Socialism with wages.
- This topic has 23 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin , go to Marx and Gotha and i think he explains there that it is impossible for the worker to get back 100% of his value in a wage. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
alanjjohnstone wrote:Vin , go to Marx and Gotha and i think he explains there that it is impossible for the worker to get back 100% of his value in a wage.Surely 'value' is a social relationship, not something any worker can 'have'?Isn't the belief that 'money' (ie. a wage) represents 'value' (and so the 'market socialists' assume individuals can use money to 'get back 100% of the value' they produce in a wage) the crux of the ideological problem?My advice to Vin is to simply point out to his opponent that he (his opponent) isn't a Communist. That's why Vin's opponent doesn't 'get it'.
I think that was exactly what Marx was saying, LBird …a social product.Vin said his opponent claims to be some Marx expert, i simply suggest he demonstrates his protagonist's knowledge of Marx is limited and his interpretation of Marx is wrong by using Marx. I think this is the relevant part. I am sure there are experts out there on Marxist Holy Scripture who can direct Vin to other chapters and verses. "Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."……Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether."Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning."
alanjjohnstone wrote:I think that was exactly what Marx was saying, LBird …a social product.Yeah, I learned a lot from you on LibCom, in the debates with various ‘market socialists’ (PARECON, IOPS, ID, etc.), if you recall!
ajj wrote:Vin said his opponent claims to be some Marx expert, i simply suggest he demonstrates his protagonist's knowledge of Marx is limited and his interpretation of Marx is wrong by using Marx.In many ways, though, it is just simpler to point out that his protagonist isn’t a Communist.I suspect they’re just an individualist who’s read Marx, and can quote chunks, but doesn’t get ‘Communism’ and its view of ‘value’.They probably think that ‘value’ is simply something that is ‘valuable’, and thinks that an individual can determine what’s ‘valuable’ for oneself. This ‘individualist’ reading of ‘value’ is what is behind the ‘market’: the notion that individuals can have an objective measure of ‘valuability’ (ouch!) embodied in ‘money’. Whilst anyone thinks that they are ‘an individual’ and can recognise ‘value’, they don’t understand Marx and are not a Communist.Simply put, ‘individuals’ can’t see/observe/recognise/touch ‘value’, because it’s not a ‘thing’, and it isn’t embodied in ‘money’.‘Value’ is an expression of an exploitative relationship (that is, of the ‘social blood’ sucked by a vampire from its victim, of a ‘class’ relationship).Marx must be read from the perspective, the vantage point, of Communism. Non-communists of necessity can’t understand ‘value’ or Marx’s Capital. There is no objective observation point in the world, neither for physics nor economics. One has to choose.Vin’s protagonist should be made to expose their ideological view of ‘value’. My advice to Vin is to probe their ideology, because otherwise they’ll go round in circles, with neither understanding the other.If Vin’s protagonist believes in ‘individual identification of value’ (usually through ‘money’), they should have it pointed out to them that that’s not Marx’s view. If they’re an American professor, I think it unlike that they are a Communist, of our sort (ie. ‘free access’, rather than ‘individual worth’).
Vin,Please ignore LBird’s pronouncements on Capital, which he misunderstands because he has not read it.Sample LBird misrepresentations of Capital include: (1) “value isn’t embodied in ‘money’”; (2) “whilst anyone thinks that they … can recognise ‘value’, they don’t understand Marx and are not a Communist"; etc.Marx flatly contradicts LBird.Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 3, “Commodities and Money”:“The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable”.“Money serves as a universal measure of value”.“Money … the universal equivalent form of value in general”.“Money is the measure of value inasmuch as it is the socially recognised incarnation of human labour”.“The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money”.“This is precisely the reason why the product of his labour serves him solely as exchange-value. But it cannot acquire the properties of a socially recognised universal equivalent, except by being converted into money”.This should be enough warning to treat LBird’s pronouncements with extreme caution.Perhaps the only pronouncement you can trust is LBird’s unconscious self-lampoon that “Non-communists of necessity can’t understand ‘value’ or Marx’s Capital”.
twc wrote:Vin,Please ignore LBird’s pronouncements on Capital, which he misunderstands because he has not read it.You and the SPGB remain with twc, Vin, and remain mystified, along with most workers.twc's ideology and methods are no way to help inform our class. The 20th century has proved beyond doubt that the mere quoting Marx doesn't explain anything.Unless and until Marx's ideas are more clearly explained, we will continue to fail.
TWC, try and keep your eye on the ball and don't become distracted by trying to score debating points with LBird, right or wrong or whatever. Vin asked for assistance dealing with a critic. I offered a possible answer but i'm no theorist or expert but i thought it was a correct reply. Lbird thought such a response was unnecessary preferring simply to deny Vin's opponent is a socialist "My advice to Vin is to simply point out to his opponent that he (his opponent) isn't a Communist."And later quiz him more on the basis for his belief rather than the belief itself…(or so i think he meant)Was my suggestion on track as a proper response? Can you offer other arguments/sources to support the idea that you cannot pay a worker his wage plus surplus value? You obviously have a better grasp of Marxist economics than myself …Surplus value i believed was simply another name for rent dividend and interest , the divvy up among the thieves, from which the employer also then has to pay the tax for the state and all manner of its expenses, unwelcomed but unavoidable. take away the 3 and you still need to pay the State for social costs…education health old age etc etcAnd i'm sure there is also the argument about the supply chain…all part of the social cost…the prospector, the miner, the transporter, the smelter, the transporter again , the manufaturer, etc etc until society ends up with a finished product…i'm sure thats a part of the issue too And i think Marx also said that labour -power exchanges at its value…but it is also the rare exception …that it is decided by the respective combatant powers of buyer and seller…or something like that…As i said i'm myself confused often so Vin needs your more informed advice
Vin, another way of putting it, is that 'money' (and its version for proletarians, a 'wage') is a measure of 'theft-success'.As 'value' is produced by an exploitative economic relationship between the vampires (bosses) and victims (workers), its 'expression' or 'universal equivalent', that is, 'money' is how we can understand the relationship.If one has little money, one is a donor (a 'value-producer'); if one has much money, one is a bloodsucker (a 'value-vacuum').This is why 'money' (or 'wages') can play no part in Communism, but your professorial protagonist argues that it can.Money is not a measure of 'individual effort' (and so would be an 'objective' reward for work done, according to the 'market socialists'), but is a measure of 'theft-success'. Money requires an exploitative relationship.Without exploitation, there is no 'money'.The retention of 'money' will mean the retention of exploitation.
I think I am handling my opponent reasonably well, I think I was just wondering if anyone had come across such a silly argument in the past. Is it a known interpretation of Marx ? Anyone can have a go at the 'expert marxist' here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sp7SZzDiI&list Alan, I have used the Critique of the Gotha Programme which I think hits the nail on the head. Let's see how he responds.
Hi Vin, good to see you beavering away, as usual.I tried logging onto that site several times, but failed. This topic is way above my "pay grade" but I still have a couple of questions you might ask for me. Quote "there aren't any capitalists anymore. The surplus is being paid to you."So why do we need money? Secondly, one of the many things mankind needs is a cure for ALL cancers. Not money making treatments, but a real "one stop" cure. We need as many people as necessary working on that cure, with whatever resources they need.If workers are being paid ALL the surplus, why do we not have the manpower and resources to effect a cancer cure?And if Bill Gates is not a capitalist, what is he and where does he get this wealth, which is not a surplus?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Was my suggestion on track as a proper response? Can you offer other arguments/sources to support the idea that you cannot pay a worker his wage plus surplus value?I know your question was aimed at twc, but, once again, I think that delving into Marx and economics, without being clear about one's own ideological position, is a recipe for falling into a swamp of misunderstanding.The simple reason a worker "can't be paid a wage plus surplus value" is that that mechanism in operation would make the 'worker' into a 'boss'.A 'money-wage' can't be equivalent to what the worker produces. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore the production process.The very suggestion, (by Vin's opponent?), shows that the person suggesting it has no understanding of the role a 'wage' plays in the process of production.A 'wage' isn't something an individual can have, and the basis of the very suggestion is that 'we are all individuals', rather than a productive community of humans, 'a society'.Vin must challenge his protagonist on these ideological lines, otherwise the discussion will be upon philosophical grounds that both parties will remain unaware of.If Vin is a Communist, it seems obvious to me that his opponent isn't. Discussing 'economics' outside of ideology is impossible. There are no 'objective facts' of economics which exist outside of an ideological, interpretive, framework.Pretending to 'just discuss the facts' means that the persons doing the discussing are ignorant of their own 'framework'. As Communists, we're not ignorant of our framework, and we distain to hide it.
northern light wrote:I tried logging onto that site several times, but failed. This topic is way above my "pay grade" but I still have a couple of questions you might ask for me.It is Youtube so I am not sure you need to log-on. I know you need a google email account to comment which is easily done by going to gmail.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.