Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) value in Socialism ?

"From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of 
production and uses them in direct association for production,"

Ie. socialism

 "the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically 
useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social 
labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need 
not then be established in a roundabout way;"

Ie using money or dare I say labour vouchers, however;

 "daily experience" will  "show(s)  in a direct way how much of it 
is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many 
hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat 
of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain 
quality." 

"It could therefore never occur to it still to express the 
quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will 
then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third 
product," 

Ie. another commodity, prices, the universal money commodity, gold 
etc 

"in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, 
inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, 
rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute 
measure, time." 

Ie the labour time in gold, value of money, varies like in every 
other commodity, ish.

Back to chemistry.

"Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to 
express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of 
the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in 
their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or 
quadrillionths of a gramme."

Not too sure about that bit..

"Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign 
values" (non italic)  "to products. It will not express the simple 
fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their 
production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and 
meaningless way, stating that they have the value (in italics) of a 
thousand hours of labour. 

It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to 
know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its 
production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in 
accordance with its means of production, which include, in 
particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various 
articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the 
quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end 
determine the plan."

 "People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the 
intervention of much-vaunted "value". *15 


"15 As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing 
of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions 
concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist 
society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-
Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for 
this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by 
Marx's Capital."


So we will have value, sort of or what is left of it , in socialism 
but of course not exchange value, prices.

Well that is that one cleared up.

And;

 
"Hence, just as commodity production and its economics obtain a 
relative expression for the unknown quantities of labour contained 
in the various commodities, by comparing these commodities on the 
basis of their relative labour content, so chemistry obtains a 
relative expression for the magnitude of the atomic weights unknown 
to it by comparing the various elements on the basis of their atomic 
weights, expressing the atomic weight of one element in multiples or 
fractions of the other (sulphur, oxygen, hydrogen). 

And just as commodity production elevates gold to the level of the 
absolute commodity, the general equivalent of all other commodities, 
the measure of all values, so chemistry promotes hydrogen to the 
rank of the chemical money commodity, by fixing its atomic weight at 
1 and reducing the atomic weights of all other elements to hydrogen, 
expressing them in multiples of its atomic weight."

Hhmm, I always thought this labour theory of value thing was like 
sucking eggs for chemists.


Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877
Part III: Socialism

IV. Distribution











--- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@...> 
wrote:
>
> "Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of 
> production?????..the determination of value continues to 
prevail????
> this, becomes more important than ever."
> 
> 
> Vol III pg 851 
> 
> 
> I have distinct recollection of this kind of thing being discussed 
> in NW branch meetings over the years if in slightly different 
terms. 
> I think it is a credit to the common sense of those members who 
> believed we would have value in a money less socialist society. 
> 
> We were not talking about having some kind of substitute for money 
> in order to ration consumption, we were talking of a society of 
free 
> access.
> 
> In socialism I would want to know how much labour had gone into an 
> item that I was considering consuming eg a diamond or a digital 
> watch.
> 
> This is just an illustration so lets ignore whether or not we 
would 
> still be spending loads of time digging deep under ground for bits 
> of glass.
> 
> 
> If I didn't know better I might think that the diamond didn't 
> require much effort to produce and with it being nice and glittery 
> it might make a good little present for my five-year-old niece to 
> play with. Even if she would probably lose it after five minutes. 
I 
> would be horrified at what I had done if after she had lost it I 
> discovered that it had cost 80 hours labour to produce it.
> 
> On the other side I might spend lifetime and hours of effort 
> carefully looking after a digital watch. Taking it off before a 
> shower even though it is waterproof making sure it did not get 
> knocked or banged. Taking great care not to lose it. Just like the 
> way people used to treat a good time piece 30 years ago.
> 
> I would be pissed of if I found out that I had spent 500 hours of 
my 
> life, 10 minutes a day for 10 years, taking care of something with 
> one hours labour in it. I am not putting the eco terrorist 
argument 
> here suggesting we just throw things away because they are cheap. 
> But in socialism we are going to want to know what the cost of 
> things are so we can set ourselves priorities on how we treat or 
> look after objects, value them. 
> 
> 
> In my socialist supermarket I would want everything with labour 
time 
> labels on them just like nutritional information. Perhaps I would 
> also want some kind of ecological cost label as well.
> 
> If we were building a bridge in socialism the architects might 
well 
> come up with some fantastic ideas. This happens frequently under 
> capitalism. Most architects, risking causing offence, couldn't 
> assemble a flat pack garden shed. The architects drawings and 
pretty 
> pictures are passed onto the structural engineers who decide 
whether 
> it can be done. Having thrown out the idea of a glass road bridge, 
> although it would look really nice, they look at the practicality 
> and cost of the other plans.
> 
> We would still be doing this in socialism. We would need to be 
> always making decisions on whether a project was worth the effort, 
> its value, labour. 
> 
> 
> All of this presents no problem what so ever for my labour theory 
of 
> value although i think it will cause a major headache for my 
> adversaries.
>