Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

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

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 427 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #130055
    Dave B
    Participant

    iWhat you are proposing with your system of remuneration according to work done for people who operate on a basis of I for myself and hence potentially lazy and work shy. Is a ‘useful’ or necessary system for bourgeois men as you find them now or what they have been turned into, as a reflection of the ruling bourgeois ideology. Or a ‘nature’ modified by that historical epoch.     50.Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. ……………Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm

    #130056
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Dave B wrote:
    iWhat you are proposing with your system of remuneration according to work done for people who operate on a basis of I for myself and hence potentially lazy and work shy. Is a ‘useful’ or necessary system for bourgeois men as you find them now or what they have been turned into, as a reflection of the ruling bourgeois ideology. Or a ‘nature’ modified by that historical epoch.     50.Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. ……………Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm

    Let me know when you find the technique to insert water into a dried coconut. Some ancients  peoples in the Caribbean would love to know that technique 

    #130057
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ' Dear Prakash, As you consider yourself as an intellectual of noble [ sic ] laureate standard. [ sic ] You [ sic ] might want to start with looking at the ideas below … ' ( #404 by Dave B )I really consider myself worthy of a place in the front rank of Nobelists of all ages— past, present, and ages to come. Nevertheless, I don't think it has anything to do with the present debate. To win a debate, what you need is an incontestable argument. The display of erudition doesn't make your position any stronger in a debate. And a mistaken view is always mistaken, no matter who and how great or famous is the guy that holds it. The point is the view of communism premised on Marx's principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is plain wrong as it contradicts, as I've shown already, the very idea of the classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism. The failure of something like the ' Russian Mir system ' is not a proof of the rightness or the practicability of such a Utopian view of communism. You seem to have exhausted your faculty of reasoning, which makes you have recourse to silly acts like the display of erudition, RIGHT ? ' What you are proposing with your system of remuneration according to work done for … ' ( #406 ; Dave B )I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asserting that the right and practicable view of communism must rest on the principle of the mandatory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce for the mandatory equal-share in the social wealth, and that the principle of  ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' can't form the basic principle for any practicable social order, and that it's outright a nonissue whether it appears to reflect something like the ' ruling bourgeois ideology ' or the thought of someone like Bentham or Christian Wolff. Do you want me to deal with any other argument that you think bolsters up your position in this debate ? Or, do you accept your defeat in it ? I'm thankful that you participated in this debate to help me thus find the truth, and that you haven't sneaked your departure from it like the silly and benighted that aren't aware that the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. I wish you'd soon awake to it and accept the fact and thus prove that not only are you possessed of the calibre needed in order to stand up straight with your head held erect before the truth, you're also a sensible and enlightened guy.  

    #130058
    Dave B
    Participant

    i Your argument again is a Gish galloping composite of several different strands; To take one point and this doesn’t matter if you are a Marxist or not; …….The point is the view of communism premised on Marx's principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is plain wrong as it contradicts, as I've shown already, the very idea of the classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism…. What that seems be saying is that Karl came to a false conclusion based on his own work and made a mistake that only you can fathom? Which could be true of course but it is an extraordinary position that requires extraordinary proof that you have not provided in my opinion. Incidentally “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, to be written on banners etc,  was up to the 1920’s the standard interpretation by all of the ultimate or projected kind of society anticipated as it progressed out of capitalism, based on Karl’s own theoretical work etc. So according to Prakash everyone was wrong; including Karl himself. You must need an astonishing amount of ‘intellectual’ conceit to or be dull- witted  to confidently hold that position. It is not even as if that people like Trotsky in 1937 , with his former compelling ‘Militarization of Labour’ and ‘Communism or Terrorism’, had a stubborn prejudice against voluntary labour. Actually the position you are proposing is a more reactionary and limited version of the Deleonist one. Prakash no doubt believes that he is astounding us with a novel ‘Marxist’ idea and interpretation. However we have in the past we have had long running debates on the less reactionary and limited and limited version of the Deleonists. They were much more sophisticated than your own. However they did not pull up short of the end point like you do, thus; http://www.deleonism.org/text/91092101.htm The Deleonists, like Kautsky later, went to the mountain top and had seen the promised land of From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. But thought there was journey that would include in the mean time to each according to work done. But it was a journey of transition not the destination. A possible exception was the later Bernstien. With his; ….My proposition, “To me that which is generally called the ultimate aim of socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything”…. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1899/evsoc/ch04-conc.htm Which was let things pan out as they will which may or not exclude to each according to work done.  Even though Bernstien himself rediscovered Whinstanley with his. "The earth is to be planted and the fruits reaped and carried into barns and storehouses by the assistance of every family. And if any man or family want corn or other provision, they may go to the storehouses and fetch without money. If they want a horse to ride, go into the fields in summer, or to the common stables in winter, and receive one from the keepers, and when your journey is performed, bring him where you had him, without money."   Gerrard Winstanley, The New Law of Righteousness(1649)  But we can still of course hand wave all that away as confusion and miss-understanding. ……………………….. Going back to dull-witted basics there are two predicates from which everything else flows. It is the bourgeois and Prakhash  ‘I’ and the ‘Me’. Versus the ‘boarding house’; We and the us. So on a weekend out in a hired cottage and a planned walk this isn’t as trivial as it sounds, it is seminal and serious. The cook cooks. Non cooks chop vegetables lay tables and wash dishes. The route planner for the walk recommends the scramble up Pen-y-ghent rather than down [my appreciated call, which was valued above my dish washing] The driver drives. And we agree that it is cruel to have a few beers after the walk whilst the driver wants to down some booze like the rest of us. And the electrical engineer resets the trip switch when the lights circuit trips out. Rather than individuals exaggerating the value of their contributions there is a serial self deprecating analysis of others appreciation of what each individual has ‘contributed’. But that is abnormal bourgeois man In fact part of the condition of social animals eg division of labour or diversity of skills. You only need one cook and one electrical engineer and not how many electrical engineers do you need to put the lights back on or cook a meal to make it work. Although there can be in these situations some perverse and crafty individualswho makes out that the poetry reading or guitar playing was the most put upon and under appreciated and valued contribution. Or it might be, as it often equally is, and under valued intellectual contribution.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcBYZ-rpO-Y I am actually of a predisposition of wanting to have a rough idea of what I am putting in and what I am getting out but only to make sure I am not ‘exploiting’ others rather than am I being exploited. But it won’t work according to Prakash who worships at the vomitorium temple of conspicuous consumption.

    #130059
    moderator1
    Participant

    2nd warning: 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 wrote:
     ' Your so called ‘gratis labour’ as surplus labour in capitalism isn’t gratis of voluntary it is compelled and involuntary. ' ( #395 by Dave B ) It's not clear what's your point is. In my comment ( #394 ), I clearly stated that labour performed to create necessities and luxuries of life they need to lead a healthy and meaningful existence can't be viewed as ' labour performed gratis ' or ' voluntary labour '. It can't be ' gratis labour ' as it's not something like the surplus labour, also called, and justifiably so, the unpaid labour under the capitalist mode of production. It can't be ' voluntary labour ' either just because it's not ' gratis '. On these grounds, the paid necessary-labour in the capitalist mode of production is also non-voluntary. Voluntary labour has to be ' gratis ' first. Nevertheless, not every ' gratis ' labour is voluntary just as the fact that mangos are juicy fruits doesn't mean all juicy fruits are mangos. A glaring instance of ' gratis labour ' that is not voluntary is the unpaid labour under capitalism. Nevertheless, anyone is free to choose to steal or smuggle goods instead of working for a living as the wage slaves do. In this sense, you can claim the act of choosing to work as a wage slave does is voluntary, but the work performed for wages is not so. In the communist mode of production too, the social working-day consists of two parts : part-I is meant for contributions to common funds like the social insurance fund, fund for the care of minors, fund for the disabled and the aged, fund for scientific and technological researches, fund for progress and development, etc, etc and part-II for the necessities and luxuries the workers themselves need to lead a healthy and meaningful life ; both parts are compulsory for every able-bodied adult of working age. As I view it, the part-I, like the part-II, is compulsory from both the individual's viewpoint and the social viewpoint, and so it's not voluntary. Nevertheless, the part-I is not something like the unpaid surplus-labour a wage slave has to perform under capitalism just because it's meant for the common good of all including all those that have to work to contribute to these common funds while the wage slaves have to perform the compulsory unpaid labour not for the benefit of themselves or their beloved ones but for the benefit of a certain class, the capitalists, a class outright opposite the wage slaves. Hope you'd now fall in with my stance on ' gratis labour ', voluntary labour, etc.  ' I had hoped that by drawing in material from Stalin, Lenin, the Mensheviks and Trotsky, amongst others, would demonstrate that that was not the orthodox interpretation of Marx … [ …  we could draw in another extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system.] ' ( ibid ) My dear friend, large excerpts from works by some well-known people will certainly help display your erudition, but in a debate, it's arguments and counter-arguments that truly matter. None of the excerpts you've cited so far contain any arguments to show that Marx's concept of the ' higher phase ' of communism is not plain wrong and impracticable. ' [A]nother extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system ' is most unlikely to help prove your point. The impracticability of the ' labour voucher system ' doesn't prove the theory of communism or the concept the ' higher phase ' of communism practicable or impracticable. The fallaciousness of the view that the sun borrows its heat and light from the moon has got nothing to do with the fallaciousness or correctness of views like the assertion that the earth is a satellite of the moon or the observation that Venus is truly a black hole nearest to the earth. ' You talk about ‘bad’ people and the congenital or ‘naturally?’  work-shy. If you like to continue with that and expand on it a bit we could discuss that? ' ( ibid ) I think I've said more than enough about the design of Nature and about good people, bad people, the workshy, etc by nature. You may have a look at my comments #368, #373, #381, etc for my views on this issue.  ' In the higher phase of communism the working class collectively will perhaps work longer than necessary to increase the means of production in order to reduce the working day in the future. ' ( ibid ) Citizens of the communist order are free to choose to work a longer time in the lower phase of communism too. Nevertheless, working a longer time this week to have one more day off the next week does not reduce the length of the social working-day. For a shorter working-day, you need achieve a breakthrough in science and technology which will lead to a growth in the labour productivity, which means a shorter working-day. Nevertheless, these points seem irrelevant to the main issue we're debating, namely, the practicability of Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism.  '  What you seem to be suggesting is a system that is useful to your queer bourgeois normal man, like yourself … ' ( ibid ) The above quote is another instance of your silly display of rudeness that reflects your pitiable intellectual immaturity. Such comments become people that are pathetically lacking in the calibre needed to comprehend the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, people that are so benighted and silly as to be outright unaware that in a debate the silly display of erudition or rudeness is useless, silly waste of time. I wish it'd soon come home to you that a debate is a conflict between views and counter-views which leads us to the truth, and that one side in a debate must emerge triumphant. It's unbecoming of the sensible to take it amiss when they face up to stronger views than theirs. The sensible are always for the truth, and true communists are sensible people, RIGHT ? 
    #130060
    moderator1
    Participant

    2nd warning: 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 wrote:
     ' Your so called ‘gratis labour’ as surplus labour in capitalism isn’t gratis of voluntary it is compelled and involuntary. ' ( #395 by Dave B ) It's not clear what's your point is. In my comment ( #394 ), I clearly stated that labour performed to create necessities and luxuries of life they need to lead a healthy and meaningful existence can't be viewed as ' labour performed gratis ' or ' voluntary labour '. It can't be ' gratis labour ' as it's not something like the surplus labour, also called, and justifiably so, the unpaid labour under the capitalist mode of production. It can't be ' voluntary labour ' either just because it's not ' gratis '. On these grounds, the paid necessary-labour in the capitalist mode of production is also non-voluntary. Voluntary labour has to be ' gratis ' first. Nevertheless, not every ' gratis ' labour is voluntary just as the fact that mangos are juicy fruits doesn't mean all juicy fruits are mangos. A glaring instance of ' gratis labour ' that is not voluntary is the unpaid labour under capitalism. Nevertheless, anyone is free to choose to steal or smuggle goods instead of working for a living as the wage slaves do. In this sense, you can claim the act of choosing to work as a wage slave does is voluntary, but the work performed for wages is not so. In the communist mode of production too, the social working-day consists of two parts : part-I is meant for contributions to common funds like the social insurance fund, fund for the care of minors, fund for the disabled and the aged, fund for scientific and technological researches, fund for progress and development, etc, etc and part-II for the necessities and luxuries the workers themselves need to lead a healthy and meaningful life ; both parts are compulsory for every able-bodied adult of working age. As I view it, the part-I, like the part-II, is compulsory from both the individual's viewpoint and the social viewpoint, and so it's not voluntary. Nevertheless, the part-I is not something like the unpaid surplus-labour a wage slave has to perform under capitalism just because it's meant for the common good of all including all those that have to work to contribute to these common funds while the wage slaves have to perform the compulsory unpaid labour not for the benefit of themselves or their beloved ones but for the benefit of a certain class, the capitalists, a class outright opposite the wage slaves. Hope you'd now fall in with my stance on ' gratis labour ', voluntary labour, etc.  ' I had hoped that by drawing in material from Stalin, Lenin, the Mensheviks and Trotsky, amongst others, would demonstrate that that was not the orthodox interpretation of Marx … [ …  we could draw in another extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system.] ' ( ibid ) My dear friend, large excerpts from works by some well-known people will certainly help display your erudition, but in a debate, it's arguments and counter-arguments that truly matter. None of the excerpts you've cited so far contain any arguments to show that Marx's concept of the ' higher phase ' of communism is not plain wrong and impracticable. ' [A]nother extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system ' is most unlikely to help prove your point. The impracticability of the ' labour voucher system ' doesn't prove the theory of communism or the concept the ' higher phase ' of communism practicable or impracticable. The fallaciousness of the view that the sun borrows its heat and light from the moon has got nothing to do with the fallaciousness or correctness of views like the assertion that the earth is a satellite of the moon or the observation that Venus is truly a black hole nearest to the earth. ' You talk about ‘bad’ people and the congenital or ‘naturally?’  work-shy. If you like to continue with that and expand on it a bit we could discuss that? ' ( ibid ) I think I've said more than enough about the design of Nature and about good people, bad people, the workshy, etc by nature. You may have a look at my comments #368, #373, #381, etc for my views on this issue.  ' In the higher phase of communism the working class collectively will perhaps work longer than necessary to increase the means of production in order to reduce the working day in the future. ' ( ibid ) Citizens of the communist order are free to choose to work a longer time in the lower phase of communism too. Nevertheless, working a longer time this week to have one more day off the next week does not reduce the length of the social working-day. For a shorter working-day, you need achieve a breakthrough in science and technology which will lead to a growth in the labour productivity, which means a shorter working-day. Nevertheless, these points seem irrelevant to the main issue we're debating, namely, the practicability of Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism.  '  What you seem to be suggesting is a system that is useful to your queer bourgeois normal man, like yourself … ' ( ibid ) The above quote is another instance of your silly display of rudeness that reflects your pitiable intellectual immaturity. Such comments become people that are pathetically lacking in the calibre needed to comprehend the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, people that are so benighted and silly as to be outright unaware that in a debate the silly display of erudition or rudeness is useless, silly waste of time. I wish it'd soon come home to you that a debate is a conflict between views and counter-views which leads us to the truth, and that one side in a debate must emerge triumphant. It's unbecoming of the sensible to take it amiss when they face up to stronger views than theirs. The sensible are always for the truth, and true communists are sensible people, RIGHT ? 
    #130061
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Don't feed the troll

    #130062
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    It's not clear to me why I should deserve this '' 2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings … ' The moderator1 is requested to clarify it. Does this mean I must stop responding to comments in response to mine in this thread ?

    #130063
    moderator1
    Participant

    3rd and final warning:15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.If this user breaches any of the rules within the next 30 days an indefinite suspension will be enforced.

    Prakash RP wrote:
    It's not clear to me why I should deserve this '' 2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings … ' The moderator1 is requested to clarify it. Does this mean I must stop responding to comments in response to mine in this thread ?
    #130064
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ' 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. ' ( #386 by robbo203 ) ' This authoritarian troll ' wishes you'd soon awake to your silliness of failing to differentiate between what you want to achieve and how you can achieve it. Whether we must fight and win the war against terror or AIDS is a question that happens to be outright different from how we must fight and win this war, isn't it ? ' This authoritarian troll ' would also like you to awake to the silliness of the idea of giving up a fight or an attempt just because it's difficult to win the fight or achieve success in the attempt. Giving up the war against the terror or the AIDS won't rid humanity of the terror or the AIDS menace, will it ? What communism truly means, whether it's practicable, and which way is meant to lead us to our goal are each different from the other, each of them having a different answer from the other one. The fact of the matter is if humanity wants to lead a healthy and meaningful life, it must rid itself of evils like the exploitation of man by man, the ignominious sight of the plethora of wealth alongside of the poverty and privation of millions, the exitence of overworking millions alongside of millions of the jobless, the fact that while the lawful roads to riches are too few, there exists an abundance of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices, the greatest and gravest social injustice ( the fact that the fact that the poor and penniless millions were all born poor is not attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich few were all born rich and super-rich to exploit the born poor and thus grow richer and richer is not attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs ), et cetera, et cetera, and so it must do away with capitalism and switch over to communism, and if we must switch over to communism, we have to find the sure way to do it. By the theory of communism, the classless social order is practicable, and the communist formulas to achieve it are shortening the working-day first to make it equal to the socially necessary labour-time, making the sharing of the total social workload equal and compulsory for everyone of the social workforce, and making the share of everyone ( excluding minors, the disabled, and the aged ) in the social wealth equal. there's no good reason to view these formulas as impracticable or too difficult for communists that are no less intelligent than, nor are they inferior, in terms of calibre, to, capitalists. If capitalists can extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour ( unpaid labour that generates the capitalist's profit ) from wage slaves, there's no reason why communists should fail to effect a social working-day consisting of the socially-necessary labour-time alone and thus rid humanity of the ignominious evils like overworking, joblessness, surplus labour, et cetera. I won't say the fear that the principle of the compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce may be abused by the crafty and crooked to create ' a new ruling class ' is unfounded. Nevertheless, this fear does not prove that this principle or the social order based on this principle is in itself faulty, nor does it prove that the principle forming the basis for the ' higher phase ' , as Marx put it, of communism is OK. Another most important point not to be missed is, as I've shown already, the fact that the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' that approves of the unequal sharing of the social workload for an unequal share in the social wealth is certain to lead to overwork, which means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest, hence the death of socialism. Further, one of the main arguments for this lofty principle is the ' higher phase ' of communism will produce only the good, the dutiful, and the work-loving ( it's outright a bourgeois view, as you all, the proponents of this principle hold, that the working population consist of only the workshy and the crafty and crooked ), which means there'll be none needing to be compelled to perform work. None needing to be compelled means no compulsion, and the fact that there're none that are really bad people means there're none to abuse power in the ' higher phase ' of communism. And no abuse of power means the concern over the emergence of ' a new ruling class ' is baseless, OK ?  ' … 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? ' ( ibid )  The problem with the silly and the benighted is they love to believe what they don't know or understand must be unknowable and unintelligible to all else. Nevertheless, there's no reason why the sensible and enlightened ought to fail to find the right ' metric ' ( such as the labour productivity ) to differentiate between an apprentice and a worker. And communism needs workers to work equal hours.  ' The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day be shortened ; and the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 )  The above quote from Marx's CAPITAL, volume I, enlightens us about the ' productiveness of labour ', the length of the ' working-day ', the ' intensity of labour ', and their interrelations.  ' He thinks compulsory labour is not coerced labour becuase it is "duly awarded" -(the same argument could be used to justify wage labour) … ' ( #386 ; robbo203 ) No, the same argument cannot be used to justify wage labour because the wage slaves have to perform a certain amount of labour, the surplus labour, for which they're paid nothing.  ' 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. ' ( ibid ) The above citation is one more evidence of your silliness and intellectual immaturity. Would like to know what led you to take such a silly view of me.  ' 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 … ' ( ibid )  The above citation is another evidence of your pitiable  intellectual immaturity. I don't think I ever said anything that should justifiably lead you to form such an opinion. Nevertheless, the subject appears too tough to be understood by the silly. By my view, what communists need is a clear concept of the two sorts of labour. They don't need to prise them apart. They need a clear concept of them in order to shorten the working-day to make it equal the ' necessary labour-time ' under the communist mode of production. There's no good reason why communists with a clear concept of the two sorts of labour oughtn't to be able to perform this task. Once again I'd like to ask the silly that aren't averse to enlightenment to pay due heed to the following observation by Marx.  ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 )  Hope the point is now clear enough to be understood by all bar the incorrigible few fools.  ' 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 ' (  ( #386 ; robbo203 ) It's not at all clear what point you want to make by this remark. Do you mean that Marx was against the very idea of the shorter working-day under capitalism or communism or both ? ' 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"  ( ibid ) If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? What follows is a passage excerpted from my comment #368 made in response to your comment #338.  ' 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! ". '  The above excerpt contains my main points, incontestable till now, against the principle at issue. They may not form ' a single sensible coherent argument ' you want, but they still remains incontestable and throw light on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of communistic classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism and Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism.

    #130065
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Is this message meant for me ? Don't understand really what it means and why I deserve it. Please elaborate a little, will you ?

    #130066
    robbo203
    Participant
    Prakash RP wrote:
     If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? 

     The short answer is NO THEY DONT.  All we have ever had from you is a  dreary repetition of the same old endlessly repeated and continually unsupported, dogma of yours about some supposed "irreconcilable contradiction"  between communism and the communist principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs '.  That, along with your own puffed-up sense of your importance and your all too obvious contempt for anyone who dares criticise you as "silly" and "immature" is probably why most folk here doubtless think there is  little point in trying engage in rational discussion with you.  Just saying, mind.

    #130067
    moderator1
    Participant

     Immediate and indefinite suspension: 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 wrote:
    ' 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. ' ( #386 by robbo203 ) ' This authoritarian troll ' wishes you'd soon awake to your silliness of failing to differentiate between what you want to achieve and how you can achieve it. Whether we must fight and win the war against terror or AIDS is a question that happens to be outright different from how we must fight and win this war, isn't it ? ' This authoritarian troll ' would also like you to awake to the silliness of the idea of giving up a fight or an attempt just because it's difficult to win the fight or achieve success in the attempt. Giving up the war against the terror or the AIDS won't rid humanity of the terror or the AIDS menace, will it ? What communism truly means, whether it's practicable, and which way is meant to lead us to our goal are each different from the other, each of them having a different answer from the other one. The fact of the matter is if humanity wants to lead a healthy and meaningful life, it must rid itself of evils like the exploitation of man by man, the ignominious sight of the plethora of wealth alongside of the poverty and privation of millions, the exitence of overworking millions alongside of millions of the jobless, the fact that while the lawful roads to riches are too few, there exists an abundance of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices, the greatest and gravest social injustice ( the fact that the fact that the poor and penniless millions were all born poor is not attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich few were all born rich and super-rich to exploit the born poor and thus grow richer and richer is not attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs ), et cetera, et cetera, and so it must do away with capitalism and switch over to communism, and if we must switch over to communism, we have to find the sure way to do it. By the theory of communism, the classless social order is practicable, and the communist formulas to achieve it are shortening the working-day first to make it equal to the socially necessary labour-time, making the sharing of the total social workload equal and compulsory for everyone of the social workforce, and making the share of everyone ( excluding minors, the disabled, and the aged ) in the social wealth equal. there's no good reason to view these formulas as impracticable or too difficult for communists that are no less intelligent than, nor are they inferior, in terms of calibre, to, capitalists. If capitalists can extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour ( unpaid labour that generates the capitalist's profit ) from wage slaves, there's no reason why communists should fail to effect a social working-day consisting of the socially-necessary labour-time alone and thus rid humanity of the ignominious evils like overworking, joblessness, surplus labour, et cetera. I won't say the fear that the principle of the compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce may be abused by the crafty and crooked to create ' a new ruling class ' is unfounded. Nevertheless, this fear does not prove that this principle or the social order based on this principle is in itself faulty, nor does it prove that the principle forming the basis for the ' higher phase ' , as Marx put it, of communism is OK. Another most important point not to be missed is, as I've shown already, the fact that the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' that approves of the unequal sharing of the social workload for an unequal share in the social wealth is certain to lead to overwork, which means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest, hence the death of socialism. Further, one of the main arguments for this lofty principle is the ' higher phase ' of communism will produce only the good, the dutiful, and the work-loving ( it's outright a bourgeois view, as you all, the proponents of this principle hold, that the working population consist of only the workshy and the crafty and crooked ), which means there'll be none needing to be compelled to perform work. None needing to be compelled means no compulsion, and the fact that there're none that are really bad people means there're none to abuse power in the ' higher phase ' of communism. And no abuse of power means the concern over the emergence of ' a new ruling class ' is baseless, OK ?  ' … 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? ' ( ibid )  The problem with the silly and the benighted is they love to believe what they don't know or understand must be unknowable and unintelligible to all else. Nevertheless, there's no reason why the sensible and enlightened ought to fail to find the right ' metric ' ( such as the labour productivity ) to differentiate between an apprentice and a worker. And communism needs workers to work equal hours.  ' The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day be shortened ; and the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 )  The above quote from Marx's CAPITAL, volume I, enlightens us about the ' productiveness of labour ', the length of the ' working-day ', the ' intensity of labour ', and their interrelations.  ' He thinks compulsory labour is not coerced labour becuase it is "duly awarded" -(the same argument could be used to justify wage labour) … ' ( #386 ; robbo203 ) No, the same argument cannot be used to justify wage labour because the wage slaves have to perform a certain amount of labour, the surplus labour, for which they're paid nothing.  ' 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. ' ( ibid ) The above citation is one more evidence of your silliness and intellectual immaturity. Would like to know what led you to take such a silly view of me.  ' 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 … ' ( ibid )  The above citation is another evidence of your pitiable  intellectual immaturity. I don't think I ever said anything that should justifiably lead you to form such an opinion. Nevertheless, the subject appears too tough to be understood by the silly. By my view, what communists need is a clear concept of the two sorts of labour. They don't need to prise them apart. They need a clear concept of them in order to shorten the working-day to make it equal the ' necessary labour-time ' under the communist mode of production. There's no good reason why communists with a clear concept of the two sorts of labour oughtn't to be able to perform this task. Once again I'd like to ask the silly that aren't averse to enlightenment to pay due heed to the following observation by Marx.  ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 )  Hope the point is now clear enough to be understood by all bar the incorrigible few fools.  ' 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 ' (  ( #386 ; robbo203 ) It's not at all clear what point you want to make by this remark. Do you mean that Marx was against the very idea of the shorter working-day under capitalism or communism or both ? ' 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"  ( ibid ) If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? What follows is a passage excerpted from my comment #368 made in response to your comment #338.  ' 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! ". '  The above excerpt contains my main points, incontestable till now, against the principle at issue. They may not form ' a single sensible coherent argument ' you want, but they still remains incontestable and throw light on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of communistic classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism and Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism.
    #130068
    Anonymous
    Guest

    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=41#comment-47707 "In fact she seems to think that necessary labour can be prised apart andseparated out from surplus labour as different segments of labour time "I agree that Necessary labour can be prised apart and separated out from surplus labour as different segments of labor time.  IN THEORY. We know in theory, that it is possible to separate them because it can be done in practice right now when I say "this cheezburger sold for $5 was made using  0.2 hour of necessary labour time and 0.15hr of surplus labor time". So in theory we can "say" these things right? What seems to be the argument is whether we have a sufficiently agreeable and convenient way of reaching a consensus on those numbers automatically in a marketplace environment in order to make a distribution decision.  Also how do we resolve subjective disagreement is a problem we encounter when going from theory into practice. Or maybe there's disagreement on the basic premise that an hour of time could be counted as some percent surplus labor and or some percent necessary labour and those percent need not be related. I think we have a method for determining subjective disagreements called voting and polling and surveys and questionnaires.I think for selling a $5 cheezburger that we could theoretically estimate .10 hr of necessary labour  and .25hr of surplus labor per cheezburger from burger king. What numbers would you guess for the cheezburger thought experiment?  I would suggest that it's practically possible to separate labor capital value into a capital value and labor time value for the purpose of making a purchase on a single product itim such as a cheezburger.  Consider a product that is sold for $5 might be separated into a price of $2.00 (marginal cost for selling one more item) + $3 (overhead + employment labor hour cost of selling the product and running the business).  As a practical business matter it's common for accountants to itemize this way in current business practices HR and internal accounting systems. If the business doesn't share the number and type of hours in each cheezburger, it's still a number that consumers could crowdsource and find out for themselves in theory.  Why does our society mandate a list of material ingredients in food products but not mandate a list of hourly ingredients in food products? I think before 100 years ago it didn't matter much about the time and that math and accounting was too hard to do at a consumer crowdsourced level, but now with modern technology, it's possible to crowdsource a voted number of hours in ways that change the emergent market behavior. Sincerely, Steve San Francisco,Founder of The hOEP Project (hOurs Equals Price)A ocpy of my reply in this conversation may also be read in the hOEP project archive at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FxfRtGtsKCFIPSBGA9ljyA_U2gDD2nms5b4B7mdSDZc/edit#heading=h.u27u4p792jdo

    #130069
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:
    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=41#comment-47707 "In fact she seems to think that necessary labour can be prised apart andseparated out from surplus labour as different segments of labour time "I agree that Necessary labour can be prised apart and separated out from surplus labour as different segments of labor time.  IN THEORY. We know in theory, that it is possible to separate them because it can be done in practice right now when I say "this cheezburger sold for $5 was made using  0.2 hour of necessary labour time and 0.15hr of surplus labor time". So in theory we can "say" these things right? What seems to be the argument is whether we have a sufficiently agreeable and convenient way of reaching a consensus on those numbers automatically in a marketplace environment in order to make a distribution decision.  Also how do we resolve subjective disagreement is a problem we encounter when going from theory into practice. Or maybe there's disagreement on the basic premise that an hour of time could be counted as some percent surplus labor and or some percent necessary labour and those percent need not be related. I think we have a method for determining subjective disagreements called voting and polling and surveys and questionnaires.I think for selling a $5 cheezburger that we could theoretically estimate .10 hr of necessary labour  and .25hr of surplus labor per cheezburger from burger king. What numbers would you guess for the cheezburger thought experiment?  I would suggest that it's practically possible to separate labor capital value into a capital value and labor time value for the purpose of making a purchase on a single product itim such as a cheezburger.  Consider a product that is sold for $5 might be separated into a price of $2.00 (marginal cost for selling one more item) + $3 (overhead + employment labor hour cost of selling the product and running the business).  As a practical business matter it's common for accountants to itemize this way in current business practices HR and internal accounting systems. If the business doesn't share the number and type of hours in each cheezburger, it's still a number that consumers could crowdsource and find out for themselves in theory.  Why does our society mandate a list of material ingredients in food products but not mandate a list of hourly ingredients in food products? I think before 100 years ago it didn't matter much about the time and that math and accounting was too hard to do at a consumer crowdsourced level, but now with modern technology, it's possible to crowdsource a voted number of hours in ways that change the emergent market behavior. Sincerely, Steve San Francisco,Founder of The hOEP Project (hOurs Equals Price)A ocpy of my reply in this conversation may also be read in the hOEP project archive at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FxfRtGtsKCFIPSBGA9ljyA_U2gDD2nms5b4B7mdSDZc/edit#heading=h.u27u4p792jdo

    Economic exploitation takes place at the point of production, and added value is added at the point of production. There is no such thing as double exploitation, like one at the point of production, and another one at the point of sale

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 427 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.