h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

, squigs

I await, with bated breath, what full-marx has to say on the subject...

... if anything!

Well I suppose you could can me an artisan. 'Workers with hand and brain' and all that.* Malcolm Gladwell (qv) says you need to practice more than 40,000 to reach expert level in something. I've done that. (*immodesty alert*) I'm reasonably well recognised internationally in my field. Nobody could do my job as well as I do it.

So why don't I like it?

Actually - I know (an you could guess from my earlier post that I know a little about work systems): it's all the stuff surrounding it.




* UK reference. Now archaic.

40,000 hours presumably. (I'll say 42 thousand, just to be awkward).

That's something over 20 years' worth of 'normal' working hours... sounds rather long but I'll not argue - though those with the gift can make serious inroads into that.

What does Marx have to say about trade vs profession?

(I feel we've lost our way somewhat by (seemingly) wanting everyone to get a degree, thus downgrading the so-called manual skills).

I'm wrong, so. It was 10,000 hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

http://www.victorantonio.com/malcolm_gladwell_10000_hour_rule

Well Marx does ay a bit about the way in which those practising some kinds of labour identify to a greater extent with the bourgeoisie. It's an inevitable matter of income strata and where they see their economic interests lying.

More recently, Žižek has written about 'The Revolt of the Salaried Bourgeoisie'.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie

I've always been fascinated by the similarities and distinctions
between Guilds and Unions and Professional Associations.

Most members of any one might be shocked to have their association
compared to one of the others. They are all by definition societies of
persons engaged in similar occupations. But this becomes a common
failing when they become protectionist and exclusive (in the sense of
excluding anything done, said or felt by non-members).

The organisers and bureaucratic sychophants warp the basic common
pride felt by skillful workers and turn it into an ugly 'us and them' body
politic that holds 'outsiders' hostage to their demands by threatening
to refuse service unless their demands are met. Not a very sociable
collective behaviour.


~jwf~

"I feel we've lost our way somewhat by (seemingly) wanting everyone to get a degree, thus downgrading the so-called manual skills" [Rod]

There are others who worry about that, too. If everyone wants to become a lawyer or CEO and live in a huge mcmansion, who is going to do the plumbing and electric wiring?

What happens is that we approach the Guild or Union, with cap in hand...

Ed: >>Well Marx does ay a bit about the way in which those practising some kinds of labour identify to a greater extent with the bourgeoisie.<<

'twas ever thus and 'twill ever be

Oh' I don't doubt it. That's pretty much his point.

I often felt as if I was missing something where applied Marxism was concerned. Let's take poets and novelists, for instance. In Communist China, many of them were shunted off into doing things like planting and harvesting fields. The Chinese Communists even decided whether Bach and beethoven were bourgeois or not. Sparrows were apparently bourgeois, because they were massacred.

None of this made anys ense to me. I felt as if a great cloud of delusion settled over every country [China especially] that was ruled by Marxist governments.

I have a separate thread (Capitalism Kills!) in which I've been discussing some of the basics of Marxism. Might it be better to continue this there? (although I can't guarantee I'll give it my attention immediately - busy) I feel I already bang on about Marxism in too many threads.

For now - I could give you all sorts of reasons why the Chinese atrocities were not representative of a Marxist programme and why their failure, and even onset, was predictable by Marxist theory.

Trust me - Bach, Beethoven an sparrows are not incompatible with Marxism. Marxism is a critique of Capitalism. It is not a dogma for organising the minutiae of our lives.

"Marxism is a critique of Capitalism. It is not a dogma for organising the minutiae of our lives."[Edward the Bonobo]

I'm glad to hear that.

I have friends who truly believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market." I think that they are blind to many of Capitalism's flaws. Are we not all blind to the flaws in whatever we love and believe in?

As for efficiency, the flaws in an individual's way of organizing things might be visible to someone else, but that someone else needs to be tactful in discussing the matter. Some managers are not. They only make things worse by charging in like drunken bulls.

>>Are we not all blind to the flaws in whatever we love and believe in?

Certainly! For example...some are blind to the fact that there ain't no such thing as a Free Market - all that's open to debate are which parts are free and which aren't. For example, nobody believes that we should have armed competition over property. But the existence of laws which reinforce an economic system - by force if necessary - are taken as a given.

Or free movements of goods. Few who believe that Whereverstan should be obliged to accept our goods into their markers also accept he reverse of the argument - that the people of Whereverstan should be free to follow the money. Borders are permeable to goods but not people.