Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: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
The only explanation is that Prakash is some kind of a Bill Gatesian zombie.
Prakash RP wrote: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 ?So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-eduation camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?
Bijou Drains wrote:Prakash RP wrote: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 ?So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-eduation camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?
Its more like fascism than communism that seems to appeal to him, if you ask me…
I think he's more what Marx called a "crude communist".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htmandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communism
ALB wrote:I think he's more what Marx called a "crude communist".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htmandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communismThat is what the Marxist Humanists and Raya Dunayevskaya called crude communism and state capitalism.( like in Russia based on their analysis of Marx 1844 manuscripts ) In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote about the Bourgeoise Communism. The Communism of our Originator is anti-communism. I do not want to live in that type of society it is similar to Fascism, genuine communist would be decapitatedhttp://pink-scare.blogspot.com/2011/12/marx-against-crude-communism.html.PS: I stand for my thesis that the so-called Marx innovators are anti-Marxists and anti-communists
Bijou Drains wrote:Prakash RP wrote: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 ?So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-education camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?
In a Tibetian monastery? This sounds like a combination of Fascism and Buddhism
Would like to make some changes in my comments #243 & #251. The term ' employment ' in ' Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others ' ( #243 ) and in ' Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment ' ( #243 ) is to be replaced with ' work '. The term ' unpaid ' in the sentence ' 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 ' ( #251 ) is to be replaced with the term ' unrewarded '.
Prakash RP wrote:Would like to make some changes in my comments #243 & #251. The term ' employment ' in ' Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others ' ( #243 ) and in ' Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment ' ( #243 ) is to be replaced with ' work '.Nonsense. Work is by voluntary cooperation. It will be decided by people themselves at the time, as to what numbers are required. There will always be work. As robots take over more humdrum tasks, then less will need to be 'hands on', as a relative superabundance of necessities is produced arising out of production for use, utilising the technology and informational infrastructures captured from capitalism the definition of what 'work' is, will have changed also. You are living with a regimented totalitarian mindset.
Quote:The term ' unpaid ' in the sentence ' 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 ' ( #251 ) is to be replaced with the term ' unrewarded '.Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. Access to the total common product is free for all. The relation is one of social equality.The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use, ethos.
Prakash RP wrote:Would like to make some changes in my comments #243 & #251. The term ' employment ' in ' Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others ' ( #243 ) and in ' Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment ' ( #243 ) is to be replaced with ' work '. The term ' unpaid ' in the sentence ' 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 ' ( #251 ) is to be replaced with the term ' unrewarded '.and now you are becoming a KeynesianCapital will not exist in a socialist society. Those economical terms would be features of the past. We said it countless of times that socialism is not going to be an economic system
' … the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in … ' ( comment #245 by robbo203 ) The ' concept of material rewards ' does also imply the communistic exchange according to the principle of compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload for equal-share in social wealth. ' In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct. 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 … ' ( ibid ) All of you are mistaken, and your mistakes seem to be rooted in your delusion that the compulsory work meant to produce social wealth under communism is ' voluntary '. My dear friend, participation in economic activities for money or something in kind can't be ' voluntary '. All sorts of work aimed at the creation of social wealth must be compulsory for everyone that doesn't deserve exemption from work under communism. The reason is the simple fact that economic activities forms the basis for the social economy. And it happens to be the social economy the entire social edifice rests on. Therefore, if participation in economic activities is made voluntary, anyone will be as free to work as free not to work. Thus, if people choose to enjoy their freedom to shun work, it's certain to endanger the existence of society. Further, no working or less working but equally sharing social wealth will mean the exploitation of all those good citizens that perform their share of work duly and dutifully by those no-working and less-working citizens. I must question the correctness of using the term ' voluntary ' to describe a sort of work that's truly not ' voluntary '. As I see it, the ' voluntary ' work is that work the performer of which does not expect nor receive anything except a simple thank-you smile. The unpaid labour labourers have to perform in the capitalist mode of production is not ' voluntary '. Nor does the compulsory work meant to produce wealth and have a just share, in return for the work performed, in the social wealth under communism deserve to be reckoned ' voluntary '. ' But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism. You appear not to have ' ( ibid ) I admit to this fault— I really don't understand what the stuff ' full communism ' or non-full communism is. And as far as I know, neither Marx nor Engels had any concept of such things. Most probably, such inventions as ' full communism ' , ' first phase of communism usually called socialism ' , etc were Bolsheviks' brainchildren. I'm not a Bolshevik, and I don't acknowledge Bolsheviks as communist. I think I've got a clear concept of the ABCs of communism.
Do accept my cordial thanks for your warm response to my comments. A humble seeker after the truth, I count me honoured for this. I assure you that I'd deal with every important points raised by you.
Prakash RP wrote:' In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct. 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 … ' ( ibid ) All of you are mistaken, and your mistakes seem to be rooted in your delusion that the compulsory work meant to produce social wealth under communism is ' voluntary '. My dear friend, participation in economic activities for money or something in kind can't be ' voluntary '. All sorts of work aimed at the creation of social wealth must be compulsory for everyone that doesn't deserve exemption from work under communism. The reason is the simple fact that economic activities forms the basis for the social economy. And it happens to be the social economy the entire social edifice rests on. Therefore, if participation in economic activities is made voluntary, anyone will be as free to work as free not to work. Thus, if people choose to enjoy their freedom to shun work, it's certain to endanger the existence of society.On one point you are correct, Prakash. Insofar as work will indeed be voluntary and uncoerced in a communist society anyone will indeed be "as free to work as free not to work". They will also be free to choose the kind of work they want to do. All this is quite true and freely acknowledged by us communists. Moreover, we see no problem with what is being proposed here AT ALL. You , on the other hand, see nothing but calamity in such a proposal. You consider that it is "certain to endanger the existence of society". Really? How so. It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. Never mind that you make no allowance for the fact that most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed, meaning that the overall workload for society will be far less under communism than it is today. Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today. Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism. None of these points seem to register with you. Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature", declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose. This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history. Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat (or we will starve) but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation. You have mentioned Marx often enough. You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in the Critique of the Gotha programme: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! " (my bold)
Thank you very much for this response and calling my attention to Marx's observation in the Critique of the Gotha programme. I must respond to it.
' 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. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.