ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was going to reply to your earlier question as to why a labour-time system wouldn't work for long. Of course the labour-time voucher scheme mentioned by Marx wasn't supposed to be permanent. But then you made the ridiculous claim that because we don't advocate labour-time vouchers the Party is advocating commodity production. Particularly ridiculous as your scheme of labour-time vouchers and labour-time prices for goods and services is much nearer to production for sale.So that you can acquaint yourself more with what we stand for please read these articles:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-801-may-1971/labour-time-vouchershttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative#ch4https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-1000-december-1987/socialism-and-calculationhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no2-winter-1984/how-socialism-can-organise-production-without-money-2http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no2-winter-1984/how-socialism-can-organise-production-without-money-1Then you will be in a position to criticise what we do stand for rather than what you imagine we stand for.
Rod Liddle wrote:It was only when China decided that Karl Marx was about as much use as a pork pie in a mosque and embraced capitalism instead that it became a world leader.I wonder why he wrote "as a pork pie in a mosque" rather than "as a pork pie in a synagogue"?
Alan Kerr wrote:But, in Crusoe's counting, his labour hours are just his labour hours. And if you look at Crusoe's bookkeeping then an average hour = an average hour whether skilled or simple labour. To Crusoe 1 hour of skilled = 1 hour of simple labour. To Crusoe with skilled and simple labour the ratio is just 1:1. Yes, I know how Marx says that Crusoe's relations with the things which Crusoe makes "… contain all that is essential to the determination of value." But that also tells us that Crusoe does not bother himself in inessential details.A market competition would make each skilled hour to make a hut count as something more than 1 hour of making a simple stack of firewood.Yes, Crusoe could also count skilled as something more than simple-labour. But what does Crusoe care about that? It's up to Crusoe to choose. In his bookkeeping Crusoe chooses to make 1 hour skilled count as 1 hour simple-labour.Yes, both Robino Crusoe and socialist society could decide that the ratio of skilled and simple is 1:1, i.e that one hours's work of any kind is counted the same as one hour. That's how most of its supporters have interpreted the labour-time voucher scheme described b Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. This would in fact be the easiest way to make such a scheme workable. But, as you yourself recognise, this would no longer be a parallel to what happens under capitalism to determine "socially necessary labour time" as the labour-time "prices" of the products which the vouchers could be used to redeem would not be the same as their labour-time values under capitalism (nor would the labour-time content of the raw materials, machines, energy, etc used in calculating what to produce).So much, then, for your original claim that socialist society will calculate the "socially necessary labour-time" content better than the market. According to this latest version of your scheme it wouldn't be calculaing this. Not that, anyway, it would need to. Both labour-time vouchers and labour-time accounting (counting every product in labour-time) are unncessary in socialism and, if tried, wouldn't work for long.
Alan Kerr wrote:@ALB, Then which thought does Ludwig von Mises attack and where?Baron von Mises's objection to labour-time accounting can be found here:https://www.mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html/c/16#currentI think he has a point when he brings up the practical difficulty, in the absence of a market for labour power (i.e of the wages system), of reducing skilled labour to so many units of simple labour. In theory it could be done but in practice it would be an arbitrary, administrative decision.Of course he is completely wrong when he writes:
von Mises wrote:Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism; without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation.That is simply assumng what is to be proved, though I dare say you might agree with his definition that "without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation".
This article puts our position rather well:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/one_world.htm
And the first casualty of war is ….http://observers.france24.com/en/20180124-fake-images-turkey-offensive-afrin-syria
Maybe, but it wasn't funny, no more funny that if he "joked":
Quote:"wtf not another Sympo thread relating to value, can Nazi Germany please start existing again so I can get gassed"Sympo wrote:I know what you're all thinking: "wtf not another Sympo thread relating to value, can the USSR please start existing again so I can get shot in a mass grave"Why would we think that? You must know that we don't think that the USSR was socialist and don't advocate or support mass shootings.I thought your questions were sincere, but this suggests otherwise.
The Socialist Standard commented on this a year ago:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1350-february-2017/cooking-books-abolish-money-%E2%80%93-not-now
Just checked and you're right. It says
Quote:Subject cannot be longer than 128 characters but is currently 160 characters long.Forum post could not be created for your comment to be published.A design fault seems to have been uncovered.
Thanks. That doesn't sound too bad, i.e we could provide a link to it from the Turkish-language section of the WSM website?http://www.worldsocialism.org/türkçe
