50th Day of Violent Protests in Portland - Page 20 - 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.
#15121252
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.



wat0n wrote:
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.



But 'services' only in the sense of a *commodity* produced by wage workers -- banking is the use of *rentier* capital, which is *pre-existing* capital, extracting the price of *interest* for its being lent out.

Yes, it's a service to capital, but it still doesn't create any new value, economically, because the loan service isn't producing any new commodities, or new revenue *from* any productive process.

A *commodity* service from wage workers would be like that of fast-food service, where the service of handing the meal to-go to the customer is "required", and is thus a service, in addition to the food itself which is a good, and both are commodities, and all employees there are wage workers, either producing the food / good, and/or fulfilling the sale to the customer though 'pink-collar' service.

(But even *this* service is debatable because some say that such *clerk*-type service *isn't* really producing a commodity, and that such pink-collar service is really more like necessary internal *infrastructure* to the company, since the precedent of the 'automat' which served ordered meals to customers *without* any pink-collar-type service, since it was just through post-office-box-type slots, to a cafeteria dining area. Moreover, any cashier at a store isn't really providing a *service* to the customer -- they're just ringing up the sale for the sake of the business, so that's virtually a *management* / executive function, or 'overhead', really.)


---


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



wat0n wrote:
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.



Sure, that's the concern / anxiety, and I can't personally make any hard-and-fast *guarantees*, myself, but, again, the reality would be that humanity *wouldn't need* the vanguard once the bourgeoisie is fully, decisively overthrown, so the vanguard couldn't do anything hegemonic even if they *wanted* to.

Let me put it this way -- the vanguard would both rely on *mass* revolutionary sentiment from below, for its legitimacy, *and* it would be *actively coordinating* with local struggles 'below', all over the world, so it would *be on the same side* as the proletariat, all throughout the proletarian revolution.

Also, being but a tiny *fraction* of the size of all of humanity such a relatively tiny organization could *easily* be infiltrated from all-of-humanity if it *did* somehow try to exercise power -- though you haven't even *described* what this basis of power would purportedly *be* exactly, in a *post-class* world, with everything available to everyone on-the-ground.

These anarchist 'concerns' just sound increasingly far-fetched the more one considers what the exact situation would *be* at that post-revolutionary point.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but the technical requirements necessitate a level of qualification that not all workers possess.



You're not *hearing* me, so I have to *repeat* what I just said: The responsibility of collectively organizing a workplace would not fall on any *one* person's shoulders.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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.



That's what the role of management *is* -- that (supervision), and counting the money, and any social organization internally and/or externally. I've already acknowledged that management roles are *essential* to the business entity itself, but it's still all *overhead* that doesn't itself *produce commodities* -- the *workers* are the ones who produce commodities for the company (like boots in that sample scenario), and all wage workers are exploited of their surplus labor value in the process, for company profits.


---


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'.



wat0n wrote:
Except for the fact that it is a ratio between two variables, compensation and output.



Then you should be able to provide the *source* data of those two variables over time.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct. It's just a sample scenario for the sake of illustration.



wat0n wrote:
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



wat0n wrote:
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...?



You're just *nit-picking* now -- my original point *stands*, that the data in this graph I provided shows that profitability has only been able to increase since 1970 because of wage *stagnation* during that time, compared to steady gains in productivity. This disparity between productivity gains and wage stagnation is the *increasing exploitation* of labor, by employers / capitalists / ownership.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
An equation *isn't* real-world historical data.



wat0n wrote:
It's a simple identity that shows how the series is constructed :roll:



You're going off-topic again, and you're not providing empirical data.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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.



The owners of equity capital are *investors*, not 'lenders'.

The nature of what they do is to *make bets* on the stock-market horse-race -- it's *not* exploitation because it's *surplus cash* that they can afford to lose, or hang onto and *not* invest, unlike a wage worker who *depends* on their earned wages for the necessities of modern life and living.


---


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:



wat0n wrote:
And you are not even addressing the economic policy of Iraq before it ever ran into trouble with the West.



Yeah, I'll pass -- I think that the destruction wreaked onto Iraq by the U.S. is *more* than relevant to its recent economics, which you're ignoring.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Cherry-picking is not a good thing :roll:



The *abstract* of a paper represents the *entire content* of the paper, so it's *not* cherry-picking. You're just making that up.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
You just mentioned one that would be outstanding, namely, the management of scarce uranium minerals.



So -- *again* -- if one particular resource happened to be naturally scarce, like uranium, then the *entire world* would be available to *everyone*, from which to find alternatives, like hydrogen or solar or wind, or whatever.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but we aren't there with regards to oil just yet.



And, again, it doesn't have to *be* oil -- alternatives exist.


---


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



wat0n wrote:
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.



wat0n wrote:
Of course it is not, but no one would argue the government engages in systemic discrimination against males based on that statistic.



Yet that's what *happens*, from the *institution* of government policing, government killer cops, and government police brutality.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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:



That's *very* pessimistic and biased, as though all government reforms would just *grind to a halt* once the elimination of policing happens. You're also implying that policing *currently stops* these crimes, yet they *exist*, despite policing, and you're pointing to them.

Obviously the government bureaucracy should address whatever civil society issues are *outstanding*, but it's not doing that *now*, because there are 1000+ killings per year in the U.S. at the hands of government police.

I blame *all* of these ills on *capitalism*, incidentally, because it sets up the dynamic of *market competition* over the provision of goods and services, even if the commodities and their trade happen to be *anti-social* and destructive of human life and lives.


wat0n wrote:
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:



That's because 'violent crime' is a *tiny* phenomenon compared to the systematic, daily, hourly *exploitation* of labor's surplus labor value, by all employers, everywhere in the world. Why isn't *that* considered to be a crime, with *employers* punished as criminals?


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what do you mean. Would this messianic era also end war because reasons?



The 'stages' I indicated in the diagram are *modes of production* -- it's *class war*, yes, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as it's ever been, but I don't see how any of it is 'messianic'. Maybe you can elaborate on this part.


---


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*.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, if you want to see it that way. Another one is for soldiers to actually join this revolution.



You're not-understanding that what's *at-stake* is how-society-produces-things-that-it-needs.

You're used to intra-bourgeois *military* wars, for international turf, and, yes, that's been the history, certainly, but that's *not* what a proletarian revolution is about. It's about workers control of the means of mass industrial production.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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.



No, this is where you are showing you *do not* understand.

Politics is for the sake of addressing *societal dynamics*, such as 'commodity production'. You seem to think that politics is based on organizational *internal cohesion*, and it's *not*. It's *not* about one group conquering another group, it's about the most *appropriate* *policy approach* to a given situation, or problem.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Stalinism failed because the USSR got into a reckless expensive nuclear arms race with the West.



wat0n wrote:
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 -- ?



wat0n wrote:
How does this differ from what I said?



*Are* you saying that the world's working class has a material incentive to collectively control the world's means of mass industrial production, for themselves, without capitalists whatsoever -- ?


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, but it is true that personal conflicts among the elites have shaped history in the past.



Sure, again, that's 'turf' within the ruling class.

*Class* war means who controls society's *production*, and how is it distributed.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
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.



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.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I understand the difference it's simply that this is how revolutions tend to work.



You're thinking of *bourgeois* history again.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
This would probably be closer to the truth in this idealized world.



So are you saying that you recognize the labor credits model to be a socio-political alternative to capitalist market pricing / social-organization -- ?


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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?



What have I said that makes you think this post-capitalist societal model would be 'idyllic' -- ?

All of my descriptions of its function contain *factions*, and *work* (albeit liberated), and *competing proposals*, and *social organization*, etc. -- I've hardly described anything that could be called 'utopic', or 'idyllic'.

Regarding future generations, the entire political economy is *post-capitalist*, meaning that it's a *much better* approach to handling industrial production's *abundance* than capitalism is for doing the same.


---


wat0n wrote:
...Or to contribute their share of production, to be able to keep their credits.



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.)



wat0n wrote:
I mean, assuming they want to have political control on whatever is produced.



If *that* happened then it wouldn't be *communism* -- the liberated-labor 'control' is over how they themselves *self-deploy* their own labor *efforts* (no material duress), and whatever's produced is fundamentally *free-access* to all, so none of it is 'controlled' by liberated labor, in the sense of 'private property'.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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



wat0n wrote:
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.



Yeah, it's just a matter of *scale*, and usually it's a bottom-up process, with local industry-wide militant worker organizing taking place *first*, and then later, once solid, it's *generalized* across the same industry to workers in other countries as well.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not thinking about illegal drugs. I thinking about enforcing regulations on producing alcoholic beverages.



Well, then, you're off-topic again, for this particular segment -- we started by talking about the 2,000 deaths per year due to the hyper-competitive illicit drug trade, and I noted that legalization of all drugs would abolish the black-market for drugs, and all of the turf-related deaths associated with that business 'turf'. Policing would no longer be needed, as well.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Right, so some sort of market would exist at a small scale.



If you like, and even communists wouldn't object to this kind of *strictly interpersonal* market-type 'exchanges' activity because it could actually be *appropriate* to individually-customized kinds of economic activity, like specialty parts, rare items, artisanal handicrafts, and anything similar along these lines. What's of *importance* is collectivizing the means of mass industrial production so that 100% of humanity can get the *basic necessities* of modern life and living, since industrial mass-production confers a material *abundance* of such items, but *distributes* them incorrectly, and *not* according to actual organic human need.


---


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.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're getting off-track. Please *focus*.



wat0n wrote:
Being able to win wars is a requirement for the system to hold, isn't it?



No -- the proletarian *class* war is mostly about *political intention*, as in fomenting general strikes, controlling production, seizing factories, etc.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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.



You're being quite general / vague -- would you elaborate more on this, to describe it?


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
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



Okay, noted, and thanks -- I was trying to speak more to the internal-*political* aspect of corporate organization, with a social *hierarchy* of internal authorities within, that manage over projects, personnel, etc., according to *performance* / reputation, primarily.

This is where *your* domain of knowledge would be more applicable, and accurate.
#15122196
ckaihatsu wrote:But 'services' only in the sense of a *commodity* produced by wage workers -- banking is the use of *rentier* capital, which is *pre-existing* capital, extracting the price of *interest* for its being lent out.

Yes, it's a service to capital, but it still doesn't create any new value, economically, because the loan service isn't producing any new commodities, or new revenue *from* any productive process.

A *commodity* service from wage workers would be like that of fast-food service, where the service of handing the meal to-go to the customer is "required", and is thus a service, in addition to the food itself which is a good, and both are commodities, and all employees there are wage workers, either producing the food / good, and/or fulfilling the sale to the customer though 'pink-collar' service.

(But even *this* service is debatable because some say that such *clerk*-type service *isn't* really producing a commodity, and that such pink-collar service is really more like necessary internal *infrastructure* to the company, since the precedent of the 'automat' which served ordered meals to customers *without* any pink-collar-type service, since it was just through post-office-box-type slots, to a cafeteria dining area. Moreover, any cashier at a store isn't really providing a *service* to the customer -- they're just ringing up the sale for the sake of the business, so that's virtually a *management* / executive function, or 'overhead', really.)


What you are saying, then, is that intermediation services don't generate value. So those guys who help people to apply to all sorts of social programs also don't add any value (they are intermediating between individuals and the State), neither do real estate agents, people who help you find jobs or any sort of brokers in general. Am I correct here?

If so, then how would people who need social programs navigate through all the various options (or even file claims) or how would people be able to find homes to live in quickly far from where they live now (e.g. in other cities)? It seems to me that part of the success of apps like AirBnb arises precisely because that kind of stuff is necessary (in this case, the app automates much of the intermediation process between people who have a room to put up for rent and people who are looking for homes).

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, that's the concern / anxiety, and I can't personally make any hard-and-fast *guarantees*, myself, but, again, the reality would be that humanity *wouldn't need* the vanguard once the bourgeoisie is fully, decisively overthrown, so the vanguard couldn't do anything hegemonic even if they *wanted* to.

Let me put it this way -- the vanguard would both rely on *mass* revolutionary sentiment from below, for its legitimacy, *and* it would be *actively coordinating* with local struggles 'below', all over the world, so it would *be on the same side* as the proletariat, all throughout the proletarian revolution.

Also, being but a tiny *fraction* of the size of all of humanity such a relatively tiny organization could *easily* be infiltrated from all-of-humanity if it *did* somehow try to exercise power -- though you haven't even *described* what this basis of power would purportedly *be* exactly, in a *post-class* world, with everything available to everyone on-the-ground.

These anarchist 'concerns' just sound increasingly far-fetched the more one considers what the exact situation would *be* at that post-revolutionary point.


I think it's a legitimate concern, since that's how these attempts of revolution have ended several times now. As for the bolded part, if the vanguard didn't want to leave its position of power after destroying the bourgeoisie then it simply won't happen - not as far as arms production is concerned, for starters.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *hearing* me, so I have to *repeat* what I just said: The responsibility of collectively organizing a workplace would not fall on any *one* person's shoulders.


No, and it doesn't under capitalism either. That doesn't negate my point at all.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's what the role of management *is* -- that (supervision), and counting the money, and any social organization internally and/or externally. I've already acknowledged that management roles are *essential* to the business entity itself, but it's still all *overhead* that doesn't itself *produce commodities* -- the *workers* are the ones who produce commodities for the company (like boots in that sample scenario), and all wage workers are exploited of their surplus labor value in the process, for company profits.


And it's also essential for production itself - planning and supervision are indeed critical tasks.

ckaihatsu wrote:Then you should be able to provide the *source* data of those two variables over time.


The series comes from the BLS. I can search for more detailed methodology if you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just *nit-picking* now -- my original point *stands*, that the data in this graph I provided shows that profitability has only been able to increase since 1970 because of wage *stagnation* during that time, compared to steady gains in productivity. This disparity between productivity gains and wage stagnation is the *increasing exploitation* of labor, by employers / capitalists / ownership.


That's clearly not the case if unit labor costs have been increasing. That means employee compensation is increasing faster than output has.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're going off-topic again, and you're not providing empirical data.


I already did.

ckaihatsu wrote:The owners of equity capital are *investors*, not 'lenders'.

The nature of what they do is to *make bets* on the stock-market horse-race -- it's *not* exploitation because it's *surplus cash* that they can afford to lose, or hang onto and *not* invest, unlike a wage worker who *depends* on their earned wages for the necessities of modern life and living.


No, your definition of "equity capital" above does not imply ownership.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, I'll pass -- I think that the destruction wreaked onto Iraq by the U.S. is *more* than relevant to its recent economics, which you're ignoring.


That's because its past economics was far from stellar as well.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *abstract* of a paper represents the *entire content* of the paper, so it's *not* cherry-picking. You're just making that up.


No, it's simply a summary. Of course relevant information can and is left out of the abstract in any paper, particularly those relating to methodological details. If you want to read all the content of a paper, then just... Well, read the whole paper.

ckaihatsu wrote:So -- *again* -- if one particular resource happened to be naturally scarce, like uranium, then the *entire world* would be available to *everyone*, from which to find alternatives, like hydrogen or solar or wind, or whatever.


That's quite vague to be honest. What if an alternative was not found in a timely manner?

ckaihatsu wrote:And, again, it doesn't have to *be* oil -- alternatives exist.


And they are more expensive and/or yield less energy than oil does.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yet that's what *happens*, from the *institution* of government policing, government killer cops, and government police brutality.


Well, you should (again) have a word with feminists :)

ckaihatsu wrote:That's *very* pessimistic and biased, as though all government reforms would just *grind to a halt* once the elimination of policing happens. You're also implying that policing *currently stops* these crimes, yet they *exist*, despite policing, and you're pointing to them.

Obviously the government bureaucracy should address whatever civil society issues are *outstanding*, but it's not doing that *now*, because there are 1000+ killings per year in the U.S. at the hands of government police.


I'm not the one calling for abolition of the police.

ckaihatsu wrote:I blame *all* of these ills on *capitalism*, incidentally, because it sets up the dynamic of *market competition* over the provision of goods and services, even if the commodities and their trade happen to be *anti-social* and destructive of human life and lives.


Instead, there should be some sort of monopoly over their provision...?

ckaihatsu wrote:That's because 'violent crime' is a *tiny* phenomenon compared to the systematic, daily, hourly *exploitation* of labor's surplus labor value, by all employers, everywhere in the world. Why isn't *that* considered to be a crime, with *employers* punished as criminals?


I don't know, maybe because workers who don't like it are legally free to work independently?

ckaihatsu wrote:The 'stages' I indicated in the diagram are *modes of production* -- it's *class war*, yes, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as it's ever been, but I don't see how any of it is 'messianic'. Maybe you can elaborate on this part.


Those alleged stages have never materialized and the promises you are making that a workers-of-the-world socialism will be an utopian society is messianic.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not-understanding that what's *at-stake* is how-society-produces-things-that-it-needs.

You're used to intra-bourgeois *military* wars, for international turf, and, yes, that's been the history, certainly, but that's *not* what a proletarian revolution is about. It's about workers control of the means of mass industrial production.


And to take over those means workers need to impose themselves militarily. That means having either the means to defeat professional armies or their support.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, this is where you are showing you *do not* understand.

Politics is for the sake of addressing *societal dynamics*, such as 'commodity production'. You seem to think that politics is based on organizational *internal cohesion*, and it's *not*. It's *not* about one group conquering another group, it's about the most *appropriate* *policy approach* to a given situation, or problem.


Actually, yes, internal cohesion is essential for any policy approach to become implemented.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Are* you saying that the world's working class has a material incentive to collectively control the world's means of mass industrial production, for themselves, without capitalists whatsoever -- ?


Sure, who doesn't have a material incentive to take over another person's property? Why do you think theft exists at all?

Of course, there are also disincentives to do so, particularly if the consequences of theft are severe.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, again, that's 'turf' within the ruling class.

*Class* war means who controls society's *production*, and how is it distributed.


So...?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking of *bourgeois* history again.


I'm thinking of history, without adjective.

ckaihatsu wrote:So are you saying that you recognize the labor credits model to be a socio-political alternative to capitalist market pricing / social-organization -- ?


Sure, you are presenting it as such. But it seems it is not a feasible or efficient one.

ckaihatsu wrote:What have I said that makes you think this post-capitalist societal model would be 'idyllic' -- ?

All of my descriptions of its function contain *factions*, and *work* (albeit liberated), and *competing proposals*, and *social organization*, etc. -- I've hardly described anything that could be called 'utopic', or 'idyllic'.

Regarding future generations, the entire political economy is *post-capitalist*, meaning that it's a *much better* approach to handling industrial production's *abundance* than capitalism is for doing the same.


It's idyllic because you are assuming people (i.e. workers) would solve their differences without attempting to upend the system. Their differences would seemingly be of minor importance compared to upholding this system, and there would be broad agreement about this.

ckaihatsu wrote:If *that* happened then it wouldn't be *communism* -- the liberated-labor 'control' is over how they themselves *self-deploy* their own labor *efforts* (no material duress), and whatever's produced is fundamentally *free-access* to all, so none of it is 'controlled' by liberated labor, in the sense of 'private property'.


But you did concede that workers with more credits would have a greater influence on the decisions on what to produce, after basic necessities for everyone were taken care of. Right?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, it's just a matter of *scale*, and usually it's a bottom-up process, with local industry-wide militant worker organizing taking place *first*, and then later, once solid, it's *generalized* across the same industry to workers in other countries as well.


And that's why those other identity categories are actually relevant. Identity politics has always existed in one form or another (although the current one in the US is being shittier than that of the last few decades).

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, then, you're off-topic again, for this particular segment -- we started by talking about the 2,000 deaths per year due to the hyper-competitive illicit drug trade, and I noted that legalization of all drugs would abolish the black-market for drugs, and all of the turf-related deaths associated with that business 'turf'. Policing would no longer be needed, as well.


The same concerns that hold regarding alcohol (e.g. enforcement of sanitary regulations) would also hold for other drugs.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you like, and even communists wouldn't object to this kind of *strictly interpersonal* market-type 'exchanges' activity because it could actually be *appropriate* to individually-customized kinds of economic activity, like specialty parts, rare items, artisanal handicrafts, and anything similar along these lines. What's of *importance* is collectivizing the means of mass industrial production so that 100% of humanity can get the *basic necessities* of modern life and living, since industrial mass-production confers a material *abundance* of such items, but *distributes* them incorrectly, and *not* according to actual organic human need.


Indeed, although I think it's been a constant fight between communists.

ckaihatsu wrote:No -- the proletarian *class* war is mostly about *political intention*, as in fomenting general strikes, controlling production, seizing factories, etc.


And to seize factories or control production, workers need to be able to defeat the police and the military if any tried to stop them from doing that.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're being quite general / vague -- would you elaborate more on this, to describe it?


Just consider the ideological and identity sectarianism of the current political environment. E.g. working class Whites supporting Trump instead of aligning themselves with working class African Americans to pursue common goals.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, noted, and thanks -- I was trying to speak more to the internal-*political* aspect of corporate organization, with a social *hierarchy* of internal authorities within, that manage over projects, personnel, etc., according to *performance* / reputation, primarily.

This is where *your* domain of knowledge would be more applicable, and accurate.


But actually cost accounting is something that can have an effect on office politics even under capitalism, e.g. getting a shitty or incompetent management fired. In Governments, it can lead to fights between different institutions over budgets and similar affairs (I know since I've worked in the public sector).
#15122388
ckaihatsu wrote:
But 'services' only in the sense of a *commodity* produced by wage workers -- banking is the use of *rentier* capital, which is *pre-existing* capital, extracting the price of *interest* for its being lent out.

Yes, it's a service to capital, but it still doesn't create any new value, economically, because the loan service isn't producing any new commodities, or new revenue *from* any productive process.

A *commodity* service from wage workers would be like that of fast-food service, where the service of handing the meal to-go to the customer is "required", and is thus a service, in addition to the food itself which is a good, and both are commodities, and all employees there are wage workers, either producing the food / good, and/or fulfilling the sale to the customer though 'pink-collar' service.

(But even *this* service is debatable because some say that such *clerk*-type service *isn't* really producing a commodity, and that such pink-collar service is really more like necessary internal *infrastructure* to the company, since the precedent of the 'automat' which served ordered meals to customers *without* any pink-collar-type service, since it was just through post-office-box-type slots, to a cafeteria dining area. Moreover, any cashier at a store isn't really providing a *service* to the customer -- they're just ringing up the sale for the sake of the business, so that's virtually a *management* / executive function, or 'overhead', really.)



wat0n wrote:
What you are saying, then, is that intermediation services don't generate value. So those guys who help people to apply to all sorts of social programs also don't add any value (they are intermediating between individuals and the State), neither do real estate agents, people who help you find jobs or any sort of brokers in general. Am I correct here?



Government social programs can all be thought of as 'political infrastructure' -- in providing such social services the government is *facilitating* the bourgeois capitalist *economy*, mainly -- *lubricating* it, basically. Politically it's 'legitimizing', or "justifying" its own existence, with any and every action, because it bolsters the bourgeois ruling class and the capitalist economy.

We can't say that government social services are *adding value* to the economy because no new commodities have been produced-and-sold. It's really more a socio-*political* function.

All financial-type services (F.I.R.E.) can be thought of similarly to government social services, but for the sake of the *private sector* -- note that finance, insurance, and real estate are all *rentier*-type capital, meaning *non-productive assets*. Yes, they arguably provide 'services' to capital, for those who *own* capital, but, no, these functions do *not* create new products, or new value, the way that *equity* capital and exploited labor does. So again they're 'overhead' to whatever individuals and companies.


wat0n wrote:
If so, then how would people who need social programs navigate through all the various options (or even file claims) or how would people be able to find homes to live in quickly far from where they live now (e.g. in other cities)? It seems to me that part of the success of apps like AirBnb arises precisely because that kind of stuff is necessary (in this case, the app automates much of the intermediation process between people who have a room to put up for rent and people who are looking for homes).



Yup -- mostly *overhead*.

AirBnB *does* provide a commodity *service*, which people *pay* for, so that's *productive*.

If we compare it to a private real estate agent work role, I think the difference is that the real estate agent is *overhead* to the real estate company itself -- the agent is paid by the *company*, as a cost for *closing real estate* deals. So the agent is *overhead* to rentier capital. The propsective customer isn't paying a fee upfront to the agent for their 'service' alone -- it's really a 'loss leader' for the real estate sales themselves. (Whereas with AirBnb a customer *does* pay upfront, in my understanding, and may *never* find a suitable place to vacation in, so they're paying for the 'networking' 'connections' themselves, like a private 'classifieds' service.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, that's the concern / anxiety, and I can't personally make any hard-and-fast *guarantees*, myself, but, again, the reality would be that humanity *wouldn't need* the vanguard once the bourgeoisie is fully, decisively overthrown, so the vanguard couldn't do anything hegemonic even if they *wanted* to.

Let me put it this way -- the vanguard would both rely on *mass* revolutionary sentiment from below, for its legitimacy, *and* it would be *actively coordinating* with local struggles 'below', all over the world, so it would *be on the same side* as the proletariat, all throughout the proletarian revolution.

Also, being but a tiny *fraction* of the size of all of humanity such a relatively tiny organization could *easily* be infiltrated from all-of-humanity if it *did* somehow try to exercise power -- though you haven't even *described* what this basis of power would purportedly *be* exactly, in a *post-class* world, with everything available to everyone on-the-ground.

These anarchist 'concerns' just sound increasingly far-fetched the more one considers what the exact situation would *be* at that post-revolutionary point.



wat0n wrote:
I think it's a legitimate concern, since that's how these attempts of revolution have ended several times now. As for the bolded part, if the vanguard didn't want to leave its position of power after destroying the bourgeoisie then it simply won't happen - not as far as arms production is concerned, for starters.



No, I'm sorry, but this *is* all too far-fetched.

You're *again* trying to use historical accident -- particularly Stalinism -- to indict socialism itself, while we've never seen sustained workers-of-the-world control over social production. So it's really a stretch to then try to reach to a *vanguard* like the Bolshevik Party to indict their practice when they had their hands full with counterrevolution and foreign military invasions.

You're *still* trying to make the vanguard sound like a bourgeois military 'Special Ops' team, or something, when it's really more like the *Bolshevik Party* in 1917, that coordinated ground-level 'soviets' (workers councils), and dealt with developing geopolitical concerns.

Please re-read my prior statement from this segment, above, because you haven't addressed any of my counterarguments there. I don't want to re-type and I have nothing to *add* at this point.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but the technical requirements necessitate a level of qualification that not all workers possess.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not *hearing* me, so I have to *repeat* what I just said: The responsibility of collectively organizing a workplace would not fall on any *one* person's shoulders.



wat0n wrote:
No, and it doesn't under capitalism either. That doesn't negate my point at all.



You're clearly not understanding the difference in scale between an *individual*, and a *collective* -- when workers are cooperating together at their workplace, that group does not need to rely on any *particular* person, as for drawing-up a 'plan', or 'blueprint'.

A good analogue is this PoFo discussion board, where any given political issue can be addressed by *several* people, with varying viewpoints and perspectives. If a 'plan' in common had to be developed -- say, a solid political position on some issue -- then these threads of discussion would be an appropriate way to do that.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's what the role of management *is* -- that (supervision), and counting the money, and any social organization internally and/or externally. I've already acknowledged that management roles are *essential* to the business entity itself, but it's still all *overhead* that doesn't itself *produce commodities* -- the *workers* are the ones who produce commodities for the company (like boots in that sample scenario), and all wage workers are exploited of their surplus labor value in the process, for company profits.



wat0n wrote:
And it's also essential for production itself - planning and supervision are indeed critical tasks.



You already said this, and *I* just said this -- but what you're *ignoring* is that these planning and supervision work roles ('management') are *overhead*, and do not produce any *commodities* for the company. It's the *workers*, paid an exploitative wage, that produce the *commodities* for the company.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Then you should be able to provide the *source* data of those two variables over time.



wat0n wrote:
The series comes from the BLS. I can search for more detailed methodology if you want.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just *nit-picking* now -- my original point *stands*, that the data in this graph I provided shows that profitability has only been able to increase since 1970 because of wage *stagnation* during that time, compared to steady gains in productivity. This disparity between productivity gains and wage stagnation is the *increasing exploitation* of labor, by employers / capitalists / ownership.



wat0n wrote:
That's clearly not the case if unit labor costs have been increasing. That means employee compensation is increasing faster than output has.



But labor costs have *not* been increasing, and you're provided no data for this. The data *I* provided, in that graph, shows that wages have been *stagnating*, not increasing, while productivity / output has been *outstripping* wages / labor costs / employee compensation.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off-topic again, and you're not providing empirical data.



wat0n wrote:
I already did.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The owners of equity capital are *investors*, not 'lenders'.

The nature of what they do is to *make bets* on the stock-market horse-race -- it's *not* exploitation because it's *surplus cash* that they can afford to lose, or hang onto and *not* invest, unlike a wage worker who *depends* on their earned wages for the necessities of modern life and living.



wat0n wrote:
No, your definition of "equity capital" above does not imply ownership.



Equity capital *is* ownership, either of capital / cash itself, or of a piece of a company, through investment / shares ownership.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, I'll pass -- I think that the destruction wreaked onto Iraq by the U.S. is *more* than relevant to its recent economics, which you're ignoring.



wat0n wrote:
That's because its past economics was far from stellar as well.



You're still treating geopolitical warfare, and its destruction of Iraq, as an economic 'externality' to Iraq's economics, which is *inappropriate*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *abstract* of a paper represents the *entire content* of the paper, so it's *not* cherry-picking. You're just making that up.



wat0n wrote:
No, it's simply a summary. Of course relevant information can and is left out of the abstract in any paper, particularly those relating to methodological details. If you want to read all the content of a paper, then just... Well, read the whole paper.



So the excerpts of the papers' abstracts that I provided here, on this thread, is *not* cherry-picking -- it's *representative* of each paper's *thesis*, respectively, and the papers' theses do *not* support your contention that Marx's Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Decline, is invalid. The papers *support* Marx's theory.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So -- *again* -- if one particular resource happened to be naturally scarce, like uranium, then the *entire world* would be available to *everyone*, from which to find alternatives, like hydrogen or solar or wind, or whatever.



wat0n wrote:
That's quite vague to be honest. What if an alternative was not found in a timely manner?



You're not realizing that we already *know* of alternatives, like the hydrogen, or solar, or wind, that I've already mentioned -- these energy alternatives are *not* a mystery, as you're implying.

What you're *missing* is that workers-of-the-world socialism would make energy resources *more available* because the development of such wouldn't be forced to fund the cost of *profits* -- it would cut-out-the-middleman and allow energy resources to go *directly* to the public good.

This would be a different kind of *social organization*, once all energy resources and productive infrastructure is all *de-privatized*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And, again, it doesn't have to *be* oil -- alternatives exist.



wat0n wrote:
And they are more expensive and/or yield less energy than oil does.



*Conventionally*, yes, but that's all beginning to change, *already*, even with capitalism's cost of profit included. Solar is getting more efficient and new ways of *storing* that energy are increasingly coming on-line, like raising and lowering big, heavy, metal *weights* into and out of deep holes in the ground, for potential or kinetic energy.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, no argument -- I already noted that such treatment at the hands of cops is not conducive to gender equality.



wat0n wrote:
Of course it is not, but no one would argue the government engages in systemic discrimination against males based on that statistic.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yet that's what *happens*, from the *institution* of government policing, government killer cops, and government police brutality.



wat0n wrote:
Well, you should (again) have a word with feminists :)



Which kind of feminists?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's *very* pessimistic and biased, as though all government reforms would just *grind to a halt* once the elimination of policing happens. You're also implying that policing *currently stops* these crimes, yet they *exist*, despite policing, and you're pointing to them.

Obviously the government bureaucracy should address whatever civil society issues are *outstanding*, but it's not doing that *now*, because there are 1000+ killings per year in the U.S. at the hands of government police.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not the one calling for abolition of the police.



Right -- *I'm* the one calling for abolition of the police because doing that would *guarantee* to save 1000+ lives per year that are *taken* by police actions. If there's no policing then there are no cops to potentially become *killer* cops.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I blame *all* of these ills on *capitalism*, incidentally, because it sets up the dynamic of *market competition* over the provision of goods and services, even if the commodities and their trade happen to be *anti-social* and destructive of human life and lives.



wat0n wrote:
Instead, there should be some sort of monopoly over their provision...?



Well, the provision of basic humane goods and services should be done by the *government*, so that there's no warfare among competitors for that market, from the private sector.

It's called 'single payer', meaning that the government is the *single payer* for all goods and services for the public -- kind of like WalMart, in the sense of enormous buying power and oversight over component *costs*, but funded by the public, for the public. (Government.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's because 'violent crime' is a *tiny* phenomenon compared to the systematic, daily, hourly *exploitation* of labor's surplus labor value, by all employers, everywhere in the world. Why isn't *that* considered to be a crime, with *employers* punished as criminals?



wat0n wrote:
I don't know, maybe because workers who don't like it are legally free to work independently?



You're not addressing it *politically*, though -- you're only looking at it from within the fishbowl-like constraints of capitalist *economics*.

The dynamic of private expropriation of labor's surplus labor value needs to be *politicized* because the *economics* of it just continues to exploit labor.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The 'stages' I indicated in the diagram are *modes of production* -- it's *class war*, yes, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as it's ever been, but I don't see how any of it is 'messianic'. Maybe you can elaborate on this part.



wat0n wrote:
Those alleged stages have never materialized and the promises you are making that a workers-of-the-world socialism will be an utopian society is messianic.



No, you're again confused over *scale* -- this isn't about any particular *individual*.

Also, no one is promising that socialism will be 'utopian'. It *will* be post-class and post-capitalism, which is a real *plus* for humanity and currently *necessary* for anyone who has to work for a living.



messianic (ˌmɛsɪˈænɪk)

adj

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
a. of or relating to any popular leader promising deliverance or an ideal era of peace and prosperity
b. of or relating to promises of this kind or to an ideal era of this kind
ˌmessiˈanically adv

messianism n



https://www.thefreedictionary.com/messianic



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not-understanding that what's *at-stake* is how-society-produces-things-that-it-needs.

You're used to intra-bourgeois *military* wars, for international turf, and, yes, that's been the history, certainly, but that's *not* what a proletarian revolution is about. It's about workers control of the means of mass industrial production.



wat0n wrote:
And to take over those means workers need to impose themselves militarily. That means having either the means to defeat professional armies or their support.



Well, this isn't a *given* -- you're now onto the terrain of *strategies* and *tactics*, pro-socialism, and you're *not* pro-socialism, so your treatment here is *inappropriate*. You're *overstepping*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this is where you are showing you *do not* understand.

Politics is for the sake of addressing *societal dynamics*, such as 'commodity production'. You seem to think that politics is based on organizational *internal cohesion*, and it's *not*. It's *not* about one group conquering another group, it's about the most *appropriate* *policy approach* to a given situation, or problem.



wat0n wrote:
Actually, yes, internal cohesion is essential for any policy approach to become implemented.



No, it *isn't* -- you think that (revolutionary) politics will ultimately be dependent on one *organization*, or another, but it really has to be based in *mass proletarian consciousness*, meaning that a *mass focus* and correct line on unfolding events is the 'cohesion', ultimately.

Revolutionary *organizations*, like a vanguard, or even *competing* vanguards, are merely a *formalization* of political sentiment *from below*. A vanguard has its limits and can't *overreach* if the mass revolutionary sentiment isn't there, as with *right now*, for example.

(An example of this from history would be the rise of Malcolm X's political line, over that of Martin Luther King, in 1963.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Are* you saying that the world's working class has a material incentive to collectively control the world's means of mass industrial production, for themselves, without capitalists whatsoever -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Sure, who doesn't have a material incentive to take over another person's property? Why do you think theft exists at all?

Of course, there are also disincentives to do so, particularly if the consequences of theft are severe.



Hmmmm, the *theft* is the employer's expropriation of *surplus labor value*, from every worker, for every hour of every day. A working class revolution would just be *taking back* that surplus labor value, in the form of factories, equipment, resources, infrastructure, etc.

You're trying to *criminalize* that which is *political* in nature, regardless, even if 'surplus labor value' didn't exist.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, but it is true that personal conflicts among the elites have shaped history in the past.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, again, that's 'turf' within the ruling class.

*Class* war means who controls society's *production*, and how is it distributed.



wat0n wrote:
So...?



So the working class of the world has been *fully dispossessed* by any and *all* ruling classes throughout history, so there's no *class* interest in fighting on the bourgeois landscape for mere nationalist-type 'turf', to become *bourgeois* with circumscribed private-property interests.

The point of *class war* is to overthrow the bourgeois ruling class, so that the workers of the *world* can collectively control social production, not for 'turf', and not for private profits.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
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.



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.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I understand the difference it's simply that this is how revolutions tend to work.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of *bourgeois* history again.



wat0n wrote:
I'm thinking of history, without adjective.



No, you're thinking of (bourgeois) *nationalist* history -- the history of nation-states.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So are you saying that you recognize the labor credits model to be a socio-political alternative to capitalist market pricing / social-organization -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Sure, you are presenting it as such. But it seems it is not a feasible or efficient one.



Why is that?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What have I said that makes you think this post-capitalist societal model would be 'idyllic' -- ?

All of my descriptions of its function contain *factions*, and *work* (albeit liberated), and *competing proposals*, and *social organization*, etc. -- I've hardly described anything that could be called 'utopic', or 'idyllic'.

Regarding future generations, the entire political economy is *post-capitalist*, meaning that it's a *much better* approach to handling industrial production's *abundance* than capitalism is for doing the same.



wat0n wrote:
It's idyllic because you are assuming people (i.e. workers) would solve their differences without attempting to upend the system. Their differences would seemingly be of minor importance compared to upholding this system, and there would be broad agreement about this.



Workers, post-capitalism, would *not better* their situation by backsliding to market pricing and market exchanges.

Let me put it *this* way -- whenever there's a *private* interest that's large enough, with enough territory / capital under its control, like a nation-state or a corporation, it's better-off than if it had to 'strive' from scratch, in the markets.

Likewise, the workers of the world, after *overthrowing* the bourgeoisie, its class rival, would *have* everything they need to produce for themselves. Think of it as a commune, without private property, that organizes *internally*, like a corporation or nation-state, that spans the entire globe.

Now, back to your point, what good would it do for any worker or group / syndicate of workers to say 'Let's regress to our own smaller grouping of syndicate-scale interests.' -- ?

They would effectively be *marooning* themselves on a desert island, compared to involving themselves in the *global* socialist material-economy, which would also be the *default*. (*And* they couldn't realistically hold *onto* anything they themselves produced, because the larger social norm would be 'the commons', and people would just naturally *take* from anywhere and everywhere, including from their subgroup 'syndicate' productivity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If *that* happened then it wouldn't be *communism* -- the liberated-labor 'control' is over how they themselves *self-deploy* their own labor *efforts* (no material duress), and whatever's produced is fundamentally *free-access* to all, so none of it is 'controlled' by liberated labor, in the sense of 'private property'.



wat0n wrote:
But you did concede that workers with more credits would have a greater influence on the decisions on what to produce, after basic necessities for everyone were taken care of. Right?



Only in the incoming-liberated-labor *funding* aspect -- ultimately it would be the *active* liberated laborers who could / would collectively, internally decide where their liberated labor goes to, with or without labor credits. This *includes* production of anything and everything, including basic necessities.

So, to illustrate it, maybe there's a proposal for a *continent*-scale project, to provide high-speed magnetic levitation trains to and from all major cities on that continent. Many *millions* of previously active and/or currently active liberated laborers *love* the idea and they formally commit most of their labor credits in-hand to this project, fully funding all of the component work roles that comprise it, effectively giving it a 'green light'.

But, interestingly enough, another proposal soon comes along that *competes* with the maglev one, because it calls for the production of driverless flying cars, off of regular assembly lines like cars, so that they can then be scattered around public areas for free ad hoc use by anyone, the way scooters or bikes are today. And, this proposal requires *far less* labor than does the maglev one, just enough time by a few thousand people to keep the assembly lines rolling, probably mostly overseeing robots and maybe repairing or replacing them once in awhile.

So-*little* work is required, in fact, that the proposal's backers say that *zero* labor credits will be called-for -- only zero-labor-credits liberated laborers will be asked to participate, meaning a 'pure' communist gift economy.

Because of these factors *both* proposals go ahead, ultimately, and, over time, the 'double' transportation infrastructure is built-up -- both meglev trains infrastructure, *and* randomly accessible driverless flying cars. In practice both kinds of transportation fill in their respective usage niches, and both are used and enjoyed. (You're welcome.) (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, it's just a matter of *scale*, and usually it's a bottom-up process, with local industry-wide militant worker organizing taking place *first*, and then later, once solid, it's *generalized* across the same industry to workers in other countries as well.



wat0n wrote:
And that's why those other identity categories are actually relevant. Identity politics has always existed in one form or another (although the current one in the US is being shittier than that of the last few decades).



No, sorry, what I described *isn't* identity politics, because identity politics is based on the *social identity* of the *individual*.

What I described was based in respective *industries*, like telecommunications, transportation, education, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, then, you're off-topic again, for this particular segment -- we started by talking about the 2,000 deaths per year due to the hyper-competitive illicit drug trade, and I noted that legalization of all drugs would abolish the black-market for drugs, and all of the turf-related deaths associated with that business 'turf'. Policing would no longer be needed, as well.



wat0n wrote:
The same concerns that hold regarding alcohol (e.g. enforcement of sanitary regulations) would also hold for other drugs.



Yeah, sure, but that's not *policing*, exactly, the way that someone calls 911 and cops show up and blast someone away for noncompliance.

What you're indicating is more like bureaucratic *oversight*, which doesn't require guns.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Right, so some sort of market would exist at a small scale.



ckaihatsu wrote:
If you like, and even communists wouldn't object to this kind of *strictly interpersonal* market-type 'exchanges' activity because it could actually be *appropriate* to individually-customized kinds of economic activity, like specialty parts, rare items, artisanal handicrafts, and anything similar along these lines. What's of *importance* is collectivizing the means of mass industrial production so that 100% of humanity can get the *basic necessities* of modern life and living, since industrial mass-production confers a material *abundance* of such items, but *distributes* them incorrectly, and *not* according to actual organic human need.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, although I think it's been a constant fight between communists.



*What* has been? You mean the more-'discretionary' portion of a post-capitalist, communist-type material economy?

This aspect is relatively *uncontroversial* among revolutionaries because of its *unimportance*. The *important* part is how the means of industrial mass-production are used, meaning that it should all be *de-privatized* so that workers can collectively use it to produce for *humane* needs. After *that* minimum of egalitarian production is provided for -- requiring capitalism's overthrow -- the rest is discretionary and unimportant, politically.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No -- the proletarian *class* war is mostly about *political intention*, as in fomenting general strikes, controlling production, seizing factories, etc.



wat0n wrote:
And to seize factories or control production, workers need to be able to defeat the police and the military if any tried to stop them from doing that.



Sure. I wouldn't disgree, but, strictly speaking, such violent organizations do *not necessarily* have to be defeated through militaristic warfare. History has given us examples of such immense mobilizations of people in the streets that such violent organizations are simply *overwhelmed*, *disempowered* by sheer numbers and evident political sentiment. Keep in mind that the numbers of professionals in those violent organizations are *small* compared to the total population in any given country, and worldwide.



On 25 October (O.S.; 7 November, N.S.) 1917, the Bolsheviks led their forces in the uprising in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg, then capital of Russia) against the Provisional Government. The event coincided with the arrival of a pro-Bolshevik flotilla—consisting primarily of five destroyers and their crews, as well as marines—in Petrograd harbor. At Kronstadt, sailors announced their allegiance to the Bolshevik insurrection. In the early morning, from its heavily guarded and picketed headquarters in Smolny Palace, the Military-Revolutionary Committee designated the last of the locations to be assaulted or seized. The Red Guards systematically captured major government facilities, key communication installations, and vantage points with little opposition. The Petrograd Garrison and most of the city's military units joined the insurrection against the Provisional Government.[21] The insurrection was timed and organized to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which began on this day.

Kerensky and the Provisional Government were virtually helpless to offer significant resistance. Railways and railway stations had been controlled by Soviet workers and soldiers for days, making rail travel to and from Petrograd impossible for Provisional Government officials. The Provisional Government was also unable to locate any serviceable vehicles. On the morning of the insurrection, Kerensky desperately searched for a means of reaching military forces he hoped would be friendly to the Provisional Government outside the city and ultimately borrowed a Renault car from the American embassy, which he drove from the Winter Palace, along with a Pierce Arrow. Kerensky was able to evade the pickets going up around the palace and to drive to meet approaching soldiers.[22]

As Kerensky left Petrograd, Lenin wrote a proclamation To the Citizens of Russia, stating that the Provisional Government had been overthrown by the Military-Revolutionary Committee. The proclamation was sent by telegraph throughout Russia, even as the pro-Soviet soldiers were seizing important control centers throughout the city. One of Lenin's intentions was to present members of the Soviet congress, who would assemble that afternoon, with a fait accompli and thus forestall further debate on the wisdom or legitimacy of taking power.[22]

Assault on the Winter Palace

A final assault against the Winter Palace—against 3,000 cadets, officers, cossacks, and female soldiers—wasn't vigorously resisted.[22][24] The Bolsheviks delayed the assault because they could not find functioning artillery and acted with restraint to avoid needless violence.[25] At 6:15 p.m., a large group of artillery cadets abandoned the palace, taking their artillery with them. At 8:00 p.m., 200 cossacks left the palace and returned to their barracks.[22]

While the cabinet of the provisional government within the palace debated what action to take, the Bolsheviks issued an ultimatum to surrender. Workers and soldiers occupied the last of the telegraph stations, cutting off the cabinet's communications with loyal military forces outside the city. As the night progressed, crowds of insurgents surrounded the palace, and many infiltrated it.[22] At 9:45 p.m, the cruiser Aurora fired a blank shot from the harbor. Some of the revolutionaries entered the palace at 10:25 p.m. and there was a mass entry 3 hours later.

By 2:10 a.m. on 26 October, Bolshevik forces had gained control. The Cadets and the 140 volunteers of the Women's Battalion surrendered rather than resist the 40,000 strong attacking force.[26][27] After sporadic gunfire throughout the building, the cabinet of the Provisional Government surrendered, and were imprisoned in Peter and Paul Fortress. The only member who was not arrested was Kerensky himself, who had already left the palace.[22][28]

With the Petrograd Soviet now in control of government, garrison, and proletariat, the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets held its opening session on the day, while Trotsky dismissed the opposing Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries (SR) from Congress.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution#Onset



---


wat0n wrote:
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:
You're being quite general / vague -- would you elaborate more on this, to describe it?



wat0n wrote:
Just consider the ideological and identity sectarianism of the current political environment. E.g. working class Whites supporting Trump instead of aligning themselves with working class African Americans to pursue common goals.



Oh, okay, so you're saying that cancel culture is *cross-class*, which feeds into *false consciousness*.

Good point.

(Please try to be more descriptive, upfront. Thanks.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, noted, and thanks -- I was trying to speak more to the internal-*political* aspect of corporate organization, with a social *hierarchy* of internal authorities within, that manage over projects, personnel, etc., according to *performance* / reputation, primarily.

This is where *your* domain of knowledge would be more applicable, and accurate.



wat0n wrote:
But actually cost accounting is something that can have an effect on office politics even under capitalism, e.g. getting a shitty or incompetent management fired. In Governments, it can lead to fights between different institutions over budgets and similar affairs (I know since I've worked in the public sector).



Okay, no contention -- again I was trying to look at corporate political economy in a *sociological* way.
#15122415
ckaihatsu wrote:Government social programs can all be thought of as 'political infrastructure' -- in providing such social services the government is *facilitating* the bourgeois capitalist *economy*, mainly -- *lubricating* it, basically. Politically it's 'legitimizing', or "justifying" its own existence, with any and every action, because it bolsters the bourgeois ruling class and the capitalist economy.

We can't say that government social services are *adding value* to the economy because no new commodities have been produced-and-sold. It's really more a socio-*political* function.

All financial-type services (F.I.R.E.) can be thought of similarly to government social services, but for the sake of the *private sector* -- note that finance, insurance, and real estate are all *rentier*-type capital, meaning *non-productive assets*. Yes, they arguably provide 'services' to capital, for those who *own* capital, but, no, these functions do *not* create new products, or new value, the way that *equity* capital and exploited labor does. So again they're 'overhead' to whatever individuals and companies.


Define "value" here.

Because those services, including Government ones, do generate value in the neoclassical sense: People and businesses are willing to pay for them, the latter because their existence is also infrastructure required for their funding/operations.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup -- mostly *overhead*.

AirBnB *does* provide a commodity *service*, which people *pay* for, so that's *productive*.

If we compare it to a private real estate agent work role, I think the difference is that the real estate agent is *overhead* to the real estate company itself -- the agent is paid by the *company*, as a cost for *closing real estate* deals. So the agent is *overhead* to rentier capital. The propsective customer isn't paying a fee upfront to the agent for their 'service' alone -- it's really a 'loss leader' for the real estate sales themselves. (Whereas with AirBnb a customer *does* pay upfront, in my understanding, and may *never* find a suitable place to vacation in, so they're paying for the 'networking' 'connections' themselves, like a private 'classifieds' service.)


The real estate company, however, is being paid for acting as a broker - and the agent is simply a worker for that company. It can also have its own catalog/classifieds service sometimes.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I'm sorry, but this *is* all too far-fetched.

You're *again* trying to use historical accident -- particularly Stalinism -- to indict socialism itself, while we've never seen sustained workers-of-the-world control over social production. So it's really a stretch to then try to reach to a *vanguard* like the Bolshevik Party to indict their practice when they had their hands full with counterrevolution and foreign military invasions.

You're *still* trying to make the vanguard sound like a bourgeois military 'Special Ops' team, or something, when it's really more like the *Bolshevik Party* in 1917, that coordinated ground-level 'soviets' (workers councils), and dealt with developing geopolitical concerns.

Please re-read my prior statement from this segment, above, because you haven't addressed any of my counterarguments there. I don't want to re-type and I have nothing to *add* at this point.


No, Stalinism wasn't a "historical accident". It's been one of the most common ways of how these revolutions end if anything.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're clearly not understanding the difference in scale between an *individual*, and a *collective* -- when workers are cooperating together at their workplace, that group does not need to rely on any *particular* person, as for drawing-up a 'plan', or 'blueprint'.

A good analogue is this PoFo discussion board, where any given political issue can be addressed by *several* people, with varying viewpoints and perspectives. If a 'plan' in common had to be developed -- say, a solid political position on some issue -- then these threads of discussion would be an appropriate way to do that.


I'd hardly say posting on an internet forum is comparable with taking over the means of production as far as organizing the activity goes. Besides, this forum is not a democracy and there is a clear differentiation between the admins/mods and users.

ckaihatsu wrote:You already said this, and *I* just said this -- but what you're *ignoring* is that these planning and supervision work roles ('management') are *overhead*, and do not produce any *commodities* for the company. It's the *workers*, paid an exploitative wage, that produce the *commodities* for the company.


And I'm simply restating my point: Many workers, even experienced ones, lack the technical background for planning and even supervising production because you need to get an university degree (often engineering) to do that. Part of the learning is indeed done on the job, but much of the prior required knowledge to do it predates working.

ckaihatsu wrote:But labor costs have *not* been increasing, and you're provided no data for this. The data *I* provided, in that graph, shows that wages have been *stagnating*, not increasing, while productivity / output has been *outstripping* wages / labor costs / employee compensation.


They have, and I did provide it. I provided you with unit labor costs themselves and also real compensation per hour.

ckaihatsu wrote:Equity capital *is* ownership, either of capital / cash itself, or of a piece of a company, through investment / shares ownership.


You were talking about revenue earlier. But actually equity capitalists can be exploited or deceived by their workers. Just see what happened with CEOs who took a lot of risk to get larger performance bonuses during the run to the subprime crisis, and when the crisis took hold they simply left the owners of equity capital to eat the losses (often with severance bonuses to boot). The CEOs were not necessarily capitalists and managed to screw over the actual equity capitalists.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're still treating geopolitical warfare, and its destruction of Iraq, as an economic 'externality' to Iraq's economics, which is *inappropriate*.


No, I'm not.

ckaihatsu wrote:So the excerpts of the papers' abstracts that I provided here, on this thread, is *not* cherry-picking -- it's *representative* of each paper's *thesis*, respectively, and the papers' theses do *not* support your contention that Marx's Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Decline, is invalid. The papers *support* Marx's theory.


In one case, you didn't even cite the abstract.

In the others, the abstracts didn't elaborate on the trends shown in the papers since (sometimes) it wasn't their main point. And yet in others, when you actually look at the data, you can see profitability leveling off after 1975, which makes sense since post-war reconstruction had finished by then.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not realizing that we already *know* of alternatives, like the hydrogen, or solar, or wind, that I've already mentioned -- these energy alternatives are *not* a mystery, as you're implying.

What you're *missing* is that workers-of-the-world socialism would make energy resources *more available* because the development of such wouldn't be forced to fund the cost of *profits* -- it would cut-out-the-middleman and allow energy resources to go *directly* to the public good.

This would be a different kind of *social organization*, once all energy resources and productive infrastructure is all *de-privatized*.


No, profitability isn't their only problem. For instance, solar and wind energy are not as stable as simply burning coal or oil, since they depend on solar activity and the weather. Hydrogen faces quite a few security concerns even today, as it seems to be more unstable than fuel.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Conventionally*, yes, but that's all beginning to change, *already*, even with capitalism's cost of profit included. Solar is getting more efficient and new ways of *storing* that energy are increasingly coming on-line, like raising and lowering big, heavy, metal *weights* into and out of deep holes in the ground, for potential or kinetic energy.


And when efficiency increases (and the issue of risk is dealt with, which probably necessitates simply having diverse energy sources), it will be adopted by everyone capitalism or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:Which kind of feminists?


For starters, radical feminists who believe in the patriarchy.

ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- *I'm* the one calling for abolition of the police because doing that would *guarantee* to save 1000+ lives per year that are *taken* by police actions. If there's no policing then there are no cops to potentially become *killer* cops.


And if there is no policing then you have to address what I mentioned earlier.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, the provision of basic humane goods and services should be done by the *government*, so that there's no warfare among competitors for that market, from the private sector.

It's called 'single payer', meaning that the government is the *single payer* for all goods and services for the public -- kind of like WalMart, in the sense of enormous buying power and oversight over component *costs*, but funded by the public, for the public. (Government.)


Walmart isn't a monopoly, though. As for Government monopolies, how did this work out in the USSR?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not addressing it *politically*, though -- you're only looking at it from within the fishbowl-like constraints of capitalist *economics*.

The dynamic of private expropriation of labor's surplus labor value needs to be *politicized* because the *economics* of it just continues to exploit labor.


No, that's because I believe in the concept of individual responsibility. Voluntarily working for a business is not nearly comparable to getting raped and murdered :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're again confused over *scale* -- this isn't about any particular *individual*.

Also, no one is promising that socialism will be 'utopian'. It *will* be post-class and post-capitalism, which is a real *plus* for humanity and currently *necessary* for anyone who has to work for a living.


I'm not referring to individuals here. And it is utopian since that's exactly how you have framed it yourself with concepts like "post-scarcity".

As for messianic, b. is a good definition here.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this isn't a *given* -- you're now onto the terrain of *strategies* and *tactics*, pro-socialism, and you're *not* pro-socialism, so your treatment here is *inappropriate*. You're *overstepping*.


Just take it as friendly advice :excited:

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it *isn't* -- you think that (revolutionary) politics will ultimately be dependent on one *organization*, or another, but it really has to be based in *mass proletarian consciousness*, meaning that a *mass focus* and correct line on unfolding events is the 'cohesion', ultimately.

Revolutionary *organizations*, like a vanguard, or even *competing* vanguards, are merely a *formalization* of political sentiment *from below*. A vanguard has its limits and can't *overreach* if the mass revolutionary sentiment isn't there, as with *right now*, for example.

(An example of this from history would be the rise of Malcolm X's political line, over that of Martin Luther King, in 1963.)


Well, Malcolm X is actually a great example of what I'm referring to. His line never reached as much influence as he would have hoped for (he even cooperated with MLK after leaving the Nation of Islam) and then many different movements drew from his speeches yet never managed to form a cohesive, single unit that could exert power in any meaningful way.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, the *theft* is the employer's expropriation of *surplus labor value*, from every worker, for every hour of every day. A working class revolution would just be *taking back* that surplus labor value, in the form of factories, equipment, resources, infrastructure, etc.

You're trying to *criminalize* that which is *political* in nature, regardless, even if 'surplus labor value' didn't exist.


That's because the surplus labor value you speak of is a very abstract thing, one that many people would say is sometimes nonexistent.

ckaihatsu wrote:So the working class of the world has been *fully dispossessed* by any and *all* ruling classes throughout history, so there's no *class* interest in fighting on the bourgeois landscape for mere nationalist-type 'turf', to become *bourgeois* with circumscribed private-property interests.

The point of *class war* is to overthrow the bourgeois ruling class, so that the workers of the *world* can collectively control social production, not for 'turf', and not for private profits.


Yet that's not quite what has happened historically. Even among Marxists, there were all sorts of ideological and even personal conflicts.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're thinking of (bourgeois) *nationalist* history -- the history of nation-states.


That holds for revolutions carried out even before nation-states existed.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why is that?


It requires a high commitment (particularly since there would be no Government to enforce it) and it's inefficient since it requires constant data collection and updates to do something markets do more easily. Furthermore, capping how many labor credits workers can get to participate in the political decisions on what to produce beyond satisfying basic necessities (whatever that means) disincentivizes working.

ckaihatsu wrote:Workers, post-capitalism, would *not better* their situation by backsliding to market pricing and market exchanges.

Let me put it *this* way -- whenever there's a *private* interest that's large enough, with enough territory / capital under its control, like a nation-state or a corporation, it's better-off than if it had to 'strive' from scratch, in the markets.

Likewise, the workers of the world, after *overthrowing* the bourgeoisie, its class rival, would *have* everything they need to produce for themselves. Think of it as a commune, without private property, that organizes *internally*, like a corporation or nation-state, that spans the entire globe.

Now, back to your point, what good would it do for any worker or group / syndicate of workers to say 'Let's regress to our own smaller grouping of syndicate-scale interests.' -- ?

They would effectively be *marooning* themselves on a desert island, compared to involving themselves in the *global* socialist material-economy, which would also be the *default*. (*And* they couldn't realistically hold *onto* anything they themselves produced, because the larger social norm would be 'the commons', and people would just naturally *take* from anywhere and everywhere, including from their subgroup 'syndicate' productivity.


I don't mean going back to capitalism and markets either. I can imagine some workers trying to get the rest to do as they want by force rather than by accumulating labor credits.

ckaihatsu wrote:Only in the incoming-liberated-labor *funding* aspect -- ultimately it would be the *active* liberated laborers who could / would collectively, internally decide where their liberated labor goes to, with or without labor credits. This *includes* production of anything and everything, including basic necessities.

So, to illustrate it, maybe there's a proposal for a *continent*-scale project, to provide high-speed magnetic levitation trains to and from all major cities on that continent. Many *millions* of previously active and/or currently active liberated laborers *love* the idea and they formally commit most of their labor credits in-hand to this project, fully funding all of the component work roles that comprise it, effectively giving it a 'green light'.

But, interestingly enough, another proposal soon comes along that *competes* with the maglev one, because it calls for the production of driverless flying cars, off of regular assembly lines like cars, so that they can then be scattered around public areas for free ad hoc use by anyone, the way scooters or bikes are today. And, this proposal requires *far less* labor than does the maglev one, just enough time by a few thousand people to keep the assembly lines rolling, probably mostly overseeing robots and maybe repairing or replacing them once in awhile.

So-*little* work is required, in fact, that the proposal's backers say that *zero* labor credits will be called-for -- only zero-labor-credits liberated laborers will be asked to participate, meaning a 'pure' communist gift economy.

Because of these factors *both* proposals go ahead, ultimately, and, over time, the 'double' transportation infrastructure is built-up -- both meglev trains infrastructure, *and* randomly accessible driverless flying cars. In practice both kinds of transportation fill in their respective usage niches, and both are used and enjoyed. (You're welcome.) (grin)


Sure, you can include project cost - in terms of labor credits - into the mix if you wish (indeed, this would be a natural thing to do).

This does not negate what I said: What if two competing projects with the same (large) cost have to compete with each other with the winning option being supported by fewer workers but who have accumulated more labor credits on average than those who support the losing project, even if the latter is supported by more workers?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, sorry, what I described *isn't* identity politics, because identity politics is based on the *social identity* of the *individual*.

What I described was based in respective *industries*, like telecommunications, transportation, education, etc.


So you think individuals would suppress their social identities?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, sure, but that's not *policing*, exactly, the way that someone calls 911 and cops show up and blast someone away for noncompliance.

What you're indicating is more like bureaucratic *oversight*, which doesn't require guns.


ATF officials do storm places with guns sometimes.

ckaihatsu wrote:*What* has been? You mean the more-'discretionary' portion of a post-capitalist, communist-type material economy?


Yes.

ckaihatsu wrote:This aspect is relatively *uncontroversial* among revolutionaries because of its *unimportance*. The *important* part is how the means of industrial mass-production are used, meaning that it should all be *de-privatized* so that workers can collectively use it to produce for *humane* needs. After *that* minimum of egalitarian production is provided for -- requiring capitalism's overthrow -- the rest is discretionary and unimportant, politically.


Weird, because I recall there being some debates on whether small private businesses should be allowed to exist under socialism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure. I wouldn't disgree, but, strictly speaking, such violent organizations do *not necessarily* have to be defeated through militaristic warfare. History has given us examples of such immense mobilizations of people in the streets that such violent organizations are simply *overwhelmed*, *disempowered* by sheer numbers and evident political sentiment. Keep in mind that the numbers of professionals in those violent organizations are *small* compared to the total population in any given country, and worldwide.


Oh sure, I'm certain that in some cases the sheer difference in numbers crushed the will of security forces to repress the revolutionaries. Indeed, it has even made them join the revolutionaries too. But these are special cases, where the element of surprise has been key and has not necessarily decided the outcome of the revolution.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, okay, so you're saying that cancel culture is *cross-class*, which feeds into *false consciousness*.

Good point.

(Please try to be more descriptive, upfront. Thanks.)


Sure, you can see it that way. The fact that what Marxists term as false consciousness (although it would be better termed as mistaken consciousness) even exists is a huge problem as I'm sure you can appreciate.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, no contention -- again I was trying to look at corporate political economy in a *sociological* way.


I see. But it does mean that leadership in those institutions is not fully centralized either - there can also be internal competition, sometimes being dirtier than competition with outsiders.
#15122655
ckaihatsu wrote:
Government social programs can all be thought of as 'political infrastructure' -- in providing such social services the government is *facilitating* the bourgeois capitalist *economy*, mainly -- *lubricating* it, basically. Politically it's 'legitimizing', or "justifying" its own existence, with any and every action, because it bolsters the bourgeois ruling class and the capitalist economy.

We can't say that government social services are *adding value* to the economy because no new commodities have been produced-and-sold. It's really more a socio-*political* function.

All financial-type services (F.I.R.E.) can be thought of similarly to government social services, but for the sake of the *private sector* -- note that finance, insurance, and real estate are all *rentier*-type capital, meaning *non-productive assets*. Yes, they arguably provide 'services' to capital, for those who *own* capital, but, no, these functions do *not* create new products, or new value, the way that *equity* capital and exploited labor does. So again they're 'overhead' to whatever individuals and companies.



wat0n wrote:
Define "value" here.

Because those services, including Government ones, do generate value in the neoclassical sense: People and businesses are willing to pay for them, the latter because their existence is also infrastructure required for their funding/operations.



But people and businesses *don't* pay for government services, thus there's no *revenue* (as back to government), and there are no *commodities* being produced by a working class.

The government either *decides* to provide such services, or else it doesn't -- there's no *market* mechanism involved here, with individual consumers 'voting' economically.

Another way of looking at it is consider if government was the *only* source of a material economy, like the military-industrial complex / 'defense' contracts, but for *all* sectors of the economy -- then you'd have *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic-elitism, and there really couldn't *be* 'value' because everything would be government-supplied, directly to end users / consumers / people.

'Value' presupposes *exchanges* and market-based activity for these 'exchange values' to rub-off against each other. Government doesn't provide 'value' as much as it provides a fundamental political *paradigm*, and *facilitates* a certain kind of society.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup -- mostly *overhead*.

AirBnB *does* provide a commodity *service*, which people *pay* for, so that's *productive*.

If we compare it to a private real estate agent work role, I think the difference is that the real estate agent is *overhead* to the real estate company itself -- the agent is paid by the *company*, as a cost for *closing real estate* deals. So the agent is *overhead* to rentier capital. The propsective customer isn't paying a fee upfront to the agent for their 'service' alone -- it's really a 'loss leader' for the real estate sales themselves. (Whereas with AirBnb a customer *does* pay upfront, in my understanding, and may *never* find a suitable place to vacation in, so they're paying for the 'networking' 'connections' themselves, like a private 'classifieds' service.)



wat0n wrote:
The real estate company, however, is being paid for acting as a broker - and the agent is simply a worker for that company. It can also have its own catalog/classifieds service sometimes.



You're not *contradicting* anything I've just said -- if the real estate company makes its revenue from real estate *sales* / rentals, then the agent is *internal* to the company and is not a separate commodity-*service*, as I've already said.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I'm sorry, but this *is* all too far-fetched.

You're *again* trying to use historical accident -- particularly Stalinism -- to indict socialism itself, while we've never seen sustained workers-of-the-world control over social production. So it's really a stretch to then try to reach to a *vanguard* like the Bolshevik Party to indict their practice when they had their hands full with counterrevolution and foreign military invasions.

You're *still* trying to make the vanguard sound like a bourgeois military 'Special Ops' team, or something, when it's really more like the *Bolshevik Party* in 1917, that coordinated ground-level 'soviets' (workers councils), and dealt with developing geopolitical concerns.

Please re-read my prior statement from this segment, above, because you haven't addressed any of my counterarguments there. I don't want to re-type and I have nothing to *add* at this point.



wat0n wrote:
No, Stalinism wasn't a "historical accident". It's been one of the most common ways of how these revolutions end if anything.



Bullshit. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto called for *Joseph Stalin* to be put in charge of a *nationalist* 'socialism-in-one-state'. That was his own opportunistic monstrosity and it's certainly not workers-of-the-world socialism.

Why aren't you blaming *Stalin* for Stalinism?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're clearly not understanding the difference in scale between an *individual*, and a *collective* -- when workers are cooperating together at their workplace, that group does not need to rely on any *particular* person, as for drawing-up a 'plan', or 'blueprint'.

A good analogue is this PoFo discussion board, where any given political issue can be addressed by *several* people, with varying viewpoints and perspectives. If a 'plan' in common had to be developed -- say, a solid political position on some issue -- then these threads of discussion would be an appropriate way to do that.



wat0n wrote:
I'd hardly say posting on an internet forum is comparable with taking over the means of production as far as organizing the activity goes. Besides, this forum is not a democracy and there is a clear differentiation between the admins/mods and users.



Well, take the analogy as you will -- what I'm trying to impart is the distinction between 'individual', and 'collective'. A workplace *could* be run collectively by the overall grouping of its workers, and *not* hierarchically, as we're used to seeing under class-hegemonic social relations of production. In this way the *plan-making* function wouldn't fall to any *one* particular person, as we're used to seeing with corporate-type circumscribed *work roles*, but it *could* be done this way if everyone agrees to it, internally ('leadership').

Also:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You already said this, and *I* just said this -- but what you're *ignoring* is that these planning and supervision work roles ('management') are *overhead*, and do not produce any *commodities* for the company. It's the *workers*, paid an exploitative wage, that produce the *commodities* for the company.



wat0n wrote:
And I'm simply restating my point: Many workers, even experienced ones, lack the technical background for planning and even supervising production because you need to get an university degree (often engineering) to do that. Part of the learning is indeed done on the job, but much of the prior required knowledge to do it predates working.



Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this -- you're thinking that the role of 'management' requires one to know about the field / subject-matter of the workers they're managing. A competent manager could be plopped into *any* workplace environment and they'd be able to manage any-*thing* and any-*one*.

This fact actually goes to my political point that managers and owners aren't *workers* because they don't *produce* the commodities that the workers do, as *workers* do. Instead owners and managers *manage* the workers, which is *non-productive* of commodities.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But labor costs have *not* been increasing, and you're provided no data for this. The data *I* provided, in that graph, shows that wages have been *stagnating*, not increasing, while productivity / output has been *outstripping* wages / labor costs / employee compensation.



wat0n wrote:
They have, and I did provide it. I provided you with unit labor costs themselves and also real compensation per hour.



Now we're talking *past* each other.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The owners of equity capital are *investors*, not 'lenders'.

The nature of what they do is to *make bets* on the stock-market horse-race -- it's *not* exploitation because it's *surplus cash* that they can afford to lose, or hang onto and *not* invest, unlike a wage worker who *depends* on their earned wages for the necessities of modern life and living.



wat0n wrote:
No, your definition of "equity capital" above does not imply ownership.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Equity capital *is* ownership, either of capital / cash itself, or of a piece of a company, through investment / shares ownership.



wat0n wrote:
You were talking about revenue earlier. But actually equity capitalists can be exploited or deceived by their workers. Just see what happened with CEOs who took a lot of risk to get larger performance bonuses during the run to the subprime crisis, and when the crisis took hold they simply left the owners of equity capital to eat the losses (often with severance bonuses to boot). The CEOs were not necessarily capitalists and managed to screw over the actual equity capitalists.



What you're describing is the dynamics of the *market* that capital investments ('equity') are *subject* to -- due to decades-long low GDP growth the solid investment opportunities have mostly dried up and capital, in 2007, got desperate and chased after *riskier* markets (subprime mortgages).

This is *not* 'exploitation', because investment-market participants are *not* under any kind of existential duress to *invest*, the way workers are with having to work for exploitative wages under capitalism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're still treating geopolitical warfare, and its destruction of Iraq, as an economic 'externality' to Iraq's economics, which is *inappropriate*.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm not.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So the excerpts of the papers' abstracts that I provided here, on this thread, is *not* cherry-picking -- it's *representative* of each paper's *thesis*, respectively, and the papers' theses do *not* support your contention that Marx's Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Decline, is invalid. The papers *support* Marx's theory.



wat0n wrote:
In one case, you didn't even cite the abstract.

In the others, the abstracts didn't elaborate on the trends shown in the papers since (sometimes) it wasn't their main point. And yet in others, when you actually look at the data, you can see profitability leveling off after 1975, which makes sense since post-war reconstruction had finished by then.



So then, by your description here, profitability / the-rate-of-profit *leveled-off* (declined, compared to increasing productivity growth) after 1975.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not realizing that we already *know* of alternatives, like the hydrogen, or solar, or wind, that I've already mentioned -- these energy alternatives are *not* a mystery, as you're implying.

What you're *missing* is that workers-of-the-world socialism would make energy resources *more available* because the development of such wouldn't be forced to fund the cost of *profits* -- it would cut-out-the-middleman and allow energy resources to go *directly* to the public good.

This would be a different kind of *social organization*, once all energy resources and productive infrastructure is all *de-privatized*.



wat0n wrote:
No, profitability isn't their only problem. For instance, solar and wind energy are not as stable as simply burning coal or oil, since they depend on solar activity and the weather. Hydrogen faces quite a few security concerns even today, as it seems to be more unstable than fuel.



Well, whatever -- I'm not *arguing* over the specifics of energy sourcing, except to say that environmental damage from certain fuels isn't accounted-for by capitalist profit-minded private corporate interests, as things are today. Environmental damage is an *externality* to capitalist business, in the same way that imperialist warfare and destruction, as to Iraq, is *also* considered an externality to geopolitics and to Iraq's economy.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Conventionally*, yes, but that's all beginning to change, *already*, even with capitalism's cost of profit included. Solar is getting more efficient and new ways of *storing* that energy are increasingly coming on-line, like raising and lowering big, heavy, metal *weights* into and out of deep holes in the ground, for potential or kinetic energy.



wat0n wrote:
And when efficiency increases (and the issue of risk is dealt with, which probably necessitates simply having diverse energy sources), it will be adopted by everyone capitalism or not.



I'm no cheerleader for capitalism and its approaches to technological implementations, so *whatever*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Which kind of feminists?



wat0n wrote:
For starters, radical feminists who believe in the patriarchy.



Yes, I've mentioned my critique of radical feminism *from the left*, while your critiques would be *from the right*, so there's no common ground between us on that.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Right -- *I'm* the one calling for abolition of the police because doing that would *guarantee* to save 1000+ lives per year that are *taken* by police actions. If there's no policing then there are no cops to potentially become *killer* cops.



wat0n wrote:
And if there is no policing then you have to address what I mentioned earlier.



No, I don't, because there needs to be humane *social services* implementations, by government, to provide a robust civil society infrastructure. It's not enough to say 'police departments are defunded' and 'all drugs are legalized', and 'you're all on your own'.

Remember people don't *hoard* things that are in abundance, like air and water, so society needs to make sure that people don't *feel desperate* over procuring this-or-that, by *providing* such in abundance, since society has the *capacity* to provide food, housing, education, utilities, transportation, etc., in abundance thanks to industrial methods of mass-production.

This kind of comprehensive reform for the social good, though, would require *breaking* with the fetish of private property and *plutocratic* control over social production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, the provision of basic humane goods and services should be done by the *government*, so that there's no warfare among competitors for that market, from the private sector.

It's called 'single payer', meaning that the government is the *single payer* for all goods and services for the public -- kind of like WalMart, in the sense of enormous buying power and oversight over component *costs*, but funded by the public, for the public. (Government.)



wat0n wrote:
Walmart isn't a monopoly, though. As for Government monopolies, how did this work out in the USSR?



Government *is* a monopoly, in a sense, over the use of force / violence, and over social policy, mode of production, etc.

I don't *tout* the USSR, so I am not going to defend Stalinism, though it *is* (objectively) more historically-progressive than *capitalist* government, that mostly just supports plutocratic class rule.

In other words bureaucratic elitism is relatively better than imperialist bourgeois government, but it's *lacking* compared to workers-of-the-world socialism.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not addressing it *politically*, though -- you're only looking at it from within the fishbowl-like constraints of capitalist *economics*.

The dynamic of private expropriation of labor's surplus labor value needs to be *politicized* because the *economics* of it just continues to exploit labor.



wat0n wrote:
No, that's because I believe in the concept of individual responsibility. Voluntarily working for a business is not nearly comparable to getting raped and murdered :eh:



I don't follow what you're trying to *imply* here -- there *is no* 'individual responsibility' since we've had 'corporate personhood' for some time now:

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


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're again confused over *scale* -- this isn't about any particular *individual*.

Also, no one is promising that socialism will be 'utopian'. It *will* be post-class and post-capitalism, which is a real *plus* for humanity and currently *necessary* for anyone who has to work for a living.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not referring to individuals here. And it is utopian since that's exactly how you have framed it yourself with concepts like "post-scarcity".

As for messianic, b. is a good definition here.



No, you're missing the point -- politics is *not* messianic, because people have *interests in common*, meaning the working class, for proletarian revolution.

'Post-scarcity' isn't utopian, either -- the *capacity* for post-scarcity exists *today*, as for the mass production of humane-necessary goods and services like food, housing, education, transportation, utilities, etc.


---


wat0n wrote:
And to take over those means workers need to impose themselves militarily. That means having either the means to defeat professional armies or their support.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this isn't a *given* -- you're now onto the terrain of *strategies* and *tactics*, pro-socialism, and you're *not* pro-socialism, so your treatment here is *inappropriate*. You're *overstepping*.



wat0n wrote:
Just take it as friendly advice :excited:



Nope, not going to happen.

There's *historical precedent* for working class militancy, and even militarism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it *isn't* -- you think that (revolutionary) politics will ultimately be dependent on one *organization*, or another, but it really has to be based in *mass proletarian consciousness*, meaning that a *mass focus* and correct line on unfolding events is the 'cohesion', ultimately.

Revolutionary *organizations*, like a vanguard, or even *competing* vanguards, are merely a *formalization* of political sentiment *from below*. A vanguard has its limits and can't *overreach* if the mass revolutionary sentiment isn't there, as with *right now*, for example.

(An example of this from history would be the rise of Malcolm X's political line, over that of Martin Luther King, in 1963.)



wat0n wrote:
Well, Malcolm X is actually a great example of what I'm referring to. His line never reached as much influence as he would have hoped for (he even cooperated with MLK after leaving the Nation of Islam) and then many different movements drew from his speeches yet never managed to form a cohesive, single unit that could exert power in any meaningful way.



Duh -- he was *assassinated*, most likely from the Nation of Islam, the organization that he *broke* with, in favor of a pan-African, and even *class*, consciousness.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, the *theft* is the employer's expropriation of *surplus labor value*, from every worker, for every hour of every day. A working class revolution would just be *taking back* that surplus labor value, in the form of factories, equipment, resources, infrastructure, etc.

You're trying to *criminalize* that which is *political* in nature, regardless, even if 'surplus labor value' didn't exist.



wat0n wrote:
That's because the surplus labor value you speak of is a very abstract thing, one that many people would say is sometimes nonexistent.



Funny -- we just *covered* this phenomenon, with that little scenario of worker exploitation around the production of *boots*. You may want to review that at this point.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So the working class of the world has been *fully dispossessed* by any and *all* ruling classes throughout history, so there's no *class* interest in fighting on the bourgeois landscape for mere nationalist-type 'turf', to become *bourgeois* with circumscribed private-property interests.

The point of *class war* is to overthrow the bourgeois ruling class, so that the workers of the *world* can collectively control social production, not for 'turf', and not for private profits.



wat0n wrote:
Yet that's not quite what has happened historically. Even among Marxists, there were all sorts of ideological and even personal conflicts.



You're just being glass-half-empty -- overthrowing capitalism worldwide is no small task, and has yet to be accomplished.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're thinking of (bourgeois) *nationalist* history -- the history of nation-states.



wat0n wrote:
That holds for revolutions carried out even before nation-states existed.



Name one.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So are you saying that you recognize the labor credits model to be a socio-political alternative to capitalist market pricing / social-organization -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Sure, you are presenting it as such. But it seems it is not a feasible or efficient one.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Why is that?



wat0n wrote:
It requires a high commitment (particularly since there would be no Government to enforce it) and it's inefficient since it requires constant data collection and updates to do something markets do more easily. Furthermore, capping how many labor credits workers can get to participate in the political decisions on what to produce beyond satisfying basic necessities (whatever that means) disincentivizes working.



No, you're incorrect because it's the *liberated workers* who would ultimately be in control of what gets produced, and what doesn't, with or without the use of labor credits.

The data is for a comprehensive *reflection* of society's mass needs and wants, back to itself. It would be appropriate and accurate, using my 'labor credits model' approach, as I've described it here.

The labor credits themselves represent the *politicization* of socio-material power, as from labor. It's *not* finance, as you're implying. A post-capitalist political economy obviously doesn't *need* market exchanges because everything can be mass-produced and *directly distributed* to the end user / consumer in a *pre-planned* way, plus everything produced is always *free-access*, anyway.

A 'high commitment' *wouldn't* be needed, because people could always just work for the common good, and/or for labor credits themselves. Or, people wouldn't have to work *at all* and still have access to 'the commons' because that would be humane, and industrial mass-production is *abundantly productive* anyway, and even moreso once *fully automated*. Basic necessities, however defined, would be *part* of this whole communist-gift-economy process, regardless, and would *not* be formally separated-out -- there is no government, or nation-state apparatus *anywhere*, post-capitalism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Workers, post-capitalism, would *not better* their situation by backsliding to market pricing and market exchanges.

Let me put it *this* way -- whenever there's a *private* interest that's large enough, with enough territory / capital under its control, like a nation-state or a corporation, it's better-off than if it had to 'strive' from scratch, in the markets.

Likewise, the workers of the world, after *overthrowing* the bourgeoisie, its class rival, would *have* everything they need to produce for themselves. Think of it as a commune, without private property, that organizes *internally*, like a corporation or nation-state, that spans the entire globe.

Now, back to your point, what good would it do for any worker or group / syndicate of workers to say 'Let's regress to our own smaller grouping of syndicate-scale interests.' -- ?

They would effectively be *marooning* themselves on a desert island, compared to involving themselves in the *global* socialist material-economy, which would also be the *default*. (*And* they couldn't realistically hold *onto* anything they themselves produced, because the larger social norm would be 'the commons', and people would just naturally *take* from anywhere and everywhere, including from their subgroup 'syndicate' productivity.



wat0n wrote:
I don't mean going back to capitalism and markets either. I can imagine some workers trying to get the rest to do as they want by force rather than by accumulating labor credits.



We already covered this -- they would be equally *marooned* because of cutting themselves off from supply chains.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Only in the incoming-liberated-labor *funding* aspect -- ultimately it would be the *active* liberated laborers who could / would collectively, internally decide where their liberated labor goes to, with or without labor credits. This *includes* production of anything and everything, including basic necessities.

So, to illustrate it, maybe there's a proposal for a *continent*-scale project, to provide high-speed magnetic levitation trains to and from all major cities on that continent. Many *millions* of previously active and/or currently active liberated laborers *love* the idea and they formally commit most of their labor credits in-hand to this project, fully funding all of the component work roles that comprise it, effectively giving it a 'green light'.

But, interestingly enough, another proposal soon comes along that *competes* with the maglev one, because it calls for the production of driverless flying cars, off of regular assembly lines like cars, so that they can then be scattered around public areas for free ad hoc use by anyone, the way scooters or bikes are today. And, this proposal requires *far less* labor than does the maglev one, just enough time by a few thousand people to keep the assembly lines rolling, probably mostly overseeing robots and maybe repairing or replacing them once in awhile.

So-*little* work is required, in fact, that the proposal's backers say that *zero* labor credits will be called-for -- only zero-labor-credits liberated laborers will be asked to participate, meaning a 'pure' communist gift economy.

Because of these factors *both* proposals go ahead, ultimately, and, over time, the 'double' transportation infrastructure is built-up -- both meglev trains infrastructure, *and* randomly accessible driverless flying cars. In practice both kinds of transportation fill in their respective usage niches, and both are used and enjoyed. (You're welcome.) (grin)



wat0n wrote:
Sure, you can include project cost - in terms of labor credits - into the mix if you wish (indeed, this would be a natural thing to do).

This does not negate what I said: What if two competing projects with the same (large) cost have to compete with each other with the winning option being supported by fewer workers but who have accumulated more labor credits on average than those who support the losing project, even if the latter is supported by more workers?



You're thinking of 'cost' in *capitalist* terms, meaning funding-for-buying-commodities-for-the-project.

That's *not* what takes place within the context of a communist gift economy -- my 'labor credits' only circulate within the population of *liberated labor*, meaning anyone who actually works, either for labor credits or without labor credits.

I'm glad that you approve of the function of the labor credits, but I don't think you're actually *understanding* how they work, exactly -- again, 'communism' means *no commodity production*, and no money / currency / exchange values / finance / trades / barter / implicit exchange values.

Post-capitalism, the only thing that differing projects / proposals would ultimately be *competing* for is use of productive *infrastructure* (factories) -- and this may turn out to just be a *scheduling* issue, with one proposal / project taking priority, with another one having to wait, or else finding *other* suitable equipment to use, freely available everywhere, along with all resources, since all infrastructure / productive implements would be fully *collectivized* / socialized.

The 'cost' would be solely, strictly for paying-forward to incoming liberated laborers, for any given proposed productive policy / 'policy package'.

The only amount of liberated-labor 'support' would be that which would *suffice* for the actual production of what's being proposed. If a million liberated-workers want to sheerly voluntarily provide their work efforts on some project -- like the maglev one -- for *zero* labor credits, well then that's the 'winning' one, as long as that project can schedule sufficient means-of-mass-production (and resources) to make it happen.

If a smallish number of liberated laborers happen to have amassed a *large* amount of labor credits among themselves, necessarily from their own past formal work accomplished, *and* they all happened to support the same 'winning' proposed project with formal commitments / pledges of their labor credits in-hand, then, yes, they would have considerable cumulative 'economic', or 'socio-political' power, however you want to look at it. The 'winning' project would enjoy massive labor-credit support, because it would attract labor-credit-seeking liberated laborers, who would theoretically be more professionally *competitive* than the typical / zero-labor-credit liberated laborer. (The labor credits would be a societal incentive for anyone to fill work roles that are socially needed but which may be particularly hazardous / difficult / distasteful.)

The 'losing' project may *still* be able to be started and completed, in parallel with the 'winning' one, because of its broad liberated-labor 'support', if such 'support' translates to those liberated-laborers *joining* that project with their liberated-labor, as active liberated-laborers.

To clarify, each project *itself* doesn't have a cost, because all productive assets (factories), and natural and finished resources, are all socialized and *free-access*, subject to scheduling, but the *work roles* for any given project may require labor-credits 'funding', to attract those liberated laborers who will only work for the public good with the *payment* of labor credits to themselves for their work done.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, it's just a matter of *scale*, and usually it's a bottom-up process, with local industry-wide militant worker organizing taking place *first*, and then later, once solid, it's *generalized* across the same industry to workers in other countries as well.



wat0n wrote:
And that's why those other identity categories are actually relevant. Identity politics has always existed in one form or another (although the current one in the US is being shittier than that of the last few decades).



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, sorry, what I described *isn't* identity politics, because identity politics is based on the *social identity* of the *individual*.

What I described was based in respective *industries*, like telecommunications, transportation, education, etc.



wat0n wrote:
So you think individuals would suppress their social identities?



That's more *societal* / social, rather than *political* -- it *wouldn't matter* from the standpoint of politics / working-class self-organization, *what* any given person's personal identity happened to be, or not-be.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, sure, but that's not *policing*, exactly, the way that someone calls 911 and cops show up and blast someone away for noncompliance.

What you're indicating is more like bureaucratic *oversight*, which doesn't require guns.



wat0n wrote:
ATF officials do storm places with guns sometimes.



ATF is 'policing', and needs to be *abolished* -- again, the government bureaucratic hierarchy could tend to the oversight of whatever humane *social services* can be provided *in place of* historically heavy-handed and murderous policing.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*What* has been? You mean the more-'discretionary' portion of a post-capitalist, communist-type material economy?



wat0n wrote:
Yes.



Okay, then read what I wrote:


ckaihatsu wrote:
This aspect is relatively *uncontroversial* among revolutionaries because of its *unimportance*. The *important* part is how the means of industrial mass-production are used, meaning that it should all be *de-privatized* so that workers can collectively use it to produce for *humane* needs. After *that* minimum of egalitarian production is provided for -- requiring capitalism's overthrow -- the rest is discretionary and unimportant, politically.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This aspect is relatively *uncontroversial* among revolutionaries because of its *unimportance*. The *important* part is how the means of industrial mass-production are used, meaning that it should all be *de-privatized* so that workers can collectively use it to produce for *humane* needs. After *that* minimum of egalitarian production is provided for -- requiring capitalism's overthrow -- the rest is discretionary and unimportant, politically.



wat0n wrote:
Weird, because I recall there being some debates on whether small private businesses should be allowed to exist under socialism.



Well, this issue, if it exists at all, is not your concern since you're not pro-socialist.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure. I wouldn't disgree, but, strictly speaking, such violent organizations do *not necessarily* have to be defeated through militaristic warfare. History has given us examples of such immense mobilizations of people in the streets that such violent organizations are simply *overwhelmed*, *disempowered* by sheer numbers and evident political sentiment. Keep in mind that the numbers of professionals in those violent organizations are *small* compared to the total population in any given country, and worldwide.



wat0n wrote:
Oh sure, I'm certain that in some cases the sheer difference in numbers crushed the will of security forces to repress the revolutionaries. Indeed, it has even made them join the revolutionaries too. But these are special cases, where the element of surprise has been key and has not necessarily decided the outcome of the revolution.



I think 'crushing the will of security forces' *is* a significant factor, and *would* be important, and even crucial, to the outcome of a revolution. You seem to forget that revolution = class war.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, okay, so you're saying that cancel culture is *cross-class*, which feeds into *false consciousness*.

Good point.

(Please try to be more descriptive, upfront. Thanks.)



wat0n wrote:
Sure, you can see it that way. The fact that what Marxists term as false consciousness (although it would be better termed as mistaken consciousness) even exists is a huge problem as I'm sure you can appreciate.



Well, if 'false consciousness' didn't exist then we'd all be living in socialism *right now* due to the overwhelming population of people in the world who *are* materially working class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, no contention -- again I was trying to look at corporate political economy in a *sociological* way.



wat0n wrote:
I see. But it does mean that leadership in those institutions is not fully centralized either - there can also be internal competition, sometimes being dirtier than competition with outsiders.



Of course there is professional competition within any given company, and within any given industry -- but corporate 'leadership' / power does conform to hierarchical hegemony / centralization, as with the top executives.
#15122851
ckaihatsu wrote:But people and businesses *don't* pay for government services, thus there's no *revenue* (as back to government), and there are no *commodities* being produced by a working class.

The government either *decides* to provide such services, or else it doesn't -- there's no *market* mechanism involved here, with individual consumers 'voting' economically.

Another way of looking at it is consider if government was the *only* source of a material economy, like the military-industrial complex / 'defense' contracts, but for *all* sectors of the economy -- then you'd have *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic-elitism, and there really couldn't *be* 'value' because everything would be government-supplied, directly to end users / consumers / people.

'Value' presupposes *exchanges* and market-based activity for these 'exchange values' to rub-off against each other. Government doesn't provide 'value' as much as it provides a fundamental political *paradigm*, and *facilitates* a certain kind of society.


Government services are not free. For starters, several services are done for a fee, and more generally the Government does tax the population.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *contradicting* anything I've just said -- if the real estate company makes its revenue from real estate *sales* / rentals, then the agent is *internal* to the company and is not a separate commodity-*service*, as I've already said.


So according to you, the guy who sells you the goods is not generating any value? How can this industry operate without real estate agents?

ckaihatsu wrote:Bullshit. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto called for *Joseph Stalin* to be put in charge of a *nationalist* 'socialism-in-one-state'. That was his own opportunistic monstrosity and it's certainly not workers-of-the-world socialism.

Why aren't you blaming *Stalin* for Stalinism?


Oh, I do. But that doesn't mean it's correct to regard him as a "historical accident" when these "historical accidents" seem to happen all too often. The Communist Manifesto didn't argue for that, but the fact that it's happened all too often means its predictions are simply wrong.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, take the analogy as you will -- what I'm trying to impart is the distinction between 'individual', and 'collective'. A workplace *could* be run collectively by the overall grouping of its workers, and *not* hierarchically, as we're used to seeing under class-hegemonic social relations of production. In this way the *plan-making* function wouldn't fall to any *one* particular person, as we're used to seeing with corporate-type circumscribed *work roles*, but it *could* be done this way if everyone agrees to it, internally ('leadership').

Also:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image


I'm guessing a better example could be cooperatives? Although decisions are often done by voting, yes, the day-to-day operations do often include management and at some point its responsibility is to coordinate day-to-day operations and propose long-term plans to the cooperative's board (i.e. worker-owners themselves).

ckaihatsu wrote:Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this -- you're thinking that the role of 'management' requires one to know about the field / subject-matter of the workers they're managing. A competent manager could be plopped into *any* workplace environment and they'd be able to manage any-*thing* and any-*one*.

This fact actually goes to my political point that managers and owners aren't *workers* because they don't *produce* the commodities that the workers do, as *workers* do. Instead owners and managers *manage* the workers, which is *non-productive* of commodities.


It depends on the industry, of course. But yes often managers - particularly in the industrial sector - are expected to have a substantial measure domain knowledge (at least above that of a layman).

ckaihatsu wrote:Now we're talking *past* each other.


Well, I provided you with the data. I'm not sure about what else do you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:What you're describing is the dynamics of the *market* that capital investments ('equity') are *subject* to -- due to decades-long low GDP growth the solid investment opportunities have mostly dried up and capital, in 2007, got desperate and chased after *riskier* markets (subprime mortgages).

This is *not* 'exploitation', because investment-market participants are *not* under any kind of existential duress to *invest*, the way workers are with having to work for exploitative wages under capitalism.


So according to you, that case of rent extraction - where CEOs were the ones who extracted rents - is not a case of exploitation because, well, investors could have invested elsewhere? Because under that reasoning, workers who regard themselves as being exploited can work elsewhere too.

ckaihatsu wrote:So then, by your description here, profitability / the-rate-of-profit *leveled-off* (declined, compared to increasing productivity growth) after 1975.


Declined from the levels in the '60s, yes, since those were the reconstruction years. But it hasn't kept a downward trend - instead, it's been relatively flat ever since (with cyclical up and downs of course).

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, whatever -- I'm not *arguing* over the specifics of energy sourcing, except to say that environmental damage from certain fuels isn't accounted-for by capitalist profit-minded private corporate interests, as things are today. Environmental damage is an *externality* to capitalist business, in the same way that imperialist warfare and destruction, as to Iraq, is *also* considered an externality to geopolitics and to Iraq's economy.


Right, but then again the alternatives don't seem to consider environmental damage properly. One great example is the history of the Aral Sea during the Cold War.

I think this is because industrial activity itself has an environmental cost that most people don't take into account since they are realized in the future for the most part.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm no cheerleader for capitalism and its approaches to technological implementations, so *whatever*.


Sure, but what I said there is not incorrect. Efficiency is a strong force.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, I've mentioned my critique of radical feminism *from the left*, while your critiques would be *from the right*, so there's no common ground between us on that.


Right, but they are influential politically whether we like it or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I don't, because there needs to be humane *social services* implementations, by government, to provide a robust civil society infrastructure. It's not enough to say 'police departments are defunded' and 'all drugs are legalized', and 'you're all on your own'.

Remember people don't *hoard* things that are in abundance, like air and water, so society needs to make sure that people don't *feel desperate* over procuring this-or-that, by *providing* such in abundance, since society has the *capacity* to provide food, housing, education, utilities, transportation, etc., in abundance thanks to industrial methods of mass-production.

This kind of comprehensive reform for the social good, though, would require *breaking* with the fetish of private property and *plutocratic* control over social production.


I think you are seeing the causes of crime in purely economic or political terms. The only problem with that is that people with other motivations to engage in violent crime do exist, which is one justification for keeping a police force - or else people, including mental health workers, will need to fend off for themselves.

ckaihatsu wrote:Government *is* a monopoly, in a sense, over the use of force / violence, and over social policy, mode of production, etc.

I don't *tout* the USSR, so I am not going to defend Stalinism, though it *is* (objectively) more historically-progressive than *capitalist* government, that mostly just supports plutocratic class rule.

In other words bureaucratic elitism is relatively better than imperialist bourgeois government, but it's *lacking* compared to workers-of-the-world socialism.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image


I actually don't think that's true either, not even in a Marxist sense. I would actually think you guys would go all the way with capitalism if you think there is indeed a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which will inevitably lead to a revolution to overthrow it. If the rate of profit is still high, why not just wait, let more capital to accumulate until the system collapses on its own?

This is particularly true for Russia, which was one of the least industrialized European Powers at the time.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't follow what you're trying to *imply* here -- there *is no* 'individual responsibility' since we've had 'corporate personhood' for some time now:

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


I don't see how this contradicts the idea of personal responsibility. When a Corporation commits a crime, punishment can be doled both to the institution and to the natural persons responsible for it.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're missing the point -- politics is *not* messianic, because people have *interests in common*, meaning the working class, for proletarian revolution.


Your politics is.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Post-scarcity' isn't utopian, either -- the *capacity* for post-scarcity exists *today*, as for the mass production of humane-necessary goods and services like food, housing, education, transportation, utilities, etc.


No, this is not true either. For instance for housing there are places with an acute scarcity of land, which is something that is not trivial to solve. In sectors like education, you need qualified professionals and there is also some scarcity of that (e.g. bilingual teachers in the US). And even for utilities, it may be hard for them to reach physically isolated areas to provide services.

ckaihatsu wrote:Nope, not going to happen.

There's *historical precedent* for working class militancy, and even militarism.


Sure, and that's because there is a recognition of the need to win wars.

ckaihatsu wrote:Duh -- he was *assassinated*, most likely from the Nation of Islam, the organization that he *broke* with, in favor of a pan-African, and even *class*, consciousness.


Right, but that actually reinforces my point. Even the African American cause, even the hardliners among them, had fundamental differences with each other. Left wing sectarianism as usual.

ckaihatsu wrote:Funny -- we just *covered* this phenomenon, with that little scenario of worker exploitation around the production of *boots*. You may want to review that at this point.


And in that scenario, it's not all that clear what part of it corresponds to the exploitation of labor, which part corresponds to the exploitation of capital and what part of it corresponds to paying for the business owner's opportunity cost.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just being glass-half-empty -- overthrowing capitalism worldwide is no small task, and has yet to be accomplished.


But I'm not wrong about that fact, am I?

ckaihatsu wrote:Name one.


The French Revolution ended with Napoleon, didn't it? And this was before the rise of the Nation-State, since France was a post-feudal society in the late 18th century.

ckaihatsu wrote:We already covered this -- they would be equally *marooned* because of cutting themselves off from supply chains.


But that goes both ways, assuming they don't actually manage to impose themselves. If there is a stalemate, their rise in arms can still be profitable for them to extract concessions from everyone else.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're incorrect because it's the *liberated workers* who would ultimately be in control of what gets produced, and what doesn't, with or without the use of labor credits.

The data is for a comprehensive *reflection* of society's mass needs and wants, back to itself. It would be appropriate and accurate, using my 'labor credits model' approach, as I've described it here.

The labor credits themselves represent the *politicization* of socio-material power, as from labor. It's *not* finance, as you're implying. A post-capitalist political economy obviously doesn't *need* market exchanges because everything can be mass-produced and *directly distributed* to the end user / consumer in a *pre-planned* way, plus everything produced is always *free-access*, anyway.

A 'high commitment' *wouldn't* be needed, because people could always just work for the common good, and/or for labor credits themselves. Or, people wouldn't have to work *at all* and still have access to 'the commons' because that would be humane, and industrial mass-production is *abundantly productive* anyway, and even moreso once *fully automated*. Basic necessities, however defined, would be *part* of this whole communist-gift-economy process, regardless, and would *not* be formally separated-out -- there is no government, or nation-state apparatus *anywhere*, post-capitalism.


ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking of 'cost' in *capitalist* terms, meaning funding-for-buying-commodities-for-the-project.

That's *not* what takes place within the context of a communist gift economy -- my 'labor credits' only circulate within the population of *liberated labor*, meaning anyone who actually works, either for labor credits or without labor credits.

I'm glad that you approve of the function of the labor credits, but I don't think you're actually *understanding* how they work, exactly -- again, 'communism' means *no commodity production*, and no money / currency / exchange values / finance / trades / barter / implicit exchange values.

Post-capitalism, the only thing that differing projects / proposals would ultimately be *competing* for is use of productive *infrastructure* (factories) -- and this may turn out to just be a *scheduling* issue, with one proposal / project taking priority, with another one having to wait, or else finding *other* suitable equipment to use, freely available everywhere, along with all resources, since all infrastructure / productive implements would be fully *collectivized* / socialized.

The 'cost' would be solely, strictly for paying-forward to incoming liberated laborers, for any given proposed productive policy / 'policy package'.

The only amount of liberated-labor 'support' would be that which would *suffice* for the actual production of what's being proposed. If a million liberated-workers want to sheerly voluntarily provide their work efforts on some project -- like the maglev one -- for *zero* labor credits, well then that's the 'winning' one, as long as that project can schedule sufficient means-of-mass-production (and resources) to make it happen.

If a smallish number of liberated laborers happen to have amassed a *large* amount of labor credits among themselves, necessarily from their own past formal work accomplished, *and* they all happened to support the same 'winning' proposed project with formal commitments / pledges of their labor credits in-hand, then, yes, they would have considerable cumulative 'economic', or 'socio-political' power, however you want to look at it. The 'winning' project would enjoy massive labor-credit support, because it would attract labor-credit-seeking liberated laborers, who would theoretically be more professionally *competitive* than the typical / zero-labor-credit liberated laborer. (The labor credits would be a societal incentive for anyone to fill work roles that are socially needed but which may be particularly hazardous / difficult / distasteful.)

The 'losing' project may *still* be able to be started and completed, in parallel with the 'winning' one, because of its broad liberated-labor 'support', if such 'support' translates to those liberated-laborers *joining* that project with their liberated-labor, as active liberated-laborers.

To clarify, each project *itself* doesn't have a cost, because all productive assets (factories), and natural and finished resources, are all socialized and *free-access*, subject to scheduling, but the *work roles* for any given project may require labor-credits 'funding', to attract those liberated laborers who will only work for the public good with the *payment* of labor credits to themselves for their work done.


I'm not thinking about cost in a "capitalist" sense, what you are saying about labor credits being used to prioritize infrastructure and factories to specific ends is essentially putting a cost on the project. In specific, labor credits recognize the opportunity cost of the use of factories, and the need to prioritize production to some extent.

Using them as a mechanism is a high-commitment option, since a group with a large number of laborers with less credits (who would be "poorer" in the sense of having less means to decide how to prioritize production) would need to accept that it can't have its preference satisfied since the smaller group of workers worked precisely to accumulate labor credits to have its say on the decisions of what to produce. These workers with less labor credits, perhaps because they are younger and thus lack the work experience to accumulate them, would need to accept decisions will tend to be made according to seniority and that when they have gone through the same process of accumulation, they will tend to get what they want. If you capped the amount of labor credits workers can accumulate or make them expire after a while if unused, on the other hand, you would disincentivize performing these unpleasant or dangerous jobs. The need to also have a fairly large accounting system would remain too.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's more *societal* / social, rather than *political* -- it *wouldn't matter* from the standpoint of politics / working-class self-organization, *what* any given person's personal identity happened to be, or not-be.


Really? Because it does matter when it comes to identity politics.

ckaihatsu wrote:ATF is 'policing', and needs to be *abolished* -- again, the government bureaucratic hierarchy could tend to the oversight of whatever humane *social services* can be provided *in place of* historically heavy-handed and murderous policing.


Then how would you stop people from making counterfeit and potentially dangerous drugs, while selling them as if they were the real thing?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, then read what I wrote:


Yes, I already read it. That doesn't negate the historical fact I mentioned.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this issue, if it exists at all, is not your concern since you're not pro-socialist.


But it should be your concern, if you want to convince other people.

ckaihatsu wrote:I think 'crushing the will of security forces' *is* a significant factor, and *would* be important, and even crucial, to the outcome of a revolution. You seem to forget that revolution = class war.


Right, but it's far from being the only crucial factor. Security forces could split as well, with some whose will has not been crushed putting up a fight. It depends a lot on the situation.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, if 'false consciousness' didn't exist then we'd all be living in socialism *right now* due to the overwhelming population of people in the world who *are* materially working class.


This seems like wishful thinking more than anything else.

ckaihatsu wrote:Of course there is professional competition within any given company, and within any given industry -- but corporate 'leadership' / power does conform to hierarchical hegemony / centralization, as with the top executives.


They are centralized and hierarchical, but not necessarily hegemonic. Often complaint and conflict resolution mechanisms exist to prevent abuse, often but not always mandated by law.
#15122889
ckaihatsu wrote:
But people and businesses *don't* pay for government services, thus there's no *revenue* (as back to government), and there are no *commodities* being produced by a working class.

The government either *decides* to provide such services, or else it doesn't -- there's no *market* mechanism involved here, with individual consumers 'voting' economically.

Another way of looking at it is consider if government was the *only* source of a material economy, like the military-industrial complex / 'defense' contracts, but for *all* sectors of the economy -- then you'd have *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic-elitism, and there really couldn't *be* 'value' because everything would be government-supplied, directly to end users / consumers / people.

'Value' presupposes *exchanges* and market-based activity for these 'exchange values' to rub-off against each other. Government doesn't provide 'value' as much as it provides a fundamental political *paradigm*, and *facilitates* a certain kind of society.



wat0n wrote:
Government services are not free. For starters, several services are done for a fee, and more generally the Government does tax the population.



You're really missing the overall *point* -- fees are nominal, and do not cover the costs of what government does. Yes, it gets its funding from taxation, which supports my position that such is *not* commerce.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not *contradicting* anything I've just said -- if the real estate company makes its revenue from real estate *sales* / rentals, then the agent is *internal* to the company and is not a separate commodity-*service*, as I've already said.



wat0n wrote:
So according to you, the guy who sells you the goods is not generating any value? How can this industry operate without real estate agents?



You're not paying attention -- is the real estate agent *internal* to the business of real estate *sales* / rentals, or is the agent *external* to the company's real estate *sales* / rentals -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Bullshit. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto called for *Joseph Stalin* to be put in charge of a *nationalist* 'socialism-in-one-state'. That was his own opportunistic monstrosity and it's certainly not workers-of-the-world socialism.

Why aren't you blaming *Stalin* for Stalinism?



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I do. But that doesn't mean it's correct to regard him as a "historical accident" when these "historical accidents" seem to happen all too often. The Communist Manifesto didn't argue for that, but the fact that it's happened all too often means its predictions are simply wrong.



Communism isn't a 'prediction', it's a political *program*.

You keep blaming the ideology of socialism itself, but you haven't provided any historical *analysis* -- I've noted that there were *external* factors, such as counterrevolution and Western imperialist invasions, but you haven't acknowledged these real-world events.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, take the analogy as you will -- what I'm trying to impart is the distinction between 'individual', and 'collective'. A workplace *could* be run collectively by the overall grouping of its workers, and *not* hierarchically, as we're used to seeing under class-hegemonic social relations of production. In this way the *plan-making* function wouldn't fall to any *one* particular person, as we're used to seeing with corporate-type circumscribed *work roles*, but it *could* be done this way if everyone agrees to it, internally ('leadership').

Also:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image




wat0n wrote:
I'm guessing a better example could be cooperatives? Although decisions are often done by voting, yes, the day-to-day operations do often include management and at some point its responsibility is to coordinate day-to-day operations and propose long-term plans to the cooperative's board (i.e. worker-owners themselves).



Yes, if you like this would be an apt example, though I don't advocate that paradigm of 'workers co-ops', or 'market socialism', because the politics don't challenge bourgeois ruling class capitalism / hegemony at all. Corporations would continue to exist, as would parasitic finance and nation-state imperialism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this -- you're thinking that the role of 'management' requires one to know about the field / subject-matter of the workers they're managing. A competent manager could be plopped into *any* workplace environment and they'd be able to manage any-*thing* and any-*one*.

This fact actually goes to my political point that managers and owners aren't *workers* because they don't *produce* the commodities that the workers do, as *workers* do. Instead owners and managers *manage* the workers, which is *non-productive* of commodities.



wat0n wrote:
It depends on the industry, of course. But yes often managers - particularly in the industrial sector - are expected to have a substantial measure domain knowledge (at least above that of a layman).



No, such *wouldn't* depend on the industry -- managers *manage* workers, and workers produce the *commodities* that the company sells for revenue and profit. Managers do *not* produce the goods and services for the company, so they're not 'workers' / wage workers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Now we're talking *past* each other.



wat0n wrote:
Well, I provided you with the data. I'm not sure about what else do you want.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What you're describing is the dynamics of the *market* that capital investments ('equity') are *subject* to -- due to decades-long low GDP growth the solid investment opportunities have mostly dried up and capital, in 2007, got desperate and chased after *riskier* markets (subprime mortgages).

This is *not* 'exploitation', because investment-market participants are *not* under any kind of existential duress to *invest*, the way workers are with having to work for exploitative wages under capitalism.



wat0n wrote:
So according to you, that case of rent extraction - where CEOs were the ones who extracted rents - is not a case of exploitation because, well, investors could have invested elsewhere? Because under that reasoning, workers who regard themselves as being exploited can work elsewhere too.



CEOs / executives do not 'extract rents' -- they're paid *salaries* which are an overhead cost to the business itself.

Yes, investors aren't under any existential duress to invest. Much capital -- tens of trillions of dollars -- currently sits idle in tax havens / offshore accounts, for example.

Sure, prospective workers can 'shop around' for an employer, and be as selective as they can *afford* to be. At some point, though, if a worker doesn't have the time and money to *shop around* then they are at a disadvantage in the jobs market, and will have to take *whatever* job gets them income as soon as possible, for the necessities of modern life and living. That's *duress*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So then, by your description here, profitability / the-rate-of-profit *leveled-off* (declined, compared to increasing productivity growth) after 1975.



wat0n wrote:
Declined from the levels in the '60s, yes, since those were the reconstruction years. But it hasn't kept a downward trend - instead, it's been relatively flat ever since (with cyclical up and downs of course).



This, then, *confirms* Marx's 'Declining Rate of Profit', and it's due to the increasing proportional component of *technology* in the productive process, as with industrial mass-production, and automation. (Using / abusing human *slaves* was far more profitable, and barbaric.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, whatever -- I'm not *arguing* over the specifics of energy sourcing, except to say that environmental damage from certain fuels isn't accounted-for by capitalist profit-minded private corporate interests, as things are today. Environmental damage is an *externality* to capitalist business, in the same way that imperialist warfare and destruction, as to Iraq, is *also* considered an externality to geopolitics and to Iraq's economy.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but then again the alternatives don't seem to consider environmental damage properly. One great example is the history of the Aral Sea during the Cold War.



You're being *vague* -- you need to provide your own argument here within the historical context that you're cited.


wat0n wrote:
I think this is because industrial activity itself has an environmental cost that most people don't take into account since they are realized in the future for the most part.



Correct -- it's the privatization of profits, while socializing the *costs*, like environmental degradation.


---


wat0n wrote:
And when efficiency increases (and the issue of risk is dealt with, which probably necessitates simply having diverse energy sources), it will be adopted by everyone capitalism or not.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm no cheerleader for capitalism and its approaches to technological implementations, so *whatever*.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but what I said there is not incorrect. Efficiency is a strong force.



It's not just about logistical efficiency, though -- you just acknowledged that environmental degradation is a resulting factor in production, and that such needs to be *politicized* / socialized so that it can be appropriately addressed.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, I've mentioned my critique of radical feminism *from the left*, while your critiques would be *from the right*, so there's no common ground between us on that.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but they are influential politically whether we like it or not.



But my critique-from-the-left is that it's *incorrect* because it's essentially *identity politics* -- radical feminism sees *gender* as the main deterministic divide in society ('patriarchy'), when it's actually *class* that's paramount, with race and gender, etc., being *ruling class strategies* used from above to divide-and-conquer the *working class*, as with the New York Times '1619' racialist line, recently retracted.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I don't, because there needs to be humane *social services* implementations, by government, to provide a robust civil society infrastructure. It's not enough to say 'police departments are defunded' and 'all drugs are legalized', and 'you're all on your own'.

Remember people don't *hoard* things that are in abundance, like air and water, so society needs to make sure that people don't *feel desperate* over procuring this-or-that, by *providing* such in abundance, since society has the *capacity* to provide food, housing, education, utilities, transportation, etc., in abundance thanks to industrial methods of mass-production.

This kind of comprehensive reform for the social good, though, would require *breaking* with the fetish of private property and *plutocratic* control over social production.



wat0n wrote:
I think you are seeing the causes of crime in purely economic or political terms. The only problem with that is that people with other motivations to engage in violent crime do exist, which is one justification for keeping a police force - or else people, including mental health workers, will need to fend off for themselves.



You're *sidestepping* my point about *scarcity*, though -- instead of *encouraging* petty crime with the top-down imposition of artificial *scarcity*, as through austerity policies, government should be providing necessary things in *abundance* since the material capacity of production for it already exists.

You're arguing that interpersonal *drama* is the main cause of violent crime -- you need to provide some *evidence* for this contention.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Government *is* a monopoly, in a sense, over the use of force / violence, and over social policy, mode of production, etc.

I don't *tout* the USSR, so I am not going to defend Stalinism, though it *is* (objectively) more historically-progressive than *capitalist* government, that mostly just supports plutocratic class rule.

In other words bureaucratic elitism is relatively better than imperialist bourgeois government, but it's *lacking* compared to workers-of-the-world socialism.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I actually don't think that's true either, not even in a Marxist sense. I would actually think you guys would go all the way with capitalism if you think there is indeed a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which will inevitably lead to a revolution to overthrow it. If the rate of profit is still high, why not just wait, let more capital to accumulate until the system collapses on its own?

This is particularly true for Russia, which was one of the least industrialized European Powers at the time.



I don't think that the increasingly-automated, fully-industrialized capitalist economy *would* simply collapse under its own weight, because we're already seeing the *auto* industry, for example, as now being *very* roboticized, with less human labor necessary, yet the auto companies retain all of the profits that they can get from that increased use of technology.

There's the 'subjective factor', meaning class-conscious proletarian activity, being required for the actual event / action of overthrowing bourgeois class rule, otherwise the ruling class will just continue to go with whatever means they have, given whatever conditions that prevail, to continue their rule.


---


wat0n wrote:
No, that's because I believe in the concept of individual responsibility. Voluntarily working for a business is not nearly comparable to getting raped and murdered :eh:



ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't follow what you're trying to *imply* here -- there *is no* 'individual responsibility' since we've had 'corporate personhood' for some time now:

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



wat0n wrote:
I don't see how this contradicts the idea of personal responsibility. When a Corporation commits a crime, punishment can be doled both to the institution and to the natural persons responsible for it.



Wait -- *who's* 'getting raped and murdered', exactly?

A corporation *isn't* physically a person, though, and shouldn't enjoy the basic human *civil rights* that people do, which is what 'corporate personhood' is about.

Corporations *don't* get punished -- there may be *tiny* fines imposed, at worst, by the bourgeois legal system.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're missing the point -- politics is *not* messianic, because people have *interests in common*, meaning the working class, for proletarian revolution.



wat0n wrote:
Your politics is.



No, my politics is *not* 'messianic', because, as I just mentioned, people have interests *in common* according to their *class* position in society.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Post-scarcity' isn't utopian, either -- the *capacity* for post-scarcity exists *today*, as for the mass production of humane-necessary goods and services like food, housing, education, transportation, utilities, etc.



wat0n wrote:
No, this is not true either. For instance for housing there are places with an acute scarcity of land, which is something that is not trivial to solve. In sectors like education, you need qualified professionals and there is also some scarcity of that (e.g. bilingual teachers in the US). And even for utilities, it may be hard for them to reach physically isolated areas to provide services.



You're just being *pessimistic* -- the entire *purpose* of an economy is to *solve* issues like these, but you're lacking the *political willpower* to even *try*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope, not going to happen.

There's *historical precedent* for working class militancy, and even militarism.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, and that's because there is a recognition of the need to win wars.



Okay, if you like -- I'll remind that it's primarily a *class war*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Duh -- he was *assassinated*, most likely from the Nation of Islam, the organization that he *broke* with, in favor of a pan-African, and even *class*, consciousness.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but that actually reinforces my point. Even the African American cause, even the hardliners among them, had fundamental differences with each other. Left wing sectarianism as usual.



Hmmmm, I don't think that 'left-wing sectarianism' is accurate as a descriptor here, since the Nation of Islam is actually *black nationalist*, which *isn't* really left-wing. It's more like nationalist-*separatism* on the basis of race, and is *not* a left-wing-minded reformism, much less *revolutionary* on the basis of class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Funny -- we just *covered* this phenomenon, with that little scenario of worker exploitation around the production of *boots*. You may want to review that at this point.



wat0n wrote:
And in that scenario, it's not all that clear what part of it corresponds to the exploitation of labor, which part corresponds to the exploitation of capital and what part of it corresponds to paying for the business owner's opportunity cost.



Okay, let's review:



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#Theory



The *inputs* are $20 in labor value / labor-power from the worker, and $20 in operating costs from the employer (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), for a total of $40 in costs.

The *outputs* are $10 in wages to the worker, $10 in surplus labor value to the employer, and $20 in capital / operating costs recovered by the employer, for a total of $40.

The $10 in surplus labor value *should* go to the wage worker, but it doesn't -- it's a *theft* of labor value which comprises the employer's *profit* of $10 on an investment of $30, or 33% profit, in this example.


---


wat0n wrote:
Yet that's not quite what has happened historically. Even among Marxists, there were all sorts of ideological and even personal conflicts.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just being glass-half-empty -- overthrowing capitalism worldwide is no small task, and has yet to be accomplished.



wat0n wrote:
But I'm not wrong about that fact, am I?



Yeah, again, this is none of your concern. You have no business in suddenly pretending to be a Marxist historian when you're not even pro-socialism in any sense of the word.


---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I understand the difference it's simply that this is how revolutions tend to work.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of *bourgeois* history again.



wat0n wrote:
I'm thinking of history, without adjective.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're thinking of (bourgeois) *nationalist* history -- the history of nation-states.



wat0n wrote:
That holds for revolutions carried out even before nation-states existed.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Name one.



wat0n wrote:
The French Revolution ended with Napoleon, didn't it? And this was before the rise of the Nation-State, since France was a post-feudal society in the late 18th century.



Again this is too facile -- you're trying to say that *all* revolutions end in dictatorship, when not all revolutions are even *proletarian*. The French Revolution, which you chose as an example, was a *bourgeois* revolution, as I already saw upfront (above). So was the American Revolution -- bourgeois, not proletarian.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We already covered this -- they would be equally *marooned* because of cutting themselves off from supply chains.



wat0n wrote:
But that goes both ways, assuming they don't actually manage to impose themselves. If there is a stalemate, their rise in arms can still be profitable for them to extract concessions from everyone else.



And just how large are you positing this group to be? Dozens? Hundreds?

I've *already* addressed this, so maybe you should go back and consider how I addressed this scenario of yours.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're incorrect because it's the *liberated workers* who would ultimately be in control of what gets produced, and what doesn't, with or without the use of labor credits.

The data is for a comprehensive *reflection* of society's mass needs and wants, back to itself. It would be appropriate and accurate, using my 'labor credits model' approach, as I've described it here.

The labor credits themselves represent the *politicization* of socio-material power, as from labor. It's *not* finance, as you're implying. A post-capitalist political economy obviously doesn't *need* market exchanges because everything can be mass-produced and *directly distributed* to the end user / consumer in a *pre-planned* way, plus everything produced is always *free-access*, anyway.

A 'high commitment' *wouldn't* be needed, because people could always just work for the common good, and/or for labor credits themselves. Or, people wouldn't have to work *at all* and still have access to 'the commons' because that would be humane, and industrial mass-production is *abundantly productive* anyway, and even moreso once *fully automated*. Basic necessities, however defined, would be *part* of this whole communist-gift-economy process, regardless, and would *not* be formally separated-out -- there is no government, or nation-state apparatus *anywhere*, post-capitalism.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of 'cost' in *capitalist* terms, meaning funding-for-buying-commodities-for-the-project.

That's *not* what takes place within the context of a communist gift economy -- my 'labor credits' only circulate within the population of *liberated labor*, meaning anyone who actually works, either for labor credits or without labor credits.

I'm glad that you approve of the function of the labor credits, but I don't think you're actually *understanding* how they work, exactly -- again, 'communism' means *no commodity production*, and no money / currency / exchange values / finance / trades / barter / implicit exchange values.

Post-capitalism, the only thing that differing projects / proposals would ultimately be *competing* for is use of productive *infrastructure* (factories) -- and this may turn out to just be a *scheduling* issue, with one proposal / project taking priority, with another one having to wait, or else finding *other* suitable equipment to use, freely available everywhere, along with all resources, since all infrastructure / productive implements would be fully *collectivized* / socialized.

The 'cost' would be solely, strictly for paying-forward to incoming liberated laborers, for any given proposed productive policy / 'policy package'.

The only amount of liberated-labor 'support' would be that which would *suffice* for the actual production of what's being proposed. If a million liberated-workers want to sheerly voluntarily provide their work efforts on some project -- like the maglev one -- for *zero* labor credits, well then that's the 'winning' one, as long as that project can schedule sufficient means-of-mass-production (and resources) to make it happen.

If a smallish number of liberated laborers happen to have amassed a *large* amount of labor credits among themselves, necessarily from their own past formal work accomplished, *and* they all happened to support the same 'winning' proposed project with formal commitments / pledges of their labor credits in-hand, then, yes, they would have considerable cumulative 'economic', or 'socio-political' power, however you want to look at it. The 'winning' project would enjoy massive labor-credit support, because it would attract labor-credit-seeking liberated laborers, who would theoretically be more professionally *competitive* than the typical / zero-labor-credit liberated laborer. (The labor credits would be a societal incentive for anyone to fill work roles that are socially needed but which may be particularly hazardous / difficult / distasteful.)

The 'losing' project may *still* be able to be started and completed, in parallel with the 'winning' one, because of its broad liberated-labor 'support', if such 'support' translates to those liberated-laborers *joining* that project with their liberated-labor, as active liberated-laborers.

To clarify, each project *itself* doesn't have a cost, because all productive assets (factories), and natural and finished resources, are all socialized and *free-access*, subject to scheduling, but the *work roles* for any given project may require labor-credits 'funding', to attract those liberated laborers who will only work for the public good with the *payment* of labor credits to themselves for their work done.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not thinking about cost in a "capitalist" sense, what you are saying about labor credits being used to prioritize infrastructure and factories to specific ends is essentially putting a cost on the project. In specific, labor credits recognize the opportunity cost of the use of factories, and the need to prioritize production to some extent.



No, this conceptualization / understanding of yours is *wrong* -- labor credits are not deterministic of how *infrastructure* is used, as in the sense of (capitalistic) 'cost'.

A proposal with a *zillion* pledged / committed labor credits and a proposal with *zero* labor credits would both be on even ground in respect to scheduling calendar time on a particular factory -- the *crucial* factor would be sufficient / appropriate numbers of available-and-willing liberated laborers to do all of the component *work roles* for whatever given project. If a policy package isn't 'finalized' -- meaning having all of the materially necessary details nailed-down / finalized, particularly that of available-and-willing liberated laborers to cover all of the work roles' necessary *time slots*, then it will automatically *lose out* on the use of productive equipment (factories) and finished or natural resources, to any policy package that *is* finalized.

And among *finalized* policy packages that are in 'competition' for any given 'commons' infrastructure or resources, there *may* have to be a determining *run-off*, as I previously described:


ckaihatsu wrote:
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.



viewtopic.php?p=15120939#p15120939



---


wat0n wrote:
Using them as a mechanism is a high-commitment option, since a group with a large number of laborers with less credits (who would be "poorer" in the sense of having less means to decide how to prioritize production)



Again, to be clear, the labor credits in-hand have *no bearing* on the selection and usage of any given commons -- meaning infrastructure / factories, and/or finished or natural resources.


wat0n wrote:
would need to accept that it can't have its preference satisfied since the smaller group of workers worked precisely to accumulate labor credits to have its say on the decisions of what to produce.



You're also assuming that there would *have* to be an either-or -- all that has to happen is for the 'smaller group', *or* the 'larger group', to find suitable infrastructure and/or resources *elsewhere*, that may be disused and available. Then *both* groups would be able to produce *in parallel*. If this isn't possible, then maybe *scheduling options* would be possible, with some kind of amiable 'switching-off' of use, over specific calendar time, between the two groups, or else one is prioritized, and then the other follows.


wat0n wrote:
These workers with less labor credits, perhaps because they are younger and thus lack the work experience to accumulate them, would need to accept decisions will tend to be made according to seniority



You're just *making shit up* and *imputing* it onto my model framework, which you've demonstrated that you don't even *understand* fully to begin-with.

Nowhere in *any* of my writings on the topic of my 'labor credits' model do I *ever* mention the concept of 'seniority', because it *doesn't exist* within the description of my model.

It's the *labor credits* that *explicitly*, *quantitatively* measure one's formal capacity to 'fund' any given 'work roles', to the extent desired, bounded by the actual quantity of labor credits in-hand.


wat0n wrote:
and that when they have gone through the same process of accumulation, they will tend to get what they want. If you capped the amount of labor credits workers can accumulate or make them expire after a while if unused, on the other hand, you would disincentivize performing these unpleasant or dangerous jobs. The need to also have a fairly large accounting system would remain too.



No, there's no need for *any* standing administration, or government, and so there isn't any.

The 'accounting' is from the ongoing circulation of the labor credits themselves, and such 'accounting' details will be a component part of any given 'policy package', as over component work roles and their possible 'funding' by certain specified ratios of labor credits per hour of liberated labor (work-role 'multipliers').

Labor credits *won't* expire, because that would require *enforcement* / standing-administration, and there isn't any. There also aren't any 'caps' on the individual's accumulation of labor credits, except for the objective physical limits of living in a 24/7/365 timespace -- *biological* limits, in other words.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's more *societal* / social, rather than *political* -- it *wouldn't matter* from the standpoint of politics / working-class self-organization, *what* any given person's personal identity happened to be, or not-be.



wat0n wrote:
Really? Because it does matter when it comes to identity politics.



But 'identity politics' is *bullshit* because it doesn't have any solid *material basis* -- I, as a five-foot-nine person am not going to get any particularly *special* / particular consideration, politically, because I'm five feet and nine inches tall, even if I consider that to be my 'personal identity' and announce it all over the place.

Identity politics is only valid as being socially progressive compared to whatever's to the *right*, politically, of it -- so, for example, being *black* is politically significant and historically-progressive compared to the government's use of institutional racism / police brutality, *against* people of color, disproportionately.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
ATF is 'policing', and needs to be *abolished* -- again, the government bureaucratic hierarchy could tend to the oversight of whatever humane *social services* can be provided *in place of* historically heavy-handed and murderous policing.



wat0n wrote:
Then how would you stop people from making counterfeit and potentially dangerous drugs, while selling them as if they were the real thing?



The *government* should be the 'single-payer' provider of any and all drugs, so as to *distribute* and *regulate* them, to users and abusers, under government supervision.


---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, although I think it's been a constant fight between communists.



ckaihatsu wrote:
*What* has been? You mean the more-'discretionary' portion of a post-capitalist, communist-type material economy?



wat0n wrote:
Yes.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then read what I wrote:


This aspect is relatively *uncontroversial* among revolutionaries because of its *unimportance*. The *important* part is how the means of industrial mass-production are used, meaning that it should all be *de-privatized* so that workers can collectively use it to produce for *humane* needs. After *that* minimum of egalitarian production is provided for -- requiring capitalism's overthrow -- the rest is discretionary and unimportant, politically.



wat0n wrote:
Yes, I already read it. That doesn't negate the historical fact I mentioned.



You haven't *provided* any history, so there's nothing for me to consider. Also, you're *overstepping* again, politically, since you have no valid political interests in communist *internal* matters.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this issue, if it exists at all, is not your concern since you're not pro-socialist.



wat0n wrote:
But it should be your concern, if you want to convince other people.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think 'crushing the will of security forces' *is* a significant factor, and *would* be important, and even crucial, to the outcome of a revolution. You seem to forget that revolution = class war.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but it's far from being the only crucial factor. Security forces could split as well, with some whose will has not been crushed putting up a fight. It depends a lot on the situation.



Yup.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, if 'false consciousness' didn't exist then we'd all be living in socialism *right now* due to the overwhelming population of people in the world who *are* materially working class.



wat0n wrote:
This seems like wishful thinking more than anything else.



It's not 'wishful thinking' -- it was a *hypothetical*, for the sake of *argument*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course there is professional competition within any given company, and within any given industry -- but corporate 'leadership' / power does conform to hierarchical hegemony / centralization, as with the top executives.



wat0n wrote:
They are centralized and hierarchical, but not necessarily hegemonic. Often complaint and conflict resolution mechanisms exist to prevent abuse, often but not always mandated by law.



Bullshit -- the top executives *do* have hegemonic power within their company, and even in the larger industry, because they're the top-of-the-heap, and they can effectively *veto* the decisions of any subordinates.
#15122914
ckaihatsu wrote:You're really missing the overall *point* -- fees are nominal, and do not cover the costs of what government does. Yes, it gets its funding from taxation, which supports my position that such is *not* commerce.


...But it is an implicit exchange, not unlike the one we discussed earlier. "No taxation without representation" is an example of what I'm pointing at.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not paying attention -- is the real estate agent *internal* to the business of real estate *sales* / rentals, or is the agent *external* to the company's real estate *sales* / rentals -- ?


I don't know, you tell me. Are factory workers internal or external to a factory's business?

ckaihatsu wrote:Communism isn't a 'prediction', it's a political *program*.


Marxism does make predictions, purporting to be a scientific paradigm, which justifies communism.

ckaihatsu wrote:You keep blaming the ideology of socialism itself, but you haven't provided any historical *analysis* -- I've noted that there were *external* factors, such as counterrevolution and Western imperialist invasions, but you haven't acknowledged these real-world events.


I think I provided a few examples. I'm not sure about what else do you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, if you like this would be an apt example, though I don't advocate that paradigm of 'workers co-ops', or 'market socialism', because the politics don't challenge bourgeois ruling class capitalism / hegemony at all. Corporations would continue to exist, as would parasitic finance and nation-state imperialism.


But even cooperatives have a hierarchy.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, such *wouldn't* depend on the industry -- managers *manage* workers, and workers produce the *commodities* that the company sells for revenue and profit. Managers do *not* produce the goods and services for the company, so they're not 'workers' / wage workers.


Again, as I mentioned earlier: Good luck on having workers with barely high school doing the work of engineers :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:CEOs / executives do not 'extract rents' -- they're paid *salaries* which are an overhead cost to the business itself.


So their behavior was not an example of rent seeking in your view? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, investors aren't under any existential duress to invest. Much capital -- tens of trillions of dollars -- currently sits idle in tax havens / offshore accounts, for example.


It's not "idle". It's invested in companies that set shop up there to pay less/no taxes, companies that often invest those funds in financial markets elsewhere.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, prospective workers can 'shop around' for an employer, and be as selective as they can *afford* to be. At some point, though, if a worker doesn't have the time and money to *shop around* then they are at a disadvantage in the jobs market, and will have to take *whatever* job gets them income as soon as possible, for the necessities of modern life and living. That's *duress*.


That will depend on their savings and assets in practice.

ckaihatsu wrote:This, then, *confirms* Marx's 'Declining Rate of Profit', and it's due to the increasing proportional component of *technology* in the productive process, as with industrial mass-production, and automation. (Using / abusing human *slaves* was far more profitable, and barbaric.)


No, it doesn't. Under that hypothesis, the rate of profit should show a long run downward trend, not level off at a positive level.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're being *vague* -- you need to provide your own argument here within the historical context that you're cited.


Read this:

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

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- it's the privatization of profits, while socializing the *costs*, like environmental degradation.


Sort of. It's the current generations extracting the profits, while leaving the costs to the future ones.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not just about logistical efficiency, though -- you just acknowledged that environmental degradation is a resulting factor in production, and that such needs to be *politicized* / socialized so that it can be appropriately addressed.


Indeed, there are many factors at play here.

ckaihatsu wrote:But my critique-from-the-left is that it's *incorrect* because it's essentially *identity politics* -- radical feminism sees *gender* as the main deterministic divide in society ('patriarchy'), when it's actually *class* that's paramount, with race and gender, etc., being *ruling class strategies* used from above to divide-and-conquer the *working class*, as with the New York Times '1619' racialist line, recently retracted.


Sure, you can see it in that way. Some people in this forum, the only political forum in the internets, see this in a similar manner.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *sidestepping* my point about *scarcity*, though -- instead of *encouraging* petty crime with the top-down imposition of artificial *scarcity*, as through austerity policies, government should be providing necessary things in *abundance* since the material capacity of production for it already exists.

You're arguing that interpersonal *drama* is the main cause of violent crime -- you need to provide some *evidence* for this contention.


It doesn't need to be the main cause for violent crime for my point to hold. It suffices to be one of many causes to be correct.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think that the increasingly-automated, fully-industrialized capitalist economy *would* simply collapse under its own weight, because we're already seeing the *auto* industry, for example, as now being *very* roboticized, with less human labor necessary, yet the auto companies retain all of the profits that they can get from that increased use of technology.

There's the 'subjective factor', meaning class-conscious proletarian activity, being required for the actual event / action of overthrowing bourgeois class rule, otherwise the ruling class will just continue to go with whatever means they have, given whatever conditions that prevail, to continue their rule.


How does this square with your argument above that the added technology serves to decrease profits?

ckaihatsu wrote:Wait -- *who's* 'getting raped and murdered', exactly?

A corporation *isn't* physically a person, though, and shouldn't enjoy the basic human *civil rights* that people do, which is what 'corporate personhood' is about.

Corporations *don't* get punished -- there may be *tiny* fines imposed, at worst, by the bourgeois legal system.


The whole point of corporations is to make money, fines go directly against their raison d'etre. Large fines can also make them go bust, just see what happened to Purdue Pharma with Oxycontin, last year they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections as a result of the lawsuits.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, my politics is *not* 'messianic', because, as I just mentioned, people have interests *in common* according to their *class* position in society.


It's messianic because you are making promises about salvation and the rise of a New World, radically better than the current one.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just being *pessimistic* -- the entire *purpose* of an economy is to *solve* issues like these, but you're lacking the *political willpower* to even *try*.


This is simply voluntarism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, I don't think that 'left-wing sectarianism' is accurate as a descriptor here, since the Nation of Islam is actually *black nationalist*, which *isn't* really left-wing. It's more like nationalist-*separatism* on the basis of race, and is *not* a left-wing-minded reformism, much less *revolutionary* on the basis of class.


Fair point, that depends on how you define "left-wing"

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, let's review:







The *inputs* are $20 in labor value / labor-power from the worker, and $20 in operating costs from the employer (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), for a total of $40 in costs.

The *outputs* are $10 in wages to the worker, $10 in surplus labor value to the employer, and $20 in capital / operating costs recovered by the employer, for a total of $40.

The $10 in surplus labor value *should* go to the wage worker, but it doesn't -- it's a *theft* of labor value which comprises the employer's *profit* of $10 on an investment of $30, or 33% profit, in this example.


Why should it go to the worker, as opposed to the owners of the capital used by the business or to the business owner for taking the risk and the opportunity cost of even owning a business (instead of doing something else)?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, again, this is none of your concern. You have no business in suddenly pretending to be a Marxist historian when you're not even pro-socialism in any sense of the word.


I'm not pretending to be a Marxist historian, I'm simply pointing out a fact.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again this is too facile -- you're trying to say that *all* revolutions end in dictatorship, when not all revolutions are even *proletarian*. The French Revolution, which you chose as an example, was a *bourgeois* revolution, as I already saw upfront (above). So was the American Revolution -- bourgeois, not proletarian.


Sure, but the French Revolution is an example of what I mentioned. The American Revolution is more interesting, but it did end with an authoritarian move - even if it ended up becoming a Federal Republic.

ckaihatsu wrote:And just how large are you positing this group to be? Dozens? Hundreds?

I've *already* addressed this, so maybe you should go back and consider how I addressed this scenario of yours.


It depends. But why couldn't a whole region threaten with secession to extract rents from everyone else?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, this conceptualization / understanding of yours is *wrong* -- labor credits are not deterministic of how *infrastructure* is used, as in the sense of (capitalistic) 'cost'.

A proposal with a *zillion* pledged / committed labor credits and a proposal with *zero* labor credits would both be on even ground in respect to scheduling calendar time on a particular factory -- the *crucial* factor would be sufficient / appropriate numbers of available-and-willing liberated laborers to do all of the component *work roles* for whatever given project. If a policy package isn't 'finalized' -- meaning having all of the materially necessary details nailed-down / finalized, particularly that of available-and-willing liberated laborers to cover all of the work roles' necessary *time slots*, then it will automatically *lose out* on the use of productive equipment (factories) and finished or natural resources, to any policy package that *is* finalized.

And among *finalized* policy packages that are in 'competition' for any given 'commons' infrastructure or resources, there *may* have to be a determining *run-off*, as I previously described:


Even in that case, the "winning" project would have priority until new resources for its commission are found. Of course, if it were feasible to do both projects concurrently then there is no issue - but there can be cases where it is not.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, to be clear, the labor credits in-hand have *no bearing* on the selection and usage of any given commons -- meaning infrastructure / factories, and/or finished or natural resources.


Then what do they have bearing on, exactly?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're also assuming that there would *have* to be an either-or -- all that has to happen is for the 'smaller group', *or* the 'larger group', to find suitable infrastructure and/or resources *elsewhere*, that may be disused and available. Then *both* groups would be able to produce *in parallel*. If this isn't possible, then maybe *scheduling options* would be possible, with some kind of amiable 'switching-off' of use, over specific calendar time, between the two groups, or else one is prioritized, and then the other follows.


If you need to schedule, then you are prioritizing, and if you are prioritizing then one group will get what they want before the other. That alone is a form of inequality in outcomes.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just *making shit up* and *imputing* it onto my model framework, which you've demonstrated that you don't even *understand* fully to begin-with.

Nowhere in *any* of my writings on the topic of my 'labor credits' model do I *ever* mention the concept of 'seniority', because it *doesn't exist* within the description of my model.

It's the *labor credits* that *explicitly*, *quantitatively* measure one's formal capacity to 'fund' any given 'work roles', to the extent desired, bounded by the actual quantity of labor credits in-hand.


How do you accumulate labor credits?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, there's no need for *any* standing administration, or government, and so there isn't any.

The 'accounting' is from the ongoing circulation of the labor credits themselves, and such 'accounting' details will be a component part of any given 'policy package', as over component work roles and their possible 'funding' by certain specified ratios of labor credits per hour of liberated labor (work-role 'multipliers').

Labor credits *won't* expire, because that would require *enforcement* / standing-administration, and there isn't any. There also aren't any 'caps' on the individual's accumulation of labor credits, except for the objective physical limits of living in a 24/7/365 timespace -- *biological* limits, in other words.


What do you mean by "circulation of labor credits"?

ckaihatsu wrote:But 'identity politics' is *bullshit* because it doesn't have any solid *material basis* -- I, as a five-foot-nine person am not going to get any particularly *special* / particular consideration, politically, because I'm five feet and nine inches tall, even if I consider that to be my 'personal identity' and announce it all over the place.

Identity politics is only valid as being socially progressive compared to whatever's to the *right*, politically, of it -- so, for example, being *black* is politically significant and historically-progressive compared to the government's use of institutional racism / policy brutality, *against* people of color, disproportionately.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


Sure, but people still engage in it. I also agree it is often bullshit, not always, but all too often.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *government* should be the 'single-payer' provider of any and all drugs, so as to *distribute* and *regulate* them, to users and abusers, under government supervision.


So I assume you'd have a government monopoly here, am I right? But then how would you bar others from participating?

ckaihatsu wrote:You haven't *provided* any history, so there's nothing for me to consider. Also, you're *overstepping* again, politically, since you have no valid political interests in communist *internal* matters.


Why was Yugoslavia's system different from the other socialist ones?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yup.


Which is why you would likely have an easier time if this did not happen, and you coopted them first.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not 'wishful thinking' -- it was a *hypothetical*, for the sake of *argument*.


I would say it is. Even if class was the only factor, it's not clear people would prefer to overthrow the current system rather than simply reform it.

ckaihatsu wrote:Bullshit -- the top executives *do* have hegemonic power within their company, and even in the larger industry, because they're the top-of-the-heap, and they can effectively *veto* the decisions of any subordinates.


No, that's not exactly true. Even in the US there is a Federal service for that:

https://www.fmcs.gov/
#15122939
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're really missing the overall *point* -- fees are nominal, and do not cover the costs of what government does. Yes, it gets its funding from taxation, which supports my position that such is *not* commerce.



wat0n wrote:
...But it is an implicit exchange, not unlike the one we discussed earlier. "No taxation without representation" is an example of what I'm pointing at.



You're now talking about government *politically*, but we *started* by discussing it *economically* -- there are no exchanges, since procurement is done *internally*. There's no commerce, exchanges, or production of commodities by the government, economically.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not paying attention -- is the real estate agent *internal* to the business of real estate *sales* / rentals, or is the agent *external* to the company's real estate *sales* / rentals -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I don't know, you tell me. Are factory workers internal or external to a factory's business?



Oh, okay, then you *forfeit* this point. My point stands that the real estate agent is *internal*, and a *cost*, to the real estate business, and does *not* produce any commodities. The sales service is *not* separate from the real estate business itself.

Factory workers -- *any* workers, really, blue-, pink-, or white-collar -- are *internal* to a factory's business because they're the ones who produce the actual *commodities* for the company, goods and/or services.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Communism isn't a 'prediction', it's a political *program*.



wat0n wrote:
Marxism does make predictions, purporting to be a scientific paradigm, which justifies communism.



No, Marxism isn't mainly concerned with making predictions -- you're thinking of clinical science.

Marxism is both science *and* ideology, I'd say, offhand.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You keep blaming the ideology of socialism itself, but you haven't provided any historical *analysis* -- I've noted that there were *external* factors, such as counterrevolution and Western imperialist invasions, but you haven't acknowledged these real-world events.



wat0n wrote:
I think I provided a few examples. I'm not sure about what else do you want.



All you have to do is acknowledge, honestly, that there were *external* factors that deleteriously impacted the October Revolution from without.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, if you like this would be an apt example, though I don't advocate that paradigm of 'workers co-ops', or 'market socialism', because the politics don't challenge bourgeois ruling class capitalism / hegemony at all. Corporations would continue to exist, as would parasitic finance and nation-state imperialism.



wat0n wrote:
But even cooperatives have a hierarchy.



Sure -- and I mentioned that hierarchies could be the chosen *internal* structure of decision-making, if agreed-to by all members / workers within.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, such *wouldn't* depend on the industry -- managers *manage* workers, and workers produce the *commodities* that the company sells for revenue and profit. Managers do *not* produce the goods and services for the company, so they're not 'workers' / wage workers.



wat0n wrote:
Again, as I mentioned earlier: Good luck on having workers with barely high school doing the work of engineers :roll:



Well, I still maintain that most, if not all, work roles can be learned within *days* on-the-job, because they're usually circumscribed tasks as part of a larger assembly-line workflow process.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
CEOs / executives do not 'extract rents' -- they're paid *salaries* which are an overhead cost to the business itself.



wat0n wrote:
So their behavior was not an example of rent seeking in your view? :eh:



No, I just said that they're given a cut of the company because they're not wage workers producing commodities.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, investors aren't under any existential duress to invest. Much capital -- tens of trillions of dollars -- currently sits idle in tax havens / offshore accounts, for example.



wat0n wrote:
It's not "idle". It's invested in companies that set shop up there to pay less/no taxes, companies that often invest those funds in financial markets elsewhere.



Perhaps. Perhaps *not* -- how would anyone *know* when these accounts are so opaque?

Anyway, the *point* is that for capitalists economy activity is *optional*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, prospective workers can 'shop around' for an employer, and be as selective as they can *afford* to be. At some point, though, if a worker doesn't have the time and money to *shop around* then they are at a disadvantage in the jobs market, and will have to take *whatever* job gets them income as soon as possible, for the necessities of modern life and living. That's *duress*.



wat0n wrote:
That will depend on their savings and assets in practice.



Yes, that's what I just said.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This, then, *confirms* Marx's 'Declining Rate of Profit', and it's due to the increasing proportional component of *technology* in the productive process, as with industrial mass-production, and automation. (Using / abusing human *slaves* was far more profitable, and barbaric.)



wat0n wrote:
No, it doesn't. Under that hypothesis, the rate of profit should show a long run downward trend, not level off at a positive level.



Well it's not going *upward*. And, if you look at it over the *centuries* it's definitely been declining, as in that graph I provided earlier.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're being *vague* -- you need to provide your own argument here within the historical context that you're cited.



wat0n wrote:
Read this:

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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- it's the privatization of profits, while socializing the *costs*, like environmental degradation.



wat0n wrote:
Sort of. It's the current generations extracting the profits, while leaving the costs to the future ones.



I don't think all members of an entire *generation* profit from business, though, so that's an *overstatement*. Profits are strictly a *private* concern, not a generational one.

My point stands that profits are privatized while costs are socialized.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not just about logistical efficiency, though -- you just acknowledged that environmental degradation is a resulting factor in production, and that such needs to be *politicized* / socialized so that it can be appropriately addressed.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, there are many factors at play here.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But my critique-from-the-left is that it's *incorrect* because it's essentially *identity politics* -- radical feminism sees *gender* as the main deterministic divide in society ('patriarchy'), when it's actually *class* that's paramount, with race and gender, etc., being *ruling class strategies* used from above to divide-and-conquer the *working class*, as with the New York Times '1619' racialist line, recently retracted.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, you can see it in that way. Some people in this forum, the only political forum in the internets, see this in a similar manner.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *sidestepping* my point about *scarcity*, though -- instead of *encouraging* petty crime with the top-down imposition of artificial *scarcity*, as through austerity policies, government should be providing necessary things in *abundance* since the material capacity of production for it already exists.

You're arguing that interpersonal *drama* is the main cause of violent crime -- you need to provide some *evidence* for this contention.



wat0n wrote:
It doesn't need to be the main cause for violent crime for my point to hold. It suffices to be one of many causes to be correct.



Oh, well, in *that* case let's stop allowing capitalism's *artificial scarcity* to reign, and instead adopt governmental single-payer approaches so that existing productive machinery can be used to 100% full capacity, to produce an *abundance* of goods and services, to fulfill all basic necessities to everyone.

That way whatever violent crime *remains* can be dealt-with in a more focused kind of way, ruling out all *economic* concerns.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think that the increasingly-automated, fully-industrialized capitalist economy *would* simply collapse under its own weight, because we're already seeing the *auto* industry, for example, as now being *very* roboticized, with less human labor necessary, yet the auto companies retain all of the profits that they can get from that increased use of technology.

There's the 'subjective factor', meaning class-conscious proletarian activity, being required for the actual event / action of overthrowing bourgeois class rule, otherwise the ruling class will just continue to go with whatever means they have, given whatever conditions that prevail, to continue their rule.



wat0n wrote:
How does this square with your argument above that the added technology serves to decrease profits?



It squares just fine -- the *point* here was that capitalism is not just going to *collapse* from its own increasing top-heaviness. It *requires* the world's working class to intentionally *overthrow* it.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Wait -- *who's* 'getting raped and murdered', exactly?

A corporation *isn't* physically a person, though, and shouldn't enjoy the basic human *civil rights* that people do, which is what 'corporate personhood' is about.

Corporations *don't* get punished -- there may be *tiny* fines imposed, at worst, by the bourgeois legal system.



wat0n wrote:
The whole point of corporations is to make money, fines go directly against their raison d'etre. Large fines can also make them go bust, just see what happened to Purdue Pharma with Oxycontin, last year they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections as a result of the lawsuits.



Oh, well that's a *good* thing because they were a *public menace* and also the *worst* drug-pusher on *any* block. This is an *excellent* example of why various kinds of business need to be *politicized* because these corporations won't just go away of their own accord, no matter how many deaths they cause.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, my politics is *not* 'messianic', because, as I just mentioned, people have interests *in common* according to their *class* position in society.



wat0n wrote:
It's messianic because you are making promises about salvation and the rise of a New World, radically better than the current one.



No, I'm actually *not* making any promises, if you look again -- I'm describing what proletarian revolution *requires*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Post-scarcity' isn't utopian, either -- the *capacity* for post-scarcity exists *today*, as for the mass production of humane-necessary goods and services like food, housing, education, transportation, utilities, etc.



wat0n wrote:
No, this is not true either. For instance for housing there are places with an acute scarcity of land, which is something that is not trivial to solve. In sectors like education, you need qualified professionals and there is also some scarcity of that (e.g. bilingual teachers in the US). And even for utilities, it may be hard for them to reach physically isolated areas to provide services.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just being *pessimistic* -- the entire *purpose* of an economy is to *solve* issues like these, but you're lacking the *political willpower* to even *try*.



wat0n wrote:
This is simply voluntarism.



I'm not *calling* for voluntarism, because voluntarism, in the present-day, would leave the status-quo *intact*. Remember that there's a *ruling class* that needs to be fully *overthrown* -- mere voluntarism won't suffice because regular people aren't in a position to give-away the means of mass industrial production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, I don't think that 'left-wing sectarianism' is accurate as a descriptor here, since the Nation of Islam is actually *black nationalist*, which *isn't* really left-wing. It's more like nationalist-*separatism* on the basis of race, and is *not* a left-wing-minded reformism, much less *revolutionary* on the basis of class.



wat0n wrote:
Fair point, that depends on how you define "left-wing"



How do *you* define it?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, let's review:


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#Theory


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *inputs* are $20 in labor value / labor-power from the worker, and $20 in operating costs from the employer (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), for a total of $40 in costs.

The *outputs* are $10 in wages to the worker, $10 in surplus labor value to the employer, and $20 in capital / operating costs recovered by the employer, for a total of $40.

The $10 in surplus labor value *should* go to the wage worker, but it doesn't -- it's a *theft* of labor value which comprises the employer's *profit* of $10 on an investment of $30, or 33% profit, in this example.



wat0n wrote:
Why should it go to the worker, as opposed to the owners of the capital used by the business or to the business owner for taking the risk and the opportunity cost of even owning a business (instead of doing something else)?



Because the business owner / capitalist gets their *money back* -- the $20, in this example.

The labor-power *value* provided by the worker is $20, but the worker only got $10 in wages -- why should the $10 in surplus value go to the owners of capital when they already got their money back from their investment?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, again, this is none of your concern. You have no business in suddenly pretending to be a Marxist historian when you're not even pro-socialism in any sense of the word.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not pretending to be a Marxist historian, I'm simply pointing out a fact.



---


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.



wat0n wrote:
Oh, I understand the difference it's simply that this is how revolutions tend to work.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking of *bourgeois* history again.



wat0n wrote:
I'm thinking of history, without adjective.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're thinking of (bourgeois) *nationalist* history -- the history of nation-states.



wat0n wrote:
That holds for revolutions carried out even before nation-states existed.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Name one.



wat0n wrote:
The French Revolution ended with Napoleon, didn't it? And this was before the rise of the Nation-State, since France was a post-feudal society in the late 18th century.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Again this is too facile -- you're trying to say that *all* revolutions end in dictatorship, when not all revolutions are even *proletarian*. The French Revolution, which you chose as an example, was a *bourgeois* revolution, as I already saw upfront (above). So was the American Revolution -- bourgeois, not proletarian.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but the French Revolution is an example of what I mentioned. The American Revolution is more interesting, but it did end with an authoritarian move - even if it ended up becoming a Federal Republic.



Back to the original topic of this segment, you *should* be able to differentiate between Stalinism, and workers-of-the-world socialism. Now you're citing *bourgeois* revolutions, which *aren't* proletarian ones, so if you want to indict / blame *workers-of-the-world socialism* for whatever dictatorships followed them in history, you're going to have to get better at making the distinction between what's socialism, and what's *not* socialism, and what surrounding historical factors were pertinent.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And just how large are you positing this group to be? Dozens? Hundreds?

I've *already* addressed this, so maybe you should go back and consider how I addressed this scenario of yours.



wat0n wrote:
It depends. But why couldn't a whole region threaten with secession to extract rents from everyone else?



I already *covered* this -- it would be a historical political-economy step *backward*, since workers-of-the-world communism would enable a truly *worldwide economy*. That region would be *marooning* itself, and to no benefit compared to just working within the already-globalized post-capitalist world economy.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this conceptualization / understanding of yours is *wrong* -- labor credits are not deterministic of how *infrastructure* is used, as in the sense of (capitalistic) 'cost'.

A proposal with a *zillion* pledged / committed labor credits and a proposal with *zero* labor credits would both be on even ground in respect to scheduling calendar time on a particular factory -- the *crucial* factor would be sufficient / appropriate numbers of available-and-willing liberated laborers to do all of the component *work roles* for whatever given project. If a policy package isn't 'finalized' -- meaning having all of the materially necessary details nailed-down / finalized, particularly that of available-and-willing liberated laborers to cover all of the work roles' necessary *time slots*, then it will automatically *lose out* on the use of productive equipment (factories) and finished or natural resources, to any policy package that *is* finalized.

And among *finalized* policy packages that are in 'competition' for any given 'commons' infrastructure or resources, there *may* have to be a determining *run-off*, as I previously described:



wat0n wrote:
Even in that case, the "winning" project would have priority until new resources for its commission are found. Of course, if it were feasible to do both projects concurrently then there is no issue - but there can be cases where it is not.



Yes, if there's no logistical overlap then there's no problem.

In cases where there *is* logistical overlap I've already described the *determination* process, that being a popular 'run-off', according to mass-aggregated individual-prioritized daily demands lists.

You're making shit up again that has no relation to my model whatsoever.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, to be clear, the labor credits in-hand have *no bearing* on the selection and usage of any given commons -- meaning infrastructure / factories, and/or finished or natural resources.



wat0n wrote:
Then what do they have bearing on, exactly?



The labor credits only circulate among *liberated laborers*, either ones with labor credits in-hand, necessarily from their own past liberated-labor work efforts, and among *active* liberated laborers who will be receiving labor credits once their work role schedule(s) is/are fulfilled, according to the active policy package.

It's the active policy package that contains all of the *details* / provisions for any given project -- matters of infrastructure used, resources used, and even specific liberated-laborers, can all be specified in any given 'policy package'. You may want to look at the 'checks-and-balances' section of my labor credits FAQ to get a better sense of all of it.


Spoiler: show
...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)

- The contribution of one's potential liberated labor to societal objectives would always be fully optional, since the premise of a communist-type social order is that no one could ever be *actually* coerced for their labor since the ubiquitous norm would be that no productive machinery or natural resources in the world could be used on a *proprietary* / private-accumulation basis, while all the material necessities for life and living would always be in readily-available, sufficient quantities for all. Collective social productivity would be *very good* using post-capitalist, communist-type liberated-labor self-organizing, leveraged with full automation of all productive processes, for *huge* ratios of industrial mass-production output, per hour of liberated labor input. (Individual vs. socio-political and material realms)

- Mass demand, as displayed publicly, per-locality, by the daily mass-aggregated tallied rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), will always be an existing social-pressure, specifically regarding liberated labor contributions to the general social good for varying qualities of public consumption. Such active liberated labor may or may not receive labor credits for their valid efforts, depending on such general *implementation* of circulating labor credits, or not, and the specifics of any active policy package. (Socio-political and material realms vs. individuals)

- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)

- Any intra-voluntary 'locality' could collectively develop and agree-on any particular proposal or final policy package, with specifics over staffing, rates of labor credits per included work role, and work schedules for all work roles / liberated-laborers, but if the liberated-labor-internal social process *did not approve* of the terms for any given proposal or policy package they would not *forfeit* their collective control over the implements of mass industrial production as a result -- realistically the result would most-likely be a *devolving* of larger-scale work organizing, since no agreement was reached between mass-demand and self-organized liberated-labor. Production could still take place on any ad-hoc basis, with liberated labor always getting 'first dibs' on anything they themselves produce, but it would be far more small-scale, localized, and balkanized than if larger-scale, multi-locality proposals and policy packages could be realized, for material economies of scale. (Liberated-labor vs. consumers)

- Any given finalized policy package will include a formal announcement of key proponents, politically responsible for that project's implementation, if satisfactory participation to cover all the necessary components of it is present. There is never any *standing*, *institutional* administration over everything, as we're used to seeing historically at the nationalist level. If a project *isn't* performing up to formal expectations (as detailed in its policy package), the proponents can be replaced with a mass-approved (exceeding in ranking over the initial policy package) proposal that 'tweaks' those details that need changing, such as which personnel, exactly, are deemed to be the formal 'proponents' of that project. (Consumers vs. administration)

- Proponents of any given active finalized policy package would have considerable logistical social latitude for administrating over its implementation, depending-on / limited-by its finalized detailed terms. In some instances, for example, proponents over *several* localities, of several *similar* policy packages -- say, over agriculture -- or even at regional, continental, and *global* scales -- may cross-coordinate to *generalize* production across many similar policy packages, for the sake of greater efficiencies of scale. (Administration vs. consumers)

- Proponents are meant to represent the exact terms of an active finalized policy package, and by extension, to also represent popular demand for certain material production and/or socio-political initiatives. Proponents may bring attention to certain aspects of the active finalized policy package in the course of its implementation, as with any possible differences on the part of active liberated-labor on the project. (Administration vs. liberated-labor)

- Liberated-labor will always be able to physically organize internally, without external interference. Depending on each active finalized policy package's provisions, liberated laborers may decide on their own the details of *how* they collectively supply their labor, to meet the objectives of that policy package -- as with specific personnel of their own, which work roles are absolutely necessary, the scheduling of work shifts and personnel, what geographical location(s) are to be used, how machinery is to be used, what the supply chains with other factories are, how the bulk-pooled labor credits funding is to be divided-up, if any additional funding of labor credits is needed, or even if locality debt issuances for additional labor credits are to be called-for, what maintenance may be needed on infrastructure / machinery, what education or training may be required for certain workers, etc. (Liberated-labor vs. administration)

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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're also assuming that there would *have* to be an either-or -- all that has to happen is for the 'smaller group', *or* the 'larger group', to find suitable infrastructure and/or resources *elsewhere*, that may be disused and available. Then *both* groups would be able to produce *in parallel*. If this isn't possible, then maybe *scheduling options* would be possible, with some kind of amiable 'switching-off' of use, over specific calendar time, between the two groups, or else one is prioritized, and then the other follows.



wat0n wrote:
If you need to schedule, then you are prioritizing, and if you are prioritizing then one group will get what they want before the other. That alone is a form of inequality in outcomes.



Yeah, well, I didn't invent the physical world -- things can get messy, and what you're saying is a real real-world possibility. It wouldn't be up to you or me, either -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure out any given situation, like this one.

In this case, though, there are no *fixed* social-status 'levels', or power hierarchy of any kind -- any 'prioritizations' would be specific to the *logistical situation* itself, and not to the particular participants so much, as particular participants.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just *making shit up* and *imputing* it onto my model framework, which you've demonstrated that you don't even *understand* fully to begin-with.

Nowhere in *any* of my writings on the topic of my 'labor credits' model do I *ever* mention the concept of 'seniority', because it *doesn't exist* within the description of my model.

It's the *labor credits* that *explicitly*, *quantitatively* measure one's formal capacity to 'fund' any given 'work roles', to the extent desired, bounded by the actual quantity of labor credits in-hand.



wat0n wrote:
How do you accumulate labor credits?



One accumulates labor credits by working at specific work roles that are specified in any given policy package. This assumes that the actual labor-credit *funding* is available, as specified, per a *finalized* polcy package, if any labor-credits funding is called-for. Work roles (per project / proposal / policy package) have different *multipliers* on their work hours, so an *easier* work role (like 'work-from-home mattress testing') will have a multiplier of '1', meaning that one hour of work-from-home mattress testing will yield one labor credit. Maybe 'making beer' will have a multiplier of 4, meaning that one hour of 'making beer' will yield 4 labor credits, or maybe 6, or whatever -- the multipliers would ultimately *float*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, there's no need for *any* standing administration, or government, and so there isn't any.

The 'accounting' is from the ongoing circulation of the labor credits themselves, and such 'accounting' details will be a component part of any given 'policy package', as over component work roles and their possible 'funding' by certain specified ratios of labor credits per hour of liberated labor (work-role 'multipliers').

Labor credits *won't* expire, because that would require *enforcement* / standing-administration, and there isn't any. There also aren't any 'caps' on the individual's accumulation of labor credits, except for the objective physical limits of living in a 24/7/365 timespace -- *biological* limits, in other words.



wat0n wrote:
What do you mean by "circulation of labor credits"?



The labor credits *circulate* and are passed-forward from liberated laborers who have earned them, necessarily from their own past work roles completed, to those 'incoming' liberated laborers who are currently working and who have funding guarantees / pledges / commitments, from those liberated laborers who have labor credits in-hand.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But 'identity politics' is *bullshit* because it doesn't have any solid *material basis* -- I, as a five-foot-nine person am not going to get any particularly *special* / particular consideration, politically, because I'm five feet and nine inches tall, even if I consider that to be my 'personal identity' and announce it all over the place.

Identity politics is only valid as being socially progressive compared to whatever's to the *right*, politically, of it -- so, for example, being *black* is politically significant and historically-progressive compared to the government's use of institutional racism / policy brutality, *against* people of color, disproportionately.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but people still engage in it. I also agree it is often bullshit, not always, but all too often.



Yeah, it's all *relative*, as I just outlined. (Also see the 'political spectrum' illustration there.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *government* should be the 'single-payer' provider of any and all drugs, so as to *distribute* and *regulate* them, to users and abusers, under government supervision.



wat0n wrote:
So I assume you'd have a government monopoly here, am I right? But then how would you bar others from participating?



Well, this is essentially 'radical-reformism' in nature, or *Stalinism*, basically -- but the 'government' aspect could be fully superseded, and quickly, once it's at that point, by a fully worldwide workers-of-the-world proletarian revolution.

(If you can't compete with Walmart then you're definitely not going to be able to compete with a Stalinist-type governmental monopoly over all goods and services.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You haven't *provided* any history, so there's nothing for me to consider. Also, you're *overstepping* again, politically, since you have no valid political interests in communist *internal* matters.



wat0n wrote:
Why was Yugoslavia's system different from the other socialist ones?



Tito's Yugoslavia was really more like workers co-ops than *socialism*, really -- it was just a latter-day version of USSR-style Stalinism, but more Western-facing, politically.

I've run into adherents of Titoism but it was in no way *revolutionary*, in the interests of the working class.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think 'crushing the will of security forces' *is* a significant factor, and *would* be important, and even crucial, to the outcome of a revolution. You seem to forget that revolution = class war.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but it's far from being the only crucial factor. Security forces could split as well, with some whose will has not been crushed putting up a fight. It depends a lot on the situation.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup.



wat0n wrote:
Which is why you would likely have an easier time if this did not happen, and you coopted them first.



Hmmmm, I don't know if 'co-opted' is quite the appropriate term here -- 'co-opted' tends to imply *rightward* political shifting, as in being 'bought off', etc. Maybe 'won over' would be a better term to use.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, if 'false consciousness' didn't exist then we'd all be living in socialism *right now* due to the overwhelming population of people in the world who *are* materially working class.



wat0n wrote:
This seems like wishful thinking more than anything else.



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not 'wishful thinking' -- it was a *hypothetical*, for the sake of *argument*.



wat0n wrote:
I would say it is. Even if class was the only factor, it's not clear people would prefer to overthrow the current system rather than simply reform it.



You're *digressing* again -- my point stands that I was just making a *hypothetical*.

Yes, since 'false consciousness' *does* exist, and is well-funded by the capitalist media, etc., people will not necessarily identify with their true class interests.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Bullshit -- the top executives *do* have hegemonic power within their company, and even in the larger industry, because they're the top-of-the-heap, and they can effectively *veto* the decisions of any subordinates.



wat0n wrote:
No, that's not exactly true. Even in the US there is a Federal service for that:

https://www.fmcs.gov/



No, you're pointing to an *external*, *governmental* entity -- I was indicating about corporate relations *internal* to the corporation. You haven't contended the content of what I said.
#15123172
ckaihatsu wrote:You're now talking about government *politically*, but we *started* by discussing it *economically* -- there are no exchanges, since procurement is done *internally*. There's no commerce, exchanges, or production of commodities by the government, economically.


No, it's also economic. Or more precisely, political economy.

Also, in practice governments do procure externally.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, okay, then you *forfeit* this point. My point stands that the real estate agent is *internal*, and a *cost*, to the real estate business, and does *not* produce any commodities. The sales service is *not* separate from the real estate business itself.

Factory workers -- *any* workers, really, blue-, pink-, or white-collar -- are *internal* to a factory's business because they're the ones who produce the actual *commodities* for the company, goods and/or services.


If the real estate agent and the factory workers are both internal to the business, then what's the difference between both? Also, can a real estate business do its job as a broker with no agents at all?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, Marxism isn't mainly concerned with making predictions -- you're thinking of clinical science.

Marxism is both science *and* ideology, I'd say, offhand.


If it's a science then it does concern itself with predictions, and explanations as well.

ckaihatsu wrote:All you have to do is acknowledge, honestly, that there were *external* factors that deleteriously impacted the October Revolution from without.


1) Those factors you mention hold for any revolution: Revolutionary governments are often ambitious internationally and this leads to pushback.

2) Even without international intervention, they had to fight a revolutionary war and win - hence the imposition of war communism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- and I mentioned that hierarchies could be the chosen *internal* structure of decision-making, if agreed-to by all members / workers within.


Sure, they could vote for whoever will take on management roles. But if they do, it means management is also a productive activity.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, I still maintain that most, if not all, work roles can be learned within *days* on-the-job, because they're usually circumscribed tasks as part of a larger assembly-line workflow process.


That holds for mechanical/repetitive roles. Those do tend to be the ones that are easier to automate, though.

Other roles are far from easy to learn, and it may take years for someone to do so even if having the academic credentials for the job.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I just said that they're given a cut of the company because they're not wage workers producing commodities.


Even though they end up screwing the equity capitalists in the process...?

ckaihatsu wrote:Perhaps. Perhaps *not* -- how would anyone *know* when these accounts are so opaque?

Anyway, the *point* is that for capitalists economy activity is *optional*.


How else do you think these investments generate a return that is a form income and therefore gets treated as income taxes in most jurisdictions?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, that's what I just said.


And thus that's not something inherent to being a worker. An investor that has a need to generate an income could also be forced to shop around for investments, or just eat his savings.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well it's not going *upward*. And, if you look at it over the *centuries* it's definitely been declining, as in that graph I provided earlier.


ckaihatsu wrote:It squares just fine -- the *point* here was that capitalism is not just going to *collapse* from its own increasing top-heaviness. It *requires* the world's working class to intentionally *overthrow* it.


A series since 1870 is hardly "centuries", it's more like 150 years - and even in these long series there are papers suggesting the rate of profit has been flattening out in the long run.

And it actually makes sense, if it was not profitable to own capital at all, then people would just let it depreciate and gradually consume their savings, leading to a destruction of capital - and then an increase in its profitability in the long run. The same holds for business profits - if no activities were profitable, you would just consume your income in the present until you are satisfied, and if any was left it would have a return of 0% and you would consume it tomorrow.

After all, why take any risks at all if there was no expected return? This is why your arguments here do not square that well.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think all members of an entire *generation* profit from business, though, so that's an *overstatement*. Profits are strictly a *private* concern, not a generational one.

My point stands that profits are privatized while costs are socialized.


Sure, there could be people in the present generation who don't benefit. That doesn't quite negate what I said: The ones who get truly screwed over are those who haven't been born yet.

In that sense, more than socialized, costs get dumped onto the future generations.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, well, in *that* case let's stop allowing capitalism's *artificial scarcity* to reign, and instead adopt governmental single-payer approaches so that existing productive machinery can be used to 100% full capacity, to produce an *abundance* of goods and services, to fulfill all basic necessities to everyone.

That way whatever violent crime *remains* can be dealt-with in a more focused kind of way, ruling out all *economic* concerns.


So you are acknowledging some sort of police would need to play part in this society?

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, well that's a *good* thing because they were a *public menace* and also the *worst* drug-pusher on *any* block. This is an *excellent* example of why various kinds of business need to be *politicized* because these corporations won't just go away of their own accord, no matter how many deaths they cause.


But this was done under the current system. They do need to face the consequences for what they did, and the bottom line here is money. I think that after they are done with Purdue Pharma they intend to go after their owners to pay any outstanding compensation.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I'm actually *not* making any promises, if you look again -- I'm describing what proletarian revolution *requires*.


You do have an overarching vision on what should this revolution lead to, however.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not *calling* for voluntarism, because voluntarism, in the present-day, would leave the status-quo *intact*. Remember that there's a *ruling class* that needs to be fully *overthrown* -- mere voluntarism won't suffice because regular people aren't in a position to give-away the means of mass industrial production.


What I mean is that your position is effectively voluntarism. What, will revolution also create more land...?

ckaihatsu wrote:How do *you* define it?


Great question. I think, traditionally the main definition is economic and particularly a position against markets and capitalism. A secondary definition is more geared towards identity categories, particularly giving preference to allegedly disadvantaged and/or oppressed categories (e.g. if talking about class, consider the poor/low income people/proletariat). I think the latter is becoming more and more prevalent, somewhat like it used to be in the late 18th/early and mid 19th century.

ckaihatsu wrote:Because the business owner / capitalist gets their *money back* -- the $20, in this example.

The labor-power *value* provided by the worker is $20, but the worker only got $10 in wages -- why should the $10 in surplus value go to the owners of capital when they already got their money back from their investment?


Why is that value $20 and not $10, with the remainder corresponding to capital or opportunity costs? You could say that it's because the capital would not produce without the workers, but the truth is that the workers would also not nearly make as much without the capital. And this scenario would not even exist if the business owner had simply decided to operate in a different industry or just be a worker.

ckaihatsu wrote:Back to the original topic of this segment, you *should* be able to differentiate between Stalinism, and workers-of-the-world socialism. Now you're citing *bourgeois* revolutions, which *aren't* proletarian ones, so if you want to indict / blame *workers-of-the-world socialism* for whatever dictatorships followed them in history, you're going to have to get better at making the distinction between what's socialism, and what's *not* socialism, and what surrounding historical factors were pertinent.


Since it doesn't make sense to talk about proletarian revolutions after the existence of the Nation-State (after all, Marxist theory began to take its shape as the European Spring was approaching), I'm not sure about what to make of this. But if what you are saying is that e.g. the USSR was not socialist, firstly, I would disagree - it was one type of socialism; secondly, if it's not the type of socialism you support that's fine but then what examples can you provide of a proletarian revolution ending like you want it to end?

ckaihatsu wrote:I already *covered* this -- it would be a historical political-economy step *backward*, since workers-of-the-world communism would enable a truly *worldwide economy*. That region would be *marooning* itself, and to no benefit compared to just working within the already-globalized post-capitalist world economy.


Backwards or not, it would be hardly unprecedented for the worldwide economy to become more regional/national and less worldwide. It has happened several times in history, with what I do agree are nefarious consequences.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, if there's no logistical overlap then there's no problem.

In cases where there *is* logistical overlap I've already described the *determination* process, that being a popular 'run-off', according to mass-aggregated individual-prioritized daily demands lists.

You're making shit up again that has no relation to my model whatsoever.


Again, what happens if most workers are actually losers in this popular run-off?

ckaihatsu wrote:The labor credits only circulate among *liberated laborers*, either ones with labor credits in-hand, necessarily from their own past liberated-labor work efforts, and among *active* liberated laborers who will be receiving labor credits once their work role schedule(s) is/are fulfilled, according to the active policy package.

It's the active policy package that contains all of the *details* / provisions for any given project -- matters of infrastructure used, resources used, and even specific liberated-laborers, can all be specified in any given 'policy package'. You may want to look at the 'checks-and-balances' section of my labor credits FAQ to get a better sense of all of it.


Spoiler: show
...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)

- The contribution of one's potential liberated labor to societal objectives would always be fully optional, since the premise of a communist-type social order is that no one could ever be *actually* coerced for their labor since the ubiquitous norm would be that no productive machinery or natural resources in the world could be used on a *proprietary* / private-accumulation basis, while all the material necessities for life and living would always be in readily-available, sufficient quantities for all. Collective social productivity would be *very good* using post-capitalist, communist-type liberated-labor self-organizing, leveraged with full automation of all productive processes, for *huge* ratios of industrial mass-production output, per hour of liberated labor input. (Individual vs. socio-political and material realms)

- Mass demand, as displayed publicly, per-locality, by the daily mass-aggregated tallied rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), will always be an existing social-pressure, specifically regarding liberated labor contributions to the general social good for varying qualities of public consumption. Such active liberated labor may or may not receive labor credits for their valid efforts, depending on such general *implementation* of circulating labor credits, or not, and the specifics of any active policy package. (Socio-political and material realms vs. individuals)

- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)

- Any intra-voluntary 'locality' could collectively develop and agree-on any particular proposal or final policy package, with specifics over staffing, rates of labor credits per included work role, and work schedules for all work roles / liberated-laborers, but if the liberated-labor-internal social process *did not approve* of the terms for any given proposal or policy package they would not *forfeit* their collective control over the implements of mass industrial production as a result -- realistically the result would most-likely be a *devolving* of larger-scale work organizing, since no agreement was reached between mass-demand and self-organized liberated-labor. Production could still take place on any ad-hoc basis, with liberated labor always getting 'first dibs' on anything they themselves produce, but it would be far more small-scale, localized, and balkanized than if larger-scale, multi-locality proposals and policy packages could be realized, for material economies of scale. (Liberated-labor vs. consumers)

- Any given finalized policy package will include a formal announcement of key proponents, politically responsible for that project's implementation, if satisfactory participation to cover all the necessary components of it is present. There is never any *standing*, *institutional* administration over everything, as we're used to seeing historically at the nationalist level. If a project *isn't* performing up to formal expectations (as detailed in its policy package), the proponents can be replaced with a mass-approved (exceeding in ranking over the initial policy package) proposal that 'tweaks' those details that need changing, such as which personnel, exactly, are deemed to be the formal 'proponents' of that project. (Consumers vs. administration)

- Proponents of any given active finalized policy package would have considerable logistical social latitude for administrating over its implementation, depending-on / limited-by its finalized detailed terms. In some instances, for example, proponents over *several* localities, of several *similar* policy packages -- say, over agriculture -- or even at regional, continental, and *global* scales -- may cross-coordinate to *generalize* production across many similar policy packages, for the sake of greater efficiencies of scale. (Administration vs. consumers)

- Proponents are meant to represent the exact terms of an active finalized policy package, and by extension, to also represent popular demand for certain material production and/or socio-political initiatives. Proponents may bring attention to certain aspects of the active finalized policy package in the course of its implementation, as with any possible differences on the part of active liberated-labor on the project. (Administration vs. liberated-labor)

- Liberated-labor will always be able to physically organize internally, without external interference. Depending on each active finalized policy package's provisions, liberated laborers may decide on their own the details of *how* they collectively supply their labor, to meet the objectives of that policy package -- as with specific personnel of their own, which work roles are absolutely necessary, the scheduling of work shifts and personnel, what geographical location(s) are to be used, how machinery is to be used, what the supply chains with other factories are, how the bulk-pooled labor credits funding is to be divided-up, if any additional funding of labor credits is needed, or even if locality debt issuances for additional labor credits are to be called-for, what maintenance may be needed on infrastructure / machinery, what education or training may be required for certain workers, etc. (Liberated-labor vs. administration)

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


ckaihatsu wrote:One accumulates labor credits by working at specific work roles that are specified in any given policy package. This assumes that the actual labor-credit *funding* is available, as specified, per a *finalized* polcy package, if any labor-credits funding is called-for. Work roles (per project / proposal / policy package) have different *multipliers* on their work hours, so an *easier* work role (like 'work-from-home mattress testing') will have a multiplier of '1', meaning that one hour of work-from-home mattress testing will yield one labor credit. Maybe 'making beer' will have a multiplier of 4, meaning that one hour of 'making beer' will yield 4 labor credits, or maybe 6, or whatever -- the multipliers would ultimately *float*.


ckaihatsu wrote:The labor credits *circulate* and are passed-forward from liberated laborers who have earned them, necessarily from their own past work roles completed, to those 'incoming' liberated laborers who are currently working and who have funding guarantees / pledges / commitments, from those liberated laborers who have labor credits in-hand.


So they would be basically physical notes? That's what I don't understand and what I meant by the question you answered in the second quote - if they are not notes, who keeps track of the credits and how is this task performed? When you say they would "circulate", then would there be a clearinghouse of sorts if physical notes were not used?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, well, I didn't invent the physical world -- things can get messy, and what you're saying is a real real-world possibility. It wouldn't be up to you or me, either -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure out any given situation, like this one.

In this case, though, there are no *fixed* social-status 'levels', or power hierarchy of any kind -- any 'prioritizations' would be specific to the *logistical situation* itself, and not to the particular participants so much, as particular participants.


Right, the physical world is indeed messy - which is why I'm skeptical of this system. Now as for hierarchies, if workers can stock on labor credits, wouldn't older workers tend to have more of those because... Well, they are older, so they may have worked for longer.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this is essentially 'radical-reformism' in nature, or *Stalinism*, basically -- but the 'government' aspect could be fully superseded, and quickly, once it's at that point, by a fully worldwide workers-of-the-world proletarian revolution.

(If you can't compete with Walmart then you're definitely not going to be able to compete with a Stalinist-type governmental monopoly over all goods and services.)


So this government aspect would be enforced by using a police force to prevent third parties from illegally producing drugs... Right?

ckaihatsu wrote:Tito's Yugoslavia was really more like workers co-ops than *socialism*, really -- it was just a latter-day version of USSR-style Stalinism, but more Western-facing, politically.

I've run into adherents of Titoism but it was in no way *revolutionary*, in the interests of the working class.


I would say whether Titoism was socialist or not is in the eye of the beholder. But it was meaningfully different from the USSR when it came to the existence of small businesses.

ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, I don't know if 'co-opted' is quite the appropriate term here -- 'co-opted' tends to imply *rightward* political shifting, as in being 'bought off', etc. Maybe 'won over' would be a better term to use.


Sure.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *digressing* again -- my point stands that I was just making a *hypothetical*.

Yes, since 'false consciousness' *does* exist, and is well-funded by the capitalist media, etc., people will not necessarily identify with their true class interests.


I think that it's more like class interests are not the only sorts of interests working classes, and humans in general, care about.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're pointing to an *external*, *governmental* entity -- I was indicating about corporate relations *internal* to the corporation. You haven't contended the content of what I said.


Even internally, there can be conflict resolution mechanisms. Indeed, there is an interest for the business to have harmonious relations between workers and management since strikes can be costly, although I'll grant you it is by no means absolute. That's exactly why there is a Federal service for mediation, even (again) in a country with widespread use of at-will arrangements like the US.
#15123264
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're now talking about government *politically*, but we *started* by discussing it *economically* -- there are no exchanges, since procurement is done *internally*. There's no commerce, exchanges, or production of commodities by the government, economically.



wat0n wrote:
No, it's also economic. Or more precisely, political economy.

Also, in practice governments do procure externally.



Okay, yes, government often 'outsources' these days, putting up contracts for bidding, but many major industries are dominated by the same 'vendors', like the military-industrial complex, for defense contracts. Finance is another oligopolic industry (Goldman Sachs, etc.).

So *my* point on this, carrying over from the 'R&D' segment, is that often big government and big industry is so *intertwined* as to be outright Stalinistic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, okay, then you *forfeit* this point. My point stands that the real estate agent is *internal*, and a *cost*, to the real estate business, and does *not* produce any commodities. The sales service is *not* separate from the real estate business itself.

Factory workers -- *any* workers, really, blue-, pink-, or white-collar -- are *internal* to a factory's business because they're the ones who produce the actual *commodities* for the company, goods and/or services.



wat0n wrote:
If the real estate agent and the factory workers are both internal to the business, then what's the difference between both? Also, can a real estate business do its job as a broker with no agents at all?



You have to distinguish between actual commodity-production, and *non*-commodity-production regarding this-or-that work role -- the factory workers *all* produce commodities (goods and/or services), and their wages are based on the *revenue* of the company's sale of the commodities they produce.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



The real estate agent *facilitates* the company's business, which is real estate sales / rentals. Since real estate is *financial*, over *rentier* capital (not equity investments), there are *no* commodities being produced, and all rentier capital is *not* historically-progressive the way equity capital is, which *does* produce commodities that people need for their lives and livelihoods. The real estate agent's salary, then, is an overhead *cost* to the real estate business, whether or not that company's rentier capital realizes sales and rent payments, or not.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, Marxism isn't mainly concerned with making predictions -- you're thinking of clinical science.

Marxism is both science *and* ideology, I'd say, offhand.



wat0n wrote:
If it's a science then it does concern itself with predictions, and explanations as well.



Nope -- repeating this erroneous line of yours doesn't make it any more truthful.

The *scientific* part is in *analysis*, such as whether Trump can really pull off a coup, or not, or if he's just bullshitting as usual. But there's a Marxist phrase that 'Philosophers merely *interpret* the world, the point is to *change* it.'

So in this sense the 'science' of Marxism is also about being *proactive*, as in the class struggle.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
All you have to do is acknowledge, honestly, that there were *external* factors that deleteriously impacted the October Revolution from without.



wat0n wrote:
1) Those factors you mention hold for any revolution: Revolutionary governments are often ambitious internationally and this leads to pushback.

2) Even without international intervention, they had to fight a revolutionary war and win - hence the imposition of war communism.



1. Okay -- 'pushback'. Thank you for honestly acknowledging that Bolshevism wasn't defeated by itself.

2. I'll argue that the Bolshevik Revolution was mostly *internal*, which was its strength and also its weakness -- it *had* to spread to workers in the rest of Europe, notably Germany. It didn't. It got *corralled* and *that's* where the 'war' part arose, because 'war' implies 'an opponent'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- and I mentioned that hierarchies could be the chosen *internal* structure of decision-making, if agreed-to by all members / workers within.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, they could vote for whoever will take on management roles. But if they do, it means management is also a productive activity.



I don't think you *understand* here -- for the workers themselves any and all 'managerial' type duties would all be *internal* to their own (collective) productive activities. So, for example, if they needed to reach-out to workers at other factories, regarding supply-chains issues, such a task could be done by *any* of the workers, and the follow-up could be done by *any* of the workers, because all such outreach pertains to the *collective*. It's *capital* that requires a *separation*, and professional *specialization* of 'management' / administration so that such managers can look after the interests of the *capital* they represent.

Workers don't have that requirement -- they can accomplish 'administrative'- / managerial-type roles as a collective. Even if one particular worker is *designated* to handle outreach tasks, they wouldn't be working / functioning in any *private* capacity, as for a particular piece of *capital* -- their work for the collective would be subject to collective oversight and their role would be recallable at any time by a *vote* of those workers.

Capital management roles are *non-productive* of commodities because those managerial roles do *not* produce commodities -- they're *overhead*, and a cost, to the business entity itself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, I still maintain that most, if not all, work roles can be learned within *days* on-the-job, because they're usually circumscribed tasks as part of a larger assembly-line workflow process.



wat0n wrote:
That holds for mechanical/repetitive roles. Those do tend to be the ones that are easier to automate, though.

Other roles are far from easy to learn, and it may take years for someone to do so even if having the academic credentials for the job.



Well now you've hit-on-the-fact-of / described the *managerial* function -- many / most white-collar-type jobs are more associated, socio-politically, with the *business* than with the production of commodities.

So if a company needs an engineer, that educated, knowledgeable engineer will be serving mostly in an *advisory* role to the company, which is *non-productive of commodities*. They function, then, in the interests of *management*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I just said that they're given a cut of the company because they're not wage workers producing commodities.



wat0n wrote:
Even though they end up screwing the equity capitalists in the process...?



Well, you're describing a *particular* scenario in which the top executives have somehow managed to *take advantage* of company resources -- but such is all *internal*, anyway, to the bosses, since they're all ultimately on the *same side*, politically. Executives are part of the bourgeois *ruling class*, so we can't be surprised that they get oversized compensation packages based on the actual work / commodity-production done by the company's *wage workers*. That's what the exploitation of wage labor enables.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps *not* -- how would anyone *know* when these accounts are so opaque?

Anyway, the *point* is that for capitalists economy activity is *optional*.



wat0n wrote:
How else do you think these investments generate a return that is a form income and therefore gets treated as income taxes in most jurisdictions?



You're just describing *capitalism* now, and tax havens are actually a *dodge* from participating in the circulation of capital and facilitating the production of commodities. As I understand it, money in tax havens does *not* circulate, and is *not* used for investments. It just is *hoarded* and sits there, and government uses *public money* to inject into the economy, propping up 'zombie companies', to keep the entire system from grinding to a (low-GDP-growtth) deflationary halt.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, prospective workers can 'shop around' for an employer, and be as selective as they can *afford* to be. At some point, though, if a worker doesn't have the time and money to *shop around* then they are at a disadvantage in the jobs market, and will have to take *whatever* job gets them income as soon as possible, for the necessities of modern life and living. That's *duress*.



wat0n wrote:
That will depend on their savings and assets in practice.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's what I just said.



wat0n wrote:
And thus that's not something inherent to being a worker. An investor that has a need to generate an income could also be forced to shop around for investments, or just eat his savings.



You're really *denying* that workers have to earn a wage, so as to cover their bills?

An owner of capital / investor *has* money already, while the worker *does not*, and does not have the option of putting capital to work.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well it's not going *upward*. And, if you look at it over the *centuries* it's definitely been declining, as in that graph I provided earlier.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It squares just fine -- the *point* here was that capitalism is not just going to *collapse* from its own increasing top-heaviness. It *requires* the world's working class to intentionally *overthrow* it.



wat0n wrote:
A series since 1870 is hardly "centuries", it's more like 150 years - and even in these long series there are papers suggesting the rate of profit has been flattening out in the long run.

And it actually makes sense, if it was not profitable to own capital at all, then people would just let it depreciate and gradually consume their savings, leading to a destruction of capital - and then an increase in its profitability in the long run. The same holds for business profits - if no activities were profitable, you would just consume your income in the present until you are satisfied, and if any was left it would have a return of 0% and you would consume it tomorrow.

After all, why take any risks at all if there was no expected return? This is why your arguments here do not square that well.



You're *exaggerating* -- I didn't say that capital has *zero* profitability, I pointed to empirical data that shows a *decline* in profitability over the centuries.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think all members of an entire *generation* profit from business, though, so that's an *overstatement*. Profits are strictly a *private* concern, not a generational one.

My point stands that profits are privatized while costs are socialized.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, there could be people in the present generation who don't benefit. That doesn't quite negate what I said: The ones who get truly screwed over are those who haven't been born yet.

In that sense, more than socialized, costs get dumped onto the future generations.



No, you're *exaggerating* again, to implicitly purport that future generations will not have *any* economy whatsoever. Sure, GDP *growth* is currently shitty and doesn't seem to have prospects for *improving*, but since you're acknowledging that you can't generalize economy activity (or lack of it) to all members of an entire *generation*, then that means you're looking at the wrong demographic for your analysis -- a much better metric would be to look at *class* membership, throughout any and *all* generations.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, well, in *that* case let's stop allowing capitalism's *artificial scarcity* to reign, and instead adopt governmental single-payer approaches so that existing productive machinery can be used to 100% full capacity, to produce an *abundance* of goods and services, to fulfill all basic necessities to everyone.

That way whatever violent crime *remains* can be dealt-with in a more focused kind of way, ruling out all *economic* concerns.



wat0n wrote:
So you are acknowledging some sort of police would need to play part in this society?



No, I don't mean to imply that *policing* is a good approach to addressing social ills whatsoever -- as I've stated before, the *government bureaucracy* can fill-in-the-gap with *humane* social services, following the abolition of police departments. Optimally anti-social offenders could be handled on a case-by-case basis, with customized approaches of social services to properly address their needs.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, well that's a *good* thing because they were a *public menace* and also the *worst* drug-pusher on *any* block. This is an *excellent* example of why various kinds of business need to be *politicized* because these corporations won't just go away of their own accord, no matter how many deaths they cause.



wat0n wrote:
But this was done under the current system. They do need to face the consequences for what they did, and the bottom line here is money. I think that after they are done with Purdue Pharma they intend to go after their owners to pay any outstanding compensation.



Great. I'm all for that as a governmental reform, or regulation of the private sector. The precedent is the tobacco industry case.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I'm actually *not* making any promises, if you look again -- I'm describing what proletarian revolution *requires*.



wat0n wrote:
You do have an overarching vision on what should this revolution lead to, however.



Yes. (And why 'however' -- ? A vision is *not* automatically a 'promise'.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not *calling* for voluntarism, because voluntarism, in the present-day, would leave the status-quo *intact*. Remember that there's a *ruling class* that needs to be fully *overthrown* -- mere voluntarism won't suffice because regular people aren't in a position to give-away the means of mass industrial production.



wat0n wrote:
What I mean is that your position is effectively voluntarism. What, will revolution also create more land...?



Oh, you mean the communist gift-economy, post-capitalism.

It's still not 'voluntarism' in the sense of one-off individual approaches to individual-scale social issues, like volunteering at a nursing home, or whatever.

The reason for worldwide *proletarian revolution* is to overthrow *capitalism*, bourgeois class rule, and the present-day exploitation of surplus labor value. Everything productive can be collectivized and controlled by the workers of the world, collectively, for workers' benefit directly.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, I don't think that 'left-wing sectarianism' is accurate as a descriptor here, since the Nation of Islam is actually *black nationalist*, which *isn't* really left-wing. It's more like nationalist-*separatism* on the basis of race, and is *not* a left-wing-minded reformism, much less *revolutionary* on the basis of class.



wat0n wrote:
Fair point, that depends on how you define "left-wing"



ckaihatsu wrote:
How do *you* define it?



wat0n wrote:
Great question. I think, traditionally the main definition is economic and particularly a position against markets and capitalism. A secondary definition is more geared towards identity categories, particularly giving preference to allegedly disadvantaged and/or oppressed categories (e.g. if talking about class, consider the poor/low income people/proletariat). I think the latter is becoming more and more prevalent, somewhat like it used to be in the late 18th/early and mid 19th century.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Because the business owner / capitalist gets their *money back* -- the $20, in this example.

The labor-power *value* provided by the worker is $20, but the worker only got $10 in wages -- why should the $10 in surplus value go to the owners of capital when they already got their money back from their investment?



wat0n wrote:
Why is that value $20 and not $10, with the remainder corresponding to capital or opportunity costs? You could say that it's because the capital would not produce without the workers, but the truth is that the workers would also not nearly make as much without the capital. And this scenario would not even exist if the business owner had simply decided to operate in a different industry or just be a worker.



The labor value in this example is $20 because the *revenue* from the sale of the commodity (boots), was *$40*.

In other words there's a surplus of *value* due to the capitalist production process -- we all know that capitalism is *great* at economic growth, especially early-on (not so much now), and so it's hardly a zero-sum game. It's facilitated all of the economic growth that we see today, particularly through industrial mass-production techniques.

And, yeah, we all know that the equation is capital + exploited-labor = revenue -- that's *capitalism*.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Back to the original topic of this segment, you *should* be able to differentiate between Stalinism, and workers-of-the-world socialism. Now you're citing *bourgeois* revolutions, which *aren't* proletarian ones, so if you want to indict / blame *workers-of-the-world socialism* for whatever dictatorships followed them in history, you're going to have to get better at making the distinction between what's socialism, and what's *not* socialism, and what surrounding historical factors were pertinent.



wat0n wrote:
Since it doesn't make sense to talk about proletarian revolutions after the existence of the Nation-State (after all, Marxist theory began to take its shape as the European Spring was approaching), I'm not sure about what to make of this. But if what you are saying is that e.g. the USSR was not socialist, firstly, I would disagree - it was one type of socialism; secondly, if it's not the type of socialism you support that's fine but then what examples can you provide of a proletarian revolution ending like you want it to end?



This may be the *crux* of our differences, semantically -- you think that the term 'socialism' is somehow *flexible*, and can accommodate a variety of political-economy configurations.

I, on the other hand, go by the *non-revisionist* definition of 'socialism'. Here's from the Communist Manifesto:



I. Bourgeois and Proletarians*

The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.



So, *no*, Stalinism is *not* socialism, because Stalin didn't empower the working class, or 'proletariat'.

The nation-state configuration is a *bourgeois* one, and doesn't confer any benefits to the working class since the working class has no part in *controlling* the bourgeois nation-state.

Regarding historical *examples* of socialism, here are *two*, though very short-lived:


October Revolution

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


Hungarian Revolution of 1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... on_of_1956


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I already *covered* this -- it would be a historical political-economy step *backward*, since workers-of-the-world communism would enable a truly *worldwide economy*. That region would be *marooning* itself, and to no benefit compared to just working within the already-globalized post-capitalist world economy.



wat0n wrote:
Backwards or not, it would be hardly unprecedented for the worldwide economy to become more regional/national and less worldwide. It has happened several times in history, with what I do agree are nefarious consequences.



You're not understanding that a post-capitalist, post-class political-economy environment would be *different* -- there would no longer be nationalist bourgeois *factions of ownership* competing with each other, thus there would be no *benefit* from a contrived 'regional-factionalism' because private interests would no longer exist. It would be akin to trying to corral the *air that we breathe* according to *geography*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, if there's no logistical overlap then there's no problem.

In cases where there *is* logistical overlap I've already described the *determination* process, that being a popular 'run-off', according to mass-aggregated individual-prioritized daily demands lists.

You're making shit up again that has no relation to my model whatsoever.



wat0n wrote:
Again, what happens if most workers are actually losers in this popular run-off?



The losing policy package in a run-off would have to defer to the policy package that *won* the run-off.

Workers *themselves* would *never* be 'winners' or 'losers' because they're ultimately *not bound* to this-or-that policy package. They are never under any obligation or material duress to participate. Either things get done, or they don't, on the whole.

Post-revolution *everyone* could say 'I'm not producing *shit*', and then that post-capitalist society in particular could devolve into a *pre-class* hunter-gatherer *foraging* existence, but I really doubt that would happen, but it would be up to the people of *that* post-capitalist society, anyway.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The labor credits only circulate among *liberated laborers*, either ones with labor credits in-hand, necessarily from their own past liberated-labor work efforts, and among *active* liberated laborers who will be receiving labor credits once their work role schedule(s) is/are fulfilled, according to the active policy package.

It's the active policy package that contains all of the *details* / provisions for any given project -- matters of infrastructure used, resources used, and even specific liberated-laborers, can all be specified in any given 'policy package'. You may want to look at the 'checks-and-balances' section of my labor credits FAQ to get a better sense of all of it.


ckaihatsu wrote:
One accumulates labor credits by working at specific work roles that are specified in any given policy package. This assumes that the actual labor-credit *funding* is available, as specified, per a *finalized* polcy package, if any labor-credits funding is called-for. Work roles (per project / proposal / policy package) have different *multipliers* on their work hours, so an *easier* work role (like 'work-from-home mattress testing') will have a multiplier of '1', meaning that one hour of work-from-home mattress testing will yield one labor credit. Maybe 'making beer' will have a multiplier of 4, meaning that one hour of 'making beer' will yield 4 labor credits, or maybe 6, or whatever -- the multipliers would ultimately *float*.


ckaihatsu wrote:
The labor credits *circulate* and are passed-forward from liberated laborers who have earned them, necessarily from their own past work roles completed, to those 'incoming' liberated laborers who are currently working and who have funding guarantees / pledges / commitments, from those liberated laborers who have labor credits in-hand.



wat0n wrote:
So they would be basically physical notes? That's what I don't understand and what I meant by the question you answered in the second quote - if they are not notes, who keeps track of the credits and how is this task performed? When you say they would "circulate", then would there be a clearinghouse of sorts if physical notes were not used?



The *physical form* of the labor credits themselves is not important -- it could be the 'keychain tags' seen in my 'labor credits' diagram, or physical notes, or just entries on spreadsheets, with the serial numbers noted.

What you *may* be asking about is how labor credits *come into existence*, and there's a section for that:



Overall, some benefits of *using* labor credits are that every liberated-worker who *receives* labor credits for their work done, according to any pre-made policy package, knows that real like-proportionate *work* has already preceded their own, embodied in the physical labor credits themselves (unless the labor credits used are entirely *debt-based*, from a locality -- more on this later). This approach means that however *willing* a subset of the population may be for *doing* socially-necessary work, they will never be exploited by the non-work-performing part of the population, because they will always receive a pool of labor credits for their work done for the social good, according to a previously existing, possibly mass-popular, policy package.



Sure -- all efforts are *pre-planned*, according to formal proposals and, eventually, finalized policy packages. So if orange production requires 'x' number of distinct work roles, those work roles must be specified explicitly in the policy package. At the same time *other*, *competing* proposals / policy packages may be in the mix as well, with different parameters set, like more (or fewer) labor credits budgeted for the work roles, more (or fewer) work roles themselves, specification of specific, favored liberated laborers, etc. Anything not-specified in the formal, finalized policy package would fall to the collective discretion of liberated-laborers who are active, per-project / -production-run.

This means that the labor credits are 'fundraised' upfront, so that the liberated workers can see that they actually exist in advance of their starting their labors.

I *disagree* with your suggestion, though, because it would be elitist and would force the labor credits to act more like conventional exchange-value currency. Also, there's no 'voting', ever, within this model -- if people want to show relative favor for Proposal 'B' over Proposal 'A', they can simply give Proposal B a *higher ranking* on their next day's individual prioritized demands list, and over the whole locality the aggregated data from all such lists would show which proposal received the greatest number of tallies per rank position, over calendar time. (So that Proposal A may have the most tallies, 67,092, at rank position #2, on 5-8-2018, while newcomer Proposal B may have the most tallies, 55,839, at rank position #1, on 5-8-2018. Which one should be seen as the 'winner' -- ? Over calendar time Proposal A may have received *more* overall rank positions than newcomer Proposal B, though 'B' has received consistently *higher* rank positions, albeit fewer in total.

It would be up to the people interested and involved in this mass-decision-making process and issue to set some kind of *standard* for 'winning' (it's not up to me, obviously, since I'm not there) -- perhaps there would be a special 'Proposal A vs. Proposal B *runoff*', or maybe the standard would be overall *points* (1 divided by rank position, for #1 being 1 point -- 1/1 -- #2 being half a point -- 1/2 -- #3 being a *third* of a point, 1/3, and so on), with a deadline, cut-off date agreed to by the proponents of both proposals.

People in the affected / relevant geographical area ('locality' or larger) should be able to discuss and propose and be-involved in the *socio-political* side of the process, regardless of possessed labor credits, or none, because they could always be part of the *fundraising* efforts, from those who *do* have labor credits to potentially direct to this-or-that particular policy package. Worst case, if a locality decided within itself that some project urgently needed to go forward (let's say replacing a bridge), but sufficient numbers of labor credits could *not* be raised interally from the locality's population, the locality could always issue *debt-based* labor credits, and such is always a newsworthy event, so the information around it would always be publicly accessible, as on the Internet, etc. -- anyone could look up information about each labor credit by serial number to see if that labor credit (or many, by batch issuance) was debt-based or not, to personally decide what value those labor credits had to them, if any. A locality would be hurting its socio-political *reputation* if it repeatedly issued batches of labor credits without its members performing any liberated-work for *others* outside the locality, to earn labor credits to erase its collective locality labor-credit *debt*.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, well, I didn't invent the physical world -- things can get messy, and what you're saying is a real real-world possibility. It wouldn't be up to you or me, either -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure out any given situation, like this one.

In this case, though, there are no *fixed* social-status 'levels', or power hierarchy of any kind -- any 'prioritizations' would be specific to the *logistical situation* itself, and not to the particular participants so much, as particular participants.



wat0n wrote:
Right, the physical world is indeed messy - which is why I'm skeptical of this system. Now as for hierarchies, if workers can stock on labor credits, wouldn't older workers tend to have more of those because... Well, they are older, so they may have worked for longer.



Sure -- that's a distinct possibility, which wouldn't be a bad one. Or, possibly, those older liberated-laborers would have already *used* all of their past labor credits earned, by paying-them-forward to 'incoming' liberated laborers, for whatever work roles, for whatever policy packages.

Remember that labor credits are *only* passed-forward to incoming liberated laborers, and that's the sole function. They're *internal* to the subset population of liberated laborers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this is essentially 'radical-reformism' in nature, or *Stalinism*, basically -- but the 'government' aspect could be fully superseded, and quickly, once it's at that point, by a fully worldwide workers-of-the-world proletarian revolution.

(If you can't compete with Walmart then you're definitely not going to be able to compete with a Stalinist-type governmental monopoly over all goods and services.)



wat0n wrote:
So this government aspect would be enforced by using a police force to prevent third parties from illegally producing drugs... Right?



I actually *don't know*, because I'm *not* politically a reformist -- I *welcome* any and all governmental social-service-providing *reforms*, all the way to radical-reformist *nationalization* of whole industries, basically being Stalinism (nationalist-bureaucratic administration), but I don't *advocate* any Stalinism or Stalinist politics. I advocate workers-of-the-world socialism, which, at the point of *nationalization*, would be a small matter for the workers of the world since so much of the economy would have already been so *centralized* at that point, with serious existing *leftward* political momentum prevailing.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Tito's Yugoslavia was really more like workers co-ops than *socialism*, really -- it was just a latter-day version of USSR-style Stalinism, but more Western-facing, politically.

I've run into adherents of Titoism but it was in no way *revolutionary*, in the interests of the working class.



wat0n wrote:
I would say whether Titoism was socialist or not is in the eye of the beholder. But it was meaningfully different from the USSR when it came to the existence of small businesses.



Bullshit -- suddenly you want to make political economy sound *subjective* -- !

All anyone has to do is to look at how social production got done, who was in control, how infrastructure and resources were apportioned, etc.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Hmmmm, I don't know if 'co-opted' is quite the appropriate term here -- 'co-opted' tends to imply *rightward* political shifting, as in being 'bought off', etc. Maybe 'won over' would be a better term to use.



wat0n wrote:
Sure.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *digressing* again -- my point stands that I was just making a *hypothetical*.

Yes, since 'false consciousness' *does* exist, and is well-funded by the capitalist media, etc., people will not necessarily identify with their true class interests.



wat0n wrote:
I think that it's more like class interests are not the only sorts of interests working classes, and humans in general, care about.



Class, though, even at the *individual* level, is *unavoidable*, because one exists *in relation to* the society's means of mass industrial production. If one owns capital, then one can *benefit* from the exploitation of labor, through the expropriation of surplus labor value, but if one does *not* own capital, then one *cannot* benefit from private ownership, and one has to sell one's own labor-power in the jobs market, to an employer, for a wage, for the means of modern life and living.

Everything else in one's life is *based* on this fact, and *follows* from it.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're pointing to an *external*, *governmental* entity -- I was indicating about corporate relations *internal* to the corporation. You haven't contended the content of what I said.



wat0n wrote:
Even internally, there can be conflict resolution mechanisms. Indeed, there is an interest for the business to have harmonious relations between workers and management since strikes can be costly, although I'll grant you it is by no means absolute. That's exactly why there is a Federal service for mediation, even (again) in a country with widespread use of at-will arrangements like the US.



That governmental department you linked to is a *union-busting* agency, which goes to prove my assertion that *all* government is *bourgeois*, or *ruling class*.

'Mediation' does *not* favor workers interests.
#15123551
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, yes, government often 'outsources' these days, putting up contracts for bidding, but many major industries are dominated by the same 'vendors', like the military-industrial complex, for defense contracts. Finance is another oligopolic industry (Goldman Sachs, etc.).

So *my* point on this, carrying over from the 'R&D' segment, is that often big government and big industry is so *intertwined* as to be outright Stalinistic.


Military procurement is far from being the only one, and there are plenty of industries without oligopolies that also deal with the government.

ckaihatsu wrote:You have to distinguish between actual commodity-production, and *non*-commodity-production regarding this-or-that work role -- the factory workers *all* produce commodities (goods and/or services), and their wages are based on the *revenue* of the company's sale of the commodities they produce.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



The real estate agent *facilitates* the company's business, which is real estate sales / rentals. Since real estate is *financial*, over *rentier* capital (not equity investments), there are *no* commodities being produced, and all rentier capital is *not* historically-progressive the way equity capital is, which *does* produce commodities that people need for their lives and livelihoods. The real estate agent's salary, then, is an overhead *cost* to the real estate business, whether or not that company's rentier capital realizes sales and rent payments, or not.


So what you are saying is that a real estate agent who finds people who want to buy homes and match them to the homes they wish is not producing a commodity, but an independent consultant who makes a living by finding people who need a job and matches them with employers is.

ckaihatsu wrote:Nope -- repeating this erroneous line of yours doesn't make it any more truthful.

The *scientific* part is in *analysis*, such as whether Trump can really pull off a coup, or not, or if he's just bullshitting as usual. But there's a Marxist phrase that 'Philosophers merely *interpret* the world, the point is to *change* it.'

So in this sense the 'science' of Marxism is also about being *proactive*, as in the class struggle.


As usual, Marxists don't even know what science is or how it works.

ckaihatsu wrote:1. Okay -- 'pushback'. Thank you for honestly acknowledging that Bolshevism wasn't defeated by itself.

2. I'll argue that the Bolshevik Revolution was mostly *internal*, which was its strength and also its weakness -- it *had* to spread to workers in the rest of Europe, notably Germany. It didn't. It got *corralled* and *that's* where the 'war' part arose, because 'war' implies 'an opponent'.


So you want to impose your ideology by force, then complain when you get pushback and also complain for the consequences taking the necessary measures for surviving? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think you *understand* here -- for the workers themselves any and all 'managerial' type duties would all be *internal* to their own (collective) productive activities. So, for example, if they needed to reach-out to workers at other factories, regarding supply-chains issues, such a task could be done by *any* of the workers, and the follow-up could be done by *any* of the workers, because all such outreach pertains to the *collective*. It's *capital* that requires a *separation*, and professional *specialization* of 'management' / administration so that such managers can look after the interests of the *capital* they represent.

Workers don't have that requirement -- they can accomplish 'administrative'- / managerial-type roles as a collective. Even if one particular worker is *designated* to handle outreach tasks, they wouldn't be working / functioning in any *private* capacity, as for a particular piece of *capital* -- their work for the collective would be subject to collective oversight and their role would be recallable at any time by a *vote* of those workers.

Capital management roles are *non-productive* of commodities because those managerial roles do *not* produce commodities -- they're *overhead*, and a cost, to the business entity itself.


So what you are saying is that, for example, a barely literate worker could manage a very specialized machine just as well as a guy who has a graduate degree and has specialized in working with that machine :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:Well now you've hit-on-the-fact-of / described the *managerial* function -- many / most white-collar-type jobs are more associated, socio-politically, with the *business* than with the production of commodities.

So if a company needs an engineer, that educated, knowledgeable engineer will be serving mostly in an *advisory* role to the company, which is *non-productive of commodities*. They function, then, in the interests of *management*.


What makes you believe an engineer is not working in production when performing her roles? :eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, you're describing a *particular* scenario in which the top executives have somehow managed to *take advantage* of company resources -- but such is all *internal*, anyway, to the bosses, since they're all ultimately on the *same side*, politically. Executives are part of the bourgeois *ruling class*, so we can't be surprised that they get oversized compensation packages based on the actual work / commodity-production done by the company's *wage workers*. That's what the exploitation of wage labor enables.


CEOs are not capitalists if they don't own capital, this is according to your own definitions. They are wage workers whether you like it or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just describing *capitalism* now, and tax havens are actually a *dodge* from participating in the circulation of capital and facilitating the production of commodities. As I understand it, money in tax havens does *not* circulate, and is *not* used for investments. It just is *hoarded* and sits there, and government uses *public money* to inject into the economy, propping up 'zombie companies', to keep the entire system from grinding to a (low-GDP-growtth) deflationary halt.


You would be understanding wrongly. A great example is Ireland - fits the definition of a tax haven - which houses the HQs of several global corporations precisely due to its low corporate taxes.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're really *denying* that workers have to earn a wage, so as to cover their bills?

An owner of capital / investor *has* money already, while the worker *does not*, and does not have the option of putting capital to work.


No, I'm saying the same logic applies to both: A capitalist is also relying on savings if he doesn't work or earn rents.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *exaggerating* -- I didn't say that capital has *zero* profitability, I pointed to empirical data that shows a *decline* in profitability over the centuries.


What's the profit rate at which capitalism collapses and why? I think we can agree there is a lower bound on the long run rate at 0% since it would not make much sense to take risks otherwise.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're *exaggerating* again, to implicitly purport that future generations will not have *any* economy whatsoever. Sure, GDP *growth* is currently shitty and doesn't seem to have prospects for *improving*, but since you're acknowledging that you can't generalize economy activity (or lack of it) to all members of an entire *generation*, then that means you're looking at the wrong demographic for your analysis -- a much better metric would be to look at *class* membership, throughout any and *all* generations.


This response doesn't make much sense. The ones who will have to deal with the brunt of the environmental consequences without many of the benefits, if any, of industrialization are those who have not been born yet.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I don't mean to imply that *policing* is a good approach to addressing social ills whatsoever -- as I've stated before, the *government bureaucracy* can fill-in-the-gap with *humane* social services, following the abolition of police departments. Optimally anti-social offenders could be handled on a case-by-case basis, with customized approaches of social services to properly address their needs.


Then you have yet to explain how would society deal with people who engage in violent crime without having any economic motivation to that effect (e.g. psychopaths).

ckaihatsu wrote:Great. I'm all for that as a governmental reform, or regulation of the private sector. The precedent is the tobacco industry case.


Indeed, that's a good precedent.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes. (And why 'however' -- ? A vision is *not* automatically a 'promise'.)


Does your vision include predictions regarding the economic development and living standards for the population?

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you mean the communist gift-economy, post-capitalism.

It's still not 'voluntarism' in the sense of one-off individual approaches to individual-scale social issues, like volunteering at a nursing home, or whatever.

The reason for worldwide *proletarian revolution* is to overthrow *capitalism*, bourgeois class rule, and the present-day exploitation of surplus labor value. Everything productive can be collectivized and controlled by the workers of the world, collectively, for workers' benefit directly.


It's voluntarism because you believe willing something is sufficient to get that something. For instance, willing to get more housing is great, but it's far from guaranteed in a world with limited good land. This is regardless of the economic or political system/policies in place.

ckaihatsu wrote:The labor value in this example is $20 because the *revenue* from the sale of the commodity (boots), was *$40*.

In other words there's a surplus of *value* due to the capitalist production process -- we all know that capitalism is *great* at economic growth, especially early-on (not so much now), and so it's hardly a zero-sum game. It's facilitated all of the economic growth that we see today, particularly through industrial mass-production techniques.

And, yeah, we all know that the equation is capital + exploited-labor = revenue -- that's *capitalism*.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


I don't think you added anything new in this response. You are basically defining labor value as sales - capital costs, which is hard to justify on its own.

ckaihatsu wrote:This may be the *crux* of our differences, semantically -- you think that the term 'socialism' is somehow *flexible*, and can accommodate a variety of political-economy configurations.

I, on the other hand, go by the *non-revisionist* definition of 'socialism'. Here's from the Communist Manifesto:

So, *no*, Stalinism is *not* socialism, because Stalin didn't empower the working class, or 'proletariat'.

The nation-state configuration is a *bourgeois* one, and doesn't confer any benefits to the working class since the working class has no part in *controlling* the bourgeois nation-state.

Regarding historical *examples* of socialism, here are *two*, though very short-lived:


October Revolution

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


Hungarian Revolution of 1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... on_of_1956


Do you have examples of any long-lived examples, and if not, why is it that these short-lived examples invariably fail?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not understanding that a post-capitalist, post-class political-economy environment would be *different* -- there would no longer be nationalist bourgeois *factions of ownership* competing with each other, thus there would be no *benefit* from a contrived 'regional-factionalism' because private interests would no longer exist. It would be akin to trying to corral the *air that we breathe* according to *geography*.


Is this a prediction or a wish?

ckaihatsu wrote:The losing policy package in a run-off would have to defer to the policy package that *won* the run-off.

Workers *themselves* would *never* be 'winners' or 'losers' because they're ultimately *not bound* to this-or-that policy package. They are never under any obligation or material duress to participate. Either things get done, or they don't, on the whole.

Post-revolution *everyone* could say 'I'm not producing *shit*', and then that post-capitalist society in particular could devolve into a *pre-class* hunter-gatherer *foraging* existence, but I really doubt that would happen, but it would be up to the people of *that* post-capitalist society, anyway.


If people don't get what they want in an election, they are normally regarded as losers in that election. You may say it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things ("they'll get their turn"), but you cannot know they will see things in the same way.

It's also why it's not impossible for secession to occur.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *physical form* of the labor credits themselves is not important -- it could be the 'keychain tags' seen in my 'labor credits' diagram, or physical notes, or just entries on spreadsheets, with the serial numbers noted.

What you *may* be asking about is how labor credits *come into existence*, and there's a section for that:


I actually don't find it all that strange for an unit of account to emerge - money after all fulfills that function.

But the physical function does matter. For instance, if it were on paper, how would you prevent people from counterfeiting labor credit bills? If it were electronic, would there be a labor credit clearinghouse to keep track of all changes and if so who would operate it?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- that's a distinct possibility, which wouldn't be a bad one. Or, possibly, those older liberated-laborers would have already *used* all of their past labor credits earned, by paying-them-forward to 'incoming' liberated laborers, for whatever work roles, for whatever policy packages.

Remember that labor credits are *only* passed-forward to incoming liberated laborers, and that's the sole function. They're *internal* to the subset population of liberated laborers.


Right, I can understand that. You earn labor credits for working, and once you spend them, they are gone. But in this world there could be generational conflicts, i.e. young people being assholes and not wishing to cater to the earned credits of older workers. It is far from impossible.

ckaihatsu wrote:I actually *don't know*, because I'm *not* politically a reformist -- I *welcome* any and all governmental social-service-providing *reforms*, all the way to radical-reformist *nationalization* of whole industries, basically being Stalinism (nationalist-bureaucratic administration), but I don't *advocate* any Stalinism or Stalinist politics. I advocate workers-of-the-world socialism, which, at the point of *nationalization*, would be a small matter for the workers of the world since so much of the economy would have already been so *centralized* at that point, with serious existing *leftward* political momentum prevailing.


How would a workers-of-the-world socialist society prevent this scenario?

ckaihatsu wrote:Bullshit -- suddenly you want to make political economy sound *subjective* -- !

All anyone has to do is to look at how social production got done, who was in control, how infrastructure and resources were apportioned, etc.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image


Then why is it that some see it as a socialist system?

ckaihatsu wrote:Class, though, even at the *individual* level, is *unavoidable*, because one exists *in relation to* the society's means of mass industrial production. If one owns capital, then one can *benefit* from the exploitation of labor, through the expropriation of surplus labor value, but if one does *not* own capital, then one *cannot* benefit from private ownership, and one has to sell one's own labor-power in the jobs market, to an employer, for a wage, for the means of modern life and living.

Everything else in one's life is *based* on this fact, and *follows* from it.


You could say analogous things about most other categories - race/ethnicity, nationality, spirituality, gender, etc.

ckaihatsu wrote:That governmental department you linked to is a *union-busting* agency, which goes to prove my assertion that *all* government is *bourgeois*, or *ruling class*.

'Mediation' does *not* favor workers interests.


In what sense is it an union busting agency? Why does mediation always fail to go in favor of workers' interests?
#15123586
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, yes, government often 'outsources' these days, putting up contracts for bidding, but many major industries are dominated by the same 'vendors', like the military-industrial complex, for defense contracts. Finance is another oligopolic industry (Goldman Sachs, etc.).

So *my* point on this, carrying over from the 'R&D' segment, is that often big government and big industry is so *intertwined* as to be outright Stalinistic.



wat0n wrote:
Military procurement is far from being the only one, and there are plenty of industries without oligopolies that also deal with the government.



Yes, it's a *mix*, but wherever and whenever certain corporations *dominate* their industry and are the go-to group for government contracts -- for whatever reasons -- then it may as well be Stalinist because of the public-sector-private-sector *merging*, effectively.

Ever heard the phrase 'Government Sachs' (meaning government + Goldman Sachs).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You have to distinguish between actual commodity-production, and *non*-commodity-production regarding this-or-that work role -- the factory workers *all* produce commodities (goods and/or services), and their wages are based on the *revenue* of the company's sale of the commodities they produce.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



The real estate agent *facilitates* the company's business, which is real estate sales / rentals. Since real estate is *financial*, over *rentier* capital (not equity investments), there are *no* commodities being produced, and all rentier capital is *not* historically-progressive the way equity capital is, which *does* produce commodities that people need for their lives and livelihoods. The real estate agent's salary, then, is an overhead *cost* to the real estate business, whether or not that company's rentier capital realizes sales and rent payments, or not.



wat0n wrote:
So what you are saying is that a real estate agent who finds people who want to buy homes and match them to the homes they wish is not producing a commodity, but an independent consultant who makes a living by finding people who need a job and matches them with employers is.



Correct -- the real estate agent is not producing any commodity-service that's *separate* from the real estate business of selling and renting properties.

An independent consultant -- a 'headhunter', basically -- presumably makes their money from the *sale*, the match between employer and employee, so there's a 'finder's fee', so the consultant is actually a *business*, and the sale is business-to-business. There's no guarantee that the headhunter will *find* a match, so all of the work upfront is a *cost* to the headhunting business. The commodity-service of headhunting is a service to the *employer* because the *employer* pays the fee upon approving a 'match'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope -- repeating this erroneous line of yours doesn't make it any more truthful.

The *scientific* part is in *analysis*, such as whether Trump can really pull off a coup, or not, or if he's just bullshitting as usual. But there's a Marxist phrase that 'Philosophers merely *interpret* the world, the point is to *change* it.'

So in this sense the 'science' of Marxism is also about being *proactive*, as in the class struggle.



wat0n wrote:
As usual, Marxists don't even know what science is or how it works.



Actually, I *thought* about this afterward -- I *made* a diagram for this, particularly, which shows a *schematic* symbolic language for depicting *any* socio-political situation, with an example instance:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Anatomy of a Platform: The News Cycle -- Anti-Trump-Dynasty

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
1. Okay -- 'pushback'. Thank you for honestly acknowledging that Bolshevism wasn't defeated by itself.

2. I'll argue that the Bolshevik Revolution was mostly *internal*, which was its strength and also its weakness -- it *had* to spread to workers in the rest of Europe, notably Germany. It didn't. It got *corralled* and *that's* where the 'war' part arose, because 'war' implies 'an opponent'.



wat0n wrote:
So you want to impose your ideology by force, then complain when you get pushback and also complain for the consequences taking the necessary measures for surviving? :eh:



No, the point is to get a proletarian revolution going in the here-and-now.

*You're* thinking of historical analysis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think you *understand* here -- for the workers themselves any and all 'managerial' type duties would all be *internal* to their own (collective) productive activities. So, for example, if they needed to reach-out to workers at other factories, regarding supply-chains issues, such a task could be done by *any* of the workers, and the follow-up could be done by *any* of the workers, because all such outreach pertains to the *collective*. It's *capital* that requires a *separation*, and professional *specialization* of 'management' / administration so that such managers can look after the interests of the *capital* they represent.

Workers don't have that requirement -- they can accomplish 'administrative'- / managerial-type roles as a collective. Even if one particular worker is *designated* to handle outreach tasks, they wouldn't be working / functioning in any *private* capacity, as for a particular piece of *capital* -- their work for the collective would be subject to collective oversight and their role would be recallable at any time by a *vote* of those workers.

Capital management roles are *non-productive* of commodities because those managerial roles do *not* produce commodities -- they're *overhead*, and a cost, to the business entity itself.



wat0n wrote:
So what you are saying is that, for example, a barely literate worker could manage a very specialized machine just as well as a guy who has a graduate degree and has specialized in working with that machine :roll:



Well, yes, actually, I *am* saying that because all that would most-likely be needed from that worker, on that very-specialized-machine, would be 1. Pull this handle, 2. Turn that knob to '22', 3. Lift the handle, -REPEAT-.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well now you've hit-on-the-fact-of / described the *managerial* function -- many / most white-collar-type jobs are more associated, socio-politically, with the *business* than with the production of commodities.

So if a company needs an engineer, that educated, knowledgeable engineer will be serving mostly in an *advisory* role to the company, which is *non-productive of commodities*. They function, then, in the interests of *management*.



wat0n wrote:
What makes you believe an engineer is not working in production when performing her roles? :eh:



Well, that boils down to the particular work-role -- *is* the engineer producing commodities, or *aren't* they?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, you're describing a *particular* scenario in which the top executives have somehow managed to *take advantage* of company resources -- but such is all *internal*, anyway, to the bosses, since they're all ultimately on the *same side*, politically. Executives are part of the bourgeois *ruling class*, so we can't be surprised that they get oversized compensation packages based on the actual work / commodity-production done by the company's *wage workers*. That's what the exploitation of wage labor enables.



wat0n wrote:
CEOs are not capitalists if they don't own capital, this is according to your own definitions. They are wage workers whether you like it or not.



Whether or not CEOs / executives are *personally* capitalists or not, it makes no difference -- executives do *not* produce commodities. Are they providing a (pink-collar-type) *service* to customers from the public? Are they on a (blue- or white-collar-type) *assembly line* and part of a process that produces a final product / good, for sale? No, they're *not* -- they're handling *company business*, which is *internal* to the business entity itself, and non-productive of the commodities that produce *revenue*, and *profits*, for the company. Executives are a *cost*, or 'overhead'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just describing *capitalism* now, and tax havens are actually a *dodge* from participating in the circulation of capital and facilitating the production of commodities. As I understand it, money in tax havens does *not* circulate, and is *not* used for investments. It just is *hoarded* and sits there, and government uses *public money* to inject into the economy, propping up 'zombie companies', to keep the entire system from grinding to a (low-GDP-growtth) deflationary halt.



wat0n wrote:
You would be understanding wrongly. A great example is Ireland - fits the definition of a tax haven - which houses the HQs of several global corporations precisely due to its low corporate taxes.



Okay, so are you going to provide any *evidence* for your implied claim that the Ireland tax haven puts the hoarded capital to *financial use* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're really *denying* that workers have to earn a wage, so as to cover their bills?

An owner of capital / investor *has* money already, while the worker *does not*, and does not have the option of putting capital to work.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm saying the same logic applies to both: A capitalist is also relying on savings if he doesn't work or earn rents.



The *difference*, though, is that the capitalist has the *option* of putting the savings to work as *capital*, and *does*, hence the description 'capitalist'. Someone who has savings but doesn't have enough to spare to use as *capital*, as for investments or rents, is 'unemployed'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *exaggerating* -- I didn't say that capital has *zero* profitability, I pointed to empirical data that shows a *decline* in profitability over the centuries.



wat0n wrote:
What's the profit rate at which capitalism collapses and why? I think we can agree there is a lower bound on the long run rate at 0% since it would not make much sense to take risks otherwise.



You're trying to *dodge* this segment's trajectory of discussion by *digressing*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're *exaggerating* again, to implicitly purport that future generations will not have *any* economy whatsoever. Sure, GDP *growth* is currently shitty and doesn't seem to have prospects for *improving*, but since you're acknowledging that you can't generalize economy activity (or lack of it) to all members of an entire *generation*, then that means you're looking at the wrong demographic for your analysis -- a much better metric would be to look at *class* membership, throughout any and *all* generations.



wat0n wrote:
This response doesn't make much sense. The ones who will have to deal with the brunt of the environmental consequences without many of the benefits, if any, of industrialization are those who have not been born yet.



Industrialization happened *centuries* ago -- here's a narrative on it:



Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I don't mean to imply that *policing* is a good approach to addressing social ills whatsoever -- as I've stated before, the *government bureaucracy* can fill-in-the-gap with *humane* social services, following the abolition of police departments. Optimally anti-social offenders could be handled on a case-by-case basis, with customized approaches of social services to properly address their needs.



wat0n wrote:
Then you have yet to explain how would society deal with people who engage in violent crime without having any economic motivation to that effect (e.g. psychopaths).



I'm not a criminal psychologist, nor a reformist, or Stalinist, so I'm going to demurr on this one, except to politically forward the same basic approach of government-social-services, so as to provide treatment on a *customized*, individualized basis.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Great. I'm all for that as a governmental reform, or regulation of the private sector. The precedent is the tobacco industry case.



wat0n wrote:
Indeed, that's a good precedent.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes. (And why 'however' -- ? A vision is *not* automatically a 'promise'.)



wat0n wrote:
Does your vision include predictions regarding the economic development and living standards for the population?



My political 'vision' is that of *Marxism* -- the workers of the world are a much better 'demographic' for determining how the world's machinery should be used, for their own best interests as workers, and for humane ends for all of humanity, as well.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you mean the communist gift-economy, post-capitalism.

It's still not 'voluntarism' in the sense of one-off individual approaches to individual-scale social issues, like volunteering at a nursing home, or whatever.

The reason for worldwide *proletarian revolution* is to overthrow *capitalism*, bourgeois class rule, and the present-day exploitation of surplus labor value. Everything productive can be collectivized and controlled by the workers of the world, collectively, for workers' benefit directly.



wat0n wrote:
It's voluntarism because you believe willing something is sufficient to get that something. For instance, willing to get more housing is great, but it's far from guaranteed in a world with limited good land. This is regardless of the economic or political system/policies in place.



Oh, you're indicating 'natural scarcities', or 'natural monopolies'. (Sorry, but it's *still* not 'voluntarism'.)

Yeah, I have an *approach* for this kind of thing -- it applies to choice geographical locations, to leftover items from capitalist production, in a post-capitalist setting, and any and all other 'semi-rare' items that may remain from capitalism, and be 'up-for-grabs' for personal possession and consumption, post-revolution:



'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.) *This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.


So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, or the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.



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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Because the business owner / capitalist gets their *money back* -- the $20, in this example.

The labor-power *value* provided by the worker is $20, but the worker only got $10 in wages -- why should the $10 in surplus value go to the owners of capital when they already got their money back from their investment?



wat0n wrote:
Why is that value $20 and not $10, with the remainder corresponding to capital or opportunity costs? You could say that it's because the capital would not produce without the workers, but the truth is that the workers would also not nearly make as much without the capital. And this scenario would not even exist if the business owner had simply decided to operate in a different industry or just be a worker.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The labor value in this example is $20 because the *revenue* from the sale of the commodity (boots), was *$40*.

In other words there's a surplus of *value* due to the capitalist production process -- we all know that capitalism is *great* at economic growth, especially early-on (not so much now), and so it's hardly a zero-sum game. It's facilitated all of the economic growth that we see today, particularly through industrial mass-production techniques.

And, yeah, we all know that the equation is capital + exploited-labor = revenue -- that's *capitalism*.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I don't think you added anything new in this response. You are basically defining labor value as sales - capital costs, which is hard to justify on its own.



Well, you're the one who *asked* me the question of labor / surplus value, versus capital, and I replied.

Here you're pretending as though there's no *surplus* labor value -- the employer put in $30 ($10 for wages for the worker, and $20 for overhead), and the *revenue* from that $30 investment was $40, which is $10 *more* afterwards than at the beginning. Due to bourgeois class rule that $10 in surplus labor value goes to the *employer*, as *profit*, and not to the worker who actually manufactured the commodity (boots).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This may be the *crux* of our differences, semantically -- you think that the term 'socialism' is somehow *flexible*, and can accommodate a variety of political-economy configurations.

I, on the other hand, go by the *non-revisionist* definition of 'socialism'. Here's from the Communist Manifesto:


I. Bourgeois and Proletarians*

The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.


So, *no*, Stalinism is *not* socialism, because Stalin didn't empower the working class, or 'proletariat'.

The nation-state configuration is a *bourgeois* one, and doesn't confer any benefits to the working class since the working class has no part in *controlling* the bourgeois nation-state.

Regarding historical *examples* of socialism, here are *two*, though very short-lived:


October Revolution

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


Hungarian Revolution of 1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... on_of_1956



wat0n wrote:
Do you have examples of any long-lived examples, and if not, why is it that these short-lived examples invariably fail?



No, there are no historical long-lived examples.

There are pretty-much only those two examples I cited, from the 20th century. You can feel free to *analyze* each as unique historical events, if you like. Good luck. I have a framework for any such historical analysis that you're free to use:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding that a post-capitalist, post-class political-economy environment would be *different* -- there would no longer be nationalist bourgeois *factions of ownership* competing with each other, thus there would be no *benefit* from a contrived 'regional-factionalism' because private interests would no longer exist. It would be akin to trying to corral the *air that we breathe* according to *geography*.



wat0n wrote:
Is this a prediction or a wish?



Neither.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The losing policy package in a run-off would have to defer to the policy package that *won* the run-off.

Workers *themselves* would *never* be 'winners' or 'losers' because they're ultimately *not bound* to this-or-that policy package. They are never under any obligation or material duress to participate. Either things get done, or they don't, on the whole.

Post-revolution *everyone* could say 'I'm not producing *shit*', and then that post-capitalist society in particular could devolve into a *pre-class* hunter-gatherer *foraging* existence, but I really doubt that would happen, but it would be up to the people of *that* post-capitalist society, anyway.



wat0n wrote:
If people don't get what they want in an election, they are normally regarded as losers in that election. You may say it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things ("they'll get their turn"), but you cannot know they will see things in the same way.

It's also why it's not impossible for secession to occur.



Again, you're just projecting, and *imposing* your own, present-day political-status-quo-based conceptualizations, *onto* what is a *post-capitalist* political-economy context -- which is *inappropriate*.

Realistically I think that *many* would decide to 'gift' *some* of their time every week in liberated-labor work roles, for the common good, and *many* would not. The more *automated* the industrial mass-production processes can be, through increased automation of such industrial processes, the *more* labor will be *leveraged*, and the *fewer* people will have to work in total, for everyone to get modern-day basic necessities, regardless of how many or how few actually do the work.

(A 'primitive' example these days is 3D printing which only requires *one* design, by someone, made available on the Internet, and then used through only 'executive'-type action, by *anyone*, to physically produce that design as a *finished object*, for any and all individuals. This is what a fully-automated communism could actually look like, but for *all* scales of produced items.)

Again, for the bounds of my communist-gift-economy-based 'labor credits' model framework, there *are no* professional, standing political representatives, and no government, and no elections.

I *just* explained why a contrived, imagined 'regionalist' faction would not get any socio-political *traction* post-capitalism, much-less would have any objective localist interest in 'seceding', but you're not really *understanding*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *physical form* of the labor credits themselves is not important -- it could be the 'keychain tags' seen in my 'labor credits' diagram, or physical notes, or just entries on spreadsheets, with the serial numbers noted.

What you *may* be asking about is how labor credits *come into existence*, and there's a section for that:


Overall, some benefits of *using* labor credits are that every liberated-worker who *receives* labor credits for their work done, according to any pre-made policy package, knows that real like-proportionate *work* has already preceded their own, embodied in the physical labor credits themselves (unless the labor credits used are entirely *debt-based*, from a locality -- more on this later). This approach means that however *willing* a subset of the population may be for *doing* socially-necessary work, they will never be exploited by the non-work-performing part of the population, because they will always receive a pool of labor credits for their work done for the social good, according to a previously existing, possibly mass-popular, policy package.


Sure -- all efforts are *pre-planned*, according to formal proposals and, eventually, finalized policy packages. So if orange production requires 'x' number of distinct work roles, those work roles must be specified explicitly in the policy package. At the same time *other*, *competing* proposals / policy packages may be in the mix as well, with different parameters set, like more (or fewer) labor credits budgeted for the work roles, more (or fewer) work roles themselves, specification of specific, favored liberated laborers, etc. Anything not-specified in the formal, finalized policy package would fall to the collective discretion of liberated-laborers who are active, per-project / -production-run.

This means that the labor credits are 'fundraised' upfront, so that the liberated workers can see that they actually exist in advance of their starting their labors.

I *disagree* with your suggestion, though, because it would be elitist and would force the labor credits to act more like conventional exchange-value currency. Also, there's no 'voting', ever, within this model -- if people want to show relative favor for Proposal 'B' over Proposal 'A', they can simply give Proposal B a *higher ranking* on their next day's individual prioritized demands list, and over the whole locality the aggregated data from all such lists would show which proposal received the greatest number of tallies per rank position, over calendar time. (So that Proposal A may have the most tallies, 67,092, at rank position #2, on 5-8-2018, while newcomer Proposal B may have the most tallies, 55,839, at rank position #1, on 5-8-2018. Which one should be seen as the 'winner' -- ? Over calendar time Proposal A may have received *more* overall rank positions than newcomer Proposal B, though 'B' has received consistently *higher* rank positions, albeit fewer in total.

It would be up to the people interested and involved in this mass-decision-making process and issue to set some kind of *standard* for 'winning' (it's not up to me, obviously, since I'm not there) -- perhaps there would be a special 'Proposal A vs. Proposal B *runoff*', or maybe the standard would be overall *points* (1 divided by rank position, for #1 being 1 point -- 1/1 -- #2 being half a point -- 1/2 -- #3 being a *third* of a point, 1/3, and so on), with a deadline, cut-off date agreed to by the proponents of both proposals.

People in the affected / relevant geographical area ('locality' or larger) should be able to discuss and propose and be-involved in the *socio-political* side of the process, regardless of possessed labor credits, or none, because they could always be part of the *fundraising* efforts, from those who *do* have labor credits to potentially direct to this-or-that particular policy package. Worst case, if a locality decided within itself that some project urgently needed to go forward (let's say replacing a bridge), but sufficient numbers of labor credits could *not* be raised interally from the locality's population, the locality could always issue *debt-based* labor credits, and such is always a newsworthy event, so the information around it would always be publicly accessible, as on the Internet, etc. -- anyone could look up information about each labor credit by serial number to see if that labor credit (or many, by batch issuance) was debt-based or not, to personally decide what value those labor credits had to them, if any. A locality would be hurting its socio-political *reputation* if it repeatedly issued batches of labor credits without its members performing any liberated-work for *others* outside the locality, to earn labor credits to erase its collective locality labor-credit *debt*.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions



wat0n wrote:
I actually don't find it all that strange for an unit of account to emerge - money after all fulfills that function.



Well, it's *not* money, though, because there are *no* exchanges of anything *for* the labor credits. The labor credits are simply *passed-forward*, to the incoming liberated laborers of choice, by those liberated laborers who have labor credits *in-hand*, necessarily from their own past labor done, *to* pass forward.


wat0n wrote:
But the physical function does matter. For instance, if it were on paper, how would you prevent people from counterfeiting labor credit bills? If it were electronic, would there be a labor credit clearinghouse to keep track of all changes and if so who would operate it?



I think you're forgetting that all labor credits would be a *social* instrument, and so would be subject to *socio-political* social reality -- imagine the entire current 'blogosphere' buzzing about *labor credits*, and their issuance, and the proposals and policy packages currently in formation, and the ideas people have for projects, and people's needs and desires *expressed*, and journalism around all of this, etc.

Counterfeiting could easily be avoided because, yes, all of the physical labor credits in circulation would have unique serial numbers and would be *trackable*, so two different, but identical labor credits, with identical serial numbers (one of them obviously being counterfeit), would both be *trackable*, and could very well take different, unique *paths* in circulation. (All finalized policy packages would list all constituent labor credits 'funded' for it, by individual labor-credit serial number, so all funding would be accounted-for, and would necessarily be public information.)

Since there's no government, it would be up to 'civil society' to track down where these labor credits were issued from, and how a counterfeit one got in, and where *that* came from, and all of this would basically be that society's collective *socio-material overhead*. Instead of tracking government *officials*, as we do today, that society might just deal with various *localities* at times, and their respective *debt-based issuances* of batches of labor credits, and probably the *trajectories* of all labor credits, by their unique serial numbers, etc. I think Internet-based technologies that exist today could do the rest, as with mirrored 'clearinghouse' servers, with some rising to social prominence for their efforts and the information around all of this, that they provide.

Related to this topic is the matter of computational infrastructure for the daily mass-aggregating of all daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists, over a locality or greater, and I've addressed this in the past:



-> What would the institution *look* like -- the one that aggregates these mass demands for the locality from individuals' daily demands?

It's actually *not* an institution -- all it is is a computer-sorting function, that would then automatically publish the aggregated mass-prioritizations daily out to the public, as online, at certain locations on displays, and in newspapers, etc.

I've considered that, in the interests of no-institutions and full transparency, the hardware itself could even be replaced on a daily basis with *brand-new* hardware (a regular PC), and those who are so interested could participate in installing the Linux operating system (OS) onto the computer (in an open, public space), then installing the 'sorting' open-source software (compiled fresh from the source code), and putting that PC into service for just that one day. There could also be observers in-person, and live video feeds of this daily process broadcast out over the Internet, with cameras and video feeds remaining pointed at the machine itself over the course of the day so that people can see both in-person and remotely exactly what's going on with this automatic-centralized process of information aggregation and distribution.

The database used could be made up of these fields:

ISSUER
AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)
ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)
FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY
FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE
GEOGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')
GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED
FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)
INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)
RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')
TITLE-DESCRIPTION
WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE
TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER
ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT
TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)
ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)
SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME
SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME
AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER
DENOMINATION
QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION
TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION
SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING
SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


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


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- that's a distinct possibility, which wouldn't be a bad one. Or, possibly, those older liberated-laborers would have already *used* all of their past labor credits earned, by paying-them-forward to 'incoming' liberated laborers, for whatever work roles, for whatever policy packages.

Remember that labor credits are *only* passed-forward to incoming liberated laborers, and that's the sole function. They're *internal* to the subset population of liberated laborers.



wat0n wrote:
Right, I can understand that. You earn labor credits for working, and once you spend them, they are gone.



Well, to be clear, the labor credits are *not* money, and they're never 'spent', because there are *no exchanges*. They're simply pledged / committed to certain 'incoming' liberated laborers, for certain work roles, for certain time slots / work shifts, for certain proposals or policy packages. Once the specified work is completed the labor credits are passed-forward for the work done.


wat0n wrote:
But in this world there could be generational conflicts, i.e. young people being assholes and not wishing to cater to the earned credits of older workers. It is far from impossible.



Of course. The young people, and *all* people, would be under *no obligation*, *ever*, to do any such catering, or any work of any kind whatsoever, according to the political economy of this 'labor credits' model framework. I can't speak to any aspects of whatever prevailing, organic, cultural, interpersonal *norms* may happen to be in place in that society, of course.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I actually *don't know*, because I'm *not* politically a reformist -- I *welcome* any and all governmental social-service-providing *reforms*, all the way to radical-reformist *nationalization* of whole industries, basically being Stalinism (nationalist-bureaucratic administration), but I don't *advocate* any Stalinism or Stalinist politics. I advocate workers-of-the-world socialism, which, at the point of *nationalization*, would be a small matter for the workers of the world since so much of the economy would have already been so *centralized* at that point, with serious existing *leftward* political momentum prevailing.



wat0n wrote:
How would a workers-of-the-world socialist society prevent this scenario?



I don't think that a workers-of-the-world socialism would *have* to *backslide*, as back to nationalist-bureaucratic administration / Stalinism, or back to capitalism, unless there was some *massively destructive*, natural-disaster-like event that *necessitated* very *disparate*, ad-hoc market-type exchanges, and even then a backsliding back to capitalism might still not be absolutely necessary or desirable, because all social *relations* would have already *collectivized* and could probably do quite well in that mode, even after catastrophic destruction -- it's tough to say definitively.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Tito's Yugoslavia was really more like workers co-ops than *socialism*, really -- it was just a latter-day version of USSR-style Stalinism, but more Western-facing, politically.

I've run into adherents of Titoism but it was in no way *revolutionary*, in the interests of the working class.



wat0n wrote:
I would say whether Titoism was socialist or not is in the eye of the beholder. But it was meaningfully different from the USSR when it came to the existence of small businesses.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Bullshit -- suddenly you want to make political economy sound *subjective* -- !

All anyone has to do is to look at how social production got done, who was in control, how infrastructure and resources were apportioned, etc.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Then why is it that some see it as a socialist system?



I'd have to look more into it, and I'm not that *interested* in such -- I may or may not get back to you on this particular topic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Class, though, even at the *individual* level, is *unavoidable*, because one exists *in relation to* the society's means of mass industrial production. If one owns capital, then one can *benefit* from the exploitation of labor, through the expropriation of surplus labor value, but if one does *not* own capital, then one *cannot* benefit from private ownership, and one has to sell one's own labor-power in the jobs market, to an employer, for a wage, for the means of modern life and living.

Everything else in one's life is *based* on this fact, and *follows* from it.



wat0n wrote:
You could say analogous things about most other categories - race/ethnicity, nationality, spirituality, gender, etc.



Sure, anyone can *say* anything, but what *I* just said was very *specific*, and is based in existing capitalist material economy.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That governmental department you linked to is a *union-busting* agency, which goes to prove my assertion that *all* government is *bourgeois*, or *ruling class*.

'Mediation' does *not* favor workers interests.



wat0n wrote:
In what sense is it an union busting agency? Why does mediation always fail to go in favor of workers' interests?



It's a stacked-deck. Again, on this one, give me some time and I'll see what details I can dig up.
#15123606
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, it's a *mix*, but wherever and whenever certain corporations *dominate* their industry and are the go-to group for government contracts -- for whatever reasons -- then it may as well be Stalinist because of the public-sector-private-sector *merging*, effectively.

Ever heard the phrase 'Government Sachs' (meaning government + Goldman Sachs).


It always depends on whether the procurement was "clean" or if there was corruption involved. Coincidentally, I do happen to work for a non-profit Federal contractor - although I don't think we're our industry leader.

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- the real estate agent is not producing any commodity-service that's *separate* from the real estate business of selling and renting properties.

An independent consultant -- a 'headhunter', basically -- presumably makes their money from the *sale*, the match between employer and employee, so there's a 'finder's fee', so the consultant is actually a *business*, and the sale is business-to-business. There's no guarantee that the headhunter will *find* a match, so all of the work upfront is a *cost* to the headhunting business. The commodity-service of headhunting is a service to the *employer* because the *employer* pays the fee upon approving a 'match'.


The consultant is indeed a business, one with a single worker if you want. Now let's change it for a consultant who works for an independent consulting firm. Is the consultant now a worker?

ckaihatsu wrote:Actually, I *thought* about this afterward -- I *made* a diagram for this, particularly, which shows a *schematic* symbolic language for depicting *any* socio-political situation, with an example instance:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Anatomy of a Platform: The News Cycle -- Anti-Trump-Dynasty

Spoiler: show
Image


I'm not sure about what to make of this.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the point is to get a proletarian revolution going in the here-and-now.

*You're* thinking of historical analysis.


Yes, and so should you.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, yes, actually, I *am* saying that because all that would most-likely be needed from that worker, on that very-specialized-machine, would be 1. Pull this handle, 2. Turn that knob to '22', 3. Lift the handle, -REPEAT-.


In a post-scarcity world, in fact, in the world that seems to already be approaching, that kind of thing would/will be done by a robot.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, that boils down to the particular work-role -- *is* the engineer producing commodities, or *aren't* they?


I would say they are, in the same way a single worker who has a repetitive role in one of the various phases of an assembly line is: Neither produces the final good, yet they are both necessary for production.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whether or not CEOs / executives are *personally* capitalists or not, it makes no difference -- executives do *not* produce commodities. Are they providing a (pink-collar-type) *service* to customers from the public? Are they on a (blue- or white-collar-type) *assembly line* and part of a process that produces a final product / good, for sale? No, they're *not* -- they're handling *company business*, which is *internal* to the business entity itself, and non-productive of the commodities that produce *revenue*, and *profits*, for the company. Executives are a *cost*, or 'overhead'.


So the company's janitor, for instance, would be akin to a capitalist like a CEO is to you? After all, the janitor is not producing any commodities or services to costumers.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so are you going to provide any *evidence* for your implied claim that the Ireland tax haven puts the hoarded capital to *financial use* -- ?


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

Note that it was used to avoid paying income taxes from activities done outside the US.

ckaihatsu wrote:The *difference*, though, is that the capitalist has the *option* of putting the savings to work as *capital*, and *does*, hence the description 'capitalist'. Someone who has savings but doesn't have enough to spare to use as *capital*, as for investments or rents, is 'unemployed'.


In today's world, though, you don't really need such a large initial capital to participate in financial markets.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're trying to *dodge* this segment's trajectory of discussion by *digressing*.


Not really, I simply want you to be more precise. At what levels of profitability would the revolution be expected to begin?

ckaihatsu wrote:Industrialization happened *centuries* ago -- here's a narrative on it:


No, I think the Industrial Revolution is still ongoing.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not a criminal psychologist, nor a reformist, or Stalinist, so I'm going to demurr on this one, except to politically forward the same basic approach of government-social-services, so as to provide treatment on a *customized*, individualized basis.


I am absolutely open to their opinions, but keep in mind they tend to work with the police for a reason.

ckaihatsu wrote:My political 'vision' is that of *Marxism* -- the workers of the world are a much better 'demographic' for determining how the world's machinery should be used, for their own best interests as workers, and for humane ends for all of humanity, as well.


That's quite vague - what do you expect this to do to living standards?

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you're indicating 'natural scarcities', or 'natural monopolies'. (Sorry, but it's *still* not 'voluntarism'.)

Yeah, I have an *approach* for this kind of thing -- it applies to choice geographical locations, to leftover items from capitalist production, in a post-capitalist setting, and any and all other 'semi-rare' items that may remain from capitalism, and be 'up-for-grabs' for personal possession and consumption, post-revolution:


How would this system deal with assigning land?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, you're the one who *asked* me the question of labor / surplus value, versus capital, and I replied.

Here you're pretending as though there's no *surplus* labor value -- the employer put in $30 ($10 for wages for the worker, and $20 for overhead), and the *revenue* from that $30 investment was $40, which is $10 *more* afterwards than at the beginning. Due to bourgeois class rule that $10 in surplus labor value goes to the *employer*, as *profit*, and not to the worker who actually manufactured the commodity (boots).


Not necessarily. I simply disagree with this definition of value.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, there are no historical long-lived examples.

There are pretty-much only those two examples I cited, from the 20th century. You can feel free to *analyze* each as unique historical events, if you like. Good luck. I have a framework for any such historical analysis that you're free to use:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


Really, those are the only two in your view? How about e.g. Spanish Republicans?

ckaihatsu wrote:Neither.


What is that claim then?

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, you're just projecting, and *imposing* your own, present-day political-status-quo-based conceptualizations, *onto* what is a *post-capitalist* political-economy context -- which is *inappropriate*.

Realistically I think that *many* would decide to 'gift' *some* of their time every week in liberated-labor work roles, for the common good, and *many* would not. The more *automated* the industrial mass-production processes can be, through increased automation of such industrial processes, the *more* labor will be *leveraged*, and the *fewer* people will have to work in total, for everyone to get modern-day basic necessities, regardless of how many or how few actually do the work.

(A 'primitive' example these days is 3D printing which only requires *one* design, by someone, made available on the Internet, and then used through only 'executive'-type action, by *anyone*, to physically produce that design as a *finished object*, for any and all individuals. This is what a fully-automated communism could actually look like, but for *all* scales of produced items.)

Again, for the bounds of my communist-gift-economy-based 'labor credits' model framework, there *are no* professional, standing political representatives, and no government, and no elections.

I *just* explained why a contrived, imagined 'regionalist' faction would not get any socio-political *traction* post-capitalism, much-less would have any objective localist interest in 'seceding', but you're not really *understanding*.


...And and I find it an unlikely scenario. After all, as long as there are scarce goods and services leaving needs unsatisfied there will be an economic problem to solve - and in this kind of society, it becomes a political problem too!

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's *not* money, though, because there are *no* exchanges of anything *for* the labor credits. The labor credits are simply *passed-forward*, to the incoming liberated laborers of choice, by those liberated laborers who have labor credits *in-hand*, necessarily from their own past labor done, *to* pass forward.


Sure, my point was that money also fulfills other functions - such as being an unit of account.

ckaihatsu wrote:I think you're forgetting that all labor credits would be a *social* instrument, and so would be subject to *socio-political* social reality -- imagine the entire current 'blogosphere' buzzing about *labor credits*, and their issuance, and the proposals and policy packages currently in formation, and the ideas people have for projects, and people's needs and desires *expressed*, and journalism around all of this, etc.

Counterfeiting could easily be avoided because, yes, all of the physical labor credits in circulation would have unique serial numbers and would be *trackable*, so two different, but identical labor credits, with identical serial numbers (one of them obviously being counterfeit), would both be *trackable*, and could very well take different, unique *paths* in circulation. (All finalized policy packages would list all constituent labor credits 'funded' for it, by individual labor-credit serial number, so all funding would be accounted-for, and would necessarily be public information.)

Since there's no government, it would be up to 'civil society' to track down where these labor credits were issued from, and how a counterfeit one got in, and where *that* came from, and all of this would basically be that society's collective *socio-material overhead*. Instead of tracking government *officials*, as we do today, that society might just deal with various *localities* at times, and their respective *debt-based issuances* of batches of labor credits, and probably the *trajectories* of all labor credits, by their unique serial numbers, etc. I think Internet-based technologies that exist today could do the rest, as with mirrored 'clearinghouse' servers, with some rising to social prominence for their efforts and the information around all of this, that they provide.

Related to this topic is the matter of computational infrastructure for the daily mass-aggregating of all daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists, over a locality or greater, and I've addressed this in the past:





labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


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


I can see this becoming extremely messy. I mean, the whole issue of telling truth from fiction in social networks is far from solved or even becoming close to that, money can be counterfeited up to this day (and is usually punished harshly) and I can imagine this sort of "social judiciary" or "revolutionary tribunals" being extremely time consuming and hard to operate - and I can also imagine people resorting to enforcing their claims by force.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, to be clear, the labor credits are *not* money, and they're never 'spent', because there are *no exchanges*. They're simply pledged / committed to certain 'incoming' liberated laborers, for certain work roles, for certain time slots / work shifts, for certain proposals or policy packages. Once the specified work is completed the labor credits are passed-forward for the work done.


Committed to do work proposed by whom?

ckaihatsu wrote:Of course. The young people, and *all* people, would be under *no obligation*, *ever*, to do any such catering, or any work of any kind whatsoever, according to the political economy of this 'labor credits' model framework. I can't speak to any aspects of whatever prevailing, organic, cultural, interpersonal *norms* may happen to be in place in that society, of course.


So what you are saying is that they would be unenforceable?

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think that a workers-of-the-world socialism would *have* to *backslide*, as back to nationalist-bureaucratic administration / Stalinism, or back to capitalism, unless there was some *massively destructive*, natural-disaster-like event that *necessitated* very *disparate*, ad-hoc market-type exchanges, and even then a backsliding back to capitalism might still not be absolutely necessary or desirable, because all social *relations* would have already *collectivized* and could probably do quite well in that mode, even after catastrophic destruction -- it's tough to say definitively.


I mean, to prevent counterfeit booze from being produced.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'd have to look more into it, and I'm not that *interested* in such -- I may or may not get back to you on this particular topic.


Ok, that's fair.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, anyone can *say* anything, but what *I* just said was very *specific*, and is based in existing capitalist material economy.


But these other categories also exist during, and in some ways predate, capitalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's a stacked-deck. Again, on this one, give me some time and I'll see what details I can dig up.


No problem. I do think that both parties have access to the courts to settle disputes if mediation fails, right?
#15123682
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, it's a *mix*, but wherever and whenever certain corporations *dominate* their industry and are the go-to group for government contracts -- for whatever reasons -- then it may as well be Stalinist because of the public-sector-private-sector *merging*, effectively.

Ever heard the phrase 'Government Sachs' (meaning government + Goldman Sachs).



wat0n wrote:
It always depends on whether the procurement was "clean" or if there was corruption involved. Coincidentally, I do happen to work for a non-profit Federal contractor - although I don't think we're our industry leader.



But you *will* be. (grin)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- the real estate agent is not producing any commodity-service that's *separate* from the real estate business of selling and renting properties.

An independent consultant -- a 'headhunter', basically -- presumably makes their money from the *sale*, the match between employer and employee, so there's a 'finder's fee', so the consultant is actually a *business*, and the sale is business-to-business. There's no guarantee that the headhunter will *find* a match, so all of the work upfront is a *cost* to the headhunting business. The commodity-service of headhunting is a service to the *employer* because the *employer* pays the fee upon approving a 'match'.



wat0n wrote:
The consultant is indeed a business, one with a single worker if you want. Now let's change it for a consultant who works for an independent consulting firm. Is the consultant now a worker?



Yes, the consultant in an independent consulting firm *would* be a worker because they're paid a wage and tasked to create the 'service' that the company produces, that being consulting. The employee is a white-collar worker.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Actually, I *thought* about this afterward -- I *made* a diagram for this, particularly, which shows a *schematic* symbolic language for depicting *any* socio-political situation, with an example instance:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



Anatomy of a Platform: The News Cycle -- Anti-Trump-Dynasty

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what to make of this.



Well, my point with it is to say that any political analysis *could* be scientific in its approach, and it could be scientific by applying this schematic symbolic representation to depict empirical situations (with platforms, strategies, and tactics, etc.), which would then either be *accurate* in formulation, or not-so-accurate.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the point is to get a proletarian revolution going in the here-and-now.

*You're* thinking of historical analysis.



wat0n wrote:
Yes, and so should you.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, yes, actually, I *am* saying that because all that would most-likely be needed from that worker, on that very-specialized-machine, would be 1. Pull this handle, 2. Turn that knob to '22', 3. Lift the handle, -REPEAT-.



wat0n wrote:
In a post-scarcity world, in fact, in the world that seems to already be approaching, that kind of thing would/will be done by a robot.



Yes, of course, and fortunately so. The really interesting part is going to be about *who* that automated assembly line really benefits, and we're seeing it with the *auto* industry already -- it approaches a Wizard-of-Oz situation, where ultimately there's just one person behind a curtain, pulling levers. It amplifies / begs-the-question of who gets to benefit from society's increasing technological prowess.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, that boils down to the particular work-role -- *is* the engineer producing commodities, or *aren't* they?



wat0n wrote:
I would say they are, in the same way a single worker who has a repetitive role in one of the various phases of an assembly line is: Neither produces the final good, yet they are both necessary for production.



But not all engineers have the exact same work role -- some engineers will be more like technical *advisors*, and will work internally to the company itself, thus being distinctly on the side of management, *not* producing any commodities, while other engineers will be more like glorified *workers*, *will* be on the assembly line, and will primarily be producing commodities, like any other blue-collar worker.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Whether or not CEOs / executives are *personally* capitalists or not, it makes no difference -- executives do *not* produce commodities. Are they providing a (pink-collar-type) *service* to customers from the public? Are they on a (blue- or white-collar-type) *assembly line* and part of a process that produces a final product / good, for sale? No, they're *not* -- they're handling *company business*, which is *internal* to the business entity itself, and non-productive of the commodities that produce *revenue*, and *profits*, for the company. Executives are a *cost*, or 'overhead'.



wat0n wrote:
So the company's janitor, for instance, would be akin to a capitalist like a CEO is to you? After all, the janitor is not producing any commodities or services to costumers.



Sure, if you like -- and this would be a good example for the previous segment: a 'sanitary engineer' who's primarily doing blue-collar work as 'overhead' for the physical environs of the company building itself. It's not a service to customers, but it's a necessary work role for the company's functioning.

Again, whether the employee (CEO or janitor) happens to have personal capital *investments* is beside-the-point regarding the active context here of their objective empirical relationship to the means of mass industrial production -- the company that employs them, and its use of its productive equipment.

Neither the CEO or the janitor is *producing commodities* on the company's equipment, so they're not wage workers.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so are you going to provide any *evidence* for your implied claim that the Ireland tax haven puts the hoarded capital to *financial use* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Note that it was used to avoid paying income taxes from activities done outside the US.



Okay, good info, but you're still not addressing whether all of this parked capital is able to *circulate* and be used for financial operations, or not.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're really *denying* that workers have to earn a wage, so as to cover their bills?

An owner of capital / investor *has* money already, while the worker *does not*, and does not have the option of putting capital to work.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm saying the same logic applies to both: A capitalist is also relying on savings if he doesn't work or earn rents.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The *difference*, though, is that the capitalist has the *option* of putting the savings to work as *capital*, and *does*, hence the description 'capitalist'. Someone who has savings but doesn't have enough to spare to use as *capital*, as for investments or rents, is 'unemployed'.



wat0n wrote:
In today's world, though, you don't really need such a large initial capital to participate in financial markets.



True, but you're still dodging the issue of whether or not someone has surplus money, or not. If one *does*, then they can use it as capital, but if one *doesn't* then all they have is their own labor-power to sell, for an exploitative wage, for the necessities of modern life and living.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *exaggerating* -- I didn't say that capital has *zero* profitability, I pointed to empirical data that shows a *decline* in profitability over the centuries.



wat0n wrote:
What's the profit rate at which capitalism collapses and why? I think we can agree there is a lower bound on the long run rate at 0% since it would not make much sense to take risks otherwise.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're trying to *dodge* this segment's trajectory of discussion by *digressing*.



wat0n wrote:
Not really, I simply want you to be more precise. At what levels of profitability would the revolution be expected to begin?



Since revolution is a *political* thing it's *not* dependent on capitalist economics, though obviously the performance or crashing of the capitalist economy will have knock-on *political* effects.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're *exaggerating* again, to implicitly purport that future generations will not have *any* economy whatsoever. Sure, GDP *growth* is currently shitty and doesn't seem to have prospects for *improving*, but since you're acknowledging that you can't generalize economy activity (or lack of it) to all members of an entire *generation*, then that means you're looking at the wrong demographic for your analysis -- a much better metric would be to look at *class* membership, throughout any and *all* generations.



wat0n wrote:
This response doesn't make much sense. The ones who will have to deal with the brunt of the environmental consequences without many of the benefits, if any, of industrialization are those who have not been born yet.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Industrialization happened *centuries* ago -- here's a narrative on it:


Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



wat0n wrote:
No, I think the Industrial Revolution is still ongoing.



I mean to say that most of the world has at-least fundamentally *industrialized* by now, for their productive processes, and their economics.

I think you're being *fatalistic* regarding future generations, as though there are no *approaches*, or *solutions* to environmental damage, when, in fact, there *are* approaches and solutions, such as the use of rock dust for fertilizing fields, which also acts as a carbon capture process along the way.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not a criminal psychologist, nor a reformist, or Stalinist, so I'm going to demurr on this one, except to politically forward the same basic approach of government-social-services, so as to provide treatment on a *customized*, individualized basis.



wat0n wrote:
I am absolutely open to their opinions, but keep in mind they tend to work with the police for a reason.



To *rephrase*, the socio-political *point* here is why is any given individual behaving *anti-socially*. As things are now there is a lack of *comprehensive* governmental policy approaches to the *causes* of individual anti-social actions, and a lack of social services that could *prevent* such behavior.

In other words society has to decide whether to *balkanize* people apart, in the name of the game of competitive capitalist individualist monetary 'success', or whether to provide some kind of a common societal *baseline* of humane social service provisioning so that people aren't scraping and scrambling, at the mercy of the impersonal stagnating capitalist economy, with a lot of stress, just to live and survive in modern society.

You're sounding like you're in the political camp of *blaming* people on an individualistic basis for their lack of competitiveness and even their resulting anti-social outbursts, but you politically support all of the government support (through tax breaks, etc.) that *corporations* receive, to boost *their* 'competitiveness' in the market context. So it's currently a *double standard* of socialism-for-the-rich and capitalism-for-everyone-else.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My political 'vision' is that of *Marxism* -- the workers of the world are a much better 'demographic' for determining how the world's machinery should be used, for their own best interests as workers, and for humane ends for all of humanity, as well.



wat0n wrote:
That's quite vague - what do you expect this to do to living standards?



It's about 'raising-the-floor', in general -- workers collectively controlling the means of mass industrial productivity, for social production, would be able to provide a *baseline* of consistent living standards (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.) to *everyone*, absent private interests for private accumulations from this workers-collectivized social production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you're indicating 'natural scarcities', or 'natural monopolies'. (Sorry, but it's *still* not 'voluntarism'.)

Yeah, I have an *approach* for this kind of thing -- it applies to choice geographical locations, to leftover items from capitalist production, in a post-capitalist setting, and any and all other 'semi-rare' items that may remain from capitalism, and be 'up-for-grabs' for personal possession and consumption, post-revolution:


'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.) *This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.


So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, or the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

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



wat0n wrote:
How would this system deal with assigning land?



Similarly to the scheduling of collectivized productive assets (factories) -- better plans, outreach, and politicking in the fully-encompassing, fully-socialized public sphere.

The 'additive prioritizations' approach / method basically assigns personal possessions of desire according to a popularity contest for any particular contested item, like land.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, you're the one who *asked* me the question of labor / surplus value, versus capital, and I replied.

Here you're pretending as though there's no *surplus* labor value -- the employer put in $30 ($10 for wages for the worker, and $20 for overhead), and the *revenue* from that $30 investment was $40, which is $10 *more* afterwards than at the beginning. Due to bourgeois class rule that $10 in surplus labor value goes to the *employer*, as *profit*, and not to the worker who actually manufactured the commodity (boots).



wat0n wrote:
Not necessarily. I simply disagree with this definition of value.



So what in the provided scenario are you *disputing*, exactly?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, there are no historical long-lived examples.

There are pretty-much only those two examples I cited, from the 20th century. You can feel free to *analyze* each as unique historical events, if you like. Good luck. I have a framework for any such historical analysis that you're free to use:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Really, those are the only two in your view? How about e.g. Spanish Republicans?



Okay, what about the Spanish Civil War?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding that a post-capitalist, post-class political-economy environment would be *different* -- there would no longer be nationalist bourgeois *factions of ownership* competing with each other, thus there would be no *benefit* from a contrived 'regional-factionalism' because private interests would no longer exist. It would be akin to trying to corral the *air that we breathe* according to *geography*.



wat0n wrote:
Is this a prediction or a wish?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Neither.



wat0n wrote:
What is that claim then?



(See above.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, you're just projecting, and *imposing* your own, present-day political-status-quo-based conceptualizations, *onto* what is a *post-capitalist* political-economy context -- which is *inappropriate*.

Realistically I think that *many* would decide to 'gift' *some* of their time every week in liberated-labor work roles, for the common good, and *many* would not. The more *automated* the industrial mass-production processes can be, through increased automation of such industrial processes, the *more* labor will be *leveraged*, and the *fewer* people will have to work in total, for everyone to get modern-day basic necessities, regardless of how many or how few actually do the work.

(A 'primitive' example these days is 3D printing which only requires *one* design, by someone, made available on the Internet, and then used through only 'executive'-type action, by *anyone*, to physically produce that design as a *finished object*, for any and all individuals. This is what a fully-automated communism could actually look like, but for *all* scales of produced items.)

Again, for the bounds of my communist-gift-economy-based 'labor credits' model framework, there *are no* professional, standing political representatives, and no government, and no elections.

I *just* explained why a contrived, imagined 'regionalist' faction would not get any socio-political *traction* post-capitalism, much-less would have any objective localist interest in 'seceding', but you're not really *understanding*.



wat0n wrote:
...And and I find it an unlikely scenario. After all, as long as there are scarce goods and services leaving needs unsatisfied there will be an economic problem to solve - and in this kind of society, it becomes a political problem too!



Well, I think we do need to differentiate between 'needs', and 'wants', over all of the society -- the *political* interest is in the fulfillment of human *needs* for *everyone*, since politics addresses mass individual situations *in common*, as for the universal basic necessities of modern-day life and living (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.).


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



More-individual 'wants' -- after 'needs' are fulfilled in-common -- would be much more *discretionary* and would not really be a matter of *politics*, but of a more-specialized, more-customized, *consumerist* type of concern, which would then be addressed at a more-*individualist* scale of concern / interest / demand / economics.


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

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, it's *not* money, though, because there are *no* exchanges of anything *for* the labor credits. The labor credits are simply *passed-forward*, to the incoming liberated laborers of choice, by those liberated laborers who have labor credits *in-hand*, necessarily from their own past labor done, *to* pass forward.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, my point was that money also fulfills other functions - such as being an unit of account.



Okay, but now you're talking about capitalist-type *money*, and not about my 'labor credits'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think you're forgetting that all labor credits would be a *social* instrument, and so would be subject to *socio-political* social reality -- imagine the entire current 'blogosphere' buzzing about *labor credits*, and their issuance, and the proposals and policy packages currently in formation, and the ideas people have for projects, and people's needs and desires *expressed*, and journalism around all of this, etc.

Counterfeiting could easily be avoided because, yes, all of the physical labor credits in circulation would have unique serial numbers and would be *trackable*, so two different, but identical labor credits, with identical serial numbers (one of them obviously being counterfeit), would both be *trackable*, and could very well take different, unique *paths* in circulation. (All finalized policy packages would list all constituent labor credits 'funded' for it, by individual labor-credit serial number, so all funding would be accounted-for, and would necessarily be public information.)

Since there's no government, it would be up to 'civil society' to track down where these labor credits were issued from, and how a counterfeit one got in, and where *that* came from, and all of this would basically be that society's collective *socio-material overhead*. Instead of tracking government *officials*, as we do today, that society might just deal with various *localities* at times, and their respective *debt-based issuances* of batches of labor credits, and probably the *trajectories* of all labor credits, by their unique serial numbers, etc. I think Internet-based technologies that exist today could do the rest, as with mirrored 'clearinghouse' servers, with some rising to social prominence for their efforts and the information around all of this, that they provide.

Related to this topic is the matter of computational infrastructure for the daily mass-aggregating of all daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists, over a locality or greater, and I've addressed this in the past:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


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



wat0n wrote:
I can see this becoming extremely messy. I mean, the whole issue of telling truth from fiction in social networks is far from solved or even becoming close to that, money can be counterfeited up to this day (and is usually punished harshly) and I can imagine this sort of "social judiciary" or "revolutionary tribunals" being extremely time consuming and hard to operate - and I can also imagine people resorting to enforcing their claims by force.



Well, again, there's *no government* in post-capitalist communism, so no 'social judiciary' or 'revolutionary tribunals'. Basically the political 'culture' of a proletarian revolution would be so focused on social interests in common that civil-society-type issues would *all* be resolved in the process, mostly due to the collectivization of the means of mass industrial production, and the abolition of *class* / private interests.

Once everyone's needs are fulfilled by mass production -- post-scarcity -- everyone would have the freedom and personal latitude to maintain this kind of collectivist social ethos, and 'overhead', such as with the ongoing 'socialization' of labor credits, as an option.

Worst-case, if the use and circulation of labor credits really *does become* too messy and unwieldy, then they obviously wouldn't *be used* -- it would be a simpler, basic 'communist gift economy' of *zero* labor credits, which would be fine. Again, it's certainly not up to *me* -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure these logistical details out for themselves.

People, as individuals, wouldn't *have* any power, though, compared to all other people in that same, post-class, post-capitalist society -- and not even with weapons / physical force, because *every other* person on the planet would have the *exact same* potential and 'authority', in-turn.

This gets back to your 'factory takeover' scenario from previously, which is essentially a *de-socializing* on the part of this circumscribed group of separatists -- either they make do on their own, given whatever environs they choose (perhaps a particular factory, or outside in nature), or else they eventually have to *re-socialize* on whatever terms the *rest* of society deems appropriate, given their initial *separatist* actions, whatever they were, in order to reconnect with the rest of social production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, to be clear, the labor credits are *not* money, and they're never 'spent', because there are *no exchanges*. They're simply pledged / committed to certain 'incoming' liberated laborers, for certain work roles, for certain time slots / work shifts, for certain proposals or policy packages. Once the specified work is completed the labor credits are passed-forward for the work done.



wat0n wrote:
Committed to do work proposed by whom?



Proposed by *anyone*, really -- either a crude initial proposal, say perhaps for 'food', is *developed*, and *refined*, or else it isn't. Maybe miliions of people would list 'food proposal from 9-29-2020' high on their daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists for days, weeks, and months continuously, but no one really *develops* that proposal any further. Or maybe *several* people go in different directions with it, spinning-off a *number* of different proposals from the original, with more detail, real-world-syncing, and specifics for a locality, or for a region, or a continent, or for the whole world, in scale.

If a proposal or policy package has *work roles* specified then that could attract liberated laborers to those work roles, and they may ask for certain *rates* of labor credits per hour, per work role. Others may see *that* and pledge / commit their labor credits to certain of those work roles / scheduled shifts, with their labor credits. Or maybe a nearby locality would have to issue *debt-based* labor credits, to satisfy funding requirements for those work roles in the proposal / policy package.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course. The young people, and *all* people, would be under *no obligation*, *ever*, to do any such catering, or any work of any kind whatsoever, according to the political economy of this 'labor credits' model framework. I can't speak to any aspects of whatever prevailing, organic, cultural, interpersonal *norms* may happen to be in place in that society, of course.



wat0n wrote:
So what you are saying is that they would be unenforceable?



What you're indicating is *culturally specific*, and so I can't really *address* such with my *general*, generic approach to a post-capitalist political economy.


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think that a workers-of-the-world socialism would *have* to *backslide*, as back to nationalist-bureaucratic administration / Stalinism, or back to capitalism, unless there was some *massively destructive*, natural-disaster-like event that *necessitated* very *disparate*, ad-hoc market-type exchanges, and even then a backsliding back to capitalism might still not be absolutely necessary or desirable, because all social *relations* would have already *collectivized* and could probably do quite well in that mode, even after catastrophic destruction -- it's tough to say definitively.



wat0n wrote:
I mean, to prevent counterfeit booze from being produced.



I don't thing there *could* be such a thing as 'counterfeit [anything]' in a post-capitalist context because there would be no intermediate *exchanges* by-which to *introduce* a bogus product.

Either one gets their booze from Producer A, or else it's from Producer B, etc., and maybe by then all shipments would be done by air, directly from the manufacturer to the specific consumer. (Think 'online ordering' here.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd have to look more into it, and I'm not that *interested* in such -- I may or may not get back to you on this particular topic.



wat0n wrote:
Ok, that's fair.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Class, though, even at the *individual* level, is *unavoidable*, because one exists *in relation to* the society's means of mass industrial production. If one owns capital, then one can *benefit* from the exploitation of labor, through the expropriation of surplus labor value, but if one does *not* own capital, then one *cannot* benefit from private ownership, and one has to sell one's own labor-power in the jobs market, to an employer, for a wage, for the means of modern life and living.

Everything else in one's life is *based* on this fact, and *follows* from it.



wat0n wrote:
You could say analogous things about most other categories - race/ethnicity, nationality, spirituality, gender, etc.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, anyone can *say* anything, but what *I* just said was very *specific*, and is based in existing capitalist material economy.



wat0n wrote:
But these other categories also exist during, and in some ways predate, capitalism.



Okay -- I would call these aspects *cultural*, because they exist *on top of* the prevailing *material* conditions, such as how a class society produces / distributes / disposes-of its material *surplus*. Look into 'base-and-superstructure', if you like.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a stacked-deck. Again, on this one, give me some time and I'll see what details I can dig up.



wat0n wrote:
No problem. I do think that both parties have access to the courts to settle disputes if mediation fails, right?



I'll *pass*, thanks -- the capitalist government is *also* representative of ruling-class interests, and not *workers* interests.
#15123713
ckaihatsu wrote:But you *will* be. (grin)


Ha! I'll settle for the Green Card :)

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, the consultant in an independent consulting firm *would* be a worker because they're paid a wage and tasked to create the 'service' that the company produces, that being consulting. The employee is a white-collar worker.


But the real estate agent, who may as well be paid a wage if working for a real estate firm, would not? They are both performing similar work (matching people who supply something with people who want something).

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, my point with it is to say that any political analysis *could* be scientific in its approach, and it could be scientific by applying this schematic symbolic representation to depict empirical situations (with platforms, strategies, and tactics, etc.), which would then either be *accurate* in formulation, or not-so-accurate.


OK, and if they are not accurate... What should happen?

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, of course, and fortunately so. The really interesting part is going to be about *who* that automated assembly line really benefits, and we're seeing it with the *auto* industry already -- it approaches a Wizard-of-Oz situation, where ultimately there's just one person behind a curtain, pulling levers. It amplifies / begs-the-question of who gets to benefit from society's increasing technological prowess.


Right, but that would also call into question the economic vision you are basing yourself on. After all, if these workers disappear it is likely that human capital would become more and more important, and that means it will not be that simple to swap people around in different roles, since they may become more specialized and require more specific training (even academic training) to be performed.

ckaihatsu wrote:But not all engineers have the exact same work role -- some engineers will be more like technical *advisors*, and will work internally to the company itself, thus being distinctly on the side of management, *not* producing any commodities, while other engineers will be more like glorified *workers*, *will* be on the assembly line, and will primarily be producing commodities, like any other blue-collar worker.


Not like any other blue-collar worker, though, they will tend to have a more supervisory role in this scenario.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, if you like -- and this would be a good example for the previous segment: a 'sanitary engineer' who's primarily doing blue-collar work as 'overhead' for the physical environs of the company building itself. It's not a service to customers, but it's a necessary work role for the company's functioning.

Again, whether the employee (CEO or janitor) happens to have personal capital *investments* is beside-the-point regarding the active context here of their objective empirical relationship to the means of mass industrial production -- the company that employs them, and its use of its productive equipment.

Neither the CEO or the janitor is *producing commodities* on the company's equipment, so they're not wage workers.


I think the bolded part is where your contradiction is: If their work is necessary for the company and they do not a stake on it, why wouldn't they be regarded as wage workers?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, good info, but you're still not addressing whether all of this parked capital is able to *circulate* and be used for financial operations, or not.


Why wouldn't it?

ckaihatsu wrote:True, but you're still dodging the issue of whether or not someone has surplus money, or not. If one *does*, then they can use it as capital, but if one *doesn't* then all they have is their own labor-power to sell, for an exploitative wage, for the necessities of modern life and living.


And capitalists may not have it. Think about someone owning a very illiquid asset that isn't generating any rents.

ckaihatsu wrote:Since revolution is a *political* thing it's *not* dependent on capitalist economics, though obviously the performance or crashing of the capitalist economy will have knock-on *political* effects.


Why would you measure the performance based on the rate of profit?

ckaihatsu wrote:I mean to say that most of the world has at-least fundamentally *industrialized* by now, for their productive processes, and their economics.

I think you're being *fatalistic* regarding future generations, as though there are no *approaches*, or *solutions* to environmental damage, when, in fact, there *are* approaches and solutions, such as the use of rock dust for fertilizing fields, which also acts as a carbon capture process along the way.


There are approaches indeed, my point however is that short-term thinking tends to harm future generations more - and everyone engages in short-termism in one way or another, something politicians understand.

ckaihatsu wrote:To *rephrase*, the socio-political *point* here is why is any given individual behaving *anti-socially*. As things are now there is a lack of *comprehensive* governmental policy approaches to the *causes* of individual anti-social actions, and a lack of social services that could *prevent* such behavior.

In other words society has to decide whether to *balkanize* people apart, in the name of the game of competitive capitalist individualist monetary 'success', or whether to provide some kind of a common societal *baseline* of humane social service provisioning so that people aren't scraping and scrambling, at the mercy of the impersonal stagnating capitalist economy, with a lot of stress, just to live and survive in modern society.

You're sounding like you're in the political camp of *blaming* people on an individualistic basis for their lack of competitiveness and even their resulting anti-social outbursts, but you politically support all of the government support (through tax breaks, etc.) that *corporations* receive, to boost *their* 'competitiveness' in the market context. So it's currently a *double standard* of socialism-for-the-rich and capitalism-for-everyone-else.


No, I'm simply saying not everyone is motivated by narrow economic interests, that some people with "special" preferences do exist, and that this justifies some measure of law enforcement.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's about 'raising-the-floor', in general -- workers collectively controlling the means of mass industrial productivity, for social production, would be able to provide a *baseline* of consistent living standards (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.) to *everyone*, absent private interests for private accumulations from this workers-collectivized social production.


This sounds like a Rawlsian ideal. Interesting, I think many non-Marxists would agree with this as a goal. And actually in several parts of the world, this has been happening.

ckaihatsu wrote:Similarly to the scheduling of collectivized productive assets (factories) -- better plans, outreach, and politicking in the fully-encompassing, fully-socialized public sphere.

The 'additive prioritizations' approach / method basically assigns personal possessions of desire according to a popularity contest for any particular contested item, like land.


Would you provide an example of that? I'm asking because it's not clear e.g. who would get the most productive/desired land plots in this society.

ckaihatsu wrote:So what in the provided scenario are you *disputing*, exactly?


Assuming one should define/assume that all of this $10 surplus belongs to workers. I think it depends a lot more on the corresponding industrial organization and the prevailing general equilibrium.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, what about the Spanish Civil War?


Were the Republicans - at least those who established communes - an example of a failed revolution?

ckaihatsu wrote:(See above.)


To me it reads is if it was a prediction or a wish.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, I think we do need to differentiate between 'needs', and 'wants', over all of the society -- the *political* interest is in the fulfillment of human *needs* for *everyone*, since politics addresses mass individual situations *in common*, as for the universal basic necessities of modern-day life and living (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.).


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



More-individual 'wants' -- after 'needs' are fulfilled in-common -- would be much more *discretionary* and would not really be a matter of *politics*, but of a more-specialized, more-customized, *consumerist* type of concern, which would then be addressed at a more-*individualist* scale of concern / interest / demand / economics.


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

Spoiler: show
Image


And it would leave us to define what are needs and what are wants. Is having access to high-quality land a need or a want? Also, could this very definition be a political matter?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, but now you're talking about capitalist-type *money*, and not about my 'labor credits'.


Sure, your proposal would keep some properties of money but not others. From what I can tell, they would not be all that liquid to allow for easy exchanges (although if I understand correctly there could be some for stuff such as e.g. sex), so they are not money.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, again, there's *no government* in post-capitalist communism, so no 'social judiciary' or 'revolutionary tribunals'. Basically the political 'culture' of a proletarian revolution would be so focused on social interests in common that civil-society-type issues would *all* be resolved in the process, mostly due to the collectivization of the means of mass industrial production, and the abolition of *class* / private interests.

Once everyone's needs are fulfilled by mass production -- post-scarcity -- everyone would have the freedom and personal latitude to maintain this kind of collectivist social ethos, and 'overhead', such as with the ongoing 'socialization' of labor credits, as an option.

Worst-case, if the use and circulation of labor credits really *does become* too messy and unwieldy, then they obviously wouldn't *be used* -- it would be a simpler, basic 'communist gift economy' of *zero* labor credits, which would be fine. Again, it's certainly not up to *me* -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure these logistical details out for themselves.

People, as individuals, wouldn't *have* any power, though, compared to all other people in that same, post-class, post-capitalist society -- and not even with weapons / physical force, because *every other* person on the planet would have the *exact same* potential and 'authority', in-turn.

This gets back to your 'factory takeover' scenario from previously, which is essentially a *de-socializing* on the part of this circumscribed group of separatists -- either they make do on their own, given whatever environs they choose (perhaps a particular factory, or outside in nature), or else they eventually have to *re-socialize* on whatever terms the *rest* of society deems appropriate, given their initial *separatist* actions, whatever they were, in order to reconnect with the rest of social production.


The problem with this is that you are effectively saying the new socialist man would need to be created for something like this to work. If such person existed, however, it's hard to see why wouldn't we already live in such society.

ckaihatsu wrote:Proposed by *anyone*, really -- either a crude initial proposal, say perhaps for 'food', is *developed*, and *refined*, or else it isn't. Maybe miliions of people would list 'food proposal from 9-29-2020' high on their daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists for days, weeks, and months continuously, but no one really *develops* that proposal any further. Or maybe *several* people go in different directions with it, spinning-off a *number* of different proposals from the original, with more detail, real-world-syncing, and specifics for a locality, or for a region, or a continent, or for the whole world, in scale.

If a proposal or policy package has *work roles* specified then that could attract liberated laborers to those work roles, and they may ask for certain *rates* of labor credits per hour, per work role. Others may see *that* and pledge / commit their labor credits to certain of those work roles / scheduled shifts, with their labor credits. Or maybe a nearby locality would have to issue *debt-based* labor credits, to satisfy funding requirements for those work roles in the proposal / policy package.


Right, and decisions are made by voting weighted by the amount of labor credits workers commit.

ckaihatsu wrote:What you're indicating is *culturally specific*, and so I can't really *address* such with my *general*, generic approach to a post-capitalist political economy.


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image


What do you mean? I mean, if a project were voted using labor credits yet those who didn't vote for it refused to work in it... What would happen?

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't thing there *could* be such a thing as 'counterfeit [anything]' in a post-capitalist context because there would be no intermediate *exchanges* by-which to *introduce* a bogus product.

Either one gets their booze from Producer A, or else it's from Producer B, etc., and maybe by then all shipments would be done by air, directly from the manufacturer to the specific consumer. (Think 'online ordering' here.)


You don't need an intermediate exchange for counterfeit stuff to be made - not even nowadays actually.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay -- I would call these aspects *cultural*, because they exist *on top of* the prevailing *material* conditions, such as how a class society produces / distributes / disposes-of its material *surplus*. Look into 'base-and-superstructure', if you like.


Are these cultural things a form of what you'd call "false consciousness"?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll *pass*, thanks -- the capitalist government is *also* representative of ruling-class interests, and not *workers* interests.


It depends on the case, honestly.
#15123815
ckaihatsu wrote:
But you *will* be. (grin)



wat0n wrote:
Ha! I'll settle for the Green Card :)



(Sorry, I don't quite understand -- what's the context?)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, the consultant in an independent consulting firm *would* be a worker because they're paid a wage and tasked to create the 'service' that the company produces, that being consulting. The employee is a white-collar worker.



wat0n wrote:
But the real estate agent, who may as well be paid a wage if working for a real estate firm, would not? They are both performing similar work (matching people who supply something with people who want something).



From the perspective of the *employee*, yes, both are jobs, and they both basically get paid every week, or every two weeks, or whatever. So a job is a job is a job.

But, from the *ownership* / *political* perspective, the consultant employee sells a service to the client who's looking for employees, so that's 'headhunting' and actual tangible employees, and their resumes, are provided to the client as a commodity *service*, and the company gets paid by the client. It's unambiguous.

The real estate agent, though, as I've already said, is *not* delivering a set service / commodity, to a set client, for a set fee. Rather, the agent is *prospectively* catering to prospective *customers*, who *aren't* customers, and are paying nothing for the agent's sales service itself. So the sales service is to *get sales*, which is real estate sales and rentals, and is an *internal* cost to the real estate business.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, my point with it is to say that any political analysis *could* be scientific in its approach, and it could be scientific by applying this schematic symbolic representation to depict empirical situations (with platforms, strategies, and tactics, etc.), which would then either be *accurate* in formulation, or not-so-accurate.



wat0n wrote:
OK, and if they are not accurate... What should happen?



Well, welcome to science.

This is how it goes -- we strive to be accurate, mostly so that we ourselves know what's going on, as with political news, etc., and such *can* potentially be depicted scientifically, but there are no guarantees.

I even started a thread for this *schematic* approach to all things political -- feel free to use it, and to submit any sketches, using this symbology, of various current or historical political situations that you can think of.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=177914


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, of course, and fortunately so. The really interesting part is going to be about *who* that automated assembly line really benefits, and we're seeing it with the *auto* industry already -- it approaches a Wizard-of-Oz situation, where ultimately there's just one person behind a curtain, pulling levers. It amplifies / begs-the-question of who gets to benefit from society's increasing technological prowess.



wat0n wrote:
Right, but that would also call into question the economic vision you are basing yourself on. After all, if these workers disappear it is likely that human capital would become more and more important, and that means it will not be that simple to swap people around in different roles, since they may become more specialized and require more specific training (even academic training) to be performed.



No, I greatly *disagree* here, because the overall trend, historically, up through the present, has been a trajectory of *deskilling*. The ultimate endpoint would be '3D printing world' for any scale of construction, so that people just download the geometry file of their choosing, and then 3D print it with a minimum of mouse-clicking.

As soon as 3D printers can 3D-print 3D printers -- and there's already a *precedent* for this -- then that means that robots can make robots, and the deskilling is *complete*, at least at a *rudimentary* scope of production.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But not all engineers have the exact same work role -- some engineers will be more like technical *advisors*, and will work internally to the company itself, thus being distinctly on the side of management, *not* producing any commodities, while other engineers will be more like glorified *workers*, *will* be on the assembly line, and will primarily be producing commodities, like any other blue-collar worker.



wat0n wrote:
Not like any other blue-collar worker, though, they will tend to have a more supervisory role in this scenario.



Possibly, but it's not guaranteed since private *ownership* has the say-so as to where employees are placed in the firm.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, if you like -- and this would be a good example for the previous segment: a 'sanitary engineer' who's primarily doing blue-collar work as 'overhead' for the physical environs of the company building itself. It's not a service to customers, but it's a necessary work role for the company's functioning.

Again, whether the employee (CEO or janitor) happens to have personal capital *investments* is beside-the-point regarding the active context here of their objective empirical relationship to the means of mass industrial production -- the company that employs them, and its use of its productive equipment.

Neither the CEO or the janitor is *producing commodities* on the company's equipment, so they're not wage workers.



wat0n wrote:
I think the bolded part is where your contradiction is: If their work is necessary for the company and they do not a stake on it, why wouldn't they be regarded as wage workers?



A janitor's work does *not* produce commodities, for sales to customers. It's for the sake of the business entity itself, keeping the building clean, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, good info, but you're still not addressing whether all of this parked capital is able to *circulate* and be used for financial operations, or not.



wat0n wrote:
Why wouldn't it?



Well are you just *assuming* this? I'd rather have *verified* information, with journalistic *sources*, than to take your word for anything, because you've shown yourself to be facile and disingenuous.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
True, but you're still dodging the issue of whether or not someone has surplus money, or not. If one *does*, then they can use it as capital, but if one *doesn't* then all they have is their own labor-power to sell, for an exploitative wage, for the necessities of modern life and living.



wat0n wrote:
And capitalists may not have it. Think about someone owning a very illiquid asset that isn't generating any rents.



Then it's 'savings', and if the capitalist has no real investments then they're not really capitalists -- perhaps they're 'unemployed' with some illiquid assets, which could be counted as 'savings'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since revolution is a *political* thing it's *not* dependent on capitalist economics, though obviously the performance or crashing of the capitalist economy will have knock-on *political* effects.



wat0n wrote:
Why would you measure the performance based on the rate of profit?



It's an important metric for a capitalist economy, along with the GDP growth rate, inflation rate, national debt-to-GDP ratio, employment rate, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean to say that most of the world has at-least fundamentally *industrialized* by now, for their productive processes, and their economics.

I think you're being *fatalistic* regarding future generations, as though there are no *approaches*, or *solutions* to environmental damage, when, in fact, there *are* approaches and solutions, such as the use of rock dust for fertilizing fields, which also acts as a carbon capture process along the way.



wat0n wrote:
There are approaches indeed, my point however is that short-term thinking tends to harm future generations more - and everyone engages in short-termism in one way or another, something politicians understand.



Sure, we Marxists would say that this is the nature of the capitalist dynamic -- to score profits as quickly as possible while ignoring 'externalities' like resulting damage to the natural environment.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
To *rephrase*, the socio-political *point* here is why is any given individual behaving *anti-socially*. As things are now there is a lack of *comprehensive* governmental policy approaches to the *causes* of individual anti-social actions, and a lack of social services that could *prevent* such behavior.

In other words society has to decide whether to *balkanize* people apart, in the name of the game of competitive capitalist individualist monetary 'success', or whether to provide some kind of a common societal *baseline* of humane social service provisioning so that people aren't scraping and scrambling, at the mercy of the impersonal stagnating capitalist economy, with a lot of stress, just to live and survive in modern society.

You're sounding like you're in the political camp of *blaming* people on an individualistic basis for their lack of competitiveness and even their resulting anti-social outbursts, but you politically support all of the government support (through tax breaks, etc.) that *corporations* receive, to boost *their* 'competitiveness' in the market context. So it's currently a *double standard* of socialism-for-the-rich and capitalism-for-everyone-else.



wat0n wrote:
No, I'm simply saying not everyone is motivated by narrow economic interests, that some people with "special" preferences do exist, and that this justifies some measure of law enforcement.



I don't quite get what you're indicating -- it sounds like you *are* blaming individuals for the failings of the system, since the bourgeois capitalist system *isn't* humane to people, and people without money or prospects, in particular, are going to be more *desperate* and 'cut-corners' compared to whatever the norm is supposed to be.

I'll again note that 'laws' are *class-based*, since corporations don't pay (much) tax, or get punished for their transgressions, like oil spills, deaths of workers on the job, etc.

To uphold bourgeois 'law' is to uphold *bourgeois class rule', which is a *vast* societal double-standard.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's about 'raising-the-floor', in general -- workers collectively controlling the means of mass industrial productivity, for social production, would be able to provide a *baseline* of consistent living standards (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.) to *everyone*, absent private interests for private accumulations from this workers-collectivized social production.



wat0n wrote:
This sounds like a Rawlsian ideal. Interesting, I think many non-Marxists would agree with this as a goal. And actually in several parts of the world, this has been happening.



Like where, and how is it a 'Rawlsian ideal', exactly?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Similarly to the scheduling of collectivized productive assets (factories) -- better plans, outreach, and politicking in the fully-encompassing, fully-socialized public sphere.

The 'additive prioritizations' approach / method basically assigns personal possessions of desire according to a popularity contest for any particular contested item, like land.



wat0n wrote:
Would you provide an example of that? I'm asking because it's not clear e.g. who would get the most productive/desired land plots in this society.



Just think of it as present-day political *campaigning* -- the more people you see and who see you, and the more palms you can press, and the more babies you can kiss, the more *popular* you'll be. The difference is that *post-capitalism* there won't be any positions of *power*, as in a bourgeois social hierarchy. Politicking *then*, post-capitalism, will be nakedly self-interested, as for priority for use of a certain plot of land, or receipt of some collector's CD or DVD from the time of capitalism, or for a limited-seating music concert, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So what in the provided scenario are you *disputing*, exactly?



wat0n wrote:
Assuming one should define/assume that all of this $10 surplus belongs to workers. I think it depends a lot more on the corresponding industrial organization and the prevailing general equilibrium.



No, the productivity *doesn't* depend on such *configurational* or *external* details, because you already know what the *main components* are, for *any* production: it's [1] capital, and [2] exploited labor, for [3] revenue.

In the scenario it's only $20 that the employer provides for the production process, plus $10 to the worker for wages. But a *surplus* of value is returned, $10, which is directly due to the laborer's work, but which is *not* given over to the worker.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, what about the Spanish Civil War?



wat0n wrote:
Were the Republicans - at least those who established communes - an example of a failed revolution?



You raised this historical event, so maybe *you* should tell *me*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding that a post-capitalist, post-class political-economy environment would be *different* -- there would no longer be nationalist bourgeois *factions of ownership* competing with each other, thus there would be no *benefit* from a contrived 'regional-factionalism' because private interests would no longer exist. It would be akin to trying to corral the *air that we breathe* according to *geography*.



wat0n wrote:
Is this a prediction or a wish?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Neither.



wat0n wrote:
What is that claim then?



ckaihatsu wrote:
(See above.)



wat0n wrote:
To me it reads is if it was a prediction or a wish.



No, it's neither a prediction or a wish.

You need to understand the difference between private-interest *claims* over productive property (factories), and a *post-capitalist*, *collectivist* administration-in-common over the same by those who are doing the actual *work* there.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, I think we do need to differentiate between 'needs', and 'wants', over all of the society -- the *political* interest is in the fulfillment of human *needs* for *everyone*, since politics addresses mass individual situations *in common*, as for the universal basic necessities of modern-day life and living (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.).


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



More-individual 'wants' -- after 'needs' are fulfilled in-common -- would be much more *discretionary* and would not really be a matter of *politics*, but of a more-specialized, more-customized, *consumerist* type of concern, which would then be addressed at a more-*individualist* scale of concern / interest / demand / economics.


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

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
And it would leave us to define what are needs and what are wants. Is having access to high-quality land a need or a want? Also, could this very definition be a political matter?



As far as 'basic essentials', or 'basic necessities' are concerned, such would be the *most common* kinds of production that is socially-necessary. I have a list which I use here often, that being food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.

I don't think that the quality of *land*, for farming, is such a *pressing concern* anymore since we now have 'vertical farming', meaning the use of hydroponics and grow lights in any enclosed, indoor space, to grow fruits and vegetables.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, but now you're talking about capitalist-type *money*, and not about my 'labor credits'.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, your proposal would keep some properties of money but not others. From what I can tell, they would not be all that liquid to allow for easy exchanges (although if I understand correctly there could be some for stuff such as e.g. sex), so they are not money.



Correct, the labor credits would *ideally* not be for interpersonal exchanges, though such couldn't really be disallowed -- they're meant to facilitate the policy-package, pre-planned provisioning of liberated-workers, in *any* configuration, for *any* project or production run, over *any* scale of social organization for the same.

The labor credits do not retain *any* properties of money since they're not prescribed for *exchanges* -- they are only 'passed forward' from liberated laborers *with* them, to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed pre-planned work and are *funded* with those labor credits.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, again, there's *no government* in post-capitalist communism, so no 'social judiciary' or 'revolutionary tribunals'. Basically the political 'culture' of a proletarian revolution would be so focused on social interests in common that civil-society-type issues would *all* be resolved in the process, mostly due to the collectivization of the means of mass industrial production, and the abolition of *class* / private interests.

Once everyone's needs are fulfilled by mass production -- post-scarcity -- everyone would have the freedom and personal latitude to maintain this kind of collectivist social ethos, and 'overhead', such as with the ongoing 'socialization' of labor credits, as an option.

Worst-case, if the use and circulation of labor credits really *does become* too messy and unwieldy, then they obviously wouldn't *be used* -- it would be a simpler, basic 'communist gift economy' of *zero* labor credits, which would be fine. Again, it's certainly not up to *me* -- it would be up to the people of that post-capitalist society to figure these logistical details out for themselves.

People, as individuals, wouldn't *have* any power, though, compared to all other people in that same, post-class, post-capitalist society -- and not even with weapons / physical force, because *every other* person on the planet would have the *exact same* potential and 'authority', in-turn.

This gets back to your 'factory takeover' scenario from previously, which is essentially a *de-socializing* on the part of this circumscribed group of separatists -- either they make do on their own, given whatever environs they choose (perhaps a particular factory, or outside in nature), or else they eventually have to *re-socialize* on whatever terms the *rest* of society deems appropriate, given their initial *separatist* actions, whatever they were, in order to reconnect with the rest of social production.



wat0n wrote:
The problem with this is that you are effectively saying the new socialist man would need to be created for something like this to work. If such person existed, however, it's hard to see why wouldn't we already live in such society.



We don't live in a socialist society because the Western militaries *invaded* the nascent soviet society back in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War


It's not about *gender identity*, it's about how society organizes its production, and distribution, and surplus:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Proposed by *anyone*, really -- either a crude initial proposal, say perhaps for 'food', is *developed*, and *refined*, or else it isn't. Maybe miliions of people would list 'food proposal from 9-29-2020' high on their daily individual self-prioritized ranked demands lists for days, weeks, and months continuously, but no one really *develops* that proposal any further. Or maybe *several* people go in different directions with it, spinning-off a *number* of different proposals from the original, with more detail, real-world-syncing, and specifics for a locality, or for a region, or a continent, or for the whole world, in scale.

If a proposal or policy package has *work roles* specified then that could attract liberated laborers to those work roles, and they may ask for certain *rates* of labor credits per hour, per work role. Others may see *that* and pledge / commit their labor credits to certain of those work roles / scheduled shifts, with their labor credits. Or maybe a nearby locality would have to issue *debt-based* labor credits, to satisfy funding requirements for those work roles in the proposal / policy package.



wat0n wrote:
Right, and decisions are made by voting weighted by the amount of labor credits workers commit.



No, these two aspects are *separate* and non-determining on each other -- decisions as to what projects go forward are ultimately up to the *liberated-laborers*, because if there *isn't* sufficient labor for any given project then that project simply isn't going to begin, or finish.

If the liberated laborers *want* labor credits at certain rates for their participation, then they won't work unless they get those specified rates of labor credits, per work role, per policy package. Or perhaps *other* liberated laborers would be willing to do those work roles for a lower rate, or for *zero* labor credits. It really wouldn't matter because the *results* of work is always for the common good, especially on any *mass scale* project that uses collectivized means of mass industrial production (factories).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What you're indicating is *culturally specific*, and so I can't really *address* such with my *general*, generic approach to a post-capitalist political economy.


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
What do you mean? I mean, if a project were voted using labor credits yet those who didn't vote for it refused to work in it... What would happen?



I'll *parse* this to 'If a project had labor credits *funded* to it in advance, yet liberated workers refused to work on it', then the project wouldn't get done.

*Or*, perhaps the proponents / backers of that project would scramble and *amend* the corresponding policy package to *get other* liberated-workers, perhaps from *further away*. Or maybe they would find some way to *automate* those work roles from the policy package, perhaps with *robots*. Or maybe they would *postpone* it, or change their approach so that the project becomes *simpler*. Or maybe they would *politick* and call in favors from people they know, or else *extend* favors in the future for cooperation today. Or maybe they would *fundraise* more labor credits for it to make it more *appealing* to liberated laborers in the vicinity. (Etc.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't thing there *could* be such a thing as 'counterfeit [anything]' in a post-capitalist context because there would be no intermediate *exchanges* by-which to *introduce* a bogus product.

Either one gets their booze from Producer A, or else it's from Producer B, etc., and maybe by then all shipments would be done by air, directly from the manufacturer to the specific consumer. (Think 'online ordering' here.)



wat0n wrote:
You don't need an intermediate exchange for counterfeit stuff to be made - not even nowadays actually.



I mean if a shipment is designated to the customer they would get that shipment directly from the provider, and they could always use some codes, or encryption, as a matter of course, and the customer could follow-up remotely, as over the Internet, with the provider to verify that the product came from the provider they ordered from.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you have in mind here, exactly.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay -- I would call these aspects *cultural*, because they exist *on top of* the prevailing *material* conditions, such as how a class society produces / distributes / disposes-of its material *surplus*. Look into 'base-and-superstructure', if you like.



wat0n wrote:
Are these cultural things a form of what you'd call "false consciousness"?



'False consciousness' only applies to people's political self-conceptions *in* class society -- *after* class society there would be no 'class consciousness', or 'false consciousness', because there would be no class division *at all*, to reference with valid or invalid material consciousness.

'Culture' is social *norms*, like etiquette, etc. -- maybe it would be *rude* for anyone to *not work* at all during the year, though strictly according to my model it's *materially* allowed.

Any given post-capitalist 'culture' is not up to *me*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll *pass*, thanks -- the capitalist government is *also* representative of ruling-class interests, and not *workers* interests.



wat0n wrote:
It depends on the case, honestly.



Sorry, I'll pass -- these kinds of things aren't 100% absolute, but they do tend to favor the capitalist ruling class *overall*.
#15124166
ckaihatsu wrote:(Sorry, I don't quite understand -- what's the context?)


I'm not an US citizen, so I'll settle for being a permanent resident.

ckaihatsu wrote:From the perspective of the *employee*, yes, both are jobs, and they both basically get paid every week, or every two weeks, or whatever. So a job is a job is a job.

But, from the *ownership* / *political* perspective, the consultant employee sells a service to the client who's looking for employees, so that's 'headhunting' and actual tangible employees, and their resumes, are provided to the client as a commodity *service*, and the company gets paid by the client. It's unambiguous.

The real estate agent, though, as I've already said, is *not* delivering a set service / commodity, to a set client, for a set fee. Rather, the agent is *prospectively* catering to prospective *customers*, who *aren't* customers, and are paying nothing for the agent's sales service itself. So the sales service is to *get sales*, which is real estate sales and rentals, and is an *internal* cost to the real estate business.


Hmmm? Real estate agents usually do deliver their services set a fee - as a commission for the firm (often as a percentage of the transaction price).

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, welcome to science.

This is how it goes -- we strive to be accurate, mostly so that we ourselves know what's going on, as with political news, etc., and such *can* potentially be depicted scientifically, but there are no guarantees.

I even started a thread for this *schematic* approach to all things political -- feel free to use it, and to submit any sketches, using this symbology, of various current or historical political situations that you can think of.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=177914


But what should happen in that case in your view?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I greatly *disagree* here, because the overall trend, historically, up through the present, has been a trajectory of *deskilling*. The ultimate endpoint would be '3D printing world' for any scale of construction, so that people just download the geometry file of their choosing, and then 3D print it with a minimum of mouse-clicking.

As soon as 3D printers can 3D-print 3D printers -- and there's already a *precedent* for this -- then that means that robots can make robots, and the deskilling is *complete*, at least at a *rudimentary* scope of production.


If you deskill and take it to its ultimate conclusion, what you get is that those jobs are automated. I think the trend in that sense is the opposite - a more skilled workforce (on average) is becoming more necessary as low skill roles are being automated.

ckaihatsu wrote:Possibly, but it's not guaranteed since private *ownership* has the say-so as to where employees are placed in the firm.


It's not guaranteed because it depends on the productive process and the role itself.

ckaihatsu wrote:A janitor's work does *not* produce commodities, for sales to customers. It's for the sake of the business entity itself, keeping the building clean, etc.


So how would you classify the janitor? Is he a wage worker?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well are you just *assuming* this? I'd rather have *verified* information, with journalistic *sources*, than to take your word for anything, because you've shown yourself to be facile and disingenuous.


Have I? The Irish option was done precisely to shelter operations abroad of some US corporations. What can you conclude from that?

ckaihatsu wrote:Then it's 'savings', and if the capitalist has no real investments then they're not really capitalists -- perhaps they're 'unemployed' with some illiquid assets, which could be counted as 'savings'.


There is no meaningful distinction between a saver and a capitalist here. For instance if I own a closed factory, am I a capitalist or simply a saver?

ckaihatsu wrote:It's an important metric for a capitalist economy, along with the GDP growth rate, inflation rate, national debt-to-GDP ratio, employment rate, etc.


Why is it more important than e.g. GDP growth?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, we Marxists would say that this is the nature of the capitalist dynamic -- to score profits as quickly as possible while ignoring 'externalities' like resulting damage to the natural environment.


Right. And future generations will have to deal with a mess originated before they even existed.

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't quite get what you're indicating -- it sounds like you *are* blaming individuals for the failings of the system, since the bourgeois capitalist system *isn't* humane to people, and people without money or prospects, in particular, are going to be more *desperate* and 'cut-corners' compared to whatever the norm is supposed to be.

I'll again note that 'laws' are *class-based*, since corporations don't pay (much) tax, or get punished for their transgressions, like oil spills, deaths of workers on the job, etc.

To uphold bourgeois 'law' is to uphold *bourgeois class rule', which is a *vast* societal double-standard.


Is capitalism to blame for the existence of psychopaths, pyromaniacs, sadists, serial killers or pedophiles?

ckaihatsu wrote:Like where, and how is it a 'Rawlsian ideal', exactly?


Where? Everywhere there are some social welfare policies targeted at helping the poor.

It is Rawlsian since it's based on raising the living standards of those who are worst off - based on the idea that we don't get to choose the circumstances we are born into.

ckaihatsu wrote:Just think of it as present-day political *campaigning* -- the more people you see and who see you, and the more palms you can press, and the more babies you can kiss, the more *popular* you'll be. The difference is that *post-capitalism* there won't be any positions of *power*, as in a bourgeois social hierarchy. Politicking *then*, post-capitalism, will be nakedly self-interested, as for priority for use of a certain plot of land, or receipt of some collector's CD or DVD from the time of capitalism, or for a limited-seating music concert, etc.


OK, but if people are deciding who gets to live in the best residential plot how is this decision made in this world?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, the productivity *doesn't* depend on such *configurational* or *external* details, because you already know what the *main components* are, for *any* production: it's [1] capital, and [2] exploited labor, for [3] revenue.

In the scenario it's only $20 that the employer provides for the production process, plus $10 to the worker for wages. But a *surplus* of value is returned, $10, which is directly due to the laborer's work, but which is *not* given over to the worker.


You didn't really say anything new here. Why should one assume that each and every time the surplus should belong to the worker?

ckaihatsu wrote:You raised this historical event, so maybe *you* should tell *me*.


It seems to me like it was, since they organized in different communes. But maybe I'm wrong, which is why I'm asking.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's neither a prediction or a wish.

You need to understand the difference between private-interest *claims* over productive property (factories), and a *post-capitalist*, *collectivist* administration-in-common over the same by those who are doing the actual *work* there.


So?

ckaihatsu wrote:As far as 'basic essentials', or 'basic necessities' are concerned, such would be the *most common* kinds of production that is socially-necessary. I have a list which I use here often, that being food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.

I don't think that the quality of *land*, for farming, is such a *pressing concern* anymore since we now have 'vertical farming', meaning the use of hydroponics and grow lights in any enclosed, indoor space, to grow fruits and vegetables.


How about land for living in? Wouldn't the definition on what are "needs" be the result of the political process just as it is now?

ckaihatsu wrote:Correct, the labor credits would *ideally* not be for interpersonal exchanges, though such couldn't really be disallowed -- they're meant to facilitate the policy-package, pre-planned provisioning of liberated-workers, in *any* configuration, for *any* project or production run, over *any* scale of social organization for the same.

The labor credits do not retain *any* properties of money since they're not prescribed for *exchanges* -- they are only 'passed forward' from liberated laborers *with* them, to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed pre-planned work and are *funded* with those labor credits.


Right.

ckaihatsu wrote:We don't live in a socialist society because the Western militaries *invaded* the nascent soviet society back in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War


That comment includes Western societies of course.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's not about *gender identity*, it's about how society organizes its production, and distribution, and surplus:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image


No, it's about much more than just that.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, these two aspects are *separate* and non-determining on each other -- decisions as to what projects go forward are ultimately up to the *liberated-laborers*, because if there *isn't* sufficient labor for any given project then that project simply isn't going to begin, or finish.

If the liberated laborers *want* labor credits at certain rates for their participation, then they won't work unless they get those specified rates of labor credits, per work role, per policy package. Or perhaps *other* liberated laborers would be willing to do those work roles for a lower rate, or for *zero* labor credits. It really wouldn't matter because the *results* of work is always for the common good, especially on any *mass scale* project that uses collectivized means of mass industrial production (factories).


Who defines what the "common good" is?

Also, would there be non-liberated laborers in this society?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll *parse* this to 'If a project had labor credits *funded* to it in advance, yet liberated workers refused to work on it', then the project wouldn't get done.

*Or*, perhaps the proponents / backers of that project would scramble and *amend* the corresponding policy package to *get other* liberated-workers, perhaps from *further away*. Or maybe they would find some way to *automate* those work roles from the policy package, perhaps with *robots*. Or maybe they would *postpone* it, or change their approach so that the project becomes *simpler*. Or maybe they would *politick* and call in favors from people they know, or else *extend* favors in the future for cooperation today. Or maybe they would *fundraise* more labor credits for it to make it more *appealing* to liberated laborers in the vicinity. (Etc.)


This is quite vague. Why would anyone try to accumulate labor credits by doing unpleasant or dangerous work if at the end of the day they may seemingly be quite useless?

ckaihatsu wrote:I mean if a shipment is designated to the customer they would get that shipment directly from the provider, and they could always use some codes, or encryption, as a matter of course, and the customer could follow-up remotely, as over the Internet, with the provider to verify that the product came from the provider they ordered from.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you have in mind here, exactly.


What if the internet seller is himself selling counterfeit stuff? Say, for instance, you buy vodka online from a local brand. How do you know that the vodka you are buying is in fact vodka and not something else?

ckaihatsu wrote:'False consciousness' only applies to people's political self-conceptions *in* class society -- *after* class society there would be no 'class consciousness', or 'false consciousness', because there would be no class division *at all*, to reference with valid or invalid material consciousness.

'Culture' is social *norms*, like etiquette, etc. -- maybe it would be *rude* for anyone to *not work* at all during the year, though strictly according to my model it's *materially* allowed.

Any given post-capitalist 'culture' is not up to *me*.


I see. Do you think these other identity categories may actually serve as an obstacle for both the formation and maintenance of this post-capitalist society?

ckaihatsu wrote:Sorry, I'll pass -- these kinds of things aren't 100% absolute, but they do tend to favor the capitalist ruling class *overall*.


I don't think so. I think what they favor is stability above all.
#15124209
ckaihatsu wrote:
(Sorry, I don't quite understand -- what's the context?)



wat0n wrote:
I'm not an US citizen, so I'll settle for being a permanent resident.



Got it. Welcome, and all the best -- I know Trump is being an asshole to immigrants.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
From the perspective of the *employee*, yes, both are jobs, and they both basically get paid every week, or every two weeks, or whatever. So a job is a job is a job.

But, from the *ownership* / *political* perspective, the consultant employee sells a service to the client who's looking for employees, so that's 'headhunting' and actual tangible employees, and their resumes, are provided to the client as a commodity *service*, and the company gets paid by the client. It's unambiguous.

The real estate agent, though, as I've already said, is *not* delivering a set service / commodity, to a set client, for a set fee. Rather, the agent is *prospectively* catering to prospective *customers*, who *aren't* customers, and are paying nothing for the agent's sales service itself. So the sales service is to *get sales*, which is real estate sales and rentals, and is an *internal* cost to the real estate business.



wat0n wrote:
Hmmm? Real estate agents usually do deliver their services set a fee - as a commission for the firm (often as a percentage of the transaction price).



Yes, exactly, and that further proves my point -- the agent is tied into the real estate company itself, on commission, and dependent on sale-by-sale revenue, which, again, is *not* productive of (mass-production) *commodities* (including commodity services). Collecting interest on savings, or collecting rent on real estate assets, are both *non-productive* *rentier* capital. It's more like *loaning out* an asset -- capital / value that's *pre-existing*. Nothing new, and no new value, is being produced.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, welcome to science.

This is how it goes -- we strive to be accurate, mostly so that we ourselves know what's going on, as with political news, etc., and such *can* potentially be depicted scientifically, but there are no guarantees.

I even started a thread for this *schematic* approach to all things political -- feel free to use it, and to submit any sketches, using this symbology, of various current or historical political situations that you can think of.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=177914



wat0n wrote:
But what should happen in that case in your view?



To *clarify*, I mean *social science*, or the 'soft sciences', including politics and Marxism.

Do you mean what should happen after an empirical socio-political situation is depicted *accurately* -- ?

The rest is then *politics*, because different political ideologies will reach different political *conclusions* about this-or-that situation, even if they agree on the empirical situation *itself*.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



universal context

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I greatly *disagree* here, because the overall trend, historically, up through the present, has been a trajectory of *deskilling*. The ultimate endpoint would be '3D printing world' for any scale of construction, so that people just download the geometry file of their choosing, and then 3D print it with a minimum of mouse-clicking.

As soon as 3D printers can 3D-print 3D printers -- and there's already a *precedent* for this -- then that means that robots can make robots, and the deskilling is *complete*, at least at a *rudimentary* scope of production.



wat0n wrote:
If you deskill and take it to its ultimate conclusion, what you get is that those jobs are automated. I think the trend in that sense is the opposite - a more skilled workforce (on average) is becoming more necessary as low skill roles are being automated.



Okay, that's fair -- and working people are having to do two-or-more jobs in *one*, because of deflation and the increased value of any given dollar bill, as for wages.

But, *ultimately*, we're both identifying the end-point, which would be *full* automation, hardly *anyone* having to do *any* work, and free-access to digital 3D content, for 3D printing, by anyone.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But not all engineers have the exact same work role -- some engineers will be more like technical *advisors*, and will work internally to the company itself, thus being distinctly on the side of management, *not* producing any commodities, while other engineers will be more like glorified *workers*, *will* be on the assembly line, and will primarily be producing commodities, like any other blue-collar worker.



wat0n wrote:
Not like any other blue-collar worker, though, they will tend to have a more supervisory role in this scenario.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Possibly, but it's not guaranteed since private *ownership* has the say-so as to where employees are placed in the firm.



wat0n wrote:
It's not guaranteed because it depends on the productive process and the role itself.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
A janitor's work does *not* produce commodities, for sales to customers. It's for the sake of the business entity itself, keeping the building clean, etc.



wat0n wrote:
So how would you classify the janitor? Is he a wage worker?



From the *worker's* standpoint, it doesn't really matter what the job is, regarding ownership and management -- to a worker a job is a job is a job. Whether it's technically a 'wage', or a 'salary', or a 'salary plus commission', doesn't really matter much. It's all a means to an end, that of life and living.

But *politically*, and *empirically*, the janitor does not produce commodities, so the janitor provides 'overhead'-type services to *capital* / ownership / management, for the business entity itself. What the janitor does produces *no revenue*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, good info, but you're still not addressing whether all of this parked capital is able to *circulate* and be used for financial operations, or not.



wat0n wrote:
Why wouldn't it?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Well are you just *assuming* this? I'd rather have *verified* information, with journalistic *sources*, than to take your word for anything, because you've shown yourself to be facile and disingenuous.



wat0n wrote:
Have I? The Irish option was done precisely to shelter operations abroad of some US corporations. What can you conclude from that?



Why can't you stick to the topic of each segment?

You're showing that you'd rather *bullshit* than provide accurate information, and sources.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Then it's 'savings', and if the capitalist has no real investments then they're not really capitalists -- perhaps they're 'unemployed' with some illiquid assets, which could be counted as 'savings'.



wat0n wrote:
There is no meaningful distinction between a saver and a capitalist here. For instance if I own a closed factory, am I a capitalist or simply a saver?



If you're not producing any commodities, and you're not employing / exploiting any people, and you're not leveraging capital, then, no, you're definitely *not* a capitalist at that moment.

So, yes, there *is* a meaningful distinction between a saver and a capitalist. (Digging a hole in the backyard and filling it with money does not make one a capitalist.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since revolution is a *political* thing it's *not* dependent on capitalist economics, though obviously the performance or crashing of the capitalist economy will have knock-on *political* effects.



wat0n wrote:
Why would you measure the performance based on the rate of profit?



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's an important metric for a capitalist economy, along with the GDP growth rate, inflation rate, national debt-to-GDP ratio, employment rate, etc.



wat0n wrote:
Why is it more important than e.g. GDP growth?



You're *mixing scales* -- rate of profit is for a *company*, while the other measurements are for an entire *country's* economy.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, we Marxists would say that this is the nature of the capitalist dynamic -- to score profits as quickly as possible while ignoring 'externalities' like resulting damage to the natural environment.



wat0n wrote:
Right. And future generations will have to deal with a mess originated before they even existed.



As far as *environmental* stuff goes, yes, you're correct.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't quite get what you're indicating -- it sounds like you *are* blaming individuals for the failings of the system, since the bourgeois capitalist system *isn't* humane to people, and people without money or prospects, in particular, are going to be more *desperate* and 'cut-corners' compared to whatever the norm is supposed to be.

I'll again note that 'laws' are *class-based*, since corporations don't pay (much) tax, or get punished for their transgressions, like oil spills, deaths of workers on the job, etc.

To uphold bourgeois 'law' is to uphold *bourgeois class rule', which is a *vast* societal double-standard.



wat0n wrote:
Is capitalism to blame for the existence of psychopaths, pyromaniacs, sadists, serial killers or pedophiles?



Yeah, basically -- it's called 'alienation', and it's the *disempowerment* and *atomization* of the individual in capitalist society:



Contents

1 Types of alienation

1.1 Alienation of the worker from their product

1.2 Alienation of the worker from the act of production

1.3 Alienation of the worker from their Gattungswesen (species-essence)

1.3.1 Relations of production

1.4 Alienation of the worker from other workers



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_ ... alienation



(We could ask how it is that normal, decent kids grow up to be these anti-social people that you list. I don't agree with those who say it's *genetics*, so that leaves us with 'nurture' -- how people are systematically *socialized*, as through schooling and work, or not, in our society.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's about 'raising-the-floor', in general -- workers collectively controlling the means of mass industrial productivity, for social production, would be able to provide a *baseline* of consistent living standards (food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.) to *everyone*, absent private interests for private accumulations from this workers-collectivized social production.



wat0n wrote:
This sounds like a Rawlsian ideal. Interesting, I think many non-Marxists would agree with this as a goal. And actually in several parts of the world, this has been happening.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Like where, and how is it a 'Rawlsian ideal', exactly?



wat0n wrote:
Where? Everywhere there are some social welfare policies targeted at helping the poor.

It is Rawlsian since it's based on raising the living standards of those who are worst off - based on the idea that we don't get to choose the circumstances we are born into.



Do *you* think we 'choose' the circumstances that we're born into?

Are you anti-austerity regarding government spending?

Do you think the world could cut-out-the-middleman regarding production and administration, so that workers could *collectivize* production and work to produce for themselves only?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Just think of it as present-day political *campaigning* -- the more people you see and who see you, and the more palms you can press, and the more babies you can kiss, the more *popular* you'll be. The difference is that *post-capitalism* there won't be any positions of *power*, as in a bourgeois social hierarchy. Politicking *then*, post-capitalism, will be nakedly self-interested, as for priority for use of a certain plot of land, or receipt of some collector's CD or DVD from the time of capitalism, or for a limited-seating music concert, etc.



wat0n wrote:
OK, but if people are deciding who gets to live in the best residential plot how is this decision made in this world?



Look back at what I already said about it, particularly the 'additive prioritizations' model.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the productivity *doesn't* depend on such *configurational* or *external* details, because you already know what the *main components* are, for *any* production: it's [1] capital, and [2] exploited labor, for [3] revenue.

In the scenario it's only $20 that the employer provides for the production process, plus $10 to the worker for wages. But a *surplus* of value is returned, $10, which is directly due to the laborer's work, but which is *not* given over to the worker.



wat0n wrote:
You didn't really say anything new here. Why should one assume that each and every time the surplus should belong to the worker?



Yes, I *did* say why -- it's because that $10 in surplus labor value was due to the work of the worker. Without the worker's / workers' work the employer would just have the same $30 in-pocket, and nothing / no production would happen.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, what about the Spanish Civil War?



wat0n wrote:
Were the Republicans - at least those who established communes - an example of a failed revolution?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You raised this historical event, so maybe *you* should tell *me*.



wat0n wrote:
It seems to me like it was, since they organized in different communes. But maybe I'm wrong, which is why I'm asking.



The anarchists lacked *centralization*:



Spain: fascism, revolution and civil war

English writer George Orwell wrote of Barcelona in November 1936:

It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically any building of any size had been seized by the workers. Every shop and cafe had a an inscription saying it was collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black.

Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as equals. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. There were no private cars; they had all been commandeered. It was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist.

Above all there was belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in a capitalist machine.214

Barely four months earlier Spain’s military, headed by General Franco, had attempted to seize power. Their efforts had been thwarted in more than half the country by workers’ uprisings. Civil war followed—the culmination of six years of increasingly bitter class struggle.


The defeat of the workers’ movement in the early 1920s had allowed a dictator, Primo de Rivera, to rule Spain for the rest of the decade. He relied on the military to crush opposition and was able to prevent militant workers organising. Most anarcho-syndicalist and Communist leaders went into exile. But de Rivera had no great social base of his own and had to balance between different social groups, even collaborating with the Socialist trade union leader Largo Caballero. His weak dictatorship collapsed in 1930, unable to cope with the effects of the world crisis. A few months later the left won an overwhelming victory in local elections, the king abdicated, and enthusiastic crowds proclaimed the republic, first in Barcelona and then in Madrid.

A bourgeois republican government ruled for the next two years, with Caballero as minister of labour. It was a government which promised much in the way of reform and delivered little—for example its land reform benefited only 2,000 peasants out of two million. There was open disillusionment as police shot down peasants occupying the land in the village of Casas Viejas in the south and broke strikes in cities like Barcelona.

However, the mere talk of reform was enough to antagonise the upper classes. A section of bourgeois republicans split away to form an alliance with a new party, CEDA, backed by the great landowners, certain big business interests, leading army officers, monarchists, open admirers of Mussolini, and the bishops of the Catholic church. CEDA leader Gil Robles wanted to graft fascist methods onto Catholic dogma, as Dollfuss was doing in Austria, and held rallies reminiscent of those of Mussolini and Hitler. Electoral victory for the right seemed to put a CEDA government on the cards. Even the leaders of the Socialist Party and its UGT union saw this as a grave threat, agreed to oppose it physically, and united with some smaller working class organisations to form a united ‘Workers’ Alliance’.

The hostility to CEDA came from the industrial workers of the major cities and the vast numbers of semi-employed rural labourers on the great estates of the south. But it was also shared by a section of the middle class, especially in Catalonia, where they feared a right wing onslaught on their autonomous government and language. Yet when CEDA finally took office in October 1934 only the miners of Asturias in the north of the country rose up, arming themselves with dynamite and taking control of the area. The anarcho-syndicalists who dominated much of the working class movement refused to take part in a national rising out of distrust for all politicians, the Catalan nationalists stood aside at the last minute, and the Socialist Party and union leaders restricted protests to a short general strike in Madrid. The government was able to smash the Asturian miners, using troops from Spanish Morocco under the command of General Franco, and imposed a reign of terror in the area. Elsewhere in Spain, Socialist Party members (including Caballero) and trade unionists were thrown into prison. The left referred to the period that followed as ‘the two black years’. But the defeat of the workers’ movement in Spain in 1934 was not like that in Austria the same year. The right wing government was unable to solve the political crisis and fell apart. Early in 1936 another election was called in a climate of increasing class polarisation and political bitterness.

In the meantime the same ‘Popular Front’ ideas as in France had come to influence much of the left. The small Communist Party, which prior to October 1934 had opposed unity with socialists and anarcho-syndicalists, now campaigned vigorously for all to unite with the bourgeois republicans. Such ideas were accepted with enthusiasm by the right wing of the Socialist Party, and a joint list of Socialist, Communist and bourgeois republican candidates contested the elections. Even the anarcho-syndicalists urged their supporters to vote for it, hoping to see their activists freed from prison.

The electoral system meant that the Popular Front won an overwhelming majority of seats on a vote that was only marginally up on 1933. The new government was composed of the same republican politicians who had so disappointed people in 1931-33. But pressure from below caused them to free left wing political prisoners, and there was general elation on the left. Workers’ confidence led to a growing wave of strikes and demonstrations. People flooded into both the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and the Socialist UGT unions, while the Socialist Party moved sharply to the left. Caballero claimed he had been won to Marxism in prison and declared, ‘The revolution we want can only be achieved by violence’.215 The Socialist Youth referred to him as ‘the Spanish Lenin’ as they raised their fists and chanted slogans for a ‘workers’ government’ and a ‘red army’.216

There was a growing sense of panic among the country’s conservative forces. CEDA activists flooded towards an even more overtly fascist organisation, the Falange, and upper class thugs launched violent attacks on the left. There were reports that senior army officers were planning a coup, but the government did nothing except swap their posts around. In just four months 269 people were killed and 1,287 wounded in street fights, 381 buildings were attacked or damaged, 43 newspaper offices were attacked or ransacked, and there were 146 bomb attempts.217

The right finally made its move on 17-18 July. The generals tried to seize control of every city in Spain and Spanish Morocco. The republican government was too terrified to do anything, and even issued a statement denying that a coup was taking place. The prime minister, Quiroga, resigned. His replacement, Barrio, tried to reach an accommodation with the rebellion and then resigned in the face of hostile workers’ demonstrations.

The military had expected to take power in a matter of hours. The cowardice and confusion of the Popular Front republican politicians gave them their chance. What upset their calculations was the reaction of workers. The UGT and CNT unions called for a general strike. But workers did not simply engage in passive stoppages. In most of the cities and towns of mainland Spain they moved to seize control of the barracks and disarm the army. Militants from the CNT, UGT and workers’ parties grabbed guns from wherever they could. Sometimes they succeeded in winning over sections of the generally pro-republican Assault Guard and even, as in Barcelona, the traditionally anti working class Civil Guard. But what mattered was their initiative. Where they moved decisively, without vacillation or conciliation towards the right wing officers, they were nearly always successful.

The coup’s successes were mostly in cities where workers’ leaders accepted claims by officers to support the republic. In places like Seville, Cádiz, Saragossa and Oviedo these officers waited until the armed workers had dispersed before declaring for the coup and shooting down anyone who resisted.218 Such was the price workers paid for having faith in those sections of the traditional ruling elite who claimed to be ‘republicans’. It was only because this faith was not universal that Franco’s forces won control of less than half of Spain in July 1936 rather than the whole country.

In places where the rising was crushed it was not only Franco’s followers who suffered defeat: ‘The state, caught between its insurgent army and the armed masses of the people, had shattered to pieces’.219 Although the official government still held office in Madrid, real authority in the localities was in the hands of a multitude of revolutionary committees. The workers who held power in an area used it in their own interests: factories were taken over and collectivised; peasants began to divide the land, knowing that the workers’ militias would protect them; armed workers arrested local dignitaries with a record of hostility to their demands. With the disintegration of the army, the bourgeoisie seemed finished throughout most of the republican areas, hence the conditions Orwell found in Barcelona. Effective power was in the hands of the workers’ organisations, while the official republican government held office without effective power. This was also true of the autonomous government of Catalonia, the most important industrial region. Its president, Companys, invited the leaders of the most powerful workers’ organisation in Catalonia, the CNT, to a meeting at which he told them:

You are the masters of the town and of Catalonia, because you have defeated the fascist soldiers on your own… You have won and everything is in your power. If you do not need me, if you do not want me to be president, say so now, and I shall become just another soldier in the anti-fascist struggle.220


A situation of ‘dual power’ existed—as in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and at points during the German Revolution of 1918-20—with the official government dependent on networks of revolutionary committees and organisations to get things done. However, the republican government did have one advantage over the revolutionary committees. It had a centralised structure and they did not. This was a vital matter. The fascist armies were centralised and so able to pursue a single strategy across the whole country. The anti-fascists needed to be centralised as well, otherwise the fascists would be able to win the war simply by moving their troops to points on the front where the opposing forces were weakest, knowing the anti-fascists would not be able to respond by concentrating their forces.

This anti-fascist centralisation could have been achieved by drawing the committees together. There were coordinating committees of anti-fascist militias in many localities. But there was no establishment of an all-Spanish committee of militias and workers’ delegates comparable to the Russian soviets of 1917.

The reason for this failing lay in the politics of the workers’ organisations. The most powerful, the anarcho-syndicalists, had always insisted that any centralisation of power would involve a crushing of the workers by a new state. It would be wrong to follow this path now, they said. In the words of one of their leaders, Santillan, ‘Dictatorship was the liquidation of libertarian communism, which could only be achieved by the liberty and spontaneity of the masses’.221 Rather than go along that path, they argued to leave Companys’s government intact and collaborate with it. Even the ablest and most militant of the CNT leaders, Buenaventura Durutti—who had been involved in two unsuccessful risings against republican governments—did not dispute this logic. He had played a decisive role in crushing the fascists in Barcelona, was the hero of the city’s workers, and was to lead an impromptu workers’ army of tens of thousands which swept across the Catalan border into Aragon and towards the fascist-held city of Saragossa. But he was not prepared to confront the question of power, and left his CNT colleagues free to share it with Companys’s bourgeois government.

The Catalan CNT did create a partial ‘counter-power’ to the government. It formed a central militia committee made up of representatives from itself, the UGT union, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the dissident communist POUM party, the Rabassaires peasant organisation and Companys’s party. This coordinated the military struggle in the region and was the focus for workers’ aspirations. But as it was made up of parties rather than workers’, soldiers’ and peasants’ delegates it was an imperfect expression of those aspirations. And it consciously left decisions over other important questions, particularly finance and the banks, with Companys’s government.

The Socialist Party and UGT leaders were the main influence on the workers’ movement in Madrid, and the armed militia owing allegiance to them was soon as much in control of that city as the CNT was in Barcelona. But for all the talk of Caballero being the ‘Spanish Lenin’, his supporters made no moves to establish a structure of workers’ power. The entire history of their organisation had involved working to exert pressure within the institutions of existing society. They were terrified of any elected delegate structure which might allow the anarchists to exert pressure on the rank and file of their own organisations. The right inside the Socialist Party urged immediate compromise with the bourgeois republicans. The left, led by Caballero, were not happy about this, remembering how unsuccessful their past collaborations with the republicans had been. But the left had no other answer to the question of how to create a centralised authority to counter the fascist armies’ coordinated pincer movement towards Madrid.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 500-505



Meanwhile:



Britain and France were jostling for hegemony in the Middle East; a section of the US ruling class was keen to displace Britain as the predominant international power and had already established a decisive influence in oil-rich Saudi Arabia; and France was mainly concerned to hold together a patchwork of allies in Eastern Europe, so as to divert Germany from any movement against its borders. There were powerful groups in all of them which regarded Nazism as a positive ally in an international onslaught on working class organisations and the left. In so far as they saw themselves as having a foreign enemy it was Russia rather than Germany, Italy or Japan. This was shown clearly during the Spanish Civil War, when the rulers of the Western ‘democracies’ were content for Hitler and Mussolini to flout a ‘non-intervention’ pact, since Franco was no danger to their empires.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 521-522



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's neither a prediction or a wish.

You need to understand the difference between private-interest *claims* over productive property (factories), and a *post-capitalist*, *collectivist* administration-in-common over the same by those who are doing the actual *work* there.



wat0n wrote:
So?



---


wat0n wrote:
And it would leave us to define what are needs and what are wants. Is having access to high-quality land a need or a want? Also, could this very definition be a political matter?



ckaihatsu wrote:
As far as 'basic essentials', or 'basic necessities' are concerned, such would be the *most common* kinds of production that is socially-necessary. I have a list which I use here often, that being food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.

I don't think that the quality of *land*, for farming, is such a *pressing concern* anymore since we now have 'vertical farming', meaning the use of hydroponics and grow lights in any enclosed, indoor space, to grow fruits and vegetables.



wat0n wrote:
How about land for living in? Wouldn't the definition on what are "needs" be the result of the political process just as it is now?



Yes, but then the *answer* to 'land for living in', would be *housing*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct, the labor credits would *ideally* not be for interpersonal exchanges, though such couldn't really be disallowed -- they're meant to facilitate the policy-package, pre-planned provisioning of liberated-workers, in *any* configuration, for *any* project or production run, over *any* scale of social organization for the same.

The labor credits do not retain *any* properties of money since they're not prescribed for *exchanges* -- they are only 'passed forward' from liberated laborers *with* them, to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed pre-planned work and are *funded* with those labor credits.



wat0n wrote:
Right.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We don't live in a socialist society because the Western militaries *invaded* the nascent soviet society back in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War



wat0n wrote:
That comment includes Western societies of course.



---


wat0n wrote:
The problem with this is that you are effectively saying the new socialist man would need to be created for something like this to work. If such person existed, however, it's hard to see why wouldn't we already live in such society.



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not about *gender identity*, it's about how society organizes its production, and distribution, and surplus:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
No, it's about much more than just that.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, these two aspects are *separate* and non-determining on each other -- decisions as to what projects go forward are ultimately up to the *liberated-laborers*, because if there *isn't* sufficient labor for any given project then that project simply isn't going to begin, or finish.

If the liberated laborers *want* labor credits at certain rates for their participation, then they won't work unless they get those specified rates of labor credits, per work role, per policy package. Or perhaps *other* liberated laborers would be willing to do those work roles for a lower rate, or for *zero* labor credits. It really wouldn't matter because the *results* of work is always for the common good, especially on any *mass scale* project that uses collectivized means of mass industrial production (factories).



wat0n wrote:
Who defines what the "common good" is?

Also, would there be non-liberated laborers in this society?



The reason why I call them *liberated* laborers is because they are under no obligation, coercion, or duress to labor. Liberated laborers, post-capitalism, *are* liberated and so have 100% personal discretion as to whether or not to work for the common good, the 'commons' -- meaning society's then-collectivized infrastructure, means of mass industrial production, and finished and natural resources. The common-good / the 'commons' would be entirely *free-access*, so whenever liberated-labor *produces* for that, it necessarily benefits all of society, being free-access, since anyone and everyone can *take* from it.

No, there would be no 'non'-liberated laborers -- everyone would be free to take for personal needs and wants from the commons / common-good, and could provide their own liberated-labor *to* the commons, as well.


---


wat0n wrote:
What do you mean? I mean, if a project were voted using labor credits yet those who didn't vote for it refused to work in it... What would happen?



ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll *parse* this to 'If a project had labor credits *funded* to it in advance, yet liberated workers refused to work on it', then the project wouldn't get done.

*Or*, perhaps the proponents / backers of that project would scramble and *amend* the corresponding policy package to *get other* liberated-workers, perhaps from *further away*. Or maybe they would find some way to *automate* those work roles from the policy package, perhaps with *robots*. Or maybe they would *postpone* it, or change their approach so that the project becomes *simpler*. Or maybe they would *politick* and call in favors from people they know, or else *extend* favors in the future for cooperation today. Or maybe they would *fundraise* more labor credits for it to make it more *appealing* to liberated laborers in the vicinity. (Etc.)



wat0n wrote:
This is quite vague. Why would anyone try to accumulate labor credits by doing unpleasant or dangerous work if at the end of the day they may seemingly be quite useless?



Correct -- *no one* would have to do *any* work, but then the entire society's standard-of-living would wind up being quite *rudimentary*, and, at-worst, people might have to *scavenge* from nature. If no one did *any* work then all they would have is whatever was developed during the time of capitalism, and such probably couldn't be *sustained* without additional work, anyway.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean if a shipment is designated to the customer they would get that shipment directly from the provider, and they could always use some codes, or encryption, as a matter of course, and the customer could follow-up remotely, as over the Internet, with the provider to verify that the product came from the provider they ordered from.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you have in mind here, exactly.



wat0n wrote:
What if the internet seller is himself selling counterfeit stuff? Say, for instance, you buy vodka online from a local brand. How do you know that the vodka you are buying is in fact vodka and not something else?



I guess there could be *comments*, like on the products pages for online sellers *today*. Consumers post-capitalism could stay one-step-ahead of what sellers are selling, since all production would be *free-access*, so *anyone* could try out *anything* with no cost and little risk, and with collective discussion afterward.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'False consciousness' only applies to people's political self-conceptions *in* class society -- *after* class society there would be no 'class consciousness', or 'false consciousness', because there would be no class division *at all*, to reference with valid or invalid material consciousness.

'Culture' is social *norms*, like etiquette, etc. -- maybe it would be *rude* for anyone to *not work* at all during the year, though strictly according to my model it's *materially* allowed.

Any given post-capitalist 'culture' is not up to *me*.



wat0n wrote:
I see. Do you think these other identity categories may actually serve as an obstacle for both the formation and maintenance of this post-capitalist society?



If you mean 'culture' overall, I could only *speculate* myself -- culture could be *reinforcing*, or *dissuasive*, to any given productive societal 'base', meaning mode-of-production.



In Marxist theory, society consists of two parts: the base (or substructure) and superstructure. The base comprises the forces and relations of production (e.g. employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations) into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. The base determines society's other relationships and ideas to comprise its superstructure, including its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. While the relation of the two parts is not strictly unidirectional, as the superstructure often affects the base, the influence of the base is predominant. Marx and Engels warned against such economic determinism.[1]



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



And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, I'll pass -- these kinds of things aren't 100% absolute, but they do tend to favor the capitalist ruling class *overall*.



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so. I think what they favor is stability above all.



Yes, that's correct -- 'stability' in the sense of the 'status quo', including exploitation of labor and oppression of social minorities, which all needs to be *overthrown* by the world's working class, in a proletarian revolution.ations. But as it was made up of parties rather than workers’, soldiers’ and peasants’ delegates it was an imperfect expression of those aspirations. And it consciously left decisions over other important questions, particularly finance and the banks, with Companys’s government.

The Socialist Party and UGT leaders were the main influence on the workers’ movement in Madrid, and the armed militia owing allegiance to them was soon as much in control of that city as the CNT was in Barcelona. But for all the talk of Caballero being the ‘Spanish Lenin’, his supporters made no moves to establish a structure of workers’ power. The entire history of their organisation had involved working to exert pressure within the institutions of existing society. They were terrified of any elected delegate structure which might allow the anarchists to exert pressure on the rank and file of their own organisations. The right inside the Socialist Party urged immediate compromise with the bourgeois republicans. The left, led by Caballero, were not happy about this, remembering how unsuccessful their past collaborations with the republicans had been. But the left had no other answer to the question of how to create a centralised authority to counter the fascist armies’ coordinated pincer movement towards Madrid.[/quote]


Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 500-505



Meanwhile:



Britain and France were jostling for hegemony in the Middle East; a section of the US ruling class was keen to displace Britain as the predominant international power and had already established a decisive influence in oil-rich Saudi Arabia; and France was mainly concerned to hold together a patchwork of allies in Eastern Europe, so as to divert Germany from any movement against its borders. There were powerful groups in all of them which regarded Nazism as a positive ally in an international onslaught on working class organisations and the left. In so far as they saw themselves as having a foreign enemy it was Russia rather than Germany, Italy or Japan. This was shown clearly during the Spanish Civil War, when the rulers of the Western ‘democracies’ were content for Hitler and Mussolini to flout a ‘non-intervention’ pact, since Franco was no danger to their empires.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 521-522



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's neither a prediction or a wish.

You need to understand the difference between private-interest *claims* over productive property (factories), and a *post-capitalist*, *collectivist* administration-in-common over the same by those who are doing the actual *work* there.



wat0n wrote:
So?



---


wat0n wrote:
And it would leave us to define what are needs and what are wants. Is having access to high-quality land a need or a want? Also, could this very definition be a political matter?



ckaihatsu wrote:
As far as 'basic essentials', or 'basic necessities' are concerned, such would be the *most common* kinds of production that is socially-necessary. I have a list which I use here often, that being food, housing, utilities, education, transportation, etc.

I don't think that the quality of *land*, for farming, is such a *pressing concern* anymore since we now have 'vertical farming', meaning the use of hydroponics and grow lights in any enclosed, indoor space, to grow fruits and vegetables.



wat0n wrote:
How about land for living in? Wouldn't the definition on what are "needs" be the result of the political process just as it is now?



Yes, but then the *answer* to 'land for living in', would be *housing*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct, the labor credits would *ideally* not be for interpersonal exchanges, though such couldn't really be disallowed -- they're meant to facilitate the policy-package, pre-planned provisioning of liberated-workers, in *any* configuration, for *any* project or production run, over *any* scale of social organization for the same.

The labor credits do not retain *any* properties of money since they're not prescribed for *exchanges* -- they are only 'passed forward' from liberated laborers *with* them, to 'incoming' liberated laborers who have completed pre-planned work and are *funded* with those labor credits.



wat0n wrote:
Right.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We don't live in a socialist society because the Western militaries *invaded* the nascent soviet society back in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War



wat0n wrote:
That comment includes Western societies of course.



---


wat0n wrote:
The problem with this is that you are effectively saying the new socialist man would need to be created for something like this to work. If such person existed, however, it's hard to see why wouldn't we already live in such society.



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not about *gender identity*, it's about how society organizes its production, and distribution, and surplus:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
No, it's about much more than just that.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, these two aspects are *separate* and non-determining on each other -- decisions as to what projects go forward are ultimately up to the *liberated-laborers*, because if there *isn't* sufficient labor for any given project then that project simply isn't going to begin, or finish.

If the liberated laborers *want* labor credits at certain rates for their participation, then they won't work unless they get those specified rates of labor credits, per work role, per policy package. Or perhaps *other* liberated laborers would be willing to do those work roles for a lower rate, or for *zero* labor credits. It really wouldn't matter because the *results* of work is always for the common good, especially on any *mass scale* project that uses collectivized means of mass industrial production (factories).



wat0n wrote:
Who defines what the "common good" is?

Also, would there be non-liberated laborers in this society?



The reason why I call them *liberated* laborers is because they are under no obligation, coercion, or duress to labor. Liberated laborers, post-capitalism, *are* liberated and so have 100% personal discretion as to whether or not to work for the common good, the 'commons' -- meaning society's then-collectivized infrastructure, means of mass industrial production, and finished and natural resources. The common-good / the 'commons' would be entirely *free-access*, so whenever liberated-labor *produces* for that, it necessarily benefits all of society, being free-access, since anyone and everyone can *take* from it.

No, there would be no 'non'-liberated laborers -- everyone would be free to take for personal needs and wants from the commons / common-good, and could provide their own liberated-labor *to* the commons, as well.


---


wat0n wrote:
What do you mean? I mean, if a project were voted using labor credits yet those who didn't vote for it refused to work in it... What would happen?



ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll *parse* this to 'If a project had labor credits *funded* to it in advance, yet liberated workers refused to work on it', then the project wouldn't get done.

*Or*, perhaps the proponents / backers of that project would scramble and *amend* the corresponding policy package to *get other* liberated-workers, perhaps from *further away*. Or maybe they would find some way to *automate* those work roles from the policy package, perhaps with *robots*. Or maybe they would *postpone* it, or change their approach so that the project becomes *simpler*. Or maybe they would *politick* and call in favors from people they know, or else *extend* favors in the future for cooperation today. Or maybe they would *fundraise* more labor credits for it to make it more *appealing* to liberated laborers in the vicinity. (Etc.)



wat0n wrote:
This is quite vague. Why would anyone try to accumulate labor credits by doing unpleasant or dangerous work if at the end of the day they may seemingly be quite useless?



Correct -- *no one* would have to do *any* work, but then the entire society's standard-of-living would wind up being quite *rudimentary*, and, at-worst, people might have to *scavenge* from nature. If no one did *any* work then all they would have is whatever was developed during the time of capitalism, and such probably couldn't be *sustained* without additional work, anyway.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I mean if a shipment is designated to the customer they would get that shipment directly from the provider, and they could always use some codes, or encryption, as a matter of course, and the customer could follow-up remotely, as over the Internet, with the provider to verify that the product came from the provider they ordered from.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you have in mind here, exactly.



wat0n wrote:
What if the internet seller is himself selling counterfeit stuff? Say, for instance, you buy vodka online from a local brand. How do you know that the vodka you are buying is in fact vodka and not something else?



I guess there could be *comments*, like on the products pages for online sellers *today*. Consumers post-capitalism could stay one-step-ahead of what sellers are selling, since all production would be *free-access*, so *anyone* could try out *anything* with no cost and little risk, and with collective discussion afterward.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'False consciousness' only applies to people's political self-conceptions *in* class society -- *after* class society there would be no 'class consciousness', or 'false consciousness', because there would be no class division *at all*, to reference with valid or invalid material consciousness.

'Culture' is social *norms*, like etiquette, etc. -- maybe it would be *rude* for anyone to *not work* at all during the year, though strictly according to my model it's *materially* allowed.

Any given post-capitalist 'culture' is not up to *me*.



wat0n wrote:
I see. Do you think these other identity categories may actually serve as an obstacle for both the formation and maintenance of this post-capitalist society?



If you mean 'culture' overall, I could only *speculate* myself -- culture could be *reinforcing*, or *dissuasive*, to any given productive societal 'base', meaning mode-of-production.



In Marxist theory, society consists of two parts: the base (or substructure) and superstructure. The base comprises the forces and relations of production (e.g. employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations) into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. The base determines society's other relationships and ideas to comprise its superstructure, including its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. While the relation of the two parts is not strictly unidirectional, as the superstructure often affects the base, the influence of the base is predominant. Marx and Engels warned against such economic determinism.[1]



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



And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image




---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sorry, I'll pass -- these kinds of things aren't 100% absolute, but they do tend to favor the capitalist ruling class *overall*.



wat0n wrote:
I don't think so. I think what they favor is stability above all.



Yes, that's correct -- 'stability' in the sense of the 'status quo', including exploitation of labor and oppression of social minorities, which all needs to be *overthrown* by the world's working class, in a proletarian revolution.
#15124234
ckaihatsu wrote:
Consumers post-capitalism could stay one-step-ahead of what sellers are selling, since all production would be *free-access*, so *anyone* could try out *anything* with no cost and little risk, and with collective discussion afterward.



CORRECTION:

'Sellers' isn't really the *appropriate* term to use, since nothing is being *sold*, post-capitalism, and exchange values would no longer exist.

A better term would be 'providers', or 'producers'.

All production would be *free-access*.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

A max speed of 400 km/h - A Chinese train maker r[…]

Election 2020

@colliric , right now, give Trump all the states […]

@blackjack21 , and @Potemkin , what's an oddba[…]

Joe Biden

@Julian658 Trump is orange because he paints his[…]