ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, Dan, we have also dealt with the so-called “supply side” aspect of the question. Here is an extract from an article submitted to the Socialist Standard and which will be published in full in due course:
“In his Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth Mises claimed that the application of in-kind calculation would be feasible only on a small scale. However, it is possible to identify extant or past examples of calculation-in-kind being implemented on a fairly – or even, very large – scale. For instance, Cockshott refers us to the fascinating case of the first Pyramid at Saqqara, built under the supervision of Imhote – an enormous undertaking by any standard – involving nothing more than calculation-in-kind. Another case in point was the Inca civilisation, a large-scale and complex civilisation that effectively operated without money.
However, it was really the emergence of linear programming that has effectively delivered the coup de grâce against this particular line of argument against calculation-in-kind peddled by Mises and others. It has made this argument more or less completely irrelevant since it has removed what Mises considered to be the main objection to this form of accounting – that it could not be applied on a large scale basis.
Linear programming is an algorithmic technique developed by the Soviet mathematician Leonid Kantorovich in 1939 and, around about the same time, the Dutch-American economist, T. C. Koopman. As a technique it is widely and routinely used today to solve a variety of problems – such as the logistics of supply chains, production scheduling, and such technical issues as how to best to organise traffic flows within a highly complex public transportation network with a view to, say, reducing average waiting times.
To begin with the computational possibilities of this technique were rather limited. This changed with the development of the computer. As Cockshott notes:
‘Since the pioneering work on linear programming in the 30s, computing has been transformed from something done by human ‘computers’ to something done by electronic ones. The speed at which calculations can be done has increased many billion-fold. It is now possible to use software packages to solve huge systems of linear equations’ (Paul Cockshott, 2007, ‘Mises, Kantorovich and Economic Computation’, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 6063)
Computerised linear programming allows us to solve some very large scale optimisation problems involving many thousands of variables, in a matter of mere seconds. It can also help to solve small scale optimisation problems.
In short, linear programme provides us with a method for optimising the use of resources – either by maximizing a given output or by minimizing material inputs or both. The problem with any single scalar measure or unit of accounting (such as market price or labour values) is that these are unable to properly handle the complexity of real world constraints on production which, by their very nature, are multi-factorial. Calculation-in-kind in the guise of linear programming provides us with the means of doing precisely this since it is directly concerned with the way in which multiple factors interact with – and constrain – each other.
While a non-market system of production could operate well enough without linear programming, there is little doubt that the availability of such a tool has now put the matter of whether such a system is feasible or not, beyond dispute.”
Could the new Labour government be lucky and the economy grow while they happen to be in office? It’s a possibility but, if it does, they will of course claim credit for it.
From today’s Times:
“May’s 0.4 per cent monthly GDP expansion may have had little to with Labour’s policy launches on planning and public investment, announced this week, but the numbers underscore the party’s good fortune in inheriting an economy in the midst of a growth upswing.”
Why can’t those in direct charge of a productive unit in a socialist society decide how much to produce in the light of how much people take (or don’t take) from distribution centres or other outlets in much the same sort of way as managers of capitalist enterprises do today to sales? If stocks fall below average that’s a signal to produce more; if stocks built up that’s a signal to produce less. They will be responding to real demand as opposed to artificially limited, paying demand. But there is no difference in principle.
I don’t know about Dan but Dapprich creates a problem for himself because he insists on giving people in a socialist society non-circulating tokens with which to acquire consumer goods and services, at least those not provided for free. This means he has to fix a “price” for these and so gets drawn down that rabbit hole. He suggests this should be the “clearing price”, ie the price that will clear what has been produced rather than the other ways that those already down there have proposed.
The other objection to any token system as an alternative to money is the unnecessary use of resources to manage it, maybe not as much as the money system but still a considerable amount.
No, he is not an abstentionist. Here is his position as stated in the sane podcast:
“And if you’re one of those progressively minded people that’s convinced themselves, half rightly, that it doesn’t matter who you vote for, it doesn’t matter if you participate in the system, it doesn’t matter if you protest, keep in mind that it’s not that cut and dry. The system is a corporate totalitarian system in its very nature, but it can indeed get far worse. And that’s what you have to fight back through whatever in-system mechanisms you can, as we all work, of course, toward the true solution, which is total system change.”
I think that voting will be one of the “in-system mechanisms” he thinks people can use to try to stop things getting worse. I imagine he will call on people to vote against Trump, as he did last time.
In his latest Revolution Now podcast, Peter Joseph embraces democracy which he defines as
“I define democracy as the intellectual will of a citizenry expressed through some process of assessment, so societal decisions are made based on the majority consensus in the end.”
He is always a bit wordy so it’s unclear what a “majority consensus” is. Presumably he just means a majority.
This overcomes one of the criticisms we have had of his earlier vision of a society without property rights or money — that it was technocratic. So, on this, he has moved closer to what we understand by socialism — a society based on no property and democratic control of the resources society needs to survive.
On the other hand, he has now taken up this idea of what to do now and how such a society might come about, speaking of
“the Integral parallel economy project that I will introduce in my new film: Zeitgeist Requiem by which localized, smaller economic structures emerge, and then they self-organize through their own nodes as they connect to other parallel economies of the same nature, and ideally continue self-organizing to a point where their use is so widespread, it takes all of the steam out of the horrific market economy system.”
I suppose something like this might emerge in the final days of capitalism but the final overthrow of “the horrific market economy system” will have to overcome by political action based on socialist understanding.
Anyway, his podcast can be found here (but be warned he is wordy):
https://www.revolutionnow.live/episodes/episode50-k9w85-z3c2d-lfd83
Just seen the election communication of the Labour candidate (now MP) for Newport West and Islwyn. It consists entirely of a letter from Starmer in which he promises:
”a Britain rebuilt by Labour so the British economy works for working people.”
That’s physically impossible of course but, if he wants to be judged by trying to do it, fair enough.
The absurd rumour that Mark Matlock, the ReformUK candidate, did not exist but was created by AI continues to circulate on social media.
In the meantime, despite what the Green candidate was reported as saying, it seems that there was no hustings at which he didn’t turn up and to which we were not invited.
I think by “hustings” she must have meant the count. In this case, she would have been using the word hustings in its original sense, since in the days before the introduction of the secret ballot in 1872 MPs were nominated and elected at hustings.
Robbo is right. The article by Dapprich on tokens as an alternative to money is much more interesting.
In it he starts from what Marx wrote in his Critique of the Gotha Programme where Marx discusses (I would say rather than proposes) non-circulating tokens based on labour-time as the alternative to money in socialism/communism pending the development of the productive forces to the point where people can have free access according to self-determined need.
He proposes a different type non-circulating tokens and a different way of “pricing” the goods they can be used to redeem. That basically is his alternative to money.
He accepts that, as far as the production of producer goods is concerned, Marx and Engels “proposed some kind of in-kind planning. The constraints, benefits and costs of production are to be evaluated in purely physical terms.”
His concern is the distribution of consumer goods and services in a socialist/communist society and here he makes some criticism of Marx’s token system. He thinks that his own version obviates the need to go over to full free access as it would ensure that people’s needs are satisfied. In other words, that a system of non-circulating tokens should be a permanent feature of socialism/communism.
He even mentions the argument (which we have used) that “since we have seen significant increases in productive capacities since the nineteenth century, during which Marx was writing, perhaps the token system is already outdated”, even though he says he is not convinced by it.
Clearly he is somebody arguing from the same basis as us and so much more interesting to discuss with than dealing with the latest offerings of so-called “Austrian scholarship” that his article with Dan does.
I think this link will take you there:
https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revepe/v4y2023i3d10.1007_s43253-022-00091-6.html
More on this but I can’t believe it’s true, otherwise someone has committed a serious criminal offence:
Reform UK accused of using AI generated candidates in the UK election
byu/GruffJM inmorningsomewhereInteresting but presumably not literally true story here in which the ReformUK candidate for Clapham and Brixton Hill features:
More serious is a reference by the Green Party candidate to a hustings. If there was one we were not invited but should have been.
We are investigating.
or maybe the Left of Labour groups will now look towards the ‘Independent’ tag as a long term electoral strategy.
I wouldn’t have thought so. There is no real advantage to any group to do this even if it might well bring their candidate more votes.
If we strip out those Muslim candidates standing on an anti-Gaza War ticket who oppose the war not because it’s a war or even as “anti-imperialists” but simply because the victims are fellow Muslims, I suspect most of the others will be expelled Labour Party members, including councillors and former councillors. Their motivation will be to get as many votes as possible and increase their personal profile. At some point they will probably join the Greens or even rejoin the Labour Party.
As for the non-left Muslims, the result could be entirely negative — the formation of a Muslim communitarian party.
The reasons an organisation might contest as an organisation will mainly be, as somebody says in the comments, to raise its profile. I suppose this would include us, though, unlike all the others except perhaps Communist Future, our main aim is to put across ideas. In this respect, the others all play the game of conventional politics by making promises and pledges to do this or that but even more unrealistic than those of the parties represented in parliament, basically more and better of everything as if capitalism could be made to do this. In other words, they encourage reformist illusions.
In the case of SPEW which doesn’t contest in its own name but through its front organisation TUSC the aim is to recruit new members.
Galloway’s Workers Party will probably go the same way as Respect, which had a few local councillors but after a while deregistered as a political party. A flash in the pan.
No, I think I just caught the arse end of Macmillan’s reign of terror
I think I missed out the 14th Earl of Home, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who took over from Macmillan in 1963 before being booted out to the following year, after “14 years of Tory misrule” as the Labour Party put it, in favour of Harold Wilson. So it will be the Profumo scandal that you remember?
This table, copied from the general
General Election thread, shows that all those on the list, with the exception of Scottish Socialist Party, are in the same league as parties averaging under 1 percent of the votes cast as in most constituencies you need to get more than 350 votes to reach that percentage.Interesting that those who compiled this table did not include Galloway’s Workers Party, presumably because they did not consider it appropriate to because of its position on immigration, policing and sexual minorities.
Another letter from a member in this week’s Weekly Worker:
“Five independent pro-Palestine candidates, including former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have won in United Kingdom general elections with Israel’s war on Gaza among key issues for voters.
The other four independent candidates who won their seats from Labour on Friday include Shockat Adam in Leicester South, Ayoub Khan in Birmingham Perry Barr, Adnan Hussain in Blackburn, and Iqbal Mohamed in Dewsbury and Batley.”
