9 Feb 2024 6:35 am
(PART II OF IV)
I wrote: "I've not referred to any dependencies and contingencies except that establishing a socialist society depends upon the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of production in its totality."
Cannonpointer's reaction: "That's what we need: the mop jockey voting on policy in a voice equal to the technocrats and engineers. What could go wrong?"
A few days ago, in response to a question by Cannonpointer about "how to fix a bridge" in a socialist society, I wrote, "I imagine it would be a combined effort by the transportation and construction industries, as roughly indicated by the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf . In keeping with that, I don't think "mop jockeys" would vote relative to anything other than what janitors to elect to positions of authority, assuming that janitorial services hadn't yet been automated. Nor do I think engineers would vote on anything other than which engineers to elect to positions of authority in their respective engineering departments. If Cannonpointer is under the assumption that "mop jockeys" would vote on, say, which type of mops to use, he's mistaken. Their votes would likely only concern which "mop jockeys" would be in charge of the other "mop jockeys" in their facility. To promote the notion that every worker in a socialist society or every worker in "the construction industry" would vote on whether to repair a bridge is thoughtless and a red herring intended to deceive. Maybe Cannonpointer hasn't bothered to read the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism (SIU) chart, which wouldn't surprise me. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
Yes, such a structure would be necessarily hierarchical. But, as I noted in a previous post, it would be a "gentle hierarchy," one rooted in democratized workplaces complete with elected supervisors who would be subject to immediate recall upon a majority vote of those who elected them. So, too, would supervisors serve for set durations and then return to their previous jobs upon completing their terms to avoid entrenchment and alienation.
I wrote: "I haven't claimed that German workers were unhappy during the Nazis' rule. In response to, I believe, LowIQTrash, I wrote something to the effect that a majority of Germany's workers were happy with Hitler, at least until they began to be bombed to death."
Cannonpointer: "That's a load of BS. You claimed that National Socialism accomplished its miraculous results by putting the whip to the backs of workers."
Yes, of course, National "Socialism" accomplished its "miraculous" results on the backs of workers, as do all capitalist economies. But, just as millions of economically exploited American workers love such people as Joe Biden and Donald Trump despite their overseeing American capitalism, many German workers loved Hitler despite being abused by him. Then again, the creepy fact that Cannonpointer, LowIQTrash, and many others here are admirers of Hitler often makes rational conversion difficult to impossible.
Cannonpointer: "You WISH that giving the janitor an equal voice with the engineer will - on that glorious day - result in all of the blah blah end of the bourgeoisie bla bla."
There it is again. But, again, nothing I've written would suggest giving "the janitor an equal voice with the engineer." (See this post's third paragraph.) Continued in PART III
http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
(END OF PART II)