Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I think you have completely misunderstood what the expression, 'from each according to ability; to each according to need ' actually means

 Be careful, give him a day or two and he will have claimed to have actually written it and want us to build him another statue!

Probably that expression is not from Marx either, it came from the French Anarchists

[Prakash RP]

 '  I do not understand why right wingers and anti communists come to this forum to spread their nonsenses … ' ( comment #226 by Marcos )  By my view of a communist, communists are enlightened people endowed with rigid backbone and armed with reasons and dialectics. They're aware that the truth is invincible, and that the truth is, consequent on the fact that they're always for the truth, with them always. Therefore, it's unbecoming of communists to be afraid of ' right wingers and anticommunists ' as I view it. The expression ' socialists-communists ' appears novel, but is it sensible, I wonder. Nevertheless, I'm not sure whether stuff like ' love ' or ' first love ' can make one a true communist. But I'm sure true communists are argumentative because they love the truth, and because they're aware that it's the conflict between views and counter-views that'll lead them to the truth, and that it's the truth, and the truth alone, that dispels the darkness of ignorance and brings enlightenment. For these reasons, true communists always welcome argumentation and the truth. 

[Prakash RP]

 ' In socialism. [sic] It is not equal rewards, it is, self determined, free access to the commonly owned products of the commonly owned means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by free men and women. … ' ( comment #227 by Matt ) I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. It is in capitalism that a section ( the employed ) of the workforce are made to overwork, consequent on which fact the rest of the workforce find themselves jobless. The fact of the matter is the surplus labour ( i.e. unpaid labour ) that happens to be the only source of the capitalists' profit is nothing but the product of overwork of the employed. And because it's making the highest possible amount of profit that happens to be the only motivation behind a capitalist's all business activities, and because overwork and idleness are, like plethora and poverty, inseparable opposites, it follows that capitalism has got no answer to the problem of joblessness or the problem of the poverty of millions alongside of the plethora of a few. Communism aims at the classless, just social order, and so it cannot approve of the unequal share of the social wealth just because it'd make some wealthier than all others. And as communism cannot allow anyone to have an unequal share of the social wealth, it cannot allow overwork by anyone. If someone overeworks and has an equal share in the social wealth, a part of his or her total work will remain unpaid, which amounts to the exploitation of the overworking people by their non-overworking brothers and sisters. Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others. For examples, you need three workers to operate a machine in three shifts of 8 hours' duration each. Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment. It's because means of production are, as the total amount of social wealth is, limited, and it will always remain so. Thus, we see not only does overwork of some mean lack of work ( enforced idleness ) of some others, it also means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest. Similarly, if someone accumulates more wealth than another, it'll inevitably entail poverty of the rest.It ought to be clear as day now why communism canNOT approve of unequal share of the social workload and unequal share in the social wealth. The providing for the disabled, the sick, children, the elderly, and the ' another fellow worker ' is the social responsibility which all the non-disabled members of working age must share equally. And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the rest of their non-disabled brothers, sisters, and friends. The expression '"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" ' may appear catchy, but it canNOT  deserve to represent communism. ' Your JUSTICE is a capitalist ideological imperative which sanctions war and poverty. ' ( comment #227 by Matt ) Maybe, but it doesn't disprove my point.

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' In socialism. [sic] It is not equal rewards, it is, self determined, free access to the commonly owned products of the commonly owned means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by free men and women. … ' ( comment #227 by Matt )

Quote:

I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work.

You are simply wrong. We advocate social equality and free access and any of the sharing out of work will be done by free men and women and not from a prescription handed down by Prakash from the capitalist past. 

Quote:

Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth.

 Your 'must' is prescriptive. I reject this and side with Lafargue . 

Quote:

Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites.

No one will be 'made to' work in socialism. By whom? Who are the enforcers in the classless society? The raised consciousness which arises from proceeding to and making the revolution will bring with it the socially responsible, self disciplined, behaviour which sustains the new society.

Quote:

It is in capitalism that a section ( the employed ) of the workforce are made to overwork, consequent on which fact the rest of the workforce find themselves jobless. The fact of the matter is the surplus labour ( i.e. unpaid labour ) that happens to be the only source of the capitalists' profit is nothing but the product of overwork of the employed. And because it's making the highest possible amount of profit that happens to be the only motivation behind a capitalist's all business activities, and because overwork and idleness are, like plethora and poverty, inseparable opposites, it follows that capitalism has got no answer to the problem of joblessness or the problem of the poverty of millions alongside of the plethora of a few.

Yes but ownership and control is in the hands of the parasites, production in capitalism is of commodities for their profitiable benefit and capitalism's technological and informational structures are either under used or wastefully engaged, in activity which will be redundant in the new society.

Quote:

Communism aims at the classless, just social order, and so it cannot approve of the unequal share of the social wealth just because it'd make some wealthier than all others.

Keep your 'justice'. The social product is not 'shared out' in the manner you describe. It is freely accessed according to self determined needs, which may indeed be unequal.It will not make anyone wealthier. 

Quote:

And as communism cannot allow anyone to have an unequal share of the social wealth, it cannot allow overwork by anyone. If someone overeworks and has an equal share in the social wealth, a part of his or her total work will remain unpaid, which amounts to the exploitation of the overworking people by their non-overworking brothers and sisters.

 The conumdrum is of your own making  as no-one is 'paid' or exploited in voluntary work and free access..

Quote:

Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others. For examples, you need three workers to operate a machine in three shifts of 8 hours' duration each. Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment. It's because means of production are, as the total amount of social wealth is, limited, and it will always remain so.

No one is employed. There is no penalty for underwork or overwork.The limitations of capitalism will not apply in a production for use society.

Quote:

Thus, we see not only does overwork of some mean lack of work ( enforced idleness ) of some others, it also means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest. Similarly, if someone accumulates more wealth than another, it'll inevitably entail poverty of the rest.

There will not be any wealth accumulation in the new society, in the manner you describe as production is for use of all and there is no advantage to be gained from this hangover behaviour essential for survival in capitalism.

Quote:

It ought to be clear as day now why communism can NOT approve of unequal share of the social workload and unequal share in the social wealth. The providing for the disabled, the sick, children, the elderly, and the ' another fellow worker ' is the social responsibility which all the non-disabled members of working age must share equally.

No! Production for the use of everyone is the purpose of socialist production and the allocations, locally regionally and globally will be the democratic prerogative of the people themselves.

Quote:

And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the rest of their non-disabled brothers, sisters, and friends. The expression '"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" ' may appear catchy, but it canNOT  deserve to represent communism.

 Well I'll take Marx's use of the term over your parsimonious prescriptive enforcements any day. 

Quote:

' Your JUSTICE is a capitalist ideological imperative which sanctions war and poverty. ' ( comment #227 by Matt )Maybe, but it doesn't disprove my point.

It taints it terminally with the whiff of the gulags.

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

  I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. 

 This has got nothing to do with communism.  Its more like some kind of regimented barrack-like centralised society in  which everyone is closely monitored by an overarching state.  Once again to repeat the point – the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in which the worker is obliged to perform a certain quantum of work in exchange for a  certain quantum of goods.   In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct You are confusing the communist principle of from each accrding to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 This has got nothing to do with communism.  Its more like some kind of regimented barrack-like centralised society in  which everyone is closely monitored by an overarching state.  Once again to repeat the point – the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in which the worker is obliged to perform a certain quantum of work in exchange for a  certain quantum of goods.   In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct You are confusing the communist principle of from each accrding to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

Yes, you put it much better Robin. He is ripping the metaphorical soul out of socialism.

[ALB]

I was wrong. I thought he meant by socialism/communism what we do, but it turns out that he is a rigid labour-time (voucher) merchant. Pity.Also, of course, he's still stuck in the 18th century when it might have been possible to envisage and measure an individual's contribution to production. That era has long gone. Production has long been collective. The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. Critics of capitalism and its individualism had already realised this by the middle of the last century but one.This is wrong too:

The Great Originator wrote:

It's because means of production are, as the total amount of social wealth is, limited, and it will always remain so.

Of course, once the profit barrier has been removed, production can be redirected, and increased, to produce enough to meet the needs of everybody on the planet.

[Bijou Drains]

As well as his view of "barracks Socialism" and the need for a coersive power in a "communist" society, his views on self denial, moral virtue and all of the rest of that bollocks fit more with the ideas of the authoritarian right than they do with the Socialsit case,His views on abstinance and being morally upstanding have uncomfortable echoes of the views Eoin O'Duffy the Blueshirt leader in Ireland who led the pro Franco Irish brigade in the Spanish Civil war.. A recent article on the history ireland site describes O’Duffy as preaching a gospel of moral improvement, one that emphasised the cultivation of integrity, temperance, patriotism, citizenship and virility: values which he summarised as manliness. Sounds to me that The Great Originator has more in common with buffoons like O'Duffy than he has with us!To celebrate the Great Originator I might just take a lazy walk down to the pub and have a couple of pints ande a packet of pork scratchings

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

  I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. 

 This has got nothing to do with communism.  Its more like some kind of regimented barrack-like centralised society in  which everyone is closely monitored by an overarching state.  Once again to repeat the point – the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in which the worker is obliged to perform a certain quantum of work in exchange for a  certain quantum of goods.   In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct You are confusing the communist principle of from each accrding to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

Stalin and the Soviets took that idea of rewarding the workers from Ford Assembly line

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I was wrong. I thought he meant by socialism/communism what we do, but it turns out that he is a rigid labour-time (voucher) merchant. Pity.Also, of course, he's still stuck in the 18th century when it might have been possible to envisage and measure an individual's contribution to production. That era has long gone. Production has long been collective. The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. Critics of capitalism and its individualism had already realised this by the middle of the last century but one.This is wrong too:

The Great Originator wrote:

It's because means of production are, as the total amount of social wealth is, limited, and it will always remain so.

Of course, once the profit barrier has been removed, production can be redirected, and increased, to produce enough to meet the needs of everybody on the planet.

In Puerto Rico instead of giving Labour vouchers, they are giving school vouchers. Implemented by the new US Secretary of Education

[Prakash RP]

 I'd like to make some changes in my last comment ( #243 ). I'd like to replace the sentence ' The overwork of someone having equal share in the social wealth means … ' with this one : The overwork of some people having equal share in the social wealth means a part of their total work will remain unpaid; if the wealth-equivalent of this unpaid labour is equally shared by all, it'll add up to the exploitation of the overworking folks by all the rest.  I'd also like the sentence ' And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours … ' to be replaced by what follows : And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the compulsory normal-working-day hours. I'm glad that my comments have received so many responses that appear bright and lively. I thank you all for this. I must deal with every important points referred to by you. 

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

I'd like to replace the sentence ' The overwork of someone having equal share in the social wealth means … ' with this one : The overwork of some people having equal share in the social wealth means a part of their total work will remain unpaid; if the wealth-equivalent of this unpaid labour is equally shared by all, it'll add up to the exploitation of the overworking folks by all the rest. 

You don't have a clue, do you?  People will not have an equal share in the social wealth produced – they will have equal access to this wealth taking from it according to their self-defined needs.  All work will be unpaid – payment being a feature of an exchange economy.

Quote:

I'd also like the sentence ' And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours … ' to be replaced by what follows : And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the compulsory normal-working-day hours.

Wrong again.  Work will be undertaken on a voluntary basis by people according to their ability – nothing will be compulsory.

Quote:

I'm glad that my comments have received so many responses that appear bright and lively. I thank you all for this. I must deal with every important points referred to by you.

The problem is that you don't deal with the points referred to you but simply repeat the same mistakes using different words and sentences.

[Prakash RP]

Would like to add the following to my last post ( #251 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day ', observes Marx, ' is fixed by this necessary … portion [ i.e. ' that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent ' ] of it. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) From the above quote, it ought to be obvious to the sensible that communism must fix the ' minimum length of the working-day ', and that no one ( other than the disabled, the sick, minors, and all the senior citizens ) is supposed to work less, because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day, hours than it. It's also implied that the communist social order canNOT need anyone to work more hours than the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day just because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day. And since no one ( bar all those that deserve exemption from work ) is supposed to work more or less, no one of them can be entitled to have more or less share in the social wealth, as I see it.  ' The intensity and productiveness of labour being given, the time which society is bound to devote to material production is shorter, and so as a consequence, the time at its disposal for the free development, intellectual and social, of the individual is greater, … ' ( ibid ) With the shortening of the working-day, the greater amount of free time an individual gets at their disposal is NOT meant, from the communistic point of view, for toiling like beasts of burden, the way I see it.  Would like you all to reflect on these observations by Marx.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Would like you all to reflect on these observations by Marx.

We have already reflected and superceded comrade Marx's observations in the realisation since the start of the 20th century that we can proceed directly to full communism, once there is a majority for this revolutionary necessity.It is you who need ot reflect upon your outmoded ideas and the comments made to you by us, as you are wasting our time by evading rather than properly considering,  our views, such as the following small selection,

Quote:

You don't have a clue, do you?  People will not have an equal share in the social wealth produced – they will have equal access to this wealth taking from it according to their self-defined needs.  All work will be unpaid – payment being a feature of an exchange economy.

Quote:

Wrong again.  Work will be undertaken on a voluntary basis by people according to their ability – nothing will be compulsory.

Quote:

Yes but ownership and control is in the hands of the parasites, production in capitalism is of commodities for their profitiable benefit and capitalism's technological and informational structures are either under used or wastefully engaged, in activity which will be redundant in the new society.

Quote:

You are confusing the communist principle of from each according to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle of to each according to their contribution which was actually written into the 1936 Soviet constitution.   But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism.  You appear not to have

Reconsider and correct your mistaken and outmoded Stalinist assumptions, or begone.

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add the following to my last post ( #251 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day ', observes Marx, ' is fixed by this necessary … portion [ i.e. ' that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent ' ] of it. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) From the above quote, it ought to be obvious to the sensible that communism must fix the ' minimum length of the working-day ', and that no one ( other than the disabled, the sick, minors, and all the senior citizens ) is supposed to work less, because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day, hours than it.

 It is not "obvious" at all  Prakash and for the very simple reason that Marx here is referring to the labourer under capitalism NOT communism.  In communism there is no "minimum or maximum length of the working-day" becuase all work will be done on a voluntary basis.   If I want to work 80 hours  a week in a communist society on a project that I find thoroughly absorbing, just try and stop me!

[Author]

Posts