Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left

«‹›41 »

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

This is a thread for those who want to discuss Leftist theory and write long screeds. This OP will function as a kind of introduction to these theories so that everyone can have a base of understanding for discussion. It's going to need a lot of help:

:siren:

If you want to contribute and we'll add you to the OP :siren:

Baka-nin posted:

Over the years I've been building an archive of texts on labour history, revolutions, theory and criticism. Currently there's about a 1000 entries (that are ok to share around) including essays, blogs, translations, comic books, art, audio tapes, documentaries and films. There's a lot there and I'd hate for a hard drive crash to take everything, and its good to share, so here's a couple of ways to access them.
Folder for just the texts http://www.mediafire.com/folder/zax29ra2u3nna/LibCom%20PDF's
Archive for everything https://archive.org/details/@reddebrek
Oh and I'm also part of a group that makes audio books https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaO1QA8QL99_eb0XhJI2Fyw
And I'm slowly transferring the videos to Kolektiva a video platform for activists to share knowledge and info https://kolektiva.media/videos/watch/bcb4bbfa-c39d-4fd2-96cf-bc4747d2d9d9?autoplay=1&auto_play=true&start=2m9s

Hopefully the OP turns into a collection of explanations and essays by posters, and I will continue to expand it with contributions from myself and others.

Let's start:

Part 1 (skip part 1 if you don't like navel-gazing): Socialism Is Not When the Government Runs All the Factories

So what the gently caress is Marxism? Well, the best way to explain it as a lens for viewing the world. Marxism is a way to understand and explain the things that go on around us, just like Liberalism.

Liberalism explains the world as a bunch of individuals running all over the place acting selfishly upon their logic and reason. For example, let's say that you find a pile of gold. Liberalism declares the the finder will keep all the gold for himself, and trade away some of the rest for goods and services. You are using your logic and reason to better yourself. So, Liberalism focuses on individual liberties and attempts to predict the outcome of events based on reason.

Reason is the yardstick by which Liberalism measures the world because a yardstick must be impartial. You can't use a measuring stick if it keeps changing, so you try to explain everything assuming that reason remains impartial. This is called Rationalism, and this is where Liberalism fails. The problem is, humans are not only rational. They are also emotional, delusional, what have you. The greatest proof that we are not all logic beep-borp computers is that we do not all agree on anything. Not even pizza toppings, and especially not our president (Seriously, you cannot explain Trump as a product of rational choices because even racism is irrational).

So, Marxism discards with the metric of reason and theoretical explanations. If humans don't necessarily abide by reason alone, we need to look at the material conditions to explain the actions of individuals. By examining the world that people inhabit, we can understand why they do the things they do. This is called Materialism

Say there is a riot and we use Materialism to ask "Why is everyone rioting?" Well, we must look to their material conditions: How much food do they have? Are they in danger? Are they sick? We may learn that they are rioting because they are hungry, or scared, or what have you. It's not necessarily a rational conclusion. Scared or hungry people aren't necessarily acting rationally, they are hungry or scared. But we can learn their motivations because we understand the material world and how they interact in it. Material conditions include technology, resources, violence, and especially the relationships between people.

And when we use Materialism to analyze Rationalism we find that while Rationalism is sufficient to explain why individual people do what they do, it does a very poor job of explaining the way people interact with each other.

So, to back up a bit, let's remind ourselves of Rationalism and use it to measure a very complicated individual: a Police officer. Rationalism predicts that the Police officer's job is to serve and protect, and he will act rationally towards that goal because it selfishly gets him paid. And if we look at a rich white person, the officer certainly protects and serves rich white people. Even Materialism would provide that he protects the wealthy. However, what about a poor minority? Does the officer treat a poor Black person the same way he treats a rich white person? Well, Rationalism says that his job is to serve and protect, so therefore he must serve and protect the poor Black person the same way he serves and protects the poor white person. But let's be real: Here on the Prime Material Plane, the police doesn't treat everyone equally (to put it mildly). The officer oppresses and perhaps even kills the poor Black person.

So we see with Materialism, who you are in relation to the officer changes how the officer will treat you. And that is what Materialism is so good at analyzing: the way that humans interact with other humans. And that's what Marxism really is: It's looking at the way people interact with each other by looking at the material conditions surrounding them. The Police officer treats different people differently based on their wealth, skin color, and even gender, all real world realities. These are not theoretical constructs like "pride", "duty", or "logic".

And that's Marxism: A way to analyze the relationships that people have with each other by looking at the material conditions of the world. This way, we can pull apart incredibly complex systems and look at how the they function. And the big complex system that Marxism analyzes is Capitalism

Part 2 WTF is Capitalism to a Socialist?

Capitalism is basically a bunch of wealthy business owners (bosses) paying employees in exchange for labor. So, you go do your work and at the end of the week your boss hands a a check to pay you for all the work you did. This is called the wage-labor relationship. Wages are exchanged for labor; money is paid for work. And it is also this relationship that defines the classes:

workers sells their labor to bosses
bosses profit off of the labor of the worker.

So, let's say there's a factory that makes, I dunno, ladders. Every day the workers uses the boss's tools (hammers, nails, glue, machinery) to make ladders and the boss pays them for their efforts. The ladders themselves belong to the boss, and he sells them at a markup for a profit. This is the basic structure of a Capitalist enterprise, a very simple blue-print for the wage-labor relationship.

The problem with this relationship is that it puts the worker and the business owner (boss) directly at odds with each other. Everything that the worker wants hurts the boss, and everything that the boss wants hurts the worker.

For example the worker wants:
Higher wages, which come directly out of the boss's pocket.
A safe workplace which will slow down the ladder assembly line and mean less profits for the boss.
Benefit packages which the boss has to pay for.
Breaks and paid vacation time which is basically throwing money down a garbage chute for the boss.

Meanwhile, the boss wants:
Lower labor costs which means rock bottom wages and a small workforce.
Constant and quick production lines which are both hazardous and exhausting for the worker.
Complete control over the employee schedules which means workers having as few days off as possible.
0 benefits for the worker, as those are unnecessary expenses that only detract from the profit margin.

So the end result are two groups of individuals who are actively working to screw each other over, two Classes locked forever in a Struggle over work, money, and time. This is because 99% of their desires are oppositional. This relationship between the Bosses and the Workers is called Class Struggle.

So, how do we handle this literal conflict of interests? Marxism looks for a way to break out of that adversarial relationship, and it concludes that Workers should be their own Bosses by owning the businesses in which they work. That's what most people mean by (little s) socialism the economic system. Workers decide their own wages, make their own schedules, and own all the products as well as the the tools to make them. There's no rear end in a top hat on Wall Street to skim off the top and cut their pay. Everyone who works at the ladder factory owns an equal share of the factory. This is what socialism concludes, and the government has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Lastly, you may notice a particular pattern from the boss's demands: Lowest possible wages, constant labor pool, no benefits, complete control over the worker. You may recognize these traits in the foundational American labor source: Slavery. In short, the slave is the ideal worker for the boss. They're cheap, have no rights to complain, can be forced to work in hazardous and uncomfortable work environments, has to work every Saturday, etc. So, the boss will do everything in his power to make the worker more like a slave. And, frankly, the bosses seem to be winning.

Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Nov 16, 2020

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 11:05

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Here's a great essay by Falstaff explaining the difference between socialism, communism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat

Falstaff posted:

Alright, I hope I'm not annoying too many people with a wall of text, but here goes...

There are a few points where people who come to Marxism through osmosis tend to get mixed up in what qualifies as what. And there's good reason for this, because there's been plenty of muddying of the waters over the years - both by earnest, well-meaning types who read just enough theory to misunderstand, and by decades of propaganda at work.

The narrative you're probably operating from is a pretty common one these days is that you start with Capitalism, with its markets, the state, money, all that stuff. Then workers take power and socialism happens. Socialism has a state* and classes but with the working class in charge. Then the bourgeoisie are defeated and classes, money, and the state all disappear and we've achieved communism, which is stateless and classes. Thing is, this isn't Marx.

Marx doesn't really distinguish between Socialism and Communism; in fact, he hardly ever refers to socialism, instead calling everything communism. He does argue that it has two phases, though, most notably in Critique of the Gotha Program - in the lower phase, you not only have worker control of the means of production, but you've also done away with money, which Marx argues would best be replaced with labour vouchers. Since these cannot be accumulated like money, nor used to purchase control of production like money, this inevitably does away with classes as well. Since vouchers are based on socially necessary labour time, this also does away with worker exploitation: you put in an hour's labour, you get an hour's worth of labour from society in return. However, there is still a material incentive to work, which the higher phase does away with (instead following the maxim "From each according to ability, to each according to need.") Marx never argues that this phase is necessary to reach higher-phase communism, though; rather, that the type of communism that emerges is largely dependent on the particular nature of the society it comes from:

Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program posted:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

So where did this Socialism/Communism term split come from? Lenin, actually. Referring to the lower phase as Socialism and the higher phase as Communism is a refinement Lenin added - one that is understandably popular because it definitely adds clarity to discussions about Marxism.

Another point of confusion are those who read the Communist Manifesto and think that what Marx describes therein (abolition of private property, heavily progressive income tax, centralization of credit, free education, etc.) amounts to socialism. This isn't the case; in fact, it's Marx's prescription for the transitional period between Capitalism and Socialism. This should be obvious to those familiar with his broader work since things like taxation and nationalization still presuppose money, capital, accumulation, in other words all the elements that Marx analyzes as part of the capitalist mode of production. Which, again, even lower-phase communism, or Socialism to lean on Lenin's terminology, does away with.

(I think I'll just full-on use Lenin's terminology from here, for the sake of readability; just bear in mind where the terminology comes from.)

Marx posted:
Between capitalist and communist society that lies the period of revolutionary transformation of one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers not to our modern conception of dictatorship, but rather absolute power. In other words, the transitionary period requires the absolute authority of the working class as a whole, much like today we live under the absolute authority of the capitalist class as a whole. But this presupposes the existence of other classes over which the working class exerts its authority; thus, it has classes, and thus cannot be considered Socialism. To argue otherwise would put you in the strange position wherein you're arguing that the transition from capitalism to Socialism is, itself, Socialism.

To draw on another example of this is the Paris Commune of 1871. In The Civil War in France, Marx wrote that while the commune was a clear example of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as far as the commune's policies go, he said "There is nothing socialist in them except their tendency." In other words in the commune the working class was in power and yet there was nothing socialist in their policies. Once again, this is completely incoherent if one claims the dictatorship of the proletariat or worker's rule is identical to socialism. Instead, it's the political form that allows for socialism to be established.

Another point of confusion commonly comes from socialist nations - China, Cuba, USSR, etc. You'll get socialists online arguing that they were or weren't socialism based on various criteria, but if we go to Marx it's pretty clear that they are/were, at best, in the transitionary period. They have money, they have classes, they have a state. Thing is, most of the leaders of those nations would have agreed with this - they were nations that described themselves as socialist aspirationally.**

For example, take Lenin. In The Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he writes:

Lenin posted:
Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes.

But classes cannot be abolished in one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the air of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear.

So you can see that Lenin agrees with Marx that Socialism is classless, and that he feels that the Soviet Union has not achieved this, despite establishing what he considers a dictatorship of the proletariat. Logically, this would also mean it is stateless*. So the Soviet Union could not possibly have achieved Socialism by this point.

He makes this explicit in a speech to Russian Congress:

Lenin posted:
We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road and our words will not be empty words.

In other words, the Socialist Republic, just like the Paris Commune, was called socialist not because it had established the socialist mode of production, but because it was in the transitionary period moving towards it. This is further confirmed in Lenin's text Tax in Kind:

Lenin posted:
No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies a determination of Soviet power. To achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order.

So you've got a handful of Socialist States, that the capitalist world points to and says "That's Socialism," and it's right there in the name, so... It makes sense that people might get confused.

But not all the propaganda about Socialism comes from the West. A good portion also comes from Stalin.

Stalin was a decent thinker and writer. Seriously, his writing on dialectical materialism is among the most elegant and easy-to-understand (providing you get a good translation, of course.) He definitely understood what Socialism was and what Marx and Lenin thought was required to achieve it; and foremost among this, Marx is very clear, is that Socialism needs to be an international movement, because Capitalism is international and needs to be fought on international terms. Engels wrote:

Engels posted:
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the earth into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries.

A single nation entering its transitional period is likely to be isolated and starved (literally and/or figuratively) by the surrounding capitalist system, thus ensuring the transitional period regresses or stalls. This idea had serious implications for the Soviet Union in its early days. It was counting on Socialist Revolution spreading - and most eyes were on Germany. However, that revolution failed, and the Soviet Union was left in a pretty bad situation given how much of their proletarian base they'd just lost in the Great War. Lenin wrote about how much he feared the growing Soviet bureaucracy would acquire a life of its own, but such bureaucracy was viewed as necessary to keep the nation going with all its challenges. By the time Stalin took power, the Soviet Union was in a pretty tough spot and the bureaucracy necessarily had turned the nation into a social democratic state managing a market economy (even if, one could argue, the workers controlled the means of production.) But the state still needed to justify its own existence, and the foundational idea behind this state was that it was attempting to achieve Socialism. This is the point where Stalin starts pushing the idea of "socialism in one country," and suddenly many of Socialism's proponents start talking in national terms instead of international ones.

We can see this shift in Stalin's writing. In Stalin's Foundations of Leninism, the original edition read:

Stalin posted:
The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism, the organization of socialist production still lies ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient.

In the second edition, this section instead reads:

quote:
After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society...
So the official doctrine slowly changed such that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism became equated. The USSR was said to be Socialist-in-actuality-not-just-aspirationally despite not fulfilling any of the main criteria (though even on this point, there's some back-and-forth - Stalin's famous "Five Year Plans" were sometimes referred to as "Five Year Plan to Build Socialism," which implies that it hasn't yet been built...).

So, yeah. The confusion, I think, is a combination of half-understood theory and propaganda, for the most part. And as I said earlier in this thread, orthodox Marxists prescribe what they do for a reason, that being any definition of socialism that doesn't actually solve the inherent contradictions of capitalism is kind of missing the point - and possibly incoherent.

All of this said, there are other, non-Marxist conceptions of Socialism, but if you're talking about stuff like state ownership, and a Socialism-Communism spectrum or transition is explicitly speaking in Marxist terms, or at least attempting to do so.

* Marx defines a state as the means by which one class exerts its power over the others.

** Whether or not you believe those aspirations to be genuine is, of course, a matter of debate, and I would argue varies according to the administration and era.

Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 6, 2020

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:18

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Marxist reading list!

Loveshaft posted:

I just reread The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Short Course) for the first time in a decade, and I forgot how great and essential it is to Marxism. I would rank it up there after The Communist Manifesto & Anti-Duhring for beginners looking to understand socialism. It has a compilation of the best writings of Lenin throughout along with Stalin�s infamous essay Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

It was fascinating to read the USSR�s reaction to the ascension of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Japan at the time; not to mention just how completely surrounded the Soviet Union was by hostile capitalist states trying to undermine and provoke it at every turn with their intelligence agencies and border skirmishes.

Baka-nin posted:

Over the years I've been building an archive of texts on labour history, revolutions, theory and criticism. Currently there's about a 1000 entries (that are ok to share around) including essays, blogs, translations, comic books, art, audio tapes, documentaries and films. There's a lot there and I'd hate for a hard drive crash to take everything, and its good to share, so here's a couple of ways to access them.
Folder for just the texts http://www.mediafire.com/folder/zax29ra2u3nna/LibCom%20PDF's
Archive for everything https://archive.org/details/@reddebrek
Oh and I'm also part of a group that makes audio books https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaO1QA8QL99_eb0XhJI2Fyw
And I'm slowly transferring the videos to Kolektiva a video platform for activists to share knowledge and info https://kolektiva.media/videos/watch/bcb4bbfa-c39d-4fd2-96cf-bc4747d2d9d9?autoplay=1&auto_play=true&start=2m9s

Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Dec 10, 2020

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:18

Ruggan: Feb 20, 2007; WHAT THAT SMELL LIKE?!

Reserved

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:29

Boba Pearl: Dec 27, 2019; by Athanatos

Reserved

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:31

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Looking forward to some good discussions here.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:41

BoldFrankensteinMir: Jul 28, 2006

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread about socialism starts with three posters claiming personal ownership of slots to respond in?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:44

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread about socialism starts with three posters claiming personal ownership of slots to respond in?

It is communal, bruh.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:46

Ruggan: Feb 20, 2007; WHAT THAT SMELL LIKE?!

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread about socialism starts with three posters claiming personal ownership of slots to respond in?

If you�d like to write a post I can put it in my slot. We can call it a post-share.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:46

BoldFrankensteinMir: Jul 28, 2006

Ruggan posted:

If you�d like to write a post I can put it in my slot. We can call it a post-share.

No thank you, but well played.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:47

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Thank you so much for posting this! I was a libertarian shitbird up until Trump's election shook me out of it, and while I've learned a lot about socialism over the years, I've had a hard time explaining it to other people. So I'll probably have a lot of questions ITT.

What's a good starting place for reading about it?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:49

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Fister Roboto posted:

Thank you so much for posting this! I was a libertarian shitbird up until Trump's election shook me out of it, and while I've learned a lot about socialism over the years, I've had a hard time explaining it to other people. So I'll probably have a lot of questions ITT.

What's a good starting place for reading about it?

Well, that depends on what you want to learn about it. What are you curious about specifically? That is, do you want to know more about the theoretical angle, or a kind of "what does all this mean to me? What should I do about it?" angle.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:53

Ruggan: Feb 20, 2007; WHAT THAT SMELL LIKE?!

Cpt_Obvious posted:

So, how do we handle this literal conflict of interests? Socialism look for a way to break out of that adversarial relationship, and it concludes that Workers should be their own Bosses by owning the businesses in which they work. That's what most people mean by (little s) socialism the economic system. Workers decide their own wages, make their own schedules, and own all the products as well as the the tools to make them. There's no rear end in a top hat on Wall Street to skim off the top and cut their pay. Everyone who works at the ladder factory owns an equal share of the factory. This is what socialism concludes, and the government has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Not all factories make equal profit, have equal needs for workers, or have similar skill requirements. If wages are distributed equally among workers, you solve the problem of unequal pay at a local level. But the problem of more/less desirable jobs still exist and thereby some significant inequality.

How does socialism suggest to resolve this issue?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:58

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I find it interesting that you zoom in specifically for these first posts on the relationship between boss and worker. I'm in an interesting position as I work in education which is simultaneously egalitarian career but also fundamentally rooted in capitalism within the US. The notion of the bosses becomes more abstracted although I'd argue it's abstracted.

Anyway, I'm currently looking at becoming a school administrator and am studying Professional Learning Communities at the moment. One of the principles of them that I really have been digging is that of Reciprocal Accountability. The premise is that strong supervisors--separate from a boss as ideally a school Principal doesn't actually own anything, and ideally schools should not be seen in terms of production--delegate ownership and responsibility of the school amongst the staff. The catch is that the supervisor's job is then to ensure that everyone has the tools and training available to flourish with these responsibilities. The manager is constantly developing and serving the needs of the staff to meet the needs of the school. So, you find yourself in a cycle where the supervisor benefits from responsibilities being distributed while the staff benefits from these responsibilities by learning new skills and honing old ones.

It's an idea I've really interested in because I think it is really transferable outside of education. I think the question of having truly socialized workplaces gets confusing to people used to thinking in terms of hierarchy. I think the boss explanation often isn't as simple for people because most people don't interact with their actual "boss," rather a supervisor or manager who is taking on the interests of the boss. The hierarchy is structured in many layers of people on the bottom serving those above them and ultimately the bosses at the top. I think because people don't actually interact with their "boss," but are often used to sort of mini-tyrants working on the boss's behalf, the idea of a manager being an rear end in a top hat just seems like the way of the world. Of course, it's an illusion. Taking your ladder metaphor, if the boss has multiple ladder factories with managers at all the factories, each manager superficially seems like their job is to build more ladders, but their actual job is representing the needs of the boss. The manufacturing of ladders is secondary.

Reciprocal Accountability leaves room for a supervisor or managerial role, but it imagines the manager serving the worker as much as visa versa, and ideally more so. It pushes the manager to always ask and question what are the needs of the workers to meet the goals they are being asked to do. It works more cleanly in education because education is ideally founded in virtue rather than profit or production. But I think it's a framework that has definitely pushed my thinking on how to not be an rear end once I'm in a manager position, and I feel like it fills in some of the blanks of how a democratized workplace operates on daily basis.

It's an idea that I felt was neat and thought I might throw it out there.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 04:59

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Reserved.

I'm not going to use this space but I'm not giving it back either. Let this be your first lesson in how capitalism works.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:01

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Well, that depends on what you want to learn about it. What are you curious about specifically? That is, do you want to know more about the theoretical angle, or a kind of "what does all this mean to me? What should I do about it?" angle.

Yeah definitely the theory behind it. Basically your OP but more in depth.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:01

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Ruggan posted:

Not all factories make equal profit, have equal needs for workers, or have similar skill requirements. If wages are distributed equally among workers, you solve the problem of unequal pay at a local level. But the problem of more/less desirable jobs still exist and thereby some significant inequality.

How does socialism suggest to resolve this issue?

Great question!

So, let's look at a hospital. You have doctors, and you have janitors. Some people may say that you need to pay the doctors more than the janitors because of schooling costs, expertise, w/e. And Socialism can make room for that. There's no reason why the doctor's should be disallowed from making more money, however the decision as to how much pay each worker recieves is based on what the workers decide. That is, if you're gonna pay the janitor less money, then the janitor still owns an equal share of the business and gets input into his own wages. He basically gets the same vote as the doctor does when it comes to deciding how much wages everyone receives, he just may get less pay at the end of the week.

Or, just everyone deserves the same pay always. The point is, the workers decide it, not some rear end in a top hat on wall street.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:02

human garbage bag: Jan 8, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

I don't like the term "boss" because it originated from Dutch and was supposed to mean "master", i.e. slavery/serfdom/servitude. Nowadays it is no longer relevant for legal jobs in US or other first world economies, and the term manager should be used instead imo.

A key difference is that managers don't have the ability to fire the employees they manage (unless it is a small business situation where the manager is also the chief executive). This means that in modern first world economies there should be no personal strife between an employee and their manager (with the small business exception of course). If the employee has a problem with the manager they can talk with HR or executives to resolve the matter, or just refuse to do what their manager asks, and then talk to the executives/HR if the manager contacts them asking them to fire you.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:02

Fill Baptismal: Dec 15, 2008

This isn�t a long screed, but I�m more and more convinced of Piketty�s �Brahmin left, Merchant Right� hypotheses, and I don�t think the broader left has really grappled enough with what that being true means, both in terms of theories of politics and just actual concrete strategies for power.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:03

human garbage bag: Jan 8, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Great question!

So, let's look at a hospital. You have doctors, and you have janitors. Some people may say that you need to pay the doctors more than the janitors because of schooling costs, expertise, w/e. And Socialism can make room for that. There's no reason why the doctor's should be disallowed from making more money, however the decision as to how much pay each worker recieves is based on what the workers decide. That is, if you're gonna pay the janitor less money, then the janitor still owns an equal share of the business and gets input into his own wages. He basically gets the same vote as the doctor does when it comes to deciding how much wages everyone receives, he just may get less pay at the end of the week.

Or, just everyone deserves the same pay always. The point is, the workers decide it, not some rear end in a top hat on wall street.

What if 51% of the workers vote to give themselves 100% of the wages and nothing to the other 49%?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:04

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Timeless Appeal posted:

I find it interesting that you zoom in specifically for these first posts on the relationship between boss and worker. I'm in an interesting position as I work in education which is simultaneously egalitarian career but also fundamentally rooted in capitalism within the US. The notion of the bosses becomes more abstracted although I'd argue it's abstracted.

Anyway, I'm currently looking at becoming a school administrator and am studying Professional Learning Communities at the moment. One of the principles of them that I really have been digging is that of Reciprocal Accountability. The premise is that strong supervisors--separate from a boss as ideally a school Principal doesn't actually own anything, and ideally schools should not be seen in terms of production--delegate ownership and responsibility of the school amongst the staff. The catch is that the supervisor's job is then to ensure that everyone has the tools and training available to flourish with these responsibilities. The manager is constantly developing and serving the needs of the staff to meet the needs of the school. So, you find yourself in a cycle where the supervisor benefits from responsibilities being distributed while the staff benefits from these responsibilities by learning new skills and honing old ones.

It's an idea I've really interested in because I think it is really transferable outside of education. I think the question of having truly socialized workplaces gets confusing to people used to thinking in terms of hierarchy. I think the boss explanation often isn't as simple for people because most people don't interact with their actual "boss," rather a supervisor or manager who is taking on the interests of the boss. The hierarchy is structured in many layers of people on the bottom serving those above them and ultimately the bosses at the top. I think because people don't actually interact with their "boss," but are often used to sort of mini-tyrants working on the boss's behalf, the idea of a manager being an rear end in a top hat just seems like the way of the world. Of course, it's an illusion. Taking your ladder metaphor, if the boss has multiple ladder factories with managers at all the factories, each manager superficially seems like their job is to build more ladders, but their actual job is representing the needs of the boss. The manufacturing of ladders is secondary.

Reciprocal Accountability leaves room for a supervisor or managerial role, but it imagines the manager serving the worker as much as visa versa, and ideally more so. It pushes the manager to always ask and question what are the needs of the workers to meet the goals they are being asked to do. It works more cleanly in education because education is ideally founded in virtue rather than profit or production. But I think it's a framework that has definitely pushed my thinking on how to not be an rear end once I'm in a manager position, and I feel like it fills in some of the blanks of how a democratized workplace operates on daily basis.

It's an idea that I felt was neat and thought I might throw it out there.

This is all an interesting idea, and I like it a lot. However, we can't leave out hire and fire power. The workers should be in charge of who hires and fires, not a supervisor unless there is some sort of election to decide on who should in charge of hiring and firing, a sort of elected Republic of supervisors.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:05

BoldFrankensteinMir: Jul 28, 2006

Does socialism only have room for people who agree with / are cooperative with the drive to produce economic growth? Or, in a larger sense, people interested in cooperation of any kind? What about people who are anti-growth, for example anti-natalists or monkeywrenchers? What about people who are uncooperative or misanthropic by nature? Does one have to be a team player to have a place in a socialist system? Or is there room for the antisocial socialist?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:08

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

human garbage bag posted:

What if 51% of the workers vote to give themselves 100% of the wages and nothing to the other 49%?

The other 49% strike and nobody gets nothing.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:09

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

human garbage bag posted:

A key difference is that managers don't have the ability to fire the employees they manage (unless it is a small business situation where the manager is also the chief executive). This means that in modern first world economies there should be no personal strife between an employee and their manager (with the small business exception of course). If the employee has a problem with the manager they can talk with HR or executives to resolve the matter, or just refuse to do what their manager asks, and then talk to the executives/HR if the manager contacts them asking them to fire you.

Are these frictionless spherical managers and employees? Managers can not only fire employees (by creating a paper trail of bad reviews), they can also just make their lives a living hell by denying them advancement and giving them the worst tasks/shifts available and denying them all of the perks.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:09

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

BoldFrankensteinMir posted:

Does socialism only have room for people who agree with / are cooperative with the drive to produce economic growth? Or, in a larger sense, people interested in cooperation of any kind? What about people who are anti-growth, for example anti-natalists or monkeywrenchers? What about people who are uncooperative or misanthropic by nature? Does one have to be a team player to have a place in a socialist system? Or is there room for the antisocial socialist?

Does any society have room for anti-social behavior?

Socialism views cops as assholes who violently oppress the workers to protect the property of the wealthy. This was also Adam Smith's view.

Instead, socialism would focus on why a person became anti-social and try to fix those problems directly. So, therapists and economic support instead of cops.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:11

Ruggan: Feb 20, 2007; WHAT THAT SMELL LIKE?!

human garbage bag posted:

What if 51% of the workers vote to give themselves 100% of the wages and nothing to the other 49%?

This. Or the 99 doctors agree to pay the janitor a pittance and the janitor has no real say - but they can�t get any other job in the area. This method doesn�t seem to help minority disenfranchised groups.

Also, what about the fact that there will still be people working at a grocery store making a barely live-able wage while others working at the gizmo factory making lots of money because of high gizmo sales. The grocery store employees are still way poorer than the factory employees.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:12

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Ruggan posted:

This. Or the 99 doctors agree to pay the janitor a pittance and the janitor has no real say - but they can�t get any other job in the area. This method doesn�t seem to help minority disenfranchised groups.

Also, what about the fact that there will still be people working at a grocery store making a barely live-able wage while others working at the gizmo factory making lots of money because of high gizmo sales. The grocery store employees are still way poorer than the factory employees.

It's not a perfect system. There are holes.

However:

Consider that how this exact same problem would function under Capitalism. It wouldn't take 99 doctors, it would take 1 spoiled little bitch baby who owns more of the company than anyone else. And the people who make the money while everyone else eats poo poo is not some anomaly or problem, it is the actual goal!

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:16

human garbage bag: Jan 8, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

The Oldest Man posted:

Are these frictionless spherical managers and employees? Managers can not only fire employees (by creating a paper trail of bad reviews), they can also just make their lives a living hell by denying them advancement and giving them the worst tasks/shifts available and denying them all of the perks.

The employee can also talk to HR/executives and leave a bad review for the manager. In fact many companies do send out anonymous surveys to their employees asking them questions about their manager, similar to professor reviews in college.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:16

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

human garbage bag posted:

The employee can also talk to HR/executives and leave a bad review for the manager. In fact many companies do send out anonymous surveys to their employees asking them questions about their manager, similar to professor reviews in college.

And a lot of workers get punished for filling them out honestly.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:17

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Fister Roboto posted:

Yeah definitely the theory behind it. Basically your OP but more in depth.

Richard Wolff is a loving awesome Marxist economist, one of the few in the United States. Here's him explaining Labor theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ClwYFUHXU

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:19

human garbage bag: Jan 8, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

Cpt_Obvious posted:

And a lot of workers get punished for filling them out honestly.

It doesn't make sense for company executives to encourage abusive managers because that would lower the productivity of the employees, and hence the amount of labor that can be exploited.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:21

Ruggan: Feb 20, 2007; WHAT THAT SMELL LIKE?!

Cpt_Obvious posted:

It's not a perfect system. There are holes.

However:

Consider that how this exact same problem would function under Capitalism. It wouldn't take 99 doctors, it would take 1 spoiled little bitch baby who owns more of the company than anyone else. And the people who make the money while everyone else eats poo poo is not some anomaly or problem, it is the actual goal!

Sure. That�s fair. But with that answer I still see people clustering into socio-economic classes and there still being quite a few people in an awful position. People taking advantage of their wealth, skills, knowledge to hold a position of power.

I guess a broader question, then.

In your opinion, what problems specifically is Socialism intended to solve? And just as importantly, what isn�t it intended to solve?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:23

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

human garbage bag posted:

It doesn't make sense for company executives to encourage abusive managers because that would lower the productivity of the employees, and hence the amount of labor that can be exploited.

1. It is rational for the manager to intercept negative reviews and punish them.

2. People don't act rationally.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:23

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Ruggan posted:

Sure. That�s fair. But with that answer I still see people clustering into socio-economic classes and there still being quite a few people in an awful position. People taking advantage of their wealth, skills, knowledge to hold a position of power.

I guess a broader question, then.

In your opinion, what problems specifically is Socialism intended to solve? And just as importantly, what isn�t it intended to solve?

It is very specifically intended to solve and end Class Struggle.

And it is incapable of solving whatever problems are inevitably created by Socialism.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:24

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Richard Wolff is a loving awesome Marxist economist, one of the few in the United States. Here's him explaining Labor theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ClwYFUHXU

Yeah I've listened to a few of his lectures on youtube. Would something written by him be a good start?

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:26

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Fister Roboto posted:

Yeah I've listened to a few of his lectures on youtube. Would something written by him be a good start?

He has multiple books, including Understanding Socialism

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Socialism-Richard-D-Wolff/dp/0578227347

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:27

BoldFrankensteinMir: Jul 28, 2006

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Does any society have room for anti-social behavior?

Socialism views cops as assholes who violently oppress the workers to protect the property of the wealthy. This was also Adam Smith's view.

Instead, socialism would focus on why a person became anti-social and try to fix those problems directly. So, therapists and economic support instead of cops.

Oh yeah, I'd say most societies have room for anti-social behavior, because there are lots of antisocial people who still live in those societies. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that a significant percentage of humanity just wants to be left alone. Treating that as some kind of sickness to be cured, that's the kind of scary stuff I hear people say about socialism, and I don't want to believe it because those people believe all kinds of wacky conspiracy nonsense. But if you're telling me the society's goals will engulf my own if mine are too selfish, that brings up questions of enforcement that lead scary places, and I'm left wondering if there's some truth to the classic suburbanite fears.

Forgive the extreme example but really it does come down to this: can I be utterly self-absorbed on the fringes of a socialist society? If not, I don't see the majority of human beings meshing well with it. The percentage of humankind that isn't at least partially self-absorbed is so, so tiny.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:27

mA: Jul 10, 2001; I am the ugly lover.

Thanks for making this thread.

Here's an article I want to share: it's one of the best long form essays on (racial) capitalism I've read recently:

https://aeon.co/essays/on-liberty-security-and-our-system-of-racial-capitalism

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:27

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Cpt_Obvious posted:

He has multiple books, including Understanding Socialism

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Socialism-Richard-D-Wolff/dp/0578227347

Outstanding, thank you.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 11:05

The Oldest Man: Jul 28, 2003

Ruggan posted:

This. Or the 99 doctors agree to pay the janitor a pittance and the janitor has no real say - but they can�t get any other job in the area. This method doesn�t seem to help minority disenfranchised groups.

Also, what about the fact that there will still be people working at a grocery store making a barely live-able wage while others working at the gizmo factory making lots of money because of high gizmo sales. The grocery store employees are still way poorer than the factory employees.

Depends on what type of political organization underpins your socialism. If it's a vanguard party-state, they will probably mandate that everyone makes certain amounts determined by a central planning organization (or draws a certain number of goods vouchers, or whatever) and they send the cops or paramilitaries to gently caress you up if you try to horde.

If it's more like a syndicalist union federation, then the grocery store federation gets together with the other point-of-sale federated unions and freezes out the gizmo factory's distribution channels until they get an agreed cut of those proceeds. But overall, the answer you're looking for to "what happens if group x tries to use local advantage to gently caress over group y" in a more syndicalist type of political economy is "general strike". An injury to one is an injury to all after all.

# ? Nov 5, 2020 05:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Hate Your Boss: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy and the Left

«‹›41 »