Kropotkin's criticism of Marx: relevant today?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.nefac.net/node/157


Kropotkin opposed labor vouchers on the grounds that they seek to measure the exact value of labor in an economy which, being socialized, tends to eliminate all distinctions as far as contribution of each worker considered in isolation is concerned. Furthermore, the existence of labor vouchers would continue to make society 'a commercial company based on debit and credit'. Hence he denounced labor vouchers in the following terms: 'The idea... is old. It dates from Robert Owen. Proudhon advocated it in 1848. Today, it has become "scientific socialism".

Does Kropotkin's criticism still hold for electronic labour credit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html)? I don't think he read this qualification in the underrated Volume II of Das Kapital:


In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.

Thoughts?

[Bilan]

I don't understand how the quote from Kapital II contradicts what Kropotkin said?

[trivas7]

http://www.nefac.net/node/157
Does Kropotkin's criticism still hold for electronic labour credit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html)? I don't think he read this qualification in the underrated Volume II of Das Kapital:

AFAIK Kropotkin's criticism is that socially necessary labor-power is not quantifiable, not a criticism of labor credit as such.

[Aurelia]

Kropotkin's criticism is from a idealistic perspective, and it falls terribly close to the Lassallean theory of undiminished wage compensation.

[Bilan]

Kropotkin's criticism is from a idealistic perspective, and it falls terribly close to the Lassallean theory of undiminished wage compensation.

How is it idealistic?
It states that you can't quantify socially necessary labour, because all socially necessary contributes to the well being and advancement of society.
The scientist can only understand how materials can be used, changed and created, the workers is the only one who can physically do it, the production line is where it will be developed so it can be used (into whatever). It's the process which develops the finished and useful product, and each factor contributes to the end product, and each factor is important to that end product.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Since you're a Kropotkinite, let me ask you this: is the "socialist calculation" debate still relevant or not? Can socially necessary labor-power be measured accurately now, with supercomputers, linear "programming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming#Uses), etc.?

[trivas7]

^^^ Since you're a Kropotkinite, let me ask you this: is the "socialist calculation" debate still relevant or not? Can socially necessary labor-power be measured accurately now, with supercomputers, linear "programming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming#Uses), etc.?
Cockshott and Cottrell (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/) argue yes. Who can say?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, you do realize that I HAVE read that work and even cited it in my own, right? ;) [I was asking a rhetorical question to the Kropotkinite above.]

[Bilan]

^^^ Since you're a Kropotkinite, let me ask you this: is the "socialist calculation" debate still relevant or not? Can socially necessary labor-power be measured accurately now, with supercomputers, linear "programming" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming#Uses), etc.?

I honestly don't know to much about linear programming, but I see it as kind of pointless, to be honest. It kind of goes against what he was trying to advocate: that all socially necessary labour is equal in value.
Trying to partially imbalance the scale simply for the sake of accuracy seems like utter foolishness.
But I suppose it's possible. But I think the question is, why would you do it?

The distribution of wealth should be on the principles of each according to their ability, each according to their need (though, difficulties arise due to scarcity in the present).

And I'm not a Kropotkinite. I've been influenced by alot of different revolutionary socialists - from Kropotkin to Marx, to Rocker to Brinton (♥), to Malatesta to Makhno.