For reforming capitalism supporters – about money and what it means.
- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This topic is for voluntary contributions of information for members who support reforming or subverting capitalism as a solution. Non-reformers can contribute too, but I don't expect non-reformers will be interested in contributing their time to this survey. I'd like to discuss strategies for advancing communistic ideas in a capitalist society related to "money".
Some have argued that the only solution is the elimination of money. I'd like to explore and challenge that argument. First of all I want to ask how we've defined money with some specefic questions to answer in survey type form. I'm content if you ignore some of the questions and focus on the ones of interest. The first one is most important and I hope everyone answers that, but as you go down the list I think it's less important to answer every question.
1) Do you believe money must be eliminated for socialism to exist?
(YES/NO + optional comment)2) What about coupons. . . are they a form of money that must also be eliminated?
(YES/NO + optional comment)3) What about checks that are just papers notes with a number of dollars written on them and sent by a local store to a distributor in a capitalist economy for purchasing more products to restock their shelves. . .are checks money?
(YES/NO + optional comment)4) What about tally counts of items removed from a peoples store written on a piece of paper that is sent to the central communist distribution center in a communist economy to re-order more toasters to restock the shelves. . . are tally counts money?
(YES/NO + optional comment)5) What about the count of the number of hours a person has worked at a factory in a socialist economy. . . is that a form of money and the hours contributed by each person must not be counted and must not be writen down on a piece of paper and sent to others?
(YES/NO + optional comment)6) What about a count of the number of votes an idea has in a socialist or capitalist economy. . . Are vote counts written on a piece of paper and sent to a central agency for making a decision that affects distribution of goods or resources a form of money?
(YES/NO + optional comment)7) Is there a functional definition of money that is specefic to theories of communism. I'm looking for a logic rule that addresses grey areas in the definition of money as used by communist critques. Can you link to any well developed arguments and theories that already have been debated and answer all my survey questions at once?
(YES/NO + optional comment)Thanks in advance for your voluntary contribution. I'll check back and join in if there's a discussion or interest in this. Also if this is off topic for SPGB, please let me know and accept my appologies with my permission to disregard this or for mods to remove this discussion thread.
1) Do you believe money must be eliminated for socialism to exist? (YES/NO + optional comment) yes2) What about coupons. . . are they a form of money that must also be eliminated? (YES/NO + optional comment)Yes3) What about checks that are just papers notes with a number of dollars written on them and sent by a local store to a distributor in a capitalist economy for purchasing more products to restock their shelves. . .are checks money? (YES/NO + optional comment) yes4) What about tally counts of items removed from a peoples store written on a piece of paper that is sent to the central communist distribution center in a communist economy to re-order more toasters to restock the shelves. . . are tally counts money? (YES/NO + optional comment) Tally counts aren’t necessarily money – in fact this is already done with computerised stock control systems. What is removed from stores is logged and re ordered from suppliers. The suppliers then automatically reorder materials to make them and so on down the supply chain. They use this system in all modern manufacturers supplying the supermarkets ie where I work. We use SAP, there are several. I know someone well who wrote the first electronic point of sale computer programmes for the retailers in the UK in the 1980’s.She said hers would still have run if the value of all items was set a zero. 5) What about the count of the number of hours a person has worked at a factory in a socialist economy. . . is that a form of money and the hours contributed by each person must not be counted and must not be writen down on a piece of paper and sent to others? (YES/NO + optional comment) I would say people could count themselves the number of hours they worked and if they were allowed to count the number of hours embodied in the production of stuff they consumed- by making that information available- they could voluntarily regulate how much they worked and balance it against what the consumed.6) What about a count of the number of votes an idea has in a socialist or capitalist economy. . . Are vote counts written on a piece of paper and sent to a central agency for making a decision that affects distribution of goods or resources a form of money?(YES/NO + optional comment) I would do that by sortition, along with everything else, with the possibility over overturning the decision by a larger vote- all abstentions being taken as a vote in agreement with the sortion decision.7) Is there a functional definition of money that is specefic to theories of communism. I'm looking for a logic rule that addresses grey areas in the definition of money as used by communist critques. Can you link to any well developed arguments and theories that already have been debated and answer all my survey questions at once?(YES/NO + optional comment) are you arguing for a Parecon type system?Grundrisse: Notebook I – The Chapter on MoneyNow, it might be thought that the issue of time-chits overcomes all these difficulties. (The existence of the time-chit naturally already presupposes conditions which are not directly given in the examination of the relations of exchange value and money, and which can and do exist without the time-chit: public credit, bank etc.; but all this not to be touched on further here, since the time-chit men of course regard it as the ultimate product of the ‘series’, which, even if it corresponds most to the ‘pure’ concept of money, ‘appears’ last in reality.) To begin with: If the preconditions under which the price of commodities = their exchange value are fulfilled and given; balance of demand and supply; balance of production and consumption; and what this amounts to in the last analysis, proportionate production (the so-called relations of distribution are themselves relations of production), then the money question becomes entirely secondary, in particular the question whether the tickets should be blue or green, paper or tin, or whatever other form social accounting should take. In that case it is totally meaningless to keep up the pretence that an investigation is being made of the real relations of money.The bank (any bank) issues the time-chits. [18] A commodity, A = the exchange value x, i.e. = x hours of labour time, is exchanged for a quantity of money representing x labour time. The bank would at the same time have to purchase the commodity, i.e. exchange it for its representative in monetary form, just as e.g. the Bank of England today has to give notes for gold. The commodity, the substantial and therefore accidental existence of exchange value, is exchanged for the symbolic existence of exchange value as exchange value. There is then no difficulty in transposing it from the form of the commodity into the form of money. The labour time contained in it only needs to be authentically verified (which, by the way, is not as easy as assaying the purity and weight of gold and silver) and thereby immediately creates its counter-value, its monetary existence. No matter how we may turn and twist the matter, in the last instance it amounts to this: the bank which issues the time-chits buys commodities at their costs of production, buys all commodities, and moreover this purchase costs the bank nothing more than the production of snippets of paper, and the bank gives the seller, in place of the exchange value which he possesses in a definite and substantial form, the symbolic exchange value of the commodity, in other words a draft on all other commodities to the amount of the same exchange value. Exchange value as such can of course exist only symbolically, although in order for it to be employed as a thing and not merely as a formal notion, this symbol must possess an objective existence; it is not merely an ideal notion, but is actually presented to the mind in an objective mode. (A measure can be held in the hand; exchange value measures, but it exchanges only when the measure passes from one hand to the other.) So the bank gives money for the commodity; money which is an exact draft on the exchange value of the commodity, i.e. of all commodities of the same value; the bank buys. The bank is the general buyer, the buyer of not only this or that commodity, but all commodities. For its purpose is to bring about the transposition of every commodity into its symbolic existence as exchange value. But if it is the general buyer, then it also has to be the general seller; not only the dock where all wares are deposited, not only the general warehouse, but also the owner of the commodities, in the same sense as every merchant. I have exchanged my commodity A for the time-chit B, which represents the commodity’s exchange value; but I have done this only so that I can then further metamorphose this B into any real commodity C, D, E etc., as it suits me. Now, can this money circulate outside the bank? Can it take any other route than that between the owner of the chit and the bank? How is the convertibility of this chit secured? Only two cases are possible. Either all owners of commodities (be these products or labour) desire to sell their commodities at their exchange value, or some want to and some do not. If they all want to sell at their exchange value, then they will not await the chance arrival or non-arrival of a buyer, but go immediately to the bank, unload their commodities on to it, and obtain their exchange value symbol, money, for them: they redeem them for its money. In this case the bank is simultaneously the general buyer and the general seller in one person. Or the opposite takes place. In this case, the bank chit is mere paper which claims to be the generally recognized symbol of exchange value, but has in fact no value. For this symbol has to have the property of not merely representing, but being, exchange value in actual exchange. In the latter case the bank chit would not be money, or it would be money only by convention between the bank and its clients, but not on the open market. It would be the same as a meal ticket good for a dozen meals which I obtain from a restaurant, or a theatre pass good for a dozen evenings, both of which represent money, but only in this particular restaurant or this particular theatre. The bank chit would have ceased to meet the qualifications of money, since it would not circulate among the general public, but only between the bank and its clients. We thus have to drop the latter supposition.The bank would thus be the general buyer and seller. Instead of notes it could also issue cheques, and instead of that it could also keep simple bank accounts. Depending on the sum of commodity values which X had deposited with the bank, X would have that sum in the form of other commodities to his credit. A second attribute of the bank would be necessary: it would need the power to establish the exchange value of all commodities, i.e. the labour time materialized in them, in an authentic manner. But its functions could not end there. It would have to determine the labour time in which commodities could be produced, with the average means of production available in a given industry, i.e. the time in which they would have to be produced. But that also would not be sufficient. It would not only have to determine the time in which a certain quantity of products had to be produced, and place the producers in conditions which made their labour equally productive (i.e. it would have to balance and to arrange the distribution of the means of labour), but it would also have to determine the amounts of labour time to be employed in the different branches of production. The latter would be necessary because, in order to realize exchange value and make the bank’s currency really convertible, social production in general would have to be stabilized and arranged so that the needs of the partners in exchange were always satisfied. Nor is this all. The biggest exchange process is not that between commodities, but that between commodities and labour. (More on this presently.) The workers would not be selling their labour to the bank, but they would receive the exchange value for the entire product of their labour, etc. Precisely seen, then, the bank would be not only the general buyer and seller, but also the general producer. In fact either it would be a despotic ruler of production and trustee of distribution, or it would indeed be nothing more than a board which keeps the books and accounts for a society producing in common. The common ownership of the means of production is presupposed, etc., etc. The Saint-Simonians made their bank into the papacy of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:This topic is for voluntary contributions of information for members who support reforming or subverting capitalism as a solution. Non-reformers can contribute too, but I don't expect non-reformers will be interested in contributing their time to this survey. I'd like to discuss strategies for advancing communistic ideas in a capitalist society related to "money". Some have argued that the only solution is the elimination of money. I'd like to explore and challenge that argument. First of all I want to ask how we've defined money with some specific questions to answer in survey type form. I'm content if you ignore some of the questions and focus on the ones of interest. The first one is most important and I hope everyone answers that, but as you go down the list I think it's less important to answer every question. 1) Do you believe money must be eliminated for socialism to exist? (YES/NO + optional comment)2) What about coupons. . . are they a form of money that must also be eliminated? (YES/NO + optional comment)3) What about checks that are just papers notes with a number of dollars written on them and sent by a local store to a distributor in a capitalist economy for purchasing more products to restock their shelves. . .are checks money? (YES/NO + optional comment)4) What about tally counts of items removed from a peoples store written on a piece of paper that is sent to the central communist distribution center in a communist economy to re-order more toasters to restock the shelves. . . are tally counts money? (YES/NO + optional comment)5) What about the count of the number of hours a person has worked at a factory in a socialist economy. . . is that a form of money and the hours contributed by each person must not be counted and must not be written down on a piece of paper and sent to others? (YES/NO + optional comment) 6) What about a count of the number of votes an idea has in a socialist or capitalist economy. . . Are vote counts written on a piece of paper and sent to a central agency for making a decision that affects distribution of goods or resources a form of money?(YES/NO + optional comment)7) Is there a functional definition of money that is specific to theories of communism. I'm looking for a logic rule that addresses grey areas in the definition of money as used by communist critiques. Can you link to any well developed arguments and theories that already have been debated and answer all my survey questions at once?(YES/NO + optional comment)Thanks in advance for your voluntary contribution. I'll check back and join in if there's a discussion or interest in this. Also if this is off topic for SPGB, please let me know and accept my apologies with my permission to disregard this or for mods to remove this discussion thread.Read, and study Marx;s Capital, volume 1,2, 3 and you will have all your answers. All those questions have already been answered in this forum.Money is not the main problem of our society, it is the law of buying and selling, and the private possession of the means of productions, most of our problems take place at the point of production.Read the chapter on Money on Capital, on how money is transformed into capital. Money by itself is not capitalhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/why-we-dont-need-money. Why we do not need moneyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialism. In at NutshellMarx's conception of socialism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm. The transformation of Money into Capital
mcolome1 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:This topic is for voluntary contributions of information for members who support reforming or subverting capitalism as a solution. Non-reformers can contribute too, but I don't expect non-reformers will be interested in contributing their time to this survey. I'd like to discuss strategies for advancing communistic ideas in a capitalist society related to "money". Some have argued that the only solution is the elimination of money. I'd like to explore and challenge that argument. First of all I want to ask how we've defined money with some specific questions to answer in survey type form. I'm content if you ignore some of the questions and focus on the ones of interest. The first one is most important and I hope everyone answers that, but as you go down the list I think it's less important to answer every question. 1) Do you believe money must be eliminated for socialism to exist? (YES/NO + optional comment)2) What about coupons. . . are they a form of money that must also be eliminated? (YES/NO + optional comment)3) What about checks that are just papers notes with a number of dollars written on them and sent by a local store to a distributor in a capitalist economy for purchasing more products to restock their shelves. . .are checks money? (YES/NO + optional comment)4) What about tally counts of items removed from a peoples store written on a piece of paper that is sent to the central communist distribution center in a communist economy to re-order more toasters to restock the shelves. . . are tally counts money? (YES/NO + optional comment)5) What about the count of the number of hours a person has worked at a factory in a socialist economy. . . is that a form of money and the hours contributed by each person must not be counted and must not be written down on a piece of paper and sent to others? (YES/NO + optional comment) 6) What about a count of the number of votes an idea has in a socialist or capitalist economy. . . Are vote counts written on a piece of paper and sent to a central agency for making a decision that affects distribution of goods or resources a form of money?(YES/NO + optional comment)7) Is there a functional definition of money that is specific to theories of communism. I'm looking for a logic rule that addresses grey areas in the definition of money as used by communist critiques. Can you link to any well developed arguments and theories that already have been debated and answer all my survey questions at once?(YES/NO + optional comment)Thanks in advance for your voluntary contribution. I'll check back and join in if there's a discussion or interest in this. Also if this is off topic for SPGB, please let me know and accept my apologies with my permission to disregard this or for mods to remove this discussion thread.Read, and study Marx;s Capital, volume 1,2, 3 and you will have all your answers. All those questions have already been answered in this forum.Money is not the main problem of our society, it is the law of buying and selling, and the private possession of the means of productions, most of our problems take place at the point of production.Read the chapter on Money on Capital, on how money is transformed into capital. Money by itself is not capitalhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/why-we-dont-need-money. Why we do not need moneyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialism. In at NutshellMarx's conception of socialism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm. The transformation of Money into Capital
Sorry, mcolme1, but you're comments have not been helpfull to me in the past so I've stopped reading them and don't owe you any time or favors. I believe socialist believe each person should be allowed to choose their associations freely and chooose what they do and who they exchange favors with. So I'm choosing to exclude you from my circle of people who I will spend time on consideration of ideas they want me to think about. Tell you what. If you want to take a guess at how much time it would take me to read the articles and offer to read stuff I want you to read in return for an equal amount of time, then maybe there's still a reason to associate. until you're willilng to make a fair exchange of time like I believe socialist should, then you're really just wasting my time with charity solicitations to "read this" for you're benefit.Talk is cheep. Listening is expensive. You've produced no value to me or anyone else with this comment. That's true even in socialism.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Sorry, mcolme1, but you're comments have not been helpfull to me in the past so I've stopped reading them and don't owe you any time or favors. I believe socialist believe each person should be allowed to choose their associations freely and chooose what they do and who they exchange favors with. So I'm choosing to exclude you from my circle of people who I will spend time on consideration of ideas they want me to think about. Tell you what. If you want to take a guess at how much time it would take me to read the articles and offer to read stuff I want you to read in return for an equal amount of time, then maybe there's still a reason to associate. until you're willilng to make a fair exchange of time like I believe socialist should, then you're really just wasting my time with charity solicitations to "read this" for you're benefit.Talk is cheep. Listening is expensive. You've produced no value to me or anyone else with this comment. That's true even in socialism.That a bit negative and unnecessary on your part, Steve. There's no harm in looking up the links Marcos freely offered you. I find this kind of contrived quid pro quo approach you are adopting – I will read what you suggest only if you read what I suggest – irritating and distracting. It mirrors the kind of mindset of market capitalism. You need to get over this kind of fetsishistic habit of yours
robbo203 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Sorry, mcolme1, but you're comments have not been helpfull to me in the past so I've stopped reading them and don't owe you any time or favors. I believe socialist believe each person should be allowed to choose their associations freely and chooose what they do and who they exchange favors with. So I'm choosing to exclude you from my circle of people who I will spend time on consideration of ideas they want me to think about. Tell you what. If you want to take a guess at how much time it would take me to read the articles and offer to read stuff I want you to read in return for an equal amount of time, then maybe there's still a reason to associate. until you're willilng to make a fair exchange of time like I believe socialist should, then you're really just wasting my time with charity solicitations to "read this" for you're benefit.Talk is cheep. Listening is expensive. You've produced no value to me or anyone else with this comment. That's true even in socialism.That a bit negative and unnecessary on your part, Steve. There's no harm in looking up the links Marcos freely offered you. I find this kind of contrived quid pro quo approach you are adopting – I will read what you suggest only if you read what I suggest – irritating and distracting. It mirrors the kind of mindset of market capitalism. You need to get over this kind of fetsishistic habit of yours
Is Marx apposed ot quid pro quo between two freely assoicating persons? Seems to me he was all about seeking a fair exchange of service and labor between two people who voluntarily choose to associate for their mutual benefit. MColme1 doesn't need my charity or deserve it. He has the ability and means to provide value to me and chooses not so, so I don't feel I have any obligation to provide any value to Mcolme1. I Expect nothing more or less than what I am offering in a fair and free exchange. Also Mcolme1 just repeats off topic advice of no relevance ot modern arguments in our modern society. I think he probably had some good adive that worked well 30 or 50 years ago. Society's advanced as marx expected and old ideas that failed before have new improvements for a new environment. in any case, I've learned from past gifts of my time reading Mcolme1's links that they're a waste of time and generally only tell me things I already knew. Straw man arguments against somethign I'm not proposing are not of value to me. here's something to think about. Mcolme1 rejects my approach because it violates his social norm expectations. If you were a capitalist evil genious named John Gault and you saw a weekness in your economic system. How would you discourage peopel from recognizing the achilies heel of capitalism and acting on it? the obvious solution is to discredit the idea first, so john gaul sets up a bunch of time banks and time exchange systems in ways that are sabotaged or destined to fail because they take place at the wrong time or in the wrong economic circumstances or he uses the achilies heel in a way that's so offensive to people they'll think the whole concept is flaws and never realize it's the achilies heel of capitalism. Next John Gault wants to discourage people from exchanging anything outside of the capital exchange marketplace system because john gault has an advantage in the capital exchange market system with laws and rules that favor people with the most money. So mostly John Gault doesn't want people like me making deal and agreements with others in any form. It's a dangerous thing to John Gault when people start practicing socialism byi freely exchanging time without mentioning propertiy exchanges in their exchange agreements. if peopel started trading time freely with each other as equals then it could spread and that woudl be a threat to capitalism. John Gault doesn't like that. Mcolme1 has been duped by john gault into believing the achilies heel of capitalism is some marketing survey scam. John Gault wins thanks to Mcolme1, being gullible. However DaveB has serve me well with his time and If Dave B wants to ask me to read the same links, then I'll gladly read them. Or I'll even let Dave B trade his time credit with me or give his credit to Mcolme1 if Dave B wants to do that. I feel Dave B deserves that. I think Marx wouild approve of this sort of discrimiation in free association. Marx didn't read everything peopel wrote to him especially not people who just drone on repeately about irrelevant tripe. I believe Marx wouid approve of a persons right to have an exclusion list of people they don't want to associate with. Anyway, I haven't completely excluded Mcolme1 from assoication. I've just taking him off my list of people I pre-approve credit with the ability to write something usefull to me. If Mcolme1 wants to do something for me that takes an equal amount of time as me reading something for him, then he can offer to do somethign for me that suits my needs and his abilities. My abilities and his needs don't seem to match at all so there's probably no basis for direct exchange, but I'm open to possiblities if he or you have one. Maybe he's willing to spend an hour helping to plant a tree in return for the hour of my time he wants me to spend reading stuff he thinks I should read for his benefit. p.s. I believe you Robbo203 have some credit for serving me with reading what I wanted you to read and I've generously considered what you want me to read to be of fair value to my time reading. So I feel I owe you a bit of time if you want to ask me to read the links then I'll do that as a favor to you. Just ask and I'll serve you as an equal with my time because you have served me with as an equal with your time.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Is Marx apposed ot quid pro quo between two freely assoicating persons? Seems to me he was all about seeking a fair exchange of service and labor between two people who voluntarily choose to associate for their mutual benefit.Seems to me that you don't understand what socialism about. Learn the difference between generalised reciprocity – which is what socialism is about – and the quid pro quo market type exchange system you're constantly going on about. Here's a link that will help you to understand the difference http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm
robbo203 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Is Marx apposed ot quid pro quo between two freely assoicating persons? Seems to me he was all about seeking a fair exchange of service and labor between two people who voluntarily choose to associate for their mutual benefit.Seems to me that you don't understand what socialism about. Learn the difference between generalised reciprocity – which is what socialism is about – and the quid pro quo market type exchange system you're constantly going on about. Here's a link that will help you to understand the difference http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm
ok, I'm reading for you Robbo203. . . I'll tell you how much time it takes and my comments. . . . just started reading. After the first few paragraphs It looks, like what I am proposing with Mcolme1 is "generalized reiprociety" not quid pro quo market exchange. I wonder if you've read and understood the article you youself linked to Robbo203. Here's what it says if you have trouble understanding it, I can help you understand your linked article line by line. It looks like that's what you and others here need in order to see comunism in practices as anything other than capitalism. Perhaps the people at SPGB follow a simple subconcious decision making rules that just declaires everything not-socialist whether it's true or not. That would be a very psychologically understandable way to escape from ideas that threaten you're worldview even if they are socialist ideas.
Quote:Generalized reciprocity is gift giving without the expectation of an immediate return. For example, if you are shopping with a friend and you buy him a cup of coffee, you may expect him to buy you one in return at some time in the future. However, you would likely be mildly offended if he insisted on buying you a cup of coffee at the same time that you bought him one. To do so would suggest that he does not wish to become involved in a continuing reciprocal exchange with you. In a sense, it is a rejection of your token of friendship.with most of my exchange offers, I've expected something in return. But only sometimes to I require something be read or done in advance. When I ask people to read things, I've not required them to do it immediately. Nor have I offered to return thier favors immediately. The conclusioin is that I am offering generalized reciprocity and Mcolme1 is rejecting my token of friendship.
Quote:With balanced reciprocity, there is an explicit expectation of immediate return. Simple barter or supermarket purchases involve this understanding. If you walk out of a store without paying for the goods that you have taken, you very likely will be stopped by the store employees and possibly arrested because you failed to immediately reciprocate with the appropriate amount of money. Christmas gifts in the Western World are also usually a form of roughly balanced reciprocity. If you go to the home of relatives or close friends on Christmas and give them Christmas gifts, there is an expectation that you will receive gifts in return at the same time. If you do not receive them, you are likely to infer that your relatives or friends either made a social mistake or do not care about you. On the other hand, giving a birthday present is more like generalized reciprocity because you do not expect a gift in return when you give one. However, you may expect to get one from the recipient of your gift later in the year when your birthday comes along.Yep, I make that ballanced reciprocity offers sometimes. NOT always. Do socialist not believe in ballanced Reciprocity? if this is a problem for you or socialist, let me know and I can make that a rule for my exchange agreements. You can say for yourself right now "I Robbo203 will not exchange time with you steve San francisco in any way except balanced reciprocity." or you can say to me right now. " I Robbo203 will ONLY exchange time wth you Steve SanFrancisco if it meets the requirements of ballanced reciprocity". Just tell me your exchange limitations for what you believe socialism is. Mcolme1 has indicated that he will not exchange with me in any form of reciprocity except for donation of my time to reading what he wants me to read and that it must be undocumented. MColme1 argues that exchange is not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism. "socialism does't have markets" is what he said if I remember correctly.
Quote:Negative reciprocity occurs when there is an attempt to get someone to exchange something he or she may not want to give up or when there is an attempt to get a more valued thing than you give in return. This may involve trickery, coercion, or hard bargaining. For instance, your neighbor may be offered a new job in a distant city starting in two days. She desperately needs to sell her car before she leaves. It is nearly new and it cost her $22,000. You offer her $10,000 which she reluctantly accepts because there is no other choice. Your taking advantage of her situation resulted in negative reciprocity. At times, negative reciprocity does not involve taking advantage of someone. In fact, someone may willingly give you more than you believe that you are giving in return. For example, a poor student wanting to go to an expensive university might be polite and respectful toward a rich uncle with the hope that he will help out financially. That uncle may gladly pay for his nephew's or niece's education in return because of the attention and recognition that he receives. The money is relatively unimportant to him compared to the respect and attention that is offered. Likewise, an employee acting respectful, or even subservient, towards an employer in order to get a promotion could be considered an attempt at gaining a negative reciprocity advantage in the workplace.Yep, I allow negative reciprocity in my exchange offers too. Espeically it was my last offer to MColme1, I treed negative reciprocity with Mcolme1 since he had refused to honor informal requests to reciprocate the gift of my time in reading his links. Even without discussion of links MColme1 has said things attempting to prevent my freely offered exchanges of time within the written text. Again. is there a problem with Negative reciprocity you have or he has, then we can make that a part of an affiliation between us that specefies a standard set of exchange requirements. I affiliate with all my associates in lots of ways. but I can affliate with you or Mcolme1 using only exchanges that are not "negative reciprocity" if you want to make that an affiliation condition.
Quote:Redistributive Exchanges . . .Read it all. This is like the 5th time I've read about the potlach system and probably only the 8th time I've brought up the The Kula Ring in a conversation to explain it to other people. Maybe I know more about this stuff than you think and maybe even more than you do. How many times have you discussed the Kula culture in your life with how many other people? My claim is 8 for Kula ring and 5 for Potlatch system. Probably an undercount since I've known about both for years and particularly I read about he Kula culture and discussed it as early 10 years ago. so reading about this over again hasn't changed my understanding of these ideas. I knew all this already. It was an enjoyable refresher and like a good story, it's not such a burden to read it again. But what will it take to change you're missunderstanding of my ideas and stop making false straw men arguments against other ideas that aren't mine. My rules is that any exchange offerA valid exchange offer must not be written or defined as an exchange captial value. that would make it taxable and legally cause problems with the government and the capital goods exchange markets. By legal decree of the capital markets, we can't exchange anything of capital value, so that's not actually something I have to enforce with my time banking. It it gets out of hand and I start making deals to get ahead in terms of capital, then the government will kindly step in with their lawyers and guns and tell me I've overstepped my allowance to practice exchange and I will be taxed and fined and possibly put in prison. So I'm not exchanging capital value. I've restricted my exchanges not to involve capital value personally as a decision about the exchange system I want to use and alos this restriction is enforced by the Dominant capitalist political system which owns a monopoly on taxation of all capital value exchanges. I take great care in my exchange offers to never ask for or offer or even discuss an exchange of capital goods, capital value, or gold or cash. This is easily verified by lookin at my Public Personnelle Exchange Record, where you can see the details of my transactions and confirm for yourself by inspecting the receipts and public comments on my exchanges. The terms of the exchange offer must include all exchange enforceable terms. If you don't mention it in the public exchange offer, then it doesn't go on your public exchange receipt record. Private exchange offers that are secret might be allowed and can't feesibly be prevented, but because they are secret, they aren't enforceable and are not part of the exchange system. Every exchange offer must include an enforcement mechanism or a test to verify the exchange took place honorably and all parties are satisfied with the exchagne. There must be a way for both parties of the exchange to make any public comment about the exchange expressing their dissatisfaction or satifaction. the enforcement mechanism is usually multilayered and consists of an immediate survey after task complete if possible, but can rely on a upvote or downvote to you satisfaction with the exchange that goes on your permanenent public exchange record for everyone to consider. So social re-enforcement over time with new exchange partners is another default means of enforcing exchange agreements socially without using capital cash in any way. there's more exchange limitations and conditions that probably need to be valid for socialism. I'm inviting you guys at SFGB to consider what exchange limitations or conditions you need in order to ensure that all my exchanges of time with you are done in a socialist approved manner? "What are you terms" is a simple question that needs to be asked and answered in order to make a reasonable exchange offer in socialism. Why you people here at SPGB are so apposed to honoring reasonable and necessary requests for information about exchange terms is a bit of a mystery to me but I think it means you've just had very little experience with exchange in a socialist society. Perhaps if Mcolme1 couild be convinced to read about potlatch and Kula ring it might help him get in the practice of recognizing if an exchange offer is socialist or capitalist in nature and help him distinguish between exchange system types? @robbo203,Well that took me about two hours of reading, reasoning, and writing. But you deserved and earned it so I guess while it wasn't worth my time, it might have been worth your time for me to do that reading. Sorry about the typos and editing, but I've spent a lot of time on you're reading favor already and you can fix the typos and stuff for yourself if they bother you. you asked me to read, not to write a spell checked and grammar proofed response. I gave you the writing for free as a generous gift I hope you value. Also the editing and spelling and typing features in this forum are lousy. Sometimes I copy my comments into a google doc to edit them and paste them back into there just so it's not so much unnecessary labor to use the SPGB forum. Google docs is a much better more socialist friendly means to produce discussions and it's free and it has good user customizable, per document modified, privacy controls for who can read, comment, or edit a discussion document. What you guys use here in this forum is more capitalist friendly than a google doc as I've mentioned before and that's why I like shifting conversations to google docs when possible. Also google docs has built in spell chekers and allows you to edit easier and more. think you people at SPGB wouldn't know a communist friendly commication system from a capitalist friendly communication system if you used them both every day. You guys are just not good at understanding practice and determining if it matches principles in my opinion. You're refusal to use google docs is just one example of ignoring the practice of communism.
ALB wrote:I have to confess that I started reading your post but then gave it up as a waste of time.thanks for trying. Sorry it was a waste of your time. I have to confess I have the same experience with about 80% of things Mcolme1 suggests i read. Would you like me to try reading anything you spent about 2 hours writing?
robbo203 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Sorry, mcolme1, but you're comments have not been helpfull to me in the past so I've stopped reading them and don't owe you any time or favors. I believe socialist believe each person should be allowed to choose their associations freely and chooose what they do and who they exchange favors with. So I'm choosing to exclude you from my circle of people who I will spend time on consideration of ideas they want me to think about. Tell you what. If you want to take a guess at how much time it would take me to read the articles and offer to read stuff I want you to read in return for an equal amount of time, then maybe there's still a reason to associate. until you're willilng to make a fair exchange of time like I believe socialist should, then you're really just wasting my time with charity solicitations to "read this" for you're benefit.Talk is cheep. Listening is expensive. You've produced no value to me or anyone else with this comment. That's true even in socialism.That a bit negative and unnecessary on your part, Steve. There's no harm in looking up the links Marcos freely offered you. I find this kind of contrived quid pro quo approach you are adopting – I will read what you suggest only if you read what I suggest – irritating and distracting. It mirrors the kind of mindset of market capitalism. You need to get over this kind of fetsishistic habit of yours
I made a pre-New Year resolution of not getting involve with trolling argumentation, but I might cite Hegel theory of Punishment for Steve, and the situation is that we must pass thru the pain and the suffering in order to obtain the knowledge.The best way to understand Political Economy, to understand the capitalist society, two steps must be taken: 1) To read and study Marx's Capital, 2 ) To break ideologically from the capitalist ideology. We can not be amphibious.We are not here to make friends, to provide any favor, or to provide any type of gratitude, this is not a social club,we are here to discuss about socialism, and to make socialists. We are free to select our own friends, I have friends and relatives who are anti-socialists and anti-Marxists. PD Tine is measured at the point of production, at the present time, we produce more in a few seconds, in a few seconds the robbery is bigger, and our exploitation is bigger, and the thieves accumulate more. If i produce my salary in a few seconds, can I go home to do something else ? . I am going to add one more reading to the list: Paul Lafargue : The right to be lazy
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:ALB wrote:I have to confess that I started reading your post but then gave it up as a waste of time.thanks for trying. Sorry it was a waste of your time. I have to confess I have the same experience with about 80% of things Mcolme1 suggests i read. Would you like me to try reading anything you spent about 2 hours writing?
Quoting Marx on the First Preface of Capital Volume one: Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:ALB wrote:I have to confess that I started reading your post but then gave it up as a waste of time.thanks for trying. Sorry it was a waste of your time. I have to confess I have the same experience with about 80% of things Mcolme1 suggests i read. Would you like me to try reading anything you spent about 2 hours writing?
Have to say Steve, I have experienced the same sensation as ALB when reading your posts. To be honest I'd find a paper cut on my bell end to be less painful.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:ALB wrote:I have to confess that I started reading your post but then gave it up as a waste of time.thanks for trying. Sorry it was a waste of your time. I have to confess I have the same experience with about 80% of things Mcolme1 suggests i read. Would you like me to try reading anything you spent about 2 hours writing?
Have to say Steve, I have experienced the same sensation as ALB when reading your posts. To be honest I'd find a paper cut on my bell end to be less painful.
LMFAO
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.