Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:42:06 No. 685964
The USSR had the biggest trade unions in the world
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:43:46 No. 685967
>>685964 When I said there were no unions I mean like unions in the West. How can you say it is a union when it is managed by the state? How can you demand higher wages, strike, or collectively bargain with something that has jails and a military?
junko !!9cfznBf./Q 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:50:23 No. 685976
Leninist states roll everyone into state-sponsored unions afaik. The idea is your practical concerns as a worker are forwarded through this complex of bureaucracy, it's not the worst system but in the socialist movement there have been recommendations to enhance or restructure it.
The most obvious I can think of is Rosa Luxemburg's (a German left-communist) statement here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm "In place of the representative bodies created by general, popular elections, Lenin and Trotsky have laid down the soviets as the only true representation of political life in the land as a whole, life in the soviets must also become more and more crippled. Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule." Pic rel.
The freedom of assembly comment lends itself to free forming of unions.
A different approach is one I've heard about but not read about. 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. You can ask about it here if it interests you:
>>609222 I know one of the demands of the Solidarity movement in Poland was to legalize free creation of independent unions. I don't know much about Solidarity except at least by the end it seems it was co-opted by Western capitalist interests as a means to undermine the Warsaw Pact.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:51:01 No. 685977
>>685956 >How can a political ideology that is ostensibly for the workers be actively hated by them? Depends on which country but a lot of workers in western countries are pretty well compensated by global standards particularly skilled tradesmen and they're not going to be convinced of communism based on some abstract argument.
Lenin also formulated a theory 100 years ago after European workers fell for European monarchies' ridiculous wargame and were slaughtered. The theory is called social imperialism. In short, the workers in developed economies are paid off by the capitalists based on the exploitation of workers in developing economies and hence the former become "labor aristocrats."
The "labor aristocrats" lost the motivation to fight against capitalism, similar to the "Uncle Tom" effect in the United States. Parts of the "labor aristocracy" were later on known as the "middle class" and the stronger the middle class, the better, for the standpoint of social stability since they don't want to fall down to the lower class, and they admire the upper class, such that the middle class is structurally pro-stability and anti-revolution. But with the erosion of the middle class in developed capitalist countries you see people from this class turn against the system which had previously nurtured them and populism runs wild.
This sort of phenomenon is very common, not exclusive to Marxism. For example, divide-and-rule and divide-and-conquer strategies are very effective in dividing an opposition force so to turn them against each other, which in a sense was practiced in colonized countries (Anglo-Saxons are known for this statecraft) and later on introduced to the United States.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:51:33 No. 685979
>what is a soviet
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:51:52 No. 685980
>>685967 It's not managed by the state, soviet trade unions were far too big to be managed by the state.
>How can you demand higher wages, strike, or collectively bargain with something that has jails and a military? And America doesn't have jails and a military?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:53:55 No. 685982
>>685956 >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 Also there is truth here as well, because minimum-wage workers are less compensated than skilled tradesman, which makes communism more attractive. Furthermore, a tiny part of the "labor aristocrats" – though not always from them since the boundaries of social class isn't always clear – in the intellectual class (students and scholars) come from the working class. And some throughout history who came from the mid-and-upper classes betray their class on occasion. But these intellectuals are structurally weak, and are very good at whining and lecturing but not taking action or engaging in effective practice.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:53:58 No. 685983
>Neither the Soviets, the Maoist Chinese, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, modern North Korea etc allow unionizing, strikes or collective bargaining >Good unions exist as a tool of class dictatorship for the proletariat (against the bourgoiesie) >Bad unions exist as tools for sections of workers to extort society by fucking over other workers (racist unions, exclusive unions) >When you have socialism, the workers are in control >When the workers are in control, you dont need 2 tools of class dictatorship, because the state is already it >The only unions that would remain are bad unions >"We must ban unions" >Oops, our socialist superstate isnt so post-capitalist and democratic as we wanted, and the leadership isnt actually that accountable to the will of the masses, its actually state capitalist in many cases or outright dengist at worst, so theres still conflict between the state and workers
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:54:21 No. 685984
>>685956 >>685967 >I mean like unions in the West. Not all workers have equal leverage when they threaten strikes, that means some workers can bargain more effectively than others. That can create a division in the labor force and weaken it as a hole. Therefore socialist countries preferred to have one big Union for all the workers.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:56:21 No. 685987
>>685980 america too isnt an arguement
Also, the American military doesn't throw my dad in jail for striking
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:58:37 No. 685990
>>685979 You are like a little baby, watch this
Disolves the soviets Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 00:58:46 No. 685991
>>685983 Thank you for the genuine reply, anon. That makes lots of sense to me
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:00:15 No. 685995
>>685979 my work on the coal mine is under-compensated, im gonna strike!
>gulag Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:00:17 No. 685996
>>685976 Based junko as always
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:01:47 No. 685997
>>685987 >america too isnt an arguement You're the one who brought it up
>Also, the American military doesn't throw my dad in jail for striking Yeah except that has happened in America
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:03:25 No. 685998
>>685976 I don't completely understand what you're talking about. I basically got
>state controlled mega union isn't necessarily a good idea maybe allow freedom of organizing and private unions Thanks for the serious reply
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:03:39 No. 685999
>>685997 >Yeah except that has happened in America Any examples?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:06:12 No. 686007
Unionism, in America at least, originally developed under two broad categories. The first that was widely recognizable was the trade unionist movement which sought to organize "skilled" workers like tinsmiths and glassmakers and such. They were not interested in any sort of socialist programming or revolutionary ideology and were focused exclusively on improving the conditions of their own membership. These unions came together under the umbrella of the American Federation of Labor. The other variant of unionism was referred to as "industrial unionism" of which many organizers and leadership were card carrying communists and non card carrying anarchists. Their umbrella was the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Due to a variety of historical factors like the National Labor Relations Act and significant wins at employers like General Motors, coupled with McCarthyism the AFL and CIO eventually merged and enacted a successful program to drum out the communists.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:06:29 No. 686008
>>685997 I didn't bring up america, I brought up the west, and the point was to differentiate between the more private and independent unions that can ACTUALLY do union activity as opposed to state controlled unions. You just attempted to rebutt criticism of state-controlled unions by saying america has jails and a military that it (apparently) uses to stop strikes
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:07:29 No. 686011
>>685999 The labor war in Colorado
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:08:40 No. 686014
>>685984 thats all well and dandy until you actually demand higher wages or organize or strike then
>gulag Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:10:28 No. 686018
>>686007 >Me Oh also I'd like to add wrt
>>685967 that it was very common prior to the NLRA for local law enforcement and private security to arrest/kill union organizers and it was very common for local governments to deploy the national guard in order to break strikes.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:13:25 No. 686026
>>685977 Neoliberalism with its effect in the U.S. is also an example since the real wage hasn't increased for 40 years despite so many elections and promises. One could indeed also argue that in the case of developed capitalist countries, since they can transfer their internal contradictions externally to "let the Mexicans pay for it," they mainly achieve the illusion of economic growth, while also applying some degree of welfare to "pay off" social inequality, and letting in the cheap foreign labor to do the leg work, while being only democratic on the superstructure but not the (economic) substructure.
(BTW, one of the standards of middle-class living in America is home ownership which is artificially stimulated by historically low interest rates.)
This is also reflected in a way that developed countries hold the high value-added supply chain and offshored their low value-added industries to the developing countries. Those who got into the middle level lost their competitiveness, being stuck in the "middle-income trap" like Latin America. But with the rise of developing countries in an absolute sense, the welfare regime in the developed countries have a huge problem to obtain further funds – for instance Chinese companies can be 10 times cheaper than American or German companies while being 80% as good, or in the case of smartphones now even *better* while also being a bit cheaper too, so many third world countries can now buy cheap Chinese phones rather than pay extra for phones from western countries. This is triggering all the problems we see today in the western countries so the welfare regime and middle class can no longer survive.
Like it or not, even before the complete negation of capitalism, Marxism is still very effective in terms of explaining what's going on here. These activities do not need Marxism in order to exist. They exist because they are existential contradictions produced by capitalism itself, like Marxism which is also produced by capitalism.
This is also fueling the U.S. drive toward confrontation with China because its economic rise is fundamentally undermining America's ability to extract more "loot" from the rest of the world. And once that happens, it's game over. In other words, the superstructural democracy will prove to be an illusion because there is no longer an economic substructure to supply it – other than being on the top of the food chain in the world economy.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:13:40 No. 686027
>>686008 Calm down anon not every discussion and post on the internet is a debate. That's just the high level overview of the history of how and when American unions pivoted to staunch anticommunism.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:16:15 No. 686031
>>686018 If the strikers were destroying property or threatening people that is perfectly fine, if it was a peaceful sit out or strike what the government did there was illegal. The USA does not systematically use the military to break union activity if said unions aren't actually harming anyone, same with protest. Dont kill people, break stuff, block people, or expect the owners of your business not to fire/replace you with someone else. You have the freedom to strike and I have the freedom to hire someone else if I can replace you.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:17:33 No. 686034
>>686031 I encourage you to read books
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:19:12 No. 686035
>>686027 Read the post before
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:27:58 No. 686056
>>686035 My mistake, I thought you had quoted my post about the AFL-CIO.
>>686037 Based on your post about labor actions and state/business responses prior to the passage of the NLRA, it seems that you don't really have a basis for a nuanced discussion of the topic. Or at least I'm not willing to write out a bunch of blog posts about labor history when *I* could be playing fun vidya and *you* could go the history section of the library to develop a more informed opinion first.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:33:37 No. 686065
>>685956 >How can a political ideology that is ostensibly for the workers be actively hated by them? BECAUSE MOST WORKERS HAVE LOW EDUCATION.
AND YOU KNOW, YOUR BELOVED COUNTRY AMERICA IS COINCIDENTALLY ALSO THE EXPERT IN SHAPING MINDS SO THAT PEOPLE (FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC) ARE READY TO SERVE THEIR INTERESTS WITHOUT OPPOSITION.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:34:57 No. 686070
>unions in socialist countries can't do anything and if they do they get gulaged
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:37:24 No. 686075
>>685999 Read pic related. In order to get the labour rights workers in the West enjoy today, your grandfathers and their fathers literally got into shootouts with the police and army. Labour organizers were regularly beaten and murdered by the authorities, demonized in the media, etc. It was only with the rise of the Soviet Union that these practices began to decline and major concessions were made, out of fear that a similar worker's revolt would happen in America. The Russian Revolution is directly responsible for the labour protections your dad enjoys, but even these are rapidly being stripped away now that it's gone. In many parts of the world such horrific conditions continue to persist to this day, and labour organizers literally take their lives in their hands if they decide to organize a strike.
>I check up to see if he is right and… HE IS No he isn't. Workers in those countries were organized into party-run trade unions. There are many problems with this model, but at the same time they were successful in securing unprecedented social and economic gains for the workers there.
>minimum wage workers who haven't done real manual labor in their lives Why should that matter? First off, just because labour isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't difficult, stressful, miserable, alienating, or even detrimental to your health. Spending all day at a desk comes with its own set of health problems. Even leaving that aside though, the type of work a person does has little to do with where their interests lie vis a vis the capitalist class. In dismissing non-physical labourers, your dad is creating an artifical division between himself and other workers even though objectively speaking, their interests are one and the same. This in turn plays into the hands of the exploiters and harms his own self interests.
>How can a political ideology that is ostensibly for the workers be actively hated by them? It isn't, most people are indifferent to it, and in many places they remain sympathetic to it, especially in formerly or currently socialist countries. Among those that are actively hostile to it, these usually make up the upper crust of the working class, who are sufficiently integrated into the capitalist system that they identify with it. However this is basically Stockholm system, and in the long term ultimately harms their interests and prevents further gains.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:38:14 No. 686077
>>686056 You don't need knowledge of history to make simple arguements. Although I have just as much (if not more) knowledge of history as you; although that's unrelated because knowing more thank you doesn't make my arguements somehow better.
Is this really it for /leftypol/? You guys either post essays of words you got from Lenin, Marx, Engles etc instead of making an arguement, make claims that ignore historical consensus and sources(soviet union was good and lots of unions with actual union activity) or write the equivalent of 'touch grass' posts by gatekeeping debate with read books instead of having an arguement
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:39:20 No. 686082
>>686065 I never said anything about "my beloved country america" in the op also
>inb4 cia usa doesn't mind control me
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:41:52 No. 686088
>>686070 I'm sorry, could I have striked in the Soviet Union, anon? Is there a totally accurate and non-marxist book I have to read to understand?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:42:53 No. 686091
>>686031 >if it was a peaceful sit out or strike what the government did there was illegal. The USA does not systematically use the military to break union activity if said unions aren't actually harming anyone That's objectively untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre >same with protest Also untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:44:43 No. 686100
>>685999 Great Railroad Strike of 1877
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:45:59 No. 686103
>>686088 >I'm sorry, could I have striked in the Soviet Union, anon? Yes. Strikes were never expressly forbidden, and wildcat strikes without the permission of the party run union did happen.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:49:23 No. 686116
>>686075 THANK YOU FOR ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO OP
>No he isn't. Workers in those countries were organized into party-run trade unions. There are many problems with this model, but at the same time they were successful in securing unprecedented social and economic gains for the workers there. Could I strike in these party-run trade unions? I didn't say I agree with him on this, I don't look down on minimum wage workers. The rest of your post isn't responding to anything I wrote
This is a good reply, I'm gonna think on this one. Thank you, fren
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:50:15 No. 686118
>>686103 i obviously meant could i peacefully strike with brutal retaliation from the authorities :l
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:51:57 No. 686119
>>686014 >thats all well and dandy until you actually demand higher wages or organize or strike then The proletariat in the soviet Union got a larger overall share of the economic pie in relative terms than western workers, they also were first in getting concessions like an 8h work day. So you can't say that workers did not have power in that system, when they arguably got the better deal in relative terms.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:53:20 No. 686125
>>686118 Yes. Do you seriously think that every strike resulted in a massacre? That wasn't even true in America in the guilded age. Most of the time it would be much easier to just concede to the demands instead of risk a bloody confrontation, since Soviet enterprises were not inherently profit seeking entities. Hell, even when confrontations got violent the repression was still often followed by concessions to most of their demands.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:55:50 No. 686132
>>686091 >That's objectively untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre Nice try, A: that wasn't a peaceful strike, B: this doesn't prove the military systemically cracks down on peaceful strikers, and C: and murder of actual peaceful strikers was still illegal.
Also untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO >the fbi illegally surveiled, subverted, and sometimes killed people that were in non-peaceful anti-government organizations >this is the same as the us military dispersing genuine peaceful protests and strikers Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 01:58:20 No. 686138
im sorry i even bothered, this is as fruitless as debating stormfags
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 02:05:29 No. 686148
>>686132 >Nice try, A: that wasn't a peaceful strike, You're right, company agents going around indiscriminately firing guns at families isn't peaceful.
<The major coal companies rejected the demands. In September 1913 the United Mine Workers of America called a strike.[18] Those who went on strike were evicted from their company homes and moved to tent villages prepared by the union. The tents were built on wood platforms and furnished with cast-iron stoves on land the union had leased in preparation for a strike. <When leasing the sites, the union had selected locations near the mouths of canyons that led to the coal camps in order to block any strikebreakers' traffic.[17] The company hired the Baldwin–Felts Detective Agency to protect the new workers and harass the strikers. <Baldwin–Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special", to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company plant in Pueblo, Colorado, from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Confrontations between striking miners and working miners, whom the union called scabs, sometimes resulted in deaths. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents to hide in. Armed battles also occurred between (mostly Greek) strikers and sheriffs recently deputized to suppress the strike: this was the Colorado Coalfield War. >this doesn't prove the military systemically cracks down on peaceful strikers It did. Other Anons have named numerous other examples where such things happened, and the book I posted contains a pretty comprehensive account of it. That point isn't really controversial among American labour historians.
>and murder of actual peaceful strikers was still illegal So was murdering black people, but lynchings were still common.
>this is the same as the us military dispersing genuine peaceful protests and strikers Explain why it's better. In either case the goal is the crushing of dissent, it's just a difference of overt vs covert means.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 02:21:25 No. 686182
>>686148 OP is here to debate not discuss. He is an opinion haver not a thinker. I'm his mind the victims of the Ford hunger march had it coming for not getting a permit.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 02:42:44 No. 686231
>>686082 >usa doesn't mind control me expect that its propaganda appparatus can be said as one of the most efficient in the world
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 08:15:21 No. 686500
We really need like an FAQ or some kind of historical record sticky post to better deal with bullshit posters like OP.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 08:25:40 No. 686510
>>685956 unions are only a temporary safety measure for the working class in the absence of a communist international
if you fetishize them as the be-all-end-all then you're a reactionary
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:16:36 No. 686859
>>685967 As I know at first, USSR had two powers
1) party
2) Soviets. Soviets is a term.
Soviets supposed to be consisted of working (at the moment) workers and soviets had no less power than the party. So.. if workers wanted less working time, better conditions, they had all the power. Actually it is not the party, but as I know, the USSR soviet workers set 8 hours/day work time limit.
Well, it supposed to be like this, with Worker Soviets power… but somehow this did not stay for long in USSR, as I know.
Anyway, the communism means the power of workers, there is a huge reason for this, not just for the workers.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:29:34 No. 686872
>>685967 >unions so big they get to sit at the table with state power >durr it's state controlled, I want my smol mom and pop union back Americans are so afraid of organization, damn.
>>685995 Would be great if you could come up with a historical example of someone going to gulag for participating in a wildcat strike.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:35:09 No. 686879
>>686876 Actually read Marx and stop making stuff up from your imagination.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:38:41 No. 686885
>>686879 >read a book bro Maybe you should come up with actual arguments.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:39:57 No. 686890
>>686875 >>686877 >The protestors called Nikita Khrushchev a "False Leninist" and many were dismayed that the 20th congress and Khrushchev's regime denigrated Joseph Stalin. Baste
Anyway, these are anti-government protests, not a strike for better wages, really fucked up that it happened but what does it have to do with the union argument? Capitalist government would shoot you in cold blood if you storm government buildings as well, check Kazakhstan right now.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:41:32 No. 686895
>>685967 Take a look at the efficacy of the AFL-CIO and tell me western unions can't be coopted either. State unions can actually be quite effective as well, you can't just assume they're worthless because they're state affiliated, after all why would a worker's state not bring unions into government?
Now, there are these things I think that are called "free unions" which groups like USAID try to set up that get rightly banned, because USAID is a CIA project to destabilize countries around the world.
You have to actually demonstrate that gov affiliated unions cannot be effective for workers.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:47:14 No. 686907
>>686075 >>minimum wage workers who haven't done real manual labor in their lives >Why should that matter? First off, just because labour isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't difficult, stressful, miserable, alienating, or even detrimental to your health. Spending all day at a desk comes with its own set of health problems. Even leaving that aside though, the type of work a person does has little to do with where their interests lie vis a vis the capitalist class. In dismissing non-physical labourers, your dad is creating an artifical division between himself and other workers even though objectively speaking, their interests are one and the same. This in turn plays into the hands of the exploiters and harms his own self interests. Hm, I do not think he meant physical labor, he was bullying. But I just want to remind that actually, a worker is someone doing physical labor or something related to biological life support, something like this. They produce food and houses, etc necessary for living things and everyone else lives from surplus they produce. As a say video games programmer, you already live from this surplus and although you struggle like it is some very important job, but you do not make things necessary for living, you do not make surplus.
I will not try to explain in all details, but it is not to alienate you from the workers. But it is important to understand that you can't dictate the workers how long they have to work. I think that the failure of USSR was in that they stated that since there is no private property, then everyone is proletariat. If so, the we can delete worker dictatorship from the law. So a manager and a video game maker is proletariat and so now the power is the power of people… and this was the end.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:56:34 No. 686920
>>686907 Video game worker creates surplus of video games so the brick layer and bread baker have shit to play when they come home from work.
If you think that's a waste of time you should campaign to remove that shit from the plan altogether, not treat game devs as parasites that get fed by other's work.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 16:58:57 No. 686923
>>686876 >They just want to get rid of markets and money and they were betting on workers to get their dirty work done for them. Pic related. They? which They, anon? Marx and Engels from day one? or the Bolsheviks and subsequent disciples? It's not like getting rid of markets and money would somehow enrich them.
Besides, I think Marx was a pretty smart cookie, I'm not sure I've read enough to call myself a Marxist, but I am a worker, and I care about my coworkers, and from what I can gather Marx had significant sympathy for the factory laborers of London. I'd love to be proved wrong, but your statement sounds very much like someone who's online all the time posting interacting with "Marxists" who talk about workers like they're their chess pieces against capitalism, but I don't really think Marx and Engels felt this way about them. I'd love to see any specific quotes you could find about how Marx (or Marxists) describe workers as their lemmings.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:00:34 No. 686925
>>685956 Any system which doesn't allow unions or enforces state unions is Not Real Socialism. One of many reasons why MLs are cringe.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:00:35 No. 686926
>>686907 If the reason for why the Soviet Union was dismantled is because there was more unproductive labourers than productive labourers, then socialism (forget about communism all together) is immposible because any sufficiently advanced economy will end up with more unproductive labourers than productive ones.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:01:08 No. 686929
>>686907 > But I just want to remind that actually, a worker is someone doing physical labor or something related to biological life support, something like this You are saying "remind" as if you are stating something obvious that doesn't require any proof and not your personal schizo opinion.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:07:50 No. 686942
>>686925 Unions as we know them now are a specific type of organization to collectively fight against bourg, why the fuck would we need them when there's no bourg?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:38:58 No. 686979
>>686942 >why the fuck would we need them when there's no bourg? Because the interests of workers can still diverge from those of state officials or other workers, and if these differences are to be resolved productively they need proper representation.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:42:29 No. 686982
>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 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:57:13 No. 686998
>>686942 >why the fuck would we need them when there's no bourg? To struggle against the ruling class of bureaucrats.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 17:58:24 No. 687000
>>686920 Sure workers should vote for a plan and dedicate time to video games accurately, knowing how many hours of work they give for that. But if a video game coder have the same vote and he votes for the plan that is better for him, not so good for workers, hm…
I call them parasites in hope to get planning or measure that can be used by workers, as in my first sentence.
>>686926 It may end up at a state where everyone does very little productive work, but it is enough and this will be better. But for USSR it was important to keep the workers power for as long as necessary.
>>686929 Try to define necessary work time if everyone is proletariat.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 18:01:51 No. 687007
>>687000 >It may end up at a state where everyone does very little productive work, but it is enough and this will be better. Literally a porkie argument against unions.
>But for USSR it was important to keep the workers power for as long as necessary. Funny you should say this when workers didn't have ANY power.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 18:22:29 No. 687038
>>687000 >Try to define necessary work time if everyone is proletariat. If you mean SNLT than easily. If you mean something else then speak proper english, schizo.
Почему у меня ощущение что это ебанавт из секты Попова на огонек забежал?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 18:49:27 No. 687077
>>686998 Class of bureaucrats doesn't exist. It's just western leftists' attempt to paint communist states as capitalists without calling them such, because, you know, no private property. They have it easier with China today because China actually allows private property, but we had the same problem back in 1920s in USSR when Soviets were allowing capitalists too - google up NEPmen.
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: 49