[robbo203]

There is quite a useful discussion on the nature of technological determinism which is I believe the position adopted by the author of this book on singularity and socialism.  See here https://communicationista.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/technological-determinism-vs-social-construction-of-technology/ Apropos the claim that the development of science and technology is THE  fundamental driving force that is pushing us towards  a "zero marginal cost" society, it might be worth mentioning that there is another school of thought which has emerged in recent years that takes a more pessimistic view in this regard – namely that technological progress has of late begun to display distinct signs of diminishing returnsBenjamin Wallace-Wells, a leading figure in the "declinist" school of thought, has mooted  the idea that the progress of the past 250 years,driven by successive industrial revolutions , may have been a "unique period in human history.” As he put it in an article in the New York Magazine: "At some point in the late sixties or early seventies, this great acceleration began to taper off … The rate at which life is improving here, on the frontier of human well-being, has slowed.  ("The Blip", New York Magazine, Jul 21, 2013).    Similarly, Peter Thiel in his  essay “The End of the Future”argues: "Technological progress has fallen short in many domains… While innovation in medicine and biotechnology has not stalled completely, here too signs of slowed progress and reduced expectations abound… By default, computers have become the single great hope for the technological future. (“The End of the Future”, National Review online,  October 3, 2011) Thiel provides some interesting examples to back up his thesis – such as the rate of increase in the speed of travel.  So, for instance, the decision to scrap supersonic flight in the shape of Concorde and the implementation of elaborate security measures in wake of 9/11 have served to slow down air travel considerably by comparison with just a few years back  Of course, this does not exactly demonstrate some immanent trend at work within the process of technological innovation and discovery  itself – after all,  corporations continue to invest massively in R and D –  but merely underscores  the fact that technological innovation does not happen in isolation from other developments in society.  But if  the "declinist" thesis is correct what might that mean for the future of capitalism?  The expansionist logic of capital imposes itself upon economic actors the injunction "grow or die".  If we what we are witnessing is, indeed,  the long term slowing down in the pace of technological innovation and its impact on society does this signify a system that is now on its knees and awaiting its imminent  demise at the hands of its executioner – Fate? I don't think so.  I think part of the misunderstanding  arises from a tendency to conflate  technological progress with economic growth itself. Technological progress aids the latter but it does not entirely account for the latter which can decline despite such technological progress This is precisely the point behind the " falling rate of profit" thesis – increasing capital intensity associated with technological development  by changing the organic composition  of capital impacts detrimentally on the rate of profit.  But then  nor does economic growth necessarily signify the "rate at which life is improving" which is to mistakenly assume that the purpose  or effect of increased investment is to directly meet human needs as such and so enhance human wellbeing.  That does not necessarily follow. The connection between economic growth and quality of life is tenuous and in some cases inversely related 

[robbo203]

It is a pity this discussion has become a little bogged down in bristling antagonisms on both sides and quite unnecessarily.  It  is not reasonable to expect people to first read the book in its entirety and doing the" in depth mental work" first before being entitled to ask questions.  Questioning is part of the process of mental work from the word go, leading to greater understanding. At the same  time, it is important not to just jump on the author and take up a dismissive attitude for whatever reason.  One should cut him a bit of slack and let him elaborate and develop his theme. I will say straightaway that I haven't read the book though I hope to at some point if I can get my hands on it.  So my views on the subject are fairly provisional and tentative.  Its seems to me that  the author belongs to the camp of technological optimists in which the development of science and technology is portrayed as the only real driving force in social evolution which is pushing us Willy Nilly towards an "age of abundance" and, thus, the long awaited transcendence of market capitalism.  The author is not alone in propounding this theme; he mentions a few others like Desai and Jeremy Rifkin of "Zero Marginal Cost" fame.   There is also Paul Mason and his Postcapitalism which was discussed on this forum here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/paiil-mason-proper-thread-his-book What worries me about this whole approach is its underlying technological determinism and the presumption that technology is some sort of independent variable or neutral force that pushes society, albeit  kicking and screaming, in a given direction.  But science and technology are never neutral,  they have always been informed and  shaped by social values which derive from the kind of society in which we live. It puzzles me this basic argument – that a post capitalist society of abundance  is going to somehow materialise, as it were, behind our backs without us having to undergo a conscious (and political) evolution to bring it into being.  I struggle to understand the mechanism by which these technological determinists contend this transformation will take place. It seems to me to be based on nothing more than an unwarranted extrapolation of cost reducing trends brought about by technological advances under conditions of market competiton.  But this does not seem to take into account countervailing forces that work to retain the status quo and necessitate the very thing that is here being downplayed – a change in consciousness in order to bring about a post capitalist society I'm skeptical of this whole meme of the technological optimists that technology is driving us towards a system of zero marginal costs.  There can be such thing as a costless society; costs in this sense are opportunity costs which will always be with us in a world in which we always have to make choices and forego alternative uses for resources.  There is also the whole problem of externalities – the externalisation of costs on others be this society in general or the environment which is being ravaged in the pursuit if profit.  From that point of view it could be argued that costs are rising not falling.  Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that a small minority in capitalism own and control the means of production and they are not going to relinquish this without stiff resistance.  Nor are they going to sign their own death warrant as a class by permitting these developments to reach a point at which the profit system is fatally undermined. Rather they will use their ownership and control of means of production to ensure that these developments will ultimately serve them The thing is , and I think this where Cjames1961  and the technological optimists-cum-cornucopians go wrong – repudiating this rather mechanistic view of social transformation which underlies their worldview, does not have to mean repudiating technological progress itself.  Opposition to technological determinism does not translate into Luddism and embracing the reactionary romantic conservatism of old fashioned guild socialism. The case for a post capitalist  or socialist society rests at least in part on awareness of the discrepancy between  the huge potential that modern technology offers and the actual application of this technology for the benefit of humankind.  This discrepancy is not going to magicked out of existence, merely  by the further development of technology itself. It will require a social revolution, a sea change in consciousness  leading to a change in the very organisation of society itself, to close this gap This, I'm afraid is preisely what the technological determinists overlook

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Savings, UBI, dole, lottery, although profit sharing is more likely.  As  also said, this is very much a transitional measure as we cut down on the market parts of the economy, we'd leave people free to trade

 Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box,  The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure..  How is that possible  on the basis of common ownership?  In fact, how can the "market parts if the economy" even exist if the means of production are owned in common.  This doesn't make sense YMS – unless what you are suggesting is that instead of declaring capitalism abolished the socialist movement would give rise to  a socialist government to oversee the gradual demise of capitalism and its market and to administer the various measures  you mention,  In which case how can we be sure that this government will carry out its pledge to "cut down on the market parts of the economy",  Whats to say it wont do a U turn and bring back privatisation, say?.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

That would require a hideous bureaucracy.

 No I don't think so .  In fact the bureaucracy involved would be rather less than which is required to administer council tax under capitalism.  Council tax involves the banding of properties into 7 or 8 different bands according to their calculated capital value. Of course "capital value" will not be the operative criterion in a socialist society but there is a checklist of physical  criteria which can be applied to enable assessors to place any property within one of several bands.  My suggestion is that a rationing system for non free access goods be organised  around this banding system,   Remember that an assessment of housing stock is something that would have to be carried out anyway whether or not you link this with a rationing system I think if anything is gonna require a hideous bureaucracy it is the very measures you propose such as a UBI or profit sharing

[robbo203]

I do not understand this strange reluctance to speculate, to write recipes for the cook-shops of the future as Marx put it.  People who object to this kind of exercise misunderstand its purpose. It is  NOT to arrive at some collective formalised position on the nitty gritty of what a future socialist society would entail. We are not futurists in that sense and of course it is up to the people at the time to determine the details of the society they have brought into being. But that is not the point of the exercise.  I think it was Pieter Lawrence who said that if we don't engage in this kind of exercise, we cede the future  to those who simply seek to retain the status quo.  If we don't put flesh on the bones of the idea of what kind of society we hope to bring into being we end up with a lifeless skeleton, an empty and hollowed out shell of vapid dogmas and insipid generalities,  What we  should be doing instead is to constantly relate the present to future possibilities, to critically and creatively engage with current developments in a way that highlights the huge relevance of our socialist goal to the society we live in in the here and now.. I suspect part of the problem has to do with the very nature of a party organisation. The temptation is always to arrive at some  kind of collective offically endorsed position which because it goes through a process of formalised and being voted upon, inevitably  conveys the impression that what has been decided has  been set in concrete for all time.  Understandably enough,  people reject this not wishing to be hemmed or constrained by a viewpoint that may prove hopelessly outdated in a few years time let alone by the time we are ready to implement a socialist society.  Technological developments in the field of telecommunications, for example, could radically impact on the way we could go about making decisions and thus profoundly influence the particular detailed blueprint for a socialist society that we carry in our heads But be aware of the huge risks of throwing out the baby with the bath water,  There needs to be some compromise between the strictures of party bureaucratism  and the essential creativity of  speculating even where this runs the risk of being proven unfounded or outmoded. Unless you stimulate people's creative juices and excite their imagination about a socialist alternative you are just not going to get enough of them to rally around the cause of making that alternative a reality.  It is not for no reason that the stock response of the newcomer to socialism is …"its a nice idea but…"   

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 1) The Socialist road to Guilford runs up against the facts that state rules will exist in our way up until we get political power.2) I'm assuming a very rapid rise of the socialist movement, East Germany, or Podemos style, we could get to 30% of the vote fairly rapidly, within 8 years or so from take off.3) I'm discussing dismantling the market, and suggesting that while we do this piecemeal, it's better to just continue using money for those parts of the economy we can't immediately make free, as this is more effective than building the machinery of labour vouchers.  This is part of a fairly rapid transition.

Hi YMSNot  quite sure what 1) is about.  "State rules" may well continue to exist up until the democratic capture of political power but how would this prevent the expansion of non-market  activities/relationships any more than it would or could prevent the expansion of the socialist movement itself? Such activities exist and LETS type arrangements which people seem to go on about  are only a tiny fraction of this divrse non market sector.  The idea behind the Road to Socialism circular  (1986/7?)  to which you allude is that this sector is likely to expand in lockstep with the expansion of the socialist movement itself and that, moreover, it would likely become more and more explicitly influenced by the latter and in turn reciprocally feed into and facilitate the further  growth of this movement – a point that some critics of the circular back then completely overlooked and probably still continue to overlook.  But ever mind! My main criticism, however, is with your 3).  I just cannot see how this could happen.  You talk about continuing to use money for those parts of  the economy we can't immediately make free.  But where is this money going to come from? How are workers to acquire the wherewithal to purchase goods that remain for the time  being in the money economy?.  Are you envisaging the retention of wage labour in the short term much like Lenin did in his outline of "socialism" in which all workers would be employees of the state? As other people have also pointed out , labour vouchers and money are not the the only two conceivable means by which scarce goods can be rationed.  There are other ways of rationing and I have outlined one myself – the compensation model of rationing based on housing quality

[robbo203]

Would you care to give a brief synopsis of what the book is about? It sounds intriguing. Cheers

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

You are forgetting that certain transactions in today’s electronic world can’t take place unless a payment is made for goods. In the days leading up to and immediately after socialism it may be necessary to go through the motions of capitalist business practices, paper exercises if you like. Rather like leaving a pile of coins beside a drinks dispensing machine to make it work.

What is to stop this procedure being immediately disabled? Particularly when everyone  by then will know it would be quite pointless

[robbo203]

I can't believe what I'm reading here – socialists actually contemplating the continuation of market relations, post revolution albeit in some kind of attenuated form.  This comes of thinking that the growth of a socialist movement prior to the capture of political power can have no significant impact on the scope and extent of capitalist relations of production.  Meaning everything has to be done in one fell swoop come the revolution.  Now the new  revisionist line seems to be – no, lets not do it in one fell swoop.  Lets string it out and let capitalism die a gradual death after the revolution because the task of getting rid of capitalism in one fell swoop is just to monumental to contemplate. Is this what some comrades are now saying?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Depends what you mean by "money". We always said that in the early days of socialism there might not be able to be full free access to everything. In which case there would have to be some sort of "rationing" of the goods and services in short supply. Personally, I'd have thought coupons for those goods and services only would be best way to deal with this.  Certainly not "labour-time vouchers". But if these are not regarded as "money" then nor would any other all-purpose circulating vouchers be that could be used to acquire anything. An option, I suppose, but only slightly not as bad as labour-time vouchers and not really "money" (though we wouldn't be able to stop people calling it that. After all some, eg the pre-war Dutch Council Communists,  call "labour-time vouchers" "labour-money".)

I would broadly go along with this. The only point of contention might be on what basis might such coupons be distributed to the populace. As I see it, such distribution perhaps ought to  be effected in a way that takes into accout the  spatial inequalities which we will inherit from capitalism – above all, in respect of housing since housing constitutes easily the most important component of quality of life and so can serve as a proxy indicator of the latter The huge differences in the quality of housing which will continue to exist  for sometime in a socialist society will constitute an open sore that could cause considerable resentment which needs to be addressed.  Thats why I would link link it with the question of rationing in the guise of a "compensation model of rationing". It is a symbolic gesture on the part of society that acknowledges the basic unfairness of the situation and seeks to defuse discontent by giving those forced to live in poor quality housing for the time, priority access to rationed goods. There are ways of classifying housing stock into different bands according to various criteria.  We would need to do this anyway in process of upgrading housing stock in general. Coupons could be allocated to housing units according to which particular band a housing unit falls under…..

[robbo203]

Why assume money will start withering away after the capture of political power?  Would it not make a lot more sense to talk of that happening before the capture of political power?  The praxis of a growing socialist moment will surely  translate into an increasing tendency to transcend the cash nexus in all sorts of ways. I cannot really see how a money system could linger on  after this democratic capture of political power; its very continuation raises all sorts of thorny theoretical questions  such as how do we acquire the wherewithal – money – to purchase goods in a market (which would also surely continues if money continues – by definition) Would we continue to work for wages and be employed by the state as Lenin envisaged in his conception of  "socialism".  I cant see this at all. That said, there might well be a need for some form of rationing post revolution.  True, money is a form of rationing but the very nature of money and what it implies, in my view  rules it out completely as a candidate in this case.  Labour time vouchers is another candidate but there are huge problems with this too. My preference would be for a "compensation" model of rationing based on the assessed  quality of housing stock.  This would be much simpler to administer and it would help to address the potentially tricky problem arising from huge differences in the quality of housing stock inherited from capitalism by giving those compelled in the short term to continue living in poor quality housing, priority access to rationed goods as opposed to free access goods. 

[robbo203]

Ozymandias wrote:

. What is so dishearteningis if these are the views of the most "enlightened" members of the working class (insofar as they have an inkling of class consciousness being trades union organisers) then what are average workers thinking? Almost fuck all by the looks of it. With their smartphones they are becoming ever more dumbed down. With a vast libaray of knowledge at their fingertips they know even less. We don't have a snowballs chance in hell of seeing Socilaism. This is the element which strikes me. 

 Ozy, if what you say is the case what would you make of the Flynn Effect?  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802

[robbo203]

Quite a good article here in support of the LTV https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/reconsidering-the-labour-theory-of-value/

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I think we're talking at cross purposes. Of course Marx's approach is different from that of conventional academic economists. I wasn't talking about this but about their views on how prices are calculated and realised in practice.As to whether academic economists now have a theory of value separate from a theory of price, here's what the Penguin Dictationary of Economics says (or said in its 1987 edition):

Quote:

Late-nineteenth-century economists like A. MARSHALL subverted theories of value to theories of price, determined by demand and supply; with each determined by MARGINAL UTILITY or MARGINAL COST. Since then, the theories of price and value have not been separated except by followers of K. MARX.

They seem to have more interest in "utility" rather than "cost", maybe because if they looked into cost too much they would find that this can't be separated from labour expended.

 Hi Adam,  Fair point. And your re right – they do seem to have more of an interest in utility than cost notwithstanding the reference to marginal costs  This means they have ultimately to fall back on a subjective theory of value with all the absurdities that that entails.  The Austrian economists at least  have the merit of stating clearly what the others merely imply.  Von Mises put it like this:  “It is ultimately always the subjective value judgments of individuals that determine the formation of prices…Market prices are entirely determined by the value judgments of men as they really act”.(Mises, L. von. 2008. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala, p.329–330). There are numerous reasons why this statement is demonstrably false, not least because subjective value judgements are themselves heavily influenced by objective prices as Bukharin pointed out. Also it fails to overlook how these judgements are mediated by purchasing power in capitalism.  The beggar's desire for a square meal counts for nothing without the money to purchase such a meal. The problem with  economic subjectivism is that it frames the approach to the problems of society in essentially atomistic and individualistic terms. After all it is only the individual who can make subjective judgements; society is not an individual. This means it is completely unable to grasp the systemic nature of these problems which it has by default to put down to individual shortcomings It cannot see the wood for the trees because all it is looking at is the individual tree

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I'd have thought that Marx's and academic economics's view as to how prices are fixed is more or less the same, i.e.Marx: cost of production + going rate of profit.Academic economics: cost of production, including profit as (supposed) cost of entrepreneurship.Both allow for variation up or down depending on short-term market conditions but neither bring in subjective utility. In fact, doesn't conventional academic economics claim that it can explain everything without needing the concept of "value" (as opposed to price) and so these days doesn't have anything theory of value?

 I suppose it depends on which academics economists you are talking about.  The Neoclassical marginalist  paradigm is  diverse. The followers of Alfred Marshall differ from the Austrian School.  And the so called Market Socialists like Lange are different again.  But marginalism itself is rooted in the concept of economic subjectivism and utility even if the economists might dispense with mentioning it, let alone attempting to measure it. And economic subjectivism is underpinned by an epistemology of "methodological individualism" which sees the big problems of the day as arising from individual shortcomings rather than systemic failuresFrom that point of view I would say there is huge gulf between Marx's approach and the approach of most academic economists insofar as the latter ground themselves in a marginalist paradigm

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure  than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!

 Why Tim? I don't think its an unreasonable gneralisation.  I mean there are exceptions to the law of diminishing marginal returns but by and large it holds true, I think. If you continue to eat ice cream after ice cream I guarantee your desire for ice cream will diminish to zero soon or later. Unless you have an infinite capacity to eat ice cream!

I am a very greedy man, nowadays, I am also a very fat man

 You wanna get in shape for the revolution, comrade! Quit eating all those icecreams; you will be "marginally" better off for it!

[Author]

Posts