Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Anonymous]

Why are people continuing to respond to this numbskull?  If I was a moderator this thread would have been locked a long time ago if only because of the OP's repeated infringement of Forum Rule 6.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[Anonymous]

There have been some excellent replies. You should use the 'report' button to alert the moderator to any perceived infringements.

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

There have been some excellent replies. You should use the 'report' button to alert the moderator to any perceived infringements.

Been there, done that (several times as have other users), all to no avail.  I mean, how many "excellent replies" does it take to convince an idiot, who's actually a troll and running rings around all of those who take her seriously.

[Anonymous]

I'd never want to convince idiots, but others looking into replies. It would help if we edited down a lot of the posts though.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Matt wrote:

There have been some excellent replies. You should use the 'report' button to alert the moderator to any perceived infringements.

Been there, done that (several times as have other users), all to no avail.  I mean, how many "excellent replies" does it take to convince an idiot, who's actually a troll and running rings around all of those who take her seriously.

he or she ?

[Prakash RP]

 Would like to add what follows to my last remark #373. '  In fact , I would say the very system of forced labour which you advocate is the very system that predisposes individuals to become “workshy”. ' ( #338; robbo 203 ) First off, I'd like you to take cognisance of the fact that viewing what, according to Marx, happens to be ' necessary labour ' ( CAPITAL Volume I ) as ' forced labour ' is plain wrong. By the law of value, it's the ' surplus labour ' labourers have to perform gratis in the capitalist mode of production, which generates capitalists' profit. It is this ' surplus labour ' or ' unpaid labour ' that truly deserves to be viewed as ' forced labour '. In the capitalist mode of production, workers are duly paid for their ' necessary labour '. In the communist mode of production, the working-day is shortened so as to make it equal to the necessary labour-time to make sure that none have to overwork, and performers of this labour are duly rewarded. Therefore, it's outright wrong, by economic logic, to treat the necessary labour as ' forced labour '. Under capitalism, the motivation behind work is money that workers need to buy necessities of life along with some cheap luxuries. Under communism, it's good sense, the awareness that all the necessities and luxuries of life they need to lead a healthy and meaningful life will have to be produced by themselves that should motivate people to share the social workload equally and perform everyone's share of work with full care. And since this workload consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded under communism, it cannot be called ' forced labour '. This is another refutation of your assertion that the compulsory sharing of social workload under communism is equivalent to coercion. Therefore, viewing my view of communism as a ' system of forced labour ' that ' predisposes the individuals to become " workshy " ' appears outright unfounded.  ' Free voluntary labour is its own intrinsic reward and there have many many empirical studies that bear out this very point. ' ( ibid ) My dear friend, communism based on ' Free voluntary labour ' is a myth. I've thrown enough light on this point, and there's no good reason why the sensible should miss it. My arguments are as simple as the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four. Let me restate my main points once again. Under communism, the social working-day will consist of only the necessary labout-time, which makes it impossible for anyone to overwork or evade their share of work. If some people ( the workshy and the crafty and crooked ) are allowed to evade work, and if it's not offset by overwork by the rest of the workforce, total social wealth is bound to fall below the targeted amount. Under the circumstance, it'd be impossible for everyone to be provided with their due share of wealth, let alone as much wealth as they need. This shows how silly and unrealistic the idea of communism based on the lofty principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is. If the ' Free voluntary labour ' was realistic and better than the capitalistic forced labour, capitalism would not survive so long and make so much progress. The ' many many empirical studies ' glorifying ' Free voluntary labour ' must be awfully flawed. So far you haven't referred to any such points that led you to your belief in these studies, have you ? ' This is muddled thinking.  The point about wage labour under capitalism is that necessary labour and surplus labour are coterminous.   Unlike in feudalism you don’t have one part of the working day devoted to necessary labour and another part to surplus labour.  Both forms of labour are inseparable under the general heading of coerced wage labour. ' ( ibid ) Your conclusion that ' Both forms of labour are inseparable under the general heading of coerced wage labour ' seems to be premised on your view that they are ' coterminous '. Therefore, I must question this view of yours. In the first place, the necessary labour is wholly paid labour that does NOT generate profit. In the second place, the surplus labour that generates profit  happens to be, by the law of value, wholly unpaid and remains so in the capitalist mode of production. Thus, the distinction between the two sorts of labour is manifestly basic and blazing like the mid-day summer sun. It passes my comprehension how a sensible man can fail to see it and put them in the same category of ' coerced wage labour '. The two sorts of labour, there's no good reason to fail to see it, NOT inseparable under communism. It's also wrong to view unpaid labour as ' wage labour ' just because it's unpaid.  Would like to deal with your other points in my next post.

[Dave B]

i  The communist myth!  1844 Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris  The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12]The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm#n12 Eg.  Frederick Engels  Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence; Written: in mid-October 1844    Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against his will, and no one seeks work in vain. They have no poor-houses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans; all their needs are met and they need fear no want. In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs. The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference for they are the most peaceable citizens and have never yielded a single criminal for the prisons. They enjoy, as we said, the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm    And from Lenin;V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New   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.  But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm Trotsky; Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed,  Chapter 3, Socialism and the State   The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.”  http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism     The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite comprehensible, because in reality they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is to this, in the long run, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its consequences. Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions. 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. Now just that insignificant little fact – that historical step of the State dictatorship – Abramovich, and in his person the whole of Menshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm  Karl Kautsky IV. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE FUTURE 9. Division of Products in the Future State. We can conceive a time when science shall have raised industry to such a high level if productivity that everything wanted by man will be produced in great abundance. In such a case, the formula, “To each according to his needs,” would be applied as a matter of course and without difficulty. On the other hand, not even the profoundest conviction of the justice of this formula would be able to put it into practice if the productivity of labor remained so low that the proceeds of the most excessive toil could produce only the bare necessities………..http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04a.htm   Kuatsky;Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY  Besides this rigid allocation of an equal measure of the necessaries and enjoyments of life to each individual, another form of Socialism without money is conceivable, the Leninite interpretation of what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed. We have not yet progressed so far as this. At present we are unable to divine whether we shall ever reach this state. But that Socialism with which we are alone concerned to-day, whose features we can discern with some precision from the indications that already exist, will unfortunately not have this enviable freedom and abundance at its disposal, and will therefore not be able to do without money. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sb  Hyndman; Henry Mayers Hyndman The Record of an Adventurous LifeChapter XV Start of Social Democracy  “A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.”   http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html  Peter Kropotkin 1920The Wage System http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm   J. V. Stalin  ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906   Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed — there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists — there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.  As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc. It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is nopage 337 need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.  That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846:  "The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).[89] That is why Engels said in 1884: "The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe"  (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[ At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which page 338 will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly. It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held.  Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! — such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created. It goes without saying that in the first stage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarily to take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.That is why Marx said in 1875:page 339 "In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" (see Critique of the Gotha Programme).[91].  Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx. This is all very well. But is the achievement of socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid himself of his "savage habits"? Or again: if everybody receives according to his needs, can we assume that the level of the productive forces of socialist society will be adequate for this?Socialist society presupposes an adequate development of productive forces and socialist consciousness among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the page 340 productive forces. As regards men's "savage" sentiments and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; there was a time, under primitive communism, when man did not recognise private property; there came a time, the time of individualistic production, when private property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new time is coming, the time of socialist production — will it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become imbued with socialist strivings? Does not being determine the "sentiments" and opinions of men?  http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 Nikolai Bukharin Programme of the World RevolutionChapter XV The End of the Power of Money.“State Finances” and Financial Economy in the Soviet RepublicWe have seen, on the other hand, that when production and distribution are thoroughly organised, money will play no part whatever, and as a matter of course no kind of money dues will be demanded from anyone. Money will have generally become unnecessary. finance will become extinct.  We repeat that that time is a long way off yet. There can be no talk of it in the near future. For the present we must find means for public finance. But we are already taking steps leading to the abolition of the money system. Society is being transformed into one huge labour organisation or company to produce and distribute what is already produced without the agency of gold coinage or paper money. The end of the power of money is imminent.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch15.html 20 Distribution in the communist systemThe communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. 'How can that be?' some of you will ask. 'In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?' The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. 'But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?' Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.It has often been contended that in the future society everyone will have the right to the full product of his labour. 'What you have made by your labour, that you will receive.' This is false. It would never be possible to realize it fully. Why not? For this reason, that if everyone were to receive the full product of his labour, there would never be any possibility of developing, expanding, and improving production.  Part of the work done must always be devoted to the development and improvement of production. If we had to consume and to use up everything we have produced, then we could never produce machines, for these cannot be eaten or worn. But it is obvious that the bettering of life will go hand in hand with the extension and improvement of machinery. It is plain that more and more machines must continually be produced. Now this implies that part of the labour which has been incorporated in the machines will not be returned to the person who has done the work. It implies that no one can ever receive the full product of his labour. But nothing of the kind is necessary. With the aid of good machinery, production will be so arranged that all needs will be satisfied.  To sum up, at the outset products will be distributed in proportion to the work done (which does not mean that the worker will receive 'the full product of his labour'); subsequently, products will be distributed according to need, for there will be an abundance of everything.§ 21 Administration in the communist system In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State  http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/03.htm  The words Socialism and Communism have the same meaning. They indicate a condition of society in which the wealth of the community: the land and the means of production, distribution and transport are held in common, production being for use and not for profit.Socialism being an ideal towards which we are working, it is natural that there should be some differences of opinion in that future society. Since we are living under Capitalism it is natural that many people’s ideas of Socialism should be coloured by their experiences of life under the present system. We must not be surprised that some who recognise the present system is bad should yet lack the imagination to realise the possibility of abolishing all the institutions of Capitalist society. Nevertheless there can be no real advantage in setting up a half-way-house to socialism. A combination of Socialism and Capitalism would produce all sorts of injustice, difficulty and waste. Those who happen to suffer under the anomalies would continually struggle for a return to the old system.Full and complete Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system.It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/future-society.htm

[Anonymous]

 

[Prakash RP]

Would like to add the following to my last comment ( #381 ). ' Marx demonstrated that this was based on a fallacious model of the economy which is precisely the one you are putting forward here '. ( #338; robbo203 ) I fail to understand how the citation above is related to the issue in hand. Do you mean Marx demonstrated that it's the necessary labour, not the surplus labour, that truly happens to be unpaid and the source of capitalists' profit, and so Marx argued for regarding both sorts of labour as ' forced labour ' ?My model of communist order is totally resting on the CAPITAL by Marx and the law of value that Marx had always stood for, OK ?  '  How is compulsory labour not also [ sic ] coerced labour?  Explain '. ( ibid ) I've already explained it. Compulsory labour, in the communist mode of production, consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded. For this reason, it's outright wrong to view it as ' coerced ' or ' forced ', OK ?  ' No no no – this is NOT the same thing at all.   Social disapproval is completely compatible with a system of voluntary labour …  What you are advocating is something totally different – an external body to actively monitor the labour contributions of everyone and … with the power to withhold consumption … who do not perform their bureaucratically-determined quota of work. ' ( ibid ) The ' social disapproval ' by your view seems to consist of only words meant to criticise and condemn people in the wrong, and so it reflects silliness, as I see it, and intellectual immaturity. My dear friend sanctions without teeth did NOT , and is quite unlikely to, bring Kim Jong-un round to dialogue with his South-Korean counterpart ; similarly, mere words of criticism and condemnation are NOT enough to turn a problem child into a model one. If mere words of disapproval were so effectual, the world would've been free of crime, coruption, and violence long before. I must strike out the term ' external ' in the above quote. We certainly don't need an ' external ' or ' alien ' body to ' monitor the labour contributions of everyone '. I must also strike through the term ' bureaucratically ' and substitute the term ' duly ' for it.  ' What you are advocating, in other words, is a social arrangement which, … is “certain” to evolve in a new form of class society. ' ( ibid )  No, it's certain not to happen so. You've once again made a silly mistake. The compulsory working-day consisting of only the socially necessary labour-time together with everyone's equal share in the social wealth ensures NO one is poorer or richer than another. Rather, it's obvious that your Utopian communism based on voluntary labour and the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' means the exploitation of the good and dutiful citizens by the workshy and the crafty and crooked and uneven distribution and possession of social wealth, and thus it means the division of society into classes.  ' Your “competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace” will turn out to be just another exploiting ruling class and the only way to pre-empt that is to institute the system of voluntary labour and free access that we call communism '. ( ibid ) Dear bro, you need a competent authority to run every organisation— schools, clubs, universities, hospitals, factories, offices, the generation and distribution of energy, transportation, etc, etc. A competent authority meant to keep vigil on people at work won't lead to exploitation and thus the division of society into classes I've already thrown enough light on this point. What we have to do to do away with classes is to make the social working-day equal to only the socially necessary labour-time and ensure that everyone of the social workforce equally share and perform their share of the social workload, and that everyone of them is equally rewarded— that is we have to ensure the compulsory equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth.I've also thrown light on ' the system of voluntary labour and free access [ to social wealth ] that [ you ] call communism ' and shown how silly and unrealistic it is. 

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add the following to my last comment ( #381 ). ' Marx demonstrated that this was based on a fallacious model of the economy which is precisely the one you are putting forward here '. ( #338; robbo203 ) I fail to understand how the citation above is related to the issue in hand. Do you mean Marx demonstrated that it's the necessary labour, not the surplus labour, that truly happens to be unpaid and the source of capitalists' profit, and so Marx argued for regarding both sorts of labour as ' forced labour ' ?My model of communist order is totally resting on the CAPITAL by Marx and the law of value that Marx had always stood for, OK ?  '  How is compulsory labour not also [ sic ] coerced labour?  Explain '. ( ibid ) I've already explained it. Compulsory labour, in the communist mode of production, consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded. For this reason, it's outright wrong to view it as ' coerced ' or ' forced ', OK ?  ' No no no – this is NOT the same thing at all.   Social disapproval is completely compatible with a system of voluntary labour …  What you are advocating is something totally different – an external body to actively monitor the labour contributions of everyone and … with the power to withhold consumption … who do not perform their bureaucratically-determined quota of work. ' ( ibid ) The ' social disapproval ' by your view seems to consist of only words meant to criticise and condemn people in the wrong, and so it reflects silliness, as I see it, and intellectual immaturity. My dear friend sanctions without teeth did NOT , and is quite unlikely to, bring Kim Jong-un round to dialogue with his South-Korean counterpart ; similarly, mere words of criticism and condemnation are NOT enough to turn a problem child into a model one. If mere words of disapproval were so effectual, the world would've been free of crime, coruption, and violence long before. I must strike out the term ' external ' in the above quote. We certainly don't need an ' external ' or ' alien ' body to ' monitor the labour contributions of everyone '. I must also strike through the term ' bureaucratically ' and substitute the term ' duly ' for it.  ' What you are advocating, in other words, is a social arrangement which, … is “certain” to evolve in a new form of class society. ' ( ibid )  No, it's certain not to happen so. You've once again made a silly mistake. The compulsory working-day consisting of only the socially necessary labour-time together with everyone's equal share in the social wealth ensures NO one is poorer or richer than another. Rather, it's obvious that your Utopian communism based on voluntary labour and the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' means the exploitation of the good and dutiful citizens by the workshy and the crafty and crooked and uneven distribution and possession of social wealth, and thus it means the division of society into classes.  ' Your “competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace” will turn out to be just another exploiting ruling class and the only way to pre-empt that is to institute the system of voluntary labour and free access that we call communism '. ( ibid ) Dear bro, you need a competent authority to run every organisation— schools, clubs, universities, hospitals, factories, offices, the generation and distribution of energy, transportation, etc, etc. A competent authority meant to keep vigil on people at work won't lead to exploitation and thus the division of society into classes I've already thrown enough light on this point. What we have to do to do away with classes is to make the social working-day equal to only the socially necessary labour-time and ensure that everyone of the social workforce equally share and perform their share of the social workload, and that everyone of them is equally rewarded— that is we have to ensure the compulsory equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth.I've also thrown light on ' the system of voluntary labour and free access [ to social wealth ] that [ you ] call communism ' and shown how silly and unrealistic it is. 

REPEATING THE SAME SHIT ALL OVER AGAIN

[robbo203]

Marcos wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

 I've already explained it. Compulsory labour, in the communist mode of production, consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded. For this reason, it's outright wrong to view it as ' coerced ' or ' forced ', OK ? 

REPEATING THE SAME SHIT ALL OVER AGAIN

 Indeed.  This authoritarian troll never seems to answer the criticisms made of his model of compulsory labour  such as how do you ensure that those who monitoe enforce this whole elaborate and costly  system of compulsion will not themselves abuse the system and emerge as a new ruling class.  Likewise  he has no idea of what metric he proposes to use to ensure that everyone does exactly the same amount of work.  Is it equal hours or equal intensity of work or what?  He thinks compulsory labour is not coerced labour becuase it is "duly awarded" -(the same argument could be used to justify wage labour)  even though the whole point of the exercise to withold consumer goods to those who do not work or work enough.  What is that if not coercion? He has little to no understanding of Marxist terminology and terms such as "necessary labour"  – that portion of the labour performed by the worker under capitalism for which she receives a wage to produce and reproduce her labour power – and seems to think that necessary labour, and therefore the sale of labour power for a wage, will continue in a communist society.   In fact he seems to think that necessary labour can be prised apart and separated out from surplus labour as different segments of labour time much like the way the feudal serf perfomed compulsory labour for her lord some days of the week while labouring for herself on other days of the week.  That is precisely the view that Marx attacked which was expressed by those who feared that shortenening of working week would reduce the amount time available for the production of surplus value under capitalism Above all what we have not had from this individual is a single sensible coherent argument raised against the principle "from each according to abilty to each according to need"  –  only a boring and inane repetition of the same old mantra  that it is "silly" or "immature"  Claiming something is "silly is not a serious argument against the communist case for free access and voluntary labour.  Ive met dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who have made more of an effort trying to refute this case on the grounds of "human nature" than this troll though quite evidently he is cut from the same cloth  as them –  an unreconstructed conservative incongruously posing as a "communist" So yes Marcos I agree – he is just repeating the same shit all over again and there is little point continuing the discussion.  Im done with him 

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add the following to my last comment ( #381 ).

Just more hogwash Robin:' Marx demonstrated that this was based on a fallacious model of the economy which is precisely the one you are putting forward here '. ( #338; robbo203 )  Robin:'  How is compulsory labour not also [ sic ] coerced labour?  Explain '. ( ibid ) 

Quote:

I've already explained it.

No you just regurgitated your old anti-worker nonsense. Robin:' No no no – this is NOT the same thing at all.   Social disapproval is completely compatible with a system of voluntary labour …  What you are advocating is something totally different – an external body to actively monitor the labour contributions of everyone and … with the power to withhold consumption … who do not perform their bureaucratically-determined quota of work. ' ( ibid ) 

Quote:

The ' social disapproval ' by your view seems to consist of only words meant to criticise and condemn people in the wrong, and so it reflects silliness, as I see it, and intellectual immaturity.

 Not at all it is you who does not realise the political maturity of the class which makes the revolution, also being the class with the set of values which makes it work without coercion.

Quote:

My dear friend sanctions without teeth did NOT , and is quite unlikely to, bring Kim Jong-un round to dialogue with his South-Korean counterpart ;

..and there is the measure of your own non revolutionary perspective. You can not see past capitalist social relations arising out of competition , coercion and competing elites and coercion onto the new society with its revolutionaryperspective in which all of those would be redundant.

Quote:

similarly, mere words of criticism and condemnation are NOT enough to turn a problem child into a model one. If mere words of disapproval were so effectual, the world would've been free of crime, coruption, and violence long before.

What nonsense you spout, capitalim is based upon all of those negative attributes and the reward /punitive model does not apply in the post-capitalist ,production for use free access voluntary labour model.

Quote:

I must strike out the term ' external ' in the above quote. We certainly don't need an ' external ' or ' alien ' body to ' monitor the labour contributions of everyone '. I must also strike through the term ' bureaucratically ' and substitute the term ' duly ' for it.

Your striking through and substitution of weasel words do not negate Robins critique below Robin:' What you are advocating, in other words, is a social arrangement which, … is “certain” to evolve in a new form of class society. ' ( ibid )  

Quote:

No, it's certain not to happen so. You've once again made a silly mistake.

No you do and compound your previous silliness.

[moderator1]

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

[Prakash RP]

Dear Dave, I have yet to read the whole of this brilliant comment by you, which appears to be an incontestable evidence of your impressive erudition. Nevertheless, I'd just like you to take cognisance of some points stated below. The issue I want to focus worldwide humanity's attention on is the universally-true, irreconcilable contradiction between the theory of communism that's a science discovered by Marx and Engels and communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' ( the latter also reflects Marx's thought ). The scientific theory of communism dictates that everyone of the social workforce must equally share the social workload for an equal share in the social wealth ( necessities and luxuries of life meant for decent living ). It doesn't need, nor does it approve of, overwork. It doesn't approve of working less either. It doesn't approve of sharing the social wealth more than the limit approved-of socially. On the other hand, the other model of the communist order is based on voluntary labour. By the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ', everyone is free to work or not to work and work as much as they please, and everyone is free to consume as much wealth as they please too. The problem with it is this evidently silly and impractical idea was also Marx's brainchild. Many such as all of you against me in this debate are so enchanted that they're unable to see the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the two models of communism. The contradiction is basic and becomes evident if we take cognisance of the fact that the former model ( the one based on the scientific theory of communism ) presupposes that humanity is, in conformity with the laws of Nature, composed of the good, the bad, the sensible, the silly, the workaholics, the workshy, etc, etc while the latter presupposes the existence of humanity consisting of only the good and desired elements such as the good and honest, not the bad nor the crafty and crooked, the sensible, none of the silly, the work-loving, not anyone that's workshy, etc, etc. Thus, the contradiction between the two ideas appears blazing like the mid-day summer sun. the absurdity of The latter also appears too blazing to be missed by the sensible. It's diversity that reflects the design of Nature— plants & trees, mushrooms, animals, flowering plants, non-flowering plants, fruit-bearing plants, plants not bearing fruits, beneficial plants, harmless plants, harmless-but-not-beneficial plants, harmful plants, warm-blooded animals, cold-blooded animals, mammals, non-mammals, placental mammals, non-placental mammals, and so on and so forth. Humanity is a part of Nature, and in keeping with the design and dialectics of Nature, humanity consists of, and it will always consist of, the good, the bad, the progressive, the reactionary, the erudite, the enlightened, the benighted, the-erudite-but-not-enlightend, the principled, hypocrites, etc, etc. But the silly view that ' in the higher phase of communism ', as all those enchanted by the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' love to believe, humanity will produce only the good all of whom must be equally good, only the sensible, the talented, the work-loving, etc, all of whom must be equally sensible, equally talented, equally work-loving, etc, etc, etc evidently runs counter to the very basic law and design of Nature and defies explanation, the way I see it. Because Marx said this or Engels saw it, I don't think it's right to draw a conclusion through the arbitrary generalisation of what they said or saw.  ' Unrelated by blood was she to the man that she slew . '  The above citation occurs in the PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION ( 1891 ) of THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE by Engels. It was the defence of Erinyes, an ancient Greek, for his action of pursuing Orestes, another Greek character, that was accused of matricide, a criminal act that was ' the most heinous and inexpiable of crimes ' in the eyes of Erinyes, who wanted to kill Orestes ( he killed his own mother to avenge the slaying of his own father by his mother ) and thus punish him for the offence he committed. This citation signifies that the absence of an organised force like the police, an organised judiciary like the one we have, and prisons like ours doesn't mean they were all good people— so good that they were above wrongdoing, consequent on which fact, they did not need the police , prisons or the judiciary like the ones of our times. People in the Middle Ages didn't see anything like the judiciary of our times. The reason is not that they were too good to commit crimes. The reason is people in the Middle Ages were far less civilised than us, as I see it. The citation presented above also suggests incontestably that those ancient people were not unacquainted with heinous acts like homicide, and that acts like homicide were not viewed as criminal at all if the person killed was not a blood-relation of the killer's or so heinous a crime as killing a blood-relation was.   

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The scientific theory of communism dictates that everyone of the social workforce must equally share the social

Your examples are all from class society. You are not advancing anything, other than a silly religious 'human nature' argument.Your responses are mere assertions springing from petty prejudicial assumptions, reinforced by capitalist ideology and have been roundly defeated.They are no more scientific than Humpty DumptyThe workers who make the revolution will make decisions, which spring from the relative superabundance of wealth in a commonly owned and controled  production of utilities for use, world, allied to voluntary work and free access for all, as truly free men and women and the norms and values of the post-capitalist society will arise from and be shaped by this revolutionary new society.

[Author]

Posts