At 2:57 AM -0800 29/12/04, Mike Ballard wrote:
>Iíve come to this conclusion as well. The social
>product of labour *should* belong to the associated
>producers.
Bill replied:
I'm not at all clear what many people are saying.
For instance, the above is slightly ambiguous. Do
you mean that any association of producers
(perhaps at an industry level, perhaps even at an
enterprise level) ought to be entitled to
ownership and control of the full value of their
labour? Or are you saying that the social product
of labour should belong to society as a whole?
**************************************************
Mike B)
I’m saying that the social product of labour should
belong to the classless society as a whole. The
society as a whole should decide what they want to
consume and adjust their work time to fulfill that
goal. I’m also of the opinion that these
consumer/producer decisions must be environmentally
sustainable i.e. subject to veto, if the consequences
tend to destroy as opposed to maintaining and/or
improving the health of the planet.
******************************
Bill
With some other people, it is not clear whether
they might not even be arguing that individual
workers should be entitled to the full value of
their labour.
************************
Mike B)
I’m opposed to that kind of arrangement for communism
and I do think that commodity production breeds that
kind of narrow thinking. It might be ok for the
Mondragon workers in this capitalist day and age, but
I think this stage of production must be transcended,
if classless social relations are to take root. The
history of the breakdown of communal sharing in
primitive classless societies when commodity
production began in earnest with agriculture and the
domestication of animals leads me to this conclusion.
**************************************
> That it doesn't within the legal confines
>of contracts and justice as put forward by the
>capitalist State's system of laws, laws which
>legitmize the marketplace of commodites, is something
>I concede. I think Marx conceded it as well.
Bill:
I agree that "The worker is not entitled to the
SV he produces merely because he produces it." I
believe that, all production being the
product of society as a whole, it is most natural
that it ought to belong to society as a whole. To
be distributed as society sees fit But in one
sense that is the case already. It is just that
society sees fit to distribute the social product
inequitably. Socialists like myself may disagree
violently, but in the main our society seems to
consent quite happily with the arrangement where
the employing class appropriates the lion's share
of value produced by the working class. That
consent is what needs to change.
*********************************
Mike B):
I totally agree. Furthermore, my view is that the
relative acquiescence of the working class to the
concept implied in the ideology of, “a fair day’s wage
for a fair day’s work” is one of the things which need
to be uprooted, if we are ever to get to a class
conscious level of organization.
*****************
Bill wrote:
I have to say that Carrol is utterly mistaken to
believe that such change isn't "...going to be
brought about by sweeping moral or pragmatic
condemnations of capitalism". A change in public
sentiment is exactly what will change how wealth
is distributed by society. Such a change in
public sentiment requires those who regard the
current system as unjust to convince others and
to condemn the present system. I'm not sure how
Carrol imagines change being initiated otherwise.
> Justin
>agrees that the wages system must be abolished, but
>wishes to go on with some kind of market commodity
>production. I donít know why anybody would argue for
>such a society, but so be it.
Bill wrote:
Justin simply believes that markets are an
efficient means of distribution, he doesn't grasp
that markets nurture exploitation and are
inextricably linked to production for profit. He
thinks there is some way to separate markets from
these bad apples. Oh, and of course Justin's
thinking is something of a prisoner of the
protestant work ethic, he fears that without some
system of coercing people to do productive work,
that nothing will be produced at all and we will
all starve.
As always, it all comes back to how we see human nature.
I agree with him that "The worker is not entitled to the SV he produces merely because he produces it" though. The meek will not inherit the Earth, they will slave on to the end like faithful sheep. The capitalist is entitled to SV because the capitalist takes it, but mostly because the working class let them. Likewise, the sheep cocky is entitled to the wool off the sheep's back because the cocky takes it and the sheep doesn't stop him.
If we want to stop being shorn like sheep, we have to stop acting like sheep.
**********
The meek WILL inherit the Earth–if it’s ok. ;D
My take on markets is that they are us. “We have met the enemy and he is us!” I don’t see why we need commodities and the exchange-value they imply, to produce good and services for ourselves. We’re producing all the goods and services now. We can do that without putting the useless shell of class society over them. We know how many hours we’re working now. Subtract the useless work we do to keep Capital afloat and you’ve got a starting point for a generalized work week of what...twelve hours?
For the end of prehistory, Mike B)
===== ******************************************************************* Direct action gets satisfaction. http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250