Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

why do you think alienation from labor has to do with how much youre paid?

I don't and nowhere did I say that - I'm asking how Marxism would solve alienation from labour (that is the removal of yourself from the product of your labour), especially in regard to the service sector. Because Marx doesn't break down his analysis by sector, and because of the change in the distribution of labour, I think this is an interesting question.

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

regulatory capture is a well defined and meaningful idea

It was defined by neoclassicists who were strongly influential in the Chicago school of economics, which is about as far away from Marxism as it's possible to get. So it's very interesting that you would use the term - especially as Marxism does not see a decentralization of capital (workers collectives would be susceptible to the same issues).

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

let's say we have all code free and open source, inspectable by anyone.  explain how the code quality gets better if it's split up into small groups where only wage workers in groups of maybe size 5 can see a given component of the code at a given time. 

Specialization in production leads to greater efficiency. Obviously you need some entity to put the complex system together, but people who work on say, voice recognition software don't necessarily need to know how payment processing software works, or how to program on bare metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

explain the converse then.  let's say we have all code free and open source, inspectable by anyone.  explain how the code quality gets better if it's split up into small groups where only wage workers in groups of maybe size 5 can see a given component of the code at a given time.  explain how this is better

They get free water and an IT infrastructure so they don’t have to long division on paper?

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I don't and nowhere did I say that - I'm asking how Marxism would solve alienation from labour (that is the removal of yourself from the product of your labour), especially in regard to the service sector. Because Marx doesn't break down his analysis by sector, and because of the change in the distribution of labour, I think this is an interesting question.

It was defined by neoclassicists who were strongly influential in the Chicago school of economics, which is about as far away from Marxism as it's possible to get. So it's very interesting that you would use the term - especially as Marxism does not see a decentralization of capital (workers collectives would be susceptible to the same issues).

Specialization in production leads to greater efficiency. Obviously you need some entity to put the complex system together, but people who work on say, voice recognition software don't necessarily need to know how payment processing software works, or how to program on bare metal.

solving alienation from labor involves the removal of surplus value extraction, the abolition of wage labor, and the achievement of free associative labor.  for the service sector, this means abolition or automation of many services in which the labor associated with them is unlikely to be done through free associative labor.  if you say "but I want that service" I say "then do it yourself, or don't expect someone to do it not of their own free will" because that is the nature of free associative and unalienated labor.  the nature of this transformation is not the conversion of present forms of labor into unalienated versions, but rather a migration from certain forms of labor to other forms, leaving behind the old forms which are themselves merely relics of the previous mode of production

it's not very interesting that I'd use the term and in fact is very in line with marxism.  I don't care who originated it, Marx said it before them

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Quote

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

indeed the division of labor, or specialization of production, leads to greater productivity, under the capitalist mode of production, but it itself is one of the causes of alienation of the laborer, as the act of labor is degraded from an act encompassing the species being of the worker to one encompassing a limited connection between various flows of capital and the industrial machinery transforming it. 

please read richard stallman's work on Free and Open Source Software to understand more about the industry or research the various intellectual property and privacy related issues currently at play in the industry.  you seem to have a very flawed conception of how it works. the division of labor under wage labor under capitalism relates only to a very small extent to the division of labor of software work at various levels of abstraction in the hardware and software stack.   I'm still failing to see your point entirely.  you think specialization in software engineers won't happen without capitalists guiding the division of labor to place people within working groups on their proprietary software? are you even aware of the Free and Open Source Software movement and ecosystem which manages to have engineers at various layers of abstraction for no pay?

1 hour ago, cwmbrancity said:

They get free water and an IT infrastructure so they don’t have to long division on paper?

no idea what this means

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

solving alienation from labor involves the removal of surplus value extraction,

So the question is how do you determine surplus value in the services sector (the labour theory of value does not determine prices).

 

6 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

...for the service sector, this means abolition or automation of many services in which the labor associated with them is unlikely to be done through free associative labor.automation of many services...

So about those Luddites....but seriously, if you abolish services, and there is a need for those services, someone will surely establish an industry to provide those services. If you automate those services, someone will establish an industry to maintain that automation. Unless your solution is to somehow establish a universal basic income which provides housing and units of currency to purchase food for all those people put out of work (80% of all non-farm payroll employees in the US work in the services sector) with a massive decrease in tax revenue, that might need some re-thinking. Even then, a UBI only guarantees a basic level of existence - no doubt many will desire to enhance their livelihoods. While some may turn to collective workforce and communes, they may find that those who utilize capitalist modes of production while maintaining high functioning social services outcompete them, removing the source of their economic surplus that they desire.

 

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

indeed the division of labor, or specialization of production, leads to greater productivity, under the capitalist mode of production, but it itself is one of the causes of alienation of the laborer,

Right, that's what I said, my question is how to reduce that alienation under Marxist economic theory. Greater productivity is a form of value, how do we price that value?

 

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

you think specialization in software engineers won't happen without capitalists guiding the division of labor to place people within working groups on their proprietary software?

Why do you keep making up strawmen to argue against? Specialization may or may not occur under Marxism (although given his opposition to the division of labour in the workshop, I find it difficult to conceive of how such specialization may occur), but the capitalist mode of production makes far better use of specialized resources. Anyhow, please stop making up strawmen - it is a waste of both of our time.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

So the question is how do you determine surplus value in the services sector (the labour theory of value does not determine prices).

the labor through of value is most applicable to commodity production, and in IT the services are being provided for a commodity.  the services add value to that commodity, or the lack of services would reduce its value.  this value minus the payment to the service workers minus the payment for maintaining the means of production the service workers use is the surplus value of service work.  even this is simplistic given the interconnected nature of the service and the commodity.  the obfuscation of these variables merely makes it harder to compartmentalize the different locations of the surplus value generation to individual workers.  given the class oriented nature of Marx's critique, it's not relevant and can be averaged out across an entire company between its capitalists' received value and the workers' received value

10 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

So about those Luddites....but seriously, if you abolish services, and there is a need for those services, someone will surely establish an industry to provide those services. If you automate those services, someone will establish an industry to maintain that automation. Unless your solution is to somehow establish a universal basic income which provides housing and units of currency to purchase food for all those people put out of work (80% of all non-farm payroll employees in the US work in the services sector) with a massive decrease in tax revenue, that might need some re-thinking. Even then, a UBI only guarantees a basic level of existence - no doubt many will desire to enhance their livelihoods. While some may turn to collective workforce and communes, they may find that those who utilize capitalist modes of production while maintaining high functioning social services outcompete them, removing the source of their economic surplus that they desire.

"abolish services" means nothing.  abolishing wage labor abolishes all wage labor and replaces it with socially necessary labor and free associative labor.  if people want to engage in providing services, they can.  but they won't want to if they can live fine without doing so.

why are you inventing what my solution is and arriving at UBI?  I'm not a reformist social democrat, I advocate communism.  universal basic services is a superior approach for providing commodities and services that cannot be done through individualist free associative labor like massive infrastructure projects.  these will require compensation. 

under communism where free associative labor has been achieved through a sufficiently developed means of production, nobody would resort to forms of wage labor  capable of generating the surplus value that capitalism is defined by.  this hypothetical example you've provided of "utilizing capitalist modes of production while maintaining high functioning social services" outcompeting communism is absurd given that capitalism is an inherently all encompassing system that seeks to expand and appropriate more commons for itself, since it needs that to work, hence its initial success at overcoming feudalism.  capitalism cannot exist in isolated bubbles in which people make free choices between communism and capitalism.  communism will be similarly all encompassing

10 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Right, that's what I said, my question is how to reduce that alienation under Marxist economic theory. Greater productivity is a form of value, how do we price that value?

really have no idea what you're even asking here.  i already said, to reduce the alienation wage labor must be abolished and the means of production must be controlled by the workers.  only then can they work or not work free from hierarchical interference.  if they starve because nobody works in the fields that is their choice.  this is why advanced means of production are required to signal where labor is truly required, and an advanced culture is needed to encourage this work. 

10 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Why do you keep making up strawmen to argue against? Specialization may or may not occur under Marxism (although given his opposition to the division of labour in the workshop, I find it difficult to conceive of how such specialization may occur), but the capitalist mode of production makes far better use of specialized resources. Anyhow, please stop making up strawmen - it is a waste of both of our time.

the division of labor is not the same thing as specialization. people often freely engage in specialization. you can see it in many voluntary professions like art and engineering. externally imposed divisions of labor primarily act to alienate the worker under the more heavily exploited forms of labor i.e. lower paid ones rather than those frequented by the privileged or in high demand by the bourgeoisie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

the labor through of value is most applicable to commodity production, and in IT the services are being provided for a commodity. the services add value to that commodity, or the lack of services would reduce its value.  this value (X) minus the payment to the service workers (W) minus the payment for maintaining the means of production (K) the service workers use is the surplus value (sV) of service work

Yes, how much value is what we are trying to determine. Does every service interaction provide the same price level of value?  For your formula P equals commodity price, 𝑥 equals service value add,  W equals wages, and k equals capital outlay.  Is that right? We don't know 𝑥, and surely W is included in K in Marxian economics. Commodity price includes many other things, so this is a very simplified model. So we still don't really know how to price the added value that services provide.

On the other hand, this provides a good deal of insight how to account for the value add of services.

https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/2017/5/13/economic-value-added

 

 

8 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

abolishing wage labor abolishes all wage labor and replaces it with socially necessary labor and free associative labor. 

How is socially necessary labour determined? Is it just the basic infrastructure (you reference universal basic services below, but what are those?)? Is socially necessary labour the same in all societies and in all regions of a society?

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

universal basic services is a superior approach for providing commodities and services that cannot be done through individualist free associative labor like massive infrastructure projects.  these will require compensation. 

How do you determine compensation? Does everyone working on the project receive the same compensation, regardless of input or risk? How are the raw materials acquired for such massive infrastructure projects? Please answer using your own analysis of Marx (copying and pasting sections with no analysis leaves it as an exercise in interpretation rather than a discussion). Simply saying "advanced means of production" is not an answer (unless you can define what you mean by advanced means of production).

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

the division of labor is not the same thing as specialization

The division of labour is precisely specialization. We don't ask Sean and Rob to build highways. Instead they use their labour in a specialized way (for example, they didn't create Max/MSP, but they are certainly specialists in its use) to produce art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Yes, how much value is what we are trying to determine. Does every service interaction provide the same price level of value?  For your formula P equals commodity price, 𝑥 equals service value add,  W equals wages, and k equals capital outlay.  Is that right? We don't know 𝑥, and surely W is included in K in Marxian economics. Commodity price includes many other things, so this is a very simplified model. So we still don't really know how to price the added value that services provide.

   this all depends entirely on what you're meaning by service.  do you mean a service such as mowing a lawn? the formula is straightforward.  providing customer service for a commodity? much more complex as described below

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

On the other hand, this provides a good deal of insight how to account for the value add of services.

https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/2017/5/13/economic-value-added

Seems to provide information on tracking the cost of services.  the value add is a much more complex value which would require experimentation and A-B testing on consumers, providing them or not providing them with the services associated with their commodities, and tracking longterm consumer behavior

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

How is socially necessary labour determined? Is it just the basic infrastructure (you reference universal basic services below, but what are those?)? Is socially necessary labour the same in all societies and in all regions of a society?

under communism the people determine it.  if they want smartphones, the labor to produce them is socially necessary.  biologically necessary labor is also socially necessary labor, like food water shelter housing healthcare education transportation etc.  it's not the same in all societies and all regions. i would suspect some hierarchical commodity and service desire and labor capability tracking system is needed to statelessly produce smartphones which requires many geographical regions coordinating. it's very complex and requires a level of distributed material abundance exceeding what we have now significantly (though it is presently suppressed by capitalists)

  

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

How do you determine compensation? Does everyone working on the project receive the same compensation, regardless of input or risk? How are the raw materials acquired for such massive infrastructure projects? Please answer using your own analysis of Marx (copying and pasting sections with no analysis leaves it as an exercise in interpretation rather than a discussion). Simply saying "advanced means of production" is not an answer (unless you can define what you mean by advanced means of production).

to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.  the capitalist psychology of wanting high pay for jobs is something that must be overcome through cultural advancement.  right now pretty much everyone in the world is paid a small amount and struggling.  having their needs met would be such a large upgrade that not being paid huge amounts to work on these additional projects is not an issue.  the first world career growth and personal wealth mentality will be overcome and must be since it doesn't really apply to most people in the world anyway since they don't even have the chance

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

The division of labour is precisely specialization. We don't ask Sean and Rob to build highways. Instead they use their labour in a specialized way (for example, they didn't create Max/MSP, but they are certainly specialists in its use) to produce art.

division of labor refers to more specific actions of capitalists dividing labor between the machinery they use, like making people only put a button onto a shirt or screw a door onto a car.  nobody would say they have "specialized in putting buttons on shirts" or "I've specialized in screwing on doors" rather they are alienated and exploited to the point of resorting to such an action.  but a seamstress specializing specifically in lolita dresses or an engineer specializing in one area of the field is often voluntary and preferred by them.  they have different meanings.  you can see this in pre-capitalist artisan guilds, where the labor of the seamstress or smith devolved into these forms of capitalist division of labor in industrial contexts, and the goal of communism is to overcome this alienation of the worker to seize back the unalienated freedom of the artisan to learn their craft as they wish, minus the master ordering them about of the previous era, except to the extent that it is voluntarily pedagogical

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

this all depends entirely on what you're meaning by service.  do you mean a service such as mowing a lawn? the formula is straightforward.  providing customer service for a commodity? much more complex as described below

Well you clearly stated that we were discussing a service provided for a commodity. I agree with a service such as mowing the lawn, assuming it is a private company it is much more straightforward, there is only one factor of production, k (including depreciation on equipment).

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

Seems to provide information on tracking the cost of services.  the value add is a much more complex value which would require experimentation and A-B testing on consumers, providing them or not providing them with the services associated with their commodities, and tracking longterm consumer behavior

Yes it tracks the cost but also provides a simplified method of determining the value add. I will agree that there are other factors they are not considering, including consumer behaviour. There price model of a commodity is also somewhat simplified, but it works for the purpose. I'm glad that we agree that determining the surplus value is much more complex than simply the wage of an employee and the marginal revenue of the company.

 

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

under communism the people determine it.  if they want smartphones, the labor to produce them is socially necessary.  biologically necessary labor is also socially necessary labor, like food water shelter housing healthcare education transportation etc.  it's not the same in all societies and all regions. i would suspect some hierarchical commodity and service desire and labor capability tracking system is needed to statelessly produce smartphones which requires many geographical regions coordinating. it's very complex and requires a level of distributed material abundance exceeding what we have now significantly (though it is presently suppressed by capitalists)

Is it simple majority? 51% of the population says we want smartphones, so smartphones we make? If we look at a smartphone, is it the same process to determine what goes into a smartphone (do you really want 51% of the population determining what goes into a smartphone?), and only one type of smartphone will be made? Will there only be one smartphone maker? Will the price be fixed - if so what determines the price (and the price of each commodity), especially given we do not have material abundance - scarcity is a very real thing. If you have hierarchy, you are going to have classes, decision makers, etc. as per the division of labour and specialization (see below).

 

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. 

So that covers basic needs - what about wants?

 

7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

the capitalist psychology of wanting high pay for jobs is something that must be overcome through cultural advancement.  right now pretty much everyone in the world is paid a small amount and struggling.

Is it wrong to want more for doing more?

Global extreme poverty had been falling steadily until the COVID-19 pandemic, but we can obviously do better in ensuring basic needs are met.

8 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

division of labor refers to more specific actions of capitalists dividing labor between the machinery they use, like making people only put a button onto a shirt or screw a door onto a car...a seamstress specializing specifically in lolita dresses or an engineer specializing in one area of the field is often voluntary and preferred by them.  they have different meanings.  you can see this in pre-capitalist artisan guilds, where the labor of the seamstress or smith devolved into these forms of capitalist division of labor in industrial contexts, and the goal of communism is to overcome this alienation of the worker to seize back the unalienated freedom of the artisan to learn their craft as they wish, minus the master ordering them about of the previous era, except to the extent that it is voluntarily pedagogical

That type of labour should be automated away and retraining initiatives should be implemented. But even in artisanal work, division of labour for specialization occurs. I know you are vegetarian (vegan?) but you may have seen the documentary Jiro Dream of Sushi. In that, take note of how long the master's apprentices are only allowed to make rice before they move onto other things. The same applies in factory labour - building roof trusses, you start being the guy whose job it is to place the metal plates at the joints of the truss, you move up to working the machines, you move up to being a carpenter, etc. Home construction/renovation is the same. You start off being the guy who sweeps the floors and digs the ditches, you learn how to use power tools, how to do framing, etc.

And artisan work still exists in a capitalist society, and people are paid more for doing it, as they should be, because it requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill. But not every t-shirt you own needs to be made by an artisan.

 

6 hours ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

I'd like to request a photoshop of Karl Marx all dolled up, entitled "Marxist Thot", to be posted here upon completion. 

Go to fiverr...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Is it simple majority? 51% of the population says we want smartphones, so smartphones we make? If we look at a smartphone, is it the same process to determine what goes into a smartphone (do you really want 51% of the population determining what goes into a smartphone?), and only one type of smartphone will be made? Will there only be one smartphone maker? Will the price be fixed - if so what determines the price (and the price of each commodity), especially given we do not have material abundance - scarcity is a very real thing. If you have hierarchy, you are going to have classes, decision makers, etc. as per the division of labour and specialization (see below).

So that covers basic needs - what about wants?

Is it wrong to want more for doing more?

Smart phones are a universal object of sorts.  alien species of all types will have developed them in one form or another.  we can mass produce them and just give everyone one.  we already have probably enough for everyone when you include old ones which were tragically and frankly criminally undermaintained by their producers in terms of software updates, and in many cases intentionally crippled through software updates.  the specs can be whatever is reasonably possible given available materials.  given moore's law the specs aren't really modified by materials but the advancement of silicon foundries.  there have been initiatives to create modular smart phones where you can snap in a more powerful processor, snap on a higher resolution screen, etc.  they are already partially modular with removable SD card storage expansion. 

most technology is like this.  you don't need many brands.  this is a relic of capitalism.  cosmetic differences are frankly trivial and will be a relic of the capitalist advertising age.  there is nothing wrong with them being utilitarian only.  you can decorate them with desktop backgrounds and a wide variety of now freed open source software to modify the OS GUIs, and phone cases.

nearly the same can be said for cars.  they should be replaced with highly developed mass transit anyway.  your question really assumes we have this large unique consumer base who wants tons of different stuff.  it's all more or less the same thing. look around you.  it's all the same shit or something that can be generic

what are your wants? half these wants are manufactured.  i want everyone in the world fucking fed and given free education.  fuck the "wants" of first world complainers. the people of the future can figure that out, it's not going to be you or me who decides what they want anyway

4 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Global extreme poverty had been falling steadily until the COVID-19 pandemic, but we can obviously do better in ensuring basic needs are met.

That type of labour should be automated away and retraining initiatives should be implemented. But even in artisanal work, division of labour for specialization occurs. I know you are vegetarian (vegan?) but you may have seen the documentary Jiro Dream of Sushi. In that, take note of how long the master's apprentices are only allowed to make rice before they move onto other things. The same applies in factory labour - building roof trusses, you start being the guy whose job it is to place the metal plates at the joints of the truss, you move up to working the machines, you move up to being a carpenter, etc. Home construction/renovation is the same. You start off being the guy who sweeps the floors and digs the ditches, you learn how to use power tools, how to do framing, etc.

And artisan work still exists in a capitalist society, and people are paid more for doing it, as they should be, because it requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill. But not every t-shirt you own needs to be made by an artisan.

global poverty has been falling in china.  capitalist india? not so much. it's criminal what neoliberal ideology has done worldwide.

artisanal work barely exists and is merely a bourgeois relic, the competing bourgeoisie would love it to disappear if they can get 5% profits. your point on seniority based division of labor is valid and applies to my experiences in other fields like engineering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, chenGOD said:

That type of labour should be automated away and retraining initiatives should be implemented. But even in artisanal work, division of labour for specialization occurs. I know you are vegetarian (vegan?) but you may have seen the documentary Jiro Dream of Sushi. In that, take note of how long the master's apprentices are only allowed to make rice before they move onto other things. The same applies in factory labour - building roof trusses, you start being the guy whose job it is to place the metal plates at the joints of the truss, you move up to working the machines, you move up to being a carpenter, etc. Home construction/renovation is the same. You start off being the guy who sweeps the floors and digs the ditches, you learn how to use power tools, how to do framing, etc.

And artisan work still exists in a capitalist society, and people are paid more for doing it, as they should be, because it requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill. But not every t-shirt you own needs to be made by an artisan.

i really hate to wade into all this but it looks like you're deliberately conflating two things to try to pwn zeff.

what you're describing is training in a craft, developing skills step by step and moving on to the next aspect of the work once you have sufficiently demonstrated your abilities with the expected goal that you attain the outcome of the sufficient abilities in a particular field. in the example of a sushi chef - you work on rice until you are kick ass at rice. rice is one of the fundamentals of sushi. the idea is you train in all the necessary fundamentals and then you become a sushi chef, someone who can do all of the necessary things to skillfully make sushi.

what does not take place in this example is that one guy only makes the rice, one guy grates the wasabi, one guy cuts the fish, one guy dresses it with soy, and none of them have any skill or even knowledge of the work the other person is doing and that they are all paid differently and live in a society that offers them completely different privileges and rewards based on this unequal income and then further fortifies the barriers between them through social distinction. this is what marx meant by division of labor.

obviously work entails steps - you cannot prepare rice and cut fish at the same time, and you must learn these things in order. but this isn't "division of labor" in the sense that marx meant. 

the sean and rob example is an even more strange non sequitur. by "division of labor" marx did not mean "different activities" like how there is a "division" between making highways and making music. and "specialization" does not refer to using a particular piece of software to make music. i legitimately do not see how this has anything to do with what marx meant by these terms or even how these extremely broad definitions would be useful to a pro-capitalist worldview. the entire purpose of marx's theory of division of labor was to demonstrate how work was broken down into minute, repetitive processes that divorce workers from any meaningful relationship to their work. this is not the process of developing skills step by step, it is a process of constraint by enforced specialization. you do not become really proficient at pressing a particular button on a machine and then work your way up to owning the factory. 

 

Edited by Alcofribas
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ooqpoo said:

What do you guys think old Karl would have to say about modern society? 

he'd see one of baderalsafar's ultra consumerist tiktoks and would kill himself instantly

Meet Bader Al Safar The Influencer Who Is Taking Street Fashion To Another  Level | America Daily Post

so sicko mode : travisscott

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one sushi restaurant I pick up from where one man makes every component of every sushi.  His preparation area is right at the entrance, and he never says anything.  I assume this is because his energy is 100% consumed in the work that would normally require 5 sushi-men.  Also, it's the most depressing Japanese restaurant I've ever set foot in, and somehow it always feels colder in there than it does outside.  I wonder what Karl Marx would have thought about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

I wonder what Karl Marx would have thought about this

I wonder if I have to ask of if they just know to add Heinz Kethup to my sushi

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

the entire purpose of marx's theory of division of labor was to demonstrate how work was broken down into minute, repetitive processes that divorce workers from any meaningful relationship to their work. this is not the process of developing skills step by step, it is a process of constraint by enforced specialization. you do not become really proficient at pressing a particular button on a machine and then work your way up to owning the factory. 

I'm aware of what Marx's division of labour was in theory, but in practice, division of labour in a factory does allow you to work your way up the line as your labour adds more value. Yes you may not own the factory (a very capital intensive risk) but you can progress your skills and your wages. I gave a demonstration of that in roof trusses (the most mind numbing work I've ever done, even worse than grading undergrad papers), but the same holds true in automobile factories, and elsewhere. However, automation is truly coming to put an end to that sort of work, even in the garment industry:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/How-the-death-of-fast-fashion-is-transforming-Asia-s-garment-industry

Sean and Rob specialize in making esoteric music for follicly challenged people in anoraks. It was used as an example of specialization which allows for greater productivity as opportunity cost becomes lower.

Edit: I should add that Taylorism (which is the extreme version of the division of labour that Marx envisioned) became widely discouraged as a managerial practice because of the recognition of the harm it cause the workers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

most technology is like this.  you don't need many brands.  this is a relic of capitalism.  cosmetic differences are frankly trivial and will be a relic of the capitalist advertising age.  there is nothing wrong with them being utilitarian only.  you can decorate them with desktop backgrounds and a wide variety of now freed open source software to modify the OS GUIs, and phone cases.

nearly the same can be said for cars.  they should be replaced with highly developed mass transit anyway.  your question really assumes we have this large unique consumer base who wants tons of different stuff.  it's all more or less the same thing. look around you.  it's all the same shit or something that can be generic

Also count in that having many companies make basically same products (cars, phones, etc) produce huge amount of waste. Models that fall out of competition are sold at lower prices or even destroyed so that the manufacturing company can keep up its perceived value; this is horribly obvious with food production. Waste of materials and resources, manufacturing power, manpower, land... If the company continues to be bad at competition, it closes down, workers lose their jobs. Trees fell for nothing, water was poisoned for nothing... Looking back at where all these unwanted products went, and how much resources that company used in an effort to stay competitive it's even easier to see the wasted effort (and potential): discontinued products with no buyers, or owners cannot repair them because of lack of spare parts. Or how many competing products are only marginally better in specs, critical/key components are manufactures by a handful of specialized companies anyway.

How much waste in materials (plastics, metals, water, power...) goes into making products that are nothing else but trash: promotional gifts and products: these have no other use but to relay information: "hey there's a new spiderman movie, build the hype", and end up on a landfill. Cheap fake plastic toys, or things that break and fall apart instead of serving a purpose: hand tools, power tools, clothes,... then enter planned obsolescence...

It's quite paradoxical: capitalism really doesn't want competition, it seeks to eliminate it: the endgame is one huge umbrella corporation anyway. So why not use all that effort in a planned manner? It's made for people by people, shouldn't people own it? You can still have numerous scientific establishments (now employed in R&D departments) improving products to make them more efficient, invent new tech, better integrate with the environment. Academia of all kinds can be brought in for one common goal and progress towards a better future. It's not only the competition that makes technology advance: it's people with passion and vocation, same with leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I'm aware of what Marx's division of labour was in theory, but in practice, division of labour in a factory does allow you to work your way up the line as your labour adds more value. Yes you may not own the factory (a very capital intensive risk) but you can progress your skills and your wages. I gave a demonstration of that in roof trusses (the most mind numbing work I've ever done, even worse than grading undergrad papers), but the same holds true in automobile factories, and elsewhere. However, automation is truly coming to put an end to that sort of work, even in the garment industry:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/How-the-death-of-fast-fashion-is-transforming-Asia-s-garment-industry

Sean and Rob specialize in making esoteric music for follicly challenged people in anoraks. It was used as an example of specialization which allows for greater productivity as opportunity cost becomes lower.

Edit: I should add that Taylorism (which is the extreme version of the division of labour that Marx envisioned) became widely discouraged as a managerial practice because of the recognition of the harm it cause the workers. 

arguing against “marxist thought” by claiming that workers are able to “climb the ladder” is way too watmm of a position for you to hold, brother. this is p lazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

Also count in that having many companies make basically same products (cars, phones, etc) produce huge amount of waste. Models that fall out of competition are sold at lower prices or even destroyed so that the manufacturing company can keep up its perceived value; this is horribly obvious with food production. Waste of materials and resources, manufacturing power, manpower, land... If the company continues to be bad at competition, it closes down, workers lose their jobs. Trees fell for nothing, water was poisoned for nothing... Looking back at where all these unwanted products went, and how much resources that company used in an effort to stay competitive it's even easier to see the wasted effort (and potential): discontinued products with no buyers, or owners cannot repair them because of lack of spare parts. Or how many competing products are only marginally better in specs, critical/key components are manufactures by a handful of specialized companies anyway.

How much waste in materials (plastics, metals, water, power...) goes into making products that are nothing else but trash: promotional gifts and products: these have no other use but to relay information: "hey there's a new spiderman movie, build the hype", and end up on a landfill. Cheap fake plastic toys, or things that break and fall apart instead of serving a purpose: hand tools, power tools, clothes,... then enter planned obsolescence...

It's quite paradoxical: capitalism really doesn't want competition, it seeks to eliminate it: the endgame is one huge umbrella corporation anyway. So why not use all that effort in a planned manner? It's made for people by people, shouldn't people own it? You can still have numerous scientific establishments (now employed in R&D departments) improving products to make them more efficient, invent new tech, better integrate with the environment. Academia of all kinds can be brought in for one common goal and progress towards a better future. It's not only the competition that makes technology advance: it's people with passion and vocation, same with leadership.

very well said.  one of the biggest things is the bs products.  this competition idea was great during the initial stages of feudalism when capitalism was starting to take hold.  but it's outdated.  there should be no crappier cheaper brands that break.  everything should be the highest quality and be expected to work, or not made.  everything should be expected to work for decades at least, centuries if its infrastructure or buildings, and have clear meintance plans and easy reparability.  so many basic things we need for environmental reasons capitalism simply CANNOT do.

for me its at the point where im literlaly sick of any of any capitalist apologism and if you arent supporting communism i can barely even listen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

arguing against “marxist thought” by claiming that workers are able to “climb the ladder” is way too watmm of a position for you to hold, brother. this is p lazy

I don’t think that’s the totality of my argument against Marxist thought, cumrade?

32 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

capitalism really doesn't want competition,

Capitalism doesn’t want anything, it’s an economic system that has many varieties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Capitalism doesn’t want anything, it’s an economic system that has many varieties. 

the more generous interpretation of what they said is "capitalists don't want competition" which is very apt and indicative of the hypocrisy of capitalist ideology.  indeed they do not, which is why they tend to, when possible, centralize into monopolies and even make agreements to avoid competing with each other and taking over certain territories.  you see it clearly with ISPs, paired with them making high barriers of entry so startups can't begin to compete even if they want.  this of course then feeds into imperialism. when they have monopolized entire markets in groups or alone, they have to expand, and how? to other places with less workers protection and cheaper resources. this is the problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

i havent seen much of an argument at all if im honest

You’re not honest though.

look at what you said in your post just before this. You basically automatically dismiss out of hand any support of capitalism, and refuse to consider any merits. 
There are so many misconceptions in the post about competition that I can’t get into on my phone. 
And your post about saying fuck the wants of first world people is mildly terrifying (as well, I’d add that people in developing nations have the same wants, even North Korea has variety in products, and advertising to sell those products), who would want to live in a world with all decisions on productions made by some central planning committee.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...