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

Dave Balmer's re-presenting of well-thought out ideas on "why, in a socialist 
democracy, we would like and NEED to know the value (real value of a thing: ie 
the time used in its production....from 'raw' to 'finishing' stages, and then 
re-cycling of its parts,etc.) and how very easy such information would be to 
include on its "label" in the market where we'd "shop".....All well explicated 
here. (Read the old classic, "Looking Backwards" for abit of imaginative 
details of a different social order, not exactly as we picture it, but 
interestingly presented by Bellamy in the late 18oo's, really needing to be 
updated by a talented writer amongst us...Anyone?) So, Thanks Dave.
So much arguing seems such a terrible waste of our energy, better spent in 
combining 'forces' to reach out to new readers & listeners
(thru political candidates, writers, public lecturers who can present our 
vision) rather than endlessly chasing our own tails.....or convincing those of 
us already convinced....One important thing we need to focus on here is: 
positive support "amongst our own, for each other" and then, a clear message of 
peaceful change to a society & culture based on co-operation not exploitation, 
fulfillment of human potential not distortion of it, and a vision of man and 
nature that is realistic, harmonious, healthy and based on the best precepts of 
brotherhood, love and justice. Actually, all we've learned since the 
Enlightenment, nothing much new, but put into a tangible, societal form that is 
basically missing from contemporary dialogue. That dialogue is begging for this 
vision.    
The real question is not "FA or Vouchers"! It is : How do we reach more people 
who are "waiting" for our 'message', but who have been confused and daunted by 
the capitalist propaganda of hopelessness and apathy? We need "presenters", 
communicators...in order to have an increasing audience...I wish it were a less 
"tall order"....but remember, conditions will be "on our side" as the system 
reveals its inefficiency, inadequacies, failures and ugliness more & 
more.....sad and yet necessary and inevitable. In the next decade, we need to 
be part of a political, cultural and public rebirth undeterred by any differing 
"minor" details, united by our basic understanding and vision. Wherever you 
stand on the 'details', remember the essentials we all agree on.  Lillia
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: balmer_dave<mailto:balmer_dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
  To: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:43 PM
  Subject: [WSM_Forum] 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<mailto: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.
  >






   
  Yahoo! Groups Links



   





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]