Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dear ALB, thank you a lot for this response. I apologise to you and all others if it ( this post by me ) causes serious wastage of your precious time. But, as we know, conflict between views and counter-views leads us to the right one. I'd like you to spend some more time on this issue and help me grasp it clearly. I wish you'd bear in mind and consider the fact that I'm an individual who's NOT perfect NOR infallible. Surely, I may be mistaken. As I see it, the diamond-water paradox leads us to our awareness of the contradiction between the use-value and the exchange-value. Does it really lead us unquestionably to an idea like the one on money's incapacity ? Did you really encounter any such work to date that acquaints us with a logical method, such as the method of deduction, by which the author has arrived at the idea or thesis at issue ( conclusion ) from something like the diamond-water paradox ( premise ) ? Suggesting an idea is one thing, and the confirmation of it is something quite different, isn't it ? I have strong reservations about whether the idea logically follows from the diamond-water paradox. In my work, I've arrived at the thesis in question ( the inference ) directly from the definition of money ( the premise ), RIGHT ? In this respect, I think my work is unique and deserves credit, doesn't it ? ( None of the three Nobelist economists who endorse the thesis at issue has to date uttered a word against the method I've employed to deduce the thesis. Nevertheless, it's also true that they haven't stated anything for this method. I do not know the reason for their silence in this regard. But from this it doesn't follow that they disapprove of the method. ) Further, I think I deserve credit for enlightening humanity about the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis, a direct corollary to it, don't I ? I'm not conversant with Adam Smith's work. I'd like to see some relevant excerpts from his work dealing with this issue. I may be wrong to claim to be ' the first to point out ' the idea at issue. But that of course doesn't justify the volte-face the Editor-in-Chief of Econometrica did in his 2nd message and his evasion of commenting on the significance of the thesis, the immediate corollary to it, does it ? The Editor-in-Chief has not said a word to justify his volte-face either. You've claimed, to my utter astonishment, that you and most of the rest of humanity are well aware of the idea in question. This makes me wonder why then I did not hear of it before I discovered it all by myself. Why are economists, Nobelists included, not heard to speak on this topic, i.e. the thesis, and its significance and thus enlighten humanity about what money cannot do, why it cannot do it, and what its significance is ? Is it because they fear that the thesis and its significance ( i.e. the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans or between a line of work and another , and thus it's the mother of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE ) will awaken humanity to the incurable ILLs and EVILs of capitalism and thus constitute the strongest defence of communism ? Are they all capitalists really ? But what about communists ? To be a true communist, you have to study CAPITAL volume I by Marx and comprehend its essence, haven't you ? Besides, as you remarked on the 2oth of December 2017 in the other thread ( Originator of a THESIS on money's incapacity ), as the thesis at issue ' is a commonplace observation which most of [ you ] agree with ', all communists must be aware of this thesis and its significance, mustn't they ? Why, then, are communists silent, like their capitalist bros, on the thesis and its significance ? Did the socialists of Great Britain talk about the thesis and its significance ever before ? I wish you'd throw light on these points and furnish your remarks with adequate, sound logical support and thus help me realise my mistakes. Would you let me know when and how you had the awareness of the idea at issue and what led you to be certain about its correctness ? ( Of course you were not BORN with this idea in your head, will you ? ) And what led you to believe that most of humanity is aware of the idea and its correctness ? And as most of those that make up the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, by the Oxfam's wealth data, are aware of the idea and its correctness, could you explain why even in the First World, you haven't witnessed to date an organised strong movement aimed at the abolition of economic inequality and factors that contribute to it, such as the exploitation of wage slaves by capitalists, wage differentials, trading in commodities, private property and its inheritance, etc, etc ? Why have the workers in the First World failed to date to make the abolition of economic inequality a strong political issue ? Why to date haven't we witnessed, even in the First World, a true communist party with a respectably large-enough following ? Is it because most of humanity, the 99%, know that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity, and that economic INEQUALITY is the origin of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE ? Or, is it because I'm the most ignorant and biggest fool of the world ? Everyone knows everything that I know and also everything else that I don't know ?!! I'd like to add the following to the above. ( added on 26/12/2017 )If Adam Smith or anyone else had proved the thesis at issue, Professor Aumann would know ' who stated it first ', as I see it. ( See the 2nd message from Professor Robert j. Aumann ) [ copy of Prof Aumann's second message dated Oct 24, 2017 along with my second message preceding it ] Prof. Aumann's OfficeOct 24 to me, Robert 1) 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. Prof. Aumann does not know who stated this thesis first. 2) It occurs, for example, in the following, first published almost 300 years ago:Bernoulli, Daniel; originally published in 1738; translated by Dr. Louise Sommer (January 1954). "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". Econometrica. The Econometric Society. 22 (1): 22–36. From: Prakash RP [mailto:prakashrp54@gmail.com]Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 6:15 PMTo: Prof. Aumann's OfficeSubject: Re: a humble THESIS by a humble guy Thanks to Professor Aumann a lot for the reply. I'd like him to oblige me with the following pieces of info : ( 1 ) who stated this THESIS first and ( 2 ) in which work this piece of info occurs.
' You are mixing two things up — the fact that money does not measure the usefulness of what is for sale and whether using money is a good or a bad thing. Nearly everyone accepts that money does not measure usefulness but comparatively few want a society in which money would be redundant. You are the ORIGINATOR of neither. ' ( comment by ALB on 21/12/2017 )I agree I cannot claim to have originated the idea at issue. Nevertheless, I think I deserve to claim to have proved it first. How I'm ' mixing two things up ' is not clear to me.
ALB's comment on 21/12/2017 : ' You are mixing two things up — the fact that money does not measure the usefulness of what is for sale and whether using money is a good or a bad thing. Nearly everyone accepts that money does not measure usefulness but comparatively few want a society in which money would be redundant. You are the ORIGINATOR of neither. 'Dear ALB, I've taken note of this comment by you. I'll reply to it later.
Dear ALB, I'd like to revise my comment made in a hurry yesterday. I don't think most people are silly. I think most people are ignorant and have the silly belief that economic INEQUALITY is justified because humans are NOT equal in terms of their calibre and capability and add what follows to it. I've taken note of your point that you yourself ' and most other people, agree with [ what you view as " a commonplace observation " ] . ' So, as you agree with this ' commonplace observation ' of mine, I think I can expect you to join hands with me to be the 2nd member of my team and join in the MISSION aimed at awakening humanity, the poor and penniless millions, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, and who make up 99% of humanity, by the Oxfam's wealth data, to the THESIS at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE , the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by an engineer and that by a porter, and the fact that humanity must get rid of, if humanity wants to be civilised through and through, the EVIL that is economic INEQUALITY , the origin of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , i.e. the most DISGUSTING and agonising fact that the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, were all BORN poor and penniless, and so they're NOT to blame for their poverty and privation. Are we agreed, ALB ?
' You need to stop capitalising and emboldening words, as you are yelling at people and this is bad form (netiquette). ' ( comment by Matt on 20/12/2017 )I'd like to know what led you to believe that I'm ' capitalising and emboldening words' and ' yelling at people ' ?
You seem to claim that both the thesis at issue and what it signifies are ' commonplace observation
' , do you ? Most people seem to me silly, and they seem to justify the economic inequality with the argument that humans are NOT equal in terms of their calibre and capability. You seem to believe most people are aware of the thesis at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE. I'd like to know what led you to such belief.As I see it, the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis at issue, the immediate corollary to it, is that economic inequality does NOT owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by an unskilled one. What's your view of it ? Did you hear of it ever before ?
I expected some comments from yoy all on the content of my last post. It passes my comprehension why you all are silent on the SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment, but I was really very busy dealing with a serious problem. I've taken cognisance of your point. I also believe that Marx was not unaware of the fact that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. Nevertheless, I don't think it's strong enough to disprove an assertion or argument. i'd like you to oblige me with a citation that's direct ( i.e. not a deduction or interpretation ) and incontestable in defence of your view.However, I think it's far more weighty for humanity right now what the thesis at issue signifies than who originated it. As I see it, the immediate corollary to it is that economic INEQUALITY ( uneven distribution of wealth and income consequent on the exploitation of wage slaves by capitalists, inheritance, the buying and selling of commodities, etc leading to the social division into classes, i.e. the rich 1% including the super-rich 80, by Oxfam's wealth data, and the poor and penniless millions that make up around 99% of humanity ), which happens to be at the root of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, i.e. the most disgusting and agonisingly distressing fact that 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 and penniless is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich few idlers that lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries were all BORN rich and super-rich to exploit the BORN poor and penniless and thus grow RICHER and RICHER is not attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs, does not happen to owe its origin to the QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by an unskilled or a less-skilled one. Thus, CEOs canNOT demand fatter salaries than restaurant waiters; engineers canNOT be paid more money than porters, and nurses CAN claim as much pay as physicians and surgeons. As I see it, this SIGNIFICANCE, the immediate corollary to the THESIS at issue, happens to constitute the mightiest argument against capitalism and for communism in the 21st century. I'd like to know your stance on this point. I'd also like to know of any works that contain this SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS in question.
' … with the end of the coercive state and the economic dependence of women on men, so will "matrimony" as the state-endorsed living together of a man and a woman. ' [ comment by ALB on 27/04/2017 ] Just yesterday, a vernacular daily reported that a guy accused of uxoricide was given a life sentence. The woman he murdered was a working woman that worked to earn money and bore the whole cost of provisions for her family including her husband, an alcohol addict, most probably, who did never pay a penny for even the bare necessities of life needed by his spouse and children. The guy killed his wife because the latter either declined or failed to pay for the cost of his addiction. This news piece is important because it throws light on the fact of ' economic dependence of women on men '. Matrimony or a travesty of it happens to be a same-class culture, which means both of the bride and the groom come from the same-class families. High-society women enter into matrimonial bonds with men coming from high society, and girls belonging to families at or below the poverty line get married to boys that belong to the poor and vulgar millions. High-society women and most of middle-class women are not dependent, financially, on men for their necessities. And in India, most of the poor-class women have to work to scrape a living, and most of such women get grains of wheat and rice at nominal cost under the National Food Security Act from the Indian Govt. And less than 5 per cent of Indian menfolk have got taxable income; that means all those men that are looked on by the Govt of India as poor people― so poor as to deserve full exemption from the payment of taxes on their earnings, add up to over 95 per cent, OK ? The state of affairs being such, can we claim that women are financially dependent on men for their basic necessities ? In the developed First World, as far as we know, working women constitute half the workforce, RIGHT ? Not only do these women make a far better living, they also happen to be entitled to far better social security benefits when they're out of work or off sick than their counterparts in developing countries like India. How many First-World women are dependent on men for their basic necessities really ? If matrimony deserves to be defined as ' the state-endorsed living-together of a man and a woman ', prostitution and non-marital relationships also equally deserve similar definitions. As I see it, it's NOT right to view matrimony as something ' state-endorsed ' because both the State and the society have, since the Biblical times, recognised and respected prostitution and other relationships outside of marriage along with fruits of such relationships. Matrimony was never, nor it is now, except some years belonging to modern times, something like a licence. The State or society never needed people before, nor does it need people now, to indulge in the luxury that is matrimony or a travesty of it. The state and society need women's children. They NEVER needed to know, NOR did they ever need to NOR do they now care about, who actually fathered the children.
' Well Einstien’s cosmological constant was a fiddle at the time but it is back in the frame again in a slightly different form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The guy who discovered it was stunned by the data that he collected and couldn’t believe it and thought they had made a blunder as well and when he published his stuff that he would end up a laughing stock and it would be the end of his career. He ended up getting a Nobel prize for it. There are a lot of seminal pieces of scientific advancement achieved by people expecting a completely different results or ‘truths’ from experiments. So much for scientist creating truths rather than the material world shoving them in your face. On anti gravity and dark energy etc they are looking at the possibility of ant-matter having anti gravity at the moment which would be neat explanation. I think it on the record that I had thought Das Capital Marxism was probably a load of bollocks even though I had been in the SPGB for sometime. I read and changed my mind and think it is basically OK. Anyway. You appear to be refusing to tell us what meaningful living is; other than getting pissed and smoking weed always interferes with it? It surely is a matter of WHAT IS IT rather than just WHAT IT IS NOT. Lots of artistic creation has been inspired with people being off their heads on one thing or another. All these extreme ‘Muslims’ aren’t supposed to drink does that lead to meaningful lives? Or is it matrimony that leads to that kind of thing? I really would like to know what area are you coming from is this Buddhist type ‘shit’ or chop your dick off hermit Christianity? ' [ comment by Dave B on 21/04/2017 ] ' Well Einstien’s cosmological constant was a fiddle at the time but it is back in the frame again in a slightly different form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The guy who discovered it was stunned by the data that he collected and couldn’t believe it and thought they had made a blunder as well and when he published his stuff that he would end up a laughing stock and it would be the end of his career. He ended up getting a Nobel prize for it. 'Thank you a lot for bringing this point to our notice. Nevertheless, my main point is it's NOT mistakes made by GREAT people but their brilliant achievements that are what we ought to take cognisance of and care about. You don't seem to contradict it, do you ? I don't like the term ' fiddle ' and would like it to be replaced by a term like bloomer, blunder, etc. ' You appear to be refusing to tell us what meaningful living is; other than … ' I'd like to suggest that you should re-read the writing The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING and then re-state your objections, which prevents you from accepting it as your life-principle, to the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
' Well actually, there is this that Dave B came across: Quote:Humanity, if it wants to be civilised through and through, must make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living its LIFE PRINCIPLEand get rid of all institutions and culture that fail to harmonise with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living. https://hubpages.com/politics/the-RIGHT-VIEW-of-CIVILISATIONt seems to be putting the cart before the horse, i.e taking the idealist position of setting out a set of principles and then saying that society should conform to them. It is also unclear whether these principles are to be applied under capitalism as well as being the supposed basis of future socialist/communist (the same thing) society. Most of things it regards as a sin (eg.bribery, gambling, trafficking, etc) won't arise in socialism as money and the money economy will have disappeared and, also, with the end of the coercive state and the economic dependence of women on men, so will "matrimony" as the state-endorsed living together of a man and a woman. All that will be left are smoking and drinking. So, what's all the fuss about — just a cigarette and a glass of beer. What's wrong with that? ' [ comment by ALB on 27/04/2017 ] ' t seems to be putting the cart before the horse, i.e taking the idealist position of setting out a set of principles and then saying that society should conform to them. ' You want to aim to achieve your aim after having achieved it ?! My dear friend, the sane aim to achieve their aim AFTER, not before, having fixed on their aim. Playing in a FIXED game is something outright UNBECOMING to true communists, RIGHT ? ' It is also unclear whether these principles are to be applied under capitalism as well as being the supposed basis of future socialist/communist (the same thing) society. Most of things it regards as a sin (eg.bribery, gambling, trafficking, etc) won't arise in socialism as money and the money economy will have disappeared and, also, with the end of the coercive state and the economic dependence of women on men, so will "matrimony" as the state-endorsed living together of a man and a woman. ' The Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living is meant for the good of humanity, for the transformation of today's humanity into a better humanity, regardless of times it belongs to because it's meant to awaken humanity, and it happens to be the first to do this, to what I view as an eternal truth, namely, the idea that it makes sense, and becomes humanity as well, to live a healthy and meaningful life. It aims at awakening humanity to the fact that capitalism, capitalist cultures and lifestyle, economic inequality, the origin of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, etc, etc do NOT fit in with it and the fact that it's communism, and communism alone, that can create a just and free society with an environment that harmonises with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living. The Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living also aims at awakening humanity to the brute fact that it still happens to be way too uncivilised and enlightens it about the dos and don'ts it must adhere to if it wants to be civilised through and through. Thus, the significance of the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living in the capitalist era which we all belong to now is undeniable. And you don't seem to mean to deny this undeniable fact. You're skeptic of its usefulness in the communist era. But, sir, as we do NOT belong to the communist era, and as the organisation of the revolutionary transformation of the present-day world into the communist world order happens to be the immediate MISSION before all the communists of today, I think the most sensible thing to do right now would be to spare ourselves the debate over this point. We can leave it to be dealt with by the humanity who'd belong to the communist era, can't we ? The point over which we started debate is NOT the significance of the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living but the question of whether all those that are so pitiably insignificant as to be bereft of the calibre they need to rid themselves of their nasty addiction to drugs, drinks, smoking, matrimony, etc, i.e. all the stuff that happens NOT to have the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living's seal of approval, deserve to be reckoned communist. I think we'd best restrict ourselves to this point. ' … just a cigarette and a glass of beer. What's wrong with that? ' You seem to have agreed to leave the luxury of matrimony off the list of the stuff NOT in disharmony with the communist ethics and outlook. It's a welcome development. There's NO doubt about it. And as you've succeeded in conquering the allure of silly matrimony as well as travesties of matrimony, there's NO good reason you should NOT be successful at getting rid of your addiction to indulgences such as ' just a cigarette and a glass of beer. ' I endorse looking on ' a cigarette and a glass of beer ' as ' just a cigarette and a glass of beer ' and would like you to give up them right now. My dear friend, you should NOT fail, if you're a true communist, to overcome your unhealthy addictions. If you'd allow me to give you a piece of advice, I'd ask you to say to yourself that communism is a GREAT ideology, and that communists are GREAT people endowed with good sense, strong backbone, and invincible willpower and thus persuade yourself that if you're a true communist, you must prove stronger than the allure of and addiction to all unhealthy indulgences.
' As we are in that kind of transcendental vein? There is a topical version from our Christian friend Chris Hedges? At least it puts forward a positive programme in case there is some confusion as to what one may look like. At least it is less navel gazing and ego centric. Why do you want the rest of us to have meaningful lives anyway? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46890.htm ' [ comment by Dave B on 19/04/2017 ] The expressions ' transcendental vein ', ' navel gazing [sic ] ', ' ego centric [ sic ] ' , etc make me wonder whether it's clear to the commenter what his point is. It's really amazing, and amusing too, to see that someone can go to this great lengths to invent sophistries meant to defend what really and truly happens to be indefensible, as I view it.
' People take drugs of various kinds to escape from meaningless lives and the stresses associated with it etc. The fact that the escape is often a short term fix and reality returns sometimes with a physical dependency and or psychological dependency is another matter. Often it is referred to by those are more sympathetic and understanding and less pompous as ‘self medication’. Gambling can fall into a similar kind of category and is much more complicated varying adrenaline rushes to ‘meaningfully’ experiencing a panoply of emotional rushes for people who normally have them generally repressed. According to the trick cyclists. A lot of these primitive human cultures use psychedelic drugs and get pissed occasionally on fermented juice. Other systems engage in self induced higher states of mind etc like the Buddhists. Saying what a meaningful life isn’t is one thing but where is the positive programme? ' [ comment by Dave B on 19/04/2017 ] ' People take drugs of various kinds to escape from meaningless lives and the stresses associated with it etc. ' Right! Nevertheless, the point missed is this silly escapism does NOT add a whit of meaning to the ' meaningless lives ' of those ignoramuses addicted to drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc, RIGHT ? ' varying adrenaline rushes to " meaningfully " experiencing a panoply of emotional rushes for people who normally have them generally repressed. ' I find it too difficult to grasp what point Dave B wants to make and how this statement is relevant to the issue being debated in this thread. ' Saying what a meaningful life isn’t is one thing but where is the positive programme? 'I'd like Dave B to elaborate on what he means by ' the positive programme ' , and how it relates to the main point of this debate, namely, whether people indulging in the luxury of and lacking in the willpower they need in order to get rid of their addiction to drugs, drinks, smoking, matrimony, and similar silly stuff deserve to be recognised as communist.
