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
-
' 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. ' ( comment #283 by robbo203 )I think I've stated clearly enough why I fear it's certain to threaten the existence of society if some people choose to shun work. I'd like you to take a re-look at my comment #281 and find it. ' It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity in keeping with laws of Nature as there are and there will always be flowering plants, nonflowering plants, and cold-blooded animals alongside of the warm-blooded, OK ? In my comment #268, I briefly discussed this point. ' … 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. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281. ' 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. ' ( ibid ) This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist. ' 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. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible. * Humanity consists of, in keeping with laws of Nature, the good, the bad, the progressive, the reactionary, the principled, the hypocrite, the honest, the crafty and crooked, etc, etc. ' 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! ". ' ( ibid ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly. I also believe whatever Marx or Engels said or believed or did is not science and thus may not be true just as the ridiculous belief in Spinoza's God, which Albert Einstein, the Great Man of science, cherished throughout his life is not science nor true. In order to deserve to be reckoned scientific, an idea or a belief must be premised on incontestable scientific logic, as I see it. The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ). The contradiction between these two ideas is blazing like the mid-day sun and appears irreconcilable, the way I see it. The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist. Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.
Prakash RP wrote:' 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. ' ( comment #283 by robbo203 )I think I've stated clearly enough why I fear it's certain to threaten the existence of society if some people choose to shun work. I'd like you to take a re-look at my comment #281 and find it. ' It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity in keeping with laws of Nature as there are and there will always be flowering plants, nonflowering plants, and cold-blooded animals alongside of the warm-blooded, OK ? In my comment #268, I briefly discussed this point. ' … 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. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281. ' 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. ' ( ibid ) This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist. ' 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. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible. * Humanity consists of, in keeping with laws of Nature, the good, the bad, the progressive, the reactionary, the principled, the hypocrite, the honest, the crafty and crooked, etc, etc. ' 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! ". ' ( ibid ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly. I also believe whatever Marx or Engels said or believed or did is not science and thus may not be true just as the ridiculous belief in Spinoza's God, which Albert Einstein, the Great Man of science, cherished throughout his life is not science nor true. In order to deserve to be reckoned scientific, an idea or a belief must be premised on incontestable scientific logic, as I see it. The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ). The contradiction between these two ideas is blazing like the mid-day sun and appears irreconcilable, the way I see it. The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist. Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.You should join the next world Olympic games for pole vaulting
Prakash RP wrote:' It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity in keeping with laws of Nature as there are.You fully deserve that allegation in my opinion. I remind you what you said. A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”. What is that if not a “typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful”? You now try to wriggle out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself by qualifying your statement with “if some people choose to shun work”. What is "some"? Let us allow that "some" people do indeed choose to shun work. If you are referring to present day capitalist society that is understandable. Forced labour (which you advocate) is not particularly congenial to many people. Many people don’t like the idea of being bossed around at work (which is what would be the case under your proposed society). So of course some of them “choose to shun work”. But we are not talking about present day capitalist society. We are talking about a future communist society operating on the principle of voluntary labour. If some people continue to choose to shun work in that society is that society going to be mortally endangered as you claim? I dont think so at all We will be more than capable of carryng such people and if not then you can be certain that what is called the "free rider" problem will overcome by the very simple and very effective mechanism that is called social disapproval. People do care what others think about them and if sloth is ever going to become a significant problem then it is precisely this mechanism that will kick in to overcome it
Prakash RP wrote:' … 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. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281.What on earth are you talking about? Your thinking on this matter seems very confused and muddled. Who said anything about the unpaid labour of the workers that goes to produce the capitalists' profit, being ' voluntary '. It is NOT voluntary. It is coerced labour just as much as that part of the worker’s labour that goes to reproduce her labour power. You are the one who wants a system of coerced labour , not me! And again I see you make no attempt to relate the point I make about the workload that a communist society will face to the idea of motivation to work. Generally speaking it is when people have to work long hours that their motivation to work is considerably dampened and vice versa
Prakash RP wrote:' 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. ' ( ibid ) This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist.You should stop and listen to yourself for once. Listen to the words you use. “If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society”. You sound like the Conservative Government’s Employment Secretary having a go at the “lazy workers”. Capitalist politicians are forever having a go at what they call the “workshy”. Never mind that in capitalism’s periodic recessions there are no jobs for the so called “workshy” anyway. Personally I consider the very term "workshy" which you have chosen to use here reveals the same kind of contempt for the workers that you might expect of a capitalist politician. Workers are not workshy. If they were, the system would collapse tomorrow. Many who you malign as workshy will be found working hard at all sorts of things which a capitalist politician might not consider to be work – since it is done outside the money economy – but it is still neverthless very clearly “work”. Once again you seem to have no comprehension of this point in your enthusiasm to smear your fellow workers as “workshy”
Prakash RP wrote:' 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. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible.This is ridiculous. Of course you are adopting a pessimistic view in relaton to the point at issue. You said it yourself FFS A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”. What is that if not “pessimistic”, huh? Incidentally I don’t say your argument is false because it is pessimistic. I say it is false because it does not hold water, It is unsound
Prakash RP wrote:' 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! ". ' ( ibid ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly.See, I don’t think you are a communist. No communist would repudiate the principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”. I am not quite sure what you are but you clearly want a society based on forced labour, rationed consumption and centralised control
Prakash RP wrote:The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ).The way I see it the kind of society you advocate will reproduce the very system of class exploitation you claim to oppose. It will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a techno-managerial elite required to oversee and manage the process of ensuring an “equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth”. And despite your confident assertion that this principle of yours is “logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order” I don’t think you have even begun to understand what it is you are taking on. How for example, do you compare the labour of a janitor with the labour of neurosurgeon in order to ensure an “equal sharing of social workload”. In a system of voluntarylabour there is no need whatsoever to make these kinds of comparison but in your system it is absolutely vital
Prakash RP wrote:The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist. Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.Once again – don’t be ridiculous! I haven’t been silent on the question of the “compulsory sharing of the workload”. I have been vigorously attacking the very idea from the word go. Or did you not realise this? I see no need today for Marx’s lower phase of communism. Marx was living in era of unavoidable scarcity, we are not. We have the technological potential now to move straight over to Marx’s higher phase of communism. All that is lacking is the subjective conditions that would make this possible – mass socialist consciousness
@Originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity general discussion.For reference to keep my message short this is a continuation from an earlier discussion at https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=29#comment-46768
Marcos wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Can you tell me which sections and cite specific parts I plagerize so I can learn from them and apply their lessons to my product development efforts? [/quoteNobody is saying, or implying that you have plagiarized anything. We are talking about an economical thesis described in this thread by another person. I do not give a damn about the world of business and law, and this is not a forum in order to sell any product or commodity@marcos,I appologize for my missunderstanding. As you've pointed out, I'm ego driven and tend to think everything is about me. I appreciate you don't give a damn about the world of business and law which is precisely the reason I value your opinioins and insight so much. What I am "selling" is an idea only and I give it to you freely in exchange for your time spent reading. It has no cash or capital value as determined by law at this point in time and may never have a cash or capital value due to it's nature. I'm selling a concept for a product that has the ability to convert time into money directly. I realize that does not concern or interest you. BUT, I have researched the free market evolutionary path of this product and projected it will result in creation of an economic system of relevance to discusions of mode of production and mode of distribution and this conversation thread. …@ General discussion groupWould you appreciate or be interested in any of these 3 following on topic discussions? 1) A mode of distrubution that results in free travel and free purchases for anyone at the cost of waiting in line. with this mode of distribution the rich pay more automatically and go to the front of the line ordered richest person first. The poor can buy things for free, but they have to "pay" by waiting longer in line or are otherwise penalized for using anything other than surplus capacity of the capititalist economy. Price is graduated so the more poor you are the less you pay and if you have zero dollars the cost of things are free. (note this is also relevant to the original topic thread) because it would provide a method for comparing value between classes. 2) A mode of production that evolved from a competitive creative writing contest game and uses no cash or capital value in order to produce real goods and services. This mode of production is already in existence as a contest game and discussions involve scaling and evolving the contest mode of production into the dominant mode of production. Voting occurs to determine value and distribution of minutes in a Time Value Accounting system. Results are that everybody is littererally judged in contest format to earn minutes of value currency that they can spend to avoid waiting line. Some combinations of the "haggling mode of distribution" and the "contest voting mode of production" are projected to result in any person being able to live a decent comfortable life in return for waiting approximately 30 hours in line. This is what you want right? Or someone who is skilled at judging or voting wisely can participating in voting on dispute resutions to earn a living with minutes of their time and effort being converted into currency directly and valued based on a crowdsourced voting system. 3) Other, Can you suggest I could contribute to the convesation to the best of my ability with minutes of my time and show me that it would have a positive effect and how I would measure and verify the minutes I spend would be put to good use? Would you support or encourage me to start a topic post focused on either of the first 2 questions and what category would you recommend for each of the 2 discussions of interest to me and this community? Can you reword either 1 or 2 into language Marx would approve of or clarify any of my misconceptions in the first 2 choices? Thanks for your time and attention. As previously mentioned you get a rewared and return on or your time and attention right now with minutes credited into your automatically created minutes bank account and can claim your minutes at a later time for travel or purchases by referencing this conversation and date/time. you're account ballance is now 10 minutes of credit and you are eligible for additional minutes if your response is voted as having by others while they are waiting in line to get free stuff.
I'd like to replace the expression ' their pathetic plight ' ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ) ' ( #301 ) with this one : the pathetic plight they had to inherit from their earlier generations. I'd also like to add the following to my comment #301. ' Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must [ a ] civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. … Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature ; and … But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins … the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume III, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW; p 820 ) The above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III also corroborates my view that the sharing of the social workload by everyone ( except all those entitled to be exempted from work ) under communism can't be optional or ' voluntary ' ( ' all social formations ' and ' all possible modes of production ' do not exclude communism and the communist mode of production ), RIGHT ?
' 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. ' ( comment #252 by gnome ) I'd like you to have a look at my comments #277, #281, #285, #293, and #301. If you find any important points that have yet to be dealt with, please refer to it.
Prakash RP wrote:The above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III also corroborates my view that the sharing of the social workload by everyone ( except all those entitled to be exempted from work ) under communism can't be optional or ' voluntary ' ( ' all social formations ' and ' all possible modes of production ' do not exclude communism and the communist mode of production ), RIGHT ?WRONG. There is no suggestion at all in Marx that the "social workload" cannot be shared on a completely voluntary and unforced basis. That is what the principle "from each according to ability to each acording to needs" means and that is what Marx meant by the "true realm of freedom" blossoming forth "with this realm of necessity as its basis". The development of the productive forces enables the "The shortening of the working-day" which then makes possible a communist society of free access and volunteer labour
' There is nothing in Das Capital which refers itself to the communist society, it is all about capitalism and … ' ( comment #294 by Marcos ) There're lots of things about communism and the communist mode of production in Das Capital. In Capital Volume I by Marx, you'll find lots of important and enlightening pieces of info about different forms of communist property ( pp 82, 83, 714 & 715 ), info about the distribution of wealth ( pp 82 & 83 ), conditions and organisation of labour ( pp 596 & 597 ), necessary labour ( p 496 ), the development of individual ( pp 454, 555 & 582 ), under communism, info about material and technical basis of communism ( pp 370, 371 & 555 ) as well as the length and the shortening of working-day under communism ( p 496 ) ; the CAPITAL Volume III also contains a lot of enlightening info about the communist mode of production labour productivity ( pp 261 & 819 ), freedom and necessity under the communist mode of production ( pp 819 & 820 ), the distribution of social product under the communist mode of production ( pp 847, 848, 875 & 876 ), regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour ( pp 850 & 851 ), and wages ( p 876 ) under communism. ' Again, Marx is referring to capitalism, centralization of the means of production is monopoly which is a normal process of capitalism. ' ( #294 ) The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.
Prakash RP wrote:The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.Once again you are barking up the wrong tree completely with your bizarre interpetation of Marx. No one is disputing that 'communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' Nor is it disputed that the social workload will be shared. What is in dispute is the basis on which the workload will be shared. The principle of "from each according to to ability to each according to need" endorsed by Marx and by other communists is very clear on this point. The workload will be shared voluntarily by "freely associated producers". Marx's own depiction of a communist society bears this out. For example in his commentary of the division of labour he says this: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (The German Ideology) This is totally incompatible with your view of "communist society" as one in which labour wll be coerced and regulated by some kind of centralised adminsistration which will moreover strive to ensure in some way (as yet unexplained) that each worker will perform exactly the same amount of labour as everyone else
robbo203 wrote:Prakash RP wrote:The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.Once again you are barking up the wrong tree completely with your bizarre interpetation of Marx. No one is disputing that 'communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' Nor is it disputed that the social workload will be shared. What is in dispute is the basis on which the workload will be shared. The principle of "from each according to to ability to each according to need" endorsed by Marx and by other communists is very clear on this point. The workload will be shared voluntarily by "freely associated producers". Marx's own depiction of a communist society bears this out. For example in his commentary of the division of labour he says this: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (The German Ideology) This is totally incompatible with your view of "communist society" as one in which labour wll be coerced and regulated by some kind of centralised adminsistration which will moreover strive to ensure in some way (as yet unexplained) that each worker will perform exactly the same amount of labour as everyone else
You are wasting your time. He is just a good tailor
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:@Originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity general discussion.For reference to keep my message short this is a continuation from an earlier discussion at https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=29#comment-46768Marcos wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Can you tell me which sections and cite specific parts I plagerize so I can learn from them and apply their lessons to my product development efforts? [/quoteNobody is saying, or implying that you have plagiarized anything. We are talking about an economical thesis described in this thread by another person. I do not give a damn about the world of business and law, and this is not a forum in order to sell any product or commodity@marcos,I appologize for my missunderstanding. As you've pointed out, I'm ego driven and tend to think everything is about me. I appreciate you don't give a damn about the world of business and law which is precisely the reason I value your opinioins and insight so much. What I am "selling" is an idea only and I give it to you freely in exchange for your time spent reading. It has no cash or capital value as determined by law at this point in time and may never have a cash or capital value due to it's nature. I'm selling a concept for a product that has the ability to convert time into money directly. I realize that does not concern or interest you. BUT, I have researched the free market evolutionary path of this product and projected it will result in creation of an economic system of relevance to discusions of mode of production and mode of distribution and this conversation thread. …@ General discussion groupWould you appreciate or be interested in any of these 3 following on topic discussions? 1) A mode of distrubution that results in free travel and free purchases for anyone at the cost of waiting in line. with this mode of distribution the rich pay more automatically and go to the front of the line ordered richest person first. The poor can buy things for free, but they have to "pay" by waiting longer in line or are otherwise penalized for using anything other than surplus capacity of the capititalist economy. Price is graduated so the more poor you are the less you pay and if you have zero dollars the cost of things are free. (note this is also relevant to the original topic thread) because it would provide a method for comparing value between classes. 2) A mode of production that evolved from a competitive creative writing contest game and uses no cash or capital value in order to produce real goods and services. This mode of production is already in existence as a contest game and discussions involve scaling and evolving the contest mode of production into the dominant mode of production. Voting occurs to determine value and distribution of minutes in a Time Value Accounting system. Results are that everybody is littererally judged in contest format to earn minutes of value currency that they can spend to avoid waiting line. Some combinations of the "haggling mode of distribution" and the "contest voting mode of production" are projected to result in any person being able to live a decent comfortable life in return for waiting approximately 30 hours in line. This is what you want right? Or someone who is skilled at judging or voting wisely can participating in voting on dispute resutions to earn a living with minutes of their time and effort being converted into currency directly and valued based on a crowdsourced voting system. 3) Other, Can you suggest I could contribute to the convesation to the best of my ability with minutes of my time and show me that it would have a positive effect and how I would measure and verify the minutes I spend would be put to good use? Would you support or encourage me to start a topic post focused on either of the first 2 questions and what category would you recommend for each of the 2 discussions of interest to me and this community? Can you reword either 1 or 2 into language Marx would approve of or clarify any of my misconceptions in the first 2 choices? Thanks for your time and attention. As previously mentioned you get a rewared and return on or your time and attention right now with minutes credited into your automatically created minutes bank account and can claim your minutes at a later time for travel or purchases by referencing this conversation and date/time. you're account ballance is now 10 minutes of credit and you are eligible for additional minutes if your response is voted as having by others while they are waiting in line to get free stuff.
How about taking your business deal to some place else ?
robbo203 wrote:Prakash RP wrote:The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.Once again you are barking up the wrong tree completely with your bizarre interpetation of Marx. No one is disputing that 'communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' Nor is it disputed that the social workload will be shared. What is in dispute is the basis on which the workload will be shared. The principle of "from each according to to ability to each according to need" endorsed by Marx and by other communists is very clear on this point. The workload will be shared voluntarily by "freely associated producers". Marx's own depiction of a communist society bears this out. For example in his commentary of the division of labour he says this: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (The German Ideology) This is totally incompatible with your view of "communist society" as one in which labour wll be coerced and regulated by some kind of centralised adminsistration which will moreover strive to ensure in some way (as yet unexplained) that each worker will perform exactly the same amount of labour as everyone else
Paul Lafargue ( The son in law of Karl Marx ) in his book "The right to be lazy" explains it very clear and in a very simple manner. In a socialist society ( wageless ) we are going to have a different concept about work and it will be performed in a different way, it will not be a burden on human beings, we are going to be producing for our own society. Why some peoples like to complicate their life, when it can be simple ?
' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' 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 … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.
And what's your stand, Adam, on the contradiction glaring like the mid-day sun, the contradiction appearing irreconcilable, i.e. the fact that the idea of equally sharing the social workload for an equal share in social wealth is irreconcilable with the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according his needs ' ?
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' 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 … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.Here we go again. The same old dull bourgeois dogmas and prejudices are once again being peddled by our "humble seeker after the truth" who, nothwithstanding his "humility", reckons himself to be the "Originator" of the thesis – actually a very old thesis – on money's incapacity to reflect use value. Talking about sophistry, I have yet to hear from our resident sophist, Prakash, how exactly he proposes to ensure that, in what he calls "communism", everyone will be forced to make exactly the same labour contribution as everyone else. Who is going to do the enforcing, Prakash? How do you ensure that the enforcers won't themselves use their power to abuse the system and get out of doing their "fair share of the work"? After all, according to your bourgeois way of thinking, work is a "disutilty" and so we must be compelled to work. And how are you going to measure one person's labour against another's anyway? Is one hour of labour in a kitchen making soup equivalent to one hour's labour cleaning the sewer or knitting a jumper? Explain Spit it out Prakash. Give us your specific concrete answers to these specific concrete questions instead of just waffling on vaguely about stuff – like beliefs not based on "sound logic" being "unbecoming of the sensible". Yeah if you say so, mate The same criticism applies to the demand side of the equation, Acccording to your bouregeois way of thinking you cant have people just helping themselves to goods according to their self determined needs cos, well , wealth is limited and people are basically greedy swines arent they? This same sentiment is faithfully echoed in any standard bourgeois economic textbook. This is the ABC of capitalist econmic thinking that you are faithfully spouting: limited supplies and unlimited demands. You have simply not grasped what communism (socialism) is about at all or the precoditions upon which it will operate. If people think and behave in the way you suggest then you can't have communism. End of story. Communism presupposes people understand the kind of society they are creating for themselves and take responsbility for ensuring it works. Even today people, despite capitalism, very often behave in ways that contradict what you claim. Most work for example is not paid or forced upon people by some external power. You dont grow your veggies or clean your bedroom or volunteer to help your local charitable cause because the local authorities have passed some edict requring you to do these things. You do it becuase you want to do it and because you feel the need to do it. Similarly, if you visit a restuarant where you can eat as much as you like for a set price you dont eat more than you need becuase being sick would rather defeat the point of the exercise, wouldnt it?. There are countless other examples of real world behavour that confound and refute your dreary pessimistic view of the communistic potential of ordinary human beings. It is high time you started to get to grips with the case for communism instead of constantly evading the arguments that support it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.