|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:41 am
divineseraph Norm of Okinawa This was something I was very curious about in regard to working in factories/various unit based working environments. Where ever there are workers, there is an overseer, correct? A person to direct work flow, handle human resource concerns, and to ultimately oversee production, unit cohesion, and to expand/reduce business in the benefits of the company/business (in this case, the government) Would this individual, assuming capital is completely abolished along with all monetary value, be a cycled position? An elected position over each band of workers? A 6 month interval job where there is a binder with job expectations that each worker within the working community would ycle through, learning the whole art of the business, in an example... A paper manufacturing plant. There's the material's division and it's supervisor/boss, the inking/stripping facility which processes the material and defines it's stereotypical paper appearance with it's supervisor/boss, there's the warehouse division which stores the inflow and outflow of packaged paper that has been processed, receiving the paper and shipping it wherever comrades have need of it, and this, too, has it's supervisor. Would the worker in this plant work under materials for 6 months, cycle through the paper materials' manager's billet for 6 months, cycling over to the processing paper plant for 6 months to learn the art of manufacturing the paper from the cotton/wood whatever. 6 months of that and then he's cycled into the boss position of that place, 6 months later taking on the warehouse division for inflow/outflow overseeing and assistance, this being the least management required position, for 6-12 months.... And then cycle to another business altogether? Remain within the business cycling between the fields in a governed fashion imparting his knowledge on his coworkers? I'm curious about the whole worker cycle. I recall seeing something briefly explain this in the principles of communism, but I haven't heard much anything else. Furthermore, as for private property being abolished, this acts to destroy the family unit as well, correct? How would the government raise the youth? I'm assuming this means we will live in baracks like environments where we work and sleep with our fellows we work with, much like the military, with the basic accommodations of entertainment and sustenance provided, possibly gender separated. People would after a couple generations no longer know a father/mother/brother/sister. They'd no longer have that bond. Is this right? Is this natural? I understand human beings are pack like creatures, who raise others like their own for the benefit of society rather than the individual, and thus family units are not required... However I find having knowledge and contact, even livelihood among my family as a very charming thing (in moderate amounts) I find it difficult to grasp this concept of separation from biological ties. This does make a bit of sense, though. Separating children into a structured government oriented institution teaches the ideals and knowledge to promote communism and support the world of communism that would have developed, where all hatred, bigotry, and incorrect teachings can be ignored in lieu of favoured teachings of comraderie, selflessness, working as a community to promote a better future, equality, and various truths that are not warped like by capitalist society's schooling, not to suit it's own ends and to build prejudice but instead to promote humanity. Not necessarily. There have been several successful experiments with self management, where every worker in a workplace has the same rights as all of the others- They have a specialization, but also learn slightly about other shifts, so that they can maximize work in off-time, or fill in for another worker who may be out. Each individual has the right and ability to keep an eye out for the other workers- They can collectively control workflow as it is needed in the system. It's been done in a steel processing plant and, less significantly, in taco bell with a general increase in morale and production, since the workers have a better feel for what needs to get done, and there's no direct management barking down your throat. Of course, in large scale systems there would need to be those who keep track of numbers, such as shipments and amount produced, but they don't need extra for their services. Edit- I see no reason to abolish private property. The danger comes from ownership of means of production. If someone owns their own home and whatnot, or some land, no big deal as long as it's a fair amount of property. The trouble comes in when someone owns where people work and have their wealth based largely on the simple ownership of means of production. And you you'll never see a reason because you seek to undo has already been proven. Private property is the basis for capitalism. If private property is allowed to exist, then it is possible for one man to own another. Factories are private property, someone owns it, therefore the people who work there are at the will of the person who allows them to work on his property. You cannot achieve socialism without first abolishing private property. Why? because if one single person owns it then it isn't owned by the community and that is contradictory to the definition of socialism.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:57 am
Comrade Rob divineseraph Norm of Okinawa This was something I was very curious about in regard to working in factories/various unit based working environments. Where ever there are workers, there is an overseer, correct? A person to direct work flow, handle human resource concerns, and to ultimately oversee production, unit cohesion, and to expand/reduce business in the benefits of the company/business (in this case, the government) Would this individual, assuming capital is completely abolished along with all monetary value, be a cycled position? An elected position over each band of workers? A 6 month interval job where there is a binder with job expectations that each worker within the working community would ycle through, learning the whole art of the business, in an example... A paper manufacturing plant. There's the material's division and it's supervisor/boss, the inking/stripping facility which processes the material and defines it's stereotypical paper appearance with it's supervisor/boss, there's the warehouse division which stores the inflow and outflow of packaged paper that has been processed, receiving the paper and shipping it wherever comrades have need of it, and this, too, has it's supervisor. Would the worker in this plant work under materials for 6 months, cycle through the paper materials' manager's billet for 6 months, cycling over to the processing paper plant for 6 months to learn the art of manufacturing the paper from the cotton/wood whatever. 6 months of that and then he's cycled into the boss position of that place, 6 months later taking on the warehouse division for inflow/outflow overseeing and assistance, this being the least management required position, for 6-12 months.... And then cycle to another business altogether? Remain within the business cycling between the fields in a governed fashion imparting his knowledge on his coworkers? I'm curious about the whole worker cycle. I recall seeing something briefly explain this in the principles of communism, but I haven't heard much anything else. Furthermore, as for private property being abolished, this acts to destroy the family unit as well, correct? How would the government raise the youth? I'm assuming this means we will live in baracks like environments where we work and sleep with our fellows we work with, much like the military, with the basic accommodations of entertainment and sustenance provided, possibly gender separated. People would after a couple generations no longer know a father/mother/brother/sister. They'd no longer have that bond. Is this right? Is this natural? I understand human beings are pack like creatures, who raise others like their own for the benefit of society rather than the individual, and thus family units are not required... However I find having knowledge and contact, even livelihood among my family as a very charming thing (in moderate amounts) I find it difficult to grasp this concept of separation from biological ties. This does make a bit of sense, though. Separating children into a structured government oriented institution teaches the ideals and knowledge to promote communism and support the world of communism that would have developed, where all hatred, bigotry, and incorrect teachings can be ignored in lieu of favoured teachings of comraderie, selflessness, working as a community to promote a better future, equality, and various truths that are not warped like by capitalist society's schooling, not to suit it's own ends and to build prejudice but instead to promote humanity. Not necessarily. There have been several successful experiments with self management, where every worker in a workplace has the same rights as all of the others- They have a specialization, but also learn slightly about other shifts, so that they can maximize work in off-time, or fill in for another worker who may be out. Each individual has the right and ability to keep an eye out for the other workers- They can collectively control workflow as it is needed in the system. It's been done in a steel processing plant and, less significantly, in taco bell with a general increase in morale and production, since the workers have a better feel for what needs to get done, and there's no direct management barking down your throat. Of course, in large scale systems there would need to be those who keep track of numbers, such as shipments and amount produced, but they don't need extra for their services. Edit- I see no reason to abolish private property. The danger comes from ownership of means of production. If someone owns their own home and whatnot, or some land, no big deal as long as it's a fair amount of property. The trouble comes in when someone owns where people work and have their wealth based largely on the simple ownership of means of production. And you you'll never see a reason because you seek to undo has already been proven. Private property is the basis for capitalism. If private property is allowed to exist, then it is possible for one man to own another. Factories are private property, someone owns it, therefore the people who work there are at the will of the person who allows them to work on his property. You cannot achieve socialism without first abolishing private property. Why? because if one single person owns it then it isn't owned by the community and that is contradictory to the definition of socialism. ... Did... did you... did you like, seriously. Come on. Read what I wrote and reply to that, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:21 pm
divineseraph Comrade Rob divineseraph Norm of Okinawa This was something I was very curious about in regard to working in factories/various unit based working environments. Where ever there are workers, there is an overseer, correct? A person to direct work flow, handle human resource concerns, and to ultimately oversee production, unit cohesion, and to expand/reduce business in the benefits of the company/business (in this case, the government) Would this individual, assuming capital is completely abolished along with all monetary value, be a cycled position? An elected position over each band of workers? A 6 month interval job where there is a binder with job expectations that each worker within the working community would ycle through, learning the whole art of the business, in an example... A paper manufacturing plant. There's the material's division and it's supervisor/boss, the inking/stripping facility which processes the material and defines it's stereotypical paper appearance with it's supervisor/boss, there's the warehouse division which stores the inflow and outflow of packaged paper that has been processed, receiving the paper and shipping it wherever comrades have need of it, and this, too, has it's supervisor. Would the worker in this plant work under materials for 6 months, cycle through the paper materials' manager's billet for 6 months, cycling over to the processing paper plant for 6 months to learn the art of manufacturing the paper from the cotton/wood whatever. 6 months of that and then he's cycled into the boss position of that place, 6 months later taking on the warehouse division for inflow/outflow overseeing and assistance, this being the least management required position, for 6-12 months.... And then cycle to another business altogether? Remain within the business cycling between the fields in a governed fashion imparting his knowledge on his coworkers? I'm curious about the whole worker cycle. I recall seeing something briefly explain this in the principles of communism, but I haven't heard much anything else. Furthermore, as for private property being abolished, this acts to destroy the family unit as well, correct? How would the government raise the youth? I'm assuming this means we will live in baracks like environments where we work and sleep with our fellows we work with, much like the military, with the basic accommodations of entertainment and sustenance provided, possibly gender separated. People would after a couple generations no longer know a father/mother/brother/sister. They'd no longer have that bond. Is this right? Is this natural? I understand human beings are pack like creatures, who raise others like their own for the benefit of society rather than the individual, and thus family units are not required... However I find having knowledge and contact, even livelihood among my family as a very charming thing (in moderate amounts) I find it difficult to grasp this concept of separation from biological ties. This does make a bit of sense, though. Separating children into a structured government oriented institution teaches the ideals and knowledge to promote communism and support the world of communism that would have developed, where all hatred, bigotry, and incorrect teachings can be ignored in lieu of favoured teachings of comraderie, selflessness, working as a community to promote a better future, equality, and various truths that are not warped like by capitalist society's schooling, not to suit it's own ends and to build prejudice but instead to promote humanity. Not necessarily. There have been several successful experiments with self management, where every worker in a workplace has the same rights as all of the others- They have a specialization, but also learn slightly about other shifts, so that they can maximize work in off-time, or fill in for another worker who may be out. Each individual has the right and ability to keep an eye out for the other workers- They can collectively control workflow as it is needed in the system. It's been done in a steel processing plant and, less significantly, in taco bell with a general increase in morale and production, since the workers have a better feel for what needs to get done, and there's no direct management barking down your throat. Of course, in large scale systems there would need to be those who keep track of numbers, such as shipments and amount produced, but they don't need extra for their services. Edit- I see no reason to abolish private property. The danger comes from ownership of means of production. If someone owns their own home and whatnot, or some land, no big deal as long as it's a fair amount of property. The trouble comes in when someone owns where people work and have their wealth based largely on the simple ownership of means of production. And you you'll never see a reason because you seek to undo has already been proven. Private property is the basis for capitalism. If private property is allowed to exist, then it is possible for one man to own another. Factories are private property, someone owns it, therefore the people who work there are at the will of the person who allows them to work on his property. You cannot achieve socialism without first abolishing private property. Why? because if one single person owns it then it isn't owned by the community and that is contradictory to the definition of socialism. ... Did... did you... did you like, seriously. Come on. Read what I wrote and reply to that, please. I didn't reply to the first bit of your post because I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:16 pm
No, you missed the point of the last part.
I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work.
THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:17 pm
divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. THIS I was confused about the wording of how I felt, but this voices my concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:37 am
Marx-Communist manifesto The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. Here it seems Marx is suggesting workers can have their own land/property, yet the burgeoisie' factories and lands of oppression will be seized/destroyed and given to the workers to own/rebuild as a community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:55 am
Marx-Communist manifesto Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. Does this not seem to be hinting on the old nuclear family of the industrialization age? This was written over 100 years ago, so... It seems to me to be hinting at the time where the mother was the house slave while the children were exploited for miniscule wages working in grungy factories. Back when the entire family was bred to do as the capitalists required of them, back when the entire family from age 5-6 HAD to work merely to survive. This is not the case in modern day capitalist societies, it is difficult to survive, but children are no longer exploited in such away, nor are women as much property of men, if at all anymore, but I wouldn't know. I didn't have a mother growing up. Any thoughts on my analysis comrades? Furthermore at the conclusion of the communist manifesto, I cannot help but feel Marx insists on a violent overthrowing of the social networks in power, and he supports any means, any revolution there may be, and communists will support all of this. I disagree, I think the overthrowing of the government should be a gradual process, where the growing unease of the proleteriats continually make demands on the burgeois, couple with the burgeoisie' own self-destructive nature, to erode the in place capitalists societies with time and effort, is the true way to go about replacing capitalism in a full, entire fashion, radicals naturally eroding away with it. However, if overthrowing were the only mean, if the burgeois brought the fight to us, is overthrowing governments in all societies, despite the means, really a goal we should be aiming for? I'm all for a truly equal society for the workers, but I think focus, drive, and unity is highly required, and violence is counter productive. I can imagine few Americans who love the idea of fighting their own country men, for the U.S.S.A or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:08 am
Zed Millar USS Endeavor Comrade Rob USS Endeavor Comrade Rob USS Endeavor "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."--The Communist Manifesto; Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists Thats what i was trying to say. Well that's the property of the petty-bourgeoisie classes. As Marx say's there is no need to abolish it because industry destroys it. It is as Gracc said, the workers have no property to abolish. My definition must differ. I had always contended that even though they have no property, they still have a house, transportation, and belongings. When i speak of not taking the property of the peasants and workers, this is what i refer to. I can see i went the wrong way on this, I shall back off before i look like more of an idiot. Nah you're not an idiot. But you just have to remember to look at historical and material circumstances. In first world countries it is possible for workers to own property, this fact is undeniable. Think of it as a certain dialectical riddle. But despite that, they are still proletarians, and must still sell their labour power to maintain what today's standards considers 'existence' Put it this way, personal property is fine. Property that enslaves one man to another via economic relations has got to go. Thats something i shall make a note of Comrade, thank you. Ok... so clothes, video games, food, housing, paintings, etc, are all yours to keep, but illustrious homes of the petty burgeoisie and palaces of the burgeoisie must be apprehended and liquidated among the state. Ok Yes and i would imagine the government taking their fat bank accounts, seizing corporate properties, nationalizing resource gathering companies, and seizing all private land holdings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:35 am
USS Endeavor Yes and i would imagine the government taking their fat bank accounts, seizing corporate properties, nationalizing resource gathering companies, and seizing all private land holdings. This scared me at first because I was under the illusion of owning property. The bank owns all the land, which in turn is owned by the government, which in turn owned by the burgeoisie, so technically, all land is the rich fat cats and not the 95% of the country that thinks they own/partially own property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:10 am
Zed Millar divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. THIS I was confused about the wording of how I felt, but this voices my concern If your concerned about your video games and are a console user then ill merely state this, your renting your console its not yours. Homes, Cars, and"their" land are notions of bourgeois ideology. Homes are very inefficient in a sense depending upon how many people live in said house, just waaay to many negative factors with private homes. Car culture seriously needs to replaced with more economical public transportation hence Why cars need to be downplayed. SO wait you dont think that a driving force in the capitalist economic system is not means of production? Its exactly the housing bubble that created the last economic crisis and crippled the capitalist economic system and you wish to keep such a private Kulak system operational? Not even the Soviet Union would allow another Meat bubble to occur...c.c If you do not centralize all means of production and stop anarchy of social production forces IE waste then there is no benefit to the 1st nor second stage..all you get is a state capitalist welfare state for you havent abolished Bourgeois right due to not abolishing all inhibiting economic factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:25 am
SoViEtTaNkT34 Zed Millar divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. THIS I was confused about the wording of how I felt, but this voices my concern If your concerned about your video games and are a console user then ill merely state this, your renting your console its not yours. Homes, Cars, and"their" land are notions of bourgeois ideology. Homes are very inefficient in a sense depending upon how many people live in said house, just waaay to many negative factors with private homes. Car culture seriously needs to replaced with more economical public transportation hence Why cars need to be downplayed. SO wait you dont think that a driving force in the capitalist economic system is not means of production? Its exactly the housing bubble that created the last economic crisis and crippled the capitalist economic system and you wish to keep such a private Kulak system operational? Not even the Soviet Union would allow another Meat bubble to occur...c.c If you do not centralize all means of production and stop anarchy of social production forces IE waste then there is no benefit to the 1st nor second stage..all you get is a state capitalist welfare state for you havent abolished Bourgeois right due to not abolishing all inhibiting economic factors. That is if we, firstly, have our economy controlled by a centralized state which is non-democratic, and secondly, if we have an economy at all. If we do as I propose, we have no need for money, as labor can be directly "traded" for access to the stores of goods to take as you need and want. Since we produce in surplus, as mentioned, there will be plenty for everyone and no need for control by a "higher power", as it seems you think is necessary. All of this can be self managed and self governed through democratic vote. If there is a lack of a certain good, like a bad crop of tomatoes or rice as happened a few years back in America, there can be limits imposed on how much can be taken per individual decided by each community depending on their need and access to the product. These problems you see are only problems if we allow them and make them happen. Namely, you can't have ownership of the means of production unless it is allowed, and you can't economic crisis without an economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:54 am
divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. Oh, Yeah. There is nothing wrong with having your own things. Just not the means of production XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:49 pm
Comrade Rob divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. Oh, Yeah. There is nothing wrong with having your own things. Just not the means of production XD Kinda makes sense, but in regards to was SovietTankT34 was saying... I get that if we continued to own our own property, even once the burgeoisie who REALLY control it are eroded away/uprooted, we owning our properties, really and truly, thus makes us new Burgeoisie unless we surrender it to the state. (given many people will be forced into living in the welfare accomodations to be set-up by the government, and us being better off then them due to previously owning/partially owning a house makes us sort of like oppressors.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:29 pm
Zed Millar Comrade Rob divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. (given many people will be forced into living in the welfare accomodations to be set-up by the government, and us being better off then them due to previously owning/partially owning a house makes us sort of like oppressors.) Just because you have stuff doesn't mean other people don't. The economy isn't like some game of Hungry Hungry Hippos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:49 pm
GreatWhiteNinjaman Zed Millar Comrade Rob divineseraph No, you missed the point of the last part. I said that ownership of the means of production is bad. You then told me how ownership of private property is bad because people own the means of production. That's not the case if they own their home, their car and their land. It's the case that they own the means of production if and only if the own a place where others work. THAT is the problem with private ownership, the fact that the means of production can be owned. However, there is nothing wrong with owning your own property as long as it is NOT means of production. (given many people will be forced into living in the welfare accomodations to be set-up by the government, and us being better off then them due to previously owning/partially owning a house makes us sort of like oppressors.) Just because you have stuff doesn't mean other people don't. The economy isn't like some game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. You're right. Its more like a game of Shitting Shitting Hippos. Economy produces so much s**t, it drives the prices of everything down. Soon we are drowning in all that hippo s**t. And thats why capitalists are bad, because they want those hippos to s**t, because the more they s**t, the richer they get. Or maybe it's because they like seeing people drown in hippo s**t. Either way, they are still bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
