Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Young Master Smeet]

Kautsky remains a wqorthy opponent on this subject:

Quote:

There could be no greater error than to consider that one of the tasks of a socialist society is to see that the law of value is brought into perfect operation and that only equivalent values are exchanged. The law of values is rather a law peculiar to a society for production for exchange.Production for exchange is that manner of production in which with a developed division of labor independent producers produce for one another. But no manner of production can exist without a definite proportionality in production. The number of labor powers at the disposal of society is limited, and production can only be continued when a corresponding number of productive forces are active in each branch of existing production. In a communistic society labor will be systematically regulated and the labor power be assigned to the individual branches of production according to a definite plan. In the production for exchange this regulation is obtained through the law of value. The value of each product is determined not by the labor time actually applied to it but by the socially necessary time for its production. With the modification that this law receives in capitalist production by profits rye are not concerned because this would only unnecessarily complicate the analysis without bringing any new knowledge to the question. The socially necessary labor time in each branch of labor is determined on the one side by the height of its technique in any society and the customary exertion of labor, etc., in short through the average productive power of the individual laborers; on the other side, however, by the number of products demanded by the social necessity of a particular branch of labor, and finally by the total number of labor powers at the disposal of society. Free competition sees to it to-day that the price of products, that is to say the amount of money that one can exchange for them, is continually tending towards the value determined. by the socially necessary labor time. In this manner the result is attained that the production in each department of labor, in spite of the fact that it is not regulated from any central point, never goes very far, or continues long away from the proper level. Without the law of value the anarchy that rules in the production for exchange would soon end in an inextricable chaos.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htmIn fact, though., he misses the fact that Marx repeatedly notes that  the market system itself radically divorces prive from value, the greater the advance of capitalism the more price will deviate from value.Now, abstract labour time probably isn't worth measuring, except in broad terms (assuming a rough equalisation of the working week, simple headcounts will suffice per branch of industry).Concrete labour, measures of available doctors, plumbers, etc. would be more useful, not through some sort of registry, but stats on training, employment, etc. would need to be kept, possibly at the firm level and shareed for deep data mioning.

[Anonymous]

Alan Kerr wrote:

 The above quote from Marx, about Robinson Crusoe, is “… in essence the production relations in a new socialist world…” (Mike Schauerte Socialist Standard for September 2017.) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357… I've read Mises' point on this now and I still agree with Mike Schauerte. If workers, like Marcos and Vin, really think that the essence does not matter, then they have no alternative to the market and its problems.

I don't think so, I have met many factory workers and peasants  ( I am not talking about rocking chair theoreticians )  who have understood economic theory much better than any academic economists. I knew one who only had a high school degree who Knew capital, and Hegel by heart.  I started to read Marx when I was 16 years old and I did not need anybody to hold me by my hands. The problems with workers  is that they have been heavily influenced by the capitalist ideology, it is not an abstraction

[Anonymous]

Alan Kerr wrote:

 The above quote from Marx, about Robinson Crusoe, is “… in essence the production relations in a new socialist world…” (Mike Schauerte Socialist Standard for September 2017.) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357… I've read Mises' point on this now and I still agree with Mike Schauerte. If workers, like Marcos and Vin, really think that the essence does not matter, then they have no alternative to the market and its problems.

Does a worker need to know the history of money to become a socialist, or to join the Socialist Party?  I don't think so. we have pamphlets and articles which explain socialist conceptions in a  very concise manner If you want essence you can join the Hegelian club, and you are going to have an extensive amount of intellectual exercises, but that does not resolve the essential problems that workers are facing at the present time, I was part of that Club, and I left. The great writer known as CLR James was part of that club and he left because he did not find any substance in those intellectual discussions

[Alan Kerr]

Are you saying that quote from Marx, on Robinson Crusoe, is not clear to anyone? If so then what part is not clear? If you could show that it's not clear, then still, that would not disprove it one way or the other.

[Ike Pettigrew]

twc wrote:

Dear Ike,Use value and exchange value are not abstract.

Did I say they were?  I don't recall saying that.

[Dave B]

for interest the crusoe thing is also in the first edition or version of capital volume one in a slightly different form.the standard version of volume one is the second version; thus Let us take Robinson Crusoe on his island. Modest as he naturally is, nevertheless he has various needs to satisfy and must therefore perform useful labours of various sorts, make tools, build furniture, tame llamas, fish, hunt etc. We do not refer at this time to praying and other such activities, since our Robinson derives enjoyment from them and regards such activity as recreation. Despite the variety of his productive functions, he knows that they are only various forms of activity of one and the same Robinson, and thus are only different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to divide his time exactly between his various functions. Whether the one takes more space and the other takes less in the totality of his activity depends upon the greater or lesser difficulty which must be overcome for the attainment of the intended useful effect. Experience teaches him that much, and our Robinson who saved watch, diary, ink and pen from the shipwreck begins to keep a set of books about himself like a good Englishman. His inventory contains a list of the objects of use which he possesses, of the various operations which are required for their production, and finally of the labour-time which particular quanta of these various products cost him on the average. All relationships between Robinson and the things which form his self-made wealth are here so simple and transparent that even Mr. Wirth[6] can understand them without particular mental exertion. And nevertheless all essential determinations of value are contained therein.If we now put an organization of free men in Robinson’s place, who work with common means of production and expend their many individual labour-powers consciously as one social labour-power, all the determinations of Robinson’s labour are repeated: but in a social rather than an individual way. Nevertheless, an essential difference emerges. All Robinson’s products were his exclusively personal pro- duct, and were thereby immediately objects of use for him. The total product of the organization is a social product. One part of this product serves again as means of production. It remains social. But another part is used up by the members of the organization as necessities. This part must be divided up among them. The manner of this division will change with the particular manner of the social production-organism itself and the comparable historical level of development of the producers. Only for the sake of the parallel with commodity-production do we presuppose that each producer’s share of necessities of life is determined by his labour-time. In such a case, the labour-time would play a dual role. Its socially planned distribution controls the correct proportion of the various labour-functions to the various needs. On the other hand, the labour-time serves at the same time as the measure of the individual share of the producer in the common labour, and thereby also in the part of the common product which can be used up by individuals. The social relationships of men to their labour and their products of labour remained transparently simple in this case, in production as well as in distribution.Whence comes the puzzling character of the labour-product as soon as it assumes the form of commodity? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm  this article by Fred from 1844 is quite interesting as it covers alot of ground ie use value versus exchange value etc etc  it also is a good indication of how far ahead of Karl Fred was; and who in fact taught whom. i am guessing it is the same one as Fred referred to in anti duhring that we talked about earlier https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm   

[Alan Kerr]

Marcos, On his island, Crusoe has no money to study. Maybe Crusoe's way to stay alive could help him to make sense of what he recalls of old price-lists. But on Crusoe's island, an old price list would be just like on old sea-chart with mistakes all over it. And there is no Hegel club to help Crusoe, not on his island. So Crusoe hits upon the idea of just counting his labour-time costs. To Crusoe, his labour is just his labour and is not the same as money. Crusoe knows that labour-hours to make a hut from wood are skilled labour. Hours to make a stack of firewood are just simple labour. But, in Crusoe's counting, his labour hours are just his labour hours. And if you look at Crusoe's bookkeeping then an average hour = an average hour whether skilled or simple labour. To Crusoe 1 hour of skilled = 1 hour of simple labour. To Crusoe with skilled and simple labour the ratio is just 1:1. Yes, I know how Marx says that Crusoe's relations with the things which Crusoe makes "… contain all that is essential to the determination of value." But that also tells us that Crusoe does not bother himself in inessential details. A market competition would make each skilled hour to make a hut count as something more than 1 hour of making a simple stack of firewood. Yes, Crusoe could also count skilled as something more than simple-labour. But what does Crusoe care about that? It's up to Crusoe to choose. In his bookkeeping Crusoe chooses to make 1 hour skilled count as 1 hour simple-labour. Crusoe's first task is to stay alive, small scale. We need Crusoe's same way to stay alive, but full-scale. Can Crusoe stay alive? If anyone can spot some reason, why Crusoe's way will not keep him alive then please share it. If anyone can spot some reason, why Crusoe's way (full-scale) will not keep us alive then please share it. Without some way to stay alive, we do not stay alive. That's even if we read Hegel or not. If workers, like Marcos and Vin, just want to dismiss what is essential to Crusoe's way (full-scale) then they have no alternative to Mises' old (capitalist) way. The working class do need an alternative to the capitalist way. To stay alive we need plenty besides just SPGB booklets. Like Crusoe, we need a workable way to get food… But please see the Socialist Standard for September 2017.

[ALB]

Alan Kerr wrote:

But, in Crusoe's counting, his labour hours are just his labour hours. And if you look at Crusoe's bookkeeping then an average hour = an average hour whether skilled or simple labour. To Crusoe 1 hour of skilled = 1 hour of simple labour. To Crusoe with skilled and simple labour the ratio is just 1:1. Yes, I know how Marx says that Crusoe's relations with the things which Crusoe makes "… contain all that is essential to the determination of value." But that also tells us that Crusoe does not bother himself in inessential details.A market competition would make each skilled hour to make a hut count as something more than 1 hour of making a simple stack of firewood.Yes, Crusoe could also count skilled as something more than simple-labour. But what does Crusoe care about that? It's up to Crusoe to choose. In his bookkeeping Crusoe chooses to make 1 hour skilled count as 1 hour simple-labour.

Yes, both Robino Crusoe and socialist society could decide that the ratio of skilled and simple is 1:1, i.e that one hours's work of any kind is counted the same as one hour. That's how most of its supporters have interpreted the labour-time voucher scheme described b Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. This would in fact be the easiest way to make such a scheme workable. But, as you yourself recognise, this would no longer be a parallel to what happens under capitalism to determine "socially necessary labour time" as the labour-time "prices" of the products which the vouchers could be used to redeem would not be the same as their labour-time values under capitalism (nor would the labour-time content of the raw materials, machines, energy, etc used in calculating what to produce).So much, then, for your original claim that socialist society will calculate the "socially necessary labour-time" content better than the market. According to this latest version of your scheme it wouldn't be calculaing this. Not that, anyway, it would need to. Both labour-time vouchers and labour-time accounting (counting every product in labour-time) are unncessary in socialism and, if tried, wouldn't work for long.

[Alan Kerr]

It’s just as I said. Crusoe counts socially necessary labour-time better than the market and not the same as the market. Why can’t that work for long?

[Alan Kerr]

@ALBNow you see it's just as I said all along. Let's all take your latest scheme ALB for what it is,–a reform of market economy. What you describe for your latest scheme for socialism is still the production of commodities. We would still need to go on with market as Lenin also had to go on with market despite Lenin's war-communism.Your latest-ALB-scheme is for an economy of two parts,–of two kinds of products.  Part 1) is a market. That's where you do not bother to count the labour-hours cost. There you are producing commodities. There you need to go on with the market and with the problems of the market.This brings us to. Part 2) and part two is just the same as part one. Here you pretend to count labour-hours but how can you count the labour in raw-materials? Some of the materials will belong to economy 1 where you did not bother to count labour. So here you must also give-up counting labour in economy two for lack of information from economy one. Here, once more, you are producing commodities. Here you also need to go on with the market and with the problems of the market.

[ALB]

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't suppose anyone else does either.

[Alan Kerr]

ALB relax it's easyYou say"… Both labour-time vouchers and labour-time accounting (counting every product in labour-time) are unncessary in socialism and, if tried, wouldn't work for long."(ALB #128)To be clear do you mean right there that Crusoe's bookkeeping would work or not?And then if not why not?

[Alan Kerr]

 @ALB,  On another island, almost the same as Robinson's island let's meet ALB Crusoe. ALB Crusoe keeps note of all he produces. But ALB Crusoe has memory loss since a nut fell on his head. ALB Crusoe forgets to wind-up his watch and his watch works just intermittently. Can you see why ALB Crusoe can never be quite sure of labour-time cost of any product? No? The whole thing is a mess. For one product, ALB Crusoe may know just the last labour-time but not the raw materials. For another product, ALB Crusoe may know the labour-time in the raw materials but not the last labour. In the end, ALB Crusoe does not know the real cost of his products at all. Although ALB Crusoe is the owner of the means of production for all that, it is just as if we had split production between two private firms producing for a market. A kind of information black-out divides the different kinds of labour.  Of course, this divide skews all ALB Crusoe's bookkeeping and his economic choices. Please note Dave's point above about raw-materials. See my comment #102  Here I just ask you, now you've seen both Robinson Crusoe's and ALB Crusoe's systems. Which will you choose as the plan for full-scale socialist society?

[ALB]

I was going to reply to your earlier question as to why a labour-time system wouldn't work for long. Of course the labour-time voucher scheme mentioned by Marx wasn't supposed to be permanent. But then you made the ridiculous claim that because we don't advocate labour-time vouchers the Party is advocating commodity production. Particularly ridiculous as your scheme of labour-time vouchers and labour-time prices for goods and services is much nearer to production for sale.So that you can acquaint yourself more with what we stand for please read these articles:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-801-may-1971/labour-time-vouchershttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative#ch4https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-1000-december-1987/socialism-and-calculationhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no2-winter-1984/how-socialism-can-organise-production-without-money-2http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/world-socialist-no2-winter-1984/how-socialism-can-organise-production-without-money-1Then you will be in a position to criticise what we do stand for rather than what you imagine we stand for.

[Dave B]

i I think Adam is throwing smoke and sand into the air here with simple and skilled labour along with SNLT., and labour vouchers. And we are talking about moneyless communism. To clarify the matter I have no choice but to go back to a basic lesson on the scientific method. I think professor Brain Cox has a good point when he says that Marxism is a load of bollocks but mainly because I suspect that he gets it from Marxist that don’t understand the scientific method. I think we can start off with the Galileo's experiment at Leaning Tower of Pisa ‘experiment’. It is just a few seconds youtube and easy enough.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbC4sSEfEqw  The point here is that it was in fact a ‘rigged’ experiment; as the second youtube with Prof Brain Cox illustrates.  Galileo didn’t throw feathers and ‘heavy’ [ high density] balls from the top of the tower of Pisa as the otherwise interesting experiment wouldn’t have worked. As the second youtube makes clear; which is just a repeat of the falcon feather and hammer experiment.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyeF-_QPSbk  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk Ok then, what is the point and what has this got to do with SNLT, simple versus skilled [ and for that matter something not yet mentioned intensity of labour time value ] and the labour time of value etc etc? The scientific method nearly always involves empirically observing interesting and simple relationships in somewhat idealised and narrow circumstances to create a mathematical model. Thus a 1kg lead ball falling to the ground a the same speed and rate etc as a 10KG lead ball is interesting as it is counter intuitive as we are more used to thinking in terms of light feathers and heavy balls. The same is true of the classic gas laws; 1 Boyle's Law2 Charles' law 3 Gay-Lussac's law  They are a pile of bollocks as well and only work under a narrow set of circumstances. The scientific method involves simplifying to an ideal model, developing a theory to explain that. And plugging the theory back into complex situations to see if it still makes some kind of sense and developing new theories as to why it doesn’t ‘work’ in less than ideal situations with a ‘rigged’ dataset of empirical experimental observations etc. So the labour time value of unskilled low intensity labour time does not exchange at equal value to low intensity skilled [ Prof brain Cox] labour anymore than feathers or ping pong balls fall to the ground at the same speed and rate etc as cannon balls. Early scientist had a bit of a handle on this as they developed better vacuum pumps etc. So something like the feathers fell faster in increasing partial vacuums in a glass bottle so they could see it. And they reckoned they could extrapolate that to a total what they could expect in a total vacuum.  Others started dropping lead balls into liquids gooey and not so gooey and realised that the problem was that air was a bit gooey really and that was what was screwing up the hammer and feather thing. But that helped to design planes; those big heavy things that float on the air. The labour time theory of value is likewise a simple/ idealised and thus potentially ‘flawed’ scientific model if you take it too ‘far and literally’. So I think we need to pan back as to what it actually means. As labour time as a measure of  ‘value ’ might not be the best way of thinking about it. Since eve talked to the snake we have had to work so we could loaf about after woods in the realm of freedom. Although in capitalism we work so the ruling class now loaf about in the realm of freedom.  http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-19.htm  If work becomes a pleasure then it is not ‘work’  in my opinion and thus has ‘no value’ as labour time value is predicated on it being shit and something you have to do and time lost in the enjoyment of your lifetime  rather than having a fun time.

[Author]

Posts