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

Thanks for that post Lillia. 

I have been reading Anti Duhring and there is some really 
interesting stuff in part II and III on this kind of stuff about 
labour vouchers or Owens labour certificates and what socialism 
might be like etc. Its fairly readable. I think there is some 
parecon relevant stuff there as well for those interested in that 
kind of stuff.

I think this book should be alot further up the reading list than it 
is. The crap in the first 150 pages may have put many off, although 
i found fairly interesting for self amusing reasons.

I am attempting to take a different propogandist approach at the 
moment by arrogating to myself the ability to write a novel with 
someone else. So I am busy doing other stuff at the moment, so some 
may be pleased to hear that I may not be posting much.








--- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lillia Frantin" <ldfcomment@...> 
wrote:
>
> 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@...> 
>   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]
>