Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ike Pettigrew wrote:Yes, but this is just words on [virtual] paper. My concern here is with what your ideas actually really mean and I think the point is conceded: in practice, socialism would be a statist society, albeit a soft state. I realise that socialism is not a statist ideology, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise, and I also appreciate that the 'state' that would in reality exist in socialism may not be regarded as a state and it may not even be acknowledged as such, but that is what it would be. Socialism may not be statist, but statism is the result of socialism when you think about it properly. It's just of a soft state variety, comparable to what you would have under almost-all types of market-based anarchism.
I'm afraid I don't accept that point. Let us return to the group going to the cinema model, is that a state? The decision, ultimately, may rest on a minority exercising and effective veto, you may not even get to go to the film you prefer, but because you want to go with your friends, you go anyway. Lets expand it a little, there's enough people for a film club: you don't have to go see the movies, you can miss a few without doing as much harm as with splitting on a close friend for the night. Also, you might have delegated functions, instead of choosing from a list of what is on, a person or persons choose the showings, and from time to time you fill in a pre3ference swurvey, or ask them to show a type of movie you like that is underrpresented, you might even, if you can arrange the facilities, allow specialist sub groups to meet and watch unpopular movies in genres they like.Now, that is democracy between lots of friends, where is the state? There are no guns, no monopoly of violence, people contribute according to their ability, and take according to their need, where the film enjoyment of each shall be the condition for the film enjoyment of all. There is no need for a monolith co-ordinating everything, but a reproduceable, scalable group relationship.So, not just words on a page, but a practical, real life example, for you to dissect in detail.
Kautsky remains a wqorthy opponent on this subject:
Quote:There could be no greater error than to consider that one of the tasks of a socialist society is to see that the law of value is brought into perfect operation and that only equivalent values are exchanged. The law of values is rather a law peculiar to a society for production for exchange.Production for exchange is that manner of production in which with a developed division of labor independent producers produce for one another. But no manner of production can exist without a definite proportionality in production. The number of labor powers at the disposal of society is limited, and production can only be continued when a corresponding number of productive forces are active in each branch of existing production. In a communistic society labor will be systematically regulated and the labor power be assigned to the individual branches of production according to a definite plan. In the production for exchange this regulation is obtained through the law of value. The value of each product is determined not by the labor time actually applied to it but by the socially necessary time for its production. With the modification that this law receives in capitalist production by profits rye are not concerned because this would only unnecessarily complicate the analysis without bringing any new knowledge to the question. The socially necessary labor time in each branch of labor is determined on the one side by the height of its technique in any society and the customary exertion of labor, etc., in short through the average productive power of the individual laborers; on the other side, however, by the number of products demanded by the social necessity of a particular branch of labor, and finally by the total number of labor powers at the disposal of society. Free competition sees to it to-day that the price of products, that is to say the amount of money that one can exchange for them, is continually tending towards the value determined. by the socially necessary labor time. In this manner the result is attained that the production in each department of labor, in spite of the fact that it is not regulated from any central point, never goes very far, or continues long away from the proper level. Without the law of value the anarchy that rules in the production for exchange would soon end in an inextricable chaos.https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htmIn fact, though., he misses the fact that Marx repeatedly notes that the market system itself radically divorces prive from value, the greater the advance of capitalism the more price will deviate from value.Now, abstract labour time probably isn't worth measuring, except in broad terms (assuming a rough equalisation of the working week, simple headcounts will suffice per branch of industry).Concrete labour, measures of available doctors, plumbers, etc. would be more useful, not through some sort of registry, but stats on training, employment, etc. would need to be kept, possibly at the firm level and shareed for deep data mioning.
Ah, missed one..
Carlos wrote:The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it. Labour-power exists only as a capacity, or power of the living individual. Its production consequently pre-supposes his existence. Given the individual, the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given quantity of the means of subsistence. Therefore the labour-time requisite for the production of labour-power reduces itself to that necessary for the production of those means of subsistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer. Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve, brain, &c., is wasted, and these require to be restored. This increased expenditure demands a larger income. [6] If the owner of labour-power works to-day, to-morrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength. His means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a labouring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. [7] In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country, at a given period, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
Sympo,the latter is true in both cases, the value of labour power is the value of the socially necessary labour time put into proucing it.Socially necessary labour time is value, it's a bit like asking what is the length of an inch.
Chuck wrote:A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1
Chucky wrote:Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
harlie wrote:Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose that a capitalist pays for a day’s labour-power at its value; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the product. From his point of view, the labour-process is nothing more than the consumption of the commodity purchased, i. e., of labour-power; but this consumption cannot be effected except by supplying the labour-power with the means of production. The labour-process is a process between things that the capitalist has purchased, things that have become his property. The product of this process belongs, therefore, to him, just as much as does the wine which is the product of a process of fermentation completed in his cellar.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
In fact, this is the most important part of Marx' work, because it means that the whole relationship of receiving a wage/salary is exploitative. Our labour power, our abstract ability to work, is alienated, and treated as if it were a commodity like any other: our labour is entirely unpaid. Just as if you buy a screwdriver, it is yours to do with as you please, so too the employer of human labour power. Sadly a human mind comes attached.We are not paid for the work we do, for our outputs. The workers in a car factory aren't selling car assembley nor car parts to their employer, they are selling the right to their employer to direct their labour upon his/her capital.The source of profit, then is the difference between the value cost of producing and reproducing our ability to work and the value of the work we do.This is a key concept, and drives prettyy much everything else.
Michael Roberts has some interesting notes:https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/carillion-and-the-dead-end-of-privatisation/
Quote:But it seems that it had taken on too many projects from the UK public sector at prices that delivered very narrow margins. So, as debt issuance rose and profitability disappeared, cash began to haemorrhage. Carillion ran up a huge debt pile of £900m. But this did not stop the Carillion board lying about their financial state, continuing to pay themselves large salaries and bonuses and fat dividends to their shareholders. In contrast, the company did little to reduce a mounting deficit on the pensions fund of their 40,000 global staff, putting their pensions in jeopardy. Indeed, Carillion raised its dividends every year for 16 years while running up a pensions deficit of £587m. It paid out nearly £200m in dividends in the last two years alone. The recently sacked CEO took home £660,000 a year plus bonuses.If they continued to raise dividends, this starts to sound like a form of ponzi scheme, which is POK as long as contracts come rolling in and investors come to join them, but clearly Carillion exhausted this particular money tree…
Starting from a better definition of socialism as a conscious association, so a deliberate choice (like my democracy between friends example) to stay together, as opposed to accidental association of peasant proprietors or nation states, may be a more productive way to consider things.A part of freedom is being left alone, and so we would want to, as much as is practicable, allow people to follow their ownself development: i.e. a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Nearly the Kantian notion of treating each as an end in themself (we could reformulate that as "act in the way which will enable the freedom of others").But, that is a one sided understanding of freedom, dropping dead of a heart attack is the opposite of freedom, and no amount of volition would enable us to agree to be helped. We can only be as free as we help each otehr to be.On a wider scale, we'd have to start from voluntary associations within an aegis of agreed principles, and where we use our common wealth to avoid personal domination (e.g. housing so people can leave abusive relationships without facing homelessness and loss of amenities). etc.Any system can turn nasty, if you only look at the system on paper, as a kind of commodity fetishism (which is what people are engaging in when they ask us to tell them that we have a plan for socialism); but starting from free human beings wanting to be free and actively defending that freedom, and having the means to do so (and also denying any monopoloisation of the m,eans to dominate or prevent freedom) produces a diferent answer: are you willing to be a slave?
That seems to me precisely the point, that it doesn't matter: and as long as we collectively retain the competence competence, and can call in any institution top interogate its purpose, the principle of freedom obtains.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:In the example of the theatre, some expert (or group of experts) has to decide how to ensure that everybody has a practical possibility of escape (and surely the same decision is made under capitalism, though that's irrelevant for the moment).No, the point is:a) That if we aim to maximise the use values available to all, we maximise the possibility of freedom for all.b) that in producing goods for all, there is no profit motive counter-acting providing for all. Capitalist firms first and foremost must satisfy the profit criterion, which prevents them from taking human need as the starting point of action.c) Abundance means each would be able to choose their exit point without having to have it allocated by experts.And I am assuming that it is possible to ensure that 100% can be evacuated in a fire. Accept or reject that premise if you will.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:But my conclusion is that even under socialism, somebody will have to swing the blade, pull the lever, make the decision, etc., not just in regard to the obvious subject-matter where most of us would naturally defer to an expert, but also in non-technical areas. I think socialism will have its own 'politics', pools of self-interest will develop and there will be disagreements between vested interests and a need to exert authority. You will not be able to completely remove moral privilege: i.e. the situation where an individual or group has sovereignty over others, permanently, temporarily or fleetingly.So what? I'm happy to concede to the life guard dragging my idiot arse out of the freezing lake water. Peter sober needs protecting from Peter drunk. Any such authority would be contingent and shifting, not sovereign: sovereignty would be the feature that we abolish (sovereignty I would understand by the great German legal term Comptence Competence).Want to live on an island on your own, go ahead, we'll help you. Want to live in a teaming metropolis, fine, we'll help you.
Condorcet wrote some important stuff:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_jury_theoremThe Jury theorem provides a theoretical unerpinning for democracy. He developed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_methodA voting system that although complicated to explain, does uphold the majority criterion while allowing ranked choice voting and avoiding spoilers. he also was responsible for:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion
Quote:The Condorcet candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote.[1][2] For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question. A voting system satisfies the Condorcet criterion (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists.And the Concorcet Paradoxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradoxIs important to us and any social choice theory…
Well, at a slight risk, I'd say reality would decide how many fire doors would be needed, but the point would be that we provide sufficient so that in any conceivable emergency, the devil wouldn't force that dilemma on us: and in that way we'd know genuine freedom. It doesn't matter who makes the decision, so long as everyone has the possibility of escape. Practical abundance effectively removes the political question.
Looking at the question of collective/indvidual action. Imagine you were in a theatre, and it was on fire. Now, the devil appears beside you (and it must be the devil, since the devil has perfect knowledge of good and evil), and tells you:
The Devil wrote:If you form an orderly queue, and comply with the fire evacuation instructions, 90% of the people in this room will escape; however, you will be among the 10%. If you struggle, kick and scream, you will start a panic, and only 50% of the people will escape, but you will have an evan chance of being among them..An individualist would say: screw the rest, all that matters is I have to have a chance to live. A collectivist would willingly lay down their life so that 40% of the rest can live.A socialist says there could have been enough firedoors for everyone. The point of socialism is we can only be as free as we help each other to be.
Time for my well worn distinction bteween democracy among enemies, and democracy among friends.Democracy among enemies: bit like a stage coash being held upo by bandits. The guns on each side are counted, and the side with the fewest guns backs down in the face of inevitable defeat.Democracy among friends: you want to go to the cinema together. A majority want to go see a rom com, but a minority really hate rom coms, anmd won't go if one is chosen. Since you want to go tohether, you find the comprimise that works for everyone.Socialism will be about the latter, not the former.
Ike,the point is that without a separate interest, all we have is a diffference of opinion, that can ultimately be resolved through discussion. Democracy is the quick and easy way to deal with this: uncontentious issues might go through on the nod, but vocal minborities could well carry the day through their strength of feeling. The point of creating a global commons means that administration loses its character of deriving a special interest.This is why we are not anarachists, we recognise democratic authority is necessary, but point to the ill as being class and property before social administrative functions.
FAO wrote:For sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, the index of dietary energy supply adequacy is 111 over the period 2014–2016, meaning that the dietary requirement is covered through supply with an excess of 11 percent for the last 3 years. Although the DESA for sub-Saharan Africa is lower than the world average index of 123 and other regions (122 for Asia, 129 for Latin America and the Caribbean), considered in isolation, this indicator reflects sufficient availability of food that effectively covers energy consumption needs.FAO wrote:The average protein supply continuously increased between 1990–1992 and 2009–2011 at the global level and in each of the world regions. The increase in sub-Saharan Africa was relatively modest (14 percent) compared to other developing regions such as Asia (25 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (20 percent). During the same period, average protein supply increased in sub-Saharan Africa from 52 g to 59 g per capita per day. Southern Africa and western Africa continued to perform better in protein supply than the other subregions. In western Africa, protein supply exceeded the region’s average with 64 g per capita per day in 2009–2011 (Figure 4).So, the issue isn't argicultural productivity, but distribution.As for the UK:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_census_in_the_United_KingdomWe're at 64% of usuable agricultural area (and much being used is as grassland for animals, without veering into the Animalism thread, that could largely be converted to arable land for human use.Useful map here:http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/maps/map/en/?iso3=GBR&mapID=609
