[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?  

 This is incorrect.  Quite apart from the absurd suggestion that your critics "seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists,  which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment"  you  misunderstand the point about Marx's realms of freedom and necessity In simple terms Marx's expression, the "realm of necessity" alludes to the general need to work – to produce the goods and services we depend upon.  Communism does not eliminate this need – unless you suppose the very unlikely sceanrio of a totally automated system of production that completely relieves us of the need to work,  However this need to work  which applies to communist society as a whole expresses itself at the level of the individual in the form of voluntary labour. Voluntary labour is the logical corrollary of a form of distribution based on free access.  To fail to see this is to fail to recognise the central point that Marx is making – that the "antagonism"  between "the individual" and "society" ceases to apply in a communist society.  Consequently to postulate the need for any form of compulsory labour implies the continuation of  such an antagonism,   It implies a divergence of interests between the interests of the individual and others. There can be no doubt that Marx endorsed the communist principle, "from each according to ability to each according to need" – volunteer labour and free access to goods and services,   Though he made few direct references to the nature of a communist/socialist society the few that he did points to this as being based on the free association of the producers. His whole theory of alienation (estrangement) and his critique of the compulsory of enforced division of labour only makes sense in the light of this.  Hence the famous passage from the German Ideology, where in present day society with its enforced division of labour one may be a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic This is clearly incompatible with the idea of compulsory labour Marx's point that the realm of freedom grows out of realm of necessity and begins where the latter ends simply means that the disposable free time available to us depends the level of prpductivity that society has achieved.  This is very clear from the Gotha critique itself:In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! What you are doing is to quite illegitimately equating the "realm of necessity" – the generalised need for people still to work in communism –  with the need to institute a system of compulsory labour that in practice will boil down to the reinstatement of  class form of society. 

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Can you identify which of these activities for me is voluntary labor in the current economy and answer some simple questions.  I'd like to understand how much of the average personsl life (measured in minutes or hours) they are engaged in voluntary labor vs coorced labor as defined by Marx in a capitalist society. 

In  this context, compulsory or coerced labour refers to work arising from the class nature of  contemporary capitalism where one class owns the means of producing wealth and the other does not and is therefore obliged to sell its working abilities to the former.  In other words, it is work perfomed for the benefit, and at the behest, of a particular section of society called the owning class – the capitalists. This work takes the form of wage labour. Human beings in general need to work.  The fact that they need to do so might be construed as "compulsion" and so someone arguing along these  lines might be tempted to say that all work is based on compulsion.  But I would say this is a meaningless way of arguing the point.  If the only colour you could see in your field of vision was red or different shades of red, then the concept of "redness" would be meaningless.  Redness only acquires meaning when it is compared and constrasted with some other colour such as green, along the colour spectrum. The necessity to perform wage labour under capitalism is not universal.  It is partial and based on class membership . The capitalists dont need to perform wage labour to acquire money to purchase the means of living; the workers do.  It is from this basic structural fact of life under capitalism that the notion of compulsory labour arises and which, given the nature of capitalism, takes the form of wage labour. So "non compulsory" labour in this context is all labour that does not take this form.  Meaning it does not take a monetised form – that is to say, it is not performed in exchange for money If we look at productive work as a whole (there is the point as to whether you can really make a sharp distinction between leisure/play and work in a socialist society but I will ignore that for the moment) there are 3 distinct sectors that we can identify today under capitalism The White economy –  the official monetised economyThe Black economy – the unoffocial/illegal monetised economyThe Grey economy –  the non-monetised economy Some statistics I have come across from the UN and other sources suggest that the grey economy in terms of the number of hours worked is slightly larger than the white and black economies combined, at a global level.  The forms of activity that comprise the grey economy are numerous and diverse – from agricultural self povisioning to all forms of volunteeering and charitable work to the domestic or household sector.  Come to think of it , computer nerds such as myself who spend hours on the computer trawling for data to put togther posts such as this one – completely gratis and for the presumed benefit of others – are yet another example of what is meant by the grey economy

[robbo203]

There is also this article by Varoufakis which I came across recently in which he claims capitalism is ending becuase it has made itself obsolete.  Unfortunately, he seems to mean by capitalism just the "neoliberal system" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/yannis-varoufakis-capitalism-ending-obsolete-former-greek-finance-minister-artificial-intelligence-a8006826.html. Maybe it is worth trying to contact this guy to engage with him in some sort of political discussion/debate.  He may have some questionable ideas and theories but also others which are not and has quite an inspirational way of putting these across.   Didnt he used to be at the LSE? Has the SPGB attempted to get in touch with him before?

[robbo203]

  Prakash's nonsensical and  distorted views of Marx, and Marxism on the subject of labour in a  communist society kind of reminds me of what Trotsky wrote  in Terrorism and Communism: "As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal" and  "Man, as I have already permitted myself to point out, is lazy; that is, he instinctively strives to receive the largest possible quantity of products for the least possible expenditure of energy" This idea that work in and of itself is a "sacrifice" and  "disutility"  is a commonplace in bourgeois economic literature which our " bourgeois" friend faithfully echoes with his obsessive mantra about the need to make all work compulsory.  Like Prakash, Trotsky argued that "the only way to attract labour power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce compulsory labour service".  To that end  Trotsky was put in charge of the infamous "militarisation  of labour programme" to crush independent working class resistance and discipline workers in the interests of the Soviet capitalist state  This is where the logic of such thinking takes you.   If you feel the need to coerce labour you will inevitably end up with a coercive authoritarian class based society .  The means determine the end.   It is worth noting that Trotsky's view of work closely resembled the view held by Adam Smith and others which Marx fiercely attacked:  "In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou labor! was Jehovah’s curse on Adam. And this is labor for Smith, a curse. “Tranquility” appears as the adequate state, as identical with “freedom” and “happiness.” It seems quite far from Smith’s mind that the individual, “in his normal state of health, strength, activity, skill, facility,” also needs a normal portion of work, and of the suspension of tranquility. Certainly, labor obtains its measure from the outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles to be overcome in attaining it. But Smith has no inkling whatever that the overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity—and that, further, the external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits—hence as self-realization, objectification of the subject, hence real freedom, whose action is, precisely, labor. He is right, of course, that, in its historic forms as slave-labor, serf-labor, and wage-labor, labor always appears as repulsive, always as external forced labor; and not-labor, by contrast, as “freedom and happiness.” This holds doubly: for this contradictory labor; and relatedly, for labor which has not yet created the subjective and objective conditions for itself…in which labor becomes attractive work, the individual’s self-realization, which in no way means that it becomes mere fun, mere amusement….Really free working…is at the same time precisely the most damned seriousness, the most intensive exertion. The work of material production can achieve this character only (1) when its social character is posited, (2) when it is of a scientific and at the same time general character, not merely human exertion, as a specifically harnessed natural force, but exertion as subject, which appears in the production process, not in a merely natural, spontaneous form, but as an activity regulating all the forces of nature. Adam Smith, by the way, has only the slaves of capital in mind." (Karl Marx, Grundrissse (London: Penguin, 1973), 611–12) However, in one respect Trotsky and Prakash differ.  For Trotsky at least acknowleged that in socialism or what might be called Marx's higher phase of communism  there would be no labour compulsion"True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable.Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction"(Terrorism and Communism ch8 )

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' There is no suggestion at all in Marx [ sic ] that the "social workload" cannot be shared  on a completely voluntary and unforced basis. ' ( #307 ; comment by robbo203 ) My dear friend, Marx & Engels really and truly did not envisage that communists of the 21st century will be so stupid as to fail to realise something as simple as the arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and see the truth that is blazing like the mid-day summer sun before their eyes. You need only a clear concept of the ABCs of the theory of communism in order to see the fallacy of the principle of  “from each according to ability to each according to need ”. The citation ( #305 ) from the CAPITAL Volume III suggests clearly that the ' socialised man ', if it wants freedom, must enter into the ' realm of freedom ' ( i.e. the realm in which everyone* is free of any compulsion to do or not to do something ) from the ' realm of necessity ' ( the realm that necessitates everyone* doing work ). None in the ' realm of necessity ' have any other choice than to share work with all others* , OK ? And by the communist formula, the ' basic prerequisite ' meant to ensure everyone's entry into the ' realm of freedom ' , is the compulsory ' shortening of the working-day ' to make it equal to its ' minimum length ' ( see CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2, to know what Marx meant by the ' minimum length ' of the working-day under the communist mode of production ). Thus, it ought to be clear as day to every sensible man or woman that communism means the compulsory working-day of the shortest-possible length as well as the compulsory sharing of the social workload by everyone* . And since both the working-day ( of definite length ) and the sharing of the social workload ( which is also limited in quantity ) are compulsory for all* , the latter has to be equal.   * bar all those entitled to exemption from work 

 You are clutching at straws  in your desparate bid to put a Stalinist gloss on Marx and Marxism I dont know how many times it has been pointed out to you that the principle of from each according to ability to each according to need is absolutely fundamental to the Marxian conception of communism  and in particular what Marx called the "higher phase of communism".  The quote from Marx (from the Criitique of the Gotha of the Gotha promgamme) actually says as much but incredibly  you persist with this utterly stupid claim of yours that the principle has nothing to with what you call the "ABC of communism".   There are no none so blind as those who do not wish to see, I guess  Yes Marx makes a distinction between "realm of necessity" and the "realm of freedom" but the latter corresponds precisely to the aforementioned higher phase of communism .   That higher phase – the realm of freedom – is predicated precisely on the existence of a technological capacity to produce abundance which is something we have long had,   Meaning  free access  communism based on voluntary labour has been a material possibility for several decades; all that is lacking is the mass socialist consciousness to make this  happen .  A more intelligent, and possibly understandable, approach would have been for you to question whether  we actually possesss that technolological potential and hence, by extension, whether a communist society based on vounteer labour which Marx endorsed is feasible at the present time.   But you didnt adopt that appraoch did you?   Instead like some bull in a china shop  you blustered and ranted on about the principle of "from each according to each according to need" being "silly,", "immature"  totally impractical and contradicting what communism per se is about. Which is ignorant nonsense Little wonder no one takes you seriously on this forum 

[robbo203]

 I don’t think there is much point in trying to push the case for a society based on the principle "from each according to each according to need” in the face of dogmatic resistance from our resident Stalinist, Prakash R P, whose only attempt at argument seems to be to childishly dismiss his opponent’s arguments as “silly and immature” as an all-too-obvious attempt to evade them. Amusingly he asserts

Prakash RP wrote:

I really and truly don't expect you and the army of the silly who are right behind you in this debate to think so as all of you are disgustingly lacking in the clear concept of the ABCs of the theory of communism. “

  But the ABC of the theory of communism very definitely embodies the very principle he repudiates and which Marx very clearly endorsed.   I will post once again the quote from the Critique of the Gotha Programme where the latter does just this : In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!(Critique of the Gotha Programme) There is little more that needs to be said that hasn’t already been said.  Our resident Stalinist misunderstands the point at issue.  It is not a case of condoning or respecting the so called workshy.  Rather the question is whether the existence of such people in a communist society will present a serious problem enough to bring that societyto the point at which it would collapse. I don’t believe it would and I presented various arguments to show why this would not be the case, all of which Prakash has simply evaded.  I note that he now seems to have shifted his grounds somewhat.  He says

Prakash RP wrote:

 I'd like to replace the second statement in the above quote with this : If all of the working community were workshy and allowed freedom to shun work, the system would collapse. The truth is not all workers are workshy nor are all of the workshy are free to shun work. The workshy have to work for money they need in order to survive 

 Previously he was arguing if only some of the working community were workshy then a communist society would collapse.  Now it seems it requires the whole working community to be workshy for this to happen.  These are the people who had previously striven to set up a communist society, knowing full well the implications of what they are doing and would now somehow be intent on sabotaging that self-same society by refusing to work on a voluntary basis.  Even in capitalism, I pointed out, most work is unremunerated – falls outside of the money economy, and carried out without any kind of external compulsion.  To this Prakash responds

Prakash RP wrote:

 “I've got no idea either of the ' sorts of things ' that are not included in the ' money economy ' but deserve to be reckoned ' work”.

He would do well to read up on the so called Grey Economy which includes such things as the domestic household, sector, voluntary and charitable work, subsistence production and so on Finally in response to my question about how one might compare the labour of a janitor with the labour of neurosurgeon  in a communist society to ensure an equal sharing of the workload which he claims needs to be done,  he write as follows  

Prakash RP wrote:

The work of a janitor, an engineer, a professor, or a porter have got one thing in common, and it happens to be ' human labour in the abstract. ' ( Marx ; CAPITAL Volume I, Part I, Chapter I, Section 1 ) Different products consume different quantities of human labour. Therefore, under communism, we can easily compare different kinds of goods and services through the socially necessary labour spent for their production. For example, if a writing pen is the product of x hours of socially necessary labour and 1 metre of cloth is the product of y hours of socially necessary labour, we can easily find the equation y= nx and say 1 metre of cloth is equivalent to n writing pens, OK ? Your ignorance of these points shows you're lacking in the knowledge of the ABCs of communism, IMHO.  

 Turning to my ABC of communism  I find Marx saying something quite different – that one cannot directly measure socially necessary labour time and this only has meaning within a capitalist economy in the context of market exchange: "Social labour-time exists in these commodities in a latent state, so to speak, and becomes evident only in the course of their exchange…. Universal social labour is consequently not a ready-made prerequisite but an emerging result’   (tMarx, K, 1981, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) So the procedure that Prakash imagines is available to a non-exchange economy called communism is simply not available to such in such a society and even if it were, it would still not get around the problem of how to evaluate different kinds of labour in these terms  Nor does it get round the problem that those who do the monitoring of peoples labour input and are in a postion to chastise them when they are not pulling their weight,  will also be in a postion of being to abuse the system  and eventually emerge as a new ruling class themselves.  Only a system of voluntary labour can circumvent this possibility   

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 I'm a communist that claims to have a clear concept of the basics of communism. 

  I don’t consider that you have a “clear concept of the basics of communism” at all.  No communist would ever come out with such a preposterous remark as you have done – namely that “ the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is impractical and incompatible with the free communist society” I think you position is closer to Stalinism than it ever is to Marxism.  You claim to have read Marx but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. Marx fully endorsed the principle you repudiate as “impractical and incompatible with the free communist society”: In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!(Critique of the Gotha Programme)  Let me move swiftly on to deal with your various specific objections 1,) Yes I know you said “I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not  all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful”.  In fact, if you bothered to read my response with due attention you would have seen I fully acknowledged this.   What I was attacking was your basic claim that because some individuals in a communist society of free voluntary labour would allegedly not want to work, society as a whole is “certain” to collapse. I reject that argument completely.  Even if hypothetically what you say was true about some people being predisposed to just laze around all day doing nothing, a communist society could comfortably carry them given our technological ability to produce plenty.   It is they who are the ones who will actually lose out on the sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity in a free society in which, to quote Marx again, labour “has become not only a means of life but life's prime want”.  I would remind you also that even under capitalism today most work is voluntary and unremunerated – referring to work that falls outside of the money economy.  People are not lazy in general but you have opted to make a generalised statement about a hypothetical future communist society – that it will collapse under a system of voluntary labour. A typical bourgeois prejudice 2,) In response to my point ' Many people don’t like the idea of being bossed around at work”  you say “I don't think I ever said anything suggesting that I'm for making people consent to ' being bossed around at work '.  Excuse me but you are the one arguing for a system of compulsory or coerced labour.   How are you going to implement this compulsion?  It is precisely on this point that your ideas come across as incredibly weak and wishy washy. If you are going to compel people to work you are also going to have to monitor their labour input.  Otherwise what’s to stop me turning up to work, doing five minutes of labour and then demanding my full day’s ration?  What’s to stop me turning on my computer screen to just surf the internet rather than do all that admin work?  To monitor my labour input you are going to have somebody doing the monitoring and chastising when I don’t pull my weight.  I short you are going to have to have bosses at work.   And then, of course, the problem becomes who is going to monitor and control the bosses. The temptation to corruption is inherent in a system of labour compulsion.  In fact , I would say the very system of forced labour which you advocate is the very system that predisposes individuals to become “workshy”.  This is because people don’t like working under a system in which their labour is forced.  Free voluntary labour is its own intrinsic reward and there have many many empirical studies that bear out this very point 3,) In response to my point  “It is coerced labour just as much as that part of the worker’s labour that goes to reproduce her labour power.”  ( #303 ) you say: “I don't think the Marxian law of value approves of viewing the necessary-labour part of a worker's total labour as ' coerced labour '. Dear bro, the necessary labour is paid labour, and so it can't be right to put it in the same category along with the unpaid labour (surplus-labour ).”  This is muddled thinking.  The point about wage labour under capitalism is that necessary labour and surplus labour are coterminous.   Unlike in feudalism you don’t have one part of the working day devoted to necessary labour and another part to surplus labour.  Both forms of labour are inseparable under the general heading of coerced wage labour.  This is the very point that Marx made against those capitalists who feared that a shortening of the working day would leave less time over for workers to perform surplus labour, thus resulting in a cut in profits.  Marx demonstrated that this was based on a fallacious model of the economy which is precisely the one you are putting forward here 4,) In response to my point “You are the one who wants a system of coerced labour” (#303) You say “This is another instance of unfounded allegation brought by you against me”  How so?  How is compulsory labour not also coerced labour?  Explain  5,) In response to my point “you can be certain that [ the ] problem will [ be ] overcome by the very simple and very effective mechanism that is called social disapproval. “ You say“So, you're for something ' very simple and very effective mechanism ', something you want to call ' social disapproval ', which is aimed at making the workshy, the ' lazy and slothful ' by nature, perform their share of the social workload duly and wholly. Thus, you accept the correctness of my position that the sharing of the social workload must be compulsory. What you mean by the ' very simple and very effective mechanism ' is what I mean by a competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace and deal with the silly, the workshy, etc.” No no no – this is NOT the same thing at all.   Social disapproval is completely compatible with a system of voluntary labour and free access to goods and services.   What you are advocating is something totally different – an external body to actively monitor the labour contributions of everyone and presumably also with the power to withhold consumption goods from those who do not perform their bureaucratically-determined quota of work.  What you are advocating, in other words, is a social arrangement which, to use your favourite word, is “certain” to evolve in a new form of class society.  Your “competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace” will turn out to be just another exploiting ruling class and the only way to pre-empt that is to institute the system of voluntary labour and free access that we call communism

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Dear Adam, shying away from making your views known on an issue is not only ignominious for a man of your stature but unbecoming of a man with backbone as well. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be endowed with backbone you need to face any truth. I'm not happy to pass such unpleasant comments about you. But then you've failed disgustingly to respond to my comment #266 and clarify your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and using unkind, humiliating expressions like ' crude communist ', etc to refer to me is not right.You're also expected to respond to my comment #314 and oblige me by making known your position on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of the equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth and the principle of ' from each according to his ability to each according to his needs '.

 This is rich coming from someone who has conspicuously failed to respond to criticism of his own very weak and illogical  arguments about the nature of communism.  Perhaps Prakash you could attempt to answer the specific concrete questions I raised in post  number 315 before casting totally unjustified aspersions  on others here.

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so.  ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society.  ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.

 Here we go again.  The same old dull bourgeois dogmas and prejudices are once again being peddled  by our "humble seeker after the truth" who, nothwithstanding his "humility", reckons himself to be the "Originator" of the thesis – actually a very old thesis – on money's incapacity to reflect use value. Talking about sophistry,  I have  yet to hear from our resident sophist, Prakash,  how exactly he proposes to ensure that, in what he calls "communism",  everyone will be forced to make exactly the same labour contribution as everyone else.  Who is going to do the enforcing, Prakash?  How do you ensure that the enforcers won't themselves use their power to abuse the system and get out of doing their "fair share of the work"?  After all,  according to your bourgeois way of thinking, work is a "disutilty" and so we must be compelled to work.    And how are you going to measure one person's labour against another's anyway?  Is one  hour of labour in a kitchen making soup equivalent to one hour's labour cleaning the sewer or knitting a jumper?  Explain Spit it out Prakash.   Give us your specific concrete answers to these specific concrete questions instead of just waffling on vaguely about stuff  – like beliefs not based on "sound logic" being "unbecoming of the sensible".  Yeah if you say so, mate The same criticism applies to the demand side of the equation,  Acccording to your bouregeois way of thinking you cant  have people just helping themselves to goods according to their self determined needs cos,  well , wealth is limited and  people are basically greedy swines arent they?  This same sentiment is faithfully echoed in any standard bourgeois economic textbook.  This is the ABC of capitalist econmic thinking that you are faithfully spouting: limited supplies and unlimited demands.  You have simply not grasped what communism (socialism) is about at all or the precoditions upon which it will operate. If people think and behave in the way you suggest then you can't have  communism.  End of story. Communism presupposes people understand the kind of society they are creating for themselves and take responsbility for ensuring it works.  Even today people, despite capitalism, very often behave in ways that contradict what you claim.  Most work for example is not paid or forced upon people  by some external power.  You dont grow your veggies or clean your bedroom or volunteer to help your local charitable cause because the local authorities have passed some edict requring you to do these things.   You do it becuase you want to do it and because you feel the need to do it.  Similarly, if you visit a restuarant where you can eat as much as you like for a set price you dont eat more than you need becuase being sick would rather defeat the point of the exercise, wouldnt it?. There are countless other examples of real world behavour that confound and refute your dreary pessimistic view of the communistic potential of ordinary human beings.  It is high time you started to get to grips with the case for communism instead of constantly evading the arguments that support it

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 )  There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.

 Once again you are barking up the wrong tree completely with your bizarre interpetation of Marx.  No one is disputing  that 'communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. '  Nor is it disputed that the social workload  will be shared.   What is in dispute is the basis on which the workload will be shared. The principle of "from each according to to ability to each according to need" endorsed by Marx and by other communists is very clear on this point.  The workload will be shared voluntarily by "freely associated producers". Marx's own depiction of a communist society bears this out.   For example in his commentary of the division of labour he says this: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”  (The German Ideology) This is totally incompatible with your view of "communist society" as one in which labour wll be coerced and regulated  by some kind of centralised adminsistration which will moreover strive to ensure in some way (as yet unexplained) that each worker will perform exactly the same amount of labour as everyone else 

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  The above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III also corroborates my view that the sharing of the social workload by everyone ( except all those entitled to be  exempted from work ) under communism can't be optional or ' voluntary ' ( ' all social formations ' and ' all possible modes of production ' do not exclude communism and the communist mode of production ), RIGHT ? 

 WRONG.  There is no suggestion at all in Marx that the "social workload" cannot be shared  on a completely voluntary and unforced basis.  That is what the principle "from each according to ability to each acording to needs" means and that is what Marx meant by the "true realm of freedom" blossoming forth "with this realm of necessity as its basis".   The development of the productive forces enables the "The shortening of the working-day" which then makes possible a communist society of free access and volunteer labour

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

' It seems to be that what you are  doing   is putting   forward   the   typical   bourgeois   prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and  slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity in keeping with laws of Nature as there are. 

You fully deserve that allegation in my opinion.  I remind you what you said.  A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”.  What is that if not a “typical  bourgeois  prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and  slothful”?  You now try to wriggle out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself by qualifying your statement with “if some people choose to shun work”. What is "some"?  Let us allow that "some" people do indeed choose to shun work.  If you are referring to present day capitalist society that is understandable.  Forced labour (which you advocate) is not particularly congenial to many people.  Many people don’t like the idea of being bossed around at work (which is what would be the case under your proposed society). So of course some of them “choose to shun work”. But we are not talking about present day capitalist society.  We are talking about a future communist society operating on the principle of voluntary labour.  If some people continue to choose to shun work in that society is that society going to be mortally endangered as you claim?  I dont think so at all We will be more than capable of carryng such people and if not then you can be certain that what is called the "free rider" problem will overcome by the very simple and very effective mechanism that is called social disapproval. People do care what others think about them and if sloth is ever going to become a significant problem then it is precisely this mechanism that will kick in to overcome it

Prakash RP wrote:

' … most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed,  meaning that the overall workload  for society will be far less under communism than it is today.   Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today.  Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism.None of these points seem to register with you. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281.   

What on earth are you talking about?  Your thinking on this matter seems very confused and muddled.  Who said anything about the unpaid labour of the workers that goes to produce the capitalists' profit, being ' voluntary '.  It is NOT voluntary.  It is coerced labour just as much as that part of the worker’s labour that goes to reproduce her labour power.  You are the one who wants a system of coerced labour , not me!  And again I see you make no attempt to relate the point I make about the workload that a communist society will face to the idea of motivation to work.  Generally speaking it is when people have to work long hours that their motivation to work is considerably dampened and vice versa

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature",  declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose.   This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history. ' ( ibid )  This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist.  

 You should stop and listen to yourself for once.  Listen to the words you use. “If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society”.  You sound like the Conservative Government’s Employment Secretary having a go at the “lazy workers”.  Capitalist politicians are forever having a go at what they call the “workshy”.  Never mind that in capitalism’s periodic recessions there are no jobs for the so called “workshy” anyway. Personally I consider the very term "workshy" which you have chosen to use here reveals the same kind of contempt for the workers that you might expect of a capitalist politician.  Workers are not workshy.  If they were, the system would collapse tomorrow.  Many who you malign as workshy will be found working hard at all sorts of things which a capitalist politician might not consider to be work – since it is done outside the money economy – but it is still neverthless very clearly “work”. Once again you seem to have no comprehension of this point in your enthusiasm to smear your fellow workers as “workshy” 

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to  do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat  (or we will starve)  but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible.     

  This is ridiculous.  Of course you are adopting a pessimistic view in relaton to the point at issue.  You said it yourself  FFS  A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”.  What is that if not “pessimistic”, huh? Incidentally I don’t say your argument is false because it is pessimistic.  I say it is false because it does not hold water,  It is unsound 

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in  the Critique of the Gotha programme:"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ". ' ( ibid ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly.  

  See, I don’t think you are a communist.  No communist would repudiate the principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”.  I am not quite sure what you are but you clearly want a society based on forced labour, rationed consumption and centralised control 

Prakash RP wrote:

The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ).   

 The way I see it the kind of society you advocate will reproduce the very system of class exploitation you claim to oppose.   It will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a techno-managerial elite required to oversee and manage the process of ensuring an “equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth”.  And despite your confident assertion that this principle of yours is  “logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order”  I  don’t think you have even begun to understand what it is you are taking on.  How for example, do you compare the labour of a janitor with the labour of neurosurgeon in order to ensure  an “equal sharing of social workload”.  In a system of voluntarylabour there is no need whatsoever to make these kinds of comparison but in your system it is absolutely vital

Prakash RP wrote:

 The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist.   Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.

 Once again – don’t be ridiculous!  I haven’t been silent on the question of the “compulsory sharing of the workload”.  I have been vigorously attacking the very idea from the word go.  Or did you not realise this? I see no need today for Marx’s lower phase of communism. Marx was living in era of unavoidable scarcity, we are not.  We have the technological potential now to move straight over to Marx’s higher phase of communism.  All that is lacking is the subjective conditions that would make this possible – mass socialist consciousness

[robbo203]

Ozymandias wrote:

Just a last call to say that I still have a large amount of Standards and some pamphlets left. They will be getting tipped in the bin if they can't be claimed by anyone in the Glasgow area. 

 Ozy,  Rather than do that why not try offloading them on to a charity or second hand book shop for free.  I did that when I moved house recently and I wouldnt be surprised if you get a little spurt of enquiries from Southern Spain shortly that would be the reason

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

All I am saying is it is not necessarily the Israeli state whch forbids it, while everything  else you say still applies.There is just no provision for civil mariage, although civil unions can be done. There may have been no actual demand for this provision.I don't know if, for example in the Irish republic, civil mariages were permitted during De Valera's time, say as a  continuum of U.K. law, but it is very unlikely Protestants could have married Catholics in a religious ceremony without conversion in any part of the U.K. until recently.That particular problem is one of a religious dimension, which as always can be utilised and manipulated within the political field by powermongers. 

 Thanks Matt.  To be honest, "interfaith marraiges in Israel" is not a subject I have explored much so it is interesting to hear what you say.  I am a little confused by some of the links Ive come across though.  For example this one says:"According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, interfaith marriages now account for one in ten unions in Israel, "with the non-Jewish partner often subjected to second-class treatment by the state". In spite of this, interfaith marriages in the country are still on the rise, the paper says."   (http://www.theweek.co.uk/middle-east/60050/how-unusual-are-interfaith-marriages-in-israel) However correct me if I am wrong, while the state does not ban mixed marriages as such it only recognises marraiges perfomed by the relevant religious authorities which in the case of Jews or Muslims will not sanction mixed marriages.  For instance, according to Wikipedia  Marriages in Israel can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and no religious intermarriages can be performed legally in Israel.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel) So how, in that case, are interfaith marriages possible??? Lastly, there is  this bit which I have copied and pasted from the Quora website which is interesting – particularly the last quote with its clearly racist overtones“Israel's Knesset has extended a law that bans Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel for another year.The law was first passed in 2003 and extended in 2008, and forbids Palestinians married to Israelis from living in Israel, or becoming Israeli citizens.Many critics say that the law essentially makes marriage between Israelis and Palestinians impossible, as the couple would have to live in different countries that are very difficult to pass between.” “Mixed Israeli and Palestinian couples are not only unable to live together inside Israel but they are also denied a married life in the occupied territories, from which Israeli citizens are banned under military regulations.”“Yoel Hasson of the ruling Kadima party hailed the court’s decision as “a victory for those who believe in Israel as a Jewish state”, while the immigration absorption minister, Zeev Boim, added: “We have to maintain the state’s democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature. The extent of entry of [Palestinian spouses] into Israel’s territories is intolerable.””Obviously this isn’t a problem if one is Jewish. Remember what Israeli founding father, Jabotinsky once wrote:"It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. … There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. … An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority” https://www.quora.com/Why-are-interfaith-marriages-illegal-in-Israel     

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 That would make the Israeli state not unlike the Apartheid state in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 In other words Zionism could be construed as a form of racism

 Not really  for the specific religious question. If we take being jewish as  strictly religious matter. It used to be a requirement for protestants to convert to catholicism before they could get a church wedding. Where civil ceremonies exist it supplanted this to some extent. I think this may be the case with some other religions also.

 You may be right Matt but I would be  more persuaded if it were the case that one could still, as a person of the Jewish faith, officially marry someone not of that faith at all.  But apparently you cannot if what Alan says is correct – meaning the Israeli state forbids it – and you have to wonder why.  Even being of the same faith would not necessarily preclude racism BTW. A good example of this  is  the“Limpieza de Sangre” – purity of blood – discriminatory decree enacted at the time of the Spanish Inquisition to differentiate between "Old Christians" and "New Christians" (converts from Judaism and Islam) and applied even more vigorously when Spain acquired its colonial possessions abroad Zionists – Israeli natonalists – are constantly whinging that their critics  are resorting to anti-semitisim in wanting  to deny the "Jewish people"  the right to a homeland of their own just like any other "people".  They can't pin this transperently feeble argument on us socialists since we oppose ALL nationalisms – Israeli nationalism or Zionism,  Palestinian nationalism, British nationalism , Russsian nationalism.etc etc..We identify with the interests of workers in Israel just as much as the workers elsewhere in their struggles against capital.   Anti-semitism is as much a barrier to socialism as Zionism is. Havent read it yet but have just com across which looks interesting:http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html

[Author]

Posts