/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

there are few pie in the sky concepts for preventing corruption through social structure:

> cybernetic socialism
< decentralize authority by planning using distributed computer systems
> anarcho syndicalism
< no state body larger than a cooperative or "syndicate", executive is a spokes-council of representatives

the chinese are the most successful communists, (and probably at prosecuting corruption) their state is built on a one party system and the party is structured pretty closely to a corporation with regional leadership acting as middle managers and being performance managed to hell and back according nationwide metrics, and specific goals and initiatives set in various plans by the central committee.

in general the strata in the china doesn't come from party affiliation, it comes from the limited private enterprise that was fostered to interface with global liberal capitalist economy.

>>2803819
As long as liberalism twists everything into its image, no.

>Class society came about as a result of division of labour, right?
Marx says that a division of labour can precede class society, if the property is equally shared; class society only occurs at the intersection of commodity exchange (originally between communities) since this develops private (individual) property, and this unevenly distributes the social product per the division of labour afterwards. So, yes and no.
>As history marches on the social organisation gets more complex, demanding more division of labour, not less.
Yes, the extent of the market is the extent of the division (e.g. specialisation) of labour, with the most expensive commodities requiring the most complex production.
>This seems to be driven mostly by technological growth
Yes; what we call tools are simply the alienation of labour into a particular task, to multiply the efficiency of this constant product.
>It is not a process that I see ending with transition to planned economy
Not at all, which is the uncritical nonsense of Marx, which is only administered by his discourse upon shared tasks; for example, rather than simply having one job, we have multiple short-term jobs. That is his idea of breaking up the division of labour - but Marx also lived long before tasks became inherently technical in proficiency.
>if we imagine a society where incomes are equal, all should be of the same class.
If that's how you want to define "class", but caste is not in how much you make, its in your social role. Thus, Plato sees that the Philosopher-Kings should have the greatest rank, but also a low income, since money corrupts duty. So, Stalin had no money in his purse, yet he still had unlimited power; these are different things.
>how can this strata be made "virtuous", so they conduct themselves as a selfless civil servants, rather than acting for their own personal benefit?
Read Plato's Republic; you have to select for the best people and also decouple power from money, since otherwise, you create a plutocracy, like what most liberal democracies are in reality.

>>2803819
>and if we imagine a society where incomes are equal, all should be of the same class.
How do you equalize incomes without unequalizing the value of people's labour? People will still have unequal ability, training, experience in a given work and will work different hours. Equality is such a shitty measurement and even worst goal. Also not what Marx and Engels, or even Lenin were about

The only relevant question is "who controls the guns"? Or whatever is the equivalent for guns in the future. That's it.

>>2803864
>Equality is such a shitty measurement and even worst goal. Also not what Marx and Engels, or even Lenin were about
Yes it was… 🙄
Just say you disagree with Marx instead of putting your words in his mouth.

>>2803874
And economic equality by the abolition of classes means the equal share of unequal labours, as you have already alluded to. The productive will support the unproductive; that is the meaning of:
<From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>2803864
If training is provided by society there is no reason why it should varrant a pay premium. Some differential for performance or to equalise supply/demand is non-problematic as far as I am concernes. When I say equal I meant it as a roughly equal socio-economical standing, not literally the exact same income for everyone.

>>2803847
>Marx says that a division of labour can precede class society
Marx was working with outdated historical knowledge, what he says on the topic isnt of much use.
>you have to select for the best people and also decouple power from money
You say "you", but that is exactly the issue, I am not doing that, the people in charge od decision making decise, and have vested interest in not deciding in such way.

>>2803869
That is the same question I asked. It is not people who wield weapons who rule, but people in who manage them.

>>2803870
Marx and Engels were not about absolute equality or equality in the abstract. Saying anything else is nothing more than a right win strawman.

Here take the old radlib education video, since I'm too tired to argue or educate..

>>2803881
>Marx was working with outdated historical knowledge, what he says on the topic isnt of much use.
Marx makes direct anthropological citation to prove his point. A communist society can as yet be patriarchal, for example.

>>2803885
>>2803882
>Watch this video; don't read Marx
Typical Marxoid laziness. But lets read from Marx directly:
<Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby. In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
So Marx calls economic inequality a "defect" of bourgeois right.

>>2803879
>The productive will support the unproductive
This both in the sense of 'muh welfare' and in the sense productive and unproductive labor in classical and Marxist economics sense.

>>2803891
Yes, Marx directly supports welfare in his writings.

>>2803894
Guy lived off donations from Engels, he'd be a hypocrite like Rand if he didnt.

>>2803885
>>2803889
To contextualise this a bit more, Marx in his economic writings discusses the difference between time-wages and piece-wages. If we consider time-wages, people are paid by the hour, and if they ar optimally productive, they exploit themselves (like how when you are finished with your tasks, your boss just gives you more stuff to do). Those acquainted with time-wages are thus inherently lazy in order to sustain their employment at an optimal leisure (e.g. construction and public works employees). Here, productivity is punished (in working class communities, a paradox occurs, where "hard work" is celebrated, yet success is punished, just like in the working space). Piece-wages on the contrary, reward productivity (freelance work being a type of piece wage, or salary), since it incentivises you to do your work at a faster pace. Capitalist countries mostly use time-wages, while in the Soviet Union, piece-wages were most common.

Marx in his lower phase of Communism promotes the piece-wage model, seeing how different abilities will cause an inequality of productivity:
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
As yet, he sees that this is still defective of the lower phase, where productivity will once again be punished - this is Marx's irrationality, since where we do actually have an "equality of opportunity", the outcome ought to be immaterial, since it is fair (especially in the classless context he puts it in). So then, Marx's idea to create an equality of economic outcome is a flaw in his logic, which we have to be honest about - and if the inequality of outcome is a result of the equality of individuals, maybe it will result in forcing individual equality, and so Jordan Peterson jumps ahead, but has the right idea.