The workings of a planned economy [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

17th November 2008, 05:41

Mike, sympathies are in order for your forum issues (please give my "agent" regards to Dave the "caveman" ;) ). :(

In regards to your debate regarding the numerous forms of monetary socialism (not just one monolithic form, a la Gosplan) and the equally numerous forms of non-monetary socialism (again, not just one monolithic form a la "free access"), your constitutional amendment could use some tweaking, per an article by Mike Macnair in his "revolutionary party" series:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm

This understanding enables us to formulate a core political minimum platform for the participation of communists in a government. The key is to replace the illusory idea of ‘All power to the soviets’ and the empty one of ‘All power to the Communist Party’ with the original Marxist idea of the undiluted democratic republic, or ‘extreme democracy’, as the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This implies:

1) universal military training and service, democratic political and trade union rights within the military, and the right to keep and bear arms;
2) election and recallability of all public officials; public officials to be on an average skilled workers’ wage;
3) abolition of official secrecy laws and of private rights of copyright and confidentiality;
4) self-government in the localities: ie, the removal of powers of central government control and patronage and abolition of judicial review of the decisions of elected bodies;
5) abolition of constitutional guarantees of the rights of private property and freedom of trade.

There are certainly other aspects; more in the CPGB’s Draft programme. These are merely points that are particularly salient to me when writing.

RedSabine

17th November 2008, 07:57

So, here's an idea, based on Marxist economics, mixed with my own thinking:

Industrial Armies
So, after primary and secondary education, one is required to join the "Industrial Army" (I don't like that term...does anyone have a better one?) There is a 2-6 year tour of duty in which jobs are assigned due to need, supply and demand for products being produced, menial jobs due to needs in that department, etc. How long the tour of duty is depends on plans to go through tertiary education, future jobs, whatever. Then after the tour of duty is done, there is equal liabilaty to labor which means that everyone is required to due something productive (whether that be teacher, sculptor, engineer, doctor, community organizer for the continued grassroots organization that maintain worker's control over the economic system/state) This will all be during the Socialist stage, and I think that overtime, with technological advancements and overall collective consciousness shift, there will be less and less need for the state to maintain this order as it will be self-organized.

mikelepore

17th November 2008, 08:16

People do plenty of volunteer and self-motivated (hobbyist) work despite the imperatives of life under wage slavery.

And look at those types of work. The number of people who earn their living by playing music or writing poetry or photographing landscapes, and also express that they would do it even if they were not paid: thousands and perhaps millions of people. The number of people who earn a living by working in factories, mines, mills and refineries, and also express that they would do it even if they were not paid: virtually zero. There are some kinds of jobs that are no one's hobby. There's a good reason for that. The reason is: there are some activities that we do for their own sake, for enjoyment, and other activities that we do only because they are means to separate ends. A speculative economic system that doesn't make use of that fact would malfunction.

Volunteer work and altruism are not a coherent plan. People can't change the economic system without a plan that they can ascertain in advance to be reliable, anymore than we would take off in a jet plane with a new type of engine that has never been tested before.

When revolutionary movements don't have specific plans for constructing a new system, the working class realizes this deficiency and reacts by becoming more conservative.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th November 2008, 10:06

The point is that it is utopian to conjure up some ready-made post-capitalist system now and pretend that we can just "will it" into being the day after the revolution.

We have to make revolution in the real world. We have to deal with the material conditions we face and go from there.

As for the incentive debate.. of course it will be necessary in a revolutionary society. A combination of material and moral incentive will be needed. The next generations, reared in a free society, will be the ones that will increase work by "moral incentive," needing material incentive much less than those who came up under the capitalist dictatorship. It's also the case that under socialism the forces of production will be continually developed, until the creation of true material abundance, a necessary precursor for communism. When the needs of all are met, and the necessary labor contribution of each member of society is no longer a burden on them (e.g. a few hours a week), the basis for a communist society is laid.

apathy maybe

17th November 2008, 10:49

- What guarantee is there that a new product would emerge?
People will continue to invent and create without any incentive needed.

On a different forum a member used edible soap as an example. Say someone proposed the idea, and it gathered legitimate support from a number of consumers. What ensures that a workers' council would go about investing in this new product when it can continue what it's doing to prevent itself from exerting more effort?
Why would they bother creating this "edible soap" and what does it matter if they don't? There is nothing stopping other people from making the stuff.

- Supposing this edible soap is rejected from existing workers' councils, would there be a way for an inventor to provide the item separately?
Yeah, they can use the equipment themselves, convince them to make it, or forget about it. What does it matter anyway?

The legitimacy of concern lies in the fact for a new service or product to emerge, usually more time is needing to be devoted.
It's called freedom. I'm free to suggest that edible soap is a stupid idea and that we shouldn't bother investing any time or resources into it. You are free to suggest otherwise. I'm free to not put any of my time into the idea, and you are free to use the machinery to produce the stuff if you really want to (so long as you aren't disrupting normal soap production).

There's also a matter of qualifying what counts as legitimate labor. Plucking trash from one sidewalk would not be generally productive. I think this concern can be resolved with a certain type of accounting, like the one proposed by Technocrats.

This is a stupid concern address many times before. People will clean the trash up because they are rostered to, because they volunteer to, because they get rewards to do so, because they don't like to see rubbish on the footpath, because they are creating art from trash.

Depending on the society, will decided what the reasons are for cleaning up rubbish, but don't worry, it will all be cleaned, and no one will be forced to do anything.

mikelepore

17th November 2008, 22:30

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness, for those who acquire anything do not work." --- Communist Manifesto

mikelepore

17th November 2008, 22:52

The point is that it is utopian to conjure up some ready-made post-capitalist system now and pretend that we can just "will it" into being the day after the revolution.

But a spectrum of possible alternatives should be described, because (at least, this is my experience), about ninety percent of the objections that working class people have to establishing a classless and profitless society are various rewordings of the idea "I can't visualize how it could possibly work." Therefore we can't afford to refuse to prescribe blueprints. For those who don't want to prescribe just one, we can suggest a half a dozen to compare, but we can't just leave it in the most general terms.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th November 2008, 23:01

But a spectrum of possible alternatives should be described, because (at least, this is my experience), about ninety percent of the objections that working class people have to establishing a classless and profitless society are various rewordings of the idea "I can't visualize how it could possibly work."

And folks who lived in the 1750's couldn't visualize how automobiles would work.

Therefore we can't afford to refuse to prescribe blueprints.

On the contrary, we musn't.

Marx and Engels were careful not to do so for a reason.

The basic principles (The rule of the working class through its own state, planned production geared at meeting human need under the control of the working class, foreign policy based on proletarian internationalism) are what's to be promoted. A prefabricated system with every detail worked out in advance is not.

RedSabine

18th November 2008, 01:01

And folks who lived in the 1750's couldn't visualize how automobiles would work.

On the contrary, we musn't.

Marx and Engels were careful not to do so for a reason.

The basic principles (The rule of the working class through its own state, planned production geared at meeting human need under the control of the working class, foreign policy based on proletarian internationalism) are what's to be promoted. A prefabricated system with every detail worked out in advance is not.

I think that it would be absolute folly to make a plan for every forseeable thing about future socialist or communist society, everything down to the type of shoe we should wear ot the most efficient way of sweeping sidewalks that will be invented...
But I also think that we need to lay out some plan of action previous to the rule of the working class.

ckaihatsu

18th November 2008, 06:48

People will continue to invent and create without any incentive needed.

* Thank you *, apathy_maybe -- !!!

And look at those types of work. The number of people who earn their living by playing music or writing poetry or photographing landscapes, and also express that they would do it even if they were not paid: thousands and perhaps millions of people.

This is a skewed take on creativity, Mike. Those who are in art-form artistic pursuits will do the music, poetry, and photography, as you've indicated, but you are virtually being snide by putting forth these examples.

First of all, it would be a *very* boring world *without* people to labor at producing these things, music, poetry, and photography. Secondly, if we must be so utilitarian, as you seem to insist, these fields of production *could* take place in more regular, industrial environments, like in clinical science, for instance.

The number of people who earn a living by working in factories, mines, mills and refineries, and also express that they would do it even if they were not paid: virtually zero.

The point of liberating the productive forces is to abolish the tedious and dangerous grunt work of factories, mines, mills, and refineries once and for all -- it *all* must be automated!

There are some kinds of jobs that are no one's hobby. There's a good reason for that. The reason is: there are some activities that we do for their own sake, for enjoyment, and other activities that we do only because they are means to separate ends. A speculative economic system that doesn't make use of that fact would malfunction.

What I'm hearing here is that, besides the utilitarian stuff, we would also need to be mindful of the future, and have some jobs that are tasked to planning for future productivity goals -- is this about right?

On this I would really hope that society as a whole is tasked to this end -- this fits in with your earlier comment about policy goals being decided by society, then tasked out to various industries for inter-departmental coordination. To me this is the very definition of a political economy -- it should be a common, everyday task for everyone. Currently the closest we get to it is reading the newspaper, maybe chatting casually about bourgeois front-page features, maybe some current events, and that's about it...!

Volunteer work and altruism are not a coherent plan. People can't change the economic system without a plan that they can ascertain in advance to be reliable, anymore than we would take off in a jet plane with a new type of engine that has never been tested before.

When revolutionary movements don't have specific plans for constructing a new system, the working class realizes this deficiency and reacts by becoming more conservative.

As for the incentive debate.. of course it will be necessary in a revolutionary society. A combination of material and moral incentive will be needed. The next generations, reared in a free society, will be the ones that will increase work by "moral incentive," needing material incentive much less than those who came up under the capitalist dictatorship. It's also the case that under socialism the forces of production will be continually developed, until the creation of true material abundance, a necessary precursor for communism. When the needs of all are met, and the necessary labor contribution of each member of society is no longer a burden on them (e.g. a few hours a week), the basis for a communist society is laid.

*No one* here is saying that we should turn a post-capitalist society over to altruists, artists, and daydreamers.

Of course there has to be central planning -- or, as I advocate, consumer-demand-driven workers' planning -- as an improvement over the "invisible hand" of the market system.

Let me put it this way: Do children have a choice about going to school or not? Of course not. It's a command economy for education, isn't it? Why? Because society as a whole has an interest in future generations of people being literate and socialized. The alternative would be unthinkable.

Capitalist society is quickly getting to the point of unthinkability as well -- we *need* to have a command economy for all of the other vital sectors that currently are left to the vagaries of the market system. This command economy would be socialized, but it would require mandatory work, to some degree, from everyone -- and, with the proper implementation of automation, the work should wind up being very high-level, very managerial, for everyone.

ckaihatsu

18th November 2008, 06:54

One more point (that I forgot), Mike:

Creativity comes in *any* domain -- it could be artistic, but it could also be in material science, biotechnology, inorganic chemistry, semiconductors, mathematics, and so on. If people are free to pursue their creativity in their domains of choice the resulting discoveries -- "research and development", in establishment terminology -- could have applications and major benefits for all people in society.

Guerrilla22

18th November 2008, 22:25

ckaihatsu

18th November 2008, 22:52

I don't know that there is any specific right way to implement a planned economy. If overall you get less from your economy than you put in you fail plain and simple,

I don't think we should be so hard on ourselves as revolutionaries. Getting rid of the inhumanity and destructiveness of capitalism would go a *very* long way, by itself.

Beyond that gargantuan accomplishment everything else would be fine-tuning -- any inefficiencies under a worldwide workers' system of labor would be far less wasteful than putting up with the gross waste of human lives, life potential, and material under our current capitalist-based governance.

however figuring out how to accomplish this is extremely complex.

I disagree. We've made tremendous headway -- if not providing an outright solution -- in this thread and also at the "Understanding the economic calculation debate" thread, at
http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-calculation-t92043/index.html?p=1285571#post1285571

The rest of it is actually overthrowing capitalism so that these worker-based solutions can be decided on, en masse, and implemented.

I've poured over books on the Soviet economy and I could see clear examples of things that they did that clearly were inefficient, but at times they did things that actually were very efficient, however we all know what the end result was, so who knows what actually went wrong.

The centralized, bureaucratic state infrastructure that remained from the gains of the Russian Revolution *was* much more efficient than the U.S. / Western method of industrialization (state-subsidized competitive national markets). At the same time I think we have to take leapfrogging into account, since European and Atlantic countries had pioneered industrialization, while other countries like Germany and Russia were relative latecomers but could benefit from the accumulation of prior know-how.

The Soviet state wound up competing in the larger, global nation-state arena, later capitulating to the predominant capitalist mode of production. In the era of the rise of international finance capital the U.S.S.R. didn't have a chance by remaining autarkic -- it lost out on the Cold War arms race to the U.S. which used deficit spending to fund its position of military dominance, forcing the U.S.S.R. to blink.

mikelepore

19th November 2008, 21:15

This is a skewed take on creativity, Mike. Those who are in art-form artistic pursuits will do the music, poetry, and photography, as you've indicated, but you are virtually being snide by putting forth these examples.

First of all, it would be a *very* boring world *without* people to labor at producing these things, music, poetry, and photography. Secondly, if we must be so utilitarian, as you seem to insist, these fields of production *could* take place in more regular, industrial environments, like in clinical science, for instance.

Did you actually read my post? I didn't say one single thing belitting the importance of the arts or intrinsically enjoyable work. What I said was the other kinds of activities, which people do solely for the outcomes that they result in, and not for the pleasure of the activities themselves, such as operating factories, mines, mills and railroads, must not be neglected. The latter category of activity would tend to be become understaffed in an economic system based only on volunteer work. The system would have to give people the material incentive of being paid to do those kinds of work and then exchanging the pay they have earned for material luxuries. Any socialist system will quickly discover that it must must continue that policy in order to be efficient.

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th November 2008, 21:29

mikelepore

19th November 2008, 21:29

The point of liberating the productive forces is to abolish the tedious and dangerous grunt work of factories, mines, mills, and refineries once and for all -- it *all* must be automated!

People aren't going to show up for work without pay even if the grunt work has been eliminated and their job is to program and adjust and lubricate a line of robots and automated equipment, which itself gets as repetitive as the old manual labor was, and sometimes even more repetitive, although it's not so physically strenuous. People still need a reason to show up in the first place. There's nothing in psychology to indicate that the reason to volunteer for work, in sufficient quantities to match society's rate of consumption, and not only possibly but with the requisite certainty, can be an intellectual understanding that the work is socially necessary. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Guerrilla22

19th November 2008, 21:59

I disagree. We've made tremendous headway -- if not providing an outright solution -- in this thread and also at the "Understanding the economic calculation debate" thread, at

While calculation can be useful I don't believe it is an outright solution. Economics is too complex to be calculated by equations alone. There are always unforseen variables, added to the fact that using equations to calculate what economic measures need to be made is extremely difficult itself. If it was a s simple as plugging in equations than all a country would need would be a few well educated economist and they would be set.

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th November 2008, 22:10

There's nothing in psychology to indicate that the reason to volunteer for work, in sufficient quantities to match society's rate of consumption, and not only possibly but with the requisite certainty, can be an intellectual understanding that the work is socially necessary.

And here you ignore the key point which I raised earlier. In order to even reach the point of communism, the productive forces have to be developed to the point that work is no longer a burden.

Now people brush for a few minutes each day to keep their teeth from rotting and falling out. It's not a burden; it's just a necessary task. Under communism people will pull a lever, run a computer, etc. for a few hours each week to make sure everyone's needs are being met. It won't be a burden; it'll just be a necessary task.

ckaihatsu

19th November 2008, 23:22

Did you actually read my post? I didn't say one single thing belitting the importance of the arts or intrinsically enjoyable work.

Okay.

What I said was the other kinds of activities, which people do solely for the outcomes that they result in, and not for the pleasure of the activities themselves, such as operating factories, mines, mills and railroads, must not be neglected.

Fair enough. Those are currently the means of mass production and the means of supplying energy *for* mass production. I would anticipate a post-capitalist society to also quickly move to sources of energy and work production that are much more automated and that would liberate workers from dangerous, mundane types of labor.

The latter category of activity would tend to be become understaffed in an economic system based only on volunteer work.

Yes, agreed. A socialist revolution would have to take control of the bourgeois state, dissolve it, and institute its own governance to coordinate labor so that society does *not* rely strictly on volunteer and/or locally based work only.

The system would have to give people the material incentive of being paid to do those kinds of work and then exchanging the pay they have earned for material luxuries. Any socialist system will quickly discover that it must must continue that policy in order to be efficient.

Yes, agreed. Bad Stalinist propaganda posters just won't do it. = ) : (

I'd like to add that the system should also give people the incentive to engage in politics in a routine, everyday kind of way. We could have had ongoing call-in referendums for scores of public policy decisions all this time, starting with the advent of touch-tone phones. But a system that is geared towards miscounting votes at the voting booths and *not* miscounting money at the ATMs would never have implemented anything close to this practice of inclusion.

ckaihatsu

19th November 2008, 23:38

People aren't going to show up for work without pay even if the grunt work has been eliminated and their job is to program and adjust and lubricate a line of robots and automated equipment, which itself gets as repetitive as the old manual labor was, and sometimes even more repetitive, although it's not so physically strenuous. People still need a reason to show up in the first place. There's nothing in psychology to indicate that the reason to volunteer for work, in sufficient quantities to match society's rate of consumption, and not only possibly but with the requisite certainty, can be an intellectual understanding that the work is socially necessary. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Yes, I agree in general, Mike, but I have to stress the point about automation. There are plenty of gruntwork-type tasks that are outmoded today -- and good riddance to them -- because of the increasing use of automation. (My favorite example is the telegraph operator.)

How about this: Imagine a Matrix-type world that is *utopian* instead of *dystopian*, the way the movie shows. Why would *anyone* have to put in a 40-hour week to do nothing but lubricate a line of robots when we would have robots to do that sort of thing? You know it's impossible today because it's cheaper for the bosses to exploit someone to go and put in a 20-hour week, at less than a livable income, to go and lubricate the line of robots.

What would society look like if people had the time to live their own lives, and the means to be liberated from basic material concerns? Just as the enslavement of people brought forth the abundance of wealth to usher in the bourgeois class, we *need* the full enslavement of machine labor to free the *entire* human race from wage slavery, once and for all.

ckaihatsu

20th November 2008, 00:07

While calculation can be useful I don't believe it is an outright solution. Economics is too complex to be calculated by equations alone. There are always unforseen variables, added to the fact that using equations to calculate what economic measures need to be made is extremely difficult itself. If it was a s simple as plugging in equations than all a country would need would be a few well educated economist and they would be set.

Guerrilla22,

If I've learned anything from these exchanges on this excellent forum, it's that we certainly have developed a feasible model for a potential socialist administration of society. I don't think any one of us could have developed it in isolation, and we're leveraging the communism-for-your-brain aspect of the Internet to hopefully bring about true communism for the rest of the world.

My concern is that we're used to thinking of economic models in *very* linear terms -- this is no one's fault, because the kind of math that we're usually taught or exposed to is entirely *linear*, and *not* non-linear. As soon as you mention 'equation' I think we all picture the stereotypical aging scientist in a white lab coat, with white hair, scrawling sprawling lines of mathematical equations in chalk across an oversized blackboard.

We're left helpless on the sidelines, at best cheering him on from the other side of the television screen, hoping that he thinks of that *one* *perfect* equation which will solve everything and allow us to regain admittance to the Garden of Eden.

At the risk of being repetitive I will counterpose a model of individual consumer prioritization of *demands*, alongside a prioritization of *supply* that must be collectively agreed on by the workers who labor to produce it -- please see:

Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy
http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh

We are *currently* living in a world that routinely, effortlessly processes millions of retail orders for consumer items over the Internet. This means that the logistics, or calculations, are *not* an issue here. Neither is there a question of overall *capacity* -- the world has enough material abundance to eliminate poverty, illness, disease, hunger, illiteracy, homelessness, and so on.

What is missing -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is the *mass support* for a turn to a worker-based system of governance. While it's heartening to hear the word 'socialism' being thrown up by a presidential candidate as he is pulled down in the death throes of his political party, it's not nearly enough. The new president-elect is nowhere near being on the left -- in any sense of the term -- so the use of the word 'socialism' was used in the mainstream as a scarecrow and nothing more.

There has to be a '60s-style countercultural movement -- *at very least* -- to raise demands for an end to the practice of extortion by Wall Street, and then ultimately an end to Wall Street itself.

Joe Hill's Ghost

20th November 2008, 04:27

What went wrong was a number of things. In the USSR the rise to power of a privileged bureaucracy was a major problem. Attack and imperialist encirclement and a failure of the world revolution to spread early on were others. They were all tied together. These problems caused numerous contradictions. That's why the planned economy there was able to put the first man in space but wasn't able to keep enough shoes in stock in the stores.

That's not a contraction at all. A centrally planned economy is designed for that sort of thing. Big, capital intensive, projects which require little to no input of consumer choice, and little mass distribution. Every planned economy worth a damn usually has a period of expansive growth (ie when its building heavy industry) then it stagnates because central planning cannot produce consumer goods very effectively. Hence GOSPLAN. Thankfully we have the technology to run a diversified, consumer goods economy with relative ease these days. So central planning can be relegated to the dust heap of history.

RedSabine

20th November 2008, 04:49

Under communism people will pull a lever, run a computer, etc. for a few hours each week to make sure everyone's needs are being met. It won't be a burden; it'll just be a necessary task.

Tell them that. ;)

I'm 84% joking.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th November 2008, 06:18

That's not a contraction at all. A centrally planned economy is designed for that sort of thing. Big, capital intensive, projects which require little to no input of consumer choice, and little mass distribution. Every planned economy worth a damn usually has a period of expansive growth (ie when its building heavy industry) then it stagnates because central planning cannot produce consumer goods very effectively. Hence GOSPLAN. Thankfully we have the technology to run a diversified, consumer goods economy with relative ease these days. So central planning can be relegated to the dust heap of history.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong.

A planned economy is not "designed" for "Big, capital intensive, projects which require little to no input of consumer choice, and little mass distribution."

Industrialization is/was required in the backward countries where socialist revolutions have occurred so far. Socialism cannot be achieved in these countries as long as they lag behind in technology, material goods, forces of production, etc.. Socialism can only succeed when it replaces capitalism as the dominate social system in the world. The successful construction of socialism in the backward countries requires not only "catching up with" but also surpassing the most advanced capitalist countries.

So, on the one hand, it has to be clear that there is nothing wrong with industrialization. And indeed, even with bureaucrats in control, a number of the bureaucratized proletarian states were able to industrialize in much less time, and with much less human cost, than the earlier capitalist states (i.e. UK, United States, etc.) were.

On the other hand, we have to understand the contradictions in the bureaucratized proletarian states. The reason the USSR could put the first man in space but not put enough shoes in the stores was not a "design flaw" of the planned economy. Life expectancy, the virtual elimination of unemployment, the creation of universal healthcare and education systems, etc., weren't results of a economy with a "flawed design." The accomplishment of all of these things in such harsh conditions, and in spite of the bureaucratic castes that seized power in these countries, attests to the superiority of the planned economy. The fact that the USSR was virtually unaffected by the Great Depression is another.

Your argument is the equivalent of the left-communist argument against unions. Since bureaucrats are in control of the unions, they argue, there must be something inherently wrong with the unions themselves. They are incapable of differentiating the one from the other.

Because the planned economy was mishandled by privileged bureaucrats is no more "proof" that the planned economy itself had "design flaws" and should be abandoned than the use of a butcher's knife by a madman to stab someone is "proof" that a butcher's knife is only good as a killing instrument and should be banned.

The planned economy is a weapon in the hands of the working class. Only with a planned economy in the hands of a ruling working class can society be reorganized to meet human need.

There was no mass industrialization followed by a lack of consumer goods in Cuba. In fact, after nearly 50 years of the Revolution, Cuba's economy is growing more now that it did the past.

RedSabine

21st November 2008, 05:13

Because the planned economy was mishandled by privileged bureaucrats is no more "proof" that the planned economy itself had "design flaws" and should be abandoned than the use of a butcher's knife by a madman to stab someone is "proof" that a butcher's knife is only good as a killing instrument and should be banned.

hear hear!

mikelepore

21st November 2008, 10:03

And here you ignore the key point which I raised earlier. In order to even reach the point of communism, the productive forces have to be developed to the point that work is no longer a burden.

(I assume you use Lenin's defintion of "communism" rather than Marx's definition.) In that case, it's an inappropriate goal for the working class movement at the present time. We have the material basis for a classless society immediately, but we will have a material basis for work not being a burden, perhaps, five hundred years in the future. That point, that [the thing that Lenin called "communism"] is an inappropriate goal for the working class movement, because issues concerning the people of the future have to be deferred until the future come, is Marx's basic argument at the end of Critique of the _Gotha Programme_.

Now people brush for a few minutes each day to keep their teeth from rotting and falling out. It's not a burden; it's just a necessary task. Under communism people will pull a lever, run a computer, etc. for a few hours each week to make sure everyone's needs are being met. It won't be a burden; it'll just be a necessary task.

An individual has no bodily sensation called "necessay task" in relation to industrial work that society needs done. What an individual does is have a constant feeling that, no matter how much vacaiton time one takes, it's never enough, and the supposition that the work will always be done by "somebody." Furthermore, a free access fomr of socialism would materially reward such an attitude, by giving affluence to the shirkers no less thant he owrkers, and therefore reinforce that behavior, to use the word reinforcement in the modern psyhcologicla sense

The only reliable way to ensure that work hours will match the rate of material consumption is to require individual to earn hourly incomes and spend thos eincomes for their luxuries.

A personally necessary action, such as brushing one's teeth, is not an attractor for the attitude of "let somebody else do it; I'm too busy", therefore this analogy won't be helpful here.

mikelepore

21st November 2008, 10:19

but I have to stress the point about automation.

[cut remainder of text]

I agree with your entire post. But I wish to apply my comments even to a situation in which, perhaps, people only have to work ten hours per week, and that work may always be enjoyable. Still, we must expect that there will remain some amount of relative contrast between activities that people perform in a scheduled way pragmatically for separate results and activities that people perform during leisure time solely for pleasure, which some writers have called the distinction between work and play. This, and its relation to the rate of personal material consumption, has to be kept under control by a socialist society. I can't be allowed to take 50 weeks of vacation per year at the same time I'm allowed to live in a 50 room house full of hobby equipment. Using a labor time credit system would be a precise measurement system to keep the economic throughput stable.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 10:21

(I assume you use Lenin's defintion of "communism" rather than Marx's definition.) In that case, it's an inappropriate goal for the working class movement at the present time. We have the material basis for a classless society immediately, but we will have a material basis for work not being a burden, perhaps, five hundred years in the future. That point, that [the thing that Lenin called "communism"] is an inappropriate goal for the working class movement, because issues concerning the people of the future have to be deferred until the future come, is Marx's basic argument at the end of Critique of the _Gotha Programme_.

Communism is communism. Lenin didn't have "his own" definition. Perhaps if you spent as much time reading Lenin as slandering him you'd know this.

Communism is a classless, moneyless society of material abundance. To get there, we first need to go through a period of world socialism (the lower stage of communism). To get to world socialism, imperialism must be destroyed, capitalism has to be replaced as the dominate world system, and proletarian states have to be established internationally. Neither you nor anyone else can say how long this will all take.

You refer approvingly to Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme while ignoring one of its main lessons (a point that I brought up earlier): we cannot simply come up with a ready-made system now and force it into existence post-revolution.

An individual has no bodily sensation called "necessay task" in relation to industrial work that society needs done. What an individual does is have a constant feeling that, no matter how much vacaiton time one takes, it's never enough, and the supposition that the work will always be done by "somebody." Furthermore, a free access fomr of socialism would materially reward such an attitude, by giving affluence to the shirkers no less thant he owrkers, and therefore reinforce that behavior, to use the word reinforcement in the modern psyhcologicla sense

The only reliable way to ensure that work hours will match the rate of material consumption is to require individual to earn hourly incomes and spend thos eincomes for their luxuries.

A personally necessary action, such as brushing one's teeth, is not an attractor for the attitude of "let somebody else do it; I'm too busy", therefore this analogy won't be helpful here.

There's really no point debating anything with you. You ignore my arguments and return with your own circular arguments and repetitious ultra-leftist claptrap.

You're responding to my post about communism (and I made it very clear that's what I was talking about in that instance) with an argument about workers attitudes immediately following revolution.

I tried before, but I don't see any point in furthering discussion with you on this topic. My arguments in regards to the planned economy were made earlier in this thread for anyone interested.

ckaihatsu

21st November 2008, 11:19

We have the material basis for a classless society immediately, but we will have a material basis for work not being a burden, perhaps, five hundred years in the future.

Mike, all,

I have to respectfully stick to my premise that the amount of necessary labor -- *especially* after the exploiting class is overthrown -- will rapidly shrink due to the increased use of automation.

I'll remind everyone that a person only has 24 hours in a day. If the person's activities for work, politics, business, and leisure are such that after 24 hours not much material (in overhead and resources) has been consumed, then that person's "footprint" on society's resources is not that demanding.

As an example consider the mode that many of us are in as we use computers to compose these written columns of text for this forum. Our use of society's material for this is quite low, depending of course on the mortgage, rent, computer, utilities, food, and so on. A regular job would be sufficient to provide the means to continue this activity, and I'm sure plenty of people find ways to do it with even less than that.

Compare this current method of being politically active to just a few years ago when one would not have had this option at all and would have had to travel much more frequently than today, either locally or outside of one's locale. The material burden would have been much greater than today, necessitating either more work hours from oneself, or else necessitating fundraising, to cover expenses, from a larger circle of wage earners.

Now, if you'll allow it, imagine a fully automated society that can be operated entirely from the Internet. All that *anyone's* work could ever *possibly* consist of would be virtually identical to what we're doing here -- hashing out material concerns in common, over the net. Think of a Wall-E scenario but with a firm political component in addition to the consumerism.

As the fruits of society increasingly come from machines, and not from human labor, the burden on people diminishes to almost nothingness while the liberation and enjoyment from available material skyrockets to almost infinite possibilities.

The easiest way to show this is to just use our perfect hindsight and look at history. Today we have access to vast amounts of text, imagery, audio, and video content that would have been unimaginable a century ago. It wasn't even that long ago that owning a full set of encyclopedias was considered a luxury item for working class families.

An individual has no bodily sensation called "necessay task" in relation to industrial work that society needs done. What an individual does is have a constant feeling that, no matter how much vacaiton time one takes, it's never enough, and the supposition that the work will always be done by "somebody."

Sure, we don't *want* to do things that we don't like to do. We're creatures of habit, and we prefer enjoyable habits to non-enjoyable ones. So, yes, *any* society would require us to carry out our found responsibility as the sole possible caretakers of the earth.

Furthermore, a free access fomr of socialism would materially reward such an attitude, by giving affluence to the shirkers no less thant he owrkers, and therefore reinforce that behavior, to use the word reinforcement in the modern psyhcologicla sense

I am going to take issue with your construction here, which is very Cartesian (dualistic) and Freudian. I mean to say that it presupposes a definition of the individual -- artificially separated from society -- that is entirely pleasure-seeking, and consistently a shirker.

In the real world no person could ever be as individually oriented as you posit, and no one could ever live entirely for one's own pleasure. People are social animals and at some point, no matter whether you call it "work" or "fun", we will wind up doing socially oriented things that may either be socially productive or not. The question is whether society *as a whole* is set up in the majority to do things that are socially constructive or not. Obviously, under capitalism / imperialism, it's not.

The only reliable way to ensure that work hours will match the rate of material consumption is to require individual to earn hourly incomes and spend thos eincomes for their luxuries.

This is an entirely linear construction. As I mentioned above the material issue is how much (automatedly produced) material goods and services there are to fulfill a certain set of demands.

I advocate moving away from the money-income and labor-hour implementation as quickly as possible, in favor of consumers' prioritized demands and workers' prioritized supplies, so as to tangibly "put everything on the table" and see what's what.

I agree with your entire post. But I wish to apply my comments even to a situation in which, perhaps, people only have to work ten hours per week, and that work may always be enjoyable. Still, we must expect that there will remain some amount of relative contrast between activities that people perform in a scheduled way pragmatically for separate results and activities that people perform during leisure time solely for pleasure, which some writers have called the distinction between work and play. This, and its relation to the rate of personal material consumption, has to be kept under control by a socialist society. I can't be allowed to take 50 weeks of vacation per year at the same time I'm allowed to live in a 50 room house full of hobby equipment. Using a labor time credit system would be a precise measurement system to keep the economic throughput stable.

At a certain point society would *not* have a problem with *vast numbers* of people doing just that -- taking 50 weeks of vacation and living in 50-room mansions filled with opulence and expensive equipment. Why? Because not everyone could do it, and there would be enough wealth lying around anyway to make it possible. Maybe it would only take a few of us at RevLeft to do the rest, looking over some production figures and making an adjustment or two every so often to keep things running smoothly.

Die Neue Zeit

21st November 2008, 15:11

I have to respectfully stick to my premise that the amount of necessary labor -- *especially* after the exploiting class is overthrown -- will rapidly shrink due to the increased use of automation.

[...]

This is an entirely linear construction. As I mentioned above the material issue is how much (automatedly produced) material goods and services there are to fulfill a certain set of demands.

I advocate moving away from the money-income and labor-hour implementation as quickly as possible, in favor of consumers' prioritized demands and workers' prioritized supplies, so as to tangibly "put everything on the table" and see what's what.

Ahem, perhaps they might shrink, perhaps they might not (we can't just live on the "rent" generated by increased automation).

I say this because I also have in mind "socially necessary" civilizational projects (expanding productive forces in the long run) that can't be solved by mere "automation" (vertical farm construction, extraterrestrial colonization, space exploration, ocean exploration, etc.). In this far-distant future, energy accounting may be the form of exchange, replacing labour credits.

davidasearles

21st November 2008, 18:26

The premise was a "planned economy" and the question was how could it be guaranteed that a product of certain characteristics would be produced.

Of course that would depend entirely upon the plan. What plan does one advocate? It would seem that would have to be answered FIRST.

Do we advocate that the workers collectively control and operate the industrial means of production and distribution? The question must be asked because some of you don't, for whatever reason or no reason, advocate that.

If the question is: where and when the workers are in collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution how can it be guaranteed that a product of certain qualities would be produced? The short answer would be - assuming that the product would require the resources of the industrial collective in development, mass production, distribution etc., in an industrial democracy for the most part the workers would have to decide based upon a litany of factors including the mundane details including expected demand, anticipated resources required and those available. I would say that more than likely the workers would have to set up some kind of a process to help clearly study and decide these issues before and during the time that resources are committed.

Again this all presupposes a collective control and operation of the industrial means of production and distribution by the workers as the plan, which I know not everyone advocates.

Dave Searles

________________
"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is not the issue.

ComradeOm

21st November 2008, 20:30

For a new product to be introduced into production, more effort is usually required. There needs to be some incentive. This is only an issue in a market environment. That is, there has to be a monetary incentive to convince a capitalist to invest in a new product in order to overcome the initial expenses. In a planned economy capital management will be handled by the planning apparatus itself. Once the decision is made - for whatever reason - the resources necessary to introduce a product will be allocated to the required projects. This is just one example of the superiority of the planned economy over the scattergun approach of the market

ckaihatsu

21st November 2008, 21:27

Ahem, perhaps they might shrink, perhaps they might not (we can't just live on the "rent" generated by increased automation).

Jacob,

The main reason to fight for a socialist revolution is because the world currently has the capacity for everyone to live on the "rent" generated by automation. We've far surpassed a hand-to-mouth existence -- the only problem (which you know of course) is that the surplus keeps getting removed from the larger circulation, especially regarding wages. In economic terms this is deflation.

Once the surplus is liberated we can indeed live in the modern equivalent of a rainforest, merely reaching out a hand to obtain whatever amenities we might wish for.

I say this because I also have in mind "socially necessary" civilizational projects (expanding productive forces in the long run) that can't be solved by mere "automation" (vertical farm construction, extraterrestrial colonization, space exploration, ocean exploration, etc.). In this far-distant future, energy accounting may be the form of exchange, replacing labour credits.

I hear ya, and I'm glad to hear it. Others here seem to think that a contemporary communism would be static, with no subsequent societal aspirations for technological development, large-scale projects, exploration, or anything.

However, if automation for physical tasks is fully achieved we may never need to exert a muscle again. I'm thinking of some sort of triumph of nanotech where we might develop self-assembling "smart" blobs that could *undulate* materials into place, and even up into the air. By that point we may have solved the energy problem, too, so that the idea of tracking energy credits for power tapped from nature would be absurd.

mikelepore

21st November 2008, 23:11

Communism is communism. Lenin didn't have "his own" definition. Perhaps if you spent as much time reading Lenin as slandering him you'd know this.

socialism (the lower stage of communism)

Take that meaning that Lenin introduced in 1905 in 'The State and Revolution', namely, that socialism comes first and communism comes later, and try to find any such suggestion anywhere in the writings of Marx and Engels. You'll find that it appears nowhere at all. In the terminology of Marx and Engels, when the workers seize control of the means of production, they immediately have something that they called both socialism and communism, using the terms interchangably.

davidasearles

21st November 2008, 23:20

"In a planned economy capital management will be handled by the planning apparatus itself. Once the decision is made - for whatever reason - the resources necessary to introduce a product will be allocated to the required projects. This is just one example of the superiority of the planned economy over the scattergun approach of the market."

In a planned economy if the planning aparatus decides the workers would be required to come up with the labor power required to turn this concept into a produced and distributed reality - does this assume that the workers would be in collective contol of the industrial means of industrial means of production and distrubition, and that it would be the workers through some process of their own making decisions as to what their labor is applied to?

mikelepore

21st November 2008, 23:41

moving away from the money-income and labor-hour implementation as quickly as possible.

As quickly as possible, but how quickly is the possible? Moving directly out of capitalism, the next week, the next month, we have to move into a new system that will have some characteristics in common with capitalism. Later some of those features may be dropped. We probably agree that certain necessities should be free to all, and immediately, such as education and medicine and use of the transportation networks. But everything? The first generation in the new classless society will probably not think or behave the same as the second or third generation afterward. I'm suggesting that the free goods and services policy that works for education and medicine will not be immediately viable for hobby supplies and access to vacation resorts, etc. People have an unlimited imagination for luxuries and these things must be earned. If the second or third generation after that determines that it can do otherwise, and make all the goods and services free, so be it. I only address what I consider necessary the week and month right after the workers seize the means of production, which Marx called "the first phase of communist society."

mikelepore

22nd November 2008, 00:02

You refer approvingly to Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme while ignoring one of its main lessons (a point that I brought up earlier): we cannot simply come up with a ready-made system now and force it into existence post-revolution.

First, my position is virtually identical to what Marx proposed in 'Gotha', that the worker's income in a classless society should be determined thus: "He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost."

Secondly, you simply made up the "force it into existence" part. I assume that I will get one vote about how thing should be done, just as you will get one vote, and each other person. I'm telling everyone the kind of system that I will vote to adopt, and indicating the reasons why I think it's best. My opinion about let's-do-this is no more a "forcing" than your opinion about no-let's-no-something-else.

There's really no point debating anything with you..... I don't see any point in furthering discussion with you on this topic.

But my whole self-worth was tied up in obtaining your approval, you in particular, and now my depression will be so severe, because of your disapproval. Can I go on living at all?

davidasearles

22nd November 2008, 00:05

But I would stress that no matter how many "phases" of socialism/comunism or whatever comes along (if in fact there will be identifiable phases as such) that as long as labor is doing the doing, that labor for the most part shall decide what that doing shall be, who labor shall share the product of that labor with, and under what conditions.

##################

"At last the great moment arrived. A delicious odor was wafted upon the autumn breeze. Everywhere the barnyard citizens sniffed the air with delight.

"The Red Hen ambled in her picketty-pecketty way toward the source of all this excitement. Although she appeared to be perfectly calm, in reality she could only with difficulty restrain an impulse to dance and sing, for had she not done all the work on this wonderful bread?

"Small wonder that she was the most excited person in the barnyard! She did not know whether the bread would be fit to eat, but—joy of joys!—when the lovely brown loaves came out of the oven, they were done to perfection.

"Then, probably because she had acquired the habit, the Red Hen called:

"'Who will eat the Bread?'

"All the animals in the barnyard were watching hungrily and smacking their lips in anticipation, and

"the Pig said, 'I will,'

"the Cat said, 'I will,'

"the Rat said, 'I will.'

"But the Little Red Hen said,

“'No, you won't. I will.'

"And she did."

The Little Red Hen
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18735/18735-h/18735-h.htm

mikelepore

22nd November 2008, 00:26

Now, if you'll allow it, imagine a fully automated society that can be operated entirely from the Internet.

There's an important place for futurism, and the vividness of your ideas is an important contribution to it. But you are talking about the future of technology. I speak only of institutional change than can happen immediately as soon as the working class wants it. This is why Marx said, that, when we reach the day "when all the springs of wealth flow more abundantly", "after the productive forces have also increased", etc., etc., "only then", Marx says, will it be appropriate to speak of such things as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In modern parlance, Marx is talking about the advent of the "replicator" device on Star Trek which will make it cease to be a problem whether enough people produce the necessary quantity of material goods or not. This is not the kind of proposal that socialists can take to the working class right now and advise everyone: instead of perpetuating these capitalist corporations, let's do this instead.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2008, 03:53

davidasearles

22nd November 2008, 04:46

"the notion that "socialism" comes first and "communism" comes later was the predominant view in the Second International... because the monetarist Kautsky said so."

Do you think you might have given specific refernces?

dave searles

"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is not the issue.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd November 2008, 04:58

It is implied in the authoritative Social Revolution:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s8

davidasearles

22nd November 2008, 10:53

You are incorrect. Communism is mentioned only once in the entire section -

"Communism in material production, anarchism in the intellectual. This is the type of the socialist productive system which will arise from the dominion of the proletariat ...."

Nowhere in the section does Kautsky imply that socialism would consist of anything less than "Communism in material production.

<a href="kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s8">
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s8

The point of this exercize being to emphasize that socialism/communism in material production for the industries is the immediate result of workers being in democractic collective control.

"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is not the issue.

ckaihatsu

22nd November 2008, 11:43

We probably agree that certain necessities should be free to all, and immediately, such as education and medicine and use of the transportation networks.

Yes.

People have an unlimited imagination for luxuries and these things must be earned.

Mike, I have to take issue with your use of the term "earned" -- it's troubling because it has moralistic overtones. We do not live in a theocracy, nor should we. The way that people live, and how they procure the material they use to live their lives, are extremely open questions with wide ranges of variability in the world.

The only thing we can be definitive about is that material goods and services have to come from human effort, at some point. Even this is a *very* open definition, because of labor-free automation and freely replicated digital-based goods and services.

Quick example: If a number of family members collect an insurance payout after one passes away have they *earned* the money? Should they *not* receive the money as some measure of readjustment for the loss of the person from their family?

Or how about this: What if someone used the Internet to become learned enough to convince a manager to hire them instead of a rival for the same position who happened to have spent thousands of dollars for a college education? Would we say that they would then have *earned* their salary?

I hope I've made my point here. We should welcome any and all advances in the betterment of the civilization we live in while at the same time denouncing all crimes against it. Coming up with moralistic judgments about labor value is *not* a step in the right direction.

Consumers can benefit from *any* existing infrastructure in society, like beaches. These would be on a first-come first-served basis, and would have to be enabled by the consent of the workers (not necessarily locally -- perhaps at broader levels).

Expanding capacity and/or adding on additional amenities / luxuries would necessarily be political issues.

And, Mike, I'm somewhat troubled by the time-frame you have in mind -- *generations*, really? Do you realize that operating the full machinery of civilized society from the net is *not* that much of a stretch these days? So many industrial processes are already digitized that the only thing missing is the cable attachment to the Internet.

davidasearles

22nd November 2008, 12:30

Suppose the word "earn" does have a moralistic overtone.

What sort of society has no morals?

"The only thing we can be definitive about is that material goods and services have to come from human effort, at some point. Even this is a *very* open definition, because of labor-free automation and freely replicated digital-based goods and services."

Not open at all. But let's clarify things. If you are able to work but don't want to - to the extent that you are able you might try to live on products of "labor free automation" and I doubt that anyone would complain. At this stage of development I imagine it would be a pretty scarse living materially. You might also have access to most intellectual products which can be replicated electronically and not many people would complain. But why is it any less moralistic for an able bodied person to live off of the labor of those who make the effort and take time away from their families in order to produce products that satisfy creature needs and comforts?

" If a number of family members collect an insurance payout after one passes away have they *earned* the money? Should they *not* receive the money as some measure of readjustment for the loss of the person from their family?"

If the monies that paid the premiums were earned then the benefit purchased with those premium payments would also be "earned" the way that I would see it.

"What if someone used the Internet to become learned enough to convince a manager to hire them instead of a rival for the same position who happened to have spent thousands of dollars for a college education? Would we say that they would then have *earned* their salary?"

This hardly seems relevant. It confuses payment for one's education for work done in employment.

"We should welcome any and all advances in the betterment of the civilization we live in while at the same time denouncing all crimes against it. Coming up with moralistic judgments about labor value is *not* a step in the right direction."

If the workers decide that a certain portion or certain products of what they produce with their labor must be replaced with labor credited in some tangible way from the consumer or user of that product - that may be considered moralistic - but so is any presumption that one may consume but not work. In that case the moralistic judgment (if that's what you wish to call it) of the workers would seem to have the upper hand because material produced including distribution, is the result of actual work far more than of the moralistic demand of people who would like to be social sponges.

"Do you realize that operating the full machinery of civilized society from the net is *not* that much of a stretch these days? So many industrial processes are already digitized that the only thing missing is the cable attachment to the Internet."

If you think that you can wait for these cornucopia machines to be up and running before you have to do any work in the mean time - good luck with that.

ckaihatsu

22nd November 2008, 19:47

Suppose the word "earn" does have a moralistic overtone.

What sort of society has no morals?

David,

*Every* society has no morals, especially class-based societies. Can you really name even *one* society in all of human history that has *solved* the civilization question? I suppose some cults have found some success, on a very limited basis of membership, but I don't think they sustained themselves very well...(!)

"The only thing we can be definitive about is that material goods and services have to come from human effort, at some point. Even this is a *very* open definition, because of labor-free automation and freely replicated digital-based goods and services."

Not open at all. But let's clarify things. If you are able to work but don't want to - to the extent that you are able you might try to live on products of "labor free automation" and I doubt that anyone would complain. At this stage of development I imagine it would be a pretty scarse living materially. You might also have access to most intellectual products which can be replicated electronically and not many people would complain.

Or, "better" yet, you might decide to be a capitalist and live off of the labor value of others.

But why is it any less moralistic for an able bodied person to live off of the labor of those who make the effort and take time away from their families in order to produce products that satisfy creature needs and comforts?

I don't understand what you're saying here, David. I've stated that Mike has put forward a moralistic argument by invoking the term 'earn'. Moralism is *not* an objective property, and so you cannot simply speak of it in the detached, third-person way.

What I think you mean is, "Is it any less *moral* for an able-bodied person to live off of the labor of those who make the effort and take time away from their families in order to produce products that satisfy creature needs and comforts?"

The biggest users of other people's labor are the capitalists. They leverage stored-up labor value extracted from past labor in order to commit new acts of exploitation of labor in the present.

" If a number of family members collect an insurance payout after one passes away have they *earned* the money? Should they *not* receive the money as some measure of readjustment for the loss of the person from their family?"

If the monies that paid the premiums were earned then the benefit purchased with those premium payments would also be "earned" the way that I would see it.

This is a moralistic argument because you're using the term 'earn', the way Mike did. I have decided *not* to make a moral judgment on this hypothetical, though very commonplace, scenario.

"What if someone used the Internet to become learned enough to convince a manager to hire them instead of a rival for the same position who happened to have spent thousands of dollars for a college education? Would we say that they would then have *earned* their salary?"

This hardly seems relevant. It confuses payment for one's education for work done in employment.

The *point* of *this* hypothetical is to ask how much money should be paid, for how much education, to qualify someone for a particular, paying position. Would it be "fair" to someone who invested in their education to lose out on employment to someone else who made no such monetary investment?

"We should welcome any and all advances in the betterment of the civilization we live in while at the same time denouncing all crimes against it. Coming up with moralistic judgments about labor value is *not* a step in the right direction."

If the workers decide that a certain portion or certain products of what they produce with their labor must be replaced with labor credited in some tangible way from the consumer or user of that product - that may be considered moralistic - but so is any presumption that one may consume but not work. In that case the moralistic judgment (if that's what you wish to call it) of the workers would seem to have the upper hand because material produced including distribution, is the result of actual work far more than of the moralistic demand of people who would like to be social sponges.

Well, I happen to agree with you on this statement, David -- not on moralistic grounds, but rather on *material* grounds. I agree that those who do the labor should have almost full control over the conditions of their work and work products. (I say "almost" because the requirements of the greater society may, at times, have an overriding interest over those who do the labor, in a post-capitalist society.)

Morality is *not necessarily* based on materialism -- if it was then I think all of the world's religions and social philosophies would be in agreement with Marxism.

"Do you realize that operating the full machinery of civilized society from the net is *not* that much of a stretch these days? So many industrial processes are already digitized that the only thing missing is the cable attachment to the Internet."

If you think that you can wait for these cornucopia machines to be up and running before you have to do any work in the mean time - good luck with that.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- where did this last statement come from? Do you *know* me or something, David? Are you sure you're not mistakenly projecting parts of this objective conversation onto me personally? I thought we were just talking here, but now you seem to be talking about me. Please cease your assumptions. Thank you.

davidasearles

22nd November 2008, 21:51

Thanks, I'm pretty used to framing my questions in any manner that I wish. If YOU put forth an argument that a person could live off of cornucopia machines I will take that argument and apply questions concerning the argument as if YOU were the person expecting or expected to live off of this no labor required, sure fire, can't fail way of acquiring the necessaries of life. You don't want yourself framed in the question, don't suggest that others be the one required to live off of this system.

Mike's suggestion that workers may require that use or consumption of products of labor be EARNED is a moralistic argument.

So is your suggestion that the "must be earned" suggestion ought not be put forth because it's moralistic - your opposition to "must be earned" is just as moralistic.

"The *point* of *this* hypothetical is to ask how much money should be paid, for how much education, to qualify someone for a particular, paying position. Would it be "fair" to someone who invested in their education to lose out on employment to someone else who made no such monetary investment?"

Fair or not has no bearing on whether a worker earns the product of labor the worker receives in exchange for his or her own work.

In the US we have an "earned income credit" that we may receive in our income tax. It's got nothing to do with how fair it is for a person to have a particular job. Maybe you are reading something into the word that neither Mike nor I would recognize.

The way that I see it, an objection to an idea based on the perception that it is "moralistic" that objection can only be equally moralistic itself.

I doubt that you are going to change the way that I see it - but keep on trying if it suits you.

ckaihatsu

22nd November 2008, 22:51

I doubt that you are going to change the way that I see it - but keep on trying if it suits you.

Thanks, David, I will, if only for the record.

The way that I see it, an objection to an idea based on the perception that it is "moralistic" that objection can only be equally moralistic itself.

David, it is not merely my *own* perception that is saying the use of the term 'earn' is moralistic. I have provided *evidence* for *how* the use of the term 'earn' is moralistic -- namely, that it involves a subjective opinion on whether adequate work has been expended for the money / goods / services obtained.

If I object to something it is either based on my opinion or else it is grounded in evidence or reasoning. The evidence or reasoning may be sound, in which case it is valid. If the evidence or reasoning does not hold up to examination and scrutiny then it is *invalid*. Nothing I've said on this forum has been my opinion alone, or if it has then I've noted it as such.

So my point is that an objection can be objectively valid or not -- it is not *necessarily* moralistic as you've claimed here.

Thanks, I'm pretty used to framing my questions in any manner that I wish. If YOU put forth an argument that a person could live off of cornucopia machines I will take that argument and apply questions concerning the argument as if YOU were the person expecting or expected to live off of this no labor required, sure fire, can't fail way of acquiring the necessaries of life. You don't want yourself framed in the question, don't suggest that others be the one required to live off of this system.

Okay, so then neither of us will engage in putting the other into the hypothetical examples we use. We will only use hypothetical people as subjects in hypothetical scenarios.

To address the issue: Don't we *all* live off of the cornucopia of machine-based labor, in this day and age? Every building that's built uses gas-powered vehicles to transport the materials to the building site -- those are machines. We have machines for lighting, machines for electricity generation, for food production, for water filtration, and so on.

The only problem is, we don't enjoy the full value of the machines that are in use because there is still a class system of exploitation that robs us through the scheme of finance, insurance, real estate (F.I.R.E.), wage slavery, state violence, and so on. Plenty of people live off of machines just fine, as well as off of the labor of other people -- it's just that most of us cannot get at the great pie of society's surplus labor value as it can only be accessed through ownership of existing capital.

Mike's suggestion that workers may require that use or consumption of products of labor be EARNED is a moralistic argument.

Yes. The key definition here is 'earned' which may vary greatly depending on who you ask.

So is your suggestion that the "must be earned" suggestion ought not be put forth because it's moralistic - your opposition to "must be earned" is just as moralistic.

No, my rejection of the term 'earn' is *not* being moralistic. I am asserting that the term 'earn' is almost meaningless and therefore useless. That's a *material*, not a moralistic argument. I really don't mean to nit-pick here, David. I think we agree on the spirit of 'earn', it's just that the term is problematic because it invites moralizing. I find it more useful to use material terms like 'labor value', 'control', and 'compensation'.

Fair or not has no bearing on whether a worker earns the product of labor the worker receives in exchange for his or her own work.

In the US we have an "earned income credit" that we may receive in our income tax. It's got nothing to do with how fair it is for a person to have a particular job. Maybe you are reading something into the word that neither Mike nor I would recognize.

Again, I support the working class having every bit of control over its own labor as is possible. This would best be accomplished with a global overthrow of the capitalist exploiting class. Anything in the way of compensation that workers can gain for their labor is all theirs as far as I'm concerned.

ckaihatsu

22nd November 2008, 23:22

David, Mike, all,

I'd like to add that there is a major difference in meaning between 'earn' and 'compensate'. The term 'earn' implies money as pre-existing, as the independent variable, and invites the question "Was the money *earned* [with sufficient labor]?" This puts labor into the spotlight and makes it look suspect. Therefore the term 'earn' is moralistic or supply-sided.

By contrast the term 'compensate' implies that labor has been performed and invites the question "Was enough compensation [in the form of wages and benefits] provided for the labor performed?" This is a more materialist term considering that labor performed is usually fairly clear-cut (through the use of contracts, wages paid, etc.), whereas the value of money is much more fluctuating, more questionable in labor-value, and therefore more suspect. So the term 'compensate' is labor-oriented, and *not* [capital] supply-sided.

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 06:19

Mike, I have to take issue with your use of the term "earned" -- it's troubling because it has moralistic overtones.

I don't think socialist ideas ever dropped the moral compass in the first place. If we wouldn't like to see exploitation continue forever, that's a system of morality. (Despite Marx's pretense that he was all science and no sentimentality.)

But this connects to my point about a labor compensation system in the following way.

Imagine two people in a classless society.

The first person says: I wan't more material possessions than the average person, but I'm also willing to work longer hours.

The second person says: I'm intend to work fewer hours than the average person does, but I also accept the result that I will receive fewer recreational goods and services.

What's going on here? It's a situation in which no one is exploiting anyone else. There is equality of opportunity, each person has been allowed to choose, each person made a different choice according to their individual personality , each person's choice has affected only themsleves and not the other person, and no one has robbed or abused anyone else.

Sure, my last sentence describes the situation in a moralistic way, and it also states what I think the essence of socialism is. Therefore I imagine socialism having a system of measured distribution of goods, which will place a protection of that personal choice into an institutional form, by materially compensating individuals in proportion to their choice of work hours. I see it as the only method in which no one is cheating their co-workers.

The fact that a theocracy, etc., also has a moralistic overtones doesn't bother me because it's not valid logic to say "A implies C, B implies C, therefore A implies B."

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 07:21

And, Mike, I'm somewhat troubled by the time-frame you have in mind -- *generations*, really? Do you realize that operating the full machinery of civilized society from the net is *not* that much of a stretch these days? So many industrial processes are already digitized that the only thing missing is the cable attachment to the Internet.

I think that's an illusion caused by spending too much time with data and communications technology. Expect many more decades to pass before we have robots doing the jobs now performed by the people who pour cement, weld rivets, fix roads, brush paint, saw boards, etc. As for when robots will be doing the jobs in human services, like my wife who is speech and hearing pathologist, I hope never.

The idea that automation makes labor unnecessary is also a fiction from early 20th century literature. What automation does is change the character of the work so that it's now a matter of reprogramming and adjusting the automation itself.

I don't know what all this has to do with my main assertion, which is that behavioral conditioning rules, and if we pay people for not showing up at work and for taking perpetual vacation then more and more people will tend to do just that, and production quantities and schedules will show it, so socialism can only be efficient if it has personal material motivation.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 08:21

I don't think socialist ideas ever dropped the moral compass in the first place. If we wouldn't like to see exploitation continue forever, that's a system of morality. (Despite Marx's pretense that he was all science and no sentimentality.)

No, despite your insistence, the focus on overthrowing exploitation of labor (where the labor effort that produces value for wholesale pricing and selling is under-compensated) is a *material* concern, and *not* a moralistic one. It is simply acknowledging the actual source of value for the production of goods and services, and profit, which is ultimately reducible to human labor.

It is no more complicated than saying that the driver of a taxicab must be compensated for driving a customer to a destination of choice. This is a matter of exchange, and not of morality.

If you continue to insist that there is somehow a moral dimension to this, on top of the established material science of it, then that is entirely an addition of your own making.

But this connects to my point about a labor compensation system in the following way.

Imagine two people in a classless society.

The first person says: I wan't more material possessions than the average person, but I'm also willing to work longer hours.

The second person says: I'm intend to work fewer hours than the average person does, but I also accept the result that I will receive fewer recreational goods and services.

This sounds much more like a class-based society than a classless one. The strict definition of communism, from the _Communist Manifesto_, is "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs."

This definition does *not* imply a strict one-to-one relationship of work hours to material rewards, as you've put forward.

What's going on here? It's a situation in which no one is exploiting anyone else. There is equality of opportunity, each person has been allowed to choose, each person made a different choice according to their individual personality , each person's choice has affected only themsleves and not the other person, and no one has robbed or abused anyone else.

These are all grand assumptions, conditions which would *not* be guaranteed under a system where labor is measured by the hour.

In fact, I will guarantee the *opposite*, that in an economy in which labor is measured by the hour there *is* *necessarily* exploitation, a *lack* of equality of opportunity, and a *lack* of choice of work. Why? Because some institution must track and regulate the labor hours. That implies a hierarchy (of management), which means that the higher-ups will automatically have more of a bird's-eye view of the larger labor situation than any individual laborer, or even a group of laborers, in a union or otherwise.

The gain in information about the overall labor situation puts the management in a privileged position, and with managerial goals that are separate from, and even at odds to, the interests of the laborers themselves. It would be near-impossible for the managerial layer to actually be motivated to put in the effort required to enact the conditions of "equality of opportunity [for all workers]" and "no one is exploiting anyone else". Really the management would be primarily concerned with filling labor vacancies and ensuring production schedules, not to mention retaining their privileged positions into the future.

In a period of revolutionary upheaval, with sufficient rank-and-file oversight and recall of members of the management, this situation might actually be adequate for awhile, and it would certainly be a progressive improvement over exploitation by capital.

However, this should not be looked to as a permanent set-up for society, precisely because there is an officially sanctioned policy of correlating labor hours to material rewards. This is problematic because it necessitates a policy of official *approval* of work through the granting of the labor-hour credits.

I will counterpose a situation of generally increasing societal abundance, or collective affluence.

If, in a post-capitalist environment, leading up towards communism, we have the basis of work residing in workers' voluntary participation and self-organization, then all contributions of work will benefit the collectively owned property (public sector) as a whole. This will increase the total material capacity and capabilities of society thus allowing further work to leverage past labor value more effectively, and to greater heights.

(An example might be better networks of railroads, and thus improved transportation experiences for riders and shippers, thereby feeding back into improved infrastructure for a still better economy.)

Anyone who does *not* contribute to a particular [railroad] project should *not* be denied the fruits of it, because that would be coercive. It would be better to allow people to contribute in the ways that they themselves know are best for them, since they (we) are the best experts on themselves (ourselves).

At some point there would probably be a hierarchy of planning and large-scale coordination over great distances, but it would remain a self-organizing, bottom-up political economy.

Sure, my last sentence describes the situation in a moralistic way, and it also states what I think the essence of socialism is. Therefore I imagine socialism having a system of measured distribution of goods, which will place a protection of that personal choice into an institutional form, by materially compensating individuals in proportion to their choice of work hours. I see it as the only method in which no one is cheating their co-workers.

This system of officially certified work hours merely repeats the system of material accounting (money) that was adopted by the merchant class in 15th century Europe, albeit with the absence of exploitation by capital. If it comes about through the revolutionary activity of the working class to overthrow its exploiting, capitalist class on a worldwide basis, then I would agree that it would be a socialist system of labor administration -- an intermediate step towards the realization of complete communism.

But your adherence to a moralistic definition / explanation of it tips the scales *backward*, towards more of a set-up that would tend to scrutinize the "validity" of the labor performed, and would encourage "incentives" for people to complete certain kinds of work, as approved to be "valid" by the management layer.

This has more in common with *reactionary* modes of work / economics, like that which helped to bring capitalism to maturity -- the Protestant Work Ethic:

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

Protestant work ethic

The Protestant work ethic, sometimes called the Puritan work ethic, is a sociological, theoretical concept. It is based upon the notion that the Calvinist emphasis on the necessity for hard work is proponent of a person's calling and worldly success is a sign of personal salvation. It is argued that Protestants beginning with Martin Luther had reconceptualised worldly work as a duty which benefits both the individual and society as a whole. Thus, the Catholic idea of good works was transformed into an obligation to work diligently as a sign of grace.

History

The term was first coined by Max Weber in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The Protestant work ethic is often credited with helping to define the societies of Northern Europe and other countries where Protestantism was strong (for example, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States of America). In such societies, it is regarded by many observers as one of the cornerstones of national prosperity. Such observers would say that people in countries with Protestant roots tend to be more materialistic, perfectionist, and more focused on work as compared to people in many Catholic countries (for example, Spain, Italy, and France) where the people had a more relaxed attitude towards work and were less materialistic.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 08:53

I think that's an illusion caused by spending too much time with data and communications technology.

So you're saying that I'm misinformed? I don't feel like doing the footwork right now, but I assure you that I'm *not* exaggerating when I say that many, if not all, industrial processes have become digital-based and -controlled by this point.

Expect many more decades to pass before we have robots doing the jobs now performed by the people who pour cement, weld rivets, fix roads, brush paint, saw boards, etc.

I think *you're* the one exaggerating here, Mike. Much of construction is now accomplished through the use of pre-fabricated units of building materials. This reduces overall labor, increases automation, lends greater precision, reduces potential for mistakes, and eliminates *much* low-level, repetitive grunt-work.

As for when robots will be doing the jobs in human services, like my wife who is speech and hearing pathologist, I hope never.

With all due respect to you and yours, Mike, many "human service"-type jobs have probably either gone by the wayside, or will, also due to automation. Wherever people can service themselves, such as finding information online instead of going to the library, that means that service jobs are no longer needed.

The problem with capitalism is that it does not provide for people's basic needs as a given, even though our needs for food, shelter, heat, electricity, etc. *are* givens of modern human existence.

The idea that automation makes labor unnecessary is also a fiction from early 20th century literature. What automation does is change the character of the work so that it's now a matter of reprogramming and adjusting the automation itself.

I have to disagree here, too. You seem to hold onto notions of automation and machinery being prone to needing extensive maintenance, or prone to break-downs, and thus needing human servicing. I'll ask you to consider that, as the cost of useful machinery comes down in price, it is also more easily replaceable. So, instead of *servicing* machinery (like consumer goods) we can simply throw out the malfunctioning items and replace them with new, cheap ones.

I don't know what all this has to do with my main assertion, which is that behavioral conditioning rules, and if we pay people for not showing up at work and for taking perpetual vacation then more and more people will tend to do just that, and production quantities and schedules will show it, so socialism can only be efficient if it has personal material motivation.

But what is the *point* of all of this insistence on production quantities and work schedules, Mike? Do you think that civilization and civilized life improves in direct proportion to the amount of human labor that is being done?

Again, I counterpose a society of increasing automation to fulfill the demand for increased access to better and better amenities, along with the leisure time to enjoy them, and each other.

davidasearles

23rd November 2008, 10:30

ckaihatsu you may lay your burden down. Perhaps to you "The term 'earn' often implies money as pre-existing" and also that it implies a subjective rather than an objective measure - to me it doesn't. Also in my being reasonably familiar with Mike's writings over the years I can say that I have never seen Mike employ any usage of the word earn that would imply a meaning which you apparently insist must be present.

If the workers lay down a rule that a certain product under certain conditions may not go out of the social store without a corresponding labor credit in the amount of socially necessary labor that it has been determined that the product cost the workers to produce - to me it would not be linguistically offensive to hear a worker say to another worker that the right to this product must be earned by performing an equivalent amount of labor that it took to produce the item. And I doubt that such a usage would keep you up at night either.

ckaihatsu wrote:

I'd like to add that there is a major difference in meaning between 'earn' and 'compensate'. The term 'earn' implies money as pre-existing, as the independent variable, and invites the question "Was the money *earned* [with sufficient labor]?" This puts labor into the spotlight and makes it look suspect. Therefore the term 'earn' is moralistic or supply-sided.

By contrast the term 'compensate' implies that labor has been performed and invites the question "Was enough compensation [in the form of wages and benefits] provided for the labor performed?" This is a more materialist term considering that labor performed is usually fairly clear-cut (through the use of contracts, wages paid, etc.), whereas the value of money is much more fluctuating, more questionable in labor-value, and therefore more suspect. So the term 'compensate' is labor-oriented, and *not* [capital] supply-sided.

davidasearles

23rd November 2008, 14:25

ckaihatsu wrote:

I have to disagree here, too. You seem to hold onto notions of automation and machinery being prone to needing extensive maintenance, or prone to break-downs, and thus needing human servicing. I'll ask you to consider that, as the cost of useful machinery comes down in price, it is also more easily replaceable. So, instead of *servicing* machinery (like consumer goods) we can simply throw out the malfunctioning items and replace them with new, cheap ones.

Dave writes:

all without labor of course.

Sure who's to say that day cannot come. Just don't plan on living labor free until it actually happens. And until it happens workers who actually show up to work shall determine who and under what conditions gets to share in the bounty of labor, correct?

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 15:55

ckaihatsu you may lay your burden down.

Thanks for the concern, David. It's no burden or imposition. We're just talking here....

Perhaps to you "The term 'earn' often implies money as pre-existing" and also that it implies a subjective rather than an objective measure - to me it doesn't.

Well, I realize that we could go around and around in circles here, with me insisting that I'm being objective in my definition of the term, and you insisting that I'm using a *subjective* interpretation. All I can do is ask you to put things in terms of labor value which *can* be objectively measured in relation to the amount of money that the goods or services generate when sold. The use of the term 'earn' implicitly calls into question whether enough labor has been provided for the compensation given, and thus it *is* a moralistic term that is patronizing to labor.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]If the workers lay down a rule that a certain product under certain conditions may not go out of the social store without a corresponding labor credit in the amount of socially necessary labor that it has been determined that the product cost the workers to produce - to me it would not be linguistically offensive to hear a worker say to another worker that the right to this product must be earned by performing an equivalent amount of labor that it took to produce the item. And I doubt that such a usage would keep you up at night either.

In this scenario / context that you've provided I have no problem with your use of the term 'earn', David. The *general* meaning of the term is more problematic.

I would also like to quickly point out that this scenario is hopefully part of a socialist transitional step towards full communism.

davidasearles

23rd November 2008, 16:40

ckaihatsu wrote:

The use of the term 'earn' implicitly calls into question whether enough labor has been provided for the compensation given, and thus it *is* a moralistic term that is patronizing to labor.

dave:

I always love the term "and thus", with it a person can always pretend that he or she has it right.

Blah blah blah blah blah AND THUS >>>>>

At least one recognized standard usage of the word earn seems to have no such implication whatsoever:

An earned run in baseball - Webster's 1913 dictionary has it:

"a run which is made without the assistance of errors on the opposing side"

but perhaps you could explain how such usage is paternalistic which members of the cognizenti revolutionair would do well to avoid?

Or is all of baseball in and of itself to be considered paternalistic?

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 17:24

Okay, David, this has been interesting and everything. Take care, enjoy your day.

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 17:41

If you continue to insist that there is somehow a moral dimension to this, on top of the established material science of it, then that is entirely an addition of your own making.

Thanks for giving me all the credit, but it's going on about three hundred years now that philosophers have been discussing the fact that there's no way to make the jump from any "is" statement to any "ought" statement. See wikipedia about the "is-ought problem".

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 18:21

This sounds much more like a class-based society than a classless one. The strict definition of communism, from the _Communist Manifesto_, is "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs." This definition does *not* imply a strict one-to-one relationship of work hours to material rewards, as you've put forward.

Ay caramba, that passage of yours is going to make me wear out my typing fingers :o)

1. The use of the word "communism" to refer getting rid of the one-to-one relationship between work hours and material reward, or any aspect of a "higher stage or phase" [to quote Lenin] doesn't come from Marx. Such a use of the word "communism" was suggested for the first time by Lenin in his 1917 pamphlet "The State and Revolution." [Earlier I said 1905 by mistake; 1917 is correct - Thanks to Jacob R.]

2. Marx's use of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" wasn't in the 'Communist Manifesto'; it was in 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.

3. "From each...", etc., wasn't Marx's expression. Marx was quoting a book that Louis Blanc had published 35 years earlier, and when Blanc wrote it he was paraphrasing two sentences in the Holy Bible.

4. Marx quoted the phrase in the context of saying that he *disagreed* with making such a goal the next thing on the agenda. Marx said, quoting here from Critique of the Gotha Programme_, that we need a goal for the new society "just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." Therefore, Marx continued, the only solution can be a system in which "the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it." However, he noted at the end of the essay, future generations may find themselves in a different kind of environment, one in which work has become fun, or as Marx phrased it, "after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." That future generation may consider carrying out Louis Blanc's formula.

5. The entire pamphlet isn't even what Marx considered a public presentation of a ready-to-release theory. It was part of a brainstorming process being performed by a few friends by means of exchanging private letters that were not intended for publication.

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 18:53

In fact, I will guarantee the *opposite*, that in an economy in which labor is measured by the hour there *is* *necessarily* exploitation, a *lack* of equality of opportunity, and a *lack* of choice of work. Why? Because some institution must track and regulate the labor hours. That implies a hierarchy (of management), which means that the higher-ups will automatically have more of a bird's-eye view of the larger labor situation than any individual laborer, or even a group of laborers, in a union or otherwise.

The gain in information about the overall labor situation puts the management in a privileged position, and with managerial goals that are separate from, and even at odds to, the interests of the laborers themselves. It would be near-impossible for the managerial layer to actually be motivated to put in the effort required to enact the conditions of "equality of opportunity [for all workers]" and "no one is exploiting anyone else". Really the management would be primarily concerned with filling labor vacancies and ensuring production schedules, not to mention retaining their privileged positions into the future.

Then, by a parity of reasoning, we can't tell operators of vehicles that they have to stop at stop signs, because enforcing a rule would require a "hierarchy", a "privileged position." And I guess we can't have laws against rape and murder, because we wouldn't want an 'institution" that "exploits" us by "tracking" and "regulating" what we do, requiring that we adhere to a code of behavior.

I don't accept that entire world view.

In short, I'm a Marxist and not an anarchist.

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 19:09

So you're saying that I'm misinformed? I don't feel like doing the footwork right now, but I assure you that I'm *not* exaggerating when I say that many, if not all, industrial processes have become digital-based and -controlled by this point.

You seem to be confusing the work itself with the bookkeeping related to the work. The bricklayer places the bricks on the foundation; a computer tabulates how many bricks it was. The nurse changes the hospital sheets; the computer keeps a record of what time it happened. Then you go away thinking that the need for labor has been abolished and that the computer did all the work. The word "misinformed" would seem to cover it.

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 19:15

I'll ask you to consider that, as the cost of useful machinery comes down in price, it is also more easily replaceable. So, instead of *servicing* machinery (like consumer goods) we can simply throw out the malfunctioning items and replace them with new, cheap ones.

Which do you propose, consuming a huge amount to energy to melt down machinery just so the material can be recast into the same form as before, or using half of the planet as a garbage dump?

mikelepore

23rd November 2008, 19:33

But what is the *point* of all of this insistence on production quantities and work schedules, Mike? Do you think that civilization and civilized life improves in direct proportion to the amount of human labor that is being done?

What do you think production is all about? You have to make the widgets and put them into inventory at the same rate that the users remove them from inventory. There are just a few known ways see to it that the rate of consumption will adhere to the throughput rate of industry: the individual earning the ability to consume, which is under the consumer's personal control; rationing, which is not under the consumer's personal control; and simply running out of supplies and posting a shortage. Do you know of any other ways?

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 21:57

Thanks for giving me all the credit, but it's going on about three hundred years now that philosophers have been discussing the fact that there's no way to make the jump from any "is" statement to any "ought" statement. See wikipedia about the "is-ought problem".

Look, Mike, I'm going to leave you to your own moral dimension of "ought". To me it's that either people fight in their own best interests for worldwide socialist revolution, or else they don't. I'm one person and I do what I can.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 21:58

Ay caramba, that passage of yours is going to make me wear out my typing fingers :o)

1. The use of the word "communism" to refer getting rid of the one-to-one relationship between work hours and material reward, or any aspect of a "higher stage or phase" [to quote Lenin] doesn't come from Marx. Such a use of the word "communism" was suggested for the first time by Lenin in his 1917 pamphlet "The State and Revolution." [Earlier I said 1905 by mistake; 1917 is correct - Thanks to Jacob R.]

2. Marx's use of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" wasn't in the 'Communist Manifesto'; it was in 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.

3. "From each...", etc., wasn't Marx's expression. Marx was quoting a book that Louis Blanc had published 35 years earlier, and when Blanc wrote it he was paraphrasing two sentences in the Holy Bible.

4. Marx quoted the phrase in the context of saying that he *disagreed* with making such a goal the next thing on the agenda. Marx said, quoting here from Critique of the Gotha Programme_, that we need a goal for the new society "just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." Therefore, Marx continued, the only solution can be a system in which "the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it." However, he noted at the end of the essay, future generations may find themselves in a different kind of environment, one in which work has become fun, or as Marx phrased it, "after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." That future generation may consider carrying out Louis Blanc's formula.

5. The entire pamphlet isn't even what Marx considered a public presentation of a ready-to-release theory. It was part of a brainstorming process being performed by a few friends by means of exchanging private letters that were not intended for publication.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. So do you agree with the first item, that a post-capitalist workers economy can transcend a strict 1-to-1 material accounting of material benefits for work hours -- ?

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 21:59

Then, by a parity of reasoning, we can't tell operators of vehicles that they have to stop at stop signs, because enforcing a rule would require a "hierarchy", a "privileged position." And I guess we can't have laws against rape and murder, because we wouldn't want an 'institution" that "exploits" us by "tracking" and "regulating" what we do, requiring that we adhere to a code of behavior.

I don't accept that entire world view.

In short, I'm a Marxist and not an anarchist.

No, to clarify, I am a Marxist, too, and I have no problems with the use of hierarchy or authority. Any layers of management or administration need to be immediately recallable by the workers. See:

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/elements_for_workers_democracy.asp

Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 22:00

You seem to be confusing the work itself with the bookkeeping related to the work. The bricklayer places the bricks on the foundation; a computer tabulates how many bricks it was. The nurse changes the hospital sheets; the computer keeps a record of what time it happened. Then you go away thinking that the need for labor has been abolished and that the computer did all the work. The word "misinformed" would seem to cover it.

No, I'm referring to large-scale, factory-type operations that use automated components as part of an assembly-line process.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 22:04

Which do you propose, consuming a huge amount to energy to melt down machinery just so the material can be recast into the same form as before, or using half of the planet as a garbage dump?

The amount of energy needed for this melting-down process is probably far less than you imagine. It uses high-energy ionized particles from rare (inert) gases to create the high-temperature plasma.

ckaihatsu

23rd November 2008, 22:04

What do you think production is all about? You have to make the widgets and put them into inventory at the same rate that the users remove them from inventory. There are just a few known ways see to it that the rate of consumption will adhere to the throughput rate of industry: the individual earning the ability to consume, which is under the consumer's personal control; rationing, which is not under the consumer's personal control; and simply running out of supplies and posting a shortage. Do you know of any other ways?

You're continually ignoring the benefits that society (consumers) receives from its use of automation. The standard of living we have today is only possible because of industrialization. Industrialization has eliminated vast amounts of labor, and to good effect. Instead of using workers to labor on farms it is now generally industrialized -- machines are used to till the soil and harvest the mature plants. This is a much more efficient, humane method than using human labor.

davidasearles

23rd November 2008, 23:38

ckaihatsu - in all honestly you really didn't take 30 seconds to read and process what Mike wrote, did you? Did you really think that Mike was turning Ludite on us?

Originally Posted by ckaihatsu http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1292321#post1292321)
But what is the *point* of all of this insistence on production quantities and work schedules, Mike? Do you think that civilization and civilized life improves in direct proportion to the amount of human labor that is being done?

To which Mike responded:

What do you think production is all about? You have to make the widgets and put them into inventory at the same rate that the users remove them from inventory. There are just a few known ways see to it that the rate of consumption will adhere to the throughput rate of industry: the individual earning the ability to consume, which is under the consumer's personal control; rationing, which is not under the consumer's personal control; and simply running out of supplies and posting a shortage. Do you know of any other ways?

To which ckaihatsu replied:

You're continually ignoring the benefits that society (consumers) receives from its use of automation. The standard of living we have today is only possible because of industrialization. Industrialization has eliminated vast amounts of labor, and to good effect. Instead of using workers to labor on farms it is now generally industrialized -- machines are used to till the soil and harvest the mature plants. This is a much more efficient, humane method than using human labor.

ckaihatsu

24th November 2008, 00:54

ckaihatsu - in all honestly you really didn't take 30 seconds to read and process what Mike wrote, did you? Did you really think that Mike was turning Ludite on us?

No, I don't think Mike is turning Luddite, but my point of contention with him boils down to an assertion that you, Mike, seem to be stuck on a 1-to-1 relationship between human labor and improved civilization.

I don't know what all this has to do with my main assertion, which is that behavioral conditioning rules, and if we pay people for not showing up at work and for taking perpetual vacation then more and more people will tend to do just that, and production quantities and schedules will show it, so socialism can only be efficient if it has personal material motivation.

Let's deal with this assertion, which looks *very* behaviorist, which is troubling.

You also paint a picture of the average person as being work-averse and habitually shirking societal responsibilities.

I will assert that, even *if* the overwhelming majority of society's people were indeed like this -- (which they're not) -- we could still manage to bring about a society of contemporary communism, based on full automation, which would allow this kind of behavior en masse, with virtually no ill repercussions. Really, habitual vacations are *not* that much of a social problem / ill, from a material standpoint...!

I use the term 'efficient' in the sense of what material output do we get for the human labor input that we put in. Automation serves to *multiply* the output tremendously, massively leveraging human labor.

davidasearles

24th November 2008, 03:51

ckaihatsu

24th November 2008, 09:58

"one on one realtionship between human labor and improved civilization?"

Could you please exaplin exactly what "one to one relationship" would mean pertaining "human labor and "improved civilization"? I don't kow how improved civilization could be numerically measured for it to be in a one to one relationship with any other variable, do you?

---

The standard of living we have today is only possible because of industrialization. Industrialization has eliminated vast amounts of labor, and to good effect. Instead of using workers to labor on farms it is now generally industrialized -- machines are used to till the soil and harvest the mature plants. This is a much more efficient, humane method than using human labor.

I use the term 'efficient' in the sense of what material output do we get for the human labor input that we put in. Automation serves to *multiply* the output tremendously, massively leveraging human labor.

mikelepore

24th November 2008, 20:23

So do you agree with the first item, that a post-capitalist workers economy can transcend a strict 1-to-1 material accounting of material benefits for work hours -- ?

There is no data on that subject, and a scientist doesn't make any assertion in the absense of evidence. My proposal is the the one that corresponds to the fact that we don't know. I want a method that doesn't have society jump off a cliff with a parachute the first time the parachute has just been invented and never tested before. It begins with what we already know to be functional.

After socialism is already running smoothly with a few basic services such as education and medicine distributed for free, it can test your idea gradually. The system can make food and clothing free and then measure the response. In the next step the system can make furniture and appliances free and then measure the response. If you're right, and people are still willing to go to work, if there is no "free rider" problem, the measures can proceed.

But to ask the workers under capitalism to drop their loyalty to capitalism and abruptly establish an economic system based on volunteer labor and free goods is not practical. The workers would be repulsed by the socialist program because they know how most workers would immediately begin to behave in such a system, which is exactly the way today's capitalist class behaves: they have been informed by society's protocols that they may live in luxury without doing any work, and so they do just that that.

***

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor." ------ Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme_

Labor Shall Rule

24th November 2008, 20:55

I don't know that there is any specific right way to implement a planned economy. If overall you get less from your economy than you put in you fail plain and simple, however figuring out how to accomplish this is extremely complex. I've poured over books on the Soviet economy and I could see clear examples of things that they did that clearly were inefficient, but at times they did things that actually were very efficient, however we all know what the end result was, so who knows what actually went wrong.

Stalin made the mistake of simply hustling owners off to jail, and nationalizing left and right, to be "in tune" with what a "revolutionary" regime must to do. It was a mistake, in that production suffered severely from unmanageable plants and dislocations. It's clear that we can add capital sufficient to take a sizable share of a capitalist enterprise, while guaranteeing a fixed dividend to them.

The state-monopoly of key industrial raw materials and grain, oil, cotton, and other "basic" items is reachable, since they are already more or less "monopolized" by private capitalists. After that, we could easily meet the 'socialist' future through remuneration.

mikelepore

24th November 2008, 21:02

I don't like getting personal in these discussions, but the constant references to automation make me think that it's necessary. Much of my understanding of what automation can do, and what it can't do, comes from my 18 years of experience as a design engineer in a highly automated electronic device manufacturing plant, beyond what I learned about the subject by attending four universities. Like it not not, this is the truth. Technology is nowhere near the point when we will have industry become "fully automated", in the sense that robots will not only perform the product fabrication, but will even redesign and reprogram and maintain the other robots. Realistically, if you want to see that just beginning, come back in about 150 years or so. Therefore the whole subject is unhelpful in the present conversation about social planning.

PRC-UTE

24th November 2008, 21:09

Take that meaning that Lenin introduced in 1905 in 'The State and Revolution', namely, that socialism comes first and communism comes later, and try to find any such suggestion anywhere in the writings of Marx and Engels. You'll find that it appears nowhere at all. In the terminology of Marx and Engels, when the workers seize control of the means of production, they immediately have something that they called both socialism and communism, using the terms interchangably.

here's my understanding. He used socialism as a synonym for 'dictatorship of the proletariat' such as the Paris Commune. And Marx argued the Commune, while being a dictatorship of the proletariat was not socialist nor could it be. I will find that quote for you later.

also, Marx and Engels made references to higher and lower stages of communism. Marx also commented wisely that a new revolutionary society would still be marked by the birth pangs of the old.

of course, had Marx never made such comments it would matter little for it's not a religion.

ckaihatsu

24th November 2008, 21:38

There is no data on that subject, and a scientist doesn't make any assertion in the absense of evidence.

Mike, the evidence is all around us -- despite the capitalists' continuous stealing of labor value millions of workers have still been able to forge out fairly satisfying lives at comfortable standards of living, all on the basis of wages. This is * because of the fruits of automation *, meaning that we *don't* have to spend the bulk of our lives on the farm growing crops.

So, despite massive exploitation, our material rewards outstrip the labor we put in -- over a strictly back-to-nature, d.i.y. approach to living -- because of the (limited) collectivization that we see under capitalism, the use of industrial energy supplies, and capitalism's leveraging of past labor value.

My proposal is the the one that corresponds to the fact that we don't know. I want a method that doesn't have society jump off a cliff with a parachute the first time the parachute has just been invented and never tested before. It begins with what we already know to be functional.

It doesn't take much of a leap to extrapolate to a society in which the capitalist exploiting class is done away with so that all private property can be communalized and administered in common. It would roughly be analogous to expanding the existing public sector to incorporate *all* assets and resources, under workers' control.

After socialism is already running smoothly with a few basic services such as education and medicine distributed for free, it can test your idea gradually. The system can make food and clothing free and then measure the response. In the next step the system can make furniture and appliances free and then measure the response. If you're right, and people are still willing to go to work, if there is no "free rider" problem, the measures can proceed.

There is already a fairly good-sized charity / philanthropic sector within the exploitative capitalist economy. I will not defend it, on the principle that it tends to rationalize the existing system instead of directing workers to organize in the direction of their own best interests, namely workers' power. However, I bring it up only to note that much material can be (re-)distributed towards human need without resorting to work or the proceeds of taxation.

So, again, the overall material capacity for a free welfare state is not in question, even under the present system.

I'd like to reiterate my concern with your thinking that you are saying that, in a socialist revolutionary period, everyone would have to work for wages in order to secure the basics of daily life. By the yardstick of *existing* material abundance this program would be as exploitative as our present system of capitalism, and I could *not* support it.

But to ask the workers under capitalism to drop their loyalty to capitalism and abruptly establish an economic system based on volunteer labor and free goods is not practical.

Mike, there is a distinction and difference between labor within the system of capitalism and labor that is directed towards a socialist revolution to overthrow capitalism. Currently there are probably historic *lows* of popular support for capitalism due to the crisis it's in.

I am *not* suggesting that workers fight for a free welfare state *alone* -- I am a Marxist and I support revolutionary struggles that aim at overthrowing capitalist-based exploitation once and for all. This involves labor aimed at strengthening the political struggle of the proletariat in addition to whatever means of material sustenance that are required by society.

The workers would be repulsed by the socialist program because they know how most workers would immediately begin to behave in such a system, which is exactly the way today's capitalist class behaves: they have been informed by society's protocols that they may live in luxury without doing any work, and so they do just that that.

Mike, you have the tags of "revolutionary" and "Commie Club Member" next to your name, but from this last statement you do *not* sound much like a revolutionary. Are you so pessimistic and even cynical about the prospects for the world's working class?

Do you think that the rise of a guaranteed standard of living for everyone, *regardless* of people's contribution of labor, would really lead to a mass shirking of societal responsibilities?

If so, then you *are* a cynic and not a revolutionary.

ckaihatsu

24th November 2008, 23:24

It's clear that we can add capital sufficient to take a sizable share of a capitalist enterprise, while guaranteeing a fixed dividend to them.

http://www.marxist.com/imt-manifesto-on-crisis-part-one.htm

We demand:

1. No more bail outs for the rich. No reward for the fat cats! Nationalize the banks and insurance companies under democratic workers’ control and management. Banking decisions must be taken in the interests of the majority of society, not a minority of wealthy drones. Compensation for nationalized banks and other companies must be paid only in cases of proven need to small investors. The nationalisation of the banks is the only way to guarantee the deposits and savings of ordinary people.

2. Democratic control of the banks. The boards of directors should be composed in the following way: one third to be elected by the bank workers, one third to be elected by the trade unions to represent the interests of the working class as a whole, and one third from the government.

3. An immediate end to the exorbitant bonuses, all executive pay should be limited to the wages of a qualified worker. Why should a banker be worth more than a doctor or a dentist? If the bankers are not prepared to serve on reasonable terms, they must be shown the door and replaced by qualified graduates, many of whom are looking for work and willing to serve society.

4. An immediate reduction of interest rates, which should be limited to the necessary costs of banking operations. Cheap credit must be made available for those who need it: small businesses and workers buying homes, not the bankers and capitalists.

5. The right to a home; an immediate end to repossessions, a general reduction of rents and a massive building programme of affordable social housing.

mikelepore

24th November 2008, 23:30

Mike, you have the tags of "revolutionary" and "Commie Club Member" next to your name, but from this last statement you do *not* sound much like a revolutionary. Are you so pessimistic and even cynical about the prospects for the world's working class?

Do you think that the rise of a guaranteed standard of living for everyone, *regardless* of people's contribution of labor, would really lead to a mass shirking of societal responsibilities?

If so, then you *are* a cynic and not a revolutionary.

Right, now it's about time for you to begin the personal attacks against me. It usually begins around the third or fourth day.

I agree with Marx's suggestion precisely. I find that Marx analyzed the problem correctly. Jumping directly from class rule to utopia is not an option.

So be it, if it I don't "sound much like a revolutionary" because I haven't dropped Marx's suggestion to replace it with the Age of Aquarius / Let the Sun Shine In.

***

"Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson's labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as 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. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution."

-- Karl Marx, _Capital_, Chapter 1, Section 4

mikelepore

25th November 2008, 00:18

Do you think that the rise of a guaranteed standard of living for everyone, *regardless* of people's contribution of labor, would really lead to a mass shirking of societal responsibilities?

A guaranteed standard of living for everyone, regardless of their labor, is consistent with *MY* proposal, not with yours.

A guaranteed standard of living for everyone implies that every person has a individual income that is some finite number, quantifiable and measurable, so that it can be adjusted according to whatever algorithm or policy the people choose to implement. My suggestion enables that.

What you have been implying is that products should be free.

Free isn't a guaranteed standard of living.

To make goods free is to invite anyone to consume an infinite amount of anything, so much that the planet's limited resources can't sustain the supply rate, and the delicately balanced ecosystem can't take the impact.

Make everything free and then consumption patterns per person immediately assumes a new bell shaped distribution. At one 3-sigma end of the distribution there would be the people with the most careless and astronomical rates of consumption. Then you have to explain to workers why they have to work so many hours a day to keep supplying other people's careless whims. But, supposedly, the workers will happily produce this wealth for others, volunteering to work without pay, because some cultural change that's now undefinable will have happened that will make work become fun.

Sorry, this is not a stable model for an economic system. Such a system would immediately collapse.

ckaihatsu

25th November 2008, 01:00

Right, now it's about time for you to begin the personal attacks against me. It usually begins around the third or fourth day.

Jesus Christ-and-a-half, Mike, I haven't said *anything* about you personally. I don't *know* you personally and I wouldn't *presume* to *claim* that I know anything about you personally.

I *am*, however, pointing out some aspects of your politics that you are making public. *That* is fair game because this is a political forum.

I agree with Marx's suggestion precisely. I find that Marx analyzed the problem correctly. Jumping directly from class rule to utopia is not an option.

So be it, if it I don't "sound much like a revolutionary" because I haven't dropped Marx's suggestion to replace it with the Age of Aquarius / Let the Sun Shine In.

This is the sticking point that we keep revolving around and around: Can we have a guaranteed minimum standard of living that provides for the basic upkeep of human livelihood as part of a free welfare state brought about by a worldwide socialist revolution?

Materially the answer is an unmitigated * Yes. *

*You* keep objecting on the basis that the socialist economy will be threatened by material poverty due to an underfunding of labor power if we don't threaten people's well-being and force them to put in labor hours in exchange for providing them with the material sustenance for their lives.

I would like to see you handle this issue instead of skirting around it, Mike.

My contribution to this issue is here:

Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh

[...]The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. [Marx]

Here's the resolving of it: The * productive organization * and * historical development * are HUGE factors in the equation!!! Look at the productive capabilities of our current age! Labor productivity is * massively fruitful * because it is, today, * massively leveraged *, and would only be more so with the sweeping away of privatization and private (quasi-interconnected) property.

I don't like getting personal in these discussions, but the constant references to automation make me think that it's necessary. Much of my understanding of what automation can do, and what it can't do, comes from my 18 years of experience as a design engineer in a highly automated electronic device manufacturing plant, beyond what I learned about the subject by attending four universities. Like it not not, this is the truth. Technology is nowhere near the point when we will have industry become "fully automated", in the sense that robots will not only perform the product fabrication, but will even redesign and reprogram and maintain the other robots. Realistically, if you want to see that just beginning, come back in about 150 years or so. Therefore the whole subject is unhelpful in the present conversation about social planning.

Jesus *H.* Christ, Mike, automation does *not* automatically mean * robots *. Automation is *anything* that leverages human labor. Fuck, even a fucking pulley for raising a bucket of water out of a well employs leveraging of a sort, even if it's not full automation.

A rudimentary example of full automation would be traffic lights that work for generation after generation with minimal (human) servicing. Ditto for any *industrial* process that shifts human labor *upward* into oversight of an abundance of material productivity.

We would need a communist revolution for automation to realize its full potential, thus liberating humanity from ever needing to work *ever again*, unless it wanted to, as a collective, agreed-upon decision.

ckaihatsu

25th November 2008, 01:11

A guaranteed standard of living for everyone, regardless of their labor, is consistent with *MY* proposal, not with yours.

Amazing. So no two Marxists can have the same politics, according to you, huh, Mike? Are you sure you're not a closet postmodernist?

Look, if you want to act like you * invented * the idea of an end to poverty, be my guest.

What you have been implying is that products should be free.

No, I haven't. Again, please refer to the diagram -- it's all about priorities.

Die Neue Zeit

25th November 2008, 03:55

Chris (BTW, did you become a Grantite?), you and Mike should have some sort of truce. I will address this post below:

A guaranteed standard of living for everyone, regardless of their labor, is consistent with *MY* proposal, not with yours.

A guaranteed standard of living for everyone implies that every person has a individual income that is some finite number, quantifiable and measurable, so that it can be adjusted according to whatever algorithm or policy the people choose to implement. My suggestion enables that.

Mike, although the author of "Socioeconomic Democracy" is by no means a Marxist, that you've basically spelled out his position is a good thing:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html

One particular “transitional demand” that has emerged with the development of information-communication technology is the demand for “socioeconomic democracy” as advocated by Robley George in Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System. In its narrowest form, there is some form of both “universal guaranteed personal income” and “maximum allowable personal wealth” that is democratically established and adjusted by society as a whole. Within the context of this thesis, this establishment, through class-conscious participation (as opposed to representation), would go beyond the minimum demand in the Communist Manifesto for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

[...]

Socioeconomic Democracy: A Very Brief Introduction by the Center for the Study of Democratic Societies [http://www.centersds.com/verybrief.htm]

There is, however, a particular danger to raising some sort of demand for "basic income":

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1994m03/msg00330.htm

davidasearles

25th November 2008, 13:38

Dave:

I cannot let go uncommented upon the text of "Labor Shall Rule"'s signatute several posts ago. This is how it goes:

Look at 'em run, too scared to pull they guns
Outta shape from them coffees and them cinnamon buns
This shit is fun, how I feel when the tables is turned

Dave asks:

Why would someone who nominally advocates that "labor shall rule" post something that apparently with glee refers to some supposed violent episode against society (including members of a police force) sufficient to make the police have so much fear that they (at least momentarily) would not be able to pull out their weapons and that they would run away?

One can only wonder what the nature of that episode would be that would make even police run away, but at the same time would cause the author of the text to be having fun. One can only wonder why "Labor Shall Rule" would post this to this list?

I always think (rightly or wrongly) that people who post such things to a list of this nature are out to make the rest of the group look bad by association and that the person posting it could even be an agent provocatuer.

What do others think?

P.S. In writing the above I thought of the 60 police officers killed at the World Trade Center (everyone of them a member of the working class) running up the tower stairs toward the danger and not away and of the additional 8 police officers who died as a result of thier exposure to toxins realeased by the collapse combing through the rubble looking for possible survivors or while securing the scene.

mikelepore

27th November 2008, 04:35

This is the sticking point that we keep revolving around and around: Can we have a guaranteed minimum standard of living that provides for the basic upkeep of human livelihood as part of a free welfare state brought about by a worldwide socialist revolution?

Materially the answer is an unmitigated * Yes. *

*You* keep objecting on the basis that the socialist economy will be threatened by material poverty due to an underfunding of labor power if we don't threaten people's well-being and force them to put in labor hours in exchange for providing them with the material sustenance for their lives.

I would like to see you handle this issue instead of skirting around it, Mike.

I see now that it was in another thread where I answer this directly for someone else a few days ago. When individuals have specific reasons, recognized by social policy, for receiving income without working, where a partial list of such reasons is handicap and retirement age, then I agree with having a minimum income. For people who are not members of one of those groups, there should not be a mimimum. Paul Lafargue, son-in-law of Dr. Marx, and founder of the Socialist Party of France, used to say that the principle of socialism is the verse from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3, "Those who will not work, neither shall they eat." Lafargue convinced me. It's enough that automation will permit a mere ten hour workweek or six hour workweek or something, and, in that case, it's not asking too much to require young and healthy individuals to show up and perform it. If they refuse, they should receive no income. To give them one would be a form of exploitation.

mikelepore

27th November 2008, 04:41

Me: "What you have been implying is that products should be free."

You: "No, I haven't."

Then I must have confused you with a writer in another thread, and so I retract my statement.

ckaihatsu

27th November 2008, 05:37

I see now that it was in another thread where I answer this directly for someone else a few days ago. When individuals have specific reasons, recognized by social policy, for receiving income without working, where a partial list of such reasons is handicap and retirement age, then I agree with having a minimum income. For people who are not members of one of those groups, there should not be a mimimum. Paul Lafargue, son-in-law of Dr. Marx, and founder of the Socialist Party of France, used to say that the principle of socialism is the verse from 2nd Thessolonians chapter 3, "Those who will not work, neither shall they eat." Lafargue convinced me. It's enough that automation will permit a mere ten hour workweek or six hour workweek or something, and, in that case, it's not asking too much to require young and healthy individuals to show up and perform it. If they refuse, they should receive no income. To give them one would be a form of exploitation.

Well, then, I guess we have a decided difference of opinion regarding post-capitalist social policy, Mike.

I like to think that most people -- regardless of age or any other demographic feature -- will find ways to contribute to the larger society in their own ways, irrespective of the political economy. At the same time I think that there would be a need for career-oriented labor in a planned economy, which should be compensated with material rewards that are greater than a baseline, free-welfare type of guaranteed livelihood.

I agree with your overall support for revolutionary activity, and for socialist planning in a post-capitalist society. In particular I greatly appreciate and value a recent contribution of yours, reproduced below. It goes a long way in describing the organizational layout of a socialist economy, and I have never come across anything quite like it.

You don't have to start out producing millions of units. You make a few thousand prototypes and measure how rapidly consumers take them from the store. Whether the individuals whose job is to develop new products (chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, etc.) can decide on their own to submit the requision to the manufacturing line, or whether some degree of management signoff is also needed, will be society's policy choice.

From that point on, it shouldn't be the workers' choice whether or not they want to make them. It should be part of their job requirements to make the quantity needed to keep the orders filled. You can choose your career, but, within each career, you have to do the job that was socially planned. If you don't, you get no credit for showing up at work and you have no income.

You can't have the problem of investing in a new product. If all socially owned industries are subdepartments of one organization, resources would come from interdepartment transfers, not investment. The number of people needed in each department would fluctuate when something new is invented, but then the problem becomes one of how to attract more people to work in the sectors where they are needed most, not a problem of investments.

ckaihatsu

27th November 2008, 16:12

"Those who will not work, neither shall they eat." Lafargue convinced me. It's enough that automation will permit a mere ten hour workweek or six hour workweek or something, and, in that case, it's not asking too much to require young and healthy individuals to show up and perform it. If they refuse, they should receive no income. To give them one would be a form of exploitation.

Mike, I'd like to take up this point separately, and briefly.

If, in an increasingly automated economy, large numbers of people decided that they either couldn't work or wouldn't work -- for whatever reasons -- *who* exactly would they be exploiting? (They would *not* be exploiting *anyone* when the bulk of the "work" they would use in their personal lives would come from machines, like a washing machine or dryer.)

davidasearles

27th November 2008, 17:19

Mike, I'd like to take up this point separately, and briefly.

If, in an increasingly automated economy, large numbers of people decided that they either couldn't work or wouldn't work -- for whatever reasons -- *who* exactly would they be exploiting? (They would *not* be exploiting *anyone* when the bulk of the "work" they would use in their personal lives would come from machines, like a washing machine or dryer.)

You keep jumping between conditions. You posit one condition and then conclude from another.

Condition A: Labor is required to transform something from a state of nature into a product.

Condition B: Everything is absolutely automated and nothing that we would currently consider labor is required to transform something in a state of nature into a product.

Of course if the starting point is condition B then by definition no labor is required. But if the starting point is condition A, then by definition labor is required.

Assuming condition A the inescapable question was asked by the Red Hen years almost 200 years ago - "Who will help me do the work?"

ckaihatsu

27th November 2008, 18:00

You keep jumping between conditions. You posit one condition and then conclude from another.

Condition A: Labor is required to transform something from a state of nature into a product.

Condition B: Everything is absolutely automated and nothing that we would currently consider labor is required to transform something in a state of nature into a product.

Of course if the starting point is condition B then by definition no labor is required. But if the starting point is condition A, then by definition labor is required.

Assuming condition A the inescapable question was asked by the Red Hen years almost 200 years ago - "Who will help me do the work?"

David,

The situation I described, like most situations in life, falls between (objective, absolute) Condition A and (objective, absolute) Condition B.

Condition A could be likened to the conditions of life for indigenous peoples, in a hunter-gatherer (gatherer-hunter) state of society, before the development of centralized government or European influence.

Condition B could be likened to an ideal, contemporary communist global society, and it is a useful formulation to keep in mind as the goal of all enlightened, correct political activity. (Just as we only need to twist dials and press buttons to get the laundry done, we should all have the same ease of use for all of civilization altogether.)

So perhaps the reason why civilization, and therefore life, has been so messy is because we've been stuck in some indistinct, almost netherworld-type of reality between Condition A and Condition B. We are neither a pre-materialist society nor are we a post-materialist society -- we have to always deal with issues related to the ownership and management of assets, labor, and resources.

Currently the private-property scheme is hitting a brick wall, and that should encourage the peoples of the world because we are mostly dispossessed from a proportionate share and say in such a scheme. And, as Marxists / communists, we have a much better plan for how to deal with material issues.

Anyone who has to make their living from the sale of their own labor should be clued-in enough to ask, "Who is the Red Hen?" and "By what authority does the Red Hen command the labor of others?"

Also:

- "In what ways will the Red Hen benefit from the labor of others?"

- "What is the nature of the work?"

- "Is the Red Hen's plan for utilizing labor really the best method for accomplishing the goal?"

- "Would the Red Hen be anti-union, or in some way interfere with labor's efforts to organize itself collectively?"

- "What sorts of compensation will the Red Hen provide for the labor contributed?"

- "Is the Red Hen part of some sort of management team, and what is the purpose of that organization?"

mikelepore

27th November 2008, 20:36

If, in an increasingly automated economy, large numbers of people decided that they either couldn't work or wouldn't work -- for whatever reasons -- *who* exactly would they be exploiting? (They would *not* be exploiting *anyone* when the bulk of the "work" they would use in their personal lives would come from machines, like a washing machine or dryer.)

What machinery changes is the ratio of productivity to labor time. Perhaps before the machinery a ratio was fifty potatoes to thirty minutes of human effort, and with the newest machinery it becomes fifty potatoes to six minutes. (In this simplification, I'm neglecting the new activities that become possible with machinery, such as electronic communications.) There is no change where the "bulk" of the work now "comes from" machines. It remains merely a quantitative ratio at all times. There is no change to the fact that people generally work only because they want the products, and not because there is anything existentially fulfilling about working itself. There is no change to the fact that people who are permitted by society's rules to get away with it without any repercussions would tend to let their time work approach zero and their material consumption approach infinity. People who consume but do not work would be forcing those who work to perform their hours of work for them, and therefore robbing their neighbors. Having society's permission to do that would be a form of receiving a reward for an exhibiting an undesirable behavior, and a reward causes any form of animal behavior to increase in frequency.

Lynx

27th November 2008, 21:46

Humans have been socially conditioned to require reciprocity in some of their relationships. For example "I work, I get paid for my work. I spend, I get something in return." Until this facade is removed, concepts like work vs. play or earned vs. rent seeking will continue to apply.

The requirement for reciprocity is a facade because of culture (eg. Protestant work ethic), bias (I work hard, others do not) and perception (we tend to ignore the implications of relationships that are indirect or subtle).

My main focus is on socialism, rather than what might evolve, such as the higher level of communism.

davidasearles

28th November 2008, 02:35

Falls between the two conditions? Between the condition of needing labor and the condition of not needing need labor?

For a system that meets all of human life requirements maybe you could describe the scenario for us?

Requiring reciprocity? No, reciprocity is not being required, only democracy is being required. If a person can peacefully convince others to do something for that person without the condition that the person contribute labor, that is totally fine. What you object to is democracy - you want to require that workers not have the democratic right to decide who they share the product of THEIR labor with.

I guess it all how one views the little red hen, and no doubt it is totally cultural. A person wants to try to inculcate in others that they should share the products of their labor limitlessly, freely? That person should absolutely be encouraged to try to do that do that if that is their choice. But just because a person has the right to advocate something doesn't mean that society has the slightest obligation to agree.

It's important to be clear about what a person advocates. I advocate a democratic and collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers. A scenario where the workers by in large did not have the right to determine the conditions of how the things that are being produced are distributed to me would be a denial of worker authority.

ckaihatsu

2nd December 2008, 05:07

What machinery changes is the ratio of productivity to labor time. Perhaps before the machinery a ratio was fifty potatoes to thirty minutes of human effort, and with the newest machinery it becomes fifty potatoes to six minutes.

Agreed. This would be an increase in productivity, as you've said, which is a *quantitative* improvement due to machinery / automation.

(In this simplification, I'm neglecting the new activities that become possible with machinery, such as electronic communications.)

New types of benefits that become possible would be *qualitative* improvements.

There is no change where the "bulk" of the work now "comes from" machines. It remains merely a quantitative ratio at all times.

Yes, so we're agreed that people, particularly consumers, are able to see quantitative and qualitative improvements due to machinery / automation -- ?

There is no change to the fact that people generally work only because they want the products, and not because there is anything existentially fulfilling about working itself.

This is debatable, and certainly varies according to the person. Some feel much more fulfilled in their (choice of) work than others....

There is no change to the fact that people who are permitted by society's rules to get away with it without any repercussions would tend to let their time work approach zero and their material consumption approach infinity. People who consume but do not work would be forcing those who work to perform their hours of work for them, and therefore robbing their neighbors. Having society's permission to do that would be a form of receiving a reward for an exhibiting an undesirable behavior, and a reward causes any form of animal behavior to increase in frequency.

Yes, and these people are called capitalists.

Humans have been socially conditioned to require reciprocity in some of their relationships. For example "I work, I get paid for my work. I spend, I get something in return." Until this facade is removed, concepts like work vs. play or earned vs. rent seeking will continue to apply.

I don't think this is a facade at all -- I think it is the essence of materialism in a social context. Unless we all were somehow forced by external conditions to become entirely self-sufficient we live in a *very* interconnected world / economy.

For a system that meets all of human life requirements maybe you could describe the scenario for us?

I also don't think that it's too far-fetched to extrapolate to a possible condition of material society in which more and more of our everyday benefits would be derived from machinery / automation. As an example, I'll again use the example of the Internet's 'communism-for-your-brain' feature. How many hours have any of us spent per week getting intellectual benefits for next to no cost as a result of being active on the net? Compare that to just ten years ago...(!)

Communism, whether net-based, or as a future possible reality, transcends "work-for-play" and "earning" or "rent-seeking". In all cases genuine communism ushers in a reality that transcends material concerns -- and definitions -- because materialism itself has been transcended and made obsolete.

The requirement for reciprocity is a facade because of culture (eg. Protestant work ethic), bias (I work hard, others do not) and perception (we tend to ignore the implications of relationships that are indirect or subtle).

Falls between the two conditions? Between the condition of needing labor and the condition of not needing need labor?

Currently, in a state of material flux -- especially over questions of valuation, both from the labor-based side of things, and now within the private-property-based side of things -- the requirement for reciprocity is *real* because the whole economy is based on valuations, or exchange values.

My main focus is on socialism, rather than what might evolve, such as the higher level of communism.

Yeah, I don't think we can easily jump from current conditions straight to global communism -- socialism is the intermediate step of dispossessing the bourgeois ruling class first.

ckaihatsu

2nd December 2008, 05:08

Requiring reciprocity? No, reciprocity is not being required, only democracy is being required. If a person can peacefully convince others to do something for that person without the condition that the person contribute labor, that is totally fine.

You're describing volunteerism here, which is *not* sufficient for a highly developed, interconnected economy such as this one, or for a socialist or communist one, either.

What you object to is democracy - you want to require that workers not have the democratic right to decide who they share the product of THEIR labor with.

No, I fully advocate *economic* democracy, which is founded in workers collectively deciding what kind of labor they do, and also in how the products of their labor are used.

I guess it all how one views the little red hen, and no doubt it is totally cultural. A person wants to try to inculcate in others that they should share the products of their labor limitlessly, freely? That person should absolutely be encouraged to try to do that do that if that is their choice. But just because a person has the right to advocate something doesn't mean that society has the slightest obligation to agree.

You're getting rather vague here -- the "little red hen" scenario was without any context. Maybe you could better define the scenario?

It's important to be clear about what a person advocates. I advocate a democratic and collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers. A scenario where the workers by in large did not have the right to determine the conditions of how the things that are being produced are distributed to me would be a denial of worker authority.

Correct -- I agree, and this would be a *giant* step in quantitative *and* qualitative improvement for any and all workers, by liberating the means of mass production out of the hands of elite (capitalist) rule.

davidasearles

2nd December 2008, 11:49

Originally Posted by ckaihatsu:

If, in an increasingly automated economy, large numbers of people decided that they either couldn't work or wouldn't work -- for whatever reasons -- *who* exactly would they be exploiting? (They would *not* be exploiting *anyone* when the bulk of the "work" they would use in their personal lives would come from machines, like a washing machine or dryer.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Searles:

You keep jumping between conditions. You posit one condition and then conclude from another.

Condition A: Labor is required to transform something from a state of nature into a product.

Condition B: Everything is absolutely automated and nothing that we would currently consider labor is required to transform something in a state of nature into a product.

Of course if the starting point is condition B then by definition no labor is required. But if the starting point is condition A, then by definition labor is required.

Assuming condition A the inescapable question was asked by the Red Hen years almost 200 years ago - "Who will help me do the work?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ckaihatsu:

The situation I described, like most situations in life, falls between (objective, absolute) Condition A and (objective, absolute) Condition B.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Searles:

Falls between the two conditions? Between the condition of needing labor and the condition of not needing need labor?

For a system that meets all of human life requirements maybe you could describe the scenario for us?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ckaihatsu:

I also don't think that it's too far-fetched to extrapolate to a possible condition of material society in which more and more of our everyday benefits would be derived from machinery / automation. As an example, I'll again use the example of the Internet's 'communism-for-your-brain' feature. How many hours have any of us spent per week getting intellectual benefits for next to no cost as a result of being active on the net? Compare that to just ten years ago...(!)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David Searles to ckaihatsu:

Do remember the question -

Between the condition of needing labor and the condition of not needing need labor -
For a system that meets all of human life requirements maybe you could describe the scenario for us?

You posited that an economic sytem could exist between the conditon A. that labor would be required to produce life's needs and B. that no labor would be required for life's needs. I asked you to describe the scereo (that would meet all of human life requirments) and you came up with a pale example of how one might obtain freely offered digitized information over the internet.

And the leap of logic - that since freely offered information may be obtained over the internet with practically no additioanl work done by the recipient that can be EXTRAPOLTED to meet all of life's needs.

Need something to eat? Pull up a picture of what ever you want to eat off of the internet, print it out and eat it.

Need to heat your apaprtment? Pull up a picture of the sun from the internet, Print 100 copies and post them at stategic locations about your apartment.

But of course you will need electricity to power the computer and your printer and paper to feed into the printer - but in your extapolated world those too may be simply obtained by conneting to the proper internet address.

Good luck with that.

davidasearles

2nd December 2008, 13:22

ckaihatsu:

There is already a fairly good-sized charity / philanthropic sector within the exploitative capitalist economy. I will not defend it, on the principle that it tends to rationalize the existing system instead of directing workers to organize in the direction of their own best interests, namely workers' power. However, I bring it up only to note that much material can be (re-)distributed towards human need without resorting to work or the proceeds of taxation.

So, again, the overall material capacity for a free welfare state is not in question, even under the present system.

I'd like to reiterate my concern with your thinking that you are saying that, in a socialist revolutionary period, everyone would have to work for wages in order to secure the basics of daily life. By the yardstick of *existing* material abundance this program would be as exploitative as our present system of capitalism, and I could *not* support it.

#####################

Lynx wrote:

Humans have been socially conditioned to require reciprocity in some of their relationships. For example "I work, I get paid for my work. I spend, I get something in return." Until this facade is removed, concepts like work vs. play or earned vs. rent seeking will continue to apply.

The requirement for reciprocity is a facade because of culture (eg. Protestant work ethic), bias (I work hard, others do not) and perception (we tend to ignore the implications of relationships that are indirect or subtle).

######################

David Searles:

Requiring reciprocity? No, reciprocity is not being required, only democracy is being required. If a person can peacefully convince others to do something for that person without the condition that the person contribute labor, that is totally fine. What you object to is democracy - you want to require that workers not have the democratic right to decide who they share the product of THEIR labor with.

I guess it all how one views the little red hen, and no doubt it is totally cultural. A person wants to try to inculcate in others that they should share the products of their labor limitlessly, freely? That person should absolutely be encouraged to try to do that do that if that is their choice. But just because a person has the right to advocate something doesn't mean that society has the slightest obligation to agree.

It's important to be clear about what a person advocates. I advocate a democratic and collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers. A scenario where the workers by in large did not have the right to determine the conditions of how the things that are being produced are distributed to me would be a denial of worker authority.

######################

ckaihatsu:

You're describing volunteerism here, which is *not* sufficient for a highly developed, interconnected economy such as this one, or for a socialist or communist one, either.

######################

David Searles:

A too often employed non-logical operation - when you don't want to accept an idea expressed by someone else, label it instead of dealing with it.

The idea that I expressed is that since it is the workers putting in the labor, that by in large the workers should determine the conditions for the distribution of the product of labor. By this I suggested that reciprocity would be not REQUIRED, that the workers could democratically DETERMINE that certain products could be freely or almost freely distributed.

Oh this is "Volunterrism" writes Ckaihatsu, as if that is supposed to be a sufficent answer an to the suggestion that workers ought to have the democratic right to collectively determine the conditions for the distribiton of the product of their labor.

No this issue will not be subsumed by any amount of rhetoric. For as long as social labor is required for anything, social labor ought to have the right to determine the conditions under which the product of their labor is distributed.

Try to stereotype it into any ism you want to but that's what I advocate. You don't think that social labor ought not have that right? Come right out and on the specifics explain why, if you are able to.

ckaihatsu

3rd December 2008, 01:01

A too often employed non-logical operation - when you don't want to accept an idea expressed by someone else, label it instead of dealing with it.

David, please relax. I am *not* trying to be troublesome or obfuscate anything here. For me this *is* volunteer work -- I am glad to clarify whatever the issue is at hand, cooperatively, with other revolutionaries.

The idea that I expressed is that since it is the workers putting in the labor, that by in large the workers should determine the conditions for the distribution of the product of labor. By this I suggested that reciprocity would be not REQUIRED, that the workers could democratically DETERMINE that certain products could be freely or almost freely distributed.

Okay, yes -- I agree with this, and it looks like I didn't quite understand your point about 'reciprocity' before. This is also compatible with the discussion on this thread about surplus arising from machinery and automation.

Oh this is "Volunterrism" writes Ckaihatsu, as if that is supposed to be a sufficent answer an to the suggestion that workers ought to have the democratic right to collectively determine the conditions for the distribiton of the product of their labor.

No this issue will not be subsumed by any amount of rhetoric. For as long as social labor is required for anything, social labor ought to have the right to determine the conditions under which the product of their labor is distributed.

Try to stereotype it into any ism you want to but that's what I advocate. You don't think that social labor ought not have that right? Come right out and on the specifics explain why, if you are able to.

No, again, I am *not* opposed to any of the political substance of what is being said here. Mike and I have been ironing out some particulars about machinery and automation, but as far as I can see we're all Marxists here.

ckaihatsu

3rd December 2008, 01:18

David Searles to ckaihatsu:

Do remember the question -

Between the condition of needing labor and the condition of not needing need labor -
For a system that meets all of human life requirements maybe you could describe the scenario for us?

Sure -- there *could* possibly be a point in humanity's future when there are enough, well-built, sturdy, long-lasting, and energy- and water-equipped domiciles for every single last person on earth. The continuity of these residences would be ensured for decades, and maybe even centuries, without additional labor because humanity's most advanced technology and efforts would have been marshaled to make them the best possibly built and labor-free, across the board, since housing is a priority human need.

*And* -- in a socialist / communist system no one would *want* to labor, especially at lower-level, mundane tasks, so there would be an incentive to make things long-lasting and labor-free. This is in contrast to the current state of the economy where the profit motive provides incentive for short durability and even outright destruction (through imperialist wars) so as to create new markets for commerce.

You posited that an economic sytem could exist between the conditon A. that labor would be required to produce life's needs and B. that no labor would be required for life's needs. I asked you to describe the scereo (that would meet all of human life requirments) and you came up with a pale example of how one might obtain freely offered digitized information over the internet.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yeah, for the time being I think the wealth of knowledge and information on the Internet ("communism-for-your-brain") is a *very* good illustration of highly leveraged technology, or past labor.

I'd be glad to brainstorm with you, David, if you want to make a longer, more detailed project out of describing a possible future post-capitalist society.

And the leap of logic - that since freely offered information may be obtained over the internet with practically no additioanl work done by the recipient that can be EXTRAPOLTED to meet all of life's needs.

Need something to eat? Pull up a picture of what ever you want to eat off of the internet, print it out and eat it.

Need to heat your apaprtment? Pull up a picture of the sun from the internet, Print 100 copies and post them at stategic locations about your apartment.

But of course you will need electricity to power the computer and your printer and paper to feed into the printer - but in your extapolated world those too may be simply obtained by conneting to the proper internet address.

Good luck with that.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Save the bad attitude for someone else -- I do what I can to make my points clear, and to use illustrations that can serve my points.

If food and energy production were more automated then your sarcastic scenario might actually be more of a *real-life* scenario. Of course, in monopolistic private hands, such as currently exists, the surplus would just continue to be stolen away using the excuse of "ownership".

mikelepore

3rd December 2008, 10:03

To fix a couple of incorrect who-said-what's

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelepore
The requirement for reciprocity is a facade because of culture (eg. Protestant work ethic), bias (I work hard, others do not) and perception (we tend to ignore the implications of relationships that are indirect or subtle).

No, lynx wrote that, not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelepore
My main focus is on socialism, rather than what might evolve, such as the higher level of communism.

No, lynx wrote that too, not me.

mikelepore

3rd December 2008, 10:15

ckaihatsu,

Me: 'the new activities that become possible with machinery, such as electronic communications.'

You: 'New types of benefits that become possible would be *qualitative* improvements.'

You: 'so we're agreed that people, particularly consumers, are able to see quantitative and qualitative improvements due to machinery / automation -- ?'

Yes, if "qualitative" is defined as above: new products and activities becoming possible.

Lynx

3rd December 2008, 20:43

Reciprocity makes workers want paychecks. I was saying this will continue for awhile until higher communism is achieved.

ckaihatsu

3rd December 2008, 22:12

Reciprocity makes workers want paychecks. I was saying this will continue for awhile until higher communism is achieved.

A worldwide revolution of the working class is the only force that can usher in a socialist economy. In that period there would have to be many policy decisions worked out, at all geographic levels, in order to move society away from commodity production.

In the meantime workers would expect to see compensation for their work, as usual. This would have to be in the form of either the money commodity, or labor credits, as has been widely discussed on this board.

Whatever the method it would have to be considered legitimate and sufficient by those who work. The politicization of the workforce in a revolutionary upheaval would help tremendously in this regard. It would mean that workers, as a class, would have a common, focused objective -- that's distinct from working life as it exists under this current regime of commodity production. Working life itself is compartmentalized (alienated), neither inspiring nor enabling any broad or long-range goals except for the well-being of one's family, and maybe some business or adventure for oneself.

In a revolution the workers of the world *would* be working in parallel towards a clearly defined, feasible goal: To bring about the final end to commodity-based valuations. I think of this as the difference between formality and informality -- when people have easy access to resources in common they can be relaxed around each other and *informal* about material things.

"Would you like a drink of some kind, or a glass of water?"

"Oh, yeah, please -- some water would hit the spot right now."

"Here you go."

"Thanks. So how have you been?"

We can't imagine bickering over the little amenities of social life and hospitality because of the fact that the commodities involved are readily available and affordable -- alcohol, coffee, tea, milk, fruit juice, water, whatever. Our social interactions around *these* commodities are absolutely *informal* and have everything to do with the social situation itself and *not* with the products.

This is in stark contrast to the rest of the commodities world wherein wars are fought locally and globally for ownership of weaponry, drugs, property, vehicles, and -- overwhelmingly -- labor and markets.

So getting away from this state of affairs is difficult these days because of momentum / inertia -- it's *very* easy to *only* think and act locally, and many do. Moving towards communism takes more of a pay-it-forward kind of approach -- meaning that it requires putting forth efforts into a larger, cooperative pool of co-thinkers and co-doers -- *without* being outright charity oriented, because that can set up a clientelist kind of relationship over material things.

In the short term a *formal* state of affairs would still have to be retained, even if the exploitation and oppression of the capitalist class had already been eliminated. Most people would object to a lovey-dovey, hippie-commune approach to managing material assets and resources, and rightly so -- labor-based cooperation doesn't *require* a cult-like melding of personal identities and lifestyles, and so something more formal, like labor credits, can be used to dispatch labor / "business" matters in the interim until material abundance brings about full communism and informality for everything.

mikelepore

4th December 2008, 11:45

In the meantime workers would expect to see compensation for their work, as usual. This would have to be in the form of either the money commodity, or labor credits, as has been widely discussed on this board.

Then why did you argue with me so vigorously when I defended the idea of establishing a system of labor credits? Is it because my choice of words made it sound as though the use of labor credits should be permanent, whereas you wish to emphasize the temporary character of it?

ckaihatsu

5th December 2008, 07:36

Then why did you argue with me so vigorously when I defended the idea of establishing a system of labor credits? Is it because my choice of words made it sound as though the use of labor credits should be permanent, whereas you wish to emphasize the temporary character of it?

Would you mind reproducing, or quoting, my words, or provide links to the relevant exchanges?

As I recall, I was mostly concerned with your insistence on a socialist system that would require mandatory labor in exchange for the basics of life and livelihood. It sounded to me very much like labor exploitation under capitalism.

mikelepore

5th December 2008, 09:28

Exchanges like this one, where I kept arguing that the system can only function if we have a way to be sure that the rate of production and the rate of consumption will come out balanced, and you kept telling me that machinery is too advanced for my worries to be necessary.

mikelepore:

You have to make the widgets and put them into inventory at the same rate that the users remove them from inventory. There are just a few known ways see to it that the rate of consumption will adhere to the throughput rate of industry: the individual earning the ability to consume, which is under the consumer's personal control; rationing, which is not under the consumer's personal control; and simply running out of supplies and posting a shortage.

ckaihatsu:

You're continually ignoring the benefits that society (consumers) receives from its use of automation. The standard of living we have today is only possible because of industrialization. Industrialization has eliminated vast amounts of labor, and to good effect. Instead of using workers to labor on farms it is now generally industrialized -- machines are used to till the soil and harvest the mature plants. This is a much more efficient, humane method than using human labor.

mikelepore

5th December 2008, 09:49

... or my claim that someone would feel no reason to show up at work if their material standard of living for showing up is the same as their material standard of living for not showing up, followed by your objection to my acceptance of operant conditioning in such an argument.

mikelepore:

and if we pay people for not showing up at work and for taking perpetual vacation then more and more people will tend to do just that, and production quantities and schedules will show it, so socialism can only be efficient if it has personal material motivation.

ckaihatsu:

this assertion, which looks *very* behaviorist, which is troubling

davidasearles

7th December 2008, 10:43

ckaihatsu:

In a revolution the workers of the world *would* be working in parallel towards a clearly defined, feasible goal: To bring about the final end to commodity-based valuations. I think of this as the difference between formality and informality -- when people have easy access to resources in common they can be relaxed around each other and *informal* about material things. -- when people have easy access to resources in common they can be relaxed around each other and *informal* about material things.

"Would you like a drink of some kind, or a glass of water?"

das:

These are two different things.

The pressing need for a revolution for my family and I assume many others - is an inability to secure and ensure material needs despite the willing ness of the individual family members to contribute labor sufficient to produce those necessities - possible environmental and social collapse coming in at a close 2nd.

Come the revolution we would be perfectly happy to live with a situation where every drop of water that passed from one hand to another were "valued."

AS A RESULT of easy access (notice I did not say necessarily free access) we all expect that accounting among individuals would become less and less formal' but that is not my goal. Maybe it will be my grandchildren's goal but I will leave that up to them. I won't even speculate as to what their take should be on it.

At this point MY goal is collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution. Not less, and not more.

ckaihatsu

7th December 2008, 11:13

David, I hear ya.

Mike:

Well, then, I guess we have a decided difference of opinion regarding post-capitalist social policy, Mike.

I like to think that most people -- regardless of age or any other demographic feature -- will find ways to contribute to the larger society in their own ways, irrespective of the political economy. At the same time I think that there would be a need for career-oriented labor in a planned economy, which should be compensated with material rewards that are greater than a baseline, free-welfare type of guaranteed livelihood.

I agree with your overall support for revolutionary activity, and for socialist planning in a post-capitalist society. In particular I greatly appreciate and value a recent contribution of yours, reproduced below. It goes a long way in describing the organizational layout of a socialist economy, and I have never come across anything quite like it.

nickdlc

10th December 2008, 05:24

I agree the first, most important part about the socialist/communist society is that workers must be making the decisions no matter what.

Then if we decide to use labour accounting or free access this is a question up to the workers themselves.

After having heard and read both sides of the argument for years, I have finally come to agreement that labour hour accounting would be the best and easiest system to introduce.

The problem is that most people think the labour hour is just getting paid a wage dressed up in socialist words. It's not.

As labour with the help of machinery becomes more productive or as labour is leveraged as ckaihatsu might say, the average hour of labour can buy more things. The labour hour is not a subjective number it is based on the productive capabilities of the economy at that point in time.

As the productive capabilities of the economy increase, the average hour of labour will rise to the point where every hour a person works will be able to buy a larger amount of use-values. Of course workers do no get the full value of the time they worked because funds must be taken out to help people who may be disabled, natural disaster funds and a whole bunch of other things that will decrease the "net pay"

What's important is that every workers council/production unit takes into account the amount of labour tied up in the fixed, and circulating means of production and the additional labour which transforms it all into a use-value. Here there is no need for managers or bosses just the constant accounting of labour time by the workers. Computers can make it much easier to keep track of book-keeping.

The higher stage of communism comes naturally in this sort of scenario, because it is a transparent system of the amount of labour going in and out of the productive system. We know exactly if it is possible to take something out the the sphere of having to be paid with labour certificates and putting it into the sphere of General Social Use or "free"

The Grapes of Wrath

12th December 2008, 05:02

ckaihatsu

12th December 2008, 05:28

Sorry if someone already posted this, but I didn't feel like reading through 6 pages of material that may or may not apply to the original question.

I would assume that with the high rate of sophisticated technology and prevalence of long term planning in the private sector anyway,

"Long-term planning in the private sector"??? Are you kidding? The private sector has long since gone over to finance-based profits which are anything but long-term oriented. In bygone days capital may have been somewhat more long-term-looking, in that it would be invested in the bricks-and-mortar of a factory, but even that's a stretch because the capital would be in the form of easily bought-and-sold stock certificates anyway. As soon as profits dip investments are yanked out and plopped into something more promising. That's the profit motive in a nutshell.

the development of a planned economy is only held back by the desire to create one. It would take trial and error, plus a lot of investment money, but it could be created.

The private sector can't get it together enough right now to keep troops in Iraq, or to hold the EU together -- it's nowhere near reaching for a planned economy. In a capitalist system that would require an Orwellian, totalitarian state with the luxury of being able to engage in constant warfare.

Think of wiring all the major manufacturing and productive occupations with those that sell such products; every time a product is sold, it is instantly scanned and brought, through several means, to the awareness of those industries most concerned with it who can then instantly begin construction of a new one, or ship a preexisting product to the site of the sale.

This is already in place -- you're describing the current supply chain system used by megastores like Wal-Mart. But the logistics are not the issue in question here -- the *method* of production is. A planned economy can *only* be implemented by the entire working class of the world because it has a common interest in doing so, to cut out the exploitation of their labor by the capitalist class. Capital investments, held privately by millions of different, *competing* interests can never sustain enough commonality to achieve a planned economy -- though the rise of fascist regimes in the 20th century could be considered short-lived, horrifying instances.

mikelepore

12th December 2008, 05:51

Think of wiring all the major manufacturing and productive occupations with those that sell such products; every time a product is sold, it is instantly scanned and brought, through several means, to the awareness of those industries most concerned with it who can then instantly begin construction of a new one, or ship a preexisting product to the site of the sale.

It's probably more efficient to use a weekly or monthly total. Say, every month the manufacturing sites need to send a certain local outlet five hundred jars of peanut butter, two hundred light bulbs, etc., which they know from experience. The measurement you're talking about is used to adjust each total for the next time period.

Every manufacturing plant already tabulates quantities, for every part number made, what they call the "inventory roll equation" or the "ship roll equation." It simply says: quantity in inventory for the next time period = quantity in inventory for the previous time period + new production for the current period - shipments out during the current period. Solving that for the term for new production, that tells them how many to make.

Die Neue Zeit

12th December 2008, 05:56

In business terms:

Ending inventory = Beginning inventory + [cost of] goods manufactured - [cost of] goods sold

davidasearles

12th December 2008, 08:50

if you are tabulating merely how much cost is tied up in inventory

The Grapes of Wrath

16th December 2008, 23:40

Are you kidding?

No. Most large companies have longterm plans. Toyota is one that comes to mind in having a very long term vision.

Even the Big Three have (had) a long term plan, it is (was) just really shitty.

Whether or not a plan works out is one thing, but most major companies have a plan.

In bygone days capital may have been somewhat more long-term-looking, in that it would be invested in the bricks-and-mortar of a factory ...

Hmm, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. While I can't think of any specific evidence, I believe the opposite would be true. Companies of the past needed the money directly from the consumer/customer as capital was harder to come by. Today (well, let's say last June) capital was easier to come by and so companies were able to borrow more; it was easy money.

While companies today obviously still need money from consumer/customer if it is not present, they can get quick capital to fund their plan until they (hopefully) make up for it in consumer/customer profits.

In a capitalist system that would require an Orwellian, totalitarian state with the luxury of being able to engage in constant warfare.

Well, I suppose that I did not explain my previous post. I wasn't really expressing the creation of a planned economy under capitalism; I guess I was just expressing that one could exist period given current technological trends.

A planned economy can *only* be implemented by the entire working class of the world because it has a common interest in doing so, to cut out the exploitation of their labor by the capitalist class.

Agreed.

It's probably more efficient to use a weekly or monthly total.

Well, yea. I was being very basic and simplistic.

TGOW

Revy

17th December 2008, 08:53

ckaihatsu asked me to post this, he said he can't access RevLeft right now.

No. Most large
companies have longterm plans. Toyota is one that comes to mind in
having a very long term vision.

Even the Big Three have (had) a long term plan, it is (was) just really shitty.

Whether or not a plan works out is one thing, but most major companies
have a plan.

This is merely organizational, or managerial. Please see the next item.

Hmm, I am going to
have to respectfully disagree. While I can't think of any specific
evidence, I believe the opposite would be true. Companies of the past
needed the money directly from the consumer/customer as capital was
harder to come by. Today (well, let's say last June) capital was
easier to come by and so companies were able to borrow more; it was
easy money.

While companies today obviously still need money from
consumer/customer if it is not present, they can get quick capital to
fund their plan until they (hopefully) make up for it in
consumer/customer profits.

Companies don't get their money from the consumer / customer, they get
it from *investors*, in order to build their market capitalization.
Revenue from consumers / customers is then passed along in the form of
dividends to the shareholders / investors.

Investors come in all shapes and sizes, and they may hang onto certain
bundles of stocks or dump them, as their investment decisions dictate,
in pursuit of profits -- that's what's at the heart of finance, *not*
the consumer / customer.

(Incidentally, this dynamic explains much about the current state of
the economy -- the former housing- and commodities-based rolling
bubble has now passed onto mergers and acquisitions, as we see the
multibillion-dollar sums being extorted from taxpayers for *that*,
now. These gigantic amounts *don't* get passed along to assist in
actual manufacturing (like for Chicago's Republic factory), they are
simply used to do financial patchwork on balance sheets, propping up
certain types of financiers.)