Mike Ballard wrote:
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.
Tahir: Leaving aside the political questions for a moment, I have a question about socially necessary labour time. Necessary for what? Re-production of that same product? Or expanded reproduction of the whole means of life of the species? Your reference to R&D would seem to indicate the latter. But given that we are talking about a phase in history in which 'bourgeois right' is still in operation (see Gotha Critique), what is the incentive for the individual to take on that role of expanded reproduction through research into methods of boosting productivity, etc.? Under capitalism the incentive is competition and the related possibility of increased remuneration for the individual. I don't see any incentive in the system you describe. If you then say that there 'shouldn't have to be' an incentive, then you are not talking about bourgeois right at all; you're in fact talking about communism. But if this is communism, then why should we include any concession to bourgeois right, such as reward for labour? The main question here, underlying these paradoxes, is: What drives productivity in the lower stage of communism? A secondary question (of which there many): If you are going to include measurement of SNLT how do you measure the inputs that are going to lead to productivity gains in the future? Surely not just by the amount of time that the scientist spent in her lab? Surely that is not how you are going to measure the contribution that someone made to productivity? If this were it, you would have neither a viable system of bourgeois right nor anything resembling communism. It would simply be a totally under-conceptualised flop.
...........................................................
Mike Ballard wrote:
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.
Tahir: I think the second sentence above hides a multitude of likely sins. Yes people will no doubt have to debate how to do many things. But if it is not even known what is being attempted then such debates, confronted with the kinds of paradoxes that I have mentioned, will end up on some very unpleasant political reefs. The idea that questions that are as vital to humanity's reproduction as productivity, environment, population, etc., can be settled through some kind of workers' vote on a day to day basis is somewhat shocking to me in its inadequacy, to put it very plainly. The next sentence I can also give no credence to. The idea of proletarian democracy in some 'part of the world' strongly suggests to me a state amongst other states. But be that as it may, your suggestion certainly implies that this polity, whatever it may be, will have to get itself caught up in questions of sovereignity and defence, not to mention all the tricky questions of migration of people and goods across the 'borders' of this particular entity. Will it have a police force as well then? All of these latter points suggest that your surplus will not be going into expanded reproduction of the means of life at all, but into the maintenance of a political entity (with a low-productivity economy, rather like the Soviet Union's), an entity that is not worth supporting from a communist perspective.
Anyway Mike, this thinking gives you an idea as to why I think that the communist movement can only be an international one that organises itself completely independently of all states and their territories, and refuses by to be a part of any statist solutions whatsoever. It must of course pressure those who do rule states into making reforms and various other sorts of retreats. That should go without saying. Anyway I'm not sure I can add anything further to these ideas at this stage. If you want to know a political tendency, some of whose ideas I think I share, you might check out the n + 1 people at: http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/0_english.htm
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm