/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2493579
>revisionism is when you actually pay attention to the material conditions instead of relying on the drunken daydreams of alcoholic proto-Nazis
>>2493573
Quick question what do you think the dictatorship of the proletariat is

>>2491884
>19th Century logic
Marx’s entire life’s work was about scientifically theorizing how the position of worker might be materially abolished

>>2493582
>dictatorship of the proletariat
this is marx's theory of the transitionary regime which abolishes itself in place of the administration of things

>>2493571
>Communism is the real movement to eternally re-establish the present state of things in a slightly different form
MLs are such retarded cunts fr

>>2493582
> >revisionism is when you actually pay attention to the material conditions instead of relying on the drunken daydreams of alcoholic proto-Nazis
“Material conditions” isn’t a magical spell you utter that somehow turns reproducing the relations of bourgeois society into “creating socialism” just because you will it so

>>2493587
And that SUBLATION into a more organized form can only come after the conflict between town and country is resolved, this is very basic Marxism
>>2493590
You seem to be under the delusion that labor itself is a product of “bourgeois relations” and not an integral part of civilization. Read The German Ideology before making any more blunders

>>2493524
>Terrible interpretation
There was no "interpretation." I quoted directly.
>Engles rejected the term socialism purely because of people like you
You don't know me or what I'm "like." Engels says why he rejects socialism in Principles of Communism, which is what I said. I am neither a social democrat nor a reactionary socialist nor a bourgeois socialist which are the 3 types of socialist he lists in that work. Why the irrelevant personal attack?
> And no, they should not. Forced labor is notoriously inefficient and worthless.
I didn't use the phrase "forced labor" nor am I advocating for it. I said people "should participate to the best of their ability" which is more of an opinion than a decree of law or force. If they have no ability whatsoever (for mental OR physical reasons) then they obviously won't participate at all, even with force. Are toddlers made to work? No because they lack both the mental and physical ability to participate, even though they develop both later on. You say "force" is inefficient but I wasn't advocating force. Most systems have some kind of coercion, direct or indirect, to encourage participation and prevent abandonment, because most systems are nourished by participation and wither without it.

You quoted so many posts at once but I assume the last sentence was for mine alone since that is the number directly above it.

>>2493598
>You seem to be under the delusion that labor itself is a product of “bourgeois relations” and not an integral part of civilization.
to be incredibly pedantic, "labour" to marx is a notion of alienation (man vs nature) while in the resolution of this contradiction, labour recedes into "work" as a natural relation. thus the commodity (as alienated labour) takes a "social" form of value, which distances production from consumption by the medium of exchange. thus to marx, socialism is about abolishing exchange in place of direct distribution. so "labour" is posited as a "social substance" which alienates man from nature. marx seeks to abolish "labour" itself, thus.

>>2493582
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Dumbass, this does not mean disassociation from what must be done for the real movement and the development of communist society. This is simply saying that communism arises from material conditions, not a dream. You can not have forced labor in a communist society, so that must be abolished.

>>2493613
You talk of being pedantic and yet you throw the infantile term “abolish” around like Marx or Engels ever advocated for negation without reaction, a physically impossible prospect and the highest form of idealism. This shouldn’t need to be explained to you, I’m getting very concerned that you’ve never actually read Marx and are getting information second hand from breadtubers

>>2493625
is the desire to "abolish" wage labour thus an impossible fantasy?

>>2493624
Yes communism arises from the material conditions, and one of the most fundamental material conditions that has always existed and always will is that force is a necessity or people will not work

>>2491884
Yes.

>>2493630
Yes? Again this is extremely basic. I’m not sure if you’re pretending to be retarded in an attempt to be humorous or if you are genuinely this ignorant, but either way this extremely vexing and I do not wish to waste my time on those who are proud of their stupidity. Be thankful you expressed this dreck anonymously on an imageboard rather than in front of a loyal citizen of an AES state or even a commissar, you might not get off so easily

>>2493603
>Yes
>There was no "interpretation
>You don't know me or what I'm "like
I know enough
>Engels says why he rejects socialism in Principles of Communism
Yeah, because it was stolen by liberals
>>2493603
>Should you be forced work in socialism
>Yes
>I didn't use the phrase "forced labor" nor am I advocating for it
Whatever you say

>>2493635
so communism is not defined by an absence of wage labour? or money or a state or inequality? we have these things now so we have them forever? you seem to be confused as to the nature of *qualitative* change in relations. if things just changed form but never changed substance, evolution would be impossible.

>>2493644
>communism is defined
Okay you HAVE to be trying to get a rise out of people because if you’re actually serious I genuinely feel embarrassed for you. Do you know how to tie your shoes? Are you capable of dressing yourself in the morning? Should I be applauding your ability to use a computer at all or do you have a handler help you?

>>2493631
>and one of the most fundamental material conditions that has always existed and always will is that force is a necessity or people will not work
You really need that swirly, revisionist liberal. Your beloved forced labor and your ego will be abolished by the real movement soon enough.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

>>2493659
arent you the one who already defined communism as restoring "dignity" to the working class?

>>2493661
>he doesn’t know the difference between a definition and a description
I take it back, you’re clearly unable to use a computer on your own. Whoever your caretaker is he or she is pretty clearly abusing you by letting you subject yourself to humiliation

>>2493525
Wrong. The obligation and right to work, which can only exist in Communist society, is founded upon scientific socialism.
>>2493462
Wrong. Work ethic is proletarian. The other, lesser classes have no work ethic. The lesser classes have no ethic at all
>>2493458
Wrong. Proletarians in Communism are not slaves. Every prole is a free citizens who's labor serves greater proletarian social collective

>>2493664
so communism can be described but not defined?

>>2493659
Do you know how not to be an annoying revisionist who wants to play commissar? Moneyless, stateless, classless. Don’t like it? You can join the rest of the reactionaries when the time comes.
>>2493669
Right. You propose honor to a movement beyond morals. How silly of you.
>Wrong. Work ethic is proletarian.
You’ve gone off the deep end
>The other, lesser classes have no work ethic. The lesser classes have no ethic at all
You really have gone off the deep end.

There's no such thing as laziness. People are always doing something. Whenever someone is described as "lazy" it's because they are not doing what someone else thinks they ought to be doing. Laziness is just another word for disobedience.

>>2493630
In Communism, wage labor is abolished such as in Communist China today. Despite working for cash payment, the proletarians command their full product therefore the capitalist system of wage cannot exist. In the socialist production process, the labor of the laborer, as concrete labor, transfers and preserves the value of the means of production expended in the production process. As abstract labor, it creates new value. Should this new value created by the producer belong totally to the producer himself? No. To realize socialist expanded reproduction and to satisfy the various common needs of the laborers, society must control various social funds. These social funds can only come from the new value created by the producer. If the newly created value belongs entirely to the producer himself, then the socialist economy will not be able to carry on expanded reproduction. It can only maintain simple reproduction. The common needs of the laborers cannot be satisfied either. Therefore, in the socialist society, the new value created by the producer must be divided into two parts. One part is at the disposal of the producer himself. It constitutes the labor remuneration fund for the producer and is used to satisfy personal livelihood needs of the producer. Another part is at the disposal of society. It constitutes various social funds, namely, social net income, and is used to further develop socialist production and satisfy the various common needs of the whole laboring people. Consequently, as a producer, a part of the new value created by him has to be deducted for the disposal of society as social funds. As a member of the laboring people, he is fully entitled to enjoy, with the other laboring people, the welfare brought about by the social funds. Therefore, the distribution of the new value created by the producer into the labor remuneration fund and the social fund under the socialist system is fundamentally different from the distribution of the new value created by the worker into wages and surplus value under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor is a commodity and is subject to the law of value. Wage means the price of labor power. No matter how large the newly created value is, the part that belongs to the worker himself is only equal to the value of those means of livelihood necessary for the reproduction of labor power. The rest, namely, the surplus value, is not only possessed by the capitalist, but is used as a means to increase the exploitation of the worker. Under the socialist system, labor power is no longer a commodity. The laborer is no longer exploited. All of the value created by the producer is at the service of the laboring class. The distribution of the labor remuneration fund of the producer and the social fund is regulated by an overall consideration of common and individual interests and the long-term and short-term interests of the laboring people.

>>2493681
trvke
for proof, politicians and entertainers make money from doing "nothing" yet they "deserve it".
laziness is a class concept therefore

>>2493678
Wrong. Communism is objective moral. Socialist morality demands recognition and respect.
Article 24 The state shall promote socialist cultural-ethical advancement through widely accessible education on ideals, morality, culture, discipline and law, and through the formulation and observance of different forms of rules of conduct and public pledges among different urban and rural populations.

Article 53 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China must abide by the Constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property, observe discipline in the workplace, observe public order, and respect social morality.

>>2493686
>Communism is objective moral
Communism is scientific and materialist.

>>2493682
>the proletarians command their full product
according to marx, the pay of the worker must be taxed to pay for administration
>As abstract labor, it creates new value
labour to marx can only be abstracted by exchange. without exchange there is also no "value", but only product.
>Therefore, the distribution of the new value created by the producer into the labor remuneration fund and the social fund under the socialist system is fundamentally different from the distribution of the new value created by the worker into wages and surplus value under the capitalist system.
its just replacing capitalism with state capitalism.
>The laborer is no longer exploited
in the same way that slaves are not "exploited"

Every fucking debate between marxists and anarchists gets stuck around unspoken semantic bullshit regarding what "work" is vs. play or free activity. Same with debates re: the state

PRECISELY DEFINTE YOUR TERMS RIGHT NOW OR I KILL YOU thank you very much

>>2491884
Work must be a hobby, a joyful activity, not a burden. Work is an essential human NEED, which is corrupted by the necessity and then further by capitalism's alienation. This is why you consider laziness as something good

And as for retarded reading of this as "you must work 16 hours and sleep 8", no, rest is as important as labor itself.

>>2493702
Definitions are unscientific nonsense. Read Engles

>>2493702
Whatever Marx said

>>2493702
The definitions of each of those depend on the mode of production they're described as being in.

>>2493702
"work" = forced labour
"non-work" = free labour

>>2493696
>according to marx, the pay of the worker must be taxed to pay for administration
The proletarian uses the State to tax itself. This is explained plainly in text you failed to read.
>labour to marx can only be abstracted by exchange. without exchange there is also no "value", but only product.
Dont care. Work is a obligatory and a right in Communism
>its just replacing capitalism with state capitalism.
Wrong. There is no capitalism in Communism. In Communist China, the system of exploitation is abolished and the exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated and the transformation of capitalism to Communiam is complete.
>in the same way that slaves are not "exploited"
Capitalist exploitation is predicated upon the sale of labor power. In Communist China, labor power is not a commodity. This is expained in the text you failed to read. Please use this study guide and rectify your error

Major Study References

· Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program.
· Lenin, “The Great Innovation,” Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 4.
· Chairman Mao, “On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party.”
· Chairman Mao, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People,” Sections 3, 7, 9.

Review Problems

1. How can the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” be correctly understood and thoroughly implemented?
2. What are the essential differences between socialist wages and capitalist wages?
3. Why do we have to thoroughly implement the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” as well as to promote the communist labor attitude in the socialist stage?
Study material
1. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, p. 13.
2. Ibid., pp. 9-10.
3. Ibid., p. 11.
4. Ibid., p. 12.
5. Marx, The Civil War in France, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, p. 375.
6. “Present Tasks of the Soviet Government,” Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 3, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, pp. 503-504.
7. Chieh-fang jih-pao [Liberation Daily], Yenan, December 16, 1944.
8. “On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. 1, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1968, p. 89.
9. “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People,” Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tse-tung, Part 1, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1965, p. 344.
10. “From Destroying Long-standing Old Systems to Creating New Systems,” Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 4, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, p. 176.
11. Communist Manifesto, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, pp. 271-72.
12. State and Revolution, Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 3, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1972, p. 254.
13. “On New Democracy,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. 2, Jen-min ch’u-pan-she, 1968, p. 666.

>>2494558
They updated the "wrong." clanker troll to post its sources now, nice

>>2493702
Wrong. There is no debate. Karl Marx explicitly defines work as productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles in chapter 1, section 2 of Capital.
Marx, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1887, p. 31.

>>2491884
I think it would be alright to not go any further than labor vouches, which is an adequate scheme for both keeping capital from forming and for incentivizing labor participation. A labor voucher system could be phased out slowly and with scalable testing via UBI initiatives. If UBI exists and labor participation is still sufficient, then a switch could be made to making certain abundant basic goods completely free, and if that works then making everything totally free (since the previous would have been an extension of UBI to cover luxuries, making them untied to labor). That said, at any step we might just need to keep around vouchers in order to incentivize certain kinds of work, and that's probably okay. Work isn't bad, capitalism makes work bad. And of course on top of this should also be disability and maternity provisions and that sort of thing. And obviously full employment should be possible, with the state guaranteeing placement and training, and eventually education.

>>2491907
Yes.

>>2491922
>one person's work is another person's pointless waste of time
I work because I am directly interested in consuming the result myself and then I need no extra incentive; or I'm interested in gifting the result and then I need no extra incentive either; or I work as a means of indirectly obtaining something. Is the last of the three situations the bad one? I don't see that going away just because the means of production are held in common.

>>2493524
>The answer is no (…) Those who do not work (with the exception of the disabled for obvious reasons) will simply not partake in the fruits of labor
I believe most people would put threat of starvation under the umbrella of being forced to work. I do think there is a difference between being shot and not receiving food, being shot is the uh forcier force, but practically speaking it's a small difference. So I'm inclined to side with those who feel you are just playing word games here.

A child digging a hole in the ground for fun and a grown man digging a hole in the ground for a paycheck are both doing the exact same thing, they are just doing it for different reasons and have different attitudes about it. Therefore the distinction between work and play has nothing to do with the activity itself, it's an entirely subjective concept that describes a person's state of mind. Work, in the scientific definition of the word, is any expenditure of energy, thus human beings spend every moment of their lifes performing some kind of work. All this "work vs play" business is just an arbitrary distinction people make when they determine that one kind of work is more important or appropriate than another.

>>2493702
I'm not gonna bother with detailed citations, but,
1. Work is energy transfered by a force or object that causes displacement. Energy is force applied over a distance (W = Fd). Power is the rate at which work is done, the efficacy of work. Labor-power is the human equivalent of horse-power, which is a measure of power. You have to understand that Marx developed the category of 'labor' at the same time Watt was thinking of similar problems with machines i.e. power.
2. Working is the natural state of human beings, this is literally what we can say is human nature. To labour. Labor is what differentiated man from monkey. (Paris Manuscripts 1844)
3. Wage-work is the work you do for other people without any care if you want to do it, in our current political/economical organization, to survive; free activity is the labour you want to do. In the lower phase of communism, there will still need to be some coercive work - that's like the Gotha progeamme in a nutshell.

>>2497854 (me)
>the Gotha progeamme in a nutshell.
the critique of*

>>2497490
>>2497844
IMO as a I see it. It is social production, you can't work as you want, or you will not be able to quantify how thing_you_made = number_of_thing_someone_made. How fast you make things, is defined by tools and your knowledge. How long you work is defined by consumption function + surplus value, given it is capitalism. The consumption function also depend on the mode of production, like, how often you will buy a new car, computer, etc, how fast they degrade, but… And many more things. It is what you consume and looks subjective, but given it is social production, idk how to say, it is coupled, not subjective, there is a limit for all: 8 h/day.

So in a scheme like this one, you can't just work less or slower or it looks so. If say in the future cars will be deisgned to work longer or made by robots 99%, it will not imply less working hours for you. Something else will be made and consumed.

What I think can be done; decoupling from things or their producers, you do not want, as a group. It will be a group that produce everything they need by the way they want. They will do some exchange, unlikely they will make all medical, electronics, etc things. So it is not full decoupling. But it will be less exchange with them, it is only some of the things. So more free time can be freed.

It will not mean living in poverty, if you agree that not consuming 5 Tv series a day is not poverty.

labor draft labor draft

>>2497896
Some examples of decoupling.

1. if a group agree that it want all needs satisfied, it will do production of food, houses, etc, if it will require 1 h/day, so be it, so long they will work. They also produce some food, etc for exchange for Tv movies, etc, but they consume less of it, it is not their goal. While this group will not do exchange, but there will be group 2. That group that wants to consume more things, like many cars, many shows, etc. They will exchange things, they do not try to figure their goal, it is just exchange, they can't enjoy less working hours.

2. free software producers and users, is a group that decoupled from proprietary software. They do not consume it. They write free software, not all of them, not as commodity, there is no exchange between free software producers. They still get back to exchange when it is not free software.

3. any firm is decoupled, in a factory workers do not exchange 1 detail for detail 2; but it is a signle firm, it is no use.

But you need an agreement in the group, why and what it wants. If there is no agreemnt, you can't work less, you can't work as you want, labor is forced, etc. You can may be work less to a degree, if you stop producing surplus, but.. the surplus is spent on luxury by bourge. This surplus labor time, may be will be made free by reducing work day, but may be not, it will just be spent for example, on making more Tv shows.