Back to the factories?

[poster342002]

One thing that used to happen but the neo libs wouldnt like was the large concentration of organised labour that manufacturing bought there used to be factories with literally thousand of workers

Indeed - this was pretty mich the point I made earlier on. It's really only these workers who have the power to force concessions from the ruling class. The white-collar industries have proved themselves incapable (and often unwilling due to the individualised, corporate-ladderclimbing mindset) of organising like this. Sad, but true.

 

[nadia]

"For example, there are no manufacturers of windfarm equipment based in the UK, despite it being a huge growth area and stated govt policy to switch to wind - most of the generators and arms come from Germany and Denmark. Same goes for solar and tidal stuff - all the kit gets made by German engineering companies who employ maybe 50-200 skilled manufacturing personnel. "

Thats not actually true, Vestas admittedly a Danish company produce wind turbine blades on the Isle of Wight

 

[mk12]

Thing is, if there were a revolution, most w/c jobs would go anyway - all that unecessary manufacturing and primatry extraction to start with...

How do you work that one out?

 

[shagnasty]

Sharps factory in wales that used to make video recorders went over to manufacturing solar panels i don't know if that is still the case

 

[kyser_soze]

How do you work that one out?

What, outside of manufacturing to provide social essentials (e.g. medical equipment), is really actually necessary and not a luxury? Cars, PCs, TVs etc, all that stuff is unecessary, and it would all go following a revolution that sought as one of it's aims to ween people away from consumerism. While TC is right in that primary extraction doesn't happen in the UK any more, what about all the TV assembly plants - they'd go, since what they produce is a luxury item, environmentally wasteful and of no realy social use - certainly a nationalised TV assembly industry would be maybe a couple of plants nationwide.

That is, of course, if the revolution delivers on any kind of environmental aims. What's funny of course is how the socialists and TU movement would have dealt with the greens if the current concern for the environment had happened in the 60s when mining, manufacturing etc were big - because ultimately they'd all have to close or be substantially cut back to meet socially relevant and useful environmental concerns. Same applies across the world now, just not in the UK - all those w/c heroes working in the car industry, for example, are simply working in an industry that is an environmental disaster area...

 

[DownwardDog]

What, outside of manufacturing to provide social essentials (e.g. medical equipment), is really actually necessary and not a luxury? Cars, PCs, TVs etc, all that stuff is unecessary, and it would all go following a revolution that sought as one of it's aims to ween people away from consumerism. .

Do you not think a revolution on these terms is going to be a pretty tough sell? I think a revolution can only succeed if you appeal to people's greed and promise them a superabundance of free Mac Book Pros and Gallardo Spyders.

 

[poster342002]

Do you not think a revolution on these terms is going to be a pretty tough sell?

Indeed. A revolution has to promise (and deliver) to make ordinary people's lives better than they currently are rather than worse.

 

[mk12]

Cars, PCs, TVs etc, all that stuff is unecessary, and it would all go following a revolution that sought as one of it's aims to ween people away from consumerism.

I don't want any part in your revolution thanks very much.

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't want any part in your revolution thanks very much.

Ah, so you think a socialist future would be one of social equality with rampant consumerism do you?

 

[mk12]

Wanting a TV, a car, and a computer isn't necessarily "consumerist". These are things which have been invented, which improve people's lives and make them easier. Just because they are produced for a profit, doesn't mean they should be opposed.

Socialism is surely about USING what capitalism has produced, for the benefit of all?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well cars only benefit the individual, while simulataneously poisoning the earth for everyone else, and by and large their function can be reproduced via means of public transport, even if that means a small number of cabs are retained as some kind of 'to the door' scheme for public transport.

TVs today are built with 3-5 years obselesence built in - it's entirely possibly to make a TV that lasts 10 or 20 years, not to mention the continual 'upgrading' of capitalist TV companies, who endlessly reproduce products with little differentiation technologically. So all that can go. Same goes for a PC - providing you've got the right motherboard and form factor (all things that can be standardised) there's no reason for anyone to need to buy a new box ever again, merely replace/upgrade componentry as and when required - and seriously, where's the social need or requirement for annually upgraded graphics cards and processors for home use, or indeed for business use? There isn't one, so again the mass production of PCs and associated componentry wouldn't be required.

If socialism is about stuff for the benefit of all it should be directing human resources away from producing fripperies and direct it to helping other people - and lets face it, given that pretty much every specialised business sector under capitalism will be gone and replaced with only things essential and only companies run by worker's councils, and you're pretty much there.

But hey, people will occupy themselves with more worthwhile activities that watching crap on TV or posting shite on the internet, they'll be doing stuff thats 'worthwhile' in both social and individual lives.

 

[elbows]

Computers and the internet are an important piece of the jigsaw for future sustainability. Granted the manufacture and use of computers uses resources, but not as much as driving. Digital growth may be one of the few growths still available in future. Staying at home and buying entertainment digitally, without physical media or physical transportation, seems at least one way to slowly ween people off their consumerism without suddenly moving to a world without this stuff, which would be a gap too big to fill with highminded rhetoric.

 

[mk12]

cars only benefit the individual

Yeah, and? It helps me get to work quicker. Not everyone wants to go on a bus or a train. I don't disagree that cars could be made more environmentally friendly, but just because it's not "communal" doesn't make it bad. People like privacy.

TVs today are built with 3-5 years obselesence built in - it's entirely possibly to make a TV that lasts 10 or 20 years

Good, i'd support making tvs which have a longer life. How you go from this criticism to "tvs can go" I don't know.

Same goes for a PC - providing you've got the right motherboard and form factor (all things that can be standardised) there's no reason for anyone to need to buy a new box ever again

Things break, people want faster computers, more options, better picture quality, improved internet connection...

eriously, where's the social need or requirement for annually upgraded graphics cards

A large chunk of the population enjoy playing computer games. Obviously they will want faster and better games in the future. That may not be a "social need", but again, so what?

But hey, people will occupy themselves with more worthwhile activities that watching crap on TV or posting shite on the internet, they'll be doing stuff thats 'worthwhile' in both social and individual lives.

People enjoy watching tv and going on the internet. What's your problem with that?

It seems you want to deny people the right to enjoy themselves, simply because these things aren't "socially useful". The only way you could manage that type of system is through an oppressive state.

 

[DownwardDog]

But hey, people will occupy themselves with more worthwhile activities that watching crap on TV or posting shite on the internet, they'll be doing stuff thats 'worthwhile' in both social and individual lives.

Like what? It's not going to be more meetings is it?

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't want to deny people anything, altho your definitions of what people do to enjoy themselves seem to be sadly limited! I'm simply pointing out that a socialist society, or at least a working one, won't be simply a consumerist state without the inequality of capital, it will be fundamentally different, and that manufacturing of consumer goods will change dramatically.

people want faster computers, more options, better picture quality, improved internet connection

Only because you're constantly told that you need them by the companies that sell the products. I find your comments quite funny TBH - you've clearly never, ever really thought about what the implications of socialism/communism would be in terms of the changes they'd make to society.

 

[kyser_soze]

Like what? It's not going to be more meetings is it?

I don't know - whittling, writing bad poetry...I had a vision of a future non-cap society where there's nothing left on TV but talent shows covering every conceivable concept of artisitic output since once you remove most uneccesary work, and take into account the co-commitant drops in crime, mental health issues, the only things left to do will be public works (i.e. all industry as well as infrastructure maintainance), healthcare and the arts.

 

[mk12]

I simply don't see anything wrong with technological progress. Capitalism has stimulated technological progress for the pursuit of profit. Whilst I oppose this system, I think technological progress should continue (and speed up!) under an alternative system. It seems you want to put a break on all of this because you think people are interested in new and better things because they are TOLD they should. I think that's a very one-sided view.

DVDs are better than VHS - they have better picture quality, faster loading, a skip option.... Is this a fact, or is it simply me being brainwashed by DVD companies into believing this?

 

[mk12]

I don't know - whittling, writing bad poetry...I had a vision of a future non-cap society where there's nothing left on TV but talent shows covering every conceivable concept of artisitic output since once you remove most uneccesary work, and take into account the co-commitant drops in crime, mental health issues, the only things left to do will be public works (i.e. all industry as well as infrastructure maintainance), healthcare and the arts.

That sounds shit - I want to watch The Wire and The Sopranos.

 

[kyser_soze]

I simply don't see anything wrong with technological progress. Capitalism has stimulated technological progress for the pursuit of profit. Whilst I oppose this system, I think technological progress should continue (and speed up!) under an alternative system. It seems you want to put a break on all of this because you think people are interested in new and better things because they are TOLD they should. I think that's a very one-sided view.

DVDs are better than VHS - they have better picture quality, faster loading, a skip option.... Is this a fact, or is it simply me being brainwashed by DVD companies into believing this?

Why did you 'need' VHS in the first place? You didn't, the 'need' was created by advertising. Same goes for DVD, BLuRay and so on.

I think you need to think more clearly about your motivations for wanting anything, and how those motivations would be substantially different in a society that wasn't focussed around creating 'needs' for you to buy product X or service Y...

 

[mk12]

Why did you 'need' VHS in the first place? You didn't, the 'need' was created by advertising.

Again, you think we should only have things we NEED. Why did we NEED washing machines? We should still us a mangle. Why did we NEED a shower? Just have a bath. Why did we NEED electricity? Just light some candles...

Like it or not, despite the fact these products were sold by capitalist companies to make a profit, they improve our lives and make things easier for us. All we need to do is take away the profit motive, not the actual product itself.

Your idea of socialism sounds like Orwell's vision in 1984.

 

[DownwardDog]

Like it or not, despite the fact these products were sold by capitalist companies to make a profit, they improve our lives and make things easier for us. All we need to do is take away the profit motive, not the actual product itself.

You need to stop having these counter-revolutionary thoughts and concentrate on your fucking whittling. It's going to be great after the revolution.

She's got everything she NEEDS.

 

[kyser_soze]

Not really - in my 'vision' of socialism people wouldn't be tied by the false desires created by advertising, so far from it being a mean and degraded existence like 1984 - people would be freed from the capitalist created need to own ever better, ever more 'useful' product.

I'd also ask, in what real way does owning a DVD player improve someone's life? Does it make them healthier, improve their mind, their intellect or some other part of their person? No, what it does is mean they get to re-buy all the films they've collected on VHS, and eventually will have to change again for BluRay. Yes they will get enjoyment from watching the films, but ulimately they aren't improving their lives, just buying a better means of reproducing someone elses artistic endeavour...

 

[mk12]

ever better, ever more 'useful' product.

Cars, kettles, computers, the internet, tvs, washing machines, ipods, cd players, dishwashers, showers, mobile phones etc etc are useful.

I'd also ask, in what real way does owning a DVD player improve someone's life? Does it make them healthier, improve their mind, their intellect or some other part of their person?

It allows people to watch a film or television programme in the comfort of their own home. If that's what people enjoy doing, then it improves their life.

"Improve someone's life" doesn't only mean "make someone healthier" or "improve their mind". Doing things you enjoy improves your life.

 

[kyser_soze]

You're really, really not getting this are you?

 

[_angel_]

If the internet is so unnecessary why does Kyser spend so much time on it?

 

[DownwardDog]

I'd also ask, in what real way does owning a DVD player improve someone's life? Does it make them healthier, improve their mind, their intellect or some other part of their person? No, what it does is mean they get to re-buy all the films they've collected on VHS, and eventually will have to change again for BluRay. Yes they will get enjoyment from watching the films, but ulimately they aren't improving their lives, just buying a better means of reproducing someone elses artistic endeavour...

But you said all we'll be doing is public works, healthcare and the arts. After I've painted a park bench and removed my neighbour's ingrowing toenail can't I watch a delightful Will Ferrell comedy? How is that different from watching the poetry talent show on TV you described?

 

[mk12]

What is "useful" about Anchorman?

 

[mk12]

You're really, really not getting this are you?

You mean, I disagree with your vision of a 1984 type society? Yes, yes I do.

 

[kyser_soze]

You mean, I disagree with your vision of a 1984 type society? Yes, yes I do.

Well the fact that you're talking about 1984 really shows you're not getting it!

You do realise I don't actually support what I'm saying, just attempting to point out to you that, like the little anakids I've met that think that an anarchy would mean they can have sqaut parties endlessly and fuck anyone else, you seem to be labouring under the impression that socialism would be a consumerist society without capitalists, which it wouldn't be.

 

[mk12]

Socialist society (if we ever achieve it) will be whatever the people want it to be. And I am willing to put a bet on the fact people will want all the items we've been discussing.

The only way to get a society which you envision would be through a powerful state suppressing people's wants and desires.