>>2346>the names of institutions don't matterOf course they do, descriptions of institutions are supposed to tell you what it is.
"HR-department" is an utterly useless description from the perspective of the workers.
It's perhaps useful to capitalists, but socialists want things to have names that are useful for the workers.
This too is ideological struggle.
>only the idpolfag fights language battlesThey certainly do fight a lot of language battles, but that doesn't mean that we should cede that terrain to them without a fight.
>Seeing as it existed in the USSR (kadrovik), apparently it needs to exist. U can't just take anyone from the street without all the paperwork n shit.>And obviously it needs some men, because it is used in witch hunting "harassment" campaigns targeting male employees.Well the managerial strata, the intellectual and technical intelligentsia ended up betraying the workers when they went along with the dissolution of the USSR. So I'm failing to see why this is supposed to be such a good institution from a socialist perspective ?
If the "HR institution" is responsible for harassment campaigns isn't that another reason to reduce it's power. If you try to solve all problems with staffing institutions with better people, you'll eventually run out of virtuous people that won't abuse their power. You have to achieve as much as possible by structural design that strongly dis-incentivizes abuse by default.
If you want to implement quotas for balancing the sex-ratios in all workplaces, that's something where you agree with the liberals, I feel rather skeptical about that.
Traditionally we had division of labor where brute force strength tasks was male-dominated and dexterity tasks were female dominated, but advanced technological tools are making this increasingly irrelevant. However there could be a sexed difference in preference for tasks, if we just blindly bulldoze 50:50 sex-ratios for all tasks, we end up having a lot of unnecessary job-dissatisfaction. I think this is misguided, we just want to have 50:50 distribution of social power. If we absolutely must have the Heitch-Arrr institutions and it's filling up with mostly one sex, we'd be better off just decreasing the power of that institutions until 50:50 distribution of social power is achieved instead of trying to make a bunch of more people miserable by forcing them to do work they hate.
I'm also opposed to having paperwork as the sole determination for competency. If we consider for a moment the entire group of talented competent people, only half are attracted to the academic career ladder with fancy titles, formal rituals and what not. The other half is utterly repulsed by this. And for that reason we need to have another mechanism to find and position these people. I'm thinking that some kind of informal system where people vouch for others is a good way to do that. I don't know how to call this, maybe an "honor system" ?
Socialism is supposed to have full employment, so we will hire absolutely everybody. That also means just hiring people from the street. I'm not saying that the paperwork route should not exist but making it mandatory is really stupid. About half the population really hates it with a passion. I think it will be help-full if we invert the logic of grating workers, and instead grate the working assignments. So the logic is going to become about tailoring working environments to match it to the abilities of the population.
Capitalism has deskilled a lot of workplaces and degraded a lot of people. So at the point in time where the socialist system takes over, we have to engage in realistically shaping the economy for the actually existing population. The socialist system will over time undoo the destructive influence that capitalism had on people, and as more people are allowed to fully self-realize, the workplaces will become tailored to the heightened abilities of socialist citizens.