Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is interesting. But you forget to mention something key to this.The SPGB Preamble says that"… The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist production."(SPGB Preamble)From this point of view, we do not shape our way to produce as we want. But it is rather our way to produce that shapes what we want.That’s how some at least of the SPGB think. It is also how some at least of the old SLP thought. According to this, to make a step forwards our step must also make us more productive. It is a practical question.It is as Marx and Engels said"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer."(Communist Manifesto)Of course, Marx and Engels were saying something very new there. In fact, the socialists of the old school do want to be universal reformers. It is the socialists of the old school who want to give future society a once and for all true way to share wealth. To them this must depend on their true socialist beliefs or what socialists want or something. But future society must really see what works best in detail by counting labour-time costs at the time and as we go on with changing things.
You must still cost your ways and means. All water companies use money to cost their ways and means to treat and supply water. Money works better than nothing. But, for the society future, labour-time will work better than money.
Never just say, if your socialism can work as if this doesn’t matter either way. This does matter. Prove what can work. Computers and use of computers are making this proof inevitable. And you should see the Socialist Standard for September 2017.
@YMS Plot 1 was three times as productive as plot 3… With labels plot 1 is still three times as productive as plot 3. With your ration voucher-scheme teacher gets ration vouchers too (I hope). These vouchers you must deduct from other workers' share. With a labour time voucher-scheme teacher gets labour time vouchers too. These vouchers we must deduct from other workers' share. In each case, what you want is less transparent and therefore is like the production of commodities. In each case, what we want is more transparent and therefore is less like the production of commodities. @Robbo Thank you Robbo as you seem to be thinking hard about this. I explained this point to ALB, I hope he gets this now. I told ALB "I did not mean to give the impression that you wanted commodity production. I said that you must have workable alternative or commodity production is where you must end up." (My comment #136) I claim that since so far you have no workable alternative, so commodity production is where you must end up. Now I add that if you "1) fail to count labour hours properly plus 2) try to suppress £s then you will have to issue your crisis SPGB ration-voucher scheme." (My comment #194) My guess right there seems to be coming true already as YMS says "… Rationing would actuially be better than labour time vouchers…" (YMS comment #195) Next you say "You have not really explored the alternative to fullscale labour accounting. It does not forsake the "counting of labour." It simply mean focussing only on what Marx called "living labour" rather than "dead labour.". You want to use a labour as a universal unit of account mimicking the role of money which is indeed necessary under capitalism to establish equivalence in exchange. But some of us, at any rate, reject completely the need for a universal unit of account and advocate instead calculation in kind. Units of living labour will be counted in just the same way as as any other input on the basis of a self regulating system of stock control which efficiently monitors the supply of these things in real time…" (Robbo comment #197) But Rob, I answered ALB on that one too. ALB says "I still think these are references to matching living labour, i.e the work resources available to socialist society, to what needs to be produced in a given period, which will obviously have to happen and will involve calculations (though not just of labour time available but of the availability of other productive resources too). In other words, it's about current production e.g. about the labour-time needed to produce a steam engine from materials already available. But the amount of labour-time spent during the last stage of the production of something (which is what would be involved here) is not the same as the amount of socially-necessary labour incorporated in it (which includes the labour-time spent on producing the raw materials, energy, and wear and tear of the machines). In Marxian terms, it's v + s (as opposed to v + s + c). In conventional economics it's "value added" not total value." (From ALB comment #97) So I asked ALB "But ALB does your interpretation there stand up at all? Let's test it. Suppose someone wants a wedding ring for their wife. Then a gold ring set with a diamond costs the same, or less, than a cheap metal ring set with a glass bead. That's not counting raw materials. Gold and diamonds are available after all. The community will also want a new house. A full-load of gold bars cost less than a full-load of clay bricks. Again, that's just so long as we are not counting the dead-labour in mining the raw materials. Does the community need 5 beds? Best make the beds from gold. That will cut costs – not counting the raw materials. Best make the steam engine from gold and platinum too. Who cares what platinum costs in human labour? It's just a raw material. "But no, your interpretation there will not stand up at all. "We must also count the labour-time spent on producing the raw materials, energy, and wear and tear of the machines – in Marxian terms, v + s + c." http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA8.html#Part III, Chapter 8 (From my comment #102) But you Robbo say "That is what we need to know for the purpose of allocating labour inputs – not past labour inputs which is not a particuarly useful guide to the future allocation of these inputs anyway unless what you are proposing is a totally static society in which there will be no technological change whateover " (Robbo comment #197) Again Crusoe is not static. See my comment #173 about Crusoe's new fish trap.
1) Now, to reveal properly how to know under Crusoe's labour-time system (small or full-scale) which spud comes from which plot. The answer is that on each spud sack you have a label. 2) And now, under Crusoe's labour-time system (small or full-scale) how does teacher stay alive? Yes, the teacher must stay alive by eating food, wearing clothes… and who will produce the food and clothes? It is the worker who will do that. And let's note here that teacher is worker too. Teacher helps to train the student to produce food and clothes. Not just this but, from a young age, as training, with practice and health and safety the student also produces food and clothes (part time). Student is part time worker and worker is part time student. Not just this but teacher will also produce food and clothes as well as teaching (part time). Under Crusoe's labour-time system (if full-scale at least) over a time when anyone is producing nothing, they can still eat fresh food. How is this so? The answer is then that other workers are still growing food. And other workers are still making clothes and building schools etc. If you followed this thread, then you should already know how Crusoe's way works full-scale. That future society will find in detail (counting labour-time properly with computers) what works best at the time. And you should know how same will not work if you do not bother to count labour hours properly, or to make best use of the numbers, then cash market and the mess we have now will go on. If you 1) fail to count labour hours properly plus 2) try to suppress £s then you will have to issue your crisis SPGB ration-voucher scheme. And your ration-vouchers, or something else, will circulate as cash. Again, if you followed this thread then you should see it. In that case, even if SPGB could suppress continuation of cash, SPGB would in that case have achieved nightmare SPGB Commissar's Death Camp Society. Please say if anything is still not quite clear. And please note that I also put some questions for you to answer. Please see my comment #189
@ALB So long as now is not the future, where is your comment #188 not as I am saying all along? I want a clear target to attack
@YMS you say "To illustrate my own way: young Billy was the luckiest boy in all of Fulchester, for he had three patches of socialist land, which grew potatoes. On Plot A you could harvest 30 kilos of [potatoes per hour. Open Plot B you could gather 20 kilos of potatoes per hour, and on Plot C 1 kilo per hour. "So, the labour value of spuds from plot A is one third of those from plot C. So, we have two choices, either we average out the values, and say that all potatoes have a labour value of 20 kilos per hour, which would have the ffect of misallocating labour among the plots, or, we price the potatoes from each plot at theoir exact rate, which will lead to market distortions as people will prefer plot A spuds, and will only buy B & C when A run out. Also, what do we do when the tatties make it to the chippy, and become intermediate goods, how would we know which spud came from which plot?"(From YMS comment #187))Oh, you want to know how to know which spud comes from which plot?I promise to try to answer your question properly. But first please let me answer your question with a question. The question is this. If you did not know, which plots save labour or which plots waste labour, how then could you know which spud comes from which plot?Next, you say"Further, we would need to address unproductive tasks, such as teaching, that do not create a transferable object. teachers need to consume, and so we would have to include a portion of goods produced for them, which would mean that "productive" workers would only get a portion of their labour vouchers allocated to them."(From YMS comment #187)Of course, where school belongs to a capitalist employer the teacher is productive. Otherwise, how do we explain profits received now by owners of pay-schools?I promise to try to address education of the future where we all own the means to work.But next tell me. Are you saying that (for that future society) if you fail to count labour hours then you will get your full-labour product all as means of subsistence? Either with vouchers or no vouchers,–how will that work for everyone? How do you address that?
@ALB Well, for a start, we are already counting labour-time and our computing power to count labour-time is growing with each day. First it's a supply chain that we are talking about next a network of connections that radiates outwards ultimately embraces the totality of production. No one can stop us not even Baron Ludwig von Mises. It is ridiculous to try to stop us. This information is good for the working class. It is the one way to make the production of commodities impossible by putting something better in place.
@ALB Newsflash: Out in the society where I live, old obstinate friend, we are buying and selling products as commodities.
Thanks Dave, I do not get ALB's fear that where we know the number of labour-hour's result is commodities. Where we already know the number of labour hours (inside the firm) result is not commodities. Where we do not yet know the number of labour hours (out in society) result is commodities.a.alan.alan2@gmail.com
RobboTotal labourers = 1 CrusoeMaterials = 4 hoursAdd to materials = 7 hoursResult 1 wicker fish-trapEstimated average life of fish-trap = 5 tides.Check trap at low-tides = 0.5 hours(1 tide) result = 2 fishCost of 2 fish =11 hours/5 = 2.2 hours + 0.5 hours = 2.7 hoursNow check it2.7 – 0.5 = 2.2 x 5 = 11 hours – 7 = 4 hours materials (this seems right)I do not say that this is right. Please go ahead and double check. I was hopeless at sums.Crusoe found counting in his head hard at first. But since Crusoe found pens and stationery, it is child's play for him.Crusoe treats 1 hour skilled as = to 1 hour simple labour as this suits his purpose small-scale. And it also suits our purpose full-scale.How do you know that what may seem hard today may not be child's play tomorrow with computers?If you like to gamble then please buy raffle tickets.Production is far too important.
No Bijou I do not mind which words we use so long as we are clear in what we mean. To attach value to our product is what we must do today. That’s because we do not yet know the average labour-time in our product by counting. But Crusoe knows the average labour-time in his product by counting.We simply need to be clear in what we mean here.I asked you to"Please revise the whole passage from Marx to make it say what you say it should say. And please share your revision here so that we can comment on it.(From my reply #167 to you Bijou)Here's the whole passage from Marxhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=10#comment-45296Here's another quote for you"… From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15"Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877 Part III: Socialism IV. Distribution (Near end of chapter)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=9#comment-45275Bijou it would be good if you revise both the passage from Marx and this one from Engels.We should read your revisions and we should discuss them here.
Robbo We could say that Crusoe counts the labour in his product. If you mean exactly the same thing then say that Crusoe attaches a value to his product. But Crusoe gets at the labour in his product by counting. Things like size, weight, taste… attached to his product are rather to do with use-value.
Yes Crusoe's hut is Crusoe's and"… The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary…"(Marx)Please revise the whole passage from Marx to make it say what you say it should say. And please share your revision here so that we can comment on it.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=10#comment-45296
