[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1681201146411.pdf ( 896.27 KB , 232x300 , Towards a New Socialism.pdf )

 No.7224

The purpose of this thread is discuss notes I've written for Towards a New Socialism. I intend to post one chapter's worth of notes per week.
I haven't studied much Marxist or socialist literature, so I hope this thread invites constructive dialogue that provides insight and criticizes any mistakes I've made or key points I've missed.
Please avoid citing the OP as I'll be using mentions to track the notes I've posted.
>>

 No.7225

Baste
>>

 No.7226

>>7224
Introduction

Cockshott and Cottrell (C&C) define social democracy as a liberal democratic system that mitigates inequalities produced by capitalism through progressive taxation and social benefits. Although social democracy can improve the condition of workers, they subject it to the following criticisms:
1. It has little impact on inequalities of wealth, income or life chances.
2. In such mixed economies, the socialist elements are subordinate to the capitalist elements, since tax revenue extracted from the capitalist sector depends on its continual growth and good health. As a result, any redistributive policy tends to adversely effect its own source of wealth.
3. There are few clearly defined principles by which the socialist sector operates.
They define idealist Marxists as those who accept Marxian theories, but erroneously reject the Soviet system as a model of socialism.
They separate their ideology from both the social democrats and the idealist Marxists, both of which they view as the dominant ideologies of the western left. As Marxists, they argue that the Soviet system was a genuine attempt at realizing Marxian theories. They admit that Soviet society was rife with many undesirable and problematic features, which can be attributed to a combination of historical, political and theoretical problems. Despite this, they claim that different types of Marxian socialism are possible.

The way that one differentiates between forms of social organization, such as capitalism or feudalism, is by virtue of its specific mode of production. The extraction of surplus product is what defines a mode of production. Necessary product is used to sustain and reproduce the workforce (consumer goods and services, investment in plant and equipment). Surplus product is used both to maintain the non-producing members of society and to grow the stock of the means of production. Nearly any society requires some mechanism by which producers are compelled to create surplus product.
In feudal society, surplus extraction was plainly "visible", meaning that the producers had to be directly subordinated, often with the help of a religion. For example, a peasant might simply be ordered to give up part of their produce, or to work on the lord's fields for some time (with their obedience being rewarded by a heavenly afterlife).
By contrast, capitalist society introduces legal equality through the wage contract, by which surplus extraction is made "invisible". Rarely is there an immediately obvious distinction between the time a employee spends producing for themselves or their employer. The degree of exploitation is determined by how much struggle there is between the workers and capitalists.

Contrary to the perspective of the idealist Marxists, C&C argue that the Soviet system was quite different from capitalism because it implemented a distinct form of surplus extraction - though in a flawed manner, in part due to the use of money.
In Soviet socialism, the division between necessary and surplus product was determined by political decisions. Planning authorities ensured that enterprises had sufficient money balances to pay for the goods and labour that were physically allocated to them. Resources going into consumer goods production were centrally allocated and thus not responsive to consumer spending, meaning that higher overall wages only either increased prices or caused shortages.
Since a social system is defined by its mode of production, they are not necessarily guaranteed to coincide with a specific form of government. Although Soviet socialism was substantially Marxian, Marx envisioned a radically democratic component to give intrinsic legitimacy to the production of surplus. Because Soviet society was not democratic ("for reasons both external and internal"), Stalin's cult of personality - with both its terrorizing and pioneering aspects - became an integral part of ensuring plan implementation, and in turn the mechanism of surplus extraction that defined Soviet socialism.
The crisis and eventual collapse of the Soviet system was mainly the result of popular opposition to undemocratic and authoritarian politics, stagnant living standards and endemic shortages of goods. Following the end of the Stalin era, the ways in which the mechanism of surplus extraction was ensured were being undermined. More liberal and egalitarian policies were combined with a lack of work incentives and a degenerated political culture that eroded the the ideals of socialism.

C&C argue against the proposition that democracy invariably leads to capitalism by claiming that an even more democratic form of government than what exists today will be a key element of modern socialism. They also argue against the perception that centralized planning is inherently worse than the free market by claiming that they can overcome inefficient planning with an updated methodology and the use of computer systems. They advocate for a socialism that encourages free and open competition of ideas. They criticize the flaws in classical Marxism, the Bolsheviks' attachment to the Soviet model of institutions, the improvisational nature of Soviet planning, and the ideological canonization of Marx and Engels' thought.
They conclude by defining themselves as post-Soviet socialists who propose a social, economic and political system that is cooperative, planned and democratic.
>>

 No.7227

Apparently I don't know how imageboards work so I'll be using this post to track notes.
>>

 No.7228

opening posts don't show quotes
interesting thread tho
>>

 No.7231

>>7227
1. Inequality

C&C claim that the primary goal of socialism is to overcome the inequalities of capitalism. Therefore, socialism ought to appeal most to those who are worst affected by inequality, and least to those who greatly benefit from it. Although they challenge the notion that such gross inequality is necessary for an economy to function, they note that a minimal degree of inequality is required to fairly incentivize work. They explain that the main causes of inequality are exploitation, inheritance, unemployment, infirmity, sexism, and differences in skill/ability.

In an exploitative relationship, the exploited gets less in return for what they give. Such is the case in capitalism with the wage contract, which ultimately favours the exploiter despite both parties entering into the contract as legal equals. Even when the bargaining power of workers is strengthened, most capitalists can circumvent expensive hiring through outsourcing, relocation, or earning interest on their savings.
The rate of exploitation is measured by calculating the percentage share of profits in the total value added (the sum of wages and profits) of a given sector of an economy, with some adjustments made for the financial sector [see table 1.1]. The surplus is either distributed as dividends and interest payments, or used to accumulate capital; the main beneficiaries of which being financial asset holders, either directly or through share appreciation, respectively. Financial asset holders are typically a tiny fraction of the population, with enough property income alone to both live comfortably off of and reinvest in other assets.

Despite typically affecting only a minority of the labour force, unemployment is a significant source of inequality, as well as criminal activities, and is often the result of conscious government policy. High unemployment gives employers a pool of desperate workers to draw from if wages are deemed too high, thus undermining the collective bargaining power of workers. Although full employment policies were once used in some capitalist societies such as the UK, they were abolished in response to rising inflation due to the falling rate of profit.
Automation is not a significant source of unemployment.

Infirmity and old age affect the propertyless most due to their dependence on a politically determined pension. Incentivizing private pensions schemes reinforces the class structure, as when the middle classes are encouraged to save their money in this way, their stake - and thus their political interest - in the capitalist financial system increases. State pensions would be more desirable so long as political decisions are made by those who will rely on it.

Traditionally, socialist political economy focuses on either nationalized, private or state capitalist industry, but by ignoring households it fails to adequately address the economic subordination of women, where men and children are typically non-producers that benefit from the unpaid labour services directly produced by women. Although the domestic economy is likely the biggest sector of any economy, its non-monetary nature makes it excluded from official statistics.
In contrast to pre-capitalist society, the market activities of a capitalist economy are deemed superior in comparison to the domestic economy. Rapid growth periods tend to coincide with the shrinkage of the domestic sector, often due to the higher relative efficiency of the market (e.g. 19th and early 20th century agriculture). For the most part, the importation of improvements from the capitalist economy has allowed for higher domestic productivity.
The socialist sector can also influence the domestic economy (e.g. public schooling), but only as a result of political decisions. The equivalent of class struggle in the domestic economy takes the form of personal antagonisms, which are recognized as class issues when one class politicizes disputes, not too dissimilar to how class struggle normally works in capitalism. Likewise, more advanced alternative forms of production relations must be proposed and implemented if class contradictions are to be raised to the level of politics.
>>

 No.7232

>>7231
>Muh inequality
So tiresome
>>

 No.7233

>>7231
>They explain that the main causes of inequality are.. sexism
proofs?
>>

 No.7234

>>7231
>sexism
only if by "sexism" Cock means that w*men monopolize "cushion" warm office jobs while men work construction freezing their asses off

but I very much doubt this second-wave boomer feminist meant that by "sexism"
>>

 No.7236

>>7231
>by ignoring households it fails to adequately address the economic subordination of women, where men and children are typically non-producers that benefit from the unpaid labour services directly produced by women.
what "economic subordination" lol? what are washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc?
doesn't he know that men do domestic chores too?

is this old marasmatic lives in the fucking 19th century or what?
>>

 No.7237

File: 1681839148023.jpg ( 119.75 KB , 750x601 , check ur privilege.jpg )

whose gonna pay men for mowing the lawn, driving the queen around, moving shit, fixing shit, THE WHOLE FUCKING APARTMENT RENOVATION, mr Cockshott?

I know men who fucking BUILT THE WHOLE FUCKING HOUSE for their family with their own hands, only for the queen to take it away later in a divorce case

Stupid ass feminist bitch..
>>

 No.7239

also, what about women being impulsive shoppers and wasting *your* money on useless shit? what about them demanding another car? Whose gonna compensate men for this, mr Feminist?

if we really gonna count who *owes* who here, I'm afraid your old feminist ass is gonna go Hiroshima Nagasaki, mr Cockshott.
>>

 No.7240

>>7233
>>7234
Its explained in the rest of the post.
>>7236
>>7237
>>7239
>what are washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc?
<For the most part, the importation of improvements from the capitalist economy has allowed for higher domestic productivity.
>doesn't he know that men do domestic chores too?
>whose gonna pay men for mowing the lawn, driving the queen around, moving shit, fixing shit
<where men and children are typically non-producers
Reading comprehension fail.
>I know men who fucking BUILT THE WHOLE FUCKING HOUSE for their family with their own hands
That isn't most men. Cockshott and Cottrell are clearly dealing with aggregates here.
>what about women being impulsive shoppers and wasting *your* money on useless shit? what about them demanding another car?
Show me statistical evidence that women, in aggregate, do this.
>>

 No.7241

>>7237
I think you are unfairly maligning Cockshott. He doesn't expect men to be financial providers once women have the same income as men.

Also Cockshott has never advocated for bourgeois feminism of the type that your picture presents. he never said male workers were privileged, or female workers were oppressed. He says that the capitalists steal more surplus from women then men. If you go with Cockshott's policy proposals, both men and women get higher wages at the expense of the capitalist class.

Bourgeois feminism is indeed about pitting men an women against each other by suggesting that men's wages should be lowered to raise the wages of women. Cockshott wants to take from capitalists and give more to both men and women.
>>

 No.7243

>>7241
>Humanity as a zoo animal that looks at itself
>>

 No.7244

>>7242
You are technically correct, but none of this qualifies as bourgeois feminism.

Bourgeois feminists really do say "all men oppress all women" Which leads to crazy conclusions like a male homeless person oppressing the female CEO with a net-worth of hundreds of millions.

Nothing that Cockshott says leads to any conclusions like this.

>>7243
wtf ?
>>

 No.7245

File: 1681852562127.jpeg ( 98.1 KB , 800x600 , feminist equality.jpeg )

>>7240
>Its explained in the rest of the post.
No it's not.

>For the most part, the importation of improvements from the capitalist economy has allowed for higher domestic productivity.

>Although the domestic economy is likely the biggest sector of any economy
Then this "biggest sector" is already largely automated

>where men and children are typically non-producers

so tell me then feminoid, are activities that I have listed not a part of the "domestic economy"?

so by the same Penis logic we can conclude that w*men are "non-producers" in those areas of "domestic economy" that I have listed lol

>by ignoring households it fails to adequately address the economic subordination of women, where men and children are typically non-producers that benefit from the unpaid labour services directly produced by women. Although the domestic economy is likely the biggest sector of any economy, its non-monetary nature makes it excluded from official statistics.

here Penis as an absolute retarded feminoid he is assumes that men and children are just leeches on poor poor oppressed w*men lol

but he is WRONG
first, he doesn't count that part of the "domestic economy" where w*men "benefit" from men's "unaccounted" work
second, he doesn't take into account that modern men do all the domestic work that traditionally w*men did, including chores, changing diapers, sitting with children, feeding them, etc
w*men, on the other hand, don't tend to do any of the traditionally male domestic work

>That isn't most men. Cockshott and Cottrell are clearly dealing with aggregates here.

nice copout
funny how it doesn't work when applied to w*men, like how some w*men don't change diapers n shit lol
generalization for thee, but not for meee lmao

where I live many men build their own houses, because it's much cheaper

and many men also fucking do apartment renovation, again, because it's much cheaper

>Show me statistical evidence that women, in aggregate, do this.

just look at the w*men's consumer market share retard

w*men are the fucking driver of the modern consumer economy
>>

 No.7246

>>7241
>I think you are unfairly maligning Cockshott. He doesn't expect men to be financial providers once women have the same income as men.
he literally bitches about how men and children exploit poor poor w*men

here, straight from the horses mouth
<subordination of women, where men and children are typically non-producers that benefit from the unpaid labour services directly produced by women
not a word about men's domestic work like fixing a roof, shoveling snow n shit
funny how that works
>>

 No.7247

Here, lets count w*men "unaccounted work"..

washing clothes? I think we can assume that modern men are capable of pushing a button, amiright feminoids?

washing dishes? Where I live it's a expected that everyone washes their dirty dishes after themselves, be it a man or a w*man, or even a child
also dishwashers for who can afford them

cooking? first, modern w*men can't cook for shit. second, majority of food gets bought in already cooked format. third, take-away food is widespread. fourth, some men cook, as well as some w*men don't.

cleaning? men do it too. plus add robot vacuum cleaners now.

child care? men do it too. also many w*men just hire a nanny.

what can we conclude from this? that traditionally female domestic labor is largely already automated, while traditionally men's domestic work is not, and so much more labor intensive

so who's exploiting who, mr Dickhead?
>>

 No.7248

>>7247
oh, also modern pressure cookers are basically "push a button" now
I have one myself - very convenient
>>

 No.7249

>>7246
Are you talking about the Book Towards A New Socialism ? Cockshott and Cotrell began writing that in the mid 1980s. After that they spend some time finding a publisher and it got finally released in 1993. So when this book was brand new it was probably true that women did a greater share of house-work than men. I think you have a valid criticism that they neglected to include the domestic work that men did. But the overall point, that during the time they wrote the book, women performed the greater share of housework is still true.

You are correct that today this probably isn't the case anymore and there probably isn't a discrepancy in domestic work. But you are kind of complaining that a book that was written well over 30 years ago, now has stuff in it that is out of date. TANS also has outdated technical references to SMS and Teletext, those also represent depreciated details. Neither are big detractors from the book.

I don't really see a case for painting Cockshott as a misandrist (one who hates men). When Cockshott said prostitution was unproductive labor, the liberals tried to paint him as a misogynist (one who hates women). So keep that in mind that he's not shy about sticking it to the liberals.
>>

 No.7250

>>7245
>No it's not.
Yes it is. All the stuff you're freaking out about is the explanation. Are you stupid?
>Then this "biggest sector" is already largely automated
One, not everyone lives in the first world. Two, automated or not people still have to work to maintain the household. You still have to put dishes in the dishwasher and put clothes in the washing machine and operate the vacuum.
>so tell me then feminoid
<you disagree with me therefore you're a feminist
You're an idiot.
>are activities that I have listed not a part of the "domestic economy"?
They are, and women still tend to do most of the housework in most of the world.
>so by the same Penis logic we can conclude that w*men are "non-producers" in those areas of "domestic economy"
No, because you have no evidence that men on average do more domestic labour than women.
>he doesn't count that part of the "domestic economy" where w*men "benefit" from men's "unaccounted" work
His argument is that women in aggregate spend more time labouring in the domestic economy than men and children, so that's irrelevant.
>he doesn't take into account that modern men do all the domestic work that traditionally w*men did, including chores, changing diapers, sitting with children, feeding them, etc
Once again, not everyone lives in the first world and in aggregate this isn't true. Show me evidence that men in aggregate spend more time on housework than women.
>w*men, on the other hand, don't tend to do any of the traditionally male domestic work
Not relevant for the reasons above.
>nice copout
It's not a copout you fucking moron. It doesn't matter what some particular men do where you live, what we are discussing is not concerned with specific households or types of housework.
>funny how it doesn't work when applied to w*men, like how some w*men don't change diapers n shit lol
What are you even talking about?
>just look at the w*men's consumer market share retard
Show me or explain to me the details on that consumer data.
>>7246
>he literally bitches about how men and children exploit poor poor w*men
Cockshott claims that men and children benefit from women doing the majority of domestic labour and also does not expect men to be financial providers under socialism. There's no contradiction here.
>not a word about men's domestic work like fixing a roof, shoveling snow n shit
Again, the point is that, on average, women tend to do more housework than men and children. Provide evidence that this is not the case.
>>7247
>Look, see! Men can do all these things that women can do!
>Look at how much housework is automated!
>All the men and children I know do housework too!
Not the fucking point you imbecile.
>modern w*men can't cook for shit
Pure resentment. Did mommy not know how to cook?
>child care? men do it too. also many w*men just hire a nanny
Holy fuck, you are totally deluded. You don't actually live in the real world. You just outed yourself as booj or stuck in booj mentality.
How many families do you think can afford a nanny? Please, quote me the numbers too, I'm curious.
>>

 No.7251

File: 1681863738574.gif ( 7.91 KB , 195x292 , w*men.gif )

>>7250
>Two, automated or not people still have to work to maintain the household. You still have to put dishes in the dishwasher and put clothes in the washing machine and operate the vacuum.
wew lol, pushing a button, such "work" lmao, much exploitation

u know that according to LTV value of labor falls with automation right?

>They are, and women still tend to do most of the housework in most of the world.

lets unpack, shall we sweetie?

first, men's domestic work is less automated, more labor intensive, and so according to LTV more valuable

second, where are your proofs that w*men do more housework?

>No, because you have no evidence that men on average do more domestic labour than women.

you have no evidence that w*men on average do more domestic labor than men

>His argument is that women in aggregate spend more time labouring in the domestic economy than men and children

and he is WRONG

>Show me evidence that men in aggregate spend more time on housework than women.

show me the evidence that w*men in aggregate spend more time on housework than men

>Not relevant for the reasons above.

relevant for the reasons above.

>It's not a copout you fucking moron. It doesn't matter what some particular men do where you live, what we are discussing is not concerned with specific households or types of housework.

calm your tits feminoid
I live in the periphery, so shut your fucking ass, it matters what men do where I live westoid bitch

automated housework doesn't count according to LTV

taking automation into account men's work is actually the largest part of the housework

>What are you even talking about?

not all w*men change diapers and cook

do I need to repeat AGAIN for special people?

>Show me or explain to me the details on that consumer data.

Google. Try using it.

>Cockshott claims that men and children benefit from women doing the majority of domestic labour

and he is wrong
majority of domestic traditional female domestic labor is automated
majority of male domestic labor is not

so according to LTV it is actually men who are doing the majority of domestic labor

>Again, the point is that, on average, women tend to do more housework than men

the point is wrong
men do more housework

>Not the fucking point you imbecile.

how is majority of housework being automate not a point retard?

>Pure resentment.

pure fact

>Holy fuck, you are totally deluded. You don't actually live in the real world.

how about u look into the mirror feminoid lol

>How many families do you think can afford a nanny? Please, quote me the numbers too, I'm curious.

you didn't quote any numbers yourself for any of ur claims feminoid

I guess any w*man not living in literal favelas doesn't count now for feminoids lol
>>

 No.7254

File: 1681864851062.jpeg ( 114.97 KB , 1242x1495 , 76jlhyhw9u321-1925110108.jpeg )

>>7251
>Women Control the Lion's Share of Consumer Spending
<B-B-But muh PAY GAP!!! GLASS CEILING!!! SEXISTS!! POLICE!! HALP!!!
when w*men talk about "men" they actually mean Chad CEOs, that's who they have in mind when they talk about pay gap

ordinary men just don't even exist for w*men
>>

 No.7256

>>7251
>Show me evidence
Okay, here's some evidence from my country.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2015001/article/54931-eng.htm
<Specifically, unattached women spent an average of 2.2 hours per day on housework—30 minutes more than did their male counterparts. By comparison, women in couples with no children under the age of 18 spent an average of 2.6 hours per day on housework—42 minutes more than did their male counterparts. Women in couple families spent more time on housework when their youngest child was pre-school aged (0 to 4 years) or school aged (5 to 17 years) than they did when they had no children under the age of 18. Men in couple families spent more time on housework when their child was school aged than they did when they had either a pre-school-aged child or no children under the age of 18. Women in couple families whose youngest child was pre-school aged spent an average of 3.2 hours per day on housework—1.2 hours more than did their male counterparts (2.0 hours). Women in couple families whose youngest child was school aged spent an average of 3.4 hours per day on housework—1.1 hours more than did their male counterparts (2.3 hours).
Here's a few paywalled studies that say as much on the first page.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117814
<While estimates vary widely depending on the sample examined and the methods used to generate the information, representative values of housework time range around 6-14 hours per week for men and 20-30 hours for women
<The results indicate that husbands do less housework than their wives as their relative earnings and hours spent in the labour market increase
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600272
<Wives spend substantially more time than their husbands on family work, even though women do less and men do slightly more now than 20 years ago
The first study is from 1994, the other from 2005. TANS was written in the 80's and published in 1993.
>pushing a button, such "work" lmao
Not the point.
>men's domestic work is less automated, more labor intensive
Not the point.
>it matters what men do where I live
Not the point.
>taking automation into account men's work is actually the largest part of the housework
You have no evidence.
>Google. Try using it.
No, the burden of proof is on you. Do your own work or shut up.
>Picrel
For all I know, that graph could just mean that women are typically responsible for everyday shopping, like shopping for groceries or buying toys for the kids.
>majority of domestic traditional female domestic labor is automated
>majority of male domestic labor is not
Not the point.
>men do more housework
You have no evidence.
>how is majority of housework being automate not a point retard
Because the point is that women overall spend more time on housework than the men and children. Everything in the house can be fully automated except for one thing, and if the woman is responsible for that one thing then they do the majority of the housework.
>you didn't quote any numbers yourself for any of ur claims
Okay, I did in this post. Now it's your turn.
>>7254
Not the point.

Saying that most women in the world on average tend to do more housework than men and children is not some crazy feminazi take you retard. The point he's making here is incredibly mundane especially for a book first published about 30 years ago.
Aside from the things you simply assert are true, the embarrassing excuse for an argument that you've crafted so far amounts to "a lot of housework is automated and I've seen men do housework too, Cockshott BTFO also I fucking hate w*men so much"
It completely misunderstand his arguments and fails at refuting the central point and it also makes you sound like a alternate universe version of a seething radlib feminist screeching about patriarchy and misogyny on Twitter. You're just a resentful narrowminded faggot that has no idea about the realities of everyday life for billions of people.
>>

 No.7258

>>7256
>Omg, gawl. Muhwimmin spend more time folding laundry while watching soap operas. The travesty!!
>>

 No.7259

File: 1681906278320.jpg ( 29.67 KB , 500x408 , fuckin_urbanoids.jpg )

>>7256
>Okay, here's some evidence from my country.
>Here's a few paywalled studies that say as much on the first page.
what do those studies mean by "housework"
do they count building a house as a "housework"?
do they count driving the queen to the nearest shop as "housework"?

also, do they take into account different productivity of labor?

what was their sample size? what was their methodology?

u can't just throw random studies and expect me to take them at face value, feminoid

>an argument that you've crafted so far amounts to "a lot of housework is automated and I've seen men do housework too

listen here u stupid cunt, AUTOMATION REDUCES THE VALUE OF LABOR
DO YOUR STUDIES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT "HOUSEWORK" THAT IS DONE OUTSIDE THE LITERAL FUCKING HOUSE U STUPID HOE?

people here fucking have their gardens n shit where they grow vegies and fruits, not everyone lives in the fucking rat hole you ubranoid bitch
>>

 No.7261

>>7259
>only my definition of this word is the real one
>my definition is also the only one where men are exploited
Yeah, I'm not playing this game. I bet that it will be nearly impossible to find a study where men do most of the housework, so no matter what definition is used I'm certain that you will always find a problem with it.
You can try to prove me wrong. I gave you evidence, now its your turn. Show me reputable statistical evidence, like a peer-reviewed study, that claims that men in aggregate do more housework than women.
I know you won't provide any serious evidence it because you've been bullshitting this entire time, but on the off chance I'm wrong, I'd really like to see it.
>AUTOMATION REDUCES THE VALUE OF LABOR
No shit. Now try to think about how you can measure the labour value of any given good or service.
Hint: it's called labour-time. Labour over time is what's being measured. So your argument still makes no sense.
>>

 No.7264

>>7262
>FUCKING W*MEN in clean clothes chit-chatting laughing, drinking tea, sitting on soft chairs, in an air-conditioned room!
And obviously I tried to smear my oil stained dirty clothes all over their fucking desk, much to their displeasure.

Some fags would call this petty, but this is the only way you can preserve some shreds of dignity in this bitch world.
>>

 No.7267

>>7266
Maybe there is a kernel of truth in the video that online interaction platforms are promoting values that diminish meat-space interactions. So that's a good observation.

The rest of the video is just cherry picking crazy people flipping out. Crazy people will get in your face, while people that are chill won't. Period. If you uninstall feminism and install something else the batshit behavior won't change, only the excuses for it will.
>>

 No.7274

>>7266
Imagine believing that and crying about it. Literal fags shit. Literally uygha. Why are you here instead of at the gym and making money for plastic surgery?
>>

 No.7276

>>7275
Reminder: narcissistic self perception is one comm on trait of incels
>>

 No.7287

>>7227
2. Eliminating Inequalities

cybersoc gang drops the N-bomb on page 38 of the PDF #CancelCockshott

C&C wish to present an economic model that they claim can effectively eliminate most inequalities generated by capitalism, of which the relevant principles can be traced back to the origins of classical political economy. They argue for an economic system where prices and compensation are based on time.
Such labour certificates differ from money as they are only obtained through labour and exchanged against the products of labour. Labour certificates don't circulate, are non-transferable, are consumed upon use, and can only be redeemed for a limited time. Deductions are made for communal needs, and production is organized on a directly social basis with intermediate products never assuming the form of commodities.
Labour certificates are generally incompatible with markets as fixed labour-time pricing would conflict with fluctuations in supply and demand.

"Trickle-down economics" does very little to improve the living standard of underpaid citizens. The average value created per hour of labour by British employees in 1987 is £7.50 (not adjusted for inflation) [see table 2.1], and the only group earning more than £300 weekly (total value per week) was the top 25% of male white-collar workers. Therefore, the abolition of exploitation benefits the vast majority of employees over shareholders and property owners. The total value produced would still have to be taxed, and likely at relatively high rates, but such tax rates can be given legitimacy by subjecting them to direct democratic control. Such a system stands in contrast to how private enterprises and oligarchies provide little legitimacy for their own distribution of wealth.

In economics, rent is a metaphor for a monopoly price that can be charged by the owner of a scarce resource. A temporary rise in the market price of scarce labour is a sort of "rent", one which naturally draws more recruits when barriers to entry are low and thus tends to eliminate itself over time. A socialized system of education, training and labour allocation can more easily communicate and resolve labour shortages. Otherwise, barring solutions that deal with a general lack of labour, specific labour shortages in capitalism are often reduced with higher pay or forced direction of labour - which is more explicit under conditions of full employment, compared to the more subtle means of unemployment and the threat of poverty that typify how capitalist countries normally allocate labour.
Compared to a socialist economy with full employment, specific labour shortages are either caused by a lack of training facilities, a lack of interest, or avoidance by potential candidates. The latter two cases can be resolved through automation, improved working conditions, incentive payments (financed through taxation), or direct coercion. Emigration or misapplication of skilled labour faces similar solutions.

In capitalism, differential rewards for degrees of worker ability and performance manifests as unemployment, poverty, bonuses, promotions and tokens of appreciation. Although a socialist economy ought to avoid the former two, it will still require differential rewards. Such should take the form of grading individual labour output in relation to average productivity and adjusting payment accordingly, ideally without attaching any stigma to workers of a lower grade. Overall rates of pay would still be fixed, in order to keep the total issue of labour tokens equal to total hours worked.

Instead of paying higher wages for skilled labour, the costs of training and education can be handled by the state by paying students a wage during their period of study.
The allocation of labour by skill is a short/medium-term constraint imposed by the availability of specific skills, as well as a long-term economic problem imposed by the cost of producing such skills. Skilled labour can be distinguished from simple labour as a "produced input" that combines both simple labour and skilled labour in its production. Since skilled labour embodies past labour output, it ought to count as some multiple of simple labour. Calculating the transmission rate of skilled labour requires the use of a recursive function, and it depreciates over time as new skills and training arise [see the appendix to chapter 2].
The quantity of labour transferred from inanimate means of production to product can be calculated by dividing the labour content of the means of production over the total volume of its contributed output. For example, a means of production worth 1000 labour-hours and rated to produce 1000000 units of product will transfer 0.001 labour-hours to each unit; or, if rated to produce 100 units per hour, it transfers 0.1 labour-hours per hour of operation.
Therefore, the total transmission rate of a skilled labourer might, for example, amount to 1.5 labour-hours per hour worked, depreciating to 1.333… after a certain period of time worked.

The People's Communes in 1960-1970's Maoist China are given attention for the sake of comparison. Hours worked were recorded and harvests were distributed to the workers accordingly. Currency in circulation for exchange was issued between socialist state enterprises, collective farms and the state, collective farms and urban workers at agricultural markets, family farms and urban workers, and state enterprise employees and state retailing agencies. As a result, the industrial sector of the socialist economy retained the commodity-form to a significant extent. If labour value accounting had been prevalent throughout the entire economy, money could have been eliminated via crediting of collective farms for the mean labour content product delivered. However, the existence of a market for goods prevented a fully realized Marxian socialist economic program.
>>

 No.7288

>>7287
Is it possible for leftists to have reasonable positions such as
>We should have less inequality but still accept and maintain some inequality
Asking for a friend?
>>

 No.7289

>>7288
>In capitalism, differential rewards for degrees of worker ability and performance manifests as unemployment, poverty, bonuses, promotions and tokens of appreciation. Although a socialist economy ought to avoid the former two, it will still require differential rewards. Such should take the form of grading individual labour output in relation to average productivity and adjusting payment accordingly, ideally without attaching any stigma to workers of a lower grade. Overall rates of pay would still be fixed, in order to keep the total issue of labour tokens equal to total hours worked.
>>

 No.7290

>>7288
>Is it possible for leftists to have a position such as
>We should have less inequality but still accept and maintain some inequality

Yes certain types of labor will get extra bonus-payments, either because they require a rare talent or because they come with unusual risks and stress factors. But you only get the pay-incentives not the social status. You'll have more purchasing power to buy stuff but you're not going to be allowed to pretend you're better than the janitor, the street-sweeper, the trash-collector, the construction-worker, the assembly-line-worker, the receptionist, the window-cleaner, the restaurant-server, and so on. The culture will be that of proletarian solidarity, we're going to have none of that pseudo-aristocratic master and servant bullshit.
>>

 No.7313

>>7246
Yes, working women are oppressed, not bourgeois women.

Unique IPs: 18

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome