ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The change of name is no doubt a fallout of the recent "Anarchy in the AF" with its Leicester section taking the side of the class-struggle anarchists rather than the lifestyle, identity politics ones.
Historical materialism was a development from Physical Science materialism which was a weapon used by the rising bourgeois class in its struggle for the control of political power against the landed aristocracy which then held it and which relied on Catholic Christianity as its ideological weapon. This is quite well explained in the early chapters of Anton Pannekoek's Lenin as Philospher (which incidently is a criticism of Lenin not an exposition of Lenin's views):https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/
Dave B wrote:Yes not only value in communism but surplus value Jim ! but not as we know it now.Next you'll be telling us that peasants produce surplus value (one of the trick questions in the questionnaire to stand as a Socialist Party candidate at elections) ! Value and surplus value are categories that apply only when analysing capitalist society. Of course even in socialism there will be a "surplus" over what the producers consume (to maintain those who can't or don't work and to expand the means of production if need be, as you point out) but this won't be surplus "value". The fact that the view you and Alan hold of something like value under capitalism surviving into socialism as "surplus value" is proof that it is incoherent on he principle of reductio ad absurdum.Having said this, to be honest, I have to admit that Marx probably envisaged some form of general labour-time accounting in socialism but hadn't thought it through properly since, as you pointed out in a previous posting, he didn't think that "socially necessary labour" could be measured in advance of being established by the market even under capitalism, let alone in socialism where no market forces would operate. What would be the point of trying, in socialism, to second guess how to achieve the pattern of production that the market is supposed to bring about under capitalism?
Quote:Capital Vol. III Part VIIRevenues and their SourcesChapter 49. Concerning the Analysis of the Process of ProductionSecondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htmFunny you should quote that, Dave, as it was what Ted Grant, later of Militant fame, quoted back at me when I said that socialism would involve the disappearance of money at a meeting of the Labour Party Young Socialists in Newport ages ago. Of course it doesn't refute what we say about money and I know you don't think it does either. But what do you think Marx meant by "the regulation of labour-time" and "the distribution of social labour among the various production groups"? Was he talking about living labour or about dead labour? About the labour-time available for current production or that embodied in past production?Here's another quote from another of Marx's unedited works, the famous Grundrisse:
Quote:On the basis of communal production, the determination of time remains, of course, essential. The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself. Society likewise has to distribute its time in a purposeful way, in order to achieve a production adequate to its overall needs; just as the individual has to distribute his time correctly in order to achieve knowledge in proper proportions or in order to satisfy the various demands on his activity. Thus, economy of time, along with the planned distribution of labour time among the various branches of production, remains the first economic law on the basis of communal production. It becomes law, there, to an even higher degree. However, this is essentially different from a measurement of exchange values (labour or products) by labour time.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm
Alan Kerr wrote:I notice that you don’t mind about counting. You just mind about proper counting that is better than the market. But it is sloppy counting (no better than the market) that leads to scarcity…Of course I don't mind counting, but the question is what is to be counted? I'm in favour of counting, as part of calculation in kind, actual living labour, i.e. the amount and type of working skills society has available for production. Nothing sloppy about that. You are (or seem to be) in favour of trying to count abstract labour as embodied in raw materials, machines, buildings produced in the past and used in current production. I don't see the point of trying to do this, of resurrecting a general unit of account to replace of money. I don't think those around when socialism is established will either as it would be a waste of time and resources.
Agreed that what constitutes "the bare necessaries of existence" is socially-determined and in Britain will be higher now that it was over a hundred years ago in Tressell's time but I don't think we could get away with saying that a worker living in a centrally-heated house with two or three rooms, hot and cold running water, freezer, television, computer, mobile phone, three meals a day, etc is only getting the "bare necessaries of existence". Such a worker is only "poor" in the sense of being excluded from ownership of means of production and therefore forced by economic necessity to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary in order to live. Also, of course, in some parts of the world, there are people not getting enough to stay alive properly. Few people in Britain are in that position.
In that passage where Marx uses Robinson Crusoe as an example, he is only talking about the alloction of "living labour",, i.e the total amount (and types) of working skills available to socialist society for production. As he wrote:
Marx wrote:Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community.This is not at all what you are proposing when you, in your claim that socialist society would be better able to calculate "socially necessary labour" than the market, talk of "labour-in (all told)",i.e. that Crusoe should also count the amount of "dead labour" involved in the production of the raw materials and instruments of labour he uses. Obviously socialist society will have to count the labour resources available alongside raw materials, machines, buildings, energy, etc. This not require making labour-time a general unit of account, but is just a part of calculation in kind.
Marx wrote:it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption.True, Marx does mention the idea of "labour-time vouchers", here as he says to illustrate a point, but it is unclear to what extent he thought this should be a way of allocaing consumer goods and services in socialism. In any event, the SPGB has never thought that labour-time vouchers are a good idea or advocated them. Those that have gone down this road have logically had to give goods and services a labour time "price" tag and some have ended up advocating circulating "labour money".As Ludwig von Mises also said …..
Alan Kerr wrote:Good luck with your way to count that's no better than the market. That means a) scarcity b) soviet bureaucrat's forced labour camp and c) return to the market.But your calculation is not the same as "socially necassay labour" under capitalism. That was my point. It would be actual labour time, which is not the same. In theory your calculation could be done but what woud be the point? You talk about "total labour-in (all told)" by which I take you to mean all the labour-time involved in producing it from start to finish, i.e that involved in producing the raw materials, contituent parts, transporting them, in making the machines used to make them, energy, etc. A huge, bureaucratic accounting execise.What I was envisaging was something less complcated — counting particular labour skills alongside materials and energy involved in the last stage of producing something (much as builders do now to organise building a house). You seem to be talking about using labour-time as a general unit of account to replace money. Hopefully, you don't envisage putting a labour-time "price" on products for which "labour-time voucher" would have to be handed in to get them. I don't know.
Alan Kerr wrote:In the free socialist society, of the future, owner-workers need to compute (and better than a market) what kinds of labour, and how much labour is socially necessary. That is becoming possible and inevitable. Only then (with the new alternative in place) is there no more need for a market.If you are saying here what I think you are saying, i.e. that in a socialist society we will need to calculate the amount of "socially necessary labour" in each product, then I think you are wrong, for reasons that have been discussed on other threads here."Socially necessary labour" only makes sense in a society like capitalism where products take the form of commodities, i.e. are produced for sale on a market rather than directly for use. It is what underlies their value and exchange value but can only be established through the market; it cannot be calculated independently of the market. In socialism, where there will be production directly for use, it wouldn't make sense, so it won't be a question of calculaing this "better than a market". It will be possible to calculate the actual labour-time taken to produce something, but that would not be the same as what its socially necessary value would be under capitalism. If you just mean that in socialism we will have to calculate how much of what kinds of labour are needed, alongside what materials and power, to produce some product that will obviously be the case. This would be part of more general "calculation in kind". But I suspect that you might be saying more than this, i.e. that something akin to "value" under capitalism will also exist in socialism.
Owen wrote:'What I call poverty is when people are not able to secure for themselves all the benefits of civilization; the necessaries, comforts, pleasures and refinements of life, leisure, books, theatres, pictures, music, holidays, travel, good and beautiful homes, good clothes, good and pleasant food.''If a man is only able to provide himself and his family with the bare necessaries of existence, that man's family is living in poverty.'Owen is giving two different definitions of poverty here. One, that someone is poor if they don't have access to "all the benefits of civilisation" and, two, that someone is poor when they can only access the"bare necessaries of existence".The ambiguity arises with someone who has access to more than the "bare necessaries" but not to "all" the benefits of civilisation but only to some of them, e.g. from Owen's list to books, music, holidays. Which is the situation of most workers today and always has been the position of some. This no doubt is what is behind the claim that most workes are not poor.The Party used to get round this by drawing a distinction between "destitution" (access only to the socially-determined mimumum necessaries) and "poverty" (exclusion from ownership and control of means of production). This definition of "poverty" moves away from access to means of consumption to access to means of production, even if it goes against the popular usage of the term.On Owen's second definition, most workers are not poor (only about 10-15% in Britain are). On Owen's first definition all workers are (as are many small business owners). On the definition the Party has used, all workers are too (but no small owners).
Quote:At this point the Ballot Committee reported they had received two further nominations for the 2018 Executive Committee – Carla Dee and Gwynn Thomas.It was AGREED that the two members be appointed (Rule 12 refers) and invited to take their seats.Cde Thomas was present and took his seat immediately; cde Chesham offered to inform cde Dee of her appointment. AGREEDThere is something odd about this. How could the EC declare elected two nominations before the deadline for nomnations (19 January) had passed? This was exceeding their powers. What if today we find that there are three further nominations, requiring a ballot between all 5 nominated for the 4 vacancies?
Looks as if somebody made a mistake which has set an unfortunate precednt. After all moderators, are only human but the mistake can be easily rectified.,
Actually whether or not there would/could be inflation/monetary depreciation (the same thing from different angles) in a purely cashless system is an interesting intellectual exercise. I say intellectual exercise since the coming of a completely cashless society is highly unlikely, even though there is clear trend towards less cash being used to make payments, with people using bank transfers, debit cards and contactless cards instead. According to an article in the Financial Times (9 December):
Quote:Cash payments are in decline. Last year, just 40 per cent of payments in the UK were in cash, down from 87 per crent in 1985.However, the value of what is paid in cash has been declining much more slowly:
Quote:Even though the number of cash transactions has been falling, the value has dropped more slowly, at least since 2005.Also:
Quote:There is more cash in circulation, The value of notes and coins has more than doubled since 2005 — rising from £35.4bn in 2005 to £73.2bn.Which is what you would expect as the government is aiming to achieve 2% a year compound inflation.
