ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so based on this, then, would you consider workers collective control over social production (socialism), to potentially be an improvement over capitalism?
Julian658 wrote:
It is an improvement. But, the main hurdle is the removal of self interest. Adam Smith old saying is true:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." This has always been why we have excess goods in capitalist nations.
Okay, but I think we've covered this already -- remember this -- ?
Julian658 wrote:
As long as the talented achieve more than the less talented there will be a drive to work.
This is *non-monetary* motivation, as in a new scientific discovery, or a new kind of technology made into a tool for consumers, post-capitalism.
I think it's a *misnomer* and a *stereotype* that there would be no self-interest, post-capitalism -- again, as long as there's a 'critical mass' of involvement / work for the common good, by voluntary liberated laborers, then the communist gift economy would be viable. Perhaps the common-good workweek would be 10 hours for most everyone, at factory-type work roles, until full automation could be implemented, with the rest of the week being for personal interests, including the more-specialized, *artisanal*-type local projects that you favor.
'Excess goods' in advanced capitalist nations is due to the capitalist economic dynamic of *overproduction*.
In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.
Overproduction is often attributed as due to previous overinvestment – creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction
(Look at *oil* prices, currently.)
---
Julian658 wrote:
I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. This is so true when you compare government services with services provided by the private sector.
Oh, you're not addressing / following-up with what I wrote, and now you're *reverting* to your pro-capitalism platitudes.
The reason why government-type social services are so inadequate is simply due to their being *underfunded*, and competed-against by private-sector interests, as with corporate lobbying.
Are you *against* corporations and corporate lobbying, as you've indicated previously?
Julian658 wrote:
However he was aware of the evils of capitalism;
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.
Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience
Okay, I appreciate the even-handedness.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, with this you're still in the competitive 'rat race' mentality, so-to-speak. Sure, people have personal goals, and would as well, post-capitalism, but I'd like to present you with the equality-vs.-hierarchy question again -- are you open to the idea of a society that has an ethos in common of treating possessions as just being a *social* task, instead of it being a *personal* accomplishment, as through wages or wealth or social status, so that people are freed-up to do whatever it is they really *want* to do?
Julian658 wrote:
It is possible to get there, but it would require a change in culture and customs. But, yeah, it would be great. Having to constantly swim to keep the head above water gets old. But, this has been the story of the animal kingdom since day one. I will not mention the need for abundance of wealth again.
I'll argue -- on a finer point -- that all that would be needed would be a *paradigm shift* in how *production* gets done. Once the 'base' (material basis of productivity) is overhauled, then the 'superstructure' (culture and customs) will follow-suit, as well. It's for this reason that I'm *not* a Maoist / Stalinist, because revolutionaries *shouldn't* be chasing after cultural matters. Revolutionize how social production get done and the rest will fall into place.
Thanks for acknowledging the present-day material capacity for *abundance* -- at this point in material development *no one* should have to struggle to keep one's head above water, when society today is more than capable of producing for everyone's needs. Anything after that would be more *discretionary*, and so could be more *specialized*. Some have even theorized that the *market mechanism* could be retained for this post-capitalist, specialized / discretionary domain of goods and services, but I personally don't agree since I'd like to see all market exchanges *abolished*, regardless. Nonetheless I did make a diagram for this other position even though I don't agree with it:
Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd argue that individual, personal 'natural talent' is too-often *constricted* and channeled into avenues of *exploitation*, under capitalism. Here's from my favorite political essay:
Julian658 wrote:
True! Very few in the world get to have a job they enjoy 24/7 for a lifetime. Middle of the pack professional golfers come to a point where they hate to be away from home week after week. And all they have to do is play golf. Touring musicians get sick of the road when all they have to do is play the songs that made them famous. Any job can become alienating, but much more so for those that are low end workers.
Agreed -- I'll ask you to *consider* the following:
Alienation of the worker
Alienation of the worker from the act of production
Alienation of the worker from their Gattungswesen (species-essence)
Alienation of the worker from other workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_ ... alienation---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, cool. Would you mind taking a quick glance at the following diagram, and tell me if you agree with it in the *abstract*:
Julian658 wrote:
Adam Smith agrees with you. The diagram is correct as of today. This is subject to change. We are in unknown territory. IN the old days there was a potential job for everyone. A man with a blue collar mind would plow the fields next to a man who could have been an astrophysicist. However, this is at a time when 97% of the world was very poor. Jobs are disappearing. There no more people needed to run the elevators. When you call an office you always get automation to direct your call. I can now see a massive proliferation of restaurants that will operate with no waiters in the Corona era. In other words we are heading into a future where only the talented ones will have meaningful jobs.
Well, regarding this part, I would say that the factor of *low pay* is more significant than the factor of 'talent', though maybe *both* -- H1B immigrant workers immediately comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visaJulian658 wrote:
From your article:
Ayn Rand agrees, that is a paradox.
Agreed
Agreed
Cool, good -- I thought that essay was up-your-alley, and that it would speak to you.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I include this to say I'm not the 'heaven-for-ever-after' kind of communist -- I don't think it would automatically be gauzy bliss the day after the bourgeoisie is overthrown, but it would certainly be a fuck of a lot better than capitalism, throughout. The components in the diagram I see as being empirically *differing* social interests, but in a post-capitalist, communist-type society everyone could easily *move* through social roles of these various social components, while under *capitalism* one cannot.
Julian658 wrote:
Remains to be seen. In that system I may lose what I have.
Oh, so perhaps your main reservation about workers-of-the-world socialism is *personal*. That's certainly *understandable*, and all I can say is the reiteration that as long as there's a *critical mass* of voluntary involvement, things will be just fine for *everyone* in the communist gift economy.
---
Julian658 wrote:
From a biological standpoint we are driven to spread DNA. Women are naturally attracted to men that can provide. Not all men get to mate whereas a few men get to mate a lot.
Okay -- if you want to focus on this particular aspect / level, that's fine, though I happen to think of it as being rather 'low-level' myself. (And, yes, since you *didn't* ask I *do* have a diagram for this, as well.) (heh) (There's 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs', again.)
[12] G.U.T.S.U.C.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, there would have to be a vanguardist *workers* state in the transition from capitalism to communism, and it would have to be authoritarian in order to overthrow the bourgeois ruling class. I think you already commented favorably on the brief 'vanguardism' post that I included from RevLeft. Here's a diagram as well:
Julian658 wrote:
OK, at least you admit that. Other socialists in the forum evade the subject. OK, I saw the arrow.
I guess I see it as *unavoidable* since the proletariat's vanguard would *necessarily* have to be centralized and hegemonic, in order to defeat the bourgeoisie.
Julian658 wrote:
I cannot imagine a society where there are no exchanges. How is that possible? There would have to be some source of endless wealth. You keep saying wealth is not needed. Call it what you want to call it but societies need a source of some sort of energy (a figure of speech) to thrive. You cannot create wealth or energy out of nothing. Ultimately wealth is the product of labor and innovation. Wealth grows exponentially when many benefit from an invention. Wealth can also be defined as natural resources, but these create nothing on their own. MAN is needed for the final product.
Yes, okay, I understand.
One small thing: Can you use the term 'exchange values' (as distinct from *use* values), instead of 'wealth', for this usage, for the sake of the discussion?
To *clarify*, I'll maintain that, post-capitalism / post-commodity-production, exchange values / exchanges / currency / money / finance would definitely *not* be needed, *because* a collectivized workplace / factory could simply pre-determine who the consumers will be, exactly, *before* production even gets going -- once the products are manufactured they could then be *directly distributed* from the point of production (without any intermediary exchanges), to those individuals, thereby obviating any need for currency, exchanges, or investment speculation of any sort.
If wealth / exchange values are ultimately the product of labor and innovation / initiative / 'dead labor' / infrastructure / raw materials, then this latter factor can simply be *collectivized*, and co-administered by the liberated-workers involved in any specific *project*, over such *local* productive assets (factories, equipment, resources, etc.) -- see my 'labor credits' illustration.
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338---
Julian658 wrote:
Norway owns about 40% of oil which means this is owned by the citizens. However, the system is administered by capitalists.
Right -- so you're indicating a *nationalization* of a particular natural resource, but private *finance* is still used for its extraction and commodification.
Imagine this 'nationalization' of oil being extended to *all* natural resources, then additionally to all productive infrastructure (factories, etc.), and then to all *employment* / labor, as well.
Also, instead of being constrained to the borders / boundaries of *one* country, such 'nationalization' could be expanded to an *international* / intercontinental scope so that the administration of all this stuff is *centralized*, potentially up to a fully *global* scale.
Emergent Central Planning
Finally, instead of being in the hands of some kind of caste-like, class-like specialized standing bureaucratic-elitist administration, the world's productive assets, resources, and labor are all dynamically *co-administered*, on-the-fly, by those liberated-laborers who are actively at work, at their workplaces, collectively. This would be workers-of-the-world socialism.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Meaning that people can certainly be motivated by *accomplishment* / achievement, in whatever field(s) they happen to be in. Off the top of my head I mentioned, in the past, 'craft', 'social leadership', 'creativity', etc.
Julian658 wrote:
Clearly needed.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's *not* based, ultimately, on a tribalist 'groupthink', or culture -- it's based on *class interest*, meaning better wages, better benefits, and more *control* in the workplace, and in the economy, ultimately to controlling all of social production itself by *overthrowing* the ruling class.
Julian658 wrote:
OK,
BTW, this is how the democrats lost to Trump. They forgot the workers.
True.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You should know from *psychology* that the human psyche is *quite* malleable, depending on the surrounding local (and greater) social conditions -- have you ever seen the Milgram experiment?
Julian658 wrote:
Yes, this is how the Germans followed Hitler. Man is a beast. This also explains how Castro sent men to the Paredón to be shot.
Maybe we could call it 'nationalist authoritarianism'.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Let me put it *this* way -- a successful proletarian revolution would be based on inherent *class interest* expressing itself. It wouldn't *require* a consensus of 7+ billion. It *could* be very broad-based, and bottom-up, and *should* *ideally* be this way, but it could also be top-down, though still in the interests of the working class, through the workers-state administration, however composed.
Julian658 wrote:
How about the white collar people?
The working class is composed of blue-collar (physical), pink-collar (service), and white-collar (office) types of work roles, though many white-collar types of work are directly in the service of *private ownership*, as with management and private-sector bureaucracies -- 'overhead', basically -- and so are actually *not* producing commodities, and so are *not* proletarian.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Really! May I ask how many years you think it will take for universal humane comfort to be technologically enabled and affordable, as the crow flies?
Julian658 wrote:
I say 2-300 years. Assuming no Nuclear war or being hit by an asteroid
Wow, really -- that long, you think.
I agree that the most realistic barrier comes from the threat of inter-imperialist *warfare*, as you're indicating, which is *always* a detriment to social historical progress (as, again, in Russia, in 1917-1918).
Optimistically I think we might see 3D printing become *large-scale* -- actually it *is*, already, and can print entire homes within its expanse -- but maybe it needs to be more 'roboticized' so that it's more flexible, self-mobile, and able to fabricate *anything* humanely needed ('general purpose'). On *this* trajectory I'd say 10-20 years, barring social setbacks.