About hierarchies, bosses, and commmunism

Can someone explain why are you people against hierarchies? A worker here, you know, legitimate construction worker with an ass crack full of cement, working 9 hours a day with shovels and sledgehammers, pouring concrete 6 days a week, and all that for an absolutely miserable pay because I am from eastern Europe and have no contract or anything, I just show up, work like madman because you cant trick concrete into being less heavy than it is, and get paid in cash from bosses hand to mine, and then I go home. Im 24 years old so its ok I guess, tho it feels like I'll be deformed/dead by 60 this way…

Anyway, my crew worked in the city recently, and after the shift we went to a bar, all stinking like fresh concrete and dusty because we were pouring mixers that whole day, and we are all young, college years, and this group of students approaches us and buys us all drinks, because we are all workers, real, honest, hard workers. And it turns out they were recruiting for the local communist party, and needed all real workers to join up, so they could negotiate for better laws, better pensions, better regulations, days off, pay, that sort of thing. And I was like "ok but what is communism?" and they were like "bosses are exploiting you, you are doing all the work and they do none, yet you get a fraction of the money and they get almost all, and communism is an idea for the workers to unite and expel or overcome the bosses, get rid of them, free themselves, work for themselves", "and then what?" I asked, "after all the bosses/owners are either in jail or working like everyone else, what happens then?" and they tell me that ultimately new society is going to happen, society where there is no money, no class, no hierarchies, where no one will even need to work, and all the work anyone does will be voluntary and only for luxuries, needs being met as a default.

And what I want to ask here is, why abolish hierarchies tho? How are hierarchies not important, and beneficial to everyone?
We all grow up in a hierarchy called family, and we are all better for it, if children of the world united and overthrew parents, there would be a lot less of both children and parents.
Second one is schools, if all students united to get rid of the teachers, we would all be illiterate I guess.

Finally, the workplace. Yes, its true, my boss sits on his ass in a warm office all day, while my crew does all the lifting. And yes, the boss gets most of the money after the construction is built, while we get a fraction. But my boss is an architect, if he didnt tell me where to dig and pour concrete, there would be no grand building, there would be no foundations, I wouldnt have figure it out on my own, ever.
Once I worked shortly in a coal mine, and yes, the crew I was on dug out ALL the coal, but if the boss didnt tell us WHERE to dig, we wouldnt find any, yes we built all the supports, but if the boss didnt tell us where to support, we would either all die because of lack of supports, or just build supports all fucking day, and dig out nothing.

So I dont get it. Labor, when decapitated and undirected, would lead nowhere. Without my bosses, I doubt my quality of life would increase. This is why capitalism produces more stuff than any other system: it considers more than just raw labor. Like nature itself, it makes variations, and successful businesses reproduce, while less successful die in competition. Instead of a single plan (planned economy), it makes near infinite plans (private investmnet funds) and tests them all out, and the good plans grow/profit, while bad plans go bankrupt. Capitalism, like science or nature, it constantly tests itself, it constantly creates new things, and pit them against the old things, and measures which one wins.

So I dont know, I feel like if communist revolutionaries took the government, it would be good for the workers at start, spending the wealth bosses amassed, but would then do the same thing over and over in a planned order, and no one would be allowed to innovate, or invest in a different plan, or start a private business, and efficiency/productivity would stagnate, and start shrinking because things change, even climate changes, and this one planner might not account for that, and no one would be allowed to challenge the planned economy, and the wealth would shrink, and I would be called to pour concrete to build a wall to keep the miserable people in, instead of pouring concrete to keep the miserable people out, and the bosses, who all compete among each other, all compete to offer me a bigger paycheck.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/km_JmxnzTvc?t=27m10s
youtube.com/watch?v=4WMKL8HhHjY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Your boss doesn't have magical powers that only activate when he gets paid X times more than you. Direction, organization, and leadership would still happen in a socialist economy.

Thanks for your honest opinions and non-dogmatic, inquisitive attitude, OP!

The development towards communism will likely involve stages, a series of long processes of economic and cultural struggles. The ultimate aim of communists is a society without hierarchies, but I think your understanding of this term is too broad.

For the immediate needs of the socio-economic transformation after the revolution I think it's necessary to distinguish "hierarchy" from authority and representational structures.

A boss is a de facto authority figure. He rules supreme over his firm not because of any admirable qualities of his, his talents, but mostly because he either inherited large sums that he invested, or got a loan and got lucky.

Communists in general accept that some forms of authority are legitimate, while others not. The workers of a factory, the inhabitants of a commune hold collective authority over their own members and to a different degree in the society they live in.

A boss is not a representative. Certainly not an elected popular representative of those who he employs. He might be the representative in the small confines of the board of the firm, but he clearly is not responsible for the well being of his workers or society at large.

Communists, again, believe that some forms of representations are legitimate, while being critical of all representative institutions. A union representative, a representative of a local worker's party, or the proletarian state operates entirely differently than the boss who has his individual interests over everything else.

Are these communist figures/institutions of authority and representation not corruptible, can they not turn into arbitrary, authoritarian hierarchies? Naturally, they are, they can. There are dogmatic horizontalists who oppose any form of authority and representation (and achieve jack shit).

It is our duty to work out these issues in a revolutionary society, with economic efficiency, collective discipline, and individual freedom in mind.

which

How would it happen? I mean you cant just say that it would happen, and then not say how it would happen. Capitalism answers this easily, and its answer is competition. Simply, bosses who are less organized, or abuse their workforce more, would be eliminated in competition bosses who are more organized, and offer better conditions to their workers.

So you are saying that this principle is not figured out yet? In capitalism they all compete, in feudalism it was given by God (tho mostly in number of pointy sticks and men carrying them) but in communism, there is no authority (no class or money)….. so what would prevent people who can build small arms and artillery platforms from just declare themselves authorities, and justify their claims by sending artillery shells to everyone who doesnt agree?

In capitalism at least, everyone is trying to supply some sort of a new niche instead of going for total domination, because capitalist/free market economy is so huge, and new businesses keep popping all the time, no one even considers trying to seize all of it, just a small bit is enough for you to enjoy almost all other goods.

hierarchies are essential in nature, consequently there will be hierarchies in communism, but they will come natural, will be temporary, agreed by everyone, to the benefit of everyone and no one will get exploited. basically there will be "leaders" for certain tasks, however there will no "bosses".
that's what marx meant when he defined communism as "to each according to his needs, each according to his abilities". i suppose mankind will have to go a long way in order to become mentally fit for it, but when it reaches that point it will take advantage of the most efficient economic system ever which by design distributes resources in the best and most economic way which in turn will boost progress in technology and science. and the best: it is not based on injustice and exploitation like capitalism, fascism, feudalism etc.
honestly i have no idea why people can be opposed to such a prospect.

I can tell you don't live in the real world.

No. I tried to outline most generally the points each leftist faction considers in their praxis. If you ask a Maoist guerrilla, an urbanite individualist anarchist, a Leninist, a platformist, a council communist, etc. they'll have different answers.

You think this is a weakness, but it's actually our strength. We are forced to think, to debate, while "capitalists have it all figured out," meaning: they don't have to think about it critically because it all functions. Hence they don't even understand this as an issue.

In communism – the real movement aimed at abolishing the current state of things? Yes, yes there is. The revolutionary proletariat hold absolute authority over the bourgeoisie, to name one counter example.

In communism – the future stage of history? Debatable. Again, we are not talking about hierarchies, but authority here. A cobbler, a scientist holds authority over a non-cobbler, non-scientist due to the simple fact of his expertise, for example.

Authority does and can exist beside these mediating forms.

What would be their systemic motivation for this in the first place? You still think of people post-revolution as motivated by mechanisms from the status quo ante.

Stop kidding yourself, please.

...

Well, opposition to communism, even from the working classes, is simple.. communists say that they wish the best thing for everyone, but you ask them how exactly are they going to achieve that goal, and they dont know. They dont give you a prototype, they dont give you a prediction, they dont give you something you can check out or test. They just say they wish for the best. And I dont want to sound like a mean person but wishing for the best is simply not enough, or even valuable, in any way.

I think the working class especially is very Aristotelian about this, that is, I dont really care what someone's intent is, he could wish to torture me for all eternity, but if he is in practice with his actions doing me more good than the guy wishing me all the best, I am sticking with him.

Babby's first online argument:

I have no idea what the exact mechanism for organizing a construction project under socialism would look like. I do know that organization and cooperation have been hallmarks of human civilization for a hundred thousand years and I don't think producing for use instead of exchange is going to change that.
Where does this happen in reality? Improvements in labor conditions have almost exclusively come up from below by the demands of workers. A capitalist is constantly seeking ways in which they can undermine the market share of their competitors by driving down wages, cutting benefits, and/or increasing automation due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Yeah, naw man. Architects are not "bosses" to the guys who pour concrete, construction managers are. Architects are hired by builders/developers to design the building and often have no ultimate say over revisions to their design, which they sold.

Furthermore, I have family who actually pour concrete for a living for decades, and they have in fact built houses from the foundation to the roof shingles all on their own initiative.

...

So you are saying that at some point in the future, communism will happen and everyone is simply going to be busy being happy in order to exploit anyone… ok well I hope it happens but it just sounds too optimistic and does nothing to my today's troubles.

Man I cant even grip my own dick hard enough to masturbate. Wish I was joking but when im done with my work, I am that weak afterwards, my back hurts, I have no gf, I cant go out anywhere, I eat one massive meal (dont need other two after that lol), take a shower, and then go to sleep for almost 11 hours so I can work the next day. Seeing a pretty girl while in public transport is my only joy in life atm. Then I think about her while I dig and pour concrete. And that's it. That is my life.
From time to time, I might also drink whisky, purely for strength. I remember hating alcohol before. I remember the taste being too strong, smell to stinky, too burning to enjoy, too rough, just all around too disgusting, like I am drinking something that is clearly not tasty and hurting my throat. Like I am drinking nails and saw dust. But now, I drink it just to make the pain go away, the pain in my throat is now much lesser than the one in my arms, legs and my back.

Its not like I can know for sure that communism will happen and my life would change for the better. Why should I be so sure? Why wont it be like this for ever, just working all fucking day, for ever?
At least I know that capitalists CAN afford to not have their backs too sore to have sex. Seems to me far better to just do what they do, save up as much capital as I can, start my own company or invest the capital, and exploit the laborers.

I dont know, maybe I just fell for the meritocratic capitalism. I dont know but every time I look at the bosses, I see more skill and more knowledge than I have. Left to my own devices, I doubt I would be doing much better than I am doing under their whip, meanwhile left to their own devices on a deserted island, I think all these bosses, with their electrical/mechanical/chemical/architecture/computer or some other industrial knowledge, they would figure stuff out and still have a nice life anyway.

any given small social group with a common goal automatically works in communism mode untill some asshole starts exploiting and betraying others.
linux development is a good example of communism in practice, it even works along a hostile capitalist environment. also non-profit organisations, community services etc. a standard family with father, wife and two kids is theoretically communism too, since all community members work for mutual benefit and no one gets exploited. think about for a moment what the term communism implies and then think about what capitalism implies.

what you say from here on means nothing.

Imperialist fuck

Open software development isn't communism. It's definitely an example of how work could be organized within a communist society, though.

Socialist communism isn't about being against "hierarchies", but by having a system in which those hierarchies are decided by democratic union or workplace decision and involvement. Only once sufficient automation has been reached can full blown communism be established at which point, yes, there would be little need for most hierarchies due to automation being efficient enough to meet both the practical and luxury needs of the people. Until then things are decided in a worker directed and appointed basis with most likely a labor voucher system deciding compensation. Your point on pay and competition is moot, competitors for employment compete in finding the lowest pay that is acceptable utilizing the reserve surplus army of labor to drive down wages and in a socialist economy such occurrences generated by profit pursuit would not occur.

I'll try to simplify it. Communism is not a state of things that pops into being out of nowhere, it has to be gradually established. But the first and most important point is to eliminate the working of capital.

Imagine a firm, with a boss and some workers. The boss owns the company, so whatever is left after paying for materials and the workers, he puts in his pocket. You could say, he does the work of being a boss, coordinating the work, contracting for materials, and so on, so he should be rewarded. Let him keep "his" profits! But now imagine that the boss counts out his profit and realizes he has enough left over to actually hire a manager. So he does, and now the manager does all the work of being a boss, and gets paid a wage by the old boss. What's left over after that, the old boss keeps putting in his pocket becaus ehe wons the firm.

Do you see the weird occurence here? The boss is suddenly getting paid without actually doing anything the manager does all the boss work. Just his simple ownership of the company nets him a profit. And that shit doesn't make any sense. It's a symptom of a system that does not reward useful work, but rewards an obscured power relation, that of ownership of capital. These same underlying notions also have effects on how workers are treated, how the productive forces of society tend to be oriented, on how many people are being employed, on how small or communal owners are treated (google the enclosure movement about this), how industries contract and expand, what is produced, who decides all this, and so on and so forth.

Communism is an ongoing project of bringing all these things out in the open and rationally, scientifically, and democratically managing them. When it comes to putting this in practice, reasonable minds can disagree, but if they are honestly pursued the results tend to be beneficial, as the industrialization of the Soviet Union, the health outcomes in Cuba, the self-reliance of the DPRK, the electrification of Albania, and more socialist success stories are looked at.

Alright, listen: in an ideal world, there would be infinite resources for everyone, but we live in a realistic world, where there isnt enough resources for everything, and for everyone.
So naturally priorities have to happen. Not everything has the same priority when it comes to these limited resources. Take art degrees and engineering degrees for example, people basically depend on engineers for everything, food, electricity, internet, you name it, art even, meanwhile actual artists are permanently unemployed and no one ever goes to museums (at least here this is the case atm). So, priorities. What do you want? Electricity or some weird sculpture? Running water and running tractors, or a pretty picture? Since people vote with their money for food and electricity, these things get funding.

This is why investors are poster boys of capitalism. They invested in the right priorities at the right time. The boss, even if he doesnt even do anything today, did all of his work the day he decided to make or invest in a thing. He did all his work that day. The day he hired that guy or bought that machine or gave money to that organization, he did all of his work, his planning, his thinking, even if he gave it a gentle push, he kickstarted the great engine that wouldnt start otherwise, and that no one else figured out needed a gentle push at that precise time.

This
My family comes from a long line of construction workers, carpenters, and some petit-borgs.
I can say with some authority that no construction company I know of in my immediate vicinity is owned by an architect. In fact I know a lot of architects, and they all work for a company (mind you, they get paid very well).

English isnt my first language and yall know what I meant by this. Guy who originally drew the plan or the guy holding it and shouting it down to me, big fucking deal when I have to pour concrete all the same. Architect or foreman or overseer or guy shouting plans/orders, its all the same to me what title he has when I have to do them. His majesty or filthy peasant, neither one makes cement any lighter.

But this is utterly wrong. There is no requirement for doing an "original work" (curious how you cling to such a religious concept). Wealth is largely inherited, and how much you can increase your wealth is a direct function of how much you start out with. If a boss does useful work, it can be measured and paid for accordingly as would any wage. There is no need for this extra concept of naked ownership. This absurd desire to convolutedly tie rewards for effort back to ownership of capital and having that naked ownership be rewarded is, the the thinking of a cuckhold.

This
My family comes from a long line of construction workers, carpenters, and some petit-borgs.
I can say with some authority that no construction company I know of in my immediate vicinity is owned by an architect. In fact I know a lot of architects, and they all work for a company (mind you, they get paid very well).>>2367700
He is not saying this in fact
I'm sorry m8, capitalism is a bitch, wouldn't it be nice to cut back on labor hours instead of constantly having to work for the sake of developing capital for your masters enterprise? I would like that
You said it, not me
You do know Ayn Rand wrote fiction right? Anyway, I really don't care if they are smart (Majority I have met are pretty average tbh), why should they get the fruits of my labor?
On that note, From the job experience I do have, most of the work I have done has involved trouble shooting in the field on my own. I rarely asked, or received any help from this big brained wojak boss you speak of?

You may think hierarchies are beneficial but they're not.

from which country are you, you autist
architect sounds more or less the same in every fucking european language
stop larping

Except if you actually did work this job you would know the difference.
It's starting to seem like you might not be who you claim to be

You know, criticizing endlessly is easy, and pointless, and anyone can do it. Building something, now that takes merit. If the criticism was any good, the critic would apply it himself, and he would be a builder, a creator, not just a worthless critic…

Same with being a boss, and criticizing bosses. Its easy today to say "what does facebook owner do? he just collects his trillions and doesnt do any work" but at the time facebook was created, did you invest in it? Did you think then that it would be a success????

Right now, there's a "shitfuck pisstitty", a registered corporation of just 1 guy somewhere out there. You never heard of them, and neither did I. Because you have no market research skills, I mean neither do I, but this business is out there. And they are going to cure cancer. And everyone will want a piece of it.
Right now, there is a genius investor, who is going to offer them seed capital, and tomorrow, or ten years later, he is going to be filthy rich while doing nothing. Because HE ALREADY DID ALL HIS WORK when he researched the "shitfuck pisstitty" corporation and you didnt. This is why he is going to be a trillionaire while doing nothing, and you wont. Because he did more research, because he was smarter, because he saw the things you couldnt believe.

All fortune 500 companies (the most successful businesses out there) are NEW money, not old money, and 99% of them have to do something with a new tech no one heard before they showed up. And all richest 500 people on Earth are just insanely genius investors who could figure it all out, and and risk the seed capital, take a massive fucking risk, risk such as putting all of their money into something called pisstitty or google or facebook or I dont know, and reaping the just reward of the thing they sow.

...

How am I even wrong? You took no risk, and you want all the reward. Meanwhile investors took 90% of the risk, and now they reap what they sow as a seed capital.

If you were so smart, you would invest as well. You can clearly afford internet. You can always find a job at a construction yard, they take in people with no experience and pay well enough to leave you with a tiny bit of spending money.
If you were as deserving of stuff as you think you are, if you were so smart and everything else, why not set aside a portion of what you make for investments?

Because you are stupid (aka cant market research), and cowardly (aka afraid to take take a gamble, a risk of investing, of buying stock). You are stupid and cowardly, and yet you demand the rewards of smart and brave people, who started their own companies, or invested. You want someone else to take all the risk and research and development and everything for you, and you just to offer some low worth labor in return.
Well guess what, there are already millions of people out there, who can offer what you can, and some can do it much cheaper. Labor isnt all that valuable. Working smart beats working hard. Here I am, working hard, and I am going to invest in a mathematics degree as soon as I get some money, and I am sure the skills I learn there will help me analyze things correctly, or if nothing else sell private classes. Cant work the shovel and hammer after my youth that much is for sure….

at this point i doubt you ever saw a fucking shovel let alone a cement mixer
starting to fucking doubt the eastern european story too with the

Typical. University is not free in eastern Europe. Every year there is an opening for scholarships, and only people with the highest highschool results AND some sort of national or international competition results get the state scholarships and some limited private scholarships, the rest, which is 90% of all students, are self financing, paying for their own shit themselves. Private universities of any value are all expensive as hell, they are for profit institutions after all.

The thing is that I can post a picture of myself next to a cement mixer I guess, but you couldnt address any of what I said.
Yeah, no. Anyway wish there was something like an online betting thing where both persons have to bet money that I work the most stereotypical no-education job out there that anyone can do, and then this court like thing could investigate the pictures I would send online or whatever, call my employer or I dont know, and then I could get my fucking money and settle this UTTERLY IRRELEVANT discussion, so we could go back to the MAIN DISCUSSION, where you have NOTHING TO ADD because YOU ARE WRONG and you know it so you kvetch and moan and try to dodge it like this.

Screw this, I'm out.

I'm seeing something I can't believe
Oh wait! I can
It's P U R E I D E O L O G Y

Slave masters had to work long and hard in order to afford to own a slave. Not to mention, there was less of a social safety net in America then, so getting jip'd on a deal might have meant starvation. By this logic, slavery is fully justifiable.

I had feeling you didn't come here in good faith, now please try and contain your immense frustration and leave with some dignity.

fuck off ayncrap

It's not that we don't like you, It's that your argument is inherently Idealist and bordering on pure appeal to morality what with the
Please try and grasp yourself for a second and evaluate your views here. They make no sense, having a though produces no value, only potential, it must be committed to labor, why then should others profit from my Labor if Ideas are cheap and originate from material need (there for not scarce), while my Labor Power is something intrinsically tied to my being? Why should someone rob me of my time in life for having an idea at a certain point of time? After all, the moment he entrusts me with the idea, it becomes as good as mine.

The only risk the investors took was becoming proles
If you were so smart, you would invest as well. You can clearly afford internet. You can always find a job at a construction yard, they take in people with no experience and pay well enough to leave you with a tiny bit of spending money.
Your general prole could allocate nearly all his funds into stock or mutual funds and never in his life read reward even close to the profit accrued by those in higher financial positions or with insider ties. The absolute best investors don't take risk, they take calculated "risk". They take risk in which the margin of error is far, far less then what the average persons is and invest so much into it that the profit received will, by probability, most likely exceed what they put in.
So you admit the system revolves on gambling and risk with no focus on merit or actual labor. The best aren't rewarded, just those who either: a. Get lucky
b. Have better ties and inside information then everyone else and invest accordingly
c. Profit off others who do work
So its a system of work as little as you can to get the most you can, not one of actual merit
Yes, there are millions working cheap labor. And by the inevitability of the system, you'll need millions to work for you to make profit until you can automate them out. The vast, vast majority will never leave prole status, will never accrue enough profit for them to make back their money in investments. They can't, because if they somehow magically did the system would fall apart and collapse on itself because no would be working the factories or the retail shops or the farms. You NEED people there, you NEED people poor and living right above the waterline. You need bourgeois strangling each other to survive not becoming proles, you need cheap labor being exported outside of the country and living conditions in that country to stay shit so its cheap, you need families taking out fucking expensive as hell loans to pay off houses or leases they'll never be able to pay off, you need the resulting dysfunctional families that slowly fall apart due to those very same financial issues to. All of this, every single point is needed because that's how capitalism works.

Yes yes, porky deserves the wealth and you don't just like the bull deserves to fuck your wife and you don't, we get it, no need to be gross about it.

The only risk the investors took was becoming proles
Your general prole could allocate nearly all his funds into stock or mutual funds and never in his life read reward even close to the profit accrued by those in higher financial positions or with insider ties. The absolute best investors don't take risk, they take calculated "risk". They take risk in which the margin of error is far, far less then what the average persons is and invest so much into it that the profit received will, by probability, most likely exceed what they put in.
So you admit the system revolves on gambling and risk with no focus on merit or actual labor. The best aren't rewarded, just those who either:
a. Get lucky
b. Have better ties and inside information then everyone else and invest accordingly
c. Profit off others who do work
d. A mix of a, b, and/or c
So its a system of work as little as you can to get the most you can, not one of actual merit
Yes, there are millions working cheap labor. And by the inevitability of the system, you'll need millions to work for you to make profit until you can automate them out. The vast, vast majority will never leave prole status, will never accrue enough profit for them to make back their money in investments. They can't, because if they somehow magically did the system would fall apart and collapse on itself because no would be working the factories or the retail shops or the farms. You NEED people there, you NEED people poor and living right above the waterline. You need bourgeois strangling each other to survive not becoming proles, you need cheap labor being exported outside of the country and living conditions in that country to stay shit so its cheap, you need families taking out fucking expensive as hell loans to pay off houses or leases they'll never be able to pay off, you need the resulting dysfunctional families that slowly fall apart due to those very same financial issues to. All of this, every single point is needed because that's how capitalism works.

Because labor is cheap (ever heard of China or India?) while ideas are precious, useful and few?
If you withhold your labor, I can always find a Chinese guy to perform that said labor. Meanwhile if I cure cancer, you cant just replace me if I withhold the cure.

If you make a list of "I want x, y and z or I refuse to offer my labor" I can tell you to fuck off, I can always hire a Pakistani to labor for me. But if I have a genius idea, such as cure for cancer, and if I say "I want x, y and z or I refuse to give it to you", you cant refuse me.

Labor is near worthless. Especially with 21st century machinery we have today. We have a machine for almost all the fucking labor. Meanwhile you cant solve a problem, such as cancer, by just "laboring" on it. Labor produces nothing unless it is directed by a plan, idea, intellectual work.

...

wew, glad that communism is just an internet meme

...

The individual or more likely the team of people who come up with a cure for cancer will not get rich off of it. Whatever private pharmaceutical company they operate under will see the vast majority of the profits. Under capitalism the intellectual labor perormed by the researchers will not rewarded with the full value of their labor.

Please stop, this is like watching a child eat paint.

Lul'd. As another user said, thank you for your honest post. I'm sorry a lot of people autistically screech at you for calling your boss an architect.

Actually the answer is private property. Whoever has the capital to invest in private property dictates where you build your buildings, where you mine for coal etc.
When the workers collectively manage to overthrow the capitalists, a more worker oriented society will emerge. Workers in construction would have shorter work days due to immense physical pressure, and in the welfare state I'm from, construction workers get A LOT of benefits (on top of generally free healthcare) to make up for the body damage they take. This is a product of workers' unions fighting for these rights, something eastern europe unfortunately didn't get too much of. My point being, a workers' society will take care of workers. If mixing concrete is too demanding, shorter work days will happen in that field.

Can you please re word this for brainlets to understand. nwn

You don't need capitalism to reward people. You don't need capitalism for technological dynamism. You don't even strictly need it for competition, or market exchange. Trying to justify capital, rewards for naked ownership, and the private ownership of the means of production, by making reference to all these nice things, is illogical. What the OP thinks of as a truth is in fact only a layer of ideology fooling you into thinking there is no alternative.

Yes I can, Because it's almost always a collaborative effort to achieve this
Also, your idea is a response to a material circumstance, it is not gifted from beyond, you did not "create" it.
Think for a second, the first bridge ever built. Would the creator be able to say that he now owns all bridges? Of course not, because ideas are not scarce, they are simply responses to situations we face. Low-and-behold, there was no first bridge, multiple people came up with the same answer, across all parts of the world, because it was a similar situation that gave rise to the idea. There is nothing special about just thinking, but nothing would get done unless a labor force existed to build the bridge.

Ever heard of the reserve army of Labor? We don't even really need to struggle anymore as a species to produce substance, we already produce a regular surplus.

Once again, you put your foot in your mouth and made a fool of yourself