LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yawn….Measure does not equal absolute…
You really must get more sleep, YMS, thinking is taking it out of you.So, you must agree that any 'measure' is a social product, and thus can be voted upon. There are no 'measures' sitting 'out there', like bricks.That's your elite 'lego bricks thesis' dissolved.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:What the latter proposes is to introduce a single universal universal unit of accounting – namely labour time – governing the entire economy and as such is grounded in the same mindset that rationalises the need for money as a universal unit of account[my bold]I agree with you, robbo. Another name for this is 'absolute'.It is opposed by 'social'.The political reason for an 'absolute' is so that a minority can 'know' this supposed 'absolute', outside of any social (and thus, democratic) input.Any mention of 'universal' or 'absolute' (and many other synonyms, that you already know that I'd use) is only made to prevent the political appeal to democracy (ie. the appeal to the majority).This is to allow a minority to (supposedly) 'objectively calculate' what the majority (supposedly) require, without the majority having any say in their own 'requirements'.Marx warns against this, in his Theses on Feuerbach.[edit] the 'mind set' that you mention is 'ruling class ideas'.
Marx also advocated a universal unit of accounting in the form of labour time units
Yes, but 'labour time' can be voted upon, because it is a 'social unit of account', not a 'universal unit of account'.If you post the quote with Marx's statement of 'universal', I'll post the correction of Marx, who often uses sloppy terms which contradict his whole thesis, about socio-historic production (ie., not 'universals', 'absolutes', etc., which are 'divine'). Marx was human, y'know!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Imagine we made tools out of lego bricks (just go with me on this):n each tool would need to be accounted for in its own right, but, theoretically, they would be broken down into their basic bricks,a dn those bricks could be re-purposed: it would be useful to track the stocks of each type of tool, and by extrapolation, the number of available bricks that could be re-purposed. Also, assuming bricks can be made into intermediate and end products, it's worth watching the balance between the two.robbo, here is an example of an 'absolute' or 'universal': YMS's 'lego brick'.YMS posits this as a 'non-social' unit of account, which would allow an elite (like YMS as an individual) to 'calculate', without the need for the participation of the majority, and hence a vote.There is no 'lego brick' sitting 'out there' – the majority must determine their own 'lego-bricks-for-them'. And since they are a social product, we can change them.
robbo203 wrote:What the latter proposes is to introduce a single universal universal unit of accounting – namely labour time – governing the entire economy and as such is grounded in the same mindset that rationalises the need for money as a universal unit of account[my bold]I agree with you, robbo. Another name for this is 'absolute'.It is opposed by 'social'.The political reason for an 'absolute' is so that a minority can 'know' this supposed 'absolute', outside of any social (and thus, democratic) input.Any mention of 'universal' or 'absolute' (and many other synonyms, that you already know that I'd use) is only made to prevent the political appeal to democracy (ie. the appeal to the majority).This is to allow a minority to (supposedly) 'objectively calculate' what the majority (supposedly) require, without the majority having any say in their own 'requirements'.Marx warns against this, in his Theses on Feuerbach.[edit] the 'mind set' that you mention is 'ruling class ideas'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I prefer to continue looking at concrete humans in their lived circumstances.Good statement of your ideology, YMS!Individualist, passive, materialist, elite, conservative.As opposed to mine:'We prefer to begin creating our society with our new aspirations'.Social, active, productivist, democratic, revolutionary.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird,… the actual …the actual …Nope, you're still not getting it, YMS.Let's try again.Ideology 1 (yours) "the actual…the actual…";Ideology 2 (mine) "the social… the social…".
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:I would suggest that 'voting' would be an appropriate method for 'measuring'.So, I think we can 'measure socially necessary labour', and indeed will do so within socialism. This social estimation will not, of course, involve 'money'.We couldn't vote on what socially necessary labour is needed, partly because there's a missing term: average …
You don't understand, YMS.'Average' is a product.That's the whole point.'Average' is something we decide on, not an 'absolute'.So, we have two political ideologies at work, here:1. 'Average' is an 'absolute', which pre-exists the social process;2. 'Average' is a 'product', which only exists after the social process.1. is your ideology, gleaned from Engels, whereas 2 is my ideology, gleaned from Marx.The sooner you click on to what I'm saying, the sooner you'll understand our political differences. Then, you'll understand why my ideology insists upon 'democracy', and thus excludes elite power, whilst your ideology doesn't, and thus allows for elite power.These are political discussions, YMS.
Dave B wrote:Engels wrote:Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm
[my bold]Firstly, this is Engels, not Marx.I've pointed out often enough that there are massive differences between Marx and Engels on some issues.Secondly, and this is one of those differences, 'time' is not an 'absolute measure'. Engels, because of his 'materialism', always seeks out 'absolute', rather than Marx's 'socio-historic', ways of 'measuring'.'Time', used as an 'accounting' measure in a socialist society, will be a socially constructed 'production time', and will include notions that are not taken into account today, and are nothing to do with asocial, ahistoric, 'absolutes'.It's possible that one community might value a social project more highly than another community which might be asked to produce it, even though the former might take longer, simply because they enjoy the production process.That is, we could be confronted with asking two communities which prefers the production task, and to give us some estimate of their 'time'. One might calculate one million 'labour hours', and the other two million. But the latter might implore to be given the task, because they enjoy the work.So, no 'absolutes' here, just a choice – do we democratically assigned the task to the 'shorter' or 'longer'? Bourgeois notions of 'efficiency' will not predominate, I think.If a community enjoys building ships, how else do we 'value' that, other than by discussion, debate, consultation and voting?It's quite possible that every production will take longer in our 'efficient' society, when we ask how efficient is the task in producing pleasure.There is no 'absolute time', only 'socio-historic time'.
ALB wrote:I don't think socialist society would or could or should try to measure "socially necessary labour time". It doesn't make sense as this is a category of an exchange economy (established by the workings of that economy).[my bold]I think that this is perhaps an assumption that we don't share.If, for example, it was determined to be 'a category of social production' (rather than exchange economy), then it would 'make sense'. That is, 'sense' depends upon some wider social assumptions.
ALB wrote:Marx does seem to have favoured labour-time accounting but this wouldn't be trying to measure (the equivalent of) socially necessary labour-time. To be useful, it would have to be actual labour-time, i.e the actual use of the resource labour-power of various kinds.Yes, I agree with you, about how this could be 'useful'. But then (potential) 'actual labour-time' (of differing individuals) could be simply added together, to produce a forecast of 'socially necessary labour time'. That is, potential can be estimated (ie. measured), to allow us to determine whether any particular mooted production, given its 'socially necessary labour time', is worth doing, given other options for the use of that productive capacity.
ALB wrote:Attempts to reproduce "socially necessary labour" in a non-capitalist society (such as that of the Dutch Council Communists in the 1930s) have been internally inconsistent and have in effect re-introduced the sort of circulating labour-money that Marx criticised in John Gray, Proudhon, etc.I suspect that these attempts have been to produce some 'objective measure', which an elite can then employ. I think that we'd agree that these attempts will always fail (because they're simply attempts to produce 'labour-money', which is simply another term for 'objective measure'). Within socialism, we'd always have 'socially-objective measures'.
ALB wrote:It would be possible to fix some arbitary average labour (and vote on what it should be) and use this as a unit of account but this would take us to the nightmare society envisaged by Michael Albert and his "Parecon" where people get to vote even on precisely what an individual can consume (individuals have to submit a list of what they want to some committee). On the other hand, it might appeal to some as his blueprint involves virtually non-stop voting.Yes, I agree. But 'arbitrary average' implies an elite, not a vote, and this is precisely what I argued with the Pareconists (and some other group?) on LibCom, and where I first read your and alanjjohnstone's excellent rebuttals of that nonsense.Essentially, as you say, they are individualists, rather than democratic socialists, when discussing production/consumption. 'Voting' is about social production/consumption, not about individual preferences/tastes/capacities/desires/etc.
If the proposal is 'stupid', in your judgement, Tim, just accept it.You don't need me to validate your judgement, do you, Tim?FWIW, I'm interested in discussing the political origins of 'your' judgement, but you're not.That's fine by me, Tim.Big breaths, now, slow and deep… a n d … 'accept'.I've done it, so can you, Tim! I have confidence in you!
You're going to have to turn your well-known habit of 'psychologising' upon yourself, Tim, in your desperate search for an answer for your failure to engage in conversation with grown-ups.My comradely advice is to look at the content of your last post, and try to judge whether it's from someone genuinely interested in political discussion, or from someone who has 'issues' (to use the current pop-psychology term).And don't blame me, Tim – I'm only the messenger. If you must have a tantrum, smash your keyboard against the wall – you'll feel better, and I'll feel free from your 'issues'.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:How about a trade. If ALB answers your question to him on this thread, then you agree to answer my question to you on the "good article" thread?Since you appear to be incapable of reading what I write, and, through your own frustration at your own lack of comprehension, always turn to abuse, I think that I'll decline your 'trade', since I would be trading my valuable discussion for your childish taunts.
ALB wrote:That's because they are measuring actual labour rather than socially necessary labour. Don't know how you would measure the latter. Not sure you can.I know that you won't take kindly to my appearance on this thread, ALB, so I'll make it short and sweet.Since this form of 'labour' is 'socially necessary', only the society that determines its own necessities can 'measure' its labour; and furthermore, only it can determine its 'measures'.Within a democratic society, like socialism/communism, only the democratic producers can determine their own necessities and their own measures.I would suggest that 'voting' would be an appropriate method for 'measuring'.So, I think we can 'measure socially necessary labour', and indeed will do so within socialism. This social estimation will not, of course, involve 'money'.
ALB wrote:In criticising various schemes for "labour money" in his day Marx suggested it couldn't be.Do you have an information where Marx suggested it could be, where he wasn't talking about 'money' (or any of its supposed 'objective' forms)? I suspect that Marx didn't talk about the future social measures of 'necessity' which we might use, but you might know of some discussion which touches on this area.If you don't wish to reply to my question, just ignore this post, and I'll leave the thread alone.
So, according to the SPGB, almost anyone, or anything (dragons and entrails included), other than the social body which aims to bring socialism. That is, workers.Revealing.
