Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dave B wrote:I think came it comes skill etc in Karl’s analysis who was really talking about a skilled bricklayer being able to build a was twice as fast as an unskilled one etc.
I don't think so. I would hve thought he was talking about the distinction between a skilled bricklayer and the unskilld labourer who worked with him, with the former creating more value in an hour than the latter. By all means if you want devise a scheme in which one hour of any work whatever it is is counted as equal to an hour of every other kind of work, but don't imagine that you are thereby mirroring the equivlent of "value" under capitalism. It would just be an arbitrary, utopian scheme.
Alan Kerr wrote:If you followed this thread, then you should already know how Crusoe's way works full-scale. That future society will find in detail (counting labour-time properly with computers) what works best at the time. And you should know how same will not work if you do not bother to count labour hours properly, or to make best use of the numbers, then cash market and the mess we have now will go on. If you 1) fail to count labour hours properly plus 2) try to suppress £s then you will have to issue your crisis SPGB ration-voucher scheme.Thats absurd Alan. On what grounds do you make this assertion? I dont say implementing a system of fullscale labour time accounting (by which I mean trying to assign a value to every product produced indicating the amout of labour it took to produce it), will mean the "cash market and the mess we have now will go on". I simply say the procedure you are advocating is quite unneccessary and will prove wildy inaccuate, despite Dave's confidence hat you can measure labour time inputs down to the last millisecond You have not really explored the alternative to fullscale labour accounting. It does not forsake the "counting of labour." It simply mean focussing only on what Marx called "living labour" rather than "dead labour.". You want to use a labour as a universal unit of account mimicking the role of money which is indeed necessary under capitalism to establish equivalence in exchange. But some of us, at any rate, reject completely the need for a universal unit of account and advocate instead calculation in kind. Units of living labour will be counted in just the same way as as any other input on the basis of a self regulating system of stock control which efficiently monitors the supply of these things in real time.. That is what we need to know for the purpose of allocating labour inputs – not past labour inputs which is not a particuarly useful guide to the future allocation of these inputs anyway unless what you are proposing is a totally static society in which there will be no technological change whateover
@YMS Plot 1 was three times as productive as plot 3… With labels plot 1 is still three times as productive as plot 3. With your ration voucher-scheme teacher gets ration vouchers too (I hope). These vouchers you must deduct from other workers' share. With a labour time voucher-scheme teacher gets labour time vouchers too. These vouchers we must deduct from other workers' share. In each case, what you want is less transparent and therefore is like the production of commodities. In each case, what we want is more transparent and therefore is less like the production of commodities. @Robbo Thank you Robbo as you seem to be thinking hard about this. I explained this point to ALB, I hope he gets this now. I told ALB "I did not mean to give the impression that you wanted commodity production. I said that you must have workable alternative or commodity production is where you must end up." (My comment #136) I claim that since so far you have no workable alternative, so commodity production is where you must end up. Now I add that if you "1) fail to count labour hours properly plus 2) try to suppress £s then you will have to issue your crisis SPGB ration-voucher scheme." (My comment #194) My guess right there seems to be coming true already as YMS says "… Rationing would actuially be better than labour time vouchers…" (YMS comment #195) Next you say "You have not really explored the alternative to fullscale labour accounting. It does not forsake the "counting of labour." It simply mean focussing only on what Marx called "living labour" rather than "dead labour.". You want to use a labour as a universal unit of account mimicking the role of money which is indeed necessary under capitalism to establish equivalence in exchange. But some of us, at any rate, reject completely the need for a universal unit of account and advocate instead calculation in kind. Units of living labour will be counted in just the same way as as any other input on the basis of a self regulating system of stock control which efficiently monitors the supply of these things in real time…" (Robbo comment #197) But Rob, I answered ALB on that one too. ALB says "I still think these are references to matching living labour, i.e the work resources available to socialist society, to what needs to be produced in a given period, which will obviously have to happen and will involve calculations (though not just of labour time available but of the availability of other productive resources too). In other words, it's about current production e.g. about the labour-time needed to produce a steam engine from materials already available. But the amount of labour-time spent during the last stage of the production of something (which is what would be involved here) is not the same as the amount of socially-necessary labour incorporated in it (which includes the labour-time spent on producing the raw materials, energy, and wear and tear of the machines). In Marxian terms, it's v + s (as opposed to v + s + c). In conventional economics it's "value added" not total value." (From ALB comment #97) So I asked ALB "But ALB does your interpretation there stand up at all? Let's test it. Suppose someone wants a wedding ring for their wife. Then a gold ring set with a diamond costs the same, or less, than a cheap metal ring set with a glass bead. That's not counting raw materials. Gold and diamonds are available after all. The community will also want a new house. A full-load of gold bars cost less than a full-load of clay bricks. Again, that's just so long as we are not counting the dead-labour in mining the raw materials. Does the community need 5 beds? Best make the beds from gold. That will cut costs – not counting the raw materials. Best make the steam engine from gold and platinum too. Who cares what platinum costs in human labour? It's just a raw material. "But no, your interpretation there will not stand up at all. "We must also count the labour-time spent on producing the raw materials, energy, and wear and tear of the machines – in Marxian terms, v + s + c." http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA8.html#Part III, Chapter 8 (From my comment #102) But you Robbo say "That is what we need to know for the purpose of allocating labour inputs – not past labour inputs which is not a particuarly useful guide to the future allocation of these inputs anyway unless what you are proposing is a totally static society in which there will be no technological change whateover " (Robbo comment #197) Again Crusoe is not static. See my comment #173 about Crusoe's new fish trap.
i“…..According to Strategic Work Systems Inc., an auto manufacturing consultant, Nissan Motors was the most productive vehicle manufacturer in North America as of 2007, averaging 28.46 labor hours per vehicle. This was followed by Toyota (29.4 hours per vehicle), Honda Motor Co. (32.51 hours per vehicle), and Chrysler Group (33.71 hours per vehicle). Improvements According to Maintenance Technology Magazine, the "Big Three" U.S. automakers, General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler Group, improved their per-vehicle productivity by 50 percent between 1980 and 2009……” Spoke to a computer programmer of some talent and experience. Laid out the problem and she said it could be done easily. She wrote the source code for some of the first computer stock control systems used in the UK in the early 1980’s and one of the first programmes to solve the Sunday Times prize winning Sudoku puzzles; just before they stopped giving the prizes out. I actually watched the first one being done at 3Am on a Sunday morning. I asked her how long it would take after she put the numbers in or whatever and she said watch this, pressed the run button and it filled them in an nano second.
i “….The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a definite quantity of the latter labour alone. 18] The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on pure illusion, or, to say the least, on distinctions that have long since ceased to be real, and that survive only by virtue of a traditional convention; in part on the helpless condition of some groups of the working-class, a condition that prevents themfrom exacting equally with the rest the value of their labour-power. Accidental circumstances here play so great a part, that these two forms of labour sometimes change places. Where, for instance, the physique of the working-class has deteriorated, and is, relatively speaking, exhausted, which in the case in all countries with a well developed capitalist production, the lower forms of labour, which demand great expenditure of muscle, are in general considered as skilled, compared with much more delicate forms of labour; the latter sink down to the level of unskilled labour. Take as an example the labour of a bricklayer, which in England occupies a much higher level than that of a damask-weaver. Again, although the labour of a fustian cutter demands great bodily exertion, and is at the same time unhealthy, yet it counts only as unskilled labour. And then, we must not forget, that the so-called skilled labour does not occupy a large space in the field of national labour. Laing estimates that in England (and Wales) the livelihood of 11,300,000 people depends on unskilled labour. If from the total population of 18,000,000 living at the time when he wrote, we deduct 1,000,000 for the "genteel population," and 1,500,000 for paupers, vagrants, criminals, prostitutes, &c., and 4,650,000 who compose the middle-class, there remain the above mentioned 11,000,000. But in his middle-class he includes people that live on the interest of small investments, officials, men of letters, artists, schoolmasters and the like, and in order to swell the number he also includes in these 4,650,000 the better paid portioti of the factory operatives! The bricklayers, too, figure amongst them. (S. Laing: "National Distress," &c., London, 1844). "The great class who have nothing to give for food but ordinary labour, are the great bulk of the people." (James Mill, in art.:"Colony," Supplement to the Encyclop. Brit., 1831.) http://www.turksheadreview.com/library/texts/marx-capital-1.html#n20 I found that link fairly recently it is good for doing word searches and finding stuff. I think we some people they have missed the Aristotle and Euclidean Rosseta stone of chapter one. If you are going to set out on a project of examining ‘mathematical’ equivalences of things or exchange values you have to put in on a sound logical footing first. If two things are equal for some reason there must be something about them that is the same. Thus in your analysis you might get so much concrete tailoring time being equal to so much linen weaving time. You are a little bit further than a coat being equal to so much Linen but you have just pushed it back to just another ‘identical’ logical paradox. Thus logically you have to find something common to tailoring and linen weaving. It only needs a nudge then as it is time effort doing stuff or ‘abstract’ labour. Karl KautskyThe Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx Part I.COMMODITIES, MONEY, CAPITAL Chapter I. COMMODITIES(1) The Character of Commodity Production “…….But, as we [???????????] shall remember from our school days, mathematical operations can only be carried on with equivalent magnitude For instance, we can subtract 2 apples from 10 apples, but not 2 nuts. Thorn must consequently be some common property in wheat and iron which renders it possible to equate them, and it is that which is their value. Now is this common property a natural attribute of the commodities?….” https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/ch01.htm This isn’t too bad actually although I have problems with it. Might want to go back to MIA and ask them what the thorn theory of value is? Kautsky was still ‘ok’ then But he does address the people who do the natural causes of skilled and unskilled labour? I thought this was better; https://www.marxists.org/archive/deville/1883/peoples-marx/index.htm It was the first Das capital for dummies and had been widely translated into several languages before the English translation was done.
Dave B wrote:“…..According to Strategic Work Systems Inc., an auto manufacturing consultant, Nissan Motors was the most productive vehicle manufacturer in North America as of 2007, averaging 28.46 labor hours per vehicle. This was followed by Toyota (29.4 hours per vehicle), Honda Motor Co. (32.51 hours per vehicle), and Chrysler Group (33.71 hours per vehicle).So what? That will be a measure of the "labour productivity" at the last stage of the production of a car, won't it? In other words, the time taken to assemble one in a car plant from previously produced materials and parts. But that's not the point at issue. That statistic could be of some use in socialism to measure the direct labour-time needed or spent — along with the materials and energy — to produce something (though not with a view to speeding up the assembly line of course).In other words, your statistics are not a measure of the total amount of labour-time involved in producing a car from start to finsh, which would have to start with the labour-time involved in mining of the iron ore, aluminium and other metals, in their transporting and processing, and go on to that involved in the production of the parts and energy, (and in transporting these), and to the wear and tear of the machines and buildings. David Ricardo, who adhered to a labour theory of value, made the point that all this has to be taken into account in what determines the exchange-value of a product (in his day in the 1810s textile manufacture was the thing):
Quote:If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made, and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to manufacture them, and bring them to market. First, there is the labour necessary to cultivate the land on which the raw cotton is grown; secondly, the labour of conveying the cotton to the country where the stockings are to be manufactured, which includes a portion of the labour bestowed in building the ship in which it is conveyed, and which is charged in the freight of the goods; thirdly, the labour of the spinner and weaver; fourthly, a portion of the labour of the engineer, smith, and carpenter, who erected the buildings and machinery, by the help of which they are made; fifthly, the labour of the retail dealer, and of many others, whom it is unnecessary further to particularize. The aggregate sum of these various kinds of labour, determines the quantity of other things for which these stockings will exchange, while the same consideration of the various quantities of labour which have been bestowed on those other things, will equally govern the portion of them which will be given for the stockings (https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm).No doubt your computer whizzkid friend could calculate this too, but this would only be of academic interest (to show that it can be done) rather than of any practical use.I could be wrong. So, to see which one of us has scored a own goal can you check whether the statistics you quote refer just to the last stage of the production, i.e. the assembly, of a car or not.
iI thought it would be obvious with numbers like that it would be just the last stage ie assembly. There is more highly detailed data and studies etc from the US from around and covering the previous period eg from 1910 -1950 etc. That looked at things like steel and concrete production etc taking just about everything. On a labour time accounting thing. I suspect something to do the war planning production that went on around just before it. There some Gish Galloping in this debate. Could it be done and how easily is different to should it done. Or we shouldn’t do it because we couldn’t.
Dave B wrote:I thought it would be obvious with numbers like that it would be just the last stage ie assembly.Thanks. That's what I thought.
If socialism can work – i.e. the democratic communalisation of resources resolves economic scarcity – then why would a socialist society need to engage in economic calculation at all?
Never just say, if your socialism can work as if this doesn’t matter either way. This does matter. Prove what can work. Computers and use of computers are making this proof inevitable. And you should see the Socialist Standard for September 2017.
i“…………If socialism can work – i.e. the democratic communalisation of resources resolves economic scarcity – then why would a socialist society need to engage in economic calculation at all?…………” I think the position is more of a ‘general’ one concerning socially responsible consumption and its impact rather than I will take what I want because it is free, abundant, not scarce etc etc. Even in capitalism people can be concerned about the ‘social’ impact of what they are consuming even if they can easily afford it. Thus as I said before we have free range chickens and eggs, sustainable fishing for tuna and farming for palm oil. Or more current perhaps disposable and free plastic shopping bags. This has its inherent capitalistic problems as anecdote and that is ecological being concerned with whales, dolphins and albatross’s etc. But human beings who work in factories and down mines are animals too like chickens. And consuming stuff that has been made by factory workers and miners has an impact on them too. We talk about democratic control over what is produced and how much etc which will presumably involve and endless round of voting. Or Bolshevik like technocrats deciding for us how much of what will be available to us etc. So why not let people vote at the free access community stores at the checkout. Operating on some kind of socially responsible principal of consuming a similar amount of labour time as one puts back into society? Robinson Crusoe would decide whether the utility of consuming something was worth the effort in producing it.
Imposs1904 has put up an article from a 1920 Socialist Standard which shows that we rejected labour-time vouchers as long go as that:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/how-shall-we-share-out-1920.html
You must still cost your ways and means. All water companies use money to cost their ways and means to treat and supply water. Money works better than nothing. But, for the society future, labour-time will work better than money.
An interesting question from the point of view of the history of ideas (irrespective of whether or not they are sensible or practicable) is why the De Leonist SLP embraced the idea of labour-time vouchers while the SPGB didn't.We know why the SLP did as it was founded by German immigrants to the USA (refugees from the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878) who brought the idea within them where it was popular (and why Marx used the scheme for illustrative purposes). In fact, for them, it was the socialist method of distribution, not even a step on the way to free access. The European Social Democrats weren't committed to it so much if at all and certainly not as the end, and that's where we come from. Another possible influence on us could be William Morris and the Socialist League, a previous breakaway from the SDF.Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, though available in German from 1891, wasn't translated into English until 1933 which, used by the rulers of Russia to try to justify the continuance of the wages system there, revived the idea. It also caused a problem for the SLP and eventually led them to accepting free access, without money or vouchers, as the goal with labour-time vouchers as a transitional measure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.