obligatory labor...lets discuss about it shall we?

[danyboy27]

what do you think of obligatory labor? do you think that people should be forced to find a work?

[PigmerikanMao]

Nobody should be forced to work, no. But work should be encouraged at the highest level, and those who can't work (medical/mental conditions and the like) should try to be understood instead of shunned. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Everyone will most definitely work under Communism. While it would be preferred that each person do jobs commensurate with their abilities and education the good of the over all society is paramount and comrades will often be required to do work of all types for the betterment of all.

As each person receives welfare from society each person will be required to contribute to society. If a person does not do his fair share for the community he/she will be labeled a counter revolutionary and a betrayer of Communism.

The Revolution will be made by WORKERS, for the good of WORKERS. The lazy have no part in the Communist world order.:hammersickle:

[IcarusAngel]

Compulsory work is disgusting. This is where everything is forced, and sadly to a great degree this existed in many of the pseudo-socialist societies, where everything is pretty much forced including education.

Some people find their way after "grace periods" where they hold no job and in many right-wing societies these people were able to find theirs, and to flourish. Newton and other people who were largely self-taught might be an example (he tried farming, which he was a failure at), and even in American capitalism you hear of many people not working and then making it big.

I think some people just don't "fit in" to the existing structures and thus shouldn't be forced into anything they don't want to do.

[Lord Testicles]

The lazy have no part in the Communist world order.:hammersickle:

O rly?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

[RGacky3]

TomK, will you stop, please, telling people what Communism is, or what will be required under communism, you don't know what your talking about.

Communism is a classless/stateless society, SOOO, you, and anyone else, but especially you (your a Capitalist), has no place saying what the rules will be, considering its a Stateless and Classless Society, in essense your just being a troll.

There is no justification for obligatory labor nor will there be a need for obligatory labor.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

There is no justification for obligatory labor nor will there be a need for obligatory labor.

You say this now but when the fascists are quickly advancing and 100 miles back nobody is volunteering anymore...

[danyboy27]

i think obligatory labor would really benefit to society IF its properly managed. instead of paying people to stay idle, you pay people better and ask them to contribute to society.

[RGacky3]

You say this now but when the fascists are quickly advancing and 100 miles back nobody is volunteering anymore...

Historically thats not been a problem, Again look up this history of the CNT, they fought harder than payed soldiers.

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

This may be the first time someone quoted a British aristocrat to a member of the Bourgeois to prove a point about the Proletariat.

:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, will you stop, please, telling people what Communism is, or what will be required under communism, you don't know what your talking about.

Communism is a classless/stateless society, SOOO, you, and anyone else, but especially you (your a Capitalist), has no place saying what the rules will be, considering its a Stateless and Classless Society, in essense your just being a troll.

There is no justification for obligatory labor nor will there be a need for obligatory labor.

You are missing the point RGacky--Communism IS what it always has BEEN in every instance that it's been tried so far---it is EXACTLY what people make of it. If I've learned anything at RevLeft it's that.

And when the Revolution happens--this is how it will come down by the people that make it: it will be a Revolution of workers not of slackers that live at home in their parents basements. When it comes down to it, I have a lot more in common with the working people than most dilettante RevLefters--I may own a factory, but I also work there. I understand the issues, I understand the problems, I understand what a factory worker's life is like--and there's little tolerance for college drop outs that need time to "find themselves." :rolleyes:

You ever work in a factory RGacky?

[Edit] And that is also why the current "revolution" in Greece is a farce. Spoiled teenagers throwing tantrums in the street. Nothing more.

[Dr Mindbender]

what do you think of obligatory labor? do you think that people should be forced to find a work?

it depends what you mean by 'work'.

If by work you mean in the menial sense, then absolutely not. Equally, everyone within reason should be expected to meet a productive, positive role. In the age of automation there is no need to compose the manufacturing, goods distribution and mass communication industries out of flesh and misery.

As a technocrat i oppose all human beings being forced or co-erced into manual and/or alienating labour outside of their own volition. Every man and woman should have the opportunity to fulfill a role that is relevant to their personality.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Historically thats not been a problem, Again look up this history of the CNT, they fought harder than payed soldiers.

Yes, but the CNT (and POUM) both suffered severely for several other deficiencies which prevented them from becoming the victors, at least on the republican, side of the war. Even if they had not been done away with by the communists, it's hard to imagine them winning the war.

[RGacky3]

Such as?

The only defficiancies that really mattered were foreign support and wealth (which the fascists had alot of because of their supporters.


I may own a factory, but I also work there. I understand the issues, I understand the problems, I understand what a factory worker's life is like--and there's little tolerance for college drop outs that need time to "find themselves."

I call BS, as much as bosses would like to pretend they are "just really coworkers" or whatever, its BS, when it comes down to it, the Boss is the Boss and the worker is the worker, you can act all you want, but the bottom line is hte bottom line. The bosses true colors always come out when the workers organize or strike or make demands.

A king can 'hang out' with the peasants all he wants, dress like them, or whatever, he's still the king, and the power structure is still the same. THAT is what this is about, Power Structures.


You ever work in a factory RGacky?


Nope, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.


Communism IS what it always has BEEN in every instance that it's been tried so far---it is EXACTLY what people make of it. If I've learned anything at RevLeft it's that.


Thats a very simplistic unhistorical way to look at it, COMMUNISM, by definition, is worker controlled, classless and stateless, it does'nt matter what Leaders call their country (they never called it Communist anyway), thats what it is, the Democratic Republic of Congo and North Korea can call itself communist untill its blue in the face, it does'nt change the reality.

Look at the real communist examples, which you so gracefull ignore alway.

[Post-Something]

From the FAQ:


''If everyone gets paid the same what motivation will there be to work harder?''
Revleft says- To paraphrase Karl Marx - if that argument had merit then bourgeois society should have gone to the dogs long ago! There are several schools under socialism which combat this argument, but the most common one is that those who 'free-ride' will be excluded and will not enjoy the spoils of societies labours.The technocratic argument, which is gaining favour in many leftist circles, is that the technology and automotive production acquired under capitalism will be utilised to liberate all people from the drudgery of manual labour, and allow every man and woman to pursue a role that is enjoyable, demanding and less alienating.

[Bud Struggle]

the most common one is that those who 'free-ride' will be excluded and will not enjoy the spoils of societies labours.:thumbup:

Old Marx got that one right.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Such as?

The only defficiancies that really mattered were foreign support and wealth (which the fascists had alot of because of their supporters.


Well, yeah. That's about all that mattered. They barely had working rifles, let alone the sub-machine guns, tanks, artillery, ships, and luftwaffe the Fascists were receiving.

[TC]

Of course work is 'obligatory', not only in communism but in every pre-communist society and in pre-society arrangements.

In a pre-state living arrangement, you work for food (hunt, gather, etc) or you starve.

In capitalism, work is obligatory for everyone who doesn't own property: you can't get food without wages since cultivating food is illegal without property, and you can't get wages without working since theft is illegal, and food itself is produced by someones labor...so in capitalism work is obligatory: people are forced to work or starve; if you don't work and you don't starve its own because you're living off of those who do work.

Why and how, would it be any different in communism?? The only difference is that in Communism we would restore the original state of everyone working their fair share instead of some people working to support those who don't work.

So simply put, people are forced to work as a consequence of our biology and the nature of the world, the question is only should everyone be forced to work equally or should some be forced to work to greater degrees than others? Communism means forced labor, whether primitive communism or industrial communism, but capitalism is forced labor at a higher rate for some so a minority don't need to do any productive work. The net effect of communism then is less work for those who work in capitalism and more work for those who don't.

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I completely support obligatory labor. All people should be free to make demands on the state, always partial. So too, should the state, acting as and for the people, be able to make demands on all people, always partial.

I think it's patently absurd that people can hold the position that no obligatory labor should be required at anytime. If the United States experienced a revolution and counter revolutionary NATO forces were plunging in from Canada, Mexico, and the coasts I would find anyone advocating anything less than a 12 hour work day for every man and woman as dishonorable, insipid, and disgusting. Not everything is free. Somethings have a cost. A high cost. We, from any central committee member (the CC) to the lowest worker, should be willing to pay for it.

In fact, I'm taking my own advice and donating $20 to Revleft right now. You should do the same.

[Robert]

I read Lafargue's essay. He just sounds to me like a lazy intellectual who likes to dream. And be fed for free by the rest of us.

Fuck him.

[RGacky3]

Well, yeah. That's about all that mattered. They barely had working rifles, let alone the sub-machine guns, tanks, artillery, ships, and luftwaffe the Fascists were receiving.

They does'nt refute my point at all, thats a seperate problem, people were ready and willing to fight, this thread is about obligatory labor.

[Bud Struggle]

They does'nt refute my point at all, thats a seperate problem, people were ready and willing to fight, this thread is about obligatory labor.

And....you are going to work.

If I'm going to work--then each and every one of you are damn well going to work. Want to have a Soviet (I have them--and TRUST ME--they aren't that nice. REALLY--you people don't KNOW what you are in for, but that's another subject.)

A vote? A Plebiscite?

You are going to work. Talk to workers--they want NO ONE sluffing off.

[BobKKKindle$]

As TC pointed out, work is always going to be "obligatory" regardless of how society is organized because humans will always be compelled to interact with the environment in order to gain access to the things we need to survive and protect the welfare of our species. However, obligatory labour can also serve a useful purpose in a post-revolutionary society as a means to ensure that people who are engaged in administrative tasks instead of physical labour do not become isolated from the mass of working people, as this could potentially lead to the emergence of a new elite within the state apparatus and ultimately the retoration to capitalism. During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) students were famously sent to the countryside to perform agricultural labour and learn from the experiences of the peasantry, and the lessons of this period are valuable for future attempts to revolutionize society.

[Post-Something]

:thumbup:

Old Marx got that one right.

Exactly. TomK is 100% right here. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get a bit more realistic. For the reasons TC elaborated especially. Communists want to abolish exploitation of man by man, work is still necessary. There is no justifiable reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it.

The Technocracy argument is just an evasive joke. Unfortunately we don't live in Star Trek land or wherever you would like to believe, and until we have taken labour out of the equation pretty much (which won't be for a very long time), we're going to need everyone we can to pitch in and help. By all means find as many ways to reduce work time as possible, but that doesn't alleviate the social responsibility to contribute to the society you live in.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

They does'nt refute my point at all, thats a seperate problem, people were ready and willing to fight, this thread is about obligatory labor.

Yeah, I conceded that and said that despite their zeal it would still be hard to imagine them winning, which is all that would have mattered.

[ckaihatsu]

it depends what you mean by 'work'. If by work you mean in the menial sense, then absolutely not.


I'll second this here. Work for work's sake is medieval, and is one of those pious, mindfuck arguments that comes from the religion racket, for purposes of power-mongering.



Equally, everyone within reason should be expected to meet a productive, positive role. In the age of automation there is no need to compose the manufacturing, goods distribution and mass communication industries out of flesh and misery.


Considering that society is becoming more and more "politicized" -- that is, class conscious -- as the parasitic role of capital is increasingly decayed and exposed, there is a lot to be said for playing a * political * role as a revolutionary anti-capitalist. This alone comprises intellectual work and can have a disproportionate effect on society through building class struggle.

Political work will continue to play an important role towards, in, and through a global working-class revolution.



As a technocrat i oppose all human beings being forced or co-erced into manual and/or alienating labour outside of their own volition. Every man and woman should have the opportunity to fulfill a role that is relevant to their personality.


Right -- and besides, would we really *want* to credit someone for voluntarily digging ditches while idling a (mechanized) bulldozer, when they could be working at something higher-level, self-chosen, and possibly political?



Exactly. TomK is 100% right here. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get a bit more realistic. For the reasons TC elaborated especially. Communists want to abolish exploitation of man by man, work is still necessary. There is no justifiable reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it.


The reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it is this: In the context of a capitalistic society the non-contributing person is implicitly making a political statement of protest, since the capitalist system is set up to exploit labor.

And within a socialist / communist society, as long as one is not actually counter-revolutionary, the non-contributing person may be making the implicit political statement that the nascent society is capable enough to *not need* the forced labor of every single individual.



The Technocracy argument is just an evasive joke. Unfortunately we don't live in Star Trek land or wherever you would like to believe, and until we have taken labour out of the equation pretty much (which won't be for a very long time), we're going to need everyone we can to pitch in and help. By all means find as many ways to reduce work time as possible, but that doesn't alleviate the social responsibility to contribute to the society you live in.


Actually, many of us *do* live in "Star Trek land", compared to just 100 years ago. The normal, expected standard of living in industrialized and developed countries, even for children and adolescents, is far more luxurious and comfortable, in myriad ways, than humanity has *ever* known before, with far less strenuous labor.

Think of all of the office jobs out there in which the workforce is barely even *productive*, in the standard sense of the term. These days those white-collar workers are playing more of a * political * role, if unwitting, than anything else. Through their participation in the conventional routines of workaday life they are propping up the conventional social reality, a la the controlled hologram "programs" in the Matrix movie.

Ironically this political participation is also a de facto democratization of the bureaucracy, and now the Democratic Party has come to power in the U.S., usurping the Republican Party, because of this diffuse, bland, but broad-based incorporation of younger generations into the mainstream political establishment.

Given the enormous capacity (wealth) of our post-industrial age, we should be saying: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."



The only difference is that in Communism we would restore the original state of everyone working their fair share instead of some people working to support those who don't work.


This "fair share" stuff is moralistic and is therefore highly objectionable. "Fair share" is ultimately a political determination that cannot be decisively reached in the abstract, on a discussion board. We can certainly discuss and take positions, but using the term "fair share" doesn't clarify *anything*.



So simply put, people are forced to work as a consequence of our biology and the nature of the world,


These are *horrible* assumptions and are a disservice to revolutionary thought. Biology doesn't force us to work, as there have been plenty of ruling-class people who have gone cradle to grave without having to perform or produce for anyone, and they were healthy enough throughout *their* lifetimes.

The same argument serves to disprove that the "nature of the world" always requires work from everyone.



the question is only should everyone be forced to work equally or should some be forced to work to greater degrees than others? Communism means forced labor, whether primitive communism or industrial communism, but capitalism is forced labor at a higher rate for some so a minority don't need to do any productive work. The net effect of communism then is less work for those who work in capitalism and more work for those who don't.

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."


I do appreciate the leveling spirit you're expressing here, TC, but again, I'd say you, like Post-Something, are approaching this issue from more of a moralistic and even religious perspective.

We *cannot* ignore the material reality in front of us -- should a revolution that overthrows capitalism only sink into becoming an agrarian regime, just so that everyone can work equally as farmers? This is the pitfall of only focusing on the human-relations side of things, while ignoring the material bounty that we have been born into.



I completely support obligatory labor. All people should be free to make demands on the state, always partial. So too, should the state, acting as and for the people, be able to make demands on all people, always partial.


I don't mean to be nit-picky here, but the state should act in the interests of the *political objectives * first and foremostly. Too many populist and reformist conclusions can be easily pushed if we orient political power to "serving the people". The well-being of the people will -- paradoxically and counter-intuitively -- be a secondary result, or byproduct, of a state that acts correctly in the interests of the socialist revolution and of a global communist society.

Yes, people should be making demands on the state, but only collectively. This is where the power of labor lies, anyway, and the state should *not* be responsive to individual, private concerns, or else it would open the doors to a counter-revolution by a privileged elite.



I think it's patently absurd that people can hold the position that no obligatory labor should be required at anytime. If the United States experienced a revolution and counter revolutionary NATO forces were plunging in from Canada, Mexico, and the coasts I would find anyone advocating anything less than a 12 hour work day for every man and woman as dishonorable, insipid, and disgusting. Not everything is free. Somethings have a cost. A high cost. We, from any central committee member (the CC) to the lowest worker, should be willing to pay for it.

In fact, I'm taking my own advice and donating $20 to Revleft right now. You should do the same.


Extending the function, the state would only be able to make demands on people if it was so decided by the workers, collectively, in their own interests. This might mean mobilizing additional units of the workers militias, pulled from the ranks of the unemployed, to fight against counterrevolutionary forces. This kind of decision could *not* be made by individuals or by private concerns.



As TC pointed out, work is always going to be "obligatory" regardless of how society is organized because humans will always be compelled to interact with the environment in order to gain access to the things we need to survive and protect the welfare of our species.


Bob, this leaves a lot of wiggle room. Are we not surviving as a species, with less work, thanks to the * mechanization * and * automation * of our interaction with the environment? We have technological tools that allow us to sample a multitude of variables about the natural environment, thereby allowing weather modeling and predictions, using computers. This allows us to mobilize in advance of many natural disasters, protecting ourselves as organisms.



However, obligatory labour can also serve a useful purpose in a post-revolutionary society as a means to ensure that people who are engaged in administrative tasks instead of physical labour do not become isolated from the mass of working people, as this could potentially lead to the emergence of a new elite within the state apparatus and ultimately the retoration to capitalism. During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) students were famously sent to the countryside to perform agricultural labour and learn from the experiences of the peasantry, and the lessons of this period are valuable for future attempts to revolutionize society.


My position on this is that even administration and labor should be automated as much as possible, which would also serve to remove the threat of elitist rule from administration. If the point of having a labor-driven economy * at all * is to service the consumer (in the broadest sense of the term), then why not put the consumer / worker in the driver's seat, with collective oversight over the functioning of the entire supply chain?

---

My comprehensive position on this topic is here,


"This argument"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/argument-t95354/index.html


and there is very good discussion on the subject of labor requirements at this thread:


"The workings of a planned economy"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workings-planned-economy-t94505/index.html


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Post-Something]

The reason why a capable individual should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of society without contributing back to it is this: In the context of a capitalistic society the non-contributing person is implicitly making a political statement of protest, since the capitalist system is set up to exploit labor.

And within a socialist / communist society, as long as one is not actually counter-revolutionary, the non-contributing person may be making the implicit political statement that the nascent society is capable enough to *not need* the forced labor of every single individual.

The reason why a person who refuses to work in a capitalist society is a political statement is because he is refusing to be exploited, which is a fundamentally immoral action.

However, in the case of an egalitarian society, exploitation ceases to exist. Therefor we have a whole new scenario. There is simply "contributing to society", in order to earn your share; oppression and wage slavery aren't a part of it. What possible kind of progressive political statement can be made in an egalitarian society? Again, what justification is there for a person refusing to work?, because your reason is a non argument:

p1: I do not want to work

p2: society does not need me, whether I work or not

c1: I can just choose not to work as I will be taken care of nonetheless.

Well, this is illogical. For a number of reasons. First of all, social responsibility, you are born into a world brought about by the labour of other individuals. To use these utilities, you are enhancing your existence. By doing so, you are indebting yourself to others; you are signing a social contract. To be able to break this contract, you have to be able to provide evidence of being treated unjustly, to warrant your exclusion from the system.

Secondly, if all individuals decided to uptake this position (highly unlikely though it may be), society would not function. It is not fair that some should work, and others shouldn't, based on no real grounds. Therefor everyone should work, in some way or another.



Actually, many of us *do* live in "Star Trek land", compared to just 100 years ago. The normal, expected standard of living in industrialized and developed countries, even for children and adolescents, is far more luxurious and comfortable, in myriad ways, than humanity has *ever* known before, with far less strenuous labor.

Think of all of the office jobs out there in which the workforce is barely even *productive*, in the standard sense of the term. These days those white-collar workers are playing more of a * political * role, if unwitting, than anything else. Through their participation in the conventional routines of workaday life they are propping up the conventional social reality, a la the controlled hologram "programs" in the Matrix movie.

Ironically this political participation is also a de facto democratization of the bureaucracy, and now the Democratic Party has come to power in the U.S., usurping the Republican Party, because of this diffuse, bland, but broad-based incorporation of younger generations into the mainstream political establishment.

Given the enormous capacity (wealth) of our post-industrial age, we should be saying: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

I think you may have missed my point. I'm saying that until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work. As I've explained above, it's not moral that some work, and others don't, so even if that means an hour a day, people should work. Again, please outline a decent justification for allowing a group of perfectly capable individuals to remain unproductive, while still using the utilities and resources of the community they live in. The community should reign supreme, and if it doesn't approve of providing a bunch of people, who do nothing for them, with the luxury of everyone else; then it shouldn't have to.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you may have missed my point. I'm saying that until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work. As I've explained above, it's not moral that some work, and others don't, so even if that means an hour a day, people should work. Again, please outline a decent justification for allowing a group of perfectly capable individuals to remain unproductive, while still using the utilities and resources of the community they live in. The community should reign supreme, and if it doesn't approve of providing a bunch of people, who do nothing for them, with the luxury of everyone else; then it shouldn't have to.


First of all, just for the record, I'd like to note that I'm * not * talking about myself -- I've always been a self-motivated and dedicated worker, especially in my chosen profession. And, I fully support the socialist revolution and will continue to contribute politically.

To address your point I'd like to refer back to this argument:



We *cannot* ignore the material reality in front of us -- should a revolution that overthrows capitalism only sink into becoming an agrarian regime, just so that everyone can work equally as farmers? This is the pitfall of only focusing on the human-relations side of things, while ignoring the material bounty that we have been born into.


Another way of putting it is to say: Imagine that the revolution swept through and land became communalized, like back before the enclosures. If people could make their living herding goats, or using solar cells, or living by a stream, or eating from an orchard, would there be any *problem* with that?

I think it would be the responsibility of society to make the political arguments to *convince* those asocial types to become more a part of the larger community. For some people there may not be *any* argument that convinces them. Does this mean that they should be *forced* into some type of labor? Would a socialist / communist society have *an interest* in forcing people to work if they didn't want to, and could realistically live without working?

[Post-Something]

First of all, just for the record, I'd like to note that I'm * not * talking about myself -- I've always been a self-motivated and dedicated worker, especially in my chosen profession. And, I fully support the socialist revolution and will continue to contribute politically.

Good, that's admirable :).



Another way of putting it is to say: Imagine that the revolution swept through and land became communalized, like back before the enclosures. If people could make their living herding goats, or using solar cells, or living by a stream, or eating from an orchard, would there be any *problem* with that?

No, there would be no problem whatsoever. But this doesn't affect anything I have just pointed out. These people are still working. In fact, every single example you have given would be beneficial to the society the individual would live in. Let's look at them:

Herding goats: Manual labour. Looking after goats so that the rest of the community can eat. Sounds like pretty basic work to me.

Using Solar cells: providing energy for the community you live in. Fundamentally important.

Living by a Stream: And doing what? Fishing? Collecting water? Also important.

Eating from an Orchard: Which is tended to by whom? You'll need someone to look after that orchard surely, and if you've been doing nothing lately, there's no reason why the community should have to give you its fruits.

All the examples you've given require an inter relational system of agreement. ie. I'll go hunt, you get some water, then we'll all share in the end. But in none of your examples, have you portrayed an individual doing nothing at all but live off of others work. And surely, if there was such an individual who strolled around eating peoples fruits, wasting their resources and and doing nothing but live directly for themselves, then the community should have some means of standing in the way.


I think it would be the responsibility of society to make the political arguments to *convince* those asocial types to become more a part of the larger community. For some people there may not be *any* argument that convinces them. Does this mean that they should be *forced* into some type of labor? Would a socialist / communist society have *an interest* in forcing people to work if they didn't want to, and could realistically live without working?

If a group of people want to exist on a very basic means of living, then by all means, they should be allowed to. But none of this denies that it should primarily be achieved through a collectivist framework.

For example, there could be a group of individuals who love to live extremely simply. Fair enough. They have the option of organising and seperating from the community at large, and setting up there own legislative, executive and democratic branches. But again, these people need to work together, and they should have the option of telling people to stop being lazy if they want to. They are not "asocial".

[ckaihatsu]

All the examples you've given require an inter relational system of agreement. ie. I'll go hunt, you get some water, then we'll all share in the end. But in none of your examples, have you portrayed an individual doing nothing at all but live off of others work. And surely, if there was such an individual who strolled around eating peoples fruits, wasting their resources and and doing nothing but live directly for themselves, then the community should have some means of standing in the way.


I guess this point blends into the communist principle of not allowing private concerns to get disproportionate political power or disproportionate access to resources.



If a group of people want to exist on a very basic means of living, then by all means, they should be allowed to. But none of this denies that it should primarily be achieved through a collectivist framework.

For example, there could be a group of individuals who love to live extremely simply. Fair enough. They have the option of organising and seperating from the community at large, and setting up there own legislative, executive and democratic branches. But again, these people need to work together, and they should have the option of telling people to stop being lazy if they want to. They are not "asocial".


Then this point deals with the difference between anarchism and communism. What is the relationship to be between the majority and the minority, in a post-capitalist society? Anarchists would vehemently say that they could go off in their own direction, as you've laid out, without needing any larger, overarching structure / government.

But beyond achieving a basic, post-capitalist material support for modern living for all through collectivism, might there be further concerns -- ones on the "flipside" from self-sustaining material support? I mean to ask about the more complicated side of things, that dealing with social mores and formal laws.

Wouldn't the majority have an *interest* in at least being in regular contact with minority groupings? And what if some internal troubles developed within a minority grouping? Would the majority have an interest in intervening there? Would the majority have a certain code of laws for its own acceptable social functioning? And a system of punishments with which to enforce those laws?

As pleased as I am with being a Marxist / socialist / communist for dealing with material issues, I have to admit that the more governmental side of things can be much more tricky...!

[Post-Something]

Then this point deals with the difference between anarchism and communism. What is the relationship to be between the majority and the minority, in a post-capitalist society? Anarchists would vehemently say that they could go off in their own direction, as you've laid out, without needing any larger, overarching structure / government.

I don't think a communist would actually disagree either. Your post sort of probes into the whole structure of Soviet Democracy, and you've outlayed a couple of interesting points which I'll try to cover. However, I think both communists and Anarchists would be fine with a group of people "going off in their own direction" if it was evident that it would be a beneficial move.


But beyond achieving a basic, post-capitalist material support for modern living for all through collectivism, might there be further concerns -- ones on the "flipside" from self-sustaining material support? I mean to ask about the more complicated side of things, that dealing with social mores and formal laws.

Wouldn't the majority have an *interest* in at least being in regular contact with minority groupings? And what if some internal troubles developed within a minority grouping? Would the majority have an interest in intervening there? Would the majority have a certain code of laws for its own acceptable social functioning? And a system of punishments with which to enforce those laws?

As pleased as I am with being a Marxist / socialist / communist for dealing with material issues, I have to admit that the more governmental side of things can be much more tricky...!

Well, let's look at how a society could be structured first. Say for example, you have commune A. Commune A is made up of a group of people who collectively share legislative and executive powers to run their commune. They can choose to have a constitution, they can choose not to; but it is their choice collectively.

If Commune A feel it necessary, they can collectively decide to have an agreement, or law, that murder shouldn't be allowed, for example. They can even go so far as to allow it to be punishable, and they could decide who would carry out this punishment. Also, commune A can select a delegate to represent them in a larger body for collaberation with other communes and so on. But these delegates will be recallable at all times to make sure their interests are being accurately represented. If, for example, a person doesn't agree with the rules of a specific commune, he can either hope to change his commune through democratic means, or move to another where the change has already taken place.

Now, all good and well so far you might say, but what if we introduce commune B and C? For whatever reason, A and B have fallen out, and violence may ensue, is it morally acceptable for C to step in and help find a solution? I think intervention is perfectly fine, and in fact morally necessary to keep the peace between the communes. This may also end up being one of the most important functions of the delegates I have pointed out earlier, along with allocation of resources to other communes etc.

So, I don't know if I made my point any clearer, but basically, I think democracy should reign supreme. Your response seems to indicate that you may in fact prefer individual autonomy over democracy in some instances, so this may be the point of contention between us.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]his point deals with the difference between anarchism and communism. What is the relationship to be between the majority and the minority, in a post-capitalist society? Anarchists would vehemently say that they could go off in their own direction, as you've laid out, without needing any larger, overarching structure / government.


I'm cross-posting this to these two threads which are covering similar ground:

Opposing Ideologies > obligatory labor...lets discuss about it shall we?

Theory > We are the anarchic revolution



I will object, as often as it necessary for me to say it, that the anarchist goal of getting rid of "authority", or, as some say it, geting rid of "coercion", is based solely on an untestable claim about human nature. It assumes that, once society adopts a new administrative system, no one would ever again choose to murder or rape anyone, and therefore a need for formal institutional power and authority no longer exists. This is based on the "perfectibility of man" hypothesis of Rousseau romanticism, which snuck into early socialist literature via the 19th century utopians. It's a distraction which has no validity. I expect that the most perfected classless society of the future will quickly learn that it needs law-making representatives, police, trials and jails. Authority or coercion can be diminished in their necessary magnitudes, but never eliminated in a thousand years.



I don't think a communist would actually disagree either. Your post sort of probes into the whole structure of Soviet Democracy, and you've outlayed a couple of interesting points which I'll try to cover. However, I think both communists and Anarchists would be fine with a group of people "going off in their own direction" if it was evident that it would be a beneficial move.

Well, let's look at how a society could be structured first. Say for example, you have commune A. Commune A is made up of a group of people who collectively share legislative and executive powers to run their commune. They can choose to have a constitution, they can choose not to; but it is their choice collectively.

If Commune A feel it necessary, they can collectively decide to have an agreement, or law, that murder shouldn't be allowed, for example. They can even go so far as to allow it to be punishable, and they could decide who would carry out this punishment. Also, commune A can select a delegate to represent them in a larger body for collaberation with other communes and so on. But these delegates will be recallable at all times to make sure their interests are being accurately represented. If, for example, a person doesn't agree with the rules of a specific commune, he can either hope to change his commune through democratic means, or move to another where the change has already taken place.

Now, all good and well so far you might say, but what if we introduce commune B and C? For whatever reason, A and B have fallen out, and violence may ensue, is it morally acceptable for C to step in and help find a solution? I think intervention is perfectly fine, and in fact morally necessary to keep the peace between the communes. This may also end up being one of the most important functions of the delegates I have pointed out earlier, along with allocation of resources to other communes etc.

So, I don't know if I made my point any clearer, but basically, I think democracy should reign supreme. Your response seems to indicate that you may in fact prefer individual autonomy over democracy in some instances, so this may be the point of contention between us.


I actually think that a close-knit, materially abundant, classless society *would* eliminate virtually all of the remaining anti-social urges people may have. The whole category of crime is societally produced, so the elimination of the profit motive, need, want, and alienation would eliminate inhumane motivations altogether. This isn't a Romantic formulation, either.

The way in which various groupings interact with each other, and with the larger, communist economy is important to me, but I guess at this point we can only *speculate* about its structure. I don't mean to take up much time with guesswork, but I'd imagine some interlocking system of local administrations would emerge, with a recallable meta-administration emerging from that.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I don't mean to be nit-picky here, but the state should act in the interests of the *political objectives * first and foremostly. Too many populist and reformist conclusions can be easily pushed if we orient political power to "serving the people". The well-being of the people will -- paradoxically and counter-intuitively -- be a secondary result, or byproduct, of a state that acts correctly in the interests of the socialist revolution and of a global communist society.

Yes, people should be making demands on the state, but only collectively. This is where the power of labor lies, anyway, and the state should *not* be responsive to individual, private concerns, or else it would open the doors to a counter-revolution by a privileged elite.[/quote]I agree the communism is not about servicing goods. The goal of equality isn't "everyone gets a pony." The goal of equality is a form of justice.

“Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus” Let justice reign though the world parishes.

Communism is a radical demand and an obligation to humanity as such. Not as individuals. The argument against capitalism, isn't simply that communism will distribute goods more effectively (but it will). the argument is that capitalism radical truncates humanity in unacceptable ways. I agree with you.


Extending the function, the state would only be able to make demands on people if it was so decided by the workers, collectively, in their own interests. This might mean mobilizing additional units of the workers militias, pulled from the ranks of the unemployed, to fight against counterrevolutionary forces. This kind of decision could *not* be made by individuals or by private concerns.Maybe. I don't real know if I accept this vision of collective. It may be that we simple have difference of opinion on the nature of the Republic. Generally speaking, there are two types of Republic. A Rousseau republic and a Machiavellian republic. In a Rousseauean republic, the purpose of the republic is to express preference. For a Machiavellian republic, the purpose of the republic is to defend itself from internal and external domination.

In this case, it's not clear that we should be so concern about collective decisions as an expression of preference. Before it becamse a bad word, dictator was the speaker of Rome. They would grant a man power over the entire state to ensure its security. Sometime the dictator would be Cincinnatus, othertimes it would be Nero. I'm just pointing out as you did earlier that "collective interest" is problematic.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree the communism is not about servicing goods.


No, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying here. I would say that communism *is* about *providing* goods (and services), on a collective basis, but not about catering to private interests.



The goal of equality isn't "everyone gets a pony."


The goal of equality is that everyone gets food, shelter, electricity, sewage, and all of the rest of the amenities of modern living that our technology is able to provide. Beyond that people can request ponies, or anything else, from the state. If there is enough demand, or if some kind of special accomodations are required (like land for animals), then the communist state would necessarily intervene and provide and regulate, transparently.

If only a few people have special requests then they could probably find their supplies through word-of-mouth, without having to put in a formal request through the state.



The goal of equality is a form of justice.


I suppose so, but this, too -- "justice" -- would also be a byproduct of a world that collectivizes and empowers labor along with the material world that labor controls.



“Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus” Let justice reign though the world parishes.


I do *not* agree with this at all, because a communist world would most certainly be secular.



Communism is a radical demand and an obligation to humanity as such. Not as individuals. The argument against capitalism, isn't simply that communism will distribute goods more effectively (but it will). the argument is that capitalism radical truncates humanity in unacceptable ways. I agree with you.


Okay, I agree with this portion.



Maybe. I don't real know if I accept this vision of collective. It may be that we simple have difference of opinion on the nature of the Republic. Generally speaking, there are two types of Republic. A Rousseau republic and a Machiavellian republic. In a Rousseauean republic, the purpose of the republic is to express preference. For a Machiavellian republic, the purpose of the republic is to defend itself from internal and external domination.


I appreciate your reflection on the *spirit*, or future-directed orientation, of a global communist society (if this is what you mean by referring to a "Republic").

As I've noted, just solving the labor and material issues would go a *long* way towards providing humanity with a more humane footing for its future. However, I *am* critical of those revolutionaries who stop at that point and don't want to look at the possibilities for collective projects that a communist, collectivized labor force would make possible. It's an important point to consider because we should have the longest vision possible, so that we know in what direction we're headed. This allows us to deflect arguments that come at us from tangents more easily so that we can stay on-course.

So beyond liberating humanity from capitalist exploitation and oppression, what would a communist society liberate humanity *into*?

I agree that greater access to resources allows individuals to enlighten themselves and develop their personalities more than would be possible with *fewer* material goods and services. As a Wilde-ist, I will refer to this axiom:



They rage against Materialism, as they call it, forgetting that there has been no material improvement that has not spiritualised the world, and that there have been few, if any, spiritual awakenings that have not wasted the world's faculties in barren hopes, and fruitless aspirations, and empty or trammelling creeds.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/ntntn10.txt



In this case, it's not clear that we should be so concern about collective decisions as an expression of preference. Before it becamse a bad word, dictator was the speaker of Rome. They would grant a man power over the entire state to ensure its security. Sometime the dictator would be Cincinnatus, othertimes it would be Nero. I'm just pointing out as you did earlier that "collective interest" is problematic.


The collective interests of a global communist society would be inherently different than the concerns of a classic republic, as you're referring to here. This is because of the comprehensively global scale of the communist society -- once the capitalist, counter-revolutionary forces were crushed there would not be any opposition to collective power by labor, over labor.

In this way "collective interest" would be a tremendous improvement in the reality of human life and livelihood over anything that has gone before. I would suggest using this factory- or workplace-based system, posted transparently to the Internet:


Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq


However, I can understand that "collective interest", beyond the liberation of humanity from exploitation and oppression by private interests, can become complex, or, worse, complicated. While we're obviously not there yet, I consider it a valid question to consider * what kind * of vision (or preference) a liberated global workforce would have.

Would that society look to extend the longevity of the human lifespan? Maybe liberate all animals from *their* nature-bound existence by somehow enabling them with mass communications? Space exploration? A travel binge for everyone?

Obviously this is all highly speculative, but again, I think it's at least worth thinking about. Given that such enormous capacity (of resources, of labor) would be freed up, we would have to consider what to do with ourselves, and with it.

Even now, in our highly developed, communications-enabled world, many people are undergoing existential crises because we're so accustomed to struggling and scraping against the current, on a mass scale, just for basic progress and development. Now much -- if not all -- of this is in our laps -- in the developed world -- and the rest *should* be about extending this wealth and convenience to the remainder of the world's population. This sentiment is what makes us revolutionaries.

But those who *aren't* revolutionaries now find themselves twisting in the wind, purposeless in their own personal Gardens of Eden (more or less). The average person in the developed world can now easily expend their entire lives in private, without *having* to concern themselves with the rest of the world, and many do exactly that.

Our collective interest, * right now *, is in tapping *all* of the existing human potential, in order to push through to liberate *all* of humanity from capitalist exploitation, once and for all.

[Post-Something]

I actually think that a close-knit, materially abundant, classless society *would* eliminate virtually all of the remaining anti-social urges people may have. The whole category of crime is societally produced, so the elimination of the profit motive, need, want, and alienation would eliminate inhumane motivations altogether. This isn't a Romantic formulation, either.

The way in which various groupings interact with each other, and with the larger, communist economy is important to me, but I guess at this point we can only *speculate* about its structure. I don't mean to take up much time with guesswork, but I'd imagine some interlocking system of local administrations would emerge, with a recallable meta-administration emerging from that.

Ok, we've really deviated from the original topic of this thread, so I'm going to make it quick:

I think there will still be "crime" in a communist society, and I think to say otherwise would be far too economically determinist. I agree that the whole category of economic crime would be taken care of, but not all crimes are carried out on an economic basis. Obvious ones like murder and rape would most likely still remain, and a society should be equiped well enough to defend itself against these elements. However, I fail to see how this relates to obligatory labour, so I shall assume that you agree with me in my previous statements, unless you have an issue which you feel we still haven't discussed.

Also, I entirely agree that we can only speculate about the structure of a communist economy, I was merely using the example to explain my point that "laws" etc can be achieved in a communist society, and the relationships between groupings in society need not be so complex as to create major problems.

[Rangi]

Obligtatory is a euphemism for forced. Hitler was a big fan of obligatory/forced labour. "Arbeit macht frei" (Work brings freedom) was emblazoned on the gates at Dachau where many German communists met their deaths. I find the idea detestable.

[Post-Something]

Obligtatory is a euphemism for forced. Hitler was a big fan of obligatory/forced labour. "Arbeit macht frei" (Work brings freedom) was emblazoned on the gates at Dachau where many German communists met their deaths. I find the idea detestable.

If you honestly think the parallel you just drew is in any way serious, I recommend you either grow a brain, or you read over this thread a couple hundred times to memorize the arguments. Because a commune is not a concentration camp, and having been to Auschwitz and seen the inscriptions myself, along with all the other horrors, I find it quite offensive that you actually believe it possible we would be debating something of that magnitude.

[Rangi]

Sorry if I my comment angered you or seemed stupid in some way.

Can you tell me the difference between obligatory and forced?

[ckaihatsu]

However, in the case of an egalitarian society, exploitation ceases to exist. Therefor we have a whole new scenario. There is simply "contributing to society", in order to earn your share; oppression and wage slavery aren't a part of it.


Yes, I agree with this, especially in the period of socialist revolution to overthrow the capitalist counter-revolution. We could even reasonably argue here for the use of obligatory, or even forced (commanded) labor in the service of the fight against the capitalists, since the workers revolution would be paramount.



I think you may have missed my point. I'm saying that until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work.



As I've explained above, it's not moral that some work, and others don't, so even if that means an hour a day, people should work.


There's a slight contradiction, or overlap, here -- to clarify:

It's only "immoral" to not work if someone else has to involuntarily contribute *their* labor as a replacement for yours -- ? (Correct?)

You note that "until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work." So this means that once a certain kind of labor has been mechanized there's no question of morality anymore, because human labor is no longer involved. So, for example, I could check on the weather report today without morality being involved because I'm not obliging anyone to work instead of *me* in order to provide the weather report -- it would have been done anyway, mostly through *very* mechanized means, and I can enjoy free, a-moral access to it, right?

To extend this principle, what if someone could derive their entire youth-to-grave existence of choice without obliging anyone to provide labor *for* them, *and* without having to provide any labor themselves?

A communist economy would liberate the existing assets and manufacturing ability of society to such a degree that no one could * possibly * feel obligated to work in return for the reality of their collective use -- we could call these the spoils of victory over capitalism, or the collective reclamation of the cumulative labor value stolen from our ancestors.

Additionally, * no one * could claim private ownership or exclusive rights to any * natural * resources within a communist economy -- this would mean that, aside from some regulations, people would have free access to, say, apples from (nature-perpetuating) apple trees, and so on.

I, personally, am not of the kind of personality who would go in this direction of asocial existence, especially when so many options would be available, but I raise these points to point out that an asocial, "back-to-nature-but-with-modern-conveniences" kind of lifestyle would be more than possible within a communist economy.



I think there will still be "crime" in a communist society, and I think to say otherwise would be far too economically determinist. I agree that the whole category of economic crime would be taken care of, but not all crimes are carried out on an economic basis. Obvious ones like murder and rape would most likely still remain, and a society should be equiped well enough to defend itself against these elements.


I have to really question whether *any* crime, either against "property" (assets, resources) or person would really take place, given full, genuine human liberation. I won't make a habit of posting long passages of quotations, but this one has already been written, so here it is:



[A] community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment, than it is by the occurrence of crime. It obviously follows that the more punishment is inflicted the more crime is produced, and most modern legislation has clearly recognised this, and has made it its task to diminish punishment as far as it thinks it can. Wherever it has really diminished it, the results have always been extremely good. The less punishment, the less crime. When there is no punishment at all, crime will either cease to exist, or, if it occurs, will be treated by physicians as a very distressing form of dementia, to be cured by care and kindness. For what are called criminals nowadays are not criminals at all. Starvation, and not sin, is the parent of modern crime. That indeed is the reason why our criminals are, as a class, so absolutely uninteresting from any psychological point of view. They are not marvellous Macbeths and terrible Vautrins. They are merely what ordinary, respectable, commonplace people would be if they had not got enough to eat. When private property is abolished there will be no necessity for crime, no demand for it; it will cease to exist. Of course, all crimes are not crimes against property, though such are the crimes that the English law, valuing what a man has more than what a man is, punishes with the harshest and most horrible severity, if we except the crime of murder, and regard death as worse than penal servitude, a point on which our criminals, I believe, disagree. But though a crime may not be against property, it may spring from the misery and rage and depression produced by our wrong system of property-holding, and so, when that system is abolished, will disappear. When each member of the community has sufficient for his wants, and is not interfered with by his neighbour, it will not be an object of any interest to him to interfere with anyone else. Jealousy, which is an extraordinary source of crime in modern life, is an emotion closely bound up with our conceptions of property, and under Socialism and Individualism will die out. It is remarkable that in communistic tribes jealousy is entirely unknown.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt

[Post-Something]

Sorry if I my comment angered you or seemed stupid in some way.

Can you tell me the difference between obligatory and forced?

No harm done :)

It's just that the issue is so much more complex than that, and it's quite frustrating to see it attributed to such a horrible notion.

The difference between obligatory and forced? Well, it's quite simple really:

In a forced system one would be threatened with physical force if they don't comply. Whereas, in an obligatory system, one would have to contribute their labour, in some way, to earn their share in society's spoils. If they don't, they would be asked to leave, or they just wouldn't be allowed to use any of society's produce.

[Post-Something]

Yes, I agree with this, especially in the period of socialist revolution to overthrow the capitalist counter-revolution. We could even reasonably argue here for the use of obligatory, or even forced (commanded) labor in the service of the fight against the capitalists, since the workers revolution would be paramount.

Correct.



There's a slight contradiction, or overlap, here -- to clarify:

It's only "immoral" to not work if someone else has to involuntarily contribute *their* labor as a replacement for yours -- ? (Correct?)

You note that "until you've mechanized all forms of labour, people are still going to have to work." So this means that once a certain kind of labor has been mechanized there's no question of morality anymore, because human labor is no longer involved. So, for example, I could check on the weather report today without morality being involved because I'm not obliging anyone to work instead of *me* in order to provide the weather report -- it would have been done anyway, mostly through *very* mechanized means, and I can enjoy free, a-moral access to it, right?

Yup.


To extend this principle, what if someone could derive their entire youth-to-grave existence of choice without obliging anyone to provide labor *for* them, *and* without having to provide any labor themselves?

...And this is where I see a major slip up. There is no way this is going to be the case any time within the next 500 years at least. For this to happen, the entire process of production would have to be mechanized. Let me give an example to try and portray the enormity of this task:

You are currently using the internet, on a computer, and are most likely sitting on a chair. That chair may be made of wood. To make this chair, in our current mode of production, we would need to apply human labour in a lot of areas. First of all, someone has to chop down trees and collect the resources with which it will be crafted. Remember, it could be made of metal and plastic, and therefor may be much more difficult; this is simply a very basic example. This process would have to be mechanized some way in order to allow for the trees to be cut down and transported to a vicinity where it can be worked on. Secondly, you would need to mechanize the process where this chair was actually crafted and pieced together. Thirdly, you would need to mechanize the process by which it is packaged and distributed. You would also need to mechanize the distribution outlets as well.

Do you see how far away we are from attaining that? Nomatter how basic a life you live, you will at some point interact with commodities. And at some stage or another, you will use those commodities. Take yourself as an example, just to put it into perspective; how many commodities have you used today? Did you think for a minute how many people it would have taken to make just the ones you used today? Now imagine that entire body of people, but as machines. That is the level of advancement we are talking about, and I think it's very far off from now.


A communist economy would liberate the existing assets and manufacturing ability of society to such a degree that no one could * possibly * feel obligated to work in return for the reality of their collective use -- we could call these the spoils of victory over capitalism, or the collective reclamation of the cumulative labor value stolen from our ancestors.

Additionally, * no one * could claim private ownership or exclusive rights to any * natural * resources within a communist economy -- this would mean that, aside from some regulations, people would have free access to, say, apples from (nature-perpetuating) apple trees, and so on.

This is all good and well, but again, who has tended the orchard in which this apple tree grew?


I, personally, am not of the kind of personality who would go in this direction of asocial existence, especially when so many options would be available, but I raise these points to point out that an asocial, "back-to-nature-but-with-modern-conveniences" kind of lifestyle would be more than possible within a communist economy.

Fair enough, but I think that level of asocial existence would not even be possible in the first place.




I have to really question whether *any* crime, either against "property" (assets, resources) or person would really take place, given full, genuine human liberation. I won't make a habit of posting long passages of quotations, but this one has already been written, so here it is:

To be perfectly honest, this is incredibly speculative. Wilde is almost arguing that all human emotion is based on the predominant economic system. We don't understand all the factors that go on in a humans mind before a murder, and I would highly doubt that they would change so drastically as to stop all intentions for crime in a communist society. The thing is, murder has existed throughout every single mode of production, from hunter-gatherer tribes to capitalism, and if the situation were to arrise again in communism, it would only be rational for society to defend itself. But again, this is all speculation.

[ckaihatsu]

...And this is where I see a major slip up. There is no way this is going to be the case any time within the next 500 years at least. For this to happen, the entire process of production would have to be mechanized. Let me give an example to try and portray the enormity of this task:

You are currently using the internet, on a computer, and are most likely sitting on a chair. That chair may be made of wood. To make this chair, in our current mode of production, we would need to apply human labour in a lot of areas. First of all, someone has to chop down trees and collect the resources with which it will be crafted. Remember, it could be made of metal and plastic, and therefor may be much more difficult; this is simply a very basic example. This process would have to be mechanized some way in order to allow for the trees to be cut down and transported to a vicinity where it can be worked on. Secondly, you would need to mechanize the process where this chair was actually crafted and pieced together. Thirdly, you would need to mechanize the process by which it is packaged and distributed. You would also need to mechanize the distribution outlets as well.

Do you see how far away we are from attaining that? Nomatter how basic a life you live, you will at some point interact with commodities. And at some stage or another, you will use those commodities. Take yourself as an example, just to put it into perspective; how many commodities have you used today? Did you think for a minute how many people it would have taken to make just the ones you used today? Now imagine that entire body of people, but as machines. That is the level of advancement we are talking about, and I think it's very far off from now.


Dude (assuming you're male), this is just ridiculous.

500 years, huh? With all due respect to those indigenous people who have been suffering, with their culture annihilated by European invaders for the past 500 years, you're just full of it.

Just as any plastic toy is made up of machine-extruded plastic parts that the consumer then fits together, * anything * can be made the same way, from chairs to whatever, fully automated. In the present day, if we merely took up a collection from the local populace and let the workers run the factory themselves, and not for a profit, we would be fully stocked with all the basic implements of a modern household. It might not be of the best taste, but it would be stocked at a mere fraction of the prices commanded by the capitalist market system.

Even the harvesting of trees from tree farms could * today * be mechanized, with computerized optical recognition systems, robotics, and hydroponic farms. Much technological development is simply not profitable, so people continue to be employed at menial tasks for shit pay while a communist economy would empower those workers to liberate themselves and the machinery alike to their full potential.

Remember that, under communism, once people and machines are liberated, the goods and services produced are no longer * commodities * -- they would be the fruits of a political, worker-run economy.



This is all good and well, but again, who has tended the orchard in which this apple tree grew?


Jesus-Christ-and-a-half, * no one * _needs_ to * tend * to nature!!! We've already genetically engineered a plethora of plants and animals to be more suited to our needs, through breeding -- _that_ is enough -- nature can do the rest, at a minimum, and if we organized plants and animals into mechanized farms we'd be literally back to the Garden of Eden in no time! Any improvements, if even needed, could easily be done on a voluntary, hobbyist basis, while still being connected to a global, academic network of peers. * Plenty * of people will continue to be active in the arts and sciences, * especially * when the communist economy has secured the basics of living for them upfront.



Fair enough, but I think that level of asocial existence would not even be possible in the first place.


You're utterly incorrect here. It's * materially * possible _right now_ -- imagine how much more enabled independent -- and even broadly artistic and pioneering -- lives would be, given the bounty of a mechanized, communist economy.



The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

[...]

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt



To be perfectly honest, this is incredibly speculative. Wilde is almost arguing that all human emotion is based on the predominant economic system. We don't understand all the factors that go on in a humans mind before a murder, and I would highly doubt that they would change so drastically as to stop all intentions for crime in a communist society. The thing is, murder has existed throughout every single mode of production, from hunter-gatherer tribes to capitalism, and if the situation were to arrise again in communism, it would only be rational for society to defend itself. But again, this is all speculation.


Well, all I can do is repeat myself here -- there's nothing *intrinsic* in the human makeup itself that includes a potential to murder -- it's *entirely* societal and material in basis -- !

[Post-Something]

Dude (assuming you're male), this is just ridiculous.

500 years, huh? With all due respect to those indigenous people who have been suffering, with their culture annihilated by European invaders for the past 500 years, you're just full of it.

Just as any plastic toy is made up of machine-extruded plastic parts that the consumer then fits together, * anything * can be made the same way, from chairs to whatever, fully automated. In the present day, if we merely took up a collection from the local populace and let the workers run the factory themselves, and not for a profit, we would be fully stocked with all the basic implements of a modern household. It might not be of the best taste, but it would be stocked at a mere fraction of the prices commanded by the capitalist market system.

You think 500 years is a strange estimate? Honestly? From where we are now to the most advanced stage of communism? Don't even get me started. Because with the huge advantages we have in the world right now, like Imperialism, Cultural Hegemony and Globalisation, I mean, the revolution must be around the corner! Everything is in our favour!


Even the harvesting of trees from tree farms could * today * be mechanized, with computerized optical recognition systems, robotics, and hydroponic farms. Much technological development is simply not profitable, so people continue to be employed at menial tasks for shit pay while a communist economy would empower those workers to liberate themselves and the machinery alike to their full potential.

Remember that, under communism, once people and machines are liberated, the goods and services produced are no longer * commodities * -- they would be the fruits of a political, worker-run economy.Uh-huh, yeah, because apples pick "themselves", and cows will neatly slice "themselves" into steaks just before placing "themselves" into an air tight package. They also fly to peoples doors. Doors which by the way, were made by door trees, which would be possible in the near future. This all obviously happens while Ultra commie man supervises 24/7 just for fun.[/sarcasm]

Again, you missed my point. Apples are a basic example, and probably could be mechanized even in the system we live in now. But what about resteraunts? What about getting your house built? etc. etc.

What I'm saying is that it's going to be difficult to get this level of advancement across the globe. If you don't know, we have people around the world eating grass and making stone soup because they can't afford anything else. We're really going to pull their material conditions up so high that they'll have a computer doing everything for them? Really? They've suddenly gone from making shoes for Nike for 15p an hour to the most advanced stage of economic development?

Well I say probably not. Especially if we see the revolution happening anytime soon. SO, in the scenario that I'm right, and there still is labour, a community should reserve the right to make work obligatory. In the scenario that you're right, well, good! We don't need work then, do we? But unfortunately I think we might have a bit of a problem trying to work against things like years of backwards thinking and an inherited world of poverty.


Jesus-Christ-and-a-half, * no one * _needs_ to * tend * to nature!!! We've already genetically engineered a plethora of plants and animals to be more suited to our needs, through breeding -- _that_ is enough -- nature can do the rest, at a minimum, and if we organized plants and animals into mechanized farms we'd be literally back to the Garden of Eden in no time! Any improvements, if even needed, could easily be done on a voluntary, hobbyist basis, while still being connected to a global, academic network of peers. * Plenty * of people will continue to be active in the arts and sciences, * especially * when the communist economy has secured the basics of living for them upfront.Of course! What am I thinking! That's not a Euro centric analysis at all! We'll be able to apply that mode of living to Indonesia in no time!

see above.



You're utterly incorrect here. It's * materially * possible _right now_ -- imagine how much more enabled independent -- and even broadly artistic and pioneering -- lives would be, given the bounty of a mechanized, communist economy.Didn't I explain this before? I'll lay out my argument again. If these people want to do it, they can go off and make their own commune, but they should still have the right to legislate for obligatory labour in that commune. However, if a commune decides that work is obligatory, then they either work, or go to another commune.

Of course, it would have to be looked at in context. For example, if there was a huge natural disaster in another commune, I don't think it would be a bad idea to ask them to work a bit on their land and help get the other commune out of the trouble they were in.

Anyway, these aren't the people I have a problem with. An asocial existence would mean not taking anything from society; whereas we're discussing people who do, without contributing anything in return.



Well, all I can do is repeat myself here -- there's nothing *intrinsic* in the human makeup itself that includes a potential to murder -- it's *entirely* societal and material in basis -- !Communism is a mode of production. It may take away exploitation and alienation, but that doesn't mean you'll never fall out with your friend. It doesn't mean you can't feel betrayed, or hurt. It doen't mean someone can't accidently kill your sister, and enrage you to killing them. It doesn't mean that you're not going to kill the fucker that accidently poisened your water supply. And it doesn't mean that you're not going to grow up with urges to molest a child. But even so, this particular issue is useless to debate. I suggest we don't.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

No, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying here. I would say that communism *is* about *providing* goods (and services), on a collective basis, but not about catering to private interests.
Then we disagree. It seems to me that the primary end of communism is a form of radical humanism (equality, freedom, justice), but it's primary means is the analysis of political economy. If you don't agree with this, than I think we just don't agree and I don't know what further can be said on this particular matter, but I'm interested to hear either way.


The goal of equality is that everyone gets food, shelter, electricity, sewage, and all of the rest of the amenities of modern living that our technology is able to provide. Beyond that people can request ponies, or anything else, from the state. If there is enough demand, or if some kind of special accomodations are required (like land for animals), then the communist state would necessarily intervene and provide and regulate, transparently.

If only a few people have special requests then they could probably find their supplies through word-of-mouth, without having to put in a formal request through the state.

I suppose so, but this, too -- "justice" -- would also be a byproduct of a world that collectivizes and empowers labor along with the material world that labor controls. I'd like to reiterate, I think we have a fundamental disagreement. Allocations of goods maybe the mans by which equality is served, but it seems that both means and ends must be judge in themselves AS means and ends. In the end of equality, allocation may be the means if it is a communist state or violence may be the means if it is a capitalist state. It seem to me means are contextual, but the demands of the ends are not. Perhaps this is simply a provincial preference on my part. I would rather starve to death in a just and equitable American Soviet than live as a contented and well fed slave in Capitalist America. For me the servicing of goods is not the essential point. Neither is utility. I view communism as a radical deontological demand. That is to say, it is an obligation incumbent upon me as a being, more a bit later.

I do *not* agree with this at all, because a communist world would most certainly be secular.I'm not sure how this is relevant. The quote is originally from a religious figure, but I'm not using it religiously. I don't believe in an afterlife. This position speaks to the earlier comment about a just American Soviet. I hope you understand me, because I'm not exactly sure how better to explain it if you don't.


Okay, I agree with this portion. I don't know if you do agree with this, but this is the core of my position. So if what you agree with what I'm saying here, almost everything else I'm saying follows out of that. It may not be clear how so, but please ask me about particular connections if they aren't clear to you.


I appreciate your reflection on the *spirit*, or future-directed orientation, of a global communist society (if this is what you mean by referring to a "Republic").

As I've noted, just solving the labor and material issues would go a *long* way towards providing humanity with a more humane footing for its future. However, I *am* critical of those revolutionaries who stop at that point and don't want to look at the possibilities for collective projects that a communist, collectivized labor force would make possible. It's an important point to consider because we should have the longest vision possible, so that we know in what direction we're headed. This allows us to deflect arguments that come at us from tangents more easily so that we can stay on-course.

So beyond liberating humanity from capitalist exploitation and oppression, what would a communist society liberate humanity *into*?

I agree that greater access to resources allows individuals to enlighten themselves and develop their personalities more than would be possible with *fewer* material goods and services. As a Wilde-ist, I will refer to this axiom:
Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde
They rage against Materialism, as they call it, forgetting that there has been no material improvement that has not spiritualised the world, and that there have been few, if any, spiritual awakenings that have not wasted the world's faculties in barren hopes, and fruitless aspirations, and empty or trammelling creeds. I certainly appreciate your vision for the future but I have three points in objection to his. Sectarianism, Elitism, and Pragmatism. I hope you don't view these as loaded specifically against you, but I think they make good terms so these arguments can be addressed in short hand if necessary.

First, is sectarianism. I agree that a positive project (in a very specific sense) is alluring, but then we run into the problem of the Russeanean republic. How do we express the preference of the Marxists, Lenininsts, Stalinists, Maoists, Troskeyist, Ultraleftists, Anarachist, etc? I think it is very like that we simply can't for structural reasons. This very difficulty in expressing the totality of conflicting preference leads to a breakdown of preference expression which necessitates that noone can adjudicate between competing preferences. Whose REALLY right? Anarchists, Maosists, Stalinists, etc? Because we can't say, in substantive disagreements, the only rational thing to do is to factionalize. A negative Machiavellian view does not entail this difficulty in preference expression because it's not rooted in expression. It's rooted in resisting domination. No war but class war. This includes sect war. I think only this negative anti-capitalist view can ground a wider unified front.

Secondly, you seem to have beliefs about the way the world can be. Unfortunately, it's not at all clear those views can be implemented with unversal or general agreement. In this case, an individual group must then impose such a view on other cooperative groups or impose no view whatsoever. This leads to a problem of Elitism. Who adjudicates which positive view should be pursued? I, again, believe there are structural problems that cannot be resolved in a positive fashion.

Finally, we run into what I shall call, perhaps uncharitably, the problem of pragmatism. Perhaps we must face the possibility, even if it entails a crisis in Marxism, the possibility that Communism (or any system) cannot deliver goods and services in an efficient enough way to insure global human flourishing. Essential, we must face the possibility that everywhere communism has succeeded has not been a failure, but rather as great a success as one can hope. People are going to die under capitalism. People are going to die under communism. Yet, there is a nontrivial distinction over the question of "why?" Perhaps it is only under capitalism we can be "happy" and "content" in our own petty consumerist ways, but that should no longer be the crux of the communist problem (i.e. distributing goods). Rather, perhaps we must accept that communism grants us something far more valuable than a better allocation of goods than existant. Perhaps, it is only under Communism that we may be just.

I believe these arguments apply to the rest of your points made in that post. If you think a point is outstand, please bring it to my attention.

Let me return to the topic at hand. Obligatory labor. It seems that much of the discussion focuses on the notion of labor. "Is it really labor, in a traditional sense if it's unalienated?" etc. Let me pose this analysis of obligation.

An obligation must be analyzed in the right granted by the obligation, the demand of the obligation, and to whom the obligation and right are granted. In communism, we have the right to take from the fruits of social labor. In that right, we have the obligation to provide as best we can to the social labor. This right and obligation obtains in "society" which may be as limited as a commune or as general as humanity as such. Depending on the context. I believe it's clear that obligatory labor is necessary by the very right of appropriating the fruits of social labor. I await your response.

In closing, let me say this. I hope we live in a world in which the most just system is also sufficient to provide all the necessities for all humans in existence. I genuinely hope you're right. However, if we live in a world whereby a just system does not provide all the necessities for human existence and an unjust system does then I will always choose the just system.

[Rangi]

I find it amusing how Post Something differentiates between 'forced' and 'obligatory'.

In your view someone who dissents from contributing 'obligatory' labour to your centralised society should be banished or starved. It seems that you are reading from Joe Stalin's playbook.

I can see the conundrum you face in trying to imagine some kind of social order other than the one we have - capitalism. Capitalism is self interest backed by force. You promote communal interest backed by force.

Liberty is a small word but it means an awful lot.

[Post-Something]

I find it amusing how Post Something differentiates between 'forced' and 'obligatory'.

Why?


In your view someone who dissents from contributing 'obligatory' labour to your centralised society should be banished or starved.

No, they can make their own food themselves. But they shouldn't expect society to allow them to indulge in it's spoils. Why should society have to put up with that?


It seems that you are reading from Joe Stalin's playbook.

Hahaha! :lol:


I can see the conundrum you face in trying to imagine some kind of social order other than the one we have - capitalism. Capitalism is self interest backed by force. You promote communal interest backed by force.

Woah. Now you're just wrong. When did I bring force into the issue at all?

[ckaihatsu]

You think 500 years is a strange estimate? Honestly? From where we are now to the most advanced stage of communism? Don't even get me started. Because with the huge advantages we have in the world right now, like Imperialism, Cultural Hegemony and Globalisation, I mean, the revolution must be around the corner! Everything is in our favour!


The main question is how soon the proletariat of the world will be able to begin to think and plan in its own interests. Once a socialist revolution is underway and past the point of no return I think all else would follow very quickly.

While you're correct to point out the impediments, it's not as simple as a laundry list of *bad* things -- this is a *mechanical*, simplistic approach to looking at what's holding up the working class from taking power.

Each item on your "bad" list needs to be *qualitatively* considered in the larger system, mostly to see if each is simply "all-bad" (counterrevolutionary), or if there are some shades of gray involved. We need to identify those factors that fully hold back revolution, while seeing what's useful in other factors *for* revolution.

The revolutionary process is an evolutionary one, too, because the tools that are widely available today can be used to build the future that *workers* want, while capitalists see their own options to do anything about it rapidly diminishing.

For example, one of the items on your "bad" list, globalization, is actually *favorable* to working class interests. Globalization is favorable in the same way that the factory system was favorable to worker organizing, because *both* put workers in touch with each other to far greater extents than would have been possible *without* the factory system or globalization. So in the past workers who were stuck on local farms quickly found themselves in front of powerful machinery to operate, _together_.

And today business uses international correspondence over the Internet to coordinate economic flows and executive decision-making -- this practice is ripe for the plucking, as workers could readily step in and appropriate these channels of coordination to run things, en masse, for themselves.

Because of globalization we're able to right now * discuss * the particulars of such a global takeover, over international distances! So globalization itself can be good or bad -- it's just that the past 500 years of globalization have been managed by the wrong hands -- it's time to put them in the *right* hands, into working-class control.

This isn't easy because as a class we're infantilized and kept in the dark about issues pertaining to management of resources, factory workflows, costs and benefits, and so on.

But we saw from the Republic factory takeover here in Chicago that the workers *can* plan collectively, in their own interests, on an ongoing basis, stepping into the supervisory roles and economic functions necessary for running a factory / workplace. Much has already been successfully done, along the same lines, in factories in Argentina and Venezuela.

So in the big picture the capitalists' economic crisis goes a long way towards empowering workers *everywhere* with a better situation for thinking and acting in their own interests. We could say that the "weather conditions" are more favorable right now.



Uh-huh, yeah, because apples pick "themselves", and cows will neatly slice "themselves" into steaks just before placing "themselves" into an air tight package. They also fly to peoples doors. Doors which by the way, were made by door trees, which would be possible in the near future. This all obviously happens while Ultra commie man supervises 24/7 just for fun.[/sarcasm]


The point is, can workers quickly turn vital manufacturing functions over to fully automated systems, so as to free up their own, revolution-liberated labor for better things? Think of this as a worker-executive decision: How do I best manage *my own* labor, in coordination with like workers, so that we may run the factories in humane and productive ways?

This is *exactly* the same kind of thought process that goes through anyone's mind when they have free time on their hands. They may not have access to a work role in a factory or industrial-type resources, but the basic logistics are the same: How do I use my time? Do I do some kind of work? What would that work go towards? What resources can I tap to make this happen?

At some point workers have to rest, and this is where another question enters: Will the work I've done * pay for itself * while I'm resting? In other words, have there been mechanized / automated systems set up that * don't * need continuous human labor to be productive?

If so, then * good * -- the larger population will benefit from this kind of hands-off production, whether it's net-based communications / computation, robotic apple-picking, robotic cow-milking, assembly-line slaughterhouses, automated factory packaging and shipping, remote-controlled airplane flying, or automated parts manufacturing, respectively.

Again, all of this technology is *here*, * today * -- the point is, who controls it, and who gets to squeeze the most value out of it...?



Again, you missed my point. Apples are a basic example, and probably could be mechanized even in the system we live in now. But what about resteraunts? What about getting your house built? etc. etc.


Some processes are easier to automate than others. Those tasks that are simpler can be automated more easily, freeing up labor to look after other, higher-level tasks that *do* require human labor, or oversight, until those processes, too, can be automated.



What I'm saying is that it's going to be difficult to get this level of advancement across the globe. If you don't know, we have people around the world eating grass and making stone soup because they can't afford anything else. We're really going to pull their material conditions up so high that they'll have a computer doing everything for them? Really? They've suddenly gone from making shoes for Nike for 15p an hour to the most advanced stage of economic development?


This question is addressed by Trotsky's _Permanent Revolution_. As mechanically produced goods and services become cheaper -- and, ultimately, under worker control -- they become more readily available, even in the poorest of areas. Today many traditional villages in the remotest parts of the globe benefit from mass-produced items like plastic buckets and clothing.



Well I say probably not. Especially if we see the revolution happening anytime soon. SO, in the scenario that I'm right, and there still is labour, a community should reserve the right to make work obligatory. In the scenario that you're right, well, good! We don't need work then, do we? But unfortunately I think we might have a bit of a problem trying to work against things like years of backwards thinking and an inherited world of poverty.


I *do* appreciate your cooperative work ethos here -- I'll leave aside my hypothetical argument about an eventual labor-free world for now since the discussion is going elsewhere....



Of course! What am I thinking! That's not a Euro centric analysis at all! We'll be able to apply that mode of living to Indonesia in no time!

see above.


If you're being sarcastic here again, then all I can conclude is that you're ultimately * fatalistic * about the prospects for a global revolution. If you're *not* being sarcastic, then I'm glad we're in agreement.



Didn't I explain this before? I'll lay out my argument again. If these people want to do it, they can go off and make their own commune, but they should still have the right to legislate for obligatory labour in that commune. However, if a commune decides that work is obligatory, then they either work, or go to another commune.

Of course, it would have to be looked at in context. For example, if there was a huge natural disaster in another commune, I don't think it would be a bad idea to ask them to work a bit on their land and help get the other commune out of the trouble they were in.


A truly revolutionary society would not be structured around the home, or commune -- it would be structured around the *workplace*, or factory. A network of worker-controlled factories would be able to coordinate the workings of an economy on larger and broader scales. Issues of employment and natural disasters could be dealt with over a wide-ranging geographical area.



Communism is a mode of production. It may take away exploitation and alienation, but that doesn't mean you'll never fall out with your friend. It doesn't mean you can't feel betrayed, or hurt. It doen't mean someone can't accidently kill your sister, and enrage you to killing them. It doesn't mean that you're not going to kill the fucker that accidently poisened your water supply. And it doesn't mean that you're not going to grow up with urges to molest a child. But even so, this particular issue is useless to debate. I suggest we don't.


Fortunately, all of these examples are *exceptions* to the rule, at very worst -- statistically they would be almost negligible. Sure, accidents will happen in *any* society, but whatever is preventable should be contained to rational, worker-based planning instead of left to the brainless markets to mediate (or wantonly neglect).

[Post-Something]

The main question is how soon the proletariat of the world will be able to begin to think and plan in its own interests. Once a socialist revolution is underway and past the point of no return I think all else would follow very quickly.

While you're correct to point out the impediments, it's not as simple as a laundry list of *bad* things -- this is a *mechanical*, simplistic approach to looking at what's holding up the working class from taking power.

Each item on your "bad" list needs to be *qualitatively* considered in the larger system, mostly to see if each is simply "all-bad" (counterrevolutionary), or if there are some shades of gray involved. We need to identify those factors that fully hold back revolution, while seeing what's useful in other factors *for* revolution.

Hmm, I actually very much agree with what you just said. You might think I was very sceptical from reading what I wrote, but I'm not. Actually, I'm just sceptical about the sort of time it would take. I believe that it will happen in the end, because economic antagonisms will eventually cease, but whether it will happen now is still very much debatable. I mean, I always engage with people about communism etc, but just seeing how many levels capitalism works on is sort of worrying, and I think it's getting worse.

Also, I'm quite unsure about "once a socialist revolution is underway, everything else will follow", because that's already been tried. That was one of the major problems I think for the USSR, because it had to wait for the revolution to spread to Germany for example, but it just wasn't successful. So I don't know really, maybe as you said, I am a fatalist concerning Global revolution; but I really do think it's the only way it could work.


The revolutionary process is an evolutionary one, too, because the tools that are widely available today can be used to build the future that *workers* want, while capitalists see their own options to do anything about it rapidly diminishing.

For example, one of the items on your "bad" list, globalization, is actually *favorable* to working class interests. Globalization is favorable in the same way that the factory system was favorable to worker organizing, because *both* put workers in touch with each other to far greater extents than would have been possible *without* the factory system or globalization. So in the past workers who were stuck on local farms quickly found themselves in front of powerful machinery to operate, _together_.

And today business uses international correspondence over the Internet to coordinate economic flows and executive decision-making -- this practice is ripe for the plucking, as workers could readily step in and appropriate these channels of coordination to run things, en masse, for themselves.

Because of globalization we're able to right now * discuss * the particulars of such a global takeover, over international distances! So globalization itself can be good or bad -- it's just that the past 500 years of globalization have been managed by the wrong hands -- it's time to put them in the *right* hands, into working-class control.

This isn't easy because as a class we're infantilized and kept in the dark about issues pertaining to management of resources, factory workflows, costs and benefits, and so on.

But we saw from the Republic factory takeover here in Chicago that the workers *can* plan collectively, in their own interests, on an ongoing basis, stepping into the supervisory roles and economic functions necessary for running a factory / workplace. Much has already been successfully done, along the same lines, in factories in Argentina and Venezuela.

Yeah, I'm sceptical about globalisation for sure though. I'm really unsure whether it's possible to use it at all before the revolution, but it's absolutely vital that we take control of it after. Again, I agree with you here, I just think it will take a little longer for people to realize.


So in the big picture the capitalists' economic crisis goes a long way towards empowering workers *everywhere* with a better situation for thinking and acting in their own interests. We could say that the "weather conditions" are more favorable right now.

Yeah, I very much agree.


The point is, can workers quickly turn vital manufacturing functions over to fully automated systems, so as to free up their own, revolution-liberated labor for better things? Think of this as a worker-executive decision: How do I best manage *my own* labor, in coordination with like workers, so that we may run the factories in humane and productive ways?

This is *exactly* the same kind of thought process that goes through anyone's mind when they have free time on their hands. They may not have access to a work role in a factory or industrial-type resources, but the basic logistics are the same: How do I use my time? Do I do some kind of work? What would that work go towards? What resources can I tap to make this happen?

At some point workers have to rest, and this is where another question enters: Will the work I've done * pay for itself * while I'm resting? In other words, have there been mechanized / automated systems set up that * don't * need continuous human labor to be productive?

If so, then * good * -- the larger population will benefit from this kind of hands-off production, whether it's net-based communications / computation, robotic apple-picking, robotic cow-milking, assembly-line slaughterhouses, automated factory packaging and shipping, remote-controlled airplane flying, or automated parts manufacturing, respectively.

Again, all of this technology is *here*, * today * -- the point is, who controls it, and who gets to squeeze the most value out of it...?

Yeah, I agree again, for sure. All I was saying is that I'm not sure if we really have this kind of technology for the "entire world" to use. And until then, we'll have to rely on human labour. And if we are to rely on human labour, then it should be decided and assigned in a democratic way.



Some processes are easier to automate than others. Those tasks that are simpler can be automated more easily, freeing up labor to look after other, higher-level tasks that *do* require human labor, or oversight, until those processes, too, can be automated.

Exactly.


This question is addressed by Trotsky's _Permanent Revolution_. As mechanically produced goods and services become cheaper -- and, ultimately, under worker control -- they become more readily available, even in the poorest of areas. Today many traditional villages in the remotest parts of the globe benefit from mass-produced items like plastic buckets and clothing.




A truly revolutionary society would not be structured around the home, or commune -- it would be structured around the *workplace*, or factory. A network of worker-controlled factories would be able to coordinate the workings of an economy on larger and broader scales. Issues of employment and natural disasters could be dealt with over a wide-ranging geographical area.

True.


To be perfectly honest, I don't think we disagree on much. Just the timescale of the issues involved. Basically, my fundamental belief is that all power should be given to the communes, and a pretty strict use of democracy should be implemented. If a commune decides to do something, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't, and in this case, that happens to be obligatory labour. Whether or not that's necessary seems to be what we were debating.

[ckaihatsu]

Hmm, I actually very much agree with what you just said. You might think I was very sceptical from reading what I wrote, but I'm not. Actually, I'm just sceptical about the sort of time it would take. I believe that it will happen in the end, because economic antagonisms will eventually cease,


Economic antagonisms, whether fundamentally, between the classes, or among the nations of the ruling class, will *not* cease. Capitalism is about exploiting the working class and competing against competitors in the markets, for profits.



but whether it will happen now is still very much debatable. I mean, I always engage with people about communism etc, but just seeing how many levels capitalism works on is sort of worrying, and I think it's getting worse.


Capitalism's *crisis* is getting worse, because of the declining rate of profit. This means that the world economy is *not* moving forward with capitalism. As we've agreed this makes for favorable "weather" for class consciousness and class struggle.



Also, I'm quite unsure about "once a socialist revolution is underway, everything else will follow", because that's already been tried. That was one of the major problems I think for the USSR, because it had to wait for the revolution to spread to Germany for example, but it just wasn't successful. So I don't know really, maybe as you said, I am a fatalist concerning Global revolution; but I really do think it's the only way it could work.


Yes, I agree here -- offhand I'd say that the tipping point for a world revolution to become permanent would be something like a third, to a half, or maybe two-thirds of the major economies of the world going over to worker control.



Yeah, I agree again, for sure. All I was saying is that I'm not sure if we really have this kind of technology for the "entire world" to use. And until then, we'll have to rely on human labour. And if we are to rely on human labour, then it should be decided and assigned in a democratic way.


Well, many parts of the productive (manufacturing) sector are not so either-or, or black-and-white, or machinery-or-labor. As lower-level routines are automated it takes fewer workers to achieve the same, and then greater, productivity. (This, by the way, is a factor in the dynamic of the declining rate of profit.)

I use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a guideline for what basics are needed for healthy life -- a socialist revolution would task technology in this direction, as a priority of labor. (See the following 1-page diagram for an illustration of this.)


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh



To be perfectly honest, I don't think we disagree on much. Just the timescale of the issues involved. Basically, my fundamental belief is that all power should be given to the communes, and a pretty strict use of democracy should be implemented. If a commune decides to do something, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't, and in this case, that happens to be obligatory labour. Whether or not that's necessary seems to be what we were debating.



No, they can make their own food themselves. But they shouldn't expect society to allow them to indulge in it's spoils. Why should society have to put up with that?


Back to the original issue here -- I have to say that your perspective is *very* skewed to suggest that people who don't contribute labor to a centralized, socialist economy should have to make their own food (and presumably everything else) themselves.

Let me put it this way: What are the ingredients for making food? Freely available sunshine, water from the earth, the seeds that plants throw into the atmosphere naturally -- right? Farming, especially in the present day, just focuses some know-how, a little human labor, and some equipment to produce massive harvests. If we kept up, or improved on these practices under socialism, who's to say what should be done with the harvests?

For example, if a farmer had a self-sustaining, or subsidized, farm and with his/her own labor produced enough food to feed 1,000 people, what should be done with that surplus? The farmer isn't going to do *less* work and aim for feeding only 12 people, because the work involved would be the same. So why not harvest more and have a surplus?

So since the farmer was going to do the work anyway, who "deserves" the surplus from the harvest more? Someone who's put in *more* labor hours than the rest? Should we have Survivor-type contests to see who gets to have the surplus that was going to rot away anyway?

And doesn't *everyone* need to eat, regardless? Is it really worth arguing, or enforcing a *ban* on eating so that surplus food can rot away while people go hungry, under socialism?

If that's the case, then I really can't see how that could correctly be called 'socialism'. That sounds more like Stalinism, or capitalism.

[Post-Something]

Economic antagonisms, whether fundamentally, between the classes, or among the nations of the ruling class, will *not* cease. Capitalism is about exploiting the working class and competing against competitors in the markets, for profits.

They will if you believe communism to be ineviable. History has unfolded in a certain way due to the material conditions present at the time. The material conditions present under a capitalist society provide it's eventual downfall - the proletariat. When this will happen, the level of consciousness needed for it to happen etc, is yet to be known, but it's either socialism, or capitalism will simply keep evolving, until it reaches socialism.



Capitalism's *crisis* is getting worse, because of the declining rate of profit. This means that the world economy is *not* moving forward with capitalism. As we've agreed this makes for favorable "weather" for class consciousness and class struggle.

Very true.



Yes, I agree here -- offhand I'd say that the tipping point for a world revolution to become permanent would be something like a third, to a half, or maybe two-thirds of the major economies of the world going over to worker control.

Again, correct, I'll just focus the last bit, since we are in agreement.



Back to the original issue here -- I have to say that your perspective is *very* skewed to suggest that people who don't contribute labor to a centralized, socialist economy should have to make their own food (and presumably everything else) themselves.

Let me put it this way: What are the ingredients for making food? Freely available sunshine, water from the earth, the seeds that plants throw into the atmosphere naturally -- right? Farming, especially in the present day, just focuses some know-how, a little human labor, and some equipment to produce massive harvests. If we kept up, or improved on these practices under socialism, who's to say what should be done with the harvests?

For example, if a farmer had a self-sustaining, or subsidized, farm and with his/her own labor produced enough food to feed 1,000 people, what should be done with that surplus? The farmer isn't going to do *less* work and aim for feeding only 12 people, because the work involved would be the same. So why not harvest more and have a surplus?

So since the farmer was going to do the work anyway, who "deserves" the surplus from the harvest more? Someone who's put in *more* labor hours than the rest? Should we have Survivor-type contests to see who gets to have the surplus that was going to rot away anyway?

And doesn't *everyone* need to eat, regardless? Is it really worth arguing, or enforcing a *ban* on eating so that surplus food can rot away while people go hungry, under socialism?

If that's the case, then I really can't see how that could correctly be called 'socialism'. That sounds more like Stalinism, or capitalism.

I apprehended this argument coming up at some stage or another, and I recognize the importance of it's implications. Basically, there are a number of things a commune can decide to do:

1. They can kick those who don't work out of the commune.

2. They can offer them a programme whereby they take care of them etc, while they actively look for work. Sort of like a "jobseekers allowance".

3. You institute some sort of "minimum allowance" for those who don't work. Say for example, all your basic needs will be taken care of comfortably, but to earn access to all sectors of society, you'd have to work that one hour a week or whatever.

4. The commune could offer a position which wouldn't be taxing for the individual. What I mean by that is, say there is a place where people make hand made pottery, the individual could be offered a position to play music to them, or just showcase their own music, so that they can sing along and get the job done quicker. Also, they could be offered further education to learn a new vocation or whatever.

Basically, I see these measures working a lot easier with a system of labour vouchers. I don't really think a gift economy could work unless you had mechanized all labour, like we discussed. I'm not sure where you stand on this topic though.

Remember that a lot of labour which was previously unrecognized would be recognized in a communist society, for example, looking after children.
I really don't see why it's such a big deal that people may have to work, because anything could be passed off as work in a communist society.

[ckaihatsu]

They will if you believe communism to be ineviable.


To clarify, you're saying here that "[Economic antagonisms] will [cease] if [I] believe communism to be inevitable" -- ?

So you're saying that *my* own personal beliefs about the (capitalist) economy have an effect on it? Amazing. And you expect me to believe that?



History has unfolded in a certain way due to the material conditions present at the time. The material conditions present under a capitalist society provide it's eventual downfall - the proletariat.


Okay, this is better -- you're staying objective here, and you're correct.



When this will happen, the level of consciousness needed for it to happen etc, is yet to be known, but it's either socialism, or capitalism will simply keep evolving, until it reaches socialism.


No, the progression to socialism is *not* automatic, or a given. While I personally think / believe that it's more probable this way, I have nothing to back it up -- I just happen to be on the optimistic side of things. We've seen from history that progress can stop -- around the globalization issue -- and * revert * back to ultra-national, or fascist, bases for organizing production. This involves a massive clampdown on the self-organizing ability of labor, which seeks to globalize in its own interests, unconstrained by national borders. The clampdowns in the 20th century produced the death tolls of World War I and World War II, among several other oppressive nationalist military projects.

These preventable conflicts, revolving around the unanswered question of globalization, causes the state of civilization to *regress*, making everyday life more chaotic and barbaric. This is arguably the situation we've been in since the late '60s / early '70s, when the postwar, nation-centered modernization project ran out of steam and gave way to the mega-financialization of the global economy. This is the era we're in now, but now with the financialization process itself hitting a wall, bringing us back to the crisis of globalization (or profitability, in capitalist economic terms).



I apprehended this argument coming up at some stage or another, and I recognize the importance of it's implications. Basically, there are a number of things a commune can decide to do:

1. They can kick those who don't work out of the commune.

2. They can offer them a programme whereby they take care of them etc, while they actively look for work. Sort of like a "jobseekers allowance".

3. You institute some sort of "minimum allowance" for those who don't work. Say for example, all your basic needs will be taken care of comfortably, but to earn access to all sectors of society, you'd have to work that one hour a week or whatever.

4. The commune could offer a position which wouldn't be taxing for the individual. What I mean by that is, say there is a place where people make hand made pottery, the individual could be offered a position to play music to them, or just showcase their own music, so that they can sing along and get the job done quicker. Also, they could be offered further education to learn a new vocation or whatever.


You haven't addressed the issue of the reality of a material surplus, and you've also admitted that you might be fatalistic about the prospects for a worldwide socialist revolution. Now you're escaping into an assertion of policy at the local level only. This is decidedly *not* a revolutionary perspective because you're forfeiting involvement in the pressing problem of globalization.

Again, supporting a policy of obligatory labor is problematic, particularly in a post-capitalist world, because it requires a superstructure of decision-making and enforcement to uphold the policy. I don't think you would get very far politically with this position, because of the barbarity required to deny food and other essentials to those who refuse to work.



Basically, I see these measures working a lot easier with a system of labour vouchers.


I agree with using a system of labor vouchers as a transition from commodity-based wages to a communist society of freely available labor associations and goods and services.



I don't really think a gift economy could work unless you had mechanized all labour, like we discussed. I'm not sure where you stand on this topic though.


A "gift economy" is synonymous with a communist society. The level of technological capacity would be irrelevant, but considering its current state, it would enable a world of abundance, in the absence of disproportionate private claims to the world's wealth. (Again, mechanization / automation does *not* have to be an all-or-nothing situation -- there are plenty of intermediate steps between no automation and full automation, and we're in one of those stages now, under capitalism.)



Remember that a lot of labour which was previously unrecognized would be recognized in a communist society, for example, looking after children.
I really don't see why it's such a big deal that people may have to work, because anything could be passed off as work in a communist society.


I agree here, and I think that in practice there wouldn't be many, if any, problems with getting cooperation from everyone towards fulfilling the needs of the larger society. I have been arguing the hypothetical no-labor-needed situation to emphasize my point about the abundance made available by a technologically advanced society.

[Post-Something]

To clarify, you're saying here that "[Economic antagonisms] will [cease] if [i] believe communism to be inevitable" -- ?

So you're saying that *my* own personal beliefs about the (capitalist) economy have an effect on it? Amazing. And you expect me to believe that?

Err, no, no. That was just a problem with my phrasing, ignore it. I was simply saying that the "assertion that communism is inevitable comes from the following rationale"



You haven't addressed the issue of the reality of a material surplus, and you've also admitted that you might be fatalistic about the prospects for a worldwide socialist revolution. Now you're escaping into an assertion of policy at the local level only. This is decidedly *not* a revolutionary perspective because you're forfeiting involvement in the pressing problem of globalization.

Yeah, I missed that point, sorry. The problem of overproduction is really not an issue as I see it. I see overproduction as a capitalist problem. We have mountains of grain, and rivers of milk here in Briatain, but it's all thrown away in the sea to keep prices artificially high. That's because the economy is profit driven, but if you have an economy based on need, then you are able to allocate resources within reason. The people themselves could decide how much grain to produce, and how much of each product to grow, and it would be enough, because the people would do it for themselves, not for profit. They could have some sort of set target which they'd want to hit or something. I really don't see it as an obstacle, because who is better to guage their own needs other than the people?

Also, in the case of the farmers surplus, any excess doesn't have to be destroyed, it can be sent to another commune for example, where they may not have the necessary conditions for growing these foods.

And concerning Global revolution, I see it as the only way forward. I am entirely dedicated to the revolution. I just think it might take a bit longer than we might expect. Timescale is the only thing in dispute, it seems, when we'retalking about world revolution.


Again, supporting a policy of obligatory labor is problematic, particularly in a post-capitalist world, because it requires a superstructure of decision-making and enforcement to uphold the policy. I don't think you would get very far politically with this position, because of the barbarity required to deny food and other essentials to those who refuse to work.

Again, I'm just supporting the right of a commune to decide to make work obligatory. I think there would be times when it would be necessary to have obligatory work, for example a natural disaster. When resources are low, a community should be able to take the best course of action suited to everybody's needs, and if that means infringing on the tiny that amount of liberty we're talking about, so be it. Again, it's up to the people to decide if it is the best course of action, if they don't, then fine.

Also, the superstructure of decision making would be from bottom up, and I think I've stressed that quite a bit in our debate so far; as long as that's the case, I really don't see an issue with barbarity.

[ckaihatsu]

Cool, glad to hear it. Take care.

[Rangi]

I have no problem with contributing to the greater good of a community of which I am a member.

How do you stop a dissenting person from accessing the goods and services which the rest of society produces?

You cannot coerce people into contributing to society. I think you misunderstand the nature of man. Obligatory and forced are synonyms in my book, you can dress them up however you like.

Your idea of how society should function is defined by the use of social control and coercion.

What if the people don't want 'Obligatory' labour?

[Post-Something]

I have no problem with contributing to the greater good of a community of which I am a member.

How do you stop a dissenting person from accessing the goods and services which the rest of society produces?

You cannot coerce people into contributing to society. I think you misunderstand the nature of man. Obligatory and forced are synonyms in my book, you can dress them up however you like.

Your idea of how society should function is defined by the use of social control and coercion.

What if the people don't want 'Obligatory' labour?

I've addressed these points already. Please read the thread next time. But for your benefit, I'll answer your queries.

1. Quite easily. For example, if they don't have labour vouchers, how do they get the product?

2. No coercion involved.

3. No, my idea of how society should function is based on democracy. See my above posts if you would like proof of that.

4. Oh my God. I can't believe this. Of course if a community doesn't want to institute obligatory labour, it shouldn't have to. But I'm defending the right of the commune to decide to make work obligatory if they so wish. Again, I've given reasons for this in my posts above.

[Rangi]

It's doublespeak time. Labour vouchers are a euphemism for money. No enforcement? I'm afraid merely asking people to work hard is probably the most naive thing I have ever heard.

Good luck with putting this to work.

[ckaihatsu]

From:

Theory > Economics > Understanding the economic calculation debate


The biggest problem with money is that it is anonymous, and therefore it is obsolete. The use of currency *could* be justified in bygone days, when it was actually a progressive practice that provided greater flexibility over the political hegemony of royal wealth,

But regardless of whatever class happens to be dominant in any given period, the interests of the laboring class remain the same: How do we retain the full value of what our labor is worth? No matter who the boss is our labor value will be seized away by the lord, commanded away by the slaveowner, bartered away by the mercantilist, extracted by the industrialist, and conned away by the financier

At no point do we have a tangible entry that says we did such-and-such labor, of a certain difficulty, for a certain length of time, that required a certain period of paid education and expertise, with itemized equipment costs and expenses, that produced an exact dollar amount of labor value.

These days there are no more excuses that can be passed off to us. The logistics of handling information is almost effortless, once set up correctly and put into motion. We should not be content to deal in methods that anonymize and scurry away our life and labor time, depriving us of both due compensation and of the recognition of vital information to rectify the injustice in the future.

I will again assert that we would be better off using *qualitative* methods of accounting for our labor, because that enables the political discussion of the same. The abstraction of labor value into *quantitative* data is already a defeat, with any resulting disputes already taking place on the grounds of this-or-that number, instead of on the grounds of what labor was performed, and at what social and human costs. This is the model that I would much prefer to see in use:


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy
http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh

[Post-Something]

It's doublespeak time. Labour vouchers are a euphemism for money.

No, Labour Vouchers aren't in circulation.

[Rangi]

I'm sorry if this sounds kind of ad hominem but your ideas scare the living shit out of me. Beware of fundamentalism in all its forms. I guess this is a semi- restrictional comment but too many good men have died for such shitty ideas as this.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I'm sorry if this sounds kind of ad hominem but your ideas scare the living shit out of me. Beware of fundamentalism in all its forms. I guess this is a semi- restrictional comment but too many good men have died for such shitty ideas as this.
It's an ad hominem because you haven't clearly pointed out where/how the ideas are shitty. Also, you haven't shown 1) What fundamentalism is 2) Why it's bad 3) Why it applies to anything being discussed. Why don't you give it a try, especially if you want to be taken seriously?

[Post-Something]

I'm sorry if this sounds kind of ad hominem but your ideas scare the living shit out of me. Beware of fundamentalism in all its forms. I guess this is a semi- restrictional comment but too many good men have died for such shitty ideas as this.

Actually, it's not an Ad Hominem. If it was, you wouldn't consider my arguments valid simply because of the person I am. You're just speaking from emotion right now.

Listen, if you want to have a serious discussion, be my guest. I've layed out my points lengthily in this thread if you would like to know what exactly it is you are arguing against. I can only assume though, that you haven't, considering you think I "read Joe Stalins playbook" etc.

[Rangi]

Nobody has taken me seriously in the past and I'm not about to start changing.

It scares me because the idea of a centralized state (dress it up how you like eg commune, collective etc) making people work against their will is coercion. People are much more likely to do things if there is incentive for work rather than punishment for non-work. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

If you want to be taken seriously then I would advise you to re-read your last sentence and check it's grammatical and punctuational sense.

[trivas7]

It scares me because the idea of a centralized state (dress it up how you like eg commune, collective etc) making people work against their will is coercion.
Welcome to socialism. :)

[ckaihatsu]

Yeesh, tough crowd...! (tugs at neck-collar)

This must be the Opposing Ideologies section or something...!

Okay, here it is (flipping over all remaining cards on the table):

The * process * by which a revolution is made will determine the * character * of it, and of the resulting society. It's just like relationships for people -- the first-impression thing, through to what people are bringing to the table, and so on.

So -- if a regime gets into power on an unelected basis, in conditions of backward material development, and tries to industrialize, modernize, or socialize independently of foreign, greater-nation support, what do you * think * its labor policy is going to be???

In other words, * don't try this at home * -- revolution is *not* for nationalistic closet cases -- it *must* be international, out in the open, and take advantage of existing industrial, and post-industrial, processes.

(Check, please...!)

[Invincible Summer]

For example, one of the items on your "bad" list, globalization, is actually *favorable* to working class interests. Globalization is favorable in the same way that the factory system was favorable to worker organizing, because *both* put workers in touch with each other to far greater extents than would have been possible *without* the factory system or globalization. So in the past workers who were stuck on local farms quickly found themselves in front of powerful machinery to operate, _together_.

I see your point, and generally agree with you, but we should also take into account the increasing amount of outsourcing that is happening in the age of globalization - this can cause workers to be antagonistic to those who have "stolen" their jobs.



It's doublespeak time.

Are you purposely being difficult? To you, every word is a "euphemism" for another, and all our ideas are just a smokescreen for a Stalinist regime, right?

Just as an aside, Orwell was a socialist, so to me it seems ironic that you're quoting him as a weapon against socialism.


I'm sorry if this sounds kind of ad hominem but your ideas scare the living shit out of me. Beware of fundamentalism in all its forms. I guess this is a semi- restrictional comment but too many good men have died for such shitty ideas as this.

And how many men have died under capitalism and imperialism? And if the ideas are that scary, then why do you post on RevLeft? Clearly you're looking for a fight.



It scares me because the idea of a centralized state (dress it up how you like eg commune, collective etc) making people work against their will is coercion. People are much more likely to do things if there is incentive for work rather than punishment for non-work. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.


Where did you get the idea that this is all going to be centralized? Explain how having an expansive community of communes/collectives, each independently working to fulfill the material needs, individual (as well as communal) desires and aspirations of all the communes/collectives, is "centralized."

The incentive to work is that you won't be able to partake in society's spoils if you do not work.

[ckaihatsu]

I see your point, and generally agree with you, but we should also take into account the increasing amount of outsourcing that is happening in the age of globalization - this can cause workers to be antagonistic to those who have "stolen" their jobs.


Well, * yeah * -- I never said that it was * our * globalization...!

* Every * point of contact between workers, whether locally or across national / ethnic / gender boundaries, is a moment of opportunity for political, working-class raising of class consciousness and solidarity.

(Btw, you may want to see the movie "Outsourced". Besides being a lighter-than-air romantic comedy it deals with the issue of outsourced labor and cross-cultural understanding. Its contractually Hollywood moral universe deftly avoids any political conclusions of substance, though, by using the loophole of further outsourcing instead of allowing for a worker-militancy conclusion to the situation.)

[Invincible Summer]

Well, * yeah * -- I never said that it was * our * globalization...!

* Every * point of contact between workers, whether locally or across national / ethnic / gender boundaries, is a moment of opportunity for political, working-class raising of class consciousness and solidarity.

(Btw, you may want to see the movie "Outsourced". Besides being a lighter-than-air romantic comedy it deals with the issue of outsourced labor and cross-cultural understanding. Its contractually Hollywood moral universe deftly avoids any political conclusions of substance, though, by using the loophole of further outsourcing instead of allowing for a worker-militancy conclusion to the situation.)

Okay I understand your position better now and I agree with you.

Funny thing - I have a pirated copy of the movie "Outsourced," and because I hadn't heard of it and there wasn't any synopsis or cover to assist me in identifying its genre, I thought it was going to be a documentary a la "The Corporation." Then I started watching, and I was thinking "What the fuck?!"