Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
' The problem is that you don't deal with the points referred to you but simply repeat the same mistakes using different words and sentences. ' ( comment #252 by gnome ) I'd like you to have a look at my comments #277, #281, #285, #293, and #301. If you find any important points that have yet to be dealt with, please refer to it.
I'd like to replace the expression ' their pathetic plight ' ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ) ' ( #301 ) with this one : the pathetic plight they had to inherit from their earlier generations. I'd also like to add the following to my comment #301. ' 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 ) The above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III also corroborates my view that the sharing of the social workload by everyone ( except all those entitled to be exempted from work ) under communism can't be optional or ' voluntary ' ( ' all social formations ' and ' all possible modes of production ' do not exclude communism and the communist mode of production ), RIGHT ?
' You , on the other hand, see nothing but calamity in such a proposal. You consider that it is "certain to endanger the existence of society". Really? How so. ' ( comment #283 by robbo203 )I think I've stated clearly enough why I fear it's certain to threaten the existence of society if some people choose to shun work. I'd like you to take a re-look at my comment #281 and find it. ' It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity 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 ? In my comment #268, I briefly discussed this point. ' … most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed, meaning that the overall workload for society will be far less under communism than it is today. Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today. Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism.None of these points seem to register with you. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281. ' Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature", declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose. This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history. ' ( ibid ) This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist. ' Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat (or we will starve) but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible. * Humanity consists of, in keeping with laws of Nature, the good, the bad, the progressive, the reactionary, the principled, the hypocrite, the honest, the crafty and crooked, etc, etc. ' You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in the Critique of the Gotha programme:"In a higher phase of communist society, 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 ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly. I also believe whatever Marx or Engels said or believed or did is not science and thus may not be true just as the ridiculous belief in Spinoza's God, which Albert Einstein, the Great Man of science, cherished throughout his life is not science nor true. In order to deserve to be reckoned scientific, an idea or a belief must be premised on incontestable scientific logic, as I see it. The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ). The contradiction between these two ideas is blazing like the mid-day sun and appears irreconcilable, the way I see it. The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist. Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.
' Production has long been collective. ' ( #247 ; comment by ALB ) Collectivisation ( socialisation ) of labour is an inevitable effect of capitalism. In fact the collectivisation of labour and the development of capitalism have always been hand in hand since the dawn of capitalism. ' Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point when they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. ' ( Marx in CAPITAL Volume I , PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; P 715 ) Thus, communism is expected to set off with highly-socialised labour. It's not clear to me why the highly-socialised labour should come into conflict with the principle of equal share of the social workload for equal share in social wealth.
' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for. This is a sort of joint ownership of some shareholders or co-op ownership of some ( members of a certain co-op ). Both of these are different forms of private ownership. The lawful owners of shoes may not agree to share out products of their labour ' amongst all members of society ' unless they're paid a large sum of money or its equivalent in kind before parting with their property. Who'd decide, and how would it be decided, whether their demand is right or exorbitant ? Needs of people are not uniform. Nor are all your ' needs ' equally needed. What a sick person urgently need right now is a cure for their sickness, not cigars nor beer nor sex. Who'd and how would they decide whether all the stated ' needs ' of someone are justified and deserve to be granted ? Should the communist society unquestioningly accept whatever someone asks for as their true ' needs ' ? What if someone needs two cigarettes and a glass of beer and someone else needs 20 cigarettes and 20 glasses of beer daily ? Should communism grant ' needs ' of drugs, drinks, smoking, paedophilia, and similar other stuff that's got nothing meaningful for you or anyone else ? Bullet trains do not seem to be luxury in Japan. But Indians are surely not worthy , because India is still lagging far behind Japan, of the luxury of riding in a bullet train. It may not be unbecoming of America, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to undertake a project meant to provide every American citizen with a deluxe private car while for India, it's a dream most unlikely to come true in the near future to make a motorbike or a motor-scooter available to every Indian citizen. It's not unbecoming of America to make stuff like Viagra plentifully available all over America, but it's surely unbecoming of India that has yet to make sanitary pads adequately available to every Indian woman. It's not sensible for a society to accept everything someone claims to need as their just need, nor is it possible for the society to meet their all needs just because both the productive forces and their level of development as well as raw materials and all other necessary means of production are limited and can never outgrow a certain limit. Therefore, authorising a competent body of experts to scrutinise the stated ' needs ' of someone seems to be the only sensible act in this regard. But the scrutiny of someone's claim of ' needs ' means the outright rejection of some ' needs ' and compulsory alteration of some. Thus, referring your claim of ' needs ' to the authorised body for scrutiny turns the principle of ' to each according to their needs ' plain ridiculous, to my way of thinking.
Thank you very much for this response and calling my attention to Marx's observation in the Critique of the Gotha programme. I must respond to it.
Do accept my cordial thanks for your warm response to my comments. A humble seeker after the truth, I count me honoured for this. I assure you that I'd deal with every important points raised by you.
' … the concept of material rewards implies a system of economic exchange (and hence private property) in … ' ( comment #245 by robbo203 ) The ' concept of material rewards ' does also imply the communistic exchange according to the principle of compulsory equal-sharing of the social workload for equal-share in social wealth. ' In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct. You are confusing the communist principle of from each according to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle … ' ( ibid ) All of you are mistaken, and your mistakes seem to be rooted in your delusion that the compulsory work meant to produce social wealth under communism is ' voluntary '. My dear friend, participation in economic activities for money or something in kind can't be ' voluntary '. All sorts of work aimed at the creation of social wealth must be compulsory for everyone that doesn't deserve exemption from work under communism. The reason is the simple fact that economic activities forms the basis for the social economy. And it happens to be the social economy the entire social edifice rests on. Therefore, if participation in economic activities is made voluntary, anyone will be as free to work as free not to work. Thus, if people choose to enjoy their freedom to shun work, it's certain to endanger the existence of society. Further, no working or less working but equally sharing social wealth will mean the exploitation of all those good citizens that perform their share of work duly and dutifully by those no-working and less-working citizens. I must question the correctness of using the term ' voluntary ' to describe a sort of work that's truly not ' voluntary '. As I see it, the ' voluntary ' work is that work the performer of which does not expect nor receive anything except a simple thank-you smile. The unpaid labour labourers have to perform in the capitalist mode of production is not ' voluntary '. Nor does the compulsory work meant to produce wealth and have a just share, in return for the work performed, in the social wealth under communism deserve to be reckoned ' voluntary '. ' But even Stalin understood that this was not full communism. You appear not to have ' ( ibid ) I admit to this fault— I really don't understand what the stuff ' full communism ' or non-full communism is. And as far as I know, neither Marx nor Engels had any concept of such things. Most probably, such inventions as ' full communism ' , ' first phase of communism usually called socialism ' , etc were Bolsheviks' brainchildren. I'm not a Bolshevik, and I don't acknowledge Bolsheviks as communist. I think I've got a clear concept of the ABCs of communism.
Would like to make some changes in my comments #243 & #251. The term ' employment ' in ' Further, the overwork of some is bound to lead to the lack of full employment of some others ' ( #243 ) and in ' Now if one of them works more than 8 hours, at least one of the trio won't find 8 hours' employment ' ( #243 ) is to be replaced with ' work '. The term ' unpaid ' in the sentence ' The overwork of some people having equal share in the social wealth means a part of their total work will remain unpaid; if the wealth-equivalent of this unpaid labour is equally shared by all, it'll add up to the exploitation of the overworking folks by all the rest ' ( #251 ) is to be replaced with the term ' unrewarded '.
Communism ( scientific socialism ) is NOT something like the Utopia of ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" '. Communism means the compulsory equal sharing of social workload for the compulsory equal-share in social wealth. Communism is NOT voluntary working NOR the unequal sharing of social wealth. Communism won't transform the world into a paradise. Dialectics of Nature will remain true in the communist order too. Life won't be problem-free under communism. Harmful bacteria and viruses will remain equally active as they're today and affect human health under communism, as well. Communism is NOT something like a device meant to produce genetically superior human beings. Humanity will consist of the good, the bad, the enlightened, the benighted, the progressive, the reactionary, the genius, the mediocre, the honest, the principled, the hypocrite, the crafty and crooked, etc, etc like flowering plants, non-flowering plants, the mammalian, the non-mammalian, etc following transition to communism. The bad elements will invent crafty tricks to rid themselves of their duties and obligations towards society and enjoy more wealth than others or squander social wealth produced by dutiful, sensible citizens.Then what's wrong with capitalism ? Why should communism deserve to be reckoned fundamentally better than capitalism ? The one-line answer to all these queries is : It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment harmonising with the Principle of Healthy & Meaningful Living . If you want to lead a healthy and sensible existence befitting the space age you belong to, you've got no other option than to stand for and welcome communism, OK ?
And what about you , Adam ? Would you oblige me by making known your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and the silly adage ' "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" ' ? Or, will you once again have recourse to something like the silly excuse that there exists a lot of more important stuff than these issues in order to keep mum, I wonder. And I'm not sure whether it'd make sense to ask the SPGB to make known their official position on these most important issues. As far as I can remember, they disgustingly failed, like Adam, to stand for the truth about my claim to have proved first the thesis on money's incapacity.
Would like to add what follows to my comment #258. ' If the whole working-day were to shrink to the length of this portion [ i.e. " that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent " ], surplus-labour would vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital, ' says Marx. ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) The ' surplus-labour ' in the above quote, also known as ' unpaid labour ' ( ibid, p 500 ), happens to be the only source of the ' surplus-value ' or profit, the only stuff that interests capitalists in capitalism. ' The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, ' further says Marx, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus-value, … ' ( ibid, p 313 ) With the vanishing of the ' surplus-labour ', ' surplus-value ' will vanish, and consequent on this fact, the capitalist's all interest in trade and industry is certain to vanish too. Marx viewed this fact as ' a consummation utterly impossible under the regime of capital. ' Marx is right a hundred per cent, isn't he ? As I see it, Marx was really not so stupid as to believe that capitalists would reduce, if he asked them to do it, the length of the working-day and thus make the ' surplus-value ' ( i.e. profit ) just vanish. ' Only suppressing the capitalist form of production could the length of the working-day be reduced to the necessary labour-time. ' ( Marx; ibid, p 496 ) Did Marx, by the ' length of the working-day ', really mean the length of the working-day under capitalism ?What do you think, ALB? Don't you think that you and all the other contenders in this thread are pathetically lacking in a clear concept of the ABCs of communism and have got a lot to learn from this ' Great Originator ' ?
Thanks to you all for the warm response to my last comment. I wish I'd soon go through them and deal with all the important points. I'm aware that I've been much slow in responding to my contenders' points, which I regret deeply. Nevertheless, today I'd like to add some more points to my last post ( #253 ). In order to comprehend why communism cannot allow overworking or underworking, you have to comprehend first the significance of the communistic ' minimum length ' of the social working-day. The total labour-time necessary for the production of all goods and services the society needs in a year, which corresponds to the labour productivity of that time, is calculable and is to be calculated accurately. This total labour-time divided by the number of working hands and the number of working-days per annum gives the ' minimum length ' of the working-day of the communist society. If some citizens neglect their duty and work less, it'll reflect itself in the lower amount of goods and services produced than their calculated amount, consequent on which fact everyone's equal share in the social wealth won't be realised. And if some fools that believe they were born to work and live like beasts of burden work more hours than the compulsory minimum number of hours, it'll lead to the superfluity of wealth. There'll be practically no lawful takers of this superfluous wealth because communism cannot allow anyone to take more than their fixed equal share in the social wealth. Thus, overworking in the communist order is certain to lead to serious problems. If some crafty and crooked citizens who didn't produce this wealth manage to take possession of it, not only will it make them richer than others and thus threaten the very foundation of the communist order, it'll also amount to the exploitation of the overworking lot by them. The most important point not to be missed in this regard is none including the overworking lot whose toil happens to have created the superfluity, are entitled to lay claim to it. Thus, there being no lawful takers of the superfluous wealth, the overwork of some fools is certain not to find any rewards. Therefore, it ought to be clear as day now that overworking in the communist order will mean unrewarded labour and wastage of wealth. There's truly nothing in the theory of communism which suggests that the dialectics of Nature won't work in the communist order, and so unequal rewards for unequal work won't lead to the concentration of wealth in a few hands offset by pauperism of millions and overwork won't create idleness in communism.
Would like to add the following to my last post ( #251 ). ' The minimum length of the working-day ', observes Marx, ' is fixed by this necessary … portion [ i.e. ' that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs to produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent ' ] of it. ' ( KARL MARX CAPITAL Volume I, chapter XVII, part IV, section ( 2. ) ; PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW ; p 496 ) From the above quote, it ought to be obvious to the sensible that communism must fix the ' minimum length of the working-day ', and that no one ( other than the disabled, the sick, minors, and all the senior citizens ) is supposed to work less, because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day, hours than it. It's also implied that the communist social order canNOT need anyone to work more hours than the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day just because it happens to be the ' minimum length ' of the social working-day. And since no one ( bar all those that deserve exemption from work ) is supposed to work more or less, no one of them can be entitled to have more or less share in the social wealth, as I see it. ' The intensity and productiveness of labour being given, the time which society is bound to devote to material production is shorter, and so as a consequence, the time at its disposal for the free development, intellectual and social, of the individual is greater, … ' ( ibid ) With the shortening of the working-day, the greater amount of free time an individual gets at their disposal is NOT meant, from the communistic point of view, for toiling like beasts of burden, the way I see it. Would like you all to reflect on these observations by Marx.
I'd like to make some changes in my last comment ( #243 ). I'd like to replace the sentence ' The overwork of someone having equal share in the social wealth means … ' with this one : The overwork of some people having equal share in the social wealth means a part of their total work will remain unpaid; if the wealth-equivalent of this unpaid labour is equally shared by all, it'll add up to the exploitation of the overworking folks by all the rest. I'd also like the sentence ' And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours … ' to be replaced by what follows : And for this, no non-disabled members need work more hours than the compulsory normal-working-day hours. I'm glad that my comments have received so many responses that appear bright and lively. I thank you all for this. I must deal with every important points referred to by you.
