Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 18:50:04 No. 687079
>>687077 >Class of bureaucrats doesn't exist stratum of bureaucrats does exist though
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 18:56:31 No. 687086
>>687077 >>686998 Also, as a side note, in post-Soviet countries, there's no "B-B-BUREAUCRACY!!!1" cries, it's "Party Officials" cries. Both trots and liberals/fascists admit to existance of Soviet "party official" class, but not bureaucratic class. Why? Well, you see, when everything is a state-owned, you are very likely a bureaucrat, and digging up history of any trot/liberal/fascist will immediately bring up you being a bureaucrat.
>>687079 Nah. What does it even mean to be a bureaucrat? What is your job? Signing papers? Does signing papers makes you into a class? Seriously, lol?
Another reason why all the anticommunists in post-Soviet countries absolute love "partnomenklatura" meme - it actually creates a semblance of a class structure. You see, those apparatchiks supposedly had access to special distribution services, making their consumption higher than of ordinary workers (supposedly). What's a bureaucrat to that? It's a goddamn worker, lol. With the same idiocy you can claim that the ruling class in USSR were law enforcement people, militarymen, policemen, firefighters, you know the kind of guys I am talking about.
Western brainrot doesn't even translate properly into post-Soviet reality, and yet western leftists keep on mistranslating stuff to keep on believing into Trotsky, lol
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 19:01:18 No. 687091
>How can a political ideology that is ostensibly for the workers be actively hated by them? >minimum wage workers
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 19:13:02 No. 687100
>>687086 Are you one of those people that think any criticism of the USSR is CIA or western brainrot? Or are you the retard that thinks Krushev was a "trotskyist".
Make some decent critique as to why the USSR collapsed, so I won't spout nonsense in the future then please
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 19:13:24 No. 687101
>>687007 The necessary work time is something like 2 hours a day at the moment. So as a programmer I do cycling since my sedentary work. I work enough hours a day to become tired although I do not see my work as necessary. I'm better working 2 hours day manual labor that will replace cycling and will be enough for life support + some hours on thinking how optimize my work + I have free time for anything else I would like to work on. I mean this. I'm not saying there is a tendency for less forking hours.
>Funny you should say this when workers didn't have ANY power. The work time was 8 and less hours a day. I can write a longer message but not sure on historical facts. They had, as I know, human development goal and this from Lenin means 1) workers 2) less working time. And not to mention they had dictatorship of workers a law.
>>687038 >If you mean SNLT than easily. Sure, go on.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 19:39:28 No. 687129
>>687101 >I'm not saying there is a tendency for less forking hours. I want to say, it is better for me, but I can't do anything. The work time is not reducing for me or anyone else, although productivity is growing.
And I'm not sure if it is clear on workers power: but what measure if not working time can be used for working power?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 22:27:16 No. 687348
>>687101 >Sure, go on. It is an amount of labor it takes for an average worker wroking with tools expected for that time's technological development to produce certain commodity. It has nothing to do with proletariat because LTV works in feudalism too, you fucking retard.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 10:44:58 No. 688126
>>687348 OK, usually it is physical labor per commodity that is not changing with the number of commodities.
If you want to optimize production, what your goal would be?
If you decide to optimize for more free time, which will mean optimizing manual labor, but that is given you ever get to this goal at all.
How will you decide what free time we all can have, what is the lower bound of products and services we all need? If it is assumed that all and everyone's wants equal, the term "free time" makes no sense to agree on, right?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 10:47:40 No. 688129
>>685967 The unions weren't managed by the state, lmao.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 11:03:16 No. 688139
>>688126 >OK, usually it is physical labor per commodity that is not changing with the number of commodities. That is not an official definition. It is also a pretty bad definition since it doesn't have anything to do with socially necessary part.
Wrong, also has nothing to do with your asinine definition of worker.
And you can start speaking english any time soon, i am getting vibes of google translate from your posts.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 11:03:39 No. 688141
>>686885 maybe you should come up with a coherent argument first.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:46:23 No. 688213
>>688139 >That is not an official definition. It is also a pretty bad definition since it doesn't have anything to do with socially necessary part. It was not a definition. How do you find labor per product? t = (RND_time + labor_time_to_produce_X_products)/X. So RND_time/X -> 0, if X big enough.
I suggest you actually try to answer the question, how will you find free time and agree on it.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 16:03:20 No. 688365
>>685980 The US government has jail, prison, police, and a millitary. Jim's Widget factory does not
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:30:27 No. 688469
>>686890 Those examples were explicitly started as labor strikes against government-mandated working conditions and prices/pay. They're the closest thing you'd get to a "wildcat strike" in the USSR, and look how the state responded.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:38:16 No. 688484
>>685956 >minimum wage workers Good insult.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 18:33:40 No. 688553
>>688213 >How do you find labor per product? Why would he be trying to find labour per product as opposed to the socially necessary labour time to produce a given good when taken in aggregate?
>I suggest you actually try to answer the question, how will you find free time and agree on it. He's likely calling what you said asinine because you stated "all and everyones wants equal", which is not something Marxists assume in the first place. And for free, that's just all the time gained by removing the surplus labour time of capitalist commodity production.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 19:36:14 No. 688599
>>688553 >Why would he be trying to find labour per product as opposed to the socially necessary labour time to produce a given good when taken in aggregate? There is no contradiction, the content of a product is mostly physical labor. Everything we need for biological being is produced by physical labor. May be you mean something else by socially necessary labor, so the simplified equation I wrote does not apply?
Is video game programmer a worker?
>And for free, that's just all the time gained by removing the surplus labour time of capitalist commodity production. Not only capitalists live from surplus that workers produce. For example, a video games programmer lives from surplus that workers produce. So …
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 20:04:06 No. 688620
>>688599 And I do not see what changes if in aggregate or I do not understand what you mean.
My point, may be it would be clearer this way: video games programmers, etc. They already do all that, what they call "work", at free time. I know it does not look like that, but I'm not arguing on that. But actually they do not work, they do not produce anything required for human being. So if you include all their "work" time into necessary time, well, what changes?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 21:14:03 No. 688674
>>686875 From Ismail on the /marx/ board (
http://eregime.org/index.php?showtopic=17380&st=1065 ):
<Novocherkassk 1962. What the hell happened? How did it get to the point where the Soviet Army and KGB were firing on striking workers? Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 21:22:13 No. 688686
>>688599 >There is no contradiction, the content of a product is mostly physical labor. Everything we need for biological being is produced by physical labor. May be you mean something else by socially necessary labor, so the simplified equation I wrote does not apply? The LTV has nothing to do with attempting to measure the "amount" of physical labour a worker puts into a thing with no social context, as that's not a quantitative thing.
>Is video game programmer a worker? Yes, they are engaging in the production of a commodity for a wage in the context of capitalist production. There are certain jobs which do not create value and instead exist to help realize it, and this would be called "unproductive labour" (which is not be confused with the idea that the labour doesn't actually assist in producing a commodity or that it's useless), but a programmer is still engaging in productive labour as they are creating new value.
>Not only capitalists live from surplus that workers produce. For example, a video games programmer lives from surplus that workers produce. So … This has nothing to do with "living for surplus", and programmers do not live on the surplus workers produce, not directly. The surplus value workers produce is utilized by the capitalist first and foremost to be reinvested into capitalist production overall, going from surplus into capital. Money, a measure of value, is turned into capital. The programmer does not take the surplus of the worker, he already paid the price of his labour power using money which is already a part of the production process overall. The necessary labour time needed to reproduce the individual and society is not the same as the surplus labour time of capitalist production.
>>688620 >And I do not see what changes if in aggregate or I do not understand what you mean. LTV works in aggregate.
>My point, may be it would be clearer this way: video games programmers, etc. They already do all that, what they call "work", at free time. I know it does not look like that, but I'm not arguing on that. But actually they do not work, they do not produce anything required for human being. So if you include all their "work" time into necessary time, well, what changes? Ah. I think you may be very confused here on what LTV deals with. "Necessary labour time" has nothing to do with actually producing things which are directly necessary for human life, but "the time which workers must work (in the average conditions of the industry of their day), to produce the equivalent of their own livelihood (at the socially and historically determined standard of living of their day)".
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 21:41:23 No. 688722
>>685976 >That is the idea of democratic cybernetics (using computer systems to create economic democracy) which was experimented with in some places but never was tested very far. Somewhat related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_Democracy Also, good post, Junko, have a (You).
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 21:45:04 No. 688726
im proud of you comrades, you turned this into a good thread
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 21:48:30 No. 688728
>>688686 >The LTV has nothing to do with attempting to measure the "amount" of physical labour a worker puts into a thing with no social context, as that's not a quantitative thing. By LTV the value of commodity is proportional to labor time and I shown with the trivial equation that labor time is mostly physical labor time.
Well, then what you mean by this your comment:
>"all and everyones wants equal", which is not something Marxists assume in the first place Surplus is what is produced by workers besides what they need to consume. Directly or not, have no relation with what I'm saying.
Irrelevant. The point is that if you get rid of capitalists, but nothing changes in production, you still have programmers who do not produce biologically necessary things and you still have to produce this for them and there is no reduction of working time for workers.
And on everything else, you miss the point, thanks for teaching me LTV, but that is not the subject of this discussion.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 23:11:50 No. 688825
>>688728 >I shown with the trivial equation that labor time is mostly physical labor time. You have shown nothing. Your math doesn't even work ffs. And you don't even have a good definition of what IS physical labor, as opposed to no-physical.
Fucking shizo.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 23:36:39 No. 688871
>>688867 >party dictatorship is when you give power to the soviets and remove the power from the liberals. eh you do you.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 01:38:43 No. 689083
>>688825 What is ffs? What exactly you do not understand? It is not how you disproof something, show a contradiction. You did not answer the main question I've asked, no one here did. You continue this what looks like trolling since what I'm saying is very simple.
And on socially necessary labor, you do not understand what it means. Programmers "labor" goes under RND_time and it is divided by the number of copies, N. RND_time/N -> 0, if N -> inf. And only
if this labor relate to this commodity. If it does not, you can't just call it socially necessary, it is not what this term means.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 03:43:15 No. 689305
>>685956 How much of a moron is your shitty workerist father to think that the role unions play wouldn’t drastically change under a government run by the working class, or that the unions in the USSR didn’t have the power to negotiate terms with the state? Striking under such a government isn’t sticking it to some guy pulling out your surplus labor, it’s halting the machine that gets fellow workers like you their food, housing and medicine out of sheer spite.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 06:26:23 No. 689417
>>685999 Eugene V Debs became a socialist precisely when in jail for his union millitancy
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:08:29 No. 689478
>>685967 Unions like in the west where they take a big part of your pay to fund their own yachts and faggy events while they compromise with the bosses?
There's a reason why anti union propaganda in the US works.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 09:28:34 No. 689485
>when the country was occupied we used to have partisan militias >after the country got their independence the militias became integrated in the regular military >but that's bad I want partisans back
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:32:13 No. 690348
>>688728 >By LTV the value of commodity is proportional to labor time and I shown with the trivial equation that labor time is mostly physical labor time. No, the value is literally the socially necessary labour time required to produce the commodity. It's price that oscillates around this value.
>Well, then what you mean by this your comment: Exactly what I stated? I'm confused, what does that have to do with programmers engaging in commodity production?
>Surplus is what is produced by workers besides what they need to consume. Directly or not, have no relation with what I'm saying. Surplus labour time is the time beyond that of the necessary labour time required to reproduce the worker. How does this have no relation to what you are saying?
>Irrelevant. The point is that if you get rid of capitalists, but nothing changes in production, you still have programmers who do not produce biologically necessary things and you still have to produce this for them and there is no reduction of working time for workers. How is there no reduction in working time for the workers? The no longer have to work a surplus labour time. What does "biologically necessary thing" have to do with this? Producing the things that biologically support them, like food, has nothing to do with the existence of surplus labour time.
>And on everything else, you miss the point, thanks for teaching me LTV, but that is not the subject of this discussion. I don't think anyone gets what you are discussing, because unfortunately your English is severely broken.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 05:54:21 No. 690517
my only rebuttal is I dont give a fuck about peckerwood
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 06:08:11 No. 690524
>He also adds that modern communists are only millenial college students and minimum wage workers who haven't done real manual labor in their lives and all his co-workers agree with him
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:25:14 No. 690585
>>690524 >minimum wage workers don't do real manual labor OP's dad is a labor aristrocrat reactionary union boomer, fuck him.
>>690517 Well until you genocide all the HWITES you better give a damn about the majority of the working class if you want revolution.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:06:35 No. 690751
>>690348 >No, the value is literally the socially necessary labour time required to produce the commodity. It's price that oscillates around this value. "No" what? What "socially necessary" means? Marx refer to average skill and tools used in production of a particular commodity. What is your definition?
And I'm saying, that if you look at a particular commodity that is produced at a capitalist factory in big numbers, you can write the equation I've shown before and it will be physical labor mostly.
The necessary labor in this equation is actually averaged. There is no contradiction.
If we look now at a different factory, with different workers skills and etc, still for this factory, the equation will be valid.
I've quoted your comment. If programmers "labor" and workers labor equal, then what you mean by your comment? Are their votes equal on the subject of how long the work day should be?
>How is there no reduction in working time for the workers? The no longer have to work a surplus labour time. I'm a worker, I make food 12 h/day. Who consume this food? So OK, you somehow calculated the surplus labor time and somehow it is 2 h/day. Is less food produced? Obviously…
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:19:03 No. 690758
>>690751 The fucker who confuses concepts of surplus product and surplus labor still tries to enlighten us with his schizo theories.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:37:57 No. 690766
>>690751 >surplus labor time and somehow it is 2 h/day Not surplus time, but free time. So the food worker is now working 2 h/day. So you produce less food than before if you do not employ more workers or make food production more productive by better tools. Question: from whom you will employ more food workers, how will you decide?
So if you want a reduction of working time for workers, you have to make it clear who is a worker, what is biologically necessary and go from that. A programmer may think his work is highly important, that is ok and it might be true in some cases. But if generally there is no understanding of that, then.. I just do not see what good goal you may have without understanding this, where this all then will be going.
>>690758 I just do not see what is wrong in my conclusion. If what you say changes something, then say so.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:56:56 No. 690773
>>690766 >make food production more productive by better tools i.e. automation
i.e. you'll need programmer's labor
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:00:35 No. 690774
I dunno, I open wikipedia>It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ("necessary labour").
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:07:23 No. 690778
>>690773 Sure. But the problem shows up form how capitalism works at the moment, when many of of the programmers do not work on anything related to better production tools. Some people think that: who cares that workers do 12 h/day, we want a new play station!! Let them die at work, who cares, give us shows!
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:07:52 No. 690779
>>690774 >You guys remind me so called "communists" from a so called "communists" party where workers do not have a vote. You remind me of that schizo sect we have in my country where each person got a portion of thevote proportionally to how much of a "true worker" he is.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:16:06 No. 690783
>>690779 And what is your problem? Do not they allow a non-worker to talk in from the party workers? Do you they allow you to vote on what you suggest? Sure they should allow this. They just do not allow you to replace workers vote with yours.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:17:39 No. 690784
HEY OP LABOURER HERE TELL YOUR DAD STALIN WAS A GREAT MAN FROM ME AND ALSO TELL YOUR DAD THAT HIM AND HIS MATES ARE SUCH SPINELESS FAGHOTS THEY CAN SUCK THEIR OWN COCKS
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:18:33 No. 690785
>>690778 This is how it is in capitalism, yes. What does that have to do with planning.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:24:25 No. 690789
>>690783 >Do you they allow you to vote on what you suggest? Sure they should allow this. Do not they allow workers to vote on what you suggest? Fix.
>>690785 >This is how it is in capitalism, yes. What does that have to do with planning. It gives a goal for planning. If it is a workers party, it will plan for engineering better tools for workers, to reduce workers working time. If it is a non-workers party, it will… I do not know what their goal will be.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:46:21 No. 690845
This is why you people should never mention talk about your relatives in an imageboard.
Unique IPs: 28