Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
' The question of what money was meant to do is largely irrelevant to me … ' ( #335; comment by Steve-SanFranci … ) The ' question of what money was meant to do ' is the most important one to someone interested to know what money is truly and primarily meant for and what are its limitations. What money was meant to do may be wholly ' irrelevant ' to you or there may exist, as you've claimed, ' a lot of definitions ' of money and ' a lot of different ways ' of using money, but from all these, it doesn't follow that the view that money is, by definition, meant to measure the value of a commodity or the thesis that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity is wrong. Nor does it follow from your view that ' money is currently used mostly to measure only the capital value … ' that my view of money is wrong as you've claimed in your comment #297. And if money can measure the ' capital value ', what makes it incapable of measuring the value, I wonder. ' All other value besides capital value is discarded and not counted in any exchange unless it can be somehow converted into money via a mode of exchange before purchase. ( #335 ) Does the expression ' All other value ' include the value ( exchange-value ) of the commodity, during the purchase of which we have to part with a definite sum of money ? I don't think I ever had to discard the value of a commodity or get it converted into money before purchasing the commodity. You see, I'm not an erudite person, nor am I interested in specialising in the subject money. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, who understands the simple arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and tries to find answers to problems relating to life with the help of this simple logic. I believe my view of money is correct. You interested me by your challenge : ' You're [ sic] thesis is wrong. ' ( #297 ) I have yet to go through the whole length of this comment ( #335 ) of yours. Nevertheless, so far I haven't found any stuff in it which appears weighty enough to challenge my view of money. Besides, I'm short of time too. Therefore, I'd like you to oblige me with a list of your main points that you think disprove my view of money. ' Money is a counting system and like any accounting system can in theory be used to measure anything. ' ( #335 ) It seems that your view of money forms the premise of your conclusion that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything. ' I can't see how the premise led you to this conclusion. Can you really use money to measure ' anything ' such as the length of a piece of cloth, the area of a piece of land or the efficacy of a therapy ? Could you state the right price of a pair of shoes that you consider worthy of a guy of your stature on the basis of the thesis that money ' can in theory be used to measure anything ' ? ' The right definition of money depends on how you are going to use the money. ' ( #335 ) Why should such a definition of money deserve to be viewed as ' right ' and all other definitions wrong ? And if such a definition is right, then what's wrong with my view of money which is based on the way humanity worldwide had used and have been using money since its first appearance in the prehistory of man ?
Hi Adam, how do you view the ' realm of necessity '* and the ' realm of freedom '* ? Do you think these two expressions are meant to suggest that all work under communism will be voluntary ? * These two phrases occur in the following excerpt. See also my comments #343 & #346. ' Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must [ a ] civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. … Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature ; and … But it nonetheless 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. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume III, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW; p 820 )
Would like to add the following to my comment #343. If some people ( say 2 out of 10 ) are allowed freedom to shun work, the ' minimum length ' ( see CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2, to know what Marx meant by the ' minimum length ' of the working-day under the communist mode of production ) of the working-day will no longer remain minimum ( it'll be longer by 2 hours than the ' minimum length ' of 8 hours if the total workload, i.e. 80 hours, remains the same ). Therefore, it's obvious that if we must not work longer than we're required to do, nobody* can be allowed to shun their share of the total social workload. Hence, it follows that the sharing of the social workload under communism must be compulsory for all*. * bar all those entitled to exemption from work
' There is no suggestion at all in Marx [ sic ] that the "social workload" cannot be shared on a completely voluntary and unforced basis. ' ( #307 ; comment by robbo203 ) My dear friend, Marx & Engels really and truly did not envisage that communists of the 21st century will be so stupid as to fail to realise something as simple as the arithmetic logic that two and two makes four and see the truth that is blazing like the mid-day summer sun before their eyes. You need only a clear concept of the ABCs of the theory of communism in order to see the fallacy of the principle of “from each according to ability to each according to need ”. The citation ( #305 ) from the CAPITAL Volume III suggests clearly that the ' socialised man ', if it wants freedom, must enter into the ' realm of freedom ' ( i.e. the realm in which everyone* is free of any compulsion to do or not to do something ) from the ' realm of necessity ' ( the realm that necessitates everyone* doing work ). None in the ' realm of necessity ' have any other choice than to share work with all others* , OK ? And by the communist formula, the ' basic prerequisite ' meant to ensure everyone's entry into the ' realm of freedom ' , is the compulsory ' shortening of the working-day ' to make it equal to its ' minimum length ' ( see CAPITAL Volume I , chapter XVII, section IV, subsection 2, to know what Marx meant by the ' minimum length ' of the working-day under the communist mode of production ). Thus, it ought to be clear as day to every sensible man or woman that communism means the compulsory working-day of the shortest-possible length as well as the compulsory sharing of the social workload by everyone* . And since both the working-day ( of definite length ) and the sharing of the social workload ( which is also limited in quantity ) are compulsory for all* , the latter has to be equal. * bar all those entitled to exemption from work
Would like to add the following points to my comment #336. ' And again I see you make no attempt to relate the point I make about the workload that a communist society will face to the idea of motivation to work. ' ( #303 ) I'm not against ' the idea of motivation to work ', but I don't think it's a cure for workshyness or neglectfulness, a natural trait of some people. ' You sound like the Conservative Government’s Employment Secretary … ' ( #303 ) The truth remains true always, regardless of who states it and where it's stated. ' Personally I consider the very term "workshy" which you have chosen to use here reveals the same kind of contempt for the workers that you might expect of a capitalist politician. ' ( #303 ) Personal respect and contempt has got nothing to do with the truth of a statement or an idea. Because the capitalists detest the workshy that, by some SPGB members' standards, deserve great respect, it doesn't follow that workshyness deserves respect or that if the workshy are allowed freedom to shun work, they won't cause any harm to the foundation of the social order. And by this lone communist's standards, neither the workshy nor the working community on the whole that find nothing wrong with their wage-slavery deserve respect. They're benighted, lowly, and foolish— so much so that they aren't aware that wage-slavery doesn't fit in with the Principle of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING . ' Workers are not workshy. If they were, the system would collapse tomorrow. ' ( #303 ) I'd like to replace the second statement in the above quote with this : If all of the working community were workshy and allowed freedom to shun work, the system would collapse. The truth is not all workers are workshy nor are all of the workshy are free to shun work. The workshy have to work for money they need in order to survive. ' Many who you malign as workshy will be found working hard at all sorts of things which a capitalist politician might not consider to be work – since it is done outside the money economy – but it is still nevertheless very clearly “work”. ' ( #303 ) As I see it, workshyness is defined as natural aversion to all sorts of work. I've got no idea of what, other than the compulsion like need for money to buy necessities and luxuries of life or something that makes jailed people work, can make the workshy turn into hard-working people. I've got no idea either of the ' sorts of things ' that are not included in the ' money economy ' but deserve to be reckoned ' work '. Nevertheless, I'm not aware of what in the theory of communism may be useful to cure workshyness and turn the workshy into work-loving, hard-working guys. ' Once again you seem to have no comprehension of this point in your enthusiasm to smear your fellow workers as “workshy”. ' ( #303 ) Once again you make a false and silly allegation against me. And it's another instance reflecting your silliness and intellectual immaturity. The sensible know that by such silly comments, the commenters lower themselves and turn into objects of scorn and ridicule. ' Of course you are adopting a pessimistic view … ' ( #303 ) This is another instance showing how silly and immature you are. I still stick to my point ( i.e. humanity consists of the sensible, the dutiful, the workaholics, etc alongside of the silly, the neglectful, the workshy, etc, etc ; for this reason, if the silly and the workshy are allowed freedom to shun work or do whatever they like, it's certain to endanger the very foundation of and thus the entire communist order ) and hold that I'm a hundred percent correct on this point. This is an incontestable argument showing the hollowness of your position and the principle of ' “from each according to ability to each according to need ". ' Would like to know by what definition of pessimism, the truth deserves to be viewed as pessimistic. ' I don’t think you are a communist. ' ( #303 ) I really and truly don't expect you and the army of the silly who are right behind you in this debate to think so as all of you are disgustingly lacking in the clear concept of the ABCs of the theory of communism. ' No communist would repudiate the principle “from each according to ability to each according to need ”.' ( #303 ) I've already thrown enough light on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of classless communist order and the silly principle at issue. For this reason, communists cannot stand for this principle as long as the way of reconciling the two ideas remains undiscovered. ' The way I see it the kind of society you advocate will reproduce the very system of class exploitation you claim to oppose. It will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a techno-managerial elite … “equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth”. ' ( #303 ) The issue of whether my view of communism, the classless communist order, and the contradiction existing between the classless communist order and the principle “from each according to ability to each according to need ” is right or wrong is quite different from the issue of what sort of social order with my view as its basis will truly emerge. It seems you're aware of the correctness of my view. You're still opposed to it as you fear that it'll lead to the concentration of ' power in the hands of a techno-managerial elite '. Nevertheless, I don't see eye to eye with you on this point. ' How for example, do you compare the labour of a janitor with the labour of neurosurgeon … ' ( #303) The work of a janitor, an engineer, a professor, or a porter have got one thing in common, and it happens to be ' human labour in the abstract. ' ( Marx ; CAPITAL Volume I, Part I, Chapter I, Section 1 ) Different products consume different quantities of human labour. Therefore, under communism, we can easily compare different kinds of goods and services through the socially necessary labour spent for their production. For example, if a writing pen is the product of x hours of socially necessary labour and 1 metre of cloth is the product of y hours of socially necessary labour, we can easily find the equation y= nx and say 1 metre of cloth is equivalent to n writing pens, OK ? Your ignorance of these points shows you're lacking in the knowledge of the ABCs of communism, IMHO. Any more questions ? Please try to put forward sensible questions.
' You fully deserve that allegation in my opinion. ' ( comment #303 by robbo 203 ) No, I don't deserve that allegation . On the contrary, I think it's you that deserves to be accused of bringing false charges against me. In my comment ( #301 ), I clearly stated that ' I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. ' It's implied that some humans are naturally silly and neglectful of their duty. It's you, and you alone, that happens to be to blame for missing or pretending to miss the term ' not ' in the expression ' not all humans '. I also stated plain and point-blank that there're and there'll be for all eternity the workshy alongside of workaholics ' in keeping with laws of Nature as there are and there will always be flowering plants, nonflowering plants, and cold-blooded animals alongside of the warm-blooded, OK ? ' ( #301 ) What I said implies that by Nature's design, humanity consists of the good, the bad, the progressive, and the reactionary as well as the hard-working and the lazy and slothful. The distinction between my view and the ' typical bourgeois prejudice ' that cannot see or pretends not to see the good, the sensible, the hard-working, etc is glaring like the mid-day summer sun. You seem to have chosen, to the pleasure of the bourgeois, to make such mistakes. And you don't seem to be sensible enough to realise that by such mistakes you're actually fooling yourself and squandering your own precious time too. ' You now try to wriggle out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself … ' ( #303 ) I'm not trying, nor do I feel I need try, to wriggle out of any hole. I still stick to my earlier position and believe that participation in economic activities ( i.e. activities meant to produce wealth ) can't be, be it in the capitalist order or in the communist order, voluntary ( #281 ), and that if the workshy are allowed freedom to shun work under communism, it'd threaten, without doubt, the survival of the communist order ( #281 & #301 ). ' Many people don’t like the idea of being bossed around at work … ' ( #303 ) I don't think I ever said anything suggesting that I'm for making people consent to ' being bossed around at work '. ' you can be certain that [ the ] problem will [ be ] overcome by the very simple and very effective mechanism that is called social disapproval. ' ( ibid ) So, you're for something ' very simple and very effective mechanism ', something you want to call ' social disapproval ', which is aimed at making the workshy, the ' lazy and slothful ' by nature, perform their share of the social workload duly and wholly. Thus, you accept the correctness of my position that the sharing of the social workload must be compulsory. What you mean by the ' very simple and very effective mechanism ' is what I mean by a competent body authorised to keep vigil on people in their workplace and deal with the silly, the workshy, etc. The point is the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ' is impractical and incompatible with the free communist society where life must be free from exploitation, deprivation, domination, discrimination, and all other sorts of injustice. Thus, freedom under communism is well defined, and it by no means means freedom for the silly and the wicked to do whatever they like. ' What on earth are you talking about? Your thinking on this matter seems very confused and muddled. … ' ( #303 ) I was talking about communism, and what I said was aimed at enlightening you about the ABCs of communism because you all proved to be lamentably lacking in this knowledge. No wonder that my comments seem ' very confused and muddled ' to you. ' It is coerced labour just as much as that part of the worker’s labour that goes to reproduce her labour power. ' ( #303 ) I don't think the Marxian law of value approves of viewing the necessary-labour part of a worker's total labour as ' coerced labour '. Dear bro, the necessary labour is paid labour, and so it can't be right to put it in the same category along with the unpaid labour ( surplus-labour ). ' You are the one who wants a system of coerced labour , … ' ( #303 ) This is another instance of unfounded allegation brought by you against me. It's also another silly instance of your intellectual immaturity. I'm a communist that claims to have a clear concept of the basics of communism. I know communism is meant to rid the capitalist working-day of the unpaid-labour, and thus do away with the exploitation of the poor millions by the 1% . Under the communist mode of production, the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' consists of only necessary-labour time that must be rewarded with its equivalent amount of wealth. Communism doesn't pay for any work. But then, it never refuses to reward any piece of work duly. For this reason, your share of the social workload, although it must be compulsory for every able-bodied man or woman, you included, of working age, can't count as ' coerced ', IMHO. Only if viewed from the perspective of the workshy and the silly, should the compulsory necessary labour under communism appear ' coerced '. And so it's only the silly and the workshy that should view communism as the worst system.
' I think he's more [ like ] what Marx called a "crude communist". ' ( comment #274 by ALB ) You seem to be over-certain that Marx created this expression to mean people like this lone guy who's perhaps the first to enlighten humanity about the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of a classless society and the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs '. Marx isn't accessible today. Could you state how to reconcile the two ideas with one another and thus make both of them equally acceptable ? Could you explain what led you to be so sure that by ' a " crude communist " ', Marx really meant none but this lone guy ? Even if I really deserve to be labelled ' a " crude communist " ', it doesn't mean anything I think or say is wrong, does it ? As far as I know, Marx and Engels, the duo that originated the theory of communism, treated it as science and wanted every question relating to it dealt with with the highest degree of scientific precision. Am I right or wrong ? The fact of the matter is the communist goal of classless society is realisable only through the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' ( CAPITAL Volume I by Marx, chapter XVII, part IV, section 2 ) and the compulsory equal sharing of the social workload for the compulsory equal share in the social wealth. The classless society cannot approve of overworking by anyone as it'll entail idleness, enforced or wilful, of at least one else, which amounts to the exploitation of the overworking lot by the idle ones, hence the division of society into classes ( the exploiters and the exploited ). On the other hand, the principle in question dictates that the sharing of the social workload is voluntary and unequal, and that sharing the social wealth is also voluntary and unequal. Thus the contradiction between the idea of classless order and the principle at issue appears blazing like the mid-day summer sun and irreconcilable. Calling me ' a " crude communist " ' may become and please Adam and co., but it cannot conceal the fact that the contradiction at issue happens to be irreconcilable and the fact that Adam and co. have got a lot to learn from this lone guy, ' a " crude communist " '.
' In some way his thesis is correct '. ( comment #298 by Marcos ) It's implied that you think in some other way the thesis in question is incorrect. Would like you to throw light on this point about which I'm truly in the dark wholly. ' It has existed for many years ' . ( ibid ) Professor Robert J. Aumann said the thesis occurs, with different wording, in Daniel Bernoulli's work ' "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". ' . Could you name some other sources to corroborate your claim ? ' Marx also described it on Capital, that is plagiarism. ' ( ibid ) Would like you to oblige me with some citations from Marx's works to this effect ( i.e. citations corroborating this view of yours and your allegation of ' plagiarism ' ) . ' … what is not correct is his [ claim ] that he is the originator of that thesis. ' ( ibid ) I gave up my claim to have originated the thesis at issue many days ago. ' What is not correct is his point of view regarding socialism and capitalism, and … ' ( ibid ) You see such observations belong to the category of subjective impressions and thus can't deserve to be reckoned logic, and in a debate it's logic, not stuff like personal impressions without logical foundation, that matters. I can also state similar things about you, all the debaters against me in this thread, and thus claim that all of you wrong. I won't say anything to that effect because I'm aware of distinctions between logic and non-logic. ' … he is taking literally many conceptions and have applied them to socialism '. ( ibid) Can you define the distinction between what is taking in literal sense and what is taking in non-literal sense ? Perhaps, not. On the other hand, such a statement evidently suggests that my position is a lot stronger, logically, than yours. Taking something literally does not prove what's taken literally is wrong, OK ? Further, this statement by you practically adds up to acknowledging your defeat in this debate, RIGHT ? Hi Adam, what's your position on this point ? Do you approve of this statement by Marcos ? I wish you stopped hiding behind the shield of silly silence and behaved the way befitting a man with backbone, a true communist.
' You're thesis is wrong. ' ( comment #297 by Steve-SanFranci… ) Then you believe money is not meant, by its definition, to measure the value of a commodity ?!! 1. Well, would you let us know what led you to question the truth of the view that money is meant to measure the value ( exchange-value ) of a commodity ? 2. Would you let us know what you think money is truly meant to measure ?3. Would you let us know what you believe the right definition of money is ?4. Would you let us know how you're paid for your work ( if you're a worker ) or what you receive in exchange for your merchandise ( if you're a trader ) ?5. Would you let us know what led you to believe that money can measure the worth of a commodity ?6. Would you let us know what you think your right worth in money is ? And what are your criteria you've used to find it ?7. Would you let us know how much the exact price of a pair of shoes that you consider worthy of you is and how you justify it ? ' … the value of your personal time is stated in $/hr. ' 8. If money cannot measure the value ( exchange-value ) of a commodity, how can any statement giving the value of ' your personal time ' in '$/hr ' be reckoned correct ? I'm very much impressed by your comment #297 which led the questions listed above to come into my mind. I wish you'd oblige me with your kind replies to all the above questions. Thanks a lot for responding to my comments.
Dear Adam, shying away from making your views known on an issue is not only ignominious for a man of your stature but unbecoming of a man with backbone as well. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be endowed with backbone you need to face any truth. I'm not happy to pass such unpleasant comments about you. But then you've failed disgustingly to respond to my comment #266 and clarify your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and using unkind, humiliating expressions like ' crude communist ', etc to refer to me is not right.You're also expected to respond to my comment #314 and oblige me by making known your position on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of the equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth and the principle of ' from each according to his ability to each according to his needs '.
And what's your stand, Adam, on the contradiction glaring like the mid-day sun, the contradiction appearing irreconcilable, i.e. the fact that the idea of equally sharing the social workload for an equal share in social wealth is irreconcilable with the principle of ' from each according to his ability, to each according his needs ' ?
' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.
' There is nothing in Das Capital which refers itself to the communist society, it is all about capitalism and … ' ( comment #294 by Marcos ) There're lots of things about communism and the communist mode of production in Das Capital. In Capital Volume I by Marx, you'll find lots of important and enlightening pieces of info about different forms of communist property ( pp 82, 83, 714 & 715 ), info about the distribution of wealth ( pp 82 & 83 ), conditions and organisation of labour ( pp 596 & 597 ), necessary labour ( p 496 ), the development of individual ( pp 454, 555 & 582 ), under communism, info about material and technical basis of communism ( pp 370, 371 & 555 ) as well as the length and the shortening of working-day under communism ( p 496 ) ; the CAPITAL Volume III also contains a lot of enlightening info about the communist mode of production labour productivity ( pp 261 & 819 ), freedom and necessity under the communist mode of production ( pp 819 & 820 ), the distribution of social product under the communist mode of production ( pp 847, 848, 875 & 876 ), regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour ( pp 850 & 851 ), and wages ( p 876 ) under communism. ' Again, Marx is referring to capitalism, centralization of the means of production is monopoly which is a normal process of capitalism. ' ( #294 ) The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.
