robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Capitalist Pig wrote:I think their needs to be a balance between automation and human labour
I totally agree but for that we need a society in which human beings can consciosuly determine what this balance should be according to their own needs. It is just not possible to do this in a market based system in which blind market forces, over which we have no control, determine the outcome
Capitalist Pig wrote:so what about all the low skilled labourors? will they just go on to program computers instead? the decision to automate everything will leave a great many people idle not to mention the risks full automation brings.The point I am making is that in socialism we have a choice about what work we wish to automate and the degree to which we want to automate. In capitalism we dont. Market competition settles the matter for us. Capitalist businesses are obliged by market competition to each increase their own market share (which necessarily means at the expense of their comercial rivals). To that end, they try to undercut their rivals pricewise by reducing unit costs through increased labour productivity or mechanisation, So some technological innovation might be introduced by a particular business which temporarily gives it an edge in the commercial rat race and obliges other businesses to follow suit. Since only living labour produces surplus value (profit) – not machines – the gradual displacement of workers by machines results in what Marx called the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. However, he also suggested that there are counteracting tendencies at work. An example of such a counteracting tendency is that as techological unemployment grows, it tends to push down wage levels. What that means is that it then becomes more commercially attractive for employers to take on more workers and this has the effect of slowing down the pace of technological innovation or mechanisation It is the combined of overall effect of all these differnent tendencies, some working in a direction opposite to that of others, that determines the level of automation in general. The specific nature of the work itself is also a factor. The services or tertiary sector of the economy has traditionally been more labour intensive for all sorts of reasons and this is why you have seen have seen the spectacular growth of the services sector in employment terms compared with manufacturing and the extractive or primary sector. However that is changing with the spread of computerisation and this is effecting the capacity of the service sector to soak up displaced labour from the manufacturing and extractive industries. Personally I think the development of technology is making the need for socialism more and more transperent. It is ironic that you are worrying about the drying up of work in a socialist society. This totally undermines the argument usually made against socialism that people are inherently laxy and wont work unless they are economically forced to via the wages system – a bogus argument anyway since even under capitalism most work – about 55% according to UN figures – is actually carried on outside the money economy
John Pozzi wrote::The state doesn't exist in the direct democratic GRB society, and in socialistic fiat money terms, value, profit, buy, surplus, wage, labor, purchase, wealth, sale, etc. have no meaning. The GRB shareholder medium of exchange, eco measures the shareholder value of natural wealth – not the state's "product" of labor (i.e. pollution, armament, war, etc.). In the GRB there is no labor, but the labor of love for our source of life, i.e., Earth.SOCIALISM needs a new systemYou are still not getting it John There is no "medium of exchange" in socialism becuase there is no exchange, Period. Exchange implies private property and therefore the absence of common property Also, you keep on going on about there being "no labour" in your scheme. Are you envisaging full automation? If so how do you propose to achieve that?
John Pozzi wrote:."Hi Tim,That's BS, What it says is:"Everyone owns 1 share in the GRB, the shareholders’ value the earth’s wealth of natural resources at 6 quadrillion (q) GRBe. The GRB converts US$ assets to GRBe. The GRBe reserve supplies shareholder accounts with e50 per day for 20 years. … Two percent of GRBe income maintains the GRBnet and e50 per day supports GRB shareholders for life." i.e., nobody works.Even assuming full automation ("nobody works") why then continue with money and buying and selling? How do you reconcile the existence of such phenomena with common ownership which you claim your system is based on. Economic exchange logically precludes common ownership. I think your whole agument is very muddled frankly speaking . It doesnt even begin to explain why the" earth’s wealth of natural resources" should be valued at 6 quadrillion (q) GRBe and not, say, 6o quadrillion (q) GRBe. You just seem to be plucking figures out of the air. There is no hard economic theory behind your proposal
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to pick up on this thread, this article and the research it links to may be of interest. .."…this study reveals that violence is explained by resource scarcity and not political organization…."Quote:The findings overturn one theory of violence in prehistoric societies, which said that while societies were small-scale and politically simple, their existence would have been much more peaceful than modern societies."This study provides no support for the position that violence originated with the development of more complex hunter-gatherer adaptations in the fairly recent past," the study authors write in the paper. "Instead, findings show that individuals are prone to violence in times and places of resource scarcity."I would seriously question some of the journalistic spin put by the author of the IBT article, Martha Henriques, on the research findings she refers to. In particular this: There was never a peaceful past where everyone got along in prehistoric North American societies – small scale societies in what is now central California where quick to become violent when food and other resources were scarce,an archaeological study finds, Prehstoric Californians who lived 1530 to 230 years ago used a range of weapons on each other There are several problems with this statement: 1) it is generalising from the Californian data to "North American societies" as a whole which is inadmissable in terms of the basic hypothesis itself inasmuch as the particular make up of California's maritime resources e,g, shellfish were prone to rapid overexploitation and the region had a relatively high population density anyway by comparison with the interior2) the data refers to the period 1530 to 230 years ago but there is evidence of human populations going back 15,000 years ago and more. About 8000 years ago there was apparently a movement from the interior to the coast augmenting the population in the region. Though I cannot access the original PNAS research article it does not seem to support the conclusion that violence was endemic in California prior to 1530 years ago. Beside Henriques contradicts herself when she says"There was never a peaceful past where everyone got along in prehistoric North American societies" and then that "small scale societies in what is now central California where quick to become violent " since that presupposes a time when they were not violent I dont question the main argument being offered that it is resource scarcity that leads to violence but the classic response of small scale HG "immediate return" bands to move on when food resources like game declined and became scare in a particular locality, Mobility circumvents the need for violence and this same mobility shows itself within the structure of the band itself which is highly fluid and liable to fissioning, This is why intra-group conflict tended to be minimised. If you dont like somebody in your group , you split off with your close kin from the group and move elsewhere. You vote with your feet. This can happen anyway as part of a survival strategy in the face of resource constraints and declining carrying capacity The evidence seems to be suggest that this key strategy – mobility – in the hunter gatherer's surivival tool box was being increasingly undermined in the face of rsing population in Californa at this time. As far as it goes that supports the hypothesis but you cannot reasonably extrapolate from this evidence and apply it to hunter gatherer band societies in general. There are numerous counter examples to refute any such suggestion
Capitalist Pig wrote:sorry it condradicts your narritive but humans have been fighting eachother forever. don't really know what to say.Well maybe have a look at this thread CP and read the article by Brian Ferguson in particular who is the world's premier expert on ancient warfare. It might help you to change your mind. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/hunter-gatherer-violence Warfare was more or less non existent more than 10,000 years ago Also have a look at this article which refutes your claim https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/
Matt wrote:robbo203 wrote:Mark my words, CP, you are going to be mightility disappointed in Trump just as much as in any other previous incumbent at the White House. It might take a few months or it might take a few years but soon or later it will happen as Trump eases himself into the all too familiar role that all Presidents have carried out as representatives of the interests of American capitalism and their capitalist classI don't think so. It is his strong leader, right or wrong.His country right or wrong.He has been lurking in a fascist dung heap awaiting 'the call' of the Merkels and Orbáns.In the US the current round of legislation — introduced by Republican lawmakers in 19 states — attempts to criminalize and penalize protesting in various ways.https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/creeping-totalitarianism.html
Well lets see Matt, Even fascists have been known to change their mind and abandon their previously held convictions. My reading of the situation and dabbling in forums populated by right wing nationalists is that there s a strong sense of triumphalism in the air and an enormous expectation that things are going to change in a fundamental way. The left and the Liberals have been routed ("libtards" is favourite expresssion of these right wing folk). The Left and Liberal's' PC arguments have been exposed as folly. And now, finally, ordnary folk are wresting their fate and reclaiming their future from the" establishment " that has treated them with cynical contempt decade after decade as just election fodder. Some of what these people say strikes a chord. It is too simplistic to dismiss all supporters of Brexit , for example, as xenopobes and racists. Nevertheless with chauvinistc nationalism on the rise everywhere there is a coresrponding rise in expectations that things are going to be substantially different. Of course, there is no way things are going to pan out in the way these people hope and imagine. You cant run capitalism in the interests of the workers just as you cant run the abbatoir in the interests of the cattle, All of these developments – Trump , Le Pen, Brexit and whatnot – are going to prove deeply disappointing in objective terms at the end of the day. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long before noticing something has gone seriously wrong In short what we are seeing is an unstable power keg of frustrated hopes being built up that could explode in the not too distant future, The right is on the rise today but its victory is going be a pyrrhic one, When the dream turns sour and the vision collapses as it surely will what is going to be the fall out from that?. Hopefully not a return to delusional policies of left wing capitalism a la Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, Hopefully as socialists we can galvanise our fellow workers to look beyond the see-saw politics of capitalism itself. Meaing we should be honing our arguments in a way that fully anticipates that coming fall out and unravelling of the Right itself, hard though it may be for us to see this now in era of Trump, Le Pen and Brexit
John Pozzi wrote:GRB shareholders cause complete and dramatic change – that's revolutionary.John , I dont think you really understand what capital – and capitalism – is. That is why your analysis comes across as confused and unconvincing. Capital denotes a particular kind of social relationship based on private property in the means of producing welath. A machine for example is not in itself "capital" What makes it capital is that it is purchased as a commodity and is used to produce other commodities. What is a commodity? It is something that is bought or sold on a market, What is happening when something is bought or sold? I tell you what is happening. What is happening is an exchange of ownership titles to the things being exchanged. If I exchange my orange for your apple what we are doing is exchanging our respective ownerships rights to these things, I no longer own my orange and you no longer own your apple, So exchange NECESSARILY implies private or non-common property You earlier said "Capitalism works if all the people own the capital, i.e., Earth." But that is a completely absurd statement as you must surely realise. If all the people owned the earth that would no longer be capiltalism. There would be communism instead. Capital – from which the word capitalism derives – is, as we saw, some means of production that is purchased as a commodity to produce other commodities. But if it was purchased that implies that ownership of the machine in question has passed from one owner to another and that consequently they cannot both mutually own that machine Abd this John, is what logically precludes the possibility of all the people ownng the capital. This is nonsense on stilts as the saying goes
Capitalist Pig wrote:humans have been killing eachother for shit since the end of time. tribalism is natural.Well no to be pedantic – tribalism is particular kind of social formation of relatively recent origin in human terms, Human beings have been living in another kind of social formation for far longer – simple hunter gather band groups – and there is plenty of anthropological evidence that warfare and violence was pretty rare among such groups
Capitalist Pig wrote:you can say what you want about donald trump but he was the outsider and he won. For the first time in a very long time we have a president that will look out for our interests instead of the interests of multinational corporations. You will try to divide us by income but I see myself as an american not a capitalist or a worker.You know CP it makes me sad when I read comments like this, How you can possibly be so naive as to believe that Trump is an outsider who represents "our" interests and not those of the capitalists (of which he is one) and their Multinationals. It is plain as plain can be that the man is a complete and utter fraud and you like millions of other american workers seem to have been taken in by the salesman's patter Come on, Trump is not interested in your interests at all and even if he was he would have no option but to adminsiter a system that can only be operated in the interests of capital and of the capitalist class. Within days of his inauguation he had stuffed his cabinet with representatives of the BIg Business Establishment – some billionaires or multimillionairs like himself. He laughablly claimed that no one did more for equality than him but the record shows he treats his own employees like utter shit http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/workers-at-trumps-las-vegas-hotel-struggle-to-get-by-with-low-pay-and-little-benefits/ And despite his hypocrictical patriotism Trump himself has business interests in at least 25 countires in the world http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/trump-foreign-businesses/ We can argue till the cows come home whether Trump is an "outsider" and what exactly is meant by an outisder. Hitler too was an outsider – but the social origins of politicians is irrelvant, anyway Trump is now very firmly the insider at the helm of the American regme despite sniping within by elements of the deep state – the bureaucracy Mark my words, CP, you are going to be mightility disappointed in Trump just as much as in any other previous incumbent at the White House. It might take a few months or it might take a few years but soon or later it will happen as Trump eases himself into the all too familiar role that all Presidents have carried out as representatives of the interests of American capitalism and their capitalist class
ALB wrote:Pity the whole graph doesn't show (but it will if you click the link). It seems to be about the growth of money wages in ten year periodsrather than pay levels. I see that it's from the person who writes and speaks about Fully Automated Luxury Communism. After listening to a podcast he did last year for the New Economics Foundation I tried to contact him to see if he would do a talk for us but he didn't reply if someome wants to tweet him to try again. Mind you, I don't think William Morris would have thought much of the idea.and of course socialism/communism does not depend on full automation just on the common ownership of the means of production whether automated or not.Yes I agree but I think this kind of meme – "Fully Automated Luxury Communusm" – is very useful indeed as a way of undercutting and negating the kind of objections that are routunely raised against communism/socialism – like the "lazy person" argument or the "who is going to do the dirty work?" argument. Well, automation renders such objections irrelevant. Not only that, it also calls – or rather appears to call – into question the continued viability of capitalism itself. If there are no more jobs left how are workers going to buy back the products of industry, goes the argument. To be clear , I am not saying I agree with the argument. I dont think capitalism can, or ever will, automate wage labour out of existence. But I am looking at the side effects such a line of thinking might have in the minds of the objectors . It has a kind of "shock and awe" effect, to quote that Gulf War phrase. It is deeply disturbing and disruptive in its psychological impact on the case against socialism and I have noticed in the past few years a significant and steady increase in the number of articles talking about the job cutting potential of new technology, especially robotics. A sign of the times perhaps This is why I think socialists should take up this meme and run with it – but not unconditionally, The approach we could use is to say that while we technically could automate a huge chunk of work in socialism we might chose only to automate some of it, thereby putting a positive spin on the nature of work as creative activity a la William Morris and co.
Capitalist Pig wrote:I didn't think anyone on this forum would defend isis or the overthrow of free elections. I am doneActually if I had to pick any one particular development in recent years that has been more damaging to the socialist cause it would be the emergence of ISIS. It has contributed to the wave of bigoted, national chauvinistic populism that you yourself seem to be riding CP, with your defence of opportinist career politicians like Le PenThat apart, it is just too ridiculous for words to suggest anyone on this forum would "defend isis or the overthrow of free elections". Hitler was voted into power, Does that mean we are barred from criticisng the abhorrent Nazi regime?. In any event I thought you said you were opposed to democratic decisionmakong. Why the change of heart all of a sudden?
twc wrote:There is nothing surreptitious at all. Keen is merely following the rest. You see machines producing surplus-value comes straight out of the definition of value based on identifying it with physical labour time …as value.How so? Im not quite clear what you are saying here. Sure I understand the distinction between physical labour time and socially necessary labour time but I dont quite understand how this relates to the question of whether machines produce value or indeed surplus value. I say machines dont and cannot, by definItion, produce value because value is socially necessary abstract labour (SNAL) and machines dont and can't perform SNAL. They are just … er…machines, They dont "labour" (although perhaps in the remote future self aware and emotionally literate androids might be developed that might come to consider themselves to be "labourers" , though what they might think their needs might be other than to top up their battery supply and play endless rounds of chess, I wouldnt know….)That SNAL is different to physical labour is true enough but doesnt seem to have much bearing on the subject. So I would be intrigued to find out what your reasoning is for saying the above
twc wrote:Forget about Lenin as a serious economist.Oh I do, TWC, I do. His theory of superexploitation and his complementary theory of the labour aristocracy are so full of holes its difficult to know where to start with demolishing them. In that connection there has been some useful material written by a guy called Charlie Post, Here is a sample of his workhttp://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the under studied concept of surplus profit is relevent here: Marx did envisage a competetive advantage to machinery: if there is a predominant method of production in an industry, innovative production methods may allow a firm to produce goods sold at a price above their value, if otehr manufacturers have to sell at a production cost based on the old method. This isn't rent as such, but it is close. Such a new machine would seem to create or add value.YMS, This seems to be somewhat analogous to the concept of "super profits" in Leninist theory which are obtained through imperialist investment in the Third World?On a related theme I am curious about the tradition in neoclassical economics for describing what Marxists would call "profit" , as "interest". Profit accoding to the neoclassical economists is something that is obtained over and above the going market rate and is achieved by outwitting or outguessing your rivals. Any idea of what is the background to this curious distinction which flies in the face of the usual 3 fold marxian typology of proft rent and interest?
TWC I dont think you have quite read what I said. I am not siding with Keen and Kitching in this debate. You make it sound almost as if I am with your bizarre comment "But, having studiously sidestepped Marx, you leave us to entertain the mystical animism of the dead—the revivification of dead labour on each and every successive sale of it as paid-up means of production" I have said quite plainly – have I not? – that I do not consider that machines can generate new values and I gave my reason why I think that. I am actually on your side in this whole debate – believe it or not! – , but you seem to have somehow misunderstood the whole point of my previous post. I was actually trying to clarify in my mind what might constitute an additional or supplementary argument against the notion that machines are capable of producing new values based on what you earlier wrote In other words I was simply wanting you to develop the points you were making a bit further so I can see more clearly how they connect with the proposition that machines do not produce new values. I know the stuff you are talking about and frankly you are preaching to the converted but I am more interested in finetuning the argument and puttting it in more simple plain terms. There is really no need to get all hyper defensive about it.
