I've been thinking about how marxism might be a reasonable guide for how to make some pretty big life choices lately, and thought I'd share. There are three *broad* categories I'm placing work into at the moment: capital intensive, non-capital controlled capital intensive, and labour intensive. I'll explain each below, but the basic idea is that this is about capital accumulation and management. Most of it is intuitive, but I've found it interesting to frame it in a marxist way. *Capital intensive* jobs are fairly straightforward: we know that most big companies, be they banks, tech, large manufacturers etc, are both capital intensive, and capital controlled. By that, I mean they embody large amounts of human skill in their accrued capital, and that they are managed by the capitalist class. A car manufacturer, for instance, is an example of this, insofar as they'll have de-skilled their workforce to some extent by applying Taylorist principles and embodying some skills into equipment, to automate difficult or expensive tasks. Non-capital controlled capital intensive jobs are similar, requiring generally a larger organisation which has fixed assets or complicated enough operations that is controlled either by the state or a co-operative. It requires roughly the same skills to survive and isn't terribly interesting in and of itself, usually. Examples might be civil service departments. The last group is fairly interesting to me at the moment, and prompted this thought. The labour intensive group is things where there isn't really capital accumulation at all, and skilled labour is the main source of "value add". Skilled builders, craftspeople, anyone who can add value to a material or process simply because they're *good* at something, with only very simple tools. These kinds of jobs are comparatively rare, and probably the kind of thing luddites wanted to preserve. There is an accrual of skill and experience, but not capital. I've found this group interesting because some jobs that fit this description don't have to interact with accrued capital at all. **That last part is interesting because it begs the question of whether or not there is any mileage in seeking to "decapitalise" certain kinds of work. That's to say, successfully navigating life in a capitalist economy, while eschewing the use and accrual of capital at work.** The way I'm thinking about the above, it feels like we (as marxists) can choose to either invest ourselves in capital-adjacent work that might or might not be controlled by capitalists, or we can aim to work in decapitalised industries. The requirements are, I suspect, very different, and I wonder if the embedded values might be as well. Just a thought: I'd be keen to know what people think. It is a fresh thought, to me at least, that skilled decapitalised work might be a reasonable starting point in movement building. I suspect it is tacitly what Green minded people are up to, and although it does have a whiff of luddism, I wonder if there's a place for it.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Weirdly naive question when you have actual, existing socialism around the world to look at and learn from. Just saying.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
The first right listed in the European Convention on Human Rights is property. There is no corresponding right to food and shelter.
What human rights ought to be is a contestable thing: under capitalism we've put property (literally) at the top of the list. Much of our society is organised around this principle. What if we gave people the right to democracy in organisations that affect their lives? Their workplaces, schools, local hospitals, universities, even shops? The right to habitable shelter, food, and free healthcare? The right to meet their needs through the formation of associations like cooperatives?
Human rights have a dual purpose, insofar as they both express and enforce a social ideal. They're both cause and effect of hegemony, and they'll carry hegemonic values within them.
Plus my guess is that most of the people complaining about this are happy to lob big words around on the internet but have never once actually campaigned for the rights of anyone whose rights have been violated.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Consistently between 18C and 25C during the day, very little wind chill, moderate humidity. Some signs of drought elsewhere in the country but the river near me seems fine, probably thanks to a nature reserve.
This hasn't stopped everyone panic buying portable air conditioners and complaining about the heat.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Woah. Iceland? Svalbard?
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Handily devops/sysadmin communist reporting in if you want a hand :D
I'm curious about how places like Cuba do their economic planning and how it is executed on the ground. Does anyone kno of any materials that describe it in detail? English preferably..!
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Almost like perpetuating a system of privilege and patronage based on social position doesn't lead to the best outcomes. Crazy, I know.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Their "you use technology" thing is weird too. We're not Amish. We just want to end the domination of the world by capital, not get rid of all capital goods.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people can be so reflexively and unthinkingly wrong.
hkto 1y ago • 100%
Turns out I didn't see this reply at the time, but: yes! The focus on individuals blinds us to the processes. I've an interest in the splits that occurred that we're talking about here and I honestly have no idea what forces out there in the world could have led to them: the Great Man approach is blinding.
On that note.. any idea what a good not-Great Man book covers this kind of thing?
newleftreview.org
Just a long read about NATO. I didn't realise quite how grim it was until I read this. tl;Dr, vassalage with no easy exit path.
See title. I'd be interested to see someone like Rosa Luxembourg in the lineup. All women is good too but if there's a mix I'd like that. Not for anything important, just curious.
Anyone here care much about Yugoslavia? I'm pretty interested at the moment, namely because: * worker self management seems rad * pretty cool multiethnic state that balanced minority rights, regional autonomy, and party oversight pretty well * a bit like a red precursor of the EU * property law was radically different and separated nominal ownership (pretty much all the state) from use rights (enterprises etc) in basically the same way old English common land did * choosing industrial democracy over political democracy doesn't seem like a bad choice at all
Due to inflation, energy crisis, worsening pay and conditions, increasingly authoritarian right wing govts, the impending collapse of the NHS, higher education entry criteria choking the number of graduates, etc. I'm reasonably sure the final straw would be a currency crisis. A stable currency *feels* like imperial privilege. Has anything been written on this? The characteristics of imperial core countries, I mean. I'd be interested to know if there are any examples of countries that have ceased to be core countries that have been analysed through a Marxist lense.
hkto 2y ago • 100%
Same applies to the UK. It'd make a good dozen states, none of which could plausibly project themselves in the same way that the UK does today. Critical support for secessionists is a good move.
hkto 2y ago • 100%
All three of those require fuel. I don't think anybody could plausibly hope to win a war or revolution without it. So, maybe start with helping to unionise oil refineries and distribution networks? Or, hypothetically, let's say they ought to not be available to the state. Ahem.
hkto 3y ago • 100%
Yep, based. Anti-nato, anti-imperialist (including French neocolonialism in Africa AIUI), even anti-EU (which he's right in saying is deeply neolib). Lots of pro-worker policies. Not French but I vaguely follow this guy's progress.
Western sanctions on Russia are leading to trade being denominated in other currencies between eg, India and Russia. Iran and China are both in on this too. Aside from a general undermining of the US, what are the implications? As far as I can see, some would be: * The US ability to interfere with other countries' foreign currency reserves is severely limited (since those reserves don't need to be in dollars) * The US ability to print endless money might come under pressure, potentially endangering its ability to spend freely on its military * Financialisation and de-industrialisation bite harder as US financial services might become less useful and America has lost much of its advantage in actually making stuff. * Lessened capacity for the US to exert hegemony over other states via fiscal and monetary domination/coercion (a la gramsci) Is that stuff right? And what else is there? PS, sorry if this isn't quite the right community, I'm new here.