Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

July 2024 Forums General discussion Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 427 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #130010
    Prakash RP
    Participant

     'Adam should take a serious stand and send this guy to the fucking hell. He is just trying to ridiculizes him ' ( #349; Marcos ) I also think 'Adam should take a serious stand ' and articulate his stand on the realms at issue and thus enlighten me before sending me ' to the fucking hell. ' He seems to have been silent for ages, doesn't he ?' He is just trying to ridiculizes him ' ( #349 )  The meaning is not clear.

    #130011
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Hi Adam, what's the matter with you ? You seem to have been silent for an eternity. I wish you would break silence soon and oblige me by articulating your stance on my view of the contradiction existing between the idea of the classless communist order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Almost all of the debaters against me in this thread hold my view wrong. I, however, don't expect you to be on my side. I'd just like you to clarify your stance on the following points. What follows is an excerpt from CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day is fixed by this necessary … portion of it. If the whole working-day were to shrink to this portion, surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. '  My contenders seem to believe that the term ' necessary ' in the expression ' this necessary … portion of it ' is an instance of many mistakes by Marx, and that the correct term ought to be ' unnecessary '. They also seem to hold the view that the terms ' surplus-labour ' and ' capital ' in the above quote are two more instances of similar mistakes made by Marx, and that the term ' surplus-labour 'is to be replaced by ' necessary-labour ' and ' capital ' by something like ' compital '. Surely you agree with them, aren't you ?  ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( ibid )  They also seem to hold that the term ' capitalist ' in ' capitalist form of production ' and the term ' necessary ' in ' necessary labour-time ' are also erroneous, and that ' capitalist ' ought to be taken to mean ' communist ' while ' necessary ' ought to be replaced by ' surplus '. You also approve of their view wholly, don't you ?  ' But it 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. ' ( CAPITAL Volume III, part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III )  Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?  

    #130012
    PJShannon
    Keymaster
    Prakash RP wrote:
    Hi Adam, what's the matter with you ? You seem to have been silent for an eternity. I wish you would break silence soon and oblige me by articulating your stance on my view of the contradiction existing between the idea of the classless communist order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '.

    Adam has already indicated he has no wish ot continue the corresponence with you any further. Stop hectoring him . 

    Prakash RP wrote:
    Almost all of the debaters against me in this thread hold my view wrong. I, however, don't expect you to be on my side. I'd just like you to clarify your stance on the following points. What follows is an excerpt from CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ).

     ..and they have explained why.

    #130013
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Prakash RP wrote:
    Hi Adam, what's the matter with you ? You seem to have been silent for an eternity. I wish you would break silence soon and oblige me by articulating your stance on my view of the contradiction existing between the idea of the classless communist order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Almost all of the debaters against me in this thread hold my view wrong. I, however, don't expect you to be on my side. I'd just like you to clarify your stance on the following points. What follows is an excerpt from CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day is fixed by this necessary … portion of it. If the whole working-day were to shrink to this portion, surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. '  My contenders seem to believe that the term ' necessary ' in the expression ' this necessary … portion of it ' is an instance of many mistakes by Marx, and that the correct term ought to be ' unnecessary '. They also seem to hold the view that the terms ' surplus-labour ' and ' capital ' in the above quote are two more instances of similar mistakes made by Marx, and that the term ' surplus-labour 'is to be replaced by ' necessary-labour ' and ' capital ' by something like ' compital '. Surely you agree with them, aren't you ?  ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( ibid )        They also seem to hold that the term ' capitalist ' in ' capitalist form of production ' and the term ' necessary ' in ' necessary labour-time ' are also erroneous, and that ' capitalist ' ought to be taken to mean ' communist ' while ' necessary ' ought to be replaced by ' surplus '. You also approve of their view wholly, don't you ?  ' But it 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. ' ( CAPITAL Volume III, part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III )  Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?  

     All this reminds me a member of the WSM forum who is always claiming that Engels advocated for a bourgoise republic, in reality in that time Marx and Engels claimed that a bourgoise democratic republic was a much better situation for the workers to get organized that under Feudalism, but they never advocated for a so called socialist republic

    #130014
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/marx-his-timeThis is a very good article written by the Socialist Party which clarify many concepts expressed by Marx and Engels on their time, in the time when capitalism was developing and expanding itself thru Europe. Labor unions were being creating, fight for shorter working hours was a demand of the working class, demand for more democratic rights, demand for participation in the electoral process, and even more, Marx supported several bourgoise revolutions that took place in Europe, and idea used by the leftwing nationalist to advocate their so called national liberation

    #130015
    robbo203
    Participant
    Prakash RP wrote:
      Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?  

     This is incorrect.  Quite apart from the absurd suggestion that your critics "seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists,  which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment"  you  misunderstand the point about Marx's realms of freedom and necessity In simple terms Marx's expression, the "realm of necessity" alludes to the general need to work – to produce the goods and services we depend upon.  Communism does not eliminate this need – unless you suppose the very unlikely sceanrio of a totally automated system of production that completely relieves us of the need to work,  However this need to work  which applies to communist society as a whole expresses itself at the level of the individual in the form of voluntary labour. Voluntary labour is the logical corrollary of a form of distribution based on free access.  To fail to see this is to fail to recognise the central point that Marx is making – that the "antagonism"  between "the individual" and "society" ceases to apply in a communist society.  Consequently to postulate the need for any form of compulsory labour implies the continuation of  such an antagonism,   It implies a divergence of interests between the interests of the individual and others. There can be no doubt that Marx endorsed the communist principle, "from each according to ability to each according to need" – volunteer labour and free access to goods and services,   Though he made few direct references to the nature of a communist/socialist society the few that he did points to this as being based on the free association of the producers. His whole theory of alienation (estrangement) and his critique of the compulsory of enforced division of labour only makes sense in the light of this.  Hence the famous passage from the German Ideology, where in present day society with its enforced division of labour one may be a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic This is clearly incompatible with the idea of compulsory labour Marx's point that the realm of freedom grows out of realm of necessity and begins where the latter ends simply means that the disposable free time available to us depends the level of prpductivity that society has achieved.  This is very clear from the Gotha critique itself:In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! What you are doing is to quite illegitimately equating the "realm of necessity" – the generalised need for people still to work in communism –  with the need to institute a system of compulsory labour that in practice will boil down to the reinstatement of  class form of society. 

    #130016
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Prakash RP wrote:
    Hi Adam, what's the matter with you ? You seem to have been silent for an eternity. I wish you would break silence soon and oblige me by articulating your stance on my view of the contradiction existing between the idea of the classless communist order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Almost all of the debaters against me in this thread hold my view wrong. I, however, don't expect you to be on my side. I'd just like you to clarify your stance on the following points. What follows is an excerpt from CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day is fixed by this necessary … portion of it. If the whole working-day were to shrink to this portion, surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. '  My contenders seem to believe that the term ' necessary ' in the expression ' this necessary … portion of it ' is an instance of many mistakes by Marx, and that the correct term ought to be ' unnecessary '. They also seem to hold the view that the terms ' surplus-labour ' and ' capital ' in the above quote are two more instances of similar mistakes made by Marx, and that the term ' surplus-labour 'is to be replaced by ' necessary-labour ' and ' capital ' by something like ' compital '. Surely you agree with them, aren't you ?  ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( ibid )  They also seem to hold that the term ' capitalist ' in ' capitalist form of production ' and the term ' necessary ' in ' necessary labour-time ' are also erroneous, and that ' capitalist ' ought to be taken to mean ' communist ' while ' necessary ' ought to be replaced by ' surplus '. You also approve of their view wholly, don't you ?  ' But it 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. ' ( CAPITAL Volume III, part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III )  Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?  

    Nobody in this forum has said what you are saying, and it looks that you are totally confused on many concepts. Nobody has said that workers would not work on a communist society, we have used the term voluntary labour., which is different to force labor or compulsory labour, we would not be working in order to survive.Probably, in a communist society peoples would be more motivated to produce for the soceity than in the capitalist society  because they would be producing for the whole society instead of producing for a small groups of individuals, we are not going to be alineated anymore. Go back to the drawing board again

    #130017
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ' I don’t consider that you have a “clear concept of the basics of communism” … ' ( #338 ; robbo 203 ) The statement reflects silliness and intellectual immaturity. In actual fact, it's you that, I'm afraid, seems to be pathetically lacking in the ' concept of basics of communism '.  '  No communist would ever come out with such a preposterous remark as you have done – namely that “ the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is impractical and incompatible with the free communist society” '. ( ibid ) To be a communist, you have to be sensible first, and then you have to be endowed with the backbone you need in order to face up to the truth. The sensible cannot fail to see something like the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and the truth glaring before their eyes like the mid-day summer sun. To my astonishment and disgust, almost all of the debaters against this lone guy in this thread seem to be devoid of these very basic attributes a communist must be possessed of. Your failure to notice the irreconcilable contradiction, notwithstanding I'm thrown more than enough light on it, between the communist aim of classless society and the fallacious principle of ' " from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs " ' reflects this fact, IMHO . We make mistakes. None of us is infallible. Nevertheless, the fact that differentiates the sensible from the silly is the former group of people, unlike the latter group, admit to it as soon as they awake to their mistakes and take necessary corrective steps as soon as possible, and thus they prove they're not silly while, on the other hand, the silly persist in refusing to be awakened to their glaring errors and keep repeating the same errors. The irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society and the principle at issue shows the impracticability of this principle and why it's incompatible with free communist society. Your silence on this point is intriguing and might be taken to mean silly evasion, I'm afraid to say.  ' I think you position is closer to Stalinism than it … ' ( ibid ) This is a mere personal impression, something subjective, not an argument. Even if my position on an issue is truly ' closer to Stalinism ', it doesn't follow that it's wrong or that I'm a Stalinist. ' … but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. ' ( ibid ) This is another silly instance reflecting the commenter's subjective thought. Even if my idea of communism deserves your description, it doesn't follow that it's wrong, and that yours is right, RIGHT ? '  Marx fully endorsed the principle you repudiate as “impractical and incompatible with the free communist society”. ' ( ibid ) I think I've already dealt with such arguments. If the theory of communism deserves to be reckoned a science, something can't be acceptable as right just on the grounds that it was endorsed by Marx, one of the originators of the theory of communism, or someone else. Marx was an individual who was not perfect nor infallible like any other individuals. Albert Einstein, the Great Man of Science, cherished something as silly as belief in Spinoza's God. Of course this silly belief cannot deserve to be reckoned scientific just because it was cherished by a great scientific figure like Einstein, does it ? The contradiction between the idea of classless order and the principle at issue happens to be blazing like the mid-day sun, something too glaring to escape the sensible's notice, doesn't it ? Communists must either reconcile the idea of classless society and the principle at issue or repudiate one of them, and I'm all for repudiating, if we must repudiate one, the latter just because not only is it impractical, it's useless as well, OK ? I wish you awoke to this point and stopped bringing unfounded charges against me. ' "  after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! " ' ( ibid ) Frankly, the meaning of the content of the above quote isn't clear to me. Is it really clear to you ? Do you really understand what Marx meant by the expression ' the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' ? Could you explain how the vanishing of ' enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' along with the vanishing of ' the antithesis between mental and physical labor ' , the transformation of labour into ' life's prime want ', etc will lead to the reconciliation between the idea of classless order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' and thus effect the transition from the lower phase of communism to the ' higher phase ' based on this principle ? As I see it, the above citation is a mere hypothetical assertion that belongs to the category of subjective thought, not logic. And it doesn't contain any such stuff as the one that proves the practicability of the idea of basing the classless order on the principle at issue.  '   What I was attacking was your basic claim that because some individuals in a communist society of free voluntary labour would allegedly not want to work, society as a whole is “certain” to collapse. I reject that argument completely. ' ( ibid ) Dear friend, to reject an argument, you have to point to its fallacy by valid counterarguments. You cannot reject an argument with your might, can you ? My claim is resting on sound logic that's immune to your might. ' Even if hypothetically what you say was true about some people being predisposed to just laze around all day doing nothing, a communist society could comfortably carry them given our technological ability to produce plenty. ' ( ibid )  The point missed is the classless society canNOT approve of anything like wealth disparity or the exploitation of man by man. If some people are allowed to shun work, the amount of wealth they'll share and enjoy will have to be the product of other people's work, and thus it'll add up to the exploitation of all those that work by the workshy. Thus, the classless order will no longer remain classless. Further, under the communist mode of production, the length of the working-day happens to be equal to its ' minimum length '* determined by dividing the total amount of socially necessary labour-time per day by the number of working hands. Evidently, the total workload remaining unchanged, the smaller the workforce becomes, the longer the working-day grows. Thus, if the workshy do not have to perform any work but are allowed to equally share the social wealth, the rest of the workforce will have to overwork to produce the same required-amount of wealth and thus have to be exploited by the workshy. The communist mode of production canNOT allow things like longer working-day, overwork, etc. Therefore, if the workshy are allowed freedom to evade doing work, and if the work-loving and workaholics are not allowed to overwork, it'll lead to an inevitable shortfall in the total amount of social wealth, which will mean society's inability to meet everyone's need. The situation, if left unchecked, is certain to lead to theft, corruption, and, finally, the death of the ' higher phase ' of the communist order. The ' technological ability to produce plenty ' can't be an answer to the problem. Machines are made and run by humans, and machines in operation need be attended by humans too. With technological progress leading to higher labour-productivity, the ' minimum length ' of the working-day and with it, the per-capita share of the social workload must come down, total social workload remaining the same, and supposing all of the social workforce will equally share the social workload. Now, if the workshy can shun work, it'll lead to the same problems : longer working-day, overwork, the exploitation of the overworking lot by the workshy and the crafty and crooked, no overwork leading to a massive shortfall in total social wealth, etc, etc, and, finally, the death of the Utopian communism along with its basis, the lofty principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! '    ' It is they who are the ones who will actually lose out on the sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity in a free society in which, to quote Marx again, labour “has become not only a means of life but life's prime want”. ' ( ibid ) First off, I feel I should bring it to your notice that the above citation reflects something subjective, your personal thought, not logic. Second, I'd like you to take cognisance of the fact that workshyness, craft and crookedness, etc are natural traits in harmony with Nature's design ( just as flowering plants and non-flowering plants reflects Nature's design ). There's nothing in the theory of communism that assures you in the ' higher phase ' of the communist order, humanity will consist of only the good, the sensible, and the work-loving. Nor is there any good reason to believe that ' sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity ' is a guaranted cure for the maladies like workshyness, crookedness, etc. And do please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't labour already ' a means of life ' and ' life's prime want ' for the 99% that, by Oxfam's wealth data, consist of hard-working poor people that were born poor to sweat blood and to be exploited by the 1% and thus grow poorer and poorer ? Nevertheless, most of this hard-working crowd labour not for love but for money they're pressed for for buying necessities and some occasional luxuries of life.  Would like to deal with your other points in my next post. * CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, IV. ( 2. ) by Marx 

    #130018
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Prakash RP wrote:
    ' I don’t consider that you have a “clear concept of the basics of communism” … ' ( #338 ; robbo 203 ) The statement reflects silliness and intellectual immaturity. In actual fact, it's you that, I'm afraid, seems to be pathetically lacking in the ' concept of basics of communism '.  '  No communist would ever come out with such a preposterous remark as you have done – namely that “ the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is impractical and incompatible with the free communist society” '. ( ibid ) To be a communist, you have to be sensible first, and then you have to be endowed with the backbone you need in order to face up to the truth. The sensible cannot fail to see something like the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and the truth glaring before their eyes like the mid-day summer sun. To my astonishment and disgust, almost all of the debaters against this lone guy in this thread seem to be devoid of these very basic attributes a communist must be possessed of. Your failure to notice the irreconcilable contradiction, notwithstanding I'm thrown more than enough light on it, between the communist aim of classless society and the fallacious principle of ' " from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs " ' reflects this fact, IMHO . We make mistakes. None of us is infallible. Nevertheless, the fact that differentiates the sensible from the silly is the former group of people, unlike the latter group, admit to it as soon as they awake to their mistakes and take necessary corrective steps as soon as possible, and thus they prove they're not silly while, on the other hand, the silly persist in refusing to be awakened to their glaring errors and keep repeating the same errors. The irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society and the principle at issue shows the impracticability of this principle and why it's incompatible with free communist society. Your silence on this point is intriguing and might be taken to mean silly evasion, I'm afraid to say.  ' I think you position is closer to Stalinism than it … ' ( ibid ) This is a mere personal impression, something subjective, not an argument. Even if my position on an issue is truly ' closer to Stalinism ', it doesn't follow that it's wrong or that I'm a Stalinist. ' … but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. ' ( ibid ) This is another silly instance reflecting the commenter's subjective thought. Even if my idea of communism deserves your description, it doesn't follow that it's wrong, and that yours is right, RIGHT ? '  Marx fully endorsed the principle you repudiate as “impractical and incompatible with the free communist society”. ' ( ibid ) I think I've already dealt with such arguments. If the theory of communism deserves to be reckoned a science, something can't be acceptable as right just on the grounds that it was endorsed by Marx, one of the originators of the theory of communism, or someone else. Marx was an individual who was not perfect nor infallible like any other individuals. Albert Einstein, the Great Man of Science, cherished something as silly as belief in Spinoza's God. Of course this silly belief cannot deserve to be reckoned scientific just because it was cherished by a great scientific figure like Einstein, does it ? The contradiction between the idea of classless order and the principle at issue happens to be blazing like the mid-day sun, something too glaring to escape the sensible's notice, doesn't it ? Communists must either reconcile the idea of classless society and the principle at issue or repudiate one of them, and I'm all for repudiating, if we must repudiate one, the latter just because not only is it impractical, it's useless as well, OK ? I wish you awoke to this point and stopped bringing unfounded charges against me. ' "  after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! " ' ( ibid ) Frankly, the meaning of the content of the above quote isn't clear to me. Is it really clear to you ? Do you really understand what Marx meant by the expression ' the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' ? Could you explain how the vanishing of ' enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' along with the vanishing of ' the antithesis between mental and physical labor ' , the transformation of labour into ' life's prime want ', etc will lead to the reconciliation between the idea of classless order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' and thus effect the transition from the lower phase of communism to the ' higher phase ' based on this principle ? As I see it, the above citation is a mere hypothetical assertion that belongs to the category of subjective thought, not logic. And it doesn't contain any such stuff as the one that proves the practicability of the idea of basing the classless order on the principle at issue.  '   What I was attacking was your basic claim that because some individuals in a communist society of free voluntary labour would allegedly not want to work, society as a whole is “certain” to collapse. I reject that argument completely. ' ( ibid ) Dear friend, to reject an argument, you have to point to its fallacy by valid counterarguments. You cannot reject an argument with your might, can you ? My claim is resting on sound logic that's immune to your might. ' Even if hypothetically what you say was true about some people being predisposed to just laze around all day doing nothing, a communist society could comfortably carry them given our technological ability to produce plenty. ' ( ibid )  The point missed is the classless society canNOT approve of anything like wealth disparity or the exploitation of man by man. If some people are allowed to shun work, the amount of wealth they'll share and enjoy will have to be the product of other people's work, and thus it'll add up to the exploitation of all those that work by the workshy. Thus, the classless order will no longer remain classless. Further, under the communist mode of production, the length of the working-day happens to be equal to its ' minimum length '* determined by dividing the total amount of socially necessary labour-time per day by the number of working hands. Evidently, the total workload remaining unchanged, the smaller the workforce becomes, the longer the working-day grows. Thus, if the workshy do not have to perform any work but are allowed to equally share the social wealth, the rest of the workforce will have to overwork to produce the same required-amount of wealth and thus have to be exploited by the workshy. The communist mode of production canNOT allow things like longer working-day, overwork, etc. Therefore, if the workshy are allowed freedom to evade doing work, and if the work-loving and workaholics are not allowed to overwork, it'll lead to an inevitable shortfall in the total amount of social wealth, which will mean society's inability to meet everyone's need. The situation, if left unchecked, is certain to lead to theft, corruption, and, finally, the death of the ' higher phase ' of the communist order. The ' technological ability to produce plenty ' can't be an answer to the problem. Machines are made and run by humans, and machines in operation need be attended by humans too. With technological progress leading to higher labour-productivity, the ' minimum length ' of the working-day and with it, the per-capita share of the social workload must come down, total social workload remaining the same, and supposing all of the social workforce will equally share the social workload. Now, if the workshy can shun work, it'll lead to the same problems : longer working-day, overwork, the exploitation of the overworking lot by the workshy and the crafty and crooked, no overwork leading to a massive shortfall in total social wealth, etc, etc, and, finally, the death of the Utopian communism along with its basis, the lofty principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! '    ' It is they who are the ones who will actually lose out on the sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity in a free society in which, to quote Marx again, labour “has become not only a means of life but life's prime want”. ' ( ibid ) First off, I feel I should bring it to your notice that the above citation reflects something subjective, your personal thought, not logic. Second, I'd like you to take cognisance of the fact that workshyness, craft and crookedness, etc are natural traits in harmony with Nature's design ( just as flowering plants and non-flowering plants reflects Nature's design ). There's nothing in the theory of communism that assures you in the ' higher phase ' of the communist order, humanity will consist of only the good, the sensible, and the work-loving. Nor is there any good reason to believe that ' sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity ' is a guaranted cure for the maladies like workshyness, crookedness, etc. And do please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't labour already ' a means of life ' and ' life's prime want ' for the 99% that, by Oxfam's wealth data, consist of hard-working poor people that were born poor to sweat blood and to be exploited by the 1% and thus grow poorer and poorer ? Nevertheless, most of this hard-working crowd labour not for love but for money they're pressed for for buying necessities and some occasional luxuries of life.  Would like to deal with your other points in my next post. * CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, IV. ( 2. ) by Marx 

    That is the definition of communism given by Ernesto Che Guevara. a Maoist-Stalinist

    #130019
    robbo203
    Participant
    Prakash RP wrote:
    The irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society and the principle at issue shows the impracticability of this principle and why it's incompatible with free communist society. Your silence on this point is intriguing and might be taken to mean silly evasion, I'm afraid to say. 

    Now you are just being ridiculous.  There is no “irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society” and the principle “from each according to ability to each according to ability”.  That principle is the perfectly logical expression or outcome of common ownership of the means of production.  Common ownership which even somebody as deficient in his grasp of logic as you must realise, is the negation of all forms of economic exchange.  Exchange implies private property.  Common property implies the absence of exchange which is precisely what “free access” entails.   And free access, as I explained, goes hand in hand with voluntary labour. So where, oh, where, Mr “Originator of a THESIS on money's incapacity” (LOL) is the contradiction? C’mon spit it out and tell us in plain English? I think you have so tied yourself up in knots over this issue that you can’t seem to understand what it’s about anymore Whether the principle is “impracticable” is your opinion.   You are entitled to express it but you are not entitled to infer from this that the principle is therefore in irreconcilable contradiction with classless communism which is what you are trying to do in your usual cack-handed clumsy fashion. I completely repudiate your claim that the principle is impractical.  Far from being silent on the point I have demonstrated several times in this exchange that your arguments are weak and unconvincing.  I have repeatedly cited evidence to support my case such as the fact that, even under capitalism, there is a huge amount of voluntary labour going on.  There have been numerous well researched empirical studies bearing out the point about the intrinsic motivation involved in work and how paying people to work has a corrosive impact on this intrinsic motivation.  What has been your response to these arguments? Zero! Zilch.  Complete silence!  You would do well to respond to my arguments before accusing others of being silent about yours.  Not only have I defended the principle of voluntary labour as a basic structural characteristic of communist society and one that is eminently practical, I have also asked certain questions concerning your proposed alternative for a communist society – namely compulsory labour.  Unlike you, I am not a dogmatist.  I don’t say compulsory labour is logically incompatible with a communist society or completely inconceivable but I do believe it goes against the grain of a communist society and that there is a high probability that it could bring about the reinstatement of some form of class society.   Who is going to do the compelling in the case of a system of compulsory labour? Who is going to compel the compellers? How are you going to enforce the rule that all should put their fair share of labour?  What metric are going to use to determine what a “fair share” is? Is an hour’s work by a janitor the same value as an hour’s work of a neurosurgeon?  You refuse to answer these questions and that is because I suspect you realise that to go down this road that could backfire on you badly. At the end of the day I think your basic ideology is a sort of quasi-Stalinist authoritarianism.  You seem to like talking a lot about “backbone”  and dealing with the “workshy” in the same contemptuous manner that you might expect a Tory Minister of Employment to do in a Party Conference rant.   Certainly, you seem to share the same core bourgeois assumptions that are to be found in most mainstream economic textbooks – like the idea that labour is a “disutility” that needs to be compensated.  Or that human beings are naturally greedy with insatiable appetites so that allowing them free access to goods in a communist society would mean they would strip the store of goods in minutes like some plague of locusts Little wonder you get such short shrift on this forum.  In case you haven’t noticed, this is a forum for communists, not conservatives! 

    #130020
    Dave B
    Participant

    i bourgeois rights and bourgeois limitations  What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form. Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm 

    #130021
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The whole chapter is excellent and worth reading. He demolishes teh notions being advanced on here by some, and reaches the conclusion, Robin has already posted,

    Quote:
    "…..In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "

    My emphasis.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

    #130022
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Would like to add the following points to my comment #368. ' … but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. ' ( #338 ; robbo 203 ) My ideas about communism are wholly based on the thought of Marx & Engels. I've already provided my ideas with incontestable citations from CAPITAL VOL I & III  to show that there's no contradiction between my view of communism and that of Marx's and Engels's. It's only Marx's view of the basic principle of the higher phase of communism occurring in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that I find irreconcilable with his view of the classless communist order and the communist mode of production as we find it in CAPITAL by Marx. It is this irreconcilable contradiction existing actually between two views of Marx that I'm trying to throw light on  and thus awaken humanity to ( maybe I'm the first to do it ; do I deserve this credit ? ).  ' People are not lazy in general but you have opted to make a generalised statement … ' ( ibid ) This is an instance of misinterpretation of my views. I never said anything to the effect that people in general are workshy. Even in my last comment ( #368 ), I stated clearly that ' workshyness, craft and crookedness ', etc are natural traits in harmony with Nature's design ( just as flowering plants and non-flowering plants reflect Nature's design ). ' From this it doesn't follow that I think the workshy or the crafty and crooked make up the majority of humanity. But it doesn't mean the workshy or the crafty and crooked aren't, if they can do whatever they like, a cause for concern just as because the antisocial elements are a minority vis-à-vis the totality of humanity, it's not a sensible idea to turn a blind eye to their activities and breathe easy and approve of the proposal to curb the police budget. Terrorists are also a minority. Of course you don't think that on these grounds, the war against terror is useless and senseless wastage of money and time, and that we ought to stop it right now and take heed of lots of other business, do you ? Smallness does not necessarily mean slightness or harmlessness. There're so many instances that corroborate this view of mine. The minority, if they're united and well-organised surely can rule over the majority that are divided and disorderly. The born poor and penniless millions make up the 99%, by Oxfam's wealth data, of humanity. Still, they're exploited by the rich and the super-rich, who together make up not more than 1%, and thus they help the rich and the super-rich grow richer and richer while they themselves keep growing poorer and poorer. The reason is simple. Humanity consists of both the silly and benighted and the sensible and enlightened. The silly and benighted make up the overwhelming majority of the 99% today, as I see it.. I think I've said enough to throw light on this point, namely, the fact that smallness in terms of number doesn't mean powerlessness or harmlessness. Although a minority, the workshy or the crafty and crooked, if not compelled to join in with their work-loving fellows, surely they may bring about the death of the communist order. I've thrown light on this point in my last comment #368. ' Excuse me but you are the one arguing for a system of compulsory or coerced labour.   How are you going to implement this compulsion? ' ( ibid ) You've certainly raised a sensible point : how to implement this compulsion ? But you seem to be outright unaware of the distinction between the two points : what we have to do and how we have to do it. The fact of the matter is the workshy, the crafty and crooked, and all other elements opposed to communism must be dealt with successfully if we are for communism. You seem to be all for, unconsciously, abandoning communism if you must choose between communism ( with compulsion meant to check up on anti-communist elements ) and not communism. My dear friend, compulsion and the application of force are inseparable from life. As a responsible guardian or teacher, you can't avoid using compulsion or force to deal with unruly and disobedient kids, can you ? The point is we have to ascertain the most effective and acceptable way to deal with all people with disturbing traits. Nevertheless, as compulsion aimed at dealing with problem children does not make non-problem children feel disturbed, there's no good reason for you, if you're a good citizen, to feel perturbed at the communist principle of compulsory equal-sharing of social workload just as we don't feel disturbed because of the proper action by guardians of law and order against the antisocial and other bad citizens. Rather, on the contrary, we feel awfully disturbed if the guardians of law and order fail to take proper action against the disturbing elements in society. Compulsion or the application of force approved of by society, which is meant to deal with people with hostile and harmful traits, should not be viewed as coercion or being bossed around by the good and responsible citizens, IMHO. Thank you for raising this point. I may not have given to it as much importance as  it deserves. Nevertheless, I'd still like to adhere to my point : communism is a science ; for this reason, it must be compulsory equal-sharing of the total social workload for an equal share in the social wealth. As plants consist of flowering plants and non-flowering plants and creatures of the warm-blooded and cold-blooded ones, children will consist of both problem children and good children and humanity of the good and the bad, the sensible and the silly, the progressive and the reactionary, etc, etc. Therefore, if the communist order is to be a reality and survive, communists have to deal with hostile and harmful elements like the workshy. Life in the communist order can't be free of force.  ' If you are going to compel people to work you are also going to have to monitor their labour input. …  To monitor my labour input you are going to have somebody doing the monitoring and chastising … ' ( ibid ) I'd like the term ' people ' in the first line to be changed to ' people with disturbing traits '. I'd also like you not to miss the distinction between what we have to do and how we have to do it. I'd also like you not to fail to see that the issue of the first importance is the former : what we have to do. You have to wrack your brain to find the right answer to this query first. After finding it, you'd best find the right answer to the latter. We have to do what we have to do. Finding the best way to do it won't be too tough for humanity in this space age. ' The temptation to corruption is inherent in a system of labour compulsion.  In fact , I would say the very system of forced labour which you advocate is the very system that predisposes individuals to become “workshy”. ' But I believe corruption is rooted in the twin evils: money and power. Money means commodity economy the fundamental law of which is the uneven distribution of wealth and income. In an unequal society, you can always see someone wealthier than you or someone less wealthier than you but the wealth disparity seems to you not so large as it ought to be to please you. This gives rise to a hankering to amass wealth, which soon degenerates into an insatiable craving for wealth— wealth, more wealth, and yet more wealth, as if wealth is everything in life; as if life is meaningless without wealth. But in capitalism, lawful roads to riches are too few while there happens to be no dearth of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices. Nevertheless, for making easy money through illicit means and evading being brought to book, you need be powerful. This explains why the high-flying, high-profile men and women are so prone to corruption and the abuse of power. Would like to deal with your other points in my next post.

    #130023
    Dave B
    Participant

    i How about taking something from someone who believed in compulsion when dealing with disturbed children? ….Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale. ….  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

    #130024
    robbo203
    Participant

       

    Prakash RP wrote:
    My ideas about communism are wholly based on the thought of Marx & Engels. I've already provided my ideas with incontestable citations from CAPITAL VOL I & III  to show that there's no contradiction between my view of communism and that of Marx's and Engels's. It's only Marx's view of the basic principle of the higher phase of communism occurring in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that I find irreconcilable with his view of the classless communist

     I have already demonstrated the absurdity of this claim. Just because you believe that the principle “from each to ability to each according to need” is not feasible, does NOT mean the principle is "irreconcilable" with communism.  It merely means it is unfeasible, in your eyes.  You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word "irreconcilable" 

    Prakash RP wrote:
     ' People are not lazy in general but you have opted to make a generalised statement … ' ( ibid ) This is an instance of misinterpretation of my views. I never said anything to the effect that people in general are workshy.

     I didn’t say you said everyone is workshy.  I acknowledged that you said some people are not.  However, it must be the case that you think that on balance people are workshy otherwise why would you advocate a system of compulsory labour for everyone?  Clearly you believe a system of voluntary labour would not work because people as a whole would not come forward in sufficient numbers to perform the work and so would have to be forced to work. My argument is not to deny that some people, probably a tiny minority, may be disposed to be lazy and free ride.  Rather, I contend that this is not going to be problem given the sheer productivity of modern production.  If anything the problem will be finding enough work to go around (particularly since the need for most kinds of work we do today will disappear with the disappearance of the capitalist money economy).  If the so called problem of the workshy in a communist society ever became a problem then it will be addressed informally by a change in attitude towards such people – that is to say by social pressure and social opinion which is a very effective mechanism – perhaps the most effective mechanism we can think of given that human beings are by nature, social animals.  You do NOT need a state-like system that micro-manages every citizen to ensure that they put in their requisite number of hours per week as determined by some technocratic elite I note that you have not responded to my point that actually , and there have been numerous studies to back up this point, paying people to work corrodes the intrinsic motivation to work.  You effectively want to pay people to work by linking their consumption to what they contribute to society by way of labour input.  You want to impose compulsory labour even on those – the majority – who are not workshy and would not be in a communist society by your own admission.   If anything is calculated to make people more “workshy” it is exactly what you propose I also note that once again you have failed to explain how you are going to measure people’s labour contribution.  If I turn up to office and do 8 hours labour, sipping coffee and surfing the internet, will I get the same bundle of consumer goods as someone who works down a sewer shovelling shit?   

    Prakash RP wrote:
     ' Excuse me but you are the one arguing for a system of compulsory or coerced labour.   How are you going to implement this compulsion? ' ( ibid ) ou've certainly raised a sensible point : how to implement this compulsion ? But you seem to be outright unaware of the distinction between the two points : what we have to do and how we have to do it. The fact of the matter is the workshy, the crafty and crooked, and all other elements opposed to communism must be dealt with successfully if we are for communism. You seem to be all for, unconsciously, abandoning communism if you must choose between communism ( with compulsion meant to check up on anti-communist elements ) and not communism. My dear friend, compulsion and the application of force are inseparable from life. As a responsible guardian or teacher, you can't avoid using compulsion or force to deal with unruly and disobedient kids, can you ?

      It is so telling that you should use the example of unruly and disobedient kids to argue the case for universal compulsory labour in communism.  You want to treat every adult in a communist society as a child in some kind of parent-child relationship in which you see yourself as performing the role of the parent.  Once again, this demonstrates the contempt you have for your fellow workers.  They can’t be trusted to do the work so you and your fellow members in your Leninist style vanguard have to patronisingly direct them to do what needs to be done in a communist society if it is not to collapse. You have still not explained why those who compel others to labour and oversee/manage the latter’s labour performance in this system of compulsory labour you wish to enforce,  will not themselves become a new ruling class and bring about the very collapse of a communist society you claim to want 

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 427 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.