Skip to Content

discussion of archive - marx - works - 1847 - wage-labour ch03

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steve-SanFranci...
Offline
Joined: 20/04/2015

Alan Kerr wrote:

So far, we have 3 steps

1) Capitalist manufacture by hand

2) Capitalist mass production with machines

3) Socialist Production

Could step 2 have come before step 1?

How could step 2 come before step 1?

This seems to be a generalized cronology for planetary evolution with averaged values and reduced definitions.  That is to say that it in general most things I would expect to proceed in the order 1,2,3 in most places and in most markets on average over most of the chosen time periods in question.  It's not wrong from that perspective and in the context of large historical arcs and long historical naratives.  

But there are obviously exceptions in specefic individual markets or individual modes of production or individual unique modes of exchange that don't fit this general pattern.  "Haggling" by the seller is just one example of something that was popular at stage1, mostly disapeared in stage 2 and become popular in stage 3.   there's actually a whole lot of things (we call them a "class" of things in information science) that will skip stage 2 if you want to explore that topic further. 

There is ample evidence of time periods and or indivdiual unique concepts or practices or social norms or modes of production or modes of exchange that do not fit the pattern 1,2,3 in terms of popularity and conventional behavior.  Also, since the exceptions to the order seem to be largely random, there's reason to suspect that our experience on this planet at this time of most things going in order of 1, 2, 3 that you describe is just the most likely statistical pattern for the whole.  If you imagine other planets or other evolutionary patterns on our planet then statistically some of them would proceed in a different order.  There doesn't seem to be anything other than statistics and entropy and energy theory that says most things will go in order 1,2,3. there must be a finite statitistical probability that an entire planet could experience these 3 steps in much different order. .  

Also there are a large class of things that are simply not possible by hand in step one and are only possible in step 2 or in later step three.  however, if society and the world stepped through 1,2,3 as predicted by marx and then the world and all of society stepped back to step/stage 1 then some of those technologies and techniques might still exist.  Global weather and climate simulation is one example that comes to mind.  You need step 2 or maybe even step 3 to accurately create a large networked comuter and weather modeling network capable of predicting global climate change, but that won't stop the economy and population from collapsing due to global warming and sea level rise. So then you end up with a largely primative step 1 society with a low population that is sustainable and the remants of a stage/step 2 technology of global weather simulation and prediction.  the knowledge of global climate modeling requires step 2 to be created, but once the results are simplified they could be written down on a book or clay tablets and handed to the devolved step 1/ stage 1 society that inherits the planet.

I ask you again, ALAN KERR,  What is the intent of your question?  What is your true goal in asking these questions of me?

Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

Let’s try once more.

Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.

In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.

Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?

Steve in post #6 says

“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”

(Post #6)

Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

Bob Andrews
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

This discussion reminds me of Fitzgerald's description of his meetings with those believers of psychic phenomena: 'like conversations in Bedlam'.

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Bob Andrews wrote:

This discussion reminds me of Fitzgerald's description of his meetings with those believers of psychic phenomena: 'like conversations in Bedlam'.

3rd and final warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

This warning will remain in force for 30 days.  If there's a further breach of the rules within this period this user will be issued with an immediate and indefinite suspension.

 Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

Tim Kilgallon
Tim Kilgallon's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Alan Kerr wrote:

Let’s try once more.

Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.

In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.

Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?

Steve in post #6 says

“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”

(Post #6)

Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?

Is it just me? When you keep referring to "The Socialist Preamble" what are you referring to?


Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

Tim Kilgallon

Thank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is the

Preamble

Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.

The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.

The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. 

Tim Kilgallon
Tim Kilgallon's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Alan Kerr wrote:

Tim Kilgallon

Thank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is the

Preamble

Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.

The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.

The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. 

As a member since 1982, I can never remember it being discussed at a Party Level (Conference or ADM) and being voted for, and as such it holds no weight as part of the Party case.

Although an interesting point, why are we discussing it as if it is part of the Party case?


Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

@Tim Kilgallon

I discuss interpreting The SPGB Object as if we take The Socialist Preamble as read. I discussed that at all levels including Conference and ADM. I never discussed voting for it so that it holds any weight as part of the party case. I never saw any need.

Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?

Take our topic here in this thread.  

Our topic here in this thread is change in the price of a commodity.

Steve is the best one to say what Steve thinks.

If I understand Steve, he says that we change by struggle. And he says that change is arbitrary.

To Steve the order of social changes is arbitrary. And changes in the price of a commodity are also arbitrary to Steve I think.

Can the SPGB realistically claim as if things are just struggle and therefore arbitrary? No. But then you know best what you think.

Especially since Marx, we see our need to explain struggle also – hence The Socialist Preamble.

Tim Kilgallon
Tim Kilgallon's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Alan Kerr wrote:

Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?

Yes we can, it is not part of the Object and Declaration of Principles


Login or register to post comments