Re: Digest Number 2740

World Socialist Movement ForumI am inclined to agree with Lillia apropos the 
question of 'value in socialism'.  I think such issues are outside the 
parameters of the difficult enough struggle to win support for the simple 
concept of a world of common ownership of the means of life and democratic free 
access to needs.  Perhaps it is one of the issues that might represent the 
'politics' of a socialist system either when we are on the threshold of a sane 
world or when sanity prevails but it is not relevant to the imperatives of the 
hour.

In certain circumstances, in a discussion perhaps with someone who is au fait 
with the general Marxian approach, we might develop our argument through the MC 
of H or the Theory of Value but in most cases we would present the appalling 
social sins of capitalism and offer in the simplest of terms the socialist 
antidote to capitalism.  My experience to such a happening is approval of the 
antidote but rejection of its feasibility.  That surely is the kernel of our 
problem; not the general rejection of the desirability of socialism but 
disbelief engendered by capitalist conditioning in the possibility of its 
achievement.  The infamous 'credability gap'!  That is the nut we have to crack 
and speculation on whether or not goods and services would be labelled with 
social value in the society of the future will surely only engage us in 
possibly divisive matters that are not of immediate concern.

At any rate we possibly assume too much about what will happen in a socialist 
society.  Socialism as we define it will be the basis of that society but we 
cannot assume that people living within our defined paradigm will necessarily 
conform to our conceptions of behaviour where, its basis once assumed, a wide 
participative democracy will obtain.  Obviously the time when socialism is 
achieved will have a vital bearing on the issue.  The legacy of lunacy that 
capitalism leaves a fledgling socialism is much more bitter, much more grim 
today than it was when I first found myself shouting 'Eureka!' and there are 
evil cultures about that might well have a baneful effect on the new society 
and bear on the democratic choices it has to make.

Of course I am now committing the sin I complain about - encouraging divisive 
discussion when we should all be together out there in the garden driving out 
the snakes.  Apologies!
  Richard Montague
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:40 PM
  Subject: [WSM_Forum] Digest Number 2740


  World Socialist Movement Forum 
  Messages In This Digest (1 Message) 
    1. Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) value in Socialism ? From: Lillia 
Frantin 
  View All Topics | Create New Topic Message 
    1. Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) value in Socialism ? 
    Posted by: "Lillia Frantin" ldfcomment@xxxxxxxxxxx 
    Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32 am (PST) 
    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]


    Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post 
    Messages in this topic (12) Recent Activity
    a..  3 New Members
  Visit Your Group 
  New Message Search
  Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved 
message search.



  Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

  Need to Reply?
  Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily 
Digest.
  Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web 
  Messages 
   
  You are receiving a Daily Digest Change Delivery Settings 
  Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 
   

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