Jump to content

Recommended Posts

specialization/division of labour etc etc

 

Specialism inherently means differentiation etc etc

 

It should be clear where I'm going with this.

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 722
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not 100% sure why i thought of this thread when i saw this video  

Marxism is an attractive idea to teenagers who think they're overflowing with compassion for every living being, but sadly they don't have enough experience of the nature of the human. They are p

jfc why do I keep reading.

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Stickfigger said:

It is clear etc etc

Yes hunny

Edit: pls name one of your new trax “etc etc sg” lol

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

Yes. 

of course there would be specialists in water infrastructure, they are called civil engineers.  given that education is universally understood to be free under socialism and communism, and humans have the drive to achieve, no doubt there would be enough.  the USSR had plenty, enough to beat the US in just about every checkpoint of the space race, and they didn't even achieve socialism yet, so imagine how much more proiductive wed be if everyone was given free housing food water shelter education etc.  its so fucking obvious getting real sick of this shit because if you just imagine a simulation or a game, what society is going to do better, the one where everyone gets free water food shelter and education to learn how to play the game and achieve goals in it, or the one where you have to fucking work bullshit tier jobs just to earn supplies to progrees? no we have supplies, fucking give them to people and stop playing god with this BS "we need to force poor people to work for food to make them appreciate hard work or well never progress" nonsense.  im done seriouslyt

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans have the drive to achieve when they get something out of it. That’s the whole basis of capitalism.

 

And your analogy doesn’t really make sense because the capitalism game is obviously doing far better irl.

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t disagree with the sentiments that education, housing, and essentials should be free.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans respond to incentives. We’re biologically wired this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Humans have the drive to achieve when they get something out of it. That’s the whole basis of capitalism.

 

And your analogy doesn’t really make sense because the capitalism game is obviously doing far better irl.

you get something out of your achievements in socialism and communism.  the idea that this only happens in capitalism is absurd considering the vast majority of workers do NOT get the products of their labor even.  capitalism is doing far better irl because the capitalist nazi collaborator country USA literally murders every socialist leader and sets up nazi sleeper cells to foment division in any country that tries to start socialism

3 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Humans respond to incentives. We’re biologically wired this way.

we are not mice you shouldn;'t parrot capitalist dogma.  and you assume there are no incentives under socialism.  why must food water shelter and education be an incentive to work when they are a catalyst of work?  remove them and less productive work is done.  there are incentives under socialism: pride, feelings of achievement, even material wealth.  look at people performing hobbies, often creating complex objects or doing good hard work, all for fun and for only the fruits of that labor. how does watmm exist when basically none of the music 99% of people make gets incentivized, or makes like 50 cents an hour?

Edited by cyanobacteria
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure why you’re telling me what I assume lol.

I have well developed ideas on this topic but don’t really share them as watmm is supposed to be a place where we discover new music and be happy. 

That said, if socialism is meant to be, it will be realized at some point. By the will of the people. Until then, I mean... the people don’t want it. 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism falls along a spectrum, much like the disorder I enjoy. You tend to advocate extreme socialism. However almost all countries practice socialism. That’s where I’m getting confused. There’s a trade off for capitalism, the social contract. Governments in general recognize the displacement capitalism causes, creative destruction... it’s matched with social programs etc. By and large capitalism is fantastic, though there are winners and losers in the short run. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Socialism falls along a spectrum, much like the disorder I enjoy. You tend to advocate extreme socialism. However almost all countries practice socialism. That’s where I’m getting confused. There’s a trade off for capitalism, the social contract. Governments in general recognize the displacement capitalism causes, creative destruction... it’s matched with social programs etc. By and large capitalism is fantastic, though there are winners and losers in the short run. 

there is absolutely zero wotrker control of the means of production in any cpaitalist country, socialisam is more than just social programs, at best this is social democracy., capitalism is murdering millions of people and destroying the planet

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cyanobacteria said:

there is absolutely zero wotrker control of the means of production in any cpaitalist country, socialisam is more than just social programs, at best this is social democracy., capitalism is murdering millions of people and destroying the planet

I have to disagree. The working class holds considerable leverage over capitalists; this is evident in Canadian wages for example. Ireland is another good example. Quite frequently in Canada hourly wages of unionized workers far exceed management. This is a sentiment that resonates with me - no workers, no company. 

Control is an interesting construct. I’m interested in hearing how you define control.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I’m interested in learning more about the theoretical constructs that underpin your approach. Maybe you can list the main constructs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

I have to disagree. The working class holds considerable leverage over capitalists; this is evident in Canadian wages for example. Ireland is another good example. Quite frequently in Canada hourly wages of unionized workers far exceed management. This is a sentiment that resonates with me - no workers, no company. 

Control is an interesting construct. I’m interested in hearing how you define control.

indeed, the working class has leverage over capitalists.  we hold the infrastructure and supply chains of industry in our hands literally and figuratively.  however, the control capitalists exert over workers is one characterized by violence.  if workers see that a capitalist is trying to shut down an important and perfectly functioning farm, and the workers decide to take it over and continue running it so that they can feed the people of their community, the capitalists have access to police who will come and arrest those workers and beat them if necessary.  this is because the workers have not achieved socialism yet.  they do not control the means of production

2 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Frankly I’m interested in learning more about the theoretical constructs that underpin your approach. Maybe you can list the main constructs?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cyanobacteria said:

indeed, the working class has leverage over capitalists.  we hold the infrastructure and supply chains of industry in our hands literally and figuratively.  however, the control capitalists exert over workers is one characterized by violence.  if workers see that a capitalist is trying to shut down an important and perfectly functioning farm, and the workers decide to take it over and continue running it so that they can feed the people of their community, the capitalists have access to police who will come and arrest those workers and beat them if necessary.  this is because the workers have not achieved socialism yet.  they do not control the means of production

I understand. But in practice this doesn’t really happen, at least not in Canada. Workers control the means of production to the point where it doesn’t escalate to state intervention, in part because the capitalists have a semblance of humanism. Aka they aren’t big fucking dickheads. 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

I understand. But in practice this doesn’t really happen, at least not in Canada. Workers control the means of production to the point where it doesn’t escalate to state intervention, in part because the capitalists have a semblance of humanism. Aka they aren’t big fucking dickheads. 😂

workers in capitalist countries have little to on control over the means of production.  this applies to canada and anywhere.  capitalists are free to shut down factories and ship their machinery to third world copuntries and employ workers there for little to nothing.  large oil companies are free to override native land rights and build pipelines over fragile ecosystems.  this isn't even taking into account the consumer society of canada and the benefits its citizens receive from it.  it can in general be said that first world capitalist economies are built on the backs of third world labor, and though there is worker exploitation by definition under capitalism, the majority of exploitation is applied in the labor involved in the production of the goods the nation imports

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

State intervention in labour relations here (Quebec aside) is not really a thing 😕

3 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

workers in capitalist countries have little to on control over the means of production.  this applies to canada and anywhere.  capitalists are free to shut down factories and ship their machinery to third world copuntries and employ workers there for little to nothing.  large oil companies are free to override native land rights and build pipelines over fragile ecosystems.  this isn't even taking into account the consumer society of canada and the benefits its citizens receive from it.  it can in general be said that first world capitalist economies are built on the backs of third world labor, and though there is worker exploitation by definition under capitalism, the majority of exploitation is applied in the labor involved in the production of the goods the nation imports

No not really. For goods and services in Canada there are requirements as to the % of local parts and labour for fulfillment. There is still a decent amount of protectionism even between provinces. Pure capitalism (the US is probably the best example?) is different. But here even for say, a construction project, there are requirements as to how much labour/tradesman are sourced locally. There are still significant barriers. companies do not have the freedom to import labour like you’re suggesting.

Native rights are a very complex and sensitive topic.

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

State intervention in labour relations here (Quebec aside) is not really a thing 😕

i'm not familiar with canada but i guarantee you if workers in poor areas started taking over their grocery stores to give free food to homeless people, they would be fired and put in prison. this is the nature of state intervention.  labor relations under capitalism tends to encompass trivial matters like minor wage and hour disputes.  when i say worker control of the means of production, i mean absolute control with no private property rights for capitalists

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

State intervention in labour relations here (Quebec aside) is not really a thing 😕

No not really. For goods and services in Canada there are requirements as to the % of local parts and labour for fulfillment. There is still a decent amount of protectionism even between provinces. Pure capitalism (the US is probably the best example?) is different. But here even for say, a construction project, there are requirements as to how much labour/tradesman are sourced locally. There are still significant barriers. companies do not have the freedom to import labour like you’re suggesting.

Native rights are a very complex and sensitive topic.

its entirely possible there are enhanced workers rights policies and protectionist policies in canada.  nonetheless, capitalist access to land and its resources and the existence of a labor pool dependant upon wage labor to survive alone indicates a capitalist mode of production.  labor rights are merely concessions given by the ruling class.  even norse social democracy, no doubt superior in labor rights to canada, is still capitalism, and the international relations of production described earlier regarding imported goods and higher rates of exploitation of foreign workers applies to norse social democracy as much as anywhere else

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

its entirely possible there are enhanced workers rights policies and protectionist policies in canada.  nonetheless, capitalist access to land and its resources and the existence of a labor pool dependant upon wage labor to survive alone indicates a capitalist mode of production.  labor rights are merely concessions given by the ruling class.  even norse social democracy, no doubt superior in labor rights to canada, is still capitalism, and the international relations of production described earlier regarding imported goods and higher rates of exploitation of foreign workers applies to norse social democracy as much as anywhere else

I understand. However quick question - do you think these same people, without the capitalists organizing them, would enjoy the same standard of living etc? Isn’t there a reason certain people have emerged to direct and lead efficient production, which ultimately is benefitting all? In other places kingdom animalia we see the same divisions, such as ants and bees etc.

Edit: I’m adopting the position  that capitalism benefits on balance, based on QOL, life span, etc.

 

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

its entirely possible there are enhanced workers rights policies and protectionist policies in canada.  nonetheless, capitalist access to land and its resources and the existence of a labor pool dependant upon wage labor to survive alone indicates a capitalist mode of production.  labor rights are merely concessions given by the ruling class.  even norse social democracy, no doubt superior in labor rights to canada, is still capitalism, and the international relations of production described earlier regarding imported goods and higher rates of exploitation of foreign workers applies to norse social democracy as much as anywhere else

Protectionism is a dirty word though isn’t it? It implies that someone will get a short stick. Not really a socialist sentiment.

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

I understand. However quick question - do you think these same people, without the capitalists organizing them, would enjoy the same standard of living etc? Isn’t there a reason certain people have emerged to direct and lead efficient production, which ultimately is benefitting all? In other places kingdom animalia we see the same divisions, such as ants and bees etc.

Edit: I’m adopting the position  that capitalism benefits on balance, based on QOL, life span, etc.

 

of course not.  if the capitalists currently running things disappeared, the greater society would fall into chaos and potentially even revert to previous modes of production such as gang based feudalism or similar.  the task of socialism is not to just eliminate the ruling class control all in one fell swoop and then all is well.  the workers must be educated about their position and society, and their minds must be wiped free of bourgeois propaganda preventing them from achieving class consciousness, i.e. this awareness of their place, what their place indicates for their wellbeing, and how to transcend to the next level of social and property relations, the next mode of production, which is communism.  in this requires the achievement of socialism

[quote=Marx]In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. [/quote]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

worker control means they must know how to control. they must understand their responsibilities, they must understand socialism and what it is and how to make sure it is firstly achieved, secondly maintained, thirdly sculpted towards communism

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

of course not.  if the capitalists currently running things disappeared, the greater society would fall into chaos and potentially even revert to previous modes of production such as gang based feudalism or similar.  the task of socialism is not to just eliminate the ruling class control all in one fell swoop and then all is well.  the workers must be educated about their position and society, and their minds must be wiped free of bourgeois propaganda preventing them from achieving class consciousness, i.e. this awareness of their place, what their place indicates for their wellbeing, and how to transcend to the next level of social and property relations, the next mode of production, which is communism.  in this requires the achievement of socialism

This is an interesting paragraph to me. Do you see any parallels to hive mentality here?

PEEP;

place for everything and everything in its place 

In acknowledging people have different places, one is validating classism imo... it’s not much different than soldier bees getting a little extra nip of Royal jelly that the rest of the hive don’t enjoy. 🤷‍♂️

Edited by Hugh Mughnus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Protectionism is a dirty word though isn’t it? It implies that someone will get a short stick. Not really a socialist sentiment.

protectionism is not in general socialist or not socialist as it has little to do work worker control of the means of production.  marx's was against it

[quote=marx]"The system of protection," says Marx, "was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production."[/quote]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/index.htm

that said he made these statements during periods where more economies were still trying to transition to capitalism.  whether protectionism assists or hurts the development of socialism depends on the material conditions of the region deciding.  protectionism can be used to encouragte building up a local means of production to avoid dependencies on foreign capitalists and thus leverage they can have over it.  but globally it slows down the progress of industrialization

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...