How do you control specialization?

This is directed at communists, not socialists.
Help me with my ignorance friends as I can not comprehend this.

If I were to ask you, who is the better fisherman, the man who spends all day fishing or the man who fishes for a hobby, no doubt you would say the man who spends all day fishing because he has specialized in fishing.

And yet, if I were to ask you, who is the better leader, the man who has specialized in organizing other men, or the fisherman, you say the fisherman.

This is an oversimplification, but it keeps coming up time and again. You say it's wonderful that a person specializes in fishing, or farming, or construction, or labor, but if a person specialized in leading and organizing fishers, or farmers, or builders, they are the evil oppressor. I can't come to understand how you can make such an assertion.

If i'm wrong in my interpretation, please explain to me why.

Attached: 76f2c6556bdf80631b9bd19ff16dc8c0_confused-man-clipart-confused-guy-clipart_244-324[1].png (244x324, 1.39K)

No way to tell. I would hope the former catches more fish than the latter.

Its not so much as an oversimplification as retardation, and also youre wrong.

What is better? We can measure the "goodness" of a fisherman by sheer catch size, but they might just granadefish and destroy reefs. Are they better? What if the hobbyist fisherman is much better at fishing but does not like doing so? Specialising in something or getting paid for something doesnt make someone good at something.

And what makes you think being specialised in organising means you are a good leader? Organising people and being a good leader are not the same.

Lastly, communist do not say "its good if people specialise". In fact, most communists including marx envision a future where we abandon this hyperspecialisation. Its the practice of atomizing people and reducing them to cogs in a machine, easy to replace, to rob them of their humanity. A human ought not to be just a farmer his whole life, or just a fisherman. Forcing this onto people robs them of the fullness that life offers. Specialisation is fucking shit, and if you've ever worked a day in your life you know that someone who is specialised in something can be a fucking dipshit in their field and an amateur could do much better than them.

Either youre just a stupid right winger who wants to see if you can bait lefties into defending your stupid assertion, or youre just retarded.

Tell me, who can organise and lead a group of fisherman the best, mitigate their disputes, coordinate them efficiently, make rational decisions about fishing and be respected and respect the fishermen? A fisherman or a business student?

I'm not sure what you're implying.


It seems you've made a strange lapse of reason here. Please elaborate what you were trying to say.

If I had to guess, you are implying that Capitalism and wage labour equals organizing labour. Well, it is wrong. You might as well use your logic to justify slavery. Indeed, slaver merely specialises in leading, any slave could be a slaver if only he would demonstrate and practice the essential skills to be one.

The oppressor class Marx talks about are all organizers, or at least that is what I took away from it.
The bourgeoisie the communists condemn all came to power by use of organization. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm asking, not making assertions here.

Well, the logic isn't the one used by Marx.

In feudalism, military commanders/generals were the ruling class, the oppressors and exploiters of everyone else. Abolition of Feudalism did not eliminate officers. Same is applied to transition from capitalism.

The ability to catch fish. But let's not argue the metaphor, I only used that because I'm having trouble putting into words my thoughts.

A lot of what you said questions the nature of "good" and we could take about that, but I don't really want to have that conversation in this thread.

Ah ok, this is what I was unclear on. That makes a lot more sense.

Neither, Iv put forward my own assertions so that they may be proven right or wrong, so that I may gain knowledge in both cases.

I would be inclined to say a business student, but only one who has specialized heavily into the fishing industry.

Attached: cf2cec201c1a4ac81338dcc4c0c6b973[1].jpg (425x291, 30.93K)

I am, why is that wrong?

I would agree with this.>If I had to guess, you are implying that Capitalism and wage labour equals organizing labour.


I would argue that under feudalism the church was the ruling class, and you had lower degrees of power from there.

Do you think landlords are good at being landlords and the reason that somebody isn't a landlord is that they don't have the talent to be a proper landlord and they lost in some landlord competition?

Yes. t.landlord


Yes.

No. Most people are not landlords because they are incapable of saving money. You only need around 5% of the base price of a home in order to get a loan, meaning if you save up $10,000, you can buy a $200,000 home, put it up for rent, and now you are a landlord.

every post you make just shows everyone further than you're pulling shit out of your ass and have never read a word of marx you absolute brainlet

fucking kill yourself you degenerate parasite
i hope you die painfully and soon

Iv read marx, and many others. Though marx is painfully autistic at points, especially about the fucking linen.


Heh, ok.

You sound like the "trees are capitalist" faggot from yesterday. If you actually are, kill yourself. Anyway here's the answer:

We don't.

/threading my own post.

jesus christ you have no idea what political economy is concerned with do you? Everyone can tell you haven't read marx, or any other economist for that matter. Stop embarrassing yourself.

This is what I mean though.
I worked a Mcjob for 4 years while in school. Saved up money. Bought and flipped a house. Used that money to buy more property, now my job is taking care of my properties.
Why am I evil?
Why do you all want to kill me?

Maybe if you moved from Luxembourg to Romania lmao

I see that now thanks to the other user.


When the emperor is on his knees, in the snow, for three days, begging for forgiveness from the pope, the church is more powerful then the king.

I don't think you have red Marx. Since all you have said is, land owners bad, YOU HAVENT READ MARX!

USA. Deep south. Like I said, you only need 5%, not the full amount to buy land.

You're not evil, you're just a part of the problem. Where I come from, owning multiple properties will likely give you a monthly income far higher than the average salary. Further, investing in the housing market becomes more profitable than investing in production, raising the cost of rent for everyone, making it especially hard for young people to enter the housing market without help from their parents.
The welfare state gives every student a grant each month, which has to be adjusted for cost of rent. The result is that 2/3 of my monthly grant goes straight into the pockets of the landlord, for a cramped 5-man apartment.

Everyone's gotta eat and that's understandable, but property sharks are awful. It's not them that's the ultimate issue, though. The problem is the system that incentivises this.

And there is it. Prep the guillotine, lads.

imagine believing this

It actually doesn't, if they were all paid off sure, but as it stands now i'm making 15-20k annually, sometimes less when repairs are needed. What it does do is give me a lot more free time, and that's what I value. I spend very little.

This is up for debate. Production in the US is a fools errand thanks to China. The housing market has never been more profitable then the commercial market though, commercial real estate is what you go into for the big money.

All depends on location. This is more of an overpopulation problem. You can't just keep cramming more and more people into cities and not expect problems like this to come up.

And it goes right from the landlords pocket into the pocket of the banks, and the government.


Imagine not believing this.

you are not a landlord, you are working for the bank, sucker.

I know, that's why I'm asking about your alternative ideas, and you all just want to kill me. :\

Why don't you just sit back and not try to argue our points, but instead ask inquiring questions rather than going "achtually commies, let me tell you the mainstream narrative you've heard a trillion times before"
You come here as a literal class enemy of the workers and expect us to behave. We spend most of our waking hours agitating for a revolt against your class.
There can certainly be progressive elements within the bourgeoisie, and we will obviously welcome a sincere communist regardless of socioeconomic status, but you coming here without your nose in the dirt is infuriating.

you should have posted this in the QTDDTOT thread.

Ideally a promising fisherman becomes specialized in leading the collective fishing industry. If the fishers tire of him they can elect to elevate another one of their peers. You can teach the technical aspects of management, and in any big enough pool of proletarians you will have naturally talented leaders that can be relied upon.

Then you read him wrong. Relation to the MOP defines a class, not management of people.

This is your mind on Americanism.

Attached: kill all landlords.webm (320x240, 5.16M)

Don't mean to derail your thread but communists ARE socialists

Attached: classicide.jpg (540x519, 67.02K)

You have mixed up two positions that are independent but can be done by the same person. A capitalist is by definition a person who owns means of production. An organizer as you call him or manager is a person that oversees production, investment etc.

We do not have any problem with the later. In socialism there will be managers.
The problem is that there's people who own the means of production, earn profit and manipulate the whole system for their benefits, screwing the working class.

Owning capital is not exactly the same as professionally managing workers, if that's what your getting at
In communism, leadership over a particular project would have to arise organically out of the people working on the project. If someone specializes in that role and the other people in the project know that and respect him, he'd be put in charge the same way the engineer would naturally be put in charge of engineering. In communism people are doing the work for it's own sake, so there's no reason not to put the best person in the best position. If there's disagreement, you vote or have the elected leader decide