[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / metatech / mewch / miku / vfur ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 8a770f079f30a1b⋯.gif (5.69 MB, 500x500, 1:1, economy cookies.gif)

 No.2866709

How will we keep redeploying labor in a productive way under socialism? Workers have a tendency to get comfortable in the jobs they have, and will often refuse to go adapt to a new workplace. This becomes a real problem when these same people are in charge of planning. They'll never plan themselves out of work.

I get that this effect is exaggerated under capitalism because of the bullshit unemployed people have to deal with, which probably wouldn't exist under socialism. That being said, why haven't capitalist countries been able to solve this problem? What's the structural flaw that prevents organized redeployment of labor under capitalism? This worries me.

Maybe we should have a two-tiered ranking of jobs, call it intermediate and stable employment. If someone loses their stable job they are moved to an intermediate job in their local community. Then, when a stable job they're qualified for opens up, they can switched to stable employment instead. Intermediate jobs are inessential things that are nonetheless helpful to the economy, and perhaps they can also provide temporary additional labor-force where necessary. Stable jobs are more economically essential functions.

Another idea I had is to give people a large bonus when they become redundant, like a couple of months of paid vacation or something. We could also give them training for a new job while keeping them subsidized throughout it, or try retraining and redeploying whole enterprises at once. Then they can change their job alongside the coworkers they're already familiar with. That should soften the blow too.

Are there any thoughts you guys have on this? This is really the kind of concern I imagine non-socialists would bring up. Government jobs are notorious for precisely this kind of inefficiency.

pic unrelated

 No.2866717

>This is really the kind of concern I imagine non-socialists would bring up. Government jobs are notorious for precisely this kind of inefficiency.

The two-tiered system seems like a good idea. However, I think it's worth mentioning that total labour time required to meet society's demand would likely decrease a lot after capitalism, as planned obsolesence, aggressive advertising and the constant need to produce for profit's sake leads to a vastly exaggerated aggregate demand and an incredibly inefficient use of labour time and resources on a global scale in the current capitalist system.

If products were produced for utility and not for the producer's profit, there would be little incentive to squander resources on lame consumer goods and the aggressive advertising required to make consumers interested in them. In this sense, capitalism is inherently inefficient. To then compare it favourably to hypothetical difficulties within a future, hypothetical socialist mode of production (in spite of the systemic inefficiencies and flaws in the current economic system) makes no sense.

The efficiency of capitalism is nothing but a meme, IMO.


 No.2866735

>>2866709

>Maybe we should have a two-tiered ranking of jobs, call it intermediate and stable employment. If someone loses their stable job they are moved to an intermediate job in their local community. Then, when a stable job they're qualified for opens up, they can switched to stable employment instead. Intermediate jobs are inessential things that are nonetheless helpful to the economy

I see two dimensions here, one dimension is a scale that goes from very important to very unimportant. That's the one you see. I'm unsure what to call the second dimension, maybe time sensitivity. There are activities that have intermediate results that can be stored up easily, a chain of actions that can be easily interrupted and you can just as easily continue later on; and you can speed up or slow down the chain of events by throwing more or fewer people at it. And on the other end of that second scale there are activities were 99 % completion means as much as 0 % if you stop for a moment.


 No.2866740

>>2866709

>Maybe we should have a two-tiered ranking of jobs, call it intermediate and stable employment.

That just sounds like class with extra steps!


 No.2866748

>>2866740

Class is a question of ownership and exploitation, i.e. a real, material question of property relations. Not "when there are job rankings".


 No.2866780

> How will we keep redeploying labor in a productive way under socialism? Workers have a tendency to get comfortable in the jobs they have, and will often refuse to go adapt to a new workplace. This becomes a real problem when these same people are in charge of planning. They'll never plan themselves out of work.

Resistance to change is greatly reduced when it doesn't entail a threat to the livelihood, precariousness etc.

> Maybe we should have a two-tiered ranking of jobs, call it intermediate and stable employment. If someone loses their stable job they are moved to an intermediate job in their local community.

You really mean people should have back-up jobs, well we are going to get lambasted for work-fetishism, but still it seems reasonable to pre-organize something like this. But what the hell are those people going to do in there local communities ? You need a type of work that is not necessary to be done, for the time the back-up job is not requested but still useful when it's done, the reality of this will be offloading People to the BS-jobs-zone, most will never ever get out again. Or worse second-class labour.

> and perhaps they can also provide temporary additional labor-force where necessary. Stable jobs are more economically essential functions.

I disagree with this type of "stand-by labour" that sounds like you copied flexible temp labour or gig economy type relation. We are going to plan the economy precisely to avoid this pseudo reserve army of labour. The better working conditions we are trying to achieve in a socialist system is based on distributing the burden better. And the ideological claim that capitalists make is that the labour-force has deficiencies that cause the chaotic economic relations, as socialists we make the claim that there are no deficiencies with the labour force but rather the deficiencies lies with how capitalists are allocating work.

> Another idea I had is to give people a large bonus when they become redundant, like a couple of months of paid vacation or something. We could also give them training for a new job while keeping them subsidized throughout it, or try retraining and redeploying whole enterprises at once. Then they can change their job alongside the coworkers they're already familiar with.

These Bonuses how do they fit into labour-time calculation, do we tax people to bribe others to stop working ? Are you proposing to solve automation related unemployment by making employment something you effectively have to pay for. Anyway we can consider work-training = work.

> That should soften the blow too.

There is an easier way that doesn't entail any "Blow" when transitioning people to other types of work, basically for the transition phase they work part-time in their old occupation and part-time in their new occupation. Basically a few days of the week you work your old job and a few days you work you new job and then the old job decreases and the new job increases in time, until you only work your new job.

In general if technology will actually make human work irreversible ever more redundant, something that many people are predicting, there always is the solution to reduce work-time for everybody simultaneously.

—-

the problem with your proposals seem to be prestige thinking, that is something that is the result of different types of labor having different amounts of bargaining power in a capitalist labour market. In a socialist system this will not carry over we are going to rely on people pursuing difficult and challenging work because it's interesting, not because it grants you social-capital to look down on others. That's what capitalists pursue with their incentive structures to create acceptance for class society, it's degrading to social cohesion, because it creates a chain of punching down.


 No.2866808

>>2866780

>the reality of this will be offloading People to the BS-jobs-zone, most will never ever get out again

Maybe we need to keep a handle on the ratio between the two forms of employment. If it shifts towards intermediary employment (without this being the result of some kind of shock) we automatically reduce work hours for everyone.

>I disagree with this type of "stand-by labour" that sounds like you copied flexible temp labour or gig economy type relation.

Part of this new relation is determined by advancement in the means of production. We need people who can do these kinds of jobs.

You seem to be under the impression that these temporary jobs pay worse and less consistency. That's not the idea. Workers will be able to maintain their normal standard of living in between stable jobs without any problem. Ideally it won't make any difference to them outside of their work-life.

>do we tax people to bribe others to stop working?

They aren't bribed to stop working, they are bribed to deal with the shit that comes with switching employment. If they have an option to exert pressure and continue the cushy job they already have, there needs to be some reward for not choosing to do that.

The idea is that automation becomes something positive, to be enthusiastic about, rather than a bother. Even if the benefits go directly to the people, the fact that these benefits get evened out over the entire population makes the process a bother for the people actually involved in it. That's why we give them an extra portion for a short while, and then have them go back to their status as an ordinary worker, as to not create unjust inequalities.

The core principle is that if some worker has to suffer while the rest of the economy benefits, we have to compensate that worker as to undo that effect. Further, we should encourage workers to find ways to make themselves redundant. They should be coming up with innovations to make the system work better.

>basically for the transition phase they work part-time in their old occupation and part-time in their new occupation. Basically a few days of the week you work your old job and a few days you work you new job and then the old job decreases and the new job increases in time, until you only work your new job.

Very good idea. Maybe we should make this standard for everyone, as to reduce the negative effects of the division of labor. Then switching jobs entirely won't be much of a change at all.

>there always is the solution to reduce work-time for everybody simultaneously.

This is no relief to the people having to deal with changing their jobs.


 No.2866867

>>2866808

> Maybe we need to keep a handle on the ratio between the two forms of employment. If it shifts towards intermediary employment (without this being the result of some kind of shock) we automatically reduce work hours for everyone.

I don't quite understand what your assumption here are, if you plan your industry won't you know in advance how employment develops ?

>Part of this new relation is determined by advancement in the means of production. We need people who can do these kinds of jobs.

>You seem to be under the impression that these temporary jobs pay worse and less consistency. That's not the idea. Workers will be able to maintain their normal standard of living in between stable jobs without any problem. Ideally it won't make any difference to them outside of their work-life.

It think the

Again if you plan your R&D you can plan for training of people, i don't understand why technical advancement have to produce any ruptures in a way it does in capitalism.

> they are bribed to deal with the shit

why does there have to be "shit" to deal with

>If they have an option to exert pressure and continue the cushy job they already have, there needs to be some reward for not choosing to do that.

Alright then, but you have not explained where this reward comes from,keep in mind that a socialist society does labour time calculation, you cannot create money to pay out rewards, you also not have a capitalist with private reserves to draw a reward from, you would have to tax people to have the ability pay out a rewards, I'm trying to understand how the social relations here work. If I understand this correctly you are basically going to tax the rest of society to pay extra workers to endure the negative side effects that you seem to attribute to these changes in the means of production.

>we should encourage workers to find ways to make themselves redundant. They should be coming up with innovations to make the system work better

Well the capitalist consciousness is going to be focused on creating replacements for labour, however the worker consciousness is going to be focused on creating tools that make their work easier. This should lead to work-time reduction in a particular industry that is experiencing automation, leading to workers looking to transition into new industries, the planer should be able to forecast this and setup all the parts of new industries.

>there always is the solution to reduce work-time for everybody simultaneously. This is no relief to the people having to deal with changing their jobs.

I made a conceptual leap, that i'm going to pick apart here: automation leads to labor saving machinery, this will in a socialist society reduce work time reduction in a particular industry because production is for use, not exchange and if we now move our focus on a higher order dimension, we get automation/labour-saving/work-time-reduction over the entire society. There could be overall economic growth as result from automation productivity increases, however growth is limited by resources, and other factors. So boundaries to growth will at least temporarily lead to "reduced ability to apply" labour-time. In capitalism there would be masses of idle people while others would be working overtime. while for socialism the solution here would be to reduce overall labour time instead. If the prediction of technology based "human labour obsolescence" are true, then the conclusion is to transition out of work more or less at the same time for everybody.


 No.2867244

>>2866709

>We could also give them training for a new job while keeping them subsidized throughout it, or try retraining and redeploying whole enterprises at once

This is the main thing. We need to put an end to the idea that you stop learning when you're 22. People should be going in and out of school their whole life. And we need to bring the school into the workplace. Lecturers should go to the factories and teach people about the stuff that's relevant to their work.

More educated = more flexible in picking up new tasks.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / metatech / mewch / miku / vfur ]