Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The ‘heatwave’ is unlikely to create any global problem. It’s the aggression against Ukraine by the mad-dog Putin and his associates that’s posing a threat to the security (the food security included) of humanity worldwide, as I see it.
Hi robbo203, I don’t question Marx’s thesis that in the long run, the market-value of a commodity equals its labour-value, and I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest that I contradict Marx’s law of value. Have I really passed any such remark?
Utility defined as the use-value may be quantifiable. Examples: 1. we can compare the utility of two LED bulbs in terms of the luminous flux and the total number of hours they’re expected to glow; 2. we can measure the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine in percentage and thus compare its utility with the efficacy of any other COVID-19 vaccine. What’s wrong with it?
I don’t think there’s any flaw in the Marxian labour theory of value (the law of value). Nevertheless, to explain the high price (market-price) of the stuff like a piece of diamond or an antique, you have to grasp the distinction between value & market-value. The market-value of a commodity does not equal the quantity of the socially-necessary labour expended on it. In fact there exists a huge gap between the value and the market-value of such stuff, which can only be explained with the help of the laws of supply & demand, as I see it.
Capitalist economists may claim that laws of supply & demand determine both the value & the market-value and thus try to refute the law of value. They can be silenced by pointing to the fact that there exists No valueless stuff that possesses market-value.How? Monopoly can reduce supply to enhance demand to some extent and thus charge a higher price for a certain commodity. This will certainly enhance profit, but it’ll also add to the impoverishment of the buyers and thus drastically reduce their purchasing power. Fall in the purchasing power of buyers means a demand crunch with which the sounding of the death knell of monopoly is certain to begin.
Adam Smith was certainly right to point to the diamond-water paradox. Nevertheless, I cannot see eye to eye with him on what truly lies behind the high market-price of diamond. Water, potatos, paper, pens, etc. are all exchangeable. Therefore, mere exchangeability cannot make the price of a thing skyrocket.
And as I see it, the concept of marginal utility is flawed in itself. By definition, marginal utility is ‘the value to the consumer of an additional unit of some commodity.’
(marginal utility @ https://www.britannica.com/topic/marginal-utility)
Thus, from its very definition, it follows that the stuff called marginal utility is in essence the market-value, i.e. the exchange-value of a commodity as it appears to a consumer of an additional unit of it. Nevertheless, the term ‘utility’ means use-value or usefulness which is fundamentally different from the exchange-value, we know. Evidently, the stuff called ‘marginal utility’ is a contradiction in terms, hence a load of rubbish, the way I see it.
And further, from the very definition of ‘marginal utility’, it also seems obvious that the ‘marginal utility’ of a commodity comes into being after the first unit of a certain group of commodities has been consumed, and hence it follows that the first unit of every group of commodities can’t have any ‘marginal utility’. However, by the marginal-utility theory of value, no ‘marginal utility’ means no value or market-value, hence no market-price. Evidently, it’s outright opposite to the reality. Nowhere in the world, the first unit of a group of commodities is gratuitous really.I don’t think it matters much whether the ‘diamond production and sale [is] controlled by a monopoly cartel’ or not. The fact of the matter is in a market economy, market-prices of a commodity are determined by laws of supply & demand.
You think’today the actual process of production — a vast network of interdependent production units spanning the world — is already “socialised” in the sense that it is already a collective work effort.’
But, I think the capitalist mode of production is in itself ‘collective’, but it’s always the production for profit, and so it’s meant to serve the interest of an insignificant few, the capitalist class, at the expense of practically the 99% of humanity, the hard-working millions, who sweat blood to produce all wealth, discover laws, find answers to unanswered questions regarding life & the universe, make inventions & innovations, etc. but have to undergo horrendous deprivation throughout their life. Nevertheless, as I see it, the socialisation of production is aimed at the production for the use of the entire humanity, and so it must begin with the social ownership of the means of production & all the products.My main point against the principle of ‘ “from each according to their ability, …” ‘, is Not anything like the silly assertion that ‘ “human nature” for people [is] to be lazy ‘. It’s as simple as the arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, namely, the fact that overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites. Therefore, if some people are allowed to overwork (i.e. to work more hours than the length of the social working day), it’s bound to lead to the lack of a full social working day’s work for some others. Consequently, the overworking lot must be exploited by the idlers as all in the communist order are entitled to enjoy an equal standard of living. Evidently, this principle seems irreconcilable with very basics of communism, the way I see it.
A humble request:
Would you do me a favour and ask Binay Sarkar, a member of the SPGB, to contact me at prakashrp54@gmail.com ? I’v got something important to communicate to him.‘the production of a diamond might well cost as much in terms of needed labour (prospecting, finding, extracting, polishing, etc) as the development of a vaccine.’ You believe so! But, have you taken account of the huge amount of funds (as all the funds are the product of hard labour of the multitude) spent on the worldwide research works dedicated to the invention of the COVID-19 vaccine?
‘The more he is in demand, the higher he can charge,…’ This is the main point. The market-price of a commodity is wholly determined by market forces (i.e. the laws of supply & demand). In the case of a high-demand commodity (a piece of diamond or the performance of a sports legend), its market-price happens to be disproportionately higher than its price (value expressed in money) based on the quantity of the socially-necessary labour required to produce it. This is ‘the way of the capitalist world’.
In the communist order, the production & exchange of commodities, hence markets, will be done away with, and so since the use-value of a thing cannot have any price, none deserve to be richer or poorer than others. Everyone will have equal share in social wealth according to the socially accepted standard of living. I agree with you on this point too.
Nevertheless, I’ve got reservations about the correctness of the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”. Since overwork and idleness are inseparable opposites, the overworking lot must be exploited by the idlers as all in the communist order are entitled to enjoy an equal standard of living. Evidently, this principle seems irreconcilable with very basics of communism, the way I see it.
Yes, of course, the production of a piece of diamond requires a lot more labour than that of a bottle of water. But, does this fact really explain the huge cost of a piece of diamond compared with the cost of a therapeutic or a vaccine?
Does the production of a piece of diamond really require more labour than the invention & production of the stuff like a therapeutic or a vial of the COVID-19 vaccine does?
And is Lionel Messi’s labour behind his annual income really over 100 times the labour of a Nobel laureate?Right! In the communist world, stuff like diamond, gold, antiques, etc. won’t be counted more precious than oxygen, water, nutrients, therapeutics, etc.
Is this message meant for me ? Don't understand really what it means and why I deserve it. Please elaborate a little, will you ?
' This authoritarian troll never seems to answer the criticisms made of his model of compulsory labour such as how do you ensure that those who monitoe enforce this whole elaborate and costly system of compulsion will not themselves abuse the system and emerge as a new ruling class. ' ( #386 by robbo203 ) ' This authoritarian troll ' wishes you'd soon awake to your silliness of failing to differentiate between what you want to achieve and how you can achieve it. Whether we must fight and win the war against terror or AIDS is a question that happens to be outright different from how we must fight and win this war, isn't it ? ' This authoritarian troll ' would also like you to awake to the silliness of the idea of giving up a fight or an attempt just because it's difficult to win the fight or achieve success in the attempt. Giving up the war against the terror or the AIDS won't rid humanity of the terror or the AIDS menace, will it ? What communism truly means, whether it's practicable, and which way is meant to lead us to our goal are each different from the other, each of them having a different answer from the other one. The fact of the matter is if humanity wants to lead a healthy and meaningful life, it must rid itself of evils like the exploitation of man by man, the ignominious sight of the plethora of wealth alongside of the poverty and privation of millions, the exitence of overworking millions alongside of millions of the jobless, the fact that while the lawful roads to riches are too few, there exists an abundance of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices, the greatest and gravest social injustice ( the fact that the fact that the poor and penniless millions were all born poor is not attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich few were all born rich and super-rich to exploit the born poor and thus grow richer and richer is not attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs ), et cetera, et cetera, and so it must do away with capitalism and switch over to communism, and if we must switch over to communism, we have to find the sure way to do it. By the theory of communism, the classless social order is practicable, and the communist formulas to achieve it are shortening the working-day first to make it equal to the socially necessary labour-time, making the sharing of the total social workload equal and compulsory for everyone of the social workforce, and making the share of everyone ( excluding minors, the disabled, and the aged ) in the social wealth equal. there's no good reason to view these formulas as impracticable or too difficult for communists that are no less intelligent than, nor are they inferior, in terms of calibre, to, capitalists. If capitalists can extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour ( unpaid labour that generates the capitalist's profit ) from wage slaves, there's no reason why communists should fail to effect a social working-day consisting of the socially-necessary labour-time alone and thus rid humanity of the ignominious evils like overworking, joblessness, surplus labour, et cetera. I won't say the fear that the principle of the compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce may be abused by the crafty and crooked to create ' a new ruling class ' is unfounded. Nevertheless, this fear does not prove that this principle or the social order based on this principle is in itself faulty, nor does it prove that the principle forming the basis for the ' higher phase ' , as Marx put it, of communism is OK. Another most important point not to be missed is, as I've shown already, the fact that the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' that approves of the unequal sharing of the social workload for an unequal share in the social wealth is certain to lead to overwork, which means the exploitation of the overworking lot by the rest, hence the death of socialism. Further, one of the main arguments for this lofty principle is the ' higher phase ' of communism will produce only the good, the dutiful, and the work-loving ( it's outright a bourgeois view, as you all, the proponents of this principle hold, that the working population consist of only the workshy and the crafty and crooked ), which means there'll be none needing to be compelled to perform work. None needing to be compelled means no compulsion, and the fact that there're none that are really bad people means there're none to abuse power in the ' higher phase ' of communism. And no abuse of power means the concern over the emergence of ' a new ruling class ' is baseless, OK ? ' … he has no idea of what metric he proposes to use to ensure that everyone does exactly the same amount of work. Is it equal hours or equal intensity of work or what? ' ( ibid ) The problem with the silly and the benighted is they love to believe what they don't know or understand must be unknowable and unintelligible to all else. Nevertheless, there's no reason why the sensible and enlightened ought to fail to find the right ' metric ' ( such as the labour productivity ) to differentiate between an apprentice and a worker. And communism needs workers to work equal hours. ' The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day be shortened ; and the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 ) The above quote from Marx's CAPITAL, volume I, enlightens us about the ' productiveness of labour ', the length of the ' working-day ', the ' intensity of labour ', and their interrelations. ' He thinks compulsory labour is not coerced labour becuase it is "duly awarded" -(the same argument could be used to justify wage labour) … ' ( #386 ; robbo203 ) No, the same argument cannot be used to justify wage labour because the wage slaves have to perform a certain amount of labour, the surplus labour, for which they're paid nothing. ' He has little to no understanding of Marxist terminology and terms such as "necessary labour" – that portion of the labour performed by the worker under capitalism for which she receives a wage to produce and reproduce her labour power – and seems to think that necessary labour, and therefore the sale of labour power for a wage, will continue in a communist society. ' ( ibid ) The above citation is one more evidence of your silliness and intellectual immaturity. Would like to know what led you to take such a silly view of me. ' In fact he seems to think that necessary labour can be prised apart and separated out from surplus labour as different segments of labour time … ' ( ibid ) The above citation is another evidence of your pitiable intellectual immaturity. I don't think I ever said anything that should justifiably lead you to form such an opinion. Nevertheless, the subject appears too tough to be understood by the silly. By my view, what communists need is a clear concept of the two sorts of labour. They don't need to prise them apart. They need a clear concept of them in order to shorten the working-day to make it equal the ' necessary labour-time ' under the communist mode of production. There's no good reason why communists with a clear concept of the two sorts of labour oughtn't to be able to perform this task. Once again I'd like to ask the silly that aren't averse to enlightenment to pay due heed to the following observation by Marx. ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( CAPITAL volume I by Marx ; see part V, chapter XVII, section IV, and subsection 2 ) Hope the point is now clear enough to be understood by all bar the incorrigible few fools. ' That is precisely the view that Marx attacked which was expressed by those who feared that shortenening of working week would reduce the amount time available for the production of surplus value under capitalism ' ( ( #386 ; robbo203 ) It's not at all clear what point you want to make by this remark. Do you mean that Marx was against the very idea of the shorter working-day under capitalism or communism or both ? ' Above all what we have not had from this individual is a single sensible coherent argument raised against the principle "from each according to abilty to each according to need" – only a boring and inane repetition of the same old mantra that it is "silly" or "immature" ( ibid ) If my comments in response to yours don't really contain ' a single sensible coherent argument ' against the principle at issue, it's certainly a limitation they oughtn't to have. But don't they really contain incontestable arguments to awaken you to the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the communist idea of classless order and the view of communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs ' ? What follows is a passage excerpted from my comment #368 made in response to your comment #338. ' The point missed is the classless society canNOT approve of anything like wealth disparity or the exploitation of man by man. If some people are allowed to shun work, the amount of wealth they'll share and enjoy will have to be the product of other people's work, and thus it'll add up to the exploitation of all those that work by the workshy. Thus, the classless order will no longer remain classless. Further, under the communist mode of production, the length of the working-day happens to be equal to its " minimum length "* determined by dividing the total amount of socially necessary labour-time per day by the number of working hands. Evidently, the total workload remaining unchanged, the smaller the workforce becomes, the longer the working-day grows. Thus, if the workshy do not have to perform any work but are allowed to equally share the social wealth, the rest of the workforce will have to overwork to produce the same required-amount of wealth and thus have to be exploited by the workshy. The communist mode of production canNOT allow things like longer working-day, overwork, etc. Therefore, if the workshy are allowed freedom to evade doing work, and if the work-loving and workaholics are not allowed to overwork, it'll lead to an inevitable shortfall in the total amount of social wealth, which will mean society's inability to meet everyone's need. The situation, if left unchecked, is certain to lead to theft, corruption, and, finally, the death of the ' higher phase ' of the communist order. The " technological ability to produce plenty " can't be an answer to the problem. Machines are made and run by humans, and machines in operation need be attended by humans too. With technological progress leading to higher labour-productivity, the " minimum length " of the working-day and with it, the per-capita share of the social workload must come down, total social workload remaining the same, and supposing all of the social workforce will equally share the social workload. Now, if the workshy can shun work, it'll lead to the same problems : longer working-day, overwork, the exploitation of the overworking lot by the workshy and the crafty and crooked, no overwork leading to a massive shortfall in total social wealth, etc, etc, and, finally, the death of the Utopian communism along with its basis, the lofty principle of " From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ". ' The above excerpt contains my main points, incontestable till now, against the principle at issue. They may not form ' a single sensible coherent argument ' you want, but they still remains incontestable and throw light on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of communistic classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism and Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism.
It's not clear to me why I should deserve this '' 2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings … ' The moderator1 is requested to clarify it. Does this mean I must stop responding to comments in response to mine in this thread ?
' Dear Prakash, As you consider yourself as an intellectual of noble [ sic ] laureate standard. [ sic ] You [ sic ] might want to start with looking at the ideas below … ' ( #404 by Dave B )I really consider myself worthy of a place in the front rank of Nobelists of all ages— past, present, and ages to come. Nevertheless, I don't think it has anything to do with the present debate. To win a debate, what you need is an incontestable argument. The display of erudition doesn't make your position any stronger in a debate. And a mistaken view is always mistaken, no matter who and how great or famous is the guy that holds it. The point is the view of communism premised on Marx's principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is plain wrong as it contradicts, as I've shown already, the very idea of the classless order premised on Marx's theory of communism. The failure of something like the ' Russian Mir system ' is not a proof of the rightness or the practicability of such a Utopian view of communism. You seem to have exhausted your faculty of reasoning, which makes you have recourse to silly acts like the display of erudition, RIGHT ? ' What you are proposing with your system of remuneration according to work done for … ' ( #406 ; Dave B )I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asserting that the right and practicable view of communism must rest on the principle of the mandatory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce for the mandatory equal-share in the social wealth, and that the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' can't form the basic principle for any practicable social order, and that it's outright a nonissue whether it appears to reflect something like the ' ruling bourgeois ideology ' or the thought of someone like Bentham or Christian Wolff. Do you want me to deal with any other argument that you think bolsters up your position in this debate ? Or, do you accept your defeat in it ? I'm thankful that you participated in this debate to help me thus find the truth, and that you haven't sneaked your departure from it like the silly and benighted that aren't aware that the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. I wish you'd soon awake to it and accept the fact and thus prove that not only are you possessed of the calibre needed in order to stand up straight with your head held erect before the truth, you're also a sensible and enlightened guy.
