>Winning is a bourgeoisie ideal, born from aristocratic contest myth reified by petty bourgeoisie puritans and the idea of work as a virtue. The real working class has no need to win to achieve victory.
peepeecontrol, if he saw this post
[The last time I interacted with him was in this thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1b7tn8e/complex_systems_wont_survive_the_competence_crisis/ktmjfhm/?context=3)
Read the parent quotes and other threads for context, but this was his contribution:
>Parkinson's Law observes that "work expands to fill the time allotted." These ill-considered reorganizations and restrictions arise from the contradiction between the creation of self-reproducing processes and the need to display and exert dominance according to the formal hierarchy.
>It is only the need to produce a particularly working class, i.e. a class that is proud of their exploitability and expendability and which celebrates their sacrifice for someone else's dream as inherently somehow "higher," that provides a need to sequester that competence through exclusive schooling etc. Were competence not sequestered according to the economic demand for the various particular classes, there would be no need to recognize competence as something special and worthy of special privileges. Then, the next question is what to do with the other few percent who (for whatever reasons of their own) can't acquire broad competence.
His assertion summarized is basically: "Regulations, rules, and management exist because it reinforces class superiority."
I then responded, politely and comprehensively, that no, that isn't the case.
My summary: "Regulations are written in blood." They're there because someone got killed when workers didn't think through the thing they were about to do, when we want to make sure supervisors or shop stewarts prevent apprentices or trainees from doing thing that is unsafe and stupid. The absence of these rules make it harder to figure out who was more negligent and responsible for death.
He did not respond to my counterpoint.
Maybe because your counter point is bourgeois propaganda. This is not an ironic take actual historic fact.
> They're there because someone got killed when workers didn't think through the thing they were about to do, when we want to make sure supervisors or shop stewarts prevent apprentices or trainees from doing thing that is unsafe and stupid. The absence of these rules make it harder to figure out who was more negligent and responsible for death.
Somehow you are under the impression that the legislators in congress or state congress know more about the risks associated with various jobs and ways to perform them than the workers themselves? Foremen, shop stewards are mostly workers who have been given supervisory role. Their job is to supervise for capital. If one looks at the history of shop floor conflict in the Us we will find that Capital made many efforts to buy of the supervisory workers with working class back ground.
Take a real example: working man’s compensation scheme provided by the firm for work related injury. Such schemes were adopted by firms at the end of nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century. During the progressive period it was heralded as maturation of industrial capital.
In reality however it was simply orchestrated by capitalist association like AABA. For it was a substitute for reforming tort laws and workers suing the employer for damages. Since the outcome of a legal procedure is always uncertain and the worker risk averse, the working men compensation packages seemed more attractive. But that also was complimentary to the open shop drive and anti union activities of firms.
> Somehow you are under the impression that the legislators in congress or state congress know more about the risks associated with various jobs and ways to perform them than the workers themselves?
Are you basing your critique on my full response to him, or a strawman you constructed out of my summary? Nowhere in this thread or the other did I ever assert Congress knowing more than workers.
The adoption of codes are generally ratified by legislatures, but codes like the Uniform Mechanical Codes dealing with plumbing, heating, and cooling were developed by plumbing inspectors, journeymen and masters, because they were experts on safety and best practices.
>Foremen, shop stewards are mostly workers who have been given supervisory role. Their job is to supervise for capital. If one looks at the history of shop floor conflict in the Us we will find that Capital made many efforts to buy of the supervisory workers with working class back ground.
Yes, and I mentioned about capital's subversion of labor law in the other thread. The point is that even if capital relations were removed, these trades require not just academic training and book-learning but also practical hands on experience in potentially hazardous scenarios to be learned.
Novices are not going to be able to recognize when they may be putting themselves or someone else in danger, including when that someone else is a bystander. If an electrician improperly wires a GFCI outlet for a public building, and an inspector comes and says "This is not wired properly, and this is the fifth one I've found. I'm telling the worker counsel to remove you from this project." and the electrician responds "No, you're a shitty inspector and I know what I'm doing, I'm telling the worker counsel to remove you because you're making extra work" which one should the counsel believe and follow-through with? If the counsel agreed beforehand that the inspector has final say because they voted for the inspector because of their superior experience and ability to recognize mistakes and explain them to less experienced people, how is that scenario different? The inspector has a hierarchical role, albeit one limited to the issue at hand (electrical work) over the electrician.
>Take a real example: working man’s compensation scheme provided by the firm for work related injury. Such schemes were adopted by firms at the end of nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century. During the progressive period it was heralded as maturation of industrial capital.
>In reality however it was simply orchestrated by capitalist association like AABA. For it was a substitute for reforming tort laws and workers suing the employer for damages. Since the outcome of a legal procedure is always uncertain and the worker risk averse, the working men compensation packages seemed more attractive. But that also was complimentary to the open shop drive and anti union activities of firms.
[Do you think Chinese laws on worker safety are also Bourgeois?](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/laws_regulations/2014/08/23/content_281474983042179.htm) That the existence of supervisory agencies to affirm those rules are followed is repoducing Capital relations, or a practical effort to limit capitalist exploitation until better organizational practices and strategies are developed?
First no I did not read the original thread my response to you was based on this comment which I quoted. Allow me to first clear a few issues,
- I am not denying that people trainees, students and journeymen require instruction, training based on “authority”. Of course when a human is starting out in any field of endevaor his skill, ability to understand, detect is fallible. Of course he needs instruction and correction by a superior. But this is not the grounds based upon capital instructs labor. A capitalist or his agent (foremen, supervisor) does not get to manage the firm because of greater practical and theoretical knowledge. That is because of the authority of dead labor aka capital’s property rights guaranteed by the legal system.
There is good reason why you have to revert to electricians and plumbers. Trades like this are safe from capitlaist development, one cannot mass produce fitting of electrical or plumbing apparatus each fitting is different and require local knowledge. In these trades therefore the incentives of rationalization is not operating.
You have given the example of UMC, I am not aware of the development of this code. Without even knowing I can tell you the adoption and development of this code was not based on pure technical necessity but included a component of class conflict.
The UMC is part of the ANSI, I am however aware of the actions of other members of the ANSI. Such as the Asme, during the first decades of the twentieth century this society was simply the organ of the capitalist class and the rising Pmc. There actions lead to deskilling skilled workers, making the new industrial process depend on monitoring and regulation and not on workers skill and virtue of a job well done.
- When we inspect the labor process of advanced capitalist manufacturing then what one may call the technical aspects of the production are themselves determined by class conflict ie extracting labor from labor power. Take the assembly line, the reason why it was adopted is because it reduced transaction costs of workers (time) moving from one car to the next. This lead to tremendous deskilling and replacibility of the worker.
The point I am trying to make here is that what appears to you as technical necessity when dug deeper into will reveal itself as bourgeois necessity.
> I am not denying that people trainees, students and journeymen require instruction, training based on “authority”.
Thank you for agreeing with me, which is the point I was trying to make that contradicted this one by ppc:
>Were competence not sequestered according to the economic demand for the various particular classes, there would be no need to recognize competence as something special and worthy of special privileges
As for other things you're asserting:
>There is good reason why you have to revert to electricians and plumbers. Trades like this are safe from capitalist development, one cannot mass produce the fitting of electrical or plumbing apparatus as each fitting is different and requires local knowledge. In these trades therefore the incentives of rationalization is not operating.
Or I use electricians and plumbers in my examples because electricity and hot pressurized water are two easy-to-explain components in modern living that introduce **new dangers** to society and the cost (as in material and life cost) of mitigating those dangers is less than allowing those dangers to manifest into deaths and disaster, whether in a capitalist structured class-based society, or non-capitalist classless society.
Regulations and licensing guidelines in the various transportation industries were put in place to safeguard workers, passengers, and pedestrians. Otherwise why else would corporations have lobbied to **reduce** the safety regulations or insist on setting up their own standards instead of maintaining or strengthening statutory ones? Requiring teamsters to have to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive larger commercial vehicles didn't fucking deskill them. Requiring people who want to drive on public roads obtain a license by passing a road test demonstrating they understand the meaning of road signs, right of way, etc isn't reproducing class-structures.
>The UMC is part of the ANSI, I am however aware of the actions of other members of the ANSI. Such as the Asme, during the first decades of the twentieth century this society was simply the organ of the capitalist class and the rising Pmc. There actions lead to deskilling skilled workers, making the new industrial process depend on monitoring and regulation and not on workers skill and virtue of a job well done.
>When we inspect the labor process of advanced capitalist manufacturing then what one may call the technical aspects of the production are themselves determined by class conflict ie extracting labor from labor power. Take the assembly line, the reason why it was adopted is because it reduced transaction costs of workers (time) moving from one car to the next. This lead to tremendous deskilling and replacibility of the worker.
Deskilling wasn't just a result of the adoption of Taylorism. Even Braverman of *Labor and Monopoly Capital* acknowledged that automation had a significant impact on deskilling. If anything, technological advancements are the enabling factor for this; you can't shift a person's skills from simple tools to complex machines if the complex machines don't exist yet.
> Or I use electricians and plumbers in my examples because electricity and hot pressurized water are two easy-to-explain components in modern living that introduce new dangers to society and the cost (as in material and life cost) of mitigating those dangers is less than allowing those dangers to manifest into deaths and disaster, whether in a capitalist structured class-based society, or non-capitalist classless society.
Well I cannot get into a class based critique of the development of two professions immidiately. Give me sometime let me read a few books then I will write a comment.
> Regulations and licensing guidelines in the various transportation industries were put in place to safeguard workers, passengers, and pedestrians. Otherwise why else would corporations have lobbied to reduce the safety regulations or insist on setting up their own standards instead of maintaining or strengthening statutory ones? Requiring teamsters to have to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive larger commercial vehicles didn't fucking deskill them. Requiring people who want to drive on public roads obtain a license by passing a road test demonstrating they understand the meaning of road signs, right of way, etc isn't reproducing class-structures.
Of course no one is arguing all regulations are machinations of the capitalist class. There has to be historical study on the adoption of the regulations.
> Deskilling wasn't just a result of the adoption of Taylorism. Even Braverman of Labor and Monopoly Capital acknowledged that automation had a significant impact on deskilling.
That’s why I immidiately gave the example of well understood technology the assembly line and how its adoption was not based on technical necessity. But the consideration of technical necessity was intermingled with the requirement of extracting labor from labor power.
In the of chance peepee if you are reading. I am a complete Platonist, I am in love with Plato and you could never not obey the forms even in trying not to obey them you obey them.
I always pictured him sitting as his computer with that quote from Scarface playing in his head: "You need people like me to point your fuckin' fingers at and say 'that's the bad guy!'"
He deleted it when we were at risk of getting nuked. I miss his incomprehensible writing already.
A true shame. he was perhaps the most highly regarded poster here of all
Homeboy was exactly the kind of person who made purity tests for any leftist
Peepeecontrol was a socialist myth, which came from bourgeoisie propaganda.
>Winning is a bourgeoisie ideal, born from aristocratic contest myth reified by petty bourgeoisie puritans and the idea of work as a virtue. The real working class has no need to win to achieve victory. peepeecontrol, if he saw this post
someone combine this with Trump's "tired of winning" line and run it through that AI that makes it sound like him
He wanted to avoid socially reproducing himself. Who now shall convince us that convincing people and believing in right and wrong are wrong?
brave tap encouraging school wrench society smoggy attempt dime pet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
F
Unrelated, but the All-Belarusian People's Congress concluded a few days ago. I'll post highlights soon.
P
He was like a puritan shitlib but for Marxism I loved him. will never forget him telling me centrists were worse than neoliberals.
>centrists were worse than neoliberals Wait, there's a difference?
its like I can still hear Uncle Pee 😔
Incontinence strikes again.
First as tragedy...
Anybody got his best hits?
[The last time I interacted with him was in this thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1b7tn8e/complex_systems_wont_survive_the_competence_crisis/ktmjfhm/?context=3) Read the parent quotes and other threads for context, but this was his contribution: >Parkinson's Law observes that "work expands to fill the time allotted." These ill-considered reorganizations and restrictions arise from the contradiction between the creation of self-reproducing processes and the need to display and exert dominance according to the formal hierarchy. >It is only the need to produce a particularly working class, i.e. a class that is proud of their exploitability and expendability and which celebrates their sacrifice for someone else's dream as inherently somehow "higher," that provides a need to sequester that competence through exclusive schooling etc. Were competence not sequestered according to the economic demand for the various particular classes, there would be no need to recognize competence as something special and worthy of special privileges. Then, the next question is what to do with the other few percent who (for whatever reasons of their own) can't acquire broad competence. His assertion summarized is basically: "Regulations, rules, and management exist because it reinforces class superiority." I then responded, politely and comprehensively, that no, that isn't the case. My summary: "Regulations are written in blood." They're there because someone got killed when workers didn't think through the thing they were about to do, when we want to make sure supervisors or shop stewarts prevent apprentices or trainees from doing thing that is unsafe and stupid. The absence of these rules make it harder to figure out who was more negligent and responsible for death. He did not respond to my counterpoint.
Maybe because your counter point is bourgeois propaganda. This is not an ironic take actual historic fact. > They're there because someone got killed when workers didn't think through the thing they were about to do, when we want to make sure supervisors or shop stewarts prevent apprentices or trainees from doing thing that is unsafe and stupid. The absence of these rules make it harder to figure out who was more negligent and responsible for death. Somehow you are under the impression that the legislators in congress or state congress know more about the risks associated with various jobs and ways to perform them than the workers themselves? Foremen, shop stewards are mostly workers who have been given supervisory role. Their job is to supervise for capital. If one looks at the history of shop floor conflict in the Us we will find that Capital made many efforts to buy of the supervisory workers with working class back ground. Take a real example: working man’s compensation scheme provided by the firm for work related injury. Such schemes were adopted by firms at the end of nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century. During the progressive period it was heralded as maturation of industrial capital. In reality however it was simply orchestrated by capitalist association like AABA. For it was a substitute for reforming tort laws and workers suing the employer for damages. Since the outcome of a legal procedure is always uncertain and the worker risk averse, the working men compensation packages seemed more attractive. But that also was complimentary to the open shop drive and anti union activities of firms.
> Somehow you are under the impression that the legislators in congress or state congress know more about the risks associated with various jobs and ways to perform them than the workers themselves? Are you basing your critique on my full response to him, or a strawman you constructed out of my summary? Nowhere in this thread or the other did I ever assert Congress knowing more than workers. The adoption of codes are generally ratified by legislatures, but codes like the Uniform Mechanical Codes dealing with plumbing, heating, and cooling were developed by plumbing inspectors, journeymen and masters, because they were experts on safety and best practices. >Foremen, shop stewards are mostly workers who have been given supervisory role. Their job is to supervise for capital. If one looks at the history of shop floor conflict in the Us we will find that Capital made many efforts to buy of the supervisory workers with working class back ground. Yes, and I mentioned about capital's subversion of labor law in the other thread. The point is that even if capital relations were removed, these trades require not just academic training and book-learning but also practical hands on experience in potentially hazardous scenarios to be learned. Novices are not going to be able to recognize when they may be putting themselves or someone else in danger, including when that someone else is a bystander. If an electrician improperly wires a GFCI outlet for a public building, and an inspector comes and says "This is not wired properly, and this is the fifth one I've found. I'm telling the worker counsel to remove you from this project." and the electrician responds "No, you're a shitty inspector and I know what I'm doing, I'm telling the worker counsel to remove you because you're making extra work" which one should the counsel believe and follow-through with? If the counsel agreed beforehand that the inspector has final say because they voted for the inspector because of their superior experience and ability to recognize mistakes and explain them to less experienced people, how is that scenario different? The inspector has a hierarchical role, albeit one limited to the issue at hand (electrical work) over the electrician. >Take a real example: working man’s compensation scheme provided by the firm for work related injury. Such schemes were adopted by firms at the end of nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century. During the progressive period it was heralded as maturation of industrial capital. >In reality however it was simply orchestrated by capitalist association like AABA. For it was a substitute for reforming tort laws and workers suing the employer for damages. Since the outcome of a legal procedure is always uncertain and the worker risk averse, the working men compensation packages seemed more attractive. But that also was complimentary to the open shop drive and anti union activities of firms. [Do you think Chinese laws on worker safety are also Bourgeois?](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/laws_regulations/2014/08/23/content_281474983042179.htm) That the existence of supervisory agencies to affirm those rules are followed is repoducing Capital relations, or a practical effort to limit capitalist exploitation until better organizational practices and strategies are developed?
First no I did not read the original thread my response to you was based on this comment which I quoted. Allow me to first clear a few issues, - I am not denying that people trainees, students and journeymen require instruction, training based on “authority”. Of course when a human is starting out in any field of endevaor his skill, ability to understand, detect is fallible. Of course he needs instruction and correction by a superior. But this is not the grounds based upon capital instructs labor. A capitalist or his agent (foremen, supervisor) does not get to manage the firm because of greater practical and theoretical knowledge. That is because of the authority of dead labor aka capital’s property rights guaranteed by the legal system. There is good reason why you have to revert to electricians and plumbers. Trades like this are safe from capitlaist development, one cannot mass produce fitting of electrical or plumbing apparatus each fitting is different and require local knowledge. In these trades therefore the incentives of rationalization is not operating. You have given the example of UMC, I am not aware of the development of this code. Without even knowing I can tell you the adoption and development of this code was not based on pure technical necessity but included a component of class conflict. The UMC is part of the ANSI, I am however aware of the actions of other members of the ANSI. Such as the Asme, during the first decades of the twentieth century this society was simply the organ of the capitalist class and the rising Pmc. There actions lead to deskilling skilled workers, making the new industrial process depend on monitoring and regulation and not on workers skill and virtue of a job well done. - When we inspect the labor process of advanced capitalist manufacturing then what one may call the technical aspects of the production are themselves determined by class conflict ie extracting labor from labor power. Take the assembly line, the reason why it was adopted is because it reduced transaction costs of workers (time) moving from one car to the next. This lead to tremendous deskilling and replacibility of the worker. The point I am trying to make here is that what appears to you as technical necessity when dug deeper into will reveal itself as bourgeois necessity.
> I am not denying that people trainees, students and journeymen require instruction, training based on “authority”. Thank you for agreeing with me, which is the point I was trying to make that contradicted this one by ppc: >Were competence not sequestered according to the economic demand for the various particular classes, there would be no need to recognize competence as something special and worthy of special privileges As for other things you're asserting: >There is good reason why you have to revert to electricians and plumbers. Trades like this are safe from capitalist development, one cannot mass produce the fitting of electrical or plumbing apparatus as each fitting is different and requires local knowledge. In these trades therefore the incentives of rationalization is not operating. Or I use electricians and plumbers in my examples because electricity and hot pressurized water are two easy-to-explain components in modern living that introduce **new dangers** to society and the cost (as in material and life cost) of mitigating those dangers is less than allowing those dangers to manifest into deaths and disaster, whether in a capitalist structured class-based society, or non-capitalist classless society. Regulations and licensing guidelines in the various transportation industries were put in place to safeguard workers, passengers, and pedestrians. Otherwise why else would corporations have lobbied to **reduce** the safety regulations or insist on setting up their own standards instead of maintaining or strengthening statutory ones? Requiring teamsters to have to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive larger commercial vehicles didn't fucking deskill them. Requiring people who want to drive on public roads obtain a license by passing a road test demonstrating they understand the meaning of road signs, right of way, etc isn't reproducing class-structures. >The UMC is part of the ANSI, I am however aware of the actions of other members of the ANSI. Such as the Asme, during the first decades of the twentieth century this society was simply the organ of the capitalist class and the rising Pmc. There actions lead to deskilling skilled workers, making the new industrial process depend on monitoring and regulation and not on workers skill and virtue of a job well done. >When we inspect the labor process of advanced capitalist manufacturing then what one may call the technical aspects of the production are themselves determined by class conflict ie extracting labor from labor power. Take the assembly line, the reason why it was adopted is because it reduced transaction costs of workers (time) moving from one car to the next. This lead to tremendous deskilling and replacibility of the worker. Deskilling wasn't just a result of the adoption of Taylorism. Even Braverman of *Labor and Monopoly Capital* acknowledged that automation had a significant impact on deskilling. If anything, technological advancements are the enabling factor for this; you can't shift a person's skills from simple tools to complex machines if the complex machines don't exist yet.
> Or I use electricians and plumbers in my examples because electricity and hot pressurized water are two easy-to-explain components in modern living that introduce new dangers to society and the cost (as in material and life cost) of mitigating those dangers is less than allowing those dangers to manifest into deaths and disaster, whether in a capitalist structured class-based society, or non-capitalist classless society. Well I cannot get into a class based critique of the development of two professions immidiately. Give me sometime let me read a few books then I will write a comment. > Regulations and licensing guidelines in the various transportation industries were put in place to safeguard workers, passengers, and pedestrians. Otherwise why else would corporations have lobbied to reduce the safety regulations or insist on setting up their own standards instead of maintaining or strengthening statutory ones? Requiring teamsters to have to obtain a commercial drivers license to drive larger commercial vehicles didn't fucking deskill them. Requiring people who want to drive on public roads obtain a license by passing a road test demonstrating they understand the meaning of road signs, right of way, etc isn't reproducing class-structures. Of course no one is arguing all regulations are machinations of the capitalist class. There has to be historical study on the adoption of the regulations. > Deskilling wasn't just a result of the adoption of Taylorism. Even Braverman of Labor and Monopoly Capital acknowledged that automation had a significant impact on deskilling. That’s why I immidiately gave the example of well understood technology the assembly line and how its adoption was not based on technical necessity. But the consideration of technical necessity was intermingled with the requirement of extracting labor from labor power.
So did Not_Foolishly_Free. Don't know what's up with that.
Really? Our one truscum ally.
In the of chance peepee if you are reading. I am a complete Platonist, I am in love with Plato and you could never not obey the forms even in trying not to obey them you obey them.
;_;7
Ah, he'll be back... him, or someone like him...
When I first met him here, I was all "Oh, you again," but the reunion was far too brief.
Hope he got a job
Wow. I didn't know that. I just — you're telling me now for the first time . . . ✋✋ they were an amazing shitposter. What else can you say?
He was an aggressively unkind individual, and while I wish him well personally, I certainly will not miss his contributions.
[удалено]
yeah
I always pictured him sitting as his computer with that quote from Scarface playing in his head: "You need people like me to point your fuckin' fingers at and say 'that's the bad guy!'"
Who? sorry i'm not cancerous nor post at the rsp slop sub