Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.
Did somebody mention beer?
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for.Once again Prakash your understanding of what socialism or commnism is about leaves a lot to be desired. Socialism or communism is NOT about the common ownership of consumer goods; rather, it is about the common ownership of producer goods – that is to say, means of production. Socialised ownership of these means of production is the logical corrollary of the socialised character of modern production itself. I have no wish whastover to share your toothbrush – or your shoes – with you in a communist society and there is no sensible reason why I should. Possessions are clearly distinguishable from property in the economic sense as referring to means of production
Bijou Drains wrote:Did somebody mention beer?And did somebody mention sex? Way hey!
robbo203 wrote:Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for.Once again Prakash your understanding of what socialism or commnism is about leaves a lot to be desired. Socialism or communism is NOT about the common ownership of consumer goods; rather, it is about the common ownership of producer goods – that is to say, means of production. Socialised ownership of these means of production is the logical corrollary of the socialised character of modern production itself. I have no wish whastover to share your toothbrush – or your shoes – with you in a communist society and there is no sensible reason why I should. Possessions are clearly distinguishable from property in the economic sense as referring to means of production
That is the same conception of the right-wingers and the anti-communists. They have propagated for many years intentionally the idea that in communism peoples must share their houses, bikes, women, food, clothing, and others personal properties.
gnome wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Did somebody mention beer?And did somebody mention sex? Way hey!
He has not mentioned that, but others Originators have included that in a communist society
Bijou Drains wrote:Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.Did somebody mention beer? Newcastle broon ale i hope.
' Production has long been collective. ' ( #247 ; comment by ALB ) Collectivisation ( socialisation ) of labour is an inevitable effect of capitalism. In fact the collectivisation of labour and the development of capitalism have always been hand in hand since the dawn of capitalism. ' Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point when they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. ' ( Marx in CAPITAL Volume I , PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; P 715 ) Thus, communism is expected to set off with highly-socialised labour. It's not clear to me why the highly-socialised labour should come into conflict with the principle of equal share of the social workload for equal share in social wealth.
Prakash RP wrote:' Production has long been collective. ' ( #247 ; comment by ALB ) Collectivisation ( socialisation ) of labour is an inevitable effect of capitalism. In fact the collectivisation of labour and the development of capitalism have always been hand in hand since the dawn of capitalism. ' Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point when they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. ' ( Marx in CAPITAL Volume I , PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; P 715 ) Thus, communism is expected to set off with highly-socialised labour. It's not clear to me why the highly-socialised labour should come into conflict with the principle of equal share of the social workload for equal share in social wealth.Again, Marx is referring to capitalism, centralization of the means of production is monopoly which is a normal process of capitalism. There is nothing in Das Capital which refers itself to the communist society, it is all about capitalism and bourgeois political economyCollectivization is not the same as common possession of the means of production, workers are producing collectively but they do not have control and possession of the means of production. Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists under their capitalist mode of production by forcing the peasants to work for the state, that was pure state capitalism
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.You appear to have a very limited understanding of Marxism, no idea what is meant by Socialism, little insight into capitalism, enjoy wrting tedious articles that don't actually say very much and in addition there's a bit of a glorious leader, hero of the working classes, complex going on.I really think you should contact one of the Trotskyist Parties, They'll welcome you with open arms, they might even build you that statue!
Bijou Drains wrote:Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.You appear to have a very limited understanding of Marxism, no idea what is meant by Socialism, little insight into capitalism, enjoy wrting tedious articles that don't actually say very much and in addition there's a bit of a glorious leader, hero of the working classes, complex going on.I really think you should contact one of the Trotskyist Parties, They'll welcome you with open arms, they might even build you that statue!
And Stalinists and Maoists will welcome his distorted thoughts
Prakash RP wrote:Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …You're thesis is wrong. Here is proof by contradiction where I measure thevalue of a comodity in money for you. Create a form of money based on hours of your personal time. In HOUR.coin currency the value of your personal time is stated in $/hr. If you have a pay stub from your boss, then your hourly rate is clearly shown at $25/hr (for example). Now you can buy something like a toaster by paying in units of "minutes of your time". For example a toaster that cost $50 would cost you 2hours of your time to buy. Finally there is a line to get buy the toaster at the store that you have to spend you time waiting in. How much is your time wating in line worth if the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first? the person in line with the highest hourly rate ($100/hr for example) would go to the front of the line and be served first. It would save that person maybe 15 minutes of time waiting in a long line. The 15 minutes saved in line has a value to the rich person of $25. However, since the purchase price is also stated in minutes of time, the first person in line pays a cost of the 2 hour price for the toaster multiplied by their individual hourly rate + the wait time in line ($100/hr x 2 hours pruchase price + 0 wait minutes x $100/hr = $200). Another person at the end of the line (remember the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first order) who's time is valued at $10/hr will pay ($10/hr X 2hr price tag) + (wait time X $10/hr) = $22.50We have therefore measured the utiility value of wating in line as a common way of converting between hourly units of money and any other unit of measure for money.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Prakash RP wrote:Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …You're thesis is wrong. Here is proof by contradiction where I measure thevalue of a comodity in money for you. Create a form of money based on hours of your personal time. In HOUR.coin currency the value of your personal time is stated in $/hr. If you have a pay stub from your boss, then your hourly rate is clearly shown at $25/hr (for example). Now you can buy something like a toaster by paying in units of "minutes of your time". For example a toaster that cost $50 would cost you 2hours of your time to buy. Finally there is a line to get buy the toaster at the store that you have to spend you time waiting in. How much is your time wating in line worth if the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first? the person in line with the highest hourly rate ($100/hr for example) would go to the front of the line and be served first. It would save that person maybe 15 minutes of time waiting in a long line. The 15 minutes saved in line has a value to the rich person of $25. However, since the purchase price is also stated in minutes of time, the first person in line pays a cost of the 2 hour price for the toaster multiplied by their individual hourly rate + the wait time in line ($100/hr x 2 hours pruchase price + 0 wait minutes x $100/hr = $200). Another person at the end of the line (remember the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first order) who's time is valued at $10/hr will pay ($10/hr X 2hr price tag) + (wait time X $10/hr) = $22.50We have therefore measured the utiility value of wating in line as a common way of converting between hourly units of money and any other unit of measure for money.
In some way his thesis is correct, what is not correct is his allegations that he is the originator of that thesis. It has existed for many years and Marx also described it on Capital, that is plagiarism. What is not correct is his point of view regarding socialism and capitalism, and he doesn't understand that Capital is a critique to the capitalist political economy and he is taking literally many conceptions and have applied them to socialism
Marcos wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Prakash RP wrote:Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …Create a form of money based on hours of your personal time. In HOUR.coin currency the value of your personal time is stated in $/hr. If you have a pay stub from your boss, then your hourly rate is clearly shown at $25/hr (for example). Now you can buy something like a toaster by paying in units of "minutes of your time". For example a toaster that cost $50 would cost you 2hours of your time to buy. Finally there is a line to get buy the toaster at the store that you have to spend you time waiting in. How much is your time wating in line worth if the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first? the person in line with the highest hourly rate ($100/hr for example) would go to the front of the line and be served first. It would save that person maybe 15 minutes of time waiting in a long line. The 15 minutes saved in line has a value to the rich person of $25. However, since the purchase price is also stated in minutes of time, the first person in line pays a cost of the 2 hour price for the toaster multiplied by their individual hourly rate + the wait time in line ($100/hr x 2 hours pruchase price + 0 wait minutes x $100/hr = $200). Another person at the end of the line (remember the line is sorted by highest hourly rate first order) who's time is valued at $10/hr will pay ($10/hr X 2hr price tag) + (wait time X $10/hr) = $22.50We have therefore measured the utiility value of wating in line as a common way of converting between hourly units of money and any other unit of measure for money.
In some way his thesis is correct, what is not correct is his allegations that he is the originator of that thesis. It has existed for many years and Marx also described it on Capital, that is plagiarism. What is not correct is his point of view regarding socialism and capitalism, and he doesn't understand that Capital is a critique to the capitalist political economy and he is taking literally many conceptions and have applied them to socialism
@Marcos, I agree with you. My knowledge of your terms are foreign to me in their details and histories. I understand only the gist of them and I forget their names and branches with pathetic reliability. I love that you can connect my language with Marx. Can you tell me which sections and cite specific parts I plagerize so I can learn from them and apply their lessons to my product development efforts? Your minutes of effort spent in your reply will count as investment credit The hOEP Project. You're reply has been recorded as a default 5 minute purchase of time for reading, writing and reasoning and can be referenced for claiming as voting rights in later project decisions. Thank you for your time and attention in your reply which has been valued at 5 mimutes in our investment creditor contribution time value accounting system. If you find and reply with specefic citations to marx you are eligible for additional voted and prize awared minutes of credit through our crowdsourced product and design contest system. Your investment value of 5 minutes in The hOEP Project (hOurs Equals Price) will accrue with interest if you take no action and can be claimed at any later date by refering to this conversation and proving you are the owner of the account. (NOTE, this offer and agreement to accept value payment in minutes does not require your immediate time or attention and any decisions on this topic can be delayed for evaluation by a crowdsourced jury that can adjust time or value metrics and verifiy with human minutes any transaction disputes. This agreement to exchange time value is of NO CASH CAPITAL value and is outside the jurisdiction of most commerce and trade laws but must comply with them if applicable.) I would like to add that while this is pricing model is profitable to the seller there are many emergent side efffects of free market use of this in an economy. I have a white paper and product introduction slideshow I can link to if you ask and want to know more in more friendly formats. I also have a facebook, youtube, patreon accounts for the project with user research interviews and a collection of over 10,000 hours of effort on research and product developement. I would like to know what this means to you since I have applied for a foundation seed grant to develope hourly rate based pricing for the most sustainable and distributed and individiualized good.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Can you tell me which sections and cite specific parts I plagerize so I can learn from them and apply their lessons to my product development efforts? [/quoteNobody is saying, or implying that you have plagiarized anything. We are talking about an economical thesis described in this thread by another person. I do not give a damn about the world of business and law, and this is not a forum in order to sell any product or commodity
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.