[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Well, robbo, if your considered reply to my argument for 'democratic control' is that I really mean 'central control', that just shows that you're determined to replace my answer with one that you want to read.The only way to equate the two, is to assume that any 'control' that is not 'individual control' is by definition 'central control'.I suspect that it's your ideology that allows you to do this – that is, the equating of 'democratic' and 'central' is a political and ideological position, that you have adopted.All I can say again, to any workers who are asking about my political arguments, is that they're based upon a political and ideological assumption of 'democratic control'. As were Marx's.

 Nope LBird  you can't wriggle out of this ….In response to my pointIf you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communismYou saidNo, I don't agree. Meaning you dont accept there should be any structural limits on democratic control = meaning for example that you cannot entertain the idea of any kind of decentralised decision making which is precisely an example of such a limit You continue not to understand the point i am making.  I am not – repeat not – equating democratic conrol with central control in the sense of control exercised by a centralised  elite.   The vital  point which you have completely missed,  quite likely wifully,  is that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE  PLANNING BODY in this scenario , irrespective of how it is "controlled".  In theory that body could be democratically cntroled by the entire world populatuon or it could be undemocratcaly controlled by a small subset – the centralised  techical elite,  In practice, since democratic control by the entire global population over the total pattetn of production is an impossibility, what you advocating BY VIRTUE OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE SINGLE PLANNING BODY IN COMMUNIST SOCIETY (no structural limits , remember)  is that all decisions should be made this tiny undemocraric elite You may not like this idea but that is the logic of what you are arguing for.  You are a Stalinist in denial about the stalinist logic of your own viewpoinrt

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

  Well, this shows pretty much conclusively  that you have no idea what you are talking about – what the issue is that is at stake If you dont accept that are certain structural limits on the scope of decisonmaking in a communist society then it follows logically that you believe that every decision that need to be made with respect to planning production in a communist society  needs to be democratically done by the entire global population,  That is literally what you  mean by suggesting that that there are no structural limits on democratic decisionmaking  – what else could it mean? Also, its got nothing to do whether this central planning model you support  is Stalinist or Democratic.  In theory, you could put forward a democratc model of society wide central planning.  In theory, you could say that 7 billion should be allowed to participate in each and every one of  the  millions of decisions affecting the allocation of resources that happen every single day and to not allow this to happen is to place structural limits on democratic decisonmaking, The point is that there is just ONE single decsionmaking body – the global population of 7 billion in this case  – and THIS is what defines this model as a model of classic central planning.  Its got NOTHING to do with the fact that the decisions  are made democraticalLy or by a stalinist elite.  Its got EVERYTHING to dow ith the fact that there are no other planning bodies in existence except this one.  That is why it is called society wide central planning In practice though there is absolutely no way in which 7 billion people are going to be able to participate in voting on millions of planning decisions that need to be made every single day.  Even you are not that stupid as to suggest such a thing,  So ipso facto these decisions are going to have to be imposed on th great majority by  technocratic elite wthout debate or discussion .  That elite will decide what will be produced and hence will determine how it gets to be produced.  To meet the targets set by the elite the great majority will be obliged to conform to a work schedule likewise set by that elite,  Their work contribution will not be freeely chosen by themselves and their consumption needs will be strictly rationed in conformity with the Plan This is conclusive prooof  that by default, whether you know it or not, LBird, your endorsement of central planning makes your position an essentially Stalinist one nothwithstanding your blather about democracy.  But then I suspected that a long time ago…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual…Im all ears LBird

I've never argued for 'central planning', so your 'ears' must be making it all up for you.No doubt, you'll claim that your 'materialist ears' talk to your 'idealist mind', and you always passively follow 'the material', so anything I write will be ignored, 'as per usual'.

 OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism. Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

 But its true what ALB says though isnt it LBird? You derail each and every discussion you get embroiled in with this single minded narrow obsessive mantra of yours and people do get understandably sick and tired of it.   Cant you see that? You are your own worst enemy in that respect and it doesnt help that you persistently refuse to answer questions put to you  – like the one I just put to you whether or not you support the concept of society-wide central planning.  It is an easy thing to just say no if you dont support it – so why dont you? This is why there is never any progress with you. You are constantly arguing in bad faith , not engaging in a genuine democratic debate

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

 OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual – do you believe in the self emancipatory  (your words) communist principle that individual themselves should freely determine what their contribution to society should be and do you  believe in that other self emancipatory  communist principle that individuals themselves should have free access to goods and services on the basis of self determined need? Oh and in answer to your previous comment –  yes of course I believe a communist society will be a democratic one but I also believe that there are certain limits to democratic decisionmaking and that if you exceed those limits you erode the very basis of communist life itself,  There needs to be a balance struck between democracy and the kind of self emancipatory autonomy and freedom that a genuine communist society offers.  Communism without freedom is not communism at all.  It becomes the self inflicted dictatorship of the barracks.  That is why I uphold the abovementioned communist principles.  Do you? Fimally if you refuse to be drawn on the question of central plannng could you perhaps at least  explain how you envisage planning to occur in a communist society.  For example will there be a degree of decentralisation in your version of communusm – that is to say many planning bodoes as opposed to just one?  Im all ears LBird

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

 So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Yes, but 'labour time' can be voted upon, because it is a 'social unit of account', not a 'universal unit of account'.If you post the quote with Marx's statement of 'universal', I'll post the correction of Marx, who often uses sloppy terms which contradict his whole thesis, about socio-historic production (ie., not 'universals', 'absolutes', etc., which are 'divine'). Marx was human, y'know!

 If labour time is the only unit employed the planning process then it is necessarily a universal unit of account. There is no contradiction between saying it is a universal unit of account and a social unit of account. It is both in this case. In any event how can labour be "voted upon" if is past labour already “congealed” in the product? What would be the point of the exercise?  If you are referring to the future application of human labour – again what would be the point of that?  How would you square this with the communist principle that workers should be free to determine their own contribution to production?  If they are compelled to work in certain kinds of jobs and for a specified duration as decided by society in general then this alienated or estranged labour; it is not freely chosen and voluntaristic communist labour.  It is not communism I suspect what you are really trying to say is that there should be a democratic vote on what gets produced as a opposed to a democratic vote on what each of us should do in the way of work (and for how long).  But this too is deeply problematic from a communist point of view.  I dont discount democratic voting by communist communities with respect to, say, some large-scale social project but if you are seriously promoting the idea here that the totality of production should democratically voted on in advance and coordinated through some kind of gigantic input-output Leontief type matrix then this is completely bonkers.  It stands not the slightest chance of getting off the ground This is what is meant by society-wide central planning – one single giant premediated plan covering literally the totality of production.  Do you support this idea LBird?  How do you envision 7 billion voters deciding on the global output of 6 inch cross head screws and coordinating the inputs in such a way as to ensure this target is met? There is only one way in which any kind of modern system of production can be operated and that is essentially on a self-regulating basis ( via a system of stock control).  Anything other than that is just pie in the sky – totally unfeasible

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 What the latter proposes is to introduce a single universal universal unit of accounting – namely labour time – governing the entire economy and as such is grounded in the same mindset that rationalises the need for money as a universal unit of account

[my bold]I agree with you, robbo. Another name for this is 'absolute'.It is opposed by 'social'.The political reason for an 'absolute' is so that a minority can 'know' this supposed 'absolute', outside of any social (and thus, democratic) input.Any mention of 'universal' or 'absolute' (and many other synonyms, that you already know that I'd use) is only made to prevent the political appeal to democracy (ie. the appeal to the majority).This is to allow a minority to (supposedly) 'objectively calculate' what the majority (supposedly) require, without the majority having any say in their own 'requirements'.Marx warns against this, in his Theses on Feuerbach.[edit] the 'mind set' that you mention is 'ruling class ideas'.

 Marx also advocated a universal unit of accounting in the form of labour time  units

[robbo203]

There is an interesting article here on the links between Trump, Putin and the "carbon bubble" which feeds directly into the argument about climate change  https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.jbf9slmm3 

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Even if you could "follow the labour trial" – I think you seriously underestimate the scale of the task given the thoroughly integrated and socialised character of modern production – to what end would you do this?.  What is the point of the exercise?  Past labour is past labour.  Also how would you weight different kinds of labour anyway?  Is one hours labour by a neurosurgeon equivalent to one hours labour by a janitor, say? If not what is the ratio you recommend – and why?

No ratio, like I said, rough reckoning which would show what share each sector/enetrprise was taking of the total available workforce: bnut we'd also need specific records of specific types of labour, just as we would any other inventory item.  We wouldn't compare dentist and mortician, we just need to know how many hours of each and by how many people.  We might also have a commonly agreed working week, where everyone works a certain number of hours within a restricted range of industries (e.g. 20 hours a week on farming, say)…

 Im trying to think this through but this could very  well be an example of the kind of acceptable or practical model of labour time accounting as opposed to the impractical holistic model I outlined in post no 45.   The  key phrase in your post is that labour availaibility would be treated just as we would any other inventory item  Exactly! The point being that it is not just labour we need to economise on,  We also need to economise on things like energy and raw materials,  And we need calculation in kind to do this whch is precisely what a holistic system of labour accounting militates against..  What the latter proposes is to introduce a single universal universal unit of accounting – namely labour time – governing the entire economy and as such is grounded in the same mindset that rationalises the need for money as a universal unit of account I think the labour time accounting system proposed by Marx and Engels is an unwarranted and inadvertent extension of the labour theory of value into a post capitalist society and as such must be repudiated in favour of a model of labour accounting that falls under the general rubric of calculation in kind

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

  Most factories like where I work produce one kind of thing. We add about 5 seconds  of labour time to each litre of juice; something that can be calculated in about 10 minutes. I asked a friend who worked milk and it was a very similar figure, for milk and it took him about 10 minutes to work that out, when he got to work and looked at the spread sheets for the production. In moneyless socialism/ communism there should be an interest in reducing the amount of time, and effort, in producing things. 

   Dave I dont disagree with the contention that in a socialist society there should  be an interest in reducing the amount of time spent on producing things    Depending on the thing, of course – is time an active consideration when you are painting an oil painting? Do you say to yourself "I better hurry up and finish my masterpiece so how can I cut corners and leave out some those interesting details I had intended to put in the painting…."  Hmmm But such quibbles aside I go along with your point.  But here’s the thing – its not just labour time or human effort we would want to reduce in producing things.  What about raw materials?  What about energy?  All of these things have cost implications.  This is what costing is about – opportunity costs.  Making more efficient use of a given factor of production – economising or making less use of it to achieve a given output of one thing so that you can free up more of this factor to produce more of a given output of some other thing. In other words I am arguing for a system of calculation-in-kind where “relative scarcity” is the criterion upon which you economise – not just on human labour but also on titanium and nitrogen fertiliser and a thousand and one other things.  You dont need a system of monetary pricing to ascertain the relative scarcity of all these factors.  All you need is a fully functioning self-regulating system of stock control and a distributed computerised network of telecommunications.  We already have that today.  The infrastructure of a potential socialist society exists right under our very noses Labour time can be economised on in this society in precisely the same way as we might economise on the use of a rare mineral ore such as titanium Now, you can call this process “labour time accounting” if you so wish  but if you are concerned or interested, as you say, in “how much of other people’s effort I am consuming” in a socialist society  then this information is going to be very difficult is not impossible to come by in a literal sense.  That being so I question the purpose or usefulness of you even trying to do ascertain such information (and trying to do it involves effort that could be more usefully applied elsewhere) You mention that in the factory in which you work you add "about 5 seconds of labour time to each litre of juice; something that can be calculated in about 10 minutes".  Fine.  But it’s not just your effort that should be factored into a calculation about the about the amount of human effort that went into a producing a litre of juice, is it?  What about the effort that went into building the machine you are using?  What about the effort that went into producing the electricity that runs the machine? What about the effort that went into constructing the power station that produces the electricity that runs the machine? What about the effort that went into manufacturing the cement and the blocks to build the power station that produces the electricity that runs the machine you are using?  What about the ….and so on Point is that the production system is a totally joined up phenomenon and trying to track the amount human effort down a bewildering maze of production chains is a matter of infinite regression.  It can’t be done so there is really no point in even trying What we need to go for is something much more modest and achievable.  We need to abandon completely the kind of argument put forward by Engels thus: From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. 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  (Anti-Duhring) What Engels is asking for is impossible. There is no way we can literally know how many hours of labour are contained in a steam engine.  Each component part of a steam engine – and I guess there are many thousands of these components – has its own production chain history and at every stage in this production chain other production chains branch off.  Knowing how much effort goes into anything in this holistic concept of labour time accounting is an impossibility since ultimately everything is interconnected.  My suspicion is that this kind of thinking that Engels demonstrates here goes hand in hand with an endorsement of society wide central planning – which is a complete absurdity – with labour time accounting being proposed as the tool to administer such a system It is that fully fledged holistic concept of labour time accounting that I reject.  But I don’t reject labour time accounting in the much more pragmatic limited and ad hoc sense of the term that I tried to elaborate upon earlier.  It is important that we keep this distinction in mind in talking about labour time accounting  

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…Robin, why are they taking such an optimistic view?The Doomsday Clock

Quote:

In its two most recent annual announcements on the Clock, the Science and Security Board warned: “The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.” In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater, the need for action more urgent. It is two and a half minutes to midnight, the Clock is ticking, global danger looms.

 Well Alan I wouldnt want to rule out "global catastrophe" of some sort.  It could happen although equally it might never happen.  Weve had these doomsday scenaros before – The Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" Report in 1972, The Population Bomb of Paul Erhlich,  Famine 2000 by the Maddocks (cant remember the exact details) etc.  The prognoses offered in these various publications all singularly failed to materialise I dont want to be blase about the risks but I am quite concerned the psychological impact of dire warnings such as the one provided in the OP.  If it is intended to galvanise people to do something about climate change I think it will have the opposite effect,  It wll induce a sense of crippling pessimism with "crippling" being the operative word here,  meaning disempowering I sometimes wonder if these sensationalist scenarios are deliberatley fashioned with a view to keep us passive and resigned to a bleak future or no future at all in this case.   Why do we find whenever the future is depicted in films or TV it is almost always presented as some kind of grim fascist dytopia from which we can be delivered only by the intervention of some charismatic rebel leader.  I think there is a hidden agenda being pushed here….

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Robbo,But each team at each stage of the production process will have calculated the contrbution of themeselves in labour terms, and we could, if we wanted, follow the full labour trail: but, concrete labour types are not commensurate, abstract labour would only ever be a rough and ready reckoning across the whole system. 

YMSEven if you could "follow the labour trial" – I think you seriously underestimate the scale of the task given the thoroughly integrated and socialised character of modern production – to what end would you do this?.  What is the point of the exercise?  Past labour is past labour.  Also how would you weight different kinds of labour anyway?  Is one hours labour by a neurosurgeon equivalent to one hours labour by a janitor, say? If not what is the ratio you recommend – and why?

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It seems to me that the whole notion of labour time accounting whereby society seeks to establish “how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production”, is so problematic and vulnerable to error as to be more or less useless and thus a waste of time and resources.  I really cannot see the point of the exercise. 

But it's no more nor less what managers in any enterprise do now: look at how many staff they have, stimate material outputs and work toward their targets (and hire more staff or reduce if they need to).  Hands on managers think in task time.  We'd always need to know how many hours of X work are required to perform our tasks, or find ways to substitute if a particular skill is in short supply, that doesn't need any statistcial bureaue or anything like it, and an be done at the firm level.

 No I dont think this is same thing YMS.  Managers dont calculate “how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production" – not from start to finish at any rate, going right back along the production chain.  They dont calculate how much labour is  "congealed" in the machinery their employees use, for example, in carrying out their work , which congealed or dead labour would need to be taken into account in assigning labour values to each article of consumption.   This is what I take labour time accounting to mean in its proper sense and why I distinguished it from the more narrow production unit-based 0r project-based endeavour to ascertain how much (and what kinds of) labour is required to produce a given output.  The latter is certainly feasible but labour time accounting in its full-blown holistic sense as advocated by Marx, is not.  It is deeply problematic for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post

[Author]

Posts