Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
" three hours of mining = four hours of library work. "
Whoa there! Four hours of sitting on your ass, no smokes or swearing? Sign me up with the lads, Judy!
BobW
Mike Ballard wrote:
"I would disagree that one cannot find the answers for transtion in Marx. Even his suggestion of labour vouchers in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" is an indication that the wages system should be abolished in a transition from the DOP to higher levels of socialism/communism. What's been missing from most of the official communist/socialist dialogue has been the critique of the wages system and how the wages system itself contributes to the reproduction of bourgeois consciouness............."
**************** Tahir wrote in response:
Mike, I went to read the rest of your post in the archives, with the quotations from Marx concerning surplus value that you included. Yes of course, SV is the way in which capital is formed from the labour of workers. And you correctly point out that there is no transition to communism without abolition of the wage system.
But that doesn't really address the problems of transition. You seem to be endorsing labour vouchers. But those are only a mechanism, for what? ********************** Mike B): Labour vouchers are based on socially necessary labour time (snlt) in production. So, the producer puts in say four hours of snlt and is able, after deductions for the support of necessary, unproductive parts of society e.g. education, health, replacing machinery, R&D and so on...and is able to withdraw four (minus) hours of goods and services from the social store of same. I'd also argue that there are necessary "jobs" to do in society which are less attactive because of physical hardship and/or danger e.g. mining, which should be compensated by time reduction e.g. three hours of mining = four hours of library work. There are no parasitical classes to support in a socialist society e.g. capitalists and landlords. But in a proletarian democratic transition to communist/socialist social relations (a DOP), there would be, for however long the producers deemed these classes to be necessary to continued social well being. The degree of their parasitism would be regulated by the producers themselves. ********** Tahir:
You appear to be saying either that there should be no surplus, or, more likely, that the surplus (i.e. beyond individual workers' susistence) should be returned to the worker, presumably through the mechanism of the labour voucher. But is that really desirable? No commons? Everything belonging to each individual worker? That doesn't seem to be feasible, or a particularly advanced notion of communism. Yes I know this is supposed to be only the lower stage, but it seems a little regressive in some respects. I mean, no infrastructure, no public transport, no global means of communication? These are projects that are normally created out of the surplus. **************************** Mike B):
Yes, the socially owned, grass roots democratically administered infrastructure (including the means of production/consumption) is supported through democratically decided deductions of wealth. The point is that the producer's socially necessary labour time is directly, consciously connected to ownership and control of the social product of labour. Private ownership of socks, a home, some chickens etc. would, of course be in tune with communist social relations.
Tahir: But given that the above question can be dealt with somehow, I still don't see the way from there to communism, and I didn't see you address that in your post. In fact I don't know what sort of political setup is meant to prevail in the labour vouchers scenario that you mention. Some communists say there is no way of preventing the vouchers from turning back into money and private property again, i.e. from becoming transferable and accummulable as capital. *********************************** Mike B)
Again, the root, revolutionary difference between socialism and capitalist social relations is based on the the abolition of wage labour: there are no employers (State or private) who own/control the means of production and there is no system which is based on marketing labour for a price/wage and the sale of commodities by a separate class of owners to realize profit for themselves or some other entity separate from the control/social ownership of the producers. Instead, the system is based on the direct social ownership and grassroots democratic control of the means of production and the social product of labour. As Marx points out, the wages system separate the worker from control and ownership the social product of labour and puts that control and ownership in the hands of the capitalist class.
The transition to the higher (each according to need) stage of socialism can occur anytime the majority of producers decide that everybody's "got it" i.e. when contributing snlt becomes a real, felt communal desire.
Tahir: Today we also have a situation where the majority of humanity (about 4b. people) are city dwellers. I presume we need a way of transferring a surplus of food that is produced, by what are now the food producing classes, to the people in the cities and transferring consumer goods out of the cities to the people in the country. I suppose a modern and very sophisticated variation on the labour vouchers idea, using computers, could accomplish this. But I have no idea what sort of polity would surround all of this or how this revolutionary change would be defended in such a scenario. But further, I don't know how you even see this scenario coming about. Presumably this is to be a worldwide creation, so as to prevent the possibility of it being overrun by a 'neighbouring state' that has not revolutionised itself in this way. *************** I see the broad outline of how to accomplish this goal in the IWW's Preamble. How we, the producers, decide to distribute and managed the necessary division of labour in socialist society will be decided then, by that association of producers. I do think that a proletarian democracy is possible in one area of the world and would then influence other areas to take up the same system of production. In other words, the social revolution doesn't have to happen all at once, world wide. It can, but it doesn't have to be that way and, it probably won't, IMO.
*********** I am not disparaging your post or anything. I just wanted to problematise it. Most communists duck these questions by means of vague references to 'revolution' (simultaneously worldwide or what?) or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (ditto), which makes me suspect that they have no clue as to how it could come about. Your further thoughts would be welcome.
Tahir
**********
Thanks for asking, Tahir. I'd like to hear your ideas too. After all, none of us has all the answers and the dialectic of dialogue will also be a necessary part of the transition to communist social relations.
Best to you and my fellow LOBsters,
Mike B)
"Would you have freedom from wage-slavery.." Joe Hill "http://iamawobbly.multiply.com/
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk