Subject: Re: Re: LETS be friend - msg#00222

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Re: Labour Voucher Thing

Dave: Correct. Please note that Marx said "for simplicity's sake." This didn't mean that he believed that every type of labor power was equal in all of its respects timewise. Byron ----- Original Message ----- From: "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Labour Voucher Thing About ten pages into Vol I and 4 pages into section 2 chapter 1 "For simplicity's sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour............." There is a bit about 10 lines up explaining what he is doing starting with "Skilled labour counts only............". I have to dash now, get back later maybe. --- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bddanel" <bddanel@xxxx> wrote: > > Dave: > > Let me try to address a few of your points. > > 1) Referring to Marx: " He denominated all labour as unskilled." Where did > you get this from? It is true that Marx used simple examples by referring > to hours worked but I can't say that he claimed that the hours expended by > all types of labor are equal. > > 2) "What I don't like, perhaps as a romantic moralist, is the notion of > forming a hierarchy of types of work based on innate skills or > abilities rather than a willingness to do work." I don't think that > high-stress jobs that might require greater remuneration are a type of > hierarchy. In fact, the increased stress and lesser hours worked would > probably approximate to roughly equal incomes for those that don't have > higher stress jobs. That is what stress and wear and tear on the body are > all about. I think you are transferring the experiences of capitalism to > socialism. My point was that equal stresses deserve equal compensation > regardless of the time involved. > > 3) "we can voluntarily monitor our consumption against our production to > make sure we are doing our fair share." One can also "volunteer" to do > little and take much more than they have produced. Nothing in free-access > is there to stop this. If free-access is suddenly adopted I see fits of > cycles of full and empty shelves, bickering, and battles. Labor vouchers > and rationing for those unable to produce may not be ideal, but they do > match production with consumption with an actual mechanism that doesn't > depend on "good will." Promises and good will are open to interpretation by > each individual and are not a sensible choice. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@xxxx> > To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 7:17 PM > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Labour Voucher Thing > > > > Hi Byron > > You will have to understand that I know nothing of Deleon and > perhaps until recently there was huge holes in my knowledge > of "theory", I was content just to understand socialism in > its "simple" sense and a basic understanding that capitalism sucks. > That's not to say I didn't read a lot , just other stuff. > > Given a labour voucher system, which as I have said I am not keen > on, I actually don't have a major concern with the "stress" aspect > of allocation of labour vouchers. "If" we are all equally able to do > all work I have no objection in principal to those who are prepared > to do more, consuming more. > > I could see how this could be a de facto situation in free access > socialism. Some may want to consume a lot and see it as their social > responsibility to pay back into society and thus work that much > longer. Others may just want live a very simple life in every aspect > and won't and shouldn't feel under an obligation to put in as many > hours. > > If people want to live in tepees in Wales growing their own food > etc they are not going to suffer the opprobrium of society for just > putting in a couple of hours a week into social labour or whatever. > Neither are those who surround themselves with gadgets as long as > they are putting in a decent stint. > > What I don't like, perhaps as a romantic moralist, is the notion of > forming a hierarchy of types of work based on innate skills or > abilities rather than a willingness to do work. > > If I understand you correctly and I accept that I may not, under > this system of yours people could be paid more just because they > have sets of innate skills that are in more demand than others. I > don't like anything that even looks like a hierarchy, even out of > necessity. > > It might sound like I am being a self sacrificing sanctimonious prig > but I really don't consider myself better or more deserving than > someone else because I have a better capacity to do work. As an > opponent said to me "I earn more because I can do their job but they > could not do mine". Perfectly true but I can not accept the > sentiment or reality. > > In an exchange with you well back, I said that I considered that all > the labour time of the 214 people were I work cleaners and canteen > workers as equal and I meant it. When we all go out on the Christmas > do and get a bit pissed and friendly you can see that kind of > sentiment emerge which is quite astonishing really. > > The issue you raised about feedback systems and matching production > with consumption I think is a really important one and I have > boldly, I think, tried to take it on with my value in free access > socialism argument etc. > > If the value of goods and services are valued according to labour > time required to produce them, as individuals we can voluntarily > monitor our consumption against our production to make sure we are > doing our fair share. > > Our planners will tell us we need to do a basic 3 hours to cover > healthcare, education, disabled and in a separate category the > indolent etc. After that do what you like but in order be social try > and match your consumption of labour time with your contribution. I > intend to do a lot more the sanctimonious prig that I am. > > Karl basically said that all labour was the same in 1865, unskilled, > he did talk briefly, 2 or 3 pages in volume III about skilled labour > producing more value. This was only concerning "commercial" workers > who were just involved in realising surplus value, selling stuff > basically. As this was not adding value it seemed for him to barely > merit serious discussion. He discussed it as a theoretical idea in > the falling rate of profit as a countervailing trend. > > I think his ideas are seriously outdated and have theoretical > implications that I am still thinking about. He denominated all > labour as unskilled. Thus when he talks about 12 hours labour it > could in fact be 8 hours skilled labour. He also stated > categorically without caveat that a worker can not work more than 24 > hours (unskilled) labour a day. If a skilled worker's hour is worth > 3 hours unskilled, a skilled worker can work more than 24 hours. I > am still trying to get my head around this one and may have to read > volume I again, oh joy ! I much prefer Jane Austen and the Bronte > sisters. > > When I finish Agnes Gray by Anne Bronte, I intend to make the world > wide challenge to be the only chemist to have ever read the complete > works of Jane Austen, George Eliot, Lizzy Gaskell and the Bronte > sisters as well as Capital I, II & III. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bddanel" <bddanel@xxxx> wrote: > > > > Dave: > > > > DeLeon's remuneration scheme was written in 1913. He should be > given credit > > for this insight however; since he realized that there should be a > measure > > that proportioned jobs according to the stress on one's > body/mind. Your > > examples of individual fears and talents don't make much > difference in a > > statistical group. This is just anecdotal > > > > If one was equally stressed doing 3 hours work compared to > somebody doing 6 > > hours, it only makes sense to compensate the 3 hour job equal to > the 6 hour > > one. On the average you would probably find that those that took > the more > > stressful jobs would in fact work fewer hours. Even if they > didn't, would > > you be worried? Is there a rule in socialism that every > individual needs > > exactly equal compensation? Was it not Marx that stated "each > according > > to his needs?" The more stressed need more rest and recuperation > to return > > to work and thus should work fewer hours. > > > > The BIGGEST danger with free access is the glaring problem of a > fatal > > positive feedback that occurs with the initiation of free-access. > It > > doesn't have a mechanism to balance production and consumption. > Labor > > vouchers combined with rationing for those that are unable to work > is a > > viable negative feedback process. This makes immediate free- > access an > > unlikely scenario for adoption at the commencement of socialism. > > > > You can't start something on the basis of giddy well-wishing and > romance. > > You may as well call for an international day of prayer that free- > access > > will be successful from the start. > > > > Byron > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@xxxx> > > To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:05 PM > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Labour Voucher Thing > > > > > > Hi Byron > > > > You will have to forgive me for my myopia if I have been unable to > > remain focussed. If I understand you correctly you seemed to say > > earlier that the amount of labour vouchers people would be paid > > would depend on the ratio of applicants to the job to the number of > > that particular job available or required. Reflecting how > attractive > > or unattractive that job was. This is a new but interesting idea > for > > me so you will have to indulge me a bit. > > > > If there is a shortage of roofers, although it doesn't look like > > there will be, the roofers will be highly remunerated for their > > work, more so than say a cleaner who suffers from vertigo. I don't > > like heights, the sight of blood particularly my own, or spiders. > > > > But this isn't just about who is prepared to do a job but who is > > capable. If there was a shortage of people with EXEL spreadsheet > > skills the congenitally incompetent like myself would and could not > > apply thus raising the remuneration of those that can. > > > > This irritating state of affaires already exists in capitalism, I > > get miffed with my programming friends receiving £40 worth of > labour > > vouchers per hour to my paltry £10 just because computing is in > more > > demand than good old chemistry. I also don't think I should be > > receiving more labour vouchers for my time than a canteen worker > > or "navigator" just because big people who can dig holes are less > in > > demand than clever chemists like myself. > > > > Presumably the roofers and computer programmers might think it > > worthwhile to remunerate a cleaner with commodities obtained from > > their labour vouchers in order to save time by not having to clean > > their own toilet. A reciprocally "beneficial" arrangement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > Yahoo! Groups Links

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Re: Labour Voucher Thing

Dave: I think you are referring to stock control. Robin has written extensively of this. Stock control is only part of the problem of producing a stable system. An accounting of labor-time is direct and gets to the source of production as it more easily balances production with consumption. No mechanism is perfect. For instance even with vouchers the rate of increasing productivity leads to tweaking expended hours to reflect current production. In a large industrial system, however, the factor needed for adjustment is calculable and can be applied. Items such as infrastructure, outlays for those unable to work, local general public transportation, electric power, communications, etc. would be considered overhead and taken into consideration accordingly. Suffice it to say that the totality of the subject remuneration is far greater than has been considered at this time on this forum. Regardless of the potential bells and whistles applied a negative feedback stability mechanism to balance production and consumption must have immediate balancing effects to work. LV does just that. Cycles of full to empty shelves are not the way to go. Byron ----- Original Message ----- From: "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Labour Voucher Thing > Hi Rebecca > > I think I agree, I was just speaking generally. If on average we all > produce more than we consume the world will get cluttered up, if we > produce less we will run out off stuff. > > I think I talked before about the product being taken off the shelf > and instuctions being sent out all across the globe thro cyberspace > about what we need to do to replace it and/or increase rate of > production etc > > > > --- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "foolingu11" <foolingu11@xxxx> wrote: >> >> Hey Again Dave; >> >> I believe that .... >> >> Free Access would use the system of 'Depletion Rates' >> in order to match production with consumption, telling >> us what laboring tasks would be necessary in order to >> keep up the production pace to demand. >> >> But, I'm not as familiar with this process as I am sure >> many others are, especially a fellow named Robin Cox. So, >> if I'm off base, please forgive me. >> >> Cheers, Rebecca >> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: LETS be friend

Byron; I've taken on much bigger fish than you, and fried them! Tasty they were...too! Cheers, Rebecca

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Message from Moderator

Forum members may have noticed that bddanel (Byron) is offensive. I quote, for example: please turn off this broken record your back door approach get this through your skull you never fully grasped please refrain from advancing the idiotic notion This moderator advises that bddanel (Byron) should be ignored. Not because he is way off beam on understanding socialism ... we can all live with that. Simply because he is a nasty character. Paula Manchester Branch ----- Original Message ----- From: "bddanel" <bddanel@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: LETS be friend > Rebecca: > > Why do you continue to refer to labor vouchers as "monetary remuneration?" > You must demonstrate to me that cancelable vouchers are money. If you > can't, please turn off this broken record! > > When I stated that you were interjecting your notions of a future time in > socialism I meant after all of the reactionary forces to retain capitalism > had been defeated along with an understanding of socialist society as a > truly cooperative society. My reflection on the establishment of > socialism > is only a positing of a TIME when socialism is emerging. Speaking of its > inception is quite different from assuming that ALL of the aspirations of > a > socialist society have been achieved. Thus your charge that "Now, who is > the one interjecting their notions of a future time" makes no sense. How > could I speak of socialism without speaking of a future time of its > installment? As you will note we don't have socialism yet! Your back > door > approach was assuming the existence of free-access rather than debating > whether it can exist at the time of transition. Recall that you asked > what > happened to "voluntary labor." This indicates that you never fully grasped > that this is the other side of the same coin as free-access. > > I do apologize for one thing however. As for "voluntary access," I should > have re-read my response. It should have been written as "voluntary > labor." > > Let me address your continued insistence: "And I am not > yet convinced that we couldn't have free access from the on-set." No > revolution has ever been accomplished without opposition and that > opposition > always continues some time after a revolution. Immediate free-access > could > derail socialism from its inception. As mentioned, freely taking goods > for > their destruction is an extreme danger before people have learned that > they > are social creatures in a cooperative society. After a long struggle I > have > no desire to hand the keys of our destruction over to our enemies and > destroy our efforts overnight. > > I know the line about enjoying work as we enjoy our hobbies, but I know of > nobody that enjoys scraping feces off of surfaces in public restrooms. > Thus > the need for an incentive for somebody to do these unpleasant tasks UNTIL > we > all understand that we must all share BOTH the pleasant and the unpleasant > duties of society. > > Finally let me address your contention: "But just saying that labor > vouchers > have no connection to class divisions doesn't make it so. Demonstrate for > me > 'how' a society divided between those members who have more and those > members who have less does not have any connection to class division?" > > If my neighbor works on top of TV towers doing hazardous work I expect > that > he would not have to toil as long as I working in a less dangerous > environment for the same draw on the social stores. Since we are not > living > in a society that puts emphasis on the accumulation of goods I would > suspect > his desire to work on top of TV towers is so he wouldn't have to work as > long. If he works 5 hours a week it probably takes as much out of him as > I > working 15 hours. I would be surprised if he chose to work an additional > 10 > hours just so he can state that he works as long as I do. He will, > however, > have more time for his own enjoyment. So what is the probability that he > would work as long as me and enjoy three times the goodies? Probably very > small due to job stress. But if he did I wouldn't care. Please get this > through your skull: Class divisions are what cause the great disparity of > incomes in capitalism. Logically we state class divisions imply income > disparity, but income disparity doesn't imply class divisions. > Symbolically > we might write C --> D (read C implies D) This does NOT mean that D --> C. > The income disparity in capitalism DOESN'T CAUSE CLASS DIVISIONS. IT IS > CLASS DIVISION THAT CAUSES INCOME DISPARITY. Any socialist that > understands > an ounce of logic should understand this so please refrain from advancing > the idiotic notion that the opposite is true! One does not equate to the > other. Class divisions also imply power of one class over another class. > A > disparity in what I could receive from the social stores has nothing to do > with wielding power over anybody. > > Byron