Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
' In socialism. [sic] It is not equal rewards, it is, self determined, free access to the commonly owned products of the commonly owned means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by free men and women. … ' ( comment #227 by Matt ) I feel I should elaborate my position on the disputable adage ' "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". ' My main point is communism means equal rewards for equal share of work. Thus in the communist social order, every able-bodied individual of working age must equally share both the total burden of the social workload and the social wealth. The handicapped, the sick, minors, and all those past their working age will also have, like the able-bodied of working age, equal share in the social wealth. Communism need not make, nor does it permit making, anyone overwork or work harder than anyone else just because overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. It is in capitalism that a section ( the employed ) of the workforce are made to overwork, consequent on which fact the rest of the workforce find themselves jobless. The fact of the matter is the surplus labour ( i.e. unpaid labour ) that happens to be the only source of the capitalists' profit is nothing but the product of overwork of the employed. And because it's making the highest possible amount of profit that happens to be the only motivation behind a capitalist's all business activities, and because overwork and idleness are, like plethora and poverty, inseparable opposites, it follows that capitalism has got no answer to the problem of joblessness or the problem of the poverty of millions alongside of the plethora of a few. Communism aims at the classless, just social order, and so it cannot approve of the unequal share of the social wealth just because it'd make some wealthier than all others. And as communism cannot allow anyone to have an unequal share of the social wealth, it cannot allow overwork by anyone. If someone overeworks and has an equal share in the social wealth, a part of his or her total work will remain unpaid, which amounts to the exploitation of the overworking people by their non-overworking brothers and sisters. Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others. For examples, you need three workers to operate a machine in three shifts of 8 hours' duration each. Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment. It's because means of production are, as the total amount of social wealth is, limited, and it will always remain so. Thus, we see not only does overwork of some mean lack of work ( enforced idleness ) of some others, it also means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest. Similarly, if someone accumulates more wealth than another, it'll inevitably entail poverty of the rest.It ought to be clear as day now why communism canNOT approve of unequal share of the social workload and unequal share in the social wealth. The providing for the disabled, the sick, children, the elderly, and the ' another fellow worker ' is the social responsibility which all the non-disabled members of working age must share equally. And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the rest of their non-disabled brothers, sisters, and friends. The expression '"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" ' may appear catchy, but it canNOT deserve to represent communism. ' Your JUSTICE is a capitalist ideological imperative which sanctions war and poverty. ' ( comment #227 by Matt ) Maybe, but it doesn't disprove my point.
' I do not understand why right wingers and anti communists come to this forum to spread their nonsenses … ' ( comment #226 by Marcos ) By my view of a communist, communists are enlightened people endowed with rigid backbone and armed with reasons and dialectics. They're aware that the truth is invincible, and that the truth is, consequent on the fact that they're always for the truth, with them always. Therefore, it's unbecoming of communists to be afraid of ' right wingers and anticommunists ' as I view it. The expression ' socialists-communists ' appears novel, but is it sensible, I wonder. Nevertheless, I'm not sure whether stuff like ' love ' or ' first love ' can make one a true communist. But I'm sure true communists are argumentative because they love the truth, and because they're aware that it's the conflict between views and counter-views that'll lead them to the truth, and that it's the truth, and the truth alone, that dispels the darkness of ignorance and brings enlightenment. For these reasons, true communists always welcome argumentation and the truth.
The point the sensible canNOT miss is abilities, be it qualitative or quantitative, of different people are different. Therefore, the principle of rewarding unequal pieces of work equally ( because communism canNOT approve of the policy of unequal rewards for unequal pieces of work as it's certain to add to the division of society into the rich and the poor ) adds up to gross INJUSTICE, the way I see it, and so communism is, as the capitalists and the democratic socialists, the co-op socialists included claim, NOT any better than capitalism. Thus, it ought to be crystal clear to the sensible that the adage ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' is NOT the right stuff to deal with such arguments against communism, which adds to the weight of the thesis at issue and its significance. I've taken note of other contenders' points in this regard and would like to respond to all of them very soon.
Prakash RP ( #23? ): ' The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to raise a furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE. How would you deal with such objections, gnome ? ( my comment #223 )I expected to have heard something smart and enlightening from you, gnome, in response to my comments #220 & #223 . You may, if you think it's beyond you to find the right points to deal with such stuff, consult some smart canine or feline like the one in the video ( #216 ) you had posted the other day. ' ( my comment #233 ). ' Fantastic ! gnome has accepted that there're some canines and felines that are smarter than him. His post #235 showing a living cat in response to my post #233 can have no other sense, can it ? It also shows that he's outright deprived of the calibre he needs in order to deal with the objections at issue, doesn't it.
' The question itself is incomplete for we have no idea what "this thesis" is relating too. Yours For Positive Socialist Activity Brian ' ( comment #2 by Brian) I'm sorry I ought not to have failed to refer to it. The thesis in question is the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. to access it, please click on this link : THESIS on MONEY's incapacity & its SIGNIFICANCE .
' I apologise profusely, but this correspondence must send now. I wish you the best of success in your endeavours. ' ( comment #225 by ALB ) Pardon me, if I'm wrong. You seem to mean the Nobelist economist is right to resort to an enigmatic, deafening silence on the significance of the thesis that he himself endorses, OK ?
' Unfortunately, I doubt Gates knows what communism really means anymore than you do. True communists recognise that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability, hence the adage: "from each according to ability; to each according to need". ' ( gnome #218 ) ' Dear gnome, I'm afraid you've lamentably missed the point. Bill does not want to know what the communist position on this point is. Bill questions the validity of the communist position at issue, OK ? ' ( my comment #220 ) ' Would like to add the following points to my comment #220. The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE.How would you deal with such objections, gnome ? ' ( my comment #223 )I expected to have heard something smart and enlightening from you, gnome, in response to my comments #220 & #223 . You may, if you think it's beyond you to find the right points to deal with such stuff, consult some smart canine or feline like the one in the video ( #216 ) you had posted the other day.
' That's an understandable reply. ' ( comment #222 by ALB ) Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your comment, ALB ?
Would like to add the following points to my comment #220. The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE. How would you deal with such objections, gnome ?
[ reply to gnome's post #216 ] Dear gnome, I think you ought to have considered some points before mocking at me. A humble seeker after the truth, I have no pretension to erudition. Nevertheless, I appreciate the simple arithmetic logic that 2 and 2 makes 4— the logic that most of the erudite cannot see. I do not miss the truth glaring, like the mid-day summer sun, before our eyes— the truth most of the erudite do miss. Notwithstanding a humble guy, I do pride myself on having originated and presented humanity with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING — the principle humanity must make its life principle if humanity wants to be civilised through and through. I also seem to deserve the credit for enlightening humanity about the fact that men are NOT lions of men ( i.e. a man having the calibre and capability to make a worthy husband ) and the most basic distinction, other than their physical attributes, between men and women. Of course I do not claim to be infallible, but I cannot accept something that I consider true as not true. I may be wrong to claim to have proved it ( the thesis at issue ) first. I just want to know the truth. I thought I had dealt with all sensible arguments in this regard. Then I sought to know SPGB's official stance and Adam Buick's position on it, both of whom disgustingly failed to articulate their stance on it— i.e. a plain and point-blank yes or no to my claim along with a short note to justify their stance. All of the Nobelist trio that endorse the thesis in question seem to have chosen to resort to a baffling, deafening silence on the significance of the thesis, the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that the poor and penniless millions that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life were all born poor is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich were all born rich and super-rich to exploit the born poor and thus grow richer and richer is NOT attributable to any good acts or achievements of theirs. A copy of the message from Professor Robert J. Aumann shows that the Nobelist economist ' apologises profusely ' to as humble a guy as this yours truly is for what he did not write a word about is presented below along with a copy of my message to the Professor in response to which he sent it. Could anyone throw light on this point ? The way the Professor behaved gave me the impression that someone must be holding a gun with its barrel at his head and threating to pull the trigger if he dared to defy what he was dictated to. [ copy of Prof Aumann's 4th message dated Nov 12, 2017 along with my sixth message dated Nov 10, 2017 to Professor Aumann ] Prof. Aumann's OfficeNov 12 (9 days ago) to me Dear Mr. Prakash RP, Prof. Aumann apologises profusely, but he must end this correspondence now. He wishes you the best of success in your endeavours. Sincerely, Victoria ויקטוריה חבטלעוזרת זמנית לפרופ' אומןמרכז פדרמן לחקר הרציונליותבניין פלדמן, חדר 225האוניברסיטה העברית, גבעת רםירושלים 91904טל': 02-6586254פקס: 02-6584863www.math.huji.ac.il/raumannVictoria ChvatalTemporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann The Federmann Center for RationalityThe Hebrew UniversityGivat Ram CampusJerusalem 91904Tel. +972-2-6586254Fax. +972-2-6584863www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann From: Prakash RP [mailto:prakashrp54@gmail.com]Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:33 PMTo: Prof. Aumann's OfficeSubject: Re: a humble THESIS by a humble guy Dear Professor, if you'd pardon my ignorance and encroaching on your precious time again, I'd like you to take cognisance of the following point and oblige me with the pieces of info I'm so eagerly seeking after. I've taken cognisance of your point: ' It has been known for hundreds of years that the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility. ' So, as it ' has been known for hundreds of years ', its SIGNIFICANCE that happens to be an immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that the economic INEQUALITY ( uneven distribution of wealth leading to the social division into the rich, the super-rich, and the poor and penniless millions that make up around 99% of humanity ) does not happen to owe its origin to the QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by the unskilled one, ought also to be known for hundreds of years, oughtn't it ? Would you please refer to some works containing the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis at issue ? Thanks, Prakash RP. prakashrp54@gmail.com
' Unfortunately, I doubt Gates knows what communism really means anymore than you do. True communists recognise that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability, hence the adage: "from each according to ability; to each according to need". ' ( gnome's comment #218 ) Dear gnome, I'm afraid you've lamentably missed the point. Bill does not want to know what the communist position on this point is. Bill questions the validity of the communist position at issue, OK ?
Thank you a lot, gnome. I'll remember it. Nevertheless, I'd like you to oblige me with your comment in response to the following. Suppose one day you've run across someone like Bill Gates, an American billionaire with a noble heart*, who spends millions of dollars every year to help the American poor and penniless to live a better life, and who shows strong aversion to both capitalism and communism as he thinks both these systems are seriously flawed. In his view, capitalism helps all those amass huge wealth who aren't really higher-calibre people than those who are deprived of capitalism's favour while communism aims at ridding humanity of economic inequality and thus deserves to be accused of disregarding the fact that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability. How would you awaken him to his misconception and convince him that it's communism, and only communism, that happens to be the answer to capitalism ? Ignoring people like Bill Gates is most unlikely to help the cause of communism because there're so many, maybe such people make up the overwhelming majority of the 99% who hold the similar view of capitalism and communism, IMHO. * I'm not sure whether he's truly noble-hearted or whether he derives a lot of pleasure from giving away.
' … Here is another claim for theoretical greatness which is as likely to gain recognition as your claim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOH8QK-6HA ' ( comment #214 by Bijao Drains ) Thank you a lot for this comment. But, are you sure that it disproves my claim to have proved the thesis at issue first ? ALB seems to assert because the thesis at issue is a repetition of ' something that has been known for over 2000 years ', my claim to have proved it first and all my effort to awaken humanity to what it signifies do not deserve recognition. Nevertheless, he seems to be unable to support his position with necessary evidence. Could you provide any evidence to show that you were aware of the thesis at issue, its proof, and the significance it carries before I posted it on the SPGB's website ? Who do you believe proved it first ?
[ I'm sorry. I posted it by mistake. I'd like it to be deleted. ] ' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB ) I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e. the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '
' … I am afraid I don't think you should be awarded a Nobel Prize or that statutes [ sic ] should be erected in your honour all over the world for the great service you imagine you have done to humanity by repeating something that has been known for over 2000 years. ' ( comment #63 by ALB ) I wouldn't ask you to erect my statue or recommend my name for a Nobel Prize. But I think it's not wrong of me to ask you not to deny me my due, OK ? I also think by not denying me my due recognition, not only will you help me win the limelight, you'll also help focus the world's attention on, and thus awaken humanity to, the brute fact that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity and its significance, the immediate corollary to it, namely, that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled worker and that by an unskilled one. Professor Robert J. Aumann holds that the same thesis with different wording ( i.e. the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility ' ) is ' well-known ' and that it occurs in Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , a work by Daniel Bernoulli , which was first published in 1738 ( i.e.around 300 years back.). Nevertheless, ' [ he ] does not know who stated this thesis first. '
