Welcome to Gaia! ::

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.

In regards to the question of property, in the Manifesto, Marx says that there is no need to abolish the property of the workers, peasants, and the petty Bourgeoisie. Its the Capitalists, Middle and Major Bourgeoisie who shall have their property taken.

The concept of living in barracks like the military is nonsense. In the USSR the government provided housing in the form of Apartments, Flats, and houses, depending if you lived in the cities or not.

Worker's in the USSR elected department head amongst themselves, while the plant manager was sent in by Moscow, from another plant, or chosen from loyal communists from their own plant.

Endeavor: Yeah, I get what you're saying. Marx was more to the ideology that the proleteriat has no property to abolish, just sustenance to slave daily over in order to attain and maintain.

I prefer modern day humanitarian housing to barracks and the like. I have to tell you, living in those things really... really suck. Really. It's much better than it once was, but that's like saying the poverty in America isn't as bad in appearance to the poverty of workers in the past... it says little... and doesn't discredit that fact that it still sucks.

Gracchvs: please do. I'm really curious about it. Right now I'm reading up more on Marx seeing what he proposes, if he indeed goes into detail about it.

I read all of what was posted. I appreciate it. I hope you do go more into the communal housing and communist family life part, sometime.

"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.

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.

Thats something i shall make a note of Comrade, thank you.

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.