Socialism with wages.
- This topic has 23 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi VinI've tried clicking on the link you provided but nothing happens. Even pasted the address directly into my search bar, nothing. Is there a name for the guy and is there a title I can search for on Youtube?
I don't understand that, SP. I have just pasted the link and it works. It is the party's election video.Tryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sp7SZzDiI&list
The expert on Marx is very confused. He has referred to labour vouchers as money but as I have pointed out: Money is only required where there is exchange. Labour-time vouchers would not be money, they would not circulate. As Marx said of the Owenites' plan for a co-operative commonwealth:“Owen’s ‘labour-money’, for instance, is no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre. Owen presupposes directly associated labour, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities. The certificate of labour is merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption” (Capital, Vol &, Moscow, 1961, pp. 94-5).
Cheers Vin, that worked. I'll check it out, but probably won't get involved as I am not that knowledgeable regarding Marx, never was really and even less so now. But maybe I could find a way in, I'll see.
I'm a little surprised to see this thread has gone inactive. The topic is one that is vital to the SPGB/WSM perspective. I've been involved in the discussion with the same character Vin has been and his view is that wages are needed in socialism as a rationing tool.He can't grasp the very different notion of work in the socialism we advocate, instead his views lean on the tendency to see humans as needing, monetary stimulus to contribute to society. He wont be alone in this thinking and fails to grasp that such thinking is tied up with the ideology of capitalism that we are indoctrinated into from an early age.I'm gonna go back to the discussion soon, but was hoping this thread would have been buzzing with discussion on this subject by now.
That is not a new argument. Most of those so called Marxists proffessors they support wage slavery, in reality, they have not read Marx what they have read is Leninism.There are thousands of those so called Marxists who also support a socialist state, and leaders. I have been dealing with that mentality for many, many, many years, it is nothing new for me I have been reading Marx for many years and I have never seen him supporting wage slavery, on the contrary, his whole body of idea is against wage slavery, and statehood. It is like conversing with evangelicals. The first one who distorted completely the Gotha Programme was Lenin, and they are basing their arguments on Lenin analysis. The apple does not fall too far away from the tree The book: Wages, Price, and Profits does show what salary is, what is the purpose of wages, and where the profit comes from, any so called Marxist who supports wage slavery, he/she does support economical exploitation, and the continuation of capitalism. The whole purpose of socialism-communism is the elimination of wage slavery, the law of value of exchange, and the elimination of the system of profits Most peoples have not recuperated themselves from the contagious disease of Leninism, probably, they need an exorcist
Hi mcolome1You are right about Marx detesting wage slavery, in his earlier writings before his "greatest hits" he wrote in an almost poetical, philosophical way regarding the degrading nature of wage slavery. He quite clearly thought it had no place in any society of free people.I stay well clear of using him as a source of proof, as inevitably you can end up trading quotes til the cows come home and still get nowhere.The discussion I am involved with concerns not wage slavery as is commonly defined within capitalism but the use of money as a means to ration and regulate consumption, within a so called socialist society.
SocialistPunk wrote:The discussion I am involved with concerns not wage slavery as is commonly defined within capitalism but the use of money as a means to ration and regulate consumption, within a so called socialist society.[my bold] Hear, hear!And because of this assumption of opposition, which I share with SocialistPunk, I'm not sure why so many 'socialists' seem to look to Picketty for inspiration (on the other thread), or even information (unless one is a 'data produces theory' ideological inductivist).'The wages system leads to the rich becoming richer'? This is only 'Shock, horror!'-type news to reformists, and those who base their ideology on 'individualist consumption' and 'rewards for the hardworking; less for the lazy'.
Even that Marx was mistaken about the use of labor voucher, he never said that it was money, and many so called Marxists that are still advocating for labor voucher, they do not consider it as money. In the Socialist Party/WSM we do not support labor voucher. That professor must become a student againhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/labor_vouchers.php
mcolome1 wrote:Even that Marx was mistaken about the use of labor voucher, he never said that it was money, and many so called Marxists that are still advocating for labor voucher, they do not consider it as money. In the Socialist Party/WSM we do not support labor voucher. That professor must become a student againHi again mcolome1The link you provided didn't work.I was already aware that the WSM/SPGB don't advocate labour vouchers.Perhaps the guy I'm discussing with gets his idea of socialism needing a regulatory, rationing tool for consumption from Marx and labour time vouchers. Who knows. But I don't think it would be enough simply to say to the guy, that he needs to get educated. That isn't exactly very helpful.I've already mentioned that he seems to be tied up with the ideology of today, thinking that people need some sort of financial incentive to produce the things we as humans need and want. The fact that we have the ability, technical and social to regulate and manage consumption of the planets resources in an intelligent and considered way, without the need for a crude regulatory system such as money, seems to go right over his head. He fails to grasp that people are capable of understanding and wanting what we advocate. I mean, if I can grasp it then anyone can.I could point out to him, til the cows come home, that his idea of utilising money as a consumption regulator is so convoluted, that it would likely be much more cumbersome than the monetary system is at present, and he still would fail to grasp it. Yet this guy is cleary intelligent.Have other members come across this type of thinking before, the use of currency to regulate consumption within a socialist society? Would it come under the heading of currency crank theory?Like I said I had expected this thread to be buzzing with discussion on the subject. Or is this subject a little too slippery to pin down for party members to bother with?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.