Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
' Your so called ‘gratis labour’ as surplus labour in capitalism isn’t gratis of voluntary it is compelled and involuntary. ' ( #395 by Dave B ) It's not clear what's your point is. In my comment ( #394 ), I clearly stated that labour performed to create necessities and luxuries of life they need to lead a healthy and meaningful existence can't be viewed as ' labour performed gratis ' or ' voluntary labour '. It can't be ' gratis labour ' as it's not something like the surplus labour, also called, and justifiably so, the unpaid labour under the capitalist mode of production. It can't be ' voluntary labour ' either just because it's not ' gratis '. On these grounds, the paid necessary-labour in the capitalist mode of production is also non-voluntary. Voluntary labour has to be ' gratis ' first. Nevertheless, not every ' gratis ' labour is voluntary just as the fact that mangos are juicy fruits doesn't mean all juicy fruits are mangos. A glaring instance of ' gratis labour ' that is not voluntary is the unpaid labour under capitalism. Nevertheless, anyone is free to choose to steal or smuggle goods instead of working for a living as the wage slaves do. In this sense, you can claim the act of choosing to work as a wage slave does is voluntary, but the work performed for wages is not so. In the communist mode of production too, the social working-day consists of two parts : part-I is meant for contributions to common funds like the social insurance fund, fund for the care of minors, fund for the disabled and the aged, fund for scientific and technological researches, fund for progress and development, etc, etc and part-II for the necessities and luxuries the workers themselves need to lead a healthy and meaningful life ; both parts are compulsory for every able-bodied adult of working age. As I view it, the part-I, like the part-II, is compulsory from both the individual's viewpoint and the social viewpoint, and so it's not voluntary. Nevertheless, the part-I is not something like the unpaid surplus-labour a wage slave has to perform under capitalism just because it's meant for the common good of all including all those that have to work to contribute to these common funds while the wage slaves have to perform the compulsory unpaid labour not for the benefit of themselves or their beloved ones but for the benefit of a certain class, the capitalists, a class outright opposite the wage slaves. Hope you'd now fall in with my stance on ' gratis labour ', voluntary labour, etc. ' I had hoped that by drawing in material from Stalin, Lenin, the Mensheviks and Trotsky, amongst others, would demonstrate that that was not the orthodox interpretation of Marx … [ … we could draw in another extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system.] ' ( ibid ) My dear friend, large excerpts from works by some well-known people will certainly help display your erudition, but in a debate, it's arguments and counter-arguments that truly matter. None of the excerpts you've cited so far contain any arguments to show that Marx's concept of the ' higher phase ' of communism is not plain wrong and impracticable. ' [A]nother extended passage from Karl on the impractical possibility of using a labour voucher system ' is most unlikely to help prove your point. The impracticability of the ' labour voucher system ' doesn't prove the theory of communism or the concept the ' higher phase ' of communism practicable or impracticable. The fallaciousness of the view that the sun borrows its heat and light from the moon has got nothing to do with the fallaciousness or correctness of views like the assertion that the earth is a satellite of the moon or the observation that Venus is truly a black hole nearest to the earth. ' You talk about ‘bad’ people and the congenital or ‘naturally?’ work-shy. If you like to continue with that and expand on it a bit we could discuss that? ' ( ibid ) I think I've said more than enough about the design of Nature and about good people, bad people, the workshy, etc by nature. You may have a look at my comments #368, #373, #381, etc for my views on this issue. ' In the higher phase of communism the working class collectively will perhaps work longer than necessary to increase the means of production in order to reduce the working day in the future. ' ( ibid ) Citizens of the communist order are free to choose to work a longer time in the lower phase of communism too. Nevertheless, working a longer time this week to have one more day off the next week does not reduce the length of the social working-day. For a shorter working-day, you need achieve a breakthrough in science and technology which will lead to a growth in the labour productivity, which means a shorter working-day. Nevertheless, these points seem irrelevant to the main issue we're debating, namely, the practicability of Marx's view of the ' higher phase ' of communism. ' What you seem to be suggesting is a system that is useful to your queer bourgeois normal man, like yourself … ' ( ibid ) The above quote is another instance of your silly display of rudeness that reflects your pitiable intellectual immaturity. Such comments become people that are pathetically lacking in the calibre needed to comprehend the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, people that are so benighted and silly as to be outright unaware that in a debate the silly display of erudition or rudeness is useless, silly waste of time. I wish it'd soon come home to you that a debate is a conflict between views and counter-views which leads us to the truth, and that one side in a debate must emerge triumphant. It's unbecoming of the sensible to take it amiss when they face up to stronger views than theirs. The sensible are always for the truth, and true communists are sensible people, RIGHT ?
' REPEATING THE SAME SHIT ALL OVER AGAIN ' ( #385 by Marcos ) I'm sorry if I've ever said anything unfair to cause your displeasure. Nevertheless, I don't think repeating the same argument disproves it just as repeating the fact that gravity makes apples fall to the ground doesn't make it false or less true. Another most important point is the same argument can disprove more than one assertion, which makes the repetition of it indispensable. Would like to know what points you want me to deal with.
I've noticed the moderator 1's notification. In this connection, I'd like to state that I haven't ever repeated the same stuff unnecessarily and uselessly. A single argument can sometimes refute more than one argument, and for this reason, its repitition becomes necessary and justfied. I expect the moderator to consider this point. My comment #394 was my reply to Dave B's comment ( #382 ), wasn't it ?My posts #389, #394, and #397 are my reply to Dave B's comment #382, and the post #399 is my reply to Marcos's comment #385. The three posts were posted as three posts as they were written in three different days. Do you want to say I ought to have combined all these posts in a single post ?
Would like to change the expression ' The view ' in the first sentence of the last para in my last comment ( #394 ) to this : ' By the view '. I'd also like the expression ' obviously cannot do without … ' in it to be preceded by ' it '. Then I'd like to add what follows to my last comment ( #394 ). ' In such a case [ i.e. when scientific and technological progress has led to the growth in productivity to " such a high level " that " everything wanted by man will be produce in great abundance " ], the formula, " to each according to his needs " would be applied as a matter of course and … ' ( #382 by Dave B ) I don't think science and technology will ever make so much progress as to make socialism based on the ' formula, " To each according to his needs, " ' a reality. The phrase ' great abundance ' does not mean unlimited quantity, and because social productive forces and means of production can never grow unlimited, quantities of necessities and luxuries of life can never ever grow beyond a certain limit in order to make the ' higher phase ' , as Marx visualised it, of communism a dream come true. None of Lenin, Trotsky, and Kautsky seem to have considered the fact that either of overwork and working less means the exploitation of the overworking lot or all those working as much as they ought to do by the rest ( i.e. the workshy by nature and the crafty and crooked ) of the social workforce and the fact that the unequal share in the social wealth means the division of society into the rich and the poor. Either of these situations means the death of socialism defined as a social order free of exploitation, deprivation, discrimination, domination, and all other sorts of injustice, OK ?
Would like to add the following to my last comment ( # 389 ). ' Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, … but [ as ] voluntary labour … ' ( # 382 by Dave B )Citizens of the communist order, be it in its lower phase or in its ' higher phase ', must need necessities of life in order to stay alive and luxuries of life to lead a decent life, as this need is a must for everyone, and as it's them, and them alone, who must work to produce all necessities and luxuries of life meant to meet this common need of theirs, it's outright ludicrous to view their work meant to create all these things by themselves as ' labour performed gratis ' or ' voluntary labour ' on their part. Another most important point V.I. Lenin seems to have missed outright happens to be the fact that capitalism needs, for its survival, only a part ( i.e. surplus-labour ) of the total labour ( necessary labour + surplus labour ) of a labourer while communism in its higher phase will need, for its survival, the whole amount of the ' labour performed gratis ' or the ' voluntary labour ' performed by everyone of the social workforce, which means capitalism is far superior to communism, RIGHT ? ' … it is labour performed without expectation of reward … because it has become a habit to work for the common good and because of a conscious realisation ( … ) of the necessity of working for the common good— … ' ( ibid ) Lenin seems to be unaware that the workshy and the crafty and crooked are outright unlikely to consent to making a habit of working ' without expectation of reward ' or ' working [ just ] for the common good. ' Lenin also seems to have missed the point that not only does ' reward ' mean the filthy lucre or something in kind, it also means recognition, respect, and reputation that so many people in the capitalist world, such as environmentalists, human-rights activists, the ICAN and so many other pacifists, etc, etc, want, OK ?' ' It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale. ' ( ibid ) I'd like to replace the expression ' a very long way ' with ' a million light years away ' in the above quote. Trotsky also seems, like Lenin, to have missed the same points. ' Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.” ' ( ibid ) But I think it's ' pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “ [non-]utopian.” ' ' The material premise of communism should be so high … that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, … ' ( ibid ) What if the ' productive labor ' never ceases to be viewed as ' a burden ' by the workshy and the crafty and crooked ? Trotsky seems to have failed to give thought to this point, doesn't he ? ' … and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. ' ( ibid ) Thus, it's clear as day that Trotsky accepts that the distribution of wealth ( ' life's goods ' ) needs social control through ' education, habit and social opinion ' , and if he was alive today and took part in this debate , I'm sure I would win him to my side. ' … under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for … ' ( ibid ) The view of socialism as we find it in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and CAPITAL , based on the principle of the compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload by everyone of the social workforce for an equal share in social wealth obviously cannot do without forcing the bad citizens to comply with the socialist rules and regulations. Nevertheless, I'm not sure whether it makes dependence on something like the State indispensable for the socialist order. But I'm sure that the State won't disappear in order to prove that the utopian idea of communism ( i.e. the view of communism based on the silly principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' ) is not utopian.
Dear Dave, I have yet to read the whole of this brilliant comment by you, which appears to be an incontestable evidence of your impressive erudition. Nevertheless, I'd just like you to take cognisance of some points stated below. The issue I want to focus worldwide humanity's attention on is the universally-true, irreconcilable contradiction between the theory of communism that's a science discovered by Marx and Engels and communism based on the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' ( the latter also reflects Marx's thought ). The scientific theory of communism dictates that everyone of the social workforce must equally share the social workload for an equal share in the social wealth ( necessities and luxuries of life meant for decent living ). It doesn't need, nor does it approve of, overwork. It doesn't approve of working less either. It doesn't approve of sharing the social wealth more than the limit approved-of socially. On the other hand, the other model of the communist order is based on voluntary labour. By the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ', everyone is free to work or not to work and work as much as they please, and everyone is free to consume as much wealth as they please too. The problem with it is this evidently silly and impractical idea was also Marx's brainchild. Many such as all of you against me in this debate are so enchanted that they're unable to see the irreconcilable contradiction existing between the two models of communism. The contradiction is basic and becomes evident if we take cognisance of the fact that the former model ( the one based on the scientific theory of communism ) presupposes that humanity is, in conformity with the laws of Nature, composed of the good, the bad, the sensible, the silly, the workaholics, the workshy, etc, etc while the latter presupposes the existence of humanity consisting of only the good and desired elements such as the good and honest, not the bad nor the crafty and crooked, the sensible, none of the silly, the work-loving, not anyone that's workshy, etc, etc. Thus, the contradiction between the two ideas appears blazing like the mid-day summer sun. the absurdity of The latter also appears too blazing to be missed by the sensible. It's diversity that reflects the design of Nature— plants & trees, mushrooms, animals, flowering plants, non-flowering plants, fruit-bearing plants, plants not bearing fruits, beneficial plants, harmless plants, harmless-but-not-beneficial plants, harmful plants, warm-blooded animals, cold-blooded animals, mammals, non-mammals, placental mammals, non-placental mammals, and so on and so forth. Humanity is a part of Nature, and in keeping with the design and dialectics of Nature, humanity consists of, and it will always consist of, the good, the bad, the progressive, the reactionary, the erudite, the enlightened, the benighted, the-erudite-but-not-enlightend, the principled, hypocrites, etc, etc. But the silly view that ' in the higher phase of communism ', as all those enchanted by the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' love to believe, humanity will produce only the good all of whom must be equally good, only the sensible, the talented, the work-loving, etc, all of whom must be equally sensible, equally talented, equally work-loving, etc, etc, etc evidently runs counter to the very basic law and design of Nature and defies explanation, the way I see it. Because Marx said this or Engels saw it, I don't think it's right to draw a conclusion through the arbitrary generalisation of what they said or saw. ' Unrelated by blood was she to the man that she slew . ' The above citation occurs in the PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION ( 1891 ) of THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE by Engels. It was the defence of Erinyes, an ancient Greek, for his action of pursuing Orestes, another Greek character, that was accused of matricide, a criminal act that was ' the most heinous and inexpiable of crimes ' in the eyes of Erinyes, who wanted to kill Orestes ( he killed his own mother to avenge the slaying of his own father by his mother ) and thus punish him for the offence he committed. This citation signifies that the absence of an organised force like the police, an organised judiciary like the one we have, and prisons like ours doesn't mean they were all good people— so good that they were above wrongdoing, consequent on which fact, they did not need the police , prisons or the judiciary like the ones of our times. People in the Middle Ages didn't see anything like the judiciary of our times. The reason is not that they were too good to commit crimes. The reason is people in the Middle Ages were far less civilised than us, as I see it. The citation presented above also suggests incontestably that those ancient people were not unacquainted with heinous acts like homicide, and that acts like homicide were not viewed as criminal at all if the person killed was not a blood-relation of the killer's or so heinous a crime as killing a blood-relation was.
Would like to add the following to my last comment ( #381 ). ' Marx demonstrated that this was based on a fallacious model of the economy which is precisely the one you are putting forward here '. ( #338; robbo203 ) I fail to understand how the citation above is related to the issue in hand. Do you mean Marx demonstrated that it's the necessary labour, not the surplus labour, that truly happens to be unpaid and the source of capitalists' profit, and so Marx argued for regarding both sorts of labour as ' forced labour ' ?My model of communist order is totally resting on the CAPITAL by Marx and the law of value that Marx had always stood for, OK ? ' How is compulsory labour not also [ sic ] coerced labour? Explain '. ( ibid ) I've already explained it. Compulsory labour, in the communist mode of production, consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded. For this reason, it's outright wrong to view it as ' coerced ' or ' forced ', OK ? ' No no no – this is NOT the same thing at all. Social disapproval is completely compatible with a system of voluntary labour … What you are advocating is something totally different – an external body to actively monitor the labour contributions of everyone and … with the power to withhold consumption … who do not perform their bureaucratically-determined quota of work. ' ( ibid ) The ' social disapproval ' by your view seems to consist of only words meant to criticise and condemn people in the wrong, and so it reflects silliness, as I see it, and intellectual immaturity. My dear friend sanctions without teeth did NOT , and is quite unlikely to, bring Kim Jong-un round to dialogue with his South-Korean counterpart ; similarly, mere words of criticism and condemnation are NOT enough to turn a problem child into a model one. If mere words of disapproval were so effectual, the world would've been free of crime, coruption, and violence long before. I must strike out the term ' external ' in the above quote. We certainly don't need an ' external ' or ' alien ' body to ' monitor the labour contributions of everyone '. I must also strike through the term ' bureaucratically ' and substitute the term ' duly ' for it. ' What you are advocating, in other words, is a social arrangement which, … is “certain” to evolve in a new form of class society. ' ( ibid ) No, it's certain not to happen so. You've once again made a silly mistake. The compulsory working-day consisting of only the socially necessary labour-time together with everyone's equal share in the social wealth ensures NO one is poorer or richer than another. Rather, it's obvious that your Utopian communism based on voluntary labour and the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' means the exploitation of the good and dutiful citizens by the workshy and the crafty and crooked and uneven distribution and possession of social wealth, and thus it means the division of society into classes. ' Your “competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace” will turn out to be just another exploiting ruling class and the only way to pre-empt that is to institute the system of voluntary labour and free access that we call communism '. ( ibid ) Dear bro, you need a competent authority to run every organisation— schools, clubs, universities, hospitals, factories, offices, the generation and distribution of energy, transportation, etc, etc. A competent authority meant to keep vigil on people at work won't lead to exploitation and thus the division of society into classes I've already thrown enough light on this point. What we have to do to do away with classes is to make the social working-day equal to only the socially necessary labour-time and ensure that everyone of the social workforce equally share and perform their share of the social workload, and that everyone of them is equally rewarded— that is we have to ensure the compulsory equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth.I've also thrown light on ' the system of voluntary labour and free access [ to social wealth ] that [ you ] call communism ' and shown how silly and unrealistic it is.
Would like to add what follows to my last remark #373. ' In fact , I would say the very system of forced labour which you advocate is the very system that predisposes individuals to become “workshy”. ' ( #338; robbo 203 ) First off, I'd like you to take cognisance of the fact that viewing what, according to Marx, happens to be ' necessary labour ' ( CAPITAL Volume I ) as ' forced labour ' is plain wrong. By the law of value, it's the ' surplus labour ' labourers have to perform gratis in the capitalist mode of production, which generates capitalists' profit. It is this ' surplus labour ' or ' unpaid labour ' that truly deserves to be viewed as ' forced labour '. In the capitalist mode of production, workers are duly paid for their ' necessary labour '. In the communist mode of production, the working-day is shortened so as to make it equal to the necessary labour-time to make sure that none have to overwork, and performers of this labour are duly rewarded. Therefore, it's outright wrong, by economic logic, to treat the necessary labour as ' forced labour '. Under capitalism, the motivation behind work is money that workers need to buy necessities of life along with some cheap luxuries. Under communism, it's good sense, the awareness that all the necessities and luxuries of life they need to lead a healthy and meaningful life will have to be produced by themselves that should motivate people to share the social workload equally and perform everyone's share of work with full care. And since this workload consists of only socially necessary labour and is duly rewarded under communism, it cannot be called ' forced labour '. This is another refutation of your assertion that the compulsory sharing of social workload under communism is equivalent to coercion. Therefore, viewing my view of communism as a ' system of forced labour ' that ' predisposes the individuals to become " workshy " ' appears outright unfounded. ' Free voluntary labour is its own intrinsic reward and there have many many empirical studies that bear out this very point. ' ( ibid ) My dear friend, communism based on ' Free voluntary labour ' is a myth. I've thrown enough light on this point, and there's no good reason why the sensible should miss it. My arguments are as simple as the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four. Let me restate my main points once again. Under communism, the social working-day will consist of only the necessary labout-time, which makes it impossible for anyone to overwork or evade their share of work. If some people ( the workshy and the crafty and crooked ) are allowed to evade work, and if it's not offset by overwork by the rest of the workforce, total social wealth is bound to fall below the targeted amount. Under the circumstance, it'd be impossible for everyone to be provided with their due share of wealth, let alone as much wealth as they need. This shows how silly and unrealistic the idea of communism based on the lofty principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is. If the ' Free voluntary labour ' was realistic and better than the capitalistic forced labour, capitalism would not survive so long and make so much progress. The ' many many empirical studies ' glorifying ' Free voluntary labour ' must be awfully flawed. So far you haven't referred to any such points that led you to your belief in these studies, have you ? ' This is muddled thinking. The point about wage labour under capitalism is that necessary labour and surplus labour are coterminous. Unlike in feudalism you don’t have one part of the working day devoted to necessary labour and another part to surplus labour. Both forms of labour are inseparable under the general heading of coerced wage labour. ' ( ibid ) Your conclusion that ' Both forms of labour are inseparable under the general heading of coerced wage labour ' seems to be premised on your view that they are ' coterminous '. Therefore, I must question this view of yours. In the first place, the necessary labour is wholly paid labour that does NOT generate profit. In the second place, the surplus labour that generates profit happens to be, by the law of value, wholly unpaid and remains so in the capitalist mode of production. Thus, the distinction between the two sorts of labour is manifestly basic and blazing like the mid-day summer sun. It passes my comprehension how a sensible man can fail to see it and put them in the same category of ' coerced wage labour '. The two sorts of labour, there's no good reason to fail to see it, NOT inseparable under communism. It's also wrong to view unpaid labour as ' wage labour ' just because it's unpaid. Would like to deal with your other points in my next post.
Would like to add the following points to my comment #368. ' … but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. ' ( #338 ; robbo 203 ) My ideas about communism are wholly based on the thought of Marx & Engels. I've already provided my ideas with incontestable citations from CAPITAL VOL I & III to show that there's no contradiction between my view of communism and that of Marx's and Engels's. It's only Marx's view of the basic principle of the higher phase of communism occurring in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that I find irreconcilable with his view of the classless communist order and the communist mode of production as we find it in CAPITAL by Marx. It is this irreconcilable contradiction existing actually between two views of Marx that I'm trying to throw light on and thus awaken humanity to ( maybe I'm the first to do it ; do I deserve this credit ? ). ' People are not lazy in general but you have opted to make a generalised statement … ' ( ibid ) This is an instance of misinterpretation of my views. I never said anything to the effect that people in general are workshy. Even in my last comment ( #368 ), I stated clearly that ' workshyness, craft and crookedness ', etc are natural traits in harmony with Nature's design ( just as flowering plants and non-flowering plants reflect Nature's design ). ' From this it doesn't follow that I think the workshy or the crafty and crooked make up the majority of humanity. But it doesn't mean the workshy or the crafty and crooked aren't, if they can do whatever they like, a cause for concern just as because the antisocial elements are a minority vis-à-vis the totality of humanity, it's not a sensible idea to turn a blind eye to their activities and breathe easy and approve of the proposal to curb the police budget. Terrorists are also a minority. Of course you don't think that on these grounds, the war against terror is useless and senseless wastage of money and time, and that we ought to stop it right now and take heed of lots of other business, do you ? Smallness does not necessarily mean slightness or harmlessness. There're so many instances that corroborate this view of mine. The minority, if they're united and well-organised surely can rule over the majority that are divided and disorderly. The born poor and penniless millions make up the 99%, by Oxfam's wealth data, of humanity. Still, they're exploited by the rich and the super-rich, who together make up not more than 1%, and thus they help the rich and the super-rich grow richer and richer while they themselves keep growing poorer and poorer. The reason is simple. Humanity consists of both the silly and benighted and the sensible and enlightened. The silly and benighted make up the overwhelming majority of the 99% today, as I see it.. I think I've said enough to throw light on this point, namely, the fact that smallness in terms of number doesn't mean powerlessness or harmlessness. Although a minority, the workshy or the crafty and crooked, if not compelled to join in with their work-loving fellows, surely they may bring about the death of the communist order. I've thrown light on this point in my last comment #368. ' Excuse me but you are the one arguing for a system of compulsory or coerced labour. How are you going to implement this compulsion? ' ( ibid ) You've certainly raised a sensible point : how to implement this compulsion ? But you seem to be outright unaware of the distinction between the two points : what we have to do and how we have to do it. The fact of the matter is the workshy, the crafty and crooked, and all other elements opposed to communism must be dealt with successfully if we are for communism. You seem to be all for, unconsciously, abandoning communism if you must choose between communism ( with compulsion meant to check up on anti-communist elements ) and not communism. My dear friend, compulsion and the application of force are inseparable from life. As a responsible guardian or teacher, you can't avoid using compulsion or force to deal with unruly and disobedient kids, can you ? The point is we have to ascertain the most effective and acceptable way to deal with all people with disturbing traits. Nevertheless, as compulsion aimed at dealing with problem children does not make non-problem children feel disturbed, there's no good reason for you, if you're a good citizen, to feel perturbed at the communist principle of compulsory equal-sharing of social workload just as we don't feel disturbed because of the proper action by guardians of law and order against the antisocial and other bad citizens. Rather, on the contrary, we feel awfully disturbed if the guardians of law and order fail to take proper action against the disturbing elements in society. Compulsion or the application of force approved of by society, which is meant to deal with people with hostile and harmful traits, should not be viewed as coercion or being bossed around by the good and responsible citizens, IMHO. Thank you for raising this point. I may not have given to it as much importance as it deserves. Nevertheless, I'd still like to adhere to my point : communism is a science ; for this reason, it must be compulsory equal-sharing of the total social workload for an equal share in the social wealth. As plants consist of flowering plants and non-flowering plants and creatures of the warm-blooded and cold-blooded ones, children will consist of both problem children and good children and humanity of the good and the bad, the sensible and the silly, the progressive and the reactionary, etc, etc. Therefore, if the communist order is to be a reality and survive, communists have to deal with hostile and harmful elements like the workshy. Life in the communist order can't be free of force. ' If you are going to compel people to work you are also going to have to monitor their labour input. … To monitor my labour input you are going to have somebody doing the monitoring and chastising … ' ( ibid ) I'd like the term ' people ' in the first line to be changed to ' people with disturbing traits '. I'd also like you not to miss the distinction between what we have to do and how we have to do it. I'd also like you not to fail to see that the issue of the first importance is the former : what we have to do. You have to wrack your brain to find the right answer to this query first. After finding it, you'd best find the right answer to the latter. We have to do what we have to do. Finding the best way to do it won't be too tough for humanity in this space age. ' The temptation to corruption is inherent in a system of labour compulsion. In fact , I would say the very system of forced labour which you advocate is the very system that predisposes individuals to become “workshy”. ' But I believe corruption is rooted in the twin evils: money and power. Money means commodity economy the fundamental law of which is the uneven distribution of wealth and income. In an unequal society, you can always see someone wealthier than you or someone less wealthier than you but the wealth disparity seems to you not so large as it ought to be to please you. This gives rise to a hankering to amass wealth, which soon degenerates into an insatiable craving for wealth— wealth, more wealth, and yet more wealth, as if wealth is everything in life; as if life is meaningless without wealth. But in capitalism, lawful roads to riches are too few while there happens to be no dearth of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices. Nevertheless, for making easy money through illicit means and evading being brought to book, you need be powerful. This explains why the high-flying, high-profile men and women are so prone to corruption and the abuse of power. Would like to deal with your other points in my next post.
' I don’t consider that you have a “clear concept of the basics of communism” … ' ( #338 ; robbo 203 ) The statement reflects silliness and intellectual immaturity. In actual fact, it's you that, I'm afraid, seems to be pathetically lacking in the ' concept of basics of communism '. ' No communist would ever come out with such a preposterous remark as you have done – namely that “ the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is impractical and incompatible with the free communist society” '. ( ibid ) To be a communist, you have to be sensible first, and then you have to be endowed with the backbone you need in order to face up to the truth. The sensible cannot fail to see something like the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and the truth glaring before their eyes like the mid-day summer sun. To my astonishment and disgust, almost all of the debaters against this lone guy in this thread seem to be devoid of these very basic attributes a communist must be possessed of. Your failure to notice the irreconcilable contradiction, notwithstanding I'm thrown more than enough light on it, between the communist aim of classless society and the fallacious principle of ' " from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs " ' reflects this fact, IMHO . We make mistakes. None of us is infallible. Nevertheless, the fact that differentiates the sensible from the silly is the former group of people, unlike the latter group, admit to it as soon as they awake to their mistakes and take necessary corrective steps as soon as possible, and thus they prove they're not silly while, on the other hand, the silly persist in refusing to be awakened to their glaring errors and keep repeating the same errors. The irreconcilable contradiction between the communist aim of the classless society and the principle at issue shows the impracticability of this principle and why it's incompatible with free communist society. Your silence on this point is intriguing and might be taken to mean silly evasion, I'm afraid to say. ' I think you position is closer to Stalinism than it … ' ( ibid ) This is a mere personal impression, something subjective, not an argument. Even if my position on an issue is truly ' closer to Stalinism ', it doesn't follow that it's wrong or that I'm a Stalinist. ' … but you won’t find Marx sharing your crass authoritarian ideas about “communism”. ' ( ibid ) This is another silly instance reflecting the commenter's subjective thought. Even if my idea of communism deserves your description, it doesn't follow that it's wrong, and that yours is right, RIGHT ? ' Marx fully endorsed the principle you repudiate as “impractical and incompatible with the free communist society”. ' ( ibid ) I think I've already dealt with such arguments. If the theory of communism deserves to be reckoned a science, something can't be acceptable as right just on the grounds that it was endorsed by Marx, one of the originators of the theory of communism, or someone else. Marx was an individual who was not perfect nor infallible like any other individuals. Albert Einstein, the Great Man of Science, cherished something as silly as belief in Spinoza's God. Of course this silly belief cannot deserve to be reckoned scientific just because it was cherished by a great scientific figure like Einstein, does it ? The contradiction between the idea of classless order and the principle at issue happens to be blazing like the mid-day sun, something too glaring to escape the sensible's notice, doesn't it ? Communists must either reconcile the idea of classless society and the principle at issue or repudiate one of them, and I'm all for repudiating, if we must repudiate one, the latter just because not only is it impractical, it's useless as well, OK ? I wish you awoke to this point and stopped bringing unfounded charges against me. ' " after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! " ' ( ibid ) Frankly, the meaning of the content of the above quote isn't clear to me. Is it really clear to you ? Do you really understand what Marx meant by the expression ' the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' ? Could you explain how the vanishing of ' enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor ' along with the vanishing of ' the antithesis between mental and physical labor ' , the transformation of labour into ' life's prime want ', etc will lead to the reconciliation between the idea of classless order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' and thus effect the transition from the lower phase of communism to the ' higher phase ' based on this principle ? As I see it, the above citation is a mere hypothetical assertion that belongs to the category of subjective thought, not logic. And it doesn't contain any such stuff as the one that proves the practicability of the idea of basing the classless order on the principle at issue. ' What I was attacking was your basic claim that because some individuals in a communist society of free voluntary labour would allegedly not want to work, society as a whole is “certain” to collapse. I reject that argument completely. ' ( ibid ) Dear friend, to reject an argument, you have to point to its fallacy by valid counterarguments. You cannot reject an argument with your might, can you ? My claim is resting on sound logic that's immune to your might. ' Even if hypothetically what you say was true about some people being predisposed to just laze around all day doing nothing, a communist society could comfortably carry them given our technological ability to produce plenty. ' ( ibid ) 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! ' ' It is they who are the ones who will actually lose out on the sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity in a free society in which, to quote Marx again, labour “has become not only a means of life but life's prime want”. ' ( ibid ) First off, I feel I should bring it to your notice that the above citation reflects something subjective, your personal thought, not logic. Second, I'd like you to take cognisance of the fact that workshyness, craft and crookedness, etc are natural traits in harmony with Nature's design ( just as flowering plants and non-flowering plants reflects Nature's design ). There's nothing in the theory of communism that assures you in the ' higher phase ' of the communist order, humanity will consist of only the good, the sensible, and the work-loving. Nor is there any good reason to believe that ' sheer pleasure of cooperation and creativity ' is a guaranted cure for the maladies like workshyness, crookedness, etc. And do please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't labour already ' a means of life ' and ' life's prime want ' for the 99% that, by Oxfam's wealth data, consist of hard-working poor people that were born poor to sweat blood and to be exploited by the 1% and thus grow poorer and poorer ? Nevertheless, most of this hard-working crowd labour not for love but for money they're pressed for for buying necessities and some occasional luxuries of life. Would like to deal with your other points in my next post. * CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, IV. ( 2. ) by Marx
Hi Adam, what's the matter with you ? You seem to have been silent for an eternity. I wish you would break silence soon and oblige me by articulating your stance on my view of the contradiction existing between the idea of the classless communist order and the principle of ' From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Almost all of the debaters against me in this thread hold my view wrong. I, however, don't expect you to be on my side. I'd just like you to clarify your stance on the following points. What follows is an excerpt from CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day is fixed by this necessary … portion of it. If the whole working-day were to shrink to this portion, surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' My contenders seem to believe that the term ' necessary ' in the expression ' this necessary … portion of it ' is an instance of many mistakes by Marx, and that the correct term ought to be ' unnecessary '. They also seem to hold the view that the terms ' surplus-labour ' and ' capital ' in the above quote are two more instances of similar mistakes made by Marx, and that the term ' surplus-labour 'is to be replaced by ' necessary-labour ' and ' capital ' by something like ' compital '. Surely you agree with them, aren't you ? ' Only by suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( ibid ) They also seem to hold that the term ' capitalist ' in ' capitalist form of production ' and the term ' necessary ' in ' necessary labour-time ' are also erroneous, and that ' capitalist ' ought to be taken to mean ' communist ' while ' necessary ' ought to be replaced by ' surplus '. You also approve of their view wholly, don't you ? ' But it still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins … the true realm of freedom, which however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. ' ( CAPITAL Volume III, part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III ) Most of the debaters against me seem to believe the above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III is also replete with silly mistakes made by Marx and Engels. In their view, Marx and Engels actually meant ' a realm of freedom ' by ' a realm of necessity ' and the ' lengthening of the working-day ' by the ' shortening of the working-day '. They also seem to believe that Marx and Engels actually meant that there'll be nothing like the ' realm of necessity ' in the communist order, and that everyone in the communist order will have free access to the ' realm of freedom ' where they'll stay as long as they please and enjoy wealth to satiety— none will ask them to do any work or to squander wealth a bit less. They seem to be certain that there'll exist an unlimited store of wealth created by capitalists, which they must take possession of during the communist revolution, and so none of them would have to do any work meant to create wealth for their enjoyment. You also agree with them wholly on these points, don't you ?
'Adam should take a serious stand and send this guy to the fucking hell. He is just trying to ridiculizes him ' ( #349; Marcos ) I also think 'Adam should take a serious stand ' and articulate his stand on the realms at issue and thus enlighten me before sending me ' to the fucking hell. ' He seems to have been silent for ages, doesn't he ?' He is just trying to ridiculizes him ' ( #349 ) The meaning is not clear.
' Wrong again, and that was answered already in prior messages. Marx is referring to the capitalist society. Marx never advocated for wage slavery. We have said hundred of times in this forum that labor in a comunist society would be voluntary. Period ' ( #347; Marcos ) Dear friend, the repetition of the same mistaken view does not make it right. The fact of the matter is the ' minimum length of the working-day ' Marx referred to in CAPITAL Volume I ( chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2 ) and both the ' realm of necessity ' and the ' realm of freedom ' referred to by Marx in CAPITAL Volume III ( part VII, chapter XLVIII, section III ) refer wholly to the working-day and the realms in question under communism, which happens to be blazing like the mid-day summer sun. It disgusts me to see that respectable members of the SPGB fail to see it. I wish the mistakes would soon come home to you.
