Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Anonymous]

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'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.

Don't you know that Marx's capital is a critique of the capitalist Political Economy? Are you one of those who thinks that Marx's Capital is the book of Communism?   Marx, and Engels never, but never advocated for the wage slavery system on a communist society, in this particular passage he is referring to minimum wages under a capitalist society. We have already explained that in several of our writings, therefore, you are not presenting anything new to us.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1977/no-871-march-1977/marx-and-abolition-wages-system

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

  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.   

That is totally wrong. Marx is referring to the capitalist society. As several members of this forum have said: You do not have a clue 

[Prakash RP]

 Thanks to you all for the warm response to my last comment. I wish I'd soon go through them and deal with all the important points. I'm aware that I've been much slow in responding to my contenders' points, which I regret deeply.  Nevertheless, today I'd like to add some more points to my last post ( #253 ). In order to comprehend why communism cannot allow overworking or underworking, you have to comprehend first the significance of the communistic ' minimum length ' of the social working-day. The total labour-time necessary for the production of all goods and services the society needs in a year, which corresponds to the labour productivity of that time, is calculable and is to be calculated accurately. This total labour-time divided by the number of working hands and the number of working-days per annum gives the ' minimum length ' of the working-day of the communist society. If some citizens neglect their duty and work less, it'll reflect itself in the lower amount of goods and services produced than their calculated amount, consequent on which fact everyone's equal share in the social wealth won't be realised. And if some fools that believe they were born to work and live like beasts of burden work more hours than the compulsory minimum number of hours, it'll lead to the superfluity of wealth. There'll be practically no lawful takers of this superfluous wealth because communism cannot allow anyone to take more than their fixed equal share in the social wealth. Thus, overworking in the communist order is certain to lead to serious problems. If some crafty and crooked citizens who didn't produce this wealth manage to take possession of it, not only will it make them richer than others and thus threaten the very foundation of the communist order, it'll also amount to the exploitation of the overworking lot by them. The most important point not to be missed in this regard is none including the overworking lot whose toil happens to have created the superfluity, are entitled to lay claim to it. Thus, there being no lawful takers of the superfluous wealth, the overwork of some fools is certain not to find any rewards. Therefore, it ought to be clear as day now that overworking in the communist order will mean unrewarded labour and wastage of wealth. There's truly nothing in the theory of communism which suggests that the dialectics of Nature won't work in the communist order, and so unequal rewards for unequal work won't lead to the concentration of wealth in a few hands offset by pauperism of millions and overwork won't create idleness in communism.    

[ALB]

This idea of "equal recompense" for "equal work" is a reflection of the exchange of equal values in commodity society and makes no sense in socialist/communist society where there won't be commodity-production.  The basic socialist/communist principle is "from each according to ability, to each according to needs". That's part of the ABC of socialism.

[Anonymous]

More drivel here from the 'humble free thinker and seeker after the truth' (sic)https://plus.google.com/106692977408881681442

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

More drivel here from the 'humble free thinker and seeker after the truth' (sic)https://plus.google.com/106692977408881681442

I have never been mistaken with all these so-called Marx innovators. I have seen too many in my whole life and most of them follow the same pattern. We have seen many coming to this forum or the WSM forum arriving like teachers and experts and then we discover they are students and amateurs

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

 Thanks to you all for the warm response to my last comment. I wish I'd soon go through them and deal with all the important points. I'm aware that I've been much slow in responding to my contenders' points, which I regret deeply.  Nevertheless, today I'd like to add some more points to my last post ( #253 ). In order to comprehend why communism cannot allow overworking or underworking, you have to comprehend first the significance of the communistic ' minimum length ' of the social working-day. The total labour-time necessary for the production of all goods and services the society needs in a year, which corresponds to the labour productivity of that time, is calculable and is to be calculated accurately. This total labour-time divided by the number of working hands and the number of working-days per annum gives the ' minimum length ' of the working-day of the communist society. If some citizens neglect their duty and work less, it'll reflect itself in the lower amount of goods and services produced than their calculated amount, consequent on which fact everyone's equal share in the social wealth won't be realised. And if some fools that believe they were born to work and live like beasts of burden work more hours than the compulsory minimum number of hours, it'll lead to the superfluity of wealth. There'll be practically no lawful takers of this superfluous wealth because communism cannot allow anyone to take more than their fixed equal share in the social wealth. Thus, overworking in the communist order is certain to lead to serious problems. If some crafty and crooked citizens who didn't produce this wealth manage to take possession of it, not only will it make them richer than others and thus threaten the very foundation of the communist order, it'll also amount to the exploitation of the overworking lot by them. The most important point not to be missed in this regard is none including the overworking lot whose toil happens to have created the superfluity, are entitled to lay claim to it. Thus, there being no lawful takers of the superfluous wealth, the overwork of some fools is certain not to find any rewards. Therefore, it ought to be clear as day now that overworking in the communist order will mean unrewarded labour and wastage of wealth. There's truly nothing in the theory of communism which suggests that the dialectics of Nature won't work in the communist order, and so unequal rewards for unequal work won't lead to the concentration of wealth in a few hands offset by pauperism of millions and overwork won't create idleness in communism.    

What is the relationship of the Dialectic of Nature with wage slavery and voluntary labour?   The whole argument is not about overworking or underworking, this is pure bourgeoisie garbage, it is about voluntary work, and the elimination of wage slavery. 

[Prakash RP]

Would like to add what follows to my comment #258. ' If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion   [ i.e. " that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent " ], surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital, ' says Marx. ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) The ' surplus-labour ' in the above quote, also known as ' unpaid labour ' ( ibid, p 500 ), happens to be the only source of the ' surplus-value ' or profit, the only stuff that interests capitalists in capitalism.  ' The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, ' further says Marx, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, … ' ( ibid, p 313 ) With the vanishing of the ' surplus-labour ', ' surplus-value ' will vanish, and consequent on this fact, the capitalist's all interest in trade and industry is certain to vanish too. Marx viewed this fact as ' a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' Marx is right a hundred per cent, isn't he ? As I see it, Marx was really not so stupid as to believe that capitalists would reduce, if he asked them to do it, the length of the working-day and thus make the ' surplus-value ' ( i.e. profit ) just vanish.  ' Only suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( Marx; ibid, p 496 ) Did Marx, by the ' length of the working-day ', really mean the length of the working-day under capitalism ?What do you think, ALB? Don't you think that you and all the other contenders in this thread are pathetically lacking in a clear concept of the ABCs of communism and have got a lot to learn from this ' Great Originator ' ?

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add what follows to my comment #258. ' If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion   [ i.e. " that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent " ], surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital, ' says Marx. ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 )   The ' surplus-labour ' in the above quote, also known as ' unpaid labour ' ( ibid, p 500 ), happens to be the only source of the ' surplus-value ' or profit, the only stuff that interests capitalists in capitalism.  ' The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, ' further says Marx, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, … ' ( ibid, p 313 ) With the vanishing of the ' surplus-labour ', ' surplus-value ' will vanish, and consequent on this fact, the capitalist's all interest in trade and industry is certain to vanish too. Marx viewed this fact as ' a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' Marx is right a hundred per cent, isn't he ? As I see it, Marx was really not so stupid as to believe that capitalists would reduce, if he asked them to do it, the length of the working-day and thus make the ' surplus-value ' ( i.e. profit ) just vanish.  ' Only suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( Marx; ibid, p 496 ) Did Marx, by the ' length of the working-day ', really mean the length of the working-day under capitalism ?What do you think, ALB? Don't you think that you and all the other contenders in this thread are pathetically lacking in a clear concept of the ABCs of communism and have got a lot to learn from this ' Great Originator ' ?

I can't make my mind up whether your really, really don't understand this, or whether you are taking the piss

[Anonymous]

Prakash RP wrote:

Would like to add what follows to my comment #258. ' If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion   [ i.e. " that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs  to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent " ], surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital, ' says Marx. ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) The ' surplus-labour ' in the above quote, also known as ' unpaid labour ' ( ibid, p 500 ), happens to be the only source of the ' surplus-value ' or profit, the only stuff that interests capitalists in capitalism.  ' The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, ' further says Marx, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, … ' ( ibid, p 313 ) With the vanishing of the ' surplus-labour ', ' surplus-value ' will vanish, and consequent on this fact, the capitalist's all interest in trade and industry is certain to vanish too. Marx viewed this fact as ' a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' Marx is right a hundred per cent, isn't he ? As I see it, Marx was really not so stupid as to believe that capitalists would reduce, if he asked them to do it, the length of the working-day and thus make the ' surplus-value ' ( i.e. profit ) just vanish.  ' Only suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( Marx; ibid, p 496 ) Did Marx, by the ' length of the working-day ', really mean the length of the working-day under capitalism ?What do you think, ALB? Don't you think that you and all the other contenders in this thread are pathetically lacking in a clear concept of the ABCs of communism and have got a lot to learn from this ' Great Originator ' ?

An amateur trying to give lectures on communism to an experienced person like Adam, who has done an extensive research on that subject matter for several decades,  that is laughable. In that case, Marx's Capital should be called a Critique to Communism, which is impossible because nobody has been able to write a book about communism , because it has not existed yet, but they have written books  about state capitalism, including the so-called Black book of communism,  Communism is not going to be an economic system but a social production. 

[Prakash RP]

 And what about you , Adam ? Would you oblige me by making known your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and the silly adage ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" ' ? Or, will you once again have recourse to something like the silly excuse that there exists a lot of more important stuff than these issues in order to keep mum, I wonder. And I'm not sure whether it'd make sense to ask the SPGB to make known their official position on these most important issues. As far as I can remember, they disgustingly failed, like Adam, to stand for the truth about my claim to have proved first the thesis on money's incapacity.

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 And what about you , Adam ? Would you oblige me by making known your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and the silly adage ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" ' ? Or, will you once again have recourse to something like the silly excuse that there exists a lot of more important stuff than these issues in order to keep mum, I wonder. And I'm not sure whether it'd make sense to ask the SPGB to make known their official position on these most important issues. As far as I can remember, they disgustingly failed, like Adam, to stand for the truth about my claim to have proved first the thesis on money's incapacity.

 Prakash, it has already been explained to you countless times that the concept of a compulsory minimum – or maximum – working day  would be meaningless in a communist society where all labour would be performed on a purely voluntary basis.  Who is going to enforce such a rule – and how and why? The very rule itself presupposes unfree commodified labour – capitalism. If you persistently fail to address this point then, of course, over time people are going to tire of responding to you.  You are at liberty to express your anti-communist sentiments here and dismiss the communistc adage "from each according to ability, to each according to need" as "silly"  but at least be prepared to back up your claims with some solid argument.  Thus far, you have completely failed to do this The same goes for your ridculous vainglorious claim to have  "proved first the thesis on money's incapacity"  There is nothing original in what you said. It has been said countless times before including by  Marx.  Get over it and come off your pedestal for once

[Prakash RP]

 Communism ( scientific socialism ) is NOT something like the Utopia of ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" '. Communism means the compulsory equal sharing of social workload for the compulsory equal-share in social wealth. Communism is NOT voluntary working NOR the unequal sharing of social wealth. Communism won't transform the world into a paradise. Dialectics of Nature will remain true in the communist order too. Life won't be problem-free under communism. Harmful bacteria and viruses will remain equally active as they're today and affect human health under communism, as well. Communism is NOT something like a device meant to produce genetically superior human beings. Humanity will consist of the good, the bad, the enlightened, the benighted, the progressive, the reactionary, the genius, the mediocre, the honest, the principled, the hypocrite, the crafty and crooked, etc, etc like flowering plants, non-flowering plants, the mammalian, the non-mammalian, etc following transition to communism. The bad elements will invent crafty tricks to rid themselves of their duties and obligations towards society and enjoy more wealth than others or squander social wealth produced by dutiful, sensible citizens.Then what's wrong with capitalism ? Why should communism deserve to be reckoned fundamentally better than capitalism ? The one-line answer to all these queries is : It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment harmonising with the Principle of Healthy & Meaningful Living .  If you want to lead a healthy and sensible existence befitting the space age you belong to, you've got no other option than to stand for and welcome communism, OK ?  

[Anonymous]

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his Critique of the Gotha programme, published in 1875. The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen. According to Marx, once a moneyless communist society has been established, it will produce enough goods and services so that everyone's needs can be satisfied.Even though the phrase is commonly attributed to Marx, he was not the first to use it. The slogan was common within the socialist movement. Louis Blanc first used it in 1839, in L'Organisation du travail (The organisation of work). The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French communist Morelly, who proposed something similar in his 1755 Code of Nature:

Quote:

Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

[robbo203]

Prakash, your conception of "communism" bears no relation to our –  or the Marxian – conception of communism based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need. Frankly what you call "communism"  I, as  a communist, oppose.  To me it sounds more like a rigidly centralised totalitarian state in which every individual is closely monitored with respect to what they consume and what labour they perform.   Your can keep your "communism" as fas as I am concerned.   I want nothing to do with it

[Author]

Posts