[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Since LBird has claimed that  matter does NOT have  an existence independent of our perception of it,  I would be interested to know whether LBird believes anything at all existed before the evolution of human consciousness and our ability to perceive.  If LBird seriously believes that this could not possibly be matter since matter could not exist independently of our ability to perceive it,  could  he please explain what exactly it was that existed prior to our existence as a species, if not matter? I await his answer with bated breath (sarcasm alert)

 Im still waiting for LBird's answer. Why is he so coy about providing an answer?

[robbo203]

Since LBird has claimed that  matter does NOT have  an existence independent of our perception of it,  I would be interested to know whether LBird believes anything at all existed before the evolution of human consciousness and our ability to perceive.  If LBird seriously believes that this could not possibly be matter since matter could not exist independently of our ability to perceive it,  could  he please explain what exactly it was that existed prior to our existence as a species, if not matter? I await his answer with bated breath (sarcasm alert)

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it.

'Matter' is obviously speaking directly to robbo, here.robbo clearly states that 'matter exists independently'.So, he clearly arguing, unlike Marx, that 'matter is not a social product'. 

 You are very muddled LBird.  Youve not really grasped the point at all and you misread Marx completely.  When Marx talks of matter being a social product he is referring to our apprehension of matter. Meaning we cannot understand matter in a purely objective sense. Our understanding of matter is conditioned by our preconception of it. It is in this special sense only that Marx suggests matter is not independent of us.  He is referring to the concept of matter, how we grasp it, intellectually speaking. Marx is definitely not saying, as you are, that matter itself does not exist outside of the ideas we hold about matter – only that we can never understand or grasp matter outside of these ideas which are themselves socially produced.  What you are claiming  is a ludicrous distortion of Marx.  In effect you are saying that before human beings existed and entertained thoughts about matter, there was no matter and you are atrributing this view – laughably – to Marx! TWC is right.  You are a straightforward Berkelean idealist, not an "idealist materialist"

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.

An OP which is implying there are limits to the application of democracy is I assume discussing socialist ideas.

 I tend to agree. Sometimes ideas, however bizarre, can serve as a foil for productive discussion. The question of where to draw the line when it comes to the application of democracy is an important one for socialists. Democratic practice lies at the heart of the socialist project.  We socialists call for the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production in a future socialist society. But what does this actually mean in practice? How far do we go with the concept of democratic control? I have been attacking LBirds frankly preposterous idea that scientific theories should be subject to a democratic vote.  Not only is this logistically speaking, totally impractical; it also serves absolutely no point and is totally inimical to the self critical aspect of scientific discovery itself.  But what about other areas of life in a socialist society?  How far do we extend democratic control over these? There are other values apart from democratic values to take into account.  Freedom for example. LBird may well sneer at this as a bourgeois preoccupation but Marx himself talked of the free development of each as being a condition for the free development of all.  Freedom is not opposed to democratic values but complements such values.  Its a question of getting the balance right. For instance,  the communist principle of " from each according to ability to each according to need" presupposes that we as individuals chose to decide  how we contribute to society and what we take from it in the form of the goods and services we appropriate.  It would be utterly absurd for a global society to democratically decide by means of a vote what food we should eat, what our music preferences should be or what clothes we should wear At bottom, democracy is about the resolution of conflicting views and interests and presupposes that we give equal moral weight to everyone in the decision making process.  That is to say, democracy presupposes equality which in a socialist society springs from our equal relationship to the means of wealth production.  So really democracy is about to resolve conflicting or potentially conflicting objectives that impact on the way in which resources are allocated.  It is not about the validity of scientific theories or the particular lifestyle we may chose to adopt. But there is another aspect to this which has been overlooked.  While we talk about democratic control of the means of production,  what about the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society? In my view the great majority of decisions impacting upon the allocation of resources  simply do not need any kind  of democratic mandate at all.  They are grounded in the spontaneous  operation or automaticity of the production process itself based on a self regulating, system of stock control.  Factory A  does not need to convene a democratic meeting to decide how to respond to a request for more stock from Distribution store X.  It just does it.  The democratic mandate has to do with the parameters within which such automatic decisions are made, not the decisions themselves Furthermore, what is overlooked by people like LBird is that a socialist society must necessarily be to a large extent a decentralised system of production or, if you prefer, a nested hierarchy of scales of production – local regional and global – with the great preponderance of decisions being made at the local level .  LBird's distinct preference for all decisions to be made at the global level is a recipe for society-wide or centralised planning.  It is totally impractical for all sorts of reasons and ironically in LBird's case,  thoroughly Leninist in inspiration  Hence Lenin's idea  of socialism that The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory  (State and Revolution) Does LBird endorse this idea, I wonder?

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

 Why can  it not be both?  I think this debate on epistemology has been somewhat sterile.  For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it..  In fact, LBird's construction "idealism-materialism" makes absolutely no sense if this were not the case. ""Matter" would merely be a species of ideas and what LBird would really be advocating would be "idealism-idealism" What LBird was really trying to say, I think, is that our understanding of matter – scientific truth – is never free of, but is always mediated by. our ideological or subjective preconceptions.  Or if you like,- science is never value free.  As LBird colourfully put it *the rocks don't speak to us" in some proximate sense.  That much is true.  I think it was Popper who made the point that in order to observe we need to know what to look for and that presupposes a rudimentary model of the world we carry around in our heads to begin with.  The" facts" we perceive are elicited and structured according to this model. In other words, the theory precedes the facts though it can be modified by the facts Positivism is the contention that rocks can speak to us directly,  that we can have a purely objective knowledge about them.  Despite LBird's claim to the contrary I don't see any evidence here of a positivistic view of science being promoted on this forum.  What I do see is claims to the effect that matter does indeed have an an existence independent of our perception of it.  But that is not positivism and LBird has muddied the water considerably by suggesting that it is

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society involves workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

Yes. (ie. workers will vote on 'truth')If you don't agree, robbo, you have to say who does determine 'truth'.I suspect that you'll argue that 'truth' is 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered', but then that puts power in the hands of 'out there' and we can't change it.Can you please give me a similarly simple answer, to my reasonable political question?Who determines 'truth'?

 OK so now we have it in black and white from LBird.  Workers in a communist society will vote on the truth of scientific theories – thousands upon thousands of them! The theories not the workers, that is.  So 7 billion people, more or less, voting on thousands of thousands of scientific theories is how LBird sees the future.  Glad we sorted that out  LBird Do I agree with this idea? You gotta be kidding.  The idea  is about as daft as it gets.  Logistically it is simply out of the question.  But the more important question I wanted LBird to answer which he is failed to do – is  WHY is it it necessary  for workers to vote on the truth of these thousands of scientific theories?  Why? Why? why?  LBird says if I don't agree with his idea then I have to say who then determines the truth.  But why? Why should anyone determine the truth?  If I have one particular scientific theory to account for a certain phenomenon and you have another, then obviously we have a difference of opinion.  What is true for you is not for me and vice versa. Of course we can look at each others respective  theories  in the light of the evidence presented and perhaps as a result I might come to reject my theory and accept yours . Or vice versa.  Or we might even come to see that both our theories are off the mark.  The point is  the truth is relative and provisional, not absolute and set in concrete.  Scientific advancement develops through engagement and debate  not by bureaucratic rubber stamping of a particular theory as true by virtue of some democratic sanction.  So the question of who determines what is the truth is quite misleading.  It betrays the mindset of a Jehovah Witness not a Marxist.  Marx said "question everything" but how can you possibly question something when it has been "democratically" determined to be The Truth.   Explain LBird So lets run with this idea that LBird has put forward and see where it takes us.  Let us assume (very generously)  that a substantial number of workers in a communist society – say 4 billion out of a population of 7 billion turn  up to vote on the Truth of String Theory in astrophysics.  62% of this 4 billion vote in favour of String theory (Ill ignore   the fact that this is still a minority of the total population))  So String theory  has now been officially designated as Scientifically True, Fine, Now what?  What is supposed to happen as a result of this vote???  See, this is what LBird totally fails to explain.  Is he saying that all those who reject String Theory in favour some other theory are now forbidden  to promote this other theory.  No? , what then?  What was the point of the exercise? Why has a communist society gone through the enormous expense of organising a global plebiscite on  a particular theory when all it serves to do is to rubber stamp the theory as scientifically true no doubt to to the satisfaction of its proponents whose egos would have been suitably massaged. Its quite dumb when you think about it.  This is not at all what democracy should be about.  Democracy is about practical decisions that have a practical bearing on our lives in terms of the allocation of resources to certain desired objectives.  It is not about deciding the scientific truth of this or that theory. That is a complete waste of time and resources and its utterly pointless

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

LBird wants to global population of a future communist to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.

I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth but isn't his demand for only the right to democratically decide such issues.

I've tried talking to robbo, but he won't read what I write, and goes off on a rhetorical tangent.Perhaps you can explain 'socialist democracy' to him, alan.I define it as "workers' power", but he seems to define it as 'no individual's muscle moves without a vote', and thus condemns my wish to have workers in collective control of their production.Especially their production of our 'reality-for-us'.

 Er what? Ive gone through  everything youve  written on the subject with a fine toothcomb and Im completely baffled as to why you think otherwise.  If anything this sounds like you going off yet again on a "rhetorical  tangent" and though you accuse others of doing this I very much suspect this is an unconscious projection of your  own peculiar method to deflect attention from yawning crddibility gap in your own argument – that is, by accusing others of doing what you routinely do yourself So lets have it from the horses mouth: are you now denying that your vision of a future communist society invoives workers voting on the truth or otherwise of scientific theories?  A straightforward  YES or NO will be much appreciated  and if NO please enlighten with a simple explanation in your OWN words as to precisely what you have in mind without your customary waffle.   . 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

LBird wants to global population of a future communist to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.

I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth but isn't his demand for only the right to democratically decide such issues.This is already being done obliquely today, of course, when you consider climate change and folk voting for political candidates and their policies that either endorse or deny the science behind it.In future won't there also be indirectly votes taking on the validity of science. 

 Alan,That is not how I would interpret what  LBird is saying but then LBird has only himself to blame if people misinterpret him given his tendency to haughtily decline to respond to questions concerning the practicality of his ideas.  Perhaps he imagines in that fertile imagination of his that such questions betray a..er.." bourgeois"  view of the world and elite communists like his good himself have no need to concern themselves  with such mundane matters. As I see it, LBird has explicitly invoked the idea of workers in a communist society voting to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific theories – thousands upon thousands of 'em.  Not once has he explained WHY this is necessary or HOW such a stupendously mammoth undertaking is going to be accomplished.  I have repeatedly asked him these questions but he has snubbed me every time And no I don't think he is demanding only the "right" to democratically decide such issues.  How would such a right be activated anyway? Would it require a petition with a minimum number of signatures and who decides what is the minimum in a population of 7 billion people? Its all too  silly for words Nor do I think what  LBird is suggesting is being obliquely done  today.  There is a world of a difference between what LBird is proposing and voting for candidates who want to do something about climate change.  Firstly the latter does not involve a global vote. Secondly ,  the vote happens only once ever four years or so but new scientific theories crop up on a daily basis.  Thirdly,  the  political candidates people vote for stand for a raft of other things too apart from wanting to tackle climate change so there is no way of determining whether a vote for them represents an endorsement of the "truth" behind climate science. And fourthly and perhaps most importantly, the candidates are putting forward practical policies that impact upon the utilisation of resources.  Now this indeed is, or should be, the subject of democratic decision making.  I have always made this clear to LBird that this is what democratic decision making ought to be about – practical decisions that affect us all, not the supposed truth of scientific theories – despite his puerile insults levelled at oppnents like me that they are "not democrats".  I fully support the idea of common ownership  and democratic control of the means of production.  I do not however support the idea of democratically deciding whether this or that scientific theory is "true" or not.  It is a stupid and utterly pointless idea.  If LBird thinks otherwise then he should get his finger out and make a case for it.  That would certainly make a change from just sneering at his opponents as not being democrats for having the effrontery to reject his daft idea.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

  So, if a democratic vote is not 'binding' (in some sense), what's the point of it? 

LBird wants the global population of a future communist society to hold tens of thousands of plebiscites on the truth value of each and every new scientific theory that comes on stream.  As if this was not Monty Pythonesque enough, he now wants the democratic global vote on each new theory to be "binding" on the population as a whole What on earth is he warbling on about, I wonder.  Assuming that more than 0.0001 % of the 7 billion people comprising the current global population could even  be bothered to turn out to vote on whether String Theory in Astrophysics was true,  assuming that 51% of this tiny fraction of the global population voted to accept String theory as the incarnation of Proletarian Truth,  does this mean that the rest of the populace must now toe the line, must expunge from their heads any rival theory to String Theory. I fondly imagined that the whole point about science is that it is meant to be self critical and open to rival interpretations and not peddle in absolute truths.  It may not quite live up to this ideal in capitalism but is LBird now telling us that a communist society should follow a capitalist society in that regard? I still have no idea whatsoever why LBird thinks a democratic vote on a scientific theory is even necessary –  democracy is about practical decision making not abstract theories –  and I am even more puzzled now as to why he thinks this vote should be" binding".  Perhaps he could be so good as to explain his reasoning

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 I suspect that you're echoing robbo's concerns with 'individuals', rather than Marx's concern (and mine) with 'social production' by classes..

Marx, unlike LBird, was also concerned with " individuals"  To take one or two random  quotes"the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."  Communist Manifesto"the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption" Grundrisse Concern with individuals and concern with social production by  classes are not mutually exclusive concerns, you know. It takes a rather dogmatic mind that can only see the the world in terms of black-or-white not to grasp this point. LBird's crass argument about individuals is the mirror reflection of Mrs Thatcher crass  argument about society.  Mrs Thatcher declared that there is no such thing as society , "only individuals and their families". LBird declares there is no such thing as individuals only society. Both of those points of view are equally inept, not to say sociologically illiterate. There is no such thing as society without individuals anymore than there can be individuals without society.  Its a two- way connection.between them.  Each reciprocally influences the other. Ironically LBird professes to be what he calls an "idealist materialist".  Funnily enough I don't have, and never have had,  any quarrel with his criticisms of a positivistic cum objectivist view of science and its pretensions to be value free.  Theory, the ideas we hold in our head always condition that factswe apprehend about material reality.  Hence idealism-materialism. LBird can see this but when it comes to the question of the individual and society he goes completely off the rails. It has to be one thing of the other but but he cdeclines gto apply this same logic when it comes to the question of idealism and materialism. Then you can have idealism- materialism.but in the case of the former, the individual has to be competently erased from the picture. ldeaving on "society". It makes no sense but then lot of what LBird says makes no sense…

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

mcolome,you are perfectly right and i hold out the same invitation to contribute to the SOYMB blog to Robbo.

 Alan, Thanks for the invite. I'm  writing some stuff at the moment that maybe  could  be adapted for the purpose you have in mind.  I'll get back to you on this. cheers

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

.As for "robbo's dig at the impracticalities of your claim for theory and practice", it's robbo who has no understanding of the consequences of his 'dig'. He's 'digging' at Marx, and democratic socialism. Since I know that robbo is an individualist at heart, I can live with his political opinion, but I'm surprised, given your earlier posts, that you can't see that the problem lies with robbo, not with Marx's theory of social production.Hmmm… back to the drawing board, eh?

 Gawd, not this again. ..I refrained from commenting on LBird's latest rendition of the same old tune that he is forever and oh-so- monotonously coming out with on this forum until this! Does LBird have the slightest inkling of what are the "impracticalities of his claim for theory and practice" that robbo was getting at?  Apparently not.  LBird airily dismisses all  such talk and point blank refuses to answer any questions as to how he is going to put his ivory tower notions into practice.  How, for example, are tens of thousands of new scientific theories each year going to be subjected to a democratic by a global population exceeding 7 billion.  Why is it even necessary? LBird never explainsI get bored with having to repeat the same questions only to be ignored yet gain by LBird.  If folks here want the lowdown on why I think LBird position on this matter is complete baloney I refer them this earlier post (1423 ) here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists?page=142 And once more for the benefit of LBird , no,  I have no problem at all with the idea of democratic socialism. I don't know how many times I've repeated the point that for me socialism does indeed mean the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth and I fully endorse that.  How is that taking a dig at "democratic socialism"?Nor am I an "individualist at heart" Does LBird even know what is meant by an individualist or individualism? I doubt it.  I suspect he is conflating the term with "individuality" which denotes something quite different. Marx, since LBird is so fond of citing Marx, also subscribed to the idea that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"? Sorry to disappoint you LBird but the problem does not lie with me but with you and with your stubborn refusal to answer the kind of practical questions that are levelled at you.  You are your own worst enemy but more than that as I said in the above post you make a laughing stock of communism by presenting an image of it that is frankly ridiculously impractical

[robbo203]

Subhaditya wrote:

 Mass media could have helped but its controlled by the capitalist class who seem to prefer promoting monogamy and hatred of promiscuous females, come to think of it religion also seems to promote the same thing.Its the same way it will come about as communal control of resource generation… when most people start wanting it.We must encourage this… discouraging this will be same as discouraging socialism.I dont think socialism can succeed as long as men continue to fight with each other over women.

 Maurice Briton's 1975 pamphlet "The Irrational in Politics" sort of touches on this theme in relation to Wilhelm Reichhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm#h8 Wasnt there an SPGB member based in Denmark who specialised in Reichian psychoanalysis. I vaguely recall he wrote an article on the subject in the now sadly defunct  World Socialist  journal

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

It comes back to a theoretical definition or premise. You cannot start with a definitive statement then change it later. The reductive, minimalist or abstract ‘mathematical’ definition is. Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). What it produces is a surplus product. And its value is the amount of labour time required for it and that is surplus value.  It applies irrespective of commodity production, exchange value, capitalism, labour vouchers or free access moneyless socialism. 

 I don't agree Dave.  I think the concept of surplus labour or surplus product is completely meaningless outside the context of a class based or exploitative society. The surplus  product is what the dominant class appropriates at the expense of the subordinate class(es) To consider your definition: Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). Relating this to free access moneyless socialism – what might be necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time.  To reproduce their labour time through the consumption of consumer goods it is necessary also to make use of intermediate or producer goods.  You cant produce the things you consume by hand so clearly producer goods are not "beyond" what is necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time. Marx's mistake in suggesting an economic surplus or surplus product would continue to exist in socialism comes from unwittingly  transposing the argument about surplus value in relation to capitalism.  In capitalism, producer goods are financed out of surplus value as capital.  So there  develops a habit of thinking about producer goods like machinery as having to do with surplus labour or a surplus product.  Producer goods are produced over and above what we consume so we consider the labour required to produce them as   "surplus labour". But I put it to you that producer goods are not surplus in that sense at all in a free access socialist system.  They are as necessary to the reproduction of labour time as consumer goods  themselves – that is to say, you cannot produce consumer goods without producer  goods If there is such a thing as a surplus product in socialism what exactly is it meant to be "surplus" to?  No, the whole idea of a surplus product or surplus labour can only be relevant in the context of a class based society where one class is systematically compelled to produce more than what it itself consumer and for the benefit of another class

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism.  The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production….  Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction……  And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease.

 To me Marx's comments make no sense   at all. As I see it the very idea of an "economic surplus" will have no traction in a socialist society and is only really meaningful in the context of a class based society.I  am not just talking about  "surplus value" which  is really just the monetised form of the surplus product as it appears in capitalism.  I'm talking about ALL forms of the economic surplus.  They all denote some or other form of class exploitation whether it takes the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour  (slave labour) or the direct appropriation of goods as use values  (Feudalism) Now the objection might well be raised that no society could function, let alone prosper, without an "economic surplus" of some kind, without setting aside some of its resources to meet its future needs. A socialist society would also need to do this.  Surely, goes the argument, it’s really a question of who gets to appropriate this surplus – society as a whole or a small class within it? I think this way of looking at this question is wrong headed, frankly. Actually, the concept itself suggests, if anything, what I would call a kind of “social fund” model of wealth. There are clear hints of this in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875, Ch1) where he talks of the various “deductions” to be made from the “total social product” before it can be distributed for consumption purposes:  “First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc”.  Bearing in mind that we talking here of Marx’s first phase of communist society, based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production in which a system of labour vouchers regulates consumption, I find all this highly misleading.  It implies a certain homogenised view of wealth whereby everything is rendered commensurable and, behind that, some universal unit of accounting which we call money. How else would you make arithmetical “reductions” from the “total social product” if this did not imply commensurability – money? True, Marx was at pains to point out that his system of labour vouchers was not money since, unlike money, these vouchers did not circulate. He reasoned that the need for this stemmed from the fact that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. (ibid) Ironically, there is a sense in which Marx’s own thinking on this matter likewise bears here the stamp of the “old society”.  Of course, in capitalism, capital accumulation – the development of the means of production – is funded out of the extraction of surplus value (the capitalist form of the economic surplus) but we cannot simply transpose this basic model of wealth creation to a future non-market socialist or communist society.  The operational dynamics of such a society, I suggest, will be radically different. In such a society, production needs (which include replacing existing means of production as well as expanding those means where necessary to accommodate future changes in demand), cannot meaningfully be construed as being “surplus” to existing consumption needs, or vice versa, which is precisely what the arithmetical concept of “deduction” encourages us to think.  Rather, they are simply two different sets of functional requirements both essential to the maintenance of society which ideally speaking, align with, or mutually adjust to, each other and primarily through a self regulating mechanism of stock control.. The idea of an economic surplus arising in socialism seems to suggest that any kind of society with even the most rudimentary social division of labour must produce a "surplus" of some kind. If I focus on fishing as an occupation and my neighbour grows wheat then my consumption of bread is dependent on my neighbour producing more wheat than she can consume.  That is to say she produces wheat surplus to her requirements.  That is true enough but is this really what is meant by an economic surplus.If it were then it would effectively lumping together exploitative societies with non exploitative societies or blurring the distinction between them.  One reason  why the concept of an economic surplus has to entail more than just this.       it is a SOCIAL concept not one pertaining to individuals as in my neighbour producing more wheat than she needs  The problem also  arises, I think, because we tend to look at this concept of an economic surplus in terms of “opportunity costs”. So the opportunity costs of devoting all our resources to meeting our current needs, for instance, is that we will have left none over to meet our future needs.  Hence, purportedly, the need for an “economic surplus” – to meet the latter needs. However, this does not really capture, in my view, what is truly meant by an economic surplus. There are, of course, opportunity costs, to be taken into account in any kind of society. For example, there are opportunity costs involved in directing labour and resources between different lines of production.  More tonnes of steel or hours of labour going into the construction of ships means less of these things for, say, tractor production. In this instance, certainly, an arithmetical procedure is implicated involving the subtraction or addition of the units in question.  This is what is meant  by “calculation in kind” and it t is indispensable to the operation of any kind of large scale society including –or perhaps one should say, especially – a hypothetical future socialist society. Nevertheless, what lies behind Marx’s reference to, for example, the need for certain reserve or insurance funds” in the case of accidents, dislocations or natural calamities etc., seems to entail more than just the notion of opportunity costs.  The setting aside of these funds out of some notional surplus seems to imply some universal unit of accounting.   Now for an exchange economy, this form of accounting makes perfect sense– to facilitate the exchange of commodities by rendering these commodities commensurable – but, for a socialist or communist society, it is deeply problematic.  That is why I would reject the claim that this concept of an “economic surplus” would or could have any traction in a socialist society  

[Author]

Posts