>What I'm proposing to those who ask what socialism is:
>
>
>The wage-system is based on selling labour power, making it a commodity
>which the workers sell to the boss. In exchange, the worker gives up
>ownership and control of the product of labour which he or she has
>produced during their hours of labour time. I think this is a rip off.
>Wages in no way come close to equaling the the wealth created over the
>time labour is employed. That social relation has to be broken down, at
>first by a movement based on shortening the work week and curbing petty
>authoritarian power trips which bosses bully workers into obeying. The
>whip they carry is the power they have been given, to dismiss/fire/layoff.
>Shortening the work week will not only free workers for more time to do
>with as they please. It will also shrink the labour power available for
>purchase at any given moment thus, putting upward pressure on wages. It
>will also strengthen labor's hand in the workplace in relation to hired
>wage-slave drivers aka, managment.
>
>In a saner set up, there should be no classes; but a free association of
>producers who democratically decide what to produce, within the bounds of
>living in harmony with the Earth. Whether labour vouchers might be used to
>keep track of the socially necessary labour time expended would be up to
>democratic vote. But essentially, if used, the formula would be four hours
>in gets you four hours of goods and services out of the social store of
>socially produced wealth.
>
>Hi-ho,
>Mike B)
sure. but people were doing something very different. they weren't speaking in abstract generalities, as you do here: shorter work week; no classes; producers who decide what to producer; labour vouchers; democratic vote.
but those who object will then ask for specific details, and then give you all kinds of reasons why your details aren't good enough because they don't consider some detail or other.
i have figured out in the past 6 weeks that i'm on the Caine and that I work for Captain Queeg. I was protected by two layers of mgmt before, and recently interacted with the guy one-to-one. I sat there the whole time wondering: who ate the strawberries and i'm glad i missed the rant about the duplicate key!
Queeg called me into his office, learning that I was unhappy with a reorg. I felt my skills were being wasted and made clear I was leaving for greener pastures as a consequence. Queeg didn't like that. Well, Queeg's direct report didn't like that and so he bugged Queeg to make things aright. As a friend predicted, the arighting would take the form of giving their number one workhorse more work. :)
essentially, the additional work was worth it to me: a bullet point on the resume i'll use to mutiny from the Caine. so I sat in Queeg's office listening to him describe a project that he wanted done swiftly. I was the one-broad army for the job. Alrighty then.
In the room was my boss and another guy, a peer to my boss, who runs the 'creative' part of our division. We all sat there and did what software peeps in the trenches do. We said, "no." Which is to say, while we all agreed that the project Queeg proposed was absolutely the right thing to do for the Caine, had been needed forever, we just weren't sure Queeg's plans for implementation made sense: not enough resources, not enough stakeholder support, the usual suspects.
I listened to Queeg and got alarmed when he said that, while the business stakeholders rilly rilly wanted this product, there were just many other things they were committed to, they couldn't change their course. So we'd squeeze this other project in with no marketing, no business input. We'd wing it and I'd be winging it, from conception to execution. Alrighty then.
but this is alarming because, with no support from business stakeholders, you often have a dog on your hands. No marketing ahead of time? dog. No rah rah siss boom bah from stakeholders. Dog. No antipation and excitement? Dog. No training of sales staff. Dog. No way to "sell" the product since it doesn't generate revenue in a direct way. Dog.
I told Queeg that while I agreed we needed the product, I didn't want to be associated with a dog.
Queeg fended off my concerns, prepared for them.
Then I said, So who is going to support this product when I'm done? Do we have a plan for who will be responsible for fixing bugs? For the next iteration of new features? We're short staffed as it is.
Queeg was stumped. No answer. No surprise there. It's a question that's never answered in this organization and often rarely answered in any organization.
But what Queeg did was show me a side of him that made me realize that my plan to jump ship was sound. Queeg made it clear that what he preferred were projects where everyone said Yes, and no one said No. People who said No were barriers to getting shit done. They were immobilized by all the reasons why it wasn't possible.
Now, earning a paycheck with Queeg at the helm is not a lot of fun. I realized at that moment why nearly everything we do is fucked. Queeg refused to countenance anyone who says No. So what they do is say Yes, and then implement the No. As a consequence, there is a scaffolding of subterfuge and reality construction constantly going on, where you see management under Queeg nodding yes to Queeg while management figures out ways to proceed as if they're saying No. It's really quite fascinating. For one colleague, though, it's quite maddening. Not privy to the way Queeg coerces yeses out of his direct reports, our managers, he totally confused. They're saying yes to Queeg but in day-to-day operations and in their dealings with us workerbees, management is leading us to say no.
So, what's interesting is that, in a business environment, working for Queeg and the business Queeg runs means you and it are fucked with a football bat.
but the funny thing is, outside a business environment, when we're talking about getting social movement shit down, those constant nos from the peanut gallery are immobilizing. they do stop people from doing anything at all. People become like Max Weber, sitting by a window in an asylum picking at his fingernails, distraught about icy dark future he envisions.
and yet the fact is, this product will be made. and it will be made, not because Queeg wants it made, but because the rest of us making it -- the workers -- know it needs to be made. we believe that it's for the greater good -- yes, i know you're laughing at that - me too. :)
i happen to think this is partly why people are so often clueless as to how to get shit done in a social movement context. their entire work day, 8 hours a day, is devoted to the cwazee described above. in their struggles with management, they all conspire to say No in one form or another. this is part of the social relations of production that Marx talked about. these social relations shape how we think 8 hours a day and it spills over into the rest of our lives. people come to treat their involvement in social movements as if it's like work, and as such, they come prepared to say no, can't be done.
blathering,
shag