Giving up on some terms: Debating capitalism again, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-time-vouchers-t96793/index.html?p=1332906

For the record my kind of "socialism" is outlined in the old post above.

I'm just thinking now that, since "socialism" seems to be at the present time too dominated by a monetary point of view (for which some have extended the "state capitalist" label), whether to replace the term "capitalist mode of production" with the more broad term "commodity mode of production," before which existed either various "petty commodity" modes of production (slave-based, Asiatic, Euro-feudal, Japano-feudal, etc.) or a singular "petty commodity" mode of production with various sub-modes - and before all this the "primitive communist" mode of production.

Also, the extension of the "state capitalist" label to a worker-controlled "monetary socialism" pits the concept of state capital rule against worker control. "State commodity" has no "ism" following it, thereby being quite compatible with worker control. So, just as there existed multiple "petty commodity" modes or sub-modes of production in the past, there can exist at least two or three "commodity" modes or sub-modes of production (bourgeois "capitalism," bureaucratic-state commodity mode of production, Lenin's "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" or Kautsky's "money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered," etc.).

Thoughts?

[Dimentio]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-time-vouchers-t96793/index.html?p=1332906

For the record my kind of "socialism" is outlined in the old post above.

I'm just thinking now that, since "socialism" seems to be at the present time too dominated by a monetary point of view (for which some have extended the "state capitalist" label), whether to replace the term "capitalist mode of production" with the more broad term "commodity mode of production," before which existed various "petty commodity" modes of production (slave-based, Asiatic, Euro-feudal, Japano-feudal, etc.) and before them the "primitive communist" mode of production.

Also, the extension of the "state capitalist" label to a worker-controlled "monetary socialism" pits the concept of state capital rule against worker control. "State commodity" has no "ism" following it, thereby being quite compatible with worker control. So, just as there existed multiple "petty commodity" modes of production in the past, there can exist at least two or three "commodity" modes of production (bourgeois "capitalism," bureaucratic-state commodity mode of production, "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly," etc.).

Thoughts?

Exactly my thoughts. I believe that before any progressive change could occur, workers must control at least one forth to well past half of the accumulated wealth of a region. Then, a stable socialist society could appear and thrive, due to the fact that the people would not be dependent on the goodwill of the capitalists, the feudal aristocrats or some sort of vanguard party in the vital matter of economic administration.

[Lynx]

The capitalist mode of production is undemocratic. Can the same be said of all 'commodity modes' ?
I would want to emphasize democratic modes of production.

[MarxSchmarx]

At the end of the day, capitalist production, I would suggest, does not center on the accumulation of commodities but the accumulation of profit. This makes it qualitatively distinct from the various "petty-commodity" modes of production suggested. Indeed, under previous production regimes, it appears the provision of goods and services is the ultimate objective of productive enterprise.
However, under capitalism, commodities have an intermediary value because they are only vessicles to acquire greater profits.

In some respect socialism and worker control of the means of production return commodity to their central place in an economy ("to each according to his need"), but do so without the burden of scarcity and arbitrary deprivation.

I am also curious about what precisely is meant in a "state commodity" approach? That the commodities will be owned and utilizable by all?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, "state commodity" refers to one of two modes/sub-modes following bourgeois society: authoritarian-bureaucratic economy (USSR), and the ideal "socialism" per Trotskyists and most other left tendencies. In both cases, money is still retained as a means of exchange.

[Paul Cockshott]

Dieterich systematically revives Aristotles term Chrematistic to describe the forms of market economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's already found in Capital, where Marx uses both "chrematistic" and "oeconomic." ;)

[sanpal]

Also, the extension of the "state capitalist" label to a worker-controlled "monetary socialism" pits the concept of state capital rule against worker control. "State commodity" has no "ism" following it, thereby being quite compatible with worker control. So, just as there existed multiple "petty commodity" modes or sub-modes of production in the past, there can exist at least two or three "commodity" modes or sub-modes of production (bourgeois "capitalism," bureaucratic-state commodity mode of production, Lenin's "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" or Kautsky's "money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered," etc.).



Kautsky's phrase "money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered," maintains the grain of sense. Indeed, till the moment when the communist mode of production (moneyless economy) be put into practice "money will be found indispensable". To say more, "money will be found indispensable" in market sector of economy during lengthy period of creation and development of communist sector of economy "side by side" with market sector, in parallel way.

Concerning Lenin' phrase "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" he was here a bit wrong.

Undoubtedly "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people ..." explains essence of the Proletarian state but from this statement it doesn't automatically goes " .. has to this extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". It was Lenin's mistake.

The quote from "Anti-Duhring":


State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, ...
(F.Engels, "Anti-Duhring", Part III: Socialism, chapter 2: Theoretical)


It is more than obvious that state ownership of the Proletarian state is only technical conditions for further forming of "... the elements of that solution" or in another words, forming of communist sector of economy as a separate sector on the base of state ownership.


Engels' quote: "This solution can only consist in the practical (marked by sanpal) recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, ..."
So Lenin's merely formal "... recognition of the social nature of forces of production..." i.e. nationalization of the means of production (state-capitalist monopoly) after Proletarian revolution is not the same thing as Engels' " the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, " i.e. communization of the forces of production, or socialization of the means of production (for those who use the term "socialism" for applying to communist society),

[sanpal]

I'd like to add: Lenin's "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people " means, in the essence, the Proletarian Socialism because the part of profit getting from state-capitalist monopoly is turned first of all to social needs (education, medicine, dole to unemployed, a home to homeless, etc.).
But it is NOT communism. It is Proletarian socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky's phrase "money will be found indispensable until something better is discovered," maintains the grain of sense. Indeed, till the moment when the communist mode of production (moneyless economy) be put into practice "money will be found indispensable". To say more, "money will be found indispensable" in market sector of economy during lengthy period of creation and development of communist sector of economy "side by side" with market sector, in parallel way.

But there is a better means of exchange: non-circulable, electronic labour credits. Not to mention so-called "energy accounting" for Technocrats on this board. ;)

Even money today can be altered so as not to circulate.

[sanpal]

But there is a better means of exchange: non-circulable, electronic labour credits.

The economic mechanism of communist sector is the same "better way of exchange" what you told about, because it's based on non-circulable labour certificate no matter is it denoted in electronic form or in paper form.

Jacob Richter:

Even money today can be altered so as not to circulate.


This point demands special clarifying. It must be checked by Engels' position:

This is how it should be doing:

Originally Posted by Anti-Duhring
But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is "merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption", and in carrying out this function, it is "no more 'money' than a ticket for the theatre". It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a "ledger", in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen's "labour money", that "phantom" which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the "obligation to produce", and thus of the earned "right to consume" {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose. For other purposes, however, it is by no means immaterial, as we shall see.


This is how it should not be doing:

("Anti-Duhring", Socialism; IV "Distribution"):

" ... In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money,
while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise
than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse,
in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself;
the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries
to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money. "

It was the same mr. Duhring's dream: to alter money so that money not circulate.

[AmericanRed]

Money, Keynes once noted, performs three functions under capitalism: it is used in trade, it is saved and it is used "speculatively."

Money as a unit of exchange should present no problems for socialism. The inequalities and inefficiencies created by hoarding wealth in the form of saving would be easily dealt with by preventing the private ownership of productive property. It's money in its "speculative" aspect that poses problems; speculation is what passes for planning under capitalism. Socialists of course propose an entirely different sort of planning.

[Dermezel]

Do not rely on terms. Anyone who relies on terms is idealizing the situation.

Rely on the empirical data and the underlying theoretical constructs. Learn Marx's law of Centralization. Have the evidence ready to prove the economy is centralizing.

Then, if you need to make plans, study political theory and 4GW. Do not rely on arguments from definition or terms, such arguments end up in verbalism with each side attempting to define their way to victory.

[Dermezel]

I'm just thinking now that, since "socialism" seems to be at the present time too dominated by a monetary point of view (for which some have extended the "state capitalist" label),

Just note the fact that marginal utility is untestable, and Marx's law of centralization is rock solid. One is pseudoscience, one is real science. Monetary theory is almost entirely based on the concept of marginal utility, and even the school of thought that developed the theory admits it is not testable by means of empirical data.

As for Keynesian "theory" that is really just a mix of marginalism and Marxism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was the same mr. Duhring's dream: to alter money so that money not circulate.

New discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolish-exploitation-t131948/index.html

"while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate"

But my measure outlined in the thread above isn't meant to be a substitute for a labour certificate. You'd still have your dollars, or euros, or whatever.

[sanpal]

New discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolish-exploitation-t131948/index.html

"while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate"

But my measure outlined in the thread above isn't meant to be a substitute for a labour certificate. You'd still have your dollars, or euros, or whatever.

I don't understand clearly your 'transitional "currency" system, which you suppose to practice immediately after the Proletarian (Proletocratic) Revolution. Why, if already there is the working currency system which was used under bourgeois period? This currency quite suits to the state-capitalist economy of the Proletarian state. To fight against of the capitalist profit of the bourgeois/private sector of economy in the Proletarian state is possible to use strong progressive taxation. If you will plan to "domesticate" such "wild mustang" as money/currency by the means to deprive them the kind to make capitalist profits, you know perfectly how the Soviet Union ended its own existence - the "wild mustang was not domesticated" by the same way as mr. Duhring's model would had been. I know that the main question which has to be answered is how the process of the abolishing of the monetary system must be running. The answer the most close to marxism has to look like this: dialectically, i.e. dialectical contradictions in the state capitalist sector and in private bourgeois sector of economy in the Proletarian state will led to the creation of the communist sector of economy in the borders of the same Proletarian state. The process of substitution of the state capitalist/private sector by the growing communist sector from the Proletarian coup till full communist society is the transitional period. This transitional period needs no 'special' currency but the State New Economic Policy (NEP) with the normal money, a taxation in benefits for the working class and with development of the communist sector of economy where as you know there is no currency but only simple account calculation on the base of the labour certificates (the lower phase of communism).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't understand clearly your 'transitional "currency" system, which you suppose to practice immediately after the Proletarian (Proletocratic) Revolution. Why, if already there is the working currency system which was used under bourgeois period? This currency quite suits to the state-capitalist economy of the Proletarian state. To fight against of the capitalist profit of the bourgeois/private sector of economy in the Proletarian state is possible to use strong progressive taxation.

The problem, though, is capital flight. Ousted capitalists will want to move their money abroad, and money can circulate.

[sanpal]

The problem, though, is capital flight. Ousted capitalists will want to move their money abroad, and money can circulate.
Yes, of course, but ... let's imagine: yesterday in one of the countries a Proletarian coup has happened; heavy industry, railways, roads, treasures of the soil, electric power stations, etc. were nationalized and became as State property. In this sphere the capital flight is possible as 'circulating capital' what make up the minority of full capital, and only in the case if the former owners would be allowed to do it by the new proletarian power. Capital of the middle and small enterprises because of progressive taxation? Also they (owners) cannot pack their enterprises into their suitcases, they will try to sell it to another capitalists or to the State but on low prices. They have to convert the moved currency into "real money": gold, jewelry, foreign currency, works of art, etc. what could be in mass scale not always possible

[Die Neue Zeit]

This transitional period needs no 'special' currency but the State New Economic Policy (NEP) with the normal money

With all the talk of financialization and what not, is money-capital still a minority within overall capital (inclusive of physical MOP)?

Could the state simply grab all existing legal tender and issue new notes altogether, thus rendering the old currencies taken in "flight" by ousted capitalists worthless?

[BTW, I just read Stalin's Economic Problems work in greater detail (Chapters 2 and 3), which only confirmed my original post on (mass) commodity mode(s) of production.]

[sanpal]

With all the talk of financialization and what not, is money-capital still a minority within overall capital (inclusive of physical MOP)?

I don't know for sure; ask Paul Cockshott (as he's economist) how much 'circulating' capital could be contained in full volume of capital. Partly the circulating capital is in bought material, partly is in not sold goods, etc. Only not paid-up wages for workers could be moved abroad but it is criminal. I think 'flight' capital in the form of hard currency is possible in relatively stabilized society and in not short time period as economic potentiality. But in the moment of change of power and later ... i don't know, i might be wrong.




Could the state simply grab all existing legal tender and issue new notes altogether, thus rendering the old currencies taken in "flight" by ousted capitalists worthless?


Yes, of course. It is why capitalists will aspire to convert currency into jewellery before "flight".




[BTW, I just read Stalin's Economic Problems work in greater detail (Chapters 2 and 3), which only confirmed my original post on (mass) commodity mode(s) of production.]
Sorry, i have little time to answer, some day later.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know for sure; ask Paul Cockshott (as he's economist)

I'll wait for his response here.

[Paul Cockshott]

I'll wait for his response here.

I am not quite sure what the question is, but if it is about circulating capital, I am not sure that that is quite the way you should look at it.

Suppose that an entrprise has a turnover equal to 4000 hours equivalent per week. Suppose further that this turnover is made up of around 200 distinct transactions - purchases and sales with a mean value of 40 hours each ( 4000 hours purchases, 4000 hours sales). Assume further that these are randomly distributed. The standard deviation
in the sales and purchases will other things being equal be proportional to the square root of (200) * 40, i.e., it will be around 14*40 or approx 600 hours.

This gives the fluctuation in the balance of the enterprise on a week to week basis as about 600 hours plus or minus. One week in 20, ( two standard deviations=5%) we can expect the fluctuation to be as much as 1200 hours.

If the enterprise had to break even every week, it would be impossible for it to continue for more than 2 or 3 weeks before making a loss one week. If we set the goal of breaking even over a larger period, then the 'working capital' is the maximum overdraft that it needs to be allowed if it is to continue in the face of these inevitable stochastic fluctuations.

Does this answer your question?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Damn, you just had to introduce a term I myself am more familiar with: working capital. :D

But still, does Duhring himself have a point (i.e., an electronic currency not circulating on the consumer end may be valid)? Or are there fundamental transitional problems with even some sort of Soviet ruble minus anonymous cash and interest?