal with internally because of their equal right and responsibility.

It wouldn't matter if a politician was corrupt if he had no say over your life.

Surely if the workers are as susceptable to corruption as you believe, they will find a way within the kind of structure you outline as well!

Again, this isn't about corruption. Your system may work perfectly fine and everyone will be happy... or at least, a large portion of society may be happy -- except for the people who can't ever get to use the means of production for their own benefit. But hey, that sounds strikingly familiar to a society I know of and actually live in now. Calling the society you propose "classless" is a misnomer in every sense of the word. Granted, they are far more subtle classes assuming a high number of workers (if not the entire population), but the differences in power can be as substantial as that of current class society. Publishers for example, are going to have relatively little power, compared to say... agricultural workers. Again, whether or not they exert this power does not matter.

I don't believe that "they all will", in fact I believe that most won't. But I fear that enough will that it will quickly become a problem. So much so, that I think it most likely that this "courtesy" will quickly become much more, if not officially than certainly de facto.

It become quite apparent that this consulation is required to keep operations running, and as addressed earlier, you are still relying on the local workers to determine what is open or closed, what is available or not.

Therefore, in the end, whether it is admitted or not, the workers will end up controlling their means of production.

You've gotten quite aways ahead of yourself. First off, you assume that in my thinking if the workers say no, that is it, end of story. But it is not.. the courtesy is just that, a courtesy. It is not a requirement, nor is it the end all be all means of gaining access to the means of production.

What is quite apparent to you, is that someone needs to maintain control over the means of production. What has been quite apparent to me for some time is that such control needs to be abolished, on all levels, whether it is founded in a boss, a board group, or every worker in the factory.

Such control, may be required to keep operations running, but the control does NOT need to be placed into the hands of the tradesmen alone. And this is where we split. You believe the tradesmen of a certain field are most capable and justified in deciding who gets access to the means of production and when. I believe society as a whole is most capable and justified in deciding this, while the tradesmen are most capable and justified in deciding the general productive method for whatever product they make.

Do they need to know when they can use the means of production? yes. Do they need to know if they have total control for a given period? why not. Do they need to know what society needs/wants them to produce? yes. Do they need to be able to tell someone they cannot do what they do? no.

Again, you jump ahead that my courtesy is more than a courtesy. The fact is, every person has the right to demand access to these means of production, and would be completely justified in doing so. No such demand should have to be made though... no such condition should exist that a demand has to be made. In both our scenarios the workers could say "yeah, come on down, we can make some room and work with ya." And the demand itself can be avoided. But under yours, a condition exists, that they can actually say no, more, they can indefinitely say no and even crazier, no matter how apparent it is that these means are being unused (say for example the factory is empty), the use is STILL at the discretion of the tradesmen.

NovelGentry

17th April 2005, 23:14

I have thought about a problem of Communism: How do we justify treating all "classes" of workers the same when, eventually, the doctor is doing more aid to humanity than the shoe-worker: The shoe-maker produces shoes - Which we CAN use, and is very handy, but not necessarily "must-have". However a doctor can save your life - Although "don't-have" to live, and could just die. How do we meet this problem? Giving them equal pay, equal power and position to each-other in the industry, even if "to each according to their need" but the need for a Doctor just happens to be greater than shoes. Everyone could go in socks or bare-footed if they wanted, but we are still mortal so Doctors -are- kind of more "important". How do we manage to reward "according to their ability" just as much as the shoe-producer withouth the Doctor feeling undervalued?

For starters, you present the common misconception that there is "equal pay." There is, in fact, no pay. There is no money. Power is maintained with control. Of course Lysergic Acid Diethylamide would have it so doctors maintain control over the hospital and thus they would in that sense have more power -- power over life necessities, as opposed to power over the niceties of foot shelter. What I propose is that society as a whole, works together, organizing the needs, coordinating itself with respect for one another's labor and contributions -- but in the end, if push comes to shove, it is society as a whole who determines these access controls. It is not the doctors' hospital, it is society's hospital, if they so choose they could burn in to the ground and all die of easily curable/treatable diseases, whether the doctors like it or not.

The idea of "reward" is simple -- you are not paid, you simply acquire what you need/want from the labor which has contributed to the overall growth of society. The doctor, like the shoemaker, and like any other laborer in the same fields or any other fields determines what they are going to contribute to society, they give their labor, and in return are given the labor of others. This is why it is called a gift economy.

However, it is not regulated by formal market or trade, but merely through the equilibrium of production and consumption, a 1 to 1 relationship that quite clearly states, only labor power which has been expended can be consumed. That is, you cannot get a gallon of milk if no one spent the time to milk the cow, bottle it up, and ship it to where you are. You cannot receive an hours worth of medical attention if no one is there to work on you.

What keeps this society together is necessity. Society as a whole will function on it's necessity as a whole. If there is greater demand or need for certain things, people can build, manufacture, collect, acquire, construct them as is neeeded/wanted. This is why the means of production must be in the hands of society as a whole, not simply the tradesmen of given industries.

LSD

17th April 2005, 23:56

Maybe so, but they are two separate issues in terms of what role they take in society. Access to the means of production, and decisions on the extent to which the productive forces will be used to maintain and upkeep society should be UP TO SOCIETY, as it AFFECTS SOCIETY -- Not just the workers.

"decisions on the extent to which the productive forces will be used to maintain and upkeep society" can refer to anything! But as we've covered, every decision related to production cannot be decided by the whole of society .Clearly, the details must be worked out by the workers directly involved.

...you see this does come down to Division of Labour. You don't see there being a distinct group of Shoe-makers and hence such a group should not have anymore influence over shoe production than anyother. I see such a distrinct group as required and believe that they must be the ones to control aspects of production as they are the ones required to work that production.

And no doubt the input of the people who work most aptly in these areas and who are known as "shoemakers" will have a great amount of influence when and IF these issues arise.

Exactly!!

This is precisely my point, the people who actually know will be the ones who ultimately make the judgments, under your plan as well. Most people simply don't care enough to get involved in shoe-production. Accodingly more and more tacit authority over shoe production will roll down to the shoe-making workers (as it should) until they control the means of production. Even if such power is never formally forumlated, it will quickly become a de facto control. The same way that "courtesy" will become "custom" will become prerequisite, so will influence become consultation become power.

There is simply no way around the fact that as long as a specific group of people run an industry, they run that industry.

Unless you want a return to bosses!

I do not feel any single person, any group of people (majority or minority), should have total dictatorial control over a given set of the means of production that will inevitably affect a larger portion of society than said parties.

Again, that power will come no matter what. Even if you "officially" declare that all production decisions are formally up to the entire collective, inevitable such details will be made by the on-site workers, because they're ...well.. on-site.

Interest and pragmatism will soon lead to the workers who are actually working the industry being the ones who run that industry.

You believe the tradesmen of a certain field are most capable and justified in deciding who gets access to the means of production and when. I believe society as a whole is most capable and justified in deciding this, while the tradesmen are most capable and justified in deciding the general productive method for whatever product they make.

But, again, the "society as a whole" cannot make the specific production decisions and it is these decisions which, from a "day-to-day" perspective are the most important. Sure production is ultimately guided by the needs of the greater society, but it is the minutae of process that lead to control over access.

Determining the availability would certainly take into account asking those currently populating the factory -- might I suggest the "shoemakers." It is not a library book that will be checked in and out, although such time schedules might be completely feasible, with a portion of the time devoted to "free for all" use of the machines so to speak. It is the same every day conversation between one person and another that breeds statements such as "Do you mind if I use that chair?" "Can I use that after you?" "Is there anyone at this table?"

...so who would determine "free for all" time, or determine your hypothetical "time schedule"? Again, it would be the workers themselves for practicality's sake if not for morality's. Even if your experiment were attempted and such decisions were intially made by the entire community, over time more and more of the planning / organization would be made by the workers themselves.

When the doctor calls up the shoe plant to ask if a machine is available...who answers?
When he goes down to the plant and sees a seemingly empty machine and asks if its available...who answers?
If he decides to sit down anyways...who can tell him its being used?

The workers will always have the power because they're there. Pretending that that implicit power doesn't exist doesn't negate its presence, it only makes it more powerful by neglect. As long as categorical workers exist, an implicit power will exist with them.

But under yours, a condition exists, that they can actually say no, more, they can indefinitely say no and even crazier, no matter how apparent it is that these means are being unused (say for example the factory is empty), the use is STILL at the discretion of the tradesmen.

If a group of workers were to act in a way that the greater society felt was "crazy", the situation could be delt with, much as if they, say, started burning down factories. Discussion, consultation, and, if nescessary, action. If the workers refuse to produce and refuse to allow others to produce then they have failed in their social duty to the community. They do not have a duty to absolutely allow others to use their tools of production, however they will in all likelyhood accord this courtesy.

Use of communal goods and services and products is a right accorded to every citizen under communism, but use of all production tools is not. The tools of production are used to maintain humanity and ensure a funcational society, they must first of all be used by the workers working them to accomplish their specific occupational goal.

...unless you want to get rid of division of labour.

But since you brought this up, I'll explain it. If you keep control within a portion of society (as opposed to a whole of society), a control which affects a larger portion than those in control, you create a social condition where control over the means of production becomes equivalent to control over the portion outside.

Yes, but every group has a sphere of control and the sum of every overlaping sphere makes up the blended sphere of society such that everyone has a degree of control over everyone else and a truly integrated society is formed.

And this is of course another place we differ. Such information should be widely available, publically available

I believe you misunderstood.

I did not mean to say that such information would be somehow "classified", merely that it would be constantly chaning and subject to numerous variables. It would be impossible to keep "everyone" constantly aware of the status of each machine, or even of how many machines are available.

To find out, one has to call up and ask. And that's were the power comes in.

No such production is guaranteed to begin with, instead, society defines the needs, and people rise to meet those needs. Whether they be "every day shoemakers" or John, the guy who builds birdhouses in his garage, who is going to make shoes, it's going to happen.

Well... this comes down to division of labour so I'll leave it to the other thread, except to say that production must be guaranteed to meet a subsistance level or society won't survive.

Relying on "people to rise" works for a revolution, not for making shoes.

Granted, they are far more subtle classes assuming a high number of workers (if not the entire population), but the differences in power can be as substantial as that of current class society. Publishers for example, are going to have relatively little power, compared to say... agricultural workers. Again, whether or not they exert this power does not matter.

"publishers" will not be an essential occpation. If you want to write a book you simply can... write a book.

No non-essential occupation will be considered a legitimate primary occupation. That is, every primary occupation will be essential and hence the disparity of power you envisage will not come to passs.

What is quite apparent to you, is that someone needs to maintain control over the means of production. What has been quite apparent to me for some time is that such control needs to be abolished, on all levels, whether it is founded in a boss, a board group, or every worker in the factory.

...or everyone in society?

Even you admit that control is nescessary, you just want to expand it to an unfeasable size by expecting everyone in a community to give a damn in how much rubber is used in the underpadding of the inner sole.

Quite the contrary. This thread is about control over the means of production and limitations placed on it's use and the perceived control the original poster saw this having over society.

Which comes down to how we see the work force:

As a dedicated collective with primary occupational resonsibilites or as non-coherent hobbiests.

It is not the doctors' hospital, it is society's hospital, if they so choose they could burn in to the ground and all die of easily curable/treatable diseases, whether the doctors like it or not.

Of course, ultimately, all decisions are up to the collective, simply put, there's more of them. The question is who has functional authority.

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 01:55

"decisions on the extent to which the productive forces will be used to maintain and upkeep society" can refer to anything! But as we've covered, every decision related to production cannot be decided by the whole of society .Clearly, the details must be worked out by the workers directly involved.

...you see this does come down to Division of Labour. You don't see there being a distinct group of Shoe-makers and hence such a group should not have anymore influence over shoe production than anyother. I see such a distrinct group as required and believe that they must be the ones to control aspects of production as they are the ones required to work that production.

But those are, whether you realize, very specific decisions. Not in the sense that they are designed to decide specific methods etc, but in that it is not a blanket term for all decisions. Again -- It is not society getting together and voting on whether to use a double or single stitch -- nor in the case of the doctor is it society getting together and deciding where to make an incision, or even what patient to work on first. These are the decisions on the USE of productive forces themselves. And again, need not even come into question unless there was a strictly determined necessity. That is to say, whether or not one group should be allowed access to use the means of the shoemakers to make shoes, would be a decision for society as a whole. Can the current shoemakers not meet the needs? Do they need help? Is this crazy doctor over here affecting their total output? But these are decisions reserved for necessity, under the most dire circumstances. Not for every day use of the means of production. As I pointed out before, this isn't some random guy walking in and saying "hey can I make some shoes with these machines." It's your next door neighbor, or your physician, or the loudmouth at democratic assemblies, etc..

The question as I see it is not whether or not he CAN do this, the question is whether or not he CAN'T. What you propose is a defensive means that maintains control in the hands of the designated "shoe makers" -- What I propose is a system that maintains control in the hands of society, so they can decide who their shoemakers are, if need be.

This is precisely my point, the people who actually know will be the ones who ultimately make the judgments, under your plan as well.

But my "plan" does not afford them judgement alone. That is the difference. My plan takes into account that there are people supplying the materials to the shoe makers, and there are people who supply the food that the shoemakers eat, and their are doctors who keep them healthy so they can make shoes, and that there are even people consuming the shoes -- and thus, ALL of these people, more accurately called society, should have a say.

Certainly their opinions and ideas will be respected, and given thought. But your system allows them to maintain control regardless -- they don't even have to give a reason why they can just tell the person wanting to make shoes "no." My system holds them accountable for such control and keeps control of these means within the hands of EVERYONE that shoe production affects (which is far more than the shoemakers).

Most people simply don't care enough to get involved in shoe-production. Accodingly more and more tacit authority over shoe production will roll down to the shoe-making workers (as it should) until they control the means of production.

But you seem to be suggesting we simply give them control of the means of production, and respect that, regardless of the overall social opinion or social will. This is where I have a problem -- if they "gain control" as you put it because everyone respects the opinion of the shoe makers and the doctor says "hey can I use this machine" and they say "no" and he respects that answer, that's something different than if he HAS to adhere to that answer because it is the shoe makers who are given exclusive control over these means of production.

Even if such power is never formally forumlated, it will quickly become a de facto control. The same way that "courtesy" will become "custom" will become prerequisite, so will influence become consultation become power.

And on an individual basis, this may be the case, but again, the question is CAN it be challenged. Let me remind you of what I took issue with:

The means of production will be controlled by the workers in that field.

and has the permission of the shoe-makers in question

This is far beyond courtesy. This implies a very specific and exclusive control. And even still, seeing the shoemakers as a separate alienated independently operating group in society is a bad road ot walk down. There is a role that society will play, it is not a highly exact role in terms of shoe production, as we have both agreed, that is better left to those who are trained and understand it. But there is no training and understanding required for understanding access to these means.

You keep saying it is complex. But it is not complex. It is as simple as this "Are shoes being produced? Do we need shoes? Who can produce shoes? Will you guys go and produce shoes?" -- these are the questions and decisions which society faces in terms of shoe production, but they are only free to adequately face them when the means of production is centered in the hands of society as a whole, as opposed to just shoemakers.

There is simply no way around the fact that as long as a specific group of people run an industry, they run that industry.

Unless you want a return to bosses!

It doesn't really look like you've escaped them -- at least not completely.

Again, that power will come no matter what. Even if you "officially" declare that all production decisions are formally up to the entire collective, inevitable such details will be made by the on-site workers, because they're ...well.. on-site.

Again, we're not talking about production decisions. We're talking about access to the means of production. You refuse to differentiate for whatever reason, but there is a HUGE difference in saying "These group of people making these shoes get to determine how thick the soles are" and saying "these group of people making these shoes get to determine whether or not this guy can make shoes." Do you not see a difference in that? One is completely acceptable, as it is a decision which affects their personal labor and the product they are offering -- if society doesn't like it, fine. The other is not acceptable, no matter how much their influence and respect might make it possible, having it as a "de facto" is not acceptable.

It is the difference between deciding and convincing other people to decide a certain way. The difference between one out of two people being able to vote, and thus having it be that person's decision, and both people being able to vote, but the one guy convincing the other one that what he thinks is the best solution, and thus coming to a shared decision.

Let me ask you straight up, what do you propose? Remember, the issue is access to the means of production, not HOW to produce.

On the question of "Is this person able to make use of the means of production?" -- Who has the say in it? I'm not asking whether or not they will all agree and in who they will agree with. I'm asking, formally, who's decision is it, or rather, who's decision do you think it should be?

But, again, the "society as a whole" cannot make the specific production decisions and it is these decisions which, from a "day-to-day" perspective are the most important. Sure production is ultimately guided by the needs of the greater society, but it is the minutae of process that lead to control over access.

And again, I'm not talking about specific production decisions. My stance on such specific decision is simple -- if a group of people are creating a product, it is the decision of those people for the specific form, nature, and method which that product will be produced. However, you relate access as one of these decisions, which is not the case. A group of shoe makers can work alongside another group of shoe makers. Both can make completely different shoes, and work completely independent from one another, and have their own decisons which affects their production.

Access becomes another question altogether. If anything a prerequisite question to whether or not these people will even produce. For example... a group of shoemakers from 500 miles away arrives at a local factory and wishes to make shoes too. Who maintains the control over means of production? Do the existing shoemakers have the right to say "no, leave." Sure they could all work together, but what if they don't care to? Or what if they're simply not making a similar enough shoe, and have different goals and methods in mind? They are all shoemakers... so who controls these means?

My answer is, society does. I'm not sure what your solution is, maybe they go to war over the factory or something.

...so who would determine "free for all" time, or determine your hypothetical "time schedule"? Again, it would be the workers themselves for practicality's sake if not for morality's. Even if your experiment were attempted and such decisions were intially made by the entire community, over time more and more of the planning / organization would be made by the workers themselves.

Society would, and society should, because the means of production belongs to society as a whole. And again, you're saying that decisions would be made by the workers themselves -- not so. There is a difference between the workers making the decisions and everyone making the decision but the opinions of the workers carrying influence or weight. They are not hand in hand.

You talk about morality's sake, and I can only assume you think the time schedule of workers is to be decided by society. This is not what I'm saying. The fact is, society is who is using the shoes. What the hell are shoemakers going to go to work for if society doesn't give a damn about shoes?

You refuse to see the total picture. There is no point to making shoes if society does not want them, or if society would prefer another gorup make the shoes, or if society prefers they all make their own shoes.

Production decisions are NOT free from consumption, unless you're looking to create completely useless work. "The shoemakers have decided we will maintain use of the factory for 8 hours a day to produce 1,000 pairs every day... even though the rate of consumption is 300 pairs of shoes a week." Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that difficult to see that what you're focusing on is creating some kind of workers bureaucracy which separates the roles and increases alienation between production and consumption. It's far more simple.

The means of production belong to no one and everyone at the same time.
The means of production are controlled by no single person, or no single group, smaller than the whole.
Society produces what it needs -- regardless of HOW it goes about this.

Whether you want to have a separate group of shoemakers, everyone produce their own, etc... doesn't matter. Society produces what it needs. It's not shoemakers produce what society needs. Society produces what it needs -- in ALL trades.

I don't say society to make it easy. I say society because I mean society. Looking at individuals, groups of individuals organized by trade or virtue or whatever is pointless. If you're going to look at the social nature of this you must look at society as a whole.

When the doctor calls up the shoe plant to ask if a machine is available...who answers?
When he goes down to the plant and sees a seemingly empty machine and asks if its available...who answers?
If he decides to sit down anyways...who can tell him its being used?

When he calls, I'd imagine they would have someone who's generally taking calls who answers. Something like a secretary.

When he goes down to the plant, I would imagine the nearest worker who hears him answers.

If he decides to sit down anyways, anyone can tell him it's being used, but no one can tell him he can't use it, and he can not tell anyone else they can't use it.

The workers will always have the power because they're there. Pretending that that implicit power doesn't exist doesn't negate its presence, it only makes it more powerful by neglect. As long as categorical workers exist, an implicit power will exist with them.

And what should they do if he decides to go about working anyway? burn him at the stake? Again, this is not kids in a playground. Maybe you could start having a little more faith in people's ability to coordinate and come to agreement.

If a group of workers were to act in a way that the greater society felt was "crazy", the situation could be delt with, much as if they, say, started burning down factories. Discussion, consultation, and, if nescessary, action. If the workers refuse to produce and refuse to allow others to produce then they have failed in their social duty to the community. They do not have a duty to absolutely allow others to use their tools of production, however they will in all likelyhood accord this courtesy.

But it's not THEIR tools of production, thus, they have no duty to absolutely deny such use.

Use of communal goods and services and products is a right accorded to every citizen under communism, but use of all production tools is not.

But all production tools are ommunal goods, services, and products -- this is the WHOLE idea.

The tools of production are used to maintain humanity and ensure a funcational society, they must first of all be used by the workers working them to accomplish their specific occupational goal.

So it would be apparent that your workers set the goals for society then. If the workers make what's needed to maintain humanity, and that is their specific occupational goal, and they must accomplish that greater goal of maintaining humanity, who decides whether or not they're doing an alright job of acheiving that? Who tells them to begin with (directly or indirectly) what their goal is?

It's like if you were in a kitchen with a chef. And you had a plate in front of you -- the chef begins to cook and he presents you with the meal and it's something you don't like... on top of that, contains something you're allergic to. But of course, the chef makes the decision what to cook... cause he's the chef, and he knows what he's doing. It's the SAME exact scenario, except on a larger scale.

Society determines it's needs -- the workers merely fulfill them. But the workers themselves are member of this society and therefore are intertwined with it. These social relationships become transparent, second nature. There is no complexity or even that much thought involved -- there doesn't need to be.

"Oh this shoe is the best... we know, we're shoemakers"
"But it's uncomfortable... I'd rather make my own pair or get someone else to do it."
"No.. we need the machines to make more shoes for others."

You're presenting a really broken and backwards way of looking at this. And to be quite honest.. it's been confusing the crap out of me.

My take is that you're so focused on the plight of the worker, that you see the worker as the end itself, rather than the means to an end. Strangely, you don't seem to have class consciousness... you have trade consciousness. You separate the laborers from one another and dissolve their responsibilities and needs internally to their trade alone. You destroy class antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat only to replace it with trade antagonisms.

It is a strange world you see, one where workers of a specific field determine the need for their products. They mandate to society what is needed rather than society mandating to itself. The shoemaker is only a portion of the whole, the hand on the body, unless it's sewing a glove it is not working directly for itself -- it's action is determined by the needs of all other portions. One part needs food, another needs clothing or shelter, another needs simply to be scratched, another needs pressure applied cause it's bleeding, etc.

But you've broken this. Society becomes a trade fragmented. The hand has a mind of it's own and while it may willfully serve these other parts these other parts do not work with it, but instead, work outside of it, even if, in spite of it.

Honestly I find it quite scary.

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 02:15

Upon reading the rest of your post which I skimmed over and felt no substantial need to reply to I found this:

No non-essential occupation will be considered a legitimate primary occupation.

What do you mean by "legitimate primary occupation" ?? Are you implying that only certain jobs will be legitimate and warrant your place in the consumption of societies goods?

LSD

18th April 2005, 03:43

I think we're both repeating ourselves here, because we're comming from differening paradigmatic models but treating them as one.

I'm going to reiterate my point that " the question of whether or not division of labour should or will exist in a communist society is a central point of what we're discussing in this thread.".

Ultimately, this thread has become subordinate to that one.

What do you mean by "legitimate primary occupation" ?? Are you implying that only certain jobs will be legitimate and warrant your place in the consumption of societies goods?

Yes.

People will have to preform an occupation which society has seemed to be nescessary, thereby ensuring that essential responsibilities are undertaken,

My answer is, society does. I'm not sure what your solution is, maybe they go to war over the factory or something.

You keep saying it is complex. But it is not complex. It is as simple as this "Are shoes being produced? Do we need shoes? Who can produce shoes? Will you guys go and produce shoes?"

The question as I see it is not whether or not he CAN do this, the question is whether or not he CAN'T. What you propose is a defensive means that maintains control in the hands of the designated "shoe makers" -- What I propose is a system that maintains control in the hands of society, so they can decide who their shoemakers are, if need be.

This comes back to your "almost like magic" human body model of society. Society ... just ... works. While it'sa lovely image, in the real world, organization is needed. Sure, society as a whole will decide production needs but it cannot decide production method. You seem to be suggesting that no such organization is neede at all! But as discussed in the thread on division of labour, without co-ordination, resources are mismanaged and production requirements are not met.

But my "plan" does not afford them judgement alone. That is the difference. My plan takes into account that there are people supplying the materials to the shoe makers, and there are people who supply the food that the shoemakers eat, and their are doctors who keep them healthy so they can make shoes, and that there are even people consuming the shoes -- and thus, ALL of these people, more accurately called society, should have a say.

Again you do not define "have a say". Specific production decisions will, of course, be made by the workers themselves, as will work decisions.

production decisions are NOT free from consumption, unless you're looking to create completely useless work. "The shoemakers have decided we will maintain use of the factory for 8 hours a day to produce 1,000 pairs every day... even though the rate of consumption is 300 pairs of shoes a week." Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that difficult to see that what you're focusing on is creating some kind of workers bureaucracy which separates the roles and increases alienation between production and consumption. It's far more simple.

Again, production needs will be set by society, production method by the workers.

So it would be apparent that your workers set the goals for society then. If the workers make what's needed to maintain humanity, and that is their specific occupational goal, and they must accomplish that greater goal of maintaining humanity, who decides whether or not they're doing an alright job of acheiving that? Who tells them to begin with (directly or indirectly) what their goal is?

Of course society has general authority, but that goes without saying. The workers hardly have an interest in producing goods that no one wants, and will labour to create useful product. If, out of common madness or some such, a group of workers refuses to produce that which the greater society needs, the society will deal with the problem.

The question isn't who has the ultimate authority, that's implied, the question is who has functional authority. The workers are as much a part of society as any other, and must acquiese to the needs of that society, but, relative to other individuals they are functionally autonomous in their industry.

On the question of "Is this person able to make use of the means of production?" -- Who has the say in it? I'm not asking whether or not they will all agree and in who they will agree with. I'm asking, formally, who's decision is it, or rather, who's decision do you think it should be?

But you seem to be suggesting we simply give them control of the means of production, and respect that, regardless of the overall social opinion or social will. This is where I have a problem -- if they "gain control" as you put it because everyone respects the opinion of the shoe makers and the doctor says "hey can I use this machine" and they say "no" and he respects that answer, that's something different than if he HAS to adhere to that answer because it is the shoe makers who are given exclusive control over these means of production.

Society would, and society should, because the means of production belongs to society as a whole. And again, you're saying that decisions would be made by the workers themselves -- not so. There is a difference between the workers making the decisions and everyone making the decision but the opinions of the workers carrying influence or weight. They are not hand in hand.

This all comes back to whether or not there are defined roles and that's better suited for the discussion on division of labour in the Theory forum.

But you've broken this. Society becomes a trade fragmented. The hand has a mind of it's own and while it may willfully serve these other parts these other parts do not work with it, but instead, work outside of it, even if, in spite of it.

Look, I think this discussion about access to production tools ultimately comes down to our disagreement on the role of production and of worker categorization.

The issues we're covering in this thread are all stemming from a fundamental disagreement, and I don't think we can get anywhere here, rather we should focus on the more critical argument, that of division of labour.

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 11:17

While it'sa lovely image, in the real world, organization is needed. Sure, society as a whole will decide production needs but it cannot decide production method. You seem to be suggesting that no such organization is neede at all! But as discussed in the thread on division of labour, without co-ordination, resources are mismanaged and production requirements are not met.

I've responded to this a billion times, in this thread and the other. This is not an attack on organization and coordination, which I'm well aware is necessary. It is an attack on the idea that control is necessary to have such organization and coordination.

This is the difference in what we present. Further, I create a separation between organization and coordination of method, and the organization and coordination of access to means. You do not.

Regardless. I say both types of organization and coordination are to be regulated by those who these decisions will affect, consciously or unconsciously.

Again you do not define "have a say". Specific production decisions will, of course, be made by the workers themselves, as will work decisions.

I'm not sure how you'd like me to define "have a say." I've explained multiple times, and even previously in this post as to what involvement I feel different levels should have in production. It should coincide with whether or not that decision actually affects said people.

The organizational aspects of ensuring a proper labor force to create the necessary shoes for society is something that is up to society. The labor force is drawn from society, the decision directly affects their necessity, etc. The decision of whether or not it would be a good idea for John Doe to take his lunch break at 12:30 would be a decision between John Doe and the other workers. There are other varying forms of conscious and unconscious decisions too. It is the responsibility of society to regulat the quality of a product by deciding whether it suits their needs and wants. If a shoe is uncomfortable, they will not wear it. That is an unconscious regulation of product quality. In turn there is a proportional conscious regulation set down by the workers to meet a certain standard for comfort and support that will make people want to wear the shoes.

Catch my drift? But the thought I put into this is about the only thought that such issues should need in terms of "who decides what." That is why I say it's "like magic." Because organization and coordination will exist, but it need not be actively thought about the way you present that it must. It should just flow, much like how such decisions do under capitalism. The manager doesn't need to sit an plan out everyone's lunch break before the workday. The person consults with the manager when they are hungry, and a decision is made, on the fly. Same will happen, but one would consult with their fellow workers as a whole, unless they had previously elected someone to a temporary managerial position.

But other things will happen on the fly too. You don't need to figure out how many shoes you need for the next year and set a production scale 3 months in advance to the new year. Shoes are produced as they are needed, or regularly enough that a moderate surplus is maintained, and that is that. There is no real discussion of this necessary... is there? why? You seem to be making it a far bigger deal than it is.

Again, production needs will be set by society, production method by the workers.

Well, you're half way there. I've been saying this all along. Now, let me ask you a question. Does control over access to the means of production fall under production needs or production methods?

That is to say, a decision on whether or not an individual or group can use the means of production at a given time.

I say this has to do with production needs. It is a means to ensure the necessity is met and that the workers have the time and availability to meet them. So if you agree with me on this point, and as you have just said production needs will be set by society, then you agree that the determination of access and thus control over the means of production is an issue for society, not the workers.

This is the summation of my argument and the primary disagreement which got this entire thread rolling. Up until now, you have consistently maintained the workers will decide who can do what with the means and when. While I maintain this is the position of society.

The question isn't who has the ultimate authority, that's implied, the question is who has functional authority.

But functional authority is method, not need. And I agree, method is determined by workers... how they go about working, is all their own business. Their function is to make shoes, they do this by being afforded access to the means of production by society as a whole. If society would prefer a different group of shoe makers make their shoes, said existing shoemakers may no longer be afforded this access.

Your original indication was that these workers controlled access. You may very well see access as a portion of function, but as I said before, it is not a portion, it is a prerequisite, as much as function and the ability to produce is dependent on having the means available, you need not the ability to determine aspects of both.

Look, I think this discussion about access to production tools ultimately comes down to our disagreement on the role of production and of worker categorization.

The issues we're covering in this thread are all stemming from a fundamental disagreement, and I don't think we can get anywhere here, rather we should focus on the more critical argument, that of division of labour.

The question of "who controls the means of production?" exists outside the question of whether or not division of labor must be respected. It is as simple as saying a whole or a portion? That is, is control to the means of production a responsibility of society as a whole, a portion which most closely relates to those means? I maintain that it is the whole of society. Despite the relation the portion may have to those means, the rest of society has equal relation as producer of those means, and consumer of the product made by those means. Using those means to produce is only one aspect of the relation of those means to society -- limiting access decisions and pushing control into the hands of just those that produce with the means, is an infringement on the social nature of the property and is only justifiable if indeed, no other relations to those means of production existed.

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 21:24

I'm not sure I'd call it civil. But let's be quite honest here -- this goes against a lot of the things we accept about communism (at least from the Marxist sphere), including finer points made in some of the quotes I pointed out earlier.

Much like you don't accept that my judgement on who is communist is accurate, I'm not going ot accept that someone is communist just because they say they are. I do not believe I am the only "true" communist, I believe a lot of people on this board, including yourself are confused by some of the basic principles, such as the abolition of private property. I believe we all (including myself) hold on to some of the foolish notions of control and organization that we see under capitalism (but obviously I believe you hold on to this more than myself), etc.

It's not simple to think of how such a society works, especially with so little written about the actual production systems in communism. We all have to find what we believe is true to the ideals and conclusions set down by a lot of people who preceed us in defining what communism is.

Our goals, as a new generation of communists, should be to examine and determine the functional aspects while keeping these things in mind -- and as always, to push towards the end of capitalism.

We know a whole lot about different economic systems for socialism, or similar economic systems with their own little unique ways of doing things. Although some of us would even stop at risking to call such things socialism.

If you ask me, we have yet to seen any single nation turn socialism. We've seen socialist production schemes, strangely, in places which had strong anarchist influence. However, the political climates were usually flawed. Let's make one thing clear though, communism is not socialism. And as I've said a number of times, much of what you say is extremely applicable to socialism, at least in my belief. But communism is beyond these stages, it is beyond this kind of control, beyond the technical limitations of capitalism AND socialism, and develops most naturally from socialism and the kind of democracy you propose, but also the type of organization and control you propose.

I think you will find that it is you who is in the minority of communist oppinion

I don't need to find this... I know this. Amongst the mass of leftists accepting "communism", we see everything from Marxist-Leninists (who I disagree with) to anarcho-communists (who I disagree with to people who would rather not be restrained by labels (and a good majority of them, who I disagree with).

Am I supposed to be worried about this?

and that your diffused dilletante production model is largely your alone

I am still quite convinced you're not even aware of what I propose. The two topics thus far have been on control and division of labor. You see the division of labor as a means to organization and coordination, I propose that organization and coordination can exist REGARDLESS of whether or not there is division of labor or not. I propose, however, that communist production exists far beyond the point of assuming division of labor is necessary for organization. You, apparently, do not. Quite the contrary, you see them wholesomely tied together.

If it doesn't seem like I've proposed any means of actual organization, it's because I haven't. It is not necessary to do so to discuss the two topics at hand. Organization and coordination can exist without a division of labor... it can, and it will. The question of what form that organization will take is not an easy one -- nor is it easily answered within simple back and fourths on a forum. You attempt to do this, denying all the flaws of your own thinking. You claim division of labor brings accountability, responsibility, etc... but the only thing that brings this is people being accountable and responsible. If you do not feel this is possible without division of labor, I maintain you have a sad outlook on humanity.

I can respect that you believe it to be correct, despite my personal conviction that such a paradigm cannot work

You've done little to actually figure out what my paradigm is, granted, I've done little to make it clear, but as I said, I don't feel a medium as simple as this is the proper place. Instead you've simply assumed that what I propose is chaos and individual self-interest combined with hope and raw faith that this will somehow lead to a working society. This is not what I propose, and I agree, such belief is quite rediculous.

but I cannot respect your blatant elitism in assuming that communism is your view and your view alone.

As I said, what we know of communist production is extremely limited in terms of prior thought. We can only look at the conclusions of many of these theorists and attempt to ensure that we hold as true to what they present as possible. If Marx is right, the organization of communist production will not be based on any of our "ideas" alone, but on material reality and necessary. But what we can reserve the right to say, and I do reserve the right to say, is to look at systems being proposed and see whether they fall in line with what we accept the "ideals" of communism to be i.e. no private property, no money, a global paradigm, nationless, borderless, democratic, etc, etc.

What I am saying in this, is that I believe your paradigm goes against some of these fundamental ideas, more precisely that of private property, which Marx does not present as an object really or a simple class of ownership, but as a social condition. It is the relation to the means of production which makes it private, and you have no abolished the relation of a single group, no matter how large or small, still smaller than the total, maintaining control over these means of production. That is my issue, and that is why I consider your paradigm completely non-communist.

That is intolerant, closed minded, and disgustingly self-important.

I tolerate your view, and I'm very open to your view, and I accept that there are other views than mine. I simply do not accept that it's communist. If it is intolerant it is so only on the grounds that I will not tolerate what you present as a model for communist production. If it is closed minded, it is so only in the sense that I will not open my mind to such a paradigm being called communist. And if it is self-important... well, I don't see how it can be self-important when my belief is based on the works of others.

So what can I say? Come back when you've learnt humility.

I think I'll stick around for the ride.

LSD

18th April 2005, 21:30

If we accept that production is a diffused social function, then of course access to production tools must be a public right. But if one does not accept that premise, as I do not, then the argument is meaningless.

Again, This conversation flows directly from our individual conception of the role of the worker in production and the role of production in the life of the worker. This is what we are discussing in the theory thread and I do not believe that we can answer the question of access until we have answered the more fundemental question underneath it.

LSD

18th April 2005, 22:27

I know you say you have not presented a complete plan, and I agree in that much of your theory remains unstated, but you certainly have made certain specific suggestions for how you would like to see a communist society work. Those are all I have to work with and you can hardly legitimately claim that I've mispresented your views if you yourself admit that you have not completely presented your views!

I don't object to you labeling your own conception of communism as preferable, of course you do! Otherwise it wouldn't be your conception, would it? But I do take offense as your summarily dismissing all other variants of communsim (and there are many variants of communism) as somehow capitalism ...on the sly. It is insulting and, yes, arrogant, to declare that all forms of communism which do not mesh with your particular production model are therefore capitalist or capitalist-derived. That it is your view which is especially evolved and all others which are "backwards" or "capitalist without knowing it".

We are all the product of the environment in which we are raisded. You believe that I am "holding on" to too much of capitalism, I believe that you are overreacting and trying to throw out anything that seems related to capitalism. We're both probabably right to an extent, and neither of us really can say how a communist society would develop. But to claim that I, or anyone else, is not a "true" communist because I differ in my view on division of labour or production modelling is intolerant. If your definition of communism requires that it follow precisely your particular variant ....then you're pretty much the only communist in the world, eh?

Sorry, I can't accept that, and I doubt that many others would either.

You have interesting ideas NovelGentry, and I think you're perfectly well-intentioned. I can disagree with you and not make ad hominem attafcks accusing you of being a "secret capitalist". I hope you can as well. The division of labour thread is still going and if you can provide a defense of your conviction, I'm all for it.

I hope to see you there!

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 22:41

If we accept that production is a diffused social function... But if one does not accept that premise, as I do not

Well what you propose would make sense to the capitalists, if they accept that production was a diffused function of the trade workers... but they do not... so.. yeah.

This conversation, nor the division of labor conversation can go anywhere until you get over this hump. Not to be insulting, but I do not consider this kind of thinking acceptable -- denying the premise of the social nature of production is what maintains the foolish justification for the current system. As I said, you're willing to expand it, you see the social role of people within their own trade, but you do not realize how all these different trades remain dependent and are thus, intertwined. Again, if shoemakers do not eat, they do not make shoes.

So what can I say? Come back when you're communist and we'll discuss then?

LSD

18th April 2005, 23:24

So what can I say? Come back when you're communist and we'll discuss then?

We were having a perfectly civil conversation, was such an ad homimem really nescessary? Your labeling of something as communist does not make it so. I object to your arrogant self-characterization as the only "true" communist, while those who disagree with you are really capitalists ...but just don't know it.

I think you will find that it is you who is in the minority of communist oppinion, and that your diffused dilletante production model is largely your alone. I can respect that you believe it to be correct, despite my personal conviction that such a paradigm cannot work, but I cannot respect your blatant elitism in assuming that communism is your view and your view alone. That is intolerant, closed minded, and disgustingly self-important.

So what can I say? Come back when you've learnt humility.

NovelGentry

18th April 2005, 23:54

as somehow capitalism

Just to make a point... I don't dismiss your ideas as "capitalism" -- I dismiss it as having similar properties to capitalism. Socialism has similar properties as capitalism, including private property and trade control over the means of production. As I have said -- I believe what you are saying is very applicable to mid-term socialism. I simply dismiss that it is communism or communist.

can say how a communist society would develop.

No, we can't say how it will develop, but what we can say is what communist society is. I quesiton whether the principles upheld in your paradigm coincide with what we know to be the principles of communism.

LSD

19th April 2005, 00:04

No, we can't say how it will develop, but what we can say is what communist society is. I quesiton whether the principles upheld in your paradigm coincide with what we know to be the principles of communism.

I know!

That's what we are discussing, civily I thought, until you turned it into a personal issue.

Just to make a point... I don't dismiss your ideas as "capitalism"

Actually you were even more crude than that. You didn't just "dismiss my ideas as capitalists", you dismissed me as capitalist: "So what can I say? Come back when you're communist and we'll discuss then?"

That's the arrogance that bothered me. You not only declared that all ideas contrary to yours were capitalist, but also that the people posessing them must be as well. That's the definition of an ad hominem attack.

But again, I am willing to forgive your personal attack and continue conversing with you. I think you have a interesting viewpoint, even if I disagree on several issues. I genuinely hope that we can continue to debate without resorting to cheap personal attacks.

NovelGentry

19th April 2005, 04:10

That's what we are discussing, civily I thought, until you turned it into a personal issue.

I think you are the one that has turned it into a personal issue. Whether or not you are or aren't communist determines nothing about your ability to critique or develop communist theory. But you are not just critiquing or developing it, you're upholding something which I believe to be inherently non-communist.

What becomes difficult for me to believe is that someone can properly develop a critique or develop communist theory without understanding these fundamental principles. This is what I meant by this.

I would not consider someone calling me something other than a communist, or even calling me a capitalist to be a personal attack. I don't consider it an attack at all. The only reason you feel it's an insult is because you feel I have deprived you of a label which you think applies to you.

A human would find it insulting to be called a dog. A dog... would not. But if I do not believe a human to be a human, but to be a dog, me calling them a dog is not an insult, or at least that is not the intention.

So I apologize for whatever insult you felt it to be. It was never intended to be an insult.

Would you be insulted if I said, "I do not believe what you are saying is communism" ?? No... I said that before if I'm not mistaken, and you didn't seem to have a problem. So in judging from what you have said, I do not believe you are a communist. Both are personal, and both are depriving you of labels you believe apply to your person and your beleifs.

As I said, I'm sorry if you took it as an attack or an insult, but it was designed only to present the idea that I did not believe you were keeping with communist principles -- and thus, could not be a communist.

you dismissed me as capitalist: "So what can I say? Come back when you're communist and we'll discuss then?"

So if you're not communist you're automatically capitalist? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're curious as to what I think you are, I would call you a socialist. Some people consider socialists and communists one in the same, however, I do not consider them mutually inclusive. I do believe to be a communist one must be a socialist, but I do not believe the other way around is true.

You not only declared that all ideas contrary to yours were capitalist, but also that the people posessing them must be as well.

Well I would not consider someone with ideas contrary to Christianity a Christian -- for lack of a better example.

As I said before, I believe your ideas to be socialist, thus I believe your person to be socialist.

But again, I am willing to forgive your personal attack and continue conversing with you. I think you have a interesting viewpoint, even if I disagree on several issues. I genuinely hope that we can continue to debate without resorting to cheap personal attacks.

I merely ask that you do not read so much into such statements. These debates, whether we'd like to admit or not, are personal attacks. They are attacks against the person's ideas, and who are you if not your ideas? Saying someone is wrong is not a personal attack? It's very personal... or at least I see it as such.

Maybe some people consider that cold. I once made my brother's girlfriend cry because I debated so strongly against her desire to vote for Kerry. She willingly debated, but broke down towards the end. When you bring yourself into a debate, I would presume you are already aware the objective is to attack the ideas of the person who is your opponent, and thus the person themself.

If other people believe you are a communist then they can disagree with me and defend that you are. But how do they defend that you are if they do not present your ideas? "I think therefore I am" doesn't go far enough. What we think is what we are. I do not believe what you present is communism, and it's apparent you wholeheartedly believe in what you're presenting, thus I do not think you're a communist. It's not meant to be insulting.

Take this all as you will. But I am sorry for any offence I caused, it was not my intention, however, I do not retract my words.

LSD

19th April 2005, 04:30

Well, I accept your apology.

It's not like I was crying into my tea or anything, I was just surprise by the personal statement given that we'd been having a rather intellectual discussion.

But no worries, mate! :D 'tsall good.