Do you comment like this on every single article posted on Lemmy from:

NPR BBC Al-Jazeera WaPo NYT Newsweek Reuters AP HuffPo Washington Times SF Gate Wall St Journal The Atlantic The New Yorker CNN NBC ABC Fox

Or is it only Fox and RT?

What are you 14?

Yeah, no one is mad at you because they’re libs. They’re downvoting you because you missed the entire point and went off on some bullshit.

You say “working on someone else’s plan” is what you mean by “working for”. You then go on to talk about selling your labor. These are two different things.

Under capitalism, the capitalist doesn’t make a plan. They make a bet. Part of that bet is hiring planners to make the plans that other people will work on. This is why I asked the question I asked.

When you and the manager both sell your labor power to the capitalist for a wage, you both work for the capitalist, but you don’t work on the capitalist’s plan. You work on your manager’s plan.

If you take the capitalist out, and if we define “working for” as selling labor, then “working for” is abolished under socialism, even though hierarchy remains.

If instead the definition of “working for” is “working on someone else’s plan”, then we have a discussion about the fact that planning is a type of labor. In some context, planning can be done by the people doing the work at the expense of efficiency, which is fine when our goal is maximizing liberty. But there are other contexts where the work to be done and the planning are significantly arduous and complex enough that different people need to do the planning and the execution.

When this is the case, inevitably, anarchists start talking about “voluntary hierarchies” as the correct prefiguration, but this meme is raising the common objections from some anarchists that there is no such thing as a voluntary hierarchy.

Hence, the discussion below about the reality of stratified systems and levels of complexity creating naturally stratified labor distribution, which lends itself to hierarchy.

Honestly, what does this mean? If you abolish ownership, then working “for” someone changes in meaning.

Once ownership and profit are gone, working “for” someone stops meaning “for their economic interest” and starts meaning something very ambiguous. Don’t carry over the emotional meaning from one mode of production to the other.

You might mean working according to someone else’s plan. Is that working “for” someone? Maybe you mean working with someone who has the power to bar you from participating in the work or has the power to stop you doing certain actions?

It’s not clear what you mean, so it would be helpful if you clarified.

It’s not even just differences in skill and experience. The person who is busy cutting a path through the first necessarily cannot also see the entirety of the forest. The person who is taking the aerial view of the forest necessarily cannot be cutting through it.

There is a hierarchy of scale and complexity. It can be solved with voluntary hierarchies of work, but it cannot be ignored. Consequences of actions can take minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, or decades to emerge. The people worried about the immediate consequences of individual actions are not going to have the capacity for also worrying about the long-term consequences of collective actions over time.

We know this. We see this all the time. And yet this axiomatic-bordering-on-religious stricture against hierarchy chooses to believe there’s some way to handle hierarchies of complexity without hierarchies of coordination.

Incapable of imagining the end of capitalism, liberals become a death cult that increasingly fantasizes about nuclear armageddon

Thanks for reposting. The commenter appears to be a member of the semi-conscious liberation army.

Grrrr

You should study North Korean politics and political structures.

The standard you are using, which is that there should be constant changes in leadership, is an attempt to use your existing liberal democracy as the only possible model for liberatory politics.

Think about it. Is the ONLY way you would ever accept a political system when it has constant leadership churn? Ok, grant that. Then ask, what causes constant leadership churn?

The answers will be either constant fighting between major ideologically opposed factions OR constant disapproval by the people being governed.

Neither of those conditions are good healthy conditions.

Now instead imagine if there were no competing ideologies, the capitalists have been purged and domestically the entire population has a shares collective trauma from the massive bombing campaign by the psychopathic US.

What’s the behavior gonna be? Well, if any leader is capable of leading them out of the caves and to safety from napalm, kidnapping, fire bombing, and famine - that leader is either very lucky and when their luck runs out they will be ousted, or that leader is actually very effective, responsive to the needs of the people, and is capable of adapting to changing times. In that case, the people will have absolutely no desire to put another leader in place.

When that happens, especially in a culture that puts huge importance on multi-generational families, the children of that leader are likely going to be the best equipped to carry in the program. Not necessarily though. They would have to remain constantly engaged, constantly proving that they are capable.

What would that require? It would require a system where by existing leadership cabinets were capable of selecting and assigning those descendants to specific posts. And guess what… That’s exactly what DPRK has.

Your insistence that freedom is defined exclusively by multi-party systems that give “equal” voice to capitalist and working class interests is a form of chauvinism.

This is Russia Derangement Syndrome or what we used to call Russophobia.

Russia a) has zero intent to invade the rest of Europe, b) has zero capability to invade the rest of Europe, c) gains absolutely nothing by invading the rest of Europe, d) creates incredible strategic weakness by invading the rest of Europe, and e) alienates not only European markets but would even alienate its own allies

Russia cannot and will not invade the rest of Europe. Anyone fear mongering to the contrary is selling something.