: There has been a lot of talk about socialistic 'liberty in the workplace,' voluntary labor, and 'ad hocary' on the debate board of late. Has there? I havent been around lately, well always glad that a ghost of my reasoning may be left in my wake. Voluntary labour I dont exactly trumpet on a large scale though, just self-managed labour, as to 'ad hocary' that doesnt sound right at all, perhaps trial and error would be a far better description.
: It seems that such notions have originated with Red Deathy's utopian socialism, a socialistic vision eagerly embraced by anarchists, liberals, even procapitalists (with some qualifications).
Your shocked? These liberals you speak of must be proto-socialists like Hobson and co. because I dont know of any genuine liberals who's be keen of RD's ideas, that is unless your still employing that term wrongly as abuse a la pragmatist. As for anarchists what's your problem that anarchist paris commune got full marks from Marx, have you a sectarian political prejudice in operation here, and procapitalists, wouldnt it be great to think we could convince them rather than kill them?
: I have attempted to refute such comforting yet false nostrums in several posts---notably here, here, and---most lately---here.
Why?
: There is also a refutation of this silly panacea so obvious that it hadn't even occurred to me.
What's that?
: Let us take the manufacture of motor vehicles as an example of industralized activity.
Fine. It is a bad example premised upon environmentally damaging and anti-social action and real private good = public bad example but carry on.
: There are many stages in such a process. There are many individuals required to effect these many stages. Indeed, the socialized character of manufacturing motor vehicles necessitates an assembly-line.
An assembly line is one way of doing it, how do you supppose it was done before Fordism/Taylorism?
: There is a worker to put on doors; there is another putting on windshields. There are individuals who apply paint; there are individals who apply finish to the paint. Etc., etc.
This is all premised up the very capitalist qualification of EFFICIENCY, and EFFICIENCY understood as saving in time and resources etc. at the expense of workers etc. you know.
: If even ONE worker is not at the required work station, all production halts. Such is the character of the assembly-line; such is the nature of industrialized labor.
Such is the nature of capitalist production, is the truth out Barry do you really, as your desk jocky bureaucratic hero Lenin did, just want an ultra efficient version of capitalism and planned state capitalism par excellence?
: We can easily see here how 'liberty in the workplace' would eradicate the industrial process itself---the very process of labor (socialized labor) that is a predicate of socialism ITSELF.
It may transform it but so long as people require cars and they are built in a similar fashion I see liberty at work and self management as changing not abolishing the process. What you suppose is socialism, this industrialisation centric notion, is nothing more but a continuity form capitalism and tamed and trained state capitalism.
: Thus 'liberty in the workplace' would signal a RETURN to preindustrial labor. Which is also known as scarcity and poverty.
No this is an exercise in Black Propaganda if I ever, ever seen one, Anarchists etc. are not anti-technology, they arent even anti-management and hierarchy if that hierarchy is readily challengable and based on functionalism. This is also prophetic nonsense too, have you your crystal ball handy or something?
: Call 'liberty in the workplace' anarchy. But don't call it socialism.
The truely prejudiced politico shines through once more, I'll call it anarchy if you call your 'socialism' state capitalism or tamed and trained capitalism or gunmans socialism, alright?
Barry you shouldnt be so hostile to everything that isnt Trotsky copyrighted.
--
McSpotlight: Lark, I think you got your name and Barry's mixed up...
