[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,but the point is that Socialism is about achieving definite ends, not using the least labour possible: we might, like ancient peoples choose to throw labour unnecessarily at a task because we enjoy doing it and want to show how much labour we have.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Since this form of 'labour' is 'socially necessary', only the society that determines its own necessities can 'measure' its labour; and furthermore, only it can determine its 'measures'.

Socialism means the end of abstract labour, and its replacement with concrete labour, so that means the abolition of socially necessary labour time as any measure.  That also means the the end of commodities, and production towards definitee ends.

Chucky wrote:

(It is only where production is under the actual, predetermining control of society that the latter establishes a relation between the volume of social labour-time applied in producing definite articles, and the volume of the social want to be satisfied by these articles.)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htmAnd just to republish another one:

Chaz wrote:

Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htm

Chaz wrote:

In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.

[Young Master Smeet]

ALB wrote:

[That's because they are measuring actual labour rather than socially necessary labour. Don't know how you would measure the latter. Not sure you can. In criticising various schemes for "labour money" in his day Marx suggested it couldn't be.

I think Kautsky answered that that is precisely what money and market prices do: 

Kautsky wrote:

Such a system as this might assume the form that each worker would receive a token for every hour of labour which he performed, and this token would entitle him to the product of an hour’s labour. It would be necessary to calculate how much labour every product cost. For the wages of a working day the worker would always be able to buy products which required one day to produce.[…]This involves a two-fold calculation. The worker’s remuneration would be fixed according to the labour-time he actually expended, while the price of the product would be fixed according to the labour-time socially necessary for its production. The results of these calculations ought to be identical. But this would almost never be the case.How is the law of value discovered? By observing the movements and relations of prices. Ever since the mass production, of commodities for the market has been a systematic process, it has been noted that the prices of each commodity, in spite of all its fluctuations, continuously seek a certain level, however much they might at times be above or below it. On the other hand, it was found that the relations of the prices of each commodity to each other, amid all temporary fluctuations, showed a uniform tendency. Yet these relations and this level were not unalterable magnitudes; they did not follow the fluctuations in the state of the market; they altered only with changes in the conditions of production.

So, if hole digging and filling fulfilled some sort of demand (in the usual case, of the government relieving unemployment) then that would be a real addition of value.  Of course, the government has to get the wages to pay the workers from somewhere.I suppose it could be made productive, if the government paid people out of taxes to dig holes, and then charged householders and road users to fill them in again…

[Young Master Smeet]

Sarkozy faces trial over party finances:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38890993Although not a candidate, it'll add to a kind of sleaze ffect (especially as Fillon's defence is 'Other MPs did the same'Of course, le Pen has been found to have mis-allocated EU funds:http://europe.newsweek.com/marine-le-pens-eu-salary-be-halved-after-misspent-funds-scandal-551025?rm=eu

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird, I'm not the SPGB.Your said:

Lbird wrote:

Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

(emphasis added).  I rejoined, that it is not true that we "must argue that this issue is determined by elite specialists".  That is untrue, and demonstrably so, as I have demonstrated, there are other options, you are committing a birfucation fallacy.

[Young Master Smeet]

Since Lbird asks: they could say that reality can only be discerned by absolute consensus of all human beings, reality could be decided by a qualified majority, by a simple majority, by proportional representation, by finding the condorcet winner, by a lottery ("This week, gravity is….*drumroll*… off"), oh so many things.All of which returns us to:

Quote:

Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

which is a demonstrably false proposition.Oh, and in his response Lbird again failed to mention apartheid.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

 Those who argue that the producers can't vote on the issue of 'the existence of matter', which includes you Vin, must argue that this issue is then determined by 'elite specialists' with their own 'decision-making power'.

That doesn't follow.  they could argue that the magic fire dragon makes the world: they could argue that there is no reality and each lives in a world of their own: they could argue that we are in a virtual environment, simulating existence and reality is determined by the programmers: they could argue that reality is unknowable: they could argue that reality is an ideal unfurling in the mind of god and each can know reality through faith alone: they could argue each person has access to direct experience of the world, but we live as we dream, alone: they could argue only non-producers can vote on reality: they could argue the vote has already been taken and can't be re-run.Sloppy argumentation.

[Young Master Smeet]

Fillon isn't doing too well:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/04/francois-fillon-french-president-chances-sink-penelopegateHe hired familly members as MP staff members, essentially funnelling the money into his wife and his pockets.This puts Macron in the driving seat (for more of much the same, he was a Hollandist cabinet minister.Apparently, Macron is on the receiving end of anti-semitism:https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/828195784394993664That he actually worked for Rothschild's bank seems to be the stem of this: but, he appears to be a continuity social liberal centrist.Notably, Hammon is pulling back, up to 16%, so there's swing ahead…

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Is this what passes for political debate in the SPGB?Accusing those who argue for democratic workers' power as being Stalinists? That Stalin was a 'democrat'?This is the most effective answer to Tim Kilgallon, who asked earlier, as to why I won't be joining the SPGB in 2017.

I also note that Lbird never mentions aprtheid: why does Lbird support Apartheid?See, Lbird, I'm using your argumentational techniques, fun, isn't it?I also note, despite the froth, that you do not expressley dissociate yourself from Stalin: why do you support stalin?  When did you stop beating your wife? Why won't you condemn Mithradites VI of Pontus?The truth is, Stalin did argue for democratic workers power, as I've just demonstrated by quote: Stalin attempted to carry out science by will alone, which lead to the debacles of Lysenkoism.  Now, aside from the majoritarian aspect of what you are arguing for, why should we not consider your position to be latter-day Lysenkoism? (and, please, spare any froth about epigenetics).I return to my substantive point, we are part of reality, we do not create it: and I ask, which is the more radical view, one in which human beings are part of reality which is unfurling, or that there is no reality beyond our creation?  One of us divides society into two parts, and has an elite dictating what reality is: and it isn't me.  Lbird's majoritarian elite would just re-produce the tragedy of soviet science.I ask, would Lbird see practicing geneticists gaoled if they continued to dispute the majority vote?  Or tried to contionue writing papers and doing research against the wish of the majority?

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually what Stalin said was:

Stalin wrote:

At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly.  It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held.

and

Quote:

There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against theminority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings—because it is the dictatorship of the street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors.

As previously noted, if the working class could just decide to have the theory and practice to have socialism, there is no need any more of class struggle, we could have had socialism any time we wanted, instead, for no readily apparent reason, a groupd of people took control and invented stars and planets, and cancer that kills rich people.  Indeed, why couldn't an elite with it's theory and practice come about and give socialism to us?The idea that we live in a created reality is disarming, Lbird yelps at the comparison because it hits home.Now, must dash, I have an Illuminati meeting to go to.

[Young Master Smeet]

Irrespective of the facticity or soundness of the theories, it's always been noticeable that philosophies that deny the realness of the real world tend to be highly reactionary: as we're seeing with Trumpian alternative facts or post-modernism.  The idea that power structures eality (and allows it to restructure reality) tends to stem from those wishing to deny the experience of living in the world people have.  Look how much Stalin loved such thinking, the history fo Bolshevism was that by will alone we culd reshape the world, a far cry from Marx' description of his own method (discussed ad nauseum with Rosa Schleswig-Holstein, passim).https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmThe greatest trick the devil ever invented was pursuading people they could change the world just by thinking about it hard enough.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, according to your 'theory', we workers don't create our physical world?For you, 'objects' are not 'physical', but just some philosophical mutterings from the 19th century?

No, I'm saying that objects are physical things, but (in the writings of Marx) objectification does not refer to the emergence of the physical entity, but the state of becoming an object, as per the example of a plant and the sun (perhaps Lbird could turn their attention to that point, it might be productive).We create our objective world by being in the world.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Although he says that we 'create' our objects.What does that mean if it doesn't mean we create our objective reality?

Yes, we create our objects as objects, but not as Things, we objectify them through our relationship with them.  We create our objects, but not by thought alone, but by being in the world.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

From what I can tell from posters on this site, the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter' ('matter' is an 'object' which is 'out there', waiting to be 'disinterestedly discovered' by the elite who have a 'special consciousness' and a 'neutral method'), whereas in 1973 at least one member was agreeing with Marx, that we humans 'create our object' (that 'matter' was socially produced in the 19th century, but now we socially produce 'energy' – it's our object to change).

I think this is a key prblem, an Object is not a synonym of Thing or Matter: IMNSHO when Marx says we make our objects, he isn't refering to the creation of the physical thing, but the relationship of subject to object, hence why he can talk of IIRC the Sun being the object fo the plant (or vice versa, CBA to check).  

[Young Master Smeet]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588948/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdfThe white paper is out.  On a quick skim, what do I see?

Quote:

As with any wide-ranging agreement between states, the UK will seek to agree a new approach to interpretation and dispute resolution with the EU. This is essential to reassure businesses and individuals that the terms of any agreement can be relied upon, that both parties will have a common understanding of what the agreement means and that disputes can be resolved fairly and efficiently.

So, away with the European Court of Justice, and in with the "dispute resolution mechanism", for this, a million trees have died.

Quote:

We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. The UK already has zero tariffs on goods and a common regulatory framework with the EU Single Market. This position is unprecedented in previous trade negotiations. Unlike other trade negotiations, this is not about bringing two divergent systems together. It is about finding the best way for the benefit of the common systems and frameworks, that currently enable UK and EU businesses to trade with and operate in each others’ markets, to continue when we leave the EU through a new comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. 8.3 That agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when the UK and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years. Such an arrangement would be on a fully reciprocal basis and in our mutual interests.

Long, drawn out transition.It looks like their only real demand is on free movement.

[Author]

Posts