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
-
Would like to add the following to my comment #343. If some people ( say 2 out of 10 ) are allowed freedom to shun work, the ' minimum length ' ( see CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2, to know what Marx meant by the ' minimum length ' of the working-day under the communist mode of production ) of the working-day will no longer remain minimum ( it'll be longer by 2 hours than the ' minimum length ' of 8 hours if the total workload, i.e. 80 hours, remains the same ). Therefore, it's obvious that if we must not work longer than we're required to do, nobody* can be allowed to shun their share of the total social workload. Hence, it follows that the sharing of the social workload under communism must be compulsory for all*. * bar all those entitled to exemption from work
Prakash RP wrote:Would like to add the following to my comment #343. If some people ( say 2 out of 10 ) are allowed freedom to shun work, the ' minimum length ' ( see CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2, to know what Marx meant by the ' minimum length ' of the working-day under the communist mode of production ) of the working-day will no longer remain minimum ( it'll be longer by 2 hours than the ' minimum length ' of 8 hours if the total workload, i.e. 80 hours, remains the same ). Therefore, it's obvious that if we must not work longer than we're required to do, nobody* can be allowed to shun their share of the total social workload. Hence, it follows that the sharing of the social workload under communism must be compulsory for all*. * bar all those entitled to exemption from workWrong again, and that was answered already in prior messages. Marx is referring to the capitalist society. Marx never advocated for wage slavery. We have said hundred of times in this forum that labor in a comunist society would be voluntary. Period
Hi Adam, how do you view the ' realm of necessity '* and the ' realm of freedom '* ? Do you think these two expressions are meant to suggest that all work under communism will be voluntary ? * These two phrases occur in the following excerpt. See also my comments #343 & #346. ' Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must [ a ] civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. … Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature ; and … But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins … the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume III, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW; p 820 )
Prakash RP wrote:Hi Adam, how do you view the ' realm of necessity '* and the ' realm of freedom '* ? Do you think these two expressions are meant to suggest that all work under communism will be voluntary ? * These two phrases occur in the following excerpt. See also my comments #343 & #346. ' Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must [ a ] civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. … Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature ; and … But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins … the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume III, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW; p 820 )Adam should take a serious stand and send this guy to the fucking hell. He is just trying to ridiculizes him
Prakash's nonsensical and distorted views of Marx, and Marxism on the subject of labour in a communist society kind of reminds me of what Trotsky wrote in Terrorism and Communism: "As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal" and "Man, as I have already permitted myself to point out, is lazy; that is, he instinctively strives to receive the largest possible quantity of products for the least possible expenditure of energy" This idea that work in and of itself is a "sacrifice" and "disutility" is a commonplace in bourgeois economic literature which our " bourgeois" friend faithfully echoes with his obsessive mantra about the need to make all work compulsory. Like Prakash, Trotsky argued that "the only way to attract labour power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce compulsory labour service". To that end Trotsky was put in charge of the infamous "militarisation of labour programme" to crush independent working class resistance and discipline workers in the interests of the Soviet capitalist state This is where the logic of such thinking takes you. If you feel the need to coerce labour you will inevitably end up with a coercive authoritarian class based society . The means determine the end. It is worth noting that Trotsky's view of work closely resembled the view held by Adam Smith and others which Marx fiercely attacked: "In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou labor! was Jehovah’s curse on Adam. And this is labor for Smith, a curse. “Tranquility” appears as the adequate state, as identical with “freedom” and “happiness.” It seems quite far from Smith’s mind that the individual, “in his normal state of health, strength, activity, skill, facility,” also needs a normal portion of work, and of the suspension of tranquility. Certainly, labor obtains its measure from the outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles to be overcome in attaining it. But Smith has no inkling whatever that the overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity—and that, further, the external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits—hence as self-realization, objectification of the subject, hence real freedom, whose action is, precisely, labor. He is right, of course, that, in its historic forms as slave-labor, serf-labor, and wage-labor, labor always appears as repulsive, always as external forced labor; and not-labor, by contrast, as “freedom and happiness.” This holds doubly: for this contradictory labor; and relatedly, for labor which has not yet created the subjective and objective conditions for itself…in which labor becomes attractive work, the individual’s self-realization, which in no way means that it becomes mere fun, mere amusement….Really free working…is at the same time precisely the most damned seriousness, the most intensive exertion. The work of material production can achieve this character only (1) when its social character is posited, (2) when it is of a scientific and at the same time general character, not merely human exertion, as a specifically harnessed natural force, but exertion as subject, which appears in the production process, not in a merely natural, spontaneous form, but as an activity regulating all the forces of nature. Adam Smith, by the way, has only the slaves of capital in mind." (Karl Marx, Grundrissse (London: Penguin, 1973), 611–12) However, in one respect Trotsky and Prakash differ. For Trotsky at least acknowleged that in socialism or what might be called Marx's higher phase of communism there would be no labour compulsion"True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable.Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction"(Terrorism and Communism ch8 )
robbo203 wrote:Prakash's nonsensical and distorted views of Marx, and Marxism on the subject of labour in a communist society kind of reminds me of what Trotsky wrote in Terrorism and Communism: "As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal" and "Man, as I have already permitted myself to point out, is lazy; that is, he instinctively strives to receive the largest possible quantity of products for the least possible expenditure of energy" This idea that work in and of itself is a "sacrifice" and "disutility" is a commonplace in bourgeois economic literature which our " bourgeois" friend faithfully echoes with his obsessive mantra about the need to make all work compulsory. Like Prakash, Trotsky argued that "the only way to attract labour power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce compulsory labour service". To that end Trotsky was put in charge of the infamous "militarisation of labour programme" to crush independent working class resistance and discipline workers in the interests of the Soviet capitalist state This is where the logic of such thinking takes you. If you feel the need to coerce labour you will inevitably end up with a coercive authoritarian class based society . The means determine the end. It is worth noting that Trotsky's view of work closely resembled the view held by Adam Smith and others which Marx fiercely attacked: "In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou labor! was Jehovah’s curse on Adam. And this is labor for Smith, a curse. “Tranquility” appears as the adequate state, as identical with “freedom” and “happiness.” It seems quite far from Smith’s mind that the individual, “in his normal state of health, strength, activity, skill, facility,” also needs a normal portion of work, and of the suspension of tranquility. Certainly, labor obtains its measure from the outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles to be overcome in attaining it. But Smith has no inkling whatever that the overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity—and that, further, the external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits—hence as self-realization, objectification of the subject, hence real freedom, whose action is, precisely, labor. He is right, of course, that, in its historic forms as slave-labor, serf-labor, and wage-labor, labor always appears as repulsive, always as external forced labor; and not-labor, by contrast, as “freedom and happiness.” This holds doubly: for this contradictory labor; and relatedly, for labor which has not yet created the subjective and objective conditions for itself…in which labor becomes attractive work, the individual’s self-realization, which in no way means that it becomes mere fun, mere amusement….Really free working…is at the same time precisely the most damned seriousness, the most intensive exertion. The work of material production can achieve this character only (1) when its social character is posited, (2) when it is of a scientific and at the same time general character, not merely human exertion, as a specifically harnessed natural force, but exertion as subject, which appears in the production process, not in a merely natural, spontaneous form, but as an activity regulating all the forces of nature. Adam Smith, by the way, has only the slaves of capital in mind." (Karl Marx, Grundrissse (London: Penguin, 1973), 611–12) However, in one respect Trotsky and Prakash differ. For Trotsky at least acknowleged that in socialism or what might be called Marx's higher phase of communism there would be no labour compulsion"True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable.Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction"(Terrorism and Communism ch8 )At least Joseph Stalin knew the real definition of what socialism is, but Trotsky never had a clear conception about socialism, in management style both did not differ in anything, anyone of them could have become the dictators of the Russian working class, both had administrative and military mentality, and both worship the concept of leadership . That is the reason why we published this article:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1183-march-2003/trotsky-and-stalin-rival-leadersWhat Robbo has written in this message is totally correct, besides of what he said about Adam Smith which Marx rejected, like both rejected the Utopian socialists, Smith also indicated that the hands of God intervene in the good development of the capitalist society, so, this is the type of argument to our famous Originator wants us to approve for him, Since the very beginning I said that all his argumentation had bourgeoise influences wearing the mask of socialism
@robbo203, from your comment zhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=34#comment-46997
robbo203 wrote:Yes Marx makes a distinction between "realm of necessity" and the "realm of freedom" but the latter corresponds precisely to the aforementioned higher phase of communism . That higher phase – the realm of freedom – is predicated precisely on the existence of a technological capacity to produce abundance which is something we have long had, Meaning free access communism based on voluntary labour has been a material possibility for several decades; all that is lacking is the mass socialist consciousness to make this happen .A more intelligent, and possibly understandable, approach would have been for you to question whether we actually possesss that technolological potential and hence, by extension, whether a communist society based on vounteer labour which Marx endorsed is feasible at the present time. . . .I like your suggestion idea and will take your hint for a topic of sub topic of conversation.Can you identify which of these activities for me is voluntary labor in the current economy and answer some simple questions. I'd like to understand how much of the average personsl life (measured in minutes or hours) they are engaged in voluntary labor vs coorced labor as defined by Marx in a capitalist society.1) is getting off the couch to turn the TV channel voluntary or coorced labor?2) Is going on vacation and planning for your vacation and packing for your vacation voluntary or coorced labor?3) is going to a "job" such as an internship or a working for free at a non-profit such as food bank voluntary or coorced labor?4) What about waiting in line behind other people in a self organized system of line holders who voluntarily wait in line in an order they all agree is fair. Imagine a tourst attraction to see a famous painting in a special room with perfect lighting and ambience that can only accommodate 5 people/minute. There is no other way to see the painting, it's one of a kind and videos and pictures don't do it justice. There's no charge for viewing, but there's an avarage of a 3 hour line wait. Is line waiting coorced labor in this situation? After a socialist communist revoluion and in socialism, how long is the line wait and what kind of labor is waiting in the same line for the same resasons? 5) What would it mean to socialism if we measure the percent of time engaged in no-coorced labor in the capitalist economy and find that ilt's increasing compared to coorced time? Can we say something about what that ratio of non-coorced labor vs coorced labor measure in regards to what stage capitalism is in based on real measurable human values shown in how they spend their time? Thanks for your thoughts on this. You asked the question, so please disregard anyone complaining about "this is not socialismt" and if you are someone who thinks "this is not socialism" is an acceptable answer, then please disregard this comment and instead of feeling compelled to reply, instead try to enjoy some non-compulsory fruitfull labor (masturbation) in the spirit of socialism.
The realm of necessity and the realm of freedom is not a new idea within the Marxist tradition, it has been developed by several philosophers and economists especially by the Marxists Humanists, from Marcuse thru Raya Dunayevskaya, Peter Hudis, and several teachers from different universities, and those who have digged into Marx 1844 Manuscripts or the Paris Notebooks. The idea was taken from Hegel Robbo in a very simple and concise manner explained the distinction that Marx made to both ideas as having explained by many philosophers and doctoral thesis, and some of them have not been able to understand what Marx meant and it cannot be applied to the Soviet society, that is where most analysts fail to understand the real meaning of the conceptUnder alienated labour human being would not be able to obtain the realm of freedom, it has to be under a communist society based on voluntary labour, humanized labour, and the premises must be the full economic development of the capitalist society. The objective conditions already exist. The concept does show that real freedom can only be obtained in a communist societySome historians and philosophers call capitalism the pre-history of mankind and when we pass that stage in a communist society we would be able to write our own history and we are going to be real free beings
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Can you identify which of these activities for me is voluntary labor in the current economy and answer some simple questions. I'd like to understand how much of the average personsl life (measured in minutes or hours) they are engaged in voluntary labor vs coorced labor as defined by Marx in a capitalist society.In this context, compulsory or coerced labour refers to work arising from the class nature of contemporary capitalism where one class owns the means of producing wealth and the other does not and is therefore obliged to sell its working abilities to the former. In other words, it is work perfomed for the benefit, and at the behest, of a particular section of society called the owning class – the capitalists. This work takes the form of wage labour. Human beings in general need to work. The fact that they need to do so might be construed as "compulsion" and so someone arguing along these lines might be tempted to say that all work is based on compulsion. But I would say this is a meaningless way of arguing the point. If the only colour you could see in your field of vision was red or different shades of red, then the concept of "redness" would be meaningless. Redness only acquires meaning when it is compared and constrasted with some other colour such as green, along the colour spectrum. The necessity to perform wage labour under capitalism is not universal. It is partial and based on class membership . The capitalists dont need to perform wage labour to acquire money to purchase the means of living; the workers do. It is from this basic structural fact of life under capitalism that the notion of compulsory labour arises and which, given the nature of capitalism, takes the form of wage labour. So "non compulsory" labour in this context is all labour that does not take this form. Meaning it does not take a monetised form – that is to say, it is not performed in exchange for money If we look at productive work as a whole (there is the point as to whether you can really make a sharp distinction between leisure/play and work in a socialist society but I will ignore that for the moment) there are 3 distinct sectors that we can identify today under capitalism The White economy – the official monetised economyThe Black economy – the unoffocial/illegal monetised economyThe Grey economy – the non-monetised economy Some statistics I have come across from the UN and other sources suggest that the grey economy in terms of the number of hours worked is slightly larger than the white and black economies combined, at a global level. The forms of activity that comprise the grey economy are numerous and diverse – from agricultural self povisioning to all forms of volunteeering and charitable work to the domestic or household sector. Come to think of it , computer nerds such as myself who spend hours on the computer trawling for data to put togther posts such as this one – completely gratis and for the presumed benefit of others – are yet another example of what is meant by the grey economy
' The question of what money was meant to do is largely irrelevant to me … ' ( #335; comment by Steve-SanFranci … ) The ' question of what money was meant to do ' is the most important one to someone interested to know what money is truly and primarily meant for and what are its limitations. What money was meant to do may be wholly ' irrelevant ' to you or there may exist, as you've claimed, ' a lot of definitions ' of money and ' a lot of different ways ' of using money, but from all these, it doesn't follow that the view that money is, by definition, meant to measure the value of a commodity or the thesis that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity is wrong. Nor does it follow from your view that ' money is currently used mostly to measure only the capital value … ' that my view of money is wrong as you've claimed in your comment #297. And if money can measure the ' capital value ', what makes it incapable of measuring the value, I wonder. ' All other value besides capital value is discarded and not counted in any exchange unless it can be somehow converted into money via a mode of exchange before purchase. ( #335 ) Does the expression ' All other value ' include the value ( exchange-value ) of the commodity, during the purchase of which we have to part with a definite sum of money ? I don't think I ever had to discard the value of a commodity or get it converted into money before purchasing the commodity. You see, I'm not an erudite person, nor am I interested in specialising in the subject money. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, who understands the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and tries to find answers to problems relating to life with the help of this simple logic. I believe my view of money is correct. You interested me by your challenge : ' You're [ sic] thesis is wrong. ' ( #297 ) I have yet to go through the whole length of this comment ( #335 ) of yours. Nevertheless, so far I haven't found any stuff in it which appears weighty enough to challenge my view of money. Besides, I'm short of time too. Therefore, I'd like you to oblige me with a list of your main points that you think disprove my view of money. ' Money is a counting system and like any accounting system can in theory be used to measure anything. ' ( #335 ) It seems that your view of money forms the premise of your conclusion that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything. ' I can't see how the premise led you to this conclusion. Can you really use money to measure ' anything ' such as the length of a piece of cloth, the area of a piece of land or the efficacy of a therapy ? Could you state the right price of a pair of shoes that you consider worthy of a guy of your stature on the basis of the thesis that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything ' ? ' The right definition of money depends on how you are going to use the money. ' ( #335 ) Why should such a definition of money deserve to be viewed as ' right ' and all other definitions wrong ? And if such a definition is right, then what's wrong with my view of money which is based on the way humanity worldwide had used and have been using money since its first appearance in the prehistory of man ?
I'm sorry if any of my comments have hurt or irritated anyone of the respectable members of the SPGB.
Prakash RP wrote:' The question of what money was meant to do is largely irrelevant to me … ' ( #335; comment by Steve-SanFranci … ) The ' question of what money was meant to do ' is the most important one to someone interested to know what money is truly and primarily meant for and what are its limitations. What money was meant to do may be wholly ' irrelevant ' to you or there may exist, as you've claimed, ' a lot of definitions ' of money and ' a lot of different ways ' of using money, but from all these, it doesn't follow that the view that money is, by definition, meant to measure the value of a commodity or the thesis that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity is wrong. Nor does it follow from your view that ' money is currently used mostly to measure only the capital value … ' that my view of money is wrong as you've claimed in your comment #297. And if money can measure the ' capital value ', what makes it incapable of measuring the value, I wonder. ' All other value besides capital value is discarded and not counted in any exchange unless it can be somehow converted into money via a mode of exchange before purchase. ( #335 ) Does the expression ' All other value ' include the value ( exchange-value ) of the commodity, during the purchase of which we have to part with a definite sum of money ? I don't think I ever had to discard the value of a commodity or get it converted into money before purchasing the commodity. You see, I'm not an erudite person, nor am I interested in specialising in the subject money. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, who understands the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and tries to find answers to problems relating to life with the help of this simple logic. I believe my view of money is correct. You interested me by your challenge : ' You're [ sic] thesis is wrong. ' ( #297 ) I have yet to go through the whole length of this comment ( #335 ) of yours. Nevertheless, so far I haven't found any stuff in it which appears weighty enough to challenge my view of money. Besides, I'm short of time too. Therefore, I'd like you to oblige me with a list of your main points that you think disprove my view of money. ' Money is a counting system and like any accounting system can in theory be used to measure anything. ' ( #335 ) It seems that your view of money forms the premise of your conclusion that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything. ' I can't see how the premise led you to this conclusion. Can you really use money to measure ' anything ' such as the length of a piece of cloth, the area of a piece of land or the efficacy of a therapy ? Could you state the right price of a pair of shoes that you consider worthy of a guy of your stature on the basis of the thesis that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything ' ? ' The right definition of money depends on how you are going to use the money. ' ( #335 ) Why should such a definition of money deserve to be viewed as ' right ' and all other definitions wrong ? And if such a definition is right, then what's wrong with my view of money which is based on the way humanity worldwide had used and have been using money since its first appearance in the prehistory of man ?Money did not exist in the pre-history ( we are still living the pre-history of capitalism ) and it has not always existed. Money is a product of the economic exploitation of human being in the capitalist society, and it has existed in the societies where private property has prevailed, there was not money on the primitive communist society, and bartell is not the same as money. Both of you are sailing in the same boathttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1980/no-906-february-1980/evolution-money-barter-inflation-part-1
@Prakash Re http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=35#comment-47029I rate your response as barely worth my time reading. How much time will you offer doing what I want you to do in return for your request of me spending time writng or discussing what you want? Number of minutes please. I don't care how much capital value you spend or produce in your reply, but I expect you to spend half an hour minimum of reading reasoning and writing time as a fair exchange of time value for my time. Just count the number of minutes as a form of exchange. I spent over 2 hours on reading your stuff and replying in this thread. How many minutes was that worth to you? How much do you offer for my time/money already spent on you? If you ever baught anything at a yard sell, then the seller had to discard the emotional value of her childhood doll collection when sellling those dolls to others. If you buy a movie download then you will spend time watching the movie to consume it and the movie costs you time to watch but it products entertainment value. Sentimental value and entertaiment value are difficult to convert directly into capital money value. How much is the emotional value of the doll collectioins that is lost in selling it at a yard sale? You can measure the lost value with a survey or asking an opinion of psychologist or several psychologist how much the human value of losing her dolls cost her. You measure anything with tools and opinion surveys, but that doesn't meen your measurment is accurate, it' just means your measurement is usable for exchanging. With gold the opinoin survey asks how much is this gold bar worth. The Gold smith gets out other tools like a scale or chemicals to test purity or asks in a survey format for where the gold came from and if it's been certified and weighed already and it's purity verified already by someone else with different tools to measure with or different survey questions. Sometimes poeple cheet and make a hollow gold bar and sometimes people exagerate at yard sell how much their doll collection was loved in their childhood. In answer to your question, yes, of course you can use anything y as money. People might disagree, how much love you put into your doll collection, but then poeple might disagree how pure is a pound of rock claimed to be gold too. Different types of money have different verification and enforcement strategies that work best for them. You seem to miss my point that there is more than one usefull definition of money and each definition is "right" for a different purpose. You seem to want to use money as a political argument point about historical origin of something or another. So for you money is a historical artifact of interest to support your personal theory. That makes definitions based on how money is used today worthless to you. So pick your definition and call it "right for you" but don't confuse that with your definition being right for me or socialist here on this board. Iti's just arrogant and self centric of you to insist that you have the only definition of money and everyone else must use your definition of money. I'm saying your purpose of the word "money" is useless to me and my needs so I use a different definition. You are free to continue believing whatever you want about your concept of money. Maybe you think money historically was intended to snort cocain like how they roll up one hundred dollars bills to snort cocain in movies? I don't really care about that use and definition of money either. It's not a wrong definition to say money is a way to snort cocain, but it's not very usefull of a defintion for me or you. IMO most of the poeple at SPGB use "money" as a scapegoat word for blaming the failures of socialism, but that's just my opinion. Socialist say their definition of money is usefull to prove capitalism will failr or something like that. If something doesn't go well, they blame it on money like others blame the boogey man or the witches that poisoned everyone and worshipped satan. I use money to understand how to build a product that functions in a capitalist free market economy and solves poverty and saves the environment and generates class awareness and makes a profit all at the same time. So I have my own definition of money that's good for that purpose.
end of message for Prakash
@Robbo, Re http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=35#comment-47021 Very interesting reply that was worth my time to read and respond to. You have a credit ballance of my time and attention that you can spend in ways you prefer, just let me know what you want me to read, reason, and write about so this exchange of words will provide you with the most value. you wrote. . ."Human beings in general need to work. The fact that they need to do so might be construed as "compulsion" and so someone arguing along these lines might be tempted to say that all work is based on compulsion. But I would say this is a meaningless way of arguing the point. If the only colour you could see in your field of vision was red or different shades of red, then the concept of "redness" would be meaningless. Redness only acquires meaning when it is compared and constrasted with some other colour such as green, along the colour spectrum."I mostly agree this makes sense except that Some things can be more red than others. Red has meaning all alone because it a chair can be 5% red or 50% red or 100% red. So presumably with money, it measures only the capital value of a thing all alone. If the only measure of value is captal based money, then you still have a % money or a numerical value for the captital value that has some meaning. $50 has a different meaning that $500,000 and 50 red photons hitting your retina has a different value than 500,000 red photons entering your eys. So "redness" isn't meaningless if you attach a number to it and "capital value" functions is like "red" in your example. We need to masure blue to understand and exchange things if we care mostly for a color economy to work well If we trade all objects based on their "redness" only then that throws out a lot of value in any exchange from blue or green. What if a chair is 5% red and 95% blue but we only see red so we say it's "just worth 5% red"?I think in regards to "human beings in general need to work", that what you mean to say is biologically and emotionally people need an engagine and enriched environment to be happy and reach their full potential. I don't believe that argument comes from an economic analysis and it's a behavioral psychology and health managment concept. You might enjoy reading or have already read about zoo animals that are happier and healthier when they have to work a little bit to get their food. Monkeys will always grab the easiest bannana's but they live longer and are happier and healthier if they have to climb trees to get the bannana's instead of just picking them up from a big pile of bananna's. ____________________________________________You also wrote. "If we look at productive work as a whole (there is the point as to whether you can really make a sharp distinction between leisure/play and work in a socialist society but I will ignore that for the moment) there are 3 distinct sectors that we can identify today under capitalism The White economy – the official monetised economyThe Black economy – the unoffocial/illegal monetised economyThe Grey economy – the non-monetised economy' Which raised a lot of interesting new questions and answered most of my previous questions mostly. Can you answer me these questions in your opinon. Would a 100 Grey economy be socialism? –or –would socialism be a 100% grey economy?–or — Wouild you argue that the term "grey economy" has no meaning to socialism and all that matters is the form of government as determined by socialist. What if we take something from the grey economy such as "doing dishes for the family" and everone in the house agrees to do chores with chore tickets. So one week you can do the dishes for the family and you get "dishes done" coupons you can spend later by giving to other members of the family when you don't want to do dishes when it's their turn? Does just the act of counting something turn some things in the grey economy into the things in the white economy? These paragraph questions are just my curiosity and mostly academic. I'm most interested in your response to the opinoin question. If you want, please tell me how many hours or minutes you spent looking up and researching that very valuable reply for me. I'll spend and equal amount of time reading, reasoning, or witing to the best of my ability on a topic or questions of your choice at your request to pay you back. Thanks.' Wrong again, and that was answered already in prior messages. Marx is referring to the capitalist society. Marx never advocated for wage slavery. We have said hundred of times in this forum that labor in a comunist society would be voluntary. Period ' ( #347; Marcos ) Dear friend, the repetition of the same mistaken view does not make it right. The fact of the matter is the ' minimum length of the working-day ' Marx referred to in CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ) and both the ' realm of necessity ' and the ' realm of freedom ' referred to by Marx in CAPITAL Volume III ( part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III ) refer wholly to the working-day and the realms in question under communism, which happens to be blazing like the mid-day summer sun. It disgusts me to see that respectable members of the SPGB fail to see it. I wish the mistakes would soon come home to you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.