|
readingatwork posted:Reserved. Basically this but digital, eh?  ^ You sure about that? Marx was pretty enthusiastic about workers under socialism laboring beyond material necessity for the sake of self-fulfillment. He expected that people would pursue many hobbies, some productive and some purely recreational, through their daily lives: quote:For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Nov 5, 2020 |
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Muke made a video that touched on mandatory work under socialism in marxist theory and some practice. might be worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3vbRNM5Pw8
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:It almost seems like you're saying there's an immutable human nature underneath our social evolution that doesn't change and can always be reverted to? No it doesn't? O_o Just because the claim is that greed is not immutable, it does not follow that generosity is immutable. You seem to agree already that prevalence of greed or generosity is a function of material conditions, so this should not be a controversial claim.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I do not BoldFrankensteinMir posted:If anything, humans acting humane towards each other is a very brief bubble in the 3.5 billion year history of life on Earth. I'm now pretty unclear on where you stand on the question of if humans have gotten less needlessly greedy of late.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
I take issue with the previously mentioned ability of capitalism to reward people for doing things they like. The reality is, any such "reward" is only as sustainable in so far as it increases the relative market share of one segment of productive forces. This is why under capitalism you can sometimes get rewarded to do what you love, and especially if what you love is pouring kerosene on perfectly edible oranges specifically so that hungry people can't eat them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Cool, then come up with a better solution in your policy proposal instead of treating even the most anodyne critiques of it as bad faith attacks. Adam Frankenstein is a perfectly acceptable name for the monster 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Technically if everything is automated and the owners of the machines kill all the workers rather than surrendering control of the machines because their labour and consumption is no longer required, then that has also resolved the bourgeois/proletarian conflict but from the other direction This is actually the "victory" ending of "To Build a Better Mousetrap", a game about class conflict: https://www.molleindustria.org/to-build-a-better-mousetrap/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
i dont think anyone is suggesting that socialism could be sustainable in a society predominantly populated by toddlers so the relevance that has is a little unclear It would be weird to point out to a feudal peasant that toddlers need to be taught not to talk to strangers to convince them that its not a good move to do away with feudalism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Is someone arguing that nobody would be around to teach their toddlers how to share under socialism? I don't really understand the purpose of Slanderer's posting here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
If we wanted to include some newbie reading material on the first page somewhere, I'd like to recommend this for an easily digestible, modern summary of Capital: https://redemmas.org/titles/18656-marx-s-capital--an-illustrated-introduction v But, these children were not raised in a frictionless spherical environment. Checkmate, communists. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Nov 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
For those who have read Capital and want to continue learning about Marx's value theory, Alan Freeman is one of my personal favorite analysts of the subject. If you're mathematically or scientifically inclined, I would recommend Price, Value, and Profit, a (technical) booklet he wrote that basically re-treads the territory Capital has already explored, but in light of critiquing the general equilibrium theory which grew in popularity after Marx's death.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Anarchists dress cooler. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Is there such a state where the ruled class is not encouraged using fear to behave in ways that are beneficial for the ruling class? Edit: I could see there being a hypothetical fully "manufactured consent" society where that were not the case but does one exist? Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Dec 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Thought I'd chime in from a Marxist perspective of the question. In the period of time Marx called the "lower phase" or "first phase" of communism, he expected some kind of arrangement to provide remuneration "to each according to their contribution". Specifically, labor vouchers, which are a sort of non-circulating redemption system, basically tickets you can redeem for Critique of the Gotha Programme ch 1 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. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. In this way, even Marx expected that under communism people who labored under more necessarily "intense" conditions such as work that is necessarily harmful would receive a correspondingly larger share of the social product. Been a while since last I watched it but I recall the youtube marxist Xexizy did a video on labor vouchers that might be a little more illustrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMfExwigqNY
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Thanks for sharing, I hadn't read about this aspect of lower-phase communism/socialism before. Not gonna lie, my immediate reaction on reading that and watching the youtube is, sounds fine on paper but impossible to implement. To me the sticking point is how value is assigned to the vouchers. The video brings up the idea of two individuals who have the same labor output, but one of them has 4 children so would need to receive more vouchers despite the same labor output, but then the video just kind of dismisses this as a "minor" complication that would sort itself organically. This seems like a massive complication to me, and I have hard time envisioning how this system would be implemented at scale. It's a valid point. I'd argue it'd be no more complicated than how our government under capitalism decides on how many tax credits you get for having kids or whatever. The point is that under our current situation, the businesses that serve holders of these tax credits are incentivized through the circulation of value to maximize the share of that funding is exchanged for their products. However, in a non-circulating voucher system, the places these vouchers are redeemed at can't turn around and use those redeemed vouchers because they are non circulating - there would be no incentive to compete over a "voucher share" like there is over a market share today. The incentive would be to simply do the job adequately to earn your own vouchers. VictualSquid posted:That is basically the anarchist critique of that point of marx's. Kropotkin writes a lot about that and the conclusion there is that "to each according to their needs" should come before "from each according to their abilities". Which implies that you should try to move to direct distribution of goods by need instead of using the intermediate of such vouchers. I'd be interested to learn more about these, especially the last point. Do you have any sources in particular? For the first point, Marx is pretty clear about providing for needs and wants in terms of satisfying "common welfare" which increases ever more over time. Would that not just be a disagreement of initial magnitude rather than a disagreement of form? I'm not aware if Marx explicitly said what ~should~ be covered in the first place but I'd be interested in learning more. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jan 21, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Even in the early 20th century, Marxists recognized that an individual person will not necessarily fall into exactly one class. The importance is the distinction between class interests - those of labor and those of capital. And an individual person's actions are driven by these interests as they are objectified by the capitalist mode of production. In the following quote, Rosa Luxemburg describes how the activity of worker-owners must be primarily driven by the interests of capital, despite that they by all accounts are workers (emphasis mine): Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution posted:But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving. I believe offhand that even Marx said as much but I can't think of a citation to back that up, so I will avoid making a claim on that 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Forgive me for my lack of deeper contextual knowledge here, but is this analysis saying that co-ops are considered failures because they don't last forever? In R or R, Luxemburg is flaming Eduard Bernstein for some hot takes as she saw them: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch03.htm quote:Bernstein rejects the “theory of collapse” as an historic road toward socialism. Now what is the way to a socialist society that is proposed by his “theory of adaptation to capitalism”? Bernstein answers this question only by allusion. Konrad Schmidt, however, attempts to deal with this detail in the manner of Bernstein. According to him, “the trade union struggle for hours and wages and the political struggle for reforms will lead to a progressively more extensive control over the conditions of production,” and “as the rights of the capitalist proprietor will be diminished through legislation, he will be reduced in time to the role of a simple administrator.” “The capitalist will see his property lose more and more value to himself” till finally “the direction and administration of exploitation will be taken from him entirely” and “collective exploitation” instituted. Or in other words, https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch01.htm quote:The capacity of capitalism to adapt itself, says Bernstein, is manifested first in the disappearance of general crises, resulting from the development of the credit system, employers’ organisations, wider means of communication and informational services. It shows itself secondly, in the tenacity of the middle classes, which hails from the growing differentiation of the branches of production and the elevation of vast layers of the proletariat to the level of the middle class. It is furthermore proved, argues Bernstein, by the amelioration of the economic and political situation of the proletariat as a result of its trade union activity. Basically, she is chewing him out for abandoning the question of how the means of production can cease functioning as capital, and for him rather focusing on how best to manage and rearrange existing capital. Indeed, she calls Bernstein out for saying that the conditions under capitalism as it is reformed is on a positive trajectory for workers and at worst "defensive" towards socialism. Cruelly, she is proven right when she is murdered by the liberal state for being a communist: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch09.htm quote:After rejecting the socialist criticism of capitalist society, it is easy for Bernstein to find the present state of affairs satisfactory – at least in a general way. Bernstein does not hesitate. He discovers that at the present time reaction is not very strong in Germany, that “we cannot speak of political reaction in the countries of western Europe,” and that in all the countries of the West “the attitude of the bourgeois classes toward the socialist movement is at most an attitude of defence and not one of oppression,” (Vorwärts, March 26, 1899). Far from becoming worse, the situation of the workers is getting better. Indeed, the bourgeoisie is politically progressive and morally sane. We cannot speak either of reaction or oppression. It is all for the best in the best of all possible worlds… (Side note, Bernstein's attitude here is oddly familiar to me, but I can't put my finger on it) But in short: Somfin posted:[Coops] not lasting forever is a feature.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
droll posted:Are posters in this thread saying worker co-ops are temporary because they will, as Luxemburg puts it, become either pure capitalist enterprises or fail/dissolve? Or is there a follow-on from this where they play a different role in the revolutionary movement if they haven't become pure capitalist enterprises yet? I can't speak for all posters but I think they're worth pursuing as a means of harm reduction. But I fully expect that the most successful co-operative worker-owners will sooner side with interests of capital over the interests of labor. I think if there is any revolutionary potential in co-ops, it is in those which collectively fail (whether by choice or by chance) to be among the most successful at extracting profit, and are thus among the least financially successful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:I got you; dug through some old posts to find an excerpt from David McNally's Against the Market that immediately came to mind:  thanks chum
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Aeolius posted:I got you; dug through some old posts to find an excerpt from David McNally's Against the Market that immediately came to mind: Just happened to run into this video that touches on the topic. I think we covered it well here but I think the video is worth a share anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMdgD1qnbQw
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 04:07
|
|