Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you,It’s difficult.The SPGB is so small.Workers still need a big Party of their own.I was pleased to find this forum.It’s not pointless to deal with the essence.
@VinHow do you know others may not wish to say their say?To inform their choice the people need to know and to compare human labour hour cost.Only then, is choice clear. The Socialist Preamble says that capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.The boards cost the new society a lot of human labour hours.People choose to work in the easiest way.Any new society, if it is to be a step forwards, must save on rather than waste human labour hours.And any society needs a way shift total labour around in a way which keeps producer alive.With Crusoe’s way to organize production, (small or full scale) producer needs to know labour time cost. See the answer to the question here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133There “we have in essence the production relations in a new socialist world.”See this month’s Socialist Standard.
@MarcosWhy not simply try to answer the question? #386I thank The SPGB for welcoming questions here.
@Tim KilgallonIs there no need for the people to choose one way or the other?Do you mean that the people 1) dither 2) dither till they can’t dither any longer and 3) dither some more?
Project Management also calls for choosing.The new society must still choose.How will they choose? Question #386This is really the same question as #289Crusoe also had to choose.For help see this month’s Socialist Standard.But don’t be slow.On the amount of dithering here, average worker will decide that the new society must descend into famine, dictatorship and Lenin’s New Economic Policy.
This question is to everyone.Let’s say that we have got rid of capitalist society.Let’s say that new society needs some wood.New society must fell and cut trees into boards.Next new society must dry boards.The new society must choose.Will they 1) air dry or 2) kiln dry?How will they choose?There’s no need to answer that they will choose by votes.In that case, I will just need to ask how voter will choose.I do not ask if they will choose 1 or 2.But I do ask how they choose.
@robbo203Oh, you raised something I did not say to attack it.I thought it was enough for me to defend just what I already said.To be fair we should look into the argument that you attack.We failed to replace capitalist society 100 years ago.I mean the fact that we can post here is a help compared to no automated online forum. How would you post 100 years ago?You do agree with The Socialist Preamble I think.
@robbo203The Socialist Preamble says that all capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.You did not deny it.But you made a claim, post #338, which must intrigue the reader. You say that the present one and only way to organize total labour is dead as a dodo? And yet something is organizing total labour. What has replaced the dodo? When was this miracle?
robbo203To you robbo capitalist production in general, big or small, is the real hindrance to production. Compared to what? What is your alternative? Would you rather make the scale of production units arbitrary? Would you just trust to pure guesswork? Then how do we know if your Socialist alternative is not the real hindrance compared to the market? How do we know if your alternative is not the real hindrance compared to capitalist production?Any society that just tried to leave production organization to luck would surely starve.Do you claim as if the scale of units of production is just arbitrary? Look around and the market is a graveyard for failed firms. We need to talk about the trend. The trend is not all one way. But the general trend shall we say since introduction of the first machines is to big production. There is a trend. Would you say that this is just arbitrary trend? Then the labour theory is wrong. Then MBellemare is right to claim that the labour theory is wrong. But then MBellemare has not yet explained how come the present population has survived. He has failed so far to explain what is shifting total labour around in a way which keeps us alive.Or do you claim scale of units of production rather depends on efficiency? Then there is nothing arbitrary to it. Then the labour theory still holds good in practice.You have failed to bring us any real argument against our same way to think in The Socialist Preamble.And we see how you robbo are also guilty of speaking of stages. To you about 100 years ago you first got the technological potential to sustain a genuine socialist society worldwide. You don’t say if that is or is not just your own personal guesswork. All we do know is that you are clearly speaking of stages. How come you did not call your stages twaddle? Why call my stages twaddle? What to you is the difference?Please feel free to answer my previous question to MBellemare in post #289https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-automation?page=28#comment-43041
@LBirdConsider the following stage.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is not as yet a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.At this stage we can speak of automation for the big capitalist. Now Automation is a weapon which big capitalist uses in competition against small capitalist and workers.But we can already speak of automation for the worker in the long run. Why?In the long run the big capitalist enterprise becomes a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.So what happens?Workers become aware of ENGELS’ MATERIAL CONDITIONS and establish Socialist Production.This is not in The SPGB Object. But look at The Socialist Preamble. It is in there.If stages were simply about struggle and power as (for instance) MBellemare suggests then they would be arbitrary stages. Then MBellemare would be correct. But these stages are not arbitrary. These stages have an order about them. The order is independent of our will and rather determines our will. So MBellemare is wrong. So Engels, Marx and the Labour Theory are correct.Thank you.
@LBirdThe fact is we can’t avoid stages.Or can you for instance explain how automation could come before simple manufacture?No?Then you must accept stages.Before machines there were not even many wage workers to take part in your struggles.Struggles cannot avoid stages.See The Socialist Preamble.Lenin thought that backward Russia alone 1918 could skip capitalist stages and move to Socialist Production.Lenin did not understand stages.
@VinThank you,Yes I was wrong there.Well then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) automation-for-the-worker comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.Is that better?
