LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:They could also argue that the existance of matter should be decided by an interpretation of the entrails of a goaat cast down on a stone plinth.Tim… yes, 'they' could.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.That doesn't follow. they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.
Yes, 'they' could, YMS.But two points jump out:1. All these options, that you suggest, involve a 'knowing elite' (rather than a self-conscious majority) – dragon, individual, programmers, no-one (but then we wouldn't 'know'), god, individual (again), inactive non-producers, a past elite;2. None of these options, and noticeably you don't even suggest it, involve the revolutionary, class conscious, self-determining, self-developing proletariat.
YMS wrote:Sloppy argumentation.You wouldn't know, YMS. You certainly have no idea whatsoever about Marx, class, production or revolution.But there are others here, who do claim to know about Marx, etc., and yet they appear also to be influenced by your bourgeois, elitist 'slop'.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Who has said this? Apart from yourself?
Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.So, amongst others, you've said this, Vin.
moderator1 wrote:For your information the reviewer of the book has been participating in this and the other discussions on the very same subject, since the beginning. Which is one of the reasons why I mentioned it.You don't say!I'd never have thought of that! Wow!You've got me there, mod1!Boy, are you boys bright! Tricky little Dickie! Sneaky little Beaky!But, to treat you like adults, it's apparent my strategem has failed, because the reviewer hasn't said why they argued one politics then, but another politics now, and allowed me to quote themselves in their previous political life, to themselves now.Still, whilst you are so childishly amused with yourself, the politics of the SPGB go unexamined by the membership, never mind any interested workers.Clogs on minds, rather than feet, I fear.Clip clop, mod1. Clip clop.
ALB wrote:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyFor the record, both the author and the reviewer of the book are still members of the Socialist Party and will still hold the same view, including the anti-Leninism.This is great news, ALB!If they are available, could you persuade the author and the reviewer to participate in this discussion?Since they wrote those words, I could quote their own words to them as an illustration of what Democratic Communists and Marxists argue, and ask them whether they still agree, or whether since that book and article were written, they've changed their minds, and now argue anti-democratic and anti-worker views, and support 'specialist power' and 'elite decision-making'.Of course, I'll argue to them that only the collective producers can determine their product, and all decision-making by the class conscious workers must be democratic. If they still stand by their book/article, I'm sure that they'll agree with me.If not, we can tease out the differences between what would have to be their now anti-worker and anti-democratic position, with what they wrote then, and try to clarify what's changed, both in their own views and in the wider SPGB, regarding workers' power, self-development of our class, and the need for democracy in all social production within a future socialist society.
moderator1 wrote:Just out of interest this article might help to settle the democratic issues being deliberated here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-987-november-1986/socialism-and-democracyI just had a quick read of that article, mod1, and it seems to fit perfectly well with the points that I've been arguing (I could give some quotes, to illustrate this, if anyone is interested).Further, this article is from 1986, so it proves that the SPGB was still arguing for the democratic control of production by workers after 1973, the date of the SPGB article that I posted to form a basis for discussion on this thread.I'd be interested if you or any other member could find a matching article in the 1990s (or even 2000s), because we might be able to identify approximately when the SPGB stopped making these Marxist and democratic arguments, and moved to the (seemingly) present position, which is far closer to Lenin's views about 'matter', 'specialists', and 'problems' with democracy, to the exclusion of any mention of class consciousness or the proletariat, or the process of self-development of our class.
robbo203 wrote:Which reinforces the point made in an earlier post which is that if we can extract/salvage anything useful at all out this surreal debate with LBird then it should be to focus minds on where the practical limits of democratic decisionmaking in a socialist society should lie and to what extent democracy has to be counterbalanced by other considerations.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracyThis is an important subject that deserves further discussion[my bold]So, your concerns are the 'limits' of, and 'counterbalances' for, democracy?It certainly is an important subject that deserves further discussion – and it would help if those who are to discuss it were actually in favour of democracy (never mind workers' democracy, the concern of socialists).That doesn't appear to be the SPGB, though, does it?I think that those with robbo's concerns, need only read the texts produced by bourgeois academics over the last three centuries, to ascertain some useful advice on 'limits and counterbalances' regarding democracy.This certainly is a 'surreal debate'.
