Would you agree to say that the chief purpose of social ownership of the means of production is the reduction (and ultimately elimination) of what is usually thought of as "work" — that is unrewarding, menial toil individuals engage in solely because they have to?
Basically, is one of capitalism's worst aspects the lack of incentive for its ruling class to shorten working hours even as the forces of production radically improve?
Yes.
No.
Maybe.
Communism: a stateless, classless society based on free access to the means of production. Usually implies full automation. Also known as late stage socialism.
at least that's how I've come to understand it. feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.
[/thread]
Also yes
Yup, that's the ultimate goal. But what I meant to ask is, should work reduction be given precedence as soon as socialism is established? Should the abolition of labor be considered not merely as an end goal but also as a mean, that is as a permanent programmatic priority of socialism?
While socialism can help to achieve that, that is not what socialism is about. The class struggle must be put to an end, the exploitation of the proletariat through means of private ownership of the means of production must end. THAT is what socialism is about.
Nah, it's basically motivated by moralfaggotry. People try to hide the fact that they are motivated by a post-Christian universalist morality, but that's really all it is. Just the death throes of Faustian civilization.
lurk moar faggot. This has nothing to do with "evening the playing field" and everything to do with individuals being able to get the full worth of their labor. The want for socialism is driven by an individual's rational self interest.
wouldn't an individual's rational self interest be to become a capitalist then?
Go become a capitalist. See how easy it is.
There can be no capitalists without exploited labour.
Capitalism is extremely destructive right now towards all non-monetary parts of existence and is self-destructive in the long term.
So, the next level of greed beyond money calls for the overcoming of capitalism.
No such thing.
Not really. "Self interest" is a meaningless term outside the context of some assumed axiology.
Given that capitalism is the reality now and you believe in "exploitation of labor," wouldn't you prefer to exploit someone's labor than have your labor exploited?
Even as a capitalist, you're still going to suffer under some of the annoyances of capitalism. As a super-rich capitalist you could probably get around most of them or all of them. But most capitalists aren't of the superrich type, and it isn't realistic at all for normal people to become very rich. Even becoming a low level capitalist would be a challange.
Not really. You can make a bundle as a contractor doing kitchen remodelling or something and then buy property you can rent out.
I still believe communism would be preferably for everyone except the very rich.
There aren't only two options, and even those two options have suboptions.
Also, high wage!= capitalist, even though you can consume more and even exploit people in subcontracting (depends on your line of work).
Most importantly, people have other concerns than money. The actual moralist leftover from Christianity is the concept of work as a necessary evil to pay for the sin of consumption that you find in capitalism.
...
The entire purpose of socialism should be building democratic institutions of production by voluntary and unremunerated labor and free distribution by need. Developing technology and reducing the work week is part of that.
Then you get communism
Of course. People work to live, not live to work. If we can reduce the amount of work they have to do, we're basically extending their livable lives.
As the living standards rise, the work day will shorten.