An "intellectuals" role in classless society

[Saullos]

I'm a libertarian socialist, however my concern is how I would be able to contribute.

I'm 16, and my current job is a bagger at a grocery store which I hate with a passion. The only jobs I see myself being able to hold would be that of a college professor (of philosophy/political science/cognitive science), writer, or programmer/typer.

My question is how would my passions be able to translate into a society that seems to be based about the worker class.

[Zurdito]

a classless society is not based around the working class, a classless society is a society with no working class and no ruling class.

the idea should be for each member of society to be able to intellectually develop themselves as far as possible, something not permitted today, so that each member of society can contribute towards solving the problems we face. remmeber thata classless society would not be free of problems, we would still need to be constantly technologically progressing, improving our knowledge of the universe etc., and resolving arguments like what to do with our collective resources, what to spend our labour time on, etc. A classless society would have much more room for intellectuality that society today does, as each member of society would actively participate in government. :)

[Dros]

In a classless society, labor will be distributed differently to the point that there won't be an intelligentsia, constituted as such, in the traditional sense.

[Raúl Duke]

You can always do more then one thing (besides being a college professor; I like cognitive science). "Volunteer" for bettering your commune, etc.

Programmers will be useful, so you don't have much to worry about.

I think in some cases "mental labor" and physical labor will "become one" (as in there's not 2 separate jobs, for example an engineer/designer and the actual builder, but both jobs mesh into one. The people who actually build it can also engineer and designed or have a say in how it's engineered/designed.)

[Raúl Duke]

I must ask, does your desire for 'liberty' extend to the exploiters. I say this because as you probably know, 'freedom' is subjective in a world of antagonistic classes, you cannot have 'freedom' for the ruling class without repression for the oppressed class, it's a dual-relationship. The greater the power of the worker, the more repressed the exploiter will be.

"libertarian socialist" is just a polite (less bold) way to say he's an anarchist...

He probably knows this (and all about what you are saying)...or does he?

[Raúl Duke]

Wouldn't be surprising, anyone who buys that anarchist bunk has to be speaking primarily from a POV of ignorance, from which the seeds of idealism and utopianism are planted.

'Libertarian socialism' is fundamentally an anachronism because socialism by definition cannot be anything but authoritarian on the exploiters in the short-term, it requires a temporary centralization to secure the power of the ruling working class.

From how I read it, anyone who would use such a title is embarrassed to call himself a Communist because of bourgeois stereotypes, cultural norms etc, or reactionary people calling him 'authoritarian'. You cannot have democracy or freedom for rich and poor alike, socialism must be absolutely authoritarian on the deposed exploiters and their reactionary allies, the alternative is defeat for the worker and a return to the gangster rule of capital.

Although I agree that maybe it's because of he's embarrassed to call himself a communist (or he may not be at all. Socialism is such a "vague" term it seems.).

But to claim that anarchism is a "POV of ignorance" is...quite ignorant.

Anarchists can be just as "authoritarian" against the enemies of the working class...after all I heard that they executed people during the Spanish Civil War and were anti-religious to an "authoritarian" level.

[black magick hustla]

In a classless society, labor will be distributed differently to the point that there won't be an intelligentsia, constituted as such, in the traditional sense.

i am sure there will still be physicists and biologists. the shit they do is pretty energy drainin, its not just sittin and musing while smoking a blunt you know.

[Raúl Duke]

But their tactics 'of the deed' are downright disastrous for political organization and actually building consensus in segments of the proletariat.

Unless they're from RAAN or crimethinc (:rolleyes:), propaganda of the deed is mostly dead.


Anarchists oppose all states and governments, yes? On that logic alone they would oppose the state and authority of the ruling working class (socialism).

That depends.
They are against states that create an hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed. Of an elite and of an underclass.

Anarchists, at least those who I think are true anarchists, are not oppose to the "authority of the ruling working class" as long as that class as a whole is in power, in control,. and not subjugated under no-one (even by those who claim to do it for the "good of the proletariat").

However, all this is a digression from this thread. So, a mod/admin will probably split it off. For myself, I'm tired so I'm leaving this discussion to others.

[mikelepore]

In my experience, "libertarian socialist" is NOT a synonym for "anarchist." The term usually refers to either of two things: (1) The writer proposes an alternative view of what "collective" means instead of nationalization by the state, although what that alternative is varies with different writers. Some want syndicalist unions, some want neighborhood councils, etc. (2) Some use the term simply to emphasize that they condemn viewpoints of socialism that excuse totalitarian societies.

This differs from "anarchist" because the word "anarchist" also has a range of ambiguity, but a different range. Various writers call themselves anarchists for any of several reasons, some of which are: (1) they believe that a society without coercive laws and penalties is possible; (2) they believe that smallness or localism is superior to large organization or centralism; (3) they believe that revolutionary strategy shouldn't include electoral politics. These numerous definitions that some people use are logically independent; that is, there's no necessary connection between them.

In summary, while some people may call themselves "liberatian socialists" as well as "anarchists", the terms are not synonyms, because each word has a range of popular meanings, and the two ranges don't exactly overlap.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I use the word "libertarian socialist" instead of "anarchist" oftentimes to denote my belief that the only just hierarchies are formed from a difference in ability - a karate teacher requesting my watch for a lesson on self-defense is acceptable, but limiting my access to resources - especially if you're not compensating me with some dividend - is quite unacceptable.

It's a personal choice that doesn't really have much impact on other's interaction.

[Niccolò Rossi]

My question is how would my passions be able to translate into a society that seems to be based about the worker class.

Firstly, in no way is Socialism "based about the worker class" in the sense that it in some way implies the affirmation and appraisal of either working class culture or the indignity, drudgery of manual labour. Rather Socialism is the self-abolition of the working class.

Further, you seem to see socialism solely as a movement of and for manual labourers who you term the 'worker class'. The fact is the working class is much more than this. As they exist today, both manual and mental labour are exploitative and both the "workers" and the "intellectuals" have a unified class interest in the abolition of capitalism.

[Saullos]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Saullos]

Sorry for the necro-post, but I'm still confused. :-(

I still do not see how some jobs could transfer over into a socialist economy. For example, what about the producers of luxury goods. More specifically that concerns me, computer game programming.

Right now, in a capitalistic society, me and my friends could make a video game and sell it. If it does sell, and we make money, then there was a demand, and we were the first to supply for that particular demand.

However, how would this work in a socialistic economy? What if it didn't sell? Our time was wasted on a product that did not contribute to society. I also just realized, our game wouldn't be "sold" would it?

I think I ultimately don't understand the mechanics of socialism. :-(

[Raúl Duke]

In Communism (a possible example),
Let's say you and your buddies made a game
Your game will be distributed, "free", amongst people.
If they like it then many people would have your game, favorable reviews, etc.

But the game isn't exactly sold, you are not getting payed for it. There's no money in communism.
The economy is based on "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (or/and wants)."

In communism, you have access (whether unlimited or not) to many types of goods. You can make xyz form of good, if that's what you like, and have it up for manufacture and distribution. Jobs that are in shortage may be place as rotational "temporary volunteer work", mechanized, etc depending on what the commune, etc decides on how to handle that. Some jobs, as I mentioned earlier, will be fused with other jobs. People who design cars will have to make/manufacture them as well, etc.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Sorry for the necro-post, but I'm still confused. :-(

I still do not see how some jobs could transfer over into a socialist economy. For example, what about the producers of luxury goods. More specifically that concerns me, computer game programming.

Right now, in a capitalistic society, me and my friends could make a video game and sell it. If it does sell, and we make money, then there was a demand, and we were the first to supply for that particular demand.
In capitalism, you make the video game first and then you find out whether there is demand for it (you try to sell it and see if people buy it). Some large corporations can afford to do market research to know the demand before they start work on a game, which gives them a great advantage - but you and your friends can't afford that.

In communism, demand always comes first. You don't make a computer game and then try to sell it. Rather, you put out an announcement saying "Hey, I'm a programmer - does anyone want a new computer game? Tell me what kind of game you'd like." And then you make the game (or not) based on the response you get from people.

The above also holds true for socialism, though I use the word "socialism" in the Marxist sense, so the state would be the one putting out the announcement and then giving teams of programmers the job of making computer games of the kinds that are in high demand by the people.


However, how would this work in a socialistic economy? What if it didn't sell? Our time was wasted on a product that did not contribute to society. I also just realized, our game wouldn't be "sold" would it?

I think I ultimately don't understand the mechanics of socialism. :-(
There is a book called Towards a New Socialism (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/) - freely available online - which does a great job of explaining how a socialist economy would work. I strongly recommend it to you.

As for a communist society - which may be what you had in mind - it is true that you wouldn't be able to "sell" anything. But then again, you wouldn't need to, since money would no longer be necessary for you to buy things. You would contribute to the community, and in exchange the community would allow you to take what you need from a collective stock of goods.

Now, if you don't contribute to the community because you don't work, that will be rather obvious to everyone, so they will ask you to shape up or risk losing some of your access rights to the collective stock of goods. But what if you DO work, yet you still don't contribute to the community because, for example, you make computer games that people don't like? Well, then the community would ask you to do better next time, and maybe give you some advice on how to improve. If you still can't make a good game after several tries, the community would ask you to look for a different kind of job.

[Saullos]

Thank you both! You've cleared everything up and then some!

[dez]

In communism, demand always comes first. You don't make a computer game and then try to sell it. Rather, you put out an announcement saying "Hey, I'm a programmer - does anyone want a new computer game? Tell me what kind of game you'd like." And then you make the game (or not) based on the response you get from people.


In this case then the demand is subject to the offer.
The only difference between the market researchs from the corporations are that you, as every other citizen, are able to make it in an individual level, instead of having to rely on massive amounts of capital to finance it.
Wouldn't it make more sense if people put out an announcement saying "Hey, I'm a gamer, I want a game (in x way), is a programmer available to make one?", and then the programmers work their asses and make it?