Management

[wtfm8lol]

In your communist society, how will unproductive workers be dealt with? Or do you simply hope that there won't be any unproductive workers so this will be a non-issue?

[Fawkes]

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63344&st=0

[Forward Union]

Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.
clearly, cutting them off from society's resources when (I assume) everyone else is free to consume them is a way of dealing with the unproductive workers. i'm more interested in knowing who decides that the worker is unproductive.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+April 18, 2007 12:34 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ April 18, 2007 12:34 pm)
Love [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.
clearly, cutting them off from society's resources when (I assume) everyone else is free to consume them is a way of dealing with the unproductive workers. i'm more interested in knowing who decides that the worker is unproductive. [/b]
Whatever you want to call the body of workers that work at and control the workplace that the unproductive worker is supposed to be working at (that's a shit load of "work(ers)(ing)").

[wtfm8lol]

Whatever you want to call the body of workers that work at and control the workplace that the unproductive worker is supposed to be working at (that's a shit load of "work(ers)(ing)").

and what will this process be like? will the workers take a vote to decide whether or not the worker isn't working enough?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:42 pm

Whatever you want to call the body of workers that work at and control the workplace that the unproductive worker is supposed to be working at (that's a shit load of "work(ers)(ing)").

and what will this process be like? will the workers take a vote to decide whether or not the worker isn't working enough?
I would assume, though it is really up to the workers' council to decide before things like this actually happen what the decision-making process would look like and consist of.

[wtfm8lol]

and you really expect the workers to forget about their friendships and other personal relationships when it comes time to vote?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:22 pm
and you really expect the workers to forget about their friendships and other personal relationships when it comes time to vote?
Indeed, how will office politics play into the process?

In the current system, it is fairly transparent when an unproductive worker has the favor of management. In the "workers' council" or "workers' democracy" system, it would not be so transparent. A charismatic employee who curries favor for whatever reason could theoretically convince enough council members or enough fellow workers to support him or her.

Worse, what if the workers vote to continue producing their product or service even though it's not wanted or needed by the community because they're comfortable with their situation or convinced that their product is best? Is there any recourse to them and if so, can you really say they're in charge?

[RNK]

You seem to think that responsibility and rationality is only capable from someone who is given some form of semi-totalitarian authority over others. Are you a fan of that mode of thought that believes people are but pawns in need of a central authority to tell them what to do?

[wtfm8lol]

Are you a fan of that mode of thought that believes people are but pawns in need of a central authority to tell them what to do?

no, i'm a libertarian. but this discussion is about your system, not mine.

[RNK]

Exactly. You're asserting that without a central figure of authority who makes totalitarian decisions, the masses are incapable of acting in their own best interests. And I'm asking you to elaborate and prove that belief. It's your assertions, not mine.

[wtfm8lol]

And I'm asking you to elaborate and prove that belief. It's your assertions, not mine.

Ok. The only assertion I've made is that in individual areas of production, such as factories or offices, personal relationships such as friendships will complicate and reduce the efficacy of self-regulation by workers. It's not hard to imagine that if a sub-par worker who is very popular with his comrades in his factory or office is less likely to punished for not working as much as he can than the average worker.

[RNK]

And it's also not hard to imagine that a group of workers will act responsibly to defend the efficiency of their work, when it is that work that feeds them and their family. I don't know many people who'd willingly sacrafice even a bit of their quality of life in order to let a slack-off continue slacking off (infact, from my experience, slack-offs aren't exactly liked all that much to begin with).

[wtfm8lol]

I don't know many people who'd willingly sacrafice even a bit of their quality of life in order to let a slack-off continue slacking off (infact, from my experience, slack-offs aren't exactly liked all that much to begin with).


who says he's a slack off? maybe he's just better suited to do some other type of work. anyway, friendships can easily be strong enough to influence someone to vote in favor of the sub-par worker if it only hurts efficiency a small amount.

[syndicat]

Different people have different ideas how an economy based on workers self-management and common ownership of the means of production would work. So, i'll only give my own version. I'm a libertarian of the left. That's because i regard liberty as a primary value. For people to be free in a positive sense, they must control their lives. This means self-management. People can plan in advance what they are going to produce, they can develop their skills to carry this out, and then control their own work. Being subordinated to a boss hierarchy is a denial of this human capacity and need for self-management. That's why a class system is anti-libertarian, as I see it.

People also have the ability cooperate and reason with each other, and this seems to be what you are questioning. I envision a socialized economy working with a system of participatory planning. This means that people both self-manage their work and also their consumption. So individuals, as consumers of private consumption goods, and communities, as consumers of public goods like health care, public transit, education, prevention of pollution etc, put forward requests.

Worker organizations put forward their proposals for what they are going to produce, and enhancements in their conditions of work. There is then an interactive process of negotiation, and an overall plan is worked out. Production groups only get allocation of the socially owned means of production (equipment, land, buildings etc) and number of job slots if they are going to produce a benefit that warrants this. This can be socially enforced via the idea of a ratio between the benefit provided and the costs of the production. We can assume here that production groups need to meet some standard of benefit to retain their use right over the means of production. The income of all the workers is thus dependent on their output -- the benefit they provide. They might decide to penalize someone if they are slacking off or recognize someone in some way if they are making a special sacrifice.

But since we're talking about doing away with the class system, there is no internal professional/managerial hierarchy in the production groups like in some corporation. so there's not some special privilege or power to get through internal politics.

so what is the problem that friendship networks is supposed to pose?

[wtfm8lol]

so what is the problem that friendship networks is supposed to pose?

that an individual worker may work less than he is capable of, but he will retain his position because when it comes time to vote his friends will vote to keep him.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

This is an interesting question.

I mean, i don't think the USSR was a socialist, but after Stalin, workers in factory's were able to sack their management.

Obviously, this is cool as hell, but you often came into the situation where the manager was getting sacked just because he couldn't pay the workers more.

clearly this meant their was a high turn over of managers AND disgruntled workers.

So, i think they should just get rid of managers, and split up what the manager did, and give put it down on a rota.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:34 pm

so what is the problem that friendship networks is supposed to pose?

that an individual worker may work less than he is capable of, but he will retain his position because when it comes time to vote his friends will vote to keep him.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the most absolute weak arguements I've ever seen anyone make against socialism.

You really seem to be running out of things to argue against. "Democracy can't work because people make FRIENDS!"

[wtfm8lol]

"Democracy can't work because people make FRIENDS!"

democracy on the scale of a the average workplace probably works fine for most things aside from firing workers or subjecting them to lower pay or however else workers are punished.

[Rawthentic]

democracy on the scale of a the average workplace probably works fine for most things aside from firing workers or subjecting them to lower pay or however else workers are punished.


There is no democracy in the workplace under capitalism.

[wtfm8lol]

relevance please?

[Rawthentic]

relevance please?
Just felt like I could point that out. I would like to control the place where I work, other than have a boss heckling because he wants more money.

And I'll say it because I can and feel like it.

[syndicat]

that an individual worker may work less than he is capable of, but he will retain his position because when it comes time to vote his friends will vote to keep him.

If workers are remunerated on the basis of their sacrifice or effort in producing things we want, I don't see it as a problem if people chose to not be too harsh on their fellow workers, but given that everyone's remuneration in a production group depends on everyone pulling his or her weight, I don't think that there is any danger of this going very far. I agree with RNK's previous comment.

[Red Tung]

Ok. The only assertion I've made is that in individual areas of production, such as factories or offices, personal relationships such as friendships will complicate and reduce the efficacy of self-regulation by workers. It's not hard to imagine that if a sub-par worker who is very popular with his comrades in his factory or office is less likely to punished for not working as much as he can than the average worker.

And your post again reveals your inability to think laterally. Not surprising given current assembly-line "education" methods, students are put through ludicrous ways of learning like rote memorization and de-contextualised problem solving.

Different types of work can be graded differently and rewards can be distributed in a proportional scheme relative to the worker's objectively graded output such as quantity of units produced per arbitrary interval of time or clearly defined weighted goals to be met given an arbitrary deadline.

No need for the current Capitalist method of work termination which if you think about it makes very little sense as a way of determining the effectiveness of a worker's production relative to the rewards given out, but makes perfect sense if seen from the perspective of a dictator who wants to maximise his production by terrorising those working under him. Work termination given an insecure job market is an excellent way of exemplery punishment for those who dare challenge the fairness of the negotiated deal with the boss.

Afterall, like all libertarian Capitalists like to say a contract is non-coercive irrelevant of the social context in which the deal was made like whether or not the other party was driven by material desperation to make a deal that is clearly disproportionate in the distribution of rewards because to not accept would mean to commit financial suicide in an economy which depends on the circulation of pay given out by the pay masters. So who are the pay masters in this case? The worker? The boss? The "commissars"? Any type of economic system in which the direct producer depends upon the pay of any pay masters (boss, chairman, councillor or commissar, it makes no difference) is not a free or "Communist" system no matter how the masters try to dress it up.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:21 pm
And it's also not hard to imagine that a group of workers will act responsibly to defend the efficiency of their work, when it is that work that feeds them and their family. I don't know many people who'd willingly sacrafice even a bit of their quality of life in order to let a slack-off continue slacking off (infact, from my experience, slack-offs aren't exactly liked all that much to begin with).
By what measurement does a socialist community determine the efficiency of its factories? It won't be the same method as how the capitalist determines the efficiency of its factories.

And what relevence does it have that a "slacker" is not well liked in a capitalist community, and would also not be well liked in a socalist community? After all, that "slacker" in a capitalist community will be pressured by his capitalist slave masters to increase production, with the threat of termination and starvation, as the natural consequence of his "slacker" work.

But in a socialist community, that "slacker" is as much an owner of that factory, with the same rights to its production, as the workaholic. Remedies for the problem are not so apparent. You may say other workers in a socialist community will not like such a slacker (but hopefully adults in a socialist community will understand that one has to work with all people, even if one do not personally like a person), and will seek to defend themselves from the consequences. BUT, they would need to do so in a mannner within the structures and theories of socialism.
So the answer needs a little more explaining.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:24 pm
Different people have different ideas how an economy based on workers self-management and common ownership of the means of production would work. So, i'll only give my own version. I'm a libertarian of the left. That's because i regard liberty as a primary value. For people to be free in a positive sense, they must control their lives. This means self-management. People can plan in advance what they are going to produce, they can develop their skills to carry this out, and then control their own work. Being subordinated to a boss hierarchy is a denial of this human capacity and need for self-management. That's why a class system is anti-libertarian, as I see it.

People also have the ability cooperate and reason with each other, and this seems to be what you are questioning. I envision a socialized economy working with a system of participatory planning. This means that people both self-manage their work and also their consumption. So individuals, as consumers of private consumption goods, and communities, as consumers of public goods like health care, public transit, education, prevention of pollution etc, put forward requests.

Worker organizations put forward their proposals for what they are going to produce, and enhancements in their conditions of work. There is then an interactive process of negotiation, and an overall plan is worked out. Production groups only get allocation of the socially owned means of production (equipment, land, buildings etc) and number of job slots if they are going to produce a benefit that warrants this. This can be socially enforced via the idea of a ratio between the benefit provided and the costs of the production. We can assume here that production groups need to meet some standard of benefit to retain their use right over the means of production. The income of all the workers is thus dependent on their output -- the benefit they provide. They might decide to penalize someone if they are slacking off or recognize someone in some way if they are making a special sacrifice.

But since we're talking about doing away with the class system, there is no internal professional/managerial hierarchy in the production groups like in some corporation. so there's not some special privilege or power to get through internal politics.

so what is the problem that friendship networks is supposed to pose?


You start off by saying that worker organisations (ie "producers") will put forth their proposal of what they are going to produce. That is the first, immediate problem. Who cares what the workers want to produce. All that matters is what people need and want to consume. You do seem to think this is important, as then their will be "negotiations" of some sort. These negotiations will be between the producers and consumers, and some sort of compromise is reached , the result that producers get to produce some things which nobody wants (which is the element of a compromise, and which would make no rational sense).

But then you concede that the end result of production must have a greater value than what was used to create it (this would suggest then that the negotiation which existed between the producers and consumers is redundant. It truly does not matter what the producer wants). But no OIer could possibly object. After all, the situation you have described is known as "profit" and capitalists rely upon this in guaging their economic calculations. That you rely upon it also is a good sign (since ALL rational economics has to pursue profits). But then how does the worker control his own work, if the objective is to ensure that the value of his production is greater than its costs? Is this not the objective, and can that objective ONLY be reached if consumers want what is being produced, regardless of whatever "control" the worker may seek to exercise over his production?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 27, 2007 02:05 am


Different types of work can be graded differently and rewards can be distributed in a proportional scheme relative to the worker's objectively graded output such as quantity of units produced per arbitrary interval of time or clearly defined weighted goals to be met given an arbitrary deadline.

No need for the current Capitalist method of work termination which if you think about it makes very little sense as a way of determining the effectiveness of a worker's production relative to the rewards given out, but makes perfect sense if seen from the perspective of a dictator who wants to maximise his production by terrorising those working under him. Work termination given an insecure job market is an excellent way of exemplery punishment for those who dare challenge the fairness of the negotiated deal with the boss.


It would seem that the objective of economic production is not to produce items in a certain period of time. It would seem to be to produce items which are needed by the community. The distribution of rewards is such an environment to the workers would therefore seem to need to be dependent upon the value of the item produced, as determined by the community. Otherwise, the workers are rewarding themselves for what they are producing (regardless of whatever proportionate scheme is in place) as opposed to whether what is produced is needed by the community.

[Rawthentic]

More points to the already pointless, ZX3.

You will not, cannot, and will never disproves socialism or Marxism. They are not dogmas, but concrete theories to be applied to material conditions according to the correct analysis of history.

Class struggle is class struggle, your useless scenarios will not change this, those are things that the victorious people will solve.

[colonelguppy]

lol "correct analysis of history".

class struggle explains about third of total human conflict at best

[Red Tung]

You're right, the rest is wars fought over rival invisible sky daddies.

[colonelguppy]

it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources.

[Rawthentic]

lol "correct analysis of history".

lol, you can't refute that

[wtfm8lol]

lol, you can't refute that

how un-dogmatic :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

how un-dogmatic
How un-irrelevant. Class struggle and the science of marxism explain history in an objective way, devoid of any passion or emotions. Remember, communists are materialists, we are only interested in facts. ;)

[wtfm8lol]

moron. moron moron moron. nothing you said is true or even close to it. class struggle doesn't explain history even remotely accurately, and you are an idiot.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, God makes history, and so do great men, instead of people struggling and making history.

And deep down inside, you know you are wrong and a moron.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:29 pm
Yeah, God makes history, and so do great men, instead of people struggling and making history.

And deep down inside, you know you are wrong and a moron.
what are you trying to say? that powerful men don't make history? regardless, i didn't say the struggles of people don't make history. i said class struggles don't make all of history, as you seem to be deluded into thinking.

[Rawthentic]

Class struggle is the basis of the transition from one mode of production into the next. As well as cultural, class, social, economic relations stemming from that.

And hence, history!

[wtfm8lol]

oh i see, you've forgotten that there have generally been hundreds if not thousands of years between major transitions in the economic systems and that each of these period between transitions has its own history which influences culture and society in its own not insignificant way.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I'm also talking on a relative global time scale. The point is, history is made by what I explained.

[wtfm8lol]

yes history is made by what you explained in addition to a host of other things. hence class struggle isn't an accurate view of human history.

[Rawthentic]

Of course it is. It is the basis, of which others stem from.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 am
yes history is made by what you explained in addition to a host of other things. hence class struggle isn't an accurate view of human history.
Historical materialism is a guide to understanding what drives history. Class is clearly the major factor.

[wtfm8lol]

how can you sit here and claim that there is a single basis for history? are you joking around with me?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+April 27, 2007 07:46 pm--> (The Dissenter @ April 27, 2007 07:46 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources. [/b]
i just don't think eliminating classes will eliminate groups in conflict

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+April 27, 2007 08:53 pm--> (The Dissenter @ April 27, 2007 08:53 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 am
yes history is made by what you explained in addition to a host of other things. hence class struggle isn't an accurate view of human history.
Historical materialism is a guide to understanding what drives history. Class is clearly the major factor. [/b]
yes, but so is religous struggle and ideological struggle, as well as inter-society struggle that has nothing to do with classes.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 28, 2007 01:56 am--> (colonelguppy @ April 28, 2007 01:56 am)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 07:46 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources.
i just don't think eliminating classes will eliminate groups in conflict [/b]
Are you trying to say that humans just want to knock the shit out of each other all the time for the hell of it? There are no material reasons for conflict?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 28, 2007 01:59 am--> (colonelguppy @ April 28, 2007 01:59 am)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 08:53 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 am
yes history is made by what you explained in addition to a host of other things. hence class struggle isn't an accurate view of human history.
Historical materialism is a guide to understanding what drives history. Class is clearly the major factor.
yes, but so is religous struggle and ideological struggle, as well as inter-society struggle that has nothing to do with classes. [/b]
Ideological struggle and 'inter-society' struggle are two great examples of class struggle manifesting itself.

[wtfm8lol]

Ideological struggle and 'inter-society' struggle are two great examples of class struggle manifesting itself.

including when the ideological lines don't follow class boundaries and have nothing to do with classes?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+April 27, 2007 09:01 pm--> (The Dissenter @ April 27, 2007 09:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 am

Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 07:46 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources.
i just don't think eliminating classes will eliminate groups in conflict
Are you trying to say that humans just want to knock the shit out of each other all the time for the hell of it? There are no material reasons for conflict? [/b]
of course their will be material reasons for it, what makes you think there won't?

society A has a shortage of oil and sociey B has a surplus, and society A has nothing to offer that interests society B into giving enough oil to satisfy A's need. hey well why don't they just go take some guns and take it?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+April 27, 2007 09:09 pm--> (The Dissenter @ April 27, 2007 09:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:59 am

Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 08:53 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 am
yes history is made by what you explained in addition to a host of other things. hence class struggle isn't an accurate view of human history.
Historical materialism is a guide to understanding what drives history. Class is clearly the major factor.
yes, but so is religous struggle and ideological struggle, as well as inter-society struggle that has nothing to do with classes.
Ideological struggle and 'inter-society' struggle are two great examples of class struggle manifesting itself. [/b]
not really, i don't see how the US invading iraq (for friendly political control in the middle east), germany invading france(for basically ideological imperialism), or romans burning carthage to the ground (to move a military rival) have anything to do with classes.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 28, 2007 02:13 am--> (colonelguppy @ April 28, 2007 02:13 am)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 09:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 am

Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 07:46 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources.
i just don't think eliminating classes will eliminate groups in conflict
Are you trying to say that humans just want to knock the shit out of each other all the time for the hell of it? There are no material reasons for conflict?
of course their will be material reasons for it, what makes you think there won't?

society A has a shortage of oil and sociey B has a surplus, and society A has nothing to offer that interests society B into giving enough oil to satisfy A's need. hey well why don't they just go take some guns and take it? [/b]
Thats the childish view of history. Society A's bourgeoisie have acted in their class interests when they attacked society B. Not for the interests of society A as a whole which would include all its classes. Having not enough oil threatens society A's ruling class' economic hegemony.

[Rawthentic]

The U.S. has invaded Iraq for the class interests of the capitalist class, and that is to maintain a strategic position in the middle east. Its pretty ridiculous to say that the Iraq has nothing to do.

Germany was fascist nation, product of capitalist oppression that led the people to believe a sick fuck, partly caused by setarianism on the revolutionary left during the crisis. Thats class struggle.

[RebelDog]

not really, i don't see how the US invading iraq (for friendly political control in the middle east), :D The invasion of Iraq was the US bourgeoisie using their state to spread their economic power aggressively and maximise the seizing of resources. The weapons they use to do this are at first themselves a waging of class war on the US proletariat and poor because they are taking the fruits of their labour to aggressively force their own agenda at home and abroad. The US department of aggression, sorry defence, is a institution to wage class war worldwide for the interests of the US bourgeoisie.


germany invading france(for basically ideological imperialism),

An ideology which is in the first analysis a anti-working class one. Nazism was a destructive machine employed by the German ruling class in the first place to destroy the domestic workers movement which was very strong. The German bourgeoisie done very well out of Nazism. Why did the Nazis send aid to Franco? To wage class war.


or romans burning carthage to the ground (to move a military rival) have anything to do with classes.

Carthage was an economic rival to the roman ruling classes. Its destruction aided the roman ruling class and their position of hegemony over their own society and the conquered one.

[wtfm8lol]

li la li li la li li li li li li la li li la li li la li li li li li li la li li

[luxemburg89]

li la li li la li li li li li li la li li la li li la li li li li li li la li li

is that a song? I must say your lyrical ability even exceeds your ability to have intelligent thoughts - well done.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:57 am

li la li li la li li li li li li la li li la li li la li li li li li li la li li

is that a song? I must say your lyrical ability even exceeds your ability to have intelligent thoughts - well done.
yes it is a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tywEnVjPUUQ)

[RevMARKSman]

society A has a shortage of oil and sociey B has a surplus, and society A has nothing to offer that interests society B into giving enough oil to satisfy A's need. hey well why don't they just go take some guns and take it?

That's class struggle. Society B has power over Society A in the sense that they have something A needs, and this is what classes really are. Society A can be compared to the proletariat who own their labor power, while B ~ the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production of goods.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+April 27, 2007 09:20 pm--> (The Dissenter @ April 27, 2007 09:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:13 am

Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 09:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 am

Originally posted by The [email protected] 27, 2007 07:46 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 12:07 am
it's mostly societies fighting over scarce recources when it comes down to it. and yes, revolutionary struggle and religous struggle.
I think the class war and forming of groups to better protect/fight for resources is uttermost. Having a particular religion is part of the idiosyncrasies of different groups fighting for resources.
i just don't think eliminating classes will eliminate groups in conflict
Are you trying to say that humans just want to knock the shit out of each other all the time for the hell of it? There are no material reasons for conflict?
of course their will be material reasons for it, what makes you think there won't?

society A has a shortage of oil and sociey B has a surplus, and society A has nothing to offer that interests society B into giving enough oil to satisfy A's need. hey well why don't they just go take some guns and take it?
Thats the childish view of history. Society A's bourgeoisie have acted in their class interests when they attacked society B. Not for the interests of society A as a whole which would include all its classes. Having not enough oil threatens society A's ruling class' economic hegemony. [/b]
who said anything about bourgeoise? these are both hypothetical communist societies. oil is a crucial recource for operating any economy, communist or otherwise. what's to say that the communists in society A won't just think of a claim to society B's recources and then go and take them?


That's class struggle. Society B has power over Society A in the sense that they have something A needs, and this is what classes really are. Society A can be compared to the proletariat who own their labor power, while B ~ the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production of goods.

so wait, will there be only one society in the world so that it owns all of the worlds unequally distributed (geographically speaking) recources? or will there still be mutlitple autonomous ones?

[Publius]

Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.

So under communism, you either work or you starve, which is completely unlike capitalism which is wage slavery because if you don't you'll starve.

Gotcha.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:30 pm


Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.

So under communism, you either work or you starve, which is completely unlike capitalism which is wage slavery because if you don't you'll starve.

Gotcha.
It is 'wage slavery' since you are required to sell your labor-power to a boss; to become a servant to a master in exchange for a wage that does not match the true value that they rightfully produced.

It is strange how the author of this thread is considering the management of society in such complex and advanced terms. It is almost as if the task of democratically managing one's affairs alongside your community and workplace is unreachable; that we all must subject ourself to the cruel terms of grueling and blood-thirsty rulers that wish to subject a majority of the population to terms of permanent enslavement at their own beneft. In case you didn't know, management is not the wisdom of the gods. It is not some mythical philosophy that only 'the enlightened' can hold on to. If history has taught us anything, it is that self-management is a successful alternative; through the cooperative movement, the revolutionary events of the last century, it is proven that we can function with one another in a collective manor if we have acquired the necessary organization and unity through the throes of crisis and social revolution.

[wtfm8lol]

through the cooperative movement

how many large cooperative businesses do you know of?


the revolutionary events of the last century, it is proven that we can function with one another in a collective manor if we have acquired the necessary organization and unity through the throes of crisis and social revolution.

woah, sorry but i wasn't aware that there were any communist countries not ruled by dictators.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:19 pm

through the cooperative movement

how many large cooperative businesses do you know of?


the revolutionary events of the last century, it is proven that we can function with one another in a collective manor if we have acquired the necessary organization and unity through the throes of crisis and social revolution.

woah, sorry but i wasn't aware that there were any communist countries not ruled by dictators.
There are a lot of successful co-ops in the world, but they mostly exist outside of the US. The most famous example is the Mondragon in northern Spain. But in spite of whatever success some co-ops may have, we can always ask why the phenomena never took the world by storm. It is simply too difficult for wage earners to start up an economy of scale, and capitalists have always had an ideological hatred for cooperatives and have set out to deliberately undermine them. What causes worker's co-ops to fail, most of the time, can also lead to a failure of the project on a propagandistic level. Basically, a single co-op, or a collection of co-ops, in relation to the competitive and globalized capitalist economy, can't compete. Its not that they want to compete, but rather, by trying to get their goods into people's hands at a price which reflects wages which aren't exploitative, the cost of this will be passed on to consumers. Consumers, at least traditionally and prior to the rise of largely emotively based purchases will opt for the least expensive good, which would be the good provided by the capitalist that pays his workers lower wages than that of the cooperative.

There is a great deal of research that has been done on the topic. Marx believed that the emergence of co-ops demonstrated that a higher form of economic organization was possible, but that it could only succeed if established on a national scale. I think that your conception of 'communist countries' is wrong, since no 'communist country' has never existed on this earth. A worker's and peasant's republic was established after the October Revolution, but it was strangled by bureaucracy due to the material conditions of Russia.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:47 pm





It is 'wage slavery' since you are required to sell your labor-power to a boss; to become a servant to a master in exchange for a wage that does not match the true value that they rightfully produced.

So if you work in a communist society but keep everything you produce, you'll still get the benefits everyone else gets? What if everyone did that?

I don't think you've thought this idea out very well...



It is strange how the author of this thread is considering the management of society in such complex and advanced terms. It is almost as if the task of democratically managing one's affairs alongside your community and workplace is unreachable; that we all must subject ourself to the cruel terms of grueling and blood-thirsty rulers that wish to subject a majority of the population to terms of permanent enslavement at their own beneft.

I think people generally should have I say in what decisions are made in business. But I don't by any means think they'll make good decisions.


In case you didn't know, management is not the wisdom of the gods. It is not some mythical philosophy that only 'the enlightened' can hold on to. If history has taught us anything, it is that self-management is a successful alternative; through the cooperative movement, the revolutionary events of the last century, it is proven that we can function with one another in a collective manor if we have acquired the necessary organization and unity through the throes of crisis and social revolution.

Whatever.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:30 pm


Well they wouldn't recieve anything from society, so they wouldn't need to be dealt with.

So under communism, you either work or you starve, which is completely unlike capitalism which is wage slavery because if you don't you'll starve.

Gotcha.
I would like to distance myself from simplistic nonsense about people starving for not working, however capitalism isn't wage slavery because you have to work, but because selling your labour is the only way to earn a living. THe problem isn't you have no choice but to work (that's just a fact of live) but rather that you have to earn a wage less than the value of your work.

[wtfm8lol]

but rather that you have to earn a wage less than the value of your work.

what nonsense. you decide what the true value of your labor is based upon abstract ideas that don't by any means gauge the market value of what your labor has created and then whine because no one will offer to pay you that much for it. anyway, how exactly do you receive the value of your individual labor under your communist system?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:14 am
what nonsense. you decide what the true value of your labor is based upon abstract ideas that don't by any means gauge the market value of what your labor has created and then whine because no one will offer to pay you that much for it. anyway, how exactly do you receive the value of your individual labor under your communist system?
Excepting monopoly, the "market value" of any given good can actually be seen from the labour that produced it (within a margin of error of 0.25%). It is hardly abstract.

At any rate it ought to be obvious that you are not being paid the full value of your work. That is how a profit is being turned. If you can think of a way someone can be turning a profit without there being surplus value, I will be interested to hear it, but in the meantime let's go with that shall we?

So there we have it, workers are definitely exploited.

How to solve it, well it is a question of eliminating surplus value obviously, isn't it?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:58 pm
So if you work in a communist society but keep everything you produce, you'll still get the benefits everyone else gets? What if everyone did that?

I don't think you've thought this idea out very well...

I think people generally should have I say in what decisions are made in business. But I don't by any means think they'll make good decisions.

Whatever.
What are you talking about? Where did these 'benefits' come from what I originally typed? I don't think that I ever made an assumption that the worker-cooperative will be fully efficient, simply because such problems are something that we can expect in any workplace, no matter who controls production, and what is being produced, so I honestly do not understand why you even pounded that stupidity from your keyboard onto this thread. Then, after all of this mumbling that I can hardly understand or do not think is a valid argument anyway, you have topped this ice-cream sundae off with the cherry of 'whatever' in order to ultimately show that you concede to your inability to respond to the points presented in this thread.

[Publius]

What are you talking about? Where did these 'benefits' come from what I originally typed?

Alright, since you're obviously mentally unfirm, let met lay this out simply:

1. You say capitalism is unfair because you are obliged to sell your labor at a cost lower than what its true value is, to wit, your labor is being taken from you
2. You say under communism you would still be obliged to work, but it would be different because you would be getting the full value of your labor.
3. I took this to mean literally that would be allowed to keep exactly what you produce. Say, if you produced 100 hammers a day, you could keep them all for yourself, which follows directly from the principal that you are not obliged to give up the product of your labor at cost.
4. I then added a hypothetical example of what you would happen if everyone did that. Try and figure it out.

My point is that no matter the system you are obliged to give up the product of your labor and that the idea that in a communist society you are not receiving less than your true value is simply semantical wrangling. You may be, or you may not be; it's dependent entirely on the work you do and the arrangement you get, but it's actually impossible as a matter of course for everyone to get exactly what they produce when the only determinant of value is labor-time.

Think about it.

See, my original point was that you said that people who do not produce will not receive anything from society. I pointed out the absurdity of this by mentioning people who produce things but then do not give them over to society. Now you could say that they aren't actually producing for society, which trivializes the example, but you'd be wrong because you'd then put these people into a position where they are obliged to give up the product of their labor (possibly under its true value) to society. Basically you've contradicted yourself.



I don't think that I ever made an assumption that the worker-cooperative will be fully efficient,

I don't think I ever asserted that you did. Learn to read before you embarrass yourself more.


simply because such problems are something that we can expect in any workplace, no matter who controls production, and what is being produced, so I honestly do not understand why you even pounded that stupidity from your keyboard onto this thread.

Has what do with?
So if you work in a communist society but keep everything you produce, you'll still get the benefits everyone else gets? What if everyone did that?

I don't think you've thought this idea out very well...

I think people generally should have I say in what decisions are made in business. But I don't by any means think they'll make good decisions.

Whatever.

If you'll read properly, I actually concede that I generally support worker production. I don't even know what you're attempting to say to me.

Publius: "I think worker control might be good idea"
Whateverthefuckyournameis: "YOU DON"T THINK WORKER CONTROL IS A GOOD IDEA YOU FUCKING RETARD?!"

You see my dilemma.



Then, after all of this mumbling that I can hardly understand or do not think is a valid argument anyway, you have topped this ice-cream sundae off with the cherry of 'whatever' in order to ultimately show that you concede to your inability to respond to the points presented in this thread.

We're in not in English comp class. Get off it.

[Rawthentic]

You say under communism you would still be obliged to work, but it would be different because you would be getting the full value of your labor.
I'd have to say that that's socialism. Under communism, I don't see why anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to work, but even if they didn't, they would still get their needs and wants, they just wouldn't fulfill themselves as humans because they do not contribute or work.

[wtfm8lol]

Excepting monopoly, the "market value" of any given good can actually be seen from the labour that produced it (within a margin of error of 0.25%). It is hardly abstract.

proof.


That is how a profit is being turned. If you can think of a way someone can be turning a profit without there being surplus value, I will be interested to hear it, but in the meantime let's go with that shall we?

this is probably the only time i've ever heard a communist argue that the perfectly competitive market is the only alternative to the monopoly...sad =/

anyway, here is one example. some worker gets paid a penny to make a fad card, such as a pokemon card or a baseball card or something of the sort, and the company sells the card for a dollar. now clearly if there were perfect competitors, the card would be sold for much less, perhaps 2 or 3 cents, but there aren't, so the company is able to rake in massive profits. has the worker been paid less than the value of his labor? no, the card isn't worth anything but the paper and ink by itself. the value of the card comes from an excessively high demand for what is printed on it, which the company has created and not the worker.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:40 pm
Basically, a single co-op, or a collection of co-ops, in relation to the competitive and globalized capitalist economy, can't compete. Its not that they want to compete, but rather, by trying to get their goods into people's hands at a price which reflects wages which aren't exploitative, the cost of this will be passed on to consumers. Consumers, at least traditionally and prior to the rise of largely emotively based purchases will opt for the least expensive good, which would be the good provided by the capitalist that pays his workers lower wages than that of the cooperative.


The objective for any co-op should be to aquire its goods at the lowest cost possible, and exchange it for the greatest reward possible. Why?

Because otherwise the co-op is using more resources than it ought to be using. Being wasteful in the distribution of resources is not a step forward, but rather a big step back. The capitalist firms are able to do distribute its goods for less costs because it is less wasteful in the production process than the co-op. As such, resources are more wisely managed, consumers have more more of their own resources to choose more and varied goods.

Co-ops cannot compete with capitalist enterprises because the latter are much better at satisfying the needs and wants of people than the former. Somehow abolishishing capitalist firms to be replaced by co-ops, on a national level, will not change this. It will simply make the people poorer, and less well off.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:05 pm
More points to the already pointless, ZX3.

You will not, cannot, and will never disproves socialism or Marxism. They are not dogmas, but concrete theories to be applied to material conditions according to the correct analysis of history.

Class struggle is class struggle, your useless scenarios will not change this, those are things that the victorious people will solve.
My scenarios are suggesting problems the "victorious" people might have in solving the problems, in a socialist/anarchist/communist way.

And solve them they must. The new world is not a utopia, and there will always be problems and issues to deal with. And the inability of the socialists on thes eboards to speculate on how they might be solved, is a big blow against socialism. Because obviously, if the problem cannot be solved, then all those little theories and cliches of yours, are exploded and disproven.

[RNK]

anyway, here is one example. some worker gets paid a penny to make a fad card, such as a pokemon card or a baseball card or something of the sort, and the company sells the card for a dollar. now clearly if there were perfect competitors, the card would be sold for much less, perhaps 2 or 3 cents, but there aren't, so the company is able to rake in massive profits. has the worker been paid less than the value of his labor? no, the card isn't worth anything but the paper and ink by itself. the value of the card comes from an excessively high demand for what is printed on it, which the company has created and not the worker.

But why should the worker not be entitled to a proper share of the profit made? Moreso, why should the worker not be entitled to even struggle for a more equal share of that profit? If that worker even so much as attempts to force his employer to give him higher wages he'll simply be sacked and replaced; competition for labour itself forces the worker to submit to an incredibly low share, or suffer unemployment. His workstation will always be able to be replaced by someone who is desperate enough to submit -- which, effectively, is what 'enslaves' the whole working class.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:09 am

anyway, here is one example. some worker gets paid a penny to make a fad card, such as a pokemon card or a baseball card or something of the sort, and the company sells the card for a dollar. now clearly if there were perfect competitors, the card would be sold for much less, perhaps 2 or 3 cents, but there aren't, so the company is able to rake in massive profits. has the worker been paid less than the value of his labor? no, the card isn't worth anything but the paper and ink by itself. the value of the card comes from an excessively high demand for what is printed on it, which the company has created and not the worker.

But why should the worker not be entitled to a proper share of the profit made? Moreso, why should the worker not be entitled to even struggle for a more equal share of that profit? If that worker even so much as attempts to force his employer to give him higher wages he'll simply be sacked and replaced; competition for labour itself forces the worker to submit to an incredibly low share, or suffer unemployment. His workstation will always be able to be replaced by someone who is desperate enough to submit -- which, effectively, is what 'enslaves' the whole working class.

The problem though is that that sort of problem the socialist community will face as well.

If the socialist community is going to be a free and decentralised community (which is how many socialists describe socialism), where workers can freely move about from factory to factory (which itself is doubtful, if worker ownership of the means of [production is to have any substantial meaning) then there is going to have to be different rates of renumeration. A wealthier socialist factory might be able to renumerate more than a poorer one, so as to get and maintain the most skilled and experienced workers. Even if we are not talking direct pay, but rather some sort of profit sharing, the community will constantly seek to adjust its rate of reward (or profit share if you wish). Otherwise, it will be unable to consistently attract the best workers to freely leave their previous factory to go to theirs. Since you yourself has said that the existing workers will seek to defend their investment, they can't allow a situation where their factory atrophies, so adjustments are constantly needed. Getting new labor, is of course, one way to do this.
The worker of course can refuse to accept a new job elsewhere if he judges the profit share is not of a sufficent nature to warrant the change of scenery.

Of course, a centralised socialism could possibly dispense with that problem. But in doing so, would create a host of new ones.
The bottom line remains that socialism has not solved the problem of wage variation.

[wtfm8lol]

But why should the worker not be entitled to a proper share of the profit made?

he is entitled to what he did, which is put ink on a piece of paper. he already receives his proper share of the profit.


Moreso, why should the worker not be entitled to even struggle for a more equal share of that profit?

he is entitled to whine and complain all that he wants.


If that worker even so much as attempts to force his employer to give him higher wages he'll simply be sacked and replaced

so much as attempts to force? you make it sound like forcing someone to do something is a small matter. he should rightfully be sacked if he attempts to coerce his employer into paying him more than the employer wants to pay him.


competition for labour itself forces the worker to submit to an incredibly low share, or suffer unemployment.

competition for unskilled labor makes workers accept payment equal to what their labor is worth, which is generally very low since it is so easy to do.

[Rawthentic]

competition for unskilled labor makes workers accept payment equal to what their labor is worth, which is generally very low since it is so easy to do.
Intense competition drives wages down for all workers, and this of course benefits the capitalists, who never have to work to survive.

[KC]

competition for unskilled labor makes workers accept payment equal to what their labor is worth, which is generally very low since it is so easy to do.

The value of labour is measured by the amount of money paid for it in the transaction, so no matter what the transaction is a fair deal and nobody's getting ripped off, right? :rolleyes:

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:17 am
The objective for any co-op should be to aquire its goods at the lowest cost possible, and exchange it for the greatest reward possible. Why?

Because otherwise the co-op is using more resources than it ought to be using. Being wasteful in the distribution of resources is not a step forward, but rather a big step back. The capitalist firms are able to do distribute its goods for less costs because it is less wasteful in the production process than the co-op. As such, resources are more wisely managed, consumers have more more of their own resources to choose more and varied goods.

Co-ops cannot compete with capitalist enterprises because the latter are much better at satisfying the needs and wants of people than the former. Somehow abolishishing capitalist firms to be replaced by co-ops, on a national level, will not change this. It will simply make the people poorer, and less well off.
I would actually agree with most of your assessment. It is obvious that since the purpose of the worker cooperative is to engage in production on a democratic basis in order to suit to people's needs, rather than to reach some sort of profit margin, that the capitalist firms that could care less about distributing their wages to their labor-force in a way to ensure their existence. The reason worker cooperatives are not as successful as privately-owned enterprises is the same reason that charities are not as successful as McDonalds, in that one is nonprofitable while another is.

I think that, if you actually read my post that you fortunately quoted, you would understand that I was examing worker cooperatives from the context of coexisting within the 'competitive and globalized capitalist economy', rather than a planned socialist economy that is based on the democratic dialogue between worker and consumer councils that focuses on the livelihood of the common man, rather than the profits of the upper stratum of society. I don't think that you can consider the state of worker cooperatives in the 'competitive and globalized capitalist economy' with that of the ones in the socialist society.

[wtfm8lol]

Intense competition drives wages down for all workers, and this of course benefits the capitalists, who never have to work to survive.

when you start putting forth real arguments instead of slogans and ridiculous exaggerations, people might start taking you seriously.


The value of labour is measured by the amount of money paid for it in the transaction, so no matter what the transaction is a fair deal and nobody's getting ripped off, right? rolleyes.gif

i would say that the value of labor depends on how much money the buyer is willing to give up in exchange for the labor and how much money the laborer is willing to accept for his labor, just like any commodity.

[Rawthentic]

when you start putting forth real arguments instead of slogans and ridiculous exaggerations, people might start taking you seriously.
I am serious. Do you see workers working alongside capitalists? Nope. So, go ask yourself who actually creates the wealth, and then who enjoys it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:06 pm
he is entitled to what he did, which is put ink on a piece of paper. he already receives his proper share of the profit.


Bu that logic the capitalist has achieved an unfair amount then? Because if the thing is only worth a few cents, that is what everyone involved shoud be getting right?

The fact is actually that it is an example of market failure that these cards sell for so much anyway. It probably won't get us very far debating who should be getting what, but you are contradicting yourself here.
so much as attempts to force? you make it sound like forcing someone to do something is a small matter. he should rightfully be sacked if he attempts to coerce his employer into paying him more than the employer wants to pay him.You would think from the way you nuts talk, that we are living in a world where business owners are a poor oppressed group struggling to survive.
competition for unskilled labor makes workers accept payment equal to what their labor is worth, which is generally very low since it is so easy to do.No because most labour markets in this kind of sector are monopsonies and hence the buyer (the employer) has the power to set either the price (wage) or quantity (who gets employed for how long) unilaterally.

[KC]

Bu that logic the capitalist has achieved an unfair amount then? Because if the thing is only worth a few cents, that is what everyone involved shoud be getting right?

You don't get it; the value is determined through the transaction, so the transaction is always fair. That's bourgeois economics for you! :rolleyes:

[wtfm8lol]

Bu that logic the capitalist has achieved an unfair amount then? Because if the thing is only worth a few cents, that is what everyone involved shoud be getting right?

no. the card belongs to the capitalist so he can sell it for however much someone wants to buy it.


You would think from the way you nuts talk, that we are living in a world where business owners are a poor oppressed group struggling to survive.

in the majority of cases business owners are struggling to keep their businesses alive.


No because most labour markets in this kind of sector are monopsonies and hence the buyer (the employer) has the power to set either the price (wage) or quantity (who gets employed for how long) unilaterally.

are you serious? you're claiming that there is generally only one buyer of unskilled labor in most labor markets?


I am serious. Do you see workers working alongside capitalists? Nope. So, go ask yourself who actually creates the wealth, and then who enjoys it.

they don't do the same type of work because there is more than one type of work necessary in order to keep a business running.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:28 pm
no. the card belongs to the capitalist so he can sell it for however much someone wants to buy it.
Why does it belong to him?
in the majority of cases business owners are struggling to keep their businesses alive.My heart bleeds[/quote]In the case you describe, as in the production of fad cards, then yes that is the case. Sweatshop work and similar doesn't contain much choice of employer. I should probably have said olinopsany rather than monosany though, I over simplified.

[wtfm8lol]

Why does it belong to him?

the paper the card is put on belongs to him, the design is his, the machines used to create it are his, and the worker has been paid for putting the design on. who else would the card belong to?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:01 pm

Why does it belong to him?

the paper the card is put on belongs to him, the design is his, the machines used to create it are his, and the worker has been paid for putting the design on. who else would the card belong to?
The design is very unlikely to be his. It is likely to be that of an artist he hired, Why doesn't the artist own it? Or the people who made it?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:19 pm
I would actually agree with most of your assessment. It is obvious that since the purpose of the worker cooperative is to engage in production on a democratic basis in order to suit to people's needs, rather than to reach some sort of profit margin, that the capitalist firms that could care less about distributing their wages to their labor-force in a way to ensure their existence. The reason worker cooperatives are not as successful as privately-owned enterprises is the same reason that charities are not as successful as McDonalds, in that one is nonprofitable while another is.

I think that, if you actually read my post that you fortunately quoted, you would understand that I was examing worker cooperatives from the context of coexisting within the 'competitive and globalized capitalist economy', rather than a planned socialist economy that is based on the democratic dialogue between worker and consumer councils that focuses on the livelihood of the common man, rather than the profits of the upper stratum of society. I don't think that you can consider the state of worker cooperatives in the 'competitive and globalized capitalist economy' with that of the ones in the socialist society.
I read your post and understand that you were writing about worker co-ops within the context of the present economic structure.

But I dissagree with your comment that worker co-ops would be more successful in a socialist community.

You agree that capitalism is a superior system of allocating and distributing resources to that of the co-ops. The weakness of the co-op in this regard is not due to capitalism. The weakness is due to the weakness of the co-ops in producing and distributing resources. That weakness does not vanish with the vanishing of capitalism. Instead, the weakness is spread nationwide, or global wide. The result being a nation or globe which has a great deal of difficulty in producing and distributing goods. I do not see this being a benefit to the workers, to the consumers, to anybody.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 01, 2007 04:55 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 01, 2007 04:55 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 08:01 pm

Why does it belong to him?

the paper the card is put on belongs to him, the design is his, the machines used to create it are his, and the worker has been paid for putting the design on. who else would the card belong to?
The design is very unlikely to be his. It is likely to be that of an artist he hired, Why doesn't the artist own it? Or the people who made it? [/b]
If the artist owned the drawing, in that situation described, it means the artist is responsible for the risk. Nobody may like the drawing, in which case the artist is completely out on whatever his personal resources he used in aquiring the paper, the ink, the time ect. The capitalist is assuming the risk, and it is his resources, not the artist, which is lost.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:20 pm
If the artist owned the drawing, in that situation described, it means the artist is responsible for the risk. Nobody may like the drawing, in which case the artist is completely out on whatever his personal resources he used in aquiring the paper, the ink, the time ect. The capitalist is assuming the risk, and it is his resources, not the artist, which is lost.
Why re we using risk to define ownership?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 02, 2007 01:40 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 02, 2007 01:40 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:20 pm
If the artist owned the drawing, in that situation described, it means the artist is responsible for the risk. Nobody may like the drawing, in which case the artist is completely out on whatever his personal resources he used in aquiring the paper, the ink, the time ect. The capitalist is assuming the risk, and it is his resources, not the artist, which is lost.
Why re we using risk to define ownership? [/b]
We aren't - it's actually the other way around.

But he was explaining why an artist would choose to take a wage from a capitalist and give up property interests in his work, rather than working freelance, owning his work, and selling the rights to use it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:00 pm

We aren't - it's actually the other way around.

But he was explaining why an artist would choose to take a wage from a capitalist and give up property interests in his work, rather than working freelance, owning his work, and selling the rights to use it.
If he works freelance, it amounts to the same thing, because he will sell the rights to the picture. The plain fact is he does not have the means to mass produce the thing.

Which brings us back to the question we began with. Why are we presuming ownership belongs neither to the designer, nor to those that did the actual mass producing, but rather a third party?

[Tungsten]

Which brings us back to the question we began with. Why are we presuming ownership belongs neither to the designer, nor to those that did the actual mass producing, but rather a third party?
That's surely dependent on the contract being signed and is different in every case.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:45 pm

That's surely dependent on the contract being signed and is different in every case.
And why re we presuming these contracts are so absolute?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 03, 2007 04:27 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 03, 2007 04:27 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:45 pm

That's surely dependent on the contract being signed and is different in every case.
And why re we presuming these contracts are so absolute? [/b]
Because that is the nature of a contract. If it were not at least somewhat binding, it wouldn't be a contract but something else that is not a contract.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 03, 2007 08:53 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 03, 2007 08:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:27 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 02:45 pm

That's surely dependent on the contract being signed and is different in every case.
And why re we presuming these contracts are so absolute?
Because that is the nature of a contract. If it were not at least somewhat binding, it wouldn't be a contract but something else that is not a contract. [/b]
And why do we presume these contracts ought to be binding or that they ought to be ways we come to agreements concerning work?

[Tungsten]

And why do we presume these contracts ought to be binding What's the point in them if they're not?

or that they ought to be ways we come to agreements concerning work?That should be blindingly obvious.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:43 pm
That should be blindingly obvious.
If it is so obvious, it will be easy for you to explain it to me

[Tungsten]

If it is so obvious, it will be easy for you to explain it to me
But I'd probably be wasting my time.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:08 pm

If it is so obvious, it will be easy for you to explain it to me
But I'd probably be wasting my time.
I see, the apparently obvious answer eludes you.

Cop out.

[pusher robot]

And why do we presume these contracts ought to be binding
For the same reason we assume that red is not blue or that apples grow on trees. If it isn't binding, it is not a contract, by definition.


or that they ought to be ways we come to agreements concerning work?
That's a much more interesting question, but I would think the answer is obvious. It is because (a) it allows individuals to choose their terms, since nobody can be forced into a contract by anybody else, and (b) it creates clarity of expectations and predictability in outcome.

Starting with the premise that disputes are simply inevitable, it is impossible to resolve disputes fairly if the expectations and responsibilities of people are totally ambiguous. Just as statutes are codified into specific words and published, and the state and citizens held to the written words, so are contracts codified into specific words and agreed upon, so that the contractors can be held to the written words. The written words can then serve as an objective standard by which a disinterested third party can judge the actions of the contractors.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 05:28 pm
That's a much more interesting question, but I would think the answer is obvious. It is because (a) it allows individuals to choose their terms, since nobody can be forced into a contract by anybody else, and (b) it creates clarity of expectations and predictability in outcome.

Starting with the premise that disputes are simply inevitable, it is impossible to resolve disputes fairly if the expectations and responsibilities of people are totally ambiguous. Just as statutes are codified into specific words and published, and the state and citizens held to the written words, so are contracts codified into specific words and agreed upon, so that the contractors can be held to the written words. The written words can then serve as an objective standard by which a disinterested third party can judge the actions of the contractors.
Does it allow individuals to choose their terms? Every contract I have ever signed has given the job or bank or whatever I ave signed it with, the right to unilaterally change the terms of the contract. And you can say I chose to sign them, but at the end of the day I had to sign something and they all say that.

Of course, your political ideology does not put any store by what is practically true, only what is theoretically true, so you don't see the problem with that. But the trouble is, I am more than just a being making posts on an obscure internet forum, I am a real person leading a real life and it maters greatly to me what is true in practice. And in practice contracts are not me freely choosing the terms of my own work or banking.

The trouble is contrats are not a fair measure because one party is generally in a position to dictate the terms to another. That means nothing in your theoretical world. But it means a great deal in the practical world.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:21 pm
In your communist society, how will unproductive workers be dealt with? Or do you simply hope that there won't be any unproductive workers so this will be a non-issue?
In a society where alienating demeaning work has been dispensed with, then no one will need encouragement to work because the onus on society will be to function using the talents, skills and passions of the workforce rather than putting them in jobs they have no interest in. So no chastisement will be necessary.
BTW as the issue of who does manual labour, socialism/communism will use all means available at the time to ensure this can happen. Under capitalism we already have robotics that can carry out the tasks, therefore under the working man's state our technology will be greatly enhanced using the collective intelligence of society. The reason this isnt done already is because it is against the interests of the present status quo.

[colonelguppy]

wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?

[Oedipus Complex]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
They will not cease immediately under communsim. However the distribution of these demeaning jobs will be administered in a much more equal form. This is assuming nobody wants to do this without being coerced into it. Anyway, assuming that is not the case then, these jobs could be administered by rotating them throughought the community for instance, rather than forcing others who have no choice to do them in order to live (capitalism). These jobs however, should gradually begin to disappear because of the technology being developed as a result of people having more time to attain their creative abilities rather than working for 8 hours nearly everyday so they can live. Things like intellectual property would no longer exist so this should further new inventions which are likely to improve the quality of life for everyone.

[Rawthentic]

wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
How about controlling the workplace? How about enjoying the complete fruits of your labor?

Duh. I sometimes wonder why we spend our time here.

You vomit the same shit, we refute it all the time. Things never change....

At least not on OI! Have fun you motherfucking cockroaches!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
Socialism/Communism would utilise the full benefits of science rather than squandering them. We already have robots that can walk stairs and excavate the surface of Mars. Why cant they stack shelves at my local supermarket or clean the shit from public toilets?

[Lark]

Well I dont think that hunger conscripts are a good idea, so abolishing welfare, the trad solution suggested by capitalists is a good idea.

What would you suggest? I'm not an idealist I realise there's an underclass on the take, there's lots of well to do idolers too.

[Lark]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+May 28, 2007 10:59 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ May 28, 2007 10:59 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
Socialism/Communism would utilise the full benefits of science rather than squandering them. We already have robots that can walk stairs and excavate the surface of Mars. Why cant they stack shelves at my local supermarket or clean the shit from public toilets? [/b]
Even if that were possible what would happen to all the people displaced from those jobs, would they all be doomed to welfare?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Lark+May 28, 2007 08:30 pm--> (Lark @ May 28, 2007 08:30 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 10:59 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
Socialism/Communism would utilise the full benefits of science rather than squandering them. We already have robots that can walk stairs and excavate the surface of Mars. Why cant they stack shelves at my local supermarket or clean the shit from public toilets?
Even if that were possible what would happen to all the people displaced from those jobs, would they all be doomed to welfare? [/b]
No obviously not, that would defeat the purpose of the revolution. Rather than wasting their lives on benefits or by doing 8 hour menial tasks, they could invest the time pursuing their most desired career through education and training and developing their academic faculties. That is unless you subscribe to the cappie argument that the working class are unable to do so because they are all inherently 'stupid'.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Oedipus Complex+May 27, 2007 10:39 am--> (Oedipus Complex @ May 27, 2007 10:39 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
They will not cease immediately under communsim. However the distribution of these demeaning jobs will be administered in a much more equal form. This is assuming nobody wants to do this without being coerced into it. Anyway, assuming that is not the case then, these jobs could be administered by rotating them throughought the community for instance, rather than forcing others who have no choice to do them in order to live (capitalism). These jobs however, should gradually begin to disappear because of the technology being developed as a result of people having more time to attain their creative abilities rather than working for 8 hours nearly everyday so they can live. Things like intellectual property would no longer exist so this should further new inventions which are likely to improve the quality of life for everyone. [/b]
wait so were going to waste the time and recources to go through and make sure that everyone knows how to do everyjob passingly well, instead of just letting specialists do everything much more effeciently? that's the kind of thing that kept us in the stone age.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, they will learn to administer society without the needs of specialists or "managers" to things for them.

Nothing much to it.

[colonelguppy]

i think you missed my point, it didn't have anything to do with management. farmers can focus on farming without having to worry about providing shelter or clothing, weavers can focus on weaving without having to wory about food or shelter, brick layers can focus on brick laying without having to worry food or clothing. each can focus on their jobs thus allowing for greater productivity.

[Lark]

That is unless you subscribe to the cappie argument that the working class are unable to do so because they are all inherently 'stupid'.

I've not really heard any capitalists making that argument, social class doesnt usually come into capitalist arguments, the talk about individuals or communities rather than social classes and I think that's more objective right now, I only think social class becomes important in a real crisis.

I'd like to believe what you're saying but the reality of CHAVs and the underclass wouldnt make me optimistic.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:02 am
i think you missed my point, it didn't have anything to do with management. farmers can focus on farming without having to worry about providing shelter or clothing, weavers can focus on weaving without having to wory about food or shelter, brick layers can focus on brick laying without having to worry food or clothing. each can focus on their jobs thus allowing for greater productivity.
Well I reckon it makes sense to try and balance specialism with preventing social closure, its a bit unrealistic to think that everyone should be a sort of modern day jack of all trades or renaissance man, I dont think everyone would want that even, but at the same time its really alienating to get stuck in the one career path for life with zero options and you get stuck in a groove.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 29, 2007 01:48 am--> (colonelguppy @ May 29, 2007 01:48 am)
Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 27, 2007 10:39 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 10:38 pm
wait how will "demeaning work" and jobs that no one is interested in suddenly dissapear?
They will not cease immediately under communsim. However the distribution of these demeaning jobs will be administered in a much more equal form. This is assuming nobody wants to do this without being coerced into it. Anyway, assuming that is not the case then, these jobs could be administered by rotating them throughought the community for instance, rather than forcing others who have no choice to do them in order to live (capitalism). These jobs however, should gradually begin to disappear because of the technology being developed as a result of people having more time to attain their creative abilities rather than working for 8 hours nearly everyday so they can live. Things like intellectual property would no longer exist so this should further new inventions which are likely to improve the quality of life for everyone.
wait so were going to waste the time and recources to go through and make sure that everyone knows how to do everyjob passingly well, instead of just letting specialists do everything much more effeciently? that's the kind of thing that kept us in the stone age. [/b]
You make that analysis based on the assumption that in a post-revolution situation, we will still have the same amount of resources pre-socialism/capitalism. As Ive said before, allowing everyone to realistically acheive their desired career will of course mean we'll have more teachers/lecturers (who wouldnt have necessarily had the same opportunity to become teachers under capitalism) in order to cater for the needs of more 'specialists' as you put them.
Furthermore, how is having more technically skilled people going to keep us back? Surely having more people involved in say, a project to cure cancer or AIDS is going to make more progress more quickly than a smaller team doing the same thing, particularly whenever capital and economics is no longer an issue.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:42 am

That is unless you subscribe to the cappie argument that the working class are unable to do so because they are all inherently 'stupid'.

I've not really heard any capitalists making that argument, social class doesnt usually come into capitalist arguments, the talk about individuals or communities rather than social classes and I think that's more objective right now, I only think social class becomes important in a real crisis.

I'd like to believe what you're saying but the reality of CHAVs and the underclass wouldnt make me optimistic.
The cappie lobby may never mention 'class' but the insinuation is always there.

Also, I think the 'CHAV' sub-culture is something that grew up as a result of thatcherism. Therefore its merely a symptom of a capitalist cause.