Hours as a measure of labor [Archive]

View Full Version : Hours as a measure of labor

Drace

16th November 2009, 07:05

I am reading "A New Socialism" by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell.
Its discussing how a socialist society would replace money with the hours of labor done.

While it answers some arguments on this concept, it ignores perhaps the most obvious opposition to it.

Is all labor done equal?
I know this has been discussed many times, but a satisfactory answer has never been giving to me.

Its certainly ridiculous for 5 hours of a janitors work to be equal to that of a doctors.
By acknowledging that all labor does not contribute to society equally, hours of labor done does not become a sufficient alternative to money.

Certainly the labor done by a janitor does not contribute to society as much as that of another profession?

The concept can be summed as
1 hour of labor = 1 hour credit = 1 hour of another labor.

Thus, to establish hours as a fair unit of trade, we must recognize all labor to be equal in its contribution to society.

Although Im not arguing that we are all inherently selfish. I would rather suppose that humans go along with what is fair, and frankly I don't this concept is.

GPDP

16th November 2009, 08:20

theusedfire5

16th November 2009, 08:32

That's one thing I spend a lot of my time thinking about, is the eradication, or replacement, of money.

But to answer your question, all labor is not done equal. It is done proportionate to societies need for it; Proportions involving work effort.
So In my mind as long as each individual accomplishes their task to the best of his/her ability then they have met their required labor, and it would therefor be 'equal'.
Keep In mind every job, little or big, keeps things constant; Progressive.

mikelepore

16th November 2009, 08:33

Thus, to establish hours as a fair unit of trade, we must recognize all labor to be equal in its contribution to society.

No, that doesn't follow. The basis for having a higher rate of compensation for some jobs is that they have been judged to be more strenuous, tiring, uncomfortable, etc. "Contribution to society" is not relevant, and there would be possible no way to quantify it anyway.

Paul Cockshott

16th November 2009, 09:28

The answer we give in the book is that complex labour like that of a doctor is the result of training. 1 hour of a doctor's time releases part of the time that went into her or his training. The training time itself consists of the labour and material costs of the medical school plus the time the student herself spent studying.
These are all real social costs and thus when pricing projects or pricing goods to be distributed in terms of their labour costs, this direct and indirect training time has to be taken into account.
But it does not mean that the trained person herself or himself should benefit from the training in terms of income. If the training has been provided free to the student at public expense, and if the student received a stipend comensurate with the time they spent studying, then they have no claim on additional income.

In a capitalist country where education costs have to be met by the student or their family, then higher wages for more trained labour will tend to develop, but it is not needed in a socialist economy.

Luisrah

16th November 2009, 20:29

You might want to read up on Parecon theory, which deals with this question at length. Instead of proposing a "time worked" maxim, they propose a "sacrifice" maxim, which would remunerate based on the onerousness of labor and the sacrifice one expends in performing that labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon#Compensation_for_effort_and_sacrifice

So true.

I can never remember correctly Marx and Engels slogan ''From each according to his (lol?), and to each according to his needs''
The thing is that every work is necessary. If a janitor doesn't clean your school's hall, it will get dirty. You will either slip and break a bone one day, or slip and infect a wound, or it will breed rats and insects and bacteria, viruses and new diseases.
Heh, a janitor is useful after all right?

A doctor needs a lot of concentration, but he doesn't do much physical effort, etc.
A construction worker works probably more hours than a doctor, he has to eat more than the doctor and put in much more physical effort, and sweat more. Plus, he can die at any moment.

Why shouldn't he be rewarded as much as all the others for his work?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th November 2009, 22:44

Haha it must be fantastic to make a thread and have the author voluntarily reply to it a short while later.

Tis what good socialist society is all about:)

I do disagree with the equalisation of all labour, there should clearly be some differential if the non-monetary economy is to flourish.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th November 2009, 22:47

Drace

16th November 2009, 23:01

No, that doesn't follow. The basis for having a higher rate of compensation for some jobs is that they have been judged to be more strenuous, tiring, uncomfortable, etc. "Contribution to society" is not relevant, and there would be possible no way to quantify it anyway.

I actually agree with this statement. There is too many inconsistencies to be able to calculate the contribution done. But this raises another question. How do we calculate what a hour of labor in term of product?

As a iron miner, I produce 50 ores of iron in an hour (just for the sake of an example). This gives me a credit one hour of labor. How would this translate to the goods that I receive in return?
If I want to buy bread, how do you determine how many pieces of bread are worth my hour of labor? Would we have to establish what an hour of labor produces for every occupation? For the wealth producing occupations even this wouldn't make sense.
The product output would depend on machinery used, methods used, how hard a laborer works, etc.

So how would we measure what an hour of our labor entitles to us?

This is even more confusing when considering services oriented jobs since there is no output that can be measured numerically.

@Paul

If the training has been provided free to the student at public expense, and if the student received a stipend comensurate with the time they spent studying, then they have no claim on additional income.For of all let me say, wow... interesting to have the author make a comment himself :)

While that is a important factor, the argument still remains. How about the extra time that is needed to train for a doctor and the difficulty of the job.

Why would someone voluntarily choose a more difficult occupation that requires more knowledge and studying if there is no benefit to them? They studied for free, sure, but this does not help out the student itself but rather the society which is going to receive his services.

If someone dedicates themselves to years of study and a more difficult job, they need to receive what they deserve, which would be higher pay than that of a high school pothead dropout working as a janitor.

@Luisrah

Heh, a janitor is useful after all right?Yes of course but as previously stated, it is not the contribution made that matters but the strain of the job itself.

There needs to be an incentive for the jobs that require hard work to get to. Or else you would have everyone wanting to do the easier jobs.

This itself isn't fair. I think we can agree that some jobs require more effort and skill to reach the position.
The effort itself and the strain experienced in the job should be rewarded.

While Im not going to give you the "People are inherently evil greedy bastards" capitalists will throw at you, I'm supposing that people would go along with what is fair. These policies of everyone paid equally does not seem very fair to me for the reasons mentioned.

Perhaps the incentive in such a society would be the availability of jobs. There is so much of the jobs available on the lower level. They would easily be filled. To ensure yourself a job in the future, you would study to get a higher position job which are harder to fill.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th November 2009, 23:09

Another problem, drace, is that because demand never stays constant, your labour for day 1 may = 1 loaf of bread, but for day 2 if demand for the product your labour produces increases, and thus you must work harder to increase supply, then your labour, for that day, surely exceeds the value of the loaf of bread.

Drace

16th November 2009, 23:15

Luisrah

16th November 2009, 23:19

Why would someone voluntarily choose a more difficult occupation that requires more knowledge and studying if there is no benefit to them?

If someone dedicates themselves to years of study and a more difficult job, they need to be receive what they deserve, which would be higher pay than that of a high school pothead dropout working as a janitor.

The answer to your question is:
Because that's what they like doing.

That's what communism provides people. The chance for them to work on whatever they like (except stupid jobs of course)

Nowadays, lots, and maybe most of doctors are doctors because they earn a lot. Most people today are on a job that is different from the job of their dreams. Another lie of capitalism. Actually, you can only pursue your dreams until you've finished college. After that, with the unemployment around, you'll most probably end up in a call center.

Shouldn't Communism make you choose what you want to do, without influencing you with ''money''? That's what Engels talks about.
It is the only way you can develop yourself truly as an individual.

In a communist society, the people have a sense of responsibility towards the community.

Besides, a doctor that became one (and studied for it) because he really liked it will certainly be a much better doctor than one who became a doctor just to get more ''money'' or credits or whatever.
Besides, you don't get tired of doing what you like.

And you still have to think that being a janitor is probably (I suppose to everyone) much more boring than an exciting job as a doctor.

Paul Cockshott

16th November 2009, 23:20

Comrade Paul: Despite a Doctors' expertise being the result of training, your conclusion is based on the misguided premise that, with the correct training, any person can become a doctor.

Perhaps that is realistic when one day we have perfected the technique of educating our offspring from the youngest of ages. However, even then you cannot say that any person, with training, can become say, a scientist, an historian or likewise. How does your book deal with this issue?

This was the common presupposition of the philosophers who espoused the labour theory of value. For instance Adam Smith says

The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance.
So yes, the assumption is that most people can be trained to do most tasks, an it is accident of birth that leads to most of the differences.
This is not to say that there are no differences in innate abilities. There are very good and merely middling doctors, and some of that may stem from their innate proclivities. But the social difference between, a Smith puts it, between the Philosopher and the Porter, are social not natural.

Drace

16th November 2009, 23:29

The answer to your question is:
Because that's what they like doing.

That's what communism provides people. The chance for them to work on whatever they like (except stupid jobs of course)

Nowadays, lots, and maybe most of doctors are doctors because they earn a lot. Most people today are on a job that is different from the job of their dreams. Another lie of capitalism. Actually, you can only pursue your dreams until you've finished college. After that, with the unemployment around, you'll most probably end up in a call center.

Shouldn't Communism make you choose what you want to do, without influencing you with ''money''? That's what Engels talks about.
It is the only way you can develop yourself truly as an individual.

In a communist society, the people have a sense of responsibility towards the community.

Besides, a doctor that became one (and studied for it) because he really liked it will certainly be a much better doctor than one who became a doctor just to get more ''money'' or credits or whatever.
Besides, you don't get tired of doing what you like.

And you still have to think that being a janitor is probably (I suppose to everyone) much more boring than an exciting job as a doctor.

I was waiting for this response to come up.
But I question just how many people would love a occupation so much to dedicate hours and hours a day for years and years in persuasion of their dream job.

Luisrah

16th November 2009, 23:34

I was waiting for this response to come up.
But I question just how many people would love a occupation so much to dedicate hours and hours a day for years and years in persuasion of their dream job.

The response is robots and mecanization and bla bla.
Those boring jobs you hate will all disappear when some of the wealth of the damn bourgeoisie is used to make them easier.
When industry is mostly robots and machines, and those jobs you can think of are also, that dream can exist.

Plus, only with hours and hours a day, for years and years of dedication, will an individual be truly good at what they like doing.
And that's how, (using Engels' words again) only when humanity reaches communism will it have what it needs to begin it's true History.

Tablo

16th November 2009, 23:35

I was waiting for this response to come up.
But I question just how many people would love a occupation so much to dedicate hours and hours a day for years and years in persuasion of their dream job.
Actually I think even more people will be doctors. Currently the only people with this as a job option are typically those from higher income families. With Socialism everyone would have this as an option. Lots of people are motivated to pursue these careers without the desire to makes lots of money.

theusedfire5

16th November 2009, 23:50

The response is robots and mecanization and bla bla.
Those boring jobs you hate will all disappear when some of the wealth of the damn bourgeoisie is used to make them easier.
When industry is mostly robots and machines, and those jobs you can think of, that dream can exist.

Plus, only with hours and hours a day, for years and years of dedication, will an individual be truly good at what they like doing.
And that's how, (using Engels' words again) only when humanity reaches communism will it have what it needs to begin it's true History.

Why not make so much time of those 'boring' jobs mandatory and/or voluntary in order to fill the blanks?

Luisrah

17th November 2009, 00:00

Why not make so much time of those 'boring' jobs mandatory and/or voluntary in order to fill the blanks?

Or that.

But that's before we reach the point where we don't have to do them anymore.

Everyone talked about Amdn going to the Moon and space, and lots of things were imagined before and are now real.
This that you see in movies, like Star Wars, where there are medic robots, janitor robots, asteroid collector robots, this will certainly one day be true.
And Man will be free from this tasks, and free to develop himself in the way he sees fit.

Until then, someone has to do it, and there will be people that won't mind doing it.
Maybe we'll make the bourgeois do it while they still exist, to make them know how good it is.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

17th November 2009, 00:03

This was the common presupposition of the philosophers who espoused the labour theory of value. For instance Adam Smith says

So yes, the assumption is that most people can be trained to do most tasks, an it is accident of birth that leads to most of the differences.
This is not to say that there are no differences in innate abilities. There are very good and merely middling doctors, and some of that may stem from their innate proclivities. But the social difference between, a Smith puts it, between the Philosopher and the Porter, are social not natural.

Agreed, to an extent.

There could be a time, with perfected education techniques, whereby most people can do most jobs. However, there is an endless breadth of tasks that need completing, and surely you will admit that, there are certain jobs that some people simple do not have the skills to do.

Another consideration must surely be that, even if most people have the ability to do most jobs, that due to a healthy and varied gene pool, some people have skills which are more suited to certain jobs. For instance, an otherwise intelligent person may lack a certain skill i.e. inter-personal skills, which may render that person unsuitable for a certain job.

mikelepore

17th November 2009, 04:34

I actually agree with this statement. There is too many inconsistencies to be able to calculate the contribution done. But this raises another question. How do we calculate what a hour of labor in term of product?

It's an easy calculation. I worked in a plant that made electronic products. The computer made a record of how much time every type of product spent in every process in the plant -- thirty-five seconds in this room, eighty seconds in that room, etc. The software used a matrix of numbers representing the time measured for every part number and every process.

What that company used it for was to calculate the cost of production for every type of product to a precision of a fraction of a penny, by distributing the total plant cost according to each product's time, but the same accounting method can be used for the purpose discussed here.

As a iron miner, I produce 50 ores of iron in an hour (just for the sake of an example).

Note that no one person produces anything. Every person performs related tasks. The person who puts air into the tires of the truck that moves the iron ore to the crusher. The person who changes the burned-out light bulbs in the office building that manages the iron mine. They're all producing iron ore. So your mention of what you do isn't necessary. All you have to say is "I worked somewhere for one hour."

This gives me a credit one hour of labor. How would this translate to the goods that I receive in return?
If I want to buy bread, how do you determine how many pieces of bread are worth my hour of labor?

Assume that your personal account has an hour of credit. If 1 minute of labor is expended to make the bread, your account is debited 1 minute. Now there are 59 minutes remaining in your account.

More realistically, your account may be debited 1.05 minutes, not 1 minute. Everyone has to over-work a little bit of time compared to the products that we personally acquire, because labor has to cover the products that get shipped to schools, hospitals, and other sectors that consume some wealth even though individuals aren't taking them all from store shelves.

Would we have to establish what an hour of labor produces for every occupation?

Not for every occupation. For every type of product in the line, if that product is charged to individuals.

You begin by selecting a standard time period to use in the algorithm, such as a week or month or year. In that time period, you measure how many hours are incurred for each type of product and also for all products. To the total that represents all products, you have to add the work time that goes to general administration, development, etc. and also for any free products such as free medical care and education. To the total you also have to add any artificially created hours of personal credit that may arise from a policy of giving higher incomes to people with the more strenuous jobs. You use that modified total and make a proportionate distribution of the total hours to individual types of products. The arithmetic is very simple.

The product output would depend on machinery used, methods used, how hard a laborer works, etc.

Dependence on the machinery and methods, yes. Knowing how hard someone works is not needed in this calculation because there is an average rate of work for everyone who performs that task.

This is even more confusing when considering services oriented jobs since there is no output that can be measured numerically.

To record work hours incurred, it makes no difference whether the work results in a physical product or an intangible service. However, the time for all types of works, tangible or not, has to be built into prices of goods that get charged to individuals. I visualize it as being equivalent to a sales tax built into the prices of charged consumer goods, to account for the the production capacity that is expended on general administration and free services.

blake 3:17

17th November 2009, 05:16

Just referring to the OP: Don't bash the janitors!!!!!!!!!!!! They do as much for public health as a doctor does.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

17th November 2009, 15:02

theusedfire5

17th November 2009, 15:11

Vladimir Innit Lenin

17th November 2009, 16:06

I don't know about an element of capitalism per se, but the scenario does seem to still leave open the possiblity of denying goods to a person even when supply =/> demand.

Muzk

17th November 2009, 16:08

Its certainly ridiculous for 5 hours of a janitors work to be equal to that of a doctors.

what the fuck man, you cant live without janitors

Paul Cockshott

17th November 2009, 22:32

Another consideration must surely be that, even if most people have the ability to do most jobs, that due to a healthy and varied gene pool, some people have skills which are more suited to certain jobs. For instance, an otherwise intelligent person may lack a certain skill i.e. inter-personal skills, which may render that person unsuitable for a certain job.

True, but all that is needed for the labour theory of value to be right is that these skills can be aquired after training by a sufficiency of people. Because of the division of labour, the number required in any particular speciality is low.

I can not sing in tune, and would not be a good choir member even with training, but there are plenty of people who can sing, so that choirs are adequately staffed.

Luisrah

17th November 2009, 23:26

Question to all:

In this society based not on money but on hours of labour, what would happen say, if someone's account balance hits 0 credits, yet they are in need of something desperately (anything for the house, i.e. loo roll, toothpaste, milk etc.)?

Would these things still be available via private enterprise (the corner shop charging credits) or would there be some sort of supply/demand calibrated marketplace for these sorts of products and this sort of situation?

That scenario only means that it can never happen in a communist society!

That isn't communism!
We must step away farther from the concept of money.

A more accurate scenario would be.
In any way, calculations are made to determine the wealth generated in the world. Calculations are also made to determine how many wealth in the form of goods can each person recieve. This is the only place where you can talk of credits.
Each person is entitled to an amount of wealth, measured in credits.
Because if each person can recieve one trip to Hawaii per year, plus food, and a car, there will be people that want two trips to Hawaii instead of one plus a car.

But that's where it ends. Maybe credits aren't even necessary, as long as the wealth is fairly distributed.
No one gets paid by the hour. More calculations are made to sort out how many hours does each person have to do in order to keep the wealth growth stable.

And since in the final stage of Communism, all the needs of humanity can be satisfacted, this doesn't even exist.
When you enter a shop and want to pick up a shirt, the ''owner'' will just ask you for a card (for example) that simply tells him wether you have or not worked in that day (since)

You see, this is just an example. It probably won't be that way, but that's one hypothesis. It just has to be fair, and there must be restrictions to stop the system from turning back into capitalism.

Because if it was lie you were saying, you'd get handicapped people who could only work 2 hours, getting paid less (read: recieving more wealth in the form of goods) than others that worked for 4, while there's nothing they can do to get the same amount of goods.
If you don't work (read: give your contribute to society's/the economy's progression,) you don't get to eat.
If you do work (according to your ability, remembering Marx and Engels slogan) you get and amount of wealth that satisfies your needs (''and to each according to his needs'')

Everything is said in Marx and Engels' slogan. Every person gives the contribute to society that he can give (some may be more physically apt, others maybe be more versed in science etc) and recieve in return, what they need (some may be handicapped, others may need more medicine etc)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th November 2009, 03:41

Comrade Cockshott raises a good point. I do still feel uncomfortable with the notion of 'credits'. It still doesn't rid us of the fundamental problem of supply and demand, because products are still attributed a 'value', and the extent to which a worker can make a purchase choice is still determined by the diligence of his/her labour. Because of this, the economy would still be demand-orientated, which goes against the fundamental Marxist principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

Essentially, my problem with this solution to the money problem is that it still allows the existence of a 'placebo market', in that the monetary market dominated by changes in demand we have in Capitalist societies today, would be replaced by a similarly demand orientated market that operated in credits, rather than hard currency. Of course, this theory gains credence from not allowing profit making, which is a socialist feature and to be commended. However, it does not fully solve the problem of producing an abundant supply available to all who supply their labouring endeavour.

Surely there is a case for limiting such 'credit' solutions to the luxuries market. Since it is not possible to accurately gauge demand for more advanced, non-vital products such as DVD players, MP3 players and other such 'trends', the least evil solution may be to leave such markets to the whims of a credit based, non-profit demand orientated market.
However, as it is possible to quantify exactly how much of a 'vital' product (food, water, medicine, household necessities such as soap, loo roll, toothpaste etc.) is needed to satisfy a population, it would surely make sense not to have a credit based system for such goods, but to focus on producing these products 'in abundance', so that the populace can partake of these products as and when necessary, without the need to ration or be limited by the extent of their labour, as there would indeed not be a situation where supply was not outripping demand. Just a thought.;)

Die Neue Zeit

18th November 2009, 07:04

Your proposal is in fact similar to the "Inclusive Democracy" politico-economic model of Takis Fotopoulos.

Anyways, to both you and Drace, I'd like to also link to a very important presentation that Paul made. It's in PowerPoint, most notable for combining bullet points with animation (like in business presentations :D ):

Transition to a value economy (www.socialismoxxi.org/extendedPonenciaPaul.ppt)

The beauty of this is it illustrates a genuinely transitional program (i.e. transitional measures)!

ZeroNowhere

18th November 2009, 08:04

Because of this, the economy would still be demand-orientated, which goes against the fundamental Marxist principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'I don't see how that's any more a 'fundamental Marxist principle' than labour credits?

However, as it is possible to quantify exactly how much of a 'vital' product (food, water, medicine, household necessities such as soap, loo roll, toothpaste etc.) is needed to satisfy a population, it would surely make sense not to have a credit based system for such goods, but to focus on producing these products 'in abundance', so that the populace can partake of these products as and when necessary, without the need to ration or be limited by the extent of their labour, as there would indeed not be a situation where supply was not outripping demand.As far as I'm aware, most labour credit supporters would support limiting them to luxuries, while leaving basic necessities (eg. food, water, appliances, electricity), to a certain extent, as free. It's not like we're saying that people who don't work can't eat, that would be rather mean.

ckaihatsu

18th November 2009, 10:27

planned communist demand --vs.-- market-type retail pricing

There is too many inconsistencies to be able to calculate the contribution done. But this raises another question. How do we calculate what a hour of labor in term of product?

So how would we measure what an hour of our labor entitles to us?

This is even more confusing when considering services oriented jobs since there is no output that can be measured numerically.

While quantitatively valuating material goods and services strictly in terms of the respective labor hours inputted is *not* impossible, even for the intangible service sector, I don't think it would really be advised. Yes, we *could* feasibly track the entire supply chain backwards to find out how each resulting labor-product variable is *sourced*, and create a "genealogical" "tree" of labor causations in order to determine labor-time-based valuations for every step of the way, but I actually propose a *simpler*, more straightforward method of fulfilling human need and popular demand with post-capitalist, self-liberated collectivized labor -- I'll get to that in a moment.

I'd like to first point out that the *really* difficult part of attempting to valuate material goods and services in terms of labor time is when we have to take *fixed assets*, like factories, into account. How exactly would we calculate the portion of fixed-asset-producing labor time contributed on a prorated basis to any given good or service? If a factory required a million labor hours to build, what portion of that would be considered as a valid measurement of contribution to the fabrication of a particular batch of microchips? How about the same question, but for a batch of microchips produced *next year*? Or *five years* from now? How would we even know *how long* the factory would be considered *useful*, going into the future, for the production of microchips? (Perhaps after a few years, or even just several months, it would have to be declared obsolete and then possibly repurposed into something else.)

It's an easy calculation. I worked in a plant that made electronic products. The computer made a record of how much time every type of product spent in every process in the plant -- thirty-five seconds in this room, eighty seconds in that room, etc. The software used a matrix of numbers representing the time measured for every part number and every process.

What that company used it for was to calculate the cost of production for every type of product to a precision of a fraction of a penny, by distributing the total plant cost according to each product's time, but the same accounting method can be used for the purpose discussed here.

I would *tend* to agree with this approach here, but I still think that it doesn't provide the flexibility required for realistic asset valuations, based on labor time inputs, going into the future.

Assume that your personal account has an hour of credit. If 1 minute of labor is expended to make the bread, your account is debited 1 minute. Now there are 59 minutes remaining in your account.

This is an example of the *obverse*, *complementary* problems that crop up when attempting to directly translate labor-time-based valuations into material assets, goods, and services, especially over extended periods of time.

We *wouldn't* want to rely on *any* kind of quantitative, pricing-type approaches when it comes to the fulfillment of *basic human needs* like bread, etc.

Surely there is a case for limiting such 'credit' solutions to the luxuries market. Since it is not possible to accurately gauge demand for more advanced, non-vital products such as DVD players, MP3 players and other such 'trends', the least evil solution may be to leave such markets to the whims of a credit based, non-profit demand orientated market.
However, as it is possible to quantify exactly how much of a 'vital' product (food, water, medicine, household necessities such as soap, loo roll, toothpaste etc.) is needed to satisfy a population, it would surely make sense not to have a credit based system for such goods, but to focus on producing these products 'in abundance', so that the populace can partake of these products as and when necessary, without the need to ration or be limited by the extent of their labour, as there would indeed not be a situation where supply was not outripping demand. Just a thought.;)

Our bad, conditioned habit of resorting to capitalistic, market-pricing-type valuation conventions reveals our political disarray and *fatalism* as soon as things get a little complicated, as with determining planned productions of more discretionary items like electronic consumer goods.

As soon as we are at a loss for having a model, or plan, for addressing the *desires* -- as well as the human needs -- of an economic population, then we have effectively *lost* to the market model and its proponents. We *know* that a strictly political *outlawing* is no solution, since that is equivalent to arbitrary tyranny and the resulting formation of black markets to fill the void.

---

post-Communist Manifesto valuations, or the problem with applying labor-hour valuations to material goods and services

That scenario only means that it can never happen in a communist society!

That isn't communism!
We must step away farther from the concept of money.

A more accurate scenario would be.
In any way, calculations are made to determine the wealth generated in the world. Calculations are also made to determine how many wealth in the form of goods can each person recieve. This is the only place where you can talk of credits.
Each person is entitled to an amount of wealth, measured in credits.
Because if each person can recieve one trip to Hawaii per year, plus food, and a car, there will be people that want two trips to Hawaii instead of one plus a car.

But that's where it ends. Maybe credits aren't even necessary, as long as the wealth is fairly distributed.
No one gets paid by the hour. More calculations are made to sort out how many hours does each person have to do in order to keep the wealth growth stable.

I think this is an incrementally *better* approach, since it is more focused on an overall *supply*, and an overall *demand* -- this is the *crux* of the economic problem, anyway, regardless of the mode of production being discussed.

And since in the final stage of Communism, all the needs of humanity can be satisfacted, this doesn't even exist.
When you enter a shop and want to pick up a shirt, the ''owner'' will just ask you for a card (for example) that simply tells him wether you have or not worked in that day (since)

You see, this is just an example. It probably won't be that way, but that's one hypothesis. It just has to be fair, and there must be restrictions to stop the system from turning back into capitalism.

Because if it was lie you were saying, you'd get handicapped people who could only work 2 hours, getting paid less (read: recieving more wealth in the form of goods) than others that worked for 4, while there's nothing they can do to get the same amount of goods.
If you don't work (read: give your contribute to society's/the economy's progression,) you don't get to eat.
If you do work (according to your ability, remembering Marx and Engels slogan) you get and amount of wealth that satisfies your needs (''and to each according to his needs'')

Everything is said in Marx and Engels' slogan. Every person gives the contribute to society that he can give (some may be more physically apt, others maybe be more versed in science etc) and recieve in return, what they need (some may be handicapped, others may need more medicine etc)

However, I have been becoming more and more critical of the 'Communist Manifesto' ideal of late, because it is too formulaic, prescriptive, and *does not* (implicitly) take into consideration the reality of a state of profound material *abundance* -- the current capitalist over-production -- with just a minimum of labor input.

Question to all:

In this society based not on money but on hours of labour, what would happen say, if someone's account balance hits 0 credits, yet they are in need of something desperately (anything for the house, i.e. loo roll, toothpaste, milk etc.)?

Would these things still be available via private enterprise (the corner shop charging credits) or would there be some sort of supply/demand calibrated marketplace for these sorts of products and this sort of situation?

I don't see how that's any more a 'fundamental Marxist principle' than labour credits?

As far as I'm aware, most labour credit supporters would support limiting them to luxuries, while leaving basic necessities (eg. food, water, appliances, electricity), to a certain extent, as free. It's not like we're saying that people who don't work can't eat, that would be rather mean.

I don't know about an element of capitalism per se, but the scenario does seem to still leave open the possiblity of denying goods to a person even when supply =/> demand.

It would be absolutely *inhumane* and *inexcusable* to deny *anyone* the materially abundant basic supplies required for human life and liveihood in a post-capitalist society.

---

communist planning extends to mass demands for certain types of labor

There needs to be an incentive for the jobs that require hard work to get to. Or else you would have everyone wanting to do the easier jobs.

This itself isn't fair. I think we can agree that some jobs require more effort and skill to reach the position.
The effort itself and the strain experienced in the job should be rewarded.

I agree that a post-capitalist economy should not try to pretend that all types of labor, regardless of requisite education and training, are the same in difficulty and value. This discussion came up recently at the thread 'A world without money':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1593350&postcount=73

[M]aterial proceeds would be a *pre-planned*, political "demand" on the part of a locality's general population. No commodity values, or exchange "prices", would be necessary.

If we decisively *break* with the retail-consumer economic mentality we can see that *all* demand on the part of a population -- even for basic human needs -- can be directly recorded and passed along into a system of *political prioritization*. This means that *no* consumer consumption would be retail-based, in which the counterpart supply would be driven by some kind of a market-type *speculation*, putting goods and services out for public availability *before* the consumer has indicated an order.

If we simply accept that a comprehensive system of rational planning can be used in place of the market-speculative supply model then we can also extend this planning to the provision of labor roles as well.

Actually I think even more people will be doctors. Currently the only people with this as a job option are typically those from higher income families. With Socialism everyone would have this as an option. Lots of people are motivated to pursue these careers without the desire to makes lots of money.

A baseline staple of basic living requirements can be provided as a mass public good, including a standard free public education through to some level -- now Internet-enhanced (!) -- at the discretion of the individual, regardless of societal concerns for labor-role requirements.

*However*, past the baseline public provision there can be a more sophisticated, flexible economy that can operate in more complex ways to cover all the rest of society's needs and desires. Societal needs / requests for certain job positions would have to include built-in provisions for directed, tracked transition programs of education, training, apprenticeship, employment, and compensation, particularly for any positions that are understaffed.

Perhaps the incentive in such a society would be the availability of jobs. There is so much of the jobs available on the lower level. They would easily be filled. To ensure yourself a job in the future, you would study to get a higher position job which are harder to fill.

A labor-time *multiplier* could be used, determined by mass exit-polling, or surveying, of people at those respective positions, to convert labor hours into labor-hour *credits*. More study for a position or greater occupational hazard would be reflected in the mass surveys and translated into relatively higher labor-hour *multipliers* for higher rates of labor credit compensation.

But this labor-credit-fueled, post-capitalist economy would *not* attempt to translate labor credits into the "purchase" of assets & resources, goods & services -- instead, these flows of labor credits for work completed would serve as a *labor-empowering*, *political* tool in organizing *active* labor to *empower* *other* workers into the continuously rolling provisioning of labor supply, forever into the future:

Currently production requires [1] labor, and [2] capital, right? Without the abstracted, bullshit capital-market-pricing valuation at play we would have to have a *political economy* that *collectively, consciously* assumes mass control and planning over society's productive capacities, right?

But this *political* aspect doesn't speak to the *labor* component in a post-capitalist political economy -- sure no one could be blackmailed into work roles against their basic human living needs, but how would the potential, willing labor *supply* be treated by the *larger*, *overarching* political society -- the "demand" -- ?

This is where *past work completed*, quantified into labor credits, would confer a kind of *seniority* or *labor social status* in organizing the (numerically smaller) supply of labor to potentially meet the (numerically larger) population's requests ("demand") for production runs.

[...]

The workers who work on any given production run do *not necessarily* have to be the *consumers* of the resulting products -- they could even be *traveling* / *itinerant* laborers who are not *from* the locality -- *this* is another good reason for introducing a labor-hours credits system, so that a locality has the *flexibility* of finding suitable labor without being *tied down* to geographical constraints, or a labor workforce's *personal* interests and *personal* voluntarism.

So, in other words, more-consistently-active workers would be rewarded with relatively greater labor-organizing power *within* a locality's requested project or production run. Possession of more labor credits corresponds to being able to *select* more workers for more hours of work, since *those* *incoming* workers have to be *paid* somehow, right? Upon completion of the new work the labor-credit-possessing workers would *hand over* the labor credits to the new workforce that just put in the labor hours for completing the production run.

This would be akin to a syndicalism of sorts, though one gauged to actual track records of past work effort put in. With more labor credits comes more coordinating, labor-executive-like political power over future locality-planned projects. The transfer of labor credits also functions as a *formal material fulfillment* of rewards for work completed, because many (most?)(all?) of the labor-credit-possessing workers would *also* be residents of the same local locality, so their *putting up* of the labor-credit "funding" would be a further demonstration and representation of the locality's political intention.

Chris

--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- My superficiality is only skin-deep --

[8] communist economy diagram

Paul Cockshott

18th November 2009, 13:22

Paul Cockshott

18th November 2009, 13:25

However, I have been becoming more and more critical of the 'Communist Manifesto' ideal of late, because it is too formulaic, prescriptive, and *does not* (implicitly) take into consideration the reality of a state of profound material *abundance* -- the current capitalist over-production -- with just a minimum of labor input.

Be careful what you say here. Many natural resources are already showing signs of depletion.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th November 2009, 13:29

I don't see how that's any more a 'fundamental Marxist principle' than labour credits?

As far as I'm aware, most labour credit supporters would support limiting them to luxuries, while leaving basic necessities (eg. food, water, appliances, electricity), to a certain extent, as free. It's not like we're saying that people who don't work can't eat, that would be rather mean.

I imagine that the overwhelming majority of marxists would see that principle (ability-need) as absolutely fundamental to a marxist society's post-capitalist economic system, with or without a solution that involved labour credits.

No, i'm not saying that there would (or should) ever be a shortage of food in a socialist economy, but sometimes people use more than the average amount of certain goods - deoderant, toilet roll, milk etc., and we should focus on producing an abundant supply of such goods, and regardless of whether labour credits are introduced, the first aim of any socialist revolution should indeed be to make efficient the production of vital consumer products.

Peace. Bread. Land.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th November 2009, 13:34

The labour credit system is what Marx called the first phase of communism. The principle of 'to each according to his need' is the higher phase.

I see. I am fine with this as long as it does not clash with what I said above, about confining such a system to the luxuries market, whilst promoting a supply-side economic model for those goods which are neccessary for everyday existence.

In the case where world revolution was not acheived, and a socialist nation had to trade with capitalist countries out of necessity (if it did not have the ability to be completely autarkical), would there be any possibility for introducing the labour credits system? I.E. separating the 'external economy' (currency, trade) with an 'internal economy' (labour credits, production of goods, payment of labour)? I personally wouldn't have thought it possible, but it is surely a question that we socialists must come to terms with, given the unlikeliness of world revolutions happening a la the domino effect.

Paul Cockshott

18th November 2009, 15:41

I am in favour of separating them to some extent. Suppliers from the capitalist world providing the commonwealth with goods would however acquire labour credits which they could only redeem against export goods from the commonwealth.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th November 2009, 16:14

Presumably there would be laws prohibiting the exchange of these labour credits between suppliers in the capitalist world? i.e. only a specific supplier can redeem specific labour credits.

Although to be honest, I would have thought that a socialist commonwealth of nations would not, naturally, be interested in developing a large-scale export economy.

Stranger Than Paradise

18th November 2009, 16:38

But Drace, it is only the division of intellectual and manual labour which means which means a person who is a janitor won't have the skills to be a doctor. It is only a result of Capitalist society.

ckaihatsu

18th November 2009, 17:18

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th November 2009, 21:16

A question on that table:

How can assets controlled and administered by a Communist society not have a quantifiable material value? Surely the creation of such assets were the result of labour which must be valued and paid for accordingly.

As such, in valuing assets relating to production (assets of the more technological kind) would there be a depreciation calculation to the value of the product (no asset, surely, would be worth after 10 years, it's original value)?

ckaihatsu

19th November 2009, 01:12

A question on that table:

How can assets controlled and administered by a Communist society not have a quantifiable material value? Surely the creation of such assets were the result of labour which must be valued and paid for accordingly.

Yes, the *labor* itself would be paid for, by those who have worked in the past to accumulate labor credits (or a locality could issue debt-based labor credits) -- but the assets would *not need* to have any kind of abstracted number-value associated with them. They could simply be tracked as what they are, what their functions and capacities are, where they're located, what current production runs and projects they're being used for, and so on.

Think of historical artifacts or buildings that are declared to be historic landmarks -- they're effectively taken *off* the market and are kept track of through *qualitative* descriptions only -- *all* assets, and resources as well, can be tracked in the same way.

As such, in valuing assets relating to production (assets of the more technological kind) would there be a depreciation calculation to the value of the product (no asset, surely, would be worth after 10 years, it's original value)?

No!!! No!!! No no no no no no nononononononononononononononono...!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! [tearing hair out]

= )

This is *exactly* the kind of market-type valuation and pricing that is to be *avoided*. In its place we could simply have a whole Wikipedia-type system of asset descriptions and GPS coordinates with which to catalog all known items that could be used for collectivized production.

Manufactured resources and even natural resources could be tracked similarly, with public notices that inform about locations of both and their respective usage status.

Goods and services would no longer be produced *in advance* and just "put out there" in a market-speculation kind of way -- *all* production would be pre-planned so that specific quantities of goods and services would already have destinations *before* being created. And, as with assets and resources, there would be *no numerical valuations* associated with goods and services either -- their requisition, production, distribution, and consumption would all be decided by the mass political prioritization process, iterated daily.

With the ridiculous, *avoidable* problem of translating labor time to material quantities out of the way we would have a labor culture that responds to the politically prioritized mass demands of the locality and is compensated with increasing organizing power over its own function, not to mention the freely available proceeds of the labor-production process itself.

Without capitalist parasitism the full leveraging of technology -- computerized automation -- could be realized and accessed by everyone interested. Perhaps the production process would be made so efficient as to create livable housing with the mere flick of a switch, or the pressing of the Return key on a computer keyboard.

mikelepore

19th November 2009, 01:35

In this society based not on money but on hours of labour, what would happen say, if someone's account balance hits 0 credits, yet they are in need of something desperately (anything for the house, i.e. loo roll, toothpaste, milk etc.)?

I find it hard to imagine anyone having a balance of 0. We have to realize that a classless society will have abolished many types of work that capitalism makes "necessary" (advertising, speculation, militarism, duplication of effort, guarding trade secrets, patent lawsuits, etc.) Abolishing a lot of unnecessary work, and distributing the genuinely necessary work (not to mention the abolition of profits paid to a parasite owner class) can only mean that people would have a very short workweek compared to its duration today. I wouldn't be surprised to find a ten hour workweek associated with an income equivalent to today's standard of living for a quarter of a million dollars per year. To have a balance of zero, therefore, who cannot work just a few hours occasionally? If someone is physically disabled so severely that all they can do is push one button in a whole day, then let them push that one button and get credited for a whole day of work, since it's the personal effort that is being compensated. That leads me to doubt that anyone would have a balance of 0, unless they are a member of a dropout cult.

Would these things still be available via private enterprise (the corner shop charging credits) or would there be some sort of supply/demand calibrated marketplace for these sorts of products and this sort of situation?

The majority of the people get to have any kind of system they want. As for the kind of system I would vote to have, arguments from others have persuaded me to reverse my earlier opinion that work credits shouldn't be transferable, and I now believe that credits should be transferable among individuals, analogous to today's checking accounts. A few correspondents of mine pointed out that this could lead to a simple form of private businesses, where no major machines are required, for example, carpentry, haircutting, etc. To that possibility, I have no objection and no preference, since there would be no wage-labor and therefore no exploitation. But any form of private business that requires major machinery or land use, personally I would oppose it.

mikelepore

19th November 2009, 02:34

which goes against the fundamental Marxist principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

As I never tire of pointing out :o) I don't consider that slogan to be a Marxist concept of any sort, much less a fundamental principle, for these reasons:

(1) The phrase didn't come from Marx, but from other writers, particularly St. Simon and Blanc, who, decades earlier, had earlier set out to give classical moral arguments for socialism, and therefore they quoted the apostle Paul on the early Christian distribution of goods "according to need" (Acts 2:45 and Acts 4:35) Marx merely paraphrased others so that he could look at the feasibility of the idea.

(2) The context shows Marx quoting it, not to recommend it, but to say that it should be deferred until may be reconsidered in a future society. The context shows Marx saying that, after two things have already been done -- after socialism is already in operation, and after mechanization has been so developed that "all the springs of wealth flow more abundantly" -- a future generation may revisit the idea.

(3) There's a reason why that discussion appears in a private correspondence that Marx didn't want published (although we today call it one of his "pamphlets"). Marx was only brainstorming with a few friends, and he didn't have anything there that he considered ready to publish. On the contrary, the major work that Marx _did_ consider ready to publish was _Capital_, Volume 1. In _Capital_ he imagined a society with "the means of production in common" that would have "the share of each individual ... determined by his labour-time.... a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption." (Chapter 1, Section 4)

mikelepore

19th November 2009, 02:54

As far as I'm aware, most labour credit supporters would support limiting them to luxuries, while leaving basic necessities (eg. food, water, appliances, electricity), to a certain extent, as free. It's not like we're saying that people who don't work can't eat, that would be rather mean.

I expect that this is what society would find out, after some practical tests -- that people can be motivated to work for their recreational consumption, while a gradually increasing number of basic necessities are distributed for free.

But I also think the accounting formula has to have an adjustable variable for that. If they want to make the food free, then they can set it's variable equal to zero. It's the same system, just an empirical readjustment of the settings.

I emphasize the empirical because I don't believe in the old stereotype that having socialism will somehow make work become fun. Work will never be most people's hobby. Society will have to peform tests with material incentives and monitor whether production gets performed in sufficient quantities.

ckaihatsu

19th November 2009, 03:32

Although to be honest, I would have thought that a socialist commonwealth of nations would not, naturally, be interested in developing a large-scale export economy.

In the case where world revolution was not acheived, and a socialist nation had to trade with capitalist countries out of necessity (if it did not have the ability to be completely autarkical), would there be any possibility for introducing the labour credits system? I.E. separating the 'external economy' (currency, trade) with an 'internal economy' (labour credits, production of goods, payment of labour)? I personally wouldn't have thought it possible, but it is surely a question that we socialists must come to terms with, given the unlikeliness of world revolutions happening a la the domino effect.

This is a prescription for Stalinism all over again -- it's an inbuilt *contradiction* to both state your revolutionary anti-capitalism and then to go back on your statement by trading with the enemy.

It would be preferable to stick to your political principles and engage in the *political* struggle more actively, in order to build up and expand the revolutionary entity to displace the capitalist system *altogether*, everywhere on earth.

Since the economic approaches of commodity production / exchange values (capitalism) and collectivized production / direct distribution (communism) are *mutually exclusive*, antagonistic, and incompatible with each other you're left with a stark, binary, either-or kind of political choice.

Attempting to mix the two is *politically* a *capitulation* to the status quo system of capitalism. If you really knew the collectivist approach to production as being the better system then you would *not need* to lapse back into passive political support for the capitalist (imperialist) mode of production.

I am in favour of separating them to some extent. Suppliers from the capitalist world providing the commonwealth with goods would however acquire labour credits which they could only redeem against export goods from the commonwealth.

History has shown us that the capitalist world has a tremendous head-start when it comes to productive capacities -- at the same time their complementary *political* organization is weak since it is based on exchange values and privatized competition (though with favoritism for certain companies from the state). Attempting to trade with them is being a johnny-come-lately to the game, and is also cooperating with them through trade. It would be better for revolutionaries to build on our political strength of solidarity in *collectivized* production, including internal cooperative planning, not competition.

There would also be nothing to exclude the capitalist imperialists from attempting to *colonize* any nascent collective productive entities, as the U.S. did to the stagnating bureaucratic U.S.S.R., eventually overcoming their internal cohesion by isolating them and surrounding their economy with international financial flows and military brinksmanship.

Presumably there would be laws prohibiting the exchange of these labour credits between suppliers in the capitalist world? i.e. only a specific supplier can redeem specific labour credits.

Here you're describing the definition of a *vendor* (to the larger, developed capitalist entity), more than anything else.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

19th November 2009, 04:07

ZeroNowhere

19th November 2009, 09:09

The context shows Marx saying that, after two things have already been done -- after socialism is already in operation, and after mechanization has been so developed that "all the springs of wealth flow more abundantly" -- a future generation may revisit the idea.Technically, it's probably worth quoting in full (especially given the tendency of certain people to only mention what you quoted to make it seem that all Marx thought necessary was more productivity, for example in the article on Impossibilism, along with claiming that De Leonism aimed for a form of capitalism due to labour credits, etc):

"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 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!"

There's a reason why that discussion appears in a private correspondence that Marx didn't want publishedActually, if I recall correctly, they were considering publishing it, but then decided not to (which was probably ill-advised) because it was being interpreted in a revolutionary way or something of the sort?

mikelepore

20th November 2009, 01:19

they were considering publishing it

I wasn't aware of that.

the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want

I estimate that will happen about five hundred years in the future.

ckaihatsu

20th November 2009, 02:48

Sorry I didn't mean to come across as a proposer of 'socialism in one country.'

Rather, I was trying to enunciate that world revolution would not happen all at once. My question was relating to the period in between the first revolution happening, and the overwhelming majority of the world's peoples coming under the net of a Socialist commonwealth.

I am not a prescriber of Stalinism

Well, I hope you don't mind my characterizing this as being very pessimistic.

There are all kinds of ways in which a revolution could unfold, not the least of which could be where it's sparked in several places at once, possibly by a global event, and then spreads quickly, with workers finally throwing off all of the oppressive institutions and practices that currently chain them to the status quo.

cenv

20th November 2009, 05:37

ckaihatsu

20th November 2009, 08:03

As soon as we start trying to quantify labor and remunerate people according to work, the revolution has failed. Communism is based on abolition of wage labor, not "equality" of wage labor. Any society that subordinates human needs to productivity will become a society based on alienation. Alienation is no longer a historical necessity, so we shouldn't try to "replace money," but to abolish it.

You're missing the forest for the trees here -- we don't need to fetishize the *instrument* of money or else we'll wind up sounding as simplistic as the common religious sentiment towards the same.

Alienation comes from the *class division* and the *stealing away* of surplus labor value from all workers.

*Measurement* itself doesn't *have* to be a *bad* thing -- I think we're used to getting a bad feel from technical areas, like mathematics, simply because it's currently wielded by the capitalist ruling class -- one probably instinctively thinks of Taylorism, and it's a reasonable reflex to have.

But if the working class could self-govern then work hours would be something of a *societal* accomplishment -- as the culmination of education, training, collective worker planning and preparation, and finally execution. Think of a community garden but at an inter-municipality, industrial scale, with all product outputs staying under the factory's workers' control, for cross-distributions with other like-run factories.

In this sort of societal construction a workers administration would want to keep track of labor inputs, just as in any other era of human history -- but it would not suffer from the extraction of profit (work hours) into the hands of private capital.

I agree that we shouldn't fetishize *productivity* either, because that would be bureaucratic and Stalinistic.

Paul Cockshott

20th November 2009, 22:38

Paul Cockshott

20th November 2009, 22:59

As I never tire of pointing out :o) I don't consider that slogan to be a Marxist concept of any sort, much less a fundamental principle, for these reasons:

(1) The phrase didn't come from Marx, but from other writers, particularly St. Simon and Blanc, who, decades earlier, had earlier set out to give classical moral arguments for socialism, and therefore they quoted the apostle Paul on the early Christian distribution of goods "according to need" (Acts 2:45 and Acts 4:35) Marx merely paraphrased others so that he could look at the feasibility of the idea.

(2) The context shows Marx quoting it, not to recommend it, but to say that it should be deferred until may be reconsidered in a future society. The context shows Marx saying that, after two things have already been done -- after socialism is already in operation, and after mechanization has been so developed that "all the springs of wealth flow more abundantly" -- a future generation may revisit the idea.

(3) There's a reason why that discussion appears in a private correspondence that Marx didn't want published (although we today call it one of his "pamphlets"). Marx was only brainstorming with a few friends, and he didn't have anything there that he considered ready to publish. On the contrary, the major work that Marx _did_ consider ready to publish was _Capital_, Volume 1. In _Capital_ he imagined a society with "the means of production in common" that would have "the share of each individual ... determined by his labour-time.... a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption." (Chapter 1, Section 4)

That is a valuable summary.

cenv

20th November 2009, 23:38

You're missing the forest for the trees here -- we don't need to fetishize the *instrument* of money or else we'll wind up sounding as simplistic as the common religious sentiment towards the same.

Alienation comes from the *class division* and the *stealing away* of surplus labor value from all workers.

Marx makes it clear in Capital ( in the footnote on Robert Owen ) that labour credits do abolish money, because they do not circulate.

Alienation can occur independent of traditional capitalism. If the purpose of work is individual survival, life will be grounded in alienation.

The problem isn't the specific form money takes, but the reification of productivity and the subordination of human needs to economic structure.

mikelepore

21st November 2009, 00:31

ckaihatsu

21st November 2009, 02:25

As soon as we start trying to quantify labor and remunerate people according to work, the revolution has failed. Communism is based on abolition of wage labor, not "equality" of wage labor. Any society that subordinates human needs to productivity will become a society based on alienation. Alienation is no longer a historical necessity, so we shouldn't try to "replace money," but to abolish it.

I used to say things like that when I was a young, and for most of my life. But then I flipped. Now I see that idea making the program for a classless society vulnerable to the criticism that many people would feel no reason to go to work, that altruism cannot function as a long-term reason to perform work, that production levels would not be sufficient to match the rate that people want to consume goods.

Mike, with all due respect, I think this is unwarranted pessimism.

After capitalism, just as now, people would be motivated to different kinds of work, for different reasons. Some people want to be at the cutting-edge of it all, and feel that their efforts are instrumental in making the world turn. Some people want to "give back" to the society that raised them in their youth and provided them with the support that helped them grow and mature. Some people want to pursue eclectic collections of whatever, or they have a large "bucket" list. And, finally, most people probably just want to do better for their own and those around them -- call it a "family-based altruism" or a "private club altruism"....

If a revolutionary society *really* had surpassed commodity production and *really* was short a few hands on a few levers for the production of foodstuffs to the masses, I'm pretty sure that itself would be enough of a motivation to draw people to work at that task.

Dr. Rosenpenis

21st November 2009, 21:01

It's obvious that people in a capitalist regime are in fact not motivated purely by the desire to acquire money, goods and power for themselves and no one else. Class war is a testament to that. But there are countless other examples like families, racism, nationalism, sexism, etc. Whether these are manifestation of selfishness or atruism doesn't matter since the question is simply whether we will have motivation to work in a socialist regime.

mikelepore

21st November 2009, 22:49

Mike, with all due respect, I think this is unwarranted pessimism. After capitalism, just as now, people would be motivated to different kinds of work, for different reasons. Some people want to be at the cutting-edge of it all, and feel that their efforts are instrumental in making the world turn. Some people want to "give back" to the society that raised them in their youth and provided them with the support that helped them grow and mature. Some people want to pursue eclectic collections of whatever, or they have a large "bucket" list. And, finally, most people probably just want to do better for their own and those around them -- call it a "family-based altruism" or a "private club altruism"....

The problem is, if you're right and I'm wrong, the economic system that I propose would still keep functioning, while having just a few superfluous parts. But if I'm right, and those who expect people to be motivated by "different reasons" are wrong, then the system would produce poverty and inefficiency. A risk analysis shows an asymmetry there.

I see the revolutionary process as being similar to rolling off a runway at the edge of a cliff, with reliance on a new jet engine that has never been tested before. All we have is our simulations. We need a transition to a new system that can be shown in advance to function, no matter what sorts of human behavior may be encountered.

For the same reason that I reject the anarchist proposal to abolish the "coercive" law and just assume that this would not lead to violence, I reject the free-access-socialist proposal to put labor on an honor system and assume that people will show up to perform it. My reason is: these ideas rely on the 19th century concept that is known by philosophers as the infinitely-perfectible human nature. The hypothesis cannot be tested prior to the moment when the systemic decisions will have to be made.

Not only do we have to jump off the cliff with a mechanism that is known to be reliable, but, in addition to that, before society can do anything at all, we have to recruit the working class into the socialist movement. I detect that the working class is very perceptive about this issue. When the critics charge socialists with the old chestnut "it would never work", I suspect that, a good quarter of the time, they were just then talking to some socialists who have just got done saying something that, indeed, would never work! I was impressed by a critic of socialism who wrote in the World Socialists' forum, "Do you think I would be willing to pound nails into your roof so that you can play the guitar?" You see, we hurt our own cause when we make untestable claims.

I recommend a system that would use various kinds of material motives. Then, if my anticipations turn out to be wrong, if a few incremental tests later indicate that the freeness of free medicine can be extended to include free luxuries as well, and yet the wheels of industry don't grind to a halt, then our children's children will know of the additional changes that they wish to carry out. The system will be easily amendable at any time.

If a revolutionary society *really* had surpassed commodity production and *really* was short a few hands on a few levers for the production of foodstuffs to the masses, I'm pretty sure that itself would be enough of a motivation to draw people to work at that task.

For the record, I will repeat a point that I made a year ago when I was talking to you (ckaihatsu), but several other writers who are here now were not present at that time:

I think there is a reason why some paid jobs today overlap with hobbies, such as being a musician, while some jobs are literally no one's hobby, such as operating a blast furnace in a steel mill. There is a real distinction between activities that we perform for their own sake, for enjoyment, and activities that we perform only for separate ends, and we wish to "get them over with." There's no reason to conclude that the transition to a classless society will have any effect on that distinction between the two kinds of work. I believe that an economic system that doesn't force us to earn our income before we can go shopping would experience the planning disaster of too many people volunteering for work of the first kind, and too few people volunteering for work of the second kind.

(I have to hope that the subtlety of my last paragraph won't be lost on readers who are hasty to encapsulate what I just said in the terms "that damn Lepore thinks that human nature is lazy".)

ckaihatsu

22nd November 2009, 06:28

The problem is, if you're right and I'm wrong, the economic system that I propose would still keep functioning, while having just a few superfluous parts. But if I'm right, and those who expect people to be motivated by "different reasons" are wrong, then the system would produce poverty and inefficiency. A risk analysis shows an asymmetry there.

Mike, I noted that people are motivated to work for various reasons, and will continue to be motivated to work for those reasons, wherein a basic staple of subsistence provided as a public good would *not* be enough to fulfill those higher-minded motivations.

Could we have an economic system that overcomes poverty and inefficiency? Absolutely. I'll use *your own* statements here:

I expect that this is what society would find out, after some practical tests -- that people can be motivated to work for their recreational consumption, while a gradually increasing number of basic necessities are distributed for free.

But I also think the accounting formula has to have an adjustable variable for that. If they want to make the food free, then they can set it's variable equal to zero. It's the same system, just an empirical readjustment of the settings.

So with these words you're effectively in agreement regarding people's motivations for work -- "recreational consumption".

I'll note that in the economic system that I propose, "communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors", at post #39, people would have to provide work inputs (to put computerized automated machinery into motion) on a somewhat *ongoing*, rolling-over basis of work crews so that requisite amounts of labor credits can be passed forward as compensation, from *any* labor-credit-possessing individuals, *to* incoming workers, to get work done.

I emphasize the empirical because I don't believe in the old stereotype that having socialism will somehow make work become fun. Work will never be most people's hobby. Society will have to peform tests with material incentives and monitor whether production gets performed in sufficient quantities.

I agree with this statement as well, Mike, and I don't know why you've decided to *counterpose* our viewpoints regarding a post-capitalist society.

I see the revolutionary process as being similar to rolling off a runway at the edge of a cliff, with reliance on a new jet engine that has never been tested before. All we have is our simulations. We need a transition to a new system that can be shown in advance to function, no matter what sorts of human behavior may be encountered.

Fair enough -- agreed.

For the same reason that I reject the anarchist proposal to abolish the "coercive" law and just assume that this would not lead to violence, I reject the free-access-socialist proposal to put labor on an honor system and assume that people will show up to perform it. My reason is: these ideas rely on the 19th century concept that is known by philosophers as the infinitely-perfectible human nature. The hypothesis cannot be tested prior to the moment when the systemic decisions will have to be made.

In *none* of my posts do I advocate an "honor system", as you put it. I recommend you review what I advocate, at post #39 and also at my blog entry.

Not only do we have to jump off the cliff with a mechanism that is known to be reliable, but, in addition to that, before society can do anything at all, we have to recruit the working class into the socialist movement. I detect that the working class is very perceptive about this issue. When the critics charge socialists with the old chestnut "it would never work", I suspect that, a good quarter of the time, they were just then talking to some socialists who have just got done saying something that, indeed, would never work!

It's profoundly ironic that you would bring up the form of a pessimistic socialist. You might want to work on *yourself* here, if you're concerned about "false prophets" within our camp:

Now I see that idea making the program for a classless society vulnerable to the criticism that many people would feel no reason to go to work, that altruism cannot function as a long-term reason to perform work, that production levels would not be sufficient to match the rate that people want to consume goods.

the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want

I estimate that will happen about five hundred years in the future.

I was impressed by a critic of socialism who wrote in the World Socialists' forum, "Do you think I would be willing to pound nails into your roof so that you can play the guitar?" You see, we hurt our own cause when we make untestable claims.

I recommend a system that would use various kinds of material motives. Then, if my anticipations turn out to be wrong, if a few incremental tests later indicate that the freeness of free medicine can be extended to include free luxuries as well, and yet the wheels of industry don't grind to a halt, then our children's children will know of the additional changes that they wish to carry out. The system will be easily amendable at any time.

Mike, you're flip-flopping all over the place here, moreso than a typical liberal -- I applaud your optimism, where you express it, but I bemoan your pessimism. Please just pull it together or something...!

For the record, I will repeat a point that I made a year ago when I was talking to you (ckaihatsu), but several other writers who are here now were not present at that time:

I think there is a reason why some paid jobs today overlap with hobbies, such as being a musician, while some jobs are literally no one's hobby, such as operating a blast furnace in a steel mill. There is a real distinction between activities that we perform for their own sake, for enjoyment, and activities that we perform only for separate ends, and we wish to "get them over with." There's no reason to conclude that the transition to a classless society will have any effect on that distinction between the two kinds of work. I believe that an economic system that doesn't force us to earn our income before we can go shopping would experience the planning disaster of too many people volunteering for work of the first kind, and too few people volunteering for work of the second kind.

(I have to hope that the subtlety of my last paragraph won't be lost on readers who are hasty to encapsulate what I just said in the terms "that damn Lepore thinks that human nature is lazy".)

Okay, so, again, we just need to make sure that there's an economic system that won't let people starve or go homeless, but one which also requires people to contribute efforts to the economy in order to derive higher-level benefits from it, like recreational goods and services.

You seem to sometimes hold the position that if we provide basic social services then we're letting people off the hook of work and into lives of luxury by default. I hope you'll see that there are many shades of gray between not-starving and getting lifetime access to a Lexus....

Vladimir Innit Lenin

22nd November 2009, 17:12

Well, I hope you don't mind my characterizing this as being very pessimistic.

There are all kinds of ways in which a revolution could unfold, not the least of which could be where it's sparked in several places at once, possibly by a global event, and then spreads quickly, with workers finally throwing off all of the oppressive institutions and practices that currently chain them to the status quo.

Not at all, and likewise, I hope you don't mind me judging your solution to be excessively optimistic.

As Economists, it is really our duty to plan for all sorts of scenarios. Judging by history, I would say that it is unlikely that any definitive socialist victory would occur instantaneously. It is unlikely, for example, that America, that supreme Capitalist power would be won over in anything other than a matter of years.

Even if your situation occurred, there would still be a period of transition from the onset of revolution, through a period of 'socialistic' society, until society was measureably 'socialist.' It is our responsibility to plan for this period, as it will occur, even in the aftermath of the most successful of revolutions. 1917 is proof of this.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2009, 18:29

No!!! No!!! No no no no no no nononononononononononononononono...!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! [tearing hair out]

= )

This is *exactly* the kind of market-type valuation and pricing that is to be *avoided*. In its place we could simply have a whole Wikipedia-type system of asset descriptions and GPS coordinates with which to catalog all known items that could be used for collectivized production.

Manufactured resources and even natural resources could be tracked similarly, with public notices that inform about locations of both and their respective usage status.

Goods and services would no longer be produced *in advance* and just "put out there" in a market-speculation kind of way -- *all* production would be pre-planned so that specific quantities of goods and services would already have destinations *before* being created. And, as with assets and resources, there would be *no numerical valuations* associated with goods and services either -- their requisition, production, distribution, and consumption would all be decided by the mass political prioritization process, iterated daily.

I have a problem or two with your explanation against amortization, which I am all too familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation

In simple words we can say that depreciation is the reduction in the value of an asset due to usage, passage of time, wear and tear, technological outdating or obsolescence, depletion, inadequacy, rot, rust, decay or other such factors.

In accounting, depreciation is a term used to describe any method of attributing the historical or purchase cost of an asset across its useful life, roughly corresponding to normal wear and tear. It is of most use when dealing with assets of a short, fixed service life, and which is an example of applying the matching principle per generally accepted accounting principles.

Whereby the matching principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_principle

Is the accounting principle of matching expense recognition to the period where the corresponding revenues are recognized.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2009, 01:28

I have a problem or two with your explanation against amortization, which I am all too familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation

Hey, Slick, I *know* what depreciation is -- my *point* is that, if we have a *consciously planned political economy*, then we *don't have* to keep track of (quantitative) asset values *at all*, *whatsoever*.

I'm going to call it the "Wikipedia model" -- *everything* of use-value could be kept track of on a &%#%@! Wikipedia page -- if an asset deteriorates too much, or just needs special maintenance, someone could just post a %$#@&%! comment noting that labor is needed for patch-up work....

Die Neue Zeit

23rd November 2009, 02:47

Hey, Slick, I *know* what depreciation is -- my *point* is that, if we have a *consciously planned political economy*, then we *don't have* to keep track of (quantitative) asset values *at all*, *whatsoever*.

I'm going to call it the "Wikipedia model" -- *everything* of use-value could be kept track of on a &%#%@! Wikipedia page -- if an asset deteriorates too much, or just needs special maintenance, someone could just post a %$#@&%! comment noting that labor is needed for patch-up work....

You didn't have to overreact there. :blushing:

Also, patch-up work can only go so far. At some point, the asset just needs to be replaced.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2009, 03:40

You didn't have to overreact there. :blushing:

I "didn't have to overreact" -- ???

And this means what, that your "political feelings" are "hurt" or something???

Jesus, I'm just asking you to stick to the point, that's all -- that's what this is all about, right? A *political* forum, for *political* discussions, right?

Also, patch-up work can only go so far. At some point, the asset just needs to be replaced.

Okay, that's more like it -- agreed, at some point a collective decision could be made to replace an asset. This would be part of my *overall* point that quantitative valuations (for assets and resources) are not needed whatsoever.

Paul Cockshott

23rd November 2009, 15:38

Hey, Slick, I *know* what depreciation is -- my *point* is that, if we have a *consciously planned political economy*, then we *don't have* to keep track of (quantitative) asset values *at all*, *whatsoever*.

I'm going to call it the "Wikipedia model" -- *everything* of use-value could be kept track of on a &%#%@! Wikipedia page -- if an asset deteriorates too much, or just needs special maintenance, someone could just post a %$#@&%! comment noting that labor is needed for patch-up work....

It is argued by some comentators that the slowdown in Soviet growth in the 1960s and 1970s stemmed from this patch up approach. The system was much better at putting new plant into place than it was at replacing old equipment. In consequence a lot of old machinery went on being used - patched up old machinery.

mikelepore

24th November 2009, 01:33

I agree with this statement as well, Mike, and I don't know why you've decided to *counterpose* our viewpoints regarding a post-capitalist society.

I misspoke when I used such phrases as "if I'm right and you're wrong", etc. My choice of words made it seem as thought you said something that you didn't really say.

In *none* of my posts do I advocate an "honor system", as you put it. I recommend you review what I advocate, at post #39 and also at my blog entry.

However, in that particular paragraph, I didn't misspeak. I expressed what I think about something, but not in a way that implied you said anything about it.

Mike, you're flip-flopping all over the place here, moreso than a typical liberal -- I applaud your optimism, where you express it, but I bemoan your pessimism. Please just pull it together or something...!

As I explained earlier, I see the need to design for reliability assurance. Picture an engineer telling a test pilot: "In case the plane flies, we have added landing gear, but in case the plane explodes, we have added an ejector seat." If you want to use psychological terms, you can call it optimism and pessimism at the same time. I just call it making contingencies for the unknown.

Die Neue Zeit

25th November 2009, 04:33

It is argued by some comentators that the slowdown in Soviet growth in the 1960s and 1970s stemmed from this patch up approach. The system was much better at putting new plant into place than it was at replacing old equipment. In consequence a lot of old machinery went on being used - patched up old machinery.

That's what I was thinking of, coincidentally. However, I was thinking more about some way to rebutt the Post-Keynesian argument against LTV as written in Steve Keen's book Economics Debunked (where he basically thinks LTV is flawed on the basis of not taking into account machines adding value above machine depreciation) - other than an off-hand reference by Michael Hudson that Marx-as-first-cost-accountant's LTV did take depreciation into account.

But yeah, I'm definitely for continuing amortization measures for the dual purpose of matching usage/depletion/decay and of matching expense recognition of labour costs to the period where the corresponding revenues are recognized.

syndicat

27th November 2009, 04:53

The labor consumed in production can't be reduced to just hours worked. You also have to look at how hard people work, how closely they are monitored and controlled, the pace of work, and other aspects of onerousness and riskiness of the work, such as chemical exposures that involve a risk of various diseases such as cancer.

When we look at exploitation we're talking about the benefits and costs involved in social production and how these are distributed. We see the profits that are pumped out of human labor as exploitative. But we need to consider that capital also makes profits by dumping costs onto workers.

A human "cost" is any harm, disadvantage or disutility. So things that occur in work that are destructive to the health of a worker mean that a greater portion of that worker's life is being used up. For example, close supervision and monitoring are causes of stress. Persistent stress causes things like cardiovascular disease. The working class lives less long than the dominating classes due to various aspects of both the work process and the neighborhoods where we live.

Hours worked...the duration of the labor...are one measure of disutility to the worker, of a worker's life being used up, but is not the only measure.

There is also another problem with the LTV as a theory of labor exploitation. It looks only at the relationship between the capital owner and the wage-earner. Thus rate of capital accumulation and rate of exploitation are treated as directly a function of the other. But the managers and engineers and lawyers and finance officers who are not significant capital owners also participate in the exploitation of labor through their role as day to day controllers of the workforce and planning and day to day control over the firm, with the dominant capital owners controlling the major strategic and capital allocation functions. In the era of the large corporation much of the power of control over labor and the firm is delegated to this techno-managerial or bureaucratic control class. And they receive high salaries and things like stock options and other perks from their participation in the exploitation of labor. The capitalists require this class to play the role they do, and this enables this class to scarf up a chunk of the surplus that is exploited from the rest of the workforce. But this class also performs at least some socially necessary coordination and technical labor, so their role isn't purely exploitative or parasitic as is the role of the capital owner. LTV is thus too simplistic to provide us with a theory of exploitation.

mikelepore

27th November 2009, 12:15

The last few posts here moved toward a discussion of the labor theory of value, which is a theory about how exploitation under capitalism occurs. The original post in the topic was about how "a socialist society would replace money with the hours of labor done." I hope it's clear to everyone that these are two unrelated discussions, although labor time is mentioned in both.