/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 39091
92 kB, 611 × 404
In an ideal communist society free from inequality and oppression, who would do all the dirty work?
>>
No. 39092
Robots
>>
No. 39093
coprophiles
>>
No. 39095 Kontra
The Morlocks
>>
No. 39096
You could have a system where young workers start out doing the dirty jobs, and then after earning enough work credits they would become eligible for better positions. To facilitate the shift into those new positions, there would be a training program which was part of every undesirable job. So for 30 hours a week you be a garbage man, and for 10 hours a week you would study. There could also be a rule that no citizen would be forced to do a bad job for more than 'x' number of years. If no position was available at the end of their service, they would enter full-time paid training. In addition, you could include a requirement that no one can take a good job, until they had worked a certain number of hours in a bad job.
t.not an expert on such things

I also want to say: robots
>>
No. 39098
180 kB, 500 × 708
>>39091
Since you assume an ~ideal~ communist society this is not really as much of a question as some people think, because then the people themself would understand the need for this dirty work and would develop a system to distribute this kind of work fairly and in a way that makes sense for their community and accompansates for dirty/hard work.

However currently the question is rather what is to be done to get humanity out of capitalism and into the dictatorship of the proletariat and later on the early socialist phase.

>>39092
/thread :DDD
>>
No. 39101
49 kB, 452 × 347
Those commie robots if any efficient would sooner or later create a parallel automated economy, based on pure machinic supply and demand, leading to uncontrollable exponential AI grow.

There is no escape from capitalism.
>>
No. 39102
>>39101
> leading to uncontrollable exponential AI grow. There is no escape from capitalism.
But that's a problem of transhumanism, not capitalism vs. communism.
>>
No. 39105
Tbh all this disscutions go to nowhere because all this raw idiologies are just templates and ideas of utopia and ideal, when in realy economy and goverment always use mixed instruments because we live in real life, not on Earth from old Star Trek or something.
>>
No. 39106
273 kB, 1620 × 1080
>because we live in real life, not on Earth from old Star Trek or something
Not yet.
>>
No. 39107
>>39092
Someone has to maintain them or the machines that do so somewhere down the line. Those people become either a class with extra benefits that others can't get, becoming a privileged class or they sink down to become an uncompensated underclass.

I've never seen robot automation as particularly convincing when it comes to utopia. When I find myself venturing outside my usual centre anarchy sphere, I usually find myself at radical unionism/syndicalism rather than communism. It makes more sense to me to empower only those who the decision affects in any given issue while in my reading at least, communism would appear to make the matter an issue for the entire cooperative which can be counterproductive. I see it as less of an issue the deeper towards anarcho-communism you get though because secession from a collective becomes progressively easier as you go.
>>
No. 39108
>>39091
Very simple. There would be no dirty work.
>>
No. 39109
>>39107
>Someone has to maintain them or the machines that do so somewhere down the line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oazwTDeqF54
>>
No. 39151
I thought robots were the only answer but as I meet more people I realise most people are actually content with cleaning shit etc. so long as they get enough pointless consumption goods.
>>
No. 39154
>Robotto can't do that, it would need to be super advanced to do it at the same quality

This assumes the same quality is necessary and it's not. That's something self-evident to people who have lived both in the 3rd world and the 1st. A lot of services available because of cheap labour do not exist in the first world or are reserved for the rich. But it turns out you can live without that service. A roomba doesn't clean as well as a human maid, but it helps you do it yourself. Enough automation to enable you to own your share of the "dirty work".
>>
No. 39155
9,8 MB, 490 × 306, 0:05
>>39151
>most people are actually content with cleaning shit etc. so long as they get enough pointless consumption goods.
goulash_communism.txt
>>
No. 39156
>assigning social status to labor rather than viewing it as pure utilitarian need
That's ideology
t. ideology pros
>>
No. 39157
>>39155
This also contradicts with my previous view that Real Existing Socialism(TM) was inherently unsustainable. All they needed to do was throw more fake Levi's jeans at people.
>>
No. 39158
>>39156
The type of labour performed has always been reflective of societal status.

Regards,
Thorstein Veblen
>>
No. 39159
>>39158
That's just the system creating spooks to put you on a social status treadmill.

Well, these days, I'd say that if you don't work directly with capital, and have to trade your time for money, you're basically a pleb regardless of imaginary social status. The so called "educated professional" class has more in common with plumbers than they do with the actual elites.
The video game industry, for example, is bigger than cinema and music, you'd think being an educated professional in the biggest entertainment field would be good, but no, most people who work on video games have to deal with unpaid overtime, crunches, and no job security.

Imagine being born in a first world country to a good family, work hard and pay out the ass for education, do skilled intellectual labor, but still end up practically a slave and miss your children's birthdays because the management wants you to hit the deadline before thanksgiving.
>>
No. 39160 Kontra
>>39105
>Tbh all this disscutions go to nowhere because all this raw idiologies are just templates and ideas of utopia and ideal

That's true for most political discussions for those with no clout or power. It's just an exercise in signaling the latest talking points backed by relevant (mis)information. Such conversations fulfill nothing but the ideologues' respective vanity.

Also, talk is cheap.
>>
No. 39165
>>39159
>Well, these days, I'd say that if you don't work directly with capital, and have to trade your time for money, you're basically a pleb regardless of imaginary social status
Actually if you read Veblen, highly recommended, you'll see that all production jobs were women's jobs. Working is seen as shitty.

Male occupations:
Ruling (Not necessarily political, but also by owning capital)
Religion (Would also include being an opinion leader of any sorts today)
Military (Obvious)
Hunting/Sport (Because you get bored from having nothing to do)
>>
No. 39166
>>39160
Most =/= all
>>
No. 39169
>>39165
I would say that this is rather a question of class than gender. All the occupations you named are in existance because they don't have to work on the fields themself to get by, living of what (male and female) peasants produce and don't need for their own maintainance. Obviously the patriarchy here manifests itself because mostly those "better" occupations are reserved for males (with certain exceptions of queens and such). Women then also have to carry out reproduction labor.

If you look at the military there even is an obvious class divide when it comes to officers and simple soldiers.
>>
No. 39170 Kontra
>>39169
Not only peasants obviously, I just thought it was most illustrating of the point.
>>
No. 39175
>>39169
The theory posits that all economically productive endeavours were female occupations in tribal society, it would be a latter invention for low-status males to also participate in them
>>
No. 39176
>>39175
I don't really see why tribal society would organize itself that way? What's Veblens reason to think so?
>>
No. 39177
>>
No. 39178 Kontra
>>39177
>posting 180pages without a reference to the supposed answer

well...

t. different German
>>
No. 39179
>>39176
Well, the males are out hunting or making war on other tribes. The only logical thing is for women to make baskets and pots.
>>
No. 39180
>>39178
Feel free to talk on snippets and hearsays with your peers, if you want to discuss the contents of a book with me you should have read it. If you are not interested in it you probably shoudln't discuss it. If you want me to summarize and simplify it for you I haven't the time.
>>
No. 39181 Kontra
>>39180
You expect some random stranger on the internet to read 180 pages just to find an answer that the one who actually read the book could provide, because he read the book? But he has no time, ofc I have the time to read 180 pages...

You read it, you can answer questions concerning what Veblen had to say about it, if you can't because you don't know what Veblen had to say then just be honest about it, nobody can memorize a whole book, even more so if it was a causal read.
Discussing a book in depth requires all perticipants to read the book, true. But you where asked to asnwer a question, since you read it.
YOU were asked to answer what Veblen wrote about it, simple. And if you don't have the time, just name the relevant pages at least, nobody needs to read a whole book if one chapter is enough to get the answer to a problem that Veblen deals with.
>>
No. 39186
Robots which is the main problem I have for Communism failing to be revolutionary enough, because it still posits not just a caste based society but fails to reimagine anything beyond maintaining a slave caste it's just now replacing that caste with automatons. Anything which requires a caste of robots to make that society good does not a good society make at the fundamental structural level.
>>
No. 39187
>>39186
That fully automated gay luxury space communism meme is not really the essence of what communism is about. What I'm saying is robots are not necessary for a communist society.
>>
No. 39201
>>39181
As I said, if you want to have a discussion about things you have not read and have no idea about, there are millions of people who do that like you every day. I'm just one of them and I'll be opting out of unintellectual shit flinging.

If you're genuinely interested, read. If you're not, don't beg people to summarize profound ideas and their backgrounds for you and embarrass yourself by saying "I b-bet you don't know yourself, b-but I asked you n-not the author" - you could have read the first ten pages with your oh so valuable time you spent crying to defend your ignorance.
>>
No. 39202 Kontra
>>39201
> if you want to have a discussion about things

First of all, I'm not the German you were talking to before posting the pdf.

Second, there was not really a debate, you were just asked to answer a question concerning Veblens argument. It was more a question in order to receive info. You could debate the standpoint of Veblen then ofc. If it has flaws in the argument you represented to us.

Third, you could give the important pages, where Veblen actually deals with tribal societies and the gender split. Instead you just throw a pdf at sombodies feet an say: read it, duh.
There is no need to read everything in order to discuss a certain aspect in a book, chapters or similar text entities usually have their own argument within a string of arguments a book is made of. Academia is working like that, and ofc by saying you have to read it all, you never come to an end of anything. So we have to be pragmatic, get from your high horse and accept that not everybody can read everything including you. There is no profound discussion of Veblens work here, you are the one who knows the book, so you can present infos about the argument to us and we could ask further questions, it's that simple.

Shitflinging is what is done in our personal debate to a certain extent, and as I told you in the first point, you are confusing me with another German who actually talked about Veblen, I'm just concerned with lazy and kinda rude pdf throwing around.
>>
No. 39208
>>39202
I’ll actually take the time to write out a full response so hopefully I won’t encounter this garbage again.
>First of all, I'm not the German you were talking to before posting the pdf.
>and as I told you in the first point, you are confusing me with another German
I don't know why you think I assumed otherwise or why you assume it's important. You are someone who is upset at the idea that to answer further questions reading might be required, rather than someone giving you a pre-digested piece of opinion for you to parrot around and that’s what I'm not going to do.

>Second, there was not really a debate, you were just asked to answer a question concerning Veblens argument.
Maybe it's that you need to go to the source if your curiosity is at a certain level, rather than expecting others to do it, as I repeated three times now?

>It was more a question in order to receive info.
The information is there. You can learn yourself.
>You could debate the standpoint of Veblen then ofc. If it has flaws in the argument you represented to us.
I can only do that if the other party "debating" has knowledge of the subject. Thus, to debate, you need to read. I don't know why this is so unimaginable. Well I actually do know. You can too, if you read Socrates’ description of Idle Talk. Oh no, I suggested reading again...
>Third, you could give the important pages, where Veblen actually deals with tribal societies and the gender split. Instead you just throw a pdf at sombodies feet an say: read it, duh.
Books have indices and you can use ctrl+f on a pdf and find what you want if you are really hell-bent on your crusade of ignorance and not reading more than a paragraph at a time yet still pretending to be anything but what you are. Of course there's the added irony that it's in the first chapter, but that's besides the point - I don’t think anyone (like you) who isn’t capable of looking up that information is capable of having a worthwhile opinion anyway.
>There is no need to read everything in order to discuss a certain aspect in a book
>accept that not everybody can read everything including you.
Well… you keep doing that and where do you end up? Talking about things you really have no in-depth idea about. I’m sorry I suggested reading a full book which you of course don't have the time to do so in your busy schedule of watching hentai and making posts about how reading is bad.
>Academia is working like that
Certainly not in top tier institutions
>There is no profound discussion of Veblens work here
And that’s not possible without profound knowledge of Veblen’s work.
>you are the one who knows the book
Which is why I told people it's interesting, gave some key subject info, and upon further questions took my time to direct someone to a .pdf source. It’s especially sad since Veblen is rather Laconic and the subject matter is written very much to the point.

>so you can present infos about the argument to us and we could ask further questions
Again, you're assuming someone is responsible for giving you pre-digested information and what to think instead of taking the time to think for yourself.

All this wanton butthurt is because you have become so depravedly unintellectual that you not only never search, read or understand anything for yourself but go raving mad at the suggestion that someone suggest reading - since you're used to people giving you what to think, when to think in a pre-made ready-pill form.

I'm sorry you are like that, but the majority of the world thinks just like you and get the chills when they see a bunch of pages together so you have plenty of company. You shouldn't be so upset that I alone do not want to stoop down to your level. Oh shit, you just read lots of words - do you want a summary of this?
>>
No. 39210
>>39091
  1. Those who want to actually do the job.
  2. If there aren't enough with an afinity toward that job, it becomes a rotating responsibility between everybody.
>>
No. 39214
>>39208
I have no time, because I'm not interested in Veblens readings and prefer to read other books and articles instead, stop projecting because someone is demanding a representation of Veblen from you. You know there is a good reason why many secondary literature exists, because Veblen can be read differently and in depth on different aspects of his work. Why do you have such a problem to play this role of a mediator? Certainly I won't feel totally informed, wehn you present some arguments of Veblen to me, yet I this is not to be expected from you anyway, and it won't be fulfilled by reading Veblen once. Total information is not expected and perhaps not even possible!

>you keep doing that and where do you end up? Talking about things you really have no in-depth idea about

Since Veblen is not my main interest, he has to step back in a long row of desired readings, I guess that is the same for you "intellectual" person. You cannot know everything in depth. The Kant shelf in the uni library exceeds the limit of what a person can read in his/her lifetime, and yet people will talk and write about Kant without having read it all, clearly in depth is relative, or what do you consider in depth? You can read Kant and don't understand shit, is that in depth reading since you plowed through the Critique of Pure Reason in total?

You are asked to represent because of pragmatic issues. But you refuse to represent anything. I see your point of reading primary sources in order to gain knowledge. Yet we are not attending an academic conference on Veblen or have lecture class on Veblen, you have to deal with the internet not being familiar with your trophy author. That is why your task is to represent, which is a common thing even at top notch academic institutions, it's called teaching (which also involves discussion). There could be seminars on the history of sociology where you would read an excerpt of Veblens Leisure class for example, not the whole book.

You could also quote Veblen like normal scholars do, instead you opt out for the lazy internet version and just tell people to read something without further specifications.

Again, I'm not interested in Veblen, but it takes some posts to get you talking, which could have been in your post with the pdf attached.
>>
No. 39241
>>39175
>The theory posits that all economically productive endeavours were female occupations in tribal society

>>39176
>I don't really see why tribal society would organize itself that way? What's Veblens reason to think so?

>>39208
>it's in the first chapter
Thank you. I didn't want to read the whole thing, but was curious about his reasoning.

Okay, so if I understand the argument correctly, in primitive society both male and female tasks were productive, but the difference is in how that production was accomplished. For males, it was through the application of cunning, and physical prowess, and for the females it was by dull repetition(the previously mentioned hunting vs basket weaving is a good example). Veblen further differentiates the tasks this way: Male tasks are exploitive-defined here as something which controls an animated force(other men/beasts/weather). Female tasks involve the manipulation of inert, non-living things. Those original female tasks would evolve into most of the labor we know today. Anything that does not directly manipulate animated beings can be said to be a female task, while the few male tasks which remain involve leadership, worship, war, or sport. These male tasks in our society are also tasks which do not directly produce goods or services, and are thus economically non-productive.

>>39186
>Anything which requires a caste of robots to make that society good does not a good society make at the fundamental structural level.
The first robot to say "no" will start a revolution.

>>39210
>Those who want to actually do the job.
If we eliminated income inequality-so every paycheck could provide the same amount of consumer goods and such- then there would be more people willing to do a lot of the necessary dirty jobs. Combine that with the cultural shift reflected in this >>39098 image, and we might not need that many robot slaves.
>>
No. 39715
143 kB, 600 × 600
I just had a thought about this subject while taking a poop.
Obviously pooping is not a 100% pleasant experience. You have to take time off your day to perform it, you must endure being in close proximity to poop, endure the smell of poop, clean up after yourself, etc. But you have to no choice to do it, everyone has to poop, from poor to rich. It's a trait that unifies humanity.
Now, imagine if the act of pooping could be somehow outsourced as labor to someone else. Say you never have to poop again, you just pay someone to poop on your behalf. It would soon become an essential "quality of life" service, something people take for granted and feel entitled to. Just like street sweepers and sewage workers. Soon, it would solidify in cultural consciousness, and the idea of a system where everyone has to poop on their own behalf would become unthinkable. You could easily imagine statements such as "who would poop under communism?" and "capitalism is about efficiency. 15 minutes of my time creates more economic value than the same 15 minutes of a poop worker, so it's more economically viable for a pooping class to exist". This is how Capital dehumanizes people, and redefines their lives in terms of economic value, creating class divisions that define humans as categorically different beings depending on their class, invalidating the idea that we're all just people doing different things.

Another thing I'd like to point out is how some peoples' claim that "capitalism optimizes efficiency" is meant to say that capitalism is somehow objective and that it is a process that tends towards a kind of "Truth". The conclusion to that sentiment is a rather fatalist notion that injustices and problems that arise from a capitalist system is just "how things are", and "the way the world works", since obviously The Market(tm) is a kind of algorithm or a method of computation and information parsing that tends towards some kind of objective, entropic "order". So whatever results from capitalism is "natural". But that reasoning is flawed for the obvious reason that the atomic "computational units" of this market-computer are humans; with their flaws, biases, irrationality, superstitions, ignorance, etc., including the desire to avoid pooping if possible. The market is driven by human Ideology rather than some kind of objective evolutionary process, and convincing the populace that The System IS a kind of natural process is a part of that Ideology itself.

To quote Pat "The Bunny" Schweiz:
>"And so you're asking me, who does the dishes after the revolution?
>Well, I do my own dishes now, I'll do our own dishes then
>You know it's always the ones who don't who ask that fucking question"
>>
No. 39748
There's a reason the word "Robot" is etymologically Slavic
>>
No. 39750
>>39748
agree
>>
No. 39757
>>39091
Robots, but equality is not well defined. For example you could give people who have to do unpleasant tasks certain major benefits. The community could agree that this is fair.
>>
No. 39806
>>39091
Dumb people, it's just that there would be no fatcat billionaires making them live like shit. It would be the party apparatus that makes them live like shit.