Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Steve-SanFranciscoI repeat.For us what is switching total labour between all those things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means?Total labour is switching between all those things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means.Someone or something is switching total between all those things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means.Again, who or what is switching total labour between all those things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means?Next time you see your tailor ask him what he’s making or how many or what size style pattern or colour. He does not have to give you a straight answer or any answer. Try telling him that it’s all to go into a computer so that you can find if he must switch from tailoring to weaving. He can tell you that’s none of your business. There he would be right. We have private ownership. Can you see that still, you have not answered the question–not yet. That’s ok. We do not mind waiting. When you do answer the question then we can and will answer your conundrum.Thank you.
@Michel Luc BellemareLike you we are all here to learn I think. Time after time Marx learned how things did not change as fast as Marx thought things would change. Time after time he learned by this. To learn is to find a truer view on finding some flaw in previous idea. We are all here to learn I hope.You were not slow to answer this question if only by silence. How are we switching total labour between different products in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means? Any society must have some way. So come on! Which is it?1) Crusoe 2) Prison commissar 3) MarketThe market is currently the one accountant able to organize total labour. The answer is competition. This is the proof of the labour theory. You can see this Michael.But you found a flaw, the heart of the matter. Thank you for sharing what you found.You found that it was impossible to explain profit. That’s if worker gets the value of his commodity labour-power.But, as you see, we have no problem explaining profit when worker’s wage is value of labour-power.
@Michel Luc BellemareThank you Michel,It’s good that you read Marx. It’s good to discuss this with you. But the fatal flaw is in what you say here.“2… The only way for this to happen! is that value, price and wage-determinations must be artificially and arbitrarily machinated at a lower value, price and wage, both conceptually and materially, than it is actually worth in reality.”Here, we need to think of both use-value and value.Since labour in use creates value, and a value greater than its own.Capitalist pays Value of labour-power.But for this capitalist receives Use-Value of labour.Assume here that worker gets full value for his commodity–labour-power.“Its value, like that of all other commodities, is determined by the working-time necessary to its production. If the production of the average daily means of subsistence of the labourer takes up 6 hours, he must work, on the average, 6 hours every day, to produce his daily labour-power, or to reproduce the value received as the result of its sale. The necessary part of his working day amounts to 6 hours, and is, therefore, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], a given quantity. But with this, the extent of the working day itself is not yet given.”(Marx)http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA10.html#Part III, Chapter 10Let the line A
B = necessary working time.Here’s how the system is rigged.Make working day longer by 1, 3 or 6 hours beyond AB and we get working days1) A
B-C2) A
B—C3) A
B
CHere the working day is longer than just AB.1) Capitalist gets one hour for nothing = surplus value.2) Capitalist gets three hours for nothing = surplus value.3) Capitalist gets six hours for nothing = surplus value.@Steve-SanFrancisco Think of total forest rather than just trees. You’re getting it Steve. For us what is switching total labour between all those things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means? 1) Crusoe 2) Prison commissar 3) Please fill in the blank there. It will help us with your conundrum.
@Steve-SanFrancisco@Michel Luc Bellemare Steve, Today Crusoe needs to know how to share total labour between getting (1) means to work–wood to build shelter (2) means to subsist–food to eat today. It is Crusoe who knows to change way to share his total labour-time in a different way each day to stay alive. Can you show that Crusoe has this wrong? Can you show that Crusoe should see what is going on with trees when he stops looking at the forest as a whole? Can you argue that Crusoe should focus just on 1 and forget 2 or vice versa? How would that work out in practice? How then could Crusoe stay alive? You should explain that for us. That is if you are right about the market. When you explain how this can work with Crusoe. Then and only then can anyone take your argument seriously about the market. Michel Luc Bellemare can see this and so he has given up his argument I think. With you the penny has not yet dropped. The penny is about to drop we hope. And if your argument cannot make sense on Crusoe’s island then it cannot make sense anywhere. Then that is the end of your augment. Then the market is working. Then commodities do still tend to sell at price of production.
@robbo203@Michel Luc Bellemare@LBird Robbo203 Robbo this is absolutely on topic Marx and Automation “Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance , is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm Very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. Ways to organize production are not “isms” at all. Yes, they do cause “isms” to flare-up. But no they are rather ways to switch social labour from weaving to tailoring and so forth. We cannot possibly get away from this sharing of social labour in proportions that change all of the time. Michel Luc Bellemare Michael you forget this. You want it that price signals never played a role here or GREED has pushed them aside. Then how come this present way to produce works at all? At this point, your case falls down. @LBird LBird if your ship sinks and you wash-up all alone on an island then you will need Crusoe’s way to organize production–small scale. If you wish to replace capitalist production then you will also need Crusoe’s way but–full scale. Either way you cannot get away from switching your labour between making different things in proportions that change all the time with needs ways and means… This is all absolutely on topic Marx and Automation. Either way you must save and not waste labour hours. We’re not fussed over using different names are we? Not so long as what we mean is clear?
@ LBird,“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.”(Marx)
@ALB Thank you, 1) Yes do please bring letter here. We need to look at it again. “must be a copy somewhere.” 2) I had more than just some sympathy for those poor but wrong-headed Luddites 3) Yes your link here is useful http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357-september-2017/world-without-commodities
@ LBird, You left some more comments. Thank you. Here’s the answer. Very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. Of course new society must grow food, make clothes… abundantly. Fail here and all reverts back to capitalist society. That or a commissars’ prison labour-camp. The one way to solve capitalist-scarcity is Crusoe’s way–full scale. Here once more is link to Crusoe’s way–full scale. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133 You did look to see if 1) Crusoe’s way–full scale is also, what you mean by socialist democracy? You see how the producers both own and control the means of production? Plus there we have “… in essence the production relations in a new socialist world…”(MIKE SCHAUERTE This month’s Socialist Standard) Now if what you mean by socialist democracy is Crusoe’s way–full scale then what? Then very broadly, *we can think of just 3 ways* to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. Or are you sure that, there is an option 4), socialist democracy versus Crusoe’s way then what? Then please prove it. Thank you.
@ALBIt 1) corrected item in your ADM report and 2) argued … That capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production. That the small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist. That the big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. That this supplements your Object So far as we know, I was the first to argue that this supplements your Object. And the argument was right wasn’t it Adam.
@ LBird, No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133
Thank you, I was once SPGB and wrote a one page letter to all members. Adam Buick will be unlikely to forget this. On his advice, I gave to my branch and had hundreds of copies printed for all members of WSM. Branch asked EC to forward copies to companion parties with copies to branches and members of central branch. Please see if you can get copy of that letter and post for anyone to discuss here. It will be relevant to this topic. On your question I’m thinking of how to save on labour as you grow food, make clothes and build homes… Currently the market is your way to achieve that. Democracy is allowing the market to do its work better than dictatorship can. But no the alternative to the market is not just democracy as such.
That’s great Michel. Very broadly, we can think of just 3 ways to organize production. 1) Crusoe’s island 2) prison labour 3) market. You are talking of Marx theory that commodities sell on average at their prices of production. That’s our market today (number 3 above). Today your proprietors are also investors–capitalists. The investors switch capital at once away from cloth to coats. That’s if cloth exchange value falls since now 1 coat = 2 rolls of cloth. In the end commodities sell on the average at their prices of production. This theory does not clash with proprietors tipping the scale in their favour. It is because they tip the scale. If they did not tip the scale then commodities would not sell at their prices of production. It’s how it works. You keep saying ‘the relationship between "price and value is an ideal one"’. But any economic model needs to know when to switch means and labour from weaving to tailoring and vice-versa. And in the end, this is a real rather than just an ideal problem. How do you think we achieve this? It requires commodity price signals and market competition. Thanks for reference to what you’ve written. I’ll look there. I've also written about this. So you can find me and share feedback my username over on the academic.edu site is “Satan The Devil”.
