In a socialist system, what would become of plumbers? After all, their toolbox is essentially their "private property", and thus would the government forcibly seize their tools, or enact some law preventing them from charging money unless they sign up to some government register? If so, how would you prevent one plumber from charging less than another?
In fact, even if we accept that plumbers do not charge those they help, and merely have their "labour bank account" (for example) topped up by the government, how would they make a decent living without working two jobs? For, in any given community, it is fairly rare that a plumber is required. Perhaps once a day, but that isn't enough for a plumber to subsist on, even if we accept he is the only one!
How do we solve the issue of these independent workers? Handymen and the like? I recognise small businesses are basically a non-issue, but these self-employed plumbers and artisans inhabit a unique position in society, and it is difficult to see how they would be integrated into society at large without the government mandating that they sign up to some registry or such like.
They'd be part of the state labour force like everyone else, ggez.
If your pipes don't work you make a request online with your Utility Services app and the plumber comes the next day, or maybe later that day if you're lucky.
The plumbers would have enough work to do because they'd be assigned to a given geographical area based on population density. In the country this might be 50km, in the city 1km. If there's no work to do in the district he can assist in a neighbouring one and if there's no work there he can relax and be happy that resources were allocated properly.
That picture doesn't take in account piggy the banker though.
they're in the plumber's union.
Yet he is there doing no labour, and thus isn't being paid.
he isn't a worker
He's on call, that's working. A fireman isn't only paid for the time he's rescuing people. If the plumber consistently has no work to do for long periods then obviously his area of responsibility should be enlarged, if he can't complete all the work it should be reduced or others should be placed in the same area.
In a socialist system you are guaranteed a bare minimum and work for extras and luxuries. There would be no worry of survival.
for a leftcom you need to sit back down in your armchair and do some more reading
How would services be paid for without some means of exchange? What is wrong with this? They are the MoP for the artisan.
Not necessarily, and generally I don't think this is a good idea. People would have little incentive to work a great deal if they didn't require it for survival.
He who does not work should not eat.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Read Marx.
Also get the fuck out of here with that muh incentive ancap bullshit.
Doesn't mean you can be a lazy cunt, and perhaps you should read the sentence before that. Marx NEVER stated that there should be no means of exchange.
So you think people would work enough if their housing, heating, food, clothing, and the like were taken care of? There are only so many luxuries you can fit in a house!
Are you retarded? With automation being used to its full extent because profit is no long a concern, very little work would be required.
Being on call doesn't mean you get paid as a fireman, at least not in the world of wildland firfighting. You're on call and only start getting paid once you leave for your assignment, on top of that many community firefighters are volunteers, especially in low population towns with mostly poor people. Sorry to tell you this, but rich people play an important role in funding a lot of basic shit, so forcing people to not be rich is pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things.
How so? There was a hell of a lot of work in the USSR!
Also seems unfair that those with skills in shorter supply would have to work more under such a system (as there are fewer people to add to a rotor). For example, the unskilled could go weeks without having to work, whereas those with skills in short supply may need to work three days a week.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the contradiction between use value and exchange value is something Marx was concerned with.
You are retarded arnt you? No shit there was a lot of work in the USSR it was largely pre-industrial and feudal you can't skip from feudalism to socialism without going through capitalism in some form or another.
The rich only devote any profit they make to that which is profitable to them, whereas in a socialist society any surplus would be devoted to whatever is in need of it at any given time.
You seem to avoid saying the blatant truth.
Well there was that whole thing about abolition of exchange value and production for use.
No I'm pretty sure I'm clear in saying that socialism being the next mode of production requires the material conditions of the previous just like capitalism came from feudalism and not slave societies.
Ever seen what happens when dumbasses win the lottery?
How is it a "contradiction"? Use-value is merely the value of something insofar as it fulfils a human want, whereas exchange-value is the manifestation of Value (i.e. undifferentiated human labour) in the use-value of some other commodity.
It's hardly a contradiction, just a peculiarity of the social relations between different commodities; that is that their Value manifests itself not in their use, but in their exchange with other use-values.
Not an argument bucko.
You are clearly stating that Socialism requires capitalist materials and the greed that comes with capitalism is the same greed that socialists have with the only difference being that one is greedy and smart with money, while the other is greedy and a thief.
Price=/=value you retard
Which is the opposite of what he said, but okay.
It is an argument. People who are smart at managing, obtaining, and growing value will excel given the freedom to do so, and there's a reason they succeed versus dumbasses like yourselves who feel entitled to other peoples belongings despite not offering anything in exchange.
The contradiction is that while the commodity exists physically it does not exist socially until it's exchanged. It's use value can't be realized until it's exchange value is.
So when the first capitalists used the productivity of the feudal system of agriculture and trade to build the first large scale factories does that mean they were thieves?
Why are le rationale skeptiks such brainlets?
Price usually approximates to Value anyway (sure prices fluctuate, but broadly speaking for simplicity you can just assume price = value), but regardless of that, nowhere did I mention price.
Price is exchange-value you dunce and no it does not approximate value.
This post has already gotten really retarded.
How is this a contradiction? Obviously if something is made for exchange (that is, it's a commodity) it will not be a use-value until it's exchanged. It seems like a truism.
Yes it does. Exchange-value is the means by which Value manifests itself, in the use-value of another commodity. Unless you think trading one commodity for another is totally arbitrary and not dependent on Value at all, and in that case you're severely mistaken.
Prices don't just fluctuate around nothing you daft twat.
Oh shit, you guys are doing that thing again, where you take people who are clearly arguing in bad faith 100% seriously.
There's no chance of convincing anyone if you don't talk to them.
I don't live in a country where the forests spontaneously combust and people build in arid scrubland so I only have experience with urban firefighting but if a wildfire starts in the area once a year then of course it makes little sense for people to be paid all year round but surely it would be a simple matter for local urban firefighters to be trained in what to do if there is a wildfire and they would go and do that if it did happen. I imagine that's what happens already.
Volunteer firefighting is a silly concept and I would replace it with professionals but as I say we don't really do that in this country either.
Why did you change the subject from plumbers to firefighters though when I just used them as an analogy? Is it because you can't defend your original premise?
Because he's bacon now
People only believe the things they want to (whether consciously or not). Ultimately, it's material conditions that change people's minds, not ideas. If anything else was the case, we could talk our way to communism. Also, that user isn't saying don't talk to anyone, merely those that are arguing in bad faith. For more info: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-what-s-it-all-about-comrade
Where's surgeon cat who spent 16 years of sleepless nights in medical school? Does he share an apartment with middle school dropout Grocer Cat?
The last thing I want is more retards on my side.
Some socialists argue for differentials in earnings, others (such as Cockshott in his book TaNS) do not.
Marx seems to endorse some form of differential earnings as far as skilled vs. unskilled labour is concerned, for he states that the value of a commodity or service produced by skilled labour is determined by "some coefficient" of the value of simple, unskilled labour.
Both are true, if the conditions change while there's insufficient class conciousness then we lose our opportunity. The suffering of the credit crunch would have been a good moment but leftism was so weak that it was squandered. We need to use the time between crises to build up our support base. Will change come only by talking, no, but it won't come without it either.
As for arguing in bad faith, I think OP is making shitty arguments but I don't think he's not worth talking to like if he were just spamming cuck porn in response.
While surgeon cat was in school grocer cat was presumably working, and there's no reason medical school must be as onerous as it is now, the worst part of training to be a doctor is the overwork needed to become a resident and that could easily be remedied by training more doctors (with the result being two doctors working 30 hour weeks instead of one working a 60 hour week).
Some socialists think there should be differences in monetary compensation but I don't, but regardless there are benefits to studying hard, the surgeon knows he's saving lives every day and other people know that too, presumably his schedule would be relatively light considering his job requires more concentration and focus than being a grocer, and he'll have achieved what presumably he has always wanted. Money isn't the only kind of reward, people fought and died on battlefields for less than minimum wage in some places or times in history, because there were things they valued more than money.
As liberal as it may sound, there's a power to edumacation. Plus, not every socialist needs to be a theoretical genius, you need loyal and hardworking footsoldiers too. It's just like the relationship between the workers in socialist society.
If you want to work with trolling idiots, then be my guest. I'd rather do anything else than spend time talking to someone half as willfully blind as OP. A toolbox is private property and the government would seize them? Who the fuck cares what tools are used as long as the pipes get fixed?
So what, you only want to convince people who are already socialists to be socialists?
How about leadership positions? What about innovators, will they receive extra compensation? Careful my pinko friend, careful you don't end up being accused of being a capitalist.
Yes, like your homeland or way of life continuing to exist, that's why people fight in wars, not for the wages you fucking simpleton.
So people will just line up in droves to spend a good portion of their life to be put in the role of trying to keep people alive and just as often, watching people die. Trying to reward a person working at grocery store with the same wages as a surgeon. I blame inbreeding on your stupidity. There is no way you are 100% white.
No, I just don't want to convince people who argue about politics on imageboards to be socialists.
How is it not if you're a plumber? If you abolish private property, you either remove the means by which the plumber can get paid by customers, or you take his toolbox.
Go ahead and give me another way you could do it. GO ON.
plumbers get the bullet too
Uh… Holla Forums, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
bullshit wankery that consists of making appeals to emotion to make people do things they don't really want and threats if they don't. to say that there is a "particular class of innovators" belies the truth that anyone could be an innovator in the formal sense, making something better to make their lives easier. I just recently cut out some rocket nozzles out of metal at my local hackerspace to test them out. Will they work or not is beside the point; much of my work may have already been done, but I don't know that, and what may be "wasted effort" may not be, because I don't have that information. I am at least an innovator in the local sense. Nobody will buy them, but I don't care, I made something that is cool and maybe I can attract people to collaborate with me on other projects. Your "innovation" is loaded by the idea that it has to be "profitable," that someone would exchange something valuable for it. Building weapons, and especially things like biowarfare agents takes up human time and effort and materials that could be easily spent elsewhere to help humanity as a whole, but in the short term they are sold and small-scale wars are allowed to continue because of their relative "profitability."
In the end, what is profitable to an individual or a particular faction is as likely as not detrimental to society as a whole, since it needs to be appropriated from everyone as a whole and used by them exclusively. Also, the constant state of mutual anxiety that this state of affairs enjoins, where everyone is in a race to grab and appropriate as much as they can for themselves, is one of the greatest causes of our demise, as stress and health problems crop up, let alone violence and war. People being more open and freer with each other are far more likely to cooperate and advance humanity than those who want to race to the position where they have such weapons as to be able to threaten the whole world with them.
That's the batshitinsane American way of doing this and gives firemen an incentive to create fires, in other countries firmen are constantly paid just for being available.
Save this post and stick around for a year, then look at it again.
For the goods or services to be continuously reproduced, the price needs to cover among other things the cost of job training. Suppose this pricing of products and services carries over into socialism (as it does in TANS). Does it also mean that the trained worker will get higher remuneration? It only follows that the trained worker should be paid more if he himself has to finance that training.
Private Property != Personal Property. If you acquire tools for plumbing (via labor vouchers or whatever system is in place) and learn how to plumb then there's no reason why you couldn't be a plumber.
I see these sorts of jobs, plumbers included but also jobs like mechanics and electricians, ect as critical maintenance positions that’s must simply be collectivized by the state. They are too important to be at the whims of market forces, such as demand. When it comes to tools I think the guild arrangement is best. Sort of like a union on steroids. All tools are held in common by the guild and money is pooled among the guild in order to ensure all members receive payment
That’s not entirely true, a plumbers tools can most certainly be private property/ MoP if he hires somebody and pays them a wage to use those tools
You change the ownership method through legislation. Like Lincoln did with the slaves.
Capital goods become public goods, but the goods don't move through time and space and get locked up in a vault somewhere, their function simply changes. That same plumber can still work as a plumber, and he'll use his goods and he'll still get payed, most likely he'll join a co-op of plumbers instead of working alone and will be able to increase his standard of living whilst working less due to collective effort.
I left out specifics because you don't seem very intelligent but that is the general idea.
Sure, he can still be a plumber, but his tools will still be his private property unless they are either registered by the government or taken you utter retard.
Unless you think just by signing a decree you change actually existing reality.
This is the most retarded idea I've ever heard. Plumbers are in direct competition with eachother for customers, no way they'd join a co-op which would only help an unpopular plumber anyway.
Methinks you don't understand the mechanics of being a self-employed plumber.
For the tools to become public goods, they have to be registered at some depository, otherwise they are effectively private property whatever some piece of paper says.
Tools would have to be POOLED.
Also: wtf tools have agency now? Slaves were prevented from leaving a plantation, tools aren't prevented from leaving the toolbox of the plumber, so in order to engender the same effect you're going to have to compel people to register their tools, and pool them at some place, OR you're going to have to ensure all plumbers are registered with the government, and given a licence to state that "you can now use x y z tools not only in a personal capacity but also in a private one"
Both are retarded and authoritarian (much like Leninism).
their toolbox would be their means of production. Not, private property.
Every worker should be in a union, which then distributes the tasks accordingly
MoP = Private Property if not owned collectively.
How would you ensure all workers join a Union if not through force? How do you prevent one rogue plumber from undercutting the union without compelling them to join a union?
By making the unionized workplace the basic political unit of society, it will be objectively better for you to participate in workplace democracy than to fight for favor under the capitalist.
Private property is typically understood as being something that the owner doesn't use, though.
Some other anons are acting like this is a thorny theoretical problem.
Private vs. Personal property, considered as MoP, only poses a problem as it relates to socialised production- production of unified final products by division of labour, where members of the group each add their labour to the final product, like in a factory. Nobody can make a computer or a cargo ship by themselves. Despite existing manufacture conditions both inside and outside the West, someone will inevitably complain about this as a '19th century irrelevant problem', so I'll state it also applies to "modern" labour like designing a car or writing a computer program with many modules/plugins. Even working in a hipster coffee shop relies upon division of labour (pick beans, process beans, roast beans, grind beans, pull shot, clean shop, co-ordinate supply chain).
This is not a problem for individual plumbers, because a plumber's tools cannot be used by two plumbers at once. A plumber paying another plumber (or apprentice) to use his tools, and then pocketing "profit", is exploiting the labour of another person, but to the extent that the first plumber has one set of tools and is using them to do his job, they are means of production but they do not figure in to a socialised labour process. The plumber might be working with others on a big infrastructure project, which is socialised, but even then his individual tools don't factor into the question at hand. (Additionally, while they might be expensive, a plumber's tools don't represent a huge capital outlay in the way a shipyard or even a restaurant kitchen would. )_
Even as a staunch socialist, I actually think that a person isn't ethically obliged to contribute the fruits of their labour to the upkeep of another person - but only as long as they are only conducting individual labour, that is, they receive no support from any other person. To do this, you'd need to be a one-man AnPrim cell. It's the blatant impossibility of this mode of production which makes capitalism ridiculous and socialism necessary.
In the same sense, I even think it makes sense to let people under socialism 'own' houses to the extent that they are using them. One family can use one (normal, not mansion-sized) house, so it's not really an ethical issue. A family cannot occupy two houses, or a residence and a holiday house, simultaneously - and assuming they let the second out to rent, they are engaging in rentier exploitation so we move from the ownership problem to the exploitation problem. Even farming land only becomes a problem once the plot is too big to farm on at an individual level - and again, once you need extra labour on the plot, it becomes socialised production again.
tl;dr If only one person, or small group, can use the tools, they're not a candidate for being public property.
Socialism is a different system entirely from how the economy currently works. No shit you aren't going to find resolution if you assume the system will not fundamentally change.
Depends what you mean by "own". It's one thing to possess a house as long as you have use for it, but it's quite another to own a house that you can sell. The issue isn't really whether or not people individually control things but how they acquire them and how that possession relates to the rest of society. Alienable property is incompatible with socialism, and if you permit it, exploitative practices like rent will tend to emerge even if they are illegal (you can always illegally let out a room to someone if you are only allowed one property).
Inc ancom op ed on the theory behind why scheduling is tyranny
We could make /po/ be our plumbers.
Everyone here in leftypol is going to be an artist or a philisopher or leader so we would all be too busy to do those horrid manual jobs.
I meant Holla Forums
Just checked, I'm 99% sure it's the same guy. He's also making all the trash posts ITT with the "A for Anarchy" flag
pic related are some of his posts
How can you own something collectively if you are not in a collective? The MoPs should belong to the one(s) who use them.
There is really no problem in self employed workers because no one is being exploited.
What's his endgame?
Maybe they hate flags and want to train people to ignore them?
A noble cause.
Plumbers are rarely self-employed you know. They usually work out of a firm.