50th Day of Violent Protests in Portland - Page 19 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15119300
blackjack21 wrote:
Police unions have to go.



Drlee wrote:
Yes. This one thing would go further to solving this problem than any other step or series of steps. The notion that public employees should be represented by unions is absurd.



Pants-of-dog wrote:
Public service unions are not the problem, even if police unions are.

Unions for nurses and librarians do not try and get killers back in the workforce.



Yup, I was going to say this.
#15119324
ckaihatsu wrote:What *you* call 'economic importance' is actually *political* importance, to the bourgeoisie, because *economically* banks don't add *value* to funds -- they just shuffle it around, which is *management*, and not 'labor' / work.


And you are wrong about that, evaluating who to lend money to is also a form of labor.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's overhead for overhead -- another *political* function.

Either management is done well or it's done poorly, but in either case valuations are *not* going to increase unless labor is hired to produce commodities which can then be sold for a profit.


And labor also needs management, since production needs to be organized in one way or another. In fact, management is also a form of labor, the bosses are usually workers and don't own the businesses they work at.

ckaihatsu wrote:Ever hear the phrase that capital needs labor, but labor does not need capital -- ?


Yes, and it's a false claim.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, you may want to elaborate on that. Yes, I misspoke, I was thinking of the New Deal '30s.


What should I elaborate on?

Also, business cycles are simply variations around a trend. The tendency of the profit rate to fall is a claim about the trend, not about the variations around it.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, you may want to *provide* that info, so that it can be considered here.


Sure:

http://pinguet.free.fr/barkai17.pdf
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24112.pdf
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func ... Id=4648170 (specific to manufactring)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79529/1 ... _79529.pdf (mixed, depends on the country)
http://gesd.free.fr/basuvasu.pdf

And even the blog post includes a paper where it's highly questionable to claim there is a clear decreasing trend:

https://thenextrecession.files.wordpres ... conomy.pdf

Note that all of these papers consider accounting profits. Economic profits (net of opportunity cost) are a different matter.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you haven't provided any kind of counterargument or evidence for a contrary view.


I took the above links from the paragraph I quoted earlier BTW.

ckaihatsu wrote:You mentioned something about providing a screenshot, and then you didn't.


I provided a link to the report. But if you want a screenshot, sure:

Image

ckaihatsu wrote:And which point is that?


That this system would face trouble organizing production, given the optimization involved.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, I have no doubt that there could be post-capitalist *factionalism*, but nothing 'cultural' would disrupt the overall ethos of no-private-property. Maybe one half of the world would be more technologically-oriented, while the other half prefers a *simpler* way of life, and such would be *fine*. Or maybe these lifestyle preferences would be *admixed*, *everywhere*.

The point is that nothing *anti-social*, like private accumulations, would be allowed, because of the larger societal, post-revolution, post-capitalist ethos.


Why wouldn't this scenario be an example of private accumulation?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, the *scopes* are different, and trade-union consciousness is not the same as *revolutionary* consciousness, but they happen to be on the same leftwards political *trajectory*, in asserting workers power over the vicissitudes of *capital's* management priorities / politics.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


The fact that one is revolutionary and the other is not is what makes the whole difference here. What you are saying is like claiming there is not such a big difference between Marxism and social-democracy, because both take workers into account.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, this isn't correct at all -- you're implying a *slandering* of my person, which is both incorrect and doesn't describe my *politics* either. Watch yourself.


How would you describe taking over the means of production and abolishing private property?

ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- that's why there needs to be a *proletarian revolution*, so that the social consciousness of 'common interest' can supersede *private* interests, like those of wealthy individuals and/or corporations.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image


You are getting cause and effect backwards here. You first need to change the social, and also the individual, consciousness before you can have a successful revolution.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Or* workers could invent / develop machines that make and/or fix the regular mass-production-type *industrial* machines, so that whenever there's a breakdown the AI robots can fix things and get production running again. Also you're being indefensibly *pessimistic*, since industrial mass-production techniques and capacities are well-established already, and would be *worth* fixing, post-capitalism.


Does this technology yet exist?

ckaihatsu wrote:Not everything would have to be a 'hobby', as you're contending. Recall the following list of *various* personal motivations for doing liberated-labor, *without* any work-reciprocated monetary incentive. Also there's my own model of *socio-politically-incentivized* 'labor credits' for any post-capitalist liberated labor efforts.


What would labor credits be good for these workers if they still cannot get a larger share of the pie as compensation for their work?

ckaihatsu wrote:A 'civil war' over *what*, exactly?


Over the very thing Marxists fight for: Controlling the means of production.

ckaihatsu wrote:I basically *am* a Trotskyist, because Trotsky developed the theory of Permanent Revolution, which is at-odds with Stalinism's 'socialism-in-one-country'.


I can tell, no worries.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's *not* a question -- it's the capitalist government defending its use of violence, through the numerous *police* departments.


I mean the enforcement of its own laws.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking of 'federalism'. For any given locality, though, the policy is clearly *defined* since it's either based on *federal* law, or on *state* law.


Not necessarily, again, the very existence of sanctuary cities undermines this idea. Sometimes Federal and State policies can be in conflict with each other.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, then that's a *shortcoming* of the federalist approach to government because the *wrong* policy is being upheld by certain states, allowing killer cops to roam free.


Maybe, it all depends on the Federal policy at hand. I'm guessing you would not be against State resistance against Federal policies you are opposed to... Like sanctuary cities, I presume.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're still excluding the actual *politics* at-hand, which is BLM's *anti-police-brutality* stance. You're *demonizing* the protestors / rioters as being politically 'greedy'.


I say let their own rhetoric judge them. Is it true or false that there have been calls to abolish rent within BLM?

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't know, why don't you ask them?


They can't.

ckaihatsu wrote:Now what about the government's established practice of not-prosecuting cops who kill, also known as 'qualified immunity' -- ?


Actually qualified immunity only deals with civil liability. Criminal liability is another matter.

Of course, softening or ending qualified immunity would still provide incentives for cops to be softer when doing their job.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're showing that you don't understand Marxism -- here's from that entry:


Judge them by what they do, not what they say.

ckaihatsu wrote:No -- again you're not familiarizing yourself with the *content*:


Yes, I am. And it's nonsense, to the point that there is evidence that two media outlets owned by the same person may have opposing editorial lines depending on where they operate and who consumes them. In many ways the media simply tells the reader/listener/watcher whatever he wants to hear.

https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/rese ... asmeas.pdf

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, now you're *confirming* that you've abandoned your accusation / scapegoating of the workers-of-the-world ideology itself.

On this new, *philosophical* direction I have no comment.


Why not? I think most ideologies are formulated with good intentions in mind, particularly those relating to economic policies. So the question is not about that but whether they adjust to reality.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the end doesn't *always*, *automatically* justifiy the means, otherwise I'd be in support of killer cops since they allegedly maintain civil society, which I *am* in support of.

You may want to fill out this chart so that you can see the difference in *politics*:


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image


I highly doubt you'd like me to fill it out with how I see this debate. Besides that, you will need to elabrate further.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's *exactly* institutional racism because the proportion of blacks killed by cops does *not* match the proportion of blacks in the U.S. as a whole.


And the proportion of males killed by cops doesn't match the proportion of males in the US as a whole either. Do cops hate men too?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- I have no doubt that there are *gender disparities* as well as *institutional racism* in the practice of policing in the U.S.


So the patriarchy hates men? :|

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so then you agree that use values are *subjective* and that they vary from person to person.


Sure, they do to an extent. I mean, for instance, I guess we can agree no one would say the use value of water is zero all the time, everywhere.

Ever read about marginalism? You may want to do so.

ckaihatsu wrote:Because it's not a matter of *quantity*, it's a matter of *priority* -- there's plenty of (tax) money that the government wields, but it spend too much on the military and policing. Those budgets can be rerouted to fund a stronger social safety net.


I would not be so sure about that, or at least not to the extent you may want.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the activists were *pro-active* and they had *followed* Rittenhouse to monitor him.


I'm speaking about the cops.

ckaihatsu wrote:So-called 'communist states' were actually *state capitalist*, because they participated in the *geopolitical* economy of capitalism, as nation-states.

Yes, capitalism *is* the source of all problems because people's basic biological needs aren't *guaranteed* by capitalism's productivity even though that productivity / capacity is *sufficient* for providing for everyone's needs for modern life and living.


Can you have capitalism without markets?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're showing again that you don't know the history of what you're talking about:


I do, that doesn't disprove my claim. Sure, they could organize an army, but it wasn't as effective as one managed by an actual State.

That's one of the major reasons as for why States exist to begin with.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're made no arguments against the workers-of-the-world-socialism ideology itself.


Real-world concerns are quite valid arguments.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you only mentioned 'agents' as being the determiners of history, while my 'History, Macro Micro' framework illustration shows *many* other levels of historical factors for any given slice of history, with the *most* deterministic factors being *class struggle* and *mode of production*.


Who determines how and if there is class struggle and the mode of production?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, you're just invoking the 'Mad Max' propaganda, for your policing-at-any-human-cost status-quo line. *No other group* matches the killer cops with their 1000+ killings per year in the U.S. so *that's* the priority.


Even in normal times gangs represent around 2,000 killings per year:

National Gang Center wrote:Number of Gang-Related Homicides*

*Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see: www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q5.

The number of gang-related homicides reported from 2007 to 2012 is displayed by area type and population size.

From 2007 through 2012, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in- ... es/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012.

The number of gang-related homicides decreased 2 percent from 2010 to 2011 and then increased by 28 percent from 2011 to 2012 in cities with populations over 100,000.

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.

Among agencies serving rural counties and smaller cities that reported gang activity, around 75 percent reported zero gang-related homicides. Five percent or less of all gang homicides occurred in these areas annually.

Overall, these results demonstrate conclusively that gang violence is greatly concentrated in the largest cities across the United States.


ckaihatsu wrote:The *point* is that society can produce *all* of these materials and services *in abundance* because we don't live under feudalism -- there are *factories* that use *industrial* processes to *mass produce* stuff that people need and want.

The capitalist *economy* is bullshit these days, as has been for over 20 years, at least. Capitalism isn't an appropriate system of economics for the *industrial* age that we live in.


That would be weird since the very industrial system we are still building (the Industrial Revolution is not over yet) is a product of capitalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, this is the *politics* of workers-of-the-world socialism.


I mean, others may disagree about what the basic necessities of modern living are.
#15119578
ckaihatsu wrote:
What *you* call 'economic importance' is actually *political* importance, to the bourgeoisie, because *economically* banks don't add *value* to funds -- they just shuffle it around, which is *management*, and not 'labor' / work.



wat0n wrote:
And you are wrong about that, evaluating who to lend money to is also a form of labor.



No, sorry, but we're going to disagree on this -- what you're describing is *overhead* for capital, because interest payments on capital is a *cost* to the borrower of the capital / loan, meaning more number-shuffling, or overhead, for everyone involved with the capital, while nothing is actually being *produced*.

So, yes, the loan is a *financial* service to the borrower, who pays to borrow the capital, and the bank facilitates this through its *management* of such capital, taking a percentage, but again, I have to stress that nothing new is being *produced* -- it's all financial *manipulations*, and nothing more.

This is why *rentier* capital is so odious and feudal-like, compared to *equity* capital, which *is* economically progressive since it *does* actually participate in the production of commodities, which is what people need for modern life and living.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's overhead for overhead -- another *political* function.

Either management is done well or it's done poorly, but in either case valuations are *not* going to increase unless labor is hired to produce commodities which can then be sold for a profit.



wat0n wrote:
And labor also needs management, since production needs to be organized in one way or another.



You're talking about the context of *capitalism*, in which workers have *no choice* but to be 'managed', because of private-property *ownership* and its enforcement by bourgeois law.


wat0n wrote:
In fact, management is also a form of labor, the bosses are usually workers and don't own the businesses they work at.



Sure, I'll acknowledge that management requires work, but again, the difference between *management* work, and *wage labor* is that management is a *cost* to capital, meaning it's *overhead*. The management work roles *are* a part of the business itself and they do *not* contribute to the actual production of commodities, as wage-labor does.

Bosses, though, are typically synonymous with *ownership*, so they're *definitely* not workers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Ever hear the phrase that capital needs labor, but labor does not need capital -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Yes, and it's a false claim.



No, it's not -- it means that *logistically speaking*, capital requires labor-power to make commodities which are then sold for a profit, by exploiting wage-laborers.

On the other hand laborers can readily self-organize, given the freedom / independence to do so, which is *not* allowed under capitalism because of the bourgeois norm / laws of private property rights, which are enforced with government *violence*.


---


wat0n wrote:
No, actually the regulatory factors I was referring to was the poor financial and banking regulation of the time [circa 1929]. The tax structure wasn't all that progressive at the time anyway.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, you may want to elaborate on that. Yes, I misspoke, I was thinking of the New Deal '30s.



wat0n wrote:
What should I elaborate on?

Also, business cycles are simply variations around a trend. The tendency of the profit rate to fall is a claim about the trend, not about the variations around it.



No, you're not understanding -- the data I provided, in graph form, shows that over decades and centuries the rate of profit diminishes, making business activity less rewarding, in economic terms.


---


wat0n wrote:
And there's the other research showing there is no trend, again.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, you may want to *provide* that info, so that it can be considered here.



wat0n wrote:
Sure:

http://pinguet.free.fr/barkai17.pdf



I document a large decline in the capital share and a large increase in the profit share in the U.S. non-financial corporate sector over the last 30 years.



Oh, okay, this is only covering the last 30 years -- the rise of profit share in this period is due to *increased exploitation* of the working class, or 'class warfare'. Just compare rising *productivity*, to the *stagnating wages* for workers in that same period:


Image


https://economics.stackexchange.com/que ... ed-ca-1974



---


wat0n wrote:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24112.pdf



This paper's approach is highly reliant on *rentier*-type assets like housing, which are *non-productive* assets. (Housing does not produce commodities.)


---


wat0n wrote:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func ... Id=4648170 (specific to manufactring)



Capital intensity is found to have a negative impact on the profit rate in all models tested, providing evidence for Marx-biased technical change. The effect of real wages is also negative in the models where a statistically significant contribution is established. Labour productivity has the largest positive effect in all models and is promoted as the decisive counteracting force to the negative burdens on the rate of profit.



'Negative burdens on the rate of profit' aligns with Marx's 'tendency for the rate of profit to decline', and the author notes that *labor productivity* is the best way to *counteract* declining profit rates, meaning a greater *exploitation* of labor is required to offset profit declines. (See the productivity-vs.-wages chart, above.)


wat0n wrote:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79529/1 ... _79529.pdf (mixed, depends on the country)



Secular decline (fluctuation around falling deterministic trend) hypothesis is supported for Canada, Portugal and the USA, while secular rise is witnessed for Greece and Norway.



'Secular decline' supports *my* position that profit rates tend to *decline*, and I don't see any evidence for 'secular rise' in Greece:



Between 2009 and 2017 the Greek government debt rose from €300 bn to €318 bn, i.e. by only about 6% (thanks, in part, to the 2012 debt restructuring);[197][231] however, during the same period, the critical debt-to-GDP ratio shot up from 127% to 179%[197] basically due to the severe GDP drop during the handling of the crisis.[196]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece#De ... %80%932018)



Offhand I'd compare Norway's economy to that of Iraq, in that they've both been resource-rich with oil, but Norway didn't suffer from Western imperialist *invasions*, as Iraq has.


Norway - Is It The Perfect Economy




wat0n wrote:
http://gesd.free.fr/basuvasu.pdf



Second, the underlying drivers of proitability, in terms of technology and distribution, are investigated. The proitability analysis is used to offer some hypotheses about the current structural crisis.



This paper is indicating that there's a *crisis* in profitability.


wat0n wrote:
And even the blog post includes a paper where it's highly questionable to claim there is a clear decreasing trend:

https://thenextrecession.files.wordpres ... conomy.pdf

Note that all of these papers consider accounting profits. Economic profits (net of opportunity cost) are a different matter.



The average profit rate tended to fall between the late 19th century and the late 20th / early 21st century.



This paper *also* contradicts your thesis of business positivism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you haven't provided any kind of counterargument or evidence for a contrary view.



wat0n wrote:
I took the above links from the paragraph I quoted earlier BTW.



It's apparent that you didn't even *look* at them because none of them support your contrarian thesis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You mentioned something about providing a screenshot, and then you didn't.



wat0n wrote:
I provided a link to the report. But if you want a screenshot, sure:

Image



Just for the record, I don't *want* a screenshot -- it's up to *you* to provide any evidence for your claims.

Okay, *finally* I'm looking at what you're indicating. So the government aspect is more of a *subsidy* rather than a *backing*, but either way it's *public funds* that go to fund *profits*.


---


wat0n wrote:
How would such demand be satisfied without the corresponding production?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Socially-necessary production is a *requirement* to fulfill (organic) demand.



wat0n wrote:
Then you are yet to address my earlier point on this matter.



ckaihatsu wrote:
And which point is that?



wat0n wrote:
That this system would face trouble organizing production, given the optimization involved.



It sounds like you're saying that logistical optimization would be a *prerequisite* for any given viable system, according to you, but I *dispute* this claim, especially since logistical optimization has *never* been achieved, historically, and currently because of the primacy of *profit-driven* values and logistics in supply-chains, under capitalism -- and yet here we are (while others are not, due to *social* causes of premature death).

In other words logistical optimization is certainly a *goal*, but society can certainly make do with *less*-than-optimized logistical conditions, while hopefully working *up* to centralization and optimization, as my model facilitates:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, I have no doubt that there could be post-capitalist *factionalism*, but nothing 'cultural' would disrupt the overall ethos of no-private-property. Maybe one half of the world would be more technologically-oriented, while the other half prefers a *simpler* way of life, and such would be *fine*. Or maybe these lifestyle preferences would be *admixed*, *everywhere*.

The point is that nothing *anti-social*, like private accumulations, would be allowed, because of the larger societal, post-revolution, post-capitalist ethos.



wat0n wrote:
Why wouldn't this scenario be an example of private accumulation?



You don't seem to understand that post-capitalist communism is all about *collectivism*, to where everything in common is *administered* and *run* in common, with the results *benefitting* everyone in common.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, the *scopes* are different, and trade-union consciousness is not the same as *revolutionary* consciousness, but they happen to be on the same leftwards political *trajectory*, in asserting workers power over the vicissitudes of *capital's* management priorities / politics.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
The fact that one is revolutionary and the other is not is what makes the whole difference here. What you are saying is like claiming there is not such a big difference between Marxism and social-democracy, because both take workers into account.



Well, it's all in how one *slices* it -- if we're talking about certain *reforms* that may be on the table in the short-term, like single-payer universal health care ('Medicare For All'), then such social-democracy-type reforms would be welcomed by *all* leftists, if it isn't actually vaporware.

But, no, such *isn't* Marxism, of course, because workers don't *need* reforms, or capitalism, since the working class has the potential to run society themselves, collectively, *without* the bourgeois ruling class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this isn't correct at all -- you're implying a *slandering* of my person, which is both incorrect and doesn't describe my *politics* either. Watch yourself.



waton wrote:
How would you describe taking over the means of production and abolishing private property?



The term for that is 'Marxism'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- that's why there needs to be a *proletarian revolution*, so that the social consciousness of 'common interest' can supersede *private* interests, like those of wealthy individuals and/or corporations.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
You are getting cause and effect backwards here. You first need to change the social, and also the individual, consciousness before you can have a successful revolution.



Hmmmmm, this is a macro-micro thing, and is certainly *debatable*, though you're not pro-socialist in the least so your comment on this definitely *isn't welcome*.

For the record I tend to look at it as being a *bottom-up* process, but Trotskyists would argue that a workers state is the priority, versus the bourgeoisie, and so this top-down-type of vehicle is the most appropriate, and I *am* a vanguardist. Ultimately actually existing conditions of class struggle will be the deciding factor.


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Or* workers could invent / develop machines that make and/or fix the regular mass-production-type *industrial* machines, so that whenever there's a breakdown the AI robots can fix things and get production running again. Also you're being indefensibly *pessimistic*, since industrial mass-production techniques and capacities are well-established already, and would be *worth* fixing, post-capitalism.



wat0n wrote:
Does this technology yet exist?



Pretty close, as I understand it -- I do like to keep up with tech developments.

What's more-to-the-point, real-world, though, is that AI robots are increasingly capable of working on industrial *assembly lines*, as workers have conventionally done, since the individual work roles on the assembly line have already been highly specialized / circumscribed / simplified, into just a single repetitive action, over and over again, over the work day -- thus ripe for robotics. Any individual robotic machine that breaks down for whatever reason can be manually fixed or removed and replaced.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Not everything would have to be a 'hobby', as you're contending. Recall the following list of *various* personal motivations for doing liberated-labor, *without* any work-reciprocated monetary incentive. Also there's my own model of *socio-politically-incentivized* 'labor credits' for any post-capitalist liberated labor efforts.



wat0n wrote:
What would labor credits be good for these workers if they still cannot get a larger share of the pie as compensation for their work?



There's no exchange-value economics, so there's no total-money-supply 'pie' to vie for, as by using capital. (There's no capital, no finance, no exchanges, no exchange values, no money, etc.)

Yes, liberated-laborers could work *only* for the sake of accumulating labor credits, if they so wanted to do so, but there wouldn't be the least *obligation* for *anyone* to do so, as long as a 'critical mass' of voluntary liberated-labor existed overall to provide for the commons, for everyone (which could be just a few hours per week from *everyone*, possibly / conceivably, or a fully-automated industrial system of mass-production so that *no one* would have to produce for the common good).

Since the labor credits are *not* finance or capital, they directly reflect the liberated-worker's *own* work efforts, per hour (times a multiplier, per work role). One cannot work 24 hours a day, so everyone's finiteness would be a *cap* on how much they could work in their lifetimes if they tended to little else during that time.

Labor credits do *not* confer 'more stuff', or rewards-for-work, as we're used to, with wages, under capitalism -- rather labor credits are more like socio-*political* power, discretely measured out through the use of labor credits, for actual work done.

(See the 'Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?' explanation.)


---


wat0n wrote:
That could indeed strain the production of new weapons, but it would not make the currently existing stock disappear. A more realistic scenario would be one in which many worker societies have their own weapons, and basically fight a civil war.



ckaihatsu wrote:
A 'civil war' over *what*, exactly?



wat0n wrote:
Over the very thing Marxists fight for: Controlling the means of production.



Yeah -- that's usually termed a 'class war', and there *are* historical precedents -- see 'Matewan', for example, from U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I basically *am* a Trotskyist, because Trotsky developed the theory of Permanent Revolution, which is at-odds with Stalinism's 'socialism-in-one-country'.



wat0n wrote:
I can tell, no worries.



Good. They said my membership card's in the mail. (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And why aren't such laws being *enforced* -- the summary executions at the hands of cops *continue*, which is why there's protests and riots.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, that is one great question. Why do you think that is the case? And to what extent is that actually true?



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *not* a question -- it's the capitalist government defending its use of violence, through the numerous *police* departments.



wat0n wrote:
I mean the enforcement of its own laws.



I just *addressed* that -- it's for *class rule* reasons, of *power*. The bourgeoisie isn't in power due to *popularity* -- it uses its institutional *violence* regularly to keep class relations in place, as with sending workers back to work despite deadly pandemic conditions.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of 'federalism'. For any given locality, though, the policy is clearly *defined* since it's either based on *federal* law, or on *state* law.



wat0n wrote:
Not necessarily, again, the very existence of sanctuary cities undermines this idea. Sometimes Federal and State policies can be in conflict with each other.



Well, it's one or the other, basically, and yes, I acknowledge that things can get a little fuzzy, but that's all *internal* to bourgeois rule, which doesn't concern me (I don't have 'false consciousness').


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, then that's a *shortcoming* of the federalist approach to government because the *wrong* policy is being upheld by certain states, allowing killer cops to roam free.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, it all depends on the Federal policy at hand. I'm guessing you would not be against State resistance against Federal policies you are opposed to... Like sanctuary cities, I presume.



Sure, I'd consider such a 'reform', but I'm not going to hold my breath or join any parades for it. (I'm for marijuana legalization, for example, by whatever means.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're still excluding the actual *politics* at-hand, which is BLM's *anti-police-brutality* stance. You're *demonizing* the protestors / rioters as being politically 'greedy'.



wat0n wrote:
I say let their own rhetoric judge them. Is it true or false that there have been calls to abolish rent within BLM?



I'm sure that's true, but that's mostly because people have been having to stay at home during the ongoing COVID pandemic -- that's an even larger socio-political issue than what BLM typically addresses, meaning police brutality.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't know, why don't you ask them?



wat0n wrote:
They can't.



Bummer.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now what about the government's established practice of not-prosecuting cops who kill, also known as 'qualified immunity' -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Actually qualified immunity only deals with civil liability. Criminal liability is another matter.

Of course, softening or ending qualified immunity would still provide incentives for cops to be softer when doing their job.



Great. I'm all for those kinds of reforms if they cut against the death toll of 1000+ per year, at the hands of killer cops.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're showing that you don't understand Marxism -- here's from that entry:



wat0n wrote:
Judge them by what they do, not what they say.



Oh, well, the saying and the doing can be termed 'theory' and 'practice', respectively. You really can't have one without the other. Also politics, like all the sciences, isn't particular to any one *person*.

You showed some basic comprehension of what Marxism is, in this post, just a few segments prior. It took you awhile, but you showed *comprehension*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No -- again you're not familiarizing yourself with the *content*:



wat0n wrote:
Yes, I am. And it's nonsense, to the point that there is evidence that two media outlets owned by the same person may have opposing editorial lines depending on where they operate and who consumes them. In many ways the media simply tells the reader/listener/watcher whatever he wants to hear.

https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/rese ... asmeas.pdf



Well that's hardly professionalism in truth-seeking -- you're describing it as information or misinformation according to market-fueled *tastes*, or predispositions / inclinations / likes.


---


wat0n wrote:
Should ideologies match the behavior of societies themselves?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, now you're *confirming* that you've abandoned your accusation / scapegoating of the workers-of-the-world ideology itself.

On this new, *philosophical* direction I have no comment.



wat0n wrote:
Why not? I think most ideologies are formulated with good intentions in mind, particularly those relating to economic policies. So the question is not about that but whether they adjust to reality.



Look, you obviously have a *psychology* / behaviorist mindset, and you're simply *projecting* that mindset onto the *political* domain, and ignoring the material world itself *altogether*.

I have no interest in *philosophizing* -- that's not what I'm here for.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the end doesn't *always*, *automatically* justifiy the means, otherwise I'd be in support of killer cops since they allegedly maintain civil society, which I *am* in support of.

You may want to fill out this chart so that you can see the difference in *politics*:


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I highly doubt you'd like me to fill it out with how I see this debate. Besides that, you will need to elabrate further.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's *exactly* institutional racism because the proportion of blacks killed by cops does *not* match the proportion of blacks in the U.S. as a whole.



wat0n wrote:
And the proportion of males killed by cops doesn't match the proportion of males in the US as a whole either. Do cops hate men too?



You're indicating that police departments are institutionally *sexist* as well as being institutionally *racist*. No surprise there.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- I have no doubt that there are *gender disparities* as well as *institutional racism* in the practice of policing in the U.S.



wat0n wrote:
So the patriarchy hates men? :|



Technically speaking it's not a 'patriarchy', though bourgeois hegemony does show *social ills* of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It's ultimately a *class* system, and these various kinds of oppressions are *based* in the social hierarchy that's held in place by *class* relations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so then you agree that use values are *subjective* and that they vary from person to person.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, they do to an extent. I mean, for instance, I guess we can agree no one would say the use value of water is zero all the time, everywhere.

Ever read about marginalism? You may want to do so.



Okay, so I think we're in agreement that, empirically, use values are either subjective, inter-subjective, or objective (as with water).

Yeah, I think I'm familiar with marginal utility theory, but I don't think much of it because it's just an abstract thought-experiment, it's based on *exchange values*, and it's only of a concern to *ownership* interests.

*Politically* the point is to get society to a *post-scarcity* situation / reality, so that marginal utility theory becomes *irrelevant*, because everyone, to the person, is provided-for by mass, common availability.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Because it's not a matter of *quantity*, it's a matter of *priority* -- there's plenty of (tax) money that the government wields, but it spend too much on the military and policing. Those budgets can be rerouted to fund a stronger social safety net.



wat0n wrote:
I would not be so sure about that, or at least not to the extent you may want.



Well, government should at least start *in that direction*. That what 'defund the police' is all about.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Or, if I'd been in *Kenosha*, I would've let the police *there* know, since they were informed by *others* and did nothing anyway:


Rittenhouse subsequently walked towards police with his hands up and the semi-automatic rifle strapped across his chest; they allowed him to leave or appeared not to acknowledge Rittenhouse, though several witnesses and other protesters shouted for him to be arrested.[83][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_protests#Shooting



wat0n wrote:
Yeah because they had just arrived to even see what had happened.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the activists were *pro-active* and they had *followed* Rittenhouse to monitor him.



wat0n wrote:
I'm speaking about the cops.



(Would you *please* try to be more *specific* / detailed in your responses, and make sure to make a point? I'm often having to ask basic clarifying questions because by default you're too *vague*. Thank you. Maybe treat each segment in a post as an 'event', as in the following diagram.)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So-called 'communist states' were actually *state capitalist*, because they participated in the *geopolitical* economy of capitalism, as nation-states.

Yes, capitalism *is* the source of all problems because people's basic biological needs aren't *guaranteed* by capitalism's productivity even though that productivity / capacity is *sufficient* for providing for everyone's needs for modern life and living.



wat0n wrote:
Can you have capitalism without markets?



No, I don't think so -- they're basically *synonymous*. (The USSR had 'black markets'.)


---


wat0n wrote:
On the contrary, it shows that - for starters - it [workers-of-the-world socialism] doesn't allow for military organizing to be able to repel foreign invasions.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're showing again that you don't know the history of what you're talking about:




The army was established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. The Bolsheviks raised an army to oppose the military confederations (especially the various groups collectively known as the White Army) of their adversaries during the Russian Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army



wat0n wrote:
I do, that doesn't disprove my claim. Sure, they could organize an army, but it wasn't as effective as one managed by an actual State.

That's one of the major reasons as for why States exist to begin with.



Now you're *confirming* that you don't know the history that you're referencing -- regarding the *effectiveness* of the Red Army, there's this:



Results

Military

War communism was largely successful at its primary purpose of aiding the Red Army in halting the advance of the White Army and in reclaiming most of the territory of the former Russian Empire thereafter.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism#Military



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're made no arguments against the workers-of-the-world-socialism ideology itself.



wat0n wrote:
Real-world concerns are quite valid arguments.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you only mentioned 'agents' as being the determiners of history, while my 'History, Macro Micro' framework illustration shows *many* other levels of historical factors for any given slice of history, with the *most* deterministic factors being *class struggle* and *mode of production*.



wat0n wrote:
Who determines how and if there is class struggle and the mode of production?



There's *always* a class struggle of some magnitude, since there's been a *class division* since society's initial production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be *managed* (as by the priest caste, initially, and throughout class history).

There's *always* a mode of production, like feudalism, or capitalism, since society always has *some* kind of institutionalized material practice of *social production* for any given era.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, you're just invoking the 'Mad Max' propaganda, for your policing-at-any-human-cost status-quo line. *No other group* matches the killer cops with their 1000+ killings per year in the U.S. so *that's* the priority.



wat0n wrote:
Even in normal times gangs represent around 2,000 killings per year:



Don't you understand that the government is supposed to *represent the people*, and that it's *killing the people* with its police? That's a political *priority*, on par with the American Revolution, and/or the Civil Rights Movement.


---


wat0n wrote:
The only problem with this argument is that, since resources are in fact scarce and it's not easy to draw the line between basic necessities and other necessities (sure, we can determine how much food, shelter or healthcare people need to merely remain alive, but most people would agree other goods and services are fundamental necessities even if they do not relate with fulfilling simple biological needs - such as educational services, utilities, etc),



ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, let's make a *list*, as you've started to do.

We have food, housing, health care, education, and utilities, so far. Anything else? (I'd add 'transportation', and 'household items'.)



wat0n wrote:
I would not say education is necessary to simply remain alive. Neither is transportation.

You do need both to have a good life, but if you just want to live... Well, you don't.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The *point* is that society can produce *all* of these materials and services *in abundance* because we don't live under feudalism -- there are *factories* that use *industrial* processes to *mass produce* stuff that people need and want.

The capitalist *economy* is bullshit these days, as has been for over 20 years, at least. Capitalism isn't an appropriate system of economics for the *industrial* age that we live in.



wat0n wrote:
That would be weird since the very industrial system we are still building (the Industrial Revolution is not over yet) is a product of capitalism.



You're going off-on-a-tangent *yet again* -- you were saying that there's a distinction between needs and wants. Try *sticking* to this issue. I have a diagram that illustrates this dynamic:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, good point.

Socialism is only concerned with the *basic necessities* of modern life and living, so once that's accomplished the rest beyond that could be whatever the fuck the people of that society want to do at that point -- it would be more 'lifestyle' than 'necessity' at that point.


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Right, but it's your view on this. Others may disagree.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this is the *politics* of workers-of-the-world socialism.



wat0n wrote:
I mean, others may disagree about what the basic necessities of modern living are.



So *again* you're referencing needs-versus-wants, but then you're not *discussing* it. You even started making a *list*, but then you stopped and went off on a tangent.
#15119597
ckaihatsu wrote:No, sorry, but we're going to disagree on this -- what you're describing is *overhead* for capital, because interest payments on capital is a *cost* to the borrower of the capital / loan, meaning more number-shuffling, or overhead, for everyone involved with the capital, while nothing is actually being *produced*.

So, yes, the loan is a *financial* service to the borrower, who pays to borrow the capital, and the bank facilitates this through its *management* of such capital, taking a percentage, but again, I have to stress that nothing new is being *produced* -- it's all financial *manipulations*, and nothing more.

This is why *rentier* capital is so odious and feudal-like, compared to *equity* capital, which *is* economically progressive since it *does* actually participate in the production of commodities, which is what people need for modern life and living.


The very act of lending after finding an appropriate borrower is a form of labor. After all, the bank employees who work doing that are not capitalists and if you think nothing is produced from this very act of financial intermediation, then you would have to explain why is it that banking crises go along with large falls in economic output.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're talking about the context of *capitalism*, in which workers have *no choice* but to be 'managed', because of private-property *ownership* and its enforcement by bourgeois law.


No, they would also need to have people specialized in organizing - i.e. managing - workers during production processes.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, I'll acknowledge that management requires work, but again, the difference between *management* work, and *wage labor* is that management is a *cost* to capital, meaning it's *overhead*. The management work roles *are* a part of the business itself and they do *not* contribute to the actual production of commodities, as wage-labor does.


Planning and organizing production - also a management role - is not part of the production of goods and services in your view?

ckaihatsu wrote:Bosses, though, are typically synonymous with *ownership*, so they're *definitely* not workers.


Not in large corporations, and actually even in SMEs you can end up with having a middle manager who acts as a boss and directly reports to the owner.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's not -- it means that *logistically speaking*, capital requires labor-power to make commodities which are then sold for a profit, by exploiting wage-laborers.

On the other hand laborers can readily self-organize, given the freedom / independence to do so, which is *not* allowed under capitalism because of the bourgeois norm / laws of private property rights, which are enforced with government *violence*.


Yes it is, workers don't always know how to plan production ahead and they are often not expected to.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're not understanding -- the data I provided, in graph form, shows that over decades and centuries the rate of profit diminishes, making business activity less rewarding, in economic terms.


And the data I provided shows this is not true.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, okay, this is only covering the last 30 years -- the rise of profit share in this period is due to *increased exploitation* of the working class, or 'class warfare'. Just compare rising *productivity*, to the *stagnating wages* for workers in that same period:


Image


And yet, taking that at face value, that's exactly what Okishio's Theorem predicted: When there is technological progress and real wages are constant, the rate of profit actually goes up.

But more importantly, the "real wage" doesn't include company benefits, which have actually risen over time since 1975. When you add benefits to get the total compensation, you see a slower rise in total compensation per hour worked, not stagnation:

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB

Some definitions:

National Compensation Measures: Concepts (BLS) wrote:Total compensation. Included are employer costs for wages and salaries and for employee benefits.

Wages and salaries. Remuneration of regular payments from employer to employee as compensation for services performed during a specific period of time or based on production, sales, or specific output.

The following components are included in wages and salaries:

  • Incentive-based pay, including commissions, production bonuses, and piece rates
  • Cost-of-living allowances
  • Hazard pay
  • Payments of income deferred due to participation in a salary reduction plan
  • Deadhead pay, defined as pay given to transportation workers returning in a vehicle without freight or passengers

The following forms of payments are not included in wages and salaries:

  • Uniform and tool allowances
  • Free or subsidized room and board
  • Payments made by third parties (for example, tips)
  • On-call pay

The following forms of payments are considered benefits and not included in wages and salaries:

  • Shift differentials, defined as extra payment for working a schedule that varies from the norm, such as night or weekend work
  • Premium pay for overtime, holidays, and weekends
  • Nonproduction bonuses or those not directly tied to production (such as end-of-year and profit-sharing bonuses)

Benefits (cost). The cost to employers for providing a benefit. NCS captures the cost of benefits in five major categories: (1) paid leave—vacation, holiday, sick, and personal leave; (2) supplemental pay—overtime and premium, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses; (3) insurance—life, health, short-term and long-term disability; (4) retirement and savings— defined benefit and defined contribution; and (5) legally required benefits—Social Security, Medicare, federal and state unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.


Even worse, unit labor costs also don't fit with that narrative. First, one simple definition:

Image

And they have actually been rising faster since 1975, meaning productivity has actually grown slower than total compensation has:

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ULCNFB

ckaihatsu wrote:This paper's approach is highly reliant on *rentier*-type assets like housing, which are *non-productive* assets. (Housing does not produce commodities.)


The result also holds for stocks. Indeed, housing and stocks have roughly the same returns on average.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Negative burdens on the rate of profit' aligns with Marx's 'tendency for the rate of profit to decline', and the author notes that *labor productivity* is the best way to *counteract* declining profit rates, meaning a greater *exploitation* of labor is required to offset profit declines. (See the productivity-vs.-wages chart, above.)


Why don't you quote all the abstract? :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:'Secular decline' supports *my* position that profit rates tend to *decline*, and I don't see any evidence for 'secular rise' in Greece:


Data on Debt/GDP ratios don't have much to do with long-run business profitability. That paper shows each economy is different, despite all of them being capitalist.

ckaihatsu wrote:Offhand I'd compare Norway's economy to that of Iraq, in that they've both been resource-rich with oil, but Norway didn't suffer from Western imperialist *invasions*, as Iraq has.


Norway - Is It The Perfect Economy



No, the real reason is that Norway has saved and invested (i.e., acted as a capitalist) with its oil rents. Iraq never did.

ckaihatsu wrote:This paper is indicating that there's a *crisis* in profitability.


Do you see a clear trend on the graph?

ckaihatsu wrote:This paper *also* contradicts your thesis of business positivism.


Just like Marx allows for temporary increases in profitability in his theory, I can allow for temporary drops when claiming there is no clear trend. Indeed, that's exactly what "no clear trend" means.

Note, too, that some of the papers I cite try to account for the possibility that profitability is a highly persistent series, which would lead to all sorts of spurious claims about trends.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's apparent that you didn't even *look* at them because none of them support your contrarian thesis.


No, it's apparent you either decided to cherry-pick from them, thereby distorting their conclusions, or didn't bother to look at the graphs. Most of those finding a decreasing trend from around 1960 (give or take 5 years) to the present time do so only because profitability leveled off sometime around the 1970s, which is wholly consistent with saying there is no actual trend - after all, the post-war reconstruction quite obviously had a positive impact on profits.

ckaihatsu wrote:Just for the record, I don't *want* a screenshot -- it's up to *you* to provide any evidence for your claims.

Okay, *finally* I'm looking at what you're indicating. So the government aspect is more of a *subsidy* rather than a *backing*, but either way it's *public funds* that go to fund *profits*.


...And also fund a future larger corporate tax base, resulting from the improvements of productivity that result from using better technology. Even then, as I think you don't dispute anymore, most of that investment in R&D is funded by businesses themselves. Most of that, in fact, funds the "D" part.

ckaihatsu wrote:It sounds like you're saying that logistical optimization would be a *prerequisite* for any given viable system, according to you, but I *dispute* this claim, especially since logistical optimization has *never* been achieved, historically, and currently because of the primacy of *profit-driven* values and logistics in supply-chains, under capitalism -- and yet here we are (while others are not, due to *social* causes of premature death).

In other words logistical optimization is certainly a *goal*, but society can certainly make do with *less*-than-optimized logistical conditions, while hopefully working *up* to centralization and optimization, as my model facilitates:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


Yes, we may also be operating at a suboptimal point from a logistic POV. However, the sort of planning required in your proposed system would actually be tougher to pull off than what most businesses currently do.

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't seem to understand that post-capitalist communism is all about *collectivism*, to where everything in common is *administered* and *run* in common, with the results *benefitting* everyone in common.


I understand that, my point is that this scenario would preclude this idea, since a faction of workers would make sure the results benefited themselves more than others.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's all in how one *slices* it -- if we're talking about certain *reforms* that may be on the table in the short-term, like single-payer universal health care ('Medicare For All'), then such social-democracy-type reforms would be welcomed by *all* leftists, if it isn't actually vaporware.

But, no, such *isn't* Marxism, of course, because workers don't *need* reforms, or capitalism, since the working class has the potential to run society themselves, collectively, *without* the bourgeois ruling class.


Which is why my point is correct.

ckaihatsu wrote:The term for that is 'Marxism'.


Right, that's the ideological term for what I was saying.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmmm, this is a macro-micro thing, and is certainly *debatable*, though you're not pro-socialist in the least so your comment on this definitely *isn't welcome*.

For the record I tend to look at it as being a *bottom-up* process, but Trotskyists would argue that a workers state is the priority, versus the bourgeoisie, and so this top-down-type of vehicle is the most appropriate, and I *am* a vanguardist. Ultimately actually existing conditions of class struggle will be the deciding factor.


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image


If human consciousness changed in such a way that we become more like - say - ants, and less human (by suppressing our individuality), then I would have no problem with socialism. Indeed, it would arise quite naturally and without much if any violence.

This would either happen as a result of evolution or at least a very large cultural change. Neither seems to be happening.

ckaihatsu wrote:Pretty close, as I understand it -- I do like to keep up with tech developments.

What's more-to-the-point, real-world, though, is that AI robots are increasingly capable of working on industrial *assembly lines*, as workers have conventionally done, since the individual work roles on the assembly line have already been highly specialized / circumscribed / simplified, into just a single repetitive action, over and over again, over the work day -- thus ripe for robotics. Any individual robotic machine that breaks down for whatever reason can be manually fixed or removed and replaced.


Having to manually fix it would necessitate to have a segment of the population dedicated to that effect, don't you think?

ckaihatsu wrote:There's no exchange-value economics, so there's no total-money-supply 'pie' to vie for, as by using capital. (There's no capital, no finance, no exchanges, no exchange values, no money, etc.)

Yes, liberated-laborers could work *only* for the sake of accumulating labor credits, if they so wanted to do so, but there wouldn't be the least *obligation* for *anyone* to do so, as long as a 'critical mass' of voluntary liberated-labor existed overall to provide for the commons, for everyone (which could be just a few hours per week from *everyone*, possibly / conceivably, or a fully-automated industrial system of mass-production so that *no one* would have to produce for the common good).

Since the labor credits are *not* finance or capital, they directly reflect the liberated-worker's *own* work efforts, per hour (times a multiplier, per work role). One cannot work 24 hours a day, so everyone's finiteness would be a *cap* on how much they could work in their lifetimes if they tended to little else during that time.

Labor credits do *not* confer 'more stuff', or rewards-for-work, as we're used to, with wages, under capitalism -- rather labor credits are more like socio-*political* power, discretely measured out through the use of labor credits, for actual work done.

(See the 'Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?' explanation.)


Socio-political power to do what, exactly? You will need to elaborate further before I respond.

Taken at face value, you would be saying these workers would gain political power (in the usual sense of the term). Let's say that works as their compensation, as opposed to material pay. OK, then what could they do with their socio-political power?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah -- that's usually termed a 'class war', and there *are* historical precedents -- see 'Matewan', for example, from U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan


Right, so then what would you conclude from that?

ckaihatsu wrote:Good. They said my membership card's in the mail. (grin)


:D

ckaihatsu wrote:I just *addressed* that -- it's for *class rule* reasons, of *power*. The bourgeoisie isn't in power due to *popularity* -- it uses its institutional *violence* regularly to keep class relations in place, as with sending workers back to work despite deadly pandemic conditions.


Funny, because in some instances themselves workers themselves have been protesting the lockdowns.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's one or the other, basically, and yes, I acknowledge that things can get a little fuzzy, but that's all *internal* to bourgeois rule, which doesn't concern me (I don't have 'false consciousness').


It should concern you as long as you live under the current system.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, I'd consider such a 'reform', but I'm not going to hold my breath or join any parades for it. (I'm for marijuana legalization, for example, by whatever means.)


Marijuana legalization is another example of what I'm saying.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm sure that's true, but that's mostly because people have been having to stay at home during the ongoing COVID pandemic -- that's an even larger socio-political issue than what BLM typically addresses, meaning police brutality.


I think that sort of demand predates the pandemic. BLM's platform itself, as I assume you know, deals with a lot more than police brutality.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, well, the saying and the doing can be termed 'theory' and 'practice', respectively. You really can't have one without the other. Also politics, like all the sciences, isn't particular to any one *person*.

You showed some basic comprehension of what Marxism is, in this post, just a few segments prior. It took you awhile, but you showed *comprehension*.


Oh, I understand it, believe me. But I don't believe in Marxism, that's the difference.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well that's hardly professionalism in truth-seeking -- you're describing it as information or misinformation according to market-fueled *tastes*, or predispositions / inclinations / likes.


Right, but it also runs against Chomsky's claims. And it makes sense, press is a business and as such they will cater to their customers.

ckaihatsu wrote:Look, you obviously have a *psychology* / behaviorist mindset, and you're simply *projecting* that mindset onto the *political* domain, and ignoring the material world itself *altogether*.

I have no interest in *philosophizing* -- that's not what I'm here for.


I am ignoring the material world altogether? Then what are you doing when ignoring actual human behavior?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're indicating that police departments are institutionally *sexist* as well as being institutionally *racist*. No surprise there.


ckaihatsu wrote:Technically speaking it's not a 'patriarchy', though bourgeois hegemony does show *social ills* of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It's ultimately a *class* system, and these various kinds of oppressions are *based* in the social hierarchy that's held in place by *class* relations.


Define "sexist" here. Normally, that implies discriminating against women. I don't think killing more men per million is discrimination against women (or, for that matter, men).

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so I think we're in agreement that, empirically, use values are either subjective, inter-subjective, or objective (as with water).

Yeah, I think I'm familiar with marginal utility theory, but I don't think much of it because it's just an abstract thought-experiment, it's based on *exchange values*, and it's only of a concern to *ownership* interests.

*Politically* the point is to get society to a *post-scarcity* situation / reality, so that marginal utility theory becomes *irrelevant*, because everyone, to the person, is provided-for by mass, common availability.


Not necessarily. Marginal utility theory would also work in a non-market setting, although the allocations would simply be given by the central planner. In this world, if there were no government failures, perfect information, a benevolent planner, etc the government could also arrive to a socially-optimal allocation.

In your workers-of-the-world socialism, a similar result could plausibly hold if there were no failures on how that system works.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, government should at least start *in that direction*. That what 'defund the police' is all about.


That would run into the problems we've been discussing ITT (e.g. it could end up with increases in crime, including homicides, rapes, etc and not just crime against property).

ckaihatsu wrote:(Would you *please* try to be more *specific* / detailed in your responses, and make sure to make a point? I'm often having to ask basic clarifying questions because by default you're too *vague*. Thank you. Maybe treat each segment in a post as an 'event', as in the following diagram.)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image


Since we're touching on many points simultaneously, I'm trying to be as brief as possible. I do elaborate further when necessary.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I don't think so -- they're basically *synonymous*. (The USSR had 'black markets'.)


Ah, if you want to deal with black markets then I would need to ask the obvious question: What makes you believe there would be no markets in the workers-of-the-world socialism? For instance, I can imagine bartering between non-essential services in that sort of economy, even if all the implementation issues were solved and people would be able to get as many goods as they want/need.

ckaihatsu wrote:Now you're *confirming* that you don't know the history that you're referencing -- regarding the *effectiveness* of the Red Army, there's this:


How does this square with workers-of-the-world socialism exactly?

Wiki wrote:War communism included the following policies:

Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management
State control of foreign trade
Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden
Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes
Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population
Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers
Private enterprise banned
Military-style control of the railways
Because the Bolshevik government implemented all these measures in a time of civil war, they were far less coherent and coordinated in practice than they might appear on paper. Large areas of Russia remained outside Bolshevik control, and poor communications meant that even those regions loyal to the Bolshevik government often had to act on their own, lacking orders or coordination from Moscow. It has long been debated whether "war communism" represented an actual economic policy in the proper sense of the phrase, or merely a set of measures intended to win the civil war.[1]


ckaihatsu wrote:There's *always* a class struggle of some magnitude, since there's been a *class division* since society's initial production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be *managed* (as by the priest caste, initially, and throughout class history).

There's *always* a mode of production, like feudalism, or capitalism, since society always has *some* kind of institutionalized material practice of *social production* for any given era.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image


And who are those who determine that in each of these societies?

ckaihatsu wrote:Don't you understand that the government is supposed to *represent the people*, and that it's *killing the people* with its police? That's a political *priority*, on par with the American Revolution, and/or the Civil Rights Movement.


And so is to stop gang killings and illegal homicides generally. You said it yourself, even one homicide is unacceptable and if 1,000 homicides are less acceptable, then 2,000 homicides are even less acceptable than that. It's not like the relatives of those killed by gang activity are going to be relieved in the slightest because, hey, they at least were not killed by the cops :|

It's also interesting you mention the American Revolution, since in the end it ended with a Thermidorean Reaction - which took the form of the US Constitution and the establishment of the Federal Government to prevent the Union from ever having the sort of trouble it had in the 1780s, which reached their peak with Shay's Rebellion, ever again - you should read some of the writings by the US Founding Fathers in those years. But regardless of this, the point in the preceding paragraph still holds.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're going off-on-a-tangent *yet again* -- you were saying that there's a distinction between needs and wants. Try *sticking* to this issue. I have a diagram that illustrates this dynamic:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image


ckaihatsu wrote:So *again* you're referencing needs-versus-wants, but then you're not *discussing* it. You even started making a *list*, but then you stopped and went off on a tangent.


No, I'm not saying needs are meaningfully different from wants/desires. What I'm saying however is that people may have different preferences, and what is basic for you might not be basic for me... Even if we may both agree on some needs/wants/desires we want to satisfy.

Also, no, capitalism is exactly what has brought the Industrial Revolution and as such of course it is well adapted to it. I do agree it might stop making sense if and when it ends.
#15119604
As an outside observer, I'm not reading any of this. This is just a two minute scroll wheel down the page for me. For the love of God, just write essays addressing people's points. Nobody can decipher this quote salad, and if they could they wouldn't.
#15119815
wat0n wrote:
The very act of lending after finding an appropriate borrower is a form of labor. After all, the bank employees who work doing that are not capitalists and if you think nothing is produced from this very act of financial intermediation, then you would have to explain why is it that banking crises go along with large falls in economic output.



Bank employees and all similar types of employees, close to the functioning of the *business*, and/or managers, are all *overhead* to the business. They're *not* producing any commodities themselves -- they're the ones shuffling numbers around which is what banking *is*, but it's *not productive* because no new commodities are being created from their efforts.

Yes, the employees themselves are paid a *salary*, and they may even get some nominal incentives that are tied to the business' performance, like 'profit sharing' or whatever, but note -- they *cannot* be paid a wage, because there are no *commodities* being produced that depend on their labor. They are facilitating *financial transactions* from which the bank gets a cut, and so the workers get a 'cut', in the form of a smoothed-out 'salary', but it isn't a *commodity-production-driven* 'wage'.

I've made the argument in the past that the empirical definition of *this* type of management-overhead-type of work depends on the *perspective* that one takes -- if we're viewing these management-type work roles from 'above', they're closer to the *business itself*, due to being *overhead* for the business, since no new commodities are being created. But, if viewed from *below*, these management-type work roles *do* look like regular employment 'jobs' because the employee gets compensation based on how many hours they put in, receiving a *salary*. So, the point here is that, to the worker, the *nature* of the business itself doesn't matter much. They're *not* economically tied to the business in any significant way, so they're not going to get contractually rewarded for increased productivity in their work role, if that should happen.

Similarly for employees of the *government*, who do not produce commodities, but who *may* provide *infrastructure*, which are public social *services*, from public *funds*.


---


wat0n wrote:
And labor also needs management, since production needs to be organized in one way or another.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're talking about the context of *capitalism*, in which workers have *no choice* but to be 'managed', because of private-property *ownership* and its enforcement by bourgeois law.



wat0n wrote:
No, they would also need to have people specialized in organizing - i.e. managing - workers during production processes.



Again, that's internal to *capitalism*, and *business operations* -- these forms of *profit-minded* social organization ('management') confer no advantages to the component of *workers* in the enterprise.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, I'll acknowledge that management requires work, but again, the difference between *management* work, and *wage labor* is that management is a *cost* to capital, meaning it's *overhead*. The management work roles *are* a part of the business itself and they do *not* contribute to the actual production of commodities, as wage-labor does.



wat0n wrote:
Planning and organizing production - also a management role - is not part of the production of goods and services in your view?



It's not my 'personal view' -- I'm describing *objective reality*, in which management work roles are *overhead* to the enterprise, part of its *internal* organization.

Let me put it *this* way -- a business could not survive with only its 'management'-type employees because a business can't survive with only 'overhead', since all of that (executives, basically) are a *cost* to business while producing *nothing*. Whoever does the actual *work* of providing goods and/or services, are the real *workers*, whether blue-, pink-, or white-collar, and they get paid a *wage*, and their surplus labor value gets expropriated / taken, by the employer / capitalist.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Bosses, though, are typically synonymous with *ownership*, so they're *definitely* not workers.



wat0n wrote:
Not in large corporations, and actually even in SMEs you can end up with having a middle manager who acts as a boss and directly reports to the owner.



Sure, you're looking at it in terms of *social hierarchy*, but you have to look at it *economically*, and materially, too -- who, in the company, is actually producing the *stuff* (or services) that is sold to buyers, for *revenue* -- ?

A 'middle manager' is probably not a major stockholder in the company, and probably gets compensated with a set *salary* -- they manage subordinates, which is *managerial*, or 'overhead', in relation to the company. The company could not do without their managerial roles, but the (middle) managers are *not* producing any commodities themselves, and so are a *cost* to the company.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Ever hear the phrase that capital needs labor, but labor does not need capital -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Yes, and it's a false claim.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's not -- it means that *logistically speaking*, capital requires labor-power to make commodities which are then sold for a profit, by exploiting wage-laborers.

On the other hand laborers can readily self-organize, given the freedom / independence to do so, which is *not* allowed under capitalism because of the bourgeois norm / laws of private property rights, which are enforced with government *violence*.



wat0n wrote:
Yes it is, workers don't always know how to plan production ahead and they are often not expected to.



No, you're mischaracterizing the *latitude* that workers have, which is *not much* under capitalist social relations -- it's not that they're 'expected', or 'not expected' to organize production, it's that they're *not allowed to* because *that* function is a privilege of *capital ownership*, under bourgeois class rule.

Workers are the ones doing the actual *work roles*, so *of course* they know how to do production and to plan it in advance. (My 'labor credits' model also provides a standard *process* for this kind of bottom-up logistical planning.)

In this way labor does *not* need capital *logistically*, because they're the ones doing the work, so they can self-organize collectively on some *other* basis than equity capital, like local human need, perhaps, to focus their collective efforts at any given location(s).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're not understanding -- the data I provided, in graph form, shows that over decades and centuries the rate of profit diminishes, making business activity less rewarding, in economic terms.



wat0n wrote:
And the data I provided shows this is not true.



You may want to make a specific *argument* then, using whatever backing you can find -- the papers that you provided do *not* support your contrarian position.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, okay, this is only covering the last 30 years -- the rise of profit share in this period is due to *increased exploitation* of the working class, or 'class warfare'. Just compare rising *productivity*, to the *stagnating wages* for workers in that same period:


Image

https://economics.stackexchange.com/que ... ed-ca-1974



wat0n wrote:
And yet, taking that at face value, that's exactly what Okishio's Theorem predicted: When there is technological progress and real wages are constant, the rate of profit actually goes up.



You didn't mention the factor of *worker exploitation*, or *class warfare* -- why shouldn't workers' wages *increase*, to reflect a share in the increase in *productivity*, which is empirically based on their *labor* -- ?

By *your* logic you should just go back to *enslaving* people so that you can get even *more* labor-power out of them, for even *better* profits -- !


---


wat0n wrote:
But more importantly, the "real wage" doesn't include company benefits, which have actually risen over time since 1975.



I very-much *doubt* this -- got a source for this claim?


wat0n wrote:
When you add benefits to get the total compensation, you see a slower rise in total compensation per hour worked, not stagnation:

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB



You're not *indexing* the wage rate to GDP growth, or corporate productivity, or corporate profit-making. This data is in a void, and out-of-context in relation to the overall economy.


wat0n wrote:
Some definitions:

National Compensation Measures: Concepts (BLS) wrote:
Total compensation. Included are employer costs for wages and salaries and for employee benefits.

Wages and salaries. Remuneration of regular payments from employer to employee as compensation for services performed during a specific period of time or based on production, sales, or specific output.

The following components are included in wages and salaries:

Incentive-based pay, including commissions, production bonuses, and piece rates
Cost-of-living allowances
Hazard pay
Payments of income deferred due to participation in a salary reduction plan
Deadhead pay, defined as pay given to transportation workers returning in a vehicle without freight or passengers

The following forms of payments are not included in wages and salaries:

Uniform and tool allowances
Free or subsidized room and board
Payments made by third parties (for example, tips)
On-call pay

The following forms of payments are considered benefits and not included in wages and salaries:

Shift differentials, defined as extra payment for working a schedule that varies from the norm, such as night or weekend work
Premium pay for overtime, holidays, and weekends
Nonproduction bonuses or those not directly tied to production (such as end-of-year and profit-sharing bonuses)

Benefits (cost). The cost to employers for providing a benefit. NCS captures the cost of benefits in five major categories: (1) paid leave—vacation, holiday, sick, and personal leave; (2) supplemental pay—overtime and premium, shift differentials, and nonproduction bonuses; (3) insurance—life, health, short-term and long-term disability; (4) retirement and savings— defined benefit and defined contribution; and (5) legally required benefits—Social Security, Medicare, federal and state unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.


Even worse, unit labor costs also don't fit with that narrative. First, one simple definition:

Image

And they have actually been rising faster since 1975, meaning productivity has actually grown slower than total compensation has:

Image

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ULCNFB



No, your *reasoning* is flawed -- just because productivity has grown at a certain rate does *not* automatically mean that wages and benefits ('total compensation') have somehow grown *faster* -- you're not showing any data comparison between the two.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24112.pdf

This paper's approach is highly reliant on *rentier*-type assets like housing, which are *non-productive* assets. (Housing does not produce commodities.)



wat0n wrote:
The result also holds for stocks. Indeed, housing and stocks have roughly the same returns on average.



The paper doesn't speak to *overall trends* -- it's not helping you with your contrarian claim that there's purportedly no tendency for the rate of profit to decline.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func ... Id=4648170

'Negative burdens on the rate of profit' aligns with Marx's 'tendency for the rate of profit to decline', and the author notes that *labor productivity* is the best way to *counteract* declining profit rates, meaning a greater *exploitation* of labor is required to offset profit declines. (See the productivity-vs.-wages chart, above.)



wat0n wrote:
Why don't you quote all the abstract? :roll:



My point stands that this paper's conclusions actually support *my*, Marxist thesis, and not *your* contrarian thesis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79529/1 ... _79529.pdf

'Secular decline' supports *my* position that profit rates tend to *decline*, and I don't see any evidence for 'secular rise' in Greece:



wat0n wrote:
Data on Debt/GDP ratios don't have much to do with long-run business profitability. That paper shows each economy is different, despite all of them being capitalist.



From *this* paper you only have the country of *Norway* as enjoying increased profitability -- and I argue that it's because it wasn't *invaded* by Western imperialism, as Iraq was.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Offhand I'd compare Norway's economy to that of Iraq, in that they've both been resource-rich with oil, but Norway didn't suffer from Western imperialist *invasions*, as Iraq has.



wat0n wrote:
No, the real reason is that Norway has saved and invested (i.e., acted as a capitalist) with its oil rents. Iraq never did.



No, you're just fronting homemade propaganda, pulling shit out of your ass again.

The turning point was the Iran-Iraq War, in the 1908s:



The National Development Plan (1976–1980) ended with an 11-percent increase in GNP. The Iran–Iraq War would halt Iraq's economic development and lead to the economic stagnation seen during Saddam's later rule.[96] When Iraq implemented its plans to bomb Iran, Iran retaliated by bombing Iraq's oil facilities. By the end of the year, Iraq's oil exports had decreased by 72 percent because of Iran's bombing strategy.[97] In terms of actual income, oil exports as government revenue decreased from 26.1 billion ID in 1980 to 10.4 billion in 1981. With oil facilities in the Persian Gulf destroyed the Iraqi regime had no choice but to export oil over land, which was far more expensive. Other problems were the gradual erosion of the government's hard currency and its steadily increasing foreign debt.[95]

Demise of development

At the beginning of the war the Iraqi government had a monetary reserve of 35 billion ID, and the annual growth rate was 27.9 percent. During the early war years, ambitious development plans were followed; because of high military spending (approaching 50 percent of GNP in 1982), the Iraqi economy began showing signs of bankruptcy in the mid-to-late 1980s. The war had cost the Iraqi government 226 billion dollars, which in turn had led to a staggering foreign debt of between 80 and 100 billion dollars. The rate of debt increase was estimated to be 10 billion a year. Another problem facing the regime was in agriculture; manpower had been depleted during the war years, and agricultural production plummeted. The situation became even bleaker after the war. Minister of Foreign Affairs Tariq Aziz acknowledged that the situation had become so bad that the Iraqi government could not afford to pay for the food it had imported. Former foreign creditors were reluctant to loan money to Iraq because of the economy's near-bankruptcy.[98]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27athi ... mic_growth



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
http://gesd.free.fr/basuvasu.pdf

This paper is indicating that there's a *crisis* in profitability.



wat0n wrote:
Do you see a clear trend on the graph?



Do *you*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This paper *also* contradicts your thesis of business positivism.



wat0n wrote:
Just like Marx allows for temporary increases in profitability in his theory, I can allow for temporary drops when claiming there is no clear trend. Indeed, that's exactly what "no clear trend" means.

Note, too, that some of the papers I cite try to account for the possibility that profitability is a highly persistent series, which would lead to all sorts of spurious claims about trends.



You're just *repeating* your claim that profitability tends to increase, and you're *still* not providing any suitable evidence for this claim.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's apparent that you didn't even *look* at them because none of them support your contrarian thesis.



wat0n wrote:
No, it's apparent you either decided to cherry-pick from them, thereby distorting their conclusions, or didn't bother to look at the graphs. Most of those finding a decreasing trend from around 1960 (give or take 5 years) to the present time do so only because profitability leveled off sometime around the 1970s, which is wholly consistent with saying there is no actual trend - after all, the post-war reconstruction quite obviously had a positive impact on profits.



No, I mostly took from the *abstracts*, which are *summarizations* of what an academic paper's findings are. If you have anything to add from those papers, go ahead and present that information to attempt to back-up your spurious thesis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Just for the record, I don't *want* a screenshot -- it's up to *you* to provide any evidence for your claims.

Okay, *finally* I'm looking at what you're indicating. So the government aspect is more of a *subsidy* rather than a *backing*, but either way it's *public funds* that go to fund *profits*.



wat0n wrote:
...And also fund a future larger corporate tax base, resulting from the improvements of productivity that result from using better technology. Even then, as I think you don't dispute anymore, most of that investment in R&D is funded by businesses themselves. Most of that, in fact, funds the "D" part.



But what matters to the *public* is the *public-funding* part -- why should private-property-based *corporations* receive free subsidies from public funds? The public never got to *vote* on any of this.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that logistical optimization would be a *prerequisite* for any given viable system, according to you, but I *dispute* this claim, especially since logistical optimization has *never* been achieved, historically, and currently because of the primacy of *profit-driven* values and logistics in supply-chains, under capitalism -- and yet here we are (while others are not, due to *social* causes of premature death).

In other words logistical optimization is certainly a *goal*, but society can certainly make do with *less*-than-optimized logistical conditions, while hopefully working *up* to centralization and optimization, as my model facilitates:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Yes, we may also be operating at a suboptimal point from a logistic POV. However, the sort of planning required in your proposed system would actually be tougher to pull off than what most businesses currently do.



No, again, you have no political *grounds* to be so dismissive of socialism since you're *not* pro-socialist. All you have are coarsely *contrarian* points to make, without any corroboration.

You're also pretending as though capitalist business practices have no *social* cost -- and only now society is starting to factor-in these business 'externalities', like global warming / climate change, racism / killer cops, low stagnating wages, lack of GDP growth, military / police bloated budgets, etc.

The point of socialism / communism is to get *past* this bourgeois class rule, primarily, and then figure everything out afterwards, in the interests of a *liberated* humanity, for once.


---

ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, I have no doubt that there could be post-capitalist *factionalism*, but nothing 'cultural' would disrupt the overall ethos of no-private-property. Maybe one half of the world would be more technologically-oriented, while the other half prefers a *simpler* way of life, and such would be *fine*. Or maybe these lifestyle preferences would be *admixed*, *everywhere*.

The point is that nothing *anti-social*, like private accumulations, would be allowed, because of the larger societal, post-revolution, post-capitalist ethos.



wat0n wrote:
Why wouldn't this scenario be an example of private accumulation?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't seem to understand that post-capitalist communism is all about *collectivism*, to where everything in common is *administered* and *run* in common, with the results *benefitting* everyone in common.



wat0n wrote:
I understand that, my point is that this scenario would preclude this idea, since a faction of workers would make sure the results benefited themselves more than others.



But, going by communist goals / premises, and by my own 'labor credits' model, such wouldn't even be *possible*, because the general societal norms would be to *disallow* private accumulations.

Let me put it *this* way: One unaddressed, undefined 'issue' in a post-capitalist politics is that of the extents of *personal property*. In communism people could retain their own 'personal property', for their own personal use and consumption, but I've never seen a definition or discussion of the possible *parameters* of what 'personal property' might look like.

Back to your scenario, if some group -- say, even a private-type *syndicate* -- set-up-shop with some regular use of certain infrastructure and resources over a sprawling geography, it wouldn't matter, because no *advantages* could be had by any particular group in doing so. If they produced a bunch of *beer*, perhaps that most others didn't *want* to produce, they'd undoubtedly garner a large share of labor credits amongst themselves (within my 'labor credits' model). But the beer itself could never be 'cornered' by that group. All production would *always* be free-access to everyone, and the group would have to violate communist societal norms *and* find a way to physically *guard* the goods they produced against the rest of the human population, ultimately, since many people would find their way to the beer to consume it, possibly quite thoughtlessly, per the prevailing social norms.

And, moreover, what if beer production could eventually be *fully automated* -- ? Then a cabal would be even-*more* meaningless, because all individuals could just get their beer from a Keurig-type machine, with minimal effort.


---


wat0n wrote:
The fact that one is revolutionary and the other is not is what makes the whole difference here. What you are saying is like claiming there is not such a big difference between Marxism and social-democracy, because both take workers into account.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, it's all in how one *slices* it -- if we're talking about certain *reforms* that may be on the table in the short-term, like single-payer universal health care ('Medicare For All'), then such social-democracy-type reforms would be welcomed by *all* leftists, if it isn't actually vaporware.

But, no, such *isn't* Marxism, of course, because workers don't *need* reforms, or capitalism, since the working class has the potential to run society themselves, collectively, *without* the bourgeois ruling class.



wat0n wrote:
Which is why my point is correct.



No, your point *isn't* correct, because you're *imputing* positions and claims onto me, when I haven't made those positions or claims *myself*.

There *is* a big difference between Marxism and social democracy, precisely because Marxism is for *workers power* and the end of bourgeois class rule, while social democracy *retains* these status-quo power relations and only argues for mere *reforms*. Also, social democracy typically *doesn't* address issues that are in the workers' best interests.


---


wat0n wrote:
How would you describe taking over the means of production and abolishing private property?



ckaihatsu wrote:
The term for that is 'Marxism'.



wat0n wrote:
Right, that's the ideological term for what I was saying.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmmm, this is a macro-micro thing, and is certainly *debatable*, though you're not pro-socialist in the least so your comment on this definitely *isn't welcome*.

For the record I tend to look at it as being a *bottom-up* process, but Trotskyists would argue that a workers state is the priority, versus the bourgeoisie, and so this top-down-type of vehicle is the most appropriate, and I *am* a vanguardist. Ultimately actually existing conditions of class struggle will be the deciding factor.


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
If human consciousness changed in such a way that we become more like - say - ants, and less human (by suppressing our individuality), then I would have no problem with socialism. Indeed, it would arise quite naturally and without much if any violence.

This would either happen as a result of evolution or at least a very large cultural change. Neither seems to be happening.



Hmmmm, now you're sounding decidedly more like a *lifestylist*, which is a *distortion* of Marxism -- you're using *lifestyle* and individual *psychology* (behaviorism), to distort the socio-material *function* that Marxism calls for, which is *collectivized social production*.

We don't *have* to become like ants, because all that ants have is *biological instinct*. That wouldn't work for us, regardless, because a proletarian revolution has to be a *mass-conscious* event, to where the workers of the world take *conscious* collective control of society's production, out of the hands of the *market* mechanism and *bourgeois* control.

What people do in their *own* time is their own business.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Pretty close, as I understand it -- I do like to keep up with tech developments.

What's more-to-the-point, real-world, though, is that AI robots are increasingly capable of working on industrial *assembly lines*, as workers have conventionally done, since the individual work roles on the assembly line have already been highly specialized / circumscribed / simplified, into just a single repetitive action, over and over again, over the work day -- thus ripe for robotics. Any individual robotic machine that breaks down for whatever reason can be manually fixed or removed and replaced.



wat0n wrote:
Having to manually fix it would necessitate to have a segment of the population dedicated to that effect, don't you think?



Of course, especially in the short-term -- assuming that such robots *would* break down regularly and require extensive attentive maintenance. These, then, would be the 'workers' -- those who design, fabricate, and maintain society's robotics, for industrial assembly-line mass production, to benefit everyone (hopefully).

Realistically I'd imagine there'd be a general tipping-point, where the cost of procuring one's *own* robotics, as for personal self-sufficiency over material needs, would occur at some point, making modern life and living *affordable*, without even having to work / be-exploited. If one could build one's own housing, get food and water, utilities, etc., through robotics, then there'd be *effective* socialism instead of mass-revolution socialism, though I'm sure that would quickly *follow* as a result of mass self-sufficiency.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's no exchange-value economics, so there's no total-money-supply 'pie' to vie for, as by using capital. (There's no capital, no finance, no exchanges, no exchange values, no money, etc.)

Yes, liberated-laborers could work *only* for the sake of accumulating labor credits, if they so wanted to do so, but there wouldn't be the least *obligation* for *anyone* to do so, as long as a 'critical mass' of voluntary liberated-labor existed overall to provide for the commons, for everyone (which could be just a few hours per week from *everyone*, possibly / conceivably, or a fully-automated industrial system of mass-production so that *no one* would have to produce for the common good).

Since the labor credits are *not* finance or capital, they directly reflect the liberated-worker's *own* work efforts, per hour (times a multiplier, per work role). One cannot work 24 hours a day, so everyone's finiteness would be a *cap* on how much they could work in their lifetimes if they tended to little else during that time.

Labor credits do *not* confer 'more stuff', or rewards-for-work, as we're used to, with wages, under capitalism -- rather labor credits are more like socio-*political* power, discretely measured out through the use of labor credits, for actual work done.

(See the 'Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?' explanation.)



wat0n wrote:
Socio-political power to do what, exactly? You will need to elaborate further before I respond.

Taken at face value, you would be saying these workers would gain political power (in the usual sense of the term). Let's say that works as their compensation, as opposed to material pay. OK, then what could they do with their socio-political power?



This is the part of the labor credits FAQ that you should familiarize yourself with:



-> Why should anyone give a shit about labor credits?

Let's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit. 'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an
increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
A 'civil war' over *what*, exactly?



wat0n wrote:
Over the very thing Marxists fight for: Controlling the means of production.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah -- that's usually termed a 'class war', and there *are* historical precedents -- see 'Matewan', for example, from U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan



wat0n wrote:
Right, so then what would you conclude from that?



That the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have mutually conflicting material interests.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Good. They said my membership card's in the mail. (grin)



wat0n wrote:
:D



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I just *addressed* that -- it's for *class rule* reasons, of *power*. The bourgeoisie isn't in power due to *popularity* -- it uses its institutional *violence* regularly to keep class relations in place, as with sending workers back to work despite deadly pandemic conditions.



wat0n wrote:
Funny, because in some instances themselves workers themselves have been protesting the lockdowns.



Yup -- we covered this dynamic already. It's called 'false consciousness'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, it's one or the other, basically, and yes, I acknowledge that things can get a little fuzzy, but that's all *internal* to bourgeois rule, which doesn't concern me (I don't have 'false consciousness').



wat0n wrote:
It should concern you as long as you live under the current system.



No, not really -- I have no interest in getting caught-up in bourgeois machinations, as with *electoralism* in particular.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, I'd consider such a 'reform', but I'm not going to hold my breath or join any parades for it. (I'm for marijuana legalization, for example, by whatever means.)



wat0n wrote:
Marijuana legalization is another example of what I'm saying.



Yeah, that's why I mentioned it.


---


wat0n wrote:
I say let their own rhetoric judge them. Is it true or false that there have been calls to abolish rent within BLM?



ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm sure that's true, but that's mostly because people have been having to stay at home during the ongoing COVID pandemic -- that's an even larger socio-political issue than what BLM typically addresses, meaning police brutality.



wat0n wrote:
I think that sort of demand predates the pandemic. BLM's platform itself, as I assume you know, deals with a lot more than police brutality.



Sure.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, well, the saying and the doing can be termed 'theory' and 'practice', respectively. You really can't have one without the other. Also politics, like all the sciences, isn't particular to any one *person*.

You showed some basic comprehension of what Marxism is, in this post, just a few segments prior. It took you awhile, but you showed *comprehension*.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I understand it, believe me. But I don't believe in Marxism, that's the difference.



One doesn't *need* to 'believe' in Marxism, because it's not a religion, or even a philosophy, either -- it's an examination of real-world political economy. I think if one wants to *be active* in (revolutionary) politics, then one has to *make-up-their-mind* about what *trajectory* to *favor*, going-forward, which is then definitely *ideological*, but that's about it. It's *still* based on science, just the same as any other *logistically*-based pursuit.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well that's hardly professionalism in truth-seeking -- you're describing it as information or misinformation according to market-fueled *tastes*, or predispositions / inclinations / likes.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but it also runs against Chomsky's claims. And it makes sense, press is a business and as such they will cater to their customers.



Well, the media is *both* economic *and* political, like any other industry -- there will be a generally prevailing media-industry *culture*, which is highly influenced by the U.S. government and its geopolitical interests, so that part is a nod to Chomsky's analysis. But, yes, you have a point that market interests are involved, too, meaning that *wealthy* interests will be disproportionately favored by that commercial / corporate media culture.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Look, you obviously have a *psychology* / behaviorist mindset, and you're simply *projecting* that mindset onto the *political* domain, and ignoring the material world itself *altogether*.

I have no interest in *philosophizing* -- that's not what I'm here for.



wat0n wrote:
I am ignoring the material world altogether? Then what are you doing when ignoring actual human behavior?



You're not *getting* it -- politics isn't *social psychology*, as you seem to think it is. You're looking at it too low-level, as though history is created by individual *lifestyles* and their mutual interactions. It's *not*. Look *higher* on the following taxonomy:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're indicating that police departments are institutionally *sexist* as well as being institutionally *racist*. No surprise there.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Technically speaking it's not a 'patriarchy', though bourgeois hegemony does show *social ills* of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It's ultimately a *class* system, and these various kinds of oppressions are *based* in the social hierarchy that's held in place by *class* relations.



wat0n wrote:
Define "sexist" here. Normally, that implies discriminating against women. I don't think killing more men per million is discrimination against women (or, for that matter, men).



You may want to elaborate, and provide evidence for, your claim.

Nonetheless, whichever way the empirical bias goes, it's *discrimination* against one gender, or another, so it's *not* equality, or egalitarianism in social relations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so I think we're in agreement that, empirically, use values are either subjective, inter-subjective, or objective (as with water).

Yeah, I think I'm familiar with marginal utility theory, but I don't think much of it because it's just an abstract thought-experiment, it's based on *exchange values*, and it's only of a concern to *ownership* interests.

*Politically* the point is to get society to a *post-scarcity* situation / reality, so that marginal utility theory becomes *irrelevant*, because everyone, to the person, is provided-for by mass, common availability.



wat0n wrote:
Not necessarily. Marginal utility theory would also work in a non-market setting, although the allocations would simply be given by the central planner. In this world, if there were no government failures, perfect information, a benevolent planner, etc the government could also arrive to a socially-optimal allocation.

In your workers-of-the-world socialism, a similar result could plausibly hold if there were no failures on how that system works.



Well there's no government in workers-of-the-world socialism, so there'd be no bureaucratic-elitist central planner / administration.

Yes, I could see where marginal utility could potentially still be relevant, but within my communist-gift-economy 'labor credits' model the various competing proposals for any given particular production would be the mechanism / function that addresses such material-efficiency logistical concerns.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, government should at least start *in that direction*. That what 'defund the police' is all about.



wat0n wrote:
That would run into the problems we've been discussing ITT (e.g. it could end up with increases in crime, including homicides, rapes, etc and not just crime against property).



I'll pass -- this is akin to the drugs-legalization issue, where the abolition of government drug enforcement, in favor of *civil rights*, would undoubtedly allow *abuse*, as with the likely abuse of *civil society*, absent cops altogether, but that's where *humane* approaches are supposed to fill in the gap, provided that they're appropriately funded instead of cops / military, which is the *heavy-handed* approach, and it's demonstrably *not working* because it's causing 1000+ preventable killings per year in the U.S.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
(Would you *please* try to be more *specific* / detailed in your responses, and make sure to make a point? I'm often having to ask basic clarifying questions because by default you're too *vague*. Thank you. Maybe treat each segment in a post as an 'event', as in the following diagram.)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Since we're touching on many points simultaneously, I'm trying to be as brief as possible. I do elaborate further when necessary.



Well at least try to *make your argument* -- oftentimes you're not even communicating *complete thoughts*, or points.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I don't think so -- they're basically *synonymous*. (The USSR had 'black markets'.)



wat0n wrote:
Ah, if you want to deal with black markets then I would need to ask the obvious question: What makes you believe there would be no markets in the workers-of-the-world socialism? For instance, I can imagine bartering between non-essential services in that sort of economy, even if all the implementation issues were solved and people would be able to get as many goods as they want/need.



You're revealing an *exchange* fetish -- as though exchanges is the *only* conceivable way of supplying to a society's needs for distribution.

Let me put it *this* way -- imagine that everyone is allowed onto a centralized shopping portal, and they can fill up their 'shopping cart' with whatever it is that they think they *need*. Then they can fill up their 'wish list' with whatever they think they *want*, and global social production then proceeds according to those results. (This would equate to having only #1 and #2 rankings in my 'labor credits' model.)

Once liberated-workers mass-produce for everyone's '#1' items ('needs'), then it's communism, because all items are direct-distributed to people's residences, with no intermediate merchant-type *exchanges* being necessary. Instead of prices there could be voluntary liberated-labor hours as a social 'pay-in' for the items received. Or my labor credits could be used.


---


wat0n wrote:
I do, that doesn't disprove my claim. Sure, they could organize an army, but it wasn't as effective as one managed by an actual State.

That's one of the major reasons as for why States exist to begin with.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Now you're *confirming* that you don't know the history that you're referencing -- regarding the *effectiveness* of the Red Army, there's this:




Results

Military

War communism was largely successful at its primary purpose of aiding the Red Army in halting the advance of the White Army and in reclaiming most of the territory of the former Russian Empire thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism#Military



wat0n wrote:
How does this square with workers-of-the-world socialism exactly?



You're trying my patience. Look at what *you* said, and then look at the *actual history*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's *always* a class struggle of some magnitude, since there's been a *class division* since society's initial production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be *managed* (as by the priest caste, initially, and throughout class history).

There's *always* a mode of production, like feudalism, or capitalism, since society always has *some* kind of institutionalized material practice of *social production* for any given era.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
And who are those who determine that in each of these societies?



The *ruling class*, does, of course, by default, using exploitation and oppression.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't you understand that the government is supposed to *represent the people*, and that it's *killing the people* with its police? That's a political *priority*, on par with the American Revolution, and/or the Civil Rights Movement.



wat0n wrote:
And so is to stop gang killings and illegal homicides generally. You said it yourself, even one homicide is unacceptable and if 1,000 homicides are less acceptable, then 2,000 homicides are even less acceptable than that. It's not like the relatives of those killed by gang activity are going to be relieved in the slightest because, hey, they at least were not killed by the cops :|



The government *creates* and *props-up* the illegal drugs trade / market, because it has those drugs as being *illegal*, so then black markets provide those items at great risk and violence to the purveyors (due to state repression and hyper-competitive 'turf' wars), and at inflated costs to customers.

Legalize drugs and *that* would eliminate all of the problems you list.


wat0n wrote:
It's also interesting you mention the American Revolution, since in the end it ended with a Thermidorean Reaction - which took the form of the US Constitution and the establishment of the Federal Government to prevent the Union from ever having the sort of trouble it had in the 1780s, which reached their peak with Shay's Rebellion, ever again - you should read some of the writings by the US Founding Fathers in those years. But regardless of this, the point in the preceding paragraph still holds.



You're going off on a tangent again.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off-on-a-tangent *yet again* -- you were saying that there's a distinction between needs and wants. Try *sticking* to this issue. I have a diagram that illustrates this dynamic:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So *again* you're referencing needs-versus-wants, but then you're not *discussing* it. You even started making a *list*, but then you stopped and went off on a tangent.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm not saying needs are meaningfully different from wants/desires. What I'm saying however is that people may have different preferences, and what is basic for you might not be basic for me... Even if we may both agree on some needs/wants/desires we want to satisfy.

Also, no, capitalism is exactly what has brought the Industrial Revolution and as such of course it is well adapted to it. I do agree it might stop making sense if and when it ends.



Back to this part....


wat0n wrote:
Sure, they do to an extent. I mean, for instance, I guess we can agree no one would say the use value of water is zero all the time, everywhere.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so I think we're in agreement that, empirically, use values are either subjective, inter-subjective, or objective (as with water).



The use-value of water is *objective* for everyone at all times, because no one can live for long without water (and sea salt, I would add).

So it's *not* all a blur, under one category, as you're suggesting -- there can be the distinct categories of [1] objective / universal, [2] inter-subjective / mass, and [3] subjective / individual.
#15119841
ckaihatsu wrote:Bank employees and all similar types of employees, close to the functioning of the *business*, and/or managers, are all *overhead* to the business. They're *not* producing any commodities themselves -- they're the ones shuffling numbers around which is what banking *is*, but it's *not productive* because no new commodities are being created from their efforts.


Physical goods are not the only form of production :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, the employees themselves are paid a *salary*, and they may even get some nominal incentives that are tied to the business' performance, like 'profit sharing' or whatever, but note -- they *cannot* be paid a wage, because there are no *commodities* being produced that depend on their labor. They are facilitating *financial transactions* from which the bank gets a cut, and so the workers get a 'cut', in the form of a smoothed-out 'salary', but it isn't a *commodity-production-driven* 'wage'.

I've made the argument in the past that the empirical definition of *this* type of management-overhead-type of work depends on the *perspective* that one takes -- if we're viewing these management-type work roles from 'above', they're closer to the *business itself*, due to being *overhead* for the business, since no new commodities are being created. But, if viewed from *below*, these management-type work roles *do* look like regular employment 'jobs' because the employee gets compensation based on how many hours they put in, receiving a *salary*. So, the point here is that, to the worker, the *nature* of the business itself doesn't matter much. They're *not* economically tied to the business in any significant way, so they're not going to get contractually rewarded for increased productivity in their work role, if that should happen.

Similarly for employees of the *government*, who do not produce commodities, but who *may* provide *infrastructure*, which are public social *services*, from public *funds*.


Both bank and government employees are paid a wage, like all dependent workers are.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, that's internal to *capitalism*, and *business operations* -- these forms of *profit-minded* social organization ('management') confer no advantages to the component of *workers* in the enterprise.


No, it's not internal to capitalism. War communism also had its own share of managers, now in the context of a centrally planned war economy.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not my 'personal view' -- I'm describing *objective reality*, in which management work roles are *overhead* to the enterprise, part of its *internal* organization.

Let me put it *this* way -- a business could not survive with only its 'management'-type employees because a business can't survive with only 'overhead', since all of that (executives, basically) are a *cost* to business while producing *nothing*. Whoever does the actual *work* of providing goods and/or services, are the real *workers*, whether blue-, pink-, or white-collar, and they get paid a *wage*, and their surplus labor value gets expropriated / taken, by the employer / capitalist.


It is your personal opinion, workers also cannot work without any sort of management.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, you're looking at it in terms of *social hierarchy*, but you have to look at it *economically*, and materially, too -- who, in the company, is actually producing the *stuff* (or services) that is sold to buyers, for *revenue* -- ?

A 'middle manager' is probably not a major stockholder in the company, and probably gets compensated with a set *salary* -- they manage subordinates, which is *managerial*, or 'overhead', in relation to the company. The company could not do without their managerial roles, but the (middle) managers are *not* producing any commodities themselves, and so are a *cost* to the company.


I'm not simply looking at it as a social hierarchy either.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're mischaracterizing the *latitude* that workers have, which is *not much* under capitalist social relations -- it's not that they're 'expected', or 'not expected' to organize production, it's that they're *not allowed to* because *that* function is a privilege of *capital ownership*, under bourgeois class rule.

Workers are the ones doing the actual *work roles*, so *of course* they know how to do production and to plan it in advance. (My 'labor credits' model also provides a standard *process* for this kind of bottom-up logistical planning.)

In this way labor does *not* need capital *logistically*, because they're the ones doing the work, so they can self-organize collectively on some *other* basis than equity capital, like local human need, perhaps, to focus their collective efforts at any given location(s).


No, they don't always know how to plan production, which is why managers are often hired with radically different qualifications from other workers.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may want to make a specific *argument* then, using whatever backing you can find -- the papers that you provided do *not* support your contrarian position.


I already did, despite your denial.

ckaihatsu wrote:You didn't mention the factor of *worker exploitation*, or *class warfare* -- why shouldn't workers' wages *increase*, to reflect a share in the increase in *productivity*, which is empirically based on their *labor* -- ?

By *your* logic you should just go back to *enslaving* people so that you can get even *more* labor-power out of them, for even *better* profits -- !


Why don't you read about the theorem, which actually comes from a Marxian economist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem

ckaihatsu wrote:I very-much *doubt* this -- got a source for this claim?


I included the data in my post.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *indexing* the wage rate to GDP growth, or corporate productivity, or corporate profit-making. This data is in a void, and out-of-context in relation to the overall economy.


That's exactly what unit labor costs do.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, your *reasoning* is flawed -- just because productivity has grown at a certain rate does *not* automatically mean that wages and benefits ('total compensation') have somehow grown *faster* -- you're not showing any data comparison between the two.


Did you see the definition of unit labor cost? It's simply compensation/output (or hourly compensation/hourly output). What does it mean for a fraction to increase? This is elementary school math now.

ckaihatsu wrote:The paper doesn't speak to *overall trends* -- it's not helping you with your contrarian claim that there's purportedly no tendency for the rate of profit to decline.


Why don't you read it? It also plots both series.

ckaihatsu wrote:My point stands that this paper's conclusions actually support *my*, Marxist thesis, and not *your* contrarian thesis.


Why?

ckaihatsu wrote:From *this* paper you only have the country of *Norway* as enjoying increased profitability -- and I argue that it's because it wasn't *invaded* by Western imperialism, as Iraq was.


No, Greece should be included as well. Also, wanna see what happens with the other countries? You know, those showing no trend.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're just fronting homemade propaganda, pulling shit out of your ass again.

The turning point was the Iran-Iraq War, in the 1908s:


Do you really want to get into the specifics of how Norway manages its oil funds?

ckaihatsu wrote:Do *you*?


No, which is exactly my point.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just *repeating* your claim that profitability tends to increase, and you're *still* not providing any suitable evidence for this claim.


No, my claim is that there is no tendency of the profit rate to fall. Have no long run trend in profitability is consistent with it.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I mostly took from the *abstracts*, which are *summarizations* of what an academic paper's findings are. If you have anything to add from those papers, go ahead and present that information to attempt to back-up your spurious thesis.


I advise you to read beyond the abstract.

ckaihatsu wrote:But what matters to the *public* is the *public-funding* part -- why should private-property-based *corporations* receive free subsidies from public funds? The public never got to *vote* on any of this.


There can be many reasons for that. For instance, if those subsidies were used to improve technology, the Government would get the money back in the form of higher future corporate tax revenue.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, again, you have no political *grounds* to be so dismissive of socialism since you're *not* pro-socialist. All you have are coarsely *contrarian* points to make, without any corroboration.

You're also pretending as though capitalist business practices have no *social* cost -- and only now society is starting to factor-in these business 'externalities', like global warming / climate change, racism / killer cops, low stagnating wages, lack of GDP growth, military / police bloated budgets, etc.

The point of socialism / communism is to get *past* this bourgeois class rule, primarily, and then figure everything out afterwards, in the interests of a *liberated* humanity, for once.


Yeah, of course I'm taking a contrarian position since I'm not a socialist. Why are you so surprised about that?

ckaihatsu wrote:But, going by communist goals / premises, and by my own 'labor credits' model, such wouldn't even be *possible*, because the general societal norms would be to *disallow* private accumulations.

Let me put it *this* way: One unaddressed, undefined 'issue' in a post-capitalist politics is that of the extents of *personal property*. In communism people could retain their own 'personal property', for their own personal use and consumption, but I've never seen a definition or discussion of the possible *parameters* of what 'personal property' might look like.

Back to your scenario, if some group -- say, even a private-type *syndicate* -- set-up-shop with some regular use of certain infrastructure and resources over a sprawling geography, it wouldn't matter, because no *advantages* could be had by any particular group in doing so. If they produced a bunch of *beer*, perhaps that most others didn't *want* to produce, they'd undoubtedly garner a large share of labor credits amongst themselves (within my 'labor credits' model). But the beer itself could never be 'cornered' by that group. All production would *always* be free-access to everyone, and the group would have to violate communist societal norms *and* find a way to physically *guard* the goods they produced against the rest of the human population, ultimately, since many people would find their way to the beer to consume it, possibly quite thoughtlessly, per the prevailing social norms.

And, moreover, what if beer production could eventually be *fully automated* -- ? Then a cabal would be even-*more* meaningless, because all individuals could just get their beer from a Keurig-type machine, with minimal effort.


You can always find misfits violating societal norms in every society, why do you think this would not be the case here? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:No, your point *isn't* correct, because you're *imputing* positions and claims onto me, when I haven't made those positions or claims *myself*.

There *is* a big difference between Marxism and social democracy, precisely because Marxism is for *workers power* and the end of bourgeois class rule, while social democracy *retains* these status-quo power relations and only argues for mere *reforms*. Also, social democracy typically *doesn't* address issues that are in the workers' best interests.


Again, no disagreement with this. But it also means that having workers merely fight for what they want is not necessarily revolutionary, since they may as well (for example) be social democrats. Another example would be police unions.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, now you're sounding decidedly more like a *lifestylist*, which is a *distortion* of Marxism -- you're using *lifestyle* and individual *psychology* (behaviorism), to distort the socio-material *function* that Marxism calls for, which is *collectivized social production*.

We don't *have* to become like ants, because all that ants have is *biological instinct*. That wouldn't work for us, regardless, because a proletarian revolution has to be a *mass-conscious* event, to where the workers of the world take *conscious* collective control of society's production, out of the hands of the *market* mechanism and *bourgeois* control.

What people do in their *own* time is their own business.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image


What you are saying is also quite lifestylist in its own right. But my point isn't so much about lifestyle but about preferences and incentives.

ckaihatsu wrote:Of course, especially in the short-term -- assuming that such robots *would* break down regularly and require extensive attentive maintenance. These, then, would be the 'workers' -- those who design, fabricate, and maintain society's robotics, for industrial assembly-line mass production, to benefit everyone (hopefully).

Realistically I'd imagine there'd be a general tipping-point, where the cost of procuring one's *own* robotics, as for personal self-sufficiency over material needs, would occur at some point, making modern life and living *affordable*, without even having to work / be-exploited. If one could build one's own housing, get food and water, utilities, etc., through robotics, then there'd be *effective* socialism instead of mass-revolution socialism, though I'm sure that would quickly *follow* as a result of mass self-sufficiency.


Something like that would make most of the social ties socialism depends on redundant: Even if people had preferences such that they would be happy satisfying their "basic needs" (whatever these are) and have no further ambitions, the end of mutual dependence would make most social ties focused on addressing economic needs, and by extension socialism, redundant.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is the part of the labor credits FAQ that you should familiarize yourself with:


So you mean people with more labor credits would have more voting power to decide what would society strive to produce beyond the "basic necessities" everyone would be entitled to? If so, it's not that different from what markets are meant to do, although this would aim to do so through a different mechanism.

ckaihatsu wrote:That the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have mutually conflicting material interests.


Would these workers who took over means of production by force become bourgeoisie?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup -- we covered this dynamic already. It's called 'false consciousness'.


I call it "need".

ckaihatsu wrote:No, not really -- I have no interest in getting caught-up in bourgeois machinations, as with *electoralism* in particular.


Then don't be surprised if the political process doesn't go how you want it to go.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure.


And thus, seeing violence can pay off politically and misinterpreting what it would mean, why wouldn't they want to present more demands?

ckaihatsu wrote:One doesn't *need* to 'believe' in Marxism, because it's not a religion, or even a philosophy, either -- it's an examination of real-world political economy. I think if one wants to *be active* in (revolutionary) politics, then one has to *make-up-their-mind* about what *trajectory* to *favor*, going-forward, which is then definitely *ideological*, but that's about it. It's *still* based on science, just the same as any other *logistically*-based pursuit.


Marxism is a way to examine the real-world political economy, one that has proven to be insufficient to understand it, however. This is something even Marxian economists began to realize to varying extents over time, Okishio's Theorem is one example of that, the end of the USSR is another.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, the media is *both* economic *and* political, like any other industry -- there will be a generally prevailing media-industry *culture*, which is highly influenced by the U.S. government and its geopolitical interests, so that part is a nod to Chomsky's analysis. But, yes, you have a point that market interests are involved, too, meaning that *wealthy* interests will be disproportionately favored by that commercial / corporate media culture.


And so will getting sales be, and people may not buy media that doesn't align with their worldview.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *getting* it -- politics isn't *social psychology*, as you seem to think it is. You're looking at it too low-level, as though history is created by individual *lifestyles* and their mutual interactions. It's *not*. Look *higher* on the following taxonomy:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


Individuals are most definitely a major actor here, but it goes beyond that too. My arguments can also apply to institutions, for instance.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may want to elaborate, and provide evidence for, your claim.

Nonetheless, whichever way the empirical bias goes, it's *discrimination* against one gender, or another, so it's *not* equality, or egalitarianism in social relations.


Evidence for what? That men get killed by the police at greater rates than women?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well there's no government in workers-of-the-world socialism, so there'd be no bureaucratic-elitist central planner / administration.

Yes, I could see where marginal utility could potentially still be relevant, but within my communist-gift-economy 'labor credits' model the various competing proposals for any given particular production would be the mechanism / function that addresses such material-efficiency logistical concerns.


You don't see Marxists agreeing with even some marginalist points every day :D

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll pass -- this is akin to the drugs-legalization issue, where the abolition of government drug enforcement, in favor of *civil rights*, would undoubtedly allow *abuse*, as with the likely abuse of *civil society*, absent cops altogether, but that's where *humane* approaches are supposed to fill in the gap, provided that they're appropriately funded instead of cops / military, which is the *heavy-handed* approach, and it's demonstrably *not working* because it's causing 1000+ preventable killings per year in the U.S.


There are a lot of approaches that can be taken in-between. In fact, drug legalization could - in the long run - be one way where you could both defund the police and lower crime rates. Weakening gangs - who represent a larger homicide problem than the cops - by legalizing drugs would decrease gang-related crime, and thus homicides, thereby reducing the need for policing.

Even then, the key word here would be reducing, there would also a need to enforce other aspects of drug law (I presume the Government would probably need to run drug dens for addicts to do their thing there, for instance, which would conceivably need some measure of police presence. It would also need to hunt those who sell drugs without a permit to do so or otherwise skip sanitary drug regulations).

ckaihatsu wrote:Well at least try to *make your argument* -- oftentimes you're not even communicating *complete thoughts*, or points.


You can ask me to elaborate if necessary :)

ckaihatsu wrote:You're revealing an *exchange* fetish -- as though exchanges is the *only* conceivable way of supplying to a society's needs for distribution.

Let me put it *this* way -- imagine that everyone is allowed onto a centralized shopping portal, and they can fill up their 'shopping cart' with whatever it is that they think they *need*. Then they can fill up their 'wish list' with whatever they think they *want*, and global social production then proceeds according to those results. (This would equate to having only #1 and #2 rankings in my 'labor credits' model.)

Once liberated-workers mass-produce for everyone's '#1' items ('needs'), then it's communism, because all items are direct-distributed to people's residences, with no intermediate merchant-type *exchanges* being necessary. Instead of prices there could be voluntary liberated-labor hours as a social 'pay-in' for the items received. Or my labor credits could be used.


Let me elaborate further. Consider prostitution: How would the provision of that work? Do you think people may be willing to trade sex for other kind of services?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're trying my patience. Look at what *you* said, and then look at the *actual history*.


My point is, the measures they took don't look like your model of workers-of-the-world socialism at all. For starters, they had to set a centralized government up.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *ruling class*, does, of course, by default, using exploitation and oppression.


That is one actor, I agree, but it's not the only one. For instance, peasant rebellions were rather common in 14th-century Western Europe, partly because the Black Death had actually made work more expensive (raised real wages) due to the high mortality. The ruling classes did not want to acknowledge this reality, but were eventually forced to by the realities of the situation.

ckaihatsu wrote:The government *creates* and *props-up* the illegal drugs trade / market, because it has those drugs as being *illegal*, so then black markets provide those items at great risk and violence to the purveyors (due to state repression and hyper-competitive 'turf' wars), and at inflated costs to customers.

Legalize drugs and *that* would eliminate all of the problems you list.


It would help, I agree, but in the meantime the issue remains.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're going off on a tangent again.


No, I'm simply pointing out that the American Revolution actually ended with an authoritarian reaction - one that had widespread support outside Massachusetts.

ckaihatsu wrote:The use-value of water is *objective* for everyone at all times, because no one can live for long without water (and sea salt, I would add).

So it's *not* all a blur, under one category, as you're suggesting -- there can be the distinct categories of [1] objective / universal, [2] inter-subjective / mass, and [3] subjective / individual.


I would also disagree with that characterization, or at least qualify it. A very dehydrated person would likely have a greater use value of water at that point in time than someone who is not dehydrated. That is, use values - be they objective, inter-subjective or subjective - need not be constant and may depend on many things, including past consumption.

Marginalists, who are subjectivists, use this example to show the use of value of water is not completely objective since a very dehydrated person would likely be a lot happier to drink a glass of water than someone who's not dehydrated at all.
#15120056
ckaihatsu wrote:
Bank employees and all similar types of employees, close to the functioning of the *business*, and/or managers, are all *overhead* to the business. They're *not* producing any commodities themselves -- they're the ones shuffling numbers around which is what banking *is*, but it's *not productive* because no new commodities are being created from their efforts.



wat0n wrote:
Physical goods are not the only form of production :roll:



I've clearly stated that 'commodities' are 'goods' and 'services' that generate *revenue*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, the employees themselves are paid a *salary*, and they may even get some nominal incentives that are tied to the business' performance, like 'profit sharing' or whatever, but note -- they *cannot* be paid a wage, because there are no *commodities* being produced that depend on their labor. They are facilitating *financial transactions* from which the bank gets a cut, and so the workers get a 'cut', in the form of a smoothed-out 'salary', but it isn't a *commodity-production-driven* 'wage'.

I've made the argument in the past that the empirical definition of *this* type of management-overhead-type of work depends on the *perspective* that one takes -- if we're viewing these management-type work roles from 'above', they're closer to the *business itself*, due to being *overhead* for the business, since no new commodities are being created. But, if viewed from *below*, these management-type work roles *do* look like regular employment 'jobs' because the employee gets compensation based on how many hours they put in, receiving a *salary*. So, the point here is that, to the worker, the *nature* of the business itself doesn't matter much. They're *not* economically tied to the business in any significant way, so they're not going to get contractually rewarded for increased productivity in their work role, if that should happen.

Similarly for employees of the *government*, who do not produce commodities, but who *may* provide *infrastructure*, which are public social *services*, from public *funds*.



wat0n wrote:
Both bank and government employees are paid a wage, like all dependent workers are.



You need to review what I just said -- financial and government employees do *not* produce commodities, and commodity-production is what produces *wages*, for workers, for their productive activity in *making* the commodities. That process doesn't happen in finance or government, though government *does* make public *infrastructure* which tends to aid the public, but not entirely.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, that's internal to *capitalism*, and *business operations* -- these forms of *profit-minded* social organization ('management') confer no advantages to the component of *workers* in the enterprise.



wat0n wrote:
No, it's not internal to capitalism. War communism also had its own share of managers, now in the context of a centrally planned war economy.



Yes, management roles *are* strictly internal to capitalism, because that's the only existing form of economics these days. Historical 'war communism' measures were specific to the Bolshevik Revolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not my 'personal view' -- I'm describing *objective reality*, in which management work roles are *overhead* to the enterprise, part of its *internal* organization.

Let me put it *this* way -- a business could not survive with only its 'management'-type employees because a business can't survive with only 'overhead', since all of that (executives, basically) are a *cost* to business while producing *nothing*. Whoever does the actual *work* of providing goods and/or services, are the real *workers*, whether blue-, pink-, or white-collar, and they get paid a *wage*, and their surplus labor value gets expropriated / taken, by the employer / capitalist.



wat0n wrote:
It is your personal opinion, workers also cannot work without any sort of management.



You're just *repeating* yourself now, without taking heed of what I've said -- the very next Marxist after *me* would say basically the same thing, thus it's *not* my personal opinion. Capital needs workers, but workers can collective self-organize and collectively co-administrate, without requiring capital or capitalist management.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, you're looking at it in terms of *social hierarchy*, but you have to look at it *economically*, and materially, too -- who, in the company, is actually producing the *stuff* (or services) that is sold to buyers, for *revenue* -- ?

A 'middle manager' is probably not a major stockholder in the company, and probably gets compensated with a set *salary* -- they manage subordinates, which is *managerial*, or 'overhead', in relation to the company. The company could not do without their managerial roles, but the (middle) managers are *not* producing any commodities themselves, and so are a *cost* to the company.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not simply looking at it as a social hierarchy either.



Okay, then how do you address middle management, and companies, in terms of economics and politics?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're mischaracterizing the *latitude* that workers have, which is *not much* under capitalist social relations -- it's not that they're 'expected', or 'not expected' to organize production, it's that they're *not allowed to* because *that* function is a privilege of *capital ownership*, under bourgeois class rule.

Workers are the ones doing the actual *work roles*, so *of course* they know how to do production and to plan it in advance. (My 'labor credits' model also provides a standard *process* for this kind of bottom-up logistical planning.)

In this way labor does *not* need capital *logistically*, because they're the ones doing the work, so they can self-organize collectively on some *other* basis than equity capital, like local human need, perhaps, to focus their collective efforts at any given location(s).



wat0n wrote:
No, they don't always know how to plan production, which is why managers are often hired with radically different qualifications from other workers.



Yes, workers *do* know how to plan production because they're the ones *closest* *to* it. Managers take more of an absenteeist 'bird's eye' view of it, and they plan for the sake of corporate *profits*, not strictly for *logistical optimization* goals.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You may want to make a specific *argument* then, using whatever backing you can find -- the papers that you provided do *not* support your contrarian position.



wat0n wrote:
I already did, despite your denial.



Well, then where's the evidence that backs your spurious claim?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You didn't mention the factor of *worker exploitation*, or *class warfare* -- why shouldn't workers' wages *increase*, to reflect a share in the increase in *productivity*, which is empirically based on their *labor* -- ?

By *your* logic you should just go back to *enslaving* people so that you can get even *more* labor-power out of them, for even *better* profits -- !



wat0n wrote:
Why don't you read about the theorem, which actually comes from a Marxian economist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem



Why don't you make your own arguments, for your own positions?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I very-much *doubt* this -- got a source for this claim?



wat0n wrote:
I included the data in my post.



Then *where* is it?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not *indexing* the wage rate to GDP growth, or corporate productivity, or corporate profit-making. This data is in a void, and out-of-context in relation to the overall economy.



wat0n wrote:
That's exactly what unit labor costs do.



Then you have *no relevant data*, and *no argument* -- the data shows that labor wages have not increased in relation to labor's productivity since 1970, so those who work for wages are increasingly being *ripped-off*, year after year.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, your *reasoning* is flawed -- just because productivity has grown at a certain rate does *not* automatically mean that wages and benefits ('total compensation') have somehow grown *faster* -- you're not showing any data comparison between the two.



wat0n wrote:
Did you see the definition of unit labor cost? It's simply compensation/output (or hourly compensation/hourly output). What does it mean for a fraction to increase? This is elementary school math now.



Unit labor costs, also known as *wages*, have not been increased in proportion to the increase in labor's *productivity*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The paper doesn't speak to *overall trends* -- it's not helping you with your contrarian claim that there's purportedly no tendency for the rate of profit to decline.



wat0n wrote:
Why don't you read it? It also plots both series.



Why don't you make your own arguments, for your own positions, and provide your own corroboration?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My point stands that this paper's conclusions actually support *my*, Marxist thesis, and not *your* contrarian thesis.



wat0n wrote:
Why?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
From *this* paper you only have the country of *Norway* as enjoying increased profitability -- and I argue that it's because it wasn't *invaded* by Western imperialism, as Iraq was.



wat0n wrote:
No, Greece should be included as well. Also, wanna see what happens with the other countries? You know, those showing no trend.



Your approach is unable to take *geopolitical* factors into account, such as Western imperialist invasions, or the *lack* of such destruction, as in Norway.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're just fronting homemade propaganda, pulling shit out of your ass again.

The turning point was the Iran-Iraq War, in the 1908s:



wat0n wrote:
Do you really want to get into the specifics of how Norway manages its oil funds?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Do *you*?



wat0n wrote:
No, which is exactly my point.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just *repeating* your claim that profitability tends to increase, and you're *still* not providing any suitable evidence for this claim.



wat0n wrote:
No, my claim is that there is no tendency of the profit rate to fall. Have no long run trend in profitability is consistent with it.



You're obviously not *corroborating* your claim.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I mostly took from the *abstracts*, which are *summarizations* of what an academic paper's findings are. If you have anything to add from those papers, go ahead and present that information to attempt to back-up your spurious thesis.



wat0n wrote:
I advise you to read beyond the abstract.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But what matters to the *public* is the *public-funding* part -- why should private-property-based *corporations* receive free subsidies from public funds? The public never got to *vote* on any of this.



wat0n wrote:
There can be many reasons for that. For instance, if those subsidies were used to improve technology, the Government would get the money back in the form of higher future corporate tax revenue.



I *doubt* that the government would get 100% of its corporate R&D funding back in the form of taxes -- do you have a *source* that can back up this baseless claim of yours?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, again, you have no political *grounds* to be so dismissive of socialism since you're *not* pro-socialist. All you have are coarsely *contrarian* points to make, without any corroboration.

You're also pretending as though capitalist business practices have no *social* cost -- and only now society is starting to factor-in these business 'externalities', like global warming / climate change, racism / killer cops, low stagnating wages, lack of GDP growth, military / police bloated budgets, etc.

The point of socialism / communism is to get *past* this bourgeois class rule, primarily, and then figure everything out afterwards, in the interests of a *liberated* humanity, for once.



wat0n wrote:
Yeah, of course I'm taking a contrarian position since I'm not a socialist. Why are you so surprised about that?



It's not about my *emotional response* -- your anti-socialist attacks are *moot*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But, going by communist goals / premises, and by my own 'labor credits' model, such wouldn't even be *possible*, because the general societal norms would be to *disallow* private accumulations.

Let me put it *this* way: One unaddressed, undefined 'issue' in a post-capitalist politics is that of the extents of *personal property*. In communism people could retain their own 'personal property', for their own personal use and consumption, but I've never seen a definition or discussion of the possible *parameters* of what 'personal property' might look like.

Back to your scenario, if some group -- say, even a private-type *syndicate* -- set-up-shop with some regular use of certain infrastructure and resources over a sprawling geography, it wouldn't matter, because no *advantages* could be had by any particular group in doing so. If they produced a bunch of *beer*, perhaps that most others didn't *want* to produce, they'd undoubtedly garner a large share of labor credits amongst themselves (within my 'labor credits' model). But the beer itself could never be 'cornered' by that group. All production would *always* be free-access to everyone, and the group would have to violate communist societal norms *and* find a way to physically *guard* the goods they produced against the rest of the human population, ultimately, since many people would find their way to the beer to consume it, possibly quite thoughtlessly, per the prevailing social norms.

And, moreover, what if beer production could eventually be *fully automated* -- ? Then a cabal would be even-*more* meaningless, because all individuals could just get their beer from a Keurig-type machine, with minimal effort.



wat0n wrote:
You can always find misfits violating societal norms in every society, why do you think this would not be the case here? :eh:



That wouldn't be a significant *social problem*, though -- some 'misfits' here and there would be *random, dispersed individuals*, by definition, and could be as idiosyncratic as they wanted to be, and would probably still live long, full, healthy lives.

What you were positing *earlier* is an *organized group* flouting post-capitalist socialist social norms, as like a cabal or criminal syndicate, and I *addressed* that scenario of yours.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, your point *isn't* correct, because you're *imputing* positions and claims onto me, when I haven't made those positions or claims *myself*.

There *is* a big difference between Marxism and social democracy, precisely because Marxism is for *workers power* and the end of bourgeois class rule, while social democracy *retains* these status-quo power relations and only argues for mere *reforms*. Also, social democracy typically *doesn't* address issues that are in the workers' best interests.



wat0n wrote:
Again, no disagreement with this. But it also means that having workers merely fight for what they want is not necessarily revolutionary, since they may as well (for example) be social democrats. Another example would be police unions.



Yes, there *is* a difference between trade-union consciousness, and *revolutionary* ('class') consciousness.

Police unions are not typical trade unions, because their interests are *with the government* -- they carry out the function of *repression*, through use of violent force, onto working-class people, so they *aren't* akin to working-class-type trade unions, which are nominally *pro*-working-class, though *business unionism* as a whole is corrupt and consistently sides with the interests of *corporate profitability*, for a cut of corporate profits (a *political* function).


---


wat0n wrote:
If human consciousness changed in such a way that we become more like - say - ants, and less human (by suppressing our individuality), then I would have no problem with socialism. Indeed, it would arise quite naturally and without much if any violence.

This would either happen as a result of evolution or at least a very large cultural change. Neither seems to be happening.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, now you're sounding decidedly more like a *lifestylist*, which is a *distortion* of Marxism -- you're using *lifestyle* and individual *psychology* (behaviorism), to distort the socio-material *function* that Marxism calls for, which is *collectivized social production*.

We don't *have* to become like ants, because all that ants have is *biological instinct*. That wouldn't work for us, regardless, because a proletarian revolution has to be a *mass-conscious* event, to where the workers of the world take *conscious* collective control of society's production, out of the hands of the *market* mechanism and *bourgeois* control.

What people do in their *own* time is their own business.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
What you are saying is also quite lifestylist in its own right. But my point isn't so much about lifestyle but about preferences and incentives.



No, nothing I just said was lifestylist -- I called for *collectivized social production*, which has to do with social (material) *productivity*, and not with any individual's lifestyle, or even any lifestyles in common.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course, especially in the short-term -- assuming that such robots *would* break down regularly and require extensive attentive maintenance. These, then, would be the 'workers' -- those who design, fabricate, and maintain society's robotics, for industrial assembly-line mass production, to benefit everyone (hopefully).

Realistically I'd imagine there'd be a general tipping-point, where the cost of procuring one's *own* robotics, as for personal self-sufficiency over material needs, would occur at some point, making modern life and living *affordable*, without even having to work / be-exploited. If one could build one's own housing, get food and water, utilities, etc., through robotics, then there'd be *effective* socialism instead of mass-revolution socialism, though I'm sure that would quickly *follow* as a result of mass self-sufficiency.



wat0n wrote:
Something like that would make most of the social ties socialism depends on redundant: Even if people had preferences such that they would be happy satisfying their "basic needs" (whatever these are) and have no further ambitions, the end of mutual dependence would make most social ties focused on addressing economic needs, and by extension socialism, redundant.



I think you're still looking at (socialist) politics in a *social-psychological way* again -- proletarian revolution doesn't depend on social-media-type *social ties*, it depends on the political issues of the day being *revolutionary* in content, as (historically) for 'All power to the soviets'.

*Economically* / materially, yes, everyone has certain basic needs, as for food and water, housing, utilities, etc., so once that's thoroughly provided-for, for 100% of humanity's population, then the remainder would be far more *discretionary*, and not nearly as time-critical. But we're not nearly at that point yet, and society's means of mass industrial production haven't been collectivized by the workers of the world, yet, either.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is the part of the labor credits FAQ that you should familiarize yourself with:



wat0n wrote:
So you mean people with more labor credits would have more voting power to decide what would society strive to produce beyond the "basic necessities" everyone would be entitled to? If so, it's not that different from what markets are meant to do, although this would aim to do so through a different mechanism.



Let's call it 'activation power' instead of 'voting power', because labor credits in-hand are effectively *funding-power* for 'this' project / proposal, instead of 'that' project / proposal.

The labor credits would apply at *any* timeframe (including 'basic necessities') beyond the overthrow of bourgeois capitalist rule, and possibly *sooner*, though I have a different model / vehicle for *that* timeframe, while factories are still being collectivized, called 'global syndicalist currency', though it's not up to me, of course.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857


It's *not* really akin to capitalism's market mechanism because there are no *exchanges*, or *exchange values* in using labor credits. They only apply to the 'realm' of liberated labor itself, while the *products* of liberated labor are free-access to all, so labor is never commodified.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have mutually conflicting material interests.



wat0n wrote:
Would these workers who took over means of production by force become bourgeoisie?



No -- the world's working class has the power and potential to *eliminate class rule* once and for all, so if, say, a workers *vanguard* coordinated workers worldwide to take over *all* the means of mass industrial production, that action would effectively be *disempowering* the (existing) bourgeoisie. Once class rule (over all social production) has been superseded, humanity as a whole would be collectively empowered to plan and produce *anything* that's humane, since it would *far outnumber* the specialized 'vanguard' vehicle that coordinated the overthrow of bourgeois class rule. There would no longer be any social basis for any private accumulations, such as through private property, or government bureaucracies.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup -- we covered this dynamic already. It's called 'false consciousness'.



wat0n wrote:
I call it "need".



Your meaning isn't clear -- how does 'false [class] consciousness' conceivably equate to 'need' -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, not really -- I have no interest in getting caught-up in bourgeois machinations, as with *electoralism* in particular.



wat0n wrote:
Then don't be surprised if the political process doesn't go how you want it to go.



You're not-understanding -- the bourgeois political process *doesn't* go how I'd like it to go, regardless of the particular election, or the specific candidates. The overall policy paradigm that prevails, through *any* particulars, is that of bourgeois class rule, which I oppose.


---


wat0n wrote:
I think that sort of demand predates the pandemic. BLM's platform itself, as I assume you know, deals with a lot more than police brutality.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure.



wat0n wrote:
And thus, seeing violence can pay off politically and misinterpreting what it would mean, why wouldn't they want to present more demands?



And what's wrong with that? (Again, you're trying to make it sound as though populist-type political demands are automatically 'inappropriate', or 'greedy'. The tactic of using violence has certainly been effective for the government's military forces and police departments.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
One doesn't *need* to 'believe' in Marxism, because it's not a religion, or even a philosophy, either -- it's an examination of real-world political economy. I think if one wants to *be active* in (revolutionary) politics, then one has to *make-up-their-mind* about what *trajectory* to *favor*, going-forward, which is then definitely *ideological*, but that's about it. It's *still* based on science, just the same as any other *logistically*-based pursuit.



wat0n wrote:
Marxism is a way to examine the real-world political economy, one that has proven to be insufficient to understand it, however. This is something even Marxian economists began to realize to varying extents over time, Okishio's Theorem is one example of that, the end of the USSR is another.



You're making *baseless claims* again, simply to swipe at Marxism.

Okishio's "theorem" is limited in applicability to only the *short-term*, when some technological novelty happens to still be *new*, and temporarily benefits those firms, over market competitors, before the 'new' becomes commonplace, being bought-up and used in production by everyone in the market / industry.



More precisely, the theorem says that the general rate of profit in the economy as a whole will be higher if a new technique of production is introduced in which, at the prices prevailing at the time that the change is introduced, the unit cost of output in one industry is less than the pre-change unit cost. The theorem, as Okishio (1961:88) points out, does not apply to non-basic branches of industry.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem



And, the USSR wasn't Marxist, it was *Stalinist*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, the media is *both* economic *and* political, like any other industry -- there will be a generally prevailing media-industry *culture*, which is highly influenced by the U.S. government and its geopolitical interests, so that part is a nod to Chomsky's analysis. But, yes, you have a point that market interests are involved, too, meaning that *wealthy* interests will be disproportionately favored by that commercial / corporate media culture.



wat0n wrote:
And so will getting sales be, and people may not buy media that doesn't align with their worldview.



You're off on a tangent again, because to say that people won't buy what doesn't interest them is *obvious*, and you're not saying much by stating the obvious, which also has nothing to do with the topic of the segment.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Look, you obviously have a *psychology* / behaviorist mindset, and you're simply *projecting* that mindset onto the *political* domain, and ignoring the material world itself *altogether*.

I have no interest in *philosophizing* -- that's not what I'm here for.



wat0n wrote:
I am ignoring the material world altogether? Then what are you doing when ignoring actual human behavior?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not *getting* it -- politics isn't *social psychology*, as you seem to think it is. You're looking at it too low-level, as though history is created by individual *lifestyles* and their mutual interactions. It's *not*. Look *higher* on the following taxonomy:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Individuals are most definitely a major actor here, but it goes beyond that too. My arguments can also apply to institutions, for instance.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You may want to elaborate, and provide evidence for, your claim.

Nonetheless, whichever way the empirical bias goes, it's *discrimination* against one gender, or another, so it's *not* equality, or egalitarianism in social relations.



wat0n wrote:
Evidence for what? That men get killed by the police at greater rates than women?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well there's no government in workers-of-the-world socialism, so there'd be no bureaucratic-elitist central planner / administration.

Yes, I could see where marginal utility could potentially still be relevant, but within my communist-gift-economy 'labor credits' model the various competing proposals for any given particular production would be the mechanism / function that addresses such material-efficiency logistical concerns.



wat0n wrote:
You don't see Marxists agreeing with even some marginalist points every day :D



Well, it's a *material* thing -- if a post-capitalist proposal, for example, addressed the acquisition of *water* into a city, it would have to deal with *diminishing returns* ('marginal utility') regarding the *provisioning* of 'x' amount of water per day. At some extent, the further acquisition of *greater* water supply would not be worth the *effort*, and so a 'plateau' would be reached in terms of effort for quantity of water acquired from nature.

*Or* maybe it *wouldn't matter* -- perhaps it would only require *one pipe*, and, once set up into a body of water, virtually *limitless* water could be had (for one city's requirements), *without* any 'marginal utility' material concerns being present whatsoever.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll pass -- this is akin to the drugs-legalization issue, where the abolition of government drug enforcement, in favor of *civil rights*, would undoubtedly allow *abuse*, as with the likely abuse of *civil society*, absent cops altogether, but that's where *humane* approaches are supposed to fill in the gap, provided that they're appropriately funded instead of cops / military, which is the *heavy-handed* approach, and it's demonstrably *not working* because it's causing 1000+ preventable killings per year in the U.S.



wat0n wrote:
There are a lot of approaches that can be taken in-between.


wat0n wrote:
In fact, drug legalization could - in the long run - be one way where you could both defund the police and lower crime rates. Weakening gangs - who represent a larger homicide problem than the cops - by legalizing drugs would decrease gang-related crime, and thus homicides, thereby reducing the need for policing.



You're *re-stating* what I just said.


wat0n wrote:
Even then, the key word here would be reducing, there would also a need to enforce other aspects of drug law (I presume the Government would probably need to run drug dens for addicts to do their thing there, for instance, which would conceivably need some measure of police presence. It would also need to hunt those who sell drugs without a permit to do so or otherwise skip sanitary drug regulations).



Sure, I'm for *health regulations*, and for *social services* to addicts.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well at least try to *make your argument* -- oftentimes you're not even communicating *complete thoughts*, or points.



wat0n wrote:
You can ask me to elaborate if necessary :)



*Or* -- which is more-likely -- I *won't* and you'll have to make your own complete thoughts / points, or else you'll *forfeit* that segment.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're revealing an *exchange* fetish -- as though exchanges is the *only* conceivable way of supplying to a society's needs for distribution.

Let me put it *this* way -- imagine that everyone is allowed onto a centralized shopping portal, and they can fill up their 'shopping cart' with whatever it is that they think they *need*. Then they can fill up their 'wish list' with whatever they think they *want*, and global social production then proceeds according to those results. (This would equate to having only #1 and #2 rankings in my 'labor credits' model.)

Once liberated-workers mass-produce for everyone's '#1' items ('needs'), then it's communism, because all items are direct-distributed to people's residences, with no intermediate merchant-type *exchanges* being necessary. Instead of prices there could be voluntary liberated-labor hours as a social 'pay-in' for the items received. Or my labor credits could be used.



wat0n wrote:
Let me elaborate further. Consider prostitution: How would the provision of that work? Do you think people may be willing to trade sex for other kind of services?



There's your *exchange fetish* again -- I really don't *give a shit* how people work out their relations around the sex act, because such *isn't* political, it's *interpersonal*.

With my labor credits model people *could* potentially use labor credits at the interpersonal level, for whatever *personal* services, and such *still* would be interpersonal and I wouldn't give a shit because it's none of my business and it's not (socio-)political.


---


wat0n wrote:
I do, that doesn't disprove my claim. Sure, they could organize an army, but it wasn't as effective as one managed by an actual State.

That's one of the major reasons as for why States exist to begin with.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Now you're *confirming* that you don't know the history that you're referencing -- regarding the *effectiveness* of the Red Army, there's this:


Results

Military

War communism was largely successful at its primary purpose of aiding the Red Army in halting the advance of the White Army and in reclaiming most of the territory of the former Russian Empire thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism#Military



wat0n wrote:
How does this square with workers-of-the-world socialism exactly?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're trying my patience. Look at what *you* said, and then look at the *actual history*.



wat0n wrote:
My point is, the measures they took don't look like your model of workers-of-the-world socialism at all. For starters, they had to set a centralized government up.



Look at it *chronologically* -- this centralization-from-above occurred *after* the White counterrevolution and the Western imperialist militarist invasions of the Bolshevik Revolution. This centralization-from-above measure was taken in response to *geopolitical* developments, meaning events *from without*.

We could call it a 'forced consolidation' that paved the way for *Stalin's* *imposed*, *nationalist* consolidation which, by that point, had *nothing* to do with workers-of-the-world socialism. You're showing further comprehension.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's *always* a class struggle of some magnitude, since there's been a *class division* since society's initial production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be *managed* (as by the priest caste, initially, and throughout class history).

There's *always* a mode of production, like feudalism, or capitalism, since society always has *some* kind of institutionalized material practice of *social production* for any given era.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
And who are those who determine that in each of these societies?



ckaihatsu wrote:
The *ruling class*, does, of course, by default, using exploitation and oppression.



wat0n wrote:
That is one actor, I agree, but it's not the only one. For instance, peasant rebellions were rather common in 14th-century Western Europe, partly because the Black Death had actually made work more expensive (raised real wages) due to the high mortality. The ruling classes did not want to acknowledge this reality, but were eventually forced to by the realities of the situation.



You're showing a lack of recognition of historical / societal *scale* -- the details of *one event* do *not* automatically generalize to being a 'fixed' set of immutable factors throughout *all* of social history. You're *over-generalizing*, in other words.

'Class struggle', and 'mode of production' *are* historical constants / factors, at least for as long as class society has existed, which is since the Agricultural Revolution and the initial social production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be 'managed', as by a managerial *class* (the priesthood), which then does not have to do regular, productive work because they're 'managing'.


Image

Image


And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The government *creates* and *props-up* the illegal drugs trade / market, because it has those drugs as being *illegal*, so then black markets provide those items at great risk and violence to the purveyors (due to state repression and hyper-competitive 'turf' wars), and at inflated costs to customers.

Legalize drugs and *that* would eliminate all of the problems you list.



wat0n wrote:
It would help, I agree, but in the meantime the issue remains.



So then, likewise, if society prioritizes *civil rights* -- meaning not-being-killed -- then police departments have to be defunded and eliminated so that killer / cops aren't present on the streets with the authority to kill people.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't you understand that the government is supposed to *represent the people*, and that it's *killing the people* with its police? That's a political *priority*, on par with the American Revolution, and/or the Civil Rights Movement.



wat0n wrote:
It's also interesting you mention the American Revolution, since in the end it ended with a Thermidorean Reaction - which took the form of the US Constitution and the establishment of the Federal Government to prevent the Union from ever having the sort of trouble it had in the 1780s, which reached their peak with Shay's Rebellion, ever again - you should read some of the writings by the US Founding Fathers in those years. But regardless of this, the point in the preceding paragraph still holds.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off on a tangent again.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm simply pointing out that the American Revolution actually ended with an authoritarian reaction - one that had widespread support outside Massachusetts.



Now, back to the *topic*, shouldn't the standing-down of the military and police be a political *priority*, on par with that of the American Revolution or Civil Rights Movement?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The use-value of water is *objective* for everyone at all times, because no one can live for long without water (and sea salt, I would add).

So it's *not* all a blur, under one category, as you're suggesting -- there can be the distinct categories of [1] objective / universal, [2] inter-subjective / mass, and [3] subjective / individual.



wat0n wrote:
I would also disagree with that characterization, or at least qualify it. A very dehydrated person would likely have a greater use value of water at that point in time than someone who is not dehydrated. That is, use values - be they objective, inter-subjective or subjective - need not be constant and may depend on many things, including past consumption.

Marginalists, who are subjectivists, use this example to show the use of value of water is not completely objective since a very dehydrated person would likely be a lot happier to drink a glass of water than someone who's not dehydrated at all.



I'd call *this* 'hair-splitting', because it's too *granular* in approach -- everyone needs water and the use-value *availability* of water shouldn't fluctuate according to market pricing. Ditto for many other modern life-necessary goods and services.
#15120219
ckaihatsu wrote:Democrats and media silent on execution of Michael Reinoehl by US Marshals

Well, he wasn't a Black man. Democrats don't really care much about the execution of a White man. Do they? :lol:
#15120239
ckaihatsu wrote:I've clearly stated that 'commodities' are 'goods' and 'services' that generate *revenue*.


ckaihatsu wrote:You need to review what I just said -- financial and government employees do *not* produce commodities, and commodity-production is what produces *wages*, for workers, for their productive activity in *making* the commodities. That process doesn't happen in finance or government, though government *does* make public *infrastructure* which tends to aid the public, but not entirely.


These bank workers also work in generating revenue - for the bank. Yet if the bank didn't lend, then some of the investment in both physical and human capital would suffer, thereby generating less revenue for both parties in the future. On the other hand, if the bank lends too much it may go bust for taking on too much risk and lending to both businesses and people who don't pay their loans back for whatever reason.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, management roles *are* strictly internal to capitalism, because that's the only existing form of economics these days. Historical 'war communism' measures were specific to the Bolshevik Revolution.


No, War Communism also included centralized management as part of the package. In fact it looks a lot like Stalinism, which makes sense.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just *repeating* yourself now, without taking heed of what I've said -- the very next Marxist after *me* would say basically the same thing, thus it's *not* my personal opinion. Capital needs workers, but workers can collective self-organize and collectively co-administrate, without requiring capital or capitalist management.


ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, workers *do* know how to plan production because they're the ones *closest* *to* it. Managers take more of an absenteeist 'bird's eye' view of it, and they plan for the sake of corporate *profits*, not strictly for *logistical optimization* goals.


I'm saying Marxists would be wrong here. Furthermore, what you are saying in the second paragraph above is a cartoon version of how management works. Managers, particularly those who work in operations, are expected to fully understand the production process, and actually will often understand it better than workers. Particularly when the process is technically complex but can be performed by workers with little qualification, in this case it's not unusual for the manager to be an engineer and the workers to have only completed high school (if so). In other cases, workers may fully understand their own role if it's very complex from a technical point of view, but may lack the higher level knowledge managers have about all processes. This is leaving aside all the other purely management-related knowledge necessary to, well, manage.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, then how do you address middle management, and companies, in terms of economics and politics?


What do you mean exactly? Middle management can exist depending on the productive processes involved. But even upper management will often not have any ownership stakes in the businesses they work at, and even more often they will have a small stake that doesn't give them control.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, then where's the evidence that backs your spurious claim?


Do you want me to cite from them or post screenshots?

ckaihatsu wrote:Why don't you make your own arguments, for your own positions?


Why would I need to, when I can rely on the work of others after citing them?

ckaihatsu wrote:Then *where* is it?


Why don't you simply look at the graphs and the sources I provided? They are from the St. Louis Fed - you can also download the data there.

ckaihatsu wrote:Then you have *no relevant data*, and *no argument* -- the data shows that labor wages have not increased in relation to labor's productivity since 1970, so those who work for wages are increasingly being *ripped-off*, year after year.


I have no relevant data except from that relating to total compensation (wages + benefits) and output - in the form of unit labor costs but I also posted the series of real hourly compensation -, you mean.

ckaihatsu wrote:Unit labor costs, also known as *wages*, have not been increased in proportion to the increase in labor's *productivity*.


Unit labor costs are not wages. I already posted the definition, but I'll do so again:

Image
Image

https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-10 ... r-cost.htm

ckaihatsu wrote:Your approach is unable to take *geopolitical* factors into account, such as Western imperialist invasions, or the *lack* of such destruction, as in Norway.


Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany, remember?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're obviously not *corroborating* your claim.


Except for the papers I posted.

ckaihatsu wrote:I *doubt* that the government would get 100% of its corporate R&D funding back in the form of taxes -- do you have a *source* that can back up this baseless claim of yours?


Do you really want to compare the revenue from corporate taxes with Gov't R&D funding?

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not about my *emotional response* -- your anti-socialist attacks are *moot*.


Are they? Even that paragraph of yours is highly questionable. Most of the externalities of capitalism you mention took place in socialism and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't happen in your workers-of-the-world socialism.

Indeed, one environment-related example of this would be the tragedy of the commons: How would you prevent the depletion of resources without a centralized government or private property?

Why do you think racism and discrimination would go away in your system? I see no reason to believe so, just as they did not go away in historical socialism either.

Stagnating wages? Do you really want to discuss what happens to wages in socialism? And they would be moot under your workers-of-the-world socialism (wages don't matter when there is no scarcity and people can get most products for free).

Excessive spending on military/policing? What makes you believe your vision would not have that, too, to prevent groups of people from attempting to take over the means of production?

ckaihatsu wrote:That wouldn't be a significant *social problem*, though -- some 'misfits' here and there would be *random, dispersed individuals*, by definition, and could be as idiosyncratic as they wanted to be, and would probably still live long, full, healthy lives.

What you were positing *earlier* is an *organized group* flouting post-capitalist socialist social norms, as like a cabal or criminal syndicate, and I *addressed* that scenario of yours.


Misfits can also organize and operate as an organized group. This is even truer nowadays that communication is easier than ever before in human history.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, there *is* a difference between trade-union consciousness, and *revolutionary* ('class') consciousness.

Police unions are not typical trade unions, because their interests are *with the government* -- they carry out the function of *repression*, through use of violent force, onto working-class people, so they *aren't* akin to working-class-type trade unions, which are nominally *pro*-working-class, though *business unionism* as a whole is corrupt and consistently sides with the interests of *corporate profitability*, for a cut of corporate profits (a *political* function).


Police unions' interests don't always align with those of the Government. Why else do you think there have historically been police strikes? They always start from a fight between the unions and the Government, just like all public sector union strikes begin.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, nothing I just said was lifestylist -- I called for *collectivized social production*, which has to do with social (material) *productivity*, and not with any individual's lifestyle, or even any lifestyles in common.


No, it doesn't simply have to do with productivity. What you are saying is effectively that being a socialist worker would be a lifestyle in its own right, since most if not all facets of life would revolve around that and since it would also require a massive change in culture and preferences to ever hope to be an incentive-compatible system.

ckaihatsu wrote:I think you're still looking at (socialist) politics in a *social-psychological way* again -- proletarian revolution doesn't depend on social-media-type *social ties*, it depends on the political issues of the day being *revolutionary* in content, as (historically) for 'All power to the soviets'.

*Economically* / materially, yes, everyone has certain basic needs, as for food and water, housing, utilities, etc., so once that's thoroughly provided-for, for 100% of humanity's population, then the remainder would be far more *discretionary*, and not nearly as time-critical. But we're not nearly at that point yet, and society's means of mass industrial production haven't been collectivized by the workers of the world, yet, either.


Why would people bother with voting in these "Soviets" if they can produce all they need autonomously?

ckaihatsu wrote:Let's call it 'activation power' instead of 'voting power', because labor credits in-hand are effectively *funding-power* for 'this' project / proposal, instead of 'that' project / proposal.

The labor credits would apply at *any* timeframe (including 'basic necessities') beyond the overthrow of bourgeois capitalist rule, and possibly *sooner*, though I have a different model / vehicle for *that* timeframe, while factories are still being collectivized, called 'global syndicalist currency', though it's not up to me, of course.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857


It's *not* really akin to capitalism's market mechanism because there are no *exchanges*, or *exchange values* in using labor credits. They only apply to the 'realm' of liberated labor itself, while the *products* of liberated labor are free-access to all, so labor is never commodified.


Sure, it would be a way to replace the price system (which is effectively a decentralized way to decide what to produce and how much). In this case, there are no exchanges because labor credits would take that role.

ckaihatsu wrote:No -- the world's working class has the power and potential to *eliminate class rule* once and for all, so if, say, a workers *vanguard* coordinated workers worldwide to take over *all* the means of mass industrial production, that action would effectively be *disempowering* the (existing) bourgeoisie. Once class rule (over all social production) has been superseded, humanity as a whole would be collectively empowered to plan and produce *anything* that's humane, since it would *far outnumber* the specialized 'vanguard' vehicle that coordinated the overthrow of bourgeois class rule. There would no longer be any social basis for any private accumulations, such as through private property, or government bureaucracies.


Just because they are outnumbered, it doesn't mean they cannot try to basically become capitalists (i.e. own the means of production). That's ultimately a military/policing question.

ckaihatsu wrote:Your meaning isn't clear -- how does 'false [class] consciousness' conceivably equate to 'need' -- ?


I mean, you are using the wrong concept to deal with that phenomenon. People need to work, thereby they are willing to do so even during the pandemic.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not-understanding -- the bourgeois political process *doesn't* go how I'd like it to go, regardless of the particular election, or the specific candidates. The overall policy paradigm that prevails, through *any* particulars, is that of bourgeois class rule, which I oppose.


Sure, but I doubt you are literally indifferent between what both Trump and Biden represent, and propose.

ckaihatsu wrote:And what's wrong with that? (Again, you're trying to make it sound as though populist-type political demands are automatically 'inappropriate', or 'greedy'. The tactic of using violence has certainly been effective for the government's military forces and police departments.)


It would be a bad thing because violence is eventually met by violence, be it by the Government or by those who oppose those ends. And in either case, your side won't win.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're making *baseless claims* again, simply to swipe at Marxism.

Okishio's "theorem" is limited in applicability to only the *short-term*, when some technological novelty happens to still be *new*, and temporarily benefits those firms, over market competitors, before the 'new' becomes commonplace, being bought-up and used in production by everyone in the market / industry.


No, that's not quite the case. I think you could check the example in Wikipedia's article - it's a toy example but it explicitly shows this is not actually the case.

ckaihatsu wrote:And, the USSR wasn't Marxist, it was *Stalinist*.


:lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:You're off on a tangent again, because to say that people won't buy what doesn't interest them is *obvious*, and you're not saying much by stating the obvious, which also has nothing to do with the topic of the segment.


Exactly, it's obvious as you say, which is also why Chomsky's claims are weird: Does he really think people would constantly read propaganda they disagree with?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's a *material* thing -- if a post-capitalist proposal, for example, addressed the acquisition of *water* into a city, it would have to deal with *diminishing returns* ('marginal utility') regarding the *provisioning* of 'x' amount of water per day. At some extent, the further acquisition of *greater* water supply would not be worth the *effort*, and so a 'plateau' would be reached in terms of effort for quantity of water acquired from nature.

*Or* maybe it *wouldn't matter* -- perhaps it would only require *one pipe*, and, once set up into a body of water, virtually *limitless* water could be had (for one city's requirements), *without* any 'marginal utility' material concerns being present whatsoever.


That's diminishing returns, which is a related but conceptually different concept. In this case the marginal utility of water is also decreasing because, well, I'm pretty sure you will not feel better off at all drinking one extra glass of water after drinking 10 gallons compared to drinking one extra glass of water when you have had no water to drink and you are thirsty.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *re-stating* what I just said.


Right, but timing is important here. Legalize and regulate first, then police will not be as necessary (hopefully). It would be during the transition, in fact, there may actually be a greater demand for policing during that process.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Or* -- which is more-likely -- I *won't* and you'll have to make your own complete thoughts / points, or else you'll *forfeit* that segment.


I can't guess what questions or objections you may have if you don't state them.

ckaihatsu wrote:There's your *exchange fetish* again -- I really don't *give a shit* how people work out their relations around the sex act, because such *isn't* political, it's *interpersonal*.

With my labor credits model people *could* potentially use labor credits at the interpersonal level, for whatever *personal* services, and such *still* would be interpersonal and I wouldn't give a shit because it's none of my business and it's not (socio-)political.


Here radical feminists would furiously disagree with you. But more importantly, it would be economically relevant, even if it has no socio-political angle (although prostitution has always been political in one way or another, at least when it comes to legalizing it at all).

ckaihatsu wrote:Look at it *chronologically* -- this centralization-from-above occurred *after* the White counterrevolution and the Western imperialist militarist invasions of the Bolshevik Revolution. This centralization-from-above measure was taken in response to *geopolitical* developments, meaning events *from without*.

We could call it a 'forced consolidation' that paved the way for *Stalin's* *imposed*, *nationalist* consolidation which, by that point, had *nothing* to do with workers-of-the-world socialism. You're showing further comprehension.


On the contrary, I fully understand it. That's why I'm saying workers-of-the-world socialism is impossible to implement in practice: How can you do that when centralization has shown to be necessary to fight the revolutionary war to begin with? And after centralizing, how can you decentralize back again as opposed to having the military commanders and political leaders simply hold to their centralized power after the war has ended?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're showing a lack of recognition of historical / societal *scale* -- the details of *one event* do *not* automatically generalize to being a 'fixed' set of immutable factors throughout *all* of social history. You're *over-generalizing*, in other words.

'Class struggle', and 'mode of production' *are* historical constants / factors, at least for as long as class society has existed, which is since the Agricultural Revolution and the initial social production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be 'managed', as by a managerial *class* (the priesthood), which then does not have to do regular, productive work because they're 'managing'.


Image

Image


And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


Basing all your analysis on 19th century class structure is also an overgeneralization, and also happens to be a rather simplistic one. Indeed, even 19th century's social conflicts ended up in some sort of compromise between the different classes (and other groups of society) throughout Europe and America, even if they would resurface from time to time in countries like France.

ckaihatsu wrote:So then, likewise, if society prioritizes *civil rights* -- meaning not-being-killed -- then police departments have to be defunded and eliminated so that killer / cops aren't present on the streets with the authority to kill people.


It depends, if civilians kill civilians and the Government has decided to eliminate policing, isn't that a civil rights violation as well?

ckaihatsu wrote:Now, back to the *topic*, shouldn't the standing-down of the military and police be a political *priority*, on par with that of the American Revolution or Civil Rights Movement?


No, because if preserving life is the priority then one would need to take into account that most homicides are not coming from the police.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd call *this* 'hair-splitting', because it's too *granular* in approach -- everyone needs water and the use-value *availability* of water shouldn't fluctuate according to market pricing. Ditto for many other modern life-necessary goods and services.


Well, that granularity is actually necessary and serves its own purpose. It's precisely thanks to it that the economic agents can get the signals about relative scarcity of each product.
#15120493
ckaihatsu wrote:
I've clearly stated that 'commodities' are 'goods' and 'services' that generate *revenue*.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You need to review what I just said -- financial and government employees do *not* produce commodities, and commodity-production is what produces *wages*, for workers, for their productive activity in *making* the commodities. That process doesn't happen in finance or government, though government *does* make public *infrastructure* which tends to aid the public, but not entirely.



wat0n wrote:
These bank workers also work in generating revenue - for the bank. Yet if the bank didn't lend, then some of the investment in both physical and human capital would suffer, thereby generating less revenue for both parties in the future. On the other hand, if the bank lends too much it may go bust for taking on too much risk and lending to both businesses and people who don't pay their loans back for whatever reason.



It's revenue from *finance*, and *not* from commodity-production. Workers for the bank never produced any *new* value, they just shuffled numbers around for capital that was *pre-existing*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, management roles *are* strictly internal to capitalism, because that's the only existing form of economics these days. Historical 'war communism' measures were specific to the Bolshevik Revolution.



wat0n wrote:
No, War Communism also included centralized management as part of the package. In fact it looks a lot like Stalinism, which makes sense.



Again, Lenin's centralization measures were forced from *without*, from the Western imperialist invading militaries, and the White counterrevolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just *repeating* yourself now, without taking heed of what I've said -- the very next Marxist after *me* would say basically the same thing, thus it's *not* my personal opinion. Capital needs workers, but workers can collective self-organize and collectively co-administrate, without requiring capital or capitalist management.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, workers *do* know how to plan production because they're the ones *closest* *to* it. Managers take more of an absenteeist 'bird's eye' view of it, and they plan for the sake of corporate *profits*, not strictly for *logistical optimization* goals.



wat0n wrote:
I'm saying Marxists would be wrong here. Furthermore, what you are saying in the second paragraph above is a cartoon version of how management works. Managers, particularly those who work in operations, are expected to fully understand the production process, and actually will often understand it better than workers. Particularly when the process is technically complex but can be performed by workers with little qualification, in this case it's not unusual for the manager to be an engineer and the workers to have only completed high school (if so). In other cases, workers may fully understand their own role if it's very complex from a technical point of view, but may lack the higher level knowledge managers have about all processes. This is leaving aside all the other purely management-related knowledge necessary to, well, manage.



Nothing that you're saying here *contradicts* what I've just said -- workers have the *know-how*, because they're *in* the process of doing the commodity-production every day. Managers know the overall, birds-eye *process*, as in *project management*, but they don't have the *experiential* know-how that workers do.

There *are* instances where workers go on strike, and managers *try* to fill-in the workers' work roles, but they're *unable* to do so, even knowing the overall process, because they're not regularly doing exactly what the workers do, on-the-ground.

Management *roles* themselves are skewed towards fulfilling *profit* goals, by whatever logistical means, and are *not* about logistical optimization for its own sake.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Bosses, though, are typically synonymous with *ownership*, so they're *definitely* not workers.



wat0n wrote:
Not in large corporations, and actually even in SMEs you can end up with having a middle manager who acts as a boss and directly reports to the owner.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, you're looking at it in terms of *social hierarchy*, but you have to look at it *economically*, and materially, too -- who, in the company, is actually producing the *stuff* (or services) that is sold to buyers, for *revenue* -- ?

A 'middle manager' is probably not a major stockholder in the company, and probably gets compensated with a set *salary* -- they manage subordinates, which is *managerial*, or 'overhead', in relation to the company. The company could not do without their managerial roles, but the (middle) managers are *not* producing any commodities themselves, and so are a *cost* to the company.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not simply looking at it as a social hierarchy either.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then how do you address middle management, and companies, in terms of economics and politics?



wat0n wrote:
What do you mean exactly? Middle management can exist depending on the productive processes involved. But even upper management will often not have any ownership stakes in the businesses they work at, and even more often they will have a small stake that doesn't give them control.



You don't seem to understand the difference between *production*, and *management*. Management manages those who are doing the *producing* of commodities, meaning the wage-workers. Management does not receive a *wage*, as workers do, because management does not produce any actual commodities. Management represents the *company's* interests in overseeing the workers, and so managers are part of the *company* -- the *executives*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, then where's the evidence that backs your spurious claim?



wat0n wrote:
Do you want me to cite from them or post screenshots?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why don't you make your own arguments, for your own positions?



wat0n wrote:
Why would I need to, when I can rely on the work of others after citing them?



---


wat0n wrote:
But more importantly, the "real wage" doesn't include company benefits, which have actually risen over time since 1975.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I very-much *doubt* this -- got a source for this claim?



wat0n wrote:

I included the data in my post.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Then *where* is it?



wat0n wrote:
Why don't you simply look at the graphs and the sources I provided? They are from the St. Louis Fed - you can also download the data there.



You're going to have to put such data *in context*, and make your political argument *with it* -- what you're typically doing is saying the equivalent of 'See yesterday's New York Times', and since there's no link between your vacuous claims and specific evidence *for* your position, I get to *ignore* that kind of vague referencing from you.

So, to recap -- [1] claim / argument / position + [2] specific provided evidence = [3] empirical conclusion, that I can properly *respond* to.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Then you have *no relevant data*, and *no argument* -- the data shows that labor wages have not increased in relation to labor's productivity since 1970, so those who work for wages are increasingly being *ripped-off*, year after year.



wat0n wrote:
I have no relevant data except from that relating to total compensation (wages + benefits) and output - in the form of unit labor costs but I also posted the series of real hourly compensation -, you mean.



I was referring to *my* data -- this:


Image


https://economics.stackexchange.com/que ... ed-ca-1974



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Unit labor costs, also known as *wages*, have not been increased in proportion to the increase in labor's *productivity*.



wat0n wrote:
Unit labor costs are not wages. I already posted the definition, but I'll do so again:

Image
Image

https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-10 ... r-cost.htm



The second graphic reads:



Unit Labor Cost is also equal to the ratio of compensation per hour worked over output per hour worked. Unit Labor Cost = Compensation / Hour // Output / Hour



This is a *fallacious* variable, supposedly representing 'cost', because the variable ('unit labor cost') references a *ratio*, so how can 'cost' be 'seven-eighths', or 'three-quarters', etc. -- what the equation *does* measure is what percentage of the revenue labor receives from the sale of its product, but even *this* measurement is *lacking*, because the equation only shows *outputs* and no *inputs*.

Fortunately I already made a graphic for this process of production that outlines *both* inputs and outputs:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



So, in the following scenario...



Marx's solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value



...The *labor* input is $20 / hour ($10 in wages returned, and $10 in surplus labor value), which is *50%* of the total revenue from the *product* of that labor ($40). The *capital* input is $20 / hour (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), or 50% of revenue, and the capital *returned* is $20 / hour, with a profit of $10, from the worker's surplus labor value. The labor *output*, in wages, is only *25%* of revenue, even though the labor *input* was *50%*.

Your 'unit labor cost', really a *proportion*, would be 50%, though that percentage doesn't actually describe any quantitative *cost*, like $10 in wages per hour of work.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your approach is unable to take *geopolitical* factors into account, such as Western imperialist invasions, or the *lack* of such destruction, as in Norway.



wat0n wrote:
Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany, remember?



Okay. But Iraq was *destroyed* by NATO invasions in the early part of *this* century.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're obviously not *corroborating* your claim.



wat0n wrote:
Except for the papers I posted.



No, I outlined how those papers you provided *don't* actually support your contrarian thesis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I *doubt* that the government would get 100% of its corporate R&D funding back in the form of taxes -- do you have a *source* that can back up this baseless claim of yours?



wat0n wrote:
Do you really want to compare the revenue from corporate taxes with Gov't R&D funding?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, again, you have no political *grounds* to be so dismissive of socialism since you're *not* pro-socialist. All you have are coarsely *contrarian* points to make, without any corroboration.

You're also pretending as though capitalist business practices have no *social* cost -- and only now society is starting to factor-in these business 'externalities', like global warming / climate change, racism / killer cops, low stagnating wages, lack of GDP growth, military / police bloated budgets, etc.

The point of socialism / communism is to get *past* this bourgeois class rule, primarily, and then figure everything out afterwards, in the interests of a *liberated* humanity, for once.



wat0n wrote:
Yeah, of course I'm taking a contrarian position since I'm not a socialist. Why are you so surprised about that?



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not about my *emotional response* -- your anti-socialist attacks are *moot*.



wat0n wrote:
Are they? Even that paragraph of yours is highly questionable. Most of the externalities of capitalism you mention took place in socialism and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't happen in your workers-of-the-world socialism.



No, you mean 'Stalinism'. Workers-of-the-world socialism is just that -- *worldwide*. The historical nation-states you refer to were *nationalist* in scope, and thus were *Stalinist*.


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, one environment-related example of this would be the tragedy of the commons: How would you prevent the depletion of resources without a centralized government or private property?



Why do you assume that the commons would fatalistically turn into a 'tragedy'? That's just subjective *pessimism* on your part. Why do you think people would allow their commons to be 'depleted' if they had an objective, empirical collective interest in *replenishing* those commons, so that they could all continuously benefit from it -- ?


---


wat0n wrote:
Why do you think racism and discrimination would go away in your system? I see no reason to believe so, just as they did not go away in historical socialism either.



What you call 'historical socialism' was actually *Stalinism*, because it *wasn't* workers-of-the-world socialism, with the *workers* in control of what the factories produced.

You referenced the history *yourself*, so you know the difference. The turning point was the Western military invasions and White counterrevolution against the Bolshevik Revolution, forcing it to consolidate and centralize, for War Communism, to repel the invasions.

Racism and discrimination are *strategies* of the *ruling class* -- the class divide sets up a *social-status hierarchy* based on one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production, with those with *ownership* enjoying the fruits (profits) of what industry produces, while those *without* ownership have to sell their labor to employers for a wage -- exploitation -- for the necessities of modern life and living.

So since there's a social-status *hierarchy*, those who provide jobs, social services, etc. (capitalist employers and government policies, respectively) have the *power* to use racism and racist discrimination as a divide-and-conquer *strategy* to keep the working class divided within itself, even though everyone who's *not* an owner has interests-in-common with *everyone else* who's *also* not an owner.

Eliminate the class divide in society -- as through proletarian revolution -- and all of the social ills perpetrated by the ruling class (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) no longer have a *social basis* for existence, because humanity would be undivided, and would have the common interest of existing and doing well on planet earth, without any separatist private-property interests existing any longer.


wat0n wrote:
Stagnating wages? Do you really want to discuss what happens to wages in socialism? And they would be moot under your workers-of-the-world socialism (wages don't matter when there is no scarcity and people can get most products for free).

Excessive spending on military/policing? What makes you believe your vision would not have that, too, to prevent groups of people from attempting to take over the means of production?



Again, you're thinking of nation-state-constrained *state capitalism*, or 'Stalinism', historically.

Correct that there wouldn't be *wages* within workers-of-the-world socialism, because of free-access and post-scarcity material conditions, but mostly because there'd be no separate 'ownership' / employer class that *pays out* wages on the basis of *wealth ownership*, to *exploit* wage-labor.

Regarding a 'New Red Army', so-to-speak, that would all depend on actual conditions of class struggle. My politics is *all for* repressing the bourgeoisie, so whatever *means* that requires is certainly fine by me.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That wouldn't be a significant *social problem*, though -- some 'misfits' here and there would be *random, dispersed individuals*, by definition, and could be as idiosyncratic as they wanted to be, and would probably still live long, full, healthy lives.

What you were positing *earlier* is an *organized group* flouting post-capitalist socialist social norms, as like a cabal or criminal syndicate, and I *addressed* that scenario of yours.



wat0n wrote:
Misfits can also organize and operate as an organized group. This is even truer nowadays that communication is easier than ever before in human history.



Well, which *is* it -- ?

I've now addressed both the 'misfits' scenario, and the 'criminal syndicate' scenario.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, there *is* a difference between trade-union consciousness, and *revolutionary* ('class') consciousness.

Police unions are not typical trade unions, because their interests are *with the government* -- they carry out the function of *repression*, through use of violent force, onto working-class people, so they *aren't* akin to working-class-type trade unions, which are nominally *pro*-working-class, though *business unionism* as a whole is corrupt and consistently sides with the interests of *corporate profitability*, for a cut of corporate profits (a *political* function).



wat0n wrote:
Police unions' interests don't always align with those of the Government. Why else do you think there have historically been police strikes? They always start from a fight between the unions and the Government, just like all public sector union strikes begin.



You're not recognizing *political function*, though -- yes, police may strike, which is *economic*, just as working-class trade unions may conceivably strike, too, in their own economic interests, but *politically* the police *don't* harass or harm the wealthy, but they *do* harass and harm the *working class*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, nothing I just said was lifestylist -- I called for *collectivized social production*, which has to do with social (material) *productivity*, and not with any individual's lifestyle, or even any lifestyles in common.



wat0n wrote:
No, it doesn't simply have to do with productivity. What you are saying is effectively that being a socialist worker would be a lifestyle in its own right, since most if not all facets of life would revolve around that and since it would also require a massive change in culture and preferences to ever hope to be an incentive-compatible system.



Bullshit -- you're merely *claiming* this. Socialists / socialism aren't *dependent* on any lifestylist culture -- what matters are the *economic* and *political* prevailing policies. I think you're *stereotyping* the individual socialist into some preconceived notion.

Also socialism *doesn't require* an 'incentive-compatible system'. Socialism, by definition, equates to a *vanguardist* *workers state*. Post-capitalist, post-revolutionary, post-vanguardist communism, by definition, equates to a 'communist gift economy'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think you're still looking at (socialist) politics in a *social-psychological way* again -- proletarian revolution doesn't depend on social-media-type *social ties*, it depends on the political issues of the day being *revolutionary* in content, as (historically) for 'All power to the soviets'.

*Economically* / materially, yes, everyone has certain basic needs, as for food and water, housing, utilities, etc., so once that's thoroughly provided-for, for 100% of humanity's population, then the remainder would be far more *discretionary*, and not nearly as time-critical. But we're not nearly at that point yet, and society's means of mass industrial production haven't been collectivized by the workers of the world, yet, either.



wat0n wrote:
Why would people bother with voting in these "Soviets" if they can produce all they need autonomously?



I'm in no position to tell the working class how it should internally self-organize -- it could be *whatever*, really, and I have my own *suggestions* in-the-abstract, of course, but ultimately it's not up to me.

Maybe the soviets would aim for respective self-sufficiency initially, or maybe the vanguardism would be very top-down, so as to better defeat the bourgeoisie in the class war -- note the relation between the respective *variables* here: I think an *easier* struggle would allow for more ground-level autonomy / self-sufficiency, while a *tougher* struggle would necessitate more top-down *centralization*, and more vanguardist *substitutionism*, for the sake of *expediency*, as we saw historically with the Bolshevik Revolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Let's call it 'activation power' instead of 'voting power', because labor credits in-hand are effectively *funding-power* for 'this' project / proposal, instead of 'that' project / proposal.

The labor credits would apply at *any* timeframe (including 'basic necessities') beyond the overthrow of bourgeois capitalist rule, and possibly *sooner*, though I have a different model / vehicle for *that* timeframe, while factories are still being collectivized, called 'global syndicalist currency', though it's not up to me, of course.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857



It's *not* really akin to capitalism's market mechanism because there are no *exchanges*, or *exchange values* in using labor credits. They only apply to the 'realm' of liberated labor itself, while the *products* of liberated labor are free-access to all, so labor is never commodified.[/quote]


wat0n wrote:
Sure, it would be a way to replace the price system (which is effectively a decentralized way to decide what to produce and how much). In this case, there are no exchanges because labor credits would take that role.



*Generally* 'yes', but no, I think you're *confusing* the two -- labor credits are in no way *comparable* to capitalist-type 'exchanges', because, even with labor credits, there *are no* exchanges. Liberated laborers with labor credits in-hand simply *pay-them-forward* to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed new work according to agreed-upon *policy* ('policy packages').

If you like, this is a 'decentralized' way for *funding* / 'voting' (of incoming liberated-laborers) to take place, but only from those who have completed past labor tasks, per hours worked, per work-role-hour multiplier (equalling the number of labor credits they received for those past labor tasks completed), and this 'funding' / 'voting' is *quantitatively limited* to the actual number of labor credits in-hand that they have to 'spend' / pay-forward.

So, for example, if 1000 liberated laborers have 1000 labor credits each in-hand, and they all decide to support 'Project 2030' with their total of 1,000,000 labor credits, that means that 'Project 2030' would have commitments of 1,000,000 labor credits to apportion to *any* mix or grouping of 'incoming' liberated laborers, for the work roles planned, but only to the extent that 1,000,000 labor credits *funds* those respective work roles going-forward.

If there happen to be 100 different work roles, and they all have a multiplier of '1', then that means that Project 2030 can be funded in full, for those 100 different work roles, for 10,000 hours each, equalling 1,000,000 labor credits in total.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No -- the world's working class has the power and potential to *eliminate class rule* once and for all, so if, say, a workers *vanguard* coordinated workers worldwide to take over *all* the means of mass industrial production, that action would effectively be *disempowering* the (existing) bourgeoisie. Once class rule (over all social production) has been superseded, humanity as a whole would be collectively empowered to plan and produce *anything* that's humane, since it would *far outnumber* the specialized 'vanguard' vehicle that coordinated the overthrow of bourgeois class rule. There would no longer be any social basis for any private accumulations, such as through private property, or government bureaucracies.



wat0n wrote:
Just because they are outnumbered, it doesn't mean they cannot try to basically become capitalists (i.e. own the means of production). That's ultimately a military/policing question.



You're indulging a fantasy now because the vanguard would have just politically *overthrown* class rule, in favor of all of humanity. They're *professional revolutionaries*. (Politically.) Do you understand that the situation would then be, say, *thousands* in the vanguard worldwide, versus 7+ *billion*, of all of humanity?

You're being too *suspicious* of those who have just liberated humanity through a global proletarian revolution. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be *solely* the vanguard -- it's just a *vehicle* that happens to represent the mass revolutionary sentiment from *below*, which would be entirely *active*, as in general strikes, factory takeovers, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup -- we covered this dynamic already. It's called 'false consciousness'.



watt0n wrote:
I call it "need".



ckaihatsu wrote:
Your meaning isn't clear -- how does 'false [class] consciousness' conceivably equate to 'need' -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I mean, you are using the wrong concept to deal with that phenomenon. People need to work, thereby they are willing to do so even during the pandemic.



You're talking about the *economic duress* that capitalism places workers in -- 'false consciousness' has to do with people's own *political* self-conceptions, meaning where their objective *interests* are, or are not.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not-understanding -- the bourgeois political process *doesn't* go how I'd like it to go, regardless of the particular election, or the specific candidates. The overall policy paradigm that prevails, through *any* particulars, is that of bourgeois class rule, which I oppose.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but I doubt you are literally indifferent between what both Trump and Biden represent, and propose.



Ask me.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And what's wrong with that? (Again, you're trying to make it sound as though populist-type political demands are automatically 'inappropriate', or 'greedy'. The tactic of using violence has certainly been effective for the government's military forces and police departments.)



wat0n wrote:
It would be a bad thing because violence is eventually met by violence, be it by the Government or by those who oppose those ends. And in either case, your side won't win.



Have you ever heard of the Vietnam War? Violence was met by violence, and the U.S. *lost* the war. And the Viet Minh *won*.

I'm not saying that a worldwide class war is necessarily going to *resemble* the Vietnam War, but again, you're simply being too fatalistic and pessimistic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're making *baseless claims* again, simply to swipe at Marxism.

Okishio's "theorem" is limited in applicability to only the *short-term*, when some technological novelty happens to still be *new*, and temporarily benefits those firms, over market competitors, before the 'new' becomes commonplace, being bought-up and used in production by everyone in the market / industry.



wat0n wrote:
No, that's not quite the case. I think you could check the example in Wikipedia's article - it's a toy example but it explicitly shows this is not actually the case.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And, the USSR wasn't Marxist, it was *Stalinist*.



wat0n wrote:
:lol:



Why are you *laughing* -- it's an entirely valid *distinction*, because Marxism calls for the defeat of the bourgeoisie, at the hands of the proletariat, and that's certainly *not* what happened under Stalin, or Stalinism, in the USSR.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're off on a tangent again, because to say that people won't buy what doesn't interest them is *obvious*, and you're not saying much by stating the obvious, which also has nothing to do with the topic of the segment.



wat0n wrote:
Exactly, it's obvious as you say, which is also why Chomsky's claims are weird: Does he really think people would constantly read propaganda they disagree with?



You don't *get* it -- professional corporate propaganda isn't simply a *contrarian message*, like what *you* do. It's actually *stealthy* and has the goal of getting people to *adopt* false-consciousness so that they themselves decide not to act in their own best interests, as in politically opposing the bourgeoisie, if they happen to be working class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, it's a *material* thing -- if a post-capitalist proposal, for example, addressed the acquisition of *water* into a city, it would have to deal with *diminishing returns* ('marginal utility') regarding the *provisioning* of 'x' amount of water per day. At some extent, the further acquisition of *greater* water supply would not be worth the *effort*, and so a 'plateau' would be reached in terms of effort for quantity of water acquired from nature.

*Or* maybe it *wouldn't matter* -- perhaps it would only require *one pipe*, and, once set up into a body of water, virtually *limitless* water could be had (for one city's requirements), *without* any 'marginal utility' material concerns being present whatsoever.



wat0n wrote:
That's diminishing returns, which is a related but conceptually different concept. In this case the marginal utility of water is also decreasing because, well, I'm pretty sure you will not feel better off at all drinking one extra glass of water after drinking 10 gallons compared to drinking one extra glass of water when you have had no water to drink and you are thirsty.



That's 'diminshing returns' because the city doesn't *have* to get 10-gallons-plus-1-glass-of-water per person per day when just 10 gallons per person (or whatever) would do just fine. Any surplus water would not be worth the effort / energy it requires to acquire it. Diminishing returns is *synonymous* with 'marginal utility'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll pass -- this is akin to the drugs-legalization issue, where the abolition of government drug enforcement, in favor of *civil rights*, would undoubtedly allow *abuse*, as with the likely abuse of *civil society*, absent cops altogether, but that's where *humane* approaches are supposed to fill in the gap, provided that they're appropriately funded instead of cops / military, which is the *heavy-handed* approach, and it's demonstrably *not working* because it's causing 1000+ preventable killings per year in the U.S.



wat0n wrote:
There are a lot of approaches that can be taken in-between.



wat0n wrote:
In fact, drug legalization could - in the long run - be one way where you could both defund the police and lower crime rates. Weakening gangs - who represent a larger homicide problem than the cops - by legalizing drugs would decrease gang-related crime, and thus homicides, thereby reducing the need for policing.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *re-stating* what I just said.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but timing is important here. Legalize and regulate first, then police will not be as necessary (hopefully). It would be during the transition, in fact, there may actually be a greater demand for policing during that process.



You're *vacillating* -- if drugs are *legalized* then why would they have to be *regulated*? After legalization of all drugs the police would no longer be required *whatsoever*, so that would eliminate deaths due to the illicit drug trade, and also those deaths by killer cops.

*You're* the one who mentioned dispensary clinics for drug addicts, so is that your idea of 'regulation'? I would call it *social services*, including getting the dose right.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Or* -- which is more-likely -- I *won't* and you'll have to make your own complete thoughts / points, or else you'll *forfeit* that segment.



wat0n wrote:
I can't guess what questions or objections you may have if you don't state them.



You don't *have* to guess. I'll communicate my questions and objections, exactly as I've *been* doing.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's your *exchange fetish* again -- I really don't *give a shit* how people work out their relations around the sex act, because such *isn't* political, it's *interpersonal*.

With my labor credits model people *could* potentially use labor credits at the interpersonal level, for whatever *personal* services, and such *still* would be interpersonal and I wouldn't give a shit because it's none of my business and it's not (socio-)political.



wat0n wrote:
Here radical feminists would furiously disagree with you. But more importantly, it would be economically relevant, even if it has no socio-political angle (although prostitution has always been political in one way or another, at least when it comes to legalizing it at all).



I'm not taking a position on prostitution itself, and you're not saying what the alleged radical feminist position *is*.

If there's some *complication* between two people who don't know each other then, guess what? That *becomes* socio-political because they can't resolve the dispute themselves, for whatever reason, and again, I *don't care* what happens between consenting adults.

Under capitalism all of this is far more complicated than it would be *post*-capitalism, within communism. I'm abstaining from a position because, under capitalism, this is a question of *social norms*, which can be almost *anything*, premised on consenting adults, and so is a question of *prevailing rules* for civil society, meaning *governance* under capitalism, which I have *zero* interest in, both according to my politics and according to my own inclinations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Look at it *chronologically* -- this centralization-from-above occurred *after* the White counterrevolution and the Western imperialist militarist invasions of the Bolshevik Revolution. This centralization-from-above measure was taken in response to *geopolitical* developments, meaning events *from without*.

We could call it a 'forced consolidation' that paved the way for *Stalin's* *imposed*, *nationalist* consolidation which, by that point, had *nothing* to do with workers-of-the-world socialism. You're showing further comprehension.



wat0n wrote:
On the contrary, I fully understand it. That's why I'm saying workers-of-the-world socialism is impossible to implement in practice: How can you do that when centralization has shown to be necessary to fight the revolutionary war to begin with? And after centralizing, how can you decentralize back again as opposed to having the military commanders and political leaders simply hold to their centralized power after the war has ended?



You're *not* understanding that the world's working class does *not require* its own nation-state. You keep conflating / confusing Stalinism with workers-of-the-world socialism, so this is the result -- you're unable to analyze a proletarian revolution in its proper societal context. (You keep equating *historical* outcomes with ideology itself, smudging practice deterministically onto theory.)

Also, proletarian revolution is *not* solely, or even *necessarily* militaristic. It's predominantly *political*, and needs to be as mass-based as possible.

I addressed the 'vanguard opportunism' claim that you made earlier.

You're *still* being unjustifiably *fatalist* and pessimistic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're showing a lack of recognition of historical / societal *scale* -- the details of *one event* do *not* automatically generalize to being a 'fixed' set of immutable factors throughout *all* of social history. You're *over-generalizing*, in other words.

'Class struggle', and 'mode of production' *are* historical constants / factors, at least for as long as class society has existed, which is since the Agricultural Revolution and the initial social production of a *material surplus*, which then has to be 'managed', as by a managerial *class* (the priesthood), which then does not have to do regular, productive work because they're 'managing'.


Image

Image


And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Basing all your analysis on 19th century class structure is also an overgeneralization, and also happens to be a rather simplistic one. Indeed, even 19th century's social conflicts ended up in some sort of compromise between the different classes (and other groups of society) throughout Europe and America, even if they would resurface from time to time in countries like France.



Your generally *contrarian* position causes you to *lash out* in a knee-jerk way, like here. My politics are *not* premised on anything 19th century in particular. Class, as I just mentioned, has existed since the Agricultural Revolution, from around 10,000 BCE.

What you call 'compromise', I call 'continued bourgeois class rule'. It's a *binary* thing -- either one class has hegemony, or the other class does.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So then, likewise, if society prioritizes *civil rights* -- meaning not-being-killed -- then police departments have to be defunded and eliminated so that killer / cops aren't present on the streets with the authority to kill people.



wat0n wrote:
It depends, if civilians kill civilians and the Government has decided to eliminate policing, isn't that a civil rights violation as well?



We *covered* this already -- see above about the full legalization of all drugs, and the civil-society *implications* of that.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now, back to the *topic*, shouldn't the standing-down of the military and police be a political *priority*, on par with that of the American Revolution or Civil Rights Movement?



wat0n wrote:
No, because if preserving life is the priority then one would need to take into account that most homicides are not coming from the police.



Ditto.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd call *this* 'hair-splitting', because it's too *granular* in approach -- everyone needs water and the use-value *availability* of water shouldn't fluctuate according to market pricing. Ditto for many other modern life-necessary goods and services.



wat0n wrote:
Well, that granularity is actually necessary and serves its own purpose. It's precisely thanks to it that the economic agents can get the signals about relative scarcity of each product.



You're describing *capitalism*, and I'm an *anti-capitalist*. I like *my* analysis better than yours.
#15120505
ckaihatsu wrote:It's revenue from *finance*, and *not* from commodity-production. Workers for the bank never produced any *new* value, they just shuffled numbers around for capital that was *pre-existing*.


What? I simply used your definition of "commodity", i.e. "'goods' and 'services' that generate *revenue*".

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, Lenin's centralization measures were forced from *without*, from the Western imperialist invading militaries, and the White counterrevolution.


Why didn't they simply attempt a decentralized defense of the Revolution? Nobody forced him to opt for a centralized defense strategy, almost as if he realized the decentralized workers-of-the-world socialism system would fail to provide for both internal and external security.

ckaihatsu wrote:Nothing that you're saying here *contradicts* what I've just said -- workers have the *know-how*, because they're *in* the process of doing the commodity-production every day. Managers know the overall, birds-eye *process*, as in *project management*, but they don't have the *experiential* know-how that workers do.

There *are* instances where workers go on strike, and managers *try* to fill-in the workers' work roles, but they're *unable* to do so, even knowing the overall process, because they're not regularly doing exactly what the workers do, on-the-ground.

Management *roles* themselves are skewed towards fulfilling *profit* goals, by whatever logistical means, and are *not* about logistical optimization for its own sake.


Right, so those workers that have only finished high school would be able to take up the role of engineers in that example :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't seem to understand the difference between *production*, and *management*. Management manages those who are doing the *producing* of commodities, meaning the wage-workers. Management does not receive a *wage*, as workers do, because management does not produce any actual commodities. Management represents the *company's* interests in overseeing the workers, and so managers are part of the *company* -- the *executives*.


Oh, so management doesn't receive a wage even if when it has no ownership stake over the business, don't they? How are they compensated then?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're going to have to put such data *in context*, and make your political argument *with it* -- what you're typically doing is saying the equivalent of 'See yesterday's New York Times', and since there's no link between your vacuous claims and specific evidence *for* your position, I get to *ignore* that kind of vague referencing from you.

So, to recap -- [1] claim / argument / position + [2] specific provided evidence = [3] empirical conclusion, that I can properly *respond* to.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image


What context do you want, exactly? These are simply the compensation statistics.

ckaihatsu wrote:I was referring to *my* data -- this:


Image


And I'm showing you are not looking at benefits, which are (obviously) part of how much workers are paid.

Also, what's the "context" of this graph, exactly? What you are doing is like saying the equivalent of 'See yesterday's New York Times'.

Spoiler: show
See? We can both do that


ckaihatsu wrote:The second graphic reads:





This is a *fallacious* variable, supposedly representing 'cost', because the variable ('unit labor cost') references a *ratio*, so how can 'cost' be 'seven-eighths', or 'three-quarters', etc. -- what the equation *does* measure is what percentage of the revenue labor receives from the sale of its product, but even *this* measurement is *lacking*, because the equation only shows *outputs* and no *inputs*.

Fortunately I already made a graphic for this process of production that outlines *both* inputs and outputs:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


ckaihatsu wrote:So, in the following scenario...

...The *labor* input is $20 / hour ($10 in wages returned, and $10 in surplus labor value), which is *50%* of the total revenue from the *product* of that labor ($40). The *capital* input is $20 / hour (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), or 50% of revenue, and the capital *returned* is $20 / hour, with a profit of $10, from the worker's surplus labor value. The labor *output*, in wages, is only *25%* of revenue, even though the labor *input* was *50%*.

Your 'unit labor cost', really a *proportion*, would be 50%, though that percentage doesn't actually describe any quantitative *cost*, like $10 in wages per hour of work.


Compensation isn't an input...? :roll:

The name of the variable is... Well, it's self-explanatory: It's how much labor is being paid, per unit produced. If productivity went up but workers were paid the same, output would also go up, compensation would remain the same and thus unit labor costs would go down.

Going on with the example:

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.


So the worker generates output valued at $40 per hour while earning $10 per hour. That means the unit labor cost is 0.25 (= (compensation/hr)/(value of output/hr) = ($10/hr)/($40/hr) - note it has no unit of measurement).

Also, the paragraph has yet another example of how Marxian economists have different definitions of the term "gross revenue":

Accounting Tools wrote:Gross revenue is the total amount of sales recognized for a reporting period, prior to any deductions. This figure indicates the ability of a business to sell goods and services, but not its ability to generate a profit. Deductions from gross revenue include sales discounts and sales returns. When these deductions are netted against gross revenue, the aggregate amount is referred to as net revenue or net sales.


In that case, and assuming there are no returns and discounts, the gross revenue is $40/hr.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay. But Iraq was *destroyed* by NATO invasions in the early part of *this* century.


It was actually destroyed even earlier than that, but yes, the Iraq War further destroyed the country.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I outlined how those papers you provided *don't* actually support your contrarian thesis.


And I outlined how you were not citing them properly.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you mean 'Stalinism'. Workers-of-the-world socialism is just that -- *worldwide*. The historical nation-states you refer to were *nationalist* in scope, and thus were *Stalinist*.


Let's start with the tragedy of the commons. How would workers-of-the-world socialism prevent a natural resource from becoming depleted? How would it prevent communities from failing to follow through on their commitments not to deplete it?

ckaihatsu wrote:Why do you assume that the commons would fatalistically turn into a 'tragedy'? That's just subjective *pessimism* on your part. Why do you think people would allow their commons to be 'depleted' if they had an objective, empirical collective interest in *replenishing* those commons, so that they could all continuously benefit from it -- ?


Because they have a short term interest in getting as much resources as possible, even more so if they see everyone else doing the same.

ckaihatsu wrote:What you call 'historical socialism' was actually *Stalinism*, because it *wasn't* workers-of-the-world socialism, with the *workers* in control of what the factories produced.

You referenced the history *yourself*, so you know the difference. The turning point was the Western military invasions and White counterrevolution against the Bolshevik Revolution, forcing it to consolidate and centralize, for War Communism, to repel the invasions.

Racism and discrimination are *strategies* of the *ruling class* -- the class divide sets up a *social-status hierarchy* based on one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production, with those with *ownership* enjoying the fruits (profits) of what industry produces, while those *without* ownership have to sell their labor to employers for a wage -- exploitation -- for the necessities of modern life and living.

So since there's a social-status *hierarchy*, those who provide jobs, social services, etc. (capitalist employers and government policies, respectively) have the *power* to use racism and racist discrimination as a divide-and-conquer *strategy* to keep the working class divided within itself, even though everyone who's *not* an owner has interests-in-common with *everyone else* who's *also* not an owner.

Eliminate the class divide in society -- as through proletarian revolution -- and all of the social ills perpetrated by the ruling class (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) no longer have a *social basis* for existence, because humanity would be undivided, and would have the common interest of existing and doing well on planet earth, without any separatist private-property interests existing any longer.


This is the usual post-apocalyptic Marxist vision. Yet in practice workers don't really behave like that, and even nowadays that claim simply doesn't add up to reality. It is the elites, both high-earning workers and also the large bourgeoisie itself, which actually tend to be less nationalist, racist, etc and which have drafted and enforce laws to that effect. Even the Civil Rights Movement had a large measure of Northern support, which was (and still is) the richest section of the US, and the most industrialized at the time too.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, you're thinking of nation-state-constrained *state capitalism*, or 'Stalinism', historically.

Correct that there wouldn't be *wages* within workers-of-the-world socialism, because of free-access and post-scarcity material conditions, but mostly because there'd be no separate 'ownership' / employer class that *pays out* wages on the basis of *wealth ownership*, to *exploit* wage-labor.

Regarding a 'New Red Army', so-to-speak, that would all depend on actual conditions of class struggle. My politics is *all for* repressing the bourgeoisie, so whatever *means* that requires is certainly fine by me.


How would that army operate and how would you make sure the draft works?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, which *is* it -- ?

I've now addressed both the 'misfits' scenario, and the 'criminal syndicate' scenario.


Both can exist at the same time, and criminal syndicates can also be regarded as misfits in this (or even our) society.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not recognizing *political function*, though -- yes, police may strike, which is *economic*, just as working-class trade unions may conceivably strike, too, in their own economic interests, but *politically* the police *don't* harass or harm the wealthy, but they *do* harass and harm the *working class*.


When the security establishment's interests diverge too widely from those of the economic one, the former will eventually turn against the latter. Indeed, that's one of the ways of how Marxists can actually get to power.

ckaihatsu wrote:Bullshit -- you're merely *claiming* this. Socialists / socialism aren't *dependent* on any lifestylist culture -- what matters are the *economic* and *political* prevailing policies. I think you're *stereotyping* the individual socialist into some preconceived notion.


Let's look at it from a different perspective. If you were able to work from home, would your daily social interactions be different from having to work in an office?

ckaihatsu wrote:Also socialism *doesn't require* an 'incentive-compatible system'. Socialism, by definition, equates to a *vanguardist* *workers state*. Post-capitalist, post-revolutionary, post-vanguardist communism, by definition, equates to a 'communist gift economy'.


Yes it does, or else you will have individuals showing anti-social behavior without facing any consequences.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm in no position to tell the working class how it should internally self-organize -- it could be *whatever*, really, and I have my own *suggestions* in-the-abstract, of course, but ultimately it's not up to me.

Maybe the soviets would aim for respective self-sufficiency initially, or maybe the vanguardism would be very top-down, so as to better defeat the bourgeoisie in the class war -- note the relation between the respective *variables* here: I think an *easier* struggle would allow for more ground-level autonomy / self-sufficiency, while a *tougher* struggle would necessitate more top-down *centralization*, and more vanguardist *substitutionism*, for the sake of *expediency*, as we saw historically with the Bolshevik Revolution.


It's possible, but in the former scenario you would get that because each worker would own her share of capital, and produce autonomously. That sounds great, but it would tend to gradually erode the need to socialize.

In the second case, whoever was at the top would likely be tempted to stay there for good - and if he had enough support at the time, he would get away with it. And if he did, well, you basically get Stalinism.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Generally* 'yes', but no, I think you're *confusing* the two -- labor credits are in no way *comparable* to capitalist-type 'exchanges', because, even with labor credits, there *are no* exchanges. Liberated laborers with labor credits in-hand simply *pay-them-forward* to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed new work according to agreed-upon *policy* ('policy packages').


This is an implicit exchange.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you like, this is a 'decentralized' way for *funding* / 'voting' (of incoming liberated-laborers) to take place, but only from those who have completed past labor tasks, per hours worked, per work-role-hour multiplier (equalling the number of labor credits they received for those past labor tasks completed), and this 'funding' / 'voting' is *quantitatively limited* to the actual number of labor credits in-hand that they have to 'spend' / pay-forward.

So, for example, if 1000 liberated laborers have 1000 labor credits each in-hand, and they all decide to support 'Project 2030' with their total of 1,000,000 labor credits, that means that 'Project 2030' would have commitments of 1,000,000 labor credits to apportion to *any* mix or grouping of 'incoming' liberated laborers, for the work roles planned, but only to the extent that 1,000,000 labor credits *funds* those respective work roles going-forward.

If there happen to be 100 different work roles, and they all have a multiplier of '1', then that means that Project 2030 can be funded in full, for those 100 different work roles, for 10,000 hours each, equalling 1,000,000 labor credits in total.


Right, this is something I could understand. So I take it e.g. I could not borrow labor credits from other workers in exchange for paying them those credits up plus an interest, right? Instead, I would need to get them to agree to some quid-pro-quo arrangement where they support my project this time in exchange for me supporting theirs in the future.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're indulging a fantasy now because the vanguard would have just politically *overthrown* class rule, in favor of all of humanity. They're *professional revolutionaries*. (Politically.) Do you understand that the situation would then be, say, *thousands* in the vanguard worldwide, versus 7+ *billion*, of all of humanity?

You're being too *suspicious* of those who have just liberated humanity through a global proletarian revolution. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be *solely* the vanguard -- it's just a *vehicle* that happens to represent the mass revolutionary sentiment from *below*, which would be entirely *active*, as in general strikes, factory takeovers, etc.


Of course I'm suspicious about them, since people who try to get power at all costs are often worthy of being treated with suspicion. And if the vanguard were to monopolize weapons, I can imagine what would happen afterwards - particularly if they felt entitled to it for finally smashing capitalism.

Yet if it wasn't, I can imagine other "vanguards" popping up with their own grievances, both real and imagined to be used to justify a takeover.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're talking about the *economic duress* that capitalism places workers in -- 'false consciousness' has to do with people's own *political* self-conceptions, meaning where their objective *interests* are, or are not.


Sure, but many people who are adamant about going to work right now are facing economic duress.

ckaihatsu wrote:Ask me.


Are you? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:Have you ever heard of the Vietnam War? Violence was met by violence, and the U.S. *lost* the war. And the Viet Minh *won*.

I'm not saying that a worldwide class war is necessarily going to *resemble* the Vietnam War, but again, you're simply being too fatalistic and pessimistic.


You do realize that, had the US had the resolve to win whatever the cost, it would have absolutely won in Vietnam... Right? The class war scenario you describe would likely give them that kind of resolve.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you *laughing* -- it's an entirely valid *distinction*, because Marxism calls for the defeat of the bourgeoisie, at the hands of the proletariat, and that's certainly *not* what happened under Stalin, or Stalinism, in the USSR.


That's a claim our Stalinist/Marxist-Leninist members would likely disagree with.

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't *get* it -- professional corporate propaganda isn't simply a *contrarian message*, like what *you* do. It's actually *stealthy* and has the goal of getting people to *adopt* false-consciousness so that they themselves decide not to act in their own best interests, as in politically opposing the bourgeoisie, if they happen to be working class.


Interesting, well, if workers are so easily manipulated then what makes you believe a proletarian revolution could ever succeed?

ckaihatsu wrote:That's 'diminshing returns' because the city doesn't *have* to get 10-gallons-plus-1-glass-of-water per person per day when just 10 gallons per person (or whatever) would do just fine. Any surplus water would not be worth the effort / energy it requires to acquire it. Diminishing returns is *synonymous* with 'marginal utility'.


Diminishing returns usually applies to production only, not utility/consumption.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *vacillating* -- if drugs are *legalized* then why would they have to be *regulated*? After legalization of all drugs the police would no longer be required *whatsoever*, so that would eliminate deaths due to the illicit drug trade, and also those deaths by killer cops.

*You're* the one who mentioned dispensary clinics for drug addicts, so is that your idea of 'regulation'? I would call it *social services*, including getting the dose right.


How would you deal with people selling or even handing out counterfeit and potentially deadly drugs? You know, you can actually do it with alcohol after all...

ckaihatsu wrote:You don't *have* to guess. I'll communicate my questions and objections, exactly as I've *been* doing.


Good :)

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not taking a position on prostitution itself, and you're not saying what the alleged radical feminist position *is*.


I'm of course referring to those who want to ban prostitution here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ostitution

ckaihatsu wrote:If there's some *complication* between two people who don't know each other then, guess what? That *becomes* socio-political because they can't resolve the dispute themselves, for whatever reason, and again, I *don't care* what happens between consenting adults.

Under capitalism all of this is far more complicated than it would be *post*-capitalism, within communism. I'm abstaining from a position because, under capitalism, this is a question of *social norms*, which can be almost *anything*, premised on consenting adults, and so is a question of *prevailing rules* for civil society, meaning *governance* under capitalism, which I have *zero* interest in, both according to my politics and according to my own inclinations.


Well, so far quite a few feminists would claim prostitution can lead to conflicts between people who don't know each other, and would thus be socio-political. I fail to see why wouldn't the debate be relevant outside of capitalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *not* understanding that the world's working class does *not require* its own nation-state. You keep conflating / confusing Stalinism with workers-of-the-world socialism, so this is the result -- you're unable to analyze a proletarian revolution in its proper societal context. (You keep equating *historical* outcomes with ideology itself, smudging practice deterministically onto theory.)

Also, proletarian revolution is *not* solely, or even *necessarily* militaristic. It's predominantly *political*, and needs to be as mass-based as possible.

I addressed the 'vanguard opportunism' claim that you made earlier.

You're *still* being unjustifiably *fatalist* and pessimistic.


Of course I understand, indeed, it's basically what happened with the USSR. How would you prevent it from happening again?

ckaihatsu wrote:Your generally *contrarian* position causes you to *lash out* in a knee-jerk way, like here. My politics are *not* premised on anything 19th century in particular. Class, as I just mentioned, has existed since the Agricultural Revolution, from around 10,000 BCE.

What you call 'compromise', I call 'continued bourgeois class rule'. It's a *binary* thing -- either one class has hegemony, or the other class does.


Why is it a binary?

ckaihatsu wrote:We *covered* this already -- see above about the full legalization of all drugs, and the civil-society *implications* of that.


Although gang-related killings stand at around 2,000 per year and police killings stand at around 1,000 per year, the total number of homicides stands at around 13,000 per year. So legalizing drugs alone won't solve the problem, even under the best circumstances.

ckaihatsu wrote:Ditto.


So what can you conclude from that?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're describing *capitalism*, and I'm an *anti-capitalist*. I like *my* analysis better than yours.


As long as it exists, it will be relevant.
#15120854
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's revenue from *finance*, and *not* from commodity-production. Workers for the bank never produced any *new* value, they just shuffled numbers around for capital that was *pre-existing*.



wat0n wrote:
What? I simply used your definition of "commodity", i.e. "'goods' and 'services' that generate *revenue*".



I just *clarified* -- the capital being shuffled around, for finance, was *pre-existing*. No new value is created / produced through financial services -- that only comes from *commodity production*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, Lenin's centralization measures were forced from *without*, from the Western imperialist invading militaries, and the White counterrevolution.



wat0n wrote:
Why didn't they simply attempt a decentralized defense of the Revolution? Nobody forced him to opt for a centralized defense strategy, almost as if he realized the decentralized workers-of-the-world socialism system would fail to provide for both internal and external security.



Well, today's militaries, for example, use *command hierarchies*, and so do corporations -- the hierarchical structure can be quicker and more responsive to external developments, but at the cost of realtime mass support, since people lower down are not consulted for each and every given decision.

Strategically you're sounding like an *anarchist*, the politics of which is just *too localist* to be appropriately responsive to bourgeois ruling class movements and developments.

There's *no such thing* as 'decentralized workers-of-the-world socialism', because the point of socialism is to take advantage of available industrial mass-production practices and *centralized* economies-of-scale, under workers control. This is called a 'workers state'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nothing that you're saying here *contradicts* what I've just said -- workers have the *know-how*, because they're *in* the process of doing the commodity-production every day. Managers know the overall, birds-eye *process*, as in *project management*, but they don't have the *experiential* know-how that workers do.

There *are* instances where workers go on strike, and managers *try* to fill-in the workers' work roles, but they're *unable* to do so, even knowing the overall process, because they're not regularly doing exactly what the workers do, on-the-ground.

Management *roles* themselves are skewed towards fulfilling *profit* goals, by whatever logistical means, and are *not* about logistical optimization for its own sake.



wat0n wrote:
Right, so those workers that have only finished high school would be able to take up the role of engineers in that example :roll:



Actually, *yes* -- you're being too formalistic, and not-realizing that workers learn much *on-the-job*, specifically the particular *workflows* for their given position at their workplace.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't seem to understand the difference between *production*, and *management*. Management manages those who are doing the *producing* of commodities, meaning the wage-workers. Management does not receive a *wage*, as workers do, because management does not produce any actual commodities. Management represents the *company's* interests in overseeing the workers, and so managers are part of the *company* -- the *executives*.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, so management doesn't receive a wage even if when it has no ownership stake over the business, don't they? How are they compensated then?



As I just said, they're compensated with *salaries*, which are *not* indexed to the item-by-item production of commodities at that company. Their salaries are a *business expense* (overhead) to the company.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going to have to put such data *in context*, and make your political argument *with it* -- what you're typically doing is saying the equivalent of 'See yesterday's New York Times', and since there's no link between your vacuous claims and specific evidence *for* your position, I get to *ignore* that kind of vague referencing from you.

So, to recap -- [1] claim / argument / position + [2] specific provided evidence = [3] empirical conclusion, that I can properly *respond* to.



Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image
[/quote]


wat0n wrote:
What context do you want, exactly? These are simply the compensation statistics.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I was referring to *my* data -- this:

Image



wat0n wrote:
And I'm showing you are not looking at benefits, which are (obviously) part of how much workers are paid.



You still haven't provided any 'benefits' data.


wat0n wrote:
Also, what's the "context" of this graph, exactly? What you are doing is like saying the equivalent of 'See yesterday's New York Times'.

SPOILER: SHOW

See? We can both do that



The *difference* is that the graph I provided showed a *comparison*, while yours showed one variable / trendline on its own, devoid of context.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The second graphic reads:

Unit Labor Cost is also equal to the ratio of compensation per hour worked over output per hour worked. Unit Labor Cost = Compensation / Hour // Output / Hour


This is a *fallacious* variable, supposedly representing 'cost', because the variable ('unit labor cost') references a *ratio*, so how can 'cost' be 'seven-eighths', or 'three-quarters', etc. -- what the equation *does* measure is what percentage of the revenue labor receives from the sale of its product, but even *this* measurement is *lacking*, because the equation only shows *outputs* and no *inputs*.

Fortunately I already made a graphic for this process of production that outlines *both* inputs and outputs:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


ckaihatsu wrote:
So, in the following scenario...


Marx's solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value


...The *labor* input is $20 / hour ($10 in wages returned, and $10 in surplus labor value), which is *50%* of the total revenue from the *product* of that labor ($40). The *capital* input is $20 / hour (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), or 50% of revenue, and the capital *returned* is $20 / hour, with a profit of $10, from the worker's surplus labor value. The labor *output*, in wages, is only *25%* of revenue, even though the labor *input* was *50%*.

Your 'unit labor cost', really a *proportion*, would be 50%, though that percentage doesn't actually describe any quantitative *cost*, like $10 in wages per hour of work.



wat0n wrote:
Compensation isn't an input...? :roll:



Which 'compensation' are you referring to?


wat0n wrote:
The name of the variable is... Well, it's self-explanatory: It's how much labor is being paid, per unit produced.



Again, this makes no sense because your 'unit labor cost' variable yields a *ratio* / fraction, which isn't a number that measures a set value, like cost. In other words that so-called economic variable is *bullshit*.


wat0n wrote:
If productivity went up but workers were paid the same, output would also go up, compensation would remain the same and thus unit labor costs would go down.



Yes, that's what the graph that I provided shows -- it's actual history since 1970.


wat0n wrote:
Going on with the example:

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.


wat0n wrote:
So the worker generates output valued at $40 per hour while earning $10 per hour. That means the unit labor cost is 0.25 (= (compensation/hr)/(value of output/hr) = ($10/hr)/($40/hr) - note it has no unit of measurement).



Okay, you're *clarifying* it, but the term itself is misleading since it sounds like it would be a dollar amount, which is what's usually expected for the category of 'cost'.


wat0n wrote:
Also, the paragraph has yet another example of how Marxian economists have different definitions of the term "gross revenue":

Accounting Tools wrote:
Gross revenue is the total amount of sales recognized for a reporting period, prior to any deductions. This figure indicates the ability of a business to sell goods and services, but not its ability to generate a profit. Deductions from gross revenue include sales discounts and sales returns. When these deductions are netted against gross revenue, the aggregate amount is referred to as net revenue or net sales.



You're *bullshitting* again, trying to make it sound as though there's a schism among Marxists over basic definitions. 'Gross revenue' is the definition for 'revenue' that Marxists use.


wat0n wrote:
In that case, and assuming there are no returns and discounts, the gross revenue is $40/hr.



Yes. The *important* aspect is the $10 in surplus labor value that has been expropriated from the worker in the process of production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your approach is unable to take *geopolitical* factors into account, such as Western imperialist invasions, or the *lack* of such destruction, as in Norway.



wat0n wrote:
Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany, remember?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay. But Iraq was *destroyed* by NATO invasions in the early part of *this* century.



wat0n wrote:
It was actually destroyed even earlier than that, but yes, the Iraq War further destroyed the country.



So my point stands that you tend to only address the *economic*, and you're ignoring aspects of *Western militaristic imperialism*, which *impacts* local economics profoundly.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I outlined how those papers you provided *don't* actually support your contrarian thesis.



wat0n wrote:
And I outlined how you were not citing them properly.



I was using the *abstracts*, which refer to the content of a given paper in full.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you mean 'Stalinism'. Workers-of-the-world socialism is just that -- *worldwide*. The historical nation-states you refer to were *nationalist* in scope, and thus were *Stalinist*.



wat0n wrote:
Let's start with the tragedy of the commons. How would workers-of-the-world socialism prevent a natural resource from becoming depleted? How would it prevent communities from failing to follow through on their commitments not to deplete it?



Given (my) premise of 'a landscape of piles of stuff', the point would be for workers at any given workplace to *replenish* a 'pile of stuff', meaning a set quantity for an inventory of a particular item. This is conventionally called a 'stock control' system.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why do you assume that the commons would fatalistically turn into a 'tragedy'? That's just subjective *pessimism* on your part. Why do you think people would allow their commons to be 'depleted' if they had an objective, empirical collective interest in *replenishing* those commons, so that they could all continuously benefit from it -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Because they have a short term interest in getting as much resources as possible, even more so if they see everyone else doing the same.



No, you're thinking of the ethos of *capitalism* -- short-term *profits* are a real thing, which is exactly why the capitalist short-term-profit-making ethos / politics is *incompatible* with a post-capitalist communist-type society.

When things are available in *abundance* people have *no* anxiety over its depletion and future scarcity, because there's no scarcity of it now and there most-likely will be no scarcity of it in the future, either. We don't hoard *air*, or *water*, thinking that others are going to 'get to it first'.

At some point, in a communist-society context, people will no longer be able to *actively claim* some extent of personal possessions, if they happen to build up large *quantities* of such -- again, the theory is *weak* on the definition of 'personal property' for such a society, but I think that if a person can't consistently *be around* the items that they claim are theirs then they probably won't have them for much longer, especially if others want them.

I've summarized this issue as 'Would the people of a communist-type society use *padlocks*, or not?'


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What you call 'historical socialism' was actually *Stalinism*, because it *wasn't* workers-of-the-world socialism, with the *workers* in control of what the factories produced.

You referenced the history *yourself*, so you know the difference. The turning point was the Western military invasions and White counterrevolution against the Bolshevik Revolution, forcing it to consolidate and centralize, for War Communism, to repel the invasions.

Racism and discrimination are *strategies* of the *ruling class* -- the class divide sets up a *social-status hierarchy* based on one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production, with those with *ownership* enjoying the fruits (profits) of what industry produces, while those *without* ownership have to sell their labor to employers for a wage -- exploitation -- for the necessities of modern life and living.

So since there's a social-status *hierarchy*, those who provide jobs, social services, etc. (capitalist employers and government policies, respectively) have the *power* to use racism and racist discrimination as a divide-and-conquer *strategy* to keep the working class divided within itself, even though everyone who's *not* an owner has interests-in-common with *everyone else* who's *also* not an owner.

Eliminate the class divide in society -- as through proletarian revolution -- and all of the social ills perpetrated by the ruling class (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) no longer have a *social basis* for existence, because humanity would be undivided, and would have the common interest of existing and doing well on planet earth, without any separatist private-property interests existing any longer.



wat0n wrote:
This is the usual post-apocalyptic Marxist vision. Yet in practice workers don't really behave like that, and even nowadays that claim simply doesn't add up to reality. It is the elites, both high-earning workers and also the large bourgeoisie itself, which actually tend to be less nationalist, racist, etc and which have drafted and enforce laws to that effect. Even the Civil Rights Movement had a large measure of Northern support, which was (and still is) the richest section of the US, and the most industrialized at the time too.



Where are you getting the 'apocalyptic' aspect from? It's actually *slanderous* of the politics that I espouse, Marxism, because it's a *mischaracterization*. You're likening a mass-proactive worldwide proletarian revolution to a fictional zombie apocalypse, which is slander.

*And* you're mixing up the *personal* scale of things, with the *political* scale of things -- people of the wealthy and powerful bourgeois class may *personally* tout personal values of social tolerance, etc., but then they become *hypocritical* when it comes to actual political *policies*, and will support status quo establishment politics that cut against social reform efforts.

Political efforts to nullify 'qualified immunity' for cops, defund police departments, etc., are *today's* 'civil rights movement', yet are currently *insufficient* since these things *aren't* being implemented, to stop cops from killing more people. More people *are* being killed by cops.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, you're thinking of nation-state-constrained *state capitalism*, or 'Stalinism', historically.

Correct that there wouldn't be *wages* within workers-of-the-world socialism, because of free-access and post-scarcity material conditions, but mostly because there'd be no separate 'ownership' / employer class that *pays out* wages on the basis of *wealth ownership*, to *exploit* wage-labor.

Regarding a 'New Red Army', so-to-speak, that would all depend on actual conditions of class struggle. My politics is *all for* repressing the bourgeoisie, so whatever *means* that requires is certainly fine by me.



wat0n wrote:
How would that army operate and how would you make sure the draft works?



I can't speak to any hypothetical *particulars* because there'd be no point -- it would just be my own imaginings, in the abstract.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, which *is* it -- ?

I've now addressed both the 'misfits' scenario, and the 'criminal syndicate' scenario.



wat0n wrote:
Both can exist at the same time, and criminal syndicates can also be regarded as misfits in this (or even our) society.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not recognizing *political function*, though -- yes, police may strike, which is *economic*, just as working-class trade unions may conceivably strike, too, in their own economic interests, but *politically* the police *don't* harass or harm the wealthy, but they *do* harass and harm the *working class*.



wat0n wrote:
When the security establishment's interests diverge too widely from those of the economic one, the former will eventually turn against the latter. Indeed, that's one of the ways of how Marxists can actually get to power.



You're not making any sense here -- I think you may have the causation linkages *reversed*.

When the economy gets so shitty that regular people can no longer live regular lives then they revolt, as we've been seeing in several countries now, recently in Belarus and Bulgaria. This challenges the 'national security' state to stop the elitist practice of equating the health of the nation with the health of its people, since the two are *not* linked, and increasingly apparently so.

Also, Marxism isn't a 'country-by-country' thing, really, though it *can* take place that way, but it's really more about *working class* interests rising-up and superseding the status quo bourgeois ruling class interests that typically prevail.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, nothing I just said was lifestylist -- I called for *collectivized social production*, which has to do with social (material) *productivity*, and not with any individual's lifestyle, or even any lifestyles in common.



wat0n wrote:
No, it doesn't simply have to do with productivity. What you are saying is effectively that being a socialist worker would be a lifestyle in its own right, since most if not all facets of life would revolve around that and since it would also require a massive change in culture and preferences to ever hope to be an incentive-compatible system.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Bullshit -- you're merely *claiming* this. Socialists / socialism aren't *dependent* on any lifestylist culture -- what matters are the *economic* and *political* prevailing policies. I think you're *stereotyping* the individual socialist into some preconceived notion.



wat0n wrote:
Let's look at it from a different perspective. If you were able to work from home, would your daily social interactions be different from having to work in an office?



Now you're trying to conflate 'office culture', with *workers power* -- the two are *not* related.


---


wat0n wrote:
No, it doesn't simply have to do with productivity. What you are saying is effectively that being a socialist worker would be a lifestyle in its own right, since most if not all facets of life would revolve around that and since it would also require a massive change in culture and preferences to ever hope to be an incentive-compatible system.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Also socialism *doesn't require* an 'incentive-compatible system'. Socialism, by definition, equates to a *vanguardist* *workers state*. Post-capitalist, post-revolutionary, post-vanguardist communism, by definition, equates to a 'communist gift economy'.



wat0n wrote:
Yes it does, or else you will have individuals showing anti-social behavior without facing any consequences.



Don't you understand that you're in *no position* to mischaracterize socialism?

You *really* think that, as a status-quo upholder you have *any* credibility to sow *anxiety* onto those like myself who are *anti-capitalist*?

Just stop.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm in no position to tell the working class how it should internally self-organize -- it could be *whatever*, really, and I have my own *suggestions* in-the-abstract, of course, but ultimately it's not up to me.

Maybe the soviets would aim for respective self-sufficiency initially, or maybe the vanguardism would be very top-down, so as to better defeat the bourgeoisie in the class war -- note the relation between the respective *variables* here: I think an *easier* struggle would allow for more ground-level autonomy / self-sufficiency, while a *tougher* struggle would necessitate more top-down *centralization*, and more vanguardist *substitutionism*, for the sake of *expediency*, as we saw historically with the Bolshevik Revolution.



wat0n wrote:
It's possible, but in the former scenario you would get that because each worker would own her share of capital,



If society is still going to rely on capital / the market mechanism, for social organization of production, then a revolution would be *moot* -- there would be no point.

The political *purpose* of revolution is to *overthrow* private-property relations, so that social productivity is collectively organized by the ones doing the work, the *workers*.


wat0n wrote:
and produce autonomously. That sounds great, but it would tend to gradually erode the need to socialize.

In the second case, whoever was at the top would likely be tempted to stay there for good - and if he had enough support at the time, he would get away with it. And if he did, well, you basically get Stalinism.



You're revealing your overly-dismissive *fatalism* again -- you're *blinkered* when it comes to the *political* aspect of the mutually antagonistic *classes*.

Those who are currently *disempowered* by the bourgeois capitalist status-quo have *every reason* to organize, to *overthrow* bourgeois class rule, and to collectively self-organize to produce for human need, instead of for private profit.

The rest is just *details*, and you still seem to think that you have a place to criticize revolutionary methodology. You *don't*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Generally* 'yes', but no, I think you're *confusing* the two -- labor credits are in no way *comparable* to capitalist-type 'exchanges', because, even with labor credits, there *are no* exchanges. Liberated laborers with labor credits in-hand simply *pay-them-forward* to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed new work according to agreed-upon *policy* ('policy packages').



wat0n wrote:
This is an implicit exchange.



No, it isn't. Labor credits go from one liberated-laborer, to another. Where's the exchange?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you like, this is a 'decentralized' way for *funding* / 'voting' (of incoming liberated-laborers) to take place, but only from those who have completed past labor tasks, per hours worked, per work-role-hour multiplier (equalling the number of labor credits they received for those past labor tasks completed), and this 'funding' / 'voting' is *quantitatively limited* to the actual number of labor credits in-hand that they have to 'spend' / pay-forward.

So, for example, if 1000 liberated laborers have 1000 labor credits each in-hand, and they all decide to support 'Project 2030' with their total of 1,000,000 labor credits, that means that 'Project 2030' would have commitments of 1,000,000 labor credits to apportion to *any* mix or grouping of 'incoming' liberated laborers, for the work roles planned, but only to the extent that 1,000,000 labor credits *funds* those respective work roles going-forward.

If there happen to be 100 different work roles, and they all have a multiplier of '1', then that means that Project 2030 can be funded in full, for those 100 different work roles, for 10,000 hours each, equalling 1,000,000 labor credits in total.



wat0n wrote:
Right, this is something I could understand. So I take it e.g. I could not borrow labor credits from other workers in exchange for paying them those credits up plus an interest, right? Instead, I would need to get them to agree to some quid-pro-quo arrangement where they support my project this time in exchange for me supporting theirs in the future.



Right -- I think the model could lend itself to *politicking*, which would be fine because it would all be socio-political -- not private-financial -- and on the basis of free-access for all, to the world's natural and infrastructural resources.

*Ideally* it would look more *consumer*-like, with those who worked and earned labor credits using them to 'shop' for the proposals / 'policy packages' / (social policies), that they *liked* the most, irrespective of all other factors.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're indulging a fantasy now because the vanguard would have just politically *overthrown* class rule, in favor of all of humanity. They're *professional revolutionaries*. (Politically.) Do you understand that the situation would then be, say, *thousands* in the vanguard worldwide, versus 7+ *billion*, of all of humanity?

You're being too *suspicious* of those who have just liberated humanity through a global proletarian revolution. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be *solely* the vanguard -- it's just a *vehicle* that happens to represent the mass revolutionary sentiment from *below*, which would be entirely *active*, as in general strikes, factory takeovers, etc.



wat0n wrote:
Of course I'm suspicious about them, since people who try to get power at all costs are often worthy of being treated with suspicion. And if the vanguard were to monopolize weapons, I can imagine what would happen afterwards - particularly if they felt entitled to it for finally smashing capitalism.

Yet if it wasn't, I can imagine other "vanguards" popping up with their own grievances, both real and imagined to be used to justify a takeover.



Well, that's fair -- sure, there could very well be 'vanguardist factionalism', over matters of general *theory*, and over matters of specific twists-and-turns in implementation. I see this *currently*, as one would if they've been around the revolutionary left to any considerable extent. That's *politics*. Inhale deeply. (grin)


---


wat0n wrote:
I mean, you are using the wrong concept to deal with that phenomenon. People need to work, thereby they are willing to do so even during the pandemic.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're talking about the *economic duress* that capitalism places workers in -- 'false consciousness' has to do with people's own *political* self-conceptions, meaning where their objective *interests* are, or are not.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but many people who are adamant about going to work right now are facing economic duress.



Yup -- all the more reason for workers control. If workers controlled production they could produce the stuff they need for themselves, instead of to hand over to the employer, for corporate profits.


---


wat0n wrote:
Sure, but I doubt you are literally indifferent between what both Trump and Biden represent, and propose.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Ask me.



wat0n wrote:
Are you? :eh:



I am literally indifferent about who's the U.S.'s next top employee.

Biden wants to resume bombing other countries, and Trump has killed immigrants, broken up their families, imposed sanctions on other countries (a form of warfare), and supported fascist killings and killings by police.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Vietnam War? Violence was met by violence, and the U.S. *lost* the war. And the Viet Minh *won*.

I'm not saying that a worldwide class war is necessarily going to *resemble* the Vietnam War, but again, you're simply being too fatalistic and pessimistic.



wat0n wrote:
You do realize that, had the US had the resolve to win whatever the cost, it would have absolutely won in Vietnam... Right? The class war scenario you describe would likely give them that kind of resolve.



'Resolve' -- ?

That's all you care about regarding the Vietnam War?



Vietnamese civilian dead: 627,000–2,000,000[34]:450–3[57][58]
Vietnamese total dead: 966,000[33]–3,812,000[58]
Cambodian Civil War dead: 275,000–310,000[59][60][61]
Laotian Civil War dead: 20,000–62,000[58]
Non-Indochinese military dead: 65,494
Total dead: 1,326,494–4,249,494



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



So what was all that for, exactly?

And please don't use scare tactics -- you're embarrassing yourself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why are you *laughing* -- it's an entirely valid *distinction*, because Marxism calls for the defeat of the bourgeoisie, at the hands of the proletariat, and that's certainly *not* what happened under Stalin, or Stalinism, in the USSR.



wat0n wrote:
That's a claim our Stalinist/Marxist-Leninist members would likely disagree with.



Fuck them. They tend to collaborate with the bourgeoisie of whatever country they're in.

You're *still* trying to interfere outside of your own political camp. Stop it.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't *get* it -- professional corporate propaganda isn't simply a *contrarian message*, like what *you* do. It's actually *stealthy* and has the goal of getting people to *adopt* false-consciousness so that they themselves decide not to act in their own best interests, as in politically opposing the bourgeoisie, if they happen to be working class.



wat0n wrote:
Interesting, well, if workers are so easily manipulated then what makes you believe a proletarian revolution could ever succeed?



Worsening economic and political conditions. Reality trumps corporate / government propaganda.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's 'diminshing returns' because the city doesn't *have* to get 10-gallons-plus-1-glass-of-water per person per day when just 10 gallons per person (or whatever) would do just fine. Any surplus water would not be worth the effort / energy it requires to acquire it. Diminishing returns is *synonymous* with 'marginal utility'.



wat0n wrote:
Diminishing returns usually applies to production only, not utility/consumption.



Correct -- and that's what I described. How much water does the city source?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *vacillating* -- if drugs are *legalized* then why would they have to be *regulated*? After legalization of all drugs the police would no longer be required *whatsoever*, so that would eliminate deaths due to the illicit drug trade, and also those deaths by killer cops.

*You're* the one who mentioned dispensary clinics for drug addicts, so is that your idea of 'regulation'? I would call it *social services*, including getting the dose right.



wat0n wrote:
How would you deal with people selling or even handing out counterfeit and potentially deadly drugs? You know, you can actually do it with alcohol after all...



You *said it yourself* -- dispensary clinics for drug users / addicts. That's a social service instead of a heavy-handed police invasion.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't *have* to guess. I'll communicate my questions and objections, exactly as I've *been* doing.



wat0n wrote:
Good :)



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not taking a position on prostitution itself, and you're not saying what the alleged radical feminist position *is*.



wat0n wrote:
I'm of course referring to those who want to ban prostitution here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ostitution




Anti-prostitution feminists hold that prostitution is a form of exploitation of women and male dominance over women and a practice which is the result of the existing patriarchal societal order. These feminists argue that prostitution has a very negative effect, both on the prostitutes themselves and on society as a whole, as it reinforces stereotypical views about women, who are seen as sex objects which can be used and abused by men.

Pro-prostitution feminists hold that prostitution and other forms of sex work can be valid choices for women and men who choose to engage in it. In this view, prostitution must be differentiated from forced prostitution, and feminists should support sex worker activism against abuses by both the sex industry and the legal system.



Yeah -- I just remembered my position, now -- it's been awhile.

Basically sex work is work, so sex workers are exploited and oppressed, like all other workers. The radical feminist position suffers from the theoretical flaw of formulating 'patriarchy' as the source of women's oppression, when in fact it's *capitalism*, and sexism is "just" one particular form of bourgeois ruling-class divide-and-conquer strategy over the working class in general.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If there's some *complication* between two people who don't know each other then, guess what? That *becomes* socio-political because they can't resolve the dispute themselves, for whatever reason, and again, I *don't care* what happens between consenting adults.

Under capitalism all of this is far more complicated than it would be *post*-capitalism, within communism. I'm abstaining from a position because, under capitalism, this is a question of *social norms*, which can be almost *anything*, premised on consenting adults, and so is a question of *prevailing rules* for civil society, meaning *governance* under capitalism, which I have *zero* interest in, both according to my politics and according to my own inclinations.



wat0n wrote:
Well, so far quite a few feminists would claim prostitution can lead to conflicts between people who don't know each other, and would thus be socio-political. I fail to see why wouldn't the debate be relevant outside of capitalism.



Well, at least, post-capitalism, all sexual relations wouldn't be *criminalized* in the least, so there wouldn't be any *oppression* there. Sure, there could still be civil disturbances, but that could be readily addressed by the larger post-capitalist society in some humane way.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *not* understanding that the world's working class does *not require* its own nation-state. You keep conflating / confusing Stalinism with workers-of-the-world socialism, so this is the result -- you're unable to analyze a proletarian revolution in its proper societal context. (You keep equating *historical* outcomes with ideology itself, smudging practice deterministically onto theory.)

Also, proletarian revolution is *not* solely, or even *necessarily* militaristic. It's predominantly *political*, and needs to be as mass-based as possible.

I addressed the 'vanguard opportunism' claim that you made earlier.

You're *still* being unjustifiably *fatalist* and pessimistic.



wat0n wrote:
Of course I understand, indeed, it's basically what happened with the USSR. How would you prevent it from happening again?



Don't allow Western countries to imperialistically *invade* the nascent working class revolution, wherever it may happen to occur.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your generally *contrarian* position causes you to *lash out* in a knee-jerk way, like here. My politics are *not* premised on anything 19th century in particular. Class, as I just mentioned, has existed since the Agricultural Revolution, from around 10,000 BCE.

What you call 'compromise', I call 'continued bourgeois class rule'. It's a *binary* thing -- either one class has hegemony, or the other class does.



wat0n wrote:
Why is it a binary?



I just *described* it -- it's *class*. Either one class has hegemony, or the other class does. All of class history bears this out.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We *covered* this already -- see above about the full legalization of all drugs, and the civil-society *implications* of that.



wat0n wrote:
Although gang-related killings stand at around 2,000 per year and police killings stand at around 1,000 per year, the total number of homicides stands at around 13,000 per year. So legalizing drugs alone won't solve the problem, even under the best circumstances.



Well, let's start with ending those 3,000 deaths per year, and we'll go from there. What can you say about the remaining 10,000 deaths per year?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Ditto.



wat0n wrote:
So what can you conclude from that?



(See the previous.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd call *this* 'hair-splitting', because it's too *granular* in approach -- everyone needs water and the use-value *availability* of water shouldn't fluctuate according to market pricing. Ditto for many other modern life-necessary goods and services.



wat0n wrote:
Well, that granularity is actually necessary and serves its own purpose. It's precisely thanks to it that the economic agents can get the signals about relative scarcity of each product.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're describing *capitalism*, and I'm an *anti-capitalist*. I like *my* analysis better than yours.



wat0n wrote:
As long as it exists, it will be relevant.



Society doesn't have to use *exchange values*, though, and *market* pricing / exchanges for the sake of this kind of economic / material information -- my model, in particular, provides a *politicization* / socialization for such, by simply allowing everyone to submit their own daily individually *ranked* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) 'demands' lists, which are then mass-aggregated by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.) over a locality or greater geography, to reveal what people are demanding the most, which can be both material *and* socio-political in nature.
#15120886
ckaihatsu wrote:I just *clarified* -- the capital being shuffled around, for finance, was *pre-existing*. No new value is created / produced through financial services -- that only comes from *commodity production*.


And you are wrong about that: Of course there is new value in financial intermediation.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, today's militaries, for example, use *command hierarchies*, and so do corporations -- the hierarchical structure can be quicker and more responsive to external developments, but at the cost of realtime mass support, since people lower down are not consulted for each and every given decision.

Strategically you're sounding like an *anarchist*, the politics of which is just *too localist* to be appropriately responsive to bourgeois ruling class movements and developments.

There's *no such thing* as 'decentralized workers-of-the-world socialism', because the point of socialism is to take advantage of available industrial mass-production practices and *centralized* economies-of-scale, under workers control. This is called a 'workers state'.


Yet it would have no State behind it...?

ckaihatsu wrote:Actually, *yes* -- you're being too formalistic, and not-realizing that workers learn much *on-the-job*, specifically the particular *workflows* for their given position at their workplace.


Right, you can learn as much as an engineering degree on the job, sure...

ckaihatsu wrote:As I just said, they're compensated with *salaries*, which are *not* indexed to the item-by-item production of commodities at that company. Their salaries are a *business expense* (overhead) to the company.


And a necessary expense for actually running the business. Also, since when is worker compensation necessarily indexed to the item-by-item production of a company? Did you note that unit labor costs actually shot up this last quarter?

ckaihatsu wrote:You still haven't provided any 'benefits' data.


I don't need to. If wages are constant and compensation goes up, it's because benefits are going up.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *difference* is that the graph I provided showed a *comparison*, while yours showed one variable / trendline on its own, devoid of context.


Again, I don't need that either. Unit Labor Costs includes the output in the denominator.

ckaihatsu wrote:Which 'compensation' are you referring to?


Worker wages and benefits.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, this makes no sense because your 'unit labor cost' variable yields a *ratio* / fraction, which isn't a number that measures a set value, like cost. In other words that so-called economic variable is *bullshit*.


It doesn't need to do that, this is like saying profit rates are bullshit because it is also a ratio and not a number that measures a set value, like cost.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's what the graph that I provided shows -- it's actual history since 1970.


No, you are comparing productivity with wages only, ignoring benefits. Unit Labor Costs compare productivity with total compensation in a single ratio.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, you're *clarifying* it, but the term itself is misleading since it sounds like it would be a dollar amount, which is what's usually expected for the category of 'cost'.


Note that in this example, your are only considering monetary values. I would need to check, but if the output is measured in terms of physical/service production by the BLS then ULC would have an unit of measurement. Even if not, the concept still remains valid as a way to compare the evolution of compensation and output over time.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *bullshitting* again, trying to make it sound as though there's a schism among Marxists over basic definitions. 'Gross revenue' is the definition for 'revenue' that Marxists use.


Is it the same as used by accountants and, thus, when doing accounting?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes. The *important* aspect is the $10 in surplus labor value that has been expropriated from the worker in the process of production.


Why was it expropriated from the worker and not from capital?

One point noted by e.g. John Roemer is that any input can be said to be "exploited", not just labor.

ckaihatsu wrote:So my point stands that you tend to only address the *economic*, and you're ignoring aspects of *Western militaristic imperialism*, which *impacts* local economics profoundly.


Why was Norway able to invest windfall oil profits, while Iraq not only did not manage to invest oil windfall profits as well during Saddam Hussein's rule but also ended where it is now?

ckaihatsu wrote:I was using the *abstracts*, which refer to the content of a given paper in full.


:eh:

An abstract is simply a short summary of the paper. As such, they tend to leave out all the details.

ckaihatsu wrote:Given (my) premise of 'a landscape of piles of stuff', the point would be for workers at any given workplace to *replenish* a 'pile of stuff', meaning a set quantity for an inventory of a particular item. This is conventionally called a 'stock control' system.


OK, but in the tragedy of the commons the natural resource that is depleted is not rapidly renewable (or renewable at all). If that was the case, sure, there would be no problem be it in a capitalist or socialist system.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're thinking of the ethos of *capitalism* -- short-term *profits* are a real thing, which is exactly why the capitalist short-term-profit-making ethos / politics is *incompatible* with a post-capitalist communist-type society.

When things are available in *abundance* people have *no* anxiety over its depletion and future scarcity, because there's no scarcity of it now and there most-likely will be no scarcity of it in the future, either. We don't hoard *air*, or *water*, thinking that others are going to 'get to it first'.

At some point, in a communist-society context, people will no longer be able to *actively claim* some extent of personal possessions, if they happen to build up large *quantities* of such -- again, the theory is *weak* on the definition of 'personal property' for such a society, but I think that if a person can't consistently *be around* the items that they claim are theirs then they probably won't have them for much longer, especially if others want them.

I've summarized this issue as 'Would the people of a communist-type society use *padlocks*, or not?'


Let's take oil as an example. How would this society deal with a non-renewable like oil?

ckaihatsu wrote:Where are you getting the 'apocalyptic' aspect from? It's actually *slanderous* of the politics that I espouse, Marxism, because it's a *mischaracterization*. You're likening a mass-proactive worldwide proletarian revolution to a fictional zombie apocalypse, which is slander.


Is it not apocalyptic to predict that capitalism will collapse and lead to a global revolution? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:*And* you're mixing up the *personal* scale of things, with the *political* scale of things -- people of the wealthy and powerful bourgeois class may *personally* tout personal values of social tolerance, etc., but then they become *hypocritical* when it comes to actual political *policies*, and will support status quo establishment politics that cut against social reform efforts.

Political efforts to nullify 'qualified immunity' for cops, defund police departments, etc., are *today's* 'civil rights movement', yet are currently *insufficient* since these things *aren't* being implemented, to stop cops from killing more people. More people *are* being killed by cops.


I thought we were talking about racism? Sure, of course they don't want to weaken the enforcement of the law. This isn't the same as being nationalist :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:I can't speak to any hypothetical *particulars* because there'd be no point -- it would just be my own imaginings, in the abstract.


Feel free to speculate - I presume you have a plan about it.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not making any sense here -- I think you may have the causation linkages *reversed*.

When the economy gets so shitty that regular people can no longer live regular lives then they revolt, as we've been seeing in several countries now, recently in Belarus and Bulgaria. This challenges the 'national security' state to stop the elitist practice of equating the health of the nation with the health of its people, since the two are *not* linked, and increasingly apparently so.

Also, Marxism isn't a 'country-by-country' thing, really, though it *can* take place that way, but it's really more about *working class* interests rising-up and superseding the status quo bourgeois ruling class interests that typically prevail.


It depends, when the economy is really shitty the lives of not just regular people but of soldiers can worsen so much as to be unlivable too.

Have you heard about the idiom "saber rattling"? It's an idiom of Chilean origin, you can read its history here.

Do you know a bit about Hugo Chavez's life? You should, because he was in the Venezuelan military.

ckaihatsu wrote:Now you're trying to conflate 'office culture', with *workers power* -- the two are *not* related.


How can workers exert power if their social ties erode?

ckaihatsu wrote:Don't you understand that you're in *no position* to mischaracterize socialism?

You *really* think that, as a status-quo upholder you have *any* credibility to sow *anxiety* onto those like myself who are *anti-capitalist*?

Just stop.


Do you have anything to comment about what I said? Am I wrong and if so why?

ckaihatsu wrote:If society is still going to rely on capital / the market mechanism, for social organization of production, then a revolution would be *moot* -- there would be no point.

The political *purpose* of revolution is to *overthrow* private-property relations, so that social productivity is collectively organized by the ones doing the work, the *workers*.


...Which is hard to do when they stop talking to each other.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're revealing your overly-dismissive *fatalism* again -- you're *blinkered* when it comes to the *political* aspect of the mutually antagonistic *classes*.

Those who are currently *disempowered* by the bourgeois capitalist status-quo have *every reason* to organize, to *overthrow* bourgeois class rule, and to collectively self-organize to produce for human need, instead of for private profit.

The rest is just *details*, and you still seem to think that you have a place to criticize revolutionary methodology. You *don't*.


The devil is in the details as they say, and indeed it is. For starters, the "detail" that when the revolution has a strongman, he tends to remain in power for as long as he can.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it isn't. Labor credits go from one liberated-laborer, to another. Where's the exchange?


The other liberated-laborer is working to get labor credits from the former one, of course.

ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- I think the model could lend itself to *politicking*, which would be fine because it would all be socio-political -- not private-financial -- and on the basis of free-access for all, to the world's natural and infrastructural resources.

*Ideally* it would look more *consumer*-like, with those who worked and earned labor credits using them to 'shop' for the proposals / 'policy packages' / (social policies), that they *liked* the most, irrespective of all other factors.


I see, well, this is also a type of exchange - even if it's not the same as in a market system.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, that's fair -- sure, there could very well be 'vanguardist factionalism', over matters of general *theory*, and over matters of specific twists-and-turns in implementation. I see this *currently*, as one would if they've been around the revolutionary left to any considerable extent. That's *politics*. Inhale deeply. (grin)


Indeed, war is simply politics by other means. But wouldn't one prefer for politics to happen without war?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup -- all the more reason for workers control. If workers controlled production they could produce the stuff they need for themselves, instead of to hand over to the employer, for corporate profits.


Assuming they would be as productive, maybe. I can actually imagine many just going to work either way for the sake of keeping their income level roughly constant.

ckaihatsu wrote:I am literally indifferent about who's the U.S.'s next top employee.

Biden wants to resume bombing other countries, and Trump has killed immigrants, broken up their families, imposed sanctions on other countries (a form of warfare), and supported fascist killings and killings by police.


Who is more likely to soften Federal drug law between both?

ckaihatsu wrote:'Resolve' -- ?

That's all you care about regarding the Vietnam War?

So what was all that for, exactly?

And please don't use scare tactics -- you're embarrassing yourself.


Do you want to compare those stats to when the US fought with a firm resolve (e.g. in WWII)? What's your point?

ckaihatsu wrote:Fuck them. They tend to collaborate with the bourgeoisie of whatever country they're in.

You're *still* trying to interfere outside of your own political camp. Stop it.


Ah, left-wing sectarianism :D

ckaihatsu wrote:Worsening economic and political conditions. Reality trumps corporate / government propaganda.


But how would they leave all their other differences aside?

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- and that's what I described. How much water does the city source?


Then I'm not sure about what you mean here. Not needing 10+1 gal of water isn't something dealing with diminishing returns of production inputs, it's because of consumer preferences.

ckaihatsu wrote:You *said it yourself* -- dispensary clinics for drug users / addicts. That's a social service instead of a heavy-handed police invasion.


But it may require some measure of policing to be implemented. For instance, you need to make sure the dispensaries are selling "good" drugs.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah -- I just remembered my position, now -- it's been awhile.

Basically sex work is work, so sex workers are exploited and oppressed, like all other workers. The radical feminist position suffers from the theoretical flaw of formulating 'patriarchy' as the source of women's oppression, when in fact it's *capitalism*, and sexism is "just" one particular form of bourgeois ruling-class divide-and-conquer strategy over the working class in general.


How would it operate in a workers-of-the-world socialism?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, at least, post-capitalism, all sexual relations wouldn't be *criminalized* in the least, so there wouldn't be any *oppression* there. Sure, there could still be civil disturbances, but that could be readily addressed by the larger post-capitalist society in some humane way.


I see. Would there be something like "sex services" in the list of products everyone has a right to access?

ckaihatsu wrote:Don't allow Western countries to imperialistically *invade* the nascent working class revolution, wherever it may happen to occur.


Isn't that what the USSR set out to do? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:I just *described* it -- it's *class*. Either one class has hegemony, or the other class does. All of class history bears this out.


As I said, this is... Well, it's very simplistic.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, let's start with ending those 3,000 deaths per year, and we'll go from there. What can you say about the remaining 10,000 deaths per year?


I'm guessing that whatever causes them is unlikely to be improved by merely legalizing drugs and defunding or abolishing the police.

ckaihatsu wrote:Society doesn't have to use *exchange values*, though, and *market* pricing / exchanges for the sake of this kind of economic / material information -- my model, in particular, provides a *politicization* / socialization for such, by simply allowing everyone to submit their own daily individually *ranked* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) 'demands' lists, which are then mass-aggregated by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.) over a locality or greater geography, to reveal what people are demanding the most, which can be both material *and* socio-political in nature.


Right, in that case you would need to refresh that ranking really quickly, pretty much in real time.
#15120939
ckaihatsu wrote:
I just *clarified* -- the capital being shuffled around, for finance, was *pre-existing*. No new value is created / produced through financial services -- that only comes from *commodity production*.



wat0n wrote:
And you are wrong about that: Of course there is new value in financial intermediation.



No, there isn't, because rent payments are a *cost* to the renter, and interest payments are a *cost* to the borrower. (Banks extend *loans*, which is *rentier* capital, not equity capital.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, today's militaries, for example, use *command hierarchies*, and so do corporations -- the hierarchical structure can be quicker and more responsive to external developments, but at the cost of realtime mass support, since people lower down are not consulted for each and every given decision.

Strategically you're sounding like an *anarchist*, the politics of which is just *too localist* to be appropriately responsive to bourgeois ruling class movements and developments.

There's *no such thing* as 'decentralized workers-of-the-world socialism', because the point of socialism is to take advantage of available industrial mass-production practices and *centralized* economies-of-scale, under workers control. This is called a 'workers state'.



wat0n wrote:
Yet it would have no State behind it...?



Correct -- once the workers state took control of social production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie that vanguard would be overshadowed by humanity itself, and humanity could then mass-organize in its own interests, in whatever way(s) possible and practical, all without requiring a state, or the (former) vanguard.

Please keep in mind that the *more* centralization, as from top-down, or bottom-up, the more efficiency-of-scale over logistics, overall. More decentralized, localist approaches means more duplication-of-effort, as in every household having to do its own subsistence farming.

Ultimately productive organizing will *inevitably* have to happen at the local level, because that's where the workplaces and workers are. But generalization of efforts *over* multiple workplaces, etc., is a *good* thing, and should be done bottom-up for best results, post-revolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Actually, *yes* -- you're being too formalistic, and not-realizing that workers learn much *on-the-job*, specifically the particular *workflows* for their given position at their workplace.



wat0n wrote:
Right, you can learn as much as an engineering degree on the job, sure...



I'm not saying *that*, but, again, in the workplace it's the workflow *work role* that's important. One could always go to engineering classes during their free time, to round-out their knowledge and abilities.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
As I just said, they're compensated with *salaries*, which are *not* indexed to the item-by-item production of commodities at that company. Their salaries are a *business expense* (overhead) to the company.



wat0n wrote:
And a necessary expense for actually running the business. Also, since when is worker compensation necessarily indexed to the item-by-item production of a company? Did you note that unit labor costs actually shot up this last quarter?



Sorry -- a better way of saying it would be hour-by-hour, for the production of commodities for company revenue, from wage-workers.

It looks like you're *acknowledging* that executive positions are *not* wage work, that they're tied to the internal functioning of the company entity itself, and that they don't produce the actual commodities that bring in the revenue to the company.

The varying economic trends of business operations are not my political concern.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You still haven't provided any 'benefits' data.



wat0n wrote:
I don't need to. If wages are constant and compensation goes up, it's because benefits are going up.



Whose compensation, and where's your data for *this* claim?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *difference* is that the graph I provided showed a *comparison*, while yours showed one variable / trendline on its own, devoid of context.



wat0n wrote:
Again, I don't need that either. Unit Labor Costs includes the output in the denominator.



You haven't provided any empirical data showing 'unit labor costs' over time.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So, in the following scenario...


Marx's solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value


...The *labor* input is $20 / hour ($10 in wages returned, and $10 in surplus labor value), which is *50%* of the total revenue from the *product* of that labor ($40). The *capital* input is $20 / hour (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), or 50% of revenue, and the capital *returned* is $20 / hour, with a profit of $10, from the worker's surplus labor value. The labor *output*, in wages, is only *25%* of revenue, even though the labor *input* was *50%*.

Your 'unit labor cost', really a *proportion*, would be 50%, though that percentage doesn't actually describe any quantitative *cost*, like $10 in wages per hour of work.



wat0n wrote:
Compensation isn't an input...? :roll:



ckaihatsu wrote:
Which 'compensation' are you referring to?



wat0n wrote:
Worker wages and benefits.



So in this scenario there *are no* benefits, and the worker's wage is $10 / hour, yielding $40 / hour in value to the employer.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, this makes no sense because your 'unit labor cost' variable yields a *ratio* / fraction, which isn't a number that measures a set value, like cost. In other words that so-called economic variable is *bullshit*.



wat0n wrote:
It doesn't need to do that, this is like saying profit rates are bullshit because it is also a ratio and not a number that measures a set value, like cost.



What *point* are you trying to make with this empirical 'unit labor cost' ratio variable?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's what the graph that I provided shows -- it's actual history since 1970.



wat0n wrote:
No, you are comparing productivity with wages only, ignoring benefits. Unit Labor Costs compare productivity with total compensation in a single ratio.



Oh, so *this* is your point. You haven't provided any data pertaining to average *benefits* compensation over time.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, you're *clarifying* it, but the term itself is misleading since it sounds like it would be a dollar amount, which is what's usually expected for the category of 'cost'.



wat0n wrote:
Note that in this example, your are only considering monetary values. I would need to check, but if the output is measured in terms of physical/service production by the BLS then ULC would have an unit of measurement. Even if not, the concept still remains valid as a way to compare the evolution of compensation and output over time.



Again you haven't shown any historical data for this component over time.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *bullshitting* again, trying to make it sound as though there's a schism among Marxists over basic definitions. 'Gross revenue' is the definition for 'revenue' that Marxists use.



wat0n wrote:
Is it the same as used by accountants and, thus, when doing accounting?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes. The *important* aspect is the $10 in surplus labor value that has been expropriated from the worker in the process of production.



wat0n wrote:
Why was it expropriated from the worker and not from capital?

One point noted by e.g. John Roemer is that any input can be said to be "exploited", not just labor.



Surplus labor value can *only* be expropriated from workers labor-power because capital *always* sees the return of the capital, plus the surplus labor value, from sales of the commodity produced.

The expropriation of surplus labor value, or 'labor exploitation', has a strictly *specific* meaning, in that the laborer is working for *more hours* than that required to *maintain and replace labor-power*, which is 'wages'.

In the example scenario the worker *could* receive the $10 value in surplus labor value, plus the $10 in wages, with the employer getting back the $20 invested in overhead from the sale of the commodity produced (boots), but without the $10 in surplus labor value, but of course this doesn't benefit the employer because there's no profit from that economic process.

Nonetheless the bourgeois law of the land will side with the capitalist *employer*, and not with the worker's claim to any surplus labor value from the revenue from their own work-product.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So my point stands that you tend to only address the *economic*, and you're ignoring aspects of *Western militaristic imperialism*, which *impacts* local economics profoundly.



wat0n wrote:
Why was Norway able to invest windfall oil profits, while Iraq not only did not manage to invest oil windfall profits as well during Saddam Hussein's rule but also ended where it is now?



See -- it's exactly as I described: You're not factoring Western imperialist *destruction* (as in Iraq), into your economic analysis. Western imperialist destruction is an *externality* in your economic treatment.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I was using the *abstracts*, which refer to the content of a given paper in full.



wat0n wrote:
:eh:

An abstract is simply a short summary of the paper. As such, they tend to leave out all the details.



Yes, that's the point -- it's a *summarization*, so the abstract *reflects* the paper's thesis, and the abstracts I excerpted from *don't* support your contrarian claims.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Given (my) premise of 'a landscape of piles of stuff', the point would be for workers at any given workplace to *replenish* a 'pile of stuff', meaning a set quantity for an inventory of a particular item. This is conventionally called a 'stock control' system.



wat0n wrote:
OK, but in the tragedy of the commons the natural resource that is depleted is not rapidly renewable (or renewable at all). If that was the case, sure, there would be no problem be it in a capitalist or socialist system.



Again, the 'tragedy of the commons' is an *assumption*. You're just being *fatalistic* and pessimistic.

In the case of non-renewable resources -- say a limited quantity of uranium -- the post-capitalist society would just have to figure-it-out, on a *collective* basis, with the world's infrastructure and resources at-hand, where the entity at-stake is all of humanity, instead of one-or-another, *constrained* country or private interest.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're thinking of the ethos of *capitalism* -- short-term *profits* are a real thing, which is exactly why the capitalist short-term-profit-making ethos / politics is *incompatible* with a post-capitalist communist-type society.

When things are available in *abundance* people have *no* anxiety over its depletion and future scarcity, because there's no scarcity of it now and there most-likely will be no scarcity of it in the future, either. We don't hoard *air*, or *water*, thinking that others are going to 'get to it first'.

At some point, in a communist-society context, people will no longer be able to *actively claim* some extent of personal possessions, if they happen to build up large *quantities* of such -- again, the theory is *weak* on the definition of 'personal property' for such a society, but I think that if a person can't consistently *be around* the items that they claim are theirs then they probably won't have them for much longer, especially if others want them.

I've summarized this issue as 'Would the people of a communist-type society use *padlocks*, or not?'



wat0n wrote:
Let's take oil as an example. How would this society deal with a non-renewable like oil?



Oh, you subscribe to the notion of 'fossil fuel' 'peak oil' -- petroleum is actually a *hydrocarbon*, and is produced from within the earth, in abundance, and not from finite past decomposed organic material as is the conventional price-boosting claim.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Where are you getting the 'apocalyptic' aspect from? It's actually *slanderous* of the politics that I espouse, Marxism, because it's a *mischaracterization*. You're likening a mass-proactive worldwide proletarian revolution to a fictional zombie apocalypse, which is slander.



wat0n wrote:
Is it not apocalyptic to predict that capitalism will collapse and lead to a global revolution? :eh:



No, it's not -- it's *past due*. We don't need balkanized, competing nations, or balkanized, competing *private claims*. The workers of the world in charge of all social production would not have the burden of providing for private property's endless private claims to surplus labor value, and the earth's natural resources as 'externalities' to their business costs.


---


wat0n wrote:
This is the usual post-apocalyptic Marxist vision. Yet in practice workers don't really behave like that, and even nowadays that claim simply doesn't add up to reality. It is the elites, both high-earning workers and also the large bourgeoisie itself, which actually tend to be less nationalist, racist, etc and which have drafted and enforce laws to that effect. Even the Civil Rights Movement had a large measure of Northern support, which was (and still is) the richest section of the US, and the most industrialized at the time too.



ckaihatsu wrote:
*And* you're mixing up the *personal* scale of things, with the *political* scale of things -- people of the wealthy and powerful bourgeois class may *personally* tout personal values of social tolerance, etc., but then they become *hypocritical* when it comes to actual political *policies*, and will support status quo establishment politics that cut against social reform efforts.

Political efforts to nullify 'qualified immunity' for cops, defund police departments, etc., are *today's* 'civil rights movement', yet are currently *insufficient* since these things *aren't* being implemented, to stop cops from killing more people. More people *are* being killed by cops.



wat0n wrote:
I thought we were talking about racism? Sure, of course they don't want to weaken the enforcement of the law. This isn't the same as being nationalist :roll:



The killer cops *are* institutionally racist, because they *disproportionately* kill black people.

Again you're on the wrong side of history because you prefer to have 1000+ people killed every year for the sake of status quo policing, for the status quo.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I can't speak to any hypothetical *particulars* because there'd be no point -- it would just be my own imaginings, in the abstract.



wat0n wrote:
Feel free to speculate - I presume you have a plan about it.



My 'speculation' / 'plan', if you like, is my labor credits framework model:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


wat0n wrote:
When the security establishment's interests diverge too widely from those of the economic one, the former will eventually turn against the latter. Indeed, that's one of the ways of how Marxists can actually get to power.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not making any sense here -- I think you may have the causation linkages *reversed*.

When the economy gets so shitty that regular people can no longer live regular lives then they revolt, as we've been seeing in several countries now, recently in Belarus and Bulgaria. This challenges the 'national security' state to stop the elitist practice of equating the health of the nation with the health of its people, since the two are *not* linked, and increasingly apparently so.

Also, Marxism isn't a 'country-by-country' thing, really, though it *can* take place that way, but it's really more about *working class* interests rising-up and superseding the status quo bourgeois ruling class interests that typically prevail.



wat0n wrote:
It depends, when the economy is really shitty the lives of not just regular people but of soldiers can worsen so much as to be unlivable too.

Have you heard about the idiom "saber rattling"? It's an idiom of Chilean origin, you can read its history here.

Do you know a bit about Hugo Chavez's life? You should, because he was in the Venezuelan military.



I'll *pass* on these detours.

Marxism is of the *working class* and isn't constrained to any given country or countries.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now you're trying to conflate 'office culture', with *workers power* -- the two are *not* related.



wat0n wrote:
How can workers exert power if their social ties erode?



To put it briefly: 'politics'.



The workers’ delegates in the soviet were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by the underground socialist parties. Wartime repression had all but destroyed their organisational structures, but the impact of their ideas and the standing of their imprisoned, exiled or underground leaders remained. However, these parties did not use their influence in the first days of the revolution to argue against the soviet accepting a government chosen by the Duma leaders. The Marxist parties, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, disagreed repeatedly over tactics. In 1905 the Mensheviks had followed a policy of waiting for the bourgeoisie to take the initiative, whereas the Bolsheviks had insisted workers had to push the bourgeois revolution forward. During the war many Mensheviks had argued for the defence of Russia against Germany and Austria, while Bolsheviks and ‘internationalist’ Mensheviks had opposed any support for the war. But they agreed on the character of the coming revolution—it was to be a bourgeois revolution.



Tsarism had given the great landowners half the country’s land, and the old regime had used the full force of the state against any attempt to divide the large estates. The capitalist interests entrenched in the new government were just as hard-headed. Ministers might make speeches about eventual reform, but they insisted that the peasantry must wait in the meantime.

Their policies meant discontent would grow, with or without the Bolsheviks. No one had given the order for the February rising. In the same way, no one ordered the peasants to attack the houses of the great landowners and divide up the land throughout the summer. No one gave orders to the Finns, the Ukrainians, or the peoples of the Caucasus and the Baltic to demand states of their own. And no one told millions of peasants in uniform to desert the front. People who had seen protests topple a 500 year old monarchy did not need anyone to tell them they should try to solve other grievances, especially when many of them guns and had been trained to use them.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 415, 417



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Also socialism *doesn't require* an 'incentive-compatible system'. Socialism, by definition, equates to a *vanguardist* *workers state*. Post-capitalist, post-revolutionary, post-vanguardist communism, by definition, equates to a 'communist gift economy'.



wat0n wrote:
Yes it does, or else you will have individuals showing anti-social behavior without facing any consequences.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't you understand that you're in *no position* to mischaracterize socialism?

You *really* think that, as a status-quo upholder you have *any* credibility to sow *anxiety* onto those like myself who are *anti-capitalist*?

Just stop.



wat0n wrote:
Do you have anything to comment about what I said? Am I wrong and if so why?



We've covered this already -- given collective control of the means of mass industrial production people could produce for the common good for *many* reasons, outside of material incentive itself:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Craft. Social consciousness. Wanting to see the end product. Experimentation. Wanting to provide for others. Escaping boredom. Pushing the envelope. Personal goals. Wanting to be self-sufficient. Social networking. Mixing work with pleasure. Being productive. Being creative. Access to social leadership. Wanting to be a part of collective self-determination. Stewardship over the earth's resources. Wanting consumption of a very specific kind of product. Hobbyism.



viewtopic.php?p=15088612#p15088612



Another argument is that even *today*, under capitalism's competitive ethos, plenty of people *donate*, and *volunteer* their time *altruistically*, which makes no sense from your strict *economic exchange* kind of ethos.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If society is still going to rely on capital / the market mechanism, for social organization of production, then a revolution would be *moot* -- there would be no point.

The political *purpose* of revolution is to *overthrow* private-property relations, so that social productivity is collectively organized by the ones doing the work, the *workers*.



wat0n wrote:
...Which is hard to do when they stop talking to each other.



Again you're thinking that politics is only *interpersonal*. Here's this diagram again:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're revealing your overly-dismissive *fatalism* again -- you're *blinkered* when it comes to the *political* aspect of the mutually antagonistic *classes*.

Those who are currently *disempowered* by the bourgeois capitalist status-quo have *every reason* to organize, to *overthrow* bourgeois class rule, and to collectively self-organize to produce for human need, instead of for private profit.

The rest is just *details*, and you still seem to think that you have a place to criticize revolutionary methodology. You *don't*.



wat0n wrote:
The devil is in the details as they say, and indeed it is. For starters, the "detail" that when the revolution has a strongman, he tends to remain in power for as long as he can.



You're off on a hypothetical fantasy, which I won't entertain.

My politics is for workers-of-the-world socialism, which *isn't* nationalist, and *doesn't* require a strongman, or even a *figurehead*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it isn't. Labor credits go from one liberated-laborer, to another. Where's the exchange?



wat0n wrote:
The other liberated-laborer is working to get labor credits from the former one, of course.



But there's *still* no exchange. The labor-power produced for the labor credits is *not necessarily* an interpersonal exchange, as you're suggesting -- it could be part of a *larger* project, for the *general* common good -- though the interpersonal scenario that you're indicating *is* possible. Any *goods* produced would also *not necessarily* be interpersonal, for the party paying-forward the labor credits, though this couldn't be disallowed, either. In both cases it would be *very* small-scale production, which would be highly *inefficient* in societal-logistical terms.

The labor credits are to facilitate *mass decision-making* and *social organization* over pre-planned productive policy, and implementation. In other words the labor credits can be many-to-many, for the largest, global-scale projects, potentially, for infrastructure and finished goods for all.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- I think the model could lend itself to *politicking*, which would be fine because it would all be socio-political -- not private-financial -- and on the basis of free-access for all, to the world's natural and infrastructural resources.

*Ideally* it would look more *consumer*-like, with those who worked and earned labor credits using them to 'shop' for the proposals / 'policy packages' / (social policies), that they *liked* the most, irrespective of all other factors.



wat0n wrote:
I see, well, this is also a type of exchange - even if it's not the same as in a market system.



No, there's no exchange, because people can come to voluntary agreements and interpersonal tradeoffs, post-capitalism, if they like, but there are no *economic* exchanges involved, which is what your use of 'exchanges' indicates.

There are no economic exchanges in a communist gift economy, with or without labor credits.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, that's fair -- sure, there could very well be 'vanguardist factionalism', over matters of general *theory*, and over matters of specific twists-and-turns in implementation. I see this *currently*, as one would if they've been around the revolutionary left to any considerable extent. That's *politics*. Inhale deeply. (grin)



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, war is simply politics by other means. But wouldn't one prefer for politics to happen without war?



Sure. You're thinking 'warfare' when you think 'factionalism', but I'm thinking *political* factionalism, meaning differences regarding specific *policies*, and policy *options*.

In the case of fierce head-to-head differences of opinion / approach to a particular implementation, my labor credits model uses the daily individual prioritized demands lists to effect a 'run-off' situation among any two, or more, policy package alternatives. The formally competing factions *would* have to agree to a calendar time-window, though, for a formal timeframe ('x' number of days) of reading-in the mass-aggregated demands lists.


---


wat0n wrote:
Sure, but many people who are adamant about going to work right now are facing economic duress.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup -- all the more reason for workers control. If workers controlled production they could produce the stuff they need for themselves, instead of to hand over to the employer, for corporate profits.



wat0n wrote:
Assuming they would be as productive, maybe. I can actually imagine many just going to work either way for the sake of keeping their income level roughly constant.



There are no *wages*, remember, in a post-capitalist -- and especially in a post-*revolution* -- context, so there are *no incomes*.

It's *production* -- meaning goods and services -- that ultimately count, and their distribution, *not* capitalism's exchange-values-accounting, which is currently failing grandly, as you're pointing out.

On this point you *really* need to see my 'global syndicalist currency' model for a good *economic* path to full collective workers control of social production.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I am literally indifferent about who's the U.S.'s next top employee.

Biden wants to resume bombing other countries, and Trump has killed immigrants, broken up their families, imposed sanctions on other countries (a form of warfare), and supported fascist killings and killings by police.



wat0n wrote:
Who is more likely to soften Federal drug law between both?



Who do you think?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Resolve' -- ?

That's all you care about regarding the Vietnam War?

So what was all that for, exactly?

And please don't use scare tactics -- you're embarrassing yourself.



wat0n wrote:
Do you want to compare those stats to when the US fought with a firm resolve (e.g. in WWII)? What's your point?



My point is that the Vietnam War should *never* have happened at all, because no one can provide a decent reason for why it was started in the first place.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Fuck them. They tend to collaborate with the bourgeoisie of whatever country they're in.

You're *still* trying to interfere outside of your own political camp. Stop it.



wat0n wrote:
Ah, left-wing sectarianism :D



Welcome. You've arrived.


---


wat0n wrote:
Interesting, well, if workers are so easily manipulated then what makes you believe a proletarian revolution could ever succeed?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Worsening economic and political conditions. Reality trumps corporate / government propaganda.



wat0n wrote:
But how would they leave all their other differences aside?



It's really more of a 'critical mass' dynamic -- as long as there's enough to do the revolution, and to repress the bourgeoisie, then it's done. 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary' is *my* motto.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- and that's what I described. How much water does the city source?



wat0n wrote:
Then I'm not sure about what you mean here. Not needing 10+1 gal of water isn't something dealing with diminishing returns of production inputs, it's because of consumer preferences.



It's about the *efforts* (or costs) required for any further *increases* in the inputs.

Diminishing returns means the 'extra' effort or cost isn't *worth it*, for the extra input received. This meaning is the *same* as 'marginal utility'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You *said it yourself* -- dispensary clinics for drug users / addicts. That's a social service instead of a heavy-handed police invasion.



wat0n wrote:
But it may require some measure of policing to be implemented. For instance, you need to make sure the dispensaries are selling "good" drugs.



That's what *government* is for -- any hierarchical bureaucratic oversight *doesn't require* heavy-handed policing methods.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah -- I just remembered my position, now -- it's been awhile.

Basically sex work is work, so sex workers are exploited and oppressed, like all other workers. The radical feminist position suffers from the theoretical flaw of formulating 'patriarchy' as the source of women's oppression, when in fact it's *capitalism*, and sexism is "just" one particular form of bourgeois ruling-class divide-and-conquer strategy over the working class in general.



wat0n wrote:
How would it operate in a workers-of-the-world socialism?



There would be *no commerce* in a workers-of-the-world socialism -- *I* would think that people would be liberated to find deeper, meaningful life experiences with others.

*But*, that said, if you *insist* on the 'sex' transaction itself, as between / among strangers -- and I've admitted that 'labor credits' *could* be used interpersonally -- then it would follow that, for some, sex could be considered a 'service', and so would be treated as such, especially for interpersonal / social perceived 'differentials', or 'gaps' between / among the participants, to materially compensate for any such 'differences'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, at least, post-capitalism, all sexual relations wouldn't be *criminalized* in the least, so there wouldn't be any *oppression* there. Sure, there could still be civil disturbances, but that could be readily addressed by the larger post-capitalist society in some humane way.



wat0n wrote:
I see. Would there be something like "sex services" in the list of products everyone has a right to access?



You're thinking 'bourgeois rights' (as over monarchical / aristocratic rule).

People, post-capitalism, wouldn't have 'rights' to any given material, or materials -- everyone could simply *access* and *consume* from common social production, which would be the norm, or 'ethos'.

What *you're* describing is *interpersonal*, so it would be between any consenting adults what they want to do as consenting adults (also see the previous segment).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't allow Western countries to imperialistically *invade* the nascent working class revolution, wherever it may happen to occur.



wat0n wrote:
Isn't that what the USSR set out to do? :eh:



No, the Western militaristic imperialist invasions, and White counterrevolution, happened to the *Bolshevik Revolution*, which *preceded* the later, Stalinist consolidation into the nationalist USSR.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I just *described* it -- it's *class*. Either one class has hegemony, or the other class does. All of class history bears this out.



wat0n wrote:
As I said, this is... Well, it's very simplistic.



It's also *true*. It's *not* *overly* simple -- it just happens to *be* simple -- binary.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, let's start with ending those 3,000 deaths per year, and we'll go from there. What can you say about the remaining 10,000 deaths per year?



wat0n wrote:
I'm guessing that whatever causes them is unlikely to be improved by merely legalizing drugs and defunding or abolishing the police.



Well, feel free to tackle it, if you have the inclination to do so.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Society doesn't have to use *exchange values*, though, and *market* pricing / exchanges for the sake of this kind of economic / material information -- my model, in particular, provides a *politicization* / socialization for such, by simply allowing everyone to submit their own daily individually *ranked* (#1, #2, #3, etc.) 'demands' lists, which are then mass-aggregated by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.) over a locality or greater geography, to reveal what people are demanding the most, which can be both material *and* socio-political in nature.



wat0n wrote:
Right, in that case you would need to refresh that ranking really quickly, pretty much in real time.



It's a decent argument, but, no, I *don't* think it would *have* to be in real-time, though obviously we now have the technological *means* to do just that.

The reason it doesn't have to be in realtime -- and even a *daily* cycle may be too frequent -- is because the *fulfillment* isn't going to be immediate, though I guess with the 'stock control' method, and today's automated logistics and driverless package deliveries, fulfillment *could* realistically be within the same day.

The reason I'm *equivocating* on this is because it's more of a 'back-end' *logistical* / technical thing -- if a person, say, has a *standing order* that's more-or-less *consistent* from week to week, then the fulfillment of that would simply be on a *rolling* basis, indefinitely, once it gets started and the initial fulfillment happens. After that it's merely on a schedule so that the person's *personal* / household supply is always replenished.

Anything *outside* of that rolling schedule would be *unique* orders which could then just be fulfilled as quickly as possible, given whatever prevailing logistics is used.
#15120990
ckaihatsu wrote:No, there isn't, because rent payments are a *cost* to the renter, and interest payments are a *cost* to the borrower. (Banks extend *loans*, which is *rentier* capital, not equity capital.)


We are going in circles, as it happens when debating about economics with Marxists, but I'll restate: If financial intermediation is irrelevant, please explain how is it that banking crises have severe effects on investment and output.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- once the workers state took control of social production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie that vanguard would be overshadowed by humanity itself, and humanity could then mass-organize in its own interests, in whatever way(s) possible and practical, all without requiring a state, or the (former) vanguard.

Please keep in mind that the *more* centralization, as from top-down, or bottom-up, the more efficiency-of-scale over logistics, overall. More decentralized, localist approaches means more duplication-of-effort, as in every household having to do its own subsistence farming.

Ultimately productive organizing will *inevitably* have to happen at the local level, because that's where the workplaces and workers are. But generalization of efforts *over* multiple workplaces, etc., is a *good* thing, and should be done bottom-up for best results, post-revolution.


You can't have this level of centralization without an actual State to sustain it.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not saying *that*, but, again, in the workplace it's the workflow *work role* that's important. One could always go to engineering classes during their free time, to round-out their knowledge and abilities.


It's not that easy when it comes to planning, which is not a repetitive task.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sorry -- a better way of saying it would be hour-by-hour, for the production of commodities for company revenue, from wage-workers.

It looks like you're *acknowledging* that executive positions are *not* wage work, that they're tied to the internal functioning of the company entity itself, and that they don't produce the actual commodities that bring in the revenue to the company.

The varying economic trends of business operations are not my political concern.


You're making an artificial distinction between operational work and the internal functioning of a company. Guess what: Operations are a mayor part of the functioning of any company.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whose compensation, and where's your data for *this* claim?


Worker compensation in general, did you read the definitions of the terms "compensation", "wages" and "benefits" for statistical purposes I posted earlier?

ckaihatsu wrote:You haven't provided any empirical data showing 'unit labor costs' over time.


Yes I did. I also included the link from the St. Louis Fed's database in case you want to inspect the raw data.

ckaihatsu wrote:So in this scenario there *are no* benefits, and the worker's wage is $10 / hour, yielding $40 / hour in value to the employer.


If benefits are 0, then compensation equals wages (this isn't how real-world businesses operate).

ckaihatsu wrote:What *point* are you trying to make with this empirical 'unit labor cost' ratio variable?


It allows you to compare the evolution of compensation and productivity simultaneously, just like ratios usually allow to compare two variables simultaneously.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, so *this* is your point. You haven't provided any data pertaining to average *benefits* compensation over time.


ckaihatsu wrote:Again you haven't shown any historical data for this component over time.


If c = w + b and c increases while w remains constant, what happens to b?

ckaihatsu wrote:Surplus labor value can *only* be expropriated from workers labor-power because capital *always* sees the return of the capital, plus the surplus labor value, from sales of the commodity produced.

The expropriation of surplus labor value, or 'labor exploitation', has a strictly *specific* meaning, in that the laborer is working for *more hours* than that required to *maintain and replace labor-power*, which is 'wages'.

In the example scenario the worker *could* receive the $10 value in surplus labor value, plus the $10 in wages, with the employer getting back the $20 invested in overhead from the sale of the commodity produced (boots), but without the $10 in surplus labor value, but of course this doesn't benefit the employer because there's no profit from that economic process.

Nonetheless the bourgeois law of the land will side with the capitalist *employer*, and not with the worker's claim to any surplus labor value from the revenue from their own work-product.


Does it? What makes you believe this is the case? Why couldn't the business owner be ever able to capture rents that "should" be going to capital? Doesn't this depend on market structure?

ckaihatsu wrote:See -- it's exactly as I described: You're not factoring Western imperialist *destruction* (as in Iraq), into your economic analysis. Western imperialist destruction is an *externality* in your economic treatment.


That's because Iraq's troubles begun long before any Western intervention. Hell, Iraq was even supported by the West against Iran at some point, and even before that Iraq was hardly an economic powerhouse.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's the point -- it's a *summarization*, so the abstract *reflects* the paper's thesis, and the abstracts I excerpted from *don't* support your contrarian claims.


You didn't even quote the whole abstract, and the papers do include plenty of data showing the results depend a lot on the specific operational definition of "rate of profit" you use, and the assets you include.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, the 'tragedy of the commons' is an *assumption*. You're just being *fatalistic* and pessimistic.

In the case of non-renewable resources -- say a limited quantity of uranium -- the post-capitalist society would just have to figure-it-out, on a *collective* basis, with the world's infrastructure and resources at-hand, where the entity at-stake is all of humanity, instead of one-or-another, *constrained* country or private interest.


Is that all? "Hey, we'll just figure it out bro"? :roll:

And the tragedy of the commons is a result, not an assumption.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you subscribe to the notion of 'fossil fuel' 'peak oil' -- petroleum is actually a *hydrocarbon*, and is produced from within the earth, in abundance, and not from finite past decomposed organic material as is the conventional price-boosting claim.


As long as it is produced slowly enough, the concern would still remain.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's not -- it's *past due*. We don't need balkanized, competing nations, or balkanized, competing *private claims*. The workers of the world in charge of all social production would not have the burden of providing for private property's endless private claims to surplus labor value, and the earth's natural resources as 'externalities' to their business costs.


Now you're going from apocalyptic to messianic narratives.

ckaihatsu wrote:The killer cops *are* institutionally racist, because they *disproportionately* kill black people.


And they are also institutionally misandric, because they disproportionately kill males if we follow this line of thought.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're on the wrong side of history because you prefer to have 1000+ people killed every year for the sake of status quo policing, for the status quo.


No, I simply want to solve this problem without creating new ones.

ckaihatsu wrote:My 'speculation' / 'plan', if you like, is my labor credits framework model:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


So anyone could raise an army using labor credits?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll *pass* on these detours.

Marxism is of the *working class* and isn't constrained to any given country or countries.


No, but I presented explicit examples of militaries rebelling against the elites. There are even more during the Cold War.

ckaihatsu wrote:To put it briefly: 'politics'.


Sure, people don't always need to coordinate to go after their elites. I don't see how this applies to the regime after that happens.

ckaihatsu wrote:We've covered this already -- given collective control of the means of mass industrial production people could produce for the common good for *many* reasons, outside of material incentive itself:

Another argument is that even *today*, under capitalism's competitive ethos, plenty of people *donate*, and *volunteer* their time *altruistically*, which makes no sense from your strict *economic exchange* kind of ethos.


Yet material incentives are also ever present in all societies, indeed, it's one reason why Stalinism failed and also one reason for workers to ever think about launching a revolution.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're thinking that politics is only *interpersonal*. Here's this diagram again:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image


No, it's not only interpersonal but the interpersonal plays an obvious role too. That's ironically particularly true among the elites.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're off on a hypothetical fantasy, which I won't entertain.

My politics is for workers-of-the-world socialism, which *isn't* nationalist, and *doesn't* require a strongman, or even a *figurehead*.


And yet that's the kind of people who often get revolutions to succeed.

ckaihatsu wrote:But there's *still* no exchange. The labor-power produced for the labor credits is *not necessarily* an interpersonal exchange, as you're suggesting -- it could be part of a *larger* project, for the *general* common good -- though the interpersonal scenario that you're indicating *is* possible. Any *goods* produced would also *not necessarily* be interpersonal, for the party paying-forward the labor credits, though this couldn't be disallowed, either. In both cases it would be *very* small-scale production, which would be highly *inefficient* in societal-logistical terms.

The labor credits are to facilitate *mass decision-making* and *social organization* over pre-planned productive policy, and implementation. In other words the labor credits can be many-to-many, for the largest, global-scale projects, potentially, for infrastructure and finished goods for all.


ckaihatsu wrote:No, there's no exchange, because people can come to voluntary agreements and interpersonal tradeoffs, post-capitalism, if they like, but there are no *economic* exchanges involved, which is what your use of 'exchanges' indicates.

There are no economic exchanges in a communist gift economy, with or without labor credits.


Oh, I don't restrict exchanges to interpersonal ones here. There can also be an implicit contract, which is what is basically going on in that case. Not unlike PAYGO pension systems, where the young contribute under the expectation that those who haven't been born yet will contribute to their pension when they retire. There is also an exchange there, even if it's not interpersonal.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure. You're thinking 'warfare' when you think 'factionalism', but I'm thinking *political* factionalism, meaning differences regarding specific *policies*, and policy *options*.

In the case of fierce head-to-head differences of opinion / approach to a particular implementation, my labor credits model uses the daily individual prioritized demands lists to effect a 'run-off' situation among any two, or more, policy package alternatives. The formally competing factions *would* have to agree to a calendar time-window, though, for a formal timeframe ('x' number of days) of reading-in the mass-aggregated demands lists.


This does presume the existence of a common ground between the competing factions (in this case, the willingness to respect that system). What happens when such common ground does not exist? Would it be necessary to simply impose the system to both parts?

ckaihatsu wrote:There are no *wages*, remember, in a post-capitalist -- and especially in a post-*revolution* -- context, so there are *no incomes*.

It's *production* -- meaning goods and services -- that ultimately count, and their distribution, *not* capitalism's exchange-values-accounting, which is currently failing grandly, as you're pointing out.

On this point you *really* need to see my 'global syndicalist currency' model for a good *economic* path to full collective workers control of social production.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857


...Or to contribute their share of production, to be able to keep their credits.

ckaihatsu wrote:Who do you think?


Biden.

ckaihatsu wrote:My point is that the Vietnam War should *never* have happened at all, because no one can provide a decent reason for why it was started in the first place.


Indeed, but then in this hypothetical global class warfare there would be a reason for its start.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's really more of a 'critical mass' dynamic -- as long as there's enough to do the revolution, and to repress the bourgeoisie, then it's done. 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary' is *my* motto.


Right, but how is that critical mass built? At a global scale, remember.

I could imagine something like that happening, but only in many, many years and only after nationalism and other related identity categories weakened as a result of globalization. That is, there would actually need to be a loose global common identity before something like that succeeded.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's about the *efforts* (or costs) required for any further *increases* in the inputs.

Diminishing returns means the 'extra' effort or cost isn't *worth it*, for the extra input received. This meaning is the *same* as 'marginal utility'.


Right, in that sense it is indeed.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's what *government* is for -- any hierarchical bureaucratic oversight *doesn't require* heavy-handed policing methods.


Not always. Think e.g. ATF raids.

ckaihatsu wrote:There would be *no commerce* in a workers-of-the-world socialism -- *I* would think that people would be liberated to find deeper, meaningful life experiences with others.

*But*, that said, if you *insist* on the 'sex' transaction itself, as between / among strangers -- and I've admitted that 'labor credits' *could* be used interpersonally -- then it would follow that, for some, sex could be considered a 'service', and so would be treated as such, especially for interpersonal / social perceived 'differentials', or 'gaps' between / among the participants, to materially compensate for any such 'differences'.


ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking 'bourgeois rights' (as over monarchical / aristocratic rule).

People, post-capitalism, wouldn't have 'rights' to any given material, or materials -- everyone could simply *access* and *consume* from common social production, which would be the norm, or 'ethos'.

What *you're* describing is *interpersonal*, so it would be between any consenting adults what they want to do as consenting adults (also see the previous segment).


Isn't the transaction between strangers a form of exchange?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the Western militaristic imperialist invasions, and White counterrevolution, happened to the *Bolshevik Revolution*, which *preceded* the later, Stalinist consolidation into the nationalist USSR.


Right, but as means to, well, actually exist.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's also *true*. It's *not* *overly* simple -- it just happens to *be* simple -- binary.


I don't think so. This doesn't explain working class factionalism (for instance) or why cross class collaboration exists.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, feel free to tackle it, if you have the inclination to do so.


It would probably make sense to analyze them in a case-by-case basis, and then see if there are any patterns.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's a decent argument, but, no, I *don't* think it would *have* to be in real-time, though obviously we now have the technological *means* to do just that.

The reason it doesn't have to be in realtime -- and even a *daily* cycle may be too frequent -- is because the *fulfillment* isn't going to be immediate, though I guess with the 'stock control' method, and today's automated logistics and driverless package deliveries, fulfillment *could* realistically be within the same day.

The reason I'm *equivocating* on this is because it's more of a 'back-end' *logistical* / technical thing -- if a person, say, has a *standing order* that's more-or-less *consistent* from week to week, then the fulfillment of that would simply be on a *rolling* basis, indefinitely, once it gets started and the initial fulfillment happens. After that it's merely on a schedule so that the person's *personal* / household supply is always replenished.

Anything *outside* of that rolling schedule would be *unique* orders which could then just be fulfilled as quickly as possible, given whatever prevailing logistics is used.


Right, but that also means the granularity required would be roughly comparable to that actually provided by the current market system - but with much less infrastructure and data collection involved (since prices are normally an okay summary of that - no, they aren't always a good summary of the aggregation of preferences but they normally are).
#15121198
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, there isn't, because rent payments are a *cost* to the renter, and interest payments are a *cost* to the borrower. (Banks extend *loans*, which is *rentier* capital, not equity capital.)



wat0n wrote:
We are going in circles, as it happens when debating about economics with Marxists, but I'll restate: If financial intermediation is irrelevant, please explain how is it that banking crises have severe effects on investment and output.



I'm not saying that 'financial intermediation is irrelevant', I'm saying that banking / finance *does not produce* any new commodities, or new value, because it's *rentier capital* and does not participate in the production of new commodities / values, as *equity* capital does.



Usage by Marxists

In his early works, Karl Marx juxtaposed the terms "rentier" and "capitalist" to show that a rentier tends to exhaust his profits, whereas a capitalist must perforce re-invest most of the surplus value in order to survive competition. He wrote, "Therefore, the means of the extravagant rentier diminish daily in inverse proportion to the growing possibilities and temptations of pleasure. He must, therefore, either consume his capital himself, and in so doing bring about his own ruin, or become an industrial capitalist...."[4] However, Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862–1863), he states "...that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself. If this bourgeois ideal were actually realisable, the only result would be that the whole of the surplus-value would go to the industrial capitalist directly, and society would be reduced (economically) to the simple contradiction between capital and wage-labour, a simplification which would indeed accelerate the dissolution of this mode of production."[5]

Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by 'clipping coupons' [in the sense of collecting interest payments on bonds], who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- once the workers state took control of social production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie that vanguard would be overshadowed by humanity itself, and humanity could then mass-organize in its own interests, in whatever way(s) possible and practical, all without requiring a state, or the (former) vanguard.

Please keep in mind that the *more* centralization, as from top-down, or bottom-up, the more efficiency-of-scale over logistics, overall. More decentralized, localist approaches means more duplication-of-effort, as in every household having to do its own subsistence farming.

Ultimately productive organizing will *inevitably* have to happen at the local level, because that's where the workplaces and workers are. But generalization of efforts *over* multiple workplaces, etc., is a *good* thing, and should be done bottom-up for best results, post-revolution.



wat0n wrote:
You can't have this level of centralization without an actual State to sustain it.



I disagree. Yes, a *workers state* would be required during the transition from capitalism to communism, to repress the bourgeois class and to coordinate among workers in the interim, but once capitalism is overthrown the vanguardist workers state would no longer be needed and would be overshadowed by humanity's own collective self-organization, for whatever humane social production is required for the common good.

Again, 100% logistical optimization and centralization would *not* have to happen, post-revolution, but that path would always be available, per-item.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not saying *that*, but, again, in the workplace it's the workflow *work role* that's important. One could always go to engineering classes during their free time, to round-out their knowledge and abilities.



wat0n wrote:
It's not that easy when it comes to planning, which is not a repetitive task.



Well, planning would necessarily be *collective*, as to the whole workplace itself, so no individual worker would have the 'homework' of having to construct a 'blueprint' for the entire workplace's operations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry -- a better way of saying it would be hour-by-hour, for the production of commodities for company revenue, from wage-workers.

It looks like you're *acknowledging* that executive positions are *not* wage work, that they're tied to the internal functioning of the company entity itself, and that they don't produce the actual commodities that bring in the revenue to the company.

The varying economic trends of business operations are not my political concern.



wat0n wrote:
You're making an artificial distinction between operational work and the internal functioning of a company. Guess what: Operations are a mayor part of the functioning of any company.



No, it's *not* an artificial distinction -- it's a *real world* one. (You're just being *contrarian* here.)

Think 'executive' / 'management' for *internal* functions, meaning overhead / social organization, which is *non-productive*, and think 'wage workers' for the production of the company's *commodities* (goods and/or services), for revenue.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Whose compensation, and where's your data for *this* claim?



wat0n wrote:
Worker compensation in general, did you read the definitions of the terms "compensation", "wages" and "benefits" for statistical purposes I posted earlier?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You haven't provided any empirical data showing 'unit labor costs' over time.



wat0n wrote:
Yes I did. I also included the link from the St. Louis Fed's database in case you want to inspect the raw data.



But, as I've already mentioned, that data *has no context* -- it doesn't help you because it's not *in relation* to anything else, like 'revenue'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So in this scenario there *are no* benefits, and the worker's wage is $10 / hour, yielding $40 / hour in value to the employer.



wat0n wrote:
If benefits are 0, then compensation equals wages (this isn't how real-world businesses operate).



Correct. It's just a sample scenario for the sake of illustration.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What *point* are you trying to make with this empirical 'unit labor cost' ratio variable?



wat0n wrote:
It allows you to compare the evolution of compensation and productivity simultaneously, just like ratios usually allow to compare two variables simultaneously.



Okay, I'd be open to this kind of paired-variables data, if you can provide it -- I actually *provided* it already, but you went off on a tangent regarding benefits.


Image


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, so *this* is your point. You haven't provided any data pertaining to average *benefits* compensation over time.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you haven't shown any historical data for this component over time.



wat0n wrote:
If c = w + b and c increases while w remains constant, what happens to b?



An equation *isn't* real-world historical data.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Surplus labor value can *only* be expropriated from workers labor-power because capital *always* sees the return of the capital, plus the surplus labor value, from sales of the commodity produced.

The expropriation of surplus labor value, or 'labor exploitation', has a strictly *specific* meaning, in that the laborer is working for *more hours* than that required to *maintain and replace labor-power*, which is 'wages'.

In the example scenario the worker *could* receive the $10 value in surplus labor value, plus the $10 in wages, with the employer getting back the $20 invested in overhead from the sale of the commodity produced (boots), but without the $10 in surplus labor value, but of course this doesn't benefit the employer because there's no profit from that economic process.

Nonetheless the bourgeois law of the land will side with the capitalist *employer*, and not with the worker's claim to any surplus labor value from the revenue from their own work-product.



wat0n wrote:
Does it? What makes you believe this is the case? Why couldn't the business owner be ever able to capture rents that "should" be going to capital? Doesn't this depend on market structure?



You're confusing *rentier* capital ('rents'), with *equity* capital ('revenue' [from the sale of commodities produced]).

The capitalist employer *expropriates* surplus labor value from the workers employed (in this $10 per hour, from 1 worker).

You're showing that you're unable to address the capitalist expropriation of surplus labor value, which is the cause of *how* labor is exploited by capital.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
See -- it's exactly as I described: You're not factoring Western imperialist *destruction* (as in Iraq), into your economic analysis. Western imperialist destruction is an *externality* in your economic treatment.



wat0n wrote:
That's because Iraq's troubles begun long before any Western intervention. Hell, Iraq was even supported by the West against Iran at some point, and even before that Iraq was hardly an economic powerhouse.



Again you're showing that you lack *focus* -- you're not even *addressing* the Western imperialist 'externality' invasion of 2003. Here were the results, in lives lost:



Estimated deaths:
Lancet survey** (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636)[47][48]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[49]
Opinion Research Business**: (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000)[50]
Iraq Family Health Survey*** (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)[51]
PLOS Medicine Study**: (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000)
Documented deaths from violence:
Iraq Body Count (2003 – 14 December 2011): 103,160–113,728 civilian deaths recorded[52] and 12,438 new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs[53]
Associated Press (March 2003 – April 2009): 110,600[54]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's the point -- it's a *summarization*, so the abstract *reflects* the paper's thesis, and the abstracts I excerpted from *don't* support your contrarian claims.



wat0n wrote:
You didn't even quote the whole abstract, and the papers do include plenty of data showing the results depend a lot on the specific operational definition of "rate of profit" you use, and the assets you include.



I *don't have* to quote the whole abstract -- it's there for you to read and use, if you like, in the papers themselves. The papers you provided don't support your contrarian thesis, and *you're* not, either.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, the 'tragedy of the commons' is an *assumption*. You're just being *fatalistic* and pessimistic.

In the case of non-renewable resources -- say a limited quantity of uranium -- the post-capitalist society would just have to figure-it-out, on a *collective* basis, with the world's infrastructure and resources at-hand, where the entity at-stake is all of humanity, instead of one-or-another, *constrained* country or private interest.



wat0n wrote:
Is that all? "Hey, we'll just figure it out bro"? :roll:

And the tragedy of the commons is a result, not an assumption.



No, you're just *jumping* to that conclusion, which shows *bias* on your part.

Certainly free-access to the world's developed infrastructure and resources would be *sufficient* for overcoming any societal issues, because the cost of profits to private firms would no longer have to be paid for the sake of access to their private infrastructure and participation, as is the case today.


---


wat0n wrote:
Let's take oil as an example. How would this society deal with a non-renewable like oil?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you subscribe to the notion of 'fossil fuel' 'peak oil' -- petroleum is actually a *hydrocarbon*, and is produced from within the earth, in abundance, and not from finite past decomposed organic material as is the conventional price-boosting claim.



wat0n wrote:
As long as it is produced slowly enough, the concern would still remain.



Humanity wouldn't have to be fully *dependent* on petroleum -- there are promising developments today, and potential, for the use of *hydrogen* as an alternative to diesel, so there's that, for example.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's not -- it's *past due*. We don't need balkanized, competing nations, or balkanized, competing *private claims*. The workers of the world in charge of all social production would not have the burden of providing for private property's endless private claims to surplus labor value, and the earth's natural resources as 'externalities' to their business costs.



wat0n wrote:
Now you're going from apocalyptic to messianic narratives.



You're misperceiving the information I provided as somehow being a *literary*-type 'narrative'.

It's *not* a 'narrative' -- the fundamental socio-political problem is that of *class*, which is *empirical*, and is *not* a subjective narrative.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The killer cops *are* institutionally racist, because they *disproportionately* kill black people.



wat0n wrote:
And they are also institutionally misandric, because they disproportionately kill males if we follow this line of thought.



Okay, no argument -- I already noted that such treatment at the hands of cops is not conducive to gender equality.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're on the wrong side of history because you prefer to have 1000+ people killed every year for the sake of status quo policing, for the status quo.



wat0n wrote:
No, I simply want to solve this problem without creating new ones.



You need to *prioritize*, so that the 1000+ needless deaths per year are *eliminated*, with the additional 2000 deaths per year due to the illicit drug trade addressed and eliminated by *legalizing all drugs*, accompanied by the defunding / elimination of police departments, to be replaced with *humane-minded* *social services* instead of the present-day *invasions* of domestic situations by heavy-handed police interventions.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My 'speculation' / 'plan', if you like, is my labor credits framework model:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



wat0n wrote:
So anyone could raise an army using labor credits?



You're thinking of the *preceding*, *workers state*, 'socialism' transitional stage:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



Such would be *political*, primarily, in response to actual prevailing conditions of class struggle.


---


wat0n wrote:
It depends, when the economy is really shitty the lives of not just regular people but of soldiers can worsen so much as to be unlivable too.

Have you heard about the idiom "saber rattling"? It's an idiom of Chilean origin, you can read its history here.

Do you know a bit about Hugo Chavez's life? You should, because he was in the Venezuelan military.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll *pass* on these detours.

Marxism is of the *working class* and isn't constrained to any given country or countries.



wat0n wrote:
No, but I presented explicit examples of militaries rebelling against the elites. There are even more during the Cold War.



Okay, but any such rebellions are *not* premised on the self-organization of the working class.

The *overcoming* of class rule has working class collective *control* of social production as a *prerequisite*.


---


wat0n wrote:
How can workers exert power if their social ties erode?



ckaihatsu wrote:
To put it briefly: 'politics'.


The workers’ delegates in the soviet were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by the underground socialist parties. Wartime repression had all but destroyed their organisational structures, but the impact of their ideas and the standing of their imprisoned, exiled or underground leaders remained. However, these parties did not use their influence in the first days of the revolution to argue against the soviet accepting a government chosen by the Duma leaders. The Marxist parties, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, disagreed repeatedly over tactics. In 1905 the Mensheviks had followed a policy of waiting for the bourgeoisie to take the initiative, whereas the Bolsheviks had insisted workers had to push the bourgeois revolution forward. During the war many Mensheviks had argued for the defence of Russia against Germany and Austria, while Bolsheviks and ‘internationalist’ Mensheviks had opposed any support for the war. But they agreed on the character of the coming revolution—it was to be a bourgeois revolution.


Tsarism had given the great landowners half the country’s land, and the old regime had used the full force of the state against any attempt to divide the large estates. The capitalist interests entrenched in the new government were just as hard-headed. Ministers might make speeches about eventual reform, but they insisted that the peasantry must wait in the meantime.

Their policies meant discontent would grow, with or without the Bolsheviks. No one had given the order for the February rising. In the same way, no one ordered the peasants to attack the houses of the great landowners and divide up the land throughout the summer. No one gave orders to the Finns, the Ukrainians, or the peoples of the Caucasus and the Baltic to demand states of their own. And no one told millions of peasants in uniform to desert the front. People who had seen protests topple a 500 year old monarchy did not need anyone to tell them they should try to solve other grievances, especially when many of them guns and had been trained to use them.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 415, 417



wat0n wrote:
Sure, people don't always need to coordinate to go after their elites. I don't see how this applies to the regime after that happens.



You *still* don't seem to realize that not all social relations are *interpersonal*.

You also don't seem to realize that there are such things as *political organizations*, such as the Bolshevik Party, historically.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We've covered this already -- given collective control of the means of mass industrial production people could produce for the common good for *many* reasons, outside of material incentive itself:



Craft. Social consciousness. Wanting to see the end product. Experimentation. Wanting to provide for others. Escaping boredom. Pushing the envelope. Personal goals. Wanting to be self-sufficient. Social networking. Mixing work with pleasure. Being productive. Being creative. Access to social leadership. Wanting to be a part of collective self-determination. Stewardship over the earth's resources. Wanting consumption of a very specific kind of product. Hobbyism.

viewtopic.php?p=15088612#p15088612


Another argument is that even *today*, under capitalism's competitive ethos, plenty of people *donate*, and *volunteer* their time *altruistically*, which makes no sense from your strict *economic exchange* kind of ethos.



wat0n wrote:
Yet material incentives are also ever present in all societies, indeed, it's one reason why Stalinism failed and also one reason for workers to ever think about launching a revolution.



Stalinism failed because the USSR got into a reckless expensive nuclear arms race with the West.

What about the 'material incentive' for the working class of the world to collectively control the world's means of mass industrial production, for themselves, without capitalists whatsoever -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're thinking that politics is only *interpersonal*. Here's this diagram again:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
No, it's not only interpersonal but the interpersonal plays an obvious role too. That's ironically particularly true among the elites.



No, I think you're far too 'interpersonal', or psychological-behaviorist-determinist, in your approach to politics. In the *political* context you've shown yourself to simply be crudely status-quo-defending, and knee-jerk *contrarian*, here.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're off on a hypothetical fantasy, which I won't entertain.

My politics is for workers-of-the-world socialism, which *isn't* nationalist, and *doesn't* require a strongman, or even a *figurehead*.



wat0n wrote:
And yet that's the kind of people who often get revolutions to succeed.



Again you're conflating *Stalinism* with the self-mobilization of the world's working class, for workers-of-the-world socialism. You *should* have learned the difference by now.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it isn't. Labor credits go from one liberated-laborer, to another. Where's the exchange?



wat0n wrote:
The other liberated-laborer is working to get labor credits from the former one, of course.



ckaihatsu wrote:
But there's *still* no exchange. The labor-power produced for the labor credits is *not necessarily* an interpersonal exchange, as you're suggesting -- it could be part of a *larger* project, for the *general* common good -- though the interpersonal scenario that you're indicating *is* possible. Any *goods* produced would also *not necessarily* be interpersonal, for the party paying-forward the labor credits, though this couldn't be disallowed, either. In both cases it would be *very* small-scale production, which would be highly *inefficient* in societal-logistical terms.

The labor credits are to facilitate *mass decision-making* and *social organization* over pre-planned productive policy, and implementation. In other words the labor credits can be many-to-many, for the largest, global-scale projects, potentially, for infrastructure and finished goods for all.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- I think the model could lend itself to *politicking*, which would be fine because it would all be socio-political -- not private-financial -- and on the basis of free-access for all, to the world's natural and infrastructural resources.

*Ideally* it would look more *consumer*-like, with those who worked and earned labor credits using them to 'shop' for the proposals / 'policy packages' / (social policies), that they *liked* the most, irrespective of all other factors.



wat0n wrote:
I see, well, this is also a type of exchange - even if it's not the same as in a market system.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, there's no exchange, because people can come to voluntary agreements and interpersonal tradeoffs, post-capitalism, if they like, but there are no *economic* exchanges involved, which is what your use of 'exchanges' indicates.

There are no economic exchanges in a communist gift economy, with or without labor credits.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I don't restrict exchanges to interpersonal ones here. There can also be an implicit contract, which is what is basically going on in that case. Not unlike PAYGO pension systems, where the young contribute under the expectation that those who haven't been born yet will contribute to their pension when they retire. There is also an exchange there, even if it's not interpersonal.



Well, that approach *is* an exchange, pay-ins for pay-outs, after time. I think this is also how Social Security (in the U.S.) is administered by the government.

And, admittedly, my labor credits *can* be used in a small-scale interpersonal-exchange kind of way, as for personal services, but the *greater* function would be for the emergent mass self-organization and mass-prioritization of a certain 'policy package' over competing ones, at *any* scale, for a particular implementation -- this mass socio-political process replaces capitalism's use of 'cost pricing', and replaces capitalism's *exchange values* / money / currency / finance / exchanges altogether.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure. You're thinking 'warfare' when you think 'factionalism', but I'm thinking *political* factionalism, meaning differences regarding specific *policies*, and policy *options*.

In the case of fierce head-to-head differences of opinion / approach to a particular implementation, my labor credits model uses the daily individual prioritized demands lists to effect a 'run-off' situation among any two, or more, policy package alternatives. The formally competing factions *would* have to agree to a calendar time-window, though, for a formal timeframe ('x' number of days) of reading-in the mass-aggregated demands lists.



wat0n wrote:
This does presume the existence of a common ground between the competing factions (in this case, the willingness to respect that system). What happens when such common ground does not exist? Would it be necessary to simply impose the system to both parts?



Well, there would *be* no organization / institution / state *to* impose *any* system.

The agreed-upon formal timeframe window, for the 'run-off' process among fiercely competing fully-finalized policy packages, and their formal proponents, would be an entirely feasible function, especially since it's established in this model framework well-in-advance, and would be known to everyone if this model framework is used in a post-capitalist context. It would just be an inter-administrative *scheduling* issue among the respective formal proponents of the respective competing proposal 'camps', or factions.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There are no *wages*, remember, in a post-capitalist -- and especially in a post-*revolution* -- context, so there are *no incomes*.

It's *production* -- meaning goods and services -- that ultimately count, and their distribution, *not* capitalism's exchange-values-accounting, which is currently failing grandly, as you're pointing out.

On this point you *really* need to see my 'global syndicalist currency' model for a good *economic* path to full collective workers control of social production.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=174857



wat0n wrote:
...Or to contribute their share of production, to be able to keep their credits.



Labor credits only pertain to the general social function of *social organization* of the post-capitalist society, and its social production for the common good.

No one would be *obligated* to work, to add to socially-necessary production, and they would *still* have free-access to natural resources and social infrastructure / finished goods. It really wouldn't *matter*, especially since *current* industrial productive processes are so 'overproductive' already, under capitalism. (Farming, for example, requires only 2% of the U.S. population, to provide food to the entire country's population, and beyond.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Who do you think?



wat0n wrote:
Biden.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My point is that the Vietnam War should *never* have happened at all, because no one can provide a decent reason for why it was started in the first place.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, but then in this hypothetical global class warfare there would be a reason for its start.



The class war is *not* 'hypothetical' -- it's *ongoing*, but unfortunately it's a *one-sided* class war, one that's currently benefitting the *wealthy*, and is thus a *plutocracy*.

The working class needs to be collectively organized, and focused on collectively controlling all of social production, for it to even have a *chance* in this ongoing global class war.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's really more of a 'critical mass' dynamic -- as long as there's enough to do the revolution, and to repress the bourgeoisie, then it's done. 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary' is *my* motto.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but how is that critical mass built? At a global scale, remember.

I could imagine something like that happening, but only in many, many years and only after nationalism and other related identity categories weakened as a result of globalization. That is, there would actually need to be a loose global common identity before something like that succeeded.



This is your 'interpersonal / social-psychological-determination' talking again -- the social basis of social production is *not* nationalism, nor is it identity-politics, or even globalization, for that matter, though the working class *is* international, and needs to be internationalist in perspective.

Perhaps what you're indicating is 'international labor solidarity', which *is* a good call if that's what you mean. (It's on my political-spectrum diagram.)


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's about the *efforts* (or costs) required for any further *increases* in the inputs.

Diminishing returns means the 'extra' effort or cost isn't *worth it*, for the extra input received. This meaning is the *same* as 'marginal utility'.



wat0n wrote:
Right, in that sense it is indeed.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's what *government* is for -- any hierarchical bureaucratic oversight *doesn't require* heavy-handed policing methods.



wat0n wrote:
Not always. Think e.g. ATF raids.



But you're begging-the-question -- are all drugs *legalized*, or *aren't* they?

You're not thinking from a *clear*, definite socio-political *premise* here.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There would be *no commerce* in a workers-of-the-world socialism -- *I* would think that people would be liberated to find deeper, meaningful life experiences with others.

*But*, that said, if you *insist* on the 'sex' transaction itself, as between / among strangers -- and I've admitted that 'labor credits' *could* be used interpersonally -- then it would follow that, for some, sex could be considered a 'service', and so would be treated as such, especially for interpersonal / social perceived 'differentials', or 'gaps' between / among the participants, to materially compensate for any such 'differences'.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking 'bourgeois rights' (as over monarchical / aristocratic rule).

People, post-capitalism, wouldn't have 'rights' to any given material, or materials -- everyone could simply *access* and *consume* from common social production, which would be the norm, or 'ethos'.

What *you're* describing is *interpersonal*, so it would be between any consenting adults what they want to do as consenting adults (also see the previous segment).



wat0n wrote:
Isn't the transaction between strangers a form of exchange?



Yes, I've admitted that the labor credits *could* be used interpersonally, as for any personal services, but the greater importance is for many-to-many types of *planning* and policy-package-making, and for associated liberated-laborer *funding*, at *any* scale.


---


wat0n wrote:
Of course I understand, indeed, it's basically what happened with the USSR. How would you prevent it from happening again?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Don't allow Western countries to imperialistically *invade* the nascent working class revolution, wherever it may happen to occur.



wat0n wrote:
Isn't that what the USSR set out to do? :eh:



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the Western militaristic imperialist invasions, and White counterrevolution, happened to the *Bolshevik Revolution*, which *preceded* the later, Stalinist consolidation into the nationalist USSR.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but as means to, well, actually exist.



You're getting off-track. Please *focus*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's also *true*. It's *not* *overly* simple -- it just happens to *be* simple -- binary.



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so. This doesn't explain working class factionalism (for instance) or why cross class collaboration exists.



Any working-class 'factionalism' -- maybe for one shop-floor representative, versus another -- has no different *material basis*, whereas the fundamental *class* differences between the two *classes*, *do* have different material bases, ownership vs. non-ownership of society's means of mass industrial production.

An example of cross-class politics is the recent 'cancel culture' issue that popped up -- this kind of political sentiment could be used by workers, against fascists, or by reactionaries, against workers-class-consciousness. Again, 'false consciousness' exists whether we like it or not -- it's just part of politics and the ongoing class war.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, feel free to tackle it, if you have the inclination to do so.



wat0n wrote:
It would probably make sense to analyze them in a case-by-case basis, and then see if there are any patterns.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a decent argument, but, no, I *don't* think it would *have* to be in real-time, though obviously we now have the technological *means* to do just that.

The reason it doesn't have to be in realtime -- and even a *daily* cycle may be too frequent -- is because the *fulfillment* isn't going to be immediate, though I guess with the 'stock control' method, and today's automated logistics and driverless package deliveries, fulfillment *could* realistically be within the same day.

The reason I'm *equivocating* on this is because it's more of a 'back-end' *logistical* / technical thing -- if a person, say, has a *standing order* that's more-or-less *consistent* from week to week, then the fulfillment of that would simply be on a *rolling* basis, indefinitely, once it gets started and the initial fulfillment happens. After that it's merely on a schedule so that the person's *personal* / household supply is always replenished.

Anything *outside* of that rolling schedule would be *unique* orders which could then just be fulfilled as quickly as possible, given whatever prevailing logistics is used.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but that also means the granularity required would be roughly comparable to that actually provided by the current market system - but with much less infrastructure and data collection involved (since prices are normally an okay summary of that - no, they aren't always a good summary of the aggregation of preferences but they normally are).



Yes, the *superseding* of societal use of capitalism's *exchange values* (prices) *would* make all things material-economic, *much* simpler, which is partly why I advocate the communist-type gift economy, with or without the use of my 'labor credits' aspect.

Basically communism would *politicize* all things material-economic, which would actually be a *good* thing, because, currently, with exchange-values and market exchanges, everything related to materials / distribution, has to go through the *pricing* mechanism, which is too 'hands-off', indirect, and *passive* for how we need a political economy to realistically and accurately function. (As you're noting.)

I'll note that both *government administrations* and *corporations* always aim to *eliminate* the use of market pricing *internally*, within their own organizations, and so they do that by instead using an internal social hierarchy of formal internal *positions*, with accompanying *authority* over material transfers, internally. This makes things much easier, and the internal 'game' becomes one of jockeying for position, aristocratically-like, rather than having to compete through discrete, subdivided collections of wealth or anything strictly financial, warlord-style.
#15121217
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not saying that 'financial intermediation is irrelevant', I'm saying that banking / finance *does not produce* any new commodities, or new value, because it's *rentier capital* and does not participate in the production of new commodities / values, as *equity* capital does.


I know, and what I'm saying is that this is wrong. As you conceded yourself, services can also represent new value - and banking most certainly provides services.

ckaihatsu wrote:I disagree. Yes, a *workers state* would be required during the transition from capitalism to communism, to repress the bourgeois class and to coordinate among workers in the interim, but once capitalism is overthrown the vanguardist workers state would no longer be needed and would be overshadowed by humanity's own collective self-organization, for whatever humane social production is required for the common good.

Again, 100% logistical optimization and centralization would *not* have to happen, post-revolution, but that path would always be available, per-item.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image


Yes, that is the usual Marxist argument. But it doesn't quite work like that, what actually happens is that after repressing (if not outright destroying) the bourgeoisie, the "workers" State is not actually dissolved and it is most certainly not overshowed by collective self-organization.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, planning would necessarily be *collective*, as to the whole workplace itself, so no individual worker would have the 'homework' of having to construct a 'blueprint' for the entire workplace's operations.


Sure, but the technical requirements necessitate a level of qualification that not all workers possess.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's *not* an artificial distinction -- it's a *real world* one. (You're just being *contrarian* here.)

Think 'executive' / 'management' for *internal* functions, meaning overhead / social organization, which is *non-productive*, and think 'wage workers' for the production of the company's *commodities* (goods and/or services), for revenue.


No, it is not a "real world" one. It seems you believe managers don't do much if anything at all but telling workers what to do.

ckaihatsu wrote:But, as I've already mentioned, that data *has no context* -- it doesn't help you because it's not *in relation* to anything else, like 'revenue'.


Except for the fact that it is a ratio between two variables, compensation and output.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct. It's just a sample scenario for the sake of illustration.


Sure.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I'd be open to this kind of paired-variables data, if you can provide it -- I actually *provided* it already, but you went off on a tangent regarding benefits.


Image


It's not a "tangent". Workers do get benefits and those do matter, or what, stuff like a retirement plan or health insurance are not relevant to workers...?

ckaihatsu wrote:An equation *isn't* real-world historical data.


It's a simple identity that shows how the series is constructed :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:You're confusing *rentier* capital ('rents'), with *equity* capital ('revenue' [from the sale of commodities produced]).

The capitalist employer *expropriates* surplus labor value from the workers employed (in this $10 per hour, from 1 worker).

You're showing that you're unable to address the capitalist expropriation of surplus labor value, which is the cause of *how* labor is exploited by capital.


What makes you believe the owners of equity capital (i.e. lenders) are not and cannot be exploited by businesses? That's something that depends mainly on the industrial organization of capital markets.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're showing that you lack *focus* -- you're not even *addressing* the Western imperialist 'externality' invasion of 2003. Here were the results, in lives lost:


And you are not even addressing the economic policy of Iraq before it ever ran into trouble with the West.

ckaihatsu wrote:I *don't have* to quote the whole abstract -- it's there for you to read and use, if you like, in the papers themselves. The papers you provided don't support your contrarian thesis, and *you're* not, either.


Cherry-picking is not a good thing :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're just *jumping* to that conclusion, which shows *bias* on your part.

Certainly free-access to the world's developed infrastructure and resources would be *sufficient* for overcoming any societal issues, because the cost of profits to private firms would no longer have to be paid for the sake of access to their private infrastructure and participation, as is the case today.


You just mentioned one that would be outstanding, namely, the management of scarce uranium minerals.

ckaihatsu wrote:Humanity wouldn't have to be fully *dependent* on petroleum -- there are promising developments today, and potential, for the use of *hydrogen* as an alternative to diesel, so there's that, for example.


Sure, but we aren't there with regards to oil just yet.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're misperceiving the information I provided as somehow being a *literary*-type 'narrative'.

It's *not* a 'narrative' -- the fundamental socio-political problem is that of *class*, which is *empirical*, and is *not* a subjective narrative.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


If you say so :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, no argument -- I already noted that such treatment at the hands of cops is not conducive to gender equality.


Of course it is not, but no one would argue the government engages in systemic discrimination against males based on that statistic.

ckaihatsu wrote:You need to *prioritize*, so that the 1000+ needless deaths per year are *eliminated*, with the additional 2000 deaths per year due to the illicit drug trade addressed and eliminated by *legalizing all drugs*, accompanied by the defunding / elimination of police departments, to be replaced with *humane-minded* *social services* instead of the present-day *invasions* of domestic situations by heavy-handed police interventions.


Right, I bet these humane-minded social workers will stop serial killers, rapists, gangs themselves (they may turn to other activities such as human or arms trafficking), etc :roll:

It's funny you complain so much about the bourgeoisie expropriating workers' rents yet you don't care about violent crime. Yet it turns out I am the materialist :lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking of the *preceding*, *workers state*, 'socialism' transitional stage:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



Such would be *political*, primarily, in response to actual prevailing conditions of class struggle.


I'm not sure about what do you mean. Would this messianic era also end war because reasons?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, but any such rebellions are *not* premised on the self-organization of the working class.

The *overcoming* of class rule has working class collective *control* of social production as a *prerequisite*.


Sure, if you want to see it that way. Another one is for soldiers to actually join this revolution.

ckaihatsu wrote:You *still* don't seem to realize that not all social relations are *interpersonal*.

You also don't seem to realize that there are such things as *political organizations*, such as the Bolshevik Party, historically.


It's funny, because those political organization also rely on social ties being strong or else the political organization's existence will stop making much sense.

ckaihatsu wrote:Stalinism failed because the USSR got into a reckless expensive nuclear arms race with the West.


I think we already went through this, and its failure went well beyond just that.

ckaihatsu wrote:What about the 'material incentive' for the working class of the world to collectively control the world's means of mass industrial production, for themselves, without capitalists whatsoever -- ?


How does this differ from what I said?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I think you're far too 'interpersonal', or psychological-behaviorist-determinist, in your approach to politics. In the *political* context you've shown yourself to simply be crudely status-quo-defending, and knee-jerk *contrarian*, here.


Maybe, but it is true that personal conflicts among the elites have shaped history in the past.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're conflating *Stalinism* with the self-mobilization of the world's working class, for workers-of-the-world socialism. You *should* have learned the difference by now.


Oh, I understand the difference it's simply that this is how revolutions tend to work.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, that approach *is* an exchange, pay-ins for pay-outs, after time. I think this is also how Social Security (in the U.S.) is administered by the government.

And, admittedly, my labor credits *can* be used in a small-scale interpersonal-exchange kind of way, as for personal services, but the *greater* function would be for the emergent mass self-organization and mass-prioritization of a certain 'policy package' over competing ones, at *any* scale, for a particular implementation -- this mass socio-political process replaces capitalism's use of 'cost pricing', and replaces capitalism's *exchange values* / money / currency / finance / exchanges altogether.


This would probably be closer to the truth in this idealized world.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, there would *be* no organization / institution / state *to* impose *any* system.

The agreed-upon formal timeframe window, for the 'run-off' process among fiercely competing fully-finalized policy packages, and their formal proponents, would be an entirely feasible function, especially since it's established in this model framework well-in-advance, and would be known to everyone if this model framework is used in a post-capitalist context. It would just be an inter-administrative *scheduling* issue among the respective formal proponents of the respective competing proposal 'camps', or factions.


Think for example about new generations, i.e. people who are born after this idyllic society is established. What makes you believe they will necessarily be bound to these agreements?

ckaihatsu wrote:Labor credits only pertain to the general social function of *social organization* of the post-capitalist society, and its social production for the common good.

No one would be *obligated* to work, to add to socially-necessary production, and they would *still* have free-access to natural resources and social infrastructure / finished goods. It really wouldn't *matter*, especially since *current* industrial productive processes are so 'overproductive' already, under capitalism. (Farming, for example, requires only 2% of the U.S. population, to provide food to the entire country's population, and beyond.)


I mean, assuming they want to have political control on whatever is produced.

ckaihatsu wrote:The class war is *not* 'hypothetical' -- it's *ongoing*, but unfortunately it's a *one-sided* class war, one that's currently benefitting the *wealthy*, and is thus a *plutocracy*.

The working class needs to be collectively organized, and focused on collectively controlling all of social production, for it to even have a *chance* in this ongoing global class war.


Sure :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:This is your 'interpersonal / social-psychological-determination' talking again -- the social basis of social production is *not* nationalism, nor is it identity-politics, or even globalization, for that matter, though the working class *is* international, and needs to be internationalist in perspective.

Perhaps what you're indicating is 'international labor solidarity', which *is* a good call if that's what you mean. (It's on my political-spectrum diagram.)


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


One of the forms it could take could be the international labor solidarity stuff. But national solidarity efforts seem to be more common than that.

ckaihatsu wrote:But you're begging-the-question -- are all drugs *legalized*, or *aren't* they?

You're not thinking from a *clear*, definite socio-political *premise* here.


I'm not thinking about illegal drugs. I thinking about enforcing regulations on producing alcoholic beverages.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, I've admitted that the labor credits *could* be used interpersonally, as for any personal services, but the greater importance is for many-to-many types of *planning* and policy-package-making, and for associated liberated-laborer *funding*, at *any* scale.


Right, so some sort of market would exist at a small scale.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're getting off-track. Please *focus*.


Being able to win wars is a requirement for the system to hold, isn't it?

ckaihatsu wrote:Any working-class 'factionalism' -- maybe for one shop-floor representative, versus another -- has no different *material basis*, whereas the fundamental *class* differences between the two *classes*, *do* have different material bases, ownership vs. non-ownership of society's means of mass industrial production.

An example of cross-class politics is the recent 'cancel culture' issue that popped up -- this kind of political sentiment could be used by workers, against fascists, or by reactionaries, against workers-class-consciousness. Again, 'false consciousness' exists whether we like it or not -- it's just part of politics and the ongoing class war.


And yet the case of cancel culture is a great example, since it makes it hard for people who disagree on these cultural issues to cooperate in other issues even when their interests align.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, the *superseding* of societal use of capitalism's *exchange values* (prices) *would* make all things material-economic, *much* simpler, which is partly why I advocate the communist-type gift economy, with or without the use of my 'labor credits' aspect.

Basically communism would *politicize* all things material-economic, which would actually be a *good* thing, because, currently, with exchange-values and market exchanges, everything related to materials / distribution, has to go through the *pricing* mechanism, which is too 'hands-off', indirect, and *passive* for how we need a political economy to realistically and accurately function. (As you're noting.)

I'll note that both *government administrations* and *corporations* always aim to *eliminate* the use of market pricing *internally*, within their own organizations, and so they do that by instead using an internal social hierarchy of formal internal *positions*, with accompanying *authority* over material transfers, internally. This makes things much easier, and the internal 'game' becomes one of jockeying for position, aristocratically-like, rather than having to compete through discrete, subdivided collections of wealth or anything strictly financial, warlord-style.


Actually the last part is not quite correct - cost accounting is all about pricing internal transactions within a business, although it's done for management purposes.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/co ... unting.asp
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

You're not the only Cuban, X guy. There are plen[…]

Death case definition - Belgium, Spain, Sweden, U[…]

Castro came from money and then married into elit[…]

https://media.thedonald.win/post/r4tc[…]