As the title suggests
I have to complete the onboarding exam on Monday, and I’m worried about which position I’ll be assigned, because I’m already familiar with this part of the department. If you transfer me to another department after onboarding, I’ll be uncomfortable. If you do transfer me, I’ll need to react to it; anyway I want to stay in this department, I know several people here.
Even if I’m transferred to another department, I can still see workers promoting, doesn’t Red Atom think this is too troublesome, just wants to stay in a familiar place
This is labor condition itself, a random transfer would be too cheap for the capitalists. Normally, job transfer requires negotiation. But now there’s basically no Nazism at all. Here I just got to know people not long ago and aren’t particularly close; if I’m moved away, I might gradually become a stranger. Also it’s equivalent to making me relearn all processes, making me feel like I’m just being ordered around.
Indeed, there should be an effort to avoid arbitrary job transfers
Last year the economy was bad, a coworker was transferred to three places; transferring to one place is a hassle, and by the third place he was fired not long after. Using up and discarding, infuriating.
Such transfers are flexible labor use; other departments don’t want to hire new people, so they transfer staff, using one person as if they were several
I was over-simplifying myself; being parasitic for so long, I don’t even know that job transfers are the capitalist manipulation of workers. Red Atom, you have to fight the capitalists
In reality it intensifies exploitation; workers’ wages hardly change, but they must be proficient in various skills to create surplus value for capitalists
Looking at it the other way, it’s like lowering the wages of skilled workers
Milk tea shops are like this, very grim; you must be able to handle all positions but wages don’t rise much, or may not rise at all
If skilled workers’ wages are higher than general workers’, isn’t that a bourgeois right?
It’s a kind of labor hierarchy
Capitalists deliberately differentiate skilled and unskilled workers
If the hierarchy is abolished, does it mean that skilled workers and general workers have the same treatment? Then if that happens, wouldn’t capitalists set the wages of skilled workers and unskilled workers the same, thereby undermining the hierarchy?
It is the development of productive forces that erases the gap between skilled and unskilled workers; the requirements to operate machines are decreasing, so capitalists will use this to suppress the wages of skilled workers and strengthen exploitation
Capitalists destroying this labor hierarchy is to establish a more thorough bourgeois hierarchy, so that the bourgeoisie can better exploit and oppress the proletariat. On one hand this makes the bourgeois hierarchy more thorough, but on the other hand it also unites the proletariat more; once the difference disappears, the factors causing conflict also disappear.
Since the Industrial Revolution, large-scale introduction of female workers and child labor occurred; on one hand class oppression is severe, forcing women and children to work outside to support themselves and their families; on the other hand with large-scale mechanized industry, the technical requirements for operating machines, whether physical or mental or skill-based, are far lower than manual labor, so even women and children can participate in machine labor.
“The less skill and strength required for manual operation, in other words, as modern industry develops, male workers are increasingly squeezed by female and child workers. For the working class, gender and age differences no longer hold social significance. They are all just labor tools, only needing different costs due to age and gender.” — The Communist Manifesto
Therefore the industrial proletariat is the most united, because differences among them are smallest, wages are roughly similar, labor levels are similar, and working conditions are similar; their demands for struggle are usually the same, so politically they are more organized, and only they can become revolutionary leaders
Capitalists have created their own gravediggers
Thanks for the clarification. But why does eliminating the hierarchy among industrial proletariat mean more thorough exploitation? Why does it instead consolidate the bourgeois hierarchy, meaning after eliminating the hierarchy among workers, regardless of skilled or unskilled, the same brutal exploitation is applied to all workers to extract more surplus value?
Because there is no status left, you can no longer treat your own labor skills as capital; you become a completely destitute proletarian. This is what is meant by proletarianization.
The class difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie becomes more glaring; capitalism polarization intensifies.
The difference obviously exists, and there will always be differences between skilled and unskilled workers, but once the gap narrows it becomes more conducive to unity and ideological struggle
