this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
360 points (95.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12676 readers
1370 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You genuinely believe if you change the name of something, you change it materially. Your admission that there needs to be management is an admission of authority's necessity in controlled contexts. To trust the bootmaking factory to be safe, have controlled QA, to be practicing safe environmental practices, all aspects of mass industry require at some level administration and management. The QA worker must have a backed authority to halt production of boots with toxic materials, the safety workers must have the authority to ensure proper lock-out tag-out is followed, the maintenance workers must be able to have authority to halt production to fix machinery.
Describe how a smart phone would be made in Anarchism, and you'll find you need some form of authority and administration to ensure safety, quality, and coordination of logistics.
It is not that Marxists simply can't imagine a better society. Marxists understand that Capitalist production evolved the way it did, and when you cut out non-productive labor it did so to maximize profits along highly complex production methods. What needs to change is the method of ownership and direction, rather than being at the whim and for the profits of few individuals, production can be owned and run by all for all.
As for the USSR, as you say, the purpose of a system is what it does. It doubled life expectancy from the 30s to the 70s, over tripled literacy rates to be higher than 99%, ended famine, dramatically lowered wealth disparity while improving median wages, democratized the economy, rapidly expanded housing, supported national liberation movements in countries like Palestine, Algeria, Cuba, China, and more. They provided free, high quality education and healthcare. Their presence on the world stage, combined with working class organization internally, was the driving force beyond the major expansions in social safety nets in the 20th century, and after the dissolution of the USSR these have been withering.
No, you don't have to be a Marxist if you don't want to be. No, the USSR was not perfect, and no Marxist claims it to be either. Marxists simply claim that the USSR was the world's first Socialist state, and as such the very real working class victories were due to the working people that built them. I'm going to go ahead and link Blackshirts and Reds again so if you want to read a history book written after the soviet archives opened up, you can.
Doing all of that is in the interest of the workers themselves. Not being hindered by capital or threat of gulag to implement it, they will. The task of a manager is to analyse to give reports, not to direct. The safety worker has authority because people want to be safe.
If you have an actual look of how worplace safety is implemented in countries that actually have a good track record then you'll see the best numbers in those where the shop floor council has the power to stop everything if need be, interest of the bosses be damned, like Germany. Next up are countries where there's an independent public body with that authority, like the US (OSHA). Bottom of the barrel are those where workplace safety is left to the whims of capital or the local party secretary.
Only according to Marx' definition so that's a nothingburger.
...why didn't the USSR change it? Why was everything dictated, top down, by few individuals squirrelling away plenty of money? The corruption problem post-Soviet states have is inherited from the USSR, which normalised profiting off anything that flowed through your station. The higher the station, the greater the profit.
Plenty of states who did that without turning into dictatorships and maybe ask the Ukrainians about famine and who caused it.
No they didn't. You're just rattling down a fanboy list I can't be bothered.
See, you go on to prove my exact point, that QA workers and safety workers need the authority to stop production. You recognize this necessary authority, but then undermine it by saying it's the "will of the workers." If you don't recognize it as authority, then it can be gone against, meaning you have to recognize it as authority. Managers don't just do reports, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Managers are coordinators of production, if you ever step foot in a factory you'll see assembly line leaders and area leaders that help coordinate between each other and solve problems as they arise.
You describe fantastic examples like OSHA, which are necessary authorities, essentially explaining why not all hierarchy and not all authority is necessarilly a bad thing. However, you change the names and bring up non-sequitors like GULAGs and whatnot as though you could have an OSHA that only politely asks a factory producing toxic products to stop. OSHA has power because it is punishable to not do what they say, they have authority.
Finally, saying that Marxism isn't Socialist is very silly, but does indeed go along with you pretending Anarchism is the only form of Socialism, and flip-flopping back and forth on whether or not authority is necessary by trying to change the names of structures we both seem to support materially.
The rest of your comment is anticommunist nonsense that you repeat without any sources, so I'll leave you with some great ones:
Blackshirts and Reds: a fantastic critique of the USSR, analysis of Communism's antagonistic relationship with fascism, and tears down "left" anticommunism.
Is The Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union is a great analysis of how the economy of the Soviet Union functioned.
Russian Justice is a great book on how the law, court, and prison system worked in the early USSR
Soviet Democracy is an explanation and exploration of the Soviet system of democracy, which democratized the economy dramatically, especially in comparison with the Tsarist system and the current Capitalist system
This Soviet World great history book on the early Soviet period.
You're doing the Engels thing. "See, subordinate, you give authority to Bob from safety. Thus, you accept authority, thus, I get to tell you what to do, and I'm telling you to increase production by 200%, skirting safety protocols if need be". It doesn't work like that. Authority, like respect, is earned. A king is not an authority on bootmaking no matter how much power he wields. (Well he could actually be a hobby bootmaker but you get my point).
Proper managers just do reports. Not always the written kind. They're not saying "do this, do that", they're saying "X needs Y, can you supply it, please contact them", they're saying "have a look at this procedure what do you think of it". They're keeping an eye on everything, produce a larger picture and communicate their insights to anyone who should know, or is asking. Their authority comes from good analysis.
You're still equating power and authority. And not just in the "eh those terms have some overlap and speech can get fuzzy", but in your thinking itself, you're not making crucial distinctions: OSHA would not need any power if bosses did not have power over workers, its authority as people knowledgable in matters of work safety is plenty to make the workers listen to them. You do not need to threaten a machinist for them to not put their dick in a vice. You do need to threaten bosses who threaten machinists so that they put their dick in a vice. The necessity to threaten the boss with gulag does only arise because the boss is given the power to threaten the worker with gulag.
You're doing exactly what Engels points out, though. You are trying to change the nature of a thing by changing its name.
OSHA has authority, power, whatever you want to call it to compel unsafe or toxic production to cease. This is necessary, and cannot simply be a request to be denied, as people will work in their own interests and may want to cut corners. You don't need to threaten people not to put their genitals in vices, correct, but you do need to have power over people who are deliberately skirting safety protocol for their own benefit.
This is why this entire conversation has been relatively pointless, it's clear that you certainly have firm beliefs about what you want, you just fundamentally lack the understanding of the Marxist position to its entirety and can only disagree with it by shifting and distorting things or by changing the names of things we agree on. You double down when proven wrong and try to pretend Marxism isn't Socialist.
I think you need to take a step back and read at list a bit of Marx and Engels and read up more on the various AES states if you want to actually come up with sensible critique.
"to compel". That's power. Authority is more like "to convince".
No.
It is not in the interest of workers to cut corners. That interest is coming from somewhere else. That is why OSHA needs power. Without those external interests, all that OSHA needs to do is convince that certain practices are beneficial to the worker's own self-interest. If they are any good at their job, they will be very convincing, they will have much authority.
This is the fundamental stuff that Marx, and by extension many Marxists, miss in their analysis. That's why the revolution failed: Because it was not, systemically, beneficial to the worker, because it was the exchange of one boot for another boot. Advances such as healthcare? Goddammit SocDems caused Germany to introduce universal public healthcare under Monarchism. "We need the dictatorship of the vanguard to introduce these advances" is not an argument, it never has been necessary and with the likes of OSHA: The USSR was not great, not terrible. Bosses could override safety concerns because higher-ups want production quota, and they did. The reason it wasn't terrible is because the people engineering factories cared about that stuff, and worked it into the design.
The same misappreciation btw also extends to histography: "The peasant has no class consciousness". Peasant revolt after constant peasant revolt attested in history would beg to differ.
Okay, so OSHA needs power. If a factory is producing in unsafe conditions or produce toxic or unsafe goods for the public. Not every situation can be solved via "convincing." Depending on OSHA to be "convincing" is silly, all such Utopian formations of societies like the Owenites and Saint-Simon's commune failed for similar reasons.
I think you need to revisit Marxist theory and history, and you honestly should revisit Anarchist theory which today understands the necessity of just hierarchy. The USSR was great, not perfect but absolutely massive for Workers around the world.
Well, you need to convince the KGB to stop enforcing the bosses' commands, taking away the bosses' power, as that is where the necessity for OSHA to have power even arises. Of course, enforcement of power is all the KGB is there for so you have to convince power-hungry authoritarians to stop doing what they do and retire. It'd be in their own interest, but their neuroses doesn't let them see it.
We can talk about the need to coerce to get rid of the KGB to bring about a system that is free from the KGB, we can talk about the need of defences against the resurgence of a KGB while the very notion of ordering people about is not relegated to the history books, but we do not need to even entertain the idea of power being necessary in actually realised socialism as it would be a contradiction in terms.
The necessity for OSHA to have power is that people act in their own self-interest as a rule. Humanity can collectively plan and produce, and eventually as production is improved these measures will not need to be as strict, but they remain a necessity for administration and planning.
Again, it is awfully dishonest to attempt to redefine Socialism as Anarchism.
It is the self-interest of the bosses to ignore safety concerns. It is not, ever, in the interest of workers to ignore safety concerns.
Thus there exist a configuration of society in which OSHA does not require power, and that is when the self-interest of the workers is not infringed upon by other factors. In other words: Socialism.
Because what else would you define socialism as if not a state of things where worker's self-interest is not infringed upon. How can you claim that anything that infringes on worker's righteous self-interest could ever be socialism. "Socialism is when the interests of the working class is infringed upon, and the more its interests get infringed upon, the more socialist it is", or what?
It is absolutely in the interest of workers to ignore safety concerns. They want to go home earlier, they don't care enough, they don't think it's important enough, etc. If you work in the trades, or in factories, or another industrial environment, you can find dozens of safety violations even in a well-kept place. Your following points don't follow because the base is wrong.
Furthermore, identifying Anarchism as the only form of Socialism, is dishonest. Socialism isn't about abolition of hierarchy, Anarchism is specificially. Socialism is an economic mode of production based around collectivization of property, but not necessarily abolition of class or hierarchy. Anarchism seeks to turn everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie out of a desire to eliminate hierarchy, Marxisk seeks to collectivize property equally among everyone out of a desire to eliminate class. Both are Socialist.
Power, authority, hierarchy, whatever you wish to call it, is a tool. The goal of Socialism is the uplifting and abolition of the Proletariat, simple as. It is not about "ceasing to infringe on any other worker's self-interests," such a mischaracterization is idealist. It is not "infringing on worker's interests" for OSHA to be able to shut down unsafe production even if the people there want to keep going, rather, it protects them and the people that could have been hurt.
At the end of the day, by trying to redefine Socialism as Anarchism and say Marxism isn't Socialist, you aren't going to convince anyone. You're not convincing me, and you sure aren't convincing anyone else. You say Marx gets stuff "wrong," but the stuff he supposedly got wrong is all stuff you seemed to have made up. It's silly, and this isn't going anymore.
Disengage.
And why would workers want that? Or, differently put: If they don't care, why are they working in the first place?
Any job worth doing is worth doing right. That's the intrinsic value of work, those things you mentioned only come into play when work is compelled by external factors. Convince people to work instead of compelling them and there will be intrinsic motivation and yes they're going to do it right.
"Marxism isn't proper socialism" is a story as old as Marx, btw. There were always people who disagreed with him, vehemently so, and he didn't found the worker's movement.
A lot of necessary jobs go undone if nobody wants to do them, like garbage disposal, sewer maintenance, etc. The notion that if everyone did only what everyone wanted, at least without moving to the far, far future, that everything necessary for society to function would get done is baseless.
Furthermore, the idea that Marxism isn't Socialist is old, yes. However, Marxism is based on collectivization of property and worker's rights, so it is Socialist. Further, it's by far the most historically relevant and the most relevant at a modern point because there are several Marxist states.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, you're taking a hard-line stance abandoned by most Anarchists a century ago, all you're doing is making Anarchism look silly when there has been advancements in Anarchist theory. Trying to discredit Marxism as validly Socialist and pretending Socialism means Anarchism only further alienates what you're saying from actually convincing anyone.
https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/this-soviet-world/
That's not how quotas were set in the USSR. An analysis of how implementation came to differ from those kinds of ideal descriptions might be in order. Right-out mandatory if you want to call yourself a materialist.
Do you have stuff on this? Not sources, I'm not asking you to prove you are correct, I was wondering since you said this that you may have something that I can take a look at.
Any anarchist or socdem critique of the USSR. I don't think there's actually much in-depth stuff about this because it amounts to "told you so". Within Marxist theory I guess the Frankfurt school would be worth a look. (Yes, the exact one chuds think rules the world, if only. That is, it's where "Cultural Marxism" points at while ignoring every single thing the Frankfurt school is actually saying.)