In a conversation with AfD leader Alice Weidel on X, Musk concurred with her assertion that Adolf Hitler was a communist and pushed disinformation about migrants coming into the US.
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.
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.
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.
Marxists simply claim that the USSR was the world’s first Socialist state
Only according to Marx’ definition so that’s a nothingburger.
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.
…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.
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
Plenty of states who did that without turning into dictatorships and maybe ask the Ukrainians about famine and who caused it.
democratized the economy,
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.
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
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.
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.
OSHA has power because it is punishable to not do what they say, they have authority.
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.
“The whole working gang is interested in production. The program for next month is discussed with all of us. The foreman calls a meeting and tells us that the administration wants us to put out 3,000 milling tools next month. How shall we do it? We discuss in detail; each of us says what he can do. It all adds up to 4,000. So the foreman goes to the administration and raises the plan to 4,000. […]
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.
https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/this-soviet-world/