[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Alan Kerr]

 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.

[Alan Kerr]

Then Mises has no point against Crusoe. Does Crusoe use prices? No. Does Crusoe keep count? Yes. Does Crusoe need to reduce 1 hr of skilled into more hrs of unskilled labour? No. All Crusoe does small-scale we can do but full-scale. To be fair I’ll read Mises’ point as I get the chance.

[Alan Kerr]

@ALB, Then which thought does Ludwig von Mises attack and where?

[Alan Kerr]

 Prakash we are pleased, of course, that you brought your thesis here. That’s so even though your thesis is not right. Your thesis got you this far but now don’t let it hold you back. Please keep on with Marx' book. To come-up with original discovery first we need good clear view of what others have done. You can do this. Then we need to see what others fail to see in past or current history. For that, we need work and good luck, so good luck to you.

[Alan Kerr]

@ALB Thank you for comment #105 You say that you are "… not advocating that we only count the labour-time expended at the last stage of the production of something. That would be absurd and lead to the anomalies that you point out. But this is what those who like the idea of labour-time vouchers are committed to as their scheme is based on recording the time spent by "living labour" producing goods and providing services and on fixing the "prices" of goods the vouchers can be used to claim to reflect of this…" Yes, that is commodity production for market. Why is that? The answer is that there is no counting (any better than a market) for what kinds of labour, and how much labour is socially necessary. Hence, need for market price continues. You say that you are "… not at all arguing against calculation but just against the need to calculate the labour-time content of everthing, i.e the need for some general unit of account. Of course socialist society will have to count what work resources are available to produce what is needed, but it will also have to count what other resources are required but in specific units. Labour is counted by time (and particular skill), steel in tonnes, electricity in killowatt-hours, and so on…" But, when we all count our labour hours (the last stage plus previous stage) then we all know, or work-out, the labour time content of everything. Students (where possible) gain from linking training with practice. The new society needs multi-skilled workers. Still, to cost in labour time, the new society has to do with its average labour-hour of no particular skill. You ask "Why try to reduce all producive resources to a laour-time content and to make a point of minimising this — that's what the economic laws of capitalism work to bring about. Even work-time itself need not be minimised when the work is interesting and satisfying. Socialism allows humans precisely to escape from the tyranny of minimising costs that capitalism imposes and allows other thngs to be taken into account such as working conditions and impact on the environment. Labour-time counting and minimising would tend to bring about the same result that capitalism's "law of value" does." The new society always tests substitute ways and means, and there it also wants to know the labour-time costs. Labour-time costs have always asserted themselves. The question here, for the working-class, is shall we let this happen blindly, or make it happen openly.

[Alan Kerr]

ALB I think that you have open mind and want to change your mind as need be. That’s a good start. I agree with Dave's point about raw materials. I want readers easily to follow this.Please excuse repetition"… Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. 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. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution…"(Marx)ALB you say"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."(ALB from comment #97)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

[Alan Kerr]

Thanks Dave,Here's a 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)"*15 As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by Marx's Capital."(Engels)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/notes.htm#n*15

[Alan Kerr]

@ALB"… Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption…"(Marx)The various wants of the community are 1) common wants and 2) individual wants. Labour-time plays a part in the common plan, the proper proportion between 1 and 2 and the different kinds of work to be done.I leave readers to judge.I notice that you don’t mind about counting. You just mind about proper counting that is better than the market. But it is sloppy counting (no better than the market) that leads to scarcity…

[Alan Kerr]

@ALB1) Crusoe uses numbers and yet is no bureaucrat. With practice, he learns to change easily from one skill to another. In this the future society is the same,–but full scale. Yes, that brings a full scale counting exercise. But we have ever better computers.2) In future society"… We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption…"(Marx)3) Good luck with your way to count that's no better than the market. That means a) scarcity b) soviet bureaucrat's forced labour camp and c) return to the market.4) Thank you for discussion. My point should be clear now. The above quote from Marx 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-september-2017/world-without-commoditiesThat future society will find in detail (counting properly with computers) what works best at the time.

[Alan Kerr]

ALB you say"… It will be possible to calculate the actual labour-time taken to produce something…"Yes, you mean something socially necessary.Yes. Let the labour-in (all told) = 10m hours.Let the product = 10m somethings.Cost of 1 something = 10m hours/10m somethings = 1 hour.Result actual labour-time taken to produce I something is just 1 hour.Every owner-worker, with a smartphone, will have free access to such vital information online.I cannot see your problem at all ALB.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

[Alan Kerr]

Prakash,It's good that you are keen to revise where you are wrong.1) For one thing, it is changes in production, such as use of machines that change the socially necessary labour-time to make commodities. The change stems from production. Market forces force the price now down and now up. In the end, the ups and downs will balance. That’s why, on the average, the price covers labour-socially-necessary (value). You are plain wrong to claim as if change in the value and all stems from exchange,–supply and demand. That's where you are giving in to a half-baked (marginal utility economist) argument. See your comment #29. Here's what you say."… Another basic distinction between the use-value and the exchange-value is the fact that while the use-value of a commodity ( say a brand-new product on a shop's shelf ) remains unchanged, its exchange-value ( or value ) may undergo frequent changes because of changes in its supply and demand figures. The exchange-value ( or value ) of a commodity measured and expressed in money, i.e. its money-value, is its price, and it is the price of a commodity that happens to be governed and determined by market forces ( i.e the laws of supply and demand ). The use-value ( i.e. usefulness or worth ) of a commodity is independent of market forces…"(That’s what you say Prakash from your comment #29)You are saying right there that exchange (rather than production) determines value.If you mean what you say in that point then, you are helping the ordinary (marginal utility economist) argument.Do you wish to revise your wording there in your comment #29 Prakash?Until you revise, you cannot explain the value of a commodity. You need to go back to my comment (#18). Until you revise your view of the value of a commodity, how can you explain money? That’s why your view of money is wrong.2) So far, you are all wrong. You fail to explain value so you fail to see the difference between value and use-value. See the same quote, of your comment (#29). Why do you claim there as if use-value of a brand-new product on a shop's shelf does not change with supply and demand?In fact, it does as Marx proves"… If the community's want of linen, and such a want has a limit like every other want, should already be saturated by the products of rival weavers, our friend's product is superfluous, redundant, and consequently useless…"http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA3.html#I.III.31Here the weaver's cloth rests on his shop's shelf as its use-value vanishes. The weaver's cloth is not necessary. Why is that? It's because of the rival weaver's over-supply for the demand. The rival weavers flood the market with cloth.3) So far, you are still all wrong. But the origin of class inequality is simpler. Are you right about that? No.Where does class-inequality come from in the first place? All social classes, without exception, come in the first place, from some kind of work and from the skills to do with that work.The first capitalist employers were previously merchants. When merchant still has just a small part to play then he does not matter much compared to other trades. But as merchant's skills become key, so the merchant class can grow in wealth and power. It is a similar way in which the class of small capitalist employers arise. These changes grow from production and exchange.Why do you ignore the SPGB Preamble…?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-thesis-moneys-incapacity?page=3#comment-44940The SPGB Preamble… explains facts.The way to explain is not just a word-definition. That leaves you facing both ways. It is facts which explain a word-definition which explains the facts? You are simply arguing in a circle.Each step, if a step forwards, must also make it easier to produce wealth.In the free socialist society, of the future, owner-workers need to compute (and better than a market) what kinds of labour, and how much labour is socially necessary. That is becoming possible and inevitable. Only then (with the new alternative in place) is there no more need for a market.In that society, with education and practice, each owner-worker needs to switch easily from one kind of skill to another. Only then is there no more need for class-inequality.

[Author]

Posts