discussion of archive – marx – works – 1847 – wage-labour ch03
- This topic has 34 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Bob Andrews wrote:This discussion reminds me of Fitzgerald's description of his meetings with those believers of psychic phenomena: 'like conversations in Bedlam'.
3rd and final warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.This warning will remain in force for 30 days. If there's a further breach of the rules within this period this user will be issued with an immediate and indefinite suspension. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Alan Kerr wrote:Let’s try once more.Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?Steve in post #6 says“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”(Post #6)Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?Is it just me? When you keep referring to "The Socialist Preamble" what are you referring to?
Tim KilgallonThank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is thePreambleCapitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.
Alan Kerr wrote:Tim KilgallonThank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is thePreambleCapitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.As a member since 1982, I can never remember it being discussed at a Party Level (Conference or ADM) and being voted for, and as such it holds no weight as part of the Party case.Although an interesting point, why are we discussing it as if it is part of the Party case?
@Tim KilgallonI discuss interpreting The SPGB Object as if we take The Socialist Preamble as read. I discussed that at all levels including Conference and ADM. I never discussed voting for it so that it holds any weight as part of the party case. I never saw any need.Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?Take our topic here in this thread. Our topic here in this thread is change in the price of a commodity.Steve is the best one to say what Steve thinks.If I understand Steve, he says that we change by struggle. And he says that change is arbitrary.To Steve the order of social changes is arbitrary. And changes in the price of a commodity are also arbitrary to Steve I think.Can the SPGB realistically claim as if things are just struggle and therefore arbitrary? No. But then you know best what you think.Especially since Marx, we see our need to explain struggle also – hence The Socialist Preamble.
Alan Kerr wrote:Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?Yes we can, it is not part of the Object and Declaration of Principles
@Tim KilgallonYou can? You can show that things are just struggle and therefore arbitrary? Please begin on topic here in this thread. But for now, no we cannot.
Alan Kerr wrote:Please begin on topic here in this thread.Can you be 'on topic' in an off topic thread?
This so-called Socialist preamble is your way of interpreting the D of P, it is perfectly possible to interpret it in other ways, for instance through the medium of dance.From a Socialist perspective it is in any case fatally flawed. It relates presumably to quantity of production. In a Socialist society, quality may be as relevant, sometimes more, than quantity. Small scale production may be democratically decided upon as of being preferable to large scale production
@Vin1)Do you think that order of social evolution just the result of struggle and therefore just arbitrary?There you have the bones of the question.2)Do you think that commodity-price just the result of struggle and therefore just arbitrary?There you have the individual cell in the question. On this exact same topic, Marx speaks of both 1 and 2 – see Marx’ Wage Labour and Capital.Why not simply join in to also share what you think?
@Tim KilgallonAre you claiming as if producers in need will vote actually to hinder production?Why is that?The SPGB Object nowhere says if it may go in for good quality small-scale production.But what if it did say that?What difference would that make?It would still leave the whole order of social evolution as if just down to struggle and therefore just arbitrary.Are you claiming as if the order is just arbitrary?Have you thought how you might have made the very first machine if not by previous hand production?How then could you have arbitrarily made the first machine?We still find nothing arbitrary about the social order of the steps.Nor is the average price of a commodity just arbitrary.
Alan Kerr wrote:@Tim KilgallonAre you claiming as if producers in need will vote actually to hinder production?Why is that?For a start I didn't say "producers in need" in a Socialist society decisions will be made by all of society, not just the producers and need implies shortage, again not necessarily the situation in a Socialist society. So it is feasible that if, for instance, sliced bread production was so plentiful and some people were getting sick of that type of bread, a more labour intesive, but higher quality way of making bread could be initiated for those who want it.
It doesn't, it just means that there is no reason why we should make any distinction between small capitalist ownership/production and large capitalist ownership/production. The D of P was written in 1904. Socialist production was possiible then, just as it is now.In terms of size, the capitalist enterprises at that time were small compared to the mutlinational corps of today.. What I'm saying is, is that it is the capitalist mode of production which acts as the precurser of Socialism, the size of the capitalist enterprises, beyond a certain point, is not especially relevent to the proess. The issue is not the lack of productive capacity, it's the lack of socialists!
But why didn’t you just say so in the first place?You are observing how capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production. How the small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist. How the big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.Perhaps Steve may still argue as if since this order of steps is also struggle so it is also just arbitrary.Workers like you and Steve should find ways to work together for the same Object.Workers like Steve are fighting for their claim that we have to do with a purely arbitrary any old order of steps.Workers like you are fighting for your view of how the order just seems to be arbitrary. How in the first place the order grows out of production.Now we clearly see your dance steps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.