Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.
Ironically reading the bollocks you write makes me reach for the Whiskey bottle!
Prakash RP wrote:' There is nothing in Das Capital which refers itself to the communist society, it is all about capitalism and … ' ( comment #294 by Marcos ) There're lots of things about communism and the communist mode of production in Das Capital. In Capital Volume I by Marx, you'll find lots of important and enlightening pieces of info about different forms of communist property ( pp 82, 83, 714 & 715 ), info about the distribution of wealth ( pp 82 & 83 ), conditions and organisation of labour ( pp 596 & 597 ), necessary labour ( p 496 ), the development of individual ( pp 454, 555 & 582 ), under communism, info about material and technical basis of communism ( pp 370, 371 & 555 ) as well as the length and the shortening of working-day under communism ( p 496 ) ; the CAPITAL Volume III also contains a lot of enlightening info about the communist mode of production labour productivity ( pp 261 & 819 ), freedom and necessity under the communist mode of production ( pp 819 & 820 ), the distribution of social product under the communist mode of production ( pp 847, 848, 875 & 876 ), regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour ( pp 850 & 851 ), and wages ( p 876 ) under communism. ' Again, Marx is referring to capitalism, centralization of the means of production is monopoly which is a normal process of capitalism. ' ( #294 ) The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.Wrong again, as it was said before Das Capital ( 1,2, 3, and there are 3 more volumes on surplus value ) is a critique to the capitalist Political economy, Marx inserted certain expression but it is not a book about communism, and you have taken expressions which refers to the capitalist mode of production and apply them to socialism.Monopoly is a character of capitalism, but there would not exist monopoly in a socialist society because the means of production are going to be in the hands of the vast majority of the human beingsIn the capitalist society labour is already socialized and collectivized but workers do not have the common possession of the means of production, if collectivization as you have implied is communism, in Bolivia they have already built a socialist society, because they have thousands of communes, and they have collectivized many industries but they are all run as capitalist enterprises controlled by the state
I hope that he will not come here with another brilliant idea by saying that David Ricardo was a communist and that he wrote several books about communism
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it.Mere prejudiced assumptions on your part. It would be comical if not for being a tragic absorption of capitalist ideological reinforcement about 'human nature' requiring to be disciplined from without. I only have to look out my window most days, to see people engaged in voluntary unforced work arising from their accepted normal sense of social responsibily for their fellow humans. As for who will do the dirty work the traditional socialist answer has always been, "I will." The revolution, being the act of the immense majority, who have become persuaded of socialism as the next stage of society, will see no shortage of voluntary workers.
Matt wrote:Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it.Mere prejudiced assumptions on your part. It would be comical if not for being a tragic absorption of capitalist ideological reinforcement about 'human nature' requiring to be disciplined from without. I only have to look out my window most days, to see people engaged in voluntary unforced work arising from their accepted normal sense of social responsibily for their fellow humans. As for who will do the dirty work the traditional socialist answer has always been, "I will." The revolution, being the act of the immense majority, who have become persuaded of socialism as the next stage of society, will see no shortage of voluntary workers.
There are thousands of voluntary workers which are working for hospitals, charities, homeless organizations, churches, political parties, etc, etc. etc. Most of those peoples they did not have any socialist consciousness
Dear Adam, shying away from making your views known on an issue is not only ignominious for a man of your stature but unbecoming of a man with backbone as well. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be endowed with backbone you need to face any truth. I'm not happy to pass such unpleasant comments about you. But then you've failed disgustingly to respond to my comment #266 and clarify your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and using unkind, humiliating expressions like ' crude communist ', etc to refer to me is not right.You're also expected to respond to my comment #314 and oblige me by making known your position on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of the equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth and the principle of ' from each according to his ability to each according to his needs '.
Prakash RP wrote:Dear Adam, shying away from making your views known on an issue is not only ignominious for a man of your stature but unbecoming of a man with backbone as well. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be endowed with backbone you need to face any truth. I'm not happy to pass such unpleasant comments about you. But then you've failed disgustingly to respond to my comment #266 and clarify your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and using unkind, humiliating expressions like ' crude communist ', etc to refer to me is not right.You're also expected to respond to my comment #314 and oblige me by making known your position on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of the equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth and the principle of ' from each according to his ability to each according to his needs '.This is rich coming from someone who has conspicuously failed to respond to criticism of his own very weak and illogical arguments about the nature of communism. Perhaps Prakash you could attempt to answer the specific concrete questions I raised in post number 315 before casting totally unjustified aspersions on others here.
' You're thesis is wrong. ' ( comment #297 by Steve-SanFranci… ) Then you believe money is not meant, by its definition, to measure the value of a commodity ?!! 1. Well, would you let us know what led you to question the truth of the view that money is meant to measure the value ( exchange-value ) of a commodity ? 2. Would you let us know what you think money is truly meant to measure ?3. Would you let us know what you believe the right definition of money is ?4. Would you let us know how you're paid for your work ( if you're a worker ) or what you receive in exchange for your merchandise ( if you're a trader ) ?5. Would you let us know what led you to believe that money can measure the worth of a commodity ?6. Would you let us know what you think your right worth in money is ? And what are your criteria you've used to find it ?7. Would you let us know how much the exact price of a pair of shoes that you consider worthy of you is and how you justify it ? ' … the value of your personal time is stated in $/hr. ' 8. If money cannot measure the value ( exchange-value ) of a commodity, how can any statement giving the value of ' your personal time ' in '$/hr ' be reckoned correct ? I'm very much impressed by your comment #297 which led the questions listed above to come into my mind. I wish you'd oblige me with your kind replies to all the above questions. Thanks a lot for responding to my comments.
Quote:As for who will do the dirty work the traditional socialist answer has always been, "I will."Exactly…Cde. Brian Gardner is apparently on record saying that Matt will be doing all the dirty work
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:As for who will do the dirty work the traditional socialist answer has always been, "I will."Exactly…Cde. Brian Gardner is apparently on record saying that Matt will be doing all the dirty work
In most hospitals volunteer workers are doing that, cleaning dirty blankets, and cleaning the anus to the patients, and there are many countries where volunteer youth are cleaning the streets and picking up trash, volunteers fixing and cleaning the sewage, engineers, architects, plumbers, electrician volunteer building houses, and that include the Jehova witness who build their own building without any salary, peoples planting tree to cure the earth, medical doctors working as volunteer in many countries around the world. This man is living in another planet
' In some way his thesis is correct '. ( comment #298 by Marcos ) It's implied that you think in some other way the thesis in question is incorrect. Would like you to throw light on this point about which I'm truly in the dark wholly. ' It has existed for many years ' . ( ibid ) Professor Robert J. Aumann said the thesis occurs, with different wording, in Daniel Bernoulli's work ' "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". ' . Could you name some other sources to corroborate your claim ? ' Marx also described it on Capital, that is plagiarism. ' ( ibid ) Would like you to oblige me with some citations from Marx's works to this effect ( i.e. citations corroborating this view of yours and your allegation of ' plagiarism ' ) . ' … what is not correct is his [ claim ] that he is the originator of that thesis. ' ( ibid ) I gave up my claim to have originated the thesis at issue many days ago. ' What is not correct is his point of view regarding socialism and capitalism, and … ' ( ibid ) You see such observations belong to the category of subjective impressions and thus can't deserve to be reckoned logic, and in a debate it's logic, not stuff like personal impressions without logical foundation, that matters. I can also state similar things about you, all the debaters against me in this thread, and thus claim that all of you wrong. I won't say anything to that effect because I'm aware of distinctions between logic and non-logic. ' … he is taking literally many conceptions and have applied them to socialism '. ( ibid) Can you define the distinction between what is taking in literal sense and what is taking in non-literal sense ? Perhaps, not. On the other hand, such a statement evidently suggests that my position is a lot stronger, logically, than yours. Taking something literally does not prove what's taken literally is wrong, OK ? Further, this statement by you practically adds up to acknowledging your defeat in this debate, RIGHT ? Hi Adam, what's your position on this point ? Do you approve of this statement by Marcos ? I wish you stopped hiding behind the shield of silly silence and behaved the way befitting a man with backbone, a true communist.
' I think he's more [ like ] what Marx called a "crude communist". ' ( comment #274 by ALB ) You seem to be over-certain that Marx created this expression to mean people like this lone guy who's perhaps the first to enlighten humanity about the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of a classless society and the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Marx isn't accessible today. Could you state how to reconcile the two ideas with one another and thus make both of them equally acceptable ? Could you explain what led you to be so sure that by ' a " crude communist " ', Marx really meant none but this lone guy ? Even if I really deserve to be labelled ' a " crude communist " ', it doesn't mean anything I think or say is wrong, does it ? As far as I know, Marx and Engels, the duo that originated the theory of communism, treated it as science and wanted every question relating to it dealt with with the highest degree of scientific precision. Am I right or wrong ? The fact of the matter is the communist goal of classless society is realisable only through the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' ( CAPITAL Volume I by Marx, chapter XVII, part IV, section 2 ) and the compulsory equal sharing of the social workload for the compulsory equal share in the social wealth. The classless society cannot approve of overworking by anyone as it'll entail idleness, enforced or wilful, of at least one else, which amounts to the exploitation of the overworking lot by the idle ones, hence the division of society into classes ( the exploiters and the exploited ). On the other hand, the principle in question dictates that the sharing of the social workload is voluntary and unequal, and that sharing the social wealth is also voluntary and unequal. Thus the contradiction between the idea of classless order and the principle at issue appears blazing like the mid-day summer sun and irreconcilable. Calling me ' a " crude communist " ' may become and please Adam and co., but it cannot conceal the fact that the contradiction at issue happens to be irreconcilable and the fact that Adam and co. have got a lot to learn from this lone guy, ' a " crude communist " '.
Prakash the crude Troll
Prakash RP wrote:' In some way his thesis is correct '. ( comment #298 by Marcos ) It's implied that you think in some other way the thesis in question is incorrect. Would like you to throw light on this point about which I'm truly in the dark wholly. ' It has existed for many years ' . ( ibid ) Professor Robert J. Aumann said the thesis occurs, with different wording, in Daniel Bernoulli's work ' "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". ' . Could you name some other sources to corroborate your claim ? ' Marx also described it on Capital, that is plagiarism. ' ( ibid ) Would like you to oblige me with some citations from Marx's works to this effect ( i.e. citations corroborating this view of yours and your allegation of ' plagiarism ' ) . ' … what is not correct is his [ claim ] that he is the originator of that thesis. ' ( ibid ) I gave up my claim to have originated the thesis at issue many days ago. ' What is not correct is his point of view regarding socialism and capitalism, and … ' ( ibid ) You see such observations belong to the category of subjective impressions and thus can't deserve to be reckoned logic, and in a debate it's logic, not stuff like personal impressions without logical foundation, that matters. I can also state similar things about you, all the debaters against me in this thread, and thus claim that all of you wrong. I won't say anything to that effect because I'm aware of distinctions between logic and non-logic. ' … he is taking literally many conceptions and have applied them to socialism '. ( ibid) Can you define the distinction between what is taking in literal sense and what is taking in non-literal sense ? Perhaps, not. On the other hand, such a statement evidently suggests that my position is a lot stronger, logically, than yours. Taking something literally does not prove what's taken literally is wrong, OK ? Further, this statement by you practically adds up to acknowledging your defeat in this debate, RIGHT ? Hi Adam, what's your position on this point ? Do you approve of this statement by Marcos ? I wish you stopped hiding behind the shield of silly silence and behaved the way befitting a man with backbone, a true communist.Just look at the sequences of opinions on the thread and you will find the answers and your own contradictions. I have something better to do with my textbooks. I do not like to waste times on trolling
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.